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. 

Is qualia the same among different people?

 It is said that we can't know for certain if one person's experience is the same as another's. For example, just because two people name the same color "red" does not mean that they experience the same thing.

But, I'd like to poke some holes in this idea. Of course, we cannot reach certainty at this point, since we do not understand exactly how the brain generates our experience (or how they correlate). But the way to induce is to piece together small pieces to form a picture, rather than to prove a theory beyond a shadow of a doubt. You cannot prove that which you have not yet discovered, and the process of discovery has to be understood as vitally important, for us to allow its precarious nature to exist within our mind.

So if we take this principle of induction as valid, and apply it here, let's consider the reasons why it is reasonable to expect that our qualia (conscious experience) IS actually the same, or very similar.

For starters, we can observe the general nature of living things within the same species. We have genetic variations, but there are certainly more things in common than differences. We all have the same organs that perform the same functions. We all have the same structure of a brain that develops similarly. Yes, there are variations, but compare a human being to a leaf or a rock, and it is immediately clear that we are more alike than different.

We also know that consciousness emerged later on in evolution, and not right from the start, which means that consciousness is a result of evolution, perhaps a likely result (maybe even inevitable), but still, it is a process which is subject to all the principles of evolution, just like other processes, such as breathing or moving.

Therefore, our consciousness can be judged the same. Do different people have different legs? There are variations, but essentially, they still work the same and produce the same function. Same thing goes for all other things, such as the immune system, circulatory system and so on.

I think this makes it LIKELY that this is also true of consciousness and of the brain.

And so this means that while there may be slight variations in the "red" qualia, it is far more likely that it is the same rather than different. Just like the lungs of human beings are more the same than different.

Also, I think it helps us understand out own consciousness better, as a process which undergoes selective pressure to produce survival and reproduction (or to carry on the genes).

OK so. "smart intellectuals" may put you on the stand and remind you that "oh no, you cannot be certain that your red is the same as the other person's red, and don't jump to conclusions blah blah blah", but the INDUCTION way of thinking would suggest putting more weight on all the "common sense" factors that may be hard to name, that suggest that there is no bloody reason why evolution would work so hard to produce a solution that works, only to modify it drastically among the individuals of the same species. Right. So screw the skeptic intellectuals and their methodologies.

OK, that's what I wanted to say, only without aiming at starting a war with anyone. Red is red. More or less.

Energy limits and its effect on the origin of life

We know that there's a connection between the emergence of life and *energy*. And some have speculated that energy is the cause that life emerges.

I don't think that energy is the cause, it's a necessary condition. But here is what I realized: It is very useful to ask what *limits* the amount of energy in an environment that sustains life. Are there upper and lower limits, and if so - what is the reason for those?

OK so the lower limit is easy when we think of the extreme of 0 Kelvin (absolute no movement). Obviously if there is no movement, there can be no life, because nothing can replicate, nothing new can get created.

How about the upper limit? Well, we know that living things (at least as we know them on earth), get scorched by fire or by the sun. However, we also see that different living things can handle different levels and types of energy depending on the environment in which they develop. Deep sea creatures can withstand high pressure, and land creatures have better tolerance for UV light than underground dwellers. In fact, we NEED a certain amount of light energy in order to exist. Too much energy from the sun and we burn up.

If you expose a living thing to more energy than it can process while maintaining its shape, it breaks down. And so life is a thing that organizes itself around being able to absorb the energy in its environment in order to create and re-create its physical composition.

So in theory, if there were a combination of self replicating molecules that could use an intense amount of energy to create more of their molecular structure - we could have life that exists in higher energy environment. However, when we reach a point where the energy causes covalent bonds to break, then no molecule formation is even possible. And that would be a theoretical upper limit.

Also, there may not BE that many combinations for the basic building blocks that answer all the criteria that life requires to originate. And if RNA/ DNA are the only possibility (along with the variety of proteins and other structures that they generate), then it would be their specific properties that determine the upper limit on energy that can sustain life.

So, energy is a necessary component for the phenomenon of life, but it is not its cause.

Oh, one more thing: Energy fluctuation is not good for living things, because we evolve to optimally process a specific set of conditions. When you start to "rock the boat" too much (making it too cold or too hot, too much external pressure or not enough), then things begin to fall apart. Not because life under those conditions is not possible, but because this specific living thing has not evolved in that environment.

My thoughts on Ayn Rand's theory of Happiness

This idea that happiness is obtained by pursuing reason, purpose and self esteem, and that people are either happy or unhappy to the extent that they follow these principles - I don't think that's how happiness works.

I think that more fundamentally, our happiness is a result of our emotional experiences in childhood, which then in turn create our core motivation, sense of self and a belief of what is or isn't possible to us.

Our actions later in life will reflect this core emotional composition, rather than the principles we choose to follow.

I think that certain principles can definitely help you work toward your happiness, but that for the most part, achieving happiness has more to do with accessing our core emotions directly rather than taking this or that action.

The motivation to follow healthy actions follows from a healthy emotional core composition (for lack of a better term).

So take something very basic as an example... How about going on a diet? Lots of us fail to follow a healthy diet because something within us is driving us to self sabotage. We crave too much food or the wrong kind of food because it soothes an anxiety that we do not understand and cannot get rid of.

An Objectivist would look at it and say that a person is failing to use their free will to live healthily. Basically telling them "It's your goddamn fault dude for choosing to follow your whims".

Well here is what I think: This idea lacks compassion for our state of mind and it doesn't solve the problem. Instead, it compounds it by adding shame and guilt.

Yes, it is true that we are fortunate to be able to use our will to change our subconscious. But you gotta have respect for your subconscious, how it works, how slow or fast it can change and HOW you go about changing it, if at all. Don't assume that just because you KNOW something is good or right, that you can immediately convince your subconscious of it, too.

That view simply lacks respect for the nature of your mind.

If a program has a bug, it's not enough to know that the bug needs to be fixed - you need specialized knowledge in order to fix it, and our subconscious is the same.

I know some brilliant people who would be stuck hiding their talent from the world until the day they die, because at their core, they are stopped by massive fear. The fear can be so big that they may not even be aware of feeling it, because it is always there, like their skin.

So to go back to the point I was making: Ethics and moral principles as a guide to happiness are great, but I don't think we have full control over our happiness by following a set of principles.

If someone has a core belief that they are not lovable, then productivity, reason, and all that stuff is not gonna make them happy. It might actually make things worse for them.

Also, here is another thing to consider: Human beings were capable of happiness long before we were civilized enough to discover logic, and back when we still made some pretty "dumb" observations (by today's standards). I mean, how would Ayn Rand describe the state of mind of those primitive human beings? I think it would be ridiculous to say that they could not be happy because their capacity to reason was limited. Take a caveman, give him a good family, abundance of food, a good shelter and peaceful coexistence and they will be happy. Maybe even happiER than a modern day intellectual who has x5 more reason, but lacks those social conditions. So then how do you explain that? Well, she will likely say that in order to have abundance of food and a good shelter, he would need to use reason. And that is a good point, however if the caveman who has less reason than a modern man can feel happier, that still brings up an interesting point regarding what factor plays a bigger role in happiness - our social surroundings or our degree of logic.

As you may sense I am actually a big fan of logic. It is not my intention to bash it, only to consider the truth of our fundamental nature as human beings. 

The humility embedded in scientific Thinking

Something just occurred to me while watching this video:
The video really shows two different forms of thinking. at the beginning of the video, they an example of what some might call "mystical thinking": when magnets were first discovered, they were thought to have healing properties on the human body, because of the unusual effect they had on metals. I can really understand how someone looking at this magical object for the first time would attribute supernatural powers beyond what it demonstrates.
The other type of thinking was implied toward the end of the video, when nuclear power was discussed, and was explained using Einstein's formula E=Mc^2

And watching that part, it occurred to me, how weird it would seem to actually take the mass of something, and multiply it by this seemingly random number represented by c (the speed of light), to then get a third number that is suppose to predict (and with accuracy!) a physical, measurable effect.
And then it really hit me that a scientific formula represents a new kind of thinking; one that trusts a long, carefully considered chain of induction, and puts the trust in that induction, no matter how random the resulting numbers might otherwise seem. In a way, it is giving up control to the unknown parts of reality, in the hopes that the attempt at objectivity up until that point will prove justified.

The scientist does not truly know if the theory is correct until the very last minute when their formula is tested against factual results. But a long commitment to nothing but the truth, devoid of any self-serving, ego-indulging assumptions is trusted as the sole guide to knowledge.

And I am not trying to glorify Objectivism with this post. For me, it is more about the wonder of being able to mentally function this way. To be helpless and give up control by offering a theory and a formula as a QUESTION, rather than a certain statement. With no assumption, and absolute humble commitment to the truth. It's only after a theory is proven that it can be thought of as knowledge, in contrast to the leap of logic that (understandably) declares: "A magnet has healing properties! Because it works like magic!"

But more deeply, I think ultimately both these forms of thinking likely have more in common than we think, and the later is probably just a more advanced and refined than the former, but still needs it to exist. First guesses leap into a vast unknown context, and maybe we need this leap in order to later step in with more cautiousness to refine our observations.

Why we feel the way we feel about Learning

I had a thought today that struck me like a thunder in a... ok can't think of a good analogy here, other than the thunder part, but bear with me.

Here is the realization:

In a very basic way, our brain is wired to pursue pleasure and avoid pain.
So, when it comes to our ability to LEARN, the feeling we absorbed from our parents at a young age around the experience of learning will influence our natural reaction and motivation when it comes to learning.

I know what you must be thinking: "yada yada what now?"

OK rewind, slow down and repeat..:

If your parents themselves feel good about results, but not about the process of learning, then when you were a kid, they responded very positively (happy feelings) when you got things "right", but were not very happy (or maybe even disappointed) when you got things wrong, or were in the process of learning. for now, let's not ask why they were this way, but just take it as a given... suppose that's how they were.

So, as a kid, your tiny little developing brain learned to associate success with a pleasant feeling and "failure" with an unpleasant feeling.
Sometimes when kids are left alone, without praise or input from adults, they naturally and quietly develop persistence in learning. They don't go through large mood swings in the process of learning (very happy during success and very frustrated during failure). Adults have their egos invested in the RESULTS and they transfer the same thing to their kid. They become very happy when they think that their kid "is a genius" and what they subconsciously teach that kid is that process is not something to value, but results are the only thing that counts. Knowledge of how to build nests is transferred down generations of birds.... and this type of knowledge, I believe is transferred down through generations of humans.

If you look at kittens as they're training to become better hunters, they have no sense of frustration in "failures" at all. To them, all the attempts are a pleasurable game and they can persist indefinitely. I think every kid has the potential for the same state of mind. But adults can certainly hinder it.

So, what do you do as an adult, if you find yourself in the category of someone who becomes easily frustrated when not seeing immediate "results"? Well, you have to realize that you need to reprogram your mind and teach yourself to FEEL differently. (No, not to ACT differently, but to FEEL differently. I believe feeling leads to action).

OK hopefully, this explanation was not too confusing or too convoluted. But it explains why a lot of kids grow up to need huge amounts of "self discipline" in order to get work done. It's a result of how their subconscious was programmed (expect to receive pleasure only as a result of "success" because their dumbass parents didn't know better, because they were raised in the same way, with no patience or appreciation of process). Basically, it's nobody's fault, but it is still a problem, because it robs us humans of that healthy state of mind of leisurely pleasure of taking on a challenge/ something new to learn.

We basically absorb, through emotional osmosis, our parents' responses to things.