The title of this post is the same as that of an article in Scientific American by Tam Hunt. Hunt has been a fan of electromagnetic theories of consciousness and this article is certainly in line with that view. Hunt makes some interesting claims in the article I would like to discuss. The claim has to do with ephaptic field effects.
Another team compared the speed of ephaptic field effects in various tissues, finding that the speed of propagation of ephaptic fields in gray matter is about 5,000 times faster than neural firing.
This means that what would take normal spike pathways one second to span through the brain, could be traversed 5,000 times during that same time interval with ephaptic effects. If we cube this over the volume of the brain we get an information density up to a staggering 125 billion times more from ephaptic fields than from synaptic firing.
Here’s the problem I have with this claim. In this same article, Hunt discusses a 2019 paper: Slow periodic activity in the longitudinal hippocampal slice can self-propagate non-synaptically by a mechanism consistent with ephaptic coupling. I’ve read this paper before and it demonstrates that an EM field generated by a neuron can activate nearby neurons up to a distance of 400 microns. The study may prove that the EM field can propagate activity to nearby neurons at a very fast rate, but that doesn’t mean a signal could be passed across the entire brain passing through different functional boundaries at the same rate. For that to be possible, each neuron across the brain would have to activate some kind of ionic activity in the dendrites, soma, or axion of other neurons in order to continue the propagation of the signal. What’s more the strength of activity would need to be strong enough to cause other neurons to activate and to pass the signal to other neurons. Not only would the generation of ionic activity require additional time, but also the signal could fade away or become distorted as soon as any gaps appeared in the propagation.
It’s seems misleading at best to suggest neurons using EM fields could be propagating signals across the entire brain at a 0.0002 millisecond rate. However, it certainly might be possible that propagation could occur more quickly that synaptic transmission, but only in relatively small parts of the brain. This could be part of the mechanism that produces the traveling waves that move in the familiar alpha, beta, delta, theta, and gamma bands.
Broad Speculations 
Re “The study may prove that the EM field can propagate activity to nearby neurons at a very fast rate, but that doesn’t mean a signal could be passed across the entire brain passing through different functional boundaries at the same rate.”
Actually, it seems that were this an important phenomenon it would be an incredible source of noise. People assume an interaction is a sharing of information, but that information may be static (if you remember the fuzzy TV screens when channels went dead in the bad old days, those speckles were formed by cosmic rays, mostly, and far from forming interesting images.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It could be noise, but even noise can be functional:
“Stochastic resonance (SR) is a phenomenon in which a signal that is normally too weak to be detected by a sensor can be boosted by adding white noise to the signal, which contains a wide spectrum of frequencies. The frequencies in the white noise corresponding to the original signal’s frequencies will resonate with each other, amplifying the original signal while not amplifying the rest of the white noise – thereby increasing the signal-to-noise ratio, which makes the original signal more prominent. Further, the added white noise can be enough to be detectable by the sensor, which can then filter it out to effectively detect the original, previously undetectable signal.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stochastic_resonance
LikeLike
Yes, I understand but the noise is till not a signal. I didn’t say it had no function, I merely pointed out that it likely contained no content.
There is also sme debate as to whether neural signals are actually electrical signals, some are claiming they might be pressure signals. That is definitely a minority position at this point.
There are so many fundamental questions that need answering before we get to meaningful data regarding consciousness. Those answers may come tomorrow, but I expect not.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Noise is not a signal but there would be an amplified pattern generated in the noise that would be a signal.
I think you linked me to a description of that pressure mechanism and it intrigued me. Can you resend the link?
I don’t believe there is much doubt about ions flowing generating an EM field. But it would also be a mechanical pressure at the ion gates and probably elsewhere in the neuron. The thing is that nobody knows how either one would translate to conscious experience. The EM field theory people just say conscious experience is the EM field.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I lost track of that link but if memory serves it was an article in Scientific American (maybe!).
LikeLiked by 1 person
I always like hearing about what’s happening in the EMF consciousness game. I agree with your point James. It’s no revelation to anyone that synapse based neurons pass information relatively slowly, not only compared with the electricity that our computers use, but certainly the light speed of electric fields. It seems to me that while certain parameters of EMF could itself exist as a unified consciousness that’s created by means of energies added to it from around the brain, in order for that consciousness field to actually affect the brain (“ephaptic coupling”), the field ought to be particularly strong near the point of this effect. And the only way we know that consciousness affects the brain, is that it incites muscle function in consciously desired ways. So where consciousness affects motor neurons should mainly be where stronger energies are required. Should this theory be true, we should also find that such neurons tend to be less insulated from field effects.
Anyway regarding Hunt, the more people interested in the possibility for consciousness to exist electromagnetically, the better as I see it. And he’s a younger guy who’s quite dynamic. Apparently he’s actually a lawyer who merely associates with UCSB. I was kind of surprised that he paired up with Mostyn Jones, a strong theist who believes that God uses the EM field as consciousness. But then Jones has true academic credentials so that must help. I see that you were over at Tina’s when he came on for a guest post some months ago.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m curious why you seem to be focused on “muscle function.”
Muscle actions in the brain, I think, are governed primarily by the motor cortex and cerebellum, which work together. The cerebellum is very much of interest to me since it has three quarters of the brain’s neurons, but its organization is very different from the cortex. Different kinds of neurons and different structure. It doesn’t seem like a good candidate for consciousness to me. In somnambulism, where consciousness is absent, the main activity is in the cerebellum and brainstem. The motor cortex is an important part of the cortex, but it is relatively small compared to everything else in the cortex. So, why focus on it?
Or, am I missing where you are coming from with your focus on muscle function?
LikeLiked by 1 person
That’s a good question and I haven’t liked how long it’s taken me to reply. Though I do think I have a good answer, this also brings up something that I’ve avoided dealing with for years. So before replying I’ve been trying to sort that out too. Here’s what I’ve come up with.
For your question itself, the reason that I talk about muscle operation so much regarding the EMF consciousness proposition, is that this is where consciousness must necessarily feed back to incite brain function. Theoretically an EMF decision to do something requiring muscle function, must ephaptically couple with motor neurons to cause the desired muscle operation. This should be what permitted the conscious form of function to evolve.
So let’s now get into the niggling issue that I’ve been ignoring for years. Essentially it’s this. While I do consider there to be a path for neurons to fire with a synchrony that provides all that is experiential, as well as a path for muscle operation by means of energies of a decider which ephaptically couple with neural function to cause neurons to do what’s desired, how would an evaluator or thinker exist under this model? I’ve essentially been presuming that the evaluator of the input might in some sense reside entirely in the form of that EM field itself. This is to say for example, that an EMF experiencer of pain would not only decide that this badness happens to be bad for it (which I consider inherent to the experience of pain), but in some sense assess the situation as well. But if that’s true then how might a given EMF understander of pain morph into an EMF that posits potential solutions? I’ve been presuming that it just does, but I’m not sure I can. So it could be that evaluating potential solutions requires more interaction with the brain than I was figuring.
First here at least we can say that there should be various non conscious responses to a given situation that shouldn’t be a problem since theoretically brain algorithms set them in motion automatically. But what about the EMF experiencer of a hand burn that decides cold water ought to make it feel better? How might the EM field change from one to the next? Or while I’m writing this and so thinking about various things that I might say, how might the EM field that is me the thinker, change into the one with the next thought? I guess I see no way around some appropriate sorts of brain interaction. So let’s run through how that might go.
Memory ought to help here. So a burned hand might synaptically invoke similar experiences or past solutions as new conscious input in that sense. Or regarding the EMF that is my thought right now, perhaps memories will synaptically be invoked to help me come up with words that seem appropriate? Furthermore it seems that consciousness each moment can be quite thick with a wide assortment of sights, sounds, tastes, feels and so on each moment that are all bound together. This thickness might help explain the thinker as something that exists as an understander.
So given non conscious responses, memory, and the potential thickness of consciousness itself, maybe that’s enough for an EMF thinker to decide a burned hand needs cold water, or decide which words make the most sense from moment to moment? What I’m trying to avoid here is the idea that every new thought should require dedicated ephaptic coupling with the brain neurons to create new EMF thoughts. I can see the need for this extremity regarding chosen muscle operation, but that seems excessive to account for every elements of what I think. In any case I consider this all up for experimental exploration. I haven’t just been talking with Mike about the potential to test the EMF consciousness proposition, but Suzi too (Substack doesn’t notify us about comments that aren’t our own so I’ll include some of that conversation). If we could alter or even plan and manipulate what someone sees by means of exogenous EMF, you’d think we might break down all sorts of EMF consciousness components just like genetic code is, and perhaps even grasp parameters of thought itself. https://suzitravis.substack.com/p/nagel-misunderstood/comment/76902067
LikeLiked by 1 person
I would think that in direct muscular action (not reflex or automatic) the supra-connectome would transition to the connectome if the motor behavior was learned, but remain engaged if significant learning was occurring.
LikeLiked by 1 person
(Hmm, comment didn’t go through. I’ll try here again.)
Hi James,
Once again I must apologize for the tardiness of a reply. Fortunately this discussion has finally motivated me to get back into a neglected diagram that I developed long ago regarding how consciousness relates to the body. I’ve been avoiding figuring out the app you once suggested I use to improve it, but finally gave it a reasonable try. It feels wonderful to finally have a diagram that can easily be modified!
I do essentially agree with your concise statement above, and realized that when you wrote “in direct” you must have actually meant the opposite, or “in indirect”. This is to say that the brain directly operates muscles by means of neural function (or from the connectome), though EMF consciousness theoretically would cause the brain to do so “indirectly” (or from a “supra-connectome”). But yes, from this model learned function will exist by means of the connectome. Conversely things that aren’t learned could exist in the form of EMF thought itself, though this might scarcely be grasped and so may not warrant being called “learned”.
In my last comment I was waking up to the idea that each new thought might need a new cycle of ephaptic coupling to exist as such. I’ve been avoiding this conclusion for years. Even given consciousness thickness, its memory, and the non-conscious things that it’s set up to incite which might help reduce the need for dedicated ephaptic coupling to create each new thought, I’ve now decided that substantial brain interaction should be an unavoidable element of this model. This is to say that the EMF thinker should not do its thinking in itself, as I once supposed, but rather a given EMF thought should need to ephaptically couple with neural function to create appropriate new thought. I’ll now go through my latest diagram to help demonstrate my new stance here.
An important key to this diagram is that the orange lines are meant to signify that connected boxes below are simply elements of what’s above. So at the top for example the body box has both nervous system components and non-nervous system components. Then a given black arrowed line is meant to connect a given box to one that helps describe what it effectively does. So here the Non-Nervous System has a black arrow to a “Does various things” box (none of which are actually specified since the diagram’s point is to address the relationship between body and consciousness rather than whatever else the body might do).
Next would be a nervous system box that’s made up of input, processing, and output elements. I signify all here to be non-conscious since it’s essentially made of brain stuff such as neural function rather than the right sort of electromagnetic field that brains produce by means of the right sort of neural firing.
Also consider the box at the bottom titled “Nervous System input sources beyond consciousness ephaptic coupling”. This is meant to be what feeds information to the nervous system in general, or in all ways other than the EMF that exist as consciousness itself. So for example light from the eyes that inform the nervous system should be classified here. Then input information gets processed for output function. Furthermore black arrows are provided to three boxes that describe what the nervous system output ultimately does. One of them is to create an electromagnetic field that itself exists as consciousness. An experiencer of vision will exist in the form of such EMF for example. Another is to operate muscles, and presumably by means of the proper sort of neural firing. Then finally there’s a box for anything beyond the other two options.
The main point of the diagram however is to present consciousness as a causal product of the brain. I put this under three separate boxes of input, one though processor that accepts such input, and one form of output in terms of the decisions that are consciously made. Theoretically this all exists entirely in the form of a highly complex electromagnetic field. Generally a given phenomenon should tend to be divided into separate boxes. A burned finger for example may not only have a value component that hurts, but may provide an information component about where that injury happens to be. Or remembering an embarrassing situation might bring a current value component of embarrassment as well as the other two.
Theoretically the EMF that is the thinker is motivated to assess input information given an inherent desire to feel good rather than bad. Here conscious input becomes interpreted and scenarios constructed to figure out how to potentially feel better from moment to moment. Furthermore the “automatic ephaptic coupling line” that’s shown to feed back to the nervous system should be what generally cycles things through the nervous system to create new appropriate thoughts. So this is the general loop I propose where EMF thought alters neural firing to create appropriate new iterations of thought.
Beyond an automatic ephaptic coupling line where EMF thought feeds the brain without the need for conscious decisions to be made, I also provide a Decision Output box. In order for a conscious decision to do something that requires muscle function, such as to speak certain words that you’d like to say, theoretically the EMF decision ephaptically couples with the neurons that control your speech muscles to cause you to say those words. Often enough however decisions do not involve muscle operation but rather something more like an understanding in itself. You might in some sense decide that you understand how this diagram works for example. Furthermore thinking about this understanding ought to help establish it into your memory for greater general use. That’s how it’s gone for me, and recently helped me understand that new iterations of EMF thought should require dedicated brain interaction.
LikeLike
When thinking about the speed of signal propagation, we have to remember that nor all synapses are chemical. Some are electrical, without the delay involved in converting from an action potential into a chemical message, and vice versa.
I also wonder what about human cognition makes Hunt think it has the kind of speed he’s speculating about. We seem to see plenty of examples where the slowness of neural processing is the explanation, such as the fact that we can’t see every frame in a video, but just perceive motion. In most tests, our ability to consciously perceive an image drops when it is briefer than 50ms.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes. Both the EM and quantum theorists try for an explanation of consciousness that involves nearly instantaneous communication and integration across large parts of the brain. But there is nothing to suggest the brain works that fast or needs to work that fast. There is plenty of evidence that it works in time slices and perceptions need to align with traveling waves cycles.
“In monkeys trained to detect faint visual targets, the timing and position of spontaneous travelling waves before target onset predicted the magnitude of target-evoked activity and the likelihood of target detection. By contrast, spatially disorganized fluctuations of neural activity were much less predictive. These results reveal an important role for spontaneous travelling waves in sensory processing through the modulation of neural and perceptual sensitivity.”
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2802-y
LikeLiked by 1 person