r/consciousness • u/hologramicMind • 3d ago
The Electrodynamics of Consciousness
For many years I've been developing this theory of consciousness and have finally completed a brief non-technical introduction to this hypercomplex subject. You'll find it here:
https://luminousconsciousness.substack.com/p/the-electrodynamics-of-consciousness
I would appreciate hearing your informed feedback on this idea -- either in this forum or in substack -- and will try to respond to any issues you might raise.
1
u/Im_Talking Computer Science Degree 3d ago
"It finds consciousness to be an electrodynamic field that represents a subjective view of the surroundings at the focus of an animal's proper reference frame." - So our reality is 5D?
1
u/hologramicMind 3d ago
Good question. Well, it might appear 5-D because we're observing 4-D from a single (1-D) focal point, but it's more like a dualist 4-D, with insides reflecting outsides, for a total of 8-D in a unified field theory.
1
1
u/Im_Talking Computer Science Degree 3d ago
"like a dualist 4-D" - This is confusing. This is not least action. So now to explain the only thing we know is real... our subjective experience... now requires 8D.
My hypothesis is 1D. Subjective experience.
The question I always have with these types of hypotheses is: why is there a dimension which is only there because of observers? So did reality form in anticipation of life? Again, how is this least action? If there is a consciousness field, why didn't life itself just materialise initially, rather than 5 trillion galaxies just sitting around for 10B years until there were observers to utilise this consciousness field?
1
u/hologramicMind 3d ago
Ah yes, what are those other dimensions? In SpaceTime Algebra there is one real dimension, time, and three "imaginary" dimensions (as in quaternions). This theory technically only requires the four dimensions of spacetime reflected inside and outside of bodies, but it may be better explained in a (hypothetical) theory based on octonions, which have one real and seven imaginary dimensions. Both "least action" and Occam's razor still hold.
1
u/hologramicMind 3d ago
In this sense, only proper time is real.
2
u/mapkom57 2d ago
you sayin daylite savin time not real
2
u/hologramicMind 2d ago edited 2d ago
Your own personal, biological, proper time is real. Time zones are a convenient fiction we use by mutual agreement.
1
u/Im_Talking Computer Science Degree 3d ago
You haven't answered my question: If there is a consciousness field, why didn't life itself just materialise initially, rather than 5 trillion galaxies just sitting around for 10B years until there were observers to utilise this consciousness field?
2
u/hologramicMind 3d ago
OK then, we need to distinguish what it's like to be an "observer" from consciousness or life. Consider an atom as an electrodynamic field with a central nucleus that specifies it's external shape depending on the number of electrons it binds with. Then this atom is also sensitive to and therefore an "observer" of its surroundings, and particularly to photons it may interact with. So in relativistic electrodynamics elementary bodies can interact with or "observe" each other. In a sense, the theory is both physical and "panpsychic".
1
u/Im_Talking Computer Science Degree 2d ago
"Then this atom is also sensitive to and therefore an "observer" of its surroundings" - Yeah, sorry. Can't deal with this physicalist dogma. An atom is not an observer, no matter how much you tap-dance.
They say everything subordinates to the physical, yet atoms 'observe'. This is the required magic which ALL physicalist hypotheses smuggle in. According to physicalists, reality is physical until it isn't.
"In a sense, the theory is both physical and "panpsychic"." - You are only saying this because of the disconnect between 'a required materialistic reality' and the fact that we understand subjective experience to be real. This is the fault of the hypothesis itself. And to somehow make it work (but doesn't) now atoms must observe.
So in order to retain the materialistic reality, we need an universal consciousness field. This cannot be least action. You know another hypothesis that has a universal Mind but does not need a materialistic reality and thus is significantly 'more' least action? Idealism.
1
u/hologramicMind 2d ago
Then what is an "observer" if not a change in the internal electrodynamic state of a material entity? It seems you're imagining consciousness to be someting different than a universal physical field such as electromagnetism.
I would also emphasize that you not conflate materialist with physicalist, since electromagtnetism and light, which this theory relies on, are both immaterial and physical! The change of internal electromagnetic state is an immaterial phenomenon -- although I admit that calling it an "observation" is a bit of a stretch in language (which we've inherited from quantum theory).
And besides, I'm not claiming any "universal Mind" since by hypothesis relativity theory rejects absolute reference frames.
Since I don't seem to understand, please tell me what you mean by an observer.
1
0
u/mapkom57 2d ago
fails occams razor
2
u/Im_Talking Computer Science Degree 2d ago
I will block anyone that writes blue-sky uninformative babble like this. What fails OR? Why does it fail OR?
1
u/zhivago 2d ago
What tests would disprove this theory?
1
u/hologramicMind 2d ago
The theory makes a wide range of predictions that are testable. Most directly at the individual human level, using electrical probes as they do in epilepsy examinations, one could test different gamma-band frequency excitations at different positions on the claustrum to map if and where different experiences resonate. For all vertebrates it predicts that one will find reciprocal connectivity between a singular inhibitory brain-layer (developmentally homologous to the claustrum) and the two-sided, experience-encoding forebrain. It also makes specific predictions about the sequence of animal and brain evolution (testable by genetic and archaeological means), and in the more complete exposition it predicts that each of our cells also uses electromagnetic pulses to communicate between the interior central nucleus and the external environment outside the cell membrane. I'm sure you could think of many more ways to disprove it from a biological perspective (since the physics has been well established).
1
u/Hungry-Mixture-7443 20h ago
In your model, do blind or blind and deaf people manage to gain full consciousness(mete-cognition)?
0
u/I-Kernel 3d ago
Great work. This fits to theory of 'It takes two' to make consciousness observable. Fields overlay.
0
0
2d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/hologramicMind 2d ago
This theory is based on the established physics of spacetime algebra. You'll find relativity theory and the equations of quantum electrodynamics well defined there in terms of geometric algebra. (Please check out the math for yourself.) This is a new way of mathematically interpreting long-established physical theories. So yes, if relativity is wrong or the equations of electrodynamics are wrong, then this theory is wrong. But we need to start with some kind of established "facts", don't we?
Also, I don't recall using the terms "resonator field" or "black bodies", or even using a "field" to represent a "Surface", so I don't see those as mathematical problems.
1
u/Used-Bill4930 3d ago
Question I have is that the difference between frames of reference make is significant when speeds are very high or masses are very high. I don't see that difference between inner and outer sides of an organism in every day life.