The Science of Life

Let me introduce myself: My name is Howard Roy Curtin. I was born in 1942 and earned my Ph.D. (Physics) at BYU in 1971. I was associated with instrumentation and data reduction for- the X15 near- space project while working for GE at Edwards Airforce Base. (1959, 1960), non-destructive testing methods for the atomic Energy Commission at Hanford Washington (1964-1967); Research faculty University of Utah Medical school (radiology), Computer Science Dept Rochester Institute of Technology RIT), Manager of Computer Services, State of Utah.

The basis for the following concepts began while I was at Hanford and materialized as follows;

Back in the 1970s, while I was working for the Eyring Research Institute as a senior scientist, I was asked by our DOD research sponsors to investigate several frontier technologies; among those were things such as through-the-earth communication, free-energy devices and human capabilities.

I was networked with the people that were doing research on dowsing, and with the people at SRI (that's Stanford Research Institute) in California that were doing CIA funded work using a protocol they called "Remote Viewing". I also interfaced with the people at Princeton University that were doing related research regarding remote viewing and mind-machine interaction. All of these research projects were demonstrating effects that seem to be impossible according to our present understanding of science.

I had worked hard to become a "Real Scientist" with PhD. Credentials as a Physicist. Some of the work I was associated with at that time could be called Para-Science or even pseudo-science. However, it was careful work, done by good competent scientists. The question that consumed me at that time was:

Is it possible that there are aspects of reality that are not "Scientific"?

The first answer is that "Science" is evolving, and that eventually "science "will explain all of reality. But is this answer True?

I realized that the question I was asking was a sematic question; like the question: is it possible that something exists that isn't a cow? We have criteria for cow-ness; what is the criteria for inclusion within the prevailing definition of "Scientific"?

Science is not reality; Science is a method of testing the predictive ability of models of reality. I noted that all of the models that I was aware of were of a statistical nature. The variables of Classical Physics are of a statistical nature as are its predictive models, Quantum Physics models are intrinsically statistical; Social Science; Medical Science, Political Science, etc.; are all based on Statistical models that predict probabilities.

Based on the belief that REALITY≡SCIENTIFIC; statistically highly unlikely objects or events are judged as impossible, or miraculous, and therefore unscientific and, by implication, not real. If a person recovers from an incurable condition this experience is labeled anecdotal, and of no scientific interest.

The important observation here is that the core concept of statistical models is the concept of "chance". I came to realize that what we accept as science, is the study of things that happen by chance.

The worship of "Science" is the worship of the gods of chance. Along with this belief system is the belief that anything, or any being, will be manifest by chance if we just wait long enough. I found this belief system challenged mathematically By David Foster in His Book "The Philosophical Scientists". His analysis was based on the concept of "Specificity". Specificity is a concept that is the inverse of Probability. For instance, the number 15872 is one example of all of the possible numbers from 0 to 99999. In a base 10 number system there are 106 unique possibilities. The specificity of each unique number is 106 and the probability of selecting a specific number from all of the possible numbers by chance is 1/106

To summarize:

Probability and Specificity are Complementary concepts.

The current Science models are statistical models.

Studies outside of these models are classified as "Meta".

David Foster analyzed the veracity of some of the claims that a Science-of-Chance is capable of explaining all reality. For example, he investigated a famous defense of Darwinism by T. H. Huxley who asserted:

"Six monkeys, set to strum unintelligently on typewriters for millions of years would be bound, in time, to write all the books of the British museum"

As a counter example Foster considered a short Wordsworth poem "Daffodils". This poem is a composition of 38 English words coded with 159 letters.

The written expression of "Daffodils" has a Specificity of 3.6 x 10175

It would take 1000 monkeys typing, 318 letters a minute, 24 hours a day about: 3.6 x 10163 years to accidently type that short poem.

Foster examines other examples; One is the Hemoglobin Molecule that transports oxygen in the red blood cells.

Hemoglobin is a precise arrangement of 574 amino acids. Taking into account the relative number of each amino acid, Foster computes that: There are 10650 permutations; only one of which is hemoglobin. Therefore: The Specificity of hemoglobin is 7.4 x 10654.

By comparison:

Number of atoms in universe 1080

Number of seconds to estimated date of Big Bang 1088

These simple calculations show that poetry and hemoglobin cannot exist in a universe governed only by chance. However, they, and a vast array of other examples, do exist; so, what is missing? What is missing is — the rest of the story!

If Choice exists, then poetry and people are possible.

The governing principle of material science is chance. Chance evolves from order to Disorder (Entropy).

Or in other words; from the highly specific to the highly probable. Intelligence has the power to select (chose) and organize the specific from the possible; to create order

If Choice exists, then there must be a chooser. I believe the chooser is represented in the English language by the concept of Intelligence. Highly specific choices may be made from any array of possibilities. The Science of Choice therefore is the science of creation. {The ultimate creative intelligence is referred to as GOD}

I am not going to develop here a comprehensive Science of Intelligence (choice); however, I will make a few observations:

  1. If choice exists, the manifestation of high specificity is possible and expected.
  2. All Choices are qualitative.
  3. The concepts of purpose and quality are not elements of material science.
  4. Whereas events in material Science are explained by past-present local causality: a choice is influenced by the past, the present, and the future.
  5. We determine that something is alive by observing it making purposeful choices.
  6. Three elements of choice are; attention, intention and, motivation.

We are directing our attention here to Human Health. I propose that a complete model of human health will include attention to the physical aspect of man (Anatomy and Biology) and to his animating and governing Intelligence.

To be alive requires the ability to choose. Therefore:

  1. life is choice
  2. Choice is qualitative.
  3. Life is qualitative
  4. Better lives come from better Choices.
  5. Larger lives come from a larger range of Choices (freedom, and competence))

In the New Testament there is a claim that the" Spirit and the Body are the Soul of man" I am making the same claim. Man has two complementary representations: The body that is local and material and, the Intelligence that animates the body and may be nonlocal (in time and space). {I am considering naming this field of study Viology. The merger of Biology and Viology produces Physiology.}

The IQS Technology has been created to improve communication between our conscience intelligence and the aspect of intelligence that governs and maintains our body.

Dr. Palmer, a pioneer of Chiropractic, liked to refer to this inner animating intelligence as Innate Intelligence, or in other words the intelligence we were born with. I will sometimes refer to the EDD (Electro Dermal Dialogue) experience as "talking to Nate".

I have introduced the concept of "Talk". Material Science concerns itself with such concepts as matter, motion and energy. What are the prime concepts of the (Science of Intelligence)? The most primitive concept that I could think of was: the concept of Thought itself. But how do we experience thought? I believe that it often incorporates language. Language is a means of focusing our attention. For instance, the function of a "word" is to filter out the thought of all thoughts not associated with the Meaning of the WORD. In other words, a word is an attention filter. We can communicate (share attention) in ways other than with symbolic "words". For examples: touch, music, functional attention focus and other ways you might imagine. [Note, I have been bolding words that represent concepts that are not part of the lexicon of material science.] A few others are: attention, intention, quality, faith, Live, die, experience, etc. It becomes apparent that to limit the management of health (a quality of life) to material science and technology, is to ignore the inherent nature, power and complexity of life itself.

Let's summarize; We propose that:

  • Material science, is based on chance and is inadequate to explain life
  • In addition to Chance; Choice is.
  • Choice is actuated by intelligence.
  • The physical body is created and animated by intelligent choice.
  • Choice is qualitative.
  • Life is qualitative.
  • Better lives result from better choices.
  • We choose to refer to this Innate Intelligence as "NATE".
  • Choice requires attention, language supplies attention filters.
  • It is possible to communicate with Nate by means of Electro-Dermal-Dialog
  • It appears that to-choose is to-live.
  • The study of the viability of an organism we propose to call Viology.
  • The philosophy that expands the study to include societal choice I have named: Soverignetics (to be discussed elsewhere).

The realization of the necessity of the existence of a complementary "Science of Intelligent Choice " or ,"Science of Life", allowed me the freedom to pursue a technology based on what I labeled "Interrogatory BioFeedback".

The IQS3 and the BioTrek clinical methodologies are our latest contributions to this yet evolving field .