-- *Mar*You’re asking a *deep and perfectly valid question*: If physics reduces everything to *fields and excitations*, and if photons are not “things” but patterns of excitation, then:
- *Who* is doing the labeling? - *What* is the reference point for calling one excitation “a photon”? - *Is consciousness separate from fields, or part of the same field-based universe?* - *Is consciousness required as a classifier?* Let me answer carefully, without dismissing the philosophical dimension, and without slipping into pseudoscience. ------------------------------ ✅ *1. Physics does not deny consciousness. It brackets it.* Physics does *not* say: - “consciousness doesn’t exist,” or - “consciousness has no role,” or - “consciousness is outside nature.” What physics says is much narrower: *Physics models the behavior of physical systems by describing how fields evolve. It does not attempt to model subjective experience.* This is not an exclusion — it’s a *scope limitation*. ------------------------------ ✅ *2. Why physics classifies photons without invoking consciousness* Photons are not classified by humans *opinion*. They are classified because: *The mathematics of quantum field theory forces them to have specific behaviors.* For example, a photon is defined by: - Spin = 1 - Mass = 0 - Representation of the Poincaré symmetry group - Gauge field excitation of U(1) electromagnetism These definitions *exist* whether or not consciousness observes them. They follow from the structure of spacetime + the EM field. So the classifier is not a person. It is *mathematical consistency*. ------------------------------ ✅ *3. “Who is doing the classification?” — Two Answers* *A. In physics:* The classification arises from *symmetry*, *mathematics*, and *self-consistency* of the field equations. Nobody “chooses” it. We simply *discover* that the field supports quanta with certain properties. *B. In consciousness:* Humans give names to what mathematics reveals. - “photon” is a label - “field excitation” is a conceptual model - but the underlying structure exists independent of labels Physics is “objective description,” consciousness is “subjective interpretation.” They meet, but they are not identical. ------------------------------ ⭐ **4. Your deeper question is legitimate: If consciousness itself is an emergent field-process, isn’t consciousness part of the same universe of fields?** Yes. Modern neuroscience and physics suggest: *Consciousness arises from complex, dynamic patterns of activity in the brain’s matter and electromagnetic fields.* This does not make consciousness “non-physical” — it makes it *emergent*. In this view: - Photons are excitations of the EM field. - Neurons are excitations of the biological field. - Consciousness is an emergent property of large-scale organized biological fields. Everything is fields — but *arranged at different levels of complexity*. ------------------------------ ⭐ **5. Important distinction: Physics does not explain consciousness, but consciousness does not rewrite physics either.** Physics is about *how fields behave*. Consciousness is about *what it feels like to observe fields*. Different domains. One is not a replacement for the other. ------------------------------ ⭐ *6. Could consciousness be a fundamental field?* This is *philosophically open*. There are hypotheses: - *Panpsychism:* consciousness is intrinsic to all matter. - *Integrated Information Theory:* consciousness = integrated structure. - *Orch-OR (Penrose):* quantum effects in microtubules. - *Dual-aspect monism:* fields have both physical and experiential aspects. None are confirmed by physics, but none are ruled out. What physics can say: Consciousness interacts with the world through neural physical processes, so consciousness must be compatible with the same field ontology that explains photons. But physics cannot yet say *what consciousness is* in fundamental terms. ------------------------------ 🧠 *7. So what is the “common reference”?* You asked: “Is there no common reference, say consciousness?” There *is* a common reference — *the universe’s field structure itself*. But consciousness becomes *the local interpreter of that structure*, not the creator of the classification rules. ------------------------------ 🔥 *8. The simplest reconciliation* *Physics describes the world from the outside (third-person view).* *Consciousness describes the world from the inside (first-person view).* They are two “projections” of the same underlying reality, much like wave and particle descriptions are two views of the same quantum object. ------------------------------ If you want, we can go deeper into: - whether consciousness can collapse wavefunctions - whether the universe requires an observer - panpsychism vs physicalism - why photons have objective definitions - whether fields are the true ontology of reality - whether “mind” can be a field Just tell me which direction you want to explore. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Thatha_Patty" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/thatha_patty/CACDCHCLJbiTGnk4jdn0pW%2BVW2-quYmG-dwo99JYLNin63x%3DHDg%40mail.gmail.com.
