I have the Tibetan Four Dignities hanging on the four walls of my room. I won’t get into that, but on the one labelled “Outrageous” (the Garuda) I have put a four step action plan to save the world. Simplicity itself, right?
Step one is to manage my finances. If I have no money, I have no time, and no ability to do anything. That would make me sad. Extending this, though, our nation needs to manage its finances as well. Without money, it can do no good, either.
Step two is to solve the problem of moral relativism. I think I have done that, and just need to set it down in an acceptable form.
Step three is to develop a device for communicating with the dead. [roll your eyes here]. Hear me out. We have 1000’s of recordings that appear coherent, in the voice of the deceased, and relevant. The field is called Electronic Voice Phenomena. There is considerable empirical evidence that consciousness continues after biological cessation. I have yet to meet anyone who has actually studied the evidence in its entirety who could not at least conclude that there was reason to find value in it.
For most, though, to investigate something you have to have some way of believing it is possible, so I’ll say a word on that. To the extent we can determine, the material world does not “exist”, per se. It is wave patterns interacting with consciousness, and producing images that appear solid. We know, with as much certainly as you can get in science, that all matter is mostly empty. Just look at a model of an atom.
Now, if we can be hypnotized to create multiple selves–some of which only emerge at certain times, and each of which is “conscious”, per se, in that you can communicate with it, without the intercession of the primary consciousness–can we not posit that we have aspects of our consciousness that only come into play when we die? It seems certain to me that consciousness is not unitary. William James offered up the idea that the brain is a conduit for thought, and that brain lesions, and drugs and the like affect the ability of our consciousness–which is non-material, or material in a different way–to express that thought.
If we take the logic of Janet’s experiments to their conclusion, we have to accept that we are each many. The Buddha famously denied the existence of a unitary self, and this is presumably what he meant. He was simply speaking empirically.
Anyway, that’s my thought process, and the intent is not to make navel gazing speculations, but to gather concrete data. Specifically, the issue with many of the current methods is that they use chopped up speech, or radio stations between channels to create “white noise”, that spirits can then operate on more easily to communicate. This opens up the valid criticism that what is being heard is momentary content that just slips into apparent–but really random-coherence.
If one used an actual white noise machine for background sound, that objection would disappear. In particular, I have wondered if you could seal it in a box with a recorder, and still get results. This would eliminate alternative explanations, which is the point of science.
Conceivably, with a digital recorder, one could even create some sort of algorithym to notice changes in the sound profile instantly, flag it, then play it. If this worked, you could respond real time, which would create the de facto equivalent of a telephone. This was something, by the way, that Edison and many other inventors worked on, including Oliver Lodge, who has a credible claim to being the actual inventor of radio.
One thing that needs to be figured out, too, is that when the sounds appear, where is it? What frequencies? On what medium? Is their pattern in any way different from sound recordings created other ways? I don’t know if it is possible that they could be, but from what I can tell the scientific aspect of the thing is far from systematic. It mostly appears to be people who think it is cool, or people wanting to speak to departed loved ones. The thing needs to be done better.
Step four is to develop a system for biomorphic self regulation. Specifically, I believe the evidence is solid that biological systems–life–cannot be fully understood without recourse to informational fields. If you think about it, if we share, say, 50% of our DNA with a seasponge, does that not rather make it harder to explain how we become us, not easier? Clearly, we are assembled from proteins that are formed as a result of certain genetic operations. Yet, it seems to me we understand the building blocks–the physical structure–of life, but not where the plan comes from.
A building implies an architect. You can build many things from bricks, but the end result will be what you wanted. We are in a similar situation in biology. We can see what happens, and we can describe in great detail the processes, but in the same way bricks do not direct themselves, it is between difficult and impossible to see how they can both be the raw material AND the plan. Biologists don’t see this since they can describe the processes in such detail. I would include “evolution” in this, in that we can track changes over time, but I don’t think natural selection is a good, much less complete, explanation for the fossil record.
Returning to the idea, the evidence is good that the signalling system is very weak light, and that DNA acts both as a sort of construction material warehouse, and as a signalling device.
On this reading, most diseases result from imperfectly shared information. Our bodies, obviously, are in a constant state of being recreated, and when information is lost, entropy results. Cancer is basically just a black area that receives no information. Given this, it would make sense to practice refreshing the sytem properly.
I visualize a sort of box where the light you emit is measured, and some sort of feedback introduced, say with sound, so that we can develop the capacity to emit more light of the optimal frequency. Sounds crazy, I know, but my gut tells me something like that will work.
In tandem with this, or possible instead of this, we could also shine light on people, of a carefully calibrated frequency, to reinforce existing fields.
With respect to Darwinism, which I view as both philosophically pernicious and factually incorrect as an explanation of the origin of species, I would like experiments to be done in which survival situations were introduced to some species with a high reproduction rate, like flies, and the speed with which the resulting adaptation happened measured.
What we see now is scientists pointing to adaptation, and saying it proves “evolution” (which they rarely use with precision), but I think it is the contrary. We can look at how many genes are involved, and calculate all the possible random mutations, and derive a probability that that particular beneficial adapatation will arise by chance.
What I believe we will see is the adaptations constantly happening at a rate that is several orders of magnitude faster than what would be predicted by chance. In point of fact, I think such experiments would show the doctrine of speciation through random mutation coupled with random benefit to be inadequate the challenge of explaining that empirical result. This is, I believe, an experiment that can be done, and the reason I mention it here is that I believe that until we integrate the field concept BACK into biology (it was there for some time, and essentially banned in the US by the AMA) we will not make significant progress with cancer.
I want to cure cancer, you see.
Nothing grandiose about me. I may be nuts, but I’m never bored, and rarely boring.
Actually, I post this in the simple hope that maybe somebody will take one of these ideas and run with it. I don’t care who gets credit. I never have, and will submit that my influence in some areas has actually been quite substantial and largely invisible.