# Could consciousness be a fundamental field? (Physics related.) **URL:** \ **Category:** Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share\ **Created:** [March 2, 2026, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-consciousness-be-a-fundamental-field-physics-related/1028135 "2026-03-02T15:34:17Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 12\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2026, 7:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-consciousness-be-a-fundamental-field-physics-related/1028135/21 "2026-03-03T19:46:02Z")
> [@Crafter\_Man](#): > > While she’s not a theoretical physicist, she does have PhD in solid state physics, and is apparently well-known in her field of expertise. I assume she has a reputation she’d like to uphold, and hence takes her work seriously. There are people who are well educated in one field of knowledge who then mistakenly believe they are qualified to come up with ideas in other fields of knowledge where they do not know the basics. Fred Hoyle, Linus Pauling, and William Shockley are examples. ---
**Author:** ![xtenkfarpl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/x/c2a13f/32.png) [@xtenkfarpl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/xtenkfarpl)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2026, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-consciousness-be-a-fundamental-field-physics-related/1028135/22 "2026-03-03T20:02:24Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > Fred Hoyle, Linus Pauling, and William Shockley are examples. ‘Expert overreach’ as we have noted before. Schroedinger speculated too, but he didn’t seem so didactive. I would have loved to have a dinner party discussion with him and Fermi ! ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2026, 11:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-consciousness-be-a-fundamental-field-physics-related/1028135/23 "2026-03-03T23:22:05Z")
> [@Wesley\_Clark](#): > > Consciousness is an issue that needs to be studied more in depth, but its one of those fields that scientists are afraid to investigate for fear of ridicule. Oh, sure, it’s something that can be studied in psychology, or neurology. At least, if you can define just what it is you’re even talking about. A physical field, though, it’s not. ---
**Author:** ![Pasta](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ecccb3/32.png) [@Pasta](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pasta)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2026, 11:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-consciousness-be-a-fundamental-field-physics-related/1028135/24 "2026-03-03T23:26:12Z")
There are so many journals out there under so many reasonable-looking umbrella organizations that it’s hard to know what’s what. In this case, the journal says right on the tin that it’s not saying “no” very often. “The journal prides itself on the belief that all good science is important and relevant. Our **inclusive scope and publication standards** make it an essential outlet for scientists in the physical sciences.” And, “Our Editors, **assisted by peer review** , determine whether a manuscript is technically correct and original. **After publication, the readership evaluates whether a manuscript is timely, relevant, or significant.** ” (All bolding mine.) So, if you dot your i’s and cross your t’s – and pay about $2000 – you’re in. Looking through articles there, I’m not surprised that this one made it. Authors in the journal seem largely to be (in decreasing order of frequency) (1) non-US groups possibly hoping to get US-based journals on their records with minimal hurdles, (2) US groups looking to publish low-impact work that wouldn’t cross a threshold of relevance in a higher-impact journal, and (3) the “out there” cases. The paper at hand has the benefit of saying nothing, and thus there’s nothing to point a finger at, so the journal was apparently happy to leave it up to the readership, as they say, to judge relevance or significance. They can laud themselves on being an outlet for all voices, but such a strategy does mean there is the potential for lots of chaff mixed in with whatever grain might be in the journal’s virtual pages. > [@Crafter\_Man](#): > > It look like she put quite a bit of work into the paper, well above-and-beyond what most crackpots would do. As a calibration, this feels about average on work committed, at least for crackpot work that an author bothers to distribute. Putting in lots of work (even if it just means bloviating and using fancy formatting) is an easy way to seemingly elevate the ideas. Since this author seems to have an academic background, she could bang out that text and formatting in no time. In the most extreme cases, crackpot bloviation and production values can stretch to full-color glossy 100-plus-page hardback books with literally no meaningful content. But that’s rare (and fascinating to flip through). ---
**Author:** ![ratatoskK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ratatoskk/32/2987_2.png) [@ratatoskK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ratatoskK)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2026, 6:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-consciousness-be-a-fundamental-field-physics-related/1028135/25 "2026-03-05T18:43:16Z")
I didn’t closely read the entire article but want to point out that the general issues and concepts presented are widely discussed in the field of consciousness theory. So to call the author a crackpot based on the subject matter alone really isn’t fair. But I’m not qualified to judge. Anyhow, for more info on consciousness, see [Wiki - Models of consciousness](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Models_of_consciousness) and especially [Wiki - Orchestrated objective reduction.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orchestrated_objective_reduction) ---
**Author:** ![Ferris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ferris/32/11573_2.png) [@Ferris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ferris)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2026, 7:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-consciousness-be-a-fundamental-field-physics-related/1028135/26 "2026-03-05T19:45:42Z")
> [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](#): > > There’s nothing there beyond vague generalities in the shape of grandiose declarations. Nothing is ever properly defined, what math there is is used as some sort of analogy or metaphor at best, and the references for specific details are to entire books. This isn’t bad because it’s a contentious or overly speculative piece, it’s bad just because it’s shoddy work. Brilliant! ---
**Author:** ![Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/half_man_half_wit/32/21766_2.png) [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Half_Man_Half_Wit)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2026, 5:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-consciousness-be-a-fundamental-field-physics-related/1028135/27 "2026-03-06T05:47:40Z")
> [@ratatoskK](#): > > Anyhow, for more info on consciousness, see [Wiki - Models of consciousness](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Models_of_consciousness) and especially [Wiki - Orchestrated objective reduction.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orchestrated_objective_reduction) Orch-OR is a theory that I’d definitely consider fringe, in the sense that there’s a minority of researchers working on it (mainly its two originators, Roger Penrose and Stuart Hameroff), but not immediately dismissible. (Although I’ve never been able to see how it’s supposed to make any progress on the central question of why being conscious feels like anything.) It layers a speculative extension of quantum mechanics (gravitational reduction, where a measurement-collapse occurs once the gravitational fields of possible outcome-configurations differ by a certain amount) with a controversial thesis on the capabilities of the mind (that it must be able to implement non-computable processes to allow for a kind of mathematical ‘insight’ that goes beyond what formal models can achieve1) onto a speculative neurological notion (that the information processing in neurons ultimately occurs in so-called microtubuli, which a traditional understanding considers rather part of the ‘scaffolding’ of the cell). All of this is very arguable, but that’s what distinguishes it from the paper linked in the OP—which doesn’t manage to even present a thesis coherent enough to be argued. * * * 1I always rather thought that Penrose maybe takes his own mental powers for more representative of general human capabilities than they are. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2026, 4:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-consciousness-be-a-fundamental-field-physics-related/1028135/28 "2026-03-07T16:14:05Z")
I mean, even that basically just amounts to “humans are magic”. ---
**Author:** ![HoneyBadgerDC](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/honeybadgerdc/32/1033_2.png) [@HoneyBadgerDC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HoneyBadgerDC)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2026, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-consciousness-be-a-fundamental-field-physics-related/1028135/29 "2026-03-07T16:33:49Z")
Something that has always puzzled me, and I think might be related to this, is how I experience physics in my dreams. I don’t know anything about physics, but somehow when I dream about doing things that are physically impossible, the strongest aspects of those dreams come out in physical interpretations of the experience. For example, accelerating to near or beyond light speeds. I turn into something resembling a string of maybe protons longer than the solar system, I am pulled into that shape by speed and acceleration. When I get where I am going, they reassemble, weird things like that. I can’t even imagine things like that when I am awake. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2026, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-consciousness-be-a-fundamental-field-physics-related/1028135/30 "2026-03-07T17:16:18Z")
So you try to come up with scenarios that seem plausible to you, and because you don’t know much physics, what seems plausible to you bears no resemblance to actual physics. I don’t see what’s mysterious about that. ---
**Author:** ![eburacum45](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eburacum45/32/8690_2.png) [@eburacum45](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eburacum45)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2026, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-consciousness-be-a-fundamental-field-physics-related/1028135/31 "2026-03-07T18:07:26Z")
We all learn plenty of data about physical laws while growing up and experiencing the world. If we can walk, throw a ball, catch a ball, juggle, dance, drive a car, ride a bike, we have acquired plenty of practical knowledge about acceleration due to gravity and acceleration in general without ever consciously learning F=ma. Dreams about flying might seem contra-physical, but they might be inspired by memories of swimming, or skiing, or sliding on ice, or just jumping off high walls, Maybe also inspired by watching the flight of birds, kites or paper airplanes, or being carried as a child. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2026, 9:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-consciousness-be-a-fundamental-field-physics-related/1028135/32 "2026-03-07T21:10:08Z")
> [@eburacum45](#): > > Dreams about flying might seem contra-physical, but they might be inspired by memories of swimming, or skiing, or sliding on ice, or just jumping off high walls I think that a big chunk of my “flying dreams” come from riding a bike. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-consciousness-be-a-fundamental-field-physics-related/1028135.md?page=1)