Dualism Additional Theories

Kamen's Human Soul as a Quantum Field

Theoretical engineer Edward Kamen proposes that “the human soul is a type of quantum field,” which interacts with only certain fields in the physical universe and not directly with matter. The claim is made that “fields that interact with the soul field include electromagnetic waves,” citing as evidence “near-death experiences where events that could not have been seen through the eyes of the individual are verified" (Kamen & Kamen, 2023). In other words, "the human soul is a manifestation of a soul field consisting of a collection of quantum-like fields. The soul field interacts with the electromagnetic field, manifested by photons interacting with the quanta of the soul field" (Kamen and Kamen, 2025).

Extending the theory, Kamen speculates that because “electric fields and electromagnetic fields have the same quanta consisting of photons, electric fields may also interact with the soul field.” This could result in the transfer of information, he says, from working memory to the soul through electric fields produced by neural ensembles in the human brain. Further, the soul field may also affect neurons on the molecular level, perhaps via electric fields and cytoelectric coupling (Kamen & Kamen, 2023). "The human soul is coupled to the body through its interactions with bioelectric fields in the body. Manifestations of the quantum-like fields comprising the soul field may carry out different functions such as encoding memories and experiences, representing emotion states, and defining personal identity. Interactions of these fields and their quanta could produce emergent properties such as self-awareness and consciousness" (Kamen and Kamen, 2025).

Saktyartoro’s Semantic Causality Framework

Independent researcher Jatmiko Saktyartoro’s Semantic Causality Framework (SCF) proposes that consciousness cannot be wholly physical, because at least one of its operations, choosing on the basis of understood meaning, appears to escape deterministic physical causation.

The framework’s starting image is a traffic light turning green: dozens of cars begin to move, while a bird perched on the pole stays still. The difference, Saktyartoro argues, is meaning. The drivers understood the signal; the bird did not. Meaning itself, independent of physical force, can therefore act as a cause, a process he calls Semantic Causality (SCa) (Saktyartoro, 2025).

The argument rests on two proposed experiments, the Semantic Causality Experiment (SCE) and the Non-Random Non-Deterministic Semantic Causality Experiment (NRNDSCE). Saktyartoro describes both as falsifiable and feasible with modest means. Neither has been performed; for now, both function as thought experiments. If they were carried out as designed and yielded the predicted results, he claims, they would show that understanding alone can influence behavior and break deterministic chains of cause and effect.

Within this semantic mode, causes can arise that are neither random nor determined by prior physical states: Non-Random Non-Deterministic Semantic Causes (NRNDSCs). Such causes are intentional yet not fixed by antecedent physical conditions. Saktyartoro therefore infers that they operate outside physical causality, and he treats them as functionally equivalent to genuine free will.

The step from free will to consciousness is explicit. Consciousness need not always involve free will, since an entity could be aware without willing anything, and there may be more than one kind of free will. But at least one form operates within consciousness and requires awareness of options before choice. If that form of free will lies outside physical causality yet inside consciousness, then consciousness itself cannot be entirely physical.

One consequence concerns artificial intelligence. Any system confined to deterministic or stochastic physical processes, including all forms of AI, could not generate non-random, non-deterministic semantic causes. It therefore could not possess genuine free will or the form of consciousness that enables it.

In sum, the SCF holds that materialism and physical determinism cannot account for the full scope of causation. Reality may comprise not only physical dimensions but also a semantic domain, and perhaps others. Saktyartoro suggests these domains work together in shaping the structure of existence.

Reference

Saktyartoro, J. (2025). The Tale of the Traffic Light: A Reflection Toward the Possible Existence of Objective Free Will. Preprint. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17568280

Staub's Consciousness and Biological Evolution

Independent researcher John Staub claims consciousness resulted after a half-billion-year process of vertebrate evolution. Fish brains run on full automatic. Birds use maternal love, pre-wired in the brain, to help their vulnerable eggs survive. Although mammals can be self-aware and might feel something like guilt, they lack any sense of morality. Only humans have gained both consciousness and that essential ingredient called free will (Staub, 2025).

Is self-awareness merely an illusion that helps mammals survive? Staub says yes. But is consciousness also an illusion? Here, he says no. “Consciousness is more than a survival mechanism.” To him, the key to understanding consciousness is free will. He suggests an unknown force or energy, working at the quantum level within brain neurons, directs electron movement. But if this energy is undirected, you’re back to square one, no free will. “What directs this force or energy?” For lack of a better word, he calls it “God” and calls this dualistic alliance of God and brain “consciousness.”

A reasonable question: If God is running the show, why aren’t all decisions perfect? Staub’s answer: “God’s abilities are limited. Only a tiny fraction of God’s imperfect essence resides within everyone’s brain, with each person’s consciousness, unique.”

Staub argues a person can believe both free will and God exist, or neither. “The laws of physics won’t let you pick and choose.” Prove free will is impossible, and life will become meaningless, with society quickly devolving into nihilism.

Motivation becomes crucial. “Why would a God give humans consciousness? And why did it take 14 billion years to create a human?” To Staub, the answer seems obvious. “God is not omnipotent, is not physical, and is extremely limited in our physical universe.” He wrote these words fifty years ago: “We are the eyes, the ears, and hands of God, and in return, we are given the sense of beauty, of music, and of love.”