Perspectives - Vol. 2, No. 4 - The Field Substance of Mind

The central nervous system (CNS) is a physiological system like any other bodily system, such as the digestive and respiratory systems. But, unlike any other system, the brain end of the CNS is credited with the property of being a conscious mind as well. Neurophysiology becomes neuropsychology while remaining neurophysiology. Stimulate some parts of the brain with an electrode and you will experience mental images or emotions, think a thought and the brain thinks with you. This two-for-the-price-of-one is the working hypothesis of neuroscience. Particular forms of mental processes are attached as a subjective addendum to localized neural processes. The brain and mind relationship of popular belief is replaced by the one substance, brain-mind unity of neuroscience belief. We can call this Neural Monism. Atkins (1995) sums up this hypothesis when he says that 'The principal activity of the brain, that of sustaining a sense of consciousness throughout a lifetime, is open to explanation rooted in its physical structure' (author's emphasis). All of the popular neuroscience books by well known authors such as Boden, the Churchlands, Damasio, Dennett, Edelman, Gazzaniga, Humphrey, Sacks, Scott, and Searle reiterate this brain-mind unity within one substance.

What this hypothesis implies is that when amino acids, glucose, minerals, and so on, cross the blood/brain barrier and are absorbed into the structure and functions of the brain they temporarily acquire the subjective attributes of conscious thoughts, desires and emotions as they interact with each other by neural impulses and neurohormones. During their sojourn in the brain they become molecules with attitude and lose these attributes of qualia when they leave the brain. The neurophysiological mechanisms that effect this qualitative transformation of function are not listed in the textbooks but, if neural monism is correct, they must exist. Current models of brain-mind function are based, by analogy and metaphor, upon the computer sciences and the science of cybernetics. Brain processing is mental processing and mental processing is brain processing.

Why is this prevailing Zeitgeist so dominant? The simple answer to this is that every finding from the neuroscience laboratories can be reasonably interpreted as supporting this one substance hypothesis. No one whose brain is being monitored by a well known acronym such as EEG, PET, MRI, or MEG can think a single thought, however spiritual, or feel an emotion, however transcendent, without associated brain activity. All mental activity is accompanied by the expenditure of real micro-joules of synaptic activity. Mentation requires real units of electrochemical work to be done. If the total metabolic energy of the body is taken as about 100 watts, the brain uses some 20 watts in its psycho-neuro activity. They are so united that a physiologically distressed brain results in a psychologically distressed mind and vice versa. If the primary dysfunction in either of them can be rectified then both are likely to return to normal.

But an outstanding question remains unresolved. Why are the two so utterly different in their nature and properties? On the one hand we have the incredible monotony of traveling impulses and synaptic activity inside of a brain that is imprisoned inside of a bony box, and on the other hand we have the infinite variety of experiential reality in which we are in immediate contact with the outside world. Neural monists say that there is no discrepancy because the physical brain creates the mental world within its own substance, but have no idea how the molecules of a physical brain could feel happy, sad or terrified. Those who feel that the disparity between the two is too great to be bridged by neural monistic theory usually adopt a dualistic, two universe, alternative of brain and mind as two separate and independent entities bound in mutual correlation. The problem for dualism is that no plausible mechanism can be found by which the non quantitative, qualitative mind can act upon the quantitative/non qualitative brain that requires the input of real work to influence its ongoing synaptic activity for subjective mental purposes.

Is there a way out of this dualistic impasse of quantitative/qualitative incompatibility of brain and mind? I suggest that there may be if we can identify a mechanism by which the two can interact, because if two independent systems interact they must share an interconvertible source of energy at their interface whereby each can act upon the other. The nature of the interchangeable energy will define their relationship.

All proposed solutions to problems rest upon prior assumptions. What I am assuming is that the process of experiencing is generated by the processes of biological cell functioning but is not a property of those processes in themselves. That localized experiential reality entered the previously non experiencing reality of the universe when it was generated by the first cellular Eve that successfully survived and replicated.

All cells, including neurones, can be considered as consisting of three, interacting, systems:

The science of Bioelectromagnetism studies these two aspects of biological activity, but cytomagnetism receives scant reference in the textbooks. It is difficult to detect and is generally assumed to be as irrelevant to cell function as the noise of the whistle is to the boiling kettle. But this assumption may be very misplaced, as nature rarely wastes anything that incurs the expenditure of energy and is associated with survival, and this leads directly to the following hypothesis: Cytomagnetic fields form the substance of cellular experiential reality.

It is proposed that each cytomagnetic field forms the experiential self, or experiential control centre of the cell by interacting with the protein-built, subcellular computer circuits, that Bray (1992) has described as existing within each cell. Subjectivity came into existence when these fields were first formed. During conscious experiencing a mechanism known as Flicker Fusion ensures that individual images of momentary duration, as in vision, fuse into an experiential solidity of image continuity in mental space. Let us assume that flicker fusion is a field mechanism whereby stable experiential features emerge as field frequencies interact and that these form the experiential self of the cell. Because field configuration patterns would be shaped by the genetically determined biochemical activity of the cell a range of mean field configurations would subjectively represent cell function, becoming the experiential reference norms that would act as the cytomagnetic givens of cellular self. Any unwanted deviations would initiate magneto-electric feedback mechanisms to the cellular computers to re-establish the experiential norm.

Bray (1995) describes his sense of wonder at the apparently purposeful movements of cells, saying that he 'finds it hard to accept that such complex, integrated, seemingly sentient structures arise from dumb molecules'. But what if the 'dumb molecules' are not so dumb after all? What if they create a sentient self from the properties of their cytomagnetism that gives their activities purposeful direction?

Let us make a big jump and apply this hypothesis to the relationship between brain and mind. Mind is brain-generated neuromagnetic field. The myriads of active synapses that cover the bodies and dendrites of the densely packed CNS neurones generate a multitude of localized magnetic fields in the space around themselves. If the mosaic of cortical modules and related subcortical nuclei that serve particular functions 'resonate' at preferred oscillatory frequencies, so will their associated micro-fields, and these micro-fields will interact with each other to form a complex, neuromagnetic whole, the Self of this hypothesis, that permeates throughout the magnetically 'transparent' physical structure of the brain as if it was not there. This three-dimensional, neuromagnetic, field exists as a separate entity from the brain that generates and maintains it, having its own structure and properties including, in this hypothesis, the property of experiencing. But it shares one property with the brain, and that is electromagnetic induction, by which the energy of each can act upon the other. The neuromagnetic field is poised upon the supra-cellular synapto-electric framework that extends from the cortex to the tail of the spinal cord. It is suggested that experiencing is either a continuum, or a series of non linear steps, of subjectivity, that can be descriptively divided, like the LW, VHF, and LTVR divisions of the electromagnetic spectrum, across a mentational spectrum from non conscious reflex functions, as in the spinal cord, to various forms of consciousness. Each is associated with local areas of brain module function. The form of the experiencing, as in smelling a rose, may depend upon the flicker fusion field frequencies generated by particular neural modules, and the emotional intensity may depend upon the intensity of the generated field.

In this hypothesis MEG sensors are in direct contact with the field nature of mind, and magnetic frequencies passing through the head from an external source directly interact with the mind. Persinger and colleagues (1990) have shown that passing extremely weak, low frequency magnetic fields from helmet mounted electromagnets through the temporal lobes of volunteer subjects provokes experiential effects, often of dreamy disassociation, and Blackmore (1995) gives a graphic account of peculiar body image distortions and intense, unpredictable, mood changes that she experienced as an experimental subject in Persinger's laboratory.

For those who, like Lazslo (1996), believe that the experimental evidence concerning psi phenomena conclusively demonstrates that living systems can sometimes interact with each other across space without involving normal sensory system contact, the hypothesis that mind has the properties of a field may be of some interest.

Nothing in this proposal alters, or challenges, our knowledge of the nervous system. It proposes that the locus of mind resides in the neuromagnetic field, and not in the molecules of the physical brain. The two interact by electromagnetic induction at the synaptoelectric/synaptomagnetic junction. Neuromagnetic field energy is experiential mind energy in three dimensional field space, possessing both qualia and quanta, and binding, through field integrity, the physically separate functions of the modular brain into an experiential whole.

Reference
Charman, Robert A. (1997). The field substance of mind. [Online]. Perspectives. [1997, Sep 26].

Share:

Link: (Here's how to do it ... )