Spirit is getting back into matter: Bruce Lipton on quantumbiology

[Martin Euser]

Have a look at the Institute for Noetic Sciences.

 

I discovered Bruce Lipton's article on New Scientific Realities.

Some excerpts:

 

"The problem with scientific materialism is that it offers an end but no means. It’s the law of the jungle. The means to survival are any way you can get there. You can use your brain and be Einstein or you can use an Uzi and be a brute. Either means can make you a leader. It’s a civilization based on competition, not morality. This is the environment we live in right now. Newtonian physics also failed to address the invisible realm that religion talks about; one doesn’t need the spiritual realm to understand the material realm. As a result, people in this culture accumulate as much material as they possibly can to beat everybody else in the race for survival. Die with the most toys, and you win the game. And the consequences? We have decimated the planet."

 

"The beliefs we have been living by are wrong. Fractal mathematics says: There is a pattern in the world, and there is a pattern to your evolution. Quantum physics says: Don’t focus on the material, focus on the immaterial realm. Energy is primal. The rule is that if a science on the lower part of the building changes its belief system, every science above that building block must incorporate it. Biology and psychology have not adopted the new understandings of mathematics and physics; they are out of scientific context and no longer scientific. Quantum biology, however, a new science, examines how energy affects biology, and consciousness is that energy. As for psychology, a material psychology based on chemistry and drugs needs to be replaced by energy psychology. We heal ourselves with our thoughts, our mind, our consciousness, which are more powerful than chemistry. It’s the invisible, immaterial realm that’s powerful."

[Martin Euser]

Lipton also states quite right IMO that the current world situation needs collective change, a change on a massive scale, an evolutionary jump so to speak, in order to avert an inevitable mess or chaos (my paraphrase).

[Michael A. Williams]

Thanks, Martin, for posting. I've been familiar with Dr. Bruce Lipton's work for some time. He's certainly one of the leading "lights" in the "New Science" movement. With a Ph.D in Biology, he can take on the Materialist Scientists on their own turf and with their own terminology.

 

For those who are always asking "where are the scientists that are non-materialists?" here's one of many examples from around the world.

[Martin Euser]

"where are the scientists that are non-materialists?"

 

There's indeed a whole host of them, varying from "the integral guys" (see integrallife.com for example) to a number of psychologists (like Edward Kelly and associates of whom I posted a link to his book on irreducible mind), to biologists like Lipton. There are many others and the list seems to be growing. Hundreds if not thousands of professors and Ph.D holders have signed a petition urging the scientific community to open their minds to broaden biological research beyond the narrow Darwinist paradigm. The world may be slowly waking up from its physicalist hypnosis or stance.

[Joe Fulton]

It's an interesting dichotomy.  The brain is (on a physical level) made of chemicals.  Then we have "mind" which is made up of "something else".  When it comes to naming and identifying the something else, things get very dicey.  Nobody can point to something and say "that is brain" or "that is mind" with any degree of certainty.  For those who posit an independent entity called "mind" the evidence for its existence is not so much scientific, but mythological and anecdotal.  Perhaps we need Adam and Jamie to come bust the myth.

As far as I am concerned there is no problem with good science.  It is personal opinion and dogmatic belief masquerading as science that causes the problems that we have with scientists.  If some theory posited by Shankaracharya or the Buddha doesn't hold water it should be discarded.  Likewise if Stephen Hawking or Richard Dawkins expresses an opinion on the nature of the soul or some other hypothesis which can neither be proven or disproven then it, likewise needs to be dismissed as not science.

[Capt. Anand Kumar]

Rather than looking at the developments of the New Science, one may examine the development of the entire science, new and old, within the framework of evolution. The question one may ask, was it possible to arrive at Neurobiology or Quantum Biology without having first gone through the era of Newtonian science.

 

Witthin this century, as HPB, Sri Aurobindo and modern thinkers have predicted, we will see the movement of Humans towards Post Human beings. That, of course will be driven by the so called "New Science" rather than spirituality which is also on the verge of transformation. When someone established that the earth is round and goes around the sun, I am sure similar thoughts must have been expressed within whatever framework existed at that point in time. As Humans, we cannot discard our heritage even if we wanted to, by claiming that traditional science is misleading or on the wrong track. Without the foundation laid by them, New Science could not achieve or look the things the way it does now.

 

Perhpas we could begin looking afresh at what the future is going to be like in light of the new discoveries coming along and how to manage the change these will ineviatbly impose on the society. Some of those changes are going to be painful. How do you lift more than half of the population on this living in abject poverty and sub-human existence to PostHuman status. What role the New Science can play in this? There are many other questions. Rather than taking sides in one group of scientists versus another, let us look at the questions staring us in the face, and see which group can answer those best. Or, do we need both the groups to make a lesser painful transition.

[Michael A. Williams]

The last thing we need is Adam and Jamie from "MythBusters" telling us what is real and not real. They seem to be nice guys and excellent engineers, but certainly not philosophers/metaphysicians or even true scientists. They are entertainers mostly, thinking up something they know they can "bust," calling it a "myth," then rigging up the "experiment" to get the results they want. Thus they come off as the "heroes" of the day. Of course, they throw in something now and then that they don't "bust" for variety sake and show they're "fallible."

That aside, the problem we keep discussing here in various forums is one of: is Science, old or new, to be the final arbiter of what is "true" or ultimately "real." As set up, the science now is wholly a left brain, logical/rational activity and anything right brain, intuitive, wholistic, transcendant, artistic, etc. is secondary to it. This is all lopsided, it seems to me.

As pointed out by Dr. Roger S. Jones, retired physicist, and others, physics is the bedrock of all the sciences. It's a game with rules and regulations that are the result of subjective choices. It was meant to solve certain problems and has done exceedingly well in solving them. But, physics can not solve everything.

With quantum physics we enter into the metaphysical realm, but the materialists who control mainstream physics have done their best to suppress and downplay it. Their argument is that it's only relevant on the micro level, not the macro, and some even go as far as to deny the existence of consciousness altogether.

I'll keep this short. I agree with the Captain that the old, materialist science will and can play a role in  helping solve the earth's problems. I do say, though, that it has not and can not give us the wisdom of how to do that. For that, we must look to the right brain, wholistic activities that the wisdom traditions and the modern interpretations of those represent.

[Joe Fulton]

It will be a combination of both, but sometimes I wonder as the realm of the 'possible' gets pushed back farther and farther when will the old superstitions finally die off?

[Capt. Anand Kumar]

Thanks Michael. All I am saying that rather than taking sides in this old vs. new let us examine what each of them can offer and accept that. Of course we need to reject old superstitions, or even something which was earlier bedrock of a thought but is now proven to be superstition.

[Michael A. Williams]

Thanks, joe and Capt. Kumar. You both keep speaking of these "old superstitions," but what are they? What specifically are you referring to?

What is "superstition" to one group of people, may be profound "higher knowledge" or "higher perception" to another group. In these modern times, it's a tricky word to define sometimes.

[Capt. Anand Kumar]

Thanks Michael. I understand superstition as a belief that a being of higher sentience can interfere in one's life pattern, and all the associated phenomena that will arise out of this concept. Universal laws should be applicable equally to all atoms, protons, gluons and what have you. DIfferent beings at different stages of evolution will display different characteristics, but this in no way makes one superior against another.

 

That certain beings are capable of possessing higher knowledge or higher perception not available to others itself could qualify as a superstition.

 

Michael A. Williams said:

Thanks, joe and Capt. Kumar. You both keep speaking of these "old superstitions," but what are they? What specifically are you referring to?

What is "superstition" to one group of people, may be profound "higher knowledge" or "higher perception" to another group. In these modern times, it's a tricky word to define sometimes.

[Michael A. Williams]

Captain, that's a good general definition of "superstition" that I can go along with. In potentia, all of us are capable of all states of being. In my view, sentient beings of advanced consciousness are not beyond anything that any of us cannot evolve to.

[Christian von Lahr]

I am agreeing with you, Michael; I am not seeing any framework for [old superstitions]; there are several, if not more, ways to to interpret that - so, it behooves us to know what is actually on the originator's mind.

Michael A. Williams said:

Thanks, joe and Capt. Kumar. You both keep speaking of these "old superstitions," but what are they? What specifically are you referring to?

What is "superstition" to one group of people, may be profound "higher knowledge" or "higher perception" to another group. In these modern times, it's a tricky word to define sometimes.