Biofield Control System Of The Organism
Savely Savva
Monterey Institute for the Study of Alternative
Healing Arts
Developmental biologists, starting with H. Driesch and A. Gurvitsch at
the beginning of the 20th century, suggested the existence of a
non-chemical level of organization that controls embryogenesis—the “biofield.”
In the middle of the century, developmental biologists called it “epiphenomenon
of genome.” In the 1960s, Romanian biochemist, Eugene Macovschi, postulated the
existence of cellular “biostructure”—an entity that controls processes in
living cells and changes chemical properties of constituent molecules. In 2000,
at the announcement of deciphering the human genome, Craig Venter, then CEO of
Selera Genomics, said exactly the same—to understand life and the way the
genome operates, it should be considered a “different” (presumably,
non-chemical) level of organization.
Yet, in 2005, the
absolute majority of studies in biochemistry, molecular biology, biophysics, etc.,
are about chemical signals
associated with developmental, normal physiological and aging processes, and
diseases—their structure and presumed mechanisms of action. The control system
that arranges these signals is almost never mentioned, although it is clear
that any gene, a part of a DNA chemical molecule, does not have the ‘mind’ or a
‘plan,’ and the feedback needed to control anything.
How is the control
system of the organism structured, what is its physical carrier, and how is the
genetic information re-encoded on it? The contemporary, still Newtonian physics,
does not have any answers to these questions. This monograph is intended to
clarify the formulation of the problem and to suggest some approaches to
solving it.
Hypothesis Of The Biofield Control System
(BCS)
Alexander Gurwitsch wrote1:
“…the
place of the embryonic formative process is a field (in the usage of
physicists) the boundaries of which, in general, do not coincide with those of
the embryo but surpass them. Embryogenesis, in other words, comes to pass
inside the fields. … Thus what is given to us as a living system would consist
of the visible embryo (or egg, respectively) and a field.”
Perhaps, the term “biofield”
may be somewhat misleading for the field-like, non-electromagnetic control system
of the organism, and a better term would be ‘Biofield Control System’ or BCS.
The following postulated definition of the BCS, that is broader than the
biofield concept engendered in embryology, comes from viewing the organism as a
self-controlled cybernetic, thermodynamically open system2.
(Classical thermodynamics was developed for closed systems. Thermodynamics of
open systems include effects of external influences and increases of entropy in
the extended system.)
Contemporary physics
is unable to explain life and life-related phenomena and many physicists have stated
this unequivocally. Robert Rosen, who in turn refers to Einstein and
Schrödinger, writes:3
“…biology remains
today, as it has always been, a repository of conceptual enigmas for contemporary
physics…”
The following
suggested concept comes neither from a biologist nor from a physicist, but from
an engineer and physical chemist who is not bound by the epistemological norms
of the current scientific paradigm and who appreciates the universal relevance
of Cybernetics. It emphasizes the difference between the field-like control
system of the organism and its yet-unknown physical carrier(s). It also
suggests ways for further experimental and theoretical studies into both
cybernetic and physical aspects of the life phenomenon.
Postulated Definition
The Biofield Control
System (BCS) is the operative control system of the organism. In BCS, the
genetic information is re-encoded on another than biochemical physical carrier.
It evolves in ontogenesis into a hierarchy of subordinate BCS of the whole
organism, organs, tissues and cells. At all levels it holds four fundamental
programs of life: development, maintenance, reproduction, and death. The mind
is an essential part of the BCS at the whole organism level, serving behavioral
aspects of all fundamental programs (in addition to the physiological aspect—see
Fig.1)
The Mind
As postulated above,
the mind is an essential part of the biofield control system responsible for
behavioral aspects of fundamental programs of life. The word “mind” is used
rather than “consciousness” in order to distinguish the general “decision-making”
mechanism from awareness associated with the latter in higher species. The mind
includes fundamental drives or “basic instincts” serving conservation of the
individual, population and the species, such as attraction to the food and
opposite sex, avoidance of threats, and sticking to the group. The mind holds
memory and extracts meanings out of perceived information. It also includes
programs prioritizing the organism’s reaction to changing internal and external
conditions, i.e., how to behave when, for instance, hunger, threat and sex
drives act simultaneously. Development of the nervous system and the brain in
biological evolution only broadened the mind capacity.
Ascribing the above-mentioned functions of the mind to direct (chemical)
interactions with genes is totally incomprehensible. Yet, studies of homozygote
siblings* indicate that very subtle behavioral
similarities are based on a common genetic makeup. Thus, the only way of
comprehending this paradox is assuming an epigenetic level of organization—the
biofield control system that includes the mind.
Even sperms have their
own mind that is a part of their BCS. They must have the control mechanism of
selecting the direction (presumably, against the gradient of a chemical signal
concentration or temperature), the mechanical mechanism of motion and the
energy to produce the motion. It is comparable to a pilot in a cockpit of a plane
with a sufficient amount of fuel to accomplish a mission. The sperm as the
pilot “knows” what to do.
Biofield Control System at the
Organs’ Level
The ability of many
organs to function after transplantation to another organism clearly shows the
autonomy and survivability of their control systems.
Figure 1. Control System of the Organism
(Control subsystems
exist only in higher biological taxa)
Arrows indicate flows of control signals and
feedback as well as directions of energy exchange. The “language” of the
feedback must be the same as that of the signals.
1.
Processes associated with brain functions—imagination, emotions, etc.
2.
For
instance, pain, hunger
3.
For instance, sexual arousal, muscles conscious control, etc.
4.
See C. Backster’s and J. Kiang’s articles in this book
5.
Provide energy supply, sensory information and control over muscular
activity.
Besides the
sensitivity to commands of the whole organism control system, BCS at the organ
level can be illustrated particularly by controlling the transformation of
inserted stem cells into specialized cells enhancing the organ’s function. Dr.
Evan Snyder of the Burnham Institute in La Jolla, California, who specializes
in application of stem cells in neurological diseases, writes:
“We found that stem cells will shift to give
you the requisite number of cells needed. If you put them into a brain that has
fewer functioning oligodendrocytes than necessary, they somehow know to shift
to give you the requisite number. They can sense the deficiency.”4
Clearly, stem cells do
not sense anything except for commands of the organs’ and organism’s BCS that
control their destiny.
Biofield Control System at the Cellular
Level
In the 1950’s–1970’s
Romanian biochemist Eugene Macovschi5
persuasively criticized the currently popular theory of the “membrane pump”* as well as the G. Ling’s “Association-Induction”
concept6 and the “Absorption” concept suggested by Nasonov.7 Macovschi’s cellular “Biostructure”
is equivalent to the cellular BCS. It is an entity that exists only in living
cells and controls chemical processes and properties of organelles and
biochemical molecules, leaving space inside the cell for solutions that are in
equilibrium with intercellular liquids. Macovschi properly emphasizes the necessity
of viewing cells, as well as the whole organism, as most complex cybernetic
systems, which was initially recognized by developmental biologists. G.
Drochioiu reviews Macovschi’s concept in this monograph.
Indeed, the currently
described in detail “pumping” mechanism at the cell membrane may exist only for
fine-tuning of the cellular function since Nature is not so wasteful as to
spend tremendous energy on pumping ions in and out of trillions of cells
against presumed ion concentration misbalance. In 1984 James Clegg wrote:8
“...the composition and metabolic activities of the cytosol,* obtained by methods of cell disruption
and fractionation, bear almost no resemblance to those of aqueous cytoplasm in
intact cell. …Available evidence strongly suggests that at least a large
fraction of the total cell water exhibits properties that markedly differ from
those of pure water. …Although dimly perceived at present, it appears that
living cells exhibit an organization far greater than the current teachings of
cell biology reveal.”
The cell’s biofield
control system carries all fundamental programs of life: development,
maintenance (metabolism, repair, etc.), reproduction (mitosis) and death
(apoptosis).
Sensitivity of cells’
BCS to signals of the organ’s BCS is mentioned above, but cells are capable of
sensing commands of the whole organism’s BCS as well, and even distantly
sensing BCS’ of other organisms. This will be discussed later in the article
and in the book.
Fundamental Programs of Life
Developmental biologists
have been opposing the strictly genetic approach since the beginning of the 20th
century. Lev Beloussov in his article in this book presents the history of the
biofield concept from its inception and the attached to his article Commentary
by John Opitz and Scott Gilbert briefly describes the ensuing struggle. Even
the very beginning of embryogenesis is controlled by a program that is based on
the genome but is not chemical—chemistry knows of only stochastic interactions
while the first cell divisions are strictly predetermined.
However, ontogenesis,
at least in organisms more complex than a single cell, apparently cannot occur
without participation of an external BCS—mother’s, egg’s, bee hives, bacterial
colony, etc. No more than 80 cells of a human embryo can currently be grown in
a test tube. For further development, the embryo must be implanted in a uterus
where it is controlled by the mother’s biofield control system—her reproduction
program. The birth of the organism means that its own BCS becomes sufficient
for further development up to maturity. This subject is being avoided even by
the most progressive developmental biologists, perhaps because it challenges
current paradigm—what is the physical nature of these BCS communications? The
behavioral aspect of developmental programs includes instincts such as sucking
milk in mammals, as well as learning, playing, socializing, and so forth (Could
one imagine that instincts operate at a chemical level, strait from genes?).
The maintenance program includes obtaining
and distributing energy from the environment, breathing, thermo-stabilization,
self protection, i.e., immunity and avoiding threats, reparation at all levels
of organization from a gene to the whole organism as well as
population-supporting behavior and so forth. The latter particularly
illustrates how far those programs are from the biochemical mechanisms acting
in the organism. Biological population is commonly defined as a group of
individual organisms of the same species sharing common trophic and
reproduction bases, territorial location or migration patterns. Mechanisms of
forming and maintaining a population are different in different taxa of the
biological taxonomy.9 Hierarchical populations in mammals are
maintained by individual (psychological) instincts. At work are drives (or
instincts) to protect the social rank, to raise it at an opportunity and to
stick to the group. Essential is that the drive to raise the social rank is
broadly distributed among individuals in a population with respect to intensity.
Hence, a very small, highly motivated minority would risk their lives for a
chance to get the leadership position while the rest of the population would
watch the fight from aside.10 Yes, it involves the gene pool of the
population but the organism’s biofield control system incorporating the mind
must be sensitive to the mind of the population. Even bacteria can communicate
with each other and get a feedback from the group—perhaps, from the group
biofield control system. Bonnie Bassler, professor and director of graduate
studies in the Department of Molecular Biology at Princeton University,
believes that cell-cell communication in bacteria involves the production,
release, and subsequent detection of chemical signaling molecules called
autoinducers. This phenomenon, known as ‘quorum sensing,’ changes bacterial
behavior, appearance and metabolism, manifesting in luminescence when the
population reaches a particular size.11 But where is this program stored? The above example indicates that populations have their own BCSs that
play especially important roles in simplest biological taxa.
These examples are
cited to illustrate the complexity of the fundamental BCS programs.
The reproduction program includes both the
physiological function and the reproductive behavior controlled by the mind of
the BCS. Mothers’ reproduction program in mammals, as mentioned earlier,
controls embryonic development and, for instance, milk supply at the
physiological level. Attachment, care and protection of the child work at the
mind level. Pheromones may be only one of many signals engaging the male reproduction
program in some species. Here again the nice, simple, word “instinct.” The reproductive instincts are
definitely not rooted in the biochemical processes of the brain: worms have no
brain but they have reproduction instincts—sexual drives.
The program of death is an immanent feature
of life. It manifests in rather stable life spans characteristic for every
biological species and works at all levels of the organism, including
programmed aging and diseases. The dying process of the organism can illustrate
the autonomy of lower levels of the BCS hierarchy. After the organism’s death,
the organs, that is their BCS, are still alive and can be transplanted into
other organisms, nails continue growing. When the organ is no longer alive
(cannot be revitalized by another organism) the tissues and cells are still
alive and can be maintained alive in anabiosis for a rather long time at near 0oC
temperature or being fast frozen. When we buy meat and fish in stores we buy
living tissues. They rot when they die. The latter is the realization of the
program of death at the cellular level: the cellular organelles, DNA, proteins
and other complex organic molecules are being destroyed by complex genetic and
biochemical mechanisms. Rather recent studies indicate that even bacteria and
yeasts have programmed death.12-14 *
Control Subsystems
More complex organisms are operated by the BCS through four separate
control subsystems that use different agents and channels of communication:
nervous (electric), humoral (chemical), electromagnetic (hypothetical
electromagnetic coherencies and biophotons in tissues and organs, proposed and
studied by F.-A. Popp group15) and one manifested in acupuncture
(called Qi, prana, and so forth, in Oriental cultures) that may have the same
physical carrier as the BCS itself.
Biofield Control System and the Biological
Evolution
In the current
discussion between promoters of ‘Intelligent Design’ (ID) and Neo-Darwinists,
M. Behe is absolutely persuasive in showing the “irreducible complexity” of the blocks of a
living organism such as the eye, cellular cilium or bacterial flagellum, etc16.
These and other most complex organizations could not possibly emerge by random
individual (undirected) mutations. Emergence
of a new species is associated not with just one mutation but with a long chain
of mutations that are clearly not random and must occur simultaneously. Until
the whole chain is accomplished, the individual, let alone a population or the
whole species, would not have any advantage in adaptation selection, as J.
Bockris noted in his book.17 This
was understood by many distinguished biologists like Lev S. Berg who wrote his Nomogenesis in 1922—there must be laws
determining ontogenesis as well as phylogenesis and there is no place for
randomness in the biological evolution.18
The problem with the current
discussion is that it seems more ideological than scientific. Darwinism from
the beginning enjoyed an overwhelming support of the scientific community
because it presented an alternative to the religious creationism. Then, it
became a dogma with the same function as any religious dogma—to keep the social
organization stable, in this case the scientific community. However, the actual
alternative to Darwinism is not Intelligent Design but the broadening of the
scientific paradigm. An Omnipotent Designer would not “play dice” in Einstein's words, he
would know what he wants to begin with. He would not leave abundant dead ends
on the branches of the evolutionary tree still providing a reasonable food
chain—the omega point in terms of Teilhard d’Chardin. And indeed in the
religion mythology he starts with Adam and Eve.
One cannot exclude
some intelligence behind the whole Universe, but this intelligence must have
produced all the physical forces, laws of their interactions and universal
constants, including those yet unknown interaction that are responsible for
emergence of life. This idea is not more unreal than the Big Bang or Chaos as
the starting point of the Universe (I. Prigogine would not claim that life started out of
chaos).
The postulated concept
of the biofield control system may bring biological evolution back into the
realm of science. Considering the obvious role of the “mother”—the egg, the ants colony,
etc. in the embryonic development (see development program above), one can
assume that the mother’s BCS (its reproduction program) can cause changes in
the biofield control system of the embryo and consequent simultaneous genetic
changes in the embryo. This is what can explain not only the Lamarckian
examples of the giraffe’s neck and the bird’s legs elongation but the whole
evolutionary process. Back in 1954 biologist Curt Stern mentioned the possibility
of the biofield participation in the mutagenesis and evolution.19 Thus, the proverbial question “What came first—the
chicken or the egg?” remains open: the chicken’s mother might have been a pre-chicken
with a transformed BCS.
The adaptation selection
at the population level may play a more significant role in the intraspecies
evolution. V. Geodakian suggested that the gene pool of the male part of a
population has a broader distribution with respect to the sensitivity to
environmental changes than that of the female part. Changes in environment
eliminate a part of the male population causing the shift of the population
gene pool toward greater resistance to that environmental factor.20
What might have
occurred in biological evolution is that some global factor(s) periodically
interfered with the biofield control systems of many living organisms changing the
“mothers’” reproductive programs and these, in turn, substantially and
simultaneously changed genomes of the prodigy organisms.
Global forces that caused directed mutagenesis, for instance during the
Cambrian period, most likely worked not at the chemical (genes) level. This is
another reason to learn the physics of the BCS.
What is the Difference?
In 2003 my friend Dr. John Bockris asked me
‘What is the difference between my postulated Biofield control system and the
morphogenic field suggested by Rupert Sheldrake?’ We met and briefly discussed
this subject with Dr. Sheldrake in 2002 and here is the following email
exchange.
Dear Rupert:
As I remember, in
our conversation (last year in Albuquerque) we found that the difference in our
approaches lies in where the organism’s biological information is stored: in
the Earth’s biosphere with the genome acting as a receiver (you) or in the
individual genome (me).
I may be wrong in my perception. Why wouldn’t
you clarify this?
Thank
you,
Savva
Dear Savva,
Thanks for your
email and for the copy of John Bockris¹s comments. I too agree about the
importance of Driesch and discuss his work in some detail in my books in A New Science Of Life (1981) and The Presence of The Past (1988). I must
have given quite the wrong impression in our conversation if I suggested to you
that the organism’s biological information is stored in the earth¹s
biosphere. This is nothing like the
proposal I make in my books or in any of my talks or articles on the subject. I
propose the information depends on morphic resonance, a transmission across
time and that is not ‘stored¹ spatially. Memory is a relation in time, and
storage is a concept that requires space, so I think that the very concept of
memory storage is to model categories in a way that is very confusing.
I don’t propose
the genome acts as a receiver, but rather the whole organism does and the
genome has not particular privileged role in this. I also carefully avoid
calling these fields bio fields, because as I argue in my books I think similar
morphogenetic fields are at work in the formation of crystals and molecules.
The biofield concept would imply a kind of vitalism, a new kind of field present
only in living organisms. I am trying to casting my hypothesis in an organismic
framework which is not vitalist, because I believe that these organising
principles are at work in non-biological systems as well.
Best
wishes,
Rupert Sheldrake
Dear John (copy to Rupert):
Here
is Rupert Sheldrake’s response to my and your letters. I was not totally off
the point: not the genome but the organism works as a receiver according to
R.S. In my model it is not the genome (my incorrect wording in the letter) but
the biofield of the organism—the general control system, the epiphenomenon of
the genome—carries all the necessary information and operates life. I don’t
think that crystallization is based on more than (short distance)
electromagnetic forces, although complex organic molecules like DNA may be
sensitive to what I call X-Interaction (the carrier of the BCS) It was very
kind of Rupert to respond to my inquiry.
Best
regards,
Savva
Paradoxical Observations May Lead to
Discovery of the Physical Carrier of the
Biofield Control System
All the four
above-mentioned fundamental programs of life including the mind—the biofield
control system as defined above—are apparent in all living organisms. They are
transferred from one generation to another by genomes but they obviously cannot
be carried out by chemical interactions with genes. The fundamental questions
are: What is (or are) the physical carrier(s) of the biofield control system
and, how fundamental programs of life are re-encoded on it from the genome?
There are publications
attempting to reduce the biofield to electromagnetic interactions.21,22
However, as postulated above, there must be one or more yet-unknown fundamental
physical interaction(s), in addition to the strong, electromagnetic and
gravitational forces currently recognized in physics, that is (or are) capable
of communicating with all known fundamental physical interactions and with
control subsystems of organisms. This or these physical interactions seem to
simultaneously have properties of energy and information that, as Elsasser23
stated, is broader than Shannon’s information.
In the 1950s to 1980s,
theoretical physicist Walter M. Elsasser discussed a theory of the organism,
proposing as the first law of biological theory the Law of duality. “It tells
us that as a matter of general experience the world of living and that of
inanimate are separated by a no-man’s-land of irrationality.” The physics of
the organic world cannot be deduced from the currently known physical
interactions. He also
describes the paradox of memory without storage—“information stability
without regard to the traditional contiguity of space-time-causality.” However,
as Frederick Seitz writes in the introduction to Elsasser’s book,
“…he was not
prepared to introduce the assumption that molecules in biological systems gain
a special ‘vital’ force on entering into living systems and that such forces
permit them to violate the well-founded laws of physics and chemistry.” 23
Some properties of
this (these) fundamental interaction(s) are manifested in biological nuclear
reactions, some paradoxes of chemistry, extrasensory communication between
living systems, etc.
Serious scientific observations presented in this
monograph suggest ways for further
exploring the physical basis of life.
Nuclear Forces are Far From Being
Fully Understood
Low temperature (meaning room temperature) nuclear reactions in living
systems —the biotransmutation of elements—were introduced most explicitly by
Louis C. Kervran in the 60’s24. According to Kervran, the first
scientific observation of this phenomenon was published in 1849 and since then
many of such observations were related to agriculture.
For instance, back in 1870’s-80’s Von Herzeele working with hydroponic
cultures (without soil) found that “sulfate added to distilled water used for
germination increases phosphorus contents in shoots (S32—H1
= P31); that adding different potassium salts leads to increase of
calcium in seedlings (K39 + H1 = Ca40) and so
on. Other studies showed various possible nuclear reactions that through the
activity of microorganisms may turn:
iron into magnesium and backwards M + H = Fe
potassium into calcium K
+ H = Ca
sodium into magnesium Na
+ H = Mg
sodium into potassium Na
+ O = K
magnesium into calcium Mg
+O = Ca
carbon into silicium C
+ O = Si
Aluminum into potassium Al + C = K and so on.
Kervran discusses the energy aspects of these nuclear reactions
suggesting participation of some ‘specialized enzymes,’ but he definitely
doesn’t claim that physics of these reactions is clear. Contemporary physics
knows that a great energy—temperature—is needed to overcome electrical
repellence of two positively-charged nuclei. Yet, not one experimental result
had ever refuted Kervran’s and others’ results. In the Preface to the English
edition of his book, Kervran writes:
“It is evident that biological chemistry is mistaken in trying,
exclusively, to apply chemical analysis to the study of living matter. When a
molecule is taken away from a living cell it is impossible to study the cell’s
properties. The latter are dependent on the position of the molecule in a
component on the couplings of these components which, together, give rise to the
many interactions characteristic of life.” (This
statement fully coincides with E. Macovschi’s concept presented in this book.)
According to Edmund
Storm, very few studies were conducted on biological nuclear reactions.25 One of them is the study at Moscow State
University and Kiev State University of Ukraine presented in this book by Alla
Kornilova and Vladimir Vysotsky. They observed nuclear synthesis of iron
isotopes Fe57 and Fe54 in bacterial cultures growing in
media deficient of iron (prevailing isotope in nature is Fe56). This
work fully supports the reality of biological nuclear reaction and suggests the
necessity of further study into this phenomenon.
Chronologically the
next paradoxical observation, though not strictly related to nuclear synthesis,
came from China. During the
1980s, Chinese government funded a pioneering study by physicist,
Professor Lu Zuyin that included an experiment showing the distant (more than
1000 km) effect of a psi-gifted operator, Yan Xin, on the rate of americium 247Am
nuclear decay. The most explicit description of this experiment was published
in the Journal of Scientific Exploration in 2002.26
The 1989 publication
by Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann27 initiated studies of low
temperature nuclear reactions, mostly on palladium matrix. In spite of more
than 3000 publications reviewed by Storm25 this phenomenon is still
ignored by the scientific establishment. Indeed, it is hard to explain within
the current physical model how the strongest possible adsorption forces could
overcome the repulsion of the only known Coulomb’s forces between nuclei. In our
view, the observed inconsistent results might be explained, at least partially,
by the effect of the experimenter’s BCS and its carrier(s)—through subconscious
expectation.
The effect of the
experimenter’s expectation on results of experiments is a separate but a very
important topic. Mice in a not blinded experiment behaved as the experimenter
expected them to until the experimenter was blinded—i.e., didn’t know what to expect. I called
this Speransky’s Effect (blinding the experimenter is still not required in
experiments on animals).28 Many pharmaceuticals are known to work
for years on huge populations while the medical community believed in their
efficacy and then stopped working. J. Solfvin, reviewing paradoxical
observations beyond placebo effect, refers to a review by H. Benson and D.
McCallie on this subject published in New England Journal of Medicine.29
The role of the experimenter expectancy in electron diffraction experiments is
well known, but I don’t know of any study aimed at revealing a possible
experimenter’s effect on simple physical systems. The history of science knows
cases of suicides of decent scientists when results they observed and reported
were not reproduced by other doubting experimenters.30
In 1992, John
Bockris, then Distinguished Professor of Chemistry at Texas A&M University,
undertook in his laboratory to reproduce the typical alchemic reaction—obtaining
gold from a mixture of element compounds including lead.* He recalls events of that time in his
recent letter that is attached to this article (Appendix 1). A measurable
amount of gold was found in three of four runs when the “Messrs”—the “alchemists”
who initiated the test—where around but not allowed to enter the laboratory and
no gold was found in 11 runs conducted a few months later when they were not
informed about the continuation of the experiment. Bockris in his letter
describes the psychological environment of the rerun series because this was
the only difference in the conditions of the experiment.
It is difficult to
distinguish the information and energy aspects of the unknown physical
interaction(s) in the above described observations. The effects of some nuclear
forces, other than those we currently know, were clearly observed and these
seem to demonstrate the energy aspect.
Can Chemistry be Reduced to Electrical
and Stochastic Thermal Interactions?
The current chemistry
knows only thermal and electric interactions, and those are insufficient to
comprehend the emergence of life on our planet, or elsewhere. As John Bockris
wrote in his book,13 complex organic molecules that might have
emerged by chance under any imaginable conditions must have been destroyed by
thermophysical processes in accordance with the second law of thermodynamics. I
would say it is if there are no other (as yet unknown) forces reducing free energy of
complex organic molecules. These forces may be associated with the physical
carrier(s) of the biofield control system.
It is possible that
such non-electromagnetic interactions manifest themselves in the field of
solubility. Just for instance, in my dissertation in the 1960s,31 I
studied solubility and thermodynamic properties of water solutions in non-polar
organic liquid dichlorodifluoromethane (CCl2F2).
Solubility of water in CCl2F2 increases with increasing temperature from 3
ppm mass at 0oC to 80 ppm at 25oC. This means that each
molecule of water at 0oC is surrounded by a sphere of ~50,000
molecules of CCl2F2 since IR spectra show strictly
monomolecular distribution of water. With increasing temperature, the outer
layers of the spheres yield to chaotic thermal movement as a function of kT
(k –Boltzman constant), the radius of spheres decreases allowing
additional smaller solvates built around additional molecules of water to enter
the solution. Thus, solubility increases and at 25oC each solvate
sphere contains only ~1900 molecules of CCl2F2. Each
molecule of water is bound to the immediate surrounding layer of the solvate
very slightly (the shift of the adsorption picks of the O-H vibration frequencies
in the IR spectra of solution is minimal compared to those in gaseous phase),
yet the water-CCl2F2 interaction is very strong and
electromagnetic forces hardly can explain it (at that time I didn’t think much
about this paradox). What is the nature of those forces if they are not
electromagnetic?
Organization of
hydrophobic clusters in living cells is broadly discussed in biochemical
studies. It cannot be excluded that such clusters, based on non-polar bonds,
are built around individual water molecules as in the solution described above.
The memory of
biologically-active substances initially dissolved in water and then diluted to
10-60 mol, as in homeopathy, or to 10-12–10-22
mol, as in experiments of the Institute of Biochemical Physics of the Russian
Academy of Sciences (see article by E. Burlakova et al. in this monograph),
definitely cannot be explained by the ‘structural memory of water’ which is too
short, ~50 fsec as was recently determined.32 Then, what carries
this memory in water? Clearly, the carrier is not of an electric or
electromagnetic nature.
Living organisms are
presumed to resist thermal and chemical destruction by degrading external
energy—food, solar radiation, etc. They are called “thermodynamically open
systems” since their low entropy is presumed to be compensated by the increase
of the entropy of the extended thermodynamic system. We associate the Biofield
Control System that carries fundamental programs of life strictly with living
organisms. But before organic molecules became living organisms—that is, before
they acquired a mechanism of degrading external energy—what keeps them intact?
What keeps viruses intact? They do not have any mechanism of metabolism, a self-reproduction
program, or programmed death. Moreover, unless the dead cell is artificially or
naturally, chemically or by freezing mummified, the cellular organelles and
complex organic molecules like DNA and proteins are decomposed by cellular BCS’
program of death. The conserving forces no longer protect them from chemical
and thermophysical destruction.
The above-mentioned
paradoxical manifestations observed in chemistry and biochemistry most likely
reflect properties of the physical carrier(s) of the biofield control system,
particularly its energy-carrying component.
Communications Between Living Systems
Communications between
living beings beyond known sensory perceptions were observed abundantly. Famous English physicists and psychologists
including J. J. Tompson, Sir William Crookes and other founded in 1880’s the
Society for Psychical Research and recorded observations that later gave birth
to parapsychology and psychotronics.33 Yet, using humans as
recipients of this kind of information/energy communication will not lead to
solving the core problem of defining the physical nature of the carrier(s) of
this communication. Human organism is too complex to control and reproduce all
factors affecting the outcome of such experiments. It seems logical to use as
objects of such experiments the simplest organisms. This would allow scientists
to register reactions at biochemical and biophysical levels by means currently
available. Also, if humans are used as inductors of the communication in
question, it is necessary to keep in mind that what is called psi ability is broadly
variable in the population with respect to its quality and intensity, as is any
talent—Beethoven and Tchaikovsky, DaVinci and Roden, Shakespeare and Pushkin
are very rear genii.
Biologist Beverly
Rubik and physicist Elizabeth Rauscher conducted the first known to me such a
study in 1978-1982. 34,35
They used a very talented psi healer Olga Worrell to see her effect on bacteria
Salmonella typhimurium (ST1) poisoned
by an antibiotic. Bacteria in control showed much lesser viability and motility
than cultures treated by (BCS of) Olga Warrell. The rate of growth was
determined by measuring the optical density of cultures at 620 nm. Using the
analytical arsenal of today’s biochemistry, one can expect to see very fine
biochemical changes occurring in bacteria under the influence of psi-gifted
individuals.
Russian
Microbiologist, Konstantin Chernoshchekov employed capable healers to observe
mutations of enterobacteria. Although a proper genetic analysis was not
available to his group, they found by means of standard microbiological
identification that bacteria that were transformed from harmful to neutral
maintained their identity and reproduced.36 Chernoshchekov also
observed the increased rate of mutations in bacteria associated with
geomagnetic perturbations, though the nature of this global factor is not
magnetic.37
The recent study of
biochemist, Juliann Kiang, at the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research in
Washington, DC, showed effect of human operators on human T-cells in vitro. Selected operators by their
intent increased Ca2+ concentration in intracellular solutions by
25%. The detailed methodology is presented in her article published in this
book. Also, she reviewed numerous reports of studies on distant biological
communications conducted in different countries and at different levels of
scientific scrutiny.
Tatiana Zagranichnaia,
a Russian
biochemist currently at the University of Chicago, worked with human embryonic
kidney cells using standard experimental methodology. She compared the
longevity of these cells in regular water and in water treated by a healer with
the intent of increasing the cell vitality. Cellular cultures on pre-treated
water lived almost twice as long as those on regular water in control.38
Finally, Cleve
Backster’s article in this book describes in detail only two experiments of
many conducted by him during the last ~40 years.39 In the first
series, shrimps at the moment of being thrown into boiling water (by an
automated device—to exclude any human effect) induced spikes of electrical
potential in plants located meters in distance from them. Electrodes of
high-resistance potentiometers were attached to the leaves of these plants.
Another experiment showed existence of distant communication between white
blood cells extracted from a human donor and the donor. Extracted and
concentrated cells in a test tube produced a spike of electrical potential at
moments when donors went through emotional excitements.
Alternative
Physical Models
Inadequacy of the
current physical paradigm in describing life and life-related phenomena has
been mentioned by many great physicists, including Albert Einstein, Niles Bohr,
Erwin Schrödinger and David Bohm. All experimental studies presented in this
book can be reproduced and broadened if we want to understand the physical
basis of life and the biological evolution.
Presented in the third
part of this book are articles by distinguished physicists suggesting new
theoretical approaches to broaden the paradigm.
John O’M Bockris
(Molecular Green Technology, USA) discusses the accumulated incoherencies of
contemporary physical concepts and their inability to explain the emergence and
maintenance of life. He calls for the broadening of the paradigm to include the
actions of Consciousness.
William A. Tiller (Stanford
University, USA) presents an 11-dimensional model with two four-dimensional
conjugated space-time realms and three higher dimensions. His experiments lead
him to suggest that human intent may engage the reciprocal four-dimensional
space-time that transforms space (particularly in a laboratory) causing changes
in physical processes. At one of the annual meetings of the Society for
Scientific Exploration, Dr. Norman Don showed a video clip that he filmed in
Brazil. The healer “conditioned” the space where treatments were performed so
that patients without any pre-treatment or anesthetics felt no pain while their
bodies were “tortured.” 40 Also, effect of the biologically active
substances diluted to 10-120, as in J. Benveniste’s work,
demonstrated memory that seems associated with the space in which solutions
were prepared.41
Hal Puthoff (USA) in his short article, “Physics and Metaphysics as Co-emergent
Phenomena,” presents the history of his search for an adequate physical model.
He believes that the physical vacuum may hold answers to puzzles of life by
carrying both memory and information. .
Nina Sotina (Moscow
State University, Russia) discusses paradoxical
observations indicating that human intent interacts at a distance with living
and inanimate objects at the quantum mechanical level. She suggests a model of
superfluid vacuum with structures that may carry memory and energy. She also
presents results of telekinetic experiments conducted in Russia indicating that
the interaction between human operators and objects occur at the quantum
mechanical level.
James Beichler (USA) proposes a five-dimensional physical model that
incorporates the Kaluza-Einstein model of the
1920’s and D. Bohm’s concept of hidden variables. His model incorporates a
broad spectrum of phenomena from quantum particles entanglement to life and
so-called paranormal manifestations.
One way or another, an
alternative physical model must be “crazy” enough to reflect the tremendous
complexity of the real world.
Conclusion
The cost of health care in the United States is skyrocketing and there
is no political power to stop it. The process will continue, leading to a
crisis if biomedical science and pharmacology holds on to the current
theoretical and methodological basis—compensating for wrong or missing signals
of a deregulated or aging organism. This approach has proven to be viable in
many cases such as diabetes, saving millions of lives. However, the deeper into
the organizational levels of the organism it goes—organs, tissues, cells—the
more inadequate and unpredictable become reactions of the organism.
Anticoagulants used by cardiologists sometimes kill patients by inducing
brain hemorrhages;
anti-cancerous drugs kill by destroying the immune system, etc. The growing rate of adverse effects and mortality
associated with the current medico-pharmacological practices are reported in
the Journal of American Medical
Association.42 An increasing number of newly developed drugs will not pass
safety tests and the society will be pressed to pay for this.
The problem is that
there is no adequate concept of the organism’s control system, its structure
and the nature of its physical carrier. Further
progress of the biomedical science requires a revision of the current
scientific paradigm so that it would include the physical basis of life, mind
and life-related phenomena. Systems Biology is one of the recently-emerged
advanced fields of studies. It is aimed at putting in order the immense volume
of biochemical experimental results. G. Stolovitzky and A. Califano, who represent
the state of the art in this field, clearly understand the impossibility of
accomplishing the task within the framework of the current paradigm. In the Update of the NYAS they write:
“If there is an epistemologist out there studying how the paradigms are
changing, she may report in 20 or 30 years that the dream of finding the
equivalent to Newton’s physical laws within biology was misguided. She might
conclude that the search for universal principles, which served physics so well,
was not the right approach to unravel the design principles that govern the
networks of intracellular and multicellular events.” 43
Indeed, studying the
bricks and building blocks cannot lead to the understanding of architecture and
aesthetics of the edifice of life.
A growing number of
scientists, research laboratories, and institutions throughout the world are
already working on this subject. Credible scientific publications, including
those published in this book, suggest that the operation of the organism cannot
be reduced to chemical interactions since contemporary chemistry knows only
electric and thermodynamic forces; that the biological nuclear synthesis
presented by Louis Kervran in 1960-80’s is not a myth; that the non-structural
memory of water manifests
itself at organism, cell, and enzyme levels; that human intent and/or expectation may cause
bacterial mutations or affect cellular equilibrium, etc.;
and that studies on the effect of new drugs on animals must be blinded to the researcher.
We hope
that the publication of this book will lay the ground work for an international
scientific symposium with the
objective of forming an international scientific consortium on advanced
biophysics. No immediate gratification may be expected but there are no other
ways to solve the problem.
References
1. Gurwitsch, A.G. The Theory of the Biological Field.
Sovetskaya Nauka, Moscow, 1944,
(in Rissian)
2. Savva, S. The
Concept of MISAHA The Latest Lesson and the Next Step. Townsend
Letter for Doctors and Patients, #175/176, 1998, pp. XX
- A Systems Approach
in Biology and Biophysics. MISAHA Newsletter #18-19, 1997, pp. 2–9 See also Proceedings of the 41 Annual Meeting
of the International Society for the Systems Sciences, Atlanta. GA, 1998 (on
CD)
- Toward a Cybernetic
Model of the Organism. Advances of Mind Body Medicine V.14, #4,
1998 pp.292–301
- Biofield and a
Cybernetic Model of the Organism: Suggestion for Empirical Study. Proceedings
of the 42 Annual Meeting of the ISSS, Asilomar, CA 1999 (published on CD)
- Alternative
Biophysics: Investing in the Study of the Biofield. MISAHA Newsletter #24-28, 1999, pp. 2–10
- Alternative
Biophysics. Journal of New Energy,
V.4, #4, 2000. pp. 79–89
- Ultimate Biophysics.
World Futures, Vol.57, 2001, pp. 1–19
- The Biofield—Proposed
Research Methodology. Proceedings of the
ISSS Annual Meeting , 2001, Asilomar (on CD)
- Hypothesis of the
Biofield, Proceedings of the III International Congress: Weak and Superweak
Fields and Radiations in Biology and Medicine, Saint Petersburg, 1–4 July, V.3,
2003, pp. 25–32
3. Robert Rosen. Essays on Life Itself. Columbia
University Press. NY, 1999, pp.17–24
4. Snyder, Evan. Stem Cells: Interviews. QUEST,
Invitrogen Publication for Discovery, V 2, # p.54, 2005
5. Macovschi, Eugene. The
Nature and Structure of Living Matter. Romanian Academy of Sciences, 1976
in Russian. Translated from Romanian version. Bucuresti, 1972.
6. Ling, G. Life at the Cell and Below-Cell Level,
Pacific Press. NY, 2001
7. Nasonov, D. N. Local Reaction of the Protoplasm and
Spreading Excitation, USSR Academy of Sciences, Moscow-Leningrad, 1959.
8. Clegg,J.S. Properties and Metabolism of
the Aqueous Cytoplasm and its Boundaries. Am
J Physiol Regul Integr Comp Physiol 246:133–151,1984
9. Choucharo, P. Societes Animal’s, Societe Humain, Paris, 1956
10. Savva, S. Philosophy of History—SOCIOGENESIS. Proceedings
of the 38th Annual Meeting of ISSS, Louisville, KY, 1994, pp.1315–1322
11. Bassler, B and
Losick, R. Bacterially speaking. Cell,
V.125, #2, 2006, pp. 237-246
12. Longo V.D., J.
Mitteldorf and V. Skulachev. Programmed and altruistic aging. J.Nature,
V.6, 2005, pp.866–872
13. Madeo, F., E.
Harker et al. Apoptosis in yeast. In Current
Opinion in Microbiology, Elsevier Ltd., 2004
14. Lewis, K.
Programmed Death in Bacteria. Microbiol.
and Molec. Biol.Reviews. Sept. 2000, pp.503–514
15. F.A.Popp, J.J.Chang, A.Herzog, Z.Yan and
Y.Yan: Evidence of non-classical (squeezed) light in biological systems. Physics Letters A 293, 2002, 98–102
16 Behe, M.J. Darwin’s Black Box. The Free Press, NY, 1996
17. Bockris, J. O’M. The New Paradigm. D&M Enterprises
Publisher, 2005
18. Berg, L.S. Nomogenesis, or Evolution Determined by Law.
MIT Press, Cambridge, 1969 (original Russian edition 1922)
19. Stern, C.M. Two or
three bristles. Am. Sci. V.42, 1954
pp. 213-247.
20.Geodakian,V.A., The
Role of Sex in Transmission and Transformation of Genetic Information. Problemi Peredachi Inf.,.V.1, # 1, 1965,
pp.105-112. (in Russian, English text is available on the Internet)
21. Rubik, B. The
Biofield Hypothesis: Its Biophysical Basis and Role in Medicine. J.Altern.and Complem. Medicine. V 8,# 6,
2002, pp.703–717
22. Bischof, M. The
History of Biological Holism and Field Theories in the 20th Century.
MISAHA Newsletter #22-23, 1998, pp. 7–11
23. Elsasser, W.M., Reflections on a Theory of Organisms. J.
Hopkins Univ. Press, 1988
24. Kervran, C.L Biological Transmutations. Beekman
Publishers Inc, NY, 1980
25. Storm E. Cold
Fusion—the Experimental Evidence. 21
Century Science & Technology, Winter 2004-05
26. Yan Xin et al.,
Certain Physical Manifestation and Effects of External Qi of Yan Xin Life
Science Technology, JSE, V.16, #3,
2002, p.381
27. Pons, S and Fleischmann, M. Public
announcement of March 23, 1989
28. Speransky, S. Mice
Behave as Scientist Expects Them To.
MISAHA Newletter, #2, 1993
29. Solfvin, J. Beyond
the Placebo Effect, MISAHA Newsletter
#30–31, 2000. Benson, H. and McCallie, D.P. Jr. Angina pectoris and the placebo
effect. NEJM, V.300, 1979, pp.1424-1429
30. Mahoney, M.J. Scientist as Subject: The Psychological
Imperative (Foundations of Psychology). Percheran Press, 2004
31. Zhukoborsky,
(Savva) S.L. Thermodynamic Properties of Water Solutions in Freon
12. Kholodilnaya Tekhnika, #11,
1973, 36–42 (in Russian)
32. Cowan, M.L. et al.
Ultrafast memory loss and energy redistribution in the hydrogen bond network of
liquid H2O. J. Nature, V.434, March 2005, pp. 199–202
33. Keen, M., Ellison, A. Fontana, D. The Score Report. Proceedings of the Society for Psychical Research, V.58, 1999
34. Rauscher, E. and
B. Rubik. Effect on Motility Behavior and Grows Rate of Salmonela Typhimurium in the Presence of Olga Worrall. Research in Parapsychology 1979, London.
Scarecross Press,140–142.
35. Rauscher, E. and
B. Rubik. Human Volitional Effect on a Model Bacterial System. PSI Research, 2(1), 1983, 38–48
36. Private
communication. Unpublished article in Russian is available from the editor.
37. Chernoshchekov
K.A. and M.A. Chernoshchekov. The Regular Patterns and the Cell Mechanism of
the Emergence of Spontaneous Mutations in Enterobacteria. Biophysics, V.46, # 5, 2001, pp.849–859 (in Russian)
38. Private
communication. Unpublished table of results is available from the editor.
39. Backster C. Primary Perception. White Rose
Millennium Press.CA
40. Don, N. S.
& Moura, G. Trance surgery in Brazil. Alternative Therapies. Health and Medicine, 6(4), 2000,
39-48.
41. Davenas, E. 11
coauthors and J. Benveniste. Human Basophil Degradation Triggered by Very
Dilute Antiserum Against IgE. NATURE,
V.333, 30 June,1988, pp.8161-4818
42. Starfield, B. Is
US Health Really the Best in the World? J.Amer.Med. Assoc. July 26, 2000; 284(4):483145
43. Stolovitzky, G.
and A. Califano. Systems Biology. UPDATE
NYAS Magazine, March-April 2006, p. 20
APPENDIX 1
E-letter from Dr.
John Bockris of April 2006
“…we found tritium and published it in 1989,
the same year as that in when Fleischman and Pons published their initial
paper. The reference to our paper is Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry, 270,
451, 1989.
Having found that very elementary particles,
the lightest atom known, hydrogen and its isotopes could be involved in nuclear
processes at room temperatures in solution, we proceeded further to ask
ourselves whether such transmutational (and really: Alchemical!) reactions could
occur with elements of high atomic weight. Of course, it is tempting to choose
the synthesis of gold and that is what we did. Here, a relatively unqualified
electronics technician enters the story for it was he who came to us saying
that he knew a method whereby a nuclear reaction could be carried out with high
atomic weight members. The essence of this was to cause a chemical explosion to
occur, in the presence of, say, lead or tin, and examine the antecedent
material after it had been subject to the explosion, and particularly after a three-day pause.
We did this using two mature post-doctoral
fellows, both in their 40’s, one an experienced nuclear physicist, Dr. Lin, and
one an experienced material scientist, Dr. Bhardwaj. The first experiment we did
was a failure. In the next three experiments (along with a multiple analysis by
various analytical organizations, each reaction takes about three weeks to come
to the final answer) we found three, consecutively, which gave rise to
convincingly high numbers of gold atoms, up to 500 ppm within the mixture. We
also found much smaller amounts in the order of 10 ppm of other noble metals.
It seemed that this was a complete success and vindicated entirely the
hypothesis that higher atomic weight materials could undergo nuclear
transformation in a beaker.
Now, Lin and Bhardwaj had been borrowed from
other projects—we are talking about the summer of 1992—and they had to hurry back to pick up the
projects in which they had been originally employed, and get on with the other
work. Therefore, we did
not try to resume the work on transmutation for about three months. Lin and I
then went on Christmas Vacation and Bhardwaj tried to replicate the work that
we had done during the summer. He made 11 experiments and could not find gold
at all. The only anomalous act that he observed was that in one of the
experiments the radioactive beta emission was found, completely anomalous, of
course.
There may be two reason
for Dr. Bhardwaj’s failure. On the one hand he had begun to hate Mr. Champion
and his backer, Telander. Bhardwaj is a devout Muslim and he could not stand
the womanizing and drinking of Messrs, Telander, and Champion. He began to hate
them and he could not bring in his mind to think that such people could be
associated with the discovery which is mind-boggling. Another reason, a more
scientific one, is that Bhardwaj’s shortened experiment, which he looked only
for gold, did not wait for the necessary three-day pause, and may have
initiated the process.”