Här är diskussionstråden:
http://groups.gaia.com/ips/conversations/view/463383
I diskussionen mellan förespråkgare för "intelligent design" kontra förespråkare för darwins "evolutionsteori", så ligger Wilber närmare ID hållet. Wilber kritiserar evolutionsteorin med följande tankeexpriment (dock ej exakt återgivet här): "Givet att 1000 apor med varsin skrivmaskin har oändligt med tid, är det då möjligt för dem att skriva ett Shakespeare verk?", med mina egna ord: det Wilber försöker peka på är att det saknas en "kvalitativ" komponent i "kvantiteten", "att slumpmässiga mutationer" inte är en tillräcklig förklaring för evolutionen. Någon i tråden påpekar då att evolutionsprocessen inte enbart bygger på "slumpmässiga mutationer" utan även "naturligt urval" (vilket i sig inte är slumpmässigt, utan enligt skribent "konserverande"). Det Wilber gör är att försöka säga att det finns "högre drivkrafter" (vilket han kallar Eros och Agape) som driver utvecklingen frammåt. Detta går att likställa med vad Intelligent design förespråkare gör anspråk på: nämligen att det är Gud som står för det "kvalitativa gapen".
Skillnaden mellan Wilber och ID förespråkare är att Wilber anser att hans teori är filosofisk, medans ID förespråkare gör anspråk på att deras teorier är vetenskapliga (trots att vanliga kritierier för vetenskap ej uppfylls: empiriska expriment som besivar hypotesen, publicering av rapport i vetenskapsjournal, etc. ). Då ID förespråkare anser att deras teori är vetenskaplig, så anser de att den bör läras ut vid sidan av evolutionsteorin i skolor, osv.
Kortfattat: Wilber menar att "slumpmässiga mutationer" inte är en förklaring, utan snarare en bortförklaring - därför introducerar han sina "högre" eller "underliggande" drivkrafter.
I tråden blir dock Wilber kritieserad: bara för att vi inte "vet" vad det är som driver evolutionen, betyder inte detta att vi kan säga att det finns en "högre" eller "underliggande" drivkraft - bara för att en teori är ofullständig (evolutionsteorin) betyder inte att vi kan introducera en godtycklig teori för att lösa problemet - detta är dålig vetenskap, bättre är att säga att vi inte vet, och att mer forskning behövs. Wilber kritiseras för att ha en "magisk" lösning på problemet.
(Denna "magiska" lösning ser jag som symtomatisk för vissa människor som har en religiös läggning, dvs. de "vill" tro på något för att känna trygghet. Jag själv upplever att jag i grund och botten är nihilist, men tycker detta känns väldigt otrillfredställande och därav söker jag mig till religion... hur som helst...)
Flera andra intressanta poängen förs fram i tråden, bl.a. denna: någon kan upplevas som slumpmässigt då vi inte förstår det, ett exempel är t.ex. börsen, något som styrs av meningsfulla beslut, men på ett högre plan kan upplevas som slumpmässigt.
Det tycks här som att varken evolutionsteorin är tillräcklig samt inte heller någon "intelligent design" teori.
...
En person introducerar då en annan teori: "Biophotons", att det existera ljus i våra celler. Rent kortfattat så är detta en holistisk teori som tar avstamp i kvantfysiken. Mångfalden är något som uppstår genom differentiering (inte division/uppdelning) av helheten, och i denna teori finns inte "saker" som går att analysera - eftersom "allt" består av relationer som ej går att plocka sönder.
En sak som påpekas är att kausalitet i den newtonska världsbilden, dvs. "biljarbordet" alltid, på någon nivå tycks "saknas", eftersom allt är diskreta isolerade objekt, så måste allt ha en "diskret" förklaring, dvs. för att en boll ska studsa, så måste en annan boll träffa den först, och det är denna form av "diskret" tänkande som får oss att tro att det är något som "saknas" i evolutionsteorin, eftersom vi upplever att allt måste kommuniceras från en diskret källa. Holismen (att utgå från helheten) lider inte av denna problem, eftersom här är alla händelser snarare "differentierade" uttryck av helheten,
Hur som helst, här kommer en beskrivning av teorin:
The most promising theory is biophotonics, a sophisticated well-funded arm* of quantum physics that has demonstrated that cells emit light of a non-local nature. Non-local light interacts in that funny quantum way by ‘interfering’ with other light with which it is non-locally connected, or ‘entangled.’ This discovery suggests that each organism, in its active, ongoing operations, generates a light-based blueprint of essential cellular information, a kind of holographic fingerprint of the organism’s 10-100 trillion cells. (Sheldrake was probably right.) This blueprint is speculated to itself interact with any similar blueprint to the degree of similarity, providing a
non-local connection to, and information-ground for differentiation from, an organism’s:
• family
• tribe
• related species
• environment.
Note that non-local connectedness is not limited by distance. Steven, your mother knows.
The theory thus holds real promise for explaining not only cellular differentiation and growth, but speciation itself. Thus the best science available suggests organisms do not change passively by virtue of some x-ray damaging some DNA thread which damage somehow transcribes through the entire organism (!) and by-unbelievable-chance-generates-adaptive-change. Rather, organisms change themselves, creatively.
Natural selection, in this emerging creationist (ahem) understanding, becomes a game of who changes oneself most intelligently. Intelligence rules.
forts.
Notice that the above view of cellular interaction meshes nicely with the quantum mechanical view of material process generally. In quantum mechanics, interacting systems become entangled, that is, they become non-locally connected. The view from entanglement is holism, and because all matter interacted in the big bang, holism becomes the starting point for material process. In post-big bang processes, matter differentiated in ways that lessened its originally coherent state, introducing local packets, if you will, of differentiated coherent systems. As Hans-Peter Durr, a physicist who worked 18 years with Heisenberg described quantum systems:
Quantum systems, systems of many quantum states (“particles”) are strictly speaking no longer “systems,” but a holistically differentiated process structure. Differentiation allows distinction, “articulation of moments” (Rombach 1994), but not division. If we consider quantum systems approximately as systems, these are not only highly complicated, but also highly complex systems. Here, the term “complexity” is intended to express the fact that such systems cannot be reduced to simpler systems at all without “breaking” some sort of connections. Therefore, for them, the reductionism that is customarily and in the final analysis methodologically necessary in our sciences cannot succeed, strictly speaking.
What Durr is getting at above is that quantum systems are irreducibly complex, and must be treated as the unity they are. But this requirement, deriving, as it does, from the heart of quantum physics, represents an impossible undertaking given the complexity. And because simplifying complexity involves breaking non-local connectedness (called 'decoherence,' among other things), one is left with a virtually unknowable whole that must be treated on its own irreducible terms. Says Durr:
The analysis of a system was always simpler than the subsequent synthesis of the insights obtained from its parts; but under the conditions of the new physics, the complete synthesis of the total system becomes a much more difficult, indeed in the end impossible, undertaking.
Take it apart and you'll never get it back together, is what he's saying. Again, the important point in the above is that quantum physics shows how a method of reduction to parts actually destroys certain real, vital connections—phase coherence, in quantum terms—that qualitatively define and underlie the 'thing' being analyzed. That 'thing,' in the quantum mechanical view, is in fact a non-thing because of its coherence and connectedness, both internally and with its environment (I'm getting to evolution, as you can see). Says Durr:
Thus, from the new point of view, it is not the separated (as in the conception of many isolated atoms) that is what reality starts from, but rather the approximate separation is the possible result of a formation of a structure, namely the generation of partial disconnectedness by intermediate extinctions (Durr, 1992; 1997). This is reminiscent in a way of the development of a biological organism from a single cell by successive “cell divisions,” which do not occur by parting, but by repeated formation of semi-separating cell walls. But this is meant only as a metaphor, because the gestalt formation of reality does not occur in the three-dimensional space we perceive.
Why does that gestalt not form in 3D space? Because quantum non-local connectedness is not a 3D affair: it is what underlies the 3D world. I'll get back to Durr's references to cell division, and tie these in Popp's biophotonic understandings. Before that, one more quote from Durr:
So the relationships between the parts of a whole do not result merely secondarily as an interaction between what was originally isolated, but are the expression of a primary identity of everything, an “idemity” (Rombach, 1994). Thus a structure of relations does not arise secondarily from communication, a mutual exchange of (energy-bearing and therefore physically detectable) signals reinforced by resonance, but as it were primarily by communion, by identification, as well.
Durr's thoughts about quantum systems apply not only analogously to living organisms, but very probably literally. If biophotonics is correct, an organism—including a family, tribe, species or environment—is a quantum system. Any of these entities is also, for its part, irreducibly complex and a whole, a structure of relations in and as a systemic web, all probably underlain by a non-local connectedness between each 'part.' It is from, within and by mutual reference to this wholeness that evolution—cell growth, definition and differentiation—would then be seen to operate, dynamically, as I suggested above, in a Prigogine-like self-changing, complexifying way. That is a view of dirt I can ascribe to.
Now, compare the above image to the Newtonian image of evolution as x-ray billiard balls hitting DNA billard balls causing organism billiard balls to “mutate” causing a reshuffling of total billiard balls knocking around on the billiard ball environmental table, and I think you get my point.
Oh and by the way, those who think life can be replicated by machines, I have bad news for you from quantum physics: it ain't going to work. A machine is a macro-object that, due to quantum principles of decoherence and averaging out, has lost its phase coherence. No coherence, no “system.” Just a heap.
James, that's an interesting article. The mind can influence gene expression. My first guess would be that mind can influence gene expression via the mediation of biophotonic light. FWIW, I've always thought of mind as something of an information locus for the organism. Popp's findings are consistent with the notion that that information locus is or is intimately tied to the interference pattern created by cellular photonic emission. That non-local interference pattern is an organismic informational blueprint, and probably constitutes the information field I've been searching for for years.
It also could be the basis for psi and other paranormal effects, as non-local connectedness is unaffected by distance. All that weird shit you do when you're alone? Your mother knows (I was mostly joking with those comments).
Non-locality is considered by many—the leading scientists, like Feynman—to be the cornerstone of quantum theory. It's not a sideline element, but defines the core of how quantum physicists do what they do. It is the very reason, you could say, I'm now typing on this computer-internet setup: these products would not exist but for quantum mechanics would not exist but for non-locality.
If you want interesting, read what Zeilinger has to say about quantum teleportation. Maybe you'll get your wings in your lifetime after all.
Ytterliggare länkar kring teorin:
http://books.google.com/books?id=KVHF1n ... q=&f=false
http://www.transpersonal.de/mbischof/en ... ookeng.htm
Zeilinger: http://www.quantum.at/people/personalwe ... texts.html
http://www.liebertonline.com/doi/abs/10 ... 2006.12.31
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Dc06 ... t&resnum=2
