The Untold Theory - chapter 2

Hi ! This thread is about the chapter 2 of my book “The untold-theory”. I have already posted the chapter 3 in this forum. Check it out on my profile. Feel free to comment your thoughts on this chapter. It will help me to improve my theory.

Chapter 2 - Consciousness

Everyone hold a different definition of consciousness, and that was based on their belief’s. I want to define what is consciousness from my point of view to further propose my theory.

Consciousness - ‘sense of self’. To me its the sense that I was exist in this world.

Consciousness gives you awareness with your surroundings. This awareness is not a thing that happens every time when you become exposure to something. Instead it was a retrieving of the stored informations. Which in turn pushes us to the conclusion that consciousness is the process of retrieving stored informations. In my opinion giving a name to a process is form of mistake, because it leads us to no-way to solve that problem.

• Consciousness as a dynamic process

  Before we go to the actual theory, lets understand what is a unit. A unit is the single neuron circuit, each impulse that triggers a neuron at the frontline of the system (i,e. The input neurons) will lead to the action potential coming back to the same input neuron upon triggering. A pictorial representation is given below.

This coming-back mechanism is responsible for the consciousness. Just think about it when we visualize or hear or sense anything we come to know the event only when the impulse travels back to trigger the same activated input neurons cells. Its more like the output activating a certain input neuron(at the frontline) to give thoughts or consciousness. The consciousness is not residing inside the brain, the brain just act as a vessel to store information in the form of dynamic systems (explained in upcoming chapters) instead the frontline of the system is responsible for the consciousness or thoughts. How does the neuron gives both the consciousness + thoughts, its a improbable one. Rather, think about in this way that the brain stores the dynamic systems upon getting input from various parts of the body, these dynamic system upon formation gives output which will trigger the frontline neurons. The importance given to frontline neurons is because they are specific to inputs (the only neuron type in the system that is specific to input informations) and upon getting activated by inputs and re-activated by outputs will give the consciousness + thoughts to the system.

More like a ligand that binds with the specific receptor.

• The frontline full of units

The frontline were filled with these units, these units are information-specific to get activated.

Consider the giant circle as our body, consciousness was residing in the frontline of the neurons. And whenever any impulse triggers the unit cell it kind of activated again by output (that was created from the reasonable input). There is possibility of two things happening in the frontline that is the impulse either predicts the next scene that gonna happen or just triggers the same unit that were present in the frontline.

Here’s the tricky that our brain plays, it does the both. The brain simultaneously does the prediction as well as the just-knowing unit cells. One dominates when other relaxes and vice versa (explained in next topic). The pictorial representation was provided below for understanding purpose.

•The no-on/off

As you know, the brain has to do both these mechanisms for maintaining consciousness in the system. The question is how it does? Its all have to do with our exposure to inputs, when the inputs from the actual world decreases the prediction mechanism dominates and when the inputs from actual world increases just-knowing mechanism dominates. There is no specific agent that regulates this process, everything was done automatically with the intensity of inputs from the actual world. In what ways the inputs decrease from the actual world, remember the information never left the world instead our frontline becomes saturated with the inputs. This saturation point makes frontline neurons to un-responsive to the inputs. The saturation point is short-lived. This explains the spontaneous process of these two mechanism on maintaining consciousness.

Since the information in the prediction mechanism comes from the brain, you know its gonna be remembered. The just-knowing mechanism informations will always be present but we won’t know that, it will stay in the frontline forever. But the information in the prediction mechanism will be stored in the form of dynamic system that will be retrieved after getting enough inputs to form the same dynamic systems. This explains why we assume that our thinking process(prediction mechanism) is only active, which is not! There happens to be just-knowing mechanism being active but it wasn’t stored atleast not in the brain.

This two mechanism works simultaneously to maintain consciousness. You may be wondering by now, how the prediction process was done by the brain. It all has to do with the plasticity that was created during our exposure to the real world inputs. Everyone knows that plasticity is when the two or more connection gets stronger, this is what we believed till now. But the most probable case is plasticity is when more number neurons align themselves upon actuating by certain inputs frequently. Remember not the strongest connection but the highest number of neurons is called plasticity.

Thank you very much for giving your time for this. If you have anything to say feel free to use the comments section.

1 Like

I happen to be diving inside THE CEREBRAL CODE recently, there the conscious thinking process is suggested to be “a” generalized darwinian process:

THE CEREBRAL CODE by William H. Calvin (Intermission Notes).

But we shouldn’t expect an exact mapping of either the immune system or cortical darwinian dynamics onto the individuals-that-copy-and-die framework that biological evolution has settled into. Yes, they all feature the darwinian process – yet the darwinian process isn’t really an analogy: it’s a crank for complexity that can be turned by instability, whenever a mechanism exists that implements all six essentials. This process just happens to be a major law of the universe, right up there with chemical bonds as a prime generator of interesting combinations, and one apparently able to run on different substrates, each with their own distinctive properties that may, or may not, correspond to those seen elsewhere.

I understand the statement as that one’s consciousness is not an individual, but a diverse population, if you care about how it works at all. (And I think the voting mechanism in the TBT suggest almost the same idea.) This is obviously counter-intuitive to one’s perception, but anyway in today, most of us think Cartesian Theater is neither an adequate answer.

I see analogy there to your contrast between “Higher number of neurons” and “Stronger connection in the neurons”.

1 Like

I don’t read it that way. If you read his article, he says the six essentials (pattern, copy, variance, competition, bias and preference) are not confined to natural selection as originally proposed. The same principles can apply to the immune system, cortex and potentially many other situations.

Nice concept, but plenty of room for devil in the details.

1 Like

I don’t see clear points there to argue about, yes, there lacks details to reveal the devils.

Aside, I also wonder that, if we humans can only comprehend the universe via ever-refining information/patterns those representing the external world, and those ever-being-inexactly-copied, how come the perfect, abstract, mathematical objects in rational thoughts?

1 Like

In our attempts to understand the nature of consciousness, I think it is a mistake to try to understand it from the basis of single neurons. Instead, it should be in terms of the (mini?) cortical columns and how those columns interact with each other in our neocortex and also their interaction with other brain regions. The complimentarity of grid cells / place cells and the abstractions they map to also plays a deep role.

Alas, the approachs we normally take is to look at a simplified example and try to extrapolate from there. This approach has served us well in many areas of science, but I am long in the tooth about whether it will help us understand consciousness.

At the base of it, I see consciousness as the result of interacting complex and robust state attractors with complex linkages. Many dynamical state attractors linked to many other state attractors, itself forming “higher-ordered” state attractors.

And I am only scratching the surface here. Hopefully I won’t go mad like Cantor did when he was trying to understand infinity. :slight_smile:

1 Like

It’s never going to be possible for us to ‘understand’ consciousness. It has no basis and no definition in science, no objective existence, no experimental data, nothing to investigate. Introspection is not science.

But if you mean intelligence, indeed that is most likely to be understood in terms of algorithms executed by a repeating neuronal columnar structure. We have a good chance of figuring that one out, but we’re still decades away, progress in ‘AI’ notwithstanding.

1 Like

No… we may have solved the problem, but we never know it. What i mean by this is - there may be a chance that someone may have developed a theory about consciousness that was true, but doesn’t have the resources to prove it. So its just a matter of time.

1 Like

The reason i was started with the single neuron (as ‘the unit’ ), is because of simplicity. I just want to break things into simpler.

1 Like

Please be worried about Reductionism, I would suggest that it’ll disable some of your abilities, some how.

My gut feeling has always been Holism used to understand the mind/soul/consciousness, but no fruitful progress learnt so far.


I think proof is of less significance compared to pragmatics benefiting people in real ways. The spreading of an idea (and theory) to more people, has to be sufficiently motivated, after all.

I don’t mean your idea is any less valuable, so the “matter of time” may just be yourself or others to find ways to put it in real use some where.


Holism can give explanation not Reasons.
But reductionism can give reasons but not explanations.
Reasons are harder to create and more significant than explanations. (I believe)

1 Like

People never gonna follow (or) believe any idea if that doesn’t convince them. Convincing anyone has to meet the standards they already believe. Which is the proof i was mentioned above. More like meeting the standards of the reality ( reality what people believe in general)

1 Like

Even reality is not so real as people usually think it is. This of my understanding comes from:

The Sutra famously states, “Form is emptiness (śūnyatā ), emptiness is form.”

I perceive “emptiness” as that it would ultimately lack a purpose for any “one” to meaningfully care about, because no “one” can promptly prove the existence of it/him/her self, without the help of some god-like spirit, then you can’t prove the existence of any god-like spirit in the first place.


Form is emptiness when people has no idea or any need to care about the form. Eg, a bacteria was useful to microbiologist but not for a carpenter. One’s need may not be the need for another one. Emptiness is form when people find use case in that emptiness. I may be wrong its just my thoughts…

1 Like

Science is reductionist. Holism give people comfort, even makes them feel they understand, but does not advance knowledge.

I would have thought the ‘feel good’ people would have learned by now, but it seems not. Where do you think the technological advances and improvements in standard of living in the past 500 years came from? Navel gazing? Prayer?

I know that people advancing crackpot theories are never convinced by reasoned argument, and I don’t expect to convince them. I respond to these crazies only for the sake of curious on lookers, in the hope they might turn away and not swell the ranks of those spreading these ideas.

Stick to science and engineering. It works, and I can prove it.


At the end of a day, you find the most you can do, is what you think you got to do, and lucky if you can do that in a peaceful mind. Some people will reach the peace of mind rather easily, others harder, and it’s really hard for some ones there, they’ll keep struggling until satisfied at a moment, then new wonders arise. I’d say they are knowledge seekers, and the science society is the ratchet to select the direction of our evolution.


We need a working definition of consciousness before we can treat it scientifically. Of course, therein lies the rub. But once we have that, we should be able to falsify it.

A long time ago, I used to try to define self-awareness in degrees – for example, an op-amp with a negative feedback is the smallest unit of self-awareness, and as the complexity goes up, so does the character and quality of the self-awareness.

I am not so sure about that approach today, and whether or not it can also be applied to consciousness. Having said that, I posit that consciousness and self-awareness are deeply intertwined.

Is it possible to have consciousness without self-awareness? Something to ponder. A good amount of our neural circuitry, from what I understand, is involved in separating the sense of “self” from the sense of “everything else”, and it resides in the occipital lobe, if I recall correctly. Early experiments with TMS would disrupt these circuits and give the test subject a “spiritual experience” of being “one with the universe”.

This research, if I also recall correctly, went on at MIT in the 80s or 90s. I have not followed this research in a very long time. But something we perhaps should consider. Using TMS to explore some of the aspects of consciousness!


As I have said before, consciousness by any usual meaning has no objective existence. I cannot prove to you that I have consciousness (or vice versa). It is a subjective property, accessible by introspection, devoid of empirical fact and immune to falsification.

I would like to be proved wrong. Feel free to make it so. Your best chance is to construct a definition that brings something useful and somewhat related into the scientific purview. Good luck with that.:slightly_smiling_face:


Don’t be too fixed in this position.

I have great expectations from the constantly improving field of fMRI and related imaging technology.
“We” can already correlate imaging with some contents of consciousness.

It is likely that the Musk neural-interface technology will also provide powerful tools needed to make the “inner space” accessible to external inspection.

I should add that all these tool are subject to abuse to allow extremely invasive interrogation so it is likely that research in this area has an endless stream of secret government agency money funding it.


I am so lazy in limbs, that I wish some day I can play computer games with just a Brain-Computer-Interface :wink: Mind exercises are of much more fun for me than physical exercises. Wish Musk and neuralink big success, sooner!

1 Like