To explain
consciousness as a fundamental of reality, I will use an experiment conducted
by the late Dr Bevan Reid Md., as my real example. Dr Reid worked at Sydney University in his role as reader of oncology,
in a part of the laboratory allocated to him and his assistant. He conducted
experiments on mouse fibroblasts to understand their life, and found that the
cells responded to changes in temperature and air pressure, as do most forms of
life. He also recorded that the cells had a consistent life span which became a
good reference to measure what might have changed in the laboratory space
during his experiments.
For example, he reasoned that the
laboratory space had retained that information related to those atmospheric
changes, and to test that idea further, he introduced a 10kg of lead into the
laboratory space, which resulted in an accelerated decrease in the cell
lifetime. When he removed the lead from the laboratory space, he found the accelerated
death rate of the cells remained at this higher rate, even for new cell
cultures, and concluded that the 'residual effect of the lead' had become a
specific characteristic of the laboratory space.
To further test ‘information in space,’
Reid coated a microscope glass slide with a polymer solution, and observed tiny
specks on the polymer surface. Then, using a higher magnification microscope,
he found the specks to be vortices on the polymer surface. He had been
examining a cell culture which had a gram stain, and when he examined the newly
polymer-coated he was surprised to find the image of the gram-stained cell on
that polymer-coated slide. Repeating the experiment with new polymer-coated
slides, the result was the same: Finding that the image of the gram-stained
cell was on the new polymer-coated slides, it became obvious that the
previously observed image of the gram stained cell was not only retained in the
space, but it was 'active information' in that it continued to appear on new
polymer-coated slides, days and weeks afterward, observed by him and his
assistant.
Colleagues in other
laboratorys heard about Dr Reid's experiment and attempted to replicate his
experiment without success: No image appeared on their polymer-coated slides,
and they all concluded that Dr Reid was misrepresenting science. He left Sydney
University and continued his own research in private. I had many conversations
with him because I was interested in exploring consciousness, and in my later conversations with him as my
mentor, Dr Reid noted that the gram stain was an ‘insult’ to the cell, and as
the same image appeared on new polymer-coated slide, I decided that this
observed ‘experience’ of the gram-stain as an insult introduces its own
question to me, one of the presence of the consciousness/mind of the mouse.
Indeed, can the cell
be considered as a living form, if only for a moment? I say a moment because in
that moment on the microscope glass slide, the cell had no direct access to the
mouse; the actual time for the image of the cell to appear on a nearby
polymercoated glass slide was at least as long as it took to coat a new glass
slide with the polymer solution, bearing in mind that Dr Reid had earlier
noticed the 'information in space effect' on a polymer-coated slide as it
dried, revealing vortices.
I have assumed here
that this 'information in space effect' was related to the drying of the
polymer on the glass slide examined on the microscope, and the conscious
experience of the dying cell. Now, what I am saying is that the space in which
the cell died retained the memory of the cell’s experience, and that memory
remained in that specific space, despite the absence of the cell in the later
times when the image of the gram-stained cell was able to be ‘captured,' on
freshly polymer-coated slides again and again for some time.
What I have learned
from Patanjali's yoga sutras is that the process of remembering anything
requires a conscious mind as the observer to create a cognition and the memory
of that event. If it is the cell's memory that remained in the specific space
in which the cell died and was observed, then the memory of image of the cell
appearing on the polymer-coated slide is body-independent. I say that because
the retained image remained in the space after the cell (and the mouse) had
died.
Patanjali tells us
that consciousness is universal; a fundamental of the whole reality everywhere,
outside of our concept of spacetime and locality. Furthermore, it reflects on
matter, imbuing matter with consciousness (particle by particle, and cell by
cell) which is expressed through the senses, creating the illusion, that of the
matter itself being the conscious individual, 'I am.'
So, with the
mouse/cell no longer alive, the 'observer' in this case is the fundamental
consciousness; (purusha, in yoga terminology), and with no living matter, it
can be expressed as an image on a polymer-coated slide. I accept this is quite
a step beyond the current theory of mind.
If one wants conformation of this retained experience as information in
a ‘specific space,’ that came from the reorganization of the space allocated to
Dr Reid, in which the image was not available in his 'new' allocated physical
space.
Colleagues who were
unable to accept Dr Reid's ‘different approach’ to biophysics, had tried
unsuccessfully to capture the ‘image in question’ on polymer coated slides in
other laboratories, and they had taken that failure on their part as
confirmation that Reid was ‘out of order,’ after which his equipment had been
relocated to another part of the laboratory. the result of which was that the
capture of that image was no longer available. My point here being that the
'information in space' is specific as space in the context for memory, that is,
a real physical address for accessing the information required to create the
image on the polymer-coated slide.
I am grateful for Dr
Reid’s work and his mentoring of me, because this experiment has been an
unexpected gift from which I can apply Patanjali’s philosophy and physics to
translate this experiment in terms of living consciousness, and memory being
‘body independent.’ Here, memory is the active information in a specific space
after the cell itself had died. I can add that the gram-stained dying cell has
demonstrated a genuine conscious experience of that cell, in one sense as if it
were being photographed by the drying polymer surface. It is in those moments,
not 'measured' specifically, which have provided me with my hypothesis about
consciousness as 'information in space.' I firmly believe that Dr Reid had this
outcome in mind, but when the 'capture' of the image of the dying gram-stained
cell became unavailable, he abandoned the idea altogether.
More recently I read
of Dr Reid's demonstration of an energy field capable of being measured on an
millivolt meter, reported in the ACNEM Journal Vol 30 of December 2011. I had
lost contact with him by then, and was only reminded of that item when a
colleague, the now late Dr Syamala Hari, mentioned it in an article I had
co-authored with her in the early 2000's.
The experiment
demonstrates the presence of the ‘whole’ consciousness that retained the
experience of Dr Reid, who, as the observer with his opinion of the event, and
of the fundamental dispassionate observer/process, the fundamental mind,
created the retention of the information related to the event. I would say that
the presence of Deja vu, noticeable only to a sensitive few, is an example of
retained information in a specific space but dismissed as metaphysics at best,
or perhaps psychism.
The important point to
note is that the 'whole consciousness,' Patanjali's 'Ishvara,' is universal, as
in 'consciousness as a universal field,' which means it is everywhere. It's
observations, moment by moment, are localised, which means that the cell's
experience remains in the space in which it was consciously experienced on the
microscope by Dr Reid in the laboratory, and it was retained in that specific
space. I assume it to always be available in that same specific space within the
laboratory, if it still exists. The cell, Dr Reid, and I, have moved on, but
there remains the potential for that same image on a similar polymer-coated
glass slide forever.
We are all in the same
situation encountered by the gram-stained cell, moment by moment, and I think
there is sufficient reason for my assumption that this is how consciousness is
evident in us all, providing every living form with a mind appropriate to the
form, and with a brain (or its mind equivalent) as the interface with the living
matter of each individual form. What we need to understand is that
consciousness is a fundamental of the whole reality, and every living form
shares that same consciousness as mind.
This universal
mind/consciousness is not the individual mind, seperate from other individuals;
the 'separateness' of 'I am' or ego, is an illusion. The perceived
seperateness, 'I', is subjective, and how it manifests through our senses and
our brain is this 'illusory mind,' supported by the availabilty of measurement
(neuroscience) as valid proof of the existing theory of mind, and there is no
liklihood of it changing anytime soon.
We all have the same
consciousness, but some only experience that 'universal Self' in the Samadhi
state, and for most, that experience is only available in the deepest
meditative state when one's mind is concentrated on a single point or thought.
It is also available in a Near Death Experience, and misinterpreted as being an
'Outside of Body' Experience. My NDE came during my febrile convulsions at the
age of four, which left me with a 'normally empty mind,' rather than an Out of
Body Experience, due to a prolonged high temperature in the convulsions
episode.
I am not 'special,' I
was simply 'established' in the Samadhi state during that brief NDE episode
which erased my memory of those earlier four years, and for science and
psychology, that is more subjective 'evidence' to support their neuroscience as
proof of the 'individual mind' for everyone. As for my Samadhi state, it is not
verifiable by measurement, and is not a subjective experience, just intuition.
Now, I want us to
consider the repeatable image in Dr Bevan Reid's abandoned gem and consider it
through Patanjali's eyes; what we find is that we are in the objective state,
commonly dismissed as 'intuition.' At this point I ask you, reader, to
understand that the mouse was no longer alive, ditto for its gram stained cell,
and yet the image was able to be found on a number of sequently examined
polymer-coated glass slides over a considerable time.
I can only say that
more than one mind saw this repeated image, each was a genuine cognition in a
specific circumstance across real time; not a momentary experience but one in
spacetime. It obviously cannot be a sharing of momentary information but the
persistence of information in a specific location. I would say it was in fact a
specific context of a specific conscious event for the onlookers.
When I think about the
observation of this 'event' from a yoga perspective, I conclude that
consciousness, as a continuing series of quantum interactions, in which each
moment refers to the previous moment, and discriminates the difference, (if
any) as Feynman's 'sum over histories,' and the 'retained' momentary
information' becomes an 'event' as memory. It is safe to say it became 'a
memory,' because a number of observers saw it happen when they saw the image
'captured' on fresh polymer-coated glass slides in his laboratory space, and
did in fact remember seeing that image on the polymer-coated glass slide.
Moreover, the fact
that many observers saw the same gram-stained image of a mouse fibroblast at
different times, on different days, and on different polymer-coated glass
slides, I am suggesting that Patanjali would say there was a 'single
dispassionate observer,' purusha, which is universally called God, Yahweh,
Allah, Buddha, Ishvara, etc. I say that because most have the belief that God
knows everything, everyone, everywhere.
In Yoga, that
'dispassionate observer,' if such exists, is common to every living form in
every quantum moment, and in yoga it is called consciousness: This fundamental
of reality, which Dr Bevan Reid, intentionally or otherwise, demonstrated for
us to recognize it or not. Patanjali would certainly agree, and it also
demonstrates that there is only one consciousness, one Self, which we all
unknowingly share.
For Dr Reid's
colleagues who saw this almost perpetual image, I would say that initially,
this was a novel conscious experience for them as individuals, but when this
image could not be replicated elsewhere, and becoming no longer available, it
was a disaster for DR Reid, and he left Sydney University, and explored his
'information in space' independently. When I heard of his change of research
and the change of his former specific place in that laboratory space, it really
brought home the 'space' related to the original location of DR Reid's space in
the laboratory, it really does demonstrate just how specific the word, space,
of 'information in space,' must be. It really is as specific as the space in a
deja vu experience. Our 'individual memory' corresponds to the space occupied
by our own body, and that is our individual memory.
The 'other memory' of
Patanjali's 'dispassionate observer' is everywhere and always available if one
can meditate to the level of Samadhi. I am in a sort of half-way space because
I still have the same DNA as the earlier Alan.
Alan Joseph Oliver
Stratford, Vic 3862
0479172957
