We are all quantum living biologists.
We may see a first distinction among profesional biologists and living biologists.
In the life of profesional biologists, two types of "sublifes" emerges: their own living biology, and the biology they profesionaly search, study or work.
Among profesional and not profesional biologists, we may see a common element in their lifes: the part of their lifes they dedicate to their living biology.
Profesional biologists are living also another type of biology, another type of life. It is like a second generation, or second order life: The part of their lives they dedicate planning the life of other people.
We may see diferences among these two parts in the life of profesional biologists. Among them we find bureaucracy, dominating many space of their (second order) biological profesional life. We also find programming, as a basic tool of profesional biologists. This programming is interrelated with projects, that they develop within a certain time lap. Also we find in the profesional biologists a certain separation from the people they are working and programming for. This separation seems in correspondence with diverse abstractions and theories, that dominate the profesional part of the life of profesional biologists.
In that separation, in the profesional life of profesional biologists, between profesional biologists and society, another aspect is also important.
If you look at the contents of the academic courses, developped by profesional biologists in their student life, your surprise will be great, after discovering that profesional biologists almost don't include social and human knowledge within their study programs. They mainly study "out-human" biology, that is, all biology excepting human biology. Yes, of course, they do study diferents aspect of human biology, affecting phisiology, histology, etc.... But they finish without to know how humankind works. The learn how certain parts of human body works. But they don't know almost anything about humankind and society works.
Of course, specialy if you reader are a profesional biologist, you would answer: biology belong to natural sciences, and not to social sciences.
Well, but if we were to solve the mental separation among humans and nature, we would take in account the contents of programs of profesional biologists. The paradox is that, maybe ecological economists, know better many aspects of human biology, that profesional biologists themselves. Specialy those aspects that put in front of us possible ways to sucess over actual global crisis. Human ecology is also human biology. This is the paradox. After more than one century of ecology revolution, as a system science, and the basis to understand humans role and interrelationships within biosphere, the absence of social aspects in biology studies make them obsolete.
Well, now I am going to talk from the living biologist point of view.
If you see about quantum biology in the web, you will find mainly those approaches that from quatum physics try to open a way to arrive to biology. All that as a "heroic" enterprise trying to join the last quantum physics with the last biology.
Our way will be diferent. We are going to approach quantum biology from perception, but with the aid of newest science, including biology. We have very good and newest science, still hiden from official academic curricula. When you converse with all that luxury newest science, published as higher order scientific papers, the main or basic tool is merely intuition, and imagination.
But if you read here "intuition and imagination", in relation to "serious science", maybe you think that we merely dream, or use phantasy, in a free but vacuous way, and so, only producing speculations but not "real" science.
Of course, if you are a scientist, mainly a specialist, not knowing almost anything about that last, newest science, you have the right to have that opinion.
For that reason, maybe our best success can come from our approach. One type of approach that is not only new, but it is also objective, in the way that it uses permanently, the diverse information our own perception systems channels within our ecosystems, our lives.
In general we accept that everyday life (living biology) of many people is far from the high levels of bureaucracy and abstractions that dominate the profesional part of the life of profesional biologists, and other profesionals.
Also many of that people have not been enclosed in classrooms for many years. And they haven't been forced to memorising so many abstract and theorethical things.
It is supossed that this people are more open to capt, to perceive the world through their perception systems.
One provisional conclusion maybe that, in general, more time living directly in the ecosystem, without abstract or theorethical mediations, means more sensibility, from our sensorial systems, to perceive the ecosystem, as a information system.
That is, human (information systems) that lives more time directly within ecosystems (information systems), and less time within abstract or theorethical grounds (information systems) have their sensorial (information systems) more enriched, with more experiential information.
It is supossed that we all have interest in humankind survival. But the information we have is very diferent, according to pass paragraphs. Of course all that information is important. The point here is the complementarity of all types of information. Social or popular knowledge is very important. Scientific knowledge is important too. And more important at all is: How to manage the symbiosis among these complementary knowlegde systems?
Diferent types of knowlegde systems. Diferent approaches to knowlegde. Complementary approach to life and to knowlegde.
Our approach comes from sensosphere. Sensosphere is nurtured through common sensing systems. Common sensing systems are equal for any human, for any people.
In our work within sensosphere, it is always possible the consensus among diferent observers; be them profesional scientist observers or "merely" living biologists. According to their own field of experience, every observer know more or less within any ecosystem.
For example, one human, or biologist, from europe, in his/her first travel to rainforest, don't know anything. The same for a rainforest human coming to europe for first time.
In the same vene, one campus gardener know different from a botanist, according to their own practical experience.
The point is that whatever two human you take, always will ve possible to reach a consensus. And this basis consensus may be with ecosystem. So we have: 1) you, 2) me, and 3) the ecosystem. That means that we (you and me) can reach a consensus about one aspect of ecosystem.
Another point is that the dimensions of variability in ecosystems can be of very highest orders than the orders of variation of ecosystems such as they are studied by profesionals.
Sensosphere is able to approach through intuitive quantum biology because:
1) we all are biologists and/ or observers
2) the high dimensions of variation in the information inputs with sensosphere approaches make them able to use transfinite numbers to describe the overall information system. This "oceanic" flow info, not only is perceived by our complex sensorial systems, but also by audio-visual devices of the type many people use every day to communicate themselves.
