Bruce Lipton - Biology of Perception 1 of 7

first in a two part series with rob Williams of psych-k. (if anyone has the part with R. williams please post it!)
'the bottom line is, genes do NOT control our biology, that an assumption made years ago that was never even proven scientifically - it just seemed so correct that we bought the story ... if the mechanism actually worked according to the textbooks, ie. if the genes control biology, then at least 120,000 genes would be required to make a human. but when the human genome projects results were in, ... it was discovered that 2/3rds of the genes (needed to support their model) were missing. Its not that the genes were missing, it was the understanding that was wrong.
"We have to come to a new way of understanding biology. This 'new' understanding has actually already been in the leading edge of science for 10 years now. It takes at least 10 or 15 years for science to take a fact from its first inception and get it out into the public so that the people can understand it. That means anything in current textbooks is at least 10 or 15 years old. what your going to hear tonight is whats going to be the future textbooks. "
-Bruce Lipton in the Biology of Perception [ www.brucelipton.com ]

see also:
rob williams intro to psych-k
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHjomk...

more audio/video at http://channelzero.multiply.com

• Category

  Science & Technology

[Fredrik Wahlberg]

The thing is that Bruce used to believe in your stuff. But he went from being a teacher at Stanford and a pioneer of stem-cell research to realise (through his work) that a big puzzle-piece was missing. I don't understand how you can say that this is wrong with such emphas. All science is PSEUDO. It's not about feelings or senses it's about realising that we have a great over-believe in all our "facts". I feel sorry for humans that are in love with dogma and Newton. Stay open-minded! Love Sweden

[meadowlarkable]

troller............!!!

[dudepal187]

Neuroscience certainly has its mysteries, but there is an amazing amount of information we can and have learned from experimentation. We know how memories are formed and how they can be taken away, we are learning how structures and chemicals in the brain influence behavior.

What kind of inferences are you talking about? You need to be more specific, give an example.

Also, what would be an example of spiritual/mental evidence?

[bizdr34]

We agree on the value of physical evidence, and I beleive we agree therories are based on them with logical inferences added that can not be physically proven (yet). You do not consider those inferences to include beliefs, unless supported by physical evidence, and you are correct when you limit your understanding to physical evidence...but that is the point, I include mental & spritual evidence too, which is not physical, and you will find all of the 'ifs' in theories are also the 'beliefs.'

[bizdr34]

As you know, 'good' is a moral concept--i think you meant sound, solely because of the support through observation and experimentation. There is some physical evidence regarding mental processes but they can not in any way prove specific, multilayered thoughts and emotions.

As for your definition of beleifs, well, that is your definition which you are entitiled to, but I beleive there are more widely accepted ones that include 'based on experience and intuition, including physical evidence.'

[dudepal187]

Evolution is not related to the big bang. The big bang is a whole other theory that has also been rigorously tested and has all of the evidence supporting it.

Science IS observation and experimentation, which is by no means narrow. Theories are what we develop based on the evidence that is gathered and tested, good ones are not beliefs and speculation. Mental processes certainly are studied by science. Beliefs are separate. They are ideas that either can or cannot be tested and developed.

[bizdr34]

...gather physical evidence to prove what I am feeling/thinking...the only evidedence is within my head and only I have access to it--that is what I refer to as mental reality/evidence. The same is true with what I refer to as spiritual reality and there is spiritual evidence to support it...but like mental reality/evidence, there is no physical evidence available to prove/disprove it...and then it falls into the theory/belief bucket according to traditional science.

[bizdr34]

I appreciate your view on evolution--it is more accurate than the common one, that everything evolved from the big bang.... Evolution is by definition true, but how far back it goes blends into theory at some point...and then belief.

As for evidence, science limits itself to observation and reason, but just because we can't observe or reason something does not mean it is not real...and that is where theories and beliefs come in. If I feel or think something, there is no way you can....

[dudepal187]

Well what kind other than physical evidence would you expect to find? Morality has plenty of science behind it, both sociological and biological. Do you want to be more specific on what you think science says about it?

Evolution does not try to explain the origin of life, it explains the origin of the diversity of species, hence the name of Darwin's book. All of the evidence supports evolution. From molecular biology and genetics to anatomy and fossils. It doesn't matter how you look at it.

[bizdr34]

As for the theory of evolution, it presupposes that everything came from nothing, which is irrational, and thus flawed even in its logic--thus, those who hold on to it do so as a belief...and therefore theories are as much beliefs as beliefs are theories...but the question is, what evidence supports them...and that is where the 'perceived' strength of each is found.

[bizdr34]

I beg to differ...it is just the 'kind' of evidence one uses. Scientific theories are typically backed by physical evidence, but to think all reality is physical is in my opinion short-sighted. Science does not recognize inate morality because there is no physical evidence...but does that make it a belief or theory--according to you inate morals are limited to beliefs, but I embrace there is more evidence than physical, just as there is more reality than what is only physical....

[dudepal187]

Not quite. A theory is not a belief. Scientific theories are ideas/beliefs that were developed through experimentation and evidence but are always fallible. For example, it's possible that we will find some evidence to disprove the theory of evolution. All of the evidence found thus far, however, has supported and added to the theory. So disproving it is rather unlikely at this point but still possible, which is what makes it a theory, a very very good one. Beliefs don't rely on evidence.