Page 1

Modern Interactive Dualism Author: Ming Yip May 18, 2018 Draft version: Heavily revised in Section 2

Contents 1 Introduction

3

2 Brain Cheating Component Paradox

8

3 Binding Problem again with Synergistic Set

15

4 Synergistic Set

18

5 Connection Point

22

6 General System Cycle

38

7 Axiom (II) again

39

8 Communication Protocol

41

9 Conclusion

45

10 Possible preliminary solutions to some mysteries of neuroscience

47

10.1 Mystery of ‘feedback’ problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

48

10.2 Mystery of neural synchronization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

57

11 Preliminary Solution to the Mystery of Time Arrow

58

12 Preliminary Solution to the philosophical ‘Personal Identity Problem’

62

1


Appendix A Spinned Particle

66

2


1

Introduction

A new form of interactive dualism model will be proposed in this article, which in principle is verifiable/falsifiable and can help to solve some long standing fundamental and serious philosophical problems regarding consciousness. Why do I write this article? The reason is simple; the model proposed in this article will solve some serious problems that otherwise theories based on Physicalism are unable to solve! Also the model is in principally verifiable/falsifiable. The model which I will propose is substantially different from the classical Cartesian Dualism proposed by Rene Descartes in the 17th century, which has long been rejected by modern neuroscience.

Among those serious problems regarding consciousness we are facing, one of the most explicit and will be solved in this article, is called the ‘personal identity’ problem. To clarify the problem in a most simple way, let me ask you a question; have you ever at some point in your life, that you wake up one day on your bed in the morning, start to wondering, why you stay in the same body before and after sleep? You may think that the answer is because it is the same brain stayed in the same body before/after sleep, and your ‘self’ is equivalent to your brain, right? But if you consider the substances that make up your brain cells, they are always changing due to metabolism, while you still remain as the same you after the substances replacement, such thinking will stop you from equaling your ‘self’ to your brain.

How about if we consider there is a continuation of brain states that allow the continuation of your ‘self’ before/after sleep? Apart from the lack of criterion of what does it mean by ‘a continuation of brain states’, it will be almost absurd to think that the two brain states before/after sleep would be similar enough to constitute such ‘continuation’. Or to amplify the problem a little bit; how about the two brain states before/after coma, anesthesia, or even serious brain injury? For those who sustain such huge disruption of brain states continuity, one can still confidently declare that they experience the same ‘self’ before/after the disruption, may stop you again from equaling your ‘self”s continuation to ‘brain states continuation’. So how about memories? Do memories make two instances of ‘self’ be fall

3


into the same self continuation? I think this is just another form of ‘brain states continuation’ argument, so is still subject to the same disadvantages. In fact, it would be absurd to consider that a person would stop to exist and be replaced by a different person, after such person’s memories were seriously lost, or even altered, by brain damages, diseases or mental illness.

Up to this point, the problem of ‘personal identity’ can now be easily understood; The problem is, what makes the ‘self’ at one moment and the ‘self’ at another moment be in the same ‘self’ continuation (in the same brain)? Or put the problem in another way; what makes your ‘self’ to always remain in your brain at your life time instead of jumping into another ‘self’ continuation in another brain? Indeed, the problem is so significant and difficult to solve so it would deserve a lot of discussions. For the detailed accounts of the long standing philosophical ‘personal identity’ problem, you may find a lot resources on the internet, such as: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_identity https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/identity-personal/ http://www.iep.utm.edu/person-i/ I think the crucial point is, what make the notion of ‘self’ different from other physical entities is that, for two ‘self’ instances to happen, they can only be either in the same ‘self’ continuation or in different ‘self’ continuation, there does not allow a fuzzy intermediate condition to happen between the two situations. However, for physicalism, and the logics eventually and inevitably derived from it, would always allow such fuzzy intermediate condition to occur. If people are trapped in the physicalism’s ideology, such conflict would be very hard to solve. As you will see, the interactive dualism model proposed in this article will eventually provide a simple but logical well defined solution to the ‘personal identity’ problem in Section 12, as it does not allow such fuzzy intermediate condition to occur.

Frankly speaking, my first intention of writing this article was not trying to solve the ‘personal identity’ problem. Instead, I was trying to solve another equally explicit and serious problem called the ‘binding problem’ of consciousness. To show you what the ‘binding prob4


lem’ of consciousness really means, let us begin on the morning bed again. Have you ever at some point in your life, when you wake up on your bed, start to wondering why you wake up in the same body for everyday? Your consciousness seems to have a definite location; that location is your brain. You are destined to bind to your particular brain throughout your whole life, whether you like it or not. That idea of one consciousness resides at one location seems intuitively satisfying. However, as the issue is drilled further as we will see, a serious problem will arise.

Now, if you begin to do a simple analysis of your consciousness, you will easily find that the ‘single entity’ as ‘yourself’ is definitely not as ‘single’ as it initially appearing. Your sensation is generally divided into seeing, hearing, smelling, touching, each with very different quality. Your seeing is separated as left eye and right eye, your hearing is separated as left ear and right ear, your touching sensation can be decomposed to associate with numerous parts of your body such as left hand and right hand, left leg and right leg, etc.. , even your mind can be dissect into emotional, analytical, etc.. Mysteriously, even your consciousness is comprised of such extremely large amount of these little elements, you never feel that you are divided into numerous ‘you’; all these little consciousness elements or sensations combines perfectly and coherently working as a single you. The most explicit example is that your left eye and right eye captures two images but they appear to your consciousness as if they are in a single image with 3D perception. When your visual perception see an apple, you begin to percept the desire of eating the apple; here the visual perception and desire perception are combined to be felt by a single consciousness.

The seemingly multiple attributes of consciousness poses no problem. Just as many other things, a single object can usually be decomposed into many sub-elements. What is the most bizarre aspect about consciousness is that, different sub-elements of consciousness are actually arise from different distinct physical location/regions of the brain. Modern neuroscience has rejected the notion of a single soul resides at a single location in brain combines all senses perceived by a unified self. In fact, ‘self’ is distributed across multiple regions of the brain. For example, your visual perception arise from the visual cortex of your brain. Your audi5


tory perception arise from your the auditory cortex of your brain. How the different senses produced from different distinct physical location from the brain can still be combined and perceived by a single self is so-called the ‘Binding Problem’. You can easily find out plenty of much more detailed account articles about Binding Problem on the internet yourself. e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binding_problem. As from the above reference, the notion of Binding Problem can appear even in a very radical way; The perception of a red ball image is actually build from the ‘red’ sensation from a group of a neurons, and the ‘ball’ sensation from another group of neurons. Current neuroscience has provided no satisfactory explanation for how the brain combines the ‘red’ sensation and ‘ball’ sensation associated with two distinct physical group of neurons give rise to one unified ‘red ball’ perception in the consciousness.

In this article, I will try to take a break from Physicalism, by proposing a verifiable/falsifiable model based on interactive dualism, which could solve both the ‘personal identity’ problem and ‘binding problem’ of consciousness. The model contain several distinguishing features: • Phenomenal consciousness is assumed as ontologically resided apart from our physical world, and it communicates with the physical world via connection points in an animal’s brain. There is no specific localized center of connection point in the brain; Instead, the connection points are distributed widely across the brain. Such widely distributed connection points model fit quite well to the modern neuroscience’s knowledge that there is no single centralized location of consciousness to exist in the brain. Because the behavior of such connection points do not violate physical rules, hence they are hidden so well in biological neurons and can hardly be detected in nowadays. The term ‘communication’ used here means consciousness can perceive events in our physical world and produce causal effects to our physical world via the connection points. Actually, the term ‘point’ used here is for convenient sake. As your will see later, a connection point is actually a pair of spinned particles producing random values. The reason for that will become clear later. • The model is based on a quite confident presumption that consciousness itself cannot 6


transfer information from one place to another. Furthermore, the model should obey a well recognized physical rule, that is, the transferral speed of information cannot exceed the speed of light. • Consciousness produce its effect to the physical world in the way of bit by bit information transmission (1 bit of information can be conveniently expressed via the symbol of 0 or 1). As you will see later, only such way of communication is possible in regard to the unity of consciousness without violating the presumption that consciousness itself cannot transfer information from one place to another. How the 0 or 1 bit string produce meaningful effect is another problem; for example, in the case of a receiver device in digital communication, there should exist a protocol for the receiver of how to translate a continuous string of 0/1 information into some meaningful action, such as reconstructing back a movie picture, or a sound track, etc.. My speculation on how the brain can translate the 0/1 string of information transmitted from consciousness into useful action in the most simplest way will be discussed in the article. • There are several interesting logical consequences from the model, including that multiple ‘self’s are allowed to be produced in one brain, ‘self’(s)/consciousness(s) can be merged and split, and ‘self’ can be transferred from one set of substrate to another set of substrate (Section 12). For a point to note, the whole concept of interactive dualism still sounds weird to me; how can consciousness be assumed as a non-physical entity and still can produce physical effect in the physical world? One may simply resort to the idea that the physical world is just a simulation:

(http://gizmodo.com/5-reasons-our-universe-might-actually-be-a-virtual-real-1665353513). The physical world is just a simulation strictly accords to set of physical laws. In such simulation, sentient beings’ consciousness experiencing in it and is allowed to produce causal effect in that simulation strictly accords to set of physical laws. Whether the world is/is not a simulation is up to further study. However, this article only concentrates on the topic that if consciousness is non-physical, how is it allowed to produce causal effect in the physical world strictly obeying physical laws?

7


2

Brain Cheating Component Paradox

Some of the readers may already have questioned the title - ”Why in modern time should we bring back the consideration of Interactive Dualism?” For those who are well acknowledged with the Philosophy of Mind surely may recall the renowned French philosopher Rene Descartes; and his famous proposal of ’Cartesian dualism’, that the consciousness and physical brain are fundamentally different things in nature, and somehow the consciousness interact with the physical world via a small brain structure called the ’pineal gland’. However, when he was further questioned of how an immaterial, non-physical consciousness can be physically effecting a physical structure - such as the pineal gland, he gave no satisfactory answer.

In this paper I will propose an interesting ’principled model’ via a new modern approach to the idea of Interactive Dualism. I call it a ’principled-model’ because such model will appear to be new, simple and pre-matured, that there is no scientific evidence whatsoever in nowadays to support its existence in the brain of animals/human. Nevertheless, I regard it as deserving to be proposed because the new model may assist in offering solution to a serious lingering mystery in modern philosophy of mind and neuroscience - namely the Binding Problem of Consciousness.

Notably I have encountered some people who simply deny the existence of the Binding Problem of Consciousness, which I regard their denial is invalid; I think their denial is either due to lack of understanding of the problem or due to misunderstanding of the problem. In order to assist my dear readers to grasp a sound understanding of the nature of the problem, through the following I will illustrate the problem via the discussion of a very interesting paradox, which I will name it as the ’Brain Cheating Component Paradox’. The ’Brain Cheating Component Paradox’ though was conceived by myself originally; was indeed largely inspired by an excellent paper called the ’Absent Qualia, Fading Qualia, Dancing Qualia’, authored by the famous philosopher David Chalmers renowned mostly for his studies in the Philosophy of Mind. In my opnion it is a must-read paper for anyone who is

8


interested in the philosophical study of consciousness. As you will see, the construction of the ’Brain Cheating Component Paradox’ in this paper will just be an extension from the ’Dancing Qualia’ discussion in the ’Absent Qualia, Fading Qualia, Dancing Qualia’ paper: http://cogprints.org/318/1/qualia.html but surprisingly, it will turn out to be against the standpoint of Functionalism defend in that paper!

Now, Let us start with a scenario supposing that there is a an old lady face presenting in front of you, and someone is asking you whether she is your grandmother. For a normal person that will be an easy task to answer for yes or no. After all, your human brain is such an excellent information processing system to recognize human face. Just like any other information processing system in a mechanical point of view, you brain facing this simple task can be regard as an input-output system; fed with a huge amount of input information required to represent the image of a human face, and output only one bit of information indicating whether she is your grandmother. More specifically, in this task your brain is doing ’dissipative’ information processing; the information processing which produce less amount of output information transformed from its huge amount of input information. In general terms, the purpose of a dissipative information processing system is to transform a larger but not so useful set of information into a smaller but more useful set of information aiming for a specific task. As an abstracting and filtering process on information, some information are discard in the process, in due course heat are generated, that is why such process is called ’dissipative’.

The organization structure of most complicate dissipative information processing systems is analogous to a pyramid; organized in successive hierarchical layers from the largest at the bottom gradually decreasing over each layer up to the smallest at the top, with the size of each layer represent the amount of information passing through and be processed. Each layer represent an overall dissipative processing module accepting the processed information output from its previous layer, with the current layer further transform and discard redundant information to produce more representative information in fewer amount to the next layer. Information fed to the bottom of pyramid represent the system input information, 9


which are the most noisy, variant, and in the largest amount. As information flowing up the pyramid its amount is continuously decreasing, becoming less noisy and more static, until the top final layer where information is output in the most static, representative and useful form in the least amount aimed for a specific task.

Human visual system is an excellent pattern recognition system, no wonder which is also a dissipative information processing system. Why? Because pattern recognition system map a complex variant pattern of information to some specific classified static output; during such process information is discard and dissipated as heat. No wonder human visual system is also organized in a functional hierarchical structure. Although human visual system involves various distinct regions of the brain. However, only the highest level functions represented as nearby the top of the information processing hierarchy are implemented by brain regions apart from Visual Cortex, such as the Inferior Temporal Cortex (IT) and the Frontal Cortex. All the lower level functions underneath the top of hierarchy are implemented by Visual Cortex. For example, supposed you have recognized your grandmother after seeing the old lady face, you may wonder where do the ’recognizing’ happen in your brain? Well, it is at the top of the information processing pyramid realized by the Inferior Temporal Cortex (IT), at where the information is greatly reduced and extracted for important features to identify your grandmother. Your recognition of your grandmother allows you to produce one bit of information to answer YES/NO for whether the old lady face belongs to your grandmother. However, during the recognition phase when looking at your grandmother, Yo don’t just perceive your grandmother face as one small piece of information; you vividly perceive the fine details of your grandmother face at the same time. So where does this vividly fine details visual perception happen in your brain? It does not happen hear by the top of the information processing pyramid, because at these layers information have been greatly reduced and symbolized, it does not contain enough information to construct a fine detailed visual perception; and there is no need to; otherwise a double coding system is just for wasting resources. Instead, the vivid fine detailed visual perception arise from the Visual Cortex, which fully include the hierarchical layers underneath the top of the information processing pyramid, where enough information are still present for the construction 10


of fine details. So in conclusion we have just pinpoint the Visual Cortex as the brain region where the fine detailed visual perception arise. Afterwards, we will proceed to an interesting thought experiment to demonstrate the Brain Cheating Component Paradox.

Principally we can divide the brain into two components - the Visual Cortex and the rest of the brain. Basing on the modern scientific presumption that information processing in the brain are all that necessary and sufficient to produce all brain functions, we can in principle basing on the brain states and environment states at a certain time point, to computationally predict the temporal evolution of brain states started from that time point to the future. Equivalently but more specifically, we can computationally predict to the future about the output signals from the Visual Cortex communicating to the rest of the brain, and such prediction can be recorded down. In that way, a device can be built to mimic the output signals of Visual Cortex from the records of the signals prediction. Such device does not have the information processing capability of a Visual Cortex, it is only a playback device like a MP3 player. If we detach the Visual Cortex from the brain and replacing it with the mimicking cheating device re-connecting it up to the brain; since that cheating device is fully producing Visual Cortex’s signals on the right times at the right places, the rest of the brain cannot tell the difference. Now, if we install a switch at the connection interface between the Visual Cortex and rest of the brain, and that switch can be flipped back and forth to either allow the rest of the brain to connecting up to Visual Cortex or to the mimicking cheating device. So by switching back and forth will not change the brain states evolution and the predict outward behaviors of that brain. During seeing his grandmother when the brain is connecting to his Visual Cortex, the subject is asked whether he can vividly perceive the fine details of his grandmother face, as expected he will say YES. Next, if the switch is flipped and now his brain is connecting to the mimicking cheating device, then the subject is asked again with the same question, as expected he will say YES again, because his predict outward behaviors cannot be changed by switching. Now, something strange is happening here; Draw from previous conclusion that the fine detailed visual perception can only arise from Visual Cortex, and that replacing mimicking cheating device is only a playback device which cannot produce any sensation whatsoever; How can the subject still report he per11


ceives the vivid fine details of his grandmother face, after his Visual Cortex is replaced by a dummy cheating device? Please note that after switching even if the subject is not present with an old lady face in front of his eyes, he will still report seeing the old lady face vividly in details as according to the logic of this thought experiment, as his visual system is hijack by that dummy cheating device. As a result, you may think that after switching, his brain is no longer a normal brain, therefore his reporting only reflect his mis-judgment of sensation, intentional cheating, or hallucination caused by the switching. However, Visual Cortex only constitute a small portion of human brain, and it is a highly specialized module dedicated to visual processing but not so critical for memory, personality or judgement functioning. If you compare the rest of the brain apart from Visual Cortex before/after switching, you will find no structural alteration or any disruption to normal functioning; the rest of the brain even receive the appropriate normal expected signals from Visual Cortex/Mimicking Cheating Device before/after switching! Therefore, the switching cannot cause his mis-judgment of sensation, or his changing from genuine reporting to intentional cheating to occur. Hence, we conclude that he does indeed perceive the vivid detailed old lady face after switching, either by hallucination or not.

If his perception is not due to hallucination, the paradox arises because: • Draw from previous conclusion that the fine detailed visual perception can only arise from Visual Cortex, because only where has enough information to construct his vivid fine detailed visual perception. But after switching, his Visual Cortex has been replaced by the mimicking cheating device, which is unable to produce any sensation whatsoever. Hence, he should not have vivid fine detailed visual perception after switching, which contradict the conclusion that he does indeed perceive the vivid detailed old lady face after switching. If his perception is due to hallucination, the paradox still arises, because: • Due to as said, the rest of his brain is functioning normally after switching. Therefore the hallucination can only be constructed by his Visual Cortex, which unfortunately has been replaced by the dummy device after switching. Hence, such hallucination has arisen from 12


nowhere after switching. • The rest of his brain is at the top of visual information processing hierarchy, where visual information has been highly reduced and abstracted, not enough to construct his vivid detailed hallucination. Therefore, his hallucination can only be constructed by his Visual Cortex, where only there has enough information to construct his vivid detailed hallucination. However, his Visual Cortex has been replaced by the dummy device after switching. Hence, such hallucination has arisen from nowhere after switching. In summary, after switching, the subject report seeing a vivid detailed old lady face. We conclude that he is genuine, as the switching does not affect the rest of his brain, so his judgment of sensation remains normal, and the switching cannot change him from genuine reporting to intentional cheating. However, his vivid detailed visual perception may/may not be due to hallucination after switching. In both cases such perception can only be constructed by his Visual Cortex; but paradoxically, his Visual Cortex has already been replaced by the mimicking cheating device after switching, and such device will not be able to produce any sensation at all. Hence, there is indeed a serious logical contradiction here to produce what I call the ’Brain Cheating Component Paradox’ !

Afterwards, I will show you via the perspective of ’Brain Cheating Component Paradox’, for what is the Binding Problem of Consciousness and why it indeed is a problem.

The brain is highly modularized but it also requires massive mutual co-operations between modules to operate. A particular sensation may require several distinct brain regions to construct co-operatively, but it usually associate with a specialized brain region which do most of the task. Though multiple brain regions may participate together to construct a particular sensation, the vivid detailed part of such sensation can only be construct from its specialized brain region. Because such brain region is a gateway and processing center for that particular sensation, and the processed information output from such brain region to other brain regions are usually filtered and abstracted, in much fewer amount than its received input information. Only upon that specialized brain region there contain enough 13


information to construct the vivid detailed part of that particular sensation.

Supposed you are watching a special effect musical dancing show. The dancing performance accompanied by the colorful visual special effect along with the beautiful music makes you feel wonderful, so you clap your hands. From the mechanical point of view, the clapping action is a piece of highly symbolized processed information from your brain to present wonderfulness, processed by your brain from the huge amount of input information from the dancing show flowing to your visual system and auditory system. That piece of ’wonderful’ information is highly abstracted and reduced from information processing, which does not capture any detail information of the vivid real time performance of the musical dancing show. However, from your perception perspective, that small piece of ’wonderful’ information is not the only thing you feel, you perceive the details of vivid dancing performance and lively beautiful music altogether. From the functional point of view, the vivid detailed perception of the dancing arisen from your visual cortex, and the vivid detailed perception of the music arisen from your auditory cortex. So how does two kind of sensations arisen from two distinct brain regions be unified together allowing you to perceive in one mind? Or conversely, how does your mind be distributed across two distinct brain regions and still be unified as one mind? Many people will hypothesize that massive mutual communications or information exchanges happened between brain regions will be necessary and sufficient for such unification to occur. But as we recall that in the demonstration of our Brain Cheating Component Paradox, any particular sensation brain module (e.g. the visual cortex or the auditory cortex) can always be replaced by a mimicking cheating device, causing the Brain Cheating Component Paradox to arise eventually from such hypothesis. Therefore, information exchanges between brain regions may be necessary, but not sufficient to achieve the unification of mind. So what is missing? This lingering mysterious question is one way to describe the Binding Problem of Consciousness.

In my opinion, solving the Brain Cheating Component Paradox will eventually lead to the solution of Binding Problem of Consciousness. In order to solve the Brain Cheating Component Paradox, we may have to look for the false presumption that give rise to it. 14


So what is it?

Recall that at the beginning of the demonstration, we presume that: • Information processing in the brain are all that necessary and sufficient to produce all brain functions. we can in principle basing on the brain states and environment states at a certain time point, to computationally predict the temporal evolution of brain states started from that time point to the future. Equivalently but more specifically, we can computationally predict to the future about the output signals from the Visual Cortex communicating to the rest of the brain. But if we change our presumption to: • information processing in the brain are all that necessary and NOT sufficient to produce all brain functions. Then that will allow some information be encoded in the brain signals that will NOT be computationally predictable, so the mimicking cheating device can never be construct to cheat the brain, and Brain Cheating Component Paradox will never arise. The source of such computationally unpredictable signals can only be come from pure random sources. But how will random signals produce meaningful action to the brain? If considering them individually or in subset, they will not indeed. But if considering them as a whole set of synergistic set, they may however produce meaningful action. If you continue to read through following several sections, you will understand what I mean.

3

Binding Problem again with Synergistic Set

Whenever you are reading a book and listening to a music at the same time, you are always the very same person who are perceiving the two types of sensations simultaneously. At the first glance, it does not pose any problem. The problem arises only if we drill down to the question of where does the seeing and hearing sensation arise? In fact, the seeing sensation arises from the visual cortex of the brain, while the hearing sensation arises from the auditory 15


cortex of the brain. So how does the two sensations be combined to let you perceive that you are the only person who see and hear at the same time? You may think that there is a third region of the brain that receive signals from both the 2 cortex and then combine them to form the unified perception, so that region is the genuine location where the consciousness locates at. However, modern neuroscience has already rejected that there is such a location. Your consciousness does not locate at any particular location in the brain. The visual cortex is genuinely the location where you see, and the auditory cortex is genuinely the location where you hear!

If interactive dualism is true, then we do not need trying to find that ‘consciousness residing location’ anymore. The model of modern interactive dualism implies that there are just many connection points in the brain, via the connection points consciousness receives input stimulus and output its response to neurons. For example, in regard to the seeing and hearing scenario just mentioned, your consciousness receives the visual stimulus via the connection points in your visual cortex, and receives the auditory stimulus via the connection points in your auditory cortex. Your consciousness then translate those stimulus into perceptions, combine them to form a unified perception.

Up to this point, though such kind of ‘connection points model’ may seems weird, it may still be possible, as long as what all consciousness does is just receiving stimulus and combining sensations. What really puzzles philosophers so much, is that, how does consciousness output its response in react to the stimulus received?

Let me take the seeing and hearing scenario as an example. Suppose that you are seeing a song lyrics from a book and hearing the melody of that same song without lyrics from speakers simultaneously. Your consciousness combines the seeing and hearing information, then sings the song combining both melody and lyrics via your mouth. If we drill down into the brain again, we find that there is a region X of your brain that give rise to the mechanism of singing via your mouth. This highly simplified model implies that consciousness receives information via a set of connection points in visual cortex, denoted such set as Cv , 16


and receives information via a set of connection points in auditory cortex, denoted such set as Ca , combine them, and then output the response via a set of connection points in region X, denoted such set as Cx . However, a serious problem has just arise from such simple input-output model; Your consciousness has just absurdly transfer information from both the visual cortex and auditory cortex to the region X, a violation of the presumption that consciousness is NOT able to transfer information from one location to another location as previously discussed!

In regard to this problem, we have to abandon the idea that consciousness output its response via a separate set of connection points Cx in region X. Instead, we have to postulate that consciousness output its response via a set of connection points CM , such that CM should at least include Cv and Ca ! In other words, Cv ∪ Ca ⊆ CM . Base on the assertion that consciousness is NOT able to transfer information from one place to another, The way consciousness output its response via CM is peculiar; Its response can only be retrieved by combining all output information from all connection points in CM . In other words, even missing a single connection point’s output information in CM would NOT allow any consciousness’s response to be retrieved!

Is such way of communication possible? Such way of communication is possible at least in a probabilistic way. To simplify discussion, let’s assume that each consciousness’s response R via CM is binary, which can only be either 0 or 1. Imagine that for each connection point ci ∈ CM , a random value mi ∈ {0, 1} is request and produced of either 0 or 1 in half-half chance. Such value mi cannot be actively generated by consciousness, it could only be generated upon request from neuron. We denote the set of all random values produced from all connection points in CM as M . Now, the consciousness’s response R ∈ {0, 1} is P magically captured as: R(M ) = ( mi ) mod 2. In other words, the consciousness’s remi ∈M

sponse R ∈ {0, 1} via CM can be retrieved by summing up all random values mi ∈ {0, 1} produced from all connection points ci in CM , and then mod the summation by 2.

There should be one crucial feature of the set of random values M . Any proper sub17


set Ms of M (Ms ⊂ M ) is always mutually independent in probability. In other words, P R(Ms ) = ( mi ) mod 2 always produce R(Ms ) of either 0 or 1 absolutely in half-half mi ∈Ms

chance. No useful information can be retrieved from any proper subset of M . The information in M is stored in the probabilistic dependency of the whole set of random values, not in M ’s individual element or proper subset.

From now on, I will refer to such kind of a set of random values as a ‘synergistic set’. For example, the set of random values M just mentioned is a synergistic set. Though I think the more precise term should be ‘irreducible synergistic set’. Such kind of set is indeed irreducible, any part of the set is totally useless, only the set itself when considered as a whole is useful.

4

Synergistic Set

Here are 3 examples to illustrate the concept of synergistic set. Example 1. Let’s assume that there are 3 binary values y1 , y2 , y3 where yi ∈ {0, 1} placed at 3 separated locations w1 , w2 , w3 . Suppose that an observer would like to know the values of all that 3 values, it will come upon w1 , w2 , w3 to collect the values.

Now, instead of letting the observer knows the values directly in such way, a calculation device decide to play the following trick:

The device come upon to w1 , memorize y1 , delete y1 and produce a random value x1 ∈ {0, . . . , 7} with uniform PMF (Probability Mass Function) at w1 .

The device come upon to w2 , memorize y2 , delete y2 and produce a random value x2 ∈ {0, . . . , 7} with uniform PMF at w2 .

The device come upon to w3 , memorize y3 , delete y3 and then calculate the value Y = 4y1 + 2y2 + y3 , and the value S = (x1 + x2 ) mod 8. Then, if Y >= S, produce x3 at w3 18


by x3 = Y − S. If Y < S, produce x3 at w3 by x3 = 8 + Y − S. It is easy to verify that x3 ∈ {0, . . . , 7} is also a random value with uniform PMF if no complete knowledges of all x1 or x2 are acquired.

Now, since y1 , y2 , y3 have been erased, if the observer would like to get the values of y1 , y2 , y3 , it had to get all x1 , x2 , x3 first and then retrieve them as follow:

Calculate E = (x1 + x2 + x3 ) mod 8,

Retrieve y1 = E div 4, Retrieve y2 = E1 div 2,

E1 = E − 4y1 E2 = E1 − 2y2

Retrieve y3 = E2

Interestingly, the set {x1 , x2 , x3 } exhibits apparently the feature of a synergistic set. Omtting any xi would render the other 2 values in the set totally useless for the retrieval of yj . The information of all three yj are not encoded in any individual xi , but rather in the dependency of the set {x1 , x2 , x3 }. Any proper subset of {x1 , x2 , x3 } are mutually independent random values.

Example 2. Suppose that there are 2 substrate points denoted by ca , cb . At ca , a random value m0 ∈ {0, 1, . . . , 2N − 1} is produced with uniform PMF (Probability Mass Function). A device O at ca memorizes m0 and moves to cb . At cb , O measures the value of temperature s1 ∈ {0, 1} at time t(s1 ), measures the value of humidity s2 ∈ {0, 1} at time t(s2 ), measures the value of sunlight s3 ∈ {0, 1} at time t(s3 ), . . . , etc., until it has completed measuring the N th quantity sN ∈ {0, 1} at time t(sN ), where t(s1 ) < t(s2 ) < t(s3 ) < . . . < t(sN ), and the set {0, 1} represents {Low, High}. The N measurements could be regard as a set S = {s1 , s2 , . . . , sN }. O then produces a value E ∈ {0, 1, . . . , 2N − 1} from S by, E = 2N −1 s1 + 2N −2 s2 + 2N −3 s3 + . . . + sN . 19


Also, during the measurements were in progress, a series of random values mi ∈ {0, 1, . . . , 2N − 1} denoted by {m1 , m2 , . . . , mM }, were also produced mutually independently (independently to m0 also) with uniform PMF at cb , where their producing times are not important.

Now, back to the time when E has been produced, O then produces a value mM +1 ∈ {0, 1, . . . , 2N − 1} by:

mM +1 = (2N + E − (m0 + m1 + m2 + . . . + mM ) mod 2N ) mod 2N

Interestingly, mM +1 ∈ {0, 1, . . . , 2N − 1} can be regarded as a random value with uniform PMF if no complete knowledges of all m0 , m1 , m2 , . . . , mM are acquired.

Then, memory of m0 is erased from the device. The value E, and all values of S = {s1 , s2 , . . . , sN } are erased also.

Hence, if anyone want to obtain the information of E afterwards, E could only be obtained by m0 from ca , combining all m1 , m2 , . . . , mM , mM +1 from cb , and be retrieved from the following formula:

E = (m0 + m1 + m2 + . . . + mM + mM +1 ) mod 2N

Moreover, each measurement value si ’s information could be fully retrieved by: s1 = E div 2N −1 , E1 = E − 2N −1 s1 s2 = E1 div 2N −2 , E2 = E1 − 2N −2 s2 ... sn = En−1 div 2N −n , En = En−1 − 2N −n sn ... sN = EN −1 20


Interestingly, the set {m0 , m1 , . . . , mM +1 } exhibits apparently the feature of a synergistic set. Omitting any mi would render all other values in the set totally useless for the retrieval of sj . The information of all sj are not encoded in any individual mi , but rather in the dependency of the set {m0 , m1 , . . . , mM +1 }. Any proper subset of {m0 , m1 , . . . , mM +1 } are mutually independent random values.

Example 3. Suppose that there is a set of N substrate points {c1 , c2 , . . . , cN }. At each of ci there is a random value αi ∈ {0, 1, 2, . . . , 2N − 1} with uniform PMF produced. The set {α1 , α2 , . . . , αN } are dependent by that (α1 + α2 + . . . + αN ) mod 2N = 0 is always satisfied. However, any proper subset of {α1 , α2 , . . . , αN } are mutually independent. In other words, {α1 , α2 , . . . , αN } is a synergistic set. Define a series of events as a bit string {s1 , s2 , . . . , sN }, such that si ∈ {0, 1} for all i, with each si is present to ci respectively.

For each ci , a random value βi ∈ {0, 1, 2, . . . , 2N − 1} with uniform PMF dependent on each αi is produced on ci by:

If si = 0 is present, then βi = αi . If si = 1 is present, then βi = (αi + 2N −i ) mod 2N .

Afterwards, all values of {s1 , s2 , . . . , sN } are erased.

Now, if any observer want to retrieve the event’s value si , it could either by: • Obtain αi and βi from ci . If αi = βi , then si = 0 is retrieved. If αi 6= βi , then si = 1 is retrieved. Please note the fact that αi and βi form a synergistic set. Omitting either αi or βi , si cannot be retrieved except by guessing in half-half chance of either 0 or 1.

21


• Obtain βi from ci , and all αj from all cj with j 6= i. N P If (βi + ( αj )) mod 2N = 0, then si = 0 is retrieved. j6=i,j=1

Otherwise, si = 1 is retrieved. Please note the fact that {α1 , . . . , αi−1 , βi , αi+1 , . . . , αN } form a synergistic set. Omitting any value in that set, si cannot be retrieved except by guessing in half-half chance of either 0 or 1. • Obtain all βi from all ci , and calculate E = (β1 + β2 + . . . , +βN ) mod 2N . Each si ’s information can then be fully retrieved by:

s1 = E div 2N −1 , E1 = E − 2N −1 s1 s2 = E1 div 2N −2 , E2 = E1 − 2N −2 s2 ... sn = En−1 div 2N −n , En = En−1 − 2N −n sn ... sN = EN −1

Please note the fact that {β1 , . . . , βN } form a synergistic set. Omitting any βi would render all other values in the set totally useless for the retrieval of any sj .

5

Connection Point

There are two very important axioms that will form the basement of our model and any mechanism derived from it throughout the article. (I) The speed of information transferral from one place to another cannot exceed the speed of light. In fact, this rule is a well-known physical fact from the Theory of Relativity. (II) No information can be transferred from one substrate point A to another substrate point B without signal transmission from A to B directly or indirectly.

22


(Note: You will encounter the concept of snapshot afterwards in this article. In order for this axiom to be valid throughout the text, in regard to events/information occurred within a snapshot of a measurement taken at a connection point’s particle p, those events/information would be regarded as occurred at the substrate point p in any discussion regarding this axiom. Please see the text afterwards.) Furthermore, one important basement of our model will be; Your seemingly continuous awareness over time during your awakening state is actually caused by a series of discrete consciousness instances occurred over time one followed by another, which we will call that as a ‘consciousness stream’ throughout the article. Each consciousness instance not only contribute to one moment instance of perception/awareness, but also contribute to one bit of information E ∈ {0, 1} communicated from consciousness to the physical world. Such two events are intertwined together and cannot be separated, like two faces of the same coin. (Note: Up to this point, we still have not deal with the problem of, under which logical rule, does a ‘self ’ associated with a former consciousness instance and a ‘self ’ associated with a latter consciousness instance over time would be in the same ‘self continuation’? A simple but logical well-defined rule will be provided in this article later.)

To clarify what does it mean, let us start with considering the scenario of only one consciousness connection point. We will extend the idea further to multiple connection points later. In our model, a consciousness connection point to our physical world always consist of two particles, let me arbitrarily denote them by p1 , p2 . Each of the two particle has a very special feature; it is able to produce a random binary value mi ∈ {0, 1} in a 50-50 chances independently. That binary random value is produced whenever an observer takes a observation at any particle, say, pi , then a purely random value mi , either 0 or 1 in a half-half chances, will be observed by the observer. From now on, we will refer to any observation of pi to produce mi ∈ {0, 1} as a ‘measurement’ (Please see Appendix A for a possible candidate of such random binary number generation particle). Via any consciousness instance during a consciousness stream, consciousness communicates to the physical world via the value of E = (m1 + m2 ) mod 2, in either 0 or 1, via the synergistic set M = {m1 , m2 }.

23


The illustration of synergistic M is shown below: • If consciousness is to convey message 0, then M will be either one of the 2 following values 1 set taken from p1 , p2 , each occurs with probability: 2 {0, 0} {1, 1} • If consciousness is to convey message 1, then M will be either one of the 2 following values 1 set taken from p1 , p2 , each occurs with probability: 2 {0, 1} {1, 0} The consciousness’s binary message E =∈ {0, 1} can then be retrieved from M by (

2 P

mi )

i=1

mod 2.

Note: Any binary synergistic set will require its element be produced in either 0 or 1 in absolutely half-half chance. In regard to Appendix A that P (mi = 0) > P (mi = 1), if the actual synergistic set M produced from measurements is allowed to contain little error from the ideal consciousness’s M , then the actual M can still be considered as a valid synergistic set. In other words, for any mi in the ideal consciousness’s M , if mi = 1, then that mi has P (mi = 0) − 0.5 of being measured as 0 in the actual M . In corollary, any the probability 0.5 P (mi = 0) − 0.5 mi = 0 measured in the actual M has the probability of being 1 in the ideal P (mi = 0) M . If P (mi = 0) is very close to P (mi = 1) (P (mi = 0) ≈ P (mi = 1) ≈ 0.5), then the probability of ‘communication error’ will be very small, as the actual M 6= ideal M will occur only once in many times.

In order to avoid confusion, from now on any useful terms defined specifically in this article will be underlined. Any useful terms in the context of the Theory of Relativity will be in italic for your convenience to search such terms on internet or other resources, in case you do not know much about the basic concepts in the Theory of Relativity. The reason for this

24


article to involve the Theory of Relativity, is because we need to use the concept of spacetime region from Relativity to provide a definite clear-cut of what event or set of events are involved in a cause-effect relationship. Though the location or shape of a spacetime region can vary in relative to different reference frame, the set of events occurred in a spacetime region is invariant to all reference frames.

The sufficient condition in meeting the requirement of Axiom (I) for consciousness’s communication to our physical world is: • Via a consciousness instance, if consciousness produces message E ∈ {0, 1} encoded in a synergistic set of measurements M = {m1 , m2 , . . . , mn } in react jointly to a set of events {s1 , s2 , . . . , sn }, and if each of si occurs inside the past light cone of any measuring event in M , then Axiom (I) is guaranteed to be obeyed. Why? Recall that Axiom (I) requires that no information can be transferred faster than light speed in relative to any reference frame. For those reader who has a basic knowledge of the Theory of Relativity, should know that Axiom (I) can be translated to the following statement: • For any pair of events with cause-effect relationship, the effect event always occur within the future light cone of the cause event. If consciousness produces a message E encoded in a synergistic set of measurements M = {m1 , m2 , . . . , mn } in react jointly to a set of events S = {s1 , s2 , . . . , sn }, then E’s retrieval and each of si ∈ S has a cause-effect relationship. In order to obey Axiom (I), the event of E’s retrieval should lie within the future light cone of each of si ∈ S. Therefore, we only have to prove that: • If each of si ∈ S lie within the past light cone of any mj ∈ M , then the event of E’s retrieval always lie within the future light cone of each of si ∈ S. Proof. If any each of si ∈ S, say sa , lie within the past light cone of any mj ∈ M , say mb , then the future light cone of sa always completely include the future light cone of mb . Due to the property of synergistic set, to retrieve a message E from a synergistic set of measurements 25


M = {m1 , m2 , . . . , mn }, that retrieval event always lie within the intersected region of all future light cones of all measurement events mj in M , and so lie within the future light cone of mb . Since the future light cone of sa always completely include the future light cone of mb , therefore, retrieval of E always lie within the future light cone of sa . Since the past light cone of any mi extends infinitely backward in time and outward in space, we have to limit the consciousness’s stimulus receptive region in that past light cone to a certain region around mi , in order for our ‘connection points joining’ proposed later in this Section or ‘designation signal’ proposed later in Section 8 to work. We simply impose two parameters ∆rs and ∆τs to define a consciousness receptive spacetime region around any mi , and call that spacetime region a snapshot to facilitate our further discussion. We will progress step by step to define some necessary terms used in this article including the concept of snapshot: • A receptive ball of a connection point’s particle pi is defined as the space region bound by a sphere boundary centered at pi with radius ∆rs in relative to the local reference frame of pi at any time. • We denote B(pk , t), as the spacetime 3D plane region covered by the receptive ball of a particle pk at time t in relative to the local reference frame of pk at time t. For a measurement taken a connection point’s particle pi at time tj , denoted by m(pi , tj ), the receptive cylinder of m(pi , tj ) is defined as the spacetime region (4D) covered by the union of all B(pi , t) with t varies over the time interval −∆τs ≤ t ≤ 0 continuously, where t is in relative to the proper time of pi with its t = 0 coincides with the measurement m(pi , tj ). • A snapshot of a measurement m(pi , tj ) is defined as the spacetime region of the intersected region of the past light cone of m(pi , tj ) and the receptive cylinder of m(pi , tj ). • A snapshot history of m(pi , tj ) is defined as the set of snapshots of all measurements m(pi , tn ) taken at the same particle pi with tn ≤ tj . Thus the snapshot history of m(pi , tj ) includes the m(pi , tj )’s snapshot also. One crucial point is to be highlighted: 26


• While the receptive ball is a space concept associated with a connection point’s ‘particle’ , receptive cylinder, snapshot and snapshot history are spacetime concepts associated with a ‘measurement’ taken at a connection point’s particle. Up to this stage the statement of our one connection point model will be: • A consciousness instance may produce message E ∈ {0, 1} encoded in a synergistic set M = {m1 , m2 }, where random values m1 ∈ {0, 1}, m2 ∈ {0, 1} are measured from its connection point’s two particles p1 , p2 respectively. E may capture consciousness’s message in react jointly to some events S = {s1 , s2 , . . . , sn }, where each si can only occur within the snapshot history of any mi ∈ {m1 , m2 }.

Note: I use the notion of snapshot history instead of snapshot here to include the possibility that consciousness may function with some type of long term memory which is crucial in some aspects, such as the ‘reinforcement learning’ in Section 8 which will be crucial in establishing new ‘action component’ (Please refer to Section 8). Also, Since any movement of particle cannot exceed the speed of light, the past light cone of a measurement taken at a particle always fully include the snapshot history of that measurement. Hence, there is no violation of Axiom (I). From the definition of the snapshot of a measurement taken at a consciousness point’s particle, in order for any event si occurred in a snapshot allowing consciousness in react to, si is always an event occurred in a space region within the receptive ball of a connection point’s particle in relative to the local reference frame of that particle at some time on or before the measurement. In order to serve for simplifying and intuitive purpose afterwards, I will usually use the rough idea of receptive ball replacing the more accurate snapshot concept in some cause-effect discussions. In our later discussion, every time I say that ‘anything’ occurs in the receptive ball of a consciousness point’s particle to cause ‘something’ to happen, it will automatically implies the more accurate meaning of ‘anything’ occurs within the snapshot of a measurement taken at a consciousness point’s particle to cause ‘something’ to happen.

So what is the point about our connection point model? The point lies in that, if each of the 27


two particles of a connection point along with its receptive ball is small enough to reside in different neuron, then the Binding Problem across two neurons is preliminarily solved! Since consciousness is able to perceive and react jointly to events occurred at disparate locations, not only within one receptive ball(note the implicit meaning just mentioned) centered at one connection point’s particle, but within two receptive balls each centered at one connection point’s particle located at two different locations (two different neurons), in a unified one bit of information each time!

For many consciousness instances to occur in a consciousness stream, there should exist a logical rule of which set of measurements over the time-line can form a synergistic set capturing a consciousness’s message. Therefore, a sufficient model is that, there should exist a common time interval ∆τc , such that a set of measurements M = {m(p1 , tj1 ), m(p2 , tj2 )} taken from a connection point can be synergistic only if: (i) For each m(pi , tj ) ∈ M , there is no measurement taken at pi within −2∆τc ≤ t < 0 in relative to the proper time of pi , where the pi ’s proper time’s t = 0 coincides with that measuring event m(pi , tj ). (ii) For each m(pi , tj ) ∈ M , denotes pi ’s local reference frame at time tj as O(pi , tj ), then the other measurement m(pm , tn ) ∈ M is taken within the time interval of −∆τc ≤ t ≤ ∆τc in relative to O(pi , tj ), where O(pi , tj )’s t = 0 coincides with that measuring event m(pi , tj ). Please note that if the reference frames for the two particles in {p1 , p2 } are nearly ‘aligned’ with each other; that is, the two reference frames agree at nearly the same space scale, clock rate and simultaneity, then the above definition could be reduced from Relativity’s to Galileo’s in relative to any reference frame ‘aligned’ with any of them: (i) For each measurement mi in M , there is no another measurement mk taken before mi at the same particle of mi such that 0 < t(mi ) − t(mk ) ≤ 2∆τc (ii) max(t(m1 ), t(m2 )) − min(t(m1 ), t(m2 )) ≤ ∆τc .

28


Note: this synchronization definition involves the max() and min() operator, and such operators would require a common clock frame which does NOT exist if according to the Theory of Relativity. Hence, I present the more general description first without involving max() and min() operators to dispel confusion.

Constraint (i) ensures that any two successive synergistic sets produced on the same connection point are at least separated by a time interval 2∆τc . Constraint (ii) provides a natural time range limit of a synergistic set’s production. Without such constraint, a synergistic set, say, may span over a 100 years time interval. Combining constraint (i) and (ii) excludes the possibility that any measurement mi could logically and naturally be ambiguously synergistic to either one or other of two successive synchronized measurement sets taken on the same connection point. It also logically and naturally disallow the production of two overlapped synergistic sets along the time line produced at the same connection point. But the story still does not end here, due to the following two problems: (a) Consciousness substrate in the brain generally involves a large number of neurons, definitely more than just two. (b) The set of neurons involved in consciousness are dynamically changing from time to time. The two problems can be translated to the following in the context of connection points: (a) A consciousness instance generally involves more than one connection points. (b) The set of connection points associated with each consciousness instance in a consciousness stream are generally different from one consciousness instance to another consciousness instance. In order for the model to be compatible with the actual problems described above, I have to extend the model. Here is a description of the extend model: (a) A consciousness instance can associate with two or more connection points, with its consciousness’s message be encoded in the synergistic set measured from all connection points involved. For example, recall that a consciousness’s message is encoded 29


in the synergistic set measured from the two particles of a connection point. For a consciousness instance X associated with two connection points A and B, X’s message would be encoded in the synergistic set measured from the total 4 particles of the two connection points of A and B. Both connection points of A and B lose their own individual synergistic property, but instead combine to form a more global synergistic entity. Such concept can be easily extended for a consciousness instance to involve more than two connection points. (b) Each consciousness instance in a consciousness stream can associate with a different set of connection points. A mechanism should exist to specify which set of connection points are associated with a consciousness instance. A model of mechanism said in (b) above obeying Axiom (I) and (II) is shown below: (a) Each of the two particles of a connection point always reside in two different neurons. (b) A neuron can host two or more connection point’s particles. Each particle is from a different connection point. (c) Many neurons cooperatively control which set of connection points involved in a consciousness instance, by physically joining or dis-joining of connection points within those neuron’s bodies to produce a joined set of connection points. Measurements are then taken on all connection point’s particles on that joined set to produce a synergistic set capturing a consciousness instance’s message. I will clarify the meaning of ‘joining or dis-joining of connection points’ soon later. So what does it mean by joining or dis-joining of connection points? A more precise description will be described soon later in terms of measurements. Hereby I only present a rough and not so accurate description to serve for intuitive purpose.

In principle, for two connection points to be joined in obeying Axiom (II), non-simulatable signal uniquely identifying each connection point should be mutually present to each other’s connection point’s particle. The simplest form of such ‘non-simulatable signal’ uniquely identifying each connection point is just a connection point’s particle from each connection 30


point as shown below:

Let us consider two connection points A and B. Intuitively speaking, if one connection point’s particle from A is close enough to a connection point’s particle from B, such that each is within the other’s receptive ball, then the connection points A and B are joined (This is a non-accurate description to serve for intuitive purpose. A more accurate description is that the world line of each particle intersect with the snapshot’s hat of measurement to be taken at the other particle. Please see later for the definition of snapshot’s hat in the accurate description). In other words, by moving closer or apart of two connection point’s particle could join or dis-join the corresponding pair of connection points. Recall that for a pair of particles associated with a connection point, each particle of the pair is hosted by different neuron. So a connection point can never join to itself. All joining or dis-joining of connection points are performed inside neuron, by physically moving the connection point’s particles.

Recall that when connection point A is joined with connection point B to form a more global synergistic entity X, A stop to produce synergistic set (and vice versa for B’s). Instead, A jointly produce synergistic set with B all together. In other words, the action of A joining with B causes A lose its individual synergistic property but form a more global synergistic entity with B (and vice versa for B). To respect Axiom (II), such action event ‘signifying A to uniquely identify and join with B causing the above observable consequence, should occur inside the receptive ball of at least one A’s connection point’s particle (and vice versa for B’s). That non-simulatable signifying event in this model obviously is the presenting of B’s connection point’s particle into A’s connection point’s receptive ball (and vice versa for B’s). If there is a particle of B moved into A’s particle’s receptive ball right before measurement of A’s particles, but there is no A’s particle present inside B’s particle’s receptive ball right before measurement of B’s particles, the logical consequence from Axiom (II), is that A would lose its synergistic property, while B retain its synergistic property. Vice Versa for B also applies.

31


The following is a more precise and accurate description of synergistic sets formation, via the notion of nodes and connections in graph concept, in terms of measurements over the time line.

In order to facilitate the discussion, Let me define some common notations. • A snapshot’s hat of a measurement m(pi , tj ) is defined as the portion of m(pi , tj )’s snapshot boundary that is also the portion of m(pi , tj )’s past light cone boundary. (recall that a measurement’s snapshot is the intersected region of that measurement’s past light cone with that measurement’s receptive cylinder). • A set of measurements M = {m(p1 , tj1 ), m(p2 , tj2 ), . . . , m(pn , tjn )} taken at a set of distinct particles {p1 , p2 , . . . , pn }, is said to be a synchronized set, or in synchronization, if and only if: (i) For each m(pi , tj ) ∈ M , there is no measurement taken at pi within −2∆τc ≤ t < 0 in relative to the proper time of pi , where the pi ’s proper time’s t = 0 coincides with that measuring event m(pi , tj ). (ii) For each m(pi , tj ) ∈ M , denotes each pi ’s local reference frame at time tj as O(pi , tj ), then all other measurements m(pk , tl ) ∈ M (k 6= i) are taken within the time interval of −∆τc ≤ t ≤ ∆τc in relative to O(pi , tj ), where O(pi , tj )’s t = 0 coincides with that measuring event m(pi , tj ). Please note that if the reference frames for all {p1 , p2 , . . . , pn } are nearly ‘aligned’ with each other; that is, all such reference frames agree at nearly the same space scale, clock rate and simultaneity, then the above definition could be reduced from Relativity’s to Galileo’s in relative to any reference frame ‘aligned’ with any of them: (i) For each measurement mi in M , there is no another measurement mk taken before mi at the same particle of mi such that 0 < t(mi ) − t(mk ) ≤ 2∆τc (ii) max(T (M )) − min(T (M )) ≤ ∆τc , where T (M ) is the set of measuring time of all measurements in M .

32


Constraint (i) ensures that any two successive synergistic sets produced on the same set of connection points are at least separated by a time interval 2∆τc . Constraint (ii) provides a natural time range limit of a synergistic set’s production. Without such constraint, a synergistic set, say, may span over a 100 years time interval. Combining constraint (i) and (ii) excludes the possibility that any measurement mi could logically and naturally be ambiguously synergistic to either one or other of two successive synchronized measurement sets taken on the same set of connection points. It also logically and naturally disallow the production of two overlapped synergistic sets along the time line produced at the same set of connection points. • A measurements ma is said to be synchronized with another measurements mb if {ma , mb } is a synchronized set. • If m(pa , ti ) is synchronized with m(pb , tj ), where pb is the other particle from the same connection point with pa (pa and pb are in different neurons), then m(pa , ti ) is connected to m(pb , tj ) in the graph concept. • If m(pa , ti ) is NOT synchronized with any m(pb , tj ), where pb is the other particle from the same connection point with pa , then m(pa , ti ) is said to be as a dead node. • For a m(pi , tj ), if the world line of a connection point’s particle pk intersects with m(pi , tj )’s snapshot’s hat, (this can be achieved by moving either or both particle pi , pk closer to each other in a neuron, where both pi and pk are in the same neuron, but from different connection point), then m(pi , tj ) is said to be in l(pi , pk ). Please note that l(pi , pk ) is NOT equivalent to l(pk , pi )! Also, since two particles pa , pb of the same connection point always resides in two different neuron, l(pa , pb ) is impossible. Furthermore, there can have two or more particles from different connection points with their world lines intersect with m(pi , tj )’s snapshot’s hat in the same neuron. Therefore m(pi , tj ) can be in more than one l(pi , pn ), where n 6= i. • If m(pi , tj ) is in l(pi , pk ) (pi , pk in the same neuron, but from different connection point), and there is a m(pk , tn ) synchronized with m(pi , tj ), and m(pk , tn ) is in l(pk , pi ) (l(pk , pi ) is NOT equivalent to l(pi , pk )!), then m(pi , tj ) is connected to m(pk , tn ) in the graph concept 33


(correspond to the notion of ‘connection point joining’). Please note that m(pi , tj ) can be connected to two or more other nodes in such way, • If m(pi , tj ) is in l(pi , pk ), and there is NO any m(pk , tn ) which is BOTH synchronized with m(pi , tj ) and in l(pk , pi ), then m(pi , tj ) is said to be as a dead node. A connected graph G construct accords to the definitions of node, connectedness and dead node described above, such that: • There is no more additional node can be connected to the graph G. • There is no dead node in the graph G. • The set of all measurements in the graph G is in synchronization. Then the whole set of all m(pi , tj ) ∈ G will constitute a synergistic set of measurements capturing a consciousness instance’s message E ∈ {0, 1}, possibly in react jointly to events occurred inside the snapshot history of one or more m(pi , tj ) ∈ G.

To retrieve consciousness’s message E ∈ {0, 1} from the synergistic set M represented by the graph G: • E=(

N P

m(pi , tji )) mod 2, where N is the number of nodes in the graph. In other words,

i=1

E is retrieved by summing up all measurements in G, and then mod the summation by 2. • Since there are N of measurements in G, there are 2N possible combinations of M ’s value.

2N −1 of them have their (

N P

mi ) mod 2 = 0, and each of them occurs with a proba-

i=1

bility of

1 2N −1

if E = 0 is to be conveyed.

2N −1 of them have their (

N P

mi ) mod 2 = 1, and each of them occurs with a proba-

i=1

bility of

1 2N −1

if E = 1 is to be conveyed.

For example, in the case of N = 4: 34


If E = 0, each of the following set of measured values would occur with a 1/8 probability: {0, 0, 0, 0}, {0, 0, 1, 1}, {0, 1, 0, 1}, {1, 0, 0, 1}, {0, 1, 1, 0}, {1, 0, 1, 0}, {1, 1, 0, 0}, {1, 1, 1, 1}

If E = 1, each of the following set of measured values would occur with a 1/8 probability: {0, 0, 0, 1}, {0, 0, 1, 0}, {0, 1, 0, 0}, {1, 0, 0, 0}, {0, 1, 1, 1}, {1, 0, 1, 1}, {1, 1, 0, 1}, {1, 1, 1, 0}

You can verify yourself that NO useful information can be retrieved from any proper subset of either of the above two synergistic sets. Please note that a connected graph correspond to a synergistic set produced from only one connection point, is just a graph with two nodes connected.

As multiple G are allowed to be construct simultaneously (simultaneously means within a small time interval), multiple synergistic sets capturing messages from multiple consciousness instances may also be produced simultaneously.

Figure 5.1: Two connected graphs associated with two synergistic sets

35


In Figure 7.1, each big circle denotes a neuron. Each colored node denotes a measurement from a connection point’s particle. Any two colored nodes joined by a dashed line indicates the two synchronized measurements from a connection point. Any black line joining two nodes inside a neuron represents a connection point joining performed by neuron. There are two connected graphs G in the figure (red and blue) represent two synergistic sets associated with two consciousness instances respectively, presumed that all nodes for each G are in synchronization. The red connected graph involves four connection points associated with eight connection point’s particles. The blue connected graph involves five connection points associated with ten connection point’s particles.

Figure 5.2: One connected graph associated with one synergistic set Figure 7.2 shows the same set of neurons as in Figure 7.1. However, via the dynamics of measurements and connection points joining performed/coordinated by neurons, only one connected graph G marked in yellow color is produced in that consciousness cycle which involves different set of neurons from Figure 7.1. This illustrates how the consciousness substrate can be changed from time to time for different consciousness cycle. The yellow connected graph for that consciousness instance involves six connection points associated with twelve connection point’s particles. Any two nodes marked in black color joined by a dashed line represents a connection point involved in synergistic set production in the 36


consciousness cycle of Figure 7.1, but not involved in this consciousness cycle of Figure 7.2 (no measurements have been performed on them and they are not joined to the yellow graph).

Figure 5.3: One connected graph (red) associated with one synergistic set

37


Figure 5.4: One connected graph (blue) associated with another synergistic set Figure 7.3 and 7.4 show another example of changing consciousness substrate from one consciousness cycle to another consciousness cycle.

6

General System Cycle

In summary, each of the two particles of a connection point always reside in two different neurons. A neuron can host two or more particles, each particle is from different connection point. Below is a possible general system cycle associates with an instance of consciousness in the cycles of stream of consciousness. Each instance of consciousness conveys one bit of information, either 0 or 1: 1. Stimulus are prepared and presented to the snapshots of measurements to be taken at connection pointâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s particles. An appropriate set of l(pi , pj ) are formed to construct an intended G, by moving the appropriate connection pointâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s particles closer/apart from each other (performed by and inside neurons). Afterwards, measurements are taken on the particles pi for every m(pi , tk ) involved in the intended G. The system should keep track of the dynamics of preparing l(pi , pj ) and measurements m(pi , tk ) in 38


order to retrieve all elements in the synergistic set G produced. Due to the property of synergistic set, losing even a measured value in a G would render that set to be totally useless. 2. The system retrieves 1 bit information of the consciousness instanceâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s response, either 0 or 1, from the synergistic set G. 3. The cycle is repeated. One cycle can only convey 1 bit information. Even for a rapid 40Hz cycles for gamma wave in alert brain, only 40 bits per second of consciousnessâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s message can be conveyed. Therefore, most of the brain functions should be handled by the unconscious automatic process in the brain circuits.

7

Axiom (II) again

According to the model, as multiple G producing synergistic set are allowed to be construct simultaneously (simultaneously means within a small time interval), multiple consciousness instances can exist in the organism simultaneously. There is a reason behind that multiple consciousness instances can exist in the organism simultaneously (simultaneously means within a small time interval). The reason lays in the presumption that no transferal of information could be achieved without signal transmission, otherwise Axiom (II) will be violated. Proof. Suppose that three is a limit N on the number of synergistic sets could be formed concurrently, and that quota has been reached at the moment. In other words, a set of synergistic sets {M1 , M2 , . . . , MN } are formed at the moment, and an extra potential synergistic set MN +1 with its set of particles C(MN +1 ) disjoint to {C(M1 ), C(M2 ), . . . , C(MN )}, is NOT able to become a synergistic set, due to the existence of that {M1 , M2 , . . . , MN }. It is possible to detect that MN +1 is NOT synergistic, as no expected useful information can be extracted from MN +1 . Such detection is a message itself, indicates that N synergistic sets are formed somewhere else. And the detection of such message only requires

39


information from C(MN +1 ), which does NOT require signal transmission from any C(Mi ) in {C(M1 ), C(M2 ), . . . , C(MN )}. Clearly the information that {M1 , M2 , . . . , MN } has been formed, has been absurdly transmitted to C(MN +1 ) without signal transmission, a violation of Axiom (II). If a consciousness engages in a synergistic set Ma and then afterwards engages in another synergistic set Mb , such that C(Ma ) ∩ C(Mb ) = ∅, where C(Ma ) is the set of connection point’s particles producing Ma , and so on, then the moment consciousness engaging in Mb should be memoryless to any stimulus/event/information si present in the receptive balls of C(Ma ). Otherwise, consciousness would be able to produce message via C(Mb ) in react to si present to C(Ma ) without signal transmission from C(Ma ) to C(Mb ), a violation of Axiom (II).

An interesting speculation is that, if rebirth cycle does exist for consciousness, then there is no way that a consciousness engaging in current life could retain memory of its past life. Since any synergistic set Mb engaged by that consciousness in the current life’s brain would have C(Mb ) disjoint from C(Ma ), where Ma is any synergistic set engaged in its previous life’s brain.

Equivalently, consciousness could not communicate to any other consciousness without signal transmission in the physical world. Otherwise, a consciousness engaging at a synergistic set Mb could produce message in react to an event si to C(Ma ) without signal transmission from C(Ma ) to C(Mb ), where Ma is a synergistic set being engaged by another consciousness with C(Ma ) ∩ C(Mb ) = ∅. Communication between consciousnesses could only be achieved by signals transmission carrying information originated from C(Ma ) and arrive at C(Mb ) or vice versa. An interesting consequence is that, no telepathy could be achieved between consciousnesses without signal transmission in the physical world.

40


8

Communication Protocol

In our modern interactive dualism model, each synergistic set produced during each consciousness instance cycle can only transmit one bit of information E ∈ {0, 1} from consciousness. So how can the brain translate those bit by bit information into useful actions? In regard to this, an action designation signal, denoted by d, has to be introduced. d designates which action is correspond to the one bit of information E ∈ {0, 1} from consciousness. To clarify what d does, let us regard each consciousness instance performs like a function: consciousness

f : (S, O(M ) = {O1 , O2 , . . . , ON }) −−−−−−−−→ {E(O1 ), E(O2 ), . . . , E(ON )}

I will clarify each term one by one. Recall that during each consciousness cycle of the animal, M is the synergistic set produced. We denote S as the set of stimulus present to the receptive balls of M ’s particles (the set of connection point’s particles producing M ) for consciousness to react. Consider that there exists a number of disjoint sets of connection point’s particles in the animal’s brain, each denoted by O1 , O2 , . . . , ON respectively, with each set Oi corresponds to one specific action. We refer to each Oi of such O1 , O2 , . . . , ON as an ‘action component’. Each action component Oi corresponds to one specific action. There may exist other action components in the brain other than O1 , O2 , . . . , ON . We say that, O(M ) = {O1 , O2 , . . . , ON }, if and only if, one or more particles in each Oi of O1 , O2 , . . . , ON is/are included in that M ’s particles, and all particles from all other action components in the brain not in O1 , O2 , . . . , ON are excluded from M ’s particles. {E(O1 ), E(O2 ), . . . , E(ON )} are the consciousness’s coordinated response in react jointly to S with each action E(Oi ) associated with its Oi . Each E(Oi ) ∈ {0, 1} can potentially be retrieved from M corresponds to each Oi , designated by the signal d. In other words, if the brain want to retrieve E(Oi ) ∈ {0, 1} from M , the brain should present the signal d into the receptive ball of one or more particles of the action component Oi right before M is produced (To be more precise, signal d should be present inside the snapshot of one or more measurement(s) m(pa , tb ), with pa ∈ Oi and m(pa , tb ) ∈ M , right before M is measured). The E ∈ {0, 1} retrieved from M would eventually correspond to E(Oi ). The brain present d

41


to ONLY one Oi in O1 , O2 , . . . , ON for each consciousness cycle. In order to retrieve all E(O1 ), E(O2 ), . . . , E(ON ), the brain has to perform N consciousness cycles.

To be more specific, imaging that there is a monkey-like animal which has only five organs commandable by its consciousness; its left hand, its right hand, its left foot, its right foot and its tail. Each organ has only two actions E ∈ {0, 1} commandable by its consciousness: • If E = 0, to release anything that is being grasped by the organ. • If E = 1, to grasp anything that is being touched by the organ. Suppose that there are only five action components (five disjoint sets of connection point’s particles) in the animal’s brain, denoted by OLH , ORH , OLF , ORF and OT respectively. Each action component Oi corresponds to one specific action; OLH corresponds to the action of its left hand. ORH corresponds to the action of its right hand. OLF corresponds to the action of its left foot. ORF corresponds to the action of its right foot. OT corresponds to the action of its tail.

Suppose that the animal’s brain would like to consult consciousness what coordinated actions are to be taken for its left hand, right foot and tail, in react jointly to a set of stimulus S. To do this, the brain produces a synergistic set M , via its dynamics of connection points joining and measurements, where the set of M ’s particles includes one or more particles from both OLH , ORF and OT , and exclude all particles from ORH and OLF . S are present into the receptive ball of M ’s particles also. The function of this particular example is: consciousness

f : (S, O(M ) = {OLH , ORF , OT }) −−−−−−−−→ {E(OLH ), E(ORF ), E(OT )}

If the brain want to retrieve OLH , it should present the designation signal d to the receptive ball of one or more particles of OLH right before M is measured. The consciousness’s response E retrieved from M , would eventually correspond to E(OLH ), the action of left hand. The translation of E = E(OLH ) ∈ {0, 1} into action by the brain is: • If E = 0, release anything that is being grasped by the animal’s left hand. 42


• If E = 1, grasp anything that is being touched by the animal’s left hand. Similarly, if the brain want to retrieve ORH , it should present the designation signal d to the receptive ball one or more particles of ORH right before M is measured. The consciousness’s response E retrieved from M , would eventually correspond to E(ORH ), the action of right hand. The translation of E = E(ORH ) ∈ {0, 1} into action by the brain is: • If E = 0, release anything that is being grasped by the animal’s right hand. • If E = 1, grasp anything that is being touched by the animal’s right hand. Finally, If the brain want to retrieve OT , it should present the designation signal d to the receptive ball of one or more particles of OT right before M is measured, The consciousness’s response E retrieved from M , would eventually correspond to E(OT ), the action of tail. The translation of E = E(OT ) ∈ {0, 1} into action by the brain is • If E = 0, release anything that is being grasped by the animal’s tail. • If E = 1, grasp anything that is being touched by the animal’s tail. The brain has to perform three consciousness cycles to retrieve all actions from the coordinated response.

Similarly, if the animal’s brain would like to consult consciousness what coordinated actions are to be taken for its right hand and left foot in react jointly to a set of stimulus S, the brain produces a synergistic set M , with M ’s particles includes one or more particles from both ORH and OLF , and exclude all particles from OLH , ORF and OT . S are present into the receptive ball of M ’s particles also. The function of this particular example is: consciousness

f : (S, O(M ) = {ORH , OLF }) −−−−−−−−→ {E(ORH ), E(OLF )}

If the brain present the designation signal d to the receptive ball of one or more particles of ORH right before M is measured, then the consciousness’s response E retrieved from M , would correspond to E(ORH ), the action of right hand. The translation of E = E(ORH ) ∈ {0, 1} into action by the brain is: 43


• If E = 0, release anything that is being grasped by the animal’s right hand. • If E = 1, grasp anything that is being touched by the animal’s right hand. The action of left foot is retrieved similarly. The brain has to perform two consciousness cycles to retrieve all actions from the coordinated response.

Should the coordinated actions {E(O1 ), E(O2 ), . . . , E(ON )} retrieved from multiple consciousness instances be considered as valid? I think the answer is yes, as long as the consciousness’s response varies against time is much slower than the consciousness instances occur frequency, and same (or nearly the same) set of stimulus are present into same (or nearly the same) set of particles involved in each E(Oi ). Just like an image consist by pixels changes over time gradually and slowly. If a device read the images’ pixels one by one in a much faster rate to scan the whole image in a comparatively short time, then a second image reconstruct from the reading of those pixels would be very similar to the original one.

Now, here is another problem arise. How the brain and consciousness agree on which set of connection point’s particles constitute an action component for a specific action? The probable answer is such kind of agreement is trained by the brain to consciousness.

For instance, in regard to the previous example, let’s say the brain will like to designate a new set of particles, denoted by OT ongue , as an action component for the animal’s tongue. The brain present the designation signal d to the receptive ball of ALL particles in OT ongue , and measure the consciousness response E(OT ongue ) from M , where the set of M’s particles should include ALL particles of OT ongue . From the consciousness’s perspective, it does not know what effect will the response E(OT ongue ) produce, so consciousness produces E(OT ongue ) ∈ {0, 1} randomly. The brain translate E(OT ongue ) ∈ {0, 1} into the following actions: • If E = 0, roll the animal’s tongue inward into the mouth. • If E = 1, roll the animal’s tongue outward protrude from the mouth.

44


The actions of tongue will inevitably produce sensation/visual feedback stimulus back to consciousness via neural pathways in the brain. After several trainings, consciousness may have learned the mapping for E(OT ongue ) ∈ {0, 1} to its triggered action on the tongue. So the agreement is formed, between the brain and consciousness, for OT ongue acting as an action component for the tongue’s specific action (rolling in/out).

9

Conclusion

Via the dynamic synergistic model discussed in the article, following the deduction line of modern interactive dualism, it has preliminarily tackled the problems including the unity of consciousness across space and time, the non-locality of consciousness, the dynamic changing of neural substrate of consciousness from moment to moment in the brain.

The model implies that, in addition to the conventional view regarding neurons as information processing components, neurons also perform necessary functions interfacing the physical world to consciousness: 1. Input signals from sensation organs have to be translated (involving feature extractions) to appropriate stimulus prepared to the snapshots of measurements to be taken at consciousness’s connection point’s particles. 2. Due to the irreducible nature of synergistic set, tracking the dynamics of l(pi , pj ) and measurements m(pi , tk ) taken inside many neurons participating a synergistic set formation should be performed extremely carefully. Long-range and short-range mutual communications between neurons have to be performed if the tracking is achieved by self-organization. 3. Retrieve consciousness’s response by calculation from synergistic set of measurements from all connection point’s particles involved in G. Furthermore, the brain may act as a trainer to consciousness also by: 1. Prepare appropriate feedback stimulus to consciousness for action components formation. 45


2. Prepare appropriate feedback/reward/penalty stimulus to consciousness during the reinforcement training for consciousness. Hence, the learning of brain may include the learning of consciousness in addition to the learning of neural networks.

Furthermore, the learning of neural networks may include the association of input stimulus to the output response of consciousness. For example, in a highly novel situation, the brain may need to evoke consciousness for its advise of what action should be done in react to such highly novel situation since consciousness may provide the non-computational abstracting and inference capability. If the same novel situation are repeat several many times, and the consciousness has respond in similar way each time, then the system may have learned from consciousness how to response in such situation. The system may gradually dismiss the participation of consciousness in such similar situation, and replace it by a automatic input-output response produced from neural network trained in such association. This is what we may refer to as a subconscious response. Subconscious response is very important, since one cycle of synergistic set production can only convey 1 bit information. Even for a rapid 40Hz cycles for gamma wave in alert brain, only 40 bits per second of consciousnessâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s message can be conveyed. Therefore, most of the brain functions should be handled by the unconscious automatic process in the brain circuits.

The model also implies that, if interactive dualism does exist, then it is detectable by experimentally searching the synergistic set of random values carried by random signals (e.g. random inters-pike intervals) produced from neurons in the brain. However, there are two major technical difficulties: 1. There are too many possible ways that neurons could encode the random values. 2. The number of probable subsets of signals to be examined for synergistic set is huge from moment to moment. Therefore, experiments conducted on primitive animals suspected to have consciousness will be more promising to gain any result in nowadays. 46


In fact in the brain, there are enormous amount of highly-irregular firing and random interspike intervals produced by neurons, very strangely even more happening in pyramidal cells; such neurons performs high level cognitive functions long-suspect as being critically involved in consciousness. I call it ‘strange’ because for a normal system intended for efficiency, noises should be greatly reduced in signals involved in components performing high-level function of that system. But in the biological brain, that phenomenon seems like taking a reversed position from any normal artificial system. The neurons involved in high level cognitive functions seems to produce even much more random inters-pike intervals than those performs low-level automatic response. Very strangely, inter-spike intervals are produced RANDOMLY even under the same stimulus are present. The source of such randomness is not fully understood, and how it may contribute to the information processing in the brain is still a very big mystery. May the source of some of such randomness be NOT truly classical, but arise from the quantum randomness originated inside neurons? And such randomness may NOT be just simply as noises or for any facilitation for information processing, but rather to provide a base for the formation of ‘synergistic set of random values’ for consciousness to communicate to the physical world?

There is a news article relating consciousness to random signals of brain, you may take a look: http://www.livescience.com/46411-free-will-is-background-noise.html

10

Possible preliminary solutions to some mysteries of neuroscience

So far I’ve only talked about the general principles of the modern interactive dualism model that I’ve been proposing. At this point, if we start to think of the actual dynamics of the model’s realization by neurons, that may start to provide some insights to solving a few great mysteries of the current neuroscience is now facing.

47


10.1

Mystery of ‘feedback’ problem

One of the great mystery of the modern neuroscience is about the ‘feedback loop’ problem. To help clarify the problem, let me explain it with the most simplest way with an utmost simplified model; Image that during an experiment, you are wearing a glasses-like electronic device on your eyes, and a overwhelmingly bright red color light are flashed onto your retina by that device; the time duration of that flashed red color light is long enough for you to perceive the red color in normal condition. So as expected, you report that you see the red color. The signal pathways in your brain during the process are recorded and analyzed. The analysis result is as follow. Initially, signals are sent from your retina to your visual cortex. A group of neurons dedicated to red color perception in your visual cortex are especially activated, let me denote that group by X. Afterwards, signals via X in the visual cortex further proceed to your frontal cortex and parietal cortex. Up to this point, the whole story still makes sense; you may need your frontal/parietal cortex to evoke the abstract concept of ‘redness’ and associate that with your output mechanism to report ‘red is perceived‘. However, the story does not end up here. Signals continue to proceed, NOT forwardly to other brain’s modules, but BACK to the group of neurons X in the visual cortex as mentioned previously. Now, here is where the mystery lies; such feedback loop is necessary for your sensation of ‘redness’ to arise! In other words, if the feedback signals from your frontal/parietal cortex to X are blocked, then you fail to perceive the red light! Such mystery is not restrict to visual sensation only; it also applies to other sensations such as auditory sensation or tactile sensation as well. In general, for a particular sensation to arise, the path of signals for that particular sensation should complete a feedback loop: f orward

back

Sensory module −−−−−→ Other modules in the brain −−→ Sensory module

From the perspective of modern interactive dualism, it is not hard to see the solution to the mystery; neurons in the sensory module need feedback signals from other modules to perform ‘connection points joining’ in the production of graph G. From the perspective of each neuron involved in G in each consciousness cycle, it needs information to know which

48


connection point is to join to which other connection point dynamically. The sensing and reporting of ‘redness’ most likely is performed by the ‘global consciousness’, and the set of neurons involved for that ‘global consciousness’ can change from time to time for each consciousness cycle. As each connection point in a neuron can be uniquely identified by another neuron where one of the connection point’s particle is resided, feedback signals are required to identify the set of connection points involved for joining in each neuron. If the forward sweep of signals function as finding the set of neurons to produce such ‘global consciousness’, then the backward signals function as allowing the sensing module’s neurons to identify which set of neurons in other modules for them to join for the ‘global consciousness’:

Figure 10.1: The red arrows show the forward signals flow. Connection point’s particles identified by the forward signal to join a global consciousness’s substrate are marked in red.

49


Figure 10.2: The blue arrows show the backward signals flow. Connection pointâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s particles identified by the backward signal to join a global consciousnessâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s substrate are marked in blue.

50


Figure 10.3: Combing the forward and backward signals in Figure 13.1 and Figure 13.2, all connection pointsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; particles (green) involved for the joining and measurements for a global consciousness instance could be identified. The solid black lines joining green nodes inside a neuron denote â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;connection point joiningâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; for all particles identified by the forward and backward signals inside the neuron.

51


Figure 10.4: Another example of forward signals flow with those connection pointâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s particles (red) identified by them. The neuron with dashed border denotes a destroyed neuron.

52


Figure 10.5: Another example of backward signals flow with those connection pointâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s particles (blue) identified by them. The neuron with dashed border denotes a destroyed neuron.

53


Figure 10.6: Combing the forward and backward signals in Figure 13.4 and Figure 13.5, all connection pointsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; particles (green) involved for the joining and measurements for a global consciousness instance could be identified. The solid black lines joining green nodes inside neurons denote â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;connection point joiningâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; for all particles identified by the forward and backward signals inside neurons.

54


Figure 10.7: Another example of forward signals flow with those connection pointâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s particles (red) identified by them. The neuron with dashed border denotes a destroyed neuron.

55


Figure 10.8: Another example of backward signals flow with those connection pointâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s particles (blue) identified by them. The neuron with dashed border denotes a destroyed neuron.

56


Figure 10.9: Combing the forward and backward signals in Figure 13.7 and Figure 13.8, all connection points’ particles (green) involved for the joining and measurements for a global consciousness instance could be identified. The solid black lines joining green nodes inside the neuron denote ‘connection point joining’ for all connection point’s particles identified by the forward and backward signals inside the neuron.

10.2

Mystery of neural synchronization

Recall that in our interactive dualism model, any production of synergistic set M along the time line should meet the requirement of an important time synchronization factor ∆τc ; that is, for any synergistic M produced naturally: (i) For any measurement mi in M , there is no another measurement mk taken before mi at the same particle of mi such that 0 < t(mi ) − t(mk ) ≤ 2∆τc (ii) max(T (M )) − min(T (M )) ≤ ∆τc , where T (M ) is the set of measuring time of all 57


measurements in M . Note: this synchronization definition is reduced from a more general definition without the max() and min() operator, because such operators would require a common clock frame which does NOT exist if according to the Theory of Relativity. Please see Section 5 for details.

In actual realization, any system with an oscillator synchronizing measurements on connection points could easily meet the two constraints, provided that the oscillation frequency is smaller than 1/(3∆τc ), and all measurements are successfully synchronized within ∆τc .

Indeed, the association of neural synchronization with consciousness phenomenon has been extensively proposed, e.g.: http://thebrain.mcgill.ca/flash/i/i_12/i_12_cl/i_12_cl_con/i_12_cl_con.html http://www.jneurosci.org/content/27/11/2858 If you google the terms ‘neural synchronization’ and ‘consciousness’ on the internet, you will find a lot of papers and articles. Why such association exist remains as a neuroscience ‘s mystery, and even whether such association exist is still controversial. However, if the principle of our interactive dualism model is true, then ‘neural synchronization’ will become a necessary factor replacing the current status as an auxiliary factor for the consciousness phenomenon.

11

Preliminary Solution to the Mystery of Time Arrow

In our daily lives we experience the flow of time as always going in one direction and never goes back. From common sense there seems to have no problem at all. But if you consider the concept of ‘T-symmetry’: (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow_of_time https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-symmetry) we will encounter a serious problem encapsulated in the following statement: • In our conventional view of time arrow; that is, the time arrow with its origin started at the beginning of the universe pointing towards the presumably infinite future; for any 58


two events with a cause-effect relationship in such view, say, event s is the cause event, and event e is the effect event, then event s always precede event e, and it is the event s causing the event e to happen. However, if we take the view that the time arrow is reversed; that is, the time arrow with its origin started at the presumably infinite future towards the beginning of the universe; then the cause-effect relationship can be reversed too; it is the event e that precedes the event s, and it is the event e causing the event s to happen, with NO violation of physical laws in such view! Note: The usual violation of thermodynamics laws in taking such ‘time reversal view’ only manifest in a macroscopic level in regard to statistical unlikely phenomenons to happen; so somehow it is a violation of statistical laws rather of physical laws. Let me illustrate the above statement with a simple example. Imagine a scenario that there is a stone stationary on your hand. You throw the stone hardly straight towards a pool of water; so the stone fly to the water, enter into the pool of water, and eventually stop by the water. A more detailed description of such series of cause-effect events in our conventional time arrow is: • The ball is initially stationary on your hand. The chemical energy stored in your hand’s muscles is convert into the kinetic energy of your hand, which is then transferred to the ball, so the ball fly to the pool of water. Once the ball enters the water, its kinetic energy is transferred to the water as heat and wave, so eventually the ball stop. However, if we take the ‘reversed time arrow’ view, the description will be as follow: • The ball is initially stationary in the water. Some kinetic energies of molecules from heat and wave in the water converge to the ball and transfer their kinetic energy to the ball. The ball gradually acquires enough kinetic energy from water converged to one direction pointing to your hand, so eventually the ball fly out of water to your hand. Finally, the ball stop at your hand as its kinetic energy is converted to kinetic energy of you hand’s muscle’s molecules, which is further converted into the chemical energy stored in your hand’s muscles. Interestingly, BOTH of the above views have NO violation of physical laws, they BOTH can happen. Their only crucial difference lies in that, the first view taken in the conventional 59


time arrow is much, much more likely to happen statistically than the second view taken in the reversed time arrow. In the second view, kinetic energies of molecules from heat and wave have to convergently impart to the ball result in one directional movement of the ball, instead of heat being stored in the ball, which is still possible but is very, very unlikely to happen statistically. Afterwards, kinetic energy of the ball hitting your hand is transferred to your muscle, with every molecules of your hand’s muscle involved in such process are hit by the right forces and directions, so to produce some sort of chemical compounds storing chemical energy in your muscle instead of heat energy, which is still possible but is very, very unlikely to happen statistically.

Indeed, if we consider your hand, the ball and the water wholly as an isolated system in both scenarios, we can compare both scenarios and generalize them as: • The first scenario taken in the conventional time arrow result in a disordered final state of water as heat. The second scenario taken in the reversed time arrow result in a much more ordered final state of chemical compounds storing chemical energy in your hand’s muscles. Actually, such phenomenon of ‘evolution of isolated system’s from a highly ordered state to a disordered state’ is universal: • For any isolated system, it is much, much more statistically likely for that system to evolve from a more ordered state to a less ordered state, than for that system to evolve from a less ordered state to a more ordered state. The above statement can be restated in the context of ‘entropy’ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_(information_theory) • For any isolated system, it is much, much more statistically likely for that system to evolve from a lower entropy state to a higher entropy state, than for that system to evolve from a higher entropy state to a lower entropy state.

60


The above statement can be conceptualized as the notion of ‘Thermodynamic arrow of time’: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow_of_time#The_thermodynamic_arrow_of_time https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_(arrow_of_time) Now, if you recall our connection point model, that each consciousness instance always communicate to our physical world via a synergistic set each time; interestingly, each synergistic set’s production also definitely produce entropy. The amount of ‘information entropy’ in bits produced from each synergistic set measurements capturing a consciousness’s message E ∈ {0, 1} is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_(information_theory) −2N −1 1 log2 N −1 = N − 1 N −1 2 2 where N is the number of measurements in the synergistic set measured from N/2 connection points. (Note: as a simple exercise you may derive the left-hand side formula from the concept of ‘Joint Entropy’ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_entropy)

In short, consciousness communicate to our physical world in the expense of increasing entropy to our physical world. By such, there is no coincidence that the arrow of time our consciousness experiencing is also aligned with the ‘Thermodynamic arrow of time’. General speaking, each consciousness instance communicate to our physical world, by exploiting the quantum uncertainty of its connection point’s particle. Entropy is produced to our physical world upon each measurement on the particles during the production of synergistic set. The progress of any such measurement collapsing quantum state producing entropy align perfectly with the notion of ‘Thermodynamic arrow of time’. Otherwise, if the progress direction of measurements producing entropy is in the reverse of ‘Thermodynamic arrow of time’, there will be a logical contradiction as theoretically a huge amount of ‘measurements’ can be performed during the ‘reversed time progress’ to disrupt the initial low entropy state of our universe!

But you do not have to worry, such logical contradiction would not happen at all. The ultimate reason lies in the nature of the ‘indeterministic quantum uncertainty’ itself; the ‘indeterministic quantum uncertainty’ nature of any entity only manifest itself via the pure 61


random values production caused by measurements on that entity in our conventional ‘Thermodynamic arrow of time’. If we take the view of ‘reversed time arrow’, the ‘indeterministic quantum uncertainty’ nature would disappear, as in such view any random value would NOT be caused by a measurement upon indeterministic quantum uncertainty any more; but such random value would instead be caused by the set of deterministic ‘future events’ triggered by the production of that random value (‘future events’ in relative to the conventional time arrow, or ‘past events’ in relative to our reversed time arrow)! Consequently, our physical world is completely deterministic under the view of ‘reversed time arrow’; in such view the random values are NOT pure random values any more, but deterministic pseudo random values caused by other deterministic events in the physical world. Thus, there is NO way for consciousness to communicate to our physical world in such view, as the physical world is absolutely ‘causally closed’ in such view! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causal_closure

Therefore, a astonishing conclusion is, the consciousness’s time arrow can only align with the conventional ‘Thermodynamic arrow of time’ !

12

Preliminary Solution to the philosophical ‘Personal Identity Problem’

For the detailed accounts of the long standing philosophical ‘Personal Identity Problem’, you may find a lot resources on the internet, such as: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_identity https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/identity-personal/ http://www.iep.utm.edu/person-i/ Now, base on the interactive dualism model proposed in this article, I will jump directly to a simple but logically well-defined solution to the ‘Personal Identity Problem’ first, and then explain it afterwards: • For a pair of SUCCESSIVE (please see the note below for the meaning of ‘successive’ ) synergistic set Mi , Mj associated with a former consciousness instance i and a latter con62


sciousness instance j respectively, then consciousness instance j is in the same ‘self continuation’ with consciousness instance i, if and only if one or more connection points involved in Mj were also involved in Mi . In other words, C(Mi ) ∩ C(Mj ) 6= ∅, where C(Mi ) denotes the set of connection points involved in Mi , and so on. This logic allows more than one Mi satisfying C(Mi ) ∩ C(Mj ) 6= ∅. In such case, all ‘self’ associated with all of each Mi are continued into one single ‘self’ associated with Mj , and that would be correspond to the notion of ‘self or consciousness merging’. Conversely, the logic also allows more than one Mj satisfying C(Mi ) ∩ C(Mj ) 6= ∅. In such case, the single ‘self’ associated with Mi is branched into the continuation of multiple ‘self’ associated with all of each Mj , and that would be correspond to the notion of ‘self or consciousness splitting’. (Note: the term ‘successive’ means that there is NO another synergistic set Mk occurs at time between the former Mi and latter Mj satisfying C(Mi ) ∩ C(Mk ) ∩ C(Mj ) 6= ∅.) The derivation of the above simple logically well-defined solution to the ‘Personal Identity Problem’ is as follow:

For SUCCESSIVE consciousness instances i and j, if C(Mi ) ∩ C(Mj ) 6= ∅, then Mi and Mj may capture i’s and j’s message respectively in react to same set of events S occurred in the snapshot history of some measurements taken at C(Mi ) ∩ C(Mj ) (see Section 5 ). In other words, consciousness instances i and j may share some sort of common memory to S intrinsic to consciousness. Since i and j can only be either belonging to the same ‘self’ or different ‘self’, there does NOT allow fuzzy intermediate between the two conditions, so their sharing of common memory to S intrinsic to consciousness can only indicate that i ad j belong to the same self.

For C(Mi ) ∩ C(Mj ) = ∅, I am UNABLE to show that i and j are always belonging to different self. But from the presumption quite confidently that for any two animals A and B living at the same time, the ‘self continuation’ in A over time would always remain in A until A’s death rather of suddenly jump to ‘self continuation’ in B during A’s lifetime (and vice versa for B). The assumed reason behind this is due to the obvious fact that it is always C(MA ) ∩ C(MA ) = ∅, where MA and MB are any synergistic set taken in animal A and 63


B respectively. (Note: though I do NOT preclude the possibility that if B is born after A’s death, which would involve the destruction of connection points in A and creation of connection points in B, would A’s consciousness be recycled along with other dead organism’s consciousness, merged/split with them, and then be re-engaged to the B’s connection points? The issue is far too out of grasped nowadays and will NOT be discussed in this article)

So what does such simple rule of ‘self continuation’ indicate? It indicates that ‘self’ is substrate constraint but not permanently bind to a particular set of substrate. ‘Self’ can be transferred from a set of connection points A to another disjoint set of connection points B. The simplest way is to produce a series of SUCCESSIVE synergistic sets as follow: • M (A) → M (A ∪ B) → M (B) where M (A) denotes a synergistic set be produced on connection points set A by the system and so on. At the start of process, ‘self’ is at A. At the end of process, the same ‘self’ will be at B. Note that M (A ∪ B) requires connection point(s) joining between A and B, and so ‘physical contact’ between A and B.

If A and B are very far apart, it may NOT be convenient to achieve ‘self transferal’ by ‘physical contact’ between A and B. The simplest solution is to introduce one additional connection point D, with one of D’s particle be placed near to A, and its another particle be placed near to B. So the following series of SUCCESSIVE synergistic sets can be produced by the system: • M (A) → M (A ∪ D) → M (D ∪ B) → M (B) Therefore, only ‘physical contact’ between A and its nearby D’s particle is required. Equivalently, only ‘physical contact’ between B and its nearby D’s particle is required. No physical contact between A and B is required for ‘self’ to be transferred from A to B!

One very important point to highlight there is that, there is NO information transfer from A to B in the process, only ‘self ‘ is transferred (base on the primary presumption throughout this article, consciousness itself cannot transfer information from one place to another. 64


Otherwise, physical rules would be violated ). If memory is to be transfered from A to B, signal transmission is required from A to B.

The discussion of ‘self-transferral’ might sound sci-fi, but in fact it is NOT as outlandish as you think. The phenomenon of ‘self-transferral’ is just happening in your awakening brain every moment! During your consciousness stream over time, the set of neurons involved in the consciousness stream are changing from time to time. However, it appears that it is always the same ‘you’ ! At first glance, you consciousness seems behaving like a fluid substance moving around the network of your brain cells from time to time. However, if the general principles of our solution to the ‘Personal Identity Problem ’ is correct, such phenomenon can be easily explained by that, the set of connection points involved for each synergistic set in the series of SUCCESSIVE synergistic sets produced in the consciousness communication stream in a biological brain are usually overlapped over time; that is, for the series of SUCCESSIVE synergistic sets produced in the stream of consciousness communication in a biological brain to our physical world: . . . , Mi−2 , Mi−1 , Mi , Mi+1 , Mi+2 , . . . The following are very likely to happen: . . . , C(Mi−2 ) ∩ C(Mi−1 ) 6= ∅, C(Mi−1 ) ∩ C(Mi ) 6= ∅, C(Mi ) ∩ C(Mi+1 ) 6= ∅, . . . Even if occasionally, say, C(Mi−1 ) ∩ C(Mi ) = ∅, the either ‘split self’ associated with Mi (in other words, C(Mi ) ∩ C(Mj ) 6= ∅ for some j < i − 1), or ‘newborn self’ associated with Mi (in other words, C(Mi ) ∩ C(Mj ) = ∅ for all j < i), such ‘self’ associated with Mi will very likely be merged back quickly to the mainstream continuation of ‘self’ by a future synergistic set Mk in a biological brain by: C(Mi ) ∩ C(Mk ) 6= ∅ where Mk is in the mainstream self continuation with Mi−1 : C(Mi−1 ) ∩ C(Mk−n ) 6= ∅, . . . , C(Mk−1 ) ∩ C(Mk ) 6= ∅, . . . where k − n > i.

One interesting point is deserved to be mentioned; there is nothing special about the ‘one 65


brain’ concept. If the moving, merging or splitting of ‘self’ can occur naturally within one brain via the dynamics of connection points joining and synergistic set measurements; then if technology is advanced enough in the future, it can also occur across two or more brains too by artificially manipulating the dynamics of connection points joining and synergistic set measurements across brains! Imagine that your ‘self’ can merge with the other ‘self’s of a number of other sentient beings, such as a dog, a human and a cow, over a certain time period. Afterwards, that ‘self’ may split and continue into a countable number of ‘self’s over another time period!

Appendix A

Spinned Particle

For simple introduction to spinned particle in quantum mechanics, you may see this: https: //www.youtube.com/watch?v=cd2Ua9dKEl8.

I will explain the measurement of spinned particle in the most simplest way in relevant to the content of this article. Because I think the conventional ‘up’ and ‘down’ spin direction concept of spinned particle is rather confusing for beginner, and is irrelevant to our discussion, so I will change that notion to ‘+’ and ‘-’. The assignment of ‘+’ or ‘’ to either the north pole or south pole of a spinned particle is arbitrary. If we adopt the spherical coordinate system in 3D space, we can always rotate the spherical coordinate system to align its vertical axis with the particle’s spin axis. Since the measurement axis can always be described by the θ angle in a conventional spherical coordinate system (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_coordinate_system), only discussion in 2D polar coordinates is sufficient. The circle in polar coordinates −π ≤ θ < π can be divided into 3 regions: • The region with |θ| < π/2, arbitrarily denoted by region α • The region with |θ| > π/2, arbitrarily denoted by region β • The region with |θ| = π/2, arbitrarily denoted by region γ

66


Meanwhile, I will only discuss the measurement with |θ| = 6 π/2, and come back to the case of |θ| = π/2 later. Before measurement, the spin axis aligns with the vertical axis of the coordinate system. After any measurement with its axis making θ angle from the particle’s spin axis, the particle’s spin axis will always collapse to a new spin axis aligning with the measurement axis, therefore also making θ angle from the particle’s original spin axis. There are only two possibilities after measurement: • Before measurement, ‘+’ (or ‘-’) is in region α, or equivalently, ‘-’ (or ‘+’) is in region β. After measurement with |θ| = 6 π/2, ‘+’ (or ‘-’) is still in region α, or equivalently, ‘-’ (or ‘+’) is still in region β. Such possibility can be arbitrarily denoted as m = 0. • Before measurement, ‘+’ (or ‘-’) is in region α, or equivalently, ‘-’ (or ‘+’) is in region β, After measurement with |θ| = 6 π/2, ‘+’ (or ‘-’) is changed to be in region β, or equivalently, ‘-’ (or ‘+’) is changed to be in region α. In other words, in region α, ‘+’ (or ‘-’) is changed to ‘-’ (or ‘+’) , or equivalently, in region β, ‘-’ (or ‘+’) is changed to ‘+’ (or ‘-’) . Such possibility can be arbitrarily denoted as m = 1. According to quantum mechanics, θ θ • If |θ| < π/2, the occurring probability of P (m = 0) = cos2 , and P (m = 1) = sin2 . 2 2 θ θ • If |θ| > π/2, the occurring probability of P (m = 0) = sin2 , and P (m = 1) = cos2 . 2 2 Since a measurement axis with θ ≥ 0 is equivalent to a measurement axis at θ − π, and a measurement axis with θ < 0 is equivalent to a measurement axis at θ + π, so there are two cases to consider as shown above.

So a spinned particle can act as a pure random generator producing random value m ∈ {0, 1} repeatedly by measurement at any time, with P (m = 0), or equivalently, P (m = 1), be adjusted by angle θ. If |θ| is nearly equal to π/2, then P (m = 0), or P (m = 1), is nearly equal to 0.5, an almost fair coin toss, though P (m = 0) is always greater than P (m = 1).

So how about |θ| = π/2? In this case, before measurement, ‘+’ (or ‘-’) is in region α, 67


or equivalently, ‘-’ (or ‘+’) is in region β. After measurement, + (or -) is in region γ either at +π/2 or −π/2 in half-half chance. Since due to the symmetry of space, there is no naturally way to define which direction along the spin axis after measurement is +π/2 or −π/2, so the production of m = 0 or m = 1 cannot be defined naturally (though the assigning of +π/2 or −π/2 can be done artificially). Furthermore, measurement exactly at |θ| = π/2 is an ideal concept, which is very hard to realize in actual system.

68

Interactivedualism  

Consciousness Interactive Dualism

Interactivedualism  

Consciousness Interactive Dualism

Advertisement