Electromagnetic theories of consciousness

Electromagnetic theories of consciousness propose that consciousness can be understood as an electromagnetic phenomenon.

Overview

Theorists differ in how they relate consciousness to electromagnetism. Electromagnetic field theories (or "EM field theories") of consciousness propose that consciousness results when a brain produces an electromagnetic field with specific characteristics. Susan Pockett^[1][2] and Johnjoe McFadden^[3] have proposed EM field theories; William Uttal^[4] has criticized McFadden's and other field theories.

In general, quantum mind theories do not treat consciousness as an electromagnetic phenomenon, with a few exceptions.^[5][6]

AR Liboff has proposed that "incorporating EM field-mediated communication into models of brain function has the potential to reframe discussions surrounding consciousness".^[7]

Also related are E. Roy John's work and Andrew and Alexander Fingelkurts theory "Operational Architectonics framework of brain-mind functioning".^[8]

Cemi theory

The starting point for McFadden and Pockett's theory is the fact that every time a neuron fires to generate an action potential, and a postsynaptic potential in the next neuron down the line, it also generates a disturbance in the surrounding electromagnetic field. McFadden has proposed that the brain's electromagnetic field creates a representation of the information in the neurons. Studies undertaken towards the end of the 20th century are argued to have shown that conscious experience correlates not with the number of neurons firing, but with the synchrony of that firing.^[9] McFadden views the brain's electromagnetic field as arising from the induced EM field of neurons. The synchronous firing of neurons is, in this theory, argued to amplify the influence of the brain's EM field fluctuations to a much greater extent than would be possible with the unsynchronized firing of neurons.

McFadden thinks that the EM field could influence the brain in a number of ways. Redistribution of ions could modulate neuronal activity, given that voltage-gated ion channels are a key element in the progress of axon spikes. Neuronal firing is argued to be sensitive to the variation of as little as one millivolt across the cell membrane, or the involvement of a single extra ion channel. Transcranial magnetic stimulation is similarly argued to have demonstrated that weak EM fields can influence brain activity.^{[citation needed]}

McFadden proposes that the digital information from neurons is integrated to form a conscious electromagnetic information (cemi) field in the brain. Consciousness is suggested to be the component of this field that is transmitted back to neurons, and communicates its state externally. Thoughts are viewed as electromagnetic representations of neuronal information, and the experience of free will in our choice of actions is argued to be our subjective experience of the cemi field acting on our neurons.

McFadden's view of free will is deterministic. Neurons generate patterns in the EM field, which in turn modulate the firing of particular neurons. There is only conscious agency in the sense that the field or its download to neurons is conscious, but the processes of the brain themselves are driven by deterministic electromagnetic interactions. The feel of subjective experience or qualia corresponds to a particular configuration of the cemi field. This field representation is in this theory argued to integrate parts into a whole that has meaning, so a face is not seen as a random collection of features, but as somebody's face. The integration of information in the field is also suggested to resolve the binding/combination problem.

In 2013, McFadden published two updates to the theory. In the first, 'The CEMI Field Theory: Closing the Loop'^[10] McFadden cites recent experiments in the laboratories of Christof Koch^[11] and David McCormick^[12] which demonstrate that external EM fields, that simulate the brain's endogenous EM fields, influence neuronal firing patterns within brain slices. The findings are consistent with a prediction of the cemi field theory that the brain's endogenous EM field - consciousness - influences brain function. In the second, 'The CEMI Field Theory Gestalt Information and the Meaning of Meaning',^[13] McFadden claims that the cemi field theory provides a solution to the binding problem of how complex information is unified within ideas to provide meaning: the brain's EM field unifies the information encoded in millions of disparate neurons.

Susan Pockett^[1] has advanced a theory, which has a similar physical basis to McFadden's, with consciousness seen as identical to certain spatiotemporal patterns of the EM field. However, whereas McFadden argues that his deterministic interpretation of the EM field is not out-of-line with mainstream thinking, Pockett suggests that the EM field comprises a universal consciousness that experiences the sensations, perceptions, thoughts and emotions of every conscious being in the universe. However, while McFadden thinks that the field is causal for actions, albeit deterministically, Pockett does not see the field as causal for our actions.

Quantum brain dynamics

Main article: Quantum brain dynamics

The concepts underlying this theory derive from the physicists, Hiroomi Umezawa^[14] and Herbert Fröhlich^[15] in the 1960s. More recently, their ideas have been elaborated by Mari Jibu and Kunio Yasue. Water comprises 70% of the brain, and quantum brain dynamics (QBD) proposes that the electric dipoles of the water molecules constitute a quantum field, referred to as the cortical field, with corticons as the quanta of the field. This cortical field is postulated to interact with quantum coherent waves generated by the biomolecules in neurons, which are suggested to propagate along the neuronal network. The idea of quantum coherent waves in the neuronal network derives from Fröhlich. He viewed these waves as a means by which order could be maintained in living systems, and argued that the neuronal network could support long-range correlation of dipoles. This theory suggests that the cortical field not only interacts with the neuronal network, but also to a good extent controls it.

The proponents of QBD differ somewhat as to the way in which consciousness arises in this system. Jibu and Yasue suggest that the interaction between the energy quanta (corticons) of the quantum field and the biomolecular waves of the neuronal network produces consciousness. However, another theorist, Giuseppe Vitiello, proposes that the quantum states produce two poles, a subjective representation of the external world and also the internal self.^{[citation needed]}

Objections

In a circa-2002 publication of The Journal of Consciousness Studies, the electromagnetic theory of consciousness faced an uphill battle for acceptance among cognitive scientists.

"No serious researcher I know believes in an electromagnetic theory of consciousness",^[16] Bernard Baars wrote in an e-mail.^{[better source needed]} Baars is a neurobiologist and co-editor of Consciousness and Cognition, another scientific journal in the field. "It's not really worth talking about scientifically",^[16] he was quoted as saying.

McFadden acknowledges that his theory, which he calls the "cemi field theory", is far from proven but he argues that it is certainly a legitimate line of scientific inquiry. His article underwent peer review before publication. In fact, Baars is on the editorial board of the journal that published it.

The field theories of consciousness do not appear to have been as widely discussed as other quantum consciousness theories, such as those of Penrose, Stapp or Bohm.^[17] However, David Chalmers^[18] argues against quantum consciousness. He instead discusses how quantum mechanics may relate to dualistic consciousness.^[19] Chalmers is skeptical that any new physics can resolve the hard problem of consciousness.^[20][21][22] He argues that quantum theories of consciousness suffer from the same weakness as more conventional theories. Just as he argues that there is no particular reason why particular macroscopic physical features in the brain should give rise to consciousness, he also thinks that there is no particular reason why a particular quantum feature, such as the EM field in the brain, should give rise to consciousness either.^[23] Despite the existence of transcranial magnetic stimulation with medical purposes, Y. H. Sohn, A. Kaelin-Lang and M. Hallett have denied it,^[24] and later Jeffrey Gray states in his book Consciousness: Creeping up on the Hard Problem, that tests looking for the influence of electromagnetic fields on brain function have been universally negative in their result.^{[dubious ][25]} However, a number of studies have found clear neural effects from EM stimulation.

• Dobson, et al. (2000): 1.8 millitesla = 18,000 mG^[26]
• Thomas, et al. (2007): 400 microtesla = 4000 milligauss^[27]
• Huesser, et al. (1997): 0.1 millitesla = 1000 mG^[28]
• Bell, et al. (2007) 0.78 Gauss = 780 mG^[29]
• Marino, et al. (2004): 1 Gauss = 1000 mG^[29]
• Carrubba, et al. (2008): 1 Gauss = 1000 mG^[30]
• Jacobson (1994): 5 picotesla = 0.00005 mG^[31]
• Sandyk (1999): Picotesla range^[32]

In April 2022, the results of two related experiments at the University of Alberta and Princeton University were announced at The Science of Consciousness conference, providing further evidence to support quantum processes operating within microtubules. In a study Stuart Hameroff was part of, Jack Tuszyński of the University of Alberta demonstrated that anesthetics hasten the duration of a process called delayed luminescence, in which microtubules and tubulins re-emit trapped light. Tuszyński suspects that the phenomenon has a quantum origin, with superradiance being investigated as one possibility. In the second experiment, Gregory D. Scholes and Aarat Kalra of Princeton University used lasers to excite molecules within tubulins, causing a prolonged excitation to diffuse through microtubules further than expected, which did not occur when repeated under anesthesia.^[33][34] However, diffusion results have to be interpreted carefully, since even classical diffusion can be very complex due to the wide range of length scales in the fluid filled extracellular space.^[35] Nevertheless, University of Oxford quantum physicist Vlatko Vedral told that this connection with consciousness is a really long shot.

Also in 2022, a group of Italian physicists conducted several experiments that failed to provide evidence in support of a gravity-related quantum collapse model of consciousness, weakening the possibility of a quantum explanation for consciousness.^[36][37]

Advantages

Locating consciousness in the brain's EM field, rather than the neurons, has the advantage of neatly accounting for how information located in millions of neurons scattered through the brain can be unified into a single conscious experience (sometimes called the binding or combination problem): the information is unified in the EM field.^{[citation needed]} In this way EM field consciousness can be considered to be "joined-up information". This theory accounts for several otherwise puzzling facts, such as the finding that attention and awareness tend to be correlated with the synchronous firing of multiple neurons rather than the firing of individual neurons. When neurons fire together, their EM fields generate stronger EM field disturbances;^[38] so synchronous neuron firing will tend to have a larger impact on the brain's EM field (and thereby consciousness) than the firing of individual neurons. However their generation by synchronous firing is not the only important characteristic of conscious electromagnetic fields—in Pockett's original theory, spatial pattern is the defining feature of a conscious (as opposed to a non-conscious) field.^{[citation needed]}

Influence on brain function

The different EM field theories disagree as to the role of the proposed conscious EM field on brain function. In McFadden's cemi field theory, as well as in Drs Fingelkurts' Brain-Mind Operational Architectonics theory, the brain's global EM field modifies the electric charges across neural membranes, and thereby influences the probability that particular neurons will fire, providing a feed-back loop that drives free will. However, in the theories of Susan Pockett and E. Roy John, there is no necessary causal link between the conscious EM field and our consciously willed actions.

References to "Mag Lag" also known as the subtle effect on cognitive processes of MRI machine operators who sometimes have to go into the scanner room to check the patients and deal with issues that occur during the scan could suggest a link between magnetic fields and consciousness. Memory loss and delays in information processing have been reported, in some cases several hours after exposure.^[39]

One hypothesis is that magnetic fields in the 0.5-9 Tesla range can affect the ion permeability of neural membranes, in fact this could account for a lot of the issues seen as this would affect many different brain functions.

Implications for artificial intelligence

If true, the theory has major implications for efforts to design consciousness into artificial intelligence machines;^[40] current microprocessor technology is designed to transmit information linearly along electrical channels, and more general electromagnetic effects are seen as a nuisance and damped out; if this theory is right, however, this is directly counterproductive to creating an artificially conscious computer, which on some versions of the theory would instead have electromagnetic fields that synchronized its outputs—or in the original version of the theory would have spatially patterned electromagnetic fields.^[41]

See also

• Orchestrated objective reduction
• Quantum mind
• Simulated reality
• Quantum neural network

References

1. Susan Pockett (September 2000). The Nature of Consciousness. ISBN 978-0-595-12215-8.
2. Pockett, Susan (2012). "The electromagnetic field theory of consciousness: a testable hypothesis about the characteristics of conscious as opposed to non-conscious fields". Journal of Consciousness Studies. 19 (11–12): 191–223.
3. Johnjoe McFadden (2002). "The Conscious Electromagnetic Information (Cemi) Field Theory: The Hard Problem Made Easy?". Journal of Consciousness Studies. 9 (8): 45–60.
   - Johnjoe McFadden (2002). "Synchronous Firing and Its Influence on the Brain's Electromagnetic Field: Evidence for an Electromagnetic Field Theory of Consciousness". Journal of Consciousness Studies. 9 (4): 23–50.
   - Johnjoe McFadden (2006). "12. The CEMI Field Theory: Seven Clues to the Nature of Consciousness". In Jack A. Tuszynski (ed.). The Emerging Physics of Consciousness. Berlin: Springer. pp. 385–404. ISBN 978-3-540-23890-4.
4. William R. Uttal (2005). Neural Theories of Mind: Why the Mind-Brain Problem May Never Be Solved. ISBN 978-0-8058-5484-8.
5. Mari Jibu; Kunio Yasue (1995). Quantum brain dynamics and consciousness. ISBN 978-1-55619-183-1.
6. Giuseppe Vitiello (2001). My Double Unveiled. ISBN 978-1-58811-076-3.
7. Liboff, A R (2016). "Magnetic correlates in electromagnetic consciousness". Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine. 35 (3): 228–36. doi:10.3109/15368378.2015.1057641. PMID 27049696. S2CID 32635627. There is no question that incorporating EM field-mediated communication into models of brain function has the potential to reframe discussions surrounding consciousness. However, to the best of our knowledge, all previous discussions concerning this possibility only focused on traditional electrophysiological parameters, with no recognition of the role likely played by the magnetic field.
8. Sources for Fingelkurts:
   • Andrew A. Fingelkurts and Alexander A. Fingelkurts, Mapping of the Brain Operational Architectonics, published in: Chen, F. J. (ed.) Focus on Brain Mapping Research, Nova Science Publishers, 2005 pp. 59-98
   • Fingelkurts A, Fingelkurts A (2001). "Operational architectonics of the human brain biopotential field: Towards solving the mind-brain problem" (PDF). Brain and Mind. 2 (3): 261–296. doi:10.1023/a:1014427822738. S2CID 16125062.
   • Fingelkurts Andrew A.; Fingelkurts Alexander A. (2004). (PDF). International Journal of Neuroscience. 114 (7): 843–862. doi:10.1080/00207450490450046. PMID 15204050. S2CID 11376883. Archived from the original (PDF) on 27 September 2007. Retrieved 22 June 2009.
   • Fingelkurts Andrew A.; Fingelkurts Alexander A. (2006). "Timing in cognition and EEG brain dynamics: discreteness versus continuity" (PDF). Cognitive Processing. 7 (3): 135–162. doi:10.1007/s10339-006-0035-0. PMID 16832687. S2CID 2228893.
   • Fingelkurts Andrew A.; Fingelkurts Alexander A.; Neves Carlos F.H. (2009). "Phenomenological architecture of a mind and Operational Architectonics of the brain: the unified metastable continuum" (PDF). Journal of New Mathematics and Natural Computing. 5 (1): 221–244. doi:10.1142/s1793005709001258.
9. Fries, P.; et al. (1997). "Synchronization of oscillatory responses in visual cortex correlates with perception in interocular rivalry". PNAS. 94 (23): 2699–2704. Bibcode:1997PNAS...9412699F. doi:10.1073/pnas.94.23.12699. PMC 25091. PMID 9356513.
10. McFadden, J. (2013). "The CEMI Field Theory Closing the Loop" (PDF). Journal of Consciousness Studies. 20: 153–168.
11. Anastassiou, C.A.; et al. (2011). "Ephaptic coupling of cortical neurons". Nature Neuroscience. 14 (2): 217–23. doi:10.1038/nn.2727. PMID 21240273. S2CID 7836328.
12. Frohlich, F.; McCormick, D.A. (2013). "Endogenous electric fields may guide neocortical network activity". Neuron. 67 (1): 129–143. doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2010.06.005. PMC 3139922. PMID 20624597.
13. McFadden, J. (2013). (PDF). Journal of Consciousness Studies. 20: 153–168. Archived from the original (PDF) on 7 May 2016. Retrieved 22 December 2014.
14. Hiroomi Umezawa. Advanced Field Theory: Micro, Macro and Thermal Physics (1993). American Institute of Physics.
15. Herbert Frohlich (1968). "Long-range coherence and energy storage in biological systems". International Journal of Quantum Chemistry. 2 (5): 641–649. Bibcode:1968IJQC....2..641F. doi:10.1002/qua.560020505.
16. . Wired. 21 May 2002. Archived from the original on 29 June 2011.
17. Baars BJ, Edelman DB (14 May 2014). "Consciousness, biology and quantum hypotheses". Phys Life Rev. 9 (3): 285–94. Bibcode:2012PhLRv...9..285B. doi:10.1016/j.plrev.2012.07.001. PMID 22925839.
    - Bókkon I, Mallick BN, Tuszynski JA (11 September 2013). "Near death experiences: a multidisciplinary hypothesis". Front Hum Neurosci. 7: 533. doi:10.3389/fnhum.2013.00533. PMC 3769617. PMID 24062655.
    - Hameroff S (14 May 2014). "Consciousness, the brain, and spacetime geometry". Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 929 (1): 74–104. Bibcode:2001NYASA.929...74H. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.405.2988. doi:10.1111/j.1749-6632.2001.tb05709.x. PMID 11349432. S2CID 12399940.
18. David Chalmers (1996). The Conscious Mind: In Search of a Fundamental Theory. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-510553-7.
19. Stephen P. Stich; Ted A. Warfield (15 April 2008). The Blackwell Guide to Philosophy of Mind. John Wiley & Sons. p. 126. ISBN 9780470998755. {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help)
20. David J. Chalmers (1995). "Facing Up to the Problem of Consciousness". Journal of Consciousness Studies. 2 (3): 200–219.
21. Chalmers, David J. (1997). The Conscious Mind: In Search of a Fundamental Theory (Paperback ed.). New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-511789-9.
22. David Chalmers (1996). The Conscious Mind: In Search of a Fundamental Theory. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-510553-7.
23. David Chalmers (1996). The Conscious Mind: In Search of a Fundamental Theory. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-510553-7.
24. Sohn, Y H; Kaelin-Lang, A; Hallett, M (2003). "The effect of transcranial magnetic stimulation on movement selection". Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry. 74 (7): 985–7. doi:10.1136/jnnp.74.7.985. PMC 1738563. PMID 12810802.
25. Jeffrey Gray (2004). Consciousness: Creeping up on the Hard Problem. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-852090-0.
26. Dobson, J.; St Pierre, T.; Wieser, H. G.; Fuller, M. (February 2000). "Changes in paroxysmal brainwave patterns of epileptics by weak-field magnetic stimulation". Bioelectromagnetics. 21 (2): 94–99. doi:10.1002/(sici)1521-186x(200002)21:2<94::aid-bem3>3.0.co;2-7. ISSN 0197-8462. PMID 10653619.
27. Thomas, Alex W.; Graham, Karissa; Prato, Frank S.; McKay, Julia; Forster, Patricia Morley; Moulin, Dwight E.; Chari, Sesh (2007). "A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial using a low-frequency magnetic field in the treatment of musculoskeletal chronic pain". Pain Research & Management. 12 (4): 249–258. doi:10.1155/2007/626072. ISSN 1203-6765. PMC 2670735. PMID 18080043.
28. Heusser, K.; Tellschaft, D.; Thoss, F. (19 December 1997). "Influence of an alternating 3 Hz magnetic field with an induction of 0.1 millitesla on chosen parameters of the human occipital EEG". Neuroscience Letters. 239 (2–3): 57–60. doi:10.1016/s0304-3940(97)00881-1. ISSN 0304-3940. PMID 9469655. S2CID 22753522.
29. Bell, G. B.; Marino, A. A.; Chesson, A. L. (December 1992). "Alterations in brain electrical activity caused by magnetic fields: detecting the detection process". Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology. 83 (6): 389–397. doi:10.1016/0013-4694(92)90075-s. ISSN 0013-4694. PMID 1281085.
30. Carrubba, Simona; Frilot, Clifton; Chesson, Andrew L.; Webber, Charles L.; Zbilut, Joseph P.; Marino, Andrew A. (January 2008). "Magnetosensory evoked potentials: consistent nonlinear phenomena". Neuroscience Research. 60 (1): 95–105. doi:10.1016/j.neures.2007.10.001. ISSN 0168-0102. PMID 18036693. S2CID 4848049.
31. Jacobson, J. I. (December 1994). "Pineal-hypothalamic tract mediation of picotesla magnetic fields in the treatment of neurological disorders". Panminerva Medica. 36 (4): 201–205. ISSN 0031-0808. PMID 7603740.
32. Sandyk, R. (April 1999). "Treatment with AC pulsed electromagnetic fields improves olfactory function in Parkinson's disease". The International Journal of Neuroscience. 97 (3–4): 225–233. doi:10.3109/00207459909000662. ISSN 0020-7454. PMID 10372649.
33. Lewton, Thomas (18 April 2022). "Quantum experiments add weight to a fringe theory of consciousness". New Scientist. Retrieved 23 April 2022.
34. Tangermann, Victor. "Experiment Suggests That Consciousness May Be Rooted in Quantum Physics". www.futurism.com. Camden Media Inc. Retrieved 24 April 2022.
35. Nicholson, Charles (May 2022). "The Secret World in the Gaps between Brain Cells". Physics Today. 75 (5): 26–32. Bibcode:2022PhT....75e..26N. doi:10.1063/PT.3.4999. S2CID 248620292.
36. "Collapsing a leading theory for the quantum origin of consciousness". phys.org. 13 June 2022.
37. Derakhshani, Maaneli; Diósi, Lajos; Laubenstein, Matthias; Piscicchia, Kristian; Curceanu, Catalina (1 September 2022). "At the crossroad of the search for spontaneous radiation and the Orch OR consciousness theory". Physics of Life Reviews. 42: 8–14. Bibcode:2022PhLRv..42....8D. doi:10.1016/j.plrev.2022.05.004. PMID 35617922. S2CID 248868080.
38. Crick, Francis (1995). Astonishing hypothesis: The scientific search for the soul. Simon and Schuster.
39. (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 1 February 2014. Retrieved 22 January 2014.
40. Andrew A. Fingelkurts, Alexander A. Fingelkurts, Brain and mind Operational Architectonics and man-made "machine" consciousness. Cognitive Processing (2009) 10(2):105-111.
41. McFadden, Johnjoe (2020). "Integrating information in the brain's EM field: The cemi field theory of consciousness". Neuroscience of Consciousness. 2020 (1): niaa016. doi:10.1093/nc/niaa016. PMC 7507405. PMID 32995043. S2CID 221971224.

External links

• The electromagnetic field theory of consciousness, Scholarpedia
• Global workspace model of consciousness and its electromagnetic correlates
• Consciousness Based on Wireless?
• Quantum-Mind