electromagnetic theories of consciousness

All such theories I have considered have in common the failure of the theoretician to consider Psi Field research. (For instance Psychokinesis Research) In other words, they are trying to explain a nonphysical phenomenon with only physical principles. That is a little like trying to model earth's shape with only what can be seen on the horizon.

I very much agree with your entire post.

To me, talk of an "electromagnetic theory of consciousness" kind of skips the real problem, which is not what type of technology is used by the brain to produce consciousness, it is the deeper problem of the basic principles of how you create sentience out of non-sentience. 

There is a guy, Michael Persinger, who does claim that psi information - such as that in telepathy - is carried on very low frequency (~7 Hz) electromagnetic signals that resonate around the earth. However,

a)         That theory seems to ignore the fact that it would seem that telepathy is not attenuated by distance, nor by Faraday cages (I am not entirely sure if these would shield signals at 7 Hz). I guess that is another way of saying that it is non-local.

b)         The theory totally ignores the concept of bandwidth. Assuming at least a few thousand of the earth's population are communicating telepathically (or trying to), that will not fit in a 7 Hz carrier! Put another way, all telepathy would arrive as a scrambled mush of everyone's communications!

There is no need for EM fields to be considered in isolation, for example, such fields may only need to intersect the brains networks, to create a spatio-temporal pattern of activation upon the networks. That pattern of network activation could then add-up similar patterns, via quantum coherent interference.

I don't really get what you mean - you can surely think about the EM signal as it passes between the two brains - there is only so much information they can hold. As an analogy, suppose that mobile phones simply broadcast a signal on the short wave band amateur radio band (that can reflect off the ionosphere and so reach round the globe). The band would be instantly used beyond its capacity and be useless - that doesn't depend on the details of the radio receivers/transmitters.

If psi happens at all - and I am pretty sure it does - then if it happens using a physical signal, it will need a huge bandwidth!

I don't really get what you mean - you can surely think about the EM signal as it passes between the two brains - there is only so much information they can hold. As an analogy, suppose that mobile phones simply broadcast a signal on the short wave band amateur radio band (that can reflect off the ionosphere and so reach round the globe). The band would be instantly used beyond its capacity and be useless - that doesn't depend on the details of the radio receivers/transmitters.

If psi happens at all - and I am pretty sure it does - then if it happens using a physical signal, it will need a huge bandwidth!

You're missing the point. Don't haggle over inconvenient details, just believe.

"create a spatio-temporal pattern of activation upon the networks" is the kind of rabbit hole lay people and trained scientists send us down when trying to bend physical principles into service to explain nonphysical phenomena. The complexity in models introduced by such creative theorizing only confounds our efforts to understand these phenomena. That is why anomalistic psychology is so damaging. Their explanations of fraud or delusion expressed under cover of academic authority are on a par with James Randi's minions trying to debunk the phenomena.

I have experimented with different models, both physical-centric and nonphysical-centric. The most eloquent solution I have found that, if reverse engineered to "predict" experiences, is a combination of Field Theory proposed by Rupert Sheldrake and Psi Theory proposed by James Carpenter. An easier explanation is at https://ethericstudies.org/perception/.

One of the complications of mind produced by brain is the growing evidence that information is first processed in the unconscious mind and the result of that processing is presented to the conscious mind. There is a slight delay between sensing and conscious perception. The idea of delayed perception complicates modeling a biological origin of consciousness even more.

A second complication is that human instincts dominate at birth but are subjugated as the person matures. The urge to moderate primal instincts with behavior that has perhaps only tangental survival elements leaves open the possibility of a different kind of instinct which may be better explained with a nonphysical influence like that proposed by Sheldrake. In fact, three big mysteries of life are what manages morphogenesis in cell differentiation, the development of new instinctual patterns and their propagation across generations, and whether individuals inherit different non-instinctual behavior.

One of the reasons I argue for the Survival Hypothesis is that adopting an immortal personality-centric perspective may be more apt to lead a person to compassionate behavior than the current body-centric perspective. The model I like places importance on respecting our human (instincts) but holds acquisition of understanding as the primary purpose of life experience. Realizing we are not our body tends to give a person a different view of self.

You're missing the point. Don't haggle over inconvenient details, just believe.

Are you the resident Christian preacher then?

Are you the resident Christian preacher then?

A great deal of faith is required.

A great deal of faith is required.

Well I guess that does make you a Christian, and I imagine many Christians have a tough time here, because anything that contradicts the Bible, just has to be wrong from your POV!

If that is what you believe, there isn't much to talk about, is there?