36 2024.03.26 2024.04.01 2024.04.02 article M. Ljubičić (Amenoum)108. brigade ZNG 43, 35252 Sibinj, Croatia (amenoum.org)mljubicic99{EAT}gmail.com Explaining marcescence and tukdam. biology marcescence, tukdam, meditation, synchronicity, subconsciousness, decay, decomposition, organisms, souls /authors/Amenoum.html#credits 1 Marcescence is tukdam? Abstract Both, the phenomena of marcescence and tukdam are currently unexplained. I find them to be relatively equivalent, and explain them, in the framework of Complete Relativity. The experiment is proposed and performed to test the hypothesis. Introduction Some advanced meditators among Tibetan Buddhists die in a consciously controlled way. When they die in this way (during meditation), the body is clinically dead (there is no physical difference between a fresh corpse and a person in this state), however, its decomposition and decay may be delayed for up to two weeks or more. The phenomenon is referred to as tukdam. Now consider marcescence in deciduous trees, a phenomenon of leaf retention during winter. Some species of oak and beech, for example, don't shed their leaves in autumn but keep them until spring when they are simply replaced with new leaves. This is especially common in younger trees. The leaves are dead but their departure, decomposition and decay are all delayed. Equivalence In my theories, a difference between an organ and an organism is not as discriminating as in conventional reductionism. Just like an organism, an organ is a living being, it's relatively conscious as well, but its consciousness may be dominantly introverted rather than extroverted and the amount of consciousness may be low or negligible (which may not be true for its deeper layers, or the subconscious). Perhaps any sessile (immobile) organism is an organ as well (eg. plants may be organs of the Earth), which, of course, does not mean that mobile organisms are not a part of a bigger organism. Relatively, they always are. Consciousness may be, conventionally, correlated exclusively with brains, but I find that utterly misleading and inappropriate. Consciousness (or its localization) should be correlated with networks and [maintenance of] self-organized entities. I associate consciousness with [localization of] distinct quanta of energy - gravitons (note, however, that my definition of a graviton may differ from conventional definitions), which I also refer to as souls. Localization or coupling of souls and bodies occurs with self-organization of entities forming the body (eg. cell, organ, organism). A body may be interpreted simply as [a superposition of] excitation of certain potential(s) on one scale, but interpretation of a life-form is limited to that scale only after death, during decomposition and decay (or de-excitation). A leaf is an organ of the plant organism (or, leaf is an organelle of the plant organ, it's all relative). It may be interpreted as a respiratory organ but it has other interpretations as well. In any case, a leaf is a living being on its own. A leaf in marcescence is then clinically dead, but its decay is delayed and just like a person in tukdam it has not departed (the soul hasn't fully decoupled from the body). The correlation doesn't end there. Note that a leaf is immobile, just like a meditating person. In a leaf, decoupling of the soul from the body may also be relatively simultaneous with the decoupling of the body from the branch. Why are departure, decay and decomposition delayed in these states? Possibly because saprotrophic fungi and bacteria, directly or indirectly, sense that the [soul of the] host is still there (and/or the souls of the constituent cells of the body), entangled or coupled with the body. I equate souls with graviton quanta and associate them with certain [gradients in] fields of potential. Here, information is exchanged between souls with changes in entanglement between them. When the soul decouples from a body, entanglement is [relatively] broken and this information propagates through the fields (fields, rather than field, as different scales of energy may be involved). The signal of departure is received and interpreted by local souls as death, which can then be correlated with other actions leading to decomposition and decay. Now one can argue that a leaf in marcescence doesn't decay (or decays slowly) because it's not on the ground, where more organisms may participate in the process of decomposition and decay. What about people in tukdam then? Are their bodies embalmed? Note that advanced meditators can affect their body using mind only (eg. increase body temperature). It's possible that meditators in tukdam produce an effect on the body similar to the effect of formaldehyde (commonly used in embalming). If so, do they produce it consciously or subconsciously at time of death? In any case, an experiment could be set up where a leaf in marcescence (still attached to the tree) is touching the ground or is buried into the ground. If such leaf is still decomposing and decaying slowly then it must be ignored (at least to some degree) by ground microbes and worms, so this could be interpreted as strong evidence for the existence of souls (since the leaf is clinically dead, by conventional theories, the worms and microbes should treat it as any other dead leaf). Note that differences in behaviour could exist between worms and microbes and even between species of microbes. Some species (eg. parasites) may not make a distinction and wouldn't mind munching on leaves in marcescence. The experiment, methodology and results To test the hypothesis, I decided to perform an experiment myself. The experiment was done on a location in Sibinj (near Slavonski Brod), Croatia. The experiment started near the end of February, when, with increasing temperatures, increasing activity of decomposers is expected. At this point, the leaves in marcescence are obviously past the resorption phase of abscission (carotenoids have degraded). When does the soul decouple from leaf body in the process of abscission? Is it just before resorption or, after, possibly at the time of actual detachment? In case of the former, this kind of experiments probably should start earlier (in autumn). In that case, due to low temperatures over winter, a layer of insulation and an artificial heater could be used to heat the soil and stimulate activity of decomposers. Details and log of the experiment are shown in Table \tbl1.
2024.02.23The low-lying branch of a young oak showing marcescence was buried with a layer of soil some 10-15 cm deep. First, a thin layer of gravel was deposited on the ground, followed by a thin layer of clay. Then the branch has been bent and fixed with a brick to the deposit. To that, a couple of leaves in the same state of decay (but not attached to the branch) were added. A thick layer of wet clay with significant amount of humus and active earthworms has been added on top to cover the leaves. On top of that, a layer of drier crumbly clay was added.
2024.03.26The buds of trees were starting to open and leaves in marcescence are not clinging strongly to branches anymore. Thus, I decided to end the experiment. About half of the leaves were still attached to the branch, some of them fell off as I was digging the branch out. Apart from the softer tissue in the leaves that were buried, no notable difference was observed between buried leaves that are or were attached to the branch and leaves in marcescence that were not buried (all leaves that were not buried are brittle, not soft). No notable difference was observed even between the leaves lying on the ground around the tree and the leaves in marcescence. However, buried leaves that were not attached to the branch are clearly of a darker colour and are showing a more advanced stage of decay. The soil was moist and earthworms were still present and active.
Table \tbl1: The experiment log The branch used in experiment is shown in Fig. \fig1.
Oak foliage in marcescence
Fig. \fig1: The branch before burial The same branch, fixed with a brick and buried in soil is shown in Fig. \fig2.
Oak foliage in marcescence, buried
Fig. \fig2: The branch after burial, on 2024.02.23 Figure \fig3 shows the experiment setup on 2024.03.26, minutes before the branch was dug out.
Buried oak foliage on 2024.03.26
Fig. \fig3: The state of the experiment on 2024.03.26, just before the digging The branch and leaves, after being dug up, are shown in Fig. \fig4.
Oak foliage dug up
Fig. \fig4: The branch after being dug up, bright coloured leaves are leaves still attached, or leaves that were attached, to the branch while it was buried, dark coloured leaves (marked by red arrows) were buried but not attached to the branch Discussion The softer tissue of buried leaves (whether in marcescence or not) is not surprising. The effect is equivalent to softness commonly observed in leaves growing in shade (elevated moisture levels). However, there is a striking difference in colouration between leaves that are still attached to the branch (or were, prior to the dig) and other leaves that were buried. This colouration and decay cannot be attributed to earthworms, for different reasons, one being that the leaves are still young and probably still contain tannins (note that all leaves were of the same bright colour prior to burial). Tannins are not a problem for fungi so the dark leaves should be leaves colonized by primary decomposers, such as fungi and bacteria. And these saprotrophs are obviously showing preference for the leaves which are not attached to the branch (not in marcescence), even when buried. The question, now, is why? Saprotrophs feed on non-living organic matter. Have they detected leaves in marcescence as still-living? How, if these are clinically dead? There are no hormones involved here. The presence of rooting hormones may deter fungi but any significant presence of rooting hormones in oak leaves here and even in branches can be ruled out. Oaks do not have a natural tendency for vegetative reproduction and no roots were observed here. It appears, thus, that marcescence is indeed equivalent to tukdam, and at least some decomposers are not reacting to the death of the body, rather are awaiting some other signal. One could argue that fungi are not touching the leaves in marcescence because they somehow sense the leaves are still attached to the branch. But is that the case and why would it matter? If the tissue is dead it's not used by the plant and there's no reason for the plant to delay decomposition by signalling attachment. Note that if some kind of signalling is present, any signalling involving chemicals probably can be ruled out, as signalling pathways between the branch and attached leaves are blocked. And if chemicals are leached into the soil, how would the decomposers associate these exclusively with attached leaves, not with other leaves close to the branch? Conclusion The results of the experiment strongly suggest that at least some primary decomposers ignore leaves in marcescence, even when these are buried in moist soil. This is a surprising result and hard to explain by established science. Given the absence of chemical signalling or the functional immune system, the result can certainly be interpreted as evidence for souls. However, the setup of this experiment was limited and some could claim it is statistically inadequate. To increase certainty, further testing is needed. It would also be interesting to try the experiment with non-toxic leaves, to see if larger decomposers ignore leaves in marcescence as well. Initial version.