Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 05-21-2002, 12:14 PM

<a href="http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,52674,00.html" target="_blank">Human consciousness is actually wireless communication between the cells of your brain</a>

Quote:

Pulling together research from neuroscience, psychology, physics and biology, Johnjoe McFadden has proposed a radical answer to questions that have vexed philosophers and scientists since Plato's time and, more recently, those on a quest for artificial intelligence: What is consciousness? How does the brain create intelligent thoughts? Do we have free will?

If proven correct, McFadden's theory could turn philosophy on its head, revolutionize neuroscience, and bring us a step closer to creating lifelike artificial intelligence. "It gives a physical theory of consciousness that can be tested," he said. "If we can understand it, we can improve it, change it, and even create artificial consciousness."

McFadden, author of Quantum Evolution, argues that human consciousness is actually the brain's electromagnetic field interacting with its circuitry.

. . .

Published in the most recent issue of <a href="http://www.imprint.co.uk/jcs" target="_blank">The Journal of Consciousness Studies</a>, the theory (PDF) faces an uphill battle for acceptance among cognitive scientists. Scientific study of consciousness has only recently begun to gain acceptance as a legitimate scientific discipline, and some think field theories like McFadden's are pseudo-science that threaten their hard-worn legitimacy.

"No serious researcher I know believes in an electromagnetic theory of consciousness," Bernard Baars wrote in an e-mail. Baars is a neurobiologist and co-editor of Consciousness & Cognition, another scientific journal in the field. "It's not really worth talking about scientifically."

. . .

ManM · 05-21-2002, 07:20 PM

Yes, I find that a very interesting idea. It is a shame that people aren't taking this guy more seriously.

NialScorva · 05-21-2002, 08:59 PM

I'm highly skeptical of the electromagnetic phenomena being the causal agency in conciousness rather than a by product. If such was the case, our cognitive abilities would be greatly influenced by passing through strong magnetic fields. Rolling someone into a MRI chamber would surely dwarf the fields generated by the brain, inducing all sorts of misfires, yet this is done daily.

tronvillain · 05-21-2002, 09:21 PM

Yes, that theory seem extremely implausible. As we needed to resort to something even more complex than an immensely huge network of neurons linked by neurotransmitters.

crocodile deathroll · 05-22-2002, 03:56 PM

If this cemi field theory is right then I can now rest easy using a mobile phone knowing that its electromagnetic field are far weaker then those already emitted by my brain from within, and are shielded anyway by the brain's cell membranes.
I do not think his theory is any surprise because we already know that chemical interactions are electromagnetic and the electrical impulses are also electromagnetic anyway. Although I would not go so far as calling his theory pseudo-science, it is just another theory just the same that is not as yet set in stone. And there have been many theories on the subject of consciousness as it is so ephemeral and intangible.
Here is another one that may ring a bell at
<a href="http://www.consciousness.arizona.edu/hameroff" target="_blank"> Stuart Hameroff's Homepage: </a>

crocodile deathroll

NialScorva · 05-22-2002, 05:42 PM

I agree completely, Croc, it doesn't smack of psuedoscience, IMO. Just that something doesn't seem quite right about it.

Hobbs · 05-23-2002, 06:36 AM

Quote:

<strong>Human consciousness is actually wireless communication between the cells of your brain </strong>

Human consciousness is always like one of our recent technological innovations. It used to be like telegraphs. Then it was like steam engines. Then it was like a telephone switchboard. Then it was like a computer. Now it is like cell phones.

I wonder what it will be like next ...

h · 05-29-2002, 09:18 PM

I don't think the dude was presenting anything new in respect to cognitive science; he's just using contemporary/technological terms.

ammendment: I retract my negative approach. He's a smart booger and worth reading (it got better).

[ May 29, 2002: Message edited by: h ]</p>

excreationist · 06-01-2002, 06:26 PM

I think communication between unconnected neurons plays a part in our thinking and awareness - including communication using hormones. Maybe magnetism is yet another long-range messenger.

from <a href="http://www.newscientist.com/hottopics/ai/gasbrain.jsp" target="_blank">New Scientist, 3 October 1998 - Gas on the brain</a>:

Quote:

...A decade ago, brain researchers were surprised to find that a neurotransmitter could spread its modulatory message to distant neurons. Stranger still is that in large quantities this simple chemical is toxic and has a bad reputation as a constituent of photochemical smog. That chemical is nitric oxide (NO).

Because NO is so much smaller than other neurotransmitters, it can pass unhindered through cell membranes. And when the gas meets a neuron with a NO receptor, it can raise the amount of neurotransmitter released by that neuron in response to an electrical impulse. In effect it amplifies the neuron's influence on the cells it feeds into. The discovery of NO's long-range abilities demolished the notion that neurons communicate only via synapses and only with their neighbours. It also showed that an artificial neural network with nodes connected by wires alone was not just an imperfect model of the brain, but a pale shadow of it....

It goes on to talk about AI research where "gasnets" are much more efficient than regular artificial neural nets.

Anyway, long distance communication between unconnected neurons would play some part, at least with nitric oxide, but I think the rest of the brain's machinery is required for consciousness to exist.

06-01-2002, 09:01 PM

I strongly doubt a coherent theory of consciousness can emerge without a better conception of how the brain is structurally organized.

I just don't think discovering new mechanisms of neuron interaction is going to make progress in the more fundamental problems.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-21-2002, 07:20 PM	#2
ManM Veteran Member Join Date: May 2001 Location: NW Florida, USA Posts: 1,279	Yes, I find that a very interesting idea. It is a shame that people aren't taking this guy more seriously.

05-21-2002, 08:59 PM	#3
NialScorva Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Median strip of DC beltway Posts: 1,888	I'm highly skeptical of the electromagnetic phenomena being the causal agency in conciousness rather than a by product. If such was the case, our cognitive abilities would be greatly influenced by passing through strong magnetic fields. Rolling someone into a MRI chamber would surely dwarf the fields generated by the brain, inducing all sorts of misfires, yet this is done daily.

05-21-2002, 09:21 PM	#4
tronvillain Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Alberta, Canada Posts: 5,658	Yes, that theory seem extremely implausible. As we needed to resort to something even more complex than an immensely huge network of neurons linked by neurotransmitters.

05-22-2002, 03:56 PM	#5
crocodile deathroll Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Darwin Posts: 1,466	If this cemi field theory is right then I can now rest easy using a mobile phone knowing that its electromagnetic field are far weaker then those already emitted by my brain from within, and are shielded anyway by the brain's cell membranes. I do not think his theory is any surprise because we already know that chemical interactions are electromagnetic and the electrical impulses are also electromagnetic anyway. Although I would not go so far as calling his theory pseudo-science, it is just another theory just the same that is not as yet set in stone. And there have been many theories on the subject of consciousness as it is so ephemeral and intangible. Here is another one that may ring a bell at <a href="http://www.consciousness.arizona.edu/hameroff" target="_blank"> Stuart Hameroff's Homepage: </a> crocodile deathroll

05-22-2002, 05:42 PM	#6
NialScorva Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Median strip of DC beltway Posts: 1,888	I agree completely, Croc, it doesn't smack of psuedoscience, IMO. Just that something doesn't seem quite right about it.

05-29-2002, 09:18 PM	#8
h Junior Member Join Date: Dec 2000 Location: florida Posts: 17	I don't think the dude was presenting anything new in respect to cognitive science; he's just using contemporary/technological terms. ammendment: I retract my negative approach. He's a smart booger and worth reading (it got better). [ May 29, 2002: Message edited by: h ]</p>

06-01-2002, 09:01 PM	#10
Synaesthesia Guest Posts: n/a	I strongly doubt a coherent theory of consciousness can emerge without a better conception of how the brain is structurally organized. I just don't think discovering new mechanisms of neuron interaction is going to make progress in the more fundamental problems.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.