The Conscious Electromagnetic Information Field - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

For the discussion of Philosophy. Discuss thought from Socrates to the Enlightenment and beyond!

Moderator: PoFo Agora Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please. Religious topics may be debated in this forum, but those of religious belief who specifically wish to avoid threads being derailed by atheist arguments might prefer to use the Spirituality forum.
#15208372
https://academic.oup.com/nc/article/202 ... 16/5909853
https://philpapers.org/archive/MCFTCE.pdf

This is not some crackpot theory anymore. Apparently, there's been serious research done on the idea.

Frankly, this makes total sense to me because it explains how people become self-conscious while watched. If consciousness is based in an electromagnetic field, that means when electrons are observed and they behave differently versus when they're not observed, then the field itself changes.

Ergo, to understand human nature in its pure form, you must not observe or gather any evidence about it. The only way to get human nature would be metaphysical contemplation since even the slightest observation would intrinsically change what people believe or do.
#15208373
You know what a counterexample is? It's an idea that makes another idea impossible to accept; the following may be a counterexample:

"The Cemi field theory is not without critics though for its relatively radical propositions and ideas surrounding one of man’s greatest mysteries. One of the questions that constantly arises is, if consciousness is dependent on an endogenous electrical field, why can’t a powerful exogenous electrical field such as electrical cables, shape our thoughts and neural functions? "
https://psych-neuro.com/2015/04/23/explaining-consciousness-using-the-cemi-field-theory/

Some people have to work around strong magnetic fields. So if what we have is a magnetic field, why doesn't it get scrambled?

"McFadden acknowledges that his theory—which he calls the "cemi field theory"—is far from proven but he argues that it is certainly a legitimate line of scientific inquiry. His article underwent peer review before publication. In fact, Baars is on the editorial board of the journal that published it.

The field theories of consciousness do not appear to have been as widely discussed as other quantum consciousness theories, such as those of Penrose, Stapp or Bohm.[17] However, David Chalmers[18] argues that quantum theories of consciousness suffer from the same weakness as more conventional theories. Just as he argues that there is no particular reason why particular macroscopic physical features in the brain should give rise to consciousness, he also thinks that there is no particular reason why a particular quantum feature, such as the EM field in the brain, should give rise to consciousness either. Despite the existence of transcranial magnetic stimulation with medical purposes, Y. H. Sohn, A. Kaelin-Lang and M. Hallett have denied it,[19] and later Jeffrey Gray states in his book Consciousness: Creeping up on the Hard Problem, that tests looking for the influence of electromagnetic fields on brain function have been universally negative in their result[dubious – discuss].[20] However, a number of studies have found clear neural effects from EM stimulation."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_theories_of_consciousness

This is unsettled science, and it's going to take a lot of work before we settle on a particular theory. For now, it's still a mystery.
#15208374
I always tell people that wearing Tin Foil hats isn't that crazy of an idea. Since our brains create electrical currents when we think, that means we create EM waves in our brains when we think. This means, in theory, someone could sense those waves and figure out what you are thinking.

Wearing a tin foil hat could shield such EM fields. :lol: :eek:
#15208380
late wrote:You know what a counterexample is? It's an idea that makes another idea impossible to accept; the following may be a counterexample:

"The Cemi field theory is not without critics though for its relatively radical propositions and ideas surrounding one of man’s greatest mysteries. One of the questions that constantly arises is, if consciousness is dependent on an endogenous electrical field, why can’t a powerful exogenous electrical field such as electrical cables, shape our thoughts and neural functions? "
https://psych-neuro.com/2015/04/23/explaining-consciousness-using-the-cemi-field-theory/

Some people have to work around strong magnetic fields. So if what we have is a magnetic field, why doesn't it get scrambled?

"McFadden acknowledges that his theory—which he calls the "cemi field theory"—is far from proven but he argues that it is certainly a legitimate line of scientific inquiry. His article underwent peer review before publication. In fact, Baars is on the editorial board of the journal that published it.

The field theories of consciousness do not appear to have been as widely discussed as other quantum consciousness theories, such as those of Penrose, Stapp or Bohm.[17] However, David Chalmers[18] argues that quantum theories of consciousness suffer from the same weakness as more conventional theories. Just as he argues that there is no particular reason why particular macroscopic physical features in the brain should give rise to consciousness, he also thinks that there is no particular reason why a particular quantum feature, such as the EM field in the brain, should give rise to consciousness either. Despite the existence of transcranial magnetic stimulation with medical purposes, Y. H. Sohn, A. Kaelin-Lang and M. Hallett have denied it,[19] and later Jeffrey Gray states in his book Consciousness: Creeping up on the Hard Problem, that tests looking for the influence of electromagnetic fields on brain function have been universally negative in their result[dubious – discuss].[20] However, a number of studies have found clear neural effects from EM stimulation."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_theories_of_consciousness

This is unsettled science, and it's going to take a lot of work before we settle on a particular theory. For now, it's still a mystery.


Honestly, I don't buy into that because of kids who seem to fry their brains and become zombies from playing video games for long periods of time or when dealing with people who spend tons of time working on a computer at their office.

It seems to have gotten worse and worse from people spending so much time on their phones too.

Kids who spend time with analog hobbies or reading books or drawing or painting don't seem to have the same problem.
#15208435
XDU wrote:
Honestly, I don't buy into that because of kids who seem to fry their brains and become zombies from playing video games for long periods of time or when dealing with people who spend tons of time working on a computer at their office.

It seems to have gotten worse and worse from people spending so much time on their phones too.

Kids who spend time with analog hobbies or reading books or drawing or painting don't seem to have the same problem.



That's wildly speculative.

I play video games, a lot. The problem is not with the games, it's with problems with education, and socialization. Neither of which have anything to do with fields.

Phones are a different story, but you need to establish a causal link, and I am unaware such a link exists.

What you are doing here is as far from science as it gets.

Science is work, this ain't that.
#15208582
late wrote:That's wildly speculative.

I play video games, a lot. The problem is not with the games, it's with problems with education, and socialization. Neither of which have anything to do with fields.

Phones are a different story, but you need to establish a causal link, and I am unaware such a link exists.

What you are doing here is as far from science as it gets.

Science is work, this ain't that.


Maybe, but it seems naive to believe scientists would ever be motivated to study the problem.

Why would scientists want to investigate the problems of how technology impacts people when their own careers are based around technology?
#15208583
XDU wrote:
Maybe, but it seems naive to believe scientists would ever be motivated to study the problem.

Why would scientists want to investigate the problems of how technology impacts people when their own careers are based around technology?



Sigh.

You really shouldn't try to deduce reality..

@Independent_Srpska I do not know how mucht th[…]

Would you support fencing them if they were in th[…]

Russia-Ukraine War 2022

:lol: X2 Monaco, Fiji, Vatican City, and Boy […]

Interesting special case It's the general[…]