Step 1: Inductively identify candidates for the
combination of consciousness
The first step in calculating the spatial boundaries of a candidate
complex conscious entity is to consider, inductively, what constituents
are likely to be resonating synchronously and, as such, to be candidates
for a structure that combines micro-conscious entities into a particular
macro-conscious entity. We label such a candidate for combined
consciousness a “putative combined consciousness” or PCC. Inductive
judgments about what may constitute a PCC will necessarily be based on
the human experience of consciousness and what structures we can,
accordingly, expect to enjoy some degree of consciousness, based on
observed behavior similar to what we see in humans and other creatures
that most humans would agree are conscious. We can label these types of
behaviors the “behavioral correlates of consciousness” (Tononi and
Koch 2015; Hunt 2019b).
Definition 1. CC \(\equiv\) a combined consciousness, any group of two
or more conscious entities that combine to produce a higher-level
consciousness.
Definition 2. CCL \(\equiv\) the largest combined
consciousness in the relevant context.
Definition 3. PCC \(\equiv\) a putative combined consciousness, based on
inductive judgments about the human experience of consciousness
Some examples for applying this inductive methodology for identifying a
PCC include (without pre-judging whether any of these combinations are,
in fact, conscious):
- measuring EEG or MEG in the various neurons and groups of neurons that
comprise human and other mammalian brains;
- measuring EEG or MEG in human coma patient brains;
- measuring chemosensory or electrochemical pathways in non-mammalian
neurons like Drosophila or C. elegans (Gelperin 2014),
and other means for studying comparative cognition between species;
- measuring EEG or MEG in the non-neuronal biological systems that
comprise invertebrate sensory systems (jellyfish that have eyes, for
example);
- biochemical communication systems in slime molds (Vallverdu et al.
2018);
- calculating information flows and speeds in computer systems that pass
a Turing Test, when and if such feats become possible;
- or simply measuring information flows based on resonance chains in any
artificial computer.
In each example, we may consider, as the first step in our suggested
heuristic, whether the collection of entities examined may, inductively,
be likely to enjoy some variety of combined consciousness. Inductive
judgments about what should be considered a PCC will change over time as
more data becomes available with respect to the presence of
consciousness in various entities in nature and even possibly in human
creations such as artificial intelligence.
Step 2: Calculate the primary resonance frequencies in the
putative combined consciousness
The second step is to calculate the primary resonance frequencies of
whatever information flows (chemical, electrochemical, electrical, etc.)
are present in the PCC. For example, in human brains it appears that
electrical and electrochemical information pathways/resonance chains are
the most significant, though other pathways may also be significant
(Koch 2004; Hunt and Schooler 2019; Hameroff and Penrose 2014).
The highest bandwidth information flow will generally be most relevant,
but the slowest shared resonance frequency of the highest
bandwidth resonance chain (“slowest shared resonance” or SSR) will
define the boundaries of the largest combined consciousness ,
CCL, at least with respect to that particular resonance
chain. This is the case for two reasons:
1) Faster shared resonance frequencies will lead to nested CCs that have
their own more localized awareness. In this manner, it is the “lowest
common denominator” effect that leads the slowest shared resonance
frequency to be the limiting factor of the CCL.
2) Each resonance cycle is a snapshot that incorporates available
information within each cycle, and each resonating structure at least
partially resets after each cycle. Fries 2015 states: “In the absence
of coherence [resonance], inputs arrive at random phases of the
excitability cycle and will have a lower effective connectivity.”
Conversely, inputs that arrive synced to the same excitability cycle
will propagate faster and with greater bandwidth. Slower frequencies
will generally travel faster (Dehaene 2014, p. 137). In the present
framework, these principles apply to all resonating structures (i.e. all
physical structures), not just neurons.
Accordingly, the speed at which new information can be
incorporated, within each cycle, is the limiting factor for the spatial
extent (boundary) of the PCC . Restating this as a principle:
Principle 1. The slowest shared resonance frequency (SSR) defines the
spatial boundaries of the largest combined consciousness
(CCL) for each information pathway
The CCL may also be described as the dominant
consciousness , because its intentions and desires will supersede
(without extinguishing) those of any subsidiary consciousness(es) that
is present. The boundaries of the CCL will generally
change in each resonance cycle, sometimes subtly and sometimes
substantially, as we can observe in introspecting about the features of
our individual human consciousness – a very immediate example of a
CCL.
Parts of the resonating structure will display higher frequency
resonances than the SSR, but those higher frequencies won’t be shared by
all regions of the CCL and thus won’t define the
boundaries of the CCL. Rather, they would define the
boundary of a subset of the CCL. As such, in most
biological-scale structures, each CCL is a nested
hierarchy of various different resonating frequencies and smaller CCs
(CCn, for “nested”). Each level of resonance will have
its own type of consciousness, feeding up to the next level of
consciousness to varying degrees.
Recent research has probed high terahertz-level oscillations in tubulin
molecules that comprise the ubiquitous microtubule scaffolding of most
cells (Craddock et al. 2017; Hunt 2019). These frequencies are far
faster than those observed in EEG or MEG data. Cycle speeds and
propagation velocity limit the boundary of the PCC, giving rise to the
second principle:
Principle 2. Higher frequencies, all else equal, lead to smaller spatial
boundaries for a given CCL
And the converse:
Principle 3. Slower frequencies, all else equal, lead to larger
boundaries for a given CCL
It is important to highlight the fact that higher frequency resonances,
such as those examined by Craddock, et al., 2017, may be present in many
locations within a larger-scale CCL, allowing for those
nested combinations of consciousness (CCn) to be
subsumed into the larger CCL. Figure 1 illustrates these
terms and principles using abstracted resonating structures combining
into various CCn and ultimately into a single
CCL.
Figure 1. A PCC becomes a CCL through combination
of many smaller resonating structures.