We may not experience the full benefits, but I wouldn't be surprised if those currently alive will be the last generations to die of natural causes.

Antiaging research gives me hope of functioning again. — TiredThinker

Not at all a misplaced hope. With the amount of effort going into antiaging research, some amazing progress is going to come very soon.

Sorry if my post was a bit discordant, but I'm getting so f'ed up I'm barely able to function, so thanks for the brief diversion anyways. You're probably doing better than me, trust me aargh!

But how little appreciation we have for life, in a world where a futuristic outlook such as soylent green is conceivable? The vanishingly small chance of intelligent life is matched only by the monstrous tragedy of self-denial, abuse and destruction it spawns.

Why did the recycling movement in the 90s succeed where action on climate change fails? Was it a much different government administration and publicization strategy, less dilution of memes via internet? Was society simply more organized and leadership competent?

The people had never stopped talking. — ArielAssante

Some are good at getting the people to talk but not so good at making sure they can leave discreetly lol Human life is just crazy.

Yes, all professions create languages to attain “heights” or as you say create ‘segregation from the uninitiated’. Language, however, is not pertinent because ‘what is’ on the “higher” “level” is not translatable into language. — ArielAssante

Then the inquiry becomes: what is the appropriate attitude and approach of those at a higher level to those at a lower level, and of those at a lower level to those at a higher level?

For example, British physicist Johnjoe McFadden "posits that consciousness is in fact the brain's energy field". His theory seems to be a physicist's version of Tononi's Integrated Information theory. Could your "Coherence Field" be related to those other theories, in that the key feature is Holistic unification or integration (cooperation ; working together) of independent elements, such as neurons? — Gnomon

Johnjoe McFadden's CEMI (conscious electromagnetic information) theory is the starting point for my coherence field theory. The main differences are that a coherence field is not exclusively electromagnetic and not necessarily confined to the brain. I also emphasize the hypothesis that EM radiation participates in binding matter into the substance of percepts, which has not been discussed in his CEMI papers with much specificity. But my ideas about how coherence contributes to volition are inspired by CEMI. I think the main aspect distinguishing coherence field theory is that specific, concrete mechanisms are proposed which begin to model consciousness at a very basic level of emergence, the subatomic scale.

I have way more certainty about how coherence emerges within a brain, as various "quantum" processes, than in relation to the environment generally, but I think EM radiation and entanglement mechanisms will be key in expanding physics to account for the so-called "nonlocality" of consciousness. So I go beyond the rather vague concept of an energy field to hypothesize the way this energy is functionally modulated by structures such as neurons, ion channels, coherence flows, coherence fields, etc. to form a unified physical system. I think the next stage is to identify precisely which molecules and portions of the electromagnetic spectrum form particular percepts insofar as these percepts arise from the brain, nervous system and body. This would be a partial model of the mind's eye, the visual field etc. as a perceptual substance, blending subjective awareness with objective matter in a synthetic approach.

I'm not an adherent of the "existence is fundamentally information" framework, but I think it might become possible to scientifically test your hypothesis that the universe is an integrated consciousness once we comprehend the physics of consciousness' basic building blocks.

Do you also have a short abstract of the article? — magritte

Sure, I've got an abstract for ya! Not all of this is covered in the excerpt I posted.

A general definition of quantum coherence is developed from analysis of superposition, entanglement, chemical bonding behavior, and basic phenomena of classical mechanics. Various properties of atoms can be better explained if these particles are matter waves that embody a spectrum ranging from relatively coherent to decoherent states. It is demonstrated that quantum coherence so defined can comprehensively explain signal transmission in neurons and dynamics of the brain’s emergent electric field, including potential support for the claim that conscious volition is to some degree real rather than an illusion. Recent research in a physiological context suggests that electromagnetic radiation interacts with molecular structure to comprise integrated energy fields. A mechanism is proposed by which quantum coherence as accelerating electric currents in neurons may result in a broadened spectrum of electromagnetic radiation capable of interacting with molecular complexes in the brain and perhaps elsewhere in an organism to influence vibrational and structural properties. Research should investigate whether a consequent energy field is the basic perceptual substrate, with at least some additive electromagnetic wavelengths of this field involved in generating image percepts insofar as they arise from the body, and electromagnetic vibrations the signature of a more diverse phenomenon by which somewhat nondimensional features of perception such as sound, touch, taste, smell, interoceptive sensations, etc. partially arise. If examination of the brain reveals this organ to be composed of a coherence field, structured at least in part by broadened spectrums of EM radiation interacting with molecular components, this has major implications for furthering our model of the matter/mind interface and possibly physical reality in total.

I know what it means to think one philosophy is superior to another. I agree that one philosophy cannot be proven or demonstrated, to be superior to another. I don't know what it could mean for one philosophy to be superior to another in any absolute sense, since it could not be verified, and superiority is nothing more than a value judgement, which is always going to remain subjective or at best, if much agreement exists, inter-subjective. I don't see how there could be any objective fact of the matter about it. — Janus

But think about an object such as a neuron in a textbook, accompanied by verbal description. Anyone with a grade schooler's ability to reason grasps the form (Plato's "intelligibility") and function (Aristotle's "final causality") involved as long as they can receive that information via the senses. This degree of universality associated with our basic scientific models is a special kind of ideal intersubjectivity that distinguishes it as objectivity. And anyone with common abilities to reason can pursue the topic further, getting into more detail and expanding comprehension by strategically arranged study, becoming a specialist in that area. 99% of the population is at least in principle capable of becoming an expert in some discipline by similar regimen, and that 99% can make it practical for everybody. Not absolute, but not really relativistic either.

I think this ideal rationality ought to be promoted and channeled into academic pursuits more than it is, and citizens should be encouraged towards independent development. This is really the fundamental purpose of an education system in my opinion, and the justification for forums such as the one we are using. An objectivity of this kind is certainly presumed by many philosophies, at least implicitly in the methods employed.

Value judgments are just hypotheticals based on the facts of an intellectual discipline, to be tested empirically and modified as opinions. Some human beings have better initial intuition into more or less universalizable principles, and this is ethical aptitude, but it is basically honed by the same discipline as science.

A higher level cannot be described from a lower level. — ArielAssante

A higher and lower level can't typically be considered identical enough that one is absolutely dispensable, but they can be made translatable such that more efficient objectivity of the lower level (such as matter in neuroscience) can at least partially replace not uncommonly divisive vagaries of the higher level (such as metaphysical, psychological and stereotypal concepts) which are usually historical relics in the context of enlightened culture's technological and humanist leanings. But the issue is not simple. How symbolic we should be is the conundrum. If symbolism is no more than an intersubjectively private language meant to facilitate segregation from the uninitiated this can be problematic I think, and the marginal clout of academia in political life despite absolute centrality of its methods to the economy is an instance that makes this apparent. Much of our recent social turmoil probably comes from rejecting the ideal of universal objectivity as the impetus for intersubjectivity in favor of a culture that excessively embraces exclusionary and divisive language. A controversial topic I admit.

Anyone know of any experiments that have been performed to prove or disprove my hypotheses? How does my theory match the introspective intuitions you guys have? Many of you seem to think of the mind as nonphysical, but I'm not sure what that would even mean beyond "we don't know how matter works to some degree". Alternate ways to model or define the mind exist, sure, but why wouldn't every phenomenon be describable in terms of a tangible substance?

A quantum physics journal in September.

In a journal? — jgill

Yes!

A Coherence Field Theory of Physics and Consciousness

In the domain of physiology, basic atomic structure is heterogeneously dense enough that decoherent states predominate even microscopically, with matter’s motions differentiated by trillions upon trillions of wavicle asymmetries, giving rise to what can approximately be termed interference. Because of the asynchrony produced by variability in density contours, coherence tends to endogenously occur within an organic body only at quantum scales, a situation in which the physics of matter fields is equivalent to the physics of quantum fields. As biological evolution proceeded, organisms developed mechanisms for harnessing quantum coherence, in enzyme catalysis, photosynthesis, and as we have seen, electrical properties of the neuron. Technologies have also utilized quantum coherence in electronics, lasers, computers and more. But these systems, both organic and artificial, are deeply connected to principles modelable with the Newtonian physics of macroscopic objects, a maximally intuitive interpretation regarding matter as in a state of decoherence even while it moves. This assumption that decoherence exists as the default state allows humans to supplement the interface of proprioception with environment in efficient ways, and is core to human toolmaking, object fabrication, and the species’ survival.

Proprioception’s material basis, as was indirectly theorized by James Clerk Maxwell and scientists of a similar bent, seems to be the probable fact that, within density contours of electromagnetic matter’s approximately wavelike structure, loci of maximum energy exist, which in the present day we know are generated by interaction of nuclei with the surrounding field. Effects of nuclei on the total field are thus the source of electromagnetism, inducing loci of energy concentration within the density contour that we know as atoms. If both the position and motion of distinct instances of electromagnetic matter are hypothetically identical, greater density or “mass” implies more constituent energy and more inertial resistance against transitioning from a standing to traveling wave, whether this energy is a beam of electrons or a basketball.

Within an atom, still more finely differentiated loci of energy concentration we model as electron orbitals absorb and emit energy as photons. This is deceptive because even though absorption and emission of light by “orbitals” is rather straightforwardly quantized in the textbook case, the total electromagnetic field radiates predominantly as a wave while amongst atomic wavicles, undergoing subtle and complex energy transitions when perturbed by atoms. As per conservation laws, the energy transition at contact affects atomic wavicles as well, increasing or decreasing chemical vibrations as heat and modulating atomic wavelengths, though knowledge of how exactly this interchange works remains rudimentary. Entire atoms and molecules as defined by nuclear fields do not ordinarily move at speeds that relativistically increase mass to a degree having measurement significance, but the electrons and photons that interact within the scope of nuclear fields do. As electrons attain these speeds, their energy density as mass increases slightly. Light which electrons emit reaches lower frequencies the more these electrons are accelerating and thus subsisting in a less dense (though relativistic) state within the bounds of their coherence upon energy release, and reaches higher frequencies the more that electrons are decelerating upon energy release, a more dense state. Thus, an x-ray machine emits braking radiation as high energy x-rays, and accelerating current within a radio antenna emits low energy radio waves. Matter somewhat hotter than temperatures typically reached at Earth’s surface emits greater amounts of ultraviolet and visible light due to more rapid vibration, corresponding with larger electron energy density — relativistic mass — as the source of higher energy radiating. This effect might be explained by the electromagnetic density contour within an atom becoming more pronounced so the proportion of diffuse, highest velocity space increases while loci of greatest density become much more compactly massive, similar in concept to a complex combination of centripetal and centrifugal forces. All matter at temperatures typically found on Earth’s surface or within physiological systems radiates most heavily in the infrared portion of the electromagnetic spectrum, a phenomenon intrinsic to its baseline, relatively decoherent state of coherence. In neurons, accelerating coherence currents might be sustained in the soma and around the synapse, expanding the infrared spectrum to include longer wavelengths which altogether can saturate cells at a range of 10 micrometers to 100 millimeters. The superpositioned array of electromagnetic wavelengths would bind with and be modified by complex molecular components to produce a plethora of vibrations such as perceptual sound, touch, taste, smell etc., in essence feel, and in many cases perceptual images as additive structure also.

Physiological matter is dense and asymmetric, interference-laden and decoherent, so endogenous structure and motions of the underlying nonlocal substrate, which in different conditions can perturb at faster rates than the speed of light, align closely with a model that assumes the quantum/classical divide. Except for pockets of nanoscale machinery where quantum states have adapted to function with high degrees of coherence, these systems can be viewed mostly as decoherent and pervasively classical. But coherence as the underlying, more nonlocally active substrate of matter is not essentially electromagnetic or even quantum. We should not be surprised then if further research leads to proof that standing and traveling waves of coherence within the nonlocal substrate can perturb electromagnetic matter near-instantaneously at quite remote and macroscopic scales from the perspective of current physics, especially if this matter is much more diffuse and homogeneous than an organic body. Beginning to model perturbations of the total coherence field, relying partly on more determined analysis of this field’s correlations and interactions with coherence of electromagnetic matter at the quantum scale, in organic bodies and undoubtedly elsewhere, may initiate the next scientific revolution, surpassing current models to create a liaison between quantum theory and coherence field theory.

The Role of Light/Molecular Interactions in Producing a Perceptual Coherence Field Within the Brain

A mechanism responsible for percepts insofar as they arise from the brain must include a couple closely related features. First, it must be near-instantaneous over time so that the properties of perception are as synchronous and fluid as we experience our own minds to be. Second, it must be near-instantaneous across spatial distances so that perception is an integrated unit, as we also more or less observe. Essentially, the substance of consciousness must be holistic, and unless the miscellaneous manifestations of color, shape, texture, sound, taste, smell, feel etc. are all entirely generated by an underlying, nonelectromagnetic substance akin to aether, which is doubtful in the extreme though a nonlocal substrate transcending atomic structure does seem to exist, this combinatorial binding must be to some degree electromagnetic.

Atoms and molecules alone, while seemingly capable of being perturbed under many conditions via entanglement as induced by the nonlocal substrate, a dynamic that has to this point gone largely unmodeled, do not in themselves interact with anything like action at a distance. This means that even when massive particles or more precisely “wavicles” as defined electromagnetically correlate faster than light, thus far requiring painstakingly calibrated conditions in order to be witnessed in the lab, they are demarcated by localization boundaries which quickly become prohibitive to integration at macromolecular scales, and by the time emergence reaches the scale where mechanical forces among bodies are usually observed to take effect, atomic structure can be modeled as in the classical domain. From an atomic perspective, the consistent presence of spatial disjunction even at microscales, attributed to a quantum/classical divide, defies holistic qualities of consciousness. But electromagnetic radiation does not have nearly the same constraints. Light fills nonvacuum spaces populated by atomic structure as a wave. Photons are bosons and as such prove much more prone to additive behavior, forming ultrahybrid superpositions of diverse wavelengths. Light waves more extensively entangle via the underlying nonlocal substrate, with phase states of photons correlating across kilometers. And light itself travels at millions of meters per second through permittive and permeable environments such as Earth’s atmosphere or the aqueous solution of cells, effectively instantaneous at volume scales of a brain. So can dynamics of light waves provide an electromagnetic binding mechanism for perception’s substance?

As was mentioned, it has been known for years that photosynthetic reaction centers achieve 100% energy yield from the light-harvesting chlorophyll complex surrounding them. This is ascribed to translation of UV light into a chemical energy that takes multiple routes or “flows” through numerous molecules as a quantum wave via entangled coherence, roughly analogous to a body of water. Thus, a mechanism by which light and molecules blend into highly distributed energy arrays has been verified. The question then is how common this is.

Early research into light/matter interactions within neurons exposed specimens to UV and visible radiation. It was found that this light could effect neural function, but primarily due to the degradation of ion channels and additional membrane mechanisms, reducing synaptic efficiency. More recent experiments have focused on microtubules because a long-standing, discourse-enriched hypothesis, Roger Penrose and Stuart Hameroff’s Orch-Or (orchestrated-objective reduction) theory, proposes that the compact structure of these cytoskeletal filaments, which pervade all cells, may be conducive to cycling between a global superposition state and wave function collapse in a sort of quantum pulse, perhaps especially instantiated within the brain. Various criticisms of the model have been proffered, for instance that the organ is too hot and wet for superpositions sustained enough to correlate with consciousness, but the idea that light may be involved opens up further possibilities.

A recent experiment aimed to assess the interaction of UV light with microtubules, which can range to 50 micrometers long. It was hypothesized that tryptophan in microtubule filaments, by virtue of being an aromatic amino acid, might have theoretically significant sensitivity to UV light. Analysis showed that a solution of microtubule fragments exposed to UV light was provisional of remote energy transfer between component tryptophan molecules. Anesthetics inhibited this phenomenon, hinting at correlation with consciousness. Combining the data with a model of tryptophan positioning inside intact microtubules suggested this amino acid can mediate the production of a coherent energy field in the presence of UV radiation, extending through the entire length of a microtubule. The only significant source of UV radiation in a typical cell was hypothesized as perhaps the oxidation reactions of mitochondria, so it is doubtful that UV light plays much of a functional role in the brain, but it becomes more and more apparent that atoms blend with light of complementary wavelength to produce coherent states of superposition which can span at least micrometers. That endogenous light within neurons could result in a similar field of quantum coherence among molecular arrays is plausible, but a viable source of EM radiation must exist.

To begin solving this problem, we can simply recognize that all electromagnetic matter is saturated by radiation with various properties depending on this radiation’s wavelength. According to James Clerk Maxwell’s theory, electromagnetic matter which we in the 21st century conceive as wavicle structure can be described both qualitatively and quantitatively as a field with centers of maximum density roughly approximated in concept by the largest line of force concentrations of a macroscopic magnet, all situated within a pervading, “nonlocally” active substrate that perturbs on average at a much more rapid rate, exceeding the speed of light. This is the still loosely determined speed of entanglement. The denser that electromagnetic matter is at a particular location, the greater mass it has and the slower it moves relative to the total EM field, with atomic structure as determined by the nuclei which are orders of magnitude more massive than electrons being the heterogeneous locus of electromagnetic density. When electrons which as a baseline correspond to atomic orbital structure move, they perturb spaces between them at an on average characteristic rate. This perturbation energy closely correlated with electrons or more precisely density maximums within an electrical portion of the coherence field travels through a vacuum like outer space as particulate photons, at the speed of magnetism and the speed of light. Perturbation of photon streams by atoms reduces the speed in a way dependent on electromagnetic properties of those atoms, while causing photons to assume a variety of forms based on conditions of contact, ranging from particulate scattering as in the Compton effect to superpositioned waves of extremely hybrid and variable wavelength which participate in making atoms vibrate or “heat”.

Most if not all atomic bonds absorb and emit infrared radiation due to vibration and rotation, and many also do the same with visible light. Terrestrial vision tends to be based on a range from 400–700 nm because unlike ultraviolet and infrared light this portion of the spectrum is transparent to water. This allows us to detect the surface features of objects in great detail despite the fact that 25% of our atmosphere is comprised of water vapor, along with discerning the purity and contents of liquid water by visual inspection. Infrared light is emitted by molecules, but is absorbed into vibrating and rotating atomic bonds just as readily, the main contributing factor in production of thermal energy or “temperature”, so does not radiate far before translation into chemical energy. Some animals such as the pit viper have organs for sensing infrared radiation so as to hone in on prey at close range, particularly helpful at night, but visible light is more practical for distance vision as it transmits through the air at long range and is more plentiful than ultraviolet. Despite the fact that optics regards the visible spectrum as its core reference point, infrared is much more active at local scales. Electromagnetic matter on Earth can be thought of as most essentially an infrared field punctuated by particularly concentrated electrical density contours, the atomic centers of mass induced by nuclei.

Like all Earth’s matter the brain is full of infrared light, but the capacity of this radiation to transmit macroscopic distances is constrained from local absorption by all kinds of atomic bonds, especially those of aqueous solvent which limit its range to millimeters. However, a wealth of evidence suggests that brain tissue’s thermal energy, the signature of infrared radiation, strongly correlates with function. Brain tissue temperatures have been measured to exceed those of the blood by 0.5–0.6 degrees Celsius in various mammals. In rats, temperature of the hippocampus increases 1.5–38 degrees Celsius when actively exploring. In male finches, temperature of brain tissue increases during variance in song tempo. Feeding and social interaction produce rapid, unique, and relatively long-lasting brain temperature elevations, occurring faster and with greater magnitude than those of the arterial blood supply. In humans, somatosensory cortex temperature increases during nerve stimulation, and likewise for motor cortex and bodily movement. Many brain regions such as the substantia nigra alter their activity when temperature is varied. Rise in temperature of neuronal pathways is generally associated with sensory stimuli, and correlations between temperature and data obtained on resting potential, action potential, nerve conduction velocity and synaptic transmission are well-established. Anesthesia lowers brain temperature, a sign that infrared radiation may be linked to conscious awareness. The total brain varies in temperature by 1–3 degrees Celsius in some animal models. Though much more research is necessary, a clear relationship between function and brain hyperthermia, essentially greater amounts of infrared radiation and resultant molecular vibration, seems to exist.

Mechanisms of function for infrared radiation have not been proven, but we do have clues. A rapid spike and fall in temperature of two degrees microCelsius occurs during action potentials, hinting at connection between the infrared spectrum and nerve firing. Do the properties of signal transmission in a neuron provide us with a viable hypothesis which if corroborated would explain linkage between the infrared field and consciousness?

As we have seen, the most comprehensive and probable model for signal transmission in a neuron regards these signals as directional currents of quantum coherence regulated by changes in ion concentration at strategic locations such as the nodes of Ranvier, juxtaparanodes, dendrite/soma junctions, etc. If this is accurate, neural signals are propagated lengthwise as electricity, not primarily by diffusion, and thus achieve what can somewhat liberally be regarded as relativistic speeds that slightly increase electron mass, most likely much greater than 10% the speed of light and probably closer to 50% or higher. We know from many technological applications that electrical currents which accelerate at relativistic speeds emit EM radiation of longer wavelength, and decelerating electric current shorter wavelengths. For example, as the high energy beam of electrons in an x-ray machine, traveling at half the speed of light, collides with a metal plate, high frequency braking radiation in the x-ray portion of the spectrum is emitted, while the acceleration of alternating current in a radio antenna emits low frequency radio waves. This effect is probably caused by compression responsible for emission of higher frequency EM radiation from a denser, decelerating mass and lower frequency EM radiation from a less dense, accelerating mass, a physical process underlying the relativistic interpretation. Direct current, by contrast, does not involve sizable shifts in velocity and produces a relatively uniform magnetic field rather than broadened, “thicker” spectrums of radiation. If the binding effect of EM radiation in the brain is to be richer in structure and function than the inorganic environment and perhaps the rest of the body such that some kind of distinctive perceptual field is possible, the most likely mechanism is by way of acceleration or deceleration of coherence currents, expanding the spectrum of radiative energies as well as types of interaction between the radiative field and molecules from baseline to biologically functional levels.

Acceleration of a coherence current occurs between the node of Ranvier and adjacent juxtaparanodal regions, while a relatively gradual deceleration takes place within internodal space. However, reverse propagation around each node after activation largely halts lengthwise motion, returning cellular solution to the baseline infrared spectrum of its most localized decoherence, so extra emission of EM radiation is sporadic, insufficient to enhance the total field in a sustained way. Dendrites encounter a similar dynamic of current interference that halts transmission of electrical potential and radiation emittance. Both dendrite and axon nodes are small compared to the entire neuron so any field that is generated seems unlikely to functionally interact with macromolecules.

Acceleration also takes place around the synaptic space on both the dendrite and axon terminal sides due to a gradient of relatively high to low electron density between single positive charge ion concentration (Na+, K+) and Ca2+ near the synaptic junction. Ca2+ channels would have to engage in a very fast cycle, pumping this ion and its electron energy out of and into the cell fast enough that lengthwise voltage remains stable and a coherence flow’s signal velocity can be sustained. Research indicates that ions travel through channels as a tunneling wavicle, and since the rate of this quantum process is near-instantaneous, steady lengthwise voltage and extra EM radiation sustained enough to augment the overall field is possible, though relevant analysis by experiment needs to be performed. In this model, additional radiation from a steadily accelerating coherence current saturates molecules and membranes of the synapse from both sides. A complete understanding of this mechanism, assuming it exists, requires more detailed analysis of neuron anatomy near the synaptic junction.

At this point, it seems more possible to model coherence current behavior within the soma, between the base of dendrites and the axon hillock. An axon hillock has the largest quantity of Na+ channels and Na+ ions in a neuron, and dendrite/soma junctions are where Cl- channels and Cl- ions are concentrated. Reuptake of Na+ within the soma, upstream of the axon hillock, remains somewhat less than in the rest of the neuron due to greater volume, which is also the case with K+, so a fairly steady gradient of positive ions ranging from highest concentration at the axon hillock to gradually lower concentrations while approaching the dendrites is maintained. Cl- reuptake must be efficient enough that most of this ion’s concentration cycles near the dendrite/soma junctions as a result of diffusion.

During the initialization of a resting potential, Cl- concentrations are at their highest following an influx that halts dendritic potentials with reverse propagation of a coherence current. Cl- concentrations then begin to diminish due to reuptake and the back propagating coherence current ceases, though electron density persists at relatively high levels. When dendritic potentials again reach the soma junction and reverse propagation is minimal, this draws higher electron density out of successively more remote regions of the soma via the ebb effect. Combined with some continuation of Cl- influx, an increase in size and breadth of electron density occurs until this replenishing mass comes under the influence of the positive ion gradient imposed by the axon hillock. This mass then accelerates away from the dendrites with enough force to reach the axon hillock, prompting its voltage-gated ion channels to open as a consequence of the accompanying local field potential. Large amounts of Na+ rush in, stimulating an action potential and restoring the positive ion gradient within the soma. This large influx of Na+ to its maximum concentration sustains acceleration of the coherence current even while electron density from Cl- influx attenuates and reaches a minimum due mostly to the dendritic potential’s distributing effect. As Na+ concentrations again attenuate at the axon hillock and within the soma, Cl- concentration increases and regains a maximum at the dendrite/soma junctions to block EPSPs, sustaining acceleration from the opposite side, recycling the process. Thus, even in the absence of an electrical potential and EM field sufficient to trigger action potentials, acceleration is sustained by charge differentials on either side of the soma.

To summarize:

At the dendrite/soma junctions:
1. Cl- influx, concentration and electron density maximum
2. Cl- concentration and electron density attenuation
3. The ebb effect force of dendritic potentials combined with some Cl- influx
4. Electron density from Cl- concentration at a minimum, with continued influx

Instigated by the axon hillock:
1. Na+ concentration attenuation
2. Greater Na+ concentration attenuation
3. Na+ concentration minimum
4. Na+ influx and concentration maximum

The resultant acceleration of a coherence current through most if not all of the soma’s volume is held at roughly constant levels. This model of course needs verification by experiment, but it seems probable that a steady source of extra EM radiation can be maintained in the soma also.

If sustained EM radiation is emitted at relatively large scales around the synapse and within the soma, we must then discern its properties. Coherence currents do not have any electrical grounding to keep their velocity the same as they travel, so these flows probably begin at roughly the same speed as agitation from decoherence except channeled in a lengthwise direction, gradually decelerating with distance due to inertia if charge is constant. This means that initialization would produce EM radiation complementary to decoherence in aqueous solution, centered on wavelengths slightly longer than those of the boundary between visible and near-infrared portions of the spectrum. If charge differential and thus voltage suffices to accelerate the coherence current, its electrical density decreases and lower frequency light will be released. Thus, acceleration around the synapse and within the soma probably adds somewhat longer wavelengths to the spectrum. Altogether, it seems reasonable as a hypothesis that coherence currents thicken the infrared core of a neuron’s spectrum to at least 1–10 micrometers in wavelength, maybe beyond. This spectral range of EM radiation is capable of traveling through aqueous solution at distances from 100 millimeters — 10 micrometers, with distance shrinking as wavelength increases (Figure 3). The soma is about 12 cubic micrometers and the synaptic space 1 cubic micrometer, with the space occupied by coherence currents themselves roughly equivalent in volume, so it seems credible to assert that this 10+ micrometer wavelength spectrum can saturate both. Whether very low intensities of visible light that more readily travel through aqueous solution could be present via coherence current deceleration or interaction with molecules is uncertain. Together with maximized reflection of this radiation from white matter, the brain’s grey matter may be saturated with a substantive light spectrum capable of influencing properties of molecules. The extent to which similar mechanisms occur in conjunction with the ion channels of non-neuronal cells is also an interesting inquiry, barely broached.

Electric current accelerates from greater, “negative” electron density towards lesser, “positive” electron density in settings that are presently more amenable to measurement than neuronlike solution. Proportional counters work by injecting alpha, beta and gamma energy from radioactive substances into mixtures primarily made up of a noble gas. Atoms of gas ionize, and free electrons thus produced are attracted to an anode within the device. As a free electron approaches the anode it accelerates, gaining enough energy to cause further ionization of from 10–10,000 additional electrons in a process called a Townsend avalanche. The combination of many such avalanches generates an electrical pulse proportional to the emitted radiation, allowing its quantity to be detected.

As was postulated in the case of positive ion influx at the nodes of Ranvier and elsewhere, electric current strengthens as it approaches the proportional counter’s anode. And similar to positive ions in a neuron, the ionized gas is for all intents and purposes stationary in relationship to the electron cascade. Atoms of noble gas in a proportional counter emit photons within the visible and UV range, but the level of this emission is relatively small. Electric currents necessary to operate proportional counters raise temperature considerably, so for various reasons the infrared spectrum is robust in likeness to a brain. The only difference between a proportional counter and a brain in terms of general infrared dynamics may be the intricacy, emergent organization and scale of how this radiation interacts with constituent molecules.

It is significant that electric current acceleration within an ionic mixture of uneven charge, which was proposed to occur in solution by using a gedanken experiment based on neuron anatomy, is the working principle behind proportional counters. Though it remains uncertain exactly how the phenomenon is to be modeled, for instance where these electron currents reside on the coherence spectrum, how the theory of relativity might be applicable, and what the structure and shape of a coherence flow is to quantitative precision, the physical process undoubtedly exists and is substantially associated with infrared radiation.

After this further proof of concept, the convincing but still very approximate picture which emerges in relationship to the nervous system and brain is of an infrared field centered at about 1–10 micrometers in wavelength, additively superpositioning to various degrees at different distance scales and locations, interacting with complex molecular arrangements in multiple ways simultaneously as dependent on chemical sensitivities. Percepts might be the internal structure of this infrared field as hybridized with biochemistry. If the hypotheses are accurate, vibrations of the infrared spectrum as thermally combined with those of molecules may not merely correlate with feel percepts but actually be the feeling itself. Elaborate biochemical differentiations of the thermal coherence field might refine the basic matter of feel percepts into a full gamut of sensations: sound, touch, taste, smell, interoception, etc. Likewise, at least a fraction of the superpositioned, additive wavelength structure of this radiative/molecular field would actually be imagery of the mind’s eye and internal aspects of vision. The possible range of functional combinations is almost as diverse as biochemistry itself, and the potential for experimentation nearly untapped. Proving this coherence field theory could pave the way for a new paradigm in physics and the neuroscientific study of consciousness.

Thinking about ethics recently, seems to me that the OP is becoming more true each day, at least in the US, especially the points about antieudemonia. The trend towards social arrangements of this type is proving a major hindrance to some of my own efforts as a citizen. Are our communities disintegrating in this way? Does anyone notice these dynamics in places outside the US? I'd be interested to get opinions on how apt this assessment of modern culture is, and if accurate, whether it can be countered.

Not wanting to derail, but just briefly saying that if thought can transcend classical time and space, why not nonlocal forces driving those thoughts in consort with electromagnetic structure? I think reason to hope for a Star Trek future exists, but we can agree to disagree.

Of course hydrogen is absolutely everywhere, but I read a physicist say that carbon and water are in most solar systems: comets, asteroids, planets etc. Fascinating that life resembling Earth's can possibly arise in so many places and we might scout where to look so precisely.

Dude, they measured absorption lines in an atmosphere 1,500ly away. — Banno

I mean chances are good for ALIENS! That's a hell of a scope!

Water and carbon are the most plentiful substances in the universe, so chances are good.

Entanglement in photosynthetic reaction centers has been around a while. Based on neural anatomy, signal transmission in neurons seems likely to be currents of electromagnetic coherence, so a quantum scaled phenomenon is in effect throughout the brain. These currents of electron density along with EM field perturbations probably integrate via phase locking and feedback loops to produce the macroscopic impetus of consciousness insofar as it arises from the brain. EM radiation generated by these coherence currents then might superposition with molecular structures to produce fields of vibrational feel and imagery as additive wavelength. This in addition to more nonlocal forces that transcend electromagnetism etc. hehe, parts of the field not fixed with relationship to atoms. All of this has to be better verified by experiment of course. So cool I'm wearing myself out writing about it and getting sick of it lol

BTW, why do you use the first plural? Are you participating in the project? — Alkis Piskas

Humanity is the ideal we from my point of view, but yes, I have published some papers on consciousness.

This has turned out to be a false hope. Quantum phenomena appear to occur in noisy systems all the time, it's just harder to measure them and figure out how they work. — Count Timothy von Icarus

In enzyme active sites, photosynthetic reaction centers, etc., but this is all nanoscale to the extent that it solely involves atoms. EM radiation interacting with atoms boosts superposition to the macroscopic scale, as a field that binds atoms via a range of near-instantaneous spectral dynamics. Photonics could turn out to be a major ingredient of the empirical basis for panprotopsychism as THE correct philosophy of consciousness.

Listening to Mr Penrose, I hoped that he would give some tangible examples of how his theory-system of consciousness works. Well, he didn't. As no one else who has a scientific theory or explanation does. It's all theory. Not a single example. No application in everyday life. — Alkis Piskas

That's because theory wasn't developed enough to construct a viable experiment. But we're getting to the point where the material basis of consciousness is a robustly empirical issue, even merely in terms of electromagnetism.

The microtubule theory as originally proposed is flawed simply because atoms don't superposition much except when in extremely low entropy states such as temperatures near absolute zero, and even then microscopically. But a light field may superposition with atoms in a biologically functional way at macroscopic scales, which may be part of an explanation for the entirety of consciousness, not just as it relates to electrical transmission within the brain. The microtubule theory might even have some validity once dynamics of EM radiation are included in the picture. Coming up with a model of nonlocality in terms of matter will be key, and I think quantum physics is the conduit to that model, though as you say the road is littered with flawed attempts.

Is this not related to quantum field theory? — universeness

Like quantum field theory except the field is not fundamentally quantum as conventionally conceived but has properties such as entanglement which transcend electromagnetism and the speed of light. I may get around to watching the video, have to do some jumping jacks and planks first.

I suppose materialism would then be closer to panpsychism than physicalism, which works for me. Subtleties might exist that mean atoms aren't perceiving, only emergent structures, though at very basic levels of emergence. That's the view I subscribe to, called panprotopsychism.

Still materialist. And speculative materialism at that. Not my cup of tea. — Wayfarer

A materialist proof for the existence of God would be wild.

Do you think that this semiotic dimension that all living things possess emerged from nothing, or was it enfolded somehow into the fabric of the Universe? — Watchmaker

That's what Yockey says is undecideable. — Wayfarer

Regarding the semiosis/matter interface. A new distinction is being introduced to quantum theory: superradiance vs. subradiance. The external regions of complex macromolecules are superradiant, meaning they reemit more light energy upon absorption, while internal regions are subradiant, meaning they store absorbed energy more readily in a sort of endothermic coherence (as I understand it). Most of a molecule's functional components are located in the superradiant region or around the boundary.

In a purely photonic field (assessed with computer simulations, probably an idealized model derived from statistical compiling of experimental data), energy is dissipated by emission at an accelerating rate, with energy swirling around the subradiant domain while a sort of emission inertia happens, until the subradiant field rapidly shrinks to multiple small domains and then a single point.

In a macromolecule, I'm thinking that rate of emission vs. rate of absorption might be equilibrated by structure of the superradiant/subradiant divide, causing cooccurring emission and absorption to avoid reaching the tipping point where dissipation accelerates rapidly enough to dissolve the atomic energy field's cohesion, making biomolecules such as proteins a sort of perpetual motion entropy/enthalpy machine akin to an ecosystem.

I don't really know much about it yet, but your posts reminded me that what you're calling semiosis might soon be proven intrinsic to matter at very basic levels of emergence, simply by way of discerning inanimate mechanisms involved. So the issue could turn out to be decidable. Perhaps this equilibrium even emerges fractally, at a wide range of scales, so that the entire universe obeys the same energy flow distribution principles as an organism and might be living in a sense that we could aptly define as biological. If you want to research this and tell me what you find, I'd be interested.

Anyhow, a monistic dualism as stable equilibrium in superradiant vs. subradiant energy flow might be fundamental to life and render the universe a kind of organism.

When both Penrose and Hameroff chose terms like 'ORCHestrate' and 'like an orchestra tuning up' and 'musical composition/arrangement,' I was immediately reminded of string theory. I wonder if interdimensional vibrating strings could be the fundamental at work within microtubules and dendrites? — universeness

String theory is an interesting framework that could find applications someday, but I don't consider it to have much realism so its explanatory power might be limited. If the electrical properties of neurons can be explained in terms of vibrating strings I would be surprised, but what's impossible when it comes to the unknowns of physics? As for electromagnetism, I subscribe to the "electron sea" model. What we rudimentarily call electrons are complex density contours induced by nuclear etc. force that shift around at relativistic speeds as coherent states, roughly analogous to a body of water in the case of solutions, an elastic, multimolecular crystal in the case of solids, etc. Coherence is not in my opinion a fundamentally electromagnetic phenomenon: electric field condensation is induced by nuclei acting on the comparatively nonlocal substrate to produce loci of highest density we know as atoms, which interact at the speed of magnetism and light, but parts of the field not knotted up by nuclei can perturb and transmit energy at much faster rates. All of this still needs to be verified by experiment of course. I think technologies that transcend the speed limits of conventional matter could be possible, and we might get our Star Trek future eventually.

Consciousness is something I need to read up on. I am more inclined to the view that consciousness isn't anything special (a la Dennett). Any book recommendations? — Down The Rabbit Hole

My favorite consciousness theorist is Johnjoe McFadden. I'd recommend his book Life on the Edge: The Coming of Age of Quantum Biology as a good introduction to the topic. He doesn't go into consciousness with much depth in that book, but it's what started me thinking about the nature of ion channels and signal transmission in neurons as a possibly quantum phenomenon. His website has a lot of very accessible information about CEMI (conscious electromagnetic information) theory and additional science. I think he's got volition figured out and I've referenced his ideas in all my consciousness papers.

I suspect that percepts as light/molecular interactions within cells are possessed by all organic life in some form, but the human capacity for reason is certainly extraordinary, though computers might surpass and displace us someday if we don't adequately regulate artificial intelligence technology, the usual scifi discontents.

There is no point in establishing in advance what science is unable to reach, but also there is no point in thinking that science, sooner or later, has the potentiality to master absolutely everything. This claim would mean exactly forgetting the existential perspective I suggested. — Angelo Cannata

Sides of the same coin perhaps: when the objectivist hat is on, rational individualist, when the subjectivist hat is on, existentialist. I think we brought perfect harmony to the cosmos haha

I've still got to read Hoffman's The Case Against Reality. I think you said it was so-so? — Down The Rabbit Hole

Been recently getting into a bunch of physics history. Wasn't me that said it! Haven't read that book.

Have you read Penrose's Cycles of Time? I really struggled with it. — Down The Rabbit Hole

Penrose's books are difficult and I don't venture into them much. He's such a math whiz and you always have to do logic gymnastics. I'm more of a spatial thinker than an abstract logic puzzle guy, so not my aptitude. I'm sure Cycles of Time was intellectually brutal lol

We can combine in our present, probably, thinking and experiencing, but, anyway, what we are thinking can never coincide with what we are experiencing; it is always just a copy of some thinkable part of it. — Angelo Cannata

That might be true from a certain perspective perhaps. The idea that we can fully assimilate "consciousness" into objective knowledge may be an ideal strictly within the scope of a specific mechanistic framework, to be contextualized and not essentialized. Neither you nor I want materialist fundamentalism, but relativism can be fundamentalist also as can any point of view. The fundamentalist undercurrent in all kinds of mainstream educating, propagandizing, communicating is a major factor in hostilities surrounding science and religion. But in my opinion "fundamentalism" shouldn't be wantonly used as an epithet against those willing to commit strongly to a cause either. It all really depends on how people are educated: if we get society's members to think for themselves with some strategic guidance, contextualization necessarily follows, furthering objectivity while preserving subjectivity. Then both of our perspectives on consciousness have a grain of truth within their respective domains, and we can reach agreement where necessary. This is about the opposite of most cultural approaches lol

I think promoting the sanctity of subjectivity has legitimacy as a value judgement to the extent that this doesn't discourage human beings from coming together and reaching novel consensus. Balance has to be reached between personal and civic commitment, a compromise that respects subjective experience while not detracting from the possibility of objectivity. Rational individualism: enlightenment.

I think the Penrose-Hameroff Orch-Or theory as initially proposed was regarded as implausible because the brain is too hot and wet for molecular superpositions exceeding more than a dozen or so atoms, even in microtubules. But recent research into interactions between light and molecules suggests that a coherent energy field can be generated between them, perhaps spanning macroscopic distances somehow. I think Hameroff is in full support of the photonics research and intends to integrate that info into his quantum consciousness theorizing once we have solid experimental evidence. I speculated on the role that light fields might have as a binding mechanism for percepts in a couple papers I've published. I used this site for editing and to solicit critiques, so you can find these papers in near final form as the multipost OPs of my threads: A Physical Explanation for Consciousness and A Physical Explanation for Consciousness, the Reality Possibly.

I doubt quantum processes are fundamentally nondeterministic, but this is no barrier to the claim that some degree of real as opposed to illusory volition exists, as I describe in the OP of my thread: A Materialist Proof of Free Will Based on Fundamental Physics of the Brain.

I wrote a long paper that I hope to publish soon which goes into way more depth about fundamental physics of the brain and posted it to this site, but that got deleted. Not a good venue for making a post that long, but this preliminary stuff should give you a good idea of where the science of consciousness is headed post-initial Orch-Or.

@Angelo Cannata has a point that consciousness is to a certain extent subjective and modeling the phenomenon with words or images doesn't do justice to the vivid immediacy. But I think models of psychology and brain function can enhance subjective self-awareness if properly comprehended and assimilated into one's philosophical perspective. I don't think subjectivity is so much a barrier to understanding the mind objectively as the expectation that you lie about consciousness, and these taboos related to describing qualitative experience must be dismantled gradually so upheaval in the stigmas of culture do not throw society into turmoil. This issue is the "hard problem of consciousness" as I understand it: how do we make it possible to seek and find the truth in this matter, wherever you are coming from as a human being?

The topic is fascinating and I hope we will one day be capable of understanding consciousness materially, from the subatomic to macroscopic to "nonlocal" levels, allowing researchers to come up with medical cures and sociocultural palliatives for stigma that help all kinds of individuals and demographics.

Oops, mistyped, that was supposed to read ''asynchrony''.

For me philosophy is about developing your own perspective and getting better at discourse, not arriving at any particular ideology. Of course philosophy is also commonly a pretext to screw with someone, plenty of that goes around lol

The analysis of enframing is interesting. I think that is a main psychological impetus for the value form transition from labor to information in the presence of an increasingly technological society. Is enframing new or is it fundamentally a Jungian archetype coming to dominate the psyche? I agree that almost every rational convention can be contested as per postmodernism except that inflicting unwanted pain is a violation and the root of evil. Rejecting that obvious truth from any subjective or objective stance is guaranteed social turmoil. Am I just not beyond good and evil?

What's the problem with the rational common in a cultural relativist's view? Seems to me the foundation of public life and something we were transforming the entire species into for good before giving up on ethical progress became a paradigm. Did humanity's teachers become jaded by abuse?

To all concerned: finite metadiscourses are fine within the highly academic sphere, but then what about dissemination, which requires some level of mass appeal? Is the education system in the US and perhaps elsewhere failing because of this perspective of maximum intellectual relativity? Is enlightenment divided and conquered?

Both, and assessing relative weight of all those factors is not a simple matter.