Johnjoe, thanks for stopping by. I just finished reading your first paper, will read the follow up paper shortly. Just a few questions to start off with,
- What is the conventional view of the EM field in the brain? Is this field generally considered a byproduct of the neurons' activity, or only something slightly more?
- I'd like to know if you're suggesting that the em field within the brain contains the information we use for conscious experience everywhere within the brain analogous to a television or radio em field, or if the information within the field is local to each neuron. Trying to understand your paper, it seems as if you're suggesting the em field, regardless of where it is within the brain, contains all the information we are consciously aware of, though I'm not sure I understand if you're also suggesting that it contains ONLY the information we're aware of. Can you please elaborate on what information the em field holds and if all information is contained at all points or if the information within the field is local to each neuron. If you can also point out what experimental evidence there is for your conclusion, that would be great!
- On page 33, you say: "Interestingly, in Freeman's studies the em field contour maps were shown to correlate, not only with the identity of a particular odour, but with its meaning to the animal."
Could you elaborate? When I think of contour maps I think of a 2 dimensional sheet but a map of the brain must be 3 dimensional. What are these contour maps a map of? And what did the maps say about the odour having meaning?
- Toward the end of page 39 you mention something which looks like the Libet's delay: "For instance, consciousness will be associated with only the later phases of evoked responses (+250 msec), when em field disturbances have reached sufficient amplitude to influence neuron firing." Are you suggesting something to do with the Libet's delay? Can you please expand?
Thanks again for your time.