What is meant by consciousness being “bound”? When you meet someone, for example, observe that this person will be a unitary whole to you rather than all sorts of divergent components. In a visual sense they will be composed of shapes, textures, colors, movements and so on. If you touch them note that to you they should feel somewhat how they look like they ought to feel. Mechanical vibrations might also integrate appropriate sound information from them to you, and so you might even grasp a cognitive statement. Or given chemical radiation you might get a sense of their smell. We don’t generally taste people, but note that even licking them should provide you with similarly unified information. Furthermore you should also tend to integrate things like feelings of respect to disrespect, sympathy, disgust, mirth, sexual feelings, and so on, all bound together into a momentary instance of your conscious experience. How might either standard computers or even the massively parallel computational brain, use algorithms to pull off a trick like that?
Since he rambles a bit I’d suggest you not watch the following eleven and a half minute video of David Pearce discussing the problem of computational brains putting all of this information together into combined singular units of experience. (Edit December 2023: Actually I suggest you do watch the video since in future posts we discuss all sorts of things!) But apparently the only potential solution that he was able to conceive to bind that sort of thing, is brain based quantum coherence. I presume this is because instead of working with mere binary bits as neurons do, perhaps with potentially continuous quantum bits the brain might seamlessly integrate wholes? It’s not clear to me that a continuum of that sort should bind things however. He doesn’t seem happy with this potential answer either, and I presume because evidence suggests that the scale at which the brain works is far too massive and hot for quantum coherence to apply. I’ll try sending him an email about McFadden’s merely classical solution since apparently he wasn’t aware of this when the clip was shot (9+ years ago?), and even though he was born in Surrey England where McFadden’s university is located.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8xizbtklciA
Though both our computers and brains do integrate information, McFadden argues that they do so over time rather than instantly. Regardless of how fast our computers might sequentially run through programs, I don’t see a fix for this architecture in terms of instantaneous binding or unity. Of course far slower brain algorithms tend to make up for their slowness by means of computation which is massively parallel. Could parallelism itself occur widely enough for instant integration of countless separate dynamics? Sounds difficult to me, though it can certainly be suggested. The evaluation of such potentials is why I presume we’re all here.
In any case McFadden’s cemi provides a very simple possible solution, and indeed, EM fields have already become integral to at least one element of technological computers. Observe that the electromagnetic potential information that your router sends to various computational devices in your home, will be bound together into a single unified field. This is to say that as such, every bit of that potential information will instantly be accessible to each device which uses it. At a given moment the field could be composed of information that uploads my blog, streams a football match, and so on for the various devices which use that unitary field. Then once any of these devices do become so informed, the architecture will change to non field dynamics and so no such inherent integration should exist.
I know that some will now smile with the thought that I must consider Wi-Fi signals to themselves be conscious. I have no reason to believe that however. The point here is instead that fields provide inherent informational binding by which consciousness could potentially exist (and particularly given the fidelity of the electromagnetic variety of field). It’s an option rather than a mandate. I merely presume that evolution came across the right sort of consciousness physics and so incorporated it, and also presume that binding was mandated for this sort of function.
What might the adaptive advantages of inherently integrated information be? McFadden observes is that while computers and brains function on the basis of informational “bits”, consciousness provides something much more substantial. This would be the wholes associated with information that’s fully integrated. Because conscious entities work with conglomerated wholes, we can potentially “understand” how things work and so grasp what might be corrective in a larger sense than non understanding bit based algorithms might. Theoretically non understanding brains simply built and used understanders by punishing and rewarding them to help foster more advanced forms of survival.
I might get into this topic of “punishment and reward” next time, but we’ll see…
Updated November 27, 2023: Actually David Pearce has provided a response to my question of whether he’s considered McFadden’s potential EM field binding solution for consciousness, so that’s next.
Consciousness as an Electromagnetic Field 
“In particular, it has been shown that colour is perceived before motion by ,80 ms. Nor is the perceptual asynchrony limited to colour and motion, because it has also been shown that locations are perceived before colours, which are perceived before orientations”.
“Because we become conscious of colour before we sciousnesses generated by activity at two distinct cortical sites are distributed in time as well. From this it follows that micro-consciousnesses are distributed in time and space, and that there is a temporal hierarchy of microconsciousnesses, that for colour preceding that for motion. Of course, it is also true that over longer periods of time, in excess of 500 ms, we do see different attributes in perfect temporal and spatial registration (the attributes are ‘bound’ together). This raises questions that binding studies have so far not addressed, mainly whether one area ‘waits’ for the other to finish its processing, and whether a time buffer is part of the physiological mechanism for this waiting period”.
Click to access zeki.pdf
How do you explain this research? And even older research by Libet?
“Libet found a half-second delay between the beginning of continuous electrical stimulation of the exposed somatosensory cortex and the patient’s report of a conscious sensation, such as a tingle in the right hand during electrical stimulation of a point in the left somatosensory cortex.”.
https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803100104529
The time lags all over the brain and nervous system that would argue against a synchronous firings across the entire brain resulting in “binding”?
LikeLike
I’m getting a better sense of why you’re leaning more toward an array of micro consciousnesses now James. So here you’ve got an EM field that unitarily informs neurons so that they experience very basic individual components of full consciousness, and then somehow together this becomes the consciousness that we know of. Here you can explain evidence of non perfectly bound consciousness, since unlike an EM field obviously neurons aren’t inherently bound. Your proposal would still need evidence of a phenomenal element associated with neurons, but so it goes. And then why do these consciousnesses also become macro in the end? Many popular theories dismiss a need for such a mechanism.
Apparently if my test were to succeed, it wouldn’t eliminate your possibility. Exogenous energies in the brain similar to synchronous neural firing should, from your proposal, tend to incite individual micro consciousnesses. So fortunately it’s a question of evidence. Is an unknown binding source of countless neural experiencers worse, or rather testing data which suggests that consciousness isn’t quite as bound as an EM field is? Let the testing decide the matter! And if my test would knock everyone else us out of contention, or rather just us, then it is what it is. But I’d say that you’ve got one up on Zeki in the sense that you can join in acknowledging the Neural Correlates of Consciousness evidence identified by McFadden.
On the Libet stuff, to me it’s never sounded all that worrisome. Some have used results of those tests to presume that consciousness must be “after the fact” rather than causal. Of course even he didn’t believe that. But to me these sorts of tests might somewhat reflect a brain getting a head start on what will be decided. As I see it our brains function non-consciously almost exclusively, though do often take cues from what’s happening consciously as well. So even if I don’t know what I’ll decide about something a half second from now, my brain might still effectively infer that decision given its access, and so get things going that way beforehand.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“And then why do these consciousnesses also become macro in the end?”
Do they really? Or is that an illusion provided by specific circuits in the brain? In my fragmented consciousness post, I go through a lot of reason why consciousness could appear unified even if it is not.
Zeki’s proposal is:
“I propose that there are multiple consciousnesses which constitute a hierarchy, with what Kant called the ‘synthetic, transcendental’ unified consciousness (that of myself as the perceiving person) sitting at the apex”.
But, despite the invocation of Kant, I’m not certain if Zeki’s proposal is really different from mine. The “self,” the “perceiving person,” comprises specific senses manufactured from the input of other neurons. Just like the visual cortex processes input from the sensory neurons in the eyes, a different part of the brain processes the input from the visual cortex combining with inputs from others senses, memories, etc. It is neurons making sense of what other neurons are telling them, but some of the neurons are more removed from the sensory input than others.
LikeLike
“the only potential solution that he was able to conceive to bind that sort of thing, is brain based quantum coherence.”
That’s right, it is the “only” potential solution that will bridge the epistemic gap found in other theories; and this brain based quantum coherence takes place in an emergent “cognitive system” that is both intrinsic to, and regulated by the brain. I’m so confident in this theoretical premise that I’m willing to go out on a limb here and speculate that delusions caused psychedelic chemicals, sleep deprivation and diseases like schizophrenia are a symptom of decoherence. Following in this thread, anesthetics which result in a complete loss of consciousness would be a complete and total breakdown of decoherence within that cognitive system.
This calls for a quote from Schopenhauer:
“All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.”
Nine years ago, David Pearce wasn’t willing to put his career on the line and few geniuses who are dependent upon a pay check to support their families would be. Times have changed since Penrose and Hameroff made some very arrogant academics and neuroscientists look really stupid in the public forum of “The Journal of Consciousness Studies”.
Rock on……….
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well the quantum consciousness idea does still seem pretty exotic to me. I was even nervous when I learned that McFadden was instrumental in founding quantum biology. Listening to him talk about the subject eased my concerns however. Apparently there are various mysteries in biology that seem quite appropriate for quantum dynamics to address. Consciousness would be another such application if true. Apparently McFadden can’t get past the mass and heat that would be required for quantum coherence at the scale of brain dynamics. It’s all beyond me however.
I’d love to know if David Pearce has given McFadden’s potential solution any thought. Wouldn’t he have heard of it by now? It could be that he’s now fully onboard the quantum train, though didn’t seem all that enthusiastic back then. I’ve just sent him a quick message on Twitter/X, so maybe he’ll reply to me or even stop by to comment here. There may be better ways to get his attention than a message there however, so I’m open to other suggestions.
On the potential quantum nature of brain function Lee, is there evidence of quantum coherence? I’d like to hear evidence for coherence before worrying too much about losing it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“hear evidence for coherence”
Me too.
LikeLike
I have a lot of questions about the quantum mind proposal.
Is the quantum coherence computing something? If so, what?
How does the quantum mind interact with the classical brain without decohering?
Is this quantum coherence across the entire brain? How could that possibly be happening without any detection in MRIs? If consciousness is happening in the microtubules, how would it coher across the entire brain? I’m never been able to see how the theory gets from something extremely localized in microtubules to a “mind.”
Or, if it doesn’t, if it is just happening locally on micro-scale in the microtubules, then it would fit nicely with fragmented consciousness as the “feeling” parts of the neuron.
I’m not even sure where Penrose/Hameroff view on this.
LikeLike
I have a lot of question too…..
If we look at nature as a whole, what we observe is that nature is in the business of building and/or constructing things, and we recognize these things as systems. Likewise, a quantum cognitive system that is built by nature would be in the business of building or constructing systems as well; and for all practical purposes those systems would be mental models of the world we find ourselves in.
Coherence would have to be global. Considering that a universal quantum field is the very substrate from which the entirety of the classical world emerges and is dependent upon for its very existence, I would call a quantum cognitive system a localized quantum field across the entire architecture of the brain.
Unfortunately, MRIs will not be able to tell us anything due to the measurement problem.
Penrose doesn’t have the answers, nobody does because the quantum realm is beyond our ability to see measure or test. Stuart Kauffman has a tenable theory for how the quantum mind interacts with the classical brain. He calls his theory a “poised state”. His idea is very similar to my own but he also has some additional beliefs not related to his poised state theory that are a little whacky.
These are just my opinions………..
LikeLiked by 1 person
Most of what nature builds can be explained classically even if everything has a quantum foundation. The quantum mind hypothesis, however, goes beyond a quantum foundation and suggests there is something unique in quantum behavior responsible for consciousness, not simply that quantum mechanics gets involved somewhere along the way.
Penrose has to bring gravity and extra dimensions into the theory for it to work. But this research suggests Penrose is wrong about gravity.
https://physicsworld.com/a/quantum-theory-of-consciousness-put-in-doubt-by-underground-experiment/
If we are bringing extra dimensions into the picture, of course, all kinds of things are possible including Kaluza–Klein theory tying EM to a fifth dimension. EM at least is something we can find and measure in the brain and conceivably consciousness could be the fifth dimensional component of the EM field. But then we have no evidence for a fifth dimension either.
Considering that quantum coherence can only be achieved experimentally for small numbers of particles for picoseconds at a time with elaborate hardware, it seems a real stretch to think that the brain could achieve it with billions of particles consistently and with little apparent problem.
Then there is a mismatch in timings mentioned in another comment relating to the Zeki research. If “colour is perceived before motion by .80 ms”, how does the brain coher for 80 ms to be able to merge color and motion when experimentally we find it difficult to do it for more than picoseconds. We are off by many scales of magnitude in the timings from experimental quantum coherence to what happens in the brain operating at its relatively slow biological rate.
“quantum realm is beyond our ability to see measure or test”
If this were true, we would not have quantum mechanics at all. QM has an experimental basis that entails measurement. It wouldn’t be a part of physics if it were beyond our ability to measure or test.
I can’t escape the feeling that we are taking one thing that seems mysterious and inexplicable and trying to explain it with something else hat seems mysterious and inexplicable. There is also the seemingly irresistible lure of extrasensory powers attached to the theory which would be okay if there were any evidence whatsoever for such powers.
This isn’t a bad summation of the problems.
View at Medium.com
Quoting from it:
“Science, in its pursuit of empirical truths, should resist the temptation to declare the unknown as non-existent. It’s a realm where unanswered questions are not dead ends but gateways to further inquiry. Similarly, spirituality, in its quest to unravel the esoteric, should exercise caution in not crafting convenient narratives to fill gaps in understanding”.
LikeLike