Francis Crick and Christof Koch’s Consciousness Model

Francis Crick, the renown molecular biologist and biophysicist is best known for having discovered the structure of DNA, a crowning achievement for which he and James Watson were awarded the 1962 Nobel Prize. Less well known, is that after 1979 he concentrated his efforts on solving something equally enigmatic and important: understanding consciousness.

It was for this reason that in 2002, I sent him a copy of my paper on human sexuality (True Nature – A Theory Of Human Sexual Evolution – published in 2000 in the JGLMA) in which I proposed a robust neurological model of consciousness and used it to show that increased human intelligence eventually reached a threshold that culminated in the loss of all instincts, including the sexual instinct. I was quite familiar with Crick’s papers on consciousness up to that point, and knew that my neurological model was a dynamic and testable model – unlike anything
Crick had ever put forth. I was eager for a response. A few weeks after mailing the paper to him, I received an email reply not from him directly, but from a post-doc research student in his neuroscience lab informing me that Dr. Crick had received the paper but found that it was not relevant to his research interests. This could hardly be true I thought, and instead surmised that Dr. Crick had likely found the paper too provocative to comment on.

Francis Crick passed away in July 2004 of cancer, but not before publishing a series of papers in 2003 (‘What Are The Neural Correlates Of Consciousness?’) and 2004 (A Framework For Consciousness) with his long time collaborator Christof Koch, in which they outlined their own ‘Neural Correlates Of Consciousness model’ (NCC). To my astonishment, I learned through an internet search in 2014 that Crick’s final papers closely mirrored the salient features of my own consciousness model. I cannot know to what extent my paper influenced Crick and Koch’s formulation of their NCC model, or whether it did so at all, for they may have independently conceived their model at about the same time that Crick received my mailing. If this was indeed the case, it was a remarkable coincidence – but one that surely could not have escaped his attention, because when sending him the paper I included a cover letter in which I outlined my proposed neurological model in detail. Whatever the case may be, my paper – published in 2000 – has precedence with respect to the most important elements of their consciousness model outlined in their 2003/2004 papers. I will forego the exercise of juxtaposing our 2 NCC models, and will leave it to the interested reader to compare my model to Crick and Koch’s given above. I will however, state the important elements of my consciousness model, which are basically re-stated in their own consciousness model in 2003/2004 – and for which they are currently given attribution:

1. Neurons form transient assemblies (viz. temporary groups) based on relevant associations relating to past experience, current goals/motivations and/or sensory data, considered options, and projected consequences.
2. These transient neural assemblies are not necessarily localized, but may involve neurons broadly distributed in different regions of the brain.
3. These temporary groups of neurons are self-promoting and are involved in consciousness.
4. They compete against each other for dominance, suppressing rival neural groups with a strength proportional to their own summed neural activity strength.
5. This competition between rival neural assemblies of neurons is necessary because each group may be trying to prescribe a different movement response/option, and therefore some discrimination must exist to prevent possible conflicts of movement.
6. The dominant neural assembly/group – the victor – represents consciousness at any instant in time and determines what we do, think, or are conscious of.
7. Due to a refractory period (viz. rest period) that ensues after neurons fire, the dominant neural group’s control of consciousness is transitory, allowing for a new set of competing neural assemblies to engage in another battle of attrition to determine the next dominant neural group.
8. This process continually repeats, resulting in what we perceive as the stream of consciousness as different groups of neurons successively become dominant and occupy the seat of consciousness for short instants of time.

Francis Crick was not the only researcher to whom I sent copies of my paper. Scores of other researchers in diverse fields were sent copies of the final draft of my paper beginning in the fall of 1997, several years before it was published in the JGLMA in 2000. Through internet searches I had identified a few hundred prominent figures in their respective fields: a LARGE number of brain researchers and cognitive scientists (including professors at leading universities, some Nobel Laureates, and distinguished authors), numerous psychologists and psychiatrists that were part of national boards and associations, dozens of sex researchers in Europe and America, anthropologists worldwide, eminent educators, and evolutionary biologists.

These recipients of my finished draft in 1997-1998 were given to believe that I was someone else – Dr. Richard Rembrandt – an alias I created in order to add some measure of credibility to the paper and motivate a serious reading by professionals. Some recipients were sent hard copies by regular mail, while others were sent emailed copies. I heard back from only a handful, who were mostly dismissive and incredulous, with one notable exception – the director of a sex research institute in Europe who encouraged me to get it published because while not perfect, he recognized its importance and felt the paper deserved a broad discussion. In retrospect my paper might well have elicited a lively professional and public discourse, but its publication in a rather fledgling journal, and my decision to retract my pseudo credentials prior to publication likely both contributed to it not reaching a wider and more receptive audience.

The prevalence and meaning of same-sex dreams

Try finding some published stats on same-sex dreams on the internet, and you’ll likely see your efforts produce scant results of questionable accuracy. The problem is two-fold: even though studies on same-sex dreams do comprise part of the archive of research into human sexuality, their results are not widely known and seldom referenced, presumably because the implications of same-sex dreams are troubling to many. The subject matter is particularly unsettling because science does not have a satisfactory explanation for why almost half of people who define themselves as heterosexual acknowledge having same-sex dreams, albeit with varying frequency. The published statistics for same-sex dreams likely underrepresents the actual number by a considerable margin, because understandably, in a world still rife with homophobia fewer participants are bound to be truthful as to whether they have experienced same-sex dreams.

What is the significance of same-sex dreams? Individually speaking, each one of us has the right to decide for ourselves what our dreams signify. No one can rightfully claim to know what someone else’s same-sex dreams intimate. Whether we have a single same-sex dream, or hundreds of them in the course of our lives, if we interpret them as meaningless and inconsequential we are correct in doing so. If they make us question our sexual orientation, that is also legitimate. An individual’s happiness is found in striving for harmony between the inner and outer self, and relies on a nurturing environment, not one that usurps the right to define oneself.

Whatever their interpretation may be at the individual level however, the almost universal nature of same-sex dreams says something profound about human sexuality as a whole. As Freud noted, dreams are not vacuous entities disconnected from our inner selves. Dreams reflect, without a doubt, some aspect of our subconscious states, our veiled desires, our fears, our aspirations, and our preoccupations. In the case of homo-erotic dreams, they don’t necessarily inform us of what we wish to be, or truly are, but they do perhaps tell us what we might have been if the transformative vectors and environments that shaped us had been different. They are always a product of attrition between 2 realms – the outer self that is constrained by worldly imperatives and which is accountable to society, and the inner freed self that finds silent expression in dreams when it transiently subjugates the sensibilities that characterize our wakefulness.

So what do our same-sex dreams connote? Perhaps we’re all inherently bisexual by nature? It’s a logical conclusion, but the history of human sexuality invalidates this hypothesis. There is another possibility, ostensibly an unbelievable one, that human beings lost their sexual instinct in the course of evolution, and that they would naturally tend to develop a homosexual orientation – if not for societal repression / discouragement against it. This view is supported by scientific evidence, and a comprehensive theory of human sexuality found at www.humansexualevolution.com.

The Hidden Homophobia War That Stems From Same-Sex Dreams

You might think the world has made huge strides in the past decade in making homosexuality more acceptable. While this opinion does reflect a modicum of truth, this acceptance is not whole-scale and is highly dependent on region of the world, and on demographic factors like education, religion, race, age, and gender. The reality is that at the ‘ground level’ homosexuals in even the more progressive countries are still habitually at risk of confronting considerable opposition, alienation, prejudice, and ridicule. So, in a world that is still considerably anti-gay what might the consequences be of the majority of heterosexual people having at least one same-sex dream in their lifetime? (See previous blog (The Prevalence And Meaning Of Same-Sex Dreams.) What also of the consequences of not-so-uncommon childhood same-sex encounters and their potential to affect our adult sexual psyches by casting lingering doubt on the veracity of our heterosexual orientations?

As per my previous blog, same-sex dreams relate to aspects of our sexual psychology that often times remain inaccessible to us in our waking lives, existing in a repressed state. This repression is at root a response to societal disapproval of homosexuality. Most heterosexual individuals are able to downplay the significance of their homoerotic dreams and/or childhood homosexual experiences because they either attribute them to normative aspects of human existence, or because they are sufficiently accepting of homosexuality to not pay them any more heed than they rightly deserve. This is not the case with homophobic individuals. They are perturbed by such events in direct proportion to (a) how recurring their homo-erotic dreams are, (b) the extent to which they sense even a faint attraction to the same sex, and (c) how homophobic they are.

Western society is more un-accepting of male homosexuality than female homosexuality, by-and-large. Thus, a homophobic male in particular who has experienced a troubling same-sex dream or past homosexual encounter, will likely wish to keep his experiences personal. You would think that accomplishing this would be as simple as not verbally disclosing such experiences to others. That will work just fine with liberal-minded heterosexuals, since they are not preoccupied with others’ sexual orientation and perceive only what is overt.

However, this strategy of verbal non-disclosure does not work with the homophobes I am referring to in this blog, who, because they are acutely aware that there must be others out there similarly vexed by same-sex dreams and/or childhood homosexual experiences, are hyper-focussed on the sexual orientation of others. For such individuals, looking at the world suspiciously in this manner for signs of latent homosexuality creates a veritable mine field in which they inevitably identify each other, often through only mutually apprehensive, averted eye contact. It’s akin to two pickpockets in a crowd recognizing each other as cons because each sees the other similarly scrutinizing the crowd for vulnerabilities. A senseless battle of attrition ensues between mutually identified homophobes that pits otherwise descent people against each other in a game of psychological warfare where each combatant ironically seeks to non-verbally convey the same message to the other: ‘you are gay, I’m not .. and I dislike gay people’. This behavior manifests itself daily in settings as benign as workplaces, on streets, and in public gatherings – anywhere such individuals have a chance to deduce a common history based on the subtlest of visual cues.

There are no real victors in this battle, merely those that are somewhat better equipped at doling out and enduring psychological warfare. Ultimately this vicious behavior only serves to surreptitiously poison human interactions, erode the spirit, and stultify true potential. The extent to which individuals are thus affected is variable – from only slightly irritating for some, to debilitating and affecting quality of life for others. Sadly, individuals mired in this conflict most often can’t appeal for help from anyone because they are homophobic to begin with, and are thus unlikely to acknowledge having had the troubling homoerotic dreams and/or experiences that would explain why they’re acutely sensible to such silent rebuke and unfriendliness.

Chinese Origins – Population Bottlenecking, Primary Incest, and the Evolution of Mongoloid Features

We reign supreme on this planet, but this mastery is relatively recent. In the process of becoming ever more knowledgeable, and commanding, of the different environments and geographies we found ourselves contending with over the past 6-8 million years of our evolution, it is known that at times we faced tremendous environmental challenges that appear to have wiped out entire regional populations, and subjected others to tremendous population bottlenecking -a term that refers to a severely reduced population that links periods of comparatively larger prior and subsequent populations. It is what happened during these bottlenecking periods that I propose explain certain phenotypic traits – epicanthic fold, among others – characteristic of oriental and oriental-derived groups of people, a small subset of the Northern European population, as well as bushmen tribes in Southern Africa.

Many species tend to have built-in inhibitions/mechanisms to avoid incest. It is a way of preventing deleterious recessive traits from expressing themselves through homozygosity. Incest avoidance also results in a greater genetic variability in a population’s gene pool, which increases its overall robustness in coping with environmental changes. The evolving human line, like their closest primate relatives, would have likewise had this aversion. Although incest-avoidance no longer likely had any inborn impetus after the human line lost its sexual instinct about 200,000 years ago (see www.humansexualevolution.com), incest would have nonetheless continued to be avoided based on the collective wisdom passed down over countless generations, that it tended to produce offspring with physical deformities, a host of health issues, and intellectual deficiencies. However, when populations declined to the point of near-regional extinction due to environmental conditions that took the form of biting cold, drought, or other effects, small isolated groups barely surviving amid such hardships would have had to forego any social taboo against incest. It is easy to see why: in the unforgiving ancient world of early humans, population stability of small groups was key to survival, because efforts, and perhaps resources, were communally pooled. Moreover, producing children that would one day be able to provide assistance and care to their parents in old age or infirmity, was of paramount importance to the future survival of every individual.

But the age group most severely culled by the harshest environmental conditions are the very young, and the very old, because both groups tend to have the smallest energy reserves, and the weakest immune systems to contend with environmental insults. For this reason, couples that remained childless due to significantly higher infant mortality during bottlenecking periods would have been desperate to produce surviving children, even as females got closer and closer to the age of menopause. But, it is known that the incidence of congenital disorders, most notably Down Syndrome, increases markedly with a mother’s age as she approaches menopause. Males with Down syndrome are almost uniformly infertile, and hence act as a dead-end for further progeny. Females with Down syndrome are significantly less fertile than unaffected individuals, and often have difficulties with miscarriage, premature birth, and difficult labor. There is approximately a fifty percent chance that the offspring of someone with Down syndrome will also have the syndrome themselves. So what we have is bleak circumstances turning ever more bleak within only a few generations, resulting in even greater population depletion. Therefore, when incest was the only way to beget children during periods of extreme environmental challenges, the forebears of humanity must have committed to it, time and again.

As is well known, engaging in incest in fraught with dangers. A large percentage of children – in the range of 50% – born out of primary incest (involving fathers/daughters, mothers/sons, siblings) have autosomal recessive disorders, congenital physical malformations, or some intellectual deficits. But importantly, healthy viable offspring can also be produced by incest. Among the physical traits commonly seen in children born out of incest is epicanthic fold, a skin fold of the upper eyelid covering the inner corner of the eye, giving a characteristic slant-eyed appearance. Of great significance, I believe, is that this feature is also seen in all oriental peoples (chinese, japanese, etc.), in peoples of ancestral oriental origin (Inuit, native americans, etc.), in bushmen tribes in southern Africa (!kung, koisan, etc.), people in some parts of the Pacific Islands, and also in people of Scandinavian descent. The leading explanation for epicanthic fold is that it is an evolutionary adaptation to extreme cold. However, thermal studies of the face show that none of the cranial features of mongoloids show any heightened resistance to cold. But equally damning, cold adaptation as an explanation for epicanthic fold clearly cannot account for its presence in the bushmen tribes of southern Africa, people who are not known to have ever contended with extremes of cold.

Clearly, a more consistent explanation is needed for epicanthic fold, and mongoloid features in general, which appear to varying degrees in the few aforementioned distinct groups of people. I hypothesize that the Mongoloid features associated with oriental peoples, including epicanthic fold, were a result of a marked increase in primary incest – possibly for a period lasting hundreds of years – within small isolated groups. All oriental people are thought to have descended largely from a small group of people that had made their way to the furthest reaches of northern Siberia about 25,000 years ago, likely following reindeer herds. But then, they found themselves confronted with the peak of the last global glaciation. The latest climate research reveals that temperatures dipped to -80 degrees Celcius in this region, and it became unimaginably dry as well, forcing this likely dwindling band of people to retreat to a slightly more hospitable location in eastern Siberia near the town of Mal’ta by about 22,000 years ago. Here temperatures still hovered around -40 degrees Celsius, and its inhabitants probably just barely survived with populations that remained marginal for perhaps centuries, leaving no option but to engage in fairly regular and sustained incest.

I propose that this same environmentally-induced population depletion – with its attendant obligatory incest – played a role in imparting the epicanthic fold and the suite of other mongoloid traits, in all populations exhibiting them. Did sexual selection also play a role in the evolution of mongoloid features? Others have previously speculated that it was sexual selection ALONE that resulted in oriental populations acquiring mongoloid features such as epicanthic fold, for example. One of the problems with this hypothesis is that it does not explain why these features would have been favored by only a subset of human populations. And is it only a coincidence that such supposed preferences would arise only among people confronted with the harshest environmental conditions? And how did such features arise in the first place? These should objectively be viewed as troubling holes in this hypothesis. Instead, I am proposing that only after mongoloid features became endemic as a result of primary incest during bottlenecking periods, did sexual selection probably begin to further refine those existing features. The second part of my hypothesis is that the longer the period of incest, ie. the more consecutive generations, or near-consecutive generations, that engaged in it, the more amplified the mongoloid features became – and the larger the suite of characteristic mongoloid features, some of which may be viewed as a reversion to more archaic ancestral phenotypes – and include traits like shovel-shaped incisors for example. And lastly, the more isolated these groups remained, the less outside genetic mixture there was over time to dilute the phenotypic signatures of incest, and the longer they retained them. Populations eventually mushrooming out of these small groups would have had the chance of retaining these distinct phenotypic traits, which then had the potential to characterize an entire race, or group of people.

This blog is part of my main site www.humansexualevolution.com, which showcases a theory of human sexual evolution I wrote and got published in the Journal Of The Gay And Lesbian Medical Association in 2000.