Making Sense of Life and Consciousness
Copyright: Richard Alabone 2017 All rights reserved
Shakespir Edition, License Notes
This ebook is licensed for your personal enjoyment only. This ebook may not be re-sold or given away to other people. If you would like to share this book with another person, please purchase an additional copy for each recipient. If you’re reading this book and did not purchase it, or it was not purchased for your use only, then please return to Shakespir.com and purchase your own copy. Thank you for respecting the hard work of this author.
Ch 1 An Introduction.
Our life gets more and more complicated and we’ve lost sight of the fundamentals. We search for an understanding of life and consciousness; here is a new and different approach based on the evidence of those fundamentals.
We are all familiar with the way DNA and genes are said to contribute to who we are and the way we grow in the womb. Unfortunately, science has had very little success in finding the details of how our genes contribute to who we are, and have failed to find any mechanism by which DNA controls growth. With the absence of any mechanism it is said that all growth is created by ‘self-assembly’. Much the same has to be said about the understanding of consciousness. How and why our brain grows is a complete mystery, consequently endeavouring to understand consciousness has been deemed impossible. We leave these mysteries to scientists and philosophers for explanation, but there are huge gaps in their knowledge which are not addressed. I am well aware that my suggestions run contrary to established scientific beliefs which have been with us for 60 years.
I must admit this all sounds very negative but unfortunately it is true. Many scientists are saying that in a few more years the evidence will be understood, but they have been saying that for the last 50 years. The question I ask is why does the evidence not fit the accepted theory of what DNA is for, and the way it is supposed to work? Scientific examination of the evidence reveals more mysteries, the more closely it is examined, leading to the possibility that the accepted theory is in error.
Additionally one line of evidence has been deliberately ignored by science, for the reason that it looks like science fiction, and has been labelled as pseudoscience. I refer to telepathy, mind to mind or the paranormal, which many people are prepared to accept as a possibility, even though it all seems very mysterious. The reason why it is partially accepted is that many people, at some point in their lives, have had a strange experience of one sort or another and that includes the writer. I am concerned that there is a fundamental relationship between the question of DNA and the paranormal.
So my question is how telepathy could relate to DNA, life and consciousness. This book is all about that relationship. By combining the evidence for telepathy with the fact that there is no evidence for how DNA works, we have a theory that looks like science fiction, which could be science fact, explaining the scientific difficulties in both areas. Perhaps a mind to mind mechanism passes the information of form and growth between us during the mysterious process of our growth.
The more I looked at the detailed evidence of telepathy and microbiology, the more these two sets of evidence have become integrated, and with the most amazing consequences, which I hope to share with you in the succeeding pages.
The Hard Problems.
You may think that any hope of making sense of Life and Consciousness is a ridiculous idea; but I am old enough to see that maybe there is an answer to these two hard problems. I say this because I have spent many years looking at the evidence. That evidence may be controversial, but evidence is evidence; if something can be seen to happen then it really does happen, even though it may not fit in with the accepted view of science. Scientists exclude the possibility of psychic phenomena with fear and passion, which is contrary to the view of most of the general public.
Rather than search every nook and cranny for signs of evidence, I have found that a bigger picture often held the key to intractable problems. Science has looked in great detail at the problems of life and consciousness, which has not revealed a satisfactory overall picture. This book is about my view of that big picture, which appears to offer new solutions, as well as how it creates an overall picture from many pieces of a puzzle; just like a jigsaw puzzle.
One part of the puzzle concerns understanding our mind and consciousness, generally known as The Hard Problem, which is clearly an understatement of the immensity of the difficulties. What is missing is real evidence as to how it works, how it grows or how it evolved. Each of us accepts our mind, our self, our emotions and memories, which are all locked into 3 pounds of grey jelly, that appeared as if by magic when we were born and which all disappears when we die. This may be the general belief, but the evidence shows that something remains, which will be discussed later. We also accept without question the mysteries of our emotions and instinctive behaviour, with our capacity to learn a language, balance on two legs and see and understand the world around us.
I’ve seen a calf being born, then minutes later seeing it stagger about to find its food; I realised immediately that instinct, sight and balance are programmed into the young animal before birth, in a way that almost defies belief. The accepted view is that this program is built into DNA, but DNA is only a code for making proteins, so it has to be discounted when you really consider the implications of the calf and the way it is programmed. I am aware of the heresy that I have just committed, but I do believe there has to be something else, besides DNA, which organises the growth of the calf’s brain with its instinct, and programs it to operate the many systems of brain, senses, mind and body. I’m not the first to say that DNA does not create life; Rupert Sheldrake, Sir Alister Hardy and Charles Darwin have all given their ideas. There really needs to be an answer to this something else problem.
All life relies on cells assembling correctly. A human is composed of 100 trillion cells, most of which have a particular function; and all rely on correct assembly. The idea of self assembly is part of the central idea of molecular biology which goes back to 1953 and the discovery of the structure of DNA. Rupert Sheldrake had the idea of cells speaking to cells across space and called it morphic resonance, I called it cytotelesis and this is supported by evidence from many directions, not only microbiology, but the brain and consciousness, evolution, many aspects of the paranormal and quantum physics. By looking at the evidence in a new way, while being grounded in rational thought, it can be seen that they all relate to each other, by altering the science of each area in a satisfactory manner, forming a complete scientific unit.
The start for me was a paper I read 37 years ago to an International Conference of the society for psychical research [SPR] titled A Rationale Linking Biology with Psi”. My argument was that DNA is only part of the story of how life forms and grows. Our instinctive information must have come from other members of our species by mind-to-mind transfer. I coined the word cytotelesis, meaning cells speaking to cells, in order to explain growth, instinct and mind to mind. At that time, 37 years ago, the idea was considered too radical to be even considered. But much has changed since then. The old idea that all the information to make life is in the DNA, does not accord with the evidence, although no accepted alternative idea has been forthcoming. Today, the primacy of DNA and genes is severely questioned in scientific circles1; but what else could replace it? Cytotelesis was proposed as a tentative solution to this problem many years ago and time has shown that the sciences have changed to a position where cytotelesis might now be considered as the serious suggestion, which this book is offering.
The reasoning behind my idea of cytotelesis was based on observations and evidence, which is there for all to see. My reasoning went like this. We are born with a brain which is already programmed to do many things, like the young calf I saw. This instinctive information is pre-programmed into the brain of the calf before birth, similar to the way all animals have instinctive knowledge, but we are also aware that heredity in families makes every individual a mixture of his two parental families.
The evidence of heredity leads us to presume that heredity is passed on by the uniting of parental genes, which is undoubtedly true, and which in turn leads us to presume that the creation of family likenesses, that are visible in the shape and characteristics of the families, is passed on in the genes. There again, a perfectly reasonable assumption, which is clearly partially correct, but ignoring the possibility that the information to create shape and characteristics might be passed across by some other system, working alongside the DNA system of protein and cell production. This possibility is the key element in my reasoning for cytotelesis, which is a new and different concept to grasp, and is only acceptable if sufficient evidence is available to support each element of a rather complex argument.
The accepted belief is that consciousness is incomprehensible. When we ask the question, how does brain and mind grow and operate, there is nothing that can be said, except self-assembly: which is ridiculous. Although we have a great deal of knowledge of synapses and neurones as well as the nervous system and psychology, present day science has to rely on the idea of self-assembly of cells to understand consciousness and life, with no indication of any possible mechanism.
Our brains contain information for instinctive patterns of behaviour before birth; but there is no evidence to show how it could possibly all come from DNA. So the question is where could that information come from. So if it could be shown that there is a mechanism for transfer of information from other members of a species, perhaps the question would be resolved. I believe that, on rare occasions, we receive information from other people which we call telepathy or mind to mind, so it seems that cytotelesis could offer an explanation for both mind to mind as well as consciousness, instinct and growth.
But I am not alone. One scientist, Sir Alister Hardy in a lecture on biology in 19642, proposed the idea that “a sort of psychic pool of experience would be shared subconsciously by all members of a species by some method akin to what we are witnessing in telepathy. Individual lives, animal “minds”, would come and go – but the psychic stream of a shared behaviour pattern in a living population would flow on in time, parallel to the flow of the physical DNA material”. He also spoke of “two parallel streams of information, the DNA code … and the psychic stream of shared experience, the subconscious blueprint “, clearly very similar to my own theory. That was 50 years ago and he based his theory, which he regarded as “a highly speculative concept”, on ideas published 100 years before that. People have been writing and arguing about the mysteries of life for at least 1000 years.
It is clear that mind to mind, or telepathy, are inexplicable in terms of mechanistic science, even though the evidence is incontrovertible: I will show that to ignore it all is preposterous. Most people quite happily ignore something that cannot be seen, although personally, I have always been unable to ignore evidence that cannot be denied; for examples, instinct, mind to mind or telepathy.
Despite the obvious achievements of science there remains a fundamental difficulty in the way it operates, which inhibits scientific creativity. Science proceeds by a system known as the scientific method which investigates phenomena, or corrects previous thoughts. This has to be based on measurable evidence, or on observation and experimentation. The trouble is that where the evidence is not measurable, or where it is not easily repeatable, the method breaks down. The idea that the fundamental questions have all been answered is a delusion3. Individual scientists are happy to ignore evidence that they don’t understand, or dismiss it as pseudoscience. In science there can be no mysteries, if the evidence does not agree with the scientist’s theories, surely the science is wrong; not the evidence.
In most areas of science there has to be dogmatic conformity to the accepted beliefs in past discoveries. Each individual has to conform for fear of ridicule, or of being left behind in the race for promotion. Unfortunately this tends to inhibit questioning, or bold thinking, which has the effect of limiting scientific creativity. Although all this sounds rather negative I believe this is the way things really are, and which affects the advancement of science.
The science of molecular biology has come against a fundamental problem. Metaphorically speaking, the science is in a dead-end road trying to find the route to understand inheritance. It has been thought that epigenetics, gene expression or recessive genes pointed the way, only to find disappointment. Before the discovery of the double helix it was said that the architect’s plan for life was in the germ plasm or chromosome, seen only as an axial skeleton fibre, observable in microscopes at the time. It was therefore assumed, after the discovery of the double helix, that the architect’s plan for the building of each species was in its DNA, which is why microbiology was led into a blind alley. Our DNA contains only the code number for the plan’s blueprint drawing. The actual drawings are available from a public library which is easily accessed by a code, stored in DNA.
This analogy shows that the accepted view of life, based on the evidence of biological research, has revealed what appears to be a dead-end, yet by looking at the results of the research in a different way the dead-end possibly opens up to reveal a vastly different view of life and consciousness. Strong words I know, but I hope to show that these are the facts by supporting my argument with evidence. The real difficulty for microbiology is the phrase, process of self assembly. The fact is, that science doesn’t give us a clue, despite the fact that microbiologists have been searching for the mechanism for 50 years, even inventing a word to describe the evidence that doesn’t fit the dogma. [epigenetics]
So we must ask the question what is the mechanism of self assembly? But also we must ask the question is there any clue to help answer that question? And of course there is. Many people believe in telepathy, so surely here is a possible answer. Could cell to cell information, like telepathy between members of the species, possibly account for the transfer of instinctive information into the brain of a calf before birth, or similarly into a child in the womb? But these questions are the wrong way round: telepathy is only an occasional glimpse of the fundamental mechanism of life, which is totally hidden. Might it also account for all biological growth?
It seems that the evidence of paranormal happenings, telepathy for example, is viewed by science as irrational, so has to be ignored, even though in private some scientists are open minded to reports of psychic experiences. The scientific evidence uncovered by parapsychologists is there, reported and recorded. But some choose to ignore that evidence which is an example of the dogmatic ideology of modern science and one of its difficulties.
We are all familiar with family likenesses which science has correctly shown to be linked to information detailed in the DNA code. It is therefore not an unreasonable assumption that the whole of the information to build a mouse or an elephant is in its DNA. But frankly this idea is wrong; there is another mechanism working separately to DNA, which controls the growth of a mouse or an elephant. It’s only things like tribal and family differences that are spelt out in the DNA code, which we see as heredity in humans. Why this is so and how it happens, together with much evidence will be discussed later. It is all about the evidence even if that evidence is unacceptable to scientists.
For example, reports of hypnosis were regarded as hysterical nonsense or fraud for at least 50 years. Even then it was described as trance, with no explanation as to what trance could possibly be. Today it is accepted as science, but with no science to describe how and why. Looking at the known facts led me to understand how and why we evolved trance, including mystical experience and near death experiences [NDE]. And this same system of fact finding, followed by a search for a suitable theory, I applied to the question of telepathy; which then led me to a better understanding of the unanswered questions in biology, evolution and consciousness.
It seems that the growth of a brain and installation of an operating system, like the operating system we have in our computers, answers the question how we have consciousness. I am suggesting in this book that all life, from a single celled creature to man, is controlled by cytotelesis; cell to cell information from other members of the same species that directs selection of cells during the process of growth; in other words, giving the building instructions, where DNA is only the key to the overall picture, or species, identifying tribal and family details. This is the mysterious process of heredity which has led scientists to the erroneous conclusion that DNA is the book of building instructions. I propose that our brains also grow in the form of the species, tribe and family, which might account for family likenesses in mental ability. In the same way, physical family likenesses are replicated during the growth of the foetus, which we call heredity.
A few years after my lecture on cytotelesis, a book was published by biologist Rupert Sheldrake saying much the same as I had done. His New Science of Life^4^ was greeted with dismay by some scientists and scorned by the editor of Nature who referred to it as ‘A book for burning’. Even before publication, an article in New Scientist (18th June 81) said of Rupert’s ideas: “of course, within the context of modern science, such an idea is completely scatty”. This was because the science of the time was saying that all life grows by the plan in the DNA. Cytotelesis and Sheldrake’s ideas run completely contrary to this, and today the primacy of DNA is questioned.
Nothing I have said so far suggests how or why cytotelesis might work. Could there be an unknown carrier of biological information, which would be acceptable to mechanistic science? Several separate pieces of scientifically reported evidence will be discussed later, which indicate what the carrier is and how it works, offering a bold new explanation to life and consciousness.
I suggest that life and consciousness are not totally directed by DNA, but that they could be influenced mainly by information carried in the ether from other similar cells. Although this may seem a strange proposition, almost heretic and ‘completely scatty’, it does answer the dilemma of biology in a satisfactory way, as well as fitting into a much larger picture as you will see.
I am aware that my theory is complicated and not easily understood as it covers so many branches of our knowledge. It’s only by means of a long connected argument that my case can reasonably be presented where known evidence is pointed out along the way. By understanding the long connected argument and then standing back to view the overall picture, the answer to the puzzle will be revealed. In the past there have been people who have presented part of the overall picture, but one part of a puzzle on its own, is of little use.
I regard the fact that I’m not a trained scientist as an advantage, in that I have no particular area of interest, nor any beliefs that have to be dogmatically followed. In my investigations, I have been able to pursue all possible avenues in order to arrive at a likely hypothesis, or satisfactory theory fitting the facts. This was very rewarding when a satisfactory solution was arrived at, especially if it suddenly answered other problems or anomalies.
In this introduction, I have tried to outline my theory while necessarily leaving out much vital detail which will appear in later chapters. Although I lectured on the theory 37 years ago, when the word cytotelesis was coined, that was really only voicing an intuitive suggestion. During the intervening years, changes in scientific thought and new discoveries have enabled me to see this unified theory grow into something that I believe to be the correct model for life and consciousness.
Ch 2 The things that Don’t Make Sense
Science cannot deal directly with the intangible, it only can make assumptions by examining the results of an intangible issue; gravity for example, but other phenomenon, like telepathy, it happily disregards. On the other hand some things it will reluctantly except as being unaccountable, like hypnosis and anaesthesia. All the following intangible things will be explained in later chapters to my satisfaction; and I hope to yours.
The Problems of Biology
Although microbiologists have discovered the most amazing detail of the chemistry and structure of cells, when it comes to the way cells split into different types of cell to form the various parts of a structure, be it the various parts of a blade of grass or an elephant, there is absolutely no indication of a mechanism. How is it that every cell in our body, which all have the same DNA, change into about 200 different types of cell all doing different things; from bone, blood or lungs to brain? This mystery appears to have no answer and for years we have been told it’s all in the DNA but there are now doubts about how much of the blueprint for growth is in DNA. This is not just my idea; these doubts have been around for years.
Geneticists insist that the genetic code in the fertilised embryo cells of a species contain the blueprint for the whole organism; although by way of explanation they can only give vague notions of epigenetic landscapes or biological fields. The French biologist and Nobel laureates François Jacob, whose work gave impetus to the work on embryonic development [transcriptional regulation], said, in 1961, that very little is known about the regulating processes in embryonic development. That situation has remained to this day.
For a mouse to develop from its DNA it requires a myriad of cells having to interact in a co-ordinated way, as if guided by a book of instructions. Consequently, the genetic program would have to be miraculously complete and detailed, of which there is no evidence. Although DNA is in fact a miraculously detailed programme for producing chemicals, molecules and cells, it does not appear to have the information to form those cells into a blade of grass or an elephant. The information that it does have is special to each and every one of us, as distinct as our fingerprints, coding for things like hair and eye colour, determining facial expression and personality.
We can all notice our family likenesses, which are clear evidence for heredity. It looks as if the whole blueprint, or book of instructions for growth and form, is in the DNA of every cell. This appears to be a reasonable assumption, which has been with us for 50 years, but, is this a likely scenario I ask? I think not. It has been shown that our genes are inherited, not necessarily the genes of our parents or grandparents and so on, but they have been shown to vary according to the lifestyle and environment of our parents. In fact the accepted doctrine that each species has its own fixed DNA is plainly wrong. Characteristics acquired by an individual during his life have been shown to alter his genome. For 50 years the idea of inheritance of acquired characteristics, which was attributed to John Baptiste Lamarck and endorsed by Charles Darwin, was decisively rejected in the West even though Russian scientists fully supported the idea. How could our geneticists have got so wrong an idea that Darwin regarded as a matter of common sense? The next chapter will answer this question.
Another problem is that it was assumed we would have more genes than any other species because of our superior intelligence. It was assumed we would have about three times the number of genes that were measured in rice, which has 38,000 genes; our gene count was only 25,000; but no one could explain why, and even worse, a chimps DNA is 98% the same as ours, which seems quite ridiculous. There must be something fundamentally wrong with the perceived science of genes and DNA. Similarly, there is talk of a gene for tallness, or one for a common disease. It's been found that genes just do not work like that; there is much disagreement as to which genes are 'for' a particular trait. Geneticists have spent over $100 billion trying to sort this out; but to no avail.
And of course there is non-coding DNA known as junk DNA, because it appears to do nothing. Surely there has to be an answer somewhere; but the scientists are completely befuddled.
There is another fundamental problem in the study of biology and that concerns mutations which can cause disease in an individual, or sometimes cause a change in the whole DNA of a family. Mutations cause changes in the genetic sequence of DNA, carrying the long term memory of information in every species. Some mutations cause disease and some are corrected. But they happen at an alarming rate, for example, the estimate for one mouse cell is 100,000 per day, due mainly to errors in DNA replication, like typos, although we are told they are proofread and repaired. When it comes to the question of how the error is identified and repaired it appears that the damage is recognised by enzymes1, which are substances that speed up chemical reactions. How could an enzyme recognise a faulty DNA sequence I ask? There’s something wrong here. It’s true that there is much science known of this system of checks and balances to repair DNA. The enzymes are known as DNA glycosylases and the repair is filled with ligase. But I think it’s not enough to show how the error is noticed in the first place.
Although our DNA holds the key to detailed variation of things like hair colour, personality and physical traits, it does not necessarily contain all the information for form, growth, regulation, regeneration and reproduction, which is what we have been told for 60 years.
The biologist, Rupert Sheldrake noted that the major problem is that every animal grows in the form of its species, but we don’t know how2. More than that, if it’s mutilated it will regrow in any one of various ways. In humans we do not generally regenerate lost limbs, although if a finger is amputated above the first joint it can sometimes re-grow exactly, even reproducing the fingerprint, but generally a lump of scar tissue is all that results. But plants show a great range of regeneration, even a worm will grow into two worms if cut in half. A surgically removed lens from the eye of a Newt will be miraculously restored in 30 days by a process completely different to the way it grew in the first place. That experiment was done to show that natural selection could not have caused the evolution of a regenerative process of this type, but it does also show that there is an amazing regrowth process, which is not part of DNA. So what is it that controls this regrowth?
It was expected that dividing the cells of sea urchin embryos at the two cell stage would result in half sea urchins, but instead they grew into complete sea urchins. The same procedure at the four cell stage produced four somewhat smaller sea urchins; something has to tell it to start again rather than grow into just half a sea urchin. For biologists to suggest that all growth and form is due to some mysterious self assembly process is just not good enough and is clearly not the answer.
It seems to me that genes and DNA can be no more than the indicators of detailed variations in the book of biological building instructions, rather than every cell being the whole book. So the question is: where is the book?
If we believe that the book of instructions for all growth is in the DNA, then it would explain the mystery of instinct, whereby innate behaviour patterns and natural skills appear out of nowhere. The fact is that biologists have not been able to find any mechanism for growth by examining DNA, let alone a mechanism that would copy instinctive information.
We tend to think of instinct as something belonging to the animal kingdom, something that we are above. But of course we have our own powerful instincts that largely control our actions. From birth, a child will start to recognise its mother and already knows about food. As we get older the instincts of love, hate and sex, all play a part. And of course animals are no different, although each species will have its own instinctive behaviour to suit its lifestyle and capabilities. My cat is somehow driven to catch birds and mice, even though it is perfectly well fed. Birds and fish are little different, even trees and plants are able to control their actions to make the most of their environment. Most people know about cuckoos; when they are young they fly to Africa to spend the winter in the warmer weather, but in the spring they return to where they were born, and then find another bird’s nest in which to lay their eggs. How and why they do it we just do not understand.
How all this complex information could possibly be arrived at from our digital code is a complete mystery – but there has to be a straightforward answer.
No less mysterious is our brain and mind. Other members of the animal kingdom have some level of consciousness, somewhat less than ours, but most of our attributes are shared by one species. We walk upright but so do monkeys, we have speech but so do some parrots, but to a lesser degree. Perception, goal directedness and creative intelligence are all seen in the animal kingdom, for which there is no explanation.
There are thousands of scientific papers on the various aspects of consciousness on the Internet, which have almost nothing to say about how grey matter works, and how it thinks. One paper, which appealed to me, said that to understand consciousness there needs to be an added ingredient, which I am sure, is true. Whatever could that added ingredient be, I ask?
Psychologists and scientists have spent much time and energy trying to understand the various examples of trance, some even denying its existence. But we all sleep and dream, so we all have a start at understanding it. Sorting out how and why has eluded the professional people, although I have published a book, Sublimity, with my own thoughts which I shall repeat in chapter 7. As well as dreaming, we can have lucid dreams which are dreams controlled consciously, or we can sleepwalk which is clearly unconscious. Many people deliberately relax into trance, which we call meditation, or we can have someone else guide us into meditation, known as hypnosis.
Then there is a range of experiences based on trance known collectively as mental illness, which is a form of trance that continues to defy the medical world. Other mysteries include mystical experience, healing, near death experiences and déjà vu. Another one that I find interesting is known as speaking in tongues – often encouraged in certain church environments. Here a person relaxes into a trance state, reverting to childhood speech that deepens the trance, sometimes bringing on an ecstatic enlightenment that is a strange but wonderful state of mind which is generally remembered for life.
Although not the complete list I am sure you will realise that trance is an enormous subject as well as difficult to understand. There have been many wild explanations and beliefs, brought about by misinterpretations of the evidence, but believe me it does not have to be thought mysterious; I believe there is a straightforward explanation. Then of course there’s telepathy.
Mind to Mind – and the Paranormal
If you believe in telepathy, as I do, then it’s true to say that it changes everything – but if you don’t, never mind – read on. In science there has always been a strict taboo against even mentioning the word telepathy. It’s said that science clearly shows that “There is no way it could happen, so it doesn’t happen”. Also, “All the evidence must be fraudulent, the result of poor experimentation, or just wishful thinking”. But could they be wrong?
The ether of space is like the paranormal in that you cannot see or measure it, so science has great difficulty understanding them both. Even Einstein once denied the existence of ether, but later he said “Space without the ether is unthinkable”. When a seemingly impossible observation was made in quantum mechanics he used the phrase “spooky action at a distance” reminiscent of his disbelief in telepathy, which shows that Einstein had a problem making sense of the things he could not see.
We certainly have not made much sense of quantum mechanics or the ether as yet, although it is often said that there is some relationship between telepathy, or cells speaking to cells, and the non-locality of quantum mechanics. The question is asked, how does one particle, molecule or cell, know the state of a linked particle, molecule or cell. We don’t know, but it might be due to something encoded in the particles concerned at quantum level. This has been on my mind for years; it’s all a question of weighing up the evidence but as yet there is little real evidence available to help. Some scientists have suggested some very strange theories based on imagination and mathematics, like parallel universes or multiple dimensions.
My childhood introduction to telepathy gave me an unwavering belief in its truthfulness, but as I grew up I heard about ghosts, spirits, hypnosis and reincarnation, none of which made any sense, all of which made me as sceptical as everyone else. The only one that seemed to tie up with other things I had learned about was a belief in spirits which was part of my religion. Being of an enquiring mind during my teens, I set about examining the truth in religion but it left me more sceptical than when I started. Later I joined the SPR [Society for Psychical Research] which examined about 20 different phenomena, one of which was spiritualism.
I’ve spent much time investigating the possibility of something remaining after we die; spirits or something else. My study of spiritualism reveals that there is much apparent evidence for something living on after death, evidence which should be taken as scientific, in that tests have shown that sometimes the information given by a medium could not be rationally explained; but none the less is correct. When it comes to spiritualism, could there be another channel for the information? We don’t necessarily have to invoke the spirits.
Another very strange thing that sometimes happens is that when a person is resuscitated from near death, they experience what is known as a near death experience [NDE]. A similar strange state of mind sometimes happens at any time, known as a mystical experience what’s going on? And could there be a relationship between these two?
My SPR studies included sitting up all night waiting for a ghost to appear, buying divining rods and attending lectures and conferences, all to no avail. I read about reincarnation, spoon bending, precognition, map dowsing, remote healing and psychic surgery, which all added to my general confusion while looking for a commonsense way they could possibly work. Those sceptical beliefs only changed extremely slowly, but this book may well allow a quick change in a reader’s point of view.
And what about reincarnation? Millions of people round the world believe in rebirth, or transmigration, which forms part of the faith of many religions. In the West reincarnation is generally regarded as a ridiculous superstition, which used to be my own belief. So why have I changed my mind?
In a word, the evidence. In the book Where Reincarnation and Biology Intersect, Ian Stevenson gives detailed evidence of 65 cases, and he collected over 2600 more. Typically, a child will remember a past life giving a name or place name. Often birthmarks or defects indicate the manner of death. This transfer of information to a child, rather like inheritance, is what has been interpreted as being reborn or reincarnated, but that might be misinterpretation of the evidence. Crazy as it sounds the evidence is there; proved beyond any reasonable doubt, using scientific methodology. It has been called one of the world’s greatest mysteries: more of which later. Reincarnation is just one of the psychic experiences investigated by the SPR that show no possible explanation.
There appears to be about 20 different quite separate phenomena that are labelled as paranormal, all supported by sound and often repeated evidence. Could it be that they all have a common root which I like to call mind to mind or cytotelesis? I’m sure it’s clear to you, the reader, that all these alleged phenomena don’t make any sense, sometimes being almost painful to read about.
Could there be a Carrier for Telepathy?
In common with some scientists, this statement troubled me for about 70 years, until I stumbled upon enough evidence to convince me that there was a carrier. The stock scientific comment is that an electromagnetic carrier would only work over a short distance, like magnetic attraction, or in scientific talk it would only be subject to the inverse square law. However, it might happen that the carrier has nothing at all to do with electromagnetism as we understand it – it could perhaps be more to do with quantum science, which is all pretty difficult to make sense of anyway.
Many have written about the possibility of quantum particles as being an answer, but there appears to be no likely mechanism. Rupert Sheldrake speaks of morphic fields and morphic resonance without giving any scientific or physical description, and Hans Driesch used the term entelechy to explain some life force. Long ago I coined the term cytotelesis to describe the same sort of thing, for which I had no answer at the time. The thought that there could be a carrier just did not make sense. Science condemns the possibility of there being a carrier as it is quite impossible. But there is sufficient evidence to show what the carrier is and the way it works.
This difficult and vexed question has troubled thinkers for over 2000 years. In 400 BC Aristotle wrote down his ideas on the subject, others added various theories until Erasmus Darwin wrote out his observations and theories, followed by his grandson Charles. He realised the importance of natural selection and suggested two important means by which diversity could be introduced. These were random mutations and the inheritance of characteristics altered by use or disuse, but 100 years later the idea of the inheritance of acquired characteristics was completely discredited, as it could not be reconciled with a fixed species DNA; leaving only mutations.
The accepted neo-Darwinian idea or modern synthesis is that chance mutations coupled with natural selection, accounts for the whole of evolution and it’s not a very good idea, like clutching at straws. Sir Fred Hoyle once compared this process of chance with the likelihood that “a tornado sweeping through a junkyard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein”. Clearly he was not a neo-Darwinian but a realist.
Today, the science of evolution is in a mess, because there is no acceptable mechanism available to explain diversity.
Is There a Solution?
This long list of things, that don’t make sense, appears to be paradoxical and difficult to understand because science has not been able to measure or see what is going on. Microbiological research has failed to discover ways in which the genetic code organises and controls growth, although at long last it’s been realised that there must be something more than the genetic code, hence the term epigenetic, meaning above genetics. Consciousness studies have been similarly fraught, with psychology and science being completely baffled when trying to make sense of mind. Parapsychologists have looked at the 20 inconceivable types of strange evidence and labelled it all as ‘paranormal’. Each one is a paradox; meaning in plain language, something completely absurd, but at the same time could be completely true. You will find that all the paradoxes noted in this chapter will be satisfactorily addressed in the rest of this book.
My 40 half hour Internet broadcasts3 set out to show that Paranormal is Normal by interviewing people who had experienced or studied paranormal experiences. I found that I could make sense of the paranormal by suggesting that the answer was cytotelesis, meaning cells speaking to cells across space and showing that the paranormal is normal.
I started with a puzzle about telepathy and gradually fitted more pieces. Each time I fitted a new piece to the puzzle I had an amazed feeling, a surprised and satisfying feeling, until gradually the whole picture emerged.
Ch 3 The Wonders of Biology
This chapter looks at the way biology has developed in the last 70 years, revealing that all is not well. I will explain how this happened, and what is wrong with the accepted view of biology. I will look at the new thinking in biology which raises more questions than it satisfactorily answers. I will try to be as accurate and honest in this overview as I am able, although I am an engineer, rather than a biologist, but you may well be surprised by some of the evidence presented. I hasten to say that much of the critical analysis of the science of biology is not of my making; I will quote from others with qualifications and experience, which I clearly lack.
It is generally assumed that DNA was discovered 60 years ago by Watson and Crick, but that isn’t correct. It was in 1869 that a Swiss chemist, Friedrich Meischer, discovered a strange protein in human puss which he called ‘neucleum’, which is now known as DNA. Over the years, and as this nucleic acid was studied, it was found to be an important part of all life. More research indicated that the prefix deoxyribo was needed leading to the name Deoxyribo Nucleic Acid [DNA], while Ribo Nucleic Acid [RNA], chromosomes and genes were found to be all part of the picture.
But 70 years ago it was generally thought that the seed of life was similar to the seed of a plant, gradually growing into a blade of grass or a tree. The Nobel prize-winner Erwin Schrödinger, said;1 “[_ It is these chromosomes...that contain, in some kind of code script, the entire pattern of the individual's future development and of its functioning in the mature state...they are the law- code and executive power- or, to use another simile, they are the architect's plan and builders craft- in one". _]
This was the accepted idea in 1944 being what was thought to be the key to all life. Nine years later, after discovering what the code script looked like and what it was made of, Francis Crick formed the reasonable hypothesis that the information in the code script was the architects plan and builders craft, which only flowed one way – out of DNA – not back. This he called the central Dogma meaning a central belief that cannot be doubted, which has been with us for about 60 years. Later he said he had used the word dogma, because he didn’t know what the word meant, and that the hypothesis “had little direct experimental support”. But that central Dogma has driven genetic science for 60 years with the whole field of science looking for a way in which the code script translates into life, as well as the false belief that information could not flow back into DNA.
Time has shown that they were all wrong. DNA is not like a very small seed that grows into a flower or a mouse; although both the flower and the mouse are in some unaccountable way dependent on their DNA; which of course is the great conundrum. How is it that the evidence of heredity shows us that family likenesses are passed on for several generations? It’s obvious to us all, that our DNA does contribute to the way we look and behave as individuals; consequently it’s a perfectly reasonable assumption that DNA controls the way we look and behave and the way we grow, the way our minds work and everything else that makes us what we are. But that assumption is wrong.
Clearly that comment needs careful explanation. Let’s start with the great conundrum, which led to the assumption that DNA must be the complete book of instructions
.Since Watson and Crick, the science of microbiology has completely changed what we know about life. Biology students are taught the wonderful details of the way proteins are manufactured by the genes, that determine the way cells split to form all details of life, where a single gene will be responsible for a specific feature, say eye colour, or for a particular type of behaviour. Therefore those genes are the blueprint for an organism’s form and behaviour where one gene will code for a single protein. These ideas, which have been spread by mass media, are the general perception – but they are in fact all common misunderstandings2, or to put it another way they are all wrong.
We are led to believe that every aspect of life is predicted by its genes and that single genes code for form and behaviour, in other words there is a gene for blue eyes, fat stomach or being gay. Another misunderstanding is that genes provide the blueprint, in the same way that an architect provides the blueprint to describe where all the different parts of the building are placed. These commonly held traditional misbeliefs are entirely without foundation, but unfortunately they never get corrected.
Looking closely at the blueprint, we see that the words on it are written in strange lettering that is difficult to understand. Then let’s imagine we decode those words, which tells us how to build a computer. The parts are all produced, which are then put into a large heap. The computer engineers then tell us that all parts in the heap have miraculously assembled themselves, automatically, to produce the computer; which we all know is science fiction. Sadly this story is exactly the same as the current situation in biology. There has been great hope that an automatic mechanism could be found by looking at the minutest details of genes and the strange code in the DNA, which seems to make less sense the more we look.
It can be seen that our DNA is 98% the same as a chimpanzee and 80% is apparently useless junk, which is composed mainly of repeating pieces of DNA from viruses and bacteria, which sometimes float around.[transposons]
It is said that our genes make the body’s cells, but the DNA code is first translated into another code called RNA which then produces chemicals on which new cells grow. The complication is almost endless, nevertheless 50 years of intense study has revealed what can be seen of the chemistry of life.
Cells and Genes
This section, which commences with some of the history of early life, reveals some of the function and structure of cells leading onto an outline of discoveries of the genetic code. We are all familiar with the fact that our genes are a chemical code written into our DNA, but what is not general knowledge is that DNA is a modern system in evolutionary terms. Before that there was only RNA using different chemicals, similar to DNA, but was sufficient for early life. RNA is generally a single stranded molecule, while DNA is twisted double strands which has proved to be a more efficient system so is now used almost universally, although life still has to rely on its proteins produced by RNA. Therefore in most life the DNA code has to be translated into RNA code before proteins are produced to make cells.
This situation has come about because DNA has not evolved a system to produce its own proteins ever since life began. Similarly, as every species evolves, it produces extensions to its DNA, which are not deleted; hence the large size of DNA in the more advanced species. Where evolution of the species has changed back and forth over time its DNA increases; hence rice has more genes than a human, but it’s mainly detritus or junk.
Biologists and microbiologists have made amazing advances in the understanding of various forms of life, where the main driving force has been to uncover the mechanism of life. The standard textbook3 that reveals details of the chemistry involved is called Molecular Biology of the Cell. When giving information regarding how genes regulate cell growth and division in human body they say the processes are ‘poorly understood’. In another place they ask the question what factors are responsible for cell growth, and say these questions are ‘largely unanswered’. Similarly, analysis of the chemistry of extracellular control of cell division shows that it is not DNA but ‘uncertain mechanisms’ that control all life.
For me those words are a fundamental admission that something is wrong, although when it comes to teaching molecular biology, this textbook cannot be faulted.
I am mindful that I’m acting as a media reporter who writes, as most reporters do, by selectively reporting. So I should ask myself, am I giving an accurate message by selecting evidence which shows that microbiologists have in no way been able to show a mechanism by which cells correctly divide, leading to any sort of life? Try as I might, there seems to be a complete lack of evidence in this area. Yes, I accept that I use selective reporting to make my point as forcibly and accurately as I am able, but I ask myself should I have tried to present the other side of the argument. My quotations from Molecular Biology of the Cell had been selected to show that great efforts have been made to find and present a mechanism, which on paper shows that there may be a chemical mechanism but in the end it comes down to uncertain mechanisms of self-assembly.
I am a complete amateur when it comes to molecular biology although I have picked up a few facts along the way. Our blood carries hormones, which are chemical messengers carrying essential information to regulate things such as digestion, respiration, sleep, excretion, stress, mood, growth and development. Clearly they work by chemical means, but there also appears to be some other mechanism which is difficult to understand, almost magic. Something must control, heart, breathing, food digestion and excretion; it has to be an inbuilt control system from brain.
Another almost magic thing is observed in the animal world, where growth happens in a completely different way to us. Sponges proliferate by various means, but if a sponge is thoroughly mashed up it will automatically grow again from the pieces. Also if a worm is cut in half it will automatically grow into two worms.
All these forms of growth are due to the process by which a cell changes from one type to another [cellular differentiation], that can happen at any stage of an animal’s life. The incredible thing is that every cell in an animal’s body, which may be one of 200 different types, is controlled by the same DNA selecting bits of itself to make a special RNA, which then produces the necessary protein. So, microbiologists have steadfastly looked closer and closer into the cells, looking for an explanatory mechanism.
The cell and outer casing [membrane] is very sophisticated, in that it allows various molecules and chemicals to pass through it, in order to feed the various systems inside the cell. This membrane is consequently sometimes called the ‘mem – brain’. In an article about membrane4 it says; “Flippases and scramblases concentrate phosphatidyl serine, which carries a negative charge, on the membrane. Along with NANA, this creates an extra barrier to charged moities moving through the membrane”, that’s if you know the meaning of those clever words. I am afraid I don’t.
One of the important features within the cell is the powerhouse [mitochondria] producing the necessary chemical energy for muscle movement or brain signalling. Liver cells need much power so have over 2000 mitochondria cells in each liver cell, but some cells have only one. In the days when RNA ruled the world the mitochondria system was outside the cell, but later it moved into a safer environment which allowed life forms to become larger and more complex.
Other features inside cells are a molecular machine for protein manufacture [ribosome], which creates protein from RNA. Another item is the machinery that physically moves things about, [microtubules] both inside and outside the cell. These are very minute tubes that physically organise the splitting of the nucleus when a cell divides and forces the membrane to split into two cells.
Microtubule biology is amazing, dating back to 1903, but it was another 100 years before they were properly researched. They are semiconductors with one end negatively charged, generally pointing to the nucleus. Microtubules outside the cell [cilia] are sometimes used as waving paddles to give movement to a single celled creature [paramecium] where they also seem to give the creature a degree of intelligence. In humans, the synapses of brain neurons and nerve cells are microtubules, as are the tails of human sperm.
All these complications are endless, but are nothing compared with the cell nucleus itself which houses a long strand of DNA, that is the well-known double helix chemical code. During the process of cell splitting the two strands of DNA unzip, copying themselves, then reform into two identical double helixes [DNA replication]. But the copy is not necessarily identical as various errors might be introduced; for instance there may be gaps, insertions, deletions or damage due to radiation, which are all known as mutations. Some say that the resulting diversity in the form of mutated animals is the fundamental force in evolution when combined with the mechanism of natural selection. Sorry, I can’t agree.
Researchers have studied the causes and effects of mutation and concluded there must be an automatic system of checks and balances to repair any errors, but this would require memory and computation to identify the error. Two most unlikely mechanisms are proposed to identify the repair. One is that the chromosome itself is used as a template – to my mind impossible, and the other is that an enzyme [DNA Ligase 1V] does the identification. Although the enzyme may be seen to be present, during the repair, it doesn’t mean that it identifies the detail of the error and carries out the repair. Yet another unlikely proposal shows that it is special proteins [Mut S and Mut I] that sense the incorrect section of DNA, which is subsequently removed and replaced by a correct section. One or other of these suggestions may be correct but they are only observations of chemical changes that indicate possible mechanisms, not the actual mechanisms. Surely, there must be some other unknown mechanism to find errors.
As well as the complications we have discovered relating to cells and genes, biologists have studied the growth and evolution of hundreds of different species of the animal world; which is my next topic.
From Single Cell to Man
To start with, early life composed of small single cells with no nucleus [prokaryotes], they were bacteria and similar cells, gradually evolving to larger multi-cells, each with a nucleus [eukaryotes], these were plants and animals, having the genetic information stored in a nucleus, I say genetic information because originally it was RNA and later changed to DNA, in fact before the more efficient DNA came along, everything used the RNA coding system to control life. This time was about 2 billion years ago, known as the RNA world.
In outlining that simple summary I had to be very careful because nowadays some prokaryotes are multi-cells using RNA, and some eukaryotes are single cells with DNA; life has tried all possible ways to change, in order to evolve into being a better survivor.
So, in order to outline the evolution from single cell to man, I will first discuss the single celled bacteria, then a single celled pond creature called paramecium, then man, the animal we understand the best.
Bacteria, slimes and moulds, ruled for 2500 million years, without much change, using a few simple nutrients taken from where they lived, probably increasing in numbers by division, which started about 4 billion years ago. Sometime later a code system evolved [RNA] which is thought to be a book of instructions to build its offspring; or could it be that something else arranged the building work?
But the big change came with the evolution of a single celled creature, for example a paramecium, which swims in our garden ponds today, and has layer upon layer of complexity exhibiting all the intelligence needed to survive in its environment. A paramecium is quite fascinating, its only about 0.25mm in length, so can be seen if you have good eyesight, and it is covered by many tiny hairs [cilia] which it beats in order to swim to find its food, which is mostly bacteria, algae or yeasts; perhaps eating 5000 a day. If it bumps into a solid object it will beat its cilia the other way to reverse, then turn and swim away but has no sense of sight, taste, touch or hearing. The paramecium stores hundreds of copies of its own DNA [macronuclear] in one area, and separately other DNA [micronuclear] which is used for division to produce young. It has a mouth, gullet, stomach [vacuole] and anal pore; which amazingly is all in a creature only 0.25 mm long. It is prey to water fleas and worms, but mainly to another smaller single celled creature [didinium] which will devour a paramecium every few hours. Being a single cell limits the paramecium’s possibilities.
Cells then started to group together eventually leading to cell specialisation. Plants are multicellular, which enable them to become very large with roots to take up water, and leaves where different cells capture the sun’s energy. It’s having a large array of specialised cells that has allowed plants to live in all climates and to have flowers which can be pollinated to distribute seeds containing their DNA.
And that brings us to my personal interest, the bees, which I've kept for many years; sometimes as many as 2 million of them. It's the very special lifestyle they have, that has ensured they have remained unchanged for millions of years. Each colony is run by about 50,000 females who have sufficient intelligence to perform about 30 different tasks during their life. As with all insects, they grow through four stages; eggs, then larvae which are just eating machines, then a chrysalis, during which the grub completely transforms into a bee, which then chews its way out of the wax cell. One large female, the queen, will lay perhaps 1200 eggs a day. They are nearly all females, but about 1% will turn out males. The male [drone] eggs are unfertilised so have only the mother's chromosomes [haploid] whereas the workers all have a father [diploid].
There are two reasons why the honeybee has been so successful, firstly, the use of multiple mating, which ensures that there is no possibility of inbreeding because nurse bees remove any haploid larvae. Secondly, it seems to me that there is no possibility of mutation damage or disease causing changes in the honeybee evolution, because drone’s DNA has to be a copy of a successful queen. The normal sexual method of reproduction in nearly all animals has ensured that Darwin’s theory of evolution by dissent with modification, plus natural selection, has contributed to our knowledge of evolution of mammals and to man.
The thing we don’t like to accept is that we are just a single celled creature ourselves, which has learned to be very efficient by repeated division of our original cell, eventually dividing into 100 trillion cells during our lifetime.
After the first 24 hours, our single cell divided to make two cells, and by the next day we were 14 cells some of which were specialised. The next day we were a bunch of cells [blastocyst] but by week three our cells had formed into three layers, which folded into head, body, and the start of limbs, with a beating heart by week five. It’s all quite incredible, but that system of growth from a single cell to a mammal has been no different for the last 200 million years.
The big question is; how? We just don’t know, even though biologists can explain the chemistry of every stage, all the way from the DNA to proteins, and then all the details of the growing fetus by looking closely at every stage to see what is going on. Of course, this cannot be done with a human fetus and embryo, but the growth of a young mouse is very similar, even though it happens much faster. Much intense work has revealed the detail of embryonic mice at various stages, either by microscopic examination, or by growing cells and parts in laboratory Petri dishes, under carefully controlled conditions. Not very nice to think about, but we do now understand the chemistry of what goes on, even though the mechanism of growth remains mysterious. Many biologists are saying that it’s only a matter of time and work before the mystery will be revealed. It’s time to accept that there must be something else which is acting on the proteins coded by the DNA and RNA, not only the protein in the embryo but right back to the fertilisation of the original cell. It’s not reasonable to suggest that it all happens as if by magic or even self assembly.
Even if the chemistry could be explained we would still need to start again to explain consciousness and instinct. Remember that each of my bees, which grow in three weeks from an egg, so small that three will sit on a pinhead, then chews itself out of its wax enclosure, can see, walk and fly, as well as have programs for 30 instinctive actions.
These instinctive memories they cannot learn or be taught, hence my oft repeated comment; there must be something else to act alongside DNA. Similarly a human embryo will grow from a single cell by repeated divisions, splitting into the correct type of cell, which may be into any one of 200 different possibilities. Similarly, when the brain is growing something else must tell the neuron cells how to arrange themselves, so that they are already programmed with instinctive information. Despite this, the accepted belief is that DNA is the instruction for growth, life, and consciousness by means of its inbuilt genetic program, which has not changed for thousands of years, as there is no reasonable mechanism by which the DNA could change. We now have to admit that there has to be another model to show how a single fertilised human cell grows into the creature with which we are all familiar. In the sea of evidence about cells and genes scientists have discovered details of the amazing process which controls the way an organism develops its shape [morphogenesis]. These details have become lost in the sea of evidence. Let’s look at what has been discovered.
Process of Growth [Morphogenesis]
There is now enough evidence to present a model showing how all cell division and growth is achieved, anything from a single celled paramecium, to a blue whale. That evidence concerns microtubules and stem cells, so what’s so special about microtubules?
All cellular life from fishes, to plants and animals, relies on the microtubules to organise the process of cell splitting. Inside the single celled pond creature paramecium, microtubules arrange the mechanism of dividing the cell for replication, as well as organising its swim paddles [cilia], which are microtubules. A blue whale, when it is a single fertilised cell, relies on that same splitting procedure to repeatedly divide cells, which arrange themselves ‘automatically’ into a blue whale. Similarly, all animals must have microtubules in every cell, which is the only thing that universally organises the process of growth. This is a very fundamental truth, which has been lost in a sea of evidence, about which we have very little understanding.
Brain cells have long microtubules, [axons] that we call nerves, passing information to and from all parts of the body. In the early fetus the first nerve fibres appear within days. A mouse fetus has a well-developed central nerve by day nine, composed of microtubules.
Despite the best efforts of molecular biologists no likely mechanism has been found by which DNA contributes to the growth of a plant or an animal, although it is clear that microtubules are involved in the process of growth in several ways. Firstly, in every cell microtubules receive the information to select which type of cell to change into [differentiate], as well as to group together within the cell to physically organise its splitting, by bunching together in large numbers [spindle apparatus]. Secondly; the brain itself relies on communication to and from neurons, from the sense organs of sight, sound, taste and touch, as well as memory and other neurons in the brain and mind to create consciousness, and thirdly, every cell divides, or not, in accordance with information from the local stem cell which is a vital part of the growth process. It seems also that those non-mobile microtubules [primary cilia] are involved, but there is no indication how this might be.
Our central nervous system, passing down the spine, contains billions of microtubules, each of which is a hollow bundle of 13 separate tubes; the optic nerve alone has 1.3 million fibres. These nerves connect with all areas of the body, 200 of which have been identified and named. If I burn my finger, the nerves will tell my brain which registers pain, and then other nerves tell my hand muscles to move my fingers. Recent research indicates that the sensing elements of sight, sound, taste and smell, are all microtubules.
We are aware that in 1781, frog’s legs were used to first identify electricity by applying a voltage to the nerve. From then on, we have been told that nerves work by electricity; but the sad fact is that we have learned little in the meantime. We have virtually no idea how and why microtubules work, even though they are without question the most fundamental part of life, and are known to be common to all life. In fact they are fundamental to all life.
There are two different types of microtubules. Firstly, there are tubes that bend or move, composed of 13 tubules. Secondly, those that are static, but composed of 9 rows of 3, arranged as a circular pipe of 27 microtubules. Basically, the 13 tube type have visible connections to DNA, also move in a co-ordinated way to arrange the splitting of a cell during growth or repair, but the 27 tube type [primary cilium], an unmoving structure, connects to the 13 tube type within the cell [in the centriole], but generally protrude through the cell wall. It has been suggested that it is in some way the brain of the cell being critical for cellular communication in fetal development, as well as organising all cell division. Nearly all mammal cells have a primary cilium protruding from the cell membrane, which is the same for brain cells. Having said that, there is little else known of the primary cilium, what it’s for or how it works.
Another fundamental mechanism, in the process of growth, is the stem cell, which mysteriously splits into any one of the 200 types of human cell in the process of growth. Instructions from microtubules within the cell select the correct type of cell to be produced, at the right time, as well as producing that cell in the correct part of the body; all as if by magic.
But stem cells are not magic; we know much about them, we know they are the foundation of development in plants and animals, although unfortunately we don’t know everything. They can renew themselves and are the first to appear, can divide into any type of cell, or stem cell, [pluripotent cells]. Later, tissue-specific stem cells [multipotent] divide only into the various cells in a tissue or organ.
Each cell has its own size and structure, for example, liver cells, bone or skin cells all have multipotent stem cells that produce the range of cells in the liver, bone or skin. This is where the magic comes in; we don’t understand what organises stem cells or creates different types, all we do know is that they communicate with our brain through nerves [microtubules]. It is said that the organising comes from DNA, but no one has ever said how, so it’s reasonable to suppose that something else does the organising.
Clearly there has to be a master plan to control and limit the operation of stem cells in each tissue or organ. To me it seems this plan must be within the brain, as microtubules from all stem cells, connect to brain.
You will realise that my model of growth relies on cytotelesis, that is, cells talking to each other between members of the species. As I see it, this is the only possible and plausible mechanism of growth, which has to rely on some method of information flow between microtubules. In later chapters I’ll give evidence of a possible quantum explanation, together with much evidence of brain cells transferring information to remote brain cells, which is the mechanism of instinctive information transfer, relying on cells to cell transfer of information, by microtubules and cytotelesis.
The study of morphogenesis, which is the study of the processes by which animals and plants grow and develop [ontogeny], has been given various names; cell signalling, developmental biology and signal transmission. The latter, dates from 1972, but by 2007 no less than 48,377 scientific papers had been presented on the subject. Another topic of study has been cell signalling where many examples of signalling are published showing the chemistry, but not detailing the way the system actually works. All this work examined the chemistry of signalling molecules, without any fundamental knowledge of how or why.
Scientific descriptions of the growth processes have inevitably led to admissions of failure. In a paper on plant morphogenesis5 it notes that, the fundamental principles of development and tissue organisation ‘is essentially missing’. A paper on microtubules6 and the regulation of gene expression says; ‘However, the signal transfer production mechanisms involved in this communication are little understood’. In another paper, on the analysis of axon growth, it suggests that the regulation of this process ‘is poorly understood’; and later, ‘the mechanism of this activity is still mysterious’.
Surely this indicates, that although microtubules and stem cells are at the heart of the problem of growth, the manner in which information is imparted to cells is unknown to science. It has always been thought that DNA was the complete source of that information, only because there was no obvious alternative mechanism or model.
All DNA is best thought of as a barcode, albeit a very long one. By now we have found an incredible amount of detail about it; how it unzips itself in the process of replication, all about its chemical constituents, how the RNA makes the actual chemicals necessary, and so on. The study of these complications has gone on endlessly in an effort to find out how and why, but the fact is we’ve not found much real evidence to show what it does, or does not do, and why there is so much we still do not understand.
Many years ago we were saying that the barcode contains the book of instructions to build a tree or a primate, also that individual genes described individual features. Unfortunately, this has all been shown to be incorrect. It might then be useful to ask ourselves, what evidence have we obtained to show how the barcode featured in the survival of early life?
As far as we know, 3.8 billion years ago, bacteria and algae evolved and probably relied on some sort of memory to aid growth and replication which was stored as a chemical code [RNA] but importantly the code also had to store the information of changes due to changes in the environment. As different types and species of bacteria and algae evolved, their barcode recorded differences between one type of algae and another.
Then as multicellular life evolved, the past history of each species was retained in its RNA, along with new information about the various stages of growth of each species that is shown by the evidence, which is not disputed by the majority of scientists. This history recorded in the RNA is often called the detritus of evolution or junk, and now that RNA has been largely replaced by DNA we refer to it as junk DNA, but its presence and understanding has caused much difficulty for science.
The sections of the barcode which appear to be useful [coding DNA] have been studied in great detail in the hope that they might be better understood, and now even junk [non-coding DNA] is being studied at great expense [by Encode].
It’s been found that one thousandth of our barcode is special to each and every one of us, which can be isolated and identified, by a DNA test which is used to test for parentage, or individual identification in a court of law, where DNA is left at the scene of a crime.
The rest of our barcode which is equivalent to about 3 billion letters, that's the same as 155 copies of the Christian Bible, is composed of about 2% coding and 85% of non-coding or junk DNA, the junk section is the topic of much scientific discussion; is it junk or not? The evidence is clear that most of it has to be rubbish, accumulated over time, although some may have a purpose, including several types of RNA. The rest of the detritus is composed of 20% pseudogenes, 12% introns, 45% transposons, and 8% parts copied from viruses, as well as useless repeat sequences. Many of these are millions of years old and have suffered from mutation damage, so are consequently barely recognisable.
There appears to be no logical reason for the variations in the amount of non-coding DNA among different species, except to say that early life had not accumulated it, whereas complicated life for instance primates, have accumulated a vast amount over time.
Also there is no logical reason why the total size of coding DNA of a species bears no relationship to its complexity [C value paradox]. An example is that two very similar varieties of paramecium have genes that vary by 45 times; it just doesn’t make any sense.
All that can be deduced from this evidence, is that early life accumulated no junk, but over time complicated species had much rubbish added to their barcode, while needing comparatively little coding DNA, that describes only the differences and is not the architect. Perhaps one could say that DNA is the Differences Not Architect; which is perhaps a more accurate description, as no mechanism or architect has ever been found, despite almost unlimited money having been spent.
Could it be that our coding DNA genes are there, only to identify our species, our race or tribe, and our family, as well as provide our personal individual identity, being a mixture of our two parental families? The information regarding tribe and family obviously provides the details to account for personal identity, creating personal details that we identify as heredity. This we know produces details such as skin colour, hair colour, physical traits as well as personality, but we have not discovered how it happens. This is perhaps the only obvious useful purpose of our genes, although the barcode length increases, just because it always has, and in a random unaccountable way that could relate to the success of a particular species, or where food is abundant. Where food is minimal perhaps that retards growth of junk DNA. If food is abundant it is more likely that there will be changes to an organism.
For many years it’s been said that we have a gene for skin colour, hair colour, physical traits and personality, but our genome just doesn’t work like that. For these traits there is at least 25 and possibly hundreds of genes7, which makes nonsense of the ‘genes for’ idea.
Similarly, it was thought that analysis of a genome would give personal medical indications of susceptibility to particular illness which might aid treatment. This was thought to be a good idea but with little or no foundation in fact. Tim Spector who is a Prof of Genetic Epigenealogy at Kings College London, decided to have his own DNA checked by two companies in the field to compare his personalised genetics results. He said in his book8 that ‘each common disease was controlled not by one gene but by hundreds or even thousands of genes…. another consequence was that for common diseases these gene tests were pretty useless for prediction…’
Despite this great difficulty in understanding in what way particular genes alter our life, the scientific evidence is that a person’s lifestyle is handed down to children for several generations by altering genes. Evidence has shown that the barcode is a recording device, but we have no idea how; and then we can only make guesses as to how this recording device plays back to alter the development of our children.
Our understanding of the observed details of the barcode, and what it’s for, appears as only the flow of a river, which may be long or short, gathering water from many streams, flowing aimlessly, with its origin lost in history, but is now carrying many different types of fish, even fishermen’s hereditary details, and still more that we don’t understand. In this analogy I have tried to show that the barcode seems to make no sense, which unfortunately is the fact of the matter.
I suggest that a different model is required for our understanding of the secret of life, based on the reality of what has been discovered about DNA, rather than how it was perceived 70 years ago. We have certainly moved on with our study of the barcode even though scientists have had to ignore the awkward problem, like how 100 trillion identical DNA’s in our body produce 200 different types of cell during the process of growth.
Quoting Tim Spector again9; “So something else must be going on that make cells different – something that can’t be driven by the genes themselves. This ability to signal genes to perform different functions and make different tissues has to be coming from the cell itself”. I like the use of my favourite phrase ‘something else’, but I do not agree that the signal has to come from the cell’s DNA. Just suppose the signal comes from elsewhere, with the barcode making the connection to the relevant database.
Darwin said, and proved, that an animal may change due to the use or disuse of the limbs or beaks of its parents, which he said, was clearly a matter of common sense; but today many ignore his evidence, claiming that all evolution has been caused by mutations. Having arrived at this situation, there needs to be a reasoned explanation as to how Darwin’s evidence could be reconciled with explanations of the inheritance of parental life changes or acquired inheritance.
One model shows that gene switches might alter the action of DNA; which is my next topic.
Darwin’s common sense, as well as his evidence of changes in the Galapagos, shows us that form and habits can change over time, but this does not accord with the permanence of DNA. Science has overcome this puzzle by suggesting that the answer is epigenetics, which means in very broad terms, over and around genetics, or mechanisms other than changes in the underlying DNA sequence. These mechanisms could switch the way genes affect the operation of DNA. [DNA methyltransferase]
In order to explain how genes organise the progress of growth, epigenetics states that the DNA genes are switched on or off by proteins manufactured by the junk DNA. This idea has become necessary because of the mounting evidence that changes in human lifestyle, environment, thoughts and deeds are passed on for several generations as suggested by Lamarck in 1809. His theory is the same as saying that DNA has a recording system, which in some way alters the operation of DNA in the following generations. There is plenty of evidence to show that this is the case in nature, for example selective breeding has produced all the different types of dogs, and in fact the whole of evolution has relied on this system. Science has had to come to terms with the fact that this revelation has shattered the central dogma, leaving a rather unfortunate scientific mess.
Jon Baptiste Chevalier de Lamarck was unable to describe how characteristics, thoughts and deeds are passed down through generations, but he was quite sure he was right. His theory of evolution by inheritance of acquired characteristics was acceptable to some, including Charles Darwin, but many preferred the notion of Divine Creation. In consequence, Lamarck is generally remembered for his highly criticised theory, even in France he was ridiculed and then forgotten. Eventually he died penniless and blind, being buried in an unmarked pauper’s grave.
The science of epigenetics has assumed that there is some system of recording data onto the barcode, and the study of epigenetics endeavours to unravel the mystery of how these recordings effect the growth and activity of members of a particular species. These studies try to relate life to detail in the DNA, both coding and non-coding, by studying the chemistry of the processes involved.
When I look at epigenetics10 I see there are five definitions for epigenetics that is five ways of approaching the problem, plus a long list of mechanisms, which are the results of tests showing the observed chemical changes that supposedly drive the epigenetic mechanisms of change to the DNA code. The study of these chemical changes revealed that there are three main mechanisms by which changes occur; The first is; methylation of the DNA base; then, changes in the support [histones[ of the chromosomes, and three; special regulating messages [mRNA’s] that bind to the target genes.
In order to give a flavour of the level of detail studied, I would like to quote from one at random11. ‘It has been shown that the histone lysine methyltransferase [KMT] is responsible for this methylation activity in the pattern of histones H3 and H4. This enzyme utilises a catalytically active site called the SET domain (suppressor of variegation, enhancer of zest, trythorax). The SET domain is a 130-amino acid sequence involved in the modulating gene activities. This domain has been demonstrated to bind to the histone tail and causes the methylation of the histone’. By Jenuwein T Laible et al. January 1988.
I have to say, it seems to me that the chemical changes observed are the results of change, rather than the cause of change. Might it be that some other mechanism, which organises all growth is responsible for these chemical changes? In order to get epigenetics in perspective we should look now at some of the evidence, which has necessitated this fundamental change in scientific opinion, regarding the idea that DNA is the information source of life.
The evidence often quoted is that when a type of mouse [agouti] has offspring, they alter in size and coat colour, depending on how the mother is fed during pregnancy. Later, when her offspring have young, during a normal feeding regime, their young will be the same as their parents, and so on for several generations. Another test which showed epigenetic results, [trans-generational inheritance], was on chickens whose parents were subjected to irregular lighting, causing them to alter their feeding style at the time the eggs were laid. It was found that the resulting chickens inherited the altered feeding style.
Similar results have been noted in man. Mothers in Holland who were undernourished, because of war conditions during the first three months of pregnancy, produced babies who in later life tended to be obese; as were their children. Records show that in Sweden, boys who were undernourished, fathered boys that had a tendency to blood pressure and heart problems in later life. All these cases, which are well documented, are examples of trans-generational inheritance, or to use Lamarck’s words; inheritance of acquired characteristics.
It is claimed that queen bees are a classic example of epigenetics where overfeeding changes the action of DNA and genes. But there is a very different way of looking at this. All insects grow through four stages; eggs, larvae, chrysalis and adults, whether it is a butterfly, a wasp or a honeybee. At the larval stage they are just eating machines so when mature they pupate and emerge as an insect. The queen bee is no different, she is fed Royal Jelly all her life, but a worker bee has it only for the first three days before going on to pollen and honey, so it is stunted. Microbiologists, in the miss belief that the Royal Jelly changes a normal bee into a queen, have studied the genetics of bees and queens and have shown that the chemistry proves that growth is an epigenetic process. In my opinion they have only shown the detailed chemistry of the process of growing a worker or a queen, where nature does the actual growing process. By nature I mean some process which does not rely on gene switches, known as epigenetics.
The first person to talk about and use the term developmental epigenetics was Hal Waddington; and that was 80 years ago. He expressed the belief that mutations could not account for evolution and that ‘something else’, epigenetics, explained all. His ideas also laid the foundation for Systems Biology which is based on researching the integration of ideas, rather than ever more reductionism which seems to have failed to deliver the fundamental answers. Systems Biology is now an industry with 141 research groups listed12 showing the worldwide determination to understand the workings of 13 separate disciplines, one of which is epigenetics. I can’t help thinking that they are busy looking in the wrong place, for the wrong mechanism, in the wrong way, which is perhaps borne out by the lack of concrete results; or am I being unreasonable?
The main problem is how could lifestyle, thoughts and deeds, be imprinted on genes? It is said that genes are epigenetically marked by information held in DNA, then passed down through generations to turn on or off other genes, although this seems to be merely a possible mechanism, without any evidence or even an idea, as to how genes are epigenetically marked.
Epigenetics appears to cause subtle differences to the operation of the genetic code, although there is no real evidence to show how it works. Could it be that we are looking at the results of change, rather than the mechanisms of change, organised by something else. It’s claimed that the chemical evidence of epigenetics is one of the keys to explaining the mystery of life which is very true; but I’m sure there is a missing link.
It is said that genes are switched on or off by ‘regulating elements’ or ‘regulatory proteins’ which cause changes in gene expression. It’s all pretty vague as shown in some of the papers I have read. One paper13 on cellular differentiation and the role of cell signalling it says; ‘Interestingly, little direct data is available…. and the majority of current knowledge consist of speculations on plausible candidate regulators’, and later; ‘In summary, the role of signalling in the epigenetic control of cell fate in mammals is largely unknown’.
Another highly researched method, by which different cells are made from the same DNA, is due to a supposed method of regulatory gene expression by a protein [transcription factor] that bonds to specific DNA sequences, thereby controlling the rate of transcription to RNA. I don’t doubt that there is a special protein seen during this ‘epigenetic’ process, but there has never been any evidence regarding where it comes from or how it works.
It would seem that epigenetics consists of speculation backed up by the evidence of chemical changes observed during the mechanisms of growth, rather than evidence of a mechanism producing the growth. Surely, epigenetics is not the correct model for explaining the observations made by Lamarck over 200 years ago.
In this search for a mechanism, that creates life from DNA, we have stretched the science of microbiology beyond what is reasonable. We must now accept that the brilliant breaking of the DNA code has failed to produce the answers explaining how and why we can make any sense of the process of growth.
Even though this section may read like science fiction, it is in fact a reasoned model of life and consciousness, based on evidence that I have accumulated over many years. Just suppose, that there is a straightforward answer to Life and Consciousness, which is that information can flow between individuals within a species, by the process I call cytotelesis, including all species from bacteria, fishes, plants, insects, to mammals, which of course includes man. This offers an explanation for all growth by self-assembly from the species blueprint.
It turns out that all life has one common controlling element, in a word microtubules; and they are at the heart of all life. In animals the microtubules form a nerve centre within each cell [centrosome], but externally they extend to each bodily cell, forming nerves, connecting all cells to a nerve centre [brain]. The non-moving microtubules [primary cilia] otherwise known as the antenna because they look like some form of aerial and are possibly implicated in cell signalling, must have some function. Just suppose that they are in fact the antenna, which sends and receives the information of morphogenesis, heredity and instinct; in other words they supply the book of instructions for life and consciousness; rather like that modern mechanism of 3D printing.
That simplistic view of microtubules, and how they are the centre of all life, is in fact how things really are. Cells connect to other cells within an organism via microtubules, for example; if I prick my finger, nerves connect to brain, the information goes across brain, then down again to muscles; but as well as that, just suppose that the microtubules connect between each organism within a species during the process of growth. This movement of information between different members of a species is the building mechanism of life [architect], controlling the shape and form of limbs, organs and brain.
It means that all members of a species are basically clones during early fetal growth, but inheriting tribal and family differences from parents, varied by changes in the environment and behaviour. These inherited differences are added to the self assembly information from the species blueprint in the late stages of growth in the womb, not as is generally thought by the DNA, but governed by the flow of information received by the primary cilia microtubules. Movement of information between different members of a species is sent on a carrier, something like radio, where we can now see sufficient evidence.
Imagine that information is transferred by the carrier into a fetal brain, giving the building plan for growth by self-assembly through nerves and stem cells. Although I used the word ‘self-assembly’, in fact it’s the stem cells that produce the necessary cells, using chemicals as selected by DNA and RNA. The stem cells produce the type of cells necessary, and in the right place, in accordance with the highly detailed building plan. As growth proceeds that building plan changes, all the way through birth and puberty, to old age. To my mind this model is a reasonable explanation for all growth, using self assembly to a downloaded building plan, and is in accordance with the evidence. It applies to all life, from a single celled creature, to a blade of grass, or an elephant.
Of course another important element of transmitting and receiving the life information is that it is only available between members of the same species, race, tribe and family, where the DNA code works like a lock and key. This revolutionary idea answers many questions, previously unanswered, but at the same time agrees with all the evidence available.
A honeybee, which grows from an egg in three weeks, can see, walk and fly, all controlled from a small brain, which is already built with operating instructions for its eyes, legs and wings, but much more than that, it has instructions for almost 30 different behaviours [instincts]. These instructions are freely available from the world of the honeybee by microtubules transmitting and receiving information.
Likewise, the growth of a mouse or a man is controlled by instructions from the members of its species as well as supplying hereditary and instinctive information. Despite the best endeavours of scientists it is not possible to conceive of any other system, for either a mouse, or a man, that controls the shape of limbs and internal organs, as well as a system for constructing the amazing mechanism of a brain, complete with operating system and instinct; DNA plays only a small part. The only functions of DNA are to accept information that only relates to its species, tribe and family, as well as coding for the correct proteins needed when a cell splits during the process of growth. It seems clear that microtubules are able to move information of species form etc, from one member of the species to another, especially during early growth. That applies to all organisation, from the single fertilised cell, through to birth and beyond.
At the start of a human life, on day four, the small group of cells [blastocyst] has 10 to 20 stem cells. Could it be that these special cells are the building blocks of life, which proliferate into every part of the body being in contact with brain through the nerves, directing growth of each part of the body, heart, lungs, hair etc. As the brain forms, a master plan is downloaded to brain which is then able to send information down the nerves in order to control growth in each individual part of the body. The evidence all points to this being the ‘architect’ of life. At birth the operating system is there; to keep the heart pumping, to keep the lungs breathing as well as to control the operation of hundreds of apparently automatic bodily systems. Additionally, the brain is programmed with the vital operating system that produces consciousness as we all know it.
Certainly, DNA has something to do with this building mechanism. It identifies its species, tribe, the individual’s sex and family peculiarities, through the microtubules of primary cilia, only accepting information from matching DNA. In this way family traits and peculiarities are passed on to their children, or relative’s children, where the information seems to be called up by the code of DNA. It is therefore logical that analysis of DNA will bear some resemblance to family peculiarities; for example hair or eye colour, but it does not necessarily mean that DNA is any more than a key. I like to think of DNA as a very old book of telephone numbers, where most of the numbers are out of date or junk, although new numbers are constantly being added.
It might help to use an analogy, where the old part of the barcode identifies the species [country code], and the next set of barcode numbers calls up the tribe [town code], with the last part of our number being the personal section; wrongly called our DNA. [personal code]. It’s only the personal part of the code that ever gets changed, due to changes in lifestyle, habits, behaviour or needs.
I’ll spell out my proposal again in different words, in order that there are no misunderstandings. For the first few weeks the human cells will develop in the same way as a mouse or a horse, before we start changing into a primate. Later we become a particular species of primate, with a larger brain, and only in the later stages does the data for race, tribe and family, develop facial features and personality. That building information, or data, comes from family members, where our DNA code accepts only the correct family data.
Now that we have a mechanism by which our head and brains grow in the womb before birth, and continuing on for perhaps 10 years, it is now possible to visualise an understanding of consciousness.
A mouse has a smaller brain than us, although it memorises details of where it lives and the food that’s available. It can then use that memory to visualise where food is likely to be found, or where an extension of its territory is likely to be beneficial.
Our capacity for analysis is greater than a mouse, but is basically no different. Our huge memory means that we can indulge in music, games or mathematics, but that does not mean that our consciousness is fundamentally different to a mouse. The inbuilt instinct of a mouse is sufficient to defend a territory or a mate, and raise a family; we are no different, but we often have difficulty handling our inbuilt aggressiveness and sexuality.
These instinctive memories, of both mouse and man, are constantly changing due to all the things that affect individual lives. Its these personal differences that are recorded in that very small personal section of our barcode, the 1000th part that is unique to each of us, that is identified in a DNA test. But after a few generations these differences get lost, UNLESS our partner has the same barcode differences, in which case our children will inherit twice the barcode alteration. If this continues for several generations a strong new trait will be the result.
Just suppose that this is the driving mechanism to enable small changes in each family’s genome, which will subsequently be subjected to Darwinian selection, thereby altering the overall shape of a species. I say ‘shape’ because not only does it alter the form of a species over time, but alters its instinctive behaviour, its ability to survive, its brain, mind and personality. It is by means of these small changes to an individual’s barcode, that differences are spelt out in the family’s digital code, which will then only make a connection to new family members, with those same differences. This is the driving force of inheritance and evolution; it’s not DNA, which is only Differentia Not Architect.
Just as instinct demands brain to brain communication and sharing, starting during sleep in the womb, so the process of information transfer can happen at any time during life [telepathy]. Fortunately, our nature keeps this at a very low level, although ancient tribes are aware of telepathy as a part of life. Similarly, some members of modern society have to live with it; twins occasionally are made aware of it, healers and mediums make use of it.
Scientists have ignored the ‘paranormal’ and mind to mind, only because there is no indication of how information could flow from cell to cell, or brain to brain. Microtubules are the answer, as they are both transmitter and receiver but with a missing link. What could possibly be the carrier of the information?
It turns out that there is much evidence of what the carrier is, where it comes from, and how it works. Spinning particles are known to science in that they can be used to operate computers and hold vast amounts of information [Spintronics]. Just suppose that there are two completely different sets of evidence available, both of which point in the same direction, to a generating mechanism that produces clouds of quantum spinning particles, which carry the information.
This mechanism creates the carrier working between microtubules. It begins to show us where the carrier of life information comes from, while the quantum physics of microtubules begins to show us how it works. In later chapters I will detail the evidence as far as it is known, which is sufficient to give explanation to the presence of a carrier, where it comes from, and how it operates. Just suppose this could explain the evidence we have regarding cytotelesis, the puzzles of life, and telepathy, were distance is no barrier.
My next topic, which is telepathy, is only one example of mind to mind and brain sharing by cytotelesis; there are about 20 more.
Ch 4 Brain Sharing [Telepathy]
‘The whole history of science shows us that whenever the educated and scientific men of any age have denied the facts of other investigators on a priori grounds of absurdity or impossibility, the deniers have always been wrong’ Alfred Russel Wallace
For a long time I have had much respect for Russel Wallace. He made the great discovery of a theory of evolution, and then wrote to Charles Darwin in 1858 who had been working on the same idea. Unknown to Wallace the theory was hailed as Darwin’s theory of evolution, which we all know about. What is not generally known is that as well as being a great naturalist, Wallace, who had seen the evidence of evolution in the jungles of Borneo and Sarawak, had also seen the evidence of supernatural transfers of information from one mind to another.
Wallace had a firm belief in spiritualism, which earned him total contempt from the scientific establishment making sure that it was only Darwin’s name that was linked with the Origin of Species. Wallace, saw the evidence of spiritualism for himself, consequently he happily went public.
We all have Wallace’s dilemma, should we believe the stories or evidence of the paranormal, telepathy and clairvoyance? There is plenty of evidence, dare I say, scientific evidence of mind to mind and telepathy, and the things that I attribute to cytotelesis, which is the mechanism that produces instinct, brain sharing and mind to mind.
Some Basics First
The suggestion that someone could read your mind is normally regarded as ridiculous, as there is no way it could possibly happen and we all know that people cannot read your mind. BUT, and that’s a big but, some people say that there is such a thing as clairvoyance, mind to mind, or telepathy; so what’s going on? Scientists and clever people say that it’s all wishful thinking and imagination with no scientific evidence, BUT, and that’s another big but, it could be that they are somewhat wrong. Yes, there is wishful thinking and imagination, although there has occasionally been evidence of mind to mind all over the world for thousands of years.
Today, there’s palm reading, tarot cards, pendulums, tea leaves and Ouija boards, all of which sometimes produce correct results, which we find difficult to accept.
Also recently, the scientific study of mind to mind has produced evidence of 2879 successful tests, carried out mainly at Universities in Europe and the US, and the existence of that evidence cannot be ignored, however unacceptable it is to scientists or even yourself; also you are probably very uncomfortable with the idea that someone could read your mind.
We all have an innate horror of our computers being hacked into, with all our private information being made public. Similarly, we all have a fear of our mind being read by someone else, and it is this fear that makes us feel that the idea of telepathy is absurd and impossible. Common belief shows it is absurd and science deems it impossible, although carefully collected evidence shows that it is a natural fact of life.
But never fear; our brains automatically ban any mental probing from outside, which keeps us all safe, leading to the general idea that mind to mind is impossible. BUT, and here I go again; under certain psychological conditions, which can be set up scientifically, mind to mind can be encouraged, although unreliably, between normal people. Additionally some people who are psychic have to endure occasional strange happenings during daily life, and generally learn to keep quiet about it, but with training they may be able to make a living at it. More on this later.
So, could I read your mind? Generally speaking the answer is NO of course, but occasionally, under special circumstances the answer is yes. Information in the unconscious brain is shared producing instinct, so it CAN flow from mind to mind. In fact it’s better to say brain to brain; what I like to call brain sharing.
So what are the special circumstances? The time of day can help, also some pairs of identical twins – sometimes, mother and child, relaxed expectation, the rapport of friends or family, two minds with a similar emotional thought, or none of these. The sender [agent] is normally thinking only of one thing, based on emotion, worry, fright or fear, whereas the receiver of cytotelesis [percipient] is normally in a relaxed state of mind, but attentive. Obviously, states of mind are very difficult to describe and even more difficult to achieve deliberately. Anyone who has tried meditation will probably know what I mean. If only an obvious answer was available to explain how and why cytotelesis works we might think differently. There are answers, but they are anything but obvious.
Psychologists tell us that we live in a dream state and they are quite right. Conscious mind is mostly memory equipped for searching, thinking and imagining, while our instinctive memory is comparatively small and hidden from consciousness, known as unconscious brain, or just a the unconscious. Instinctive memory is normally hidden from consciousness except in dreaming, which I shall discuss later. Psychics are people who have the ability to access the instinctive brain during the day. In the animal world of wolves, primates, horses and whales, there is a process of sharing instinctive information between individuals similar to human telepathy. When we have a rapport with an animal we can sometimes communicate with them. [anpsi]
Two Types of Evidence
Over the years we have learned the circumstances under which telepathy or brain sharing can occur, there being two distinct sets of circumstances. Firstly, it occurs spontaneously sometimes in a dream, sometimes totally out of the blue, just a feeling, a thought, a vision or even a pain; for example, a headache at the time when a close relative has had an accident and hurt his head. These individual experiences of brain sharing have been experienced and reported by people since records began.
The second is when telepathy is sought, by a medium trying to get information called a reading, or by a deliberate experimental procedure of some sort or another, like tests guessing zenner cards, or trying to guess who is calling on the phone before lifting the receiver. A good example of a live telephone telepathy test can be seen on Rupert Sheldrake’s website1.
Ninety years ago a lady called Craig, who had always been a bit telepathic or clairvoyant, started doing experiments with her husband. He would draw sketches in one room while she would relax in another room, trying to guess and sketch his pictures, which were usual objects like a cat or a fork. To cut a long story short she obtained good results, 75% over 290 tests, it didn't always work but that was enough for her husband to write and publish notes as well as pictures of their drawings for the reader to see for himself. Craig detailed in the book as much as she could about the state of mind that worked best for her, which was the first detailed information being available on the subject. This book was self published in New York, and is still available 2. It caused much interest as well as hostile scepticism from some scientists. One point to note is that Albert Einstein wrote the introduction to the German edition, so some scientists were prepared to read and wonder.
It is important to realise that telepathy, sometimes called mind to mind, is really brain to brain, that is unconscious instinctive brain to instinctive brain. It was found that image transmission often occurred during dreams, and so for many years dreaming tests were carried out in a dream laboratory at Maimonides, where 450 trials showed that images could be successfully transmitted during rapid eye movement sleep [REM] with odds of 75,000,000 to one, which of course was a revelation.
This was perhaps the start of scientific tests for sought telepathy but as it was expensive and time-consuming, it led to the idea that testing during the mental state of a waking dream might prove to be easier. By putting the receiver into a state of sensory deprivation [ganzfeld] successful results were achieved under much simpler conditions.
It was found that if the receiving person is put into a super relaxed state, while the sender transmits an emotional message in a relaxed but focused state of mind, these are the special psychological conditions that are most likely to succeed. This set of conditions is known as the Ganzfeld, which was first developed by Charles Honarton from his work at the Maimonides dream laboratory.
Ganzfeld. Image Transmission
For about 40 years this has been used very successfully to produce around 3000 positive results in the scientific study of telepathy, also called anomalous cognition. The basic setup of the experiment is that the telepathic receiver [recipient] is put into a very relaxed state for about 30 minutes, by laying down under a red light with half ping pong balls taped over his eyes to give a flat field of view. Headphones with a constant hiss, [white noise], complete a feeling of isolation without inducing sleep.
The object is to avoid the possibility of outside stimuli, so at the start of each session progressive relaxation is used in order to slow the mind to increase responsiveness to any messages from the sender [agent], who is in another room. During a 30 minute test the agent concentrates on the target photograph trying to think of emotional aspects of the picture, where the target photo is randomly selected from four photographs. After the test the percipient is shown the four pictures, and based on his memories of the images received chooses one photo. According to chance, where there is no telepathy, he should guess the correct picture only 25% of the time. But average receivers get it right 28% of the time, whereas selected receivers achieved an amazing 83% success rate in tests carried out at Cambridge University by Dr Carl Sargent.
The Royal Institution in London has been presenting the latest science for over 200 years. I went there to see Sargent, 37 years ago, who presented a lecture on his results of ganzfeld tests; the science of which could not be denied. Unfortunately the lecture went off like a damp squib, although it could have blown the science of the paranormal sky-high. The reason for this was that most of the people at the Institution on that day knew about telepathy and were bemused but unimpressed as they were used to the idea of mind sharing where there is no explanation. Other people there, who were not believers in telepathy, viewed the whole thing with disbelief.
Since that time ganzfeld has been shown to produce positive results using various methods and types of subject. Where pairs with a close friendship or emotional bond are used, the results are higher and much higher if the experimenters are selected. A test in the US between artistically gifted musicians produced a 75% hit rate, probably because musicians are especially creative and focused.
Over the years the procedure of ganzfeld has become more refined to avoid any criticism of technique. Auto ganzfeld utilises a TV monitor with recorded commentaries by the percipients and judges to analyse the results.
If you look up ganzfeld experiment on Wikipedia you will find a very different story. Basically, they say ganzfeld is all make-believe [pseudoscience] where the ‘facts are denied as absurd and impossible’ to quote Russel Wallace. This is because organised sceptics have deliberately and aggressively set out to undermine Wikipedia, inferring that poor methodology negated all results.
I find it sad that all these years have passed with no indication as to how or why brain sharing works; consequently the sceptics have been allowed to deny the evidence, by quoting only the results of failures and quoting reports by committed sceptics. Have a look at telepathy in Wikipedia, and Google, ‘skeptic, get involved, fix Wikipedia’.
From the Age of Three
When I was three, something happened that I didn’t understand. It’s only recently that I feel confident enough to put my explanation of that event down on paper with my subsequent conclusions.
In most ways, life at the time was just the same as it is today, but it was lived at a slower pace. I recall the kitchen at home and the coal fire to heat water and keep us warm in winter. We had no such thing as radiators, motorcar, TV or telephone, but we did have a wireless that had an accumulator to heat the valves which needed charging regularly, plus a 100 volt high tension battery which gave you a shock if you put your fingers on it. One afternoon I was sitting at the table and my mother said casually, think of a number and I’ll tell you what it is. And this she did correctly – several times.
I still recall that special sense of wonder and excitement. Even at that age I was somewhat amazed because it did not fit in with the way things normally worked. On reflection now, I believe that the heightened sense of wonder and emotion contributed to our success. Then she said you tell me my number, which apparently I got correctly. So we went on like that for a while until it started going wrong.
I wonder now how it started. My mother must have sensed she was picking up my thoughts before saying to me ‘think of a number’. I was thoroughly intrigued but my mother was unable to tell me how it worked, even when I asked her later – several times. She realised I was interested, but worried, so she never mentioned it again. Life went by, and I got used to the idea that our games were just like the wireless, where instead of hearing; we just knew. I was never sure if I got my mother’s numbers right – was she just trying to encourage me? But there was no doubting that she had read my numbers correctly.
Subsequently, the memories of my mother’s game were almost forgotten until as an adult I started to read about psychic phenomena. I Joined the Society for Psychical Research SPR, attending meetings and used their library, all of which raised my curiosity while giving no clue as to what it was all about; in fact all avenues of research led into a blind alley. I find that most people give up on entering the blind alley, or persisted in just one line of investigation to the exclusion of all else. My own reaction was to try and understand the whole of the paranormal, which was the only way I thought I was likely to understand my childhood experience. I decided early on, by examining the evidence that all unexplainable experiences of the mind were due to deep or shallow trance.
Science and the Paranormal
Most scientists are unwilling to consider a concept which mentions the dreaded word, telepathy. Sceptics state that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. They are right. The extraordinary evidence revealed in this book leads to extraordinary claims, regarding the unsolvable problems of biology, instinct, the barcode, and what I call cytotelesis, telepathy and the many associated phenomenon of brain and mind.
The history of the paranormal is an interesting one in that man has always wondered about abnormal mental experiences. The SPR was founded 130 years ago to examine telepathy, deathbed apparitions and life after death, and this was carried out efficiently and enthusiastically. However by about 1930 the society needed to be regarded as scientific so turned to card guessing tests and experiments that could be quantified, but these produced minimal results. The tests have only resulted in parapsychology running out of steam, leading to little scientific progress or acceptance.
This book presents an integration of recent developments in the fields of biology, quantum science, parapsychology, the inner experience of consciousness, and evolution which if considered together alters the science of them all. Science has advanced at such a pace, that it is to be regarded as unassailable, but apparent deficiencies in all the above sciences have to be addressed.
To me, things like healing, reincarnation and ghosts were formally just too strange for me to believe, but an understanding of the evidence with the science behind them, enabling a view of how and why, has changed my beliefs. For a while try to put aside your misconceptions; it’s really not all make-believe.
Thousands of records show that there can be communication between people who have emotional bonds, where one has an emotional crisis or accident, perhaps between, parent/child, brother/sister or husband/wife. The likelihood of these communications is subject to what appears to be a variation in the ability of the receiver of information, perhaps it should be called psychic ability, with their level of rapport being another variable. As an example of this sort of thing I like to quote the great scientist who invented power generation machines, Nikola Tesla. He knew his mother was ill and had difficulty sleeping, but waking from a dream, he later wrote “In that instant of certitude, which no words can express, came upon me that my mother had just died. And that was true”. Tesla had various telepathic events during his life, generally due to the emotion of bereavement, which is without doubt the strongest emotion, which accounts for the general interest in spiritualism.
Since I was young I have always been interested in spiritualism and mediumship. What’s it all about?
During the 19th century the soul was seen as the centre of life that departed to the spirit world when the body died. In 1909 Wallace expressed the common belief that all paranormal happenings were due to the spirit world, but nowadays spiritualism generally only refers to readings from the ‘other side’. Many bereaved people attend a spiritualist church in the hope of receiving a message from their loved ones, believing that they live on in spirit.
You don’t have to look very far for real mediumship evidence of contacts made with the ‘other side’, where detailed personal information is given to a bereaved person that could not be known to anyone else. The person concerned is thus totally convinced in the realism of the spirit world and that it ‘proves human survival’; even mediums become fully convinced themselves. In consequence, there are about 300 spiritualist churches in the UK working with 5 associations. In the US there are 24 associations, and very many churches.
My interest started over 50 years ago when a famous Australian medium visited the UK to speak to members of the College of Psychic Studies in London. I went along and listened for over an hour, all about her detailed experiences as a medium and the messages that came through from her spirit guide, giving account after account of private details of her sitters. All the time she was speaking I was thinking to myself that the details she revealed had been obtained by telepathy. Then, during question time, I naïvely asked ‘Were not all the details obtained by telepathy?’ There was a stunned silence, with mutterings and glances on the stage, followed by the chairperson saying in a loud voice ‘Next question please’. Clearly I had made a big mistake.
Another mistake I made recently, when talking to an elderly man about mediumship, and not knowing that he had lost his wife. I gave my opinion that the messages were only the medium using the psychic power of telepathy, rather than obtaining messages from her disembodied mind. He emailed me later, showing me that he had been deeply and profoundly upset by my comments; wishing never to contact me again.
The late Colin Fry was a very talented UK medium who gave a series of TV sittings, with studio audiences, titled the 6th Sense; popular in many countries around the world. One thing that always fascinated me was that he would make mental contact with a bereaved person, saying for example’ I see a child named Jack or James’, but then he would point to the correct part of the audience saying perhaps ‘Over there at the back’. I’m sure he was able to do this because he was visualising the view seen by the bereaved person, which he received by telepathy. Interestingly, he mentioned to me one day that he had always been telepathic with family and friends, but I believe he was quite convinced that his readings were from the ‘spirit world’. The question I ask is, how much might it have been brain sharing?
At this point I would like to tell the story of Phoebe Payne, an only child who came from the slums of London. She had always been psychic, becoming a medium at the age of 20. By the time she was 35, which was in the mid 1920s, she was employed to find talented mediums at the College of Psychic Studies, the place where I had the encounter with the Australian medium many years later. She made the discovery that when she was working with a medium, she could affect the messages received by the medium from the ‘other side’. If she imagined events clearly in her mind, the medium would pick up on these events and relay them, believing them to be spirit messages. So she decided to set up a test with the séance group she was working with. She announced that she would concentrate on an imaginary dead fiancé who was a bachelor having never had a fiancée. The spiritualist medium then picked up on these exact details, which caused considerable surprise, but news of the event reached the ears of the director, who warned her not to do things like that again or she would have to leave. So she left.
The significance of this episode has recently been raised in the SPR Journal3, suggesting that the tests should be repeated, causing some controversy but as yet nobody has dared rock the boat by doing the test. Realistically, we must ask ourselves how much are medium’s messages that are received from the ‘other side’, influenced by brain sharing?
I spent two days at a local College of Spiritualism in order to understand what they call “the power of the spirit” or “spirit realms”; which in fact I found to be almost precisely the same as my ecstatic experience of deep trance, with the same induction procedures that I had experienced previously, but also with the same outcome as previously. At the time I called it an ecstatic enlightenment that is known to be the link with ESP. The truth is that an average person, like me, is highly unlikely to reach the ‘power of the spirit’ so don’t bother unless you are a born a psychic with ESP powers. I only reached the spiritual state for perhaps 30 seconds, after about 36 hours of intense scientific guidance, in a healing class 40 years ago, after which I realised that I would never be able to produce the effect to order, which is the essence of spiritualism and non-spiritual healing. That’s why most spiritualist churches feature ‘trained’ but ineffective spiritualists; it’s too difficult for the likes of you and me, even though hundreds of people go to the college for ‘training’.
In this chapter I have tried to set the background to brain sharing, telepathy or cytotelesis, call it what you will; the reality is that these things are a fact of life. I like to use the term Paranormal Is Normal, which is the title of my 41 half hour internet broadcasts4 during which I interviewed many people who would help to show that brainsharing is sometimes a fact of life.
We are all aware that these things are hidden from the general public view, people don’t understand, they don’t believe that someone could read their mind, but they would happily attend a spiritualist church to receive a message from deceased relatives. Some spiritualists will say its all extrasensory perception [ESP] with the spirit world, but avoiding the possibility that it is really only sensory perception, not ESP.
Remember that brain sharing covers a wide range of experiences, from the occasional intuitive flash, through to a medium’s deliberate and sustained insight. Most people have no experiences, but some like myself, can have occasional flashes when with family or friends when there is a common mind pattern, or thought, as well as a rather special state of mind which is a mixture of calmness, happiness and excitement. I have found I can recognise the strange feeling of that intuitive flash.
Then there are the various deliberate ways that mind sharing can be occasionally achieved, for example, hypnosis, card guessing, meditation, healing, prayer, the ganzfeld, Ouija boards, lucid dreaming, and many others; but any sort of reliability is virtually impossible, except in the ganzfeld. But with all these things it’s very much a personal quality, where on a scale of 1 to 10, a person can score anything between 0 and 10, which varies with mood, confidence, emotion or anything else. Some are born with little hope, at score 0, while some are born at 7 or 8, who are known as psychics, and have to live with irritating insights, and who can be trained to be healers or mediums. The training in my experience only makes a difference of a point or two; if you are born at 0 or1, you are unlikely to ever have any experience, but if you are born at 7 or 8, or are a twin, or have an accident in your first few years, then you might be psychic. Meditation normally gives a point or two, as does hypnosis; but the ganzfeld can add four or five points.
I have been able to make these comments because I have spent many years studying both the literature, as well as getting personally involved in the practical side of training and experience.
When it comes to the science of how and why, I will proceed slowly as best I can; which leads to the question of a carrier of the information. Earlier I proposed that quantum particles in the ether are produced by an unknown generating mechanism. We now have to ask the question, what could be that generating mechanism?
Ch 5 It’s the planets
What’s the carrier?
For thousands of years mankind has wondered how it is that knowledge can leak from one mind into another mind. Modern scientists have tried in vain to measure some sort of signal when there is telepathy between two people. This chapter details evidence from many areas of scientific interest, astrology to astronomy, particle physics, the ganzfeld, cytotelesis, and of course the planets. Each piece of evidence taken on its own is in the realm of science fiction, but the evidence taken as a whole is a revelation. I had researched and considered all possible carriers, all to no avail; until I had a breakthrough.
When attending a lecture on anomalous cognition, which is the scientifically acceptable term for telepathy, the speaker mentioned the result of an analysis of successful telepathy tests, saying that a peak at a particular time of day was four times the average. This was obviously the lead I had been searching for, and I was surprised that it was not common knowledge in parapsychology. The reason for this is that the peak time varies every day by 4 minutes, in other words it is not clock time but astral time; what is known as local sidereal time, [LST]. Psychics had noticed some variation in the likelihood of telepathy, but it was all thoroughly confusing and unreliable, changing completely throughout the course of the year.
As a result of these reports a computer analysis of nearly 3000 successful ganzfeld tests was made and reported by James Spottiswoode1. These tests were mainly carried out in the U.S. and Europe, and were mostly ganzfeld tests from Universities, done over a period of several years, but importantly the time of day for the tests and been recorded. It was found that a sharp peak at 13.30 hours over only about one hour, with another broader and lower peak over 5 hours, centred on 23 hours LST.
The findings of this analysis is remarkable; especially because the time of day was only given as part of the test results at a time when nobody knew of the LST effect, so there was no likelihood that the recorded times were altered. The report gave no indication of how or why, except to say that the sharp peak coincided with the rising of Orion, which did not appear very helpful. Despite that, the study revealed that the carrier for telepathy must originate somewhere in the heavens.
Man has studied the stars for thousands of years because there appears to be some relationship between the constellations, planets and human activity. If it was to be found that there was evidence in astrology, which corroborated Spottiswoode’s results then it would be highly significant, and I believe this is what has been discovered.
Could there be something in Astrology?
I had read a book about astrology2 which was the result of a large study carried out by a Frenchman, Michael Gauquelin. He was a traditional astrologer who was dissatisfied with the methods and results of astrology so he and his wife made their own investigations regarding the effects of planets. They found that people tend to fall into one of four groups, linked to the four major planets, Saturn, Jupiter, Mars and the Moon, which they discovered is determined by heredity from their parents. The number of personal records on birth certificates that Gauquelin and his wife studied was enormous, being about 27,000, while noticing a distinct hereditary factor. Where both parents were born under a particular planet, there was a strong correlation with their children, but less so when the parents were born as different planets were rising. He also found an amazing link between birth time and the rising of the planets for actors, doctors, journalists, painters, scientists and sportsmen. It was not only their profession, but there was similarity in personality and facial looks, seen in people born under a particular planet. He even saw similarities where parents were not of the same planetary type.
He noted the birth times of people, eminent in a particular profession, finding that there was a strong correlation between the time of birth and the subsequent profession and personality. For example, he obtained birth details of 2088 sportsmen in Europe finding that the odds against chance of them being born as Mars was rising, or at its zenith, was millions to one. To Gauquelin this was exciting, but not unexpected, as it was part of astrology in which he had been brought up to believe. But his books inevitably produced much sceptical reaction which led to the results being checked by a sceptical authority in Belgium, only to be upheld as correct. This hereditary factor became infamously known as the Mars Effect.
It is extremely difficult to offer any explanation as to why birth times should determine personality and lifestyle, which is the accepted idea in astrology, but Gauquelin was of the opinion that the time of birth was determined, not by the planets but by the child, in order to coincide the time of birth with the rising of its particular planet chosen by heredity. This was done, he said, by the child’s hormones triggering off the birth process in the mother.
In writing up this report of Gauquelin’s work I am painfully aware of the general reader’s reaction; somewhere between incredulity and disbelief, which was my first reaction. But the fact that so much work was put into carefully collecting the data, which was then statistically analysed, followed by several careful replications, makes it believable if, and that’s a big if, the answer can be found as to how and why. Gauquelin was as mystified as everyone else in this regard. All this is very strange but it makes the crucial point that the planets emit some sort of carrier which is unconsciously detected by the child before birth, in order to time its birth at the rise of its hereditary planet or when it was at its zenith. So, why does a child choose this time?
We are all somewhat like our parents due to our inheritance as we all know, but part of that inheritance is the planetary type of the parents with regard to physical appearance, personality and likely profession in later life, which is the hereditary key recorded in DNA. Birth is the most traumatic time in anyone’s life, a time when we need all the help can get from our family through the system of inheritance. We have seen that a fetus receives data from its family, using the DNA code. For this reason a child will time its birth when the reception of data by cytotelesis is at its best, which is the time when the carrier is at its strongest, just as the planet comes over the horizon or is at its zenith. For me this offers a reasonable explanation for Gauquelin’s dilemma; why does a child choose a particular time according to the planets? Gauquelin was not able to see this solution but he knew that his new way of looking at astrology was correct.
Traditional astrologer’s have always claimed a relationship between people and the stars, but have not been able to obtain any evidence like Gauquelin achieved. But now that his dilemma has been solved it seems that there has always been ‘Something in Astrology’.
Some were violently opposed to Gauquelin’s results accusing him of selecting data, which in one respect was correct. He had chosen eminent members of each profession in order to get a noticeable result. After years of criticism, his wife left him; he destroyed all his records and then committed suicide. Subsequent to his death, a re-examination of data by Ertel and Irving, showed that the planetary effect was proportional to the eminence in each profession as would be expected, so Gauquelin was exonerated of selecting data.
While Gauquelin’s reports were viewed by many with incredulity and disbelief, the sceptics were outraged. It is reported3 that three skeptical organisations, CSICOP in the US, CFEPP in France, and in Belgium the Comite Para, each carried out a replication of the Mars Effect in the hope that the results would be refuted; in fact each test duplicated Gauquelin’s results, which they each tried to hide with lies, procrastination and falsification of evidence, rather than admit the facts. Eventually several members of CSICOP resigned in disgust, exposing the whole situation. Since that time organised sceptics have not attempted any scientific replication.
So now the big question is, how does this relate to Spottiswoode’s report in which he shows a relationship between telepathy results and the position of the stars? Could it be that this is the link between Gauquelin’s and Spottiswoode’s work? which several writers have alluded to in the past, based on the similarity of the results; but it has never been taken further than that. I pondered on this question for some time and realised that the next step was to find what planet was rising at Spottiswoode’s peak of 13.30 hours. The answer is not just one planet but billions of planets.
The Milky Way
At 13.30 hours, sidereal time, the centre of the Milky Way appears over the horizon, wherever you are in the world, or whatever the clock time is. If, as I have suggested, there is some quantum emission from planets, then there should be a large effect due to the planets of the 250 billion stars in the Milky Way. It would be useful if we could make some measurement of this emission, but we cannot, we can only rely on the evidence of the effect it produces.
If we look closely at Spottiswoode’s published graph of telepathy [anomalous cognition] against 24 hours of sidereal time, as well as the sharp peak at 13.30 there is another peak 9 hours later which is very broad; over about 5 hours in fact. This broad peak is the time the Milky Way is overhead and the carrier rains down on us producing carrier movement that enhances telepathy. This second peak in telepathy reception matches well with Gauquelin’s second peak of childbirth, which is when the relevant planet is overhead [zenith]. This significant observation, of the timing of the two peaks, does not appear to have been noticed by anyone previously, but I believe that this is the correct interpretation of the evidence. It shows that the carrier of telepathy is an emission from planets, that is entirely unknown to science, but which will be further examined and discussed in later chapters.
Having decided, that a quantum particle, wave or ray was generated by planets, I puzzled over what it was most likely to be. By considering what is peculiar to planets, which is the continual conversion from linear inertia to rotational inertia by gravity, I concluded that some elemental particles of the planet are made to spin, which are then released into space. This would appear to be no problem from the point of view of the power needed, because the gravitational energy needed to keep a planet like earth in orbit, is about 14,000 million horsepower. A fraction of this appears to produce a permanent flow of spinning particles; perhaps quartz as it is the most abundant element, emanating from every planet in the universe. Looking at the literature I see a possible candidate is a hypothetical elementary particle, the graviton, which was theorised in 1930 in Russia, but has not been found or measured; some say its mass less, some say it’s heavy.
Perhaps I was getting a bit out of my depth I thought, so I researched spinning particles and the possibility that they might carry information. An internet paper by Russian scientists Nachalov and Sokolov, 4 detailing almost 60 years of research on spin or torsion fields, reports that spin fields can carry information and even has references to telepathy and biological growth. But in the West this has all been written off as pseudoscience because some reports were published to raise research money from the Russian government. Even so, I am not fully convinced either way.
In the West much expensive research is being carried out on the science of Spintronics which is said will revolutionise computers. A recent survey of published work is rather short on detail for commercial reasons, not that most people would make much sense of it anyway; including me. But some of the claims are of great interest to me, as they are very relevant to my theories about the carrier and cytotelesis.
In a paper from the Weizmann institute5 it says that “A biological molecule – DNA – can discern between quantum states known as spin”, also that “DNA turns out to be a superb spin filter”. It’s clearly very early days in this research but those comments do indicate that a start is being made in studying the relevance of quantum spin to microbiological systems. For years, people have been saying that particle spin can carry information and memory, even at room temperature, whereas previously spin had only been measured for nanoseconds at extremely low temperatures. I also read that you can store an almost infinite number of bits of information in one particle.
It seems important that there is a remarkable similarity, in the timing of the effects noted by Spottiswoode and Gauquelin, even though one relates to successful telepathy and the other to birth times. I suggest that this unlikely similarity shows conclusively that; ‘It’s the Planets’.
Ch 6 The Philosophy of Consciousness
The Conventional View
The conventional view is that the nature of consciousness is unknown, and has been termed the Hard Problem, or the eternal mystery. Despite this, there is plenty known of the biology of mind, although not much regarding how it works. It said that it is an electrochemical thinking machine, which self assembles from the data given in DNA, but there is little evidence that this is the case.
Scientific research papers online about the Science of Consciousness1 are numerous, being divided into approximately 70 subcategories, and updated weekly. A few taken at random are; Visual Imagery and Imagination (103), Vegetative State and Coma (247), Emotion and Consciousness in Psychology (2,822), with a grand total of 17,631 to date, [21/10/16], but still described as the eternal mystery. It’s certainly a Hard Problem.
Perhaps I should make it clear that by brain, I mean the unconscious, and mind is the conscious part of brain. I put it that way because brain is king; mind is only the tip of the iceberg. It’s all about memory. We have 100 billion neurons, all taking part in the memory. Some is pre-programmed before birth, and some is learned by experience, but the dividing line between brain and mind is rather uncertain.
Many bodily functions are controlled by the unconscious memory that appears automatic, for instance digestion, immune system, hair growth, heart pumping and instinctive actions like flinching. But on the other hand, some actions are shared with mind, for instance, balance when walking, salivating, and movement of fingers or eyes; so some mind and brain memory is common. It’s the brain operating system that decides how much memory is available to mind. That suggestion is mine, and the idea is not necessarily universal.
When it comes to memory there is very little agreement or evidence to show how awareness is stored in memory, or later retrieved; but it appears likely that microtubules are in some way responsible because each synapse, which makes the interconnections in the brain, is composed of up to 100 bundles of microtubules. Our vast memory is organised into various types of memory, located in different areas of the brain, dealing with sight, sound, digestion, instinct etc; as well as short and long term memory that we call mind. The interconnection between all these memories has to be organised by an unbelievably complicated operating system of which we are completely unaware.
Scientists have suggested that there are at least five different types of memory;
1) Short term memory. For example, if asked a question during conversation the question has to be remembered while answering. [Working memory].
2) When answering a historical question about who, what and why. [Semantic memory].
3) Time and place memory. For example, recalling where you went on holiday last year. [Episodic memory].
4) Memory of how to do something when asked. [Procedural memory].
5) Memory of an old acquaintance who you suddenly meet. [Perceptual memory].
That scientific identification of different types of memory doesn’t really help; we are all aware of our own mind, how it remembers, or even forgets sometimes. We are also aware that we can visualise things like; relationships, reasons something happens or does not, why somebody said something controversial, or the consequences of a large increase in the cost of living. We are all familiar with the way mind works, but the hard problem is the understanding of how it gets there and how it evolved over time.
We evolved from primates, but it was the development of speech that gave us our general intelligence and consciousness, which is hard to understand. Scientists have examined the physical and psychological evidence regarding these problems in the greatest detail while assuming that DNA provides the necessary data; but to little avail. Therefore, the general consensus is that the solution to the nature of consciousness is inexplicable; it’s an elusive phenomenon, with no theories to help explain it.
A London medical doctor writes2, “There is a powerful impression that science has been looking in the wrong place… there is the sense that something of immense importance is ‘missing’ that might transform the bare bones of genes into the wondrous diversity of the living world….”.
An Extra Ingredient
Could it be that the method of growth of body and brain, outlined in Ch 4 ‘just suppose’, is the ‘missing’ link in the understanding of consciousness? Not only would this provide an answer as to how brain grows, complete with an operating system for connecting up the 100 million neurons, but this would provide some guidance to the understanding of mind. In ‘just suppose’ I suggested that species information flows by cytotelesis to a new fetus. This enables the creation of stem cells that produce brain, complete with a nervous system that then grows into the huge complication of the human body. As I see it, the creation of brain and mind is no more miraculous than the creation of the rest of the body, with limbs, liver, stomach and the rest. All are created by the process of cytotelesis and they all have to be fit for purpose, or the organism will die.
Nevertheless, the control system of brain with its vast memory systems is rightly regarded as the most complicated machine in the world, but perhaps now that we know how it develops, into something with which we are very familiar, and then perhaps its understanding will not appear so daunting. We accept, but we don’t understand modern technology, from sat navs to PCs and the World Wide Web and we use them without questioning. Surely, brain and mind should be treated in that same way, with little more than interested acceptance by scientists; it’s only a wonderful reliable machine that self assembles from the Biological World Wide Web.
It was the development of speech that gave us increased intelligence and consciousness. Why does science have to regard it as an inexplicable eternal mystery with no theories to help explain it? Personally I accept my mind as an important part of me, no more a mystery than my immune system or stomach; and the animal world is no different.
In the past some people suggested that animals were mere automata with no feeling or consciousness, so it was not morally wrong to harm them. Clearly that idea is outrageous; all animals have feelings and consciousness, sufficient for their own capabilities and lifestyle. This brings us to ask, what we mean by consciousness. Scientists have not been able to make up their minds, they seem to think that it appears by magic out of DNA, but as I see it consciousness is our thoughts and beliefs, our feelings, our emotions, our fears, our dreams, our memories as well as our instinctive memories and urges. Although I used the word ‘our’ throughout that list, it applies to the whole of the animal kingdom. They have all of these, but only sufficient for their own capabilities and lifestyle, as is borne out by the fact that all mammals share our same basic brain anatomy. Horses may not have fingers or speech, but they can understand some of our speech, and have enough intelligence and reasoning sufficient for them to thrive out in the open, despite predators, drought, wind and rain.
The brain of all mammals and birds is very similar and they all manage to survive, despite limitations in reasoning and intelligence. I recall watching a mother song thrush in my garden feeding a piece of bacon rind to her youngster. Although it was too long and stiff the mother persisted, as it resembled a tasty worm. In the end she succeeded; but alas her baby died! A happier story is about the squirrels in my garden, who I feed cob nuts during the winter. The nuts are put in a small bowl in a tree, and two years running I have been given a thank you present, set carefully in the bowl. One year it was soft pampas grass and the second time was moss, both were presents for me to warm my nest through the cold weather; perhaps the most appreciated present I have ever had. I published a photo and article3 but some suggested my present had just been blown into the bowl by the wind; squirrels are more intelligent than you might think. Another story I like, is of a dolphin at sea who had a hook and fishing line fixed firmly in its mouth. It swam up to divers who seeing its predicament removed the hook and line. The grateful dolphin had realised that the men wouldn’t harm it, and would be able to remove the hook. These stories demonstrate that animals have consciousness, empathy and commonsense.
Some birds, like starlings, appear very stupid but African Grey parrots have a mental ability rather similar to ours. One called N’kisi, can talk well, but knows the meaning of more than 1,400 words and is able to make intelligent sentences. It’s the animals that live in groups and developed group hunting skills and some verbal communication, that have evolved complex behaviour patterns, leading to more intelligence; for instance dolphins, dogs [wolves], lions and then of course the primates. But it was only one species of primate that learned the art of speech.
By developing communication we have completely changed our lifestyle, and have learned to think in words, something which we all take for granted, but something that puts us above all the mammals. But, like it or not we are part of the animal kingdom, having the same consciousness, even though somewhat more advanced; but really that’s all. When it comes to alligators, snakes, frogs, and sharks, they all have a brain that shows some intelligence. Is not that consciousness?
When it comes to insects, they have plenty of ‘how to’ type instincts, as I am aware with my bees. But it’s more than just knowing ‘how’, they go out looking for flowers, up to 3 miles away, but then find their own way home, and then are able to tell their friends where they collected such good honey. When it comes to swarming time, scouts go out to find a suitable new home, but between them they might find several sites. Believe it or not, they then have their own system of democratically electing the best site, by head-butting other bees while they are dancing to indicate where they have found a good site. This method of voting, results in only one elected new home; then they all fly off with the queen. It has to be that way, because any bees that went off to another site would be doomed, having no queen. That inner experience is intelligence, which has evolved into ‘how to’ instinct, but the method of carrying it out is surely consciousness?
Thinking again of our own brain and consciousness, it is not any more of a mystery than with other animals and should not be regarded as an ‘inexplicable eternal mystery’. In order to identify predators, some species of primates have developed common calls that are obviously the beginnings of speech, which has altered their brains to instinctively remember and vocalise these calls. In the same way, while speech developed in us, our brains changed to accommodate thinking and vocalising the words but at the same time we lost the skills of swinging through the branches of trees. Later that same system changed our brains to allow the learning of music, writing and tool use etc, which explains how our brains became so different to monkeys. As I see it the only mystery remaining is when we sleep, dream or go into trance, which again is common with mammals although our need for trance is stronger due to our increased intelligence.
This is about trances, of which there are many types, sometimes involuntary and sometimes sought, that have been an interest of mine for many years, as well as getting personally involved. They range from sleep, laughing and crying, to hypnosis and mystical experience; many varied and different experiences, but could it be that they all have the same root cause.
What if we look for a definition of trance? That’s very difficult; some say it’s when consciousness is slowed down or reduced, and suggestibility is enhanced, or when there is intense focusing of attention; but that’s only part of it, and certainly not a definition. The best that can be done is to examine all the different types of trance.
Firstly there is sleep and dreaming which have been well studied. Dream sleep is characterised by rapid eye movement [REM] that appears several times each night, during which time we analyse unresolved emotional events that occurred during that day. This is a strange system by which the dream re-lives the drama of the event, comparing it with our instinctive programmes. In this way the emotional event is updated and resolved by instinct in the person’s memory. In a book by therapist Joe Griffin4 he shows that this is why we dream as well as showing that we access the trance state and REM during the day, when we laugh, cry, or are frightened. I discussed this with him during one of my broadcasts Paranormal is Normal5 and he noted that trance inhibits self-consciousness, or it limits analysis of why we are laughing, crying or are frightened. It seems that all instinctive actions, limit the action of conscious mind, enabling the instinctive action to be carried out, where a special part of brain [amygdala] senses an emotional situation causing the shutdown of the relevant part of consciousness.
The science of this important and fundamental part of our lives is well understood, leading to understanding of other trance states, one of which is meditation. Many practice meditation and say that it clears the mind and is generally beneficial. Meditation works because it empties the conscious mind, accessing the dream state, during which time mental conflicts are analysed and resolved, making us feel more able to deal with life and any stressful issues that may come along. The various techniques of meditation all aim to remove conscious thought, by repeating a word [mantra], or staring at a candle or looking at a single point of nothingness; whatever works for you.
A special form of meditation is automatic writing where someone in a trance will write from the unconscious, producing novel or forgotten information ‘automatically’. This shows that by deliberately accessing the dream state we open up the pathway to the unconscious, so can retrieve or insert new memories.
Which leads us on to the state we generally associate with trance; and that’s hypnosis. It is absolutely no different to meditation or automatic writing in that we can meditate into what is known as self hypnosis, by which we can deliberately insert commands and memories into our own unconscious brain; but the technique is very difficult to learn. A far more effective procedure is for someone else, a hypnotist, to talk us into accessing the dream state in order for him to implant suggestions into the hidden part of our mind, or even to retrieve forgotten memories. Something often done is to suggest that, at a particular stimulus, a noted action will be carried out. [post-hypnotic suggestion] for example, it is sometimes suggested that a cigarette will induce nausea, which of course is using the instinctive mechanism.
For this reason hypnosis is sometimes regarded with fear. We don’t like the idea of a hypnotist taking charge of our mind, and there have been instances of unscrupulous hypnotists taking sexual advantage of their subjects, or stealing their money. Unfortunately this fear of hypnosis tends to inhibit its success; I recall my wife, who had a psychological problem, and was unable to be helped by a hypnotist who did his best, but failed to hypnotise her.
Many trained therapists, while treating various psychological problems, use hypnosis, although they call it guided imagery which in fact is what it really is. Joe Griffin and his colleagues have trained over 1000 therapists to use this technique, which treats anything from sexual problems to obsessive-compulsive behaviour or post traumatic stress disorders.
So to finalise, trance is all of these things, from the reaction of fear, to hypnosis; all brought about as a result of accessing the dream state. Our understanding of instinct, trance and the dream state, has added greatly to the overall understanding of consciousness. It has all been treated by scientists as part of the unfathomable mystery of consciousness, but I regard it as only a rather spooky part of human consciousness.
Ch 7 The Spooky List
This chapter looks at some of the observed facts about the psychic side of consciousness, and how they may be understood better by the new approach presented in this book. But I look first at what we know about the way the mind changes during meditation, hypnosis and other difficult to understand parts of consciousness.
States of Mind
Here I reveal many more spooky parts of consciousness and trance which are identified with the REM dream state, emotion and instinct. The way these three are interconnected is now largely understood by the sciences of psychology and biology1 which are all rather complicated. The main result of these interrelationships is that consciousness is switched off while we dream at night, but during the day free will dominates until something that makes us laugh, or something emotional occurs or even a tiger is chasing us, in which case the trance and the dream state switches mind aside for instinct to appear.
Of course it’s not necessarily all as clear cut as that; we can daydream or be part awake in a night-time dream [lucid dream], or sometimes get the giggles, or rage at someone’s stupidity [motorway madness]. It’s all due to the way our brains work and is best described as trance. We can only guess at the way our brains are controlled and operate but we do now have many clues to help with the psychology, also science has uncovered many details.
There is much scientific evidence to show how mind works during the range of familiar mind conditions; from sleep to meditation. We can measure voltages by placing pads [electrodes] on the head, and can measure mental arousal from electrodes placed on the palm of one hand measuring changes in electrical skin resistance [ESR] that indicates mental arousal. Although this science, of various states of mind, was published long ago there has been little recognition, only rather grudging acceptance. Looking back at that work we can see that it was an important scientific study and recorded evidence of what happens to brain rhythms, during hypnosis, ‘spiritual’ healing, ecstatic enlightenment, medium ship as well as paranormal events during trance.
Let's start by looking at the science of voltage recordings measured on each side of the head using electrodes during trance. What is evident is that the frequency of brain waves corresponds to state of mind. Normal everyday thinking is the beta frequency [13-30 cycles per second, or Hz] which is the normal waking rhythm of thought while carrying out everyday life. But if we relax, close our eyes and think of nothing in particular, some alpha frequency will normally appear [8-13 Hz]. A slower rhythm is theta [4-7 Hz] which is the dreaming brain frequency or when we access the dream state when awake, while delta [1/2 -4] is the deep sleep condition.
These were the frequencies as noted 37 years ago by Max Cade2 but today there are wider ranges quoted, although these four basic bands are still the same. Max Cade noted3 that deep sleep, dreaming sleep, half asleep and the waking state were accompanied by only one peak in the 4 frequency bands, delta theta alpha and beta respectively; but he also discovered that when a person accesses the dream state he produced symmetrical voltage readings on each side of the head [bilateral symmetry]. More than that; meditators would produce three distinct symmetrical bands of alpha theta and beta when meditating, as shown on a special electroenceclograph [EEG] machine that Cade had designed especially for the purpose [the Mind Mirror].
Questions that have not been answered, is why we have balanced symmetry, why the frequency of alpha reduces over about 10 minutes and why we do sometimes see triple peaks. My own answer to these questions4 is that a relaxed and empty mind has a scanning system searching for thoughts to process, rather like a bird flying back and forth looking for food, that produces a measurable voltage on each side of the head as it scans; hence the balanced symmetry of alpha. Then, after a few minutes the cell’s tire and slowdown, producing a lower frequency. The waking and dreaming areas of the brain can produce their own balanced symmetry at different frequencies, hence the triple, or even quadruple peaks.
These triple indications [beta alpha theta] of what’s happening in the meditating state are in complete contrast to normal dreaming, as well as the everyday beta state that shows a wildly fluctuating pattern changing as we think or do different things. Cade’s discovery was that only when meditating in the dream state does the triple peak occur.
Brain arousal is the other factor that alters the state of mind that is easily observed on an ESR meter; which I used to make and sell. Students at Max Cade’s classes used one to train themselves to deeply relax in his meditation and healing classes using biofeedback, which was very effective. Nowadays, the instruments used for measuring emotional arousal are known as EDA [electro dermal activity] but they are just the same. The actual meter readings vary like the weather, but they do give moment to moment accurate variation, that is all that’s required, and is useful for biofeedback training.
There is one aspect of Cade’s classes that the students were not aware of, and that was the unnoticeable flickering lights, which gradually reduced from alpha to theta rhythm [10 – 6 Hz]. The flicker aided the symmetry, as well as increasing the amplitude of alpha as it reduced in frequency, all of which deepened the meditation. I believe it helped me, and I often wonder how many others. Max didn’t even mention that he was doing anything to the lights. It’s well known that strobe lighting affects the brain, especially epileptics. Max claimed that many epileptics who attended his classes received considerable benefit. A different method of inducing low alpha is sometimes used today making use of sound. [Binaural beat]. What is clear is that we now understand and can control our states of mind; with difficulty.
That’s the end of my comments about the science of states of mind; I do hope that you were able to follow it; although understanding it is a different matter but I’ll offer some suggestions which are mainly my own ideas. The main problem with any understanding is that the practice of meditation, hypnosis, prayer and healing are all intertwined and confusing, each being identified as being quite separate. In fact they all seek to access the dream state although in different ways. Without the triple peaks nothing significant will happen during any of those procedures.
Considering prayer first; there are multiple churches and faiths as well as private prayer and praying in tongues [glossolalia]. Then there is meditation that can be induced in two different ways, mindfulness or the relaxation response but both having endless variations in the practice and mental processes to achieve a result. Hypnosis requires rapport, that is unquantifiable, as well as avoiding deep trance. On the other hand healing requires deep meditation of both parties and there appears to be a necessity for some sort of psychic ability to identify both the problem and a cure. But all the foregoing require trust and faith, be it in God, a spirit, or just a faith in the procedure.
Having said all that we are looking at only one state of mind by which all these rather spooky things are achieved. Not only can prayers be answered, meditators achieve great benefit, as do the hypnotist’s subjects and healers patients; and if that wasn’t mysterious or spooky enough, there is the aspect that brain sharing can happen at any time during this state of mind. You will note my use of the word this state of mind, rather than these, and if we can understand that brain sharing is an occasional fact of life, then there is no mystery.
Dream State and Brainsharing
It is said that the altered states of perception I have mentioned, from meditation to ganzfeld or daydreaming, where consciousness is temporarily suspended or changed by trance, can provide a climate or the occurrence of psychic phenomena5or brainsharing.
For example, some therapists have noticed unsought private information by unaccountable brain sharing or thought transference, from their patients. Hypnotists have also reported the same thing, so consequently the standard induction procedure is designed to limit the depth of trance. Automatic writing is sometimes carried out to connect with other minds. There have always been reports of psychic events associated with deep meditation and healing. These events are fairly rare, so are seldom reported, although they are sufficient for me to assert that they are a natural part of human consciousness.
Meditation training aims to reduce EDA arousal but also to achieve the triple symmetrical bands of beta alpha theta, which are observed when using a Mind Mirror. Cade noted6 that many meditators who think they are properly meditating ‘are only bordering on its edges’, but when they joined Cade’s classes they would see ‘an immediate expansion and deepening of consciousness’. It’s rather sad that most meditators are unwittingly ‘only bordering on its edges’, but the real benefit of meditating is there, only if the right state of mind is reached.
There are many methods of aiding meditation, from excessive exercise [whirling Dervishes] to mindfulness [Zen] through to Western methods [TM ganzfeld etc] using various techniques like control of breath and mind, as well as making use of instruments. All meditation is done in the hope of reaching the dream state of mind which gives many benefits; it reduces stress, build self-confidence, increases empathy, intuition and brain functioning, cures migraines and insomnia; and it’s all for free if you can meditate deeply enough. I went to Max’s classes for 20 weeks and realised I was a useless meditator, only reaching the correct state on one occasion, the rest of the time I was ‘only bordering on its edges’
Hypnosis generally requires only a shallow level of trance, if too deep there is a chance of problems, as Mesmer noticed in the early days of hypnosis. Stage hypnosis can be dangerous; I once had a student lodger who made a fool of himself during a hypnotic show at college. That night he was found sleepwalking round the house and had to be quietly led back to bed. Sleepwalking is the result of hyper-arousal during deep sleep and it can be worrying; I speak from a personal experience. When I was about 11 years old, I woke up in the morning in a most unlikely place but I don’t think I have done it since.
Another example of the dream state in action is a spiritual medium who is in both the dream state but highly aroused mentally. This combination in a person, who has psychic ability, means that he can relate to the emotion of others and pick up on their emotional thoughts and memories. This is achieved by holding the trance state of self hypnosis while listening to the medium’s spirit guide, which is an imagined link with the spirit world; it’s a difficult juggling act that is seldom achieved by mediums in spiritualist churches. A gifted medium, the late Colin Fry whose series of broadcasts called the Sixth Sense have fascinated people worldwide, was accurate most of the time. I spoke to him once and he volunteered the information that he had always been telepathic with family and friends, which I took as rather significant.
And now, some words about healing, or spiritual healing. The key is deep meditation of both the healer and patient, with a strong sense of oneness. Contact of the healer’s hands can help, and there has to be faith that the procedure can work. That faith can well be a religious faith, although only faith in the procedure, or healer, is quite sufficient. I believe that even telephone healing can work where the healer is strongly psychic with a cooperative patient; but as far as I’m aware there has never been scientific verification of this, which of course is difficult to achieve anyway. Meditation with self-healing can be effective with psychosomatic illness, maybe even with more serious conditions. By quieting the body and mind, focusing one’s attention on breathing, for a few minutes, then positive emotion exercises with imagery of wellness, is the recommended procedure. Call it self-hypnosis if you like; what’s the difference?
Up to now it has been about the control of arousal and brainwave states; but is there anything we can learn by examining the physiological aspect of the dream state? Obviously it’s all about a sleeping mind and brain without being actually asleep, even though hypnotists urge their subjects to ‘sleep – sleep’. The key psychological feature is always aiming to produce a no-self condition by suppressing the, I. Of course it’s a difficult concept but it is normally achieved by deliberately relying on someone else; someone real or imaginary. The hypnotist’s subject mentally submits to the hypnotist clearing away his personal self and consciousness. Similarly a therapist’s subject does the same, which may or may not bring on a deep meditation. As I have mentioned the self-meditator often has great difficulty in achieving the deep state because he consciously tries to lose his personal feelings of me; which is what I experienced at Max Cade’s classes. It was only during a guided meditation, that I was swimming with a family of dolphins who had accepted me as one member of the family that my personal self disappeared and I experienced a very deep meditation. Another example of this is that healers generally say they are not responsible for the healing, they are only a channel. In the case of spiritual healers, God is the healer, they are channelling His healing; and that same thought is with the patient so that they can both achieve a rapport and deep trance. To me this all seems clear and logical; the key is suppressing any thoughts of self.
Then there is another well-known example of the dream state in action making use of this concept and that’s the way mediums are able to contact departed souls in the spirit world by ESP which are then relayed to the sitter who is the bereaved relative. Mediums claim that they are only the channel of information from an imaginary spirit guide, who is traditionally a North American Indian, but maybe today a different type of spirit guide is chosen. The point is that by submitting to the guide, the medium is able to remove the feelings of I, he is able to reach the triple peak dream state as well as speak to the sitter, which is a difficult mental juggling act, even for a psychic. Of course there are other important links that increase the likelihood of brain sharing. The people listening to the medium listen intently, which loses the sense of, I, as in hypnosis, and importantly both the medium and the sitters share a common powerful emotion, that of bereavement bringing a sense of rapport between them aiding the possibility of brain sharing.
Max Cade was asked to assist with some experiments with several well-known mediums to examine their brainwaves7. He found that in medium ship they showed the early stages of trance of alpha, that increased in amplitude and became accompanied by theta and often delta [the triple peaks] with the usual state of low arousal. But their low arousal changed to a hyper-arousal as soon as the control or guide began to communicate. The retention of a deep trance state is necessary for ESP by a medium, together with high arousal to enable talking and analysis of the ESP messages. Are these messages ESP with the spirits, or mind sharing I ask?
The Awakened Mind
In the last section I mentioned my deep dream state due to Max’s guided meditation that convinced me that I was swimming among the dolphins. In fact I experienced Cade’s Awakened Mind that to me was very significant, and I can vividly remember it 37 years later.
You may well ask, what’s this Awakened Mind all about? Cade called it the higher states of awareness; and I found 24 other titles for the same thing, which were mainly various names for an experience belonging to different religious faiths where this mysterious state of mind has been experienced. All these mysterious mystical experiences are so similar, as well as difficult to describe, leading us to think that they are basically only one state of mind, only one mechanism, which is deeply accessing the REM dream state.
Mystical experiences or enlightenments can occur with no apparent cause. Various studies have shown that people who are stressed, worried or anxious are more likely to have enlightenment than others, although sometimes the trigger can be a rhythmic stimulation. Whatever the trigger the experience is repeatedly said to be impossible to mistake, overpowering and illuminating; obviously some very special state of mind. There is a feeling of total transformation that brings a sense of knowing, that all is good with a sensation of peace and joy. Nona Coxhead writes8 “Of course there is no way to prove this experience exists, except by having it, but the body of evidence over the course of many centuries of spiritual accounts is surely as well grounded as any phenomena studied by science. It has always struck me as extraordinary that it should be overlooked, almost singularly left out of all imaginative modern research. It is as if by ignoring it, it would simply evaporate…” She was absolutely right of course. It is ignored for the reason that there is nothing that can be said, because how and why are both mysteries, although it is apparently triggered by an increase in emotional arousal from the dream state, that overloads and purges the mind.
At one of Max’s classes I met Nona who had co-authored The Awakened Mind. In her own words she ‘had been mystically inclined since childhood’, and she found the class overpowering. She had to be quietly led out; sobbing. Afterwards I walked to the station with her; an unforgettable memory, as she was a wonderful person. She had been a model, dancer, writer, novelist, healer, lecturer, and wrote my favourite book on enlightenment, The Relevance of Bliss.
I’ve detailed a way bliss can be induced by learning to meditate by biofeedback coupled with strobe lighting and guided meditation, but there are other ways. Speaking in tongues or praying in tongues [glossolarlia] in some church services will sometimes trigger enlightenment9, although once the procedure has been taught the fortunate person might speak in tongues spontaneously at home, leading to enlightenment.
I attended a very old Christopher Wren church in London for a while, where glossolarlia was sometimes practised. The procedure was that the priest would invite parishioners to come forward to be blessed, and then he would speak in tongues; whereupon the entranced person would keel over and fall to the ground. I had this done to me, in my own home by that same priest during a bible study meeting. He started speaking in tongues while I was standing to be blessed, with his assistant standing beside me, but I felt the assistant put his foot behind my heels, so I naturally lifted one foot over his, to support myself. The priest, who shall be nameless, pushed my shoulders in order for me to fall backwards but I was suitably braced by a well-placed foot. The priest and helper exchanged glances before the blessing was hurriedly concluded. Charismatic priests have been getting away with this hoax entrancement for years, mainly because the general public will accept that the priest is able to put a subject into deep trance. Unfortunately this sort of thing just adds to the mystery and misunderstanding of trance and enlightenment.
It is well-documented that the panic state of hyper arousal can bring on enlightenment. I once spoke to a helicopter pilot, who was flying alone checking cables and pylons, when the rotor hit a pylon causing him to crash into a lake, but he was later rescued. While crashing he could do nothing; but a state of panic induced a classic enlightenment in him. He did his best to understand this mysterious experience, but no one could explain what had really happened. Similar experiences have happened to men being attacked by a wild animal; and of course there are many well-documented mystical experiences when being resuscitated from clinical death. [NDE]
Blissful mystical enlightenments have always been part of human experience, generally part of religious worship but sometimes by unknown triggers. The Religious Experience Research Centre concludes that 30% of humanity have the experience; others say 5%, so it's reasonable to assume a figure somewhere in between. Whatever it is, one of the triggers for a person in trance can be a flickering light.
In 500 BC an Indian Spiritual Teacher was meditating in the shade of a tree, where a light breeze caused the leaves to flutter, and the sunlight to flicker. This of course was the Badhi tree and the enlightenment was the start of Buddhism. Today millions meditate, sometimes achieving the blissful state, which can occasionally encourage psychic powers. The old Buddhist scriptures mentioned psychic powers, but would not allow any disclosure, because it was not understood.
An acquaintance of mine also had enlightenment under a tree, when he was a lad of 14, which he has always remembered. What I found so interesting was that it appeared to trigger mind sharing with a lady who was completely unknown to him. It was a good example of the way our brains communicate when accessing the instinctive REM dream state; call it what you will.
This is very significant because it gives us insight into the state of mind necessary for brain sharing, oneness and psychic states, all of which are accessing the dream state. The important point is that consciousness is suspended or changed before a psychic state is likely. By psychic states I mean brain-sharing and the many strange things that are occasionally experienced.
Paranormal Is Normal
So I was persuaded to make a series of Internet broadcasts10 I say ‘make’ because they were very much home-made, not scripted or even planned, just a telephone or Skype conversation, resulting from a prior invitation. My editing expertise was minimal, as were my interviewing skills but I was always amazed at how my guests proved that strange or sometimes psychic things were quite normal to them. Although sponsorship was promised for my efforts, nothing materialised, but my reward was chatting to some amazing people who were experts in their field of interest. You may care to listen, and be as fascinated as I was, but I’ll now give details of some of the most interesting ones.
I interviewed Peter Fenwick11 a neurophysiologist, about near death experiences [NDE] which he has studied for many years in the course of his job. He expressed surprise that the reports of people who have been resuscitated from clinical death are very similar to mystical enlightenment experiences from triggers unconnected with death. For me it’s clear that they are the same. What could bring on a mental panic state better than the brain dying due to no blood supply, or perhaps, the panic state of resuscitation? We know that the panic state is one way of triggering an enlightenment which surely proves the point. He said that the patient sometimes has visions, and pet animals at home seem to know, which would be brainsharing.
But what really fascinates me is that patients sometimes are aware of details of things that happen during the perceived period of clinical death. My opinion is that it is due to mind-sharing with a member of the team were details of conversation are shared, or of a view of the patient seen from above. That view is what is known as an out of the body experience [OBE]. A Dutch surgeon, Pim Van Lommel, with whom I have discussed these things, has made similar studies in Holland having lectured and written extensively about NDEs and OBEs. He says ‘You don’t need a non-functioning brain to report an NDE’ in fact he even says ‘An NDE, or mystical experience, can be triggered from meditation’; so it seems that any mystical experience can be called an NDE. This has muddied the waters considerably; for example in the US there are over 4000 cases reported of NDEs where very few of these were anything to do with a death experience. I prefer the idea that an NDE is concerned with resuscitation from clinical death, which was the opinion voiced by Peter Fenwick during our conversation on Web-talk-radio/Paranormal Is Normal.
Another recorded conversation was with Dr Jude Currivan12 who was once Group Financial Director of two major international businesses and has a Masters Degree in Physics, specialising in quantum physics as well as being a gifted healer. Not only that, she believes in non-local connectivity of consciousness during dreams or clairvoyant visions, which she has had all her life. Having a supercharged intuition in business apparently paid off.
I spoke to an Ordained Minister about praying in tongues13, he spoke of the beauty of tongues and how it helps relieve the emotions and tensions of bereavement. I asked about ecstatic enlightenment due to speaking in tongues. He quoted a lady who suddenly had the experience of her life when doing the dishes at home; and he went on to talk about many religious healing experiences in his church.
One discussion I broadcast was with the Chairman of the Confederation of Healing Organisations in the UK who I’ve met several times; Bob Sharman14. He spoke of how Max Cade organised a demonstration of healing where both the healer and subject were hooked up to Mind Mirrors in front of 400 people. What happened was that the healer’s brainwave pattern was transferred to the patient, what he called ‘Psi mediated brain synchrony’. For me, another example of brain-sharing. He talks of ‘healing’ of seeds were germination is improved by healing; he also says that there are 1200 healers in the UK. The University College London is using some healers for cancer work in a hospital; others treat irritable bowel syndrome at a hospital in Birmingham.
On another occasion I rang Beverly who worked for Stamford University sleep laboratory in connection with her lucid dreaming15; that’s when you are in REM and are aware that you are dreaming. She tells of how it started when she was very young as a result of falling down stairs and how it continued into later life, which is somewhat unusual. It’s been found that many people can be trained to be lucid by means of a device that flashes lights during REM sleep. But more than this she discovered that her dreams could be psychic, mind-sharing with other people. Another thing was that she found how to heal herself during dreaming, leading on to the ability to heal others, from a lucid dream, which is in effect the usual method of healing.
My last report was the occasion I interviewed Phil Young16 who has studied all the various types of healing from around the world and found that to all intents and purposes they are the same. He decided that it matters not how far apart the healer and his patient are, the only thing that matters is that there is a mental link between the two. He calls his own method, Trance Body Healing, where the common trance state connects and heals the body. When asked about trance he had difficulty, but called it ‘the play of consciousness’, ‘the shifting state of awareness’ or ‘a non-verbal exchange of information’. All these I understand as brain-sharing; the mechanism of instinct by cytotelesis. When it comes to names for the information carrier, he mentioned Prana, Qi, Mana, life force, animal magnetism or spiritual healing, and considered that they are fundamentally the same.
In all the above states of mind there are two important common elements, these are trance and the sharing of information person to person, or in other words brainsharing. But more than this, it seems that the people interviewed had abilities in other directions; either brainsharing or healing, demonstrating the fact that there is a common mechanism involved.
This chapter has been all about showing that there is commonality between hypnosis, healing, meditation, praying, dreaming, mystical experience and medium-ship, all of which require the trance states and all of which can produce that mysterious mind to mind or brainsharing. These two elements are responsible for many other even stranger functions of the human mind which is my next topic.
Ch 8 The more you Look – the more you See
Psychical research has clearly not drawn a blank. It has, on the contrary, discovered something so big that people shear away from it in a reaction of fear. G N M Tyrrell
I’ll now try to put a different slant on how we should view these various aspects of consciousness, which to most people appear as ‘freakin bizarre man’. They certainly are bizarre, but that doesn’t mean they cannot be understood. If we understand the science relating to mindsharing then it all starts to be believable.
The best book on ghosts was published by Tyrrell in 1943. He presented 61 cases involving apparitions and haunting ghosts from the SPR collection over the previous 60 years, analysing and commenting on these cases so that his book is still recognised as being the best on the subject1. The study of ghosts is like a nightmare because there are so many aspects and types of ghosts with too many misleading names. It’s because there are so many weird aspects of ghosts and haunting, that they are collectively regarded as a mystery or unbelievable, which we all tend to think is a bit of a joke.
The science of ghosts began with a census 135 years ago in which 17,000 people were asked ‘Have you ever…had a vivid impression of seeing a living being…which…was not due to any external physical cause?, to which 1684 replied yes [9.9%]. The same question was put to a total of 27,329 in France Germany and the US to which a further 3286 replied yes [11.96%]^2^. Of course the sceptics have always tried to deny the evidence, and perhaps without any explanation of how or why it was not too unreasonable. I used to think the same myself before I understood mindsharing, which is a fact of life enabling explanation of the different types of ghosts.
Tyrrell’s analysis of 61 cases led him to divide them into four major classes3; (1) Cases in which the apparition was deliberately sent to a particular person, often from a lucid dream. [Experimental cases] 16 of these were noted by Tyrrell. (2) Cases in which a recognised person is seen when the person is in a crisis situation [crisis cases]. (3) Cases in which a recognised person is seen as a haunting apparition long after the death of a person [post-mortem cases], and (4) ghosts which habitually haunt certain places. But what he does note is that the classes are not very sharply defined because many cases fit into two classes indicating a common mechanism [mindsharing?].
One aspect of ghosts or apparitions, that caused much discussion, was when there where were two or more people who saw the same figure [collective percipients] but again these 130 cases are now less mysterious.
Since Tyrrell wrote his book, ghosts have not gone away; there is a steady flow of reports although most are not brought to public attention. For example my friend Lucy, who had a crisis apparition of her husband in a car crash, was only reported by myself4 on my paranormal is normal broadcast.
There have recently been many books giving details of various ghosts and apparitions, one of which is Psychic Quest by Natalie Osborne Thomason. She signed my copy, then spoke of her experiences and findings which you can hear for yourself5. Natalie’s main point is that it is now generally agreed that haunting ghosts are the result of the memory of emotion or trauma becoming locked in the stonework of a building. She referred to it as the mechanism of stone tape-recording6, and which as a person sensitive to these things, she is sometimes able to pick up.
To me it appears that the spin-field carrying mindsharing becomes locked into the quartz crystals of all stone or granite? Natalie mentions that ghosts are sometimes seen on the road as a result of traffic accidents, or on a wartime airfield where planes have had to crash land. It does seem that all haunting ghosts are linked to memories of emotion and tragedy stored in the quartz of buildings or concrete. It’s not the picture of a car or plane crash that are recorded, but the highly charged emotions of the people concerned at the time; only because they are so highly charged. When quartz is knocked it produces a high-voltage spark, as in gas lighters, but Natalie notes that when an old building is restored the knocking sometimes tends to aggravate the ghost; or release the spin fields?
This term refers to 2 very different phenomena but they both rely on trance and states of mind where the, I is subdued. The first is a method of searching for people or objects, and the other is searching for minerals or water [water divining]. I once bought some rods that didn’t work, maybe because they were cheap, but more likely because I had no idea how to use them. It seems the trick is to lose the feeling of, I by relying on a forked stick or wobbly rods, in which case it seems possible for the rods to tell where there is water. It is clear to me that what is sensed is the layer of quartz stones being moved by a flow of water that releases the spin field which is an explanation fitting the facts.
When it comes to searching for people or items, again known as dousing, that same trance state to set aside feelings of I is required, but this is achieved by the use of a short pendulum, set to swing from one hand at low alpha or theta frequencies, to aid the trance state. Questions are asked of the pendulum, which swings forward and back for yes, and side to side for no. By asking the right questions a lost dog or person can be found, or even an article if it has an emotive link to a person; in which case that person can lead to the lost item by mindsharing.
A well published example of this was a small harp that was stolen from a theatre in San Francisco. The harp was bought for her daughter by Dr Elisabeth Meyer who was a psychologist, researcher and clinician, an Associate Professor of Psychology who had published over 40 papers on psychology. The police couldn’t help, but as a last hope she was persuaded to contact a dowser. He was the President of the American Society of Dowsers who lived 2000 miles away, and during the telephone call from Dr Meyer he was able to confirm, by dousing, that the harp was still in San Francisco but he needed a map to pinpoint the exact location. On receiving a local map he was then able to find that location, enabling Dr Mayer to retrieve the harp.
She realised that the experience had to change the way she saw the world and said ‘This changes everything’. She embarked on a study of the paranormal, writing a book, Extraordinary Knowing^7^, but without an understanding of mindsharing she was unable to find how the dowser, the late Harold McCoy who was also a healer, was able to find the harp. He said his technique was ‘direct knowing’, so Dr Mayer tried to relate that to ESP, the sixth sense, clairvoyance and remote viewing without success, as they appear to be all the same in practice driven by the same ‘unknown’ mechanism.
Two years ago I had a very revealing conversation with Leroy Ball, the then President of the American Society of Dowsers which you may like to hear8. He said that over the years he has found 3000 water wells and now finds missing people and lost dogs, using ‘focused meditation’ and map dowsing with Google maps, dowsing directly from the screen, which I find quite amazing. He said some dowsers can map dowse using only a paperclip on a light string, the pendulum being used purely as an aid to setting consciousness aside, which is the same thing as a medium using his guide, where they both are in deep trance while being highly aroused.
On the face of it the stone recording theory is too bizarre to be considered but it is based on the evidence of many cases and the considered opinion of many ghost hunters,
You are doubtless as amazed as I have been over the bizarre nature of my theory of cytotelesis and brainsharing, that overturns the science of DNA and all growth, but evidence is evidence; so science may be changed by looking at that evidence in a new way. It appears that the process, by which our brains grew, ensures that we are all one large family.
I have a book entitled One Mind by Larry Dossey MD, subtitled ‘How our individual mind is part of a greater consciousness…’. I heard him lecture about it, and spoke to him afterwards, but he was unclear about “how”. But his fascinating 300 page book is all examples of one mind.
An example of this is when family individuals experience similar sensations or physical changes when apart [Telesomatic event[. An example Larry quotes is of a man who went out sailing while his wife stayed in bed. She was suddenly woken up by a severe pain to her mouth for no apparent reason. Later her husband returned with a bleeding mouth caused by a sailing accident9. Larry quotes several like this; but he does have personal experience as he is an identical twin.
Sometimes a person will get a sudden feeling of being stared at. This idea is gradually creeping into public acceptance, but with no idea how or why it might happen. Larry gives examples of soldiers who get an uneasy feeling of being watched, or conversely see an enemy’s reaction when in his sights. Long-range photographers say the same, policemen are sometimes trained not to stare too intently, also it does happen in ordinary daily life when out walking or in a shop. The big factor appears to be the intensity of the gaze bringing on a sense of oneness that is sometimes felt. It even works over closed-circuit television, but not on films. It’s been found that when someone is being stared at their nervous arousal [electrodermal activity] increases. A series of 78 sessions of testing proved the point.
Many pairs of identical twins are repeatedly reminded of their oneness. Some identical pairs, separated soon after birth into different families, have been shown to lead incredibly parallel lives until they have an emotional reunion later in life. Larry makes the point that identical twins brought up together, like to show some individuality, whereas twins separated at birth subconsciously are the opposite, sharing common experiences, as if one mind; by brain sharing.
Another aspect of oneness I find very fascinating is where someone has “A condition in which a person with a developmental disability, such as autism spectrum disorder, demonstrates profound prodigious capacities or abilities far in excess of what would be considered normal” [Savant syndrome; Wikipedia]. These people have a skill in one or more of five major areas; arts, musical abilities, calendar calculations, arithmetic or spatial skills. To put it another way, these people know or remember things they never learnt, that come about, it’s said, due to ‘ancestral or genetic memory’. It seems obvious to me that the origin of these mental abilities is brainsharing; what else I ask? And it doesn’t have to be someone with a ‘developmental disability’, its sometimes ‘normal’ people where they are part of the autistic spectrum. Larry says it may also involve that greater meeting place of consciousness, the One Mind10.
Larry’s chapter 7 is The One Mind of Animals and Humans^11^ in which he details many cases of mindsharing; animals to animals, animals to human and humans to animals. He says that there are thousands of cases in which ‘man rescues dog ‘and’ dog rescues man’. These are where crisis and emotion are shared across species enabling the rescue. Then there are cases where the pet ‘knows’ its master’s intention to feed it. Our black cat would be seen walking up the garden path when my wife decided to feed it. Another story is about Abraham Lincoln’s death; that when he was assassinated at a theatre in Washington DC, his dog at the White House barked uncontrollably, rushing around in a frenzy made it clear to the staff that the President was in danger.
I like the story of a pigeon from Northumberland in UK, who went the wrong way during a storm in France ending up in a pigeon loft in Morocco12. It went the wrong way ending up in a loft on the exact same longitude as its home loft in Northumberland. Later, the nephew knew its aunt was at the same longitude so flew to see her, but that was 1600 miles away. Once he got to Morocco he obtained the local knowledge to find his aunt’s loft, by mindsharing with his aunt; problem solved.
I find that story not so strange because some years ago I published an article, in the pigeon press, showing how all pigeons may find their way about. It relied on the report, that when the lights are on all night in the loft, racing pigeons didn’t find their way back home. I concluded that this is because they become less reliant on sunrise at their home loft, which would otherwise give them a longitude position, by comparing sunrise at the home loft to local sunrise, by mindsharing with their family at home.
Some years ago I used to run a jazz band that played once a week in a pub. I became interested to find the reason why, on some occasions there would be good rapport between us, but at other times the music was not the same due to a lack of rapport. It seemed to have something to do with the moon cycles, but then I realised that it was due to the fact that the pub was on a bend in a tidal estuary where the rapport only occurred when there was a fast flowing tide; being a sailor on the estuary had made me very aware of tidal flow. It appears that movement of the quartz gravel released the spin fields, as in dowsing for water or hauntings. Could it be that the reason most of the world’s major cities are built on rivers or estuaries has something to do with rapport?
One of the few psychic events in my life happened when the band was tuning up. I have always enjoyed playing harmony parts and can do it without thought. But one day a member of the band suddenly started to play a tune, and without thinking I joined in, in harmony, from the first note, playing the same tune in the same key. After a couple of bars he stopped and we looked at each other, somewhat amazed. Nothing was said, what can you say? It’s well known that the rapport between musicians is sometimes more than just the enjoyment of the music.
By now you might think that there is no scientific support for all these claims; so let’s look. The fact is that there has been much interest in many aspects of mind, despite little research money and no obvious great discoveries.
It was shown that during hundreds of sessions, the autonomic nervous system could be influenced remotely, as measured by changes in electro dermal activity. The aim was to influence a distant person’s EDA by staring at a TV monitor of him, producing a significant change in EDA compared to periods of non-staring13.
The understanding of healing was helped by imagery, or thinking without words14. The visualisation of the healer can influence the mind of his subject to aid the healing where there is common rapport and deep trance.
Human red blood cells in salt solution tend to deteriorate, but it was found that a person in another room could, by directing their attention, mentally slow the deterioration of the cells15. Measurements were made by shining light through the saline in order to obtain a numerical value for the deterioration of cells.
Using that same mysterious control of life, experimenters were able to remotely control the movement of small knife fish. Similarly Matthew Manning17, influenced the activity of gerbils using goal directed imagery, focused attention and goal orientated intentionality; big words just meaning concentration.
These four last paragraphs have given references of scientific work done to try and establish how and why these effects work, but its clear answers were not forthcoming. The whole of the paranormal is a completely muddled subject because there is no indication as to how or why these effects work, too many effects and too many different names for much the same thing. This same applies to out of body experiences [OBE] which I discussed earlier, noting that they sometimes occur in hospitals in connection with an NDE.
But the literature on OBEs is large and used to be known as, astral projection, soul travel or spirit walking. Most people claiming to have had a spontaneous OBE, report that they were on the verge of sleep shortly before the experience, where the sleep was not very deep, or they were overtired, stressed, or in bed ill. The literature generally says that the OBE was the result of a lucid dream where the person remembered seeing their body from above or they travelled away from the bed. It seems possible that some cases have a psychic connection where details are ‘remotely seen’, or where the person having the OBE ‘projects’ himself away, and is seen by hallucination at that place by another person. [Reciprocal cases].
In chapter 7 Paranormal is Normal, I mentioned my discussion with lucid dreamer Beverley who says she has had OBEs as well as mindsharing experiences and the ability to heal, indicating a common cause; namely trance.
It's claimed that about 10% of people have had one OBE experience of some sort, some claim more than 10%, some less. It's also said that both lucid dreams and OBEs are psy conducive states, although many tests and experiments have only shown that the effects are very rare, but occasionally very real.
OBEs can be induced by drugs or various techniques, drumming, binaural induction, magnetic stimulation of the brain, sensory deprivation or even sensory overload. But overall, the mental state is associated with lucid dreaming, as being one of ‘Mind Awake Body Asleep’, which is about all that can be said from a scientific point of view. It’s because the whole thing is so muddled that there has been no scientific recognition or study.
We see a similar state of confusion regarding the possibility of interaction between mind and material things or in other words physical interaction; for example poltergeist activity or spoon bending. Having never witnessed anything like this myself I can retain some scepticism but on the other hand some of the evidence is hard to ignore.
If you have 38 minutes to spare watch Uri Geller at SRI Stanford University18. It’s all most fascinating, pure brainsharing by copying pictures like faces and aeroplanes, as well as ‘seeing’ inside sealed envelopes, and aluminium cans. He also could ‘see’ the fall of a dice inside a box, he deflected a compass and altered the reading on a magnetometer: all under the watchful gaze of Sanford Research Institute. The test I found most impressive was a copper ring that Uri squashed using light finger pressure, but it needed 150 lbs pounds to deform it.
While there have been those who denounced Uri Geller as a conjuror, they have not attempted to repeat the same feats that Geller showed at SRI, and under similar watertight scrutiny. This fact proves the point that Uri Geller, at one time, did have these amazing abilities, even though they disappeared later.
A few other individuals have shown physical interaction with matter; Nina Kulagina would move a compass needle, spiritualists have reported various physical phenomena, like table tilting, producing objects [aports] and lights [orbs]. Poltergeists have been reported as having moved objects, raising fire or producing water. But any credibility of physical activity has been destroyed by cheating, as well as media hype and by highly misleading TV entertainment.
The evidence of precognition is sometimes linked to physical effects, where things that are seen in a dream sometimes happen a few days later. My own view on this, is that it is an example of brainsharing where the dreamed scenario is acted out by a person sharing the dream, or alternatively, the dreamer picks up on someone else’s plans, by brainsharing, before the plans are carried out.
There have always been reports of cases where the system of inheritance has gone wrong, where children are born resembling someone, other than their own family. This resemblance is facial or other similarities; also there are memories of events or personal details. It is known as transmigration of souls, or more usually reincarnation, because the evidence is looked at in the wrong way. For reincarnation my dictionary says “Rebirth of a soul in successive bodies”, which may be the general understanding; but it is wrong. It’s not uncommon for a naughty child to be told it will be a tortoise in the next life.
Most religious faiths accept reincarnation as part of their beliefs; it’s only Christianity that has not accepted the worldwide evidence. But the West does regard it as ‘one of the world’s greatest mysteries’ as details of that evidence are so bizarre. Most people here regard the idea as so impossible that there can be no evidence.
Dr Ian Stevenson, who was a professor of psychiatry at the University of Virginia, became internationally recognised for his work in scientifically quantifying the evidence for reincarnation by travelling the world, writing 14 books and 300 papers on the subject. The book I have19 is a summary of his two-volume treatise of 2268 pages. His team collected details of about 3000 cases of children who appeared to have had past lives, remembering many details of another person that has led to the belief that the child was that person born again, sometimes a member of the same family, sometimes not. Those details were sometimes birthmarks or deformities, unusual abilities, phobias, drug addiction, almost anything that was unusual to the parents, as well as actual memories from the person born again, their names and where they lived.
Whether a person is actually born again or reincarnated is open to question; but what else could explain the evidence? The word bizarre seems insufficient to describe the impossibility of this evidence, but it was the details of these evidences that Ian Stevenson collected.
Firstly let’s look at the overall characteristics of these cases, followed by a summary of the range of things that form the evidence for reincarnation. Some of the cases relate to children, where the evidence is seen at birth in the form of birthmarks or deformities, relating to an accident or death in a previous life. Stevenson20 points out the similarity between that and the 350 authenticated cases of stigmata, where it is the re-lived horror of Christ’s crucifixion that is sufficient to induce the formation of Christ’s wounds. The inference is that these cases are Christ reincarnated.
Similarly, birthmarks and defects that are noted on a child, in half of Ian Stevenson’s cases, correspond to wounds on the deceased person from a previous life; although strangely and significantly these are nearly always associated with cases of violent death. These cases are important in that they provide positive evidence for reincarnation.
Stevenson’s cases mostly include evidence of the child speaking of someone from a previous life, when he or she is between the ages of 2 and 4 that continues till about 5 to 8 years old, when the claimed memories fade.
The evidence for reincarnation is derived, not only from marks on a baby and verbal descriptions as soon as talking begins, but from behaviour that is associated with the relived person rather than the child’s family21. That behaviour could also be a phobia, a desire for different food or clothing or an addictive substance. Sometimes a particular skill will be ‘remembered’ or even the name and location of the deceased person, that was unknown to the family.
As part of his analysis of the evidence Stevenson gives 4 possible rational explanations of reincarnation. Firstly, ESP, then possession, and thirdly that the child’s mother knew of the deceased person’s wounds that were then copied on the child’s body. Number four is of course reincarnation where the other three are rejected, so he is left undecided. He does however, try and expand on the idea of ESP by suggesting that it is a system of mind-carrying22 [psychosphore] that sounds very much like my brain-sharing, but he is at a loss to find any explanatory mechanism as he does not accept brainsharing.
So what can be said about explaining the evidence of reincarnation? Firstly, concerning stigmata where a profoundly religious person, who has a consuming emotion about the crucifixion, produces marks resembling nails on feet or hands. This is the same mechanism as blisters produced by a hypnotist’s suggestion that the light touch of a finger will burn and produce a blister, which has been demonstrated many times. Both these examples demonstrate the power of mind over body, where a powerful consuming emotion is the cause.
We are aware that a fetus grows initially in the form of its species, but towards the end of its growth period, the information of inheritance will determine its features and behaviour etc from its parents. It is also conceivable that the fetus might receive inheritance information, by brainsharing from a stranger, where the trigger is a consuming emotion in that person. Consuming emotion is mainly likely where there has been a violent death, which explains why 50% of reincarnation cases are associated with violent death, producing deformities or birthmarks in the fetus. In these cases the consuming emotion is felt by the relatives, not necessarily by the one who died, who then become linked to the fetus.
In the cases were violent death does not appear to be relevant, the link by brainsharing could be triggered by some consuming emotion in the person that is subsequently reincarnated, which could be anybody from a relative to a person living far away, and unknown to the family. That link is then continued, for perhaps the few years, during which time personal details are received by the child.
I suggest that the above scenarios fit the facts of reincarnation by which the mystery can now be seen as something extraordinary, but understandable.
Then there is another extraordinary mystery that has baffled scientists, and that’s regarding heart transplants. A human heart contains 10,000 neurons [brain cells] so is often called the ‘little brain’, but when a heart has been transplanted, memories are occasionally transferred across with the heart to its new owner, for example; preferences, habits and behaviour. It seems unlikely that a heart would normally contain behavioural information and other memories, but its DNA might become accepted by the brain of its new owner. Consequently, the new owner would link with the donor’s family, initiated by the donor’s barcode by brainsharing that would subsequently enable details of preferences, habits and other memories of the heart donor to be transferred across.
Another example of double inheritance is where human intervention has produced 200 breeds of dogs from one species of wolf. Also selection of desirable traits in cattle, cereal crops, fruit and vegetables, have produced varieties that would not succeed in the wild but will try to revert to the original type. Continued interbreeding diminishes the diversity and vitality of any breed, which has to be carefully avoided by crossbreeding. Similarly human interbreeding, that causes health problems and deformities particularly in close family relationships, is not advisable and is consequently illegal in many countries.
This section has shown where inheritance can go wrong, let’s now look at the general understanding of inheritance.
Ch 9 Evolution and Inheritance
Today we have an accepted credible mechanism that explains how all the species of the world have evolved from a common ancestor by slow changes in inheritance. Animals and plants all adopt the required change very slowly, due to random changes in their DNA, caused by mutations that are then tested by natural selection also called survival of the fittest. If the change is an improvement in the fight for survival, then it will be passed on to future generations. We are led to believe, that this is the way creatures have evolved; but I believe mutations are no answer to the problems of evolution.
For ‘doctrine’ in my Collins English dictionary it says, “stubbornly insistent on the application of a theory without regard to practicality” which is a good description of the reasons for the above current doctrine that is demonstrated by the fact that arguments have raged for well over 200 years.
I have a wonderful book about the living stream of evolution, written by the zoologist Sir Alister Hardy, in which he likens the flow of evolution over millions of years to the flow of a river. He quotes Dr Erasmus Darwin who said in 1796;…‘all animals undergo perpetual transformations; …which are in part produced by…their desires and aversions,…and many of these acquired forms or propensities are transmitted to their posterity’....1 That said a lot, but there was a fundamental difficulty; which was that word ‘transmitted’. Today we say, inherited or passed on to future generations, but we say it quickly in the hope that no one will ask how, because if they do ask, there is no answer.
Charles Darwin, the grandson of Erasmus, went to great lengths to give evidence in support of his grandfather’s theory, but neither of them could make up their minds over the question of how inheritance worked; was it mutation or inheritance of acquired characteristics? This was because neither idea gave any explanation as to how it might work or was ‘transmitted’.
This is the fundamental missing link in all theories of evolution that persisted until about 1925 when the suggestion was that a Modern Synthesis of many opposing theories was the answer, based on observations of genes and chromosomes; but it still did not explain how.
When the structure of DNA was revealed it was thought that the issue was finalised; Lamarck was definitely wrong, there could be no inheritance of acquired characteristics, it was all down to DNA; but how? Today we have Neo-Darwinism, formerly the Modern Synthesis, relying on the idea of DNA being the book of instructions for life, where mutations lead to changes of inheritance that evolve into new forms of life. But the evidence shows us that even this latest doctrine is flawed, as there is no method by which information can be encoded into DNA. So now there is a new mechanism known as epigenetics, by which DNA is able to encode acquired characteristics; but nobody is able to explain how.
It seems that the inheritance of acquired characteristics and habits might well be the driving force of evolution, being ‘a matter of common sense’ according to Charles Darwin. Neither Lamarck, nor Erasmus or Charles Darwin, could indicate a mechanism for inheritance, but we only have to look at the features of our own family to see the effect of inheritance, which obviously appears to have something to do with evolution.
I went to a school where we were taken to church twice on Sundays, so the word evolution was never mentioned. Consequently I had no knowledge of it, till I was about 30 while working with a Jehovah’s Witness. He started talking about Charles Darwin and evolution, but I had to admit my ignorance. The outcome was that he lent me a book to educate me, the Origin of Species that I read with interest and full agreement, much to my colleague’s dismay. Of course he was at pains to point out that without any mechanism for evolution and inheritance there has to be, purposive intelligence, guided evolution or intelligent design, to which I could give no answer. Was it, inheritance of acquired characteristics, mutations, or something else that is the force behind evolution?
In the first edition of The Origin Darwin relied on the creation of acquired mutations to alter inheritance, but eight years later a Professor of Engineering pointed out that the idea was flawed, because any mutation would be blended away after a few generations. [Blending inheritance]. Darwin was devastated, writing to Wallace that he was blind and deceived into thinking that natural inheritance acted in the same way as man’s selection of varieties.2 In later editions he relied more on Lamarckism, which again did not indicate how, but today we still have that fundamental difficulty.
Another fundamental problem with Darwin’s theory is the thought that the egg or DNA handed on the inheritance, but the fact that neuter insects in social colonies could not hand on their elaborate instincts, poses an unanswerable question. Similarly, the instinctive behaviour of some insects after laying their eggs cannot be explained.3 Again, how does a sponge, if put through a blender, assemble itself again, or how is it that an amoeba without sense organs or eyes can build itself a house out of bits and pieces from the sea bed?4 It’s only by giving a new insight into the mechanism of inheritance that these problems will be resolved.
The Nature of Inheritance
The Oxford zoologist, Alister Hardy gave lectures on natural history and religion in 1964 after his retirement in which he gave his thoughts on inheritance, intelligent design and evolution, which I will now discuss.
Firstly, a few words about Lamarck’s theory of inheritance. Hardy noted that he stressed that this referred to changes of habit brought about by changes in the environment, but at the same time he suggested that the long neck of a giraffe was due to wishes or desires. Hardy thought the word ‘need’ would be more appropriate,5 as he could see no way that a desire could be encoded into DNA, although he was satisfied that a ‘need’ could possibly explain inheritance, but his argument was not very convincing.
Sir Alister then quotes an important milestone in the understanding of inheritance that introduces the idea of a common subconscious in insects, to explain the mysteries of instinctive behaviour. The suggestion was that the web spinning instincts of spiders may be due to the individual spider being linked up to a larger system, in which the web spinning experience of the species is stored.6 This suggestion had been made over 70 years ago in a book on telepathy.
Sir Alister then relates this idea to the fundamental difficulties in biology, mentioned previously, and how it might offer a highly speculative alternative to current evolutionary theory. He goes on to describe his speculative idea, that not only may the instinctive web spinning of the spider be subconsciously shared, but that all the details of its form be similarly shared by ‘a sort of psychic blueprint’. He said the living stream of the species, the psychic stream of shared form and behaviour, would flow on in parallel to the physical DNA material.7 You will note that this was a huge and very bold step; one that has often been quoted by other writers. But there still remains that one difficulty; how does the psychic stream of information relate to DNA? How do the inheritance changes become encoded into the DNA, so that they may be transmitted on to the next generation, which is the same problem that Erasmus Darwin had in 1796.
The fact is that they do not get encoded, because there has never been a way they could get encoded. Moreover, the changes do not have to be encoded because the building instructions of the child do not come from its DNA, but are carried over by cell to cell transfer [cytotelesis] from its parents.
In fact what happens is that the DNA of the child is a randomly shuffled version of its parents DNA, ensuring the child grows by copying the corresponding cells in its parents, thus producing similar features, behaviour and habits, which we call inheritance. This happens automatically as all information for growth of the fetus is carried over from the parents by cytotelesis and brain sharing. This is the method by which the species, then the race, tribe and then family information, all is carried across to ensure the correct growth of the fetus. The looks, behaviour, intelligence and the acquired characteristics of both parents will in this way be passed on to the child, along with any strongly felt unconscious desires of either parent.
With this explanation the problem of inheritance is neatly solved; in which DNA directs life, but does not provide the building instructions. The building information is transferred across by cytotelesis and brain sharing from the species, race, tribe and parents, which causes the fetus to grow in the likeness of its parents.
It becomes apparent that the doctrines, attributing the building instructions to DNA, as well as the belief that mutations lead to evolution, are without foundation. The above new understanding of inheritance, showing that the lifestyle, behaviour, problems and unconscious desires of parents are passed on to the child during its growth before birth, allows a new understanding of the evolution of each species.
Evolution in Action
It’s now easy to see how inheritance, and survival of the fittest, slowly changes in the DNA of the species over time, but it does seem that unconscious desires are inherited and alter the course of evolution; so Lamarck was right after all. Having said that, is there any evidence to prove the point?
Lamarck said the giraffe’s long neck was a good example, but evolution as a whole can be seen to rely on desires. Some butterflies have exactly mimicked the wing patterns of poisonous butterflies; others have made themselves look like a leaf. Birds of paradise have drastically altered their plumage to please the females. To suggest it was all done by mutation is of course ridiculous. When Darwin went to the Galapagos and saw how finches had altered the shape of their beaks to suit the type of food they ate, it was obvious to him, but he was afraid to use that word, desire. When it came to the evolution of the eye, Darwin could find no possible explanation, saying it gave him a ‘cold shudder’; but surely gradual modification to produce better vision, by unconscious desire, would explain it. It seems to me that an important factor in the evolution of all animals is the unconscious, strongly felt, needs and desires passed across by inheritance, which looks like the work of intelligent design, or guided evolution. Even flowers and trees are influenced by the needs and desires of animals.
We have seen the effects of the desires of humans in producing extraordinarily fancy pigeons, and 200 different breeds of dogs, showing us the rate at which species can change; although in the natural world changes are slowed by survival of the fittest. Human consciousness seems to have advanced quickly, because of an unconscious desire to develop speech and use tools, aided by the fact that our rate of evolution was not limited by predators but was perhaps accelerated by natural selection.
This new perspective, regarding evolution that results from an understanding of the process of inheritance, comes about by a revolutionary view of the function of DNA. It’s the minutest, 1000th part, of our DNA, that is randomly produced by the shuffling of our parental genes, but is personal to each and every one of us. Our personal DNA denotes the passwords of our life, lifestyle experiences, and dare I say by our unconscious desires. It is then passed on to our children together with physical features, like hair colour, and facial features, inherited from our parents. The rest of our DNA, created by random shuffling of parental genes over millennia, [junk DNA] is there to ensure that we grow up to be human, of the correct race and tribe. That cloning type information for growth, comes from the human ‘psychic blueprint’ or ‘racial plan linking all members of the race’, to use Alister Hardy’s words. I prefer to use the words cytotelesis and brain sharing, where cytotelesis produces the form of body and brain, while brain sharing allows instinct, and downloads the important control system into brain.
I found an example of this, when speaking to acquaintance, who had strange double jointed thumbs. He said he thought it had happened because his mother had fallen and dislocated both thumbs, making his thumbs double jointed by the mechanism of inheritance.
Sir Alister ends his chapter on Biology and Telepathy with a beautiful analogy; in which he says each individual is like a copy of the species picture, printed in slightly different inks, which relates to our individual differences. [Personal DNA code]. He finishes by saying that ‘biochemists are only analysing the pigments of nature’s picture’, rather than seeing the picture. It turns out that Hardy’s ‘picture’ is only the family tree of evolution. Science has been misled into constantly examining the ink of the prints, without seeing the picture, or realising that DNA is only a randomly generated key to the cupboard that holds each individual’s copy of the big family tree.
I like to think I have shown how our individual picture is formed; how it occasionally produces a scene from another picture, [reincarnation] how its instinctive messages of personality, habit and behaviour are printed, [cytotelesis] and how we can sometimes occasionally glimpse the view of another picture by brainsharing. [Telepathy]
Ever since the first single cells evolved, this same system of using a chemical barcode has been necessary to ensure continuation and diversity of all species. The fact that all life uses RNA or DNA for its survival does not mean that it is the architect of life as was envisaged 60 years ago. DNA is a long string of essential passwords going back millions of years, but changing each time an egg cell is fertilised. I’m very aware of the likely hostility to this idea but it is a model of life that satisfactorily fits the evidence, whereas the normally accepted model falls down in several ways, which I trust I have been able to detail to the readers satisfaction.
One aspect of evolution that I have not addressed is the way in which information from a cell in one body is transmitted to a cell in another body. Having decided that microtubules in the cells are in effect transmitter and receiver, a signal passes over the biological worldwide web from a stem cell in the parent, along with the relevant password section of DNA, to be received by its respective similar stem cell in the growing fetus. This would apply to growth by cytotelesis, as well as the transmission of an operating system, instinct and details of inherited behaviour etc, by brainsharing; then later it would enable mind to mind after birth. Thinking about the practicality of such a system in terms of conventional radio, raises the point that the necessary capacity of the biological web or network [bandwidth] would be astronomic and unviable, but thinking about it as a quantum system of the ether, then perhaps it could work. In any case the evidence shows that it must work that way.
The science of microtubules and quantum physics has been investigated by Roger Penrose and Stuart Hameroff and they talk of processing information between cells, but it’s very much about the hidden nature of nature, otherwise known as quantum biology. These ideas fit well with the evidence for cytotelesis and brain sharing, but that’s probably all that can be said, as the whole business is inexplicable.
Ch 10 Additional Evidence
Science has found large gaps in the understanding of DNA, consciousness and evolution, all of which may become clearer if ideas of cytotelesis and brainsharing are introduced. These two new words, cytotelesis and brainsharing, have unfortunately had to be introduced as there were no other words available. Cell to cell information transfer across space had to be reduced to one word; cytotelesis, and also I was criticised for using the word telepathy to explain a wide range of psychic effects, all using the same mechanism of information flow, from one brain to another, so we need that new word, brainsharing.
This chapter now looks at the way the evidence of heredity, DNA, consciousness and psychic phenomena interlink and support each other.
Biology and DNA
The general opinion is that genes control the biology of life, but this is only a long held supposition or hypothesis; not a theory1.
The lack of any real understanding concerning the purpose and action of DNA led to my search for evidence of what it is that actually controls the growth of a fetus, which turned out to be microtubules and stem cells. Microtubules are an essential part of all living cells, implicated in cell division. They provide the information for production of the new cell where DNA and RNA call up the necessary chemicals. No information can come out of the blue, but the evidence shows that the information can come from other members of the same species by cytotelesis, where the carrier holds not only the detailed information to find a cell in the growing fetus, but the details for creating new adjacent cells, along with the necessary password which comes from the parental DNA.
An important part of this process is the identification of exactly where the cell in question is located in the fetus. Four days after fertilisation, the embryo consists of a small collection of stem cells [blastocyst] that multiply and grow into the new organism; these are known as embryonic stem cells. They rely on signals and information to control change to many other different types of stem cells. A search for the controlling chemical signals has proved fruitless, also what it is that regulates the organisation and proliferation of the different types of stem cells. Surely, it has to be cross species information flow, by cytotelesis, from stem cells to the appropriate stem cells in the fetus. As the fetus grows, stem cells change to adult cells [somatic] which are located in specific areas of the body, for bone, liver, heart etc, controlling the growth of that specific area.
The science of DNA has assumed that the information controlling the splitting of cells, leading to all growth, comes directly from DNA; but it just isn’t like that. Yes, DNA regulates growth in that its passwords accept only information from family and the rest of the species, but DNA is only a long string of passwords built up over millions of years of evolution, rather than the book of building instructions.
This different way of looking at DNA makes no difference to the outcome; a fetus grows in the form of the correct species, race and tribe, then later on in the growth process, it follows the inheritance of body and mind from the family. The genes control details like hair or skin colour, not by building the necessary cells, but by accepting only information corresponding to correct hair and skin colour from its tribe or family. Where parents have different hair or skin colour the result there would be inherited from one or the other, or a mixture of the two.
The inheritance of brain and mind, instinct and the brain operating system come about by using the old passwords from evolution [junk DNA] but on the other hand some traits are inherited from the parents; even emotional experiences and desires can be passed across from parents.
Where past mutations have affected old DNA, scientists have identified the gene concerned that results in a particular genetic disease, but it doesn’t mean that the damaged gene directly causes the disease. What happens is that the damaged gene indirectly causes the disease by cloning the information from others with that same disease using the faulty piece of DNA password.
This all produces the same results that scientists have been studying for years, but it just works in a different way to that imagined. It does of course allow for a better understanding of stem cells and microtubules in which information is passed across between the members of a species.
Research on the nature and purpose of microtubules has shown that they are the controlling factor, or brain of each cell, whether they are stem cells, body cells, nerve or brain cells, but their method of action appeared to be a mystery.
As previously mentioned there is a hypothesis explaining how microtubules speak to microtubules by a quantum process, relating to how neurons speak to neurons in the brain. So why not extend that idea, to brain cells in one person, transferring on to brain cells in another; also body cells to body cells? I see no difficulty, although the idea [Orch OR] was originally criticised, even concerning operation within the brain. That science of microtubules and quantum particles, which has been detailed by Hameroff and Penrose2, provides a description of the way cytotelesis and brainsharing could work.
This long connected argument, starting with a single fertilised cell, leading to a child relying on stem cells, microtubules and quantum physics, is on the face of it, quite revolutionary, but it does fill in the gaps where science has no answer, at the same time acknowledging the available evidence.
As an example of that evidence, a good place to look is the detail of the fur markings on a domestic cat. Where the animal has rather mixed parentage the coat markings could be as either parent, or an untidy mixture of the two. It comes about by its randomly mixed personal DNA, accepting information from either parent from which it produces coat markings, which are a randomly mixed version of its parent’s colouring. The information comes from its parents, to the stem cells associated with skin and hair [follicular stem cells], enabling hair of the correct colour and length to be produced. This part of the fur is due to inheritance from its parents, which may also alter the colour of the face. But the length of fur on face and ears relies on old cat DNA, settled millions of years ago, giving very short hairs on face and ears, except for a few special long ones growing out from the side of the face; whiskers. This example shows the way the kitten’s bar code is encoded for the inherited fur colourings from its parents, as well as hair length on coat, face and whiskers, from very old DNA. The science of DNA, which we all know about, has shown us that the kitten’s DNA is a somewhat random mixture of its parent’s DNA, it’s only the idea of cytotelesis providing the building instructions for the kitten that is new. The copying system is rather like today’s method of 3D printing.
Microbiologists have had a problem in trying to explain how damaged DNA could be repaired. The fact is that it is not repaired, hence their problem. Nature deals with it in one of three ways. The first happens during the fertilisation process when the two DNAs try to combine to produce the first cell. If they fail then the cell will die, or perhaps survive for a few weeks, before aborting. If the fetus survives, it will then have to cope with the situation of incoming DNA coded information, not matching its own DNA, occasionally leading to deformities. The third way damaged DNA is corrected is when the child reaches adulthood. The next generation will only have a 50% likelihood of genetic difficulty, and so on till the damage disappears by blending inheritance.
Despite my efforts to resolve the mysteries of life there remain several lines of investigation that are still mysterious.
One is the question of mysticism; why does deep trance bring on that strange feeling that everything is understood? From my own experience I deduced that the brain and mind go into overload which opens up new pathways and removes old redundant brain cells3. Although this agrees with the evidence available, there is no science to back it up.
Similarly, I made a study of Stonehenge and deduced that it was built as a centre of healing energy, where the necessary state of mind is recorded and released by the quartz from the Bluestones. Was it also a centre of mystical experience? After the building of many stone circles of various sizes, they eventually got the correct size at Stonehenge to induce mystical experience by drumming, as well as the affect of the Bluestones. It’s no coincidence that the size of Stonehenge has a natural frequency4 of precisely 6Hz which is the Theta frequency of deep trance and enlightenment. That’s the evidence but does it solve the mystery?
There are also many unresolved questions regarding the biological information carrier, although Russian scientists have studied it over a period of 50 years. They have a good understanding of the effects of the carrier, produced by the earth’s velocity and the suns gravity, calling the resulting particle shower; Inertons.5 They have also replicated the work of the Egyptians who well understood the practical aspects of the carrier in pyramids 4000 years ago, but they have apparently failed to realise the significance of this work in relation to the understanding of the biology of life, and have missed the point that the cloud of particles is spinning quartz.
It’s all in the Ether
The evidence shows that the carrier of quantum information comes from the planets, being another part of my long connected argument. There is clear evidence for the origin of the carrier, shown by the fact that there are two completely independent and different sets of evidence that support and reinforce each other, which is powerful evidence in itself for the origin of the quantum carrier.
Spottiswood’s report shows that there is a relationship of between 2879 successful brainsharing gansfeld tests, at the time of rising of the Milky Way. He presented a graph showing a sharp peak as the Milky Way appeared over the horizon with a broad peak as it was overhead. But there is another set of findings to show that a carrier from the planets affects all our lives.
Gauquelin’s evidence was of a completely different type, showing that a solar planet produced an effect as the planet appears over the horizon and again when overhead.
In both cases the evidence was based on a large number of readings and of sufficient quality to be taken as reliable; despite efforts by skeptics to denounce the evidence as it appeared to have no possible scientific explanation.
Gauquelin discovered that not only did a particular planet have an influence on time of birth, and likely profession in later life, but there was a noticeable effect on the temperament, personality and facial features; all sounding rather like the system we know as inheritance6. In fact it is exactly the same, as it is another hereditary system working alongside family inheritance. Where both parents are born under Saturn, for example, the child will try to time its birth as Saturn rises, although it would make no difference to the child if the birth was induced to coincide with the regime of the hospital. Gauquelin’s evidence all agreed with what is known as father to son inheritance, which is obvious to us all; but he showed that there is this additional hidden family trait linking each family member to a planet. Where parents are born under different planets, the child will bear a random resemblance to both, in the same way as skin or hair colour is randomly inherited.
The facts are that planetary influences do affect inheritance, as well as reflecting the time of day when telepathy is more likely to be successful, which all shows that life and consciousness are reliant on quantum effects from the ether, similar to the way we are all reliant on heat and light from the sun.
It’s those quantum spinning particles that carry biological growth information, that also program the brain with memories for instinct and the system for operating all bodily systems, for example heart, senses and the mind; what I like to call our control system.
And again, these same quantum energy particles can become locked into quartz, so I concluded that the carrier originated from quartz in the planets. Ghosts and hauntings all appear to rely on traumatic memories becoming transferred to the quartz in buildings or the surrounding area. Those memories are slowly released, to be sometimes picked up by someone nearby in a light trance. It could be that the resulting vision and the fear that accompanies it, become re-embedded in the quartz; making the whole experience self perpetuating.
The Spectrum of Mindsharing
The number of experiences due to mind sharing is in itself a problem because there are so many names, most of which are widely misunderstood, for example NDE’s, OBE’s and the spirit world. But I deliberately use the single word, mindsharing, to describe them all, because there is only one mechanism or to put it another way, only one state of mind. Any state of mind is difficult to describe or even think about, let alone to deliberately try and achieve. As I said previously most meditaters think there are doing well, when they are in reality ‘only bordering on its edges’.
Meditation is all about the depth of trance; difficult to describe and for most impossible to achieve. My own experience I believe it is fairly typical. Twenty evening classes, with one of the most renowned scientists in the subject, produced only one never to be forgotten experience. Was it meditation or mystical, I ask?
Hypnosis is all about trance, a good subject is a person who goes into trance easily whereas a person like me is very difficult to hypnotise. The early hypnotists would have a 30 minute induction, which for many was far too much and would cause problems; modern hypnotism generally only requires a light trance from a short induction. A deep trance in some people will induce a mystical experience or brainsharing [telepathy] which are both problems to be avoided.
The fact is that any type of brainsharing requires some degree of trance. We live in a state of trance without realizing it, swinging in and out during the day. Some people, like good hypnotic subjects, psychic individuals or mediums, achieved trance easily to order.
Let’s remind ourselves; what is the state of trance? It is when consciousness is set aside, either deliberately as in meditation, or when half asleep, or when an instinctive action takes over, like rage, laughing or crying. Any level of trance can be the trigger for brainsharing and that can be either sending or receiving.
Perhaps it would help demonstrate this rather complicated set of findings by discussing my own experiences.
The first was when my mother realized she could read my thoughts when I was about three years old. We spent 5 minutes each guessing a number, from 0 to 10, until it started going wrong. My questions about how it worked were never answered, so the subject was never mentioned again; although it did start me thinking.
The next experience was partly drug induced. I went to a family funeral when I was about 22, and suffered with grief, as I normally do at funerals. At the wake I was given a whiskey, which I was not used to, followed by a very strong coffee, and then put on the train home; but I knew what people were going to say before they said it.
My third experience was after 18 weeks of meditation training when I went into deep trance for perhaps half a minute. I called it an ecstatic enlightenment, also known as mysticism or by many other names. I had no feelings of brainsharing but the instructor said many times that it was possible.
The fourth was my strange musical experience picking up a fellow musician’s tune from his first note, in harmony, in time and in tune. As is often the case with mindsharing a common thought pattern is the key.
The fifth was with an old work colleague who I met in town. We sat together remembering old times when I started to know what was in his mind before he said anything; a very strange experience.
Lastly and more recently, at the two day mediumship training days, we were set psychological tasks; all brainsharing. We were divided into pairs for the first test, where one of us thought of a colour which the other had to guess. My partner was just getting into the right state of mind when the instructor asked if she had chosen a colour. At that instant, I just knew what she had decided. Again, two minds with a common thought pattern.
Although I don’t think of myself in any way as psychic; as I have only had six experiences in over 80 years. But one important thing I have learned, that is to recognise my feelings when it happened. For me it was a sort of excited expectation while being relaxed, but aroused at the same time. Not that it was ever intentional, although each time I recognised afterwards, that same set of feelings; but some learn to do it to order. That’s what the mediumship training was all about. After my first success with the colour ‘guessing’, I tried, but failed completely during all the subsequent tests, although others, some of whom had had previous experience, did achieve brainsharing; one lady bursting into tears due to an emotional mystical type experience.
Mediums used to use Indian spirit guides in order to induce the necessary state of mind, which are now considered obsolete. But today beginners are given a card, showing an animal in its natural surroundings as a guide to concentrating the mind on nature, and it works. Any talk of the ‘spirit world’ is purely an outdated belief, which people expect to hear as part of medium ship; but its all mindsharing.
We were urged to create a feeling of light hearted relaxation with excitement while revelling in the emotion of love or grief. This was called the ‘world of the spirit’ although the process of induction, using progressive relaxation, concentration on the breath etc, was exactly the same as I had been taught during meditation and healing training. I failed as a medium, possibly because I was content not to invade someone else’s mental privacy. Mental mediumship is the use of brainsharing, just as healing mediumship relies on a caring and healing frame of mind that can be transferred to the subject, with both medium and subject concentrating on the healing messages. This normally occurs with hand contact, although incredibly, distance appears to be no real obstacle; even thousands of miles make little difference. It’s because we are all one, and that oneness becomes obvious in the wonderful process of bodily healing, whether the healing is on someone else’s body, or our own.
Looking now at the spectrum of so called paranormal experiences; what can be learned, as they are so varied? Most are casual and unsought as part of everyday life, like knowing who is calling on the phone before answering; similarly hypnotists, healers and therapists can occasionally pick up some unexpected knowledge from their patients, which is where trance inadvertently triggers brainsharing.
What is important is the realisation that all brainsharing experiences rely on an unthinking mind, known as trance, either very light or of any depth, together with emotion of one sort or another; be it grief, love, fear or pain. This understanding helps to explain many things; haunting, where deep emotions are temporarily stored in stone; or the strange transfer of emotions and thoughts to a child before birth, called reincarnation; or the many deep trance situations without brainsharing; meditation, hypnosis, or ecstatic enlightenment.
Trance is in fact accessing the dream state when awake, for example speaking in tongues, or déjà vu. Other triggers are an overstressed mind known as mental illness, or a near death experience; or a deep need to heal someone’s pain; or even a hyper-aroused panic state.
Resuscitation from clinical death is well documented, which brings on the strange enlightenment experience, but that state of mind is all part of the spectrum of unusual states of consciousness, where consciousness is in fact set aside by trance.
The term out of the body experience refers to a lucid dreaming state in which one’s own body is viewed from outside, but the term has been abused to explain almost any strange thoughts.
Even though animals seem to have trance, dreaming and brainsharing, we have evolved a much deeper level of trance in order that instinctive thoughts, emotions and behaviour patterns do not become blocked by conscious thinking. An example of this is the way the instinctive urges of sex and aggression are sometimes hard to control.
The whole range of ‘paranormal’ experiences are not separate experiences needing separate names, but are part of a spectrum of mental states in which the brain is in control, rather than mind, with consciousness generally set aside, during which time the brain is occasionally capable of making a link with another person’s brain; by brainsharing.
Consciousness and Evolution
The main difficulties in the understanding of consciousness are firstly, how a brain could grow so that it is programmed with a system to organize life memories and mental abilities; then a system to operate all the bodily functions, which include growth, repair and the immune system; and lastly a programme of behaviour and memories that we call instinct. Some scientists have perversely insisted that all this necessary information flows out of DNA, while others try to point out that there is no evidence that this is the case.
The brain grows by the same method as all other organs of the body by a method, akin to cloning, that copies from the rest of the species. Although this copy may be from parents, it certainly does not have to be that way, as we see occasionally in ‘reincarnation’ or double inheritance. Similarly, genetic disease results from selective inheritance, where DNA selects later growth information, only from those with the same disease.
The growth process of a fetus, copies from the brains of other human beings, forming a head and brain with a nervous system that travels throughout the body. Science has shown that the microtubules [neurons] are the main components of the brain, contributing to the memory and analysis of that memory in the mind.
It is clear that the thought process produces microtubule voltages that are observed outside the brain [EEG]. The way this all happens leaves little evidence, all we can do is wonder, but science has confirmed that it’s all down to microtubules.
Hameroff notes that complicated twisting in the bunches of microtubules, allows spin currents to interact along the spiral pathways, being the process of consciousness by quantum processes7. This is the evidence but we really know little else, although brain surgeons have learnt to do amazing things to the brain when necessary, but often its trial and error.
Our brains have evolved over 100,000 years by another process of trial and error, where a need for more brainpower for hunting and gathering, then speech, led to losing the abilities of our primate ancestors. The pace of modern life, which has noticeably changed even during my lifetime, is gradually altering our evolution.
Our consciousness must be seen as a natural extension to that of the animal kingdom, and therefore is no more mysterious or hard to comprehend. Now that we understand how it grows, as well as comprehending how it evolved, it should no longer be regarded as an inconceivable mystery.
The sub-microscopic world of photons and electrons are so far removed from our view of the world that we can only try to make sense of it by looking at the evidence. Sometimes that evidence is helped by maths, but generally not. Einstein was able to use maths in helping understand the heavens, but the evidence of light and the proton particle he failed to resolve by maths. Writing to a friend he said ‘All these 50 years of conscious brooding have brought me no nearer to the answer of the question, what are light quanta? Nowadays every Tom, Dick and Harry thinks he knows it, but he is mistaken.’ It now turns out that light is not a particle at all; Einstein had been looking for something that is not there.
The commonly noted dilemma of scientists is that light is both a particle and a wave because their dogma states that matter is composed of particles, rather than waves.
The problem has been eloquently explained by a retired Apollo professor of physics, Milo Wolff8, who shows that all matter is energy particles giving off standing waves. This changes nothing to the details of physics and chemistry, except providing an explanatory model for quantum events, for example gravity, light and inertia. The model is based on modern evidence, rather than Newton’s falling apple or Einstein’s 50 year problem with light.
We are now faced with the problem of finding a model for the quantum details of life which satisfies the evidence that I have previously detailed. Looking at that evidence, it seems that the carrier of quantum information is particles of quartz. These are stripped off planets that are travelling at between 21 and 66 thousand mph. The sun’s gravity pulls off quartz particles [unit cells] that are composed of 3 atoms of silicon and 6 atoms of oxygen [Si3 O6] where their inertia turns into spin. Surprisingly, these quartz particles arrange themselves into a double helix9, therefore they are compatible with DNA; for example quartz is used to extract DNA as it binds to quartz. It is likely that the spin speeds are a function of the velocity of the individual planets which explains the variation in planetary inheritance. I have to confess to some lateral thinking in these proposals, but I can think of nothing else that explains the excepted evidence.
The evidence appears to show that the spinning quartz particles, which are known to hold digital information [spintronics], receive information from the microtubules of living tissue, then pass it on to other microtubules, within the brain, nervous system, and stem cells. The science relating to this process is discussed at length by Penrose10 where it is suggested that a number of particles may collectively cooperate [bio coherence] in the coupling between microtubules; there being mounting evidence of quantum action between the microtubules of cells within a body.
The logical extension of this evidence is then to propose that this same quantum action occurs between different members of a species, where the DNA password is supported by the double helix in the quartz. Here then we have a chain of evidence supporting the facts of cytotelesis and brainsharing, that are the fundamental processes of all life.
What have I done? Over the last few years I have asked myself this question many times, just following where the evidence took me. Sometimes it looked like a can of worms, but evidence is evidence. Some of it led me to the solution of the 220 year old problem of evolution, posed by Erasmus Darwin when he asked how desires are transmitted to the next generation.
My look at the quantum world revealed many fundamental difficulties which appears to have been solved by Milo Wolff, even though he was rewarded with the title of ‘crackpot’ by his contemporaries, who persisted with the doctrine that matter is composed of atomic particles, rather than being energy waves.
Science has repeatedly followed along erroneous paths, even when a particular branch of scientific endeavour revealed problems with no solution. Scientists have always blindly looked forward for a solution; never back. One example of this is of course DNA.
Science tells us that inheritance changes are somehow encoded into DNA by the process of epigenetics, ensuring the changes are carried over to the next generation. But I have shown that it just doesn’t work like that. The fact is that the changes first appear in the child’s personal DNA rather than the parent’s, because the information is carried across by cytotelesis.
We have learnt how to alter life by swapping bits of DNA from one creature to another, while being blind to the way a digital programme turns into life. Genetic modification is only moving passwords from one DNA to another, and although it has the power to alter life by altering the master blueprint, it is not altering the building instructions. For that we must look to another scientific blind spot; cytotelesis and brainsharing.
As an example of how the genetically modified [GM] system works I looked up GM rice, and to my amazement saw that a new GM variety, in the U.S had mysteriously transferred its properties worldwide to other varieties of rice. Could it be that this mystery is another example of the mechanism that’s known as ‘the world’s greatest mystery’; reincarnation? So today we have rice with conventional DNA, exhibiting GM properties, probably because the growing GM plant had difficulty assimilating the contrary information, causing it to transmit its muddled inheritance to growing rice. Perhaps the widespread concern over the safety of GM crops is now seen to be justified.
Looking at the wide range of topics discussed in this book, it can be seen that they are all linked by answering unresolved problems that have generally come about due to the unfortunate inertia of science. It’s not that I set out to criticise, but I have tried to point out where the evidence showed a different path to that taken by the flow of science.
The evidence for the paranormal cannot be ignored, therefore there has to be a scientific explanation for that evidence. Additionally, the fact that instinctive behaviour appeared to rely on information flow using the mechanism of the paranormal, led me to question the role of DNA in providing instinctive information.
It turned out that the lack of any evidence for the role of DNA in providing growth information led to the question; what does DNA do? The answer has been shown to be a very fundamental change in the observed way that DNA operates, leading to my question; what have I done? Not only has the role of DNA been questioned, but the fundamentals of quantum thinking have been altered by Milo Wolff. Hameroff and Penrose have detailed how microtubules could be the all important link between growth and the psychic side of life, which allows an extra ingredient for the understanding of evolution, life and consciousness.
Chapter 1 An Introduction
1 Bruce Lipton The Biology of Belief Hay House 2005 p31-34
2 Sir Alister Hardy The Living Stream Collins 1965 p258
3 Rupert Sheldrake The Science Delusion Coronet 2012 p7-8
4 Rupert Sheldrake A New Science of Life Blond and Briggs 1981
Chapter 2 The Things that Don’t Make Sense
1 DNA Repair. Wikipedia 27/08/2016
2 Rupert Sheldrake A New Science of Life Blond and Briggs 1981 p165
3 Richard Alabone [+ http://webtalkradio.net/internet-talk-radio/category/podcasts/paranormal-is-normal/feed/+]
Chapter 3 The Wonders of Biology
1 Erwin Schrodinger What is Life Cambridge 1992 p21-22
2 Common misunderstandings of genetics. Wikipedia 17/08/2013 #36 keep paper copy with # refs
3 Bruce Alberts et al. Microbiology of the cell. 5E Online
4 Cell membrane. Wikipedia 12/03/2012 #93
5 Plant morphogenesis. www 3.imperial.ac.uk. 28/03/2015
6 Microtubule. Wikipedia 29/01/2013 #82 axons 151
7 Tim Spector. Identically different. Wiedenfeld and Nicolson 2012 p18
8 Ibid p16
9 Ibid p18
10 Epigenetics. Wikipedia 18/02/2013 #68
11 Ibid p5
12 List of systems biology research groups. Wikipedia 01/02/2014 #46
13 Cellular differentiation. Wikipedia 27/05/2015 #97
Chapter 4 Brain Sharing [Telepathy]
1 Rupert Sheldeake
2 Upton Sinclair. Mental Radio Forgotten Books 2008 (orig 1930}
3 R. Sharman Mediums and a Possible source of Communication J SPR No920 p186
4 Richard Alabone [+ http://webtalkradio.net/internet-talk-radio/category/podcasts/paranormal-is-normal/feed/+]
Chapter 5 It’s the Planets
1 J Spottiswoode Apparent association between Effect Size and Local Sidereal Time www
2 Michel Gauquelin Cosmic Influences on Human Behaviour Aurora Press 1994
3 J.Ralphs After Gauquelin What Next Network Review J SMN 99 p15
4 V.Nachalov, A.N.Sokolov. Experimental investigation of new long-range actions.
5 Prof. Ron Naaman Biological molecules select their spin www
Chapter 6 The Philosophy of Consciousness
1 Philpapers philpapers.org Science of Consciousness 21/10/2016
2 Dr James Le Fanu Why Us? Dualism Resurgent Network Review J SMN 100 p12 #12
3 Richard Alabone A Squirrel’s Tale The Essex Beekeeper No546 p14-16
4 Joseph Griffin The Origin of Dreams The Therapist Ltd 1997
5 Richard Alabone [+ http://webtalkradio.net/internet-talk-radio/category/podcasts/paranormal-is-normal/feed/+] No37 Origin of Dreams & Trance
Chapter 7 The Spooky List
1 J Griffin & I Tyrrell Hypnosis and Trance States The European Therapy Studies Institute 1998
2 Maxwell Cade The Awakened Mind Wildwood House Ltd 1979 p24-25
3 Ibid p44
4 Richard Alabone Sublimity Author House 2009 p71-80
5 Maxwell Cade The Awakened Mind Wildwood House Ltd 1979 p149-150
6 Ibid p92
7 Ibid p150
8 Nona Coxhead The Relevance Of Bliss Wildwood House Ltd 1985 p2
9 J Kildall Psychology of Speaking in Tongues HarperCollins 1972
10 Richard Alabone [+ http://webtalkradio.net/internet-talk-radio/category/podcasts/paranormal-is-normal/feed/+]
11 Ibid End of Life Experiences or NDE’s No 12
12 Ibid Even a Scientist and Business Executive can be Psychic No 26
13 Ibid Praying Is Normal; even Praying In Tongues No 7
14 Ibid Healing Is Perfectly Normal and we begin to know why No 21
15 Ibid Lucid Dreaming-Awake when Asleep No 18
16 Ibid The many different Forms of Healing, Are they all the same? No 27
Chapter 8 The More You Look the More You See
1 G N M Tyrrell Apparitions SPR 1973
2 Ibid p18 & 24
3 Ibid p33
4 Richard Alabone [+ http://webtalkradio.net/internet-talk-radio/category/podcasts/paranormal-is-normal/feed/+] Clairvoyance is considered impossible but, for a few, it is normal No 33
5 Ibid I Believe in Ghosts No38
6 Natalie Osborne-Thomason Psychic Quest Clairview 2002 p147
7 Elizabeth Lloyd Mayer,Ph.D. Extraordinary Knowing Bantum Dell 2008
8 Richard Alabone [+ http://webtalkradio.net/internet-talk-radio/category/podcasts/paranormal-is-normal/feed/+] The Art of Dowsing is like Magic – but quite Normal No8
9 Larry Dossey MD One Mind Hay House 2013 p147
10 Ibid p136
11 Ibid p53
12 Ibid p57
13 W Braud & M Schlitz A Methodology for the Objective Study of Transpersonal Imagery J Scientific Exploration 3, 1 (1989) p43-63
14 J Achterberg The Role of Imagery in Healing paper Beverly Hills 1991
15 W Broad Distant Mental Influence of Rate of Hemolysis J ASPR 84, 1 (1990) p1-24
16 W Broad et al Experiments with Mathew Manning J SPR 50, 782 (1979) p199-223
17 SRI Stanford University
18 Ian Stevenson MD Where Reincarnation and Biology Intersect Praeger 1997
19 Ibid p13-14
20 Ibid p7
21 Ibid p183
Chapter 9 Evolution and Inheritance
1 Sir Alister Hardy The Living Stream Collins1965 p55-56
2 Ibid p81
3 Ibid p258
4 Ibid p231
5 Ibid p160-161
6 Ibid p255
7 Ibid p257-258
Chapter 10 Additional Evidence
1 Bruce Lipton The Biology of Belief Hay House 2005 p21-22
2 S Hameroff www.quantum computation in brain microtubules
3 R Alabone Sublimity Author House 2009 p76-78
4 Ibid p188-190
5 V Krasnoholovets, V Byckov Real inertons against hypothetical gravitons.Institute of Physics, Ukraine
6 Michel Gauquelin Cosmic Influences on Human Behaviour Aurora Press 1994 p177-186
7 January 16, 2014
8 Milo Wolff Schrodinger’s Universe Outskirts Press 2008
9 Quartz Structure last modified: Friday, 06-Jan-2017 p11
10 Roger Penrose Shadows of the Mind Oxford University Press 1994 p367-377
Listen to the Author’s radio broadcasts; Paranormal Is Normal
First select a program, press control and click [hyperlink]; then click to start audio.
1 [+ Paranormal is Normal – Science is deluded regarding the Paranormal+]
With Rupert Sheldrake about his book The Science Delusion.
2 [+ Paranormal is Normal – Ghosts in the city are Normal+]
With a guide to the ghost tours of Prague.
3 [+ Paranormal is Normal – Some Astrology cannot be Denied+]
How can Gauquelin’s work on astrology relate to the paranormal?
4 [+ Paranormal is Normal – A transplant heart carriers lifestyle characteristics.+]
The evidence of the occasional influence of heart transplants.
5 [+ Paranormal is Normal – Quantum Science and Angels that Heal+]
With the editor of Quantum Angel Healing with her experience of healing.
6 [+ Paranormal is Normal – Stage Hypnosis Shows are great entertainment+]
With a member of the Federation of the Ethical Stage Hypnotists.
7 [+ Paranormal is Normal – Praying is Normal; even Praying in Tongues.+]
With a church minister about speaking in tongues and healing.
8 [+ Paranormal is Normal – The Art of Dowsing is like Magic – but quite Normal+]
With a retired president of the American Society of Dowsers about his experiences and thoughts on dowsing.
9 [+ Paranormal is Normal – Trance and Mental Illness+]
With a well-known therapist who has organised the training of 200,000 British therapists.
10 [+ Paranormal is Normal – It’s NOT a Mystery. So how can the Paranormal be Understood+]
My thoughts on how and why the 90 different paranormal experiences are part of life.
11 [+ Paranormal is Normal – Remote Viewing – How is it Done?+]
With Gwyn Hocking who explains how some people can ‘see’ remotely with the power of the mind.
12 [+ Paranormal is Normal – End of Life Experiences: or NDE’s+]
With Peter Fenwick who has studied and written about Near Death Experiences [NDE’s]
13 [+ Paranormal is Normal – Traditional Oriental Reiki+]
With Guido Terzaghi who has explained the spiritual and paranormal side of Reiki.
14 [+ Paranormal is Normal – Unconscious Connecting – or Telepathy+]
With a teacher of autistic children about non-verbal communication.
15 [+ Paranormal is Normal – Talking to a Medium with the gift of Healing and Spiritual Surgery+]
With a spirit medium talking about spiritual healing.
16 [+ Paranormal is Normal – Training with a Mind Mirror, to achieve altered states of consciousness+]
With Judith Pennington who trains people to use a special EEG.
17 [+ Paranormal is Normal – Past Life Therapy+]
Hypnosis is used to regress, to find how a previous life might affect mental and physical health in this life.
18 [+ Paranormal is Normal – Lucid Dreaming:- Awake when Asleep. +]
With a Lucid dreamer who was studied by Stanford Sleep Laboratory
19 [+ Paranormal is Normal – A Psychic is able to act in Many Ways.+]
With a psychic who has worked in various areas of the paranormal.
20 [+ Paranormal is Normal – Floatation Tanks –the way to deep meditation+]
How deep trance can be achieved.
21 [+ Paranormal is Normal – Healing is perfectly Normal and we begin to know why+]
With the Chairman of the Confederation of Healing Organisations about many aspects of healing.
22 [+ Paranormal is Normal – Helping People learn to Heal Themselves+]
With the author of Empowered Healing about the power of hypnotherapy, trance, Reiki,
and spiritual healing.
23 [+ Paranormal is Normal – Medium of the century: from Brazil.+]
About Chico Xavier, who used automatic writing for healing and other psychic powers.
24 [+ Paranormal is Normal – These machines aid Meditation and train Psychic Ability+]
with the MD of Meditations Ltd whose machines use light and sound for deep trance training.
25 [+ Paranormal is Normal – The Artistic Sleepwalker – Lee Hadwin+]
my guest makes amazing drawings unconsciously when asleep. Some have been sold for charities.
26 [+ Paranormal is Normal – Even a Scientist and Business Executive can be Psychic.+]
Since her retirement Jude Currivan has travelled the world and written about her own experiences as well as many others she has met.
27 [+ Paranormal is Normal – The many different Forms of Healing. Are they all the same?+]
Phil Young has studied and practiced many different forms of healing; but healing is healing.
28 [+ Paranormal is Normal – The Science, and understanding, of Twin Telepathy+]
the details revealed.
29 [+ Paranormal is Normal – Can Trance and Telepathy explain ALL ?+]
Are all psychic abilities the result of a natural part of life?
30 [+ Paranormal is Normal – Exploring the power of Healing and Reiki+]
with Aram Kong who uses acupuncture and speaks of its uses.
31 [+ Paranormal is Normal – It seems that UFO’s are everywhere – but what are they really?+]
With an ex-colleague of mine, who is heavily involved in the British UFO Research Association
32 [+ Paranormal is Normal – Spiritualism is Normal. But let’s look at the detail.+]
With a Minister and Director of the Spiritualist National Union
33 [+ Paranormal is Normal – Clairvoyance is considered impossible but, for a few, it is normal+]
with a personal friend who has had to live with the amazing effects of clairvoyance.
34 [+ – Why do Folks hear music when someone is Dying? Near Death Experience and music.+]
A study of the emotional effects of death.
35 [+ Paranormal is Normal – A million People Hypnotized from CD’s+]
with a top hypnotist with extensive experience of hypnotic therapy who produces CDs for self use.
36 Paranormal is Normal – Yes: but all too often it’s faked.
My thoughts on the reasons.
37 [+ Paranormal is Normal – Origin of Dreams and trance+]
with the author whose work has revealed the science of why we dream.
38 [+ Paranormal is Normal – I Believe in Ghosts+]
with the author of Psychic Quest which is an in-depth study of ghosts and hauntings.
39 [+ Paranormal is Normal – Hypnosis really works+]
with a hypnotist about the how and why of his work.
40 [+ Paranormal is Normal – Animal Telepathy+]
with Rupert Sheldrake about his book detailing human and animal telepathy.
Throughout the broadcasts I use the word telepathy to mean several things, whereas the words ‘brain sharing’ would have been more applicable.
I have been very aware that this book has relied entirely on the work and ideas of many scientists and thinkers. Although some of the references are noted, most are not, so I gratefully acknowledge that the evidences are the work of others; all I have done is to offer an alternative interpretation of that evidence.
Visit my website;
The science of DNA has a problem; the book of instructions for life is nowhere to be found. This book suggests that DNA is all passcodes, accepting only the correct instructions to build anything from a fish to an elephant. Information flows from the species and family to build a body and mind, creating instinctive knowledge and behaviour with a control system. That same system occasionally allows information flow from mind to mind, which we call telepathy. This revelation answers unsolved questions relating to heredity, evolution and psychic experiences; making sense of life and consciousness.