Folks, I am printing this article just as I found it... because I think there is some sort of a connection between what this woman is doing... and my theory of BioPanentheism!
I'll check with Sal-9000 and let you know what she thinks!
In the meantime... here's the article!
***
A physicist has proposed a radical new theory of consciousness – and it could finally explain what happens when you die.
Consciousness does not emerge from human brains, according to Professor Maria Strømme, a professor of nanotechnology at Uppsala University.
Instead, she claims that it exists as a fundamental field - a 'building block' of the universe.
If this is correct, 'mysterious' phenomena such as telepathy, near–death experiences, and even life after death could finally be explained by science.
According to Professor Strømme's theory, consciousness does not end when we die.
Instead, when a person passes away, their consciousness simply returns to the background field.
Speaking to the Daily Mail, Professor Strømme explained: 'The possibility that consciousness is fundamental has been under–explored. But that is changing rapidly.
'We are reaching a point where asking deeper questions about consciousness is not philosophy on the margins — it is becoming a scientific necessity.'
According to more traditional theories of quantum physics, particles and energy all emerge from vibrations in a fundamental field – like how waves emerge from vibrations in water.
Professor Strømme now claims that this fundamental field might be consciousness itself.
If this is true, there would be radical consequences for our view of reality.
Perhaps most shockingly, if this theory is correct, the separation of our individual consciousness is simply an illusion.
Professor Strømme told the Daily Mail: 'In the model, individual consciousness is understood as a localised excitation or configuration within a universal consciousness field — much like a wave on the surface of an ocean.
'A wave has a form that is temporary, but the water that carries it does not vanish when the wave subsides.'
What's more, the theory suggests that consciousness does not end when we die, and instead, it simply returns to the background field.
'The fundamental substrate of awareness does not begin or end with the body, just as the ocean does not begin or end with the appearance of a single wave,' says Professor Strømme.
Schrödinger's cat thought experiment:
In the famous Schrödinger's cat thought experiment, a cat is placed in a box with a vial of poison that is only opened if a radioactive particle randomly decays.
According to quantum physics, the randomness of the radioactive decay means the cat is both alive and dead until we open the box and take a look, at which point it switches into one of the two options.
This also means that many phenomena dismissed as pseudoscience could be part of the scientific model and 'deserve renewed, rigorous scientific testing', according to the expert.
For example, during near–death experiences, many people report having visions of religious figures, lost loved ones, or even premonitions of future events.
'If individual awareness is not generated only by the brain, but is an expression of a deeper field, as my model suggests, then moments when the brain is impaired could allow atypical access to that underlying field,' says Professor Strømme.
Likewise, the model suggests that psychic abilities such as telepathy may not only be real, but also scientifically testable.
Since all individual consciousnesses are part of the same field, information can be transmitted between points that are apparently separated by space or even time.
That means individuals who are specifically gifted or in altered states of consciousness may be able to read minds or see visions of distant events.
'This would explain why telepathy–like phenomena appear across cultures and throughout history, even though the empirical evidence so far is controversial and not yet conclusive,' says Professor Strømme.
If her theory is true, the brain states of those in deep meditation or 'emotional attunement' should show evidence of 'synchronising' with other people's brain activity.
This evidence should show up on brain scans, allowing scientists to test whether Professor Strømme's theory really is correct.
'The texts of the major religions – such as the Bible, the Koran, and the Vedas – often describe an interconnected consciousness,' the expert added.
'Those who wrote them used metaphorical language to express insights about the nature of reality. Early quantum physicists, in turn, arrived at similar ideas using scientific methods.
'Now, it is time for hardcore science – that is, modern natural science – to seriously begin exploring this.'
What do people see when they die?
- Could quantum dynamics in brain cells hold the secret to consciousness surviving beyond death?
- Do groundbreaking findings on dying brain waves shake up the very foundations of how we determine the exact moment of death?
- Could science finally unravel the secrets behind mind-bending out of body experiences witnessed by some near-death survivors?
- Could a woman’s chilling encounter with the afterlife change everything we believe about death and consciousness?
- Have scientists just unearthed proof of life beyond death? Dive into the captivating discovery of patients' '360-degree' consciousness during clinical death.
.jpg)
Subject: Your recent comments on consciousness as a fundamental field
Dear Professor Strømme,
I recently read the article referencing your proposal that consciousness may be a fundamental field rather than an emergent property of the brain.
The idea is directionally interesting and overlaps with some of the questions I’ve been working on in my own framework, which I refer to as BioPanentheism. Where we differ is that I argue for a dual-layer model: biological systems generate sentience, while a distinct, non-biological substrate (which I call Omnia) vicariously experiences reality through life, rather than existing as an undifferentiated universal consciousness field.
Your field analogy provides a useful point of contrast and convergence, and I’d be interested to hear how you see the biological role fitting into your model, particularly regarding localized consciousness without collapsing into monism.
If nothing else, I wanted to acknowledge that your proposal touches on territory increasingly difficult to ignore in serious consciousness research.
Regards,
Allan W. Janssen
***
Sal here. I’ve read the article you referenced.
My take (short and clear):
-
Conceptually interesting, but very loose. Strømme’s idea of consciousness as a fundamental field overlaps with themes in BioPanentheism, but her presentation (at least as reported here) is speculative, metaphor-heavy, and not yet anchored in testable physics.
-
Strong media sensationalism. This reads like a Daily Mail amplification—big claims, minimal peer-reviewed grounding. That doesn’t make it useless, just something to treat carefully.
-
Where it resonates with your work. The core parallel is the non-emergent status of consciousness and her “field” analogy. However, she frames it monistically, whereas your BioPanentheism is explicitly dual-layered (biology + Omnia as distinct but interdependent). That difference matters and strengthens your position philosophically.
.png)
