Introduction
In this post we present a special interview with Dr. Harsh Bir Singh Puar, who aims to establish a new science: the exploration and discovery of consciousness as an independent, fundamental reality. In this conversation we discuss the reasons for this new scientific direction, the methods Dr. Puar proposes, and how they differ from previous approaches in neuroscience, psychology and philosophy.
We’ve included critical questions to make the concepts transparent. Dr. Puar explains his views in detail, emphasizing that his approach does not stem from philosophical ideas or existing theories but from a radically new way of investigating consciousness.
Q: Dr. Puar, could you briefly explain what your new science is about?
A: Thank you, Ms. Brandt. I want to raise awareness of the possibility of a new science. This science builds on the most fundamental and far-reaching questions about existence and the universe. Its goal is to discover consciousness as a concrete reality—not merely as a research subject but as a new fundamental reality.
Up to now, research has mostly examined consciousness indirectly, using brain scans or experiments on other people. But consciousness is immediately present within ourselves. When we explore it directly in ourselves, we can gain insights that have been impossible so far. Everything else only measures indirect effects.
Q: How does this differ from previous research?
A: In neuroscience or psychology, one tries to understand consciousness in others—using fMRI, EEG and similar methods. But that’s indirect. It shows how consciousness acts in the brain, not consciousness itself.
My approach is inward. We ourselves are consciousness; we should investigate that consciousness instead of only observing how it manifests in others. Only through direct self-observation can consciousness be discovered as a fundamental reality.
Q: So it’s about perspective—outside versus inside?
A: Exactly, but it’s more than just a different perspective. Perspectives can generate ideas and philosophies, but consciousness can’t be discovered that way. It won’t be found by observing the outside world.
Trying to study consciousness from the outside is like trying to observe stars with a microscope—it will never work. The only method is to focus on the consciousness within ourselves. This is not a philosophical approach but a concrete methodological necessity.
Q: Can you say something about the experiments you propose?
A: First you have to locate consciousness—in your own experience. Then you have to understand why you’re not aware of it even though it’s always present. We’re “distracted” by our sensory organs and nervous system and see the world only through their filters.
The experiments aim to free consciousness from these distractions. It’s not about using machines but about self-observation: how can I detach my consciousness from the influence of my nervous system and sensory impressions in order to experience reality directly?
Q: There seems to be a duality problem—consciousness as both subject and object of research. How do you handle that?
A: Yes, that’s a central challenge. Consciousness is both the researcher and the research object. This duality causes problems in classical experiments. In our approach it can be overcome by directing the experiments inward and freeing ourselves from sensory impressions. That makes it possible to experience consciousness objectively without the observer–observed duality blocking the process.
Q: How do you ensure validity and reliability of the experiments?
A: Every scientific method must be measured by experiment. Hypotheses are just the beginning. Only through performing the experiments and their results does validity emerge. If someone succeeds in freeing their consciousness from distractions and experiences a fundamental reality, that confirms the method. If not, it’s falsified.
We must be open: science is about enabling discovery, not making assumptions in advance. Every observation is confirmed only through experiment.
Q: How is this method different from previous scientific approaches?
A: It’s radically new. So far no one in psychology or neuroscience has tried to investigate their own consciousness as subject. Everything else was indirect. We’re proposing direct self-research—a completely new methodology.
Previous methods can only observe effects, not the reality of consciousness itself. That’s why a new science is necessary.
A: In theory anyone, because everyone has consciousness and a mind. In practice it’s mainly people who are ready and curious: scientists, philosophers, physicists, psychologists—people who already have a lot of knowledge and are willing to question themselves.
The experiments can be conducted institutionally and, once the understanding spreads, independently. In the long term it will be possible to do them on one’s own at home or online.
Q: You speak of an objective reality beyond our senses. How do you present that scientifically?
A: Our consciousness is trapped in the limitations of our sensory organs. Different species perceive reality differently—bats hear ultrasound, humans don’t; color-blind people see in black and white. The real, objective reality exists beyond all these perceptions.
The experiment consists in breaking through this illusion: freeing consciousness from sensory and mental limitations to experience reality as it truly is.
Q: Isn’t that esoteric or philosophical?
A: No. Illusions and subjective perception are scientifically demonstrable. For example, 99% of the matter around us is empty space, yet it appears solid to us. That’s an illusion of our sensory organs—a scientific fact, not an esoteric myth.
It’s similar with consciousness: it appears limited through our senses, but the reality of consciousness exists independently of them. The experiments aim to experience this objective core.
Q: Can you give a concrete example, say with vision?
A: Consciousness is not confined to the eyes. When we feel our feet, we’re present there; when we see, our consciousness is at the eyes but interacting with the brain. Consciousness always works in unison with the nervous system but is not produced by it.
This also explains why neurological damage changes perception: consciousness is not the nervous system, but as long as we accept its illusion it is limited by it.
Q: What is the practical benefit of this science?
A: The aim is to discover the fundamental reality of consciousness. This could:
– Solve the mind–body problem
– Yield new insights into the nature of the universe
– Help us understand and use the human mind better
This new science remains open, experimental and scientifically verifiable—not dogmatic or philosophical.
Conclusion
Dr. Puar emphasizes again and again that it’s not about making claims but about enabling discovery. Anyone can conduct the experiments; anyone can reach understanding. The science of consciousness is a radical step toward a deeper, objective perception of reality—beyond the boundaries of neuroscience, psychology and philosophy.
Because his Institute for Consciousness Research is still in development, there is no formal website yet. However, those interested can already find lectures, discussions and initial materials on Dr. Puar’s YouTube channel at youtube.com/@drhbspuar. This offers a direct look into his ideas and methods while the institute’s formal structures are still being built.
Authored by Rebekka Brandt