[ExI] Fwd: New article: EM Field Theory of Consciousness

Stathis Papaioannou stathisp at gmail.com
Fri Jun 17 13:46:15 UTC 2022

On Fri, 17 Jun 2022 at 23:01, William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat <
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:

> OTOH - it could be that our conscious mind is like God looking down on us
> and observing our behavior - meaning that the conscious has no role in our
> behavior at all - it is superfluous - epiphenomenal.  So if that is true,
> trying to make robots conscious is a waste of time.  No advantage to it.
> It has programs that monitor all output like our conscious mind  .   All is
> done by our unconscious and the conscious is just an observer.  No free
> will, but we don't need it - our unconscious (which is really conscious of
> all inputs) does all the work.

If consciousness is epiphenomenal, it isn’t an optional extra. It is a
side-effect of intelligent behaviour.

bill w
> On Fri, Jun 17, 2022 at 2:13 AM Colin Hales via extropy-chat <
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>> Hi,
>> This is to let you know of the arrival of this publication:
>> Hales, C.G., and Ericson, M.L. (2022). Electromagnetism’s Bridge Across
>> the Explanatory Gap: How a Neuroscience/Physics Collaboration delivers
>> Explanation into all Theories of Consciousness. Frontiers in Human
>> Neuroscience 16.
>> https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnhum.2022.836046/full
>> https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnhum.2022.836046/full#supplementary-material
>> This is the full and final argument.
>> Note that on page 9 there is a brief discussion of a new kind of chip.
>> That is the one I am building at unimelb. AGI because it can't be anything
>> else. Actual artificial neurons (no general-purpose computing, no software,
>> no models, no programming). Bottom line line: put the signalling physics of
>> the brain in in natural form, naturally interacting, naturally adapting on
>> the chips, NOT the physics of a general purpose computer.
>> The abstract is below. Overall:
>> 1) all theories of consciousness are actually EM field theories.
>> 2) bringing explanation of the 1st person perspective requires an
>> epistemic upgrade to the standard model of particle physics.
>> Turns out that to properly cover all the bases needed 22 pages and an 8
>> page supplementary. Sorry about that.
>> Interesting times.
>> cheers,
>> Colin
>> ==========================================
>> A productive, informative three decades of correlates of phenomenal
>> consciousness (P-Consciousness) have delivered valuable knowledge while
>> simultaneously locating us in a unique and unprecedented explanatory
>> cul-de-sac. Observational correlates are demonstrated to be intrinsically
>> very unlikely to explain or lead to a fundamental principle underlying the
>> strongly emergent 1st-person-perspective (1PP) invisibly stowed away inside
>> them. That lack is now solidly evidenced in practice. To escape our
>> explanatory impasse, this article focuses on fundamental physics (the
>> standard model of particle physics), which brings to light a foundational
>> argument for how the brain is an essentially electromagnetic (EM) field
>> object from the atomic level up. That is, our multitude of correlates of
>> P-Consciousness are actually descriptions of specific EM field behaviors
>> that are posed (hypothesized) as “the right” correlate by a particular
>> theory of consciousness. Because of this, our 30 years of empirical
>> progress can be reinterpreted as, in effect, the delivery of a large body
>> of evidence that the standard model’s EM quadrant can deliver a 1PP. That
>> is, all theories of consciousness are, in the end, merely recipes that
>> select a particular subset of the totality of EM field expression that is
>> brain tissue. With a universal convergence on EM, the science of
>> P-Consciousness becomes a collaborative effort between neuroscience and
>> physics. The collaboration acts in pursuit of a unified explanation
>> applicable to all theories of consciousness while remaining mindful that
>> the process still contains no real explanation as to why or how EM fields
>> deliver a 1PP. The apparent continued lack of explanation is, however,
>> different: this time, the way forward is opened through its direct
>> connection to fundamental physics. This is the first result (Part I). Part
>> II posits, in general terms, a structural (epistemic) add-on/upgrade to the
>> standard model that has the potential to deliver the missing route to an
>> explanation of how subjectivity is delivered through EM fields. The revised
>> standard model, under the neuroscience/physics collaboration, intimately
>> integrates with the existing “correlates of-” paradigm, which acts as its
>> source of empirical evidence. No existing theory of consciousness is lost
>> or invalidated.
>> _______________________________________________
>> extropy-chat mailing list
>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
Stathis Papaioannou
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20220617/ce46e5ee/attachment.htm>

More information about the extropy-chat mailing list