[XDU]

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.

[late]

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.

[Rancid]

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.

[XDU]

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.

[late]

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.

[XDU]

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?

[late]

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..

[RhetoricThug]

https://academic.oup.com/nc/article/2020/1/niaa016/5909853
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.

Crackpot is a rather derogatory term to place in front of the word theory. After all, what's practical about philosophy? You need research to confirm whether or not you "trust" a theory. This scientific procedure of checking the validity of an extension of the human mind (and arguably the human condition) is great for an increase in lifespan but it's curious at best. Do you plan on changing the way you live after peer-reviewed studies get published and confirm the possibility of this extension of the human mind?

Consciousness is a self-organizing system, delineated by its biological subdomain (subservient to a contextual degree). I've been projecting this sentiment for years. Abiotic conditions, energy exchanges, and biota constitute the totality of a planetary thermodynamic system that we label to cognitively process the next step in its infinite cycle. This cycle or feedback loop, endlessly and cybernetically recycles your mind. Your mind finitely compartmentalizes the memory of BEING to subjectively abstract a rhyme and reason for the season. Today, tomorrow, exist now. There's no yesterday, memory is a continuum of a self-organizing system that embeds us in the shadow of now. We pretend to remember when we actually live through the moment's reflection of tomorrow as it unfolds. Tomorrow is the result of being present. Time is illusion of energy and that is why the electromagnetic field appears conscious. There's only one moment discovering and dividing itself indefinitely.

Physical science, or material evidence that's observable in nature and the laboratory, are attributes of a conscious system that's self-organizing. Dialectical interaction and synthesis compromise a progressive immaterial & material exposition. The detectable electromagnetic field is an information exchange; therefore, everything is a communication process establishing the mythos of morphological expression. The field, or totality of this system, is an expression of the universe continually obsolescing itself in order to preserve the sanctity of endlessness.

Human Nature is an expression of the sea change vortex or that which expresses itself best when it displays permanency as a myth. The electromagnetic field is an identifiable attribute of this self-organizing consciousness. Don't fret about the chemical composure and its relation to an electromagnetic frequency. You'll find yourself going through the motions.

[ckaihatsu]

Buzzwords upon buzzwords.

[RhetoricThug]

Soundtrack

Buzzwords upon buzzwords.

Yes, buzzwords for a world ran by search engines. See, you don't like my worlds when I'm buzzed. What exactly disheartened your semi-literate vision? Did I neglect to include self-gratifying resonance so you'd consider the bliss behind my wordage? What's left in a social apparatus influenced by the mimetic marriage of material wealth & overstimulation? Buzzwords upon buzzwords, sunder sun slurs.

I have you by the reproductive process, there isn't an alternative narrative to save your myopic misunderstanding of my intellectual fervor. What do you disagree with, I'll surely respond with a crushing blow to your combative dialogue. I'm the SEX of LIFE. I procreate reality when we touch minds. This generative principle blurs the burns endured by sunburnt craftsmen. Crafty whim, when I swim and skim the surface on a raft crafted by this. Life, floating paragraphs in the noosphere garden.