• home
• about
• new
• essays
• AI
• book

Dr. Joseph Dillard is a psychotherapist with over forty year's clinical experience treating individual, couple, and family issues. Dr. Dillard also has extensive experience with pain management and meditation training. The creator of Integral Deep Listening (IDL), Dr. Dillard is the author of over ten books on IDL, dreaming, nightmares, and meditation. He lives in Berlin, Germany. See: integraldeeplistening.com and his YouTube channel. He can be contacted at: [email protected]

SEE MORE ESSAYS WRITTEN BY JOSEPH DILLARD

Why Balance Contextualizes Development

A Response to "The Brain as Receiver?"

Joseph Dillard / AI

This essay responds to Frank Visser's “The Brain as Receiver? Why Dan Brown's Nonlocal Consciousness Theory Fails” (Integral World, October 2025). While largely sympathetic to Visser's critique of metaphysical “field” theories of consciousness, Dillard explores an emergent, evolutionary alternative grounded in embodiment, balance, and the self-organizing dynamics of nature, with implications for transpersonal phenomena.

Introduction: The Seduction of Non-Empirical Explanations

Visser's essay provides a clear critique of Dan Brown's “nonlocal consciousness” hypothesis. He writes, “If the brain were only a receiver, consciousness should continue even when brain structures are damaged—like a radio that still exists when one speaker cone breaks. Yet this never happens. Consciousness and the brain rise and fall together.”[1] This observation encapsulates the empirical and conceptual tension inherent in nonlocal consciousness theories: they evoke a poetic image of mind transcending matter while failing to account for the mechanisms of individuation, embodiment, and causality.

Visser's insistence on grounding in observable systems resonates strongly. Yet, there remains the question of how to account for emergent, distributed, and sometimes transpersonal phenomena without invoking mystical or non-empirical constructs.

The Problem of Disembodied Explanations

Visser notes that Brown's “nonlocal” terminology functions as “semantic smuggling,” borrowing the authority of physics to describe what physics itself does not support.[2] I share this concern. Invoking quantum terms like non-locality or “fields” can create the illusion of scientific legitimacy while reintroducing dualistic metaphysics.

Yet the temptation persists because coordinated, emergent phenomena appear as if they require nonlocal organizing principles. In physics, the term “field” has a precise, empirical meaning — gravitational, electromagnetic, or other classical fields describe how quantities vary across space, producing measurable effects.[3] In quantum mechanics, entanglement produces correlations between particles, fully described by the wave function, without invoking a transmitting “field” or agency.[4]

Similarly, in consciousness, relational and emergent potentials can produce coherent, coordinated phenomena that might feel field-like but are fully grounded in systemic interactions — neural, bodily, environmental, and cultural. Using precise language like “relational potentials”, “distributed system interactions”, or “wave-function-like correlations” preserves the metaphorical insight without metaphysical commitment.

Emergence, Correlations, and the Adjacent Possible

We can reconcile the critique of mystical fields with a robust, generative model of emergence. Consciousness, like other complex systems, arises when sufficient relational structures and interactions are present. I have written elsewhere:

“The soufflé does not live in a disembodied field waiting for manifestation, but it can for sure incarnate if you have that recipe and the right ingredients and know how to combine them in the right amounts.”[5]

Here, the recipe represents neural architecture, feedback loops, embodied cognition, and environmental interactions. When conditions align, latent potentials actualize. Stuart Kauffman's notion of the adjacent possible formalizes this principle: emergent possibilities become accessible when prior system configurations permit them.[6]

This perspective naturally accommodates transpersonal experiences. Precognitive or synchronistic phenomena may arise spontaneously, reflecting relational potentials within complex systems. Yet they often appear fragmented or serendipitous because they lack the balance — personal, social, cultural, and moral — necessary to stabilize them into coherent attractor basins. As human development evolves toward broader relational balance, these emergent potentials may become more integrated, “less transpersonal,” and increasingly part of ordinary consciousness.[7]

Why Balance Contextualizes Development

Visser highlights the psychological appeal of non-empirical consciousness theories: “Because comfort is not confirmation. The history of ideas is full of beautiful errors—concepts that comforted but misled.”[8] Indeed, such theories soothe existential anxiety but risk instability when dissociated from embodiment, relational coherence, and developmental grounding.

Balance contextualizes emergence: highly developed capacities in one domain, unsupported by others, are fragile and unsustainable. Consciousness, then, is not transmitted from outside nor merely produced by neurons in isolation; it emerges in a balanced system where cognitive, emotional, moral, and social dynamics align. Relational coherence allows novelty, creativity, and even transpersonal potentials to stabilize and integrate.[9]

The Dialectic of Embodiment and Emergence

Visser critiques metaphysical overreach; I emphasize evolutionary, relational, and moral dimensions. Consciousness is simultaneously embodied and capable of emergent, quasi-transcendent phenomena. Relational potentials and distributed system interactions explain coordinated novelty, without requiring mystical fields.[10]

This reframing preserves heuristic insights from “field” language while remaining empirically grounded. Emergent phenomena arise within the system, constrained by its structure and relational context. Individuation, coherence, and creativity do not require nonlocal fields; they depend on balanced emergence, which aligns with The Dreaming Kosmos's tetra-mesh approach to personal and cultural development.

Conclusion: Consciousness as Balanced Emergence

Visser writes: “The miracle is not that mind floats free of matter, but that matter has learned to think, to feel, and to know itself.”[11] I would extend this: the miracle is that matter, organized in relationally balanced systems, can give rise to consciousness and, occasionally, coherent transpersonal potentials.

Dan Brown's “receiver” metaphor, though poetic, obscures the mechanisms that sustain individuation and coherence. Emergence, properly contextualized, illuminates these mechanisms without invoking metaphysical fields. Consciousness is enacted, balanced, and relationally grounded. Transpersonal experiences, while sometimes misperceptions or delusions, are otherwise not anomalies but emerging potentials, whose integration depends on personal, cultural, and moral evolution.[12]

In this framework, the truest mystery is not a mind detached from matter but the universe, through matter, dreaming itself into states of greater lucidity and integration — relationally, balanced, and emergent.

Notes

1. Frank Visser, “The Brain as Receiver? Why Dan Brown's Nonlocal Consciousness Theory Fails,” Integral World, October 2025.

2. Ibid.

3. David J. Griffiths, Introduction to Quantum Mechanics, 3rd ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017), 159-167.

4. Ibid.

5. Joseph Dillard, personal reflections on emergence and embodiment, Dreaming Kosmos manuscript, 2025.

6. Stuart Kauffman, At Home in the Universe: The Search for the Laws of Self-Organization and Complexity (New York: Oxford University Press, 1995), 35-47.

7. Dillard, The Dreaming Kosmos, 112-115.

8. Visser, “The Brain as Receiver?”

9. Dillard, The Dreaming Kosmos, 118-120.

10. Ibid., 122-125.

11. Visser, “The Brain as Receiver?”

12. Dillard, The Dreaming Kosmos, 128-130.