Yahweh is given human characteristics in the Bible and it can be argued he was far from perfect. — Hanover

A quick comment about the existence and characteristics of gods. If you think about gods with common sense, why would beings compared to which humans are basically ants be completely absorbed in making billions of humans perpetually happy and safe, especially if it would require stamping out the aspect of humans in our ant farm that must be most interesting, our spontaneous decision-making, so-called "free will"?

Interpreting gods as irrationally jealous and angry seems like a projection of our own selfishness. The truth is that if gods exist, they don't have to care about us at all, but many humans experience the fact that they do, and if these humans are not delusional the world could be a much worse place in the grander scheme of things without the gods' help. We should be pleased with what seems to be our occasional good fortune, learn from our mistakes, and make the most of our vulnerable fates rather than erroneously thinking help from the gods is a necessity of nature, as if gods are our servants.

Seems like our problem is hardheaded and self-absorbed human prejudice, not some god's neglect.

I would necessarily see a progression towards a monotheistic set up but I don't think there was, or has been, much time for it come to full fruition (in terms of what it could offer PURELY as a psychological edifice of guidance and reference). — I like sushi

I don't think religion has much possible clout beyond its almost totally antiquated role as authority structure, cultural keystone and on occasion emotional inspiration apart from direct experience of god. Would religion even exist if adherents didn't believe they have direct experience of the supernatural? From my point of view, seems like you've got to address the question of what gods actually exist and how they are experienced so as to comprehend the psychology of religion.

When you've actually experienced a god and aren't just bs'ing about what you prefer, what seems logical, what society condones, what is imposed by humans so as to play god, it narrows down the options quite a bit. I imagine the Israelites originally believed in their god because they experienced that god directly, he had power, and he seemed to help them. That's why I believe in spirits that transcend the biological order without making any claim as to whether my beliefs should be given precedence. Myths and institutions probably obscure that simple fact.

What are supervening EM fields? I mean, what are their origins? If they, instead of the wiring, are the cause of circuitry change, what is the material motor that drives?

Is the same going on in the brain, according to CEMI? If so, then what is the material generator that gives rise to the EM fields that drive neuronal circuitry change? — GraveItty

The rather simplistic computer chip (a hundred or so logic gates) was designed to evolve its structure through an open-ended process of a few thousand iterations (I can't remember what the computational task was intended to be). Only thirty some logic gates turned out to function through direct connections, while the rest were recruited by an electromagnetic field emergent from overall electron flow. The chip evolved itself to be mostly parallel processing integrated primarily by an electromagnetic field, and the author of the paper which describes the experiment proposed that this is the basic mechanism of consciousness, except that in brains the electromagnetic field is generated by ion rather than electron flow.

The theory is that ion flow produces a supervenient EM field which neural networks have evolved for responding to, but in a much more complex way than the experimental computer chip. Research on neurons in vitro has proven that action potential propagation can be very sensitive to electromagnetic fields via ion channels, and at this stage these membrane channels are the most likely candidate for structures that mediate EM/cellular interactions.

If photonic radiation within the EM field binds with biochemistry to create nodes of superposition, this might partially account for the "what it is like to be" aspect of matter waves.

What is useful about CEMI theory? Will it produce new technologies? — Varde

In the lab, experimental computers programmed to evolve on their own have spontaneously adapted connections between logic gates that are mediated by supervening electromagnetic fields. Only a fraction of the logic gates developed to function via wiring connections. The inventor of CEMI field theory has suggested this as the basic template of the percept/brain interface's structure and evolution, speculating that complex computers of this kind will be conscious in a way comparable to human consciousness.

Identifying mechanisms of percept formation, awareness and will of course has huge implications for physiology and medicine, in addition to the possibility that physics and chemistry will be revolutionized by modeling the material basis of qualia.

If you want to get a sense for what CEMI field theory is about, look at my thread: Uniting CEMI and Coherence Field Theories of Consciousness. This is basically the line of reasoning from which my interest in electromagnetic fields arose.

Thanks a lot for improving the quality of my thread...er lol

Could electromagnetic field fluctuations be the cause of alternation between quantum coherence and collapse!!! Orch-Or and CEMI theory united!

Can you describe how each of the quantities in that equation, voltage, amps and ohms, relates in a physical sense to charged particle behavior and electromagnetic fields?

Consider photons as pure potential energy, capable of giving pure kinetic energy to the massive matter particles. — GraveItty

How can a photon be pure potential energy if it moves and exerts force? Wait, I think you already explained this, but some more depth could be good perhaps.

Can you clarify the distinction between real photons of EM radiation and virtual photons of the electric field?

Current. Amperes, which is a coulomb (a quantity of electrons) per second. — frank

How does this relate to voltage?

Electric pulses in the brain are spikey electric potentials caused by positive ions traveling rapidly to and from in ion channels.These autonomously traveling pulses *not caused by an external potential) are the base of thought and emotion. — GraveItty

I'll have to process all that detailed information for a while, but getting to the crux of the issue as it most concerns me so far:

It has been suggested in experiments that ion channels are receptive to the electromagnetic field of the brain, with firing in neural networks amplified by saturating EM fields so that patterns of ion flow become phase locked across denser swaths of tissue, much more synchronous then they would be via purely chemical effects. Some models propose that specific features of neurons are specialized for receptivity to EM fields.

I want to know what photons might be doing within electromagnetically phase locked patches of neurons. Is the radiation interacting with atoms in a rather unusual way because of the strong electromagnetic forces involved, perhaps "superpositioning" or blending if you will into larger than average collections of atoms? It might be good to have a solid definition of superposition.

Is it possible for science to discern whether something different is going on amongst atoms and radiation in the presence of fluctuations in electrical potential (voltage) that are so strong at the microscopic scale, and could this be a key facet of the binding mechanism from which qualitative percepts emerge?

This might explain why the brain is composed of white and grey matter to begin with. Myelin that coats most axons is white to reflect as much light as possible, preventing attenuation of intensity as this light radiates and thus optimizing the mechanisms of percept generation. Grey matter (the rest of the neuron: cell body, dendrites, axon terminal, and perhaps matter internal to the axon) is darkened by structures which absorb light during radiative/biochemical binding.

I tend to align with Schopenhauer on this particular issue in that, if there actually is a transcendent force, it does not deliberately or self-reflectively do anything in its pure form. It could be that the manifestation of the world by the transcendent consciousness or force is entirely instinctual or involuntary, analogous to a non-lucid dream. — Paul Michael

I think large sections of the brain's matter are electromagnetically bound together exactly like that, as a non-lucid dream. The gap between the unconscious/subconscious and fully attentive consciousness is bridged when an amplifying feedback loop of electromagnetic radiation activating nerves reaches a sufficient level to generate CEMI fields. If you're not familiar with CEMI field theory, I explain it in this thread: Uniting CEMI and Coherence Field Theories of Consciousness. This reasoning strongly suggests how consciousness can be entirely physical, and may be applicable beyond the brain.

Thank you for your well wishes!

The fact is brains are 'too hot' for quantum effects to produce classical metacognitions. (Btw, the human brain generates only about 20 watts so ... :roll:) — 180 Proof

It has been shown that the phosphates in ATP may engage in a superposition state that is almost a second in duration. It is not unreasonable to assume that superposition is evolutionarily adaptive for its role in subjective perception, so will be discovered as a key mechanism coordinated with much complexity in all kinds of locations within the brain. This is not far out global microtubule stuff, it is more plausible. Electromagnetic field effects are not a product of total power or wattage, but voltage differentials that on a microscopic scale prove extremely strong per unit of brain matter. :grin:

Well, like any other "physical field", do you have a candidate for a "force carrier", or gauge boson, for fundamental interactions (e.g. EM field has photons)? Or does this "physical field of consciousness" operate in a non-physical manner not subject to known physical laws (re: fundamental forces)? — 180 Proof

The physics of perception:

The motion of charged particles generates an electromagnetic field.

Particles emit electromagnetic radiation.

The electromagnetic field of the brain is strong due to large quantities of charged ions moving around.

The strength of the electromagnetic field as emergent from voltage differentials forcefully binds particles and radiation such that they pervasively superposition while quantum entangled in atomic bonds etc., the wavelengths of their constituent matter synthesized into complex hybrids.

These superpositions within entanglement fields are the substance of qualitative percepts or "qualia", both dimensionality (image properties) and feeling (nonimage properties). This is analogous to the way the different combinations of wavelengths within the visible spectrum produce differing shades, only it is superposition as the substrate of subjectivity rather than its simpler objective correlates in light and sound.

It has been proven that electromagnetic radiation of the brain influences the behavior of ion channels and nervous system molecules in general, so fields that radiate on a large scale in the brain are active causes, not merely passive effects. It has been proposed that these relatively macroscopic radiative/molecular fields could be the seat of intentional awareness.

Nonelectromagnetic physical fields might saturate and undergird electromagnetic matter. These could be responsible for nonlocal (classical physics transcending) conscious phenomena.

Together, these principles solve the binding problem, and also the explanatory gap (a chasm between models of percept and matter). It also accounts for how perceptual phenomena seem to be causal rather than merely a passive ghost in the machine, as identical to certain features of consciousness which arise from quantumlike mechanisms amongst matter.

This seems like an adequate foundation, no theoretical idealism necessary. What do you think?

I guess the philosophical issue is evading me. I suppose substance is my specialty while being is not. You'd think I'd have more intuition about being since I'm alive and got through school, but it didn't work out that way lol

My comment was more general than specific but you seem to have got the message. — TheMadFool

An individual neuron in my brain can receive thousands of messages at once! Even so everyone seems to think their message is special, strange isn't it?

What, too simple for you? I guess I should have translated the essence of consciousness and rationality into differential equations or something. Or too complex? Maybe I should write a children's book on quantum neuroscience! I'm amenable to suggestion...

Thanks. — Tom Storm

Simple, isn't it!

By aesthetics I mean both the appreciation of our own first-person experience and the ethic of respect for someone else's. This basically amounts to deference for forms of expression that vary by individual and culture. The episteme should be built from this raw material into an edifice that is compatible as much as possible with everybody. That is what objectivity is, and that's what rationality pursues. Multigenerational progress within this valuation schema will make society as ideal as possible.

Not especially enigmatic: this perspective is responsible for modern academia's prestige, beginning as Medieval universitas that were a few individuals gathering with a teacher in someone's house to our huge, worldwide education systems.

Building a violin is not a matter of having enough bricks. You can't build a violin from bricks. — Wayfarer

A violin is a substance, just as consciousness is, and we can build both with appropriate knowledge of substance, as I've started to show might be achievable. I think that's a faulty analogy.

I can appreciate the difference between subjectivity and objectivity, but it should be an aesthetic value, not an epistemic value.

I can reflect on myself, I can think about what I think, but this problem of reflexivity remains, because, as I said, the subject who thinks is not an object, except for by inference. — Wayfarer

But if we gain enough knowledge via quantum neuroscience to describe the substance of subjectivity as object, essentially an identity between quantum resonances (superposition amongst entanglement) and qualia, it could be the case that we reach a point where nothing remains to be explained in terms of consciousness, exactly as nothing remains to be explained about the circulatory system in terms of physiology. This does not mean that quantum neuroscience will displace the significance of personal, subjective experience, though it would change intuitions about our own minds as psychological neuroscience has already, probably in even more profound ways.

I think the issue of whether absolute comprehension of the subject is possible proves philosophically interesting from the vantage point of metaphysical thought experiment, but somewhat trivial when we consider what knowledge really is. Understanding has always been a process of moving from less to more robust explanations. Models of the circulatory system are not identical to the experience of our pulse, but does anything exist within the domain of physiology that remains to be explained? The subject/object gap might persist, but by any realistic measure the explanatory gap in relationship to the circulatory system has been resolved, and the same might happen for consciousness by advancing neuroscience into the domain of quantum mechanisms.

Maybe the problem is you're conflating a comprehensive model of consciousness' substance with infallible mastery over our own subjective experience.

The problem that Chalmer's legendary paper brings up is not that it's objectively difficult to understand the nature of conscious experience, but that it's not an objective phenomenon at all. It's not a matter of providing 'a mechanism' - that is still within the domain of third-person cognitive science. It is that first-person consciousness is of a different order - or is ontologically distinct - from the domain of objective phenomena. — Wayfarer

Sorry for the tangent, but this is interesting. Why is that a problem? What is Chalmers wanting to explain? Does he think it's impossible to overcome certain prejudicial notions that arise from first-person consciousness?


This is drawn from a previous conversation I had with you in a different thread:

The reason I think a quantum theory of consciousness could be a leap beyond current neuroscience in solving the hard problem is because, if we consider visualizing an image in our minds or feeling a sensation, the image or sensation is no longer merely produced by action potentials or neurotransmitters as some mysterious supervenient substance, it is the quantum superposition, precisely. The resonant color of the superposition is the subjective color of the mental image, and the quantum resonance of the sensation is the feeling. We will have identity rather than correlation, no gap between matter and percepts, and the basic mind/body problem is resolved. Of course it will turn out to be more complex than only that, but research in principle might be able to model percepts as if they are objects.

This does not diminish the fact that a subjective aspect of experience exists which in its stark immediacy proves ineffable or personal from a certain perspective, but we would be able to perform feats such as creating elements of humanlike subjectivity in electronic devices or repairing, treating and enhancing the physiology and biochemistry of subjectivity in organisms because this subjectivity will at that point be modeled as a material substance with physical structure.


A partial blending of objectivity with subjective experience will surmount the explanatory gap insofar as it relates to humanity's common fund of theoretical knowledge, continuing the progression that has occurred in psychology and neuroscience already. Whether or not humanity is capable of embracing the explanation on an existential or practical level might be the problem Chalmers sees.

What you're not addressing is the 'explanatory gap'. — Wayfarer

Resolving the explanatory gap and hard problem is exactly what I'm into. I think it will be addressed by quantum biology eventually, but technicalities - the specific quanta and mechanisms involved - have not yet been unveiled by research, though I've got preliminary ideas. Some of you have probably already read many of my posts about it on this site, but for those who haven't and might be interested, give this thread of mine a look: Uniting CEMI and Coherence Field Theories of Consciousness. Any of my threads on qualia, quantum mechanics, consciousness or perception will give still more of a sense for the reasoning. If you've got insights or questions for me, I'd like to discuss.

I guess we should simply remove the brain, can't stop now!

I tend to think the reasoning of math combines all three categories: intellect, imagination and sensation (as does any process of reasoning?). The interesting inquiry from my angle (thinking a lot about panprotopsychist consciousness theory via quantum biology) is how these faculties and their subject matter are situated in relationship to the brain.

It seems that the way thinking becomes stereotyped means intellect is closely entwined with the types of patterns characteristic of material structure, not a domain adequately explained as abstraction to the core, but what kind of matter this will turn out to be is perhaps uncertain.

There are maths prodigies and geniuses that solve real problems that have eluded others for centuries. In what are such problems embodied? To say that they only exist in brains, then they're just the product of brains, and have no intrinsic reality, which is a bold claim, and one that not many mathematicians would agree with, I would think. — Wayfarer

Kind of a tangent, but has implications for ideal Platonic form and seems to be talked about a lot at this forum, so maybe it's worth thinking about. This will probably resolve some uncertainty for me.

My argument is that ideal geometrical objects are the equivalent of a space unicorn, which seems to be the convenient fiction perspective you mentioned. Any object ever instantiated has imperfectly aligned angles, no matter how slight, is not quite symmetrical in some way, and has unevenly textured boundaries. An ideal object is like cobbling together perfect alignment, symmetry and smoothness in the mind's eye, features inherent in whole numbers as specs that are self-contained with artificially simple exactness, and then labeling a material figure such that ideal properties are assumed present in the real world when they actually are not and never have been.

The mind conceives of the mathematical unicorn by imagining a figure with no imprecisions (neurophysiology), and represents the imaginary concept in a real figure by more or less disregarding the imprecisions intrinsic to instantiation (physical matter). No hyperspace realm where objects with ideal geometry float around waiting to be discovered has ever been empirically proven to exist, exactly in the same way that a real unicorn has never been witnessed. Ideal objects are only present in consciousness, and so would not exist without particular types of cognition.

It is the radical precision of ideal geometry as concept that makes it such a powerful tool, not its actual embodiment as substance, and so can be expected to evolve multiple ways by convergent evolution in similarity to bilateral symmetry etc. But like any purely conceptual (and thus conscious) schema, ideal geometry has to be reducible to neurophysiology, or if not this, then matter of some kind. Postulating a domain where possibilities actually exist or where anything actually exists demands support from a theory of matter to be legitimate, a corresponding and coherent model of instantiated substance, as does any epistemic claim. Quibbling about the meaning of "to be" doesn't seem like it gets at the truth, anymore at least, but I admit I'm not knowledgeable about the relevant Aristotelian arguments.

Explain to me why this reasoning doesn't compel those who are not being disingenuous or merely equivocating about the definitions of verbiage.

How can symbolic code be 'represented' by neural events? Don't you think there's a possibility you're confusing the two levels, neurophysiological and semantic? The basis of meaning is the perception of meanings which remain stable between different people and cultures. Do you think that's reducible to neurophysiology? — Wayfarer

Verbiage on the computer monitor I'm looking at reduces to characters on a page which my brain interprets into meanings.

Language spoken to me reduces to sounds which my brain interprets into meanings.

The coffee machine beeping is interpreted by my brain to mean that the coffee is ready.

My brain interprets waking up early as meaning that I might have a long, challenging day of exhaustion ahead of me.

All these cases and every possible case I can think of reduce to my brain making an interpretation. Sure, meanings are agreed upon, but this agreement between humans is not fundamentally semantic, it is cognitive. The semantic is real only insofar as it is embodied in a medium that implies meaning to my consciousness doing the interpreting. If meaning is shared, if semantic content is mutual, this is because it is etched into the material environment such that multiple individuals have a collectively functional access, not because it exists in some higher realm of ideal form set apart from what everything is made of. The point about morphic fields might be pertinent: perhaps a domain of object-forms exists that transcends sense-perception and standard physics, but this is no less material. I'm getting the impression that you don't want to discuss morphic fields, but it would be interesting to know something about related theories.

The semantic only has reality insofar as it is embodied in neurophysiological matter or its correlates in the material world. I can't imagine what meaning even is apart from the substances it is instantiated in. Claiming that a substance is "immaterial" seems contradictory to me. "Meaning" is merely an aspect of what substance does in conjunction with my consciousness' interpreting.

There is no reality to where the electron, as a material entity, a particle, is

The real world is completely different from how it appears to our senses, and the intellect demonstrates to us that the intelligible forms are far more reliable in giving us the real world, then are the senses. — Metaphysician Undercover

If there is no reality about what the electron is and quantum physics is purely a functional method utilized by technological practice, how can you say that the intelligible form of the phenomenon is more real than the sensible? Intellectual concepts might be more efficacious than sensory data alone, but not more real and certainly not independent of the senses, unless you mean something along the lines of the morphic fields that were mentioned by @Janus, with "intellect" partially defined as that aspect of consciousness which has exclusive access to them.

Therefore the dream of "a single reality" where everything behaves according to a single, consistent and coherent, set of causal principles, because it is composed of a single substance, is just that, a dream. — Metaphysician Undercover

When the past and future interact they are causally unified such that certain events could happen and alternate events couldn't. I don't claim that causality is fundamentally principled, that is only our functional interpretation of it. And as for "single reality", monism isn't exactly a fringe perspective. Do you subscribe to a metaphysical foundation that differs from monism?

On the contrary, consciousness determines 'brain structure', not vice versa. For instance, in patients who suffer brain trauma, the brain is reorganised in such a way as to compensate and re-organise its activities to compensate for the trauma (this is one of the discoveries of neuroplasticity).

Besides, on an abstract and general level, it can be shown that symbolic forms and logical relationships are not dependent on any particular material configuration, because they can be realised in many different material and symbolic forms. The meaning of a sentence can be preserved exactly across different languages and different media, so how could the meaning be determined by the material form? — Wayfarer

Human meaning in all cases, whatever the medium, reduces to brain structure. Brains have much plasticity, true, but all of this is mediated by neuronal connections, and the degree of plasticity is constrained. An only partial reconfiguration of function commonly occurs, such as long-term pot use counterbalancing suppressed frontal lobe activity with increases in visual cortex acuity, or delayed onset of dementia due to compensation by less damaged areas of the brain. The way structural changes manifest as functional change can be subtle, but targeted tests will reveal a difference, if only a slight dulling or lack of stamina in relation to very specific tasks. Neuronal rewiring builds on existing structure, even if the total causation cannot be exclusively attributed to any particular brain region.

Meaning is essentially determined by interpretation, and as such is subjected to massive amounts of illusoriness. I'd claim that if we find a way to get past the illusions, cognitive change will usually if not always reveal itself extremely sensitive to preexisting brain structure. Not to diminish that consciousness seemingly transcends the brain in some way, but I don't consider this an immaterial phenomenon.

To clarify my view of immateriality:

The relatively informal meaning of "immaterial" makes sense, as not consonant with the principles of classical physics that are the bedrock of our intuitions about material reality.

I regard an ontological proposition that the immaterial is a fundamentally distinct substance from physical matter as fallacy.

If what has traditionally been referred to as immaterial is a distinct substance in some sense, it at least has to have causal principles in common with conventional matter by virtue of interaction, and the entire range of phenomena becomes part of one theoretical edifice modeling a single reality, which will presumably be a revised physical reality of matter in various forms.

The problem is, that when we follow "the material" all the way down, to its most fundamental constituents, as we are prone toward doing in scientific reductionist practices, we find that what is there, what supports the material world is the immaterial. — Metaphysician Undercover

If we think of a tree trunk, it can be modeled as a column, but that idealized geometry is only an approximation. The actual material structure or substance beneath the idealization is not precisely a column. If we think of subatomic matter, it can be modeled as a wave field, but that idealized geometry is also only an approximation. The actual material structure is some kind of oscillation and flow that does not precisely resemble any ideal wave.

In the case of the tree trunk, the distinction between the ideal and the real is easily inspectable with vision, while in the case of subatomic matter, its structure morphs at a rapid rate and in such complex orientation that we are mostly reliant on an indirect process of manipulating ideal concepts for any empirical comprehension we can achieve (though techniques such as electron microscopy give us some direct insight). But subatomic matter is no less material than a tree trunk, we simply don't have sense-perceptual insight at the subatomic scale to make this obvious.

The nature of what we approximately model as a waveform is not rooted in our physiology, but rather the material bodies it is composed of, which also comprise substances in the environment surrounding us. At the subatomic level, the distinction between physiological and nonphysiological dissolves, but these minuscule structures are no less fundamentally material than a macroscopic object.

Our reasoned understanding of objects intuitively seems to be rooted in the immaterial substance of thought, but it has been demonstrated that consciousness of anything is firmly attached to brain structure, so the apparently immaterial is more delimited by the body than are the basics of materiality, though a knowledge of the body is not exhaustive of so-called immateriality's nature, as any explanation of human will or solution to the hard problem must undoubtedly show.

Why so prejudiced against dogs? lol I'll be the contrarian for entertainment (perhaps I've misunderstood some feature of the argument so far, and you guys can point that out).

A fairly unique aspect of human thinking is not only how we seem to intellect in the abstract, but how we fail or refuse to recognize full ranges of possibility, underachieve, by becoming attached to certain concepts (not talking about anyone in particular). Our cognitive blind spots are not so dissimilar in their organic nature from a dog's, but of different kind. Humans are capable of thinking and imagining in extremely versatile ways, especially as it relates to generalized concepts (the universals you guys are talking about), but commonly refuse to or shrink away from doing so. I think this constant, arbitrary stereotyping of conceptual categories shows that rationality is without a doubt material, rooted in the body.

If the so-called immaterial is to be understood, it must be via reconfiguring physical knowledge to account for its material and physiological foundations in novel ways.

Basic physics behind the field theory of consciousness:

Atoms, comprised of subatomic particles and their quantized arrangements, have electric charge.

The movement of charged particles produces electromagnetic fields.

The highly charged nature of ionic movement with its voltage differentials in the nervous system and brain gives rise to a strong electromagnetic field.

These charges and strong electromagnetic fields participate in synchronizing neural networks with their photonic (radiative) waves and particles (standing waves).

Radiative waves can superposition as in the visible spectrum, particles can superposition to a limited extent while they are atomically bonded or otherwise entangled, and radiative waves can superposition with particles.

The motion of charged particles in neural networks creates standing wave oscillations (brain waves) coursing through this biochemical matter that take effect on a global scale within the nervous system.

The emergent organization of particles and radiation within this highly charged, electromagnetically robust neuromaterial field is a main facet of perceptual consciousness. Brain wave readings via EEG are a measurable signature of this synthetic electromagnetic substance’s compositional contours at the macroscopic scale.

This synthetic substance contributes toward generating qualitative percepts to the extent that its constituent matter superpositions while entangled in atomic bonds and additional electromagnetic superstructures, amounting to resonances between various combinations of particle and radiative quanta, etc.

Studies have shown that ion channels and synaptic structures are sensitive to EM fields. This is the basic evidence so far in favor of CEMI field theory, which claims fully aware consciousness is associated with mechanisms that generate the brain's strongest, most concentrated EM field effects, synchronizing neural networks via a process of "phase locking".

Additional field phenomena resembling quantum coherence in their integrating effects may add a further dimension to qualitative consciousness.

EM complexes such as CEMI fields with their radiative and standing waves as well as coherence phenomena in general, including all properties of entanglement and superposition, can be subsumed with the term "coherence field".

Humans are evil! But know better, so it ain't all bad.

We will need to expand on that point more if you don’t think this is so. — kudos

May I have your hand in marriage first? lol

I don't have a deeply studied comprehension of the value form concept, but I think of it as the locus of collective psychology, the core dynamical agent that dictates how members of a social group intersect as they relate. Labor has been a centerpiece of "economy" - the production and trading of goods - since prehistory, and Marx of course considered work a concept that is key to understanding the evolution of social structures which he discerned as forming around it in a dialectical pattern (reciprocally parallel influences), all suffused with the material conditions of human life, in essence products and institutions generated by economies. So the value form is like a mutative core of society, and dialectical materialism is socioeconomic evolution. Probably much more nuance than that, but the basic idea.

According to this account, information is the value form of the 21st century because it is replacing labor as the locus of collective psychology. Paperwork, electronic interfaces, media generally are interposed into almost every civic interaction, changing the way we think, the way we act in many spheres, our ethics, our image of the world, what it is possible for us to do economically. Labor is being pushed away from the center of the evolutionary dialectic while information takes its place as the mutative core, the prime driver of socioeconomic change.

The Nietzschean would theorize this as memetic evolution, a culturally subterranean transformation, Freud as an outcome of unconscious drives, Foucault as a possible reconfiguring rupture in the episteme, all kinds of major thinkers might have a different conceptual framework within which to analyze, but it seems apparent that something must be added to Marxist thought if the connections of this dynamic with the past and future are to be explained.

In essence, I think the transition from art to media to information technology has to be subsumed by the Marxist narrative in order for this perspective to theorize where the Information Age is heading.

I do see how money can be made from machines, but they don’t generate value to us in and for themselves. Thus it sounds like both you and I have an idea of this as something of an eventual dead-end as far as capitalism is concerned if that’s not taking too many liberties.

This is limiting our sight to primarily those technologies whose general purpose is to reduce or eliminate some section of the working class. It makes me wonder why there exists this impulse to destroy certain jobs. — kudos

It's not the machines utilized in making money that are changing society, it's how every transaction or social interaction is encoded as information in order to be processed, worked with, so that civilization revolves around the psychology of information that you aptly summarized. Perhaps it is a case where economic value loses some of its natural psychological value, so that business is divorced of meaning. Without the meaning that labor as value form attaches to economy, atrocious events can take place, such as rapidly driving the majority of jobs out of existence without reconstituting social organization so that citizens can live securely while lacking employment.

Hypothetically, freeing a large segment of the population from coerced work could result in self-empowered actualization of the human race, but instead dialectical materialism runs its course absent much rational intervention by humans and the system changes as usual through arational upheavals, which are becoming more difficult (but perhaps not impossible) to navigate as even well-educated intellectual capabilities are stretched to the limit while we struggle to theorize these developments. Perhaps if we recognize and seek to understand it we can change it.

Could you go into a little more detail about from where you are drawing their equivalency? — kudos

The lack of equivalency is exactly what I would focus on: information is a completely new core of culture that is displacing (not blending with) human work as the source of economic and social leverage.

So like you say, the value form as information becomes characterized by skepticism about the social contract, instability, impersonality, subjectivity, basically the postmodern perspective. Rather than being of huge influence, perhaps the seminal postmodernists were way ahead of their time.

This can be contrasted with labor as based around civic reasoning, self-interest, cooperation etc., the Enlightenment perspective which when synthesized with Hegelianism and evolutionary thinking gave rise to a theory of dialectical materialism.

How a postmodern society will be rationalized in theory is uncertain: maybe dialectical materialism has a role to play, but the world has become much more complex. Applying dialectical materialism to the 21st century would probably require an army of intellectuals. The nature of human relationships and thinking are changing dramatically. It might be a radical rupture with the past, of the type described by Foucault, that is unless media can sustain a strong cognizance of history.

Can computer systems really create value on their own? I'm imagining all workers had made the transition to the so-called elite class with access to a universal education, non-physical highly abstract employment, etc. would the whole class of these people sit and stare at computer machines and just randomly determine who is rich and who is poor? — kudos

The change in value form isn't towards computers as analogous to the technologies that humans operated like machinery prior to the Information Age, but rather consists in the data itself encoded as abstract meaning within software and interfaces. The significance is that physically instantiated work is effectively excised in various ways from its role as focal point of social and economic organization, replaced by information as the engine that drives culture. This has all kinds of ramifications:

The economy can transform more rapidly, making job security vulnerable.
Citizens place less value on employment, giving rise to so-called welfare states.
Exploitative crimes by all classes are easier to commit, transitioning governments into police states with pockets of extremely antiestablishment community.
Demographics can be barred from civic participation via restricting access to information sources.
A majority of human jobs will be phased out by the next decade if automation increases uninhibited via legislation etc.
Communities become more impersonal because every interaction is mediated by software that utilizes remote interfaces.
Human psychology changes due to different forms of stimulation, primarily computer interfaces.
Citizens who have large amounts of access to information become much smarter, while those with restricted access are much less intellectual (but not necessarily less influential).
As computers become more sentient, social dynamics change in fundamental ways.
The huge proliferation of data makes it more possible to objectively track changing social and environmental conditions, but also extremely complex.

Some of this is basically common sense at this stage, well within our means to manage, but it is obvious to anyone that civilization is going to be altered dramatically. Giving a Das Kapital style analysis of these trends would be cool, determining what will happen to class organization, who will be rich or poor and in what percentages.

I'm not an expert on communist theory, but seems to me that the value form is transitioning from labor to information, as you in essence begin to suggest. A single individual (or fleet of robots?) can create huge economic value using minimal amounts of traditional labor via the programming of computer systems with information in various forms. How this will radically change the structure of society remains to be seen. Whoever can predict the range of possible consequences should write a book about it.