Our Living Body Soience of Life (c) SIG, the Foundation for advancement of  Integral Health Care

The Integration of Information and Matter
Our Living Body

D O van Nieuwenhuijze, MSc, MD (c)
Independent Research Scientist
17 September 2007 08:33:00

to be continued ...


Our body is alive.
It is not a physical mechanical object.
It does not follow the laws of classical science. In our body – and in life – there is no reductionistic deterministic mechanistic predictability.
The principles of inertia = invariance means:

“Action = - Reaction” is “Action + Reaction = Null”.

Cause has no effect.

In our body we have freedom of choice.
This means that the singularities of the system (the points of contact with the context) can turn around: action and reaction may be inverted.
Living bodies are thereby unpredictable in their behaviour

This differentiates life from death.
Living organisms have the possibility to change the way they relate to their context.
We experience this in our living body, where the properties of materials, plants, animals and self-awareness all come together.
This is based on the properties of living cells.

The materials in our body are produced by living cells.
Body materials are of the kind one seeks for (super) computers: they respond to information.
In our body we see that all body processes are based on the exchange of information.
The living cells communicate, using light, radio waves, electric and chemical signals.

All materials involved are carriers of information: including water.
The whole body is an information process(or) in which the dynamic patterns of information in the body must match that of the context.
Our body is best understood as a hologram within a hologram.
If the (4D) hologram of our body matches that of our body matches that of our context, then we are healthy. If not, our body cannot integrate its integrity in context: it falls ill, becomes sick and may die.

The understanding of the integrity of our body is best seen in the membrane of the living cell.
This is where the relationship between cell and context is altered.
We can see this more explicit how, in the cells, four groups of proteins integrate information with matter.
This also helps understand how we incorporate information (memory) into our body.
This information is recorded into DNA; which is simultaneously a log record of experience of our living in our changing context, and a fall-back back-up solution in case we fail to integrate into our context.

The relationship between the living cell and dead DNA is that of as Write-rewrite system.
The Coating proteins of the DNA nurture and maintain the integrity of the DNA memory record, and can update it.
The DNA coating proteins respond to the dynamics of the linking proteins. This protein functions below the surface membrane of the living cell. It relates and correlates two different proteins which relate the living cells to the changing context: the sensor proteins and the portal proteins.
The sensor proteins relay information from one side of the closed cell membrane to the other.
The portal membranes allow for the passage of matter through the living cell membrane.
The two protein types can be regarded as complementary to each other: the sensor cell serves as a rod or antenna.
The portal protein serves as a tube or an orifice.
Together they allow for the possibility of the living cell -to isolate itself from the context by closing the portal for the transmission of materials, and to close down the possibility for the relay of information.

In more simple terms we can see a process at work which operates like a vortex: it can act like a filament of a tube in making a connection, or an opening, through the cell membrane. As a result the living cell can integrate information and matter in/to its body (of which the stored DNA is maintained as a transcript record). The essence is that our living cell always is and remains part of the context from which it emerged.

This means that we cannot regard the living cells from the perspective of deterministic science.
The 3D shape and dynamics need to be connected to a fourth dimension: that of emergence and immergence.

    (This again calls for a representation on the form of a vortex, as this is a form in which 4 dimensions are combined: point (source), (stream) line, (Surface) plane and Volume (the body of water; or in this case: the body of a living cell.)

It also means that we cannot regard the living cells from the perspective of modern science.
The existence of the cell is not determined by energy, but based on synergy.

    It is the relationship between information and matter that needs to be made explicit. It is the property of the living cell membrane to open up or close, which allows the living cell to use freedom of choice in being separate or integrated.

This involves consciousness: a correlation of the living cell, with that of the context.
This operates involvement: the cell has a choice in the way it participates in its context.

    This is the basis of the relationship between cells in organs, the relationship between different organs, the function of the regulatory system (operating by processing information and matter) and the integrity of our whole body.

What we see as the sensory system is a more developed form of the sensor ‘antenna’ protein on the cell membrane.
What we experience as the orifices of the body are a more developed form of the gate protein in the living cell membrane.

    Our learning/immune system, our (neuronal/hormonal) regulatory system, the functioning of our organs, and the integrity of our living body cells together reflect the same relationship and interplay as that of the gate proteins, sensor proteins, linking proteins and DNA coating proteins in the living cells.

It is this principle that determines the integration of information in matter. This is the intelligence/mechanism by which our cells (dis)identify and (dis)integrate within their context.
This is the principle which both determines our state of vitality and health, and our state of consciousness and integrity.
We are integral part of our context.
When this is no longer realised the organic system responds by a change of state from health to adaptation to disease and death.

    This too can be understood in terms of the 4 types of cell proteins (respectively the DNA coating proteins, linking proteins, sensor proteins and gate proteins.)

The essence of life is that we are integral part of our context, and that we have a choice as to how we yes/no/maybe/don’t-know relate to it.


  • The above ideas are based on a fusion of the findings
    of Lynn Margulis
    (our eukaryote cell is based on the fusion of 4 types of microbes),
    of Bruce Lipton
    (four proteins determine the writing of the DNA in our body, over a span of millions of years),
    of Jaap van der Wal
    (all our body cells unfold from our first cell, the zygote) and
    of O#o
    (the realisation that there is a logical development of the incorporation of freedom of choice in the emergence of conscious life forms: minerals, plants, animals and self-conscious life forms are all interrelated).
  • This text expresses the realisation that the universe too, as a whole, is a development of the integration of information with matter; of this our living cell is simply an example.

The following text builds the bridge between information and matter by tracing the history of science and medicine; and presents the need to integrate their findings.
It shows that the filter function of the membrane of the living cell forms the basis of the manifestation of our body as a whole.
It spells out that we cannot use the model of objective classical science in dealing with our living body: it must be based on subjective realisation of our ability to change our involvement with/in our context.
Finally it applies these insights to our experience of our living body, and the need to realise that it is not a physical object nor a supercomputer. It is in itself a sentient conscious life form, that needs to be treated and respected as such. That is the basis for preventive healthcare.

A brief history of Science

Science has undergone an about transformation. It started with the study of dead matter, but now has come to conclude that the universe is in fact a manifestation of information. In studying matter, science discovered molecules, then atoms, and finally subatomic fields of information. This corresponded with a shift in perspective from physics, through chemistry and electromagnetism into informatics. In doing so it had to reformulate its descriptions from classical science to relativistic models to probabilistic formulations to a unified field concept. States were seen to be based on processes of transformation of information.

The so called Four Forces of Physics are one and the same force perceived from four different perspectives.
These four different forms of perspectives, and the corresponding four different forms of science, are related to four different modes of coherence of our body (anatomy, physiology, regulatory system and psycho-immune system; see below) which we also experience as four different modes of social function: scientists, artists, traders and mystics. These represent different modes of involvement with the context: observation, reaction, interaction and integration.

It is a shift from outsider to insider, with the in-between phases of making contact with the boundary (relativity) and stepping into the interface.
All of these perspectives are interconnected; they are part of the same perspective.
This is what science came to conclude in its quest from matter to molecules to atoms and subatomic spaces.
It explored the inverse of that finding also: it means that the universe can be understood as having emerged out of nothing (information/phase space), then formed into amorphous Cosmic Gas clouds (energy/electric charge discharge), to fluid Stars (time/process) and finally as the crust of the Earth (space/structure).

Bringing Science to Life

As part of the history of science it needs to be realised that science was developed in opposition to a totalitarian overrule by a dogmatic church mind set in Europe.
The church claimed that it was purveyor of all truth: if it was not in their books, it was said it was not so.
Others discovered this to be incorrect: the Earth rotated around the sun; not the Sun around the Earth.
It led to a group of people setting out to discover for themselves how the universe functions.

    They did research (empiricism),
    wrote each other letters about their findings (peer review),
    published books (consensus), and now
    some again hold that to be ‘true’ (dogma).

The structure of science in fact reflects that of the theology that is it is based on, in its opposition against it.
The function of science is the exploration of the unknown.
The outcome – the known – is but a result.
The known is always changing, because the unknown always offers different insights.

    Science has grown from babyhood (reductionism/determinism)
    to childhood (relativity/self-definition)
    to adolescence (probability/involvement)
    to adulthood (subjective/response-able).

In our social setting science still needs to come out of adolescence: science and society as a whole need to realise that we always interact with our context: there is no outsider-observer.
We therefore need to be response-able for our actions. (And the pollution of the planet.). Quantum Theory made explicit that we are involved in the observation. Field Theory needs to make explicit that this means that all findings of Objective science are in fact formulations of subjective realisation.
We need to include our involvement in all equations of science. We need to make explicit how we are involved in the reality that we, together, create.
This can be summarised as: we need to bring science to life.

Life science is at present a misnomer.
Mechanical material models and methods are used for the description of living objects.
It means that models of dead matter are used to look at living beings.
As a result, only the elements of deadness will be perceived, understood and described.

In living beings the material is no object: it is secreted by living cells.
Every material in our living body serves some purpose in the process of cell communication.
The materials are responsive to information. They are able to interact with light, radio waves, chemically and physically; all as part of the integration of the integrity of the living body in its context.
Our body can be compared to a computer in which the software programmes, determines, the hardware.

The structure of the body is immaterial: it is but a manifestation of an interaction of information in a context.
We can regard our body as a space-time suit, suited for our consciousness to interact with the world around us. But the dichotomy between mind and matter, object and subject, person and environment is false.
At the interface of the cell we can see that the cell membrane is a filter: it opens/closes selectively to regulate our interaction with our context. The ‘separator’ is also the connector.
The same is the case for the integration between information and matter.

Cosmology models that matter is a form of information, in formation. Our body makes this more explicit: the material in the body is taken from our context by living cells; when these cells cease to function, then the matter drops back to the earth. More basic than the substance of our body is the process by which it was created. It is this process dynamic, of information integration, that needs to be included into the formulations of science.

In this respect science has now reach a dead end: the end of the line where the study of matter could take it. Now it is necessary to understand that matter is a form of information. And that the universe as a whole is a process of information integration. The human observer is part of the universe as a whole; we were formed as part of the same dynamic.

All that is objective is therefore subjective.
We need to turn the findings of science inside out.
Every formula of reality is a formulation of realisation.
It is not an expression of what we see, but of our seeing.

Quantum theory already made this explicit.
In our body we can see the basis: the world that we see ‘around’ us is in fact an artefact. It is a creation from sensations on cells on the surface of our body.
Whatever we see, hear, smell/taste or feel is but an effect of a change IN our body.
Every device that we made is but an extension of this sensation of our body. What we hold to be real as a reality around us, is put a projection/extension of a realisation within is. Reality is a Realisation.

This makes explicit that we cannot create any model of reality without addressing how it came to be by our realisation.
There cannot be an ‘objective’ description without defining of subjective involvement.
We must not only gauge the instruments that we use for quantifying our observations.
We also need to gauge how we came to qualify the choice of observation. Dimensional Theory, in mathematics, makes explicit that our choice of parameters determines the definition of whatever we study.

It is but one of many examples that we need to gauge and describe our involvement in our observation.
Doing so will help also to compare the findings from different observers. Discrepancies in their outcomes always reflect differences in their involvement in the observation.
This is not only the case physically (the measurement) but also mentally (the mind set).
It is intriguing that in science all instruments and devices for measurement are always calibrated and gauge; except the scientist’s mind.

It is necessary to include our understanding of the way the scientist operates and function in the formulations of science.
“Bringing Science to Life” refers to the need to make the role of the observer explicit.
This cannot be describe from the perspective of science: science regards the scientist as it does with life forms: as a material object. Even with the onset of the Information Era, science does not regard life as information process(or).
What is needed is the integration with the knowledge that is still, often, deemed to be unscientific: the inter-subjective non-objective understanding of healing.

Medicine is traditionally the art of interacting with life for the purpose of restoring wholeness.
Science has come to an understanding of the (metaphysical) nature of wholeness (field theory; and the sub-atomic phase space).
What it still lacks is the understanding of the role of our involvement. This is what the experience of health care can offer.

By integrating the understanding of health care into science we can bring science to life.
It does however require that we first heal health care. Because the form of medicine that is based on the model of dead matter of classical science is deadly.
We will see that the healing of health care can be achieved by the integration of all forms of healing of the planet. In seeing how they relate we recognise the same pattern as in the relationship between the different aspects of science. By integrating them together in what we can call Integral health Care, we can also integrate the result into science and thereby bring science to life.
The combined result we can call the science of life.

A brief History of Medicine

To be continued ...

Healing Health Care


Our Living Body


Freedom of Choice


From Energy to Synergy


The Symphony of Cells of our body


Integrity by Integration


Integration of Information and Matter in our body








NavUp NavRight
[Welcome] [Core Concepts] [Topics] [Participants] [Publications] [Research] [Projects]
Scence__of_Life_-_Presentation_Title (t)