brain science: nulling — readiness potential on free will and — quantum consciousness
There is a new feature in Forbes, Testing A Time-Jumping, Multiverse-Killing, Consciousness-Spawning Theory Of Reality, explaining that, “each gravity-induced collapse causes a little blip of proto-consciousness: micro-events that get organized by biological structures called microtubules inside our brains into full-bodied awareness. Orch OR theory attributes consciousness to quantum computations orchestrated (“Orch”) by electrical oscillations in these microtubules. There are three core hypotheses to be tested experimentally: 1) gravity causes wave function collapse. 2) the collapse involves retro-activity. 3) consciousness comes out of this process.”
How does the Orch OR theory explain any mental disorder? What is the Orch OR theory hypothesis for electrical impulses in the brain, to determine how microtubules factor? How does wave function collapse, retro-activity explain addiction and drug overdose?
If a theory solves consciousness, would it solve mental illness? If it would, why not go directly for it, since the consciousness of some mental illnesses is experienced? Theories should be tested against mental illnesses first, not seeking consciousness like it has no connection to the same brain that operationalizes mental disorders.
There is a recent piece on Big Think, Why the free will debate hinges on intent, giving scenarios that, “we’re going to stick electrodes all over your scalp for an electroencephalogram (EEG), to observe the waves of neuronal excitation generated by your cortex. We’re also going to wire up your hand with recording electrodes to detect precisely when you start the pushing; meanwhile, the EEG will detect when neurons that command those muscles to push the button start to activate. And this is what we find out: those neurons had already activated before you thought you were first freely choosing to start pushing the button.
Let’s do something fancier now than looking at brain waves, since EEG reflects the activity of hundreds of millions of neurons at a time, making it hard to know what’s happening in particular brain regions….Eh, forget about fMRI and the images it produces, where a single pixel’s signal reflects the activity of about half a million neurons.”
A neuroscientist that is certain that there is no free will is pointing out the weaknesses of the dominant tools for studies in the field. If they are imprecise, why make inferences from them, to conclude against free will?
Free will and determinism are lousy labels hoisted because of the elusive understanding of how the brain works.
If “neurons that command those muscles to push the button start to activate. And this is what we find out: those neurons had already activated before you” then the ultimate question becomes, how do neurons work together in a group to carry out functions?
What is special about groups of neurons that engineer emotions, differently from those of regulations, to those of memories and so forth? When an emotion of delight happens without an obvious reason, or does for a cause, what is the basic mechanism of the groups of neurons in the brain, for it? When there is a detached or a dissociated feeling in a situation, how come? When there is an attached feeling, how come too?
Would synapses matter if there were no chemical impulses, assuming connections between neurons could be possible without chemical impulses? Would they still do what the brain does?
It is theorized here that the central factor for all brain functions are the electrical and chemical impulses of neurons. These impulses, in sets, with their features and interactions are proposed to be the human mind.
In sets [available in clusters of neurons], these impulses have their features.
Clusters of neurons often have a range of chemical impulses, as axons from other areas project in. Chemical impulses in a set, are in configuration, becoming how senses are interpreted. Simply, senses are interpreted on the configuration [of impulses] that shapes them.
It is widely observed that the brain generates predictions, in what is called predictive coding, processing and error. No theory has explained how it happens.
In a recent article on Nautilus, Is the Hard Problem Really So Hard?, it stated that, “Another theory, known as predictive coding or predictive processing, reaches the same end by a different route. According to this theory, experiences are predictions we make about the world, and they have a qualitative aspect because we include ourselves in the prediction; qualia are the reasons we use to explain why we react the way we do”
But how does the brain predict? How is the self included by the individual whose brain gives off the self?
Explaining the prediction observation in the brain will also explain readiness potential, refuting its nullification of free will.
How Sets of Electrical impulses Null Readiness Potential
It is known that electrical impulses leap from node to node in myelinated axons in what is called saltatory conduction.
It is proposed here that in a group of neurons — providing a set or loops, for impulses — some electrical impulses in the same beam, split or go ahead of others, to ‘interact’ with [a set of] chemical impulses like they had done before, within the same loop, or in a distribution to others, in the array.
Simply, there is a feature of electrical impulses called early-splits or go-before, where some go ahead of others. This early split is what is theorized here to be responsible for the prediction observation.
The brain is not predicting. Some electrical impulses are going ahead, along their basic mechanism of going even faster over myelin sheaths.
The Libet experiment was misleading because it had no theory to back what was observed, on how the electrical impulses made their way in sets, which resulted in wide mis-explanation.
Early split may sometimes be prioritized [attention] or pre-prioritized [awareness or less]. Prioritization may occur in a conversation when the next word in mind is prepared. Or, while reading, something that should follow in the sequence is acquired, such that if it matches then reading continues, if not, the follow-up acquires the right words.
It might work in pre-prioritization, where there could be a split, while the thing is not in attention. When someone walks into a room and sees a switch, even before knowing that the switched will be flipped ON, there might have been a split of electrical signals, going before but in less than awareness.
Electrical impulses are often splitting, with some going before, explaining that while it may be assumed that there is no free will, the basic mechanism — of how the electrical impulses relay towards higher efficiency and prioritization swaps of chemical impulses — is obtainable. Even with peripheral vision or ambient sound, electrical impulses that process those are also splitting, as the way they work, not because the individual has no control over it.
The brain is not just deciding and the individual has no choice.
Chemical impulses in a set are theorized to have spaces between the configurations that the set provides. These spaces, with certain diameters or placements that allow access, induce control, free will or intentionality.
Simply, control is obtainable from the sets of some chemical impulses of some functions. It is in this same set that the self is, as the chemical impulses vary in concentration, from one end of the set to the other. There is also a maximum possible fill, within formations of chemical impulses to determine prioritization in an instance.
Since synapses are in a set, they already have individual spaces between them. However, as a collection of chemical impulses, spaces are influenced by changes in concentration from side-to-side in a formation. The sense of self, prioritization and control are intricately linked.
Readiness potential is null. Free will, given by the formation of impulses, with which they organize information — as sets — is valid.
The amalgamation of all possible factors, including genes, environment, nurture and so forth to refute free will is refuted by the lack of an explanation of how electrical impulses work in a cluster of neurons.
There is no science that shows that there is no free will. The brain, with groups of neurons that finally decide behavior, has impulses whose features and interactions make determinations.
Epilepsy is a problem of electrical impulses. How they work in a group can give a better pointer than to use epilepsy as an example for one-size-fit-all free will.
What is necessary to understand is not that nurture influences behavior, but of how the last leg, the brain, decides.
Consciousness is north of mental illness. Any consciousness theory that cannot explain mental disorders and addictions, but going at consciousness is already refuted, regardless of experimental bubbles or philosophical joyrides.
