Tononi and associates (2016) believe that different neurons control consciousness over unconsciousness, subjecting the brain to a dualism that can be traced back to René Descartes of the 17 Century. This idea conflicts with the observations of Oliver Sacks, who found that bilateral damage of the dopaminergic fibres that innervate the neocortex disrupts both the flow of movements (which can be done consciously as well as unconsciously) and the flow of thinking (a very conscious process):
Parkinson’s patients while immobile and comatose are unable to schedule their movements and thoughts. As described by Parkinson’s patient, Miss D: “…my essential symptom is that I cannot start and I cannot stop. Either I am held still or I am forced to accelerate. ” [Sacks 2012, pp. 40] As well, perceptions, words, phrases, or thoughts can be locked, either brought to a standstill or continuously repeated [Sacks 2012, pp. 15-16]. All volitional, introspective, and automatic states are interrupted in Parkinson’s patients, suggesting that dopamine must mediate the smooth transition of events for these states and in the absence of dopamine subjects are put into a perpetual ‘sleep’ as evidenced by their EEG, delta activity which is prevalent during slow-wave sleep.
Furthermore, when considering the preparatory activity preceding a movement (which can be thought of as ‘thinking to move’, James 1890), the preparatory activity has the same predictive power for a future movement irrespective of whether there is a movement or not (Darlington and Lisberger 2020; also see Nasibullina, Lebedev et al. 2023), and the preparatory activity is present throughout neocortex as well as subcortex including the thalamus, the pons, and the cerebellar cortex and nuclei, for instance (Darlington and Lisberger 2020; Hasanbegović 2024). Accordingly, the same neurons in neocortex mediate both consciousness and unconsciousness with the difference being in the nature of the pathways utilized to accomplish each: e.g., visual consciousness (which is for visual learning, Hebb 1949, 1961, 1968) would depend on both posterior and anterior neocortical sites, whereas visual unconsciousness would depend mainly on posterior neocortical sites since the learning of new routines has been finalized via the frontal lobes (Chen and Wise 1995ab; Schiller and Tehovnik 2001, 2005, 2015; Tehovnik 2024; Tehovnik, Hasanbegović, Chen 2024).
When mammals including humans are involved in volitional behaviors such as walking, running, or swimming, the neocortex assumes a low-voltage fast EEG activity, which characterizes the waking state of the brain (Vanderwolf 1969). When one swims lengths in a pool, one is very aware of two states of consciousness: a first state that is anchored to current sensations, especially when approaching the end of a pool length, which requires a flip turn initiated by vision, touch, sound, proprioception, and a change in vestibular head-orientation. To enhance one’s linkage to current sensations while swimming, one must swim with determination to reach the end of the pool as fast as possible, as would be the case by someone engaged in a swimming competition.
A second state of consciousness assumed during swimming is to be disconnected from one’s sensations, and instead be thinking about events of the day which depends both on information stored in the neocortex (e.g., in the parietal, temporal, and orbital cortices) and on the unconscious rhythmicity of swimming via subcortical circuits (e.g., as mediated by the cerebellum, Hasanbegović 2024). The unconscious rhythmicity is triggered by a visual impression at the end of a pool length to induce a flip turn; this is transmitted via the neocortex to subcortical channels (Tehovnik, Hasanbegović, Chen 2024). Once a flip turn is completed and swimming resumed, one can continue to contemplate the events of the day, consciously.
It is noteworthy that when the dopaminergic system of Parkinson’s patients whose dopamine levels have been reduced by 99% (Sacks 2012, pp. 335) is recovered using amantadine (a dopaminergic agonist), their neocortical EEG resembles low-voltage fast activity [Fig. 2 and 3 of Sacks 2012, pp. 329, 331], which is evidenced during waking state and volitional and automatic movements, as well as during introspective thinking (Sacks 2012). And recall that having one’s movements and thinking locked-in due to dopamine depletion is accompanied by neocortical slow-wave activity, which also occurs during sleep. It is for this reason that Parkinsonism has often been referred to as a sleeping sickness (Sacks 1976).
So, using EEG monitoring of athletes during swimming is a fast way to pilot if neocortical low-voltage fast activity undergoes a change depending on whether one is swimming volitionally as during a competition (which means all consciousness is dedicated to current sensations and the motor act) or whether one is swimming contemplatively (thinking about events of the day while executing an automated act). According to Tonini et al. (2016) these two states should generate different forms of activity over the neocortex if different neurons are engaged in the performance of each. According to our scheme (detailed in Tehovnik, Hasanbegović, Chen 2024), the activity of posterior neocortex should remain unchanged for both conditions, while the frontal lobes will only be engaged when new routines are being learned (or contemplated), which requires consciousness (or thinking, Hebb 1949, 1961, 1968).
** I would suggest that the bet between Christof Koch and David Chalmers [In: A 25-year-old bet about Consciousness has finally been settled, 2023] be extended for one or two years so that Christof can finally collect his reward for being correct about consciousness. But not to be too hasty, maybe we should wait for the empirical results to roll in based on our new conceptualization of consciousness being a neurophysiological/behavioral (rather than a philosophical/computational, Tononi et al. 2016) problem. The latter is the same error made by supporters of the Blue Brain Project, as spearheaded by Henry Markram which cost Europe over a billion dollars. **
Just random remarks:
The swimmer completes a swimming lane just like a long jump athlete closes the gap to the take-off board (D.N. Lee - Tau-coupling theory)
1. Do you see the commonalities with a marble within a marble run?
2. Do you see the closing of the gap? Do you see that the gap approaches zero?
3. Do you see the current position of the marble (swimmer, athlete) always marks the exact boarder between all latent and manifest positions of the marble?
4. Do you swim (jump long)? Have you or have you ever seen an athlete execute a turn in an identical way?
Just random remarks:
The explanatory model of all goal-directed motoric actions proves, beyond any reasonable doubt, that you can solely execute a motoric action when you first construct a perceptual image of a latent action trajectory shape over which the end effector(s) will become successfull.
It is hard to brainstorm about the why, but you will just be not caspable to start any action without such a perceptual image.
The movement of an approaching tennisball or the movement of a tennisball laying still on the grass are perceived in the exact same active way.
Consider an older version of an alarm clock, after an electrical shut down. When you need to reset the time the zero's are flickering. The perception of the zero's at t(0) has absolutely no relationship with the perceptions of the zero's at t(0+x). Which leads to the undeniable conclusion that our perceprtion organs are first and foremost comparing organs.
Movement is perceived due to the comparison of the perception of adjacent time frames. So (actual) movement and conversely zero-movement are perceived in the same active manner.
The perception and execution are different processes one may govern by the brain but action/ responses are depend on motor coordination. The perception and retention are the part of counsessness where as learning of any task like swimming may be locomotor action.
As to whether we should spend a billion dollars, yes. It is probably the most important question there is because it is the essence of who we are. But we aren't going to find it in the brain. That paradigm (materialism - the whole is the sum of parts like a machine) is demonstrably inaccurate in its ability to describe the nature of reality. The biomedical research enterprise is failing miserably basing research designs on this model. Cancer research is a classic example. The implications of quantum theory, despite is unparalleled applicability in modern technology, have simply not been understood by biomedical scientists. The way we design experiments is perpetuating the problem (see Knox and DNA).
You should read my papers first.
An unfortunate reader's comment on missing out on reading Cosmin's book
I saw on a Bernado Kastrup forum (now there is a brilliant writer and philosopher!) that Cosmin was concerned with making a profit from his book, but he will defeat his own object publishing books in a language in which he is not thoroughly acquainted. Please get someone to translate your books professionally Cosmin, and I just might purchase your next effort as you do have some interesting theories. At the very least you could have had someone competent to proofread it before publishing. There is even software available to help. Skimping on the readability of a book will do you no favours. I originally gave one star, but on reflection thought it a little unfair, as the content must have required some considerable time and effort to assemble. I have therefore awarded 3 stars, even though the book was somewhat expensive, and considering its many language, grammar and syntax errors. I also remain unconvinced of the theories presented, but they are interesting nonetheless. from https://www.amazon.com.tr/I-Am-Cosmin-Visan/dp/1092284397
Dear Dr. Knox Sarah S. Knox your reasoning fully mirrors that of pseudoscientist homeopaths. Mentioning cancer research for justifying the role of spirituality and "quantum fields" in its treatment or biomedicine is just a fallacy.
Firstly, cancer research is very young and shouldn't be expected to be 100% fruitful the way you do. Besides, cancer research has been already extremely successful. The proof is the greatly increased rate of survival in many cancer patients, compared to 30 years ago. If science has not yet found a MAGICAL cure for cancer the way pseudo-scientists (like homeopathy) expect it to, the reason for the slow progress is not the one you assumed, i.e., it's not because science has not considered spirituality or magical quantum BS into account; it is simply because there are so many different cancer types, each having hundreds or even thousands of unknown, extremely complicated mechanisms and variables to consider. Thus, studying each type of cancer needs lots and lots of TIME, human resources, funding, advanced instruments, specialists, etc. etc etc. something that is not affordable in a blink, the way pseudoscientist homeopaths expect it to.
If you are someone who doesn't know this very simple fact, then you don't qualify as a researcher. it is very saddening to see an NIH employee mixes science with her subjective beliefs like spirituality in guise of quantum fields to develop and sell PSEUDOSCIENCE. Very very disappointing and upsetting.
I am not talking about you, but in general, the place for snake oil developers and pseudoscience practice is not at NIH or SCIENCE universities. A homeopathy or acupuncture or Reiki "research" center, or a magic wielding wizardry lab, would be much more suitable.
“…I would suggest that the bet between Christof Koch and David Chalmers [In: A 25-year-old bet about Consciousness has finally been settled, 2023] be extended for one or two years so that Christof can finally collect his reward for being correct about consciousness. But not to be too hasty, maybe we should wait for the empirical results to roll in based on our new conceptualization of consciousness being a neurophysiological/behavioral (rather than a philosophical/computational, Tononi et al. 2016) problem…..”
- really that above is some typical mainstream scientific passage – i.e., since all names in the passage had/have only completely transcendent/uncertain/irrational imagination about what are any really fundamental phenomena/notions, first of all in this case “Matter”, “Consciousness”, “Space”, “Time”, “Energy”, “Information”,
- the passage really contains some irrational wordings that really don’t relate to objective reality; and so, say, at rather popular attempts to solve the “hard problem of consciousness” soon 30 years already, the “solutions” are nothing else than exchange by some really by no means grounded “theories”, “models”, etc. of consciousness. The attempts can be fundamentally endless, the “solutions” innumerous,
The phenomena/notions above can be, and are, rigorously scientifically defined only in framework of the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s really philosophical 2007 “The Information as Absolute” conception, recent version of the basic paper see in
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/363645560_The_Information_as_Absolute_-_2022_ed
, so more see the link above; here only note, that in the conception it is rigorously proven that the informational systems “Consciousness” and “any material object/system” are fundamentally different systems since are organized, exist, and evolve/operate being based on fundamentally different basic sets of basic laws/links/constants.
So, say, the observable a “Consciousness” version “the consciousness on Earth” really is fundamentally non-material, which, though [why? – see the link above], really resides on practically material living beings organisms [complex organisms, including humans ones - systems “body+brain”],
- while mostly exists and operates outside Matter in own space that only partially intersects with and Matter’s space,
- using the organisms as a stable residence and as a set of auxiliary functional modules, including essentially as the power supply and “hard disk”, at mostly non-material operation of her main functional modules.
Corespondingly any real experiments in neurosciences, which are made till now by using completely material instruments, by no means really can clarify what is consciousness, where mainstream neuroscientists “study” the consciousness.
Really that happens as, say, that would be even in more simple case, when some people attempt to understand – what is a black box?, which is really a computer with running program,
- having at that no any understanding what that can be, no access to main modules, i.e. processor, RAM, etc., and only observing some pictures on monitor, poking by electrodes in arbitrary points on the motherboard and hard disk, on contacts in microchips, having no understanding that that are microchips and hard disk, measuring at that potentials, EM waves, etc.
The result will be – and it is in neuroscience till now, evident – fundamentally zero, besides some applied things; as, say, facts that if in something in the box a portion of HCl is dropped, or some microchips legs are cut off, then some potentials on the something on the computer motherboard and pictures on the monitor change;
- as, say, if a portion of some portion of C2H5OH appears in brain, or some neurons are cut off by a neuroscientist or by some cudgel impact on head, the potentials and EM waves in the brain points change, in the brain some strange mental pictures appear, etc.
More see the linked above paper, to read SS&VT initial consciousness functional model in https://www.researchgate.net/publication/329539892_The_Information_as_Absolute_conception_the_consciousnessit is useful as well,
- here only note that real consciousness science can be only provided understanding of the above, including when neuroscience will attempt to discover in brain its functional modules/structures that are used at informational exchange with non-material modules, etc.
Cheers
Consciousness is not exist in the brain its only a sensation that works even smaller insects that have no brain. Many studies proves that insects have sensetive to cold and hot, means having all senses.
Recent SS posts in
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_a_human_brain_both_hardware_and_software#view=66159e89539f61c9940e6247/5/5/5/4/6/3/4/5/4/5/6
- and in https://www.researchgate.net/post/What-criteria-do-you-have-in-mind-while-characterizing-a-scientific-theory/30 , pages 29, 30, though,
- are relevant to this thread question.
Cheers
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Mathematical Sciences
- Statistics
- Probability
- Probability Theory
- Reliability