1 of 37

Electromagnetic Field Topology as a Solution to the Boundary Problem of Consciousness

The Science of Consciousness - April 23rd, 2024 - Tucson, Az.

Andrés Gómez Emilsson & Chris Percy (both are first authors)

Qualia Research Institute | College of Arts, Humanities and Education, University of Derby

2 of 37

Outline

Introduction

Literature Review

Desired Properties for a Theory

Subproblems for the Boundary Problem

The Topological Approach

3 of 37

Literature Review

Schrödinger’s 1951 book “My View of the World”:�� “Why is it precisely at this intermediate level in the hierarchy of successively superimposed unities (cell, organ, human body, state)—why, I ask, it is precisely at the level of my body that unitary self-consciousness comes into the picture, whereas the cell and the organ do not as yet possess it and the state possesses it no longer?”

​

Applies BOTH to theories that build/emerge human-style conscious from small units � (e.g. neuroscience orthodoxy, panpsychism, emergent ToCs)

AND to theories that demarcate it from a universal consciousness (e.g. cosmo-panpsychism)

4 of 37

First formalisation of the “boundary problem”

Rosenberg’s Between Scylla and Charybdis where:

  • the Scylla refers to why our experience does not exist at the subsystem level, i.e., the Russian dolls nested within us, and
  • the Charybdis asks the parallel question of the larger systems within which individual human entities are nested.

5 of 37

Some candidate solutions, but no clear winners yet

Given binding problem claims → EM field accounts? Mostly fuzzy boundaries (“Coulomb’s law”) or vague phase transitions

* High level summary only, not seeking to do full justice to the theories, for more detail see paper and citations

Any might work, but explicit conceptual solution needed + mathematical outline in complex setting

Theory class

Mechanism to bind up to a complex experience

Mechanism to define boundaries

Further work needed?

Algorithmic

(e.g. IIT, TIC, CTM, GWT as abstract substrate-neutral workspace)

Informational associations or particular causal patterns

High density bordered by low density?

Within a specified system structure?

- How avoid observer-dependent arbitrariness?

- Given complex densities map, how much lower?

- Pockets of even higher density in the high patch?

- Arbitrariness of high vs low in different settings?

- No higher/lower system with higher density? � Big claim given atomic/galactic complexity?

- Also Fekete et al (2016) critique

Resonance theories

(e.g. GRT)

Exactly resonant frequencies; Or non-exact but highest value in a synchronicity index

Slowest shared resonance in a system e.g. in EM fields

- Similar critiques as algorithmic (e.g. group chants), but with a physical mechanism for addressing them

- Needs testing out, e.g. in toy complex systems

Quantum theories

(e.g. Barkai, ?OOR)

Quantum entanglement

Entanglement limits (“monogamy principle”)

- Feasibility at macro-scale in brain?

- Exposure to uncertainty over QM interpretation?

Evolved brains

Physical neural interconnectivity in CNS?

End of the CNS map?

- Arbitrary - how small can CNS get and still count; � - CNS / PNS boundary is not absolute?

- Substrate prejudice? Unhelpful / Not a full ToC?

6 of 37

5 aspects of the Boundary Problem

Making the Boundary Problem more explicit

  1. The hard boundary problem
  2. The lower-levels boundary problem
  3. The higher-levels boundary problem
  4. The private boundary problem
  5. The temporal boundary problem

7 of 37

The Hard Boundary Problem

​

  • Can we assign a “hard” boundary around a “wave”?
  • A process?
  • A system?
  • An event?

Source of wave animations: Dan Russell, Longitudinal and Transverse Wave Motion, retrieved from: https://www.acs.psu.edu/drussell/demos/waves/wavemotion.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonlinear_Schr%C3%B6dinger_equation

8 of 37

The Lower-Levels Boundary Problem

Why are the boundary(s) not smaller? Why aren’t we… organs, cells, molecules, subatomic particles?

Source: Skeleton Jelly by Matt Brinkman

9 of 37

The Higher-Levels Boundary Problem

Why are we not our towns, cities, world population, life, the planet, Gaia, the galaxy?

10 of 37

The Private Boundary Problem

11 of 37

The Temporal Boundary Problem

12 of 37

Further Desired Properties for a Theory of Consciousness

​

​

  • Frame Invariance
  • Non-Epiphenomenalism
  • No Strong Emergence (Weak Emergence is permitted)

13 of 37

Frame Invariance (aka. Lorentz Invariant)

14 of 37

Non-Epiphenomenalism Criterion

  • Why is it that we can talk about our experience?
  • What is the precise causal role of specific qualia varieties and values?
  • How was evolution able to recruit coherent, globally bound, phenomenal states?

We hypothesize that while raw qualia could be epiphenomenal in a sense, the boundary of experience simply cannot.

In other words, boundaries must somehow be causally significant for them to precisely be present around us in a way that tracks the computations we’re performing everyday.

15 of 37

No Strong Emergence / Weak Emergence

The laws of physics apply equally to all regions of space-time.

“The Lagrangian of the Standard Model does not break down inside one’s own skull.” - David Pearce

​

16 of 37

Explanation Space:

Electromagnetic Field Topology

17 of 37

The Topological Properties of the Field Might Satisfy the Desirable Criteria

  • Frame Invariance
  • Non-Epiphenomenalism
  • No Strong Emergence / Weak Emergence

18 of 37

Causal Circuit: Local Field Potentials <-> Neural Activity

Source: Romero et al. Neural effects of transcranial magnetic stimulation at the single-cell level https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-10638-7

19 of 37

Causal Circuit: Topology <-> Resonance <-> Holistic Behavior

20 of 37

21 of 37

22 of 37

23 of 37

24 of 37

25 of 37

26 of 37

27 of 37

TE 0, 1, 1

Source: https://falstad.com/embox/

28 of 37

TE 0, 2, 1

Source: https://falstad.com/embox/

29 of 37

TM 1, 2, 0

Source: https://falstad.com/embox/

30 of 37

TE 2, 0, 1 & TE 1, 2, 1

Source: https://falstad.com/embox/

31 of 37

TM 1, 2, 0 & TE 0, 1, 1

Source: https://falstad.com/embox/

32 of 37

Resonance & Topology

33 of 37

The Topological Approach: Addressing the Subproblems

  • The hard boundary problem
  • The lower-levels boundary problem
  • The higher-levels boundary problem
  • The private boundary problem
  • The temporal boundary problem

34 of 37

NB. Other field theories may recruit the topology principle to resolve boundary problems while making different assumptions about what constitutes a first person perspective, �e.g. boundaries necessary for human-style entity' capable of complex experience, but not other conscious beings

Assuming our first person perspective (1PP) is a closed EM field corresponding to EM activity in brain:

  • The brain may create many candidate closed topologies (each a separate 1PP), simultaneously in different parts of brain (non-overlapping)
  • But, if so, likely only a subset continually recreated in broadly stable manner, i.e. where evolution found it useful to recruit fields for information processing
  • And only one can enclose & receive information from an immediate memory module
  • Likely that each such individual pocket exists for milliseconds only and extends over centimetres of space (typically not the whole brain) - but exact spatio-temporal extent may vary from one to the next

35 of 37

1

Hard boundary

The field topology creates an ontologically hard boundary for the relevant EM spectra while the boundary topology persists �(there may be internal dynamism while the same boundary topology persists, i.e. a single bound experience can have change/texture)

2

Lower- levels

Only one closed pocket can include the immediate memory module, which is necessary to move beyond mind dust into the human experience/illusion of meso-persistence

(perfect pocket nesting may be possible - separate topic - to discuss in Q&A if wish)

3

Higher- levels

4

Private boundary

Merging of two 1PPs into a single larger 1PP may be technically possible if highly difficult? Either way: more a new 1PP than telepathy between two 1PPs

5

Temporal boundary

Micro-level (e.g. milliseconds; non-zero duration): A closed pocket has a 4D ontological presence by definition (some boundaries may only be closed along the time dimension)

​

Meso-level (e.g. seconds/minutes; start of sentence to its end): Each non-overlapping but consecutive pocket references same immediate memory module, unifying insight about recent past into its present → pseudo-time-arrow/illusion of longer time in each pocket.

​

Macro-level (e.g. days/years; between interruptions?): Classic Ship of Theseus: are you really the same person/continuous consciousness over such periods anyway? Or just linked via a (fallible) long-term memory module?

36 of 37

37 of 37

For more information, queries, or collaboration ideas…

What next?

Next steps in the research programme? (resource pending…)

​

  • Bottom-up modelling: Model simple EM fields that could give rise to closed pockets of different types/complexity and their corresponding alternative EM activities
  • Top-down modelling: Abstract analysis of simplified cerebellum structure to test if likely emergent fields would not be closed, i.e. non-conscious in human 1PP style
  • Links to other ToCs: Describe how algorithmic theory insights (IIT, GWT, TIC, PP, HOT, etc.) might be integrated in an EM field setting, so that their explanatory power can be combined with a robust solution to the binding/boundary problems
  • The moonshot: Build on Human Brain Project to simulate a full brain, see what closed boundaries might exist & at what scales (differentiate EM ToCs?), test disruption of candidate topologies in a lab and observe changes in human phenomenology (1PP disappears, or its contents merely change?)

Gómez-Emilsson, Andrés, & Percy, Chris. (2023). Don’t forget the boundary problem! How EM field topology can address the overlooked cousin to the binding problem for consciousness. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 17. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnhum.2023.1233119� algekalipso@gmail.com; chris@cspres.co.uk