Threaded Mind Theory: The Ecological Architecture of Awareness

Faith & Science Conversation
1

I promised Mr. T. to provide my Threaded Mind paper. At bottom is a link to the draft.

In this paper I connect Fabric ontology to the consciousness conversation while closely integrating the previous paper on Fabric ecology. Threaded Mind proposes that mind, body, physics, and ecology are all connected by the same fabric dynamics that organize stars, forests, and social networks. The mind is a landscape. And for what it’s worth, my landscape is connected to yours! Mental health, creativity, and even attention may follow the same principles that govern seedbanks, succession, and gravitational gradients.

Under Threaded Mind, all mental phenomena, perception, dreaming, imagination, creativity, and emotion, arise from transformations within a single substrate of latent memory. Active thought M_active represents local awakening or locus of M_latent, temporarily drawn into manifestation through agency, coherence, and gradient dynamics. This framework reframes attention, pathology, and creativity as ecological processes: mental landscapes are like forests and grasslands, susceptible to trauma, disruption, and restoration.

The theory’s novelty is not in psychology alone, much of this is already studied and known, but it connects to ecology, biology, and physics. Just as seedbanks, microbial networks, and biomass regulate ecological succession, latent memory gradients govern mental dynamics. Disturbances, whether ecological fires or traumatic events, initiate redistribution cycles that restore coherence and enable adaptive growth. Mental gravity, top-down activation, and collective memory can be formalized as predictable, testable consequences of this unified fabric.

Open questions emerge: Can intense knots in mental memory influence bodily states? Can collective M_latent propagate cultural or social coherence? Do other systems have consciousness?

This deep dive does only brushes along the hem of theology. The next installment after this will be Theological Implications of the Fabric Ontology, which is in the still in the shop.

For those who haven’t been following these Fabric threads, here are the core general equations that attempt to reconcile all domains. To unpack them, ask your local LLM.

Fabric foundation:
Reality is light threading itself into coherent geometry through agency.
All phenomena are expressions of the same threading dynamics guided by choice.
τ = t
c = ΔΦ/Δτ (local light threading rate)
c_path = ΔΦ/Δτ * f(∇M) (path-dependent threading)
P = |ψ|² / Σ|ψ|² (quantum decision probability)
P → f(P,A) (probability influenced by agency)
dΨ/dτ = f(P, A, c) (consciousness rate of change)
Ψ = R(Ψ) (consciousness as recursive threading)
R(Ψ) = Ψ + g(P, A, c, τ) (recursive consciousness function)
M = M_active + M_latent (total memory)
E = Mc² (energy as memory density)
g = k∇M (gravity flows toward memory density)
δ(M_latent → M_active) (memory state transformation)
M_latent + A → M_active (agency converts latent to active memory)
∂C/∂τ = f(B,R,M_active,M_latent,A) (coherence evolution)
B = ∇C (beauty as coherence gradient)
R = Σ cos(Δφ) (resonance)
S = -∂C/∂τ (entropy)
Variables:
Φ=config, τ=threading depth, ΔΦ=change, Δτ=step, c=coherence rate, M=memory/mass, M_active/latent=constraint states, E=energy, I=info, S=entropy, Ω=state count, ψ=amp, P=prob, R=resonance, Δφ=phase diff, B=beauty, C=coherence, g=gravity, k=const, Ψ=consciousness order parameter, A=agency (unmeasurable)

2

There’s no data in the paper. I can’t see any way of connecting anything you say to biology I know. In the end, it’s just a bunch of impenetrable rhetoric.

2 Likes
3

Mr. T! Glad you made it. You’re absolutely right that this paper does not present new empirical data. Its purpose is theoretical, to connect existing findings in neuroscience, ecology, and physics within with the Fabric framework that might generate new testable hypotheses and falsification methods.

As you know, science often advances through such integrative conjecture. Darwin’s On the Origin of Species synthesized natural history observations into a theoretical framework long before population genetics provided quantitative validation. Einstein’s GR was initially a mathematical reformulation that preceded direct empirical confirmation.

Just like speculating on all your gold chains. Are they real? I can hypothesize that they are real based on your social stature, but that would only be a conjecture, Mr. T. I’d need to apply a few tests, which would be too dangerous for me to perform (inaccessible data).

In the same spirit, this paper aims to rigorously apply known data, such as research on distributed memory, embodied cognition, and ecological succession, and move toward a coherent model that might guide future empirical work.

The challenge of connecting abstract models like Fabric to biology is precisely why I’m submitting it for discussion here. Critical engagement from folks like you help me identify where the framework is overextended, and where it may hold some value.

4

Is there old empirical data in the paper I am missing?

I can’t see anything in your paper that would allow me to integrate anything I know of science. For example.

We propose a third view: consciousness is fabric turned inward—the same threading dynamics that organize galaxies, ecosystems, and social networks, now folded deep enough to reflect upon itself. This is not metaphor but ontology: the patterns threading light through neurons [3] are continuous with those threading through forests, economies, and cosmic structures [4, 5]. Where physical fabric threads through space, mental fabric threads through itself, creating the recursive loop we experience as awareness.

What do the patterns of photon emission, excitation, or absorbance have to do with neuron function or anything else you mention? My understanding of neuron function is based on changing ion concentrations across the membrane, interactions of neurotransmitters with membrane proteins, and so forth. Cosmic structure? Gravity plays a huge role in cosmic structure, so is neuron function based on gravity? The reference you give for “patterns threading light through neurons” is yourself. How does one even measure threading? For that matter, what even is threading? I have no idea, and I don’t think anyone reading your paper could figure it out either.

Until you ground this in actual observations using language anyone can understand it will not be able to integrate anything.

1 Like
5

:smiling_face_with_sunglasses:

Then maybe you need to re-assess the requirements for hypothesis and theory.

At least you cannot claim “because Richard says so”, you will need another excuse for dismissal, oh yes, you have:
No data that you can recognise!

Richard

6

Then perhaps you can describe the empirical data you found in the paper?

1 Like
7

Why must there be any?

That is the whole point!

Richard

8

If the paper is supposed to be a scientific paper then it needs data, and from all appearances it is striving to be a scientific paper. If it isn’t being offered as science, then it doesn’t need any data.

1 Like
9

Says who?

You are quite happy making sweeping assetions about early life without any empiracle data!

Richard

10

Says every peer reviewed journal I have published my scientific papers in.

Examples? [note: empirical]

1 Like
11

*Not going to derail this thread.

I have made my point, against you criticism of the paper and the OP.

Further discussion should be in that regard, not Evolution or scientific methodology and/or requirements.

Richard
*

12

You raise excellent and important questions, Mr. T. Thanks for pressing.

You’re correct that there is not yet empirical data directly measuring threading, which is precisely why this paper is intimately connected to ecology. I use information theory and ecological succession as bridges, drawing on existing psychological and systems research to explore coherence across scales. (When I connect to Theology, you’ll see the final picture. Not there yet.) In this framework, threading is a metaphor-turned-formalism describing coherent relational dynamics: How information and influence flow through networks, whether in physical fields, neural synchrony, or ecological connectivity. The claim is not that neuron function depends literally on gravity or photon flux, but that relationships themselves store and transmit information, much like mycorrhizae, lichens, root systems, or seedbanks store memory across ecological time.

When we read a story, the eyes receive external input while the brain reactivates latent memory landscapes into top-down mental imagery. Consciousness, in this view, is a recursive inversion: the system turning inward upon its own stored information. This process is, in principle, testable, through proxies that quantify coherence, synchronization, and recursive activation patterns.

The goal is not to replace biochemistry or physics, but to propose that information coherence and recursive relationality may be universal organizing principles underlying diverse domains. Whether “threading” can be directly measured will depend on developing empirical proxies, perhaps through coherence gradients, field correlations, or network entropy measures.

So, to answer your question: threading refers to the process by which all structure and experience emerge through relational continuity. There are empirical precedents in network theory, dynamical systems, and ecological succession that motivate formal exploration. The aim here is to articulate a coherent, integrative hypothesis that can guide future measurement, not to present conclusive evidence.

But the key message within this paper is how to unwind mental knots. Using ecosystems as a metaphor allows us to better understand how to heal mental illness. Just one of many applications of the Fabric framework.

13

Just to clarify, first stage of the scientific process is analyzing existing research, identifying gaps, and developing testable hypotheses. I’m working within that foundational quadrant: theory formation. Every experiment starts with a conjecture that organizes known data into a new framework.

As noted above, Darwin didn’t sequence genomes, Einstein didn’t build particle colliders, and Wegener had no GPS satellites, yet their hypotheses reshaped science and later drove the experiments that confirmed them. Fabric theory is offered in that same spirit: not as final data, but as a coherent hypothesis meant to guide new lines of empirical inquiry.

In fact, Threaded Mind opens a direct pathway toward empirical psychology. If consciousness and trauma behave like ecological systems, then psychologists can design measurable interventions that test for memory density gradients or “mental succession” after trauma: essentially, how mental landscapes regenerate after disturbance. Applying ecological models such as seedbank recovery or network resilience to neural and behavioral data could yield entirely new therapeutic methods for healing deeply embedded memory knots.

So while this paper doesn’t yet include those data, it lays the conceptual groundwork for the experiments that could. That’s how science has always moved forward: from coherent theory to measurable test.

For me, it’s actually already helped! I can see some of my knots and realize how they can be either burned off with “a prescribed burn” or kneaded out. How beauty and story and music can provide more M_latent for healing. Kinda cool and amazing, if you think about it.

14

I am sorry but I needed to ask Chap to unpack the theory because your use of mathematics seemed to be a little pedantic or over scientific.
I think, in the form you have it, you theory will not sit well with people like @T_aquaticus becuase it is completly abstract, and although, as you point out, many theories do start from that viewpoint, it is not one that he, and others find easy to accomodate or follow. They need examples (data), not metaphores especially metaphores that re not directly related to the brain or science.
I can’t say I have ever dwelled on the workings of the mind in terms of how we meld and incorporate experiences and other sorurces of information. I understand Ecology enough to see how you can compare it, but see nothing surprising or intuitive about the comparison. I am more intruiged by the corporate aspects of the theory that seem to differ from more conventional views of a connecting consciousness ans it seem to be more inclusive and interactive than just a vague connection or almost imerceptible awareness that other theories seem to plump for.
Obviously your theological slant has yet to be revealed or even defined, I am not certain, but I am guessing that God becomes the central hub through which all knowledge and experience passes and disminates.

Richard

15

Richard, Thanks for being frank. This feedback truly helps me. Let’s unpack three concrete examples.

  1. Dreams - The Mind’s Natural Re-threading

When we sleep, the brain isn’t getting much new input from the outside world, so it starts connecting bits and pieces of stored memory in new ways.. Dreams are not just random nonsense. Psychologists already know that REM sleep helps us reorganize emotional memories and make sense of stressful events. Dreaming has the effects of seasonal variation, rainstorms or migrations in ecosystems. In fact, under Fabric, they actually work the same way. Yet folks like Jung also realized from his own experience, and from his clients, that dreams also contained memories from OUTside him, just like in ecology migrating animals will affect a wetland.

So in Fabric terms, that’s the “latent memory.” M_latent is re-threading itself when agency (A) is almost off, when we have very little control over our minds like in dreams. The brain’s basically doing a bit of ecosystem maintenance: clearing out debris and re-seeding links between memories. That’s something that could actually be measured in EEG coherence or neural network studies. Which is what Mr. T wants to see.

In other words, dreaming isn’t magic; it’s the mind’s own ecological burn-and-regrow cycle. And like Jung understood deeply, dreams connect people and cultures to each other and broader humanity, just like a wetland connects to a grassland and a forest system.

  1. Rumination - A Knot in the mental landscape fabric

The same thing applies to rumination, when we keep replaying a conversation in our mind that went wrong or something we regret.

What I’m calling a “knot” sounds a lot like what psychologists describe when neural networks get stuck in a feedback loop, especially in the default mode like during depression. You can see that on brain scans (I am linking to those who have done the research); the same regions keep firing over and over again.

In Fabric framework, that’s a high-density spot in M_latent landscape pulling attention toward it (actual gravity well, same equation as Fabric has for physics gravity and shown to work precisely as GR works, I presented this in a previous thread). A true mental gravity. Nothing new can flow in or out, especially when the pathology is severe.

The cure, then, would be to restore that flow away from those gravity wells of pathology and burn up those “exotic species” through movement, laughter, beauty, or even therapy, and especially scripture: “Fix your thoughts…” Philippians; “Eye is the lamp of the body…” Matthew, etc. Just like an ecosystem that’s gone stagnant, a bit of disturbance or new input can get things circulating again. Fires are essential for certain seeds to open in certain ecosystems.

  1. A third example relates to my Mount St. Helen’s example from Threading Ecology. There are certain traumatic events that are so horrific that it obliterates the landscape like the pumice blast zone. These people are totally gone. But there are solutions, just like in ecosystem management. We restore the M_latent through stories, relationships, music, laughter, dance, kindness, love. This reseeds the ecology of their obliterated mental landscape. We draw them out of those intense memory wells.

Now, Why do I push the “equations”? I wrote them to be a simple transfer key for other domains, which is why they lack units. They are a way to transfer Fabric to ANY domain: physics, biology, climate, astrophysics, psychology, you-name-it, and as you will see theology, and even history (coming soon too). Also, because LLMs speak math, for those who don’t understand the math or don’t get the ideas and want to study it, they can just paste the equations and ask whatever question they want to help understand Fabric. Is it useful? It has been for me.

16

At the root of Threaded Mind Theory lies a single question:
What exactly is perception and how is it different from imagination?

From the Fabric perspective, the surprising answer is that perception and imagination are not two separate processes at all. They’re simply different bandwidths of the same underlying dynamic: the activation of memory fields within the fabric.

As noted, we can think of two complementary states:

M_latent: the background or distributed field of memory. It’s the “stored” or potential information in the fabric.

M_active: the portion of that field currently lit up in awareness. It’s what’s being experienced right now.

When you look at say a red cardinal, what’s happening isn’t your brain constructing an image “in your head” while the world sits “out there,” as it is commonly understood by some.

Instead, your mind’s active field (M_active) synchronizes with the latent field (M_latent) of the cardinal itself. The external world and your internal awareness resonate across a shared fabric pattern. This synchronized loop between you and the environment is what we call perception.

Now, when you close your eyes and imagine that same cardinal, you’re no longer anchored to the external fabric. But the pattern of the cardinal still exists within your latent field as memory. When you picture it, you’re reactivating a small portion of that stored pattern internally. It’s the same process, just running in a semi-local loop rather than an externally stabilized one. The “mental image” is essentially a low-resolution reactivation of the same underlying structure.

Awareness itself happens when this recursive process turns inward, when agency (A) becomes reflexive and the fabric “looks back at itself.” In that moment, latent memory (M_latent) becomes active (M_active), and the mind becomes conscious of its own act of threading.

Consciousness is the fabric folding back on itself, transforming stored memory into lived experience.

However, it’s important to note that no mental landscape exists as a fully isolated system. Each mind is a pocket of latent memory embedded within a broader cognitive field and general fabric. Boundaries are real, defining individuality, yet they remain porous: mental landscapes exchange information, influence, and coherence with neighboring systems, much as ecosystems share nutrients, species, and energy flows.

Similarly, a child’s mind and a parent’s mind can interact through emotional attunement, language, and shared symbols, representing a zone of inter-mental permeability.

The implications for imagination and dreams is powerful. Imagination is not purely internal; it represents semi-coupled activation of M_latent, locally reorganized yet subtly connected to larger collective structures. Dreams exemplify this: partly internal integration and partly resonance with the broader cognitive field. This aligns with Jung’s conception of the collective unconscious, wherein archetypes and symbols propagate across individual minds.

17

There’s already a well understood theory of physical information in physics.

Could you describe this in terms a neurobiologist would understand?

1 Like
18

To put it another way, if a theory is meant to model physical reality then it needs to describe that physical reality in a way that allows others to independently verify it. If we can’t start from the same facts we can’t test a theory.

1 Like
19

They also showed how their theories explained already existing data. For Darwin, he explained the distribution of species around the globe, the tree-like relationship of shared and derived features, the progression of fossil species, and so on. Einstein’s theory explained the precession in Mercury’s orbit. Wegener was able to explain many facts of geology that already existed. All of them were also able to explain their ideas to their fellow scientists using terms and descriptions they could understand.

1 Like
20

Shame you have such a limited scope of understanding.

Richard