Rick Strassman-Inner Paths to Outer Space, Chapter 8

How Can Shamans Talk 170

8HOW CAN SHAMANS TALK WITH PLANTS AND ANIMALS?

THE TOPOLOGICAL ROOTS OF PLANT CONSCIOUSNESS

AND INTERSPECIES COMMUNICATION

EDE FRECSKA

I n t r o d u c t i o n

“Vegetalistas, like their counterparts, the Indian shamans of many indigenous groups ofthe Upper Amazon, claim to derive healing skills and powers from certain plant teachers– often psychoactive – believed to be their mother. Knowledge, particularly medicinalknowledge, comes from the plants themselves; the senior shaman only mediating thetransmission of information…” (Luna and Amaringo 1999)

In life sciences, plants are considered as inferior organisms that passively adapt todifferent temperature, soil types, injuries, diseases, as well as other physico-chemicaland biological conditions. So what? – you may ask. They are “vegetables,” aren’t they?Where does the surprise part come in? Dear Reader, hold on for a while, please! Atvariance with the canonized scientific and commonly held layman’s view, there is atraditional idea of plants being more than helpless objects of elementary forces. Thismodel holds that they are interactive – even more – proactive, horrible dictu consciousbeings. The concept of ‘plant consciousness’ – in the form of plant spirits – is traceableback to Medieval Ages and from there, even much earlier. Even nowadays, aboriginalpeople of five continents believe that plants have spirits, or certain trees are inhabited bytheir ancestors, and claim that knowledge can be acquired from plant teachers (see quoteabove).

The relationship that indigenous people have with nature is based on shamanisticbeliefs, which shape adaptive behavioral patterns, and provide the foundation for socialstructures in tribal communities. In the belief system of those cultures every plant andanimal, all forests and meadows, lakes and rivers, mountains and caves have aconsciousness of their own. Such notions were entirely cast out from the Westernrational mindset during the Scientific Revolution, and during the Enlightenment. For theskeptic, these beliefs are ridiculous superstitions and expressions of primitive, magicalthinking. In another chapter I argued that the approach of natural sciences is overlyexclusive, and presented reasons why this should not to be so. That everything in naturemight have “spirits,” that some sort of sentience is attributed to both living creatures andmaterial objects, have been widespread beliefs in aboriginal cultures for millennia.Therefore, I am reluctant to consider such persistent, transcultural tenets to be useless,primitive misconceptions, having no adaptive value at all, and reflecting nothingrelevant in nature.

171 Strassman-Wojtowitz-Luna-Frecska: Inner Paths to Outer Space

Is there any way to prove that animistic thinking is more than just pure fiction, thatit might contain some truth? Definitely not yet. The only thing I can do in this chapter isto show a way toward rationalization. I do this because I pay respect to what otherpeople think and state about the world. Personally, I believe neither in culturalrelativism, nor in linear Darwinism. The former has a tendency to give equal credit toevery cultural accomplishment, and the latter posits that the more we go back in time,the more primitive ways of thinking we find. Keeping these caveats in mind, I will alsotry to avoid the typical mistakes passionate New Age thinkers are prone to make.

Recently, the issue of ‘plant consciousness’ has received attention in the New Ageliterature by plant healers, psychic mediums, and “green thumb” gardeners – those whoclaim to sense plants on subtle levels, and carry on meaningful communication withtheir spirits. Most of the time, these writers discuss their uncontrolled experiences andspeculative ideas in superficial ways ignoring scientific scrutiny, and bypassing peer-reviewed journals. Therefore, plant consciousness is not taken seriously by well-established scientists, botanists, biologists, ecologists, or respected scholars ofconsciousness studies, and its proponents are persona non grata in the exclusive club ofmainstream science.

Darwin’s Forgotten Idea

Since the widespread assumption is that neural networks are necessary forconsciousness, common sense does not even consider the possibility of plants beingconscious. Common sense – hand in hand with the academic view – ties consciousnessto neuroaxonal organization, but overlooks the possibility that “the Universe emulatesitself on every level” (Pitkanen 2006). Therefore similar experiences may result in otherstructures below, above, or on the same plane of existence.

Charles Darwin did not overlook this possibility. Studying botany he noticed thatroot formations and the network of rootlets show organization similar to the humanbrain tissue. In his time little was known about brain anatomy and information-processing in complex systems. Therefore, his observation has not been taken moreseriously than being a superficial analogy. One must keep in mind that 90% of ourcurrent knowledge regarding brain function has been acquired only during the last twodecades. Perhaps it is time to re-examine Darwin’s forgotten idea.

The purpose of this chapter is to present a representative sample of affirmativeclaims addressing ‘plant consciousness’. It will analyze the concept together withunorthodox views on animal communication, and interpret them within a topologicalmodel of consciousness, which goes beyond the traditional neuroaxonal framework.

Plants under the Lie Detector

In the following paragraphs I will review a couple of experiments conducted on plantconsciousness, and will critically evaluate their results. Doing so may help us to formour own opinions regarding whether plants are sentient, conscious beings.


It was Cleve Backster, a leading expert on polygraph machines, who conductedpioneering studies in the field of plant consciousness. In 1966 he introduced polygraphresearch into an entirely new area by hooking a Dracena cane plant up to a polygraphmachine in order to detect its rate of water consumption (Backster 1966). Backster wasinterested in how fast water travels in the plant from its roots all the way up to theleaves, and thought that the polygraph could indicate the rising of the water by changesin plant surface resistance. He noted that the plant showed unexpected responses as hemoved the plant around the laboratory, with reactions resembling human galvanic skinresponses. Struck by this surprising finding, he applied different stimuli to the plant.Once he decided to burn one of his plant’s leaves. When Backster even thought aboutsetting fire to a leaf he faced the following reaction:

“Then at thirteen minutes, fifty-five seconds chart time, the imagery entered my mindof burning the leaf I was testing. I didn't verbalize, I didn't touch the plant, I didn't touchthe equipment. The only new thing that could have been a stimulus for the plant was themental image. Yet the plant went wild. The pen jumped right off the top of the chart.”

He assumed that the plant somehow sensed his intentions and showed signs ofdistress. Pretending did not work; in order to get strong galvanic reactions from theplant his intentions had to be serious. Backster’s plants were not only concerned withhis hostile plans toward them, but seemed to be “empathic” with the sufferings ofothers: when he was causing harm to living organisms, his plants yet responded stronglyto the other beings` distress. Distance was not an issue; remote perception seemed to beat work: Backster could leave his plants alone while sitting in a bar, talking with friendsand the polygraph device would indicate the mood changes he was experiencing duringthe conversation.

Independence from distance has also been reported in publications of prayerexperiments (Miller 1972): plants that have been prayed for at remote locations didbetter than nearby plants that were ignored. Marcel Vogel (1974) also noticed thatdistance did not affect his results. Galvanic recordings of plants connected to apolygraph machine correlated with the experimenter’s emotions and actions even whenthey were miles apart, like in Backster’s case.

Cleve Backster concluded that plants have ‘primary perception’ as indicated bypolygraph tests. He argued that plants must have something akin to a primary perceptionability; otherwise, how could the galvanic responses vary so abruptly, and in accordancewith events happening in their surroundings? Backster was careful to avoid theparapsychologically charged term ‘extra-sensory perception’ since he did not see thatplants have the senses, in the manner we usually understand them, in the first place.

Nevertheless, the scientific community at large has not accepted Backster’s and hisfollowers` works. Most of the academic researchers were unable to replicate theirresults. The problem with studies of this kind usually is that the investigator is as mucha part of the experimental setting as the tested plant itself. One who takes sides withBackster may argue that the sensitivity of the human involved is critically important.This can be the reason why many objective experiments with plants fail due to arigorous analytical, distancing attitude. According to Vogel (1974), there is “a preciseand important interaction between the experimenter and the plant which is equal inimportance to the equipment being used.” Vogel suggested that in successful human-plant communication, human beings must take the role of active agents by “sensitizing”the plant to be receptive to attitudes and emotion.


Smart Vegetables

Even though if ‘primary perception’ does exist in plants, this would not necessarilymean that plants are conscious. One may interpret most of the plant behavior asinstinctive, but the term is as vague – if not more – as the concept of ‘consciousness’itself. Well, if there is a trend in current knowledge to grant animals some level ofconsciousness (see quote from Rupert Sheldrake below), due to signs of self-awareness,deceptive skills and cooperative behavior observed in many animal species, then whywe should not attribute plants some sort of consciousness for similar reasons?

Indeed, one may find experiments with results pointing in that direction.Experiments with Ambrosia roots indicated that these plants are capable of self-recognition by differentiating between self and non-self, a feature what has beenconsidered by some as basic for self-aware beings. The root system of the Ambrosiaplant detects and avoids other Ambrosia plants, and plants of different species,indicating self recognition. The mechanism helping an Ambrosia plant to differentiatebetween the roots of other plants and its own is unknown, but can be interpreted on amolecular level. Likewise, it is essential for the human immune system to differentiatebetween self and non-self by chemical means, without the need of conscious processes.As far as defensive tactics are concerned, there are flowers which detect the approach ofpests coming to steal their nectar, and react by closing up when they get nearby.

Plants can orient themselves in space, as indicated by their coordinated movementswhile they are searching out objects, or avoiding obstacles. In an environment where aplant is growing without visible support it will grow towards hidden ones and entirelyignore areas without potential support. Plants are able to “run” a maze for light, aslaboratory animals do for food. In a maze like-structure with several blind alleys, a vineplanted at the closed, dark end can find its way toward the light at the far end withoutmaking an error.

Watch your words if a plant is nearby! Early on, some researchers noticed thattalking nicely to plants, or verbally abusing them, influences their growth (Loehr 1959).This observation later was corroborated by others: Hoffman (1992) reported that tomatoplants exposed to gently spoken words on a daily basis produced 23% more tomatoesthan controls (those having otherwise identical treatment without being talked to).Perhaps it is not the words, but the good intent what plants perceive, since psychichealers claim to influence germination of seeds significantly by feeding “positiveenergy” into the process (Saklani 1988; Scofield and Hodges 1991).

As the reader has surely noticed our review is getting close to – if not had alreadygone over – the edge of the board. To top the issue of ‘plant consciousness’, here is anexcerpt from the communication with a corn deva1, or spirit, as channeled by RobertShapiro (1991), This indicates how much suprahuman intelligence is attributed to devasby some psychics:

“I am the plant you refer to as corn. I speak to you as the Deva associated with oursuper-consciousness, the Corn Goddess. I have a very strong spiritual body that not onlyconnects me cosmically to my point of origin but also embraces the earth as a nurturingparent.

When I am planted in a field, I choose to feel every row and plant as a unit. Therefore, Ido not experience spatial references in the same way as you; I feel myself as the entirefield of plants. When an area of corn is accidentally destroyed, some element of protestis expressed from the rest of the corn. Corn shrivels a bit or makes a sound that only theobservant farmer notices. I do not shrink out of fear; instead I understand that I am here


to sustain you. I am prepared, at any moment, to offer myself in support of my truepurpose on this planet.

I have a sense of touch similar to that of the human being. I know when I am touched,and I am aware when someone or something is near that is not of my own kind. I have astrong energy field that radiates with an awareness of up to six feet. I have an ability torespond to the change in weather conditions and to the changes from day to night.”

Let us forget that Shapiro’s channeling may have become tainted by some kind ofNew Age terminology and agenda during the “download” process. If the claims ofindigenous shamans and contemporary psychics are valid, then one may entertain thepossibility that plants not only have some sort of consciousness, but they are extremelyintelligent and resourceful beings as well. Notwithstanding, it must be a different qualitythan our own in that only very special humans are able to recognize it. Thus, it can beeasily missed by insensitive analytical approaches. It is possible that our prejudicialmindset, over-adapted nature, and lack of sensitivity have led to a diminished ability torecognize consciousness in any form other than our own.

Beyond the Horse’s Mouth

Amelia Kinkade, author of the book “Straight from the Horse’s Mouth” (2001) is aninternationally renowned “professional interspecies communicator.” In this book she issharing her expertise with all readers, assuming that everyone harbors a dormant innateability to communicate with animals without a word, without a gesture. She is certainthat the only barrier separating people from any other animal is skepticism. To begin,one must believe that animals` feelings matter, a process Kinkade calls “clairsentience.”The next step, “clairaudience,” is to learn how to see pictures in animals` minds andthen exchange images with them. After clairaudience comes a sort of X-ray imagingprocess in which one gets inside the animal’s body to determine illnesses, or find amissing pet. All steps involve intuition, which can be increased by guided imagery,meditation, and other exercises. This way one can literally learn to talk with pets, sharememories or make plans with them, negotiate house rules, mediate sibling rivalries,diagnose illness, track a disappearance, accept one another’s differences, and find eachother again – claims Kinkade. Apollo 14 Astronaut Captain Edgar Mitchell concurs:

“Amelia Kinkade’s rapport with animals of all species is quite amazing and consistent.Her talent and effort is helping to overturn centuries of false beliefs about the feelings,understanding and mind states of our animal friends.”

The zoologist Donald Griffin, who had been performing research in animalbehavior at Harvard, is skeptical about interspecies communication of the Kinkade kind,but agrees that animals are more than bundles of instincts and reflexes reacting tostimuli. In an interview with The New York Times (Iovine 2001) he said: “Animalthoughts and emotions are not just a sentimental pet lover’s delusion.” His expertopinion reflects a change in academic thinking. That change is inspired by two broadcultural trends, the environmental movement’s emphasis on our coexisting with, ratherthan exploiting the natural world; and the medical profession’s gradual recognition ofalternative therapies.

“The climate is really changing,” said Rupert Sheldrake a British biologist, who is thedeveloper of the theory of morphic resonance, and author of several books on animaland plant development and behavior. “In the last ten years, there is a growingrecognition in the academic world that animals could be thought of as having minds andemotions. Scientists are beginning to take a look at what pet owners already know.”(Iovine 2001)


Rupert Sheldrake investigates the unexplained abilities of animals who seem tosense when their human companions are about to board an airplane or know in advancewhen they are approaching home unexpectedly, when a favorite person is on the otherend of the telephone, or when someone is about to have an epileptic seizure. Sheldrakehas collected more than 3,000 case studies attesting to what at first glance appear to bestrange coincidences. He has recorded nearly 200 instances of dogs, cats, horses andeven parrots predicting earthquakes. Sheldrake did an informal survey in England andthe United States asking 1000 pet owners whether they believed that their pets couldcommunicate telepathically. Forty-eight percent of dog owners and 33 percent of catowners said “yes.” More interesting still, he collected 1500 anecdotes about “seeminglytelepathic” messages successfully received by pets from their owners; but only 73 casesflowing the other way. “People seem to be much less sensitive than their animals.” –Sheldrake concluded. A lot of questions can be raised in response to such claims, butone of the most pertinent is: “What part of the brain can provide us, and our pets, thiskind of sensitivity?”

The Matrix Reloaded

In a previous chapter it was shown that information processing within the centralnervous system occurs through hierarchically organized and interconnected networks.This hierarchy of networks does not end at the neuroaxonal level, but incorporatessubcellular, cytoskeletal structures as well. When the size of the hierarchicalcomponents reaches the nanometer range, and the number of elements exceeds that ofthe neuroaxonal system, an interface emerges enabling a transition betweenneurochemical and quantum physical events. ‘Signal nonlocality’, accessed by means ofquantum entanglement, is an essential feature of the quantum physical domain. I havediscussed that the presented interface may imply that some manifestations of alteredstates of consciousness, unconscious/conscious shifts have quantum origin withsignificant epistemological implications.

A second foundation of knowledge was introduced and called ‘direct-intuitive-nonlocal’ information processing, which utilizes signal nonlocality based on quantumholography within the subcellular network of the brain (and the whole body). It wassuggested as a typical functional mode for altered states of consciousness of theintegrative type. This mode was contrasted with classical cognition, which I denoted as‘perceptual-cognitive-symbolic’ method of acquiring knowledge, and regarded as maincharacteristic of the ordinary state of consciousness. The ‘perceptual-cognitive-symbolic’ form of information processing is capable of modeling via symbolism and ismore culture-bound due to its psycholinguistic features. The ‘direct-intuitive-nonlocal’mode lacks symbolic mediation; therefore, it has more cross-cultural similarity andpractically ineffable for classical cognition, though culture specific translation mayoccur. Unavoidably, culture-specific symbolic processes may shape the ‘perceptual-cognitive-symbolic’ mode, and its framework is pretty much limited to a species. In theremainder of this chapter I will show how the ‘direct-intuitive-nonlocal’ way ofaccessing knowledge can cross over interspecies distances, because its interface or thetype of information processing2 is shared not only by different species but by everyliving creature.


The Matrix Revolution

Networks are all the way up and networks are all the way down, as above so below.Biological organisms are built from a hierarchical organization of complex, ‘non-monotonous’ networks. A network is considered as ‘non-monotonous’ if it is made ofnumerous non-identical elements connected by diverse interactions. These featuresdefine the basis of complexity, and make any kind of ‘non-monotonous’ networkcapable of information processing They also can posses some sort of consciousness: i.e.,responsiveness, awareness to, and storing imprints of changes in the ambientenvironment. A fishnet is monotonous and regardless of the number of its buildingblocks, it is dumb. That is probably not true in case of the web of root fibers,microtubules, and other sub- or supracellular networks which can contain a high degreeof complexity. One may add that complex network systems are not restricted tobiological organisms. The network hierarchy goes beyond biological boundaries, andcan be found in nature both on the micro- (e.g., spinor networks) and macroscale (e.g.,Earth's electromagnetic flux tubes), potentially serving storage for some sort ofinformation at each level.

Figure 1. The embedded microfilamental network of the cell

In a previous chapter the Penrose-Hameroff model was introduced, an avant-gardebrain model which postulates the use of the subneural net of microtubules for quantumcomputation in biological systems (Penrose 1996). It has to be noted that there remainshortcomings in this intriguing though controversial theory.. One may notice thatdespite their impressive intricacy, microtubules may be too coarse-grained to explain theemergence of consciousness ― of who we really are. In fact, microtubules do not form the finest texture of subcellular organization. Even smaller and more subtle structuresbranch and interconnect in networks which comprise an “infoplasm”, the basic


substance of living material (Hameroff 1987). The most delicate cytoskeletal system isthe microtrabecular lattice, a web of microfilaments (biofibers) 7-9 nm in diameter. Thisrepresents the current microfrontier, the “ground floor” of living material organization.If the periodic lattice of microtubules forms a network within a network of neurons, thenthe microfilamental matrix is a network embedded in the network of microtubules(Figure 1)!

Several arguments can be raised against the Penrose-Hameroff model and againstmany other models of biological quantum computation based on classical quantummechanics. First of all, they are merely theoretical without any experimental support.Especially pointed is Tegmark’s (2000) and others` critique that the warm temperatureof the brain should prevent the material organization necessary for quantumcomputation. As part of the phenomenon called heat ‘decoherence’, Brownianmovement of particles in the “infoplasm” disturbs the elements which process thequantum bits (qubits). Due to the lack of effective error correction, it eventually mayruin the computation.

In response to Tegmark’s criticisms, I offer a counter-example, and then analternative model.

1.) The electric ray fish has no coil: meaning that technological solutions can beentirely different in biological systems.

2.) The brain may develop and maintain a Bose-Einstein condensate, some sort ofsuperconductive state without the seemingly requisite ultra-cool medium. Or, it mayincorporate a resilient substrate with highly efficient error correction. ‘Topologicalquantum computation’ represents a possible solution for the latter problem, and atentative model is outlined briefly below.

Topological Quantum Computation

Essentially, quantum computational models are based on a theoretical ability tomanufacture, manipulate and measure quantum states, to process ‘qubits’ of informationencoded in the state of particles. These particles may be trapped ions, atoms held insidesilicon chips, or uniformly oriented molecules organized within the microtubules. Bothchips and microtubules face one big problem. They have to be carefully shielded toprotect them from ‘decoherence’. This is where quantum weaving in themicrofilamental lattice enters the equation, and potentially eliminates this problem ofheat ‘decoherence’ altogether. Vaughan Jones’s mathematical work (1987) proved thatknots can store information. His ideas were developed further by physicists EdwardWitten (1989) and Alexei Kitaev (1997), who pointed out that a braided system ofquantum particles can perform quantum computation. Using quantum particles with justthe right properties, braiding can efficiently carry out any quantum computation insuper-fast time. And while traditional qubits are prone to ‘decoherence’, “braiding isrobust: just as a passing gust of wind may ruffle your shoelaces but won't untie them,data stored on a quantum braid can survive all kinds of disturbance” (Parson 2004).

The basic flaw of current theories of quantum computation in biological systems isthat they are based on attempts to use concepts of conventional quantum theory. Theclassical quantum measurement approach postulating the “collapse of the wavefunction” is unsatisfactory for consciousness studies (Anderson 2005). Thedemonstrated quantum weaving model represents a newer physical approach called‘topological geometrodynamics’, which provides a larger perspective (Pitkanen 2006).One should not be reductionistic as far as length scales are considered: Matti Pitkanen


believes that the Universe is “emulating” itself in all length and time scales. Therefore itis possible that quantum computations may be carried out in biologically relevant lengthscales. Pitkanen goes on: “A topological geometrodynamics-based model involves manyelements which represent new physics very essential for topological quantumcomputation. One of the most fascinating possibilities is: time loops are in principlepossible by signaling to a geometric past so that arbitrarily long computations could bemade instantaneously by iteration in which a new run is initiated in the past. If theseloops are really possible, they would mean a complete revolution. Problems whichwould require a computation of eternity would become solvable.”

Mind Kinks, Topological Consciousness, and Plant Intelligence

Current efforts of artificial intelligence (AI) are about problem solving, and usuallyattempt to simulate cognition as it is processed in the neuroaxonal system of the humanbrain. This method of developing AI is modeled after the 'perceptual-cognitive-symbolic' way of gaining knowledge. While machines may exhibit the 'perceptual-cognitive-symbolic' form of intelligence, animals have the 'direct-intuitive-nonlocal'form as well since they share with humans the subneural mechanisms of quantumholography. But what about plants? What if they harbor a 'direct-intuitive-nonlocal'mind, and only that one?

This controversial concept arose after a personal discussion with Dennis McKennaat Luis Luna’s home in Wasiwaska, Florianópolis, Brazil. Dennis described a reportdescribing a giant mushroom Armillaria ostoyae commonly known as a “Honeymushroom”, and sometimes called “Shoestring rot”, found in the Pacific Northwest(Malheur National Forest, Oregon). This is one of the biggest single organisms (or acolony having the same DNA) on Earth. It is an immense network of interwoven fungalfibers (mycelia) spanning 2,200 acres, three feet underground, and containing onesquare mile in volume. The visible golden mushrooms above ground are only thereproducing organs, and represent the tip of the iceberg. Recently, an even largerArmillaria ostoyae was found in Washington state covering over 11,000 acres.

Genetic tests indicate that fungi are more closely related to animals and humanbeings than to other plants. Fungal mycelial fibers may develop a network of loops inmuch bigger numbers than the microfilamental matrix of the human brain. Informationcan be encoded in knots and threads, a fact which the ancient Incas discovered and usedin quipu recordings. A quipu consists of plied, colored threads of cords with the datastored in knots, a coded system yet to be deciphered. Computation based on weaving isnamed ‘topological’ (Collins 2006), and a vast loop-network may enable an organism orsuper-organism to resonate with the World resulting in a phenomenon we could describeas ‘topological consciousness’. Paul Stamets (2005) writes, “The mycelium is anexposed sentient membrane, aware and responsive to changes in its environment. ...Interlacing mycelial membranes form, I believe, a complex neuron-like web that acts asa fungal collective consciousness.”

Besides Stamets, the McKenna brothers (Dennis and Terence) were among the firstoutspoken proponents of mushroom and plant consciousness, what we humans are ableto tap into in altered states of consciousness. Although, plants cannot speak becausethey lack a neuroaxonal system, they can be in deeper contact with the World than wesuppose, and are able to communicate with us (McKenna 1992). When we use ourtopological (direct-intuitive-nonlocal) consciousness, hidden in the fabric of the


subcellular matrix, and liberate it from the suppression of the over-dominating'perceptual-cognitive-symbolic' cognition of ordinary consciousness through the use ofparticular rituals, we can access the wisdom of plant kingdom.

The size of topological consciousness does not necessarily reach its peak at thegiant mushroom level. Threads, loops on every scale can form a topology emerging inconsciousness. Pando (or The Trembling Giant) is a clonal colony of a single maleAspen tree (Populus tremuloides) located in state of Utah, all determined to be part of asingle living organism as revealed by identical genetic markers, and the existence of onemassive underground root system. The plant is estimated to weigh collectively 6,000tons placing it as the heaviest known organism in existence. The root system of Pando isestimated to be one of the oldest known living being in existence at 80,000 years of age.There are giant marine plants like Posidonia oceanica, discovered in the MediterraneanSea (near the Balearic Islands, Spain) with a length of several miles and with estimatedage of about 100,000 years. Can you imagine the topological wisdom a plant like Pandoor this marine organism can hold? Moreover, the majority of plants on Earth withinterconnected root fibers may represent a form of topological super-consciousness, theGaian Mind. The huge network of plants – like the Internet – shares information onchanges in the environment, and it has a form of intelligence that only a few of usrecognizes.

In an alternative model, based on his theory of topological geometrodynamicsPitkanen (2006) proposes that the flux tubes of Earth’s and all living systems` magneticfield are a network of superconductors. These flux tubes might be a kind of nervoussystem not only of the entire biosphere but the whole Blue Planet, and make it possibleto access enormous amount of information from Earth’s past, present and future.Electromagnetic flux tubes can serve as a medium for meaningful communicationamong plants, animals, humans, and – fasten your seat belt – material objects, non-living entities like rocks, caves, rivers and lakes. With Pitkanen’s model I believe it ispossible to understand (and perhaps experience) every entity indigenous people attributespirit to – animals, plants, and minerals.

Conclusions

The present paper is an exploration into unknown territory – the netherworld of animaland plant consciousness. I believe that it is indeed possible to approach rationally andstudy seriously questions of plant consciousness and “telepathic” communication withanimals. Hopefully, these “twisted” paragraphs will help us to interpret the mystery ofour symbiotic relationship with the plant world, and why shamans of the Upper Amazonare entirely true in their statements regarding obtaining knowledge from plantsthemselves – with the help of the ayahuasca brew – while in a highly altered state ofconsciousness.

References

Anderson, Philip W. (2005). A Career in Theoretical Physics. Hackensack, NJ: World ScientificPublishing Company.

Backster, Cleve (1968). Evidence of a primary perception in plant life. International Journal ofParapsychology, 10:329-348.

Collins, Graham (2006). Computing with quantum knots. Scientific American, 294:57-63.


Hameroff, Stuart (1987). Ultimate Computing. Amsterdam: North-Holland.

Hoffmann, Manfred (1992). Tomaten Belohnen Zuwendung. “Grüner Daumen” der GärtnerBewiesen. Garten Organisch, 7:20-23.

Iovine, Julie V. (2001). A dog biscuit for your thoughts. New York Times, July 22.

Jones, Vaughan (1987). Hecke algebra representations of braid groups and link polynomials.Annals of Mathematics, 126:335-388.

Kinkade, Amelia (2001). Straight from the Horse’s Mouth: How to Talk to Animals and GetAnswers. New York, NY: Crown Books.

Kitaev, Alexei (1997). Quantum error correction with imperfect gates. In: Osamu Hirota,Alexander S. Holevo, and Carlton M. Caves (editors), Proceedings of the Third InternationalConference on Quantum Communication and Measurement. New York, NY: Plenum Press.

Loehr, Franklin (1959). The Power of Prayer on Plants. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.

Luna, Luis E. and Amaringo, Pablo (1999). Ayahuasca Visions: The Iconography of a PeruvianShaman. Berkeley, CA: North Atlantic Books.

McKenna, Terence (1992). The Archaic Revival: Speculations on Psychedelic Mushrooms, theAmazon, Virtual Reality, UFO’s, Evolution, Shamanism, the Rebirth of the Goddess, and theEnd of History. San Francisco, CA: Harper & Row.

Miller, Robert N. (1972). The positive effect of prayer on plant. Psychic 3:24-25.

Parsons, Paul (2004). Dancing the quantum dream. New Scientist, 2431:31-34.

Penrose, Roger (1996). Shadows of the Mind: A Search for the Missing Science ofConsciousness. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Pitkanen, Matti (2006). Topological Geometrodynamics. Frome, UK: Luniver Press.

Saklani, Alok (1988). Preliminary tests for psi ability in shamans of Garhwal Himalaya. Journalof Society for Psychical Research, 55:60-70.

Scofield, Anthony M. and David R. Hodges (1991). Demonstration of a healing effect in thelaboratory using a simple plant model. Journal of the Society for Psychical Research, 57:321-343.

Shapiro, Robert and Julie Rapkins (1991). Awakening to the Plant Kingdom. San Rafael, CA:Cassandra Press.

Stamets, Paul (2005). Mycelium Running: How Mushrooms Can Help Save the World. Berkeley,CA: Ten Speed Press.

Tegmark, Max (2000). Importance of quantum decoherence in brain processes. Physical review.E, Statistical physics, plasmas, fluids, and related interdisciplinary topics, 61:4194-206.

Vogel, Marcel (1974). Man-plant communication. In: John White (editor), Psychic Exploration.New York, NY: Tarcher/Putnam.

Witten, Edward (1989). Quantum field theory and the Jones polynomial. Communications inMathematical Physics, 121:351-399.

Endnotes

1 Often in New Age literature the embedded consciousness in plant species is called ‘deva’(“shining one” in Sanskrit). The name used to describe a creative intelligence which fulfills somesort of morphogenetic and organizational role.2 Filamental networks are the suggested candidates serving as media for topological consciousness(see in the text).

Rick Strassman-Inner Paths to Outer Space, Chapter 8

Documents

Transcript of Rick Strassman-Inner Paths to Outer Space, Chapter 8