Uncategorized

The multiscale conjecture is that consciousness builds up at many temporal and spatial scales in the brain (Nunez, 2016) p326, so:

“Consciousness does not work like a light switch that just goes on and off. Rather it is more like a light with variable brightness controlled by a dimmer switch.” (Nunez, 2016) p98.

The electromagnetic field of a nerve is extremely local so it fades after a millimeter or so, but tubulins could synchronize a microcolumn 1/300^thmm wide to give P1 waves that occur 50ms after stimulus. This scale of observation might be a fleeting registration of borders.

Synchronizing a microcolumn amplifies its electromagnetic field, increasing its strength and range. This lets cortico-cortical columns of about 10,000 neurons synchronize, perhaps using thalamic beats and cortico-cortical links, to give N1 waves about 130ms after stimulus (John, 2005) p159. An observation at this scale might be a brief registration of features like shape.

Synchronized macrocolumns of about a million neurons can arise in the same way, to give P2 waves about 210ms after stimulus. The observation at this scale might be of a visual object.

The synchrony cascade doesn’t stop there, as macrocolumns can form into areas. The primary visual area V1 at the back of the brain maps shapes in space, then shares its results with nearby V2, V3, V4, V5 and V6 areas that handle relative movement.

Finally, the distant brain areas responsible for memory and planning join the synchrony to form a global observation, based on the same principles. The evidence that synchrony enables consciousness is strong.

When subjects were asked to recognize images, electrodes in the occipitotemporal cortex, hippocampus and prefrontal cortex showed a steady beta synchrony, significantly higher than when they didn’t recognize it (Sehatpour et al., 2008). When input reaches higher visual areas, a remarkable thing happens: sub-millisecond synchronies link distant brain areas as the image is recognized. Distant areas use re-entrant circuits and self-perpetuating loops to set up rhythmic synchronies of amazing precision, that integrate information in some way:

“We believe that the brain integrates functional modules by bringing neural oscillations in those modules into synchrony. Neurons oscillating in synchrony can communicate their information and influence each other’s activities much more effectively than can those oscillating asynchronously.”(Ward, 2007) p325.

In a study of monkeys presented with two stimuli, one of which was relevant, both stimuli produced a V1 response, but only the attended one gave a V4 area gamma synchrony (Bosman et al., 2012). A similar result was found for auditory streams presented simultaneously – only the attended stream synchronized the higher auditory area, leading the authors to suggest a top-down synchrony filter for auditory attention (Lakatos et al., 2013). Human studies of binocular rivalry give each eye a different image but the brain sees one or the other, not a mix of both. Neuromagnetic measurements of rivalry find the hemisphere with better local synchrony predicts the image that is consciously perceived (Tononi, 1998).

In masking studies, where a word is only seen half the time, long-distant gamma synchrony between occipital, parietal and frontal areas occur if the word is seen but not if it isn’t (Melloni et al., 2007). Both cases gave gamma oscillations but phase-locked synchrony between distant areas and the hemispheres only occurred for the visible case and shortly after this transient synchrony, the p300 correlate of consciousness occurred. Evidence from animal and human studies suggests that neural synchrony enables the conscious observation that binds areas:

“We propose that this transient synchronization might enhance the saliency of the activation patterns not only allowing the contents to get access to consciousness but also triggering a cascade of processes such as perceptual stabilization, maintenance in working memory, and generalizations of expectations, all aspects intimately related with conscious awareness.”  (Uhlhaas, 2009) p11.

Why do nerves send the same signal hundreds of times a second in synchronized volleys? It can’t be to exchange information, because we neither act nor perceive in hundredths of a second. However these constant pings could build larger synchronies from smaller ones, in a cascade of consciousness

Next

Using electrodes to stimulate cortex locations in awake subjects having neurosurgery can give a body sensation, so a left-cortex point might give a brief right-hand tingle that subjects report about 500ms later (Libet, 2005), so is consciousness just an effect? In general:

“How are nerve cell activities in the brain related to conscious subjective experience and to unconscious mental functions?” (Libet, 2005) p32.

To find out, subjects were asked to flick a wrist when they felt like it. The EEG showed a movement readiness potential in the prefrontal cortex about 200ms before subjects reported their intention to act. Conventional science took this to mean that consciousness is like a king who thinks he rules but his advisors do everything. Thus, even if consciousness exists, it does nothing:

“A systematic exploration suggests that every cortical site holds its own knowledge. Consider the insula, a deep sheath of cortex that is buried beneath the frontal and temporal lobes. Stimulating it can have a diversity of unpleasant effects, including a sensation of suffocation, burning, stinging, tingling, warmth, nausea or falling. Move the electrode to a location farther below the surface of the cortex, the subthalamic nucleus, and the same electrical pulse may induce an immediate state of depression, complete with crying and sobbing, monotone voice, miserable body posture, and glum thoughts. Stimulating parts of the parietal lobe may cause a feeling of vertigo and even the bizarre out of body experience of levitating to the ceiling and looking down on one’s own body.

If you had any lingering doubts that your mental life arises entirely from the activity of the brain, these examples should lift them.” (Dehaene, 2014) p153.

These results don’t mean what Dehaene thinks they do, that our mental life arises entirely from the brain, because none of the nerve regions stimulated are capable of observing anything. Explaining how a movie gets onto a screen doesn’t explain how it is observed. It is true that:

“… a whole array of mental processes can be launched without consciousness…” (Ibid, p86)

But to say that global consciousness does nothing because some brain parts can act without it is like saying that the sun does nothing because I can switch on a light at night. It is true that parts of the brain can react to stimuli in 200ms, before the 500ms it takes to be fully conscious, but this just implies degrees of consciousness, not that global consciousness does nothing at all.

The relation between consciousness and the brain is like a viewer watching a TV. Nothing can be seen until the TV is turned on but even so, a TV can’t view itself. If physical realism (PR) is that TVs exist without viewers, then viewer realism (VR) is that viewers also exist. One can imagine a conversation between these two points of view as follows:

VR: A TV can’t view itself, so there must be a viewer out there.

PR: Not at all. When the TV is turned on, we just imagine that someone is viewing it.

VR: But a network of TVs that no-one watched would be pointless!

PR: Exactly! It’s all pointless, that’s why it doesn’t matter what we show.

VR: But we can talk to viewers watching TV by long-distance phone calls.

PR: Yes, but they are also imaginary. It’s all fake.

VR: How do TV channels change if there are no viewers?

PR: The remote control changes the channels randomly. Who knows, maybe a fly sits on it?

VR: So how do you know that viewers don’t change the channel?

PR: We did an experiment. We asked a “viewer” to call us when he changed channels and the remote control came out of standby a second before his call arrived. Hence, he didn’t do it.

VR: But how long does it take a long-range phone call to arrive?

PR: About a second.

VR: So that’s not really conclusive, is it?

PR: Its near enough. Machinery does everything, viewers don’t exist.

VR: But you watch TV so you’re a viewer too, does that mean you don’t exist?

PR: Don’t be ridiculous, of course I exist.    

Libet’s flawed experiment led many to think that the brain is merely a meat machine, just as nineteenth century science thought the universe was a clockwork machine, until quantum theory proved it isn’t. This desire of scientists to prove they have no choice should be a subject of study:

“… why are so many intellectuals so intent on proving that they have no free will? (As the philosopher Alfred North Whitehead pointed out ironically, ‘Scientists animated by the purpose of proving themselves purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study.’)” (Taylor, 2019)

  Evolution doesn’t do pointless. The long and short-range nerve synchronies found in every brain wouldn’t have evolved if they did nothing. It takes effort to be conscious like us, as brain waves take time to form. That these synchronies correlate with consciousness suggests that the latter has an evolutionary benefit. It is now proposed that it is to unify observation, whether at the cell or human scale.

Next

A quantum entity, like a photon or electron, is observed when something else, like a screen, interacts with it. Until then, it is a spreading wave that doesn’t observe itself or anything else. Only when another quantum wave interacts with it, can it collapse to restart at a point in a physical event. In quantum theory, a physical event is quantum entities observing each other. And the event location is chosen from the possibilities regardless of prior events. It follows that all physical events involve observation and choice.

When quantum entities restart in a physical event, something remarkable occurs: they entangle into a single ensemble that spreads from the event point.  When two photons entangle, the spreading ensemble instantly knows if it is involved in a physical event, regardless of  physical distance (QR3.8.5). When a physical event occurs to an entangled ensemble, all the entities involved observe it, even if they then disentangle. This isn’t information exchange but it has the same effect, that distant participants obtain the same physical information.

It follows that when synchrony entangles nerves into an ensemble that observes a data point in the brain’s electromagnetic field, they all get the same information, whether they created it or not. The same logic applies to the choice of the point observed. In simple terms, distant nerve areas can share data by forming a quantum entity that observes and chooses. Applying Penrose’s logic to nerves, if tubulins can synchronize cell molecules to observe as one, brains can synchronize nerves to do the same. A quantum effect therefore underlies the observer we call “I”.

It isn’t proposed that all brain nerves synchronize, but that some do, to solve local problems, followed by a cascade from microcolumns to macrocolumns and so on, up to a global observer. Nor do all nerves need to synchronize perfectly, as only some need to do so to achieve the effect. If nerves that wire together fire together, then nerves that fire together observe together. Consciousness then arises when nerve synchronies cascade into a global observer.

   When we watch a movie, sight and sound seem like one experience because entangled visual and auditory nerves make one observation. Bottom-up sensory analysis would process vision or sound alternatively but we observe both at once and can attend either. How attention occurs isn’t known but where observation occurs alters the observation. An electromagnetic field is stronger closer to its source, so attending the sound of a movie may be choosing to observe close to the auditory area. Or I could attend to a thought or feeling by choosing to observe closer to that brain function. The brain has no wiring switch to do what attention does, so this theory explains what others can’t.

If a single neuron opens a small observation window on physical reality, then many neurons entangled open a bigger window. The brain solved the binding problem by forming layer upon layer of neural synchronies to enable a global observation, hence:

a. Consciousness takes time. A global neural synchrony takes time to build up.

b. Consciousness scales. Synchrony enables consciousness at multiple scales of the brain.

c.  Consciousness cascades. Small-scale synchronies lead to large-scale synchronies.

The following sections give more details.

Next

If the brain is a network of oscillators, a nerve is more like a Wi-Fi device than a transistor chip. Brain areas aren’t just wired together, they resonate together, suggesting that consciousness arises in the brain’s electromagnetic field. Conscious electromagnetic field information (CEMI) theory suggests that:

“… the brain’s EM (electromagnetic) field is the physical substrate of consciousness.” (McFadden, 2020) p5.

This doesn’t mean the brain isn’t an information processor. Its nerves identify lines in a picture, so a some nerve must fire “Yes” to recognize a face, the so-called Jennifer Aniston neuron (Quiroga et al., 2005), but one nerve firing isn’t “information integration”, as it can:

“… only encode a single firing rate that cannot represent anything more than a tiny fraction of the information present in a conscious percept.” (McFadden, 2020) p3.

McFadden argues that data processing can’t integrate information but an electromagnetic field can. Nerves affect the brain’s electromagnetic field like pebbles dropped on a pond, to spread ripples that interfere or combine into one result. That the mind is in the field solves the mind-body problem at a stroke, as then consciousness is unified because:

“… EM fields are always unified, there is only ever one EM field in the brain.” (Ibid, p6).

CEMI theory also predicts that:

“… conventional computers, despite their undoubted computational skills, have not exhibited the slightest spark of consciousness, nor any signs of the general intelligence endowed by conscious minds.” (McFadden, 2020) p9.

But if electromagnetic fields are conscious, why isn’t a toaster conscious? CEMI theory argues that when the brain’s electromagnetic field encodes data, like a thought, it is consciousness. We download data from the brain’s electromagnetic field as we download songs from a Wi-Fi field, and a toaster can’t do that.

However, the field can’t be both the observer and the data observed. If the data is in the field, then the brain needs a receiver to download it, just as a smartphone is needed to download songs from a Wi-Fi field. Data encoded by a field needs a receiver to download and decode it (Pockett, 2014), but the brain doesn’t have a central receiver, just as it doesn’t have a central processing unit.

On the other hand, if the observer is in the field, then what is it observing? It can’t observe itself, as observer and observed can’t be the same entity.

Pockett and McFadden also both assume that the brain’s electromagnetic field is physical:

“… matter is not the only kind of physical entity. Electromagnetism is also an undeniable part of the physical world.” (Pockett, 2017).

And:

“… consciousness is rooted in an entirely physical, measurable and artificially malleable physical structure and is amenable to experimental testing.” (McFadden, 2020) p11.

    Yet light waves aren’t physical because they travel in a vacuum, which physical waves can’t do. And they vibrate in an imaginary plane that is outside physical space, which a physical wave also can’t do. The electromagnetic field of light is measurable, but it isn’t physical. Indeed, if it were, no observer would be possible because one physical event can’t observe another. Given these inconsistencies, another explanation for the relation between brain waves and consciousness is needed.

Next

Next

Scientists have long known that nerves create electromagnetic pulses that electrodes on the scalp detect as brain waves. They include alpha-beta waves at 8-38Hz, the theta waves of sleep at 3-8Hz, and gamma waves of intense focus at 38-42Hz, but their general role is unknown.

Nerves must synchronize their firing to produce brain waves. In cat brain studies, cortical neurons synchronize their fire at a high degree of precision to produce beta-gamma waves (Gray, 1989) and they relate to the binding problem because studies:

“… have demonstrated that response synchronization is a ubiquitous phenomenon in cortical networks and is likely to serve a variety of different functions in addition to feature binding at early levels of sensory processing.” (Uhlhaas, 2009) p1.

Nearly all neural areas in the brain beat in synchrony, which isn’t easy given delays in nerve synapse, conductance, and propagation time. That even distant cortical neural areas achieve zero-phase synchrony, to beat almost perfectly in time, is an extraordinary feat:

“Early studies showed that zero-phase lag synchronization can occur even between distant neuronal assemblies,… This is particularly relevant as the conduction delays in the cortex make the occurrence of zero-phase lag synchronization difficult to accomplish.” (Uhlhaas, 2009) p3.

Entrainment was discovered when Huygens found that pendulums set in motion would all synchronize by the next day. It occurs because out-of-phase oscillations exchange energy that drops to zero when they vibrate in phase. In the same way, playing a note on a violin makes the violin next to it play that note without touching it, by resonance. Neuronal entrainment that creates resonances is ubiquitous in a wide variety of brains (Lakatos, 2019).

The encapsulation principle, that different hierarchies don’t exchange data, means that nerves between them don’t transmit content data. When a nerve in the visual cortex fires to register a line angle, it doesn’t encode a message like “I saw a 10° angle at location x,y,z”, it just fires. If a camp surrounded by beacon lights sees that one is lit, it means an enemy is coming that way and likewise when a nerve fires, its location implies the rest. In computing, the simplest signal is a ping, like a ping test that sends a no-content message to see if a web site still works. Encapsulation suggests that signals between distant brain areas are just pings, that carry no information content at all!

If distant nerve signals are just pings, there is no information to compete for consciousness (Baars, 1988), or to broadcast a global ignition that causes consciousness (Dehaene, 2014). Nerves constantly send signals between areas but this “chatter” doesn’t exchange data. Instead, it just establishes the phase synchronies that give the brain waves we register.

The brain is a neural oscillator network that explores a vast domain of resonances. Models of oscillator networks with delayed links show that low frequency hubs can enable higher frequency synchronies (Vlasov & Bifone, 2017), so slow brain waves help faster ones keep time. The brain evolved many long-range and precise lag-free synchronies so it must serve a key function, and the exquisite time sensitivity of neural spikes implies that timing is critical. The neural synchrony evidence is so compelling that some suggest it is an information code, but there is no evidence for that (Uhlhaas, 2009). Others link synchrony to consciousness to conclude that:

“The central issue is how coherent, informational activity in multiple cortical areas is welded into a seamless unity that becomes aware of itself.” (John, 2005) p160.

It is now proposed that consciousness relates directly to brain-generated neural synchronies.

Next

A neuron is a cell that forms electrical links to other neurons. Neurons in the embryo brain spread like plant roots in a dense mat, to explore every link (Figure 6.35), but only those that are used survive. Neural Darwinism is that neurons compete to survive in the brain, as species do in the world, so unused nerves wither away over time (Edelman, 1987).

A neuron has up to five thousand dendrites (Figure 6.36), so it must find the combinations with others that make it fire as fast as possible, or it won’t survive. It isn’t easy with so many combinations and noise, random firing not due to signal input, makes it much more difficult.

Neuron tubulins can synchronize adjacent dendrites to reduce signal noise. It has been found that pyramidal dendrites don’t spike if their inputs differ, even when either input alone gives a spike (Gidon, 2020). If nearby dendrites agree, they both fire but if not, neither does. The computing result is an XOR gate (Note 1), a function that classical computing needs two steps to do, not the expected AND/OR gate. Quantum coherence lets nearby dendrites observe signals in a unified way, as they must agree to fire in an XOR operation that reduces signal noise.

Instead of a dumb transistor that just adds inputs, each nerve is a processing network whose dendrite layer purifies the data by inhibiting erratic input (Cepelwicz, 2020). Nerves use molecular quantum effects to enhance their function:

“Physicists thought the bustle of living cells would blot out quantum phenomena. Now they find that     cells can nurture these phenomena – and exploit them.” (Vedral, 2015).

Some neuroscientists now see the brain as a neural net (Figure 6.37) that can use quantum effects to explore its trillions of links by exponential learning (Yang & Zhang, 2020).

Next

Note 1. An eXclusive OR operation compares two input bits and generates zero if the bits are the same and one if the bits are different. The XOR logic is widely used in cryptography.

Molecules vibrating in exact synchrony maintain a coherence that is usually lost in the molecular bustle of a normal cell. The timing of the synchrony must be almost perfect to produce this quantum effect, so how do photosynthetic bacteria do it?

One theory is that the microtubule cell structure orchestrates it (Penrose & Hameroff, 2017). Microtubules are self-assembling polymers that appeared over a billion years ago and are the skeleton of all cells today. They affect shape, growth, and function. Coherence plays a role in enzyme activity (Frohlich, 1970), and microtubules allow synchronous oscillations that give strong Frohlich coherence at room temperatures (Samsonovich et al., 1992).

If the cell structure oscillates synchronously, molecules in it will do the same, allowing them to superpose, cohere and entangle to act as one. That microtubules can apply quantum effects at cell timescales has led to their study in biological puzzles like smell, protein folding, ion channels, and bird navigation (Gauger, 2011). 

Orchestrated coherence theory (Orch OR) argues that brain microtubules unify the brain to make it a quantum computer that processes information in a way that classical processing can’t (Penrose & Hameroff, 2017). Critics note that while microtubules enable coherence at cell timescales, the time scale of human consciousness is orders of magnitude greater (Jedlicka, 2017). Microtubules also don’t explain why some brain events are conscious and others aren’t (Baars & Edelmann, 2012). Comatose brains have as many microtubules as normal ones, so why aren’t they conscious? About half the human brain doesn’t support consciousness directly but nerves in these regions contain just as many microtubules.

   Penrose and Hameroff make a good case for consciousness at the cell scale based on a tubulin decoherence time of 10^-13 seconds (Tegmark, 2000) but even their 10^-6 seconds best estimate is too brief for human consciousness (Penrose & Hameroff, 2017) p27. Tubulin-based entanglement may enable cell consciousness but it isn’t enough for human consciousness.

Next

A cell has about 42 million protein molecules working together in the most complex system mankind has ever known. It has been called the third infinity (Denton, 2020) because it is as far beyond any complexity we know, just as the universe is bigger than we know, and the quantum world is smaller than we know. No machine ever built even approaches a cell’s complexity, so the chance that trillions of atoms randomly formed millions of proteins in a primal stew to form a cell is effectively zero.

Evolution needed help, so the emerging field of quantum biology argues that it was a quantum effect (McFadden & Al-Khalili, 2018). Quantum effects like entanglement helped matter, stars and galaxies to evolve but until recently seemed to play no part in life. No-one doubted that quantum weirdness rules the atomic world but quantum entanglements were said to collapse too quickly to affect the macro-world of biology:

“On the face of it, quantum effects and living organisms seem to occupy utterly different realms. The former are usually observed only on the nanometer scale, surrounded by hard vacuum, ultra-low temperatures and a tightly controlled laboratory environment. The latter inhabit a macroscopic world that is warm, messy and anything but controlled. A quantum phenomenon such as ‘coherence’, in which the wave patterns of every part of a system stay in step, wouldn’t last a microsecond in the tumultuous realm of the cell. Or so everyone thought. But discoveries in recent years suggest that nature knows a few tricks that physicists don’t: coherent quantum processes may well be ubiquitous in the natural world.” (Ball, 2011) p272

Quantum effects can bypass classical laws, so one expects life to use that power if it can, and it had billions of years to do so. Biologists just had to look to find quantum effects in cells:

“…something quantum mechanical is going on inside living cells, whether it’s in photosynthesis, whether it’s in enzyme catalysis,[16] [17] [18] whether it’s in mutations of DNA,[19] [24] even more controversially the way we smell, the theories of olfaction,[25] or magnetoreception, the way certain animals can sense the Earth’s magnetic field, the chemical compass that allows them to detect the orientation of the field relies on quantum effects, quantum entanglement.[26] [27] [28]” (Al-Khalili & Lilliu, 2020)

The best-known example is photosynthesis, the process that sustains complex life on earth. It began over three billion years ago when bacteria harvested the sun’s light to create oxygen. Our electric motors are 25% efficient, losing the rest to heat, but low-light bacteria convert 100% of light energy into chemical energy (Magdaong et al., 2014). This energy efficiency is impossible for heat engines, by Carnot’s law, but bacteria have evolved a quantum heat engine (Al-Khalili & McFadden, 2014) p310 that can do what classical physics forbids:

“natural selection has come up with ways for living systems to naturally exploit quantum phenomena” (O’Callaghan, 2018).

Photosynthetic bacteria have light receptive molecules called chromophores that absorb light energy and send it to reaction centers that convert it into chemical energy. When a chromophore antennae registers a photon, its energy must pass through the forest of other antennae to reach the nearest reaction center, but:

“The problem, of course, is which route this energy transfer should take. If it heads in the wrong direction, randomly hopping from one molecule to the next in the chlorophyll forest, it will eventually lose its energy rather than delivering it to the reaction center.” (Al-Khalili & McFadden, 2014) p126

A photon pulse decays in nanoseconds so it should often go down a dead-end and die out but instead, nearly every photon arrives at a reaction center. This allows bacteria in the light-starved depths of the sea to survive, but how do they do it?

Studies show that bacteria chromophores vibrate in step to give quantum beats (Engel, 2007) that allow their electromagnetic fields to entangle (Maiuri, 2018). In physics, entanglement is a fragile quantum state that occurs in atoms or near absolute zero, so it should quickly collapse in a warm cell. However, identical matter entities whose quantum fields overlap will entangle (Lo Franco & Compagno, 2016), and densely packed chromophores vibrating in synchrony satisfy this demand, so many receptors entangle into one ensemble.

In physics, entangled photons going in opposite directions look like two photons but are actually one entity (Aspect et al., 1982), so if either interacts, both respond (3.8.5). If entangled photons can go in two ways at once, a photon registered by many entangled chromophore receptors can explore many the paths to a reactor at once. Once received, the energy spreads down all paths like a wave until it collapses at a reaction center. If that doesn’t happen in one molecular cycle, the synchrony repeats until it does. The bacterium uses quantum coherence to enhance photosynthesis in a way that supports the known transfer times: 

“Coherent quantum beats have been observed in most light harvesting systems, where the coherences are stable over a time scale that is commensurate with the relevant energy transfer times.” (Scholes Group, 2018)   

Chromophore molecules vibrating in synchrony let photon energy evolve down many paths simultaneously to find a reaction center before it decays. If light-harvesting bacteria achieved photosynthesis by coherence, all life on earth began with the quantum effect of entanglement

Next

.

People have long wondered how physical brains become conscious:

“How it is that anything so remarkable as a state of consciousness comes about as a result of irritating nervous tissue, is just as unaccountable as the appearance of the djinn when Aladdin rubbed his lamp in the story.” Thomas Henry Huxley, 1863

But if nerves cause consciousness, and the brain is layer upon layer of neural processing, why doesn’t it always happen? If the brain can do many things at once, why are we aware of some neural processes but not others? Why aren’t we conscious of the nerves that apply syntax to language, or register balance? And why do nerves in some areas give one consciousness and only one “I”? As it turns out, the need for unified action is an evolutionary demand that begins at the cell level.

QR6.3.1 Cell Unity

QR6.3.2 Orchestrating Coherence

QR6.3.3 Quantum Nerves

QR6.3.4 Brain Waves

QR6.3.5 Consciousness By Synchrony

QR6.3.6 Field Theories of Consciousness

QR6.3.7 The Entangled Observer

QR6.3.8 Consciousness Takes Time

QR6.3.9 Consciousness Scales

QR6.3.10 Consciousness Cascades

QR6.3.11 The Silicon Chip Speculation

QR6.3.12 The Nature of Consciousness

QR6.3.13 The Grand Evolution

QR6.3.14 What is Real?

QR6.3.15 How is reality observed?

QR6.3.16 Where is the Observer?

Next