Finally, if lower-level organizational systems combine into various nested states of consciousness (Conjecture 3, the nested consciousness conjecture), then the synchronization and information integration characteristics between one level to the next at various levels of organization should resemble in key ways those that are associated with the arising of dominant conscious states in humans and other mammals.

Testing Conjecture 3 adequately will depend on further development of techniques for assessing information/energy flows between levels of consciousness, which are presumed in our model to be based on different temporal and spatial scales of neural, neurobiological and physical processing. Although much work needs to be done in this regard, I am encouraged by the information processing approaches developed in the IIT model (Oizumi, et al. 2013), and related information quantification approaches like causal density and neural complexity (Arsiwalla and Verschure 2018; Seth, Barrett, Barnett, 2011)).

I also suspect that other models of information extraction/integration may prove helpful. For example, Fanelli 2019 offers a formal universal model of information compression that might be used to characterize the information/energy extraction associated with minimally conscious states. This compression value might then be used to examine types of information flows at lower levels of complexity. A prediction of Conjecture 3 is that information compression values should be similar in some ways throughout the various organizational levels of conscious entities.

One possibility that arises within GRT and some other theories of consciousness is that consciousness actually resides primarily within the various electromagnetic fields generated by matter (Jones 2013, McFadden 2002a, 2002b, 2013; Pockett 2000, 2012; John 2001). It is in animals, and particularly mammals with complex brains, that such fields are most pronounced and most complex, resulting in a concomitantly rich consciousness.

EEG, MEG and other electrical or magnetic field measuring devices are expressly measuring these fields that are produced by the brain and body that supports it. There is a long and rich tradition of EEG and MEG measurements but little consensus over what exactly these devices are measuring. As mentioned above, a number of thinkers have suggested that these fields are not epiphenomena or indirect products of the mechanisms of consciousness, but are instead the actual seat of consciousness. As such, measuring these fields constitute direct measurements of consciousness, but from the outside. We are only starting to learn what the various frequencies and patterns of electrical and magnetic activity mean in terms of conscious experience.

If consciousness is primarily associated with EM fields (other fields would also have some associated consciousness, but less rich in proportion to the complexity and speed of the field at issue), more specific and perhaps more simple testing paradigms become possible.

If we accept the hypothesis that EEG and MEG are measuring the direct mechanisms of consciousness we may use existing tools and techniques to quantify and characterize the various types of brain waves, and nested and non-nested harmonics present within brain waves, as a way to measure resonance/consciousness directly. This approach moots any need to collect data on the trillions of interconnections between neurons, or to ponder what other types of connections may be present and impactful. Instead, such an approach makes measurement of even complex mammalian consciousness tractable using existing tools and techniques.