LifeOS: exploring the system that executes DNA

July 24, 2008

More Secret Life of Plants

Musical Fertilizer

Backster’s experiments were just some of the research written up in The Secret Life of Plants, that i was sure would lead to a better understanding of our living Earth. Another worth mentioning is the notion that plants would grow more vigorously when played music. This research was all the rage back in the ‘70s, pitting rock music against classical and such. Which music did the plants prefer? The sensationalism at least meant that magazines would report on the research from time to time.

So, through magazine articles and press releases, i followed several research projects that were set up to test the possibility that music affected plant growth. I watched in dismay as proposed experiments were gutted and/or restricted by the bureaucracy of science. It looked like the experiments were being set up to prove that it wouldn’t work. Every time positive results appeared the experiment was modified until that unfortunate anomalies were eliminated. I really felt sorry for the researchers who were trying to find answers, but were thwarted by their superiors.

After a while, the phenomenon was declared a fantasy, and science moved on, proud of another triumph over ignorance and superstition. Not everyone gave up the chase, however. There were several of us who thought there was more than enough reason to look deeper into the situation.

Instead of asking what was wrong with the method that produced positive results, a better approach would be to try identify the process that produced them. There were several folks who took up that challenge without the restrictions of agribusiness sponsored mind set. After all, setting up experiments with growing plants and a sound system doesn’t require big bucks.

One Way it works:

Music played at the right time causes the stomata(openings in the leaves that intake nutrients) to open wide. The result is that the leaves can absorb several times as much foliar feeding with the music. When is the right time? At the crack of dawn. What kind of music works the best? Just about anything within the frequency range of bird songs.

For maybe millions of years, great clouds of birds flew across the land and spent their nights roosting in the trees and bushes. At dawn they all begin to sing and take their morning dumps. Nutrient rich bird droppings would rain down on all the plants below. This was foliar feeding on a grand scale. Plants still remember those days and open their little mouths to catch the bounty. If you are there at dawn with your sprayer, humming a little tune, your plants will thank you with increased yields. Science can say what they will, but you can prove this one works for yourself.

Now that’s not such a mysterious situation that our deans of higher learning couldn’t have figured out if they had given just a little bit more effort. They just couldn’t believe there was anything to it. They still don’t.

Symbiotic Rapport

That’s not the only effect music can have on plants. Music played with no foliar feeding may even decrease growth rates. Singing songs of praise to your plants is not wasted effort. What you are doing is building a rapport with your plants.

Backster’s experiments showed that rapport was necessary for there to be communication. When you look at the behavior of prehistoric farmers in the light of Backster’s experiments, it becomes apparent that animal sacrifice was used to communicate with plants. Just as the Dracaena in Backster’s office reacted to dying brine shrimp, the crops of ancient farmers reacted to their sacrifice.

Seems to me that this as part of the process of establishing a symbiotic relationship. The plant offers food in exchange for the farmer’s assistance in growth and propagation. The deal is reinforced with sacrifice and ceremony through which the farmers display their intent to do so. This relationship has been successful for many generations of plants and farmers.

Backster’s experiments showed that plants are aware of intent. His Dracaena reacted to his thought of burning a leaf. His thought of harm were in vivid contrast to the thoughts of care he usually directed towards his plant. Rather than fear, i think the Dracaena’s reaction was a feeling of betrayal.

Plants depend on their symbiots for their survival. This relationship grows as the farmer tends his plants. From Backster’s work we can see that the plants are aware of the farmer’s intent. Looks to me like a green thumb has its roots in consciousness.

Planting by the Moon

Here’s another one that shows a shoddy approach to the search for truth. Its the old plant by the moon controversy. Farmers have long planted by the moon while science contends that to do so is superstitious nonsense. All you really need to do to see this in action is study plants that grow in climate zones where the growing season is extremely short. Survival under these conditions depends on precise timing.

One way plants have to determine the time of year is by checking the length of the night during the dark of the moon. When light strikes any leaf, it produces a hormone that acts like a timer. It lasts about eight hours. The timer hormone suppresses the hormone that signals the start of flowering.

So as long as there is no darkness lasting more than eight hours, the plant continues its vegetative growth. As soon as the darkness lasts more than eight hours, the timer hormone runs down and the hormone that signals the flowering phase is allowed to flow.

Take a plant that needs a minimum of 30 days to reach maturity and another 30 days to make ripe seed. In places where the growing season is only 90 days, there is little margin for error. A one month old plant is still very small and not capable of making seed. It really needs another 30 days of growth to build some seed making equipment. A plant needs all 90 days to be successful.

Farmers in these mountains have found that the very best chance for a good harvest is to plant strictly by the moon. The plant has to germinate soon enough so that it can test the length of night on the first new moon of its life cycle. If it misses that first test, it has to wait another moon cycle in order determine the length of the night. That amounts to one third of its growing season. It can’t wait that long to decide whether or not to flower. That means there are just a very few planting days, when a farmer can expect a successful crop. Under these conditions, planting by the moon is the only way. They have done this for a very long time.

Down in the lowlands, with hybrid seed, lacking a history in the local environment, planting by the moon produces no difference in yields. That is all within the context of the current scientific paradigm. Back up in the mountains, that paradigm is inappropriate.

Mindless Universe?

I present these examples, not to demean science or any of its practitioners, but to point out how the assumption of a mindless Universe makes it difficult to impossible to see an intelligent one. The current scientific paradigm has been constructed with faulty components. The paradigm is what scientists use as a lens through which they observe reality. This one gives a distorted view.

Science has always believed that their method would reveal something we could call reality. With so many precise instruments and such careful organization of the data, the result would certainly be reality. But their precise instruments have revealed some unexpected behavior at several levels, especially at the quantum one. The implication of that unpredictable behavior is that current scientific paradigm is fundamentally flawed. Quantum mechanics describes the behavior of subatomic particles. If the current scientific understanding of how the Universe functions was accurate, so would have been their predictions.

This is the core of the confusion bubbling up in our society these days. Our solid world of matter has turned ethereal on us and we don’t know what to think.

Just as in quantum mechanics, where the conscious observer becomes a functional part of the observation, in biology the thoughts of the observer affect the observation. Observation is a two-way street; it is communication. It is an information feedback loop cycling between the material and the ethereal, the visible and the invisible, the real and the imagined. This is especially problematical for people with no spiritual training. They really lack a conceptual framework with which to understand the invisible half of the loop. In other words, the context in which science operates excludes the very area that quantum mechanics reveals as fundamental: the non-time/space, informational/spiritual realm of uncertainty, probability and consciousness.

The context of belief is arbitrary. Our perception and everything we know was learned within a contextual framework. Our reality was molded around this framework provided by our culture. We cannot escape that relationship. Even our most exacting science is only a description of reality, totally dependent on context, and not the real thing. Even though the scientific community has discovered this to be true, they have been unable to look back on their own method and make adjustments.

June 7, 2008

How can it be both?

Filed under: An Introduction, Drafts — Tags: , , , , , , , — insomniac @ 3:56 am

When i came back online i considered changing my handle from insomniac, ‘cuz it no longer seemed to fit. Since retirement, i’ve been sleeping straight through.

Well, here i am, three in the morning, pondering at the keyboard, just like old times.

How can it be? How can the Universe be both material and ethereal at the same time? This is a fundamental question being asked over and over in blogs, on message boards, street corners and cafes. It is the single argument with so many different manifestations. Particle or wave, fact or fantasy, mind or matter, determinism or free will all stem from the same question. How can it be both?

Easy; it is all in how you look at it. The Universe consists of matter, energy and information. If you look at the matter by itself, it seems solid enough. If you look at energy by itself, the Universe looks chaotic, random and very hot or cold. If you look at the information by itself, the Universe becomes a phantom history of the doings of solid things amid chaos. Our Universe consists of all three. Considered together our Universe becomes less solid, less chaotic and more rational.

Is it solid or is it imaginary? Both! The Universe is solid, but dynamic, made out of energy and therefore not so solid over time. The interaction of matter and energy over time produce information in the form of an active memory. The Universe isn’t imaginary, but it has an active imagination.

You and i work with our own personal version of that universal user interface. The System lets you perceive your interface any way you see fit. It is done to you as you believe.


May 29, 2008

Holographic Memory

Filed under: Ch 06 Holoverse — Tags: , , , , — insomniac @ 9:45 am

Advances in computer memory have increased capacities to amazing levels and forced engineers to look for new technologies for data storage. One of the most promising is using holographic principles.
Holographic Memory

This is very much like the process used in holographic photography, at least the schematic is almost identical. In both a beam of light is converted to laser light by passing through a crystal. The internal structure of the crystal organizes the light into patterns that give laser light special properties. One way to think of it is that the crystal is full of tiny mirrored facets that line up the photons and shoot them out in lockstep.

The laser beam is then split in two by passing through glass that reflects a percentage of the light toward a mirror. The mirror reflects the beam at the medium. The unreflected light continues through the object, and on to the medium. There it intersects the other beam and forms an interference pattern. The object has altered the main beam, while the mirrored beam is still pure.

I think you could say that the interference patterns represent the difference between the structure of the two beams.

In holographic photography, the interference pattern is recorded on light sensitive film. Where this system is different is that it records the interference patterns “inside” the crystal or photopolymer medium. The laser interference patterns are recorded by altering the internal structure of the medium. This eliminates the possibility of errors from surface scratches or dust.

For binary data storage we can use an object that is a fine grid, with units the width of a wavelength of this laser light. Each cell of the grid represents a binary bit, either letting light thru or blocking it. A square centimeter of this grid will hold a lot of binary data.

Another separate hologram can be recorded in the same media, by slightly changing the angle between the media and beam. Still more information can be stored by changing wave length or phase of the laser. If we rotate the medium and make our laser light variable, we can cram a lot of data into a very small space.

Besides being able to store a lot of data, retrieval is in huge chunks of binary bits at a time rather than a linear stream. This technology has the potential to be the next big deal in computer data storage.

What is really the key here is that holographic memory records interference patterns by “altering the internal structure of the medium”. The fact that interference patterns can do this needs to be looked into further.

May 27, 2008

Wave Function Detour

Filed under: Life OS News — Tags: , , , , , , , — insomniac @ 7:09 am

Writing a manuscript always takes some twists and turns. As the story develops it often surprises the author. I’ve come upon one of those interesting forks in the road that any journey is bound to provide. Part of the thrill of a journey is the unexpected.

It all came about because of Wikipedia and a discussion about the wavefunction page. If you’ve been following along you know that i’m painting in broad strokes here, and am not about to get bogged down in details. These folks are all about details and are trying to get this page right. The discussion ranges from whether wavefunction should be two words all the way up to the relevance of certain equations. I have no way of judging who is right or wrong, but i can surely see that the term means different things to different folks. A wavefunction is one thing to a mathematician and another to a physicist. It means something a little different in fluid dynamics. Even in physics, it means something different in classic physics from quantum mechanics.

What drew me to study the term was that it represents the information about the state of a wave system. What i’m looking for is the common ground, concepts that are common to all these views. Although factions disagree on the details of that information and whether or not it represents information only in the mind of the observer or information actually contained within the structure of the wave, they agree that the wave function describes a particular wave and its component parts.

That’s the scientific term for what i’ve been talking about here, the information present in all matter. The wave function is a static formula attempting to describe a dynamic situation. In the reading of the wavefunction discussion, i was taken by just how pivitol this concept is to the LifeOS model. The more i thought about it the more i could see that i needed to rewrite some earier installments to include the concept of wave function.

What brought me to wave function was the several paradoxes involving waves and particles, including measurment and the observer, and such. These paradoxes show problems with perception rather than some malfunction of the Universe. The theory of everything should not have these flaws in perception. Well, the LifeOS model pretty much erases these seeming pardoxes.

So, i’m backing off on the manuscript for a few days while i sort this out. Meanwhile, i’m willing to talk about it. Here is the crux…

In LifeOS, the Whole System, all matter is the memory of the Universe. It operates in much the same way as RAM memory in that the data is stored in the “state” of the recording medium, in this case a binary switch. This is how any recording device works, by changing the state of the recording medium.

Ok, in LifeOS the recording medium is matter and it remembers by altering the state of the medium. Holographic memory works like this. So in this model, holographic information is stored in matter at the quantum level, by altering the state of the medium.

In a binary computer sytem, it is the state of the binary switch that holds the data. The state of one switch tells you very little; it is only one bit. It takes eight bits to make one byte, the basic unit of data. It takes a lot of bits to make useful information.

If you could get inside the crystal structure that holds the switches in a modern computer, and tried to measure the state of one of those transistors, you would most probably cause the state of the switch to change. The charges that hold those switches in their state are so tiny that just touching them could switch their state.

That is the same problem encountered in quantum physics. When they try to measure the state of subatomic particles, the state changes. If matter is a memory medium, as this model contends, then this odd behavior of subatomic particles is just as expected.

In this holgraphic memory system, it is the state of particles that holds the information. The state of one particle doesn’t tell us much, but the combined states of all the particles within a system projects its holographic image, which equals the current reality of that system.


Create a free website or blog at