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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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!
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
Conceivably in very subtle ways. If consciousness force is an aspect of electromagnetism as is the weak nuclear force, or if it there is a third aspect to go with the electrostatic and the magnetic, then conceivably technically the answer to your question could be Yes. But at the level of things we know now, No.
- Badges
- Science topic