Klein, Adrian; Neil Boyd, Robert (2023), Interactions between the brain, the biofields, and the physical, Cunoașterea Științifică, 2:3, 12-20, DOI: 10.58679/CS74542, https://www.cunoasterea.ro/interactions-between-the-brain-the-biofields-and-the-physical/

Abstract

Before addressing the physical object of highest complexity in nature, the Brain, and its consciousness-related functional correlates, let’s remember some basic assumptions regarding biosystems as a whole. We expect to recognize such intricate cortico-informational integration mechanisms, as being the pinnacle of the representations we have been investigating. Obeying the holographic distribution principle which we have followed all along our analytic path, we have to keep in mind that in order to get an incremental improvement in the accuracy of our Brain-related understandings, its overall efficiency regulation must be associated with the biofield. This association is of an uttermost subtlety and complexity, since the biofield actively interacts with neurocybernetic processes, via Quantum and Subquantum connectivity.

Keywords: interactions, brain, biofields, physical object, biosystems, neurocybernetic processes

Interacțiuni între creier, biocâmpuri și lumea fizică

Rezumat

Înainte de a aborda obiectul fizic de cea mai mare complexitate din natură, creierul și corelațiile sale funcționale legate de conștiință, să ne amintim câteva ipoteze de bază privind biosistemele în ansamblu. Ne așteptăm să recunoaștem astfel de mecanisme complicate de integrare cortico-informațională, ca fiind punctul culminant al reprezentărilor pe care le-am investigat. Respectând principiul distribuției holografice pe care l-am urmat de-a lungul drumului nostru analitic, trebuie să ținem cont de faptul că, pentru a obține o îmbunătățire progresivă a preciziei înțelegerilor noastre legate de creier, reglarea eficienței sale generale trebuie să fie asociată cu biocâmpul. Această asociere este de o subtilitate și o complexitate extremă, deoarece biocâmpul interacționează activ cu procesele neurocibernetice, prin conectivitate cuantică și subcuantică.

Cuvinte cheie: interacțiuni, creier, biocâmpuri, obiect fizic, biosisteme, procese neurocibernetice

CUNOAȘTEREA ȘTIINȚIFICĂ, Volumul 2, Numărul 3, Septembrie 2023, pp. 12-20
ISSN 2821 – 8086, ISSN – L 2821 – 8086, DOI: 10.58679/CS74542
URL: https://www.cunoasterea.ro/interactions-between-the-brain-the-biofields-and-the-physical/
© 2023 Adrian Klein, Robert Neil Boyd. Responsabilitatea conținutului, interpretărilor și opiniilor exprimate revine exclusiv autorilor.

Interactions between the brain, the biofields, and the physical

Dr. Adrian Klein[1], Ph.D. and Dr. Robert Neil Boyd[2], Ph.D.

dr.adrian.klein.phd@gmail.com

[1] American Association for Advancement of Science

[2] Princeton Biotechnologies

Before addressing the physical object of highest complexity in nature, the Brain, and its consciousness-related functional correlates, let’s remember some basic assumptions regarding biosystems as a whole. We expect to recognize such intricate cortico-informational integration mechanisms, as being the pinnacle of the representations we have been investigating. Obeying the holographic distribution principle which we have followed all along our analytic path, we have to keep in mind that in order to get an incremental improvement in the accuracy of our Brain-related understandings, its overall efficiency regulation must be associated with the biofield. This association is of an uttermost subtlety and complexity, since the biofield actively interacts with neurocybernetic processes, via Quantum and Subquantum connectivity.

Therefore, addressing the Quantum efficiency of the Brain, requires a correct understanding of its internal bio-regulatory systems, which are evolving under a complex enfolded mechanism of layered biofields which are composed of higher level Information structures, which are coupling into the neural apparatus, from far beyond the physical biosystem itself.

Fig. 1. Brain as external Information processing apparatus. Source: https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22830500-300-is-quantum-physics-behind-your-brains-ability-to-think/

As our readers already know, our approach to living systems is vastly transcending vitalist doctrines, which are limited to postulating a vital principle, as distinct from biochemical reactions. According to J. White (2009), references to various bioenergy field control-mechanisms, can be found in 97 different cultures. In our western one, biofields were defined alternately as an endogenous coherent EM field, which is related to living organisms, as emergent from classical cellular fields, comprising some new features, or alternatively, as an SU2 symmetry-related complementary phenomenon related to classical EM (electromagnetic) fields. In various attempts at definition, biofields are expected to restore the long-range connection modalities which we observe between molecular and supramolecular processes (of the kind we see in cytoplasmic functions).

Classical interpretations of biofields, as exclusive features of living systems have been repeatedly questioned by supporters, regarding its origin in symmetrical physical demands which may be applied to the whole of Nature. This view is ascribing to living systems a more highly complex reaction behavior regarding such requirements, than non-living matter is able to provide. This approach is consistent with Fröhlich, (1986) endogenous coherent oscillations, invoked for the explicitly nonlinear sensitivity of living systems, to weakly ionized and non-ionized EM fields.

Nevertheless, the biofield’s observed coherence, and its partial inability to be localized, suggest its enfolded position, as lying between energetic and Informational processes, a taxonomical requirement which is fully satisfied by our SQ (subquantum) model for sentient reality. The biofield’s non-local essence was first confirmed by instantly-transferred cortical photo-stimulation experiments, performed during 1994 (Grinberg et al.).

According to Thaheld (2005), known EEG correlational patterns fall short from explaining the nonlocal biocorrelational distributions of neural ionic currents and the strength and densities of electric fields, operating in Brain. These observations are consistent with a new approach (introduced by Driesh), Fels et al. (2015), where subtle bio-regulatory processes are seen as being the result of „mind-like” organizational effectors, rather than physical energy fields (of the kind invoked by R. O. Becker & G. Selden, 1998) in their experimental results related to electrically de-differentiated cells).

How are the biofields coupled into both energetic and Informational fields?

In order to answer this question, a particular category of SEs (subtle energies) (see our Nov. 2008 installment) is constructively invoked. We remind our readers about Zero Point Fluctuations in Vacuum. These are providing an infinite energetic background for the physical world, by supposedly ceaseless productions of physical particles from the ZPE (Zero-point energy), which are subsequently dissolving onto the background by a process of hyperdimensional interplays, which are occurring between different enfolded orders (Bohm, 2002). This down-conversion of multidimensional SE fields, aimed at coupling into 3D force fields, requires a novel energy/Information transduction technology (see Clarus’ sympathetic resonance technology, Williams et al., 1992).

Sympathetic resonators are capable of SQ interactions with the electromagnetic spectrum, ordering its fundamental magnetic vector properties, and affecting, through the Quantum field, interactions and physical processes which are occurring in the subatomic range. From this perspective, the bioenergetic human chakra system is conveniently placed at the crossroads of energetic and Informational SQ interplays, where the dynamics of perception, attention, and intention, are controlling our biological reality. Such processes occur by way of aether flux combinatorials, known in the Vedantic teachings as „Prana”, corresponding to the Chinese notion of „Qi”.

Early experimental protocols related to the physical aspects of the biofield, were performed by B. Payne (1981), pointing to a biofield strength which was observed to be on the order of over 100 million times greater than the magnitude of the body’s magnetic field. Biofield deflections have also been correlated to synchronous geomagnetic index fluctuations, pointing to physically originated bioenergetic components. At the same time, non-physical correlations of biofield intensity values, are consistently related to various emotional states, in experimental subjects. Such analytic parameters seem to attest to an increasing complexity of responses in biosystems, to environmental geomagnetic influences, of the kind reported in R. L. Jones’ (2010) uniform daily rotation experiments in plants.

Similar interconnectedness with magnetic fields has been found in L. Badgley’s (1984) spiral vortex fields, which are observed to exist around injury sites on the body. We have discovered such helicoidal patterns exist all the way down to the 10^-58m Kolmogoroff scale, and beyond, to the level of SQ infinitesimals. Vortex behaviors seem to be a basis, and are evidently a primary and fundamental organizational pattern, in our Universe.

In Payne’s concept, torque forces interact with EM, gravity and nuclear forces, modulating their respective effects, especially around biosystems. This observation, which is highly relevant for biofields, strongly supports the notion that of an increased Information field involvement, of the kind our SQ model suggests, regarding high-level functions which are evolving in Brain.

We think that similar control mechanisms are at work in the various lower-level bio-regulatory networks as well, such as splicing, methylation, glucositation and protein synthesis on ribosomes, as well as being involved in all other biological integration processes. As C. Venter et al. (2001) remarked, we are facing a different, non-chemical level of organization, one which is reminiscent of morphic causational principles, which have been proposed as early as 1944 by A. Gurwitsch ontologically differentiated between a physical embryo and its organizing pre-patterning morphic fields, which call forth genetic responses.

From there, S. Savva’s (1997) concepts of the mind components of biofields, serve as behavior controlling aspects in all fundamental biological programs. From there, further on to our SQ-driven Information control mechanisms, the way was widely open. As Savva pointed out, biofield control operates through four independent control subsystems, which are the nervous system, chemical interactions, coherent biophotonic EM (Van Wijk, 2012) and Subtle Energy channels (Basically SE means, „Not reducible to any well-known fundamental physical interactions.„).

This special feature has been experimentally proven by Bockris (2005) in low temperature nuclear transmutations of lead into Gold, in concentrations up to 300 ppm. These transmutations are only occurring in the presence of a „psi operator”, a person who is capable of intentionally speeding up, and slowing down, by an act of will, the nuclear decay rate of americium (Yan et al., 2002). Such experimental results are strongly consistent with the PEAR laboratory publications of the Princeton University regarding predetermined deviation values, far from randomness, in REG experiments (Dobyns et al., 2004).

As a consequence of the special interdimensional status of biofields, they cannot be significantly blocked by any physical screening. Their effects disobey all space constraints, of the kind that the known isotropic physical fields display. As suggested by A. Denisov (1975), the bioinformational fields are composed in anisotropic, and netlike patterns, which are not attenuating with the square of the distance. These fields are acting along the exact lines of any pre-established emotional or intentional bondings. At lower levels of unfolding information controls, human-originated bioinformational determinants have been proved to influence bacterial growth parameters (Rausher & Rubik, 1966). Such observations open wide perspectives on the cytophysiological and cytogenetic control horizons (see our former references to the work of P. Gariaev’s team).

More comprehensive data may be found in H. S. Burr’s (1972) well-known concepts related to L-Fields (life organization units), as well as the works of his collaborator’s. L. Ravitz’ (1962) works are pointing at a direct relationship between the L-Field and a person’s mental, physical, and emotional conditions. Ravitz reportedly has even been able to show that the L-Field, as a whole, disappears before physical death. Such observations have been correlated with anecdotal extrasensory monitoring of sudden disappearances of the normally observed auric fields, around those individuals who are facing an impending, and sudden, but unexpected death. (This topic is beyond the scope of our current presentation). Quantum bioholographic data are increasingly invoked in advanced modelings of sentient reality. In the light of modern investigations, DNA is seen as a self-calibrating antenna, which is able, by phase conjugate adaptive resonance, to process quantum holographic information stored in SQ diffraction patterns. In the Brain’s overall biofield, narrow spectral frequency-related interdimensional windows (e.g. 38-40 Hz) allow sharp frequency adaptive couplings of organized enfolded Information matrix fields, which live in projective space, coupling into environmentally-originated, neurally supported, Quantum configurations.

At a different level of enfolded information, similar pre-geometrically organized information patterns, related to embryogenetic determinants, are able to set up stress gradients in the vacuum. The behaviors occur according to embryogenetic holography principles, thus guiding the implementation of the ontogenetic pathways, in accordance with the Brain’s anticipated task performances. From this novel perspective, Brain structures and connectivities, organize under highly complex biofield determinants, as a Quantum sufficient energy-processing tool capable of shifting its own integration range, into higher complexities of information matrices, thus producing the Self’s expression in the material world.

The common denominator for both, the Brain’s quantum activity and the Informational Self, is in their common hyperdimensional subquantum background, which is able to accommodate an asymmetrical monistic determinacy, which we propose to replace obsolete dualistic and panpsychist models.

Perhaps the most promising recent development in bioenergy-backed technology, with an unprecedented potential in advanced health care programs, is introduced by UCLA Professor Emeritus Valerie Hunt (1996). Her Aurameter (TM) is able to detect, in a predictive way, anticoherent frequency bands in individual „Signature Field” patterns of subtle energy, making possible their transactional shift into holographically balanced health patterns, by perfectly calibrated frequency transfers.

Most interestingly, Prof. Hunt strongly emphasizes that the emotional constellations which are surrounding stagnant memory fields, are originating in past „lifehoods” (a term she uses in a metempsychotic context). Such emotional constellations have persisting blockage effects on current-life subtle energy dynamics, which are directly related to health. Such anticoherent frequency trends seem to be stored in the fundamental SQ domains, composed of Information internal to the overall biofield structure, where the Brain’s bioenergetic components are embedded.

These findings strongly support reportedly successful hypnotic regression therapies, which tap into accessible memory storage systems originating from personality-related events from the remote past. As we shall see, recalling of such memories is possible as a result of resonant alignments between various SQ conformal information maps, which are presented as superimposed information symmetry configurations in the Brain.

References

• Badgley , L. E. (1984). A new method for locating acupuncture points and body field distortions, American Journal of Acupuncture, 12(3): 219-228.
• Becker, R. O. & Selden, G. (1998). The Body Electric: Electromagnetism And The Foundation Of Life. New York, William Morrow Paperbacks.
• Bockris, J. O’M. (2005). The New Paradigm: A Confrontation Between Physics and the Paranormal Phenomenon, College Station, TX, D&M Enterprises.
• Bohm, D. (2002). Wholeness and the Implicate Order (Volume 135). London, New York, Routledge Press.
• Burr, H. S. (1972). Blueprint for Immortality, U.K., C.W. Daniel.
• Denisov, A. (1975). Theoretical Bases of Cybernetics (the Information Field). Polytechnic Institute, Leningrad, USSR, (in Russian)
• Dobyns, Y. H., Dunne, B. J., Jahn, R. G. & Nelson, R. D. (2004). The MegaREG Experiment: Replication and Interpretation, Journal of Scientific Exploration, 18(3): 369–397.
• Fels, D., Cifra, M. & Scholkmann, F. (2015). Fields of the Cell. Kerala, India, Research Signpost.
• Fröhlich, H. (1986). Coherent Excitation in Active Biological Systems. In: Gutmann, F., Keyzer, H. (eds) Modern Bioelectrochemistry. Springer, Boston, MA.
• Gariaev, P. P., Friedman, M. J., Boyd, R.N. & Leonova-Gariaeva, E. A. (2006). Resources, Worlds-WithinWorlds.org., in worlds-within-worlds.org/resources/GarFried06-01.doc.
• Grinberg-Zylberbaum, J., Delaflor, M., Attie, L. & Goswami, A. (1994). Einstein Podolsky Rosen Paradox in the human brain: The transferred potential. Physics Essays, 7: 422-428.
• Gurwitsch, A. G. (1944). The Theory of Biological Field. Moscow, Soviet Science.
• Hunt, V. V. (1996). Infinite Mind: Science of human vibrations of consciousness,  J.S.E., 16(3): 381-411.
• Jones, R. L. (2010). Response of Growing Plants to Uniform Daily Rotation, in http://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1038/185775a0.pdf
• Klein, A. & Boyd, R. N. (2008). Information and the Aether: The „Subtle Energies”, in http://www.victorzammit.com/articles/Klein9.htm
• Payne, B. (1981). Discovery of the Biofield A Different Type of Magnetism?, in  https://nexusilluminati.blogspot.com/2011/08/discovery-of-biofield-different-type-of.html
• Rauscher, E. A. & Rubik, B.A. (1983). Human Volitional Effects on a Model Bacterial System, Psi Research 2(1): 38.
• Ravitz, L. (1962). History, measurement, and applicability of periodic changes in the electromagnetic field in health and disease, Wiley Online Library, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 98(4), Version of Record online: 15 Dec. 2006.
• Savva, S. (1997). A systems approach in biology and biophysics, Monterey Institute for the Study of Alternative Healing Arts Newsletter 18-19: 209.
• Thaheld, F. H. (1975). Biological nonlocality and the mind-brain interaction problem. Comments on a New Empirical Approach, in https://arxiv.org/pdf/q-bio/0510039.pdf
• Van Wijk. (2012). Emission of Mitochondrial Biophotons and their Effect on Electrical Activity of Membrane via Microtubules, in https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1012/1012.3371.pdf
• Venter, J. C., Adams, M. D., Myers, E. W., Li, P. W., Mural, R. J., Sutton, G. G., Smith, H. O., Yandell, M., Evans, C. E. […] Zhu, X. (+265 authors). (2001). The Sequence of the Human Genome, Science, 291(5507): 1304-1351.
• Yan, X., Lu, F., Jiang, H., Wu, X., Cao, W., Shen, H., Wang, J., Dao, M., Lin,H. & Zhu, R. (2002). Certain Physical Manifestation and Effects of External Qi of Yan Xin Life Science Technology, Journal of Scientific Exploration, 16(3): 381-411.
• White, J. W. (2009). Bringing Genetics and Genomics to Crop Simulations: Experiences with Wheat, Sorghum and Common Bean in Solving the GEM-to-P Problem, in Crop Modeling and Decision Support, Conference proceeding.
• Williams, R., Richards, R., Chin, S., Williams, P. & Gloyne, E. (1992). Clarus Transphase LLC, in http://www.holistichealthsecrets.com/aboutus.html