It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Consciousness Explained: The Cemi Field Theory

page: 1
5

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 5 2009 @ 08:37 PM
link   
This is a very good theory that's called the CEMI Field theory. This theory is by Professor of molecular genetics at the University of Surrey in Great Britain Johnjoe McFadden.

It's a very simple theory that says the seat of consciousness is the brains EM Field. So the EM Field encodes all of our experiences, ideas, memories, awareness and thoughts. We know that EM Fields can encode complex information. We see it in radio and television signals.

The best thing about this theory is that it can be tested and there's already some preliminary findings that support this theory.

Here's McFaden talking about his theory being testable in an interview.


MLU: You have pointed out that all aspects of your cemi field theory are testable. Has any progress been made on this front?

JM: The cemi field theory predicts that synchronous firing of neurons will have a greater influence on our actions than asynchronous neuron firing. This is because synchronous activity will generate in phase em field disturbances that will have a greater chance of influencing neuron firing patterns. So a major experimental prediction of the model is that willed actions and awareness will correlate with synchronous neuron firing. In my papers I describe lots of experiments that have demonstrated this in animal models and human studies (eg. EEG studies). Since then there have been lots of additional studies that support this coupling of synchrony and neuronal activity. For instance:

Womelsdorf T, Schoffelen JM, Oostenveld R, Singer W, Desimone R, Engel AK, Fries P. (2007) Modulation of neuronal interactions through neuronal synchronization. Science. 2007 Jun 15;316(5831):1609-12.

Abstract: Brain processing depends on the interactions between neuronal groups. Those interactions are governed by the pattern of anatomical connections and by yet unknown mechanisms that modulate the effective strength of a given connection. We found that the mutual influence among neuronal groups depends on the phase relation between rhythmic activities within the groups. Phase relations supporting interactions between the groups preceded those interactions by a few milliseconds, consistent with a mechanistic role. These effects were specific in time, frequency, and space, and we therefore propose that the pattern of synchronization flexibly determines the pattern of neuronal interactions.


There's more and you can read the interview here:
machineslikeus.com...

There's a reason why this is rejected by many scientist and it has nothing to do with science. It has everything to do with their personal belief system.

Here's an interview in Wired McFadden did.


Published in the most recent issue of The Journal of Consciousness Studies, 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."


www.wired.com...

What you notice in objections to this theory is the lack of scientific response.

This is what I call my absurdity rule. If a scientist, skeptic or debunker objects to a theory on the grounds of "absurdity" or "it's just pseudo-science" and they don't have any facts to support their claim, then you should give that theory more weight.

I also find it interesting that Ghost Hunters use what's called EMF Meters when searching for ghost. They look for spikes in the EM Field.

Continued below.

 
Mod Note: External Source Tags – Please Review This Link.



[edit on Mon Jul 6 2009 by Jbird]




posted on Jul, 5 2009 @ 08:47 PM
link   
This is one of the main reason that some scientist will reject this. It's because the theory supports life after death because the information encoded in the brains EM field can't be destroyed even when you die.

So scientist will yell "it's absurd" all day long. It reminds me of a quote by Alfred Russel Wallace who worked with Darwin on Natural Selection and he was a spiritualist.


I thus learnt my first great lesson in the inquiry into these obscure fields of knowledge, never to accept the disbelief of great men or their accusations of imposture or of imbecility, as of any weight when opposed to the repeated observation of facts by other men, admittedly sane and honest. The whole history of science shows us that whenever the educated and scientific men of any age have denied the facts of other investigators on a priori grounds of absurdity or impossibility, the deniers have always been wrong.


en.wikipedia.org...

Here's some more info:


That concept of information encoded as an electromagnetic field is actually a very familiar one. We routinely encode complex images and sounds in em fields that we transmit to our TV and radio sets. What I am proposing is that our brain is both the transmitter and the receiver of its own electromagnetic signals in a feedback loop that generates the conscious em field as a kind of informational sink. This informational transfer, through the cem field, may provide distinct advantages over neuronal computing, in rapidly integrating and processing information distributed in different parts of the brain. It may also provide an additional level of computation that is wave-mechanical, rather than digital; one that drives our free will. This is the advantage that consciousness provides: the capacity to make decisions.


www.surrey.ac.uk...

You can read two of his published papers here:

www.surrey.ac.uk...
www.surrey.ac.uk...

 
Mod Note: External Source Tags – Please Review This Link.

[edit on Mon Jul 6 2009 by Jbird]



posted on Jul, 5 2009 @ 09:44 PM
link   
Sorry wrong topic


[edit on 5/7/09 by xyankee]



posted on Jul, 5 2009 @ 10:51 PM
link   
Interesting, would this also explain why the mind can influence a random number generator?

Well, it would definitely explain my out of body experiences. Since the EM field is everywhere maybe during an OBE your capability to make decisions moves elsewhere. This would not be an evolutionary disadvantage since as soon as the body becomes aware of anything you snap back in.

If the brains EM field can hold memories that could explain reincarnation. I've always been skeptical about reincarnation since I would not know how memory from past lives could move on to the next body as some claim, but this could explain it.



posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 12:33 AM
link   
reply to post by stevedel0
 


Exactly,

The Cemi Field Theory can explain alot of things. This explains the life review that people see in Near Death Experiences. If your life is encoded in your EM field then those memories will survive after death.

This also explains the binding problem. McFadden talks about it here.


MLU: I want to ask you about the particulars of your work, but before I do, perhaps we should first touch on some of the problems cognitive scientists face when trying to construct a viable theory of consciousness. The so called "binding problem," for instance, refers to how neurons associated with different aspects of perception are able to combine to form a united perceptual experience. The "mind-body problem" deals with the question of how the mind is able to move our physical bodies. Please tell us more about the difficulties one faces when trying to construct a cohesive model of consciousness.

JM: The basic problem is that our subjective experience of consciousness does not correspond to the neurophysiology of our brain. When we see an object, such as a tree, the image that is received by our eyes is processed, in parallel, in millions of widely separated brain neurons. Some neurons process the colour information, some process aspects of movement, some process texture elements of the image. But there is nowhere in the brain where all these disparate elements are brought together. That doesn’t correspond to the subjective experience of seeing a whole tree where all the leaves and swaying branches are seen as an integrated whole. The problem is understanding how all the physically distinct information in our brain is somehow bound together to the subjective image: the binding problem.


machineslikeus.com...

See, the Cemi field theory solves the binding problem because the field is non-local. The neurons processing the information are local.

Of course many scientist will not consider this because of the implications to their personal belief systems.

 
Mod Note: External Source Tags – Please Review This Link.

[edit on Mon Jul 6 2009 by Jbird]



posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 01:40 AM
link   
Very interesting. VERY! It is a theory I have heard before, but never one that has been proposed to the mainstream science committee. Granted, it has been rejected. I would love to see some studies done on this.



posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 03:46 AM
link   
Wouldn't this possibly imply the reverse, if true, that EM fields existing in nature or artificially created ones by electronic devices could be conscious? Now that would be weird, and have a lot of ramifications.

I don't really find this theory very convincing, but it is a scientifically testable theory, assuming anyone is willing to fund research into it, which apparently they are not, according to the author. I suppose it is possible, and it would definitely be worth checking out.



posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 06:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by DragonsDemesne
Wouldn't this possibly imply the reverse, if true, that EM fields existing in nature or artificially created ones by electronic devices could be conscious? Now that would be weird, and have a lot of ramifications.

I don't really find this theory very convincing, but it is a scientifically testable theory, assuming anyone is willing to fund research into it, which apparently they are not, according to the author. I suppose it is possible, and it would definitely be worth checking out.


I've actually played around with that idea a fair bit, it's hard to judge where to stop. For instance, can a rock be a conscious being? It gives off an Aura or EM field, which, at least to me (being partial to this theory) would sugest it may have some form of conscious experience. It's easier to think of virus' and bacteria as alive, even amoeba's, but a rock? A grain of sand?

This is before we even get into the even BIGGER problems, the planet's magnetosphere? Is our planet conscious? If it is, we can be expected to be turfed out on our ass any moment.

I don't think it is just the brain's EM field that is 'used' to store, process and transmit this information, it is the whole body's EM field that is used, the brain itself I see as more of an anchor.

Thank you, I have believed in this for a while, it's nice to see people with an 'Academic' background discovering similar things, or at least pondering.

EMM

Edit to add: Now THAT is seriously interesting!


Starting from a population of random configurations, the hardware was evolved to perform a task, in this case, distinguishing between two tones. After about 5,000 generations the network could efficiently perform its task.

When the group examined the evolved network they discovered that it utilized only 32 of the 100 FPGA cells. The remaining cells could be disconnected from the network without affecting performance. However, when the circuit diagram of the critical network was examined it was found that some of the essential cells, although apparently necessary for network performance (if disconnected, the network failed), were not connected by wires to the rest of the circuit.

According to the researchers, the most likely explanation seems to be that these cells were contributing to the network through electromagnetic coupling -- field effects -- between components in the circuit. It is very intriguing that evolution of an artificial neural network appeared to capture field effects spontaneously as a way of optimizing computational performance.


Lol! Gateways where interacting with each other through their respective EM fields, not only this, but they were not programmed to do it! They did it, because it was more efficient!

machineslikeus.com...

Edit again: Russians have built a machine to explore the CEMI field theory more fully.

machineslikeus.com...

[edit on 6-7-2009 by ElectroMagnetic Multivers]

[edit on 6-7-2009 by ElectroMagnetic Multivers]

[edit on 6-7-2009 by ElectroMagnetic Multivers]



new topics

top topics



 
5

log in

join