... And here's the computed LFP waveform of a 2D slice through the 3D electric field produced by the axon hillock action pot'l of a pyramidal cell. It's kind of a lighthouse beam in 3D.

It's rotating dipoles all the way down to single cells.

50000 of these in a mm^3, recurrent, & voila! Waves.

You have missed the scientific sense of natural vs "artificial nature", as contrasted with "made by humans".

See the depiction of normal science. The 70+ year lack of genuine REPLICANT science is the real problem. The missing artificial brain "tissue" is not a computer and is not an abstract model.

For well over a decade I have been trying to get this message out. The main route is via the glitch identified in the following image.

Q. What's in the empty spot?
A. Artificial intelligence that is NOT a general purpose computer.

Please take the trouble to think about it.

But nobody can cite anything but UNPROVED HYPOTHESES. Sorry to yell but this is the real point!

If the science was properly structured then there'd be REPLICANT science that tests for the falsehood, as well as science that tests for the truth of the unique unprecedented status of brains:

Exactly. Not duplicates. Functional replicants. Burning. Flying. Digesting. Hearting. Braining.

If you don't have the actual physics essential to it the replicant degrades/fails.

That's the whole point!

Only in the case of the brain do we throw ALL the natural physics out....cont'd

And here's the corrected structure of the unique science ... The only place in science, ever, where a SIMULANT has the potential to functionally equal to NATURE. In every SIMULANT the essential physics is gone.

It is only in the case of the brain where no inorganic REPLICANT exists ("XChip")

For the entire history of A(G)I we have thrown out all the brain's EM, and the AGI has also failed the same way for the whole period.

The failure is caused by US not doing the science properly.

Here's the diagram that depicts the unique assumed equivalence of a simulant and nature.... cont'd

I've been pointing out the problem with the structure of the science for 20 years. It's one of those things that is hard to see, but when seen you can't unsee it.

It'll keep!

Meanwhile. Have a look at the blank spot in this pic.

Also... These questions get quickly answered by reference to this diagram.

No general purpose computed abstract model of natural fire is fire, heart, stomach, flight ...Etc etc .

If the brain is an exception it is 100% unique and everyone here should know why. But no-one does.

Fwiw, here's an excerpt from a recent novel on complexity by Pamela McCorduck called "Edge of Chaos: A novel".

It speaks of the different fates that befall the courageous scientist you call for.... My fate? Postmaturity (my AGI work).

I have been trying, for a decade, to get good discussion on what fits in the empty spot in the following diagram and why. It is an artificial brain, has an organic and an inorganic form. It is not a general purpose computer, and has never been proposed, let alone built. Let the silence commence. 😊

Here, for example, is a slice through the 3D action potential "field" produced by a single pyramidal cell membrane. It extends out to mm! 50000 other neurons in the same mm volume produce the same thing.

When you stick a probe in it you get "LFP". There's 6 orders of magnitude coverage right there.

Absolutely agree! But that's not the point I'm trying to get through into neuroscience's grip on causation/mechanism for the brain:

The fundamental physics of electromagnetism spans the entire dimensional range from nanometers to whole-organ level.

This changes things.

Cont'd.....

Sure ! We get to name the objects in a nested containment hierarchy of objects made of EM field. We get to explain through measured relations between them.

But the brain has a unique property: the vector superposition of EM field hooks population-level causality directly to the membrane:

From inside the figure below, the 1 evidence source never used in science of consc. is US. We must be evidence of something!

Q. What are scientists unique scientific evidence of, when the the objective evidence is the repeatable, testable, unique existence of a novel "law of nature" tn in bucket T?

OK. The diagram shows:
Natural process (a) interacting with instruments (b) producing "scientific measurements" (c) then encountered as contents of consciousness of scientist (d) as an act of "scientific observation", who then creates a novel "law of nature" tn that goes into literature bucket T.

Last night, University of Melbourne. Anil Seth does the first of a series of presentations. Good to see him here! But ....

The consciousness problem is expected to "dissolve" under the magnifying glass of cognitive/computational approaches.

Is this what it has come to? As good as it gets? Sigh.