Light, Sound, Consciousness, and the Natural Kingdom

Chapter 1: The World Was Never Silent 

Imagine, for a moment, a forest at dawn. There is mist between the trunks, that silver breath of the earth which makes even the most sensible person briefly suspect that trees know something we do not. A robin begins its song from a branch so thin it seems more like a thought than a perch. Beneath the soil, roots press through darkness. Fungal threads finer than hair explore the mineral night. Leaves open themselves to the first particles of sunlight, and all across the forest a breakfast of photons begins. 

To the hurried visitor, the forest is peaceful because it is quiet. To the scientist with the correct instruments, it is quiet for an entirely different reason: because we are deaf to most of what is happening. Plants are releasing volatile molecules. Roots are exchanging chemical signals. Fungi are forming living bridges. Insects are listening through their feet. Trunks are moving water in columns of astonishing tension. Cells are shifting electrical potentials. Leaves are absorbing light and, in faint invisible whispers, emitting ultraweak photons. It is less like a landscape and more like an orchestra tuning itself before a performance, though admittedly an orchestra with rather more beetles. 

For several centuries, modern knowledge has divided reality into useful but dangerous compartments. Physics studied matter. Biology studied life. Psychology studied mind. Religion studied meaning. Mysticism studied consciousness. Each discipline built a lamp and shone it in a particular direction. The tragedy was not that any lamp was wrong. The tragedy was that we forgot there was one room. 

This thesis begins with a deceptively simple question: if light can become sound, and sound can become light, what else can be translated? The question sounds almost like the beginning of a fairy tale. Yet it is also a serious scientific question. We already know that light can become sound through the photoacoustic effect, where absorbed light becomes heat, heat becomes expansion, and expansion becomes acoustic pressure. We also know that sound can influence light through acousto-optics, and in certain conditions can even participate in light production through sonoluminescence. 

The deeper proposal is that living beings are not merely objects sitting in the universe. They are translators. A plant translates sunlight into sugar, water tension into sound, injury into electrical waves, stress into chemistry, and perhaps metabolic state into faint optical emission. An animal translates pressure into hearing, photons into vision, emotion into hormonal cascades, and memory into bodily posture. A forest translates weather into growth, drought into warning, death into nutrients, and disturbance into renewal. 

The word transduction will be central to this thesis. In its simplest scientific sense, transduction means the conversion of one kind of signal or energy into another. The ear transduces air pressure into nerve impulses. The eye transduces light into neural activity. A microphone transduces vibration into electrical current. A leaf transduces sunlight into biochemical energy. A living body is, in this sense, a parliament of translators, though one hopes with fewer procedural delays than most parliaments. 

This thesis proposes that the natural kingdom communicates and organizes itself through a multimodal field grammar composed of light, sound, electricity, vibration, chemistry, and ecological network dynamics. This does not require us to claim that cabbages are composing sonnets, although one must admit some cabbages have the sombre dignity of poets. It requires only that we take seriously the possibility that living systems express meaningful state through measurable patterns across multiple physical channels. 

The ambition here is not to smuggle superstition into science under a lab coat. It is the opposite. It is to ask whether some of humanity’s oldest intuitions about a living, communicative world may have been clumsy but perceptive descriptions of real relational phenomena. Ancient cultures often treated forests, rivers, animals, and mountains as participants in a living community. Modern science, at its best, does not need to mock this. It can ask: what can be measured, what can be tested, and what forms of intelligence may exist beyond the human shape of intelligence? 

The thesis therefore walks a narrow but fertile path. On one side lies reductionism, which says life is merely chemistry and consciousness merely neurons. On the other side lies vague mysticism, which says everything is conscious in precisely the way humans are conscious and then refuses to do the paperwork. Between them lies a more interesting road: reverent empiricism. This is the practice of measuring carefully without imagining that measurement exhausts meaning. 

Core proposition: Living beings are not silent mechanisms but translating fields. Their light, sound, electricity, chemistry, and movement form patterns through which biological state, memory, stress, adaptation, and ecological relationship may be expressed.

The world was never silent. It was merely speaking in languages we had not yet learned to hear. 

Old question New question 

What is nature made of? What is nature expressing? How can life be controlled? How can life be listened to? 

Where is consciousness located?How does organized responsiveness arise across scales? 

Is spirituality separate from science?Can reverence become scientifically disciplined?

Chapter 2: When Sunlight Learns to Sing 

Let us begin with sunlight. It arrives from the star around which all our earthly dramas are quietly arranged. It has crossed ninety-three million miles of space, avoided being eaten by Jupiter, and finally lands on a small piece of blackened material in a laboratory. There, in a delightful act of cosmic translation, it becomes sound. 

This is not metaphor. It is the photoacoustic effect. When light is absorbed by matter, it can be converted into heat. If the light is pulsed or modulated, the heating occurs rhythmically. The material expands and contracts. The surrounding air is pushed and released. Pressure 

waves form. Given the right arrangement, those pressure waves become audible sound. The photon has not turned into a tiny violinist, but one sympathizes with the temptation to imagine it so. 

Alexander Graham Bell explored this effect in the nineteenth century with his photophone, a device that transmitted sound on a beam of light. Modern researchers have revisited the phenomenon in devices such as the Heliophone, which converts sunlight into audible sound by focusing modulated light onto a carbon-blackened foil inside an acoustic cell. The blackened surface absorbs light efficiently, warming and cooling with the modulation. The air above it behaves like a tiny piston, driving sound waves into a horn. The result is a machine in which sunlight quite literally learns to sing. 

The physics is elegant because it is ordinary. No miracle is required. The chain is simple: light becomes heat; heat becomes expansion; expansion becomes pressure; pressure becomes sound. Yet ordinary does not mean insignificant. Much of the universe is astonishing precisely because it is lawful. A rainbow does not become less beautiful because refraction explains it. If anything, it becomes more beautiful, because we are allowed to see the craftsmanship. 

Photoacoustics has become a powerful tool in biomedical imaging. In a photoacoustic scan, pulses of light enter tissue and are absorbed by biological molecules such as haemoglobin or melanin. The absorbed energy generates tiny ultrasonic waves, which detectors capture and reconstruct into images. The body is read by translating optical absorption into acoustic information. Here, light does not simply illuminate tissue from the outside. It enters, is transformed, and returns as sound bearing news from within. 

In the context of this thesis, photoacoustics becomes more than a technique. It becomes a philosophical clue. A living system is full of absorbers: pigments, membranes, water, proteins, blood, chlorophyll. Each has its own way of receiving light. Each may return a different acoustic response depending on its state. A hydrated leaf, a drought-stressed leaf, and a diseased leaf are not acoustically identical if illuminated in the right way. Their structure, elasticity, water content, and pigmentation alter how light becomes pressure. 

One can imagine a future field instrument placed near a plant, a coral, or a patch of soil. It sends a gentle pulse of light and listens to the returned acoustic signature. The instrument is not asking, “What chemical are you?” It is asking, “How are you arranged? How tense 

are your tissues? How much water do you carry? What has sunlight become inside you today?” This is diagnosis as conversation. 

There is a danger here, of course. Humans have an unfortunate tendency to invent an instrument and immediately use it to dominate whatever it measures. The point of a living field science should not be to interrogate nature like a customs officer suspicious of fruit. It should be to listen more accurately, intervene more gently, and discover earlier when care is needed. 

Photoacoustics tells us that light is not only seen. It can be heard. This simple fact unsettles the tidy shelves of perception. Sight and hearing are not isolated kingdoms. They are translations of energy through matter. In living beings, the same may be true at every scale. The leaf does not merely receive the sun. It negotiates with it. It slows light into chemistry, folds it into sugar, releases heat, shifts electrical states, and perhaps gives back subtle emissions of sound and light. 

If there is a spiritual insight here, it is not that physics has proved a doctrine. It is that physical reality is already more intimate and participatory than our categories allowed. Sunlight touches matter, matter trembles, and the trembling becomes audible. The universe is not a set of separate things. It is an exchange. 

Chapter 3: When Sound Strikes a Match in the Dark

Now let us travel underwater, where sound moves with muscular confidence and light is quickly swallowed. In a flask, a bubble expands and collapses under the command of an acoustic field. It grows, hesitates, then implodes with extraordinary violence. For a fraction of a moment, the darkness flashes. 

This is sonoluminescence: light from sound. It is one of those phenomena that seems to have been invented to embarrass anyone who believes the world is dull. Acoustic waves drive bubbles in a liquid. Under the right conditions, the bubble collapse concentrates energy so intensely that photons are emitted. A sound wave has, through pressure and collapse, helped strike a match in the dark. 

The details are complex, and scientists continue to study the precise mechanisms. The bubble collapse can create extreme localized temperatures and pressures. Gas inside the bubble is compressed. Energy concentrates. Light appears. It is not magic. It is more peculiar than magic, because it actually happens. 

Sonoluminescence is one pathway by which sound becomes light, but not the only one relevant to this thesis. Acousto-optics offers another. In biological tissue and other scattering media, ultrasound can modulate light. As an acoustic wave passes through matter, it changes density, pressure, refractive index, and the positions of scatterers. Photons travelling through the region may be frequency shifted or “tagged” by the acoustic field. The light carries the mark of the sound. 

Acousto-optic imaging is important because tissue scatters light. If you shine light into the body, it does not march neatly through like disciplined soldiers. It wanders, bounces, diffuses, and generally behaves like tourists in a cathedral. Ultrasound, by contrast, can be focused more precisely at depth. By using ultrasound to tag photons in a particular region, researchers can retrieve optical information from deeper tissue than ordinary optical imaging allows. 

The principle is profound: sound can organize the path of light. It may not always create new light, but it can shape, mark, and modulate existing light. In living systems, this invites a remarkable question. Could acoustic vibration influence optical emissions, scattering, or biophoton patterns? Could the sonic environment of a tissue, plant, reef, or ocean alter its luminous state? 

Here we must be careful. A serious thesis does not leap from sonoluminescence to the claim that whale songs illuminate the ocean in some grand mystical sense. A whale’s song is an acoustic phenomenon of immense biological and ecological importance, but not every poetic image is an established mechanism. And yet, caution should not become blindness. Sound does affect matter. Matter affects light. Living matter is exquisitely sensitive to pressure, vibration, and mechanical stress. Mechanotransduction is fundamental to biology. Cells feel their environments. They respond to stretch,

compression, flow, and stiffness. The body is not merely biochemical; it is mechanical and resonant. 

This chapter therefore establishes the second pillar of the thesis: vibration can become optical information, either through emission under special conditions or through modulation in ordinary materials. Sound and light are not strangers meeting awkwardly at a conference. They are old relatives who keep turning up in one another’s equations. 

The implications for medicine are already visible. Ultrasound can reach deep tissues. Light can reveal molecular contrast. Hybrid techniques combine them, using sound to help light see, and light to help sound speak. In the future, such techniques may not only image anatomy but detect dynamic states of health, stress, inflammation, repair, or even bioelectric organization. 

In spiritual language, sound has long been treated as creative. Many traditions imagine the world sung into being, spoken into form, or vibrated into existence. Science need not endorse these claims literally to appreciate their intuition: vibration organizes matter. Sound can sculpt sand into patterns, entrain biological rhythms, influence nervous systems, and, in rare physical circumstances, call forth light. 

The dark flask flashes. A tiny bubble collapses. For one brief instant, sound reveals its hidden fire. 

Chapter 4: The Secret Glow of Cells 

If one could enter a dark chamber and sit with a living leaf under instruments sensitive enough to count single photons, one might discover a surprising thing. The leaf glows. Not like a firefly. Not like a neon sign. More like a secret reluctantly shared. Its light is so faint that ordinary eyes cannot see it, but detectors can. 

This phenomenon is known as ultraweak photon emission, or UPE. It is sometimes called biophoton emission, though the term must be used carefully because it has attracted both serious science and enthusiastic overinterpretation. UPE refers to extremely low-level photon emissions produced by living systems, associated with metabolic processes, oxidative reactions, electronically excited molecular species, and physiological state. 

The existence of UPE does not mean that every person is surrounded by a mystical aura in the popular sense. It does mean something almost as marvellous: living metabolism leaves optical traces. Cells do not only consume and transform energy. They sometimes release tiny signatures of light. 

Reactive oxygen species, lipid peroxidation, mitochondrial activity, and other biochemical processes can generate excited molecular states that decay by emitting photons. In plants, stress can alter emission patterns. Studies on sunflower plants, for example, have shown

that ultraweak photon emission can change under different stress conditions, including water stress. The plant’s condition is not merely hidden in chemistry; it glimmers faintly in physics. 

A sceptic might say, “Very well, but perhaps this light is only a by-product.” This is a sensible objection, and in science sensible objections are not enemies; they are quality control. UPE may indeed function in many cases as a by-product of metabolism rather than an evolved communication signal. But even a by-product can be meaningful to an observer. Smoke may not exist to communicate fire, yet a fire lookout would be foolish to ignore it. 

The question of whether cells use ultraweak photons to communicate remains open and controversial. Some researchers have proposed photonic communication between cells, while others argue that known emission intensities may be too weak or too noisy for many proposed signalling functions. A disciplined thesis must not pretend the controversy is settled. Instead, it asks two questions. First, can UPE reliably indicate biological state? The answer appears promising. Second, can living systems detect and respond to such emissions under natural conditions? That remains a frontier. 

The narrative significance is immense. For centuries, spiritual traditions spoke of inner light, radiance, life-force, and subtle fields. Science cannot simply equate these with UPE. That would be far too easy, and nature rarely rewards intellectual shortcuts. Yet UPE gives us a legitimate scientific doorway into a poetic fact: living bodies are luminous in measurable ways. 

Consider a seed. Dry, small, apparently asleep. Add water, warmth, and time, and metabolism stirs. The seed begins its ancient escape from itself. Cells divide. Membranes awaken. Enzymes resume their trades. If watched with sensitive instruments, the transition from dormancy to life may be accompanied by changes in faint photon emission. The seed is not merely becoming green. It is becoming radiant before it is visible. 

In human medicine, UPE has been investigated in relation to oxidative stress and physiological states. In plants, it may become a non-invasive marker of stress, disease, or resilience. In ecosystems, perhaps one day arrays of optical detectors could monitor the health of crops, forests, or coral tissues through faint living light. The ethical challenge will be to use such knowledge to care, not exploit. 

One imagines the future field scientist, kneeling beside a plant at night, not with a knife or a chemical spray, but with a detector sensitive enough to hear light. The instrument registers a subtle rise in emission. The plant is thirsty before it wilts. The farmer waters not by habit but by listening. The crop survives. The soil is spared. Somewhere nearby, a worm continues its quiet career in civil engineering. 

The secret glow of cells does not prove that nature is conscious. It proves that nature is expressive in dimensions we are only beginning to perceive. Light leaks from the chemistry of life like a whisper through a door.

Chapter 5: The Plants That Click in the Night 

For most of human history, plants have suffered from a public relations problem. They do not run, bark, blink, or complain in ways immediately obvious to us. This has led humans, rather unfairly, to regard them as passive. A tree can stand in one place for five hundred years and still be accused of doing nothing. One wonders what exactly would impress us. 

Recent science has begun to reveal plants as dynamic, responsive, electrically active organisms. Among the most arresting discoveries is that stressed plants can emit airborne ultrasonic sounds. In a study published in Cell, researchers recorded tomato and tobacco plants under conditions such as dehydration and cutting. The plants emitted ultrasonic clicks, and machine-learning systems could classify plant condition from these sounds. 

The sounds are too high-pitched for human ears. To us, the greenhouse may seem silent. To a moth, bat, mouse, or suitably equipped microphone, it may contain a sharp acoustic record of plant stress. This does not automatically mean plants are “crying out” in the emotional sense. The likely mechanisms may involve physical processes such as cavitation in water-conducting tissues, where tension in the xylem leads to bubble formation or collapse. But even if the sounds are mechanical cues rather than intentional signals, they carry information. 

The distinction between signal and cue is important. A signal evolves because it changes the behaviour of a receiver in a way that benefits the sender. A cue provides information without necessarily having evolved for communication. Smoke is a cue for fire. A bird alarm call is a signal. A plant click may be either, neither, or something in between depending on ecological context. The scientific question is not whether we can make it sentimental, but whether organisms can detect it, respond to it, and whether it changes ecological relationships. 

If plant sounds are informative, then agriculture changes. The farmer of the future may not walk through fields looking only for yellow leaves or drooping stems. They may listen ultrasonically. A tomato plant may announce dehydration before visible wilting. A vineyard may reveal stress patterns at night. A forest nursery may become audible as a living diagnostic landscape. 

There is humour in this, but also humility. Humans invented smartphones and became very impressed with ourselves. Plants, meanwhile, have been running solar-powered, self repairing, carbon-sequestering, atmospheric-regulating biochemical platforms for hundreds of millions of years. And now we discover they also produce acoustic information. One is tempted to apologize to the geranium.

The acoustic life of plants connects with broader questions of sound ecology. Birds sing into plant communities. Insects vibrate stems. Wind excites leaves and trunks. Rainfall creates percussion across canopies. Roots grow through mechanically structured soil. Plants live not in silence but in vibration. Some experiments have suggested that plants may respond to certain sounds or vibrations, though this field requires careful controls and protection from exaggerated claims. 

This chapter therefore proposes plant acoustics as a pillar of living-field science. The goal is not to anthropomorphize plants, but to de-anthropocentrize listening. Human hearing covers only a narrow band. Human attention covers an even narrower one. The natural kingdom is not obliged to communicate in frequencies convenient for primates. 

Imagine a night-time greenhouse. The lights are off. The air is still. The tomatoes stand in rows, dignified and slightly theatrical, as tomatoes often are. To the human ear, nothing. To the ultrasonic microphone, a pattern of clicks. Some plants are hydrated. Some are thirsty. Some have been wounded. The machine learns the difference. The plants have not spoken English, but they have disclosed state. 

Here lies the key insight: language need not always be words. Sometimes language is pattern. Sometimes it is timing, rhythm, intensity, frequency, silence, change. The plant that clicks in the night is not asking to be treated as a tiny human. It is asking, if we may use that word carefully, to be recognized as a living participant in a field of exchange. 

Chapter 6: The Electric Memory of Green Things 

A Venus flytrap waits. This, already, is a remarkable sentence. Waiting implies a relationship with time. The trap holds its leaves open like a little green mouth with suspicious manners. Along the inner surface are trigger hairs. Touch one hair once, and the plant does not close. Touch again within the right interval, and the trap snaps shut. The plant has counted. 

It has not counted with a brain, because it has none. It has counted electrically. Research on plant electrical memory has shown that the Venus flytrap can accumulate subthreshold electrical stimuli until a threshold is reached, after which the trap closes. This is not memory in the autobiographical sense. The plant is not reminiscing about a fly it met in spring. It is memory as physiological state: a trace of the recent past retained long enough to shape action. 

Electrical signalling in plants includes action potentials, variation potentials, slow wave potentials, and changes in membrane voltage. These signals can travel through tissues, coordinate responses, and link distant parts of the organism. Plants lack neurons, yet they

use electricity. This is a crucial distinction. Nervous systems are not the origin of bioelectric communication. They are one spectacular specialization of an older principle. 

Every living cell maintains electrical differences across its membrane. Ion channels, pumps, and gradients are ancient instruments. Before there were brains, before eyes, before animals hunting each other with the enthusiasm that gave evolution so much paperwork, cells were already using electrical states to regulate life. Bioelectricity is not an accessory to biology. It is one of biology’s deep grammars. 

In plants, electricity helps coordinate rapid responses in organisms that cannot run away. A plant cannot flee a grazing animal, which is unfortunate for the plant but convenient for the grazing animal. Instead, plants must sense, signal, remember, defend, grow differently, recruit allies, and sometimes produce chemicals that make herbivores reconsider their career choices. Electrical signals are part of this responsive intelligence. 

The spiritual and philosophical implications are subtle but profound. If memory and decision-like thresholds exist without brains, then mind cannot be understood only by beginning with the human head. The head is magnificent, certainly, but it is not the whole story. Life was solving problems long before it invented skulls. 

This does not mean that plant electrical memory is equivalent to human consciousness. A flytrap closing and a person composing a symphony are not the same phenomenon, though both may involve electrical thresholds and timing. The point is not equivalence. The point is continuity. Biological intelligence may be a spectrum of organized responsiveness, from membrane-level regulation to cellular cooperation, plant signalling, animal behaviour, and human self-reflection. 

This chapter therefore positions plant electrophysiology as the bridge between living sound, living light, and living mind. A drought-stressed plant may emit ultrasonic sounds, alter its ultraweak photon emission, and shift its electrical patterns. These may not be separate events. They may be different outward faces of one changing organismic state. 

Imagine measuring all three at once. In one trace, electrical potentials ripple through a stem. In another, ultrasonic clicks appear. In a third, photon emission changes. The plant is not speaking in one language. It is expressing itself in several. The task of living-field science is to discover whether these expressions form a coherent grammar. 

There is an old human habit of assuming that if something does not have a brain, it cannot have meaningful internal organization. This is rather like assuming that if a building lacks a chimney, nobody inside is warm. Bioelectricity invites us to widen the architecture of mind. 

The Venus flytrap waits. A fly lands. One touch. No closure. A second touch. The green jaws fold. It is not thought as we know thought. But it is not nothing.

Chapter 7: The Underground Choir 

Beneath a forest floor lies a world of threads. Fungal hyphae extend through soil, around roots, into microscopic crevices, across damp particles of mineral and decay. They are pale, branching, exploratory, and patient. If one could shrink to the size of a mite and wander underground, one would find not a dead brown mass but a living lacework of appetite and alliance. 

Mycorrhizal fungi form associations with plant roots. In many cases, fungi help plants acquire nutrients such as phosphorus and nitrogen, while plants provide fungi with carbon fixed through photosynthesis. This alone is remarkable: sunlight captured in leaves can become sugar, travel downward into roots, pass into fungal partners, and support a subterranean network. A photon enters the forest canopy and, after many transformations, becomes fungal life in the dark. If that is not narrative structure, nature has been wasting its talents. 

Research on mycorrhizal networks suggests that they may connect plants and influence resource movement, defence signalling, growth, survival, and competitive relationships. Some studies indicate that signals associated with stress or herbivory can move through these networks, changing the defensive state of neighbouring plants. However, this field also demands caution. Reviews have emphasized that common mycorrhizal network effects are complex, sometimes difficult to interpret, and require careful experimental controls. 

This caution is not a disappointment. It is a sign that the forest is real, not a fairy tale. Real forests are messy, contingent, fungal, damp, chemically crowded, and occasionally full of animals doing things one would rather not include in a grant proposal. A mature science of forest communication must be capable of wonder without gullibility. 

The phrase “wood wide web” has become popular, and while charming, it can mislead if taken too literally. A forest is not the internet with leaves. Trees are not sending emails through mushrooms. There are no tiny inboxes under the oaks. Yet the metaphor persists because it points toward something true: forests are relational systems. Their intelligence, if we use that word carefully, is distributed across connections. 

What might distributed ecological intelligence mean? It does not mean that a forest thinks like a person. It means that adaptive coordination can emerge from interactions among many living agents: trees, fungi, bacteria, insects, birds, soil animals, water flows, chemical gradients, light patterns, and climatic rhythms. The forest can respond to drought, fire, disease, and disturbance through networked changes. No single trunk contains the forest’s “mind.” The mind-like quality, if present, belongs to the pattern. 

The underground choir is not made of voices alone. It is made of transfers: carbon, nitrogen, warning chemicals, hormones, electrical potentials, moisture, microbial

metabolites, mechanical forces, and perhaps subtle optical or acoustic correlates. Each transfer is a translation. Each translation alters the possibilities of the whole. 

This chapter therefore expands the thesis from organism to ecosystem. Living-field science cannot stop at the individual plant. A plant in isolation is already complex, but a plant in a forest is a participant in a community. Its emissions and signals may be shaped by neighbours. Its stress may ripple outward. Its recovery may depend on hidden alliances. 

The ethical implications are considerable. If forests are merely timber, then cutting them is an economic decision. If forests are living networks of exchange, memory, and adaptive relationship, then cutting them becomes something closer to neurological damage at planetary scale. One need not romanticize forests to recognize that destroying relational complexity is not the same as harvesting units of wood. 

Stand in a forest after rain. The air smells of leaf litter, resin, fungal breath, and soil waking. Above you, branches hold droplets of light. Beneath you, threads connect root to root, organism to organism, hunger to generosity, decay to growth. The forest is not silent. Much of its choir is underground. 

Chapter 8: The Body That Remembers Its Shape 

A planarian flatworm is not an animal that causes much drama at first glance. It is small, soft, and unlikely to win any awards for charisma, though among flatworms it may be considered quite fetching. Yet cut one in pieces, and each piece may regenerate what is missing. The head end knows how to become a whole worm. The tail end knows how to become a whole worm. Somewhere in this simple creature is a memory of form. 

Developmental bioelectricity studies how cells use electrical states to coordinate anatomy, repair, and regeneration. Michael Levin and colleagues have argued that bioelectric circuits in tissues can store pattern memories and guide large-scale biological outcomes. This is 

astonishing because it suggests that body shape is not encoded only in genes. Genes provide parts, tools, and regulatory possibilities, but the organism must still organize itself. A body is not assembled like furniture from instructions in a box. It is negotiated into existence by cells communicating across scales. 

During development, cells must know where they are, what neighbours are doing, what structures are missing, and when to stop growing. These are not trivial problems. If human engineers had to build a hand from self-organizing microscopic agents, the project would likely be delayed indefinitely and require several committees. Embryos do it routinely and without apparent fuss.

Bioelectric gradients provide one way cells coordinate. Membrane potentials influence gene expression, cell behaviour, migration, proliferation, and patterning. In regenerative systems, changing bioelectric states can alter anatomical outcomes. Some experiments in planaria have shown that manipulating bioelectric networks can influence regenerated head forms, suggesting that tissue-level electrical patterns participate in stored anatomical information. 

This chapter is central because it links transduction to memory. Light and sound are not merely energetic phenomena. In living systems, energy transformations are embedded in regulatory circuits. Electrical states may store information about form. Mechanical forces may guide growth. Chemical gradients may specify identity. Optical and acoustic emissions may reflect internal organization. The body is a remembering field. 

To say this is not to invoke a ghostly blueprint floating above the organism. The memory is physical. It lives in ion channels, gap junctions, voltage gradients, cytoskeletal tensions, extracellular matrices, gene regulatory networks, and feedback loops. But physical does not mean dead. A song is physical. A thought is physical. A forest is physical. The mistake is assuming that physical means meaningless. 

Regeneration reveals that living systems can pursue target states. A damaged organism does not merely react locally; it coordinates toward a whole. This is why Levin and others connect developmental bioelectricity with basal cognition. Tissues may exhibit goal directed behaviour in a cybernetic sense: they reduce error between current form and target morphology. They do not need beliefs or language to do this. A thermostat also pursues a target, though admittedly with limited emotional range. Living tissues do so with magnificent complexity. 

The implications for medicine are revolutionary. If disease can be understood partly as a disruption of pattern memory or bioelectric coordination, then treatment may move beyond killing pathogens or replacing parts. Medicine could learn to restore the field conditions under which tissues remember health. Cancer, developmental disorders, wound healing, regeneration, and ageing might be approached not only through molecules but through bioelectric information. 

This is where the thesis begins to bend toward spirituality without leaving science. Many healing traditions have spoken of energy, balance, harmony, and restored flow. Some claims are unsupported; some may be metaphor. Yet developmental bioelectricity shows that bodies genuinely depend on patterned electrical states for form and repair. The language of harmony may be poetic, but the underlying idea that health is organized coherence is scientifically serious. 

The planarian, humble and damp, becomes a teacher. Cut, it remembers wholeness. Disturbed, it reorganizes. Its body is not simply matter arranged once, but matter guided by a memory of relation.

Chapter 9: The Scale of a Self 

Where does a self begin, and where does it end? With the skin? The nervous system? The microbiome? The family? The forest one breathes with? These questions are not merely philosophical decorations. They matter because how we define the self determines what we protect, what we ignore, and what we dare to harm. 

Michael Levin’s theory of scale-free cognition proposes that cognition is not an all-or nothing property restricted to humans or even animals. Instead, it can be understood as a continuum of goal-directed information processing across scales. A cell maintains itself. A tissue coordinates repair. A plant adjusts growth to light and threat. An animal navigates space. A human reflects on mortality and then, inexplicably, checks social media. 

The humour is useful because it keeps us modest. Humans possess extraordinary consciousness, but we also use it to misplace keys, argue with traffic lights, and purchase objects advertised as “rustic” because they are slightly damaged. We should be careful before declaring ourselves the sole meaningful minds in the universe. 

Scale-free cognition does not claim that all systems are conscious in the human sense. It asks us to examine the functional features of cognition: sensing, memory, prediction, preference, goal-directed action, self-maintenance, and adaptation. These capacities appear in different degrees and forms across life. A bacterium moving toward nutrients displays a tiny form of directed behaviour. A plant anticipating shade displays another. A human composing philosophy displays another, though sometimes with less practical benefit than the bacterium. 

This thesis uses scale-free cognition as a bridge between science and spirituality. Spiritual traditions often describe consciousness as pervasive, relational, or woven through life. Science rightly asks for definitions and evidence. The bridge is to shift from asking, “Is this conscious exactly like me?” to asking, “What kind of organized responsiveness does this system possess?” 

The difference matters. Human-like consciousness may be rare. Field-like agency may be widespread. A forest may not have a central point of awareness, but it may possess distributed responsiveness. A coral reef may not think, but it may coordinate symbiotic, chemical, optical, and acoustic processes in ways that sustain collective identity. A river may not be alive in the biological sense, but as part of a watershed ecosystem it shapes and is shaped by living networks that respond to its flow. 

The concept of a computational boundary helps here. A self may be defined by the scale of events it can sense, model, and influence. A cell’s boundary is small but real. A tissue’s boundary is larger. An animal’s boundary includes perception and movement. A human cultural self may include language, memory, tools, ancestors, and landscapes. The self is

not a marble sealed inside the skull. It is an active boundary of concern, regulation, and relation. 

This chapter does not solve the hard problem of consciousness. It does not explain why subjective experience exists. That remains one of the great mysteries, and anyone who claims to have solved it over lunch should be watched carefully. Instead, the chapter reframes the scientific terrain. Before asking where full consciousness begins, we can study the measurable precursors and cousins of mind: memory, anticipation, communication, integration, and adaptive coherence. 

In this view, the natural kingdom becomes less like a hierarchy with humans at the top and more like a vast branching spectrum of subject-like organization. Some beings may feel. Some may sense without feeling. Some may coordinate without a nervous system. Some may form collective patterns larger than any individual. The moral response is not to flatten all distinctions, but to deepen attention. 

If consciousness is a throne, only one kind of creature may sit upon it. If consciousness is a spectrum of living organization, then the world becomes crowded with forms of participation. The task is not to declare every stone a philosopher. It is to stop mistaking silence for absence. 

Chapter 10: Designing an Instrument That Listens 

The old scientific instrument was often an instrument of separation. The microscope took a fragment and magnified it. The scalpel cut. The sensor isolated one variable. These tools have given humanity extraordinary knowledge, and we should be grateful. Without them, modern medicine would be mostly soup, superstition, and optimism. Yet living systems are relational. To study relation, we need instruments that can listen across channels. 

This thesis proposes the development of a Living-Field Translator: a multimodal instrument designed to measure optical, acoustic, electrical, vibrational, thermal, chemical, and ecological signals simultaneously. The name is admittedly ambitious. Scientists may prefer something more modest, such as Integrated Multimodal Biofield Transduction Platform, which has the advantage of sounding expensive. But the purpose is simple: listen to life in more than one language at once. 

Such an instrument might include ultraweak photon detectors, spectrometers, ultrasonic microphones, contact microphones, bioelectric electrodes, environmental sensors, gas exchange monitors, humidity and temperature probes, and imaging systems. In laboratory settings, it could be used on plants, fungi, tissues, organoids, soil microcosms, or small

ecological communities. In field settings, it could monitor crops, forests, coral fragments, wetlands, or river margins. 

Signal channel What it may reveal Example use 

Ultraweak photon emissionMetabolic state, oxidative stress, recovery kinetics 

Ultrasonic soundCavitation, dehydration, mechanical stress 

Bioelectric potentialMemory, signalling, pattern coordination 

VibrationMechanical resonance and environmental coupling 

Gas exchangePhotosynthesis, respiration, stress metabolism 

Detect early plant stress before visible damage 

Classify drought or injury in crops 

Track wound response or plant systemic signalling 

Study root, stem, soil, or tissue dynamics 

Link field signals to 

physiological function 

Environmental data Context for interpretationSeparate biological response from weather noise

The key is simultaneity. A single signal can mislead. A rise in photon emission might indicate oxidative stress, but without water status, temperature, electrical state, and acoustic data, interpretation remains uncertain. Multimodal measurement allows patterns to be cross-validated. The plant’s light, sound, and electrical state can be read as a changing chord rather than a single note. 

The instrument should be designed with humility. It must not assume that nature’s signals are arranged for human convenience. It must be sensitive, non-invasive, and patient. Some living processes unfold slowly. Others occur in bursts. A field instrument may need to sit for days, weeks, or seasons, gathering not just data but context. 

This is where technology becomes philosophical. A machine can be an extension of extraction or an extension of attention. The same sensor that helps a corporation maximize crop yield through stress exploitation could help a regenerative farmer reduce suffering, water waste, and chemical dependence. The moral character of a technology lies partly in the world-view that guides it. 

A Living-Field Translator would not tell us that a plant is “sad” in a human sense. It might tell us that the plant is entering water stress, that its ultrasonic emission rate is rising, that its photon emission kinetics have changed, that its electrical pattern has shifted, and that nearby connected plants are beginning to respond. This is already extraordinary. We do not 

need to invent feelings where evidence does not yet reach. We need only recognize that measurable expression deserves care. 

One day, a child might stand beside such an instrument in a school garden. A screen shows the faint light of seedlings, the inaudible clicks of a thirsty leaf, the slow electrical pulse after touch. The child understands immediately what many adults have forgotten: the garden is alive, and aliveness is not a background condition but a conversation. 

Chapter 11: Reading the Orchestra 

To measure life is one challenge. To understand what one has measured is another, and usually the more embarrassing one. Anyone who has ever opened a spreadsheet with forty thousand rows and no obvious pattern knows the feeling. Nature, unlike a polite dinner guest, does not always announce what it means. 

A Living-Field Translator would generate vast streams of data: photon counts, spectra, ultrasonic events, vibration traces, voltage shifts, temperature changes, gas exchange, humidity, soil moisture, microbial activity, and ecological context. The result would be less like a single melody and more like an orchestra in which every musician is playing in a different time signature, while the percussion section may be beetles. 

Machine learning could help detect patterns invisible to ordinary inspection. In the plant acoustic study, algorithms classified plant condition from ultrasonic recordings. Similar approaches could be extended across multiple signal channels. A model might learn that a particular combination of rising ultrasonic clicks, altered photon emission, and shifting electrical potential predicts drought stress twelve hours before visible wilting. Another pattern might indicate recovery. Another might reveal pathogen attack, root damage, or mycorrhizal connection. 

But this chapter insists on a crucial principle: classification is not understanding. A machine may identify a pattern without knowing what it means biologically. The goal is not to create a black box that announces, “Plant unhappy,” while everyone nods as if this is science. The goal is to link patterns to mechanisms, physiology, ecology, and lived context. 

Information theory can help measure how much one signal tells us about another. Causal inference can test whether changes in electrical state precede acoustic emissions, whether acoustic stimulation alters photon emission, or whether networked plants show coordinated responses. Dynamical systems theory can describe attractors, thresholds, oscillations, and phase transitions. Network science can map how signals propagate through ecological relationships. 

Analytical tool Role in the thesis Caution

Machine learningDetects multimodal field signatures 

Information theoryQuantifies coupling among signals 

Must not replace biological explanation 

Correlation is not 

communication 

Causal inference Tests directionality of influenceRequires careful experimental design 

Dynamical systemsModels thresholds, recovery, and state transitions 

Network scienceMaps ecological signal propagation 

Models must remain tied to measurement 

Networks are not automatically minds

The phrase field signature is proposed here to describe a reproducible multimodal pattern associated with a biological state or transition. A field signature might correspond to dehydration, injury, fungal connection, tissue regeneration, disease onset, or recovery. It is not a single measurement but a constellation of changes across light, sound, electricity, and context. 

There is also a philosophical challenge. Once we begin reading living patterns, we may be tempted to translate them too quickly into human emotions. We may say the plant is “afraid,” the forest is “angry,” the reef is “grieving.” Such language can awaken empathy, but it can also obscure the otherness of non-human life. The better approach is to build a layered vocabulary. At the first layer are measured states: photon emission, acoustic rate, voltage change. At the second are physiological interpretations: stress, hydration, injury, repair. At the third are ecological meanings: warning, cue, cooperation, competition, resilience. Only at the fourth, and very cautiously, do we approach subjective terms. 

This discipline protects wonder. Overstatement does not make nature more magical; it makes our claims less trustworthy. The truth is already magnificent. A plant need not be “sad” in order for its dehydration signal to matter. A forest need not “think” like a professor in order for its networked adaptation to deserve reverence. Frankly, some forests may be better organized than many university departments. 

Reading the orchestra means learning to hear pattern without forcing it into a human tune. It means building models that reveal relationships while preserving mystery. Science is not the opposite of mystery. Science is the art of finding which mysteries are generous enough to answer when questioned well. 

Chapter 12: Fields, Farms, Hospitals, and Homes 

A thesis that remains only beautiful is in danger of becoming a decorative object. This one must also become useful. If living systems express state through light, sound, electricity, and vibration, then those expressions can change how we farm, heal, build, and live. 

Agriculture may be the first revolution. Modern industrial farming often treats plants as production units and soil as a support medium. Inputs are applied, pests are suppressed, yields are extracted. The result has fed billions, but at great cost: degraded soils, biodiversity loss, chemical dependence, water stress, and fragile monocultures. A living field approach would not abandon productivity. It would redefine productivity as cooperation with plant–soil–fungal communities. 

In such a system, fields would be monitored not only for visible growth but for physiological conversation. Ultraweak photon emissions might reveal oxidative stress. Ultrasonic plant sounds might indicate dehydration. Electrical patterns might show systemic response. Soil sensors and fungal network analysis might reveal whether plants are isolated or supported. Irrigation, shade, microbial inoculation, companion planting, and nutrient management could be guided by the living field rather than imposed on a schedule. 

Medicine would also change. Contemporary medicine is brilliant at acute intervention. It can replace joints, transplant organs, image tumours, fight infections, and perform procedures that would have seemed miraculous a century ago. Yet it often struggles with chronic, systemic, and relational disorders: inflammation, stress-related disease, metabolic dysfunction, autoimmune patterns, trauma, and ecological illness. A living-field medicine would not replace existing medicine. It would add a layer: diagnosis of coherence. 

The body could be studied as a multimodal field of electrical, mechanical, optical, biochemical, and emotional regulation. Photoacoustic imaging already translates absorbed light into ultrasound for biomedical visualization. Acousto-optic techniques use ultrasound to modulate optical signals in tissue. Developmental bioelectricity suggests that electrical states influence repair and form. Together, these fields point toward medicine that reads patterns of resonance, not merely isolated parts. 

Architecture may become biological. Buildings could be designed to support circadian light, acoustic calm, microbial health, plant integration, air quality, and emotional regulation. A building would no longer be an inert container for human activity. It would be an ecological participant. Living walls, daylight rhythms, water features, acoustic tuning, and biodiverse courtyards could become part of public health rather than aesthetic luxury. 

Even ritual may be reconsidered. Human cultures have long used song, chant, rhythm, breath, light, incense, movement, and gathering to alter consciousness and social

coherence. A reductive view dismisses ritual as superstition. A living-field view asks whether ritual is an ancient technology for coordinating nervous systems, breath, attention, sound, and collective emotion. Not every ritual claim is scientifically true, but the human use of vibration, light, and rhythm to shape consciousness is surely not accidental. 

Domain Current tendency Living-field transformation 

Agriculture Manage crops as unitsCollaborate with plant–soil– fungal intelligence 

MedicineTreat isolated organs or symptoms 

Restore systemic coherence and repair fields 

Architecture Build inert sheltersGrow or design habitats that regulate life-supporting fields 

Protect networks of 

Conservation Count species and resources 

communication and relationship 

Education Teach nature as objectTeach children to listen to living systems 

Spirituality Separate belief from evidenceExplore reverence through disciplined attention

The humour here is that none of this is entirely new. Grandmothers, gardeners, indigenous knowledge keepers, healers, farmers, and attentive children have long known that living systems respond to care. Science is arriving with instruments, equations, and a slightly awkward expression, saying, “We may have underestimated the beans.” 

The applications of this thesis are therefore not only technological. They are civilizational. A society that listens differently acts differently. It waters sooner, cuts less, restores more, designs with life, and heals by relationship as well as intervention. 

Chapter 13: The Ethics of Listening 

The moment a living system becomes audible, visible, or measurable in a new way, an ethical question appears. What will we do with what we have heard? 

Human history gives us reason to be cautious. We have often used knowledge to improve care, but also to improve extraction. To know where a forest is vulnerable can help protect it, or help exploit it. To detect plant stress can reduce suffering and water waste, or push 

crops closer to their limits. To measure human emotional or physiological fields can support healing, or become surveillance with better vocabulary. 

A science of living fields therefore requires an ethics from the beginning. It cannot be added later, like a polite appendix. The guiding principle should be that measurement is a form of relationship. To measure a living being is not morally identical to measuring a stone, though even stones have suffered from human certainty. Living beings maintain themselves, respond to injury, participate in networks, and in many cases display memory, communication, and agency-like behaviour. 

The first ethical principle is non-harmful listening. Instruments should be designed to minimize disturbance. If acoustic, optical, or electrical stimulation is used, exposure must be safe, justified, and proportionate. A plant should not be tortured into eloquence. A forest should not be wired like a suspect in a crime drama. 

The second principle is reciprocity. Data taken from ecosystems should return as protection, restoration, or improved care. If a community’s forest is monitored, that community should benefit. If indigenous ecological knowledge informs the science, indigenous communities must be credited, respected, and materially included. Reverence without justice is decoration. 

The third principle is humility before otherness. To listen ethically is not to force nature into human categories. A plant is not a little person in green clothing. A fungus is not a moral philosopher with branching habits. Non-human beings are not valuable because they resemble us. They are valuable because they are themselves. 

The fourth principle is expanded moral attention. Evidence of plant signalling, animal consciousness, ecosystem complexity, and bioelectric memory does not erase distinctions among beings, but it does widen responsibility. If life is more expressive and coordinated than we assumed, then casual destruction becomes harder to justify. 

Ethical principle Meaning Practical consequence 

Non-harmful listeningMeasure with minimal disturbance 

ReciprocityReturn benefit to the living system and community 

HumilityAvoid anthropomorphic certainty 

JusticeHonour human communities linked to ecosystems 

RestorationLet knowledge heal damaged relations 

Prefer passive monitoring and safe stimulation 

Use data for care, not 

extraction alone 

Build layered interpretations of signal and meaning 

Prevent spiritual or scientific appropriation 

Prioritize regeneration over control

This chapter also addresses spirituality. Many traditions have long taught that rivers, forests, animals, and mountains deserve reverence. Modern law and science are beginning, slowly, to catch up. Some legal systems now recognize rights of rivers or ecosystems. A living-field science could support such shifts by showing that ecosystems are not inert property but dynamic relational entities. 

Yet spirituality must also be disciplined. It is possible to use the language of unity while ignoring the actual beings one claims to honour. It is possible to speak lovingly of “Mother Earth” while buying furniture made from her last old-growth forests. The test of reverence is behaviour. 

Listening changes responsibility. Once we hear the clicks of thirsty plants, the light of stressed tissues, the electrical memory of bodies, and the underground exchanges of forests, innocence becomes less available. We can no longer say the world gave no sign. 

The question is whether humanity can mature from owner to participant. The answer is uncertain. But the first step is simple and ancient: be quiet enough to hear. 

Chapter 14: The Microscope and the Soul 

At the end of this journey, we return to the forest at dawn. The mist lifts. The robin sings. Leaves open to the sun. Beneath the soil, fungal threads continue their patient negotiations. Somewhere, a plant under stress emits a sound too high for human hearing. Somewhere else, a cell releases a photon too faint for human sight. Electrical states shift. Water rises. Roots signal. Insects listen. The day begins as a translation. 

This thesis began with a question: if light can become sound, and sound can become light, what else can be translated? The answer is not a single mechanism but a new way of seeing. Life translates constantly. Photons become sugar. Sugar becomes movement. Injury becomes electrical signal. Stress becomes sound. Metabolism becomes faint light. Tissue voltage becomes form. Ecological relationship becomes resilience. Attention becomes care. 

The scientific foundations are real. Photoacoustics shows that absorbed light can become acoustic waves. Sonoluminescence shows that sound-driven collapse can emit light. Acousto-optics shows that ultrasound can tag and modulate photons in tissue. Ultraweak photon emission shows that living systems produce measurable faint light linked to physiological processes. Plant acoustic research shows that stressed plants emit informative ultrasonic sounds. Plant electrical memory and developmental bioelectricity show that life uses electrical states for memory, coordination, and repair.  Mycorrhizal research shows that forests and plant communities are linked through complex

belowground networks, though the mechanisms must be interpreted carefully.  Scale free cognition offers a framework for studying agency across levels without pretending that every living thing thinks like a human. 

The philosophical proposal is equally important. The natural world is not a machine in the old dead sense. Nor is it a fantasy realm in which every poetic claim is automatically true. It is something far more demanding: a living, lawful, expressive, relational reality. It asks for science strong enough to measure and humility deep enough not to reduce. 

A future science of living fields could change agriculture by teaching farmers to listen before plants visibly suffer. It could change medicine by restoring attention to patterns of coherence across body, environment, and emotion. It could change ecology by treating forests, rivers, reefs, and soils as communicative networks rather than resource warehouses. It could change spirituality by grounding reverence not in escape from the world, but in deeper participation with it. 

The greatest transformation, however, may be perceptual. Humanity has long imagined itself standing above nature, looking down like a manager inspecting a department of underperforming leaves. The evidence increasingly suggests that we stand within nature, surrounded by intelligences unlike our own, sustained by relationships we barely understand, and addressed by signals we are only beginning to detect. 

A century from now, perhaps the person who develops this field will not be remembered as only a physicist, biologist, ecologist, engineer, or mystic. They may be remembered as a Translator of Living Fields. Not because they invented a machine, though machines may help. Not because they proved that ancient intuitions were literally correct, because truth is usually subtler than triumph. They will be remembered because they taught humanity to listen again. 

The microscope revealed worlds within worlds. The telescope revealed stars beyond imagining. The Living-Field Translator may reveal that the world nearest to us—the leaf, the wound, the soil, the breath, the forest—was never mute. It was luminous, resonant, electric, and alive with relation. 

The soul, then, need not be placed outside science. Nor should science presume to own it. Perhaps the soul is what becomes visible when matter is understood deeply enough: not as dead substance, but as participation, pattern, memory, responsiveness, and care. 

The forest brightens. The day opens. The orchestra begins. And this time, perhaps, we are listening. 

References

Footnotes 

. N. B. Roozen et al., “Converting sunlight into audible sound by means of the photoacoustic effect: The Heliophone,” Journal of the Acoustical Society of America (): (), https://doi.org/./.. ↩ ↩ ↩ 

. Estelle Beguin et al., “Direct Evidence of Multibubble Sonoluminescence Using Therapeutic Ultrasound and Microbubbles,” ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces ( ):– (), https://doi.org/./acsami.b. ↩ ↩ ↩ 

. Mohammadreza Omidali et al., “Acousto−Optics: Recent Studies and Medical Applications,” Biosensors ( ): (), https://doi.org/./bios. ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ 

. Rhys R. Mould et al., “Ultra weak photon emission—a brief review,” Frontiers in Physiology : ( ), https://doi.org/./fphys... ↩ ↩ ↩ 

. Zsolt Pónya and Katalin Somfalvi-Tóth, “Modelling biophoton emission kinetics based on the initial intensity value in Helianthus annuus plants exposed to different types of stress,” Scientific Reports : ( ), https://doi.org/./s--- . ↩ 

. Itzhak Khait et al., “Sounds emitted by plants under stress are airborne and informative,” Cell ( ):–.e (), 

https://doi.org/./j.cell.... ↩ ↩ ↩ 

. Alexander G. Volkov et al., “Plant electrical memory,” Plant Signaling & Behavior ( ):– (), https://doi.org/./psb.... ↩ ↩ 

. Monika A. Gorzelak et al., “Inter-plant communication through mycorrhizal networks mediates complex adaptive behaviour in plant communities,” AoB Plants :plv ( ), https://doi.org/./aobpla/plv. ↩ ↩ 

. A. F. A. Figueiredo, J. Boy, and G. Guggenberger, “Common Mycorrhizae Network: A Review of the Theories and Mechanisms Behind Underground Interactions,” Frontiers in Fungal Biology : ( ), https://doi.org/./ffunb... ↩ ↩ 

. Giovanni Pezzulo et al., “Bistability of somatic pattern memories: stochastic outcomes in bioelectric circuits underlying regeneration,” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B : ( ), https://doi.org/./rstb... ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ 

. Michael Levin, “The Computational Boundary of a ‘Self’: Developmental Bioelectricity Drives Multicellularity and Scale-Free Cognition,” Frontiers in Psychology : ( ), https://doi.org/./fpsyg... ↩ ↩ ↩