EM Fields and the Meaning of Meaning: Response to Johnjoe McFadden

McFadden has recently raised several cogent points about the problems of 'Gestalt Information' and the meaning of meaning in human experience, in particular the central problem of 'binding'. Very reasonably, he has tried to resolve these problems in terms of a unified electromagnetic field. However, certain premises on which his arguments are based are open to question. Of these, two deserve particular note. The claim that individual neurons only have access to a tiny number of bits of information seems wrong, since neurons have up to 50,000 independent inputs. The basic claim that the brain has a single unified EMfield that could explain the richness of experience is also open to doubt. Taken together with related issues these points suggest that the role for EM fields in meaningful human experience may be more in line with conventional neurophysiology--at the level of post-synaptic integration.