The two solutions presented in the How Minds Combine discussion illustrated that mind as an either 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 the combination discussion from the perspective of FMT.

​

The Central Importance of the Electromagnetic Force in Scientific Investigation

 

    The electromagnetic force is the primary force of nature used to study the universe from a scientific standpoint.  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 both nuclear 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 the theoretical models are sufficiently robust for scientists to conclude that these forces exist and thus are considered settled science.  This bears repeating - we cannot directly measure the strong nuclear force nor the weak nuclear force; the only evidence scientists have for their existence comes from the electromagnetic signatures of matter interactions.
   

     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 sophisticated electromagnetic detection systems.  Relativity theory predicted the presence of gravitational waves, which were experimentally confirmed by the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-wave Observatory (LIGO), an electromagnetic detection system that uses 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 have scientists been trying to detect 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 fact that the electromagnetic force is central to virtually all scientific investigation is not fully appreciated by the scientific community.  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.  The instruments used by doctors and neuroscientists to study our brains and internal organs (e.g. EEG, MEG, MRI, fMRI, PET scans, CAT scans, etc.) all capture electromagnetic information and correlate it to biological theories.  Every imaging instrument used by microbiologists and physicists to study cells, molecules, atoms, and quantum scale 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 from the largest to the smallest scales are 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.  Whether mind is a property of matter, a massless boson, or something else entirely, FMT must be evaluated based on inferential electromagnetic evidence combined with the theory’s ability to explain the evidence, including its ability to explain anomalous evidence that existing theories of mind fail to explain.  For this reason, much of the discussion of fundamental mind going forward will focus on the electromagnetic signatures of mind operating at various scales of matter.  When we refer to minds as combining electromagnetically, this should be viewed as consistent with both the property and particle hypotheses for fundamental mind combination.  FMT is still in the development phase, and at some point along the way we will put forth specific testable predictions, a necessary requirement for any credible scientific theory.  These predictions will no doubt be based on predicting the electromagnetic signatures of mind operating at various scales of matter.  One such prediction along with a possible testing platform was put forth in my Cellular Mind book which combines lucid dreaming testing protocols with UPE detection equipment.  Once the state-of-art UPE equipment gains the resolution and fidelity to measure cellular scale electromagnetic information exchange, the hypothesis put forth in that theory can be tested.

 

Molecules Electromagnetically Combine Their Minds to Form Cellular Scale Minds

 

     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, increasingly being called biofields or bioelectric fields 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 much smaller scale and many orders of magnitude weaker.  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 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 simply impossible, 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 under existing scientific paradigms.  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 that are embedded deep within modern scientific paradigms.  The cold hard truth is that many scientists and philosophers fail to recognize there is no scientific theory of mind based on the metaphysical views of materialism, which requires mind to somehow emerge from physical processes in complex matter structures such as brains.  Materialism is a set of metaphysical assumptions that remain unproven by scientific experiment, no different than every other metaphysical view.  Once a metaphysical view is proven by science, it ceases to be metaphysical and becomes part of physics.  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 unproven metaphysical assumptions.  The scientific method is a tool for exploring the universe and scientific theories and equations predict the behavior of matter and energy in the universe at any scale.  

 

     Consider intrinsically disordered proteins (IDPs), molecules that are in constant motion which scientists describe as “intrinsically disordered” because they lack a stable shape.  But  immediately before an IDP enters into a chemical reaction, it suddenly takes 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 atoms and charged ions to facilitate the reaction.  Once the reaction occurs, the molecules that formed droplet quickly disperse.  As discussed previously, 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.  Indeed, this is one explanation for the intrinsic disorder of IDP shapes.  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 simply naive and unscientific considering that millions of IDPs inside each cell are constantly taking on a variety of highly specific shapes unique to each reaction, are surrounded briefly by spontaneously forming droplets, and are precisely timed to facilitate a myriad of specific, complex, and integrated biological processes that are necessary to keep each cell alive.  Consider that there are billions of molecules inside each cell engaged in millions of chemical reactions every second, which means modern scientific theory is predicated on the assumption that countless octillions of simultaneous random quantum processes are consistently causing the highly coordinated behaviors of billions of molecules inside each of your 30 trillion cells to maintain homeostatic processes that are far from equilibrium.  Or we can accept the simpler explanation that the evidence suggests that molecules behave intelligently, communicating and coordinating their actions to keep their shared ecosystem - the cell - functioning properly. 

 

     The scientific literature discussing both cellular and subcellular processes and signals 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 being driven by known scientific principles.  If they could they wouldn't need to use 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 that do not involve DNA, thus cannot be explained by 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/or physics, hence they "describe" the phenomena as opposed to "explain" the phenomena.  

 

     Consider that scientists have been watching cells divide in their microscopes for centuries.  The molecules and organelles inside a fertilized human egg cell "self-replicate" and divide into two cells.  The cells continue "Self-replicating" and "self-assemble" into a fetus over nine months.  Scientists have imaged and described this process in incredible detail.  Yet despite having a front-row seat, no theory has been developed to explain how cells can "self-replicate" nor "self-assemble" using scientific theories and principles.  Scientists can watch cells create new life from a collection of non-living molecules in their microscopes but they cannot explain how this occurs using science.  Before we can hope to explain how the first living cells emerged from non-living matter approximately 3 billion years ago, we first need to explain how new living cells are created from non-living matter 3 million times every second inside each of our bodies.   Another increasingly used term in scientific literature discussing cellular and subcellular processes 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.  It is crystal clear to any scientists who can take a step back and look at the evidence from biology from a metaphysically agnostic vantage point, that the only conclusion that can be drawn is that we need new biophysical theories in order to explain life and mind.   

​​

     Consider our DNA, which 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 or operating organelles, cells, organs, or organisms.  Consider what a gene literally is, a sequence of molecules typically strewn 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 the molecules that are building a retinal cell where to find the proteins in the genome, how much of each protein to use when building the 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 and where to find them on the various chromosomes.  And the retinal cells somehow know how and where to combine themselves into a 3-dimensional structure with the correct shape-diameter-thickness of a retinal cell and what other parts to attach the retina to.

​

     There are no scientific laws or theories that can explain how molecules can build and operate subcellular structures.  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 has long been rendered obsolete yet continues to be taught in biology classes and much of the scientific community still believes it to be true.    Believing our DNA is a blueprint for building and operating a human is akin to believing that the list of construction materials (steel, wood, copper, aluminum, concrete, glass, rubber, plastic etc.) contains blueprints for building and operating an office building, including all of the complex electrical, electronic, plumbing, HVAC, architectural features, windows, and so forth.  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.  Since DNA is one of the largest and most electromagnetically active molecules inside cells, it clearly plays an important and central role in guiding cellular activity.  DNA is simply far more intelligent than modern science recognizes, which is as a molecule with zero intelligence that stores information.

​​

Cognition and Agency as a Proxy for Mind

​

     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 extends this definition beyond what science generally considers an "organism" by applying it to all forms of matter.  FMT asserts that molecules such as kinesin demonstrate cognition and agency that cannot be explained by existing science, concluding that it has a mind, and thus mind exists at the scale of molecules.

​

     An objective assessment absent all metaphysical biases and assumptions, of the enormous amount of molecular and cellular scale evidence demonstrating cognition and agency at all scales of life and now at the molecular scale, led Jon Lieff and I to conclude that mind exists at the scales of molecules and cells.  We consider evidence of intelligent goal directed behavior and active communication between independent matter structures as requiring both cognitive skills and agency, our proxies for mind in a matter structure.  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 molecules inside cells.  This led us to take a quantum leap and assume this pattern would continue 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 kinesin 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 an intelligent, non-random, goal-directed processes operating at the quantum scale.

 

     FMT asserts that mind exists in all scales of matter.  Minds combine to form more complex minds as matter structures combine to form more complex matter structures.  This is true from elementary particles to humans, the most complex configuration of matter in the known universe.  We'll conclude with a quote from a 500 BCE Greek philosopher/mathematician who recognized the increasingly complex mind that appears in matter as it combines and scales into more complex forms.

 

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