The question of the relationship between consciousness and the electromagnetic fields of the brain is debatable and does not correspond to the principle of evidence. Nobody has yet demonstrated evidence when registering electromagnetic rhythms of the brain about what exactly a person thinks at the time of registration of waves. The opinions of scientists are reflected in the manuscripts in the Attachment.

Thanks Vladimir those papers are really useful in demonstrating the importance of discussing this question. What do you think the evidence implies? Do you think evidence will likely be found correlating what a person thinks to the em field?

I never understood that if consciousness is the magnetic fields of the brain how come there are no changes when people undergo MRIs.

That said, consciousness is not magnetic fields because magnetic fields are directly measurable and consciousness is not. Thus, even an equivalency does not solve the Hard Problem.

One of limitations of hypotheses for the Hard Problem is that are all axiomatic and ultimately push the answer to further domains.

Being only a "natural philosopher" (as they called physicists in the 19th century), I might miss something but for me the question of consciousness and self-awareness is located much higher in the "hierarchy" of information processing than em fields caused by clusters of neurons. If the brain is complex enough to "imagine" earlier perceptions, combine and reorder them, - and, importantly, is able to differentiate between "real" and "imagined" perceptions - this enables the step from purely reactive behavior to planning, and this is the beginning of consciousness.

When the "imagined" world does not only include the environment but also details of the "imagineer" like feelings, traits, and skills, this is the beginning of self-awareness.

In contrast, a simple electronic circuit, certainly unconscious, can cause arbitrarily complex em fields, or, as Sudeera Gunathilaka wrote, so does an animal like a worm with a fixed number of neurons, connected in a fixed structure (no differences between two worms of the same species).

Thanks Joerg, your contribution is very interesting. The mapping between the ‘hardware’ Of the ‘cognitive system‘ and its software (us) is unknown. Presumably Pockett and the other field theorists would say that thinking about thinking is equivalent to spatially patterned em fields changing other initially formed em fields into second order em fields. But I think your answer hints at the hard problem. How does the ‘meat’ of the brain accomplish all that we can accomplish in our thought? In other words how do the em fields become consciousness? The field view maintains that we literally are the em field and that our consciousness is an em field from the first person perspective and that the em field is seen as an em field from the third person perspective. I don’t know whether to believe that all I am is the em fields produced by the brain/body or if there is something more involved. Some theories e.g. Mays and Mays say there is an independent mind interacting with the brain to produce consciousness.

Anne, many thanks for the Mays and Mays paper!

Just by scanning the first two pages, I had the following notion: The basis of their approach is along the line: "You cannot explain consciousness and certain mental impressions just by the cooperation of material objects, so there has to be something immaterial." This reminds of Sir Eccles point of view: the brain as an interface to the immaterial mind.

But then something strange happens: They propose the electromagnetic field as this immaterial agency! While electromagnetic fields are an entirely real form of energy to the physicist since the second half of the 19th century (and since 1905, we know that E = m c2), I guess that to non-physicists, em fields might have an evasive quality, much less real than stones or water. Pictorial speaking, after having dethroned the king in order to put an end to monarchy, they just crown another king.

On a different note, I think the similarity between electronic circuits and neural networks has another aspect: In a course on circuit theory, you could bluff the students by presenting the Maxwell equations (describing electromagnetic fields, employing vector analysis in 3D + time, pooh ..) with the prospect that every electric circuit is surrounded by these fields (this is true), and they will have to solve the equations rigorously in order to find all voltages and currents in the circuit (if they would succeed, their solution would be correct indeed).

Then you can relieve them by revealing that they can reach the same results by simply taking the structure of the circuit and the properties of its components into account, and forget about the fields (as long as we remain in the low frequency domain).

So, there are two ways to analyse circuits, and the path involving the fields is certainly the harder one. I guess the same is true for neural networks.

Igael, I did not intend to belittle the role of fields. Surely, there is a bidirectional cause/effect relation between circuits and fields. I think with neural networks, the function of fields is the transfer of energy while the function of the neurons is "to make decisions". It is well known that (artificial) neural networks made of linearly behaving neurons are limited to trivial functions; i. e. the majority of tasks requires non-linear neurons. On the other hand, em fields sum up and propagate through most biological tissues in a virtually linear way.

So, neurons would not work without fields (because information processing is always coupled to energy transfer) but what we see as the functionality of neural networks is based on the (material) "wetware".

Come to think of it, I have to correct the last paragraph in my reply from yesterday: There are two ways of analyzing linear circuits but with non-linear components (e. g. transistors or neurons), you cannot get the complete picture just by looking at the fields; you also have to take the non-linear elements into account (and in the case of biological neurons the physiology of their environment).

Roman -what do you think of the view that from the first person perspective we literally are the em field of the brain and this manifests itself as consciousness in the same way that water molecules are wet (Pocketts view not mine) ?

Yes, but only in once dimension.

Electromagnetic field of the brain cannot be equivalent to consciousness. Consciousness is extremely subtle phenomenon. Compared to this the electromagnetic field is gross matter. Human thoughts are carrier of information like the electromagnetic field. These thought waves are much more subtle than the electromagnetic field. Therefore you cannot detect thought waves with a photon detector. These thought waves arise in what is called mental space which is different than physical space in which electromagnetic field arise. More subtle than mental space is spiritual space.

When the mind is conscious of its surroundings in the waking state, we say that the mind is alive. When the mind is conscious of its functions (motion of heart and lungs etc.) in the state of sleep, we say that the mind is alive.. When the mind is unconscious of its surroundings, we say that the mind is temporarily unconscious. When the functions of the heart and lungs stop, we say that the mind is permanently unconscious or dead. So the mind is operating at two levels of consciousness. Conscious level and the subconscious level. When both these operations stop, we say that the man is dead.

Most of the western psychologists and scientists don't think that mind is a form of matter because scientists don't know what kind of matter the mind is made up of. Following is what I propose as to functioning of the mind.

Consciousness and unconsciousness are states of the mind. If you take mind as a bulb, and light and darkness as the consciousness and unconsciousness, then it becomes easy to understand that there is a power like electricity that lights the bulb when turned on. This power that lights up the mind is the Spirit which is the real "I" of the man. When the mind detaches from the Spirit, it becomes unconscious. When you look at the eyes of a new born child you can feel this Spirit, it is pure life. There is very little mind there, virtually no intelligence, no wisdom, just pure life. This spirit is capable of growing a mind for itself just like the body. Materials of the body are known to science, but the materials of the mind are not known to science. Materials of the mind also come from the food that the person eats. Every food eaten has an effect on the mind. The extreme examples are the drugs and alcohol.What is this subtle material that comes out of the food and creates the mind is not known to science. If a person stops eating food for few days, his mind will begin to decay.

In this theory consciousness means awareness of the surroundings but life is associated with motion. Anything that move has a life. Everything between the fundamental particles of physics and Cell has life but does not have consciousness. When it comes to Cell and above, they have both life as well as consciousness.

Man identifies himself with his mind and ego. Ego is another outgrowth on the Spirit. So when a man says "I", he means his body, mind and his ego. Most men cannot distinguish between their mind and the spirit. So the man operates with his mind. The man is verily what his mind is. But the mind is ever changing phenomenon. It is subject to growth and decay. So when the mind dies, we say that the man is dead. But what about the Spirit behind? Does it die? Most of the men go through the life without wasting much time on such questions. But some men, instead of looking outward, they look inward (evolution of third eye necessary) at their own Spirit and discover some truths about their own spirit and then tell them to others. One such truth is that their Spirit or "I" is not localized or restricted to their own body and the mind, but is all pervasive (Brahman) and supporting everything living and non living in the universe. This real I does not act but remains as a witness of all actions. It is the ego that gives a sense of separation from the rest of the universe. So when this ego dies and the person becomes desireless, the infinitude of the Spirit or real "I" is realized. This is easy said then done. Such realization does not occur in one life time. Man has to go through repeated cycles of birth and death (evolution) before he can acquire such knowledge. So the theory of rebirth is fundamental to such understanding.

The brain waves are electromagnetic waves which are encoded with the information of thought which is the origin of consciousness. Therefore, consciousness is equivalent to the electromagnetic field of the brain. Concerning the solution of the "Hard Problem", i think my book on "Human Existence and the Universe" tries to give a light on that.

I'll weigh in on this. I agree with Joerg and Vikram that human consciousness is much more than simply electromagnetic fields (or chemical interactions, as others have suggested in other threads). The brain may generate EM waves, but the EM waves are the product, not the cause, of neuron activity.

As far as I remember, suggesting the electromagnetic energy to be the consciousness dates back to decades ago. However, electromagnetic energy is completely physical, taking space, following the third law of thermodynamics, and convertible to mass. So for agreeing with the above assumption, one should first agree that consciousness is physical (having mass, taking up space, and following physical laws), unless we believe these two are not the same, but are linked to each other.

I think if there is a link between the two, it would be that both of these phenomena are products of brain activity, and they are not the same, neither they have direct causative roles in each other's emergence [in my opinion]. My two cents below:

(A1) from a dualistic point of view: We can assume that the electromagnetic fields might (among other mechanisms) give rise to consciousness (on its own metaphysical dimension). If this is the case, then the heart as well might generate (some sort of) consciousness for it has strong electromagnetic fields. Even the computer chips and CPU would have some consciousness right? But we know that in coma or brain death, when the heart is still pumping but the brain is inactive, there is (probably) no consciousness left. So perhaps, it is unlikely for the electromagnetic fields to generate consciousness.

(A2) Also if we assume that it is the consciousness that is generating the electromagnetic fields (and not the opposite), then we will face the examples in which there is no consciousness (slow-wave sleep, coma, brain death), but the electromagnetic fields continue to emerge from the brain.

However, one can argue that it is not the electromagnetic field itself that generates consciousness (or vice versa), but it is the codes stored in the complex patterns of the EEG waves that do so. I would personally agree more with this, adding that now this is different from the "electromagnetic field == consciousness" argument, because we are now talking about the information stored within the electromagnetic fields, and not the electromagnetic fields themselves. This leads to the computational argument:

(B) From a computational point of view (if we believe consciousness is nothing but computational algorithms in place), now we can say OK consciousness might arise from the codes relayed within the EEG waves. However, we also know (or assume) that these waves are actually a byproduct of neurons firing; again both the consciousness and electromagnetic fields seem to be products of the brain hardware running the brain software (stored withing neural networks [and other mechanisms yet to be known, such as the potential role of glial cells]).

ps. Besides, it is not the best practice to link any two mysterious entities to each other, simply because both of them are encrypted and elusive. I know the cited article does not do so, but I saw such claims in the replies. Linking quantum mechanics to dark matter to god particle to electromagnetic fields to consciousness to universe consciousness seems pseudoscientific, at least most of the time.

Dear Vahid Rakhshan, I'm inline with your fifth and sixth paragraphs. But to me, saying consciousness is equivalent to the electromagnetic field of the brain is because i believe that, the information which produces conciousness is encoded in the brain wave which is an electromagnetic wave which creats the EM field.

You may be right about consciousness.

If consciousness is not an epiphenomena of cognitive processing and has its own modus operandi then consciousness is certainly not equivalent to the endogenous EM field of the brain.

To better answer the question. It is cognition and not consciousness that generates an endogenous EM field in the brain and carries information for cognitive processing.

Consciousness has no causal power over cognition.

This hopefeully puts to rest the EM field theory of consciousness developed in the 2000s by Suzan Pockett from New Zealand.

Dear Kong Derick Njikeh

Thanks for the clarification. So I think what you suggest is not that consciousness is the EM field, but it is the information stored within the EM.

I agree with Vahid Rakhshan.

Yes @Vahid Rakhshan. But it depends if we are separating the information from the EM field. I think that the information can't exist without the EM field and the EM field can't exist without the information in it, which makes the assumption of equating consciousness to EM field. As long as an individual produces brain wave, that individual is conscious for brain wave is produced by the neuronal activity which acts as a hardware run by a software called the mind which is above our understanding for now. But as i have said and as you have also said, it is the information encoded/stored in the EM field that is consciousness.

Thanks dear Nikola Ilankovic.

Dear Kong Derick Njikeh, thanks again for the clarification. However, I think there is some logical error in your assumption and argument. If some information is conveyed in some wave, the information is NOT the wave. These are quite different entities, despite the former riding the latter.

A more solid example would be that "I carry an encrypted code with me". The encrypted code is an abstract mathematical entity. I as the carrier or the paper on which the code is written (as the second-level carrier) are only the carriers and nothing more. I am not the encrypted message, nor is the paper. The encrypted code is not Vahid Rakhshan either.

In some cases, the code might seem to depend on the carrier for its existence (for example the radio programs [information] travelling over the carrier FM radio waves). It is true that if the wave dies, the code (the radio program) halts too. But it does not mean that the radio program itself (the content, the code) depends on the FM wave. Someone can simply record the radio program on tape, and carry it to other people via tape. Another person can write down the radio program content onto paper and deliver it that way. The radio program (the information) is totally different from its carrier.

But even if we can find a practical case where the information cannot be separable from its carrier wave, even in that case too, these two entities are not at all the same thing. [And no, the electromagnetic field is not such an example]. This is sophistry (a logical error wrapped in a superficially-convincing statement) to claim that since they are always together, they are the same!

There are numerous forms of entities that depend on one another for their existence; but they are never the same.

ps. The information can be theoretically and even practically extracted from the EM and then be stored in other media. So the information does not depend on the EM to exist (see EEG and MEG tech). Nor does the EM depend on the information to exist (see a simple magnet; does it need any information in order to have EM?)

Vahid Rakhshan, your latest reply makes a lot of sense to me. Thanks. I was thinking along the same lines, but didn’t have time when I made my contribution to the thread to flesh out my reasoning adequately. Having read yours, I see my idea has already been adequately explained by you.

The EEG waves are only graphics of changing in brain electrical activity, but the "waves" exist no in reality!

EM field has absolutely nothing to do with consciousness.

The EM field is due to ionic flow. Ionic flow is how cognition works in brains

Consciousness works below that level.

Quantized EM field would eliminate any form of consciousness.

That is why cognition "feels" consciousness but does not interact with consciousness.

EM field theory via information is misconstrued. Wishful thinking.

Thanks a lot dear Ron Scott.

Dear Roman R Poznanski, I humbly agree.

Regarding this comment of yours "To better answer the question. It is cognition and not consciousness that generates an endogenous EM field in the brain and carries information for cognitive processing. Consciousness has no causal power over cognition. "

Can you please expand on "the causal power of consciousness over cognition"? I think you mean that both the cognition and consciousness are products of brain activity, and hence consciousness cannot cause cognition (?).

Regarding the "cognition generating an EM field in the brain (and not consciousness generating the EM)" part, I agree with your point, differentiating the cognition and consciousness. But I think cognition itself is a product of brain activity, so it might not have any causal power in the equation between the EM field and cognition. Both of them seem to be caused by a third party (the brain), right?

Anne Ross ,

I have a slightly different explanation that might also have a way of answering your question... If we were to consider the brain as a sound box, lower energy in the brain would create a small EM field, while a larger quantity of energy would create a bigger EM field... In this context, I will explain both consciousness and cognition, and how each would modify the EM field of the brain...

Consciousness is a level of awareness that gives our minds a sense of our surroundings and the placement of objects, people, sounds, smells and touch around us. Although there are bits of this information coming in from various angles, each piece of information is only sufficient to give us a basic idea of the particular object, sound, etc. Therefore, the EM field of the brain at this time would be of an intensity "x".

Cognition on the other hand requires a larger input of energy, as the brain needs to focus on two aspects, mainly consciousness and cognition at the same time, gathering information both from the outside as well as from linked neurons within the brain. Thus the intensity of the EM field in the case of cognition would be "x + the intensity of the field due to cognition alone".

Let me know if this helps answer your question in any way.

My contribution for this topic is my theory about ELECTROMAGNETIC NATURE OF SLEEP.

New hypothesis and theory about functions of sleep and dreams.

Author(s) : Ilanković, N. N. ;  Ilanković, A. N. ;  Ilanković, V.

Author Affiliation : Medical Faculty, University Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia.

Author Email : [email protected]

Journal article : Macedonian Journal of Medical Sciences 2014 Vol.7 No.1 pp.78-82 ref.12

Abstract : Aim: The aims of the study were: 1. revealing the new indicator(s) in internal organization of sleep in psychotic states; 2. constitution of new neurophysiologic and statistical models of sleep perturbation in psychotic states and/or altered states of consciousness based on experimental data. 3. Introduction of new sleep marker as biological marker for distinction of sleep organization by different psychotic states. 4. Established new hypothesis and theories in functions of sleep and dreams. Methods: The clinical neurophysiologic test (Polysomnography - PSG) were performed on 90 drug-free patients - 60 with depression (30 patients with reactive depression F32.0, F32.1, and 30 patients with depression with psychotic future F32.3); and 30 patients with Acute schizophrenia and schizophrenia-like states F23.1, F23.2 (all according to the DSM-IV criteria). Polysomnography was used for two nights, sleep staging (according to the criteria of Rechtschaffen & Kales, 1968) and statistical analysis of 130 sleep parameters with logistic regression (discriminative analysis "step by step"). All patients were drug-free in 3 days (1st adaptation night and 2 nights sleep investigation). The bigger part of investigation was performed in "Zentrum fuer Chronomedizin"in Wuerzburg (Germany) and one part at Psychiatric Clinic in Belgrade (Serbia). Results: 1. The results of our investigations demonstrate that the ratio between REM and NREM time in the first period of sleep (index of endogenous perturbation of sleep or IEP-P1=REM-1/NREM-1) is statistically the most significant chronobiological marker of internal sleep organization (through maturation and in different pathological states); 2. IEP-P1 is a highly reliable indicator of the development of endogenic perturbation of sleep in depression, mania, schizophrenic and other psychotic states, and in organic brain syndromes. Conclusion: IEP-P1 could be a new biological marker to distinction of sleep organization in different psychotic states and other states of altered consciousness. The developed statistical models could be the basis for new hypothesis and theories about functions of sleep and dreams.

ISSN : 1857-5749

URL : http://www.mjms.mk/Online/MJMS_2014_7...

Record Number : 20143140255

Publisher : ID Design

Location of publication : Skopje

Country of publication : Republic of Macedonia

Language of text : English

Language of summary : English

Sheldrake, McKenna and some other say that consciousness is primary and the brain is secondary, the brain is part of the interface between the consciousness and the physicality. EM is part of the conversion mechanism. But there is some consciousness coming through the other parts of the body. Sheldrake makes this point very well, bringing attention to non-local psychic phenomena.

Nikola Ilankovic

Thanks for your interesting article: Article New Hypothesis and Theory about Functions of Sleep and Dream

I enjoyed the paper, especially the hypotheses listed at the end and the background provided for the significance of dreams, in the introduction.

Although I couldn't find direct links between the hypotheses and the research done, some of those hypotheses were intriguing. Especially the last one (the internet hypothesis), suggesting that during sleep, the brain is upgrading its software or performing maintenance procedures (updating, downloading, etc) through its connection to a higher-order external entity via its EM field (such as a "mother brain", "cosmic" databases etc).

That sounded quite interesting and reminded me of Jung's hypotheses about cosmic consciousness, but I am not sure it can work that simply, using the EM field. My reasons are that (1) the EM deteriorates significantly over distance, so its long-distance connection to some cosmic database cannot be such plausible. I am not saying that phenomena such as telepathy do not necessarily exist. But even they exist, they cannot depend much on the EM field. (2) The EM field does not seem to be able to pass through parallel dimensions of the time-space continuum. At least we know it that way. If they could project to other dimensions, well it would be quite plausible for them to be a way of connecting two or more brain-like entities on some parallel worlds to each other. (3) Unless the EM field can go to other dimensions and make short-distance shortcuts between two worlds, all sources of EM need to be connected to long-distance cosmic databases. This poses two problems: (A) the signal will be attenuated almost completely at a long distance. (B) Since there is probably no "encryption" method for the brains to encrypt their EM field signals, the cosmic server would receive nothing but a white noise, without knowing which part of the signal belongs to which brain. We have 8 billion brains on this planet, and god knows how many other brains elsewhere. Imagine all of them attempting to connect to a single server simultaneously, without any meticulous differentiating and/or encryption protocols in place. Please note that each and every internet "packets" conveys a lot of information to make sure the packet will reach its destination without being lost (at least in the HTTP protocol). Do you think brain can generate such packets as well?

You wellcome!

The simplest “practical” quantum field theory is quantum electromagnetism. In it, two fields exist: the electromagnetic field and the “electron field”. These two fields continuously interact with each other, energy and momentum are transferred, and excitations are created or destroyed. So for instance, what we picture intuitively as an electron absorbing a photon is, in quantum electrodynamics, a specific interaction between the electromagnetic field and the electron field, in which the electromagnetic field loses one excitation quantum, and the electron field gains its energy, momentum and angular momentum.

Thanks a lot Roman

I am still trying to hopefully articulate your interesting comments. In the last couple of days, these questions came to my mind based on my general concerns about the consciousness (you can see them here https://www.researchgate.net/post/Consciousness_Cognition_and_Unconsious_Mind ):

1. I always thought that it is the consciousness that senses the cognition. So I was confused when you told me it is the opposite: that cognition senses the quantum fluctuations (i.e., consciousness), not vice versa.

2. Isn't there a way to also attribute the consciousness to brain activity in terms of computation and neural networks? (Like the way we do it for cognition). I think perhaps some more sophisticated networks are responsible for consciousness. I am suggesting this, because if we assume that consciousness emerges from quantum fluctuations of electrons, then literally everything in the universe will be conscious. However, it seems that only animals with brains may have consciousness, not vegetables or non-animated objects; also it appears to me that consciousness is richer (or perhaps more continuous) in animals in the upper hierarchy, with more developed brains.

If we agree upon these (unverified) assumptions of mine, how can we justify that consciousness arises from electron quantum field? Because electrons are not specific to the brain, but consciousness is (apparently is).

If my above assumptions are not correct (and everything in the universe is conscious), I would appreciate further explanations.

3. How can quantum fluctuations account for the hidden observer (the unconscious yet conscious observer inside our mind - a modern counterpart for the Freudian unconscious mind)? From a computational point of view, a hidden observer can be more easily explained. For example, we may know that VL-PFC is a part of the network responsible for the hidden observer (i.e., the unconscious consciousness). But can electron quantum mechanics explain the hidden observer?

4. How can it explain the altered states of consciousness? Neural networks might be better explanatory variables for the altered states, than thermodynamic quantum fields.

-------

The above questions are adjusted from my concerns about consciousness. If you had time, please see more detailed questions and ideas of mine on consciousness vs cognition vs the "unconscious consciousness" in the following discussion:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Consciousness_Cognition_and_Unconsious_Mind

Dear Roman: " Here is a lay person understanding of the methodological approach at modeling consciousness. Experimental protocol is very reductive. Looking at the very small scale without knowing whether such phenomena under investigation expresses itself as consciousness through cognition at a higher up level, The experimental techniques that would be needed start from the picoscale and reach all the way to human psychology. What neuroscience is doing is understanding the "neural correlates" of consciousness by taking neuroimaging of cognitive processing and claiming it has some relevance to the underlying roots of consciousness. This is the best answer that "wet" neuroscience can give to a problem that is rooted in integrative neuroscience. The foundations of integrative neuroscience are rooted in mathematical modeling. This is because it is only feasible to model across scale with mathematics and I do not mean computational techniques. Computational techniques are reductive and multi-scale attempts at joining the pieces of the jigsaw together are flawed because of the misalignment to the dynamics, especially if the dynamics is nonlinear. Further problems arise because nonlocal energy transfer occurs when describing both consciousness and memory. Therefore, mathematical modeling of consciousness is of prime importance in understanding of consciousness. Consciousness is separate from other brain functions. In the "two-brains" hypothesis (see published papers), we claim there is an electro-ionic brain, which is the domain of cognition, perception and movement and the EM brain which is the domain of subtle energy transfer, that is inseparable yet segregated functionally from the electro-ionic activity. A further problem arises since within the EM brain there is a fundamental level that 'interacts' with the quantized EM field. The difficulty in physics and math is tantamount of the complexity of the problem. However, overtime we will get there, but Swiss Human Brain project will not for the above reasons. "

Thanks a lot for your explanation. I came here to read your previous explanation to me again, but saw you have deleted it. Anyways I remember most of it.

I am still having difficulty understanding the quantum roots of consciousness.

I just can tell that it is my brain that is creating my consciousness. However, quantum fluctuations are happening in all my organs and tissues.

Your article is hard to search and find. So I am putting its address below:

Article Spontaneous Potentiality as Formative Cause of Thermo-Quantu...