Suspect Malarkey When Someone Theorizes About a "Universal Consciousness Field"

 Neuroscience does a crappy job of explaining human minds. The explanations of neuroscientists lack very many things. For example, they lack:

• Any coherent or credible theory of how a brain could convert experience into brain states or synapse states when a memory is created;
• any coherent or credible theory of how a brain could convert brain states or synapse states into thoughts or recollections when a memory is recalled;
• any coherent or credible theory of how a brain could instantly create new memories, something that humans routinely do; 
• any coherent or credible theory of how a brain could instantly retrieve a memory, such as instantly getting just the right answer when someone is asked to identify some person or object or technical term or historical event;
• any coherent or credible theory of how a brain could create an abstract idea such as the idea of a child or the idea of a dog or the idea of a nation;  
• any coherent or credible theory of how a brain could imagine something such as some invention no one ever built yet;
• any coherent or credible theory as to how there could occur any of the types of anomalous or paranormal things that humans experience -- things such as near-death experiences, out-of-body experiences, apparition sightings and extrasensory perception (ESP). 

Faced with such a shortfall, some try to turn to physics. This is a mistake. Physics does nothing to explain why consciousness or minds exist. We might make a relational claim looking rather like this:

Physics --> Chemistry --> Biology --> Psychology

But in such a claim the "-->" should not be viewed as "explains" but as "is a prerequisite for." The right type of physics (by which I mean a universe with extremely fine-tuned fundamental constants and laws) is a prerequisite for chemistry; and just the right type of chemistry (involving an information-rich wealth of many types of protein molecules) is a prerequisite for biology; and just the right type of biology (such as the vast organization of a human body) is a prerequisite for physical people having psychology or minds like humans have. 

Physics is far-removed from psychology, and does nothing to directly explain human minds or any aspect of human minds. The study of brains involves a little bit of physics when someone may track the electricity of neurons firing in the brain. But neuron firings do nothing to explain mind or memory, contrary to the claims of neuroscientists.  And during near-death experiences occurring during cardiac arrest,  people often have vivid near-death experiences when their brains are electrically shut down.

But in our culture physics has a great deal of prestige. So it is not surprising that some people might try to explain human minds by appealing to physics or using jargon borrowed from physicists. Such attempts are usually dismal failures. The latest such dismal failure is the recent paper "Universal consciousness as foundational field: A theoretical bridge between quantum physics and non-dual philosophy" by materials scientist Maria Strømme.

We should always start out with very great distrust of any document claiming to be advancing something the document describes as a theory of consciousness. Why is that? It is because a human mind is something almost infinitely greater and richer than mere consciousness. Mentally you are not "some consciousness." You are a thinking, knowing, believing, loving, caring, planning, questioning, seeing, hearing, creating, imagining, willing, speaking, reading, aspiring, instantly learning, striving, enjoying, suffering and comprehending unified self, a person capable of insight, compassion, morality, self-introspection, instant recall, philosophical inquiry, appreciation and spirituality. And you are actually much, much more than the things listed in the previous sentence.  

So any attempt to describe you or a human like you as "consciousness" is an example of what I call shadow-speaking, which is when people describe things as if they mere shadows of what they are.  What kind of person engages in this type of shadow-speaking? It is typically a person who lacks any decent explanation for a human mind. People who lack decent explanations for some reality tend to describe that reality in very diminutive terms, trying to make that reality seem a million times less impressive than it is. 

Strømme is just such a shadow-speaker. Her failure to decently describe human minds is shown by her failure to use the word "memory" in her paper. 

Strømme presents the unbelievable idea of a "universal consciousness field," saying, "Consciousness interacts with physical processes as a fundamental field." She says that "awareness arises from localized perturbations.... that propagate and interact dynamically, analogous to the emergence of structure in quantum field fluctuations."

To get some inkling of what is being theorized, you may do a Google search for "in physics what is a fundamental field?" We are told this:

"According to quantum field theory, the universe is not made of particles, but of fields that fill all of space and time. Particles like electrons and photons are simply localized disturbances or 'vibrations' in these underlying fields."

The "perturbations " Strømme appeals to are similar to the disturbances or vibrations mentioned above.  The same "quantum field theory" is famous for making what is called "the worst prediction in the history of physics."  Quantum field theory allows us to calculate how much energy there should be in the vacuum of space because of quantum fluctuations in the fundamental fields it postulates. The problem is that when scientists do the calculations, they get a number that is ridiculously wrong. According to this page of a UCLA astronomer, quantum field theory gives a prediction that every cubic centimeter of the vacuum should have an energy density of 10⁹¹ grams.  This number is 10 followed by 90 zeroes. That is an amount trillions of times greater than the mass of the entire observable universe, which is estimated to be only about 10⁵⁶ grams.

This means that according to quantum field theory every cubic centimeter of empty space should have more mass-energy than all the mass-energy in the entire observable universe.

How far off is this calculation? It varies on how you do the calculations. According to one type of calculation, the prediction of quantum field theory is wrong by a factor of 10⁶⁰, which is a factor of a trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion times. According to a different way of estimating it, the prediction of quantum field theory is wrong by a factor of 10¹²⁰, which is a factor of a million billion quadrillion quintillion sextillion septillion octillion times.

This prediction has been repeatedly referred to as the worst prediction in the history of physics. It could just as well be called the most wrong prediction in the history of human thought. No zealous apocalyptic doomer ever made a prediction more wrong, not even the preacher who predicted the end of the world would occur in 1844.

The matter is discussed in this well-written post by physicist Matt Strassler, which includes some nice graphics. Scientists don't talk about this matter very much, as it is something of a skeleton in their closet. But when they do discuss the matter, they refer to it as the vacuum catastrophe or the cosmological constant problem. Scientists think that the vacuum does have a very slight energy density (believed to be the main driver of what is called the cosmological constant, which is causing the universe's expansion to accelerate). But that energy density is less than .00000000000000000000000000000000001 percent of the amount predicted by quantum field theory.

So we have a Big Reason #1 for why we should have no confidence in anyone claiming the idea of a "universal consciousness field" and claiming that you and I are vibrations or perturbations of such a field, an idea inspired by the quantum field theory idea that individual particles are vibrations of a fundamental field. It is the reason that we should not be making a theory of consciousness or mind inspired by a physics theory that fails so enormously to correctly predict the reality we observe. 

Then there's a Big Reason #2 why we should have no confidence in anyone claiming the idea of a "universal consciousness field" and claiming that you and I are vibrations of such a field. It is the reason that we should not be treating mind as if were like a physical reality, which it is not. Since consciousness is a non-physical thing, the idea of a vibration of a consciousness field makes no sense, and is like the idea of the weight in kilograms of an idea, or an idea of the cubic volume of a comprehension. 

Then there's Big Reason #3 why we should have no confidence in anyone claiming the idea of a "universal consciousness field" and claiming that you and I are vibrations of such a field. This is simply the idea that the human mind is a reality enormously more complex and diverse than mere consciousness. You are not some consciousness. You are a  thinking, knowing, believing, loving, caring, planning, questioning, seeing, hearing, creating, imagining, willing, speaking, reading, aspiring, instantly learning, striving, enjoying, suffering and comprehending unified self, a person capable of insight, compassion, morality, self-introspection, instant recall, philosophical inquiry, appreciation and spirituality. So the idea that your mental reality could arise by some vibration of a "consciousness field" is nonsensical. Such an idea is like claiming that a library of intelligible well-written books might arise from vibrations in a warehouse storing stacks of blank paper and buckets of ink. Just as it is enormously misleading nonsense to describe a large library of books as merely "some paper with ink marks," it is enormously misleading nonsense to describe a human mind and human mental experience as mere "consciousness." 

As mentioned above, I did a Google search for "in physics what is a fundamental field?" I are told this:

"According to quantum field theory, the universe is not made of particles, but of fields that fill all of space and time. Particles like electrons and photons are simply localized disturbances or 'vibrations' in these underlying fields."

That does not sound like something impossible, because electrons are very simple things, and so are photons.  Each electron has exactly the same electrical charge (the very exact opposite of the electrical charge on each proton); and each electron has the same rest mass (1/1836 of the rest mass of each proton). Because electrons are so simple and so alike, it does not sound all that farfetched that all electrons might result from tiny vibrations or perturbations in some "fundamental field." But for human minds, the situation is completely different. Every human mind and every human life of mental experience is a very complex thing, consisting of a great wealth and diversity of experiences and characteristics and capabilities. It is nonsensical to suggest that a human mind could arise from some mere "perturbation" or "vibration" of a featureless "universal consciousness field." 

When I do a search for "physics definition of a field" I get an answer of "a physical quantity that has a value at every point in space and time." I am told that a scalar field is one in which each point in space has a single number. Two examples are temperature (which can be measured at any point in space) and air pressure (which can be measured at any point in space). The concept of a "universal consciousness field" seems to make no sense, because consciousness is not a physical quantity, and cannot be measured. You cannot take consciousness readings at different points in space.  

We have as a Figure 1 of the paper a diagram looking like the one below, but with slicker graphics. 

The diagram does not make sense. "Consciousness" is an aspect of mind, or a very diminutive, weak, and minimal way of describing  a mind, which is a huge wealth of capabilities and complexities vastly more than just "consciousness"  (just as "solidity" is an aspect of a human body, or a weak, minimal way of describing a human body, a state of vast organization vastly more than just solidity).  Thought is not a separate thing from mind, but something that minds sometimes produce. A diagram with separate circles for "mind" and "consciousness" and "thought" makes no sense. Conversely, it might make some sense to have a diagram with a large circle labeled "mind" and many smaller circles inside it, with each of the smaller circles having labels such as "consciousness," "recall," "recognition," "learning ability," "insight." and so forth. 

The caption that is given to Figure 1 in the paper (looking like the visual above) is just muddled metaphysical mishmash. It is this: 

"Illustration depicting the integration of mind, consciousness, and thought based on the quantum mechanical concepts described in the paper. Mind represents the universal creative intelligence, the source of all creation. Consciousness represents universal awareness that enables the perception of space, time, and matter. It acts as a substrate, giving structure and form to the formless potential of the mind and bridging the infinite and the physical. Thought represents the creative mechanism converting the infinite potential of the mind and the universal awareness of consciousness into individualized, structured realities."

There may be some language in which a translation of this paragraph makes sense, but the English text above makes no sense. "Mind" is a term referring to the cognitive capabilities and mental experiences of a person. In English the word "mind" does not refer to "the universal creative intelligence, the source of all creation." It is reasonable to postulate a supreme Mind that is the source of all other minds (given the failure of brains to explain minds). But if you do that, you need to introduce some word or phrase more than just the word "mind." The word "consciousness" is a term referring to the awareness of a particular mind that is conscious. The term does not mean "universal awareness." You can speculate about some kind of "universal awareness," but if you do that, you need some word or phrase different from the mere word "consciousness." It makes no sense to say, "Thought represents the creative mechanism converting the infinite potential of the mind and the universal awareness of consciousness into individualized, structured realities." 

The author tries to inject as much physics jargon as she can into her metaphysical speculations. These physics jargon injections mostly sound completely inappropriate. You can get a little taste of the resulting mess in the quote below:

"This analogy reflects how a universal field, initially undifferentiated, can generate stable and diverse structures through the process of symmetry breaking—structures that, in this context, correspond to individual sentient entities. The supplementary material S2 outlines how individual consciousness may emerge as a result of other collapse mechanisms."

This is nonsense. Individual sentient entities such as you and I do not arise by any type of symmetry breaking or any type of "collapse mechanism." Anyone familiar with what a mess is today's swampland of speculation called "quantum gravity" may laugh when the paper makes some gobbledygook statement like the one above, and claims "this resonates with models in quantum gravity." 

Their is a press release describing Strømme's muddled mess, one entitled "Consciousness as the foundation: new theory addresses nature of reality." The press release wrongly describes Strømme's speculations as a "model." In physics a model is something that produces exact numerical outputs from numerical inputs, and no such thing is going on here. Trying to drum up interest, the press release says, "In this model, phenomena that are now perceived as ‘mysterious’ – such as telepathy or near‑death experiences – can be explained as natural consequences of a shared field of consciousness." But, to the contrary, the paper does not mention telepathy or near-death experiences. 

The press release says, "Her theory also suggests that our individual consciousness does not cease at death, but returns to the universal field of consciousness from which it once emerged." That at least mirrors a statement in the paper, the statement "the dissolution of individuality (e.g., through death) does not imply annihilation but rather reintegration into the universal field." Statements like that are basically meaningless, and do not involve an assertion of life after death. Statements like that are no more meaningful than the claim that after death your atoms will be reintegrated into the atom totality of our planet.

Documents such as Strømme's paper are totally dependent upon the trick of shadow-speaking, in which human minds (something enormously more complex than mere consciousness) are described in the most diminutive way possible, using the super-reductive term "consciousness." Once you properly describe a human being and a human mind and its experiences, the idea that a human mind arises as some fluctuation or perturbation from a "universal consciousness field" seems ridiculous, rather like the idea that an encyclopedia could arise from some fluctuation arising from a bathtub of ink. Typically when you examine such metaphysical efforts, you find that they engage in denial of the self or denial of the existence of individuals. What is going on is the grossest dehumanization. When people depict humans as if they were mere animals, that is a grotesque type of dehumanization. When people depict humans as if they were mere "consciousness" or "perturbations of a universal field," that is an equally grotesque type of dehumanization.