By Manuel Fontoira Lombos, M.D.

Transient coherent (with constant phase difference) activity between single signals (neuronal trains of spikes) in the brain cortex is proposed here as a provable new physiologic mechanism of neuronal integration. The possible implications and consequences of this idea are explained.


1. Neuronal integration.

There are several mechanisms of neuronal integration considered effective nowadays, like neuronal convergence, neuronal synchronicity, neuronal integration by the activity of intermediary neurons, by the re-entry between cortical neural networks, thalamus-cortical re-entry, and others. These mechanisms explain the sum of the complex neuronal activity to become (“emerge”) effective as a whole at some particular scale, and with a negligible error in practice at that scale.

Synchronicity, for instance, would consist, basically, in a phase coincidence (spike by spike) of single action potentials (single signals) of at least two discharging and compatible neurons. Given that single neurons seem to discharge in the form of trains of spikes with a (probably peculiar) firing pattern (that gives place to the possibility of the presence of codes in the system), synchronicity should be in practice the synchronization of trains of spikes.

The synchronization of two trains of spikes, with a different temporal pattern of discharge each, would turn both patterns homogeneous along the time dimension at some scale (in this case, a neuronal or microscopic scale) after getting synchronized, spike by spike, in a matter of time; thus, synchronization would turn two different (heterogeneous) patterns into the same pattern in a matter of time, and identical with a negligible error at a certain scale, homogeneous, as far as the temporal dimension is concerned. It is important to recall this peculiarity of the synchronicity.


2. The emergence of the subjective conscious perception, and the aim of this article.

When a macroscopic individual perceives an object subjectively (an apple, for instance), that object is perceived as a whole, at once, one object only at a time and one object along the time dimension too (in the successive present instants of conscious perception), proving in practice, with a negligible error, the effectiveness of the mental property of the subjectivity. This mental property, subjectivity, in practice means the property to perceive all the complex mental information about an apple as one apple, and that is how it takes place to the naked eye (a confined macroscopic scale of perception), as if one unique and individual (indivisible, irreducible) subject was perceiving that apple. To our intuition, the apple is one because we are one conscious subject, a conscious individual. But the apple is a complex manifold of coded and spatially complex data processed by the neural networks along the time dimension in a microscopic scale.

The change of scale has something to do with the emergence of the mental property of the subjectivity, because de neural processing is microscopic, but the subjective perception is macroscopic, but how does it take place? The mental property of subjectivity possibly emerges by a change of scale in the system, but, which is the “mechanism” of the change of scale then, and of the emergence of the subjectivity eventually? A logical and provable answer is given in this paper.


3. Some details about the subjective perception to take into account.

In spite of the individuality of an object from a subjective point of view, and with a negligible error in practice, that object (like the mental image of an apple) is in fact complex, and therefore divisible into parts, like form and colour. But during the subjective perception of that object, form and colour are a whole, one indivisible thing (indivisible in time, as they are effective at the same time, with a negligible error in practice, at a macroscopic and confined scale, in other words: to the naked eye, the subjective point of view). For instance: an apple looks like one indivisible thing, a unique mental object of perception, as far as it´s form and colour are concerned.

The perception of both, form and colour, takes place at the same time (along the time dimension) from a subjective point of view, becoming form and colour one sole object, one unique subjective experience in practice: one mental image of an apple, or, metaphorically, one conscious subject perceiving one apple (metaphorically, given that the conscious subject and the subjective mental object probably are the same thing, meaning identical in practice).

Form and colour must then become integrated somehow (at the neuronal scale, the microscopic scale), along time, to become one thing (one apple, with a negligible error) at a confined and macroscopic scale, the subjective perception scale. Form and colour must get integrated somehow with the change of scale in the system, change of scale that probably supposes the emergence of the property of the subjectivity (it will be thoroughly explained below, in the point number 7, how all this would take place).

It is important to keep this in mind: form and colour are two different things, and therefore, their hypothetical correlative neuronal codes should be different too, heterogeneous, and synchronization means homogeneity, so synchronization, a form to achieve temporal concurrence, cannot be the final answer to explain their temporal concurrence during the subjective perception of an object with form and colour at the same time, like an apple.


4. The “mechanism” of emergence of the subjectivity, and a provable hypothesis of a new possible mechanism of neuronal integration in the brain cortex (a new effort to solve the “old binding problem”, and the old “neural correlates of consciousness” problem).

In order to explain the “mechanism” of emergence of the subjectivity, to explain at the correlative microscopic neuronal scale the mental property of the subjectivity (which is macroscopically described) the neuronal synchronicity cannot be considered here the final physiological mechanism of integration along the time dimension to explain how this two different trains of spikes correlative with form and colour respectively are integrated and emerge at a larger scale as one apple only. There has to be another way so that the temporal concurrence of form and colour takes place, another mechanism of neuronal integration to explain the subjective perception of form and colour as a whole at a time, as an individual apple to the naked eye. And that mechanism must allow form and colour respective neural heterogeneity, but at the same time make way somehow for their possible temporal concurrence. And the most provable candidate to fulfil this void and this necessity is the neuronal coherence, not the synchronicity. And now it is time to define both of them separately (because coherence is often called synchronization, and synchronization is often called coherence, in other papers, but they will be considered two clearly different phenomena here, in this paper):

This hypothetical neuronal coherence would consist in the transient entry in coherence between single signals (neuronal spikes) of (at least) two compatible neurons of the brain cortex during the subjective perception of, for instance, form and colour as a whole (for instance, one neuron correlated with the perception of form, and another neuron correlated with the perception of colour, perhaps neurons in areas V1 and V2 of the occipital visual brain cortex).

In this paper, the coherence is not the same as the synchronicity (synchronicity means phase coincidence); coherence means: constant phase difference. The synchronicity is not even necessary to have coherence. It is important not to get confused between synchronicity and coherence, because coherence is sometimes called “phase synchronization”.

It is important to note that this new and hypothetical mechanism of neuronal integration, introduced here, the neuronal coherence, would consist in the coherence (constant phase difference) between single signals, not coherence between complex signals (which is already being investigated in quantitative electroencephalography and other neurophysiologic procedures). This must be clearly understood, for the comprehension of this hypothesis, because this is a main source of error to understand it.

This hypothetical coherent activity should be detected empirically, to prove it´s existence, and, in that case, added to the rest of the mentioned mechanisms of neuronal integration, to explain more comprehensively, and at the neuronal (microscopic) level, the neural correlates of the subjectivity, that mental property which is commonly described at a macroscopic (and confined) level as the individual consciousness of each human being.

Our individual mental experience is such that we consider ourselves one concrete and conscious subject that is having one mental and concrete conscious experience about the complex reality surrounding each one of us.

This hypothesis would explain (see below) how this uniqueness and individuality of this mental and conscious experience would become unique and individual, or using a metaphor: how our mental process, the result of billions of instantaneous neuronal discharges, becomes the effective experience of one and only one conscious subject in correlation with that neuronal manifold, in other words, it would explain how a manifold (the brain cortex) becomes effective as one single thing (the conscious subject) to the naked eye (a macroscopic and confined scale).


5. Some consequences and predictions of this hypothesis.

The hypothesis of the coherent neuronal activity (a prediction itself too) means that the subjectivity, the property of the subjectivity (the subjective character of the experience of consciousness), emerges by a sort of recreation at large scale (a fractal behaviour?) of an entanglement among mental objects (mental objects like form and colour, behaving as if they were concrete, meaning individual and irreducible at some scale, objects capable of this deed). May be a mathematician should be able to say if this recreation would be a fractal behaviour or not.

This recreation o an entanglement, a coherent quantum state, obliges the reciprocal prediction of the detectable presence of transient coherent activity between cortical neurons (among single signals, among neurons of previously different compatible neural networks, taken the neurons one by one). There is not an empirical description of this possibility yet, maybe because it has not been intentionally searched for in the past (besides, it involves serious technical difficulties). But it can be searched for, now that the hypothesis is being published and the idea sowed and showed.

The measurement of this hypothetical coherent activity between single neurons would consist in the detection of a transient entry in coherence between at least two cortical neurons, that would get integrated this way (we are talking, then, about a new hypothetic physiologic mechanism of neuronal integration to add to the previously mentioned above). Two neurons of two neural networks integrated by coherence would become this way a part of a new single neural network. Therefore, the detection of this type of activity would help to categorize new types of neural networks.

As said above, synchronization is not necessary for coherence. This is important, because coherence is necessary for entanglement, but synchronization is not necessary for entanglement. And the subjectivity seems to be an entangled state: a manifold behaving as only one thing to some extent: we, as subjects, perceive ourselves as one unique spectator of the multiplicity before our eyes, and it is possible because all that multiplicity is "presented before our eyes" (metaphorically speaking) integrated together in one and only one macroscopic instant in which we cannot, for example, separate form from colour (and in fact it is not one instant, as it is divisible in several instants too at another scale, several milliseconds at a neuronal scale, for instance). Therefore, the uniqueness of the subjectivity should have something to see, some correlation, with the integration of that multiplicity in one moment in time, and that is what coherence can provide, but synchronicity cannot (because phase coincidence eliminates multiplicity, in other words: eliminates heterogeneity, but coherence does not, and that is why coherence should be the answer).

Of course, entanglement is being conceptually understood in the same way as it is understood in quantum mechanics, as a “coherent quantum state”.

The coherence, as described here, should be detected in the brain, hypothetically. This is a logical prediction because an individual mind (a subjective consciousness) seems to be an entangled state (as explained in more detail below), so this coherence should be detected in correlation with a given subjective conscious experience.

Cortical transient coherent neuronal activity would allow to categorize two coherent neurons as belonging to two previously different networks, and so, this would be another way to prove the existence of neural networks, and to categorize them, and another way to prove the possibility of a neuron to belong to more than one network at different moments in time (an old topic in neuroscience).

Another prediction is the possible existence of a “guiding spike” (perhaps related to the existence of intermediary neurons in the cortex, also related to integration in the cortex), namely, the spike of each train that determines the coherence (constant phase difference) of both trains.

This hypothetical transient coherent neuronal activity does not exclude the previous knowledge, but improves it. For instance: it does not discard the importance of the thalamus-cortical system, nor the importance of the synchronicity, or the re-entry, and the importance of the necessity of a certain total number of neurons and of the system´s complexity for the emergence of the property of the subjectivity. Instead it completes the picture, and it possibly explains it with a deeper insight. Coherence is, probably, the main remaining lacking brick in this wall of the mind.

This coherent activity should be detected, possibly, with intra-neuronal electrodes in vivo in awake subjects, while they are subjectively conscious.

Another prediction of this hypothesis is the existence of a heterogeneous facilitation among neural networks (see below for further explanation of this point, in particular, pertaining S, U and N nets).

Another prediction is the necessity of a previous compatibility between networks to be affected by this type of coherence described here.

Another prediction, already stated above, is the possibility of a neuron to belong to different nets not only in different moments (for instance: successive moments), but at the same time as well (if two neurons of two different networks truly become integrated by way of transient coherence).

Another prediction is a peak in energy consumption in the brain during the presence of the subjectivity in the area involved (the reason is that the brain should be doing, during the effectiveness of the subjectivity, something it was not doing while subjectivity did not take place, but without giving up doing what it was doing until that point: becoming coherent between single signals).

This hypothesis also foresees the possibility of the detection of complex patterns of income and outcome of this transient coherent activity in correlation with the complexity of the subjective experience.


6. Importance of this hypothesis.

Some applications would be the predictable detection of this type of coherent activity in thalamus too, to determine if the suspected rudimentary thalamic subjective consciousness exists too, and the possibility to determine whether other animals, apart from man, are subjective, and to determine at what age the human being starts to be a conscious subject, and to determine if a problem in coherent activity would have something to see in some psychiatric states, like schizophrenia.


7. Thorough explanation of the hypothesis.

The hypothesis, from a pragmatic point of view, is a proposition of a hypothetical but provable new mechanism of neuronal integration in the brain cortex: the transient entry in coherence between single signals in the brain cortex.

The neuronal integration is the sum of the neurons´ activity, by means of convergence, activity of intermediary neurons, re-entry, synchronization, etc.

Synchronization means phase coincidence between single signals. Single signals are the spikes of neuronal action potentials (single neuronal bioelectrical discharges along the time scale). Coherence is not the same as synchronization (although coherence is called phase synchronization somewhere else, but not here, to avoid confusion with the terms). While synchronization means phase coincidence, coherence means: constant phase difference. Synchronization is not necessary to have coherence. Coherence between complex signals is explored with brain cartography (a variant of electroencephalography), but this is not what we are referring to here either. The coherence is referred to, here, as constant phase difference between single signals, but not between complex signals. It is important to keep this in mind.

The transient entry in coherence between two single signals in the brain cortex (two neurons) should be considered a new mechanism of integration not yet described, a new way to sum the activity of two neurons to become an activity with unique entity to some effects at a certain scale of detection.

When many neurons are involved in this transient entry in coherence, a new type of neural network should be able to be described in the brain cortex too, and one correlated with a peculiar type of mental activity as well: subjective mental activity.The diverse integration mechanisms of neuronal activity have diverse morphofunctional consequences too. For instance: our brain receives the information of an image twice, because the brain receives it once from each eye, but we perceived one image only, because both images, one from each eye, get integrated in the brain (something necessary to integrate one motor reaction to that image, in order not to collide with one´s own self when moving as an individual!). Classically, from the times of Sherrington, and due to sheer logic, temporal concurrence has been considered responsible of this integration, and it is logical: if both images are equal, and they are effective at the same instant, they may look as one if they superimpose by temporal coincidence, because in that case you should not be able to tell one from the other, and that is what apparently takes place. Given that the perception of an image from two eyes is part of the possibilities of the subjective conscious perception of things, it is logical to conclude that temporal coincidence will have something to do with de subjective experience each one of us experiences.

Temporal coincidence then seems to be important, for instance, for the integration of perception as an effective phenomenon from the subjective (individual, undividable, concrete, elemental, particular, unique) point of view.

We process multiple images in the brain, a manifold of abstract information, of mental objects, of images recreating what we feel from reality. It is like a manifold of consciousnesses (like Zeki´s micro-consciences). But we behave like one and only one consciousness to some extent, to some effects. That means that all that manifold of information is integrated in forms of unique entity to some effects, like to the effect of the subjective perception, which is effective as if a single conscious subject was present in the perceived scene.

And let us not forget that the scene is perceived subjectively as one unique and undividable phenomenon (one mental image of it) despite it is obvious that it consists in a multiplicity of parts (not only two images, one from each eye, but also many components in each image, like several figures, and each one with it´s shape, colour, brightness, movement, etc. all of it integrated in one unique mental subjective perception).

Then, the “trick” of the subjectivity consists in the effectiveness of a manifold as one thing at large scale: what we experience intuitively as “the subject” (the first person conscious spectator of reality), but that we more properly should call: the mental property of the subjectivity, given that we cannot extirpate from the brain with a scalpel a concrete structure that we can name “subject” (the concretion of the “subject” is an illusion; the mind is a physical process, not a concrete thing, like an elemental particle, for instance, and on the other hand, seems to be).

During decades, the synchronicity has been considered the main mechanism for this presumed crucial temporal coincidence in some of this effective mental phenomena, the subjectivity included. And it is logical: the synchronicity is a way to get temporal coincidence, and it is been observed in the brain.

The synchronicity seems to be a logical candidate at first, but it must be discarded here though after a second look: the synchronicity is a phase coincidence, and a phase coincidence makes two signals equal, makes two trains of neuronal discharges adopt the same pattern of discharge, because it consist in their coincidence in time phase by phase, single signal by single signal, picturing the same code both of them in that instance. Therefore, the synchronicity means: homogeneity of the transmitted message (along the time scale). And we have just said that a subjective perception is not homogeneity, because it is a multiplicity of heterogeneous data although experienced with unique (subjective) entity at a given instant (during the effectiveness of the subjectivity). This means that, logically, the synchronicity can not be “the mechanism” to explain the effectiveness of the subjectivity, it has to be another kind of temporal coincidence.
When we look at an apple, we perceive it´s shape and it´s colour at the same time when we do it subjectively (in a figured or metaphorical sense: in the presence of the conscious subject). What we perceive subjectively from an apple is unique (in terms of time) but heterogeneous (in terms of shape and colour). Therefore, shape and colour coincide in time in this example, but, logically, they cannot be doing it by synchronization.

If we subjectively perceive heterogeneity, for example, shape and colour at the same time, and if shape and colour are being coded by patterns of single signals discharges, then the synchronization cannot be the mechanism for the integration of those single signals in correlation with the subjectivity, the effective subjective experience. The mechanism must be another one, but not yet described, so it´s description would be an original concept.

The two types (the two patterns of discharge, or codes) of single signals responsible for the shape and the colour of an apple must coincide in the temporal scale (in time) in order to perceive one apple at a time, and this temporal coincidence cannot logically consist in a synchronization, as stated. The logical alternative is the temporal coincidence by entry of those two different patterns of discharge of single signals in coherence (keeping a constant phase difference instead of performing a phase coincidence). And this is the meaning of the hypothesis proposed here.

How to search for proofs of this hypothesis in the laboratory? Possibly, the hypothesis could be proved by detecting transient entry in coherence between single signals in the brain cortex during the process of subjective perception. For instance: intra-neuronal electrodes should be placed in places like the areas V1 and V2 in the occipital brain cortex (supposedly in charge of shape and colour respectively) while the subject stares at an image of something with shape and colour, like an apple. The objective would be to register the transient entry in coherence between single signals from V1 and V2 (the single signals would eventually keep a transient and constant phase difference between them –and this would be an objective detection of the subjectivity, a great deal of importance for a scientific experiment, if you think of it-). The success of the experiment will depend on the obvious difficulties; number one: to find a pair of neurons in V1 and V2 that are previously compatible to be able to become coherent in the course of time. The transient coherent activity of pairs of neurons has not been detected yet in the brain cortex possibly because it has not been intentionally looked for. An important point of this hypothesis is that this new mechanism of neuronal integration would be the explanation of the vinculation between some quantum-like properties, that some authors seem to find in the brain´s behaviour, and the brain, as it is explained below.


For a deeper insight into the mind´s “clockwork”, we have to take difficulty one step further, from now on:

The information transmitted along parallel morphofunctional neural networks is processed (associated and integrated) in the brain cortex. For instance: let us suppose that the word SUN is shaped to become subjectively conscious during the systematic association and integration of the letters: S, U and N, each letter previously codified in a different S, U and N corresponding network, and each one of those three letter-networks able to establish (synaptic) connections with the rest, maybe by re-entry [1][2], due to reciprocal connections that perhaps should make a peculiar feedback possible, according to some opinions [3] (due to which the letter-networks would be compatible during the word-network integrating process, compatible meaning truly effective at the same time).

There are several neuronal mechanisms described to explain how neuronal integration takes place. Integration supposes, for example, the effectiveness of neuronal behaviour as a whole in a greater scale, for instance: synchronization supposes that the discharge of thousands of neurons in the motor cortex appears or emerges at a large scale (for instance, to the naked eye, to a macroscopic point of view) as the movement of a limb as a whole, as one limb only at a time by the synchronized and coordinated contraction of that limb´s millions of muscle cells connected to those neurons implied in this integration process (integration of a motor movement, in this example). At a certain scale of time, the activity of a manifold at another scale (many microscopic motor neurons) is effective as the activity of one single thing at another scale (one limb moving as a whole to the naked eye, a confined macroscopic scale -confined means macroscopic only, in this case-).

Back to the word SUN: the abstract (abstract meaning unconcrete; while concrete means irreducible) information of those three letter-networks, S, U and N, three abstract objects, will be entangled when those three letter-networks get integrated into a subjective and effective unique word-network, with unique entity (given the subjectivity), and a new abstract object will be effective with the emergent property of the subjectivity, as the subjective perception of SUN (the entanglement of S, U and N) takes place.

Perception means the interpretation of a sensation. A sensation is the abstract information about senses. But sensation is not what the subject says that he/she is conscious of. The subject says that he is conscious of a sensation when that sensation is perceived, and that occurs when the sensation is interpreted, that is why perception is equal to interpretation.

Nevertheless, the interpretation of sensation can give place to two different results, separately or at a time: subjective perception and motor behaviour as another manifestation of perception. Thus, when a sensation is processed in the nervous system, the association and integration of this information can give place to a motor response and/or a subjective perception of that sensation. In fact, we can retire a hand from the fire before being subjectively conscious of the pain, or, on the other hand, we can delay a motor response until subjective consciousness takes part in the process of controlling that particular movement.

To perceive SUN subjectively, the perception of those three letters forming a whole with unique entity is necessary, in other words, the effectiveness of the newly integrated network SUN as a whole is necessary (and with the peculiar emergent property of subjectivity in it´s case).

SUN is information with an abstract character, because the action potentials trains which codify SUN convincingly “isomorphicly”, and the incandescent ball of plasma close to Earth in the sky, do not coexist simultaneously in one spot in space and time with unique entity. A mental image of the Sun, for instance, the word SUN, is the abstract representation of the Sun in the brain. Therefore, the word SUN, as an object, is not concrete, it is abstract, and nevertheless it is an effective (real, detectable) object, not a virtual object: the perception of SUN is truly real, but it is a false Sun. It is necessary not to get the difference between real-virtual and true-false wrongly. When something is mentioned as real, it means it is effective, detectable, not true or authentic or certain.

SUN is abstract information, an abstract object (an object is what an observer determines as an object) and constitutes, in practice, an object with unique entity at first sight with the naked eye (SUN is one word). The morphofunctional network SUN, in which the three corresponding letters are integrated, is effective when SUN is subjective perception (which can be known of by the tale of the system as a whole at large scale, for instance, when at large scale takes place something like a subject stating: “I perceive SUN”), and acceptable as a distinct network with a negligible error to some effect (like perceiving the word SUN distinctly). SUN is a whole with unique entity, like the Sun in practice, which is composed also by many parts (plasmatic ions), but still effective as a unique object to some effect (like being the center of the solar system, from a macroscopic point of view).

According to Husserl [4] (1859-1938), the (subjective) consciousness is the entanglement of the psychic experiences along the uniqueness of it´s course. He said this apparently before the entanglement gained importance as a scientific concept in quantum mechanics.

The various abstract objects, peculiarly shaped in the networks of the brain cortex, entangle and disentangle in the abstract ground, as the networks systematically integrate and disintegrate in the course of the brain´s morphofunctional process (in the course of the discharge of the correlative neurons codified firing patterns).

At some point during the process of parts integration, the shape of a unique object can be formed, and emerge at sight (to the naked eye, in a confined macroscopic scale) as a whole with unique entity, for instance, as SUN, by the entanglement of S, U and N. Due to this emerging unique entity, the subjectivity emerges, consciousness becomes subjective: the consciousness of a unique subject.

The subjectively perceived word SUN identifies with the subject, and, given that SUN is an abstract object, the subject (the unique and conscious spectator of the reality at large scale) is an abstract object too, and not a concrete object gifted with subjectivity. Then, the subject´s concreteness is an illusion, but it works to the naked eye (we believe ourselves to exist as subjects) due to the impossibility to perceive the individuality of the parts while the whole is effective.

Abstract information is abstract, but effective and objective, and this is another reason why this natural fake of the concretion of the subjectivity is effective as a concrete thing from our confined and macroscopic (but short sighted) point of view.

For the subjectivity to emerge as a whole with unique entity, it is necessary that it´s parts entangle and shape into an object with unique entity, with a negligible error to some effect.

The error with which the whole is shaped as an object with unique entity will be negligible if the uniqueness of each part of the emerging (and yet reducible) whole is ignored when the whole is effective. This happens not only when the whole emerges, but when the whole confines as well, for instance, when a whole like SUN is confined in the SUN entangled state. How? Like this: in such state the otherwise possible subjective perception of S, U ans N as individual objects one by one will not take place while the perception of SUN as an object with unique entity is being an effective subjective observation.

The confinement of the subjectivity is one with the emergence of the subjectivity, albeit both phenomena can be categorized separately.

This confinement of SUN consists in the confinement of the subjective process of observation in one given scale, namely, the macroscopic scale linked to subjectivity in one given instant (the scale in which perception at first sight is taking place, the scale effective at the same instant in which the network SUN, whose effectiveness as a whole defines that scale, is effective at sight as an object with unique entity, when the perception of SUN is effective).

While the subjective perception (of SUN) is effective, it behaves as a whole (SUN is a whole, despite being reducible to S, U and N), due to the confinement (SUN gets confined in the scale of words, out of the scale of letters). The effectiveness of the new scale isolates the individuality of the parts from the confined whole they shape, and it happens not only while the entanglement takes place, but more precisely, while the entanglement is taking place.

The scale that is effective during perception is the observer´s point of view at that instant: a conscious but non-subjective point of view in some cases, or a conscious and subjective (confined macroscopic) point of view in other cases. For instance: if SUN is subjectively effective, each letter´s individuality will be conscious but non-subjective (subconscious meaning infra-subjective) during the process from the subjective observer´s point of view, and at the same time the word SUN will be subjectively conscious as a whole, not subconscious (infra-subjective).

A scale is defined by the unit of measurement [5]. Measuring consists in quantifying a magnitude, determining a level by comparing a magnitude with another magnitude given as a reference, reference that is called the unit of measurement. Neurons answer to stimuli with bioelectrical responses. Neurons measure (thinking is measuring), because, if a signal stimulates a neuron, the neuronal response to that stimulus means a measurement of that incoming signal: the incoming signal is measured as it is quantified into the neuronal outcoming response (in fact, that response is quantified in some scale, like the scale of milliseconds). Each response will be a unit of measurement in each particular measurement, and the successive integration of responses (the integration of neurons into networks) will determine new (effective) scales (that will go from microscopic to macroscopic, from neuron to network).

The successive responses of the neurons are not identical, but are acceptably equal, and so, the system is homogeneous, congruent, and therefore there is a possibility for it to behave as a whole to some effect (like moving his body like one single person, or thinking as a sole subject).

According to Thomas [6], there is a universal principle which establishes that a change in scale will not modify the fundamental properties of a system. Therefore, when neurons and circuits are integrated in the brain into networks, and networks into “super-networks” (bigger and more complex, macroscopic from the previous situation “point of view”, but with the same type of fundamental parts: neurons), according to the possibilities of the system, networks still will measure, like it´s individual and fundamental neurons do.

The unit of measurement changes in the system (the brain). For example: the unit changes from neuron, the microscopic, to network, the macroscopic. For instance: letters S, U and N are entangled, in the SUN form, during some network´s integrating process; when that new network, SUN, is effective as a whole, this temporarily new and more complex network, a whole with effective uniqueness, constitutes a new unit of measurement. As the unit of measurement defines the scale of measurement, each new network, effective as a whole in some scale of time in each given instant supposes a measurement in a distinct and different scale in every instant.

If the scale of measurement changes, then perception changes. Perception has to change when the scale changes, because measurement changes when the scale changes. The scale changes when the unit changes, and the unit changes, so consequently perception changes. Perception is measurement.

The change of scale does not mean the end of measurement in the system, because the change of scale does not imply a change in the fundamental properties of the system. Measurement is a fundamental property of the neuronal system.

Perception will be different in subsequent ocassions, will be conscious and subjective in one case, or conscious and non-subjective (infra-subjective) in another case, depending on the progressive change of scale and the corresponding effectiveness or ineffectiveness of the emerging property of the subjectivity.

One given neural network will be effective as a whole to some effect sometime, and therefore a new scale of measurement defined by a new given network will become effective too.

Given that the information transmitted among neurons be conscious, if the property of the subjectivity emerges and confines in correlation with some new network that defines some new macroscopic scale, the information in the new network will keep on being conscious (and with an abstract character), but, now, it will be subjective as well, it will be like a subjective consciousness, as if it were (with a negligible error) the consciousness of a conscious subject.

The emergent subjectivity is confined, when effective, and this means that the illusory character of the confinement (and the illusory character of the concretion of the subjectivity) is not subjectively perceptible; for instance: it is not subjectively perceptible that ten tens of a second (one second) is the same thing as one thousand milliseconds (one second too), because it is possible to count up on tens of a second at sight, but it is not possible to count up on milliseconds at sight (and this is so, even though neuronal activity can be really quantified more accurately and more properly, with a better definition, in milliseconds rather than in tens of a second). Then, not only does the confinement prevent the subjectivity from accuracy, but confinement establishes some sort of complementarity principle between the subjective perception and the infra-subjective perception as well. Thus, the subjective perception can only take place when confined in that macroscopic scale, at first sight (for instance: as far as time scale is concerned, up to as much as tens of a second), while the correlative phenomena (the microscopic neuronal activity: the change in the rate of the action potential´s discharges) are taking place, at a microscopic scale, in the rank of milliseconds (to which subjectivity is “blind”). The subjective object (the conscious subject) is reducible, but, as it is confined, it can be effective in one scale only at once with the emergent property of the subjectivity: at first sight, at that confined macroscopic scale identified with the experience of the subjective perception at a given instant.

The confinement, the lack of the scaling ability [7][8] of the measurement system when in that “subjective observer morphofunctional state”, explains the effectiveness of the subjectivity in practice. In consequence, coming to know the subjectivity confinement mechanism seems as interesting as coming to know the subjectivity emergence mechanism. Both will be dealt with in the following paragraphs.

Both, emergence and confinement, are one nature in each mental process, although they can be categorized separately (the same thing happens with morphology and function, and that is why these are referred to as morphofunction).

The subjective consciousness is an integral object (integral object: an object constituted by it´s parts, that persists as a whole in the absence of some parts). In the course of time the shape of the information of the subjectivity changes, in correlation with the increase of entropy in the system, but the subjective character of the subjectivity and it´s confined macroscopic character don’t change in the course of the mental process while the subjectivity is effective. This integrity of the whole and it´s emergent properties (the subjective character and the macroscopic confinement character) rely on the subjective observation process´ lack of scaling ability.

How does the property of the subjectivity emerge? To answer this question it is necessary to ask it again in a different way: ¿Which difference can be uncovered between a non-subjective conscious (or infra-subjective) state of neuronal activity, and a subjective conscious state? The scale or measurement is what changes in the system. Therefore, the subjectivity emerges by a change of scale in the system (the brain cortex) during it´s morphofunctional process.

The subjectivity emerges by a change of scale when the emergence threshold is crossed (the emergence or properties in a system, when the emergence threshold is crossed, relies on the complexity of the system [9], and the complexity is related with the number of elements and interactions, and with the types of elements and types of interactions of a system).

A change of scale does not mean a change of the object´s size (the object is the abstract object whose effectiveness identifies with the process of subjective perception, like the object SUN). A change of scale means a change of the measurement unit. For example: while perceiving SUN subjectively, SUN is not being enlarged from it´s original neuronal shape at a microscopic scale, in order to be perceptible by a utopic concrete macroscopic subjective observer (in other words: ten tens of a second will measure the same, in the scale of tens of a second, as one thousand milliseconds in the scale of milliseconds: one second both). What occurs is that the subjective perception of the emerging SUN object (S, U and N getting entangled) constitutes a new scale, but, as an object, it is abstract.

The subjective perception of SUN identifies with the subjective observer, because the subjective observer is not a concrete entity gifted with subjectivity. The subjective observer is an abstract object, because SUN is an abstract object too.How does the scale change? Like this: the change of scale is the reciprocal of the recreation of an entanglement, a recreation because it does not take place concretely, but abstractly, it´s the abstract representation of an entanglement among abstract objects (for instance: among S, U and N while perceiving SUN). SUN will be perceived, while effective, as being the same object from any point of view (it cannot be perceived as MOON, or NUS), as if SUN was an entangled state of S, U and N.

The process of recreation of an entanglement of abstract objects in the brain cortex is probably the mechanism of emergence of the subjectivity.

How do S, U and N entangle? Notice that their correlate, the neurons, although morphofunctionally correlated among them, strictly do not establish a “non-local correlation” (“non-local correlation” is the way the entanglement is defined in quantum physical systems [7]). The neurons correlate by a distant interaction, and that is a correlation, and, more precisely, a local correlation, but not a non-local correlation. There´s distant action among neurons through dendrites, axons, inter-neurons, synapse, and through the generation, conduction and transmission of bioelectrical potentials. That´s how this local correlation among neurons takes place; the non-local correlation among neurons is impossible. But the recreation of a non-local correlation among neurons is possible, and that is how the recreation of an entanglement takes place.

The entanglement, the non-local correlation, explains the presence of the entangled states which can be observed when some particles of certain quantum systems, like photons, get linked in some peculiar ways. According to Aczel [10], the entangled quantic particles do not possess individual properties, they behave as an object with unique entity, as a whole, and that is precisely the case of the subjectivity: to some effect it behaves as a thing with unique entity. But the subjectivity is an abstract object (it´s a "how", not a "what"), it is not concrete, like a photon, and that is why it is defined here as a recreation of an entangled state, not as a true entanglement. An entangled state in the mind, in the grounds of abstraction, is the abstract representation of an entangled state in a quantum system, it is a recreated entangled state.

The recreation of an entanglement is possible, because in the ground of abstraction it is feasible to compute some phenomena that are impossible in the ground of concretion. For instance, it is possible to abstractly compute an entanglement, a non-local correlation, among letters, with a negligible error (due to the effective emergence and confinement of the words), and, therefore, words can be perceived as objects with unique entity with a negligible error, as if letters, to which words are reducible, were entangled at sight in fact (the error is negligible in this case, among other reasons, because the whole, like the word SUN, depends on a complex neuronal correlate, and the whole, as an integral object, can endure to some effect as a whole, as the 100% of a reducible but unique entity, even in the absence of some parts, of some neurons, in the network SUN, while effective as a distinct network).

In the physical phenomenon of wave interference, the superposition principle establishes that the value of the perturbation on one point is the result of the addition of the perturbation caused by each wave. To have an interference, the waves must be coherent (two wave sources are coherent when the emissions take place with a constant phase difference, and it does not matter if they are in phase, synchronized, or not, to be coherent; it is important not to get the difference between coherence and synchronization wrong).

According to Aczel [10], the superposition consists in the interference of a particle with itself, and the entanglement in the interference of a system with itself. According to Ferrero [7], an entangled state is a coherent quantum state. Doing an extrapolation of these ideas to the abstract ground, and according to Hofstadter [11], one neuron can be a part of more than one symbol by means of superposition and entanglement of the symbols (in other words: one given neuron of a given network hypothetically would be able to be a part of more than one network, and this helps to explain how the subjectivity would emerge as an object with unique entity with a negligible error).

According to Aczel [12], to have an entanglement among the particles of a quantum system, there must be, in the system, a superposition of the states in which the particles of the system can be observed. According to Aczel [12], given one particle that can be in an A state or in a B state incompatible with A (incompatible, because if the particle is in A, the probability of being in B will be zero), if a superposition between A and B occurs, namely a product state A+B, the observation of the particle will derive now in the detection of the particle not in A or B, but in A and B with a probability unequal to zero (even though A and B were incompatible while they were not superimposed); if successive measurements of the particle were done in this superimposed condition, the particle would be observed in A and B, according to that distribution of probabilities. On the other hand, after the superposition of A and B, the probability of observing the particle, that is in A and B, in a different state other than A+B will be zero. These phenomena, although counter-intuitive, are really observed in the case of quantum particles [13].

According to Aczel [12], given a complex quantum system (that is, 2 or more particles), if a superposition of product states takes place, like (A+B)+(C+D), such state may be called an “entangled state” (and both particles will be entangled in such state, and counter-intuitively correlated by a non-local correlation). According to Aczel, this implies that, for instance, in this entangled state, (A+B)+(C+D), if particle 1 is observed in state A, then particle 2 can only be observed in state B, and if particle 1 is in state C, then particle 2 can only be observed in state D. Particles 1 and 2 entangle by a superposition of product states of the system, and it means that a counter-intuitive non-local correlation is established between particles 1 and 2.

In the case of the brain, a representation of the states in which the observation of “particles” takes place is possible (for instance, state S, state U, state N, etc.). This systematic representation is shaped in the abstract ground, has an abstract character (the system is the brain; in the mind, that is, the brain functioning, the information is conscious and has a meaning, and therefore, the “particles” are perceptible and identifiable abstract objects, like S, U and N; the mind is not exactly the brain functioning, but more precisely, the abstract -and conscious- information that the brain is processing, and the abstract information is that codified in the synapse by the discharge of spikes).

A systematic abstract representation of states superposition is possible too. For example: given the product state S+U+N, if particle 1 is in S, 2 will be in U and 3 in N, and the probability of finding each particle in any other state will be zero while S+U+N or SUN is effective; in practice, the probability of perceiving any thing apart from SUN in correlation with the effective activation of the network SUN will be zero. This is possible due to a representation of states superposition in the abstract ground, a recreation of a superposition, possible due to the abstract character of the information in the brain, and possible due to the systematic and complex neuronal morphofunctional processes, and, in particular, due to the diaschisis, and due to the peculiar correlative neuronal retroactivity inside the brain´s morphofunctional neuronal networks.

According to Márquez [14], the diaschisis consists in this: when a mental task, corresponding to a locally determined brain zone, is executed, that zone is not the only one to be activated (activation means a change in the rate of discharge in each synapse involved).

Diaschisis means a rupture of the separation between distinct anatomic (or morphological) zones, with a distinct spatial localization, and with a potential morphofunctional meaning as a whole when the morphological zones become functional correlates (possibly by reciprocal neuronal retroactivity of some kind); diaschisis supposes the establishment of locality relations among different brain zones previously non-related, zones that can now relate as if their relation was non-local, whenever an undetermined (or “non-local”) brain zone activates, due to the diaschisis, when a determined, or “local”, correlative brain zone activates. Diaschisis is feasible thanks to the existence of morphological (potentially morphofunctional) synaptic connections on one (or more than one) step, among neurons of a potential morphofunctional network, as much as among neurons of diverse networks.

Diaschisis makes synchronization (and other types of retroactivity, namely coherence) among networks possible, and perhaps precisely by re-entry [1][2]. For example: in the case of subjective perception of the word SUN, S, U and N should be codified each in a different corresponding neuronal morphofunctional network (this is possible due to the spatial and temporal specificity of the networks, that implies the specificity of the meaning of the information transmitted by each network); also, S, U and N networks should integrate preferently to some effect (like the shaping of SUN), and, therefore, the preferent (in Physiology: facilitated) synaptic morphofunctional connections among the S, U and N networks should be feasible (due to some circumstances, like the genetic predisposition on that direction, and like the influence of afterbirth learning on that direction too, the latter also related to other properties, like memory and plasticity). The S, U and N networks should be able to connect among them reciprocally, maybe by re-entry, and that is how they would be able to establish a peculiar morphofunctional correlation among them, perhaps synchronizing together in peculiar manners in some cases (for instance, when sending the order to move all the fibers of a given muscle at a time), or getting transiently coherent in others (namely, during subjective perception), and getting compatible too (becoming coherent among them), and thus eventually integrating to some effect in a unique morphofunctional network: SUN.

Each network S, U and N would have constituted an incompatible state with the rest if a superposition would not have been established among them; the absence of compatibility would have avoided the integration, and they integrated into SUN, so superposition (more precisely, a recreation of it) must have been taking place.Networks would not superimpose if they were incompatible, so they must be compatible, because the word SUN, despite being reducible (to letters, neurons, molecules, etc.), is perceptible to some effect as a unique word with a negligible error in practice.

Given an entangled state in the brain (at least a convincing recreation), in which networks that constitute product states superimpose, constituting super-systems of increasing complexity, and given the subjective perception of SUN, then the product state S+U+N will be composed by the integration of the networks S, U and N.It is important to notice that the entangled state that is effective as the subjectivity, when SUN is effective, will be composed by the integration of SUN with the rest of the product states superimposed at that instant that constitute the several parts of the subjectivity (in practice, the subjectivity is a complex mental object, as the brain itself is; this means that the subjectivity will not be constituted only by the word SUN in a given instant, not even if one tries to think of the word SUN only; SUN is being used only as a simple object to explain the mechanism of the brain function, but it must be understood that it is a simplification; on the other hand, the complexity of the subjectivity seems interesting, because that brings on the possibility of crossing the threshold of the subjectivity emergence; thus, if SUN superimposes with the whole, the subjective perception of even the less complex, like SUN, can take place).

When the retroactivity among the networks S, U and N (maybe by re-entry in a coherent transient state) becomes activated, and among the rest of the networks correlated with the subjectivity too, and all of them integrate in the current recreated (to some effect) entangled state, the entanglement among the abstract objects shaped by the networks will be established, and SUN will be perceptible as a whole then. In SUN, S, U and N are falsely entangled, and, nevertheless, the subjective perception of SUN will take place in practice as if it was the experience of a unique subject, complex and reducible, but a unique object in mind, as if SUN was truly an entangled state, and not a recreation at large scale. The subjective conscious perception will be effective with a negligible error in practice.

In practice, the effectiveness of the subjectivity means that reality can be perceived at first sight (and with a negligible error) as if it was done through the eyes of a (unique) subject.

The property of the subjectivity emerges by a change of scale, the reciprocal of a systematic entanglement of abstract parts. But it depends on the confinement to be effective as an entangled state (as a unique entity, and as a sole and distinct subject) with a negligible error. Therefore, there is a final question to be answered yet: how does the emerging subjectivity confine?

Due to the brain´s complex and peculiar morphofunctional structure, the (abstract) representation of product states superposition can be shaped in the brain. Product states can be shaped; for example: the product state S+U+N.

The product state S+U+N defines a new unit of measurement, SUN, and therefore a new scale, which is potentially correlative with a possible effectiveness of SUN as part of the subjective perception if the emergence threshold is crossed during the activation and integration of the also newly integrated network SUN (in the brain, a network, like SUN, can be effective as a whole to some effect [15]) into the whole, in other words, if SUN becomes a part of the entangled state correlative with the current effective subjectivity, if SUN is a part of the subjective conscious perception process.

Thus, if SUN becomes the subjective perception, and given that S+U+N is a product state (and given that a network, like SUN, can be effective as a whole), the probability of observing the “SUN-particle” in a state (scale) other than SUN will be zero (as stated previously). In other words: if SUN is effective as subjective perception, the probability of the “SUN-particle” (the object with unique entity effective during the entanglement of S, U and N) to be in other state than the “network-state-product-SUN” will be zero while the subjective perception of SUN remains effective; it will be zero due to the specificity of the network (it´s spatial and temporal specificity implies that if an integral network codifies SUN, it only codifies SUN, not MOON, or NUS). And, finally, the probability for the word SUN to be in other state than S+U+N will be zero, because this state is a superposition of S, U and N that is effective as a superposition with a negligible error in practice at certain scale. And this “zero probability” means that when the subjectivity emerges, by a change of scale, it will be confined, for instance, SUN will be confined (in other words: S, U and N will not be perceived individually at first sight while SUN is effective), and the subjective conscious experience, the perception of SUN, will be really effective.


8. Formal enunciation of the hypothesis.

Can all this explanation be enunciated in shorter terms, in one final phrase that contains it all? Yes, it can, like this:

The (mental) property of the subjectivity (effective as the mental experience of the subjective, or individual, conscious perception of reality) probably emerges (and confines) by the recreation, at large scale (a macroscopic and confined scale), of a superposition of product-states (the recreation of a coherent quantum state, or an entanglement) in the brain cortex.


9. Bibliography.

1. Zeki S. La imagen visual en la mente y en el cerebro. Investigación y ciencia 1992; 11: 27-35.
2. Edelman G M, Tononi G. El universo de la conciencia. Barcelona: Crítica; 2002.p.62-63.
3. Fischbach G D. Mente y cerebro. Investigación y ciencia 1992; 11: 6-15.
4. Ferrater J. Diccionario de Filosofía. Madrid: RBA; 2005. p. 622.
5. Postigo L. Matemática práctica. Barcelona: Sopena; 1996. p. 11.
6. Thomas J E, Gehm M E. Gases de Fermi atrapados ópticamente. Investigación y ciencia 2005; 3: 36-43.
7. Ferrero M. Información cuántica. Estado de la cuestión. Investigación y ciencia 2003; 10: 28-29.
8. Ynduráin F J. Electrones, neutrinos y quarks. Barcelona: Crítica; 2001. p. 108.
9. Hofstadter D R. Gödel, Escher, Bach: un eterno y grácil bucle. Barcelona: Tusquets; 2003.p.353.
10. Aczel A D. Entrelazamiento. Barcelona: Crítica; 2004.p.77.
11. Hofstadter D R. Gödel, Escher, Bach: un eterno y grácil bucle. Barcelona: Tusquets; 2003.p. 396.
12. Aczel A D. Entrelazamiento. Barcelona: Crítica; 2004. p. 39-40.
13. Molina G. Experimento en el Danubio. Fotones entrelazados. Investigación y ciencia 2004; 8: 40-41.
14. Tresguerres J et al. Fisiología humana. Madrid: Mcgraw-Hill; 2000. p. 211.
15. Maestú F et al. Cognición y redes neurales: una nueva perspectiva desde la neuroimagen funcional. Revista de Neurología 2003; 37: 962-66.