The human brain is one of the most complex structures known to us in nature. It consists on average of about one hundred billion nerve cells (neurons) and about one hundred trillion connections between them. To get proportions, consider that the average number of neurons in the brain is similar to the number of stars in the Milky Way galaxy. According to all the findings we know today, the brain is responsible for what makes us who we are, for our thoughts, feelings, memories, experiences and imaginations. Unlike in the well-known song, the soul bird is not in the heart but in the brain. But the question of how the brain produces our consciousness, how we experience and are aware of the world around us and how we are aware that we exist, still remains a great and interesting mystery. We know how to identify the functions of different brain areas (for example vision areas, speech, etc.), but how exactly do the brain areas work? And how does this complex brain network integrate and create new properties such as consciousness? We still have no idea. Answers to these questions for me are the ultimate goal of brain research and will constitute a big leap in our understanding of ourselves and the nature around us.
Science and physics work slowly, a long journey in which step by step we solve puzzles and understand new insights about reality. The group to which I belong in the physics department of Bar Ilan University, led by Professor Shlomo Havlin and Professor Reuven Cohen, added a small layer on the way to understanding the mystery of consciousness in a study recently published (August 2016) in the scientific journal New Journal of Physics. Fortunately, my supervisors let me lead the research in a fascinating direction, we tried to understand from the structure of the brain network how the brain organizes information and integrates it and how new properties, such as consciousness, can be created in the brain network. We suspect that we have succeeded in finding the "conscious network" of the cerebral cortex. In the past philosophers assumed that there is a certain area in the brain that is the conscious area, you can think of this area as a small person who looks at the rest of the brain activity and is aware of it. They called this area Homonoculus. But today, after the study of the brain and consciousness has advanced significantly thanks to the scientific method, we know that there is no homonoculus. There is no specific area responsible for conscious perception. The brain is not a single unit but a network in which each part is responsible for a different function. From studies we know that every time the brain is aware of something (for example the person reports to us that he noticed a certain object) there is extensive activity not in a certain part of the network but all over the network. Human consciousness appears to be a property generated by the entire brain network.
To study such complex structures as the brain, scientists use advanced mathematical methods that will be able to describe the great complexity and dependence between all parts of the system. We used a mathematical field called network theory. Network theory turns complex processes into a network with vertices and connections between the vertices (arcs). The friends on Facebook for example can be represented as such a network where each member is a vertex and the connections between the members are the arcs in the network. We have turned the brain neuron network into such a network. with the help of brain imaging technologies (MRI, DTI) mapped groups of nerve cells in the human cerebral cortex (the most developed and evolutionarily new area of the brain) to a thousand vertices and fibers of connections between the nerve cells were mapped to 15,000 arcs (or connections). This way we got an approximate network of the human cerebral cortex on which we could run various mathematical analyses.
We are not the first to look at the cerebral cortex as a network. Today it is already known, for example, that the brain network is a "small world network", a network in which information reaches quickly from one side of the network to the other with the help of many shortcuts. It is also known that the cerebral network has special vertices called "hubs". These are vertices that have many connections (like a central station of information) and it turns out that all these hubs are closely connected among themselves, which causes information to flow quickly throughout the brain network. With the help of the network we analyze the different parts of the system and try to show how the complicated connections in the network produce new properties that the individual vertices that make up the network do not have. The idea is that such global features can arise (or emerge) from the activity of the entire network. Consciousness seems to be such a global feature, it unites a lot of brain information into a single experience, therefore the leading theories today assume that consciousness is not in one neuron or in one area, but arises from the activity of the entire brain network (and as we have seen, so do the findings).
To try and show how new features can arise from the activity of the entire network, it is necessary to examine not only the features of individual vertices in the network, but also features of larger areas consisting of many vertices. For this we used a mathematical method called K-shell decomposition. This method checks not only how well each vertex is connected to others but also the entire neighborhood of the vertex, how well all the vertices in the neighborhood of the vertex are connected to each other. During this test, a neighborhood of vertices that is not tightly connected will be removed from the network, while a neighborhood of vertices that is well connected will survive the process (see video at the end of the article). In this way it is possible to reveal the internal structures of the network, different layers of connectivity, starting from the least connected layer to the layer that is connected in the best way in the network. We call this layer the core of the network. Until now, scientists have only looked at the core of the network, the most connected layer, while we have seen that all the layers of connectivity in the network are interesting. They tell us about the internal structure of the network and the hierarchy of information processing in the network. This is how we discovered that there is a connection between the connectivity layer and the various brain functions it performs.
The first finding we discovered is that about twenty percent of the vertices in the cerebral cortex network form the core of the network, all other eighty percent of the vertices in the network connect with each other and link all the different connectivity layers of the network (see first image - the topology of the cerebral cortex network). It is interesting that when comparing the cortical network to other networks, such as the Internet, significant differences are discovered. In the Internet network, for example, about a quarter of the vertices are isolated vertices that are not in the core and do not connect to the other connectivity layers of the network. Their only connection to the rest of the network is through connections between them and the vertices of the nucleus (these are the "legs of the jellyfish" that can be seen in picture number one in the topology of the Internet network). In the cerebral cortex there are no such isolated vertices at all. Our brain network seems to be much more strongly connected than the internet, which makes it much more efficient than the internet.
When you look at the different connectivity layers of the network, you can identify three types of layers. Connectivity layers that are relatively weakly connected, connectivity layers that are connected quite strongly and the core environment - the layers that are most strongly connected in the network. It turns out that each such type of connectivity layer does perform other roles in the network. We seem to see here the hierarchy of information processing in the brain, where at each stage of the hierarchy more and more information is integrated. This is how the information flows in a hierarchy from the layers with the weak connectivity to the layers with the good connectivity and to the nucleus where at each stage more and more information accumulates and undergoes a more significant consolidation.
Weakly connected layers have very specific roles in the network, for example face recognition or voice recognition. After these areas have finished performing calculations, the information goes to the areas that are connected in a much better way. These are areas that integrate the previous information and decide on responses. Among the functional areas that belong to these layers are working memory areas and executive areas that are responsible for performing tasks. Finally the information reaches the environment of the nucleus, the most connected layers in the network (see second picture, the information unification hierarchy of the cerebral cortex network).
The nucleus of the cerebral cortex is very interesting. This is not one functional area, but different areas found all over the cerebral cortex. And yet all these areas are connected among themselves in a very, very strong way. Thus they are able to carry out the full possible consolidation of information. While in the other layers of connectivity there are mainly small and local structures (such as an urban road system), we discovered that in the core there are mainly global structures (such as a branched intercity road system). It seems that the nucleus spread over the entire cerebral cortex functions as a single unit that does most of the unification of information and can perform a unique global function (see picture three, nucleus of the cerebral cortex network).
What unique global role can nuclear produce?
Our proposal is that the nucleus of the cerebral cortex produces consciousness. He is the structural infrastructure from which consciousness can emerge.
The video "How does the brain network produce consciousness?"
A short video demonstrating a network of flashing lights and how a new feature, which the individual vertices do not have, is created from the activity of the entire network (recognize what you see?). Is consciousness also such a feature that injures from the activity of the entire neural network?
Today there is no sufficient theory that manages to explain what consciousness is and how it is created, but as I mentioned, the theories that try to explain how the brain produces consciousness are based on the fact that consciousness is a process that unifies a lot of information into one phenomenon. One of the leading theories today that tries to explain the formation of consciousness is called the information unification theory of Professor Giulio Tononi from the University of Wisconsin in the USA. The theory claims that when a system unites enough relevant information at a certain stage, a new feature will appear - consciousness (a sudden transition, similar to the transition between liquid and gas). In order for consciousness to be created, two conditions must be met, a condition of unifying information and a condition of separating information. On the one hand the brain needs to know how to separate the main thing from the therapist, calculate and focus on relevant information and on the other hand two different parts of the brain need to unite all this relevant information together. According to this proposal, there are areas in the brain where there is no consciousness that are responsible for specific functions and the production of relevant information and other areas that constitute the entirety of consciousness in the brain because they receive the relevant information and unify it into one complete experience.
The hierarchy of information we found in the cerebral cortex fits the requirements of these theories and shows that there are indeed areas with specific roles and a global work area in the cortical network. The weaker connectivity layers are not aware, they perform specific roles and transmit the relevant information to the core of the network. The nucleus unites the relevant information with the help of its unique global structure and thus functions as the brain's consciousness complex, the area from which the feature of awareness can arise.
When examining the brain functions of the nucleus accumbens regions, it is indeed seen that they are related to activities that include awareness. The nucleus includes, for example, areas that are active when we meditate or daydream. In addition, there are researchers who identify exactly the nuclear areas we found with the areas where our sense of 'I' is created (for example Professor George Northhoff University of Ottawa in Canada).
And what is the next step?
Now it is possible to extend the test to the entire cerebral network and not just to the cerebral cortex to describe precisely what the nuclear areas are and what the entire cerebral information integration hierarchy is. But the most important step will be to understand what is the neural dynamics that takes place in the nucleus and creates the feature of consciousness. In-depth questions require in-depth answers and we usually find these answers in the field of physics. The power of physics comes from the use of mathematics and equations to understand and reveal the basic laws of nature. If we want to understand what consciousness is and how the brain produces it We must understand what the mathematical equations are that describe the dynamics of the neural network. In my opinion, the day we manage to describe the functioning of the brain with the help of equations, we will also be able to understand what consciousness is and solve the question of body and mind.
For more details about Torah Reshet, the methods of investigation and the results of the research, in the video Where is the soul bird? Israeli researchers are looking for the conscious network in the brain
to the original article in New Journal of physics
More of the topic in Hayadan:
5 תגובות
skeptic,
Indeed the subject of the question of body and mind is a big and interesting question. I'm planning to write an article on this topic and then I'll get into a lot of the interesting questions you've presented here. Can consciousness be created from inanimate matter? And if so, is it from any material? Is the biological material important? Is the body important? Can we make consciousness in computers/robots? Do they then deserve the same rights as humans? Can we copy our consciousness and live forever?
Fascinating questions and one day they will be very relevant
Hello Eddie and thank you for your comment
There is a wonderful mystery around us and one of these mysterious phenomena is consciousness and how can there even be a connection between a physical body and a soul that looks non-physical (by the way, an immaterial soul is also not a good solution to this problem). I will write an article just on this topic in the future. I chose physics precisely to embark on a journey to understand the mysterious phenomena around us. For me, any phenomenon, if it exists, is natural and therefore acts on it as if it were natural laws and we can reveal them. This is how we expand physics. The question of what consciousness is and how much physics needs to be expanded to understand this phenomenon is still an open and fascinating question.
But in order for us to progress in the study of the phenomena we must distinguish what is real and what is not. For this we developed the scientific method which is based on casting doubt. I also thought in the past that scientists are not ready to investigate "supernatural" phenomena and as soon as we do investigate them we will discover that these are existing phenomena, such as in the case you mentioned of out-of-body near-death experiences. But in recent years it turned out to me that this assumption is not true. It turns out that a lot of scientific research has been done in this area and in many other areas of "supernatural" research. And what they discover is that there is no experimental confirmation of the phenomenon you wrote - "near-death experiences in which information was obtained that goes beyond the immediate sensory proximity of the body, in such a way that even if the person was fully conscious, he would have had no possibility of obtaining the information."
More precisely, whenever there are such claims, when you check them in depth you find that these tests were not serious, there were flaws and therefore it is not certain whether the reports are reliable or not. As soon as you do an inspection without defects, unfortunately, all these symptoms disappear. So it seems that there are no such phenomena of a real departure of the soul from the body. For more details on these studies, see Gilad Diamant's excellent blog "Sharp Thinking". There he does what most of us don't have time to do. He reads all the relevant scientific studies and writes about them and what their problems or advantages are (and of course adds links to all the original articles). Here is a link to the first part of his series of articles on the subject of near-death experiences and experiences of the kind you wrote about: "At the gates of death - part 1"
https://sharp-thinking.com/2012/02/09/%d7%91%d7%a9%d7%a2%d7%a8%d7%99-%d7%94%d7%9e%d7%95%d7%95%d7%aa-1-%d7%a0%d7%a2%d7%99%d7%9d-%d7%9c%d7%94%d7%9b%d7%99%d7%a8/
Thanks for the interesting article.
The author's hypothesis states that "the day we succeed in describing the functioning of the brain with the help of equations, we will also succeed in understanding what consciousness is and solving the question of body and soul".
It seems to me that the hypothesis is very sweeping. It is very possible that an "accurate description of the functioning of the brain with the help of equations" will grow an insight of true value regarding the functioning of the brain from a simple material point of view, i.e. in the terms of physics accepted today. But it seems to me that the phenomenon of consciousness goes beyond this material plane. It seems to me that such a comparative description would still describe a thinking machine like a computer, albeit at a very high level of complexity and sophistication. To understand the phenomenon of consciousness, a broader material concept is necessary.
I base my words, among other things, on near-death experiences. Today there is a wide and rich empirical inventory regarding the various types of the phenomenon, with the broadest common denominator among them being the fact of the existence of consciousness outside and without connection to mind and body. The existing explanations, as diverse as they may be and in some cases also sophisticated and potent, do not give a complete explanation that makes sense. For example, I do not know of any explanation for near-death experiences in which information was obtained that exceeded the immediate sensory environmental proximity of the body, in such a way that even if the person was fully conscious, he would have had no possibility of obtaining the information, nor remembering it and reporting it after the end of the near-death experience. For example: real information given by someone who has experienced the brink of death, after he 'woke up' - information that refers to the existence of an object or the existence of an occurrence outside the intensive care room where resuscitation efforts were made on a person in the hospital (for example: an unusual object on the roof of a building the patients 'viewed from above', or a report from the head of the department to the family members of the hospitalized patient in the waiting room, which is 'heard' by the patient as if he were present there in real time, etc.).
It seems to me that in order to gain an in-depth and essential understanding of the phenomenon of consciousness, it is necessary to investigate this empirical material in depth, and then try to examine with scientific honesty and an intellectual perspective, the possibilities of redefining dimensions and essences in material reality. In the meantime, the world of science is not enthusiastic about entering into serious research in the field, and therefore the pretense of getting true information about consciousness and solving the psychophysical problem, only through the existing material perspectives - is problematic.
One of the fascinating questions is the transition that stems from the interesting explanation in the article of the network behavior
to the subjective feelings we feel,
We know, for example, that there is a difference between networks at the switching level between a neuron and a transistor, and this raises the question of whether
There are other differences that can be related to the sense of subjective awareness, the meaning is whether the material from which we are built is necessary to create awareness and a subjective feeling as we feel and the creation of a similar thing within another material will only be a simulation without an internal subjective feeling, just as there are liquids that behave similarly but have different freezing points
Different solubility of other substances in the same liquid medium and many other different properties that are the basis of physics/chemistry,
Was consciousness created in the biological material because there was a possible evolutionary potential that was used by chance during the evolutionary process that occurred over the billions of years of life's development, if this is true then it is likely that elements of consciousness will also be at the lowest levels in the living world
that the explanations of network behavior explain part of the development of that self-awareness familiar to us,
The knowledge in this field will of course allow us to know whether in the future it will be possible to give a subjective feeling of emotion to robots / artificial intelligences, at the moment it does not seem that they have any subjective feeling that surpasses even bacteria
There is nothing there, just an information processing system that in some areas simulates the things we do
Sometimes it even surpasses us in narrow areas, although it is not perception or self-awareness, only an appearance,
Perhaps it can be taken a step further if one day it will be possible to impart feelings of self-awareness
For a robot, perhaps its classification as a robot will no longer be relevant, it will no longer be an empty doll performing a human simulation
These will be a new species, a new breed of life that is not based on the biological material on which life on Earth has been based for billions of years, there is a Westworld movie in which some of the dilemmas that arise are shown, which is this transition between a robot and a self-aware creature (it is not yet clear where the series will take it ) because there are those who see them as a robot and there are those who see them as living creatures,
There is another interesting thing from the series where the robots are seen as sexual objects for the human guests,
There is a Japanese professor who showed how we accept robots that look like robots but shy away from robots that almost look human but with all kinds of cases that are perceived by us as disabilities until the robotic character looks completely human
That there is again our connection to him because now it is completely human
But he didn't bring up the topic of a robot that might no longer be called a robot when it is
With self-awareness and a broad spectrum of feelings like us, it might already be
A new species of life so maybe reluctance will be created again because now the guest maintains a relationship with another species
which has a pretty strong reluctance in most of the human race,
In front of you will be a new species that shares many feelings and emotions with her, but its basis is completely different, with a considerable probability conflicts will be created between the people and such a species of a system that has feelings,
In the series it also comes up where one of the people in charge wants to take the robots back a step, he claims that the guests want to know that it is a robot and not a living being.
The ad is a small piece of software that runs in the background, where data becomes an illusion of reality
It is better to work on the brains of simple creatures, they are supposed to work in the same way