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.