A "proto-consciousness field theory" is NOT a theory. A legitimate theory needs to be testable / falsifiable. This at best a very dubious hypothesis.

I would call this a hypothesis, not a theory-- as there is zero evidence to back this up--it is only speculation.

Oh Jeez. Every new age mystic pizza eater and nirvanic levitating astro traveling universe hugger will be polishing their crystals and burning the midday incense on reading this. This is the stuff they love. Another god called The Universe.

These claims are quite extraordinary in scale and scope. The concept of panpsychism is on the whole more of a philosophical one than a scientific one. No matter what, it will always run into a fundamental issue when dealing with consciousness.

It's the age old question, how can you be sure that anyone else is aware? The answer is you can't. It is possible that only you (whoever is reading this) is the only conscious person and everyone else is just an empty husk, not truly aware just acting as if they were in a highly complex way.

Personally, I believe that consciousness is an evolved ability of the brains ability to manage and switch between different modules or capabilities, which is emergent from the cooperative effort of neurons. Our intuition of it being something mystical is wrong.

This article is total BS. The first warning sign: they appeal to famous "prominent" scientists.

There is no 4th spatial dimension...if there were we would see amazing violations of physics all the time. Stuff coming into existence and smashing into things. That doesn't happens.

There are some basic restrictions science imposes and every one would do well to learn them. Take some physics chemistry biology and math courses. See how they connect with each other and clearly show what is and isn't possible.

Remember there are scientists who will sell out and write shitty metaphysics books that are garbage. Dont waste your time or money on those.

It sounds like some Deepak Chopra woo to me.

I found one of these prominent scientists in the last Cracker Jacks box I opened.

I decided not to have any, because who eats that kind of crap?

I am keenly aware of the physical evidence which leads some people to think this. It is based on the evidence which Roger Penrose connected to human neurology. Basically they have evidence that our neurons might tap into the quantum field. The idea itself is rather old. You can picture it that our brains are radio tuners and the radio waves are emitted consistently by the universe as a fundamental aspect of the universe. However, there is a hidden assumption here; that consciousness is independent of the physical apparatus of brain, rather than the result of the compiled components. The other aspect that seems to get overlooked is the individual nature of consciousness. People like Jung assumed that there was a collective nature to consciousness, rather than something that only exists at the individual level. The evidence we have from evolution points in the other direction, that individual consciousness is actually an element that increases the potential for survival, physical survival.

Thanks for posting this! I’m saving it in a handy place to read when I get time.

I’m in the middle of reading Donald Hoffman’s new book, The Case Against Reality, which complements this article.

There are plenty of reasons for thinking that the universe might be conscious, and many prominent physicists have hypothesized the idea in various forms. For example:
Max Planck said in 1944, "As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter".

Edwin Schrodinger:

Consciousness cannot be accounted for in physical terms. For consciousness is absolutely fundamental. It cannot be accounted for in terms of anything else.

There are many others.

So too does "thought" reconstitute as it too is a form of matter.

++++++++++++ Mmmmm..."thought" is the result of interacting brain cells. Like dreams, it's ''existing'' ONLY in the brain of the dreamer/physician. How is this translated into ''matter?"

Panpsychism, a form of Liebniz monadism, according to Penrose may fill the "gaps" in our understanding by postulating a universal awareness that makes adjustments in the Universe that we otherwise have been unable to completely explain. But there is no real evidence to support this. This sounds too much like the "God of the Gaps" argument, replacing God with a cosmic consciousness. I prefer admitting the limitations of our current knowledge of the Universe rather than resorting to a panpsychic belief system, attractive as it may be. Additionally, we haven't even come up with a good definition or understanding of consciousness, so how can we say that it is "produced and transmitted through the quantum vacuum, or empty space" if we don't even understand what consciousness is?

[theatlantic.com]

That would make for a great R. Crumb comic!

I hope this is true. If it is, I am going to come back, jump into the Internet and fuck with everyone's Facebook account until Zuckerberg is one broke-ass cracker!

I have a feeling that these "prominent scientists" don't know much about neuroscience.

God repackaged and relabeled as the universe..

It's a belief for people who don't believe in gods, but can't shake the feeling.

I've been intrigued by this concept since I read Rupert Sheldrake's book on morphic fields years ago. I never thought it would gain gain traction. Thanks for the link! I really enjoyed it.

This speculation falls between or to some extent overlaps sensational science and ambitious spirituality.
If we accept that humans or not the centre or purpose of universe, the speculation itself becomes unnecessary.

So called prominent scientists often enough been proved to be Wrong before proving to be Right.... so...

When we die, the minerals in our bodies go back into the ground. The electrical impulses stored in our brains cease. The acids we call dna are neutralized. We die. We are not a substance with a choice.
We propel the future with our decomposition like every other animal.

I hate this stuff and it's not even faintly scientific because the terms are not defined. It's more linguistic quibbling, and that way nonsense lies. I do know something about quantum physics and I can see that whoever wrote this article doesn't.

An eminent scientist once said of a colleague's theory "it's so bad it's not even wrong".

I'm not buying it.

This is a dumb as Einstein's theory that gravity effects time.

Any attempt to marry science with pseudo-science immediately arouses my suspicion.

This subject used to be fun to think about back when I smoked wacky weed as a youngster. It's a bit dull now. We can get more meaning from a six pack of beer.

Preposterous.

"Scientists have theorized that your consciousness exists as a 4th dimensional quantium "thing""
Interesting concept, but the time to believe it is when we have evidence to support it beyond pure theory.

From the article
"A proto-consciousness field theory could replace the theory of dark matter, one physicist states."
ONE does not a consensus make.

"According to the late scientist and philosopher, John Archibald Wheeler"

"Wheeler had a reputation pushing his students into a place where logical thought would not necessarily take them. Former student Richard Feynman, to Kip Thorne, declared, “Some people think that Wheeler’s gotten crazy in his later years, but he’s always been crazy!”"--from his website

He was an interesting person and its an interesting idea. Don't have a clue as to how one could falsify the notion though.