Physicist proposes radical new theory of consciousness

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/...ience.html

A physicist has proposed a radical new theory of consciousness – and it could finally explain what happens when you die.

Consciousness does not emerge from human brains, according to Professor Maria Strømme, a professor of nanotechnology at Uppsala University.

Instead, she claims that it exists as a fundamental field - a 'building block' of the universe.

If this is correct, 'mysterious' phenomena such as telepathy, near–death experiences, and even life after death could finally be explained by science.

Isn't this just Panpsychism, except with consciousness as a field, rather than subatomic particles?

Isn't this just Panpsychism, except with consciousness as a field, rather than subatomic particles?

I guess it is. Although according to Maria Strømme this is a completely new theory:

Is this a completely new theory of how reality and the universe are structured?
“Yes, you could say so. But above all, it is a theory in which consciousness comes first, and structures such as time, space and matter arise afterwards. It is a very ambitious attempt to describe how our experienced reality functions. Physicists like Einstein, Schrödinger, Heisenberg and Planck explored similar ideas, and I am building on several of the avenues they opened,” says Strømme.

https://www.uu.se/en/news/2025/2025-11-2...of-reality
 

Here is a link to the research article:

https://pubs.aip.org/aip/adv/article/15/...al-field-A

My feeling is that there are times when physics can be driven by theory, and other times when it must be driven by facts.

However it is dressed up, the idea that consciousness is a fundamental part of reality, as opposed to something that 'emerges' out of nerve cells sending signals to each other, will not be accepted by most scientists.

We need to start by looking at phenomena such as Dean Radin's prescience - indeed just about any of his well replicated experiments - and start to imagine how physics can accommodate such phenomena.

It is no use people such as @sbu refusing to acknowledge the validity of such observations regardless of how many repetitions are performed.

Science had to accept the ideas of QM regardless of the fact that 'spooky actions at a distance' didn't seem to be part of respectable science at the time.

I can't see that saying that consciousness is some sort of field is terribly useful. In itself, it seems to be a restatement of Rupert Sheldrake's work which lead him to conclude that biological organisms (e.g. you and I)  are controlled in part by a field that is common to each species. I searched the paper for a mention of Rupert Sheldrake, but failed to find one.

Science knows it is in a hole, but constantly rejects the actual experimental evidence that could help to escape that hole!

David

My feeling is that there are times when physics can be driven by theory, and other times when it must be driven by facts.

Belief vs reality, you mean? That is, the reality that is experienced by many independent observers. (I despise the redefinition by Materialists of this word...)

However it is dressed up, the idea that consciousness is a fundamental part of reality, as opposed to something that 'emerges' out of nerve cells sending signals to each other, will not be accepted by most scientists.

Only because of Materialism / Physicalism's stranglehold on the major institutions of science, at least... :/

We need to start by looking at phenomena such as Dean Radin's prescience - indeed just about any of his well replicated experiments - and start to imagine how physics can accommodate such phenomena.

Well, this doesn't help, either, because on the consciousness Reddit sub, I've had many Materialists / Physicalists crap all over Radin as just another kook, as it were. Ideology knows no bounds when it comes to attacking and smearing anything that contradicts their firmly held beliefs.

Science had to accept the ideas of QM regardless of the fact that 'spooky actions at a distance' didn't seem to be part of respectable science at the time.

Scientists who didn't like it had to be dragged kicking and screaming, showing just how "scientific" they were. They still can't let go of Newton, despite how broken his models were.

I can't see that saying that consciousness is some sort of field is terribly useful. In itself, it seems to be a restatement of Rupert Sheldrake's work which lead him to conclude that biological organisms (e.g. you and I)  are controlled in part by a field that is common to each species. I searched the paper for a mention of Rupert Sheldrake, but failed to find one.

At least Sheldrake's ideas seem to be independently conceptualized by him ~ given how very similar they are to Carl Jung's idea of the Collective Unconscious.

Science knows it is in a hole, but constantly rejects the actual experimental evidence that could help to escape that hole!

Materialists remain faithful to the belief that more promissory notes are all that we need.