Samarawickrama’s Fundamental, Frequency-Bearing Field

Computer/AI scientist Mahendra Samarawickrama posits that consciousness is a fundamental dimension of reality that brings experience prior to cognition or analysis, constructing knowledge, logic, or language. Within this framework, consciousness and its concomitants (e.g., feeling, perception, volition, attention, etc.) are attributed to the individual mind as a primary phenomenon. Consequently, knowledge emerges as a secondary construct of consciousness. Consciousness is directly experiential and independent of the brain’s cognitive, analytical, logical, or linguistic processes. This foundational layer of awareness underlies all knowledge constructs and can be experienced through meditation. During meditation, suspending external sensory input and internal brain cognition allows for direct confirmation of conscious experience.

Consciousness as a Frequency-Based Field

Samarawickrama claims that this framework unifies Einstein’s mass-energy equivalence (E=MC²) and Planck’s energy-frequency relation (E=hf) by attributing a frequency-based field to consciousness (Samarawickrama, 2023). Consciousness is modeled as a sequential process governed by a fundamental frequency, where the corresponding period defines the minimum experiential unit of non-homogeneity and change, underpinning the notion of space and time, respectively. By modeling consciousness as a frequency-bearing field, the framework allows an interplay between photon energy and the kinetic and potential energies of mass. This enables an integrated model where consciousness interplays with energy and matter, thereby aligning experiential phenomena with established fundamental physical laws.

Importantly, this approach preserves the core principles of fundamental physics while extending its applicability to the domain of subjective experience.

Hidden Variables and the Primion

This research models the experience of sequential consciousness as a chaotic process characterized by causality, determinism, and unpredictability—instead of a randomness that underpins quantum mechanics. In contrast to interpretations in mainstream quantum physics, where randomness is treated as intrinsic, this framework introduces hidden variables that remain inaccessible to the material domain yet are experientially accessible within the non-material domain of consciousness. Samarawickrama introduces a “consciousness particle” into the standard model, which he calls a “primion” (Samarawickrama, 2024a), which underpins hidden variables. Since these non-material hidden variables cannot be revealed through conventional physical means, they can be considered unknown, which thereby keeps this framework consistent with the established principles of quantum mechanics.

However, this model extends physical theory into the experiential domain by positing consciousness as a non-local phenomenon grounded in a hidden but coherent causal structure. This approach provides a new perspective for reconciling the apparent randomness of quantum mechanics with the continuity of conscious experience, supporting the integration of non-locality within a broader ontological framework.

This framework of consciousness creates integrity between local and non-local realities. The model suggests that the foundational physical theories of relativity and quantum mechanics inherently preserve the integrity of conscious experience (Samarawickrama, 2024b). By proposing that consciousness interplays with matter and energy (Samarawickrama, 2023), he argues that the fundamental behavior of physical systems, such as the principle of least action, maintains integrity with conscious experience that underpins both local and non-local realities. Therefore, consciousness works as the causation of all experiences and knowledge.

According to the theory, consciousness underpinning fundamental experience is inherently complete and decidable, devoid of logical, linguistic, or syntactic structures. Attempts to formalize or describe consciousness through language inevitably introduce incompleteness and undecidability, as articulated by Gödel's incompleteness theorems. The semantic richness of conscious experience resists full encapsulation by syntactic systems, thereby exposing a fundamental limitation within all formal knowledge frameworks, including those of mathematics and science. To model this dynamic, consciousness is conceptualized as a sequential, chaotic finite-state machine (FSM) that operates in two distinct modes (Samarawickrama, 2024c, 2024d).

The self-referential mode gives rise to secondary constructs such as language, logic, and all forms of knowledge and is inherently incomplete and undecidable, aligning with Gödelian constraints. In contrast, the non-referential mode offers direct awareness of causation in reality, rendering it complete and decidable. This latter mode transcends the limitations imposed by Gödel’s theorems, enabling access to a deeper stratum of awareness beyond formal epistemic systems.

Implications for Free Will, Science, and AI

The non-referential mode of consciousness has significant implications for the philosophy of science. Firstly, it supports momentary autonomous free will based on the awareness of causation in the state transition of reality from moment to moment, even if chaotic non-referential dynamics do not allow analytical free will to directly influence the future. Nevertheless, the persistence of moment-to-moment free will might endure over time. Secondly, recognizing that consciousness awareness is complete and decidable at the fundamental experience opens pathways for exploring psychological abilities that mainstream science often categorizes as supernormal or anomalous.

This framework claims to present a unique philosophical model that diverges from traditional doctrines such as physicalism, idealism, and Kantian philosophy (Samarawickrama, 2024e). It proposes that reality is neither fully confined by material or immaterial constraints nor exists as an inaccessible noumenon. Instead, it is underpinned by consciousness manifesting both material and immaterial perception—completely experiential through the mind yet remaining inexpressible through language, conceptual knowledge, and analytical means.

Samarawickrama asserts that this framework facilitates the convergence of quantum mechanics, relativity, neuroscience, and artificial intelligence (AI) by positioning consciousness as a central intersecting concept (Samarawickrama, 2024f). Thus, he claims to unify physics and experience, going beyond Gödel, space-time, and quantum indeterminacy.

While rejecting the idea that AI can ever become conscious solely through computational or material processes, this framework supports the development of embodied consciousness in future AI systems through a human-in-the-loop approach, such as human-machine interfaces. This perspective is especially significant for AI ethics and governance, where Samarawickrama’s framework asserts that consciousness—underpinning accountability—transcends the bounds of logic, language, and computation, to which AI remains fundamentally confined. 

Moving beyond purely computational data-driven methods, the framework advocates for interfacing AI with living organisms (e.g., the brain or organoids) that exhibit key attributes of consciousness—such as feeling, volition, perception, and attention—thereby enabling the design of consciousness-aware AI systems that integrate elements of immaterial consciousness.