Now is the time to begin thinking of biomarkers of sentience and consciousness. The desiderata of a biomarker are:
"The ideal biomarker would be
– Perfectly correlated with the clinical endpoint – Have little to no variability under normal circumstance – Have very good signal to noise ratio – Change quickly and reliably in response to changes in the clinical endpoint.
As such, this ideal state is impossible to find in a complex system such as the human body. But what level of quantitative certainty is required? This again is subjective. It depends on whether it can outperform the alternatives."
(https://sapienlabs.org/from-brain-to-behavior-the-search-for-biomarkers/)
Joachim Pimiskern kindly made a list of more studies that try to detect consciousness by evaluating measured data from the brain; for the links, please look for his message below. These findings may qualify as a "neural correlate" of types of conscious processes, or as biomarkers of consciousness in the sense of indicating the existence of conscious experiences.
The biomarkers of consciousness are much more frugal compared with cognition.
See
https://www.researchgate.net/project/Panexperiential-materialism-a-physical-exploration-of-qualitativeness-in-the-brain
R. Poznansky "Frugality" does not seem to be a good word for biomarkers of consciousness. It is not easy to find an electric or chemical marker with around 100% corelation with wakefulness. For Dualists who believe in Descartes's hypothesis about the pineal gland, the biomarker of consciousness could be melatonin, which is released by that gland and regulates the circadian cycle. However, this hypothesis does not have empirical support, because melatonin may be high and the person awake, and the person may be sleeping without dreaming with low melatonin levels.
There is a new study on crows that tried to explore markers (neural correlates) of consciousness in bird brains.
https://www.upi.com/Science_News/2020/09/25/Scientists-observe-conscious-processes-in-crow-brains/3741601042088/
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/369/6511/1626
Regards,
Joachim
Joachim Pimiskern thank you for the reference. This study is very interesting, because the authors use an existing technology for the detection of neural correlates of consciousness in nun-human animals. However, I think there is a methodological problem because they detect a neuronal electrical signal when the animal has conscious intention, but they do not check if the same type of signal happens in other circumstances. A biomarker has to be a necessary condition for consciousness, even if not simultaneous with the respective conscious experience. If the type of signal exists without the respective conscious experience then it is just a correlate, not a marker. Another issue is that thsi is not a marker of wakefulness (with all possibilities of conscious experience that may happen), but the correlate of a specific conscious activity (the intention to move towards an object). There is no evidence that the same signal will occur when the animal has other types of conscious experience (e.g. scratching the body).
This is the type of experimental result that answers the question: "The researchers determined that astrocytic calcium was higher during wakefulness and lower during sleep, when calcium signals were also less synchronized among astrocytes".
https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/astrocytes-not-just-neurons-play-a-role-in-sleep-67968
There are a lot more studies that try to detect consciousness by evaluating measured data from the brain.
https://phys.org/news/2020-05-physics-mystery-consciousness.html
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2245-5
https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2020-05/wios-wis052120.php
https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/5/2/eaat7603
Article Single-Neuron Correlates of Conscious Perception in the Huma...
Article Human single neuron activity precedes emergence of conscious...
Preprint Consciousness as a physical process caused by the organizati...
Preprint Consciousness and integrated energy differences in the brain
https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2017-07/tzia-iwt072317.php
https://physicsworld.com/a/consciousness-is-tied-to-entropy-say-researchers/
Article Measuring Consciousness
Article Towards a statistical mechanics of consciousness: maximizati...
Article Large-scale signatures of unconsciousness are consistent wit...
https://medicalxpress.com/news/2016-01-brain-consciousness-optimal-degree-connectedness.html
Article An algorithm for the EEG frequency architecture of conscious...
https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2014-04/tl-tlf041414.php
https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2014-06/uoc--seh061814.php
Regards,
Joachim
Joachim Pimiskern Fantastic, many thanks! As older messages get lost in the RG threads, I will paste these references in the heading of the question, if you give me a permission (with credits to you).
Joachim Pimiskern Many thanks! I pasted the links, but they appeared as plain text, so I removed them and mentioned your post for those interested in following the links.
Alfredo Pereira Junior Your hydro-ionic wave is classical or quantum? Is it phenomenal (kinetic energy) or noumenal (potential energy)? Is it transient or standing (electrostatic )? Let us see if we can gain a grip on this difficult problem. Frank van den Bovenkamp is interested but his views are limited to QFT and particle physics not appropriate for brain mechanisms (aka Robert Rosen).
" These intracellular Ca2+ signals are spatially and temporally complex events involving the recruitment of elementary Ca2+ release sites (Ca2+ puffs: Parker and Yao, 1994), which then propagate throughout the cell by an amplification mechanism. This amplification involves four components, two of which depend on positive and two on negative feedback mechanisms provided by released Ca2+. "
Article Astrocyte calcium waves: What they are and what they do
Sounds to me like a non-linear medium consisting of a "sea of astrocytes". In (non-commuting) conjunction with a linear medium consisting of a "sea of neurons", it forms the neuroscientific incarnation of the noumenal principle or state as rudimentary exemplified in QFT.
Feeling ≡ Non-linear ∞ Linear ≡ cognition
When this is (evolutionary) achieved, imo there does not need to be a literal quantum connection. A single, common, inferred invariant superior to it's effects suffices for upscale continuation. The latter I propose is the bifurcation- or action vortex, more fundamental than spin. If matter perfectly mimics the noumenal state, it naturally clicks into a state of self-awareness. Consciousness does not need to be explained separately, because it is not separate.
Alfredo Pereira Junior
Your biomarker the hydro-ionic wave is classical or quantum or a hybrid? Is it phenomenal (kinetic energy) or noumenal (potential energy)? Is it transient or standing (electrostatic )? Is it objective or subjective? Let us see if we can gain a grip on this difficult problem.
Frank van den Bovenkamp your answer above is mumbo jumbo . Points to classical neurophysiology and nothing else.
R. Poznansky
If you want your opinion to matter, you need to study the backgrounds. I'm not denying a non-trivial basis in quantum physics, but I'm arguing that the cross scale integration may work differently. That is, confinement based on force-less interaction. It has nothing to do with cell membranes.
R. Poznansky wrote: "Your biomarker the hydro-ionic wave is classical or quantum or a hybrid? Is it phenomenal (kinetic energy) or noumenal (potential energy)? Is it transient or standing (electrostatic )? Is it objective or subjective? Let us see if we can gain a grip on this difficult problem".
Thank you for the questions.
1) It is a hybrid, or a multiscale phenomenon;
2) It has a "double face" (an expression coined by my colleague Jonas Coelho). It is both phenomenal and noumenal;
3) It is mostly a standing wave, but in the formation of the brain´s big wave there are several small traveling waves in the domain of neuron-astrocyte interactions;
4) It is both (double face). For the system itself, it is subjective (the big brain wave corresponds to a conscious feeling that is felt by the system); for the external observer, it appears as an objective dynamic photonic entity that can be measured and recorded with fluorescent microscopy (see the videos in: https://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(20)31242-2)
Frank van den Bovenkamp Thank you for your comment. The hydro-ionic wave is the proposed biomarker for sentience (and sentience - being able to feel - is proposed as a necessary condition for consciousness). This hypothesis is detailed in a paper that will appear in a special issue of the Journal of Consciousenss Studies next year (I hope).
The vortex, in my paper with Vera Maura Fernandes de Lima (based on a suggestion you made her) is the dynamic shape (or signature) of the wave. It seems to us that the dynamical seed of consciousness in the cosmos has the shape of a vortex, which is present also in other types of system, in several scales, as in hydrodynamics, black holes, engines, etc. In other words, we live in an universe in which reality self-organizes and in which constructive interactions of Energy and Matter take the dynamical shape of a vortex. In some special conditions, this organization instantiates feelings and supports consciousness.
Alfredo Pereira Junior
"....for the external observer, it appears as an objective dynamic photonic entity that can be measured and recorded with fluorescent microscopy"
You blew it with the above statement. Can't help you. It is mumbo-jumbo.
R. Poznansky Look at the videos of the paper:
https://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(20)31242-2
Alfredo Pereira Junior You are lucky I'm stopping you from this foolish act of correlating sleep homeostasis with consciousness or sentience. Apples and oranges. If I were you I would quickly step on the gas pedal revising your J. Consciousness Studies paper before it is rejected.
R. Poznansky You can be sure it won´t be sent to you for review because you do not seem able to understand the basics. Look at the videos, if you cant´t approach the issue theoretically. Wakefulness = Capacity of Feeling = Sentience. In the transition from sleep to wakefulness, there is a big increase in amplitude of the calcium wave. You cannot argue against the facts. There are many other papers showing that this increase of amplitude is closely related with a supply of lactate from astrocytes to neuron. There is no way to argue against these scientific facts, namely that wakefulness is correlated with an increase of amplitude of calcium waves and the "lactate shuttle" from astrocytes to neurons (see https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=lactate+shuttle).
Alfredo Pereira Junior
Wakefulness = Capacity of Feeling = Sentience
Capacity for feeling =/= feeling
all the best with your j consciousness studies article.
Frank van den Bovenkamp if Alfredo was more flexible we could have ironed it out but he is obstinate on his calcium wave there is nothing that I can do..
R. Poznansky Please translate the operator =/= to plain English.
Alfredo Pereira Junior
As a non-neuroscientist I'm seeing / learned about two overarching, obviously complementary processes in the brain: the Calcium wave and the neuronal spiking.
Question: why do you (and Vera) refer to the Calcium wave as a "vortex"? Is it not mainly an expanding ionization front? This alone provides no theoretical basis for considering it a biomarker of consciousness.
I'm inclined to view the Calcium wave functionally analogous to the matter wave, carried, exactly as in my generic model, by a quadruple feedback mechanism. The latter provides the theoretical basis.
With "vortex" I refer to a universal, mathematically precise, cross scales path out of chaos. This means we have a highly non-trivial quantum basis, yet we don't need to radically quantize neuroscience.
I suggest you read my paper first and then get back to me.
R. Poznansky
" if Alfredo was more flexible we could have ironed it out but he is obstinate on his calcium wave there is nothing that I can do.. "
If you refer to my latest comments as "mumbo jumbo" without even having read my paper, there's also nothing I can do.
I suggest you read my paper first and then get back to me.
Frank van den Bovenkamp The approach to the vortex in the hydro-ionic wave is described in the paper we posted here in RG and submitted for publication. It is one instance of the vortex, which can exist at other scales from the hydrogen atom (atomic scale) up to black holes (cosmological scale). The hydro-ionic wave can be viewed both as a matter wave (in the third-person perspective of the scientific observer) and a wave of feeling (in the first-person perspective of the system).
Alfredo Pereira Junior
You write:
" a circular electric current closes in the extracellular matrix; this circular current creates a magnetic torus "
Ok, I remember. Indeed as a circular current it is analogous to a bound matter wave. Note that the magnetic field is not a vortex but a torus. The two are often confused. I take it that the vortex is more fundamental.
" The split in time/space frequencies explains non-locality, without any need to resort to quantum hypotheses"
I know what you mean but this and the above could be worked out much more. You're saying here basically the same as I above: This means we have a highly non-trivial quantum basis, yet we don't need to radically quantize neuroscience.
" This process can generate a coherent state "
This "coherent state" is worked out in great detail in my "Hydrogen" paper.
Vera Maura Fernandes de Lima also c/o Alfredo Pereira Junior
I'm having a question:
The picture you sent me initially, with the Kelvin-Helmholz / Cardoid / Karman vortex type of excitations (which I advised you on), and the circular features in your Spreading Depression paper, are they the same phenomenon?
If so, I'm realizing that only now after (re-) reading "a circular electric current closes in the extracellular matrix".
The time frame series only shows an expanding dot. I think I missed the connection. It might be good to highlight the circular current graphically. The video example shows a more random feature - https://rdouglasfields.wordpress.com/2013/03/06/brain-cells-that-communicate-without-electricity-calcium-waves-in-glia/
Either way, is your paper essentially saying: neurological tissues form an OPEN system generating circular currents?
That is something a physicist would find important. Besides research been done, it makes sense to me that this is associated with (raw..!) feeling, however I'm quite sure that's particularly due to the underlying (4-fold) feedback mechanism.
Again, as a non-neuroscientist, I'm seeing a scenario where the (detectible) calcium phenomenon is a central, matter wave-like feature or resonance, signifying an (edge of) equilibrium state between I guess the glial (feeling?!) and neuronal (cognitive?!) mechanisms.
I repeat, this is basically 100% compatible with my far more abstract and rudimentary "Hydrogen" research, and how I envision it to function cross scales.
Please be precise using terms like "vortex", "torus", etc..
Also I don't see why this would not be compatible with R. Poznansky's PanMat.
Dear Frank,
The system generates solitary circular waves (very frequent in the usual experimental context), logarithm spirals (also frequent and rarely circular spirals).
I could see three logarithm spirals interacting. Also if you make ring of tissue, a soliton like wave arises, rarely (again due to experimental context) two solitons were observed one chasing and invading the refractory period of the previous one.
This summarizes the experimental observations.
It answers part of your question. Look at figures 3 and 4 of the recent paper with Alfredo. They need high resolution. The same is shown here:
Wave onset in central gray matter - Its intrinsic optical signal and phase transitions in extracellular polymers
- September 2001
- Anais da Academia Brasileira de Ciências 73(3):351-64
- Follow journal
- DOI:
- 10.1590/S0001-37652001000300006
- Source
- PubMed
- License
- CC BY-NC 4.0
Frank van den Bovenkamp writes: "I don't see why this would not be compatible with R. Poznanski's PanMat"
Alfredo: It MAY be, but philosophically there is a trouble because according to my approach the subjective face of the wave is composed of phenomenologically experienced feelings and the objective face is the observed, measured, recorded, and scientifically studied photonic pattern, while in Roman´s approach he wants the "matter wave" to be BOTH the subjective and objective faces.
This is because of his poor understanding of philosophy; he never realized that Experientialism and Materialism correspond to two different (but compatible) perspectives on reality. In Experientialism we depart from first-person experiences, while in Materialism we depart from properties of matter abstracted by science. Feeling sensations as pain and pleasure are known from the first-person perspective, while the dynamic organization of H, Ca, Na, K, etc. are known from the third-person perspective.
I present my compatibility solution to this problem in the new paper, proposing that Sentience refers to objective phenomena that indicate the capacity for subjective experience.
Alfredo Pereira Junior
"subjective face of the wave is composed of phenomenologically experienced feelings"
The whole point of PanMat is to stay away from unscientific notions like phenomenology, cosmic consciousness and Energy (with a capital "E").
We are fully aware of the union between non-inert matter and experience through the informational holarchy as pointed out by Arthur Koestler. We have basically removed the "Ghost in the machine" from metaphysical frameworks like monism.
The framework is materialistic with energy quanta and intrinsic information borne into the fabric of non-inert matter.
In fact, Pan Mat has dispensed with all philosophical trends of the last century and moved us closer to the science of biological consciousness.
Frank van den Bovenkamp
"the (detectible) calcium phenomenon is a central, matter wave-like feature or resonance, signifying an (edge of) equilibrium state between I guess the glial (feeling?!) and neuronal (cognitive?!) mechanisms."
Any interaction between quantum (matter wave) and classical (calcium/ionic) cannot be phenomenal but noumenal. It supports the above phenomenology fallacy of psychology and opens a window of opportunity for metapsychology.
Alfredo Pereira Junior
" This is because of his poor understanding of philosophy; he never realized that Experientialism and Materialism correspond to two different (but compatible) perspectives on reality. "
The latter is true but trivial.
" in Roman´s approach he wants the "matter wave" to be BOTH the subjective and objective faces "
That's the only way to avoid the ghost in the machine. In your "vortex" paper you are arguing:
" I present my compatibility solution to this problem in the new paper, proposing that Sentience refers to objective phenomena that indicate the capacity for subjective experience."
This means you must explain why a circular current in an open non-equilibrium system represents feeling / the starting point of biological consciousness. The Ca2+ wave is not trivial, but cancels out of the equation.
As R. Poznansky knows I've already shown this "compatibility" back in 2016, based on QM / QFT and expert consciousness literature. My "Hydrogen" paper and the underlying bifurcation- or action vortex built on that.
R. Poznansky
" Any interaction between quantum (matter wave) and classical (calcium/ionic) cannot be phenomenal but noumenal. "
That's correct and innovative. Note that I proposed the bifurcation- or action vortex (at least as a placeholder for) the same (This means we have a highly non-trivial quantum basis, yet we don't need to radically quantize neuroscience).
"It supports the above phenomenology fallacy of psychology and opens a window of opportunity for metapsychology."
That's correct.
" science of biological consciousness "
Yes, if you emphasize "biological" there is no ambiguity, and the term "materialism" is not overly controversial.
Frank van den Bovenkamp and R. Poznansky
You must keep in mind that the capacity for an action is not identical to the exercise of the action. I have given many examples, but the pain case is evident. When we are awake we have the capacity of feeling pain IF a noxius stimulus reaches the CNS, but if there is no stimulation of if the stimulus is blocked by analgesics at the nerve conduction, THEN we do not feel the pain.
As you can see from the videos of the paper I pasted the link above, in the transition from sleep to wakefulness there is a big amplitude rise of calcium waves, making the system able to feel (Sentient). The experience of feelings then depend on what J.J. Gibson called "affordances". Experiences are relational phenomena, depending on the tuning of internal dispositions and affordances (deriving from events external to the brain). Therefore, the experienced feeling is not a matter wave inside the brain.
Alfredo Pereira Junior Your views are pointing towards a medical definition of consciousness. Self-awareness is too simplistic and does not go deep into consciousness's nature.
Alfredo Pereira Junior
" the experienced feeling is not a matter wave inside the brain "
In my reply above to Vera Maura Fernandes de Lima I said: I'm seeing a scenario where the (detectible) calcium phenomenon is a central, matter wave-like feature or resonance, signifying an (edge of) equilibrium state between I guess the glial (feeling?!) and neuronal (cognitive?!) mechanisms.
" internal dispositions and affordances " means nothing. If it's not the matter wave, then what is it? For me it's a trivial question, I'd like you to explain.
Frank van den Bovenkamp
Alfredo talks about phenomenology as the only window to subjectivity. We are saying that phenomenology is unscientific and there needs to be an alternative. Quantum mechanics provides this alternative window to subjectivity and the matter wave is its foundational stone.
R. Poznansky wrote:
´´Your views are pointing towards a medical definition of consciousness``.
Alfredo: Yes, it ia a BIOmedical definition.
´Self-awareness is too simplistic and does not go deep into consciousness's nature´´.
Alfredo: I am not using ´´self-awareness´´ in this work. My framework is: consciousness requires an interaction of Matter, Information and Feeling. In the nervous system, the Matter structure and the Information processing are well known. I am proposing a biomarker for the capacity of feeling (Sentience). The actuality of feeling requires interaction with the environment.
Frank van den Bovenkamp wrote: ´´internal dispositions and affordances´´ means nothing. If it's not the matter wave, then what is it? For me it's a trivial question, I'd like you to explain.
Alfredo: All reality is dynamic. Dispositions are tendencies towards regions of the state space (´attractors´). Affordances are patterns that emerge in the interaction of an agent with the physical and social environment. There is a huge literature on this topic. The ´matter wave´ is the objective side of a psychophysical dynamic process in the brain. The conscious experience is not contained in the matter wave, The experience is a process that involves Matter, Information and Feeling. The complex signature of a singular experience incorporates patterns of Matter, Information and Feeling. It is not a physical state. A physical state refers only to particles, mass, kinetic energy, momentum, direction of velocity, chemical composition, physical forces, etc... A physical state does not contain the ingredients of Information and Feeling.
Doesn't the integrated information theory (IIT) or "Phi" of Tononi & now Koch claim to indicate not only that there are distinct "biomarkers" (not necessarily biological) but they even claim that IIT can even measure the quality or "amount" of consciousness via mathematical physics?
Alfredo Pereira Junior
This is a description, not an explanation, and not at all of the fundamental nature or characteristics of consciousness. I find the use of the terms "subjective" and "objective" confusing, if not mistaken, rather I'd say that the capacity of feeling is contained in the bound matter wave, and that of cognition is outside.
The problem is that you don't seem to contemplate an underlying physical / mathematical structure of the matter wave, let alone work it out. In order to get a handle on that you need to read my paper. That will save you, and more importantly, me a lot of work.
" A physical state does not contain the ingredients of Information and Feeling. "
A true quantum realistic physical state contains nothing else than that.
Gregory M Nixon
Is there a threshold for consciousness like in neural network theories? No, but the expression of consciousness gets compromised at lower scales of functional connectivity. In other words, subjectivity is lost in the subconscious if there is an insufficient effective integration of brain regions towards a common purpose. IIT is therefore a top-down approach focusing on cognitive experiences and not the mechanism of consciousness itself. DIsorders not generally thought of as having consciousness compromise (e.g., autism, dyslexia, etc.) also show functional disconnectivity. Freudian metapsychology claims consciousness is not compromised in such situations, but that is insufficient. Panexperiential materialism goes further and explains the roots of consciousness in terms of feelings. For further reading : Panexperiential materialism: a physical exploration of qualitativeness in the brain. Adv. Quant. Chem. 2020, 82, 301-367
Alfredo Pereira Junior
"My framework is: consciousness requires an interaction of Matter, Information and Feeling."
You have a ghost in the machine with feeling as fundamental. You need to replace it with energy quanta. If you do then you have panexperiential materialism. Both information and energy quanta are borne from matter (non-inert). This last step you overlooked 25 years ago when you started with triple aspect monism (TAM) framework.
R. Poznansky
" You need to replace it with energy quanta "
Strictly speaking energy is not quantized. A photon can have any energy. Only action is quantized.
A problem with QFT is that the action is derived from Lagrangian dynamics. Therefore it can normally not be applied fundamentally.
I'm proposing a non-Lagrangian model where the action, that is, the Planck Constant, is fundamentally used as a purely algebraic counting unit in the bifurcative self-interaction. To know how it works you have to read my paper.
Frank van den Bovenkamp
You need to consider a many-body problem which is a general name for a vast category of physical problems pertaining to the properties of microscopic systems made of many interacting particles. Microscopic here implies that quantum mechanics has to be used to provide an accurate description of the system and is sometimes referrred as as mesoscopic level. This is the realm of quantum chemistry and PanMAT.
R. Poznansky
A many body system is an implementation of a complex system which can take many forms. I'm interested in the invariant of the generalized case, of which the rudimentary form is the Hydrogen atom. Also I'm doubtful whether particle systems can model biology. I'm not the inventor of the Hydrogen atom, nature is. The choice is yours whether you can shoulder the immense burden of reading my paper, or keep searching for a quantum-classical integrative approach forever.
Frank van den Bovenkamp
"a quantum-classical integrative approach forever."
The word "transition" not "integrative" should be used above. It has taken 2 years to construct. The proofs have just been updated. You misunderstand that biological consciousness is not about a proton but a many-body -problem.
Like Alfredo Pereira Junior he too misunderstands the epicenter of Pan Mat which deals with the preconscious pathway of physical feelings
R. Poznansky
"Many body problem" is just the latest in a row (matter wave, Bohmian mechanics, density matrix, decoherence) without proof or detail.
Read my paper.
Frank van den Bovenkamp
You seem to lack an understanding of the arsenal of tools of the quantum chemist.
You simply cannot assume a model of a proton to understand the biochemical processes underlying cognition.
You can assume a wave function based on molecular orbital of a many-body-problem or you can assume a density matrix approach based on the density of electrons.
PanMat covers the latter but we are going to move with the former in an extension based on Bohmian mechanics.
R. Poznansky
What "model of a proton" are you referring to? What's known as the proton I'm modeling in great detail as part of the integral "Hydrogen" isomorphism, supported by the bifurcation- or action vortex.
The "proton" is the objectivation of confinement / self-localization at a rudimentary level.
In your own words, this models the noumenal transition from quantum to classical.
As far as I'm concerned the credit goes to Vera Maura Fernandes de Lima for the most tangible and credulous neurophysiological phenomenon associated with the same.
Of course it needs to be worked out theoretically. The suggestion that the Ca2+ phenomenon is maintained by "2 positive and 2 negative feedback loops" could prove a great lead - https://rdouglasfields.wordpress.com/2013/03/06/brain-cells-that-communicate-without-electricity-calcium-waves-in-glia/
Read my paper.
Frank van den Bovenkamp
"neurophysiological phenomenon associated with feeling"
You are going backwards with that statement. Even Alfredo Pereira Junior knows better. Feelings cannot be measured objectively they remain subjective. Emotions/physiological feelings are classical in affective neuroscience not in consciousness.
You need a quantum wave function for the stopping of objective measurement and hence that is why quantum mechanics is associated with consciousness. It has nothing to do with von Neumann or Wigner, just common sense.
R. Poznansky
I just edited my post before I saw your comment - neurophysiological phenomenon associated with the same [isomorphism].
The terms objective / subjective should be avoided - it can have different meanings. I'm relying on cited research that the calcium phenomenon is associated with feeling (correct me if I'm wrong), and also it makes a lot of sense.
QFT is simply an illustrative and verifiable implementation level (rudimentary) just as neuroscience is another one. Perhaps there are much larger phenomena. The transition is noumenal and forms the backbone of the holarchy.
Alfredo Pereira Junior Frank van den Bovenkamp
"relying on cited research that the calcium phenomenon is associated with feeling (correct me if I'm wrong), and also it makes a lot of sense."
...there are many types of feelings in the literature all are wrong because feelings are not felt. The only ones that are felt are physiological in affective neuroscience not in consciousness. Alfredo is confused to the core but we hope Pan Mat will resolve his anxieties as to the correctness of physical feelings in consciousness. Without this inclusion in his J. Consc Studies paper it will be a meaningless attempt, not moving forward, but stagnating.
Gregory M Nixon Yes, Tononi´s hypothesis point to a quantitative measure of information integration related to conscious processing, but as you wrote it is not BIO. Another problem is that it assumes a "cognitivist" view of consciousness as information processing, while the biomedical approach is broader, also encompassing Sentience (defined as the capacity of feeling).
R. Poznansky wrote: "there are many types of feelings in the literature all are wrong because feelings are not felt. The only ones that are felt are physiological in affective neuroscience not in consciousness".
Alfredo clarifies:
1) "Feelings are not felt" - This statement is self-contradictory and does not deserve attention;
2) "Physiological feelings in affective neuroscience" - This is a bit confused because physiological feelings are mostly feeling sensations as hunger, thirst and pain, all based on interoceptive processes. Affective neuroscience also include these basic sensations, but its main focus is on emotional feelings;
3) My paper is about Sentience, defined as the capacity of feeling. I already explained here that the capacity makes possible conscious feeling experiences, depending on the matching/attunement of internal dispositions with external affordances. Without the capacity (e.g. when the person is under general anesthesia) there may be a noxious stimulus but it is not consciously experienced.
Frank, I tried to send you a message and could not, is something wrong?
Vera
Alfredo Pereira Junior Frank van den Bovenkamp
"1) "Feelings are not felt" - This statement is self-contradictory and does not deserve attention;"
You are indeed using a medical definition of consciousness. Feelings are not felt as conscious experiences unless they are realized by cognition. This step is not always guaranteed as in Freudian metapsychology. The actualization of physical feelings is the basis of consciousness not the realization.
Vera Maura Fernandes de Lima
It seems so, just tried to send you a test message, but it seems something is momentarily wrong.
Meanwhile, I'm going through your paper again. Would you mind resending me that picture with the swirling vortexes, with basic comments just for the record? - thanks
R. Poznansky
"Feelings are not felt as conscious experiences unless they are realized by cognition."
I think this is a critical insight for consciousness research. Only the term "feelings" here is confusing.
"The actualization of physical feelings is the basis of consciousness not the realization."
Yes, but better to say biological consciousness.
Vera Maura Fernandes de Lima
Closing line in your paper: "Classical Maxwellian electromagnetism will do. It turns out that it might be easier than previously stated by many theorists to understand how the brain works".
Ok, however that does not mean that it is quantum physically trivial.
The question is, I still don't see a clear demonstration that "circular" actually means a rotating current which can create a (toroidal) magnetic field. Also not in the An. Acad. Bras. Ciênc publication.
I played a bit with graphics - is the picture representative?
Frank van den Bovenkamp wrote:
"The problem is that you don't seem to contemplate an underlying physical / mathematical structure of the matter wave, let alone work it out. In order to get a handle on that you need to read my paper. That will save you, and more importantly, me a lot of work."
Alfredo: Yes I do not understand the maths, but why is it relevant for the issue being discussed?
Alfredo: " A physical state does not contain the ingredients of Information and Feeling. "
Frank: A true quantum realistic physical state contains nothing else than that.
Alfredo: Sorry, but you are selling a terrain on the moon. Neither historically nor conceptually quantum theory addresses experiential issues.
R. Poznansky wrote: "Feelings are not felt as conscious experiences unless they are realized by cognition".
Alfredo: This is the Cognitivist theory of consciousness assumed among others by Rosenthal´s Higher Order Thought (HOT) theory, for which a higher order thought about a feeling is necessary to make it conscious.
In my theory, Feeling, Knowing and Action neural functions interact, but the feeling does not depend on cognition to be consciously felt. The interaction of the three functions generates conscious episodes containing a Sense of Self and a Sense of World.
I take into consideration Rosenthal´s approach, but my preferred view is that we do not need HOT to experience feelings consciously; on the contrary, we need feeling in order to experience thoughts consciously, otherwise the thought remains unconscious.
For more details, see section 5 of the below paper, where this issue is discussed:
Preprint The Projective Theory of Consciousness: from Neuroscience to...
Alfredo Pereira Junior
" but why is it relevant for the issue being discussed? "
To have a proper abstract / mathematical / physical foundation for the matter wave, eliminating the need for a ghost in the machine.
" feeling does not depend on cognition to be consciously felt "
Both "feeling" and "cognition" as used by you and R. Poznansky here are somewhat ambiguous. I can't think of a proper term for "raw feeling" ("presentient potential," or etc..), either way cognition and emotional feeling evolve hand in hand. It can be measured by the degree to which torturing a mouse, or a horse, or a human is punishable by law.
In Yogic sciences the same principle is known as Kula Kundalini ("coiled serpent") and it's associated propensities are four fold, simply identified as "longings" (i.e. aspirations, drive, etc..) for self-manifestation in the resp. planes of existence.
As I said before, it's all charted. The only thing to achieve beyond the intellectual vanity of reinventing the wheel, is to work it out in terms of mathematics and the natural sciences.
" Neither historically nor conceptually quantum theory addresses experiential issues. "
As just reaffirmed, the problem is tackled at the pre-experiential level. The moment it becomes actual experience, it is outside the non-trivial quantum level. This is very accurately described in my paper, for the rudimentary case.
So the question is not whether it is quantum or not, but how to describe the transition.
R. Poznansky
You still seem to think that QM and QFT are different planets. That's not entirely the case. Basically it is 2 methods of quantization - resp. based on wave/particle duality and based on fields resp. gauge invariances.
The more interesting problem is where mass comes from. In QM the mass is unexplained which constitutes an unacceptable generalization. In QFT it is explained, but still somewhat ambiguously.
I propose an integrative, non-ambiguous mass factorization, which is quantum realistic and therefore a proper model of consciousness at the rudimentary level.
Frank van den Bovenkamp The variables of mathematical physics are about particles, kinetic energy, position in space, direction of velocity, etc. No matter how complex the equations may be, if they only tell us about these material properties, the explanatory gap remains alive and well, and nothing can be concluded about feeling or conscious experiences as we have them. If you redefine what is a feeling and what is experience to fit the material categories, this is ad hoc and counts against your capacity to account for the phenomena.
Alfredo Pereira Junior
Quite to the contrary - the mathematical physics reveals a comprehensive invariant, whereas your philosophy so far only serves to conceal the ghost in the machine.
You must do the science. The thought for you, me or anyone to improve the philosophy is intellectual vanity and a one way ticket into no man's land. I'm not saying that dogmatically, I just need to refer to the sources we discussed.
Consciousness aside, your idea of physics seems utterly basic. Ever heard of gauge theory, symmetry breaking, asymptotic freedom,... ? I've noticed many times that those who don't know modern physics always find excuses to trivialize it. Unfortunately it's a luxury you can't afford if you want to come with something new.
Vera Maura Fernandes de Lima
I've also made a graphic of what's known (e.g.) in the Yogic literature as the "inner light of the 3rd. eye" and is associated with visionary knowledge. It typically occurs as the result of sustained practice, and can also happen during hypoglycemia. It's being described as having the shape of "2 beans". If it gets more intense, it becomes more circular and absorbing. Any idea whether it could relate to the "grey matter vortex"?
(click image)
Alfredo Pereira Junior
"Alfredo: Sorry, but you are selling a terrain on the moon. Neither historically nor conceptually quantum theory addresses experiential issues"
If it is classically derived then you become a computationalist or eliminativist. Subjectivity becomes objective once the brain is computationally mirrored (without consciousness).
But you Alfredo, will fall back to your phenomenology via monism. You continue with this because you want to keep the mystical aspects for philosophical debate that have spawned the literature for over a century.
Vera Maura Fernandes de Lima , Alfredo Pereira Junior
I'd really be interested to hear from you whether my (simplified) "Ca2+ cycle" (posted above) is representative. I guess it must be, as you're referring to a magnetic torus. But I could not find experimental reference.
As much as I like the idea, I'm having one concern though: to put it simply, if you put a powerful neodymium magnet next to your head, you notice nothing whatsoever. If the "neuro-magnetic moment" (which is extremely fragile to begin with) is crucial for consciousness, there would be no need for trained anesthesists.
On the contrary, in your water bridge example, or in the old TV tube, a magnet heavily distorts the field.
So that excludes a (semi) classical explanation, which would come down to the (relativistic explanation of) the Lorenz principle.
That leaves only a quantum explanation where the magnetic moment is present but only as an effect. Assuming that the Ca2+ cycle is a form of matter wave, this is exactly what I described wrt. Hydrogen stability.
That is, to recapitulate, the bound matter wave constitutes a resonance or equilibrium in between:
- A (gauge invariant) superluminal phase wave, associated with spacetime, and thus with cognition
- A synchronized self-interaction, associated with mass, and with (raw) feeling
The functional diagram:
- consists of affective and effective objectivities and subjectivities (i.e. 4 faculties total)
- is non-trivially associated with the 4 causes
- "This amplification involves four components, two of which depend on positive and two on negative feedback mechanisms provided by released Ca2+. " -
Article Astrocyte calcium waves: What they are and what they do
In other words, the 2 pos. and 2 neg. feedback loops supporting the calcium wave could in some fashion correspond with the 2 feeling and 2 cognitive faculties.
Either way, all in all, the bound matter wave is not purely associated with (raw) feeling, but also with cognition.
Frank van den Bovenkamp Ross Adey discovered long ago (in the fifties) that rotating magnets affect brain activity. The power of rotating magnets has recently been confirmed by a team of scientists at the Methodist Houston Hospital (see reference below). This is the experimental basis for the dynamical view of feeling as a temporal pattern of mass action, not as a static magnetic field as in JohnJoe McFadden´s CEMI theory.
The vortex is a type of pattern that appears in several dynamical systems. Our paper suggests that the temporal dynamical patterns observed and registered by Vera in her model (chicken retina as a miniature, 'in vivo' model of the SNC) composes a vortex. If it is just a torus or a complete vortex I cannot explain.
Helekar SA, Convento S, Nguyen L, John BS, Patel A, Yau JM, Voss HU. (2018) The strength and spread of the electric field induced by transcranial rotating permanent magnet stimulation in comparison with conventional transcranial magnetic stimulation. J Neurosci Methods 309:153-‐160. doi: 10.1016/j.jneumeth.2018.09.002.
R. Poznansky wrote: If it is classically derived then you become a computationalist or eliminativist. Subjectivity becomes objective once the brain is computationally mirrored (without consciousness).
Alfredo: Roman Poznanski assumes that physics is sufficient to describe/explain consciousness, and then his options are: classical OR quantum physics.
However, he did not show the relation between experienced conscious phenomena (as sensations and emotional feelings) with classical or quantum mechanics.
Other researchers with better epistemological tools already understood that the relation between the physics of neural systems and the conscious experiences of the system is experimental. While we experience a conscious sensation, as pain, there are some specific physiological processes in our nervous system that can be detected using scientific methods. While we are awake and able to feel, there is a specific biological process in our nervous system that can be detected using scientific methods. This is the adequate epistemology to build a sound theory of consciousness. Wild speculations about feelings at the subatomic level are just diversions.
Alfredo Pereira Junior
Thanks, but I don't see how "some effect" of a strong rotating magnet could be an "experimental basis for the dynamical view of feeling as a temporal pattern of mass action".
Also note the orders of magnitude difference in field strength between an external magnet and the very flimsy neuro-magnetic moment hypothesized in your paper. It would knock one straight out.
If with "mass action" you're referring to the role of the Action Principle in creating particle mass, and how I propose to refine that into a quantum realistic model of Hydrogen stability, then I agree. But as you're not referring to my research, I barely think so. So what do you mean with "mass action" and how does that relate to a rotating magnetic field?
" Our paper suggests that the temporal dynamical patterns observed and registered by Vera in her model (chicken retina as a miniature, 'in vivo' model of the SNC) composes a vortex."
Why? I'd like it to be so, but there's nothing in the cited results that suggests that. That's why I asked Vera to resend one image which actually does show vorticity, with comments.
"If it is just a torus or a complete vortex I cannot explain. "
It's neither. Also I have no idea what physical principle could either be "just a torus" or "a complete vortex". I already mentioned that torus and vortex are sometimes confused. Classically, a magnetic field is toroidal, and a hydrodynamic state can be a vortex.
Alfredo Pereira Junior
" Roman Poznanski assumes that physics is sufficient to describe/explain consciousness "
What other science do you propose?
" Other researchers with better epistemological tools already understood that the relation between the physics of neural systems and the conscious experiences of the system is experimental. "
Correlation is not explanation.
Frank van den Bovenkamp Psychology, Neurosciences (Cognitive, Affective, Action), Physiology, Nutrition, Immunology, Endochrinology, Pharmacology, Psychiatry, Biomedicine, Medical Physics, Morphology, Biophysics, Genetics, Evolution, Ethology, Ecology, Exobiology, ... ... ...
Empirical explanations are based on statistically meaningful correlations
Alfredo Pereira Junior
There exists no such thing as "empirical explanations". None of these disciplines explains or even models life, let alone consciousness. And that's also where, I realize now, is where the scope of your "vortex" article ends.
Moreover, the physics explanations you do give seem to have no bearing in the cited experimental results, so why give them?
If you're interested in a health related understanding of consciousness, then I refer you to the expert Yogic science, literature and tradition.
I find it difficult to understand what you hope to contribute. There's expert, very advanced and comprehensive philosophy which you don't consider. Same with physics and mathematics. What remains is braiding empirical correlations into a home made ghost-in-the-machine framework, because you don't consider the only two possible ways to avoid the ghost.
I still hope Vera Maura Fernandes de Lima is going to resend the result that does show rotational / spiral structure, with source reference.
Frank van den Bovenkamp You are absolutely right that classical particles e.g. ions have no internal structure for non-forced based action to be initiated. Consciousness cannot thus emerge from classical neurophysiology or computational neuroscience or from any of these fields advocated by Alfredo Pereira Junior . The quantum chemistry of consciousness is far from a diversion. It is a necessity. We hit the nail on the head. People are scared of QM and they cannot understand the need for subjectivity to be a pillar of consciousness. Subjectivity comes only from QM not from classical physics.
R. Poznansky
I'd slightly rephrase, that elementary particles and their standard model (force based, Lagrangian, energy-centric, ...) interactions inherently curbs a comprehensive action that sanctions life, let alone biological consciousness.
Indeed, in terms of the natural sciences, not only quantum physics is a necessity, but an (interpretation of) quantum physics that does account for said action, and is therefore considered explicitly quantum realistic.
In other words, classical physics is on two levels inadequate to model consciousness: it is not quantum, and it is not quantum realistic.
And instead of "subjectivity", "raw feelings" give less rise to dualism.
Frank van den Bovenkamp wrote: "elementary particles and their standard model (force based, Lagrangian, energy-centric, ...) interactions inherently curbs a comprehensive action that sanctions life, let alone biological consciousness".
Alfredo: Once more you try to approach an empirical and experimental issue with mathematical abstractions and speculations based on ancient wisdom (based on four or five macroscopic elements of nature) brought to a completely different context (quantum fields etc.)... What could this attempt be called if not a diversion from contemporary science and philosophy?
R. Poznansky wrote: "Subjectivity comes only from QM not from classical physics"
Alfredo: Both are not sufficient to account for subjective experience.
Subjective experience is the lived experience of millions of people, from their individual perspective. It is not describable or explainable by any type of physics, because physics is historically attached to material particles and forces, while our lived experience is made of sensations, emotions, thinking, knowledge, decision-making and action control.
As already stressed by serious consciousness theorists, understanding conscious experience requires a triangulation of neuroscientific and physiological registers, subjective reports of experience while the registers were taken and theoretical models to connect the correlated data (from the registers and reports).
When consciousness science reach the academy, a paper on the basics must be given to first year students to avoid diversions and egocentric attempts to get the Nobel on the basis of armchair speculation. For instance, this classical paper from a main author with h-index of 228...
Article The neural correlates of conscious experience: An experiment...
R. Poznansky
For second quantization this is the more useful wiki entry:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canonical_quantization#Second_quantization:_field_theory
Especially the part on " Real scalar field " discusses the same as my "Hydrogen" paper.
See how the action integral S(ϕ) is based on the Lagrangian ℒ (ϕ). The latter in fact implies a classical free field. The Lagrangian's potential term V(φ) is inconspicuously described as "often taken to be a polynomial or monomial of degree 3".
This is where it becomes fishy, in simplest terms, because it implies a far greater dimensional freedom than is warranted by the actual physics.
Why is this relevant for consciousness research?
Because this is in fact applied gauge theory, and this is practically equivalent to cognition. This was nailed by Emmy Noether, but also by Sarkar.
So here you see that standard model QFT entirely favors cognition, that is, the cognitive gauge.
QFT COULD have solved it when the search for mass acquisition was on. But it didn't, because the required self-interaction term, which is literally added to the free field by sleigh of hand, is ALSO based on the same gauge theory:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quartic_interaction#The_Lagrangian_for_a_real_scalar_field
See the quartic interaction term λ ϕ4 / 4! .
So in summary, in Standard Model QFT the whole theory, containing the free field and an added quartic term, is lop-sided toward the cognitive paradigm.
This is what I have challenged in my Hydrogen paper. The field I propose is very similar, however is not based on Lagrangian physics, but on quantized (bifurcative) action directly. In other words, it is not derived, which could raise objections, but that's how it is (for physicists: the theory is integrable without need for renormalization).
The Hydrogen atom plus its very accurate mass factorization is shown as an instantaneous isomorphism to prove the existence of the bifurcative field.
Wrt. to consciousness, I propose that the non-Lagrangian (i.e. non- force based) self-interaction accounts for "raw feeling".
Evidence for the latter could come from applying the same principles in neuro science, noting that the transition from quantum to neuro is noumenal.
Alfredo Pereira Junior
" Subjective experience is the lived experience of millions of people "
That's why I suggested to avoid the term "subjective". Your interpretation of "subjectivity" is disastrously confused.
" serious consciousness theorists "
There are no serious consciousness theorists. Western consciousness theory and philosophy is a B-movie that would put Ed Wood to shame.
" egocentric attempts to get the Nobel on the basis of armchair speculation "
Now that's really interesting.
Alfredo Pereira Junior
" What could this attempt be called if not a diversion from contemporary science and philosophy? "
You're correct, it is an absolute and complete diversion from contemporary philosophy (prentending the latter is worth the designation in the first place). Also it is a very mild diversion from Standard Model physics, see my comment just above.
" based on four or five macroscopic elements of nature "
Besides that it's not even correct, if that is the only thing you remember from what you have seen, then rest assured I will rest my efforts to further prop and scaffold your attempts to reinvent the wheel.
Alfredo Pereira Junior
It is a massive reduction compared to what it is truly based on, and which you really should know by now.
" brought to a completely different context (quantum fields etc.) "
Whereas the whole point is showing that both contexts are closely the same, provided a modest modification / reinterpretation of QFT.
We discussed this in great detail. You fundamentally forgot it.
Alfredo Pereira Junior
"As already stressed by serious consciousness theorists, understanding conscious experience requires a triangulation of neuroscientific and physiological registers"
You medical definition of consciousness= conscious experience is a detriment to the science of consciousness. When the correlates of consciousness become insufficient you hark back to phenomenology and mysticism via monism.
As Frank van den Bovenkamp points there are no consciousness theorists that have understood the need to remove the ghost from the machine. We have done this in Pan Mat
Frank van den Bovenkamp
"Once more you try to approach an empirical and experimental issue with mathematical abstractions"
QM is not a mathematical abstraction unless it is pure system. We have used a thermodynamic approach to open quantum systems interacting with the environment.
Alfredo Pereira Junior
I'm asking you for the last time:
In you paper you claim in the abstract: "a circular electric current closes in the extracellular matrix; this circular current creates a magnetic torus"
This I illustrated in the attached picture (which btw. you recommended).
The examples you present however show a radially expanding disk (which may be a current).
A circular current and a radial current are two completely different things.
Also in the text you show no experimental evidence that there is a circular current. It seems just a fanciful idea based on wishful thinking.
So my question is: is there experimental result indicating a circular current like in my illustration YES or NO?
Also c/o Vera Maura Fernandes de Lima with once more my request to send the initial illustration (to my knowledge not a recording) showing a Karman vortex like excitation, with a reference to the experimental results. Why was this not in the paper?
R. Poznansky
You wrote:
< "Once more you try to approach an empirical and experimental issue with mathematical abstractions" >
" QM is not a mathematical abstraction unless it is closed system. We have used a thermodynamic approach to open quantum systems."
-
Just for the record, that's what Alfredo Pereira Junior wrote to me. So I guess you meant to address Alfredo, not me.
As for your actual point: yes, an open dynamic system, and not only thermodynamic, but also neg-entropic. Don't forget the neg-entropic aspect, that's where the raw feeling originates.
Also: did you go through my comment on second quantization? This is the road to the quantum physics you're looking for, because a theory of consciousness must incorporate the principle of mass acquisition. This can't be done (e.g.) in Bohmian QM. See also on my project page.
Frank van den Bovenkamp I am not sure about these details to give a Yes of No answer. We are preparing the figures in high resolution for the submission and I will pay attention to find an answer to your question. Probably Vera Maura Fernandes de Lima has the answer already, so I will not take the risk of making a statement I am not sure about.
thermodynamics covers the topic of entropy, negentropy and temperature
Alfredo Pereira Junior
Ok, very good. I'm having some interest in it, but anyway I strongly advise you, if there are circular currents, to be far more precise and explicit about it. The whole of the abstract is essentially a physics claim, which is not substantiated. Your ref. [13] which is supposed to show "wandering log spirals" doesn't show it. A radially expanding "wave" has no magnetic field. All that I've seen is the detached image Vera posted. Plz. do send it for review of the physics before publishing.
R. Poznansky
" thermodynamics covers the topic of entropy, negentropy and temperature "
That is your somewhat loose definition. In thermodynamics you have Gibbs free energy potential G = U+pV-TS. This is correlated to negentropy, but the latter is not part of thermodynamics, but of information theory and statistics. You can't objectively separate them, but it is important to distinguish them for reasons as detailed in my "second quantization" comment.
"People are scared of QM"
Some people are not, but still they are scared of QFT and miss out on crucial concepts:
- gauge theory
- confinement
- mass acquisition
- asymptotic freedom
I want to provide an answer to the following remark:
I'm asking you for the last time:
In you paper you claim in the abstract: "a circular electric current closes in the extracellular matrix; this circular current creates a magnetic torus"
This I illustrated in the attached picture (which btw. you recommended).
The examples you present however show a radially expanding disk (which may be a current).
A circular current and a radial current are two completely different things.
Also in the text you show no experimental evidence that there is a circular current. It seems just a fanciful idea based on wishful thinking.
So my question is: is there experimental result indicating a circular current like in my illustration YES or NO?
The reason why so little experimental evidence exists regarding the magnetic component in biology is because of the absurd boundary conditions that are enforced by even the most prominent of biophysicists. Because the body of a living being is a nested set of conducting volumes, segregated by insulting sheets (for example the double-layered cell membrane separates the intracellular conductor from the extracellular one, the double layered membranes of certain organelles separates the intracellular volume from their atmosphere inside the organelle, the blood brain barrier at at higher level segregates the nervous extracellular space from the circulatory system, and so on) it is imperative to know all of these boundaries when making electrical assessment about the living, as electrical currents will permeate the entire conductive substrate available to its disposal.
Sure it is much easier to assume that the electrical potential next to a solitary neuron is simply 0, and to ignore from there the last 150years of experimental telecommunication, but however one wants to look at it, as long as the brain operates with action-potentials, which are space-time propagating oscillations of the electric field, the magnetic one will always be attached. If you are interested in more juice on this matter, you can consult my thesis.
Thanks Dinu Mihai Patirniche
From what I understood and seems clearly evident, there are distinctly visible glial excitation patterns in the gray matter and retinal intercellular matrix. The authors claim that these imply "circulating currents" (i.e. similar to an electro magnet), and that's not evidenced. My question was not about magnetism per sé (which I suspect is a trivial side effect), but whether indeed there are rotating electrical currents (which then indeed would form a minuscule toroidal magnetic field, as claimed).
Btw. I guess you mean: "the absurd boundary conditions that are enforced onto even the most prominent of biophysicists "
F.i.y. the paper is Preprint THE SPREADING DEPRESSION PROPAGATION: HOW ELECTROCHEMICAL PA...
Which paper of yours are you referring to?
Frank van den Bovenkamp
"but the latter is not part of thermodynamics, but of information theory and statistics"
Call it thermodynamic information if you like.
Are you sure? "Information" in my view is still on the cognition side of things. (Raw) feeling is exactly that which is not information based. Scientifically it does not come under existing categories and can only be approached indirectly.
Frank van den Bovenkamp Thus suggesting raw feeling can be informationally correlated to- not the information of the brain under study but the information of the discipline used to study and characterize it. Negentropy "is" ... exposes two (common) meanings of "is:" How it one formally defines/describes v. what is the underlying nature explaining the so-captured patterns.
Frank van den Bovenkamp
Yes, the paper mentioned by you does show indeed little evidence of the claimed magnetic effects. However, if the question is whether there are rotating electrical currents within living beings, in their extracellular matrix, then the answer is an astounding YES! Currents are by their very nature circulatory. Because the extracellular space is a conducting volume of finite extent, bounded by an insulator (systems of membranes), and because it is said that electrical currents shall develop through this medium, then necessarily a closed conductive circulation will result in this instance. The same must be true if electrical currents develop within cells, within organelles, or among any of these compartments. The most natural fact that one can claim about a current is that it is cyclic. This cyclic circulation of electrical charges necessarily evokes a toroidal magnetic field, as the divergence of the magnetic field is said to be zero. The implications that come by approaching from the very beginning biological organisms with a full electromagnetic formalism in a realistic geometric framework are tremendous. Both for biology as well as physics. The main one being: neurons are at once antennae, that can process non-local signals.
" Btw. I guess you mean: "the absurd boundary conditions that are enforced onto even the most prominent of biophysicists " ? What? Who enforces boundary conditions upon biophysicists. They are the designers of experimental evidence, and thus it is them that enforce favorable conditions upon whatever they like to designate as a biological object. For example: because the extracellular space ends at the blood brain barrier, any questions regarding the circulation of the extracellular current must start with a fully disclosed geometric framework wherein these currents develop. However, because the extracellular space of even the tiniest of beings is a very big object, it is usually assumed that outside a cell there is a static resting potential. No, this are not boundary conditions enforced upon biophysicists, but by their own will.
FYI: the paper I was mentioning is Preprint Nonconservative Neurobiology: A geometric perspective upon s...
Karl Sipfle
The idea is that "raw feeling" (R. Poznansky) IS the underlying nature of everything, and every formal description (in whatever discipline) is an approximation. In other words, knowledge is intrinsically limited (Goedel).
This was adequately solved in the expert ancient and modernized consciousness literature, through a self-referent approach that makes the reader part of the explanation, rather than a distant, intellectually lop-sided observer.
The thinking intellect cannot possess definitive knowledge about consciousness.
Dinu Mihai Patirniche
" necessarily a closed conductive circulation will result "
That makes a lot of sense. I'm not entirely familiar with the Ca2+ phenomenon, but indeed the same must apply. The magnetic flux obviously follows from the contour integral.
" neurons are at once antennae, that can process non-local signals "
That's what makes the organism cognitive, and got evolutionary centered in the CNS (obviously).
" Who enforces boundary conditions upon biophysicists "
That was said by a non-biophysicist aka me. I get your point. This is very helpful, I'll go through your paper. You might like to check out:
Article The Hydrogen Atom as an Integrative Eigenstate of the Bifurc...
R. Poznansky
From what I just understood, it seems evident to me that the transition from quantum to neuro, at least wrt. the Ca2+ phenomenon, goes through biochemical potentials as the noumenal driving principle behind the process.
The principle that constitutes potential (scalar force field obeying an inverse square law) which is non-trivial wrt. raw feelings resp. as the root cause of biological consciousness is the subject of my paper.
It defines biological consciousness as the smart steering of charge, that is, in such a way that the quantum realistic origin of charge is purposefully reciprocated.
Alfredo Pereira Junior
I seems to me that Dinu Mihai Patirniche's comment implicates a big revamp of your paper.
- Badges
- Science topic