It gets to the effect of the magnetic field on neuron firing on page 5.
Your claims, which I believe I've stumbled upon before, inspired me to do some research. Turns out there is only one paper about this 'field theory' by this McFadden guy, who is not a neuroscientist but a molecular biologist who writes books which seem to be mainly about philosophy (the terms quantum evolution and quantum consciousness also popped up somewhere in his literature, the latter of which I know has no empirical basis). The paper itself is in fact mostly philosophy, and as far as I'm concerned, bunk philosophy. The claim that the electromagnetic field is the 'carrier' of consciousness is really completely meaningless and untestable. Consciousness isn't made out of anything and deciding on some random physical trait and labelling it 'consciousness' (and bizarrely disregarding other hugely important components such as the material ions which are the very basis of neural function) does nothing to solve the hard problem as the paper claims. With regards to the science, from Wired,

"No serious researcher I know believes in an electromagnetic theory of consciousness," Bernard Baars wrote in an e-mail. Baars is a neurobiologist and co-editor of Consciousness & Cognition, another scientific journal in the field. "It's not really worth talking about scientifically."

It's fairly easy to test these theories actually, by placing a subject in an electromagnetic field which overwhelms any effect that could be caused by intrabrain fields; nothing happens to these subjects.
All I said was that this is not how computers work. Sure, it is possible to build a computer that utilizes magnetic fields in its processing. In fact, it has already been done to a degree. You can read about it here.
No that's not what I was talking about, I was saying that with a standard digital computer you can create programs which emulate physics, including magnetic fields.

I saw on the very dodgy Wikipedia article that McFadden was claiming that a computer could never emulate a brain because transistors don't use spread out electromagnetic fields; it's this mistake I was adressing.
My argument was that reducing the question to the very basics of what a person does and what a computer does and calling them the same was absurd. They don't work the same way, unless you want to say that a person is basically just a sophisticated abacus. The most pertinent part of that article for me was that they were unable to recreate the program willfully, that is; without utilizing the evolutionary process. Without actually knowing what a conscious mind is, how can you expect to reduce it to its basic functions and 'emulate' it?

I think Taosaur's conclusion was the only correct one that can be drawn from this conversation. There may come a day when human consciousness is indeed emulated by a machine, but that machine will be so far removed from what we today call a computer that it can hardly even be looked at in the same context.
The current understanding is that neural nets and their impulses are what cause consciousness. There's plenty of evidence for this.

The computer need not be any different whatsoever. It's a turing machine. That's enough.