Dear Georgina,
Thank you for attempting to understand my model of consciousness. If you have read my essay repeatedly and perused the comments on this page there's probably nothing I can say in another comment that will change anything. I simply do not believe particles are conscious, singly or in groups, and they do not become self-aware (as I experience self-awareness) by the act of enduring over time by processing energy.
Neural models have proposed recursion, resonance, synchrony, and more. But if two neurons, mutually interconnected, makeup a recurrent system, then "two neurons must create consciousness, if recurrence is sufficient for consciousness." Similarly, the addition of five more neurons could produce "resonant states" according to another theory. For synchrony-based theories, three interconnected neurons firing in synchrony should produce consciousness.
Herzog et al. have examined small models and established tests for neural-based theories that have, to date, yielded no results. But they do provide a toy model for testing new proposed theories of neural nets as the basis of consciousness.
Neural networks produce local events. How are these integrated to produce my seamless awareness, if not via the field? How do you explain different organisms with different experiences (programming) leading (as is probably the case) to the same "I am" awareness? As different portions of my brain 'fire', why does not my perception of myself change? Instead, it is amazingly stable, over a good fraction of a century. I am essentially the same 'me' I was 50 years ago, despite that my body has significantly changed. There are many points to be made along these lines.
In my reply to Natesh Ganesh I emphasized the 3-D nature of physical reality, the 3-D nature of flows of momentum density in neural networks, and the 3-D nature of the field, as reasons why I have essentially 3-D awareness, and why 2-D logic circuits and silicon will not have 3-D 'awareness'. I don't know whether you believe animals are aware or not, but explaining the multitude of shapes and sizes of neural nets as the basis of consciousness in the living kingdom without a consciousness field is impossible. And while we know all 302 neurons in one worm, we have not the slightest hint how they work.
I'm avoiding recounting the experience of "the oneness of it all", but it is not insignificant. Unless you think "curved space-time" is what holds you to the earth, you might ask how gravity 1.) knows your mass is there, and 2.) "pulls on" your mass endlessly. I don't believe you can explain how the gravity field actually manages this trick, and I don't mean a simple equation. I think it is equally hopeless for me to explain how a consciousness field is aware. I only know that, if it is, all of the other mysteries tend to disappear.
Finally, if awareness emerges from structure, it is an artifact, and hence conditional. It may never have arisen. That is not my understanding or my experience. I do not expect to convince you, nor do I feel any need to convince you. I'm simply trying to answer your questions. The reductionist view depends on "big numbers" and "infinite recursion", and then 'presto-chango". It doesn't work for me.
I have other major points, but I cannot back them up yet, so I don't wish to make them.
Thanks again for your efforts to give my theory a fair hearing.
Warmest regards,
Edwin Eugene Klingman
