Hi Gunnar. I’m a big fan of the electromagnetic consciousness concept, and particularly Johnjoe McFadden’s proposal. I don’t know how much you’ve looked into such theory, though I’d love for you to consider a testing proposal that I’ve developed.
Theoretically when the right number of neurons fire with the right sort of synchrony, they create an energy field that itself exists as a given element of consciousness. So here the correct synchronous firing from around your brain right now creates a field that exists as you right now, which is to say all that you see, hear, smell, think and so on. And yes when you decide to do something that requires muscle function, theoretically the element of the field that is your decision, should ephaptically couple with neurons that cause your muscles function in accordance.
Some say that this proposal can’t possibly be true since the fields that we encounter daily ought to disturb a person’s EMF consciousness. So since they don’t, the theory must be false. When this is technically looked into however, it’s found that the physics of such a field should actually be quite insulated and difficult to disturb. So consider my proposal for potentially doing so.
Let’s say scientists implant leads to various interesting parts of the brain that can be hooked up to transmit tiny energies that are similar to the ones that are typical of standard synchronously fired neurons. From here let’s say the subject knows exactly what was going on and is instructed to report if anything seems to get funky regarding their consciousness. Phenomenally unexpected reports would be interesting since it might be because constructive and destructive interference would itself be altering someone’s EMF consciousness. With such reports the energies that have this effect could be tried further to potentially map any crucial components. If many aspects of consciousness were mapped to certain field parameters, and perhaps even confirmed by testing other subjects, then shouldn’t it seem likely that this is what consciousness happens to be made of? But if scientists were to keep trying this approach to alter someone’s consciousness and yet get no reproducible reports, then shouldn’t this proposal ultimately be dismissed?
Hi Eric. McFadden is exactly who I was thinking about.
Big caveat: I'm not a neuroscientist, so my very tentative thoughts are those of a scientist outside of the field.
Your proposal sounds technically feasible (as far as I can tell), provided that we are sure that we mimic 'right' signals in terms of frequency, etc. Ideally, if you want full ephaptic coupling, you'd need to show that the field manipulations affect conscious experience without internal synaptic transmission. As in, you'd need to ensure (at least most?) brain cells in the affected region respond (mostly?) to the field and not to other brain cells. In a way, decoupling or dissipating the field from the underlying cellular activity could give us clues. Practically, I don't see how that could happen (but I lack the technical knowledge here). If you want to make a causal claim about the field's role in consciousness, you'd have to rule it out as epiphenomenon. (Then again, epiphenomena can have feedback effects, so the real root of consciousness might well be brain+field.)
One concept that makes this life much easier and nicer, is confidence in an afterlife. One thing that is both eternal and within our control, is our personal electromagnetic field patterning. Some would call this consciousness of our consciousness. Others call it soul.
Oh, the librarian metaphor is gorgeous (as is the blood singing to you)!
I think "The librarian is not my self but a sense of my self." is an important point. We think we are our librarians, but we are the library and everything in it.
Hi Gunnar. I’m a big fan of the electromagnetic consciousness concept, and particularly Johnjoe McFadden’s proposal. I don’t know how much you’ve looked into such theory, though I’d love for you to consider a testing proposal that I’ve developed.
Theoretically when the right number of neurons fire with the right sort of synchrony, they create an energy field that itself exists as a given element of consciousness. So here the correct synchronous firing from around your brain right now creates a field that exists as you right now, which is to say all that you see, hear, smell, think and so on. And yes when you decide to do something that requires muscle function, theoretically the element of the field that is your decision, should ephaptically couple with neurons that cause your muscles function in accordance.
Some say that this proposal can’t possibly be true since the fields that we encounter daily ought to disturb a person’s EMF consciousness. So since they don’t, the theory must be false. When this is technically looked into however, it’s found that the physics of such a field should actually be quite insulated and difficult to disturb. So consider my proposal for potentially doing so.
Let’s say scientists implant leads to various interesting parts of the brain that can be hooked up to transmit tiny energies that are similar to the ones that are typical of standard synchronously fired neurons. From here let’s say the subject knows exactly what was going on and is instructed to report if anything seems to get funky regarding their consciousness. Phenomenally unexpected reports would be interesting since it might be because constructive and destructive interference would itself be altering someone’s EMF consciousness. With such reports the energies that have this effect could be tried further to potentially map any crucial components. If many aspects of consciousness were mapped to certain field parameters, and perhaps even confirmed by testing other subjects, then shouldn’t it seem likely that this is what consciousness happens to be made of? But if scientists were to keep trying this approach to alter someone’s consciousness and yet get no reproducible reports, then shouldn’t this proposal ultimately be dismissed?
Any thoughts?
Hi Eric. McFadden is exactly who I was thinking about.
Big caveat: I'm not a neuroscientist, so my very tentative thoughts are those of a scientist outside of the field.
Your proposal sounds technically feasible (as far as I can tell), provided that we are sure that we mimic 'right' signals in terms of frequency, etc. Ideally, if you want full ephaptic coupling, you'd need to show that the field manipulations affect conscious experience without internal synaptic transmission. As in, you'd need to ensure (at least most?) brain cells in the affected region respond (mostly?) to the field and not to other brain cells. In a way, decoupling or dissipating the field from the underlying cellular activity could give us clues. Practically, I don't see how that could happen (but I lack the technical knowledge here). If you want to make a causal claim about the field's role in consciousness, you'd have to rule it out as epiphenomenon. (Then again, epiphenomena can have feedback effects, so the real root of consciousness might well be brain+field.)
Thanks for reading!
Edited to add: these papers (if you haven't seen them yet) might help you along more than I can: https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/neurology/articles/10.3389/fneur.2024.1420676/full and https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/human-neuroscience/articles/10.3389/fnhum.2022.1032339/full
Dear, Gunner.
What I do not understand is why you don’t have one million followers.
This is very good work. I’m not fond of the idea that “I am not “. However, the synchronizing of brains waves is extremely interesting.
I am looking forward to seeing what is next.
With much respect, HELENLOUISE J.
Thank you, Helen!
One concept that makes this life much easier and nicer, is confidence in an afterlife. One thing that is both eternal and within our control, is our personal electromagnetic field patterning. Some would call this consciousness of our consciousness. Others call it soul.
Oh, the librarian metaphor is gorgeous (as is the blood singing to you)!
I think "The librarian is not my self but a sense of my self." is an important point. We think we are our librarians, but we are the library and everything in it.