Fields or firings? Comparing the spike code and the electromagnetic field hypothesis.

Where is consciousness? Neurobiological theories of consciousness look primarily to synaptic firing and "spike codes" as the physical substrate of consciousness, although the specific mechanisms of consciousness remain unknown. Synaptic firing results from electrochemical processes in neuron axons and dendrites. All neurons also produce electromagnetic (EM) fields due to various mechanisms, including the electric potential created by transmembrane ion flows, known as "local field potentials," but there are also more meso-scale and macro-scale EM fields present in the brain. The functional role of these EM fields has long been a source of debate. We suggest that these fields, in both their local and global forms, may be the primary seat of consciousness, working as a gestalt with synaptic firing and other aspects of neuroanatomy to produce the marvelous complexity of minds. We call this assertion the "electromagnetic field hypothesis." The neuroanatomy of the brain produces the local and global EM fields but these fields are not identical with the anatomy of the brain. These fields are produced by, but not identical with, the brain, in the same manner that twigs and leaves are produced by a tree's branches and trunk but are not the same as the branches and trunk. As such, the EM fields represent the more granular, both spatially and temporally, aspects of the brain's structure and functioning than the neuroanatomy of the brain. The brain's various EM fields seem to be more sensitive to small changes than the neuroanatomy of the brain. We discuss issues with the spike code approach as well as the various lines of evidence supporting our argument that the brain's EM fields may be the primary seat of consciousness. This evidence (which occupies most of the paper) suggests that oscillating neural EM fields may make firing in neural circuits oscillate, and these oscillating circuits may help unify and guide conscious cognition.

Electromagnetic-field theories of qualia: can they improve upon standard neuroscience?

How do brains create all our different colors, pains, and other conscious qualities? These various qualia are the most essential aspects of consciousness. Yet standard neuroscience (primarily based on synaptic information processing) has not found the synaptic-firing codes, sometimes described as the "spike code," to account for how these qualia arise and how they unite to form complex perceptions, emotions, et cetera. Nor is it clear how to get from these abstract codes to the qualia we experience. But electromagnetic field (versus synaptic) approaches to how qualia arise have been offered in recent years by Pockett, McFadden, Jones, Bond, Ward and Guevera, Keppler and Shani, Hunt and Schooler, et cetera. These EM-field approaches show promise in offering more viable accounts of qualia. Yet, until now, they have not been evaluated together. We review various EM field theories of qualia, highlight their strengths and weaknesses, and contrast these theories with standard neuroscience approaches.

Where's My Consciousness-Ometer? How to Test for the Presence and Complexity of Consciousness.

Tools and tests for measuring the presence and complexity of consciousness are becoming available, but there is no established theoretical approach for what these tools are measuring. This article examines several categories of tests for making reasonable inferences about the presence and complexity of consciousness (defined as the capacity for phenomenal/subjective experience) and also suggests ways in which different theories of consciousness may be empirically distinguished. We label the various ways to measure consciousness the measurable correlates of consciousness (MCC) and include three subcategories in our taxonomy: (a) neural correlates of consciousness, (b) behavioral correlates of consciousness, and (c) creative correlates of consciousness. Finally, we reflect on how broader philosophical views about the nature of consciousness, such as materialism and panpsychism, may also be informed by the scientific process.

The Slowest Shared Resonance: A Review of Electromagnetic Field Oscillations Between Central and Peripheral Nervous Systems.

Electromagnetic field oscillations produced by the brain are increasingly being viewed as causal drivers of consciousness. Recent research has highlighted the importance of the body's various endogenous rhythms in organizing these brain-generated fields through various types of entrainment. We expand this approach by examining evidence of extracerebral shared oscillations between the brain and other parts of the body, in both humans and animals. We then examine the degree to which these data support one of General Resonance Theory's (GRT) principles: the Slowest Shared Resonance (SSR) principle, which states that the combination of micro- to macro-consciousness in coupled field systems is a function of the slowest common denominator frequency or resonance. This principle may be utilized to develop a spatiotemporal hierarchy of brain-body shared resonance systems. It is predicted that a system's SSR decreases with distance between the brain and various resonating structures in the body. The various resonance relationships examined, including between the brain and gastric neurons, brain and sensory organs, and brain and spinal cord, generally match the predicted SSR relationships, empirically supporting this principle of GRT.

The Easy Part of the Hard Problem: A Resonance Theory of Consciousness.

Synchronization, harmonization, vibrations, or simply resonance in its most general sense seems to have an integral relationship with consciousness itself. One of the possible "neural correlates of consciousness" in mammalian brains is a specific combination of gamma, beta and theta electrical synchrony. More broadly, we see similar kinds of resonance patterns in living and non-living structures of many types. What clues can resonance provide about the nature of consciousness more generally? This paper provides an overview of resonating structures in the fields of neuroscience, biology and physics and offers a possible solution to what we see as the "easy part" of the "Hard Problem" of consciousness, which is generally known as the "combination problem." The combination problem asks: how do micro-conscious entities combine into a higher-level macro-consciousness? The proposed solution in the context of mammalian consciousness suggests that a shared resonance is what allows different parts of the brain to achieve a phase transition in the speed and bandwidth of information flows between the constituent parts. This phase transition allows for richer varieties of consciousness to arise, with the character and content of that consciousness in each moment determined by the particular set of constituent neurons. We also offer more general insights into the ontology of consciousness and suggest that consciousness manifests as a continuum of increasing richness in all physical processes, distinguishing our view from emergentist materialism. We refer to this approach, a meta-synthesis, as a (general) resonance theory of consciousness. We offer some suggestions for testing the theory.

The Microcosm within: An interview with William B. Miller, Jr., on the Extended Hologenome theory of evolution.

There is a singular unifying reality underlying every biologic interaction on our planet. In immunology, that which does not kill you makes you different. -William B. Miller, Jr. We are experiencing a revolution in our understanding of inner space on a par with our exponentially increasing understanding of outer space. In biology, we are learning that the genetic and epigenetic complexity within organisms is far deeper than suspected. This is a key theme in William B. Miller Jr.'s book, The Microcosm Within: Evolution and Extinction in the Hologenome. We are learning also that a focus on the human genome alone is misleading when it comes to who we really are as biological entities, and in terms of how we and other creatures have evolved. Rather than being defined by the human genome alone, we are instead defined by the "hologenome," the sum of the human genome and the far larger genetic endowment of the microbiome and symbiotic communities that reside within and around us. Miller is a medical doctor previously in private practice in Pennsylvania and Phoenix, Arizona. This book is his first foray into evolutionary theory. His book could have been titled "The Origin of Variation" because this is his primary focus. He accepts that natural selection plays a role in evolution, but he demotes this mechanism to a less important role than the Modern Synthesis suggests. His main gripe, however, concerns random variation. He argues that random variation is unable to explain the origin and evolution of biological forms that we see in the world around us and in the historical record. Miller suggests that, rather than random variation as the engine of novelty, there is a creative impulse at the heart of cellular life, and even at the level of the genetic aggregate, that generates novelty on a regular basis. I probe this assertion in the interview below. He also highlights the strong role of "exogenous genetic assault" in variation and in his immunological model of evolution.

Reconsidering the logical structure of the theory of natural selection.

Natural selection has been criticized as a tautology. This would be a major problem for evolutionary biology, if true, because tautological statements can't be falsified and, therefore, can't be scientific. There is merit to this critique insofar as the theory of natural selection is indeed generally described in a tautological manner. However, natural selection can be described non-tautologically if we're careful. Natural selection should be defined as the theory that attempts to predict and retrodict evolutionary change through environmental forces acting upon organisms. However, this re-framing comes at a cost: it reveals, based on our current knowledge of evolutionary forces, the lack of ability to make accurate predictions about expected changes except in the most simple of circumstances. I suggest that evolutionary biologists should work to develop "principles of evolution," based on an expanded and more focused research program designed to identify common trends in evolution, which will ultimately allow us to make more accurate predictions and retrodictions about evolution.

Evolutionary thinking: "A conversation with Carter Phipps about the role of evolutionary thinking in modern culture".

Evolution as an idea has a lengthy history, even though the idea of evolution is generally associated with Darwin today. Rebecca Stott provides an engaging and thoughtful overview of this history of evolutionary thinking in her 2013 book, Darwin's Ghosts: The Secret History of Evolution. Since Darwin, the debate over evolution-both how it takes place and, in a long war of words with religiously-oriented thinkers, whether it takes place-has been sustained and heated. A growing share of this debate is now devoted to examining how evolutionary thinking affects areas outside of biology. How do our lives change when we recognize that all is in flux? What can we learn about life more generally if we study change instead of stasis? Carter Phipps' book, Evolutionaries: Unlocking the Spiritual and Cultural Potential of Science's Greatest Idea, delves deep into this relatively new development. Phipps generally takes as a given the validity of the Modern Synthesis of evolutionary biology. His story takes us into, as the subtitle suggests, the spiritual and cultural implications of evolutionary thinking. Can religion and evolution be reconciled? Can evolutionary thinking lead to a new type of spirituality? Is our culture already being changed in ways that we don't realize by evolutionary thinking? These are all important questions and Phipps book is a great introduction to this discussion. Phipps is an author, journalist, and contributor to the emerging "integral" or "evolutionary" cultural movement that combines the insights of Integral Philosophy, evolutionary science, developmental psychology, and the social sciences. He has served as the Executive Editor of EnlightenNext magazine (no longer published) and more recently is the co-founder of the Institute for Cultural Evolution, a public policy think tank addressing the cultural roots of America's political challenges. What follows is an email interview with Phipps.

The rainbow and the worm: Establishing a new physics of life.

What is life? Many have asked this question, and no definitive answer is yet widely accepted. Is life something truly distinct from non-living stuff, as many dualists have suggested for millennia? Is there an élan vital that distinguishes living from dead stuff? Or is life about certain types of organization, metabolism, reproduction, goal-oriented behavior? None of these answers have yet won the debate. There is, however, an intriguing new set of ideas that have been developed by Mae-Wan Ho, a biophysicist and science activist (as she calls herself) based in London. Ho's basic assertion is that life exists on a spectrum and is at its root organized, quantum coherent energy. Ho's work attempts to bridge the gap between physics and biology by recognizing that there is no real gap at all-just a gap in current methods and habits of thinking.

The middle way of evolution.

THIS ESSAY PROVIDES A CRITICAL REVIEW OF TWO RECENT BOOKS ON EVOLUTION: Richard Dawkins' The Greatest Show on Earth, and Jerry Coyne's Why Evolution is True, as well as a critique of mainstream evolutionary theory and of natural selection. I also suggest a generalization of sexual selection theory that acknowledges mind as pervasive in nature. Natural selection, as the primary theory of how biological change occurs, must be carefully framed to avoid the long-standing "tautology problem" and must also be modified to more explicitly include the role of mind in evolution. A propensity approach to natural selection, in which "expected fitness" is utilized rather than "fitness," can save natural selection from tautology. But to be a productive theory, natural selection theory should be placed alongside sexual selection - which is explicitly agentic/intentional - as a twin force, but also placed alongside purely endogenous factors such as genetic drift. This framing is contrary to the normal convention that often groups all of these factors under the rubric of "natural selection." I suggest some approaches for improving modern evolutionary theory, including a "generalized sexual selection," a panpsychist extension of Darwin's theory of sexual selection that explicitly recognizes the role of mind at all levels of nature and which may play the part of a general theory of evolution better than natural selection theory.