Ian Stones Current Dynamic Amalgamation of Facts and Ideas Regarding Existence

Dear Bruce Lipton,

I would just like to write my thoughts and ideas down on paper and share them with
you because after reading your book, my mind was opened for the better (or, at least, I think
so).
With reading your book, one of the first realizations I had was how incredibly close
minded we are as a society in regards to learning and the acceptance of data and how that
affects our thoughts and ideas and beliefs. Let me elaborate on this point by prefacing with a
statement that I thought very powerful that helped me condense my scattered thoughts into a
cohesive statement:

Our perception of reality in this existence is supported and built on proof born of the
imagination.

To elucidate the statement a little more, when I was deep in my own thoughts, trying to
be open minded and see things as they were (as a whole) as opposed to having any one side be
the correct side, I came to the conclusion that this world is governed by the laws of nature. Of
course, you already know this, other scientists already know this, and despite people wanting
to not believe it, these are the facts of life. This just is truth. Thats why they are called the laws
of nature; they have been proven repeatedly and flawlessly and there no exceptions. Now, to
go on a little more of a tangent to describe my reason for bringing this up, I was watching Did
God Create The Universe with Stephen Hawking as part of the Curiosity series on Discovery,
and one of the statements that was brought up was that, with all our current understandings of
the universe, we can try and predict how it started. Granted, as of now, these are all theories of
course, and cant be explicitly proven, but the science behind these theories reasons is sound
and maybe eventually we will be able to come up with an answer, but for now we have ideas.
Again, this all comes from the fact that the laws of nature are fact. It is unchangeable. Science is
unadulterated. Now, with our learning and current understanding of the universe, things can
(and will) change, but as of now, this is how it is.
With that in mind, the show mentioned how one of our most popular theories of how
is the Big Bang. And with that comes the caveat that our entire reality, everything in this
existence that we know as fact, is based on what we can observe, test, and prove. Facts. And to
build on this, we have to assume that the laws of nature came in to existence whenever there
was existence (assuming there is a beginning, but why does there need to be a beginning? I
feel that is a humanized concept and maybe well eventually have an answer, but maybe there
is no answer). Again, this is an assumption we make based on all the data we have. But in order
for our reality to be what it is, this has to be true. Im not trying to say I understand the why, or
how, but given what we know as of right now, it just is (all subject to change of course, but only
with the proper and sufficient data backing up such a change). These laws cant be broken, or
else the world we live in would not be as it is today. Understanding this, one of the laws we
have is For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. This doesnt say some
actions; it is literally every single action in this universe that is governed by this law. With this in
mind, and the fact that our reality is based on these facts that we can prove or else nothing
would make sense, I reached a fledgling version of the above statement that was reality is
based on proof sparked by imagination. Again, you know this, but this was my chain of logic
after being exposed to the whole of learning, as opposed to what I had previously thought by
being taught only what was deemed necessary and sufficient by the educational system, and as
a society as of right now, it was sufficient, but not complete.
I said all that in order to make my next conclusion make more sense: we, unfortunately,
as a society are incredibly close minded, and I believe this stems from a fear of change, which
stems from infant consciousness that came from ancient and outdated ideologies that have no
basis in reality, but were fabricated in order to fit the knowledge we had of the universe at that
time. I say this because you mentioned in your book and talked about how there is a whole
world of Eastern medicine. And thats what it is; it is called medicine for a reason. Now, our
definition of medicine might just be wrong, or maybe the definition itself is not definite but
subject to change, but as far as I know, despite now knowing the exact why to how these
things work, we do have documented proof that it does in fact work in order to better lives and
the fact that that this form of medicine exists, has existed, and still exists (if it didnt work, it
wouldnt continue existing). Isnt that the goal of medicine anyway? Why does it have to be a
drug in order for it to be considered actual medicine? Like you mentioned how pharmaceutical
companies are trying to find their magic bullet cure all drug and in doing so are completely
ignorant of other approaches for the same goal. Now, we might not have explicit proof for
Eastern medicine, but we do know it works, so obviously there is something there that we just
dont have the knowledge of, like you mention in your book (kind of). And thats fine; we just
have to look at what we know and then further our understanding and change it from there.
Being arrogant and ignorant and unwilling to change is a detriment to society and is a hindrance
in the furthering of our knowledge and, ultimately, at what I had a philosophical realization of
what happiness and maybe even existence might be (if it has to be anything, and I believe
putting a reason on such things beyond what we can possibly, at the moment, imagine, is doing
a disservice to what we do know). What Im not saying, however, is that Im right. All I can do is
take in what I know, see, and learn and then use that to shape my views and thoughts of this
wonderful world and universe that we live in. But, in a sense, Im right because I have these
views based on what I can physically see and what others before me have laid the groundwork
for, and again, these all tie back to the laws of nature, things that are absolute. Im also willing
to change my views with the reception of new knowledge and information, but that should be
granted. That should be what learning is. That should be what we all try and strive to do. Not
argue against facts and proven details, but rather try and get a better understanding of what
we dont quite know yet. And that is exactly what nature is, change: change is the universal
constant we can count on [The Divine Matrix, page 92]. However, this was more of the
philosophical side of what I was thinking about.
The medicine example is a great metaphor regarding our hesitancy to embrace
everything. We (being the society who doesnt believe in Eastern medicine, or for me at least
when growing up I was taught that it was bologna, fake, magical) didnt understand
something at one point hundreds of years ago, and we couldnt know back then because our
understanding was not where it is now, but given what we know now, it is inconceivable to me
how these ideas are fought and change is blocked when there is a good enough understanding
behind them to show that it works. Back to the laws of nature, everything has a reason. Not in
the sense that there is an eventual goal, but in the sense that you cant have something from
nothing. You literally cant, that is another governing thought brought about by the laws of
nature. From that, if you look at miracles and other seemingly so called exceptions to these
unbreakable rules, you have to see that there has to be some kind of physical backing behind
any action, and that any exception is not a breaking of the laws, but something that isnt
understood in the framework of our current understanding of the universe. These laws have
been at play for billions and billions of years, why would there be exceptions now? That just
doesnt make any sense. And I feel it is because we as humans, as parts of this universe that
happened to develop consciousness, self-actualization, cognizance, came up with these ideas at
a time when our understanding wasnt complete. But the thing is, when we did come to
understand the workings of our universe, the already prevalent and ingrained ideas that had
taken ahold of humanity were so deep and in the lives of those past humans, that there was a
complete fear of this knowledge trying to change the way they felt about the universe, which is
very unfortunate, because it should just be an acceptance of what is. There is, and there isnt.
We have laws dictating what is and thats how our reality is constructed. If there is any
argument to these ideas, instead of making baseless assumptions that are fabricated solely on
our imagination, there needs to be proof found, and then once you can prove these ideas, try
and incorporate them into what already is understood, not fight it with spun words and
slander.
Another topic you brought up in your book was the potential possibility of
reincarnation. The possibility of a soul. The possibility that I may someday come back to
experience this universe again. And while the idea is nice (and it is just an idea), I think it also
does a disservice to what we know. We are the universe experiencing itself. This is a highly
individualized idea that makes us something more than what we are. Your idea was that the cell
membrane is an amalgamation of not only what we are given by means of DNA and molecular
machinery, but also as the changes that come about due to every interaction that the
membrane has with nature. But when I was thinking about this subject, I kept asking myself this
one question: How do we define me/soul/consciousness? While I agree with your idea that
we literally are our membranes and this membrane is contingent not only on nature but also
nurture in the sense that every interaction causes an effect in the cell/body/consciousness and
then can leave changes on this membrane, you then would have to define self as not only a
combination of what youre given (nature) but what happens to what youre given (nurture).
So, at some point there has to be a ratio of the two that equals me. So that means that in
order to fit this idea, you have to come up with an idea that somehow these things can happen
again. And there will NEVER be the exact same set of or even slightly similar set of natural
actions on the beginning cell that comes to be me. And thats the beauty of it, its always
changing. Its not static, it is completely dynamic. This comes from our laws that we have
established that govern our world. You mention in your book how after transplants, recipients
have been shown to take up some of the donors likes and dislikes. While I agree that this could
be the incorporation of what was, at some point in time, part of separate entity into a new
being, that doesnt mean its going to ever come about again (since the statistics for anything
like that to happen are practically zero). And if we are the universe, and the universe is us (the
nonlocal holographic universe that quantum mechanics seems to point at), then any me is
merely a different experience in that universe.
And to extrapolate from what I have said thus far, if our ideas are not dynamic but are
instead static and dont change, then this goes against nature. Not to say that you have to
accept everything, but more so that you cant ignore what is and try and create a perception
that is baseless, substance-less, proof-less, fact-less. And this is also not to say that imagination
is bad. The exact opposite. Imagination is wonderful and I included it in the opening statement I
made. It is thanks to imagination that we have what we have today and are who we are. But
imagination is also that: creativity, dynamic, non-static-ness. It leads to furthering our
knowledge, but it should not ever be a substitute for fact unless the imagined idea can be made
provable and concrete.
This then brought me to my philosophical thoughts. You talked about Darwin in your
book and how you thought Darwinism was outdated. And, of course only after reading your
book, I came to a similar conclusion. With that came our theory of evolution and one of the
main thought processes behind this is survival of the fittest. I know that this is incredibly
watered down, but big picture, this is easy to digest and a good gist. But, this is of course over
thousands, and thousands, and millions of years that these changes came about and how
Darwin came to his conclusions. I think the scope and scale to which these theories apply fall
apart when looking at a smaller time scale. I say this because one of the ideas that I had was
that the evolution of consciousness was a marked change in everything, literally. As far as we
know, we are the only beings, the only pieces of existence in this universe, capable of what we
deem thought, insomuch that we can take in everything and change things, not in a grand time
scale, but in an instant. While my knowledge in the specifics of these areas is not great, I can
accept that at some point in time, there was an emergence of consciousness and from that
moment in time everything eventually lead to now, the present. The development of such an
ability is unique in the most literal sense of the word. From all that we know of our universe
and of the past, the ability to process information in a thought like manner is remarkable. So,
while I do agree with Darwin when looking at his thoughts on the grand scale, I think you are
also right in that we have to change the way we look at things when looking at a much smaller
scale. With the advent of thought/consciousness, the word that came to mind in describable
terms is hyperevolution. But what is evolution? Not trying to bias this, and look at it from an
objective view, evolution is merely how everything in this universe interacted over billions and
billions of years to eventually bring things to now. You cant deny this because from our
understanding of the universe, this is law. Fact. So, evolution is merely everything just
interacting and coming to be. It has no goals, reasons, desires. Those are all human developed
and attributed characteristics. It just is. We can say for a fact that there were first stars, then
there were atoms, particles, elements, worlds, rocks, dust, and eventually dinosaurs, humans,
computers, crayfish, everything. This is fact. The defining characteristic for us as the human
race is our ability for higher levels of processing and thought and to be able to realize these
facts, or at least to be able to eventually figure them out and comprehend it all.
From there, we can now see that when there was a lack of understanding, we had to
have something to cling on. That is human nature. We have studied this, and we know this to
be true. But, that was infant consciousness. It has changed (hyperevolved, if you will). With
thought and cognizance came the advent of ideas. But what is an idea? I would like to think that
they are adaptations of the cognizance that evolved from the randomness of the universe
that eventually became reality. But, in contrast to our views on evolution, these changes are
instantaneous. Or, at least, they can be if were able to reprogram our way of thinking as you
say is possible, and as I believe is possible since we have documentation and proof that such a
thing is possible. We just might not be able to fully explain it, but if it exists there is a
reason/cause/basis/backing for it. That is Newtons Third Law. So trying to put those views on
and reasons for thought (making it have a reason) and the emergence of cognizance that came
with Homo sapiens is impossible. Or at least the view point has to be adjusted. But, like I said,
that was infant consciousness. We know so much now. I cant formulate words to describe the
contrast between what we were when we first evolved and developed thought, and what we
have become. And this is a beautiful fact.
Now onto the specifics of an idea. We cling to ideas and that is because that is what our
individual consciousness is composed of. Thoughts, opinions, likes, dislikes; us/I/me/we. When
fledgling man was on this Earth, it was like anything else that had come about so far, he was
just trying to survive. But we had intelligence. We could observe the universe and use these
observable laws to control our temporary existence and grow rapidly. These observations
became ideas. However, some ideas were invented to try and describe things that, at the time,
werent able to be described. And yet, there we were, describing them. I dont think theres
anything wrong with that, because from there here we are now. What I do think is wrong,
however, is that some ideas werent updated with facts. If you think of an idea as an evolvable
entity, ancient-us made it so that some of these ideas were unable to change even if there was
glaring and obvious evidence for such a change (specific example: religion, but the original
creators of the ideas that are religion couldnt safeguard their ideals against the development
of science). That is literally against the laws of nature. But the fact is, at the time we did not
know any better, so relative to when these things came about, they worked. And that is
amazing. But, when these now proven baseless/substanceless/proofless ideas started to govern
the human way of life, when new information was presented that could fundamentally change
an entire viewpoint on existence, there was fear.
Specifically, when Galileo observed with his own eyes that there were things in this
universe that didnt revolve around us, but rather around other things, he opened his mind.
That discovery and idea then went on to state that we are not, in fact, the center of the
universe. But, this separate idea was in direct conflict with the established thought that was
religion. Not to say that religion is bad. Religion was created in order to describe what we could
not know, so for the time when it was made, it fit. However, it was an idea that was made to be
unchangeable so it became scared and afraid of change. It feared losing power over society. It
feared being rejected in light of the new information. So what did it do? Lock away the enemy,
the facts, the proof. So, in that sense, I feel that religion is wrong. And that is definitely not all
religion. But I think it is a disservice to what we now know and understand of our world to try
and make the human species something more than what it is and to be governed by thoughts
and ideas that didnt have a basis in reality and tries to be exempt from the natural laws of
change. To try and make us above the influence of this physical world is just incomprehensible.
We are just a cosmic coincidence in this reality that is built by the laws of nature. And I feel that
in and of itself is so beautiful. We are capable of shaping our lives to be what we want them to
be, and the thought of trying to go beyond that is a hindrance to progression of our current self
and takes away from all that can be and the immense potential in the present. Now, I only
know this in thanks to what others before me have thought, but I am incredibly lucky to be alive
at a time like this and be able to be open-minded and take in everything.
And thats the thing. Religion is just an idea. One of the realizations I came to was that
our existence as humans is not governed by any supraphysical being or plan, but is instead
governed basically by two things: the laws of nature (including the yet unknown quantum laws
that are most likely separate from the laws of nature that have already been established), and
the ideas that came about from the development of cognizance. One of these things doesnt
change; it is based on fact and proof. The other is the processing and understanding of these
unchangeable forces and the ability to shape and change what we do have control over
because of it. Then I thought about society and what really might be a possibility for the reason
of our existence. Now, Im not going to say I have the answers, obviously I dont think we can
have an answer. But that doesnt mean we cant make the reasons for our existence. Nature
came about to make us, and when we define us as having thought process, then we can then go
on to say that we then take partial control from nature and shape our existence to our liking.
But what is our liking? What is happiness? Then I thought, why do we have
hate/anger/fear/war/destruction? These are all results of the cognizance that came about
whenever nature happened to evolve it. But I dont think these things are inherent to
cognizance, I feel that at one point in time these ideas had to be introduced into our system of
thinking. Like you observed in your experiments with the endothelial tissue, the cells, this form
of life, will go towards growth and positive media and will avoid negative and threatening
media. So, I then asked myself, what is the point of having these emotions and feelings? I
understand that they had to come about from something, but sometimes it just doesnt make
sense. Why would we want to purposefully inflict or cause things harm when that is quite
literally going against nature? Especially when you add in what we know of the quantum
universe and how everything in this universe is connected through an unknown medium. Now,
I dont think an animal eating an animal is harm, thats life. Harm is the humanized concept of
bad. So why do we make ourselves endure this harm sometimes?
From these questions I came to another realization, and it was that the ideas that were
developed in during our fledgling consciousness, the ideas that were
baseless/proofless/substanceless, are still governing us today. Now, of course this is going to be
how it is. This is how weve developed. But these ideas are outdated, much like how you said
the Darwinian Theory is outdated. And I agree, but at the time of their inception, they fit the
world view. But there also has to be a concept of relativity, and not everything is going to
necessarily describe everything else. However, when new things were added and learned, the
past views and experiences that governed everything were not changed. Let me go into a very
specific example: marijuana. Now, what is it? A plant. Not inherently good, not inherently bad.
It just is. Good and bad are humanized concepts, and this is one such subject that was
painted as bad at one point in time, and the idea stuck and is now completely and
horrendously outdated and a plague on our society. From my understanding, the original
incidence of the bad painting of marijuana comes from a political background. Some political
organization saw that they could use the ignorance and not-knowingness of the masses to fuel
their own greedy and selfish ambitions. By using a slanderous and lying campaign, they thought
they could win. Thus, you had reefer madness and the incredibly negative views of the effects
that this plant had on the human body. This was a baseless/substanceless/proofless idea that
was propagated and took hold in society, thus influencing the whole ideology as we know it
now in regards to pot. However, if you just take a little while to think about it, it is glaringly
obvious that these were incorrect ideas, but these incorrect ideas were allowed to take hold
and govern human thought. This plant is literally used as a medicine. Or, it can be rather. Not
only does it have medicinal effects (the potential of which we dont even fully understand quite
yet), but it has recreational uses that only benefit the user and come at no detriment to society
or any other being. How does it make sense, then, that we lock people up and literally ruin their
lives when they take advantage of what this plant has to offer that came forth from our earth?
Now, I know there are arguments against it regarding health, i.e. the combusted marijuana is
bad for you like combusting cigarettes is for you, like combusting any other kind of material
would be bad for you. However, with science and understanding, we know this to be false. This
was another entirely incorrect idea injected into the consciousness to further fuel and facilitate
the original greed and eventual falsity. Even then, if that is the only argument against it, it is
weak at best, and completely avoidable. It betters the lives of people who otherwise would not
be happy. Why do we deprive happiness (or a potential form of happiness) that causes no
detriment to the self? Because the original baseless ideas still permeate throughout society
without regard for new knowledge. And that is wrong. These false ideas created laws, rules, and
regulations in order to control what they thought was right. But their version of right was
built entirely of wrong, so these regulations are inherently wrong. And if you look even further
into the matter, despite the knowledge we have of this subject, the reason it isnt changed is
because of greed. Why isnt it legal? Not because it does anything wrong, but because people
are afraid. Whos afraid? Pharmaceutical companies who will lose money because people will
turn to this plant instead of their pills, agricultural organizations whose ideas and ways of life
were based (and influenced) on incorrectness and dont want to change their ways, Big Tobacco
because people might start to stop smoking their product that does nothing but kill (except for
the nicotine that causes pleasure) (sidenote: when you think about the tobacco/marijuana
debate, its likewise incomprehensible how we have one substance be completely legal that
does nothing but harm to the self and those around it and how the other, which literally betters
peoples lives, is illegal and the regulations and repercussions around the product are infinitely
worse), and political organizations who have to use fear and the ignorance of people in order to
stay in control because with marijuana comes an open mindedness. Not because it is bad,
because these people are greedy and holding back the betterment of society. We know this
plant has the ability to stop seizures in people who would have upwards of hundreds of seizures
a day. Yet, its illegal? If you have this plant, your life can be potentially ruined. That is just a
small example of how these baseless and incorrect ideas that dont incorporate new material
into their ideologies are a harm to society (if you think that the betterment of society and the
progression of everyone and the pursuit of happiness is a good thing).
Like I said, I dont assume to know all the answers. Thats the beauty of it. But from
what I do know, this is the framework for which I have built this perception, and I dont think
that this is in anyway is wrong. But even if it was wrong, I would incorporate the ideas into my
view and then change, for the better which is why I write to you to share my ideas.
Sincerely, a very curious, unique, and excited consciousness,
Ian Stone