• Enrique
    842
    I'm writing a paper on the relationship between quantum coherence, electromagnetic fields and consciousness. Because I'm depressed and need some inspiration, I thought it could be fun to share the first section and get your responses. Those knowledgeable in physics or neuroscience will probably find it to be a wild trip. Anyways...


    Quantum Coherence and the Brain

    Historically, as it became apparent that our brains are the primary seat of awareness, comprised of around 100 billion cells which interact by way of 100 trillion connections for transmitting electrical signals, mystery surrounding the explanatory gap between matter and mind deepened. This conceptual gap can be generalized as a couple of core issues. The combination problem refers to uncertainty associated with how a vast quantity of separate components integrates to produce the seemingly indivisible and fluid qualities of subjective perception. More enigmatic still is how a mechanistic system of electrical signaling mediated by voltage gradients and chemical concentrations can be this intimately involved in generating a perceptual medium of colors, shapes, textures, thoughts, feelings, etc. which manifests so distinctly from the composition of physical matter as we know it. For centuries it has seemed as if physiological and conscious substance are incompatible domains, but science has made such great strides in the 21st century that it is finally possible to outline preliminaries of a plausible theory describing the connection between matter and mind. Accomplishing these initial steps was the goal of this paper.

    The key to explaining linkage of consciousness with the brain in a comprehensive way, from the cellular to organwide scale, is forming a solid picture of the basic physics involved, and this requires understanding quantum properties of neuronal tissue. Electromagnetic energy transfer between charged particles, electric field influences on the magnetism of atoms and molecules, and substance of awareness to the extent that it emerges from brain function are all at base tied to quantum processes.
    Three main quantum phenomena must be considered in this context. Wave/particle duality permits energy to flow amongst or through cellular structures and solutions as wavelike currents even when these structures are composed of chemically stable particles with well-defined shapes and sizes. Quantum superposition allows relatively wavelike electromagnetic radiation to extensively blend into hybrid structures such as colors of the visible spectrum. Superposition can occur between atoms to a more limited degree, and I hypothesize that EM radiation superpositions with atoms when it flows through them, in addition to the spectral signatures created by atomic orbitals while fully absorbing or emitting light as photons of specific energy. This means that matter essentially consists of atomic nodes within photonic fields, all more or less cohering as an extremely complex and heterogeneous breadth of energy density. Entanglement is the name given to a dynamic by which constituents of these fields, specifically subatomic particles such as photons, electrons and nucleons, can synchronize in a near-instantaneous way. To this point entanglement is modeled only probabilistically, so statistically significant relationships are observed between large quantities of particles, relatively more wavelike or particlelike, as correlations of for instance spin among electrons or phase among photons. Experiments with entanglement suggest that it propagates faster than light across many kilometers and can even happen in a retroactive manner, presumably as a consequence of what are termed “nonlocal” forces still shrouded in mystery.

    The way subatomic waves and particles superposition and entangle within energy fields is called “quantum coherence”. Since photons, electrons and nucleons all have wavelike properties, they are commonly thought of as wavicles. At the macroatomic scale, at least on Earth, atomic wavicles form agglomerations buzzing with an energy that is typically heterogeneous enough to make the presence of destructive interference an intrinsic aspect of the baseline condition. Thus, optically inspectable particles for instance tend to behave classically, as relatively inert masses whose charges balance and which fluctuate thermodynamically, in line with the traditional concept of deterministic space and time. But though thermodynamism, the state of “decoherence”, exists as a sort of structural chassis for Earthbound matter and human physiology, the environment is still in essence subatomic, so decoherence can coexist with small or large durations and expanses of coherence. Postulating in a general sense how quantum coherence coordinates with the brain’s electrical features is the first step in fashioning a theoretical account of the interface between physiology and mind.


    Influence of Quantum Coherence on the Electromagnetic Mechanisms of Neurons

    The neuron’s axon is a bodily structure where coherence plays an important role. Textbook introductions describe how voltage gradients are maintained by Na+ and K+ ion concentration differentials across the axon’s cell membrane, modulated via selective diffusion through ion channels. But lengthwise voltage gradients within the axon might be even more vital to action potentials, and quantum coherence in aqueous solution drives this mechanism of near-instantaneous jumping between membrane nodes.

    Na+ ions are most concentrated outside the axon’s cell membrane, and K+ ions inside. The myelin sheath, an insulating layer of fat enveloping the axon that increases conductance speed, is punctuated by a node of Ranvier at regular intervals, where voltage-gated Na+ channels are located. The next region of cellular space on an action potential’s path is the paranode, where myelin attaches to the cell membrane. Once the paranode has been traversed, the juxtaparanode is reached, where voltage-gated K+ channels are located. Then comes the majority of an axon’s internodal space, with K+ leakage channels and sodium-potassium pumps to help restore ion gradients of the resting potential between signal transmittances. This procession arrives at a juxtaparanode and then paranode on the next node of Ranvier’s opposite side, after which Na+ influx is once again initiated, continuing the chain reaction beyond numerous nodes to the synaptic cleft [2].

    This anatomy of the neuron has been discerned with enough specificity that a fairly certain hypothesis can be made as to its mechanisms. During an action potential, Na+ enters the axon at a node of Ranvier as stimulated by the change in voltage called depolarization. Voltage-gated K+ channels at the juxtaparanode almost immediately begin letting K+ diffuse out of the axon. The differential between increasingly positive charge at the node of Ranvier and decreasingly positive charge at the juxtaparanode accelerates electromagnetic energy transmittance, an excess force that propels the signal through internodal space. At this point, the next juxtaparanode has not been completely repolarized, and this less positive center of charge renews acceleration of electromagnetic energy towards the next node of Ranvier, which then depolarizes. Because the phenomenon, once initiated, probably involves decelerative inertia across space when charge is constant, I provisionally named this the “ebb effect”. What follows is a description of the mechanism in more structural detail.

    An axon’s internal solution is made up mostly of water molecules and positive ions. H2O is of course a polar molecule, with its hydrogen atoms being relatively negative and the oxygen atom relatively positive, bent somewhat at the fulcrum. A solvation shell of water molecules forms around each Na+ and K+ ion, with more negative poles of H2O aligned on the shell’s inner surface and more positive poles facing outward. Thus, the solution contains a complex contour of more and less positive charges, with “positive” in this case being a relative concept, for these charges all consist in negatively charged electron wavicle structure. Displaceable electron energy that is more concentrated in a particular region of space, as “negative” polarity, tends to move towards regions of less concentration or “positive” polarity, and this effectuates a dynamic equilibrium of charge distribution as atoms diffuse around.

    When Na+ enters the axon at a node of Ranvier, average electron energy concentration decreases in that region, drawing nearby electron energy towards it in what is basically a lengthwise voltage gradient. As electron energy shifts towards Na+, the energy concentration of adjacent regions reduces, in turn exerting a voltage effect on regions that are more remote from the Na+ increase, eventually reaching the paranode and then juxtaparanode. The current of electrical energy is moving towards Na+ increase, but its propagation begins adjacent to Na+ and then travels outward as a wavefront into successively distant regions. Because the wavefront spreads in all directions through solution, its strength attenuates with distance, similar to how the intensity of a light wave diminishes as it strays from its source, except electron energy has much greater mass than light and so its shrinking rate of motion bears more resemblance to the behavior of a classical wave, with something like inertial resistance. This is in essence the transition from a state of dynamic equilibrium amongst electron wavicles which causes them to interfere, mitigating quantum coherence or conversely instating decoherence in some measure over largish regions of space, and into a more directional coherence that rapidly flows towards more positive charge, starting in adjacent regions and cascading outward.

    As the wavefront shifts away from higher Na+ concentrations at the node of Ranvier, it is accompanied by an electromagnetic field fluctuation linked to the flow of electric current out of successively more distal regions of solution and towards the node. When electromagnetic field fluctuation reaches voltage-gated K+ channels at the juxtaparanode, K+ is triggered to flow out of the axon, instigating an even greater disparity in charge, electrical potential, strength of lengthwise voltage. This accelerates electric current towards the node of Ranvier, and the wavefront which is coupled to it along with a companion electromagnetic field fluctuation likewise accelerate in the opposite direction. Force exacted at the juxtaparanode by increase in strength of the lengthwise voltage gradient overcomes deceleration from inertia as the wavefront spreads through the rest of internodal space. In an instant, the wavefront’s electromagnetic field fluctuation reaches the next node of Ranvier, prompting Na+ to flow in and renewing the sequence.

    The mechanism is similar in dendrites, except that myelin is not present between nodes where voltage-gated Na+ channels are located, and inward diffusion of Cl- ions functions to block signal transmission. EPSPs (excitatory postsynaptic potentials) from Na+ influx happen in distal regions of the dendrite, while IPSPs (inhibitory postsynaptic potentials) from Cl- influx occur proximal to dendrite/soma junctions so less negative ions are required to prevent a dendritic potential from crossing the soma (cell body) and reaching the junction between axon and soma, called the axon hillock, where an action potential initiates. Whether the electrical potentials of at least several dendrites per neuron are strong enough to stimulate an action potential is determined by cumulative EPSPs and IPSPs.

    Improbability of explaining neuron function without reference to near-instantaneous currents of quantum coherence provides convincing evidence that electrons exist as diffuse waves filling the atom rather than more localized particles. Identifying electromagnetic field fluctuations, called LFPs (local field potentials), as the mechanism by which atoms exert somewhat remote effects to activate voltage-gated ion channels implies a cohesive picture of how extracellular phenomena such as the brain’s macroscopic electric field are impacted by and can reciprocally impact intracellular functions. EM fields in the brain are not an epiphenomenon, but rather central to the mechanisms of even individual neurons. The inquiry then seems to be whether a macroscopic EM field is somehow responsible for holism of consciousness.


    Yay!
  • T Clark
    13k


    As previously, you have provided a speculative, unsupported, and far-fetched idea with no evidence to back it up. It is not science, it's pseudo-science. I won't poke my head into your thread again.
  • EugeneW
    1.7k


    Do you even understand what it says? Seems fast judgment. Then again, what one doesn't like is called pseudo.
  • Agent Smith
    9.5k
    Alterations in the anatomy, physiology, and biochemistry of the brain produce corresponding changes in consciousness, perception, personality i.e. the mind is affected.

    How much does the thought "I'm in love" weigh? How many Joules of energy is it? These questions should guide neuroscience, the physical arm/wing of mind studies.

    Are there other aspects of matter and energy that we've overlooked? The mind isn't just energy or matter even, it's a pattern in the energy/matter. Are patterns physical? Patterns, forms, tend to transcend substance: I can sculpt a statue of you in wood, stone, ice, and so on. Form is not bound to substance. Multiple realizability (re Hilary Putnam). Mind transfer from one substrate to another (carbon silicon); isn't that a win for nonphysicalism? The hidden agenda, cynicism in full bloom!
  • Agent Smith
    9.5k
    I won't poke my head into your thread again.T Clark

    :smile: For a minute there I thought you were going to say something else.
  • Angelo Cannata
    332
    We already know that our brain works by cells, neurons, electromagnetic interactions and so on. So, we already know a lot about how all brain activities are produced by its structures and mechanisms. From this perspective, we can say that we already know that consciousness is just a product of our brain components and activities.
    We also know that everything in science can always be explained in more detail, endlessly. From this perspective, we will never complete the explanation of anything, because there will be always more to discover and to explain.
    In this context, being in the middle between already reached explanations and never ending research, you have just added some details.
    So, we can say that you have not explained consciousness for two reasons: 1) because we already know where it comes from (brain components, activity, mechanisms); 2) we will never finish explaining consciousness, because nothing in science is ever finished, ever explained in its entirety.
    You have just added your details that can be interesting to biologists. What is the philosophical value of the details you added?
  • Enrique
    842
    You have just added your details that can be interesting to biologists. What is the philosophical value of the details you added?Angelo Cannata

    The significance is that, when I get around to it, my description will explain in a general way how brain chemistry is a percept, not merely correlated with it. These ideas have implications for foundations of science: convergence of atomic theory, quantum biology, neuroscience, psychology, philosophy of mind. Foundations are philosophical!
  • Angelo Cannata
    332
    EnriqueEnrique

    I don’t get what you wrote: what does it mean “how brain chemistry is a percept, not merely correlated with it”? Besides, you cannot give for granted that any kind of foundation is philosophical: you have a responsibility to explain how they are philosophical. Otherwise we can talk here about anything, like how to cook potatoes, leaving to the readers the task to guess how deeply philosophical it is.
    But there is something even more important: it is obvious that today nobody has an exact, detailed, coherent, clear, definition or idea of what consciousness is. How can you explain the phisical roots of something that nobody is able to define clearly? This way is too easy to find the phisical root of a lot of things, like, for example, ghosts, telepathy, magics, beauty, love, art, miracles, freedom, will... Nobody will be able to disagree with you, since there are no clear elements to be based on. It looks like just fishing in troubled water.
  • Enrique
    842
    As previously, you have provided a speculative, unsupported, and far-fetched idea with no evidence to back it up. It is not science, it's pseudo-science.T Clark

    I actually value this line of criticism (as long as I don't encounter a ton of harping) because it has made me careful to identify what is more hypothesis than fact when it comes to quantum neuroscience. The situation currently reduces to a few categories of investigation: factual evidence which admittedly can be scant at this stage, hypothesis, future possible observational methods, future possible experiments, and philosophy (the diverse Platonic forms of quantum physics' "interpretations"). I'd love to mess around with experimental setups and instrumentation, but need deeper familiarity with the math. Though I don't agree that what I'm into is pseudoscience (well-respected scientists discuss these ideas in similar terms), it's important to acknowledge the degree of speculativeness somewhere.

    what does it mean “how brain chemistry is a percept, not merely correlated with it”?Angelo Cannata

    This is the difference between being able to say as we currently do that the visual cortex participates in vision vs. saying that some biochemical pathway or complex is a subjective color for instance. In the context of matter, moving beyond correlation to identity.

    ...nobody has an exact, detailed, coherent, clear, definition or idea of what consciousness is.Angelo Cannata

    I think of consciousness as the substance of awareness itself (mind) as opposed to the substance that produces awareness (matter). But they are really identical, we just don't know how in a mechanistic sense at this point, exactly as we didn't have a comprehension of neural network structure before neuroscience. That's the sort of idea I'm trying to work out.
  • Art48
    459
    A basic objection to a physical explanation for consciousness is that finding physical correlates fails to explain consciousness. Here's an 8-minute YouTube clip that makes this point.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1qTAYIV8FLo
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.