And if I understood the article correctly, the important idea is that the field is (relatively) stable even as the underlying neurons involved change and they don't even have to be the same neurons involved for the same memory field.
The illusion of a stable single entity emergent from the constant flux of billions of individual living units linked through trillions of connections is in my opinion the answer to the question of consciousness (and also an answer to the question 'can machines ever be conscious', which is without a doubt - yes).
It might also pose the question then, could humanity as a whole - as a global connection of billions of individuals - be thought of as a conscious entity? Well, maybe not - where's the stable field?
Neurons don't know they form part of a consciousness. On the other hand, we can't communicate with our neurons. It could be that an emergent consciousness exists for which we are the neurons and neither it knows we exist or we know it exists.
The illusion of a stable single entity emergent from the constant flux of billions of individual living units linked through trillions of connections is in my opinion the answer to the question of consciousness (and also an answer to the question 'can machines ever be conscious', which is without a doubt - yes).
It might also pose the question then, could humanity as a whole - as a global connection of billions of individuals - be thought of as a conscious entity? Well, maybe not - where's the stable field?