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

[William Flynn Wallace]

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.

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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20220617/67f42273/attachment.htm>