A Metaphysical Laboratory

Dual aspect theory
"has the faintly sickening odor of
something put together in the
metaphysical laboratory.”
Thomas Nagel (1986)

Dave Howard
(January 2017)


If there is no supernatural, then any explanation of consciousness and its origin must involve the entities of the natural world. There are basically two ways that philosophers have used for this, both of which posit physical entities as the ground of consciousness—physicalism and panpsychism. The difference between the two approaches is that physicalism attempts to discover how mentality can emerge from non-mental elements, and panpsychism posits as an inference to the best explanation that mentality pervades the universe right down to its elementary elements as a fundamental ontological constituent. Thus both approaches are monistic, eschewing the sort of dualism espoused by Descartes which holds consciousness to exist outside of space and totally distinct from matter.

The difficulty with physicalist, or emergentist (as distinct from panpsychist) theories, is that there seems to be no way to explain how experience emerges from non-mental, non-experiential physical entities. Emergentist theories hold that the brain creates consciousness, or facilitates the emergence of consciousness, from non-conscious physical elements such as the compounds that make up neurons and their circuits, neurotransmitters, proteins, DNA, RNA, and all kinds of "brain stuff." How do brains transmogrify bits of non-experiential physical stuff into experience—as Colin McGinn puts it, how do brains "turn the water of biological tissue into the wine of consciousness?" This query, dubbed the hard problem by Chalmers, has led a sizable minority of philosophers to turn their attentions to panpsychism.

Panpsychism has its problems too. It is generally assumed that panpsychism entails ubiquity, insofar as all of physical reality is characterized as having mental (or conscious) properties. I believe that ubiquity is an unnecessary, and moreover an unhelpful, even fatal, constraint. In this paper it is expressly held only that the electromagnetic field is the ground of consciousness. Its extrinsic, or outer, aspect is the set of properties studied by physicists inferred from field effects on their instruments. The intrinsic aspect of the field is pure experience. The nature of the electromagnetic field is fluid and continuous across the universe except for isolated pockets within faraday cages—regions enveloped by conductive material—such as microwave ovens and rooms or buildings which shield sensitive electrical equipment.

By 'fluid' is meant that induced electromagnetic impulses combine with one another by vector superposition and this fact avoids the combination problem first raised by William James who argued that the combining of conscious perspectives possessed by numerous microphysical entities in the brain to comprise the unified perspective of the brain's singular owner is incoherent. If there is only the field and not a slough of tiny particles possessing consciousness the solution becomes coherent and much easier to conceptualize.

The electromagnetic field is an obvious feature of any living brain and some of its bolder effects can be measured non-invasively by electroencephalograph. A critic of the theory might ask why EEG can be detected in comatose patients, subjects in deep "dreamless" (nREM) sleep, and patients under surgical anesthesia, all assumed to be unconscious, contradicting the hypothesis of the theory. The straightforward solution is that consciousness may exist at times when there is no possibility of reportability and  if and when conditions permit reportability there may be no remaining memory  to recollect.

Since charged particles in motion result in magnetic induction, the field which pervades the universe varies from point to point. Fields outside the brain are comparatively too weak to contribute to neural network function. The field within a brain results from the transport of ions across neuronal membranes during action potentials, and so correlates with neural network activity, but network architecture has evolved to select field events for memory storage which maximise survival while minimizing the burden on the brain's energy budget. It makes sense that not all electromagnetic events, even though consciously experienced, would be stored in memory long enough for introspective access. As a dual aspect theory the electromagnetic field avoids problems inherent in panpsychism, and as known from its extrinsic nature has been hiding in plain sight.


Impractical as it may seem to their more pragmatic fellows there have been men and women for whom understanding where consciousness comes from is paramount. These individuals are philosophers of mind and their bailiwick is the mind-body problem. For them a solution to this problem is the holy grail of philosophy.

Philosophers since the days of the presocratic Greeks have pondered the existence of the mind (nous), or soul (psyche). It's likely that prehistoric humans also wondered about their ability to think and to experience. History is peppered with these individuals; less so during the metaphysical quagmire of the middle ages but revivified by the seventeenth century French scientist and philosopher René Descartes. Generally considered the father of modern science, Descartes believed the soul to be a part of the natural order but he also thought that the soul had no spatial dimensions. He identified it with consciousness, located its point of contact with the brain in the pineal body but his notion of consciousness as a substance with no spatial dimensions—unextended—was tantamount to declaring it to be supernatural. Thus, in his thinking the world consists of two thoroughly independent kinds of substances: extended substance (matter and energy) and thinking substance (consciousness).

In the waning years, now, of the fourth century since Descartes' dualism sundered the universe, philosophers of mind have yet to put it back together. Having been dispatched by Descartes to the diaphanous existence of the supernatural, the proclivity of consciousness to interact causally with the body seems inexplicable. How can an entity with no physical extension, no location in three dimensional space, have any effect on the physical brain, and how can neural circuits in the brain produce images, sensations, sounds, smells, feelings, concepts, percepts, emotions, pains, hopes, suspicions, fears, and ideas—the hallmarks of consciousness?

As the armamentarium of science is powerless to investigate the supernatural, neuroscientists and (most) philosophers of mind believe that only if consciousness is a part of the natural world can an explanation of the interaction between mind and body be found. To discover the origin of consciousness is the primary focus of the mind-body problem and today the general assumption is that Cartesian dualism is false—consciousness is a natural phenomenon and the ontology of the universe is monism.

Neuroscientists, psychologists and philosophers that hope to discover how consciousness emerges from matter seek to discover what are called the neural correlates of consciousness (NCC), patterns and events having a one to one correspondence—a mapping—of neurological signals onto psychological/behavioral events. The general idea is that if and when NCC are discovered we will then know what causes consciousness. This idea is mistaken. If a correlation is found between neuronal activity and conscious awareness it is just that—a correlation and no more an explanation of consciousness than a pulse is an explanation of how the heart pumps blood.

If a theory should succeed in demonstrating such a mapping it might explain a lot about structure and function of the mind/brain complex. It might explain how information is taken in from the environment and processed, and how action addressing the organism's needs is accomplished. Elucidating these functions would only solve what the Australian philosopher David Chalmers says would be easy problems about brain function.

Chalmers coined the term hard problem for the problem of accounting for the fact that brain events are associated not merely with behavior but with experience (Chalmers, 1996). Why do we have a subjective inner life, an awareness of an external world as well as an awareness of our thoughts, imaginings, impulses to act, sounds, pains, delights, smells, feelings, etc.? Why is it that, as Thomas Nagel famously pondered, there is something it is like to be a conscious organism? If bats, for example, are conscious then it could be said that there is something it is like to be a bat (Nagel, 1979). If bats are not conscious, then there is nothing it is like to be a bat, just as there is probably nothing it is like to be a robot or a stone or a river.

Thinking is consciousness, perceiving is consciousness, feeling is consciousness. Explaining what is responsible for consciousness is the hard problem and is the focus of the theory addressed in these pages. What makes this problem so hard is that an explanans (the NCC) known only on the basis of third person acquaintance is required for an explanandum (the experience) known only by first person acquaintance. This exposes a conceptual gap in the explanation of emergence of consciousness which no theory has yet been able to bridge.

Evolutionary biology teaches that to explain the origin of a trait it is generally useful to look for some way in which the trait contributes to the survival and reproductive success of the species. But how does consciousness do this? Stevan Harnad asks:
If organisms were indeed mindless, then there would only be the “easy problem” of explaining how and why organisms can do all those things they can do (swim, fly, learn, communicate) . . . . But if organisms do have minds, the hard problem is to explain how and why such survival/reproduction machines would evolve minds: What is the added causal role and adaptive value of having a mind, over and above the causal role and adaptive value of just having the behavioral capacities themselves, to do whatever needs doing in order to survive and reproduce: those behavioral capacities that the slow but growing successes of modern robotics are showing to be implementable mindlessly. . . .(Harnad, 2016)

The question of whether animals are conscious, particularly those "lower" on the evolutionary scale, is empirically indeterminate. Common sense inclines us to suppose that they do possess consciousness, at least those of a certain level of complexity. But where would the cutoff point be? At what level of evolution would non-conscious species evolve into conscious species? William James expressed his opinion:
     Consciousness, however small, is an illegitimate birth in any philosophy that starts without it, and yet professes to explain all facts by continuous evolution.
    "If evolution is to work smoothly, consciousness in some shape must have been present at the very origin of things." (James, 1890, 1950, p.149) [James's emphasis]
If consciousness had emerged with the development of brains, then before life (and therefore before brains) arose on the planet there would have been no consciousness. But if, as the hard problem would seem to indicate, consciousness is not emergent, then it would have to be a fundamental constituent of the universe, something that came into being at the same time as matter and energy. This theory therefore proposes that consciousness is the intrinsic characteristic of the electromagnetic field (EMF), a richly structured and continuous, primitive, fundamental constituent of the universe.

Regarding fundamental physical phenomena Bertrand Russell pointed out that all we know about the entities studied by physics are their extrinsic properties—the way they interact with each other. For instance the relative masses of two particles is measured by their displacements and velocities before and after a collision, but nothing is known about their intrinsic characteristics, e.g., what mass actually is. As Sir Arthur Eddington said we only know about physical entities from the pointer readings they produce on our instruments, but what they are like intrinsically is completely unknown. They could very well have mental characteristics. Since consciousness is something that each of us has access to only from the "inside"—intrinsically—then it is possible that consciousness is the intrinsic property of some fundamental physical entity known to physicists extrinsically, a physical entity such as the electromagnetic field.

Both Russell and Eddington are agnostic as to whether the entities studied by physicists actually possess intrinsic natures. However as a gedankenexperiment, imagine that a neurologist detects a particular field event in my brain if and only if I observe, say, a red patch. This could be a neural correlate of consciousness. For me, the event is intrinsic, whereas the neurologist is observing pointer readings—an extrinsic event. The best explanation is that my observation is of the intrinsic nature of the EMF event—I view it from a first person perspective—whereas the neurologist's observation is a third person view—both my observation and that of the neurologist are of the same entity: an electromagnetic field event. My view is from the "inside" and hers is from the "outside." Another way of putting it is that I am inside it in my mind and she sees it with her eyes. As the extrinsic aspect of the EMF is what is measured by physicists whereas the intrinsic aspect of the EMF provides the variegated phenomena of subjective experience, this is a dual aspect theory. And as the universe is pervaded by electromagnetism since the beginning it is a universal theory.



It is a doctrinal axiom of neuroscience that some brain processes result in conscious awareness, i.e., phenomenal "what-it-is-likeness," and some do not, i.e., are "unconscious." If consciousness is identified as the intrinsic nature of electromagnetic field activity, and since electromagnetic activity is present continuously from the third trimester of gestation (in the human case) till brain death as much as a century later, there would seem to be no way to account for unconsciousness. It is commonly believed that:
  • comatose patients are unconscious.
  • a person in deep nREM (dreamless) sleep is unconscious.
  • a person under anesthesia during major surgery is unconscious.
Yet all of these conditions are accompanied by an EEG signal in the brain. This theory of universal
EMF consciousness would seem to contradict this supposedly empirical evidence about the existence of unconsciousness, and therefore would be wrong.

It has been proposed by others (McFadden, 2002c, Pockett, 2000) that electromagnetic phenomena within the brain might be the substrate of consciousness but that only those EMF events generated by and contained within brains are conscious events. McFadden's theory, for example, has it that only those electromagnetic field effects which are downloadable to the motor cortex are conscious events whereas electrical phenomena elsewhere in the brain as well as those "in the wild," i.e., external to the skull, are not. This, if true, would explain why not all electrical phenomena are correlates of consciousness, but it puts the theories back into the crosshairs of the hard problem. How does being downloadable to the motor cortex "infuse" the EMF with consciousness? McFadden offers no explanation. Pockett's theory likewise fails to explain the claim that the EMF must be processed within a brain in order to become consciousit is merely stipulated, not explained.

There is another way, however, of explaining the apparent existence of electromagnetic events which seem to have no correlation with psychological events. We have only behavioral clues, chiefly oral self-reporting, to assess whether other persons are conscious. It is possible that the conditions generally assumed to indicate unconsciousness are instead a result of memory failure, or inability to speak due to paralysis or aphasia. There is therefore no absolute evidence for the very existence of unconsciousness and so its purported occurrence poses no refutation of the EMF theory of consciousness. As Chalmers points out, we have no consciousness meterno way of physically detecting the presence of consciousness in a subject. Self-reported evidence is not incorrigible. And the old saw "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" applies here.

If the total electromagnetic field of the universe is a form of awareness, then to question the origin of consciousness would make no more sense than to question the origin of gravity. Chalmers' hard problem becomes a truism, just a statement of fact instead of a problem to be solved: the reason it can't be explained how consciousness is made in the brain is because consciousness is not made in the brain.


It is sometimes asked what the brain is for if it doesn't produce consciousness. (McGinn, 2003; Searle, 1996)  A short answer is that brains create memory. If consciousness literally spans the universe at large, irrespective of the presence of biological matter, memory explains what keeps Jones's experiences from finding their way into Smith's mind. And this memory creates the sense of personal identity. The only EMF events Jones's memory records are events occurring within Jones's brain, and so are unavailable to Smith. Awareness of our thoughts, sensations, perceptions etc.—the conception of self—results from memory and we are oblivious to EMF events occurring outside our brains because EMF field strength attenuates with distance so nothing outside the skull can affect one's "personal" field.

A brain is needed also for other aspects of an organism's behavioral repertoire such as motor skills needed for mobility, for feeding, for defense (and offense), for breeding, etc. There is plenty of work for brains to do—survival necessitated their evolution even if consciousness came "for free." Neural networks provide for the functioning and survival of the organism while consciousness rides along as the intrinsic nature of the accompanying EMF.

Nevertheless, if consciousness is identical with EMF phenomena, then why is the preponderance of electromagnetic phenomena detected within the brain not introspectively available? During periods when conventional dogma assumes a subject is unconscious, such as in deep sleep or under anesthetic, EEG still remains and yet is not introspectable. Why would not the entire electromagnetic field of the brain, including that of the massive neuronal population of the cerebellum
or the electrical activity of the brainstem and spinal cord, etc., be available to introspection during any periods when EEG is detectable? Phenomena due to dreamless sleep, anesthetics, traumatic head injury, coma and so forth which conventional wisdom interprets as unconsciousness may not be evidence of unconsciousness. Such phenomena may instead be evidence of absence of memory during those conditions. Persisting consciousness cannot be reported, so is (incorrectly) assumed not to exist.

It is a truism that nature is parsimonius when it comes to energy expenditure. In terms of memory we shouldn't expect brains to have evolved to encode into memory any more information than necessary for survival and reproduction. Memory storage of irrelevant data would impose an unnecessary burden on the energy budget. Only 'mission critical' situations and functions would have memory implementations and so nonessential conscious electromagnetic activity probably won't leave a residual memory trace beyond a few milliseconds, if at all. Hence a subject might be aware of some episode as it unfolds and yet have no memory of it milliseconds after it concludes.

Motile organisms typically have brains, whereas sessile ones do not. Survival requires memory of food sources, locations of sanctuary, etc., as well as the means of locomotion. Contrast these needs of animals with the absence of similar needs in plants. The mamalian hippocampus contains place cells which allows the individual to map its territory, a very useful ability for motile organisms (and for taxi drivers before GPS came along), and of no use to sessile ones. Thus it should not be a mystery why plants do not have an analog of the hippocampus. In fact an inventory of the behavioral repertoires of motile versus sessile organisms makes it pretty clear why only the former even need brains at all. Plants don't need to remember where the food is. However, in spite of this, electromagnetic activity can be detected in plants (Mousavi, et al; Christmann; Grill). There are plenty of reasons for which the animal brain evolved and perhaps consciousness wasn't one of them. They all seem to be contingent on the mobility of animals—plants seem to get along fine without brains. Indeed the Sea Squirt, a member of the phylum chordata, when leaving the larval stage attaches head-first to some object where it will become sessile for the rest of its days, and proceeds to consume its brain. If you're going to live like a plant, who needs a brain?

Sensory memory.

There is a well known phenomenon whereby a light such as an ember at the end of a stick or a July Fourth sparkler rotating rapidly gives the illusion of an unbroken static ring of fire. It turns out that from the minimum speed of rotation the length of time that memory holds the light present in consciousness can be calculated. In 1960 an ingenious experiment was devised by George Sperling (Sperling, 1960, 1963) to test the hypothesis that the brain supports an extremely short term form of memory. Sperling was able to demonstrate the existence of a form of memory, not subject to voluntary control, which has a millisecond decay-to-extinction time. Sensory memory, as it is called, precedes short term memory in healthy individuals. The transfer from sensory memory to short term or working memory is incomplete—only a subset of its contents can be recalled after some 250 to 1000 milliseconds. It has been confirmed that there is a form of sensory memory for vision (iconic), hearing (echoic), and touch (haptic).  Tests to discover sensory memory of olfactory, gustatory, and kinesthetic senses have not been devised, but it is suspected that each sensory modality has its own version. The epistemological point is that the lack of introspective reportability of an episode is not sufficient to prove unconsciousness.

If sensory memory decays to zero in milliseconds under certain conditions and forms no short term memory trace an experience would therefore not be reportable by a subject. It is generally but incorrectly assumed that consciousness may come and go in the living organism, even while a detectable EEG signal is continuously present; slow-wave, or "dreamless," sleep is assumed to extinguish consciousness as is also the administration of anesthetics. These assumptions are without empirical verification. By the time an awakened subject is queried all memory may have lapsed if slow wave sleep blocks transference from sensory memory to short term memory. The subject will then have nothing to introspect and therefore nothing to report, but will in fact have been conscious.

The inability of a subject to report conscious episodes, the existence of which are predicted to occur when EEG phenomena are detected, fails to prove that there was no concurrent awareness. During deep sleep it is usually assumed that there is no consciousness but it is by no means clear that consciousness goes away when one enters slow wave sleep. It may be instead, as Michael Lockwood quizzically wonders, that when one drifts off to sleep one's "short-term memory span shrinks to a point." (Lockwood, 1998, p.84)

Anesthetics are assumed to extinguish consciousness, and yet more than a thousand surgical patients every year report having had anesthetic awareness during their operations. Is this phenomenon the result of a failure of the anesthetic to completely extinguish consciousness or is it the result of the anesthetic failing to completely inhibit storage of recallable memory? As long as this question remains unanswered it cannot be concluded that EEG detected during anesthetic "unconsciousness" is not an indication of the presence of consciousness.

There is also a type of memory which needs to persist only as long as necessary to produce its programmed behavior. Procedural memory is familiar to anyone who has spent hundreds of hours mastering a musical instrument or any of a number of other manual repetitive operations. When learning to play piano, for example, one may be agonizingly aware of the need to will each individual finger to perform. But an accomplished pianist, for example, can flawlessly perform complex musical works, and have no recollection after doing so of consciously willing each finger to depress the necessary key at the required time, it having been unnecessary to institute transfer from sensory memory to working memory for a task already well honed.

We now know that this type of memory is not stored in the same location in the brain as other types of memory. Henry Molaison, known in the literature only as H. M. until his death, unfortunately suffered epilepsy to such an extent that his hippocampi and portions of his temporal lobes were excised in hopes of lessening his seizures. After the surgery his short term and working memories no longer transferred into long term memory. Each day his memories started afresh. The investigator interviewing and testing him had to introduce herself over again each day. It was thus learned that the hippocampus mediates the transference from short-term to long-term memory. Henry formed no explicit long-term memories from the time of his surgery until his death 55 years later. Surprisingly, though, he was still capable of encoding procedural (implicit) memory which he acquired during testing sessions of his abilities on manual puzzles such as the Tower of Hanoi. His improved performance over time surprised investigators and led to the discovery that long term storage of procedural memory is facilitated by something besides the hippocampi (Corkin, 2013).

Procedural memory was the only sort of memory that he could retain long term, yet he seemed not to be cognizant of it. At each new session playing Tower of Hanoi he seemed totally unaware that he had ever played it before, and yet his ability improved with practice. Therefore some memory of the strategy involved in playing the game must have been encoded, and must also then have been subsequently retrieved. If Henry seemed unaware of this memory, can we then say that it was unconscious? As noted above, intact individuals also seem to have no recollection of the note by note playback of implicitly learned musical ability, for instance, or otherwise implicitly learned routines like riding a bicycle. Is the action performed unconsciously, or is it simply not remembered due to a mere millisecond retention period? Correspondingly, it would hardly seem correct to assume that Henry was unconscious on Tuesday since he couldn't remember anything about it on Wednesday. His episodic and autobiographical short term memory each day failed to be transferred to long term storage because the brain region necessary to encode it had been surgically removed, not because he no longer possessed consciousness. Therefore the possibility exists that when one "unconsciously" retrieves implicitly formed memories such as learned procedures and manual abilities one is immediately conscious during the act, but the conscious awareness fades before it can be recalled.

Awareness as retrospection

Some years before Sperling's experiments the psychologist Edwin Boring proposed that all reported introspection is actually retrospection (Boring, p. 228). This can be explained if our reportable awareness is of the recallable memory which survives the extinction which follows sensory memory. Boring writes:
[L]et us try to imagine a condition of progressive amnesia in which consciousness is normal but no memory persists for more than a second of time. . . . Without memories of a second's duration no introspective report would be possible, nor would there, if the subject had no memory at all of what was immediately past, be any moment in which he would be aware of his own consciousness. (pp 224, 225)
. . .
To be aware of a conscious datum is to be sure that it has passed. The nearest actual approach to immediate introspection is early retrospection. The experience described, if there be any such, is always just past; the description is present.  (pp 228, 229)

Thus it is possible that what has been called unconscious for many years is actually the void left after the decay of sensory memory. During certain conditions such as coma or surgical anesthesia decay of sensory memory reaches 100 per cent. Once it decays short term memory is blank and there is nothing to be reported. The subject is then thought to have not been conscious during the time in question. During deep dreamless sleep the subject may be conscious of relaxing peacefully in bed, but failing to record the episode in working memory once sensory memory decays. Likewise in the case of coma. And surgery patients occasionally report having (frightening) memories of their surgery.

These considerations are intended to show that there is really no way of invalidating the EMF theory of consciousness by citing a supposed failure to account for "unconsciousness."

A case study

There are two pathways in the brain by which information passes from the occipital lobe—the dorsal stream which terminates in the parietal lobe, and the ventral stream which terminates in the medial temporal region. Melvin Goodale and David Milner (Goodale and Milner, 2004) have extensively studied a subject, D.F., who has bilateral lesions of the cortical ventral stream. As a result of her trauma, she is unable to identify objects, qua object, seemingly conscious only of colors and textures. Nevertheless her dorsal stream is intact and consequently she has little difficulty reaching out and grasping objects, although she frequently will grasp an object quite deftly but in a manner unlike that which a person familiar with the object's use would tend to grasp it. The reason for this, it is surmised, is that she is unable to perceive the object as an object due to the damage to her ventral stream. A person with an intact ventral stream would tend to grasp the screwdriver by the handle; D.F. will likely as not grasp the screwdriver by its shank. She nevertheless does not report having any conscious experience of the object.

Goodale and Milner (GM) theorize that the ventral stream is necessary for conscious perception whereas the dorsal stream enables action but does not provide perception. It could be the case, however, that D.F. consciously perceives her actions, which rely upon the dorsal stream, but simply cannot remember them. The inability to remember would make introspection impossible, as introspection depends upon retrospection. Reportage of experience is reportage of mediate experience, i.e., experience as mediated by memory. Therefore if certain experiences leave only millisecond sensory memory trace the experiences cannot be verified behaviorally, the point being, however, that D.F. may nevertheless actually be conscious of her actions as they are performed. EMF activity may always be an indication of consciousness even though no consciousness can be reported.

If actions such as grasping, which are modulated via the dorsal stream, are experienced simultaneously with their performance but result in no memory trace, then a differential physiological examination of the two inter-cortical routes might yield empirical insight into memory formation. GM write:
First let us revisit for a moment what natural selection has designed the two systems to do. Visual perception is there to let us make sense of the outside world and to create representations of it in a form that can be filed away for future reference. In contrast, the control of a motor act from picking up a morsel of food to throwing a spear at a fleeing antelope requires accurate information about the actual size, location and motion of the target object. This information has to be coded in the absolute metrics of the real world. In other words, it has to be coded in terms of the actual distance and size of the objects. In addition information has to be available at the very time the action has to be made. These two broad objectives . . . impose such conflicting requirements on the brain that to deal with them within a single unitary visual system would present a computational nightmare. (p. 73)
The ventral pathway employs relative metrics based on relations among objects perceived not relying upon the location of the observer. Physical interactions such as grasping of objects in the visual scene require that the brain analyze the scene using absolute metrics, or egocentrically, i.e., placing the observer at 0,0,0 rather than relating objects to other objects. This is accomplished via the dorsal pathway.

To be effective and reliable, actions must be initiated concurrently with the real-time analysis of the objects' locations. If the actions depended on recollections from memory of the objects' locations, inaccuracy would be introduced by movement of either the subject, the objects, or both during the time intervening between perception and recall.

GM argue that "the brain has to compute precise parameters needed to specify an action immediately before the movements are to be initiated. By the same token it would make little sense to store this information for more than a fraction of a second, whether or not the action is actually performed. Not only would its value be strictly time-limited, it would be positively disadvantageous to keep the information hanging around in the system." (p. 77) Its "sell-by date" follows in milliseconds.

The subject may very well be conscious during the exact few milliseconds when the decision to act occurs, but retains no recoverable memory of it a few milliseconds later, and therefore will have nothing to report. It can thus be concluded that at least some of the brain's electrical activity may leave no memory trace even though it is a signal of conscious awareness. This fact is not incompatible with the notion that all electromagnetic field effects in the brain are immediately perceived consciously but that some are pruned off by millisecond decay spans depending on their relevance to survival.



1. Consciousness is the intrinsic manifestation of the electromagnetic field and is therefore a fundamental constituent of the universe's ontology.

2. Consciousness is independent of (does not emerge from) biological material.

3. The so-called neural correlates of consciousness are any and all extrinsic manifestations of an electromagnetic field.

4. Only in the absence of an electromagnetic field (e.g., inside a Faraday cage4) can there be an absence of consciousness.

5. The absence of introspective reportage of (human) consciousness at any given time can be attributed only to failure of robust memory storage, paralysis, or death.

Some or all of these five points are either explicitly denied or their negation tacitly assumed in every proposed solution to the mind-body problem produced in the last 375 years. Perhaps that is why there has not yet been a satisfactory solution to the mind body problem.

The manner of argumentation employed above has been abductiveinference to the best explanation. Perhaps human curiosity outruns human cognitive/deductive ability at long last1. Perhaps this last frontier can be better brought into view by lyrical prose than crisp deductive logic. Sherrington's metaphor of the enchanted loom2 comes to mind now, and maybe the billions of neural networks are the loom and the electromagnetic field is  the "shifting harmony of subpatterns." Imagine the loom with its 16 billion3 cortical neurons pulsating ceaselessly, the currents from spiking neurons weaving a dynamic informational warp and woof into multidimensional electromagnetic phase space.

1As maintained by McGinn, et al.

2“Swiftly the brain becomes an enchanted loom, where millions of flashing shuttles weave a dissolving pattern-always a meaningful pattern-though never an abiding one.”  Sherrington, p. 178

3Suzana Herculano-Houzel and her team devised a novel way to get an accurate assessment of the number of neurons in a brain: an entire brain element (cerebrum, or cerebellum, etc.) is emulsified and then neurons in a manageable percentage of the mass, say, e.g., .0001% are counted, and then the quantity is multiplied by 1,000,000 to get the total. 16 billion is the most accurate estimate for an average human cerebral cortex wherein it seems that explicit memory is stored.

4A Faraday cage is a region of space enclosed by conductive material which isolates the existing field outside from that within. It can contain a field inside as does a kitchen 'microwave' or prevent disturbance from the outside—as in cell phone service failure inside a metal building.


Alkire, Michael T., Hudetz, Anthony G. and Tononi Giulio, (2008), Consciousness and Anesthesia, Science7 November 2008: Vol 322 no.5903 pp. 876-880

Boring, Edwin G., (1963), The Physical Dimensions of Consciousness, Dover Publications

Chalmers, David J., (1996), The Conscious Mind: In Search of a Fundamental Theory, Oxford University Press, Oxford

Chalmers, David J., (1997), Moving forward on the problem of consciousness,  Journal of Consciousness Studies, Vol. 4 no.1, Jan.,  

Chalmers, David J., (2003 ), Consciousness and its Place in Nature, in Stephen P. Stich & Ted A. Warfield (eds.) 102--142, Blackwell Guide to the Philosophy of Mind. Blackwell

Chalmers, David J., (2010), The Character of Consciousness, Oxford University Press, Oxford

Christmann, Alexander, and Grill, Erwin, Electric Defence, Nature, Vol 500, 22 August, 2013, p.404

Coleman, Sam, (2013), The Real Combination Problem: Panpsychism, Micro-Subjects, and Emergence, Erkenntnis Volume 79, Issue 1 , pp 19-44

Corkin, Suzanne, (2013), Permanent Present Tense: The Unforgettable Life of the Amnesic Patient, H. M. Basic Books, New York, NY

Crick, Francis, (1994), The Astonishing Hypothesis: The Scientific Search for the Soul, Simon & Schuster, New York, NY

Eddington, Arthur S., (2014), The Nature of the Physical World, 1928, Business and Leadership Publishing reprint

Goodale, Melvin A., and Milner, David A., (2004), Sight Unseen, An Exploration of Conscious and Unconscious Vision, Oxford University Press, Oxford

Goff, Philip, (2009), Can the panpsychist get around the combination problem?, in Skrbina, David (ed.), Mind that Abides, John Benjamins Publishing Company, Amsterdam

Harnad, Stevan (2016) Animal sentience: The other-minds problem Animal Sentience 2016.001

Herculano-Houzel, Suzana, (2009) The human brain in numbers: a linearly scaled-up primate brain, Front. Hum. Neurosci., 09 November 2009

James, William, (1876), The Teaching of Philosophy in our Colleges, Nation, 1876, 23, 178-179

James, William, (1890), Principles of Psychology, Vol. I, 1890, Dover Publications Reprint, 1950

James, William, (1909), A Pluralistic Universe, Vol. I, 1909, Dover Publications Reprint, 1950

Koch, Christof, Consciousness: Confessions of a Romantic Reductionist, The MIT Press, 2012

Lockwood,  Michael, (1998), The Enigma of Sentience, in Toward a Science of Consciousness II, The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

McFadden, Johnjoe, (2002a), Quantum Evolution, W.W. Norton & Company, New York

McFadden, Johnjoe, (2002b), Synchronous Firing and Its influence on the Brain's Electromagnetic Field, Journal of Consciousness Studies, 9, No. 4, 2002, pp. 23-50

McFadden, Johnjoe, (2002c), The Conscious Electromagnetic Information (Cemi) Field Theory, Journal of Consciousness Studies, 9, No. 8, 2002, pp. 45-60

McFadden, Johnjoe, Conscious Electromagnetic Field  Theory, Neuroquantology 2007; 3:262-270

McFadden, Johnjoe, (2013), The Cemi Field Theory: Closing the Loop, Journal of Consciousness Studies, 20, No. 1-2, 2013, pp. 153-168

McGinn, Colin, (1999), The Mysterious Flame, Basic Books, New York, NY

McGinn, Colin, (2006),  Hard Questions, in Freeman, Anthony, Consciousness and its Place in Nature, Imprint Academic, Exeter, UK

Mousavi, Seyed, et al, GLUTAMATE RECEPTOR-LIKE genes mediate leat-to-leaf wound signalling, Nature, Vol 500, 22 August, 2013, p.422

Nagel, Thomas, (1986), The View From Nowhere, Oxford University Press, New York, NY  

Nagel, Thomas, (1979), What is it like to be a bat? in Mortal Questions, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK

Pockett, Susan, The Nature of consciousness: A Hypothesis, Writers Club Press, Lincoln NE, 2000

Russell, Bertrand, (1927, 1954) The Analysis of Matter,  Dover Publications, New York

Seager, W.E. (1995).  Consciousness, information, and panpsychism, Journal of Consciousness Studies 2:272-88

Seager, William, (2006), The 'Intrinsic Nature' Argument for Panpsychism, in Freeman, Anthony, Consciousness and its place in nature, Imprint Academic, Exeter, UK

Searle, John R., (1997), The mystery of Consciousness, New York Review of Books, New York, NY

Sherrington, C.S. (1942), Man on his nature,  Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England

Sperling, G., (1960), The information available in Brief Visual Presentations, Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 74(II Whole No. 498) 1-29

Sperling, G., (1963), A Model for Visual Memory Tasks, Human Factors, 5, 19-31

Strawson, Galen, What Is the Relation Between an Experience, the Subject of the Experience, and the Content of the Experience?,  Philosophical Issues, Philosophy of Mind, Volume 13, Issue 1, pages 279–315, October 2003

Strawson, Galen, et al, (2006) Consciousness and its Place in Nature, Imprint Academic, Charlottesville, VA

Strawson, Peter F., (1959), Individuals, Methuen & Co, Ltd, London