There is one other aspect of this that I like. It seems like when we think something, the thought presents as a kind of concrete, integrated totality in which we cannot easily break down to its constituen, usually disparate components (eg., an appearance, a memory, an imagination). A kind of brain-wide global integrated electromagnetic field seems like it harmonizes with a complete "idea." Whether or not this is actually what happens, I cannot say, but I find the hypothesis very intriguing. This is the binding problem.
On 12/27/20, Colin Hales <[email protected]> wrote: > OK. Xmas is behind us. Let's dance! > > On Thu, Dec 24, 2020 at 2:44 PM Matt Mahoney <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Colin, you haven't answered my question. I don't understand how >> electrical >> noise from neurons magically makes intelligence possible. >> > > The last thing that the EM fields are is noise. None of it is noise. LFP, > ECog, fMRI, EEG, MEG ... these are the brain-EM-based signals that have > literally been used for defining brain operation for 65 years and over. ALL > are EM field measurements. "Chemical" refers to EM fields. Chemical > potential is an EM field phenomenon. "Quantum" means quantised EM fields. > From DC to daylight. The diffusion that happens in the brain is EM objects > (atoms/molecules) thermodynamically flying about, hitting each other. There > is spectacular and beautiful chaotic scale-free emergent complexity > behaviour *in the EM field signalling* and it has an empirically proved > functional significance (read the references in suppl 2). It is not noise. > This signalling starts out as energy stored in the static cell membrane > ....~5,000 m^2 of 10^7 V/m in an adult human brain. A massive electric > field. Spatially and in intensity. It is emergent in the collective > behaviour of cell membrane chemistry. > > *Your question's premise is wrong.* > > I don't have to justify the EM field basis of brain function - you have to > point at *anything* in the brain that is *not *EM field based. I can think > of 2 things but they have no evidence of being directly involved in > cognition/intelligence. They merely determine the behaviour of atoms and > therefore ions and therefore EM field generation. Can you think of them? > > The EM fields are everything that is relevant to brain function. There is > literally nothing else there but space and EM field impressed on it by > systems of charge/current sources (with a little mass attached to the > charges). EM fields literally make the signalling behaviour of neurons. > What do you think creates it? You are the one believing in magic. Not me. > It's physics: The fundamental physics of the brain is EM fields Maxwell's > equations combined with diffusion within the Lorentz force equation. Look > at the computational study in the paper (my PhD thesis result). Those that > peer reviewed it do not dismiss the fields like you do. > > So please get your facts straight. > > If you want to understand what a brain is doing. Start at EM. Then we can > engage with the actual message of the paper, which is NOT primarily about > EM per se. It is about a malformed science (neuroscience) and what physical > scientific behaviour we would be doing if we corrected the science. That > correction takes the form of finally paying attention to the EM fields > instead of ignoring them on an industrial scale or speciously dismissing > them as if they aren't at the center of it. > > Please read the paper and focus on the real message. Happy to see it > soundly refuted. Not happy to be arguing about irrelevant misinformation. > > Colin ------------------------------------------ Artificial General Intelligence List: AGI Permalink: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/Tf319c0e4c79c9397-Ma1355076c1a96bd70e8e7b40 Delivery options: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription
