By David Stephen
In neuroimaging displays of neurons, where electrical signals are traveling across axons towards synapses, what is also obvious?
One direct observation is that there is light—traveling, which then terminates at junctions, and the light expands [or sort of explodes] at those junctions.
This could mean that light is interacting with matter. This interaction, though may not be extricated by neuroimaging, is likely varied across clusters.
In neuroscience, it is established that electrical signals trigger the release of neurotransmitters.
It is possible here, to theorize that electrical signals are interacting with chemical signals, with an almost ready configuration, that becomes complete, after the interaction.
This means that functions are obtained, conceptually, when electrical signals interact with chemical signals.
Electrical and chemical signals are often in sets, conceptually, in clusters of neurons.
It is in these sets, that they interact, and it is in these sets that they provide specific configuration for functions, respectively.
This means that a smell from another smell, or a taste from another taste or a touch from a sight and so forth.
Also, in sets, there are states that electrical signals have in the instances of the interactions.
It is in these states that they interact, defining the extent to those interactions.
Electrical signals are traveling and getting terminated, at junctions, in what appears to be a brief interactive construction, conceptually.
It is how they bear the formation or configuration for memory, emotions, feelings and regulation of internal senses.
The states of the signals at the time of the interactions [or attributes] are also what defines the extents, like attention, subjectivity, intent and awareness.
This defines the human mind and human consciousness, using neuroimaging, conceptually.
There are intensity and splits of electrical signals. There are arrays of some sets, too, such that after interactions, there is displacement [mildly angular], conceptually, of the set, which then becomes a position [or rank into an array] of all signals.
For sleep, for example, there is an intensity of electrical signals on some chemical signals in sets, which is lower for those interpreting external sensory inputs, and then higher for those of internal sensory inputs.
For chemical signals in sets, attributes include volume, thick sets, thin sets, and so forth.
It is often said that no one knows how the brain works, but it is known that neurons are involved in all functions.
But neurons are never functional without electrical and chemical signals. So, a theory of consciousness or of the human brain could be established, on the basis of electrical and chemical signals, in line with all the evidence in neuroscience, globally.
There is a recent [May 22, 2025] story on Reuters, Sanofi to acquire Vigil Neuroscience in $470 million deal to boost neurological pipeline, stating that “Sanofi, will acquire Vigil Neuroscience, a clinical-stage biotech company in a $470 million deal, the companies said on Thursday, as the French drugmaker seeks to boost its neurological pipeline through an Alzheimer’s drug. The acquisition would give Sanofi, one of the world’s largest vaccine makers, control over Vigil’s VG-3927, an oral drug being prepared for a potential treatment in Alzheimer’s.
In June 2024, Sanofi made a $40 million equity investment in Vigil, which included an exclusive negotiation right for the drug.
Vigil’s monoclonal antibody program, VGL101, would not be acquired by Sanofi and would return to U.S. drugmaker Amgen, Vigil said.”
This is an advertisement
1 Comment
It’s becoming clear that with all the brain and consciousness theories out there, the proof will be in the pudding. By this I mean, can any particular theory be used to create a human adult level conscious machine. My bet is on the late Gerald Edelman’s Extended Theory of Neuronal Group Selection. The lead group in robotics based on this theory is the Neurorobotics Lab at UC at Irvine. Dr. Edelman distinguished between primary consciousness, which came first in evolution, and that humans share with other conscious animals, and higher order consciousness, which came to only humans with the acquisition of language. A machine with only primary consciousness will probably have to come first.
What I find special about the TNGS is the Darwin series of automata created at the Neurosciences Institute by Dr. Edelman and his colleagues in the 1990’s and 2000’s. These machines perform in the real world, not in a restricted simulated world, and display convincing physical behavior indicative of higher psychological functions necessary for consciousness, such as perceptual categorization, memory, and learning. They are based on realistic models of the parts of the biological brain that the theory claims subserve these functions. The extended TNGS allows for the emergence of consciousness based only on further evolutionary development of the brain areas responsible for these functions, in a parsimonious way. No other research I’ve encountered is anywhere near as convincing.
I post because on almost every video and article about the brain and consciousness that I encounter, the attitude seems to be that we still know next to nothing about how the brain and consciousness work; that there’s lots of data but no unifying theory. I believe the extended TNGS is that theory. My motivation is to keep that theory in front of the public. And obviously, I consider it the route to a truly conscious machine, primary and higher-order.
My advice to people who want to create a conscious machine is to seriously ground themselves in the extended TNGS and the Darwin automata first, and proceed from there, by applying to Jeff Krichmar’s lab at UC Irvine, possibly. Dr. Edelman’s roadmap to a conscious machine is at https://arxiv.org/abs/2105.10461, and here is a video of Jeff Krichmar talking about some of the Darwin automata, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7Uh9phc1Ow