The Hard Problem of Gravity

[PixyMisa]

Oh? If the brain is not directly linked to other body systems what is the mediating factor between brain and body?

The nervous system.

When I said field I meant field. I've demonstrated that your earlier assertion that the brain neither generates or is affected by EM fields is flat-out wrong.

Which is interesting, because I never said that.

Your experience of the world is a seamless integration of modular brain functions.

No it isn't.

Its the reason why 'inconsistencies' and 'confabulations' are not readily apparent to a subject unless there is extreme dysfunction -- as in the case of mental and neurological disorders.

Change blindness. Optical illusions. Attention. Try to learn something about the subject at hand before you start lecturing other people.

Regardless, all the contributions of those neural modules are put together to form the combined out-put that make up our conscious experience. If not in a distributed field, where then does our conscious experience come together?

Those neurons are networked together. There is no field, nor is a field needed, nor is a field implied.

Did I say there weren't?

No, just making the point.

The unified experience of those processes IS a global function. Cut off one module and it affects the entirety of one's mental experience.

Wrong and wrong. It's extremely modular. Cut off one module and it affacts that part of one's mental experience. Such as the ability to form certain types of long term memories. Or the ability to recognise faces, or spoken words. You can lose individual, very specific functions while all the other functions remain intact.

Wait, wait...Lemme get this strait...

Okay.

First you assert that there is no way for the brain to generate EM fields.

Wrong.

I said that there was no field that could possibly do what you are suggesting.

Now, after I've demonstrated that they do, you're seriously claiming that there is no coherent global brainwave activity or synchronous neural firing?

No, I'm telling you that this is not mediated through a field of any description.

The global Delta, Theta, Alpha, Beta, and Gamma waves of the brain are all incoherent noise?

They are noise, yes.

That it's absolutely physically impossible for there to be any relevant and coherent EM field activity across the brain?

Yes.

Are you daft?

No. Why, are you?

As an old forum buddy likes to say: Irrelevant.

Wrong. This is exactly what you are claiming: The brain generates RF noise, therefore it must work via RF noise.

First I would like to say I'm impressed. You've actually taken the time to put forward actual argumentation. Kudos.

I always have. You've just ignored it.

Now to address your above argument. Why do you assume that neural cells [which have physical properties that are quite different from artificial antenna arrays in current use] are not affected by the collective EM field activity of the brain?

I don't assume this. It is physically impossible.

It would go a long way toward explaining the nature of memory storage

Not even remotely. Memory does not work like that.

and what is actually 'experiencing' the collective inputs of disparate brain modules.

No. It doesn't work like that.

There is plenty of evidence that the EM field activity of the brain is relevant to mental functions -- in fact, the EM field model of consciousness is one of many legitimate theories in neuroscience.

It is not a legitimate theory. It is rubbish.

The fact that so many 'sciency types' take the theory seriously says differently. But I'm sure, being the absolute authority that you are, you could easily set them strait

15 orders of magnitude.

Irrelevant.

15 orders of magnitude is irrelevant, now?

I said that the actual carrier of conscious experience is most likely the collective EM activity of the brain.

Which is completely impossible.

In response, you asserted that the brain can neither generate or 'receive' such a field.

Right. It can't.

I posted the two articles on EEG and MEG to illustrate that the brain does indeed generate an EM field and, in the case of the EEG article, demonstrated that global brainwave patterns are directly relevant to mental states.

Not relevant to states. Noise generated by processing.

And I never disputed that the brain generates RF noise. It's just that this cannot do what you want it to do. It's physically impossible.

Now, you not only move the goal post -again- but you toss in a red herring about the difference of field densities between endogenous brain fields and that of external devices used to manipulate those fields.

Red herring? 15 orders of magnitude is a red herring?

Both of those field strengths are measured outside the brain, so they're directly comparable. So you're still stuck trying to pay off the US federal budget deficit with a fifth of a penny.

Oh, so its not a misunderstanding

No. I understood you from the beginning. You're wrong.

you're just deliberately being obtuse and dishonest.

No. You're just wrong.

I said that the carrier of conscious experience is the endogenous EM field of the brain -- not that we are RF receivers that pick up radio transmissions.

You think there's a difference?

If the brain is to be influenced by EM fields, including its own, it has to be an RF receiver. Indeed, it is. It's just that the fields that you need to have any effect are fifteen orders of magnitude stronger than the fields that the brain produces.

 

[AkuManiMani]

Oh? If the brain is not directly linked to other body systems what is the mediating factor between brain and body?


When I said field I meant field. I've demonstrated that your earlier assertion that the brain neither generates or is affected by EM fields is flat-out wrong. But I guess that doesn't matter when you can simply shift the goal post again, right?

AMM, what the fred are you talking about.

It is clearly established that the neurons transmit their signal through the release of neurotransmitters.

What the heckalolly polly wolly doddle are you talking about.

The neuronal cells do not communicate through EM, so you are flat out wrong.

The model isn't so much that the cells communicate directly via EMF [though it doesn't preclude the possibility], but that the EEM is consciousness . The synchronous firing of neurons [associated with directed attention] is correlated with coherent EM activity across different regions of the brain. Its this coherent activity that is considered to be consciousness in this particular model.

Look dude, i do not know why you have your undies in a bunch, just chill PM is what he is.

Granted. But it doesn't make him any less aggravating >_<

But there is no transmission between neurons through the EM fields and forces.

Does that make sense to you or not?

Serotonin , it is not an EM pulse or field.

Hmm...Lets put it this way.

Neurotransmitters [organic signaling molecules] traveling across the synaptic cleft act as messengers conveying information, right? When they bind to the receptors of the receiving neuron they set off a specific pattern of electromagnetic current correlating with the signal they carry. Not only that, but before these molecules are released the signal they carry was in the form of an electrical current traveling across the membrane of the previous neuron. The very means by which neurotransmitters can themselves affect receptors is via the EM interactions of the molecules' electron shells -- just like in every other chemical reaction.

Furthermore, the distance between neurons at the cleft ranges from about 30-40nm. In some instances, electrical signals are passed on directly via electrical synapses with distances between the cells being about 3.5nm. This means that for vast majority of a neural signals journey, it is in the form of an electrical current. As we know from basic physics, electrical currents necessarily create magnetic fields [hence, why the brain is said to generate electromagnetic fields].

Now, if we've already established that neurotransmitters are signal carriers that relay information to neural membrane receptors via the EM force and that for most of the signal's journey it is in the form of an electromagnetic current it necessarily follows that the EEM field of the brain contains the information carried by such signals.

On top of that, specific global brainwave patterns [i.e. EM waves] are associated with specific states of consciousness. So if we take into account the nature of the signals propagated by neurons AND the fact that mental states are associated with corresponding coherent EM activity across the brain its nearly impossible to avoid the inference that consciousness is closely associate with the EEM of the brain or identical to it.

Do you have any research or data to back your speculation?

Mostly just the articles I've linked. Unfortunately, access to the actual scientific papers they reference requires a fee or subscription of some kind

It would go a long way toward explaining the nature of memory storage and what is actually 'experiencing' the collective inputs of disparate brain modules.

Not really you alread have the revereberating cycles of the biochemical units and transmission, along with attenuation and potentiation.

Your theory is nice, but where is the data?

Where has any one shown that neurons transmit information through the EM forces?

First off, I wouldn't say its my; I just happened to make the same logical inferences that certain researchers have >_>

*ahem*

Anywho... I really don't mean to sound rude or condescending but it seems as if you're using those terms without realizing what they actually mean :-/

'Reverberation' of what? Attenuation and potentiation of what? All of the above processes in the brain are EM interactions within the brain. Even the biochemicals involved convey their information via the EM force. Infact, QED is directly applicable almost every biological process at the cellular and molecular level -- and that includes all neural activity. If the mind is simply the activity of the brain and brain activity is electromagnetic in nature [including the activity of neurotransmitters and their receptors] then it follows that the mind is an electromagnetic process.

Time to put up AMM, I await you data and research and it had better be good, those are some tall words you put up there.

[...]

Excuse me, but they NO WHERE demonstrate that their idea is true, where is the data?

[...]

Where is Mcfadden's data, where does he/she show that the EM pulse does anything to the other nuerons?
Where is the data, where is the research?

[...]

You have got to be kidding right?

Where si the data, where do they show that this happens.

i will wait but seriously this is not supported, show me the data and research!

Like I mentioned before, I've come across links to the actual scientific papers cited by the articles. Unfortunately to get anything more than the abstract and a citation list you need a paid subscription to the journals they're published in.

Regardless, the basic premise of the theory [that the EM field of the brain is the carrier of consciousness] is a sound logical inference from basic neuroscience. As a matter of fact, the premises for the EM theory of consciousness is much more sound than that of Strong AI since it is based upon actual biology and not just a fiat decree of some computer scientists made over 30 years ago.

Roll your eyes, theya re wrong, you have not shown anything thats ays they are right!

Where do they show that the action phase oulse does anything to adjacent neurons, anywhere?
Not in what you provided.

All speculation.

where is the data and research?

No you did not nopne of the articles were more than speculative, where did Mcfadden show that thsi reall happens, now come one, i want to knowe.

Where di they show that neurotransimission and reception si effected by the EM in adjacent neurons.

I am growing frustrated.

this is great theory and speculation, where is the data?

Where does McFadden show that it happens?

HMMMMM?

And I say that makes as much sense as phlogiston, show me the data!

Like I said before, the best I can do is provide links to free online articles published by reputable sources and make inferential arguments based upon generally available neuroscience. I've searched high and low for scientific source papers on the subject that don't require a subscription. If you're really serious about obtaining more in-depth info on the subject I would suggest that you either track down the source material in the Scholarpedia article I provided for you before, try to contact the researchers proposing the theory, or subscribe to the relevant journals :-/

 

[Nick227]

The global Delta, Theta, Alpha, Beta, and Gamma waves of the brain are all incoherent noise?

They are noise, yes.

I seem to recall that these different frequencies are associated with different states of alertness or relaxation. I think EEG was used to monitor the depth of anaesthesia once, or to check for signs of epilepsy. If so it doesn't seem they can be entirely noise.

Nick

 

[Dancing David]

AMM, there is NOT repeat NOT an electrical current travelling down the axon.
(I alread ygave youa rather good explanation of how the biochemical pase shift occurs, sodium ions entering one area and calcium ions entering another is NOT an electric current.At least in this case)

I repeat, there is NOT an electrical current passing down the axon.

I will respond to your post when i feel calmer and not wanting to just call it all speculation.

In short they have no research that shows anything of the sort!

Regardless, the basic premise of the theory [that the EM field of the brain is the carrier of consciousness] is a sound logical inference from basic neuroscience.

NO that is not what neuroscience shows, it shows the exact opposite. It shows that the ONLY means of transmission is through neurotransmitters.

In short you are engaging in unsupported speculation. That is not neuroscience, nor is McFadden.
I will try to recenter a long time after work and respond ina reasonable fashion.

 

[Nick227]

Mostly just the articles I've linked. Unfortunately, access to the actual scientific papers they reference requires a fee or subscription of some kind

The PLoS Biology site has a lot of complete papers. I didn't look for EM but the group of researchers in France looking into the neuronal conditions for consciousness (conscious access) use some interesting words when describing what they've found.

See, for example, Brain Dynamics Underlying the Nonlinear Threshold for Access to Consciousness. In this and other papers produced by this group the authors repeatedly talk about the "ignition" of the global access state, such as...

"At odds with this view, a second category of models views conscious access as the formation of a late brain-scale neuronal assembly involving recurrent long-distance interactions among distributed thalamo-cortical regions, particularly the prefrontal cortex and higher cortical association areas [15–28,66]. In a detailed neural network simulation, those areas, when linked by reciprocal top-down and bottom-up connections, exhibit a threshold for “global ignition” [19,20]. When this threshold is exceeded, even a brief external stimulation can simultaneously activate many distant areas and yield a long-lasting pattern of reverberating activity. It is claimed that such a distributed pattern corresponds to a consciously reportable state, because its active contents are broadcast to many specialized processors, including those for verbal or motor report. When an incoming activation fails to exceed the ignition threshold, it can still briefly propagate through the processors but quickly vanishes, because it is not supported by recurrent self-amplifying loops. This state may correspond to a situation of subliminal processing"

I don't know that it's a direct challenge to the computational theory. I doubt if anyone actually knows enough yet about the neural reality of conscious access to say. But the choice of terms this group of neuroscientists use is interesting. They seem to be implying that the onset of conscious access resembles something catching fire, which seems an odd metaphor for supposedly dyed-in-the-wool materialists to come out with.

Nick

 

[Nick227]

Not following this closely, but wouldn't an MRI, which depends on generation of a strong magnetic field seriously alter brain states if they depended on a general field created by neurons? Since this doesn't happen, I think it is safe to assume that it is the direct interaction of neurons that is responsible and not the minor electrical fields generated by neuron action.

Don't "brainwaves" usually chug along at about 15Hz? Would they be affected by something at presumably such high frequencies as MRI? Just a thought.

Nick

 

[AkuManiMani]

Oh? If the brain is not directly linked to other body systems what is the mediating factor between brain and body?

The nervous system.

The brain makes up quite a large portion of the nervous system and is directly involved in not only neural signaling to ectodermal and mesodermal tissue, but also endorcrine signaling to various organs and organ systems.

When I said field I meant field. I've demonstrated that your earlier assertion that the brain neither generates or is affected by EM fields is flat-out wrong.

Which is interesting, because I never said that.

Yet another boldfaced lie:

There are a couple of problems with your magic-field "theory", though. Namely:

- There is no mechanism to produce such a field
- There is no mechanism to receive such a field
- There is no such field
- Our brains do not work that way
- Our minds do not behave that way
- It's physically impossible

The mind doesn't behave like that.
The brain doesn't work like that.
There is no transmitter for such a field.
There is no receiver for such a field.
There is no such field.
It's physically impossible.

Your experience of the world is a seamless integration of modular brain functions.

No it isn't.

Maybe it isn't for you but it is for me and many others

Its the reason why 'inconsistencies' and 'confabulations' are not readily apparent to a subject unless there is extreme dysfunction -- as in the case of mental and neurological disorders

Change blindness. Optical illusions. Attention. Try to learn something about the subject at hand before you start lecturing other people.

That's a pretty bold statement from an individual who doesn't even consider the brain to be part of the nervous system.

Those neurons are networked together. There is no field, nor is a field needed, nor is a field implied

Wha....? You just said above that you never claimed that the brain doesn't generate an EM field and now you're stating AGAIN that it does not? Do you even READ what you say before you post it? Good lord... You'll even contradict your own statements just or argue contrary to anything I say. There is definitely something wrong with you.

The unified experience of those processes IS a global function. Cut off one module and it affects the entirety of one's mental experience.

Wrong and wrong. It's extremely modular. Cut off one module and it affacts that part of one's mental experience. Such as the ability to form certain types of long term memories. Or the ability to recognise faces, or spoken words. You can lose individual, very specific functions while all the other functions remain intact.

I JUST said that the brain is modular but conscious experience is produced by the unified input of those modules; damage to a module affects the collective experience of consciousness. You going to great lengths just to disagree with every statement I make; even picking at points of non-contention or contradicting yourself.

First you assert that there is no way for the brain to generate EM fields.

Wrong.

I said that there was no field that could possibly do what you are suggesting.

Then what am I suggesting, pay tell? I know its a tall order since you seem to be having a hard time keeping track of what YOU'RE saying. Humor me anyway.

Now, after I've demonstrated that they do, you're seriously claiming that there is no coherent global brainwave activity or synchronous neural firing?

No, I'm telling you that this is not mediated through a field of any description.

What the h3ll...? Neural firing is electrochemical and brainwaves are electromagnetic waves. That is a flat fact.

The global Delta, Theta, Alpha, Beta, and Gamma waves of the brain are all incoherent noise?

They are noise, yes.

Brainwaves are global patterns of neural activity with each frequency range correlated with specific states of consciousness. How in the world do you conclude that coherent GLOBAL brain activity is noise?

I said that the carrier of conscious experience is the endogenous EM field of the brain -- not that we are RF receivers that pick up radio transmissions.

You think there's a difference?

If the brain is to be influenced by EM fields, including its own, it has to be an RF receiver.

I suppose you're right on that count. Known brainwave activity does range between about 3-100hz (well within RF range). The fact of the matter is directed attention is correlated with coherent synchronous neural activity within and between modules relevant to particular cognitive processes. If one's conscious states are exhibited by global brainwave patterns how in the world can you argue that they aren't relevant to consciousness and neural function?

Indeed, it is. It's just that the fields that you need to have any effect are fifteen orders of magnitude stronger than the fields that the brain produces.

In other words, all the above inferences are invalidated because there are artificial fields in the environment that are denser than the endogenous field of the brain [which you've repeatedly stated 'does not exist']? You fail to take into account that the only way an external field can directly interfere with, or otherwise entrain, the [non-existent ] endogenous fields of the brain they have to be of a specific frequency pattern. Another way would be to much about with conscious experience is to directly apply an electrical current. The brain isn't directly affected by any and every field or signal its exposed to.

 

[AkuManiMani]

AMM, there is NOT repeat NOT an electrical current travelling down the axon.
(I alread ygave youa rather good explanation of how the biochemical pase shift occurs, sodium ions entering one area and calcium ions entering another is NOT an electric current.At least in this case)

I repeat, there is NOT an electrical current passing down the axon.

I will respond to your post when i feel calmer and not wanting to just call it all speculation.

In short they have no research that shows anything of the sort!

NO that is not what neuroscience shows, it shows the exact opposite. It shows that the ONLY means of transmission is through neurotransmitters.

DD, I'm more than a little stunned by your reaction. You can huff and puff all you want by the pumping of ions across cell membranes does, in fact, generate an electromagnetic current. This isn't some hypothetical theory put forward by some obscure group. Its a flat fact that you can find in any highschool biology textbook. I'm very sorry if my insistence bothers you but electrical propagation along cell membranes is a well established scientific fact :-/

In short you are engaging in unsupported speculation. That is not neuroscience, nor is McFadden.
I will try to recenter a long time after work and respond ina reasonable fashion.

Its more like informed inference and postulation. I could provide more supporting evidence and arguments but somehow I don't think you're able to accept any of it.

 

[AkuManiMani]

The PLoS Biology site has a lot of complete papers. I didn't look for EM but the group of researchers in France looking into the neuronal conditions for consciousness (conscious access) use some interesting words when describing what they've found.

See, for example, Brain Dynamics Underlying the Nonlinear Threshold for Access to Consciousness. In this and other papers produced by this group the authors repeatedly talk about the "ignition" of the global access state, such as...

Thanks for the additional info, Nick. I'll definitely give it a read.

 

[rocketdodger]

In what context? I should point out that you are not a beautiful unique snowflake and neither am I.

What do you mean "in what context?" Context has nothing to do with physical behavior.

Why are you trying so hard to avoid answering this question, westprog? Is it perhaps because you realize any answer you can give will invalidate all of the arguments you have presented in this thread?

 

[PixyMisa]

The model isn't so much that the cells communicate directly via EMF [though it doesn't preclude the possibility], but that the EEM is consciousness . The synchronous firing of neurons [associated with directed attention] is correlated with coherent EM activity across different regions of the brain. Its this coherent activity that is considered to be consciousness in this particular model.

Consciousness is coherent EM activity?

What is that even supposed to mean?

Granted. But it doesn't make him any less aggravating >_<

If you don't want the aggravation, don't talk nonsense.

Hmm...Lets put it this way.

Neurotransmitters [organic signaling molecules] traveling across the synaptic cleft act as messengers conveying information, right? When they bind to the receptors of the receiving neuron they set off a specific pattern of electromagnetic current correlating with the signal they carry. Not only that, but before these molecules are released the signal they carry was in the form of an electrical current traveling across the membrane of the previous neuron. The very means by which neurotransmitters can themselves affect receptors is via the EM interactions of the molecules' electron shells -- just like in every other chemical reaction.

Yep. Pretty much everything we deal with day to day involves the electromagnetic force, though, so this doesn't tell us much.

Furthermore, the distance between neurons at the cleft ranges from about 30-40nm. In some instances, electrical signals are passed on directly via electrical synapses with distances between the cells being about 3.5nm. This means that for vast majority of a neural signals journey, it is in the form of an electrical current. As we know from basic physics, electrical currents necessarily create magnetic fields [hence, why the brain is said to generate electromagnetic fields].

Okay, let's grant all that.

Now, if we've already established that neurotransmitters are signal carriers that relay information to neural membrane receptors via the EM force and that for most of the signal's journey it is in the form of an electromagnetic current it necessarily follows that the EEM field of the brain contains the information carried by such signals.

No. Absolutely not. You can't tell precisely what your computer is doing based on the RF noise it generates, nor can you tell precisely what the brain is doing from it's RF noise. You can detect large-scale overall trends, but that's all.

On top of that, specific global brainwave patterns [i.e. EM waves] are associated with specific states of consciousness.

Yes, certainly.

So if we take into account the nature of the signals propagated by neurons AND the fact that mental states are associated with corresponding coherent EM activity across the brain its nearly impossible to avoid the inference that consciousness is closely associate with the EEM of the brain or identical to it.

No, this is complete nonsense. The electromagnetic field generated by the brain is a side-effect of its electrochemical activity. So you can see broad patterns of neural activity by examining the field, which is precisely what we use EEGs to do.

The brain's EM field has no causal influence on cognitive processes. It is far far far far far too weak for that.

Mostly just the articles I've linked. Unfortunately, access to the actual scientific papers they reference requires a fee or subscription of some kind

Penrose tried to link consciousness to quantum gravity. He was only out by about 13 orders of magnitude. You're 100 times worse off.

First off, I wouldn't say its my; I just happened to make the same logical inferences that certain researchers have >_>

Fair enough. They're wrong too.

All of the above processes in the brain are EM interactions within the brain. Even the biochemicals involved convey their information via the EM force. Infact, QED is directly applicable almost every biological process at the cellular and molecular level -- and that includes all neural activity. If the mind is simply the activity of the brain and brain activity is electromagnetic in nature [including the activity of neurotransmitters and their receptors] then it follows that the mind is an electromagnetic process.

And so is yoghurt.

Regardless, the basic premise of the theory [that the EM field of the brain is the carrier of consciousness] is a sound logical inference from basic neuroscience.

It's a sound logical inference to roughly the same degree that you could fit Lake Michigan in your bathtub.

As a matter of fact, the premises for the EM theory of consciousness is much more sound than that of Strong AI since it is based upon actual biology and not just a fiat decree of some computer scientists made over 30 years ago.

It's not based on biology at all. It's based on an abject ignorance of biology, chemistry and physics.

10¹⁵. You can't just handwave 10¹⁵, not even if your name is Roger Penrose.

 

[PixyMisa]

The brain makes up quite a large portion of the nervous system and is directly involved in not only neural signaling to ectodermal and mesodermal tissue, but also endorcrine signaling to various organs and organ systems.

... And?

Yet another boldfaced lie:

Yes, that's a quote. Every point I made is correct, and you are talking complete nonsense.

Oh, and it's "bald-faced", just by the way.

Maybe it isn't for you but it is for me and many others

Nope. Not even remotely. You've just trained yourself not to notice all the seams and gaps.

If you're interested in this subject, I very highly recommend the MIT Introduction to Psychology lecture series presented by Jeremy Wolfe. Prof. Wolfe is a visual perception researcher, so he devotes a fair bit of attention to all the stuff that goes on in the brain to trick you into thinking that vision is a continuous process when it is nothing of the sort. But every part of the brain plays tricks like that.

That's a pretty bold statement from an individual who doesn't even consider the brain to be part of the nervous system.

Which I also didn't say. You're doing well in that regard.

Wha....? You just said above that you never claimed that the brain doesn't generate an EM field and now you're stating AGAIN that it does not?

Nope. I'm not saying anything of the sort.

I'm pointing out that it doesn't generate the magic-fairy-field that you are postulating.

Do you even READ what you say before you post it?

Do you read what I say after I post it?

Good lord... You'll even contradict your own statements just or argue contrary to anything I say.

Nope. You're just wrong.

There is definitely something wrong with you.

Or... Maybe you're wrong.

I JUST said that the brain is modular but conscious experience is produced by the unified input of those modules; damage to a module affects the collective experience of consciousness.

If that's what you meant, then fine; that is not quite what you said, but I can accept it.

You going to great lengths just to disagree with every statement I make; even picking at points of non-contention or contradicting yourself.

Nope.

Then what am I suggesting, pay tell? I know its a tall order since you seem to be having a hard time keeping track of what YOU'RE saying. Humor me anyway.

You are suggesting that the EM field of the brain is, or plays a causal role in, consciousness.

This is of course impossible.

What the h3ll...? Neural firing is electrochemical and brainwaves are electromagnetic waves. That is a flat fact.

So is Kansas. Your point?

Brainwaves are global patterns of neural activity with each frequency range correlated with specific states of consciousness.

Brainwaves are the electromagnetic noise generated by patterns of neural activity.

How in the world do you conclude that coherent GLOBAL brain activity is noise?

I said nothing of the sort.

I suppose you're right on that count. Known brainwave activity does range between about 3-100hz (well within RF range). The fact of the matter is directed attention is correlated with coherent synchronous neural activity within and between modules relevant to particular cognitive processes.

Yes, absolutely.

If one's conscious states are exhibited by global brainwave patterns how in the world can you argue that they aren't relevant to consciousness and neural function?

They are as relevant to consciousness and neural function as the kangaroo logo on a Qantas 747 is to its flight characteristics.

Maybe less so.

In other words, all the above inferences are invalidated because there are artificial fields in the environment that are denser than the endogenous field of the brain

Bingo.

If such incredibly weak fields had any effect on consciousness, the Earth's own magnetic field would kill us all.

[which you've repeatedly stated 'does not exist']?

Wrong!

You fail to take into account that the only way an external field can directly interfere with, or otherwise entrain, the [non-existent ] endogenous fields of the brain they have to be of a specific frequency pattern.

Nope. Not at all. My computer may emit RF at around 2GHz, but I can crash it with enough power on any of a huge range of frequencies. The frequency doesn't need to be even remotely similar to scramble your mind - if minds worked like that, which they don't.

And all that aside, household AC is smack in the middle of the gamma wave range. If your speculation had any truth to it, we'd all lose our higher reasoning any time we went within thirty feet of an electrical appliance.

Come to think of it, that would explain a lot of posts in this thread...

Another way would be to much about with conscious experience is to directly apply an electrical current.

Yeah, that works too.

The brain isn't directly affected by any and every field or signal its exposed to.

That is precisely what I'm telling you. The brain is practically immune to electromagnetic effects of any description. You have to blast it with very powerful signals at very short range to get any effect at all.

The brain's own electromagnetic field does not qualify. Not by a factor of 10¹⁵.

 

[PixyMisa]

Oh, I just checked that link of yours. As far as I know (I'm open to correction) "brainwave entrainment" is a scam with zero scientific basis. The use of binaural beats for brainwave entrainment is definitely a scam.

 

[Dancing David]

Hi AMM, I know this is the R&P forum so I will cut you some slack. I will try to not just freak out on you, but here is the deal. I looked at your sources, they are speculative, they are also just plain wrong. Nerve transmission down the axon is biochemical, it is NOT like an electrical signal in a phone line. There is no evidence in your sources to show the possibility that there is transmission between cells through the EM force. The burden on you as the claimant is to prove your claim. I am not responsible for the speculation you quote. It is speculation and in places it just plain wrong. That is all I will say on that.

The model isn't so much that the cells communicate directly via EMF [though it doesn't preclude the possibility], but that the EEM is consciousness .

That is like saying that the cells do not use the EM field but the EM field is the source of consciousness. Would you care to try to defend or expand upon that, you are treading into dualism. What impact does the EM have upon transmission between cells, if not then how on earth does it have any effect on consciousness?

The synchronous firing of neurons [associated with directed attention] is correlated with coherent EM activity across different regions of the brain.

Unsubstantiated assertion.

It’s this coherent activity that is considered to be consciousness in this particular model.

You haven't shown a and b to be true so concluding c is not warranted.

Granted. But it doesn't make him any less aggravating >_<



Hmm...Lets put it this way.

Neurotransmitters [organic signaling molecules] traveling across the synaptic cleft act as messengers conveying information, right? When they bind to the receptors of the receiving neuron they set off a specific pattern of electromagnetic current

No, it is not a current.
there is no movement of electrons through a conducting medium. Period. there is nothing that is anything like an electric current period.

It is a shift in polarity by transmission of ions through a permeable membrane. I believe the sodium and potassium go out and the calcium goes in. there is a change in the osmotic pressure potential across the cell membrane from charged *IR high difference in osmotic forces to neutral).

there is no movement of electrons in a conductor.

correlating with the signal they carry. Not only that, but before these molecules are released the signal they carry was in the form of an electrical current traveling across the membrane of the previous neuron.

That signal was an internal signal in the prior cell and it does not have the conditioned memory that the receiving cell has, actuation for some precursor cells and attenuation for others. Which cell fires as a precursor is crucial. It is where the neurotransmitter impacts the postsynaptic cleft that matters.

The very means by which neurotransmitters can themselves affect receptors is via the EM interactions of the molecules' electron shells -- just like in every other chemical reaction.

yes, but that does not mean that the biochemical shift in polarized states has any effect on any other cell.

that is the assumption you are asserting without any basis in fact.

Furthermore, the distance between neurons at the cleft ranges from about 30-40nm. In some instances, electrical signals are passed on directly via electrical synapses with distances between the cells being about 3.5nm.

Where does that happen, who says it happens and when did they say it. I have never seen that at all in any of the literature on neural transmission. I call you out, it could happen, but where is it demonstrated to have any effect on neural transmission.

That is like saying that the static spark on the contact of a key and a lock is going to change the state of the lock, in terms of the lock having the bolt thrown or not. the neurotransmitter keys into the lock and turns the bolt.

Who, what , where and how does nay one say that the electrical impulse of the phase shift crosses the post synaptic cleft and effects transmission?

This means that for vast majority of a neural signals journey, it is in the form of an electrical current.

that is again, just wrong, it is not a current. It is not electron moving trough a conductor.

As we know from basic physics, electrical currents necessarily create magnetic fields [hence, why the brain is said to generate electromagnetic fields].

yes, it does but so what? You have yet to show a mechanism, whereby it effects any other neurons.

Sorry this is what critical thinking is about, it could happen but:
1. First off there is no electrical current.
2. What mechanism does it have to effect other neurons? (The lights of a city make a pattern that does not mean they are used to communicate at all.)
[/quote]

Now, if we've already established that neurotransmitters are signal carriers that relay information to neural membrane receptors via the EM force and that for most of the signal's journey it is in the form of an electromagnetic current it necessarily follows that the EEM field of the brain contains the information carried by such signals.
[/quote]
It is not a current and yes the patterns do carry information (but not to the brain or other neurons) but here is the crucial question that your sources have not provided.

How does it effect neural transmission. It is all speculation until that point.

On top of that, specific global brainwave patterns [i.e. EM waves] are associated with specific states of consciousness.

yeah and certain wave patterns are associated with wind speed.

the question is:
What mechanism allows the EM field to influence and of the patterns of neural firing?

So if we take into account the nature of the signals propagated by neurons AND the fact that mental states are associated with corresponding coherent EM activity across the brain its nearly impossible to avoid the inference that consciousness is closely associate with the EEM of the brain or identical to it.

the fact that the signal is not transmitted to the brain itself is a big problem. How does this
EEM interact with the brain?

where is that data?

Mostly just the articles I've linked. Unfortunately, access to the actual scientific papers they reference requires a fee or subscription of some kind

I will give you a hint AMM, I read the articles too, and it isn't there.

You are using speculation to defend a silly notion.

Why isn't it in PubMed, you know neurobiology is a big deal there.
We are talking about a novel from of neurotransmission.
Where is it in the real research literature?

First off, I wouldn't say its my; I just happened to make the same logical inferences that certain researchers have >_>

*ahem*

Anywho... I really don't mean to sound rude or condescending but it seems as if you're using those terms without realizing what they actually mean :-/

Nope that is you! I know what I am talking about, I suggest you reconsider very carefully.

I am not the one referring to an electrical; current where there is none.

'Reverberation' of what? Attenuation and potentiation of what?

You are asking good question but let me ask you something, I will answer these questions if you stop with the ignorance you show in your next line.
I am discussing neuroscience dude, I am talking about the way neurons are modeled and appear to act.
If you would like answers I will provide them, but before I do, will you stop telling me that there are currents in axons?

All of the above processes in the brain are EM interactions within the brain.

No more than bank transfers are.
yes chemistry depends very heavily upon the E< interactions modeled by Bohr and others.
however when hydrogen and oxygen react, it is not an 'electrical' phenomena.
I am will to share what I learned in school and through reading if you wish.

But please stop calling axon transmission an electrical signal. It is not, it is a phase shift in a semipermable membrane.

I will now ignore the rest of the silly stuff and straw men you are throwing out there and just ask you,

Are you willing to learn? Do you want to talk about actual neuroscience, I will answer your questions, but not if you keep acting like the brain uses electrical currents.

 

[Dancing David]

DD, I'm more than a little stunned by your reaction. You can huff and puff all you want by the pumping of ions across cell membranes does, in fact, generate an electromagnetic current.

Not in the sense of transmission of an electrical current through a wire.
Duh.

This isn't some hypothetical theory put forward by some obscure group. Its a flat fact that you can find in any highschool biology textbook.

Then they are wrong, I can't help that, find a person who studies neural transmission that says it is an electrical signal current like a phone or computer uses.

i won't hold my breath.

I'm very sorry if my insistence bothers you but electrical propagation along cell membranes is a well established scientific fact :-/

And you are wrong, or mislableing. It is not like the electrical current that Ohm, Ampere and Maxwell studied and modeled, now is it?

Its more like informed inference and postulation. I could provide more supporting evidence and arguments but somehow I don't think you're able to accept any of it.

Okay so your high school science text book is wrong.

Where does it effect other neurons?

Otherwise you might as well say it is a theory of an non-interacting EEM that is generated by the brain but has no impact upon it.

I know what i am talking about, want to use college textbooks in neurobiology?


You have evidence, lets us see it!

 

[Dancing David]

Even if you look here, you will find what I am talking about to be correct:
http://books.google.com/books?id=3a...X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2#PPA336,M1

The 'current' referred to is the wave of depolarization of the cell membrane through the gating of sodium channels: (oh I know it says 'voltage regulated gate' as well, i can explain that as well)
It is am 'impulse' as the channels depolarise the cell membrane and further channels open creating further depolarization, down the axon. Gates cause further gates to open, it is not like electrons travelling through and iron or a copper wire!
So yes the term current is 'used', but it is not an 'electrical' signal, despite the language used.

And yes it does involve the charges of ions. That does not mean it is an electrical signal in the sense of a copper wire and a microphone and speaker at all.

It is a biochemical signal that travels down the axon, it is NOT like an electrical signal in a phone line!

http://books.google.com/books?id=3a...X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2#PPA336,M1

 

[Dancing David]

Maybe this will help. i am not saying that there are not biochemical ions and electrical potentials, i am saying:
1. this is not like a transmission in a phone line.
2. Without a mechanism to effect the other neurons it is pointless.

here are some cute animation please note a 'wave' or 'current' of depolarization is not like moving free electrons through electrons shells ina wire at all. It does not move at even a fraction of the speed of light, sugger from Ohm's law or any of that stuff.

http://www.mind.ilstu.edu/curriculu...tial.php?modGUI=232&compGUI=1827&itemGUI=3156

Even in this one where they discuss 'electrical transmission' with cute little lightning bolts and every thing, you will not ethat the 'current' reffered to is ' ion exchange' between cojoined cells.

By the way this discusses small scale nerve syncrony.
http://www.mind.ilstu.edu/curriculu...ical.php?modGUI=232&compGUI=1827&itemGUI=3158

The whole module is pretty cool.

 

[AkuManiMani]

DD, I'm more than a little stunned by your reaction. You can huff and puff all you want by the pumping of ions across cell membranes does, in fact, generate an electromagnetic current.

Not in the sense of transmission of an electrical current through a wire.
Duh.

[...]

Then they are wrong, I can't help that, find a person who studies neural transmission that says it is an electrical signal current like a phone or computer uses.

Did I say it was the same as an electrical wire or phone? Dave, you're putting words in my mouth :-X

Okay, heres the rundown...

All cells maintain an internal negative charge relative to their external fluid media via active pumping off ions across their membranes creating a voltage called the membrane potential. When certain signal molecules trigger the opening of ion channels it allows an influx of positive ions into the cell, depolarizing the membrane and triggering the propagation of an electrical wave signal called the action potential along the cell membrane. It just so happens that neural cells [and certain kinds of heart cells] specialize in utilizing this method to quickly relay signals thru the body.

This is basic neuroscience. Do I have compile pages of citations to establish fact that you could easily look up yourself? Your questions regarding the CEMI model are perfectly legit but your insistence that action potentials are not electrical signals is downright bizarre and completely wrong.

I'm very sorry if my insistence bothers you but electrical propagation along cell membranes is a well established scientific fact :-/

And you are wrong, or mislableing. It is not like the electrical current that Ohm, Ampere and Maxwell studied and modeled, now is it?

Voltage is voltage and amps are amps. It doesn't matter if its in regards to power lines or cell membranes. I thought it would be sufficient just to list the general facts off the top of my head but I suppose you want me to look up specific figures.

The resting potential [i.e. on not propagating electrical signals] is usually between -60 and -80 milivolts and shiftinng towards a lil' over 60 mV during depolarization. This tiggers the propigation of the action potential which is a propagation of an electrical signal which happens to be generated by the passage of charged ions across the membrane. No, it is not the same kind of electrical signal that propagates along wires but I never claimed that it was

Okay so your high school science text book is wrong.

Actually, my college and HS texts are in agreement that electrical signals are propagated along neural cell membranes; the college text just goes into much more detail.

You wouldn't happen to be just quizzing me, are you? -_O

Where does it effect other neurons?

Otherwise you might as well say it is a theory of an non-interacting EEM that is generated by the brain but has no impact upon it.

The basic idea of the hypothesis [at least in McFadden's case] is that consciousness is the global EEM field of the brain and that activity of that field affects the charges across neural membranes and thus affecting the probability a a given neuron, or group of neurons, will fire.

As I've already pointed out before, the fact that intermodular and global brainwave patterns are directly linked to specific mental states itself lends strong evidence that consciousness is associated with, or identical to, the EEM activity of the brain.

Here are a few questions for you, Dave:

How do you propose that the release of neurotransmitters are translated to into conscious sensations?

Where is a thought in the brain and how and where are the disparate processes of brain modules brought together as conscious experience?

When you form a memory where exactly is it stored? If one where to isolate an idea what would it physically consist of?

If science were to isolate memes what would you propose would be the best way to do so? In your opinion, what would they most likely consist of?

You have evidence, lets us see it!

Like I said before, I can't do any better than make logical inferences from known neuroscience in support of the CEMI hypothesis and related postulations. If you want more comprehensive scientific papers you're going to have to cough up dough for subscription fees to the relevant journals. Either that, or I fly across the continent to where you live, book a tour of a neuroscience lab, and have a scientist or technician demonstrate to you that neurons actually propagate electrical signals. I don't have the time or the monies for all that >_<

The evidence is there but the real problem is: how in the world are you proposing that I provide 'evidence' for the CEMI hypothesis when you won't even accept basic facts of neuroscience? Is it because I'M the one saying it? Sometimes I get the impression that you and others would argue with me if I said grass is green and the sky is blue just to be contrary

edit:Meh...its late here and I'm dead tired. I'll try to address your other responses later *_*

 

[PixyMisa]

Did I say it was the same as an electrical wire or phone?

Pretty much, yeah.

Dave, you're putting words in my mouth :-X

Can't say that Dave is wrong based on what you wrote, but okay, you can clarify.

All cells maintain an internal negative charge relative to their external fluid media via active pumping off ions across their membranes creating a voltage called the membrane potential. When certain signal molecules trigger the opening of ion channels it allows an influx of positive ions into the cell, depolarizing the membrane and triggering the propagation of an electrical wave signal called the action potential along the cell membrane. It just so happens that neural cells [and certain kinds of heart cells] specialize in utilizing this method to quickly relay signals thru the body.

No, wrong. I'm sure David will correct you in detail - he knows this stuff better than I do. But an action potential is NOT an "electrical wave signal", it's an electrochemical process.

This is basic neuroscience.

So basic that it's wrong?

Do I have compile pages of citations to establish fact that you could easily look up yourself? Your questions regarding the CEMI model are perfectly legit but your insistence that action potentials are not electrical signals is downright bizarre and completely wrong.

Problem is, he's right.

Voltage is voltage and amps are amps. It doesn't matter if its in regards to power lines or cell membranes.

It matters enormously. An active electrochemical process behaves nothing at all like an RLC circuit.

I thought it would be sufficient just to list the general facts off the top of my head but I suppose you want me to look up specific figures.

I'll let David speak for himself there.

The resting potential [i.e. on not propagating electrical signals] is usually between -60 and -80 milivolts and shiftinng towards a lil' over 60 mV during depolarization. This tiggers the propigation of the action potential which is a propagation of an electrical signal which happens to be generated by the passage of charged ions across the membrane. No, it is not the same kind of electrical signal that propagates along wires but I never claimed that it was

Then you could try not calling it an electrical signal.

The basic idea of the hypothesis [at least in McFadden's case] is that consciousness is the global EEM field of the brain and that activity of that field affects the charges across neural membranes and thus affecting the probability a a given neuron, or group of neurons, will fire.

Yes, we know.

That's completely impossible.

As I've already pointed out before, the fact that intermodular and global brainwave patterns are directly linked to specific mental states itself lends strong evidence that consciousness is associated with, or identical to, the EEM activity of the brain.

Just a quick question - what's the extra E for? I know you're referring to the electromagnetic field generated by the brain's electrochemical activity, but EEM?

Anyway, this is still wrong.

How do you propose that the release of neurotransmitters are translated to into conscious sensations?

The brain is a switch network. It's a computer. Neurons signal, each to its neighbours, and it computes. We can sit there and watch it doing this. There simply is no such field, just the switch network.

Where is a thought in the brain and how and where are the disparate processes of brain modules brought together as conscious experience?

No.

When you form a memory where exactly is it stored?

In the network.

If one where to isolate an idea what would it physically consist of?

An idea is a process.

If science were to isolate memes what would you propose would be the best way to do so? In your opinion, what would they most likely consist of?

Computation. In other words, processes.

The evidence is there but the real problem is: how in the world are you proposing that I provide 'evidence' for the CEMI hypothesis when you won't even accept basic facts of neuroscience? Is it because I'M the one saying it? Sometimes I get the impression that you and others would argue with me if I said grass is green and the sky is blue just to be contrary

Fifteen orders of magnitude, AkuManiManu. That's like eating an omelette made from every egg laid by every chicken since they were first domesticated 10,000 years ago, and then complaining that you're still hungry.

You have done absolutely nothing the bridge the sheer physical impossibility of your position.

 

[westprog]

What do you mean "in what context?" Context has nothing to do with physical behavior.

So you want every possible difference in behaviour between a drop of water and a snowflake? That would take a book. There are many, many differences.

What isn't happening is some fundamental physical process that occurs in the one and not the other. Neither one is more random or more deterministic than the other.

Why are you trying so hard to avoid answering this question, westprog? Is it perhaps because you realize any answer you can give will invalidate all of the arguments you have presented in this thread?

It's both a meaningless question and not relevant to my assertion that there is no process going on in a working computer that isn't also going on in a heap of components lying on the floor, and the idea that there is something called "computation" that is happening in the one and not the other is not a physical theory.