Henry's Dilemma is now available on Kindle, in Paperback and Hardcover!

  My Stage Plays are available on Amazon!

Click to go to Amazon to Order! @ Henry's Dilemma

Available now on kindle, in paperback, and hardcover!

Beyond the Mind: Source, the Foundation of Reality

Mind: I would strongly suggest that before reading further you read my blog post “The Mind: Who you are at any given moment.” To recap briefly: The world has a memory source outside of our minds. I use the word memory as in memory where a table becomes a table again even when it has been unobserved for a time, but that is not the whole story. When I gaze upon the computer monitor in front of me it is in my mind, and when I blink my eyes, the monitor remains where it was – memory. All of my sensory perceptions such as blue, rough, and sweet have to have a source and a way of processing that information. A brain processes the sensory input from a source into the experiences or qualia of what we can call mind. Everywhere I look, hear, smell, touch, taste I am confronted with my mind, which has been constructed by my brain from the emissions of sources, e.g. photons, electrons etc. from tables, computer monitors, and everything else that is being observed. So, source can be defined as a memory source that delivers the necessary information (photons e.g.) that a conscious observer requires to instantiate a table or anything else for that matter in their mind. It is also everything that a conscious observer is not currently observing.

What best describes reality in the universe we live in? Two major schools of thought are Idealism and Materialism. Idealism: From Wikipedia: "Idealism proposes that the essential nature of reality lies in consciousness or reason. It suggests that only the perceptible is real, or that only mental states or entities are knowable. It asserts that reality is equivalent to mind, spirit, or consciousness; that reality is entirely a mental construct, or that ideas are the highest form of reality or have the greatest claim to being considered ‘real’." Thus, according to idealism everything is in your mind. Materialism: From Wikipedia: "Materialism emphasizes the primacy of physical matter in the interpretation of reality. Here are some key aspects of materialism: It is a theory that physical matter is the only or fundamental reality and that all beings, processes, and phenomena can be explained as manifestations or results of matter. It holds that matter is the fundamental substance in nature, and that all things, including mental states and consciousness, are results of material interactions. It directly contrasts with idealism, which asserts that consciousness is the fundamental substance of nature." Thus, with materialism there exists solid things in the universe other than what is in your mind. It should be noted that recent quantum mechanical experiments point to Idealism as the fundamental description of reality. However, the final decision remains to be determined, and as I will describe below, I propose a different view: source is the fundamental unit of reality.

Source: Mind is everything one encounters in life, which is in agreement with Idealism, but that is not the only thing in the universe. Far from it, there is source, which is not exactly Materialism either, the caveat being that source is special, it is pre-matter, a memory system. Source is simply the supplier, from the world, of all of our sensory perceptions. The computer screen that I am now looking at is source, as it is sending photons of light to me and my sensory visual system of my brain, which then converts this into a picture in my mind. Hence, what we see, hear, touch, smell and taste are all from different kinds of source. For example, I just lifted my voice recorder from the table that it sits on and I see that the table is contiguous cherrywood, but when I put the voice recorder back down, what is underneath it loses its cherrywood color because the color is constructed in my brain and produced in my mind, as is the voice recorder itself. Now what if I turn the voice recorder on and don’t pay attention to it and keep talking it will record, so that when I play it back at a later date I will hear what I recorded. There is nothing spooky about it, the voice recorder functions whether I’m paying attention to it or not. This is an argument against Idealism, as is the table in the room that remains a table even if no one is conscious of its existence. The argument is that if there is no conscious observer present yet the world wags on so to speak in a predictable manner based on a memory system. What I do know, is that my computer monitor is in front of the wall in some way, so that the photons that my brain constructs the room with come from the screen and not the wall behind it. So even if space doesn’t exist outside of the mind, a prediction of an extreme version of Idealism, the source has precedent, that is, things are in front of or on top of other things. I used to joke with my wife about what I called the Kidney Conundrum: if I’m not paying attention to it, if I can’t see it, and if I can’t experience it, thus if everything is in my mind how does it work? According to an Idealist, the kidney only comes into function retroactively from me urinating, hence the conundrum. With my view of the source the kidney is kept in a decohered state, defined by everything around it. I like this view much better than having to think that the past has to be created anew every moment. In quantum mechanics, there is a mathematical formula that defines a wave function that describes amplitudes or likelihoods of things occurring, such as the possible location of an electron. When an electron is detected in a particular place that means the previously coherent wave function has collapsed into a particular state, i.e. the electron itself, and all the other possible places the electron might be, are eliminated. As far as the source goes, I believe an unobserved table, for example, is in a decohered state. Thus, the coherent wave function of the pre-table source has been collapsed (decohered) by the constant bombardment of particles from the environment, not by a conscious observer as Idealism demands. The quantum mechanical coherent state of all the atoms in the table are nearly instantaneously decohered by the immediate barrage of particles from their environment, i.e. the table itself. What this decohered table actually looks like is impossible to say as we are only privy to our brain-constructed, mind-made image of the table. My mind is externalized; everything I perceive is my mind. The rest is source. By observing the table, it becomes instantiated in my mind from the source (pre-table) and my brain (the instantiating instrument). Hence, the source is a memory system, and it remembers how to present the table to me when I observe it again. Prior to observing the table, it is not completely undefined, but instead it is decohered source. Weirdness of Source: This brings me to a thought experiment: I was looking at a can of soda and thinking, what if someone else was looking at the same can? We would both be receiving photons, importantly different photons, would be reaching our eyes so in fact we would each be seeing a different can. Does this mean we're each in different universes? This multiverse view of things is quite different from Everett’s multiverse. In his version the universes do not interact in any way. This implies strongly that your source and my source are different even though we may be looking at the exact same thing. In the same way our conscious experience is different, our internal ‘I’s, our feeling of self-hood must be derived from our own unique internal source. The source is a memory system; what is the brain except for a memory system and a processor? Source in Review: We use source to create the world around us, when I am in non-REM sleep the entire world is source. When I start dreaming or when I wake up, source is converted into my mind, which is everything I peruse. From a source's point of view, I am taking the information it is supplying me with and creating a world with it. The brain is a world maker and that world we call the mind. The brain makes the world out of source. So, there isn’t a mind-body problem, there is just mind and source. So, to summarize source, it is everything that you’re not consciously aware of, hence it is not mind. Source is decohered pre-matter that carries out most everything that happens, from keeping car engines running, to having your brain process visual information such that it will soon become a picture in your mind. Though I do believe everything we encounter is our mind, I believe that space is created from source, and that it has precedence such as in front of, on top of etc. Source is in everything, it is a memory system, it has precedence, it is inanimate and animate, and it is everything that is not mind. So finally, what is reality? It is a construct that is dependent upon our brains converting sensory information from sources into our minds. Thus, source is the foundation of reality, and the defining entity of all of our perceptions.

The Simulation Hypothesis and Source: What I liked about the simulation hypothesis, the idea that we are living in a simulated universe ala The Matrix, is that it states, like a game, you only have to instantiate what you are looking at currently. This is an odd enactment of a conservation of energy principle. This weirds me out a little, as the limits of my visual field are all that are instantiated in my simulation just like a game program. The room next door is kept in memory as an object of source. In a simulation, the source fits in very nicely with this. The source would be everything that isn’t instantiated on the processor. Decohered source would simply be an object in memory waiting to be put on the stack of the processor. When I first thought of the source, I got the name from what I called a memory source and thought of it as part of a computer program. The processing speed of the simulation is at a maximum at the speed of light. Time slows down near energy sources/mass due to heavy processing requirements in a simulated universe. The startup of this universe from nothing is like a computer game booting up explaining the Big Bang. There is more than what we can see with our minds; there is the rest of the program. Decohered matter would simply be an object already constructed ready to be brought online. Source is what’s running in the background, like the subconscious of the brain most of what happens in a computer you do not see. Even with the nice fit with source, and other physical consistencies, I personally am not a huge fan of the simulation hypothesis unless someone can figure out a way to make it falsifiable (it is currently unprovable by scientific experimentation.) Further Reading: Sean Carroll (2019): “Something Deeply Hidden: Quantum Worlds and the Emergence of Spacetime.” Dutton.

Robert Lanza, Matej Pavsic, Bob Berman (2020). “The Grand Biocentric Design: How Life Creates Reality.” BenBella Books.

Anil Seth (2021): “Being You: A New Science of Consciousness.” Dutton.

Rizwan Virk (2019): “The Simulation Hypothesis: An MIT Computer Scientist Shows Why AI, Quantum Physics and Eastern Mystics All Agree We Are In A Video Game.” Bayview Books

The Evolution of Language: From Howls to Hamlet

 As our most powerful tool, language not only allows for communication and reading and writing but also for thinking. Languages are hierarchical in that they have phrases, clauses, sentences, etc. Additionally, languages have syntax (grammar), which gives sentences structure. Ants, Bees, and Birds all have primitive languages; pointing and screeching are parts of a language and even emotions are a language. In the 100,000 years of Homo sapiens existence there was no higher thought until the emergence of a complex language occurred, which may have arisen 50,000 years ago, as this time marks the emergence of symbolic representations such as dolls and cave paintings.

Written language, however, only emerged just over 5,000 years ago when Egyptians wrote pictorial hieroglyphics focusing on images of animals, outward anatomy, tools, etc. The meaning of hieroglyphics remained a mystery until one of the greatest finds in all of archaeological history: the famed Rosetta stone was discovered in 1799 by a Napoleonic soldier in the Nile River Delta, and has three sections; Egyptian hieroglyphics, Egyptian Demotic script, and ancient Greek. The ancient Greek allowed the deciphering of the Egyptian hieroglyphics. 

I once asked my mother, a poet, English professor, feminist, and lesbian, ‘Who was the best writer?’ She didn’t hesitate, ‘Shakespeare.’ Have we reached the pinnacle in writing? Some think so, but I am reminded that until 1905, for three hundred years scientists thought Newtonian mechanics was the last word, but then came around a 26-year-old upstart named Einstein. Elaboration of Quantum Mechanics would follow and yet there still remains a mystery over the merging of general relativity with quantum theory. So, keep on writing and keep on thinking. Now back to the language of Shakespeare, Yeats, and Woolf.

There are two language areas in the human brain that have received the most attention; the first is Broca’s area, discovered by the French physician Pierre Paul Broca who first recognized the condition known as Broca’s aphasia in 1861. This area when damaged, by a stroke for example, leaves the patient’s speech and grammatical systems severely impaired as well as their use of verbs.  Broca aphasiacs still generally retain good comprehension, with the damaged areas located in the left frontal cortex. The second major language area, located in the left temporal lobe, was identified by the German neurologist Carl Wernicke who published his first work on aphasia in 1874. This type of aphasia is characterized by impaired comprehension of spoken words and sentences, while the production of speech may not be very affected. Patients have normal fluency and prosody, but sadly they speak fluent gibberish. The left hemisphere is the dominant hemisphere for language and logic, while the right hemisphere is known as the emotive and creative side.

The question at hand is how did a complex language, complete with a 100,000-word lexicon (vocabulary), and meaning system, as well as our grammar (syntactic) system, evolve from grunts, shrieks and cries? Clearly, we did not evolve in a single step from a grunt to Hamlet, although some leading linguists believe our language abilities did emerge from just such a leap; in a single bound as it were. According to American Noam Chomsky, language is not a product of culture or learning, but a biological feature of the human mind. Chomsky's universal grammar theory implies that language is not a result of natural selection, but a sudden and mysterious emergence in human evolution. He suggests that language may have originated from a single genetic mutation, giving rise to the capacity for complex and creative thought. According to Chomsky, universal grammar is a biological component of the language faculty that allows children to acquire any natural language with minimal input from their environment. Chomsky professes a ‘Merge’ function in which words or groups of words are merged to form grammar, e.g. [the, man] are Merged into {the man} and this Merge could not have occurred partially. That is, there is no state of half merged, hence he argues that grammar emerged in a single step. This would have occurred in Broca’s area, the grammatical area of the brain. He later goes on to write that semantic/meaning aspects of language are mysterious, which leaves a gaping hole in his one step language acquisition model.

Meaning, and associated qualia-based (experiential conscious) comprehension are the ingredients missing from AI. Once an artificially intelligent agent can actually comprehend the qualia that is being said to them, they will have achieved the singularity. It is clear that almost all animals possess some form of comprehension, so that lexical/semantic (i.e. meaning) aspects of language are ancient and evolved over time. That is, emotive warning cries, by nonhuman primates for example, carry meaning and are comprehended as such. In fact, pre-human hominids already had at least one meaning region of their brains, which they used to build complex tools and weapons. One such region of the brain, Wernicke’s, could then be hijacked for a language system, as Broca’s area was later selected for grammar. How qualia-based comprehension occurs is unknown and is one of the most important questions remaining unanswered by science. 

Evolution via Punctuated Equilibrium, which American Stephen Jay Gould professed, supposedly occurs after long periods of stasis, say four million years, followed by sudden emergence of new species. In such a scenario the acquisition of language might occur quite rapidly. In favor of Punctuated Equilibrium, over Natural Selection, there are few intermediate forms in the fossil record, whereas Darwin’s gradualism predicted there would be such intermediates. However, not surprisingly, soft tissue does not usually survive eons to make fossils, and most evolution takes place within soft tissue. The human brain most likely underwent Darwinian Natural Selection during those one hundred thousand years without an increase in skull size. Gould proposed that language evolved not for communication but for thought. Gould, somewhat surprisingly, criticized the idea that language had a single origin or a universal grammar, and suggested that linguistic diversity was a result of historical and cultural factors. 

Indian neurobiologist V.S. Ramachandran raised an important point about the region in the frontal cortex that houses Broca’s area; it’s rich in mirror neurons. Mirror neurons let us mimic others’ actions as the name states. He argued that the motor areas for the use of tools, for example, could be mimicked by the Broca’s region into step wise grammar evolution. The use of a tool is a grammar in itself; ‘tool user’ (subject) ‘cut’ (verb) ‘twig’ (object). This leaves it to the relatively recent acquisition of Broca’s syntactical (grammar) area for pairing with Wernicke’s area (comprehension), which must have been in place prior to humans. Inner speech has been implicated to Broca's area, and thinking can be seen as a motor activity.

Colombian born neurobiologist Alfredo Ardila argued “that the modern syntacticized language and the development of metacognitive executive functions are simply two sides of the same coin.” That is, the acquisition of grammar was the crucial step in what makes humans human. He may have been right.

A fascinating aspect of noun storage is that different categories of nouns have their own storage locales in the human brain. For example, tools are stored together in the motor cortex. Vegetables/fruits and animals also have their own separate storage locales. It is clear that by categorizing nouns by type, the unconscious brain comprehends the meaning of these words.

Comprehension is a hierarchy from single words, to clauses, onto sentences and beyond. Single word comprehension is averred to be done by the brain calling up word meaning from a lexicon, a mental dictionary. For some time, many cognitive scientists have been under the illusion that sentence comprehension occurred by the simple integration of the individual word’s lexicons. This sounds reasonable, but if you think about what goes into language, that it is laden with emotional clauses, innuendos, inferences to be gleaned that are barely visible on its surface it seems highly unlikely that a complex language is just an amalgamation of dictionary entries. In the human brain, besides the left temporal lobe-Wernicke’s area, there are two top-down frontal cortical regions that are also implicated to be critical for sentence comprehension. The combined network gives the appearance of an assembly line for increasingly more complex processing leading up to conscious comprehension.

With the advent of modern genomic science, the hand-waving associated with linguistic squabbles might be nearing an end. For example, an English family usually referred to as the KE family had members that presented important abnormalities in language development. This disorder was associated with a mutation in the FOXP2 gene. FOXP2 plays important roles in brain development, including the growth of nerve cells (neurons) and the transmission of signals between them. It is also involved in synaptic plasticity, which is the ability of connections between neurons (synapses) to change and adapt to experience over time. Synaptic plasticity is necessary for learning and memory. Mutations in other genes such as ERC1 and BCL11A, have been identified in language pathologies. Research has identified FOXP1 and TBR1, their target genes, such as CNTNAP2, while additional candidate genes such as ROBO1, ROBO2, and KIAA0319 have all been associated with human language deficits. It is clear that the one mutation, sudden emergence of complex language of Chomsky seems unlikely.

Over twenty years ago, I had the insight that the human brain operated under evolutionary control. That is, mechanisms such as duplications, mutations, juxtapositions, inversions, etc. along with feedback selection were at the heart of neuropathways, and higher cognitive function. These evolutionary moves operated via the rapid changing of synaptic strengths and even the turnover of synapses in the brain. Some 18 years later, Belgian Luc Steels and Hungarian Eörs Szathmáry published a paper on “The Evolutionary Dynamics of Language" where they propose that language evolves to “relate meaning with form through the intermediary of syntactic and semantic categories” thereby comparing language function to the evolution of species and the adaptive immune system. I am certain they are correct. 

Further reading:

Alfredo Ardila (2015). “A Proposed Neurological Interpretation of Language Evolution.” Behav. Neurol. Jun 1.  

Robert C. Berwick and Noam Chomsky (2016). “Why Only Us; Language and Evolution.” Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

T.G. Bever, N. Chomsky, S. Fong, M. Piattelli-Palmarini (2023). “Even Deeper Problems with Neural Network Models of Language.” Behav. Brain Sci. Dec 6; 46.

S.E. Fisher (2017). “Evolution of language: Lessons from the genome.” Psychon. Bull. Rev. Feb; 24(1):34-40.

Stephen Jay Gould (2002). “The Structure of Evolutionary Theory.”  Harvard University Press.

V.S. Ramachandran (2012). “The Tell-Tale Brain.”  Random House. 

Luc Steels and Eörs Szathmáry (2018). “The Evolutionary Dynamics of Language.” Biosystems Volume 164, February, 128-137.