Neuroscientists have obsessed over the hard problem of consciousness for over two decades (Chalmers 1995, 1997; Koch and Chalmers 2023): namely, can the physical organization of the brain ever explain one’s subjective experiences given, for example, that we can never know whether two individuals experience the color ‘red’ the same way. Evolutionary theory teaches us that the environment selects the progeny of organisms according to their survivability (Darwin 1859). Survivability of a species depends on both genetic and experiential variability. What this means is that there can never be any such thing as two identical individuals and this holds true for all biological organisms. Thus, the hard problem is irrelevant since we can never expect two individuals to have the same appreciation of the color ‘red’, for their physical world based on genetics and experience will always be different. The best organisms can do is to establish a behavioral consensus about the color ‘red’: when it is red stop the car and when it is green go!!!
The realization that the hard problem is irrelevant was highlighted by Noam Chomsky in 2007/8, when he delivered a lecture at MIT on the status of the neurophysiology of the brain and language. He declared that even though tremendous progress had been made in determining the sensory-motor properties of the brain, after surveying many fMRI images pertaining to the study of language there was (in his view) never any consistency across the scanning patterns of individuals performing the same linguistic task (also see: Finn et al. 2015; Gratton et al. 2018; Salehi et al. 2018). His conclusion: ‘neuroscience has failed linguistics’.
I would suggest, on the contrary, that neuroscience as it relates to language confirms what Darwin already understood that no two organisms can ever be the same given their genetic and experiential uniqueness, which is a hallmark of the evolutionary process. It is for this reason that the brains of Einstein, Kasparov, and Pelé are configured differently, and it would therefore be impossible to convert one into another. Even identical twins, in the end before their death, are varied since their experience is varied.
So, how does the brain deal with the reality of uniqueness? The neocortex and cerebellum of humans together represent over 95% of the neurons in the brain (Herculano-Houzel 2011), and together they reinforce this uniqueness by being able to store 4.4 x 10^14 bits of experiential information over a human’s lifetime (Hueng 2008; Tehovnik, Hasanbegović, Chen 2024). Especially at the level of the cerebellum, one’s uniqueness is well-represented. When studying the grey matter volume of the cerebellum in athletes it was found that ballet performers had an enhancement of the posterior lobe including the vestibular circuitry (Dordevic et al. 2018), sprinters had an augmentation of the anterior lobe which subserve lower limb locomotion (Wenzel et al. 2014), and basketball players had a potentiated mediolateral lobe which subserves eye-hand, object coordination (Park et al. 2009). Thus, by imaging the connectivity of the neocortex and cerebellum (see Figures 1 and 2), we may be able to establish the degree of auto-conscious similarity between two individuals. ‘Auto’ stands for automaticity, which is central to one’s consciousness (see: Tehovnik, Hasanbegović, Chen 2024). Indeed, it has been concluded by the originator of the concept ‘the hard problem’ that neural “systems with the same organization have the same conscious experience.” (Chalmers 1995, pp. 86).
Footnote 1: Here Chomsky was referring to the many breakthroughs on the sensorimotor front in his adopted Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences at MIT.
Figure 1: Shown are connectivity profiles between the neocortex and cerebellum (a flat map) using the resting-state connectivity method of Buckner et al. (2011). The common colors indicate common connectivity. Data from Fig. 5 of Diedrichsen et al. (2019).
Figure 2: Shown are the connectivity profiles of two individuals. Note the difference between the individuals (from Fig. 10 of Xue, Buckner et al. 2021). Whether doing a fine-grain analysis on the connectivity can sort subjects according to their auto-conscious similarity, awaits clarification.
Thank you for your very different formulation of the topic of consciousness.
Dear R. Poznansky Congratulations...
I understand that you have done some pretty in-depth research on Psychiatry and Consciousness. The Relationship between Consciousness and Psychiatry is quite remarkable
If consciousness is associated with the ability to understand uncertainties, impairment or lack of this ability can lead to mental health problems. In this context, the real-life example scenario illustrates how the uncertainty experienced by a person can affect his or her mental health.
The idea that Partial Differential Equations can be used to model psychiatric conditions. This is an advanced approach that aims to bridge neurobiology and mathematical modelling. If this can be done successfully, it could be a new and revolutionary development in psychiatry.
This work emphasizes the need for new and more comprehensive approaches in psychiatry and consciousness research. Moving away from the traditional biochemical focus in psychiatry to a broader understanding of consciousness and the more complex processes underlying mental health problems could deepen treatment and understanding in this field.
My idea ; We have deep knowledge about the human brain, its behaviors and reactions. We can describe the basic properties of each of its components, but we do not fully understand how this complex network works. We tend to associate various parts of our brain with various diseases; However, research conducted over time reveals that instead of the expected diseases, a completely different level of consciousness exists in these regions. Imagine that we associate this extraordinary organ, whose functioning mechanism we cannot fully understand, with various disorders only through guesses and observations. So, on what basis do we make these associations? A big deficit, a big mistake..
The Brain-Cognition Relationship is of great importance in understanding Psychiatric Diseases. This issue is something I particularly focus on. I am looking forward to your work.
Dear R.Poznansky
''The concept of the DOT of consciousness can be applied to various intriguing issues in the field of psychiatry''.
Consciousness arises naturally from the biological and neurological structure of the organism. This reveals that consciousness is related not only to brain functions but to all body systems. Consciousness works to perceive dispersed or complex information and transform it into a meaningful and processable format. This process allows us to organize and make sense of both our internal experiences (emotions, thoughts) and information from the outside world.
It makes sense because DOT considers consciousness not only as a result of cognitive processes but also as part of emotional, bodily and environmental interactions. This shows that consciousness is not just limited to brain functions, but is also deeply connected to the individual's bodily experiences and environment.
Consciousness can focus on one thing at one moment and move on to something else in the next moment. For example, while you are reading this text right now, your thoughts may be on a completely different subject a minute later.
Consciousness is flexible and can quickly adapt to different information. When finding a solution to a problem or learning something new, consciousness adjusts itself to this new situation.
Consciousness does not remain the same; It is constantly changing and evolving. What you feel in the morning and what you feel in the evening may be different. For example, like people whose moods change constantly :))
In short, consciousness means that our thoughts, feelings and perceptions are constantly changing and constantly adapting to new situations. This ability to constantly change and adapt is a fundamental feature of our consciousness. Who knows, maybe consciousness is mutation without us realizing it.
Best Regard
R. Poznansky
"People are confused about natural evolution or evolutionary history that impacts structure (Darwin) and evolution as it impacts the individual organism during the lifespan (Whitehead). Evolution in the sense of Whitehead can be a continuous movement towards non-entropic structures."
In a continuous universe there should be no such difference between Darwin and Whitehead. Surely Whitehead is also about structural evolution considered in different temporal and spacial scales. See my Research Proposal (PDF) Conscious experiences are all we have - applied radically (researchgate.net).
I would like to point out that I found Poznanski's study dated 2024 quite enlightening about the importance of complexity based on functional interactions and dynamic organicity, which he emphasizes regarding the evolution of consciousness. This theory's illumination of how consciousness and life are intertwined and the critical role of self-referential structures in this process may open new horizons in the fields of science and philosophy. In particular, characterizing life and consciousness with negentropic states and underlining how these states became functional in the evolutionary process deepened my thoughts on this subject.We have a lot to learn from him..
I have added some text to the end of the original piece, since RG allows us to have a living document that can be amended as need be. Here is the text from David J. Chalmers, originator of the Hard Problem:
'
Indeed, it has been concluded by the originator of the concept ‘the hard problem’ that neural “systems with the same organization have the same conscious experience.” (Chambers 1995, pp. 86).
'
If consciousness is viewed through information theory, then it is fair to agree that such a diversity of subjective experience fits perfectly into the properties of entropy and deterministic chaos, when the macrostate of a system is determined by a set of microstates. The more microstates a macrostate can contain, the higher the entropy and the higher the chaos, which means that it correlates with what we understand by consciousness. That's when this multitude of subjective experience appears, when different brains of Kasparov, Pele and Shevchenko appear as variants of microstates. This is what 100 billion cells and variations in the connections between them are for: maximum entropy, maximum deterministic chaos. If there were fewer, we would have the consciousness of a cat or an earthworm.