Don’t forget the boundary problem! How EM field topology can address the overlooked cousin to the binding problem for consciousness

Abstract

The boundary problem is related to the binding problem, part of a family of puzzles and phenomenal experiences that theories of consciousness (ToC) must either explain or eliminate. By comparison with the phenomenal binding problem, the boundary problem has received very little scholarly attention since first framed in detail by Rosengard in 1998, despite discussion by Chalmers in his widely cited 2016 work on the combination problem. However, any ToC that addresses the binding problem must also address the boundary problem. The binding problem asks how a unified first person perspective (1PP) can bind experiences across multiple physically distinct activities, whether billions of individual neurons firing or some other underlying phenomenon. To a first approximation, the boundary problem asks why we experience hard boundaries around those unified 1PPs and why the boundaries operate at their apparent spatiotemporal scale. We review recent discussion of the boundary problem, identifying several promising avenues but none that yet address all aspects of the problem. We set out five specific boundary problems to aid precision in future efforts. We also examine electromagnetic (EM) field theories in detail, given their previous success with the binding problem, and introduce a feature with the necessary characteristics to address the boundary problem at a conceptual level. Topological segmentation can, in principle, create exactly the hard boundaries desired, enclosing holistic, frame-invariant units capable of effecting downward causality. The conclusion outlines a programme for testing this concept, describing how it might also differentiate between competing EM ToCs.

Mental causation: an evolutionary perspective

“…Optimizing the signal then selects one waveform or set of waveforms over other possible solutions to the field equations. Unlike the propagated waves of synaptic activity monitored by conventional recording methods, this is more likely to involve complex and highly heterogeneous local fields generated by the sum total of neuronal activity measured at each point in 3D space ( Jones, 2019 ; MacIver, 2022 ; Ward and Guevara, 2022 ), possibly including resonance effects of various kinds ( Hunt and Schooler, 2019 ), all shaped by the boundary conditions imposed at each point in space by the structure and activity patterns of the neural substrate ( Gómez-Emilsson and Percy, 2023 ). But so far, nothing has been said here about consciousness in relation to such field effects.…”