Modern Interactive Dualism

Author: Ming Yip

May 18, 2018
Draft version:
Heavily revised in Section 2

Contents
1 Introduction 3

2 Brain Cheating Component Paradox 8

3 Binding Problem again with Synergistic Set 15

4 Synergistic Set 18

5 Connection Point 22

6 General System Cycle 38

7 Axiom (II) again 39

8 Communication Protocol 41

9 Conclusion 45

10 Possible preliminary solutions to some mysteries of neuroscience 47

10.1 Mystery of ‘feedback’ problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
10.2 Mystery of neural synchronization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

11 Preliminary Solution to the Mystery of Time Arrow 58

12 Preliminary Solution to the philosophical ‘Personal Identity Problem’ 62

1
Appendix A Spinned Particle 66

2
1 Introduction
A new form of interactive dualism model will be proposed in this article, which in principle
is verifiable/falsifiable and can help to solve some long standing fundamental and serious
philosophical problems regarding consciousness. Why do I write this article? The reason is
simple; the model proposed in this article will solve some serious problems that otherwise
theories based on Physicalism are unable to solve! Also the model is in principally verifi-
able/falsifiable. The model which I will propose is substantially different from the classical
Cartesian Dualism proposed by Rene Descartes in the 17th century, which has long been
rejected by modern neuroscience.

Among those serious problems regarding consciousness we are facing, one of the most explicit
and will be solved in this article, is called the ‘personal identity’ problem. To clarify the
problem in a most simple way, let me ask you a question; have you ever at some point in
your life, that you wake up one day on your bed in the morning, start to wondering, why
you stay in the same body before and after sleep? You may think that the answer is because
it is the same brain stayed in the same body before/after sleep, and your ‘self’ is equivalent
to your brain, right? But if you consider the substances that make up your brain cells, they
are always changing due to metabolism, while you still remain as the same you after the
substances replacement, such thinking will stop you from equaling your ‘self’ to your brain.

How about if we consider there is a continuation of brain states that allow the continua-
tion of your ‘self’ before/after sleep? Apart from the lack of criterion of what does it mean
by ‘a continuation of brain states’, it will be almost absurd to think that the two brain states
before/after sleep would be similar enough to constitute such ‘continuation’. Or to amplify
the problem a little bit; how about the two brain states before/after coma, anesthesia, or
even serious brain injury? For those who sustain such huge disruption of brain states con-
tinuity, one can still confidently declare that they experience the same ‘self’ before/after
the disruption, may stop you again from equaling your ‘self”s continuation to ‘brain states
continuation’. So how about memories? Do memories make two instances of ‘self’ be fall

3
into the same self continuation? I think this is just another form of ‘brain states continua-
tion’ argument, so is still subject to the same disadvantages. In fact, it would be absurd to
consider that a person would stop to exist and be replaced by a different person, after such
person’s memories were seriously lost, or even altered, by brain damages, diseases or mental
illness.

Up to this point, the problem of ‘personal identity’ can now be easily understood; The
problem is, what makes the ‘self’ at one moment and the ‘self’ at another moment be in the
same ‘self’ continuation (in the same brain)? Or put the problem in another way; what makes
your ‘self’ to always remain in your brain at your life time instead of jumping into another
‘self’ continuation in another brain? Indeed, the problem is so significant and difficult to
solve so it would deserve a lot of discussions. For the detailed accounts of the long standing
philosophical ‘personal identity’ problem, you may find a lot resources on the internet, such
as:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_identity
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/identity-personal/
http://www.iep.utm.edu/person-i/
I think the crucial point is, what make the notion of ‘self’ different from other physical en-
tities is that, for two ‘self’ instances to happen, they can only be either in the same ‘self’
continuation or in different ‘self’ continuation, there does not allow a fuzzy intermediate
condition to happen between the two situations. However, for physicalism, and the logics
eventually and inevitably derived from it, would always allow such fuzzy intermediate con-
dition to occur. If people are trapped in the physicalism’s ideology, such conflict would be
very hard to solve. As you will see, the interactive dualism model proposed in this article
will eventually provide a simple but logical well defined solution to the ‘personal identity’
problem in Section 12, as it does not allow such fuzzy intermediate condition to occur.

Frankly speaking, my first intention of writing this article was not trying to solve the ‘per-
sonal identity’ problem. Instead, I was trying to solve another equally explicit and serious
problem called the ‘binding problem’ of consciousness. To show you what the ‘binding prob-

4
lem’ of consciousness really means, let us begin on the morning bed again. Have you ever at
some point in your life, when you wake up on your bed, start to wondering why you wake up
in the same body for everyday? Your consciousness seems to have a definite location; that
location is your brain. You are destined to bind to your particular brain throughout your
whole life, whether you like it or not. That idea of one consciousness resides at one location
seems intuitively satisfying. However, as the issue is drilled further as we will see, a serious
problem will arise.

Now, if you begin to do a simple analysis of your consciousness, you will easily find that the
‘single entity’ as ‘yourself’ is definitely not as ‘single’ as it initially appearing. Your sensation
is generally divided into seeing, hearing, smelling, touching, each with very different quality.
Your seeing is separated as left eye and right eye, your hearing is separated as left ear and
right ear, your touching sensation can be decomposed to associate with numerous parts of
your body such as left hand and right hand, left leg and right leg, etc.. , even your mind
can be dissect into emotional, analytical, etc.. Mysteriously, even your consciousness is com-
prised of such extremely large amount of these little elements, you never feel that you are
divided into numerous ‘you’; all these little consciousness elements or sensations combines
perfectly and coherently working as a single you. The most explicit example is that your left
eye and right eye captures two images but they appear to your consciousness as if they are
in a single image with 3D perception. When your visual perception see an apple, you begin
to percept the desire of eating the apple; here the visual perception and desire perception
are combined to be felt by a single consciousness.

The seemingly multiple attributes of consciousness poses no problem. Just as many other
things, a single object can usually be decomposed into many sub-elements. What is the most
bizarre aspect about consciousness is that, different sub-elements of consciousness are actu-
ally arise from different distinct physical location/regions of the brain. Modern neuroscience
has rejected the notion of a single soul resides at a single location in brain combines all senses
perceived by a unified self. In fact, ‘self’ is distributed across multiple regions of the brain.
For example, your visual perception arise from the visual cortex of your brain. Your audi-

5
tory perception arise from your the auditory cortex of your brain. How the different senses
produced from different distinct physical location from the brain can still be combined and
perceived by a single self is so-called the ‘Binding Problem’. You can easily find out plenty
of much more detailed account articles about Binding Problem on the internet yourself. e.g.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binding_problem. As from the above reference, the no-
tion of Binding Problem can appear even in a very radical way; The perception of a red ball
image is actually build from the ‘red’ sensation from a group of a neurons, and the ‘ball’
sensation from another group of neurons. Current neuroscience has provided no satisfactory
explanation for how the brain combines the ‘red’ sensation and ‘ball’ sensation associated
with two distinct physical group of neurons give rise to one unified ‘red ball’ perception in
the consciousness.

In this article, I will try to take a break from Physicalism, by proposing a verifiable/falsifiable
model based on interactive dualism, which could solve both the ‘personal identity’ problem
and ‘binding problem’ of consciousness. The model contain several distinguishing features:

• Phenomenal consciousness is assumed as ontologically resided apart from our physical

world, and it communicates with the physical world via connection points in an animal’s
brain. There is no specific localized center of connection point in the brain; Instead,
the connection points are distributed widely across the brain. Such widely distributed
connection points model fit quite well to the modern neuroscience’s knowledge that there
is no single centralized location of consciousness to exist in the brain. Because the behavior
of such connection points do not violate physical rules, hence they are hidden so well in
biological neurons and can hardly be detected in nowadays. The term ‘communication’
used here means consciousness can perceive events in our physical world and produce
causal effects to our physical world via the connection points. Actually, the term ‘point’
used here is for convenient sake. As your will see later, a connection point is actually a
pair of spinned particles producing random values. The reason for that will become clear
later.

• The model is based on a quite confident presumption that consciousness itself cannot

6
 transfer information from one place to another. Furthermore, the model should obey a
well recognized physical rule, that is, the transferral speed of information cannot exceed
the speed of light.

• Consciousness produce its effect to the physical world in the way of bit by bit information
transmission (1 bit of information can be conveniently expressed via the symbol of 0 or 1).
As you will see later, only such way of communication is possible in regard to the unity of
consciousness without violating the presumption that consciousness itself cannot transfer
information from one place to another. How the 0 or 1 bit string produce meaningful effect
is another problem; for example, in the case of a receiver device in digital communication,
there should exist a protocol for the receiver of how to translate a continuous string of
0/1 information into some meaningful action, such as reconstructing back a movie picture,
or a sound track, etc.. My speculation on how the brain can translate the 0/1 string of
information transmitted from consciousness into useful action in the most simplest way
will be discussed in the article.

• There are several interesting logical consequences from the model, including that multiple
‘self’s are allowed to be produced in one brain, ‘self’(s)/consciousness(s) can be merged
and split, and ‘self’ can be transferred from one set of substrate to another set of substrate
(Section 12).

For a point to note, the whole concept of interactive dualism still sounds weird to me; how can
consciousness be assumed as a non-physical entity and still can produce physical effect in the
physical world? One may simply resort to the idea that the physical world is just a simulation:
(http://gizmodo.com/5-reasons-our-universe-might-actually-be-a-virtual-real-1665353513).
The physical world is just a simulation strictly accords to set of physical laws. In such sim-
ulation, sentient beings’ consciousness experiencing in it and is allowed to produce causal
effect in that simulation strictly accords to set of physical laws. Whether the world is/is not
a simulation is up to further study. However, this article only concentrates on the topic that
if consciousness is non-physical, how is it allowed to produce causal effect in the physical
world strictly obeying physical laws?

7
2 Brain Cheating Component Paradox
Some of the readers may already have questioned the title - ”Why in modern time should
we bring back the consideration of Interactive Dualism?” For those who are well acknowl-
edged with the Philosophy of Mind surely may recall the renowned French philosopher -
Rene Descartes; and his famous proposal of ’Cartesian dualism’, that the consciousness and
physical brain are fundamentally different things in nature, and somehow the consciousness
interact with the physical world via a small brain structure called the ’pineal gland’. How-
ever, when he was further questioned of how an immaterial, non-physical consciousness can
be physically effecting a physical structure - such as the pineal gland, he gave no satisfactory
answer.

In this paper I will propose an interesting ’principled model’ via a new modern approach
to the idea of Interactive Dualism. I call it a ’principled-model’ because such model will
appear to be new, simple and pre-matured, that there is no scientific evidence whatsoever
in nowadays to support its existence in the brain of animals/human. Nevertheless, I regard
it as deserving to be proposed because the new model may assist in offering solution to
a serious lingering mystery in modern philosophy of mind and neuroscience - namely the
Binding Problem of Consciousness.

Notably I have encountered some people who simply deny the existence of the Binding
Problem of Consciousness, which I regard their denial is invalid; I think their denial is either
due to lack of understanding of the problem or due to misunderstanding of the problem.
In order to assist my dear readers to grasp a sound understanding of the nature of the
problem, through the following I will illustrate the problem via the discussion of a very in-
teresting paradox, which I will name it as the ’Brain Cheating Component Paradox’. The
’Brain Cheating Component Paradox’ though was conceived by myself originally; was indeed
largely inspired by an excellent paper called the ’Absent Qualia, Fading Qualia, Dancing
Qualia’, authored by the famous philosopher David Chalmers renowned mostly for his stud-
ies in the Philosophy of Mind. In my opnion it is a must-read paper for anyone who is

8
interested in the philosophical study of consciousness. As you will see, the construction of
the ’Brain Cheating Component Paradox’ in this paper will just be an extension from the
’Dancing Qualia’ discussion in the ’Absent Qualia, Fading Qualia, Dancing Qualia’ paper:
http://cogprints.org/318/1/qualia.html but surprisingly, it will turn out to be against
the standpoint of Functionalism defend in that paper!

Now, Let us start with a scenario supposing that there is a an old lady face presenting
in front of you, and someone is asking you whether she is your grandmother. For a normal
person that will be an easy task to answer for yes or no. After all, your human brain is such
an excellent information processing system to recognize human face. Just like any other
information processing system in a mechanical point of view, you brain facing this simple
task can be regard as an input-output system; fed with a huge amount of input information
required to represent the image of a human face, and output only one bit of information in-
dicating whether she is your grandmother. More specifically, in this task your brain is doing
’dissipative’ information processing; the information processing which produce less amount
of output information transformed from its huge amount of input information. In general
terms, the purpose of a dissipative information processing system is to transform a larger
but not so useful set of information into a smaller but more useful set of information aiming
for a specific task. As an abstracting and filtering process on information, some information
are discard in the process, in due course heat are generated, that is why such process is
called ’dissipative’.

The organization structure of most complicate dissipative information processing systems

is analogous to a pyramid; organized in successive hierarchical layers from the largest at
the bottom gradually decreasing over each layer up to the smallest at the top, with the size
of each layer represent the amount of information passing through and be processed. Each
layer represent an overall dissipative processing module accepting the processed information
output from its previous layer, with the current layer further transform and discard redun-
dant information to produce more representative information in fewer amount to the next
layer. Information fed to the bottom of pyramid represent the system input information,

9
which are the most noisy, variant, and in the largest amount. As information flowing up the
pyramid its amount is continuously decreasing, becoming less noisy and more static, until
the top final layer where information is output in the most static, representative and useful
form in the least amount aimed for a specific task.

Human visual system is an excellent pattern recognition system, no wonder which is also a
dissipative information processing system. Why? Because pattern recognition system map a
complex variant pattern of information to some specific classified static output; during such
process information is discard and dissipated as heat. No wonder human visual system is
also organized in a functional hierarchical structure. Although human visual system involves
various distinct regions of the brain. However, only the highest level functions represented
as nearby the top of the information processing hierarchy are implemented by brain regions
apart from Visual Cortex, such as the Inferior Temporal Cortex (IT) and the Frontal Cor-
tex. All the lower level functions underneath the top of hierarchy are implemented by Visual
Cortex. For example, supposed you have recognized your grandmother after seeing the old
lady face, you may wonder where do the ’recognizing’ happen in your brain? Well, it is
at the top of the information processing pyramid realized by the Inferior Temporal Cortex
(IT), at where the information is greatly reduced and extracted for important features to
identify your grandmother. Your recognition of your grandmother allows you to produce
one bit of information to answer YES/NO for whether the old lady face belongs to your
grandmother. However, during the recognition phase when looking at your grandmother,
Yo don’t just perceive your grandmother face as one small piece of information; you vividly
perceive the fine details of your grandmother face at the same time. So where does this
vividly fine details visual perception happen in your brain? It does not happen hear by the
top of the information processing pyramid, because at these layers information have been
greatly reduced and symbolized, it does not contain enough information to construct a fine
detailed visual perception; and there is no need to; otherwise a double coding system is
just for wasting resources. Instead, the vivid fine detailed visual perception arise from the
Visual Cortex, which fully include the hierarchical layers underneath the top of the infor-
mation processing pyramid, where enough information are still present for the construction

10
of fine details. So in conclusion we have just pinpoint the Visual Cortex as the brain region
where the fine detailed visual perception arise. Afterwards, we will proceed to an interesting
thought experiment to demonstrate the Brain Cheating Component Paradox.

Principally we can divide the brain into two components - the Visual Cortex and the rest of
the brain. Basing on the modern scientific presumption that information processing in the
brain are all that necessary and sufficient to produce all brain functions, we can in principle
basing on the brain states and environment states at a certain time point, to computationally
predict the temporal evolution of brain states started from that time point to the future.
Equivalently but more specifically, we can computationally predict to the future about the
output signals from the Visual Cortex communicating to the rest of the brain, and such
prediction can be recorded down. In that way, a device can be built to mimic the output
signals of Visual Cortex from the records of the signals prediction. Such device does not
have the information processing capability of a Visual Cortex, it is only a playback device
like a MP3 player. If we detach the Visual Cortex from the brain and replacing it with the
mimicking cheating device re-connecting it up to the brain; since that cheating device is fully
producing Visual Cortex’s signals on the right times at the right places, the rest of the brain
cannot tell the difference. Now, if we install a switch at the connection interface between
the Visual Cortex and rest of the brain, and that switch can be flipped back and forth to
either allow the rest of the brain to connecting up to Visual Cortex or to the mimicking
cheating device. So by switching back and forth will not change the brain states evolution
and the predict outward behaviors of that brain. During seeing his grandmother when the
brain is connecting to his Visual Cortex, the subject is asked whether he can vividly perceive
the fine details of his grandmother face, as expected he will say YES. Next, if the switch is
flipped and now his brain is connecting to the mimicking cheating device, then the subject is
asked again with the same question, as expected he will say YES again, because his predict
outward behaviors cannot be changed by switching. Now, something strange is happening
here; Draw from previous conclusion that the fine detailed visual perception can only arise
from Visual Cortex, and that replacing mimicking cheating device is only a playback device
which cannot produce any sensation whatsoever; How can the subject still report he per-

11
ceives the vivid fine details of his grandmother face, after his Visual Cortex is replaced by a
dummy cheating device? Please note that after switching even if the subject is not present
with an old lady face in front of his eyes, he will still report seeing the old lady face vividly
in details as according to the logic of this thought experiment, as his visual system is hijack
by that dummy cheating device. As a result, you may think that after switching, his brain is
no longer a normal brain, therefore his reporting only reflect his mis-judgment of sensation,
intentional cheating, or hallucination caused by the switching. However, Visual Cortex only
constitute a small portion of human brain, and it is a highly specialized module dedicated
to visual processing but not so critical for memory, personality or judgement functioning. If
you compare the rest of the brain apart from Visual Cortex before/after switching, you will
find no structural alteration or any disruption to normal functioning; the rest of the brain
even receive the appropriate normal expected signals from Visual Cortex/Mimicking Cheat-
ing Device before/after switching! Therefore, the switching cannot cause his mis-judgment
of sensation, or his changing from genuine reporting to intentional cheating to occur. Hence,
we conclude that he does indeed perceive the vivid detailed old lady face after switching,
either by hallucination or not.

If his perception is not due to hallucination, the paradox arises because:

• Draw from previous conclusion that the fine detailed visual perception can only arise
from Visual Cortex, because only where has enough information to construct his vivid
fine detailed visual perception. But after switching, his Visual Cortex has been replaced
by the mimicking cheating device, which is unable to produce any sensation whatsoever.
Hence, he should not have vivid fine detailed visual perception after switching, which
contradict the conclusion that he does indeed perceive the vivid detailed old lady face
after switching.

If his perception is due to hallucination, the paradox still arises, because:

• Due to as said, the rest of his brain is functioning normally after switching. Therefore the
hallucination can only be constructed by his Visual Cortex, which unfortunately has been
replaced by the dummy device after switching. Hence, such hallucination has arisen from

12
 nowhere after switching.

• The rest of his brain is at the top of visual information processing hierarchy, where visual
information has been highly reduced and abstracted, not enough to construct his vivid
detailed hallucination. Therefore, his hallucination can only be constructed by his Visual
Cortex, where only there has enough information to construct his vivid detailed hallucina-
tion. However, his Visual Cortex has been replaced by the dummy device after switching.
Hence, such hallucination has arisen from nowhere after switching.

In summary, after switching, the subject report seeing a vivid detailed old lady face. We con-
clude that he is genuine, as the switching does not affect the rest of his brain, so his judgment
of sensation remains normal, and the switching cannot change him from genuine reporting
to intentional cheating. However, his vivid detailed visual perception may/may not be due
to hallucination after switching. In both cases such perception can only be constructed by
his Visual Cortex; but paradoxically, his Visual Cortex has already been replaced by the
mimicking cheating device after switching, and such device will not be able to produce any
sensation at all. Hence, there is indeed a serious logical contradiction here to produce what
I call the ’Brain Cheating Component Paradox’ !

Afterwards, I will show you via the perspective of ’Brain Cheating Component Paradox’, for
what is the Binding Problem of Consciousness and why it indeed is a problem.

The brain is highly modularized but it also requires massive mutual co-operations between
modules to operate. A particular sensation may require several distinct brain regions to
construct co-operatively, but it usually associate with a specialized brain region which do
most of the task. Though multiple brain regions may participate together to construct a
particular sensation, the vivid detailed part of such sensation can only be construct from
its specialized brain region. Because such brain region is a gateway and processing center
for that particular sensation, and the processed information output from such brain region
to other brain regions are usually filtered and abstracted, in much fewer amount than its
received input information. Only upon that specialized brain region there contain enough

13
information to construct the vivid detailed part of that particular sensation.

Supposed you are watching a special effect musical dancing show. The dancing performance
accompanied by the colorful visual special effect along with the beautiful music makes you
feel wonderful, so you clap your hands. From the mechanical point of view, the clapping
action is a piece of highly symbolized processed information from your brain to present won-
derfulness, processed by your brain from the huge amount of input information from the
dancing show flowing to your visual system and auditory system. That piece of ’wonderful’
information is highly abstracted and reduced from information processing, which does not
capture any detail information of the vivid real time performance of the musical dancing
show. However, from your perception perspective, that small piece of ’wonderful’ informa-
tion is not the only thing you feel, you perceive the details of vivid dancing performance
and lively beautiful music altogether. From the functional point of view, the vivid detailed
perception of the dancing arisen from your visual cortex, and the vivid detailed perception
of the music arisen from your auditory cortex. So how does two kind of sensations arisen
from two distinct brain regions be unified together allowing you to perceive in one mind? Or
conversely, how does your mind be distributed across two distinct brain regions and still be
unified as one mind? Many people will hypothesize that massive mutual communications or
information exchanges happened between brain regions will be necessary and sufficient for
such unification to occur. But as we recall that in the demonstration of our Brain Cheating
Component Paradox, any particular sensation brain module (e.g. the visual cortex or the
auditory cortex) can always be replaced by a mimicking cheating device, causing the Brain
Cheating Component Paradox to arise eventually from such hypothesis. Therefore, infor-
mation exchanges between brain regions may be necessary, but not sufficient to achieve the
unification of mind. So what is missing? This lingering mysterious question is one way to
describe the Binding Problem of Consciousness.

In my opinion, solving the Brain Cheating Component Paradox will eventually lead to the
solution of Binding Problem of Consciousness. In order to solve the Brain Cheating Com-
ponent Paradox, we may have to look for the false presumption that give rise to it.

14
So what is it?

Recall that at the beginning of the demonstration, we presume that:

• Information processing in the brain are all that necessary and sufficient to produce all
brain functions. we can in principle basing on the brain states and environment states
at a certain time point, to computationally predict the temporal evolution of brain states
started from that time point to the future. Equivalently but more specifically, we can
computationally predict to the future about the output signals from the Visual Cortex
communicating to the rest of the brain.

But if we change our presumption to:

• information processing in the brain are all that necessary and NOT sufficient to produce
all brain functions.

Then that will allow some information be encoded in the brain signals that will NOT be
computationally predictable, so the mimicking cheating device can never be construct to
cheat the brain, and Brain Cheating Component Paradox will never arise. The source of
such computationally unpredictable signals can only be come from pure random sources.
But how will random signals produce meaningful action to the brain? If considering them
individually or in subset, they will not indeed. But if considering them as a whole set of
synergistic set, they may however produce meaningful action. If you continue to read through
following several sections, you will understand what I mean.

3 Binding Problem again with Synergistic Set

Whenever you are reading a book and listening to a music at the same time, you are always
the very same person who are perceiving the two types of sensations simultaneously. At the
first glance, it does not pose any problem. The problem arises only if we drill down to the
question of where does the seeing and hearing sensation arise? In fact, the seeing sensation
arises from the visual cortex of the brain, while the hearing sensation arises from the auditory

15
cortex of the brain. So how does the two sensations be combined to let you perceive that you
are the only person who see and hear at the same time? You may think that there is a third
region of the brain that receive signals from both the 2 cortex and then combine them to
form the unified perception, so that region is the genuine location where the consciousness
locates at. However, modern neuroscience has already rejected that there is such a location.
Your consciousness does not locate at any particular location in the brain. The visual cortex
is genuinely the location where you see, and the auditory cortex is genuinely the location
where you hear!

If interactive dualism is true, then we do not need trying to find that ‘consciousness re-
siding location’ anymore. The model of modern interactive dualism implies that there are
just many connection points in the brain, via the connection points consciousness receives
input stimulus and output its response to neurons. For example, in regard to the seeing
and hearing scenario just mentioned, your consciousness receives the visual stimulus via the
connection points in your visual cortex, and receives the auditory stimulus via the connec-
tion points in your auditory cortex. Your consciousness then translate those stimulus into
perceptions, combine them to form a unified perception.

Up to this point, though such kind of ‘connection points model’ may seems weird, it may
still be possible, as long as what all consciousness does is just receiving stimulus and combin-
ing sensations. What really puzzles philosophers so much, is that, how does consciousness
output its response in react to the stimulus received?

Let me take the seeing and hearing scenario as an example. Suppose that you are see-
ing a song lyrics from a book and hearing the melody of that same song without lyrics from
speakers simultaneously. Your consciousness combines the seeing and hearing information,
then sings the song combining both melody and lyrics via your mouth. If we drill down into
the brain again, we find that there is a region X of your brain that give rise to the mech-
anism of singing via your mouth. This highly simplified model implies that consciousness
receives information via a set of connection points in visual cortex, denoted such set as Cv ,

16
and receives information via a set of connection points in auditory cortex, denoted such set
as Ca , combine them, and then output the response via a set of connection points in region
X, denoted such set as Cx . However, a serious problem has just arise from such simple
input-output model; Your consciousness has just absurdly transfer information from both
the visual cortex and auditory cortex to the region X, a violation of the presumption that
consciousness is NOT able to transfer information from one location to another location as
previously discussed!

In regard to this problem, we have to abandon the idea that consciousness output its re-
sponse via a separate set of connection points Cx in region X. Instead, we have to postulate
that consciousness output its response via a set of connection points CM , such that CM
should at least include Cv and Ca ! In other words, Cv ∪ Ca ⊆ CM . Base on the assertion
that consciousness is NOT able to transfer information from one place to another, The way
consciousness output its response via CM is peculiar; Its response can only be retrieved by
combining all output information from all connection points in CM . In other words, even
missing a single connection point’s output information in CM would NOT allow any con-
sciousness’s response to be retrieved!

Is such way of communication possible? Such way of communication is possible at least

in a probabilistic way. To simplify discussion, let’s assume that each consciousness’s re-
sponse R via CM is binary, which can only be either 0 or 1. Imagine that for each connection
point ci ∈ CM , a random value mi ∈ {0, 1} is request and produced of either 0 or 1 in
half-half chance. Such value mi cannot be actively generated by consciousness, it could only
be generated upon request from neuron. We denote the set of all random values produced
from all connection points in CM as M . Now, the consciousness’s response R ∈ {0, 1} is
P
magically captured as: R(M ) = ( mi ) mod 2. In other words, the consciousness’s re-
mi ∈M
sponse R ∈ {0, 1} via CM can be retrieved by summing up all random values mi ∈ {0, 1}
produced from all connection points ci in CM , and then mod the summation by 2.

There should be one crucial feature of the set of random values M . Any proper sub-

17
set Ms of M (Ms ⊂ M ) is always mutually independent in probability. In other words,
P
R(Ms ) = ( mi ) mod 2 always produce R(Ms ) of either 0 or 1 absolutely in half-half
mi ∈Ms
chance. No useful information can be retrieved from any proper subset of M . The informa-
tion in M is stored in the probabilistic dependency of the whole set of random values, not
in M ’s individual element or proper subset.

From now on, I will refer to such kind of a set of random values as a ‘synergistic set’.
For example, the set of random values M just mentioned is a synergistic set. Though I
think the more precise term should be ‘irreducible synergistic set’. Such kind of set is indeed
irreducible, any part of the set is totally useless, only the set itself when considered as a
whole is useful.

4 Synergistic Set
Here are 3 examples to illustrate the concept of synergistic set.

Example 1. Let’s assume that there are 3 binary values y1 , y2 , y3 where yi ∈ {0, 1} placed
at 3 separated locations w1 , w2 , w3 . Suppose that an observer would like to know the values
of all that 3 values, it will come upon w1 , w2 , w3 to collect the values.

Now, instead of letting the observer knows the values directly in such way, a calculation
device decide to play the following trick:

The device come upon to w1 , memorize y1 , delete y1 and produce a random value x1 ∈
{0, . . . , 7} with uniform PMF (Probability Mass Function) at w1 .

The device come upon to w2 , memorize y2 , delete y2 and produce a random value x2 ∈
{0, . . . , 7} with uniform PMF at w2 .

The device come upon to w3 , memorize y3 , delete y3 and then calculate the value Y =
4y1 + 2y2 + y3 , and the value S = (x1 + x2 ) mod 8. Then, if Y >= S, produce x3 at w3

18
by x3 = Y − S. If Y < S, produce x3 at w3 by x3 = 8 + Y − S. It is easy to verify that
x3 ∈ {0, . . . , 7} is also a random value with uniform PMF if no complete knowledges of all
x1 or x2 are acquired.

Now, since y1 , y2 , y3 have been erased, if the observer would like to get the values of y1 , y2 ,
y3 , it had to get all x1 , x2 , x3 first and then retrieve them as follow:

Calculate E = (x1 + x2 + x3 ) mod 8,

Retrieve y1 = E div 4, E1 = E − 4y1

Retrieve y2 = E1 div 2, E2 = E1 − 2y2
Retrieve y3 = E2

Interestingly, the set {x1 , x2 , x3 } exhibits apparently the feature of a synergistic set. Omtting
any xi would render the other 2 values in the set totally useless for the retrieval of yj . The
information of all three yj are not encoded in any individual xi , but rather in the dependency
of the set {x1 , x2 , x3 }. Any proper subset of {x1 , x2 , x3 } are mutually independent random
values.

Example 2. Suppose that there are 2 substrate points denoted by ca , cb . At ca , a random

value m0 ∈ {0, 1, . . . , 2N − 1} is produced with uniform PMF (Probability Mass Function).
A device O at ca memorizes m0 and moves to cb . At cb , O measures the value of temperature
s1 ∈ {0, 1} at time t(s1 ), measures the value of humidity s2 ∈ {0, 1} at time t(s2 ), measures
the value of sunlight s3 ∈ {0, 1} at time t(s3 ), . . . , etc., until it has completed measuring
the N th quantity sN ∈ {0, 1} at time t(sN ), where t(s1 ) < t(s2 ) < t(s3 ) < . . . < t(sN ),
and the set {0, 1} represents {Low, High}. The N measurements could be regard as a set
S = {s1 , s2 , . . . , sN }. O then produces a value E ∈ {0, 1, . . . , 2N − 1} from S by,

E = 2N −1 s1 + 2N −2 s2 + 2N −3 s3 + . . . + sN .

19
Also, during the measurements were in progress, a series of random values mi ∈ {0, 1, . . . , 2N −
1} denoted by {m1 , m2 , . . . , mM }, were also produced mutually independently (indepen-
dently to m0 also) with uniform PMF at cb , where their producing times are not important.

Now, back to the time when E has been produced, O then produces a value mM +1 ∈
{0, 1, . . . , 2N − 1} by:

mM +1 = (2N + E − (m0 + m1 + m2 + . . . + mM ) mod 2N ) mod 2N

Interestingly, mM +1 ∈ {0, 1, . . . , 2N − 1} can be regarded as a random value with uniform

PMF if no complete knowledges of all m0 , m1 , m2 , . . . , mM are acquired.

Then, memory of m0 is erased from the device. The value E, and all values of S =
{s1 , s2 , . . . , sN } are erased also.

Hence, if anyone want to obtain the information of E afterwards, E could only be ob-
tained by m0 from ca , combining all m1 , m2 , . . . , mM , mM +1 from cb , and be retrieved from
the following formula:

E = (m0 + m1 + m2 + . . . + mM + mM +1 ) mod 2N

Moreover, each measurement value si ’s information could be fully retrieved by:

s1 = E div 2N −1 , E1 = E − 2N −1 s1
s2 = E1 div 2N −2 , E2 = E1 − 2N −2 s2
...
sn = En−1 div 2N −n , En = En−1 − 2N −n sn
...
sN = EN −1

20
Interestingly, the set {m0 , m1 , . . . , mM +1 } exhibits apparently the feature of a synergistic
set. Omitting any mi would render all other values in the set totally useless for the retrieval
of sj . The information of all sj are not encoded in any individual mi , but rather in the
dependency of the set {m0 , m1 , . . . , mM +1 }. Any proper subset of {m0 , m1 , . . . , mM +1 } are
mutually independent random values.

Example 3. Suppose that there is a set of N substrate points {c1 , c2 , . . . , cN }. At each of

ci there is a random value αi ∈ {0, 1, 2, . . . , 2N − 1} with uniform PMF produced. The set
{α1 , α2 , . . . , αN } are dependent by that (α1 + α2 + . . . + αN ) mod 2N = 0 is always satisfied.
However, any proper subset of {α1 , α2 , . . . , αN } are mutually independent. In other words,
{α1 , α2 , . . . , αN } is a synergistic set. Define a series of events as a bit string {s1 , s2 , . . . , sN },
such that si ∈ {0, 1} for all i, with each si is present to ci respectively.

For each ci , a random value βi ∈ {0, 1, 2, . . . , 2N − 1} with uniform PMF dependent on

each αi is produced on ci by:

If si = 0 is present, then βi = αi .
If si = 1 is present, then βi = (αi + 2N −i ) mod 2N .

Afterwards, all values of {s1 , s2 , . . . , sN } are erased.

Now, if any observer want to retrieve the event’s value si , it could either by:

• Obtain αi and βi from ci .

If αi = βi , then si = 0 is retrieved.
If αi 6= βi , then si = 1 is retrieved. Please note the fact that αi and βi form a synergistic
set. Omitting either αi or βi , si cannot be retrieved except by guessing in half-half chance
of either 0 or 1.

21
• Obtain βi from ci , and all αj from all cj with j 6= i.
N
αj )) mod 2N = 0, then si = 0 is retrieved.
P
If (βi + (
j6=i,j=1
Otherwise, si = 1 is retrieved.
Please note the fact that {α1 , . . . , αi−1 , βi , αi+1 , . . . , αN } form a synergistic set. Omitting
any value in that set, si cannot be retrieved except by guessing in half-half chance of either
0 or 1.

• Obtain all βi from all ci , and calculate E = (β1 + β2 + . . . , +βN ) mod 2N . Each si ’s
information can then be fully retrieved by:

s1 = E div 2N −1 , E1 = E − 2N −1 s1
s2 = E1 div 2N −2 , E2 = E1 − 2N −2 s2
...
sn = En−1 div 2N −n , En = En−1 − 2N −n sn
...
sN = EN −1

Please note the fact that {β1 , . . . , βN } form a synergistic set. Omitting any βi would
render all other values in the set totally useless for the retrieval of any sj .

5 Connection Point
There are two very important axioms that will form the basement of our model and any
mechanism derived from it throughout the article.

(I) The speed of information transferral from one place to another cannot exceed the speed
of light. In fact, this rule is a well-known physical fact from the Theory of Relativity.

(II) No information can be transferred from one substrate point A to another substrate
point B without signal transmission from A to B directly or indirectly.

22
 (Note: You will encounter the concept of snapshot afterwards in this article. In or-
der for this axiom to be valid throughout the text, in regard to events/information
occurred within a snapshot of a measurement taken at a connection point’s particle p,
those events/information would be regarded as occurred at the substrate point p in any
discussion regarding this axiom. Please see the text afterwards.)

Furthermore, one important basement of our model will be; Your seemingly continuous
awareness over time during your awakening state is actually caused by a series of discrete
consciousness instances occurred over time one followed by another, which we will call that
as a ‘consciousness stream’ throughout the article. Each consciousness instance not only
contribute to one moment instance of perception/awareness, but also contribute to one bit
of information E ∈ {0, 1} communicated from consciousness to the physical world. Such two
events are intertwined together and cannot be separated, like two faces of the same coin.
(Note: Up to this point, we still have not deal with the problem of, under which logical rule,
does a ‘self ’ associated with a former consciousness instance and a ‘self ’ associated with a
latter consciousness instance over time would be in the same ‘self continuation’? A simple
but logical well-defined rule will be provided in this article later.)

To clarify what does it mean, let us start with considering the scenario of only one con-
sciousness connection point. We will extend the idea further to multiple connection points
later. In our model, a consciousness connection point to our physical world always consist of
two particles, let me arbitrarily denote them by p1 , p2 . Each of the two particle has a very
special feature; it is able to produce a random binary value mi ∈ {0, 1} in a 50-50 chances
independently. That binary random value is produced whenever an observer takes a obser-
vation at any particle, say, pi , then a purely random value mi , either 0 or 1 in a half-half
chances, will be observed by the observer. From now on, we will refer to any observation of pi
to produce mi ∈ {0, 1} as a ‘measurement’ (Please see Appendix A for a possible candidate
of such random binary number generation particle). Via any consciousness instance during
a consciousness stream, consciousness communicates to the physical world via the value of
E = (m1 + m2 ) mod 2, in either 0 or 1, via the synergistic set M = {m1 , m2 }.

23
The illustration of synergistic M is shown below:

• If consciousness is to convey message 0, then M will be either one of the 2 following values
1
set taken from p1 , p2 , each occurs with probability:
2
{0, 0}

{1, 1}

• If consciousness is to convey message 1, then M will be either one of the 2 following values
1
set taken from p1 , p2 , each occurs with probability:
2
{0, 1}

{1, 0}
2
P
The consciousness’s binary message E =∈ {0, 1} can then be retrieved from M by ( mi )
i=1
mod 2.

Note: Any binary synergistic set will require its element be produced in either 0 or 1 in
absolutely half-half chance. In regard to Appendix A that P (mi = 0) > P (mi = 1), if the
actual synergistic set M produced from measurements is allowed to contain little error from
the ideal consciousness’s M , then the actual M can still be considered as a valid synergistic
set. In other words, for any mi in the ideal consciousness’s M , if mi = 1, then that mi has
P (mi = 0) − 0.5
the probability of being measured as 0 in the actual M . In corollary, any
0.5
P (mi = 0) − 0.5
mi = 0 measured in the actual M has the probability of being 1 in the ideal
P (mi = 0)
M . If P (mi = 0) is very close to P (mi = 1) (P (mi = 0) ≈ P (mi = 1) ≈ 0.5), then the
probability of ‘communication error’ will be very small, as the actual M 6= ideal M will occur
only once in many times.

In order to avoid confusion, from now on any useful terms defined specifically in this ar-
ticle will be underlined. Any useful terms in the context of the Theory of Relativity will be
in italic for your convenience to search such terms on internet or other resources, in case you
do not know much about the basic concepts in the Theory of Relativity. The reason for this

24
article to involve the Theory of Relativity, is because we need to use the concept of space-
time region from Relativity to provide a definite clear-cut of what event or set of events are
involved in a cause-effect relationship. Though the location or shape of a spacetime region
can vary in relative to different reference frame, the set of events occurred in a spacetime
region is invariant to all reference frames.

The sufficient condition in meeting the requirement of Axiom (I) for consciousness’s com-
munication to our physical world is:

• Via a consciousness instance, if consciousness produces message E ∈ {0, 1} encoded in a

synergistic set of measurements M = {m1 , m2 , . . . , mn } in react jointly to a set of events
{s1 , s2 , . . . , sn }, and if each of si occurs inside the past light cone of any measuring event
in M , then Axiom (I) is guaranteed to be obeyed.

Why? Recall that Axiom (I) requires that no information can be transferred faster than
light speed in relative to any reference frame. For those reader who has a basic knowledge
of the Theory of Relativity, should know that Axiom (I) can be translated to the following
statement:

• For any pair of events with cause-effect relationship, the effect event always occur within
the future light cone of the cause event.

If consciousness produces a message E encoded in a synergistic set of measurements M =

{m1 , m2 , . . . , mn } in react jointly to a set of events S = {s1 , s2 , . . . , sn }, then E’s retrieval
and each of si ∈ S has a cause-effect relationship. In order to obey Axiom (I), the event of
E’s retrieval should lie within the future light cone of each of si ∈ S. Therefore, we only
have to prove that:

• If each of si ∈ S lie within the past light cone of any mj ∈ M , then the event of E’s
retrieval always lie within the future light cone of each of si ∈ S.

Proof. If any each of si ∈ S, say sa , lie within the past light cone of any mj ∈ M , say mb , then
the future light cone of sa always completely include the future light cone of mb . Due to the
property of synergistic set, to retrieve a message E from a synergistic set of measurements

25
M = {m1 , m2 , . . . , mn }, that retrieval event always lie within the intersected region of all
future light cones of all measurement events mj in M , and so lie within the future light cone
of mb . Since the future light cone of sa always completely include the future light cone of
mb , therefore, retrieval of E always lie within the future light cone of sa .

Since the past light cone of any mi extends infinitely backward in time and outward in space,
we have to limit the consciousness’s stimulus receptive region in that past light cone to a
certain region around mi , in order for our ‘connection points joining’ proposed later in this
Section or ‘designation signal’ proposed later in Section 8 to work. We simply impose two
parameters ∆rs and ∆τs to define a consciousness receptive spacetime region around any
mi , and call that spacetime region a snapshot to facilitate our further discussion. We will
progress step by step to define some necessary terms used in this article including the concept
of snapshot:

• A receptive ball of a connection point’s particle pi is defined as the space region bound by
a sphere boundary centered at pi with radius ∆rs in relative to the local reference frame
of pi at any time.

• We denote B(pk , t), as the spacetime 3D plane region covered by the receptive ball of a
particle pk at time t in relative to the local reference frame of pk at time t.
For a measurement taken a connection point’s particle pi at time tj , denoted by m(pi , tj ),
the receptive cylinder of m(pi , tj ) is defined as the spacetime region (4D) covered by the
union of all B(pi , t) with t varies over the time interval −∆τs ≤ t ≤ 0 continuously, where
t is in relative to the proper time of pi with its t = 0 coincides with the measurement
m(pi , tj ).

• A snapshot of a measurement m(pi , tj ) is defined as the spacetime region of the intersected

region of the past light cone of m(pi , tj ) and the receptive cylinder of m(pi , tj ).

• A snapshot history of m(pi , tj ) is defined as the set of snapshots of all measurements

m(pi , tn ) taken at the same particle pi with tn ≤ tj . Thus the snapshot history of m(pi , tj )
includes the m(pi , tj )’s snapshot also.

One crucial point is to be highlighted:

26
• While the receptive ball is a space concept associated with a connection point’s ‘particle’ ,
receptive cylinder, snapshot and snapshot history are spacetime concepts associated with
a ‘measurement’ taken at a connection point’s particle.

Up to this stage the statement of our one connection point model will be:

• A consciousness instance may produce message E ∈ {0, 1} encoded in a synergistic set

M = {m1 , m2 }, where random values m1 ∈ {0, 1}, m2 ∈ {0, 1} are measured from its con-
nection point’s two particles p1 , p2 respectively. E may capture consciousness’s message
in react jointly to some events S = {s1 , s2 , . . . , sn }, where each si can only occur within
the snapshot history of any mi ∈ {m1 , m2 }.

Note: I use the notion of snapshot history instead of snapshot here to include the pos-
sibility that consciousness may function with some type of long term memory which is
crucial in some aspects, such as the ‘reinforcement learning’ in Section 8 which will be
crucial in establishing new ‘action component’ (Please refer to Section 8). Also, Since any
movement of particle cannot exceed the speed of light, the past light cone of a measurement
taken at a particle always fully include the snapshot history of that measurement. Hence,
there is no violation of Axiom (I).

From the definition of the snapshot of a measurement taken at a consciousness point’s par-
ticle, in order for any event si occurred in a snapshot allowing consciousness in react to, si is
always an event occurred in a space region within the receptive ball of a connection point’s
particle in relative to the local reference frame of that particle at some time on or before
the measurement. In order to serve for simplifying and intuitive purpose afterwards, I will
usually use the rough idea of receptive ball replacing the more accurate snapshot concept in
some cause-effect discussions. In our later discussion, every time I say that ‘anything’ occurs
in the receptive ball of a consciousness point’s particle to cause ‘something’ to happen, it will
automatically implies the more accurate meaning of ‘anything’ occurs within the snapshot
of a measurement taken at a consciousness point’s particle to cause ‘something’ to happen.

So what is the point about our connection point model? The point lies in that, if each of the

27
two particles of a connection point along with its receptive ball is small enough to reside in
different neuron, then the Binding Problem across two neurons is preliminarily solved! Since
consciousness is able to perceive and react jointly to events occurred at disparate locations,
not only within one receptive ball(note the implicit meaning just mentioned) centered at one
connection point’s particle, but within two receptive balls each centered at one connection
point’s particle located at two different locations (two different neurons), in a unified one bit
of information each time!

For many consciousness instances to occur in a consciousness stream, there should exist
a logical rule of which set of measurements over the time-line can form a synergistic set
capturing a consciousness’s message. Therefore, a sufficient model is that, there should exist
a common time interval ∆τc , such that a set of measurements M = {m(p1 , tj1 ), m(p2 , tj2 )}
taken from a connection point can be synergistic only if:

(i) For each m(pi , tj ) ∈ M , there is no measurement taken at pi within −2∆τc ≤ t < 0 in
relative to the proper time of pi , where the pi ’s proper time’s t = 0 coincides with that
measuring event m(pi , tj ).

(ii) For each m(pi , tj ) ∈ M , denotes pi ’s local reference frame at time tj as O(pi , tj ), then the
other measurement m(pm , tn ) ∈ M is taken within the time interval of −∆τc ≤ t ≤ ∆τc
in relative to O(pi , tj ), where O(pi , tj )’s t = 0 coincides with that measuring event
m(pi , tj ).

Please note that if the reference frames for the two particles in {p1 , p2 } are nearly ‘aligned’
with each other; that is, the two reference frames agree at nearly the same space scale,
clock rate and simultaneity, then the above definition could be reduced from Relativity’s to
Galileo’s in relative to any reference frame ‘aligned’ with any of them:

(i) For each measurement mi in M , there is no another measurement mk taken before mi

at the same particle of mi such that 0 < t(mi ) − t(mk ) ≤ 2∆τc

(ii) max(t(m1 ), t(m2 )) − min(t(m1 ), t(m2 )) ≤ ∆τc .

28
Note: this synchronization definition involves the max() and min() operator, and such oper-
ators would require a common clock frame which does NOT exist if according to the Theory
of Relativity. Hence, I present the more general description first without involving max()
and min() operators to dispel confusion.

Constraint (i) ensures that any two successive synergistic sets produced on the same connec-
tion point are at least separated by a time interval 2∆τc . Constraint (ii) provides a natural
time range limit of a synergistic set’s production. Without such constraint, a synergistic set,
say, may span over a 100 years time interval. Combining constraint (i) and (ii) excludes the
possibility that any measurement mi could logically and naturally be ambiguously synergis-
tic to either one or other of two successive synchronized measurement sets taken on the same
connection point. It also logically and naturally disallow the production of two overlapped
synergistic sets along the time line produced at the same connection point.
But the story still does not end here, due to the following two problems:

(a) Consciousness substrate in the brain generally involves a large number of neurons,
definitely more than just two.

(b) The set of neurons involved in consciousness are dynamically changing from time to
time.

The two problems can be translated to the following in the context of connection points:

(a) A consciousness instance generally involves more than one connection points.

(b) The set of connection points associated with each consciousness instance in a con-
sciousness stream are generally different from one consciousness instance to another
consciousness instance.

In order for the model to be compatible with the actual problems described above, I have to
extend the model. Here is a description of the extend model:

(a) A consciousness instance can associate with two or more connection points, with its
consciousness’s message be encoded in the synergistic set measured from all connec-
tion points involved. For example, recall that a consciousness’s message is encoded

29
 in the synergistic set measured from the two particles of a connection point. For a
consciousness instance X associated with two connection points A and B, X’s message
would be encoded in the synergistic set measured from the total 4 particles of the two
connection points of A and B. Both connection points of A and B lose their own
individual synergistic property, but instead combine to form a more global synergistic
entity. Such concept can be easily extended for a consciousness instance to involve
more than two connection points.

(b) Each consciousness instance in a consciousness stream can associate with a different
set of connection points. A mechanism should exist to specify which set of connection
points are associated with a consciousness instance.

A model of mechanism said in (b) above obeying Axiom (I) and (II) is shown below:

(a) Each of the two particles of a connection point always reside in two different neurons.

(b) A neuron can host two or more connection point’s particles. Each particle is from a
different connection point.

(c) Many neurons cooperatively control which set of connection points involved in a con-
sciousness instance, by physically joining or dis-joining of connection points within
those neuron’s bodies to produce a joined set of connection points. Measurements are
then taken on all connection point’s particles on that joined set to produce a synergistic
set capturing a consciousness instance’s message. I will clarify the meaning of ‘joining
or dis-joining of connection points’ soon later.

So what does it mean by joining or dis-joining of connection points? A more precise descrip-
tion will be described soon later in terms of measurements. Hereby I only present a rough
and not so accurate description to serve for intuitive purpose.

In principle, for two connection points to be joined in obeying Axiom (II), non-simulatable
signal uniquely identifying each connection point should be mutually present to each other’s
connection point’s particle. The simplest form of such ‘non-simulatable signal’ uniquely
identifying each connection point is just a connection point’s particle from each connection

30
point as shown below:

Let us consider two connection points A and B. Intuitively speaking, if one connection
point’s particle from A is close enough to a connection point’s particle from B, such that
each is within the other’s receptive ball, then the connection points A and B are joined (This
is a non-accurate description to serve for intuitive purpose. A more accurate description is
that the world line of each particle intersect with the snapshot’s hat of measurement to
be taken at the other particle. Please see later for the definition of snapshot’s hat in the
accurate description). In other words, by moving closer or apart of two connection point’s
particle could join or dis-join the corresponding pair of connection points. Recall that for
a pair of particles associated with a connection point, each particle of the pair is hosted by
different neuron. So a connection point can never join to itself. All joining or dis-joining of
connection points are performed inside neuron, by physically moving the connection point’s
particles.

Recall that when connection point A is joined with connection point B to form a more
global synergistic entity X, A stop to produce synergistic set (and vice versa for B’s). In-
stead, A jointly produce synergistic set with B all together. In other words, the action of
A joining with B causes A lose its individual synergistic property but form a more global
synergistic entity with B (and vice versa for B). To respect Axiom (II), such action event
‘signifying A to uniquely identify and join with B causing the above observable consequence,
should occur inside the receptive ball of at least one A’s connection point’s particle (and
vice versa for B’s). That non-simulatable signifying event in this model obviously is the
presenting of B’s connection point’s particle into A’s connection point’s receptive ball (and
vice versa for B’s). If there is a particle of B moved into A’s particle’s receptive ball right
before measurement of A’s particles, but there is no A’s particle present inside B’s particle’s
receptive ball right before measurement of B’s particles, the logical consequence from Axiom
(II), is that A would lose its synergistic property, while B retain its synergistic property. Vice
Versa for B also applies.

31
The following is a more precise and accurate description of synergistic sets formation, via
the notion of nodes and connections in graph concept, in terms of measurements over the
time line.

In order to facilitate the discussion, Let me define some common notations.

• A snapshot’s hat of a measurement m(pi , tj ) is defined as the portion of m(pi , tj )’s snap-
shot boundary that is also the portion of m(pi , tj )’s past light cone boundary. (recall that
a measurement’s snapshot is the intersected region of that measurement’s past light cone
with that measurement’s receptive cylinder).

• A set of measurements M = {m(p1 , tj1 ), m(p2 , tj2 ), . . . , m(pn , tjn )} taken at a set of distinct
particles {p1 , p2 , . . . , pn }, is said to be a synchronized set, or in synchronization, if and only
if:

(i) For each m(pi , tj ) ∈ M , there is no measurement taken at pi within −2∆τc ≤ t < 0
in relative to the proper time of pi , where the pi ’s proper time’s t = 0 coincides with
that measuring event m(pi , tj ).

(ii) For each m(pi , tj ) ∈ M , denotes each pi ’s local reference frame at time tj as O(pi , tj ),
then all other measurements m(pk , tl ) ∈ M (k 6= i) are taken within the time interval
of −∆τc ≤ t ≤ ∆τc in relative to O(pi , tj ), where O(pi , tj )’s t = 0 coincides with that
measuring event m(pi , tj ).

Please note that if the reference frames for all {p1 , p2 , . . . , pn } are nearly ‘aligned’ with
each other; that is, all such reference frames agree at nearly the same space scale, clock
rate and simultaneity, then the above definition could be reduced from Relativity’s to
Galileo’s in relative to any reference frame ‘aligned’ with any of them:

(i) For each measurement mi in M , there is no another measurement mk taken before

mi at the same particle of mi such that 0 < t(mi ) − t(mk ) ≤ 2∆τc

(ii) max(T (M )) − min(T (M )) ≤ ∆τc , where T (M ) is the set of measuring time of all
measurements in M .

32
 Constraint (i) ensures that any two successive synergistic sets produced on the same set of
connection points are at least separated by a time interval 2∆τc . Constraint (ii) provides
a natural time range limit of a synergistic set’s production. Without such constraint, a
synergistic set, say, may span over a 100 years time interval. Combining constraint (i)
and (ii) excludes the possibility that any measurement mi could logically and naturally be
ambiguously synergistic to either one or other of two successive synchronized measurement
sets taken on the same set of connection points. It also logically and naturally disallow
the production of two overlapped synergistic sets along the time line produced at the same
set of connection points.

• A measurements ma is said to be synchronized with another measurements mb if {ma , mb }

is a synchronized set.

• If m(pa , ti ) is synchronized with m(pb , tj ), where pb is the other particle from the same
connection point with pa (pa and pb are in different neurons), then m(pa , ti ) is connected
to m(pb , tj ) in the graph concept.

• If m(pa , ti ) is NOT synchronized with any m(pb , tj ), where pb is the other particle from
the same connection point with pa , then m(pa , ti ) is said to be as a dead node.

• For a m(pi , tj ), if the world line of a connection point’s particle pk intersects with m(pi , tj )’s
snapshot’s hat, (this can be achieved by moving either or both particle pi , pk closer to
each other in a neuron, where both pi and pk are in the same neuron, but from different
connection point), then m(pi , tj ) is said to be in l(pi , pk ). Please note that l(pi , pk ) is NOT
equivalent to l(pk , pi )! Also, since two particles pa , pb of the same connection point always
resides in two different neuron, l(pa , pb ) is impossible. Furthermore, there can have two
or more particles from different connection points with their world lines intersect with
m(pi , tj )’s snapshot’s hat in the same neuron. Therefore m(pi , tj ) can be in more than one
l(pi , pn ), where n 6= i.

• If m(pi , tj ) is in l(pi , pk ) (pi , pk in the same neuron, but from different connection point),
and there is a m(pk , tn ) synchronized with m(pi , tj ), and m(pk , tn ) is in l(pk , pi ) (l(pk , pi ) is
NOT equivalent to l(pi , pk )!), then m(pi , tj ) is connected to m(pk , tn ) in the graph concept

33
 (correspond to the notion of ‘connection point joining’). Please note that m(pi , tj ) can be
connected to two or more other nodes in such way,

• If m(pi , tj ) is in l(pi , pk ), and there is NO any m(pk , tn ) which is BOTH synchronized with
m(pi , tj ) and in l(pk , pi ), then m(pi , tj ) is said to be as a dead node.

A connected graph G construct accords to the definitions of node, connectedness and dead
node described above, such that:

• There is no more additional node can be connected to the graph G.

• There is no dead node in the graph G.

• The set of all measurements in the graph G is in synchronization.

Then the whole set of all m(pi , tj ) ∈ G will constitute a synergistic set of measurements
capturing a consciousness instance’s message E ∈ {0, 1}, possibly in react jointly to events
occurred inside the snapshot history of one or more m(pi , tj ) ∈ G.

To retrieve consciousness’s message E ∈ {0, 1} from the synergistic set M represented by

the graph G:
N
P
• E=( m(pi , tji )) mod 2, where N is the number of nodes in the graph. In other words,
i=1
E is retrieved by summing up all measurements in G, and then mod the summation by 2.

• Since there are N of measurements in G, there are 2N possible combinations of M ’s value.

N
2N −1 of them have their (
P
mi ) mod 2 = 0, and each of them occurs with a proba-
i=1
1
bility of if E = 0 is to be conveyed.
2N −1
N
2N −1 of them have their (
P
mi ) mod 2 = 1, and each of them occurs with a proba-
i=1
1
bility of if E = 1 is to be conveyed.
2N −1

For example, in the case of N = 4:

34
 If E = 0, each of the following set of measured values would occur with a 1/8 proba-
bility:
{0, 0, 0, 0}, {0, 0, 1, 1}, {0, 1, 0, 1}, {1, 0, 0, 1}, {0, 1, 1, 0}, {1, 0, 1, 0}, {1, 1, 0, 0}, {1, 1, 1, 1}

If E = 1, each of the following set of measured values would occur with a 1/8 proba-
bility:
{0, 0, 0, 1}, {0, 0, 1, 0}, {0, 1, 0, 0}, {1, 0, 0, 0}, {0, 1, 1, 1}, {1, 0, 1, 1}, {1, 1, 0, 1}, {1, 1, 1, 0}

You can verify yourself that NO useful information can be retrieved from any proper
subset of either of the above two synergistic sets.

Please note that a connected graph correspond to a synergistic set produced from only one
connection point, is just a graph with two nodes connected.

As multiple G are allowed to be construct simultaneously (simultaneously means within

a small time interval), multiple synergistic sets capturing messages from multiple conscious-
ness instances may also be produced simultaneously.

Figure 5.1: Two connected graphs associated with two synergistic sets

35
In Figure 7.1, each big circle denotes a neuron. Each colored node denotes a measurement
from a connection point’s particle. Any two colored nodes joined by a dashed line indicates
the two synchronized measurements from a connection point. Any black line joining two
nodes inside a neuron represents a connection point joining performed by neuron. There are
two connected graphs G in the figure (red and blue) represent two synergistic sets associated
with two consciousness instances respectively, presumed that all nodes for each G are in
synchronization. The red connected graph involves four connection points associated with
eight connection point’s particles. The blue connected graph involves five connection points
associated with ten connection point’s particles.

Figure 5.2: One connected graph associated with one synergistic set

Figure 7.2 shows the same set of neurons as in Figure 7.1. However, via the dynamics of
measurements and connection points joining performed/coordinated by neurons, only one
connected graph G marked in yellow color is produced in that consciousness cycle which
involves different set of neurons from Figure 7.1. This illustrates how the consciousness
substrate can be changed from time to time for different consciousness cycle. The yellow
connected graph for that consciousness instance involves six connection points associated
with twelve connection point’s particles. Any two nodes marked in black color joined by
a dashed line represents a connection point involved in synergistic set production in the

36
consciousness cycle of Figure 7.1, but not involved in this consciousness cycle of Figure
7.2 (no measurements have been performed on them and they are not joined to the yellow
graph).

Figure 5.3: One connected graph (red) associated with one synergistic set

37
 Figure 5.4: One connected graph (blue) associated with another synergistic set

Figure 7.3 and 7.4 show another example of changing consciousness substrate from one
consciousness cycle to another consciousness cycle.

6 General System Cycle

In summary, each of the two particles of a connection point always reside in two different
neurons. A neuron can host two or more particles, each particle is from different connection
point. Below is a possible general system cycle associates with an instance of consciousness
in the cycles of stream of consciousness. Each instance of consciousness conveys one bit of
information, either 0 or 1:

1. Stimulus are prepared and presented to the snapshots of measurements to be taken

at connection point’s particles. An appropriate set of l(pi , pj ) are formed to construct
an intended G, by moving the appropriate connection point’s particles closer/apart
from each other (performed by and inside neurons). Afterwards, measurements are
taken on the particles pi for every m(pi , tk ) involved in the intended G. The system
should keep track of the dynamics of preparing l(pi , pj ) and measurements m(pi , tk ) in

38
 order to retrieve all elements in the synergistic set G produced. Due to the property of
synergistic set, losing even a measured value in a G would render that set to be totally
useless.

2. The system retrieves 1 bit information of the consciousness instance’s response, either
0 or 1, from the synergistic set G.

3. The cycle is repeated.

One cycle can only convey 1 bit information. Even for a rapid 40Hz cycles for gamma wave
in alert brain, only 40 bits per second of consciousness’s message can be conveyed. Therefore,
most of the brain functions should be handled by the unconscious automatic process in the
brain circuits.

7 Axiom (II) again

According to the model, as multiple G producing synergistic set are allowed to be construct
simultaneously (simultaneously means within a small time interval), multiple consciousness
instances can exist in the organism simultaneously. There is a reason behind that multiple
consciousness instances can exist in the organism simultaneously (simultaneously means
within a small time interval). The reason lays in the presumption that no transferal of
information could be achieved without signal transmission, otherwise Axiom (II) will be
violated.

Proof. Suppose that three is a limit N on the number of synergistic sets could be formed
concurrently, and that quota has been reached at the moment. In other words, a set of
synergistic sets {M1 , M2 , . . . , MN } are formed at the moment, and an extra potential syner-
gistic set MN +1 with its set of particles C(MN +1 ) disjoint to {C(M1 ), C(M2 ), . . . , C(MN )},
is NOT able to become a synergistic set, due to the existence of that {M1 , M2 , . . . , MN }.
It is possible to detect that MN +1 is NOT synergistic, as no expected useful information
can be extracted from MN +1 . Such detection is a message itself, indicates that N syner-
gistic sets are formed somewhere else. And the detection of such message only requires

39
information from C(MN +1 ), which does NOT require signal transmission from any C(Mi )
in {C(M1 ), C(M2 ), . . . , C(MN )}. Clearly the information that {M1 , M2 , . . . , MN } has been
formed, has been absurdly transmitted to C(MN +1 ) without signal transmission, a violation
of Axiom (II).

If a consciousness engages in a synergistic set Ma and then afterwards engages in another

synergistic set Mb , such that C(Ma ) ∩ C(Mb ) = ∅, where C(Ma ) is the set of connection
point’s particles producing Ma , and so on, then the moment consciousness engaging in Mb
should be memoryless to any stimulus/event/information si present in the receptive balls of
C(Ma ). Otherwise, consciousness would be able to produce message via C(Mb ) in react to si
present to C(Ma ) without signal transmission from C(Ma ) to C(Mb ), a violation of Axiom
(II).

An interesting speculation is that, if rebirth cycle does exist for consciousness, then there
is no way that a consciousness engaging in current life could retain memory of its past life.
Since any synergistic set Mb engaged by that consciousness in the current life’s brain would
have C(Mb ) disjoint from C(Ma ), where Ma is any synergistic set engaged in its previous
life’s brain.

Equivalently, consciousness could not communicate to any other consciousness without sig-
nal transmission in the physical world. Otherwise, a consciousness engaging at a synergistic
set Mb could produce message in react to an event si to C(Ma ) without signal transmission
from C(Ma ) to C(Mb ), where Ma is a synergistic set being engaged by another consciousness
with C(Ma ) ∩ C(Mb ) = ∅. Communication between consciousnesses could only be achieved
by signals transmission carrying information originated from C(Ma ) and arrive at C(Mb )
or vice versa. An interesting consequence is that, no telepathy could be achieved between
consciousnesses without signal transmission in the physical world.

40
8 Communication Protocol
In our modern interactive dualism model, each synergistic set produced during each con-
sciousness instance cycle can only transmit one bit of information E ∈ {0, 1} from con-
sciousness. So how can the brain translate those bit by bit information into useful actions?
In regard to this, an action designation signal, denoted by d, has to be introduced. d desig-
nates which action is correspond to the one bit of information E ∈ {0, 1} from consciousness.
To clarify what d does, let us regard each consciousness instance performs like a function:

consciousness
f : (S, O(M ) = {O1 , O2 , . . . , ON }) −−−−−−−−→ {E(O1 ), E(O2 ), . . . , E(ON )}

I will clarify each term one by one. Recall that during each consciousness cycle of the
animal, M is the synergistic set produced. We denote S as the set of stimulus present to
the receptive balls of M ’s particles (the set of connection point’s particles producing M ) for
consciousness to react. Consider that there exists a number of disjoint sets of connection
point’s particles in the animal’s brain, each denoted by O1 , O2 , . . . , ON respectively, with
each set Oi corresponds to one specific action. We refer to each Oi of such O1 , O2 , . . . , ON as
an ‘action component’. Each action component Oi corresponds to one specific action. There
may exist other action components in the brain other than O1 , O2 , . . . , ON . We say that,
O(M ) = {O1 , O2 , . . . , ON }, if and only if, one or more particles in each Oi of O1 , O2 , . . . , ON
is/are included in that M ’s particles, and all particles from all other action components in the
brain not in O1 , O2 , . . . , ON are excluded from M ’s particles. {E(O1 ), E(O2 ), . . . , E(ON )}
are the consciousness’s coordinated response in react jointly to S with each action E(Oi )
associated with its Oi . Each E(Oi ) ∈ {0, 1} can potentially be retrieved from M cor-
responds to each Oi , designated by the signal d. In other words, if the brain want to
retrieve E(Oi ) ∈ {0, 1} from M , the brain should present the signal d into the receptive
ball of one or more particles of the action component Oi right before M is produced (To
be more precise, signal d should be present inside the snapshot of one or more measure-
ment(s) m(pa , tb ), with pa ∈ Oi and m(pa , tb ) ∈ M , right before M is measured). The
E ∈ {0, 1} retrieved from M would eventually correspond to E(Oi ). The brain present d

41
to ONLY one Oi in O1 , O2 , . . . , ON for each consciousness cycle. In order to retrieve all
E(O1 ), E(O2 ), . . . , E(ON ), the brain has to perform N consciousness cycles.

To be more specific, imaging that there is a monkey-like animal which has only five organs
commandable by its consciousness; its left hand, its right hand, its left foot, its right foot
and its tail. Each organ has only two actions E ∈ {0, 1} commandable by its consciousness:

• If E = 0, to release anything that is being grasped by the organ.

• If E = 1, to grasp anything that is being touched by the organ.

Suppose that there are only five action components (five disjoint sets of connection point’s
particles) in the animal’s brain, denoted by OLH , ORH , OLF , ORF and OT respectively. Each
action component Oi corresponds to one specific action; OLH corresponds to the action of its
left hand. ORH corresponds to the action of its right hand. OLF corresponds to the action
of its left foot. ORF corresponds to the action of its right foot. OT corresponds to the action
of its tail.

Suppose that the animal’s brain would like to consult consciousness what coordinated ac-
tions are to be taken for its left hand, right foot and tail, in react jointly to a set of stimulus
S. To do this, the brain produces a synergistic set M , via its dynamics of connection points
joining and measurements, where the set of M ’s particles includes one or more particles from
both OLH , ORF and OT , and exclude all particles from ORH and OLF . S are present into
the receptive ball of M ’s particles also. The function of this particular example is:

consciousness
f : (S, O(M ) = {OLH , ORF , OT }) −−−−−−−−→ {E(OLH ), E(ORF ), E(OT )}

If the brain want to retrieve OLH , it should present the designation signal d to the re-
ceptive ball of one or more particles of OLH right before M is measured. The consciousness’s
response E retrieved from M , would eventually correspond to E(OLH ), the action of left
hand. The translation of E = E(OLH ) ∈ {0, 1} into action by the brain is:

• If E = 0, release anything that is being grasped by the animal’s left hand.

42
• If E = 1, grasp anything that is being touched by the animal’s left hand.

Similarly, if the brain want to retrieve ORH , it should present the designation signal d to the
receptive ball one or more particles of ORH right before M is measured. The consciousness’s
response E retrieved from M , would eventually correspond to E(ORH ), the action of right
hand. The translation of E = E(ORH ) ∈ {0, 1} into action by the brain is:

• If E = 0, release anything that is being grasped by the animal’s right hand.

• If E = 1, grasp anything that is being touched by the animal’s right hand.

Finally, If the brain want to retrieve OT , it should present the designation signal d to the
receptive ball of one or more particles of OT right before M is measured, The consciousness’s
response E retrieved from M , would eventually correspond to E(OT ), the action of tail. The
translation of E = E(OT ) ∈ {0, 1} into action by the brain is

• If E = 0, release anything that is being grasped by the animal’s tail.

• If E = 1, grasp anything that is being touched by the animal’s tail.

The brain has to perform three consciousness cycles to retrieve all actions from the coordi-
nated response.

Similarly, if the animal’s brain would like to consult consciousness what coordinated ac-
tions are to be taken for its right hand and left foot in react jointly to a set of stimulus S,
the brain produces a synergistic set M , with M ’s particles includes one or more particles
from both ORH and OLF , and exclude all particles from OLH , ORF and OT . S are present
into the receptive ball of M ’s particles also. The function of this particular example is:

consciousness
f : (S, O(M ) = {ORH , OLF }) −−−−−−−−→ {E(ORH ), E(OLF )}

If the brain present the designation signal d to the receptive ball of one or more particles
of ORH right before M is measured, then the consciousness’s response E retrieved from M ,
would correspond to E(ORH ), the action of right hand. The translation of E = E(ORH ) ∈
{0, 1} into action by the brain is:

43
• If E = 0, release anything that is being grasped by the animal’s right hand.

• If E = 1, grasp anything that is being touched by the animal’s right hand.

The action of left foot is retrieved similarly. The brain has to perform two consciousness
cycles to retrieve all actions from the coordinated response.

Should the coordinated actions {E(O1 ), E(O2 ), . . . , E(ON )} retrieved from multiple con-
sciousness instances be considered as valid? I think the answer is yes, as long as the con-
sciousness’s response varies against time is much slower than the consciousness instances
occur frequency, and same (or nearly the same) set of stimulus are present into same (or
nearly the same) set of particles involved in each E(Oi ). Just like an image consist by pixels
changes over time gradually and slowly. If a device read the images’ pixels one by one in a
much faster rate to scan the whole image in a comparatively short time, then a second image
reconstruct from the reading of those pixels would be very similar to the original one.

Now, here is another problem arise. How the brain and consciousness agree on which set
of connection point’s particles constitute an action component for a specific action? The
probable answer is such kind of agreement is trained by the brain to consciousness.

For instance, in regard to the previous example, let’s say the brain will like to designate
a new set of particles, denoted by OT ongue , as an action component for the animal’s tongue.
The brain present the designation signal d to the receptive ball of ALL particles in OT ongue ,
and measure the consciousness response E(OT ongue ) from M , where the set of M’s par-
ticles should include ALL particles of OT ongue . From the consciousness’s perspective, it
does not know what effect will the response E(OT ongue ) produce, so consciousness produces
E(OT ongue ) ∈ {0, 1} randomly. The brain translate E(OT ongue ) ∈ {0, 1} into the following
actions:

• If E = 0, roll the animal’s tongue inward into the mouth.

• If E = 1, roll the animal’s tongue outward protrude from the mouth.

44
The actions of tongue will inevitably produce sensation/visual feedback stimulus back to
consciousness via neural pathways in the brain. After several trainings, consciousness may
have learned the mapping for E(OT ongue ) ∈ {0, 1} to its triggered action on the tongue.
So the agreement is formed, between the brain and consciousness, for OT ongue acting as an
action component for the tongue’s specific action (rolling in/out).

9 Conclusion
Via the dynamic synergistic model discussed in the article, following the deduction line of
modern interactive dualism, it has preliminarily tackled the problems including the unity of
consciousness across space and time, the non-locality of consciousness, the dynamic changing
of neural substrate of consciousness from moment to moment in the brain.

The model implies that, in addition to the conventional view regarding neurons as infor-
mation processing components, neurons also perform necessary functions interfacing the
physical world to consciousness:

1. Input signals from sensation organs have to be translated (involving feature extrac-
tions) to appropriate stimulus prepared to the snapshots of measurements to be taken
at consciousness’s connection point’s particles.

2. Due to the irreducible nature of synergistic set, tracking the dynamics of l(pi , pj ) and
measurements m(pi , tk ) taken inside many neurons participating a synergistic set for-
mation should be performed extremely carefully. Long-range and short-range mutual
communications between neurons have to be performed if the tracking is achieved by
self-organization.

3. Retrieve consciousness’s response by calculation from synergistic set of measurements

from all connection point’s particles involved in G.

Furthermore, the brain may act as a trainer to consciousness also by:

1. Prepare appropriate feedback stimulus to consciousness for action components forma-

tion.

45
 2. Prepare appropriate feedback/reward/penalty stimulus to consciousness during the
reinforcement training for consciousness.

Hence, the learning of brain may include the learning of consciousness in addition to the
learning of neural networks.

Furthermore, the learning of neural networks may include the association of input stim-
ulus to the output response of consciousness. For example, in a highly novel situation, the
brain may need to evoke consciousness for its advise of what action should be done in react to
such highly novel situation since consciousness may provide the non-computational abstract-
ing and inference capability. If the same novel situation are repeat several many times, and
the consciousness has respond in similar way each time, then the system may have learned
from consciousness how to response in such situation. The system may gradually dismiss
the participation of consciousness in such similar situation, and replace it by a automatic
input-output response produced from neural network trained in such association. This is
what we may refer to as a subconscious response. Subconscious response is very important,
since one cycle of synergistic set production can only convey 1 bit information. Even for a
rapid 40Hz cycles for gamma wave in alert brain, only 40 bits per second of consciousness’s
message can be conveyed. Therefore, most of the brain functions should be handled by the
unconscious automatic process in the brain circuits.

The model also implies that, if interactive dualism does exist, then it is detectable by ex-
perimentally searching the synergistic set of random values carried by random signals (e.g.
random inters-pike intervals) produced from neurons in the brain. However, there are two
major technical difficulties:

1. There are too many possible ways that neurons could encode the random values.

2. The number of probable subsets of signals to be examined for synergistic set is huge
from moment to moment.

Therefore, experiments conducted on primitive animals suspected to have consciousness will

be more promising to gain any result in nowadays.

46
In fact in the brain, there are enormous amount of highly-irregular firing and random inters-
pike intervals produced by neurons, very strangely even more happening in pyramidal cells;
such neurons performs high level cognitive functions long-suspect as being critically involved
in consciousness. I call it ‘strange’ because for a normal system intended for efficiency, noises
should be greatly reduced in signals involved in components performing high-level function of
that system. But in the biological brain, that phenomenon seems like taking a reversed posi-
tion from any normal artificial system. The neurons involved in high level cognitive functions
seems to produce even much more random inters-pike intervals than those performs low-level
automatic response. Very strangely, inter-spike intervals are produced RANDOMLY even
under the same stimulus are present. The source of such randomness is not fully understood,
and how it may contribute to the information processing in the brain is still a very big mys-
tery. May the source of some of such randomness be NOT truly classical, but arise from the
quantum randomness originated inside neurons? And such randomness may NOT be just
simply as noises or for any facilitation for information processing, but rather to provide a
base for the formation of ‘synergistic set of random values’ for consciousness to communicate
to the physical world?

There is a news article relating consciousness to random signals of brain, you may take
a look:
http://www.livescience.com/46411-free-will-is-background-noise.html

10 Possible preliminary solutions to some mysteries of

neuroscience
So far I’ve only talked about the general principles of the modern interactive dualism model
that I’ve been proposing. At this point, if we start to think of the actual dynamics of the
model’s realization by neurons, that may start to provide some insights to solving a few
great mysteries of the current neuroscience is now facing.

47
10.1 Mystery of ‘feedback’ problem

One of the great mystery of the modern neuroscience is about the ‘feedback loop’ problem.
To help clarify the problem, let me explain it with the most simplest way with an utmost
simplified model; Image that during an experiment, you are wearing a glasses-like electronic
device on your eyes, and a overwhelmingly bright red color light are flashed onto your retina
by that device; the time duration of that flashed red color light is long enough for you to
perceive the red color in normal condition. So as expected, you report that you see the red
color. The signal pathways in your brain during the process are recorded and analyzed. The
analysis result is as follow. Initially, signals are sent from your retina to your visual cortex.
A group of neurons dedicated to red color perception in your visual cortex are especially
activated, let me denote that group by X. Afterwards, signals via X in the visual cortex
further proceed to your frontal cortex and parietal cortex. Up to this point, the whole story
still makes sense; you may need your frontal/parietal cortex to evoke the abstract concept of
‘redness’ and associate that with your output mechanism to report ‘red is perceived‘. How-
ever, the story does not end up here. Signals continue to proceed, NOT forwardly to other
brain’s modules, but BACK to the group of neurons X in the visual cortex as mentioned
previously. Now, here is where the mystery lies; such feedback loop is necessary for your sen-
sation of ‘redness’ to arise! In other words, if the feedback signals from your frontal/parietal
cortex to X are blocked, then you fail to perceive the red light! Such mystery is not restrict
to visual sensation only; it also applies to other sensations such as auditory sensation or
tactile sensation as well. In general, for a particular sensation to arise, the path of signals
for that particular sensation should complete a feedback loop:

f orward back
Sensory module −−−−−→ Other modules in the brain −−→ Sensory module

From the perspective of modern interactive dualism, it is not hard to see the solution to
the mystery; neurons in the sensory module need feedback signals from other modules to
perform ‘connection points joining’ in the production of graph G. From the perspective of
each neuron involved in G in each consciousness cycle, it needs information to know which

48
connection point is to join to which other connection point dynamically. The sensing and
reporting of ‘redness’ most likely is performed by the ‘global consciousness’, and the set
of neurons involved for that ‘global consciousness’ can change from time to time for each
consciousness cycle. As each connection point in a neuron can be uniquely identified by
another neuron where one of the connection point’s particle is resided, feedback signals are
required to identify the set of connection points involved for joining in each neuron. If the
forward sweep of signals function as finding the set of neurons to produce such ‘global con-
sciousness’, then the backward signals function as allowing the sensing module’s neurons to
identify which set of neurons in other modules for them to join for the ‘global consciousness’:

Figure 10.1: The red arrows show the forward signals flow. Connection point’s particles
identified by the forward signal to join a global consciousness’s substrate are marked in red.

49
Figure 10.2: The blue arrows show the backward signals flow. Connection point’s particles
identified by the backward signal to join a global consciousness’s substrate are marked in
blue.

50
Figure 10.3: Combing the forward and backward signals in Figure 13.1 and Figure 13.2, all
connection points’ particles (green) involved for the joining and measurements for a global
consciousness instance could be identified. The solid black lines joining green nodes inside
a neuron denote ‘connection point joining’ for all particles identified by the forward and
backward signals inside the neuron.

51
Figure 10.4: Another example of forward signals flow with those connection point’s particles
(red) identified by them. The neuron with dashed border denotes a destroyed neuron.

52
Figure 10.5: Another example of backward signals flow with those connection point’s parti-
cles (blue) identified by them. The neuron with dashed border denotes a destroyed neuron.

53
Figure 10.6: Combing the forward and backward signals in Figure 13.4 and Figure 13.5, all
connection points’ particles (green) involved for the joining and measurements for a global
consciousness instance could be identified. The solid black lines joining green nodes inside
neurons denote ‘connection point joining’ for all particles identified by the forward and
backward signals inside neurons.

54
Figure 10.7: Another example of forward signals flow with those connection point’s particles
(red) identified by them. The neuron with dashed border denotes a destroyed neuron.

55
Figure 10.8: Another example of backward signals flow with those connection point’s parti-
cles (blue) identified by them. The neuron with dashed border denotes a destroyed neuron.

56
Figure 10.9: Combing the forward and backward signals in Figure 13.7 and Figure 13.8, all
connection points’ particles (green) involved for the joining and measurements for a global
consciousness instance could be identified. The solid black lines joining green nodes inside
the neuron denote ‘connection point joining’ for all connection point’s particles identified by
the forward and backward signals inside the neuron.

10.2 Mystery of neural synchronization

Recall that in our interactive dualism model, any production of synergistic set M along the
time line should meet the requirement of an important time synchronization factor ∆τc ; that
is, for any synergistic M produced naturally:

(i) For any measurement mi in M , there is no another measurement mk taken before mi

at the same particle of mi such that 0 < t(mi ) − t(mk ) ≤ 2∆τc

(ii) max(T (M )) − min(T (M )) ≤ ∆τc , where T (M ) is the set of measuring time of all

57
 measurements in M .

Note: this synchronization definition is reduced from a more general definition without the
max() and min() operator, because such operators would require a common clock frame which
does NOT exist if according to the Theory of Relativity. Please see Section 5 for details.

In actual realization, any system with an oscillator synchronizing measurements on con-

nection points could easily meet the two constraints, provided that the oscillation frequency
is smaller than 1/(3∆τc ), and all measurements are successfully synchronized within ∆τc .

Indeed, the association of neural synchronization with consciousness phenomenon has been
extensively proposed, e.g.:
http://thebrain.mcgill.ca/flash/i/i_12/i_12_cl/i_12_cl_con/i_12_cl_con.html
http://www.jneurosci.org/content/27/11/2858
If you google the terms ‘neural synchronization’ and ‘consciousness’ on the internet, you
will find a lot of papers and articles. Why such association exist remains as a neuroscience
‘s mystery, and even whether such association exist is still controversial. However, if the
principle of our interactive dualism model is true, then ‘neural synchronization’ will become
a necessary factor replacing the current status as an auxiliary factor for the consciousness
phenomenon.

11 Preliminary Solution to the Mystery of Time Arrow

In our daily lives we experience the flow of time as always going in one direction and never
goes back. From common sense there seems to have no problem at all. But if you consider
the concept of ‘T-symmetry’: (e.g.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow_of_time
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-symmetry)
we will encounter a serious problem encapsulated in the following statement:

• In our conventional view of time arrow; that is, the time arrow with its origin started
at the beginning of the universe pointing towards the presumably infinite future; for any

58
 two events with a cause-effect relationship in such view, say, event s is the cause event,
and event e is the effect event, then event s always precede event e, and it is the event
s causing the event e to happen. However, if we take the view that the time arrow is
reversed; that is, the time arrow with its origin started at the presumably infinite future
towards the beginning of the universe; then the cause-effect relationship can be reversed
too; it is the event e that precedes the event s, and it is the event e causing the event s
to happen, with NO violation of physical laws in such view! Note: The usual violation of
thermodynamics laws in taking such ‘time reversal view’ only manifest in a macroscopic
level in regard to statistical unlikely phenomenons to happen; so somehow it is a violation
of statistical laws rather of physical laws.

Let me illustrate the above statement with a simple example. Imagine a scenario that there
is a stone stationary on your hand. You throw the stone hardly straight towards a pool of
water; so the stone fly to the water, enter into the pool of water, and eventually stop by the
water. A more detailed description of such series of cause-effect events in our conventional
time arrow is:

• The ball is initially stationary on your hand. The chemical energy stored in your hand’s
muscles is convert into the kinetic energy of your hand, which is then transferred to the
ball, so the ball fly to the pool of water. Once the ball enters the water, its kinetic energy
is transferred to the water as heat and wave, so eventually the ball stop.

However, if we take the ‘reversed time arrow’ view, the description will be as follow:

• The ball is initially stationary in the water. Some kinetic energies of molecules from heat
and wave in the water converge to the ball and transfer their kinetic energy to the ball.
The ball gradually acquires enough kinetic energy from water converged to one direction
pointing to your hand, so eventually the ball fly out of water to your hand. Finally, the
ball stop at your hand as its kinetic energy is converted to kinetic energy of you hand’s
muscle’s molecules, which is further converted into the chemical energy stored in your
hand’s muscles.

Interestingly, BOTH of the above views have NO violation of physical laws, they BOTH can
happen. Their only crucial difference lies in that, the first view taken in the conventional

59
time arrow is much, much more likely to happen statistically than the second view taken
in the reversed time arrow. In the second view, kinetic energies of molecules from heat and
wave have to convergently impart to the ball result in one directional movement of the ball,
instead of heat being stored in the ball, which is still possible but is very, very unlikely to
happen statistically. Afterwards, kinetic energy of the ball hitting your hand is transferred
to your muscle, with every molecules of your hand’s muscle involved in such process are hit
by the right forces and directions, so to produce some sort of chemical compounds storing
chemical energy in your muscle instead of heat energy, which is still possible but is very, very
unlikely to happen statistically.

Indeed, if we consider your hand, the ball and the water wholly as an isolated system in
both scenarios, we can compare both scenarios and generalize them as:

• The first scenario taken in the conventional time arrow result in a disordered final state
of water as heat. The second scenario taken in the reversed time arrow result in a much
more ordered final state of chemical compounds storing chemical energy in your hand’s
muscles.

Actually, such phenomenon of ‘evolution of isolated system’s from a highly ordered state to
a disordered state’ is universal:

• For any isolated system, it is much, much more statistically likely for that system to evolve
from a more ordered state to a less ordered state, than for that system to evolve from a
less ordered state to a more ordered state.

The above statement can be restated in the context of ‘entropy’

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_(information_theory)

• For any isolated system, it is much, much more statistically likely for that system to evolve
from a lower entropy state to a higher entropy state, than for that system to evolve from
a higher entropy state to a lower entropy state.

60
The above statement can be conceptualized as the notion of ‘Thermodynamic arrow of time’:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow_of_time#The_thermodynamic_arrow_of_time
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_(arrow_of_time)
Now, if you recall our connection point model, that each consciousness instance always com-
municate to our physical world via a synergistic set each time; interestingly, each synergistic
set’s production also definitely produce entropy. The amount of ‘information entropy’ in
bits produced from each synergistic set measurements capturing a consciousness’s message
E ∈ {0, 1} is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_(information_theory)

−2N −1 1
N −1
log2 N −1 = N − 1
2 2

where N is the number of measurements in the synergistic set measured from N/2 connec-
tion points. (Note: as a simple exercise you may derive the left-hand side formula from the
concept of ‘Joint Entropy’ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_entropy)

In short, consciousness communicate to our physical world in the expense of increasing

entropy to our physical world. By such, there is no coincidence that the arrow of time our
consciousness experiencing is also aligned with the ‘Thermodynamic arrow of time’. General
speaking, each consciousness instance communicate to our physical world, by exploiting the
quantum uncertainty of its connection point’s particle. Entropy is produced to our physi-
cal world upon each measurement on the particles during the production of synergistic set.
The progress of any such measurement collapsing quantum state producing entropy align
perfectly with the notion of ‘Thermodynamic arrow of time’. Otherwise, if the progress
direction of measurements producing entropy is in the reverse of ‘Thermodynamic arrow of
time’, there will be a logical contradiction as theoretically a huge amount of ‘measurements’
can be performed during the ‘reversed time progress’ to disrupt the initial low entropy state
of our universe!

But you do not have to worry, such logical contradiction would not happen at all. The
ultimate reason lies in the nature of the ‘indeterministic quantum uncertainty’ itself; the
‘indeterministic quantum uncertainty’ nature of any entity only manifest itself via the pure

61
random values production caused by measurements on that entity in our conventional ‘Ther-
modynamic arrow of time’. If we take the view of ‘reversed time arrow’, the ‘indeterministic
quantum uncertainty’ nature would disappear, as in such view any random value would NOT
be caused by a measurement upon indeterministic quantum uncertainty any more; but such
random value would instead be caused by the set of deterministic ‘future events’ triggered
by the production of that random value (‘future events’ in relative to the conventional time
arrow, or ‘past events’ in relative to our reversed time arrow)! Consequently, our physical
world is completely deterministic under the view of ‘reversed time arrow’; in such view the
random values are NOT pure random values any more, but deterministic pseudo random
values caused by other deterministic events in the physical world. Thus, there is NO way for
consciousness to communicate to our physical world in such view, as the physical world is ab-
solutely ‘causally closed’ in such view! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causal_closure

Therefore, a astonishing conclusion is, the consciousness’s time arrow can only align with
the conventional ‘Thermodynamic arrow of time’ !

12 Preliminary Solution to the philosophical ‘Personal

Identity Problem’
For the detailed accounts of the long standing philosophical ‘Personal Identity Problem’, you
may find a lot resources on the internet, such as:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_identity
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/identity-personal/
http://www.iep.utm.edu/person-i/
Now, base on the interactive dualism model proposed in this article, I will jump directly to
a simple but logically well-defined solution to the ‘Personal Identity Problem’ first, and then
explain it afterwards:

• For a pair of SUCCESSIVE (please see the note below for the meaning of ‘successive’ )
synergistic set Mi , Mj associated with a former consciousness instance i and a latter con-

62
 sciousness instance j respectively, then consciousness instance j is in the same ‘self contin-
uation’ with consciousness instance i, if and only if one or more connection points involved
in Mj were also involved in Mi . In other words, C(Mi ) ∩ C(Mj ) 6= ∅, where C(Mi ) denotes
the set of connection points involved in Mi , and so on. This logic allows more than one
Mi satisfying C(Mi ) ∩ C(Mj ) 6= ∅. In such case, all ‘self’ associated with all of each Mi
are continued into one single ‘self’ associated with Mj , and that would be correspond to
the notion of ‘self or consciousness merging’. Conversely, the logic also allows more than
one Mj satisfying C(Mi ) ∩ C(Mj ) 6= ∅. In such case, the single ‘self’ associated with Mi is
branched into the continuation of multiple ‘self’ associated with all of each Mj , and that
would be correspond to the notion of ‘self or consciousness splitting’.
(Note: the term ‘successive’ means that there is NO another synergistic set Mk occurs at
time between the former Mi and latter Mj satisfying C(Mi ) ∩ C(Mk ) ∩ C(Mj ) 6= ∅.)

The derivation of the above simple logically well-defined solution to the ‘Personal Identity
Problem’ is as follow:

For SUCCESSIVE consciousness instances i and j, if C(Mi ) ∩ C(Mj ) 6= ∅, then Mi and

Mj may capture i’s and j’s message respectively in react to same set of events S occurred
in the snapshot history of some measurements taken at C(Mi ) ∩ C(Mj ) (see Section 5 ). In
other words, consciousness instances i and j may share some sort of common memory to
S intrinsic to consciousness. Since i and j can only be either belonging to the same ‘self’
or different ‘self’, there does NOT allow fuzzy intermediate between the two conditions, so
their sharing of common memory to S intrinsic to consciousness can only indicate that i ad
j belong to the same self.

For C(Mi ) ∩ C(Mj ) = ∅, I am UNABLE to show that i and j are always belonging to
different self. But from the presumption quite confidently that for any two animals A and
B living at the same time, the ‘self continuation’ in A over time would always remain in A
until A’s death rather of suddenly jump to ‘self continuation’ in B during A’s lifetime (and
vice versa for B). The assumed reason behind this is due to the obvious fact that it is always
C(MA ) ∩ C(MA ) = ∅, where MA and MB are any synergistic set taken in animal A and

63
B respectively. (Note: though I do NOT preclude the possibility that if B is born after A’s
death, which would involve the destruction of connection points in A and creation of con-
nection points in B, would A’s consciousness be recycled along with other dead organism’s
consciousness, merged/split with them, and then be re-engaged to the B’s connection points?
The issue is far too out of grasped nowadays and will NOT be discussed in this article)

So what does such simple rule of ‘self continuation’ indicate? It indicates that ‘self’ is
substrate constraint but not permanently bind to a particular set of substrate. ‘Self’ can be
transferred from a set of connection points A to another disjoint set of connection points B.
The simplest way is to produce a series of SUCCESSIVE synergistic sets as follow:

• M (A) → M (A ∪ B) → M (B)

where M (A) denotes a synergistic set be produced on connection points set A by the system
and so on. At the start of process, ‘self’ is at A. At the end of process, the same ‘self’ will
be at B. Note that M (A ∪ B) requires connection point(s) joining between A and B, and
so ‘physical contact’ between A and B.

If A and B are very far apart, it may NOT be convenient to achieve ‘self transferal’ by
‘physical contact’ between A and B. The simplest solution is to introduce one additional
connection point D, with one of D’s particle be placed near to A, and its another particle be
placed near to B. So the following series of SUCCESSIVE synergistic sets can be produced
by the system:

• M (A) → M (A ∪ D) → M (D ∪ B) → M (B)

Therefore, only ‘physical contact’ between A and its nearby D’s particle is required. Equiva-
lently, only ‘physical contact’ between B and its nearby D’s particle is required. No physical
contact between A and B is required for ‘self’ to be transferred from A to B!

One very important point to highlight there is that, there is NO information transfer from
A to B in the process, only ‘self ‘ is transferred (base on the primary presumption through-
out this article, consciousness itself cannot transfer information from one place to another.

64
Otherwise, physical rules would be violated ). If memory is to be transfered from A to B,
signal transmission is required from A to B.

The discussion of ‘self-transferral’ might sound sci-fi, but in fact it is NOT as outlandish
as you think. The phenomenon of ‘self-transferral’ is just happening in your awakening
brain every moment! During your consciousness stream over time, the set of neurons in-
volved in the consciousness stream are changing from time to time. However, it appears
that it is always the same ‘you’ ! At first glance, you consciousness seems behaving like a
fluid substance moving around the network of your brain cells from time to time. However,
if the general principles of our solution to the ‘Personal Identity Problem ’ is correct, such
phenomenon can be easily explained by that, the set of connection points involved for each
synergistic set in the series of SUCCESSIVE synergistic sets produced in the consciousness
communication stream in a biological brain are usually overlapped over time; that is, for the
series of SUCCESSIVE synergistic sets produced in the stream of consciousness communi-
cation in a biological brain to our physical world:
. . . , Mi−2 , Mi−1 , Mi , Mi+1 , Mi+2 , . . .
The following are very likely to happen:
. . . , C(Mi−2 ) ∩ C(Mi−1 ) 6= ∅, C(Mi−1 ) ∩ C(Mi ) 6= ∅, C(Mi ) ∩ C(Mi+1 ) 6= ∅, . . .
Even if occasionally, say, C(Mi−1 ) ∩ C(Mi ) = ∅,
the either ‘split self’ associated with Mi (in other words, C(Mi ) ∩ C(Mj ) 6= ∅ for some
j < i − 1),
or ‘newborn self’ associated with Mi (in other words, C(Mi ) ∩ C(Mj ) = ∅ for all j < i),
such ‘self’ associated with Mi will very likely be merged back quickly to the mainstream
continuation of ‘self’ by a future synergistic set Mk in a biological brain by:
C(Mi ) ∩ C(Mk ) 6= ∅
where Mk is in the mainstream self continuation with Mi−1 :
C(Mi−1 ) ∩ C(Mk−n ) 6= ∅, . . . , C(Mk−1 ) ∩ C(Mk ) 6= ∅, . . .
where k − n > i.

One interesting point is deserved to be mentioned; there is nothing special about the ‘one

65
brain’ concept. If the moving, merging or splitting of ‘self’ can occur naturally within one
brain via the dynamics of connection points joining and synergistic set measurements; then
if technology is advanced enough in the future, it can also occur across two or more brains
too by artificially manipulating the dynamics of connection points joining and synergistic
set measurements across brains! Imagine that your ‘self’ can merge with the other ‘self’s of
a number of other sentient beings, such as a dog, a human and a cow, over a certain time
period. Afterwards, that ‘self’ may split and continue into a countable number of ‘self’s over
another time period!

Appendix A Spinned Particle

For simple introduction to spinned particle in quantum mechanics, you may see this: https:
//www.youtube.com/watch?v=cd2Ua9dKEl8.

I will explain the measurement of spinned particle in the most simplest way in relevant
to the content of this article. Because I think the conventional ‘up’ and ‘down’ spin di-
rection concept of spinned particle is rather confusing for beginner, and is irrelevant to
our discussion, so I will change that notion to ‘+’ and ‘-’. The assignment of ‘+’ or ‘-
’ to either the north pole or south pole of a spinned particle is arbitrary. If we adopt
the spherical coordinate system in 3D space, we can always rotate the spherical coordi-
nate system to align its vertical axis with the particle’s spin axis. Since the measurement
axis can always be described by the θ angle in a conventional spherical coordinate sys-
tem (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_coordinate_system), only discussion
in 2D polar coordinates is sufficient. The circle in polar coordinates −π ≤ θ < π can be
divided into 3 regions:

• The region with |θ| < π/2, arbitrarily denoted by region α

• The region with |θ| > π/2, arbitrarily denoted by region β

• The region with |θ| = π/2, arbitrarily denoted by region γ

66
Meanwhile, I will only discuss the measurement with |θ| =
6 π/2, and come back to the case
of |θ| = π/2 later. Before measurement, the spin axis aligns with the vertical axis of the
coordinate system. After any measurement with its axis making θ angle from the particle’s
spin axis, the particle’s spin axis will always collapse to a new spin axis aligning with the
measurement axis, therefore also making θ angle from the particle’s original spin axis. There
are only two possibilities after measurement:

• Before measurement, ‘+’ (or ‘-’) is in region α, or equivalently, ‘-’ (or ‘+’) is in region β.
After measurement with |θ| =
6 π/2, ‘+’ (or ‘-’) is still in region α, or equivalently, ‘-’ (or
‘+’) is still in region β. Such possibility can be arbitrarily denoted as m = 0.

• Before measurement, ‘+’ (or ‘-’) is in region α, or equivalently, ‘-’ (or ‘+’) is in region β,
After measurement with |θ| =
6 π/2, ‘+’ (or ‘-’) is changed to be in region β, or equivalently,
‘-’ (or ‘+’) is changed to be in region α. In other words, in region α, ‘+’ (or ‘-’) is changed
to ‘-’ (or ‘+’) , or equivalently, in region β, ‘-’ (or ‘+’) is changed to ‘+’ (or ‘-’) . Such
possibility can be arbitrarily denoted as m = 1.

According to quantum mechanics,

θ θ
• If |θ| < π/2, the occurring probability of P (m = 0) = cos2 , and P (m = 1) = sin2 .
2 2
θ θ
• If |θ| > π/2, the occurring probability of P (m = 0) = sin2 , and P (m = 1) = cos2 .
2 2
Since a measurement axis with θ ≥ 0 is equivalent to a measurement axis at θ − π, and a
measurement axis with θ < 0 is equivalent to a measurement axis at θ + π, so there are two
cases to consider as shown above.

So a spinned particle can act as a pure random generator producing random value m ∈ {0, 1}
repeatedly by measurement at any time, with P (m = 0), or equivalently, P (m = 1), be ad-
justed by angle θ. If |θ| is nearly equal to π/2, then P (m = 0), or P (m = 1), is nearly equal
to 0.5, an almost fair coin toss, though P (m = 0) is always greater than P (m = 1).

So how about |θ| = π/2? In this case, before measurement, ‘+’ (or ‘-’) is in region α,

67
or equivalently, ‘-’ (or ‘+’) is in region β. After measurement, + (or -) is in region γ either at
+π/2 or −π/2 in half-half chance. Since due to the symmetry of space, there is no naturally
way to define which direction along the spin axis after measurement is +π/2 or −π/2, so the
production of m = 0 or m = 1 cannot be defined naturally (though the assigning of +π/2 or
−π/2 can be done artificially). Furthermore, measurement exactly at |θ| = π/2 is an ideal
concept, which is very hard to realize in actual system.

68