Essay

Introduction:

Phenomenology inside out.

What is phenomenology?

When consulting researchers that numerously described phenomenology, for instance take David Groome, he portrays it as a
phenomenon we we do not understand yet, as he puts it, we have the impression of the world at one time, but are confronted
with different reality at another \textcite{Groome}From the constructivist stream we use “features” that form into our
cognition as an image. In short, our conscious experience is mostly a brain-made experience, from a reality that we could
possibly have never seen.
The following paper is exactly aimed to provide an answer to the following question, is our phenomenology, that what we
see, an construct of our brain? Or an integration from perceptual input in our minds?

The phenomenological standard:

Phenomenology is the study of structures of consciousness as experienced from the first-person point of view. The central
structure of an experience is its intentionality, its being directed toward something, as it is an experience of or about some
object. \parencite{Stanford}

Groome et. al. straightforwardly describes phenomenology as our conscious experience of the world. Assuming this, we
name many occasions to which this holds. Reading a book, watching a movie, or eating a piece of liquorice. The viewer
hears, music, sees colours, appeals to the protagonist, enjoys the story on which it responds with an emotion. Or you could
interpret it as, input coming from our senses, that our intention grabs a hold on, is than met by stored images, added with
emotions to eventually compile an experience in our cognition. \parencite{Bermudez}

The above provides a conventional description. In contrary to the natural paradigm of Edmund Husserl, he beliefs it to be a
completely somatic entity on its own. He calls it Ego, that comes about when we exclude everything factual - from existence,
phenomenology can only exist when consciousness it is fully present. His view is a collection of mental processes, that have
states or spheres as he put it. Which can find a higher state when it is reduced. He differentiates between full and reduced
consciousness. \parencite{Husserl}

Simirlarly to Descarts, he tries to find a residuum to get a scientific fact. The input we see is less important, but the functions
of emotions are. It hints that consciousness could be without memory, but only the functions that transform from one state to
another. In this sense it could be without sensing anything at all for it to exist. The goal is to have an understanding of what is
switched “on”. \parencite{Husserl}

This paves our way to a different type, as truly phenomenal. Now assuming this, there aren’t many occasions that exist
here. Under this conviction, we can think about a first born baby. The parents have worked all the way up to that moment,
making up different neural networks in their brains, and networks in your surroundings, in the objects you bought like the
cradle and the babyphone. When the first occurs, you are in full intention and your brains lights up through all its activated
neurons, firing signals to your synapses in your limbs and heart, making you breathe heavier and the hair on your skin rise
up. All these cells that speak to you of this what you see, many brain functions are than fully active, phenomenal.

Another would be in a car driving that favourite part on your way home. You have your window slightly opened, you
recognize the road and it’s trees on the side. You pass the grain fields and shift gears at the right time, turning into that
specific corner which you always enjoyed. Many mental processes are than active. Your smell of the grain, the neurons that
hold the memory of the road and trees, the pressure senses by the touch of wind in your hair, your fingertips holding the
gearstick, and your motorized finesse of your hands that smoothly turn the wheel. Most of all, you have all these areas firing
at the same time in harmony. This is phenomenology according to Husserl. \parencite{Husserl}
Research questions:

How does phenomenology come about?

To find a solution to this problem I will use the strategy to work from the outside in. First discover the environmental
implications on the brain, than zoom in on the brain-areas that full fill a role, and what might cause consciousness in those
areas.

The questions respectively in the following paragraphs will be used to provide an answer:

In our first paragraph, the question is what is the impact of environment on our brain structure? What is most sensitive to
our brains? In what external and internal balance is the input segmented? From a high perspective, how are our
surroundings stimulate, your braincell structure?

In the second paragraph, it will be discussed, what the areas are that add to the forthcoming of phenomenology? How
many areas are active? How strong does the bond need to be between the areas? What is the neuro signal difference
caused by a vivid(high-input) and a boring(low-input)-environment? Is phenomenology than uniquely configured? What
shape does it show in neural networks inside our brain and is this repeatable? Are there thresholds to be met for this to
occur?

The third paragraph is aimed to answer, how does this all looks under EEG? Can we find a detailed map? Or is consciousness
in constant flux?

In the last chapter, we conclude our findings and come about on advises to how we can compute this?

For the sake of a startingpoint the hypotheses, is that a phenomenological experience is a complex flow of many different
sources, that all come together in a focal point. These include all the above mentioned factors that were encapsulated in
the questions. In which consciousness is so overloaded, phenomenality sprouts.

\begin{figure}

\includegraphics[width=4.5in]{figures/5.png}

\caption{Focal point}

\label{fig:intro}

\end{figure}

The forthcoming of phenomenology.

How does environment create phenomenology?

We live in extraordinary times, where social media fly by at a constant pace. In most occasions it’s to influence our
behaviour. It is now possible to perfectly implant minds with images to entice an experience for a later moment.

There are now event engineers. That can create “happenings”, they form surreal situations made from our personal
internet data, that go as far as our childhood memories and diaries. That then provoke incredible sensations, by touching a
great amount of faculties. Which we phenomenologically experience.

We experience live events, like graduating or reading a story, that fill us with strong emotions. These moments are kept
dear to us and spark our brain and body in ways we can’t start to explain in one sentence.

Our field of experience is very broad, which of these do we consider the most intense? If this learned us anything, what is our
brain especially susceptible to?

What is the neuro signal difference caused by a vivid(high-input) and a boring(low-input)-environment?

Written in Clinical Neurophysiology \textcite{Keil}, based on results from 300 people, the study on what signals are
found when showing pleasant, unpleasant and neutral pictures. The emotive arousals, were affective: family, affectionate
and erotic pictures; aversive: mutilation and violent pictures.

Analysed from multiple gamma ranges, the results were diverse. Pleasant(P) pictures have quicker response than the other
categories. P and neutral(N) pictures showed a longer latency of activity in the left hemisphere. Activity after seeing U
pictures, decreased sooner, but show longer modulation in the right hemisphere \parencite{Keil}.

Both when including witnessing strong pictures, indicated with a ( N < 0,01 or P < 0.05 scale, P stands for
Positive and N for Negative signals) would exude stronger spectral power. As we can see in \ref{fig:keil}.
Enhanced signals were not significant. \parencite{Keil}

\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=4.5in]{figures/4.png}
\caption{P1, P300 and N1 signaling}
\label{fig:keil}
\end{figure}

The SAM rating, that kept score of arousal, scored higher comparing P to neutral, U higher to P pictures. In broad, P causes
a much wider spectrum of spectral power than U. Enhancing however did not show any significance.

P(remember this is Pleasant) and N show a wider spectrum of Gamma-band, whereas U( remember this is mutilation and
violence. Longer spectral power is bounded to extremer pictures, but no dilation difference if it were P or U. From this I
conclude our phenomenology, will segment to more P occasions than U, activity when pictures were vividness was higher. I
am questioning whether it is time-dependent.

When looking at this EEG, \ref{fig:garcea1} activity resides in multiple places. However the type of
awareness ( happiness, affection, excitement, hate, anger ) are spread over the cerebral cortex. Thus
giving a start to our second paragraph questions. ". In which we have another starting point to see
whether principles, moral filled, events induce more activity in our brain. There is a slight more
tendency towards P and N, U peak higher but decrease stronger. As is to indicate, "we want these
pictures as quick as possible out of our minds”.\parencite{Keil}

\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=4.5in]{figures/3.png}
\caption{EEG of emotive arousal}
\label{fig:garcea1}
\end{figure}

Now we know what type of input is sensitive to our brains, we can search for what the balance
between the outside and inside input is to our awareness of it. The input from our environment is actually substracted from
only a tiny portion. This becomes clear in the following paragraph.

Is phenomenology uniquely configured? How much of vision makes up phenomenology and how much is biased?

According to the constructivist theory what we perceive looks to be real but in reality is blurry on the outside and a
concoction of the fovea of our captured eye sight. This is called the high acuity range and gets processed in our brains,
added by "features" and "templates" compiled to a whole image. We might consider what comes in to be sharp, but in
reality it is not. \textcite{Groome} That means what we see in our phenomenology is for about 50% constructed and
reduced. Each time when we see something new, we realign reality with what we know. When looking, our brain reasons to
use the template or the input. It might be that the second time we see something, that thing could already be prepared and
moves outside our high acuity zone, and be in my own safe "blurry" field, not to be seen at all. We thus get fooled by our
own templates. We are biased by default.

How Gregory put's it “we see things not as they are, but as we are”. What is than the ratio of biased perception and what is
true? \parencite{Groome}
Gibson is disagreeing with 2-d laboratory experiments only to be mere artifacts of what exists realistically. So he
differentiates between indirect and direct perception. Unlike Gregory who sees perception made from features that are all
indirect, Gibson, says the areas become active based on how they afford their use, we sense what to do. \
parencite{Groome}

He would assumingly say the earlier results from the Clinical Neurological, would be indirect and not representative to our
functions and their matching areas. For instance a "T5"-region is actually merely processing the images as a extended
function. If anything, not actually experiencing it. According to Gibson, laboratory studies (and visual illusions) do not
demonstrate how we interact with the world, merely how we react to impoverished representations of it. \
parencite{Groome}

How much of our phenomenology is vision? How much is pure? ( For phenomenology is thus dependent on how much is
done consciously ) What is the balance between external and internal input?

For the sake of this paper, we assume these pictures to be representative for real world occurrence.

Pictures did activate the frontal brain area, the place where we connect to objects instinctively. So it is a subject of research.
Gibson would call this instinctive visuo-motor actions, like responding to seeing a stick. Here is no abstracting, symbolism,
dissecting, looking for meaning part in it. \parencite{Groome}

The ventral system is concerned with detail recognition and identification. It is where we construct and categorize the
perception and dissect to find meaning. This is also used for measuring, which was determined by Kroliczak. Participants
were asked how deep a thin plastic mold of a face was. They would from, a phenomenological view say the wrong answer,
the face would be seen as solid after “modulation”. When they were trying to shoot a ball to the face, they were hitting it at
the right point at the right depth. How is this interesting? Both systems use the input differently. The prefrontal cortex, is
sensing from instinct that something is not right, we also call this "a gut feeling" and used other vision to hit the point. The
ventral, is seeing it like a normal accustomed 2d picture which was created by its templates, causing bias. \
parencite{Groome}

Vision is thus in both area’s equal. To sum up, many areas are active these are the inferior middle, temporal gyru, the left
medial fusiform gyrus, because this is for memory of objects and face recognition and ends the ventral pathway. We are able
to state, that there are many regions of phenomenology. Vision is than displaced, shared among the areas, that are expressed. \
parencite{Garcea}

How much was phenomenologically done and was constructed by templates? How much of our phenomenology is made by
vision?

Each part has an order for other processes. This was described by   Bar et al. (2006) they found that object recognition-
associated responses in orbitofrontal cortex preceded activity in ventral temporal cortex (see also Fintzi & Mahon, 2014). On
the basis of those and other findings, Bar and colleagues argued that prefrontal processing of object information provides an
initial first pass analysis of the visual input, that can then be used to bias slower, and more detailed visual processing in the
ventral stream. They don’t have a significant higher activity than the other when looking at pictures. \parencite{Keil}

Due to earlier studies it is safe to say dorsal is for motor processes. In what ratio depends on the task, a mechanic relies
more, than let’s say a lab researcher. The dorsal uses almost everything from vision, in a glance. However I can state
phenomenology is not residing in the prefrontal cortex.

Our study concludes that Gregory and Clinical Neurological´ research is actually also not phenomenology, it is judgemental
or categorical perception. That is not actually experiencing. The ventral system, makes up features and they are to be
retrieved thus making them very robust. So “first impressions last” really do last, and we know first impressions are often
biased. If we state it to be along the lines of interpretations, dissecting, deciphering, looking for symbols, or abstract
information in images we are bound to look pass the front of our brain. The exact bias ratio there is hard to find, because
some templates are closer to reality than others. It is so that our ventral only get inputted with a share of the input. Than of
that share it is added by inherent memories, a fair share is “made” up.
We first noted that phenomenology includes a very intense experience of being in the “zone”, unconsciously in a state of
flow, like playing a piano. It is revealed most of this occurs in the prefrontal cortex. These automated situations do not take
part ín consciousness, but are parts fór consciousness.

Albeit both are needed for our reality sense, one using fixed memories to spare resources and the other to dismantle
illusions, both are not consciousness themselves.

How much of phenomenology than is constructed from vision?

Mostly is constructed from past (presummably truthful images). We now suppose to think our consciousness occurs in the
back region. Off course than we cannot possibly believe it to occur everywhere, in reality we use many regions, all in a
different order to result to consciousness one being a filter to the other. We will find later on, that consciousness is
everywhere. It lets us know we don’t have to have a constant stream of perception to make up the ventral system.

3. Locating and seeing phenomenology

In this second paragraph, we will try to find what areas add to the forthcoming of phenomenology?
How many areas are during this active? How strong is the bond between these areas? How many neural connections need
there be in one area?

Not just made from our brain sections, phenomenology is part of much more. Our bodies and the interactions of the
environment( situatedness ). The world is built inside our organism’s structure. For having a stronger arms, will be
profitable to firemen, and having better eye sight to a surgeon.

The study wants to find out what parts are active during a phenomenological state. We use EEG, electrical signals that are
captured, presents itself to be the most usefull for this study. Because other PET and fMRI use blood and oxygen's deficits. It
could possibly that our brains intent to be low oxygen so areas can operate on lower warmth. (not true ofcourse) \
parencite{Bermudez}

Even related potential (ERP), is segmented from alpha to delta, delta waves are slow for instance during deep sleep. They
portray a very sharp temporal resolution and is sensitive to small differences. They also show in which time period the signals
were still active. Thus are good for process and mapping. The type of waves we are after are to identify networks of neural
areas that are involved in carrying out cognition. Those are the BETA waves, these are the fast irregular activities, associated
with consciousness ( attention ). \parencite{Bermudez}

There are much more interesting points to discover from scientists, like Huber Dreyfus and Walter J Freeman who already
have taking route in forming models of artificial intelligence and phenomenology. \parencite{Dreyfus}

After rigorous analyzing the functions of each area, it is clear, that each area can hold some form of consciousness, but not
nessacarily is consciously "thinking". Going from the frontal, parietal, occipital and temporal lobules, all these present an
attention. Especially the Occipital lobe that associated with visual processing is a heavily researched area, where
information comes in from the retina through the ventral stream inside of the ventral ( occiptal lobe ) system. \
parencite{Bermudez}

How strong does the bond need to be between the areas?

It became clear in a research done by Ungerleider and Mishkin when taking out the temporal cortex and the occipital lobe on
countering sides of the brain, the brain would still function visually like before. It was only after removing the corpus
collosum that there was no connection. What this says is there are pathways, hidden underneath the gyri. It remained unclear
that the area removed was causing the deficit of function. So we found EEG. \parencite{Groome}

Anatomical connectivity, a system made by Velleman and van Essen, portrays a matrix of connections from and to brain
areas. Which they found by dissecting mouse brains, and looking under a microscope, finally replacing the areas to see what
functions the mouse still shows. One function is able to consist out of more than one supporting function that we need to find
in order to see where ph. is, it might be as well just a supportive area ( that is, deciphering, symbolizing, seeing the meaning,
and seeing the image most vivid in your mind ) \parencite{Bermudez}

The importance of attention, imagine yourself at a crowded party, hundreds of people and impressions come flying by, we
are yet able to selectively focus our attention to what's infront of us. Donald Broadbent, states that on which we are
focused on, depends on what we try to achieve. To keep our goal in mind, to find what areas resolute to phenomenology,
we also want to find the process that builds towards it.
From Donald Broadbent's notion, we ought to focus on attention to find what have our conscious attention. This also
coincides with consciously "thinking". \parencite{Bermudez}

From the above I conclude, that we need to find is analyzing functional neuro-imaging, EEG results, that showcase ERP
value's, around the magnitude of BETA waves (10-25 Hz), between the 150 - 260 ms, in length. That also showcase high P1
and low N1 signals. Based on these indicators we have a good start on attention. To investigate the cortical cortex, we let
PET and fMRI contribute. As a method we use electrodes and use the electronic singular method to find each
"phenomenological" experience occurring in certain areas. For instance, would be analyzing two people having an
intelligent conversation. Looking at the Velleman's matrix, we have a suggestions that can than be triangulated and than
analysed in how the connections are ordered. See \ref{fig:garcea2}.

What shape does it show in neural networks inside our brain? Are there thresholds to be met for this to occur? Is there a
specific repeating structure noticeable?
In the same Clinical Neurophysiologic research from above, we can derive the program, we saw a
distinction on N2 peaks, from 220-260 ms, in the Anterior region and P3 peaks, in the parieto
occipital. A significant signaling, the peaks were low gamma ( 20-30 Hz ), similar to BETA in the
right posterior. It showed an exact preferred result, of 200 ms of lower GAMMA on seeing
unpleasant emotive pictures. N1 negative peaks, in the 150-180 ms range were showing in the
right hemifield(eye-sight), but was from high GAMMA, both indicators hinting towards attention.
\parencite{Keil}

\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=4.5in]{figures/2.png}
\caption{BETA and GAMMA BAND}
\label{fig:garcea2}
\end{figure}

The posterior cortex(on the cerebrum) or somatosensory association cortex. Which shows equivalence in showing violence,
this area lets participants perceive pain. In the occipital cortex, that had P3 activity, this is where the ventral system is located.
We already stated that it is not for seeing details, but streaming the images to v2, v4. \parencite{Alice}

By revisiting this research, we conclude that the unaffectionate and aversive activities were experienced in a conscious
manner.

Because of the high peaks, this study concludes that there is attention with eye movement. It is both conscious and
unconsciousness behavior. Even for a short while of 200 - 260 ms, there was consciousness. The indicator we are looking
for, is after or during stimuli with high peaks, during a specific period of 200-220 ms. It means there is some clarity in that
moment. The participants were giving the chance to think about the picture seen, acknowledging that they had a moment
to briefly think, using Gregorian filtering (categorizing and finding meaning). \parencite{Keil}

In another study done by Carol Colby et. al, a correlation was found between the function
and attention. /ref{fig:bermudez} Attention exists in two ways, when we look attentively this
is called visuo spatial. When we just gaze but our eyes stays fixed, this is called covert. These
areas are located in the parietal and frontal areas. The research was so that when
participants ( in this case monkeys ) were trained to keep their attention to a fixed spot,
another object appeared on screen. This object disappeared and so did the fixed spot, on
which the task followed to point to the objects last position. The results than were by EEG,
that at covert attention, the same area lighted up like it were looking at the point of object.
Segregating attention, thus proving the whereabouts of attention. \parencite{Bermudez}

\begin{figure}

\includegraphics[width=4.5in]{figures/1.png}

\caption{Function and attention}

\label{fig:bermudez}
\end{figure}

In other words, consciousness, exists in all processes on which there is attention. Saccadic attention, looking fast directly, is
unconscious and covert attention, remembering the spot, is than conscious. Furthermore, the attention is located at the
same region as normal movement. It is almost like a branch from the function as its root. This revealing that in all functions
exists a possible extension that can be conscious. \parencite{Bermudez}

4. Conclusion

This lays for us the path, that where cognitive function and attention meet, a conscious experience is possible. This is
restrictive to automated processes, simply because of the reason we do not pay attention when we do something
automatic. The other functions we can simulate as follows:

We interpret the above description on phenomenology, with the information that we have found. Driving in a car, we use
our driving skill, from the posterior parietal lobule, our attention is on the road and we have our attention on driving, thus
driving consciously. We recognize the road, from our past, possibly not even thinking about all the trees and fields of grain
we see, thus much is made from the features and templates that were all imbedded in our memory in the occipital lobe.
When shifting gears we use our saccade attention, quickly glancing where the gear stick is, and keep our covert attention on
the road infront of us. We know we must shift gears soon, and hold this task in our minds consciously. When steering into
the corner you feel the wind blowing through your hair, activating the pressure senses from the primary somatosensory
cortex tells us that we are experiencing a light breeze. The road is slightly different than earlier, so your instincts take over
and responds to make adjustments and sent new unfiltered images through your dorsal, following the ventral path to the
corpus colossum to finally reach the ventral system so updating your inherent images using the visuospatial attention.
Lingering long enough to be able to decipher it was a new car model in front of you and consciously recognizing the brand.
You finally shift gears using your parietal lobe, feel a sense of euphoria in your thalamus, that is unleashed once you feel all
the different activities tingeling in your brain. You experience it phenomenally.