Principles of Mad Science

I am, among other things, a mad scientist. I believe three things that resonate through all my theory and experiment that make me unacceptable as a researcher to mainstream science and I believe these things based on evidence and basic logical principle. As evidence to this fact examine the extreme cynisism of my writing here on writing.com. I am not the type to believe in 'magic' or engage in 'fuzzy' thinking but learn quantum physics, examine electrical engineering and its hard not to see magic in a world that appears fuzzier and fuzzier. Here are my deviations at their most conservative.

1)Consciousness is a ground (ubiquitous)phenomena in nature -- Simply stated the subjective phenomenon we refer to as consciousness (to be delineated from the particularly elite phenomena of self consciousness experienced by we lucky few dolphin and primates) is simpler to understand as being an inward property of a basal constituent of the universe rather than being the outcome of any specifically evolved organ. There are two reasons for this. One is that since consciousness is a purely existential phenomenon and not amenable to testing it is invisible not only to science but to the very force of Darwinian natural selection itself (which also acts in the empirical world and, according to modern science, is a requirement for the evolution of any organ). Furthermore when one considers Occam's Razor (simply stated: when in doubt with the universe go with the simplest or most symmetric interpretation) it is surely a simpler explanation to accept conscious existence as something varying but ubiquitous than it arriving from some specific yet unexplained and unexamined organ (there has never been found any directive or unifying organ of physical nature in the brain). It may be counter intuitive to think of the universe as conscious, but as we learned (or should have learned) with special relativity, the world doesn't necessarily care what is or is not intuitive for us. The reason we prefer to see the universe as a mostly dead thing populated by a few aware objects is because this interpretation is constituent with our cultural view and is the view required in order to sustain our ethical self esteem as a species while we wreck the biosphere. On the other hand if we look at the cultural view of our tribal forbears we shall see that the animistic perspective which I just laid out in scientific terms is universally accepted.

2)Science has left many roads involving simpler technologies unexplored -- This is true in several fields most notably the study of the electromagnetic fields, ecological engineering, mechanical engineering, and horticulture. There are many reasons for this. One is the increase in specialization which leads to tunneled thinking that is uncreative and nonevolving. Cross-fertilization is required for great ideas (do you think it's a coincidence that Einstein worked in a patent office?). Another is the influence of our cultural male psychology on the male-dominated arena of science and technology. The More is Better attitude typifies the pace of modern science and the way it discards old technologies for anything which creates more power. 'Oh that EM wave that killed cancer, we got a much stronger one now, it kills you too but man is it strong!'. Another malism that's all over science is reductionism. Science is obsessed with parts and any scientific advance that increases the reliance of scientists and technicians on a part based understanding is favored over others. In fact we're so obsessed with parts that as people starve and lack for resources around the world we spend billions of dollars to build super colliders that fire particles at one another at near light speeds in order to do what???... find the fundamental part. They've been at this for decades and I got news for these guys, 'they're always more parts.' All the way down partspartspartspartspartspartspartspart
partspartspartspartspartspartspartspartspartspartspartspartspartspartsparts
partspartspartspartsparts partspartsparts partsparts partspartspartsparts partsparts parts parts GOD 'just kidding' partspartsparts partspartsparts partsparts...

3)The Principle Property of Biological Chemistry is the manipulation of electromagnetic waves -- Biochemistry is facilitated by chemical enzymes but it is ultimately driven by the electromagnetic lines of force propogated by inductive molecules and received by bipolar ones. Even these enzymes themselves as well as proteins, carbohydrates, and other parts project EM fields called electron shells that are the ultimate arbiter of chemical interaction. This is the reason life is intrinsically tied to water and exists in the form of a colloid. Water is a dipolar molecule and dances to electromagnetic waves like a Russion ballerina to Stravinsky. The same phenomena explains both homeopathy, the emotionally sensative development of ice crystals, and other 'psychic phenomena.' We are silly puddy to electromagnetic fields and there is little doubt that our overexposure to them results in many types of cancer. Naturally of course it is our DNA which is our main electromagnetic influence. It is a molecule that by no sheer coincidence forms an inducting coil, the principle breakthrough of modern electronics, which is responsible for everything from electrical generators and motors to Nicoli Tesla's bizaare experimental displays. Its the action of water that allows for plants, which rely a great deal on hydraulic action, to responsd to electromagnetic, sound and cognitive (ie emotional) waves.

Well I guess that's it. Three principles are just the right number. I may expand this later to include more specific theories and/or experiments.

Aturtle