For a very long time, mankind has questioned what consciousness is – whether our ability to think, our free will, is tied directly to our soul or if it’s a component of the complexity of our brains.

I intend to shed some light on a few theories as conceived by Susan Pocket and John McFadden. While these theories have had some criticism from the scientific community, McFadden had his article presented to an editorial board after peer review before it was published on these topics and is considered a viable scientific theory to be taken into consideration.


The basis of the theory, the very cornerstone which it is built on, is the fact that our brains function on firing neurons and chemical reactions. The action of a neuron firing is an electrical occurrence and results in some of the same things we see in electricity during the course of a common day.

When our brain fires a neuron, it builds up the postsynaptic potential in an adjacent neuron, which then fires in rapid sequence until the “signal” reaches its destination.

The timing, quantity, position, and specific millivolt assignment for these communications are dictated by ribonucleic acids and various chemicals transferring across pathways through our nervous system. Our DNA dictates these transactions and influences the generated electricity and the paths it takes.

McFadden found that it is very evident that each neuron firing triggers a disturbance in the surrounding electromagnetic field.

It has been witnessed that this field is abundantly more prominent with the synchronous firing of the neurons – that when the neurons trigger the electromagnetic field builds exponentially if the firing is synchronous.

This synchrony is affected and affects our free will; our choice of actions is argued to be our subjective experience of the field acting on our neurons.

In other words, our thoughts build synchrony and it compounds to generate the electromagnetic field which then feeds energy back to the neurons which initially fired, influencing them. This is referred to as the CEMI theory, “Conscious ElectroMagnetic Information“.


The synchrony of the neurons inherently generates patterns in the EM field. These patterns modulate the firing of particular neurons, in turn. So, the processes of the brain are driven by deterministic electromagnetic interactions between the field and the neurons.

Due to this, and the recognition of patterns we are all so vastly equipped for, it allows for the integration of parts into a whole. For example, a person’s face is not seen as a collection of features, but rather a face.  This is due to the integration of the patterns into the electromagnetic field, according to the CEMI theory as McFadden and Pocket believe.

In 2013, McFadden published an update to the theory which explained experiments in Christopher Koch’s lab, demonstrating effects concurrent with the prediction that EM fields influence brain function.

This theory suggests that our conscious thought patterns and DNA-based instincts are actually manifested physically as EM fields, picked up as “brain waves”.


The human brain is comprised of 70% water. The QBD theory proposes that the water molecule dipoles constitute a quantum field, referred to as the cortical field.

In the 1960s, two physicists, Hiroomi Umezawa and Herbert Fröhlich did substantial research and composed a published thesis on the notion of QBD. This theory complements the CEMI theory as conceived by McFadden and Pocket.

The thought that the cortical field governs brain dynamics suggests that the energy between the cortical field and the biomolecular EM waves from the neural network produces consciousness.


The notion that the consciousness is governed, stored, and maintained in an electromagnetic field is generated and fed back to our neurons poses an explanation to age-old questions pertaining to the structure of thought itself.

One such question is regarding the capability of conceiving thousands of details regarding a singular topic upon the mere mention of the said topic.

This is, based on CEMI and QBD, because the electromagnetic field around our neurons is storing the data concurrent with our beliefs and experiences, helping to define our consciousness and persona.

It makes sense considering the proven reaction between the chemicals and electrical reactions happening across our brain, in conjunction with the developed fields which are associated with sections, and the “slices” of our brain which are known to manage different aspects of our thought process.

For a very long time, we have all wondered – what are we, what is this form of consciousness, and how can our conscious mind maintain stability through our lives? Is consciousness granted by a higher power?

And as a question posed by many science fiction authors, including the creator of Star Trek, would a synthetic life form have its own consciousness, thoughts, and feelings?

The aforementioned theories suggest that they, in spite of origin, would support consciousness. In order for artificial intelligence to be able to exist, at the very least, the pattern recognition capability that CEMI offers would be necessary.

Branching out further, yet, would it not pertain to other life forms that operate based on firing neurons? Our pets, our wild animals in the forest and ocean, and, maybe even our plants? How far does the influence of this recent theorizing bring our understanding of consciousness?

Copyright © 2012-2024 Learning Mind. All rights reserved. For permission to reprint, contact us.

power of misfits book banner desktop

Like what you are reading? Subscribe to our newsletter to make sure you don’t miss new thought-provoking articles!

This Post Has 13 Comments

  1. Dr Fallopian

    “The timing, quantity, position, and specific millivolt assignment for these communications are dictated by ribonucleic acids and various chemicals transferring across pathways through our nervous system.” RNA is not a a factor in communication between neurons. Even if it was Consciousness requires a “twoness” as Buckminster Fuller elucidates. Something must be conscious of something else or there is not consciousness. From Synergetics: 100.010 Awareness of the Child: The simplest descriptions are those expressed by only one word. The one word alone that describes the experience “life” is “awareness.” Awareness requires an otherness of which the observer can be aware. The communication of awareness is both subjective and objective, from passive to active, from otherness to self, from self to otherness.
    Awareness = self + otherness
    Awareness = observer + observed

  2. Gary Dubuque

    Sillyness to jump to the conclusion that since magnetism is involved it means a collective conscience. Actually I think this idea of every particle is part of a universal conscience was created by some cult long ago. It surely does not explain the mechanics of a sentient machine. I wonder what brain scanning does if magnetism is such an influence to self. It sure would be hard to map the mind if a strong magnetic field could change our thoughts, or was that a confusion of making a whole persona swamped out by interupting the electro magnetic feedback? Since chemistry is involved, it is much more practical to say you are what you eat.

  3. Devarsi

    That what animates every single function of the entire physical system is spiritual. In Sanskrit it is called Atma or Jiva the soul. The symptom of the Soul,is consciousness which pervades the entire body. Consciousness and life is not generated by combinations of chemicals of matter. Matter can not self organise and become alive without the agent of the soul. The nature of the soul is not material. We are not our bodies, we just mistakenly identify with this material covering that’s all.

    1. Georgalakis Dimitris

      So you suggest that our “soul” is responsible for the way we perceive the world around us? “Soul” is why a paranoid-schizophreniac has delusions, rather than a chemical imbalance in his brain? Maybe if he is good in this life, his soul will be in a better functional body, in the next life…

      1. Kurtis

        I think the suggestion is that “soul” is responsible for being able to perceive the world around us, not the way we perceive the world around us.

  4. Otto Bhan

    In the quantum land of Kopasetics, far to the hindmost trailing arm of this Rabbit-Black-Hole galaxy in the local ethereal quadrant of Schatz Sprecken Constellioni… we are wondering.

    What is the basis for assigning, and whom does the choosing of the avatars emotional expressions which are put to commenter’ posts? Hmm?

    Some are cute and smiling benignly. Some are toothy grimacing constipated, angry or otherwise not wholly lovable and inviting looking.

    What does it mean to others out there in the realm of Rabbit Holes… curiouser n curiouser, don’t you think?

  5. CarolinePureEnergy

    We are Pure Energy. These nuerons and bodies are traps. We are not either. They cannot define what we are. Our brains show us what they are designed to ‘show’ us. Observation, magnetics, awareness are,all subjective. Are we truly observing what we ‘think’ we are? Magnetic fields,”unusual power to attract, fasanate or influence”, we are trapped in these vessels. Magnetism is the unusual force keeping that so, to pull us and allure us. Awareness, to have or to gain knowledge. Yes, well we are well designed computers that retain what we learn. Animals and planets, even microns can do that and some say they are not ‘aware’. Our intuition is our trueness, our true intellectual being or ‘selves’. Consciousness is a sense as well. Are we truly ‘here’?… Just random thoughts on the subject. Thank you! 

  6. Tom

    Understood and although I’m not a scientist this has been resonating with me for years now I’m glad someone was able to write it all down on paper thank you . These days I’m exploring the idea that we must eat life to live life of course plants and vegetables and fruit are debatable concerning consciousness but I’m not that literall or concerned I’m just fascinated how me must eat cells to give energy to our cells to give way to consciousness after all we can’t eat rocks or non living matter which is a source of energy but not our needed energy .

  7. Richard Griffiths

    This article is based on materialist science, which views consciousness as a product of the brain. However, materialism is an old paradigm that has now been superseded. Consequently, this article is out of date. Post-materialist science shows that consciousness is not a product of the brain. The brain is the receiver of consciousness, not the source of consciousness. The following article summarises the evidence for the post-materialist view.

    1. KPOWAS

      Agreed, RICHARD GRIFFITHS. Out brain simply acts as an antennae to receive consciousness, not what creates it. Our brains are drawing consciousness from another source.

      1. Daniel McCaffrey

        What if there is a hidden consciousness behind the sun? Plasma has to be the most unusual state of matter. If all life is connected on a level we cannot see, could our consciousness not entirely be our own?; could it be intermingled with another form of consciousness, one that dwarfs our own and is all but beyond our comprehension? If the physicists are right and our consciousness is a two dimensional projection into a three dimensional frame – the world, the universe we all look upon then could the source of that projection be our sun? With a super massive black hole at the centre of our galaxy, as in most galaxies, its fun to imagine our sun is a greater form of life to be somehow projected from that…

  8. WaveRider

    Having spoken casually with Veterans who witnessed nuclear explosions from close up. Let me state that they always described it as a visual event, and not like what might be expected with this theory, a dramatic, immediate, consciousness altering one. I’ve undergone a 3 Tesla brain MRI for research purposes and am without support for any claims of consciousness altering because of that. They seem to be pulling together observations, but lack causal proof of a relationship.

  9. em


Leave a Reply