brain science: zeroing in on the readiness potential for free will and quantum consciousness

Brain cell map. Credit: NIH

There is a new feature in Forbes, Testing a theory of reality that jumps in time, kills through the multiverse, and creates consciousness, explaining that “each gravity-induced collapse causes a small flash of protoconsciousness: micro-events that are organized by biological structures called microtubules in our brains into full consciousness. The Orch OR theory attributes consciousness to quantum computations driven (“Orch”) by electrical oscillations in these microtubules. There are three basic hypotheses that need to be tested experimentally: 1) gravity causes the wave function to collapse. 2) collapse involves retroactivity. 3) consciousness emerges from this process.”

How does the Orch OR theory explain any mental disorder? What is the Orch OR hypothesis for electrical impulses in the brain to determine how microtubules work? How does wave function collapse, retroactivity explain drug addiction and overdose?

If the theory solves consciousness, would it solve mental illness? If that were the case, why not go straight for it, since the consciousness of some mental illnesses is experienced? Theories should be tested against mental illness first, not the search for consciousness, as it has no connection to the same brain that runs mental disorders.

There is a recent piece Big thinking, Why the discussion of free will depends on intention, providing scenarios that “we will stick electrodes all over your scalp for an electroencephalogram (EEG) to observe the waves of neuronal excitation generated by your cortex. We also wire your arm with recording electrodes to detect exactly when you start to push; Meanwhile, the EEG detects when the neurons that tell those muscles to press the button begin to fire. And here’s what we found: these neurons were firing even before you thought you’d first freely decided to start pressing the button.

Now let’s do something smarter than looking at brain waves, because EEG reflects the activity of hundreds of millions of neurons at once, so it’s hard to know what’s happening in specific areas of the brain… Eh, forget about fMRI and the images it creates, where the signal of a single pixel it reflects the activity of about half a million neurons.”

A neuroscientist who is certain that free will does not exist points out the weaknesses of the dominant tools for study in the field. If they are inaccurate, why draw conclusions against free will from them?

Free will and determinism are lousy labels raised because of an elusive understanding of how the brain works.

If the neurons that tell these muscles to press the button start to fire. And that’s what we’re finding: these neurons were already activated before you,” then the ultimate question becomes, how do neurons work together as a group to perform functions?

What is special about the groups of neurons that create emotions, as distinct from regulation, memories, and so on? When the emotion of pleasure occurs for no apparent reason or for some reason, what is the underlying mechanism for it in groups of neurons in the brain? When there is a detached or dissociated feeling in a situation, how? When there is an attached feeling, how is that too?

Would synapses matter if there were no chemical impulses, assuming that connections between neurons would be possible without chemical impulses? Would they still do what the brain does?

There is a theory that the central factor for all brain functions are the electrical and chemical impulses of neurons. These impulses, in ensembles, with their characteristics and interactions, are designed as the human mind.

In sets (available in clusters of neurons), these impulses have their own characteristics.

Clusters of neurons often have a series of chemical impulses to which axons from other areas project. The chemical impulses in the set are in configuration and become how the senses are interpreted. Simply, the senses are interpreted on the configuration (impulses) they shape.

It is widely observed that the brain generates predictions, which is called predictive coding, processing and error. No theory has explained how this happens.

In a recent article on Nautilus Is a hard problem really that hard?stated that: “Another theory, known as predictive coding or predictive processing, achieves 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 predictions; 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 contained by the individual whose brain issues the self?

Explaining predictive observation in the brain will also explain the potential for preparedness and disprove its cancellation of free will.

How sets of electrical impulses Zero readiness potential

Electrical impulses are known to jump from node to node in myelinated axons in what are called saltatory conductions.

Here, it is proposed that in a group of neurons—providing a set or loop for the impulses—some electrical impulses in the same beam split, or go ahead of others, to “interact” with (the set of) chemical impulses as they should. done earlier, within the same loop or in distribution to others.

Simply, there is a feature of electrical impulses called early-splits or go-before, where some precede others. This early distribution is what is theorized here to be responsible for the prediction observation.

The brain is not predictable. Some electrical impulses continue their basic mechanism even faster through the myelin sheaths.

Libet’s experiment was misleading because he had no theory to support what was observed about how the electrical impulses got into the sets, leading to widespread misinterpretation.

Premature division can sometimes be favored (attention) or pre-favored (awareness or less). Prioritization can occur in a conversation when the next word is ready. Or something is fetched during the read that should follow in the sequence, so if it matches the read continues, if not the incoming batch gets the correct words.

It could work in pre-prioritization where a split could occur while the thing is not in focus. When someone walks into a room and sees a switch, before they even know the switch is going to be on, there could be a split in the electrical signals that were going through earlier, but in less than awareness.

Electrical impulses are often divided, with some going first, which explains that while free will can be assumed to not exist, the underlying mechanism—how electrical impulses transfer to higher efficiency and priority swaps of chemical impulses—is attainable. Even with peripheral vision or ambient sound, the electrical impulses that process them are also distributed because the way they work is not because the individual is not in control.

The brain does not just decide and the individual has no choice.

The chemical impulses in the set are theorized to have gaps between the configurations provided by the set. These spaces, with certain diameters or locations that allow access, suggest control, free will, or intentionality.

Simply, control is achievable from sets of some chemical impulses of some functions. It is in this set that the self is because the chemical impulses vary in concentration from one end of the set to the other.

Since the synapses are in a set, they already have individual gaps between them. However, as a set of chemical impulses, spaces are affected by changes in concentration side to side in formation. Sense of self and control are intricately linked.

The readiness potential is zero. Free will, given by shaping the impulses by which they organize information — as sets — applies.

The confluence of all possible factors, including genes, environment, upbringing, and so on to disprove free will, is disproved by the lack of an explanation of how electrical impulses work in a cluster of neurons.

There is no science that shows that free will does not exist. The brain, with groups of neurons that ultimately decide behavior, has impulses whose properties and interactions they determine.

Epilepsy is a problem of electrical impulses. How they work in a group may be a better indicator than using epilepsy as an example for universal free will.

Consciousness is north of mental illness. Any theory of consciousness that fails to explain mental disorders and addictions but go to consciousness is already disproven, regardless of experimental bubbles or philosophical rides.

Leave a Comment