The Floating Bones Journal
The physics of our musculoskeletal system, structural health, and the profound value of body/mind work.
28
2009
“The Living Matrix” (TLM) is a new documentary about a variety of “energy-based” alternative medicines. It’s directed in the style of “What the #$*! Do We (K)now!?” (2004) and “The Secret” (2006) with tight cuts of commentary from about a dozen experts. There are several testimonials from individuals who were healed (or healed themselves) without relying on traditional western medicine. The movie has had a variety of showings around the world and is now available on DVD. I saw a recent screening of the film at the end of the ISSSEEM conference and purchased the DVD.
While the experts are speaking, the “voice” of TLM is really the director and the editor: what questions are asked and what edited parts of the experts’ responses are used. TLM experts criticize a reductionist approach to understanding the world, but this film itself is fundamentally reductionist: pulling small parts of separate conversations and reassembling them outside of their original context. DVDs provide a means to archive massive amounts of low-resolution video; I would really like to have access to the original interview footage.
Preface: How Skeptics Think
There are a variety of scientific claims made in the film. These claims may be backed up with research, but no references to published papers are provided (other than listing the books that the various experts have published). I attempt to stay current on a broad spectrum of scientific topics; when I see some new claim with no references, I tend to dismiss it. The website would be an ideal place for links to the scientific research, but the producers haven’t created this reference.
Why would a skeptic care? Because the documentary repeatedly claimed it was discussing was scientific theories. There are certain rules that one must follow for that claim to be legitimate. If someone is not going through this process—or reporting on a group of scientists who did—what they are doing is speculating or making conjectures. It’s not that one is good and the other is bad, but there is mischief in failing to distinguish between the two.
This kind of movie is not the best way to learn science. Watching tightly-cut commentary from a variety of experts overloads rational thought; viewing nonstop causes more of an emotional response rather than a rational one. Frequently pausing the movie and researching the science (or lack of science) behind the claims causes the movie to play very differently.
Isaac Newton and Whole Systems
TLM expert Lynne McTaggart, author of “The Field”, comments that the work of Newton and Descartes first “ripped us out of the fabric of our universe” and “created a clockwork model where mind is separate from body and that we are separate from each other.” I’ve heard similar commentary from a variety of new-age thinkers, but they rarely if ever note that Chaos Theory in the 1980s irrevocably smashed Newton’s Clockwork Universe.
TLM expert Bruce Lipton, PhD, says, “[…] that’s the newtonian perspective that says to focus on the matter; don’t pay attention to the rest of the stuff.” The astronomical three body problem—studied extensively by Newton—is the quintessence of independence and interdependence of objects. There is no cause or effect; it’s about the momentum and the gravitational fields of the three items interacting with each other.
A restricted case of the three body problem easily demonstrates chaotic movement. As Professor Steven Strogatz notes in his 2003 book “Sync”, even our own solar system’s orbital mechanics are chaotic: in the time frame of about five million years, the location of the planets becomes unpredictable. Sir James Lighthill’s “The recently recognized failure or predictability in Newtonian mechanics” (1986) summarizes chaos theory’s predictability limits in a short but wonderfully-written paper. This document is not freely available online, but it’s worth a trip to a University library to pick up a copy.
Physician Stephen Levin, who is not in this movie, lectures that the physical structures of the human body are non-Newtonian. In a variety of papers and lectures, he demonstrates that a “levers and hinges” model is fundamentally insufficient to describe the posture and movement of the human body. Thomas Myers (also not in this movie) has created a mapping of lines of musculoskeletal tension in his groundbreaking text “Anatomy Trains” (a 20-page summary is available free from his website). Professor Donald Ingber (also not in the movie) studies the use of these tensegrity structures at a cellular level; his paper “The Architecture of Life” appeared in the January 1998 edition of Scientific American Magazine.
Levin, Myers, and Ingber each credit visionary Buckminster Fuller for his whole-system means of thinking about natural structures. Their biological models are based on tensegrity, a kind of structure that was invented in the 1940s by Kenneth Snelson. Fuller’s comments on Snelson’s invention are particularly enlightening:
“724.34 The tensegrity system is synergetic—a behavior of the whole unpredicted by the behavior of the parts. Old stone-age columns and lintels are energetic and only interact locally with whole buildings. The whole tensegrity-icosahedron system, when loaded oppositely at two diametric points, contracts symmetrically, and because it contracts symmetrically, its parts get symmetrically closer to one another; therefore, gravity increases as of the second power, and the whole system gets uniformly stronger. This is the way atoms behave.”
Fuller’s definition of synergetics is also quite instructive:
“200.06 Synergetics shows how we may measure our experiences geometrically and topologically and how we may employ geometry and topology to coordinate all information regarding our experiences, both metaphysical and physical. Information can be either conceptually metaphysical or quantitatively special case physical experiencing, or it can be both.”
TLM expert Rupert Sheldrake, PhD, notes: “[The current biological model] tries to treat the organism as a machine that works simply in terms of physics and chemistry.” However, the “machine” of our musculoskeletal structure described by Levin, Myers, and Ingber is unlike any manmade mechanism. It’s loosely coupled and contains no levers, gears, or any of the six simple machines. Just like our solar system, Newton’s “clockwork” model has been irrevocably smashed for the physics of our musculoskeletal and cellular structures.
Science does indeed embrace a whole-system perspective. Buckminster Fuller’s words are the antithesis of reductionist thinking. Every part matters, and the interactions between the parts are just as important as the parts themselves. Levin, Myers, and Ingber have brilliantly applied Fuller’s and Snelson’s work to living structure. Their work is inspiring and is a fount of great thinking for anyone who takes the time to contemplate their writings.
Chaos Theory
Chaos theory was pioneered the 1960s by late MIT meteorology professor Edward Lorenz. Fellow MIT professor Kerry Emanuel commented on his lifetime accomplishment:
“By showing that certain deterministic systems have formal predictability limits, Ed put the last nail in the coffin of the Cartesian universe and fomented what some have called the third scientific revolution of the 20th century, following on the heels of relativity and quantum physics.”
TLM criticizes Newton’s “clockwork universe”, but fails to recognize that science has indeed moved on from that eighteenth century model. Claiming that science still uses Newton’s clockwork models to understand the human body is an outdated straw man argument. It’s a disservice to science—and to viewers of this film—to perpetuate this disinformation. Science encourages whole-system thinking; coordination and synchronization of loosely-coupled structure is a fundamental principle of chaos theory.
Quantum Physics
McTaggart speaks briefly about the quantum physics zero point field, where virtual particles are created, exist for a short amount of time and are then annihilated. She talks about the virtual particles created:
“[…] that little individual exchange isn’t much energy. It’s about half a watt’s worth. But when you multiply all of the subatomic particles doing this energy exchange across all things in all the universe, you come up with this unfathomable amount of energy all happening out there in empty space. Like some supercharged backdrop.”
This was one of those points that raised my eyebrows. Do physicists really view bits of the quantum vacuum as tiny little batteries (or capacitors) that one could somehow “supercharge” something en masse? Have any physicists published theories about this? I found none online. If there are no theories, what’s the point? For me, the whole discussion of the Zero Point Field was basically a distraction.
The Placebo Effect
TLM expert Bruce Lipton, PhD, notes,
“Science has recognized that at least one third of all healings—including drugs, and surgery, and other allopathic interventions—one third of all healings has nothing to do with the process but has to do with the placebo effect.”
More discussion follows. At a later point in the documentary, astronaut Edgar Mitchell, PhD, describes a story where an irregularity on his kidney was apparently healed by a remote healer thousands of miles away. I wondered if Mitchell had considered the possibility that his healings may have instead been accomplished with the placebo effect.
The possibility that placebo may be responsible for any of the healings was never discussed in the movie.
Theories
TLM expert professor Fritz-Albert Popp, PhD, studies light emissions from living tissues. The narrator comments on his work: “Professor Popp theorizes that these bio-photon emissions may be controlling our body’s metabolism.” What was his theory? How has it been tested? What were the results? Where were they published? I followed from the movie website’s link to Popp’s site, but found no papers about bio-photon emissions controlling metabolism.
TLM expert Dietmar Cimbal, DVM speculates that there is seemingly an external force that is causing the “instantaneous” changes in direction of a flock of birds or a school of fish. This science article from the New York Times offers a simpler explanation. This article from the March 2009 edition of Audubon Magazine provides more information about how individual birds can coordinate direction shifts. The phenomenon of synchronizing behavior of groups of animals is discussed extensively in Strogatz’s book “Sync: How Order Emerges From Chaos In the Universe, Nature, and Daily Life”, one of our leading scientists on chaos theory. Strogatz has also published papers about the synchronization of the pacemaking nerves in the heart.
TLM expert Rupert Sheldrake, PhD, comments on Morphogenetic fields : “This field is now a crucial concept in developmental biology. You can’t really understand how organisms develop without it.” The narrator describes the issue: how do the cells in the developing embryo know how they should specialize—what kind of cell each of them should become? This 2006 paper suggests a far simpler mechanism: the mechanical structure and strains of the developing embryo is used to indicate to the cells how to specialize. I am not implying that this theory is correct, but there are indeed alternative explanations to Sheldrake’s fields.
TLM expert Lynne McTaggart comments, “Many scientists who are on the frontier theorize and have demonstrated that we’re an information system, and it’s not entirely localized in our body. That we’re accessing information from The Field all the time.” What scientists? What theories? How did they test their theories, and where did they publish their results? If the scientists weren’t doing all these things, then they weren’t actually scientifically theorizing.
The movie concludes with TLM expert Peter Fraser saying, “[…] but I think now we have a viable scientific theory for how the body stores and accesses information. So we do have a medical revolution on our hands.” Again: What is the theory? Where has it been published? What does it predict? How have those predictions been tested, and what were the results? If there is a viable scientific theory, then those questions would have already been answered.
If the moviemakers want to discuss scientific theories in The Living Matrix, they need to provide references to those theories! This is simple to do: you provide references to peer-reviewed papers on the specific research. It is the responsibility of the filmmakers to clearly distinguish between scientific theories and pseudoscientific speculation. This could be done on the film’s website, but there’s currently no information about which theories are actually scientific. Calling something a “viable scientific theory” that has never gone through the rigors of the scientific method is a major disservice to the public.
The Good Stuff
I’m inspired by all the healing stories in this movie. Lynne McTaggart’s recommendation to believe in whatever kind of health/healing modality you are using is excellent advice. It’s possible to believe in something without completely understanding how it works. This is probably the case with almost any kind of healing: Marilyn Mandala Schlitz, PhD, notes that we still do not completely understand how healing works for things like small cuts or wounds.
Unfortunately, there were no details about the science of what we do know—stuff that James Oschman, PhD, is very familiar with. His text “Energy Medicine: The Scientific Basis” is a no-nonsense text about the mechanics of healing. Readers will learn about a variety of tools used by the body to see what’s injured and heal it: magnetic fields, electrical potentials of microvolts in the body, etc.
Summary
The central theme of the movie is the existence of a quantum “field” that provides a variety of functions: information storage, cosmic connection, energy, embryonic development, regulation of metabolic functions, etc. The “field” spans the cosmos and connects us with everything. While most of the experts speak with certainty of the existence of this “field”—claiming that it is a “viable scientific theory”—no scientific theory is ever provided. The razzle dazzle chain of conjectures breaks down when you pause the DVD, repeatedly, and investigate the various claims being made.
Incorrect stereotypes of Newtonian physics are perpetuated, and chaos theory is ignored. Almost a century of whole-system engineering and its great spokesman, Buckmister Fuller, are never ever mentioned.
Individuals seeking a source that would show the science behind alternative health/healing technologies will be disappointed by this film. If anyone is seeking this, I recommend they purchase Oschman’s book “Energy Medicine: The Scientific Basis” as a starting point.
17 Comments until now
On August 4th, 2009
Lavinia Plonka Said:
Phil,
Thank you for this. I got the same vibe from the trailer – much as I want to support people moving in new directions, this kind of shoddy rehashing gives energy medicine, quantum healing and intelligent systems a bad name -
[Thanks, Lavinia. To those who don't know her, Lavinia is a Feldenkrais instructor and author of two books: "What Are You Afraid Of? A Body/Mind Guide to Courageous Living" and "Walking Your Talk: Changing Your Life Through the Magic of Body Language". I highly recommend her books and visiting her studio if you're near Asheville, NC. --phil]
On August 14th, 2009
Duff Said:
An excellent critical review, Phil. Thanks for all the very interesting links, authors, researchers, and book recommendations.
On October 13th, 2009
marc Said:
I have a few points after watching the movie last night:
Giant Bird Brain: flocks of birds do not change direction en masse. The claim that perfect info flows throughout the flock, with no loss, occurring instantly, is nonsense on stilts. Watch a flock of birds (or school of fish) – the change in direction propagates like a wave through the flock. A couple of birds don’t quite get the memo, and there’s some jumbling.
“Information” as some sort of mystical intergalactic force: technically, “information” is a measure of entropy, in a signal, over a channel. You’ve got to have a channel, you’ve got to have a signal traveling over that channel, and you’ve got to have some (but not too much) entropy. An example of a channel is the printed page. The signal would be printed letters. Too much entropy (random letters spewed out of a printer), and info is zero. “aaaaa” going on for pages, basically no entropy – no information.
Faraday cage: the couple where the husband (healer) is in the faraday cage and the wife (healee) is outside a faraday cage is supposed to show that the “healing” is non-magnetic (and so beyond current allopathic understanding. But then the wife gets to see her husband over a video channel. I guess there’s a leak in the faraday cage, eh? This is a very minor point, but a perfect example of pseudoscience bunkum that throws around technical ideas that have an actual basis in actual knowledge. Those technical ideas (ooh, faraday cage!) get twisted in a probably utterly unrepeatable experiment. Remember, a faraday cage prevents transmission of electromagnetic signals from inside to outside. This would include video over wire, I’m pretty sure.
[Thanks for your comments, Marc. You are right on with the "giant bird brain" comment: the YouTube video shows the changes propagating a wave. You don't need any peer-reviewed studies to realize that Dr. Cimbals claims make no sense (although I am glad that scientists did detailed measurements of birds in flocks.)
I don't care what people believe, but I do take notice when they claim that their beliefs are grounded in science when no scientific evidence is provided. I have engaged many enthusiasts of this film asking them for the evidence of a quantum physics "field" influencing our health; none have been able to provide anything. By the definition of the word, those beliefs are dogmatic. --phil]
[UPDATE on 9/28/2010: In a post on his blog yesterday, Dr. Radin commented on your comment. You can see his entry by going here and searching for
misplaced
on that page to scroll down to the pertinent comment. Dr. Radin says:
"Well, his confidence is misplaced because there are standard ways of getting video and data in and out of EM shielded rooms without compromising the EM shielding. I described it in the journal article reporting that study."
Dr. Radin provided no references. If you have questions, I suggest going to his blog and asking him there.
The discussion we're having on Dr. Radin's blog is quite interesting. We're talking about Peter Fraser's claim of a "viable scientific theory". I have asked Dr. Radin to scrutinize that claim in a similar fashion to the way he scrutinized your comment. Please go here if you would like to follow that discussion.
--phil]
On November 30th, 2009
Andie Said:
Thanks Phil for an interesting post, just watched this movie.
One thing that I always find remarkable about the placebo effect is when people extrapolate its efficacy and generalize to all areas of medicine. Clearly there is some documented evidence that the placebo effect can work, we know this from psychosomatic effects, variations in subjective experiences such as pain relief, stress relief and depression.
However the impression given by programmes such as “the living matrix” is the “we create our own reality” and then throw in some quantum mechanics to make it sound scientific.
Does a placebo effect work if one injects 100units of insulin into someone and tell the person its water or even an energetic substance that improves the bodies energy field ?
(I havent tried this one – it tends to get people arrested and sentanced for murder or gross negligence)
Same with taking a cyanide pill and telling someone its sugar ? Why doesnt that work as a placebo ?
Anyone willing to do the research ? Unfortunatelly this did accidentally happen and the patient died – neither the administrating nurse or patient know they had received a lethal dose – it was only discovered after the patient died from hypoglycemia !!! – the patient thought the nurse was helping high blood glucose ! (accidentally x10 given i.e 100iu instead of 10iu)
The list can go on and on – lets take another profound example after watching a series about “The Atom” there was in the 1920′s an interest in using highly radioactive Radon for cosmetics, aftershave and even bubblebath – the advertizing for some of these products was “they increase health and vitality” – unfortunatelly this didnt work as a placebo – people ended up with aplastic anaemia and leukaemia – and few even had any idea that what they were dealing with was highly toxic poison – i,e the leukaemia causation is unrelated to intention/beliefs/thoughts.
If you dont like this example then same with effects of nuclear fall out prior to any knowledge of radiation poisoning or leukaemias – peoples beliefs just dont make a difference. How about carbon monoxide exposure – the substance is undetectable – no smell, taste and will kill people regardless of beliefs, desires, intention, young or old – mental states are just irrelevant.
Now saying this – we can reduce the amount of psychiatric drugs used – good relaxation techniques can reduce the amount or diazepam/librium, good mental health psychology/CBD/NLP can reduce the antidepressants, hypnotherapy training can reduce benzodiazapine usage and for these and some other medicines I do believe placebo’s have an important role.
[Thanks for your response, Andie. I think the whole phrase "placebo effect" is a bit of a misnomer. Biological structures are a bunch of interdependent whole systems, and our nervous system definitely has an impact on the other systems.
I particularly like Tom Myers's paper Spatial Medicine. He describes the three major interdependent (and pervasive and fractal) systems in our bodies: chemical, electrical, and structural. It is not a science paper per se; it's more a way of thinking about our bodies that is different from how we're taught.
One example: "feeling good" about some treatment can have us relax our muscles and lower the tension in our structural network. This allows nutrients to be delivered and wastes to be removed with greater ease to all the tissues in our bodies. If we are taking some medication, this could increase the efficacy of that medication.
Myers studied with Bucky Fuller early in his career; whole-system thinking is clearly present in his thinking. The very name "placebo effect" seems to be a reductionist way of thinking -- a quantification of an effect which can't really be seen except in the framework of whole systems.
--phil]
On July 15th, 2010
Jonathan Said:
Several things…
1) Do you have any critique or response regarding the measurement of brain wave or heart wave activity outside the body?
2) Do you have any critique or response for the claim that the heart not the brain is the first receiver of information?
3) Do you have any critique or response regarding the claim that a persons energy and intention can NOT heal another person physically? Siting extreme improper dosages of chemicals is hardly proof that the prior is not a possibility.
4) Do you have any critique or response regarding the idea that the movement of electrons is that of a wave and not as a particle until it is observed, which it then acts as a particle?
5) Do you have any critique or response to the idea that our body’s biochemistry is changed when we experience emotions, and that change has a direct effect on our health?
6) Do you have any critique or response to the notion that our bodies create a field and that this field is in constant interaction with our environmental fields?
I think it’s easy to find holes in any theory. That’s the basis of theory itself, but what systems are we using to prove or disprove those theories? Having a theory does not mean that it must have clinical data. Having a hypothesis does not mean it was already tested. Technology is advancing and what is needed is advancement in the measurement of fields and informational waves. Multiple perspectives are important.
To conclude I’ll use the story that you all used as a basis to disprove the majority of the THEORIES or IDEAS that are in this movie; the flock of birds example. While I don’t want to focus on the Chaos theory because I don’t know much about it, I will say, that the idea that these birds do not communicate using fields is really narrow minded. Is it not safe to say that each bird can see the bird next to it? What does seeing mean? Is it not a wave of light? Is there not propagation and collisions of these waves? This would explain the few birds, or in another example, fish, are left behind without the flock. Can someone disprove my THEORY? Shall you prove what the actual consciousness of the bird is? Can you prove what human consciousness is for that matter? As Einstein said, “the field is the sole governing principle of the particle”. Thus, we are a product of our senses and sensors.
Thank you very much for your perspectives and comments. They are all greatly appreciated and much enjoyed for the sheer fact that I am able to discuss the matter in an intelligent forum.
Cheers.
Jonathan
On July 15th, 2010
Phil Said:
Thanks for your comments, Jonathan. I’m happy to address them in detail:
1: Brain waves and heart waves certainly can be measured outside of the human body. If there is electrical current, there is always a magnetic field. As long as the measurement devices are sufficiently sensitive, they will be able to measure and record that evidence of electrical activity in the brain and heart.
One of the bits of mischief in “The Living Matrix” is that it’s very difficult to tell from moment to moment if they’re talking about electromagnetic fields of some sort of quantum field.
2. I have no issue with that claim. In mammals, the heart must be able to crank up the pulse rate nearly immediately. Animals must be able to run/swim/climb in order to avoid being eaten by predators. The ability of our circulatory system to crank up oxygen delivery is crucial to our ability to run for distances longer than 100 meters or so. Our carbohydrate chemistry is well-suited to deliver energy for those short-term efforts, and our aerobic energy systems are well-suited for energy expenditures for longer time.
The main mischief happens when there is unsubstantiated meaning added to the facts. Of course the heart is crucial to our overall tension and stress!
3. I think there are healings that cannot be explained by science.
The experts and the narrator’s voice-over strongly imply that quantum-physics fields are involved in those healings. The only thing missing is evidence.
I’ve often thought of making a tee shirt with a comic:
“We don’t know how XXX works, therefore quantum physics MUST be involved!”
(A) Would you laugh at such a tee shirt? Do you see the humor in that statement? If not, why not?
4. I see plenty of published science discussing the wave-particle duality and Heisenberg’s inequality. I love Walter Lewin’s demonstration and discussion of the uncertainty principle in Lecture 34 of first-term physics at MIT: http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/physics/8-01-physics-i-classical-mechanics-fall-1999/video-lectures/
(B) Have you looked? Don’t you also find plenty of published science on this topic?
5. Again, I have no problem finding published science on this topic. Dr. Candice Pert’s “The Molecules of Emotion” is quite interesting.
(C) Again, I’m not quite sure why you’re asking me. Finding published science is not all that difficult. Did you look before asking?
6. See my answer to #1. Are you talking about an electrical field or some sort of quantum field?
We clearly create electrical fields. McTaggart’s claim from her book “The Field” is that there is some sort of quantum-physics field. But that journalist fails to produce a single reference to published science that we create or interact with such “fields”.
I counted once: there are something like 45 distinct claims in “The Living Matrix” about a quantum-phsycs field. That made me think the film contained some not-so-subtle NLP programming. Unfortunately, repetition doesn’t create science, scientific research creates science.
(D) Can you produce a single scientific reference showing that humans somehow create quantum-physics fields?
You said “I think it’s easy to find holes in any theory.” The problem is that there is no scientific theory about the existence of a quantum-physics field influencing our health and healing.
(E) Do you understand that the prerequisite to having a hole in a theory is having an actual theory?
I can find no published science linking our health/healing to a so-called quantum physics “field”. In the facebook discussion “infoceuticals” on the page “thelivingmatrix”, TLM executive producer Harry Massey has acknowledged that no such theory exists. I admire his courage to tell us that. On the other hand, I don’t think many enthusiasts film know that there is no science to back up its central claim.
You said: “Having a hypothesis does not mean it was already tested.”
(F) Who says? The scientific method is quite clear: not only must a theory be tested, but it must be tested rigorously and repeatedly.
Do you have some doubt that TLM is talking about scientific theories? If so, please look up the movie’s sub-title.
You said: “Technology is advancing and what is needed is advancement in the measurement of fields and informational waves.”
Advancement in the measurement of such waves will advance only if such waves exist! If the waves do not exist, then there will be no advancement in their measurement.
BTW: this is exactly why the scientific method has its rigor. Humans often have a belief that something exists, and researchers must separate their personal beliefs from their research. They must not only publish their conclusions but they must publish in scrupulous detail exactly how they came to those conclusions.
Clearly, Dr. Cimbal believes in information waves. He made a startling claim (or maybe a starling claim) that direction shifts in birds are instantaneous. But he provided absolutely no evidence to back up that claim. That’s an example of pseudoscience run amok: a belief forcing a researcher to make a nonsensical claim, and having that claim published by a “science” documentary.
Another case is the claims about morphogenic fields. They are claimed to be the only explanation to specialization of cells in the developing embryo. But that’s not true: I presented a reference to a science paper providing a completely different (and far simpler) explanation. Did you read it? If not, did you note that the movie was mis-representing the need for morphogenic fields?
You said: “Multiple perspectives are important.” My perspective: if a movie claims that there is a “viable scientific theory”, there should actually be a viable scientific theory. This movie never ever delivers on that theory. I am at a loss to know what sort of alternative perspective I should have.
You said: “I’ll use the story that you all used as a basis to disprove the majority of the THEORIES or IDEAS that are in this movie; the flock of birds example.”
The reason I focused on that claim: it was the only falsifiable claim that I could find in the entire movie. There were many claims, but that was the only one I can find that was falsifiable.
(H) Did you see any other falsifiable claims in the movie? If so, please point them out! If not, do you understand why I focused on that particular claim?
You said: “I will say, that the idea that these birds do not communicate using fields is really narrow minded.”
(I) Why?
“Is it not safe to say that each bird can see the bird next to it? What does seeing mean?”
“Seeing” means interacting with electromagnetic waves. BTW: if you read the article, you’ll see that the birds are not looking at their next-door neighbors. They are looking at birds farther away than that to coordinate their actions. The article covers this: it notes that the Rockettes don’t look at the person next to them to coordinate their high steps.
“Is there not propagation and collisions of these waves?”
It means that already-verified physical principles explain the motions of birds in a flock. No “instantaneous” waves are necessary. Dr. Cimbal’s claims was not only falsifiable, but it was false.
I addressed your questions, and have left about 10 for you: A through I above. Please look up definitions of the scientific method and falsifiable, or question H may not make sense. I recommend the wikipedia for that, but feel free to use whatever reference you are comfortable with.
Thanks.
On August 27th, 2010
MJS Said:
Actually, the move is quite good given it’s intended audience.
The mechanistic paradigm actually was almost born dead with Descartes.
Newton’s spooky action at a distance with regards to gravitation was inconsistent with mechanism.
It got worst and worst for the mechanistic view even with electromagnetic fields and when quantum theory came along … well it’s more like we life in fields of information than matter. Welcome to Alice in Wonderland.
Keep in mind that the basic building blocks of protons & neutrons are quarks. What’s the inherent size of a quark? It does have one. It’s a mathematical point. Particles are contextual and have no inherent “particleness” according to modern physical theory. Also, it’s mostly vacuum in atoms but vacuum doesn’t mean non-being. The movie does mention vacuum energy which the zero-point field is just a very, very small part.
Anyway, when I asked a physicist how large a space would all particles in the universe occupy if they stayed particle-like and where packed end-on-end. He said less than a slice of cheese … the big bang starts as a singularity which means zero size.
Next is that the movie is fairly explicit that mind is not just the brain. This is a philosophical stance and one that’s pretty easy to justify. Materialists may hate that but that’s their tough cheese. It’s also not a very good philosophy IMHO.
Third, are some parapsychological phenomena. Good experimental evidence of that and plenty of credible real-world reports. So-called skeptics even admit that the parapsychology experiments are more than adequate to show the existence of the phenomena by any sciences standards. However, they want more and use “incredible claims require incredible evidence.” The problem is that these claims are incredible only if your philosophical position is materialism. Most people don’t consider the existence of psi incredible but do consider materialism incredible just because it’s incompatible with the data that’s most immediate to us and that we are most sure of. Ones qualitative conscious experience. Again, tough cheese for so-called skeptics.
Epi-genetics is on the web and what Lipton says about it is true.
Placebo is more than pain despite cherry-picking by so-called skeptics (defenders of the faith) of certain flawed meta-analysis of the phenomena. There are plenty of good books on the subject.
Overall, I give the film an -A rating and do give it to patients to view.
On August 27th, 2010
Phil Said:
“Actually, the move is quite good given it’s intended audience.”
The movie claims to deliver science, but there is no science to back up its central claim. How could that be a good thing for any audience?
“Third, are some parapsychological phenomena. Good experimental evidence of that and plenty of credible real-world reports. So-called skeptics even admit that the parapsychology experiments are more than adequate to show the existence of the phenomena by any sciences standards.”
Even if such experiments are accepted are valid, what do they do to validate the central claim of this movie? Remember, the movie claimed there is a “viable scientific theory”. What is the theory? Where is it written down? How could a theory which has never been stated possibly be viable?
“Epi-genetics is on the web and what Lipton says about it is true.”
Epigenetics is real. Cellular differentiation in the developing embryo is an example: the DNA stays the same, but cellular function is specialized. On the other hand, I see no science linking epigenetics to some quantum-physics “field”. Do you?
What specific claims that Lipton made on this topic do you think are true? Why do you think they are true?
“Overall, I give the film an -A rating and do give it to patients to view.”
The film fails to deliver on its central claim, and you give it an -A grade.
What does a film have to do before you downgrade it to a B? 
On August 27th, 2010
MJS Said:
Don’t be silly. The movie talks about informational fields throughout. Which isn’t a big claim at all and it delivered it quite well for the format. Still A-.
One reason for the A- was that it didn’t mention fields that William Tiller has written many books on and done associated experiments. Here a contrast could have been made the Russian work on “torsional fields” in this area.
I’m still scratching my head wondering how much time you wanted spent on this theory without boring the target audience to death.
“I see No linkage to some quantum physics field.”
We are all quantum fields at our base. There is no way of not being connected to the quantum field. It’s our FUNDAMENTAL physical theory of matter/energy.
What you probably mean is large scale non-local entangled states in thermally unprotected environments. Well, they did not only mention quantum fields but talked about more regular EM fields. However, they hinted at something quantum like by mentioning vacuum energy. That’s one reason for the -A rating. Look at http://www.tiller.org for papers/books on a theory with decades of related experiments and lots of questions (theory).
Plus, who said you need a fully fleshed out scientific theory anyway! That doesn’t even happen often in orthodox science. In fact, in orthodox scientific journalism you get worst than bullshit speculation. Without the slightest shred of evidence, contradicting with existing facts and even being irrational by self-contradicting itself, one see “scientific” propaganda promoted all the time as cutting edge. If your wondering what I’m talking about, lately it’s the “multiverse.”
Lastly, you ask if the claims of parapsychology are valid then what’s their relevance. I hope you understand that some healing experiments are para-psychological. That was in the film. But let’s run with this a bit. If I’m influencing a body far away with thought or I’m seeing something far away like I’m right there, then my mind is probably not tied to my brain and body and is at those locations. Fields would be something that could mediate this effect or it maybe something beyond human understanding.
On August 28th, 2010
Phil Said:
“The movie talks about informational fields throughout. Which isn’t a big claim at all and it delivered it quite well for the format. Still A-.”
The movie’s subtitle is “A Film on the New Science of Healing.” The movie does talk about information fields throughout, but it never ever delivers the science. No reference is provided in the movie, and none on the website. How could any objective evaluator possibly give it a passing grade?
“It didn’t mention fields that William Tiller has written many books on and done associated experiments. Here a contrast could have been made the Russian work on ‘torsional fields’ in this area.”
A true contrast to the movie would be providing some science. What is Tiller’s theory? Where is it written down? What does it predict? Is it falsifiable? How was it tested? What were the results, and where were those results published?
“We are all quantum fields at our base. There is no way of not being connected to the quantum field. It’s our FUNDAMENTAL physical theory of matter/energy.”
The movie is claiming, without evidence, that all sorts of information is being stored in some sort of quantum field.
As far as I can tell, only one falsifiable claim about this field is made in the film. Dr. Dietmar Cimbal claims that flocks of birds use this field to make “instantaneous” direction changes. Cimbal provides no evidence to back up his claim, and published science shows that the direction changes are definitely not instantaneous. Cimbal’s claim was not only falsifiable, it’s actually false!
I cannot find any other falsifiable claims in the film. Can you?
“What you probably mean is large scale non-local entangled states in thermally unprotected environments.”
What I mean is that such claims require rigor. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
If the evidence exists, please provide a reference to the published paper. If the evidence does not exist, please acknowledge that.
The executive producer of “The Living Matrix” has acknowledged that there exists no science to back up the central claim of his movie. You can look it up in the “infoceuticals” discussion on the facebook page thelivingmatrix.
“Well, they did not only mention quantum fields but talked about more regular EM fields. However, they hinted at something quantum like by mentioning vacuum energy.”
Hinting is vastly different from providing science.
“Look at http://www.tiller.org for papers/books on a theory with decades of related experiments and lots of questions (theory).”
I do not see a single scientific theory there. I see lots of writings and speculation: lots of hints.
Can you provide an exact URL to a single falsifiable theory on the tiller website?
“Plus, who said you need a fully fleshed out scientific theory anyway!”
When you’re discussing a movie about “The New Science of Healing”, it’s completely appropriate to ask about the science.
If the movie’s subtitle were “Hopeful Hints About Health”, we probably wouldn’t be having this discussion.
“If I’m influencing a body far away with thought or I’m seeing something far away like I’m right there, then my mind is probably not tied to my brain and body and is at those locations. Fields would be something that could mediate this effect or it maybe something beyond human understanding.”
That is the point! “Would be something that could […]” indicates that you are speculating. As is what is happening in the movie. “We can’t explain this, therefore … quantum physics must be involved!”
It’s fine to make a movie about hopeful speculation — just don’t call it science.
MJS: I asked you some specific questions above. If you wish to continue the discussion, please address them. Thanks.
On August 28th, 2010
MJS Said:
References at the movies web site! Are you kidding? This isn’t a scientific paper so there is no reference requirement. Authors and their work are easy to find on the web. So I find lots of science to back up the movie. If you are to lazy to look then don’t complain.
Look up Tillers work. Yes to all your questions.
Did you read his books? You only need the first one. The equations are the theory the model is also the theory but it’s the representation of the reality. Do you understand the ontology of physical theories? I’ll give you a clue. It’s up to you and typically they involve contradictions. Didn’t you ever wonder what a field in physics is? It’s just equations about forces on a geometrical manifold. Where is the theory? Is just functional relations in distance/time.
You complain about the movie using quantum fields as a medium of exchange. Well if it’s a physical medium of information exchange and wants to stay within current understanding then it has to be quantum fields. What do you want to use instead non-physical entities. I don’t mind but pragmatically it’s outside current understanding. Again, quantum fields are the fundamentals field in physics, all else is emergent phenomena from them.
BTW, all the claims in the movie are falsifiable. You sound like you just discovered a new word. You are not a scientist are you?
All sorts of information is being stored in a quantum field just in the exchange we are having on the web. Quantum fields are what make us and everything “physical” up.
The movie talks about EM field which are a type of quantum field but it also speculates on the vacuum energies as well. Nothing wrong with that for a science movie.
In fact there was more speculation in another science series hosted by Morgan Freeman call “through the wormhole.”
However, for speculation that actually is unfalsifiable then look at any neuroscience show that claims mind is generated only by brain or brain/body. That’s a philosophical question made to look like science. In other words, it’s pseudo-science. The multiverse idea, which is splashed all over the pages of science journals for the public like Scientific American is another irrational and unfalsifiable theory.
Extraordinary claims by who’s standards? There is no such thing as extraordinary evidence is just standard evidence. This is a con-job pulled by so-called skeptics to protect their belief system which they intentionally make unfalsifiable. Apparently, you are new to this game.
On August 28th, 2010
Phil Said:
“References at the movies web site! Are you kidding?”
If a movie claims to be presenting science, then references to the science is mandatory! It is an insult to scientists and the public at large to claim there is science and fail to deliver.
“Authors and their work are easy to find on the web. So I find lots of science to back up the movie. If you are to lazy to look then don’t complain.”
You haven’t been listening. There is no science. The executive producer has acknowledged there was no science.
“Look up Tillers work. Yes to all your questions.”
If you think there is science, the onus is on you to provide a reference to published science from the Tiller.
If you think there are falsifiable claims, the onus is on you to provide a reference to them.
“You complain about the movie using quantum fields as a medium of exchange.”
No. I note there is no science to back up the claims that fields are being used to store information. I note that Dr. Cimbal’s claims about some “giant bird brain” in the field controlling the flock are fiction.
“Well if it’s a physical medium of information exchange and wants to stay within current understanding then it has to be quantum fields.”
But what if it’s actually the tooth fairy that’s exchanging the information? We have just as much objective evidence for the tooth fairy as we do for some claimed field.
“Again, quantum fields are the fundamentals field in physics, all else is emergent phenomena from them.”
There is no scientific evidence that information is stored in quantum fields. If you think there is scientific evidence, all you need to do is provide a reference.
“BTW, all the claims in the movie are falsifiable.”
I have listened through the entire film over 20 times. Other than the “giant bird brain” claim, I can find none. If you think there are falsifiable claims, please say what exact claims you are talking about.
“All sorts of information is being stored in a quantum field just in the exchange we are having on the web.”
No. These are electromagnetic exchanges. If there are quantum exchanges/storage distinct from EM fields, those need to be demonstrated.
The movie “The Living Matrix” claims that such quantum information storage exists. Unfortunately, there is no science to back up that claim, and the executive producer has admitted it.
“Extraordinary claims by who’s standards?”
That’s a red herring. All physical science needs to be backed up by rigorous and repeatable experiments that have been rigorously reported.
Mike: decorum is lacking in your messages, and you’re not answering my questions. You need to actually address the questions I ask or we will end our conversation. Here’s a summary of the questions I’ve asked you haven’t addressed:
1. If Tiller has actually published science, please provide a reference to the papers. If Tiller has not, please acknowledge that he has not published science.
2. If there are falsifiable claims on the Tiller website, please provide an EXACT URL to those falsifiable claims.
3. I only see one falsifiable claim in “The Living Matrix”. If you think there are other ones, please provide an exact reference. A good way to do this would be to provide a timestamp in the movie and quote a couple of sentences from the film.
4. Since “The Living Matrix” fails to ever deliver on its claimed science, how do you explain giving the movie a passing grade?
5. In your comment in the “Giant Bird Brains” thread, you bet that the science I presented was full of holes. Did you read the Cavagna science paper? Did you find any holes in it?
6. If you think there is actually rigorous and direct evidence to the existence of information sources in field, please cite your references. Otherwise, please acknowledge that you have no reference demonstrating the existence of information storage.
Thanks in advance, Mike, for the rigor in your response.
On August 28th, 2010
MJS Said:
I can see now that you really have no scientific training, you don’t know what you are talking about and you are to lazy to go bother to look for yourself. In other words, your a fake, phony and pretender. Are you a college kid?
On August 29th, 2010
Phil Said:
Mike: anyone educated in science knows you’ve got the dynamics of science completely backwards. If someone makes a scientific claim, the onus is on them to demonstrate that their claim is correct.
You said: “BTW, all the claims in the movie are falsifiable.”
Making the claim without backing it up is nonsensical: if *all* the claims made in “The Living Matrix” were falsifiable, it should be trivial to list two or three of them.
As an aside: this is a very useful way for people to critically view the movie: as experts (or the narrator) makes claims, pause the movie and see if the claim being made is falsifiable. If you find any falsifiable claims other than the “Giant Bird Brain” one, please post a comment here or contact me! And please think what it means for a science documentary to have a paucity of falsifiable claims.
Mike: if you think Tiller has published papers demonstrating a link between a quantum-physics “field” and our health and healing, please provide references. Any reputable scientist should have a listing of their published papers clearly listed on their website. I cannot find one on the tiller.org website, and I cannot fathom a reason why any reputable scientist wouldn’t have that list.
I hope you realize the irony: my complaint about “The Living Matrix” is that it makes claims without backing them up. In your attempts to defend the film, your arguments have the same exact weakness. One can understand why you give the film an A-: you have no concerns that the movie failed to deliver a “viable scientific theory” on “the new science of healing”. For you, making a claim is tantamount to actually delivering the science.
Thank you for your contributions to the discussion. If you’re interested in addressing the questions listed, I would welcome more messages.
On March 11th, 2011
EDM Said:
WRT to published studies, I offer this quote:
“We know people have ideas beyond the mainstream,” said the sociologist Harriet Zuckerman, author of “Scientific Elite: Nobel Laureates in the United States” and senior vice president of the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, ”but if they want funds for research they have to go through peer review, and the system is going to be very skeptical of ideas that are inconsistent with what is already known.”
A lot of what these people are saying is inconsistent with what is already known, so the publishing, at least in journals such as JAMA, is just not going to happen. The studies conducted by Gary Schwartz with NIH money that showed all kinds of conclusive evidence about the biofield and energy medicine were all declined for publication.
So, I’m not sure that is such a viable standard for validation at this point. We are talking about an altogether different paradigm, and one that is being resisted by the guardians of the old paradigm where the biofield does not exist.
That said, I still very much enjoyed the intelligence of your review and am actually reading James Oschman’s book right now.
On February 8th, 2012
Tony Said:
“TLM criticizes Newton’s “clockwork universe”, but fails to recognize that science has indeed moved on from that eighteenth century model. Claiming that science still uses Newton’s clockwork models to understand the human body is an outdated straw man argument. It’s a disservice to science—and to viewers of this film—to perpetuate this disinformation. Science encourages whole-system thinking; coordination and synchronization of loosely-coupled structure is a fundamental principle of chaos theory.”
Appreciate the review on some levels, thank you. I do think the idea that “science” is mostly operating off of Newtonian views of the world is still true today, particularly in medical pseudoscience. Whole system perspective as we isolate synthetic nutrients that do not work, and in many cases cause damage, for profit? A whole system thinking is not remotely what goes on in that arena. Another quick example – the US Govt, under the pretense of global warming, is spraying barium and aluminum from military aircraft and have been for decades admittedly so. Its under geo-engineering. Is there any sort of whole system thinking going on in these sorts of approaches at the highest levels of govt “science” or industry?
I would offer that we dont get to a point where we have a 26th ranked education system, an ever declining health of our nation, more and more psychotic drug use, numerous wars, 57% of the populace receiving some sort of govt assistance and 44M on food stamps by following a wholistic approach. Its simply not remotely the case.
Today’s mainstream “science”, although recognizing that they can only explain about 5% of the universe does not preface each one of their theories with that statement. Frankly, there should be a disclaimer on everything they mention about the universe. How deceiving is it that scientists would, if asked, tell you routinely they understand about 5% of the universe yet continue to put out nonsense based on the 5% knowledge as though it is fact? this is not science, this is irresponsible insanity that does no one any good, rather simply puts us all at risk. Its shameful.
Continuing to take the same approach over and over expecting a different result is certainly a solid definition of insanity. Our society certainly has a bad case of it.
Sincerely,
Tony
On July 31st, 2012
B Said:
Phil,
I’m surprised of your recommendation of James Oschman’s book “Energy Medicine: The Scientific Basis” as no-nonsense.
I recommend taking a look at what another skeptic has written:
http://quackfiles.blogspot.no/2006/01/review-of-energy-medicine-scientific.html