Molecules of Emotion
Course V: Electrochemical Molecules and Human Bias
Course Outline: This course threshes out the factors that influence our ability to balance physical and non-physical consciousness. These factors are based in large part on electrochemical molecules (called “Molecules of Emotion”) that shape our perceptions of everyday reality through the accumulation of emotionally subjective experiences, also called “human bias.” This course also identifies the limitations for human objectivity in society and science alike based on the inherent nature of electrochemical molecules and the emotional bias they cause. If you have not yet taken Courses I-IV, we recommend going back and doing so in order to fully understand the references we make to them throughout this course on how Molecules of Emotion influence human bias.
Comparing Objectivity and Subjectivity
Look at the picture above. What do you see? If you are like many people, you will see what years of synaptic pruning has conditioned you to see: A steely-eyed scientist hard at work in a laboratory conducting serious research of some sort. And what you are telling yourself you see is not necessarily untrue. However, and based on additional assumptions, many of them subconscious, that accompany many people’s conscious thoughts about this picture, it is not the entire truth by a long shot. So, what are those assumptions?
The assumption most of us have been conditioned, or as we discussed in Course IV, “pruned” to make through the educative process, is that science in general, and scientists in particular, adhere to a higher set of rules and ethics that lead to a more objective view of the Universe than the common citizen can achieve. This is called the “theory of objectivity,” and it has permeated every facet of scientific inquiry for the better part the past four centuries.
Objectivity is the belief that a human being can consciously and physiologically separate him or herself from his or her pre-existing expectations based on the accumulated data of experiences and education compiled throughout his or her life.
Of course, our expectations either confirm or deny the insertion of new knowledge and experience based on how it resonates with the existing ones. Objectivity goes hand-in-hand with “Realism,” which is the belief that in order for something to be considered scientific, it must be able to be observed with the five basic human senses of smell, touch, taste, sight or sound…. then minimized and reduced to the same type of mathematical formulae outlined in Course I as the foundation for 4-dimensional Scientific Materialism. In fact, objectivity and realism are the foundations with which the credibility of science rests upon. To this effect, and according to Astronomer Carl Sagan:
“Science is an enterprise of human beings, so there are all sorts of jealousies and rivalries and unwillingness to admit mistakes,” Sagan said. “But the great advantage is that the culture of science is opposed to these frailties, and the collective enterprise of science undoes them. We give our highest rewards to those who disprove the contentions of our most revered figures.”
Sagan’s quote assures us that although scientists can be jealous and egotistical, science itself exists beyond the perceptual limitations of those who oversee it. The perceptual limitations Sagan mentioned are the foundation for the “theory of subjectivity.”
Subjectivity is the understanding that a human being cannot physiologically separate him or herself from his or her own pre-existing expectations based on the accumulated data of experiences and education compiled throughout his or her life. This is also called “bias.”
Subjectivity goes hand-in-hand with “Instrumentalism.” Instrumentalists believe that what a human being sees is based wholly on her or his beliefs about what does or does not exist to be seen in the first place. Or, and according to Physicist Robert March, that the objects we think we see in the space outside of our own minds and bodies, are nothing more than fictional constructs of our minds’ expectations. What is more, and as the ever-growing body of quantum research (discussed in courses I, II and III) continues to demonstrate, factual constructs do not correspond exactly to the way we fictionally choose to see them. Based on this, some physicists like Howard Wiseman of Griffith University, now openly claim objective realism to be a dead theory.
Nonetheless, Sagan’s words sound very comforting and reassuring to many who still hold fast to the premise that science is beyond human fault. Who among us doesn’t want to think there is always some higher ethical authority working in our own best interests to ensure that fairness, accuracy and thus, truth exists? Unfortunately, objective realism in practice does not work like it does in theory. To frame this in a “real world” context, let’s take a listen as our resident Psychoenergetic Science expert, Physicist William Tiller, discusses his experience with the same “culture of science” Sagan speaks so highly of:
In large part, the scientific establishment has avoided consciousness research, and marginalize or shun scientists like Tiller who spearhead it, because of an overwhelming reliance on objectivity. Or, in the words of Cognitive Scientist David Chalmers from the journal Scientific American in December 1995:
“For many years, consciousness was shunned researches. The prevailing view was science, which depends on objectivity, could not accommodate something as subjective as consciousness.” Chalmers goes onto state that although consciousness has a material component, “It might be explained by a new kind of theory that will probably involve new fundamental laws with startling consequences for our view of the Universe and of ourselves.”
There is no longer any doubt that we, the human species, are on the cusp of that theory. In fact, and when looking at the extensive body of research already compiled, an argument can be made that in an evolutionary sense, this theory is already here. It just happens to be waiting for many scientists to catch up. But why is it taking so long and, what is more, why are so many established scientists fighting their counterparts (like Tiller) tooth-and-nail to keep the theories of objectivity and realism relevant at the expense of consciousness? Because of their Molecules of Emotion.
The Molecules of Emotion
During her life, Neuroscientist Candace Pert undertook exhaustive research into what she called “Molecules of Emotion.” Molecules of Emotion are neuropeptides, neurotransmitters and hormones. These are called “cause-and-effect electrochemicals” because they influence brain activity and body functioning (in the form of subjective perceptual bias) within milliseconds of being released.
“Neurotransmitters” are electrochemical messengers that shuttle information between nerve cells, allowing the brain and nervous system to communicate with each other. “Neuropeptides” make up the bulk of the body’s neurotransmitters. As neuropeptides make their way through the bloodstream and attach to various tissues, they activate “hormones.” Hormones are electrochemicals that are responsible for fundamentally influencing our behaviors, moods and mindsets on the most basic, primal human levels.
Although neurotransmitters and neuropeptides originate in various regions of the brain, hormone centers are located in seven areas, or glands, that make up the Endocrine System. The hormonal responses that take place in the Endocrine System are directly responsible for shaping and perpetuating our daily lives through the release of hormones that dictate conscious awareness of both individual and collective reality.
A graphic illustration of how molecules of emotion get trasmitted between nerve synapses in various regions of the human brain, thereby stimulating instantaneous hormonal responses
The seven glands that secrete hormones are: The Sexual Glands, the Digestive Glands, the Adrenal Glands, the Thymus Gland, the Thyroid Gland, the Pineal Gland, and the Pituitary Gland.
Dr. Pert’ research indicates that as we think different thoughts, our brains fire off patterns that stimulate the manifestation of visual images equaling those thoughts. According to Physicist Robert March, this is why the closest any one of us can come to existing in a reality outside of our own minds corresponds directly to the fictional constructs of that reality our hormones create upon interaction with neurotransmitters.
Only when this interaction occurs, can our brains tell our sensory organs like our eyes and ears what to see and hear. And only when sight or sound takes place, can anyone of us experience anything at all. This means all of us, from a high school aged hourly fast food worker to the most prominent scientist in the most elite University on the planet, cannot physiologically separate ourselves from our hormonal processes.
The best way to prohibit molecules of emotion from completely dominating every facet of physical and non-physical consciousness is to 1) acknowledge their existence in our lives and 2) thresh out how our subjective biases are formed and prune our synapses to suit the everyday reality we perceive as our neuroplasticity “hardens” with time.
Metaphor and Narrative
This widely circulated Boston Post Newspaper from December 8, 1941 discussing the “Japs,” which is a derogatory term for Japanese people, perfectly illustrates how subjectively biased language shapes everyday reality
- Socioeconomic Background
- Challenges, Hardships and Traumas
- Successes, Accomplishments and Achievements
These influences subjectively shape our perception of what reality has been thus far, can be at this moment, and should be in the future. This includes what is considered normal, desirable and acceptable personally, professionally or societally speaking. On the other hand, these same influences also affect our perception of what is considered abnormal, undesirable or unacceptable, don’t they? These influences are called “metaphors.” Metaphors are transmitted through the employment of various “Narrative Vehicles.” Narrative vehicles include:
- Books, Magazines and Journals
- Educational Curricula and Materials
- Religious Dogma and Ritual
- Popular Culture via Media/Social Media
- Governmental, Political and Financial Institutions
- Laws and the Justice System
- Even Nationalistic Symbols like Flags and Anthems
In a consciousness sense, everything begins with a subjective thought, idea or belief, or in other words a metaphor. Once the metaphor is consciously constructed, it must then be transmitted to another human being via one of several potential narrative devices. If one or more recipients of the metaphor via the narrative device choose to merge it into his or her consciousness, then a culture has formed. Once a culture has formed, people with similar understandings of consciousness and reality can begin crafting larger narratives to support their metaphorical biases.
If enough people of the same culture craft enough metaphors, say like scientists who posit the existence of an objective state of awareness that allows them to perform inquiries absent human bias, they can begin to purport these metaphors as absolute truth. However, this does not necessarily make those metaphors any less subjectively biased, as we are about to demonstrate….
Exposing the Biases in Science
In its 2015 study, the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) settled the debate regarding the biases in science once-and-for-all. In this report, the NBER identified and analyzed 12,935 “elite” scientists based on their funding, publications, affiliations, and other applicable criteria. “Elite” status is based on the amount of funding they receive, how many times they’ve published, how many patents they invented, or whether they were members of the National Academies of Sciences or the Institute of Medicine. Out of the pool of 12.935 subjects, researchers focused on 425 cases based on one major shared criterion: The sudden death of a non-retired elite scientist.
Upon such a death, intellectual competition increased across the board. The existence of intellectual power vacuums corresponding with early death indicates those scientists controlled official knowledge surrounding their research and/or disciplines. In doing so, they were able to influence the physical consciousness of other scientists and the public-at-large, whether or not doing so was in the best interest of anyone other than the rock star scientist.
As the NBER concluded, this subjective approach to scientific inquiry results in the marginalization or outright exclusion of competing theories, as well as the scientists who formulate them, when either is perceived to challenge a leading pundit in a scientific field. This would be fine, if that pundit’s positioning was maintained sincerely via a subjectively biased posturing regarding the existence of ultimate truth. However, it isn’t. As the NBER researchers concluded:
“The idiosyncratic stances (i.e. subjective biases) of individual scientists can do much to alter, or at least delay, the course of scientific advance.”
This means elite scientists maintain their positions of authority while the people science claims to serve remain unaware of the inherently subjective biases seriously impinging (if not outright strangling) the quest for a greater understanding where human consciousness and perception of reality is concerned. Or, as the first tenured female biology professor in Harvard’s history, Ruth Hubbard, so elegantly put it:
“The mythology of science asserts that with many different scientists all asking their own questions and evaluating the answers independently, whatever personal bias creeps into their individual answers is cancelled out when the large picture is put together. This might conceivably be so if scientists were women and men from all sorts of different cultural and social backgrounds who came to science with very different ideologies and interests. But since, in fact, they have been predominantly university-trained white males (including Carl Sagan) from privileged social backgrounds, the bias has been narrow and the product often reveals more about the investigator than about the subject being researched.”
Dr. Hubbard brings up a very important point about a lack of cultural and ideological diversity in science. Let’s take a look at how homogeneity has pigeonholed scientific inquiry over the past 400 years into a relatively narrow pursuit that primarily reaffirms bias, not liberates us from it.
The Role of Religion in the Scientific Revolution
It goes without saying that in the modern day Western world, religion is widely considered to be the antithesis of scientific inquiry. While religion is purported to rest on subjective feelings like emotion and faith, science steadfastly stands upon a foundation of objective logic and rationale. And let’s face it; past and present alike, there are few if any metaphors so loaded with passionate bias as one’s personal religious beliefs.
However, back in the 16th century, the gap between science and religion did not exist. In fact, science was actually looked at as little more than the handmaid to religion. What is more, the Anglo-Saxon Protestant and Catholic-Christian men most influential in the scientific revolution openly considered themselves devout religious philosophers.
The Christian religion in general, and Protestantism in particular, stresses a dedicated covenant with God. Whereas the Catholic Church has spent the better part of the past 1600 years vying to be the only available medium to facilitate the covenant between human beings and the Christian God, Protestantism stresses a much more personal, direct relationship with God. This perceptual freedom provided Protestant philosophers with leeway to interpret natural processes as the physical influences of God.
For example, English scientist Francis Bacon believed natural philosophy (which today is called “scientific inquiry”) could help man regain sovereignty over nature, which was lost when Adam and Eve fell from Eden. Bacon saw it as a religious duty to use his God-given abilities of objective reasoning when reading the book of nature, in order to read it properly. Or, as Bacon made clear when he quoted the Book of Daniel:
“Only when humanity, by its own efforts restored its original dominion over nature would Christ come again, to rule on Earth for a millennium —a thousand years —before the general resurrection.”
Galileo Galilei the scientist is remembered for how his posturing of the heliocentric theory of planetary gravitational rotation rebuffed the officially sanctioned narrative of the Catholic Church. Of course, Galileo’s theory encountered severe backlash from the Catholic Church, which resulted in a criminal trial and threats of the death penalty for his perceived heresy. In rejecting the Ptolemaic system of geocentric motion, or the belief that the Earth was the center of the Universe and everything else revolved around it, the Catholic Church maintained Galileo directly rejected and undermined its authority.
However, Galileo the natural philosopher was indeed a very religious, pious man. He firmly believed the book of scripture needed and warranted expert interpretation, one that differed from its profane (or unenlightened) understanding if the true meaning of said scripture was to be understood. In Galileo’s opinion, this profane understanding resulted from a misinterpretation by many high-ranking members of the Catholic Church itself. Therefore, he saw it as his duty to help correct this issue on the Church’s (and therefore the Catholic-Christian God’s) behalf. However, Galileo did not enjoy the distance, both physically/geographically and ideologically, from the Catholic authority as Bacon did, which led to his (Galileo’s) persecution.
Philosophers like Bacon and Galileo openly equated nature to a great machine, or an intricate clock a grand clockmaker designed, assembled and set into motion. To them, the artful creation and purpose of nature was evidence of this “intelligent designer,” or the grand clock maker. The clock metaphor was proven to them by observing signs of intelligent contrivance in nature, which conveniently aided in the comparison of the natural world to said intelligently-made clock. In the materialist sense, the clock itself is purely mechanical and thus, can be defined and explained solely through 4-dimensional materialism.
These men assumed there must be some sort of objective external animation, or else the mechanical parts amount to nothing. The same was assumed to be true for the intelligent precision and skill of nature. A major proponent of the intelligent design metaphor was scientist Robert Boyle, who said:
“The more we learn about the world engine (i.e. clock or machine), the more we are persuaded not just of the existence of a creator God, but also of his creative wisdom.”
Like his counterparts, Boyle believed regularities in nature required observation that could be reduced to mathematical expression. Like his counterparts, Boyle took scientific inquiry very seriously from a theological point-of-view. He believed that, as the authority to interpret scripture traditionally defined priests, he and his contemporaries were “ordained philosophers of nature” in their quest to interpret the natural world.
Perhaps no other natural philosopher in Western scientific history is as revered as Sir Isaac Newton. Although advances in Quantum Mechanics over the past century have disproven many of his theories relating to Universal gravitation, Newton’s brand of scientific materialism (that we discussed in Course I), is still considered the “go-to” method for a large majority of physicists when framing their own experiments and formulae. But Newton was very frank about his biases influencing the scientific method modern day researchers still use in large part. In Course II, we quoted Newton’s belief in the source of particles. Let’s repost it now that we have inserted the critical context underlying why he chose the words he did:
“It seems probable to me that God in the beginning formed matter in solid, massy, hard, impenetrable, movable particles, of such sizes and figures, and with such other properties, and in such proportion to space, as most conduced to the end for which he formed them; and that these primitive particles being solids, are incomparably harder than any porous bodies compounded of them; even so very hard so as never to wear or break in pieces; no ordinary power being able to divide what God himself made one in the first creation.”
In a treasure trove of documents auctioned off at Sotheby’s in 1936, Newton went so far as to state he would never formulate any scientific theories that undermined or upset his conception of the Protestant-Christian God. Documents from the 1680’s indicate that Newton believed God used natural agents to cause reformations, like comets or asteroids. However, Newton also suggested that sometimes God took a more direct, hands-on role maintaining the order of heaven and Earth, like turning Lot’s wife into a pillar of salt for witnessing the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah (as told in the Old Testament).
Because he was a devout adherent to Protestantism, Newton believed his spiritual destiny was secure once the apocalypse on planet Earth came to pass in 2060 C.E. (the date he formulated based on his own calculations). He was also very outspoken about his belief that once the apocalypse does occur, Earth’s remains will be occupied solely by saintly beings, one Sir Isaac Newton included.
The Fallacy of Scientific Atheism
It is important to state that the irony here is not that these men had biases. We all do, and there is no shame whatsoever in being human. What is more, their honesty regarding how they professed those biases is commendable. It is also extremely helpful to us, because it contextually explains the reason that materialism was the basis for scientific inquiry then, and remains so today.
In a critical context, and using the bible’s Book of Genesis as a literary guide: God created the heavens, earth and mankind. It is readily inferred in that account that all of these substances are unique from one another, and that between them all exists dead space. It is also inferred that man, God’s final creation, is imbued with the ability to observe and record God’s creation, but not interact with it in a consciousness-based sense on any high levels than that. So here we have the beginnings of the theory of objective scientific inquiry in a solely physical, material 4-dimensional Universe.
The irony is that, for the better part of the past 4oo years, many of those who occupy positions of authority based on the same subjective religious and/or materialist biases these men held, refuse to acknowledge those biases have fundamentally influenced science in the first place. An increasing number of modern day scientists either overtly espouse, or more subtly infer scientific atheism as the most effective way to combat to the subjective bias subjects like religion and philosophy can facilitate.
There are indeed scientists and laypeople alike who have assigned an almost spiritually authoritative posture to materialist scientific inquiry…. in which the idea of a religious god becomes less and less necessary as scientific materialism continues to explain how the world and cosmos work. However, the only significant difference between religious-led natural philosophy then and modern scientific atheism now is:
“The modern scientist (and/or atheist) still believes objective realism is the fundamental staple of scientific inquiry when observing the material, 4-dimensional Universe. However, the creation of that Universe is chalked up to unseen evolutionary processes creating something out of nothing (the “Big Bang”), rather than being the result of the grand clockmaker crafting humankind in his image (out of nothing), as Newton et al believed was the case.”
Other than the fact that religion claims God existed before the Universe did, and scientific atheism claims nothing existed before the (Big Bang) “creation” event. it is pretty much the same philosophical framework. Furthermore, neither the modern day scientific materialists/atheists like DeGrasse Tyson, nor the natural philosophers of centuries ago like Newton and Descartes, want anything to do with consciousness: Either consciousness is assumed to be electrochemically inherent in the species and too philosophically subjective to look into any further, or consciousness was bestowed upon us by God and therefore, remains God’s domain alone.
Either way we slice it, we get suppression of ideas and theories not conforming to those of the people who retain prominent positions of authority at whatever time in history we happen to be. Moreover, as we dig into the annals of history, we find more examples of authoritative subjectivity leading to bias, suppression and stake burnings of both the metaphorical and physical kind….
The “Heretic” Philosopher: Brother Giordano Bruno
A bronze statue of Dominican Priest Giordano Bruno made by Ettore Ferrari (1845-1929) that stands at the Campo di Fiore in Rome
This brings us to the case of Dominican Priest Giordano Bruno. On February 17, 1600, the Catholic Church burned Bruno at the stake in the Campo di Fiore in Rome for blasphemy and heresy. Among the reasons The Church provided for his death, Bruno proclaimed himself an Egyptian Philosopher who picked up the almost totally extinguished torch of a religion more powerful and pure than anything contained in officially sanctioned Catholic doctrine. The main scientific tenets of Bruno’s ancient religious philosophy included:
- The “Intelleto Universale,” or Universal Intellect governing and transforming matter into and out of various energy-based states
- The understanding that mind and matter are not separate, but interconnected and thus, mind is able to manipulate and affect matter in kind
If this all sounds familiar, it should. The first tenet, Bruno’s “Universal Intellect” is a pattern of energy-frequency intelligently framing all mass-matter created within it. This is the exact same implicate order definition we discussed in Course I that Physicist David Bohm scientifically demonstrated physical and non-physical consciousness coexist in. Of course and as we discuss in Course III, Physicist William Tiller would go onto prove Bruno’s second tenet scientifically correct too through his Psychoenergetic Science experimentation almost 400 years later.
Fortunately for Bohm, Tiller. Targ, Puthoff and the courageous scientists who risk their professional lives to insert consciousness into the scientific equation, the modern political and cultural climate allows them to openly discuss their theories and experimentation to only professional ridicule. Although still very unfair and unjust, Bruno’s life ended tragically violent that fateful February day for discussing his theories out loud, which was far worse.
Unfortunately for everyone involved at the time, and in the 400 years since, Bruno’s wisdom, and ultimately his life, was sacrificed in order to protect the subjective biases of the self appointed authorities of knowledge and information during his life…. much like we see happens today with theories and research on consciousness-based science that does not fit within the narrow confines of the materialist, objective 4-dimensional mold.
Embracing Our Subjective Bias
For some people, especially those who hold science to a high ethical standard, the subject matter in this course was undoubtedly difficult to get through. And that is good, because that is how we designed it. After all, confronting the reality of how deeply engrained our subjective biases are, is among the more taboo elements of our society. This is the result of hundreds of years of synaptic pruning and behavioral conditioning that has taught us human beings are, or should be objective creatures.
But, and as the electrochemical processes in our bodies indicate, that is just not humanly possible. In light of this, the best we can hope to accomplish is to become consciously aware of our own biases, and be willing to take a critical, periodic inventory on how those biases lead us to think, act and believe…. both in relation to ourselves and our 11 dimensional Universe, as well as with our neighbors near and far alike. in fact, choosing to embrace subjective human bias is quite possibly the #1 factor allowing people of all backgrounds to actively cultivate Psychoenergetic Consciousness.
Like the electrochemical process of hormonal bias, consciousness is not a simple or comfortable topic for anyone who takes the study of it seriously. Rather, it is a very heavy topic with potentially liberating, yet equally dire consequences for those who choose not to actively strike a balance between its physical and non-physical aspects; where themselves, their children, and the future of the world we all occupy and share is concerned.
Just think about how different our world might be right now, had 400 years ago Giordano Bruno’s philosophy of consciousness had been allowed to take hold…. instead of the “hands-off” policy espoused by Newton and Descartes, all the way up to science today. Instead, we are just now rediscovering what Bruno already knew, and we have lost 400 years, and upwards of 95% of the (non-physical) consciousness equation scientific materialism in the process.
Unfortunately, we cannot go back in time to change this. However, we can start actively working today toward projecting a tomorrow. A tomorrow where consciousness is scientifically canonized, researched, experimented with and embraced by both the next generation of scientific elites, and the many diverse citizens of our globally conscious world.
In Course VI, we thresh out the connection between the Scientific Revolution and the Industrial Revolution. This includes how that connection has influenced consciousness and society in a materialist, individualist sense where human beings are reduced to functional byproducts of a competitive existence based solely on the physical level….
If you have any questions about how Molecules of Emotion and subjective human bias influence our present realities, please reach out to us directly….