Here’s a question that never seems to R.I.P: Does the innate intelligence of your body “decide” for you to die? Why or why not?
Here’s a question that never seems to R.I.P: Does the innate intelligence of your body “decide” for you to die? Why or why not?
Innate is always 100%, the matter through which it is expressed reaches the end of its useful life and death occurs.
Good answer Joe..in two ways: 1. It is philosophically correct and 2. It proves you are still alive! We’ve missed your input. Have a great holiday.
Hey Joe D.
Glad you’re still alive too. Yes, we have missed you.
An infant dies 12 hours after birth due to the breaking of her skull by forceps delivery. A 22 year old man in the air force gets shot in Afghanistan and dies. A 50 year old dies of a heart attack. A 67 year old homeless woman dies in the slum of cold exposure in January. A 101 man dies in a nursing home in his sleep.
I believe you meant that: “Innate is always 100%, the matter through which it is expressed reaches the end of its life (due to limitation of matter or time) and death occurs. Correct?
Correct!
If innate intelligence is a principle of organization in our body, how can it do anything but bring about coordination of all body parts?
So my answer is NO; it has nothing to do with “deciding” if we stay alive or we die.
A limitation of MATTER will cause the body to die: A physical inability of the body to express its innate intelligence.
Great answer Paulo. I have wondered why so many people get hung up on this question. You used simple deduction. Any idea why some people might answer “yes”?
Seems to me that during the death of the organism innate intelligence monitors the shut down of systems to keep as much going as possible for as long as possible; I don’t see it as ever “giving up”, rather it runs out of solutions. So no, innate intelligence (as I understand it) does not “decide” for one to die.
Another great observation. Thanks Dan.
No. Because, a “decision” is a personal choice and innate intelligence is impersonal. The innate intelligence of the body is constantly adapting the body to its environment and death occurs due to the ii not being able to adapt any longer (limitations of matter). This is not because someone’s innate intelligence stopped and thought, “Hmmm… I think I will stop the adaptive processes of the body therefore causing the body (individual) to die.”
I beleive one dies when they totally give up on innate – they suffocate innate, or when they realise that innate is all that is, and are ready to join the bigger force, of universal inteligence.
What is the “they” you are referring to Ronen? Do you mean their educated? If so how do you explain the death of someone whose educated is not functioning, someone in a coma? What about a plant that has no educated? What does Joining the bigger force, ui mean. Ui is already “in all matter continually giving…” What does “suffocate innate” mean?
I think that Ronen brings up an interesting thought. Think Queen Amadala in Star Wars delivering her twins. She consciously/unconsciously “gave up” allowing her systems to become overcome by the destructive universal forces. Is it possible that when the will has been broken that something can overpower even the perfection and constructive force of ii?
Quite clearly the educated brain can overcome innate expression…it’s called suicide. We can educatedly hold our breath and overcome innate function (at least temporiraly). The will is a powerful force and can perhaps have enough effect on the matter of the body to cause death or to ward off death for a while as you suggest. But we must remember that the ei does not affect the ii, it affects the matter. So in the end it is still a limitation of matter that causes one’s demise (from a chiropractic philosophical viewpoint). The theologian would say that God determines the time, manner, and place of your death. I think we can reconcile both those viewpoints but this is not the vehicle for that discussion.
Jim,
In order to have 100% life there must be 100% intelligence, 100% force and 100% matter. In the case of Queen Amadala, we must remember that innate intelligence is ALWAYS 100% (pri.22). Through deductive reasoning we can conclude that innate intelligence, being ALWAYS 100%, is perfect. Innate intelligence is the LAW of life and as such CANNOT be overpowered, the same way that the LAW of cause and effect (pri.17) cannot be overpowered.
The author of Star Wars would like its audience to believe with their educated brain that the “given up” part of Queen Amadala caused innate intelligence to be overpowered by her will being broken down. The innate principle of organization does not require will to function.
Example: A man age 62 has a fantastic will for the joy and zest of life. That same man at age 68 has lost his complete will as a result of Alzeimer and lives to be 84 without ever recognizing anyone or having the will to attempt anything. The innate intelligence of the body of that man has adapted universal forces and matter for use in the body so that all parts of the body had coordinated action for mutual benefit (pri.24) for 16 years without that man’s will.
Once again, innate intelligence is limited through the limitation of matter and time ONLY (pri.24 and 29).
Here is another question: does gravity decide when you should fall down. (See Claude, I’m learning)
Innate intelligence allows humans to eat food that is bad for our health. Innate intelligence allows humans to get addicted to drugs and alcohol.
Innate intelligence allows educated intelligence to rule over it.
How intelligent is Innate then?
The innate intelligence of the body is limited to functions within the body. That is why we have an educated intelligence, to adapt us to our external environment. Food is part of our external environment so what we eat is an educated decision. After we put it in our mouth the innate intelligence of the body takes over. What amazes me is not that innate intelligence allows us to eat food bad for our health (because it doesn’t) but that it does so well with that food. Some people actually live on burgers and fries! That’s not to say we should! Innate intelligence cannot help what we educatedly put into our body and does the best it can within limitations of matter, with what we put into it. I’ve never had a cigarette in my life but I’m told that many prople become violetly ill on the first one. That was their innate intelligence trying to reject that addictive chemical. Innate intelligence is limited by limitations of matter. When the innate intelligence realizes that someone is going to continually put harmful substances into his/her body, it will do the best it can to neutralize those poisons like drugs and alcohol. It is not the fault of the innate intelligence of the body that we make bad educated decisions. It has a job and educated decisions are not its job. This is Philosophy 101. Email me personally and I’ll send you a free copy of my book, Chiropractic Philosophy if you’d like more understanding.
X, The classic (BJP) definition of innate was a personified decision maker. Innate made all decisions, some transmitted through the educated mind. If there were no subluxations the ii to ei communication was normal and was exactly correct. When subluxated the mental impulse was distorted and therefore the ei was abnormal in it’s performance. Just as a subluxation could cause any organ to malfunction, it could cause the brain to malfunction.
OSC philosophy however redefines ii, as Joe explains, ii no more decides what you eat than what color shirt you wear. Personally I think ii influences our diet in situations of need like PICA but everyday habits are usually learned behaviors (educated intelligence). Lets face it, most people eat what their parents ate, addictions also seem to be inherited (J. Holder) as coping mechanisms and are often learned at home.
Just my opinion.