Can thought be observed? The surprising answer is yes; both the thought that selects the basis state (THOUGHT_v, for vertical) and the thought that constitutes the answer of nature to the question posed (THOUGHT_h, for horizontal) can indeed be observed by a third type of thought, namely classical thought. Strictly speaking there is no classical consciousness, but there is the phenomenal stream of consciousness which is the intentional glance of the classical actual observer toward the phenomenal object representing the noumenal quantum object. Similarly, there are two types of quantum consciousness, the so-called c-bit, where consciousness is mental and content is physical, and the q-bit, where consciousness is physical and content is mental. The mental consciousness is the mental pole of a Whiteheadian actual entity, which is Chitta, or consciousness as mind-stuff, the definition forsaken by William James. When the actual entity becomes a dipolar physical subject, by the principle of the psycho-physical parallelism, then it exists in relation to the object defined by its own structural integrity, which is the quantum object. This defines the physical consciousness as Sartre's Etre pour-soi, which is the embodiment of Dasein. Sein is the meta-physical being, at the other ontological polarity, representing the quantum implicate order as the true Mind of the Observer.

Now, THOUGHT_v only defines the basis state in the position representation. In the momentum representation, the Whiteheadian actual entity, and hence quantum consciousness, defines the basis state. THOUGHT_h, however, always defines the answer from nature, where THOUGHT is the consequence of I-IT and THOU and I-IT means Potential-Actual Event, where Potential is emotional and Actual is mental. In the context of the momentum representation, THOUGHT_h is a derivative stage of the concrescence which goes back and helps define an earlier stage; hence its feedback character and its nonlinearity.

Now, we are claiming that THOUGHT_h defines a THOUGHT FIELD, and this is in turn reduced. This reduction of the reduction is the phenomenological reduction, which takes us beyond the ontological realm into the phenomenological realm, via the ontological bio-feedback and feedforward circuits, which are just the Potential-Actual Event and the State-Vector Substance metaphysical circuits, represented in the brain by specific excitory neurotransmitter circuits near the amygdala (according to Karl Pribram). The quantum brain itself is actually a metaphysical or psycho-physical entity, wherein the whole brain is mental and only the synaptic junctions are truly physical. The THOUGHT circuits exist in the psycho-physical space of the quantum brain. They are hence circuits that relate the parts to the whole.

So, the conclusion is that macroscopic matter has not been very well understood as of yet. According to my conjecture, macroscopic matter is NOT comprised of just elementary particles, but the THOUGHT_v and THOUGHT_h circuits that define and surround them. Moreover the THOUGHT FIELD is just more or less the nonlinear spinor field of the Heisenberg/Duerr radically unified field theory. To try to make the unified field define material particles directly, as did Heisenberg and Duerr, is indeed futile, because that is NOT its metaphysical function, since in fact it is the THOUGHT FIELD surrounding material particles.

The THOUGHT field is still an essentially noumenal ontological field, but the LIFE FIELD, which is its bosonic equivalent, is essentially the phenomenal and phenomenological field of spiritual light, which was in the beginning. The latter is hence the Unified Field of Consciousness, which reduces the THOUGHT field. The LIFE FIELD is hence more fundamental than the THOUGHT FIELD. The LIFE FIELD is defined by the generalized Ginzburg-Landau Equation: Epsilon^2 {d'Alembertian} Psi_1 Psi_2 Psi_3 Psi_4 Psi_5 = Psi_6A Psi_6B Psi_6C Psi_6D - Psi_7 (Psi* Psi), where the Psi's are infinite numbers, defined as neither finite nor not finite. The nonlinear spinor field of Heisenberg and Duerr should be derivable from the generalized GLE in a manner similar to the derivation of the Dirac equation from the Klein-Gordon equation, by "taking the square root".

Peter Joseph Mutnick 1949 - 2000