KARL JASPERS
FORUM
Target Article 102
SUBJECTIVE
EXPERIENCES OF SPACE AND TIME: SELF, SENSATION, AND PHENOMENAL TIME
by Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal
21 December 2007, posted 12
January 2008
[0]
ABSTRACT
The
investigation of subjective experiences (SEs) of space and time is at the core
of consciousness research. The term
‘space’ includes the subject and objects.
The SE of subject, I-ness, is defined as ‘Self’. The SEs of objects, subject’s external body,
and subject’s internal states such as feelings, thoughts, and so on can be
investigated using the PE-SE framework.
The SE of time is defined as phenomenal time (which includes past,
present and future) and the SE of space as phenomenal space.
The three non-experiential materialistic models: The quantum-dissipation model
of (Pessa & Vitiello, 2003) can connect the discrete neural signals to
classical electromagnetic field to quantum field theory and chaos theory to
explain memory. The soliton-catalytic model of (Davia, 2006) hypothesizes that
all living processes including micro- and macro-processes can be explained by
catalysis process. The ‘sensation from evolution of action’ model of (Humphrey, 2000) proposes that SEs
are internalized during evolution. All these models can address to some extent
the function of structures, such as perception.
They cannot address explanatory gap. The complementary experiential
PE-SE framework of (Vimal, 2007a,
2007b) addresses
this psycho-physical gap and elucidate the SEs of space and time.
[1]
Introduction
In
subjective experiences (SEs) of space and time, space includes the subject and
objects. The SE of subject, I-ness,
is called ‘Self’; this is partly elaborated in (Bruzzo & Vimal,
2007). The SEs of objects, subject’s external body,
and subject’s internal states such as feelings, thoughts, and so on can be
investigated using the PE-SE framework (Vimal, 2007a,
2007b).[1] We can have SEs or first person experiences
(1Es) of time, external space (subject and objects), and internal entities
(emotions and thoughts). The SE of time
is called phenomenal time (which includes past, present and future)
and the SE of space phenomenal space. We need time to bind all spatially
disparate information. This time duration can be called ‘duration of present or
NOW’, in which spatial-entanglement is involved. Phenomenal time is elaborated in (Vimal & Davia,
2008).
[1a]
In
this mini review article, my goal is (i) to compare the three non-experiential
materialistic models: (quantum-dissipation model of (Pessa & Vitiello,
2003), soliton-catalytic model of (Davia, 2006), and ‘sensation
from evolution of action’ model of (Humphrey, 2000), and (ii) to elaborate
the need for the complementary experiential PE-SE framework of (Vimal, 2007a,
2007b) for
elucidating the SEs of space and time.
[2]
Quantum-dissipation (DNS↔EMF↔QFT)
model vs. soliton-catalytic model
The
model that connects the discrete neural signals (DNS) to classical
electromagnetic field (EMF) using quantum field theory (QFT)[2]
and chaos theory, such as DNS↔EMF↔QFT model
for memory (Del Guidice,
Doglia, Milani, & Vitiello, 1988; Pessa & Vitiello, 1999, 2003;
Vitiello, 1995; Vitiello, 2001; Vitiello, 2002), is useful in the
investigation of Self and phenomenal
time (concisely described later).
[2a]
In
this model, “Water and other biochemical molecules entering brain activity are,
indeed, all characterized by a specific electric dipole which strongly
constrains their chemical and physical behavior” (Pessa & Vitiello,
2003). The electric dipole field can be
considered as the fundamental units of the brain rather than neurons (Stuart, Takahashi,
& Umezawa, 1978). However, in our
view, both are related via neuronal-firing and other electrochemical activities
of neurons and astroglia. In other
words, classical electromagnetic field (EMF) arises from the electrochemical
activity of discrete neural signals (DNS). The coupling between the classical
electrochemical level and the quantum dynamical level (QFT) is analogous to the
coupling between classical acoustic waves and phonons in crystals. Intrinsic
features of the dissipative quantum model are (1) brain processes are intrinsically
and inextricably dependent on the quantum noise[3]
in the fluctuating random force in the brain-environment coupling, (2) the
chaotic behavior of the trajectories in the space of memory states. In the
dissipative model, the ‘brain (ground) state’ may be represented as the
superposition of the full set of memory states; therefore, previously
recorded/‘printed’ information is not destroyed during current recording. In
the non-dissipative model the number of freedom is missing and consecutive
information ‘printing’ produces ‘overprinting’ (Pessa & Vitiello, 2003).
[2b]
Dipole-rotation-
and time-reversal symmetry breaking is equivalent to the recording of
information in memory in (Pessa & Vitiello, 2003) model; this meaning of
symmetry is different from the shape-symmetry in terms of uniform diameter and
structure of microtubules for generating soliton/traveling-wave (Davia, 2006).
[2c]
Dissipative
system for avoiding overprinting of new information for new memory in terms of
superposition in (Pessa & Vitiello, 2003) model is different from the
traveling wave being non-dissipative for robust recording in microtubules (Davia, 2006).
[2d]
According
to the email correspondence with Davia on December 3, 2007, “The hypothesis is
that the soliton ‘induces’ a coherent state in the microtubule and that any
catalytic events are due to this change of phase. Furthermore, solitons are
non-dissipative in non-dissipative media. However, the brain is considered an
excitable medium. Traveling waves in these media are inevitably dissipative. In
the soliton-catalytic model (Davia, 2006), energy is
dissipated via structure (fixed points that do not change under
transformation).”
[2e]
Thus
the soliton-catalytic model of (Davia, 2006) does not contradict
the quantum-dissipative DNS↔EMF↔QFT model of
(Pessa & Vitiello, 2003), rather they are equivalent to each other.
[3]
Sensation from evolution of action (Humphrey’s
framework) vs. soliton-catalytic model
We
need to distinguish perception from sensation.
According to (Humphrey, 1992;
Humphrey, 2000), (i)
when we see a red rose, we perceive the external presence of a rose of
red color (perception) and we also have subjective experience of redness
(sensation); (ii) sensation helps keeping perception honest: ‘Sensation lends a
here-ness and a now-ness and a me-ness to the experience of the world, of which
pure perception in the absence of sensation is bereft’; (iii) sensory quality
is largely internal, covert and private; it appeared only after natural
selection shaped it; (iv) “In the past my ancestors evolved to feel red this
way because feeling it this way gave them a real biological advantage”; (v)
‘self-representations arise through action, and that the “feeling self” may
actually be created by those very sensory activities that make up its
experience.’; and (vi) the quality of sensations (or SEs), though private
today, has been shaped by natural selection in the past as a result of
evolution: the primitive activity of sensing slowly became privatized
from the overt public behavior and transformed into internal mental activity. The
soliton-catalytic model of (Davia, 2006) may be consistent
with idea that sensation is the result of internalization of action via
evolution and natural selection using the traveling wave. For example, when red
light fell on the skin of primitive amoeba-like animal (floating in the ancient
sea), it detected it and made a characteristic wriggle of activity (it wriggled
‘redly’) (Humphrey, 2000). This wriggle can
be considered as due to traveling wave of soliton-catalytic model, which when
got internalized during evolution might have led to SE redness in
humans. However, the explanatory gap
remains in Humphrey’s framework unless the PE-SE framework is invoked in the
process of privatization.
[4]
PE-SE framework
The
above models can be called ‘non-experiential materialistic’ model because SEs
are assumed to be the emergent property of network or field, and hence has
explanatory gap. Perception may be explained to some extent by DNS↔EMF↔QFT model
and soliton-catalytic model; Humphrey’s model can address how sensation evolved
from action. However, to address the explanatory gap, we need PE-SE framework (Vimal, 2007a,
2007b), which
is a complementary to all non-experiential materialistic models because it
allows experiential entities such as SEs of subject, objects, time, and so on
into ‘non-experiential materialistic’ models.
[5]
Self
Temporal-entanglement
is needed for the continuity of Self (Bruzzo & Vimal,
2007). Self is
invariant with time as Self is preserved until death, although it is
interrupted during sleep, anesthesia, and when subject is unconscious. The invariance of the dynamics of Self
requires assigning a conserved entity over time. This time-invariant entity
could be long-range spatiotemporal correlations, which is like collective
modes, such as Nambu-Goldstone (NG) boson modes in quantum field theory, that
are wave-like and generated dynamically (Pessa & Vitiello, 2003). In
soliton-model of (Davia, 2006), the emergent of
Self may also include extra-neural interaction of the soliton/traveling-wave
(energy) carrying self-related information with self-related structures (Northoff &
Bermpohl, 2004; Northoff et al., 2006). In PE-SE
framework, Self is the SE of subject or I-ness.
[6]
Phenomenal time
Once
the of electrical-dipole-rotational-symmetry and time-reversal symmetry are
broken by recording new information (represented by a coherent condensation of
the NG bosons), (a) ‘NOW you know’ occurs, (b) ‘arrow of time’, a partition in
time evolution, and the distinction between the past and the future
are introduced in brain dynamics, and (c) one moves forward in time (Pessa
& Vitiello, 2003).
[6a]
The
spatial invariance of the phenomenal time requires assigning a conserved
entity over space. This space-invariant entity could be long-range spatial
correlations, which is wave-like collective modes, such as QFT-NG boson modes.
They can be generated dynamically, which can explain memory (past)
(Pessa & Vitiello, 2003). They can propagate over whole brain
spatiotemporally. They are the carriers of the order in terms of long-range (a)
spatial correction for the present phenomenal time, (b) temporal
correlation for past phenomenal time, and (c) spatiotemporal
correlations to maintain continuity of Self until disintegration during death.
The past in terms of memory could also be recoded in microtubule-network
(Woolf, 2004; Woolf,
1998; Woolf & Hameroff, 2001; Woolf, Zinnerman, & Johnson, 1999). In soliton-model
of (Davia, 2006), the emergent of
the phenomenal time may also include extra-neural interaction of the
soliton/traveling-wave (generated during neuronal-firing) carrying time-related
information with motion or flicker related structures, such as motion area V5,
for CFF.
[7]
Phenomenal space
Space
can be addressed by its following aspects: (i) Physical space: Compton
wavelength of the electron is about 2.43x10-12 meter; proton’s
diameter[4]
is 1.6 to 1.7×10-125m. (ii)
Perceptual rate for space (phenomenal space): this is cutoff frequency
and is measured in cycles per degree (cpd) using grating and psychophysical
method. It is about 60 cpd (Campbell &
Green, 1965). Photoreceptor
array in the human visual system can resolve in the order of ~150 cpd (Curcio
et al, 1990; Miller et al., 1996; Roorda and Williams, 1999).[5]
Hyper- or Vernier-acuity[6]
is about 10 arc seconds; see also (Waugh & Levi,
1995; Waugh, Levi, & Carney, 1993).
[8]
Integration of reductive and non-reductive views
In
reductive views, all phenomena can be reduced to the characteristics of
elementary particles. However, before the introduction of PE-SE framework,
elementary particles are considered as non-experiential material entities. That
is why explanatory gap appeared. In PE-SE framework, all elementary particles
such as electrons are considered to have all kinds of SEs in superimposed form.
Therefore, all phenomena including mental entities can be reduced to physics
because of the elemental-PEs. Since SEs are also consistent with non-reductive
views, both reductive and no-reductive views can be integrated.
[8a]
According
to (van Leeuwen, 2007), “When the visual
system is stimulated, within a few hundreds of milliseconds all these neurons
become engaged in a pattern of activity. I shall refer to the mechanisms that
give rise to this pattern as the inner loop. […] External factors contribute on a huge variety
of time scales: evolution, development, socialization, learning, task and both
indirect … and instantaneous … perception/action contingencies. Let us call the
totality of all these interactions the outer loop.” Both inner and outer loops resonate for the
emergence of SEs.
[9]
Integration of implicit (state-approach) and explicit
(dynamic-approach) views
According
to (Jordan &
McBride, 2007) “In the
implicit-assumption camp are those who conceptualize consciousness via terms
such as states and representations (in what follows we will simply refer to
this as the state approach). This way of conceptualizing consciousness entails
implicit assumptions about the stability of consciousness because it focuses on
conscious phenomena (e.g., memories, intentions, qualia and thoughts) that
persist long enough to be considered individual conscious events entailing both
content (i.e., the phenomenal ‘feel’ of a memory, intention or thought — see
Bailey’s contribution) and causal efficacy (i.e., the ability of memories,
intentions and thoughts to make things happen in one’s cognitive architecture).
[…]
In contrast to the implicit-assumption
camp, those in the explicit assumption camp approach the issue of conscious
stability directly. That is, their research focuses on the temporal dynamics by
which conscious phenomena such as memories, intentions and thoughts come to be
stable. […]
Given that state and dynamics theorists
disagree as to where to look for consciousness, it is not clear to what extent
the two can be integrated. […] One might, for example, utilize the notion of
ontological relativity mentioned in Atmanspacher’s contribution [(Atmanspacher, 2007)]. According to this
framework, one makes ontological assumptions about phenomena at a lower level
of scale (i.e., one assumes the phenomena at that level truly exist as
described by science), so that one can use the entities at that level to make
epistemological statements (i.e., statements based on observation) about
phenomena at a higher level. For example, one might make ontological
assumptions about chemistry in order to make epistemological statements about
biology.
A
similar distinction is played out in Anderson’s contribution [(Anderson, 2007)] which
distinguishes between realist approaches that make claims about what is
metaphysically real and antirealist approaches that make claims that are
relativized to a particular epistemic perspective. […]
To be sure, there are many other possible
combinations of varieties of realism and beliefs about science and reality. The
point here is not to advocate one, but to simply make the case that the
differences between state and dynamics theorists are not necessarily
problematic. One can, for example, make ontological assumptions about the
dynamics approach (i.e., believe that consciousness ultimately is a
temporally-grounded multi-scale phenomenon) while simultaneously being
epistemic about the state approach (i.e., statements about what consciousness
is are restricted, when speaking scientifically, to epistemologically
accessible phenomena that can be measured). Being aware of one’s ontological
assumptions in this manner might help to stave off arguments about a science of
consciousness that emerge from one’s simultaneous belief in various forms of
realism. If this approach were to take hold, an integrated science of
consciousness might ultimately come to be in which participants achieve an
increased awareness of how their scientific assumptions play out in the
varieties of realism.”
[9a]
Thus,
the integration of various views is possible and needed to reveal the truth.
[10]
Conclusion
The
three non-experiential materialistic models: (quantum-dissipation model of
(Pessa & Vitiello, 2003), soliton-catalytic model of (Davia, 2006), and ‘sensation
from evolution of action’ model of (Humphrey, 2000) can address to some
extent the function of structures, such as perception. They cannot address explanatory gap. The
complementary experiential PE-SE framework of (Vimal, 2007a,
2007b) addresses
this psycho-physical gap and elucidate the SEs of space and time. Various views
can now be integrated.
---------------------------------------------------
REFERENCES
Anderson, D. L. (2007). Consciousness
and Realism. Journal of Consciousness
Studies, 14(1-2).
Atmanspacher,
H. (2007). Contextual Emergence from Physics to Cognitive Neuroscience. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 14(1-2),
18–36.
Bruzzo,
A., & Vimal, R. L. P. (2007). Self: An adaptive pressure arising from
self-organization, chaotic dynamics, and neural Darwinism. Submitted to Journal of Integrative Neuroscience (JIN) on September 25,
2007 and accepted for publication in December 2007: http://www.geocities.com/rlpvimal/Self-Bruzzo-Vimal-Short.pdf.
Longer version is at http://www.geocities.com/rlpvimal/Self-Bruzzo-Vimal-Long.pdf.
Campbell,
F. W., & Green, D. G. (1965). Optical and retinal factors affecting visual
resolution. J Physiol, 181(3),
576-593.
Davia, C.
J. (2006). Life, Catalysis and Excitable Media: A Dynamic Systems Approach to
Metabolism and Cognition. In J. Tuszynski (Ed.), The Emerging Physics of Consciousness. Heidelberg, Germany:
Springer-Verlag.
Del
Guidice, E., Doglia, S., Milani, M., & Vitiello, G. (1988). Coherence of
electromagnetic radiation in biological systems. Cell Biophys, 13(3), 221-224.
Humphrey,
N. (1992). A History of the Mind.
London: Chatto & Windus.
Humphrey,
N. (2000). The privatization of sensation. In L. Huber & C. Heyes (Eds.), The Evolution of Cognition (pp.
241-252). Cambridge, MA, USA: MIT Press.
Jordan,
J. S., & McBride, D. M. (2007). Concepts of Consciousness. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 14(1-2),
viii–xii.
Northoff,
G., & Bermpohl, F. (2004). Cortical midline structures and the self. Trends Cogn Sci, 8(3), 102-107.
Northoff,
G., Heinzel, A., de Greck, M., Bermpohl, F., Dobrowolny, H., & Panksepp, J.
(2006). Self-referential processing in our brain--a meta-analysis of imaging
studies on the self. Neuroimage, 31(1),
440-457.
Pessa,
E., & Vitiello, G. (1999). Quantum dissipation and neural net dynamics. Bioelectrochem Bioenerg, 48(2), 339-342.
Pessa,
E., & Vitiello, G. (2003). Quantum noise, entanglement and chaos in the
quantum field theory of mind/brain states. Mind
and Matter, 1, 59-79.
Stuart,
C. I. J., Takahashi, Y., & Umezawa, H. (1978). On the stability and
non-local properties of memory. Journal
of Theoretical Biology, 71, 605–618.
van
Leeuwen, C. (2007). What Needs To Emerge To Make You Conscious? Journal of Consciousness Studies, 14(1–2),
115–136.
Vimal, R.
L. P. (2007a, July 16-20). Proto-experiences
and Subjective Experiences. Paper presented at the Quantum Mind 2007, The
University of Salzburg, Salzburg, Austria. Consciousness Research Abstracts: a
service from the Journal of consciousness Studies; pages 110-111 (abstract
number 111); see also <http://www.sbg.ac.at/brain2007/
> : P31 (July 17): <http://www.geocities.com/vri98/PE-SE-QMind-2007-Vimal.pdf>. For longer version of the article that
contains comments of some colleagues, see http://www.geocities.com/rlpvimal/PE-SE-Vimal-Long.pdf.
Vimal, R.
L. P. (2007b). Proto-experiences and
Subjective Experiences. Available: http://www.geocities.com/rlpvimal/PE-SE-Vimal-Short.pdf;
submitted to 'Mind and Matter' for review on 10 October 2007. See also http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MindBrain/message/10910.
Vimal, R.
L. P., & Davia, C. J. (2008). How Long is a Piece of Time? - Phenomenal
Time and Quantum Coherence - Toward a Solution. Quantum Biosystems, (In the process of addressing reviewers'
comments: "Can be published after major revision"); available at http://www.geocities.com/rlpvimal/Vimal-and-Davia-Phenomenal-Time.pdf.
Vitiello,
G. (1995). Dissipation and memory capacity in the quantum brain model. International Journal of Modern Physics, B9,
973–989.
Vitiello,
G. (2001). My double unveiled: The
dissipative quantum model of the brain. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John
Benjamins.
Vitiello,
G. (2002). Dissipative quantum brain dynamics. In K. Yasue & M. Jibu &
T. Della (Eds.), No Matter, Never Mind,
(pp. 43-61). Amsterdam: Senta, Benjamins.
Waugh, S.
J., & Levi, D. M. (1995). Spatial alignment across gaps: contributions of
orientation and spatial scale. J Opt Soc
Am A Opt Image Sci Vis, 12(10), 2305-2317.
Waugh, S.
J., Levi, D. M., & Carney, T. (1993). Orientation, masking, and vernier
acuity for line targets. Vision Res, 33(12),
1619-1638.
Woolf, N.
(2004). Microtubules in Consciousness and Cognition: Could Transport of
Receptors and mRNA be Involved? Journal
of Consciousness Studies, 11(12).
Woolf, N.
J. (1998). A structural basis for memory storage in mammals. Prog Neurobiol, 55(1), 59-77.
Woolf, N.
J., & Hameroff, S. R. (2001). A quantum approach to visual consciousness. TRENDS in Cognitive Sciences, 5(11),
472-478.
Woolf, N.
J., Zinnerman, M. D., & Johnson, G. V. (1999). Hippocampal
microtubule-associated protein-2 alterations with contextual memory. Brain Res, 821(1), 241-249.
-------------------------------------------------
This
paper has been published :
Vimal,
R. L. P. (2007). Subjective experiences of space and time: Self, Sensation,
and Phenomenal time. Vision Research Institute: Memo No. 101. Available: http://www.geocities.com/rlpvimal/Vimal-SE-space-and-time.pdf
and http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MindBrain/message/11199
.
Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal
Vision
Research Institute, 428 Great Road, Suite 11, Acton, MA 01720 USA; Dristi
Anusandhana Sansthana, A-60 Umed Park, Sola Road, Ahmedabad-61, Gujrat, India;
Dristi Anusandhana Sansthana, c/o NiceTech Computer Education Institute,
Pendra, Bilaspur, C.G. 495119, India; and Dristi Anusandhana Sansthana, Sai Niwas,
East of Hanuman Mandir, Betiahata, Gorakhpur, U.P. 273001, India
Corresponding address:
Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal, Ph.D.
Professor (Research)
Vision Research Institute,
428 Great Road, Suite 11, Acton, MA 01720, USA
Ph: +1 978 263 5028; eFAX: +1 440 388 7907
Emails:<rlpvimal@yahoo.co.in>,<rvimal@mclean.harvard.edu>
URLs: <http://www.geocities.com/rlpvimal/>;
<http://www.geocities.com/vri98/>,
<http://www.geocities.com/das00m/>
[1] The proto-experience
(PE) and subjective experience (SE) or PE-SE framework postulates that all
types of SEs (quality of sensations) are superimposed in elementary entities
such as fermions and bosons. These elementary entities are therefore
non-specific to a specific SE and behave as non-experiential material entities.
This misleads us that there is the explanatory gap. However, if this type of
superposition is correct, then co-evolution and co-development can result
neural-nets where SEs can emerge. Thus, the PE-SE framework is complementary to
all reductive models. Further details are given in http://www.geocities.com/rlpvimal/PE-SE-Vimal-Long.pdf.
In the Hameroff’s post http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/jcs-online/message/5635, it appears that one of the main
arguments for ‘dendritic web’ being responsible for consciousness hinges on the
hypothesis that the axonal-dendritic neuro-computational feedback networks of
the brain fails to explain the correlation of consciousness with gamma
synchrony. However, it is not clear that the gamma synchrony is the only neural
correlates of consciousness (NCC) or even is a NCC! ‘Consciousness’ is a confusing term because
it has different meaning to different people.
For subjective experience (SE),
essential ingredients are wakefulness, attention (for access awareness),
re-entry, (working) memory, and proto-experiences (Vimal, 2007). In my view,
there are 4 channels for information transfer: (i) Classical axonal-dendritic
networks, (ii) Quantum dendritic webs with gap junction, (iii)
Astro-glia-neuron interaction, (iv) Extra-cellular electromagnetic field (such
as generated by spikes). Their
contributions to SE are not clear and are debatable. My view is that (i)-(iii)
might be involved in specific and (iv) in non-specific information transfer.
Assigning (1) to autopilot or non-conscious processing and (2) to pilot or
consciousness is debatable. It may depend on how one defines the terms
'consciousness', 'unconscious' and 'non-conscious'.
[2] QFT is quantum field theory of electromagnetic field induced during neuronal firing and signal transmission in neurons. Therefore, although there is no evidence of Orch OR in a neuron, quantum mechanics can still be applied via QFT.
[3] Noise (i) may prevent capture by collapse into some unwanted state (attractor), (b)may provide protection against unwanted perturbations (including thermalization) and contributes to the stability of the memory state, and (c) may lead to the emergence of novel entity.
[6] “The degree to which a pair of fine lines can be aligned to each other. A normal observer will demonstrate an accuracy of 10 arc seconds and a repeatability of 5 arc seconds.” < http://www.photonics.com/directory/dictionary/lookup.asp?url=lookup&entrynum=5559&letter=v>.