Media

Bruce H. Lipton, Ph.D. joins Dr Ron and Dr Michelle on the couch to explain what this new science of “epigenetics” is all about.

http://thewellnesscouch.com/tgd/tgd-5-epigenetics-take-control-dr-bruce-lipton-phd

Chiropractic Philosophy and the New Science: An Emerging Unity

Bruce H. Lipton, Ph.D. ©2005

As a former medical school professor who currently lectures before chiropractors and chiropractic students, I must admit I am very perplexed about the intellectual foundation of chiropractic education. Major chiropractic colleges create an academic impediment that unknowingly destabilizes their students and hobbles their graduates’ effectiveness.

I am referring to the problem of incorporating a basic medical science curriculum in the foundation of chiropractic education.  My concern is not with chiropractic-relevant descriptive courses, such as gross anatomy, neuroanatomy, physiology and neurophysiology.  The intellectual problems arise in the presentation of courses like cell biology and biochemistry.  Unlike the other basic science subjects, these courses are more than just descriptive in nature.  These courses define the “mechanisms” of life upon which modern allopathic medicine is built.  The medical model, the allopathic healer’s Holy Grail, is derived from an understanding of these molecular mechanisms.

The importance of the medical model is so fundamental to the philosophy of modern science it has acquired the status of The Central Dogma.  This dogma defines the flow of “information” in biological systems that shape the biological character of an organism. The information is presumed to express itself in a linear, unidirectional path that originates with DNA (genes). Information is then translated into RNA, and finally it is expressed as proteins.  The protein molecules are the building blocks of the human body and provide for our physical and behavioral traits.  Consequently, the “character” of one’s life is defined by their protein building blocks. DNA molecules are recognized as life’s source since they are the “blueprints” used in making the body’s proteins. 

The Central Dogma emphasizes that genes (DNA) are source and an individual’s character “unfolds” from the information codified in our genome. This assumption leads to the notion of genetic determinism, the belief that the traits and quality of one’s life is “predetermined” by the genes acquired at conception. Genes are localized within the nucleus of each of the body’s cells. Consequently, life is “controlled” by a molecular mechanism inside a cell. The character of this hereditary information is subsequently manifest on the outside of the cell in regard to the way the cell influences bodily functions and health. In the figure below, the cell on the left illustrates the flow of information according to allopathic philosophy.

Chiropractic philosophy, which defines the foundational beliefs underlying the practice of chiropractic, offers a completely contrasting concept of source. Chiropractic emphasizes that the source of life is Innate Intelligence. The Innate, described as a form of environmentally derived vital energy, flows from the brain through the nervous system and is then distributed to the tissues and cells.  Innate information controls the structure and behavior of the cells, which in turn is expressed as health or dis-ease.  The flow of information according to chiropractic philosophy is illustrated above in the cell on the right.

Focus on the illustration for just a moment and you will readily see there is a fundamental conflict between chiropractic and allopathic healing philosophies.  Their flows of information (source) are diametrically opposed! Chiropractic philosophy is built upon an external energy (i.e., invisible moving force, spirit) source while allopathic medicine argues for an internal material source (genes).

Each philosophy provides an intellectual foundation as to why their particular healing practice “works.” The problem facing students of chiropractic is that they are taught allopathic philosophy in cell biology and biochemistry and contrasting chiropractic beliefs in their philosophy courses.  What’s a student supposed to believe??? 

Why should chiropractic schools provide allopathic science and philosophy to their students?  The answer is simple, allopathic science is the recognized provider of truth in Western Civilization.  If its “scientific”…it must be true. Buying into that belief, chiropractic academicians feel it is necessary to teach that view of the “truth” so that their students won’t be disadvantaged in the “real” world. By teaching the gene-based medical model as truth to its students, chiropractic educators are brazenly negating the validity of their own philosophy and healing art.  One cannot ascribe to diametrically opposed philosophies at the same time!

Most chiropractic students are unaware of this glaring philosophical conflict, yet the opposing models they are taught are programmed into their subconscious mind (Educated Mind). The academic conflict programmed in the subconscious mind unknowingly undermines the confidence of chiropractic students and practitioners.  Built into the unconscious awareness of each chiropractor is the gnawing doubt that chiropractic is “not scientific.”

How can this academic paradox be resolved?  The unfortunate resolution is that chiropractic has steadfastly broken away from its metaphysical roots and generally de-emphasizes Palmer’s philosophy, deeming it not relevant to the practice of chiropractic.  Many schools have actually stopped teaching chiropractic philosophy altogether, while those that still teach it, do so in a perfunctory manner and treat it like a dry professional catechism. By shying away from the principles of chiropractic philosophy, the profession has attempted to gain legitimacy by measuring its successes using “evidence-based science.” In other words, chiropractors dismiss their own philosophy and try to explain the effectiveness of an adjustment through the mechanistic model offered by allopathic medicine.

It is ironic that the chiropractic community wants to measure its healing phenomena using an allopathic “yardstick.”  The practice of allopathic medicine is the leading cause of death in the United States, responsible for about 750,000 deaths per year (see: Death by Medicine at www.garynull.com).  If that many people died from iatrogenic illness, I cannot even begin to fathom the number of citizens that were sickened to the brink of death by the practice of medicine. Consequently, trying to justify the practice of chiropractic by adopting the mechanics of allopathic “science” is tantamount to comparing chiropractic to the work of the Grim Reaper.

From the perspective of an outsider of the chiropractic field, I see great folly in the stampede of chiropractors trying to convince the medical community that the value of an adjustment can be measured using the allopathic mechanical model of life. The humor lies in a simple fact: If the medical model that chiropractors so much want to emulate was actually right…why would allopathic medicine be the leading cause of death?

Is the medical model that suggests human beings are biochemical machines controlled by genes scientifically correct?  The answer is a profoundly simple, no!  Recent research in cell and molecular biology reveal that the following two fundamental assumptions of allopathic philosophy are completely wrong: Assumption I:Genes control biology, and, Assumption II:Biological processes employ Newtonian mechanics,

In regard to the fact that we “believe” genes control life (The Central Dogma):  Over 100 years ago, scientists were removing the nuclei from large egg cells of marine organisms, such as starfish and sea urchins.  The cell’s nucleus is the organelle that contains the genes. These enucleated eggs were still able to divide, many forming embryos with 40 or more cells…each without any genes!  Whatever it is that “controls” life in these cells, it was definitely not the DNA.

In cell culture laboratories, especially those involved with growing viruses, many tissue culture dishes are lined with a “feeder” layer of cells.  These cells are used to “condition” the growth medium so that it will support the production of viruses.  In order to prevent contaminating the viruses with the genes from “feeder” cells, the DNA of the feeder layer cells is destroyed (usually through exposure to gamma rays).  While these cells do not have any functional DNA, they may live for one or two months without any genes.  During this time the cells eat and digest food, excrete wastes, respire, move around and communicate with other cells and can avoid toxins.

Obviously enucleated cells express complex, integrated behaviors that are not “controlled” by genes. This fact was recently revealed in a different way through the surprising results of the human genome project. The medical model of a gene-controlled biology requires that the human genome contain over 150,000 genes.  The Human Genome Project results identified only ~25,000 human genes. Eighty five percent of the genes needed to support the allopathic medical model do not even exist.

In light of this genetic shortcoming, Nobel Prize winning geneticist David Baltimore had to publicly concede that genes do not provide for human complexity. In the issue of Nature in which the genome results were published, Baltimore responds to the question of the missing genes by writing, “What does give us our complexity…remains a challenge for the future.” (Nature 2001, 409:816).  The Central Dogma is dead!

In the shadow of the DNA-dominated world of scientific research, a new scientific awareness had already begun to manifest while the genome project was capturing all the media’s attention.  The new insights provide a far simpler view of the nature of life, one that is coincidently in alignment with Palmer’s original philosophy.  To understand how life works, we must start with understanding proteins, the molecular building blocks of our bodies. 

There are over 150,000 different proteins that make up a human’s body.  Each protein is a long, linear molecule of amino acids linked end-to-end. The molecule is like a nano-sized spine in which the amino acid molecules are the equivalents of vertebrae.  There are twenty different amino acids and each has a unique shape.  So the final shape of each protein’s spine is determined by the specific sequence of unique-shaped amino acid links.  Essentially, a cell is built from the assembly of thousands of different-shaped protein molecules.

Proteins are not only physical building blocks, they also provide for the magic of life.  As Palmer wrote, “Life is movement.”  The magic of proteins is that they can change their shape.  The movement of a protein spine is analogous to the movement of a human spine.  Each of the spine’s jointed segments (vertebrae or amino acids) is capable of rotating or flexing at the point they are coupled (joint or peptide bond).  While muscles are used to provide the force to move the human spine, protein spines change their posture due to the repulsive or attractive force generated by electromagnetic fields. 

When the protein’s electric charge or field is altered it will adjust the shape of its spine to accommodate the forces.  As a human spine can change its shape by bending or rotating, so can a protein’s spine change its shape. In changing conformation (shape) from one configuration to another, the protein molecule “moves!” The particular movement of a protein molecule is integrated with the movement of other protein molecules in functional assemblies called pathways.  Respiratory pathways, digestive pathways, muscle contraction pathways, for example, refer to assemblies of proteins whose coordinated movements produce those particular functions.

How does life work? Through the coordinated movements of proteins.  What is it that “controls” life?  The answer is simply, whatever it is that controls the movement of proteins, turning them “on” and “off.”  The answer to that question was briefly mentioned above.  What ever changes the electromagnetic charge or field of a protein is what causes it to move. Two “things” can do that: physical chemicals or immaterial vibrational energy fields.  Collectively these represent “signals” that activate proteins by changing their force fields.  Allopathic medical philosophy, based upon Newtonian mechanics, only recognizes the role of chemical signals, such as hormones, growth factors, neuropeptides, and of course, drugs, as signals that can impact physical protein molecules causing them to move. 

The most recent biophysics research reveals that energy (vibrational) waves, operating through quantum mechanical principles, are more effective in signaling protein movement than are physical chemicals. While allopaths have focused their attention on the physical signals of controlling the body’s proteins, physicists endorse the role of energy fields as being more important in “controlling” life. 

Medicine’s adamant denial of the role of “energy” in the human body is now a blatantly unscientific principle.  Physicists adopted quantum mechanics in 1925 as the science that explains the “mechanics” of how the universe operates. Allopaths are still trying to understand the mechanics of life using the outdated Newtonian philosophy, a belief that prevents them from recognizing the role of energy in life. Interestingly, Palmer founded chiropractic as an “energy” medicine in 1895, and his philosophy has essentially been discarded to accept a materialistic allopathic philosophy…one that is no longer even scientific!

There are only two fundamental components that provide for life, proteins and their complementary signals.  If we consider what can cause a dis-ease, we are left with only two possibilities, something is wrong with the protein OR something is wrong with the signal.  If a protein is dysfunctional, it is generally the consequence of a genetic mutation that changed the protein’s assembly blueprint.  Statistics reveal that far less than 5% of the population can claim that their lives are impaired due to genetic defects.  These people express dis-ease as a consequence of a birth defect.

Ninety five percent of us arrived here with a functional genome, if we have a dis-ease, it cannot be attributed to the proteins, it must be related to the signal. There are three ways by which protein-regulating signals can induce dis-ease: Firstly, if the signal-conducting pathway is physically damaged and does not provide for effective signal transfer. Secondly, if the chemistry used in the communication pathway is insufficient to propagate the signal. Thirdly, the signal pathways are structurally intact, however, the nervous system responds to environmental stimuli by sending inappropriate signals, signals that would engage compromising or life-threatening behaviors.  Signal interference can be generated through trauma, toxins and thought. Sound familiar.  These are the same causes of subluxation that were originally described by Palmer over a hundred years ago!

Interestingly, leading edge cell research now reveals that cells are controlled by the conditions of their environment. When the new model is applied to multicellular organisms, such as humans, information, in the form of energy, would flow from environment>brain>spinal cord>peripheral organs and tissues, which may be penned as: Environment (Innate) > A > D > I > O.  Surprise—the new allopathic model is the “old” chiropractic model.

There is clearly an upheaval of conventional thought brewing in the allopathic ranks. Modern cellular science is now affirming the role of an Innate Intelligence in shaping biological organisms and this new biological awareness places conventional science in direct alignment with the chiropractic paradigm. The new vision offered by biomedical research provides for both a solid philosophical and scientific foundation for the practice of chiropractic.

There was a comic that once remarked, “The older I get, the smarter my father becomes.”  I think we should all stop for a moment and honor the father of Chiropractic, D. D. Palmer, he was indeed a smart man!

Note: The new view of science described above and how it relates to chiropractic care are described in my recently released book, The Biology of Belief:Unleashing the Power of Consciousness, Matter and Miracles, available at Amazon.com or my website.  Check out the contents of this book and read a sample chapter at: www.beliefbook.com Additional related articles and references are freely downloadable at www.brucelipton.com

Author reserves first rights.

Magical Mem-brains?

Cell biologist Bruce Lipton says our lives are not ruled by our genes but by our cell membranes — which respond to our thoughts. Has he found the key to mind–body healing? Listen to his remarkable conversation with veteran science writer Jill Neimark.

The mystic healer Edgar Cayce once said, “Remember that thoughts are things, and as their currents run, they can become crimes or miracles.” Now cell biologist Bruce Lipton, formerly at University of Wisconsin and Stanford medical schools, suggests that Cayce was right. Lipton, author of Biology of Belief: Unleashing the Power of Consciousness, Matter, & Miracles, contends that our thoughts can activate changes in the activity of the cell membrane, and thus alter our health and life. 

Genes, proteins, and hormones all are players at the gates of the cell’s membrane, says Lipton, where consciousness and matter interact. In fact, he states bluntly that by changing our subconscious programming we can influence membrane function, and therefore, “We are not victims of our genes, but masters of our fate.”

Though Lipton may be reaching too far in some of his claims, his book has sparked interest not only from hypnotherapists and energy healers, but from cell biologists working on cancer at places like the University of Illinois at Chicago, where researchers have already published findings consistent with his emphasis on the cell membrane.

—Jill Neimark(JN) : Early in your book, you describe a kind of eureka! insight where you realize that the cell membrane  is the equivalent of each cell’s brain. Later in your book, you write that interacting with the cell membrane will enable  us to change our lives, health, maybe even the activity of our genes. By changing our deepest beliefs, you say, we can  change the signals reaching the cell membrane, and thus  our  entire  bodies  from   the  cellular  level  on  up.  But  before  we  get  into  all  that,  “brain”  is  a loaded  word. What  exactly  do  you mean  by  brain  when  you  speak  of  the  “magical mem-brain”?

 BL:  I  mean  the  cell membrane  functions  as  the  active  intelligence  of  the  cell.  At  any  given  time,  every  cell membrane  contains  hundreds  of  thousands  of  switches,  and  the  behavior  of  a  cell  can  only  be  understood by considering  the  activities  of  all  the  switches.  So  I  asked  myself,  Where  does  the  cascade  of  activity  for a cell start?  And  it  starts  at  the membrane.  In  contrast,  genes  are  remarkable  molecules,  but  they  are  only blueprints that are activated by signals from the cell membrane. Genes are not our fate. Of course, a very small percentage of  people  actually  arrived  on  this  planet  with  defective  genes,  and  in  those  rare  cases  the blueprint  itself  is inappropriate.

JN :  Scientists  have  long  known  that  genes  are  influenced  by  signals  from   their  environment. There is  the famous  book  The  Beak  of  the  Finch,  which  shows  us  that  evolution  is  happening  right  before our  eyes  in just  a  few   generations  of  birds  on  the  Galapagos  Islands.  The  length  of  the  finch  beak changes  according  to climate  change,  which  affects  the  type  of  seeds that  grow  on  the  island  and  thentype  of  beak  a  finch needs. So  haven’t  we  known  for  a  while  that  genes  are  flexible  and  responsive?

BL:  I fully agree and do say in my book that if  you’re  a  leading-edge  scientist,  this  will not be  news. But if you ask the average person on the street what controls life, they will tell you genes control life. It was Nobel Prizen winner Francis  Crick  who  suggested  that  genes  are  both  the  blueprint  for  the  body’s  proteins  and  that  DNA controls its own replication. The first is true  but  the  second  is  not.  Genes  are  indeed  blueprints.  But  a  gene cannot cause  or  control  its  own  expression.  It  is  not  self-regulatory.  If  genes  don’t  control  life,  then  what  is  in charge of life? I say it’s the cell membrane. This is the “brain” equivalent. The membrane is the physical structure that interfaces internal “self” and external “not-self.”  It  is  an  interface  that  dynamically  reads  and  interprets environmental  cues  and  responds by  generating  signals  that  enable  the  cell  to  function  and  survive. And science supports  this. One  of  the  remarkable  studies  I mention  in my  book  shows  that  a  cell  whose  nucleus — with all its genes — is  removed  will  keep  functioning  for  as  long  as  a month!  This  was  a  shock  to me  at first,  since  I was trained  as  a nucleus-centered  biologist  as  surely  as  Copernicus  was  trained  as  an  Earth-centered astronomer. It was truly a jolt when I realized the nucleus does not program the cell. On the other hand, if the cell membrane is damaged, the cell will immediately become dysfunctional and, frequently, die very quickly.

JN :  You  sent  me  a  very  interesting  article  on  stem   cells  from  Nature,  which  you  jokingly  titled,  “It’s the  stem   cells,  stupid!”  It  describes  how   the  body  is  like  an  ecosystem , and  the  activity  of  a  cell depends  on its  ecological  niche,  or  where  it  lives.  Stem   cells,  which  are  the  subject  of  so  much  hope and  controversy today,  are  influenced  by  their  environment  to  become  a  neuron  or  a  blood  cell  or any  other  kind  of  cell. But all  this  fascinating  new  research  actually  reinforces  my  view  that  every molecule  of  the  body  is  intelligent  in its  own  way.  Genes,  receptors,  stem cells, hormones, all  are key  players  and  intelligent.  The  synergy  of  our minds  and  bodies  seems  more  like  an  Escher painting  to  me,  where  the  beginning  loops  around  to  the  end and  around  again  to  the  beginning.  I think  you  are  overemphasizing  the  membrane.  Just  out  of  curiosity, how  do  you  think  life  began —do  you  think  it  began  with  RNA , DNA ,  cell membranes,  or  something  else?

BL:  I think the membrane was a very important part of the beginning of biological life. If I take fats called phospholipids and shake them up in water, they spontaneously form membranes. And these membranes undergo fission—in  other  words, they separate into two. They seem to “grow” like cells. Now, lipids are nothin but a container, and that’s not life itself. But once we have a container we can define inside and outside and start to regulate the conditions inside. The ability to regulate our internal domain is required for life , since we must have very specific environmental conditions for certain biochemical responses. For instance, a cell needs to maintain a certain  pH  and  salt  balance.  I  believe  that  when  ancient  RNA  and  other  proteins  in  the  primeval  soup became encapsulated with in membranes , we had a breeding ground for life.

JN :  You state that we’re mostly controlled by subconscious programming, and that if we can change this programming, we can actually change the signals the membrane sends into the cell. First, how are you defining subconscious?  A  lot of work has been done in recent years showing which specific brain structures are involved in states like  fear, compassion, or the peaceful cosmic consciousness felt by experienced meditators. Are you using subconscious as a metaphor like Freud did, or are you referring to particular places in the brain?

BL: By conscious mind,  I meanthe part of the brain that  is self-reflective and self-observing, which is governed by the more recently evolved prefrontal cortex of the brain. By subconscious, I mean the part of the brain that is more ancient and doesn’t necessarily require conscious attention. It’s the programmable “hard drive” into which our life experiences are downloaded. The programs are fundamentally hardwired stimulus-response behaviors. 

This is so automatic that people often refer to the fact that somebody has “pushed their buttons” — leading to an instinctive response.

JN : How does subconscious programming influence the cell membrane?

BL: When  I have a thought, my mind sends out signals, in the form of growth factors,  hormones, or other chemicals. Thoughts can also initiate rapid oscillations of nerve cells in unison, which creates a kind of field effect that influences other cells and neurons almost instantaneously. Now, what’s interesting, and what I found out in my research  at  Stanford, is that your brain can veto what’s going on in other places in your  body. The signals sent out by your central nervous system actually override the function of cell membrane receptors that are responding to signals in their immediate environment. That means the brain can ultimately control the activity of  tissues and organs. I believe that the most powerful information processing by the brain is in the domain of the subconscious and that it can shape tissue  responses. These signals can actually influence the membrane to engage selected genes that then actively respond. 

When  part of the brain senses stress, for example, it  initiates a complex signal cascade that directs the body’scells to launch a protection response, particularly through a stress hormone called cortisol. Now, let’s look at what happens to, say, a  typical liver cell, which has receptors on its membrane that bind to cortisol. When it does this, the membrane sends information  to  the  genes  nside  the  nucleus  of  the  cell  to  shut down their ability to break down a form of sugar called glycogen. The genes stop doing this, and extra sugar is released into the blood. That sugar is used as energy to counter the stress. This cascade could have been started by a real stress, or by a belief that causes stress even if it is a misperception.

I actually think this system explains how the placebo effect works. And a recent article on the placebo effect on pain in the Journal of Neuroscience confirms this. When researchers used sophisticated imaging of the brain, they found that placebos that were believed tonquench pain activated parts of the brain that directly affected opioid  membrane receptors. That’s how a “belief” results in the chemical cascade that results in the placebo effect — and in this case, a reduction in pain. For hundreds of years we’ve been discussing the mind–body duality. What I’m proposing is a mechanism for its power.

JN: The  description is  fascinating and makes sense, but I think our frameworks are very different. I still don’t see a top-down hierarchy from the brain to the membrane.  I see us as a web that has no weaver, that weaves itself, and the act of weaving is us. Nobody has yet explained how physical processes give rise to conscious experience in the first place. We don’t know how a stimulus turns into the blueness of blue, the sweetness of sweet, the sentience of anything from a cell to a person. 

So it seems a leap to say that we now know how conscious experience modulates physical processes. What brought you to this work?

BL:  My dad was an immigrant from Russia who came here at age 11, and by the time he was 16, he and his brother owned their first supermarket in New York City. I was born in 1944, and shortly after that we moved up to Chappaqua, the town where the Clintons now live. My mother told me that at that time there was a sign at the entrance to the town that read, “No Jews, no blacks, and no dogs.” We  were  Russian Jews and completely displaced into an environment  that disapproved of us. I had one friend down the block, and that was it. That’s why the first time I looked into a microscope, in the second grade, I was so mesmerized. Here was another world with living creatures and it had nothing to do with my own troubled world. I remember spending an entire summer with an old Brownie camera trying to take a picture of cells in my microscope.

JN :How has your belief in belief changed your own life?

BL:  My sense of humor has saved me. Years ago, after my divorce,  I fell deeply in love with a woman and one day she said, “I think I need some space,”  and what seemed like 10 minutes  ater,  she moved in witha  cardiac surgeon. I pined away for nearly a year. I’d come home from work and just be alone and have this imaginary conversation with Barbara. I missed her all the time. Then one night, I was alone in my dark living room in the typical cold, grey Wisconsin winter and missing Barbara and I yelled out, “Just leave me alone, Barbara!” And all of a sudden the pure absurd humor of it struck me. I said to myself, “Well, she has left you  alone and that’s the problem.” The next time I started missing Barbara I thought about the absurd humor of it, and I started laughing.

Humor has had the same impact on the rest of my life. In a very similar way, I was berating myself one day for not being good enough. And right in the middle of all my negative self-talk it was as if a voice offstage said, “Isn’t  there anything more fun to do than this?” It was like I was in a stand-up comedy routine and I laughed out loud then and there. I’d been willingly engaging in “not-good-enough” programming from my subconscious, and there was something different I could do and I did it right then. I went to a movie. And the next time I got into a negative spiral of self-talk, the humor struck me again,and it just transcended my self-talk. That laughter was almost like a switch. Eventually, over time, the negative self-talk just stopped.

JN :What’s the one take-home message from the biology of belief?

BL: That we’re not, as individuals or societies, the pawns of our genes, or stuck in a vicious cycle of violence and competition. You can reinvent your life. The global community can reinvent itself, too. A study last year by two biologists, Robert M. Sapolsky and Lisa J. Share, showed this in a troop of baboons. The aggressive males happened to die out from foraging contaminated meat from a garbage pit. In the wake of their deaths, the females in the troop helped steer the remaining, less aggressive males into a more peaceful, cooperative community. We are all spiritual beings who need love as much as we need food. We can use the intelligence of our own cells to change our lives. 

Jill Neimark is a contributing editor of S&H. She is currently finishing a book on love and health with bioethicist Stephen Post.

A Cosmic Joke that has the Scientists Rolling in the Aisle

There is a “thing” I refer to as Universe Humor, others may refer to it as a Cosmic Joke. There have been times in all of our lives when we thought we knew exactly how some event or incident was going to turn out. We could be so convinced that we “knew” what was going to happen, that we would have bet the family farm and the kitchen sink on the outcome of the event. It is at moments like this, when the Universe surprises us by taking a left turn instead of a right.

While in most cases such a turn of events may evoke anger, disappointment or disillusion, I usually respond by shaking my head in profound awe of the perverse nature of Universe Humor. Here I thought I knew exactly how things would turn out and then find myself surprised, the wind knocked out of me. In wonder, I must rethink and reconsider the beliefs I held that led me to my faulty conclusion.

When Universe Humor hits an individual, recognition of their astonishing lack of awareness may provoke a profound change in their life. On an individual level, each must reconsider their own beliefs in order to accommodate the surprising observations.

In contrast, the course of human history is radically altered when Universe Humor undermines a “core belief” that is part of the fabric of the entire society. Consider how the course of human history changed when the belief that the world was flat was challenged by the circumnavigation of the globe?

In 1893, the chairman of physics at Harvard University warned students that there was no more need for additional PhD’s in the field of physics. He boasted that science had established the fact that the universe was a matter machine, comprised of physical, indivisible atoms that fully obeyed the laws of Newtonian Mechanics. Since all the descriptive laws of physics were “known,” the future of physics would be relegated to making finer and finer measurements.

Two years later, the Newtonian concept of a matter-only universe was toppled by the discovery of subatomic particles, X-rays and radioactivity. Within ten years, physicists had to discard their fundamental belief in a material universe for it was recognized that the universe was actually made of energy whose mechanics obeyed the laws of Quantum Physics. That little piece of Universe Humor profoundly altered the course of civilization, taking us from steam engines to rocket ships, from telegraphs to computers.

Well…the cosmic prankster has struck again!

As it has done a few times in the past, this expression of Universe Humor upends a foundational basic belief held by conventional science. The joke is embodied in the results of The Human Genome Project. In all the hoopla over the sequencing of the human genetic code and being got caught up in the brilliant technological feat, we have not focused on the actual “meaning” of the results.

One of the most important and fundamental core beliefs in conventional biology is that the traits and character of organisms are “controlled” by their genes. This belief is couched in the concept of genetic determinacy, the conventional dogma provided in virtually every textbook and biology course. How do genes manage to “control” life? It is based upon the concept that genes are self-emergent, meaning that they are able to “turn themselves on and off.” Self-actualizing genes would provide for computer-like programs that would control organismal structure and function. Accordingly, our belief in genetic determinacy implies that “complexity” (evolutionary stature) of an organism would be proportional to the number of genes it possessed.

Before the Human genome Project was underway, scientists had estimated that human complexity would necessitate a genome in excess of 100,000 genes. Genes are primarily blueprints encoding the chemical structure of proteins, the molecular “parts” that comprise the cell. It was thought that there was one gene to code for each of the 70,000 to 90,000 proteins that make up our bodies.

In addition to protein-coding genes, the cell contains genes that determine the character of an organism by “controlling” the activity of other genes. Genes that “program” the expression of other genes are called regulatory genes. Regulatory genes encode information about complex physical patterns that provide for specific anatomies, which represent the structures that characterize each cell type (muscle versus bone) or organism (a chimp from a human). In addition, a subset of regulatory genes is associated with the “control” of specific behavioral patterns. Regulatory genes orchestrate the activity of a large numbers genes whose actions collectively contribute to the expression of such traits as awareness, emotion, and intelligence. It was estimated that there were more than 30,000 regulatory genes in the human genome.

In considering the minimal number of genes needed to make a human: we would start with a base number of over 70,000 genes, one for each of the over 70,000 proteins found in a human. Then we include the number of regulatory genes needed to provide for the complexity of patterns expressed in our anatomy, physiology and behavior. Lets round-off the number of human genes to a total of an even 100,000, by including a minimalist number of 30,000 regulatory genes.

Ready for the Cosmic Joke? The results of the Genome project reveal that there are only about 34,000 genes in the human genome. Two thirds of the anticipated genes do not exist! How can we account for the complexity of a genetically-controlled human when there are not even enough genes to code just for the proteins?

More humiliating to the dogma of our belief in genetic determinacy is the fact that there is not much difference in the total number of genes found in humans and those found in primitive organisms populating the planet. Recently, biologists completed mapping the genomes of two of the most studied animal models in genetic research, the fruit fly and a microscopic roundworm (Caenorhabditis elegans).

The primitive Caenorhabditis worm serves as a perfect model to study the role of genes in development and behavior. This rapidly growing and reproducing primitive organism has a precisely patterned body comprised of exactly 969 cells, a simple brain of about 302 ordered cells, it expresses a unique repertoire of behaviors, and most importantly, it is amenable to genetic experimentation. The Caenorhabditis genome is comprised of over 18,000 genes. The 50+ trillion-celled human body has a genome with only 15,000 more genes than the lowly, spineless, microscopic roundworm.

Obviously, the complexity of organisms is not reflected in the complexity of its genes. For example the fruit fly genome was recently defined to consist of 13,000 genes. The eye of the fruit fly is comprised of more cells than are found in the entire Caenorhabditis worm. Profoundly more complex in structure and behavior than the microscopic roundworm, the fruit fly has 5000 fewer genes!!

The Human Genome Project was a global effort dedicated to deciphering the human genetic code. It was thought the completed human blueprint would provide science with all the necessary information to “cure” all of mankind’s ills. It was further assumed that an awareness of the human genetic code mechanism would enable scientists to create a Mozart or another Einstein.

The “failure” of the genome results to conform to our expectations reveals that our expectations of how biology “works” are clearly based upon incorrect assumptions or information. Our “belief” in the concept of genetic determinism is fundamentally…flawed! We can not truly attribute the character of our lives to be the consequence of genetic “programming.” The genome results force us to reconsider the question: “From whence do we acquire our biological complexity?”

In a commentary on the surprising results of the Human Genome study, David Baltimore, one of the world’s most prominent geneticists and Nobel prize winner, addressed this issue of complexity:

“But unless the human genome contains a lot of genes that are opaque to our computers, it is clear that we do not gain our undoubted complexity over worms and plants by using more genes. Understanding what does give us our complexity-our enormous behavioral repertoire, ability to produce conscious action, remarkable physical coordination, precisely tuned alterations in response to external variations of the environment, learning, memory…need I go on?-remains a challenge for the future.” (Nature 409:816, 2001)

Scientists have continuously touted that our biological fates are written in our genes. In the face of that belief, the Universe humors us with a cosmic joke: The “control” of life is not in the genes. Of course the most interesting consequence of the project’s results is that we must now face that “challenge for the future” Baltimore alluded to. What does “control” our biology, if not the genes?

Over the last number of years, science and the press’ emphasis on the “power” of genes has overshadowed the brilliant work of many biologists that reveal a radically different understanding concerning organismal expression. Emerging at the cutting edge of cell science is the recognition that the environment, and more specifically, our perception of the environment, directly controls our behavior and gene activity.

The molecular mechanisms by which animals, from single cells to humans, respond to environmental stimuli and activate appropriate physiological and behavioral responses have recently been identified. Cells utilize these mechanisms in order to dynamically “adapt” their structure and function to accommodate ever-changing environmental demands. The process of adaptation is mediated by the cell membrane (the skin of the cell), which serves as the equivalent of the cell’s “brain.” Cell membranes recognize environmental “signals” through the activity of receptor proteins. Receptors recognize both physical (e.g., chemicals, ions) and energetic (e.g., electromagnetic, scalar forces) signals.

Environmental signals “activate” receptor proteins causing them to bind with complementary effector proteins. Effector proteins are “switches” that control the cell’s behavior. Receptor-effector proteins provide the cell with awareness through physical sensation. By strict definition, these membrane protein complexes represent molecular units of perception. These membrane perception molecules also control gene transcription (the turning on and off of gene programs) and have recently been linked to adaptive mutations (genetic alterations that rewrite the DNAcode in response to stress).

The cell membrane is a structural and functional homologue (equivalent) of a computer chip, while the nucleus represents a read-write hard disk loaded with genetic programs. Organismal evolution, resulting from increasing the number of membrane perception units, would be modeled using fractal geometry. Reiterated fractal patterns enable a cross-referencing of structure and function among three levels of biological organization: the cell, the multicellular organism and societal evolution. Through fractal mathematics we are provided with valuable insight into the past and future of evolution.

The environment, through the act of perception, controls behavior, gene activity and even the rewriting of the genetic code. Cells “learn” (evolve) by creating new perception proteins in response to novel environmental experiences. “Learned” perceptions, especially those derived from indirect experiences (e.g., parental, peer and academic education), may be based upon incorrect information or faulty interpretations. Since they may or may not be “true,” perceptions are in reality-beliefs!

Our new scientific knowledge is returning to an ancient awareness of the power of belief. Beliefs are indeed powerful…whether they are true or false. While we have always heard of the “power of positive thinking,” the problem is negative thinking is just as powerful, though in the “opposite” direction. Problems encountered in health and in the unfolding of our lives are generally connected to the “misperceptions” acquired in our learning experiences. The wonderful part of the story is that perceptions can be relearned! We can reshape our lives in retraining our consciousness. This is a reflection of the ageless wisdom that has been passed down to us and is now being recognized in cellular biology.

An understanding of the newly described cell-control mechanisms will cause as profound a shift in biological belief as the quantum revolution caused in physics. The strength of the emerging new biological model is that it unifies the basic philosophies of conventional medicine, complementary medicine and spiritual healing.

Abstract: The role of nature-nurture must be reconsidered in light of the Human Genome Project’s surprising results. Conventional biology emphasizes that human expression is controlled by genes, and is under the influence of nature. Since 95% of the population possess “fit” genes, dysfunctions in this population are attributable to environmental influences (nurture). Nurture experiences, initiated in utero, provide for “learned perceptions.” Along with genetic instincts, these perceptions constitute the life-shaping subconscious mind. The conscious mind, which functions around age six, operates independently of the subconscious. Conscious mind can observe and criticize behavioral tapes, yet can not “force” a change in subconscious.

One of the perennial controversies that tends to evoke rancor among biomedical scientists concerns the role of nature versus nurture in the unfoldment of life [Lipton, 1998a]. Those polarized on the side of nature invoke the concept of genetic determinism as the mechanism responsible for “controlling” the expression of an organism’s physical and behavioral traits. Genetic determinism refers to an internal control mechanism resembling a genetically-coded “computer” program. At conception, it is believed that the differential activation of selected maternal and paternal genes collectively “download” an individual’s physiologic and behavioral character, in other words, their biological destiny.

In contrast, those endorsing “control” by nurture argue that the environment is instrumental in “controlling” biological expression. Rather than attributing biological fate to gene control, nurturists contend that environmental experiences provide an essential role in shaping the character of an individual’s life. The polarity between these philosophies simply reflects the fact that those endorsing nature believe in an internal control mechanism (genes) while those supporting nurture mechanisms ascribe to an external control (environment).

The resolution of the nature and nurture controversy is profoundly important in regard to defining the role of parenting in human development. If those endorsing nature as the source of “control” are correct, the fundamental character and attributes of a child are genetically predetermined at conception. Genes, presumed to be self-actualizing, would control organismal structure and function. Since development would be programmed and executed by the internalized genes, the basic role of the parent would be to provide nutrition and protection for their growing fetus or child.

In such a model, developmental characters that deviate from the norm imply that the individual expresses defective genes. The belief that nature “controls” biology fosters the notion of victimization and irresponsibility in the unfoldment of one’s life. “Don’t blame me for this condition, I got it in my genes. Since I can’t control my genes, I am not responsible for the consequences.” Modern medical science perceives of a dysfunctional individual as one possessing a defective “mechanism.” Dysfunctional “mechanisms” are currently treated with drugs, though pharmaceutical companies are already touting a future in which genetic engineering will permanently eliminate all deviant or undesirable characters and behaviors. Consequently, we relinquish personal control over our lives to the “magic bullets” proffered by pharmaceutical companies.

The alternative perspective, supported by a large number of lay people and a growing contingency of scientists, expands upon the role of parents in human development. Those endorsing nurture as life’s “control” mechanism contend that parents have a fundamental impact on the developmental expression of their offspring. In a nurture-controlled system, gene activity would be dynamically-linked to an ever changing environment. Some environments enhance the potential of the child, while other environments may induce dysfunction and disease. In contrast to the fixed-fate mechanism envisioned by naturists, nurture mechanisms offer an opportunity to shape an individual’s biological expression by regulating or “controlling” their environment.

In reviewing the nature-nurture controversy over the years, it is apparent that at times, support for nature mechanisms predominates over the concept of nurture, while at other times the reverse is true. Since the revelation of the DNA genetic code by Watson and Crick in 1953, the concept of self-regulated genes controlling our physiology and behavior has prevailed over the perceived influence of environmental signals Removing personal responsibility in the unfolding of one’s life leaves us with the belief that almost all negative or defective human traits represent a mechanical failure of the human molecular mechanism. By the early 1980’s, biologists were fully convinced that genes “control” biology. It was further assumed that a map of the completed human genome would provide science with all the necessary information to not only “cure” all of mankind’s ills, but also create a Mozart or another Einstein. The resulting Human Genome Project was designed as a global effort dedicated to deciphering the human genetic code.

The primary function of genes is to serve as biochemical blueprints that encode the complex chemical structure of proteins, the molecular “parts” from which cells are constructed. Conventional thought held that there was one gene to code for each of the 70,000 to 90,000 different proteins that make up our bodies. In addition to protein-coding genes, the cell also contains regulatory genes that “control” the expression of other genes. Regulatory genes presumably orchestrate the activity of a large number of structural genes whose actions collectively contribute the complex physical patterns providing each species with its specific anatomy. It is further presumed that other regulatory genes control the expression of such traits as awareness, emotion, and intelligence.

Before the project got off the ground, scientists had already estimated that human complexity would necessitate a genome (the total collection of genes) in excess of 100,000 genes. This was based upon a conservative estimate that there were in excess of 30,000 regulatory genes and over 70,000 protein-coding genes stored in the human genome. When the results of the human genome project were reported this year, the conclusion presented itself as a “cosmic joke.” Just when science thought it had life all figured out, the universe threw a biological curve ball. In all the hoopla over the sequencing of the human genetic code and being got caught up in the brilliant technological feat, we have not focused on the actual “meaning” of the results. These results overturn a foundational core belief embraced by conventional science.

The Genome project’s cosmic joke concerns the fact that the whole human genome consists of only 34,000 genes [see Science 2001, 291(5507) and Nature 2001, 409(6822)]. Two thirds of the anticipated and presumed necessary genes do not exist! How can we account for the complexity of a genetically-controlled human when there are not even enough genes to code just for the proteins?

The “failure” of the genome to confirm our expectations reveals that our perception of how biology “works” is based upon incorrect assumptions or information. Our “belief” in the concept of genetic determinism is apparently fundamentally flawed. We can not attribute the character of our lives solely to the consequence of inherent genetic “programming.” The genome results force us to reconsider the question: “From whence do we acquire our biological complexity?” In a commentary on the surprising results of the Human Genome study, David Baltimore (2001), one of the world’s most prominent geneticists and Nobel prize winner, addressed this issue of complexity:

“But unless the human genome contains a lot of genes that are opaque to our computers, it is clear that we do not gain our undoubted complexity over worms and plants by using more genes.

Understanding what does give us our complexity – our enormous behavioral repertoire, ability to produce conscious action, remarkable physical coordination, precisely tuned alterations in response to external variations of the environment, learning, memory…need I go on?- remains a challenge for the future. “ [Baltimore, 2001, emphasis mine].

Of course the most interesting consequence of the project’s results is that we must now face that “challenge for the future” alluded to by Baltimore. What does “control” our biology, if not the genes? In the heat of the genome frenzy, emphasis on the project overshadowed the brilliant work of many biologists who were revealing a radically different understanding of organismal “control” mechanisms. Emerging at the cutting edge of cell science is the recognition that the environment, and more specifically, our perception of the environment, directly controls our behavior and gene activity (Thaler, 1994).

Conventional biology has built its knowledge upon what is referred to as the “Central Dogma.” This inviolable belief claims that the flow of information in biological organisms is from DNA to RNA and then to Protein. SinceDNA (genes) is the top rung of this information flow, science adopted the notion of the Primacy of DNA, with “primacy” in this case meaning first cause. The argument for genetic determinacy is based upon the premise thatDNA is in “control.” But is it?

Almost all of the cell’s genes are stored in it’s largest organelle, the nucleus. Conventional science maintains that the nucleus represents the “command center of the cell,” a notion based upon the assumption that genes “control” (determine) the expression of the cell (Vinson, et al, 2000). As the cell’s “command center,” it is implied that the nucleus represents the equivalent of the cell’s “brain.”

If the brain is removed from any living organism, the necessary consequence of that action is immediate death of the organism. However, if the nucleus is removed from a cell, the cell does not necessarily die. Some enucleated cells can survive for two or months with out possessing any genes. Enucleated cells are routinely used as “feeder layers” that support the growth of other specialized cell types. In the absence of a nucleus, cells maintain their metabolism, digest food, excrete waste, breathe, move through their environment recognizing and appropriately responding to other cells, predators or toxins. Ultimately these cells die, for without their genome, enucleated cells are unable to replace worn-out or defective proteins required for life functions.

The fact that cells maintain a successful and integrated life in the absence of genes, reveals that genes are not the “brain” of the cell. The primary reason why genes can not “control” biology is that they are not self emergent (Nijhout, 1990). This means that genes can not self-actualize, they are chemically unable to turn themselves on or off. Gene expression is under the regulatory control of environmental signals that act through epigenetic mechanisms (Nijhout, 1990, Symer and Bender, 2001).

However, genes are fundamental to the normal expression of life. Rather than serving in the capacity of “control,” genes represent molecular blueprints necessary in manufacturing the complex proteins that provide for the cell’s structure and functions. Defects in the gene programs, mutations, may profoundly impair the quality of life in those possessing them. It is important to note that the lives of less than 5% of the population are impacted by defective genes. These individuals express genetically-propagated birth defects, whether they are manifest at birth or appear later in life.

The significance of this data is that more than 95% of the population came into this world with an intact genome, one that would code for a healthy and fit existence. While science has focused its efforts at assessing the role of genes by studying the %5 of the population with defective genes, it has not made much progress as to why the majority of the population, which possess a fit genome, acquire dysfunction and disease. We simply can not “blame” their reality on the genes (nature).

Scientific attention as to what “controls” biology is shifting from the DNA to the cell’s membrane (Lipton, et al., 1991, 1992, 1998b, 1999). In the economy of the cell, the membrane is the equivalent of our “skin.” The membrane provides an interface between the ever-changing environment (not-self) and the enclosed controlled environment of the cytoplasm (self). The embryonic “skin” (ectoderm) provides for two organ systems in the human body: the integument and the nervous system. In cells, these two functions are integrated within the simple layer that envelopes the cytoplasm.

Protein molecules in the cell membrane interface the demands of the internal physiologic mechanisms with existing environmental exigencies (Lipton, 1999). These membrane “control” molecules are comprised of couplets consisting of receptor proteins and effector proteins. Protein receptors recognize environmental signals (information) in the same way our receptors (e.g., eyes, ears, nose, taste, etc) read our environment. Specific receptor proteins are chemically “activated” upon receiving a recognizable environmental signal (stimulus). In its activated state, the receptor protein couples with, and in turn, activates specific effector proteins. The “activated” effector proteins selectively “control” the cell’s biology in coordinating a response to the initiating environmental signal.

Receptor-effector protein complexes serve as “switches” that integrate the function of the organism within its environment. The receptor component of the switch provides “awareness of the environment” and the effector component generates a “physical sensation” in response to that awareness. By structural and functional definition, the receptor-effector switches represent molecular units of perception, which is defined as “awareness of the environment through physical sensation.” Perception protein complexes “control” cell behavior, regulate gene expression and have been implicated in the rewriting of the genetic code (Lipton, 1999).

Every cell is innately intelligent in that it generally possesses genetic “blueprints” to create all of the necessary perception complexes that enable it to survive and thrive in its normal environmental niche. The DNA coding for these perceptual protein complexes have been acquired and accumulated by cells during four billion years of evolution. Perception coding genes are stored in the cell’s nucleus and are duplicated prior to cell division, providing each daughter cell with a set of life sustaining perception complexes.

However, environments are not static. Changes in the environments generate a need for “new” perceptions on the part of organisms inhabiting those environments. It is now evident that cells create new perception complexes through their interaction with novel environment stimuli. Utilizing a newly discovered group of genes, collectively referred to as “genetic engineering genes,” cells are able to create new perception proteins in a process representing cellular learning and memory (Cairns, 1988, Thaler 1994, Appenzeller, 1999, Chicurel, 2001).

This evolutionarily advanced gene-writing mechanism enables our immune cells to respond to foreign antigens by creating life-saving antibodies (Joyce, 1997, Wedemayer, et al., 1997) Antibodies are specifically-shaped proteins that the cell manufactures to physically complement the invasive antigens. As proteins, antibodies require a gene (“blueprint”) for their assembly. Interestingly, the specifically tailored antibody genes that are derived from the immune response did not exist before the cell was exposed to the antigen. The immune response, which takes about three days from the initial exposure to the antigen till the appearance of specific antibodies, results in the “learning” of a new perception protein (the antibody) whose DNA “blueprint” (“memory”) can be genetically passed on to all daughter cells.

In creating a life conserving perception, the cell must couple a signal-receiving receptor with an effector protein the “controls” the appropriate behavioral response. The character of a perception can be scored by the type of response the environmental stimulus evokes. Positive perceptions produce a growth response, while negative perceptions activate the cell’s protection response (Lipton, 1998b, 1999).

Although perception proteins are manufactured through molecular genetic mechanisms, activation of the perception process is “controlled” or initiated by environmental signals. The expression of the cell is primarily molded by its perception of the environment and not by its genetic code, a fact that emphasizes the role of nurture in biological control. The controlling influence of environment is underscored in recent studies on stem cells (Vogel, 2000). Stem cells, found in different organs and tissues of the adult body, are similar to embryonic cells in that they are undifferentiated, though they have the potential to express a wide variety of mature cell types. Stem cells do not control their own fate. The differentiation of stem cells is based upon the environment the cell finds itself in. For example, three different tissue culture environments can be created. If a stem cell is placed in culture number one, it may become a bone cell. If the same stem cell was put into culture two, it will become a nerve cell or if placed into culture dish number three, the cell matures as a liver cell. The cell’s fate is “controlled” by its interaction with the environment and not by a self-contained genetic program.

While every cell is capable of behaving as a free-living entity, late in evolution cells began to assemble into interactive communities. Social organizations of cells resulted from an evolutionary drive to enhance survival. The more “awareness” an organism possesses, the more capable it is of surviving. Consider that a single cell has X amount of awareness. Then a colony of 25 cells would have a collective awareness of 25X. Since each cell in the community has an opportunity of sharing awareness with the rest of the group, then every single cell effectively possesses a collective awareness of 25X. Which is more capable of surviving, a cell with 1X awareness or one with 25X awareness? Nature favors the assembly of cells into communities as a means of expanding awareness.

The evolutionary transition from unicellular life forms to multicellular (communal) life forms represented an intellectually and technically profound high point in the creation of the biosphere. In the world of unicellular protozoa, each cell is an innately intelligent, independent being, adjusting its biology to its own perception of the environment. However, when cells join together to form multicellular “communities,” it required that the cells establish a complex social intercourse. Within a community, individual cells can not behave independently, otherwise the community would cease to exist. By definition, the members of a community must follow a single “collective” voice. The “collective” voice controlling the community’s expression represents the sum of all of the perceptions of every cell in the group.

Original cellular communities consisted of from tens to hundreds of cells. The evolutionary advantage to living in community soon led to organizations comprised of millions, billions or even trillions, of socially interactive single cells. In order to survive at such high densities, the amazing technologies evolved by the cells led to highly structured environments that would boggle the minds and imagination of human engineers. Within these environments, cell communities subdivide the workload among themselves, leading to the creation of hundreds of specialized cell types. The structural plans to create these interactive communities and differentiated cells are written into the genome of each cell within the community.

Though each individual cell is of microscopic dimensions, the size of multicellular communities may range from the barely visible to the monolithic in proportion . At our level of perspective, we do not observe individual cells but we do recognize the different structural forms cell communities acquire. We perceive these macroscopic structured communities as plants and animals, which includes ourselves among them. While you might consider yourself as a single entity, in truth your are the sum of a community of approximately 50 trillion single cells.

The effectiveness of such large communities is enhanced by the subdivision of labor among the component cells. Cytological specialization’s enable the cells to form the specific tissues and organs of the body. In larger organisms, only a small percent of the cells function in perceiving the community’s external environment. Groups of specialized “perception cells” form the tissues and organs of the nervous system. The function of the nervous system is to perceive the environment and coordinate the cellular community’s biological response to the impinging environmental stimuli.

Multicellular organisms, like the cells they are comprised of, are genetically endowed with fundamental protein perception complexes that enable the organism to effectively survive in their environment. Genetically programmed perceptions are referred to as instincts. Similar to cells, organisms are also capable of interacting with the environment and creating new perceptual pathways. This process provides for learned behavior.

As one ascends the tree of evolution, moving from more primitive to more advanced multicellular organisms, there is a profound shift from the predominant use of genetically programmed perceptions (instinct) to the use of learned behavior. Primitive organisms primarily rely upon instincts for the greater proportion of their behavioral repertoire. In higher organisms, especially humans, brain evolution offers a great opportunity for creating a large database of learned perceptions, which reduces dependence upon instincts. Humans are endowed with an abundance of genetically propagated vital instincts. Most of them are not evident to us, for they operate below our level of consciousness, providing for the function and maintenance of cells, tissues and organs. However, some basic instincts generate overt and observable behavior. For example, the suckling response of the neonate, or the retraction of a hand when a finger gets burned in a flame.

“Human beings are more dependent on learning for survival than other species. We have no instincts that automatically protect us and find us food and shelter, for example.” (Schultz and Lavenda, 1987) As important as instincts are to our survival, our learned perceptions are more important, especially in light of the fact that they can over-ride genetically programmed instincts. Since perceptions direct gene activity and engage behavior, the learned perceptions we acquire are instrumental in “controlling” the physiologic and behavioral character of our lives. The sum of our instincts and learned perceptions collectively form the subconscious mind, which in turn, is the source of the “collective” voice that our cell’s “agreed” to follow.

Although we are endowed at conception with innate perceptions (instincts) we only begin to acquire learned perceptions at the time that our nervous systems become functional. Until recently, conventional thought held that the human brain was not functional until some time after birth, in that many of its structures are not fully differentiated (developed) until that time . However, this assumption has been invalidated by the pioneering work of Thomas Verny (1981) and David Chamberlain (1988), among others, who have revealed the vast sensory and learning capabilities expressed by the fetal nervous system.

The significance of this understanding is that perceptions experienced by the fetus would have a profound effect upon its physiology and development. Essentially, the perceptions experienced by the fetus are the same as those experienced by the mother. Fetal blood is in direct contact with the mother’s blood via the placenta. Blood is one of the most important components of the connective tissue, through it pass most of the organizing factors (e.g., hormones, growth factors, cytokines) that coordinate the function of the body’s systems. As the mother responds to her perceptions of the environment, her nervous system activates the release of behavior-coordinating signals into her bloodstream. These regulatory signals control the function, and even gene activity, of the tissues and organs needed by her to engage in the required behavioral response.

For example, if a mother is under environmental stress, she will activate her adrenal system, a protection system that provides for fight or flight. These stress hormones released into the blood prepare the body to engage a protection response. In this process, blood vessels in the viscera constrict forcing blood to nourish the peripheral muscles and bones that provide protection. Fight-or-flight responses depend upon reflex behavior (hindbrain) rather than conscious reasoning (forebrain). To facilitate this process, the stress hormones constrict the forebrain’s blood vessels forcing more blood to go to the hind brain in support of reflex behavior functions. Constriction of blood vessels in the gut and forebrain during a stress response respectively repress growth and conscious reasoning (intelligence).

It is now recognized that, along with nutrients, stress signals and other coordinating factors in the mother’s blood cross the placenta and enter into the fetal system (Christensen 2000). Once these maternal regulatory signals enter the fetal blood stream, they affect the same target systems in the fetus as they did in the mother. The fetus simultaneously experiences what the mother is perceiving in regard to her environmental stimuli. In stressful environments, fetal blood preferentially flows to the muscles and hind brain, while shorting the flow to the viscera and the forebrain. The development of fetal tissues and organs is proportional to the amount of blood they receive. Consequently, a mother experiencing chronic stress will profoundly alter the development of her child’s physiologic systems that provide for growth and protection.

The learned perceptions acquired by an individual begin to arise in utero and can be subdivided into two broad categories. One set of outward-directed learned perceptions “control” how we respond to environmental stimuli. Nature has created a mechanism to facilitate this early learning process. Upon encountering a novel environmental stimulus, the neonate is programmed to first observe how the mother or father responds to the signal. Infants are particularly adept at interpreting parental facial characters in discriminating the positive or negative nature of a new stimulus. When an infant encounters new environmental features, it generally focuses first on the parent’s expression in learning how to respond. Once the new environmental feature is recognized, it is coupled with an appropriate behavioral response. The coupled input (environmental stimulus) and output (behavioral response) program is stored in the subconscious as a learned perception. If the stimulus ever reappears, the “programmed” behavior encoded by the subconscious perception is immediately engaged. Behavior is based upon a simple stimulus-response mechanism.

Outwardly-directed learned perceptions are created in response to everything from simple objects to complex social interactions. Collectively, these learned perceptions contribute to an individual’s enculturation. Parental “programming” of a child’s subconscious behavior enables that child to conform with the “collective” voice, or beliefs, of the community.

In addition to the outward-directed perceptions, humans also acquire inward-directed perceptions which provide us with beliefs about our “self-identity.” In order to know more about ourselves, we learn to see ourselves as others see us. If a parent provides a child with a positive or negative self image, that perception is recorded in the child’s subconscious. The image acquired of self becomes the subconscious “collective” voice which shapes our physiology (e.g., health characteristics, weight) and behavior. Though every cell is innately intelligent, by communal agreement, it will give its allegiance to the collective voice, even if that voice engages in self destructive activities. For example, if a child is given a perception of itself that it can succeed, it will continuously strive to do just that. However, if the same child was provided with a belief that it was “not good enough,” the body must conform to that perception, even by using self-sabotage if necessary, in order to thwart success.

Human biology is so dependent upon learned perceptions, that it is not surprising evolution has provided us with a mechanism that encourages rapid learning. Brain activity and states of awareness can be measured electronically using electroencephalography (EEG). There are four fundamental states of awareness distinguished by the frequency of electromagnetic activity in the brain. The time that an individual spends in each of these EEG states is related to a patterned sequential expressed during child development (Laibow, 1999).

DELTA waves (0.5-4 Hz), the lowest level of activity, are primarily expressed between birth and two years of age. When a person is in DELTA, they are in an unconscious (sleep-like) state. Between two years and six years of age, the child begins to spend more of its time in a higher level of EEG activity characterized as THETA (4-8 Hz).THETA activity is the state we experience upon just arising, when we are half asleep and half awake. Children are in this very imaginative state when they play, creating delicious pies made out of mud or gallant steeds from old brooms.

The child begins to preferentially express a still higher level of EEG activity called ALPHA waves around the age of six. ALPHA (8-12 HZ) is associated with states of calm consciousness. At around 12 years, the child’s EEG spectrum may express sustained periods of BETA (12-35 HZ) waves, the highest level of brain activity characterized as “active or focused consciousness.”

The significance of this developmental spectrum is that an individual does not generally sustain active consciousness (ALPHA activity) until after five years of age. Before birth and through the first five years of life, the infant is primarily in DELTA and THETA, which represents a hypnogogic state. In order to hypnotize an individual it is necessary to lower their brain function to these levels of activity. Consequently, the child is essentially in a hypnotic “trance” through the first five years of its life. During this time it is down-loading biology-controlling perceptions without even the benefit, or interference, of conscious discrimination. The potential of a child is “programmed” into its subconscious mind during this phase of development.

Learned perceptions are “hard-wired” as synaptic pathways in the subconscious, which essentially represents what we recognize as the brain. Consciousness, which functionally expresses itself with the appearance of ALPHA waves at around six years of life, is associated with the most recent addition to the brain, the prefrontal cortex. Human consciousness is characterized by an awareness of “self.” While most of our senses, such as eyes, ears and nose, observe the outer world, consciousness resembles a “sense” that observes the inner workings of its own cellular community. Consciousness feels the sensations and emotions generated by the body and has access to the stored data base comprising our perceptual library.

To understand the difference between subconscious and consciousness, consider this instructive relationship: The subconscious mind represents the brain’s hard drive (ROM), and the conscious mind is the equivalent of the “desktop” (RAM). Like a hard disk, the subconscious can store an unimaginable quantity of perceptual data. It can be programmed to be “on line,” meaning that incoming signals go directly to the data base and are processed without the necessity of conscious intervention.

By the time consciousness evolves to a functional state, most of the fundamental perceptions about life have been programmed into the hard drive. Consciousness can access this data base and open up for review a formerly learned perception, such as a behavioral script. This would be the same as opening up a document from the hard drive on to the desk top. In consciousness, we have the ability review the script and edit the program as we see fit, just as we do with open documents on our computers. However, the editing process in no way changes the original perception which is still hardwired in the subconscious. No amount of yelling or cajoling by the consciousness can change the subconscious program. For some reason we think there is an entity in the subconscious that listens and responds to our thoughts. In reality the subconscious is a cold, emotionless database of stored programs. Its function is strictly concerned with reading environmental signals and engaging the hard wired behavior programs, no questions asked, no judgments made.

Through sheer will power and intent, consciousness can attempt to over-ride a subconscious tape. Usually such efforts are met with varying degrees of resistance, since the cells are obligated to adhere to the subconscious program. In some cases the tensions between conscious will power and subconscious programs can result in serious neurological disorders. For example, consider the fate of Australian concert pianist David Helfgott whose story was presented in the film Shine. David was programmed by his father, a survivor of the holocaust, to not succeed, for success would make him vulnerable in that he would stand out from others. In spite of the relentlessness of his father’s programming, David was consciously aware that he was a world class pianist. In order to prove himself, Helfgott purposely chose one of the most difficult piano compositions, a piece by Rachmaninoff, to play in the national competition. As the film reveals, in the final stage of his amazing performance, a major conflict occurred between his conscious will to succeed and the subconscious program to fail. When he successfully played the last note he passed out, upon awakening he was irreparably insane. The fact that his conscious will power forced his body mechanism to violate the programmed “collective” voice led to a neurological melt down.

The conflicts we generally experience in life are frequently related to our conscious efforts of trying to “force” changes upon our subconscious programming. However, through a variety of new energy psychology modalities (e.g., Psych-K, EMDR, Avatar, etc) the content of subconscious beliefs can be assessed and using specific protocols, consciousness can facilitate a rapid “reprogramming” of limiting core beliefs.

For over four hundred years, Western civilization has chosen science as its source of truths and wisdom about the mysteries of life. Allegorically, we may picture the wisdom of the universe as resembling a large mountain. We scale the mountain as we acquire knowledge. Our drive to reach the top of that mountain is fueled by the notion that with knowledge we may become “masters” of our universe. Conjure the image of the all-knowing guru seated atop the mountain.

Scientists are professional seekers, forging the path up the “mountain of knowledge.” Their search takes them into the uncharted unknowns of the universe. With each scientific discovery, humanity gains a better foothold in scaling the mountain. Ascension is paved one scientific discovery at a time. Along its path, science occasionally encounters a fork in the road. Do they take the left turn or the right? When confronted with this dilemma, the direction chosen by science is determined by the consensus of scientists interpreting the acquired facts, as they are understood at the time.

Occasionally, scientists embark in a direction that ultimately leads to an apparent dead end. When that happens, we are faced with two choices: Continue to plod forward with the hope that science will eventually discover a way around the impediment, or return to the fork and reconsider the alternate path. Unfortunately, the more science invests in a particular path, the more difficult it is for science to let go of beliefs that keep it on that path. As historian Arnold Toynbee suggested, the cultural-which includes the scientific-mainstream inevitably clings to fixed ideas and rigid patterns in the face of imposing challenges. And yet from among their ranks arise creative minorities that resolve the threatening challenges with more viable responses. Creative minorities are active agents that transform old, outdated philosophical “truths” into new, life-sustaining cultural beliefs.

From Reductionism to Holism

The path that science is currently navigating has inadvertently brought us to our current moment of global crisis. Since the modern scientific revolution, starting with the publication of Copernicus’s observation in 1543, science has perceived the universe as a physical machine operating on the mechanical principles later defined by Newton. In the Newtonian worldview, the universe is defined by its material reality and its operation understood through reductionism-the process of taking matter apart and studying its bits and pieces. Knowledge of the universe’s parts and their interaction would allow science to predict and control nature. This notion of control is contained within determinism-the belief that with knowledge of something’s parts, we can predict its behavior.

The reductionist approach to understanding the nature of the universe has provided valuable knowledge, enabling us to fly to the moon, transplant artificial hearts, and read the genetic code. However, applying this science to world problems has hastened our apparent demise. It’s a simple fact that society cannot sustain itself by continuing to adhere to its current worldview. So leading-edge research is questioning fundamental assumptions long held as dogma by conventional science.

In contrast to conventional reductionism, the new noetic science is based upon holism, the belief that an understanding of nature and the human experience requires that we transcend the parts to see the whole.

Materialism and reductionism engender the idea that humans are disconnected from, and above, nature. The noetic vision emphasizes that life is derived from an integration and coordination of both the physical and the immaterial parts of the universe. The resolution of our global crisis requires the integration of reductionist and holistic perspectives. This revisioning of conventional science is seeding creative minorities who will rescue us from extinction.

Over the centuries, the accumulated knowledge of scientists has been assembled into a hierarchical construction resembling a multitiered building. Each level of the building is built upon the scientific foundation provided by the supporting lower levels. Each floor of the building is distinguished as a scientific subspecialty. The foundation for the “Science” building is math. Upon math is assembled the building’s second level, physics. Built upon physics is chemistry, the building’s third level. Chemistry serves as the platform for the fourth tier, biology. Built upon biology is the building’s fifth and current top floor, psychology.

First Floor: A Foundation of Fractals and Chaos

Fundamental to this new noetic curriculum is the foundation offered by math. Mathematical laws are absolute, certain, and indisputable. For centuries those laws have been used to isolate and divide the universe into separate measurable components. Future science will be built upon an emerging new math that emphasizes the disciplines of fractal geometry and chaos theory.

Fractals are a modern version of geometry, officially defined in 1983 by IBM scientist Benoit Mandelbrot. They are actually a simple mathematics based upon an equation involving addition and multiplication, in which the result is entered back into the original equation and solved again. Repetition of the equation inherently provides for a geometry expressing self-similar objects that appear at higher or lower levels of the equation’s magnitude. Organization at any level of nature, like nested Russian dolls, reflects a self-similar pattern to organization found at higher or lower levels of reality. For example, the structure and behavior of a human cell is self-similar to the structure and behavior of a human, which in turn is self-similar to the structure and behavior of humanity. In short, “As above, so below.” Fractal geometry emphasizes that the observable physical universe is derived from the integration and interconnectivity of all of its parts.

Rather than endorsing a Darwinian evolution based upon random mutations and a struggle for survival, fractal geometry reveals that the biosphere is a structured cooperative venture comprised of all living organisms. Instead of invoking competition as a means of survival, the new view of nature is one driven by cooperation among species living in harmony with their physical environment. We must own that every human being counts, for each is a member of a single organism. When we war, we are warring against ourselves.

Through mathematical equations, fractal geometry derives structures resembling those of the natural world, such as mountains, clouds, plants, and animals. The dynamics of those fractal structures are directly influenced by chaos theory, a math that is concerned with the nature by which small changes may cause unexpected final effects. Chaos theory defines the processes by which the flap of a butterfly’s wing in Asia may influence the formation of a tornado in Oklahoma. When chaos theory is combined with fractal geometry, the math further predicts the behavioral dynamics observed in our physical reality, from weather patterns to human physiology, from social patterns to market prices on the stock exchange.

Second Floor: Energy Physics

A century ago, a group of creative minorities launched a radical new view of how the universe works. Albert Einstein, Max Planck, and Werner Heisenberg, among others, formulated new theories concerning the underlying mechanics of the universe. Their work on quantum mechanics revealed that the universe is not an assembly of physical parts as suggested by Newtonian physics but is derived from a holistic entanglement of immaterial energy waves. Quantum mechanics shockingly reveals that there is no true “physicality” in the universe; atoms are made of focused vortices of energy-miniature tornados that are constantly popping into and out of existence. Atoms as energy fields interact with the full spectrum of invisible energy fields that comprise the universe, intimately entangled with one another and the field in which they are immersed.

A fundamental conclusion of the new physics also acknowledges that the “observer creates the reality. “As observers, we are personally involved with the creation of our own reality! Physicists are being forced to admit that the universe is a “mental” construction. Pioneering physicist Sir James Jeans wrote: “The stream of knowledge is heading toward a nonmechanical reality; the universe begins to look more like a great thought than like a great machine. Mind no longer appears to be an accidental intruder into the realm of matter . . . we ought rather hail it as the creator and governor of the realm of matter” (R. C. Henry, “The Mental Universe”; Nature 436:29, 2005).

Although quantum mechanics was acknowledged eighty years ago as the best scientific description of the mechanisms creating our universe, most scientists rigidly cling to the prevailing matter-oriented worldview simply because it “seems” to make better sense out of our existence. To grapple with the contradictions, the majority of physicists have chosen an easy way out: They restrict quantum theory’s validity to the subatomic world. Renowned theoretical physicist David Deutsch wrote: “Despite the unrivalled empirical success of quantum theory, the very suggestion that it may be literally true as a description of nature is still greeted with cynicism, incomprehension, and even anger” (T. Folger, “Quantum Shmantum”; Discover 22:37-43, 2001).

However, quantum laws must hold at every level of reality. We can no longer afford to ignore that fact. We must learn that our beliefs, perceptions, and attitudes about the world create the world. Recently, Johns Hopkins physicist professor R. C. Henry suggested that we “get over it” and accept the inarguable conclusion: “The universe is immaterial-mental and spiritual” (R. C. Henry, “The Mental Universe”).

Third Floor: Vibrational Chemistry

While conventional chemistry has focused on the atomic elements as miniature Newtonian solar systems composed of solid electrons, protons, and neutrons, vibrational chemistry, based upon quantum mechanics, emphasizes that atoms are made of spinning immaterial energy vortices, such as quarks. The new chemistry is concerned with the role of vibration in creating molecular bonds and driving molecular interactions. Energy fields, such as those derived from cell phones or from thoughts, interact with and influence chemical reactions.

Vibrational chemistry defines the mechanisms that mediate the mind-body connection. The body is structurally derived from over a hundred thousand different protein molecules. Proteins change shape in response to signals- harmonic vibrations in the field. The collective movement of proteins generates the behaviors we observe as “life.” Life-controlling signals originate from both physical chemicals and immaterial energy waves. The energy-protein interfaceis the junction of the mind-body connection. Via a process called electro-conformational coupling, protein behaviors can be influenced by neural vibrational fields derived from conscious processes (T. Y. Tsong,“Deciphering the Language of Cells”; Trends in Biochemical Sciences 14:89, 1989).

Fourth Floor: The New Biology

Traditional biology, like traditional chemistry, has also been investigated using a reductionist philosophy-organisms are dissected into cells, and cells into molecular parts-to gain understanding of how they work. The new curriculum perceives of cells and organisms as integrated communities that are physically and energetically entangled within their environment. The new biological holism endorses James Lovelock’s hypothesis that the Earth and the biosphere represent a single living and breathing entity known as Gaia. The study of Gaian physiology, emphasizing the participation and integration of all the Earth’s organisms, would reacquaint us with our connection to the planet and to our ancient role as the Garden’s caretakers.

A noetic biology will also embrace the power of epigenetics. Epigenetics, which literally translates as “control above the genes,” a newly recognized second genetic code that controls the activity and programming of an organism’s DNA. This new hereditary mechanism reveals how behavior and gene activity are controlled by an organism’s perception of its environment. The fundamental difference between the old DNA genetic code and the new epigenetics is that the former notion endorses genetic determinism-the belief that genes predetermine and control our physiological and behavioral traits-while epigenetics recognizes that our perceptions of the environment, including our consciousness, actively control our genes. Through epigenetic mechanisms, applied consciousness can be used to shape our biology and make us “masters” of our own lives.

Fifth Floor: Energy Psychology

Holistic revisions in the supporting sciences of physics, chemistry, and biology provide for a radically remodeled fifth tier, psychology. For centuries, our materialistic perspective dismissed the immaterial mind and consciousness as an epiphenomenon of the mechanical body. We perceived that the action of genes and neurochemicals-the hardware of the central nervous system-were responsible for our behaviors and our dysfunctions. The foundation of quantum mechanics, vibrational chemistry, and epigenetic control mechanisms, however, provide for a profound new understanding of psychology: The environment along with the perceptions of the mind controls behavior and the genetics of biology. Rather than being “programmed” by our genes, our lives are controlled by our perceptions of life experiences!

The switch from Newtonian to quantum mechanics changes the focus of psychology from physiochemical mechanisms to the role of energy fields. Energy psychology would focus on the software of programming consciousness rather than the physiochemical hardware that mechanistically expresses behavior. Energy psychology directly impacts subconscious programming rather than trying to manipulate genetics, physiology, and behavior. This new understanding will also help parents to recognize the power that fundamental perceptions have on programming the subconscious mind. This recognition can then lead to developmental experiences that will enhance the health, intelligence, and happiness of our children.

Penthouse: Noetic Science, A View from the Top

Such renovations to each floor of traditional science not only strengthen the building but also support a new tier, an all-encompassing field known as noetic science. Noetic science emphasizes that the structure of the universe is made in the image of its underlying field. The physical character of atoms, proteins, cells, and people are controlled by immaterial energies that collectively form that field. The cellular community comprising each human responds to a unique spectrum of the universe’s energy field. This unique spectrum, referred to by many as soul or spirit, represents an invisible moving force that is in harmonic resonance with our physical bodies. This is the creative force behind the consciousness that shapes our physical reality.

Noetic consciousness reveals that collectively we are the “field” incarnate. Each of us is “information” manifesting and experiencing a physical reality. Integrating and balancing the awareness of our noetic consciousness into our physical consciousness will empower us to become true creators of our life experiences. When such an understanding reigns, we and the Earth will once again have the opportunity to create the Garden of Eden.

This article, Embracing the Immaterial Universe: Toward a New Noetic Science” by Bruce Lipton, first appeared in Shift: At the Frontiers of Consciousness (No. 9, Dec 2005-Feb 2006, pp. 8-12) the quarterly publication of the Institute of Noetic Sciences (IONS); website: www.noetic.org. Reprinted with permission, ©2006, all rights reserved

If the existence of what is referred to as the ‘mind/body connection’, which has spawned a massive industry of complementary medicine and given rise to a radical new mindset, still sounds like bunkum to you, hold onto your seat and read on.

The new sciences quantum physics and epigenetics are revolutionizing our understanding of the link between mind and matter, challenging established scientific theories and prompting a complete re-evaluation of life as we have known it.

One of the shining lights to emerge from these new sciences is cellular biologist and best selling author, Bruce Lipton PhD, whose book, The Biology of Belief, was awarded 2006’s Best Science Book of the Year.

Lipton maintains that pivotal to this shift in thinking within the scientific community has been groundbreaking insight into the function of genes.

Bruce Lipton: The old vision was that genes are selfactualising (turn on and off). But current data reveals that there is no such thing as an on/off function for a gene because genes are blueprints (plans) to make proteins, which are the building blocks that give shape to the structure.

The significance of this shift in belief is vast in that the original view led to the notion that we are victims of our biology. Whereas the ‘new’ sciences show that we are actually masters of our biology.

The old vision was formulated by Francis Crick, who together with James Watson deciphered the structure of theDNA
molecule in 1953. Based on experiments that were taken out of context but supported what he and Watson were thinking, Crick became completely enamored with the belief that DNA controls life. Crick came up with what is referred to in literature as the ‘central dogma’, the belief that DNA rules.

The crucial thing here is that this was only a hypothesis. There was never any scientific validation for it yet we all bought it because a belief already existed that this would be the answer to what controls life so when the data looked like it would fit it was simply assumed that this was right. (Lipton, who taught Cell Biology at the University of Wisconsin’s School of Medicine was one of thousands of lecturers who taught the theory.)

This dogma became so fundamental to modern biology it was practically written in stone. It was the equivalent of science’s Ten Commandments.

In the dogma’s scheme of how life unfolds, DNA perched loftily on top, followed by RNA – the short-lived ‘Xerox’ copy of the DNA. The new understanding of how genes work is that this hypothesis is incorrect because genes are actually
blueprints that are read.

Succeed magazine: Read by whom?

BL: Exactly. That was the question. Suddenly the emphasis shifted and the issue became, who the heck is reading them? It transpires that the reader is the mind. So the mind becomes the all-powerful contractor of the body. The mind tells the cells what it anticipates and the cells go into the blueprint – the DNA – and create what the mind is anticipating.

SM: So is this giving weight to positive thinking?

BL: No.

People hear about ‘positive thinking’ but when they attempt to put it into practice it doesn’t work because there is a step missing. The mind runs the biology but the important thing to recognize is that there are two parts to the mind, the conscious and the subconscious and that there are two very critical factors that distinguish the two parts.

1. When it comes to processing information the subconscious mind is over a million times more powerful than the conscious mind.

2. Neuro scientists have revealed that the conscious mind only operates at best about five percent of the day. Ninety five percent or more of the time (for most people ninety nine percent) we run our lives from the automatic processor, the subconscious mind.

SM: Before we continue down this path, is there any hard evidence that the mind is the master controller of the body?

BL: It has been statistically established that one third of all medical healings (including surgery) are derived from the placebo effect as opposed to intervention.

This means if someone has an illness and takes a sugar pill under the assumption that it’s a prescribed drug designed to cure the condition, a healing will occur one third of the time.

This is a scientifically established fact, which is taught in medical school and what it says is that perception and belief can instigate healing that occurs innately by the body. We have all been endowed with an innate healing ability that has been with us since the evolution of our species but from the age of six our brain patterns alter, we start acquiring perceptions about who we are in the world and in the majority of cases our conditioning over-rides this natural ability.

During the first six years of life the brain is in a state of a hypnagogic trance at the level of the EEG (the brain activity) and records experiences of the world, just like a tape recorder.

This is a very important part of nature’s plan for a new participant coming into the community because it allows the dominant program – language, behaviour etc – to be downloaded.

SM: Does that mean a child under six has a greater ability to heal itself?

BL: Providing it hasn’t been exposed to the belief that it can’t innately heal.

SM: Can you go a bit deeper? What exactly are these programs that are imprinted onto our brains?

BL: A program is a series of messages to the brain. Through the senses the brain constantly scans the environment. It reads that’s going on and it puts together associations into
larger understandings.

For example you might understand the colour red and the shape of round but initially a tomato is not perceived as a tomato. A tomato is a collection of different stimuli such as taste, texture, appearance.

SM: Going back to self-healing, how do we go beyond the negative program that says we can’t heal ourselves?

BL: Let me come back to that. I want to add something important.

When an infant is growing up it recognizes that when it gets near what is called ‘water’ its parents get very anxious and imply that this ‘water’ is very dangerous. So here’s the thing, and this will relate back to our ability to self-heal.

Fact: Every child when it’s born can swim like a dolphin. If it comes out of the birth canal underwater it is able to swim. We all have built-in an ability to swim. So why do we need to teach children how to swim?

SM: Because they have received negative programming.

BL: Right, and the negative programming shuts off even a given instinct.

SM: Can the same apply to our ability to succeed?

BL: Absolutely.

Go back to the child and this time see it with parents who instill into it the program, ‘I don’t deserve’, which becomes part of its belief system and subconscious programming.

Project ahead 40 years to when the child is an adult sitting in some tiny office thinking, I don’t understand why I’m in this dead end place with this wretched job. I’m well qualified and I’m smart so why am I here?

Here is where the pieces come together. This guy is thinking this with the conscious mind that only runs the show five per cent of the day but he’s operating from the subconscious
mind that’s running the program, ‘I do not deserve’.

The nature of the mind is to make coherence of the world. So if you have a program that says, ‘I do not deserve’, your brain will not let you generate behaviour that contradicts this because it’s nature says it has to be coherent.

SM: So how do we get beyond that?

BL: The first step is to own the fact that we have two minds and not deny that whatever is occurring in life – failure or success – is related to this fact. We need to shift the belief that we are victims of circumstances beyond our control.

The two minds work in tandem. If the conscious mind is busy thinking about something the subconscious mind will do whatever task is at hand. But this is the critical thing. It will do it according to the program that was put in there, which is often negative and therefore reduces our abilities.

Conclusion!

If you tell a child it’s average and that’s the program, the child cannot exceed average because the brain will say, ‘this doesn’t make sense’. So no matter how hard that child tries it will unconsciously create average.

SM: So how do we make friends with our subconscious mind?

BL: First, recognize it’s there because if you keep thinking the world is against you you’ll keep
shooting yourself in the foot.

Until you own that you’re operating from your subconscious mind 95 per cent of the time you can’t
go to the next level.

SM: You recognized the strength of the subconscious mind through kinesiology.

BL: Yes. I discovered that when we compete the conscious and the subconscious, the subconscious always wins. So we’re functioning 95 per cent of the day with a more powerful mind that was programmed by other people with limitations that will prevent us from going someplace yet we can’t see it unless we purposely become aware of it.

SM: Once you become conscious, what then?

BL: You can habituate a new program by doing it continuously. That’s called Buddhist mindfulness. That’s what consciousness is all about. But that’s too hard for most people who are running at a million miles per hour. Another easier way of doing it is through energy psychology modalities, which are listed on my website.

http://asara.com/audio/radio/asaralovejoy051512.mp3

La Conscience des cellules
par Bruce Lipton

Le principe de « la conscience cellulaire » 

En 1977, alors qu’il était chercheur en génétique, Bruce Lipton a publié un document intitulé « La conscience des cellules ». Dans cet article, il décrit en détail le comportement des cellules dans leur environnement. Au cours d’expériences menées en laboratoire, Bruce Lipton découvrait que l’idée largement répandue selon laquelle les fonctions biologiques sont régies par les gènes était non seulement erronée mais complètement fausse. Ses expériences lui ont permis de comprendre les mécanismes gouvernant les cellules et leurs réactions aux stimuli extérieurs.

Croyances généralement admises et fausses hypothèses

Depuis qu’on a réussi à déchiffrer le code génétique, au début des années 1950, les biologistes ont privilégié le concept de « déterminisme génétique », l’une des fausses hypothèses les mieux ancrées et selon laquelle les gènes gouverneraient les fonctions biologiques. Dans les faits, quasiment tous les gènes sont contenus dans le plus grand organelle qu’est le noyau (ou nucléus). On considère généralement le noyau comme le « centre de commande » d’une cellule. Le noyau serait donc l’équivalent du « cerveau » cellulaire. Ainsi, le déterminisme génétique laisse entendre que la vie et le destin de tout organisme sont inscrits dans son code génétique, et sont donc « prédéterminés ».

La notion de prédisposition génétique d’un organisme fait consensus en biologie classique et sert de référence dans toute question de santé et de maladie. Selon cette logique, la sensibilité à certaines maladies ou l’expression de certains comportements irrationnels sont généralement liées à l’hérédité et sont même parfois associées à des mutations spontanées. Dans le même ordre d’idées, la conscience et l’esprit humains sont perçus par la majorité des scientifiques comme étant « encodés » dans les molécules du système nerveux, d’où la notion de « fantôme dans la machine », comme si la conscience du conducteur émanait du moteur de la voiture.

Fausse interprétation du rôle des gènes et de l’ADN

La primauté de l’ADN comme élément gouvernant l’évolution et le comportement biologiques repose sur une hypothèse sans fondement. Dans un article originalement publié en 1990 dans la revue BioEssays (1990, 12 (9):441-446), H. F. Nijhout décrit comment les concepts de « contrôle » et de « programme » génétiques ont été initialement imaginés comme des métaphores visant à définir des pistes de recherche en génétique. Cette hypothèse convaincante s’est largement répandue au cours des 50 dernières années, si bien que la « métaphore du modèle » a abouti en « mécanisme avéré » et ce, malgré l’absence d’éléments de preuve. Puisque cette hypothèse accorde au programme génétique un rôle de premier plan dans la hiérarchie biologique, les gènes ont ainsi acquis le statut d’agent causal, gouvernant les manifestations et le comportement biologiques (les gènes seraient responsables du cancer, de l’alcoolisme, voire des comportements criminels).

Quoique le corps humain soit constitué de plus de cinquante billions (ou 50 000 milliards) de cellules, toutes ses fonctions physiologiques existent déjà au niveau d’une simple cellule nucléée (ou cellule eucaryote). Tout organisme unicellulaire, tel un amibe ou une paramécie, possède l’équivalent cytologique des systèmes digestif, excrétoire, respiratoire, musculo-squelettique, immunitaire, reproductif et cardiovasculaire, entre autres. Chez l’humain, ces fonctions sont associées à l’activité d’organes pluricellulaires spécifiques, alors que dans la cellule, elles sont accomplies par des sous-systèmes appelés organelles.

Au niveau cellulaire, les fonctions des systèmes physiologiques sont réglées de façon précise. La présence d’un répertoire de comportements cellulaires prévisibles implique l’existence d’un « système nerveux » dans la cellule. Ce système nerveux lui permet de réagir aux stimuli de l’environnement avec les comportements appropriés. L’organelle responsable de coordonner et d’ajuster les réactions d’une cellule à son environnement intérieur et extérieur représenterait l’équivalent cytoplasmique du « cerveau ».

La réalité et les expériences en laboratoire

L’hypothèse selon laquelle le noyau et les gènes d’une cellule constituent son « cerveau » ne tient pas la route. Chez un animal dont on retirerait le cerveau, la perturbation de l’intégration physiologique entraînerait immédiatement la mort. De même, si le noyau constituait le véritable cerveau cellulaire, son excision provoquerait l’arrêt des fonctions de la cellule et sa mort instantanée. Or les cellules énuclées en laboratoire peuvent survivre sans leurs gènes pendant deux mois ou plus et sont même capables de réagir correctement aux stimuli de leurs milieux interne et externe (Lipton et al., Differentiation, 1991, 46 :117-133). Ici donc, en toute logique, le noyau ne peut être considéré comme le cerveau de la cellule ! En menant des études sur des cellules humaines clonées, Bruce Lipton a pu constater que c’est l’enveloppe de la cellule (ou plasmalemme), plus communément appelée membrane cellulaire, qui lui servait en fait de « cerveau ».

La membrane cellulaire, premier organelle biologique apparu dans l’évolution, est en réalité le seul organelle biologique commun à tous les organismes vivants. La membrane cellulaire compartimente le cytoplasme, l’isolant de l’influence du milieu externe. Par son effet de barrière, la membrane peut maintenir un « contrôle » rigoureux sur l’environnement cytoplasmique et permet à la cellule de vaquer à ses réactions biologiques. Or, la membrane cellulaire est si mince qu’on ne peut l’observer qu’à l’aide d’un microscope électronique. C’est pourquoi son existence et la compréhension de sa structure ne furent clairement établies qu’aux environs de 1950.

La membrane cellulaire (plasmalemme)

Pendant la plupart des 50 années précédentes, on avait perçu la membrane comme une simple peau semi-perméable et « passive », une sorte de pellicule moulante poreuse qui ne servait qu’à contenir le cytoplasme. Sous le microscope électronique, la membrane cellulaire ressemble à une « peau » (<10 nanomètres) constituée de trois couches (noir, blanc, noir) enveloppant la cellule. La simplicité fondamentale de la structure de cette membrane, qui d’ailleurs est identique chez tous les organismes biologiques, a longtemps trompé les biologistes.

L’apparence multicouche de la membrane reflète l’organisation des phospholipides qui la composent. Ces molécules en forme de sucettes sont constituées de deux parties, une partie phosphate, globulaire et polaire, soit la tête (figure A), et deux parties lipides, allongées et non polaires, soit les jambes (figure B). Lorsqu’ils sont agités dans une solution, les phospholipides se stabilisent en une double couche cristalline (figure C).

Les bâtons lipides qui constituent le corps de la membrane forment en fait une barrière hydrophobe (figure D) séparant le cytoplasme de son milieu externe instable. Si le cytoplasme maintient son intégrité grâce à la barrière passive que forment les lipides, les processus biologiques requièrent pour leur part un continuel échange de métabolites et d’information entre le cytoplasme et son milieu environnant. C’est pourquoi les activités physiologiques du plasmalemme sont coordonnées par lesprotéines de la membrane.

Chacune des quelque 100 000 protéines différentes du corps humain est constituée d’une chaîne linéaire d’acides aminés. Cette « chaîne » est assemblée à partir d’une combinaison de vingt différents acides aminés Chaque protéine possède une structure et une fonction qui lui sont propres et qui sont définies par la séquence des acides aminés composant sa chaîne. La chaîne d’acides aminés ressemble à un collier de perles qui se replie sur lui-même en globe tridimensionnel de forme unique. La morphologie finale de cette protéine reflète l’équilibre des charges électriques réparties parmi ses acides aminés.

La morphologie tridimensionnelle d’une protéine donne à sa surface une texture de sillons et de crêtes de formes particulières. Les molécules et les ions de formes et de charges électriques complémentaires à la surface s’y accrocheront et y seront parfaitement verrouillés. Cette liaison modifiera la distribution des charges électriques de la protéine. En réponse à ce changement, la chaîne d’acides aminés de la protéine se dépliera spontanément pour rééquilibrer la distribution de ses charges électriques,ce qui fera changer la forme de la protéine. Le passage d’une forme à l’autre insuffle à la protéine un mouvement qui lui permet d’accomplir ses fonctions physiologiques.Le travail ainsi généré par le mouvement de la protéine est donc nécessaire à la « vie ».

Des vingt acides aminés constituant la chaîne de la protéine, certains sont non polarisés (hydrophobes, huileux) et d’autres sont polarisés (hydrophiles, aqueux). La partie hydrophobe des protéines recherche la stabilité en s’insérant dans le centre lipide de la membrane. La partie polarisée, pour sa part, s’étend sur les surfaces aqueuses de la membrane. Les protéines enchâssées dans la membrane sont appelées protéines membranaires intrinsèques (PMI).

Les PMI peuvent se subdiviser en deux classes selon leur fonction : les protéines réceptrices et les protéines effectrices. Les PMI réceptrices sont des dispositifs d’entréequi répondent aux signaux du milieu environnant. Les PMI effectrices sont des dispositifs de sortie qui activent les procédés internes de la cellule. De plus, il y a dans le cytoplasme, sous la membrane, une famille de protéines processeurs qui servent de médiateurs entre le travail des protéines réceptrices et celui des protéines effectrices.

Les protéines réceptrices agissent comme des « antennes » syntonisées pour lire les signaux de l’environnement. Certains d’entre elles sont tournées vers l’intérieur de la membrane pour surveiller et transmettre les conditions du cytoplasme. D’autres s’étendent vers l’extérieur de la surface pour surveiller et transmettre les conditions du milieu externe.

Selon la science biomédicale classique, « l’information » peut uniquement être transportée par la substance des molécules (Science 1999, 284 : 79-109). Ainsi, les protéines réceptrices ne reconnaîtraient que les « signaux » qui sont physiquement complémentaires à leur surface. Cette croyance matérialiste persiste, même s’il a été amplement démontré que les protéines réceptrices peuvent capter les vibrations de différentes fréquences. En effet, par un procédé de couplage électro-adaptatif(electro-conformational coupling), la vibration d’un champ énergétique en résonance avec une protéine peut en changer l’équilibre des charges électriques (Tsong, Trends in Biochemical Sciences 1989, 14 : 89-92). En fonction des harmoniques émises par un champ énergétique, les protéines réceptrices changeront de conformation. Ainsi, les protéines réceptrices de la membrane répondent à la fois aux signaux électriques et mécaniques du milieu environnant.

Lorsqu’une protéine réceptrice reçoit un signal, elle adopte une conformation active qui informe la cellule de la présence d’un signal. Ce changement de conformation correspond à une « prise de conscience » au niveau cellulaire. Dans sa conformation « active », une protéine réceptrice qui reçoit un signal peut se lier à une protéine effectrice douée d’une fonction spécifique ou à une protéine processeur. Lorsque le signal cesse, la protéine réceptrice revient à sa conformation « inactive » initiale et se détache des autres protéines.

La famille des protéines effectrices, qui agissent comme des dispositifs « de sortie », se divise en trois catégories : la protéine transporteur, l’enzyme et la protéine du cytosquelette.

Les protéines transporteurs, qui comprennent une grande famille de protéines canaux, servent à transporter les molécules et l’information de part et d’autre de la barrière membranaire. Les enzymes sont responsables de synthétiser et de briser les molécules. Les protéines du cytosquelette règlent la forme et la motilité ces cellules.

La protéine effectrice adopte en général deux conformations : une forme active, dans laquelle elle exécute une fonction spécifique; et une forme inactive, dans laquelle elle est au repos. Par exemple, lorsqu’une protéine canal adopte une forme active, le canal s’ouvre et laisse des ions et des molécules spécifiques traverser la barrière membranaire. En revenant à sa forme inactive, la protéine se replie, ce qui referme le canal et interrompt le courant d’ions et de molécules.

En rassemblant tous ces éléments, il est possible de comprendre la façon dont le « cerveau » de la cellule traite l’information et génère un comportement. Les innombrables signaux moléculaires et radiants qui peuplent le milieu environnant d’une cellule constituent une véritable cacophonie d’information. Un peu à la manière de la « transformée de Fourier », chaque récepteur de surface (figure H) détecte l’apparente cacophonie extérieure, en filtre certaines fréquences et les convertit en langage comportemental. La détection d’un signal syntonisé (figure I, flèche) provoque chez la protéine réceptrice un changement de conformation du cytoplasme (figure I, pointe de flèche). Ce changement de conformation lui permet de se lier à une protéine effectrice particulière (figure J, dans ce cas, une PMI canal). La liaison avec la protéine réceptrice (figure K) provoque à son tour un changement de forme dans la protéine effectrice (figure L, dont le canal s’ouvre). Une fois activée, cette protéine peut ouvrir la voie des enzymes, provoquer la réorganisation structurelle et la motilité, ou activer le transport d’ions et de signaux électriques pulsés de manière distinctive au travers de la membrane.

Les protéines processeurs servent de « multiplexeurs », dans ce sens qu’elles peuvent augmenter la polyvalence du système de signalisation. Elles servent d’interface entre les protéines réceptrices et effectrices (P dans la figure M). Le couplage « programmé » des protéines processeurs peut lier certaines entrées à certaines sorties.Les protéines processeurs permettent un grand répertoire de comportements à partir d’un nombre limité de PMI.

Les PMI effectrices convertissent en comportements les signaux externes captés par les PMI réceptrices. Les fonctions de sortie de certaines protéines effectrices peuvent susciter l’éventail complet d’un comportement donné. Or dans la plupart des cas, la fonction de sortie des PMI effectrices ne sert que de signal secondaire, qui pénètre dans la cellule pour activer le comportement d’autres voies cytoplasmiques. Les protéines effectrices activées agissent également comme des facteurs de transcription, des signaux qui influencent l’expression des gènes.

Le comportement d’une cellule est régi par la combinaison des actions résultant du couplage de ses PMI réceptrices et effectrices. Les protéines réceptrices fournissent la « conscience du milieu environnant » et les protéines effectrices convertissent cette connaissance en « sensation physique ». Plus strictement défini, le complexe récepteur-effecteur constitue l’unité fondamentale de la perception. Les protéines formant les unités de perception sont à la base de la conscience biologique. On peut donc en déduire que les perceptions « régissent » le comportement des cellules, mais dans les faits, la cellule est « gouvernée » par ses croyances, puisque ses perceptions ne sont pas nécessairement exactes.

La membrane cellulaire est donc un processeur d’information biologique. Elle sonde son milieu environnant et convertit cette connaissance en « information » qui influence l’activité des voies protéiques et l’expression des gènes.

Sa structure et son fonctionnement peuvent être décrits de la manière suivante :
(A) L’organisation des molécules phospholipides dans la membrane en fait un cristal liquide; (B) le transport d’information au travers de la barrière hydrophobe par les PMI effectrices en fait un semi-conducteur; (C) la membrane est dotée de PMI lui servant de barrières (récepteurs) et de canaux. En tant que cristal liquide semi-conducteur doté de barrières et de canaux, la membrane est un transistor processeur d’information, ou l’équivalent biologique de la puce électronique.

Chaque complexe récepteur-effecteur représente un bit biologique, ou une unité de perception. Cette hypothèse fut présentée pour la première fois en 1986 (Lipton 1986,Planetary Association for Clean Energy Newsletter, 5 : 4) et depuis, le concept a été vérifié et s’est avéré techniquement possible. Cornell et d’autres chercheurs (Nature1997, 387:580-584) ont réussi à lier une membrane à une feuille d’or utilisée comme substrat. En contrôlant les électrolytes entre la membrane et la feuille, ils sont parvenus à contrôler numériquement l’ouverture et la fermeture du canal activé par le récepteur. La cellule et la puce ont donc des structures analogues.

La cellule peut être assimilée à une « puce » de carbone qui analyse le milieu environnant. Son « clavier » est composé de récepteurs. L’information sur le milieu est saisie par l’intermédiaire des protéines, les « touches ». Les données sont converties en comportements biologiques par les protéines effectrices. Les « bits » des PMI servent d’interrupteurs et règlent les fonctions cellulaires et l’expression des gènes. Le noyau de la cellule représente le « disque dur » avec un logiciel d’encodage de l’ADN. De récents progrès en biologie moléculaire ont également fait ressortir l’aspect lecture/écriture de ce disque dur.

Il est intéressant de noter que l’épaisseur de la membrane (7,5 nanomètres) est déterminée par sa double couche phospholipide. Si les PMI d’une membrane font de 6 à 8 nanomètres de diamètre, la membrane ne peut en contenir qu’une seule couche d’épaisseur. Comme les PMI ne peuvent s’empiler les unes sur les autres, la seule façon d’augmenter le nombre de ces unités de perception est d’augmenter la superficie de la membrane. À la lumière de ce qui précède, on pourrait en fait modéliser l’évolution ou l’expansion de la perception (à savoir, l’ajout de PMI) en utilisant la géométrie fractale. On peut d’ailleurs observer la nature fractale de la biologie dans les répétitions structurelles et fonctionnelles inhérentes à l’organisation d’une cellule, d’un organisme multicellulaire (l’humain) et d’une communauté d’organismes multicellulaires (la société humaine).

Cette nouvelle compréhension des mécanismes de contrôle cellulaire nous libère des contraintes du déterminisme génétique. Plutôt que d’être génétiquement programmé, le comportement biologique est en fait dynamiquement lié à l’environnement.

Au niveau du nanomètre, le mode de fonctionnement des protéines de perception, avec leur mécanisme de traitement d’information, met clairement en évidence la nature holistique des organismes biologiques. Le comportement d’une cellule reflète sa perception de tous les stimuli environnementaux, tant physiques qu’énergétiques.En conséquence, la magie de la membrane cellulaire pourrait réellement nous amener au « cœur de la médecine énergétique ».

Notes et références

1. H. F. Nijhout, BioEssays, 12 (9) (John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY, 1990), p.441-446. 
2. B. H. Lipton, et al., Differentiation, 46 (Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg, FRG, 1991), p.117-133.
3. N. Williams, Science, 277 (AAAS, Washington, DC 1997), p. 476-477.
4. T. Y. Tsong, Trends in Biochemical Sciences, 14 (Elsevier, West Sussex, UK 1989), p. 89-92.
5. B. H. Lipton, Planetary Association for Clean Energy Newsletter, 5 (Association Planétaire pour l'Énergie Propre, Hull, Quebec, 1986), p. 4.
6. B. A. Cornell, et al., Nature, 387 (Nature Publishing Group, London, UK,1997), p. 580-584.

Pour plus d'information, voir le documentaire de Jean-Yves Bilien sur le Dr Lipton - « L'impact de notre environnement et de notre état d'e sprit sur notre santé »

http://www.filmsdocumentaires.com/films?search=Lipton

Jeśli istnienie tego, co nazywane jest “współzależności… ciała i umysłu” – które legło u podstaw rozwoju wielkiego przemysłu medycyny komplementarnej i stało się zarazem impulsem do nowego sposobu myślenia – jest dla Ciebie czczym gadaniem, usi…dź wygodnie i czytaj dalej.
Nowe nauki, jak fizyka kwantowa oraz epigenetyka kompletnie zrewolucjonizowały nasze rozumienie zwi…zku między umysłem i materi…, rzucaj…c rękawicę uznanym naukowym teoriom zachęcaj…c do całkowitego przewartościowania życia,

Debajo de tu piel existe una bulliciosa metrópolis de 50 billones de células, cada una biológicamente y funcionalmente equivalente a un humano en miniatura. La opinión popular actual sostiene que el destino y la conducta de nuestros ciudadanos celulares internos son pre-programados en sus genes. La idea de que nuestro destino está indeleblemente inscripto en nuestros genes es un derivado del anticuado concepto científico conocido como “determinismo genético”. Desde que Watson y Crick descubrieron el código genético, el público ha sido programado con la creencia convencional de que el DNA “controla” los atributos pasados a través de la herencia familiar, incluyendo enfermedades disfuncionales como el cáncer, Alzheimer, diabetes y depresión entre muchas otras. Como “víctimas” de la herencia, nos percibimos naturalmente sin poder en relación a lo que nos pasa en nuestras vidas. Desafortunadamente, la asunción de no tener poder es el camino a la irresponsabilidad personal: “Como no puedo hacer nada sobre esto… ¿por qué me debería importar?”.

Una de las principales razones detrás de la persistente grieta entre la ciencia médica convencional y la quiropraxia es
la naturaleza contrastante de sus filosofías básicas. Las “verdades” filosóficas en la civilización occidental son convalidadas
mediante un proceso que utiliza la metodología científica. Las “verdades” relacionadas con la ciencia de la salud, hasta
recientemente, han sido generadas únicamente a través de investigación dirigida por biólogos, bioquímicos, farmacólogos y
médicos organicistas, celulares y moleculares. Consecuentemente, la quiropraxia se ha visto en evidente desventaja para
adquirir reconocimiento como un arte de curar válido. No obstante, lo más avanzado en la investigación de la biología celular
y molecular está anunciando una reorientación radical de sus teorías tradicionales y está, a su vez, creando una nueva
filosofía.

Dr. Bruce Lipton sat down with Dr. Deborah Sandella to reveal how

Cells hold profound secrets of the heart

Science of Mind, February 2012 Vol. 85 No.2

The Biology of Love

What do your cells have to do with love? Molecular biology and romance

seem unlikely bedfellows, but according to Dr. Bruce Lipton a stem cell

biologist, bestselling author of The Biology of Belief and recipient of the

2009 Goi Peace Award, it’s quite an affair. He calls it the “Honeymoon

Effect.”

Almost everyone can remember a time when they were “head-over-heels in

love.” During this juicy time of life, points out Lipton, our perception of the

world expands and our eyes twinkle with delight. Our affection isn’t limited

to our selected partner; rather we are in love with life itself and it shows.

We take risks to experiment with new foods, activities and clothes. We

listen more, share more and take more time for pleasure. Lipton chuckles

how what seems hostile the day before becomes heaven on earth when we’re

in love. We don’t even notice the aggressive drivers that irritated the heck

out of us yesterday; today, we’re lost in daydreams and love songs.

Amazing as it may sound, each and every one of our cells behaves like a

miniature human, says Lipton. Inside you, fifty trillion minute human-

like cells work together. Cells side-by-side helping each other accomplish

pumping your heart, breathing your lungs and all the millions of tasks that

need to happen. When we feel “in love,” our cells have the vibration of love

too! Sounds pretty good!

It all begins with life, which is defined by movement according to Lipton.

Proteins, the primal elements of life easily wrap themselves into organic

wire sculptures and move in response to environmental signals. On the

surface of each cell, receptor proteins receive environmental signals while

the effector proteins transform into vibrations and transmit them to the brain

where they are interpreted. It doesn’t take much imagination to picture the

difference between how these protein sculptures move when they are “head-

over-heels in love” versus when they are irritated. We’ve been there!

In the eighties, when Lipton discovered that the cell membrane is its brain,

his breakthrough research suggested that environmental signals whether

of love or another emotion are primary in creating illness. He presaged

one of today’s most important fields of study, the science of epigenetics,

which explores how cellular chemical reactions switch genes on and off.

Research in this area has found that stress, diet, behavior, toxins and other

factors activate chemical switches that regulate gene expression. Lipton

clarifies that this new area of study reveals that environmental influences are

more prominent in causing illness than genes. He says new cancer research

suggests that genetic factors influence the occurrence of illness a mere 10%

of the time. In other words, the perception of our environment is responsible

for our body’s health 90% of the time.

Even more interesting, Lipton reports current research demonstrates how

our protein structures are more highly activated by non-physical signals

than chemical signals. In other words, our environmental perceptions have

a more powerful influence on our health than drugs. Thus science is telling

us, we have more innate capacity to heal our ills than the pharmacy.

With a tone of excitement Lipton notes, “ Wow! This means that people

are not victims of their genes as we used to think. They can change their

perceptions and thus change their health. Now that’s exciting! The old

biology used to take away choice and control the outcome. When you tell

people they are victims, their power is diminished. The work now is to help

people change their perceptions so they can change their outcomes.”

How does it work you ask? The cell is a data “chip” by its definition,

shares Lipton. Our perceptual memories and beliefs are stored in the cell

membrane and constantly being transmitted to the brain for interpretation.

The mind responds to these vibrational messages by creating coherence

between belief and reality. In other words, when your cells transmit to your

mind, the mind works diligently to create the same chemical reality in your

body. Thus, if you believe you will get sick, your mind will coordinate your

cells to make it true. And if your cells transmit signals suggesting you are

vibrant and healthy, your mind again will go about making that happen.

This power of perception is demonstrated, says Lipton, in studies, which

found adopted children get cancer with the same propensity as their blood

siblings both raised in the same family, yet from different genetics.

In fact, Lipton reports, “medicine has acknowledged that illness is

seeded in the first six years of life when beliefs are downloaded by the

family into the child’s subconscious.” During these years, children’s

minds are primarily in a theta brain wave pattern, which creates a

hypnagogic state of mind. This trance state explains why children easily

blur the boundary between fantasy and form. Walking around in a

trance, young children absorb their parent’s beliefs into subconscious

memory without question or discernment.

Lipton explains how these subconscious downloads work by comparing

them to an iPod. When you get a new iPod, there are no recordings,

so you can’t play anything. Once you download songs to memory, you

can play the downloaded songs. In fact, they are the only songs you

can play. There are plenty of other choices for songs, but you can’t

play them on your iPod until you download them. Similarly, whatever

has been downloaded into our subconscious memory and stored in

our cells is the only choice available to be heard and seen in the body.

Other choices are not possible until they are downloaded as beliefs and

perception into the subconscious. Thus, we automatically act out our

parents’ beliefs, unless we are exposed to other beliefs or intentionally

seed new beliefs.

Lipton points out that the biggest problem is that people don’t believe

they can change their minds and beliefs very easily. He suggests that

if we teach our children in their first 6 years that they can change their

minds and thus their bodies, an empowering shift to love and vitality

can become easy.

Not only does cellular biology have something to tell us about love

in our bodies, it also is very revealing about the nature of human

connection, says Lipton. It’s called Biomimicry and is a new discipline

in biology that uses nature’s best ideas to solve problems. Animals,

plants and microbes have found what works, and we can learn from

them. They demonstrate ways of functioning that have endured over

3.8 billion years of existence.

In Lipton’s latest book, Spontaneous Evolution, he and co-author

Bhaerman suggest cells are smarter than we are when it comes to

creating successful communities. They elucidate how cells organize

themselves to have a monetary system that pays other cells according

to the importance of the work they do and stores excess profits in

community banks. They have a research and development system

that creates technology and biochemical equivalents of expansive

computer networks. Sophisticated environmental systems provide

air and water purification treatment that is more technologically

advanced than humans have ever imagined. The same is true for

heating and cooling systems. The communication system within and

amongst cells is an Internet that sends zip-coded messages directly to

individual cells. They even have a criminal justice system that detains,

imprisons, rehabilitates, and in a Kevorkian way, assists with the suicide

of destructive cells. Unlike us, cells have organized full healthcare

coverage that makes sure each cell gets what it needs to stay healthy,

and an immune system that protects the cells and the body like a

dedicated National Guard.

Lipton makes an intriguing analogy between how 50 trillion cells in the

human body work together for the success of the individual is similar to

how 7 billion human beings could work together for the success of the

planet. He points out we haven’t been doing such nearly as good a job

as cells.

Lipton emphasizes that our individual mind like an individual cell has

far less awareness than the consciousness of the whole group. When a

cell fulfills its evolution, it assembles into colonies with other evolved

cells to share and expand the capability of consciousness. There’s

a “no cell left behind” attitude and the economic appropriation of

resources to support the whole. Lipton says we would do well as a

collective to evolve to such a high level of consciousness as our cells. He

writes, “Science suggests that the next stage of human evolution will be

marked by awareness that we are all interdependent cells within the

super-organism called humanity.”

First, however, we must work in our own back yard urges Lipton, “We

must change the evolution of our individual selves so the collective

consciousness can progress.” He urges us to get our lives back by

rewriting our perceptions so we can create that head-over-heels in love

state-of-mind again and again and again. He encourages us to download

new beliefs of empowerment and love into cellular memory, so our cells

have new lovely tunes to play with lyrics that affirm our lovability.

Lipton calls the quest to continuously feel “in love,” “The science

of creating heaven on earth.” And science has spoken about such

things, writes Lipton. For example, HeartMath researchers have

found the impact of love itself is real and biochemically measurable,

“When subjects focus their attention on the heart and activate a core

heart feeling, such as love, appreciation, or caring, these emotions

immediately shift their heartbeat rhythms into a more coherent

pattern. Increasing heartbeat coherence activates a cascade of neural

and biochemical events that affect virtually every organ in the body.

Studies demonstrate that heart coherence leads to more intelligence

by reducing the activity of the sympathetic nervous system—our fight-

or-flight mechanism—while simultaneously increasing the growth-

promoting activity of the parasympathetic nervous system.” As a result,

stress hormones are reduced and the anti-aging hormone DHEA is

produced. Love actually does make us healthier, happier, and longer-

living.

It turns out molecular biology and love actually is a match made in

heaven. Dr. Bruce Lipton challenges us to study and understand how to

experience that heaven on earth continuously, with dancing proteins on

our cells that swoon and sway with love.