Inaugural Issue Issue 1, Vol 1

C o n s c i o u s n e s s i s a c o n t e n t i o u s s u b j e c t i n scientific circles. Indeed, p h i l o s o p h i c a l l y consciousness is considered the ‘hard problem.’ It is subjective thus relegated to the phenomenological and is rather difficult to isolate and m e a s u r e s c i e n t i f i c a l l y. Never the less , i t i s the cornerstone of existence and ontologically speaking it

i n f o r m s t h e c r e a t i v e endeavor. Lacking a universal definition makes it all the more elusive. Recent events have begun to change the materialist world view of animals and consciousness. Launching the Journal of Animal Consciousness is the dawn of a new era. One that embraces the integration of ontology and epistemology.

Chiara Marrapodi

Jour

nal Of

Animal Consciousness

The Journal of Animal Consciousness is edited and produced by Chiara Marrapodi Founder of The Society for Animal Consciousness.

The Journal of Animal Consciousness is produced free to the community. It is the first Journal of its kind and incorporates an integral approach. Providing a blend of scientific and philosophical theses on Animal Consciousness and related topics.2015

Issue 1, Vol 1, February 2015.

Table of Contents:Editors Note 1

Introductory Comment - Dr Thomas G. Brophy, PhD 2

Why Animal Consciousness? - Chiara Marrapodi 2

Animal Emotions, do animals think and feel? - Dr Marc Bekoff, PhD 3

Consciousness and the Equine Mind - Susan Gordan 6

Do Probiotic Bacteria have Subjectivity - Chiara Marrapodi 9

Welcome to the inaugural Journal of Animal Consciousness!

www.societyforanimalconsciousness.org1

Why Animal Consciousness?Humans and animals are indelibly intertwined. Animals provide a great service to human society whether they are domesticated or wild. They are a fabric of the Natural World that has fascinated humans throughout the ages. Educational departments and human careers have arisen from the exploration of natural habitats and the flora and fauna therein. The domestication of animals has resulted in practices of animal husbandry for companionship and as sustenance. We are deeply connected to Nature despite the illusive separation we have created intellectually and physically. And yet philosophically and scientifically humans have not been able to shed light on the most pragmatic and yet elusive aspect of life - consciousness. Consciousness a state, an experience that is so common and yet intangible in the physical world. Consciousness that directly informs the scientific endeavor and the myriad of creations in contemporary society. Why y o u m a y a s k i s t h e p u r s u i t o f understanding animal consciousness of any consequence?

ImplicationsThe idea that humans are the only beings on the planet with the potential to experience, feel and even think beyond

instinctual driving forces has been flatly dismissed until very recently. The compartmentalization of scientific fields lends itself to focus on target areas of study. This is indeed applaudable as many breakthroughs and understandings have resulted. Nonetheless, this reduces the potential for casting a wider net of understanding. The monist view is the belief that one true pattern exists in nature. Does it though? The Natural Wor ld i s a comp lex o f web- l i ke interconnections and interpenetrations, how then can a uni-dimensional view capture it’s true essence? The Earth is not flat is it? Hence, a multi-faceted approach accepts the notion that more expanded, less hierarchical explanations may pave the way to make sense of what are unknown artifacts of science. The spookiness so to speak! Thus a pluralist approach marrying the epistemological and ontological aspects of consciousness may lead to essential findings beyond the current reductionist model. Such an expanded worldview necessitates a r e f r e s h e d o b s e r v a t i o n o f w h a t consciousness may be, embracing anecdo ta l and cu r ren t sc ien t i f i c knowledge. This Journal and The Society for Animal Consciousness is the inception of such a worldview.

Chiara Marrapodi

The mystery of consciousness, how sentience exists at all, is the central unsolved issue of the biological sciences.  That it is an unresolved problem should make it worthy of more attention, not less, to scientists and philosophers.  And given the unsettled nature of even the existence of consciousness, we would be well served to investigate more carefully certain commonly presumed but little examined notions about the various manifestations of consciousness.  As we may be poised during this century to make progress on the central mystery of consciousness, investigations and clarifying discussions of the phenomenal appearances of consciousness will become of increasing interest.  Animal consciousness and the relation and differences of animal and human consciousness is one such field of fruitful endeavor, and as such it is well-served by the efforts of this new Journal of Animal Consciousness.-Thomas G. Brophy, PhD

Introductory Comments - Dr Thomas G. Brophy, PhD

Chiara Marrapodi, BSc Psych, MA

Integral Health Candidate California

Institute for Human Sciences.

Revisiting the animal consciousness debate.

The Society for Animal Consciousness™

2015

2

Didn't we already know this? Yes, we did.

Every now and again I receive an email message I ignore after reading the

subject line. I know I'm not alone in following this rule of thumb, but today I

broke down and opened a message the subject line of which read "Scientists

Declare: Nonhuman Animals Are Conscious". I honestly thought it was a joke,

likely from one of my favorite newspapers, The Onion. However, it wasn't.

My colleague Michael Mountain published a summary of a recent meeting held

in Cambridge, England at which "Science leaders have reached a critical

consensus: Humans are not the only conscious beings; other animals,

specifically mammals and birds, are indeed conscious, too." At this gathering,

called  The Francis Crick Memorial Conference, a number of scientists

presented evidence that led to this self-obvious conclusion. It's difficult to

believe that those who have shared their homes with companion animals didn't

already know this. And, of course, many renowned and award-winning field

researchers had reached the same conclusion years ago.

Michael Mountain was as incredulous as I and many others about something

we already knew. It's interesting to note that of the 15 notables who spoke at

this conference only one has actually done studies of wild animals. It would

have been nice to hear from researchers who have conducted long-term

studies of wild animals, including great apes, other nonhuman primates, social

carnivores, cetaceans, rodents, and birds, for example, to add to the database.

Be that as it may, I applaud their not so surprising conclusion and now I hope it

will be used to protect animals from being treated abusively and inhumanely. 

Revisiting the animal consciousness debate.

Photographic Credit and copyright www.freedigitalphotos.net Ia

Source: http://fcmconference.org/#talks

Animal Emotions

- do animals

think and feel?

Dr Marc Bekoff, PhD

Proclamation of the Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness in Non-Human Animals at the Francis Crick

Memorial Conference, Churchill College, University of Cambridge

University, Cambridge 7 July 2012, watch video below.

The Society for Animal Consciousness™

2015

3

Some might say we didn't really know that other animals

were conscious but this is an incredibly naive view given

what we know about the neurobiology and cognitive and

emotional lives of other animals. Indeed, it was appeals to

these very data that led to the conclusions of this group of

scientists. But did we really need a group of internationally

recognized scientists to tell us that the data are really

okay?  Yes and no, but let's thank them for doing this. 

I agree with Michael Mountain that "It’s a really important

statement that will be used as evidence by those who are

pushing for scientists to develop a more humane

relationship with animals. It’s harder, for example, to justify

experiments on nonhumans when you know that they are

conscious beings and not just biological machines. Some

of the conclusions reached in this declaration are the

product of scientists who, to this day, still conduct

experiments on animals in captivity, including dolphins,

who are among the most intelligent species on Earth. Their

own declaration will now be used as evidence that it’s time

to stop using these animals in captivity and start finding

new ways of making a living."

The Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness

The scientists went as far as to write up what's called The

Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness  that basically

declares that this prominent international group of

scientists agree that "Convergent evidence indicates that

non-human animals have the neuroanatomical,

neurochemical, and neurophysiological substrates of

conscious states along with the capacity to exhibit

intentional behaviors. Consequently, the weight of

evidence indicates that humans are not unique in

possessing the neurological substrates that generate

consciousness. Non-human animals, including all

mammals and birds, and many other creatures, including

octopuses, also possess these neurological substrates."

They could also have included fish, for whom the evidence

supporting sentience and consciousness is also

compelling.  

So, what are we going to do with what we know (and have known)?

It's fair to ask what are these scientists and others going to

do now that they agree that consciousness is widespread

in the animal kingdom. We know, for example, that mice,

rats, and chickens display empathy but this knowledge

hasn't been factored into the Federal Animal Welfare Act in

the United States.

I'm frankly astounded that these data and many other

findings about animal cognition and animal emotions have

been ignored by those who decide on regulations about

the use and abuse of other animals. However, the Treaty

of Lisbon, passed by member states of the European

Union that went into force on December 1, 2009,

recognizes that  "In formulating and implementing the

Union's agriculture, fisheries, transport, internal market,

research and technological development and space

policies, the Union and the Member States shall, since

animals are sentient beings, pay full regard to the welfare

requirements of animals, while respecting the legislative or

administrative provisions and customs of the Member

States relating in particular to religious rites, cultural

traditions and regional heritage."

Let 's app laud The Cambr idge Dec lara t ion on

Consciousness and The Treaty of Lisbon and work hard to

get animals the protection from invasive research and

other forms of abuse, in many cases horrifically inhumane,

they deserve.

Some recent essays I've written point out that there still

are some people who feel comfortable killing individuals

who they call "unneeded" or "surplus" animals and at least

one animal welfarist, Oxford University's Marian Dawkins,

continued as of a few months ago to claim we still don't

know if other animals are conscious and that we should

4

"remain skeptical and agnostic [about consciousness] ...

Militantly agnostic if necessary, because this keeps alive

the possibility that a large number of species have some

sort of conscious experiences ... For all we know, many

animals, not just the clever ones and not just the overtly

emotional ones, also have conscious experiences."

Perhaps what I call "Dawkins' Dangerous Idea" will now

finally be shelved given the conclusions of the Cambridge

gathering. I frankly don't see how anyone who has worked

closely with any of a wide array of animals or who lives

with a companion animal(s) could remain uncertain and

agnostic about whether they are conscious. 

It's said that repetition is boring conversation but there's

now a wealth of scientific data that makes skepticism, and

surely agnosticism, to be anti-science and harmful to

animals. Now, at last, the prestigious Cambridge group

shows this to be so. Bravo for them! So, let's all work

together to use this information to stop the abuse of

millions upon millions of conscious animals in the name of

science, education, food, amusement and entertainment,

and clothing. We really owe it to them to use what we

know on their behalf and to factor compassion and

empathy into our treatment of these amazing beings. 

About the Author

Marc Bekoff, PhD

Marc Bekoff, Ph.D.,  is a former Professor of Ecology and

Evolutionary Biology at the University of Colorado,

Boulder, and co-founder with Jane Goodall of Ethologists

for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. He has won many

awards for his scientific research including the Exemplar

Award from the Animal Behavior Society and a

Guggenheim Fellowship. Marc has published more than

1000 essays (popular, scientific, and book chapters), 30

books, and has edited three encyclopedias.  His books

include the Encyclopedia of Animal Rights and Animal

Welfare, The Ten Trusts (with Jane Goodall), the

Encyclopedia of Animal Behavior, the Encyclopedia of

Human-Animal Relationships, Minding Animals, Animal

Passions and Beast ly Vir tues: Reflect ions on

Redecorating Nature, The Emotional Lives of Animals,

Animals Matter, Animals at Play: Rules of the Game (a

children's book), Wild Justice: The Moral Lives of Animals

(with Jessica Pierce), The Animal Manifesto: Six Reasons

For Increasing Our Compassion Footprint, Ignoring

Nature No More: The Case For Compassionate

Conservation, Jasper's Story: Saving Moon Bears  (with

Jill Robinson),  Why Dogs Hump and Bees Get

Depressed: The Fascinating Science of Animal

Intelligence, Emotions, Friendship, and Conservation,

and  Rewilding Our Hearts: Building Pathways of

Compassion and Coexistence.  In 2005 Marc was

presented with The Bank One Faculty Community Service

Award for the work he has done with children, senior

citizens, and prisoners. In 2009 he was presented with the

St. Francis of Assisi Award by the New Zealand SPCA.

His homepage is marcbekoff.com and with Jane

Goodall http://www.ethologicalethics.org/. Twitter.

5

Revisiting the animal consciousness debate.

The Society for Animal Consciousness™

2015

There are 1000 pounds underneath me. For the sport I am

competing in, it is necessary. “It”, however, is not an “it.” It

is not a machine or an inanimate object. It is a “she.” She

has a brain and a heart, and is made of flesh and blood,

and a set of chemicals, just like I am. She has a name, Ali.

She does not speak my language though, so we

communicate by feel. I cannot see her facial expressions

when I am on her back, so I watch her ears, and feel for

her bodily responses not only to my signals, but also what

she is conveying to me about her perceptions of the

immediate environment. We are each required to make

split-second decisions for the next few minutes of our ride,

and one mistake or mistimed cue could spell disaster for

both of us. We have to rely on our finely honed

relationship in order to survive this test of bravery,

strength, and stamina.

The starting bell rings and before I can apply the leg aids

to switch from trot to canter, my chestnut ex-racehorse

surges into the faster gait. Her powerful muscles ripple

underneath my seat. She has an awareness of the task

ahead. The eyes of hundreds of people are on us, as it is

the jump-off for a gold medal in this regional

championship. I shut out the audience and tune into my

horse, listening to the even footfalls of her cadence,

carefully scanning the distances between fences and

noting where we will make the tight turns to ensure a fast

round. There is no more time to think. We just “do.” As my

eyes focus on the next jump, Ali also focuses, takes a hold

of the reins and pulls, telling me she will indeed get us

both off the ground. Our trust and confidence in each

other is a fragile thing. She trusts me to keep my hands

soft and give them forwards over the fence so she can use

her neck and back to leap safely. I must balance my body

so as not to disturb her balance. I trust her to pick all four

legs up high enough so as not to get us tangled in the rails

of the jump, and then land on one foot, as jumpers do,

keep her balance, and continue on to the next obstacle.

I am counting the strides between fences. One, two, three,

four, five… jump! Trying to remember to breathe. If I did

not breathe in a rhythm, it would upset Ali, as she is that

sensitive. I am working every muscle in my body in

coordination with that of my horse. Beyond the physical

sensations are the set of subconscious responses that are

the result of years of training and eons of sensory

evolution of sentient beings. We gallop to fence after

fence, clearing the rails, the water obstacle, the

combinations, and we coordinate as one force with two

Consciousness

and the Equine Mind

Susan A. Gordon

Photographic Credit and copyright www.freedigitalphotos.net bk images

6

minds working in sync. We cross the finish line and race

through the timers with a clear round. Ali settles back into

a trot, then a walk, and I can drop the reins and give her a

good scratch on her withers as she now knows we are

finished the jumping phase. We are both hot and sweaty,

breathing hard, and very tired. We have won the gold.

I have never failed to marvel at the process. Not only does

a prey animal with herd instincts allow me to sit on her

back and give her directions by squeezing and releasing

pressure with my hands and legs, she does something

completely against her nature by running at big, colorful

obstacles, lifting both of us off the ground at high speed,

time after time. Did Ali want to jump? Did she enjoy it?

How did she feel about this kind of athletic intensity? It is

far beyond what a horse would have to do to go about its

basic existence in the wild.

What do horses think? Do they reason and thereby exhibit

intellectual abilities? Or do they simply react based on

fear and other instinctive behaviors with an inclination to

run away from perceived danger? Science is beginning to

supply us with answers as to the mechanisms of

consciousness in animals and their remarkable capability

for communicating with us in ways we never thought

possible.

Not that long ago the explanation for this kind of

communication with an animal would have been more

esoteric. The Cambridge Declaration on consciousness

has opened the doors for serious studies that are using

modern technologies to confirm even more sensitivity and

awareness in animals than previously thought, largely due

to similar brain chemistry and structure 2.

I was drawn to horses from the time I was five years old...

almost 50 years ago. I spoke to them as though they

could understand me, because it never occurred to me

that they could not. Throughout my life from junior to

amateur to professional, I have continued this two-way

conversation with horses, refining the process to an

extremely subtle, non-verbal level. Thanks to pioneers in

herd dynamics , such as Mary Ann S imonds

(www.maryannsimonds.com), there are numerous

teachers and programs introducing people from all walks

of life to the benefits of that silent equine language. Now

we are approaching an era in which quantum computing

will likely become a reality 3. There may even be a

convergence point at which consciousness is understood

at the subatomic level, and perhaps leading to a

quantifiable definition for interspecies communication.

The simple act of touching a horse with love and

compassion, quietly listening to their body language as

they subtly study ours, can be an extremely awakening

process for some people. There is a precognitive process

that takes place in the moments before the actual physical

contact occurs, if the human is able to sufficiently calm

their busy mind state and slow down to a level at which

the horse can communicate without tension. In this

collaborative moment, a kind of bonding can possibly

occur, opening the door for further interactions, such as

compassionate training and riding that further enhances

the bond and the physical, athletic capabilities of both

horse and rider. However, riding without placing undue

stress on the animal requires years of study, practice, and

working with masters of equitation. Trust is easily lost with

a horse if they are ridden while in pain or otherwise

traumatized. The neuroplasticity of the brain works in both

directions. That is, if a human creates pain in the horse,

those memories will remain, as will the more pleasant

residual memories. We find many similarities between

traumatized people and traumatized animals.

I believe we are on the cusp of an entirely new frontier in

recognizing and responding to the sentience of all

7

animals. What is unique about horses is that they are the

one animal we connect with by riding on its back and

relaying directional instructions strictly through feel. As the

economy continues to improve and some wealth is

regenerated among an aging population, it appears

horses are returning to favor in both the recreational and

sport aspects. As Dr. Schoen and I have written in The

Compassionate Equestrian, it is our wish that all those

who are newcomers or returning to equestrian activities

receive a thorough and correct education by first of all,

acknowledging the sentience of all beings and putting

compassion at the base of their equine training and

handling. There are many paths to take insofar as

equestrian education is concerned, especially nowadays

thanks to social media and entertainment venues

involving horses. Unfortunately there is also a lot of

misinformation and incomplete techniques leading

unsuspecting horse lovers astray from methods that are

most conducive to correct training and riding that produce

sound, healthy and safe horses. We highly recommend

learning through formal programs provided by governing

bodies such as Equine Canada, the United States

Equestrian Federation and British Horse Society, and

working with trainers certified through those organizations

and their affiliates. All of these organizations have specific

protocols for equine welfare in place to ensure the highest

regard for horse care in stables and at shows.

With the most productive combination of love, compassion,

common sense, good education, and appropriate

responses to the consciousness of all beings, we could

potentially be headed for the greatest advancements

mankind has ever known in regards to interspecies

communication. And it is a great thing to be able to look

forward to a happy future for all horses and their humans!

About the AuthorSusan A. Gordon

Susan Gordon is an author and

blogger with over 25 years of

profess ional horse t ra in ing

experience. After many years of

apprenticing with top show

jumping, eventing, and dressage trainers, she became a

specialist in evaluating and re-schooling difficult horses,

including many off-track thoroughbreds and horses that

presented with challenging resistances. After retiring from

full-time riding in 2002, Susan concentrated on further

development of her methods including aspects of

mindfulness, energy medicine and holistic practices,

inspiring riders of all ages to find joy and accomplishment

with their horses, whether they were interested in hunters,

equitation, jumpers, dressage, eventing, or recreational

riding.

Susan is also an avid runner and consistent age-

group and series winner at the 5K, 8K, 10K, and half-

marathon distances. She is currently ranked 2nd in

Canada in her age group at 8K and 10K for 2014.

Her first book, The Compassionate Equestrian

(coauthored with Dr. Allen Schoen, DVM), will be released

April 15, 2015, by Trafalgar Square Books. She may be

reached via e-mail at susan.greenpony@gmail.com, at

The Compassionate Equestrian on Facebook, and on the

blog at http://www.thecompassionateequestrian.net.

8

Do probiotic

bacteria have subjectivity?Chiara Marrapodi & Dr

Thomas Brophy

Photographic Credit and copyright www.freedigitalphotos.net cuteimage.

AbstractThe phenomenon of light transduction influences a myriad of biological systems, upon which entire ecosystems depend

(Farquhar, Von Caemmere & Berry, 2001). Indeed, all organisms emit light and these quanta packets of light are called

photons (Popp, 2003). The biochemical theory posits that biological organisms emit biophotons during metabolic

processes at the cellular level (Popp, 2003). Chemical reactions require a photon from the surrounding electromagnetic

field to excite the ‘transition state complex’ after which it returns to equilibrium (Cilento,1982). Popp (2003) postulates that

photons are implicated not only in regulation but also cellular communication. Additionally, biophotons have a high

degree of order (coherence) which is required for clear communications to be effected (Popp, 1999, 2003, 2006). This

research aims to ascertain whether probiotic organisms show coherence. Furthermore, it investigates the potential for

microbial subjectivity by exposing two different samples to the intentions of love, gratitude and hate measured by

biophoton radiance intensity. To further corroborate findings probiotics are exposed to sound (classical and heavy metal)

to ascertain whether music affects biological organisms, causing more or less stress. Findings suggest QuantaBiotica®

showed signs of coherence and potential subjectivity at source baseline and during intention exposure. However, sound

exposure yielded conflicting results in both samples. This preliminary study highlights the potential for microbial

subjectivity and the effects of emotional states on stress levels (QuantaBiotica®). The implications relating to the body-

mind complex are emphasized as the human physical form is composed of more microbial cells (90%) than human cells

(10%). Indeed, it suggests host emotional states potentially affect enteric microbial colonies. Further research is required

to investigate these preliminary findings that may elucidate important aspects of consciousness in the future (Romjin,

2002).

Keywords:

Awareness, biophoton, probiotics, sound, intention, consciousness, effects of intention on microbes, subjectivity,

interiority.

9

IntroductionLight is universal. Indeed, as Popp (2001) suggests “we

are swimming in an ocean of light” (Popp, 2006). It is the

giver of information, knowledge and life (Popp, 2003; Yip &

Madl, 2007). The windows through which one views the

world are designed to absorb light; as photons are

absorbed by photoreceptor cells in the retina of the eye a

cascade of reactions occur, providing the basis of the

visual sense (Popp, 2003). Conscious evaluation of this

visible electromagnetic radiation is a result of the primary

visual cortex found in the occipital lobe (Schacter, Gilbert &

Wegner, 2009). Thus the phenomenon of light is crucial

for understanding one’s external world and ultimately for

survival (Schacter, Gilbert & Wegner, 2009). In the natural

world, for example, birds attract their mates based on the

vibrance of their plumage, ensuring species propagation

and survival (Bennett, Cuthill, Patridge & Lunau, 1997).

Therefore light is used to create the external world and is

the interface between organisms and their environment

(Schacter, Gilbert & Wegner, 2009; Popp, 2006). Indeed

plants, for example, are an integral part of the life cycle

and are iconic examples of l ight t ransduct ion

(photosynthesis) (Farquhar, Von Caemmere & Berry,

2001). They convert light into chemical energy providing

sustenance for a myriad of biological systems, upon which

entire ecosystems depend (Farquhar et al., 2001).

Photosynthesis is not isolated to plants alone, however,

many other forms of life use a similar process with slight

variations due to molecular structure (Roose, 2014).

Cynobacteria, for example, although structurally different

from the plant, “have a double outer membrane and a

separate internal thylakoid membrane system for

photosynthesis” (Roose, 2014). Therefore light is the

center of planetary existence, indeed, when natural

sunlight is not available humans have developed artificial

versions to continue their activities (Popp, 2001).

" From a scientific perspective, the phenomenon of

light is described as electromagnetic radiation. According

to electromagnetic wave theory, visible light is one portion

of the variety of electromagnetic waves in the cosmos

(Ryer, 1998). Optical radiation is found between radio

waves and x-rays on the spectrum, each possessing an

array of properties ranging from wave to particle, including

quantum aspects (Figure 1. Ryer, 1998). As highlighted in

Figure 1, the x-ray portion of the electromagnetic spectrum

yields shorter wavelengths and are more particle-like in

nature (Dyer, 1998). Conversely, radio waves are much

longer and are more l ike waves (Dyer, 1998).

Interestingly, in the visible area of the electromagnetic

spectrum, between 260-800nm range (Figure 2), quanta

packets of light are found with wave-particle duality

properties (Dyer, 1998; Popp, 2001). These quanta

packets, according to Popp (2001), emit a low intensity of

light, and are called photons. Etymologically, photon

means light and was coined by Gilbert N. Lewis in 1926

(Dyer, 1998; Popp, 2001). Photons are singular units of an

electromagnetic field and are not to be confused with

bioluminescence which requires a chemical reaction

involving a luciferin/luciferace enzymatic catalyst (Popp,

2001).

Figure 1. The visible (optical) part of the electromagnetic

spectrumSource: http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/science/know_l1/emspectrum.html

Figure 2. Electromagnetic Spectrum of light and measurements.Source: http://9-4fordham.wikispaces.com/Electro+Magnetic+Spectrum+and+light

10

Indeed, photons are said to move at c (the speed of light in

a vacuum), are massless and can be created and

destroyed through interactions with each other, however

they do not decay (Popp, 2001, 2003).

" Biophotons relate to the emission of photons from

biological systems (Popp, 2003). The word biophoton is

derived from the Greek equivalents meaning life and light

(Popp, 2003). It is believed that all biological systems emit

biophotons (Popp, 2003). Measurements suggest that

emission rates range from a few to hundreds of photons

per surface area centimeter squared within the spectral

range from 260nm to 800nm (Popp, 2003). Biophotons

occur as ultra-weak bioluminescence, sometimes referred

to as dark luminenscence and are non-thermal in origin

(Popp, 2003). Gurwitsch is well-known for his discovery of

“mitogenetic radiation” (Popp, 2003 p. 391) demonstrating

that cell division rates increased significantly in onion roots

when they were placed perpendicular to each other (Popp,

2003; Yip & Madle, 2007). This was only observed when

quartz glass was placed between the onion roots (quartz

glass is transparent to UV light ranging approximately

260nm) (Popp, 2003, p. 391; Yip & Madl, 2007). Scientific

theories relating to biology and photons are rather

controversial (Popp, 2003, 2006). Indeed, there is little

consensus in mainstream circles relating to the role light

plays in biological systems (Popp, 2003, 2006).

Nevertheless, biophoton emission is viewed from two

broad theoretical perspectives; the biochemical and the

coherence theories (Popp, 2003). The biochemical theory

(BCT) states that biophoton emission is merely the result

of metabolic wastes being released by the cell (Popp,

2003). The metabolic activity of a cell is understood to be

105 reactions per second, this means that 100 000

reactions per second occur at the cellular level (Popp,

2003; 2006). Cilento (1982) demonstrated that chemical

reactions require a photon from the surrounding

electromagnetic field, it excites the ‘transition state

complex’ after which equilibrium is returned. As photons

do not decay it can be reused for the subsequent reactions

(Cilento, 1982; Popp, 1999, 2003; 2006). Consequently,

one photon is able to trigger approximately 109 reactions

per second (Popp, 2003). Furthermore, Popp (1999,

2003, 2006) postulates that a relatively low photon

intensity is required, therefore cell reactions appear to be

much faster than those observed under thermal

equilibrium conditions (Popp, 1999, 2003, p.4; 2006).

Indeed, when electrons move between energy states

during chemical reactions, photons are either absorbed or

emitted (Creath & Schwartz, 2005). Studies show that

catabolic reactions (breaking down of larger molecules into

smaller ones) result in chemical by-products and photon

emission; whilst, anabolic (smaller molecules to larger)

reactions show the opposite effect (Creath & Schwartz,

2005). According to Popp (1999, 2003; 2006) toxicity

scrambles biophotonic function at the cellular level

resulting in organism stress (Slawinski, Ezzahir,

Godlewski, Kwiecinska, Rajfur, Sitko, & Wierzuchowska,

1992). Indeed, wounding, chilling/freezing or salt and

drought are all examples of stress inducing environmental

stimuli (Creath & Schwartz, 2005). Exposure to such

environmental stimuli are associated with increased

cellular oxidative stress and higher photon radiance

(Creath & Schwartz, 2005; Bokkon, Salari, Tuszynski &

Antal, 2010). The importance of the BCT theory as it ties

into conventional scientific understanding is crucial,

however, another theory may elucidate an alternative view.

" The coherence theory (CT) suggests the “release

of low intensity light displays sub-Poissonian photocount

statistics and provides the means for communication in

optically dense biological systems” (Popp, 1999, p. 3).

Controversy surrounds the CT as it is difficult to ascertain

whether emissions are coherent or chaotic in nature

(Popp, 2003). Coherence is defined as “electromagnetic

waves maintaining a fixed or predictable phase

relat ionship with each other over a period of

time” (Dictionary.com, 2014). Inherently, the signature of

coherence is stability and predictability and the ability to

exhibit interference (Popp,1999, 2003; 2006; Mayburov,

11

2012). Inteference, with reference to light waves, means

that two or more light waves are added together resulting

in a new wave pattern (Popp,1999, 2003; 2006; Mayburov,

2012). According to Popp, (1999, 2003, 2006) biophotons

have a high degree of order (coherence) which is required

for clear communications within the cell. Popp (1999,

2003, 2006) further postulates the presence of less

coherence results in weak communication. More

specifically, he suggests that coherent fields result in

destructive and constructive interference and are the basis

of regulation and communication (Popp, 2003). He further

explains that based on the law of energy conservation

areas of destruction are compensated by areas of

construction.

Figure 3. Constructive and deconstructive interference.Source: Popp, F.A. (2003). Properties of biophotons and their theoretical implications. Indian Journal of

Experimental Biology, 41 pp. 396..

This is explained in more detail by Dicke (1954)

suggesting a propensity for “constructive interference

(super-radiance) in the initial phase of interaction between

radiation and non-randomly oriented matter, while

destructive interference (sub-radiance) is the tendency

after longer periods of time” (Popp, 2003, p. 396). Studies

using Daphnia magna Strauss (freshwater flea)

corroborate this idea with tendencies towards destructive

interference resulting in a lower intensity than expected

(Popp, 2003). Indeed, ontologically a linear increase is

expected, that is, an increase in freshwater fleas would

result in increased photon intensity, however, this was not

the case (Popp, 2003). After increasing flea numbers to

more than 110 subjects photon emission decreased (Popp,

2003). This therefore suggests that total intensity reduces

due to active photon absorption by the biological system

involved (Popp, 2003). Accordingly, research shows that

high density populations of bacteria stimulates

intercommunications between them (known as quorum

sensing) (Yip & Madl, 2007). Interestingly, this is

corroborated in photo research by Yip & Madl (2007) who

found two separate colonies of luminescent dinoflagellate

Gonyanlax polyedra (marine organisms) synchronized light

flashing when in optical contact (Yip & Madl, 2007). This

suggests that when in optical proximity organisms work

synergistically and synchronously (Popp, 2003; Yip &

Madl, 2007; Yanick, 2009; 2012). Indeed, according to Yip

and Madle (2007, p. 1) “the coherent property of the

biophotonic field [the electromagnetic field] is a

communicative tool without which the state of each cell

both in single cellular and multicellular organisms could not

communicate [with] it’s surroundings.” They add that

biophotons are indeed, the key ingredients to inter and

intra specific cooperation and are essential for the order of

life (Yip & Madl, 2007).

Microbiota

" Microbiota found in the human gastrointestinal

tract consists of gut bacteria in varying ratios known to

contribute to host well-being (Collins & Gibson 1999; De

Vrese & Schrezenmeir, 2008; Yanick, 2009; 2012). Of the

microbiota that have been identified via fecal, and in-vitro

investigation probiotics are well recognized (Collins &

Gibson, 1999). However, the full spectrum of microbiota

making up the totality of the human gut and/or body are

hitherto unknown (Yanick, 2009; 2012). Indeed, the

human body is composed of ninety percent microbial and

ten percent human cells, therefore attention to microbial

health is synergistically critical to host and bacteria alike

(Yanick, 2009, 2012). Probiotics are defined as viable

microorganisms in amounts sufficient enough to exert

positive health effects in the gastrointestinal tract (De

Vrese & Schrezenmeir, 2008). They are live microbial

12

additions to food substrates most notably fermented milks

(Gibson, 2002). Some of the commonest probiotics are

Lactobacillus and Bafidobacterium (Gibson, 2002). By

comparison, a prebiotic is described as “a selectively

fermented ingredient that allows specific changes, both in

the composition and/or activity in the gastrointestinal

microflora that confers benefits upon host well-being and

health” (De Vrese & Schrezenmeir, 2008, p. 1). For the

purposes of clarity and completeness, prebiotics are

known to stimulate the growth and activity of bacteria in

the colon, whilst, synergistic combinations of pro and

preb io t ics are ca l led synb io t ics (De vrese &

Schrezenemeir, 2008; Gibson, 2002). According to Yanick

(2009; 2012) human beings are a composite of species, a

symbiotic ecosystem of commensal and human cells.

Microbial cells that work in synergy with the host are often

referred to as commensal cells (Yanick, 2009; 2012).

According to Yanick (2009; 2012) commensal cells perform

indispensable functions, for example, they assist in food

digestion, in the production of vitamins and other nutrients

that have immune modulating effects (Gibson, 2002;

Yanick 2009, 2012). For this study only probiotics will be

used in all conditions.

Study Rationale

" Notwi ths tand ing var ious s tud ies l ink ing

biophotonic radiance with physiological processes, few

have investigated the effects of intention on biological

organisms and its relation to biophoton radiance. Romjin

(2002) posits that photons are elementary carriers of

awareness. Epistemologically, investigating whether

biophotons are related to awareness poses some difficulty

as the mechanics and phenomenological aspects of

awareness are yet to be fully defined (Romjin, 2002).

Acceptance of a universal awareness also implies that

living creatures with ever complex holonic structures

(single cell to more complex cells i.e., organs and

systems) are capable of subjective experiences

(panpsychism) (Romjin, 2002). According to Tiller (2009,

p. 5) “consciousness, intention, emotion, mind or spirit can

significantly influence a well-designed target experiment in

physical reality.” Indeed, Tiller’s (2009b) research shows

that the alkalinity/acidity balance (pH) of water can be

changed with intention. There is a paucity of research

investigating the effects of intention and sound on bacterial

organisms as related to photon radiance. Additionally, few

linkages have been drawn between potential bacterial

awareness and biophoton radiance (Romjin, 2002).

Therefore the purpose of this preliminary study is to

investigate whether intention (love, gratitude and hate) and

sound (specifically classical music and heavy metal music)

affects bacterial organisms (probiotics). Furthermore,

biophotonic radiance will be used to assess whether

organisms exhibit less or more stress as a result of the

various exposures (see attached hypotheses and aims for

more detail) (Slawinski et al., 1992).

Definitions

For the purpose of this study the word subjectivity relates

to the phenomenon of experience and awareness

(Merriam-webster, 2014).

For the purpose of this study the word intention refers to

“directing oneself to a state of mind” (love and gratitude or

hate) (Merriam-webster, 2014).

Reference to ‘noise signal’ relates to photon detection

without the presence of a subject or object whilst ‘source

signal’ refers to photon emission from an object or subject.

Hypotheses and Specific Aims

To carry out this study the following hypotheses and aims

are outlined:-

1. A high probability compared to chance that the Q pill

shows more coherence than the O pill.

2. A high probability compared to chance that exposure to

the intention of Love and Gratitude will reduce

biophoton radiance in both the Q pill and O pill,

respectively.

3. A high probability compared to chance that exposure to

the intention of Hate will increase biophoton radiance in

both the Q and O pills, respectively.

13

4. A high probability compared to chance that exposure to

classical music (J.S. Bach, Overture 3: Air) will reduce

biophoton radiance in both the Q and O pills,

respectively.

5. Finally, a high probability compared to chance that

exposure to heavy metal music (Metallica, Hate Train)

will increase biophoton radiance in both the Q and O

pills, respectively.

MethodsChoice of Probiotics

" QuantaBiotica® consists of an 8-strain commensal

microbial cell colonizer (Yanick, 2014). Each dose or

capsule contains over 60 billion organisms that are gastri-

resistant, lactic acid-bile salt tolerant thus maximizing

enteric colonization (Yanick, 2014). These factors greatly

eliminate microbe-to-microbe competition that commonly

occurs in other probiotic products. Additionally, this

proprietary blend of probiotics is exposed to a mold-free

culturing process and uses select organisms (Yanick,

2014). QuantaBiotica® is a quorum fermented product

using a novel fermentation process (Yanick, 2007). More

specifically, Yanick (2007, p. 70) describes QuantaBiotica®

as follows “the combination of commensals with

appropriate prebiotics produce powerful nutrient-dense

foods, rich in quorum fermented nutrients. These nutrients

are pre-digested and reduced in weight from 60,000

daltons in whole foods to only 320 daltons.”

" Conversely, the alternative probiotic was

purchased from a local grocery store and is a generic

over-the-counter product (Grocey Store Multi-Flora). No

further information is available regards production other

than that available on the product label (see materials

section for details).

Materials

Product 1 - QuantaFoods QuantaBiotica® (Q).

QuantaFoods QuantaBiotica® consisting of an 8-strain

proprietary Quorum Fermented™ blend of Lactobacillus

salivarius, Lactobacillus rhamnosus, Lactobacillus casel,

Lactobacillus acidophilus, Bifodobacterium breve,

Bifidobacterium bifidum, Bifidobacterium longum and

Lactobacillus plantarum and SPT energized Psyillum

Husks (Plantago psyillum). The probiotics are housed in a

white plastic container within individual vegetable capsules

totaling 30. The number of cells per serving was disclosed

by the manufacturer as 60 billion.

Product 2 - Over the Counter Probiotics (O).

The over the counter Five Beneficial Strains Multi-Flora

Probiotic consists of Lactobacilus acidophilus (grown on

lactose milk) 4 billion cells per serving, Lactobacius lactis -

500 million cells per serving, Lactobacilus reuteri - 500

million cells per serving, Lactobacilus plantarum - 2 billion

cells per serving and Bifidobacterium bifidum (grown on

soy) - 1 billion cells per serving. Other disclosed

ingredients are Jerusalem artichoke (Helianthus

tuberosus), vegetable capsule (modified cellulose),

cellulose, medium chain triglycerides and water.

Probiotics are housed in a brown tinted glass container

within individual vegetable capsules totaling 50.

All probiotic pills were kept in their original containers in

the refrigerator between -3 and -6 degrees celsius.

Design

" As a preliminary study basic descriptive statistics

were implemented to describe the data. Probabilities of

events occurring due to random chance were assessed

using Poisson distributions. This information will provide

valuable information for potential future research. All

experimentation was carried out by two experimenters.

Conditions

1. Baseline

2. Intention Exposure

3. Sound Exposure

4. Microwave Exposure

Set Up and Apparatus

" The photomultiplier was housed in a custom made

faraday chamber at the California Institute for Human

Sciences (CIHS). The faraday chamber was housed in a

14

dedicated laboratory. The laboratory was cooled to

temperatures between 66 - 68 degrees celsius. The

faraday chamber consisted of an independent, shielded,

copper reinforced chamber. The photomultiplier was

placed on an independent wooden box shelf in the right

hand corner of the faraday chamber. Refer to Appendix A,

for a schematic of the materials set up in the faraday

chamber and the CIHS laboratory. A black material

covered stand was placed directly in front of the

photomultiplier upon which the samples were placed.

" Photomultiplier.

" A Fluke PM6690 Frequency Counter/Timer/

Analyzer was used for this study. This photomultiplier is a

period counter detecting the intervals between successive

pulses (T1, T2, T3,.....TN-1, TN) and calculates the

frequency as follows:-

a) Average period of the pulse intervals detected within

the Gate Time: Tavg= (t1+t2+T3+....+TN-1+tN)N (sec).

b) Frequency is calculated for the Gate Time T=FT=1/

Tavg(1/sec)

The Gate Time was set to long enough to have enough

large number of pulses. If this is not taken into account an

abnormal large number of counts/sec considered an

extreme possible case will be obtained.

A 5 sec interval was selected, 40 trials for a total of 200

seconds per observation was used for all recordings.

Procedure

" Trial 1.

" One refrigerated probiotic vegetable capsule was

taken from each of their respective containers (Q1 and O1,

respectively). Each was placed in a paper plate, covered

with a paper towel and transported immediately to the

laboratory room. They were kept at a temperature

between 66-68 degrees celsius. All readings were taken

at 5 second intervals for a total of 200 seconds (40

events). In trial one, two baseline readings were taken

with the photomultiplier cap on, all black covers on (5 black

material covers and 1 velvet cover) were recorded.

Subsequently, two baseline readings without the cap on

and all black covers were recorded. These baselines

served to record levels of noise signal within the faraday

chamber without samples.

" O1 was taken to the faraday chamber in a paper

towel to prevent contamination. Using a ruler the probiotic

pill was placed 1.5cm from the edge of the sample stand

directly in front of the photomultiplier. A paper towel was

used for placement to ensure experimenter contamination

was reduced. Approximately 5 black towels and a velvet

cover were placed over the detector and the sample. Two

baseline readings were recorded. This method will be

referred to a the standard procedure.

The standard procedure was repeated for the Q1 probiotic

pill.

" Trial 2.

" All readings were taken at 5 second intervals for a

total of 200 seconds (40 events). O3 probiotic pill was

placed in paper towel and the experimenter focused their

intention of love and gratitude and the infusion of love and

gratitude into the O3 sample. The sample was cradled in

towel held by the experimenters hands for two minutes.

The O3 sample was placed 1.5cm from the edge of the

sample holder, all covers replaced (cap off) and 2 readings

were recorded. This was repeated with the intention of

infusing hate in the probiotic O3 sample. Two readings

were recorded.

The above procedure (Trial 2) was repeated for Q3

sample.

Both O3 and Q3 were placed in steryfoam cup using a

paper towel and transported to the microwave. The cup

was placed in the center of the microwave plate and the

microwave was turned on at the highest wattage for 2

minutes. It was noted the plate of the microwave was not

turning properly. On removal of the cup with both O3 and

Q3 samples it was noted that O3 was completely burnt,

while Q3 remained intact. Both samples were placed in

the faraday chamber for two weeks. After two weeks they

were placed on the sample stand individually (as per

15

above standard procedure) and two readings each were

recorded (O3 and Q3).

" Trial 3.

" All readings were taken at 5 second intervals for a

total of 200 seconds (40 events). The procedure

established for trial one was repeated with O3 and Q3

samples. A baseline signal from the source, O3 sample,

with cap off all covers on, is established all parameters

were maintained. A MacBook Pro was placed in on the

holding shelf to the right of the photomultiplier. Using

iTunes Overture no: 3 Air by J.S. Bach was selected and

played on repeat. A period of 4 minutes was observed to

allow for the computer screen to engage sleep mode. It

was noted that the battery light flashed periodically in this

mode. The faraday chamber door was closed and two

readings were recorded. After which all parameters were

maintained excepting the choice of song.

The second part of the experiment the song Hate Train by

Metallica was played and two readings were recorded.

" The above procedure (Trial 3) was repeated for

the Q3 sample. This trial was repeated twice with O4, O5

and Q4 and Q5. Due to an abnormally increased

biophoton emission reading during Q5 exposure to Hate

Train by Metallica one additional reading (total of 3) was

recorded. To ascertain whether the increased biophoton

emission was due to exposure to Metallica’s Hate train, the

music was switched back to Overture no: 3 Air by J. S.

Bach. A further 3 readings were recorded from a new

probiotic pill sample to immediately compare readings

(Q6). A variation of this trial was repeated using a new

sample Q7 employing the same procedure as laid out

above (Trial 3). Q7 was also left for a period of thirty

minutes enclosed in the faraday chamber with continuous

exposure to Hate Train by Metallica.

" Baseline Trials.

Baseline trials were carried out to assess the variability of

noise signal and signal from non-biological sources.

These were carried out using the standard procedure.

" " Observed Baselines.

1. Cap on covers on; cap off covers on. These were

repeated on all days the experiments were carried out.

2. After music played cap off all covers on (Q7).

3. After music trials cap off all covers on lights in

laboratory off (Q7).

4. After music trials cap on all covers on lights in

laboratory on (Q7).

5. After music trials cap off all covers on, after power

device turned off for 2 minutes (Q7).

6. After music trials cap off all covers on faraday

chamber door slightly open for 1 minute (Q7).

7. Q7 no computer or music (Q7).

8. Q7 with computer screen off. This was to ascertain the

effects of the flashing battery light during power saving

mode as noted in Trial 2.

" Observations with Q7 sample were initiated as a

control measure condition. Various baseline observations

inclusive of Q7 sample and computer were observed to

understand the impact of the computer, the computer

battery light at rest and whether the dimmed screen

emitted high levels of photon radiation.

Results

Analysis Procedure

" Biophoton signals are detected with a photo

multiplier tube and have an average signal noise of

between 10 and 14 counts per second, which necessitates

background noise correction to obtain the properties of

source signal. Observations are performed by detecting

spontaneous signals by counting photons in 40 contiguous

intervals of 5 seconds intervals. The outcomes constitute

a series of integer photon counts (0,1,2,3...) for bin size of

5 secs.

" All collected data were converted for use in

Microsoft Excel 2011. For each 200 second data

observation trial (at 5 second intervals, 40 events)

recorded the sum and mean was calculated. During all

data analysis the second observation in each trial was

16

used to reduce potential for extraneous signal inclusions

(fluorescence for example). A minimum of two baseline

measurements were made, with the exception of the 17th

of July 2014 when only one was taken. The average of

two baseline readings were taken for all other dates.

" Individual readings in each trial were plotted on a

line graph for both O and Q samples. Bar graphs were

also used to illustrate potential photon emission

differences between O and Q samples, respectively. Both

data frequency (x*bin) and poissonian frequencies were

calculated (x, mean, cumulative, FALSE). Poisson

distributions were normalized. Poissonian and frequency

distribution comparisons served to establish whether

source signal varied considerably from probability.

Pill Size Adjustment Calculation

Due to pill size discrepancies between the O and Q

samples a mathematical adjustment was carried out as

follows:-

" Measurements.

Q pill length = 2.40cm

Q pill width = 0.90cm

O pill length = 2.00cm

O pill width = 0.70cm

The surface area for each pill was calculated as follows:-

Q pill = 2.40cm x 0.90cm = 2.16cm2

O pill = 2.00cm x 0.70cm = 1.4cm2

The ratio of the surface area’s were factored for all signal

calculations to adjust for the O sample as follows:-

Surface area Q Pill/surface area of O pill = 1.54

All O sample source signals were factored by 1.54 to

account for pill size difference.

Baselines

" Actual source signal baseline observations as

graphed in Figure 4, show photon counts per second for

Q2 and O2 (40 trials, 200 seconds). Ontologically, this line

graphs shows the difference between biophoton emissions

from each sample, respectively (m = 17.56 photons per

second and m = 15.66 photons per second, all averages

are expressed as photons per second from this point

forward). The average noise signal without source shows

considerable variation over the experimentation period

from 14th of July 2014 to the 22nd of August 2014 (Figure

5). The average noise signal counts were in the ranges of

between 10 to 14 counts per second, respectively. On

average, the inter-day differences in noise signal is 1 count

per second. Conversely, overall intra-day noise signal

variability was greater, between 10 to 14 counts per

second.

Intention

" O3 and Q3 samples were individually exposed to

the focused intention of love and gratitude and hate for a

two minute period (respectively). Actual source signal

observations as graphed in Figure 7 and 8 (love and

gratitude intention), show photon counts per second for Q3

and O3 (40 trials, 200 seconds). Ontologically, this line

graphs shows the difference between photon emissions

from each sample, respectively (m = 16.02 and m =

16.52, respectively). A summary of the average photon

counts during exposure are graphed in Figure 6. Noise

baseline is set at m = 10.77. The data show, on average

the O3 pill radiated more photons per second when

exposed to love and gratitude (m = 16.52) as compared to

Q3 (m = 16.02). Furthermore, during the love & gratitude

exposure trial, on average, O3 seemed to produce slightly

0

7.50

15.00

22.50

30.00

1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 34 37 40

O2&Q2ComparisonPh

oton

sCou

ntsP

erSecon

d

NumberofTrials

O2Q2

Figure 4. Actual source signal observations showing

photon counts per second in the baseline condition for

Q2 and O2.

17

less photon radiance than at baseline (baseline m = 17.56,

trial m = 16.52).

As predicted, ontological comparisons between the Q3 data

frequency and the poisson distribution for love and gratitude

exposure show the likelihood of the observing Q3 source

photon radiance by chance (Figure 7). These comparisons

show that it is improbable these observations would be a

result of chance alone, thus suggesting that exposure of Q3 to

the intention of love and gratitude produced an observable

effect. The comparison between O3 data frequency and

poisson shows that in the love and gratitude trial O3 photon

emission is plausibly consistent with poisson. However, there

are too few data points to provide definitive evidence (Figure

8).

"

"

0.00#

2.00#

4.00#

6.00#

8.00#

10.00#

12.00#

14.00#

16.00#

Mean%Ph

oton

%Cou

nts%P

er%Secon

d%

Baselines%4%14%July%14%to%22%August%14%

Figure 5. Average baselines (Mean ± SEM) from the 14th of August 2014 to the 22nd of August 2014. Bar 1, is baseline cap off and all covers on 14 July 2014 (m = 10.77), bar 2 is baseline cap off and all covers on 7 August 2014 (m = 12.32), bar 3 is baseline cap off and all covers on 7 August 2014 (m = 11.96), bar 4 is cap on all covers on observations 1 - 19 august 2014 (m = 13.71), bar 5 is cap off all covers on observations 2 - 19 August 2014 (m = 12.95), bar 6 is baseline cap off all covers on observation 1 - 22 August 2014 (m = 13.16) and bar 7 is baseline cap off all covers on observation 2 - 22 August 2014 (m = 14.00). The values are ± SEM (n = 40).

Figure 6. This bar graph shows the average observations for Q and O pill exposure to the intention of love and gratitude and hate, respectively. Baseline averages show noise to source signal data observations. Included are also baseline data for Q and O pills, respectively. Data points for the microwave condition is included for completeness and to offer observational comparison only.

0.00#

5.00#

10.00#

15.00#

20.00#

25.00#

30.00#

Average#baseline#with#cap#off#and#covered#July#14#

Average#O2#2nd#reading#July#14#

Average#Q2#2nd#reading#July#14#

Average#O3#Love#and#GraCtude#2nd#reading#July#

14#

Average#Q3#love#and#graCtude#

2nd#reading#July#14#

Average#O3#hate#2nd#reading#July#

14#

Average#Q3#hate#second#reading#

July#14#

Average#O3#microwave#2nd#reading#July#14#

Average#Q3#microwave#2nd#reading#July#14#

Photon

&Cou

nts&P

er&Secon

d&

Average&Photon&Count&For&Inten5on&Exposure&

Figure 7. Comparison between data frequency distribution and poisson distribution for Q3 exposure to the intention of love and gratitude - 22 July 2014.

0

1.75

3.50

5.25

7.00

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29

Q3Love&Gratitude22July2014

Num

berD

ensity

CountsPerSecond

--- Frequency

--- Poisson Normalized

Figure 8. Comparison between data frequency distribution and poisson distribution for O3 exposure to the intention of love and gratitude - 22 July 2014.

0

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29

O3Love&Gratitude22July2014

Num

berD

ensity

CountsPerSecond

--- Frequency

--- Poisson Normalized

18

Actual source signal observations as graphed in Figure 9

(hate intention trial), show photon counts per second for

Q3 and O3 (40 trials, 200 seconds). Ontologically, the line

graphs shows the difference between photon emissions

from each sample, respectively (Q3 m = 20.20 and O3 m =

16.00, respectively). As expected, ontological

comparisons between Q3 data frequency and poisson

distributions show the improbability that observed Q3

photon radiance when exposed to hate is due to chance

(Figure 10).

Additionally, ontological comparisons between O3 data

frequency and poisson distributions show that the

observed O3 photon radiance occurring by chance was

improbable, therefore this suggests a potentially

observable effect (Figure 11). However, O3 produced a

surprise photon radiation observation in the opposing

direction to hypothesis; photon radiance reduced in

intensity during the hate condition.

However, O3 produced a surprise photon radiation

observation in the opposing direction to hypothesis; photon

radiance reduced in intensity during the hate condition.

" Further observations of the data suggest, when

exposed to the intention of hate, on average, O3 produced

slightly more photon radiance (m = 16.00) compared to

baseline (m = 15.66). On the other hand, Q3 seemed to

produce less photon radiance when exposed to love and

gratitude (m = 16.02) and produced more photon radiance

when exposed to hate (m = 20.20). Additionally, compared

to baseline (m = 21.41) Q3 produced less photon radiance

when exposed to love and gratitude (m = 16.02) as

compared to hate (m = 20.20).

Sound Exposure

" From the 7th of August 2014 to the 22nd of August

2014, several O and Q samples were exposed to classical

music (J.S. Bach, Overture Number: 3 “Air”) and heavy

metal music (Metallica’s Hate Train), respectively. A

0

7.50

15.00

22.50

30.00

1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 34 37 40

O3&Q3Comparison-Hate

Photon

Cou

ntsP

erSecon

d

NumberofTrials

--- O3

--- Q3

Figure 9. Actual source signal observations showing photon counts per second in the hate condition for Q3 and O3.

0

2.25

4.50

6.75

9.00

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29

Q3Hate22July2014

Num

berD

ensity

CountsPerSecond

Figure 10. Comparison between data frequency distribution and poisson distribution for Q3 exposure to the intention of hate - 22 July 2014.

--- Frequency

--- Poisson Normalized

03.757.50

11.2515.00

1 3 5 7 9 11131517192123252729

O3Hate22July2014

Num

berD

ensity

CountsPerSecond

--- Frequency

--- Poisson Normalized

Figure 11. Comparison between data frequency distribution and poisson distribution for O3 exposure to the intention of hate - 22 July 2014.

19

summary of the ontological comparisons between noise

signal baseline (7 August 2014, m = 12.14; 19 August

2014, m = 13.35) and average photon radiance readings is

provided in Figure 12. The bar graph shows variability in

the photon radiance between Q4 (m = 14.42 on repeat and

m = 15.02 no repeat), Q5 (m = 19.17) and Q6 (m = 14.96)

exposed to J.S. Bach, Overture Number: 3 “Air”. More

specifically, Q4 shows a slight variation in photon emission

between inconsistent exposure to classical music (m =

15.02) compared to continued exposure for a period of 200

seconds per trial (m = 14.42). Observations suggest that

Q4‘s continued exposure resulted in a reduction of photon

emission for that trial. However, the lowest observation

recorded was when Q6 was exposed to J.S. Bach,

Overture Number: 3 “Air” repeatedly (m = 14.96). The

ontological differences between Q4 observations are

minimal, conversely, the difference between Q4 and Q6 is

approximately less than 1 photon count per second. Q6

acted as a control to test the validity of the Q5

observations to Hate Train. Q6 average photon radiance

was found to be slightly lower than averages of both Q4

and Q5 (m = 14.42; m = 19.17, respectively).

" Interestingly, when Q5 was exposed to heavy

metal music (Metallica, Hate Train) repeatedly anomalous

photon emission was observed. Indeed, the graph shows

exponentially high photon radiance above expected (m =

113.15), despite all conditions in the trial being kept

constant. Although this follows expected hypotheses, the

unusually high photon radiance is questionable. It was

noted that, on average, Q5 photon emission (m = 19.17)

was slightly higher than both Q4 exposed to J. S. Bach,

Overture Number: 3 “Air” on repeat (m = 14.42) and Q6 (m

= 14.96).

" By contrast, on average O5 shows slightly higher

photon emission (m = 17.19) when exposed to J. S. Bach,

Overture Number: 3 “Air” compared to Q5 in the same

condition. Furthermore, a reduction in photon radiance

was observed during exposure to Metallica’s Hate Train,

both of these observations directly oppose the stated

expectations. Ontological comparisons to Q5 during the

same exposure to Hate Train are unadvisable given the

anomalous observations.

"

" As highlighted in Figure 13 there was a slight

difference (approximately 1.24 photon counts per second)

in photon radiance between Q7 second and third baseline

observations (reading two and Q7 no computer, no music

22 August 2014) (m = 17.36 and m = 16.15, respectively).

However, the addition of the computer with dimmed screen

resulted in a slightly elevated photon radiance (m = 16.91)

with only slight increases with repeated exposure to

classical (J. S. Bach Overture Number: 3 “Air”) and heavy

metal music (Metallica Hate Train; m = 17.03 and m =

17.00, respectively). Finally, Q7 was exposed to Metallica

Hate Train or a period of thirty minutes, photon radiance

reduced by approximately by 0.76 photon counts per

second (m = 17.00 and m = 16.24, respectively).

0"

20"

40"

60"

80"

100"

120"

Q4"Bach""Air""Reading"2"no"repeat9""

7"Aug"14""

Q4"Bach""Air""Repeat"7"Aug"14"

O5"Bach"Air"Rpeat"Reading"3""19"Aug"14"

Q5"Bach"Air"repeat"Reading"3""19"Aug"14"

O5"Hate"Train"Repeat"Reading"3""19"Aug"14"

Q5"Hate"Train"Repeat"Reading"3""19"Aug"14"

Q5"Bach"Air"ABer"Hate"train"Repeat"

Reading"6""19"Aug"14"

Q6"Bach"Air"Repeat"Reading"3""19"Aug"14"

Photon

&Cou

nts&P

er&Secon

d&

Music&Exposure&7&Aug&2014&to&22&Aug&2014&

Figure 12. Bar graph showing the observed photon radiance for pills O4, Q4, O5, Q5 and Q6 and exposure to classical music (J. S. Bach

Overture Number 3: Air and Metallica Hate Train) for the period 7 August 2014 to 19 August 2014, respectively.

*Note all blue bars are representative of noise signal baseline (m = 12.14 7 August 2014; m = 13.35 19 August 2014). Other colors are source signal observations as marked (O is orange and Q is green).

20

Microwave

" O3 and Q3 samples were exposed to microwave

radiation for two minutes on the 22nd of July 2014. As

shown in Figure 14, average photon radiance is

remarkably higher in Q3 (m = 28.42) compared to O3 (m =

27.36) (average noise signal baseline (m = 14.90)).

However, Q3 showed slightly higher photon radiance

compared to O3. Observations of both samples after two

weeks of rest show a considerable drop in photon

radiance, with Q3 demonstrating a slightly lower emission

rate, on average (Q3 m = 14.90; O3 m = 15.77).

Discussion

" Biophoton research is considered to be rather

controversial (Popp, 1999). The photon phenomenon has

initiated a myriad of philosophical and scientific questions

some of which oppose current assumptions about nature

(Popp, 1999). The natural world is awash with microbial

life, indeed research shows the human body is a delicate

ecosystem of microbial organisms working synergistically

towards a unified whole (the body) (Yanick, 2007, 2009,

2012). Current biophoton research focuses on

investigating the mechanics of photon radiance from

biological systems, however, few have considered

evaluating whether biological organisms sense and are

affected by directed intention (Popp, 1999). More

specifically, whether microbial organisms, such as

probiotics, experience subjectivity (Romjin, 2002). Thus

this preliminary study initiates research relating to potential

effects of intention on non-human biological organisms

(probiotics). Furthermore, the potential effects of sound

exposure on microbial organisms (probiotics) is also

evaluated.

Baselines

" The array of baseline observations show high

intra-day noise signal variability. This means that noise

signal before subject placement is continually fluctuating.

Indeed, if the actual noise signal at baseline was constant

all source observations would reflect true source signal

data. This variability increases noise to source signal

uncertainty and limits interpretation and comparisons

(Mayburov, 2012). The potential reasons for these intra-

day fluctuations are multiple. The sensitivity of the device,

instrument noise, thermal radiation from the device itself

and perhaps the fluctuations in laboratory temporal

conditions may all contribute (Popp, 1999, 2003;

Mayburov, 2012). Finally, shot noise may also be

implicated, this type of noise originates from the particle

nature of light.

Intention Exposure

" According to these findings the first stated

hypothesis may have validity suggesting that Q sample

may exhibit more coherent behavior than the O sample in

both the source baseline and intention conditions.

Nonetheless, the assumption that Q sample is more

coherent is speculatory at best, for more certainty it would

require the ability to maintain and measure a biological

0.00#2.00#4.00#6.00#8.00#10.00#12.00#14.00#16.00#18.00#20.00#

Baseline#Cap#off#all#covers#on#Reading#2#:#22#

Aug#

Q7#Baseline#Reading#2#:#22#

Aug#14#

Q7#No#computer#or#

music#baseline#:#22#Aug#14#

Q7#with#Computer#

Screen#off#:#22#Aug#14#

Q7#Bach#Air#on#Repeat#Reading#2#:#22#aug#14#

Q7#Hate#Train#on#Repeat#

Reading#3#:#22#Aug#14#

Q7#hate#train#on#repeat#for#half#an#hour#Reading#2##:#22#Aug#14#

Photon

&Cou

nts&P

er&Secon

d&

Q7&Counts&Music&Exposure&&

Figure 13. Bar graph showing Q7 data following exposure to J. S. Bach, Overture Number: 3 “Air” and Metallica Hate Train repeated over differing time frames. Baselines were included with computer and source present in differing scenarios.

0.00#

5.00#

10.00#

15.00#

20.00#

25.00#

30.00#

Average#Baseline#1#7#Aug#14# Average#O3#2nd#reading#Microwave#22#July#14##

Average#Q3#2nd#Reading#microwave##22#July#14##

Average#O3#Retake#Reading#2##C#7#Aug#14#

Average#Q3#Retake#Reading#1#C#7#Aug#14##

Average'Counts'for'Microwave'Exposure'

Figure 14. Bar graph showing average photon counts for O3 and Q3 after exposure to microwave radiation for 2 minutes and repeated observations two weeks later (O3 and Q3 were covered and housed in the faraday cage in relative darkness for two weeks before the repeated measure in August 2014.

21

system in a stationary state (Popp, 1999). Nonetheless,

Popp (1999, p. 6) suggests “all living systems display

hyperbolic relaxations of dynamics rather than an

exponential one......there is already proof of the coherence

of biphotonic emission.” A closer investigation relating to

the probiotic cell cycle would yield more understanding

and validity (Yip & Madl, 2007).

" Overall, the results show that Q sample probiotics

are sensitive to positive and negative intentions, more

specifically in this study, love, gratitude and hate.

Throughout the intention exposure condition Q sample

performed as expected with lower photon emission during

the love and gratitude trial compared to the hate trial.

Additionally, comparisons between the data frequency and

poisson distributions show it is highly unlikely these

findings are due to chance. These results provide a

persuasive argument in favor of biological organisms,

more specifically, probiotics potentially exhibiting

subjectivity (Romjin, 2002). Furthermore, they corroborate

Popp’s (1999, 2006) findings suggesting more photons are

released from stressed biological systems with the

opposite being found when in a relaxed state.

Furthermore, these findings have implications relating to

the body/mind connection (Tiller, 2009, 2009b). Indeed, if

intention and thoughts affect the photon radiance in

bacteria and ninety percent of the human body is

composed of microbes, the question arises as to whether

the microbial ecosystem is affected by the host’s state of

mind? More specifically, does it affect microbial efficiency,

longevity and productivity?

" Despite the aforementioned favorable findings

these were not corroborated by probiotic sample O. The

observed results in both conditions for this sample (love

and gratitude and hate) did not satisfy the posited

hypotheses and aims. Rather findings showed the

opposite; that is exposure to the intention of love and

gratitude resulted in an increased photon emission, whilst

exposure to the intention of hate decreased photon

emission. This presents a veritable conundrum. It is

suggested that perhaps the Q sample is more coherent in

nature than the O sample. Indeed, Yanick (2007, 2009,

2012) suggests that the ratio of bacteria in the

manufactured probiotic is crucial for gut colonization,

furthermore, the fermentation process requires specificity.

Additionally, the ‘quorum fermentation’ process purportedly

results in a mold free product reducing the potential for

extraneous organisms (Yanick, 2007, 2009, 2012).

Although the exact fermentation method used has not

been divulged, perhaps ‘quorum fermentation’ results in

more coherence (Yanick, 2007, 2009, 2012)? The

inclusion of only Pysllium husk and no other additives to

the probiotic ensemble (Q) may also reflect the observed

variation in the O probiotic samples. Finally, an unusually

large background noise effect may have also affected

results.

Sound Exposure

" The sound exposure condition Q yielded some

interesting findings. Overall, when initially exposed to J. S.

Bach Overture Number: 3 “Air” photon emission reduced

(compared to signal baseline), however, when exposed to

Metallica Hate Train unusually high photon radiance was

recorded. Although these findings support hypotheses the

extraordinary photon intensity suggests extraneous factors

were at play. No changes were made during the trial and

conditions were kept constant, therefore there is no known

reasons for this exception. Various baselines were

recorded with additional Q samples testing for

repeatability, however, this extraordinary intensity was not

found. Interestingly, this conclusion is corroborated by

recordings of a subsequent sample (Q7) which did not

yield the same results when exposed to Metallica’s Hate

Train over thirty minutes. Indeed, photon emissions

reduced over that time period suggesting that music does

not have a significant effect on probiotics based on photon

intensity. Furthermore, organism light absorption is an

aspect that has not been corrected for adequately and

may have affected results.

22

" The O sample, on the other hand, displayed

similar unusual results as those in the intention condition.

Photon emission was more intense when exposed to

Metallica’s Hate Train compared to J.S. Bach Overture

Number: 3 “Air”. It is reasonable to suggest that reduced

O sample coherence may have influenced results.

Microwave

" Both samples (O and Q) showed increased

intensity of photon emission following exposure to

microwave radiation. Notwithstanding, these results may

have been confounded by the increased thermal

emission following exposure to high microwave radiation

as this was not accounted for.

Recommendations

" A more rigorous methodological design is

recommended. More specifically, a repeated measures

design with pre-post conditions is suggested. The use of

a rigorous procedure is crucial to eliminate potential

confounding factors, therefore some changes in the

procedure are advised. Namely, using gloves to handle

all specimens, the use of quartz cuvettes in the place of

vegetarian pillules ensuring the number of organisms

used is equal in each condition, thus reducing the use of

mathematical adjustment for pill size. Repeatability is

one of the foundations of the scientific paradigm, it is

therefore recommended that multiple samples from each

probiotic batch be used in succession to quantify genuine

significance. Furthermore, the use of a significance test,

either the C-test or E-test, is suggested. This will provide

a more solid understanding of significant differences

between probiotic subjects and their biophoton radiance

in each condition. Given the current results,

experimenter intention should be taken into account

ensuring all those present clear their thought processes

to mitigate any potential experimenter effects (Tiller,

2009, 2009b). Fluctuations in temperature may have

contributed to the variations in noise signal differences,

therefore consistent temporal conditions are in the

laboratory are imperative. All baselines related to

materials/devices used in experimentation should be

performed at the outset to establish intra-day noise signal

variability. Intra-day baseline variability increases noise

to source signal uncertainty and limits interpretation and

comparisons. The efficiency of the photomultiplier is

crucial for photon detection and recording, therefore it is

suggested the device be calibrated before research

initiation (Popp, 2003). Furthermore, it is suggested the

device be powered off and cooled at regular intervals to

reduce thermal interference. The filter installed to

minimize instrument noise should also be tested and

calibrated to ensure efficiency. Microbial and chemical

analysis would permit a more in depth understanding of

actual sample components and microbial densities thus

reducing potential extraneous factors influencing

outcomes. Moreover, organism light absorption is

another known phenomenon that has not been evaluated

adequately and may have affected results (Popp, 2003).

Finally, additional analysis such as biophotonic imaging

would provide added validity to findings of photon

radiance (Creath & Schwartz, 2005).

Future Research

" Despite the mixed findings this research shows

the potential for microbial subjectivity (Romjin, 2002).

This discovery elucidates the potential for further

considerations relating to the body-mind complex. In

particular, whether quorum sensing is mediated by the

host’s emotional state and whether different samples of

bacteria are affected when in optical proximity. This may

be extended to investigate the effects of distal intention

on bacteria. Finally, with more chemical substance

analysis the potential of toxins such as heavy metals and

chemical contaminants may yield a better understanding

of the effects of these substances on photon intensity.

Furthermore, it may provide invaluable knowledge about

gut microbial efficiency, productivity and longevity.

Summary

" Despite some curious findings, given the overall

results in all conditions the O sample trials did not support

23

hypotheses related to intention and sound exposure.

However, O sample trial results suggest hypotheses

related to its reduced coherence may be supported.

Conversely, Q samples supported the hypotheses

suggesting this sample is more coherent and is affected

by the intentions of love, gratitude and hate. These

findings have noteworthy implications relating to

awareness and questions about microbial subjectivity

(Romjin, 2002). Indeed, further research may begin to

sc ient ifica l ly d isentang le the e lus ive web o f

consciousness and alter the way humans see themselves

and connect to the ecosystem within their own physical

form (Romjin, 2002). After all one of the greatest

scientists of all time, stated “look deep into nature, and

then you will understand everything better,” Einstein.

Acknowledgements: Thanks to the California Institute for

Human Science for the use of the biophoton machine and

experimental lab.

References

Bennett, A. T. D., Cuthill, I. C., Patridge, J. D., & Lunau,

K. (1997). Ultraviolet plumage " co lors pred ic t mate

preference in starlings. Proceedings of the National

Academy of Sciences of the United States of America,

94(16), "8618-8621.

Bokkon, I., Salari, V., Tuszynski, J. A., & Antal, I. (2010).

Estimation of the number of biophotons involved in the

visual " perception of a single-object image: Biophoton

intensity can be considerably higher inside cells than

outside. Journal of Photochemistry and Photobiology B:

Biology, 100(3), 160-166.

Cilento, G. (1982). Chemical and Biological Generation

of Excited States. (Eds. Adam, "W.). Academic Press:

New York.

Collins, M. D., & Gibson, G. R. (1999). Probiotics,

prebiotics, and synbiotics: approaches for modulating the

microbial ecology of the gut. Americal Journal of Clinical

Nutrition, 69(5), 1052-1057.

Creath, K., & Schwartz, G. E. (2005). What Biophoton

Images of Plants Can Tell Us " about B iofie lds and

Healing. Journal of Scientific Exploration, 19(4),

531-550."

De Vrese, M., & Schrezenmeir, J. (2008). Probiotics,

prebiotics and synbiotics. Advanced Biochemistry,

Engineering and Biotechnology, 111, 1-66.

Dicke, R. H. (1954). Coherence in spontaneous radiation

processes. Physiological Review, 99, pp. 99.

Dictionary.com. (2014). Retrieved 10 September 2014.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/coherence?s=t.

Farquhar, G. D., Von Caemmere, S., & Berry, J. A.

(2001). Models of Photosynthesis, Plant Physiology,

125(1), 42-45.

Gibson, G. R.. (2002) (Eds. Hart, A. L., Stagg, A. J.,

Graffner, H., Glise, H., Falk, P., & Kamm, M. A.) Gut

Ecology. London: Martin Dunitz Ltd, a member of the

Taylor & Francis Group.

Merriam-Webster. (2014). Retrieved 10 September 2014.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/intention.

Merriam-Webster. (2014). Retrieved 10 September 2014.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/subjectivity.

Paschotta, R. (2006). Coherence Length of Ultrashort

Pulses. The Photonics "S p o t l i g h t . R e t r i e v e d 1 0

September 2014 ht tp: / /www.rp-photonics.com/

spotlight_2006_09_22.html.

Popp, F.A. (1999). About the Coherence of Biophotons.

Macroscopic Quantum " Coherence, Proceedings of an

International Conference on the Boston University.

Popp, F.A. (2003). Properties of biophotons and their

theoretical implications. Indian "Journal of Experimental

Biology, 41, 391-402.

Popp, F.A. (2006). Biophotons Popp Interview Part 1.

Retrieved 10 September 2014 " http://www.youtube.com/

watchv=trycaZzwMeo&index=4&list=PLNHyuB3oUlV94G

OpIzOC8jRUpgO3jWxdi.

Racine, D., Rastogi, A., & Bajpai, R. P. (2013). Hints at

Quantum Characteristics of Light Signals Measured from

a Human Subject. Chinese Medicine, 4, 72-78.

24

Romjin, H. (2002). Are Virtual Photons the Elementary

Carriers of Consciousness? " J o u r n a l o f

consciousness "Studies, 9(1), 61-81.

Roose, J. (2014). Photosynthesis not just for plants. R e t r i e v e d 8 S e p t e m b e r 2 0 1 4 h t t p : / /newunderthesunblog.wordpress.com/2013/07/20/photosynthesis-not-just-"for-plants/. Ryer, A. (1998). Light Measurement Handbook. Technical

Pub l i ca t ions Dep t . , I n te rna t iona l L igh t , I nc :

Massachusetts.

Schacter, D. L., Gilbert, D. L. & Wegner, D. M. (2009).

Psychology. (2nd ed.). New York (NY): Worth Publishers.

Slawinski, J., Ezzahir, A., Godlewski, T., Kwiecinska, T.,

Rajfur, Z., Sitko, D., & " Wierzuchowska, D. (1992).

Stress-" induced photon emission from perturbed

organisms. Experientia, 48, 1041- 1058.

Yanick, P. (2007). The Forgotten River of Health.

Nevada: QuantaFoods LLC.

Yanick, P. (2009). Quorum SuperHealing. Canada:

Trafford Publishing.

Yanick. P. (2012). The Inner Physician. QuantaFoods

Association.

Tiller, W. A. (2009). It is time for a Consiousness-Inclusive

Science. The William A. Tiller Foundation, White Paper

IV, 1-18.

Tiller, W. A., & Dibble, W. E. (2009b). A Brief Introduction

to Intention-Host Device Research. The William A. Tiller

Foundation, White Paper I, 1-16.

Yip, M., & Madl, P. (2007). Biophotons - The Light of

Life. Proc. of 6th Biosemiotics Gathering, Umweb,

Helsinky, 303-311.

Williams, N.T. (2010). Probiotics. American Journal of

Health-System Pharmacy, 67(6), 449-458.

The Society for Animal Consciousness™

2015

Revisiting the animal consciousness debate.

“Do not go where the path may lead, go instead

where there is no path and leave a trail.”

Ralph Waldo Emerson

Do you want your article published in The Journal of

Animal Consciousness?

Email Chiara Marrapodi at chiara@societyforanimalco

nsciousness.org

25

A Journal for a paradigm shift from a uni-dimensional perspective to a multi-faceted approach about the natural world and consciousness.

What is consciousness and do animals and plants have it?

Think you have an article that adds value to understanding consciousness? Then send it to chiara@societyforanimalconsciousness.org!

The Journal of Animal Consciousness is edited and produced by Chiara Marrapodi Founder of The Society for Animal Consciousness.

The Journal of Animal Consciousness is produced free to the community. It is the first Journal of its kind and incorporates an integral approach. Providing a blend of scientific and philosophical theses on Animal Consciousness and related topics.2015

The Society for Animal Consciousness™

Issue 1, Vol 1, February 2015.

Jour

nal Of

Animal Consciousness

www.societyforanimalconsciousness.org