13 THE WORLD OF THE STAGE MANAGERS

During our trip we have come across ordering fields in different manifestations: morphogenetic fields for plants and “vital fields” (as Harold Saxton Burr calls them) for animals. In the inorganic world, Marcel Vogel proposed ordering fields for liquid crystals and objects in general, and TFF reinforces the hypothesis of information fields in everything. Then we looked at how fields control relationships between individuals (from animals to elementary particles), with characteristics of nonlocality. And finally there are fields that direct ensembles of individuals: the cells of an organ, a flock of birds, a school of fish, and so on. Nature is organized in pyramidal hierarchies of fields informed by their own codes, which are the soul of things. Even our planet has its informed field. Cosmos means “beauty” but also “order,” and the universe is a complex and balanced ensemble by virtue of some intrinsic system. To deny this is the case, you would have to prove—with tangible evidence—how a balanced universe could exist in the absence of controlling systems. Until then the theories presented in this book have to at least be recognized as plausible.

As we mentioned earlier, in the cellular world (the realm of organisms) the basic codes—and thus their fields—act as systems of intrinsic regulation (SIR) that direct the physiology of cellular beings; they can even predispose the being to pathologies. If something transforms the “life program” into a “cancer program,” psycho-oncology suggests that profound and prolonged interior conflicts have influenced the field of the person and have thus modified the program. External factors can disturb the physiology, but they are hardly responsible for death so long as the program is life oriented.

As the SIR, the basic code is always on alert to maintain the energetic and informational homeostasis of the organism. It repairs, corrects, modifies, and chooses. It selects from the medicinal frequencies sent to the body with TFF, choosing the useful ones and discarding the others; this is why side effects are almost always absent. The informational importance of the basic codes exceeds that of the nucleic acids: the code is the essence of both organisms and objects. As the informational nucleus of the organism, it is never canceled, not even after cellular death. It is possible that this nucleus exists even before the body is created and that the matter is combined under its own attentive supervision. If this is the case, the fields generate bodies, organize them, and put them in communication with each other. This is our hypothesis.

Biological Computers

Bodies are regulated by control centers, which are made of informed matter, and the basic code acts as supervisor. An example is adrenaline flowing in the blood after a shock. Time is needed for the entire sequence of biochemical reactions as described: activation, release, and transportation of adrenaline that, subject to the speed of blood, cannot travel as fast as light. How then can we explain the fact that adrenal response to a stimulus is immediate, instantaneous? Are there other transmitters besides the molecular ones?

Since the body needs to communicate with all of its parts all the time (and in turn each is informed about everything), why don’t we think about signals, instead of molecules, as information vehicles? Every being would be immersed in a field that, like a computer, controls the entire organism. In the sixteenth century Paracelsus thought that the human body was kept alive and regulated by a subtle substance he called iliaster, able to behave sometimes as matter and sometimes as energy. Maybe these were not Renaissance fantasies. If this control structure were molecular, there would be the need for another one to regulate it, and we should still proceed in stages up to the idea of a nonmolecular regulation. If bricks (molecules and cells for an organism) are the building blocks, the design must be of a different nature: an idea printed on paper.

The basic code is everywhere in the body and works with quick adjustments, regardless of molecules and electromagnetic transmissions; it is also linked to the slower molecular regulations that follow physiological and biochemical laws. Bodies are formed by molecular and cellular cohesions, but it is not clear under what principle the molecules “decide” to form in one way instead of another. Saying that the form occurs because polar forces unite molecules together does not explain the phenomenon; it only describes it. The truth is that we still do not know the design that brings the molecules together into the shape. They are kept together thanks to the forces of cohesion, but who tells them to join in that way? Bodies are not reproduced at random out of fortuitous aggregations of molecules. They are organized because something orchestrates that organization.

The Human Genome Project argues that genes absolutely control all the processes of heredity and life. How can they, if human genes number only thirty thousand, almost as many as those in a mustard plant and only twice as many genes as that of a fly or a worm? If we consider life only from a genetic point of view, a human could easily be mistaken for a mouse, whose genes are 99 percent similar.1 We would then need to accept the theory of alternative splicing, according to which a single gene can encode thousands of different proteins,² thus contradicting the theory of Francis Crick, who codiscovered DNA. It is not believable, however, that the effect of a gene can be predicted only on the basis of its molecular sequence. In recent years the role of DNA has been redimensioned along with the dominance of the gene. All of molecular biology is faltering. The discovery that a human genome is not all that different from that of a worm pushed Eric Lander, one of the leaders of the Human Genome Project, to declare that humanity will have to learn a lesson in humility.3 According to Barry Commoner, the director of the Critical Genetics Project of Queens College in New York, it is not the DNA molecule alone that duplicates but the entire living cell in its complexity. So here once again is something—the system itself as a whole—that could direct the operations.

Epigenetics

When Charles Darwin formulated the theory of evolution, it was not then clear how new characteristics of species could emerge or how the typical characteristics were kept through each generation. The solution came from Gregor Mendel, who postulated the “units responsible for heredity” (later called genes) that do not mix with each other but are transmitted intact through the generations. Ever since James Watson and Crick discovered the structure of DNA, genetic stability has been attributed to the double helix, which self-replicates, and mutations regarded as random errors. In other words, the genes have been considered as the stable units of the transmission of hereditary characteristics. Recently, however, some people think that they are not the only ones responsible for life. Difficulties arise when we ask how stability is maintained; then we face a “far more complex problem than was ever imagined.”⁴

Let us think about duplicating chromosomes, in which the DNA chains divide into a myriad of purine and pyrimidine bases (constituents of the DNA chains, which connect the two chains, like rungs of a ladder), which absolutely must remain intact. Let us imagine these molecules like twisted filaments, so many as to seem infinite, thinner than a hair, as frail as glass, writhing around like a belly dancer while they unwind and free themselves from the helicoidal hug that kept them stable. They are trying not to break and to save all their nucleotides so that they don’t remain stuck on the other side. Loss of even a fragment could cause a genetic mistake.

Once separated, each chain serves as a model for the building of its complement, and this is done with absolute fidelity: transcription errors or mutations never exceed the limit of one in ten billion. Such accuracy depends not only on the physical structure of the DNA, which alone would not even be able to replicate because it needs the help of enzymes to do so.5 The enzymes help to prevent twisting, aid in the selection of suitable bases, control the insertion, and repair damage. But who regulates the enzymes? Who directs what happens in the DNA? Not the DNA. It is like the complicated dressing of a queen by a crowd of ladies in waiting: the queen cannot coordinate the complexity of movements around her; she cannot exercise her role because she is not even dressed. The nakedness of the queen is that of half a molecule of DNA, which is incomplete and nonoperational. Who is in control of the monitoring operations, the testing and repairing?

Genetic stability is not intrinsic to the DNA; it is an emergent property of the complex dynamics of the entire cellular network,⁶ the result of a well-orchestrated process.⁷ “In the conventional neo-Darwinist view, DNA is seen as an inherently stable molecule . . . and evolution, accordingly, as being driven by pure chance,” Fritjof Capra writes, while instead we should “adopt the radically different view that mutations are actively generated and regulated by the cell’s epigenetic network, and that evolution is an integral part of the self-organization of the living organisms.”⁸ The molecular biologist James Shapiro suggests thinking about rapid restructuring of the genome guided by biological feedback networks.⁹

As far as the function of genes is concerned, Francis Crick had determined that they encode the enzymes that catalyze all the cellular processes: the DNA makes the RNA, which in turn makes proteins, and proteins make us. This has been called the central dogma of molecular biology: genes determine biological traits and behavior, through a one-way flow of information from the genes to the proteins, with no feedback in the opposite direction. For the followers of genetic determinism, genes determine behavior and not the opposite. But dogmas always end up in some sort of fanaticism (I shun dogmas, and I don’t tolerate fanaticisms, especially scientific ones), and sooner or later they end up collapsing. As Mae-wan Ho pointed out, the exclusive attention given to genes has obscured our vision of the organism as a whole, which is considered simply as a collection of genes subject to random mutations and selective forces in the environment over which it has no control.10

Sunset on Determinism

Without doubt it is DNA that determines that my eyes should be light and my hair dark (grey now); doubts arise when I pose questions about the form, structure, and functions of the body. Who decides what can grow and at what point to stop? Who establishes the limits of the body structures like the organs and limbs and the relationships between them? DNA is only a molecule, it does not have the intelligence to decide; it encodes proteins, but it does not teach them where to go, what to do and when. Something is missing. DNA is the executor of the design, not the director. Who regulates the DNA? The decision-making intelligence belongs to the system as a whole, which expresses itself in the basic code and in the field it informs. “The signal (or signals) determining the specific pattern in which the final transcript is to be formed . . . [comes from] the complex regulatory dynamics of the cell as a whole. . . . Unravelling the structure of such signaling pathways has become a major focus of contemporary molecular biology,” says Ellen Fox Keller.¹¹

Recently it has been discovered that the dynamics of the cellular network in which the genome is embedded determine what protein will be produced as well as its function.¹² The cell is able to modify the structure of a protein by altering the function. So it is cellular dynamics that ensure that different proteins appear from a single gene and that a single protein develops multiple functions. Contradicting the central dogma, we start to accept that the whole can influence the genes.

What are the cellular dynamics? Let us start by saying that genetic determinism has many problems: the cells of an organism, although they have the same genes, are different from one another. In other words, the genome is the same, but the schemes followed are different, so a muscle cell is different from a nerve cell and so on. The question is, What is that something that governs the differences in the expressions of genes? Genes cannot act alone; they must be activated and deactivated by certain signals.

To solve the problem of gene expression, in the 1960s, Francois Jacob and Jacques Monod distinguished between regulator genes and structural genes. According to the two Nobel Prize winners, the regulating mechanisms are genetic. Thus, staying within the paradigm of genetic determinism, they described biological development by using the metaphor of a “genetic program.” Their proposal, arriving just as computer science was establishing itself, was received with acclaim. Subsequently, however, research has shown that the activation of the genes depends not on the genome but on the cell’s epigenetic network, which includes a large number of cellular structures, particularly the chromatin. The DNA has to be considered as only part of the cellular network, which is highly nonlinear, containing multiple feedback loops, so that patterns of genetic activity continually change in response to changing circumstances.13

Fritjof Capra is a supporter of the new discipline of epigenetics, where biological forms and functions are the emergent properties of the entire network, an understanding that falls within the broader theory of complexity.¹⁴ Almost a century ago, the embryologist Hans Driesch had demonstrated, through experiments done on the eggs of sea urchins, that a sea urchin could still reach full maturity even after he had destroyed many cells in the early stages of development of the embryo.¹⁵ Recent genetics experiments have showed that the loss of single genes has very little effect on the functioning of the organism. These observations are incompatible with genetic determinism, but not with the hypothesis of codes and informed fields.¹⁶

In complexity theory, biological development is seen as a continuous unfolding of nonlinear systems as the embryo is formed. In mathematical terms it is as if the growth follows a path within a “basin of attraction.”¹⁷ It is accepted by many that the expression of a gene depends on the cellular context and may change if this changes. As molecular biologist Richard Strohman writes, we find that genes that are associated with particular diseases in mice have no such associations in humans. It consequently appears that mutations, even in key genes, may have effects or not, depending on the genetic context in which they are found.¹⁸

The emergent properties behave like an SIR superior to the DNA itself. Epigenetics means “above genetics” because the nature of these systems is neither genetic nor molecular. It is informed matter that operates as the basic code within the field of that body. We need to dare to go beyond the safe boundaries of the molecules, like the Argonauts who knew how to sail on dangerous and impossible seas.

Following the Path of the Argonauts

Maybe he does not know it, but my colleague Richard Gerber is an Argonaut. He writes:

DNA contains all of the information necessary to instruct each cell how to do its particular job, how to manufacture its proteins, etc. What the DNA does not explain, however, is how these newly differentiated cells travel to their appropiate spatial locations in the developing baby’s body. . . . It is highly likely that the spatial organization of the cells is ordered by a complex three-dimensional map of what the finished body is supposed to look like. This map or mold is the function of the bioenergetic field which accompanies the physical body. This field, or etheric body is a holographic energy template that carries coded information for the spatial organization of the fetus as well as a roadmap for cellular repair in the event of damage to the developing organism. . . . But the DNA is only an informational manual containing instructions that still must be acted upon by some intermediate actors in the cellular scheme of things. Those actors in the cellular scenario are the enzymes, the protein-bodied workers that carry out the many, everyday biochemical tasks. The enzymes catalyze specific reactions of chemicals either to create structure through molecular assemblies or to provide the electrochemical fire to run the cellular engines and ultimately keep the entire system working efficiently.19

The Matrix (the Great Mother) is the pure matter from which the basic codes emerge, maps of what the finished being will be, the morphogenetic fields that guide buds and embryos to become mature forms. The codes contain the designs for the entire temporal evolution of a being, its life program. The basic code contains all the images of the body, present and future, from the embryo to the completed being. We have seen that many geneticists agree that the “secret of life” does not reside in the gene sequences, and it is time to consider those systems of intrinsic regulation that control the organism. Above the gene democracy, power is in the hands of invisible dictators able to maneuver all, directors of physiology and pathology. Not the disease, but the susceptibility to the disease comes from the system; the pathogens are the last link in the chain that begins in the body. The SIR controls everything, starting with the DNA, deciding each time when and how to duplicate, what to translate and what not to, whether to suppress or to activate. Only something that possesses the overview and control of the whole ensemble can guide newborn proteins to their work sites, as in a network of integrated circuits. Are we still surprised, after witnessing the same complexity applied to computers for years? Cells and organism behave like electronic devices.

It is the SIR that sends myriads of signals to the body, to direct operations, to decide, for example, what external signals to accept and what not to, to maintain homeostasis. Perhaps the scientific community is kept away from the idea of an ordering field because nature’s informed matter cannot be seen or measured. TFF started suggesting the idea of the basic codes and revealing the actions of fields; now there are instrumental confirmations, theories, and hypotheses that suggest new paradigms. There have been changes in scientific thought in recent years, such as important changes in our understanding of two major centers of control of the organism—DNA and the nervous system. With regard to the nervous system, we are moving toward the idea of a nonlocalized control center with less defined characteristics than any other anatomic structure. Let us see what this is.

Somatic Markers

The Portuguese doctor Antonio R. Damasio, professor of neurology and chairman of the Department of Neurology at the University of Iowa College of Medicine, and professor in charge at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies in La Jolla, California, formulated the hypothesis of the “somatic marker,” something nonmolecular that marks an image and can produce visceral and nonvisceral effects.

[A somatic marker] forces attention on the negative outcome to which a given action may lead, and functions as an automatic alarm signal which says: Beware of danger ahead if you choose the option which leads to this outcome. The signal may lead you to reject, immediately, the negative course of action and thus make you choose among other alternatives; the automated signal protects you against future losses, without further ado, and then allows you to choose from among fewer alternatives. . . . [S]omatic markers are a special instance of feelings generated from secondary emotions. Those emotions and feelings have been connected, by learning, to predicted future outcomes of certain scenarios. When a negative somatic marker is juxtaposed to a particular future outcome the combination functions as an alarm bell. When a positive marker is juxtaposed instead, it becomes a beacon of incentive. . . . They do not deliberate for us. They assist the deliberation by highlighting some options (either dangerous or favorable), and eliminating them rapidly from the subsequent consideration. . . . You can think of them as devices that give a “sign.”20

So, signals of a nonmolecular nature guide us in decisions and in the choice of behaviors by assisting the process of sorting; they result in an association between cognitive and emotive processes. Their purpose would be to ensure survival by reducing as much as possible unsatisfactory physical states and achieving ones that are homeostatic, functionally balanced. Where are the signals generated? Damasio thinks that they are found not just in the brain but also in the entire body. They can also act as a covert mechanism that inhibits or stimulates the tendency to act, which “would be the source of what we call intuition, the mysterious process by which we arrive at the solution of a problem without reasoning toward it.”²¹ This is another step toward the idea of something nonmolecular holding the strings to everything.

“I suspect that before and beneath the conscious hunch, there is an nonconscious process gradually formulating a prediction for the outcome of each move,” Damasio writes. Something that operates through signals, the effect of a mechanism of regulation of the nervous system, which is superior to the conscious: “The idea that it is the entire organism, rather than the body alone or the brain alone that interacts with the environment, often is discounted, if it is even considered. Yet when we see, or hear, or touch or taste or smell, body proper and brain participate in the interaction with the environment. . . . Perceiving the environment then is not just a matter of having the brain receive direct signals from a given stimulus, the brain also receives less direct images. . . . The organism actively modifies itself so that the interfacing can take place as well as possible. The body proper is not passive.”22

The development of interactions with the environment—the senses—takes place somewhere in the body. That place is the entire body. In neuroscience it could be the equivalent of DNA, a large-scale design of circuits and systems, complete with descriptions at a micro-and macrostructural level.

Damasio argues that DNA, which is governed by regulation and order, is not sufficient to explain life, and he adds that “only a part of the circuits of the brain are specified by genes.”²³ The SIR cannot be located in the genome or in the neural structures. Some animal species with limited memory, reasoning, and creativity manifest complex examples of social cooperation that suggest, according to Damasio, an “ethical structure.” The behavior of many animal species takes advantage of nongenetic cultural transmission.²⁴ This information is not in the DNA, it exists “from before.” The informed field can be modified by environmental stimuli, as in the example of the migratory birds, without any genetic mutation. Like a magnetic stripe, the field stores countless quantities of information, provided it is coherent, resonant, and relevant to the system.