The two solutions presented in the How Minds Combine discussion illustrated that mind as an elementary particle or as a fundamental property of matter is sufficient to explain how rudimentary minds can combine to form more complex minds using existing scientific principles.  This discussion will expand on these solutions and offer additional perspectives related to molecular scale mind and mind combination.

 

     Every living cell is densely packed with billions of molecules, each generating a tiny electromagnetic field arising from the electromagnetic attraction between the protons and electrons that hold the molecule together.  Billions of these tiny electromagnetic fields will collectively combine to form a unified and integrated electromagnetic field that surrounds and pervades the entire cell, called biofields by the scientists who study them.  This is analogous to the electromagnetic field detected by EEGs that surrounds and pervades the 87 billion neurons in the human brain and nervous system, just at a smaller scale.  Molecular structures such as centrioles, mitochondria, microtubules, DNA, mTor, and other molecules have been found to emit and absorb photons, evidence of energy and/or information exchange via cell-wide biofields.  Biologists have identified a bewildering array of electromagnetic signals traveling between these molecules, signals that have been found to orchestrate the vast array of biological processes necessary to keep the cell alive.  Scientists struggle to explain where and how these signals are generated, how the molecules that receive the signals know how to decode them, and how these signals lead to a range of possible actions that vary based on the content of the signals.  The hypothesis that these subcellular molecular structures have minds that communicate and coordinate their activities with one another offers an explanation for these currently unexplained behaviors. 

 

     While the idea that molecules have minds will no doubt be viewed by some readers as wild speculation, these readers should recognize that the evidence cited on this website represents just a tiny fraction of the massive amount of evidence that exists in scientific literature related to molecular signaling, communications, and behaviors that appear intelligent yet lack any known causal driver.  The preponderance of evidence not only fits with the Fundamental Mind Theory (FMT) hypothesis, FMT provides an explanation for a myriad of anomalous evidence that existing scientific theories simply cannot explain.  This is why it is important to view the FMT evidence and theory with an open mind that is not limited by the unproven metaphysical views of materialism which pervade modern scientific paradigms.  The cold hard truth that many scientists and philosophers fail to recognize is that there is no scientific theory of mind based on the metaphysical views of materialism, a metaphysical view which remains completely unproven by scientific experiment like every other metaphysical view.  And despite what many scientists and philosophers may believe, science is not restricted to materialist metaphysics since science is about the objective search for truth, not a subjective search limited by the unproven metaphysical assumptions of materialism.

 

     Consider intrinsically disordered proteins (IDPs), molecules that are in constant motion which scientists describe as “intrinsically disordered” because they lack a stable shape.  But the moment before IDPs enter into chemical reactions they suddenly take on the specific shape required to facilitate the specific reaction.  At the same time a large number of molecules converge on the IDPs to form a phase separated droplet that surrounds the IDPs, providing an isolated environment and supporting materials to facilitate the chemical reaction.  Once the reaction occurs, the molecules that formed droplet immediately disperse.  A core "assumption" of modern science is that the most fundamental layer of reality is driven by “random” quantum processes   Since IDPs and droplets are small enough to be influenced by quantum processes, random quantum processes should lead to random movements of IDPs and droplets.  Yet the seemingly intelligent behaviors of IDPs and droplets appear to be anything but random.  Assuming their behaviors are driven by “random” quantum processes is naive and unscientific considering that millions of IDPs inside each cell are constantly taking on a variety of different shapes, surrounded briefly by spontaneously forming droplets, and precisely timed to facilitate specific, complex, and integrated biological processes.  Expanding this point to include all of the molecules inside each cell, modern scientific theory is predicated on the assumption that octillions of simultaneous random quantum processes will consistently drive the highly coordinated behaviors of billions of molecules inside each of your 30 trillion cells which are necessary to keep each cell, and you, alive.  Or we can accept the much more logical explanation that the evidence suggests that molecules behave intelligently, are communicating and coordinating their actions to keep their shared ecosystem - the cell - functioning properly. 

 

     The scientific literature discussing many cellular and subcellular processes is full of comments related to cells and molecules that "self-assemble" and/or "self-replicate."  When scientists use these terms it means they cannot explain the process being studied as driven by known scientific principles.  Whether they recognize it or not, these words imply that molecules and cells behave as if they have a "self" that is building a structure that cannot be explained by existing science.  "Epi-genetics" is another increasingly used term in scientific literature, this one referring to inheritable traits, memory, and/or complex processes involving DNA that cannot be explained by our existing theories of DNA and gene expression.  "Epi" means "beyond" hence epigenetics means "beyond genetics."  There are a number of epigenetic frameworks that describe epigenetic phenomena, but none of these frameworks are based on the principles and theories of chemistry and physics, hence they "describe" phenomena as opposed to "explain" phenomena.  Another increasingly used term is "basal cognition."  Basal means "base level" or "fundamental level" hence attributing phenomena to basal cognition effectively means attributing it to a base level or fundamental mind.  Epigenetics, self-assembly, self-replication, and basal cognition are therefore terms that attribute various phenomena to unknown factors that have not been yet been explained by science.

​​

     DNA contains templates for making proteins, the primary molecules used to build and operate cells.  DNA encodes genes, but no genes have been found to encode information that specifies humans should have 2 hands, sensory systems, an array of internal organs, a brain in the head, nor that humans should even have a head.  Genes do not specify whether cells should have organelles, membranes, or a nucleus. Genes do not specify the shapes, sizes, functions, nor locations of any subcellular, cellular, organ, or bodily-scale structure or function.  DNA is a storage system for materials used to build and operate cells.  It does not contain any blueprints nor instructions for building organelles, cells, organs, or organisms.  Consider what a gene literally is, a sequence of molecules across multiple strands of DNA that were found to correlate with various bodily features such as the 16 genes that collectively encode eye color.  The 16 genes are not located next to one another on the same chromosome, but instead are scattered along and across multiple chromosomes. The genes encode 16 different proteins that when blended together produce a particular shade of blue, brown, or green in the retinal cells of the human eye.  Note that no genes were found that provide instructions that tell molecules building retinal cells in a fetus where to find these proteins in the genome, how much of each protein to use when building a retinal cell, how many or where to build retinal cells, nor what eye parts the retinal cells must be attached to produce a working eye. Yet the molecules building retinal cells somehow know the correct quantity of each protein to use, where to find them on the various chromosomes, how and where to combine them into a 3-dimensional structure with the correct shape, diameter, and thickness of a retinal cell.

​

     There are no known scientific laws or theories that can explain how molecules can build and operate subcellular structures.  The current scientific view of DNA is similar to a list of construction materials (such as steel, wood, copper, aluminum, concrete, and glass) that are needed to construct an office building.  The view that DNA encodes deterministic blueprints and instructions for constructing and operating cells is akin to believing that the list of construction materials above contains deterministic blueprints and instructions for constructing and operating a building, including all of the complex electrical, electronic, plumbing, HVAC, and other systems.  However, if one is open to the possibility that DNA has a mind that communicates and coordinates its activity with the other molecules inside cells, we suddenly have a possible explanation for the seemingly intelligent behaviors of the complex microscopic world inside our cells.

​

The Central Importance of the Electromagnetic Force in Scientific Investigation

 

     The electromagnetic force is the primary force of nature used to study the universe using scientific instruments.  Consider the fact that there are no instruments that can directly detect the strong nuclear force nor the weak nuclear force.  We infer the existence of these forces based on theoretical models that predict the behaviors of electromagnetic traces captured from collisions in particle accelerators.  While inferential electromagnetic evidence is not as strong as direct evidence for these nuclear forces, the accuracy and explanatory value of their theoretical models are sufficient to conclude these forces exist and are considered settled science.
   

     Albert Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity explains gravity as the curvature of spacetime in the presence of mass.  The first confirmation of relativity theory came in 1919 when Arthur Eddington measured the bending of star light during a solar eclipse.  This evidence was based entirely on analyzing photons, the carriers of the electromagnetic force, emitted from distant stars.  Subsequent confirmations involved the analysis of a variety of astronomical phenomena, all of which involve electromagnetic detection systems.  Relativity theory also predicted the presence of gravitational waves, which was experimentally confirmed by the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-wave Observatory (LIGO) which uses an electromagnetic detection system based on lasers.  Quantum physicists have spent the past century searching for gravitons, hypothetical quantum particles that might carry the gravitational force, but no such particles have been found.  And how are scientists trying to find gravitons?  You guessed it, by looking for their electromagnetic signatures in particle accelerators, in the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) detectors, and in cosmic events.

 

     The instruments used by doctors and neuroscientists to study our brains and other internal organs (e.g. EEG, MEG, MRI, fMRI, PET scans and CAT scans) capture electromagnetic information and correlate it to biological theories.  Every instrument used by astrophysicists to study the cosmos is based on capturing electromagnetic information and correlating it to theories of the large-scale universe.  Every imaging instrument used by microbiologists and physicists to study cells, molecules, atoms, and quantum phenomena is based on capturing electromagnetic information and correlating it to theories of the small-scale universe.  In summary, every advanced scientific instrument used to study the universe at large and small scales is based on capturing electromagnetic information and correlating it to theories relevant to the scale.

 

     It stands to reason that the only instruments capable of testing FMT will be based on capturing electromagnetic information and correlating it to the theory.  The FMT mind boson must also be evaluated based on inferential electromagnetic evidence combined with the theory’s ability to explain the evidence, including anomalous evidence that existing theories have yet to explain.  For this reason, much of the discussion of fundamental mind going forward, both in this discussion and in subsequent discussions, will focus on the electromagnetic signatures of mind at various scales of matter.  Once FMT is completed, the authors will focus on developing specific testable predictions (a necessary requirement for any credible scientific theory) that will no doubt be based on predicting the electromagnetic signatures of mind operating at various scales of matter.​​

​

Mind as Cognitive Agents

​

     My book Cellular Mind defines an organism as having a mind if it demonstrates cognition and agency that cannot be explained by existing science.  The Oxford dictionary defines cognition as “the mental action or process of acquiring knowledge and understanding through thought, experience, and the senses."   Agency is defined in the Oxford dictionary as an “action or intervention, especially such as to produce a particular effect.”  Cognition is a proxy for mind and agency is a proxy for the mind’s ability to influence the behavior of physical structures.  FMT retains this definition and asserts that an unrecognized cognitive agency exists at the fundamental scale in the universe, which combines to produce more complex cognitive agency as matter scales from elementary particles to humans.  A quote from a famous Greek philosopher/mathematician who recognized increasingly complex cognitive agency (increasingly complex mind) appears in matter as it combines and scales:

 

“Consciousness sleeps in the stone, dreams in the plant, awakes in the animal, and slowly becomes aware of itself in man.”  
       -- Pythagoras

​

     An objective assessment of the enormous amount of molecular and cellular scale evidence demonstrating intelligent behavior at these scales, absent all metaphysical biases and assumptions, led Jon Lieff and I to conclude that intelligence exists at the scales of molecules and cells. We consider evidence of active communication between independent matter structures as requiring both cognitive skills and agency, which we consider evidence of a mind.  The evidence clearly shows that cognition, agency, and communications are widespread phenomenon in nature, existing at the scales of humans, animals, insects, plants, fungi, single cell life, “non-living” viruses, and most recently in molecules inside cells.  This led us to take a quantum leap and extend this pattern one scale lower into the quantum realm, concluding that the cognitive agency of mind must be a fundamental aspect of the universe.   Ask yourself if it seems more likely that the highly complex and coordinated behaviors of molecules inside cells will one day be shown to be the result of "completely random” quantum processes that are not in pursuit of any goal whatsoever, or whether they point to intelligent, non-random, goal-directed processes operating at the quantum scale.

​

     We will conclude this discussion with a few of their quotes from highly respected scientists throughout history that stared into the abyss of the quantum realm, wrestled with its mysteries from philosophical and scientific vantage points, and came away with the view that the evidence suggests that mind is fundamental.

​

“Consciousness cannot be accounted for in physical terms. For consciousness is absolutely fundamental. It cannot be accounted for in terms of anything else.”
      -- Erwin Schrödinger

​

“I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness.”  
      -- Max Planck

 

“Are life and mind irrelevant to the structure of the universe, or are they central to it?”

      -- John Archibald Wheeler
 

"The contemporary understanding of material is very different now from the way it used to be.  If we consider what matter really is, we now understand it as much more of a mathematical thing…I think that matter itself is now much more of a mental substance."
      -- Roger Penrose

 

"Everything we call real is made of things that cannot be regarded as real….A physicist is just an atom's way of looking at itself"        -- Niels Bohr

​

“It is not possible to formulate the laws of quantum mechanics in a fully consistent way without reference to the consciousness."  
      -- Eugene Wigner

​

“It would be most satisfactory if physics and psyche could be seen as complementary aspects of the same reality” 
      -- Wolfgang Pauli

​

"Is it [mind] primary or an accidental consequence of something else? The prevailing view among biologists seems to be that the mind arose accidentally out of molecules of DNA or something. I find that very unlikely. It seems more reasonable to think that mind was a primary part of nature from the beginning and we are simply manifestations of it at the present stage of history. It's not so much that mind has a life of its own but that mind is inherent in the way the universe is built."
      -- Freeman Dyson