THE NEURAL MECHANISM OF CONSCIOUSNESS

   Making up super-networks and the neural mechanism of consciousness

How would specific neural networks, like those involved in the formation of codes like “round shape” or “red colour”, integrate into super-networks in association cortex, during perception, to code something like “red ball” and form a percept? First, let us consider a classical idea about neural networks: Any neuron, for instance, a neuron A in the association cortex, which belonged to a neural network, might be an integral element of different networks at different moments, given the multiple possible connections for each neuron. Taking this idea a step forward, let us propose another groundbreaking possibility: Hypothetically, neuron A could be an integral element of more than one network then, but not only at different moments, but at the same time as well. This could be possible if neuron A belonged to a network and to a super-network at the same time. It would be possible if, during the conscious perception of a red ball, codes “round shape” and “red colour” got synchronized but at the same time remained mutually inhomogeneous, in other words, if neuron A (of the “round shape” network) could belong to the network “round shape” and to the super-network “red ball” at the same time. Phase synchronization would probably grant this (triggering the synchronization of two different and compatible codes in association cortex to add and become a super-network, although maintaining their mutual heterogeneity). Let us see how this could take place, how it would force a change of scale and a confinement in that macroscopic scale, and hence result in the inevitable side effect of the emergence of consciousness as a vivid first hand enigmatic experience:

One neuron A of the “round shape” network, in association cortex, would be transmitting a train, or sequence, of action potentials, with a specific pattern of discharge, to a second neuron A’ of the same “round shape” network (see diagram below). This A-A’ message would be transmitting coded information meaning “round shape”, it would be the “round shape” code (And all the type A neurons of the “round shape” network would probably be synchronized by their frequencies). At the same time, and through an A+B interaction, an A+B synchronization would be taking place, by means of a phase synchronization (a synchronization of their phases, not of their frequencies), between neuron A of the A-A’ “round shape” network and neuron B of the compatible B-B’ “red colour” network, in association cortex too (“compatible” meaning “mutually coherent”, something probably granted through a thalamocortical pacemaker connected with A and B). One action potential of A, during an A-A’ transmission in the “round shape” networking set of neurons, would be in phase synchronization with one coherent action potential of B during a parallel (and simultaneous with A-A’) B-B’ transmission in the compatible (mutually coherent) “red colour” networking B-B’ set of neurons. The action potential of A that would establish a phase synchronization with the correspondent and simultaneous action potential of B would be one action potential of the sequence of action potentials of the “round shape” code during the A-A’ transmission, and the same with B-B’ and the “red colour” code. Although brief and transient, the A+B phase synchronization would trigger the more enduring but eventually transient too synchronization of the simultaneous and parallel A-A’ and B-B’ sequences, because A+B would trigger the establishment of a constant phase difference between A-A’ and B-B’, a synchronization of A-A’ and B-B’, that would get them geared as a function of time by concrete, complete and constant repetitive sequences of action potentials of each of them, every given constant number of action potentials of A and every given constant number of action potentials of B. Through this mechanism A-A’ would be synchronized with B-B’, but they would remain mutually heterogeneous though, because they would be synchronized, but not by their frequencies (not by all of their spikes), which was precisely the requisite to build up a percept like “red ball”: Coherence and synchronization of its parts, but with their mutual heterogeneity as well. This would be the hypothetical neural mechanism to build up the “red ball” super-network, the “red ball” percept, this type of synchronization and this type of connections between the networking neurons involved.

So, without further ado, next diagram shows the hypothetical basic neural circuitry during conscious perception, a “frame” of consciousness:  

                                   SCN(AC)

                         :-------A----------------A’

                         :          +                      I

                         :          +                      I

TCPM ---------:        PSBSS           CPDBC

                         :          +                      I

                         :          +                      I

                         :-------B----------------B’

                                   CCN(AC)

TCPM: Thalamocortical pacemaker.

PSBSS: Phase synchronization between single signals.

SCN(AC): “Shape” code network (association cortex).

CCN(AC): “Colour” code network (association cortex).

CPDBC: Constant phase difference between codes.

A, A’, B and B’: Association cortex neurons.

Change of scale, confinement and the emergence of consciousness

Let us recall now that if a reference unit is bigger than the magnitude of the change of state to be measured in a system, according to a given parameter, that magnitude will be undetectable as such on the scale of that unit. For instance: It cannot be measured, utilizing a termometer divided in degrees (a resolution of one degree), a rise of temperature of a thousandth of a degree. Such magnitude of a change (0.001 degrees) would be undetectable using whole degrees as its unit of reference value in that relatively macroscopic scale of degrees, even though its whole value of a thousandth of a degree could be detected using another termometer with higher sensitivity and a smaller scale.

Even though an observer without sufficient resolution capability, without a resolution in a scale of thousandths of a degree at least, would not be able to notice that rise of temperature of a thousandth of a degree, that would not stop the rise of temperature of one thousandth of a degree from occurring, and this is so because the properties of a system will not disappear with a change of scale, as reminded by Gehm in his 2005 paper (“Gehm, M., Thomas, J. E., 2005, Gases de Fermi atrapados ópticamente, Investigación y ciencia 342, pp. 36-43”). Thus, the A+B phase synchronization type of phenomena would be taking place during perception, even though A+B got blurred and the process became emergent, the same as the pixels will remain on a computer screen (and capable of being detected with the proper tools) although we can only perceive a red ball on it with the naked eye.

The A+B phase synchronization and the A-A’ transmission would take effect simultaneously (and on a same physical substrate, A), although on different time scales (like the pixels on the screen on a microscopic scale and an emergent red ball on a macroscopic scale on that same screen at the same time). The relatively microscopic (respect of A-A’) A+B phase synchronization phenomenon (consisting in one action potential of A and one of B) would be briefer than the A-A’ (and B-B’) transmissions (consisting in several action potentials of A and B). In fact, the A+B phenomenon would not even be already detectable as such on the scale where A-A’ were detectable, a matter of observation (detectable, for instance, through a systematic A-A’ and B-B’ interaction). A+B would measure zero units of time on the time scale where A-A’ became measurable and therefore the A+B phenomenon would be completely blurred out of time from the point of view of A-A’. A+B would not even seem to exist at all on the bigger scale as a function of time (like the rise of 0,001 degrees of temperature in the previous example using the inadequate termometer would not either), an apparent and illusory complete blurring out of existence of the miscroscopic phenomenon at first sight, even though it would be taking place.

The blurring of the microscopic phenomenon, in these circumstances, in that system, with this change of the time scale on this substrate, as it would take place on a same substrate, would be necessary, inevitable, it would occur by force, because it would be like removing the magnifying glass in the example of the pixels of a computer screen to force a loss of spatial resolution and the blurring of the pixels during the observation of the screen with the naked eye. From the point of view of A-A’, only A-A’ would be taking place on A, not A+B, so the A phenomenon would be confined in A-A’, and, at the same time, as the properties of a system do not disappear with a change of scale, the A+B phenomenon would be taking place anyway, so its consequences (the synchronization of the shape and colour codes) would sill be detectable on the bigger scale (the same as the pixels would still be visible with the naked eye, although not perceivable), so the A phenomenon would acquire an overall macroscopic and confined character as a function of time, and hence an emergent character with its correspondent emergent properties (in its case, the uniqueness and indivisibility of “roundness” and “redeness”) and emergent objects (the conscious individual). This is how consciousness would be macroscopic and confined and have that emergent character at first sight, through this change of scale on system A during the perception process. Once the microscopic were blurred from the new scale point of view, only the macroscopic point of view would be effective in practice during the A-A’ and B-B’ interaction, so that would be the only real appearance of A at first sight from the now confined macroscopic point of view.

Establishment of two scales of A

Therefore, the key to explain consciousness, to explain the emergence of the uniqueness and individuality of the mind during perception as a change of scale and a confinement of perception on a macroscopic scale, would be that the activity of a same networking neural substrate in association cortex would be detectable in two different time scales at the same time with the integration of a specific super-network based on phase synchronization. How would the neurons systematically establish the effectivity of both scales?

The A-A’ transmission would establish a minimum amount of time necessary for the “round shape” code to verify: That minimum time would be the reference unit of time of that relatively macroscopic scale on which the “round shape” code would be detectable as such (Detectable through the proper specific systematic interaction; let us recall again that detectability depends on systematic interactions and that a system is a group of elements and their interactions), for instance, as a part of the percept “red ball”, by means of a systematic interaction of the type of a synchronization between A-A’ and B-B’ through the establishment of a constant phase difference between them.

The A+B phase synchronization, on its part, would verify within a minimum of time too, that would be the reference unit of that relatively microscopic time scale on which the verification of that A+B phase synchronization would be detectable.

The “uniqueness and individuality” code and consciousness

This hypothetical neural mechanism of consciousness would be able to explain how the uniqueness and individuality of roundness and redness would become coded in super-network form, because it would explain how that super-network, “red ball”, a network with that meaning, would be formed, how roundness and redness would get synchronized without losing their mutual heterogeneity and emerge apparently as one individual object as a function of time through a change of scale. This would be the key to explain consciousness, because consciousness would be perception with uniqueness and individuality, as a conscious self, or, in other words, consciousness would be the continuous (blurred) persistence of that emergent and relatively macroscopic coded conceptual abstract idea of uniqueness and individuality of the percepts throughout the illusorily continuous (blurred) sequence of successive percepts (the same as “movement of an actor” would be the emergent idea persisting in our mind while watching a continuous sequence of successive still frames in a movie).

The blurring of the microscopic and the emergence of the macroscopic

How would the relatively microscopic A activity get blurred with the change of scale? In the case of the brain, during perception, if the reference unit needed for the effective detectability of the A-A’ and the B-B’ phenomena, that minimum time on that relatively macroscopic scale established by the time lapse needed to verify the completion of the A-A’ and B-B’ transmissions, were bigger than the magnitude to be detected, A+B, then the time lapse needed so that the verification of the A+B phase synchronization could take place would be undetectable as such temporal magnitude in its own value from the “red ball” percept point of view. Its value (of A+B as a function of time) would be zero, and therefore the inner mechanism of separation between roundness and redness itself, A+B, would be blurred completely, undetectable from the A-A’ and B-B’ interaction type of detectable phenomena point of view. But A-A’ and B-B’ would not get blurred, and would still keep a constant phase difference between them and a resulting synchronization of both codes would take place then. As the properties of a system do not change with a change of scale, the codes would remain as codes, but merged, in the form of a unique and indivisible whole now.

The macroscopic character of conscious perception

How do we conceive that what we perceive is macroscopic, that a mountain is huge and a stone small, if perception is the result of the work of tiny neurons? The size estimation of observed macroscopic objects, “large size objects”, requires some computing inside the brain: The spatial size of the macroscopic objects, as it is perceived at first sight, is basically a relative estimation, in general, carried out in the abstract grounds when an automatic comparison between objects takes place inside the mind. Errors will be committed in any of these continuous estimations our brain performs all the time. It fails in varying degrees in the absence of reference points. For instance: Astronauts on the Moon, an overwhelming desert, could not tell easily if an isolated rock in the distance was a small boulder or a big mountain, unlike on earth.

On the other hand, perception and consciousness would be macroscopic, and not because the objects under observation are macroscopic, but because the A-A’ phenomenon would be taking place simultaneously with the A+B phenomenon on a same substrate, system A, due to the complex interactions between A, A’ and B, but on different time scales, and the A-A’ time scale would be relatively macroscopic respect of the A+B time scale, and the A+B time lapse would be too small to be detected on the A-A’ time scale. Therefore, conscious perception would not be a macroscopic phenomenon just because the actual spatial size of the things that we are able to perceive at first sight is in fact literally only macroscopic (We cannot perceive microscopic size things not because conscious perception is macroscopic, but because we cannot see them, for the eye spatial resolution is not enough to bring microscopic size things into focus). Conscious perception would be macroscopic, but as a function of time, because the brain would perform a change of the time scale from micro to macro during the process of perception, and a confinement in it. The consequent loss of temporal resolution would prevent us to notice that “roundness” and “redness” are two objects, not one, their duality would be too microscopic for us to perceive at first sight. The macroscopic character of conscious perception does not refer to our inability to see microscopic size things with the naked eye then; it refers to the change of the time scale from a microscopic scale (established by the A+B minimum time lapse) to a relatively, in comparison, macroscopic scale (established by the A-A’ minimum time lapse) during the process of integration of percepts. The macroscopic size of the things within reach of our senses and the impossibility to perceive microscopic things refers to the limitations of our senses, while the macroscopic character of conscious perception refers to the change of the time scale of the correlative specific neural activity, as a function of time.

QUANTUM DYNAMICS AND THE BRAIN

                                                               Quantum physics

Quantum mechanics formulates quantum physics, the interactions between elementary particles, with its own mechanics, different from classical mechanics, which in turn formulates the physical interactions between macroscopic bodies. Quantum phenomena occur in the lesser known scale of reality, which means that they do not have lesser parts known to science and implies their unexplainability, their lack of an inner mechanism; they probably are the mechanism. This is not easy to understand, but the opposite would be even weirder: A reduction of the elementary particles to infinite inner mechanisms. They are considered essential, irreducible to other more elementary objects, and fundamental, the origin of the rest of the visible phenomena, like crocodiles, or red snooker balls. What those particles do is emit and absorb other particles. Ynduráin asked in his book, “Electrones, neutrinos y quarks”, what could be the cause of the emission and absorption of those particles, which mechanism could be behind their kind of behaviour which is peculiar to quantum physics, and his answer was: None; such processes should be considered irreducible down to others. Freeman Dyson wrote that after dominating the formal language of quantum mechanics it was imperative to recognize that there was nothing left to understand. What is left is a mere description of phenomena on their own scale, not only counterintuitive, but reduced to themselves as well, devoid of lesser parts or any internal mechanism able to explain them. A person, an example of a macroscopic body, can be sitting on a chair A or on a chair B in the instant X, but that person cannot be sitting on both chairs at the same time. On the contrary, some elementary particles, like a photon, can be in two quantum states, “sitting on two chairs”, at the same time. Some of these characteristic phenomena of quantum physics can be seen with the naked eye. They are called macroquantum phenomena. For instance: If all the particles in a system are in the same quantum state, they could all do the same regarding that state at some point; if that mass of particles is big enough to be seen with the naked eye, some peculiarity might somehow disclose that phenomenon to a macroscopic observer. This is the case of the macroquantum phenomenon that takes place during the so called “superfluidity” of liquid Helium at 2,17 Kelvin degrees of temperature. In this situation the atoms of Helium of that system will share a same given quantum state if they are cooled down to that same temperature. That will imply that the individual atoms will behave to some effect, regarding that state, as one object instead of many atoms, and therefore they will be somehow indistinguishible and interchangeable at some point of their visible behaviour by some characteristic that would reveal that common quantum state. On a macroscopic scale that particular peculiarity emerges to be perceived as superfluidity in this case. What will happen is that the liquid will spontaneously flow out of its container on the top of it instead of staying at the bottom, because, if one of the particles does so randomly, the rest will do the same, surprisingly, as they share a same particular quantum state, at that temperature, and all due to a counterintuitive and unthinkable microscopic quantum phenomenon. The superfluidity is counterintuitive, because liquids are not expected to flow out of a container by themselves, they are supposed to stay at the bottom, even though one of them randomly flows out. But quantum physics is strange and counterintuitive. Nevertheless, what we are able to illusorily perceive, crocodiles and red balls, often has a deeper human meaning for us: To flee from a crocodile, if that were the case, would possibly have a deeper meaning for most people than to try to understand superfluidity.

Quantum physics and the mind

Consciousness ressembles a quantum state in some aspects, because part of the complex abstract information of the mind assumes a same abstract state, when consciousness emerges at a certain point of the mental process of perception. For instance: If a red ball is being perceived, sensory information about its shape that becomes the mental object “something round shaped” and sensory information about its colour that becomes a second mental object, “something red coloured”, will be integrated into a sole mental object, or assume a same state in the mind, the state “red ball as a whole”. Intuition informs us of this analogy between what happens in the mind and what goes on with elementary particles, and it is tempting to attribute true quantum properties to the mind, given its paradoxical characteristics, but it will be a meaningless analogy, because neurons, the constructors of the mind, are not elementary particles, and therefore a true quantum state cannot be generated through the interaction between neurons, whose behaviour is explained by classical mechanics. The brain and its operations, sensitivity, movement, the mind, can be explained by the interactions between neurons. Bertalanffy dealed with the subject of isomorphisms in nature in his book, “Teoría general de sistemas”, where he prevented against the frequent confusion between isomorphisms and meaningless analogies (An isomorphism, according to its mathematical definition, consists in the biunivocal correspondence between two sets of things. This means that, given two sets, 1 and 2, if a biunivocal correspondence is established between their elements, element A of set 1 will correspond to element B of set 2, and not to another element of 2. There will be an isomorphism between 1 and 2 if, whenever there is an interaction in 1 between the elements A and A’, then an interaction between B and B’ will take place in set 2 as well, with biunivocal correspondence. 1 and 2 will be isomorphic if that is the case. The brain also accomplishes a sufficient isomorphism between what is watched and the images that rebuild it in the mind, within an acceptable margin of error in practice most of the time. The specificity and congruence of the neuronal activity makes this a possibility). Due to this analogy between consciousness and quantum physics, some authors have glimpsed a link of some kind between quantum physics and the mental processes. There are diverse points of view about the possible vinculation between consciousness and quantum mechanics, more or less speculative. Pastor-Gómez reviewed the subject in an article, “Mecánica cuántica y cerebro”, published in 2002 in “Revista de Neurología”. Cairns-Smith, in his book, “Evolving the mind”, wrote that some people think that consciousness is, in fact, a macroquantum effect of some kind. Krasimira Kademova wrote that conscious perception is characterized by its arising as a whole, yet conformed by the parts of its system, and not only behaving as a whole, but essentially being a whole as well, comparing it to the macroquantum physical phenomenon of the Bose-Einstein condensation. Consciousness cannot be a true quantum phenomenon, but it can be an abstract (mental) representation of something similar, the same as words, colours, sounds, emotions, etc. are objective mental representations of other things too. Stephen Hawking wrote that consciousness might be a phenomenon of quantum coherence inside the brain. It could be, but which and how? Consciousness can not be a true quantum phenomenon, but it could be the abstract recreation of something similar, through the representation of an interaction between mental objects to become a whole, like “red ball”, although not ressembling a macroquantum state, but a phenomenon of quantum coherence in particular: Quantum entanglement.

Quantum entanglement

Quantum entanglement is a phenomenon of quantum coherence. Through this mechanism, “quantum entanglement”, two particles, once linked, or entangled, become one sole particle regarding some particular measurable quantum physical effect, even though it sounds strange. This counterintuitive behaviour, the quantum entanglement, was predicted by Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen in 1935. Quantum entanglement has been proved experimentally, as told, for instance, by Molina in his article of 2004, “Experimento en el Danubio, fotones entrelazados”, in the “Investigación y ciencia” magazine. An entanglement of mental objects, like “shape” and “colour”, to become a sole object of the mind during perception, “red ball”, where shape and colour are inseparable, entangled, could only be an analogy of a quantum entanglement, not a true quantum phenomenon; it would only be an abstract representation of something similar. Given two subatomic particles from a common coherent focus, in order to get entangled they have to be of the same type, for instance, both have to be photons. Besides, their coherent emission is also mandatory, in other words, their phase synchronization, the mutual synchronization of their phases. On the other hand, the mutual synchronization of their frequencies is not mandatory for their entanglement, only their phase synchronization is necessary. This, surprisingly enough, ressembles what should happen between the “round shape” code set of neurons and the “red colour” code set of neurons to merge and form the “red ball” code, their integration taking place through a phase synchronization of their coherent single signals and not taking place through a synchronization of their mutual frequencies. An entanglement, for instance, between two photons, consists in a non local correlation between them (Neuronal integration takes place through a local correlation, in the synapses, so, to recreate an entanglement of mental objects, the neurons would have to be recreating an abstract non local correlation through a local correlation of the neuronal synaptic connections). “Non local correlation” means that the quantum entanglement will be detectable regardless the distance between the particles. This arises the issue with the causality principle in quantum physics, because, if the distance is too big, the entanglement cannot be explained as a cause acting on both photons at the same time when the entanglement becomes detectable to the observer. The trick is this: To the observer, the entanglement only starts to take place when the observer becomes able to detect it with the proper specific tools, and that can happen when the distance is already too big. Nevertheless, this difficulty to understand the cause/effect issue regarding the entanglement phenomenon is surpassed by resourcing, once again, to the concept of correlation, because a dependence between both particles will be observed anyway, although “non local”. The entanglement will take place from the point of view of the observer regardless the ability to eventually prove or to not prove at all the principle of causality in its case.

Local and non local correlation

The neurons, which are connected with each other through the synapses, do not keep a non local correlation between them, but a local correlation. In a neural circuit, A-B-C, formed by the neurons A, B and C, A establishes a synapse with B and B with C, and there is not a synapse between A and C. The link between A and B can be considered a relation of cause-effect, and also the relation between B and C, because it will be the transmission of an action potential from A to B the cause of an effect on B, that is, the possible discharge of an action potential of B. On the other hand, the link between A and C, as they are not connected by an A-C synapse, is that of a correlation. The correlation between A and C, no matter how far they may be from each other, and due to the length of the axons and dendrites, will still be local, as they will keep in touch, through B, which is connected with both and makes the circuit. Thus is the distant but still local interaction between neurons basically produced, through neurites (axons and dendrites), synapses, the formation of neural circuits, diaschisis (the possibility of distant connectivity due to the length of the neurites) and the transmission of action potentials. Some axons are even one meter long (in the sciatic nerve) but still their action will be local. In order to explain consciousness this brings up the issue of how would neurons be able to recreate in the abstract grounds a non local correlation of mental objects, even if it is only illusory, through some specific local correlation of neurons, so that the conscious self emerges as if it were an entangled state of abstract mental objects, as in “red ball”.

Product state

A product state is a state of superposition, or a superposition of states. Given a geometric point in a medium through which two waves are being transmitted, if both waves coincide on that point at the same time they will add their effect on that point. This is called “wave interference”. Interference is based upon the principle of superposition (superposition of waves), according to which the value of the perturbation produced by the two waves on that point is the same as the addition of the value that each wave would produce separately on that point. For instance: If a wave number 1 in the water coincided with a wave number 2, they would add and form another wave by their superposition (bigger or smaller, depending on the result of the addition: Bigger if the interference were constructive, when the wave added to a growing wave is growing too; smaller if the interference were destructive, when the wave added to a growing wave is waning and forming a “valley” instead of a “mountain” or “spike”, etc.). If a wave produced on a water pond by a falling stone moved a floating leaf of a tree upwards on the pond, after generating a wave, the height reached by the leaf would be the amplitude of the wave on the point where the wave hit the leaf underneath, the height the leaf would reach from the initial resting point. If a second wave, provoked by a second stone thrown in the pond, reached the same leaf at the same time as the first wave, because both stones fell simultaneously and not too far away from the leaf, to reach it more or less at the same time, that “same time” would be analogous to the expression “coherent foci” or “coherent emission”, that is what it means as far as waves are concerned. As it turns out, for a wave interference to take place, the emitted waves have to be coherent, emitted at the same instant, both stones must fall at the same time in the pond, within an acceptable margin of error, because if one stone falls in Monday and the other one falls in Tuesday the disturbance of the water produced by each will not reach the leaf at the same time (with enough margin of error of time for an interference) and the interference will not take place, both waves would not add their effects (and that is why the emission must be coherent).

For a quantum entanglement to be produced, a coherent quantum state, the emission foci of the photons must be coherent, and also for a phase synchronization to take place must be the emission coherent (And let us recall, once again, that, on the other hand, a synchronization of frequencies is not necessary in this case; for example: For an interference to take place the two stones falling into the pond do not have to have the same diameter). Waves add or superimpose as they interfere with each other. Once they interfered and added up, the two waves in the pond would be in a state of superposition, a superposition of their states, and also from the floating leaf’s point of view (figuratively), as the two waves would move the leaf upwards together at the same time. According to the leaf, assuming the leaf could speak, there would not be two waves under it if both waves moved the leaf upwards at the same time, both waves would be superimposed and would be one from the leaf’s point of view, one final height only, one final state, not two. In an analogous manner, the mental object “red ball” would be one object only from the conscious self point of view, not two, because shape and colour would come together at the same time, they would not be perceived separately. In the vacuum of space, where electromagnetic waves travel, there are not water ponds in which to see the ripples, and this makes it difficult to picture in our minds a state of superposition of photons. If the leaf were able to see, but the water were invisible for it, like vacuum for us, the leaf would find itself moving upwards until a certain height in empty space, and not knowing how, as it would seem to be happening in the middle of a void. The leaf’s conclussion might then be that it had reached some height in empty space, but not after being pushed by the water it is floating on, as the leaf would not see the water, but because it would be in such a state by then (higher), a state of superposition in its case, as more than one wave would be involved.

Superposition

As Aczel told in his book, “Entrelazamiento”, a superposition consists in an interference between a particle and itself, and an entanglement consists in an interference of a system with itself, a coherent quantum state. Ferrero also recalled in his article, “Información cuántica. Estado de la cuestión”, published in “Investigación y ciencia” (October of 2003), that an entangled state is a coherent quantum state, an interference of a system with itself. Let me try to understand, firstly, “superposition or interference between a particle and itself”:

Particles are some kind of a counterintuitive wave-particle duality. The leaf floating on the pond has been treated here as an ideal body, a particle of sorts, as the wave, pushing the leaf upwards, supposedly hit the leaf from underneath on one point of its surface, an adimensional and unrotating point of the leaf, after using the imagination to transform the leaf into a particle in this mental exercise. If the leaf were also to be considered a wave, or, in other words, if its behaviour, its changes of state (its moving upwards and downwards) were to be identified with the behaviour of the wave of water under it on that point of the wave where water and leaf coincided and became one regarding the “up and down state of that point”, then the movement of the leaf and that of the water would be the same as far as the determination of that particular state would be concerned (for instance: The state of the height reached by the common point of the leaf and the wave in a given instant, the same height in the same instant for both, leave and wave, on that point, whether considering that point water/wave, particle/leaf, or both, a duality wave/particle). In that case, state X of the leaf (its height) would be the same as state X of the water in one given point in time (and space). For the very same reason, state Y of the leaf would be the height Y of the water in another point in time (and space), by the second wave, and, so, a product state X+Y of the leaf would be a superposition of states X and Y when both states coincided on the same point under the leaf and at the same time, or, in other words, an addition of the water with itself, or, given their circumstantial identity (of leaf and waves), an addition of the leaf with itself according to its states, as we had reduced it to an ideal point, or, as we were trying to understand: An interference of a particle (the common for the leaf and the water waves point moving up and down) with itself (in the X+Y situation). This is what Aczel possibly meant by saying that superposition is an interference of a particle with itself.

Superposition and the “zero probability”

Given a particle of a system able to be in a state X or in a state Y, and being Y incompatible with X, then if the particle were in X its probability to be observed in Y would be zero. If a superposition of states X and Y took place now, becoming a product state X+Y, the particle would be able to be observed in X and Y with a non zero probability now, even though X and Y were incompatible before their superposition. When X and Y were not superimposed the tree leaf floating on the pond would be able to be on wave X or on wave Y and the corresponding states (heights), but not on both states at the same time (because their emission was not coherent). That is why X and Y were incompatible before adding. When X and Y were superimposed, the leaf would be on X and Y, on X+Y, a product state of X and Y, a product of their superposition (A photon can be “sitting on two chairs” at the same time). As a leaf on a pond is not a quantum object, its probability to be on X and Y when observed in state X+Y would be one, or, in other words, a hundred per cent. But, incredibly, and counterintuitively, according to specialists elementary particles, quantum objects, do not behave like that: If succesive measurements were performed in a similar case on a quantum particle in a state X+Y, it would not be observed in state X or in state Y, it would be found in state X+Y, although, inexplicably, not with a probability of one hundred per cent, like a classical object, but with its own distribution of probabilities, a given per cent for X and another for Y. This sounds absurd, too strange, but this is how the quantum physics work. Anyway, although unintelligible, there is an interesting consequence of this fact to keep in mind: After the superposition of X and Y, the probability for a particle to be found in a state other than X+Y, even if it is in X or in Y, will be zero. That zero probability is interesting now. It means that if X and Y were superimposed and an experiment were designed to detect particles in state X it would also be possible to find them in state Y if an experiment to find them in state Y were to be designed too, but not in other states, even though experiments were designed to find them in other states. In the same manner, if X were not superimposed with Y and an experiment to detect it in X were designed, if it were detected in X, the probability to find it in Y would be zero. The particles in the state X+Y would be then confined in that product state, and entangled when in that state due to a superimposition.

Superposition of product states

As Aczel explained in his book, “Entrelazamiento”, to ensure that an entanglement can take place between the elements of a quantum system, a superposition of product states has to occur. Aczel explained that given a composite quantum system, a system formed by at least two (or more) particles, a product state X+Y could occur, or a product state Z+W could occur too. If the first one, X+Y, took place and particle 1 were detected in X, particle 2 would be in Y. If the second product state, Z+W, took place, then, if particle 1 were detected in Z particle 2 would be in W. Now, if what occurred were a superposition of product states, like X+Y+Z+W, this newly formed composite product state would be, according to this description of a quantum entanglement by Aczel, an entangled state. This entangled state would imply the entanglement of particles 1 and 2, which would become thus entangled and therefore a non local correlation would be established between them. This, according to Aczel, would go now like this, and here comes the weird part: In case of particle 1 being detected in state X, particle 2 would only be detected in state Y, not in Z or W, even though the superposition of product states would include now Z and W too, and if particle 1 were in state Z, particle 2 would only be detectable in state W. This is strange and counterintuitive, as anyone would tend to take for granted that, during a superposition of product states, X+Y+Z+W, if particle 1 were in X then particle 2, should be able to be in any of the other states, Y, Z or W. Inexplicably, it does not happen like that on the quantum level when a quantum entanglement takes place as a coherent quantum state. In a product states superposition like X+Y+Z+W, the fact that particle 2 could not be detected in W or Z when 1 were in X, but only in Y is the same as saying that particle 1 and 2 would be one particle only now (entangled), as far as the detection of state X+Y+Z+W were concerned. That is how a quantum entanglement between two particles makes them behave as one sole physical particle to some effect, the physical effect of a detection of a coherent quantum state. There is no further explanation, as this mechanisms are irreducible to lesser parts, for elementary particles have been found to be irreducible; they do not show an inner mechanism. At least they are different between them, different charge, different mass, etc., so it is still understandable to a certain degree that elementary particles behave differently to each other during their interactions. This is analogous to what goes on during the macroscopic perception of a red ball, which turns up like an entanglement between mental objects to become one individual percept. During the macroscopic perception of a red ball, two objects, like the mental objects pertaining round shape and red colour, behave in our minds like a sole object, to some effects, like one red ball only, when detected in the “red ball” state, an indivisible fusion or entanglement of shape and colour, as they will not be able to be perceived separately as two objects (one would be the “round shape” object and the “red colour” object the other one) during the conscious perception of a red ball as a whole.

Mental objects and the “zero probability”

What is most interesting is to keep in mind this idea of a “zero probability” and also the idea of two entangled particles behaving as one to some physical effects, given the similarities between this and what happens inside the brain during the emergence of consciousness, because the conscious self can also be described as something that is unique and individual and by its zero probability of not being confined on its own macroscopic scale of perception when effective. Perception is effective only if it is macroscopic and confined: We cannot be aware of our own microsopic action potentials, only of what the emergent information they shape looks like at first sight, from a blurred and macroscopic point of view; we cannot notice that if we are our consciousness then we are those action potentials and the information they configure, the “pixels” of our conscious selves and what they look like from a macroscopic point of view through a timely change of scale.

Let us suppose that particle 1, or mental object 1, were in the state “round shape” or, in other words, that “round shape” were a mental object, something someone’s brain would be objectively thinking of when that idea took its exclusive and specific shape in that someone’s mind. If that were the specific meaning of the information that were being coded in a given network, then the “round shape” mental object would also be the “round shape” mental state. Let us now suppose that particle 2, or mental object 2, were in the “red colour” state. Let us now suppose a product state “shape+colour”, or “red ball”. If the “red ball” mental object came into effect as a percept with the property of consciousness (with uniqueness and individuality of the objects shaping the mental image of a red ball at first sight), the probability of finding particles 1 and 2 in a state other than “red ball” would be zero, because the information verified in that networking neural set would have that emergent meaning, “red ball”, not any other, as that would be the only possible information to be coded by that network at that moment, because a given code would have one shape only (besides being abstract, specific, isomorphic and congruent), for the correspondent train of action potentials acquiring that shape would be the action potentials actually fired there, not others, and therefore they would be shaping the specific pattern that they would be shaping, and not another. Curiously enough, that zero probability of finding the neurons coding “round shape” and “red colour” in a state other than “red ball”, during the conscious perception of a red ball, sounds similar to what happened in an entangled quantum state: Surprisingly enough, the “red ball” state is analogous to a quantum entanglement with respect to that zero probability requirement.

Superposition of mental objects

Neurons are not waves, so, in order to recreate (to shape, to code in this case) an abstract superposition of states (of mental objects), the neurons would not do it the same as concrete waves superimpose or interfere in the water. Neurons shape that abstract meaning of their information through a specific coding. That abstract recreation of a superposition, that code meaning uniqueness and individuality, would acquire its final emergent appearance at first sight like all the rest of the emergent mental recreations probably do (Or like the macroscopic image of a red ball on a computer screen does, by an emergence phenomenon through a change of scale and the consequent loss of resolution, that would force that meaning to emerge like that on the bigger scale, as an illusory entanglement of roundness and redness). The fact that “round shape” and “red colour” would be two mental objects to begin with, not one, and would still be two even though eventually perceived as one, “red ball”, because both neural sets would still be discharging simultaneously but heterogeneously, would get blurred from the macroscopic point of view, due to the lack of temporal resolution with the naked eye to perceive them separately as two, they are too close to each other as a function of time as to be perceived as two different objects from a low resolution macroscopic scale (something similar to the “quantum of consciousness” phenomenon). For “round shape” and “red colour” to emerge as one object, “red ball”, not only should the fact that they are two objects get blurred due to a lack of temporal resolution from the macroscopic point of view to discriminate them both as two, but they should also maintain their codes different, their mutual heterogeneity, for a “red ball” to have such meaning. The coherence of the mutual neural discharges of the networks coding shape and colour would also be necessary, so that the activity of both sets of neurons for the “round shape” and “red colour” codes were sufficiently simultaneous within a critical margin (like the two stones falling in the pond at the same time). A neural pacemaker, like the thalamocortical pacemaker, seems to be necessary to initiate coherently the activity of both sets of neurons then. This abstract recreation of an entanglement would have to be able to take place in a non linear (chaotic) system, the brain, for the emergence of consciousness to be possible and make sense. Would it be possible that the neurons correlated with consciousness coded a mental object able to recreate information with an abstract character meaning an entanglement, in spite of the lack of knowledge about quantum mechanics o the part of the neurons (And the ants lack of knowledge about ventilation systems)?

THERMODYNAMICS AND THE BRAIN

 

Entropy

According to the first law of thermodynamics energy is not created or destroyed, but only transformed. The total energy of a system remains constant, even if it is converted from one form to another. This first law also establishes the equivalence between work and heat. The first law was introduced by Mayer, around 1840. The word “energy” comes from ancient greek, from the word “ergon”; it means “action”. The concept of energy was introduced by Young in 1807. The first law establishes that energy remains constant in the Universe, but it does not state how it evolves with time; that is a task for the second law, which states that entropy, disorder, increases with time. The second law was developed around 1824, by Carnot, and later spread by Clapeyron and Clausius. They explained that heat does not spontaneously go from a cold body to a hot body. The increase of entropy with time is the statement of the second law of thermodynamics. Clausius coined the term “entropy” (“transformation” in greek) around 1854, it refers to the transformation content of a body. The opposite of entropy is negentropy. The first law is about the conservation of energy. The second law is about the evolution of a system. Both have been proved. According to the second law systematic processes are irreversible: Once a system has changed it cannot go back to its initial state. The new state will be disordered in comparison to the previous state and that means that disorder, entropy, inevitably increases with time. The result of this irreversibility includes the general impossibility for a system to go back in time, which means that a time arrow, pointing towards the future, is established. The time arrow is binding for the physical phenomena, in general, and it goes from the past towards the future: A system does not get reordered and recovers its previous state. If it recovered a state similar to the previous, it would not be the previous one but another similar state. For instance: If a jar were accidentally dropped on the floor from a shelf and then picked up and set back in place again, it would not be the same place, because even the Earth would not be in the same place while orbiting around the Sun.

Information

Information is related to entropy but it is an abstract mathematical concept, so, according to scholars, it is not exactly its reverse. Entropy is the measure of the increase of disorder inside a system, it measures randomness, while information measures uncertainty (whatever this means). According to the definition by Shannon and Weaver, in their book, “The mathematical theory of communication”, information is an interaction between objects, and a change of the state they are in, that results in a communication of that information. Information appears when the elements of a system order themselves, and that happens when entropy, which invariably increases everywhere all the time, is able to apparently and somehow remain locally constant or to diminish, from some particular point of view, to some effects (and this is how entropy and information would be related), which requires the presence of an observer, classically referred to as “Laplace’s demon”, something that interacts with the system and so behaves like an observer. In quantum physics the observer and the observation are identical, and interactions are true: When a given particle A, for instance, a photon, interacts with a particle B, for instance, an electron, the change in B is a measure of A, so B is an observer of A and B is also the observable change, all in one. In classic mechanics, where the macroscopic interacting objects are formed by huge numbers of those elementary particles, and measurements are hugely imprecise in comparison, what we call observer now, for practical uses on the macroscopic scale in which we are confined, can even be a third party, another macroscopic object outside the observed interaction, for instance, a spectator watching two snooker balls colliding on a TV screen during a televised match (These macroscopic “observations” not only are imprecise, unable to detect elementary particles, but they are untrue and illusory as well, as they are based on make believe interactions, but they work for practical macroscopic illusory purposes, like playing snooker and fleeing from crocodiles, or flying planes between continents, within an acceptable margin of error, the error of considering that a crocodile is a crocodile instead of a mass of elementary particles and entropy). Information is another way for a system to get disordered, although with apparent order in the presence and particular interpretation of an observer that measures the change when interactions verify (True interactions or acceptable within some margin of error in practice false interactions). The result is that disorder will sometimes look like order from an observer’s blurred point of view; order is that, a misinterpretation of disorder (That we will not notice, being perception confined in a macroscopic scale and the pixels and action potentials invisible to us, apparently out of sight and inexistent).

That apparent local order in an open system, in the form of information, will be possible because energy will have been consumed inside it, energy supplied from outside that open system. From inside of the open system, apparently closed from the inside, from the observer’s blurred point of view for the microscopic, it will look like the interactions mean order from the observer’s point of view, as if the system were a closed one from that perspective, as if the energy used in the interactions (A system consists in some elements and their interactions) never came from the outside. The trick the brain performs in its particular case to achieve this make believe appearance of being a closed system, an autonomous conscious individual in charge of some peculiar voluntary and self controlled observations, is probably a mere change of the scale of perception, as we have been mentioning (and will be reasoned in the final chapter). During the process of conscious observation it appears as if the mind were a closed system, it appears ordered and looking like a closed system on a certain scale of observation because the process of observation consumes internally an exceptionally and sufficiently big amount of the energy income from outside the system (glucose) to make that illusion of a rational mind possible in such a complex system (with so many available synapses). The brain weighs two per cent of the body weight, while it consumes twenty five per cent of the available energy (more or less depending on the age, etc.).

Statistical entropy

Boltzmann (1877) explained the rise of entropy in a microscopic level: The rise of entropy of a system and the irreversibility of its changes of state take place by the evolution from a more ordered state to a less ordered state of the elements of the system. To achieve this explanation he developed the concept of statistical entropy, so, instead of resourcing to the concept of the heat of the whole system, he spoke about the microstates of the system, or the probability of being placed somewhere in the system for each element of it. According to Boltzmann, entropy should be defined as the number of different microscopic states in which the lesser particles of a piece of matter should be found so as it would look like the same piece of matter from a macroscopic point of view in any of those microstates. Extrapolating this description to the case of the brain, it happens to be a macroscopic object from certain points of view too, like in macroscopic anatomic descriptions, for instance, and it also includes microscopic anatomic elements (neurons) which go through a change of their states: Neurons can be at rest as well as discharging action potentials. Even though the brain changes its states at a microscopic level it remains the same brain at a macroscopic level throughout those changes to some effects, for instance, in order to look like the same brain, the same organ, of the same person, from one minute to the next and throughout an entire life, and including the stability of that person’s conscious self identity and individuality too, despite the multiple (billions) instantaneous changes the microscopic neurons go through every instant. The brain, defined as a system with entropy, that gives off heat, fits in this description of entropy by Boltzmann too: In spite of the microscopic changes in the brain, in spite of the millions of heterogeneous transmissions in the synapses, the conscious self remains the same macroscopic experience every consecutive instant.

Negentropy

The brain self organizes; this means that it works, to some effects, as if its dynamics relied on its own energy, as if it were a closed thermodynamic system. The brain is not a closed system, its energy comes from outside of it, mainly glucose, and it radiates heat ceaselessly. It is an open system. The brain is a living system, and self organized, so locally (locally in the head) entropy decreases: This is called negentropy, and when this happens order increases locally to some extent. For instance: The functional structure of the brain is built up orderly at several levels, a functional neural level recognizable as such at a microscopic scale, a network level at a macroscopic scale, etc. That ceaseless radiation of heat means that entropy is globally increasing in that system as a whole too, despite negentropy, like in the rest of the Universe. That relatively disproportionate, expensive and continuous supply of glucose to the neurons, and their relative high rate of oxidation does the costly make believe of negentropy possible.

If the Universe were like a letter soup, with the letters, the elementary particles, in the soup of the vacuum of space, the expansion of the Universe and the systematic movement of the particles would carry the formation of groups of disordered letters in the soup by rinsing the spoon, the forces at work, in the liquid. The words composed that way would look like order to an observer of words, order arising within disorder. But this order would be illusory because words would get formed through the disordering of letters and not by ordering them. Negentropy simply strengthens furthermore this apparent local and restricted emergence of order whithin chaos in a particular bowl of soup. Anyway, even though crocodiles are not crocodiles, but a temporary manifestation of entropy, it would be wise to keep away from them when they are hungry, because they do not know they are not crocodiles. The brain is a local system too, like that ideal bowl of letter soup of the example, it also radiates heat all the time, oxidizes the glucose taken from the outside to form letters and radiates heat in the process. For a system to break the second law every letter of the soup should form words, an impossible task being the time arrow binding. In any case there will be letters that will not form recognizable words, meaning that heat will be radiated outside the local systems from every local system, despite negentropy. Living systems, cells, plants, animals, are able to generate much local order and grow structures on several levels. Living beings are able to form more words in the soup than expected, given their peculiar way of systematic dynamic evolution in a negentropic fashion, for instance, by ways of their self organization in levels, like the molecular level (including the enzymatic activity), the cellular level, etc. (and including the higher rate of glucose oxidation, in the case of the brain), something that helps to increase the illusion of order, although all of it is disorder. The biological molecular machinery must also get geared, in a compatible way, at diverse scales, and that implies nonlinear (chaotic) thermodynamics (The possibility of a cause-effect relationship between scales and levels in some of these cases, and others, is being currently investigated by some scientists around the world, as a matter of fact; it is an area of interest). A system in equilibrium has less chances to generate so much order, that possibility becomes easier in systems with less equilibrium, which allow an evolution of a system of the kind, constructively. The more negentropic the system and the more far appart of the equilibrium, the more negentropic it will be next and the more words that will be formed. If it became even more negentropic, if it radiated more heat, words would even form phrases, etc., and succesively so, even on different leves, until reaching an equilibrium between, for instance, the available amount of glucose being oxidized, the amount of heat being radiated and the final complexity of the mind achieved in that particular process. The balance would be achieved when the letters were as separated in the soup as to being unable to form more words from any observer’s point of view (According to the second law of thermodynamics in every closed system entropy does not increase if the transformation of the system is reversible, otherwise it increases in search of the state of equilibrium).

It was discovered, by the end of the twentieth century, that this going from a less ordered state to a more ordered state without contradicting the second principle, by negentropy, was possible. Prigogine’s work was fundamental to understand this possibililty. Negentropy is a characteristic of living beings in particular, as they are characterized by this capability for self organization. To understand such an amount of increase in the local order in a particular system, like the brain, and according to Prigogine, this idea of negentropy was required (and a big supply of glucose), meaning an even bigger rise of entropy at this point of local negentropy, bigger than the mean local rise of entropy already taking place around this point of negentropy. This requisite would be accomplished, in the case of the brain, due to its relatively bigger rate of energy consumption (glucose oxidation) and radiation of heat. The molecular machinery necessary to reach that equilibrium is complex and relatively expensive in terms of energy; life is always on thin ice. Evolution has made possible such an apparent waste of the most of the time scarce available energy resources for the living cells possible in this, in the brain, through natural selection, step by step assembling an increasingly more and more complex brain, throughout millions of years.

Chaos, order and the brain

Self organization carries order with it. Take, for instance, the characteristic regular neuronal activity: Time and again the discharge of a bioelectric impulse, or its opposite, will be regularly verified. This oscillatory character of the neuronal activity has to do with the corresponding type of dynamic system the brain is, an open one. Prigogine proposed that there cannot be oscilations (periodicity) in a closed thermodynamic system, but only in an open one that is continuously exchanging energy with the outskirts of the system, which is the case of the brain, continuously receiving glucose and releasing heat (infrared radiation). Besides, a dynamic system, capable of this degree of order, must be in a homeostatic equilibrium, known also in physiology as a “stable desequilibrium”, what Prigogine called “disipative structure”. Systems, being dynamic entities, also tend to adjust themselves throughout their dynamic physical evolution on their way towards their state of equilibrium, which they will not reach (In Physiology an unconscious adjustment is called “regulation” and a conscious adjustment is called “control”). Prigogine pointed out that this type of open systems, with periodicity, should be non linear (chaotic) as far as the relations between forces and flux are concerned, as is the case of the brain. These are the type of systems that show the phenomenon of chaos. Chaos is the way of a dynamic system to get disordered. Chaos is characterized by unpredictabilty and by the rise of complexity (“Complexity” means that the next state of a system will be different to the previous one; therefore, an evolution towards a more apparent simplicity, when it happens like that, is a way to rise complexity too; each new state also includes the unrepeatability or “non ergodic” character of a system). The complexity is due to the rise of disorder, or entropy, of the system, or it can also be explained as the increase of states the system can be in, in reference to the number of its elements and also to the types and number of interactions between those elements. Chaos can be caused by an input of energy in the system in the form of elements of the system, like a pool being filled with water, or by a change in the interactions among the elements, like in a rotating caleidoscope, or both, like the brain. All of these ideas which are being taken into account here owe their content to Wiener’s “cybernetics”. As the brain is quite a complex system it can present what Bonev called “intermitence”, in his article, “Teoría del caos”, which means that order can emerge from chaos and succesively chaos from order, including an alternance between irregularity and periodicity too, and, therefore, it can include neuronal synchronization as a possibility, and it does. There is an article: “Coherencia global inducida por ruido o diversidad en sistemas excitables”, written by Tessone C. J., Sciré A., Toral R. and Colet P., according to whom in excitable systems, like the neuronal systems, if they are considered as “active rotors globally coupled”, an increase in disorder, at a microscopic level, can have, at a macroscopic level, a bigger order as a result. According to these authors, this increase in disorder might be due to an increase of the background noise, to the diversity of the natural frequencies, or to a decrease of the coupling among the involucrated oscillators, which tend to synchronize, to desynchronize and to fluctuate between both states around a fixed point. All of these ideas help explain that the brain, from a thermodynamic point of view, is a system where neuronal synchronizaton and consciousness are physically possible, given the proper conditions and enough time to evolve like that.