Well, here's a possibility: "If consciousness works through EM fields, its activity in every step involves changes in its EM field and the interaction of its EM field with another EM field -- outer or of an inner subsystem. It means that EM induction results, which generates naturally a higher level of electromagnetic activity besides the overlapping and superposition of the two interactive EM fields. Consequently, the interactive EM fields when they are active, generate a subsidiary EM field, a 'daughter' field. This induction effect is suggested to be the physical basis of the 'group effect,' the enhancement of the basic activity level when entering into interaction with another human being, consciously or without being aware of it.... Consciousness develops through the phenomenon of 'emotional infection,' widespread among children, and also present in rituals and when masses of people form a community. In new-born children, the movements originate from spontaneous emotional reactions.... The propensity to interact originates from the nature of emotions, of their mutuality...and field nature, which is the basis of the well-known phenomenon of 'transference,' the easy transfer of emotions in the trance- [hypnotic] state from one person to another. This is the basis of the transference of emotions, its epidemic character, as well as the wide range phenomena of mass psychosis and collective impulses...." -- A. Grandpierre, "The Physics of Collective Consciousness," 1996.
BTW, it is likely animals also participate in these EM fields.... Animals are conscious, though seemingly not self-aware.
That certainly seems like one which could be tested. A lot of animals and fish act as a "collective consciousness" in defense, etc.
Tell that to my mother's poodle, especially when I accidentally step on her foot and she thinks it may have been because I'm angry with her. 8-o Such self pity.... Dogs are also quite easily embarrassed when master or mistress confuses them things just too much for them; their eyelids become half-closed and they don't like to look master in the eye.
But thank you bb, for offering an explanation of why yawns are so doggone contageous --even when we don't know that the other person in the room has just yawned. ;-`
Not sure how to answer waj and js here, since I've had so much to do and haven't read as much Rupert as I've wanted by this time, but interested in what you two may eventually find there.
Aren't you interested in the (a-hem) scientific challenge here?
Hmm... if we can't call extra-sensory perception ESP, then what should we call it, bb? Electromagnetic qualia sense? EMQS?