Department of Physiotherapy Education, University of Wales College of Medicine, Heath Park, Cardiff CF4 4XN.
Tel: 01222 742267 Fax: 01222 747763
The central nervous system (CNS) is a physiological system like any other bodily system, such as the digestive system or respiratory system. but, unlike any other system, the brain end of the CNS is burdened with the responsibility of being a conscious mind as well. Neurophysiology becomes psychology but remains neurophysiology. Stimulate parts of the brain with an electrode and you will experience mental images or emotions, think a thought and the brain thinks with you. This two-for-the-price-of-one is the working hypothesis of most neuroscientists, and most current theories concerning their relationship attach mental processes to localised processes of physiological synaptic activity that occurs when groups of neurones send impulses to each other in endless reciprocity. In this hypothesis the mental processes of Mind are attached to the molecular processes of Brain as a subjective addendum, so that we no longer have the brain and mind relationship of popular belief, but brainmind unity in one substance .
Atkins (1995), for example, says that "The principal activity of the brain , that of sustaining a sense of consciousness throughout a lifetime, is open to explanation rooted in its physical structure" . In the next paragraph he goes on to say that "The brain is subtle and capable, it seems, of infinite understanding its self, its origin, its cosmic origin, the origin of the cosmos, and of that cosmos's immediate, intermediate, and long term featureless future" (my italics and bold).
This level of understanding is not bad going for a rather hot, very wet, and very floppy body organ that lies completely enclosed inside of a bony box with no direct contact between its own substance and the varied nature of the substances of the cosmos outside, except for the limited range of such substances that pass to it from the cosmos through the bloodbrain barrier. It seems an even more remarkable feat of omniscient insight into its self, the cosmos, and all the rest, when you consider that the only mechanisms available to the physical brain to achieve this knowledge are streams of travelling ionic fluxes and electrochemical squirts of synaptic transmission across the electrically charged membranes of its myriad neurones.
This hypothesis of brainmind unity is adopted by all of the well known galaxy of writers of popular science books on the brain, such as Blackmore, Boden, the Churchlands, Crick, Damasio, Dennett, Edelman, Gazzaniga, Humphrey, Sacks, Scott, Searle, and so many others. In sum, what they, with Atkins, are saying is that 'It is the physical brain that feels the psychological pain '.
This must mean that when amino acids, glucose, minerals, and so on, cross the bloodbrain barrier and are absorbed into the brain they are not only converted into the chemical formula, physical structures and physical properties appropriate to their new physiological status, but they also acquire the attributes of mental functioning, including all of the thoughts, desires and emotions of conscious experiencing, as they interact with each other. In effect, during their sojourn in the brain, they become molecules with attitude, and lose this attribute of qualia when they leave the brain. The neurophysiological mechanisms that effect this astonishing transformation into qualia do not seem to be listed in the index of any neurophysiology text to date, but there is obviously a tacit agreement between all who believe that the physical brain is the ground substance of mind.
Current models of brain function are based, by analogy and metaphor, upon the computer sciences and the science of cybernetics. Brain processing = mental processing, which includes all experiencing . Why is this prevailing zeitgeist so dominant? The simple answer to this is that every finding from the neuroscience laboratories can be interpreted as supporting this conclusion in ever more convincing detail. There has not, so far, been a single recorded instance of anyone, whose brain is being monitored by a well known acronym such as EEG, PET, MRI, or MEG, who has thought a single thought, however spiritual, without the mental act being associated with recognisable changes in brain activity. All conscious mental activity,whether it is a silent recitation of the alphabet, or the experiencing of grief or physical pain, or a decision to move, is accompanied by the expenditure of real micro-joules of synaptic energy that have to be replenished by brain activity. Thinking is physical energy intensive and real electrochemical work is done. If the total energy expenditure of the body is taken as roughly equivalent to 100 watts, then the brain uses 20 watts in its psycho- physiological processing. They are so united that a physiologically distressed brain results in a psychologically distressed mind , and a psychologically distressed mind results in a physiologically distressed brain.
Occam's famous razor therefore leads to a reasonable reductionist conclusion of a two-in-one unity. Neurophysiology and neuropsychology from the same molecular coin. We can call this philosophical position - Neural Monism, and it is the consensus opinion of the majority of neuroscientists. At an operational level it is very successful. If a brain disfunction can be identified and rectified, then the corresponding psychological disfunction is usually rectified as well. and the brainself is returned to normal. If, on rather more uncertain ground, a psychological disfunction can be successfully rectified, then the corresponding brain disfunction will be returned to normal.
But a question remains unanswered. If mind and brain are one, why are the mechanisms and properties of brain function, and the mechanisms and properties of mind function, so different that they do not appear to share any common measure? The incredible monotony of ionic flux and synaptic activity inside of a brain inside of a bony box is in stark contrast to the world of conscious experiencing, which is a world of infinite sensory and emotional richness, full of personal relationships and set within an endless world of light, sound, and space with which one is in direct contact. Brainminders say that this is an interpretative error of the findings because, as the physical brain creates the mental world within its own physical substance in the act of its own physical functioning, it literally is the experiencing. When they are asked how this is done, they say that they do not know. It is a working hypothesis that gets results.
Those who feel that the brain- mind disparity is too great a divide for neural monism to span, and that the lack of a common brain-to-mind measure is a real lack, usually turn to the dualistic, two universe, alternative of brain and mind , as separate entities whose quantitative and qualitative properties interact by mutual correlation. A dual universe, they feel, is the minimum hypothesis that Occam's razor can cut down to. In practice, the dual universe hypothesis has also failed to resolve the problem because no one has found a mechanism whereby the non quantitative properties of qualitative mind can act upon the quantitative properties of physical brain. If the response to this dilemma is to say that qualia may have quantitative properties that we have not yet discovered, then we are back to monism, because dualism, by definition, assumes that matter and mind in general, and brain and mind in particular, are denizens of two co-existing, but mutually separate, universes. Neither is constrained by the properties of the other.
If two systems interact, as brain and mind assuredly do, they must share a common currency of energy interchange whereby work can be done by each upon the other. In other words, they must share a mutual, interconvertible, source of energy at their interface that each can transduce. Sometimes the brain must be the driving force, as when sensory information comes in, and sometimes the mind must be the driving force, as when an intentional act is decided upon. Each is of its own world but must share a common measure at the interface of their interaction.
If Mind , by dualistic definition, has no physical properties, and is not bound by physical constraints, it cannot, by that very definition, interact with a physical brain that requires real micro joules of incoming synaptic energy to alter its ongoing activity towards a mentally desired outcome. Dualism also faces the problem that each mind, at the experiential level of conscious intention, is utter unaware of the physical brain that it is supposed to control. Considering the literally mind boggling complexities of neural functioning this lack of awareness of the existence of the brain upon which it is supposed to act seems to be a major control problem. Imagine trying to drive a car with no sensory awareness of its existence.
If dualism cannot offer a feasible mechanism, can this common measure of mutual energy interaction between the separate structures and properties of brain and of mind be found within the constraints of a monistic universe? I suggest that it can, and that the answer lies comfortably within the evolutionary model. If this assumption is correct, it implies that all of the mental processes of thinking, feelings and emotions that constitute each mind-in-action must be fashioned out of a biologically generated physical substance that possesses the property of experiencing.
What I am proposing here is that the process of experiencing is biologically generated and that it is possessed by all cellular systems. It is a primary experiential reality that entered the universe when the first cellular Eve survived and replicated against all the odds, but it is not, in itself, a biological substance.This proposal ties in with the increasing realisation, dicussed below, that the role of many cell proteins is to function as cellular computers.
All cells, including neurones, can be considered as consisting of three, interacting, systems.
1. Biochemical reactions. These operate under interactive genetic control to power the metabolism of the cell, to build and maintain its structural integrity, and to determine its activities and functions. Bray (1995), has reviewed the mounting evidence indicating that many of the proteins in the cell are manufactured to form hundreds of computational circuits for storing memory and guiding cell activity. These self regulating sub systems are united into a mutually interacting system that controls the whole.
2. Bio-Electrical activity. This takes the form of momentary currents of protons, electrons and charged atoms (ions) of varying frequencies that are generated at the thousands of sites of enzymic activity in the cell, and the tens of thousands of ion pumps situated in the pores of the external cell membrane, and the multitude of internal membranes that enclose the cell organelles. These pumps work to store energy as a surface electrical charge on each membrane, and the ions lining these electrified surfaces create a static electrical field that extends outwards from each surface and influences the movement of ions in the vicinity. Each cell is a cytoelectric microcosm of structured electrical activity that is comprised of a complex web of currents and fields that are generated and powered by enzymic biochemical reactions under genetic control..
3. Bio-magnetic field activity. This is generated by the fluctuating currents in the cell, as all movement of electrical charge creates a magnetic field around itself. These fields rise and fall at the same frequency as the parent current strength rises and falls and they, in turn, can cause new currents to flow as the energy of their lines of force, or flux, acts upon electrical charges that are free to move. Electrical currents and magnetic fields always move perpendicular to, or at right angles to, each other. Magnetic field energy is generated during current rise, is stored during steady current flow, and released back into the current during its fall. This electrical to magnetic action, and magnetic to electrical reaction is called electromagnetic induction . With multiple sources of currents flowing in short pulses, or oscillations, across a wide range of frequencies, the cytomagnetic fields form a complex, close range, web of field energies within and around the cell as their lines of force, or flux, interact with each other. They may, for example, form patterns of beat frequencies. Beat frequencies are stable frequencies in field space that are the sum of the difference between two interacting frequencies. For example, if 100Hz and 90Hz frequencies cross each then the beat frequency is 10Hz. Different frequencies will act to reinforce or suppress each other as their paths cross.If two separate sources are at the same frequency they will create a series of standing waves in the space between them.
Of the three systems the cytomagnetic field is the least known and the least studied in detail. Textbooks of biochemistry and biophysics bristle with laws, equations and formulae related to biochemical pathways and electrophysiology, but far less is said about cell magnetism (see Malmivou and Plonsey (1995) for the biophysics). The probable reasons for this relative neglect in mainstream physiology are that the fields are difficult to detect, and are generally assumed to be of fleeting irrelevance to cell function. In other words, it probably does not matter whether they are there or not. This assumption may be based upon analogy with ordinary electrical circuits where the circuitry is tailored to allow for any magnetic field effect upon current movement, and such fields are often treated, in practice, as if they did not exist.
To assume a similar irrelevance of these magnetic fields to the functions of living systems may be misplaced. Nature rarely wastes anything that incurs the expenditure of energy and is associated with survival, and this leads directly to the following hypothesis.
Biologically generated magnetic fields form the substance of Experiential Reality.
I suggest that the biomagnetic field created and sustained by each cell forms the substance of its experiential reality , which is a primary property of biological systems. Each cytomagnetic field forms the experiential self of the cell, which acts as its experiential control system by interacting with the cellular computer circuits that Bray has described. Because cytomagnetic fields are continously generated by primary cytoelectric currents they are a permanent feature of the living cell. They,in turn, will induce secondary cytoelectric currents that will oscillate at frequencies determined by the outcomes of magnetic field interactions. These secondary currents could interact with the sites of biochemical activity as their energy is absorbed, either reinforcing or reducing enzymic activity, thus altering cell function. Because the non magnetic structures of the cell are 'transparent' to the cytomagnetic fields that permeate them the fields create a separate reality of magnetic space as if those cellular structures did not co-exist in the same space.
I suggest that the first successfully replicating cell was successful precisely because its experiential control system included sufficient survival strategies to maintain its physical and experiential integrity against adversity.
During conscious experiencing flicker fusion frequency is the mechanism whereby individual images of momentary duration fuse together into an experiential solidity of image continuity in mental space. Let us assume that flicker fusion is the mechanism that applies to the interaction of magnetic field so that stable experiential features emerge, say, when beat frequencies appear and take structured form in field space. The implication would be that interacting cytomagnetic fields would form, through flicker fusion, the experiential self of the cell. Because the field configuration patterns would be established by the genetically determined drive of the biochemical reactions of the cell, a mean range of field energy configurations would be created that would act as the cytomagnetic givens of cell experiencing, becoming the experiential reference values for the normal functioning of that cell. Any unwanted deviation from the mean would engage feedback mechanisms to re-establish the norm, and any deviations from the mean that implied benefit for the cell would receive positive feedback until a required new norm was established and maintained.
In the preface to his book Cell Movements Bray (1992) describes his sense of utter fascination and wonder at watching the apparently purposeful movements of these tiny scraps of life, saying that he still finds it "hard to accept that such complex, integrated, seamingly sentient structures can arise from dumb molecules. The mystery is of my own making, a form of closet vitalism ". But what if the 'dumb molecules' are not so dumb after all? What if they create a sentient self from the substance of their cytomagnetism that gives their activities a true, purposeful, direction?
Let us take this idea of a biologically created experiential reality that can interact with its creator through the energy of electromagnetic induction and apply it to the brain and mind.
The physical contacts that individual neurones make with each other through their extensive synaptic framework, together with the endless firing of impulses along the axons that connect them, and the resulting bursts of excitatory or inhibitory electrochemical synaptic activity that occurs on their electrically polarised membranes, creates a structural and functional unity of continuous processing that extends from the cerebral cortex to the tail end of the spinal cord. The problem for our understanding of the CNS is that we do not know how this functional whole knows, of itself, what is where, and what is doing what. All that a neurone receives is synaptic activation. It can have no knowledge of anything beyond its own surface so it cannot know the source of the impulse, any more than a telephone can know the location of the external source of the electrical signal that causes it to ring. The various components of vision, for example, are processed by many physically separated modules in the occipital lobe and elsewhere, but we do not know how the modules link together to form the singular unity of vision that we experience . This is known as the binding problem and is a major brain ache for brainmind theorists.
The ever changing patterns of electrical activity that are created by the myriads of active synapses that cover the bodies and dendrites of the densely packed CNS neurones generates a multitude of localised magnetic fields in the space around themselves, and these oscillating magnetic fields may provide the spatial continuity whereby the CNS knows what is going on where throughout its structure. If the mosaic of cortical modules and related subcortical nuclei that serve particular functions 'resonate' at preferred oscillatory frequencies, which have been recorded as being mainly in the 5Hz to 150Hz frequency range, so will their associated magnetic fields, and these micro-fields will interact with each other. Because the physical structure of the brain and spinal cord is 'transparent' to the magnetic fields that they are generating the fields permeate through it and maintain their own magnetic field integrity as if it was not there. As far as the fields are concerned the physical brain does not exist. What does exist is a supra-cellular synapto-electric framework in free space where electrical currents and magnetic fields interact. This neuromagnetic field is a separate reality from the physiological CNS that generates and maintains it, but it has one property in common with the CNS, it shares the common measure of energy interchange by electromagnetic induction. This has led me to the idea that the experiential reality of mind , as a continual process of mentation that spans an experiential spectrum from reflex non conscious level control, to everyday ordinary consciousness and states of altered, or extra ordinary consciousness, has the substance and properties of an infinitely variable field.
The hypothesis is that the mind, and all of the conscious and non conscious mentational processes that it contains, is formed of the substance of the neuromagnetic field, and that all mentation consists of experiential properties of the neuromagnetic field based upon different frequencies and field intensities. Seeing a colour, or smelling a perfume, may be the experiential nature of the field at particular flicker fusion frequencies, and the intensity of the sensory experience, and associated emotional affect, may be determined by the intensity of the field within a particular frequency range. Different areas of the brain that are related to different forms of experiencing may generate preferred field frequencies, intensities, and field configurations, that are peculiar to them. For example, recent brain scan research on emotions has shown that the right amygdala nucleus is intensely active in memory recall of unpleasant emotional scenes. In neuromagnetic theory this would be interpreted as implying that it is the neuromagnetic field frequencies and intensities peculiar to this nucleus that are the emotional affect . The brainmind theory is that it is the amygdala neurones and/or their oscillatory circuitry that actually feel the fear and loathing.
Nothing in this theory alters, or challenges, any aspect of our knowledge of neurological structure and function. What it does is to move the locus of mind from physical brain to brain generated field. In this theory the mind is not of a molecular substance and circuitry but is formed from the substance of the neuromagnetic field whose energy is generated by synaptic activity. The site of brain- mind interaction is placed at the synaptoelectric/synaptomagnetic junction, and the mechanism of interaction is electro-magnetic induction from brain to mind , and magneto-electric induction from mind to brain. Field energy is mind energy in 3 dimensional field space. This theory offers a practical solution to the spatial problem of binding the separate functions of the modular brain into an integrated whole because neuromagnetic field integrity can bind the whole. The magnetic transparency of the brain suggests an explanation for our lack of experiential awareness of it, and the direct synapto-magnetic relationship of brain and field, whereby, it is suggested, modules of field ' imagery' are created by the mosaic of cortical ensembles, neuronal gestalts, or synchronised oscillatory networks of physical brain theory,offers an explanation of how the mind can selectively activate the brain because its immediate, brain-field configuration, is formed at the synaptic interface..
What this theory suggests is that MEG sensors are in direct contact with the mind, and that magnetic frequencies passing through the head from outside are interacting directly with the mind. Persinger and colleagues (Ruttan et al 1990) have pioneered research into the experiential effects of extremely weak, low frequency, magnetic fields as they pass through the temporal lobes of volunteer subjects from helmet mounted electromagnets, and Blackmore (1995) has given a graphic account of the peculiar distortions of body image and sudden changes of mood that she experienced when she acted as an experimental subject in Persinger's laboratory.
For those who believe, like Lazslo (1996) that experimental evidence conclusively demonstrates that living systems can interact with each other across space without sensory system contact, as in telepathy, psycho-kinesis, and healing by intention, the hypothesis that mind has the substance of field lends support for the theory that we are, at sub quantum level, linked by a universal subtle energy field that can interact with the experiential patterns of individual mind energy .
The brain, in this hypothesis, does not contain the substance of mind, its function is to create and sustain the synapto-electric template by which the two systems can interact in ceaseless correlation throughout life.
Atkins PW (1995) The limitless powers of science. In Nature's Imagination. Cornwell J (ed), Oxford University Press.
Blackmore S (1995) Alien Abduction: the inside story. New Scientist Vol 144: No1952: 29-31
Bray D (1992) Cell Movements. Garland Publ Co. New York, London.
Bray D (1995) Protein molecules as computational elements in living cells. Nature Vol 376: No 6538: 307-12
Malvivou J, Plonsey R (1995) Bioelectromagnetism: Principles and applications of bioelectric and magnetic fields. Oxford University Press.
Laszlo E (1996) The Whispering Pond. Element Books.
Ruttan LA, Persinger MA, Koren S (1990) Enhancement of temporal lobe related experiences during brief exposures to milligauss intensity extremely low frequency magnetic fields. Journal of Bioelectricity Vol 9, No1:33-54