Vucolova’s Collapse into Translation

Electrical engineer and independent researcher Ludmila Vucolova proposes that consciousness emerges from sensory–motor interactions between an organism and its environment, mediated through embodied brain–body dynamics. It arises from the collapse of both first-order perceptual states and higher-order symbolic states that enable the translation of physical stimuli into symbolic representations, thereby creating subjective awareness.

This process can be expressed formally as:

C = (X* ≡ Y*)

where X* denotes a first-order perceptual state, and Y* denotes a higher-order symbolic state. These states collapse into a unified mental state X* ≡ Y*, a phenomenon that does not exist in isolation within either state.

This activity gives rise to the existence of X* as Y*, where the phenomenal properties of the first-order perceptual state X* are attributed to the other, the higher-order symbolic state Y*. The binding of distinct states into equivalence enables the transition from unconscious states to a conscious one, the translation of physical stimuli into symbolic representation, creating subjective awareness.

The central idea resonates with the Higher-Order Theory of consciousness, stating that phenomenal consciousness is not immediate awareness of sensations. What makes a perception conscious is the presence of an accompanying higher-order representation of that state. (Rosenthal, 2005).

The evolutionary plausibility of this framework finds support in the work of Peter Godfrey-Smith, who argues that subjectivity emerged gradually through biological processes linking sensing, acting, and reafferent self-monitoring(Godfrey-Smith, 2016). Similarly, Alva Noë maintains that consciousness is not confined to neural events but arises through active engagement between brain, body, and world (Noë, 2004). Vucolova’s hypothesis synthesizes these insights by identifying the precise mechanism through which a first-order perceptual state (X*) and a higher-order symbolic state (Y*) become unified (Vucolova, 2017, 2022, 2023, 2024).

Two Phases of Experience: Frontal–Posterior Dynamics

The framework distinguishes two interacting experiential strands in the emergence of consciousness and provides comparative insights.

Phase A (Generative Phase): Dynamic interaction between frontal and posterior cortical regions results in the collapse of X* and Y*, generating a conscious awareness.

Phase B (Aftermath Phase): Posterior regions sustain and act upon the experience, while the frontal regions act upon the familiar visual information rather than generating the conscious experience.

Vucolova argues that the test results of the Global Neuronal Workspace Theory and Integrated Information Theory account for the aftermath phase, although their predictions and/or interpretations regarding the emergence of conscious awareness were intended to account for the first phase where both regions (frontal and posterior) are equally involved.

She claims that her framework aligns with empirical findings from the Allen Institute for Brain Science, suggesting that sensory cortical regions at the posterior of the brain play a decisive role in conscious perception. While such brain studies focus primarily on visual awareness, Vucolova says her model generalizes beyond vision by identifying the structural relationship between perceptual input and symbolic production rather than privileging a particular modality.

Consciousness in Populations with Sensory Limitations

Vucolova posits that consciousness does not depend on vision or audition as such, but on the relational structure between S1, sensory input; M, motor production; and S2, sensory feedback generated by one’s own action. In typical development, vision functions as S1 in perceiving X*. In blindness, auditory or tactile modalities assume this role. In deafness, visual modality supports both perception and symbolic production (e.g., sign language). In deaf-blindness, touch can function as both S1 and S2. Thus, the underlying principle remains invariant across sensory differences: consciousness emerges from the dynamic coupling of perception and symbolic action. (Vucolova, 2017, 2022, 2023, 2024)

The paradigmatic illustration is the “water pump” episode in the life of Helen Keller. As described by Walker Percy in The Message in the Bottle (1975), Keller experienced flowing water in one hand while simultaneously receiving the tactile spelling of “w-a-t-e-r” in the other. The sudden realization that the tactile sign corresponded to the flowing substance exemplifies the convergence of X*, the perceptual state, and Y*, the symbolic state. Her own words convey the phenomenological rupture of that moment.

Suddenly … I knew then that w-a-t-e-r meant the wonderful cool something that was flowing over my hand. Everything had a name, and each name gave birth to a new thought. I saw everything with a strange new sight that had come to me.

Keller’s experience correlates closely with David Chalmers’ (1995) formulation of the hard problem of consciousness: why there is "something it is like" to be a conscious subject. Her “new sight” was not visual in the literal sense; it was the birth of first-person appearance, the felt immediacy of a thought, meaning.

This is a case of a direct interaction of the body with its environment. Specifically, the physical properties of X* and Y* are materialized in the body and the brain, and the phenomenal properties of the first-order perceptual state X* are attributed to the other, higher-order symbolic state Y*.

In this event 1, Y* is a stimulus, resulting from the teacher’s motor act M, specifically the tactile spelling of “w-a-t-e-r.” In the generative phase A (event 2), Y* results from the agent’s motor act, copied from a teacher. Binding the distinct states into equivalence enables the translation of physical stimuli into symbolic representation. Further, the individual owns the content of the experience and can name X* as Y* autonomously.

Naming, Meaning, and the Grounding of Experience

Without symbolic designation, perceptual states lack stability and communicability. Naming enables recall, recognition, and intersubjective alignment. In this respect, it echoes insights from Julien Offray de La Mettrie in Man a Machine (1748), who emphasized the mechanistic transmission of words and perceptions between individuals:

Nothing is so simple as the mechanism of our education.

Everything may be reduced to sounds or words that pass from the mouth of one person through the ears of another into his brain. At the same moment, he perceives through his eyes the shape of the bodies of which these words are arbitrary signs.

A symbol (Y*) – auditory, visual, or tactile sign – enables communication among agents who can relate to the same perceptual referent (X*). Consciousness, therefore, is individually emergent and socially extensible.

Vucolova hypothesizes that the above-described process establishes two independent entriesinto the collapsed state attributed to a specific conscious experience. From this point on, when the agent (A) receives input from a familiar object X via a visual modality, the agent will produce an instant recognition –perception. When the agent (A) hears a sound Y*, the name of an object (a physical stimulus) in the absence of the object X (a physical stimulus), the agent will produce an instant understanding of that object, a comprehension. If we compare perception and comprehension, we will see two sides of the same coin. The value of one side signifies perception: X* is Y*, and the value of the other side signifies comprehension: Y* is X*. This analysis sheds light on the relationship between phenomenal and access consciousness (Vucolova, 2022).

Structural Fundamentals of Conscious Experience

Although Vucolova’s broader model presents eleven interactive elements from inside and outside of the brain that ultimately cause the neurobiological processes in the brain,the author, as noted, identifies three structural variables that determine the type of conscious experience: S1 – primary sensory modality receiving physical stimulus (vision, audition, touch, smell, and taste); M – motor system producing self-initiated action - M1, vocal apparatus, and M2, hands/fingers; and S2 – sensory modality registering the effects of self-initiated action. (Vucolova, 2004)

Regardless of the type of motor apparatus, the mechanical motion is a process of configuring and reconfiguring in physical space, and all (hands/fingers or vocal apparatus) share a common feature—a change in space-time geometries. The self-initiated change of space-time geometriescauses changes in the gravitational field.

Conceptual Parallels

The author draws a conceptual analogy with ideas of the Orchestrated Objective Reduction (Orch-OR) theory developed by Sir Roger Penrose and Stuart Hameroff, proposing gravitational instability as a factor of collapse, producing moments of consciousness.

The author theorizes that the different sets of structural components of S1, M, and S2 generate diverse experiential forms while preserving a common principle: the dynamic unification of perceptual and symbolic states. The diversity of consciousness reflects combinatorial variation within these parameters. Vucolova proposes a systematic taxonomy of phenomenal distinctions—potentially numbering in the billions—corresponding to variations in neural organization (Vucolova, 2004).

This framework draws broader conceptual analogies to the quantum notionof Orch-OR theory, such as superposition and entanglement, for the binding of distinct states into a unified whole sharing a common fate. Other parallels with quantum mechanics are the decohered quantum states caused by changes in the environment (event 1), as well as collapse and entanglement caused by changes in the gravitational field (event 2).

Consciousness, by Vucolova’s account, is an emergent, embodied, energy-driven phenomenon. It is unified in principle, diverse in implementation, and fully grounded in physical processes.

References

Chalmers, D. “Facing up to the problem of consciousness.” J. Conscious. Stud 2 (No. 3) (1995): 200-219).

Gibson, W. The Miracle Worker. New York: Simon and Schuster, 2008.

Godfrey-Smith, P. Other Minds: The Octopus, the Sea, and the Deep Origins of Consciousness. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2016.

La Mettrie, J. O. de. L’Homme Machine [Man a Machine]. Leiden: Netherlands, 1748.

Noë, A. Action in Perception. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2004.

Percy, W. The Message in the Bottle. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 1975.

Rosenthal, D. M. Consciousness and Mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005.

Vucolova, L. “Formation of a Thought: How the Brain Produces a Conscious Experience.” Paper presented at the annual Science of Consciousness conference, San Diego, California, 2017.https://consciousness.arizona.edu/sites/consciousness.arizona.edu/files/TSC2017%20Abstract%20Book-final-1.pdf.

Vucolova, L. “How a strictly physical universe gave rise to consciousness,” in proceedings of the annualScience of Consciousness conference, Tucson, Arizona, 2022. https://consciousness.arizona.edu/sites/consciousness.arizona.edu/files/FINAL%20TSC2022_BOOK_V8.pdf

Vucolova, L. “An innovative multidisciplinary investigation of consciousness.Paper presented at the annual Science of Consciousness conference, Taormina, Sicily, Italy, 2023. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UkyN2YXGP0c.

Vucolova, L. “Harmonizing the theories of consciousness: How consciousness emerges from matter and energy.” Paper presented at the annual Science of Consciousness conference, Tucson, Arizona, 2024. https://consciousness.arizona.edu/sites/consciousness.arizona.edu/files/2024-03/3-25c%20TSC%20Program-Abstracts.pdf.