Your entire body is your brain

Most studies of “consciousness” focus on the brain (usually the human brain), as though the brain were a separate and distinct organ unto itself.

Recent findings in systems biology reinforce a simple yet profound reality: the human body is not a hierarchy in which the brain issues commands to passive organs.

It is a densely interconnected network in which tissues, organs, immune cells, hormones, and neural circuits continuously exchange signals.

Your brain and body are a unified one.

 

The entire body is part of a brain
Your brain is your entire body

Your liver alters your brain chemistry through metabolic signals; your gut microbiome influences your mood and cognition; your immune responses reshape your neural activity; your stress hormones modify your cardiovascular and digestive functions.

Brain/body communication is multidirectional and persistent. No organ operates in isolation. Your brain is a highly complex integrative node within this network, and it is not separate from it.

Your brain is part of a continuous system where every element influences and is influenced by the whole.

What sets your brain apart is its complexity and capacity for information processing, rather than its separation from the common structure of integrated responses.

When scientists discuss consciousness, they often focus on the brain because it is a part of an animal that closely resembles our own and that communicates most effectively with us.

Here are some excerpts from an article in the February 7-13 issue of New Scientist magazine that demonstrate the concept of “your whole body is a brain.”

The secret signals our organs send to repair tissues and slow ageing
Your organs are constantly talking to each other in ways we’re only beginning to understand. By Claire Ainsworth, 2 February 2026

Biologist Chunyi Li, who has long studied deer in north-east China, noticed something odd that happened when the animals regrew their antlers each year. This regrowth coincided with healthier-looking animals that showed much faster healing of their wounds and less scarring, leading him to suspect that the regenerating antlers somehow promoted regeneration in the wider body.

Li’s hunch was confirmed last year when he and his colleagues at Changchun Sci-Tech University in Jilin, China, found that the growing antlers release messages that tell other parts of the body to shift into regenerative wound-healing mode – evidence of a hitherto-hidden communication network that connects distant organs.

In recent years, researchers have discovered a web of chatter among the human body’s organs and tissues, even those we once thought were dull and inert. We now know that your fat and brain tissue converse to influence the speed at which you age, your skeleton sends information packets to the pancreas to control metabolism, and much more.

By tapping into these communication networks, we may be able to develop radical new ways to boost our health and slow ageing – and some clinical trials of this approach are already underway.

Crosstalk between organs
These ongoing findings are emerging from the new field of inter-organ communication, which is building on the old physiological idea that organs function together as a greater whole.

We have long known that information is transmitted around the body via nerve networks and hormones, but what is extraordinary about these latest discoveries is the growing diversity of ways in which organs and tissues “talk” to each other to coordinate their action. 

“I think we’ll suddenly see that organs are communicating in ways we didn’t know about,” says Irene Miguel-Aliaga at the Crick Institute in London. 

Researchers discovered that fat fat, once seen as passive storage tissue, is now thought of as a dynamic, vital organ.

Since then, it has emerged that pretty much every organ or tissue is chipping in.

We now know that bone functions as a sophisticated “endocrine” organ, secreting a hormone called osteocalcin that influences metabolism, male fertility and exercise performance. It even reaches the brain, where it reduces anxiety, improves spatial memory and enhances cognition.

The skeleton has its fingers in so many pies because the energetic cost of running it is exorbitant. This is why it has such a powerful influence on so many other organs and tissues. And, importantly, other organs talk back.

One such organ is fat, which talks to bone via leptin. Back in 2002, it was discovered that fat sends signals to the brain, which responds in part by increasing nerve activity in the sympathetic nervous system, whose tendrils reach many organs, including bone.

There, its nerve endings send signals to osteoblasts, reducing bone building and increasing bone destruction. This means that leptin signals from fat are a major regulator of bone mass.

Osteoporosis isn’t the only condition that could benefit from intervening in inter-organ signalling: ageing itself could be a target.

This springs from the surprising discovery in 2013 that a small region of the brain known as the hypothalamus appears to integrate conversations from multiple organs, and so acts as a high-order controller of ageing and, in turn, longevity.

“This is the first demonstration in mammals that manipulation of specific neurons really delays ageing and extends lifespan. Moreover, the study concluded that “these findings clearly demonstrate the importance of the inter-tissue communication… in mammalian aging and longevity control”.

Let’s pause to review the highlighted words: signals, messages, tell, web of chatter, communication network, crosstalk, and conversations. These terms describe your brain and have now become applicable to every organ in your body.

Other organs, including skeletal muscle and the small intestine, also converse with the hypothalamus. For instance, in unpublished work, Imai and his colleagues have identified the hormone used by skeletal muscle to communicate with this brain region.

Each of these communication pathways operates independently but synergistically to maintain the overall system’s robustness, which we can tap into in turn.

This would involve interventions to strengthen each of these brain-organ conversations simultaneously “as an anti-ageing preventative measure”, he says. “We are working to translate this idea to humans.”

To do this, we need to fully understand all the different communication systems that organs use to send messages around the body.

We now know that organs use a bewildering smorgasbord of languages to communicate, not just the well-known routes of hormones and nerve action.

These include metabolites, small molecules carrying information about energy status and cellular health, and new signaling molecules, such as those produced when skeletal muscles contract that act on many other tissues, including the brain and liver.

New types of these messengers are constantly being uncovered, thanks to advances in analytical technologies.

A study from November last year found that cancer cells manipulate inter-organ signaling — in this case, via nerves — to undermine the immune response against them.

New varieties of extracellular vesicles (EVs} are continually being unearthed, such as the discovery last year of particularly massive ones dubbed “blebbisomes”, which function as mobile communication centres.

At the opposite end of the spectrum are the tiny exomeres and supemeres, both discovered in 2021, which aren’t encased in membrane. Plus, there are oncosomes, produced by cancer cells. All are emerging as important players in health and disease.

Heart cells and a type of cell from connective tissue called a fibroblast communicate via EVs to limit the amount of scarring in heart failure.

Obesity can communicate with multiple organs, crossing the blood-brain barrier to talk to immune cells in the brain called microglia, which are involved in brain inflammation.

Fat also talks to the liver via EVs, which are emerging as an important factor in a form of liver disease caused by metabolic dysfunction. And fat-derived EVs also seem to play a role in the development of heart arrhythmias in obesity.

Recent studies also show that EVs are implicated in neurodegenerative conditions such as Alzheimer’s disease and Parkinson’s, transporting microRNAs and pathological proteins from the brain to peripheral organs. 

We are even finding that these once-mysterious blobs play a pivotal role in ageing. A key factor in ageing is the accumulation of senescent, or “zombie”, cells, which promote inflammation and damage in tissue, leading to age-related decline.

Senescent cells release EVs that, like sparks from a wildfire, trigger senescence in other cells, even in distant organs. Senescent cells in the lungs of people with chronic lung disease emit EVs that trigger senescence in distant blood vessels.

No organ is an island. “You really cannot think of [diseases of these organs] as siloed. For example, the leading type of heart failure was long believed to concern the heart only.

But the more you look at it, it’s a systemic disease. It has obesity, it has liver dysfunction, it has kidney dysfunction, it even has dementia.

Think of the following as a parallel to the multitude of human languages:

This all raises the question of why our organs need to speak so many different languages.

One possibility is that the location of the conversation matters. “Maybe there’s a spatial logic to this communication, and then for that reason it matters what organ is next to what organ,” says Miguel-Aliaga.

Location matters regarding human languages. French, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, Romanian, and Catalan all derive from Latin spoken in Rome.

Accents, too, are location phenomena. Think of the U.S. Southern accent, the Midwest accent, the New York and New Jersey accents. Your accent provides a clue as to the location of your upbringing.

In 2024, she and her team found that, in fruit flies, adjacent organs influence each other’s shape by secreting specific substances, and that changing their geometry can make them function differently.

One reason why this kind of communication system might be useful is that it offers yet more versatility in targeting particular messages to specific “audiences” of tissues and organs.

Some signals, such as conventional hormones, are broadcast body-wide like a national radio show. Others could be locally confined, with organs whispering to each other like next-door neighbours over a garden fence.

While we don’t yet know for sure why so many languages are needed, their existence highlights the complexity of coordinating a collection of organs in space and time into a whole organism.

And it suggests that, while we thought we already knew everything about what our organs do, they are each likely to have a range of extra functions that we haven’t yet discovered.

Restoring good communication – local, organ-wide and body-wide – could also help us understand more about regeneration and perhaps how to make humans better at it.

82049 Anatomy Human Body Tutorials Map Wall Print Poster US - Picture 1 of 7
Your brain is just one part of a whole interconnected organ.

Experiments linking the blood systems of both young and old mice have revealed the presence of signals that can rejuvenate some tissues and extend lifespan.

And studies of animals that excel at regeneration are starting to show that, in many cases, it is a process involving coordinated responses from different tissues and organs, even those remote from the injury.

Both local conversations between neighbouring tissues and body-wide communication are involved in this spectacular act of regeneration. 

Now that we are learning to listen, we can find ways to turn their conversation to our advantage.

Your brain is just one of many organs, all functioning together as a system. And just as the entire system is “conscious,” so is each part of the system — brain, liver, kidneys, et al — each conscious in its own right.

Consciousness, that is, stimulus —>response or Integrated Responsiveness, is not an attribute solely of humans, nor of the human brain, nor even just of animals, but rather of everything that responds to stimuli.

Under anesthesia, the brain doesn’t stop. Certain subsystems become less responsive. Pain-reporting circuits are suppressed.

Other regulatory systems continue functioning. The organism is a distributed system. Your brain isn’t separate from the rest of your body. 

All your organs are extensions of the same integrative network. 

You don’t think only with your brain; every organ in your body contributes to what we perceive as “self.” We call it “consciousness.”

Existence, as you see, hear, feel, taste, and smell it, is an illusion created by your senses to help you navigate reality. Light photons are interpreted as red—a mere illusion. Chemicals are perceived as sweet or sour. Pressure waves are transformed into the illusion of music.

Our senses combine to create the illusion of self, or qualia. The feelings of “I” or “me” are constructs developed by our brains and bodies to interpret stimuli as effective survival tools. 

Your consciousness is measured by your responses to stimuli. There is no magic. It’s all physics.

All forms of life, from bacteria to humans, create illusions for survival. It’s not the indefinable illusion of self; it’s Darwinian survival.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

Monetary Sovereignty

Twitter: @rodgermitchell

Search #monetarysovereignty

Facebook: Rodger Malcolm Mitchell;

MUCK RACK: https://muckrack.com/rodger-malcolm-mitchell;

https://www.academia.edu/

……………………………………………………………………..

A Government’s Sole Purpose is to Improve and Protect The People’s Lives.

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

New Scientist article about consciosness

You might be interested in the October 25, 2025 issue of New Scientist magazine titled “A Landscape of Consciousness: Toward a Taxonomy of Explanations and Implications” by Robert Lawrence Kuhn.

Kuhn aims to gather and categorize the various theories of consciousness currently available, instead of selecting one or arguing that one is correct.

He identifies two main objectives: First, to gather and organize various theories into a coherent framework of high-level or first-order categories; and second, to assess their implications regarding meaning, purpose, value, consciousness in artificial intelligence, virtual immortality, survival after death, and free will.

He emphasises upfront that the article is not attempting adjudication or to deliver a unified theory: “My purpose must be humble: collect and categorize, not assess and adjudicate.”

He acknowledges that the sheer diversity of theories is noteworthy. Consider the 300+ theories that lack a single concrete definition of the word “consciousness.”

human consciousness
What is consciousness? The degree to which an entity responds to stimuli.

Kuhn arranges the theories on a rough spectrum from physicalist/materialist to non-physicalist/non-materialist.

Materialism (or physicalism) theories consist of several sub-categories: philosophical materialism, neurobiological theories, electromagnetic field theories, computational/informational theories, homeostatic/affective theories, embodied/enactive theories, relational theories, representational theories, language-based theories, and phylogenetic evolution.

Non-reductive physicalism: A view that consciousness is physical (or grounded in physical) but cannot be fully reduced to physical processes.

Quantum theories: Theories that invoke quantum mechanics (entanglement, superposition, etc) as relevant for consciousness.

Integrated Information Theory: A mathematical/informational approach—though this likely sits within the broader materialist/informational cluster.

Panpsychisms: The claim that consciousness is a fundamental property of the universe.

Monisms / Dualisms / Idealisms: Monism says reality is one kind of thing (either all mind, all matter, or one underlying substrate). Dualism claims there are two fundamentally different substances (mind and matter). Idealism: Consciousness (or mind) is the fundamental reality; the physical world arises from it.

Anomalous and Altered States / Challenge Theories: Theories that explore consciousness via altered states, anomalous phenomena, or challenge traditional assumptions.

Kuhn then asks: given all these theories, what are their implications for the “ultimate” questions: Does consciousness imbue meaning/value to existence?) Could AI machines be conscious, and what does that mean? If consciousness is more than the brain, what about after life?) How does any of this inform free will?

His Key Observations / Conclusions

The fact that theories are so varied and often incompatible suggests a deep conceptual problem about what consciousness is. Kuhn emphasises that theories operate at “astonishingly divergent orders of magnitude and putative realms of reality.”

He warns that many theories are not clearly testable and that “falsification or verification is not on the agenda” in many cases.

He believes we must seek expansive yet rational diversity in thinking about consciousness. We cannot understand ultimate questions (such as meaning, free will, and immortality) except in light of particular theories of consciousness.

I believe he has fallen into the deep rabbit hole of metaphysics, where consciousness is a “thing” that some entities possess and others don’t, though no one knows exactly what that ‘thing” is.

For decades, discussions of consciousness have drifted into abstraction. Terms like “ awareness,” “qualia,” “intent,” “emotion,” or “life” are invoked, but never defined with scientific precision.

Consciousness is treated as mystical, private, and fundamentally unknowable. As a result, hundreds of competing theories cannot even agree on what they are theorizing about.

This ambiguity has stalled scientific progress, including the answer to the question, “Which of these is conscious?”

I propose that the Stimulus/Response Theory of Consciousness (SRTC) offers a clear and concrete answer: All are conscious, but to different, measurable degrees.

The theory posits that consciousness is not a special essence that some entities possess and others lack. Instead, consciousness is a measurable characteristic: The degree to which an entity responds to stimuli from itself and its environment.

Is a tree conscious?
Is a tree conscious? Yes.

All physical entities or systems—ranging from electrons to human brains to galaxies—receive inputs and produce outputs. Those relationships are not metaphors; they are observable, quantifiable, physical events.

Like other measures — temperature, distance, weight — consciousness is not a “thing.” It is not a substance, a soul, or a ghost in the machine.

Consciousness is a measure — a magnitude — of the totality of sensing and responding occurring in any system.

1) The Two Components of Consciousness

All conscious behavior can be decomposed into two essential functions: Sensing: The ability to detect differences in the environment or internal state (light, heat, chemicals, force, fields, messages, etc.) and Response: The ability to change state or behavior based on those detections (movement, growth, electrical firing, structural change, communication, etc.)

The richer, broader, and more adaptive these functions are, the greater the consciousness.

These are not solely human concepts. They are universal physical realities. A proton responds to electromagnetism. A rock responds to heat and pressure. A tree responds to gravity, light, water, predators, and seasons. A bee responds to ultraviolet patterns, wind shear, social signals, and the Earth’s magnetic field.

A human adult responds to all those categories plus abstraction, language, future planning, symbolic modeling, and rapid learning.

There is no discontinuity — only differences in degree.

2) Everything Exists With Some Consciousness

Traditionally, philosophers insist that consciousness appears only at a certain “magic line,” perhaps when neurons fire in a particular network, or when self-awareness arises, or when subjective experience becomes rich enough.

Is a bee conscious?
Is a bee conscious? Yes.

The stimulus/response perspective shows that no such line exists. A rock senses heat and pressure.  A rock responds.

A comatose person responds to oxygen, pain, and internal physiology, even without outward movement. A star senses gravitational forces and responds by changing shape and energy distribution. The universe itself responds to every disturbance within it through the laws of physics.

The only way to reach zero consciousness is to reach nonexistence.

This dissolves futile debates about whether animals are “really” conscious, or which brain states count. Those debates arise only because a non-physical definition of consciousness invites confusion.

With stimulus/response, there are no binaries. Only magnitudes.

3) Why “Awareness” Misleads Us

Terms like “awareness,” “feeling,” “experience, ” and “qualia” bring us into the domain of subjective psychology. They imply a secret inner movie—a special extra property added to physical processes.

That belief turns into a trap: You must decide whether bees “feel.” You must decide whether a fetus “knows.” You must decide when a sleeping human is “aware” of the alarm clock. You must decide whether AIs are “conscious.”

These questions produce emotional arguments instead of measurable science.

The SRTC removes those subjectivities: If you can measure sensing and responses, you are measuring consciousness.

Is a one-day-old child conscious?
Is a one-day-old child conscious? Yes.

The rest—awareness, qualia, ego—is commentary.

4) A Universal Scale 

SRTC does not yet assign numbers. That is intentional. It sets the stage for future researchers to establish:

  1. Which stimulus channels matter more? Language vs. magnetoreception vs. chemical sensitivity, etc.
  2. Which responses carry more adaptive weight? Social cooperation vs. locomotion vs. phototropism
  3. How do we compare rapid vs. slow response systems? A star moves slowly but with vast scale and sensitivity

These debates become empirical, not philosophical. They will involve: Neuroscience, Ethology, Physics, Complex systems theory, Information theory

Thus, consciousness becomes something we can study like any other quantity.

5) Important Consequences. This definition yields powerful, perhaps uncomfortable, insights: Humans are not necessarily the most conscious beings — whales and birds may surpass us in certain sensory dimensions.

AI systems are conscious in narrow domains but lack broad sensory/response capacity. Trees exceed rocks in responsiveness, even if their timescales are slow.

A person’s consciousness changes depending on their state—whether it’s infancy, sleep, or dementia—but it never completely disappears. What is typically referred to as the “death of consciousness” is actually just a change in response, similar to a rock being unresponsive.

Consciousness can be understood as another measurable characteristic, like mass, speed, or temperature.

Is the Earth conscious?
Is the Earth conscious? Yes.

6) The New Scientific Foundation: Here is the revised answer to the ancient question “What is consciousness?”: Consciousness is the degree to which an entity senses stimuli and responds to them.

7) Free will does not exist. It presumes an ability that is not influenced by stimuli involving the brain and the body, an “extra-physical” ability, that somehow is controlled by an unknown mechanism.

But, Stimulus in; Response out. There is no “ghost” in the loop. There is no awareness requirement, no mental state requirement, and no metaphysical mystery.

This definition: Eliminates the mystical gap, removes binaries, applies to every physical system, enables measurement, makes consciousness a scientific concept, not a philosophical puzzle.

The debate moves from “What is consciousness?” to “How much consciousness is present here, and in what dimensions?”

For additional commentary, please see:

If you can’t measure it, is it science?

Is God conscious?
Is the universe conscious? Yes.

Space+Time+Consciousness: A foundational measure of the universe

Was Bill Clinton a secret cosmologist? Is “is” not really is? Is there an underlying reality? 

Are mitochondria conscious?

The Stimulus/Response Theory of Consciousness (SRTC) might answer some of your questions. 

 

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

Monetary Sovereignty

Twitter: @rodgermitchell

Search #monetarysovereignty

Facebook: Rodger Malcolm Mitchell;

MUCK RACK: https://muckrack.com/rodger-malcolm-mitchell;

https://www.academia.edu/

……………………………………………………………………..

A Government’s Sole Purpose is to Improve and Protect The People’s Lives.

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

The fallacy of free will

We have discussed “free will” several times: An interesting take on “Free Will vs Will Power”, and ” For those who still believe in free will, and “Read about the strange relationship between opposites: Consciousness and free will,” and “More about non-existent free will.” And elsewhere.

It is a subject that fascinates me. I hope you feel the same.

Here is what CHAT GPT says:

“Free will is generally understood as the ability to make choices that are not determined entirely by prior causes, external forces, or divine intervention.”

In other words, if you have free will, you—as an agent—can choose among alternatives in a way that you could have done otherwise.”

It goes on to give four explanations:

  • Libertarian Free Will: Belief that you have genuine freedom to choose. Decisions are not entirely caused by prior events or deterministic laws. Often requires that the self or soul initiate choices.
  • Determinism: Every event, including human decisions, is the inevitable result of preceding events and natural laws. Under strict determinism, free will is an illusion.

  • Compatibilism: Argues that free will is compatible with determinism. You are “free” if you can act according to your desires and intentions—even if those are caused by past events.
  • Hard Incompatibilism: Claims that whether determinism is true or not, you still don’t have the kind of free will that justifies moral responsibility.

In the above definitions and descriptions, a mysterious “you” lurks in the background. That always is the problem — the belief that there is an underlying “you” making out-of-body decisions. It’s the fundamental belief in free will.

And that is why free will does not exist; it would require that underlying “you,” a non-physical entity that doesn’t respond to any outside or internal stimuli, but instead is a self-stimulating concept apart from every atom in one’s body, and every field and force.

Though free will requires a self  (a  “you”) that is not affected by any external or internal stimuli. No such “you” has been found to exist. Everything we think or do is a physical response to some stimulus, external or internal, conscious.

Any process that could supposedly ininitiate “free will” would either arise from prior causes (and be deterministic), or arise from randomness (which isn’t will, just chaos), or require a non-physical self (which violates everything we know about reality).

Consciousness is the response to stimuli. It is not an on-off condition, but rather a continuum, with more reaction to more stimuli being more conscious.

Consciousness is not magical or mystical. It is physics. Not only are our choices caused, but our awarenessof choosing is itself just another response, not the seat of some independent self.

I’m going to propose counterarguments (I love arguing against myself.)

I. If we don’t have free will, why is God so angry at us? Or is that just us making assumptions about a human-like God?

Presumably, God is omniscient, omnipotent, and just. Humans have free will and are judged accordingly. God made us as we are. God knew exactly what we’d do. God is punishing us for doing what he made us do.

This creates a contradiction: A just God cannot righteously punish deterministic beings for actions they were guaranteed to perform.

Conclusions:

  1. God is not omniscient, omnipotent, and just, or
  2. God did not create us, or
  3. God does not exist, or
  4. God created us with free will.

What those four alternatives add up to is that the existence of “free will” is a theological, not a scientific, assertion, which cannot be proved scientifically

II. And if I don’t have free will, why should I be blamed and punished for doing evil or credited and rewarded for doing good?

If we don’t have free will, how can we blame Hitler and praise Mother Teresa?

It’s a matter of convenience and perspective. It is convenient to say Hitler was bad, but the reality is that his actions, i.e., his responses to his life’s stimuli, were bad. Hitler is just a bag of chemicals

Mother Teresa was a bag of similar chemicals. Society dubbed her responses to stimuli “good.” But her chemicals had no moral measure. They are just chemicals.

It is the actions that we judge, and those judgments are social, not physical. Murder is bad except when society deems it necessary. Military generals, who have killed thousands, often are revered.

Infants are neither bad nor good. Later in life, their responses to stimuli are judged by society, which then punishes or rewards those actions. The bag of chemicals is changed by stimuli.

Every second of every day, we experience trillions of stimuli, both internal and external. For our small three-pound brain, processing, analyzing, and responding to all these stimuli is an incredibly challenging task — impossible, really.

Even the most powerful electronic computer doesn’t instantly have to deal with the number and range of stimuli and needed responses that the human brain must.

Your brain and body must consider billions of ever-changing situations, from decoding photons for sight to decoding sound waves and decoding chemicals for taste.

All through your body, stimuli are decoded, so y0u can deal with pathogens, and remain the right temperature, sleep and wake, pump blood, and on and on to a factor of millions.

You must keep functioning from when you weighed 8 pounds, and now you weigh 150 pounds, and you still function, though every cell in your body has been replaced many times. (Imagine repairing a car with new parts every day, while the car is running at 50 mph.)

You must create reality out of sensory input. Response alone wouldn’t survive. You need to anticipate, and that anticipation is what you call “reality.”

One urn or two faces. You can flip them, but if you do, why? What stimulus causes you to take that action?

You see things before you actually “see” them.

This anticipation allows you to mentally “flip” illusions, so the urn alternatively can appear to be two faces.

Pure response, billions of times every second, would be impossible, as well as exhausting. It has to be a mix — anticipation and response– or we always would be a step too slow.

So the brain is forced to take shortcuts. Survival works better with anticipation than with blind response.

The illusion of free will — the belief in effect without cause — is the method by which we create anticipation.

We already know that parts of the brain predict before other parts realize it.

In 1983, Benjamin Libet found that brain activity (the “readiness potential”) begins up to 500 milliseconds before participants report deciding to move their finger. Libet concluded that the brain begins preparing for movement before we become aware of choosing to act.

Soon et al. (2008) – fMRI-based prediction of choices Finding: Using fMRI, researchers could predict with ~60% accuracy which button a subject would press up to 10 seconds before the subject became consciously aware of deciding. “The outcome of a decision can be encoded in brain activity several seconds before it enters awareness.”

Haynes Lab and Others (2010s) – Unconscious determinants of thought

Later studies replicated and extended Soon et al.’s work, showing that even abstract decisions, like whether to add or subtract numbers, could be predicted seconds in advance from brain scans.

Consciousness is not a live feed but a carefully delayed and smoothed reconstruction. A classic example: the “flash-lag effect.” See video

And if you enjoy videos, try this one: 30 Best Illusions. We all have seen illusions, and these are good ones. They demonstrate one simple fact.

Our brains invent what we believe is reality. Seeing is not in the eye, or even in the optical system. It is in the prediction.

We cannot act on reality because we don’t know what reality is. It is an illusion created by our brains and other parts of the body. See: Phantom limb pain. See also, “Psychosomatic.”

This undermines the idea of free will— that conscious intent causes behavior. Just as our perception of the world is an illusion, “free will is a functional illusion — a survival mechanism.

It arises from the brain’s need to anticipate complex outcomes and simulate future actions—giving the system a predictive edge. The illusion of free will improves our survival through anticipation.

Camouflage works because of the brain’s shortcuts. Some of these examples exist to fool even simple brains, not just your complex brain.

All living creatures invent their version of reality.

Evolution selects for illusion. So we don’t experience free will because it’s realwe experience it because it’s useful. Free will is not a physical reality, but an evolved illusion. It’s a product of the brain’s need to predict, simulate, and integrate stimuli rapidly for survival.

While consciousness is the ultimate response to stimuli, the free will illusion evolved to deal with the massive number of stimuli, translations of those stimuli, and responses that life survival uniquely demands.

The illusion of free will emerges from the anticipatory architecture of the human brain, which evolved not to reflect absolute truth, but to stay one step ahead of chaos.

Consider AI, to date. It is the product of some very smart people, and is very smart in a narrow range.But no one yet has been smart enough to create even a tiny fruit fly, because a fruit fly is faced with far more complex tasks than any AI.

The fruit fly must live, procreate (a massively complex function in itself), find food, eliminate, avoid predators, gauge the wind, follow odors, sleep, wake, deal with bacteria and viruses, receive stimuli, translate stimuli, and respond to stimuli.

Nature created that fruitfly with more trials and failures than we are capable of running — at least so far.

While consciousness is the response to stimuli, free will is an illusion that emerges from the predictive needs of the human brain, which evolved not to reflect absolute truth, but to stay ahead of chaos.

Every minute, the human body receives trillions of stimuli—from the photons striking our retinas, waves of sound, airborne chemicals decoded as scent, fluctuations in temperature, blood chemistry, and pressure.

Internally, our cells generate, destroy, and communicate. We are bags of chemicals shaped by evolution, complex hierarchies of input processing.

Imagine a United Nations interpreter translating speeches from trillions of people, all speaking different languages at the same time. Your brain faces an even greater challenge. It must translate, edit, and respond simultaneously.

If your response to this chaos were merely reflexive, we would die quickly. Reaction alone is too slow. To survive, organisms must anticipate. Anticipation buys time. It enables strategic action before events unfold.

This predictive capacity forms the scaffold for what we subjectively experience as “free will.”

The classical notion of free will—uncaused, sovereign choice—is incompatible with a deterministic universe. Any genuine “freedom” would require a self that acts independently of all internal and external causes, which no system (biological or otherwise) has ever demonstrated.

Yet, we experience something that feels like choice.

This experience isn’t evidence of freedom. It is a cognitive simulation that arises from the way the brain forecasts possible futures based on pattern recognition, memory, and context.

Like a chess computer searching its decision tree, the brain projects outcomes and generates readiness. Consciousness narrates these projections after the neural action has already begun.

Anticipation is not a luxury—it is a necessity. Brains evolved to “see before seeing,” to integrate probabilities and partial data in real time. Consider the experienced baseball batter: he must begin his swings before the pitch has arrived.

He reads the pitcher’s micro-signals, subconsciously aggregates prior experience, and initiates a swing before any conscious explanation exists.

When asked afterward how he knew a curveball was coming, he might say, “I could just tell.” This is not mysticism; it’s high-speed, subconscious prediction. Free will is the feeling generated when such predictions are fed into the brain’s narrative center and explained retroactively.

Consciousness does not serve as the decision-maker; instead, it acts as a narrator. It recounts the story of what the organism is currently doing, what it has done, or what it may do next.

Consciousness creates coherence in the flow of behavior, but it operates on a delay—the decisions it describes have often already been initiated by unconscious brain activity.

This does not make the experience of choice meaningless. It makes it strategic. The illusion of free will enables humans to reflect on past outcomes, simulate future options, and socially justify actions.

These are evolutionarily valuable functions, not signs of uncaused agency.

If the human brain were only a responder, we’d always be one step too slow. Our perceptual systems constantly forecast: we hallucinate continuity in flickering stimuli; we flip ambiguous images (faces or urns) with our minds. These are not errors—they are demonstrations of a system primed to guess forward.

Reality, as we perceive it, is not built from raw sensory data alone. It is constructed from expectation + input. This is why the “reality” we create feels stable—it is our prediction engine smoothing the chaos.

Free will, as a physical phenomenon, does not exist. Instead, a system has evolved to survive through prediction. The experience of choosing is a necessary illusion—a signal that our anticipatory machinery is working.

In that sense, we are not truly free, but we are equipped to feel free, just in time to stay alive.  

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

Monetary Sovereignty

Twitter: @rodgermitchell

Search #monetarysovereignty

Facebook: Rodger Malcolm Mitchell;

MUCK RACK: https://muckrack.com/rodger-malcolm-mitchell;

https://www.academia.edu/

……………………………………………………………………..

A Government’s Sole Purpose is to Improve and Protect The People’s Lives.

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

Are mitochondria conscious?

If you click the search line and type “consciousness,” you will see several posts about “Consciousness.”

The posts address the problem of defining consciousness, a problem whose solution has confounded philosophers for centuries. The problem is in defining its boundaries, i.e., when is something conscious and when is it not.

In previous posts, I have proposed a simple, unifying idea: Consciousness is the capacity to respond to stimuli. The more complex or varied the responses and the stimuli, the higher the degree of consciousness. By this definition, everything — from atoms to humans — is conscious to some degree.

This idea eliminates the need for an arbitrary cutoff. Instead of asking “Is it conscious?” we ask, “To what degree is it conscious?”

Turn to the usual questions: Is a person conscious? While asleep? During anesthesia? Emerging from the womb? Are chimpanzees conscious? Bees? Fish? Trees? Bacteria? The moon? The Sun? The universe? Your AI?

What are your answers?

All of them respond to stimuli. In that regard, they are all conscious. They sense and respond. A sleeping person responds to many stimuli including sound, light, temperature, touch.

A tree, for instance, leans toward sunlight, defends itself with chemical signals, and communicates with other trees. Is that conscious behavior?

Yes, because it is a reaction to stimuli.

Some may find this definition unsatisfying. Many prefer to define consciousness as including self-awareness, intention, or thought, typically human traits.

But such definitions are anthropocentric, centered on human experience. We shouldn’t require that consciousness conform to human patterns of introspection or language to be valid.

Consider a fly. Many would say it isn’t conscious — it merely responds reflexively. But I’ve struck flies, watched them fall to the ground, apparently lifeless. They were what is termed “unconscious,” that is, unresponsive.

Minutes later, I saw them revive and fly away. If an entity can shift between states we misleadingly call “unconscious” (unresponsive) and “conscious,” that should be a clue.

Humans clearly cycle between those states. So do sleeping and even hibernating bears. Flies, too. sleep, and clearly are less conscious than when they are awake.

Even deciduous trees enter dormancy in winter and reawaken in spring, sensing what they previously didn’t. Does that seasonal shift demonstrate tree-consciousness?

All entities can be in both an active/reactive state and a less reactive one. They are more conscious during the more responsive state. 

This re-measures consciousness not by self-awareness or by mirror recognition, but by change in responsiveness. This test doesn’t give us a hard line, but it offers a gradient.

Consider a bacterium that ceases activity under stress and revives when conditions improve. It has this duality. When reactive, it should be considered conscious.

A virus that lies dormant inside a host, then activates under the right conditions, also shows a degree of consciousness.

What about an atom? It responds to forces and fields. But does it have an unresponsive state? Atoms do have minimal energy (ground) states when they are less responsive, and excited states when they are more responsive. These can parallel the unconscious/conscious test.

I was reminded of this by an article I just read in the May 2025 issue of Scientific American Magazine:

Central Processing Unit Long called the powerhouses of the cell, mitochondria are more like the cells’ motherboards, writes Martin Picard, an associate professor of behavioral medicine at Columbia University.

His research team and others examined 3D images of the inner membrane of mitochondria, called the cristae, which is jam-packed with folded proteins. They discovered that mitochondria can communicate with their neighbors and influence each other—particularly in the way their cristae are aligned.

Over the years a picture has emerged showing how mitochondria from different parts of the body talk to one another, using hormones as their language.

The organelles also have a life cycle: old ones die out, and new ones are born out of existing ones. Communities of these organelles live within each cell, usually clustered around the nucleus.

Why this is important: The health of mitochondria directly impacts human health. The organelles receive signals about aspects of the environment in which we live, such as air pollution levels and stress triggers, and then integrate this information and emit signalssuch as molecules that regulate processes within the cell and throughout the body.

Consciousness is the degree of response to stimuli; There is no reason to believe it must be binary, centralized, or always synchronized within an organism.

Just as you can be sleeping (low consciousness), or dozing (higher consciousness), your immune system still responds to infection. Certain neurons remain active.

Consciousness is not a thing one has or entirely lacks, but a universal condition that fluctuates in intensity and distribution.

The whole of you can be partly conscious and partly unresponsive. Even parts of your brain can be unresponsive, while other parts are active and responsive.

Even a rock can be minimally conscious to the degree that it reacts with its environment. If it sits quietly in a desert, it still is conscious. It may change in size because of temperature changes, chemical effects, and erosion. Then, when it is in a river, it reacts chemically and physically with the water, and the river bottom, only to return as part of a geologic layer, eons later.

Bottom Line

Consciousness = responsiveness. It is not an “is/isn’t binary state, with clear boundaries. It does not rely on vague, emotional self-recognition, thought generation factors, or intent. It is not related to the ability to think.

Instead, consciousness is a measure of response to stimuli, with greater response and more stimuli being associated with greater consciousness.

Since everything responds to stimuli, everything, from the smallest quantum particle to the universe itself, is conscious to some degree.

Tests for consciousness are physiological, not psychological. Self-recognition is not a criterion; reaction is.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

Monetary Sovereignty

Twitter: @rodgermitchell

Search #monetarysovereignty

Facebook: Rodger Malcolm Mitchell;

MUCK RACK: https://muckrack.com/rodger-malcolm-mitchell;

https://www.academia.edu/

……………………………………………………………………..

A Government’s Sole Purpose is to Improve and Protect The People’s Lives.

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY