The Central Enigma of Consciousness
Correspondence: (Login to view email address)
- Mathematics Department, University of Auckland
PDF (1.8 MB)
- Document Type:
- Manuscript
- Date:
- Received 04 November 2008 08:10 UTC; Posted 05 November 2008
- Subjects:
- Neuroscience
- Abstract:
Abstract: The nature and physical basis of consciousness remains the central enigma of the scientific description of reality in the third millennium. This paper seeks to examine the phenomenal nature of subjective consciousness and elucidate a possible biophysical basis for its existence, in terms of a form of quantum anticipation based on entangled states driven by chaotic sensitivity of global brain dynamics during decision-making processes. Evidence is presented for the evolutionary emergence of chaotic excitation as a universal sense organ in the founding eucaryotes, which then became used in a context-sensitive manner by complex central nervous systems, leading to the dynamical brain.
Discussion
- Votes:
-
0 votes
- Comments:
-
2 comments
Thanks for a very fair, thoughtful and detailed review. I appreciate your acknowledgment of the strengths and scope of the paper in attempting a ‘grand solution to the hard problem of consciousness’ as you put it.
I also appreciate your comments on any perceived areas for improvement, the choice of literature and the suggestions of further research authors in consciousness studies whose inclusion might benefit the work.
With respect to the Fourier transforms and other illustrations, these are intended merely to show that various aspects of brain dynamics are consistent with chaotic sensitivity, not to demonstrate conclusively that they imply chaos, or edge of chaos dynamics. The aim is to present a model which is consistent with experimental findings and known neurobiology, not to ‘prove’ that the brain uses chaos or fractal chaos.
I would point out that this work is more consistent with established neurobiology than many other models in the area of consciousness research, which often place greater emphasis on hypothetical exotic properties of structures such as microtubules than on the structures and dynamics central to experimental neurophysiology.
The question “Does chaos on one level of explanation imply chaos on another level explanation?” would take up more discussion than possible here. Again the aim of the paper is to show this is indicative but not conclusive. The short answer is that virtually all chaotic systems involve fractal processes. Lorenz’s own system, for which the ‘butterfly effect’ was coined, does have a fractal strange attractor. However the non-linear nature of the chemical bond gives rise to a very particular form of quantum fractality, from the atom, through protein structures, to whole tissues, which requires its own form of analysis to fully elucidate.
The evidence for global influence of micro-instabilities is not omitted. Two lines of evidence supporting the possible feedback of micro-instabilities on to whole brain states are illustrated in figures 5 and 6 in stochastic resonance and the recently discovered influence of Chandelier cells on disseminated pyramidal dynamics.
With respect the the overall choice of references, I have used a number of Wikipedia references so that a general reader accessing the paper in electronic form can rapidly access related concepts, rather than having to access only research periodicals which they may not have electronic access to unless on a university library account. However I have also included the key source research articles supporting the critical components of the argument, so that the paper stands as a properly source referenced research model. In terms of theories of consciousness, I chose ones you referred to as ‘very fine’ – Chalmers, Baars, Freeman, Crick and Koch etc. as landmarks in the discussion, which establish the qualitative frame of reference, rather than attempting an exhaustive review of the field, which would have obscured the clarity and thrust of the model.
The inclusion of general neurobiological architecture, which probably seems elementary to a neuroscientist, is necessary for a physicist or mathematician, to give readers from the wide variety of backgrounds the model covers a moderately level playing field entry to what is in your own words a ‘rather dense’ description being elucidated.
- (Login to share with a colleague)
Additional information
- License:
- This document is licensed to the public under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License
- How to cite this document:
-
King, Chris. The Central Enigma of Consciousness. Available from Nature Precedings <http://hdl.handle.net/10101/npre.2008.2465.1> (2008)
- Version info:
-
Other versions of this document in Nature Precedings
None.
Other versions of this document elsewhere on the web
- http://www.dhushara.com/enigma/enigma.htm : HTML version of the submitted document compiled to be fully internet compliant.
Daniel Labbé on 30 November 2008 02:31 UTC
I have attempted to review your paper. Forgive me for my ignorance of the parts I do not understand about mathematics and microbiology. My lack of experience as a reviewer welcomes any response you may have about its style. My limited background is in consciousness studies and the cognitive functioning of brains. I hope that my critique does not come through as lecturing too much. Also, bear in mind that I am not a native English speaker. For what it is worth, here is my rather compact review (or extensive comment).
My first impression of the article as a whole is that it aims for a grand solution to the hard problem of consciousness. The strong points of the article are the unorthodox but refreshing approaches: the biophysical bottom-up approach and the approach of the hard problem by reference to “softer” issues, rather than philosophical starting points. The main weak points are the lack of relevant and reliable literature on consciousness and the redundancy of descriptions of explanations on lower levels of explanation and of description. The focus should be aimed toward the relationship between consciousness, brain and quantum entanglement and moved away from gross anatomical details of the brain, kindergarten neurochemistry and neuropsychological phenomena that are not relevant to the issue at hand. At times it seems as if the author uses a vocabulary which is new to him or her, as if the author cannot explain it in plain English, with the exception of mathematical terminology and concepts closely related to the natural sciences. The point of departure is not the question: What is known? but rather: What needs to be known (to solve the hard problem)?
The literature on consciousness in comparison to the literature on for example mathematics consists of wikipedia articles and other questionable sources. From a cultural anthropological point of view, these are all valid sources as they tell us about popular theory. However, the paper needs to limit itself at least to the natural sciences, neurosciences and philosophy. The field covered is huge and gives the concept of transdisciplinarity a whole new meaning. The author should be applauded for taking on such a daunting task.
Regrettably, the author is limited in the choice of literature on consciousness. Although some of the selected works on consciousness are very fine (e.g. Baars, Chalmers, Dennett, Crick & Koch), perhaps the author would not have gone through so much trouble in relating consciousness to quantum theory had the author consulted works by Paavo Pylkkanen and others. The Journal of Consciousness Studies, at least in its early days, is (or was) a fine source for peer reviewed articles on consciousness, as is Consciousness and Cognition.
What follows are some comments on facts and propositions.
”...the brain is a massively parallel dynamic organ.”
This notion is not supported in the text, but bluntly assumed without prior justification. How can it be justified? This is not a settled issue in consciousness studies.
”...broad spectrum excitations [are] indicative of chaos, rather than
the discrete resonances of ordered states.”
Does chaos on one level of explanation imply chaos on another level explanation? The butterfly effect says no. If resonance implies ordered states of waves, do ordered brainwaves imply ordered states of consciousness, or even brain states? If a butterfly flaps its wings in a presumably non-random fashion chaos happens. Could it be the other way around? Perhaps the possibility of a human mind bends a natural law or two. Is it possible that brainwaves are epiphenomena: why, why not?
With little knowledge in mathematics I am puzzled from what I know about statistics that the Fourier transforms in Figure 2e support any theory of chaos. I see nothing but a frequency distribution with variance, with a distinct pattern. If the author is correct, then the established method of using Evoke Related Potentials (ERP) in conjunction with EEG sampling is probably challengeable on a similar account. Perhaps I am missing the argument.
What is the immediate relevance of Figure 3 to consciousness as subjective experience (assuming that the brain has something to do with it)?
”...cortical activity accompanying waking consciousness is dependent on a general level of excitatory activity… light and dreaming sleep are likewise modulated through ascending nor-epinephrine, dopamine and serotonin pathways passing from the brain stem upwards to permeate specific layers of the whole cortex.”
What does modulate refer to in this context? On one interpretation of this passage the causality implied is this: brain chemistry happens, thus we fall asleep.
May I recommend the author to be careful with the usage of “dependent”.
“There are actually two cortices…” more commonly referred to as hemispheres.
“Although neuroscientists have tended to discount the idea that micro-instabilities could lead to global changes in brain dynamics, on the basis that mass action will overwhelm such small effects, a variety of lines of evidence have demonstrated that fluctuations in single cells can lead to a change of brain state.”
Great! But where is the evidence, the references? I could not locate them in this paragraph.
On page 9, neurons suddenly ‘make decisions’. What enables this homunculi feat? If I understand your argument correct you accept the homunculus fallacy in some regards by grounding it in biological phenomena, a very innovative approach indeed.
Might I suggest that it would be more elucidating to present the influence of behaviorism on approaches to consciousness rather than thoughts on Gilbert Ryle’s stance on dualism?
Concluding, a lot of effort has been put into this article. The number of pages to literature count ratio is 4.5, which suggests that the article is rather dense. The major task for the author is to reach an audience with many different backgrounds. The social sciences, for example, expect thoughtful elaborations whereas the biological sciences expect compact articles. In reports of an interdisciplinary nature the most difficult challenge is to convey an article that is “good science” from the perspectives of all disciplines involved.