|
Thanks for the post John. I was aware of Gurwitsch's research on mitogenetic radiation and support it . Popp's work also
approaches the reality of a 'physical consciousness' imo. I' ll comment in more detail at a later time, but point out that
Popp's work seems to converge onto my 'universal wavefunction' B(n)=Bo.exp{-Alpha.T(n)}.
Tony B.
To: quantumrelativity@yahoogroups.com
From: PACIFICAP@hotmail.com
Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2007 19:20:57 +1000
Subject:
RE: [quantumrelativity] Fwd: Consciousness as Evolutionary Process -Popp
Vernadsky's Method
Biophysics And the Life Process by Wolfgang Lillge, M.D.
(Full text of
article from Summer 2001 21st Century)
|
|
|
|
It has been the legacy of Vernadsky to the future world,
to continue the broad-based research effort he began, to uncover the physical principles that are behind the differences between
living and non-living processes. As we have heard in Jonathan Tennenbaum's contribution (p. 14), Vernadsky himself always
emphasized a universal approach to this problem: What is needed is an understanding of what are the physical characteristics
of life that can be measured, among others, in terms of different types of radiation, different wavelengths, magneto-biological
criteria, the coupling between various living systems, between living and non-living systems, between living systems and astrophysical
systems, and also between non-living and astrophysical systems, and so on. I want to report here about a number of biological technologies that have been developed completely outside of the
molecular biology mainstream in the last 30 years, which provide fascinating insights into the inner state of living cells.
What has been established by these means is, that cells have a specific kind of communication that is closely connected to
extremely weak, but biologically highly effective, electromagnetic signals. By that, a new pathway of biophysical research
has been opened, which focusses exactly on those key aspects of life that are systematically ignored by standard methods of
molecular biology and genetics.
In fact, the question
"What is life?" has been effectively removed from the established thinking in biology. Molecular biology, which focusses exclusively
on researching only the "building blocks" of nature, has completely lost sight of the characteristic differences between living
and dead matter. For molecular biology, there is no qualitative difference between a living and a dead cell: Just before and
after dying, a cell still contains the same molecules and structures.
But what has happened in between? Where is the "living force" or "animus vitae," as was once speculated about?
Before we elaborate more on the nature of those electromagnetic signals,
which can also be called "biophotons," we should look at some of the phenomenal achievements of which living processes
are capable. In growing tissue, it can be estimated that every single cell produces some million molecules per second, which
is more, by several magnitudes, than what can be produced by laboratory means.
There is another astounding figure: On average, every human being consists of approximately 10 trillion cells (1013),
which are generated by 43 successive rounds of cell doublings. Only after this impressive precision work, will a human being
reach adulthood.
However, at the same time, there
is a constant turnover of cells coming and going: In every individual, every second, approximately 10 million cells die, and
must be replaced in a short period of time, in order to prevent an entropic decay. It cannot be predicted where and when a
cell will die, but if the replacement rate were to be only slightly lower (or higher), the body would disintegrate quickly.
For example, if the growth rate of intestinal cells, which have a large turnover themselves, would exceed the cell death rate
by only some percent, the body would rapidly die from obstruction of the intestines.
The biophysicist Fritz Popp has pointed to the conditions which must be fulfilled such that all these complex processes
occur in a controlled way. There must be an intimate coupling of cell-to-cell-communication, which, according to his
calculations, can only be possible when the key control processes occur at the speed of light. Any other means of "information"
transmission, including biomolecules, chemical messengers, and so forth, would not be sufficient. They would be too slow to
guarantee the integrity of the organism. Already, from this simple calculation, it follows that light, or some electromagnetic
action operating at the speed of light, must be involved in some form in the organization of living processes.
The first sytematic research into the role of light in living processes
was done by the Russian scientist Alexander Gurwitsch, a contemporary of Vernadsky, in the 1920s. Gurwitsch established as
a conclusive hypothesis that every living cell emits light, though at a very weak level.
Mitogenetic Radiation
His original experiment was very simple (Figure 1). Gurwitsch mounted an onion root in such a way, that the tip of
this first onion root pointed to the side of another onion root, but without direct contact. When the second onion root, after
a certain time, was investigated under the microscope, it was shown that at exactly the point of near-contact, there was a
significant increase of cell divisions (mitosis) compared to the opposite side.
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Figure 1
GURWITSCH'S FAMOUS ONION EXPERIMENT
The
roots of two onions are positioned perpendicularly so that the tip of one root points to one side of the other root. Gurwitsch
found that there was a significant increase in cell divisions on this side, compared to the opposite, "unirradiated" side.
The effect disappeared when a thin piece of window glass was placed between the two roots, and reappeared when the ordinary
glass (which is opaque for ultraviolet light) was replaced with quartz glass, which is transparent for ultraviolet light.
Source: A.G. Gurwitsch, Das Problem der
Zellteilung (The Problem of Cell Division), 1926.
| |
|
|
|
|
Alexander Gavrilovich Gurwitsch (1874-1954)
|
|
 This "mitogenetic effect," as Gurwitsch termed it, continued
to appear when a small quartz window, which is specifically transparent to ultraviolet light, was inserted between the two
onion roots. However, the effect disappeared when the quartz window was replaced by normal window glass, or other material,
which is opaque to ultraviolet light. With several other experiments Gurwitsch was able to definitely prove that the medium
of this mitogenetic effect was, in fact, a very weak ultraviolet radiation emanating from the tip of the first onion root.
He called this "mitogenetic radiation."
Subsequently,
Gurwitsch and his collaborators developed a method to indirectly measure the intensity and spectral distribution of the "mitogenetic
radiation." This technique, together with Gurwitsch's other original contributions to biology, including his notion of the
biological field and the existence of a long-range effect between cells during mitosis, became one of the main fields of biological
research during the 1930s, in the Soviet Union, and elsewhere.
However, increasingly, this approach to biology came under fierce attack by the proponents of genetics and molecular
biology, which then, after the war, was made the dominant field of research. The major point of criticism from these circles
was, that the mitogenetic radiation did not exist at all, or, if it did exist, it had no biological relevance whatsoever.
Actually, at Gurwitsch's time, it was technically impossible to directly
measure the weak light emission from cells. This became possible only in the 1950s, when a group of Italian astronomers developed
a very sensitive photo multiplier, which they used to make distant stars visible. When used on biological samples, it was
shown that leaves, germs of wheat, corn, beans, and so on, emit a constant, but weak light. These results created a brief
uproar in the West, but the affair was then essentially forgotten.
Only in the early 1970s was this basic insight taken up again, when German biophysicist Fritz Popp, in his work on
cancer research, found some very peculiar properties of a very strong carcinogenic substance.
Shown in Figure 2 is benzpyrene in two forms: the 3,4 benzpyrene, which is found in coal-tar and in cigarette smoke,
and a chemically very similar substance, 1,2 benzpyrene, which is considered harmless. The only major difference between the
two substances is that 3,4 benzpyrene has a strong absorption/emission anomaly in the ultraviolet area of the spectrum. Popp
asked himself, could these optical properties of the molecule be the direct cause of its carcinogenicity, rather than any
assumed chemical (molecular) effect? That idea, of course, went directly against the established position of cancer research.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,4 benzpyrene |
|
1,2 benzpyrene | |
|
Figure 2
TWO FORMS OF BENZPYRENE
The 3,4 benzpyrene,
which is found in coal-tar and in cigarette smoke, is chemically very similar to 1,2 benzpyrene, which is considered harmless.
The only major difference between them is that 3,4 benzpyrene has a strong absorption/emission anomaly in the ultraviolet
area of the spectrum. Popp asked himself, could these optical properties of the molecule be the direct cause of its carcinogenicity?
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Figure 3
SCHEMATIC OF POPP'S PHOTOMULTIPLIER
Popp
and his colleagues built a high-sensitivity light amplifier, shown here schematically, which can reliably measure the extremely
weak light emission of biological experiments. A quartz cuvette is located in the enclosed part of the apparatus before a
concave mirror, which also directs the reflected rays to the light detector. A colored filter can select specific wavelengths,
and the alternating light and dark ("chopper") plate allows a separation betwen actual signals from the probe and spurious
light from the apparatus itself.
Source: Popp, Biologie des Lichts, 1984
| |
|
|
|
|
|
In that context, Popp learned about Gurwitsch's work on
mitogenetic radiation, and concluded that, if the assumed optical effect of benzpyrene were correct, then there must be some
kind of light source in the cell, and very weak photon "signals" would be able to trigger drastic changes in the behavior
of cells.
So, Popp and his collaborators started
to construct a very sensitive light amplifier appropriate for measuring very weak photon emissions from cells. A schematic
view of this machine is shown in Figure 3.
It is
a certain irony that Popp, after he had presented his ideas to leading cancer scientists in Germany, was first denied any
research money, because he said he wanted to find light inside cells. For these people, this was a completely absurd idea!
Only when he pledged to establish that there is no light in cells, did he receive some funding.
With Popp's photomultiplier machine, it was possible to prove beyond any doubt that low-level light emissions are a
common property of all living cells. It has different intensities for plant or animal cells, for different cell types, and
it can vary from one moment to the next. It is not regular, but comes often as "photon explosion" (spikes), especially when
the cells are irritated by outside means.
With Popp's photomultiplier machine, it was
possible to prove beyond any doubt that low-level light emissions are a common property of all living cells. It has different
intensities for plant or animal cells, for different cell types, and it can vary from one moment to the next. It is not regular,
but comes often as "photon explosion" (spikes), especially when the cells are irritated by outside means.
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
Figure 4
EMISSION PATTERNS OF TWO BIOLOGICAL SAMPLES, WITH AND WITHOUT CONTACT
Fritz Popp developed a system with two independent photo multipliers, and a mechanism by which the two samples under
investigation could be optically separated from each other. Here, in an experiment with the tiny dinoflagellate gonyaulax polyedra, the top part of the graph shows the pattern of emissions with the shutter closed; and the bottom graph shows the
experiment with the shutter opened, so that the two samples are in optical contact. As can be seen, the random events on the
top, become a coordinated, tuned process of increased intensity, with simultaneous spikes of photon emissions.
|
|
|
Listen to the harmony of biophotons
|
|
|
Listen to the harmony of biophotons
|
|
The tones correspond to the correlation
of signals of photon emission in two samples of gonyaulax polyedra. In the first part of the audio, the dissonance
of the separated samples is heard; in the second part, the harmony of the two samples in optical contact can be heard. The
higher the tone, the better the correlation of signals in the two samples. |
|
|
|
|
The Harmony of Biophotons
In fact, one could draw an analogy to music and say, that a disharmonic process turns harmonic. Actually, as Johannes
Kepler perceived the relations of the planets as a musical harmony of spheres, we can also, in the case of biophotons, make
this harmony audible. Here is how Fritz Popp set the electromagnetic communication between cells to music! Please, don't expect
these tones to be as beautiful as those in last night's concert, but creatures such as these dinoflagellates are not human,
after all! First, we hear the dissonance of the separated samples, and then the harmony of interacting photon emission. [Audio version of the biophoton tones.] You should note that the tones you will hear do not
correspond directly to single photons emitted; they correspond to the degree of correlation of signals in both samples. So,
the higher the tone, the better the correlation.
All these findings point to a specific form of electromagnetic
coupling, indicating a specific kind of communication between living cells. Even if it is not yet known what the actual source
of these photon emissions in cells is—and one should not fall into premature speculation on this point (there may even
be outside, astrophysical influences involved)—they have a definite biological effectiveness. And Popp has also shown
that this weak radiation must have the quality of a multimodal, multifrequency laser to be effective; that is, to be coherent
in space and time.
Coming back to cancer research, it is not surprising that
the use of photon emission is able to show a clear distinction between healthy cells and cancer cells.
The graph in Figure 5 shows how normal liver cells (lower
curve) have a relatively stable or even falling level of photon counts at increasing cell density, while cancer cells of the
same cell type show an increasing photon count at higher cell densities. It can be concluded from that, that populations of
cancer cells have lost the harmony and coherence that is typical for healthy tissue. |
|
|
|
|
|
 Figure 5
PHOTON COUNTS OF NORMAL LIVER CELLS VS. CANCEROUS
CELLS
Normal liver cells (lower curve) have a
relatively stable or even falling level of photon counts at increasing cell density, while cancer cells of the same cell type
show an increasing photon count at higher cell densities. From this, it was concluded that populations of cancer cells have
lost the harmony and coherence that is typical for healthy tissue.
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Figure 6
SCHEMATIC OF BURLAKOV'S EXPERIMENTS WITH FISH EGGS AND MITOGENETIC RADIATION
In these experiments, samples of fertilized fish eggs in different phases of development were brought into optical
contact with each other. Burlakov found that if the age difference between the eggs or larvae was not too large, there was
a significant acceleration in the development of the younger eggs relative to the older ones. However, if the age difference
was large, the younger eggs showed a strong retardation in development; even deformities and higher death rates occurred.
When Burlakov used normal window glass as a filter, all these effects disappeared, but with quartz filters, the effects could
be observed. | |
|
|
|
|
|
I can only summarily report here on recent, impressive work
by the Russian scientist A.B. Burlakov. He provided a striking example of the superiority of the biophoton approach over the
molecular dogma.
Burlakov brought samples of fertilized fish eggs in different
phases of development into optical contact with each other, and observed the mutual effects (see Figure 6). He reported the
following results:
- Provided the age difference between the eggs or larvae
was not too large, there was a significant acceleration in the development of the younger eggs relative to the older ones.
- However, if the age difference was large, the younger eggs
showed a strong retardation in development; even deformities and higher death rates occurred. (This conforms, by the way,
to observations in nature, that fish normally avoid laying their eggs in sites where other eggs have already been deposited.)
- When he used normal window glass as a filter, all these
effects disappeared, but the effects could be observed by use of quartz filters, confirming clearly Gurwitsch's "mitogenetic
effect."
- Using filters for different wavelengths and polarizers,
Burlakov even succeeded in creating specific alterations intentionally, and subsequently undoing them. In this way, monster
larvae with multiple heads, multiple hearts, and so forth, were generated, but could be corrected by the appropriate use of
other optical coupling effects.
In fact, this latter case could be the beginning of an era
of "biophoton technology," as Burlakov himself stated, with a potential far bigger than today's biotechnology, which has had
a hard time keeping up with its far-flung promises. Obviously, in Burlakov's experiments, no changes were induced in the genome
at all—the biophoton action works on the level of the living process itself.
Magneto-Biology
Finally, we should include in the list of technologies for the investigation of living processes, the potential of
magneto-biology. Research of this type has a long tradition, especially in Russia. For example Alexander L. Chizhevsky [1897-1964]
made intensive studies of the correlation between solar-induced changes in the Earth's magnetic field and the occurrence of
physical events, such as epidemics, and other things. Also Simon Shnoll and his group in Moscow made extensive studies of
the influence of cosmic phenomena on almost all physical processes on the planet. Professor Bruno Brandimarte of Italy has
been a pioneer in the field of magneto-biology for many years. He has shown that oscillating magnetic fields of various forms
can have striking effects on the healing of wounds and the increase of blood circulation.
In Figure 7, you see on the left a very bad case of diabetes
gangrene, which would have been hopeless for traditional surgery. But, after treatment with magnetic fields (right), the foot
was almost completely restored. |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
Figure 7
BRANDIMARTE'S OSCILLATING MAGNETIC FIELD TREATMENT
The Italian scientist Brandimarte has worked with oscillating magnetic fields to increase blood circulation and
heal wounds. Here is one example of the positive effect of magnetic field treatment. On the left is a very bad case of diabetes
gangrene for which the normal treatment would have been amputation. After treatment with magnetic fields (right), however,
the foot was almost completely restored. |
|
|
|
|
|
In conclusion, it must be stated, that we are only at the
beginning of the era of "life technology." Many more approaches like the mitogenetic effect, the biophoton/laser principle,
and magneto-biology must be developed. The aim is to develop methods, which allow us to study all those multiple levels, on
which the characteristic actions of life occur.
Wolfgang Lillge, a physician, is the editor of the German-language
Fusion magazine.
This article was part of a panel discussion
on Vernadsky’s Method, at the Schiller Institute conference, The Ecumenical Battle for the Common Good, held in Bad
Schwalbach, Germany, May 4-6, 2001. The four panel presentations appear in full in the Summer 2001 issue of 21st Century. |
| Return to top |
|
|
|
|
|
To: quantumrelativity@yahoogroups.com
From: jack_vanwinkle@yahoo.ca
Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2007 03:26:15 +0000
Subject:
[quantumrelativity] Fwd: Consciousness as Evolutionary Process -Popp
Consciousness as Evolutionary Process
based on Coherent States
Fritz-Albert Popp
This paper is not worth to get seriously
general attention, (1) since I renounce to add the references of all the contributors of this field who might have had ever
similar ideas or even might have published them, (2) since I dare to mention ideas that are neither revolutionary nor complicated,
but simply more or less trivial, and (3) since it is essentially a translation of my German paper in the journal "Grenzgebiete
der Wissenschaft 51 (2002)3, 195-217: Bewußtsein als Eigenschaft kohärenter Zustände". The only scientists whom I will mention
as origins of my thoughts about consciousness are Descartes who will forgive me when I do not try to find the source
of his famous wise saying "I am able to have doubts, therefore I am", and Henry Stapp whose papers are widely known
enough such that it is not necessary to discuss them here in detail, and some of my thoughts have their origin by personal
discussions with him.
I try to point out
- that
at first we need to find a definition of consciousness, irrespective whether it is complete or not, before we can start to
speak about it,
- that
we have to find a turning point between "reality" and "consciousness", irrespective of what we understand by the reality
or consciousness, before we enter the no man`s land of consciousness,
- that
we have to find ways how to quantify "consciousness" rather than only to describe it,
- that
we have seriously to distinguish between "consciousness" and "consciousness about consciousness", in order to discover
the position and role of consciousness in our world.
I am obliged and would like also to thank
all the nice and wise colleagues at Princeton University with whom I could discuss these thoughts over many years. I confess that I absorbed a manifold
of ideas during these more or less regular meetings. We never published any word about our rather fruitful common sessions.
But now, I think, after years of thoughts and afterthoughts, there is a section where a break and a brief summary of the ideas
could be published. This will be done now in English, after I started with a first trial in the German journal.
1. How to define "consciousness".
Everybody thinks that he knows what "consciousness"
is. It is a similar situation as with the term "energy". Even today this word is used in several meanings like "life-energy",
"criminal energy" or - in physics - "potential energy" and "kinetic energy". Only the last two terms are well defined, and
one may ask whether it is not possible to make the same with "consciousness". While "energy" describes in general the
capacity of doing work against some resistance, consciousness is associated with the capacity of becoming aware about something.
The "degree" of awareness could represent a measure of consciousness as like as the amount of possible or actual work got
a measure of energy. However, there remains a fundamental difficulty regarding the role of the outside world and the observer.
The energy can be defined without demanding a definite interference of the observer. We can say then that we are able to "objectify"
the term energy. But it is just the essential characteristic of consciousness that it is completely impossible to objectify
it, and we will always fail if we try to remove the role of the observer. At the same time a scientific definition requires
at least the involvement of a definite part of the measurable outside world in order to make "inter-subjective" sense at all.
The situation reminds a little on some basic questions of quantum physics, where we are faced with the problem of overcoming
the uncertainty of the observer by "certain" probability distributions of the "reality" (wave functions). Henry Stapp who
recognized the elementary essence of this problem was therefore successful in identifying consciousness in terms of the collapse
of the wave function. This traces it back to the condensation of external events onto the frame of the observers detector
system, localizing it to the point where it really happens. It seems significant to make these previous remarks before I continue
to look for a suitable definition.
2. Quantum Theory and Consciousness (First
Approach of a Definition)
In my opinion we can finally not succeed
in understanding consciousness if we focus our attention only to biological structuring or - alternatively - to the puzzling
properties of quantum theory. At first it seems important to exhaust all the possibilities of finding a satisfying definition
of consciousness itself. Consciousness is not a strange property of biological structures and consciousness is not quantum
theory, but biological structures enable the function of consciousness and quantum theory is certainly a product of our consciousness.
Let us try therefore to find one or more boundaries between consciousness and "external world", as Henry Stapp did it with
the collapse of the wave function. One of these boundaries are "virtual particles" or an apparent "cover" of the vacuum state.
A striking example is the exchange force between identical particles that comes up simply by our conviction that, by definition,
identical particles cannot get distinguished.. This results in the fact that an exchange of identical particles will
never lead to a new quantum state. Consequently, within a time interval that is smaller or at least equal to the ratio of
the Planck`s constant to the energy associated to these particles, the exchange of these particles has to be assigned to a
"real" event. This effect gives rise to a manifold of forces (may be even to all "forces"). An example is the stronger binding
force of the hydrogen molecule compared to that of the separated hydrogen atoms. It is well known and quantitatively established
that this exchange force is responsible for the stable configuration of the molecule compared to that of the two single atoms
(Fig.1). In molecular biology this kind of exchange forces (or virtual forces of the vacuum field) plays a decisive role for
the binding energy of molecules, known as van der Waals forces or sometimes Casimir forces, virtual particles etc. The puzzling
situation behind these phenomena concerns the imagination that by introducing indistinguishable and most stupid particles
(the Demokritos idea of atoms) and assigning ideal localization to them, one creates at the same time a completely non-local
highly intelligent net of just the same, but permanently exchanging particles which have to know each other in order to find
the right positions of their twins at any instant. Thus, the interaction of the "reality" with our imagination enforces to
create an antagonistic world of complementary properties, where it becomes difficult, if not impossible at all, to decide
what belongs to the external world and what is simply the product of our imagination. Are the particles really so intelligent
in order to substitute themselves at any instant and are we therefore stimulated to imagine that they are completely
localized indistinguishable units, or are the particles actually these single and strongly localized units that enforce us
to think that they are so intelligent?
Fig. 1 Reality in terms of the transformation
between actual and potential information
The higher stability of the hydrogen molecule
compared to the single atoms is based on the permanent exchange of the two valence electrons of the atoms. But where do these
electrons know from that they are identical, and where do they know from their positions when they substitute each other?
See text.
Is here a turning point where reality and
consciousness are mutually exchanging their role? I think this example invites us to find a possibility of defining what we
call "consciousness" in the following way. The essential point is the dialogue between the "actual" world and the "virtual"
world, this is a permanent and active transformation from the "world of events" into the "world of imagination", from
actual into potential information, and vice versa. Up to a point (where it has possibly to get corrected) I suggest to
define consciousness then as an active process where actual and potential information are mutually transformed into each other.
3. Throwing a Coin
Actually, throwing a coin would be an information-less
event, if not necessarily (1) the question whether it will fall onto heads of tails is asked at all, and (2)
the actual event of head or tail is registered. If the question were not asked, the event would be irrelevant. If only
the question were asked without throwing the coin, one would speak of a fruitless speculation. In other words: The process
of transforming potential into actual information and vice versa requires both, the world of possibilities and the world of
actual events in order to fulfil the most necessary condition of a "relevant" information.
From Shannon we know that both, the potential and
the actual information of throwing a coin will always display one bit, but "consciousness", as I defined it now, is necessary
in order to register it. It is the consciousness that has to take up both parts of the information, for that the information
can become relevant at all and complete.
Since Shannon´s definition of information
satisfies the "scientific" conditions of reproducibility and unambiguity, it may work as the first valuable approach of developing
measures of consciousness. Of course, the consciousness of Shannon´s information is empty, since in the interaction of the
real world and the imagination, represented by the actual frequency and the known (!) probability field W of all possible
events, respectively, there is no real "surprise". The reason, why there remains no real gain of information, is that the
system is closed. However, as soon as there is a gap between the actual and the potential information, just this difference
provides a measure of what we call "consciousness". In most general terms we may therefore formulate
Bº B(lnWp-lnWa) = B(ln (Wp/Wa)) (1)
where B(...) as a measure of consciousness
is a definite function that has still to be determined. The arguments Wp and Wa are the potential and the actual probabilities
(better: probability fields) of the "imagination" of the observer and the "real events", just in terms of Shannon´s approach,
as far as this is measurable. Since the problem will arise to measure the probability field in an open system instead of a
closed one, this task can be solved. The way to do that is well known in thermodynamics, i.e. dividing the system into quasi-stationary
elements that can be looked upon as quasi-closed parts of the whole. We provide also that B(0)= 0 in order to set the Shannon`s
information as a reference system with B = 0.
From equ.(1) we can deduce that consciousness
gets the meaning of a process with evolutionary significance. Actually, the gain of information in terms of equ.(1) provides
the survival of the observer. The better he is able to suck up knowledge by the interaction with the external world in transforming
actual into potential information, and the better he is able to change the actual world by creativity in transforming potential
into actual information, the higher is his evolutionary power and his survival chance. This is valid, for instance, for producers
as well as for consumers, i.e. cultivating and absorbing optimal food, or for scientists who analyze natural laws in order
to apply them to the building of instruments.
However, in order to ar |
