A synthesis of Jon & Mike's books arguing that cells have minds Our Books Discuss the Evidence For Cellular Scale Mind Our books are the culmination of years of research into scientific evidence on the nature of the mind. Both books provide extensive references to underlying scientific research demonstrating that cells communicate via a language that science has yet to understand, and that cells demonstrate levels of cognition and agency that science has yet to explain. The books draw the same conclusion - that cells have minds. The books are written for a scientifically oriented audience in conversational style that minimizes the use of scientific terminology that might obscure the arguments being made. They are written from a scientific perspective but also from a metaphysically agnostic perspective to avoid metaphysical assumptions that too often inadvertently bias discussions in scientific literature. The biggest metaphysical assumption that pervades the vast majority of papers in neuroscience, biology, physics, and philosophy that discuss any aspect of consciousness is that the brain generates the conscious mind. The authors accepted this premise as fact earlier in their lives, which is the default assumption made by most modern day scientists and philosophers. But by taking an objective look at the scientific evidence to support this premise they independently concluded that no such evidence exists, hence they realized that the idea that the brain generates the mind is nothing more than a "metaphysical assumption" that lacks supporting evidence. Once one comes to grip with this fact, anyone curious about the nature of consciousness will begin "searching for mind" in nature beyond the brain, which is why we chose these words as the name for this website. The following summaries of our books make the case that the human mind is not produced by the brain, but instead appears to be a collective phenomenon produced by all of the cells of the human body. Executive Summary of The Secret Language of Cells by Dr. Jon Lieff Lieff's book dives deeply into the communications that occur between the cells of the human body. The central premise of the book is that there is extensive scientific evidence that cells throughout the body conduct elaborate back-and-forth conversations that goes far beyond what simple chemistry should be able to accomplish — and that no one has identified where the direction for these conversations comes from. Cells use at least six distinct signaling methods simultaneously: secreted chemicals, sacs filled with genetic instructions, electric currents, electromagnetic waves, physical contact, and biological nanotubes. What is remarkable is that all life forms — humans, animals, plants, and microbes — use these same languages with the same molecular vocabulary, suggesting communication is more fundamental to life than any particular biological substrate. Throughout the book Lieff discusses evidence of cells making what can only be described as decisions from multiple simultaneous inputs. Gut lining cells determine which specific microbes are allowed to reside as residents and which must be expelled, conducting ongoing negotiations with immune cells, local neurons, and vast microbial populations simultaneously. T cells travel into the fluid surrounding the brain, assess whether an infection is occurring, and adjust signals to either stimulate cognition or trigger the physiological sick response — a behavioral decision made without any nervous system directing it. Cancer cells demonstrate arguably the most sophisticated cellular behavior documented in the book, manipulating surrounding immune cells, neurons, and blood vessel cells simultaneously to build protective environments and evade destruction. Lieff explicitly asks whether these conversations constitute intelligence and concludes the question cannot be answered because no serviceable definition of intelligence exists — but the implicit weight of the evidence throughout the book pushes toward a yes. The book also discusses the evidence that cells self-edit their own DNA in elaborate multistep processes, producing up to five hundred different proteins from a single DNA strand by cutting and reassembling messenger RNA pieces, and stay in communication with traveling immune cells without any obvious directional signal. He concludes that how cells can show such advanced information transfer without a clear source of direction remains genuinely unexplained. Lieff also presents evidence that viruses communicate with one another and demonstrate cognition and agency as they plan and execute coordinated attacks on the host organisms they invade. The behaviors of viruses is even more striking than the behaviors of cells considering that viruses are generally not considered to be "alive" and consist of a single strand of DNA or RNA that may be wrapped in a thin membrane stolen from the cell membrane of the host cell that produced the virus. This can be seen as evidence of a single molecule behaving as if it has a mind of its own. The book dives deeply into virus communication, showing that they use molecular signals that function essentially as a language. Phage viruses produce a peptide signal called arbitrium (Latin for arbitration) that allows viral communities to collectively decide whether to kill a host bacterium or keep it alive as a productive resource. As more viruses enter a bacterium and the population of arbitrium signals rises, the community collectively slows its reproduction rate to avoid killing a productive host. This is seen as coordinated decision-making at the molecular scale. Multiple types of viruses can understand each other's signals across species, much as different bacterial communities communicate in biofilms. Viruses cooperate and compete strategically: when competing viruses are present they kill host cells faster to deny resources to rivals; when alone they kill host cells slowly to maximize their own production window. A form of apparent altruism has been observed in which one group of viruses sacrifices itself attacking bacterial CRISPR defense systems, producing molecules that allow surviving viral community members to succeed. HIV, with only nine genes and nineteen proteins, evades the full armory of the human immune system by hijacking, hiding, and strategically timing its behavior within host cells — including entering a dormant state for years before reactivating. Herpes virus commandeers the cell's own motor proteins, travels up and down axons from skin to brain, tricks the heavily guarded cell nucleus, and hibernates for years before reversing the journey when conditions are favorable. The behavioral sophistication of single nucleic acid molecules with as few as seven genes performing strategic, context-sensitive, apparently goal-directed behavior is precisely the kind of evidence that makes the possibility of cellular scale mind difficult to dismiss since it provides provocative evidence for mind potentially existing at the molecular scale. The book's final chapter directly raises the possibility of molecular scale mind and hints that a future sequel would be focused on the scientific evidence of mind at this scale. The chapter focuses on the Mammalian Target of Rapamycin (mTor) as the molecule whose behaviors are the most difficult to explain using existing scientific theories. mTOR is a single enzyme molecule that simultaneously monitors conditions across multiple organelles — receiving signals about available amino acids, lipids, oxygen, ATP levels, protein production rates, and structural scaffolding — and responds by coordinating global cell functions including growth, division, DNA repair, immune response, and metabolic cycling. It works in close cooperation with lysosomes, sitting directly on their outer membranes for real-time collaboration on cellular recycling. It directs the construction of axon and dendrite scaffolding in neurons in response to learning. It regulates stem cell behavior, tissue repair, and the brain's sleep, appetite, and circadian rhythms. And it does all of this simultaneously, as a single molecule. Lieff speculates on whether mTOR may constitute a molecule that can converse like cells and organelles and concludes that more research is required to confirm or refute this speculation. The axon transport chapter strengthens the molecular mind implication further: every cargo type traveling along a neuron's axon has its own unique transport machinery, motors, and adaptor molecules; cargo is tagged for delivery to exact destinations up to three feet away; and when opposing motor proteins compete for direction, something determines which motor wins — and notes that this is not currently understood. In his conclusion Lieff asks the deepest question the book raises: could information transfer be a fundamental aspect of physical nature? He notes that information transfers occur at six orders of magnitude from molecules to human societies, and that at every level — including the molecular — the source of direction for these information flows remains unidentified. He explicitly leaves this as an open question, one that he intended to explore further in a sequel to The Secret Language of Cells . Executive Summary of Cellular Mind by Michael Rowen The book opens with a foundational observation: despite centuries of research, no human brain region or neuronal process has been identified that produces human conscious experience, and no scientific theory exists that explains how we think, feel, remember, or experience life. The book go on to argue that the "brain-generated mind hypothesis" remains an unproven assumption — a widely held metaphysical belief rather than a scientifically supported conclusion. Cellular Mind Theory (CMT) is presented as an alternative that rests on three pillars: cognition, agency, and electromagnetic combination. On cognition, the book discusses a number of Michael Levin's experiments at Tufts University that demonstrate that electromagnetic fields applied to specific regions of planarian worms during regeneration can cause them to grow two heads or head from other worms species that diverged millions of years ago. These head structures were sustained through subsequent regeneration cycles despite having no changes in their DNA , clear evidence that body shape is encoded in a cellular memory system other than DNA, raising significant questions about the role of DNA in evolution. Other experiments involved scrambling facial feature of tadpole embryos that were corrected by the tadpole cells throughout embryo development, and electromagnetically inducing eyes on tadpole embryos which the developing cells connected to the spinal cord and passed vision tests once the tadpole matured. Still other experiments created novel biological lifeforms such as Xenobots, which are literally frog skin cells removed from their embryonic context. Xenobots spontaneously reorganized into novel body forms, developed radar-like environmental sensing systems, navigated mazes, repaired damage, and invented two novel reproduction methods. None of these behaviors can they be explained by any known cellular process or evolution theory (or any scientific theory more broadly) given that X enobots were formed by cells that had the evolutionary history and genome of a frog. The conclusion is that all cells demonstrate cognitive skills that are extremely difficult if not impossible to explain under existing scientific paradigms. On agency, CMT makes a pointed observation that modern evolutionary theory leaves entirely unaddressed: why do all organisms, from single cell microbes to humans, relentlessly strive to survive as individuals, as collections of individuals, and as species? No genes encoding any form of survival behavior have been found, and no physical or chemical process has been identified that causes living matter to relentlessly pursue survival while nonliving matter never does. The book discusses three distinct levels of survival agency — individual, collective, and species — all of which are demonstrated by all types of cells and none of which can be explained by natural selection filtering random DNA mutations occurring during cellular reproduction. The example of mammalian reproduction sharpens this argument because pregnancy clearly impairs the individual survival odds of mammalian mothers, yet highly complex reproduction methods evolved universally across the mammal kingdom nevertheless. This fact directly contradicts the survival of the fittest logic that underpins modern evolution theory, which by definition can only apply to mutations that enhance an "individual" organism's survival odds, and does apply to mutations that enhance survival at the "species" level while impairing individual survival odds. That the survival imperative is evident at the species level across all lifeforms is ignored by modern evolution theory. Single cell parasites such as toxoplasma and horsehair worms are profiled because their reproduction method requires them to be eaten by larger organisms, sometimes multiple larger organisms in the food chain, where they ultimately become active and manipulate the nervous systems of the larger organism from the inside to cause the organism to sacrifice itself to facilitate the parasite's own reproduction process. Evidence of single cell organisms demonstrating strategic, multi-step, goal-directed behaviors that involve hijacking complex nervous systems in order to reproduce lies far beyond existing biology and evolution theory. On electromagnetic combination, the book argues that cells combine their individual minds into multicellular minds through the electromagnetic fields that permeates and connects all cells in multicellular organisms, called biofields by the researchers who study them. CMT notes that the electromagnetic force combines and powers all forms of matter from subatomic particles to humans and facilitates every chemical reaction and biological process, all of which is driven by the electromagnetic attraction between the electrons and protons contained inside every matter structure. The electromagnetic force enables ATP's energy storage and release cycles, carries all sensory signals through nervous systems, and generates the brain waves that neuroscientists use to study consciousness. The book's central premise is that the electromagnetic force is not merely involved in biology — it is the foundational force of all biological processes without exception. This makes the electromagnetic field the only physically grounded candidate for a substrate through which individual cellular minds could combine to form multicellular organism minds. A solution to the combination problem explaining the physics of how cellular minds can electromagnetically combine is provided. The brain is framed as the organ developed by the cells of complex multicellular organisms to both comprehend and navigate the external world in order to ensure the continued survival of the individual multicellular organism. The cerebral cortex is dedicated to sensory system processing thus its primary focus is on comprehending the external world. The cerebellum is dedicated to balance and motor control of the muscular system thus its primary focus is on navigating the external world. These two brain regions contain 98% of the brains neurons and neuroscientists have not found any evidence or location in either brain region that could be dedicated to producing human consciousness. The remaining 2% of neurons in the brain are located in a series of smaller brain regions dedicated to regulating hormone levels, fight or flight responses, and other functions that assist in the survival imperative of the multicellular organism. The book's most ambitious chapters apply the CMT hypothesis to unresolved mysteries in neuroscience, evolutionary biology, philosophy, and the nature of life itself. On neuroscience, CMT argues that if mind exists in all cells throughout the body and not exclusively in the brain, decades of anomalous neuroscience evidence suddenly becomes coherent. The book covers diverse topics including color perception, split-brain and Libet experiments, the placebo effect, the unusual mental skills of conjoined twins, and even near death experience (NDE). The premise that the human mind is a collective cellular phenomenon facilitated by electromagnetic combination is the common thread running through these topics while providing coherent explanations for each phenomenon. Any proposed scientific theory must make at least one testable prediction to be taken seriously, thus the book includes a testable prediction. The scientific study of lucid dreaming is discussed and leads to a testable prediction and experimental design that can used to test CMT. While the experimental apparatus is still beyond the current resolution of our most advanced electromagnetic imaging equipment, the steady progression of higher resolution scientific instruments suggests the prediction should be testable in the not-too-distant future. CMT also provides straightforward solutions to the binding problem and the unity of conscious experience. Electromagnetic theory requires that the cellular photon emissions from cells throughout the human body to seamlessly combine to form a single, higher power, integrated, and unified electromagnetic field that surrounds and pervades the body of every multicellular organism, including humans. Scientists have detected these emissions from cells but are a long from decoding their informational content. These cellular emissions are similar to the synapses of the brain and nervous which are captured by electroencephalograms (EEGs) and are used by doctors, neuroscientists, and consciousness researchers as diagnostic tools. The cellular emissions that form biofields around the human body are 10 million times lower power than synapses, thus have evaded discovery until recently once electromagnetic imaging technology achieved sufficient resolution to directly detect them. On evolution, the book presents its most direct empirical challenge to modern evolutionary theory. Another of Michael Levin's experiments involved planarian worms exposed to barium chloride, a chemical that literally dissolved their heads. Somehow these worms evolved barium chloride-resistant heads within five weeks across multiple specimens, with corresponding edits to their genomes. The probability of nine coordinated beneficial mutations occurring by random chance within this timeframe is basically zero. CMT argues this provides direct evidence that mutations are not random but are driven by cellular cognition and survival agency — the cells recognized they would die with a head, experimented with possible structural solutions, found one that works, and encoded it in its DNA for future generations. The book positions "cell-driven evolution" as the Ockham's Razor replacement for random DNA mutations filtered by natural selection. The conclusion frames CMT as a partial theory because it does not claim to resolve the hard problem of consciousness nor speculate on neither the source of nature of mind at the cellular scale. It simply posits that cells are the lowest level at which mind demonstrably appears in matter, and electromagnetic field combination as the mechanism through which those minds scale into human consciousness. The closing promise is practical: learning to communicate with cells in their native electromagnetic language holds the prospect of curing disease, reversing birth defects, and growing replacement organs — technologies that do not require resolving the deepest metaphysical mysteries, but simply accepting that cells have minds worth communicating with. Synergy Between Our Books The Secret Language of Cells and Cellular Mind arrive at the same destination from different directions — one empirical, one theoretical — and together they form a mutually reinforcing case that mind is not a product of the brain but a fundamental property of life at the cellular scale. Jon spent eight years documenting, from the mainstream scientific literature, that cells throughout the body conduct elaborate conversations using at least six distinct signaling systems simultaneously, make decisions from multiple inputs without any identifiable central director, and demonstrate behaviors — strategic, adaptive, goal-directed, and coordinated — that no current theory of physics or chemistry can explain from first principles. He stops short of concluding cells have minds, noting that no serviceable definition of intelligence exists that would allow the question to be answered. But the implicit weight of his evidence points unmistakably in that direction. Mike's book picks up precisely where Jon's leaves off. Taking the unexplained coordination and goal-directed behavior Lieff documents as his starting point, he argues that the only hypothesis consistent with the full body of anomalous biological evidence is that cells have minds — defined as entities demonstrating cognition, agency, and survival drive that cannot be explained by known science. He extends this into a theoretical framework: that electromagnetic fields, already the foundational force of all biological processes, provide the physical substrate through which individual cellular minds combine to form the minds of multicellular organisms, including the human mind. Together our books make three arguments that reinforce each other powerfully. First, cells demonstrate behaviors — communication, problem solving, strategic parasitism, embryonic self-repair, novel body construction, directed mutation, and more — that require cognition and agency as explanatory premises regardless of what one believes about whether cells have minds. Second, the source of direction for these behaviors remains genuinely unidentified by mainstream science at every scale from molecules to organisms, leaving a real explanatory gap that the cellular mind hypothesis fills more parsimoniously than any alternative. Third, the electromagnetic force that powers all cellular processes is the same force that generates the fields neuroscientists measure when studying human consciousness — literally every instrument used by neuroscientists to study the brain and mind are electromagnetic instruments (EEGs, MEGs, MRIs, fMRIs, PET, CAT, etc.) that detect the electromagnetic footprints and/or interactions of the mind and brain. The newest and highest resolution of these electromagnetic instruments are now able to detect the Ultraweak Photon Emissions (UPE) from non-neural cells, the emissions that combine to form the integrated and unified biofield that surrounds and pervades each of our bodies. This suggests continuity rather than a sharp boundary between cellular scale and human scale mind. What makes the books particularly valuable together is their complementarity: The Secret Language of Cells provides the extensive empirical grounding that makes Cellular Mind's theoretical framework credible, while Cellular Mind provides the theoretical structure that gives the evidence discussed in The Secret Language of Cells its full explanatory weight. Return to Theory Page "Your Cells are Talking About You" Learn More "Your Cells Create Your Mind, Not Your Brain" Learn More

Solution to the mind combination problem facing panpsychism using the fundamental forces of nature and the universal conservation laws of science. Resolving the Combination Problem with Existing Scienc e Michael Rowen January 25, 2026 Introduction Most scientists and philosophers assume the human mind is generated by the brain, yet despite centuries of brain research no theory has been developed to explain how neuronal processes in our brains can produce the vibrant conscious experiences of our minds. Several frameworks attempt to explain various aspects of conscious experience, but they always include an identity claim such as “this pattern of neuronal activity produces conscious experience X." But asserting an identity relationship between brain states and conscious states does not causally explain how a pattern of neuronal activity creates conscious experiences using the laws, principles, and theories of science. This is widely recognized as the “Hard Problem of Consciousness”, a term coined by philosopher David Chalmers in 1995. One way to illustrate the hard problem is to consider the experience of the sweet taste of chocolate, the pungent smell of a skunk, excitement, anxiety, love, and pain. These experiences are all “qualitative” in nature, have no units of measure, and cannot be reduced to the “quantitative” variables and equations of science. The conscious experiences of our minds are “mental” phenomena whereas science describes “physical” phenomena. We “experience” the world from an “internal, 1st person, and subjective” point of view that is completely private to each of us. Meanwhile physical science describes the “behavior” of objects in the universe from an “external, 3rd person, and objective” point of view that is publicly observable and quantitatively measurable with scientific instrumentation. Quantitative vs. qualitative, objective vs. subjective, 1st person vs. 3rd person, internal vs. external, experience vs. behavior, and physical vs. mental. These characteristics are complete opposites of one another, which explains why the “quantitative, 3rd person, objective, physical, external behavior” theories of science have been unable to explain the “qualitative, 1st person, subjective, internal, mental experiences” of the human mind. The hard problem remains unsolved as one of the most intractable problems in the entirety of science. Given the difficulty in resolving the hard problem and lack of progress in developing a scientific theory explaining how brains generate minds, it is time to consider the possibility that our minds may not be generated by our brains, which involve viewpoints beyond the metaphysical views of materialism which the brain generated mind hypothesis is rooted in. Several metaphysical positions avoid the hard problem but face their other unique conceptual problems. Dualism posits that the human mind is a non-physical property or substance that interacts with physical matter, which leads to the “mind-body problem” that questions how a non-physical mind can interact with a physical body. Idealism posits that mind is more fundamental than matter which essentially flips the hard problem on its head, leading to a “hard problem of matter”. Panpsychism posits that mind is embedded in matter at every scale of the universe and combines to form more complex minds in more complex forms of matter, leading to the mind “combination problem” which questions how rudimentary forms of mind can combine to form complex forms of minds in atoms, molecules, cells, and ultimately humans. The combination problem is the only one of these alternatives that appears to be within the scope of existing science, hence is the subject of this paper. The combination problem traces back to 1890 when philosopher William James challenged panpsychism by arguing that individual conscious experiences cannot be combined to form a single unified conscious experience. James’ challenge has withstood the test of time as many solutions have been proposed but none have received widespread support from philosophers and scientists. Most of these solutions start by analyzing the properties of complex minds and use reductionist logic to deduce the mental properties of rudimentary forms of mind while speculating on how they may combine. The present solution takes the opposite approach by starting with the hypothesis that mind is fundamental and illustrating how rudimentary forms of mind can combine using existing scientific theories and principles. This bottom-up approach requires one assumption - that existing scientific laws that apply to all forms and scales of matter would apply equally to all forms and scales of mind. In other words, if mind exists at the quantum scale, then the laws of quantum physics would apply equally to quantum scale matter and quantum scale mind. Likewise, as matter is molded into more complex forms by the forces of nature, mind would also be molded into more complex forms by the same forces of nature. This discussion will show that this singular assumption - that matter and mind should be treated identically from a scientific standpoint - is sufficient to resolve the mind combination problem. Before we dive into the proposed solution, one point needs to be addressed. Since there is no consensus definition for two key terms used in the introduction - consciousness and mind - it is important to define these terms as they will be used in the following discussion. The author recognizes the significant nuance and subtlety surrounding these terms as they are used in the sophisticated body of work produced by the philosophy of mind community. The proposed solution is independent of these complexities so to keep the discussion simple, mind and consciousness will be used interchangeably to refer to “the phenomenon that is experiencing your life”. Matter Combination Theory The most fundamental constituents of matter and energy in the universe are described by the "Standard Model of Elementary Particles." The standard model currently contains 61 elementary particles that have been directly or indirectly detected in laboratories and particle colliders. The vast majority of these particles can only exist for a tiny fraction of a second before decaying or combining into more stable forms of matter and/or energy. This allows our discussion to focus on the subset of elementary particles that form stable matter, specifically up quarks, down quarks, gluons, electrons and photons. The most fundamental matter interaction in the universe occurs when the gluons of the strong nuclear force combine one red color charge quark, one green color charge quark, and one blue color charge quark to form a neutral white color charge proton or neutron, the subatomic particles that form atoms.* Whether three quarks combine to form a proton or neutron depends on the mix of up and down quarks being combined. The main takeaway here is that the strong nuclear force combines 3 elementary particles to produce the protons and neutrons that form the nucleus of atoms. This is the smallest matter combination event known to science. During this matter combination event, all known properties of the particles are conserved, meaning the mass/energy**, spin, charge, and color charge of the incoming quarks and gluons are combined, and the result will match the properties of the resulting proton or neutron. Each property being combined has a unique conservation law associated with it, specifically the conservation of mass/energy, conservation of spin, conservation of charge, and conservation of color charge. That the properties of quarks and gluons are universally combined and conserved in strong nuclear force interactions is a foundational principle in quantum physics. All the forces of nature behave similarly, combining matter into more complex forms while conserving the properties of the constituent parts in the combined matter structure. The strong nuclear force forms subatomic particles, the electromagnetic force forms lighter weight atoms and molecules, the weak nuclear force forms heavier atoms, and gravity forms moons, planets, stars, black holes, and galaxies. The forces of nature universally combine and conserve every known property of matter, in every type of matter interaction, at every scale of the universe. This is true whether three quarks combine to form a subatomic particle or whether two galaxies collide to form a larger galaxy. It is now time to bring mind into this combination discussion via two thought experiments. Thought Experiment #1: Mind as a Property of Quarks Consider a thought experiment where tomorrow morning scientists announce a discovery that quarks have a 5th fundamental property. Logic dictates that this 5th property would also be combined and conserved by the strong nuclear force along with the 4 previously known properties of quarks when forging protons and neutrons. The scientists would no doubt propose a new universal conservation law associated with this new property since everything in the known universe is subject to conservation laws. Now imagine this newly discovered property somehow relates to mind existing at the quantum scale, let's call it the "mind property" of quarks. This new mind property would naturally be combined by the strong nuclear force and conserved by the new “conservation of mind” law. The resulting subatomic particle would have the combined mass/energy, charge, spin, color charge, and mind of its constituent quarks and gluons. Moving up to the atomic scale, the electromagnetic force replaces the strong nuclear force as the primary force driving matter combination events, where photons replace gluons as the carriers of the fundamental force of nature facilitating the combination. Various combinations of subatomic particles are electromagnetically combined to form the 100+ atoms of the periodic table. Atoms are literally forged and held together by the electromagnetic attraction between their constituent electrons and protons, which attract each other and stick together like magnets on your refrigerator. The mass/energy, charge, spin, and mind properties of the subatomic particles would be combined and conserved as the electromagnetic force combines them to forge atoms with atomic scale minds. Moving up to the molecular scale, the 100+ atoms of the periodic table electromagnetically combine in various ways to form hundreds of millions of molecules. Every molecule is literally held together by the electromagnetic attraction between the protons and electrons in their constituent atoms. The mass/energy, charge, spin, and mind property of atoms would be combined and conserved by the electromagnetic force when forming molecules with molecular scale minds. The same logic holds as we move up to the cellular scale. Every cell is literally held together by the electromagnetic attraction between protons and electrons in the molecules that form cell membranes and internal cell structures. The mass/energy, charge, spin, and mind properties of subcellular molecules would be combined and conserved by the electromagnetic force when forming cells with cellular scale minds. Finally, multicellular organisms are held together by the electromagnetic attraction between the protons and the electrons in the atoms and molecules that form the membranes of adjacent cells. The mass/energy, charge, spin, and mind properties of cells would be combined and conserved by the electromagnetic force when forming the more complex bodies and minds of multicellular organisms, including humans. This thought experiment assumed the mind property of matter only exists in quarks. This was done for simplicity purposes as there are no conceptual nor technical reasons why the mind property could not exist in other elementary particles. The thought experiment resolved the combination problem using the simple assumption that scientific laws should apply equally to a hypothetical mind property of matter as they do to all other properties of matter. The author notes this solution includes an implicit and possibly substantive assumption: that mind as a property of matter would behave as an additive, conserved quantity in a similar way that mass, charge, spin, and color charge are additive and conserved. Critics may reasonably object that subjective experience does not obviously possess this additive structure as it is far from obvious what it would mean to 'sum' two units of mind property. This is a valid objection that requires taking the position that the fundamental forces of nature and universal conservation laws of science that apply to every other known property of matter would not apply to a mind property of matter, effectively placing mind beyond scientific explanation. Thought Experiment #2: Mind as an Elementary Particle Physicists have been speculating on the possible existence of new particles to explain unexplained phenomena for more than a century since quantum theory was initially formulated in the 1920s. Scientists make predictions based on the assumed properties of hypothetical particles and conduct experiments to test their predictions to confirm or refute the particle’s existence. The most recently discovered particle is the Higgs Boson which was hypothesized in 1964 and experimentally confirmed in 2012, after which it was added to the Standard Model. The Standard Model, and quantum physics more broadly, remain incomplete as physicists continue to search for new particles to explain mysteries such as gravity, dark energy, dark matter, the matter-antimatter imbalance, supersymmetry, the hierarchy problem, universe inflation, and other unexplained phenomena. The hard problem of consciousness suggests that mind is at least as mysterious as these other unexplained phenomena, so let’s consider a second thought experiment where tomorrow scientists announce the discovery of a new “mind particle" that provides evidence of mind operating at the quantum scale. Each of the 61 elementary particles in the Standard Model has a quantum field associated with it, a field that is believed to span the entire universe. The newly discovered mind particle would thus also have a universal “mind field” associated with it. Let’s assume the mind particle is a boson which would enable it to behave more like a force carrier than as a building block of matter. In essence, the mind boson would be the carrier of a 5th force of nature, a “mind force.” Many scientists have speculated on the possible existence of a 5th force of nature to explain a variety of mysteries. They typically assume this hypothetical 5th force operates at energies below the level that is detectable by modern scientific instruments, providing an explanation for why the 5th force does not create anomalies in atomic spectroscopy and particle accelerators. We will make the same assumption that the mind boson operates below the level detectable by existing scientific instruments, hence new technology needed to be developed before the mind boson could be discovered. It is useful to consider the behaviors of photons, the carrier of the electromagnetic force, to shed light on the likely behaviors of mind bosons. Because bosons are not subject to the Pauli exclusion principle, multiple bosons can occupy the same quantum state, and because boson fields obey linear superposition, their combined amplitudes seamlessly add to produce a higher-power, unified field that surrounds the source of the bosons. This means that electromagnetic fields generated by multiple particles in proximity will seamlessly combine to form a single integrated and unified electromagnetic field that surrounds the particles. Positively charged protons and negatively charged electrons naturally attract each other, generating tiny electromagnetic fields between them that are facilitated and sustained by photon exchange. When atoms, molecules, and cells combine to form a more complex matter structure, these tiny electromagnetic fields seamlessly combine to form a single, higher power, unified, and integrated electromagnetic field that surrounds and pervades the matter structure. For simplicity purposes, assume the mind boson is massless, like the photon. This is an assumption of convenience rather than a derived necessity — nothing in principle rules out a mind boson with mass, though a massless boson more cleanly parallels the photon's role in combining electromagnetic fields. Mind bosons would thus similarly combine their energies to form a single, higher power, unified, and integrated mind field that surrounds and pervades every combined matter structure from subatomic particles to humans. Mind as a massless boson would therefore not face a combination problem, provided that the laws and principles of science apply equally to the fundamental constituents of matter and mind. As with the first thought experiment, there are no conceptual nor technical reasons that prevent the mind particle from being treated as a fermion or gauge boson in this thought experiment. The massless boson was chosen because modeling the mind particle’s behavior after the photon provided a crisper and more coherent analogy. The Mind Division Problem Both thought experiments illustrate how matter and mind can combine from elementary particles to cells. Beginning at cellular scale, the combination problem morphs into a "Mind Division Problem" because growth at the cellular scale is primarily driven by cell division as opposed to cell combination. Single cell organisms replicate all of their internal physical structures inside their cell membranes, after which their membranes fold down the middle to split the duplicated internal structures into two separate cells that move away from each and live independent lives with independent minds. Since mind is embedded in the subatomic particles of the divided cells in both thought experiments, the dividing cells would retain their single, integrated and unified mind throughout the cell division process, and would only have functionally independent minds once their electromagnetic fields (or mind fields) no longer meaningfully overlap as the organisms separate. In multicellular life, the combination problem applies exclusively to egg fertilization. Sperm and egg cells combine their entire physical structures during fertilization, a well-documented scientific fact. As a sperm approaches and enters an egg cell, their electromagnetic fields will naturally combine to produce a single, unified and integrated fertilized-egg electromagnetic field — a straightforward consequence of classical electromagnetism. If mind is either a property or a field of the kind described above, it would combine in the same way, though this remains the paper's hypothesis rather than an independently verified fact. After fertilization occurs, all subsequent growth is driven by cell division as opposed to cell combination. Unlike single-cell life, the dividing cells in multicellular organisms remain in sufficient proximity that their electromagnetic fields continue to substantially overlap throughout development, rather than separating into independent, non-interacting fields. Electromagnetic field strength falls off continuously with distance rather than having a sharp division point, and since the membranes of cells in multicellular organisms remain in physical contact with their neighboring cells, their electromagnetic fields remain unified. The physical proximity and continuous bioelectric signaling between cells in developing multicellular organisms are consistent with the hypothesis that the boson fields (i.e. electromagnetic and/or mind field) generated by each cell will remain functionally unified throughout development. This means that the collective mind of the cells in a human fetus will remain inside a single, expanding, unified, and integrated boson field that surrounds and pervades every human throughout development, birth, and life of the individual. This provides an explanation for both the unity of our human conscious experience and for our sense of self that persists over time, two phenomena that remain deep mysteries that are hotly debated in the philosophy of mind community. Possible Evidence That Minds Combine There is no direct evidence that minds can electromagnetically combine, but there is indirect evidence at the scale of the human brain. A procedure for treating epilepsy involves severing the nerve fibers that connect the two hemispheres of a patient’s brain, which greatly reduces the severity of seizures by preventing them from electromagnetically oscillating between brain hemispheres. Neuroscientists have been studying these “split-brain” patients since 1962 when it was discovered that each hemisphere acts as if it has a separate mind. The left hemisphere controls and receives sensory input from the right side of the body while the right hemisphere controls and receives sensory input from the left side of the body. This is known as the contralateral organization of the brain and body, an organization structure that has allowed scientists to perform isolated hemispheric testing on these split-brain patients. Experiments on split-brain patients involve presenting isolated sensory stimuli to one hemisphere and soliciting isolated responses to questions from one or the other hemisphere. Split-brain patients give different answers based on whether the isolated stimuli and question are presented to the same hemisphere or opposite hemispheres. Researchers have even “interviewed” each hemisphere of split-brain patients and found they hold differing views on subjects ranging from career goals to a belief in God, evidence consistent with the hypothesis that each hemisphere may host an independent mind. This view fits with a large body of brain research on patients with normal brains where each hemisphere has been found to have a unique learning style, operates with its own working memory, is responsible for different tasks, and contributes unique aspects to a person’s blended personality. When the nerve bundles connecting the hemispheres are intact, high bandwidth sensory information is shared across the hemispheres electromagnetically via synapses, resulting in the single unified mind that we all experience in our daily lives. But when these nerve bundles are severed, sensory information is no longer shared between the hemispheres via high bandwidth nerve fibers, resulting in each hemisphere experiencing the world exclusively through its half of the body’s sensory systems. The hemisphere thus responds to isolated queries based on the isolated information it received, causing many scientists and philosophers to speculate on the possibility that each hemisphere may have a separate mind. While this is not proof that minds can electromagnetically combine at the scale of human brain hemispheres, it is consistent with the hypotheses offered in both solutions to the combination problem. Conclusion The solutions presented do not claim to prove that mind is fundamental, nor do they seek to explain how minds can have subjective experiences. They only seek to illustrate that if mind were one day found to be a fundamental property or an elementary particle, there would be no combination problem preventing individual minds from combining into more complex minds as matter scales from elementary particles to humans. William James' challenge was that rudimentary mental states cannot combine to form more complex mental states, a view the author agrees with. The solutions argue that whatever phenomenon “creates the capacity” for matter to have mental states is what combines, not the individual mental states of more rudimentary forms of matter. If mind is fundamental and subject to the same scientific laws and principles that matter is subject to, then minds can progressively combine to form more complex minds using the same principles that combine matter from elementary particles to subatomic particles, to atoms, to molecules, to cells, to humans. The foundational principles of the universal conservation laws and the combinatorial power of the forces of nature underpin the entirety of physics at every scale of the universe. Extending these foundational principles to include mind resolves the combination problem and removes the principal objection to panpsychism. In closing it is worth pointing out that the proposed solutions can be viewed as metaphysically agnostic, consistent with all major metaphysical positions: Materialism: Treating mind as an undiscovered property elementary matter is equally as consistent with materialism as treating mind as an undiscovered property of neural activity in brains. Likewise, treating mind as an undiscovered particle is like treating dark matter as an undiscovered particle, both are consistent with materialism. Idealism: The discussion left open the possibility that mind is more fundamental than matter below the Planck scale, where a universal mind could potentially exist in the quantum vacuum given its ethereal and energetic properties. Dualism: Thought experiment #1 treated mind as a property (consistent with property dualism) and thought experiment #2 treated mind as an elementary particle (consistent with substance dualism). * Quarks and gluons do not literally have colors as we know them at the human scale. Color charge is a property of quarks discovered in the 1960s which behaves similarly to electric charge but comes in three charge types (red, green, and blue) instead of two types (positive and negative for electric charge). This strange charge-like property was called "Color Charge" as an analogy to the human scale colors red, green, and blue which combine to form a neutral white color. Color charge can be ignored for matter structure larger than quarks, which only involve neutral white color charged matter interacting with other neutral white color charged matter resulting in more neutral white color charged matter. ** Mass and energy are interchangeable properties per Einstein’s E= mc2 equation, thus are treated as a single property for purposes of this discussion. Return to Theory Page

A pragmatic view of quantum theory provides a quantum framework for the Fundamental Mind Interpretation (FMI) of quantum physics. A Pragmatic Interpretation of Quantum Physics (as posted on Philpapers.org) The incompleteness of physics leads to causation issues and explanatory gaps in our scientific theories at every scale. Logician, mathematician, and philosopher Kurt Gödel developed two “Incompleteness Theorems” in 1931 which together prove that no purely “rules-based mathematical system” can provide a complete explanation of the system it was developed to describe. Since physics is a “rules-based mathematical system” Gödel's theorems seem to imply that physics will remain incomplete unless it expands to include non-rules-based and/or non-mathematical aspects in its formalisms. While the direct applicability of Gödel's theorems to physics remains a matter of philosophical debate, the broader point stands: the persistent incompleteness of physics at every scale — from quantum gravity to the hard problem of consciousness to missing matter & energy at cosmological scales — suggests that the purely quantitative mathematical formalisms of physics may be insufficient to ever fully describe reality. A pragmatic interpretation of scientific evidence should therefore recognize this incompleteness and treat the theories and evidence provided by science as partial descriptions of the behaviors of underlying reality as opposed to precise and complete models of it. With this context established, we turn to quantum theory's central mathematical tool — the wave function. Quantum Wave Functions At the core of quantum theory lies the Schrödinger wave equation, a unique equation used to model quantum systems as interacting sets of quantum scale objects called quantum wave functions. Interpreting what wave functions represent in the universe can be done from two perspectives, what philosophers would consider an “epistemic” versus an “ontological” perspective. The ontological view considers wave functions as representations of real objects that exist independent of observation. The epistemic view considers wave functions as representing the knowledge that an observer has about a quantum system. Quantum wave functions are complex vectors in higher dimensional Hilbert space that have abstract imaginary number components. Furthermore, wave functions require normalization — ensuring that the probabilities they describe sum to one — as well as more involved mathematical procedures such as renormalization in quantum field theory to handle infinities that arise in certain calculations. These mathematical requirements, combined with the abstract higher-dimensional Hilbert space in which wave functions are defined, collectively argue against treating wave functions as straightforward representations of physically real objects. Hence the more pragmatic approach is to take an epistemic perspective and view quantum theory as a set of tools and rules to develop mathematical equations that model the uncertainty in an observer’s knowledge of the possible properties a quantum system would have if it were to be measured. It is worth noting that ontological quantum interpretations such as Many Worlds and de Broglie-Bohm pilot wave theory are viewed as viable alternatives by some physicists. This pragmatic interpretation does not claim to refute these alternatives; it simply offers a less speculative interpretation that avoids metaphysical commitments that extrapolate from an incomplete theory and are not supported by experimental evidence. The Wave Nature of Matter Quantum physics does not model elementary particles as tiny solid objects like microscopic billiard balls but instead as energy patterns that are spread out over a region of space that lack definite properties such as dimension, position, momentum, and spin. Quantum theory suggests that the fundamental components of matter are energy patterns that are spread out over a region of space whose behavior can be modeled by Schrödinger wave equations. It is this intrinsic wave nature of the fundamental scale of the universe that gives rise to the indeterminate statistical behaviors of quantum scale matter. A pragmatic interpretation of “particles” as we know them in classical physics and chemistry, suggest particles only exist for the brief instant when our scientific instruments extract energy from quantum scale matter. An analogy is to think of a particle as similar to a lightning bolt. One could create a set of wave equations that describe the voltage differential between a storm cloud and the earth, modelling the potential energy contained in the storm cloud as spread out over its 3D structure that varies based on the contours of the earth below. As the cloud drifts over the earth, both its shape and voltage differential at each point will fluctuate, analogous to quantum wave equations evolving over time. One could view the cloud as containing a superposition of many potential lightning bolts that could strike the earth in many locations at any given time. At some point a voltage threshold is surpassed somewhere in the cloud which causes a lightning bolt to appear for a brief instant, traveling a specific and classically measurable jagged path through space while transferring energy between the earth and cloud. The lightning bolt quickly disappears, and a new set of wave equations would need to be created to model the updated voltage differentials between the storm cloud and the earth below. Lightning bolts form when quintillions of electrons are instantly stripped from the water vapor molecules of a cloud, forming a plasma that facilitates energy exchange between the cloud and earth. Classical plasma physics can approximately describe this energy exchange while lightning bolt formation is more accurately described by quantum physics, hence the analogy of classical particles and lightning bolts as existing for brief periods of time to facilitate energy exchange fits nicely within existing scientific frameworks. The natural state of quantum scale matter exists as energy patterns spread out over a region of space like a storm cloud, only appearing as a particle (or lightning bolt) with measurable classical properties for a brief instant to facilitate energy transfer. In this view, neither lightning bolts nor particles ever literally exist in superposition of being in multiple places at the same time when not being measured (i.e. when not exchanging energy); they instead exist in their intrinsic wave-like state spread out over a region of space. The concept of “particles in superposition” is thus an antiquated and misleading term left over from the classical physics era where particles were viewed as tiny 3D objects that have definite properties and permanent existence. Embracing the intrinsic wave nature of matter means accepting that quantum scale matter can transfer energy from any point within the region of space it is spread-out over, just like a lightning bolt can transfer energy from any point in a cloud. Quantum wave functions are abstract mathematical models that describe the uncertainty in an observer’s knowledge of the possible properties of quantum scale matter. Wave Function Collapse It is the act of observation of a quantum system that physicists view as “collapsing the wave function” of a quantum system, causing one of many statistical possibilities to manifest into a single definite classical result. That matter behaves in this manner when being observed is not mere speculation, it is a hard scientific fact backed up by a century of experiments. Quantum physicists have demonstrated that the observation of quantum scale matter influences the behavior of the matter being observed, causing it to “collapse” from a range of many possible outcomes to a single definite classical outcome. A pragmatic view of wave function collapse suggests it represents the point in time when the uncertainty in an observer’s knowledge of the state of a quantum system is eliminated by measurement, whereby certain properties of the system are precisely discovered at a definite point in space and time. After the measurement, the wave equations “collapse in their usefulness” in describing the current state of the quantum system because energy in the form of particles was extracted from the system during the measurement process, rendering the prior system of wave equations moot. New wave equations must be written to describe the new current state and future evolution of the quantum system post measurement, using the properties that were measured as an updated set of initial conditions. Wave function collapse simply means that an observer performed a measurement and updated their knowledge of the state of a quantum system, causing the wave equations that previously described the quantum system to “collapse” into oblivion. The Measurement Problem The central mystery in quantum physics revolves around the “measurement problem”, also referred to as the “observation problem.” In standard quantum theory, observation is synonymous with measurement as both terms refer to any interaction with a quantum system that extracts precise information about the state of a quantum system. The information extracted from the quantum system is contained in the classical properties of particles that appear during the energy exchange of a measurement. At its core, the measurement problem involves explaining how the properties of quantum scale matter transition from an indeterminate statistical distribution of possibilities prior to measurement, to a precise set of classical properties post measurement. The observation problem is further complicated by the lack of consensus definitions for what constitutes an observation, a measurement, an observer, a measurement device, nor where the boundary lies between the quantum and classical worlds, if such a boundary exists at all. It is the absence of these definitions that lead directly to the paradoxes of quantum physics, such as the Schrödinger’s Cat paradox where a cat is placed in a box with a radioactive atom. The box is set up such that if the atom decays it will release poison that will kill the cat. This famous cat is treated as being in a superposition of being both alive and dead simultaneously because it is unclear whether the cat qualifies as an observer, nor whether the cat exists on the quantum or classical side of an undefined boundary between the two. Given the lack of definitions, the paradox emerges when cat is treated as part of a quantum system with the atom and poison inside the box, where it is considered to exist in a superposition of states of being simultaneously alive and dead until the box is opened and the cat’s fate is observed. A pragmatic interpretation of this paradox suggests that the cat is never literally in a superposition of being both alive and dead, it is only Schrödinger’s “knowledge” of the state of his cat that is in a superposition of states, meaning he doesn’t know whether the cat is alive or dead until he opens the box and “observes” the state of his cat (which is hopefully still alive!). The observation problem is also the only place in the entirety of physics that even hints at a possible connection between consciousness and matter, where the simple act of observation influences the behavior of matter. Many famous physicists have expressed views that hint at a possible connection between mind and matter including Erwin Schrödinger, John von Neumann, Arthur Eddington, Wolfgang Pauli, Werner Heisenberg, Max Planck, Louis de Broglie, Arthur Compton, Freeman Dyson, Henry Stapp, Bernard d'Espagnat, and a number of contemporary researchers pursuing quantum and/or information theories of consciousness that do not require brains to generate minds. A pragmatic interpretation of the evidence suggests that conscious minds cannot collapse wave functions because wave functions are not considered to represent real objects that could be influenced by conscious minds. Wave functions are simply models that represent an observer’s knowledge of a quantum system. That said, a central principle in quantum theory is that the act of observation influences the behavior of quantum scale matter. Combining this with the absence of definitions for observers, observation, the boundary (if any) that exists between the quantum and classical worlds, and the many paradoxes and mysteries that surround the word “observer” in quantum theory, and the door is certainly left open for a possible connection between consciousness and quantum scale matter. If such a connection were to exist, proving it would require a precise definition for what constitutes an observer that includes a conscious mind, and explain how the observer's mind can influence the behavior of quantum scale matter. Conclusion This pragmatic interpretation of quantum theory accepts the evidence captured by quantum physicists at face value while viewing existing quantum theory and its formalisms as inherently incomplete epistemic models of the behavior of quantum scale matter and energy. Viewed from this vantage point, the mysteries and paradoxes of quantum physics become more comprehensible. Return to Theory Page

The etheral nature of the quantum realm is perfectly suited for mind being able to influence matter The deepest mystery in quantum physics is that simply observing quantum scale matter influences the behavior of that matter. The ethereal wave energy of the quantum substrate enables mind at various scales to influence the behavior of its matter structure. Keyword Search General Cellular Mind Dropdown New Page General Cellular Mind Blog Cellular Mind New Page New Page New Page Search Results 此語言尚未有已發佈之文章 文章發佈後將於此處顯示。

Evidence that plants & fungi behave as if they have minds that experience their world. Eukaryotic cells are the building blocks of all forms of multicellular life. These large complex cells were formed by the symbiotic merger of simpler single cell lifeforms which work together to perform a dazzling array of complex processes to keep the cell alive. Is this evidence of a mind? Keyword Search General Cellular Mind Dropdown New Page General Cellular Mind Blog Cellular Mind New Page New Page New Page New Page New Page New Page New Page Search Results 此語言尚未有已發佈之文章 文章發佈後將於此處顯示。

Coming Spring 2026

Coming Spring 2026

Coming Spring 2026

Coming Spring 2026