You missed the entire point of my post.

I didn't say anything about McFadden's interpretation of consciousness. I believe that phenomenon is much more complex and holistic than anyone seems to be willing to admit. The entire reason why I cited that article was to show his experimental evidence that shows a correlation between the electromagnetic field and the firing of neurons. If you'd like, I can link you to several other articles that describe experiments using electromagnetic fields to stimulate mice brains, which even show an increase in growth.
Um, I did address that specifically, alongside the philosophy..?

No neuroscientist takes this field theory seriously. There is clear experimental evidence against, which I provided (external electromagnetic fields don't impair cognitive function).

You're conflating the issue of the basis of neural function with physiology.
You seem to think that simulating the essential functions of the brain is the same as emulating them. You have no evidence for that and yet you make it sound like it is common sense. Serial processors can simulate parallel processing but it doesn't accomplish the same thing. The brain does not operate with logic gates, it operates with system wide patterns of activity. The processes in which computers and neural nets work are completely different. Breaking the systems down into some subjective view of their functions does not make them the same.
As far as I see it the onus is on you to show why a collection of water, fat, proteins, ions etcetera can perform cognitive functions whilst silicon atoms and electrons cannot. You've once again started telling me how transistors aren't like neurons so once again I'm going to have to tell you that I've never claimed that, and refer you to SnakeCharmer.