User blogs

These great scientists [listed below] are the founding fathers of modern science. All of them are [GOD]-believing [person]s. (See Encyclopaedia Britannica and the book Men of Science, Men of God by Dr. Henry M. Morris, Master Books, 1982).

1. ANALYTICAL GEOMETRY: RENE DESCARTES (1596-1650)

2. ANESTHESIOLOGY: JAMES SIMPSON (1811-1870)

3. ANTISEPTIC SURGERY: JOSEPH LISTER (1827-1912)

4. ASTRONAUTICS: HERMANN OBERTH (1894-1989); WERNHER VON BRAUN (1912- 1977)

5. ATOMIC PHYSICS: JOSEPH J. THOMSON (1856-1940)

6. BACTERIOLOGY: LOUIS PASTEUR (1822-1895)

7. BIOLOGY: JOHN RAY (1627-1705)

8. CALCULUS: ISAAC NEWTON (1642-1727); GOTTFRIED LEIBNIZ (1646-1716)

9. CARDIOLOGY: WILLIAM HARVEY (1578-1657)

10. CELESTIAL MECHANICS: JOHANNES KEPLER (1571-1630)

11. CHEMISTRY: ROBERT BOYLE (1627-1691)

12. COMPARATIVE ANATOMY: GEORGES CUVIER (1769-1832)

13. COMPUTER SCIENCE: CHARLES BABBAGE (1791-1871)

14. CRYOLOGY: LORD KELVIN (1824-1907)

15. DIFFERENTIAL GEOMETRY: CARL FRIEDRICH GAUSS (1777 -1855)

16. DIMENSIONAL ANALYSIS: LORD RAYLEIGH (1842-1919)

17. DYNAMICS: ISAAC NEWTON (1642-1727)

18. ELECTRODYNAMICS: JAMES CLERK MAXWELL (1831-1879) ANDRE-MARIE AMPERE (1775-1836)

19. ELECTRO-MAGNETICS: MICHAEL FARADAY (1791-1867)

20. ELECTRONICS: JOHN AMBROSE FLEMING (1849-1945) MICHAEL FARADAY (1791-1867)

21. ELECTROPHYSIOLOGY: JOHN ECCLES (1903-1997)

22. EMBRIOLOGY: WILLIAM HARVEY (1578-1657)

23. ENERGETICS: LORD KELVIN (1824-1907)

24. ENTOMOLOGY OF LIVING INSECTS: HENRI FABRE (1823-1915)

25. EXPERIMENTAL PHYSICS: GALILEO GALILEI (1564-1642)

26. FIELD THEORY: MICHAEL FARADAY (1791-1867)

27. FLUID MECHANICs: GEORGE STOKES (1819-1903)

28. GALACTIC ASTRONOMY: WILLIAM HERSCHEL (1738-1822)

29. GAS DYNAMICS: ROBERT BOYLE (1627-1691)

30. GENETICS: GREGOR MENDEL (1822-1884)

31. GEOLOGY: NICOLAUS STENO (1638-1686)

32. GLACIAL GEOLOGY: LOUIS AGASSIZ (1807-1873)

33. GYNECOLOGY: JAMES SIMPSON (1811-1870)

34. HELIOCENTRIC COSMOLOGY: NICOLAUS COPERNICUS (1473-1543)

35. HYDRAULICS: LEONARDO DA VINCI (1452-1519)

36. HYDRODYNAMICS: BLAISE PASCAL (1623-1662)

37. HYDROGRAPHY: MATTHEW MAURY (1806-1873)

38. HYDROSTATICS: BLAISE PASCAL (1623-1662)

39. ICHTHYOLOGY: LOUIS AGASSIZ (1807-1873)

40. IMMUNOLOGY: LOUIS PASTEUR (1822-1895)

41. ISOTOPIC CHEMISTRY: WILLIAM RAMSAY (1852-1916)

42. LASER SCIENCE: CHARLES TOWNES (born 1915); ARTHUR SCHAWLOW (1921-1999)

43. MATHEMATICAL ANALYSIS: LEONHARD EULER (1707-1783)

44. MICROBIOLOGY: LOUIS PASTEUR (1822-1895)

45. MINERALOGY: GEORGIUS AGRICOLA (1494-1555)

46. MODEL ANALYSIS: LORD RAYLEIGH (1842-1919)

47. MODERN MEDICINE: WILLIAM HARVEY (1578-1657)

48. NANOTECHNOLOGY: RICHARD SMALLEY (1943-2005)

49. NATURAL HISTORY: JOHN RAY (1627-1705)

50. NON-EUCLIDEAN GEOMETRY: BERNHARD RIEMANN (1826-1866)

51. NUMBER THEORY: CARL FRIEDRICH GAUSS (1777-1855)

52. OCEANOGRAPHY MATTHEW MAURY (1806-1873)

53. OPTICAL MINERALOGY: DAVID BREWSTER (1781-1868)

54. OPTICS: JOHANNES KEPLER (1571-1630)

55. PALEONTOLOGY: JOHN WOODWARD (1665-1728) GEORGES CUVIER (1769-1832)

56. PATHOLOGY: RUDOLPH VIRCHOW (1821-1902)

57. PHYSICAL ASTRONOMY: JOHANNES KEPLER (1571-1630)

58. PHYSICAL CHEMISTRY: MIKHAIL LOMONOSOV (1711-1765)

59. PHYSIOLOGY: WILLIAM HARVEY (1578- 1657)

60. QUANTUM MECHANICS: MAX PLANCK (1858-1947); WERNER HEISENBERG (1901-1976)

61. REVERSIBLE THERMODYNAMICS: JAMES JOULE (1818-1889)

62. STATISTICAL THERMODYNAMICS: JAMES CLERK MAXWELL (1831-1879)

63. STRATIGRAPHY: NICOLAUS STENO (1638-1686)

64. SYSTEMATIC BIOLOGY: CAROLUS LINNAEUS (1707-1778)

65. TAXONOMY: JOHN RAY (1627-1705)

66. THERMODYNAMICS: LORD KELVIN (1824-1907)

67. THERMOKINETICS: HUMPHRY DAVY (1778- 1829)

68. TRANSPLANTOLOGY: ALEXIS CARREL (1873-1944); JOSEPH E. MURRAY (born 1919)

69. VERTEBRATE PALEONTOLOGY: GEORGES CUVIER (1769-1832)

70. WAVE MECHANICS: ERWIN SCHROEDINGER (1887-1961)

In his editor’s introduction entitled "Transcending Self-Consciousness", Nixon delivers his introduction with the following opening: "What is this thing we each call “I” and consider the eye of consciousness, that which beholds objects in the world and objects in our minds? This inner perceiver seems to be the same I who calls forth memories or images at will, the I who feels and determines whether to act on those feelings or suppress them, as well as the I who worries and makes plans and attempts to avoid those worries and act on those plans. Am I the subject, thus the source, of my awareness, just as you are the subject and source of your awareness? If this is the case, it is likely impossible to be conscious without the self (yours or mine), the eye of consciousness, and it must certainly not be desirable, for such a consciousness would have no focal point, no self-that-is-conscious to guide it, so it would be cast adrift on wide and wild sea like a boat that has broken from its anchor. Without self-enclosure, “We shall go mad no doubt and die that way,” as Robert Graves (1927/1966) expressed it."

In his first article entitled "Transformations of Self and World I: Modeling a World", Christopher Holvenstot states in his Abstract the following: "Severe seasonal depression entails the yearly collapse and reconstruction of a functional, useable, meaningful world. This radical annual transformation provides a unique perspective onto fundamental conscious processes by illuminating the cognitive elements and dynamics behind the construction and deconstruction of self-models and world-models."

In his second article entitled "Transformations of Self and World II: Making Meaning", Christopher Holvenstot states in his Abstract the following: "A theater workshop, ostensibly about acting, turns out instead to be about not acting, yet answers a lot of questions about how to act in the real world – ironically, by exploring the world of dreams. This transformational experience provides a view into the realm of the psyche, and this view is used to highlight the inappropriateness of empirical precepts in the formation of a field of consciousness studies."

In his article entitled "The Shock of the Old: A Narrative of Transpersonal Experience", Milenko Budimir states in his Abstract the following: "Here I present a description of some transpersonal experiences that occurred as a result of meditation practices as well as reflections on those experiences. I connect these experiences with some historical precedents, particularly to sources in the Eastern Orthodox Christian spiritual tradition, but also to contemporary sources as well as some 20th century philosophical ideas. Lastly, I describe how these experiences ended up shaping a new worldview, the most significant and lasting being a deep sense of interconnectedness with the world. This sense of interconnectedness further lends support to an inclusive rather than an exclusive understanding of religious belief, and correspondingly a mystical sense of the world and humans’ place in it."

In his article entitled "Background Motivations for My Views on Consciousness", Chris Nunn states in his Abstract the following: "I wish to show here that my theories, and my life in general, have been greatly constrained (though I would say enlarged) by a few, brief and unusual experiences. Equally clearly, the content of the experiences reflected to some extent my cultural and personal history. Can they be regarded as no more than a culturally determined curiosity, perhaps a bit like the dancing manias of the Middle Ages or the recent epidemic of ‘alien abduction’ experiences? My personal answer to that question is: ‘No. The experiences truly reflected aspects of Reality that we don’t often perceive and the culturally determined part of their content was just the icing on the cake – how Reality was able to express itself within my particular, very limited mind.’ That’s why I feel it has not been a waste of my time to try to build ideas that promise to integrate experiences of this sort with more mainstream Western understandings, for theories foster observations and, thus, sooner or later, fuller appreciation of truths about ourselves and our world."

In her article entitled "How Often or How Rarely Does a Self-Transcending Experience Occur?", Syamala Hari states in her Abstract the following: "Almost always, the self is involved in our perception of the world, thinking, and actions, but it does momentarily step aside now and then. I describe below a few of my experiences of self-transcendence that seem quite ordinary with nothing mysterious about them and they are all of short duration. To explain how the self is present or not in an experience, I describe some properties characteristic of the self such as its sense of personal identity and ownership of action. Manifestation of these properties in an experience indicates the presence of the self and absence of these properties indicates its absence. In an act of observation, full attention paid to what is being observed seems to push every thought, including the self, out of the conscious mind and keep it fully occupied with the act of observation. A characteristic property of the self-transcendent state seems to be that one can only recognize such a state as being free from self, but one cannot prove that it is so because the outward effect of the state may be the same as that of an alternative state where the self is present."

In his article entitled "Self-Transcendence as a Developmental Process in Consciousness", Roland Cichowski states in his Abstract the following: "After an introduction describing certain difficulties in relating the nature of self-transcending experiences, I give a narrative description of three successive episodes in which a certain relationship and development over time can be discerned. This is followed by a discussion of the impact they have had over the course of my lifetime together with observations on how they have affected my outlook. These experiences have led me to the view that it is more likely that it is consciousness generating the illusion of a material reality than a material reality generating consciousness. I consider self-transcendence to be understood as a stage in the development of the consciousness of each human being, and ultimately in the development of humanity as a whole."

In his article entitled "A Longitudinal History of Self-Transformation: Psychedelics, Spirituality, Activism and Transformation", Phil Wolfson states in his Abstract the following: "A longitudinal historical approach for portraying and examining personal transformation is presented along with a proposed instrument—the Transformational Codex—for cataloging that history and the elements that compose it. One element, psychedelic transformation, is then discussed in depth along with a schema for viewing transformations that may occur related to psychedelic use and practice."

In her article entitled "Transcending the Self Through Art: Altered States of Consciousness and Anomalous Events During the Creative Process", Tobi Zausner states in her Abstract the following: "The capacity for transcending the self through art arises from the creative process, an altered state of consciousness facilitating the occurrence of anomalous events such as precognition and interior visions that appear to be outside the spacetime of waking life. Frustration can trigger the far-from-equilibrium conditions necessary for creativity, while inspiration may seem as if its source is exterior to the artist, and the experience of flow, like a trance state, can produce an altered sense of time. Archetypes in the creative process link a single mind to the collective unconscious and works of art become self-opening worlds that create an expanded reality."

Finally, in his article entitled "Breaking Out of One's Head (& Awakening to the World)", Gregory M. Nixon states in his Abstract the following: "Herein, I review the moment in my life when I awoke from the dream of self to find being as part of the living world. It was a sudden, momentous event that is difficult to explain since transcending the self ultimately requires transcending the language structures of which the self consists. Since awakening to the world took place beyond the enclosure of self-speech, it also took place outside our symbolic construction of time. It is strange to place this event and its aftermath as happening long ago in my lifetime, for it is forever present; it surrounds me all the time just as the world seems to do. This fact puts into question the reality of my daily journey from dawn to dusk with all the mundane tasks I must complete (like writing of that which cannot be captured in writing). My linear march to aging and death inexorably continues, yet it seems somehow unreal, the biggest joke of all. Still, I here review the events leading up to my time out of mind and then review the serious repercussions when I was drawn back into the ego-self only to find I did not have the conceptual tools or the maturity to understand what had happened."

Huping Hu & Maoxin Wu

October 9, 2011

ERNST CHAIN – NOBEL LAUREATE IN MEDICINE AND PHYSIOLOGY

Nobel Prize: Sir Ernst Chain (1906-1979) received the 1945 Nobel Prize in Medicine and Physiology “for the discovery of penicillin and its curative effect in various infectious diseases.”

Nationality: German

Education: Ernst Chain graduated in chemistry and physiology from Friedrich-Wilhelm University in Berlin with a Ph.D. degree in 1930.

Occupation: Researcher at the Institute of Pathology in Berlin (1930-33), Cambridge University (1933-35), Oxford University (1936-48) and Istituto Superiore di Sanità in Rome (1948-1961); Professor of Biochemistry at Imperial College, University of London (1961-1973); Chain was a chairman of the World Health Organization.

1. Concerning the Materialistic theory of evolution Ernst Chain (who is a theistic evolutionist) states:

“I would rather believe in fairies than in such wild speculation.

I have said for years that speculations about the origin of life lead to no useful purpose as even the simplest living system is far too complex to be understood in terms of the extremely primitive chemistry scientists have used in their attempts to explain the unexplainable that happened billions of years ago. God cannot be explained away by such naive thoughts.” (Chain, as cited in The Life of Ernst Chain: Penicillin and Beyond by Ronald W. Clark, London, Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1985, 147-148).

2. In his speech, which he made at the World Jewish Conference of Intellectuals in 1965, Chain said:

“While we have witnessed astonishing technological progress over the last 4,000 years, human relations have remained essentially unchanged since the time the Torah was written, and have to be regulated by very much the same laws.

For this reason the fundamental teaching of Judaism, as expressed in the Old Testament, and developed by the great sages of the Middle Ages, one unitarian Almighty, benevolent, all-pervading, eternal Divine force, of which the spirit of man was created an image, is for me still the most rational way of accepting man’s position and fate in this world and the Universe.” (Chain, as cited in Clark 1985, 154).

3. In a speech made when he accepted a Doctorate of Philosophy Honoris Causa from Bar-Llan University (Israel), Chain said:

“It must be remembered that, quite apart from the ephemeral nature of scientific theories, pure science is ethically neutral. No value of good or bad is attached to any natural constant, or, for that matter, any scientific observation in any field. However, in our relations to our fellow-men – and this includes, in particular, the applications of scientific research – we must be guided by an ethical code of behaviour, and pure science cannot provide it.

In the search for an ethical code of behaviour we have to look for more lasting values than scientific discoveries or theories. We, the Jewish people, have had the extraordinary privilege to have been given a lasting code of ethical values in the divinely inspired laws and traditions of Judaism which have become the basic pillars of the Western world.” (Chain, as cited in Clark 1985, 146).

4. “I consider the power to believe to be one of the great divine gifts to man through which he is allowed in some inexplicable manner to come near to the mysteries of the Universe without understanding them. The capability to believe is as characteristic and as essential a property of the human mind as is its power of logical reasoning, and far from being incompatible with the scientific approach, it complements it and helps the human mind to integrate the world into an ethical and meaningful whole.

There are many ways in which people are made aware of their power to believe in the supremacy of Divine guidance and power: through music or visual art, some event or experience decisively influencing their life, looking through a microscope or telescope, or just by looking at the miraculous manifestations or purposefulness of Nature.” (Chain, as cited in Clark 1985, 143).

5. In his public lecture “Social Responsibility and the Scientist in Modern Western Society” (University of London, February 1970) Sir Ernst Chain declared:

“As far as my own actions are concerned, I am trying to be guided by the laws, ethics and traditions of Judaism as formulated in the Old Testament, which are, of course, also the basis of Christianity. I am convinced, and have been for many years, that it is impossible to construct a sort of absolute and generally applicable code of ethical behaviour on the basis of scientific knowledge alone, if only for the reason that our knowledge about the basic problems of life is far too fragmentary and limited, and will always remain so.

… We all know that scientific theories, in whatever field, are ephemeral and likely to be shaken in their foundations, and may be even turned upside down by the discovery of one single new fact which does not fit into the existing system. For this reason I do not believe that it is possible to construct an absolute code of ethical conduct and of moral values on the basis of scientific knowledge alone, as this must always remain fragmentary and built on flimsy premises and, therefore, can easily lead to misleading conclusions which may have to be corrected in the light of new evidence.” (E. Chain, “Social Responsibility and the Scientist in Modern Western Society,” Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, Spring 1971, Vol. 14, No. 3, p. 366). (p> 6. Chain described “the divine spark which manifests itself so evidently in the spiritual creation of man” thus:

“Any speculation and conclusions pertaining to human behaviour drawn on the basis of Darwinian evolutionary theories from animal ethological studies, and in particular ethological studies on primates, must be treated with the greatest caution and reserve.

It may be amusing for those engaged in the task to describe their fellow man as naked apes, and a less discriminating section of the public may enjoy reading about comparisons between the behaviour of apes and man, but this approach – which, by the way, is neither new nor original – does not really lead us very far.

We do not need to be expert zoologists, anatomists or physiologists to recognise that there exist some similarities between apes and man, but surely we are much more interested in the differences than the similarities. Apes, after all, unlike man, have not produced great prophets, philosophers, mathematicians, writers, poets, composers, painters and scientists. They are not inspired by the divine spark which manifests itself so evidently in the spiritual creation of man and which differentiates man from animals.” (Chain 1971, 368).

7. “Only one theory has been advanced to make an attempt to understand the development of life – the Darwin-Wallace theory of evolution. And a very feeble attempt it is, based on such flimsy assumptions, mainly of morphological-anatomical nature that it can hardly be called a theory.” (Chain, as cited in Clark 1985, 147).

8. Concerning the Darwin-Wallace theory of evolution Chain wrote:

“It is, of course, nothing but a truism, and not a scientific theory, to say that living systems do not survive if they are not fit to survive.

To postulate, as the positivists of the end of the 19th century and their followers here have done, that the development and survival of the fittest is entirely a consequence of chance mutations, or even that nature carries out experiments by trial and error through mutations in order to create living systems better fitted to survive, seems to me a hypothesis based on no evidence and irreconcilable with the facts.

This hypothesis wilfully neglects the principle of teleological purpose which stares the biologist in the face wherever he looks, whether he be engaged in the study of different organs in one organism, or even of different subcellular compartments in relation to each other in a single cell, or whether he studies the interrelation and interactions of various species. These classical evolutionary theories are a gross oversimplification of an immensely complex and intricate mass of facts, and it amazes me that they were swallowed so uncritically and readily, and for such a long time, by so many scientists without a murmur of protest.” (Chain 1971, 367).

This year's Nobel Peace Prize (see Press Release) has been awarded to Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, Leymah Gbowee and Tawakkul Karman "for their non-violent struggle for the safety of women and for women’s rights to full participation in peace-building work".

According the Press Release, " We cannot achieve democracy and lasting peace in the world unless women obtain the same opportunities as men to influence developments at all levels of society."

Congratulation to llen Johnson Sirleaf, Leymah Gbowee and Tawakkul Karman!

And congraulations to all women of World who struggle for women's rights, equality and well-beings.

Maoxin Wu & Huping Hu

October 7, 2011

Nobel Prize: Martin Luther King, Jr. (1929–1968) received the 1964 Nobel Peace Prize for his struggle against racism and for his efforts to bring about integration within the United States without violence. King was assassinated by a sniper on April 4, 1968, in Memphis, Tennessee, where he was to lead a protest march.

Nationality: American

Education: B.A. in sociology, Morehouse College in Atlanta, GA, 1948; Ph.D. in Systematic Theology, Boston University, 1955

Occupation: President of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (1957-1968); Baptist minister (1947-68)

1. Martin Luther King closed his last speech “I’ve been to the Mountain Top” (April 3, 1968, Memphis, Tennessee) with the words:

“I don’t know what will happen now. We’ve got some difficult days ahead. But it really doesn’t matter with me now, because I’ve been to the mountain top. And I don’t mind. Like anybody, I would like to live a long life; longevity has its place. But I’m not concerned about that now. I just want to do God’s will. And He’s allowed me to go up to the mountain. And I’ve looked over. And I’ve seen the Promised Land. I may not get there with you. But I want you to know tonight, that we as a people will get to the Promised Land. And so I’m happy tonight, I’m not worried about anything. I’m not fearing any man. Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord.” (Excerpt from King’s last speech, before he was assassinated on April 4, 1968; see Martin Luther King, The Words of Martin Luther King, Jr., New York, Newmarket Press, 1983, 94).

2. In his Nobel Lecture (December 11, 1964, University of Oslo) King stated:

“Deeply etched in the fiber of our religious tradition is the conviction that men are made in the image of God and that they are souls of infinite metaphysical value, the heirs of a legacy of dignity and worth. If we feel this as a profound moral fact, we cannot be content to see men hungry, to see men victimized with starvation and ill health when we have the means to help them.” (King, as cited in Peace!, Marek Thee - editor, UNESCO Publishing, 1995, 374).

3. In his address delivered at the Prayer Pilgrimage for Freedom (17 May 1957, Washington, D.C.) King said:

“We must meet hate with love. We must meet physical force with soul force. There is still a voice crying out through the vista of time, saying: ‘Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, pray for them that despitefully use you.’ Then, and only then, can you matriculate into the university of eternal life. That same voice cries out in terms lifted to cosmic proportions: ‘He who lives by the sword will perish by the sword.’ And history is replete with the bleached bones of nations that failed to follow this command. We must follow nonviolence and love.

Now, I’m not talking about a sentimental, shallow kind of love. I’m not talking about eros, which is a sort of aesthetic, romantic love. I’m not even talking about philia, which is a sort of intimate affection between personal friends.

But I’m talking about agape. I’m talking about the love of God in the hearts of men. I’m talking about a type of love, which will cause you to love the person who does the evil deed, while hating the deed that the person does.” (King 1957a).

4. “I have decided to love. If you are seeking the highest good, I think you can find it through love. And the beautiful thing is that we aren’t moving wrong when we do it, because John was right, God is love. He who hates does not know God, but he who loves has the key that unlocks the door to the meaning of ultimate reality.” (King 1967).

5. “Whatever we do, we must keep God in the forefront. Let us be Christians in all of our actions. But I want to tell you this evening that it is not enough for us to talk about love; love is one of the pivotal points of the Christian faith. There is another side called justice. And justice is really love in calculation. Justice is love correcting that which revolts against love.” (King 1955).

6. In his address delivered at the Prayer Pilgrimage for Freedom (17 May 1957, Washington, D.C.) King stated:

“I conclude by saying that each of us must keep faith in the future. Let us not despair. Let us realize that as we struggle for justice and freedom, we have cosmic companionship. This is the long faith of the Hebraic-Christian tradition: that God is not some Aristotelian Unmoved Mover who merely contemplates upon himself. He is not merely a self-knowing God, but an other-loving God forever working through history for the establishment of His kingdom.

And those of us who call the name of Jesus Christ find something of an event in our Christian faith that tells us this. There is something in our faith that says to us, ‘Never despair; never give up; never feel that the cause of righteousness and justice is doomed’.” (King 1957a).

7. In his Nobel Prize Acceptance Speech (December 10, 1964, Oslo, Norway) Dr. King stated:

“I still believe that one day mankind will bow before the altars of God and be crowned triumphant over war and bloodshed, and nonviolent redemptive goodwill will proclaim the rule of the land.

‘And the lion and the lamb shall lie down together and every man shall sit under his own vine and fig tree and none shall be afraid.’

I still believe that we shall overcome.” (Martin Luther King, The Words of Martin Luther King, Jr., 1983, 91).

8. Dr. King maintained that there was no conflict between his religious faith and his social activity: “We believe firmly in the revelation of God in Jesus Christ. I can see no conflict between our devotion to Jesus Christ and our present action. In fact, I can see a necessary relationship. If one is truly devoted to the religion of Jesus he will seek to rid the earth of social evils. The gospel is social as well as personal.” (King, as cited in Stephen B. Oates, The Life of Martin Luther King, Jr., NY, Harper and Row, 1982, 81-82).

9. In his speech given at the March on Washington (August 28, 1963) King said:

“I have a dream today.

I have a dream that one day every valley shall be exalted, every hill and mountain shall be made low, the rough places will be made plains, and the crooked places will be made straight, and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together.

With this faith we will be able to work together, to pray together, to struggle together, to go to jail together, to stand up for freedom together, knowing that we will be free one day.” (Martin Luther King, The Words of Martin Luther King, Jr., 1983, 95).

Apple has announced today that "[It] has lost a visionary and creative genius, and the world has lost an amazing human being. Those of us who have been fortunate enough to know and work with Steve have lost a dear friend and an inspiring mentor. Steve leaves behind a company that only he could have built, and his spirit will forever be the foundation of Apple."

The world morns this transformational figure of technology.

October 5, 2011

This year's Nobel Prize in physics went to Saul Perlmutter, Brian P. Schmidt, Adam Riess. They well deserve the prize and congratulations!

As blogged by Philip E. Gibbs at viXra log: "[i]n the late 1990s these astronomers upset the prevalent belief that the universe’s acceleration must be slowing down due to the pull of gravity. They observed the brightness of distant supernovae in the universe, using them as standard candles to gauge distance. A comparison of the redshift and the brightness was found to be more consistent with the view that the rate of expansion is increasing."

According to Gibbs, "[t]he simplest way to model the expansion is to add a cosmological constant term to Einstein’s gravitational field equations. Such a term means that energy is added to space as it expands which must be compensated by negative gravitational energy from the increasing rate of expansion. The popular term dark energy has been used to refer to this mysterious feature of space and time but its origin remains a mystery and the Nobel prize has only been awarded for the discovery of the acceleration, not for dark energy."

The theoretical side of this amazing discovery is very unsettling and the whole of physics may be transformed by further developments.

Huping Hu & Maoxin Wu

October 4, 2011

JOHN ECCLES – NOBEL LAUREATE IN MEDICINE AND PHYSIOLOGY

Nobel Prize: Sir John Eccles (1903–1997) received the 1963 Nobel Prize in Medicine and Physiology for establishing the relationship between inhibition of nerve cells and repolarization of a cell’s membrane. Eccles’ other significant contributions were primarily in the area of brain research. Eccles is one of the greatest neurophysiologists of the XXth century; he is one of the founders of modern electrophysiology.

Nationality: Australian; later British and American resident

Education: M.A. and Ph.D., Oxford University, 1929

Occupation: Professor of Physiology at Oxford University, Australian National University (Canberra), State University of NY, etc.

1. In his article “Modern Biology and the Turn to Belief in God” that he wrote for the book, The Intellectuals Speak Out About God: A Handbook for the Christian Student in a Secular Society (1984), John Eccles came to the following conclusion:

“Science and religion are very much alike. Both are imaginative and creative aspects of the human mind. The appearance of a conflict is a result of ignorance.

We come to exist through a divine act. That divine guidance is a theme throughout our life; at our death the brain goes, but that divine guidance and love continues. Each of us is a unique, conscious being, a divine creation. It is the religious view. It is the only view consistent with all the evidence.” (Eccles 1984, 50).

2. In an interview published in the scientific anthology, The Voice of Genius (1995), Prof. Eccles stated:

“There is a fundamental mystery in my personal existence, transcending the biological account of the development of my body and my brain. That belief, of course, is in keeping with the religious concept of the soul and with its special creation by God.” (Eccles, as cited in Brian 1995, 371).

3. “I am constrained to attribute the uniqueness of the Self or Soul to a supernatural spiritual creation. To give the explanation in theological terms: each Soul is a new Divine creation which is implanted into the growing foetus at some time between conception and birth.” (Eccles 1991, 237).

4. In The Human Mystery, Eccles writes: “I believe that there is a Divine Providence operating over and above the materialist happenings of biological evolution.” (Eccles 1979, 235).

5. “If I consider reality as I experience it, the primary experience I have is of my own existence as a unique self-conscious being which I believe is God-created.” (Eccles, as cited in Margenau and Varghese 1997, 161).

6. Eccles described the so-called ‘promissory materialism’ thus:

“There has been a regrettable tendency of many scientists to claim that science is so powerful and all pervasive that in the not too distant future it will provide an explanation in principle for all phenomena in the world of nature, including man, even of human consciousness in all its manifestations. In our recent book (The Self and Its Brain, Popper and Eccles, 1977) Popper has labelled this claim as promissory materialism, which is extravagant and unfulfillable.

Yet on account of the high regard for science, it has great persuasive power with the intelligent laity because it is advocated unthinkingly by the great mass of scientists who have not critically evaluated the dangers of this false and arrogant claim.” (Eccles 1979, p. I).

7. With respect to ‘promissory materialism’, in his book How the Self Controls Its Brain (Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 1994), Eccles wrote:

“I regard this theory as being without foundation. The more we discover scientifically about the brain the more clearly do we distinguish between the brain events and the mental phenomena and the more wonderful do the mental phenomena become. Promissory materialism is simply a superstition held by dogmatic materialists. It has all the features of a Messianic prophecy, with the promise of a future freed of all problems - a kind of Nirvana for our unfortunate successors.” (Eccles 1994).

8. In his book Evolution of the Brain: Creation of the Self (London: Routledge, 1991), Eccles wrote:

“I maintain that the human mystery is incredibly demeaned by scientific reductionism, with its claim in promissory materialism to account eventually for all of the spiritual world in terms of patterns of neuronal activity. This belief must be classed as a superstition.

We have to recognize that we are spiritual beings with souls existing in a spiritual world as well as material beings with bodies and brains existing in a material world.” (Eccles 1991, 241).

9. “Since materialist solutions fail to account for our experienced uniqueness, I am constrained to attribute the uniqueness of the self or soul to a supernatural spiritual creation.

This conclusion is of inestimable theological significance. It strongly reinforces our belief in the human soul and in its miraculous origin in a divine creation.” (Eccles 1994, 168).

10. “As a dualist I believe in the reality of the world of mind or spirit as well as in the reality of the material world. Furthermore I am a finalist in the sense of believing that there is some Design in the processes of biological evolution that has eventually led to us self-conscious beings with our unique individuality; and we are able to contemplate and we can attempt to understand the grandeur and wonder of nature.” (Eccles 1979, 9).

Eccles’ teacher, the Nobelist in neurophysiology Sir Charles Sherrington, too, is a dualist; Sherrington maintains that our nonmaterial mind is fundamentally different from our physical body. Sherrington believes in an almighty Deity and Natural Religion. (See Charles Sherrington, Man on His Nature. The Gifford Lectures in Natural Theology, Cambridge University Press, 1975, 59 and 293). There are many other Nobel scientists, who have explored thoroughly the mind-body problem, and who are staunch dualists: George Wald, Nevill Mott, M. Planck, E. Schroedinger, Brian D. Josephson, Santiago Ramon y Cajal, Roger Sperry, Albert Szent-Gyoergyi, Walter R. Hess, Henri Bergson, Alexis Carrel, etc. (See Margenau and Varghese 1997, ‘Cosmos, Bios, Theos’; see also Popper and Eccles 1977, The Self and Its Brain).

See the chapters on George Wald, Nevill Mott, M. Planck, and E. Schroedinger in this book.

11. In his article “Scientists in Search of the Soul” (Science Digest, 1982), the science writer John Gliedman pointed out:

“Eccles strongly defends the ancient religious belief that human beings consist of a mysterious compound of physical body and intangible spirit. Each of us embodies a nonmaterial thinking and perceiving self that ‘entered’ our physical brain sometime during embryological development or very early childhood, says the man who helped lay the cornerstones of modern neurophysiology. This ‘ghost in the machine’ is responsible for everything that makes us distinctly human: conscious self-awareness, free will, personal identity, creativity and even emotions such as love, fear, and hate. Our nonmaterial self controls its “liaison brain” the way a driver steers a car or a programmer directs a computer. Man’s ghostly spiritual presence, says Eccles, exerts just the whisper of a physical influence on the computerlike brain, enough to encourage some neurons to fire and others to remain silent. Boldly advancing what for most scientists is the greatest heresy of all, Eccles also asserts that our nonmaterial self survives the death of the physical brain.” (Gliedman 1982, 77).

12. “We can regard the death of the body and brain as dissolution of our dualist existence. Hopefully, the liberated soul will find another future of even deeper meaning and more entrancing experiences, perhaps in some renewed embodied existence in accord with traditional Christian teaching.” (Eccles 1991, 242).

13. “I do believe that we are the product of the creativity of what we call God. I hope that this life will lead to some future existence where my self or soul will have another existence, with another brain, or computer if you like. I don’t know how I got this one, it’s a pretty good one, and I’m grateful for it, but I do know as a realist that it will disappear.

But I think my conscious self or soul will come through.” (Eccles, as cited in Gilling and Brightwell, The Human Brain, 1982, 180).

14. In his book The Human Mystery, Sir John Eccles said: “The amazing success of the theory of evolution has protected it from significant critical evaluation in recent times. However it fails in a most important respect. It cannot account for the existence of each one of us as unique, self-conscious beings.” (Eccles 1979, 96).

15. Sir John Eccles maintains that the will of the human beings is free, and that’s why he denies the so-called physical determinism: “If physical determinism is true, then that is the end of all discussion or argument; everything is finished. There is no philosophy. All human persons are caught up in this inexorable web of circumstances and cannot break out of it. Everything that we think we are doing is an illusion.” (See Popper and Eccles, 1977, 546).

16. “With self-conscious purpose a person has a great challenge in choosing what life to live.

One can choose to live dedicated to the highest values, truth, love, and beauty, with gratitude for the divine gift of life with its wonderful opportunities of participating in human culture. One can do this in accord with opportunities. For example, one of the highest achievements is to create a human family living in a loving relationship. I was brought up religiously under such wonderful conditions, for which I can be eternally grateful. There are great opportunities in a life dedicated to education or science or art or to the care of the sick. Always one should try to be in a loving relationship with one’s associates. We are all fellow beings mysteriously living on this wonderful spaceship planet Earth that we should cherish devotedly, but not worship.” (Eccles, as cited in Templeton 1994, 131).

17. In his letter to Erika Erdmann (December 19, 1990), Eccles said:

“You refer to protection of our Earth as the most urgent goal at present. I disagree. It is to save mankind from materialist degradation. It comes in the media, in the consumer society, in overriding quest for power and money, in the degradation of our values (that used to be thought as based on love, truth, and beauty), and in the disintegration of the human family.” (Eccles 1990).

18. “I repudiate philosophies and political systems which recognize human beings as mere things with a material existence of value only as cogs in the great bureaucratic machine of the state, which thus becomes a slave state. The terrible and cynical slaveries depicted in Orwell’s ‘1984’ are engulfing more and more of our planet.

Is there yet time to rebuild a philosophy and a religion that can give us a renewed faith in this great spiritual adventure, which for each of us is a human life lived in freedom and dignity?” (Eccles 1979, 237).

Michael Persinger (1993, 2010a & 2010b) is truly a pioneer in the field of experimental studies of mysitical experiences and have done ground-breaking experimental work over the years. In 1999, Wired Magazine published an article entitled "This Is Your Brain on God" in which the author, Jack Hitt stated that "Michael Persinger has a vision - the Almighty isn't dead, he's an energy field. And your mind is an electromagnetic map to your soul."

Persinger states at his website that "[a]s a human being, I am concerned about the illusionary explanations for human consciousness and the future of human existence. Consequently after writing the Neuropsychological Base of God Beliefs (1987), I began the systematic application of complex electromagnetic fields to discern the patterns that will induce experiences (sensed presence) that are attributed to the myriad of ego-alien intrusions which range from gods to aliens. The research is not to demean anyone's religious/mystical experience but instead to determine which portions of the brain or its electromagnetic patterns generate the experience. Two thousand years of philosophy have taught us that attempting to prove or disprove realities may never have discrete verbal (linguistic) solutions because of the limitation of this measurement. The research has been encouraged by the historical fact that most wars and group degradations are coupled implicitly to god beliefs and to the presumption that those who do not believe the same as the experient are somehow less human and hence expendable. Although these egocentric propensities may have had adaptive significance, their utility for the species' future may be questionable."

Our own theoretical and experimental studies (see references at the end) have shown that: (1) Consciousness is prespacetime (non-spatial and non-temporal) and not in the brain; (2) brain is an interface between Consciousness and the external world; (3) quantum spin is the mind-pixel; (4) magnetic field is manifested by the internal world based on the Principle of Existence. Therefore, altered states of consciousness such as sensed presence and out-of-body experience whether they are produced by magnetic, electric or other stimulations or circumstances can be most effectively explained as the changes of the relative contents and/or intensities of the test subjects’ neural quantum entanglement with their surroundings etc. (including possibly spiritual environments or information!).

Thus, interpreted from the perspectives of the latter findings, Persinger's "GOD experiments" might not have proven that GOD and/or mystical experiences are a mere phenomenon localized in the material brain but can be explained as the non-spatial and non-temporal Consciousness through the brain quantum-entangles with his/her environments possibly including the spiritual environment!

For readers interested in more details, please read the below and the articles listed in the Reference.

In a recent article Persinger and his colleague(s) summarize their results as follows (Michael, 2010a):

Quantitative EEG data indicate that a sequence of stimulation by between 1 and 5 uT fields at the scalp’s surface with as little as 10% greater intensity over the right hemisphere compared to the left is associated with greater convergence of theta activity between the left temporal and right prefrontal region. Subsequent bilateral stimulation is associated with greater right-to-left temporal coherence. These two experimental conditions and quantitative EEG patterns are associated with reports of out-of-body experiences and the sensed presence, respectively.
....

The results and approaches of our research and those of Olaf Blanke both show that out-of-body-experiences and the sensed presence can be generated experimentally by stimulating either one or the other of the hemispheres within specific regions. The quality of the experiences, although direct comparisons have not been made, appears to be similar and the quantitative or meaningful intensity reveal similar values for individual salience.
....

[We] reviewed and re-analyzed the approximately 20 experiments involving 407 subjects that have demonstrated the experimental elicitation of either the sensed presence or out of body experience. [Our] re-analyses clearly showed the specific magnetic configurations and not the subjects’ exotic beliefs or suggestibility was responsible for the increased incidence of sensed presences. The subjects’ histories of spontaneous sensed presences before the experiment (and exposure to the magnetic fields) were moderately correlated with exotic beliefs and temporal lobe sensitivity. The side attributed to the presence at the time of the experience was affected by the parameters of the fields, the hemisphere to which they were maximized, and the person’s a priori beliefs.

In vivid terms one test subject in Persinger’s experiment reported “I felt a presence behind me and then along the left side. When I tried to focus on the position, the presence moved. Every time I tried to sense where it was, it moved around. When it moved to the right side, I experienced a deep sense of security like I have not experienced before. I started to cry when I felt it slowly fade away ([Persinger] had changed the field patterns)”.

Also in vivid terms, another test subject reported an out-of-body experience stating “I feel as if there was a bright white light in front of me. I saw a black spot that became a funnel....no tunnel that I felt drawn into. I felt moving, like spinning forward through it. I began to feel the presence of people, but I could not see them. They were along my sides. They were colourless and grey looking. I know I was in the chamber but it was very real. I suddenly felt intense fear and felt ice cold.”

Persinger and colleague (2010a) reasoned that: "Our primary assumption is that consciousness and its variants of mystical states can be expressed as quantum phenomena. If consciousness and thought are coupled to electron movements, then a macroscopic manifestation should be congruent with the magnetic field strengths associated with neurocognitive activities. Access to the information within the movements of an electron, its fundamental charge, and the photon emissions associated with changes in electron movements, would allow mystical states and the information with which they are associated to have alternative interpretations that recruit the fundamental properties of space-time and matter."

Persinger et. al.’s above experimental results can be best explained by the spin-mediated consciousness theory for the reasons stated below:

First, the primary targets of interactions for the weak pulsed magnetic field used by Persinger’s Group are the nuclear and/or electron spins associated with the neural membranes, protein and water etc. Indeed, neural membranes and proteins contain vast numbers of nuclear spins such as 1H, 13C, 31P and 15N.

Second, as we have experimentally demonstrated (Hu & Wu, 2006a-c), pulsed electromagnetic fields (photons) carries information through quantum entanglement from external substance (and environment) which they interacted with.

Third, nuclear spins in the brain form complex intra- and inter-molecular networks through various intra-molecular J- and dipolar couplings and both short- and long-range intermolecular dipolar couplings. Further, nuclear spins have relatively long relaxation times after excitations (Gershenfeld & Chuang, 1997).

Fourth, quantum spin is a fundamental quantum process with intrinsic connection to the structure of space-time (Dirac, 1928) and was shown to be responsible for the quantum effects in both Hestenes and Bohmian quantum mechanics (Hestenes, 1983; Salesi & Recami, 1998).

Therefore, altered states of consciousness such as sensed presence and out-of-body experience whether they are produced by magnetic, electric or other stimulations or circumstances can be most effectively explained as the changes of the relative contents and/or intensities of the test subjects’ neural quantum entanglement with their surroundings etc. (including possibly spiritual environments/information!).

References

Persinger, M. A., Vectorial cerebral hemisphericity as differential sources for the sensed presence, mystical experiences and religious conversions. Psychological Reports, 1993; 76: 915-930.

Persinger, M. A. et.al. The Electromagnetic Induction of Mystical and Altered States within the Laboratory, JCER, 2010a; 1(7): 808-830.

Persinger, M. A. & Lavallee , C. F., The Electromagnetic Induction of Mystical and Altered States within the Laboratory, JCER, 2010b; 1(7): 785-807.

Hu, H. & Wu, M. Spin-mediated consciousness theory. arXiv 2002; quant-ph/0208068. Also see Med. Hypotheses 2004a: 63: 633-646.

Hu, H. & Wu, M. Spin as primordial self-referential process driving quantum mechanics, spacetime dynamics and consciousness. NeuroQuantology 2004b; 2:41-49. Also see Cogprints: ID2827 2003.

Hu, H. & Wu, M. Action potential modulation of neural spin networks suggests possible role of spin in memory and consciousness. NeuroQuantology 2004c; 2:309-316. Also see Cogprints: ID3458 2004d.

Hu, H. & Wu, M. Thinking outside the box: the essence and implications of quantum entanglement. NeuroQuantology 2006a; 4: 5-16.

Hu, H. & Wu, M. Photon induced non-local effect of general anesthetics on the brain. NeuroQuantology 2006b 4: 17-31. Also see Progress in Physics 2006c; v3: 20-26.

Hu, H. & Wu, M. Evidence of non-local physical, chemical and biological effects supports quantum brain. NeuroQuantology 2006d; 4: 291-306. Also see Progress in Physics 2007a; v2: 17-24.

Huping Hu & Maoxin Wu

October 2, 2011

CHARLES DARWIN (1809-1882), founder of the Theory of Evolution

1. Charles Darwin ended his most fundamental scientific work The Origin of Species (1872, 6th edition) with the words:

“There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.” (Darwin 1928, 463).

2. “Another source of conviction in the existence of God, connected with the reason and not with the feelings, impresses me as having much more weight. This follows from the extreme difficulty or rather impossibility of conceiving this immense and wonderful universe, including man with his capacity of looking far backwards and far into futurity, as the result of blind chance or necessity. When thus reflecting, I feel compelled to look to a First Cause having an intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that of man; and I deserve to be called a Theist.” (Darwin 1995, 60).

3. “To my mind it accords better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator, that the production and extinction of the past and present inhabitants of the world should have been due to secondary causes, like those determining the birth and death of the individual.” (Darwin 1928, 462; The Origin of Species).

4. “With respect to the theological view of the question; this is always painful to me. I am bewildered. I had no intention to write atheistically.

I cannot anyhow be contented to view this wonderful universe and especially the nature of man, and to conclude that everything is the result of brute force. I am inclined to look at everything as resulting from designed laws, with the details, whether good or bad, left to the working out of what we may call chance.” (Darwin 1993, 224).

5. In 1879, three years before the end of his life, Darwin wrote that he had “never been an Atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God.” (Darwin, as cited in Bowden 1998, 273).

6. In 1873 Darwin stated: “The impossibility of conceiving that this grand and wondrous universe, with our conscious selves, arose through chance, seems to me the chief argument for the existence of God.” (Darwin, as cited in Bowden 1998, 273).