From chaos to probable outcome.

****************************************************

BETWEEN RANDOM IMPOSSIBILITY AND ILLUSORY PHYSICAL CERTAINTY, THE SURVIVAL OF FREE WILL.

(“One can predict that the double reflecting surface of the mirror neuron will be the new area of neurophilosophy research as we march slowly but unrelentingly along the reductionist asymptotic plank knowing that we have choices because free-will survives.”)

Pain

Note: This is the concluding chapter of the second volume of “Neurophilosophy of Consciousness.” Which has been adapted for  a formal presentation.

Introduction.

I could have entitled this presentation in a number of ways: ”Between an indeterministic and a deterministic reality.”, “Between epistemology and ontology, a hybrid model of reality.”, “Reality as a complex probabilistic chaos.” or “The physicalist religion’s horse blinders, their faith on reductionism.” The common thread between these alternate titles is the falsifiable premise that the human species has limited brain capacities for sensory resolution and combinatorial processing. If we accept those premises then the easier solution seems to be to just increase / extend the resolving power of the senses with the appropriate instruments and / or extend the human computational capacities with supercomputers. We have no doubt this has been largely responsible for the demise of the Skinnerian ‘behavioristic’ pessimism about the reality of a mind that pervaded the pre-Chomskian era. We have taken long strides in improving the quality and resolution of both instruments and computers.

Yet we remain ever so far from ascertaining the ontology of consciousness, the limits of cosmos or the characterization of the Kantian ‘reality in se’, if any one exists. Why do we keep trying? I suppose humans will always hunger for answers as to his origins and destiny. What alternatives remain, barring an unforeseen species mutation sometimes soon?

Let it be clear that, our species limited resolution capacities notwithstanding, all of us involved in modeling reality should be intellectually committed to a reductionist view of reality as an asymptotic goal by stretching to the limits the resolving powers of our ontological descriptions and epistemological explanations. Man remains the measure of all things, those that are and those that are not. Thus, both aspects of existence are relevant and should be integrated into a functional hybrid, what we have termed an ‘epistemontological’ view of existential reality. All of which reminds me of Chris Langan’s efforts in synthesizing matter and information in his CTMU.

Let us briefly review what neuroscientists and mind philosophers have accomplished in these respects and speculate on why a quantum theoretical probabilistic approach may be the best compromise in explaining ‘consciousness’ where conscious free decision-making or “free will” consent survives the perfectly deterministic, physicalist world faith / dream of reductionism.   

ARGUMENTATION.

First things first. For the sake of an efficient and productive timed communication, I will use the term ontology when exclusively referring to sense-phenomenal / instrumental ‘descriptions’ of observable / measurable beings in empirical reality leaving any ‘explanations’ of structure or function of an object or event beyond our species sensory phenomenal resolution to be inferred epistemologically with the aid of symbolic or sentential logic tools. Thus, terms like ‘correlation’ between mind ‘m’ & brain ‘b’ describes their relation when there is empirical evidence to back up the claim and ideally there is logical supervenience between them. But in most cases we have to rely on a ‘natural supervenience’, as when e.g., there is a consistent reproducible correlation between an increased glucose and oxygen consumption (increased blood circulation) and an activated brain area. We need not to worry about intermediate causal factors intervening as long as they remain stable and invisible to detection. If we claim instead a causal relation between ‘m’ & ‘b’ we are expected to theoretically explain the correlation. E.g., if we posit that the conscious mind free will consent can cause the actualization of a previously selected (subconsciously) and activated cortical attractor, the claim must be backed-up by relevant, falsifiable empirical correlations (EEG, MEG pattern description, brain potentials, etc.) and ideally explained by one or more fundamental types of causal interactions between ‘m’ & ‘b’ (weak, strong, gravitational or EM forces).

If all attempts at precision fail, we can always ascribe and explain ‘consciousness’ *as having a Russellian type of primordial existence or as ‘emerging’ from a special brain material complexity, both of which are metaphysical constructions to embellish our ignorance about matters immaterial! So, one often wonders about conceptual ego-trips into the invisible when others with their feet on solid grounds are trying to resuscitate and bring *behaviorism through the back door with the Don Quijote’s Sancho Panza reality test, e.g., the psychophysical archetypal *order approach of Chalmers, Jung, Bohm, Primas, etc. Our own biopsychosocial model (BPS) implicitely, albeit reluctantly, gives in into it… for now at least.

I will also assign jurisdictional frames to specify the particular mental state being referred to, thus I will use the term unconscious to refer to that mental state where the agent is totally unaware of those inherited reflex neuronal networks programs charged with the preservation of biological integrity for the species and whose conscious access is denied during normal functioning, like the access to ‘machine language’ programs running a computer registry or BIOS. The term subconscious I will reserve to the mental state of conditioned awareness, to those network processes containing both inherited (genetic) and acquired (memetic) components that, when necessary, can subconsciously access higher mental faculties to extract conscious meanings from the changes monitored / detected in the ongoing (online) contingencies, e.g., by accessing the mirror neuron complex or the language faculty.

In this last respect we have argued that at that time the adopted language processing and accompanying thought (or conscious activities) are recursively co-generated (see below). We admit that these distinctions are a controversial premise because we do not always realize that, unless there is a significant change in the ongoing, familiar scenery (external or body-internal), the customary ongoings and familiar perceptual / conceptual inputs are not reportable nor generate ‘inner language’. This is a kind of neurophysiological ‘habituation’ like the one experienced when using a cell phone while moving down hill along a familiar but dangerous, uneventful road where the focus of attention is in the phone conversation and the driving is set to ‘pilot control’ subconscious mode. Likewise, we may have someone playing music in front of me while I focus my conscious attention on a conversation with another person without being oblivious to the music or the source, as opposed to what would happen to my attention threshold if the musician is now pointing a cocked gun at me instead! It should be mentioned that there is new evidence (continuous flash suppression) that we still register (and respond behaviorally) to perceptual stimuli we are not paying conscious attention to while focused on some other activity!

*Another forced short cut that may bias this discussion is worth pointing out. In a previously published paper we found it easier to assume that language generates thought than the reverse account based on the relative completeness of language data (as opposed to the ambiguous foundation of thought processes) on which to base language development. As a compromise we arbitrarily opted for tentatively positing a recursive cycling co-generation of both thought and language.

Furthermore, I will assume the troublesome position that the non-physical mind that is involved in the conscious choices / *intentions of a human being can influence the activities of his physical brain (as suggested by Stapp 1999, 153), a most controversial stance attributing the non-physical mind causal efficacy in driving the physical brain. We will very briefly explain the quantum theoretical reasoning and other intuitions.

In a nutshell we are saying that the psychological experience of being in a conscious state with ‘inner language’ faculties is the result of an actualization of one of several co-existing potential conscious states. We are not going to develop here the technical notions of quantum theory (wave functions, eigenvalues, state *vectors, etc.) we have adopted to equate the coming into a conscious mental state to the actualization of a Hilbert space state vector by giving our conscious consent to one of several coexisting alternatives (entangled, superpositioned, embodied in Hilbert space) , the one subconsciously isolated (by collapse of its wave function) on the basis of its biopsychosocial (BPS) survival value, in response to an important perceptual / conceptual change detected in the environment. A particular cortical attractor constitutes the state vector being the focus of the directed attention / awareness. We can assign to any physical subsystem (e.g., a *brain) a singular state represented by a vector in its own Hilbert space, as discussed elsewhere. At this moment we prefer to disclaim any correlational continuity our selection to bring into a conscious mental state with a cosmic scale Hilbert vector space. We disagree with the current interpretation of von Neumann’s projection postulate suggesting that the mind becomes conscious after the collapse of the wave function as it happens during an instrumental measurement analogy. In our model, the initial online perceptual / conceptual input triggers an introspective evaluation of alternative solutions (cortical attractor’s probable future outcome) present in the ‘flow of consciosness’, an arguable state pre-consciousness. The most compatible / adaptive vector space is consciously consented to and the ‘collapse of the wave function’ follows, in that order. Contrary to what happens in quantum mechanical instrumental measurements, our mind (microscopic M?) conscious ‘consent’ represent the measuring instrument of the brain’s (macroscopic B) cortical attractor isolated alternative. They form a single quantum theoretical state vector (wave function) ψM + B which arguably can in turn be the object of an empathy ‘measurement’ by another observer’s mirror neuron system. Consequent to the significant perceptual / conceptual input-induced change in the quantum field wave (represented by the wave function) of the cortical attractors, a wave function collapses onto the cortical attractor option with the highest probability of success in resolving the contingency posited by the novel input, all BPS consequences being considered in the process.

Besides the formalities barely mentioned, we prefer the intuitive premises based instead on analogies to well established neurophysiological facts (see British neurophysiology school of Sherington) regarding the unconscious reflex coordination of the best musculo-skeletal dynamic body posture (controlled by reflex networks in sub-cortical basal ganglia, cerebellum, olives, etc.) in executing a complex adaptive movement, like we saw in the Olympic gymnasts, where the biological integrity of the subject is genetically guaranteed; in such cases we need not be conscious of every possible moto-neuronal synaptic connectivity to guide the many individual muscle fiber contractions resulting in the gross, balanced, integrated and coordinated adaptive movement needed. Based on the various relevant inputs (from muscle spindles, stretch receptors, Golgi tendon receptors, mirror neurons and others) the genetically programmed appropriate reflex arc just needs to be unconsciously ‘isolated’ and mobilized into actuality by the simple conscious consent (yes or no) to the ‘chosen’ reflex arcs by the unconscious activity of the performer. Please notice that, for lack of a more precise word now, we are making a subtle distinction between choice and consent suggesting that only the latter is exclusively a conscious event.

By analogy to the conscious consent to the ‘choice’ of a particular gross movement from several unconsciously organized probable motor responses just described, we are suggesting, for analytical purposes, that a conscious consent / choice is the functional *equivalent of an instrumental measurement in quantum mechanics as discussed above. This conclusion is based on our modification of Dr. W. *Freeman’s seminal work on the cortical attractor basin for the olfactory system of rabbits and also on von Neumann’s projection postulate (1955, Ch. V.1) describing a quantum mechanical instrumental measurement as causally efficient in producing the transition of a quantum state  à to an eigen state of  the observed event with a certain probability of occurrence, what we called above the ‘collapse’ of the wave function (opposing the expected normal continuous evolution of the Schrodinger equation). Arguably, then, when we consciously ponder / measure on probable courses of action during a flow of consciousness and make a ‘choice’ from available future outcomes alternatives in the cortical attractor basins (based on their probability of adaptive success), we are just passing review before giving our conscious consent (yes or no) to a previously subconscious isolation and choice of an alternative among many available which caused the activation (‘collapse’) of the ‘free-*willed’ / chosen alternative. We have tried to develop an *algorithm incorporating vector spaces (Hilbert) reasoning to explain this in more detail but have achieved limited success thus far.

In this respect it should also be noted how the significant perceptual / conceptual environmental change experienced (e.g., purposive, goal-directed movement by another person or animal) captures our attention focus and shifts it (e.g., visuo-motor *relays) to relevant ‘cortical mirror neurons’ situated at the premotor, insular and parietal cortex loci, (see Rizzolatti, G. 2002 *“Hearing sounds, understanding actions: Action representation in mirror neurons”. Science 297, 846–848.) the same general location where related prior events were registered in specific cortical attractors based on the related content of the perceptual / conceptual change as we speculate based on Dr. Freeman’s results. This environmental change input triggers a transition from a chaos of environmental sensations à stochastic/chaotic *probability in the attractor basin à self consciousness and certainty of the ‘chosen’ attractor solution, a veritable spontaneous but negentropic activity. See   . Unlike quantum theory that selects from probable ‘random’ natural events (during an instrumental measurement), in our case the conscious free consent to a preceding subconscious selection is equivalent to ‘choosing’ from complexly organized stochastic / chaotic synaptic architectures. Far from being random, they just happen to be complexly ordered dynamic events in potency. But they cannot be considered inexorably deterministic events either to the extent that we can consciously consent to a selection even those alternatives considered the least adaptive as witnessed in heroic or pathological acts ‘contra natura’. The quantum theoretical interpretation introduces, like in the previous case above, the conscious consent to the antecedent subconscious selection (all things considered) of a probable future outcome alternative and does away with the physicalist deterministic model of reality and brings a new unexplored domain between the deterministic and the indeterministic extremes resolved by a conscious free will consent to a previous subconscious selection based on biopsychosocial equilibrium considerations.

Somehow we get the intuition that nature’s ‘randomness’ only exists when an event so behaving is considered isolated (for cognitive pedagogic convenience), out of its normal natural / holistic ecological environment, e.g., radioactive decay from an unstable atom. When so considered this reality ‘in se’ is non-linear, asymmetric, indeterministic, atemporal and acausal and as such, unintelligible to human cognition because of our natural inherited linear / sequential way of processing information so aptly simulated by computers. Thus the human species had to *bring symmetry by temporalizing empirical reality and *linearizing the sensory receptors input in harmony with an inherited sequential language processing by inventing the concepts of time and space to explain change (see ). Independently related events can now be processed statistically or linguistically when linearly coupled on the basis of their complementarity and entanglement potential.

This is a most controversial and dark grey area indeed where it has to be demonstrated how significant receptor inputs (e.g., movements, sounds / phonemes) are eventually represented / encoded and readied to be parsed and processed in the language *mill. Humans process information in serial sequences with the aid of innate language processors (see S. Pinker). For humans to extract the meaning of the quotidian Kantian ‘chaos of sensations’ we may have inherited the ability to represent crucial audiovisual environmental events as linked with individualized phonemic and visual content tags attributing primitive survival meanings when compared to an inherited gallery of audiovisual / movement representations, what we have called the proto-linguistic organ (plo) in the amygdaloid complex. We have not developed equivalent explanations for other sensory input variations, but the ‘freeze response’ to pressure, tactile and other receptors can be easily demonstrated.

What has remained a mystery is an explanation of how the sensory information travels and relates to mirror neurons strategically located in pre-motor, insular, parietal and Broca’s cortical areas where we speculate they generate the emotional qualia as consciousness awakens. We don’t know yet how mirror neurons connect with cortical attractors, if at all. By using the technique of continuous flash suppression (what magicians use to distract the public so you don’t see things while looking at them) it has been demonstrated how unconscious stimulation can control your behavior.

We speculate that soon after birth, the newborn had to activate the inherited archetype allowing us to linearize the sense-phenomenal environmental receptor input and couple it to the processing of the adopted language. This way we integrate the inherited protosemantic, amygdaloidal unconscious processing of sense-phenomenal data input with the hippocampus subconscious, contextual analysis of the sensory input and the insular mirror neuron input. The amygdalar and insular components are charged with the preservation of species biological integrity and the visceral brain neuro-humoral homeostasis respectively. The hippocampus / executive cortex axis is involved in the preservation of psycho-social equilibrium. As long as there is no significant / purposive environmental change threatening the biological homeostasis and the  psychosocial equilibrium, we remain in a state of subconscious awareness, like a sophisticated robotic monitor. As soon as a significant perceptual / conceptual change ensues we either continue updating the attractor basins with perceptual and / or conceptual memory based inputs or adaptively respond to the environmental contingency. We can reflexly respond *stereotypically at the unconscious protosemantic level by a temporary inhibition of any response (‘freeze response’) pending a contextual analysis by the hippocampus at the subconscious level. If the contextual analysis is semantically positive and the sensory stimulus represents a biological survival threat, the amygdala is disinhibited and a Cannon, ‘fight or flight’ response is unleashed. Otherwise, when the change carries the potential for a psychosocial disequilibrium then higher mental faculties’ are accessed to extract meaningful information, e.g., a language sequential, linear processor to parse the inherited and / or acquired audiovisual representations data and generate the corresponding syntax structure to express the proper symbolic and / or sentential premises preceding the appropriate logical conclusions (propositional attitude?) and co-generate the *corresponding thought / consciousness in the process. Brain lesions to angular gyrus and Brocas area interfere with this processing. A flow of consciousness is thereby triggered from which the most probable and best adapted cortical attractor solution is consciously and freely chosen from the probable future outcomes as discussed.

A cortical attractor (including the corresponding mirror neuron components) represents the unit behavioral complex attending the solution to a novel contingency. It comprises a complex behavioral strategy integrating the phenomenal and attitudinal / emotional aspects and their associated perceptual / conceptual qualia included.  Once more we emphasize that perceptual and conceptual qualia are semantically neutral and find their existential meaning within the context of an individualized BPS equilibrium context requiring the language faculty to generate the appropriate symbolic / sentential representations for recursive parsing.

It has been most difficult to integrate the participation of mirror neurons in this unit behavioral complex because of our paucity of anatomico-physiological data. Their presence, in association with Broca’s area, insular cortex and parieto-temporal angular gyrus, is an indication of their likely involvement in the semantic, emotional and multimodal assembly of the unit behavioral entity, not to mention their possible role in the emergence of self-consciousness as we reverse the mirror neurons focus into the agent / observer. As we published elsewhere, just like a newborn baby can watch her lactating mother’s facial / body movements and listen to her baby talk cooing until she eventually discovers the self from that of mother’s and reciprocally, mother can anticipate the newborn needs, an empathy mental state only possible with the help of mirror neurons, we see no reason why the same ‘mirror neuron’ mechanism cannot be directed inwards to auscultate the self in action and discover the self as the actor and the observer! We can demonstrate using fMRI techniques the complex coordination of left somatotopic premotor cortex with auditory and left parietal cortex which lightens up when we either move a hand while making a sound or watching someone else do it! If the observer can empathize with the external subject making those sounds and movements via mirror neuron system, especially the likely emotions attending such behavior (as suggested by activity of insular mirror neurons), we don’t see any serious problem about turning that empathy faculty on ourselves and achieving self-consciousness in the process! This area needs more development because both phenomenal and conceptual qualia in our BPS model requires the language faculty to be accessed for ‘interpretation’ as to what it existentially means to me whereas in an ordinary ‘introspection’ a semantic analysis may be waived, like when we are just ‘mindreading’ someone else. I can predict that the dual reflecting surface of the mirror neuron will be the new area of neurophilosophy research as we march slowly but unrelenting along the reductionist asymptotic plank knowing that we have choices because free-will survives.

Dr. Angell O. de la Sierra, Esq.   Deltona, Florida  Winter 2007

Bibliography.

de la Sierra, Angell O.  Telicom 2006-2008

BETWEEN RANDOM IMPOSSIBILITY AND ILLUSORY PHYSICAL CERTAINTY, THE SURVIVAL OF FREE WILL.

(“I can predict that the dual reflecting surface of the mirror neuron will be the new area of neurophilosophy research as we march slowly but unrelenting along the reductionist asymptotic plank knowing that we have choices because free-will survives.”)

Note: This is the concluding chapter of the second volume of “Neurophilosophy of Consciousness.” Which has been adapted for  a formal presentation.

Introduction.

I could have titled this presentation in a number of ways: ”Between an indeterministic and a deterministic reality.”, “Between epistemology and ontology, a hybrid model of reality.”, “Reality as a complex probabilistic chaos.” or “The physicalist religious horse blinders, their faith on reductionism.” The common thread between these alternate titles is the falsifiable premise that the human species has limited brain capacities for sensory resolution and combinatorial processing. If we accept those premises then the solution seems to just increase / extend the resolving power of the senses with the appropriate instruments and / or extend the human computational capacities with supercomputers. We have also witnessed the demise of the Skinnerian ‘behavioristic’ pessimism about the reality of a mind of the pre-Chomskian era and have taken long strides in both instrument and computational pursuits. Yet we remain ever so far from ascertaining the ontology of consciousness or the characterization of the Kantian ‘reality in se’, if either one exists. Why do we keep trying? I suppose humans will always hunger for answers as to his origins and destiny. What alternatives remain, barring an unforeseen species mutation sometimes soon?

Let it be clear that, our species limited resolution capacities notwithstanding, all of us involved in modeling reality should be committed to a reductionist view of reality as an asymptotic goal by stretching to the limits the resolving powers of our ontological descriptions and epistemological explanations and fuse them into a functional hybrid, what we have termed an epistemontological view of existential reality. Let us briefly review what neuroscientists and mind philosophers have accomplished in this respect and speculate on why a quantum theoretical probabilistic approach may be the best compromise where conscious free decision-making or “free will” survives the perfectly deterministic, physicalist world faith/dream.   

ARGUMENTATION.

First things first. For the sake of an efficient and productive timed communication, I will use the term ontology when exclusively referring to sense-phenomenal / instrumental ‘descriptions’ of observable/measurable beings in empirical reality leaving any ‘explanation’ of structure or function of an object or event beyond our species sensory phenomenal resolution to be inferred epistemologically with the aid of symbolic or sentential logic tools. Terms like ‘correlation’ between mind ‘m’ & brain ‘b’ describes their relation when there is empirical evidence to back up the claim and ideally there is logical supervenience between them. But in most cases we have to rely on a ‘natural supervenience’, as when e.g., there is a consistent reproducible correlation between an increased glucose consumption and/or blood circulation in an activated brain area where we need not worry about intermediate causal factors intervening as long as they remain stable and invisible. If we claim a causal relation between ‘m’ & ‘b’ we are expected to theoretically explain the correlation. E.g., if we posit that the conscious mind free will can cause the selection and activation of a cortical attractor the claim must be backed-up by falsifiable empirical correlations (EEG, MEG pattern description, brain potentials, etc.) and ideally explained by one or more fundamental type of causal interaction between ‘m’ & ‘b’ (weak, strong, gravitational or EM forces). If all attempts at precision fail we can always ascribe and explain ‘consciousness’ *as having a Russellian type of primordial existence or as ‘emerging’ from a special brain material complexity, both of which are metaphysical constructions to embellish our ignorance about matters immaterial! So, one often wonders about conceptual ego-trips into the invisible when others with their feet on solid grounds are trying to resuscitate and bring behaviorism through *the back door with the Don Quijote’s Sancho Panza reality test, *e.g., the psychophysical archetypal order approach of Chalmers, Jung, Bohm, Primas, etc. Our own biopsychosocial model (BPS) implicitely, albeit reluctantly, gives in into it… for now at least.

I will also use the term unconscious to refer to that mental state totally unaware of those inherited reflex neuronal networks charged with the preservation of biological integrity for the species and whose conscious access is denied during normal functioning, like access to programs running a computer registry or BIOS. The term subconscious I will reserve to the mental state of conditioned awareness to those network processings containing both inherited (genetic) and acquired (memetic) components that, when necessary, can subconsciously access higher mental faculties to extract conscious meanings from the changes monitored / detected in the ongoing contingencies, e.g., by accessing the language faculty. We have argued that at that time the adopted language processing and accompanying thought or conscious activities are recursively co-generated. We admit that this is a controversial premise because we do not always realize that unless there is a significant change in the ongoing, familiar scenery (external or internal), the customary ongoings and familiar perceptual/conceptual inputs are not reportable or generate ‘inner language’, a kind of neurophysiological ‘habituation’ like the one experienced when using a cell phone while moving down hill along a familiar but dangerous un-eventful road where the focus of attention is in the phone conversation and the driving is set to ‘pilot control’ subconscious mode. We may likewise have someone playing music in front of me while I focus my attention on a conversation with another person without being conscious of the music or the source, as opposed to what would happen to my attention threshold if the musician is pointing a cocked gun at me instead!

*Another forced short cut that may bias this discussion is worth pointing out. In a previously published paper we found it easier to assume that language generates thought than the reverse account based on the completeness of language data (as opposed to the ambiguous foundation of thought processes) on which to base language development. As a compromise we arbitrarily opted for tentatively positing a recursive cycling co-generation of both thought and language.

Furthermore, I will assume the troublesome possibility that the non-physical conscious choices/intentions of a human being can *influence the activities of his physical brain (as suggested by Stapp 1999, 153), a most controversial stance attributing the non-physical mind causal efficiency in driving the physical brain. This intuitive premise we are basing instead on analogies to well *established neurophysiological facts (see British neurophysiology school of Sherington) regarding the unconscious reflex determination of the best musculo-skeletal dynamic body posture (controlled by reflex networks in sub-cortical basal ganglia, cerebellum, olives, etc.) in executing a complex adaptive movement, like we saw in the Olympic gymnasts, where biological integrity for the subject is genetically guaranteed; in such cases we need not be conscious of every possible moto-neuronal synaptic connectivity to guide the many individual muscle fiber contractions resulting in the gross, balanced, integrated and coordinated adaptive movement needed. Based on the various relevant inputs (from muscle spindles, stretch receptors, Golgi tendon receptors, and others) the genetically programmed appropriate reflex arc just needs to be consciously ‘isolated’ and mobilized into actuality by the performer.

By analogy to the conscious choice of a gross movement from several unconsciously organized probable motor responses just described we are suggesting, for analytical purposes, that a conscious choice is the functional equivalent of an instrumental *measurement in quantum mechanics. This conclusion is based on our modification of Dr. W. Freeman’s seminal work on the *cortical attractor basin for the olfactory system of rabbits and von Neumann’s projection postulate (1955, Ch. V.1) describing a quantum mechanical instrumental measurement as causally efficient in producing the transition of a quantum state  à to an eigen state of  the observed event with a certain probability of occurrence, what we now call the ‘collapse’ of the wave function (opposing the expected normal continuous evolution of the Schrodinger equation). Arguably, then when we consciously ponder/measure on probable courses of action during a flow of consciousness and make a choice from available future outcomes alternatives in the cortical attractor basins (based on their probability of adaptive success), we are causing the ‘collapse’ of the free-willed chosen alternative. We have tried to develop an algorithm incorporating vector spaces (Hilbert) reasoning to *explain this but have achieved limited success.

In this respect it should be noted how a significant environmental change experienced captures our attention focus and shifts it to relevant cortical mirror neurons situated at the premotor, insular *and parietal cortex loci, (see Rizzolati, G. 2002  “Hearing sounds, understanding actions:Action representation in mirror *neurons”. Science 297, 846–848.) and related prior events registered in cortical attractors based on the content of the perceptual/conceptual change as demonstrated by Dr. Freeman. This environmental change input triggers a transition from a chaos of environmental sensations à stochastic/chaotic probability in the attractor basin à self consciousness and *certainty of the chosen attractor solution, a veritable spontaneous but negentropic activity See   . Unlike quantum theory that selects from probable ‘random’ natural events during an instrumental measurement, in our case the conscious free selection equivalent is choosing from complexly organized stochastic/chaotic synaptic architectures. Far from being random, they just happen to be complexly ordered dynamic events in potency. But they cannot be considered inexorably deterministic events either to the extent that we can consciously select even those alternatives considered the least adaptive as witnessed in heroic or pathological acts ‘contra natura’. The quantum theoretical interpretation introduces the conscious free choice of a probable future outcome alternative does away with the physicalist deterministic model of reality and brings a new unexplored domain between the deterministic and the indeterministic extremes resolved by a conscious free will selection.

Somehow we get the intuition that nature’s ‘randomness’ only exists when an event so behaving is considered isolated (for cognitive pedagogic convenience), out of its normal natural/holistic ecological environment, e.g., radioactive decay from an unstable atom. When so considered this reality ‘in se’ is non-linear, asymmetric, indeterministic, atemporal and non-causal and as such, unintelligible to human cognition. Thus the human species had to bring symmetry by temporalizing empirical reality and linearizing the sensory receptors input in harmony *with an inherited sequential language processing by inventing *the concepts of time and space to explain change (see ). Independent related events can now be processed statistically or linguistically when linearly coupled on the basis of their complementarity and entanglement potential.

This is a most controversial and dark grey area indeed where it has to be demonstrated how receptor input (e.g., sounds / phonemes) is eventually represented and readied to be parsed and processed in the language mill. Humans process information *in serial sequences with the aid of innate language processors (see S. Pinker). For humans to extract the meaning of the quotidian Kantian ‘chaos of sensations’ we inherited the ability to represent crucial audiovisual environmental events with individualized phonemic and visual content attributing primitive survival meanings when compared to an inherited gallery of audiovisual representations, what we have called the proto-linguistic organ (plo) in the amygdaloid complex. We have not developed equivalent explanations for other sensory inputs variations, but the ‘freeze response’ to pressure, tactile and other receptors can be easily demonstrated. What has remained a mystery is an explanation of how the information travels and relates to mirror neurons strategically located in pre-motor, insular, parietal and Broca’s cortical areas where we speculate they generate the emotional qualia as consciousness awakens.

All this allows us to linearize the sense-phenomenal environmental receptor input and couple it to the processing of the adopted language. This way we integrate the inherited protosemantic, amygdaloidal unconscious processing of sense-phenomenal data input with the hippocampus subconscious, contextual analysis of the sensory input and the insular mirror neuron input. The amygdalar and insular components are charged with the preservation of species biological integrity and visceral brain neuro-humoral homeostasis and the hippocampus/executive cortex with the preservation of psycho-social equilibrium. As long as there is no significant environmental change threatening the biological homeostasis and the psychosocial equilibrium we remain in a state of subconscious awareness, like a sophisticated robotic monitor. As soon as a significant perceptual/conceptual change ensues we either continue updating the attractor basins with perceptual and/or conceptual memory based inputs or adaptively respond to the environmental contingency. We can reflexly respond stereotypically at the unconscious protosemantic *level by a temporary inhibition of any response (‘freeze response’) pending a contextual analysis by the hippocampus at the subconscious level. If the contextual analysis is semantically positive and the sensory stimulus represents a biological survival threat, the amygdala is disinhibited and a Cannon, ‘fight or flight’ response is unleashed. Otherwise, when the change carries the potential for a psychosocial disequilibrium then higher mental faculties’ are accessed to extract meaningful information, e.g., a language sequential, linear processor to parse the inherited and/or acquired audiovisual representations data and generate the corresponding syntax structure to express the proper symbolic and/or sentential premises preceding the appropriate logical conclusions and co-generate the corresponding thought/consciousness in the process. Brain lesions to angular *gyrus and Brocas area interfere with this processing. A flow of consciousness is thereby triggered from which the most probable and best adapted cortical attractor solution is consciously and freely chosen from the probable future outcomes.

A cortical attractor (including the corresponding mirror neuron components) represents the unit behavioral complex attending the solution to a novel contingency. It comprises a complex behavioral strategy integrating the phenomenal and attitudinal / emotional aspects and their associated perceptual/conceptual qualia included.  Once more we emphasize that perceptual and conceptual qualia are semantically neutral and find their existential meaning within the context of an individualized BPS equilibrium context requiring the language faculty to generate the appropriate symbolic/sentential representations for recursive parsing.

It has been most difficult to integrate the participation of mirror neurons in this unit behavioral complex because of our paucity of anatomico-physiological data. Their presence in association with Broca’s area, insular cortex and parieto-temporal angular gyrus is an indication of their likely involvement in the semantic, emotional and multimodal assembly of the unit behavioral entity, not to mention their possible role in the emergence of self-consciousness as we reverse the mirror neurons focus on the agent / observer. As we published elsewhere, just like a newborn baby can watch her lactating mother’s facial / body movements and listen to her baby talk cooing until eventually discovers the self from that of mother’s and reciprocally mother can anticipate the newborn needs, an empathy only possible with the help of mirror neurons, we see no reason why the same ‘mirror neuron’ mechanism cannot be directed inwards to auscultate the self in action and discover the self as self! We can demonstrate using fMRI techniques the complex coordination of left somatotopic premotor cortex with auditory and left parietal cortex which lightens up when we either move a hand while making a sound or watching someone else do it! If the observer can empathize with the subject making those sounds and movements via mirror system, especially the likely emotions attending such behavior (as suggested by activity of insular mirror neurons), we don’t see any serious problem about turning that empathy faculty on ourselves and achieving self-consciousness in the process! This area needs more development because both phenomenal and conceptual qualia in our BPS model requires the language faculty to be accessed for ‘interpretation’ as to what it existentially means to me whereas in an ordinary ‘introspection’ a semantic analysis may be waived, like when we are just ‘mindreading’ someone else. I can predict that the dual reflecting surface of the mirror neuron will be the new area of neurophilosophy research as we march slowly but unrelenting along the reductionist asymptotic plank knowing that we have choices because free-will survives.

Dr. Angell O. de la Sierra, Esq.   Deltona, Florida  Winter 2007

Bibliography.

de la Sierra, Angell O.  Telicom 2006-2008

The Neurodynamic Genesis of an Unit Coherent Thought, An Epistemontological View.

ABSTRACT.

Understanding what a mental state of ‘consciousness’ entails much more than the unconscious ‘binding’ together or the functional integration of the perceptual properties or attributes of an object, e.g., the shape, color, texture, tactile contours, size, etc. of a statuette because these varied sensory properties are inevitably experienced coalesced as an unit whole concurrently integrated with the subconscious association of the object with a contextual ongoing event or memory thereof (genetic or memetic), e.g., the statuette being a loved one’s gift on your birthday to match the smooth marble table it sits on. This way the perceptual and conceptual constitutive elements fuse into a single conscious state by way of its attentional underpinnings. (See Dr. Francis Crick, “The Astonishing Hypothesis.”) It is not enough to have the visual occipital cortex unconsciously integrate the perceptual signals arriving from the retina (and other sensory input) and thereby assign properties and attributes which then coalesce into the beautifully smooth, coral colored version of Michelangelos Pietas, this would be the equivalent of having a language sentence with just a subject, ‘statuette’ without qualifications as to number, spatiotemporal location/position, history, etc. We need to subconsciously find a context within which the object becomes historically and sociologically meaningful to our existence; this analysis is subconscious and depends on hippocampus memetic data base. When the perception posits a potential life threat to the species, as determined first by an amygdaloid protosemantic genetic data base and confirmed thereafter by the hippocampus context analysis, there will follow an adaptive Cannon response. This consists of an unconscious triggering of the appropriate musculo-skeletal responses to reflexly fight or flee. At times there may be a subconscious activation of the language machinery to articulate the relevant contextual premises and co-generate thought in an evolving ‘inner language’ appropriate to the co-existing emotional quale. As thought and consciousness co-evolve with language processing we are now in a position to consciously choose among probable future alternatives and isolate a cortical attractor as the exclusive response to the original set of perceptual and conceptual mix.

Before we attempt to apply these interpretations to the explanation of the ‘flow of consciousness’ preceding the free-will choice (charged with the isolation of an adaptive cortical attractor solution), we need to sort out the variety of probable mental states, how they link together inside the attractor basin when defining a resting mental state (as a function of neuro-humoral based attentional status), how their links become labile when being updated, how they exibit reciprocal causality between the perceptual and/or conceptual input and how they are singled out for isolation and instantiation. At least we hope to provide the guidelines and danger signals for those traveling this unchartered route.

INTRODUCTION.

 Unlike what happens during the dream state of consciousness, the normal vigil state is normally preceded by an attention span triggered by a sudden change in either the ongoing perceptual scenery or memory input. It seems like we need these changes, however small, to maintain us in a state of self-consciousness, otherwise we shift into a subconscious stage of mere awareness when we are no different from any complex monitoring robotic device; this is the way we spend a substantial part of the quotidian vigil state and then may lapse into an unconscious dream state if no novel stimulus is present. Otherwise we are in and out of conscious awareness as determined by the recursive cycling of stimulation from the mesencephalic reticular activating system (RAS) and/or diencephalic pineal gland. This fleeting state we term the ‘flow of consciousness’ depending on which ongoing attractor(s) content(s) is(are) then dominant. One may, e.g., be walking along the fair grounds as we view a table counter decorated with colorful flowers and a substantial number of gadgets generating audio signals, all distracting me from feeling the pain coming from some uncomfortable cobblestones under the shoes. Each particular stimulus (color, shape, sound, motion, plantar pressure, etc.) provides its own attentional alert on the corresponding cortical sensory area yet we experience an indelible fusion of all stimuli present as an unit phenomenal event because of our brain’s inability to individualize / separate the component parts for individualized experiencing, the equivalent of a flicker fusion frequency while watching a movies where the individual takes from the camera are fused as one unit, a single conscious state. Nonetheless each audio, visual or tactile input is being subjected to a continuous subconscious ‘context’ analysis where a silent ‘inner languge’ provides the meaning before an adaptive correction is instantiated.  Either one of the individual stimuli may assume dominance/priority based on the associated neurochemical millieu generated to activate the appropriate RAS network. Imagine the cobblestones under her shoes threatened the biological integrity of her plantar surface. Once the attentional input is focused into the pressure receptors on the plantar surface and their corresponding input into the cortical attractor(s) or parts thereof, these are singled out into conscious prominence for us to continue the bracketing process until one is willed into isolation and instantiation based on its higher probability of adaptive success, all things considered. She had a few alternatives to choose from, e.g., could have returned back home and wear stronger boots, etc., but it was easier to take another route with a smoother pavement. In what follows we will examine some of the arguments in support of a single unit of consciousness where particular experiences are subsumed in a more complex unitary experience of conjoint phenomenology as opposed to a mosaic or composite of related parts as we find during those fleeting moments when we examine the probabilities available during the flow of consciousness. Since we are at the center of this decision process, it makes sense, with Descartes, to distinguish the consciousness of self from the conscious flow of the alternatives to be chosen from or from the choice being isolated. To the extent that inherited, unconscious biological imperatives of self-preservation default our choices in the decision process, visceral-brain-controlled neurohumors influence our emotions and social conviviality influences our psychic life, perhaps a holistic Gestalt conception of a conscious biopsychosocial (BPS) unit is more appropriate when argued as derived from the totality of all relevant things considered as *previously defended by Carnap.

ARGUMENTATION.

Consciousness about objects, events or memories thereof without a conscious agent minding their content is counterintuitive. Consequently, the agent has the *dual Cartesian role of being simultaneously the conjoined unit actor and unit observer capable of making judgments about a unit self within the context of the outcome alternatives being evaluated or isolated. The unity of the self is preserved whether experiencing a mosaic of alternatives in the flow of consciousness or an individualized alternative when choosing amongst them. This must be the case because the agent should be able to consider his own BPS preservation as may be affected when evaluating qualitative, quantitative, relational and especially the probability/modal categories of the perceptual and conceptual information content, what Kant termed the cognitive ‘structure of *knowledge’ (we have added the perceptual element). We emphasize again that objects, events or memories may as well have no essence or existence unless there is an agent existentially impacted by their conscious presence. The meaning of this dual relationship to the agent has to be syllogistically extracted/inferred by accessing the language processor during the recursive cycling co-generating language and thought at the moment of decision *making by proximate causation. This bears a slight resemblance to James arguments about the synchronicity aspects in achieving unit consciousness.

Similarly, we find it simpler to view the conscious unit exclusively as that experience / feeling of what it is like for the agent to reciprocally interact dynamically with all the constitutive components now subsumed into a holistic unit view, at least when in the process of isolating by choice the attractor best adapted to solve the problem at hand. As long as there may be an unfamiliar perceptual or conceptual change present a general idle flow of conscious events of coarse granularity may ensue where the conscious unit may be grossly differentiated as to its subject, object, connectivities and other forms until bracketing and selection of the appropriate subunits progresses and a best match with the originating perceptual and/or conceptual stimulus is achieved resulting in the all important unit of phenomenal consciousness being consciously isolated. When dealing with intractable complexities it is pointless to integrate concepts from the bottoms àup unless a lucky strike matches the conceptually inferred abstraction result with the self-evident experiential quale. It makes more sense to us to conceptually differentiate the self evident truth of the conscious experience into parts and proceed from the top à down trying to reframe the resulting jigsaw puzzle into the best fitting, abstract modeling straight jackets available. When you choose to start integrating from shaky abstract singularities up, the results of a collapse are more catastrophic than differentially building the pyramid up from a shaky broad base instead. It makes more sense to consider the ‘flow of consciousness’, a coarse-grained but unified conscious experience, as a composite of other relevant probable future outcomes (attractors). As the selection process evolves by bracketing, the resulting unified conscious experience will be unitary and exclusive, not a composite or mosaic. However, to the extent that the actor and observer remain distinct entities the experiences are co-conscious because the unified consciousness of self (observer) remains so whether experiencing a composite ‘flow of consciousness’ or the exclusive isolated/selected attractor, they are components of a single state of consciousness of variable and diminishing granularity as we approach the isolation stage. The careful reader will note that this is akin to the Kantian division of experience that distinguishes the observer and the observed. The latter, as described, has three levels, one dealing with the properties and attributions of individual objects that when unified gives them the spatiotemporal position, color, shape, etc. where the ‘binding problem’ applies. The second level is relational as it describes the causal relationship between such relevant objects along with their biological, psychic and social implications for the agent, what we call the unitary event. When we finally join them together seamlessly we get the ‘attractor’ structure that is singled out for selection and instantiation. Finally, the third level dynamically links more than one attractor and their constitutive BPS encasing giving rise to a ‘flow of consciousness’ of varying event content and complexity. We must emphasize once again that consciousness of self as an observer agent is always required in all conscious acts just described because objects, events or memories only exist to the extent these acquire an inferred vital meaning in relation to the agent/subject BPS equilibrium, thus the requisite for a language processor to represent the symbolic or sentential premises of a logical analysis as an accompanying thought is co-generated. Consequently we need not posit the existence of yet another level of consciousness unless it entails a significant existential BPS meaning for our survival as a species, e.g., the audio-visual, tactile or kinesthesic, etc. inputs (intensity, duration, frequency of stimulation) may only trigger a ‘subconscious awareness’ of their presence iff their stimulation reaches threshold values depending on their degree of fine structural granularity. Below this threshold sub-ontological level, as e.g., quantum ‘structure’, we need accessing the language processor to elaborate the conceptual/epistemological explanation of their questionable perceptual / ontological existence at the conscious epistemontological hybrid level of structural and/or functional level of organization, e.g., the valuable Bohr atomic orbitals of physical chemistry.

In other words, objects come into phenomenal existence (not essence) at unconscious levels through a synthesis of their properties and attributes (e.g., that pink, smooth statuesque), then at subconscious level of awareness (not consciousness) when causal relationships are established between relevant contiguous objects and the agent during a contextual analysis. When this results in a threshold level of change that is significant to the agent we must extract the BPS meaning of the event being generated by accessing the language processing networks that co-generates unitary consciousness, whereupon an appropriate adaptive response must be called upon, first by activating a flow of consciousness from the relevant cortical attractor basins. All things considered we proceed to consider the most appropriate course of action by choosing from among the available probable outcomes the best adapted. Another example will help clarify. Imagine a mountaineer in his daily descent along the dangerous curvy, but familiar, steep mountain. The first level of analysis (shape, color, motion, size, texture, etc. of familiar environmental objects) and the second level (the familiar causal interactivities of the different objects withing sight and hearing in his path down the curvy road) operate at the unconscious and subconscious level of analysis respectively as demonstrated by his driving while transmitting by cell phone a puzzle being discussed in his car radio (‘he’s on automatic pilot control’). If e.g., all of a sudden there is a potentially significant change ahead of him that looks and sounds like earth movements as he approaches a bridge. This event draws genetic data from amydala, memetic data from hippocampus for contextual analisis at the unconscious and subconscious levels requiring now a third level of analysis for the evaluation of safety alternatives available depending on the road conditions for the speed, weight and value of the car, the height of fall from the bridge, etc. He is drawing now from a restricted number of cortical attractors in the fast flow of a conscious effort to choose the best probable adaptive safety solution from those available, push hard on the brakes and slam-stop the expensive car against the side of mountain, gently apply the brakes without sliding before approaching the bridge, jumping out of the car, etc. all of which alternatives are controlled by biopsychosocial hierarchical imperatives continuosly asking what we want, believe, desire, attitudes, resources available, memories of similar situations or whatever elements that can be brought to bear and integrate into a coherent unit of conscious cognition prior to instantiate the proper unit of behavior including motor commands to effector organs to coordinate the appropriate musculo-skeletal posture, psychic and emotional background to cope with biological self preservation and financial loss of his car, among others. Fortunately the constitutive links in this complex chain of adaptive behavior are already present *in the form of cortical attractor probable future outcomes as argued elsewhere. They just need ongoing update and modifications before consciously willing one of *them into actuality. Contrary to some authoritative opinions (Brook 2001), context analysis, whether at unconscious, subconscious or conscious level, must always be considered indexical, self-referential because when a meaning is extracted out of a perceptual or conceptual source of input we mean meaning to the agent, not to the species, family, ethnic or cultural group he belongs to, we mean the individualized agent who is he and his existential circumstances in his ecosystem niche, an unit of focal attention encompassing the agent-observer and his autobiographical memory baggage, the dynamic one and same person extending diachronically across time carrying along experiences, emotions, feelings, etc.

We mean indexicality in all aspects of its inner language expressions, pronouns, demonstratives, temporality and locality. There is no such thing as a fixed cortical attractor architecture even at the species-stereotyped and unconscious genetic reflex level component. But they all have a sense-phenomenal perceptual and a conceptual, (language-based component) where neuro-hormonal levels may influence and bias a contextual analysis. As we always stress, in the normal person the preservation of biological integrity genetically defaults the analysis while the preservation of psychosocial equilibrium memetically biases any consideration; conscious free-will may, in abnormal, ‘contra natura’ cases, trump any of the previous conservative settings. We are not ready to dismiss the idea that the intentionality derived from all things being considered in a conceptual/contextual analysis is causally efficient in the generation of the free will focal choice of a given attractor among others. This would require a reciprocal causation where biopsychosocial considerations and their neurohumoral accompaniments influence the ongoing semantic analysis and the propositions thereby generated providing a feedback into the neurohumoral machinery to create a dynamic equilibrium between the propositions and the attitudes. This is not an easy task and deserves further examination before singing a requiem to the ‘propositional attitude’ model *of Fodor. To us mental states, whether of coarse granularity, as in a flow of consciousness or otherwise, become conscious because of their being the result of a preceding subconscious state accessing the language processor to generate the higher order thoughts, both being co-generated in the process. It is not preposterous to suggest that at least both stages are reciprocally causal on each other. It has been very difficult to convince our colleagues about the correlations between language and consciousness but a deeper reflection on a fairly well *documented laboratory experience with split brain patients (See Trevarthen) may help. An object presented to the left language hemisphere (right visual field) elicits conscious verbal report of its presence except when the attention is shifted to the right non language hemisphere (patient reaching for object with left hand) at which time the co-generation of language report and consciousness of object is lost! We have not been able to document a 1984 allegation by the experimenter that repositioning the object to the left visual field (right hemispheric presentation) brings back the conscious verbal report of its presence. The experimenter, in our opinion, should have modified the experiment protocol and allowed for extinction of the prior memory (diachronic memory) so as to distinguish between an extended memory of the object as opposed to new perception of the object. Another aspect of same idea is that the contextual analysis that followed the original object presentation to the left ‘talking brain’ hemisphere is retained in cortical attractor memory and triggered into actuality by the subsequent presentation of any cue suggesting/inferring its phenomenal presence; all of which suggest to us that either we see what’s in our brain (not in front of us) or we are witnessing a transcallosal transfer of information by quantum fields?

If unit consciousness depends on the brain’s structural and/or functional integrity of its neuronal networks connectivities (isomorphism) at the three different levels of integration, i.e., top à down: a)between cortical attractors in a basin, b)between the causally-related perceptual objects and their attending conceptual and emotional components in an isolated cortical attractor or c)between the variously amalgamated properties or attributions of the individual objects, then it shouldn’t surprise anyone that if their links are altered functionally by surgery, disease, updates or otherwise, the results will reflect the change in composition of the new resulting unit. Likewise if we select to directly stimulate selected parts of the unit *by electrical stimulation (see Penfield’s cortical stimulations), or exclude parts of the units from participation by callosal section (commisurotomy) followed by stimulation of a single hemisphere or some other surgical or pathological ablation or isolation, the unity is not breached but the resulting derangements in accessing data bases during behavioral control, belief formation or some other function, will reflect the altered composition of the new unit of focal attention or behavioral consciousness and consequently the self consciousness of the bearer of the conscious states. During the normal mental health state, among all relevant cortical attractors in a basin, only those of higher probability based on their logical and semantic coherence will be isolated from competing cortical attractors. We are looking forward to the day when the different brain disorders (Dissociative Identity Disorder, schizophrenia, split brain, hallucinations, anosognosias, blindsight, etc.) and their neuropsychological cognitive and affective behavioral concommittants will be analyzed in accord to this simpler view as it will continue to develop.

The alert reader may have noticed that we have defended in this and previous writings the synthesis of two seemingly incompatible views of brain neurodynamics, one stressing the  visible ontological aspects deeply rooted on falsifiable brain monitoring results (EEG, MEG, PET Scans and fMRI) plus behavioral/psychological data, and the other view based on the invisible epistemologically-inspired, explanatory deductions from metaphysical logic. Our pedagogical pendulum swings from where language plays the fundamental role in processing the symbolically encoded representations of existential reality in co-generating consciousness/thought, to the vector representation of phase spaces (Hilbert space). The former stresses brain software, the latter brain hardware (wetware). One stresses a shifting attention from one coalition of neurons to *another one competing for dominance, an isomorphic view (see Hurley)…. but ultimately the winner is the human agent, a deterministic view. The other view does not substitute these explanations but adds another dimension that brings into focus the indeterministic nature of existential reality and the conscious role a free agent plays in determining what’s in stock as probable future outcomes before freely choosing according to his unique biopsychosocial reality. The big hurdle to us has been… and remains to be is how language processing may bridge the gap between the ontological descriptions and the epistemological explanations attending brain neurodynamics in the generation of consciousness/thought. To us it matters not whether the symbolic or sentential software generated in processing perceptual/conceptual input trumps or not the brain’s alleged (or implied) isomorphic multidimensional phase space hardware as underlying the transformations of complex vectors in Hilbert space, both views arguably are necessary (sufficient?) factors in determining a conscious state. As long as we humans remain the centerpiece about which crucial perceptual and conceptual information is denied because of species sensory and brain combinatorial limitations we must depend on a language processor to make the appropriate logic symbolic or sentential representations necessary for us to formulate the premises and conclusions to syllogistically extract their meaning and survive as a biological, psychic and social unit….. unless our detractors have a better explanation. Reality is an epistemontological hybrid.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS.

I can see where there will always be problems with language communications of complex issues unless people agree on the same meanings. For us anything within the threshold resolution of our senses or measuring instruments is perceptual and we experience and describe their physical ‘essence’ presence as an ontological 'phenomena'. If the entity (object?) is beyond sense-phenomenal or instrumental resolution and description, we must instead explain their possible existence (presence?) inferentially by way of conceptualizing tools, either symbolic or sentential logic. Thus we can experience phenomenal (color, shape, size, etc.) or conceptual (affective anger, sadness, euphoria, etc.) feelings (qualia) or combinations thereof. We consider affective qualia as conceptual in nature because affective qualia are not neutral to the extent that a conscious agent experiences them in relation to the 'meanings' of objects, events or memories in our biopsychosocial lives and thus requires contextual analysis by the same conceptual tools. Notice that, counter intuitive as it may initially sound, the contextual analysis of sense phenomenal and/or memory inputs may proceed at subconscious or conscious levels depending on the need to access a language processor to extract contextual meanings from ongoing environmental changes been witnessed / monitored, being aware of. If the changes are familiar and uneventful, the subconscious awareness is not being recorded into memory, is not attended to or reportable because usually some other activity has captured our attention and language processing capacities or neutralized our RAS input into consciousness as when we fall asleep when we are not experiencing a significant BPS 'change'. When before the presence of familiar, uneventful events our attention wanders away and we talk of being 'aware' as opposed of being 'conscious' of their presence.A complex robotic monitor of environmental changes is 'aware' as we are when subconsciously processing familiar input devoid of notoriety or significant changes in our BPS equilibrium. If a change becomes existentially significant and requires inferential language processing to extract its meaning to us then the agent being affected becomes part of the mix and we are then at the conscious level proper, as argued. I realize that such views, as expressed, assume premises that may not be accepted by all and we invite a pointed discussion of any such presuppositions as outlined in the argumentation.

Like it happens in all complex legal situations we have had to posit tentative conclusions based on circumstantial evidence (read intuitions or inferential logic) about the genesis of thought/consciousness, an extension and update about a *previous writing. Maybe there are invidual variations in the mechanics of thought generation but we have to pedagogically assume that it is constant for the human species. We make distinctions between levels of ‘consciousness’, first and foremost we distinguish consciousness of self as an actor (as when we focus on our own autobiography in search of information relevant to an important contingent event) from consciousness of self as an observer.  We are not prepared now to assign any structure to the observer other than to use it as a pedagogical convenience. This is to be distinguished from consciousness of the sense-phenomenal properties and attributes of individual objects (color, shape, size, etc.) as unconsciously synthesized and then subconsciously catalogued/categorized as a phenomenal perceptual unit when esthetically judged (beautiful, old, heavy, etc.) in relation to similar objects or memory memes and now able to be retrieved into consciousness. This transit from ‘a’ category statuette to ‘this’ indexical statuette is to be noted to distinguish between ‘a’ transcendental, irretrievable  abstract object and ‘this’ immanent real object of my perception (or memory) when situated in  causally relevant relational aspects with other objects, the agent and his associated perceptual/conceptual qualia controlling the ongoing perceptual scenery OR as a conscious memory recall now existing as a modified/updated past event inside an individual attractor in a cortical basin to be, in another stage, be subjected to further scrutiny as to its probability of being an adaptive solution to an important environmental change before being isolated and instantiated. Meanwhile it is being continuously updated and modified by ongoing perceptual and conceptual inputs while dynamically linked to other attractors in the cortical basin. The neurodynamics of linked cortical attractor units can be summoned to a coarse granularity level of consciousness, flow of consciousness, for scrutiny and selection in response to a significant environmental change.

In the argumentation that has preceded we have examined how best to explain our human experience of unit consciousness notwithstanding the presence of so many participating sub-units.

In Deltona, Florida this late summer 2008     Dr. Angell O. de la Sierra

The Neurodynamics of Causation.

ABSTRACT.

*The research on the cortical ‘attractor’ model for olfactory inputs by Dr. W. Freeman has been a seminal source of valuable information in the unraveling of the super complex dynamics of brain function which to this date remains unsolved, especially when we try to modify and adapt/expand the olfactory model to include and functionally integrate ALL perceptual (sense-phenomenal) and conceptual (symbolic or sentential logic) functions as discussed in previous publications. We have really tried to remain close to measured or mathematically-derived data, from EEG, MEG, fMRI instrumental data to self-evident experiences like perceptual and/or conceptual qualia. Perhaps the most difficult step will always be, not so much the explanation of how perceptual/conceptual inputs are amplified by brain background signals to form new and update old cortical attractor basins by quantum wave resonant/amplitude couplings or how they parade before our mind as a flow of consciousness, but how do we isolate one of several such cortical attractors (future outcomes) as the exclusive conscious choice based on its probability of adaptive success in response to environmental contingencies. But we have no doubt that, just like we consciously select the most effective motoneuronal networks -among so many available-  to safely score points at Olympic gymnastics, we can also freely choose to isolate the equivalent cortical attractor neuronal networks when adapting to those environmental contingencies. But we ask, how does the non-physical mind is able to be causally efficient on the physical brain during the conscious exercise of free will, what we have opted to call ‘proximate causation’ for lack of a better characterization?  We may never know how many elements, if any, functionallt mediate or anatomically bridge the invisible transition from the conscious choice to the motoneuronal effector network(s) or the relevant mental state. This explanation, within the context of brain dynamics, will have to be metaphysically conceptualized as a problem of complex indeterministic causation or else surrender your analytic effort to the accommodative label of ‘emergent’ psychophysical behavior or a ‘functional’ approach. We outline below some of the gray areas resisting being framed into conceptual formulations and revisit the ‘conditional probability’ tool within the context of neurodynamics.

INTRODUCTION.

Probabilistic or indeterministic causation remains refractory to being successfully reduced to operational algorithms because of so many complex gray areas. Before throwing in the towel, we should explore causation in itself while zeroing on functionalist aspects according to which we should restrict our view of ‘mental states’ as those defined by their causes and effects. This focused view excludes, for the moment, any consideration of intrinsic properties of such states but rather concentrates on the mental state in relation to immanent or transcendental perceptual and/or conceptual inputs, other inner states or behavior. This narrowing has the advantage of conceiving mental states as being conceptually shared and realizable by different systems such as computers and even other biological species..

ARGUMENTATION.

Every long journey starts with one small first step, what do we understand by ‘causation’ as it applies to brain dynamics? In general terms we may think of causation as an act, intentional or not, that brings about an effect, be it an object (e.g., work of art), an event (e.g., punishable behavior) or a mental state (perceptual/conceptual qualia like sounds or sadness, respectively). Functionally speaking, for each and every consequent act of causation there has to be an origination in the form of an agent (person or object), an event (e.g., a force causing change in motion) or an antecedent mental state. We will use the term ‘sine qua non’ to imply that the agency, event or mental state initiating the relevant end result, must be both necessary and sufficient to have caused such consequent response. We will briefly discuss below the special case of ‘propositional attitudes’ *(Fodor). Having now framed the scope of causation we are most interested in, let us illustrate with some further focusing examples to follow.

We have inherited motor reflex arcs (with varying degrees of complexity) to preserve the biological integrity of the human species, from the simple monosynaptic, segmental withdrawal flexion to the complex, polysynaptic, suprasegmental walking reflex. It always involves a receptor ‘organ’, an effector (muscle, gland) and sometimes intermediate associate neuronal connections. These basic varying connectivities, by and large, are genetically hard-wired and cannot be consciously accessed at their unconscious level loci to modify but we may sometimes consciously inhibit their instantiation (against self interest) as when terrorists explode themselves in crowds, religious fanatics walk on nails or activists set themselves to fire as we witness during pathological, heroic or altruistic acts. Consider the following specific example to help us further focus on brain neurodynamics.

We may have noticed or heard that an unconscious anaesthesized patient in the operating room (OR) will not reflexly respond to remove the nuisance produced by slight mechanical touch stimulation on his cheeks caused by the neurological hammer, a bristle, a pin prick or a walking flea. The observed behavior is different when the same events are repeated while he sleeps in the recovery room or when fully awake during vigil, now he responds with a slap to remove the nuisance stimulus. What does that tells us? Unlike the OR where the deep stage of anesthesia inhibited all motor responses, in the recovery room we are dealing with desinhibited segmental reflexes possibly involving a few spinal segments controlling nearby superficial, touch receptor areas on the cheek. Each small area with touch receptors (dermatome) is wired-up to specific motor neuron pools activating one among varying neuronàmuscle combinations covering the moving receptor surface area. Another significant difference is that the sleeping unconscious patient may not reflexly respond by self slapping his cheek to remove the nuisance unless the position of the nuisance (e.g., flea) changes whereupon the hand precisely aims at the new location and activates the appropriate motoneurons to slap the flea down. This unconscious isolation of one of many probable motoneuronal responses (depending on surface location of stimulus) illustrates the diversity and precise network configuration of inherited responses available. This interpretation is all based on classic neurophysiology after the British school of *Sherrington, et al.

Lets introduce now another variation, let’s wake the patient up. Suppose the same aching patient receives same nuisance flee stimulus while he is awake recuperating from the surgical spinal decompression procedure to remove the neck pain from a pinched (as it exits from the cervical vertebra) upper cervical peripheral nerve. Why isn’t the consciously inaccessible, gene-controlled reflex arc is not unconsciously triggered into action this time, like before when he was asleep? Because now, if it did, a reflex slap on the flee area of his face would likely unintentionally jerk his neck and undo the surgical relief previously provided. But instead he consciously willed into action a different otherwise inaccessible & unconscious segmental reflex that produced instead a milder contraction of his facial musculature. Had he responded and jerked his injured neck, an amygdaloidal, gene-controlled, neck avoidance reflex would have aggravated his condition. Fortunately, while the amygdala is temporarily inhibited from reflex responding to the cheek stimulus, the cheek stimulus also traveled to the meme-controlled memory data base in the hippocampus for a ‘context analysis’ of the situation. This resulted in a subconscious level comparison analysis of the biological risks involved in the various probable responses available in the cortical attractor basins connected to the hippocampus. Consciously isolating and activating the relevant cortical attractor controlling local movements of facial musculature (e.g., buccinators muscles) was a more conservative choice of response than the unconscious reflex release of a damaging slap controlled by the amygdale, now inhibited from acting while waiting for the result of the hippocampus context analysis. The meme-controlled memories or conceptual analysis would oppose the slap & neck displacement to ‘preserve’ biological *integrity of the patient and a more conservative cortical attractor alternative was instantiated. As we have detailed in other publications notice how gene-controlled reflex neural networks at unconscious level are transiently inhibited when *stimulated by potentially life threatening stimuli (See Le Doux avoidance reflex) pending a context hippocampus evaluation at subconscious levels. Based on meme-controlled hippocampus memories, the gene-controlled amygdaloid memories are released from inhibition and a ‘fight or flight Cannon response’ ensues to protect the species. If the contex analysis reveals no such danger (e.g., a sudden poisonous snake rattle sound was coming from a cage in a nearby zoo). In this case the context analysis posed no biological threat to the actor and no cortical activation of an attractor solution was necessary.

It is important to notice the obvious general similarities in the cortical attractor adaptive response to perceptual/conceptual inputs when it includes in addition other extrabiological, psycho-socially acquired aspects of existential reality. This time the biological gene-coded memories in the amygdaloid-limbic system neuronal networks are synaptically integrated to their appropriate psychosocial, meme-coded memories in the hippocampus network complex by variable strengths Hebbian synapses. The genetic aspects of musculo-skeletal control by motor-neuron probable responses can accept limited modifications/updating (through physical training) of the future motor outcomes pool). These infrequent alterations are more primitive in the sense that, while defaulted by biological preservation imperatives (e.g., visceral neuro-humoral equilibrium), modifications do not normally require access to conceptual memory pools (logic/language processors) for subconscious context analysis except as noted. Functional musculo-skeletal updates by exercise training are consciously processed and decay when not incorporated in a lasting memory data base. There is a notable exception when a subconscious context analysis report, that would have resulted in the eventual conscious activation of an appropriate cortical attractor, is consciously rejected in favor of a conscious will to act against self-interest, contra-natura, as in the cases noted above. We have seen how unconscious, gene-controlled biological preservation and meme-controlled psychosocial equilibrium fundamentally differ

in their inputs and context analysis before the intentional isolation and actualization of their ‘future outcomes’ neural networks. Like in computers, we have access denied to core company-inherited programming while being able to access, modify, isolate and execute those we personally programmed and choose to execute at will. Notice though that in both cases we CAN control by proximate causation, e.g., turning the PC off or changing programs! But notice also that, unlike the computer case analogy, we still ignore the primitive neurophysiological mechanisms underlying the conscious choice of BOTH the appropriate motor reflex in a complex postural feat AND the appropriate cortical attractor from a pool of probable alternatives. At the reflex level of musculo-skeletal control the maintenance of bipedestation and an erect posture when opposed by disrupting gravitational forces (as in gymnastic movements) trumps any other body posture during exercise in the normal person, except as noted above.

We can arguably compare the segmental and extrasegmental moto-neuronal pools as the neuro-anatomical equivalent of the cortical attractor networks and label them both as representing future outcomes available to choose from, at conscious or subconscious levels as illustrated. We can even extend the analogy to suggest that the motoneuronal menu has varying probabilities of selection depending on the immediately preceding body posture just like the probability of selection, isolation and activation from an attractor menu is predicated on appropriate antecedent perceptual/conceptual input as discussed. What remains for both sub models to explain is just how our mind zeroes on the appropriate physical brain network to activate it into actuality? In our opinion this is clearly a problem of unfathomable probabilistic causation where complex ontological and epistemological issues control our explanations as we will elaborate on below before settling on a *modified Fodor’s ‘propositional attitude’ model as discussed elsewhere. We proceed to lay the foundations for that search. It seems appropriate to keep in mind that reality ‘in se’ dispenses of any epistemologically imposed constraints, whether *temporal, linear, symmetrical, or causal ‘corrections’, as we discussed in two previous writings about how our species inherited the ability to incorporate an epistemological temporal clock to harmonize the primitive atemporal, asymmetric, non-linear, perceptual/conceptual environmental inputs with our language-controlled linear and sequential way of processing such data. Fundamental physics does not need any such ‘corrections’ considerations either, as Russell and the modern ‘eliminativists’ have argued. So causation is a mind-created concept to extract meaning from a seemingly indeterministic or chaotic reality. It is useful in that it allows the human species to reductively analyze such reality within the perceptual and conceptual limitation genetically imposed. We aim at following a reductive, conceptual, analytical path between the extremes of Russelian eliminativism and primitivism as long as there is lacking scientific criteria to distinguish between a conscious ‘cause’ of a mental state or thought and the latter’s alleged intrinsic condition of self-generating the state sans causation (emergence). We do admit that conceptual modeling often requires the selection of that self-serving and convenient condition to play the role of ‘cause’ regardless of its truth value. In this respect, of considerable importance to neuropsychiatrists, there exist verifiable fMRI data documenting the state of limbic-based emotional euphoria. With the ancient Greeks, we believe that achieving a maximal mental state of happiness compatible with concurrent biological integrity, if possible, is the ultimate goal of existence. Accordingly we speculate that the cortical attractor to be ‘consciously chosen’ from the various alternatives available plays the role of being itself causally efficient in instantiating the happy mental state or vice versa, when a given mental state, controlled by neuro-hormonal current states, acts to select, isolate and instantiate the compatible cortical attractor, in a reciprocal dynamic manner. Whatever the final answer may eventually be we must continue to scrutinize neurodynamic causality. If we analogize the conscious choice (free will) with the instrumental collapse of the wave function during a quantum mechanical measurement we need to carefully examine also the probabilistic causation variant.

Unfortunately, in our examination to follow we will have to introduce less than universally accepted terminology and concepts in this leading edge, ambitious philosophical analysis as a mere guide to travel the choppy waters of brain causation. At first sight it may seem easy to explain causality when simply describing a tennis racquet hitting the ball towards the net as a simple event category involving two entities whose roles are clearly to cause and to respond, respectively (C causes the effect E). But there is more in the causal relata than a willing agent and a visible result when explaining the neurodynamics of probability causation (e.g., perceptual C rather than conceptual C* input causes mental state E rather than motor behavioral effect E*). Probability causation should include, besides the perceptual or conceptual input, a categorical characterization of the consequent object, event or mental state that results, singularly or together, and their respective roles when they become a behavioral or mental state reality. To complicate matters further, the category may refer to either spatiotemporal immanent results being instantiated (e.g., ongoing, online act of painting) as opposed to transcendental result (e.g., the abstract, non spatio-temporal, off line, cognitive fact that such painting exists in my memory). A subsidiary aspect of the category is its granularity, whether the result is individuated (countable, coarse granularity) or generalized (invisible structure of Bohr’s atom of fine granularity). This is important in establishing the nature (linear, cyclical, transitive, etc.) of the causal relationship, if any. A related aspect in the granularity analysis of the chosen cortical attractor result/effect is the reliability or truth value assignation. The result may be connotational (e.g., a contingent proposition, suggested or implied meanings/attributions) or denotational (e.g., predicate concept, exact literal meaning). What this means is that if the agent chooses a general abstract solution of fine granularity as his result, the causal relationship is termed intensional or connotational (e.g., an explanation) but if the choice is more specific, of coarse granularity, then the relationship is termed extensional (e.g., a description) or denotational. Since neurodynamics implies a conscious choice among alternative cortical attractors based on their probability of implementation we can say that during the flow of consciousness, before the conscious choice, the causal relation result is intensional/connotational and as soon as an isolation and a conscious choice is made the result/solution may be anything depending on the level of organization being considered. I may be thinking of choosing a specific missile weapon of coarse granularity, descriptive and denotational OR choosing the best equation of motion describing its trajectory in general terms, of fine granularity, explanatory and connotational, as the causal relationship may be. Thus, when a presidential candidate S consciously chooses the alternative (among several probable outcomes available) of an unconditional pull out of military personal from Iraq predicated on his ‘belief’ that P the local government ‘may’ control terrorist activity [an example of Fodor’s “propositional attitude” (S believes that P)], the causal relation result is intensional and connotative as opposed to the other candidate S’ choosing to keep troops there for 2 more years (predicated on his factual ‘knowledge’ that the Alliance commitment to immediate deployment of 10,000 troops ‘is’ viable), is an example of a different propositional attitude (S’ knows that P) where the causal relation is extensional and denotational. S explains, S’ describes the probable future outcome. Notice that the granularity of the attractor’s perceptual/conceptual content itself controls the causal relation between the agent (presidential candidate) and his conscious choice of a solution from the available probable future outcomes. To the best of our knowledge none of the available monitors of brain activity, including fMRI, can experimentally distinguish between connotational and denotational attractor content (and indirectly describe/explain the causal relation), a psychology experiment is sorely needed. Needless to say that either intensional or extensional, connotational or denotational a choice may constitute a case of perceptual/conceptual underdetermination or overextension. In the search for meanings to be extracted from an instrumental measurement of an environmental object/event (ontological object), the observation may be forced to loosely fit into a mathematical formulation (epistemological abstraction) that may either underdetermine or overextend the fine-grained granular representation of reality ‘in se’. Existential reality is consequently an operational epistemontological hybrid in an undeterministic but probabilistic world. In another writing we may express our views on the extreme cases where an abstract, conceptual representation of invisible ‘reality’, i.e., string/’brane’ theory, has aspiration on being accepted as an unique case of ontological reality!

There is a related complication where the fineness of the granularity may never be ascertained because of the lability of interacting cortical attractors in the basin whose individualized neuronal network composition may vary in perceptual and/or conceptual content, making it almost impossible to instrumentally determine the sequence or transitivity of synaptic events in the causal chain. Considering the speed with which these events happen, may as well ignore the transitivity in intermediate causality, linear or recursive. Better to bite the bullet and settle for coarse spatiotemporal ontological individuation when representing events.

As promised above we now proceed to briefly examine some relevant points on the probabilistic causation variant as it pertains to brain neurodynamics. It is possible that the quantum neurodynamics control of indeterministic causation may sound counterintuitive because causality is usually associated with determinism (even in the natural sciences). As we said above, this is a special case of indeterminism because it carries the implied presumption that a conscious choice can cause the preceding indeterministic process to become determined by the isolation and execution of a specified event based on its probability of being *selected among other existing alternatives. As we elaborated in another writing, when an object, event or mental state, acting as a perceptual or conceptual input, raises the probability of their effects as expressed in the conscious isolation and selection of an appropriate cortical attractor among various other future outcome alternatives (the equivalent of an instrumental measurement causing the collapse of a wave-function in quantum theory), then we can formally represent the situation in a ‘conditional probability’ format. If we suspect that various perceptual or conceptual ‘factors’ stand for potential causal agents (causal relata) we can formulate their potential status as causal agents on a probability basis as: P(B | A) meaning that the conditional probability of cortical attractor B being empirically isolated and instantiated (based on observed behavior) given the particular perceptual/conceptual input A acting as causal agents. Formally expressed as a probability function we get the probability ratio: P(B | A) = P(A & B)/P(A). This *approach, as we have detailed elsewhere, has the advantage that it does not have any dependence on temporal, causal or symmetry constraints, in harmony with reality ‘in se’. Ideally the indeterministic probability characterizing brain function cannot be conditioned on a tautology relation without denying its dynamic nature. However, probabilistic causation theorists have incorporated the counterfactual notation and techniques to remove spurious or otherwise irrelevant causal *influences in an attempt to reach the tautology ideal in the analysis. See Markoff Condition. A formal elaboration is beyond the scope of this brief analysis.

Probabilistic approaches have their own built-in limitations as is the case for ‘pre-emption’. Imagine two neuronal pathways with different synaptic weights where A, the least probable to cause an effect (slower conduction) initiates the action that randomly activates a component of the faster second neuronal pool B that causes an effector response pre-empting A from arriving at the target. Which should we attribute as having raised the probability of a target response? Which of the intermediate neurons in the train of causation was randomly activated? This problem is particularly relevant due to the very nature of attractor networks, their lability of connections is such that an invariable pattern of succession/progression along intermediate synaptic components cannot be guaranteed unless indicated by appropriate brain monitors, e.g., fMRI, as they happen, barring the occurrence of causally irrelevant pseudo connectivities that are concurrently activated. A related complication arises when a perceptual/conceptual causal input may not be followed by its expected probable effect, e.g., spurious (random or with regularity) inhibition. Causation is usually associated with asymmetry, i.e., cause C à effect E is not reversible. As mentioned before, we have postulated two instances of possible reversible causation: retrocausation where recursive cycling in neuronal pathways brings about update modifications originating in cortical attractors into a subject’s thinking instead of the other way around. A second interesting reciprocal symmetric causation is illustrated when a neuro-hormonal based euphoric emotional mental state may cause an induction bias in favor of a particular cortical attractor as an adaptive solution to a contingency being experienced and viceversa when a consideration of that particular future outcome produces happiness. An important element of our modified cortical attractor model is predicated on the reciprocal causation between the continuous perceptual/conceptual updating inputs into the attractor basin and the associated mental state it generates.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS.

In this occasion we have revisited for the third consecutive time the complex issue of indeterministic causation within the context of brain neurodynamics, from the configuration of attractor basins in the human cortex from sense-phenomenal, perceptual and memory based conceptual, never ending updating inputs (that bring about fleeting moments of consciousness flow evidencing our stock of probable future solutions) to possible environmental contingencies as they may arise. We dedicated the most space to revise the relevant aspects of the metaphysics of causation to provide the guidelines for a systematic approach in its analysis when we opt to consciously isolate and choose, from many probable alternatives, the attractor best suited for a contingent solution to environmental challenges. After such systematic perusal of issues to be encountered and its possible formulation for analytic reductions we come to the troubling realization that, because indeterministic causation in brain neurodynamics requires examining the intermediate labyrinthic neuronal network pathways between the conscious causal agent and the resulting effect in the isolation and instantiation of the chosen attractor, we tend to single out self serving conditions that best suit our biases without the benefit of a determination of their respective truth values or an experimental confirmation using the appropriate brain instrumental monitoring or observed behavior. Another disappointing conclusion pertains to the coarse granulation understanding of brain function probabilistic causality imposed by our analytical tools, instrumentally and conceptually unable to identify extensional/denotational singular causality, leaving us instead with the uncertainties of general or intensional/connotational causation. The future of brain neurodynamic causation is predicated on the success of the causal relata being formulated in propositional format for ease of computer simulations. We are not aware of any serious work beyond Fodor’s ‘Propositional *Attitude’ model formulated around his ‘Language of Thought’ hypothesis. This would allow us to examine our tentative speculation on the reciprocal symmetric causation between neuro-humoral instantiated emotional states and the cortical attractor about to be chosen, among other things.

Dr. Angell O. de la Sierra       In Deltona, Florida Summer 2008

 Biliography

The Possible Quantal Interface and the Hybrid Nature of Reality. Part I

"It is difficult for the matter-of-fact physicist to accept the view that the substratum of everything is of mental character." Sir Arthur Eddington

Introduction.

Perhaps many good scientists, sworn to uphold the tenets and defend the rigor of scientific methodology, do not realize that quantum mechanic / field theory -far from being the direct, exclusive result of an experimental scientific enquiry- is the most fundamental theory of matter that is currently available where metaphysical logic and mathematics played a decisive role in its coming into being. Consequently it may be worthwhile to briefly scrutinize its structure  and determine whether quantum theory can help us to understand the complexities of life and consciousness. The perfectly deterministic world of a Newtonian / relativistic cosmos has been now complemented by the fresh notions of a ‘quantum randomness’ thereby reopening the possibility that conscious free decisions or ‘free will’ becomes again the centerpiece of intellectual scrutiny and bring man back to his deserved central position in the cosmos, a “new Copernican revolution”.

We will try to make a distinction between ‘quantum randomness’ and other types of blind, purposeless motions so problematic for the exercise of a free, conscious volition. Practicing scientists seldom have the time or inclination to ponder on the hybrid nature of reality, one half of which is sense-phenomenal in its origin and the other half containing the corresponding valid logical inferences about its meaning within the context of a biopsychosocial (BPS) survival economy. The latter represents that other self-evident reality moiety escaping our sense or brain-computational detection or resolution because of its supercomplexity in structure and function. In this brief overview we will be trying to smooth out an understanding of how the transition from the ontological sense-phenomenal to the epistemological metaphysical effort (to make an existential sense of it) are inseparable and constitute a hybrid unit. By describing, correlating or explaining how that Kantian chaotic world of sensations out there -in the existential empirical world- gets transduced and transformed into meaningful adaptive human efforts, we will unavoidably enter into a discussion of how our freedom (free will) may influence this complex transition, i.e., how empirical contingencies generate single or multiple possible solutions from which to freely choose.

Since quantum events occur in the brain as elsewhere in the material world we will start from the premise that their presence is relevant for those aspects of brain activity that are correlated with mental activity, leaving aside the present controversy on whether these events are in any measurable way causally efficient. We wish to concentrate more on how quantum theory may adequately interface the deterministic physical world of sensations with the indeterministic world of possible theoretical, logically inferred solutions to contingencies threatening human biopsychosocial equilibrium. This may be the equivalent of joining the temporal scale of human survival with the historical time frame beyond it or joining the actual instant with the possible future, perhaps joining the world of sensations with the world of ideas. But all such possibilities are premised upon the existence of human free will; can quantum theory help identifying such sine qua non? It is fairly plausible that conscious free decisions will no longer constitute a philosophical problem in a perfectly deterministic world thanks to a better understanding of two aspects of quantum ‘randomness’, those we already see in stochastic / chaotic systems. In our opinion, quantum theory may turn out to be that successful ontological / epistemological interface joining both sides of the same coin of operational reality.

 Argumentation.

First let us agree on the rules of the communication game. We start with the premise that our human operational reality has two inseparable components, the sense-phenomenal matter of the empirical domain and the metaphysical mind that makes its meaning intelligible for human adaptive purposes. How do we relate one to the other? When we co-relate matter and mind we can do it two ways: we can describe an invariant observable transition in the empirical domain (object/event) from states aàb. The description does not commit the proponent with a particular causal agent because causation is an explanation that, while depending on the sense-phenomenal observation,  is to be understood as a linguistic term used to imply metaphysical abstractions attempting to make operational sense of the observed correlation. We should understand causation to be an irreversible sequence aàb to accommodate the possibility of a future identification of a common but unknown cause giving rise to both a and b. 

In the physical domain the relevant causal relations (termed interactions) are either electromagnetic, weak, strong or gravitational, which are just metaphysical logic inferences to adequately explain or ‘make sense’ of the empirical correlations that are witnessed in the environment or the simulation laboratory. Those familiar with the relevant literature will have discovered that, unfortunately, the present knowledge about the interface bridging material and mental states are based exclusively on explanations describing observable empirical correlations shying away from any attempt to search for any causally conditioned sequence that would provide a needed theoretical understanding. The main reason is an ingrained scientific / intellectual bias about causality and exclusive closure in the ‘physical’ domain. Read observable, repeatable and falsifiable sense-phenomenal domain guided by a scientific methodology. For the physicalist persuasion, if outside the reach of scientific methodology, it doesn’t exist!! Enter quantum dynamics…, is it science? And if not….then what? If not, theoreticians become expendable and, like the busy clinicians, our neuroscientists become satisfied with, e.g., describing the observable empirical correlations between active brain tissue and their increased glucose consumption (Pet Scans) or its increased circulatory content of haemoglobin (fMRI). So much for our natural curiosity to learn about our origins and destiny; a subversion of our inherited nature?

How may a non-deterministic quantum dynamics interface bridge mind and matter into a hybrid whole? Can a metaphysical mind be causally efficient to interact with the physical matter of the brain? Or more appropriately, is the sub-Planck dimensional domain of quantum dynamics theory or fact? We know, e.g., that a measurable quantum phenomena such as radioactive decay, photon emission and absorption or wave interference, etc. -while random in nature- carry the potential of being framed into a probabilistic description. Does that qualify QM as having ‘scientific’ predictive value?. If I can’t predict –as it happens- when a chunk of radioactive material will emit a sub-atomic particle by decay or how many particles will be produced in the next hours, if any, does that disqualify QM as a reliable theory of causality because it can only provide statistical probabilities of a decay to happen? Is there a ‘hidden variable’ in the QM formulation that will make it more acceptable? We believe that the conceptual chasm between the classical deterministic Newtonian / relativistic and the non-deterministic Planck manifolds can be successfully bridged by a QM theory phrased in an universal syntax. Otherwise the sense-phenomenal empirical world will remain ‘a matter of fact’ and the sub-Planck manifold of QM will ultimately turn into one of many mysterious metaphors so well suited for spinning in the public media by special interest groups and the uneducated. If we harmonize the facts of scientific methodology and the relevant metaphysical circumstances in which they play themselves out we will have an operational model, a true Theory of Everything (TOE) highlighting the hybrid nature of reality. Just as for the informed literati and the objective, dispassionate mind-frame there should not be any incompatibility between the rationally-inspired Darwinism and the psychosocially-inspired theology; we also claim the same consideration for a hybrid conception of reality. We will give below examples of the special hybrid nature of QM itself, indeterminate at the macrophysical empirical level but genuinely deterministic at the inferential Planck dimensional level.

Paradoxically as it may seem, it is not far-fetched to claim that QM is today the best candidate for a genuinely deterministic theory as required in the domain of the physical environment. We can appreciate this and other relevant facts better if we remove all theological/philosophical concepts from admixing with experimental/mathematical logic facts, an intellectual challenge indeed.

The evolution of a quantum mechanical (QM) wavefunction describing the complete story of a physical system under the Schrödinger equation is undoubtedly deterministic in nature. It should be remembered that the uncertainty occasionally experienced,  especially when an observation was made or a quantum measurement was performed, was explained  by invoking some elusive process of “collapse of the wavefunction” The collapse process itself is usually postulated to proceed in an indeterministic fashion, BUT with probabilities assigned for various possible future outcomes, via Born's rule, calculable on the basis of the system's wavefunction, means that, notwithstanding the unavoidable fact that the collapsed quantum event introduced an element of randomness at the ontological and epistemological level. This way a special type of non-random determinism is born (see Stapp) as will be examined below. Is there room here for  the possibility that a willed conscious mental act can collapse the wave function and thus influence the course of any such seemingly random / chaotic event as we see e.g., in brain EEG tracings? Or is coherence and entanglement a previously required antecedent before collapse? One effortless way to avoid a commitment to a QM free will possibility is to throw the towel and claim that conscious acts are open-ended fractal dynamic processes that cannot be computed. (See Penrose). A mental state collapse usually implies a metaphysical reduction of an entangled, coherent quantal configuration of infinite possibilities awaiting for a (willed?) choice initiative. But, in a more global context, we would be in the long run more interested in incorporating our tentative model of a hybrid reality into the  entanglement-induced non-local correlations of quantum physics because  a mind-brain entanglement opens the door for a more comprehensive characterization of a mind-matter hybrid correlation phrased in an universal syntax without the need of an epiphenomenal duality concept. But whatever attempts to associate these QM processes  with either neuronal synaptic events (Eccles) or microtubules (Penrose) may be premature until at least a ‘one electron at a time rectification’ process that can operate at body temperature is solidly established and put to empirical test.

Yet, perhaps the most promising approach should be one focusing on a lower level of organization like neuronal networks which today represent the only credible candidates to embed mental representations. This approach, quantum field theory, has the advantage of a possible cooperation with highly developed areas of investigation like tensor network theory (Llinas), neuropsychiatry (Jung) and Bohmian mechanics.

Finally one often wonders whether ‘chaotic’ behavior constitutes yet another aspect of reality governed by quantum field theory as well, as Bohmian mechanics suggest?  Our sense-phenomenal world seems governed by strictly deterministic natural laws but, at the Planck dimensional level a special chaotic 'indeterminism' reigns?

A chaotic system can be deterministic in yet another way reminiscent of quantal systems: two systems with identical initial states will have radically divergent future developments, but only within a finite,  short timespan because if either system evolves over a longer period of time it becomes randomly indeterministic and lacking in predictability or computability! In private communications the undersigned has had with Dr. Chris King, a research mathematics professor from Australia, he claims, if I understood correctly, that such fractal dynamic systems evolving over long periods of time represent a relevant universe of possible solutions in the future that become available for the human to choose from by exercising conscious free will. I personally would like to amend this attractive speculation by suggesting the intervening participation of the fast amygdaloidal and slower hippocampus neuronal network systems to assure that the choice harmonizes with a biopsychosocial survival imperative; if it does the final filter before the conscious choice becomes the pleasure/pain system involving the hypothalamus and cyngular gyrus. This amendment will bring Dr. King’s brilliant insight agreeably in line with the rest of our own BPS model of consciousness. If this informed speculation turns out to be true Chaos Theory will pre-empt quantum approaches in the neurosciences. We suspect they are intimately related in many significant aspects beyond the scope of the present overview. One interesting feature of this approach is that chaotic behavior comes in all hues, types, dimensions and structural organization, i.e., from Minkowsky to Hilbert space, quantal discrete or continuous, in wave or particle form and even fluid kinematic flow, all of which are features of human life manifestations. However diverse, they all share the common requirement that their behavior is strictly predicated, for their mathematical characterization, upon their initial conditions.

But don’t hold your breath waiting for some magic solution to harness the theoretical potential of either the deterministic or indeterministic aspect anytime soon because there exist processes which can equally well be fitted either inside the deterministic model of classical mechanics or the indeterministic semi-Markov model, regardless of the number of observations made.

Summary and Conclusions.

We discussed above how the disengagement of the concepts of causality from determinism was deemed appropriate. As we have seen, the notion of cause / effect was not so easily disengaged from much of what is relevant to a concept of a hybrid reality. The events in the physical domain are deemed determined if given specified initial conditions. Their forward sequential evolution are described by natural laws. In a deterministic world everything can be explained under the aegis of closure in the physical domain and the Leibnizian “Principle of Sufficient Reason”; any metaphysical / mathematical unfalsifiable explanations are deemed just metaphors or sophisticated poetry. More recently, a mathematical analysis of the probability of Darwinian evolution -a metaphysical construct in itself- to explain specified complexity, i.e., Intelligent Design (ID) was similarly labeled by un-informed nihilists.  Determinism is not always related to causality, predictability or a theological destiny, as I have explained.

In the un-relenting biological drive of the human species to understand his origins and destiny man has depended on recorded history to regard the present state of his ecosystem / universe as the invariant result / effect of its preceding  state and as the causally efficient agent of the state that will immediately follow. But a more careful historical scrutiny has also witnessed  conceptual ‘mutations’ usually ascribed to ‘advances in technological savoiz-faire’. During the vital life-span of the human species we witness changes in conceptual approaches to social contingencies but we always end up consolidating our support of the deterministic viewpoint when repeating the old adage “The more things change the more they stay the same.” The more evidence history accumulates the more facts add up to question the blind determinism of evolution as the exclusive explanation for the occurrence of events as evidenced by the conceptual revolutions  attending, e.g., the transition from classical Newtonianà Einstenian relativistic à Maxwellian quantum theories. Were these evolutionary paths obvious to their proponents? In our humble opinion QM dynamics now opens a new possibility of explaining how past, present and future may be causally connected in a quasi-deterministic way where man retains the option to choose, individually or by a collective consensus from a range of possible options with probable outcome. Man may now be able to predict the probabilities of non-immediate future scenarios within a historical time frame if a set of invariant initial conditions can be provided. Considering the invariant fact of our present human limitations to ascertain absolute reality beyond the sensory and brain-computational capacity to resolve, we may have to be content with basing our predictions on recorded history and a Turing-styled recursive parsing among neuronal or silicon data bases, all of them accounting for known natural forces acting at given instances, or influencing the temporal positions and directions of cosmological, sub-Planck and observable  objects / events. QM  will expand the scope of K. Popper’s range of determinism potential in terms of a predictability based on their statistical probability of realization. This way we also mitigate our fears about our own status as free causal agents in our existential world. David Bohm amended the classical QM by formulating the equivalent of Einstein's ‘hidden variable’ equation by claiming being able to determine, on the basis of the system's wavefunction and particles' initial positions and velocities, what their future positions and velocities should be. The un-articulated premise is that particulate matter has at all times a definite spatial position and direction profile. This development, if sustained, would bring stability and determinism to sub-Planck metaphysical reality.

We have argued for the idea that existential reality may seem like being constituted  by reflex adaptive response acts triggered into action by environmental contingencies that consciously or not are perceived as threats to the biological, psychic and social integrity of the human species in his ecological niche. During his average lifespan of 76 years there seems to be a constancy in the physical environment and the natural laws that control its slow evolution during this short period. Our world seems at times fixed and determined by external natural forces beyond our control to change even though intuitively one feels at other times as if in control of destiny by the exercise of a free will to choose among alternatives available in an indeterminate assortment of viable options. How can we be both determined and undetermined at the same time? This paradox may be resolved if we conceive reality as a hybrid unit characterized by the exigent circumstances of human biological/reproductive survival as a species and the chronic species imperative of searching  answers for the question of his origins and destiny impacting more on his psychic and social survival. We are dealing with two different time frames, lifetime and historic/geological. In so doing we need to reconcile the paradox of life time frame determinism with the indeterminism and uncertainties of the future beyond lifetime. We have developed arguments in this overview in defense of quantum and chaos dynamic theory as candidates for reconciliation providing that their mathematical analysis continues to yield alternatives compatible with the co-existence of determinism with human free agency.

        Dr. Angell O. de la Sierra, Deltona Lakes, Florida. Winter 2005

Bibliography

Beck, F., and Eccles, J. (1992). Quantum aspects of brain activity and the role of consciousness. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 89, 11357-11361.

Beck, F. (2001). Quantum brain dynamics and consciousness. In The Physical Nature of Consciousness, ed. by P. van Loocke, Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 83-116.

Bohm, D. (1990). A new theory of the relationship of mind and matter. Philosophical Psychology 3, 271-286.

Chalmers, D. (1996). The Conscious Mind. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Grush, R., and Churchland, P.S. (1995). Gaps in Penrose's toilings. Journal of Consciousness Studies 2(1), 10-29. See also the response by Penrose, R., and Hameroff, S. (1995). Journal of Consciousness Studies 2(2), 98-111.

Hagan, S., Hameroff, S.R., and Tuszynski, J.A. (2002). Quantum computation in brain microtubules: decoherence and biological feasibility. Phys. Rev. E 65, 061901-1 to -11.

Heisenberg, W. (1958). Physics and Philosophy. Harper and Row, New York.

Jung, C.G., and Pauli, W. (1955). The Interpretation of Nature and the Psyche. Pantheon, New York. Translated by P. Silz. German original Naturerklärung und Psyche. Rascher, Zürich, 1952.

Kandel, E.R., Schwartz, J.H., and Jessell, T.M. (2000). Principles of Neural Science. McGraw Hill, New York.

Kane, R. (1996). The Significance of Free Will. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Kaneko, K., and Tsuda, I. (2000). Chaos and Beyond. Springer, Berlin.

Penrose, R. (1989). The Emperor's New Mind. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Penrose, R. (1994). Shadows of the Mind. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Pessa, E., and Vitiello, G. (2003). Quantum noise, entanglement and chaos in the quantum field theory of mind/brain states. Mind and Matter 1, 59-79.

Popper, K.R., and Eccles, J.C. (1977). The Self and Its Brain. Springer, Berlin.

Schwartz, J.M., Stapp, H.P., and Beauregard, M. (2004). Quantum physics in neuroscience and psychology: a new model with respect to mind/brain interaction. Preprint.

Stapp, H.P. (1993). A quantum theory of the mind-brain interface. In Mind, Matter, and Quantum Mechanics, Springer, Berlin, pp. 145-172.

Tegmark, M. (2000). Importance of quantum decoherence in brain processes. Physical Review E 61, 4194-4206.

Wheeler, J.A. (1994). It from bit. In At Home in the Universe, American Institute of Physics, Woodbury, pp. 295-311, references pp. 127-133.

Understanding the ‘Consciousness’ Literature.

To know something supposes an act of the understanding, i.e., when we experience an object or event and then are able to distinguish it. 

Introduction.

          The physical brain and the metaphysical mind are so inexorably intertwined one with the other in their functionality that they become an inseparable hybrid unit. What we know about the brain is the result of direct observations, simulations in the laboratory or metaphysical logic inferences therefrom, especially when dealing with relevant aspects beyond the materiality of the physical brain or when the complexity resides outside the limited resolution of the brain’s own sensory or computational capacities. Consequently, whatever perspective we wish to examine about the mind must always keep the brain, however indirectly, in proper focus lest we end up in a fantasy-land dissertation / explanation or a poetic exercise. All multidisciplinary narratives carry along the lingo typical of their individual discipline components. Consciousness is no exception.

From the very outset we should distinguish between the explanation of the philosopher and the description of the practicing scientist. It is much easier to make credible ‘descriptions’ of observables from a science-based knowledge of brain function than to ‘explain’ the brain from a philosophy-based analysis of the mind, especially so when the philosopher is unfamiliar with the brain. Both approaches are ultimately inference-based and the analyst needs to have some basic familiarity with the most complete and fundamental theory of matter that of course includes brain matter, i.e., quantum theory. As it turns out, theoretical physicists are in reality natural philosophers, less concerned –in consciousness studies- with descriptions than with explanations, for the obvious reasons attending any study of complexity. It is always preferable –because of credibility- to discuss the intangible mind from the perspective of empirical facts about the brain than the reverse; but it should be clear that this is only a pedagogical convenience and not an absolute necessity. That being the case, it behooves students of consciousness to familiarize themselves with the lingo of complexity studies, Wittgenstein’s warnings about language semantics and a working knowledge of quantum theory and logic. In the interest of brevity we will be selective in the choice of examples to illustrate the point.

Argumentation

          Even among prominent neuroscientists we often find a clear category confusion between an epistemological explanation and an ontological description, like we say “confusing the (epistemological) map with the (ontological) territory.”. This is especially so among practicing physicists and engineers whose formative training emphasized, as it should have, on the practical solution of problems with a focus on pragmatism (science philosophers in ‘akadummy’ retire early. J) What that kind of formal training didn’t emphasize was that ALL science is essentially, inherently subjective because WE humans are the observers of the “objective” reality and cannot dissociate one from the other, a direct consequence of the hybrid nature of existential reality. Consequently our observations and conclusions are as good as the resolution capacity of our sensory receptors and the resolution of our brain combinatorial capacity to permute, combine, sort, etc. brain representations of the observable data; very limited indeed when compared to sense resolution in other biological species and machine digital computation. To this species limitation we add our inborn curiosity about our origins and destiny that forces us to intuit that there IS a reality out there beyond those limits of resolution and we naturally extend our conclusions beyond the material reality of the observed empirical phenomenology; enter metaphysics as a sine qua non component of the physical structure of reality. Many practicing scientists, not so much in denial as not being properly educated, would even deny the relevance of metaphysics to their disciplines!

To make sense of the consciousness literature one must therefore be very attentive to the implied epistemological assumptions when taken as facts, the implied level of organization (conscious, subconscious, unconscious, etc.) and often the neuro-physiological level of description and/or explanation (cellular, molecular, atomic, etc.).

Once a consciousness student realizes that brain matter is subject to the same quantum influences as any matter anywhere else in the material world, the obvious focus would have to be, inevitably, ultimately to describe or explain how may that non-physical mind be causally efficient in driving the physical brain into adaptive motor responses, if at all. This constitutes the very basis for the claimed existence of a human ‘free will’ in what seems to be a perfectly deterministic world, even when the behavior of empirical macro objects and events are more often than not statistically determined. At the Planck level of organization (also called the microphysics level) the indeterminism of individual quantum events is likewise constrained by statistical laws. The new frontier in consciousness research unavoidably would have to focus on this level of organization when exploring how quantum field theory may mediate as a possible special ‘semantic glue’ bridging the physical world determinism we witness, the epistemic interpretations we offer to describe / explain them and conscious free will that participated (or not) in shaping it; as we have discussed in a previous paper on a hybrid concept of existential reality, see also Stapp. In this investigative effort we must be especially aware of the exclusive use of quantum theory interpretations of consciousness as pure metaphor by some proponents who spend no effort to define e.g., how the mental discernment that we experience (preceding the execution of ‘free will’) can be analyzed in terms of its quantum equivalent in entanglement, superposition, collapse or complementariness as it happens in other specific empirical situations, e.g., Froehlich’s non-linear coupling of biomolecular dipoles in the microwave region (see below for some other brief examples). It is also important to ascertain what resources (mathematical, experimental, first person narratives, etc.) do published accounts use to view any alleged quantum correlation –observed or inferred- between mind and brain.

Recent literature has speculated on how may quantum field theory be consistent with a human free will. Physical determinism and conscious free will -and their consequent existential implications therein generated- have important sociodynamic questions that remain un-answered. To follow this interesting debate we need to evaluate the resources offered to back up any claim about the alleged correlations between the empirical measurements and the deductive conclusions. For example we need to examine how close this mind-body relationship is, is it assumed, inferred, observed or measured with instruments? Is the brain considered identical with the mind(monism), similar or separate entities (dualism)? We say that there is a natural supervenience of the mind with the brain. Notice immediately that a supervenient correlation implies a dependence relation between the properties or facts about the mind and properties and facts about the brain, correlation being a descriptive term with empirical relevance. Notice also however that causation, so important in the empirical sciences, is simply a relationship between a cause and an effect (or result) whether an event, object or state. Sandwiched between the causal agent and the result there may be a third hidden entity that both share simultaneously without any causal interaction being involved. An explanation is only an epistemological / theoretical attempt to find meanings (practical or not) in the observed and described correlations. Causations are essentially unidirectional and not always reversible correlations (except in recursive cyclings) between two or more systems involved. To illustrate physical causation we usually speak of the four fundamental kinds of (electromagnetic, weak, strong and gravitational) interactions which just explain the empirical correlations that are observed in physical systems. Notice that even an accurate description of an observable object or event (an observed / measured ‘how’) is NOT necessarily conditioned to result from a direct causal relationship (usually an inferred explanation), not to mention the ‘why’ of the object/event presence (usually justified in the theological domain).

If and when we speak of a strong or absolute reduction of mind events, where claims are made that all conscious states and properties can be formally reduced to the material domain (materialism) and specifically to physics (physicalism), we mean we have approximated the dependence further with a resulting formula, symbol or algorithm, what is termed a ‘logical supervenience’, a rare situation indeed sometimes seen in e.g., geometry. Without such proof any claims of ‘reduction’ (horse blinder approach) means that knowledge of the brain alone is necessary and sufficient to understand the mental domain, e.g., cognition. When limits to a reduction are recognized we speak of ‘weaker’ reductions; like when describing the empirical fact that the visual cortex V1 increases its glucose uptake when some object is flashed into the retina of a subject -as indicated by a PET scan- This does not establish an unequivocal causal relationship and never explains the why. Physicists describe the ‘how’ while metaphysicists explain the ‘why’ as noted above. There may be natural, repeatable, falsifiable and observable facts in a correlation but this does NOT establish a logical supervenience. See Chalmer’s “The Conscious Mind”. Tree apples always fall to the ground and the mind may consistently ‘cause’ an observed brain response but that does not imply necessarily an interactivity that can be empirically measured and described, let alone logically explained, e.g., what is life, gravitation, the mind? Anyone thinking that DNA can explain life,..... better think about it again.. J The complexity of describing how a physical brain may interact with a non-physical mind brings into the scene the monistic approach, as we mentioned above, which considers the knowledge of the brain as necessary and sufficient to understand the mind states for them considered as ‘epiphenomena’. The eliminative materialism of the Churchlands is an extreme monistic approach that wouldn’t even consider the mind-brain correlations as existing.

          An epiphenomenal mental state is not to be confused with an emergent state in that the latter does not predicate its existence exclusively on that of the brain substrate and may have an independent origin (dualism). Contemporary dualism is a modified version of the classical Cartesianism that viewed reality as consisting of 2 disparate ‘parts’, a type of ‘substance’ dualism in the form of a thinking mind and extended matter. To escape the characterization of the mind as either a ‘part’, substance or ‘being’ some prefer to speak of a ‘functional’ dualism. In our own biopsychosocial (bps) model of consciousness we have adopted by reference the Kantian version of dualism as modified to accommodate a neutral ‘psychophysical’ interface where quantum theory may play a substantial role in explaining their natural supervenience in terms of a hybrid reality unit. In it we find empirical sense phenomena and the subsequent transcendental noumena which the brain elaborates when representing and understanding empirical phenomena. There are various types of dualism, e.g., in Chalmer’s psychophysical model where information plays a dominant role corresponding to our modified view of Kant’s model. The CTMU model of Langan banks heavily on a universal syntax information model. The hybrid model of reality gives birth to an interesting paradox for the ingrained physicalist who must swallow hard the fact that quantum theory is the most successful model of matter based mostly on axiom-based mathematical logic inferences (explicate, first person account domain) about our limited empirical observations (implicate, third person account domain)!

Is quantum theory science or philosophy?? Only the open-minded knows better than excluding the metaphysical domain from science and, at the same time accepts the fact about his sensory and brain-computational limitations. Metaphysics is NOT dead! This should never be construed as an exhortation to abandon the laboratory where science is born, just the opposite, to talk about consciousness requires being familiar with the physical brain substrate wherein ‘resides’ the elusive mind and the metaphysical logic to extend the comprehension of that being observed and / or computed.

To illustrate the possible practical importance of the preceding argument we will briefly consider a model that describes the transition from the continuously evolving Schrödinger wave function quantum state to a discontinuous ‘eigenstate’ b of the measured observable B, i.e., the reduction or ‘collapse’ of a reversible state (wave function) à irreversible state (eigenstate) with defined probabilities (of future outcomes). This is an example of how an instant conscious volitional mental act (of choice) can be framed into the mathematical “projection postulate” of von Neumann when the brain mediates the position between the observer and the observed, i.e., between the sense-phenomenal event and the effector response formulation by the observer from available alternatives as we discussed in a previous paper. How these claims may be rooted on measured observables Stapp, Beck and Eccles elaborate on how the measurable macro level quantum uncertainties originating during pre-synaptic / post-synaptic information transfer at neuronal synapses (conformational macromolecular changes in ion channels, neurotransmitter exocytosis, etc.) can be amplified (phase, resonant, amplitude, spin coupling) to generate measurable entanglements of brain activity (EEG, MEG). The volitional conscious event is a post discernment choice among the probable alternatives. As discussed elsewhere, we believe that the complex act of integrating all relevant factors (biological, psychic and social) and their re-segregation into neuronal assemblies of possible alternatives of choice is done unconsciously, the conscious act been relegated to choosing for the alternative most compatible with a positive emotional qualia (happiness, relaxation, euphoria, etc.), i.e., each potential event has an associated qualia experience or intrinsic actuality that becomes its recognized label at the moment of choosing (actualizing a probable state co-generates the qualia experience); we called it ‘proximate causation’. This neuronal-based mental state arguably would qualify as ontological in nature which justifies the characterization of its reality as ‘hybrid’ in nature. It is this ‘intrinsic actuality’ that Stapp argues as ‘ontic’ as opposed to ‘epistemic’ in nature. This way the integration / synchronization of the neuronal synaptic events in the assemblies become the neural correlate of ‘unconscious’ events at the discernment stage prior to the conscious superposition that precedes the collapse of the associated wave function, as explained, where the probability of a potential act is now materialized. To the trained neurophysiologist there is no mystery in the common place observation of how both inherited and acquired bps factors influence the plasticity of neuronal networks connectivities at unconscious levels in the form of complex physiological reflexes triggered into conscious reality by just willing its occurrence...or inhibition (act against self preservation). Once a sense-phenomenal event activates a relevant neuronal assembly, the attending bio-molecular synaptic events, among other things, induce a symmetry breakdown and propagation over the brain of the bosonic modes thereby generated (mesons, photons). The dynamically ordered / correlated states produced in the neuronal networks represent the entanglement or coherent state that precedes the collapse (choice).

The unconscious integration of bps constitutive elements is guided by their survival value to the human species. This being said, is it still far-fetched to say that every conscious mental state has an associated physical counterpart in the form of the collapsed eigenstate. This idea may be too much for the physicalist mind set to stomach and we suspect that they fear that placing a hybrid entity / being between epistemology and ontology is mind-boggling, especially if reality ultimately should be reduced to a universal syntax, e.g., CTMU model. The alert reader will immediately notice the logical gymnastic effort to assign physicality to a mind / information entity to avoid the closure in the physical domain obstacle when describing its interaction with the physical brain.

A reciprocal, dynamic, causal and intentional interactivity between the physical brain and non-physical mind is more than anyone, except the intellectually daring, bargained for. In our opinion Freeman’s data on the olfactory system of rabbits –as discussed elsewhere- is convincing argumentation that quantum field theory and Beck’s stochastic resonance amplification can be literally applied to material brain states. By contrast, the Penrose-Hammerof model of consciousness is predicated upon a ‘postulated’ coherent entanglement of the ubiquitous tubulin molecule (changes in their conformational states in neuronal microtubules) caused to subsequently collapse under the influence of another ‘postulated’ gravitation-induced objective state reduction, the latter equated as a willed act of consciousness. This approach requires modifications of both quantum theory and general relativity to accommodate ‘quantum gravity’ and ignore the concept of time as we know it, and for now it won’t fly.

One very interesting leading-edge concept is slowly evolving about the role for the psycho-physical neutral interface as championed by Jung and Pauli. This approach gives ‘ontic’ physicality to information. However, it should be noted that this non-epistemological treatment of information is a significant departure from the familiar syntacto / semantic Shannon type information theory where recursive parsing among Chomskyan partition alternatives would become irrelevant.

Summary and Conclusions.

       Most practicing physicists and engineers approaching retirement age and whose formal training and current practice emphasized, as it should have, on the practical solution of problems with a focus on pragmatism experience conceptual difficulties in accepting the possibility that the ontic randomness of measured quantum events may well provide room for an analysis of mental causation, i.e., the possibility that conscious mental acts can influence brain behavior. They refuse to abandon the dogma of ‘closure in the physical domain’ notwithstanding the real challenge presented by a quantum theory operating at a Planck level of organization they can’t either see or measure directly a la Newton. Only mathematicians, ‘akadummys’ or HiQers have taken the painful task of being open-minded, revolutionary and willing to spend the time and effort to cross disciplines and learn their associated lingoes and other linguistic nuances, e.g., modal logic where a syllogism has three variations. It is not often that practicing scientists see a syllogism other than as an argument consisting of stated premises being followed of necessity by a conclusion that is different from the stated premises, if the premises (universal statements) are true (for all, some or one), the conclusion must also be true (categorical syllogism). But now, more often than not, in the hypothetical syllogism, both premises (wave or particle) and / or conclusions (probabilities) may be conditional, e.g., where Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle applies. More troublesome are the disjunctive syllogisms where the leading premise (e.g., behaves as a wave or a particle) may find the other premise denying one of the previous alternatives and the conclusion being the remaining alternative. Like it or not, the classical logic analysis based on Boolean Algebras has given way to quantum logic to accommodate mathematical representations of quantum mechanical, mind-boggling measurements (e.g., slit experiments) in the physics laboratory.

        Intoxicated by the symbolic celebration of the phenomenal successes of Newtonian mechanics where the classical dynamics of a particle position, momentum, energy, etc. nicely fit into a commutative type algebraic representation in Boolean algebra, the practicing physicists can’t easily conceive of a non-commutative, non-Boolean quantum logic to explain the elusive probabilistic behavior of particles in the atomic and subatomic Planck level of organization as manifested in the laboratory measurements of observables. As it turns out this approach is the best fit for explaining fundamental processes attending particle dynamics in the universe, notwithstanding the fact that this way the certainty becomes a probability and measurements seem uncertain and irreducible, like those complexities we find when analyzing life and consciousness, c’est la guerre about existential realism. The quantum analysis captures the ‘state’ during an instant measurement as represented by the time-dependent state function (state vector). The evolution of the ‘state’ as a function of time (based on observable measurements of position, momentum, energy, spin, etc., e.g., slit experiments) is described by the Schrödinger equation. For a given possible value of an observable, it can be calculated the probability of it becoming its true value if measured, see Born. As it happens, one can not simultaneously evaluate the linear acceleration of a particle in a given direction and also simultaneously ascertain its position in the same direction (Heisenberg uncertainty principle), thus we settle for characterizing the ‘state’ at an instant in time, an incomplete but realistic description of the real physical state ‘in se’. More uncanny has been the observation that two such systems can interact and then separate infinitely BUT remaining correlated (tangled, synchronized!), what we now call ‘non-locality’. This requires that alterations in one get transmitted to the next at speeds exceeding that of light itself!, just what we need to explain the speed of thought!!  This is another instance of our human species limitations to acquire knowledge about ‘things’ we can’t see or precise their location, especially as it moves at the speed of light or higher.

Our existential reality, at any level of human comprehension, is a ‘derivative reality’, one that is logically inferred from the ‘invisible original’ by a differential calculus of variations and also by deductive integration of their ‘invisible’ constitutive parts until both sensory and computational invisibilities acquire a ‘critical mass’ that makes their cognitive intuition at the conceptual and sense-phenomenal level possible. Thus there are things ‘in se’ (beyond our cognitive capacities) and things ‘derived’ both conceptually (by analysis) and empirically (by sense-phenomenal synthesis). Materialist scientists ignore these facts especially how human efforts to compensate for these inherited limitations have historically manifested in theologies. Rather than ignore the role they play in existential reality it would make sense to deal with something that just won’t go away, if history is a reliable witness. Like Will Durant said: “Those who ignore the lessons of history will be condemned to repeat it.”

This brief survey is an open invitation to studious scientists and materialist philosophers to seriously consider the possibility of naturalizing epistemology (see Quine) and considering existential reality as hybrid in nature…. Or should the foundations of quantum theory be reconsidered as no more than just information about the invisible reality ‘in se’?, (see Fuchs).

Dr. Angell O. de la Sierra, Esq. Deltona Lakes, Florida   Winter 2006

Bibliography:

1. Beck, F. (2001). Quantum brain dynamics and consciousness. In The Physical Nature of Consciousness, ed. by P. van Locke, Benjamins, Amsterdam.

2. Beck, F., and Eccles, J. (1992). Quantum aspects of brain activity and the role of consciousness. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA.

 3. de la Sierra, A. (2006). The Possible Quantal Interface and the Hybrid Nature of Reality. Part I. Telicom Vol. XIX, No.1

3. de la Sierra, A. (2006). The Possible Quantal Interface and the Hybrid Nature of Reality. Part II. Exploring the Interface. In Press

4. Flohr, H. (2000). NMDA receptor-mediated computational processes and phenomenal consciousness. In Neural Correlates of Consciousness. Empirical and Conceptual Questions, ed. by T. Metzinger, MIT Press, Cambridge.

3. Fröhlich, H. (1968). Long range coherence and energy storage in biological systems. International Journal of Quantum Chemistry.

4. Fuchs, C.A. (2002). Quantum mechanics as quantum information. In Quantum Theory: Reconsideration of Foundations, Växjö University Press, Växjö.

5. Grush, R., and Churchland, P.S. (1995). Gaps in Penrose's toilings. Journal of Consciousness Studies.

6. Hameroff, S.R., and Penrose, R. (1996). Conscious events as orchestrated spacetime selections. Journal of Consciousness Studies.

7. Jung, C.G., and Pauli, W. (1955). The Interpretation of Nature and the Psyche. Pantheon, New York.

8. Neumann, J. von (1955). Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics. Princeton University Press, Princeton.

9. Penrose, R. (1994). Shadows of the Mind. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

10. Penrose, R., and Hameroff, S. (1995). Journal of Consciousness Studies.

11. Pessa, E., and Vitiello, G. (2003). Quantum noise, entanglement and chaos in the quantum field theory of mind/brain states. Mind and Matter.

12. Stapp, H.P. (1999). Attention, intention, and will in quantum physics. Journal of Consciousness Studies.