Abstract

In the field theories in physics, any particular region of the presumed space-time continuum and all interactions between elementary objects therein can be objectively measured and/or accounted for mathematically. Since this does not apply to any of the field theories, or any other neural theory, of consciousness, their explanatory power is limited. As discussed in detail herein, the matter is complicated further by the facts than any scientifically operational definition of consciousness is inevitably partial, and that the phenomenon has no spatial dimensionality. Under the light of insights from research on meditation and expanded consciousness, chronic pain syndrome, healthy aging, and eudaimonic well-being, we may conceive consciousness as a source of potential energy that has no clearly defined spatial dimensionality, but can produce significant changes in others and in the world, observable in terms of changes in time. It is argued that consciousness may have evolved to enable the human species to generate such changes in order to cope with unprecedented and/or unpredictable adversity. Such coping could, ultimately, include the conscious planning of our own extinction when survival on the planet is no longer an acceptable option.

Highlights

  • In field theories of consciousness (e.g., Köhler, 1940; Cacha and Poznanski, 2014 among others), the latter is conceived in terms of a field in the sense in which it is used in quantum or particle physics, where the notion of “field” applies to all fundamental forces and relationships between elementary particles within a unifying theoretical framework where the forces lead to energy fields that occupy space-time and mediate interactions between elementary particles

  • Field theories of consciousness where the latter is seen as having duration and extension in space are limited by the fact that, unlike in the field theories in physics, particular regions of the presumed space-time continuum and interactions between elementary objects cannot be objectively measured, or accounted for mathematically

  • Pockett (2013) wrote that “a field that is not observable directly by known physical means is in some danger of remaining confined to the realms of philosophy,” leaving it to her readers to decide whether this statement is to be considered as outrageous, or as a sign of a healthy sense of humor

Read more

Summary

INTRODUCTION

In field theories of consciousness (e.g., Köhler, 1940; Cacha and Poznanski, 2014 among others), the latter is conceived in terms of a field in the sense in which it is used in quantum or particle physics, where the notion of “field” applies to all fundamental forces and relationships between elementary particles within a unifying theoretical framework where the forces lead to energy fields that occupy space-time and mediate interactions between elementary particles. In field theories in physics, each point of a particular region of the presumed space-time continuum, as well as all interactions between elementary objects, are objectively measurable and accounted for mathematically. This cannot be claimed by any current theory of consciousness, including the field theories (e.g., Köhler, 1940; Lashley et al, 1951; Fingelkurts and Fingelkurts, 2002; John, 2002; McFadden, 2002; Cacha and Poznanski, 2014). These will not be reviewed in detail again here, as an excellent review has been provided earlier by Pockett (2013) earlier. It is concluded that investigating functional links between eudaimonic well-being and consciousness could give us answers more important to the future of humankind

LIMITATIONS
CONCLUSION AND PERSPECTIVES
DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call