• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Life-Fields, Teleology, and Forms

1137

Here until I storm off again
Premium Member
Dr. Harold Saxon Burr hypothesised, discovered, and ultimately scientifically confirmed [1] the existence of what he called Life-Fields (L-Fields). This field acts as a blueprint guiding things like cell reproduction. By measuring these life fields you could predict illness, menstrual cycles, cancer, where a head would develop in an egg - the life field has to change first, for whatever external reason, before these physical changes occurred.

Dr. Burr and those who came after him were not convinced that the life fields could be generated by the cells themselves, that it was in the cells themselves to replicate. In fact how could it be when the replication and and changes were PRECEDED by L-Field change? Dr. Burr himself personally believed this to be proof of a designer, in his mind a God, though we will see this step is unnecessary.

So what exactly is a field? At the most basic it is something produced by the interaction of two things, such as the fields of gravity and magnetism. The field is neither of the two objects, but exists as more or less the interaction between them. From the text Mindwar by Lt. Colonel Michael A. Aquino, PhD (ret.): "What exactly is a “field”? When something occurs somewhere in space because something else happens somewhere else in space, by no detectible means by which the cause produces the effect, the two events are said to be connected by a “field” [well-known examples being gravity and magnetism]" (page 96).

The body is one aspect of this field, but what is the other side of it? No doubt individuals like Burr believed the other side was this supreme mind or God, but Dr. Aquino proposes something much more simple and much easier to logically support: the other aspect is the Form of the individual. Platonism has been explained elsewhere [2] in depth, we don't have the space to address it here, but logically speaking Platonism is best hope of a total metaphysical understanding of reality. It does not require the extra inference of some supreme mind that designates all things in advanced. If there is a Form of the Individual, which there almost certainly is, it is something that exists outside time as Forms are non-temporal. This means the Form would be aware of and account for all changes throughout life, such as viewing a third dimensional being from the fourth dimension [3]. In other words, it would have essentially foreknowledge of changes to the body, from cell replication to tattoos and scars to illness or loss of a body part. If the L-Field is created by the interaction between body and Form, this makes perfect sense, as the field is between the physical change in the body, and the future knowledge of those changes by the Form.

[1] https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...ggdMAA&usg=AFQjCNH6UoawMf9ohJ7jzxPsPs_JdQ1FqA

[2] Platonic Polytheism.pdf

[3]
 

1137

Here until I storm off again
Premium Member
So weird, you question atheism and instead of defending it they jump down your throat with a staunch "no you," then you post your position with scientific evidence and they're nowhere to be found!
 

Yerda

Veteran Member
OK. At first glance it looks like what he calls L-fields are ordinary electromagnetic fields and that this Burr fellow believed living organisms used them in some organising fashion.

From wiki: Burr proposed the term "L-Field" for the bio-electric fields of living systems.

I've done some bioscience and I've done some physics (though I'm by no means an expert on either) and I'm at a loss so far to link this to God or design.
 

1137

Here until I storm off again
Premium Member
OK. At first glance it looks like what he calls L-fields are ordinary electromagnetic fields and that this Burr fellow believed living organisms used them in some organising fashion.

From wiki: Burr proposed the term "L-Field" for the bio-electric fields of living systems.

I've done some bioscience and I've done some physics (though I'm by no means an expert on either) and I'm at a loss so far to link this to God or design.

A bit, the difference is that Life fields are not simply present, they actually preceded the biological and physical changes in not only humans, but literally every form of life studied. For example, a movie theater projector also gives off an EMF field like the body does, but it does not have a life field we can measure to predict future changes, because it is not a constantly changing biological machine. The EMF fields are clearly an outcome of activity in the body, but L Fields were shown to clearly be a blueprint for such activity, predicting it in advanced and guiding it. Now if blueprints just manifest without intelligence, maybe this fits with atheism.
 

Yerda

Veteran Member
A bit, the difference is that Life fields are not simply present, they actually preceded the biological and physical changes in not only humans, but literally every form of life studied. For example, a movie theater projector also gives off an EMF field like the body does, but it does not have a life field we can measure to predict future changes, because it is not a constantly changing biological machine. The EMF fields are clearly an outcome of activity in the body, but L Fields were shown to clearly be a blueprint for such activity, predicting it in advanced and guiding it. Now if blueprints just manifest without intelligence, maybe this fits with atheism.
I just finished that review paper.

What you're calling a Life field is just an electromagnetic field in a living system. In his day this may have been revelatory but it's now textbook knowledge that EM activity is found in living systems. Votage changes prior to ovulation in rabbits is fascinating but not that mysterious.

Where are EM fields clearly shown to be a blueprint for activity?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

1137

Here until I storm off again
Premium Member
I just finished that review paper.

What you're calling a Life field is just an electromagnetic field in a living system. In his day this may have been revelatory but it's now textbook knowledge that EM activity is found in living systems. Votage changes prior to ovulation in rabbits is fascinating but not that mysterious.

Where are EM fields clearly shown to be a blueprint for activity?

I literally just explained this, and apparently you didn't read anything at all.

"Returning to the voltage differences on the
unfertilized egg, Burr noted that there was
one particular point on the equator of the
egg that had a higher voltage than all of the
other measured points, and another point
] 80 degrees along the equator that exhibited
a minimum voltage. Using micro-surgical
instruments he marked the point of
maximum voltage on the egg's surface with
a dot of Nile blue sulphate and then fertil-
ized the egg. As the embryo developed, the
location of the point of maximum voltage
never changed but proved to be coincident
with the location of the salamander's head.
The lowest voltage location developed into
the salamander's tail. The amazing conclu-
sion that Burr drew was that the maximum
voltage location in the unfertilized egg was
a blueprint for the alignment of the fully-
developed salamander's nervous system!"

"Based on these findings (drawn from more
than 10,000 measurements), Burr
concluded the appearance of abnormal
tissue in the organism was preceded by an
abnormal distribution of voltages in the
affected area of the body relative to the
voltage distribution found in mice that
exhibited no palpable cancer."

"Using this technique he was
able to verifY his hypothesis of the existence
of a bio-electric field that appeared to
accompany. or even precede an organism's
biochemistry and patterns of organization."
 

Yerda

Veteran Member
I literally just explained this, and apparently you didn't read anything at all.
Ok. I read the paper including what you have reposted here. I don't get from it what you believe it says. I would go so far to say that you've misunderstood it completely.

By the way, is it any surprise that you keep finding yourself in hostile exchanges with the atheists here when you respond so rudely to requests for clarification?

Take care.
 

DavidFirth

Well-Known Member
So weird, you question atheism and instead of defending it they jump down your throat with a staunch "no you," then you post your position with scientific evidence and they're nowhere to be found!

It could not have possibly been God. It had to either be the result of abiogenesis, spontaneous generation or the ghost of Carl Sagan.
 

1137

Here until I storm off again
Premium Member
Ok. I read the paper including what you have reposted here. I don't get from it what you believe it says. I would go so far to say that you've misunderstood it completely.

By the way, is it any surprise that you keep finding yourself in hostile exchanges with the atheists here when you respond so rudely to requests for clarification?

Take care.

If you didn't want to be called out, you didn't need to lie about reading the paper... But anyways, yes, we have literally thousands of scientific experiments confirming that Life-Fields exist and precede changes in the body. The info can be easily found, though often behind pay walls due to its unpopular treatment, but books like Blueprint for Immortality can certainly be found. But we both know materialistic "science" isn't open to anything that questions it even slightly.
 

Yerda

Veteran Member
If you didn't want to be called out, you didn't need to lie about reading the paper...
Again, this is why you keep encountering hostility from those who disagree with you.

1137 said:
But anyways, yes, we have literally thousands of scientific experiments confirming that Life-Fields exist and precede changes in the body. The info can be easily found, though often behind pay walls due to its unpopular treatment, but books like Blueprint for Immortality can certainly be found.
Whether voltage changes precede changes in the body or not sheds no light on the claims you've made in this thread.

Preceding something isn't the same as a blueprint. Electrical activity precedes every motor action you've ever performed but was a blueprint for nothing.

What you've presented is evidence for electrodynamic fields in the body and that a guy called Burr devised a way to measure related potential differences. Which isn't the same as the position you're claiming to defend.

1137 said:
But we both know materialistic "science" isn't open to anything that questions it even slightly.
I've come across many physicists' thoughts and in particular Schrodinger, Heisenberg, Von Neumann, Wigner, Wheeler, Bohm and even Bohr had pretty wacky ideas about ultimate reality.

I've got a pdf of Eddington's book on panpsychism. I've downloaded papers form arxiv that attempt to contruct quantum mechanics starting from consciousness. I started a thread in the philosophy section just recently with links to peer-reviewed papers by a respected cognitive scientist at UCI who claims physicalism is dead. Most scienctists don't give a hoof about anything other than finding what works.

You don't know what you think you know. Have a nice evening.
 

Milton Platt

Well-Known Member
So weird, you question atheism and instead of defending it they jump down your throat with a staunch "no you," then you post your position with scientific evidence and they're nowhere to be found!

I'm here...I found this quote from Dr. Burr:

When the L-field in a frog's egg, for instance, is examined electrically, it is possible to show the future location of the frog's nervous system because the frog's L-field is the matrix which will determine the form which will develop from the egg.

Can you locate the experimentation that was done to support this statement? I would like to repeat it.
 

1137

Here until I storm off again
Premium Member
I'm here...I found this quote from Dr. Burr:

When the L-field in a frog's egg, for instance, is examined electrically, it is possible to show the future location of the frog's nervous system because the frog's L-field is the matrix which will determine the form which will develop from the egg.

Can you locate the experimentation that was done to support this statement? I would like to repeat it.

I believe user @Onyx is actually in the process of doing this, I know he has something that explicitly explains how to build the machine Burr did. This looks like a paper specifically on the experiment (small PDF warning): http://www.pnas.org/content/27/6/276.short
 

Milton Platt

Well-Known Member
I believe user @Onyx is actually in the process of doing this, I know he has something that explicitly explains how to build the machine Burr did. This looks like a paper specifically on the experiment (small PDF warning): http://www.pnas.org/content/27/6/276.short

Thanks, but i did not ask for a way to detect electromagnetic fields, I asked for a paper that explained how he could determine the layout of the entire nervous system of a frog by examining a frog egg, which is what he stated.
 

1137

Here until I storm off again
Premium Member
Thanks, but i did not ask for a way to detect electromagnetic fields, I asked for a paper that explained how he could determine the layout of the entire nervous system of a frog by examining a frog egg, which is what he stated.

I provided what I could find for free.
 

sayak83

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
I literally just explained this, and apparently you didn't read anything at all.

"Returning to the voltage differences on the
unfertilized egg, Burr noted that there was
one particular point on the equator of the
egg that had a higher voltage than all of the
other measured points, and another point
] 80 degrees along the equator that exhibited
a minimum voltage. Using micro-surgical
instruments he marked the point of
maximum voltage on the egg's surface with
a dot of Nile blue sulphate and then fertil-
ized the egg. As the embryo developed, the
location of the point of maximum voltage
never changed but proved to be coincident
with the location of the salamander's head.
The lowest voltage location developed into
the salamander's tail. The amazing conclu-
sion that Burr drew was that the maximum
voltage location in the unfertilized egg was
a blueprint for the alignment of the fully-
developed salamander's nervous system!"

"Based on these findings (drawn from more
than 10,000 measurements), Burr
concluded the appearance of abnormal
tissue in the organism was preceded by an
abnormal distribution of voltages in the
affected area of the body relative to the
voltage distribution found in mice that
exhibited no palpable cancer."

"Using this technique he was
able to verifY his hypothesis of the existence
of a bio-electric field that appeared to
accompany. or even precede an organism's
biochemistry and patterns of organization."
There is nothing remotely amazing about electric field being stronger in the brain than in the tail. The conclusion does not follow.
 

sayak83

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Here is the actual science regarding how electrical fields and intercellular electrical potentials guide embryonic development.

Endogenous electric fields as guiding cue for cell migration



Endogenous electric fields as guiding cue for cell migration
Richard H. W. Funk

Additional article information

Abstract
This review covers two topics: (1) “membrane potential of low magnitude and related electric fields (bioelectricity)” and (2) “cell migration under the guiding cue of electric fields (EF).”Membrane potentials for this “bioelectricity” arise from the segregation of charges by special molecular machines (pumps, transporters, ion channels) situated within the plasma membrane of each cell type (including eukaryotic non-neural animal cells). The arising patterns of ion gradients direct many cell- and molecular biological processes such as embryogenesis, wound healing, regeneration. Furthermore, EF are important as guiding cues for cell migration and are often overriding chemical or topographic cues. In osteoblasts, for instance, the directional information of EF is captured by charged transporters on the cell membrane and transferred into signaling mechanisms that modulate the cytoskeleton and motor proteins. This results in a persistent directional migration along an EF guiding cue. As an outlook, we discuss questions concerning the fluctuation of EF and the frequencies and mapping of the “electric” interior of the cell. Another exciting topic for further research is the modeling of field concepts for such distant, non-chemical cellular interactions.
 
Top