Tag: consciousness

CONSCIOUSNESS AND SPECIES ADVANCEMENT – THE QUANTUM COMMUNICATING CELLULAR BASIS OF CONSCIOUSNESS (QCCBC) MODEL

By  Vince Giuliano   V5.42 December 16, 2024. 

Following images  created by Microsoft Co-Pilot AI

I did not expect to be writing about this subject again so soon.   This is an update reflecting a continuing shift in my thinking regarding biological species, consciousness, and quantum communications.   I have recently come across publications that indicate the existence of a group of people with models of consciousness similar to my own, but only up to a point.   Exponents call that model of thinking, the Cellular Basis of Consciousness (CBC) model .   That is a historically ancient model whose central precept is that all biological entities consisting of cells, even if only a single most-primitive cell, are conscious and exhibit conscious social behavior.   Here, I am proposing the further hypothesis that all such biological entities in a species are in communication with one another via quantum signaling probably resulting from DNA entanglement:  The Quantum-Communicating  Cellular Basis of Consciousness (QCCBC) model .  

To be clear, I am looking for a quantum model of communication that explains several things I have written about:

  • The basis for consciousness and conscious behavior in higher multi-celled organisms that have brains.
  • The basis for what appears to be intelligent species survival behavior in even the most primitive single-celled biological organisms.  One that has operated for some 4.6 billion years, long long before the emergence of multi-celled organisms or brains.
  • The basis For Intentional Reality Creation (IRC).
  • The basis for numerous other phenomena encountered in biology.  For for example sustained signaling inputs that in-vivo postpones the initiation of cellular senescence in certain centenarians and supercentenarians.

“There are more things in Heaven and Earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.” From Hamlet by Shakespeare.

First, a few words that position QCCBC among other models of consciousness.  From the time of the most ancient philosophers through today there exists a hierarchy of incompatible theories of what consciousness consists of:

Representing panpsychism

Here I shall be concerned mainly with the QCCBC model and my extensions to it, although, in the future, I may choose to write about any of the others including panpsychism.  

Advantages and disadvantages of the models.

This December 2023 publication lays out the central elements of the CBC model and why it is superior to the HC and AB models, the two models embraced by most people today including biologists:  The CBC theory and its entailments: Why current models of the origin of consciousness fail: EMBO reports: Vol 25, No 1As I see them these elements are

  • There are some 50 proposed theories of consciousness.  Most of these in one way or the other see consciousness as an emergent property of having brains.  These models pose serious problems from a contemporary viewpoint.  They have difficulty, for example  trying to explain conscious-like behavior and differentiate it from instinctive behavior in the vast majority of life forms that do not possess brains but yet display central elements of any reasonable definition of consciousness.
  • According to the CBC model, all biological organisms, including the most primitive single-cell ones manifest consciousness. Consciousness is not confined to the tiny group of organisms that possess brains.  This is something I have been saying in my recent publications and is a first departure from the orthodoxy treated here.

“In this paper, we follow the evolutionary origins of cells as unicellular organisms and their evolution towards multicellularity, with a focus on plants and animals, both of which have two basic types of organismal self-identities: the immunological and the neuronal.

 In our symbiotic concept of eukaryogenesis, the first ancient eukaryotic cells emerged from the merger of a large amoeba-like host cell with a small flagellated guest cell which later transformed into the eukaryotic nucleus. This duality at the origin of the eukaryotic cell matches with the duality of sexual gametes. It also corresponds to the immune system/neural dualities of organismal self-identities in both animals and plants.”      

 In other words it goes back some 4.6 billion years in earth’s history, to the era of emergence of the first primitive single-cell organisms.  Not just a meager 600 million years for the era of emergence of brains.  See The Evolution and Complete Timeline of Life on Earth. 

From the EMBO report cited above: “INTRODUCTION: CELLS AS BASIC UNITS OF LIFE’S SUBJECTIVITY – “Cells represent the fundamental units of life and underlie the most basic features of living organisms, including sentience. Recently, we developed the cellular basis of consciousness (CBC) theory of the origin of sentience, identifying several bio-molecular features inherent to all cells (Baluška & Reber, 2019, 2021a, b; Baluška et al., 2021; Reber & Baluška, 2021, 2022). The most important feature for cellular cognition is the limiting membrane of cells, the plasma membrane, which defines the inside (subjectivity) from the outside (environment). In other words, the very first cells expressed their version of subjectivity (self-awareness) as an instantiation of sentience that defines the living state and is inherent to all cells. The excitable membrane is unique, a smart and sensory lipid barrier sheltering the inside from the outside and is still not well understood (Lintilhac, 1999; Lombard, 2014). The plasma membrane is the essential element of the information management system of the sentient cell, serving as a smart permeable barrier that allows cells to resist the second law of thermodynamics effectively and maintain their living cellular order (Lintilhac, 1999) out of thermodynamic equilibrium. In other words, excitable membranes represent the most important feature allowing emergence and maintenance of cellular subjectivity, which guides sentience, behaviour and the evolution of all organisms (Miller, 2018; Miller & Torday, 2018; Miller et al., 2019, 2020a, b; Baluška et al., 2021). Cells are the only autonomic, self-replicating systems capable of extracting energy from the abiotic environment and violating the entropic principle via cognitive processes organized by their limiting membranes. Recent analysis has revealed that ancient cyanobacteria ‘invented’ photosynthesis 3.4 billion years ago, which means that oxygenic photosynthesis existed 500 million years before the so-called great oxygenation event (Fournier et al., 2021). This evolutionary invention changed forever Earth’s geochemistry and allowed subsequent evolution of cells of greater complexity.“

Representing cells and evolution

Continuing “The cellular limiting membrane is maintained actively by cells and cannot form de novo. Instead, cellular membranes require cell division for their existence. As Jesper Hoffmeyer noted, this smart border has features of the Möbius strip with a co-linked inside and outside. This Möbius strip can serve as a topological representation of self-reference since it contains both an ‘inside exterior’ and an ‘outside interior’ that generates subject-ness (Hoffmeyer, 1998). Thus, the cell membrane is an epicentric factor in selfhood and sentience, permitting the restricted flow of small molecules that is essential to maintain the living state. All evolution is dependent on the successive chains of consecutive cell divisions that extend from the first living cells through the hypothetical ur-cell (a proposed ur-metazoan cell as a theoretical last common cellular ancestor of all animals). This historical aspect of life means that every living organism is linked through an unbroken chain of dividing cells up from the very first cells which evolved some 4.0 billion years ago. The continuity and unity of cellular life and perpetuation of its limiting and excitable plasma membrane are the defining unique features of life.”

Representing continuity and diversity of cellular life

Continuing: “ “– the fact is that living cells finally evolved and all life was unicellular for the first 3 billion years. The first fully integrated multicellular organisms appeared only some 600 million years ago (Herron et al., 2009; Coates et al., 2015; Niklas & Newman, 2020). In contrast to the very long unicellular stage, eukaryotic multicellularity evolved relatively rapidly and repeatedly into the three basic types of multicellular organisms: fungi, plants and animals.”

Here we first encounter mention in the literature of quantum phenomena in the CBC literature, namely tunneling. “Besides deploying extracellular vesicles, ancient cells presumably communicated through tunnelling nanotube (TNT) cell–cell channels that are present in all organisms (in plants they are historically termed plasmodesmata), allowing direct transfer of a variety of molecules and electrical cell–cell couplings (Rustom et al., 2004; Baluška et al., 2004; Wang & Gerdes, 2012; Matkó & Tóth, 2021; Scheiblich et al., 2021). Importantly in this regard, both extracellular vesicles and TNTs act as cellular mediators of immune self-identity (Tóth et al., 2017; Reis et al., 2018; Quaglia et al., 2020; Askenase, 2021; Birtwistle et al., 2021; Matkó & Tóth, 2021; Racchetti & Meldolesi, 2021). We consider these extracellular vesicles to represent analogous structures to ancient vesicles, which evolved initially into the proto-cells and then into the most ancient archaea and bacteria.”

Representing centrality of cells in life

So far so good but there is a central weakness in most renditions of this model. That weakness is seeing most intraspecies communication only in very local terms, namely paracrine (touching) communications and local releases of gasses and particles.  The DNA itself of a particular species is usually seen to embody storage of all the threat analyses related to competing species and how to respond to those threats. I think:

  • There are far too many competing species and they could combine their competition against a particular species S in far too many ways for every piece of DNA in every cell in every member of the S species to encode them all and what to do about them.  This would imply gross redundancy if it were so, a property uncharacteristic of nature.
    • Information gathered locally would be inadequate to characterize future threats experienced due to changes in local circumstances, such as could be brought about by changes in weather patterns or migration of other species.  Of course, subgroups of members of a species can and do exhibit local survival-related characteristics.  An example in humans is skin color.  But every species has its portfolio of member characteristics, distinct from the portfolios of other species.

Representing competition among life forms

So there is a need for intraspecies communications, leading me to a QCCBC model which I shall proceed to shortly, after pursuing a discussion of the putative intelligent behavior of plants

ON PLANT SENTIENCE

Representing plant sentience

Plants can exhibit numerous kinds of survival or aggression-related behavior that can be construed as examples of intelligence,  both defensive and aggressive.  It appears that members of a species can consciously discern opportunities and threats to their individual well-being, given complex and often social criteria.  They can then plan aggressive or defensive strategies, and  communicate with other members of their species or related species  to enroll other plants, insects and even mammals in mutual action campaigns.  A few examples:                  

  1. Communication:
    1. Chemical Signaling: Plants release chemical signals to communicate with each other. For example, when a plant is attacked by herbivores, it can release volatile organic compounds (VOCs) to warn neighboring plants, which then activate their own defense mechanisms.  Or it might upgrade chemicals, which make it unpalatable and even poisonous.
  2. Memory and Learning:
    1. Mimosa Pudica: This plant can “remember” previous experiences. When repeatedly touched or shaken, it learns to ignore these stimuli and stops folding its leaves as a defensive response, showing a form of habituation.
  3. Problem-Solving:
    1. Root Navigation: Plant roots can navigate through the soil, avoiding obstacles and finding the most efficient paths to water and nutrients. This involves complex sensory and adaptive behaviors, such as deciding what, if anything, to do about roots of plants of other species it encounters.
  4. Environmental Adaptation:
    1. Phototropism: Plants can sense the direction of light and grow towards it to maximize photosynthesis. This ability to detect and respond to environmental cues demonstrates a sophisticated form of sensory intelligence.
  5. Resource Management:
    1. Resource Allocation: Plants can allocate resources strategically. For example, they might direct more nutrients to new growth when conditions are favorable or conserve resources during droughts.
    1. Allelopathy:  Some plants like black walnut (Juglans nigra), release chemicals into the soil that inhibit the growth of nearby competing plants. This ability to suppress competitors demonstrates a sophisticated survival strategy.
  6. Adaptive Growth:
    1. Climbing Plants: Vines and climbing plants, such as ivy and morning glories, can sense nearby structures and grow towards them, using them for support as they reach for sunlight.
  7. Seed Dispersal:
    1. Explosive Mechanisms: Some plants, like the touch-me-not (Impatiens), have seed pods that burst open when touched, flinging seeds far from the parent plant to reduce competition and spread their offspring widely.
  8. Hydrotropism:
    1. Water Seeking   Roots can sense moisture gradients in the soil and grow towards areas with higher water concentrations. This ability helps plants efficiently access water sources.
  9. Mycorrhiz Events of plants
    1. Fungal Communication: Plants often form symbiotic relationships with mycorrhizal fungi, creating vast underground networks that allow them to share nutrients and communicate with each other.
  10. Circadian Rhythms:
    1. Timekeeping: Many plants have internal biological clocks that follow circadian rhythms, allowing them to anticipate daily and seasonal changes in light and temperature, optimizing their growth and flowering cycles accordingly.
  11. Defensive metabolites
    1.  Many plants produce secondary metabolites, like alkaloids and tannins, which can be toxic or unpalatable to herbivores.
  12. Nutrient Allocation:
    1. Root Growth: Plants can allocate resources to different parts of their root systems depending on nutrient availability, ensuring they maximize their nutrient uptake from the soil.
  13. Symbiotic Relationships:
    1. Legume-Rhizobium Symbiosis: Legume plants form partnerships with nitrogen-fixing bacteria (Rhizobium), which live in root nodules and convert atmospheric nitrogen into a form the plant can use for growth.

Similar observations apply to fungi species

Representing awareness and communication among fungal species

These examples showcase the diverse and intelligent strategies plants use to survive and thrive in their environments. Their ability to adapt, communicate, and respond to various stimuli highlights the remarkable complexity of both plant and fungal life.  They also exemplify why it is hard to believe that the necessary diagnostic information and contingent action strategies are hard-coded in the DNA of every plant cell.  Again, I prefer a model that embodies species-wide communications for virtually all living entities: a QUANTUM-COMMUNICATING  CELLULAR BASIS OF CONSCIOUSNESS (QCCBC) MODEL

I focus here only on the most researched and experimentally validated theory in this family: THE PENROSE-HAMEROFF ORCHESTRATED OBJECTIVE REDUCTION (ORCH) THEORY.

The Penrose-Hameroff “Orch OR” theory, which stands for “Orchestrated Objective Reduction,” proposes that consciousness arises from quantum computations occurring within microtubules inside cells, even the most primitive ones containing tubulin, a key structural elements of virtually all cells in the animal, insect, plant and fungal kingdoms.  According to this theory, the “collapse” of quantum superpositions (known as “objective reduction”) in brain cells is a key mechanism for generating conscious experience; essentially suggesting that microtubules act as quantum computers, serving as the computational units responsible for conscious awareness. 

Image represents microtubles as quantum computers

Hameroff  himself presented the strengths and benefits of this theory in his 2020 online publication ORCH OR IS THE MOST COMPLETE, AND MOST EASILY FALSIFIABLE THEORY OF CONSCIOUSNESS.  “The ‘Orch OR’ theory attributes consciousness to quantum computations in microtubules inside brain neurons. Quantum computers process information as superpositions of multiple possibilities (quantum bits or qubits) which, in Orch OR, are alternative collective dipole oscillations orchestrated (‘Orch’) by microtubules. These orchestrated oscillations entangle, compute, and terminate (‘collapse of the wavefunction’) by Penrose objective reduction (‘OR’), resulting in sequences of Orch OR moments with orchestrated conscious experience (metaphorically more like music than computation). Each Orch OR event selects microtubule states that govern neuronal functions. Orch OR has broad explanatory power, and is easily falsifiable.”

Since the original publication of this theory, it has led to substantial research by uninvolved researchers resulting in significant experimental evidence, hundreds of research publications,  and significant professional controversy.

KEY POINTS ABOUT THE ORCH OR THEORY:

  • Microtubules as quantum computers:

The theory posits that microtubules, protein structures within neurons, have the necessary properties to perform quantum computations due to their lattice structure and potential for quantum superposition.  It is important to note that all cells, not just brain cells or nervous cells contain microtubules and could therefore act as quantum computers.

  • Objective reduction (OR):

This is a concept proposed by physicist Roger Penrose, where a quantum superposition collapses spontaneously due to gravitational effects at a certain threshold, leading to a discrete state.  This corresponds to the collapse of the wave function in the classical Explanation of quantum physics.  Prior to the collapse, there was a superposition of multiple states.  When this happens in neurons in brains, the neural network experiences an event of consciousness.

  • Orchestration:

Stuart Hameroff, a neuroscientist, added the “orchestration” aspect, suggesting that the microtubule network within a neuron coordinates quantum computations in a way that is influenced by synaptic inputs and other neuronal activity.  By focusing on what goes on in brain neurons in synaptic networks of neurons, the ORC process provides the translation between the Quantum behavior of microtubules which is evolutionarily invisible to us, and the overall symptoms of consciousness

  • Conscious experience:

The “collapse” of the quantum superposition during objective reduction is thought to correspond to a moment of conscious experience.  This happens in brain networks of neurons.   However, all body cells contain tubulin and should similarly host quantum communications.  So, a similar collapse can occur in essentially any cells elsewhere in the body but may not be perceived As a conscious event by the nervous system.  But such collapses could have a massive impact, say with distant quantum-entangled cells of the same species.  And this can occur in simple organisms, even single-cell ones.

  • Criticisms of the Orch OR theory:
  • Delicate quantum environment:

Critics argue that the brain environment is too “noisy” and “to wet” to maintain quantum coherence necessary for quantum computations within microtubules. 

  • Lack of experimental evidence:

Despite ongoing research, there is currently no definitive experimental evidence to support the Orch OR theory.   Actually, this is not the case.

I have focused on this theory not simply because it satisfies its original objective of explaining consciousness, but because the underlying mechanism of the model (quantum inter-cellular coupling) can readily be extended to provide what I am looking for.  Again that is: a quantum model of communication that additionally explains:

  • The basis for what appears to be intelligent species survival behavior in even the most primitive single-celled biological organisms.  One that has operated since the era of origin of life on earth, for some 4.6 billion years.
    • The basis For Intentional Reality Creation (IRC).
    • The basis for numerous other phenomena encountered in biology. 

Finally, I go on to cite some of the key evidence for this theory.    Here are a few additional key articles and sources related to the Pentose-Hameroff Orchestrated Objective Reduction (Orch OR) theory:

  1. “Consciousness in the Universe: An Updated Review of the Orch OR Theory” by Stuart R. Hameroff and Roger Penrose. This article provides an updated review of the Orch OR theory, discussing its implications for consciousness and its connection to quantum processes in brain microtubules1.
  2. “Biophysics of Consciousness: A Foundational Approach” by R. R. Poznanski, J. A. Tuszynski, and T. E. Feinberg (Chapter 14: “Consciousness in the Universe: An Updated Review of the Orch OR Theory”). This book chapter offers a comprehensive overview of the Orch OR theory and its development2.
  3. “Orch OR: Consciousness and Orch OR” by Stuart Hameroff, MD. This overview on Hameroff’s website provides insights into the Orch OR theory and its connection to microtubules and quantum processes.
  4. Indirect evidence for the validity of the theory appears to come from two directions, understanding of anesthesia, and known properties of assemblages of microtubules.

Hameroff, with his background in anesthesiology, proposed that anesthetic gases work by disrupting the quantum processes in microtubules, thereby blocking consciousness.  Some experimental evidence supports this.  See CONSCIOUSNESS IN THE UNIVERSE AN UPDATED REVIEW OF THE \u201CORCH OR\u201D THEORY”: This chapter by Stuart Hameroff and Roger Penrose offers an updated review of the Orch OR theory, discussing its implications for consciousness and anesthesia.

It is known that tubulin can be excited to vibrate at different frequencies, and these have been studied and are known to be different for human, plant, and fungal microtubulin.

MICROTUBULES GENERAL PROPERTIES

  • Microtubules play several key roles in cells and have been extensively studied.  Namely a. They are key structural elements supporting the shapes of cells, b.  they play a key role in cell division (mitosis and meiosis).  microtubules form the mitotic spindle, which helps segregate chromosomes into daughter cells. c, they serve as key railways for the movement of substances, organelles and vesicles  in cells, allowing motor proteins to move these.  And d. Microtubules are key components of cilia and flagella, enabling cell movement.  Microtubules have an average outer diameter of about 25 nanometers (nm), with an inner diameter of about 15 nm.  They can vary greatly in length, typically ranging from several micrometers to hundreds of micrometers, depending on the cell type and function.  They are highly dynamic structures, constantly undergoing periods of growth and shrinkage. The plus end of a microtubule can grow at rates of approximately 1 micrometer per minute under optimal conditions.  The rate of shrinkage can be even faster, sometimes reaching up to 10 micrometers per minute.  This dynamic instability allows microtubules to rapidly reorganize in response to cellular needs, such as during cell division or in response to changes in the cellular environment.  While microtubules are found in virtually all cells of all successful species, their configurations appear to be species-specific and vary widely.

QUANTUM PROPERTIES OF MICROTUBULES

  1. Quantum Superposition: Microtubules can maintain quantum superposition states, allowing them to exist in multiple states simultaneously.  Quantum tunneling has been observed in them.
  2. Quantum Decoherence: Microtubules interact with their environment, leading to quantum decoherence, where quantum states transition to classical states.
  3. Quantum Vibrations: Research has shown that microtubules exhibit quantum vibrations, which may play a role in neural processing and consciousness.

Hypothesized Quantum Properties of Microtubules:

  1. Quantum Computation: The Orchestrated Objective Reduction (Orch OR) theory suggests that microtubules could function as quantum computers, processing information at a quantum level.
  2. Objective Reduction: According to the Orch OR model, the reduction of microtubule quantum superposition to classical output states occurs due to an objective factor related to quantum gravity.

Citations:

  1. Kaushik Naskar & Parthasarathi Joarder. “Quantum decoherence in microtubules.” Quantum Information Processing, 2024.
  2. Stuart Hameroff. “Quantum computation in brain microtubules? The Penrose-Hameroff ‘Orch OR’ model of consciousness.” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, 1998.
  3. Ivan Kukuljan. “Microtubules: from classical properties to quantum effects in human cognition.” University of Ljubljana, 2013.

COMMENTS AND VG SPECULATIONS

It is exciting to me that a quantum model, The Penrose-Hameroff ‘Orch OR’ model in this instance can explain phenomena that cannot be explained in conventional physics. In particular:

Intelligent and coordinated survival behavior – even among members of the most primitive species, with only single-cell members.  I like to think that the DNA of all members of a species is from the origin of the species entangled.  And thus, being part of a single entity no matter how far apart the species members may be, important changes at one place are felt instantaneously at all entangled plaaces.  Entanglement means the quantum processing power of the tubulin in every cell in every species member can combine.  And I think it does so combine.  How can we be so smart compared to mosquitos but yet experience that in terms of survival advantage, they continue to outsmart us?

Image represents the question of how smart mosquito DNA is compared to human DNA

Intention-based Retrocausality.  How could it be that so many thousands of physical parameters and specific conditions here on Earth have been just right for the flourishing of life and species?  I have suggested in my writings that species have generated quantum fields of intentionality that go back and affect unknown aspects of the past.  Yes, phenomena that act in reverse time and retrocausality are acknowledged phenomena in quantum physics. Living species served to create a past that translates in ordinary physics to where after the fact, laws of cause-and-effects apply.  See my blog entries.

Intention-based Reality Creation (IRC).  I perceived, intuited, and started making notes about IRC as a repeated observed pattern in my life in my 20s, long before I had any inkling of mechanisms that could conceivably make it possible.   In my 30s and 40s I also recognized the quantum-like nature of IRCs and how many insights of quantum physics could be applied to IRC.  I generated more extensive private written notes, keeping them in drawers.   In 1990 at age 60 I wrote the first edition of my treatise on that subject and published this online On Being and Creation.   I upgraded and republished this document several times over the years, the last edition being the one you see now, dated 2019.   At age 87 I began to conceive of major enhancements to grasping and explaining the quantum physics underpinnings of IRC as I saw them working.  The main interpretations I was concerned with, described in this treatise, are the Copenhagen Interpretation (CI), the Parallel Universes Interpretation (PUI), and the Transactional Interaction Interpretation (TI).   Each provides an alternative way of looking at QM or IRC.  I became aware of the Penrose-Hameroff ORC model only late in the game and added a description of that to the treatise about 8 years ago, when I was about 87.   My interest in and research related to this subject continued to accelerate as time passed, although my original treatise was already getting to be too long.  I wrote these as stand-alone documents. Recently, I organized these into a new Being and Creation blog. Consisting of long articles covering relevant but archane aspects of quantum physics with personal experiences, I believe these blog articles significantly expand on what is in the original treatise.  This current article is one such blog entry, expanding on what I know about the QCCBC model of consciousness. 

Image represents how primitive I experience we are seeking answers to ponderous questions

The Consciousness Field – a new physical perspective on the nature of reality creation

October 14 2024  

Very recently a good colleague Chris Wickman published a blog summarizing saliant points in my treatise On Being and Creation.  A follower of this podcast brought my intention to a work I was not familiar with, The Consciousness Field Theory by Paul B. Macombe. This article of Macombe’s lends a more contemporary perspective on the physical processes of reality creation and how they work. I will describe these here, indicate how this perspective contributes to what I have written in that treatise and in the associated more-recent writings that I have published in my  On Being and Creation blog. In the process I embrace Macombe’s approach as well as suggest how it might be significantly expanded to include all living biological entities. 

The main point of Macombe’s writings is that there is a Field of Consciousness, a very basis physical reality in the same sense that there are only four basic Fields in physics.  There are a few other basic fields in physics. Field theory was developed as an extension of quantum theory and I start here by summarizing its essence.

n physics, field theory describes the concept that forces between objects are mediated through “fields” which permeate space, with the key features being: a field is a property assigned to every point in space and time, representing the influence of a force at that location, and the interaction between objects is explained by how they affect and are affected by the field they are situated in; this includes the idea that fields can be either scalar (magnitude only) or vector (magnitude and direction), and that the strength of the field diminishes with distance from its source.

Key points about field theory:

Field as a property of space and time, which are presumed to be fundemental:

Unlike the traditional view of forces acting directly between objects, field theory describes forces as arising from a field that exists throughout space.   The Field is real and physical

There are only Four fundamental fields in physics, refered to as Forces; they are

Weak Force– “The weak force is one of the four fundamental forces in nature, primarily responsible for radioactive decay at the subatomic level by allowing quarks to change types, essentially converting protons into neutrons and vice versa; it operates only at very short distances and is considered “weak” because its influence rapidly diminishes with distance, making it only noticeable within the nucleus of an atom. — This force is mediated by the exchange of heavy W and Z bosons, which are particles responsible for carrying the weak force. (ref)

Strong Force – “The strong force is a fundamental force in physics that acts at the subatomic level, primarily responsible for binding quarks together to form protons and neutrons, and subsequently holding these protons and neutrons together within an atomic nucleus, making it the strongest known force in nature; it is carried by particles called gluons.” (ref)

Electromagnetic Force – The electromagnetic force is a fundamental force of nature that acts between electrically charged particles, essentially combining the electric force (acting between stationary charges) and the magnetic force (acting between moving charges), meaning it’s the force responsible for attractions and repulsions between charged particles, holding atoms together, and driving phenomena like electricity and magnetism; in simple terms, opposite charges attract and like charges repel each other, with the strength of the force depending on the magnitude of the charges involved. – The electromagnetic force is a type of physical interaction that occurs between electrically charged particles. It acts between charged particles and is the combination of all magnetic and electrical forces.” (ref)

Gravitational Force – “The Gravitational force is a natural force that attracts any two objects with mass towards each other, meaning every object in the universe exerts a gravitational pull on every other object; the strength of this pull depends on the mass of the objects and the distance between them, with larger masses and closer distances resulting in a stronger gravitational force; essentially, it’s the force that pulls objects “down” towards the center of a larger mass, like how we are pulled towards the Earth’s center due to its gravity. – T        he gravitational force is responsible for the motion of falling objects, the motion of the planets around the sun, and even the motions of stars and galaxies through space.”  – The hypothetical particle graviton- is thought to be the carrier of the gravitational field. It is analogous to the well-established photon of the electromagnetic field. Gravitons, like photons, would be massless, electrically uncharged particles traveling at the speed of light.” (ref)

Consciousness Force – Macombe declares in his paper that there is a fifth fundamental field  associated with a Force of all consciousness. 

Citing that paper:  “This work contrasts Paul C. Mocombe’s consciousness field theory (CFT) of phenomenological structuralism (PS) with conscious electromagnetic information theory (CEMI). The author posits a cognitive developmental psychology that is tied to PS’s emergent logico-metaphysical materialist account regarding the constitution and perpetuation of the multiverse, consciousness, society, and the individual. Against CEMI, the author concludes that consciousness is an emergent force of the universe that is received by the brain and integrated by its electromagnetic field.”

I will comment om Macombe’s Consciouness field hypothesis and suggest several extensions of it based on my own published writings.  But first a comment on the nature and power of Field theory.  Every description of a scientific phenomenon proposes a model of reality. This model may be very useful, but is limited to being a model. – Not the actual thing but the best we can create to foster our human understanding. The history of science has been one of proposing more and better models, and using these models to improve our conditions as human beings.   In this sense, there are serious limitations to the Field-force models. Most fundamentally, they relate to properties of space and time which itself is seen as fundamental. Many researchers today believe that space and time are themselves derived constructs, emerging as we know them from more fundamental underlying processes. Looking at the gravitational field for example, The General Theory of Relativity suggests that gravity is an emergent property of the four dimensional geometric structure of space and time itself.  Nonetheless, it appears to me that Macomb’s proposal is very useful in extending our practical understanding of the process of Intentional Reality Creation, lending plausibility to my own writings on the subject. It can  be extended to all living biological entities and be seen as a driver of evolution, Ias  point out below.

Humans have no direct since of the presence or working of these fields and we know of their presence only through measurements by tools or observation results. If  I were to tell people 125 years ago that we are bathed by multiplicity of invisible signals that convey rich sounds, images and ideas, it would be hard to get anybody to pay attention to that and that probably would be viewed as slightly nuts.  As biological creatures we have no direct mechanism to monitor the operations of these fields, except possibly gravity. On the other hand the results of these fields are most profound. Without the gravitational force we would have nothing to anchor us to earth, nor would there be any atmosphere. Without the strong and weak forces, matter as we know it would not exist. Without the electromagnetic force, we would not only have no radio, television, electronics and television, our bodies could not function as they do. I believe without the Consciousness force we would not have evolution, nor conditions on this planet conducive to biological life. More on that later.

Here is the introduction to his treatise: “Paul C. Mocombe’s (2019) structurationist theory of phenomenological structuralism, building on and synthesizing a form of M-theory with, mathematical elements of univon multiverse hypothesis, the quantum computation of ORCH-OR theory, Black Hole Big Bang Theory (BHBBT), structurationism, and the multiverse ideas of Haitian ontology/epistemology and quantum mechanics abductively posits that spacetime is fundamental; and consciousness is an emergent fifth force of nature, a field of consciousness (the consciousness field—CF) composed of a quantum material substance/energy, psychion, the phenomenal property, qualia or informational content, of which is recycled/ replicated/entangled/superimposed throughout the multiverse and becomes embodied via the microtubules of neurons of brains and aggregate matter of multiple worlds to constitute mind (see Figures 1 and 2). Mind (composed of the personal and collective unconscious, and the sense-experience of the emerging ego held together by the brain’s electromagnetic field generated by the periodic discharge of neurons), in turn, is manifested in simultaneous, entangled, superimposed, and interconnecting material resource frameworks, multiple worlds, as praxis or practical consciousness of organic life, the content of which in-turn becomes the phenomenal properties, qualia, of material (subatomic particle energy, psychion) consciousness that is recycled/replicated/ entangled/superimposed via the consciousness field throughout the multiverses upon matter disaggregation (see Figure 3). In other words, existence precedes essence; but essence is emergent and eternal, and comes to constitute a fifth force of nature, a field of consciousness for Being production (the consciousness field), through the phenomenal properties, qualia (personal and collective unconscious), of neuronal subatomic particles, psychion, which are recycled/replicated/superimposed/ entangled throughout the multiverse and give human actors their initial (essential) practical consciousness that they organize and reproduce in replicated, entangled, and superimposed material resource frameworks (see Figures 3 and 4).”  (ref)

Macombe‘s writings are dense and I have trouble following the jargon in  them.  Here are important aspects of his proposal as I find them.

  • He is adopting the ORCH-OR theory of Roger Penrose and Stuart Hameroff.   This is the theory that microtubules, the structural element in biological cells, are extremely tiny quantum computers that exist in very large numbers. These participate in quantum correlations and communications, and collectively create consciousness in brains. Wikepedia has a fairly comprensive essay on that theory.  Although the theory remain highly controversial, Penrose is a highy respected winner of a Nobel Prize for his  thinkingabout basic physics.
  • There are constant communications going on in brains between the microtubular quantum computation level and the neural network level,  that are invisible to us. The postulated particle that conveys the force is the psychion.   See the figure1.
  • The psychions communicate across the multiverse “and give human actors their initial (essential) practical consciousness that they organize and reproduce in replicated, entangled, and superimposed material resource frameworks.”
  • Macombe’s paper contains diagrams suggesting how this may all take place, like Fig. 1.

My suggested enhancements entries In my On Being and Creation blog series , I suggest that:

  • The  Field process works for all known entities of biology on every level, all successful forms of life, not just for animals that have significant brains. The issue is whether the biological entity has microtubular constituents within the cells of its DNA.
  • Rather than regard consciousness as the primary characteristic of this field the key factor is intention, intention for the well-being of a species., the basic characteristic of the force particle is expression of such intention.
  • Otherwise we are confronted with a question of consciousness.  Here there is a problem. According to the paper “Consciousness  here  refers  to  subjecve  awareness  of phenomenal  experiences,  qualia,  (ideology,  language,  self,  feelings,  choice,  control  of  voluntary  behavior,  thoughts,
  • etc.) of internal and  external worlds.”  Does a monkey, dog, bear or wolf or evena whale have consciousness akin to those of ours?  There is reason to think defitely so, but how can we knowfor sure ? A fruit fly or ant?  A virus particle?  A mold? We have to draw the line somewhere. 
  • Not only are the brain cells of the individual involved, but essentially all body cells where their  DNA embodies microtubules. ll of these have a vested interest in the well-being of their species and DNA containing microtubules, and I believe participate In the Consciouness/Intention field.  Regardless of the consciousness status of a species members.
  • The field of intention operates through retrocausality, that is causality in the past which entangles particles, As time passes a rich network of correlation exists that may propagate over long distances.

My own personal more-recent writings in my On Being and Creations blog are highly  relevant to these points. 

The blog entry WHAT’S ALREADY DONE ISN’T NECESSARILY DONE YET deals with the fact that time is not an immutable one way progression from past to present to future.  “According to one quantum physics interpretation applied to IRC (Cramer’s), at time of creation of an IRC, a quantum wave goes out forward in time and a conjugate wave propagates backwards in time, both of which are seeking to line up circumstances to be compatible with the creation.  The backwards-traveling wave finds all kinds of things and events in the past that the formulator of the IRC may or may not know about that will eventually contribute to a causal chain that makes the creation inevitable.  When a backwards-traveling wave encounters an event or circumstance that can further the creation, a forward-traveling confirmation wave is generated.  Similarly, a forward-traveling wave, moving at the speed of light seeks out future events that will further the creation, and sends confirming waves backwards in time.  All those waves combine at the instant of creation, saying that the creation is a done deal.  The deal is done though may require some time, even years, for full existence of the intended creation to be manifest.”  This blog entry goes on to many personal expressions of my reality creation have intimately caused creations and entaglement  in my life.

The blog entry THE ARROW OF TIME POINTS BOTH WAYS — MORE ON RETROCAUSALITY AND RETROCREATION says in its introduction “Can present or future events affect the past?  A phenomenon known as retrocausality.  I have argued definitely YES, retrocausality exists in the quantum world and is also an important aspect of  what I have called Intentional Reality Creation (IRC). If you want a sample of what other “yes” voices say before going further here, you can check out the videos on this list.” – “Actually, The equations of all of the fundamental laws of classical as well as quantum physics appear to work perfectly fine going backwards in time as well is forward. Just substitute (-t) for (t).  That is, they display symmetry regard to time.”  – “In terms of the physics and mathematics of the situation, having quantum waves go backwards in time is no problem. Again this makes no sense to us in terms of the sensory and nervous system processing capabilities provided to us as animals. Virtually everything that we read in science texts make no cognitive sense whatsoever to a worm, caterpillar, mouse or deer in a forest.  As biological creatures they as well as we humans have been evolved so as to have direct perception only of the matters most in the interest of their survival.  But we know there is much that is very real that we cannot directly perceive, like radio and TV waves, and virus and bacteria that can make us sick. What we perceive to be real is a function of history and culture and technology of the times.  – We are fundamentally in a quantum world and trying to see it through our biological filters of normal sensory reality simply doesn’t work.  We need to grow up and give that up if we want to understand what is really going on.”

Chat GPT comments “The comment about the equations of physics being time-symmetric is crucial. Many fundamental laws, such as those governing electromagnetic and gravitational forces, indeed exhibit this symmetry. The idea of substituting (-t) for (t) emphasizes that, mathematically, these equations don’t inherently favor a direction of time, which invites deeper reflection on the nature of reality.”  Time is not fundamental in underlying reality; it is thought to be a function of entropy. – “does not require such noticing and further, such noticing would confuse us endlessly.”

Also from entry THE ARROW OF TIME POINTS BOTH WAYS — MORE ON RETROCAUSALITY AND RETROCREATION “As explained below, sending macroscopic messages backwards in time is impossible, because of thermodynamic/information considerations.  However, creating events and situations in the past may be going on all the time due to retrocaustion.   The suggestion is that we cannot send messages into the past but can to a significant extend dictate to the past to have been as how we want it to have been!  Holly bananas! Why do we not notice this?  Probably because evolutionary biology does not require such noticing and further, such noticing would confuse us endlessly.”

In the classical interpretation of quantum mechanics, the act of measuremet, “collapses the wave function” so as to create a stable normal reality situation that triggers retrocausation.  – “This is very relevant for IRC where the formulation of an unbounded intention IS the act of measurement.  In my treatise, retrocausation is discussed in the Cramer interpretation as due to a “quantum query wave moving backward in time looking for possible past conditions that would lead to satisfaction of the intention.”  And retrocausation was discussed there in the multiple-worlds interpretation in terms of “a successful intention shifting the intender into a submanifold of universes where past and future conditions are favorable to satisfaction of the intention.” 

To clarify what retrocausality is and isn’t: It does not mean that signals can be communicated from the future to the past—such signaling would be forbidden even in a retrocausal theory due to thermodynamic reasons. Instead, retrocausality means that, when an experimenter chooses the measurement setting with which to measure a particle, that decision can influence the properties of that particle (or another particle) in the past, even before the experimenter made their choice. In other words, a decision made in the present can influence something in the past.  Instantly.

“In the case of IRC, where an unbounded intention corresponds to an Operator in classical QM, specifying an intention where the intention itself makes clear what must be observed for it to be satisfied, can influence past events or conditions so as to lead to satisfaction of the intention.  The disquieting implication is that the past is not manifest but exists as complex quantum wave functions of what could have existed.  The past mostly consists of wave functions of possibilities.  Note that the past also consist of “collapsed” wave functions of believed past realities, things that make it “real”  such as in memories, historical records, geological artifacts, photographs and astronomical and terrestrial observations.)  In my treatise and in past blog entries, in particular in WHAT’S ALREADY DONE ISN’T NECESSARILY DONE YET, I explain the same situation by saying the past is vastly undetermined and is fixed only insofar experience records are concerned.”

“The case for embracing retrocausality seems stronger to me for the following reasons,” Leifer said. “First, having retrocausality potentially allows us to resolve the issues raised by other no-go theorems, i.e., it enables us to have Bell correlations without action-at-a-distance. So, although we still have to explain why there is no signaling into the past, it seems that we can collapse several puzzles into just one. That would not be the case if we abandon time symmetry instead.”

My  blog entry On consciousness and intentionality in biological species is highly revant to the ediscussion of this blog.  In the blog entry The Field of Intentionality I characterized intentionality as a physical field, propagated by quantum wave effects.  “In my treatise On Being and Creation I describe how Stuart Hameroff and Siir Roger Penrose believe that such quantum effects leading to consciousness are generated by microtubles, structural  elements in every biological cell that also function as very tiny quantum computers.  This current blog entry lays out the hypothesis that intentionality does not require consciousness and that all biological entities that have cells can and do manifest intentionality.  Further, this intentionality profoundly affects what goes on in the universe through the mechanism of Intentional Reality Creation. This hypothesis is the basis for another hypothesis of great relevance to the question of why we have a life-supporting world despite the overwhelming probability that any slight variation of countless physical parameters of our universe and earth in particular would have made life as we know it impossible.  That hypothesis is that All lifeforms on earth, starting with the most primitive shaped those physical parameters via intentional reality creation (IRC) and retrocausality so as to enable life.This process started wth the first bacteria that existed in super-hot ocean vents, or perhaps even earlier.”

Further, “Herein, I define consciousness as a property of biological organisms, such as a human, to sense properties of its environment, process the information thus derived, perhaps in conjunction with information already stored, and act to enhance its individual and/or its species well-being or survival based on the properties of that information. For a human being, knowing where you want to go while in a bus station, consulting a printed schedule of bus departures, consulting a display of departures and times showing delays, and buying a ticket for a bus ride and walking to the appropriate gate and getting on the bus would be an example of conscious actions derived from an intention to get somewhere. 

Intentionality is a closely related property, having to do with a desired outcome possibly but not necessarily associated with an act or acts of consciousness. In the bus station example for humans, the intentionality could be to get home.

“For a squirrel by my house, the conscious actions of seeking food in response to internal sgnals of hunger could include scampering on my deck to see if there is food there, and if there are seeds that have fallen down on the deck from my birdfeeder, finding and eating those seeds. For a caterpillar on a tree next to my house in the Fall, conscious actions could follow from sensing internal signals that it is time for it to prepare for transformation into a moth.  The caterpillar responds by seeking a safe  location to spin a cocoon web, spinning the web, and locating itself safely in the cocoon where it can undergo the transformation process – all this while avoiding predatory birds.” It is a bit of a stretch, though, to view. Caterpillars. As having anything like human consciousness.

“For a weed in my backyard that I have just cut back with my lawnmower, sensing its injury the response normally is to grow new leaf tendrils rapidly. For a virus particle, the actions pursuant to an intention to reproduce could be to identify a cell and where it can attach itself to the cell membrane, penetrate the cell and reproduce itself there.” I don’t think that weeds or virus particles have consciousness in the sense we think about it.

For the squirrel intentionality to eat is in the interest of biological survival. For the caterpillar, the intentionality is to propagate the species by the step of transformation into a butterfly.  For the weed, the intentionality is to restore its capability for photosynthesis by creating new leaves. For the virus particle, the intentionality is to utilize the machinery of the cell it is penetrating to create large numbers of new virus particles. — I assert that intentionality is expressed over the entire spectrum of biological entities.  Further, given that intentionality is so expressed, the arguments in my treatise On Being and Creation, I suggest that this intentionality can directly impact of what exists through the process of rerocausality,”

“So, I am clearly identifying intentionality as being manifest throughout the entire domain of biology. And arguably to other domains as well.  Can a rock in my back yard exhibit intentionality or consciousness?  Not by this definition because it cannot act in response to information, at least in any way we know of.”     

”Note that as I have defined it, intentionality does not require brains or the kinds of awareness we think we have associated with being awake and the use of language and media.  Instructions related to Intentions can be coded and built into DNA, such as instructions for generating a new pussy cat or human being.  Executing those instruction is instinctive as we well know, and does and not require anything at all like human consciousness.”

“I need here to draw another distinction which is that between consciousness and human awareness, the latter is only a  property human beings insofar as we know. Human awareness is a subset of human consciousness where we can symbolically represent situations and states of being and communicate them via language and mathematics. And store and communicate these symbolic representations to other humans. What we know about science falls in the domain of human awareness. When we talk about understanding, we are usually talking about human awareness.  And for me personally sitting here and writing this. I am experiencing an incredible array of visual, auditory and sensual experiences, ranging from words showing up on my computer screen as I type or dictate them, to my hearing birds in the yard, my feeling like what it is to sit on old uncomfortable office chair in front of my computer, to the experiences of thinking through the words I am writing.  I think other human beings have similar experiences, although I could never know this as a proven fact.”

Many other species communicate via quorum sensing mechanisms to form biofilm colonies or take other actions to survive, and trees can communicate via their roots and released vapors.  I don’t’ think this involves consciousness. But it does involve a form of intentionality.