The Emergence of Individual consciousness

 The Emergence of Individual Consciousness: What processes lead to the emergence of the voice representative of our experience of being alive? 

As a matter of fact, given the parallelism between system ideologies and animal species' DNAs, it is possible to find some very good insight of what makes in Nature for an optimal organization of a large population of units. A careful analysis of Nature reveals that a perfect equilibrium of competition an cooperation is the key for any complex system fitness and success. Clearly, if the various parts unite and cooperate towards a common goal, the system will be stronger. Yet, who or how is such goal going to be set? Evidently it is no good to pull in the same direction, if the goal is a bad one and all efforts are aimed towards a wrong target. Nature seems to indicate that competition is the optimal form for a very complex system to determine what goals to strive for: several different prospective goals will be raised and compete against each other. Whichever comes out on top will be naturally selected as the system's next objective. Animal species are living proof of the optimality of this model of cooperation and competition. Indeed, the animal's brain will have all the cells in the organism work together in the same direction. On the other hand, inside the brain, various groups of neurons will raise different prospective goals and compete to impose their aims over all others.     

Human societies seem to be following the same trend, albeit, given that we are only a very recent invention, it is of no surprise that we are a few steps behind, still striving at earlier stages along the optimization process. THe good news are that we already made it to the stage, where we got a brain. The bad news are that, evidently, we have not yet been able to get it to work very well... Given this sad state of affairs, rather than tediously going on and on bitching about it, it is only smart to ask ourselves, why is that our governments are so dysfunctional and are clearly something more than just one step behind the animal brain? As a matter of fact, it will be more productive and provide more insight to ask, why is that the animal brain works so very well?    

If we compare our governments with the animal brain, it seems that the common dysfunctionality of the former is best explained by the lack of competition to set the course the society is going to follow. Now, while it corresponds to the government's executive office to determine the course of action of our societies, the decisions on what actions the animal is going to execute are taken in the conscious part of its brain. Indeed, in the same way that the government can be seen as the brain of the society, the executive office serves as the conscious part of the brain. Yet, the brain in general, and consciousness in particular, does not function in the way which is most intuitive to us. 

As pack animals, we have it very deeply wired in our minds, that decisions are always made by the one alpha member; for any specific matter, there is always some individual, who has the final say. It was then only natural that, in the early days of brain research, neuroscientist kept looking for the kind of 'grandmother neuron', which would signal whenever a specific stimulus was detected or a specific action had to be executed. However, as much as they looked, no such grandmother neuron could ever be found. There is simply no single neuron declaring to everyone else: "this is a face" or issuing the order: "let us pull the trigger". It seems like Nature figured out long time ago a major vulnerability in this coding model: namely, if there is one single neuron responsible for recognizing the image of a human face, what will happen the inevitable day that said neuron dies? Will we not be able to recognize human faces anymore? If there is one single neuron responsible for calling the shots, what will happen the inevitable day that said neuron dies?   

THe solution Nature found to this problem is known by the name of population coding. Population codes is Nature's truly ingenius form of perfect democracy. Every neuron will have some 'selectivity' or preferred response; thus whenever an input is fed, the neuron's firing rate will indicate its belief, that its preferred response is appropriate to said input. Importantly, the neuron's firing rate only provides a rough estimate of its level of confidence, so that the neuron will still exhibit some activity to slight deviations from the input pattern , that will usually get it most excited. In a basic example, we could imagine some neurons firing maximally to white faces (though they will still exhibit some activity to darker-skinn faces), while a second group of neurons will be selective for black faces. Although at first glance this may seem to follow the 'grandmother neuron' coding scheme, in actuality it is necessary to consider the voices of the entire population of neurons, in order to decipher the system's response. Indeed, we will still be able to identify a brown colored faced from the moderate firing rates of the 'black-selective' neurons and the 'white-selective' neurons. Finally, population codes are not only found to code percepts, but apply in exactly the same fashion to code motor commands or any other concepts. For instance, a group of neurons may be selective for left turns, whereas another group may fire preferably to right turns.    

In order to fully appreciate the mesmerizing beauty and power of population codes it would be useful to consider an example from line detection: In the visual cortex there are neurons, which will fire maximally to horizontal lines (0 degrees), while some others prefer diagonal lines (45 degrees), and yet another third group are selective to vertical lines(90 degrees). If then a slightly inclined horizontal line (10 degrees) is presented, the 'horizontal-selective' neurons will fire vigorously, the 'diagonal-selective' neurons will fire moderately, and the 'vertical-selective' neurons will remain basically silent.   

 

Crucially, the genius of this coding scheme is that one or more neurons may get it wrong and the system will still be able to produce an accurate response (this quality is even more so important, since neurons have the very positive habit of responding slightly differently to the very same input presented at different times). For instance, it does not matter if a 'diagonal-selective' neuron fails to burst to a diagonal line, since the system will still be able to recognize it from the activity (firing rates) of the other units in the population. At the end of the day, much unlike in a fake-democratic process, it would be fair to declare, that the population has spoken.

Yes, we all feel in our heads the voice of consciousness continually and interminably going through our train of thoughts. Yet, such one, single voice does not have any physical manifestation and therefore does not exist in itself; but is just a construct unifying and externalizing the beliefs or levels of confidence of millions of neurons spread over innumerable neural populations inside our brain. As a matter of fact, our thoughts are nothing but a magical collective and synchronized movement of neural activity, going through a continuous and seemingly endless flow of population codes.

Interestingly, at this point it is possible to observe how human societies have slowly been following the same kind of evolution from -grandmother unit- coding to population codes. As the State slowly grew and extended its dominions over progressively wider swathes of land, it became more and more difficult for a single man (let alone a woman) to maintain control of all the peoples living in "His" territory. Through trial and error, men slowly came to terms with the fact, that they will have to rely on other individuals to maintain order on Their behalf. This is obviously easier said than done. If the regional governors required to be granted some power, in order to keep the locals under control, what prevents any of the governors from eventually using his forces against his overlord? Certainly, only a fool would think that his pledge of allegiance will. Still, assuming that the King is the strongest, one would say that, if His underlings know what is good for them, they will be sure to stay quiet, be nice and behave. However, if the King allows any sign of faltering to transpire, it will only be natural that dreams of grandeur will start rising among the big men of the realm. In fact, one would only expect that many others have sense the blood in the water; so it will just be smart to reach out to them, pondering the possibility of establishing some alliance, joining forces and overthrowing the tyrant. 

Through trial and error, kings slowly came to learn, that the best antidote against this constant menace, is to establish some royal ideology: you know, it would only be best for everybody, if we all unite under the King's leadership. Importantly, the bond went both ways, though. The royal ideology indeed constituted an unwritten agreement binding both sides: the magnates and, most definitely, the King as well. The magnates will all stay quiet, behave and follow the King, so long He does all what they all want him - and He has pledged - to do. Is He going to serve God (that is, is He going to be true to His pledge and obey the Ideology)? Is He going to conquer new lands? Is He going to make us all richer? As a matter of fact, contrary to what the priests of our fake-Democracy ideology are instructed to tell us, the origin of Parlament was not to debate legislation to better regulate the life of the society. Rather, when King Alfonso IIX called the Castilian towns' representatives for a meeting, King John I accepted to sign the Carta Magna and King Henry III agreed to 'parle' with the English noblemen, it was to talk the big men of the realm into raising money to fund the King's military campaigns. Four centuries later, the English noblemen chopped Charles I's head off, because they found him to be a ruthless asshole. Yet, it was not long before they called Charles I's son, Charles II, to replace the old king, since they came to realize that, after all, they nevertheless needed some ruthless asshole, some William the Conqueror or (better yet) Alexander the Great,  to lead them in their ruthless, relentless and neverending hunt for wealth and glory. 

Power thus slowly transferred from the King to the Ideology. As the State grew, more magnates became progressively necessary to maintain order, and the King's figure was thus slowly dwarfed along the way; His Majesty lost his preminent and dominant role, and became just one more actor in the global scene. Eventually, the Revolution will put the last nail in the King's coffin, and the System's Ideology will finally be written down into the Constitution, for everybody to pledge allegiance to. Of course, it goes without saying that we will only write down those aspects of the System's ideology, which can be safely revealed and divulged to the Children. For instance, we will be sure to omit any mention that the upper class will enjoy far more opportunities to succeed than the lower classes; but instead will propagandize it as the many awesome rights - such as the right of legal representation or freedom of speech -, we will now enjoy, if one has the buttload of money required to put them into effect. We blindly and fervently believe that the Revolution finally set us all free; but, as a matter of fact, it was only the Ideology which broke out free. The Ideology's bond to the King was severed and it went from being the Royal Ideology to be haled as the System Ideology. As a matter of fact, from then on out humans became slaves to the Ideology, much like any regular cell to the organism it belongs to: Indeed, no matter how evil, ruthless and harmful the System may be, no single human being will ever have enough power to change it. Any importan decision requires the agreement of many different people, and - even if one or more persons may quixotically try to come up with some strange radical and groundbreaking idea - the ideology dominating the overwhelming majority will always prevail, get imposed and re-establish order. Who would want to risk losing the perks of the current status quo? Certainly not the majority. Certainly not those who benefit the most from the current status quo. Certainly not those with any sway to make any significant change. We all know it, whoever does not abide and follow the values, principles and orders of Fake-Democracy will be replaced and thrown into irrelevance and oblivion. The fight against the evil System is in point of fact so hopeless that the Ideology's priests have even been able to convince us, that Don Quixote's fight against the evil giants is as futile and foolish as tilting at wind mills. To make a long story short, it does not matter if One or more persons get it wrong, the System will still be able to extract and produce an accurate response     

Yes, we still have the President; but, if the President (for that sake, any relevant political figure) is always surrounded by a swarm of advisors and coaches, constantly telling her or him, what is the Democratically correct thing to say and the Democratically correct thing to do, in order to show her or his leadership skills, to what extent are said leadership skills really hers or his? Indeed, our president merely embodies and externalizes the voice of The People. Now, much unlike the neurons in our brain, the people only get to speack once every four years. Hence, in the meantime, the Ideology's current of thought, as vocalized by Public Opinion, will speak for them. Besides, if the people is not happy, they will only need to wait four years until the next elections, where they will be given the chance to revise a few details here and there in the agreement with the President. 

Clearly, complex human societies are not quite there, but we are still a few steps behind Nature. While we long departed from the grandmother coding model, where a single individual imposed his say over the rest, we are still far from a population coding model, where the population is constantly voicing its true needs and desires, and the executive office is only there to heed and provide for them. While in the animal brain power is exerted and flows from the bottom up, in contemporary human societies power is still exerted from the top down. Our fake-democratic system ideology explains that Public Opinion is the voice of the people - it represents and speaks for us - and as such its role and duty is to check and control the executive office. Yet mass-Media is not about listening to the populace, but more like the opposite: namely, to "inform", explain and indoctrinate the Children into how things work, what is good and what is bad, what is right and what is wrong, and what to do and what not to do. After all, if they are the most learned, well-informed and successful among us, they should know best what it takes to succeed; you think not? Consequently, if the executive office follows the will of the people, but the people's will is shaped and defined by the magnates who control Media, then the President is only following the script of the Ideology, as dictated by the magnates of the realm.

Now, it goes without saying that, if those at the top set the course, they are naturally going to lead everybody wherever their particular interests are best served, whereas everybody else's needs and desires are going to be ignored and neglected. 

Clearly we still have much to learn from how our brain works around this problem; namely, how is our consciousness placed at the service of the entire organism? If the conscious level of our brain, as the executive office of the animal organism, has direct control over the muscles, what prevents the neurons making up consciousness from emulating those at the top of human societies in taking advantage of using their power in their very own interest? The Ideology will of course always disingenuously put all the blame of human complex societies' dysfunctionality on the evil of human nature: human beings are selfish, only look after one's own, and will never feel any genuine concern for the wellbeing of others, let alone the common good. Yet, there is no indication that neurons are any tiny bit less selfish. Definitely, it is knot known that neurons feel any kind of love, compassion or concern for anything but themselves. In fact, to the extent that neurons have no soul nor brain and, consequently, it seems safe to say that they do not experience any feeling or whatsoever, it can only be reasoned that neurons are even more self-minded than humans. 

Definitely, the miracle of God or Nature is how to get such an immense number of self-minded units to work together as one. It is certainly intuitive to doubt the fitness of an animal organism, where a tiny fraction of elite neurons only use all other cells in the organism to their very particular advantage. Naturally, following their instincts, the elite units will never see any end to their thirst for pleasure (in whatever form this may come) and will abuse and exploit everybody else to death. Alternatively, if the peasant units are every bit as self-minded as the elite, it would only be natural, if they would constantly be looking for the slightest opportunity to break free. Now, if nobody in the organization cares for the whole and the association only works for a tiny powerful minority, it clearly stands to reason that it will be a matter of time before the system breaks down, falls and is wiped off existence by the competition.

OK, so we all get that an unbalanced complex system is not likely to survive; but that still does not answer how a mutually beneficial agreement may be achieved among a large population of self-minded units. As the discovery of the population coding scheme shows, in the same way that in our modern human societies there is no single individual who holds all executive power, there is no single neuron in our brain, which represents the voice or the will of our consciousness.. Rather, in the same way that power in our modern human societies results from the agreement of many different power brokers, consciousness is again a construct resulting from the activity of millions of neurons spread over innumerable nueral populations. Moreover, whereas neurons project output signals to the muscles, the brain receives powerful input signals from tissues all over the body.

Fascinatingly, the reasoning keeps feeding back and we are just about to close the circle. In the same way that the study of the principles and mechanisms operating in the brain provides good insights on how it may be possible to improve the functioning of complex human societies; we can use the same concepts and mechanisms, which explain the rise of Civilization, to likewise visualize and understand how does Consciousness emerge:

Consciousness emerges when the joint activity and cooperation of a population of units give rise to a consistent sequence of actions and behaviors firmly aimed at the advancement of the standing of the whole in the world. Indeed, the basic purpose of our thoughts is to establish the foundations and elaborate the plans and strategies to advance our fitness and standing in the environment, and it is the joint activity and cooperation of the neurons in our brains what produce the coherent sequence of actions and behaviors which make up said plans and strategies. As our neurons start coming up with intermediate milestones to accomplish our ultimate goal, as well as the plans necessary to achieve said milestones, the first thoughts emerge in our minds on what are our needs and desires, as well as what plans should we follow to, respectively, satisfy and achieve them. As Descartes stated, the moment we start thinking on our needs and desires , as well as what is what we should do in order to fulfill them, becomes the moment where we become aware of their existence; that is, the moment we become conscious of our very own existence. Indeed, at some point it starts feeling as our train of thoughts have acquired life of its own.  

Neurons in the inferior temporal cortex (IT) develop selectivity for certain complex visual patterns such as facial features: whenever the preferred visual stimulus falls into the neuron's 'receptive field' (field of view), it will cause the cell to elicit a burst of action potentials. On the other hand, neurons in the Lateral Intra-Parietal sulcus (LIP) have been observed to be specialized in the coding of locations in the environment in eye-centered coordinates. Unlike their counterparts in IT, LIP neurons' bursts of activity may serve sensorial and or motor functions: namely, they may code the location of a stimulus in the environment and or the target location for a saccade (abrupt eye movement between fixations). In the latter case, the excited firing rates of LIP neurons pointing at different target locations should be seen as competing against each other; so that whichever stimulus draws most activity and gathers most support wins the competition, and will become the next pattern we look at. Importantly, this competition can be biased and directed based on "our wishes". Indeed, those LIP neurons pointing at some specific "sought-after stimulus" will received enhanced support from neurons in the visual cortex responsive for said "sought-after stimulus". Now, while LIP neurons code locations in eye-centered coordinates, in other areas of the parietal cortex other reference systems are employed. Obviously, trunk-centered and hand-centered coordinates are better suited for grasping and other hand actions. In addition, head-centered coordinates are very useful to transform between different reference frames, like, for example, when reaching for a visual target, or in many other visual-motor coordination tasks.    

To make a very long story short, exactly as in a complex society, we find in the brain countless 'populations' of neurons specialized at a plethora of different tasks. The magic spark then ignites when one of these populations of neurons (most likely in the prefrontal cortex) connects the dots and sets all other cells to work together! For instance, whenever we need to find a certain visual stimulus in the environment, these prefrontal cortex neurons issue a command to retrieve from memory a visual representation of the sought-after stimulus. This mental representation is then projected into the visual cortex, most likely through the inferior-temporal cortex. In fact, experimental evidence suggests, that neurons in the visual cortex responsive for those features, which make up the sought-after stimulus, will receive this kind of top-down / feedback, enhance activity. Consequently, if the stimulus turns out to be present in the visual field, those visual cortex units selective for its visual features and those LIP units selective for its eye-centered position will fire more strongly. In other words, the sought-after stimulus will win the competition for attention, as the LIP units coding its location impose the target for the next saccade. Hence, next thing we know is that the sought-after stimulus is right before our eyes, and our wish has been fulfilled.  

Clearly, as long as the different parts work together, the whole stays alive. Consequently, the feeling of being alive corresponds to the activity of those units coordinating - at the highest level - all the other units in the organization. The beautiful music of life goes on playing, as long as the conductor of the orchestra maintains the synchrony. Interestingly, when it comes to our consciousness, we get this view from the top down; whereas, when it comes to our nation, we get the view from the bottom up. Indeed, our thoughts reflect what we need and desire, as well as how we should act to fulfill those needs and desires: "Where is X? Ah, there it is! Now, let's act upon X to achieve Y", "Hmm, I feel hungry, let's go get some food", "Oh, my baby is crying, I need to feed it some food". Similarly, if we watch mass-Media, we would see what those at the top of the society think the nation should do, in order to flourish and prosper. They are the voice of the nation and it feels as we could hear what is going through the nation's mind, what does the nation have in mind: "The drought will cause this year a low agricultural yield: we will need to import some food", "One of our allies has been attacked, we should send them some aid to help in their defense".  

 

Interestingly, if we consider who is the people that speak for our collective mind, it is much easier to realize how much less credit our consciousness deserves for all the brainstorming going on in our brains. In the same way that our political leaders are by far not the brightest of among us, there is a lot of brainpower involved in our instincts, which our reason does not deserve any credit for. Contrary to what we have always so intuitively believed, inspiration is not an act of magic; but there is an actual process to it and a lot of 'brain muscle' is involved. As research in computational neuroscience indicates, ideas do not all of a sudden magically light up out of thin air. Rather, they have been cooked for quite a while in our unconsciousness. Ideas are the result of many different hypothesis, that have been raised and explored in our unconsciousness. Most of them will die off at a stroke. Yet, a few will warrant deeper investigation and eventually may be raised for our reason's final assessment. Our feelings constitute an even stronger case in this direction: as they rise from our unconsciousness, our feelings set the needs and desires that our reason will have to pursue, or else we will feel deeply depressed. In fact, in the same way that public opinion is what really drives political power in our modern societies, it would be reasonable to say that it is all the computation and processing involved in our instincts, what is really in charge and drives our reason.

Indeed, the big majority of our brain forming what we call unconsciousness, is where (among other thoughts) our needs and desires are computed; whereas the small minority forming our consciousness is merely where the plans to fulfill these wishes are elaborated. Hence, to the extend that our consciousness is the part of the brain responsible for operating our muscles, it would be reasonable to see it as the organism's armed-forces executive office, acting in full servitude to the needs and desires established in all the levels of our unconscious brain. We call it reason and therefore enjoy thinking it constitutes the jewel of the crown of our intellect; but those at the top of our societies are likewise totally convinced they are the smartest among us, and yet we know how nonsensical such an ego-centric view is.