\documentclass[10pt]{article}

\usepackage{fullpage}
\usepackage{setspace}
\usepackage{parskip}
\usepackage{titlesec}
\usepackage[section]{placeins}
\usepackage{xcolor}
\usepackage{breakcites}
\usepackage{lineno}
\usepackage{hyphenat}





\PassOptionsToPackage{hyphens}{url}
\usepackage[colorlinks = true,
            linkcolor = blue,
            urlcolor  = blue,
            citecolor = blue,
            anchorcolor = blue]{hyperref}
\usepackage{etoolbox}
\makeatletter
\patchcmd\@combinedblfloats{\box\@outputbox}{\unvbox\@outputbox}{}{%
  \errmessage{\noexpand\@combinedblfloats could not be patched}%
}%
\makeatother


\usepackage[round]{natbib}
\let\cite\citep




\renewenvironment{abstract}
  {{\bfseries\noindent{\abstractname}\par\nobreak}\footnotesize}
  {\bigskip}

\titlespacing{\section}{0pt}{*3}{*1}
\titlespacing{\subsection}{0pt}{*2}{*0.5}
\titlespacing{\subsubsection}{0pt}{*1.5}{0pt}


\usepackage{authblk}


\usepackage{graphicx}
\usepackage[space]{grffile}
\usepackage{latexsym}
\usepackage{textcomp}
\usepackage{longtable}
\usepackage{tabulary}
\usepackage{booktabs,array,multirow}
\usepackage{amsfonts,amsmath,amssymb}
\providecommand\citet{\cite}
\providecommand\citep{\cite}
\providecommand\citealt{\cite}
% You can conditionalize code for latexml or normal latex using this.
\newif\iflatexml\latexmlfalse
\providecommand{\tightlist}{\setlength{\itemsep}{0pt}\setlength{\parskip}{0pt}}%

\AtBeginDocument{\DeclareGraphicsExtensions{.pdf,.PDF,.eps,.EPS,.png,.PNG,.tif,.TIF,.jpg,.JPG,.jpeg,.JPEG}}

\usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}
\usepackage[ngerman,english]{babel}










\begin{document}

\title{The ``easy part'' of the Hard Problem: a resonance theory of
consciousness}



\author[1]{Tam Hunt}%
\author[2]{Jonathan Schooler}%
\affil[1]{Worldania}%
\affil[2]{Affiliation not available}%


\vspace{-1em}



  
  \date{March 13, 2024}


\begingroup
\let\center\flushleft
\let\endcenter\endflushleft
\maketitle
\endgroup








\sloppy


Tam Hunt {[}1{]}, Jonathan Schooler

University of California Santa Barbara

~

Synchronization, harmonization, vibrations, or simply \emph{resonance}
in its most general sense seems to have an integral relationship with
consciousness itself. One of the possible ``neural correlates of
consciousness'' in mammalian brains is a combination of gamma, beta and
theta synchrony. More broadly, we see similar kinds of resonance
patterns in living and non-living structures of many types. What clues
can resonance provide about the nature of consciousness more generally?
This paper provides an overview of resonating structures in the fields
of neuroscience, biology and physics and attempts to coalesce these data
into a solution to what we see as the ``easy part'' of the Hard Problem,
which is generally known as the ``combination problem'' or the ``binding
problem.'' The combination problem asks: how do micro-conscious entities
combine into a higher-level macro-consciousness? The proposed solution
in the context of mammalian consciousness suggests that a shared
resonance is what allows different parts of the brain to achieve a phase
transition in the speed and bandwidth of information flows between the
constituent parts. This phase transition allows for richer varieties of
consciousness to arise, with the character and content of that
consciousness in each moment determined by the particular set of
constituent neurons. We also offer more general insights into the
ontology of consciousness and suggest that consciousness manifests as a
relatively smooth continuum of increasing richness in all physical
processes, distinguishing our view from emergentist materialism. We
refer to this approach as a (general) resonance theory of consciousness
and offer some responses to Chalmers' questions about the different
kinds of ``combination problem.''

~

\begin{quote}
At the heart of the universe is a steady, insistent beat: the sound of
cycles in sync\ldots{}. {[}T{]}hese feats of synchrony occur
spontaneously, almost as if nature has an eerie yearning for order.

~

Steven Strogatz, \emph{Sync: How Order Emerges From Chaos in the
Universe, Nature and Daily Life} (2003)

~

If you want to find the secrets of the universe, think in terms of
energy, frequency and vibration.

\par\null

Nikola Tesla (1942)~
\end{quote}

\section*{I.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Introduction}\label{i.-introduction}

~

Is there an ``easy part'' and a ``hard part'' to the Hard Problem of
consciousness? In this paper, we suggest that there is. The harder part
is arriving at a philosophical position with respect to the relationship
of matter and mind. This paper is about the ``easy part'' of the Hard
Problem but we address the ``hard part'' briefly in this introduction.

~

We have both arrived, after much deliberation, at the position of
panpsychism or panexperientialism (all matter has at least some
associated mind/experience and vice versa). This is the view that all
things and processes have both mental and physical aspects. Matter and
mind are two sides of the same coin.

~

Panpsychism is one of many possible approaches that addresses the ``hard
part'' of the Hard Problem. We adopt this position for all the reasons
various authors have listed (Chalmers 1996, Griffin 1997, Hunt 2011,
Goff 2017). This first step is particularly powerful if we adopt the
Whiteheadian version of panpsychism (Whitehead 1929).

~

Reaching a position on this fundamental question of how mind relates to
matter must be based on a ``weight of plausibility'' approach, rather
than on definitive evidence, because establishing definitive evidence
with respect to the presence of mind/experience is difficult. We must
generally rely on examining various ``behavioral correlates of
consciousness'' in judging whether entities other than ourselves are
conscious -- even with respect to other humans---since the only
consciousness we can know with certainty is our own.

~

Positing that matter and mind are two sides of the same coin explains
the problem of consciousness insofar as it avoids the problems of
emergence because under this approach consciousness doesn't emerge.
Consciousness is, rather, always present, at some level, even in the
simplest of processes, but it ``complexifies'' as matter complexifies,
and vice versa. Consciousness starts very simple and becomes more
complex and rich under the right conditions, which in our proposed
framework rely on resonance mechanisms. Matter and mind are two sides of
the coin. Neither is primary; they are coequal.

~

We acknowledge the challenges of adopting this perspective, but
encourage readers to consider the many compelling reasons to consider it
that are reviewed elsewhere (Chalmers 1996, Griffin 1998, Hunt 2011,
Goff 2017, Schooler, Schooler, \& Hunt, 2011; Schooler, 2015).

~

Taking a position on the overarching ontology is the first step in
addressing the Hard Problem. But this leads to the related questions: at
what level of organization does consciousness reside in any particular
process? Is a rock conscious? A chair? An ant? A bacterium? Or are only
the smaller constituents, such as atoms or molecules, of these entities
conscious? And if there is some degree of consciousness even in atoms
and molecules, as panpsychism suggests (albeit of a very rudimentary
nature, an important point to remember), how do these micro-conscious
entities combine into the higher-level and obvious consciousness we
witness in entities like humans and other mammals?

~

This set of questions is known as the ``combination problem,'' another
now-classic problem in the philosophy of mind, and is what we describe
here as the ``easy part'' of the Hard Problem. Our characterization of
this part of the problem as ``easy''\protect\hyperlink{_ftn2}{{[}2{]}}
is, of course, more than a little tongue in cheek. The authors have
discussed frequently with each other what part of the Hard Problem
should be labeled the easier part and which the harder part. Regardless
of the labels we choose, however, this paper focuses on our suggested
solution to the combination problem.

~

Various solutions to the combination problem have been proposed but none
have gained widespread acceptance. This paper further elaborates a
proposed solution to the combination problem that we first described in
Hunt 2011 and Schooler, Hunt, and Schooler 2011. The proposed solution
rests on the idea of resonance, a shared vibratory frequency, which can
also be called synchrony or field coherence. We will generally use
resonance and ``sync,'' short for synchrony, interchangeably in this
paper. We describe the approach as a general resonance theory of
consciousness or just ``general resonance theory'' (GRT). GRT is a field
theory of consciousness wherein the various specific fields associated
with matter and energy are the seat of conscious awareness.

~

A summary of our approach appears in Appendix 1.

~

All things in our universe are constantly in motion, in process. Even
objects that appear to be stationary are in fact vibrating, oscillating,
resonating, at specific frequencies. So all \emph{things} are actually
\emph{processes}. Resonance is a specific type of motion, characterized
by synchronized oscillation between two states.

~

An interesting phenomenon occurs when different vibrating processes come
into proximity: they will often start vibrating together at the same
frequency. They ``sync up,'' sometimes in ways that can seem mysterious,
and allow for richer and faster information and energy flows (Figure 1
offers a schematic). Examining this phenomenon leads to potentially deep
insights about the nature of consciousness in both the human/mammalian
context but also at a deeper ontological level.\selectlanguage{english}
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.70\columnwidth]{figures/Schematic-showing-coherent-flows/Schematic-showing-coherent-flows}
\caption{{\emph{Why shared resonance (sync) leads to more and faster information
flows.}~
{\label{890190}}%
}}
\end{center}
\end{figure}

~

Strogatz 2003 provides various examples of resonance from physics,
biology, chemistry and neuroscience to illustrate ``sync'' (synchrony),
including:

~

\selectlanguage{ngerman}·~~~~~ Fireflies of certain species start flashing their little fires in
sync in large gatherings of fireflies

·~~~~~ Large-scale neuron firing can occur in human brains at specific
frequencies, with mammalian consciousness thought to be commonly
associated with various kinds of neuronal synchrony

·~~~~~ Lasers are produced when photons of the same power and frequency
are emitted together

·~~~~~ The moon's rotation is exactly synced with its orbit around the
Earth such that we always see the same face

~

Let's delve a little deeper into the idea of resonance.

~

\section*{II.~~~~~~~~~~~~ What is resonance, what is
sync?}\label{ii.-what-is-resonance-what-is-sync}

~

What's happening in these examples just provided? Again, resonance/sync
is a tendency for different processes to move together -- to oscillate
-- at the same or similar frequency. The science of sync -- sometimes
called complex network theory or harmonic oscillator theory -- is
concerned with how coupled oscillators behave in relation to each other.
We discuss these theoretical approaches further below.

~

The mystery in many examples of resonance is two-fold: 1) how do the
constituents of each resonating structure (a term we'll use to refer to
any collection of resonating constituents) communicate with each other,
and; 2) how do these constituents achieve resonance once that
communication occurs?

~

Let's look at each mystery in turn, focusing mostly on the first two
examples we listed above: 1) Fireflies synchronizing their flashes; and
2) Large-scale neuronal synchrony in mammalian brains.

~

\subsection*{A.~~ How do resonating structures
communicate?}\label{a.-how-do-resonating-structures-communicate}

~

The nature of communication between each resonating structure will
depend on what example we're considering. Looking at fireflies as one of
two illustrative examples of complex resonating structures, we know that
visual cues are available to each fly but there are probably also
olfactory and other chemical cues available, and maybe even electrical
or magnetic clues. This kind of sync will require empirical
investigation to rule out candidates for communication in order to home
in on the channels that are in fact being used by fireflies. From
empirical research to date it seems likely that sync in firefly
populations that coordinate their bioluminescent flashing relies mostly
on visual perception (Strogatz 2003).

~

The nature of the communication between each neuron in the case of
neuronal synchrony in brains is less clear. Walter Freeman has argued,
based on his extensive work on rabbit and cat brains, that gamma
synchrony, a particular type of neuronal sync, is achieved too quickly
to depend only on electrochemical neuronal signaling, and must thus also
depend on electrical field signaling. Freeman and Vitiello 2006 states:

~

\begin{quote}
High temporal resolution of EEG signals \ldots{} gives evidence for
diverse intermittent spatial patterns \ldots{} of carrier waves that
repeatedly re-synchronize in the beta and gamma ranges in very short
time lags over very long distances. The dominant mechanism for neural
interactions by axodendritic synaptic transmission should impose
distance-dependent delays on the EEG oscillations owing to finite
propagation velocities and sequential synaptic delays. It does not.

~
\end{quote}

Hameroff 2010 mirrors this conclusion: ``The seemingly instantaneous
depolarization of gap-junction-linked excitable membranes (i.e., despite
the relative slowness of dendritic potential waves or spikelets)
suggests that even gap junction coupling cannot fully account for the
precise coherence of global brain gamma synchrony.''

~

Additional research is necessary to further examine the communication
channels responsible for achieving gamma and beta synchrony (a less
rapid type than gamma synchrony), but as will be discussed data already
available strongly suggest that shared resonance is key for human and
other mammalian consciousness.~ We discuss further below the various
types of resonance patterns in mammalian brains, including electrical
field resonance, and other recent developments in this scientific field.

~

\subsection*{B.~~~ How do resonating structures achieve shared
resonance?}\label{b.-how-do-resonating-structures-achieve-shared-resonance}

~

We have introduced the first mystery, without offering any broad
solutions at this point. Our second mystery is even deeper: How do
resonating entities that are in mutual communication adjust their
resonance frequencies to achieve resonance with each other? Entities
start out of sync and somehow, in many cases, become synced. What forces
are at work in these processes?

~

With respect to fireflies, we may analogize to human conscious actions.
For example, when we want to lift our finger we achieve this intended
result through a chain of neural pulses from our brain to our finger,
and the motion is achieved. Similarly, it is plausible to speculate that
fireflies \emph{intend} to flash their little light; after they do so an
electrochemical pulse travels from the fly brain to its abdomen, and
then the physiological and chemical processes responsible for its
bioluminescence kick into gear.\protect\hyperlink{_ftn3}{{[}3{]}}

~

It may seem strange to some readers to ascribe intention to fireflies.
To us, it seems intuitive and logical that fireflies would experience
intentions and conscious control of at least some of their bodily
processes -- particularly significant processes involving large organs
like their light-making organ. Their behavior is complex and displays
many ``behavioral correlates of consciousness.'' We don't need to
suggest, however, that fireflies have anything like the richness of
human consciousness to acknowledge, by examining the various neuronal
and behavioral analogies to humans and other mammals, that the firefly
probably enjoys a rather basic level of conscious awareness.

~

Under this assumption -- that fireflies enjoy a rudimentary type of
consciousness, at least in comparison to human consciousness -- we may
explain the question (how are flashes synchronized?), at a high level,
ignoring the complexities of the sub-level mechanisms. This allows for a
parsimonious explanation in keeping with how we would explain any
conscious action in a human, dog, cat, etc.: the brain/mind wills it and
the body responds.

~

We can also, however, explain firefly flashing sync without recourse to
consciousness or intelligence. This is Strogatz's approach and he and
his colleagues first explained the then-mystery of firefly sync by
positing internal biological oscillators that automatically sync with
neighbors (Strogatz 2003). ~

~

But what about resonance between individual neurons, looking at our
second example of synchrony? It would be hard to make the case that
individual neurons ``intend'' anything, and we are not suggesting such.
So how do neurons sync up so quickly and so frequently? This is a
mystery that may rival the mystery of how these global frequencies are
communicated. We don't know yet how this communication is manifested in
each neuron in a way that rapidly changes the electrical cycles in each
neuron to match rapidly changing macroscopic patterns.

~

Keppler 2013 focuses on the phase transitions observed in mammalian
brains and the fact that these brains seem to exist generally in a state
of ``criticality,'' which makes them very sensitive to small changes:

~

\begin{quote}
From this perspective, the brain mechanisms behind conscious processes
can be regarded as a complex system that operates near a critical point
of a phase transition. While displaying spontaneous activity and
irregular dynamics in the disordered phase, an appropriate stimulus can
transfer the brain to the ordered phase that exhibits long-range
correlations and stable attractors.

~
\end{quote}

The concept of ``phase transition'' is potentially quite important in
this context. A good analogy to a phase transition is water turning into
ice, or water vapor condensing into drops as mentioned above. Small
changes in temperature can tip cold water into forming ice crystals that
rapidly spread. Similarly, these authors are suggesting that brain
states (and the neural states that comprise brain states) can oscillate
back and forth quickly, based on relatively modest stimuli. We discuss
this further below.

~

Fries 2015, a major update to Fries' now well-known ``communication
through coherence'' hypothesis described Fries 2005, frames a cognitive
frequency triad of various brain wave types as follows:

~

\begin{quote}
The experimental evidence presented and the considerations discussed so
far suggest that top-down attentional influence are mediated by
beta-band synchronization, that the selective communication of the
attended stimulus is implemented by gamma-band synchronization, and that
gamma is rhythmically reset by a 4 Hz theta rhythm.

~
\end{quote}

The brief overview of resonance in nature just provided is meant to
introduce a number of key ideas that we'll flesh out below: 1) all
aspects of nature are processes rather than static things; 2) all
processes/things resonate at various frequencies; 3) processes that
resonate in proximity to each other will in some cases sync up and
resonate together after a certain time.

~

These are all components in our approach to resolving the ``easy party''
of the Hard Problem, otherwise known as the combination problem, which
is the main focus of this paper. Before we flesh out this solution
further, however, we will briefly focus on the ``hard part'' of the Hard
Problem in the next section.

~

\section*{\texorpdfstring{III.~~~~~~~~~~ The ``hard part'' of the Hard
Problem}{III.~~~~~~~~~~ The hard part of the Hard Problem}}\label{iii.-the-hard-part-of-the-hard-problem}

\textbf{\emph{~}}

Chalmers 1996 described what he thought would be required of the
eventual ``psychophysical laws'' governing the relationship between mind
and matter -- which would collectively comprise the ultimate solution to
the ``hard problem'' of consciousness:

~

\begin{quote}
{[}T{]}he cornerstone of a theory of consciousness will be a set of
psychophysical laws governing the relationship between consciousness and
physical systems. \ldots{} {[}A{]}n account of these laws will tell us
just how consciousness depends on physical processes. Given the physical
facts about a system, such laws will enable us to infer what sort of
conscious experience will be associated with the system, if
any.\protect\hyperlink{_ftn4}{{[}4{]}}

~
\end{quote}

Chalmers' suggested psychophysical laws would constitute a solution to
what he described as the ``hard problem'' of consciousness (now
generally capitalized), which is a new name for the classic mind/body
problem.

~

Hunt 2011 proposed a set of psychophysical laws that would describe the
relationship between consciousness and physical systems. The present
paper is a follow-up to the earlier work, also elaborated in Schooler,
Hunt and Schooler 2011, and an elaboration of the manner in which
resonance plays a key role in achieving macro-scale consciousness
through the combination of many micro-conscious entities.

~

The first step in any resolution of the Hard Problem requires taking a
position with respect to the interaction of mind and matter. As
mentioned, our preferred approach, accepts that all matter has some
associated mind. This position is often described as panpsychism or
panexperientialism (Hunt 2011, Schooler, Hunt and Schooler 2011, Hunt
2014, Schooler 2015, Goff 2017). In the vast majority of matter this
associated mind is very rudimentary -- perhaps just a little humming of
simple awareness in, for example, an electron or an atom. But in some
types of collections of matter, such as the complex biological life
forms we are intimately familiar with, consciousness takes off and
becomes more rich in comparison to the vast majority of matter.~

~

Based on the observed behavior of the entities that surround us, from
electrons to atoms to molecules to bacteria to paramecia to mice, bats,
rats, etc., all things should be viewed as at least a little conscious.
Panpsychism represents the counterpoint to the \emph{emergentist}
viewpoint, which argues that consciousness emerged at a particular point
in the development of each species that enjoys consciousness, and also
emerged at a particular point in the development of each organism that
enjoys consciousness, where it wasn't before.

~

The panpsychist argues, rather, that mind did not emerge; it's always
associated with matter and \emph{vice versa} (they are two coequal sides
of the same coin), but the mind that is associated with all matter is
generally extremely rudimentary. An electron or an atom enjoy just a
tiny amount of consciousness. But as matter complexifies, so mind
complexifies, and \emph{vice versa}. It is not, however, any kind of
increase in complexity that matters in this context. It is, rather, a
function of greater resonant interconnections, both internally and
externally. Hunt 2019 (in progress) fleshes out the mathematical
framework first described in Hunt 2011, focusing on how resonant
connections lead to larger-scale conscious entities and how such
entities may be characterized and quantified.

~

We won't delve too deeply into the many arguments in favor of
panpsychism here, but \emph{see} Hunt 2011 and 2014, Schooler, Hunt and
Schooler 2011, Schooler, 2015; Griffin 1998, Goff 2017. Christof Koch, a
pioneer in the scientific investigation of the neural basis of
consciousness, wrote a short piece in 2014 explaining his ``coming out''
as a panpsychist (Koch 2014):

~

\begin{quote}
Elementary particles either have some charge, or they have none. Thus,
an electron has one negative charge, a proton has one positive charge
and a photon, the carrier of light, has zero charge. As far as chemistry
and biology are concerned, charge is an intrinsic property of these
particles. Electrical charge does not emerge from noncharged matter. It
is the same, goes the logic, with consciousness. Consciousness comes
with organized chunks of matter. It is immanent in the organization of
the system. It is a property of complex entities and cannot be further
reduced to the action of more elementary properties. We have reached the
ground floor of reductionism.
\end{quote}

~

Koch has also partnered with Giulio Tononi in developing the Integrated
Information Theory of consciousness, which is panpsychist in its
assumptions. (Oizumi, et al. 2014, Tononi 2012, Tononi and Koch 2015).

~

Koch and Tononi (2015) are incorrect in arguing that other approaches to
panpsychism have not suggested a rigorous framework for analyzing
consciousness (a number of authors have attempted just this, including
Griffin 1998 and Hunt 2011), but they are correct that none of these
other efforts are well-known.

~

We think of this philosophical stance -- that all matter has at least
some associated consciousness -- as the ``hard part of the Hard
Problem'' because it requires a conclusion about the basic ontology of
the world: how do matter and mind relate to each other? Coming to this
conclusion is no easy task for most scholars and debate continues to be
robust between materialist, emergentist, panpsychist and even dualist
and idealist, approaches.

~

We won't dwell on this debate, however, in this paper. Rather, we will
focus on the ``easy part'' of the Hard Problem -- the combination
problem, described further in the next section.

~

Our preferred stance is panpsychist because we recognize the major
difficulties with emergentist materialism (the prevailing view among
philosophers and physicists; though the tide is turning toward
panpsychism) and it seems more plausible that, just as life evolves
smoothly from one form to another, so mind evolves smoothly from one
form to another -- in fact these processes are concurrent and
inter-related.

~

Summing up: arriving at some version of panpsychism constitutes a
solution to the ``hard part'' of the Hard Problem that we find more
convincing than the alternatives.

~

\section*{\texorpdfstring{IV.~~~~~~~~~ The ``easy part'' of the Hard
Problem}{IV.~~~~~~~~~ The easy part of the Hard Problem}}\label{iv.-the-easy-part-of-the-hard-problem}

~

The ``easy part'' of the Hard Problem is, as discussed above, more
generally known as the ``combination problem'' or the ``binding
problem'' (Chalmers 2013). The combination problem refers to the
question of how different micro-entities combine to form a higher-level
macro-conscious entity. That is, how do the purported experiences in,
say, individual neurons, or regions of the brain, combine together to
create a larger-scale experience that is still individual and unitary?

~

Goff 2017 states the problem well: ``We feel we have some kind of grip
on how . . . parts of a car engine make up an engine, but we are at a
loss trying to make sense of lots of `little' (proto) minds forming a
big mind.''

~

This ``combination problem'' is not unique to panpsychism, as is often
suggested. It is a problem in every reductionistic answer to the Hard
Problem, whether we are materialist or panpsychist in our approach. This
is the case because any reductionist explanation of consciousness must
explain how the components of a given brain or mind (or brain/mind)
combine to form a seemingly unitary consciousness. None of these
approaches has achieved any consensus with respect to this basic
problem.

~

William James first described what is now known generally as the
combination problem or the boundary problem in his 1895 book \emph{The
Principles of Psychology}:

~

\begin{quote}
Where the elemental units {[}of our theory of mind{]} are supposed to be
feelings, the case is in no wise altered. Take a hundred of them,
shuffle them and pack them as close together as you can (whatever that
may mean); still each remains the same feeling it always was, shut in
its own skin, windowless, ignorant of what the other feelings are and
mean. There would be a hundred-and-first feeling there, if, when a group
or series of such feelings were set up, a consciousness belonging to the
group as such should emerge. And this 101st feeling would be a totally
new fact; the 100 original feelings might, by a curious physical law, be
a signal for its creation, when they came together; but they would have
no substantial identity with it, nor it with them, and one could never
deduce the one from the others, or (in any intelligible sense) say that
they evolved it.

~
\end{quote}

Resonance theory and empirical data suggest, however, that these
``elemental units'' in James' passage aren't ``windowless'': all
processes are constantly interacting with other processes nearby; they
do in fact have ``windows'' that allow for such interaction, and when
full resonance occurs these windows are maximally open.

~

We suggest, based on the growing body of data described sketchily above,
that a shared resonance frequency is the key to resolving the
combination problem, the ``easy part'' of the Hard Problem. Resonating
entities bind/combine together in various ways when they resonate at the
same frequency. Depending on the entities being considered, such shared
resonance and binding can in certain circumstances lead to a combination
of mental qualities into a larger whole.

~

What is it about shared resonance that would allow such a combination or
binding of mental qualities? It is clear today that the
Democritean/Newtonian notion of matter as akin to little billiard balls
careening around in space is highly incomplete as a model of reality. We
know from quantum mechanical theory and abundant data over the last
century that matter is more like a tight little standing wave of
concentrated energy. Each of these waves are more or less localized in
space and time.

~

When we see matter as fundamentally wave-like, it is not hard to see why
shared resonance leads to faster information flows and macro-conscious
entities. All physical processes are different types of waves, so when
various entities resonate at the same frequency the waves work together,
instead of in opposition. This allows for significantly higher bandwidth
and speed in the information flows between the constituents of whatever
resonating structure we're looking at. The resonating wave forms of the
micro-conscious entities are then coherent and information flows combine
into a larger entity, a larger harmonic, rather than occurring out of
phase (decoherently).

~

Fries 2015 provides a helpful example in the context of neuronal
resonance/coherence: ``In the absence of coherence, inputs arrive at
random phases of the excitability cycle and will have a lower effective
connectivity.'' Conversely, inputs that arrive synced to the same
excitability cycle will propagate faster and with greater bandwidth. We
look further at Fries' model below.

~

Biological organisms have leveraged faster information exchange through
various biophysical pathways. These faster and richer information flows
allow for more macro-scale levels of consciousness to occur than would
occur in similar-scale structures like boulders or a pile of sand,
simply because there is greater interconnectivity and thus more ``going
on'' in biological structures than in a boulder or a pile of sand
(Figure 2). However, as stated previously, the type of interconnectivity
must be based on resonance mechanisms that, as a general matter, induce
a step function in the speed of information flows due to the transition
from incoherent structures to coherent structures. Boulders and piles of
sand amount to ``mere aggregates'' or just collections of rudimentary
conscious entities (perhaps at the atomic or molecular level only),
rather than combinations of micro-conscious entities that combine into a
higher level macro-conscious entity, as is the case with biological
life.\selectlanguage{english}
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.70\columnwidth]{figures/Schematic-showing-speed-of-influence-and-size-of-combination/Schematic-showing-speed-of-influence-and-size-of-combination}
\caption{{\emph{Abstraction of the way in which the speed of energy/information
flows leads to larger and more complex conscious entities through
resonance. Speeds 1, 2 and 3 are different speeds of information flows
between the abstract entities, which lead to different constituents of
the larger resonating whole in each example. Larger resonating entities
can form as a result of higher causal speeds.}
{\label{875337}}%
}}
\end{center}
\end{figure}

The \emph{type} of interconnection and combination between resonating
structures is key for consciousness to expand beyond the rudimentary
type of consciousness that we expect to occur in an electron, atom, or
molecule. The central thesis of our approach is this: shared resonance
among micro-conscious constituents allows for macro-conscious entities
to arise because of a step change in the speed and bandwidth of
information exchange. We flesh this idea out in the rest of the paper.

~

In human brains, for example, we've seen already that one candidate for
the primary neural correlate of consciousness is gamma synchrony
(Hameroff 2010), but mammalian consciousness is actually correlated with
a combination of lower harmonic frequencies as well as gamma, rather
than only gamma (as Fries 2015 describes).

~

This shared resonance through electrochemical frequencies creates an
electrical field that may itself be the seat of macro-conscious
awareness. Looking only at gamma synchrony, as an example for
discussion: as the area of shared gamma synchrony moves around the brain
it absorbs new neurons into the same resonance frequency; and as it
moves away from certain neurons its lets those others return to their
previous state of resonance.

~

By absorbing new neurons into the moving semi-stable gamma wave pattern,
this moving large-scale wave entrains those neurons to the same
frequency and thus allows information and processing power of the many
``little minds'' constituted by those neuron clusters to become part of
the macro-conscious entity. The smaller harmonics are entrained into the
larger harmonic -- their ``windows'' are all open to each other and
information flows freely. The macro-consciousness is changing in each
moment to exactly the degree that its constituent neurons are changing
in each moment.

~

Whitehead, one of the most influential panpsychists of the modern era,
states in his 1929 magnum opus, \emph{Process and Reality}, that ``the
many become one and are increased by one'' (Whitehead 1929, p. 21). This
means that a new higher-level entity arises from the lower level of
entities, but there is no extinction of any of the lower-level entities;
only an increase of one.

~

This consciousness-through-resonance proposal has some recent
precedents. Fries first proposed his Communication Through Coherence
(CTC) model in 2005 and issued a substantial update to his theory in
2015 (Fries 2015). The update summarized the relevant research in the
intervening decade, and also modified the original theory in light of
contrary evidence. Our approach mirrors Fries's CTC model, and other
similar approaches, in terms of a proposed model for human cognition and
consciousness. Our aim, however, in this paper and our previous work is
to generalize insights from the study of mammalian consciousness to a
broader theory about consciousness and ontology that applies beyond
mammalian consciousness, potentially to all actual entities.

~

Fries 2015 describes his CTC model and the role of ``selective
communication'' as a function of resonance between different components
of the brain (what we described above as the ``windows'' that are opened
when coherent/resonant, and closed when incoherent/not resonant):

~

\begin{quote}
{[}S{]}trong effective connectivity requires rhythmic synchronization
within pre- and postsynaptic groups and coherence between them, or in
short---communication requires coherence. In the absence of coherence,
inputs arrive at random phases of the excitability cycle and will have a
lower effective connectivity. A postsynaptic neuronal group receiving
inputs from several different presynaptic groups responds primarily to
the presynaptic group to which it is coherent. Thereby, selective
communication is implemented through selective coherence.

~
\end{quote}

Coherence also allows for entrainment of certain neurons to the dominant
resonance frequency (\emph{id.}):

~

In addition to rendering communication effective and precise, coherence
also renders communication selective. If one set of synaptic inputs,
constituting one neuronal representation, succeeds in triggering
postsynaptic excitation followed by inhibition, this inhibition closes
the door in front of other inputs. Those other inputs are then unable to
transmit the neuronal representation that they constitute, and they are
unable to trigger inhibition themselves. Thereby, the winning set of
synaptic inputs conquers the perisomatic inhibition in the postsynaptic
neuronal group, entrains it to its own rhythm, and thereby establishes a
communication link that is selective or in other words, exclusive.

~

Zeki and Bartels have also suggested an approach that shares certain
features with the model proposed here. It is now widely accepted that
evolution entailed a process in which simple organisms combined to form
the organelles (e.g. mitochondria) of more complex eukaryotic cells,
which in turn combined to become multi-cellular organisms (Margulis and
Sagan 1990). Just as life evolved the capacity to integrate independent
living creatures into more complex singular life forms, it may have
similarly developed the capacity to integrate subjective experiences
into nested hierarchies of higher-order conscious entities. Such a
hierarchical view of consciousness represents the basis of Zeki and
Bartel's (Zeki and Bartels 1999; Zeki 2003) theory of how consciousness
manifests in the brain.

~

Drawing on differences in the processing rates of different areas of the
visual system, Zeki suggests that the brain engages in a nested
hierarchy of distinct conscious experiences leading to a final unified
experience. He proposes three hierarchical levels at which consciousness
takes place in the brain: micro-consciousness corresponding to the
different levels of the visual system that process distinct attributes
(e.g. V4 processes color where as V5 processes motion),
macro-consciousness that integrates multiple attributes of a system
(e.g. binding color to motion), and unified consciousness corresponding
to the experience of the perceiving person. Zeki further suggests that
each of these nested levels of consciousness occur in a distinct
temporal order, with the lower order levels being ahead of and feeding
into the higher order levels. Zeki describes his model as follows (Zeki
2003):

~

It thus becomes possible to distinguish three hierarchical levels of
consciousness: the levels of micro-consciousness, of
macro-consciousness, and of the unified consciousness. Of necessity, one
level depends upon the presence of the previous one. Within each level,
one can postulate a temporal hierarchy. This has been demonstrated for
the level of microconsciousness, because colour and motion are perceived
at different times. It has also been demonstrated for the level of the
macro-consciousnesses, because binding between attributes takes longer
than binding within attributes\ldots{} Micro- and macro-consciousnesses,
with their individual temporal hierarchies, lead to the final, unified
consciousness, that of myself as the perceiving person.

~

Although Zeki only describes three levels, we suggest here that there
are likely many additional lower-level micro-conscious entities that are
part of the human/mammalian hierarchy of consciousness. Accordingly, the
inorganic world may involve only the most micro-level conscious
observers at the level of atoms and molecules. In contrast, life may
have evolved the capacity to develop hierarchies of conscious observers
within observers, with each level subsuming a more macroscopic
perspective, leading ultimately to the highest level at which the
unified experience of the organism occurs. This nested hierarchy is
likely far larger than just three levels of hierarchy, but Zeki's
approach makes sense as a schematic.

~

Zeki offers a way of distinguishing his proposed levels, namely, by the
temporal order in which they occur, with higher order experiences
occurring temporally downstream. In other words, Zeki's view suggests
that the different conscious observers in the brain may experience the
same events at different times and at different durations, with the
final unified consciousness entailing the longest moments of experience.
We share this view and elaborate on it further below.

\par\null

\section*{V.~~~~~~~~~~~ What type of resonance is necessary for
combination of
consciousness?}\label{v.-what-type-of-resonance-is-necessary-for-combination-of-consciousness}

\textbf{\emph{~}}

We have already suggested the mechanism for combination to occur: a
shared resonance leads to combination and the ``many become one and are
increased by one.'' This means that each micro-conscious entity is
included in a new macro-conscious entity, but the micro-conscious
entities are not extinguished through such combination. The
macro-conscious entity supervenes on the micro-conscious entities.

~

But what type of resonance leads to such combination? Confining our
consideration for now to mammalian consciousness, we have good data to
support the suggestion that it is a shared electrical resonance that is
generally the proximate cause of combination, as discussed above (Fries
2005, 2015). There may also be a shared quantum entanglement resonance
that \emph{precedes and leads to this shared electrical resonance}, or
that has some other relationship to the shared electrical resonance.

~

\subsection*{\texorpdfstring{A.~~ The ``quantum
question''}{A.~~ The quantum question}}\label{a.-the-quantum-question}

\emph{~}

A note on the controversy about claims of quantum phenomena in the
biological context is important at this point. There has been a long
debate about whether quantum phenomena are even possible in biological
systems (Tegmark 2000, Hameroff and Penrose 2014, Craddock, et al. 2017,
e.g.). Some physicists and neuroscientists adopt the view that quantum
phenomena cannot be present in the warm wet systems of mammalian brains.
However, the field of ``quantum biology'' is thriving and new examples
of established or potential quantum effects in warm wet biological
systems are coming to light with increasing regularity (\emph{see}
Lambert, et al. 2013, for a recent review). In sum: it is now
well-established, despite the commonly-held view that quantum effects
can't be present in mammalian brains, that quantum phenomena are in fact
quite common in biological systems.

~

While we are open to the possibility of quantum phenomena in mammalian
brains, and possibly being part of the complex causal phenomena of
consciousness, our resonance theory of consciousness does not require
the presence of quantum phenomena for its validity. Our concern in
raising the ``quantum question'' is two-fold: to not rule out quantum
phenomena prematurely (to follow the facts where they may lead), but
also to not rush to the conclusion that quantum phenomena are in fact
present in the dynamics of consciousness. There is plenty of room
between accepting, for example, that some brain dynamics seem to operate
independently of traditional electrochemical neuronal pathways, and the
notion that quantum phenomena must be invoked to explain such apparent
anomalies. There is a vast middle ground that should be explored before
such an alternative explanation is considered to be necessary.

~

What is happening that seems to allow such rapid communication across
large parts of mammalian brains? Freeman and others (Pockett 2000;
McFadden 2001, 2002a, 2002b) have suggested that the electric field
itself, which is created by the brain and supervenes on the brain,
becomes a mediator of information, and that cortical neurons that
resonate together undergo a phase transition into a unitary quantum
state. Freeman and Vitiello 2006 states:

~

\begin{quote}
Our field theoretic model leads to our view of the phase transition as a
condensation that is comparable to the formation of fog and rain drops
from water vapor, and that might serve to model both the gamma and beta
phase transitions.\ldots{} The adoption of such a field theoretic
approach enables us to model the whole cerebral hemisphere and its
hierarchy of components down to the atomic level as a fully integrated
macroscopic quantum system, namely as a macroscopic system which is a
quantum system not in the trivial sense that it is made, like all
existing matter, by quantum components such as atoms and molecules, but,
as already mentioned, in the sense that some of its macroscopic
properties can best be described with recourse to quantum dynamics.
\end{quote}

~

Weingarten, et al. 2016 shows plausible pathways for quantum networks to
exist alongside classical networks in the brain.

~

The current evidence suggests that it is plausible that electrical
resonance is mediated by quantum resonance and perhaps prompted/prodded
by quantum resonance in such a way that the very rapid achievement of
electrical resonance states that we observe in mammalian brains is made
possible by the far more rapid quantum resonance states at the
subcellular level.

~

We are, however, agnostic currently about the likelihood or necessity
for quantum mechanisms mediating mammalian consciousness, or for the
necessity of quantum mechanisms to be involved in a broader explanation
of consciousness beyond the category of mammalian brains. At this
juncture there is not strong evidence that an ongoing quantum synchrony
is the pathway for shared information between the constituent
micro-conscious entities. That appears to primarily occur through
electrochemical and electric field pathways.~

~

Regardless of whether quantum mechanisms are required to understand
mammalian consciousness, however, the theory and worldview we are
proposing here is consonant with the quantum mechanical worldview and
its wave-and-field-based ontology, which is the underlying ontology of
today's physics.

~

In this ontology, all actual entities exist in a large interconnected
web. To exist in this web, or ``field'' (or set of fields), to use more
appropriate physics terminology, is to send waves of various frequencies
to the rest of the field. These frequencies are simply waves of the
field itself, not something existing over and above the field. The
universe consists of only the field and various waves moving through
that field. What we think of as matter or energy consist of more
concentrated and higher frequency waves of that field.

~

This is the ontology strongly suggested by quantum field theory, but
even though quantum field theory has been with us for half a century,
its details are complex and controversial. Accordingly, the field and
wave-based ontology that is part and parcel of quantum field theory
hasn't generally sunk into the collective consciousness.

~

\subsection*{B.~~~ What information pathways are responsible for
macro-scale
consciousness?}\label{b.-what-information-pathways-are-responsible-for-macro-scale-consciousness}

~

If shared resonance is the mechanism for achieving combination of
consciousness, what information pathways are responsible for achieving
shared resonance? We've suggested above that electrical and
electrochemical forces seem to be the most relevant, with a possible
role for quantum interactions. This section looks further into what
fundamental forces are relevant to consciousness, and distinguishes our
approach from Hameroff and Penrose's Orch OR model that relies on
gravitational interactions (Hameroff 2013).

~

There are various information pathways we should look to in our survey
of potential information pathways, starting with the fundamental
physical interactions: electromagnetism; gravity; the strong and weak
nuclear forces; and the newer but now well-established quantum
mechanical interaction.

~

We suggest the provisional conclusion that characteristics of
electricity and electromagnetism more generally seem to make it the most
suitable type of resonance for combination beyond the atomic scale,
perhaps mediated by various types of subcellular quantum resonance.

~

By definition, the strong and weak nuclear forces generally apply only
to nuclear-scale physics, which seems to leave these forces out of the
equation in terms of any putative consciousness larger than a nucleus or
an atom.

~

Gravity is the other established long-range force but we have little
reason to believe that gravity plays much if any role in consciousness
because it is so weak compared to electromagnetism. At the spatial scale
of biological organisms that we are familiar with -- what we'll call the
``organic scale'' from now on -- electromagnetic effects vastly
overshadow gravitational effects -- by many orders of magnitude. Penrose
and Hameroff have, however, suggested a role for gravity in ongoing
quantum collapse in their recent work revising their Orchestrated
Objective Reduction theory of consciousness (Hameroff and Penrose 2014),
based on the proposed Diosi-Penrose objective reduction approach to
quantum gravity.~

~

Accordingly, electromagnetism seems to be the best candidate currently
for the primary fundamental interaction at the scale of biological life
and consciousness. A growing body of evidence suggests, however, that
quantum effects are also operative and influential at the organic scale,
as discussed above. The potential complementary relationship between
quantum resonance and electrical resonance requires considerably more
research, and we can't say much about how these two forces interact at
the organic scale, or whether they are in some sense the same resonance
phenomenon with different manifestations -- two sides of the same coin
perhaps.~

~

If we accept the provisional conclusion that electricity or
electromagnetism more generally is the place to look for shared
resonance between neurons, we must still consider the question: what
components of neurons and what physical processes must achieve a shared
resonance for the combination of micro-conscious entities to occur?

~

\subsection*{C.~~~ Is subcellular resonance key to
consciousness?}\label{c.-is-subcellular-resonance-key-to-consciousness}

~

There is a related and growing body of research that looks at the
subcellular processing taking place in microtubules and other proteins
like actin, beta spectrin, SNARE complex and clathrin (Hameroff and
Penrose 2014; Craddock 2014 and 2015; Sahu et al. 2013; Bandyopadhyay
2017). Microtubules and similar proteins are common in neurons and were
previously thought to be a type of support scaffolding for these types
of cells. Recent research has, however, shown that these molecules can
be rich information processors through the activity of dipolar tubulin
molecules, at least in the case of microtubules. Hameroff 2013
calculates at least 1016 additional operations per second arising from
microtubule operations \emph{in each neuron}, which is a massive
increase over the roughly 105 operations per second per neuron thought
to be possible through axonal-dendritic connections alone.

~

Hameroff and Penrose 2014 describes an important addition to their Orch
OR approach in which ``beat frequencies'' at classical oscillation time
periods manifest during such oscillations, but are based on faster
quantum oscillations at a more granular level, thus addressing
objections about decoherence occurring at ``warm'' biological
temperatures that some have leveled against Orch OR:

~

\begin{quote}
In previous Orch OR publications, the relevant time \emph{t} for
conscious moments \ldots{} has been assumed to correlate with
physiological EEG parameters, i.e. 10 to several hundred milliseconds,
which is relatively long for isolated quantum systems. But here we
suggest an alternative way in which such oscillation frequencies might
come about, namely as \emph{beat} frequencies, arising when OR is
applied to superpositions of quantum states of slightly different
energies. This makes the task of finding an origin for these observed
frequencies far simpler and more plausible.

~
\end{quote}

Could a higher frequency shared resonance -- well beyond the 30-120 Hz
of gamma frequency -- of these subcellular processes lead to combination
of consciousness at the subcellular level? Craddock et al. 2017, for
example, looks at the correlation between terahertz-level (1,000 Hz and
above) oscillations in tubulin molecules and anesthetics. Or is it only
the cellular and intercellular levels of resonance that we should look
to as the causal mechanism for combination of consciousness? Or do
subcellular processes precede in time the cellular processes, at a more
granular scale, which then lead to a shared resonance at the global
level of each brain?~

~

These are all questions that should be active areas of research and we
are optimistic that research in these areas will grow considerably in
the coming years.

~

\subsection*{\texorpdfstring{D.~~ Is there a resonance
``signature''?}{D.~~ Is there a resonance signature?}}\label{d.-is-there-a-resonance-signature}

~

We suggest a corollary to the resonance hypothesis: that each particular
mind may enjoy its own resonance signature, a particular frequency that
is commonly manifested during waking consciousness. This signature will
change slightly in each moment, or will perhaps oscillate around an
average frequency value. But, for example, Schooler's normal gamma
synchrony signature is slightly different than his mother's, or yours,
or his cat's, or a bacterium's resonance frequency (bacteria don't
experience gamma synchrony as far as we know).

~

Each particular signature frequency will itself be changing constantly
in time, so there is no ``essential'' signature that constitutes you or
us. But as just suggested, there may be average values around which our
own individual signatures oscillate.

~

\section*{VI.~~~~~~~~~ Addressing the various types of combination
problems}\label{vi.-addressing-the-various-types-of-combination-problems}

~

Chalmers 2013 examines the combination problem and various proposed
solutions. He describes not just one but three main types of combination
problems: 1) the subject irreducibility problem; 2) the quality
combination problem; 3) the structure combination problem.

~

We describe briefly how our approach addresses these three aspects of
the combination problem. In summary, our resonance theory of
consciousness provides essentially the same solution to each of the
three combination problems: shared resonance in proximity leads to
combination of entities through a relatively stable causal structure and
significantly higher data bandwidths between the components of each
higher-level conscious entity. The net result of achieving a shared
resonance in proximity is a step change in speed and bandwidth of
information flows, which, in turn, allows a unified entity to arise
where before there was only a mere aggregate.

~

This is not, however, an all or nothing affair. Rather, resonance can be
achieved momentarily, resulting in a flicker of shared consciousness,
and then disappear in the next moment for various reasons. One of the
defining features of biological life and biological consciousness is the
ability to create \emph{relatively stable} structures that allow for a
persistent type of consciousness, flickering on and off with wakefulness
and sleep, but continuing during the lifetime of the entity at issue, in
terms of a store of memories, values, history, and relationships to the
surrounding world.

~

\emph{1. Subject irreducibility problem}

~

Chalmers asks, as the first type of combination problem: ``how do
microsubjects combine to yield macrosubjects?'' We explained above how
the oscillating nature of all actual entities allows combination by
achieving a shared resonance, with the speed of the specific information
flows that are present within each oscillation time period determining
the size of each actual entity in each moment. Biological entities have
mastered much faster types of information channels (nerves, electrical
fields, etc.), through various types of resonance, allowing for much
larger actual entities to form and to be sustained as semi-stable
patterns over time.~

~

\emph{2. Quality combination problem}

~

Chalmers next asks ``how do microqualities combine to yield
macroqualities?'' He adds: ``Here macroqualities are specific phenomenal
qualities such as phenomenal redness (what it is like to see red),
phenomenal greenness, and so on. It is natural to suppose that
microexperience involves microqualities, which might be primitive
analogs of macroqualities. How do these combine?''

~

Our answer is the same as above because all actual entities include, by
definition, the qualities of consciousness.~Their combination, as
described above, includes the combination of their qualities into a
macro-conscious subject, with the experienced qualities of said subject
being the sum of all included sub-entities. Just as a musical note or
chord is the sum of its constituents, or a paint color mixed from other
colors is the sum of its constituents, the qualities of each
macro-conscious entity are the sum of its constituents.~

~

The related ``palette problem'' (Goff 2017) is resolved under this
approach by recognizing that even if the fundamental qualia in
micro-conscious entities are limited (which we don't take a position
on), the nested hierarchy that constitutes any mammalian consciousness,
or similar level of biological complexity, includes, due to its
complexity, more complex qualia in exactly the same manner as animal
behavioral complexity increases with size and neural development. Each
level of organizational and structural complexity adds the capacity for
additional qualia complexity, and the dominant consciousness that we
call waking consciousness includes every lower level in some manner,
even if isn't (as is generally the case) directly accessible by the
dominant waking consciousness.~

~

\emph{3. Structure combination problem}

~

Chalmers asks: ``how does microexperiential structure (and~microphysical
structure) combine to yield macroexperiential structure?'' ~He adds:
``Our macroexperience has a rich structure, involving the complex
spatial structure of visual and auditory fields, a division into many
different modalities, and so on. How can the structure in
microexperience and microstructure yield this rich structure?''

~

Our response is again the same: the physical structures that support
consciousness (they are two sides of the same coin, so we could as well
state instead ``the experiential structures that support physical
structures'') are the product of (nested) resonance at various levels.
All actual entities are conscious/experiential to some degree, but the
fundamental physical components like electrons, protons, etc., are
minimally conscious. These complex structures are a hierarchy of nested
resonant structures. It is likely that consciousness only becomes
non-negligible in complex structures like animal bodies/brains (but we
can speculate about larger-scale but far slower consciousness in stars,
galaxies, etc., depending on the stability of internal structures to
those entities). The physical structures of animal bodies/brains are the
substrate for information/causal pathways that lead to the combination
of consciousness. As described above, the speed of information flows is
the limiting factor for the size of each macro-consciousness.~

~

The similarity of these answers is a benefit rather than a detriment,
highlighting the simplicity and coherence of our conceptual structure.

~

\section*{VII.~~~~~~~ Conclusion}\label{vii.-conclusion}

\textbf{\emph{~}}

In sum, our resonance theory of consciousness attempts to connect
ongoing research efforts in various fields with the notion, suggested in
some manner by various thinkers over the last two decades, that shared
resonance is key to the nature of consciousness. More specifically, we
suggest that the ``easy part'' of the Hard Problem -- what is known
generally as the combination problem -- may be resolved by looking to
shared resonance as a general mechanism for combination of
micro-conscious entities into macro-conscious structures, without
extinguishing the micro-conscious entities. This process provides a
possible framework for addressing the combination of consciousness in
all actual entities -- that is, we posit this as a general mechanism --
not just in the context of mammalian consciousness. The higher speed of
information flows made possible by various phase transitions in
biological structures allows biological life to achieve larger-scale
resonant structures than would otherwise be possible -- and thus larger
macro-conscious entities than are achieved in non-living structures. ~

\emph{~}

\emph{~}

\emph{~}

\emph{References}

\emph{~}

Bandyopadhyay, A. 2017. Conference presentation, The Science of
Consciousness, San Diego, California.

Chalmers, D.J. 1996. \emph{The Conscious Mind: In Search of a
Fundamental Theory}, New York: Oxford University Press.

Chalmers D.J. (2017) The combination problem in panpsychism, in
Bru\selectlanguage{english}ntrup, G., \& Jaskolla, L. (2017).~\emph{Panpsychism: Contemporary
perspectives}. New York: Oxford University Press.

Craddock TJA, Friesen D, Mane, J, Hameroff S, Tuszynski J. The
Feasibility of Coherent Energy Transfer in Microtubules. J Roy Soc
Interface 11(100): 20140677 (2014).

Craddock, T. J., Hameroff, S. R., Ayoub, A. T., Klobukowski, M., \&
Tuszynski, J. A. (2015).

Anesthetics Act in Quantum Channels in Brain Microtubules to Prevent
Consciousness.~\emph{Current Topics in Medicinal Chemistry,15}(6),
523-533. doi:10.2174/1568026615666150225104543.

Craddock, T. J., Kurian, P., Preto, J., Sahu, K., Hameroff, S. R.,
Klobukowski, M., \& Tuszynski, J. A. (2017). Anesthetic Alterations of
Collective Terahertz Oscillations in Tubulin Correlate with Clinical
Potency: Implications for Anesthetic Action and Post-Operative Cognitive
Dysfunction.~\emph{Scientific Reports,7}(1).
doi:10.1038/s41598-017-09992-7.

Freeman, W. J., \& Vitiello, G. (2005). Nonlinear Brain Dynamics and
Many-Body Field Dynamics.~\emph{Electromagnetic Biology and
Medicine,24}(3), 233-241. doi:10.1080/15368370500379608.

Fries, Pascal. (2005). Fries, P.: A Mechanism for Cognitive Dynamics:
Neuronal Communication Through Neuronal Coherence. Trends in Cognitive
Sciences 9, 474-480. Trends in cognitive sciences. 9. 474-80.
10.1016/j.tics.2005.08.011.

Fries P. 2015. Rhythms For Cognition: Communication Through
Coherence.~\emph{Neuron}. 88(1):220-235.
doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2015.09.034.

Goff, P. 2017. \emph{Consciousness and Fundamental Reality}. Oxford
University Press.

Griffin, D.R. 1998. \emph{Unsnarling the World-Knot}. University of
California Press.

Hameroff, S. (2010) The `conscious pilot' --- dendritic synchrony moves
through the brain to mediate consciousness, Journal of Biological
Physics, 36 (1), pp. 71--93.

Hameroff, S. 2013. Quantum Channels in Brain Microtubules to Prevent
Consciousness. Curr Trend Med Chem 15(6):523-33 (2015)

Hameroff, S., and Penrose, R. (2014) Consciousness in the universe: A
review of the `Orch OR' theory. Physics of Life Reviews 11 (2014)
39--78.

Hunt, T. (2011) Kicking the Psychophysical Laws into Gear A New Approach
to the Combination Problem.~\emph{Journal of Consciousness Studies}~18
(11-12):11-12.

Hunt, T. (2014) \emph{Eco, Ego, Eros: Essays on Philosophy, Spirituality
and Science.} Santa Barbara: Aramis Press. \emph{~}

Hunt, T. (2019, unpublished manuscript) Calculating the spatial extent
of conscious resonating structures in General Resonance Theory.

James, W. (1890). The principles of psychology / by William James.
doi:10.5962/bhl.title.47583

Keppler, J. (2013). A new perspective on the functioning of the brain
and the mechanisms behind conscious processes.~\emph{Frontiers in
Psychology,4}. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00242

Koch, C. 2014. Is Consciousness Universal? Online at:
\url{https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-consciousness-universal/}.

Lambert, N. et al. (2013). Quantum Biology. \emph{Nature Physics}~volume
9,~pages 10--18.

McFadden, J. (2001).~\emph{Quantum evolution: Life in the multiverse}.
New York: Norton.

McFadden, J. (2002b) The Conscious Electromagnetic Information (Cemi)
Field Theory: The hard problem made easy? Journal of Consciousness
Studies, 9 (8), pp. 45--60.

McFadden, J. (2002c) Synchronous firing and its influence on the brain's
electromagnetic field: Evidence for an electromagnetic field theory of
consciousness, Journal of Consciousness Studies, 9 (4), pp. 23--50.

Margulis, L., \& Sagan, D. (1990).~\emph{Origins of sex three billion
years of genetic recombination}. Philadelphia: University of
Pennsylvania Pr.

Oizumi, M., et al. (2014) From the phenomenology to the mechanisms of
consciousness:

Integrated Information Theory 3.0.

Pockett, S. (2000) The Nature of Consciousness, San Jose, CA:Writers
Club Press.

Riddle, J.

Sahu, S., et al. 2013. Multi-level memory-switching properties of a
single brain microtubule.

Schooler J.W., Hunt T., Schooler J.N. (2011) Reconsidering the
Metaphysics of Science from the Inside Out. In: Walach H., Schmidt S.,
Jonas W. (eds) Neuroscience, Consciousness and Spirituality. Studies in
Neuroscience, Consciousness and Spirituality, vol 1. Springer,
Dordrecht.

Schooler, J . (2015). Bridging the objective/subjective divide - Toward
s a meta-perspective of

science and experience. In T. Metzinger \& J . M. Windt (Eds.), Open
MIND : 34(1'). Frankfurt am Main: MIND Group. doi: 10.15502/97839585
70405

Strogatz, S. (2003). Sync: How order emerges from chaos in the universe,
nature, and daily life. New York: Hachette Books.

\subsubsection*{Tegmark, M. (2000) Importance of quantum decoherence in
brain processes. Phys. Rev. E~61,
4194~}\label{tegmark-m.-2000-importance-of-quantum-decoherence-in-brain-processes.-phys.-rev.-e61-4194}

Tononi, G. (2012) The integrated information theory of consciousness: An
updated account, Archives Italiennes de Biologie, Vol? Issue? Pp?.

Tononi, G. \& Koch, C. (2015) Consciousness: Here, there and
everywhere?, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 370,
20140167\textbf{\emph{.}}

Weingarten, C. P., Doraiswamy, P. M., \& Fisher, M. P. (2016). A New
Spin on Neural Processing: Quantum Cognition.~\emph{Frontiers in Human
Neuroscience,10}. doi:10.3389/fnhum.2016.00541

Whitehead, A. N., Griffin, D. R., \& Sherburne, D. W.
(1929).~\emph{Process and reality: An essay in cosmology}. New York:
Free Press.

Zeki, S. (2003). The disunity of consciousness. Trends in Cognitive
Sciences, 7(5), 214--218.

Zeki, S., \& Bartels, A. (1999). Toward a theory of visual
consciousness. Consciousness and

Cognition, 8(2), 225--259.

\textbf{\emph{}}

\textbf{\emph{~}}

\textbf{\emph{Appendix 1: Summary of the general resonance theory of
consciousness}}

\textbf{\emph{~}}

We address the following questions in this short summary: How do complex
minds form? Why is the total greater than the sum of its parts when it
comes to minds? What is the best approach for resolving the various
combination problems?

~

What follows is a numbered summary of the general resonance theory of
consciousness:

1. Resolving the hard problem and the combination problem should focus
on energy/information flows and the causal structure that is part and
parcel of such energy/information flows.

2. Energy/information flows are real physical structures that carry both
causal impact and psyche/consciousness/mind.

3. Less complex processes have, by definition, less causal structure and
thus less energy/information flows, and less consciousness.

4. Collections or aggregates of matter transcend the state of being
``mere aggregates'' (there is no combination of mind) when the
constituents of such aggregates of matter are interconnected by
resonating (coherent) energy/information flows.

5. All aggregates are interconnected in some manner with all other
aggregates through normal physical forces, but it takes time for such
connections to be made because of finite speeds for such causal
connections to travel.

6. Constituents of aggregates that are in sufficient proximity for
resonance-based energy/information flows to take place, within a certain
timeframe, combine and transcend the state of being ``mere aggregates.''

7. The required timeframe for energy/information flows to occur depends
on the resonance frequency(ies) of the constituents and aggregates at
issue.

8. Constituents that resonate at the same or similar frequencies in
proximity will combine because their energy/information flows combine
through coherence of their resonance frequencies, like lasers achieving
coherence when photons resonate at the same frequency.

9. The speed of the particular energy/information flows, in each case,
determines the size (how large is the combined entity?) of the
particular combination of resonating constituents.

10. Living organisms have, through long-term evolutionary processes,
learned to take advantage of faster energy/information flows, such as
electrochemical channels and electrical and magnetic fields (and
possibly quantum field effects also), thus allowing physically larger
combinations to occur.

11. As such, a living human body weighing about the same as a large
boulder has far greater energy/information flows among its constituents
than does the boulder, which can rely only on thermodynamic and
gravitational energy/information flows.

12. Accordingly, the sum of the human body's combined consciousness is
greater than its parts because of the much greater energy/information
flows occurring throughout the human body, which constitute real
physical structure; without these connections the human body would be a
``mere aggregate'' like the boulder. The sum total consciousness of the
parts would be far lower without the extensive interconnections
throughout the human body that are made possible by electrochemical and
electromagnetic field energy/information flows.

\par\null

\protect\hyperlink{_ftnref1}{{[}1{]}} Corresponding author,
{tam.hunt@psych.ucsb.edu},

\protect\hyperlink{_ftnref2}{{[}2{]}} Schooler prefers the term
``easier,'' viewing the combination problem as not easy, but easier than
the ``hard part'' of the Hard Problem.

\protect\hyperlink{_ftnref3}{{[}3{]}} Although sympathetic to the notion
that fireflies are conscious and have intentions, Schooler finds
Strogatz's approach, described below, more convincing than positing that
fireflies deliberately ~synchronize their flashing.

\protect\hyperlink{_ftnref4}{{[}4{]}} Chalmers 1996, p. 213. Chalmers
makes these requirements more explicit in Chalmers 1997: ``To have a
fundamental theory that we can truly assess, we will need a fundamental
theory with details. That is, we will need specific proposals about
psychophysical laws, and specific proposals about how these laws
combine, if necessary, so that ultimately we will be able to (1) take
the physical facts about a given system, (2) apply the psychophysical
theory to these facts, and thus (3) derive a precise characterization of
the associated experiences that the theory predicts.'' Chalmers 1997,
re-printed in Shear, et al. 2000, p. 420.

\selectlanguage{english}
\FloatBarrier
\end{document}

