Neurological Theory of Time

[Tom Vose]

This is not entirely speculation. Most of this post is based on the current idea's of scientists searching for a conventional explanation of neurological development.

 

 

Time Does Not Flow

 

The Psychological Arrow of Directionality

 

The classical principle of entropy can be described as being ice cubes in a glass of water. To imagine this picture, you must consider that there was total order present, with the ice cubes and the water separately. However, as time progresses, entropy is increased, as the water dissolves the ice cubes, rather than the ice cubes remaining in their normal states. This shows that an object will slow down if it slides on a corruptive surface; this is analogous to the perception of time, since we can remember the past, instead of the future.

 

This directionality is forward - and entropy is ever-increasing. In fact, this arrow has deep connections with the second law of thermodynamics (1): which states that heat cannot spontaneously flow from one body to another. This boundary allows us to create memory as we progress into the future, rather then the past.

 

In the beginning, entropy was very low - one perhaps could call this the ground state of order. It was because entropy was so low, a distinction between the past and the future could arise. And when time continued, entropy would increase; for this reason, entropy can never decrease... and even though disorder is ever increasing, it will do so with as much a little of disorder as possible. This is stated clearly in 'the principle of least action.' This principle highlights that the universe will be as efficient with its energy as possible.

 

However, the only real time we experience is the present time. This must mean that both the past and the future are a collection of statistical probable outcomes: making both the past and the future totally virtual. Now, even though these are all laws, totally within the boundaries of physics, they can be violated.

 

They can be violated if the mind collects information about the future and is simultaneously aware of it. Obviously, this would be a premonition of the future [1]. This is us remembering a time which has not yet come to pass - which seems illogical when anyone comes to reconcile this phenomena, because, how can we remember something we have never experienced?

 

I believe we can do so, because all-information exists potentially within our beings. And because we have all-information existing within us in a dormant state, and also because our minds can defy certain rules and principles, such as indeterminism, we might be able to defy temporal processes of knowledge, not working in a continuous frame. Instead, from time-to-time, the mind can jump into the future and anticipate an outcome by making it 'real', and i think this collapse ensures that this is the specific way into the most probable future.

 

Even though we sense the psychological arrow of time as going in one direction (I call this 'linear knowledge'), it would still be best to imagine it as being non-linear. Whether or not it may seem to have a directionality about it, it is existing in a world in which it encapsulates it's field on four dimensional freedom. Thus, real time is like a squiggly surface, usually portrayed as being the surface of an expanding balloon; thus the time we sense is an illusion, but is in opposition, an extremely valuable way to distinguish the evolution of time, including it's boundaries of past, present and future.

 

Time Is Subliminally Linear

 

A westernized example of how we come to view time, is that it is linear in nature. It just so happens that the human mind seems to be the perfect machine capable of tuning into an existence, and creating some kind of order whilst it does so. One state of order which seems evidence, is this smooth linear existence of how things appear to us to come about. [2]

 

Just because we however can tune into an existence and ‘’view it’’ in completely linear ways, is not the nature of the quantum world when mind is absent, and this is backed up by quantum physics. Quantum physics clearly states that in the material world, when mind is not present, we have a reality that is broken up into fleeting flashes of momentary existences. These flashes can be viewed as stops and starts, instead of a smooth linear combination of events. It stands to reason that if this be the case, then motion, time and all frames of existence, are really very short on the scale of the Planck Time.

 

Relativity is what predicts this kind of existence, where if we could look back on our histories, it would appear to us as a frozen lake of time (2) – not a smooth linear river where everything flows in one direction only.

 

How Does The Mind Do It?

 

We have many problems in physics, when concerning the conscious mind. We simply don't know how the mind does it! Scientists and the likes, raise their voices in frustration. For instance, how does the retina transmit two-dimensional signals to the three-dimensional phenomena of the brain? How do we come to know something? How does consciousness match two differential sources of information, such as sight and touch? How does information contained in written texts yield almost identical knowledge of something being heard? And likewise, how can the sense of touch be transformed into a language, as in the case of brail - isn't touch different to language processing?

 

Yes, there are many strange qualities of mind - one being the 'binding paradox,' of psychophysics.

 

The binding paradox states that we crystallize reality, not in flashes, but a continued flow of perception. The best way to explain what is meant by this, is by asking you to look around the room, but simultaneously blinking your eyes. Do you now see reality broken up into frames of reality, separated by flashes of darkness? This is the binding problem... why do we not see this more frequently?.

 

Time is a perception as well, and it is also run in this linear binding agency; this really shouldn't be a surprise, since space and time are one thing only. Our optical bubbles of virtual space existences are quite 'stable' to say the least - each frame all running smoothly into the next frame - following the sensation of a passing time.

 

Indeed, the binding problem might be answered by saying that the mind pieces together reality, not only by the way it perceives reality, but also how it expects to observe reality - in just this case, the mind might fill in certain 'dark area's' of optical reality... the result is a smooth, undivided picture show of the external world. So, is the binding of reality, a product of an anticipating mind?

 

My interpretation or model of consciousness states that everything that affects the fundamental level, will have either a large part or even a small part in the role of performing consciousness. Some of these will include, the force of gravity, electromagnetic forces and even the neurons and particle interactions. Also, these fundamental interactions may also include the principle of uncertainty... and possibly exclusion [3].

 

The exclusion principle was created by physicist Wolfgang Pauli to explain why electrons themselves, being positive manifestations, did not fall back into the negative vacuum - the zero-point energy field. He explained that no two electrons could fall into the same states... a difference must occur between two spinning electrons. For instance, let's say that two electrons where spinning around inside the nucleus of an atom. If electron 1. has a spin up, with a low energy state, then electron 2. cannot fall into the same energy state, that is, unless electron 2. has a spin down. All electrons and other 'fermions' exclude each other in this way. Fermions have what is called a 'half integer spin,' whilst bosons, like a quanta of light have simply an 'integer spin'. Bosons, as you may have surmised can easy fall into the same quantum states, as they follow 'Bose-Einstein statistics.' Such developments have led into the creation of lasers. I believe that the exclusion principle might have a big role to play in awareness, and i do mean this on the physical levels. The very fact most of my brain particles will play to an intricate 'tune of exclusion' - the billions upon billions of them - must play to a harmony that creates the objective awareness.

 

Also, the 'boundaries of past and future' also play a major role in consciousness [4]. In fact, to some degree, mind is the operating machine that distinguishes the past from the future. As we have seen, the psychological arrow of time is intrically linked to the state of low entropy in the early universe. One might even make a fantastic premise here - one that states that there was a low entropy, so that consciousness could arise. This would be excellent for my interpretation of the universal big bang... remember, i believe that consciousness caused the big bang... or at least, was responsible for the universe's choice to expand into the conditions we observe today.

 

If this is the case, then mind does not arise from matter [5], as Darwinistic beliefs would presume. Indeed, this might seem like a strange thought, but for those who believe that transferring consciousness into computer automata maybe possible in the far future, just as well-renown physicist Frank Tipler believes, then persona/consciousness is not necessarily bound to matter, and if mind can exist without matter, then perhaps consciousness arose long before the particles in my head where assembled? I implore the reader to seriously consider this.

 

Perhaps mind does not arise from matter - but more specifically from the zero-point energy field? In fact, several physicists take this view quite seriously. They argue, because matter and energy arose from the zero-point energy field, then so does the essence of mind: 'That' consciousness consistent of thoughts and emotions. Physicist Inomata Shuiji believes that our feelings and thoughts are influenced by the negative energy of the zero-point energy field - and i am inclined to agree. The very influential nature of this 'hidden' potential, ethereal field effects matter in profound ways, we can only imagine the maximal effect it might have on our subjective awareness of senses, feelings, thoughts and emotions.

 

But mind is more than this. The zero-point energy field could very well be the source, or origin of matter and mind - (remember, it's also good to connect mind with matter as being codependant [when awareness is present]; just as much that space and time are codependant, and only real when awareness is present) - but what about the current dimension which the mind exists right now? Where is mind? Is mind confined to the atoms i am made of? Or can mind pre-exist the atoms i am made of?

 

(1) - The mathematics of the arrow was originally devised in the 1800's by Carnot (1824), Clapeyron (1832) and Clausius (1854). According to the second law of thermodynamics, heat [math](Q)[/math] cannot spontaneously flow from a cold body:

 

[math](T_{2}')[/math]

 

to a warmer body:

 

[math]T_{1'}[/math]

 

Though, heat from a warm body can move into a colder body:

 

[math](T_{1'})>(T_{2'})[/math]

 

Entropy is defined as [math]frac{Q/T}[/math] by Rudolf Clausius to measure the irreversibility of molecules of this process. The change in entropy [math]\Delta S[/math] thus can be measured as the temperature [math](T)[/math] moves from one body into another, and in time, the system will reach what is called a 'state of equilibrium.'

 

(2) – See Brian Greene’s book, the Frozen Lake for reference.

 

[1] - F. A. Wolf, Parallel Universes.

 

[2] - Stuart Hameroff has come to agreement with another physicist on the current quantum mechanical view of time. It seems that the linear existence of time is psychological whilst the real view of time is rather quantum time flashes of existences... a bit like stops and starts in the flashes or frames of existence. It agrees well with relativity.

 

[3] - Roger Penrose has advised the scientific world of a possible model of consciousness where gravity plays a fundamental role. Whilst a group of molecules are said to be able to modelled classically, there is also the arguement that there is nothing classical about it. Since even a single atom is effected by the Uncertainty Principle of quantum mechanics, which is not a classical subject, then any theory of consciousness must take up this non-classical fundmental subject of uncertainty inherent in the material world.

 

[4] - Read Stephen Hawkings book the Brief History of Time, he speculates that there was a very low entropy early on in the history of the universe. The current idea is that the universe began in a Ground State of Entropy which would require a Ground State of Energy, which itself finally would require a Ground State of Matter... The Uncertainty Principle at this time would be very very high... possibly even infinite, though Hawking does not mention this in the book mentioned.

 

[5] - Contrary to what was just said, Candice Pert, a neurological biologist believes that our brain is in every cell of our body!

Edited December 13, 2008 by Tom Vose

[Mokele]

Perhaps mind does not arise from matter - but more specifically from the zero-point energy field?

 

Then why can the mind be altered by altering it's matter? If certain sections are cut out or damaged, the mind is altered in a predictable way. Surely you don't contend that a scalpel or blood clot is damaging the zero-point energy?

[Tom Vose]

Then why can the mind be altered by altering it's matter? If certain sections are cut out or damaged, the mind is altered in a predictable way. Surely you don't contend that a scalpel or blood clot is damaging the zero-point energy?

 

 

Well when i, or any scientist speaks of this process, the ability of consciousness is a process of all your brain cells. If you remove some of them, you remove motor-functional processes itself. You remove motor functions because you remove the cell configuration that allows physical processes.

[Mokele]

So, care to offer any evidence at all that there's anything *beyond* simple neuron networks? Because as I read it, all of what you claim is predicated on the notion that there is some sort of direct interaction between the brain and something'beyond' it.

[iNow]

Well when i, or any scientist speaks of this process, the ability of consciousness is a process of all your brain cells.

What is the strict definition of consciousness you are using? There is hardly any single process (dare I say, no process) which involves "all of your brain cells."

 

Also, there are several redundancies in the neural system, so removing cells does not necessitate some sort of functional change.

[swansont]

Have you posted this elsewhere on the internet, or did you copy it?

[Tom Vose]

What is the strict definition of consciousness you are using? There is hardly any single process (dare I say, no process) which involves "all of your brain cells."

 

Also, there are several redundancies in the neural system, so removing cells does not necessitate some sort of functional change.

 

 

Evolution.

 

The reason why physical changes in the use of certain parts of the nuerological construction of the human brain, is because at least 80% of the brain is ever used. Some people re under the delusion that this is only the tyoe of brain power ever used when someone has a ''brain storm...'' But i assure you, everyone uses the same amount of brain power. The results are a dillusion.

 

Removing cells are a consequence of having different levels of intellegance, but the other times is like having the consequence of the extra levels.

[iNow]

Evolution.

 

The reason why physical changes in the use of certain parts of the nuerological construction of the human brain, is because at least 80% of the brain is ever used. Some people re under the delusion that this is only the tyoe of brain power ever used when someone has a ''brain storm...'' But i assure you, everyone uses the same amount of brain power. The results are a dillusion.

 

Removing cells are a consequence of having different levels of intellegance, but the other times is like having the consequence of the extra levels.

 

Tom, I'm not following your point, nor did you provide the definition I requested. Would it be safe for me to assume that you are approaching this more poetically than scientifically (as that is very much what seems to happening here).

[Tom Vose]

Well, my scientific knowledge of this, has no effect over the entire ensemble...

 

I may not talk English very well, but, i know probably more scientfic knowledge on physical sciences, if you really want to start this game???

[Mokele]

OK, I'll make it perfectly simple -

 

Where's the data to support this? Data, not theory. Show me some results, some phenomenon which cannot be explained any other way.

 

I'd advise you start answering questions in a simple, forthright, and direct manner.

 

Mokele

[Tom Vose]

Though my scientific knowledge of quantum psychology may have...

 

Mokele.. Fine, I will...

 

There is no consistent ''data'' as you put it, to theory or consequential analysis of conciousness... however, this only lies between the thoeries i have chosen, and the rules which are scientifically-based on what would need to be made.

[Mokele]

If there is no data, it's garbage.

[Tom Vose]

What data does one require, and that is what is beond the theoretical?

[Mokele]

The way science works is that you come up with a hypothesis. You then figure out what this hypothesis predicts about the natural world. Then, you design an experiment which, if you are right, will have an outcome that cannot be explained by other theories. Then, most important of all, you perform the experiment.

 

All science is based on data. If you don't have any data to support your hypothesis, it's not even worth talking about. That's why science is so much more effective and useful than philosophy - rather than just being content to think up neat ideas, scientists actually go out and *test* these ideas to see if they're actually right.

 

Until an idea has been scientifically tested, until there is actual data, it's just a speculation.

 

 

So, what do I want? Well, it's your hypothesis. Figure out predictions from that hypothesis, design an experiment where one of these predictions would be tested and either supported or refuted. Then run the experiment, and show us the results.

 

Does it sound like a lot of work? Welcome to science - most scientific papers are the result of over 1 year of solid, constant work, often more.

 

Mokele