Hypothesis

Provable hypothesis about the possible neuronal correlate of subjective consciousness and consequent predictions. HYPOTHESIS: subjective consciousness emerges and confines by the recreation of a superposition of product states in the brain. PREDICTIONS: this hypothesis means that subjective consciousness emerges by the recreation of an entanglement among mental objects. This obliges the prediction of the detectable presence of transient coherent neuronal activity, possibly among association cortical neurons at least. There is not a description of this possibility yet, apart from this, and it is important to note that this hypothetical neuronal coherent activity would be the lacking brick in the wall of the scientific explanation of consciousness. The measurement of this hypothetical coherent activity would consist in the detection of a transient entry in coherence between at least two cortical neurons, that would get integrated this way as neurons belonging to one neural net only (while they belonged to two different nets before getting integrated by this newly described and haypothetical mechanism of neuronal integration). It is important not to make a mistake about the meaning of coherence here, and not to make a mistake between coherence and synchronicity. Coherence consists in maintaining a constant phase difference between spikes (of involved neurons´ action potentials and particularly between those neurons´trains of action potentials), while synchonization consists in a phase coincidence; this implies that synchonization is not necessary for coherence in this case, and therefore two nets can be coherent without being synchronized, and so can get integrated in a new macronet (correlated with subjectivity, for instance) without getting synchronized (synchronization would affect the neurons of each net, but not among the neurons of two nets integrated by transient coherence). This is important, because coherence is necessary for entanglement, but synchonization is not necessary for entanglement, and that´s why coherence should be detected in the brain, because an individual mind (subjective consciousness) seems to be an entangled state (as explained in more detail below). More interpretations and predictions: neuronal coherent activity would allow to categorize two coherent neurons as belonging to two different nets, and so, this would be another the way to prove the existence of neural nets, and to prove the possibility of a neuron to belong to more than one net at different moments in time. Another prediction is the existence of a guiding spike (perhaps related to the existence of intermediary neurons in the cortex, also related to integration in the cortex). This coherent activity does not discard the importance of the thalamus-cortical system, nor the importance of synchonization and reentry, and a certain total number of neurons necessary for the emergence of the property of subjectivity, but it completes the picture, and explains it utterly eventually. Coherence was, probably, the remaining lacking brick in this wall. This coherent activity should be detected, possibly, with intraneural electrodes in vivo in awake subjects, while they are subjectively conscious. Another applications would be the detection of coherent activity in thalamus 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. Another prediction of this hypothesis is the existence of heterogeneous facilitation among nets, and another predicition 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. Another prediction is the possible detectability of a peak in energy spending during the presence of subjectivity in the area involved. EXPLANATION OF THE HYPOTHESIS: information transmitted along parallel morphofunctional neuronal networks is processed (associated and integrated) in the brain. For instance: the word SUN is supposedly shaped during the systematic association and integration of the letters: S, U and N, each letter supposedly codified in a different S, U and N corresponding network, and each one of those three letter-networks supposedly able to establish (synaptic) connections with the rest, maybe by reentry [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, truly effective at the same time). There are several neuronal mechanisms described to explain how neuronal integration takes place, like the mechanisms of convergence-divergence, internunciality, synchronization, etc. Integration supposes, for example, the efectiveness 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 machroscopic 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). Back to the word SUN: the abstract information of those three letter-networks, S, U and N, three abstract objects, will be entangled when those three letter-networks get integrated into an effective unique word-network, with unique entity, and a new abstract object will be effective with the emergent property of subjectivity, as the subjective perception of SUN (the entanglement of S, U and N) takes place. Perception refers to the interpretation of sensation. Sensation refers to 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 sensation is interpreted, that´s why perception is equal to interpretation. Nevertheless, the interpretation of sensation can give place to two different results, separately or at a time: perception and motor behaviour. 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 (control refers to motor responses integrated in the brain cortex; subcortical integration is mentioned as reflex activity). To perceive SUN subjectively, the perception of those three letters forming a whole with unique entity, 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 isomorphically, and the closer to the Earth incandescent ball of plasm 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´s a false Sun. It´s necessary not to mistake real-virtual with true-false. 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, 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. The various abstract objects, peculiarly shaped in the networks, entangle and disentangle in the abstract ground, as the networks systematically integrate and disintegrate in the course of the brain´s morphofunctional process. 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, 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 is an abstract object too, and not a concrete object gifted with subjectivity. Subjectivity is an illusion, due to the impossibility to perceive the individuality of the parts while the whole is effective. Abstract information is abstract, but objective. For subjective consciousness 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, because 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 subjectivity is one with the emergence of 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 subjective perception is effective, it behaves as a whole (despite being reducible), due to the confinement. 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) 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. 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). 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 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 supernetworks (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. In the system (the brain), the unit of measurement changes. 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, 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 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 (subconscious) in another case, depending on the progressive change of scale and the corresponding effectiveness or uneffectiveness of the emerging property of subjectivity. One given neuronal 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 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 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 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 subjectivity from accuracy, but confinement establishes some sort of complementariety principle between subjective perception and subconscious perception as well. Thus, 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 microscopical neuronal activity: the change in the rate of action potential discharges) are taking place, at a microscopic scale, in the rank of milliseconds (to which subjectivity is “blind”). The subjective object is reducible, but, as it is confined, it can be effective in one scale only at once with the emergent property of subjectivity: at first sight, at that confined macroscopic scale identified with the experience of subjective perception at a given instant. The confinement, the lack of scaling ability [7][8] of the measurement system when in that “subjective observer morphofunctional state”, explains the effectiveness of 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´s why these are referred here as morphofunction). 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 subjective consciousness changes, in correlation with the increase of entropy in the system, but the subjective character of subjective consciousness and the confined macroscopic character of subjective consciousness don’t change in the course of the mental process while 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 observer´s lack of scaling ability. How does the property of 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 subconscious) state of neuronal activity, and a subjective conscious state? The scale or measurement is what changes in the system. Therefore, subjective consciousness emerges by a change of scale in the system (the brain) during it´s morphofunctional process. 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 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). 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 microscopical scale, in order to be perceptible by a utopical concrete macroscopical 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, the abstract representation of an entanglement among abstract objects (for instance: among S, U and N while thinking of SUN). SUN will be perceived, while effective, as being the same object from any point of view, 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 is the mechanism of emergence of subjective consciousness. 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 entanglement is defined in quantic 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, interneurons, synapsis, 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´s 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 quantic systems, like photons, get linked in some peculiar ways. According to Aczel [10], 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 subjective consciousness: to some effect it behaves as a unique entity. But subjective consciousness is an abstract object, not 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 quantic system, it´s a recreated entangled state. The recreation of an entanglement is possible, because in the ground of abstraction it is feasible to computate some phenomena that are impossible in the ground of concretion. For instance, it is possible to abstractly computate 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 doesn´t matter if they are in phase, synchronized, or not, to be coherent; it is important not to mistake between coherence and synchronization). 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 quantic 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 subjectivity emerges as an object with unique entity with a negligible error). According to Aczel [12], to have an entanglement among the particles of a quantic 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 0), 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 0 (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 0. These phenomena, although counter-intuitive, are really observed in the case of quantic particles [13]. According to Aczel [12], given a complex quantic 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 information that the brain is processing, and the abstract information is that codified in the synapse by the discharge of spikes). A systematical 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 0 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 0. 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 reentry [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 reentry, and that´s 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 superimpos, constituting supersystems 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 subjective consciousness, 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 subjective consciousness (in practice, subjective consciousness is complex, as the brain itself is; subjective consciousness won´t be constituted only by the word SUN, 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 subjective consciousness seems interesting, because that brings on the possibility of crossing the threshold of 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 reentry in a coherent transient state) becomes activated, and among the rest of the networks correlated with 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 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 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 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 0. 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-stateproduct-SUN” will be 0 while the subjective perception of SUN remains effective; it will be 0 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). And, finally, the probability for the word SUN to be in other state than S+U+N will be 0, 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 “0 probability” means that when 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. In short terms: subjectivity emerges and confines by the recreation of a superposition of product states in the brain. 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.

There are currently no items in this folder.