Toward a Field-Based Model of awareness: Quantum Trilogy Theory of Consciousness

Ashkan Farhadi MD, MS, FACG, FACP

 Abstract

This paper proposes a novel, field-based model of consciousness by integrating the Trilogy Theory of Consciousness with principles from Quantum Field Theory into Quantum Trilogy Theory of Consciousness. Unlike traditional neuroscientific or dualistic views, the Quantum Trilogy model conceptualizes awareness as a universal, selfless field that underlies all subjective experience. In this framework, consciousness is not merely a byproduct of brain activity but arises through the dynamic interplay of awareness, intention, and reflective decision-making. By aligning concepts from quantum field theory—such as vacuum fields, symmetry breaking, gauge fixing, and field excitation—with the stages of awareness transformation, this paper reinterprets metaphors from quantum mechanics such as wavefunction collapse, superposition, and decoherence as analogs for mental states and volitional processes. Subjective experiences are modeled metaphorically as quantized excitations within the awareness field, referred to here as noëtons, the fundamental units of structured awareness, intention as symmetry breaking, and the emergence of the “I” as a result of framing experience through internal reference. The paper also explores the role of biological structures—such as DNA and microtubules—as potential quantum-coherent transceivers capable of interfacing with the universal awareness field, offering a novel explanation for long-range, non-chemical interactions between cells. While this integration does not claim to solve the Hard Problem of Consciousness, it reframes it in field-theoretic terms, suggesting that consciousness may be structurally isomorphic to physical reality. The work concludes by outlining theoretical implications, experimental directions, and the potential foundation for a new, field-based cognitive science grounded in both quantum theory and subjective experience.

Introduction

Consciousness remains one of the most intriguing frontiers in both philosophy and science. While neuroscience has made strides in mapping the correlates of conscious experience, it has yet to account for the existence of awareness experience itself.

In most prevailing scientific views, no firm distinction is drawn between awareness and consciousness. These perspectives generally treat consciousness as an evolutionary byproduct of complex biological computation, arising from electrochemical processes in the brain. Within this framework, consciousness is regarded as an epiphenomenon—useful for adaptation but lacking causal power of its own [1–3]. Some theories even consider it a perceptual illusion—a distorted yet adaptive interpretation of sensory and internal data designed to guide organismal behavior [4].

However, a contrasting group of scholars considers consciousness a separate quality, distinct from physical processes. Following Descartes' dualism, they posit the existence of two separate realms—material and immaterial—that cannot fully traverse each other, despite appearing to interact. This view has struggled to explain how non-physical awareness could causally influence physical matter or human behavior.

In an effort to bridge these two perspectives, a third approach has emerged. It considers consciousness the result of physical events but regards it as a fundamental phenomenon yet to be fully understood within the framework of existing physical laws. Panpsychism is one example of this view, suggesting that consciousness is an intrinsic feature of all matter and emerges in degrees through integration of information [5]. As Chalmers noted, “conscious experience... is a fundamental feature of the world, alongside mass, charge, and space-time” [5].

Other conciliatory theories seek to reframe consciousness through the lens of quantum physics, proposing a deeper physical or metaphysical substrate. In Bohm’s view, consciousness and matter unfold from an “implicate order” — a non-local, holistic field from which reality arises [6]. Max Tegmark, meanwhile, has suggested that consciousness may be a distinct “state of matter” called perceptronium, defined by the ability to store and process information in a unified, stable form [7]. A.N. Whitehead, one of the early philosophical influences on process-oriented models of consciousness, argued that “the universe consists of a plurality of actual occasions” — experiential events grounded in process rather than substance [8]. Echoing this, Stapp emphasized that quantum theory necessitates the participatory role of the observer, arguing that “consciousness is needed to complete quantum dynamics” [9,10].

Among the most detailed and ambitious efforts is the Orchestrated Objective Reduction (Orch OR) model proposed by Penrose and Hameroff, which locates consciousness in quantum computations within neural microtubules [11]. According to this view, moments of “objective reduction” of quantum states — where the wavefunction collapses due to gravitational thresholds — give rise to conscious experience. Penrose argued that this collapse is non-computable, and thus beyond the reach of classical algorithms [12].

Further extensions of this theory have been reviewed by Gao [13], who examined the explanatory power of quantum mind models and their potential to resolve the gap between subjective experience and physical causality. In tandem, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy provides a comprehensive overview of quantum approaches to consciousness, acknowledging both the promise and limits of these speculative models [14].

This paper presents a different approach in quantum-consciousness integration: one that is not based on literal quantum computations occurring in the brain, but on a structural correspondence between the awareness transformation process proposed by the Trilogy Theory of Consciousness (TTC) and principles of Quantum Field Theory (QFT). This gives rise to the Quantum Trilogy Theory of Consciousness (QTTC), a framework which uses QFT not as a physical mechanism, but as a formal language and conceptual architecture for modeling awareness, intention, and decision-making. In this model, **noëtons** are introduced as the quantized units of excitation in the awareness field—analogous to particles in physical fields but carrying structured phenomenological content rather than mass or charge.

The TTC outlines a multi-phase cognitive process in which unconscious information among environmental and internal data is selected, transformed into subjective awareness, and finally modulated through intentional attention and decision-making (Figure 1). In this model, the “I” emerges not as a fixed entity but as a dynamically constructed frame—formed by the interplay between two cognitive functions: Awareness-Based Choice Selection (ABCS) and Discretionary Selection of Intelligence for Awareness (DSIA) or intentional attention (Figure 2). It posits that humans are composed of three fundamental elements: the body, the unconscious mind, and the "I". Unlike traditional theories that equate consciousness directly with awareness, the Trilogy Theory differentiates these concepts, redefining consciousness as the dynamic interaction between awareness and decision-making processes (Farhadi, 2023).

This paper proposes a unified framework that integrates structural principles from QFT and metaphorical dynamics from quantum mechanics (QM) into TTC’s model of consciousness (Figure 2 and 3). Rather than treating consciousness as emergent from brain activity, QTTC positions awareness as a universal field. In parallel, QM introduces concepts such as wavefunction collapse, superposition, and the observer effect — all of which serve as powerful metaphors for modeling intention, choice, and transformation in the process of awareness-based choice selection through interaction of this field after transformation to form intention. Our aim is to map QFT’s field dynamics to TTC’s core components and use quantum mechanical metaphors to enrich our understanding of choice, transformation, and subjective experience.

Adaptation of TTC and QFT

1. Universal Awareness as Quantum Vacuum Field

In QFT, the vacuum state is not void or empty. It is a dynamic field of potentiality, latent with fluctuating energy and virtual particles. Even in the absence of observable particles, the quantum vacuum teems with virtual particles that momentarily emerge and disappear, influencing measurable phenomena. This ground state serves as the foundation from which all physical excitations arise.

Similarly, QTTC proposes a structurally analogous concept: a universal awareness field that is ever-present, and serves as the ground of all possible experiences, independent of individual minds. This field is timeless, neutral, and devoid of form, intention or memory, but provides the potential for all three. It does not “think” or “choose,” but exists as a substrate of potential—a metaphysical backdrop from which personal awareness arises. It frames consciousness not as something localized solely within the brain, but as an interaction between individual mind structures and an underlying, ever-present field of potential.

2. Intention as Symmetry Breaking

Symmetry breaking in QFT occurs when a system chooses one state among many symmetrical possibilities, giving rise to specific structures. This is a critical mechanism in the emergence of distinct phenomena from a uniform field—such as the Higgs field imparting mass to particles.

In QTTC model, symmetry breaking represents the birth of intention—a directional shift in the awareness field, in preparation for selecting a subject for transformation. This act of volition may seem spontaneous and non-causal but in fact is based on awareness itself (of the prior moment) as it is caused through Awareness-Based Choice Selection (ABCS) as it will be elaborated below.

This metaphor also helps distinguish intention from mere reaction. Symmetry breaking in physics occurs without external enforcement; it is spontaneous but rule-bound. Similarly, intention in QTTC arises from within the awareness field—guided by the Awareness-Based  Choice Selection for—yet not causally predetermined by environment alone. It represents the point at which free will enters the frame, shaping the path of consciousness without violating systemic coherence.

3. Framing of Subjective Experience as Gauge Fixing

In Quantum Field Theory, gauge fixing is a mathematical technique used to remove redundancy in field descriptions. Gauge symmetries represent different configurations that, although mathematically distinct, describe the same physical state. To derive concrete, observable predictions from the theory, one must choose a specific gauge—effectively “fixing” a point of reference within the broader symmetry space.

In QFT, gauge fixing is required to remove redundancy in field descriptions and allows for meaningful, observable outcomes. Gauge symmetries represent different configurations that, although mathematically distinct, describe the same physical state. To derive concrete, observable predictions from the theory, one must choose a specific gauge—effectively “fixing” a point of reference within the broader symmetry space.

In QTTC, this act of framing serves two purposes. One is to provide a basis of the first-person perspective and allows the intertwine action of volition and awareness by recognizing itself as an "I." The gauge-fixed frame is what makes experience coherent, structured, and self-referential.  The “I” in QTTC is not a metaphysical constant or a singular, pre-existing entity. It emerges through the dynamic coupling of awareness and intention, structured through the framing operation. Gauge fixing, in this sense, is not a mechanism of brain computation but a model for how awareness establishes reference, selects context, and resolves ambiguity. The self is not just a user of information but a configuration within a broader informational field. By using gauge fixing as an analogy, we emphasize that subjectivity and personal identity are not primary absolutes, but contextual constructs that emerge through the selection and stabilization of awareness content in relation to intention.

It also removes redundancy in field descriptions by Discretionary Selection of Intelligence for Awareness (DSIA) in the selection stage, where potential many mental inputs generated in the preselection stage are filtered through intentional attention and the selected intelligence is ready to be transformed into meaningful experience.

4. Subjective Experience as Quantized Excitation

In Quantum Field Theory, particles are not independent entities but quantized excitations of underlying fields. Each type of particle arises from a specific field (e.g., electrons from the electron field, photons from the electromagnetic field) and represents a localized, structured fluctuation within that field. These excitations carry energy, spin, and other measurable properties, and their behavior reflects the mathematical characteristics of the field they emerge from.

In the QTTC, we propose a structurally analogous concept: objective mental processes such as thinking, emotions, sensations are transformed to subjective experiences including thought, feeling and perception which are quantized excitations in the field of awareness. In this framework, we propose the term noëton (from the Greek noēsis, meaning “direct apprehension” or “pure awareness”) to refer to the quantized excitation of the awareness field. A noëton represents a structured unit of awareness prior to cognitive interpretation or reflective selfhood—analogous, in form, to the role of quanta in physical fields, but unique in its phenomenological function. These are not material particles, but phenomenological ripples that arise when awareness is modulated through intention, selection, and transformation. Each experience carries intensity, valence, and quality, just as each particle carries energy, charge, and spin and could be considered as virtual particles  .

5. Preservation of Awareness Experience as Field Configuration History

In Quantum Field Theory, fields do not simply exist in the present moment; they carry with them a configuration history—a record of prior excitations and boundary conditions that influences their current and future behavior. This history is embedded in the field’s structure and plays a role in how the field evolves over time, particularly in interactions with other fields and excitations.

QTTC posits that individual awareness arises through excitation in the field and can shape future states through informational and emotional history—akin to the memory of the filed. Just as quantum fields retain an imprint of past events that shape future states, the awareness field, once structured, retains a kind of experiential memory—not as stored data, but as an ongoing modulation of its configuration.

This field configuration history does not imply physical storage like that of neural memory systems, nor does it require a classical substrate such as the brain. Instead, it models how awareness evolves through patterns of experience, which modify the way new experiences are structured and interpreted. In this view, memory is not just a lookup of stored content, but a field-influenced framing of new inputs based on prior transformations. In this way, QTTC  does not treat awareness as a series of isolated events, but as a field with historical inertia—a carrier of prior excitations that guide the unfolding of future experience and provides a basis for understanding not only filed memory, but also higher-level phenomena like empathy, imagination, and moral reflection, which draw upon complex histories of awareness transformation.

6. Quantum Field as Selfless Medium

In QFT, the field itself does not possess identity or agency—it is a mathematical structure that gives rise to particles and interactions through excitation. The field exists prior to and independent of its excitations. It is timeless, formless, non-individuated, and without fixed boundaries until disturbed or structured.

In the QTTC, a parallel principle applies to the awareness field, which exist without personhood. It is selfless, not in the moral sense, but in the ontological sense. However, through interaction with this selfless filed, the sense of self emerges through stages that lead to transformation and awareness combines with intention through intertwin action of mental function ABCS and DSIA to form the "I," which serves as the localized center of consciousness.

By framing awareness as a field that is non-dual, selfless, and omnipresent, QTTC departs from theories that treat consciousness as either an emergent computational process or a metaphysical soul. Instead, it positions the self as a dynamic frame of reference—arising when structured awareness turns back upon itself in the act of self-recognition.

7. Quantum Mechanics as Metaphorical Framework for paradigm of decision-making

To complement the structural adaptation of QFT, in QTTC the adaptation of quantum mechanics concepts provides congruent metaphors for the decision-making and awareness-based processes. In this regard, quantum mechanics introduces several core ideas—superposition, wavefunction collapse, observer effect, and decoherence—that illustrate how uncertainty resolves into certainty, and how potential becomes actualized. In QTTC model, symmetry breaking represents the birth of intention as a directional shift in the awareness field, while wavefunction collapse represents the realization of that intention into a decision, collapsing superposed states into a conscious decision. In this view:

Superposition depicts multiple choices coexisting in mind before selection (preselection stage of decision-making) and wavefunction collapse is the act of decision-making, guided by Awareness-Based Choice Selection (ABCS), collapses the field of potential into a single outcome (selection stage of decision-making).

QTTC still sides with the Orchestrated Objective Reduction (Orch-OR) (Penrose R, 1994) that the collapse of wavefunction is non-computational and as part of fundamental basis for conscious experience but the proposed quantum superpositions collapse in mind is in the concert of consciousness and relates this collapse to gravitational effects. This stands in a sharp contrast with QTTC where the collapse of wavefunction part of decision-making paradigm and results as a consequence of excitation in the awareness field is. The way QTTC describe the QM principles reinstitute the observer effect which refers to the way measurement changes the system being measured. In this model awareness itself becomes a meta-observer, not merely witnessing but shaping what comes into focus through intention and framing that leads the collapse of the wavefunction due to ABCS. In this scheme, awareness does not passively reflect but actively configures and shape the experience.

In addition, the spontaneous decoherence explained in Orch-OR that explains how superposition collapses due to environmental interaction and gravitational force is considered to parallel the Selection of Choices Based on Algorithm (SCBA) in QTTC. This spontaneous collapse of superposition in mind occurs without deliberate awareness due to autopilot setup or pattern-driven processes in mind.  This decohered state  reduces the potential and complexity of choices into deterministic behavior via internal/external conditioning.

The famous thought experiment of Schrödinger’s Cat illustrates how a system may exist in contradictory states until observation resolves the outcome. In QTTC, this maps onto moments of indecisiveness, where contradictory thoughts or desires coexist within mind until resolved by reflective action (via ABCS).

In QTTC, there is no specific correspondence with quantum entanglement, that  describes a strict, physical correlation between particles. This analogy is not a claim of literal entanglement between minds, but a symbolic model for intersubjective resonance, or empathic awareness—where two or more individuals share patterns of experience or intention across space or time.

8. QTTC as a Bridge Between Physics and Cognitive Science

The adaptation of TTC and QFT i.e. QTTC can be seen as an adaptation of a cognitive-phenomenological process, cognitive science, and physics to be viewed in the light of quantum field systems (Table 1). In this merger, the architectural dynamics of awareness, decision-making, and identity formation bear deep structural similarities to the way fields behave and interact in theoretical physics.  This field-based architecture helps to reframe consciousness not as an emergent computational property of neural matter, nor as an immaterial soul outside of physical reality, but as a structurally embedded process—a patterned interaction within a deeper substrate of potential.

Importantly, the QTTC framework is not a mechanistic reduction of consciousness, nor a metaphysical elevation of it above nature. Its middle path places the awareness and physicality as two aspects of one structured reality, which can be described through overlapping mathematical and cognitive models.

In this light, QTTC does not merely adopt language from physics; it attempts to reorient the study of consciousness around the idea that field-based interactions—whether informational, intentional, or affective—are the fundamental units of conscious reality. This shift enables new forms of interdisciplinary research, where insights from physics and phenomenology can inform one another without collapse into reductionism or mysticism.

9. QTTC and the Hard Problem of Consciousness

Despite offering a structured and interdisciplinary framework, the QTTC  does not purport to resolve the Hard Problem of Consciousness, namely: How does subjective experience arise from physical systems?

Instead, this model aims to reframe the question itself. By conceptualizing awareness as a universal, selfless field and consciousness as a structured interaction with that field, QTTC offers a relational model rather than a reductive explanation. It suggests that conscious experience is not an emergent byproduct of complexity, but a coherent transformation of awareness into structure, meaning, and volition.

In other words, QTTC moves beyond substance dualism by positing structural isomorphism between awareness and physical processes. and replaces computational emergence with field transformation while offering decision-making and intention as core ontological processes within a broader, awareness-based architecture  that is not reducible to simple neural firings.

However, even with this reframing, a crucial question remains: How does biological systems interface with the filed of awareness? Specifically, what mechanisms—or substrates—might allow living cells to transmit, modulate, or receive information from a  universal awareness field?

One speculative proposal, in line with the Orch OR model by Hameroff and Penrose, suggests that microtubules—vibrational cytoskeletal structures within neurons—may act as quantum-resonant transceivers, sensitive to field-level information [11]. Yet microtubules are not the only structures with this potential. DNA molecules, due to their helical geometry, charged backbone, and oscillatory behavior, have also been proposed as biological vibrational transceivers can make them as a candidate that under the right conditions, generates non-local signaling for communication with other cells, or with a universal awareness field. This observation is consistent with theories proposed by Rempel MM [12]., who identified DNA vibrations as potential mediators of long-range biofield interactions.

Nonetheless, whether the vibration in microtubules or DNA or other potential cell antennas result in quantum coherent states where vibration of particles behaving like a unified wave that interacts with other systems or fields  and result in excitation within the awareness filed and generate the Awareness quanta —Noetone, it still falls short in answering how qualia arise. However, by recasting the hard problem in terms of field modulation rather than computational emergence, this model opens new terrain for investigating the interface between mind and field of awareness. It suggests that awareness may not be the end product of physical processes, but rather an actualization of awareness through structured, field-like interaction within and around living systems.

Discussion:

The relationship between quantum theory and consciousness has long inspired speculation, but few models have translated quantum concepts into structured frameworks for decision-making. The integration of the Trilogy Theory of Consciousness with structural principles from quantum field theory presents a new approach— QTTC that does not rely on literal quantum processes in the brain, but instead offers a formalized cognitive architecture inspired by the structural logic of fields and quantum transitions.

Several foundational models have proposed that consciousness may originate in or influence quantum processes. However, QTTC differs in significant ways from existing quantum-consciousness proposals. For example, Orch OR proposed by Penrose and Hameroff [11,12], focuses on quantum state collapse as the origin of consciousness, locating this process within neuronal microtubules. While this view introduces a physical substrate for quantum processes in the brain, its focus is primarily on the generation of awareness, not the structured dynamics of decision-making or identity formation. In addition, Henry Stapp's interpretation emphasizes the causal role of conscious attention in collapsing quantum wavefunctions [9,10] . Stapp’s theory moves closer to decision modeling by granting intentionality a physical role in quantum outcomes, yet it still lacks a clear multi-phase cognitive structure to explain how choices are preselected, shaped, and integrated over time.

The QTTC, by contrast, introduces a layered field-based framework for awareness and its transformations. It does not propose quantum processes within neurons, nor does it rely on speculative physical substrates as a starting point. Instead, it aligns awareness with a universal field and principles from QFT to offer a structured ontology for understanding how experience arises, transforms, and integrates within a coherent field. It supports a view of consciousness that is neither computational nor purely material, but instead a dynamic interface between awareness and structured form.

Crucially, QTTC also emphasizes decision-making as central to consciousness—not merely as an output of cognition, but as the formative act through which awareness expresses volition, agency, and selfhood. This differentiates it from theories that locate consciousness in perception, integration, or entropy minimization. Moreover, the metaphorical alignment with quantum mechanics, particularly the parallels drawn with wavefunction collapse, superposition, decoherence is presented not as literal physics but as a modeling language. These metaphors are functionally analogous, helping to describe how awareness operates with possibility, probability, uncertainty, and structured resolution while following the core principles of quantum mechanics:

• Superposition metaphorically represents the preselection stage, where multiple possible thoughts, intentions, or actions exist in the field of awareness.

• Wavefunction collapse aligns with the selection stage, where intention emerges and a choice is made, transforming potential into action.

• Decoherence, in the form of SCBA (Selection of Choices Based on Algorithm), accounts for algorithmically driven, environmentally or habitually modulated decisions—automated processes that bypass full reflective awareness.

• The observer effect is reinterpreted not as external measurement but as meta-observation—the awareness, which plays an active role in shaping experience.

Together, these mappings contribute to a broader ontological proposal that consciousness is best modeled not as an emergent property, but as a patterned transformation within a field of awareness and while parallels the structure of physical fields but remains irreducible to material interactions. in this sense, QTTC departs from earlier approaches by proposing that quantum principles not only explain the origin of consciousness but also its function in cognitive processes. The model suggests that awareness is not a passive witness to quantum events, but an active participant in shaping outcomes, akin to a meta-observer that induces structured excitation in the field.

This perspective reframes the wavefunction collapse not as a mysterious external phenomenon, but as a metaphorical analog to choice selection property—rooted in awareness, resolved through intention, and expressed after transformation. It provides a novel ontological middle ground: not dualistic, not reductionist, but structurally isomorphic between physical and awareness fields.

Implications, Limitations, and Future Directions

Implications

The integration of the Trilogy Theory of Consciousness with the structural architecture of Quantum Field Theory opens a novel avenue for modeling conscious processes through QTTC. By reframing awareness as a dynamic, field-like phenomenon—capable of excitation, modulation, and self-organization—this model bridges gaps between cognitive science, theoretical physics, and philosophical phenomenology. This approach offers several key contributions:

• It reframes consciousness not as an emergent neural computation, but as a structured interaction within a deeper awareness field.

• It introduces a formal language to describe awareness, intention, and selfhood using analogues from field theory—such as symmetry breaking, excitation and formation of Noeton, and gauge fixing.

• It proposes that decision-making is the core mechanism of consciousness, rather than perception or memory alone.

• It offers a non-dualistic alternative to both material reductionism and metaphysical dualism, pointing toward an ontologically unified field of structured being.

Limitations

Despite its conceptual framework, the current model is metaphorical and theoretical, not mechanistic nor computational. It does not offer testable predictions in the traditional sense of experimental physics or neuroscience. Specific limitations include:

• Metaphorical scope: The analogies to QFT and QM are structural, not causal. The model does not claim that consciousness arises from quantum fields in the same way particles do.

• Scale and Thermodynamic mismatch: Consciousness is a macroscopic phenomenon. Quantum phenomena such as superposition, entanglement, and coherence are typically observed in systems that are microscopic, isolated, and cooled to near absolute zero to avoid decoherence. In contrast, the brain—and by extension, the body and nervous system—operates at macroscopic scales, in warm, noisy, and highly interactive environments. These conditions are known to rapidly destroy quantum coherence, making the persistence of genuine quantum states over cognitive timescales extremely controversial under current physical models.  Even the proposed speculative mechanisms (e.g., microtubular coherence) lack definitive experimental validation. As such, QTTC must be understood not as claiming that awareness physically depends on quantum coherence, but rather that its cognitive architecture and phenomenological structure can be formally modeled using quantum field and quantum mechanical analogies. These metaphors capture the complexity, contextuality, and structured transitions of awareness at an abstract level that may not translate in mathematical modeling  with current knowledge and understanding of quantum physics.

• Empirical basis: While speculative mechanisms like microtubule or DNA resonance are suggested, there is no conclusive experimental evidence linking these to field-based awareness interaction.

• Mathematical incompleteness: A full mathematical formulation of the awareness field, its excitations, or transformations remains speculative at this time. Without this, the theory remains qualitative.

Future Directions

Despite these limitations, the QTTC model offers a fertile framework for multiple lines of development:

🔹 1. Mathematical Modeling of Awareness Fields

Future work could aim to formalize the awareness field using tools from field theory, differential geometry, and information dynamics. This includes:

• Representing awareness as a dynamic scalar field for simple presence and as a tensor field for multidimensional conscious states (e.g., time, clarity, intention, complexity of content). In this model, awareness begins as a vacuum field — a timeless, selfless presence — but upon excitation gains structure through the interplay of intention, reflection, and memory. This structured awareness is best modeled as a tensor field, where each point encodes multi-dimensional experiential parameters such as time, clarity, complexity, and volitional direction. This allows TTC to represent not only the presence of awareness but its dynamic evolution and phenomenological richness

• Explore how awareness excitations might be mapped to quanta-like structures—Noeton—in field equations.

• Use non-linear dynamics or information geometry to model choice selection and self-reference.

🔹 2. Biological Interface Hypotheses

• Further explore microtubules, DNA, or other cellular structures as possible field-resonant antennas for awareness interaction.

• Investigate models of non-chemical cellular communication, such as those published in colon cancer cell studies, as potential evidence of field-level signaling.

• Collaborate with bioelectromagnetic and biophoton researchers to examine coherent oscillations in living systems.

🔹 3. Cognitive Science Integration

• Compare the QTTC model to predictive coding, global workspace theory, and integrated information theory.

• Use the decision-making architecture (ABCS and DSIA) to explore volition and attention in artificial and natural systems.

• Propose phenomenological studies that track how intention, awareness, and transformation unfold in structured cognitive tasks.

🔹 4. Toward a Unified Science of Mind and Field

If QTTC is to serve as more than metaphor, future work must strive to integrate:

• Phenomenology (lived experience) with quantum field dynamics.

• Cognitive neuroscience with non-reductive quantum frameworks.

• Philosophy of mind with cosmological models of consciousness (panpsychism, dual-aspect monism, neutral monism).

This may require a new paradigm—a Field-Based Cognitive Science—in which awareness is treated not as an emergent artifact, but as a structural property of the universe, expressible through field mathematics and experimentally accessible through its patterns of transformation.

🔹 5. Ethical and Existential Implications

Finally, if awareness is fundamental and entangled with reality itself, then each act of attention or intention participates in shaping the universe. This reframes the role of consciousness not just as a phenomenon to explain, but as a creative force with responsibility, meaning, and metaphysical weight.

Conclusion

The integration of Trilogy Theory of Consciousness with the conceptual architecture of Quantum Field Theory offers a novel framework —QTTC, for understanding awareness not as a byproduct of matter, but as a dynamic, intentional field of potential and transformation. While the quantum analogies employed in this model remain metaphorical, they provide a rigorous structural language to describe cognitive phenomena such as intention, identity, decision-making, and self-awareness.

By aligning subjective experience with field-based excitations, and volition with mechanisms like symmetry breaking and gauge fixing, the QTTC model reframes consciousness as a structured modulation of a universal awareness field. It offers a middle path—neither reducible to neural computation nor dependent on immaterial metaphysics—that supports the possibility of interdisciplinary modeling across physics, cognitive science, and phenomenology.

Though speculative, this framework opens the door to new questions, novel testable hypotheses, and cross-disciplinary dialogue. In doing so, it aims to contribute not only to the philosophy of mind, but also to the emerging science of consciousness—by presenting a unified model that honors the complexity of both inner experience and physical reality.

References

1. Zee, A. (2010). Quantum Field Theory in a Nutshell (2nd ed.). Princeton University Press.

2. Weinberg, S. (1995). The Quantum Theory of Fields (Vol. 1). Cambridge University Press.

3. Heisenberg, W. (1958). Physics and Philosophy: The Revolution in Modern Science. Harper & Row.

4. Dennett, D. C. (1991). Consciousness Explained. Little, Brown.

5. Chalmers, D. J. (1996). The Conscious Mind: In Search of a Fundamental Theory. Oxford University Press.

6. Bohm, D. (1980). Wholeness and the Implicate Order. Routledge.

7. Tegmark, M. (2014). Consciousness as a state of matter. arXiv preprint, arXiv:1401.1219. https://arxiv.org/abs/1401.1219

8. Whitehead, A. N. (1929). Process and Reality: An Essay in Cosmology. Free Press.

9. Stapp, H. P. (2007). Mindful Universe: Quantum Mechanics and the Participating Observer. Springer.

10. Stapp, H. P. (2001). Quantum theory and the role of mind in nature. arXiv preprint, arXiv:quant-ph/0103043. https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0103043

11. Hameroff, S., & Penrose, R. (2014). Consciousness in the universe: A review of the 'Orch OR' theory. Physics of Life Reviews, 11(1), 39–78.

12. Penrose, R. (1994). Shadows of the Mind: A Search for the Missing Science of Consciousness. Oxford University Press.

13. Gao, S. (2017). Consciousness and Quantum Mechanics: A New Framework. Oxford University Press.

14. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. (2021). Quantum Approaches to Consciousness. Retrieved from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-consciousness/

15. Farhadi, A. (2023). Trilogy: A New Paradigm of Consciousness. Neuropsychiatry (London), 13(4), 1–16.

16. Farhadi, A. (2023). The Evolution of Consciousness Theories. Qeios. https://doi.org/10.32388/PN41X4

17. Myakishev-Rempel, M. (2023). DNA resonance and distant non-chemical communication. DNA Resonance Foundation. Retrieved from https://www.dnaresonance.org