Large-scale Mechanisms of the Brain’s EM Field

Linkage between wave oscillations of the brain’s electric field and awareness is well-documented. Delta waves oscillating at EEG frequency .5-3 Hz occur during sleep. Theta waves (3-8 Hz) show up while in a daydreaming state between sleep and wakefulness. Alpha waves (8-12 Hz) are associated with a relaxed, idling state of mind such as when we pause with our eyes closed. Beta waves (12-38 Hz) happen during alert states of intellectual activity and outwardly focused concentration. Gamma waves (38-42 Hz) arise in conjunction with many neocortical contributions to perception and consciousness, such as analytical problem-solving.

Some wave types are strongly tied to certain regions of the brain. The hippocampus involves theta activity, the motor cortex features beta activity, and as was mentioned, gamma activity can obtain in the neocortex. Traveling waves of various frequencies traverse paths through the electric field ranging from a few millimeters to dozens of centimeters, and have been observed spanning the entire neocortex. It is noted that the strongest traveling waves incline to be out of phase with the rest of the brain. If tied to high arousal consciousness, this explains why fully attentive states consist in serial processing as opposed to the massively parallel processing of unconscious states. We might be able to intentionally concentrate on only a limited range of tasks because the electric fields of alert, focused consciousness segregate more from what surrounds them.

A typical explanation for large-scale electric field flows is that neural networks are synchronized by feedback loops, similar in concept to central pattern generators but so tightly coupled in recurrence that the emergent electric field evinces an in-phase pattern of oscillation as it moves. Experiments with electrodes inserted into in vitro nervous tissue have suggested that neurons engage in a phase locking mechanism which is still poorly understood, allowing the cells to fire in perfect, in-phase synchronicity. Researchers suspect that this phase locking is mediated by interaction of EM fields with the molecular structure of ion channels. Phase locking between ion channels and the EM field would certainly have pervasive effects, but it is plausible that much additional biochemistry could synchronize into EM fields due to complementary electromagnetic properties. Atoms are like tiny magnets, and even complex molecules may be sensitive to the motions of supervenient electric fields. Perhaps electric currents can almost causally saturate some tissues of the brain as they oscillate and flow.

Molecular biologist Johnjoe McFadden has proposed CEMI (conscious electromagnetic information) field theory, which claims the brain’s EM field is a motive force driving the activity of neural networks, and when these effects are strong enough they give rise to CEMI fields responsible for the causality and experience of willed agency. Some neurons have adapted for sensitivity to EM fields, and these are implicated in conscious brain processes, allowing us to control our attention and make decisions, while EM field insensitive neurons participate in unconscious processes. He explicitly asserts that the disjunction of CEMI fields from bordering EM fields can explain distinctly serial processing of consciousness.

It is the current author’s opinion that three factors must determine whether an EM field graduates to something like CEMI field status, becoming intentional will. Molecular structure of the tissues involved must be such that they are acutely responsive to EM field flows. The domain of the EM field must be large enough to incorporate holistically functional regions within its sphere of action. And EM field effects must be densely concentrated enough within tissue that an intensity threshold is surpassed. If EM fields minimally interact with tissue, are dispersed or remain small-scale, they may evoke lower arousal subconscious processes but will not enter into peak consciousness.

The plethora of evidence for electric field to awareness correlation alongside confirmation of feedback loop integration and phase locking mechanisms makes it seem as if neuroscience is well on its way to resolving the combination problem insofar as it relates to functional coordination. EM fields are not only a signature of neural network synchronicity but so far appear to actively modify activity throughout the brain, conjuring both low and high arousal states within large swaths of tissue. If CEMI fields are proven to exist with conclusiveness, this easily explains how intentional will manifests as structurally unified and causally efficacious. But though the forces which drive neural network synchronicity may be demystified by research along these lines, it is still not apparent why so-called will, ranging from the most unconscious to the most conscious processes, looks or feels like anything. What are the brain mechanisms that contribute to the substance of percepts and perception?

The Substance of Perception as a Consequence of Interactions Between Electromagnetic Radiation and Biochemistry

The most obvious and well-understood example of what it means to look or feel like something is a color percept, so we can begin to unravel subjectivity with a basic analysis of light. Electromagnetic radiation travels through the environment as a field with specific wavelengths, spreading in all directions. These radiating waves can be absorbed and emitted by electromagnetic matter in discrete packets or quanta called photons, so they have both wave and particle properties, a phenomenon referred to as wave/particle duality. Whether EM radiation is absorbed or emitted by an atom as a photon is determined by its wavelength and corresponding frequency or energy. As unabsorbed electromagnetic radiation flows through highly permeable portions of the environment such as Earth’s atmosphere or the vacuum of outer space at a breakneck speed of around 300 million meters per second, its wavelengths blend to produce combinations, and this property of simultaneous, hybridized, multifaceted structure is called quantum superposition. EM radiation also interacts through nonlocal mechanisms that remain mostly unknown, so perturbing a photon as it travels correlates statistically with changes to photons of common chemical origin moving in alternate directions. This is called quantum entanglement, an interaction occurring faster than light speed, which has even been observed as retroactive in cunning experiments.

The human eye is sensitive to EM radiation of wavelength 400-700 nm: the visible spectrum from violet to red. Light waves in this range are absorbed as photons by photoreceptor cells in the retina where they perturb molecular structures. Biochemical pathways convert these molecular perturbations into a neuronal signal which travels through the optic nerve to the brain by voltage dynamics described above, eventually arriving at the visual cortex in the occipital lobe for processing into a perceptual image.

Neural processing then rapidly makes its way from the back of the head to more anterior regions of the brain, adding layers of successively greater generalization to the perceptual field, such as a color palettes, shapes and relative sizes. The dorsal pathway trajecting towards the parietal lobe processes “where and how” features as increasingly inclusive data related to position and motion. It culminates adjacent to motor regions near the top of the brain that are the keystone of voluntary movement. The ventral pathway trajects into the temporal lobe and processes “what” features such as object and facial recognitions. Predominantly grey matter (dendrites and soma) of the separated dorsal and ventral pathways coordinates via interposed white matter which is an integrating web of axonic connections that run both ways, helping the entire visual system to function as a cohesive unit.

Almost all properties of visual perception can currently be identified in terms of neural structure except the most interesting part: why are the subjective phenomena that correlate with electrical signals a percept and not merely an electrical signal? What is it about reality and the way our brains interact with it, whether constituted of matter or something else, that contributes towards making perception a distinct property from conventional anatomy?

It is not unfruitful to speculate that biochemical properties can, in consort with EM radiation, be largely sufficient to produce color percepts, because these forms of matter - atoms and photons - are not as distinguishable in their principles of action as a casual glance might lead one to assume. The double-slit experiment has created interference patterns from emission of molecules as large as two thousand atoms, so wave/particle duality applies at a much larger scale than photons and electrons. These effects are harder to induce as mass increases, so it seems that bigger size skews molecules towards the particle end of the structural spectrum. Superposition also occurs within molecules, but to a more limited extent than in light waves. The hydrogen atoms of methane (CH4) have been shown to superposition with the central carbon atom, overlapping in intermediate space. A tentative conclusion might be that hydrogen’s bonds extensively superposition in nature. But the evidence so far indicates that as molecules increase in size, their atoms become more particlelike and are less prone to overlap in superposition states. 15 million atoms have been entangled at once, an experiment performed on a gaseous mixture at the unprecedentedly hot temperature of 176.9 oC. Entanglement was originally only achievable with supercooled chemicals, but has subsequently worked at room temperature. Researchers even managed to entangle two aluminum drums of 1 trillion atoms each, about the size of red blood cells, which synchronously vibrated by the diameter of one proton at temperatures near absolute zero. It seems all sorts of conditions are conducive to entanglement between relatively large conglomerations of atoms, but again the effects have been harder to attain in the lab with structures that are chemically bonded in more large-scale or complex ways.

Difference between the extreme wave, superposition, entanglement behavior of light and the generally more constrained behavior of larger masses is attributed to decoherence. As mass increases, more particles are jostling entropically in a process that tends to cause them to interfere, canceling out their ability to spread and interact across relatively large space so that they become more localized. The opposite of decoherence is termed coherence, a state in which wave, superposition and entanglement properties can broadly apply.

Whether decoherence happens is determined by entropy, the disorder in a material system, and chemical structure rather than mass per se, though entropic factors such as thermal energy can of course limit the ability of mass to form large chemical structures, hence the rather loose correlation between mass and decoherence. Relatively low entropy chemical structures of large mass can give rise to coherent states if conditions are suitable, and somewhat higher entropy matter of smaller mass can as well given amenable chemical structure.

The following are some illustrations of the relationship between decoherence and coherence. An electron hurtles through the double-slit experiment at 6 million meters per second, a highly entropic state allowing a single photon to disrupt the electron’s path and prevent an interference pattern from materializing on the screen at the back of the vacuum chamber. A copper wire is comparatively nonentropic, its atoms fixed in place as an extremely stable solid, supporting the flow of constituent electrons as a rapid coherence current when electricity is applied. Saline solution is more entropic, its water molecules, sodium ions and chloride ions engaged in jostling diffusion over such large spaces per unit of time that they bond in chemical structures no larger in diameter than an ion’s nanoscale solvation shell. But when electricity is applied, positive and negative charges act as a bridge, perhaps by a similar but opposite mechanism to electrical transmission in neurons, allowing electromagnetic energy to move at a rapid enough rate that the solution is relatively stationary over short timespans, almost like a quasicrystal. This is a strong coherence current, but less rapid and far-reaching than in copper wires.

Raising ion concentration increases the quantity of emergent solvation shell structures, which can lower average entropy of the solution so electrical coherence is transmitted more forcefully. A large organic molecule interacts with surrounding solution such that a lot of decoherence happens at its fringes, but inner portions probably remain low enough in entropy for some kind of coherence to be in effect, at least to the extent permitted by a residual jostling of chemically bonded atoms, though how exactly this might work remains unknown. Organic molecules are often fixed in place by cellular structures like cytoskeletal fibers and membranes, reducing entropy and in theory facilitating even more coherence.

The dynamics of macroscopic particles are driven by thermal energy and involve a substantial degree of decoherence, dividing classical from quantum phenomena, but within a multitude of conditions at the atomic scale coherence still readily takes effect. Like light, individual atoms and even fairly large atomic and molecular structures have wavelength, superposition and entangle. So while only EM radiation behaves like a textbook wave, it is possible to regard atomic structure at the microscale as comprised of wavicles which can share in all the essential coherence properties of light. It makes sense then to consider the possibility that wavicles not only form chemical bonds and functional structures in relation to each other as well as absorb or emit light, but can cohere with EM radiation in a complex of atomic nodes within photonic fields.

The speed of light is effectively instantaneous in the brain, perhaps capable of synchronizing with numerous molecules in a simultaneous way by entanglement, and blending into atomic structure as superposition, far beyond the intricacy of EM radiation alone. Acceleration of electric currents generates EM radiation of lower frequency than that which is fully absorbed into or reflected by atoms, and this may be the primary substrate of superposition fields. In nervous systems and brains, one of the most likely locations for this low frequency light emission is between the nodes of Ranvier and juxtaparanodal regions, where electromagnetic energy flow is accelerated by reduced concentration of K+. An even more probable candidate is the dendrites, where electromagnetic energy accelerates over relatively long distances, moving between clustered sodium channels in distal regions and the negative, Cl- centers of charge around the dendrite/soma junction. The presence of multiple dendrites increases the amount of radiation, perhaps to levels that can interact with neural chemistry on a broad scale, conceivably even breaching the soma. If sites of current cause trillions upon trillions of radiative locations in stretches of neuron, and radiative fields travel in all available directions across the distance of many micrometers, this may be enough to bind hundreds if not thousands of molecular structures into individual units pervading the brain. Subjective color might consist in superpositions between EM radiative fields entangled with biochemistry, an ultrahybrid resonance of waves and wavicles, obeying the same structural principles of quantum physics as both atoms and free flowing light in environments outside the body. Image percepts could be constructed from these units of resonance.

Of course this theory of resonance is full of uncertainties, just as the study of neural networks was decades ago. A way to verify and then study likely resonance properties is required, enlisting physics in the development of neuroscience to contrive new observational methods and models. But this seems the most probable hypothesis for image perception yet. The simplest possible explanation is that mental images and the visual field are analogues to quantum effects operative upon light and atoms separately. Strong circumstantial evidence comes from the way this accounts for how brain matter has a darkish tint while myelin is white. The grey matter of dendrites, some and the interior of axons is darkly shaded to absorb large amounts of EM radiation, while myelinated white matter reflects as much as possible so that radiative fields minimally attenuate across space. From the outside, neural matter looks greyish, but from the inside it synchronizes via entanglement and blends in superposition to bind as the substance of image perception.

It stretches the imagination when we try to think about how organization of matter in the brain can give rise to this perceptual field which appears so convincingly to be outside of the body. We must remember that the sharply focused visual field is only as large as the size of your thumb held at arm’s length in front of the face, with the majority of human vision pieced together from disjointed segmentations of eye saccading and even moreso involuntary memory functions. The visual field is mostly assembled by the brain from patches of stimulus that are fractional in space and temporally separated, so regardless of how physiology has adapted for experiencing, the mechanisms of our perception are largely within the brain. The way resonances hypothetically give rise to the substance of image percepts is really not a different issue in its fundamentals from how neural circuitry coordinates the cells within which these percepts would reside. Just as neural networks can be mapped according to their functional units, percept units could map onto the molecular structure of neurons insofar as it coheres with EM radiation. If this hypothesis is proven accurate, all kinds of new molecular functions and perhaps novel classes of functional molecule will be found, with heavy reliance on quantum physics in constructing these models. Ongoing discovery of the feedback loops associated with neural circuitry alongside progressing models of EM field synchronization effects as discussed above can probably explain how these radiative/molecular percepts are orchestrated to form an intelligible picture of the world around us. In addition to vision, this new theory can potentially model mental images and hallucinatory artifacts of brain processes, perceptual phenomena which are not derived from direct stimulation by the environment.

This theory would easily verify the mechanism of how percepts look, but what about how they feel? Why does perception have these nondimensional qualities in addition to spatial extension and temporal duration? When we think about resonance, the most characteristic property is vibration. All matter from the atomic to the macroscopic scale vibrates, and it is difficult to come up with a vibration that does not feel like something. Stretching and flexing of our skin, the bending of our eardrum, the soft or harsh glow of light with its frequencies and wavelengths, it all feels like something. The following is a tentative suggestion still to be proven by solid evidence, but perhaps it is intrinsic of waves and wavicles to consist in fragments of feeling as they resonate both independently and jointly. However, matter on the nanoscale does not seem to feel with much resolution. Specially adapted structures apparently exist throughout the body that increase the resolution of these resonances by idiosyncratic and intricate chemical organization, resulting in emergently complex feelings of incalculable diversity. If resonance between atoms and EM radiation produces perceptual feel as well, the variety in possible mechanisms is effectively limitless when we consider all the structural forms conceivable. The basics of feeling as molecular structures bound into percepts by EM radiation may constitute an even larger spectrum than image percepts.

Before the maturation of neuroscience, most philosophers and scientists viewed the substance of consciousness and its interactions with the environment as mediated by a nonphysical field. Nonlocal entanglement between matter separated by hundreds of kilometers certainly defies a model based on brain properties alone. But insofar as perception is tied to the brain, it seems promising that a theory of electromagnetic matter might be largely sufficient to describe many percepts along with motive forces that drive behavior of this matter on the electromagnetic scale. If an underlying, even nonelectromagnetic field with extremely remote effects is unveiled, it obviously must interact with molecular and radiative quanta to impact the brain. Wave/particle duality, superposition and entanglement will most likely be core to any theory of consciousness regardless of how exotic our knowledge of physical force becomes.

The Quest for a Theory of Consciousness and the Brain

Preliminaries of a complete explanation for the brain’s role in consciousness seem available to us. In neurons, a chain reaction of electromagnetic energy rapidly travels from more positive to less positive centers of charge, accelerated by periodically increasing charge disparity between neural regions. Feedback loops amongst neurons as well as phase locking between EM fields and neuronal chemistry synchronize these electromagnetic flows within large swaths of brain tissue, the emergent shapes of oscillating and traveling waves as recorded by EEG. A plausible hypothesis is that the electromagnetic causality imposed by these large-scale waves is responsible for the subconscious, intentional consciousness, and the experience of our own willed agency. Acceleration of electromagnetic energy in many trillions of locations within neurons of the brain emits EM radiation, and these radiative waves may interact with molecular wavicles by way of shared quantum mechanisms such as superposition and entanglement to bind biochemistry into percepts. Wave/wavicle resonances might not only comprise complex subjective images, but vibrations involved could include the basic constituents of feeling. These dimensional and/or nondimensional structures would form emergent arrays and conglomerations that are specialized to increase resolution, and together with EM field synchronization project the perceptual field insofar as it arises from the brain.

Percepts may at base be a product of quantum coherence properties and mechanisms, so if justified by subsequent evidence, this entire apparatus of electromagnetic energy flow, feedback loop or EM field synchronization, and wave/wavicle binding can be termed a “coherence field”. Whatever nonlocal fields and forces cause the extremely remote causality that is fast being revealed by experimentation in physics, it would of necessity interact with electromagnetically quantum phenomena, so this entire edifice of physical knowledge, at least to the extent that it intersects with consciousness and especially the brain, might be subsumable under the heading of coherence field theory. If coherence fields are proven to exist as outlined above, this will set science on course to resolve the explanatory gap and bring knowledge by acquaintance a great deal closer to knowledge by description.

:roll:

Re:

Talking about the role quantum mechanics plays in any purported 'theory of consciousness' is like talking about the role QM plays in a theory of music ... — 180 Proof

as per (e.g.)

...the late, eminent, particle physicist and philosopher Victor Stenger, particularly his book The Unconscious Quantum reviewed here. I'm quite skeptical as it is of the terms like "entanglement" and "superposition", "energy fields" and "non-locality" that you're (mis)using, Enrique. — 180 Proof

I haven't read all you wrote (tl dr?) but I have the feeling you associated consciousness with the EM field. Isn't electric charge a better canditate then for consciousness? All brain activity is constituted by neural currents. And who knows the true nature of charge? They produce EM fields. These fields are derived from charges and influence other charges. Is consciousness contained in the EM? Is is the EM field that has will or charge?

I have been thinking about consciousness and how it might be explained using atomics.

Consider the A) fact the the universe's visible energy is made up of three particles (protons, neutrons, electrons). Consciousness must then be, like all other fluid yet material things, composed of such parts. These parts are held together by forces.

Too, B) those forces must in some way frame conscious experience. Therein there is force explanation and particle explanation. We can measure particles as waves of energy, (ems and bws) rather than just particles (ions of k, Na, C).

There is seemingly a dualism here in neurology or mind science as well, popping up the question, "Is consciousness wave or particle in nature?" Obviously it depends on what you are measuring, just like the quantum world theories that communicate to us such a nature of wave-particles.

These are just some of the thoughts I have on the matter as of recently. I do expect like any good theoretical frameworks they will develop in further examination and contemplation.

Karl Jaspers notes that there are obvious discontinuities happening between different levels of description corresponding to the apparent hierarchy of evolving physical systems - physical - chemical - biological - psychological. While a lot of effort goes into reduction, Jaspers is not incorrect. I see no reason why there could not be more.

The fields are held in lock by the biological circuity of the brain. Just in the same way an electric circuit holds the current of an electric field. Yet the brain also happens to be pliable; simulatable by neuro-networks, but I do not not know of a perfect rendition of the mechanisms (specifications) at work for pliability in the biological counterpart. There are probably connections with what @Enrique posits as "phase lock" with memory and neuro-plasticity.

May I suggest the book, "Quarks to Cosmos: Linking All the Sciences and Humanities in a Creative Hierarchy Through Relationships" by J. Mailen Kootsey Ph.D. You can also check out my layout of the framework in my blog, "Levels of Lucidity." This being accessible here: http://lucidityhaslevels1.blogspot.com/ Scroll down to topic 3 there for a direct ordering.

It are the charges running around massively parallel, and on a virtual infinity of possible paths, on paths of least resistance (by modulated connectivity of the synapse connections between dendrites) that cause consciousness. Not the force fields emanating from them. Basically, we are electrically (and colorly) charged massive bodies, with a face, arms, and legs. Running and dancing with our fellow men and women, and all other forms our planet (still) harbors.

Ok, I will look at that for sure. Do you think there is any reason in principle why there may not be even higher levels of description than those accessible to us? I doubt the amoeba has much awareness of its own psychological reality.....

doubt the amoeba has much awareness of its own psychological reality..... — Pantagruel

The psychological reality is the awareness.

The psychological reality is the awareness. — Raymond

Self-consciousness versus consciousness though......

Self-consciousness versus consciousness though...... — Pantagruel

What's the difference? Both are conscious. Self-consciousness seems even a hindrance for consciousness. What's so special about self-consciousness? The consciousness about yourself, don't animals have that too? You gotta be conscious of your body to direct it. You gotta be conscious of your thoughts to think them or change them.

:up: Excellent description -- or should I say "essay"?.
The only problem is that it is useless to connect consciousness with the brain directly, i.e. as if consciousness is created and maintained by the brain. Science, neurobiologists included, have actually not a clue about the nature, location and functioning of consciousness. (I don't think I need to bring dozens of references that prove that fact, based on scientists' words themselves.) After more than a century of research, in and out of laboratories, the only thing that they have to show are reactions of the brain triggered by patients watching videos, images, etc. and, of course, by tampering with the brain itself. I think that science has been given more than enough time to come up with something substantial on the subject of consciousness. I don't think they will ever do. They are looking to a wrong direction and use the wrong tools.

I agree, there's a case to be made for conflating consciousness and self-consciousness. My main idea is, that if nature evolves to produce these discontinuous realms, who is to say there isn't another beyond whatever is our current apex?

Supposing consciousness to be a different substance from the information it is aware of, wouldn't you agree that all this scientific evidence nevertheless demonstrates that the limits or boundaries of an individual human consciousness is for all intended purposes largely, if not fully, set by the brain?

To clarify: In this substance-dualism supposition just offered, information - be it the physical information of the body, the psychical perceptual information of what is perceived, and so forth - would literally give form to, i.e. in-form, one’s consciousness such that it holds specific limits or boundaries … A consciousness which is yet upheld to be a different substance from that of information, including that of the physical information which is the body, but which - in being so limited/bounded by the body - is nevertheless dependent on the body’s being for its moment to moment form (i.e., for its identity as ego or self).

Merely asking out of a curiosity to better discern your worldview.



Likewise kudos for - from what I can currently tell - a well thought out thesis. And I say this as a non-physicalist.

:ok:

What else besides brains are conscious/can become conscious?

:up:

Supposing consciousness to be a different substance — javra

Consciousness is not a substance (Re: Substance is a particular kind of matter with uniform properties.).

wouldn't you agree that all this scientific evidence nevertheless demonstrates that the limits or boundaries of an individual human consciousness is for all intended purposes largely, if not fully, set by the brain? — javra

Yes, as far as the senses --i.e. the physical world-- are concerned. In fact, both the sences --e.g. bad vision-- and the brain --brain damage-- set limits to consciousness, since they limit perception. This is as far as science can attest to. But when it comes, for example, to feelings --joy, sorrow, etc.-- and other human emotional manifestations, things get outside science's jurisdiction.

In this substance-dualism supposition — javra

I would rather say "substance - non-substance" dualism ...

be it the physical information of the body, the psychical perceptual information of what is perceived, and so forth - would literally give form to, i.e. in-form, one’s consciousness such that it holds specific limits or boundaries — javra

I agree. (This can be derived from what I said earlier.)

[consciousnessw] is nevertheless dependent on the body’s being for its moment to moment form — javra

.
I agree. (This can be also derived from what I said earlier.)

for its identity as ego or self — javra

Now here we are moving into a quite controversial area! :smile:

Thanks :smile:

The fields are held in lock by the biological circuity of the brain. Just in the same way an electric circuit holds the current of an electric field. — Josh Alfred

The currents in an electric circuit are not the force fields though. It is an external field, generated by external charges, that direct, the electrons. The wire is indeed used to direct the field and push the charges, but this doesn't go on in the neuron wiring, where electric charge moves without a field directed by a field along the whole dendrites. The dendrites are there to direct the path of the charges, but doesn't pull it through, as on a wire on which a potential is applied. The charges move perpendicular to the dendrites (through the ion channels), and this process propagates along the dendrite line. Of course this motion creates its own EM field, and it can help to directs other running charges. All this directed and structured running charges constitute consciousness.

Consciousness is not a substance (Re: Substance ia particular kind of matter with uniform properties.) — Alkis Piskas

Is electric charge a substance?

No, it's a flow of energy.
(If you refer to "'substance - non-substance' dualism" that I mentioned, it was just to differentiate from your "'substance-dualism", which I undestood it meant "dualism between different substances". But "non-substance" does not mean "non-physical": e.g. energy is non-substance but it's still physical.
So, to speak more correctly, the actual dualism is between "physical and non-physical".

So, to speak more correctly — Alkis Piskas

Why is that more correctly? Because it's the way it actually is? Energy is physical. It's a means to gain motion by interaction. Pure energy, without mass, is used between massive particles, which might even be stuff without mass, gaining mass by some strong interaction. Is the charge, like mental charge, physical? What is charge? A physical property? Can we know it? It emits energy to interact. Is charge a will, a form of consciousness? It certainly seems so. It "wants" to be near other charges, opposites attract. Or stay away from them. Likewise, we could be viewed as charged people. With eyes, ears, a nose, etc. To feel other people and understand them. Our body seems fit for interaction. Why should energy be non-physical? It's the charge that's non physical and the inviable, correct, and necessary ingredient for the will and consciousness.

:grin: Hey, thanks for the reply. Iffy about this post since I don’t want to take away from the OP, but I’ll post it as a minor sidenote regarding alternative views.

Supposing consciousness to be a different substance — javra

Consciousness is not a substance (Re: Substance ia particular kind of matter with uniform properties.).

[...]

I would rather say "substance - non-substance" dualism . — Alkis Piskas

In the way you are using “substance”, I would tend to agree with your notion of a duality between “information as substance” and “consciousness/awareness as non-substance”. So it’s known, I wrote substance in the substance-theory sense of that which is an ontically independent and non-contingent given, and which ontically occurs before changes, during changes, and after changes - that which undergoes changes without being itself changed - in a sense, as that which “stands beneath” all attributes and changes and thereby serves as a primary ontological foundation to all else that occurs.

To however share a different perspective - this where “substance” is understood as I’ve just described it - if a) we take information to be something that can be both ontically created and eradicated (as one example, when a person dies some of the persons unique psychical information, like hopes and dreams, can be argued to disappear forever from the physical world; conversely, with a person’s birth new psychical information can come into being), b) further presume a metaphysical primacy of awareness (to include all forms of unconscious awareness in addition to our conscious awareness), and c) then further premise that all existent information is in one way or another and in some ultimate sense contingent upon awareness, then we obtain the following: in a topsy-turvy manner to what was first mentioned, there here is a duality between “awareness as substance” and “information as non-substance”. This without in any way taking away from awareness being “in-formed” by the information it is bound to, very much including the physical information of the body and, hence, brain. Mentioned in part because this latter phrasing is accordant to my own current metaphysical beliefs. If any of this strikes you as a wrongheaded mindset, please let me know.

for its identity as ego or self — javra

Now here we are moving here into a quite controversial area! :smile: — Alkis Piskas

Very true. But awareness devoid of any information could then not be limited or bounded (else expressed, ratioed in relation to anything else) and so could then not have an ego or self, for the latter is always bounded/limited in some sense to itself, entailing a psyche and its relation to other. Instead, the awareness would be concluded to be limitless or boundless, hence with no subject-object divide (in part because no information would occur for this to happen). On the upside, being literally limitless, awareness would then be literally infinite. Something like the actualization of (not just inference of) Nirvana, or some such, as an ultimate reality that consists of a literally selfless/egoless awareness. But yea, a very controversial area indeed.

At any rate, I do find that our selfhood (but not awareness) is contingent on the information that surrounds.

Why is that more correctly? — Raymond

Because, in the subject of consciousness, it is better and more exact to speak about "non-physical" than "non-substance", which can mean anything, physical and non-physical.

All this is well put and quite interesting!

I’ll post it as a minor sidenote regarding alternative views. — javra

I believe that you should post it as a major note and in big letters! :grin:
(Just joking ...)

“information as substance” — javra

Information is not a substance. It is facts, which can be known, evaluated, processed etc. by the mind. So, both information and consciousness are non-substance --better, non-physical.

Substance theory — javra

Thanks for this. I had to look it up! :grin: According to this theory, substance can mean the foundation, property of an object or the object itself. And this, indeed, creates a pysical - non-physical dualism. Nice! :up:

we take information to be something that can be both ontically created and eradicated ... — javra

I don't see the other leg of "both" ...

duality between “awareness as substance” and “information as non-substance” — javra

Well, I have already rejected consciousness as substance ... :smile:

physical information of the body — javra

Not sure about the meaning of this. Information that comes from the body or that refers to the body?
Anyway, I already talked about the non-physicality of information.

awareness devoid of any information — javra

Awarenes does not contain or has information. It is a state that makes it possible for us to acquire (perceive, know about) information. So, it is knowledge that contains information.

awareness would then be literally infinite ... as an ultimate reality that consists of a literally selfless/egoless awareness — javra

OK, I can see why you mentioned "ego" and "self" ...

Why s that more correctly?
— Raymond
Because, in the subject of consciousness, it is better and more exact to speak about "non-physical" than "non-substance", which can mean anything, physical and non-physical. — Alkis Piskas

The content of the physical can be non-physical? Who knows what the substance of charge is made of? You can describe the outer manifestations, but the inside can't be described in the same language. You can label it "charge", like you can label a brain or body structure "pain", but that doesn't explain what's inside.