Consciousness as synchronization (of some kind)

 This might not mean much to you, but, spending a few hours reading about consciousness-related neuroscience today, I had a like, mind-blowing idea, like POOFFF

What if, the entire function of brain plasticity, is to organize the different neurons to be able to be electrically active in a synchronized or de-synchronized manner in response to different inputs?

What is a kind of synchronization is at the core of awareness...

Because, think about it: The things that come together to make up our conscious experience at any given time, have a huge variety. We can be conscious of a green, juicy apple, or a scary face, or blue sky with music and a person next to us etc etc - endless combinations. All those different brain areas that give rise to those experiences are always there, and are often active in some way, but don't always join in or contribute to our conscious experience. Their physical connections don't change, so what is it that changes that makes them contribute to a conscious experience?

There has to be a mechanism, a basic mechanism that allows all those different elements to "come together" or "stay out".

Also, consider how many things in our body, and especially in the nervous system, are rhythmical. The heart, for example, is a collection of cells that do nothing but synchronize their electric activity, to ensure that our heart beats properly. We have circadian rhythms, a basic rhythm of 8 times per second governing our attention, heartbeats, the state of sexual arousal, for example, is all about frequency and rhythm. There is a very precise synchronization between the firing of neurons and the electric activation of muscles, without which we would not be able to move properly. There needs to be a very high degree of calibration of all the synapses, for the different muscle groups to contract at just the right degree and at just the right time to allow us to stand without falling, or to execute specific movements. What if the same high-precision synchronization is also responsible for our conscious experience and its content, at any given moment?

On the other hand, over-synchronization of the whole brain is related to seizures, rather than an experience of "everything", if such a thing is even possible. So what is meant by "synchronization" here is not homogeneous activity, but rather a kind of "symphony", where the activity of different components is harmoneous in some way (kind of like how the rythm of different instruments in music . Moreso, that rhythm is not adjusted to the rhythm the muscles require to have proper movement.

The cells in our retina have evolved to respond electrically to electromagnetic radiation at different frequencies (the "visible spectrum" of light). Truly, so much of what the brain responds to has to do with repetition at different frequencies (including sounds).

Wouldn't it be very possible then, that harmony of electric activity among different brain region be responsible for a single conscious experience, comprising of different elements? (The "green" of the apple, the texture of it, and the music we may hear in the background, etc').

Yet we can hear any kind of music, no matter its frequency, combined with any other kind of input,

Now here is an interesting question: How does the brain process different sounds (of different frequencies)? If a lower vibration sound triggers a lower vibration neural activity in one area, does that mean that the green apple we are also looking at, at the same time, or rather, the area of the brain processing that input, have to also “vibrate” at the same frequency of that sound?

Something about this is problematic, because we can hear an endless variety of different sounds (different frequencies) and still be aware of the SAME green apple. Yet we ARE aware of it as two different entities. What if our attention shifts back and forth between those two things, but it happens so fast that they seem like one experience? Maybe that is how we can differentiate different “entities”.

This raises one important question: Is there a connection between the frequency of neuron firing and the frequency of the input? I think the answer is not necessarily. For example, the visible light has a certain frequency, but the rate of activity of the neurons in the retina has more to do with the rate of sampling, probably, or the internal rhythm of the neuron, rather than the frequency of the light.

I mean, if red light has a higher frequency than blue, does that mean that neurons that receive “red” will fire action potentials at a faster rate than those that receive (respond to) “blue”? I would guess the answer is NO. But this needs to be checked!

Is consciousness a fundamental aspect of existence, or a derivative of evolution?

 One question I had for a long time that has seemed very bizarre to me, was about the relationship of the phenomenon of life, to existence (the existence of the universe, of everything in it).

On one hand it seems like Life (and specifically consciousness) is a fundamental "force" of nature, and yet the existence of life this evolved seems optional in a way, something that emerged completely randomly, that could either exist or not exist and the universe would continue as usual.

So I asked myself is there is a fundamental force or principle about existence that eventually forces life to be created, when given enough time. And actually I think that yes, there is such a principle.

See we think of the theory of evolution as something that explains why some life forms evolve from others, and why some perish and other persist, but actually I think it also explains why life exists to begin with and why it came into being.

So here are my thoughts..: The basic alternative in the universe is existence or no-existence. Things that exist have a certain identity. (So much I know from Objectivism). But then here is the kicker: Things that are able to keep their identity and keep their existence going will exist, and things that cannot do so will disintegrate (change identity) and cease to exist (their previous identity will cease to exist).

LIFE is something that has the power to maintain its identity through time and in face of different forces through replication. Therefore, unlike many other things in the universe it has the capacity to continue to exist as a certain identity.

In this way, it is no different than a mountain that continues to exist through various forces and weather conditions. Only the mountain has no internal mechanism to maintain its identity; genes DO.

And so... the existence of life is very much a fundamental force in existence, because it is the thing that *exists* more than anything else. It continues to exist as a specific identity more than anything else.

And see, it is so incredibly elusive, why something like this should happen, but if you go back to the most fundamental duality of all - existence or lack of existence, you realize that under that fundamental alternative, the things that ultimately remain in existence are those who are best at surviving as a thing with a specific identity. And that provides the "force" for why life evolves and continues to evolve into something more and more efficient in terms of surviving.

Starting from just self replicating RNA strands into single cells into simple organisms, into animals with consciousness, into animals that have a self regulating consciousness (a distinction Harry Binswanger identifies).

Our self regulating consciousness (human consciousness) is the most efficient so far at surviving (as humans).

So, in that way, we are perhaps the thing that exists "the most", we are the best thing in existence because creatures like us continue to exist while mountains and seas disintegrate.

Consciousness is then an inevitable creation, and not random at all. It is a logical consequence of existence, as a tool that serves the existence of a specific identity.

It's still very difficult for me to really comprehend this, and I'm still not sure this is not all a pile of baloney, but boy, what an interesting idea this is.

"Objective reality" and seeing different aspects ofeality

 Imagine how different this creature sees the world than we do. While we think of our Qualia (conscious experience) of vision as the "true experience" (how the world looks like), other species see something else.

This creature is called a Chiton;

"The creatures have developed a ceramic shell system that's not only flexible, being comprised of eight overlapping plates, but also provides high levels of visibility, by incorporating tiny eyes throughout. Unlike the vast majority of other living creatures, the chiton's eyes aren't made from protein, but are instead made up of the mineral aragonite – the same ceramic that makes up the rest of its shell."

And consider that color is not something that is even perceived by deep sea creatures. They probably see something like waves of density, which is an experience we can't even imagine.

So the qualia actually represents relevant phenomena in an organism's environment. And most likely the brain of the organism (if it has neurons) is pre-organized to receive exactly that kind of input to then shape itself to produce a particular kind of qualia.

That is why the tongue can be taught to produce the sensation of sight with the right stimuli. The absolute crazy thing about the brain is that it seems to be the type of activity it produces that will generate a certain kind of experience.

Does awareness depend on the pre-existence of a cognitive model?

What if we need to know something ahead of time (to have a memory of it), in order to be able to experience it?

Just a crazy thought that crossed my mind.

You know this thing that happens when you taste something other than the flavor you were expecting - how for the first few seconds your brain finds it repulsive until you recognize what it is? For example, you expected something sweet, but instead it tasted salty. Until you take enough time to recalibrate your mind, you do not have a correct perception of that flavor. But once you do, you may recognize that it's a flavor you actually like.

This is how strongly our expectations influence our perception.

What if we actually have to be exposed to a thing several times before we can ACTUALLY experience it? What if the experiences that flow easily are just those that are close enough to a collection of previous experiences?

When a baby develops, are they actually aware of what's around them before the brain pathways develop in response to the patterns in the environment?

But here is the most convincing evidence yet: a blind man can eventually learn to see using their tongue, with a device that translates visual patterns into electric signals that are pressed against the tongue. OVER TIME, that part of the brain learns to interpret the incoming signals are visual qualia, and then the person begins to see. But at first - the signals do not induce that same qualia. Now why is that? It's because a processes of inner calibration of the neural network has to occur before that specific consciousness is possible.

And lastly, is the thing that got me thinking of this... unfamiliar songs. Sometimes you need to hear a song several times before you begin to grasp it. And then, after your brain charts out the patterns, the song becomes pleasant, and easy to grasp.

But the really interesting part here, is that consciousness is conditional upon a specific arrangement of neurons. It requires exposure to patterns from the outside in order to develop. But not every stimuli can produce consciousness. There's a criteria. and if we find the criteria, we may find a direction in which to research the physical basis of consciousness. It suggests that even given the perfect "interface" - a brain ready to generate consciousness - consciousness will not emerge without the right stimuli.

Like that experiment I heard about cows that were raised in round rooms, and then could not see straight lines when they were later presented.

consciousness is not just a "thing that experiences what's out there". It need to calibrate to the environment in order to develop properly.

Qualia as a product of evolution

I was thinking about how strange it is that we only perceive a small section of EM radiation, while the rest of the spectrum produces a very different qualia and effect. We develop awareness of the specific environment we are exposed to. Qualia is a result of the process of evolution applied to the brain. It is the most efficient way to allow living things to navigate an environment quickly to ensure survival and reproduction. Even something like the perspective grid and depth with which we see the world is probably just the most efficient way to provide quick input to a living thing to allow it to grab or avoid things.

So anyway I thought of this cool dialog between an alien and a human, because I think it's interesting to examine our qualia (experience), not from the point of view of taking it for granted as "reality", but from the wider perspective of qualia as a phenomenon in living things.

"So, your species experiences electromagnetic radiation as this thing you call 'color' ??"

"Yes, it's a delightful range of different color perceptions. If you move the dial and change the light frequency, I will see different things"

"OK, let me turn it up a little more, all the way to this big line here. What is that?"

"Oh, no, that's X-ray. Destroys your cells. Turn it down".

"OK, all the way down to this other line, what is this?"

"That's microwave radiation. It cooks you alive".

"So this narrow range in between you experience as 'color' and everything around it you don't perceive at all, but it kills you?

With such a different perceptual experience of the same phenomenon, I'm surprised you found out it's the same thing at all"

"yep, we found out through perception of the narrow range which is what we call 'visible' "

"So sight is a species-specific experience"

"Right. Some species perceive pressure instead of color."

Is romance gone from our culture?

There is something I wonder about our culture. I don't know if I am imagining it or not. 

But, listening to oldies (All the way to the 30's and up to the 60's, or maybe sooner), their love songs are very sweet and they glorify love. To our generation, it would typically induce a puke reaction, as if to something fake and overly sugary. 

But see that made me wonder. If culturally, we have de-throned love as an ideal, what have we replaced it with? Seems like maybe, narcissistic power to make other people want us. 

I don't think songs like that existed back then, and now there is a whole genre of them, Where the core value in regards to relationships is status and respect, rather than love and connection. 

Take a moment to reflect on that - not a song or two, but an entire genre of songs with this mentality. 

And what is the direct consequence of it? That the person who is more wanted, yet less interested than the other, is the one who wins the game (See Tyler Swift's 'Blank Space').
Now take a moment and compare the two songs, 'Blank Space' and 'Can't help falling in love' sang by Elvis Presley. 

I mean, we have spent so much time cynically and "wisely" making fun of everything ideal, in the name of "maturity", "realism", "not being a fool", and "real life wisdom", that what are we leaving room to live for? 

Maybe this has to do with our increased independence as a result of the various technological advancements. My intention is not to talk technology down. But to give all the consequences an objective evaluation without forming a conclusion on 'what should be done'. I'm not anti-technology, but when something need be recognized, then it need be recognized, regardless of any prick's agenda. (You heard me, prick. Back off).
so to get back to my point, before I started arguing with imagined people; 

And there is real fear

One of the wisest things I have learned is that people run away from being vulnerable because it is less safe. Because everyone are caught up in the same fear, and they go round and round perpetuating it. So for years I've been challenging myself to be vulnerable when the other person does not let themselves be. Just to see what would happen. At this point I am not so afraid of being hurt by it, but it's complicated to explain why. 

So many people go around pretending not to care about others as a way to preserve their pride. But my philosophy reverses it, because I've come to the understanding that the richest person alive is the one that can love. I think it is an undiscovered fundamental law of nature. We may not realize it consciously, but as human beings we are always drawn to those around us that have the capacity to love... To feel, to get attached to things, to get excited. The other things we respond to are defense values, which we accumulate as a shield to save us from not loving ourselves. 

Now you may think everything I said sounds like a lot of fluff, and what kind of a valentine greeting card did I get this off of. 

But it is true. We just live in a world that conditions us to be the opposite, until it's too late and we face death, and we are terrified of it, because we haven't loved for years and the day to face the loss finally comes. And see, I don't believe in multiple life times. So I rather always throw myself to the wind, take a risk, just to get one step forward fulfilling my life. 

I think the happiest people are those who can love without fear.