Integrating information in the brain's EM field: the cemi field theory of consciousness

Of course, there may be several different and often contradictory signals being simultaneously projected into the cemi field by networks or clusters of synchronizing neurons. Even so, what is distinctive about the cemi field in contrast to many other theories of consciousness is that, because EM fields are always unified, there is only ever one EM field in the brain. The dominant information in consciousness will then be the one that is associated with the strongest EM field perturbation capable of modulating neural firing within that singular field. This has been demonstrated in numerous studies, for example this 2005 study (Doesburg et al. 2005) demonstrated that increased gamma-band synchrony predicts switching of conscious perceptual objects in classic binocular rivalry. Similar switches in EEG or MEG patterns have been shown to predict conscious percepts in numerous studies (Sterzer et al. 2009) opening the possibility of ‘mind-reading’ by decoding brain EM field signals. In nearly all of these studies, the conscious percept corresponds to the dominant EM field signal suggesting that competition between rival percepts is resolved through positive feeding back loops within re-entrant circuits leading to what Dehaene calls a ‘global ignition’ or ‘avalanche’ of the dominant signal (Dehaene 2014). Therefore, in contrast to other theories of consciousness, such as global workspace or Integrated Information Theory (IIT), that use arbitrary or ill-defined thresholds for access to consciousness, the cemi field relies on a measurable physical parameter—the strength of EM field perturbations that are capable of modulating neural firing—to differentiate between conscious and non-conscious brain information.

From a neuronal perspective there appears to be no obvious reason why synchrony should make a difference to neural processing: neurons deliver the same information and perform the same informational processing, whether or not they are firing synchronously. Of course, many theories of consciousness do incorporate neural synchrony by, for example, viewing it as a signature of the re-entrant neural connectivity characteristic of globally distributed neuronal circuits that are proposed to underpin consciousness (Tononi and Edelman 1998; Seth et al. 2004), or a consequence of coincidence detection within neurons involved in conscious thoughts. Yet neurons need not fire synchronously to distribute information globally and re-entrant circuits need not, necessarily, fire synchronously. Similarly, there seems to be no obvious reason why conscious neural processing requires coincidence detection any more than non-conscious neural processing as they both perform temporal information integration. So, synchrony, per se, is neither a necessary nor sufficient requirement for consciousness in matter-based neuronal models of consciousness. As far as I am aware, it is only in the EM field theories that synchrony plays an obligatory role in consciousness information processing.

Note however that the EM field theories of consciousness are entirely compatible with the observation that highly synchronized brain activity, such as is typical for epileptic seizures, disrupt consciousness. Conscious brain states necessarily encode complex information that correlates with features of the outside world. Widespread neuronal synchrony—such as experienced during an epileptic seizure—is empty of informational content that correlates with the outside world and is thereby only consistent with a non-conscious state.

The cemi field theory differs from some other field theories of consciousness (Pockett 2000, 2002) in that it proposes that consciousness—as the brain’s EM field—has outputs as well as inputs. In the theory, the brain’s endogenous EM field influences brain activity in a feedback loop (note that, despite its ‘free’ adjective, the cemi field’s proposed influence is entirely causal (McFadden 2002a)) acting on voltage-gated ion channels in neuronal membranes to trigger neural firing. This assertion is supported by abundant theoretical work and experimental data. Experimental evidence for the brain’s endogenous EM field influencing neural firing was scanty when I first described the theory in 2000 (McFadden 2000) and 2002 (McFadden 2002a,b), but included evidence that transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), which generate EM fields in the brain of similar magnitude to the brain’s endogenous EM fields can influence behaviour (Beckers and Hömberg 1992; Amassian et al. 1998; Hallett 2000; McFadden 2002a). In 2013 (McFadden 2013a), I summarized more recent experimental evidence obtained from several labs demonstrating that artificially generated external EM fields, of similar strength to those of endogenous brain EM fields, do indeed change firing patterns in whole animals, brain tissue slices and neuronal cells (Fujisawa et al. 2004; Frohlich and McCormick 2010; Anastassiou et al. 2011). Since then, a wealth of additional experimental evidence has accumulated which clearly demonstrates that the brain’s endogenous EM fields do indeed play a role in communicating between brain neurons (Qiu et al. 2015; Anastassiou and Koch 2015; Han et al. 2018); prompting some researchers to propose ‘that our visual experience may at least some times be coming through in waves.’ (Mathewson et al. 2011).

In summary, there is now, at the very least, abundant evidence that, as well as standard synaptic transmission, brain neurons also communicate through endogenous EM fields. It is a small step from this realization to the cemi field theory, which proposes that the action of the brain’s (conscious) endogenous EM field on neural firing rates is experienced as conscious thoughts that influence our actions. Curiously, the kind of influence proposed for the brain’s EM field in the cemi field theory is very similar to the role proposed for consciousness by William James more than a century ago. James proposed that the cortex is delicately balanced with a ‘hair-trigger’ such that the slightest jar or accident could set it firing erratically, yet ‘if consciousness can load the dice, can exert a constant pressure in the right direction, can feel what nerve processes are leading to the goal, can reinforce and strengthen these and at the same time inhibit those that threaten to lead astray, why, consciousness will be of invaluable service.’ (James 1988, p. 26).

I now discuss how the cemi field theory solves most of the puzzling features of consciousness.

One of the most profoundly puzzling features of the brain is that it operates simultaneously in both conscious and non-conscious streams, at least in man. Most theories of consciousness attempt to account for this difference in terms of some arbitrary critical threshold in the degree of complexity (Seth et al. 2006), integration (Tononi and Edelman 1998; Tononi et al. 1998; Srinivasan et al. 1999), selection (Edelman and Tononi 2008), long distance integration (Dehaene et al. 2014) or access to some kind of hypothetical global workspace (Baars 1988; Dehaene et al. 1998), that is necessary for conscious awareness. Yet these theories have difficulty accounting for why some highly complex and integrated neuronal activities, such as those involved in decoding grammatical rules within a sentence, are performed without awareness; whereas others that should be much simpler, such as those involved in long multiplication, can only be performed consciously.

In contrast to the threshold models above, once it is accepted that EM fields influence neural firing patterns (as evidenced in TMS and external EM field studies, described above) then the evolutionary emergence of both conscious and non-conscious mental streams becomes inevitable. This follows because the impact of the brain’s endogenous EM field on neuronal computations is likely to be both positive and negative. Positive influences could result from phase-locking of multiple downstream EM field-sensitive neurons to the same stimulus; or rapid distribution of EM-field-encoded information to many regions of the brain (as in the global workspace model). Also, as argued above, ‘field computing’ may provide computation capabilities that are hard to emulate in the neuronal brain. Negative influences of EM fields would include all the varieties of undesirable ‘feedback’ familiar to both sound and electrical engineers. Having both positive and negative influences on brain function, then the brain’s EM field would have become visible to natural selection. Mutations in genes that enhanced sensitivity, perhaps by increasing synchronous firing, in neuronal circuits in which EM fields enhance fitness would have been positively selected; as would genes that decrease EM field sensitivity in neuronal circuits in which EM fields decreased fitness. The brain would then have inevitably evolved into an EM field-sensitive and conscious stream associated with synchronous neural firing; together with and an EM field-insensitive but non-conscious stream associated with asynchronously firing neurons. This is of course precisely what we find in the human mind.

Indeed, once it is accepted that EM fields influence fitness both positively and negatively through their impact on neural firing rates—as seems evident from the evidence outlined above—the theory of natural selection predicts that brains will evolve in precisely this way.

The cemi field theory also naturally accounts for the fact that the non-conscious mind appears to operate as a parallel processor that can perform several tasks simultaneously, such as whistling a tune whilst riding a bicycle; whereas the conscious mind appears to operate as a serial computer incapable of, for example, reading whilst simultaneously engaging in a conversation. That the non-conscious mind can operate in parallel is not problematic. With 100 billion neurons at its disposal, it is easy to see how the brain can partition operations amongst them. The puzzle is to understand why conscious tasks always interfere with one another. As far as I am aware, this is not accounted for by any matter-based neuronal theory of consciousness but is easily accounted for in the cemi field theory as the brain’s conscious EM field, as already pointed out, is always singular. Just as tossing two stones into the same still pond will generate waves that interfere with each other; so two thoughts emerging within a brain’s global EM field will always interfere with one another. So, within the cemi field theory, the brain naturally divides into a non-conscious neuronal parallel processor capable of implementing lots of independent tasks without interference; and a conscious EM field-based serial processor that can only do one thing at a time.

I should also point out that, in contrast to other theories of consciousness, such as IIT, although information integration is central to the cemi field theory, the theory does not predict that, as understood in its usual temporal or computational sense, information integration is either exclusive to, or maximal in, consciousness. In fact, it is perfectly possible that the simplest thoughts may sometimes dominate consciousness, consistent with the finding that meditative states are often associated with slower and more rhythmic patterns in EEG (Banquet 1973) and MEG (Dor-Ziderman et al. 2013). Conversely, the theory is also consistent with the finding that tasks that require a considerable degree of information integration, such as recognizing words, or whether one number is greater or less than another, may be performed without awareness; whereas more complex operations, such as multiplication or natural language understanding appear to require consciousness (Dehaene et al. 2006). The lack of correlation between complexity of information integration and conscious thought is also apparent in the commonplace observation that tasks that must surely require a massive degree of information integration, such as the locomotory actions needed to run across a rugged terrain, may be performed without awareness but simple sensory inputs, such as stubbing your toe, will over-ride your conscious thoughts. The cemi field theory proposes that the non-conscious neural processing involves temporal (computational) integration whereas operations, such as natural language comprehension, require the simultaneous spatial integration provided by the cemi field.

The theory is also consistent with the finding that non-conscious neural processing may be more robust to disruption by external EM fields than conscious processing as is evidenced by, for example, the finding that TMS to V1 induces blindsight (Dehaene et al. 2006).

Dehaene (2014) has recently described four key signatures of consciousness: (i) a sudden ignition of parietal and prefrontal circuits; (ii) a slow P3 wave in EEG; (iii) a late and sudden burst of high-frequency oscillations; and (iv) exchange of bidirectional and synchronized messages over long distances in the cortex.

It is notable that the only feature common to each of these signatures—aspects of what Dehaene calls a ‘global ignition’ or ‘avalanche’—is large endogenous EM field perturbations in the brain, entirely consistent with the cemi field theory. It is also interesting to consider how EM fields may play a causal role in generating these signatures. Firstly, as has been recognized in many studies, conscious neuronal processing tends to be associated with re-entrant circuits, essentially closed loops of neuronal activity whereby neuronal outputs are fed back into input neurons. The function of these re-entrant circuits remains controversial, but they could be analogous to amplifier circuits in electronics that boost and phase-lock oscillations by feeding outputs back into inputs. However, in standard electronics, amplifier circuits respond linearly; whereas, as Dehaene and others have shown, consciousness demonstrates a non-linear all-or-nothing response in which increasing signal strength leads to a sudden transition from non-conscious to conscious perception. This is precisely the kind of behaviour—more like a phase transition—that would be expected for EM field-sensitive neuronal circuits that are acting as both transmitters and receivers of EM field information. If only a few neurons are firing synchronously then the EM fields generated by their firing will be too weak to influence firing. However, as more neurons are recruited into the re-entrant synchronously firing amplifier circuits then a threshold will be reached when the output EM field will be sufficiently strong to stimulate firing of multiple receiver neurons and thereby recruit more neurons into the amplifier network in a positive feedback loop.

This EM field loop will rapidly amplify and expand the network of synchronous oscillations to create the kind of global ignition or neuronal avalanche that, by Dehaene and others, have described as a key signature of consciousness.

It is well established that conscious awareness or attention appears to be a prerequisite to laying down long-term memories and for learning complex tasks (Baars and Gage 2010), but the mechanism remains obscure. Most theories account for this fact by simply incorporating a requirement for consciousness in laying down memories, without any physical justification for that rule. However, in the cemi field theory, a role for consciousness in memory and learning emerges as a natural consequence of the theory. For example, when learning a new motor skill, such as playing the piano, the small conscious pushes and pulls towards or away from neural firing (as anticipated by William James) provided by the brain’s endogenous EM field may be essential for delivering the fine motor control needed to hit the right notes at the right times. However, if the target neurones for EM augmentation are connected by Hebbian synapses then the influence of the brain’s EM field will tend to either increase [long-term potentiation (LTP)] or decreased [long-term depression (LTD)] neural connectivity: networks that deliver the skill will become hard-wired. After repeated augmentation by the brain’s EM field, conscious motor actions will become increasingly independent of EM field influences. The motor activity will be ‘learned’ in the sense that it will thereafter be capable of being performed without (conscious) EM field input. Indeed, because the networks will then be hard-wired into their optimal configuration, conscious EM field inputs will then tend to perturb the learned skill, exactly as we experience.

With only the recognition that EM fields influence neuron firing and the rule ‘neurons that fire together wire together’, a role for consciousness in memory thereby becomes inevitable. This proposed mechanism makes a clear prediction, that external EM fields will tend to interfere—positively or negatively—with memory and learning; which has been demonstrated in many TMS studies (Gagnon et al. 2011; Morgan et al. 2013).

I dealt with many of the most obvious objections to the cemi field theory in my earlier papers (McFadden 2002a,b), and Susan Pockett has reviewed most within an informative curated scholarpaedia page dedicated to EM field theories of consciousness (http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Field_theories_of_consciousness). For example, it is often claimed that external EM fields incorrectly predict that external EM fields perturb our thoughts. As Pockett points out, this is easily refuted by the routine observation that they do not significantly influence EEG signals from the brain, presumably because their frequencies and strength do not couple with brain waves. The, by now, well-established neurophysiological (Pell et al. 2011) and cognitive (Guse et al. 2010; Rounis et al. 2010) effects of TMS do however provide strong evidence that, appropriately structured, external EM fields do indeed influence our thoughts. Nevertheless, whereas both evolution and development have, according to the cemi field theory, tuned the brain to both encode and decode EM field-based information to form coherent ideas, external EM fields from, say, TMS or MRI scanners, will, from the perspective of the brain, be incoherent signals, perhaps capable of disrupting, but not forming coherent thoughts.

Another common objection to EM field theories of consciousness is that ‘split brain’ patients with severed corpus callosum appear to possess two separated consciousnesses, despite, presumably, retaining a single intact brain EM field. However, although EM waves can indeed travel huge distance, their strength is subject to an inverse or cube law so that, as outlined above, EM field perturbations rapidly fall off with distance. For consciousness to be global, conscious information in EM fields thereby must to be amplified and transmitted by relays of in recurrent oscillations of synchronously firing neurons. It is these recurrent neuronal networks that are severed by the cutting of the corpus callosum in split brain patients, thereby preventing conscious EM field information in the right hemisphere from reaching speech centres in the left hemisphere (Fig. 3) and vice versa. Without the unification provided by networks of synchronously firing neurons, EM field information in each hemisphere will remain locked in each hemisphere.

Finally, there is the question why only some EM fields—those found inside brains—are conscious; whereas other EM fields, such as those generated by a toaster, are presumed to be non-conscious. Yet, just as people and toasters are made of matter but not all matter is alive, similarly, though consciousness may be made of EM fields, not all EM fields are conscious. Only a subset of systems made out of matter is alive; similarly only a subset of EM fields are likely to be conscious. The minimal characteristic of an EM field to qualify as conscious must surely be that it possesses sufficient complexity to encode complex computations together with causal power capable of transferring thoughts to another conscious being. Neither of these conditions is satisfied by the EM fields of a toaster or any other EM field, other than those inside brains. The cemi field theory thereby does not predict panpsychism for such objects.

Many of the predictions of the cemi field theory, such as that appropriately structured external EM fields will influence neural firing patterns and thoughts, have already been confirmed, as described above. The recent development of brain–computer interfaces (Mashat et al. 2017; Lazarou et al. 2018; Nuyujukian et al. 2018) that measure EEG signals and analyse those signals to generate limb motor outputs via TMS, effectively operates the same informational loop from neuron to neuron via the brain’s EM fields, as is proposed in the cemi field theory. Patients trained to use these devices experience EM field mediated motor control as their conscious actions. The cemi field theory merely proposes that the same information loop exists in all of us: we call it free will.

However, the cemi field theory also makes predictions that have yet to be tested, such as the possibility of inhibiting specific responses through specific external EM field perturbations. For example, it is well established that stimulus-provoked decision-making is accompanied by characteristic event related potentials (ERPs), such as the P300 (P3) wave that is associated with higher-level processing of incoming sensory information. The cemi field theory predicts that appropriately shaped artificial radio frequency or microwave EM fields that penetrate brain tissue should either reinforce of inhibit the motor response normally associated with the ERPs in a frequency and phase-dependent manner.

The cemi theory also has potentially transformative implications for the engineering of artificial consciousness. It accounts for why conventional computers, despite their undoubted computational skills, have not exhibited the slightest spark of consciousness, nor any signs of the general intelligence endowed by conscious minds. Many AI enthusiasts argue that artificial consciousness will emerge when computers eventually overtake the computational speed of the brain. The cemi theory predicts instead that no computer that computes solely through matter will ever be conscious, irrespective of its complexity, architecture or computational speed. The human brain is estimated to operate at about 1 exaFLOP capable of performing a billion billion calculations per second, about 20 times faster than the world’s fastest (in 2019) computer, the US Department of Energy’s Oak Ridge National Laboratory’s Summit, or OLCF-4 supercomputer. With computer speed continuing to follow Moore’s law, this prediction of the cemi field theory is likely to be tested within a decade or so.

However, although the cemi field theory insists that conventional computers will never be conscious, it does provide a route towards artificial consciousness through designing an EM field-sensitive computer. In fact, one may already have been constructed, albeit accidently. I previously described (McFadden 2002a) experiments performed by the School of Cognitive & Computing Sciences (COGS) group at the University of Sussex (Thompson et al. 1996; Davidson 1997), that group appears to have evolved an electronic circuit that computes through EM field interactions. The team used a silicon chip known as a field-programmable gate array (FPGA), comprised of an array of cells and software-configurable switches. Starting from a population of random configurations, the team selected for those better able to solve the toy task of distinguishing between two musical tones. After 5000 generations of this artificial selection, they succeeded in evolving a chip that could efficiently perform this task. However, when they examined its circuit diagram they discovered that some of its components which, if removed, impaired function, yet were not connected by wires to either inputs or outputs. Also, the performance of the chip was erratic and tended to work best at night. The solution to both these puzzles came from their realization that they had evolved the chip during experiments performed mostly at night when the researchers tended to listen to the radio. They concluded that their evolutionary process had not only optimized the wired connection of the chip, but also harnessed EMF coupling between the FPGA chip and the radio: they had evolved an algorithm in space, rather than time. I previously proposed (McFadden 2002a) that an analogous, though natural process, led to the evolution of consciousness in the human lineage.

As far as I know, the approach of the COGS group has not been explored further; but, if the cemi field theory is correct, it provides a possible route towards building an artificial conscious mind.

Further insights into why we need EM fields to encode integrated conscious information can be gained directly from consideration of the physics of matter and energy. Matter is particulate whereas EM energy, such as light, is composed of waves. Nevertheless, the foundational experiments of quantum mechanics demonstrated that particles have wave-like properties and waves have associated particle properties. The information encoded in a particle is then also encoded in the wave associated with the particle. Physically unified integrated information could then potentially be encoded in matter, if their associated matter waves overlap. The wave-like properties of matter particles are however limited by their de Broglie wavelength, which is inversely proportional to their momentum (product of mass × velocity). So, an electron with rest mass energy of 0.511 MeV and kinetic energy of 1 eV will have an associated de Broglie wavelength of 1.23 nm. This is larger than the typical size of atoms, so electrons are delocalized in atomic orbitals of molecules such as benzene whose three pi electrons are delocalized across all six carbon atoms in the molecule. The electronic information encoded in the matter of electrons is thereby physically unified within molecules. However, the proton is about 1800 times more massive than an electron so its de Broglie wavelength and thereby its wave-like properties, when travelling at the same speed as the electron, is 1800 times smaller. The matter of protons is thereby localized entirely within the nucleus of each atom of a molecule such as benzene. Imagine writing either a 1 or 0 on each of three protons, or each of three pi electrons, in a single benzene molecule.

To examine the three proton bits, it would be necessary to interrogate all three atoms within the molecule because each bit is locked within the de Broglie wavelength of each particle: their information is discrete and localized, not integrated. Yet all three electrons bits could be recovered by examining the pi electron configuration at any of the six atoms within the benzene ring: their information is delocalized and thereby integrated and unified across each of the atoms within the molecule. Essentially, each pi electron behaves like a wave within each benzene molecule: the information of all three electrons is bound within the molecule. Yet, this electron particle information molecule would not be available from an adjacent benzene molecule in, say, a crystal of benzene; unless the crystal is cooled to close to absolute zero so that the kinetic energy and thereby momentum of each particle is drastically reduced thereby lengthening its de Broglie wavelength and its wave-like properties, beyond individual molecules.

Since de Broglie wavelength is inversely proportionally to mass, molecules become more and more particle-like as they become more massive and detection of their wave nature, and thereby their ability to encode physically integrated information, becomes correspondingly difficult. Hence, although the wave properties of electrons was demonstrated in 1927, detecting the wave properties of a molecule consisting of up to 2000 atoms with de Broglie wavelengths of around 53 fm, five orders of magnitude smaller than the diameter of the molecule, was achieved only in 2019 in a stunning tour de force of interferometry (Fein et al. 2019).

However, under normal circumstances the information encoded within matter particles is integrated only within atoms and molecules, not between them (Fig. 4). This is what we mean by ‘matter’. So, information encoded in the matter particles of neurons, their ions, neurotransmitters or other biomolecules, is always discrete and localized within each molecule. This kind of information, although perfectly functional for temporal information processing, cannot be the substrate of physically integrated, unified and bound conscious information.

However, the situation is very different if, instead of the particles themselves, we consider the EM fields generated by charged particles, such as electrons. The EM field particle, the photon, has zero mass (photons do possess ‘relativistic mass’ but this is irrelevant to this argument.) so has no de Broglie wavelength. Instead, its wave potentially extends to infinity. The EM field of charged particles consist of virtual photons whose waves similarly extend to infinity, though decreasing in intensity according to an inverse square and cube laws (Fig. 4). Therefore, information encoded in charged particles of the brain, such as the ions involved in generating action potentials, is integrated, unified and bound within the overlapping EM fields generated by their motion. The brain’s EM field, rather than its matter, is thereby the only feasible physical substrate for conscious integrated information. Consciousness is what physically integrated information feels like, from the frame of the photons encoding that information.