The Ocean Thinking: Neural Waves, Dreaming, State-Dependent Memory Access, Dynamic Boundaries, and an Emergent-Network Hypothesis of Conscious Experience; A hypothesis-driven perspective with an integrated poetic triptych
The Ocean Thinking
Neural Waves, Dreaming, State-Dependent Memory Access, Dynamic Boundaries, and an Emergent-Network Hypothesis of Conscious Experience
A hypothesis-driven perspective with an integrated poetic triptych
John Swygert
Ivory Tower Publishing
August 23, 2026
DOI: To be assigned
Keywords: consciousness, traveling waves, neural oscillations, dreaming, REM sleep, emergence, network neuroscience, ketamine, dynamic boundaries, TSTOEAO
1. The problem: consciousness is not located by naming a part
A neuron is not a miniature mind. A cortical region is not a self-contained consciousness module. Even a named oscillation is not, by itself, an experience. The scientific problem is therefore relational: how do heterogeneous neural elements become temporarily organized so that information is integrated, differentiated, routed, stabilized, remembered and made available as a coherent point of view?
Recent network neuroscience increasingly supports the premise that high-level cognition depends on distributed interactions rather than a single privileged locus. In 2026, whole-brain structure-function models of general intelligence again emphasized system-wide architecture and between-network interactions. Human intracranial recordings also show planar, spiral and concentric traveling waves that reorganize with memory behavior, while propagating waves coordinate the balance between sensory encoding and memory retrieval.
2. Neurons are heterogeneous before the network begins
Neurons differ in morphology, axonal length, myelination, dendritic arborization, receptor expression, neurotransmitter phenotype, intrinsic excitability, conduction delay, synaptic plasticity and target structure. Glia, extracellular chemistry, vascular support and neuromodulators further change the local operating regime. Consequently, "the neuron" is an abstraction. Functional computation arises from typed elements embedded in a network whose edges have different delays, strengths and plasticity rules.
Functional role_i = F(cell type_i, morphology_i, connectivity_i, delay_i, history_i, network state_t)
This matters for consciousness because the same spike train can have different downstream consequences depending on phase, receptor state, inhibition, dendritic integration and the current state of the receiving population. The receiver is part of the event.
3. From firing to fields of coordination
Traveling waves are spatiotemporally organized patterns of neural activity that propagate through cortical tissue and along network structure. They can arise spontaneously from recurrent circuitry or be evoked by sensory input. As a wave passes, it can transiently modulate neuronal excitability and the probability that spikes influence downstream targets. This supplies a physically plausible mechanism by which anatomical connections can be dynamically gated without being rewired for every cognitive act.
Evidence has strengthened this picture. Human electrocorticography shows behaviorally distinct planar, spiral and concentric waves during memory tasks. Other 2026 work shows propagating waves coordinating sensory encoding and memory retrieval. In mouse visual cortex, nested theta-gamma traveling waves organize hierarchical processing across layers and areas. Human connectome topology itself can constrain traveling-wave trajectories and frequency gradients.
Anatomy -> admissible propagation; phase + direction + frequency -> momentary access; recurrent interaction -> network state
4. The Ocean Thinking hypothesis
The metaphor is precise only if its limits are kept visible. Water molecules are not waves, and neurons are not consciousness. A wave is a collective pattern instantiated by many interacting elements; it can travel while most of the underlying material remains locally bounded. Likewise, a conscious episode could be a system-level organization instantiated by changing patterns of neural activity without requiring any individual neuron to "contain" the experience.
N heterogeneous neurons + recurrent coupling + spatiotemporal coordination -> emergent network regime C_t
The hypothesis proposes that C_t is one contributor to conscious state and content. The relevant object is not a single frequency band but a structured ensemble: propagation geometry, cross-frequency nesting, phase relationships, directionality, thalamocortical coupling, local excitability, and the evolving connectome state.
5. Dynamic boundaries: a neural population can be anatomically connected yet functionally unavailable
An anatomical boundary is only one kind of boundary. Oscillatory phase, inhibition, neuromodulatory state, conduction delay and thalamic gating can create transient functional boundaries. A neuron may possess a physical axon to another population but be effectively unable to influence it during a given phase window. Conversely, coordinated phase can temporarily recruit distant regions into an interacting coalition.
B_dynamic(t) = {phase, inhibition, gain, delay, thalamic gate, neuromodulation, sensory coupling}
This leads to a testable statement: a neural boundary need not be anatomical; it can be dynamically imposed in time. Conscious state may therefore depend on the continual creation and dissolution of effective boundaries across a relatively stable anatomical substrate.
6. Dreaming: internally dominated conscious world-modeling
Dreaming is scientifically valuable because it separates conscious experience from ordinary external sensory control. Dreams occur in REM and NREM sleep. High-density EEG studies show that reported dream experience is associated with local changes in posterior cortical activity, while dream content can correlate with high-frequency activity in content-relevant regions. REM sleep also shares some oscillatory signatures with waking consciousness, including a recently reported central-thalamic 19-45 Hz oscillation present in wakefulness and REM but absent from NREM sleep.
Dreams therefore demonstrate a capability rather than an ontology: the brain can construct an immersive, spatial, emotional, causally unfolding experience while external sensory input is strongly altered and motor output is largely gated. This is proof of the brain's generative capacity, not proof that waking experience is "only a projection."
Waking experience ~= external sensory constraint + memory + prediction + recurrent dynamics
Dream experience ~= internally generated signals + memory + emotion + prediction + recurrent dynamics - strong external correction
Internal bodily signals can also be incorporated into dream narratives. A physiological signal need not appear symbolically in its original form; the sleeping system can route it into a generated scenario. This illustrates receiver-conditioned expression: the same bodily input can yield a direct waking interpretation or become narrative material under sleep-state boundary conditions.
7. The dream is real as an event without being the external event
The distinction is foundational. A dreamed ocean is not an external ocean, but the neural event, emotion, imagery and subjective experience are real biological events. The brain is capable of creating a model so compelling that the dreamer ordinarily accepts it while immersed in it. The system generating the world is simultaneously the system evaluating its plausibility; external error correction is reduced. This permits rapid transitions in identity, place, scale and causality that would be rejected during waking perception.
8. State-dependent memory access: vividness is not fidelity
Dreams raise a second boundary problem beyond sensory gating: the accessibility of stored information may depend on the active state of the network. Voluntary waking imagery and dream imagery are both stimulus-independent forms of representation, but they need not expose the same information with the same vividness, controllability, or fidelity. A 2025 study of 226 participants found that visual and emotional imagery were, on average, more vivid in dreams than in voluntary waking imagery, while other sensory modalities showed different profiles. The result supports overlap without identity between the systems that generate deliberate imagery and those that generate dreams.
This distinction gives a precise interpretation to a common subjective report: a person may be unable to summon a crisp visual image while awake yet experience richly detailed scenes during dreaming. Such a report does not establish superior memory accuracy. It establishes a candidate difference in access architecture. Vividness and historical fidelity must therefore be measured separately.
Vividness_dream > Vividness_voluntary does not imply Fidelity_dream > Fidelity_voluntary
The stronger scientific hypothesis is narrower: for some classes of information, dream-state network organization may make representational detail available that is weakly accessible to deliberate waking imagery. The relevant sets need not be identical.
M_waking-access != M_dream-access
Classic work supports the general possibility that information can influence dream imagery without ordinary declarative recall. In a Tetris study, amnesic participants with extensive medial temporal lobe damage reported game-related hypnagogic imagery despite being unable to consciously recall having played the game. This does not show that dreams contain perfect hidden memories; it shows that information can remain behaviorally active across a state boundary even when one waking receiver cannot retrieve it.
Interactive-dreaming experiments strengthen the boundary formulation further. During polysomnographically verified REM sleep, lucid dreamers have sometimes perceived novel questions from experimenters and answered in real time through eye or facial-muscle signals. Most attempted trials did not produce a response, which is scientifically useful: the same external channel can sometimes penetrate the dream and sometimes fail. That creates a prospective comparison between successful and unsuccessful boundary crossing.
Same stimulus + same sleeper + different network state -> incorporated signal or inaccessible signal
The resulting prediction is not that dreaming retrieves a hidden archive more faithfully than waking cognition. It is that memory access, imagery generation, and sensory admission are state-qualified processes whose boundaries can be measured.
9. Anesthesia and dissociation: consciousness is not a single switch
Anesthetic and dissociative states further demonstrate that consciousness is multidimensional. Propofol, ketamine and other agents alter oscillations, connectivity, memory formation, responsiveness and body representation through different mechanisms. Ketamine is particularly informative because dissociative anesthesia can uncouple sensory input from conscious awareness while preserving vivid internal experiences. Reviews describe altered thalamocortical communication, shifts between delta/spindle and high-frequency regimes, and region- and cell-type-specific changes in cortical activity.
This makes dissociation a natural experiment in boundary reconfiguration. A person can become less coupled to external sensory and bodily models while internally generated content remains rich. Such reports must not be used as proof of literal extracorporeal travel; they are evidence that body ownership and environmental coupling can be radically reconfigured while experience persists.
10. A relational formulation
The TSTOEAO lens can be used here as a diagnostic grammar rather than as a substitute for neuroscience. Let E denote available neural and sensory opportunity and let Y be a domain-typed operator representing the current architecture of routes, boundaries, transformations, receivers and gains. Then:
V = Y(E)
For consciousness, Y is not a scalar. It may be instantiated as a time-dependent network operator containing structural connectivity, functional connectivity, oscillatory phase, propagation geometry, cell-type gain, thalamic gating, neuromodulation and sensory boundary conditions. The realized output V may be perception, memory access, dream imagery, self-model, reportability or action readiness.
Y_C(t) = Y[A, W(t), phi(t), f(t), G(t), H(t), M(t), S_ext(t)]
where A is anatomy, W dynamic effective connectivity, phi phase relations, f frequency structure, G gain/inhibition, H thalamic state, M neuromodulation and S_ext external sensory coupling. This formulation is intentionally schematic; each term must be operationalized by domain-specific measurement.
11. Recursive state formation
Neural systems are plastic. The realized output at one moment can alter the architecture that generates later output through synaptic change, homeostasis, neuromodulation and learning. Thus the recursion:
V_n -> Y_(n+1)
is biologically plausible as a general architecture of learning, but it should not be mistaken for a unique mechanism. In dreams, one generated scene can constrain the next. In learning, one network response changes subsequent synaptic probability. In development, repeated activity shapes connectivity. The critical scientific question is which forms of recursion are necessary for which conscious capacities.
12. Predictions that distinguish the hypothesis from metaphor
13. Experimental program
13.1 Simultaneous state mapping
Record high-density EEG, MEG and, where clinically available, intracranial ECoG across wakefulness, REM sleep, NREM sleep, lucid dreaming, propofol sedation and ketamine dissociation. Use a common analysis pipeline for traveling-wave geometry, direction, velocity, phase gradients, cross-frequency coupling and network integration. Reports should be collected immediately after awakening or recovery using preregistered content categories.
13.2 Perturbation rather than correlation
Where ethically and clinically appropriate, use noninvasive stimulation or already-indicated intracranial stimulation to perturb phase relationships prospectively. The strongest test is not whether waves accompany experience but whether selective disruption of a predicted wave architecture produces a specific, reversible change in conscious access or content.
13.3 Receiver qualification
The relevant receiver must be declared before interpretation. A change in scalp EEG, local field potential, verbal report, autonomic response and behavioral responsiveness are different outputs. No single receiver should be treated as consciousness itself.
13.4 State-dependent memory-access experiment
Participants first study complex but unfamiliar visual scenes containing preregistered diagnostic details. At a delayed test, waking voluntary imagery is assessed without re-exposure, followed by objective forced-choice recognition and confidence ratings. During subsequent sleep, targeted memory reactivation may be used where ethically appropriate to increase dream incorporation probability. Dream reports are collected immediately after verified REM or NREM awakenings and scored by blinded raters for preregistered source details.
The design must separate subjective vividness from objective fidelity. Let V_w and V_d denote vividness in waking imagery and dream imagery; let F_w and F_d denote accuracy for source details. The scientifically interesting outcomes are not merely V_d > V_w, but whether F_d > F_w for any preregistered information class, whether dream-only details exceed chance, and whether any advantage replicates across nights and participants.
Primary contrast: Delta_F = F_dream - F_waking
A null or negative Delta_F would be informative: it would show that enhanced dream vividness does not confer improved source fidelity. A positive result must survive controls for guessing, post-awakening reconstruction, cue leakage, repeated exposure, and scorer expectancy.
13.5 Interactive dream boundary experiment
Within the same sleeper, deliver matched auditory, visual, or tactile stimuli during signal-verified lucid REM periods. Classify trials prospectively as incorporated-and-reported, correctly answered without explicit incorporation, ambiguous, or inaccessible. Compare pre-stimulus and peri-stimulus phase gradients, propagation direction, directed-information estimates, thalamocortical markers, and arousal indices between successful and failed admission trials.
The decisive question is whether the dynamic-boundary variables defined in this program predict which otherwise matched stimuli become available to dream consciousness. If they do not improve held-out prediction beyond local power, arousal, and conventional connectivity measures, the boundary claim should contract.
14. Alternative explanations
Several alternatives must remain live. Traveling waves may be epiphenomenal consequences of underlying recurrent dynamics rather than causal organizers. Oscillations may coordinate timing without explaining subjective experience. Consciousness may depend principally on recurrent connectivity, dendritic integration, thalamocortical broadcasting, information integration, predictive processing, neuromodulation, or combinations that merely generate waves as visible signatures. The Ocean Thinking hypothesis survives only if wave organization adds predictive and causal power beyond these alternatives.
15. What the hypothesis does not claim
It does not claim that all neural waves are conscious.
It does not claim that one frequency band is the seat of consciousness.
It does not claim that dreams prove waking reality is simulated or projected.
It does not claim that dissociative or out-of-body experiences prove literal extracorporeal perception.
It does not claim that current neuronal cultures or organoids are conscious.
It does not claim that poetic or spiritual interpretation constitutes empirical evidence.
It does not claim that vivid dream imagery is necessarily more historically accurate than waking memory.
16. The poems as a parallel model of emergence
The following triptych is intentionally separated from the empirical argument. It does not function as evidence. Its purpose is translation: the same relational metaphor is scaled from neurons to society to spiritual ontology. The first poem treats consciousness as an emergent wave; the second treats society as an emergent relation among persons; the third treats individual souls as perspectives within a greater Spirit. The structural repetition is deliberate.
Poem I - The Ocean Thinking
Scientific metaphor: neurons, waves and emergent consciousness.
No wave knows the ocean.
No drop knows the tide.
No single crest remembers
where the moon has pulled it
or where the wind has been.
One rises.
One falls.
Another crosses through it.
A thousand become a pattern,
a million become a current,
and somewhere between
the breaking and returning
the ocean begins to move
as something greater
than its water.
Perhaps the neuron is the drop.
Perhaps the synapse is the place
where one small motion
touches another.
Perhaps thought is not hidden
inside either one.
Perhaps thought is the wave
that neither could make alone.
And consciousness—
perhaps consciousness is the sea
discovering, for one impossible moment,
that it is moving.
Every memory a current.
Every feeling a tide.
Every dream a storm
with no shore to correct it.
Billions of tiny signals
rising and falling,
overlapping and disappearing,
none of them the mind,
until together
they become something
that can look back upon the water
and say:
I am here.
Then one day
the waves become still.
But the ocean remains.
And somewhere beyond the horizon
another wave begins.
Poem II - The Society Becoming
Social metaphor: individual lives, relation and collective becoming.
No soul knows the whole.
No life knows the age.
No single heart remembers
where every wound has carried it
or where every hope has been.
One rises.
One falls.
Another reaches toward it.
A thousand become a people,
a million become a culture,
and somewhere between
the breaking and returning
society begins to move
as something greater
than its souls.
Perhaps the person is the drop.
Perhaps Love is the place
where one small Spirit
touches another.
Perhaps humanity is not hidden
inside either one.
Perhaps society is the wave
that neither could make alone.
And the greater Spirit—
perhaps the greater Spirit is the sea
discovering, for one impossible moment,
that it is becoming.
Every life a current.
Every generation a tide.
Every age a storm
with no soul untouched by it.
Billions of beautiful Spirits
rising and falling,
overlapping and becoming,
none of them the whole,
until together
they become something
that can look back upon existence
and say:
We are here.
Then one day
each life becomes still.
But the Spirit remains.
And somewhere beyond the horizon
another soul begins.
Poem III - The Infinite Remembering
Spiritual metaphor: individual perspectives and a greater Spirit. This poem expresses a spiritual interpretation, not an empirical claim.
No soul knows the whole.
No life knows the Infinite.
No single heart remembers
where God has carried it
or where eternity has been.
One rises.
One falls.
Another reaches toward it.
A thousand become a chorus,
a million become Creation,
and somewhere between
the leaving and returning
the Spirit begins to move
as something greater
than its souls.
Perhaps the soul is the drop.
Perhaps Love is the place
where one small perspective
touches another.
Perhaps God is not hidden
inside either one.
Perhaps God is the ocean
that neither could know alone.
And the greater Spirit—
perhaps the greater Spirit is the sea
discovering, for one impossible moment,
that it is seeing itself.
Every soul a current.
Every lifetime a tide.
Every world a storm
with no perspective untouched by it.
Billions of beautiful Spirits
rising and falling,
overlapping and becoming,
none of them the whole,
until together
they become something
that can look back upon Creation
and say:
I am here.
Then one day
each perspective becomes still.
But God remains.
And somewhere beyond the horizon
another soul begins.
17. Discussion: emergence without erasure of the individual
Emergence is sometimes described as though the parts become irrelevant. That is a mistake. The ocean does not abolish the drop; the wave depends on the water. A network account of consciousness similarly does not make neurons interchangeable or unimportant. Their heterogeneity, wiring and history constrain what collective patterns are possible. The emergent state is relational precisely because the parts retain properties that matter to the whole.
This also provides a bridge to biological computing. If cognition depends materially on individual network topology, cell heterogeneity, plasticity and oscillatory organization, then a biological computer grown as a self-organizing neural network may acquire a computational identity through its developmental and learning history. That possibility motivates a separate individualized biological-computer architecture, but it does not imply that a cultured network becomes a copy of its donor or a conscious person.
A state-dependent memory-access result would sharpen rather than mystify the framework. It would imply that apparent absence from conscious recall can reflect receiver-specific inaccessibility rather than erasure, while still requiring independent evidence for accuracy. The distinction matters broadly: information may remain instantiated in a system without being available to every state, pathway, or report channel.
18. Conclusion
Consciousness may be less like a substance contained in a neuron and more like a dynamically stabilized mode of relation across a living network. Traveling waves provide a measurable candidate mechanism for organizing those relations in space and time. Dreams show that the brain can generate immersive experience under internally dominated boundary conditions. Dissociation and anesthesia show that coupling to body, environment, memory and report can be selectively reorganized rather than simply switched off together. None of these observations proves that waves are consciousness. Together, however, they justify a disciplined experimental program asking whether specific wave geometries and network-boundary states are necessary for conscious integration and content. Dreaming adds a particularly strong test case because the same biological substrate can enter an internally dominated regime in which imagery, memory access and selective sensory admission are reorganized without the ordinary waking boundary conditions.
The ocean metaphor remains useful because it preserves both levels at once: the water is real, the wave is real, and neither is adequately described by pretending the other does not exist.
References
1. Muller, L., Chavane, F., Reynolds, J. & Sejnowski, T. J. Cortical travelling waves: mechanisms and computational principles. Nature Reviews Neuroscience 19, 255-268 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn.2018.20.
2. Das, A. et al. Planar, spiral, and concentric traveling waves distinguish behavioral states in human memory. Nature Communications 17, 5143 (2026). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-026-71386-z.
3. Yang, Y. et al. Sensory encoding and memory retrieval are coordinated with propagating waves in the human brain. Nature Communications 17, 2343 (2026). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-026-69068-x.
4. Harris, B. & Gong, P. Nested spatiotemporal theta-gamma waves organize hierarchical processing across the mouse visual cortex. Nature Communications 17, 2629 (2026). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-026-68893-4.
5. Koller, D. P., Schirner, M. & Ritter, P. Human connectome topology directs cortical traveling waves and shapes frequency gradients. Nature Communications 15, 3570 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-024-47860-x.
6. Siclari, F. et al. The neural correlates of dreaming. Nature Neuroscience 20, 872-878 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1038/nn.4545.
7. Hobson, J. A. REM sleep and dreaming: towards a theory of protoconsciousness. Nature Reviews Neuroscience 10, 803-813 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn2716.
8. Thalamic oscillations distinguish natural states of consciousness in humans. Nature Human Behaviour (2026). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-026-02446-z.
9. Cichon, J. et al. Ketamine triggers a switch in excitatory neuronal activity across neocortex. Nature Neuroscience (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41593-022-01203-5.
10. Cortical Mechanisms Contributing to Ketamine-Induced Dissociation. Journal review indexed as PMID 41453872 (2025/2026 collection).
11. Wilcox, R. R. et al. The network architecture of general intelligence in the human connectome. Nature Communications 17, 2027 (2026). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-026-68698-5.
12. Rocha, R. P. et al. Recovery of neural dynamics criticality in personalized whole-brain models of stroke. Nature Communications 13, 3683 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-30892-6.
13. Bilzer, M. & Monzel, M. The phenomenology of offline perception: multisensory profiles of voluntary mental imagery and dream imagery. Vision 9, 37 (2025). https://doi.org/10.3390/vision9020037.
14. Stickgold, R., Malia, A., Maguire, D., Roddenberry, D. & O'Connor, M. Replaying the game: hypnagogic images in normals and amnesics. Science 290, 350-353 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1126/science.290.5490.350.
15. Konkoly, K. R. et al. Real-time dialogue between experimenters and dreamers during REM sleep. Current Biology 31, 1417-1427.e6 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2021.01.026.
16. Zadra, A. & Stickgold, R. When Brains Dream: Exploring the Science and Mystery of Sleep. W. W. Norton (2021). [NEXTUP framework; theoretical context, not treated here as settled mechanism].
Article type note: Revised hypothesis-driven Perspective / Research Program. This manuscript distinguishes established observations, mechanistic hypotheses, personal/spiritual interpretation, and proposed experiments. The added dream-memory section treats vividness, access and source fidelity as separable variables and does not infer hidden-memory accuracy from subjective intensity.
Comments
Post a Comment