As someone who isn’t a neuroscientist I thought this was the default position?
Is it really true, as the article states, that the field has largely dismissed the brain’s EM fields as irrelevant?
If so, this is the sort of thing that causes “armchair theorists” to feel frustrated when they offer seemingly obvious cross-domain insights for further exploration and are dismissed as naive.
On the other hand 30 seconds of browsing Google Scholar shows references to a conscious electromagnetic information theory dating back to at least 2001.
I'm not an expert but I completed a bachelor's in Neuroscience. There's definitely research, but it's not an easy setup to test. Currently what I've seen as the most popular theory is that our synapses and their arrangement, not neuronal logic, is what creates our ever-changing concept of self (consciousness)
Your synapses are constantly rearranging to process information differently (even if overall circuits remain similar) which can explain different behavior, but it's another jump entirely to say it explains selfhood
nopassrecover|4 years ago
Is it really true, as the article states, that the field has largely dismissed the brain’s EM fields as irrelevant?
If so, this is the sort of thing that causes “armchair theorists” to feel frustrated when they offer seemingly obvious cross-domain insights for further exploration and are dismissed as naive.
On the other hand 30 seconds of browsing Google Scholar shows references to a conscious electromagnetic information theory dating back to at least 2001.
Omnitaus|4 years ago
Your synapses are constantly rearranging to process information differently (even if overall circuits remain similar) which can explain different behavior, but it's another jump entirely to say it explains selfhood