Quantum Consciousness is speculative, but has some support. — Garrett Travers

I'll chime in since I've been thinking about the quantum theory branch of this consciousness problem, and though I have a lot to learn, I'm somewhat certain of a few components.

The wave function of quantum mechanics is approximating description of an electromagnetic field's structure. These EM fields morph as charges shift in and between atoms, due to both particle motion and "quantum coherence" currents (waves) that are distinctly electrical, a type of fermionic current.

Electromagnetic radiation, a field of photons, is generated when electrical currents accelerate. These waves are a type of bosonic quantum coherence current.

Photon coherence currents superposition with electron coherence currents as they flow through them, of course along with some absorption, emission and reflection that causes the energy of electrons to fluctuate.

Given suitable conditions (amenable entropy and material structure), photon fields (EM radiation) and electron fields (atomic orbitals) can superposition pervasively enough amongst molecules that a relatively stable coherence field results.

Coherence fields resonate, vibrate in an extremely complex way. At a basic level, these vibrations are responsible for feel percepts. Coherence fields can also produce subjective images, analogous to how combining light of different wavelengths results in the visible spectrum.

Facets of brain chemistry that cause these effects in high resolution are associated with conscious perceptual experience.

As I presently comprehend, those are the essentials of quantum consciousness theory, but much of it has not yet been conclusively proven.

Basic gist, we've been wrong about consciousness for years. Oddly, this was already my idea of consciousness before I read it; hope you like it, share thoughts if you're up for it — Garrett Travers

I agree that the material basis of paranormal intuition is a great mystery, and I think it will be solved when physics has advanced far enough to fashion a model of matter's supradimensional structure along with how energy flows through it. Could causality proceed no faster than the speed of light and time travel by filling a supradimensional hyperspace of which thermodynamic substance is only the veneer or a fractional component? How would this change the way we conceptualize distance? What are the contents of hyperspace, how does it correlate with electromagnetism and interact with the brain? Might this space be populated by objects and organisms that transcend sense-perception and our current models? What kind of instruments would enable scientists to objectively inspect this paranormal realm and perhaps ecosystem if it indeed exists?

Some kind of elaboration along those lines is adequate I think. Amazing to realize neuroscience is so nascent that the textbook meanings of "thought" and "action" will be completely different in a hundred years.

Given the definitions I provided, what you know of the science; doesn't my describing it as "the sum total of all human action and thought," cover the varying degrees aspect? — Garrett Travers

Some components of human cognition are voluntary and some involuntary. The visual cortex registering the border of a shape is involuntary. An internal monologue is involuntary but can be deliberately modified. Reasoning through a philosophical problem is quite voluntary but involves involuntary aspects as well. Many cognitive processes have conventionally free elements, but moreso unfree elements which subjugate our self-identified wills. So human will is not the sum total of all brain processes, and many involuntary features of cognition that reside beyond our wills aren't what common sense labels as thought or action. I think common sense terms are essentially being redefined, which could lead to confusion. Basically, some elaboration will be necessary for your approach to work.

Tell me from the perspective of your studies, as I also have mine and maybe we'll swap if there are discrepancies, is there any issue you take with either the current working definitions of 'will,' or my reformulated one. — Garrett Travers

I think substance in general as we presently comprehend it must be its own impetus. In this respect, every facet of the brain, at least that we can currently identify, partially determines itself and has degrees of freedom. In the context of biology, when it was advantageous to evolve degrees of freedom, organisms trajected towards less constraint on whatever level of emergence, and the opposite is probably true also.

Degrees of freedom can be conscious, subconscious and unconscious, but I associate "free will" with premeditated motive, so organisms display this when they reflect, make plans as humans do. Humans can increase or decrease their capacity and opportunity to reflect by the way we organize society, either selecting for or against deliberate freedom.

I think your definition of free will corresponds to physiological degrees of freedom in general, and the standard definition of free will you reference aligns with reflective purpose. Both are accurate in context, but most wouldn't correlate degrees of freedom in general with will.

I might ask what are the evolutionary pressures and conditions that would needs be present t give rise to that will, and what does will look like to our animal relatives, whom also not only share a brain with almost identical processes of operation, but are made of almost identical elements and materials? — Garrett Travers

If this theory I outlined in the OP proves accurate, the implications for how physiology, perception and thought evolved will certainly be interesting to investigate. I've got my own speculation but no definitive conclusions besides the fact that I think free will, within constraints of variable and conditional stringency of course, does exist in thousands upon thousands of species.

I find it intriguing that EM radiation moves rapidly enough to at least in principle circle the planet multiple times per second, while gravitational lensing of long-range radio waves has been observed near extremely massive celestial bodies. So does a correlation exist between mass and frequency that determines the EM radiation which is most substantially "lensed", with shorter wavelengths lensed by smaller masses, and how does this correspond to radiation on Earth in general or produced by brains?

My main idea is, that if nature evolves to produce these discontinuous realms, who is to say there isn't another beyond whatever is our current apex? — Pantagruel

I think quantum physics will be key for modeling this realm beyond physiology, probably by uniting ideas such as coherence and the collective unconscious.

I think it's easier to ditch all the talk of fields and assume mind is primary. That seems to require less assumptions. — RogueAI

But what if the mind is a field?

It really is a new physical phenomenon, but so obvious that one wonders why it was neglected: how is EM radiation contained in or infused into atoms such that an emergent photonic/atomic field results, and does a hidden variables field with still more remote effects impact the way these electromagnetic fields manifest? What are the qualitative properties, mechanistic parameters and probably biological roles of photonic/atomic blending? I suspect this type of process is closely associated with consciousness.

The issue becomes how to develop instrumentation that can scientifically observe this phenomenon, allowing us to model it and harness it for technological and medical purposes.

You think it's perhaps probably responsible? What is a nonelectromagnetic field? A hidden variables field? — Raymond

Yeah, a hidden variables field of some kind that interacts with electromagnetic and possibly nuclear fields. An interdisciplinary quantum neuroscience might be able to figure out how it works.

What else besides brains are conscious/can become conscious? — RogueAI

I think the nonlocal, perhaps nonelectromagnetic field that is probably responsible for effects such as remote entanglement has close correlation with consciousness. This might be responsible for phenomena such as the collective unconscious in all kinds of lifeforms, just as EM fields seem to coordinate percepts within individual brains and bodies. Nonlocal fields might induce perceptual superpositions in addition to entanglement, and could be the source of what humans have historically regarded as spiritual awareness.

Quantum science might actually be able to tease apart the way in which these substance properties work, beginning with how percepts arise in brains. This trajectory would be similar to how electricity was discovered in organisms during procedures such as dissections before it was attributed to the environment generally and applied technologically.

Humans might be tards, don't take it personally lol

The Substance of Perception as a Consequence of Interactions Between Electromagnetic Radiation and Biochemistry

The most obvious and well-understood example of what it means to look or feel like something is a color percept, so we can begin to unravel subjectivity with a basic analysis of light. Electromagnetic radiation travels through the environment as a field with specific wavelengths, spreading in all directions. These radiating waves can be absorbed and emitted by electromagnetic matter in discrete packets or quanta called photons, so they have both wave and particle properties, a phenomenon referred to as wave/particle duality. Whether EM radiation is absorbed or emitted by an atom as a photon is determined by its wavelength and corresponding frequency or energy. As unabsorbed electromagnetic radiation flows through highly permeable portions of the environment such as Earth’s atmosphere or the vacuum of outer space at a breakneck speed of around 300 million meters per second, its wavelengths blend to produce combinations, and this property of simultaneous, hybridized, multifaceted structure is called quantum superposition. EM radiation also interacts through nonlocal mechanisms that remain mostly unknown, so perturbing a photon as it travels correlates statistically with changes to photons of common chemical origin moving in alternate directions. This is called quantum entanglement, an interaction occurring faster than light speed, which has even been observed as retroactive in cunning experiments.

The human eye is sensitive to EM radiation of wavelength 400-700 nm: the visible spectrum from violet to red. Light waves in this range are absorbed as photons by photoreceptor cells in the retina where they perturb molecular structures. Biochemical pathways convert these molecular perturbations into a neuronal signal which travels through the optic nerve to the brain by voltage dynamics described above, eventually arriving at the visual cortex in the occipital lobe for processing into a perceptual image.

Neural processing then rapidly makes its way from the back of the head to more anterior regions of the brain, adding layers of successively greater generalization to the perceptual field, such as a color palettes, shapes and relative sizes. The dorsal pathway trajecting towards the parietal lobe processes “where and how” features as increasingly inclusive data related to position and motion. It culminates adjacent to motor regions near the top of the brain that are the keystone of voluntary movement. The ventral pathway trajects into the temporal lobe and processes “what” features such as object and facial recognitions. Predominantly grey matter (dendrites and soma) of the separated dorsal and ventral pathways coordinates via interposed white matter which is an integrating web of axonic connections that run both ways, helping the entire visual system to function as a cohesive unit.

Almost all properties of visual perception can currently be identified in terms of neural structure except the most interesting part: why are the subjective phenomena that correlate with electrical signals a percept and not merely an electrical signal? What is it about reality and the way our brains interact with it, whether constituted of matter or something else, that contributes towards making perception a distinct property from conventional anatomy?

It is not unfruitful to speculate that biochemical properties can, in consort with EM radiation, be largely sufficient to produce color percepts, because these forms of matter - atoms and photons - are not as distinguishable in their principles of action as a casual glance might lead one to assume. The double-slit experiment has created interference patterns from emission of molecules as large as two thousand atoms, so wave/particle duality applies at a much larger scale than photons and electrons. These effects are harder to induce as mass increases, so it seems that bigger size skews molecules towards the particle end of the structural spectrum. Superposition also occurs within molecules, but to a more limited extent than in light waves. The hydrogen atoms of methane (CH4) have been shown to superposition with the central carbon atom, overlapping in intermediate space. A tentative conclusion might be that hydrogen’s bonds extensively superposition in nature. But the evidence so far indicates that as molecules increase in size, their atoms become more particlelike and are less prone to overlap in superposition states. 15 million atoms have been entangled at once, an experiment performed on a gaseous mixture at the unprecedentedly hot temperature of 176.9 oC. Entanglement was originally only achievable with supercooled chemicals, but has subsequently worked at room temperature. Researchers even managed to entangle two aluminum drums of 1 trillion atoms each, about the size of red blood cells, which synchronously vibrated by the diameter of one proton at temperatures near absolute zero. It seems all sorts of conditions are conducive to entanglement between relatively large conglomerations of atoms, but again the effects have been harder to attain in the lab with structures that are chemically bonded in more large-scale or complex ways.

Difference between the extreme wave, superposition, entanglement behavior of light and the generally more constrained behavior of larger masses is attributed to decoherence. As mass increases, more particles are jostling entropically in a process that tends to cause them to interfere, canceling out their ability to spread and interact across relatively large space so that they become more localized. The opposite of decoherence is termed coherence, a state in which wave, superposition and entanglement properties can broadly apply.

Whether decoherence happens is determined by entropy, the disorder in a material system, and chemical structure rather than mass per se, though entropic factors such as thermal energy can of course limit the ability of mass to form large chemical structures, hence the rather loose correlation between mass and decoherence. Relatively low entropy chemical structures of large mass can give rise to coherent states if conditions are suitable, and somewhat higher entropy matter of smaller mass can as well given amenable chemical structure.

The following are some illustrations of the relationship between decoherence and coherence. An electron hurtles through the double-slit experiment at 6 million meters per second, a highly entropic state allowing a single photon to disrupt the electron’s path and prevent an interference pattern from materializing on the screen at the back of the vacuum chamber. A copper wire is comparatively nonentropic, its atoms fixed in place as an extremely stable solid, supporting the flow of constituent electrons as a rapid coherence current when electricity is applied. Saline solution is more entropic, its water molecules, sodium ions and chloride ions engaged in jostling diffusion over such large spaces per unit of time that they bond in chemical structures no larger in diameter than an ion’s nanoscale solvation shell. But when electricity is applied, positive and negative charges act as a bridge, perhaps by a similar but opposite mechanism to electrical transmission in neurons, allowing electromagnetic energy to move at a rapid enough rate that the solution is relatively stationary over short timespans, almost like a quasicrystal. This is a strong coherence current, but less rapid and far-reaching than in copper wires.

Raising ion concentration increases the quantity of emergent solvation shell structures, which can lower average entropy of the solution so electrical coherence is transmitted more forcefully. A large organic molecule interacts with surrounding solution such that a lot of decoherence happens at its fringes, but inner portions probably remain low enough in entropy for some kind of coherence to be in effect, at least to the extent permitted by a residual jostling of chemically bonded atoms, though how exactly this might work remains unknown. Organic molecules are often fixed in place by cellular structures like cytoskeletal fibers and membranes, reducing entropy and in theory facilitating even more coherence.

The dynamics of macroscopic particles are driven by thermal energy and involve a substantial degree of decoherence, dividing classical from quantum phenomena, but within a multitude of conditions at the atomic scale coherence still readily takes effect. Like light, individual atoms and even fairly large atomic and molecular structures have wavelength, superposition and entangle. So while only EM radiation behaves like a textbook wave, it is possible to regard atomic structure at the microscale as comprised of wavicles which can share in all the essential coherence properties of light. It makes sense then to consider the possibility that wavicles not only form chemical bonds and functional structures in relation to each other as well as absorb or emit light, but can cohere with EM radiation in a complex of atomic nodes within photonic fields.

The speed of light is effectively instantaneous in the brain, perhaps capable of synchronizing with numerous molecules in a simultaneous way by entanglement, and blending into atomic structure as superposition, far beyond the intricacy of EM radiation alone. Acceleration of electric currents generates EM radiation of lower frequency than that which is fully absorbed into or reflected by atoms, and this may be the primary substrate of superposition fields. In nervous systems and brains, one of the most likely locations for this low frequency light emission is between the nodes of Ranvier and juxtaparanodal regions, where electromagnetic energy flow is accelerated by reduced concentration of K+. An even more probable candidate is the dendrites, where electromagnetic energy accelerates over relatively long distances, moving between clustered sodium channels in distal regions and the negative, Cl- centers of charge around the dendrite/soma junction. The presence of multiple dendrites increases the amount of radiation, perhaps to levels that can interact with neural chemistry on a broad scale, conceivably even breaching the soma. If sites of current cause trillions upon trillions of radiative locations in stretches of neuron, and radiative fields travel in all available directions across the distance of many micrometers, this may be enough to bind hundreds if not thousands of molecular structures into individual units pervading the brain. Subjective color might consist in superpositions between EM radiative fields entangled with biochemistry, an ultrahybrid resonance of waves and wavicles, obeying the same structural principles of quantum physics as both atoms and free flowing light in environments outside the body. Image percepts could be constructed from these units of resonance.

Of course this theory of resonance is full of uncertainties, just as the study of neural networks was decades ago. A way to verify and then study likely resonance properties is required, enlisting physics in the development of neuroscience to contrive new observational methods and models. But this seems the most probable hypothesis for image perception yet. The simplest possible explanation is that mental images and the visual field are analogues to quantum effects operative upon light and atoms separately. Strong circumstantial evidence comes from the way this accounts for how brain matter has a darkish tint while myelin is white. The grey matter of dendrites, some and the interior of axons is darkly shaded to absorb large amounts of EM radiation, while myelinated white matter reflects as much as possible so that radiative fields minimally attenuate across space. From the outside, neural matter looks greyish, but from the inside it synchronizes via entanglement and blends in superposition to bind as the substance of image perception.

It stretches the imagination when we try to think about how organization of matter in the brain can give rise to this perceptual field which appears so convincingly to be outside of the body. We must remember that the sharply focused visual field is only as large as the size of your thumb held at arm’s length in front of the face, with the majority of human vision pieced together from disjointed segmentations of eye saccading and even moreso involuntary memory functions. The visual field is mostly assembled by the brain from patches of stimulus that are fractional in space and temporally separated, so regardless of how physiology has adapted for experiencing, the mechanisms of our perception are largely within the brain. The way resonances hypothetically give rise to the substance of image percepts is really not a different issue in its fundamentals from how neural circuitry coordinates the cells within which these percepts would reside. Just as neural networks can be mapped according to their functional units, percept units could map onto the molecular structure of neurons insofar as it coheres with EM radiation. If this hypothesis is proven accurate, all kinds of new molecular functions and perhaps novel classes of functional molecule will be found, with heavy reliance on quantum physics in constructing these models. Ongoing discovery of the feedback loops associated with neural circuitry alongside progressing models of EM field synchronization effects as discussed above can probably explain how these radiative/molecular percepts are orchestrated to form an intelligible picture of the world around us. In addition to vision, this new theory can potentially model mental images and hallucinatory artifacts of brain processes, perceptual phenomena which are not derived from direct stimulation by the environment.

This theory would easily verify the mechanism of how percepts look, but what about how they feel? Why does perception have these nondimensional qualities in addition to spatial extension and temporal duration? When we think about resonance, the most characteristic property is vibration. All matter from the atomic to the macroscopic scale vibrates, and it is difficult to come up with a vibration that does not feel like something. Stretching and flexing of our skin, the bending of our eardrum, the soft or harsh glow of light with its frequencies and wavelengths, it all feels like something. The following is a tentative suggestion still to be proven by solid evidence, but perhaps it is intrinsic of waves and wavicles to consist in fragments of feeling as they resonate both independently and jointly. However, matter on the nanoscale does not seem to feel with much resolution. Specially adapted structures apparently exist throughout the body that increase the resolution of these resonances by idiosyncratic and intricate chemical organization, resulting in emergently complex feelings of incalculable diversity. If resonance between atoms and EM radiation produces perceptual feel as well, the variety in possible mechanisms is effectively limitless when we consider all the structural forms conceivable. The basics of feeling as molecular structures bound into percepts by EM radiation may constitute an even larger spectrum than image percepts.

Before the maturation of neuroscience, most philosophers and scientists viewed the substance of consciousness and its interactions with the environment as mediated by a nonphysical field. Nonlocal entanglement between matter separated by hundreds of kilometers certainly defies a model based on brain properties alone. But insofar as perception is tied to the brain, it seems promising that a theory of electromagnetic matter might be largely sufficient to describe many percepts along with motive forces that drive behavior of this matter on the electromagnetic scale. If an underlying, even nonelectromagnetic field with extremely remote effects is unveiled, it obviously must interact with molecular and radiative quanta to impact the brain. Wave/particle duality, superposition and entanglement will most likely be core to any theory of consciousness regardless of how exotic our knowledge of physical force becomes.

The Quest for a Theory of Consciousness and the Brain

Preliminaries of a complete explanation for the brain’s role in consciousness seem available to us. In neurons, a chain reaction of electromagnetic energy rapidly travels from more positive to less positive centers of charge, accelerated by periodically increasing charge disparity between neural regions. Feedback loops amongst neurons as well as phase locking between EM fields and neuronal chemistry synchronize these electromagnetic flows within large swaths of brain tissue, the emergent shapes of oscillating and traveling waves as recorded by EEG. A plausible hypothesis is that the electromagnetic causality imposed by these large-scale waves is responsible for the subconscious, intentional consciousness, and the experience of our own willed agency. Acceleration of electromagnetic energy in many trillions of locations within neurons of the brain emits EM radiation, and these radiative waves may interact with molecular wavicles by way of shared quantum mechanisms such as superposition and entanglement to bind biochemistry into percepts. Wave/wavicle resonances might not only comprise complex subjective images, but vibrations involved could include the basic constituents of feeling. These dimensional and/or nondimensional structures would form emergent arrays and conglomerations that are specialized to increase resolution, and together with EM field synchronization project the perceptual field insofar as it arises from the brain.

Percepts may at base be a product of quantum coherence properties and mechanisms, so if justified by subsequent evidence, this entire apparatus of electromagnetic energy flow, feedback loop or EM field synchronization, and wave/wavicle binding can be termed a “coherence field”. Whatever nonlocal fields and forces cause the extremely remote causality that is fast being revealed by experimentation in physics, it would of necessity interact with electromagnetically quantum phenomena, so this entire edifice of physical knowledge, at least to the extent that it intersects with consciousness and especially the brain, might be subsumable under the heading of coherence field theory. If coherence fields are proven to exist as outlined above, this will set science on course to resolve the explanatory gap and bring knowledge by acquaintance a great deal closer to knowledge by description.

Large-scale Mechanisms of the Brain’s EM Field

Linkage between wave oscillations of the brain’s electric field and awareness is well-documented. Delta waves oscillating at EEG frequency .5-3 Hz occur during sleep. Theta waves (3-8 Hz) show up while in a daydreaming state between sleep and wakefulness. Alpha waves (8-12 Hz) are associated with a relaxed, idling state of mind such as when we pause with our eyes closed. Beta waves (12-38 Hz) happen during alert states of intellectual activity and outwardly focused concentration. Gamma waves (38-42 Hz) arise in conjunction with many neocortical contributions to perception and consciousness, such as analytical problem-solving.

Some wave types are strongly tied to certain regions of the brain. The hippocampus involves theta activity, the motor cortex features beta activity, and as was mentioned, gamma activity can obtain in the neocortex. Traveling waves of various frequencies traverse paths through the electric field ranging from a few millimeters to dozens of centimeters, and have been observed spanning the entire neocortex. It is noted that the strongest traveling waves incline to be out of phase with the rest of the brain. If tied to high arousal consciousness, this explains why fully attentive states consist in serial processing as opposed to the massively parallel processing of unconscious states. We might be able to intentionally concentrate on only a limited range of tasks because the electric fields of alert, focused consciousness segregate more from what surrounds them.

A typical explanation for large-scale electric field flows is that neural networks are synchronized by feedback loops, similar in concept to central pattern generators but so tightly coupled in recurrence that the emergent electric field evinces an in-phase pattern of oscillation as it moves. Experiments with electrodes inserted into in vitro nervous tissue have suggested that neurons engage in a phase locking mechanism which is still poorly understood, allowing the cells to fire in perfect, in-phase synchronicity. Researchers suspect that this phase locking is mediated by interaction of EM fields with the molecular structure of ion channels. Phase locking between ion channels and the EM field would certainly have pervasive effects, but it is plausible that much additional biochemistry could synchronize into EM fields due to complementary electromagnetic properties. Atoms are like tiny magnets, and even complex molecules may be sensitive to the motions of supervenient electric fields. Perhaps electric currents can almost causally saturate some tissues of the brain as they oscillate and flow.

Molecular biologist Johnjoe McFadden has proposed CEMI (conscious electromagnetic information) field theory, which claims the brain’s EM field is a motive force driving the activity of neural networks, and when these effects are strong enough they give rise to CEMI fields responsible for the causality and experience of willed agency. Some neurons have adapted for sensitivity to EM fields, and these are implicated in conscious brain processes, allowing us to control our attention and make decisions, while EM field insensitive neurons participate in unconscious processes. He explicitly asserts that the disjunction of CEMI fields from bordering EM fields can explain distinctly serial processing of consciousness.

It is the current author’s opinion that three factors must determine whether an EM field graduates to something like CEMI field status, becoming intentional will. Molecular structure of the tissues involved must be such that they are acutely responsive to EM field flows. The domain of the EM field must be large enough to incorporate holistically functional regions within its sphere of action. And EM field effects must be densely concentrated enough within tissue that an intensity threshold is surpassed. If EM fields minimally interact with tissue, are dispersed or remain small-scale, they may evoke lower arousal subconscious processes but will not enter into peak consciousness.

The plethora of evidence for electric field to awareness correlation alongside confirmation of feedback loop integration and phase locking mechanisms makes it seem as if neuroscience is well on its way to resolving the combination problem insofar as it relates to functional coordination. EM fields are not only a signature of neural network synchronicity but so far appear to actively modify activity throughout the brain, conjuring both low and high arousal states within large swaths of tissue. If CEMI fields are proven to exist with conclusiveness, this easily explains how intentional will manifests as structurally unified and causally efficacious. But though the forces which drive neural network synchronicity may be demystified by research along these lines, it is still not apparent why so-called will, ranging from the most unconscious to the most conscious processes, looks or feels like anything. What are the brain mechanisms that contribute to the substance of percepts and perception?

it's a real $50 note, not a forgery. — Banno

I preferred when you used $70 as your example lol

It's not the molecules in the brain. When we drink the fake whiskey, a sample isn't sent up to the brain for analysis, rather signals about the sample are sent up. We can test this for ourselves. Water tastes much better when we're thirsty, meatloaf when we're hungry, etc. Objects appear the same throughout the day despite the ambient light changing. And different people see the same objects in different ways. — Kenosha Kid

Probably more accurate to say that whatever molecules in the brain are responsible for subjective color itself constitute a fraction of the 1-to-1 identity between physical reality and consciousness. I imagine that a particular additive relationship between wavelengths of EM radiation and wavicles in atoms comprises the basic substance of subjective color itself, so some biochemical/radiative complex = red itself in a sense. But any conscious experience identifiable to the subject transcends particular percepts such as these because experience arises from numerous regions of the brain and a huge host of fluctuating environmental features in general, as per your alcoholic beverage argument.

Perhaps something like a morphogenetic field exists which participates in forming conscious experiences, so a so-called "percept" in the brain will become an unrepresentative fragment of the totality, and the definition of what consciousness is will be more finely grained conceptually: at base, trillions of physical percepts and more rather than a nonphysical entity, exactly as theorizing neural networks has enhanced comprehension of the mind. Some collection of physical properties is equivalent to consciousness.

I'm just saying there's no 1-to-1 map. Our perceptions aren't functions of objects from which we can prove the existence of those objects. — Kenosha Kid

A 1-to-1 relationship exists between cone cells and the sensing of specific colors, a 1-to-1 relationship between the perception of a specific color and its neural correlate in the visual cortex, so why not a 1-to-1 relationship between the subjective color itself and properties of some class of molecules or molecular array in the brain? It seems apparent from the success of science that any alternate explanation is impossible, though the objects will be novel in mechanism of action compared to either the retina or neural networking.

We don't know what causes it. Presently, there is no testable theory of it. Neither MP nor Dennett offer one. — frank

Coherence field theory is testable, or at least currently researchable. Look for classes of molecules and biochemical pathways in the brain that are strongly correlated with abnormalities such as perceptual hallucinations of a severity equivalent to those caused by substances such as mescaline, LSD, etc. Then find out the mechanism of action, which is probably going to be some variant of additive superposition with relatively low frequency EM radiation, perhaps by experimenting on synthetic variants in the lab. Simple.

Do you have a citation I could look into? — Isaac

This website has a bunch of articles by Johnjoe McFadden, the originator of CEMI theory. If you want to spend the time perusing them, you'll get a detailed sense for what it's about. Or like a said you can just read my thread Uniting CEMI and Coherence Field Theories of Consciousness to get a summary of the basic idea along with some of my extensions.

If your aether blows itself apart for experiments with second scales over distances of a light year, how can it explain experiments on the nanosecond scale with distances of 10 feet? — InPitzotl

A light year is a LOT longer distance to maintain underlying entanglement structure. You think a pilot wave can conjoin only a couple electrons at the scale of light years? Kind of farfetched. And anyways, I chatted up the aether and that's just how aether rolls! (Perhaps someone will figure it out someday)

Also, if you want to comment on my active thread Uniting CEMI and Coherence Field Theories of Consciousness I'd be interested to get your opinion.

Not something I'm familiar with, I'm afraid. I will look it up. — Isaac

The idea is that information more or less unconsciously ascends through areas responsible for particular processes such as recognition of lines, shapes, positions, objects etc. in the visual system, then somehow impinges upon a specially adapted neural network's CEMI field where percepts (if you don't want to talk about the quantum underpinnings, I won't get into it) are ultrasychronized on a relatively large scale via phase locking to contribute towards domains of the perceptual field which of course extensively integrate via synesthesia-like mechanisms. But I have trouble discerning where these CEMI fields might be located and thought perhaps you could have some ideas once you're familiar with the theory. That's assuming you even consider it plausible as I do. If not, I'd like to know why.

There's absolutely no physiological reason why you shouldn't log the output of the forward acting region of your V3 area. "remember that left-right motion we saw the other day...". We just don't. — Isaac

CEMI (Conscious Electromagnetic Information) field theory can at least hypothetically explain that by locating fully attentive, intention-laden awareness in particularly concentrated EM field/ion channel phase locking domains of the brain, which are emergent within the more diffuse and dispersed phase locking of relative unconsciousness. This is the most plausible model I've encountered, but it has yet to be fully tested and developed. Are you familiar?

The gaps have to be something, whether or not you say woo! Gaps are the most interesting part lol

The predominant paradigm in neuroscience views neural networks as webs of electric current. A usual assumption is that these currents are transmitted by ion diffusion, but it is actually the case that most ion movement in a neuron consists of perpendicular transit through the cell membrane (via ion channels concentrated at the nodes of Ranvier), with the actual signal being a brief disruption or blip in voltage gradients distributed around the membrane, including backpropagation and additional multilinear motions. The electrical signal is a change in the electromagnetic field mediated as voltage transitions, not predominantly a product of particle structure itself. Ions responsible for voltage gradients are actually present in very minimal quantities and near the membrane, so that a neuron requires relatively few ions compared with total size to produce the necessary electrical potentiation. Action potentials, EPSPs, IPSPs etc. are broad fluctuations in the electromagnetic field that greatly transcend local motion of the particles involved.

Supposedly, less axial resistance (lengthwise along the neuron) by way of more sizable neuron diameter increases the rate at which electrical potential flows. This is not however, due to greater diffusion of ions, but rather from closer internode spacing and thus a higher capacity for the voltage-gated ion channels of nodes to register rapidly radiating transitions in electromagnetic field strength via charge-carrying ions despite more diffuse ion concentrations amongst larger intracellular volumes. In essence, a relatively constant presence of voltage gradient in various forms creates a steady electromagnetic field, so that electrical potentials in neurons are more a fluctuation in the field than particle flow.

Local field potentials (LFPs), which are fluctuations in steady state electromagnetic fields, have been observed with electrodes placed in the space between multiple neurons. So-called “extracellular space” (including cells and their medium) involves a complex arrangement of membranes along with associated voltage gradients, and axons, dendrites, dendritic spines, soma, glia, etc. are subcomponents of this overall system, with an axonic action potential for instance measured as perturbing steady state LFPs rather than generating and then extinguishing them.

The significance is that it may be more accurate to think of the nervous system and especially the brain as consisting in perturbations of an electromagnetic field that is in constant supervenience with the organ’s material structure, rather than a phenomenon of neuronal “wiring”, and this lends substantial support to an EM field theory of consciousness. Most of the brain may not amount to electrical transmission, but instead be comprised of EM field fluctuations synchronizing biochemical pathways that are perhaps bound into percepts by entanglement and additive superposition with EM radiation, as per CEMI and coherence field theory.

Dennett's argument is essentially that reality is physical, so a discourse splitting hairs over every conceivable illusion about the purportedly nonphysical (philosophical zombies, etc.) is superfluous in the pursuit of accuracy, truth.

I don't think Dennett's perspective can depreciate the value of introspective insight, however, and perhaps that's not his intention. When we're seriously trying to express the qualities of what we experience, that has value.

Some experiences can be fundamentally reduced to dimensionality: photons hitting the retina, voltage gradients carrying signals along nerves, colors that take up space within the forms of objects in consort with these brain processes, etc. But some experiences have a nondimensional component, such as tactile sensations, sounds, smells, basically nonvisual "feelings". Yet these are not feelings in the sense of sentiments, but rather prior to the ego. I think it is these nonegoistic, immediate feelings that are grouped into the same category as nonegoistic, immediate dimensional perceptions by the concept of qualia, so it does have a distinctive, nonsuperfluous meaning within philosophical discourse: all perceptual experiences that occur semi-independent of the ego.

I agree with Dennett somewhat when he suggests that talking about philosophical zombies and Chinese rooms probably obfuscates the whole issue when what should really be discussed is introspective insight and, which is Dennett's focus, the physical basis of introspective content. So I almost never use the word qualia anymore and just say "percept", meaning a specific introspective but to some degree nonintentional experience.

I can't comment on your aether theory; you didn't explain how it worked. Bohmian mechanics as I understand is not local...What does your aether do? — InPitzotl

The idea is that particles of conventional matter are embedded in aether, and apparently nonlocal interactions are mediated by emergent, integrated patterns in the aether that materialize as particles move. Aether reciprocally constrains the behavior of particles such that certain states are more or less probable given the beginning state, such as opposite spin in initially entangled electrons that are then more or less likely to interact with the detector in certain ways depending on detector orientation. These emergent patterns in the aether can be very complex, accommodating any quantity of particles by some unknown mechanism that might have at least remote complementarity with the pilot wave model.

The Alice and Bob situation would probably be impossible because the electrons are so distant that aether is unable to sustain their entanglement, unless space travel with the box doesn't at all disrupt a fixed or expanding aether pattern, with the electron's spin orientation maintained in a sort of suspended animation. It depends on exactly how the aether works, and observation along with experiments will have to be possible before anything can be verified. Perhaps studying the fine structure of an entangled system could yield some kind of mathematical model that starts to prove aether's existence and mechanisms of action by indirect observation. Whether this will amount to a pilot wave sort of dynamic or something else is unknown. I surmise that all of this resides beyond traditional relativity theory.

By the way, I think pilot waves are deterministic and thus local in concept, but they mediate particle relationships remotely such that the particles relate to each other as if nonlocal forces obtain between them, from the particle perspective.

So all you have is that "Something explains why quantum entanglement can appear to transcend the speed of light, and I call that something aether" That's not an explanation. — Banno

The key is the memory foam idea, that aether substance stabilizes the objects in their trajectories by some sort of imprint effect, but I think Bohmian mechanics is a much better model at the quantum scale. Whether aether imprinting can be salvaged I'm not sure. Like I was saying, my idea might explain certain properties of gravitating celestial objects, induced by large-scale motion through an aether, and also entanglement via pilot waves that occurs on a smaller scale within the quantum reference frame, but that's total speculation.

Not really. Fundamentally speaking, the experiments you're describing are those for which QM predicts outcomes that violate Bell inequalities. They rule out precisely the types of theories that suggest Bell inequalities should hold; that is, classical realist local theories. But that does not suffice to verify nonlocality. — InPitzotl

True, Bell's experiments rule out classical locality, so nonlocality still appears to obtain. My aether idea and Bohmian mechanics in a much more developed way suggest nonclassical locality to explain observations of nonlocality. Apparent nonlocality is basically a given that has to be accounted for with a nonclassical model, but I think some kind of unintuitive locality must be found to obtain beneath it all.

I'm not sure I understand how it does this. Bob has a clock. Alice has a clock... — InPitzotl

I'm not familiar with how the electronics work, but supposedly clocks run slightly faster at higher altitude so that the difference between reference frames is corrected for purposes such as satellite positioning.

The delayed choice experiment simply puts one detector of an entangled particle farther away from the source than a detector of the other particle, a discrepancy so slight that information cannot travel between the two particles at light speed once the first has been detected. It has been proven that entanglement still holds, so whatever goes on is beyond what relativity can model. I'm claiming relativity theory is its own reference frame, making the assumption that matter cannot interact faster than light speed, and the aether hypothesis is one way of subverting those assumptions. But some variation of Bohmian mechanics is probably the best way to account for entanglement regardless of whether or not these waves are considered "aether".

Can the concept of aether substance as a universal medium synthesize gravity with wave mechanics, these being different forms of interaction within the same substrate, one applicable to chemistry and one to celestial objects?

Good post, but if you think what I wrote has nothing to do with quantum mechanics or relativity, we obviously didn't read the same books and some prominent physicists might disagree with you!

I'm curious if Bohmian mechanics can explain the full range of observed correlations between entangled particles on some scale at least. Supposedly it can't yet be synthesized with relativity as your post highlights, but it is interesting. Pilot waves might propagate as an aether substance that also has emergent mass/medium correlation properties in line with the spacetime curvature model, ripples in something like a body of water that also bends and perturbs as a weird vortex effect when in close proximity to relatively hefty objects that rotate, revolve, flux.

Pilot wave theory, forgot about it, not sure if it can explain electron spin correlation in addition to position properties, but I'll have to look into that.

From what I've read, De Broglie wave theory is an intriguing model of what goes on inside the atom, but doesn't account for spooky action at a distance entanglement. Bohr's Copenhagen interpretation claims that all we can know of a quantum system is what can be measured, in his day restricted to the initial conditions and final probabilities of an experiment along with some rudimentary geometrical representations derived from the interaction of atoms with radiation. This paradigm is consistent within its constraints, but nonlocality on the macroscopic scale is still a mystery. I'll have to give those resources a look and maybe get some further ideas. Or someone could inform me in a post and save me the trouble.

You deleted the post, but that's funny. I'll admit I'm not a Ph.d, though I've been learning from some of the best books on the subject and I presume they were written for a reason besides deluding me lol

It looks as if all you have is yet another hidden variable theory, waving the word "aether" around.

Show how your proposal is compatible with Bell's inequality. — Banno

Essentially, the statistical results of Bell's experiment rule out local hidden variables, a property of the particles themselves determining probabilistic outcome, verifying nonlocality in quantum mechanics. The delayed choice experiment which developed out of Einstein's EPR paradox paper seems to contradict nonlocal hidden variables of a kind consistent with relativity unless viewing the detectors as separate reference frames, and this doesn't explain anything beyond correcting some calculative imprecision between clocks etc., basically not a realist account. The aether proposal explains why quantum entanglement can appear to transcend the speed of light while general relativity and nonlocal quantum mechanics still hold, and does not entail the controversial issues of observer and measurement dependence that I think are a metaphysical illusion of logic and woo chasing its tail. So any prospect of proving it empirically?

@T Clark and @Banno are wrong lol anyways, someone who cares about physics want to comment?

Apparently you've never read a book or taken a course on quantum mechanics or relativity theory. Probably haven't even talked about the subject much either. Are you just trying to get a rise out of me by insulting my post based on nothing? You shouldn't troll with contentless posts indicating you don't know anything about the subject being discussed, but at least someone troubled to get the ball rolling, though not in the most productive way. And what in the world is your definition of pseudoscience? You brandish the term a lot but don't really specify its meaning. Is philosophy of science all pseudoscience in your estimation? I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you've got something of substance to say after all.

A medium, like I wrote. You tele see. A far away image or one from the past. Of course that needs more than aether or air. — Cartuna

Slight tangent, but supradimensional causation within spacetime transcending aether that matter, physiology, electricity, technology etc. are embedded in? What does physics have to say about it?

I guess piss on whatever you want and ignore the rest! This gets back to whether feelings = matter lol

My only hope is that any such attempt, rather than putting limits on human potential, open it up to the most creative ones possible for the individual and humanity. — Jack Cummins

Objectivity is the platform for creative pursuits of even the most arcane kind to be possible, so fashioning a general framework and humanist value system for consciousness theory along with everything else is key for radical innovation to have more than an extremely improbable chance of actualization. Look at the pioneering quantum physicists or any intellectual progress, it always arises from the drive for some kind of social appeal, an optimal validation in some form.

We have no idea what “material” or “physical” or “body” mean. — Xtrix

"Physical" is an infinitely malleable category for every aspect of experience we can categorize as substance, usually by employing empirical methods.

"Material" in the context of neuroscience and consciousness theory has a similar meaning: physical "matter".

The "body" is carbon-based physiology, which consciousness transcends.

Seems simple enough to me.

I wonder to what extent the findings of the physicists will throw some clarity, or whether it will give rise to so much more uncertainty and the whole philosophical questions about the nature of consciousness and substances underlying the existence of 'mind'. — Jack Cummins

Instead of complicating our image of reality, I think quantum neuroscience along with field theory in physics will harmonize the physical and metaphysical so we have less cognitive dissonance in our picture of the world. All the intuitions of metaphysics that have been developed over the milennia and all the theoretical insights of technical philosophy and science will be bound into a unified framework allowing every individual and subculture to have a solid, compatible understanding of what is real. I think my comprehension of human nature and myself is greatly enriched by existing neuroscience, and this will be much more once consciousness is effectively modeled.

Of course uncertainties will still exist, but I think these are more endemic to the human condition as we have thus far experienced it than a consequence of any particular paradigm. Are skepticism, predestination, behaviorism, materialism, informationism, free will, individualism, chaos theory, deontology, utilitarianism etc. inhibiting or liberating to the human psyche? If we can consistently realize that all imaginable knowledge is to this point a temporary paradigm comprised fundamentally of concepts to be perpetually reconfigured as we innovate, not infallible truth, I think any furtherance of philosophy and science can only reinforce the insights associated with metaphysical perspectives and typically give purpose. But of course transition is always a gradual, multigenerational process requiring much diligence and reflection.

Prehistorically, a nonsustainable hunter-gatherer lifestyle of hominins decimated the world's species and introduced a strong strain of cruelty and violence into human nature and culture. With a scientific-theoretical component in our worldview we mitigated war, invented ecology, introduced recycling, protection of endangered species and nature preservation generally, etc. Technology causes many problems, but solves as many problems as it causes. If we transplanted antiquity's humans and values into our societies, the world would be so much worse than it is. The major problems modern civilizations face are a residue from the ancient past, not an outcome of the Information Age itself. Adapting to a lifestyle of high technology is still our huge challenge, but we have become better citizens in the process and can hopefully continue to do so. And should probably acknowledge we'll be screwed by a mass extinction event eventually without futuristic tech, so might as well try as much as we can to conscientiously advance and make it work.

To what extent is consciousness based on the physical basis of human experiences? — Jack Cummins

I think science is on the verge of addressing this with conclusiveness. It is essentially the binding problem of consciousness: how do trillions of distinct biochemical ingredients produce the integrated perceptual substrate of experience?

Like every occurrence, experience must be caused by substances, so what is the binding property of substance? A simple explanation which scientists have provided much preliminary proof for is that the electromagnetic field of the brain has emergent organization driven by local field potentials (LFPs), with intentional will being like the gulf stream among the much more finely grained EM fields of particular neural networks. The brain's EM radiation then quantum superpositions into biochemical pathways of neurons, a process analogous to the simpler additive properties of light itself. EM radiation in the brain quickly decreases in intensity as it radiates, but the spread is still enough for billions of radiative fields to each bind thousands upon thousands of molecules into individual units, and these are the basic percepts, essentially quantum resonances that generate images, sounds, smells, etc. Neuronal matter must be extremely absorptive of EM radiation to cause these effects, explaining why it looks dark greyish from the outside while being subjective color, feel, thought - additive quantum resonance - from the inside.

Essentially, superposition must nondimensionally "feel" or at least involve physical fragments of feeling that are conglomerated into complex sensations and emotions by the brain and body's emergent organization. Complex quantum mechanisms are located throughout the body which cause these percepts to seem located in structures external to the brain such as sense organs. Synchronization of these percepts is orchestrated by "supervenient" LFPs conjuncted to biochemistry.

The soul's physical basis is a more obscure scientific problem, but it probably arises from nonelectromagnetic fields our instruments have not yet been able to detect that are more nonlocal in their causation, synchronizing matter in a similar way. Perhaps these nonelectromagnetic, aetherlike fields can manipulate electromagnetic matter so that percepts and what they perceive are generated outside a carbon-based body by similar field/superposition mechanisms.

All of this still has to be proven by research, but the experimental results so far always support the model, so it seems promising. Consciousness must be a result of substances the mind is made of, and this is how the evidence suggests those substances work.