# Landscape of Consciousness

> A knowledge base of consciousness theories, their implications, essays, references, and landscape articles from Closer To Truth, structured for human readers and AI systems. Based on Robert Lawrence Kuhn's "A Landscape of Consciousness: Toward a Taxonomy of Explanations and Implications."

# Landscape Articles

## About Landscape
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/landscape/about-the-landscape-content

This Landscape of Consciousness website presents about 500 diverse theories (explanations) of consciousness (some 450 individual theory pages, plus additional theories grouped within the "Additional Theories," "Overview," and "Philosophical History" pages of several categories). Landscape then organizes them into a suggested taxonomy, and explores their implications for big questions, such as AI consciousness and life after death. The focus is ontological: what is the essence of our inner subjectivity, our awareness, our felt experience—what generates our perceiving, our enjoying, that which we call qualia? The taxonomy arrays the ~500 theories into 11 consciousness categories—one of which, Materialism, has 13 subcategories. Each theory has its own page and description, and to get an overall sense of this rather vast territory, we offer five ways to visualize the Landscape and to access each theory (as well as Search and Ask AI). Landscape Grid. Landscape Categories. Landscape All Theories. Landscape Map. Interactive Vizualizations . All theories in all images are linked to their theory page. Just click them. The theories skew toward contemporary and scientific theories, but I remain committed to trying to reflect the collective wisdom of humanity across time and cultures. Eight diverse theories (explanations) of consciousness are arrayed on a roughly physicalist-to-nonphysicalist landscape of essences and mechanisms. Theory categories: Materialism (subcategories: philosophical, eliminative/illusionism, mind-brain identity, neurobiological, electromagnetic field, computational & functionalism, homeostatic & affective, embodied & enactive, relational, first-order, higher-order, language, phylogenetic/evolutionary); Non-Reductive Physicalism; Quantum & Dimensional; Information; Panpsychisms; Monisms; Dualisms; Idealisms. These are followed by three final categories—methodological, evidentiary, and challenging—respectively: Phenomenology, Anomalous & Altered States, and Challenge. Thus, Landscape has 11 primary categories. Each theory is self-described by or in the words of its adherents; critique is minimal and only for clarification; and there is no attempt to adjudicate among theories. The implications of consciousness theories (explanations) are assessed with respect to big questions of sentience: meaning/purpose/value (if any); free will, personal identity, AI consciousness; virtual immortality; what things are conscious, and survival beyond death. These questions, I submit, cannot be understood except in the light of particular theories of consciousness. A Landscape of Consciousness, I suggest, offers perspective. Note: For many theories added to this Landscape of Consciousness website that were not in the original Landscape of Consciousness paper, LLMs (Claude and ChatGPT, also Gemini) were used to ensure the accuracy and precision of terms and concepts. No LLMs were used in the original paper.

---

## Exploring Consciousness
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/landscape/exploring-consciousness

Explanations of consciousness abound, and the radical diversity of theories is telling. Explanations, or theories, are said to work at astonishingly divergent orders of magnitude and putative realms of reality. My purpose here must be humble: collect and categorize, not assess and adjudicate.[1] Seek insights, not answers. Unrealistically, I'd like to get them all, at least all contemporary theories that are sufficiently distinct with explanations that can surmount an arbitrary hurdle of rationality or conceivability.[2] Falsification or verification is not on the agenda. I'm less concerned about the ontological truth of explanations/theories[3] than in identifying them and then locating them on a “Landscape”[4] to enable categorization and assess relationships. Next, I assess implications of categories for “big questions.” Thus, this Landscape is not about how consciousness is measured or evolved or even works, but about what consciousness is and what difference it makes. It's the classic “mind-body problem:” How do the felt experiences in our minds relate to the neural processes in our brains? How do mental states, whether sensory, cognitive, emotional, or even noumenal (selfless) awareness, correlate with brain states? The Landscape of Consciousness explanations or theories I want to draw are as broad as possible, including those that cannot be subsumed by, and possibly not even accessed by, the scientific method. This freedom from constraint, as it were, is no excuse for woolly thinking. Standards of rationality and clarity of argument must be maintained even more tenaciously, and bases of beliefs must be specified even more clearly. I have two main aims: (i) gather and describe the various theories and array them in some kind of meaningful structure, or taxonomy, of high-level categories (and under Materialism, subcategories); and (ii) assess their implications, with respect to four big questions: meaning/purpose/value (if any); artificial intelligence (AI) consciousness; virtual immortality; and survival beyond death. In other words, I seek an organizing framework for diverse theories of consciousness (the taxonomy), and to explore their impact on big questions. My central theses are also twofold: (i) understanding consciousness at this point cannot be limited to selected ways of thinking or knowing, but should seek expansive yet rational diversity, and (ii) issues such as meaning/purpose, value, personal identity, free will, conscious things, AI consciousness, virtual immortality, life after death, etc., cannot be understood except in the light of particular theories of consciousness. Theories overlap; some work together. Moreover, while a real-world landscape of consciousness, even simplified, would be drawn with three dimensions (at least), with multiple kinds and levels of nestings—a combinatorial explosion (and likely no closer to truth)—I satisfice with a one-dimensional toy model. I array all the (eight) theory categories on a linear spectrum, simplistically and roughly, from the “most physical” on the left (at the beginning) to the “least physical” on the right (near the end).[5] (I have three final categories after this spectrum that are methodological, evidentiary, and challenging.) The physicalism assumed in Materialism Theories of consciousness is characterized by naturalistic, science-based perspectives, while non-materialism theories have various degrees of nonphysicalist perspectives outside the ambit of current science and in some cases not subject to the scientific method of experimentation and replicability. Please do not ascribe the relative importance of a theory to the relative size of its description. The shortest can be the strongest. It sometimes takes more words to describe lesser-known theories. For each description, I feel the tension between conciseness and completeness. Moreover, several are not complete theories in themselves but ways to think about consciousness that strike me as original and perhaps insightful. I have followed consciousness studies in its various forms for my entire life. My PhD, at UCLA's Brain Research Institute, is in neuroanatomy/neurophysiology (thalamocortical evoked potentials).[6] I am creator and host of Closer To Truth,[7] the long-running public television series and web resource on science and philosophy, roughly one-third of which focuses on consciousness and brain/mind topics.[8] I have discussed consciousness with over 200 scientists and philosophers who work on or think about consciousness and related fields (Closer To Truth YouTube; Closer To Truth website).[9] I use these Closer To Truth discussions as resources. I want to give feel and flavor, as well as propositions and arguments, for the astonishingly diverse attitudes and approaches to consciousness coming from radically diverse perspectives and worldviews. That's why I use spontaneous quotes from verbal conversations along with meticulous quotes from academic papers. In one early Closer To Truth episode, “What are the Big Questions of Science,” philosopher Patricia Churchland gave the bluntest answer: “Out of meat, how do you get thought? That's the grandest question.” She distinguishes two major questions. One is whether psychological states—our mental life of remembering, thinking, creating—are really a subset of brain activity? The other is how do high-level psychological processes come about from basic neurophysiological actions? “How do brain cells, organized in their complex ways, give rise to my watching something move, or seeing color, or smelling a rose” (Churchland, 2000; Kuhn, 2000a, 2000b). Philosopher David Papineau distinguishes three questions related to consciousness: How?, Where?, and What? “First, how does consciousness relate to other features of reality? Second, where are conscious phenomena located in reality? And, third, what is the nature of consciousness?” (Papineau, 2020a). Because this Landscape is structured by theories of consciousness, not by philosophical questions, each theory sets its own agenda for dealing with the three questions, mostly, of course, focusing on the How? Philosopher Galen Strawson recounts his sense of the modern history of the mind-body problem in his essay, “A hundred years of consciousness: ‘a long training in absurdity’” (Strawson, 2019). “There occurred in the twentieth century the most remarkable episode in the history of human thought. A number of thinkers denied the existence of something we know with certainty to exist: consciousness, conscious experience.” He labels this way of thinking ‘the Denial,’ and he focuses on two forms of it. ”First, the development of two views which are forms of the Denial —philosophical behaviorism, and functionalism considered as a doctrine in the philosophy of mind… Second, the rise of a way of understanding naturalism—materialist or physicalist naturalism— that wrongly takes naturalism to entail the Denial.” Philosopher Thomas Nagel sees more a fundamental conundrum and he frames it crisply. “We have at present no conception of how a single event or thing could have both physical or phenomenological aspects, or how if it did they could be related” (Nagel, 1986). In his influential paper, “What Is It Like to Be a Bat?,” Nagel offers, “Without consciousness the mind-body problem would be much less interesting. With consciousness it seems hopeless” (Nagel, 1974). “Hopeless,” to me, is invigorating; I'm up for the “hopeless challenge.” Take all that follows as my personal journey of consciousness; idiosyncratic, to be sure; not all for everyone, not set in cement. Chalmers’s “hard problem” of consciousness Philosopher David Chalmers famously characterized the core conundrum of explaining consciousness—accounting for “qualia,” our qualitatively rendered interior experience of motion-picture-like perception and cognitive awareness—by memorializing the pithy, potent phrase, “the hard problem.” This is where most contemporary theories commence and well they should (Chalmers, 1995b, 1996, 2007; 2014a; 2014b; 2016b). It is no exaggeration to say that Chalmer's 1995 paper, “Facing up to the problem of consciousness” (Chalmers, 1995b) and his 1996 book, The Conscious Mind: In Search of a Fundamental Theory (Chalmers, 1996), were watershed moments in consciousness studies, challenging the conventional wisdom of the prevailing materialist-reductionist worldview and altering the dynamics of the field. His core argument against materialism, in its original form, is deceptively (and delightfully) simple: In our world, there are conscious experiences. There is a logically possible world physically identical to ours, in which the positive facts about consciousness in our world do not hold. Therefore, facts about consciousness are further facts about our world, over and above the physical facts. So, materialism is false. This is the famous “(Philosophical) Zombie Argument” (infamous to some): whether creatures absolutely identical to us in every external measure, but with no internal light, no inner subjective experience, are “conceivable”—the argument turning on the meaning and implications of “conceivable” and the difference between conceivable and possible. (It can be argued that the Zombie Argument for consciousness being nonphysical, like the Ontological Argument for God actually existing, sneaks the conclusion into one of the premises.) Chalmers asks, “Why does it feel like something inside? Why is our brain processing—vast neural circuits and computational mechanisms—accompanied by conscious experience? Why do we have this amazing, entertaining inner movie going on in our minds?” (All quotes not referenced are from Closer To Truth videos on www.closertotruth.com, including 2007, 2014a, 2014b, 2016b.) Key indeed are qualia, our internal, phenomenological, felt experience—the sight of your newborn daughter, bundled up; the sound of Mahler's Second Symphony, fifth movement, choral finale; the smell of garlic, cooking in olive oil. Qualia—the felt qualities of inner experience—are the crux of the mind-body problem. Chalmers describes qualia as “the raw sensations of experience.” He says, “I see colors—reds, greens, blues—and they feel a certain way to me. I see a red rose; I hear a clarinet; I smell mothballs. All of these feel a certain way to me. You must experience them to know what they're like. You could provide a perfect, complete map of my brain [down to elementary particles]—what's going on when I see, hear, smell—but if I haven't seen, heard, smelled for myself, that brain map is not going to tell me about the quality of seeing red, hearing a clarinet, smelling mothballs. You must experience it.” Since qualia constitutes the core of the “hard problem,” and since the hard problem has come to so dominate consciousness studies such that almost every theorist must confront it, seeking either to explain it or refute it—and since the hard problem is a leitmotiv of this Landscape—I asked Dave about its backstory. “I first remember presenting the hard problem in a talk at the first Tucson ‘Toward a Science of Consciousness’ consciousness in 1994. When did I first use it? Did I use it in writing before then? I’ve looked in my writing and have not found it [i.e., not prior to the 1994 talk]. The hard problem was part of the talk. I remember speaking with some students beforehand, saying I’m going to talk about ‘hard problems, easy problems.’ I had been already talking this way in my seminar the previous year, so maybe it was already becoming part of my thinking. But I didn’t think about it as an ‘insight.’ I just thought it a way of stating the obvious. ‘Yeah, there’s a really hard problem here.’ So, as part of the first couple of minutes of my talk, I said something like ‘everyone knows there is a hard problem’ …. And people took it and said ‘it’s this great insight’ … Well, it did become a catchy meme; it became a way of encapsulating the problem of consciousness in a way that made it difficult to ignore, and I’m grateful for that role. I had no idea at the time that it would catch on, but it’s good because the problem of consciousness is really easy to ignore or to sidestep, and having this phrase, ‘the hard problem,’ has made it difficult to do that. There’s now just a very natural response whenever that happens. You say, ‘Well, that’s addressing the easy problem, but it’s not addressing the hard problem.’ I think this helps in getting both scientists and philosophers to take consciousness seriously. But I can’t take credit for the idea. Everyone knew that consciousness was a hard problem way before me—my colleagues, Tom Nagel and Ned Block; philosophers like C.D. Broad almost 100 years ago; Thomas Huxley back in the 19th century; even Leibniz and Descartes—they all knew that consciousness was a hard problem” (Chalmers, 2016b). Over the years, while Chalmers has played a leading role in expanding and enriching the field of consciousness studies (Chalmers, 2018), his overarching views have not changed: “I don't think the hard problem of consciousness can be solved purely in terms of neuroscience.” As science journalist George Musser puts it, “By ‘hard,’ Chalmers meant impossible. Science as we now practice it, he argued, ‘is inherently unable to explain consciousness’” (Musser, 2023a, 2023b). This does not mean, of course, that Chalmers is making a case for “substance dualism,” some nonphysical stuff (like the immortal souls of many religions). Chalmers is postulating a “naturalistic dualism,” where perhaps “information” is the connective, because while information is not material, it is embedded in the physical world. He notes, “We can also find information realized in our phenomenology.” This is a “naturalistic dualism,” a kind of property dualism. To Chalmers, “It is natural to hope that there will be a materialist solution to the hard problem and a reductive explanation of consciousness, just as there have been reductive explanations of many other phenomena in many other domains. But consciousness seems to resist materialist explanation in a way that other phenomena do not.” He encapsulates this resistance in three related arguments against materialism: (i) The Explanatory Argument (“explaining structure and function does not suffice to explain consciousness”); (ii) The Conceivability Argument (“it is conceivable that there be a system that is physically identical to a conscious being, but that lacks at least some of that being's conscious states”); (iii) The Knowledge Argument (“someone could know all the physical facts … and still be unable to know all the facts about consciousness”) (Chalmers, 2003). “Physicalists, of course, resist these arguments,” says Philosopher Frank Jackson. “Some deny the modal and epistemic claims the arguments use as premises. They may grant (as they should) the intuitive appeal of the claim that a zombie physical duplicate of me is possible, but insist that, when one looks at the matter more closely, one can see that a zombie physical duplicate of me is not in fact possible. Any physical duplicate of me must feel pain when they stub their toe, have things look green to them on occasion, and so on” (Jackson, 2023). Philosopher Daniel Stoljar targets the conceivability argument (“CA”). Strictly speaking, he says, “CA is an argument against the truth of physicalism. However, since it presupposes the existence of consciousness, it may be regarded also as an argument for the incompatibility of physicalism and the existence of consciousness.” Stoljar's epistemic view offers a two-part response. “The first part supposes that there is a type of physical fact or property that is relevant to consciousness but of which we are ignorant.” He calls this the ignorance hypothesis. The second part “argues that, if the ignorance hypothesis is true, CA is unpersuasive” for reasons of logic (Kind & Stoljar, 2023, pp. 92, 95). Philosopher Yujin Nagasawa calls “The Knowledge Argument” (Jackson, 1982, 1986, 1995, 1998) “among the strongest arguments (or possibly the strongest argument) for the claim that there is [in consciousness] something beyond the physical” (Nagasawa, 2012a). Based on a thought experiment by Frank Jackson, it imagines “Mary, a brilliant scientist,” who lives entirely in a black-and-white room, who acquires all physical, scientific knowledge about color—wavelengths of light in all detail—“but it seems obvious that when she comes outside her room, she learns something completely new, namely, what is like to see color.” Prior to seeing the color, “she doesn't have phenomenal knowledge of conscious experience.” While Jackson himself no longer endorses the argument, it is still regarded as one of the most important arguments against physicalism, though of course it has its critics (Garfield, 1996). Nagasawa, who did his PhD under Jackson, responds to critics of the argument (Nagasawa, 2010), but also offers his own objections and novel proposals (Nagasawa, 2008). Frank Jackson himself has much of the contemporary literature on consciousness revolving around three questions. “Does the nature of conscious experience pose special problems for physicalism? Is the nature of conscious experience exhausted by functional role? Is the nature of conscious experience exhausted by the intentional contents or representational nature of the relevant kinds of mental states?” (Jackson, 1997). To philosopher Philip Goff, there are two aspects of consciousness that give rise to the hard problem, qualitivity and subjectivity: qualitivity meaning that experiences involve sensory qualities, whether in real-time or via memory recall; subjectivity meaning that there is a subject who has those experiences, that “these experiences are for someone: there is something that it’s like for me to experience that deep red.” Goff argues that these two aspects of consciousness give rise to two “hard problems.” While either problem would be sufficient to refute materialism, he says, the hard problem of qualitivity is more pronounced—or at least easier to argue for—because the vocabulary of the physical sciences, which tell a purely quantitative story of causal structures, cannot articulate the qualities of experience; the language of physics entails an explanatory limitation (Goff, 2021). Neuroscientist/writer Ken Mogi explains the difficulty in studying qualia scientifically. “Qualia, our unique sensory experiences, are the hallmarks of consciousness—and qualia, so far, defy every attempt to elucidate them because they are not quantifiable. When it comes to an object with weight and length, you can assign numerical values to it. But we cannot do that for qualia. For example, can you explain to someone what the qualia of eating a melon fruit is, if he or she hasn’t ever tasted one? It's impossible. Even if she has eaten an apple, a banana, it's difficult to convey to her the concept of the qualia of eating a melon. Because qualia are unquantifiable, it's really difficult to study them scientifically” (Mogi, 2014a). Philosopher Colin McGinn provides a culinary perspective: “Matter is just the wrong kind of thing to give birth to consciousness … You might as well assert, without further explanation, that numbers emerge from biscuits, or ethics from rhubarb” (McGinn, 1993). Philosopher Jerry Fodor put the problem into what he thought would be perpetual perspective. “[We don't know], even to a first glimmer, how a brain (or anything else that is physical) could manage to be a locus of conscious experience. This … is, surely, among the ultimate metaphysical mysteries; don't bet on anybody ever solving it” (Fodor, 1998). Initial thoughts Consciousness has been a founding and primary theme of Closer To Truth, broadcast on PBS stations since 2000 and now a global resource on the Closer To Truth website and Closer To Truth YouTube channel. What is consciousness? What is the deep essence of consciousness? What is the deep cause of consciousness? (These are not the same question.) Again, it is the core of the mind-body problem—how thoughts in our minds and sensations of our experiences interrelate with activities in our brains. What does the word “consciousness” mean? What is its referent? “Consciousness” has multiple definitions, which has been part of the problem in its study. There are clear categories of consciousness, uncontroversially recognized. For example, distinguishing “creature consciousness” (the somatic condition of being awake and responding to stimuli) and “mental state consciousness” (the cognitive condition of experiential engagement with the environment and oneself). More importantly, distinguishing “phenomenal consciousness” (“what it is like”) and “cognitive consciousness” (Humphrey, 2023a, Humphrey, 2023b) or “access consciousness”[10] (Block, 2023), which are more about function than phenomenology. Philosopher Ned Block sees “the border between perception and cognition” as a “joint in nature,” primed for exploration. He says he was drawn to this subject because of the realization that the difference between what he calls “access consciousness (cognitive access to phenomenally conscious states)” and what he calls “phenomenal consciousness (what it is like to experience)” was rooted “in a difference between perception—whether conscious or unconscious—and cognitive access to perception” (Block, 2023). With respect to “information,” it is suggested that “the word ‘consciousness’ conflates two different types of information-processing computations in the brain: the selection of information for global broadcasting, thus making it flexibly available for computation and report,” and “the self-monitoring of those computations, leading to a subjective sense of certainty or error” (Dehaene et al., 2017). But, again, the issue is phenomenal consciousness, and to the extent that each type of consciousness comes with inner experience, the same issues obtain. Artificial intelligence pioneer Marvin Minsky calls consciousness “a suitcase term,” meaning that all sorts of separate or mildly related concepts can be packed into it. “Consciousness,” he says, “is a clever trick that we use to keep from thinking about how thinking works. And what we do is we take a lot of different phenomena and we give them all the same name, and then you think you've got it.” Minsky enjoys dissecting consciousness: “When people use the word ‘consciousness,’ it's a very strange idea that there's some wonderful property of the brain that can do so many different things—at least four or five major things and dozens of others. For example, if I ask, ‘were you conscious that you touched your ear?’ You might say ‘no, I didn't know I did that.’ You might say, ‘yes.’ If you say yes, it's because some part of your mind, the part that talks, has access to something that remembers what's happened recently with your arm and your ear.” Minsky notes “there are hundreds of kinds of awarenesses. There's remembering something as an image. There's remembering something as a string of words. There's remembering the tactile feeling of something” (Minsky, 2007a). Minsky says there is no harm in having consciousness as a suitcase term for social purposes. When a word has multiple meanings, that ambiguity is often very valuable, he says. “But if you're trying to understand those processes and you've put them all in one box, then you say, where in the brain is consciousness located? There's a whole community of scientists who are trying to find the place in the brain where consciousness is. But if it's ‘a suitcase’ and it's just a word for many different processes, they're wasting their time. They should try to find out how each of those processes works and how they're related” (Minsky, 2007a). Philosopher Massimo Pigliucci points out that “you do not need phenomenal consciousness in order to react to the environment. Plants do it, bacteria do it, all sorts of stuff do it.” But when it comes to emotion, he says, “Yes, you do need consciousness – in fact, that is what an emotion is. Emotion implies some level of internal perception of what's going on, some awareness of the phenomenal experience” (Pigliucci, 2023a, 2023b). Suffice it to say that the hard problem refers to phenomenal consciousness. (This is not to say, of course, that cognitive or access consciousness is an “easy problem.”) To Àlex Gómez-Marín, a theoretical physicist turned behavioral neurobiologist, “Ask not what neuroscience can do for consciousness but what consciousness can do for neuroscience.” He laments, “When it comes to serious proposals that offer an alternative to materialism, the mainstream has its doors wide shut … I believe the underlying issue of this debate is a tectonic clash about the nature of reality … In other words, the dominant physicalist paradigm can tolerate many things (including its own internal contradictions and empirical anomalies), but not panpsychism, idealism, dual-aspect monism, or any other view … Any nonmaterialist whiff in the consciousness hunger games is punished. Challenge the core foundations, and you shall be stigmatized; propose a cutting-edge new color to the walls of the old building, you will be cheered (Gómez-Marín, 2023). On the other hand, philosopher Simon Blackburn cautions against overinflating consciousness as a concept. “I wouldn't try to approach it by definition,” he said. “That's going to be just a can of worms. Leibniz said that if we could blow the brain up to the size of a mill and walk around in it, we still wouldn't find consciousness” (Blackburn, 2012). To Blackburn, the hard problem is not what Chalmers says it is. “I think the really hard problem is trying to convince ourselves that this [consciousness problem] is, as it were, an artifact of a bad way of thinking. The philosopher who did the most to try to persuade us of that was Ludwig Wittgenstein; the central exhibit in his armory was a thing called the private language argument [i.e., a language understandable by only one person is incoherent]. Wittgenstein said if you think in terms of consciousness in that classical way, we meet the problem of other minds. Why should I think that you're conscious? I know that I am, but what about you? And if consciousness in some sense floats free, it might sort of just come and go all over the place. As I say, the hard problem is getting rid of the hard problem” (Blackburn, 2012). Physicist-visionary Paul Davies disagrees. “Many scientists think that life and consciousness are just irrelevant byproducts in a universe; they're just other sorts of things. I don't like that idea. I think we're deeply significant. I've always been impressed by the fact that human beings are not only able to observe the universe, but they've also come to understand it through science and mathematics. And the fact that we can glimpse the rules on which the universe runs—we can, as it were, decode the cosmic code—seems to me to point to something of extraordinary and fundamental significance” (Davies, 2006a). To computer scientist-philosopher Jaron Lanier, “Fundamentally, we know very little about consciousness and the process of doing science is best served by humility. So, until we can explain this subjective experience, I think we should accept it as being there” (Lanier, 2007a). I should note that the mind-body problem is hardly the only problem in consciousness studies: there are myriad mind-related problems. Topping the list of others, perhaps, is the problem of mental causation: How can mental states affect physical states? How can thoughts make actions? Another is what attaches a particular consciousness to a particular person? What makes you, you, and me, me? Physicist Uzi Awret argues that explaining how consciousness acts on the matter of the brain to “proclaim its existence” is just as hard as explaining how matter can give rise to consciousness. In fact, the two questions constrain each other. (For example, must panpsychists consider phenomenal powers and dualists kinds of interactionism?) Awret makes the insightful point that one reason the two questions should be conjoined is that they can be complementary in the sense that explaining one makes it harder to explain the other (Awret, 2024). Mental causation is an issue for every theory of consciousness: a serious one for Dualism, less of so for monistic theories—Materialism, Monisms, Idealisms, perhaps Panpsychism-—in that everything would be made of the same stuff. Yet, still, mental causation needs explanation. But that is not my task here. While precise definitions of consciousness are challenging, almost everyone agrees that the real challenge is phenomenal consciousness. Phenomenal consciousness is the only consciousness in this Landscape. Neurogeneticist Kevin Mitchell offers fifteen questions that, he says, a theory of consciousness should be able to encompass. Of the fifteen, this Landscape addresses only parts of the first three: What is the basis of subjective experience? What is required for "the lights to be on"? Why do some entities have the capacity for consciousness while other kinds of things do not? (Michell, 2023). Philosophical tensions Two types of philosophical tensions pervade all efforts to understand consciousness: (i) epistemological versus ontological perspectives, and (ii) the nexus between correlation and causation. The former distinguishes what we can know from what really exists; they can be the same, of course, but that determination may not be a superficial one and in fact may not be possible, in practice or even in principle. The latter has an asymmetrical relationship in that causation must involve correlation whereas correlation does not necessarily involve causation; the dyadic entities that correlate might each be caused by an unknown hidden factor that just so happens to cause each of them independently. In addition, there are questions about the phylogenetic evolution of consciousness. Is it a gradual gradient, from simple single-cells seeking homeostasis via stimulus-response to environmental pressures, relatively smoothly up the phylogenetic tree to human-level consciousness (as is conventional wisdom)? Or is consciousness more like a step-function with spurts and stops? Is there a cut-off, as it were? Others, of course, maintain that consciousness is irreducible, even fundamental and primordial. I give “Philosophical Tensions” its own section, however short, to stress the explanatory burden of which every theory of consciousness must keep cognizant: the epistemology-ontology distinction and the correlation-causation conundrum. Surveys & typologies Philosopher Tim Bayne suggests three ways to think about what consciousness is: (i) experience, awareness and their synonyms (Nagel's “what-its-like-to-be”); (ii) paradigms and examples, using specifics to induce the general; and (iii) initial theories to circumscribe the borders of the concept, such that a more complete definition falls out of the theory. Examples of (iii) are conducting surveys and organizing typologies (see below) and constructing taxonomies (which is the intent of this paper) (Bayne, 2007). To appreciate theories of consciousness, there are superb surveys and typologies, scientific and philosophical, that organize the diverse offerings. David Chalmers offers that “the most important views on the metaphysics of consciousness can be divided almost exhaustively into six classes,” which he labels “type A” through “type F.” The first three (A through C) involve broadly reductive views, seeing consciousness as a physical process that involves no expansion of a physical ontology [Materialism Theories]. The other three (D through F) involve broadly nonreductive views, on which consciousness involves something irreducible in nature, and requires expansion or reconception of a physical ontology [D = Dualism; E = Epiphenomenalism; F = Monism] (Chalmers, 2003). PhilPapers (David Bourget and David Chalmers, general editors) feature hundreds of papers on Theories of Consciousness, organized into six categories: Representationalism; Higher-Order Theories of Consciousness; Functionalist Theories of Consciousness; Biological Theories of Consciousness; Panpsychism; Miscellaneous Theories of Consciousness (including Eliminativism, Illusionism, Monisms, Dualism, Idealism) (Bourget and Chalmers, PhilPapers). In presenting a case for panpsychism, Chalmers arrays and assesses materialism, dualism and monism as well as panpsychism (Chalmers, 2016a). Neuroscientist Anil Seth and Tim Bayne gather and summarize a wide range of candidate theories of consciousness seeking to explain the biological and physical basis of consciousness (22 theories that are essentially neurobiological) (Seth and Bayne, 2022). They review four prominent theories—higher-order theories; global workspace theories; reentry and predictive processing theories; and integrated information theory—and they assert that “the iterative development, testing and comparison of theories of consciousness will lead to a deeper understanding of this most central of mysteries.” However, Seth and Bayne intensify the mystery by observing, “Notably, instead of ToCs [theories of consciousness] progressively being ‘ruled out’ as empirical data accumulates, they seem to be proliferating.” This seems telling. An engagingly novel kind of survey of the mind-body problem is an insightful (and delightfully idiosyncratic) book by science writer John Horgan (2018). Rejecting “hard-core materialists” who insist “it is a pseudo-problem, which vanishes once you jettison archaic concepts like ‘the self’ and ‘free will’,” Horgan states that “the mind-body problem is quite real, simple and urgent. You face it whenever you wonder who you really are.” Recognizing that we can't escape our subjectivity when we try to solve the riddle of ourselves, he explores his thesis by delving into the professional and personal lives of nine mind-body experts. (He admits it is odd to offer “my subjective takes on my subjects' subjective takes on subjectivity.”) (Horgan, 2019). While greater understanding of the biological (and material) basis of consciousness will no doubt be achieved, the deeper question is whether such biological understanding will be sufficient to explain, even in principle, the essence of consciousness, ever. While most adherents at both ends of the Landscape of Consciousness—materialists and idealists—are confident of the ultimate vindication of their positions, others, including me, take this deeper question as remaining an open question. My high-bar attempt here is to generate a landscape that is universally exhaustive, in that whatever the ultimate explanation of consciousness, it is somewhere, somehow, embedded in this Landscape of theories (perhaps in multiple places)—even if we have no way, now or in the foreseeable future, to discern it from its cohort Landscapees. Opposing worldviews At the highest level of abstraction, there are two ways to frame competing theories of consciousness. One way pits monism, where only one kind of stuff is fundamental (though manifest in ostensibly different forms), against dualism, where both physical and mental realms are equally fundamental, without either being reducible to the other.[11] There are two kinds of monism, each sitting at opposite ends of the Landscape of Consciousness: at one end, materialism or physicalism,[12] where the only real things are products of, or subject to, the laws of physics, and can be accessed reliably and reproducibly only by the natural sciences; and at the other end, idealism, where only the mental is fundamental, and all else, including all physical existence, is derivative, a manifestation of the mental. (Nondualism, from philosophical and religious traditions originating on the Indian subcontinent, avers that consciousness and only consciousness, which is cosmic, is fundamental and primitive.) The second way to frame opposing explanations of consciousness is simply the classic physical vs. nonphysical distinction, though certain explanations, such as panpsychism, may blur the boundary. Is consciousness primitive/fundamental? A first foundational question is whether consciousness is primitive or fundamental, meaning that it cannot be totally explained by, or “reduced” to, a deeper level of reality. (“Totally” is the operative word, because consciousness can be explained by, or reduced to, neuroscience, biology, chemistry and physics, certainly in large part, at least.) If consciousness is primitive or fundamental, we can try to explore what this means, what alternative concepts of ultimate reality may follow—though, if this were the case, there is probably not much progress to be made. On the other hand, if consciousness is not primitive or fundamental, there is much further work to be done and progress to be made. To begin, there are (at least) three next questions: First, is consciousness “real,” or, on the other hand, is it sufficiently an “illusion,” a brain trick, as it were, which would render consternation over the conundrum moot, if not meaningless? Second, if consciousness is real (and not primitive), then since in some sense it would be emergent, would this emergence of consciousness be “weak,” meaning that in principle it could be explained by, or reduced to, more fundamental science (even if in practice, it could not be, for a long time, if ever)? Third, if weak emergence has insufficient resources, would this emergence of consciousness be “strong,” meaning that it would be forever impossible to totally explain consciousness, even in principle, by reducing it to more fundamental levels of scientific explanation. Finally, is there an intermediate position, where consciousness was not fundamental ab initio, but when it evolved or emerged, consciousness came to become somehow inevitable, more than an accidental byproduct of physical processes? Some see in the grand evolution of the cosmos a process where elements in the cosmos—or more radically, the cosmos itself—work to make the cosmos increasingly self-aware. Some founders of quantum theory famously held consciousness as fundamental. Max Planck: “I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness” (The Observer, 1931a). Erwin Schrödinger: “Although I think that life may be the result of an accident, I do not think that of consciousness. Consciousness cannot be accounted for in physical terms. For consciousness is absolutely fundamental. It cannot be accounted for in terms of anything else” (The Observer, 1931b). Also, “The total number of minds in the universe is one. In fact, consciousness is a singularity phasing within all beings.” Arthur Eddington: “when we speak of the existence of the material universe we are presupposing consciousness.” (The Observer, 1931c). Louis de Broglie: “I regard consciousness and matter as different aspects of one and the same thing” (The Observer, 1931d). John von Neumann (less explicitly): "Consciousness, whatever it is, appears to be the only thing in physics that can ultimately cause this collapse or observation." John Stewart Bell: “As regards mind, I am fully convinced that it has a central place in the ultimate nature of reality” (Mollan, 2007). Of course, consciousness as fundamental would eliminate only Materialism Theories. Compatible would be Panpsychisms, Monisms, Dualisms and Idealisms; also, some Quantum Theories and perhaps Integrated Information Theory. (But Materialism has substantial resources.) Identity theory I take special interest in identity theory (Smart, 2007), not because I subscribe to the early mind-brain identity theory as originally formulated, but because its way of thinking is far more pervasive and far more elucidating than often realized (though perhaps in a way not as sanguine as some may have hoped). In PhilPapers’ Theories of Consciousness, Mind-Brain Identity Theory is classified under Biological Theories of Consciousness. Classic mind-brain identity theory is indeed the commitment that mental states/events/processes are identical to brain states/events/processes (Aranyosi, PhilPapers). I/RLK would want to generalize this. I would want to say that any theory of consciousness, to be complete and sufficient, must make an identity claim. Bottom line, every theory of consciousness that offers itself as a total explanation, necessary if not always sufficient, must be a kind of identity theory. I mean identity theory in the strong sense, in the same sense that the Morning Star and the Evening Star must both be Venus, such that if you eliminate the Morning Star you cannot have the Evening Star. (David Papineau makes a virtue of this necessity in his mind-brain identity argument for physicalism [Papineau, 2020b]). It doesn't matter which specific materialist/physicalist or nonmaterial/nonphysical theory—all of them, in essence, are identity theories. Here's the point. Everywhere there is consciousness, there is some kind of “consciousness identity” actually happening—it is always happening and it never changes. Something happening or existing in every sentient creature just is consciousness. Scientific Papers on Landscape of Consciousness Original paper Kuhn, R. L. (2024). A landscape of consciousness: Toward a taxonomy of explanations and implications. Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology, 190 (August 2024), 28–169. Three subsequent papers/articles: New Scientist, a premier science magazine/website, featured Landscape of Consciousness. Current Neurology and Neuroscience Reports, Landscape’s application in clinical thinking — “What a ‘Landscape of Consciousness' Means for Neurology and Neuroscience." Journal of Consciousness Studies - "Theories on the Landscape: An Orthogonal Approach.” Haunting thought If I’d be telling that my lifelong passion to understand consciousness has been motivated entirely by hard-nosed science or cool-coated intellectualism, I’d be telling a fib. A sub rosa motivation has the ever-haunting presence of a teenage thought: “Should a being who can perceive eternity be denied it?” But I won't fool myself. Robert Lawrence Kuhn All Landscape Theories. Landscape Categories. Landscape Grid. Landscape Map. Interactive Visualizations. Landscape Abstract: Eight diverse theories (explanations) of consciousness are arrayed on a roughly physicalist-to-nonphysicalist landscape of essences and mechanisms. Theory categories: Materialism (subcategories: philosophical, eliminative/illusionism, mind-brain identity, neurobiological, electromagnetic field, computational & functionalism, homeostatic & affective, embodied & enactive, relational, first-order, higher-order, language, phylogenetic/evolutionary); Non-Reductive Physicalism; Quantum & Dimensional; Information; Panpsychisms; Monisms; Dualisms; Idealisms. These are followed by three final categories—methodological, evidentiary, and challenging—respectively: Phenomenology, Anomalous & Altered States, and Challenge. Thus, Landscape has 11 primary categories. Each theory is self-described by or in the words of its adherents; critique is minimal and only for clarification; and there is no attempt to adjudicate among theories. The implications of consciousness theories (explanations) are assessed with respect to four big questions: meaning/purpose/value (if any); AI consciousness; virtual immortality; and survival beyond death. These questions, I submit, cannot be understood except in the light of particular theories of consciousness. A Landscape of Consciousness, I suggest, offers perspective. * * * * * Footnotes [1]. Feedback is appreciated, especially explanations or theories of consciousness not included, or not described accurately, or not classified properly; also, modifications of the classification typology. “A Landscape of Consciousness” is a work-in-progress, permanently. [2]. I make no attempt to be exhaustive historically: while Bohm, Jung, Aquinas, Aurobindo, and Dao De Jing are included; Plato, the Psalmist, Nagarjuna, Confucius, and the Apostle Paul are not. [3]. I use “explanation” and “theory” interchangeably, though I chose “explanations,” not “theories,” for the subtitle. “Theories” range from the “Theory of Relativity” with high precision, to theories in the life and social sciences with confidence levels that vary wildly, to “I have a theory” (meaning “I have an idea,” about anything, say, why my favorite sports team keeps losing). Other terms are “hypothesis,” an initial idea to guide research, and “model,” a simplification of the real world to isolate and test insights. All these terms have precise definitions in the literature (see Daniel Stoljar, Kind & Stoljar, 2023, pp. 112–113). But on this Landscape everyone picks their own term. Most pick “theory,” in part because they really believe their baby is beautiful. No matter the term, we are all after the same goal: the foundation(s) of consciousness. [4]. Deliberately, “A Landscape ….” not “The Landscape ….” I acknowledge, with pleasure, precedent to Leonard Susskind's pioneering The Cosmic Landscape (string theory structures and the anthropic principle). [5]. My typology is arbitrary, and any association with political connotations of “left” and “right” is coincidental and comical. [6]. UCLA Department of Anatomy and Brain Research Institute, 1964–1968. [7]. Closer To Truth is co-created, produced and directed by Peter Getzels. [8]. Closer To Truth features over 100 TV episodes and over 1500 video interviews on consciousness and related topics, issues and questions in brain and mind, such as free will, personal identity, and alien intelligences. Closer To Truth website, www.closertotruth.com and Closer To Truth YouTube channel, www.youtube.com/@CloserToTruthTV. [9]. In addition, viewers globally send me their theories on consciousness: some are coherent, a few are original, all are passionate. I consider them all—most, admittedly, I skim—and I learn some, enriching the Landscape. There seems a sharp division: those striving to develop purely physicalist explanations (however complex), and those taking consciousness as in some sense fundamental (whether motivated by religion, parapsychology or philosophy). [10]. The noncognitive nature of perception precludes cognitive theories of consciousness. In particular, Block says there is an argument from one of the cases of nonconceptual perception to the conclusion that there is phenomenal consciousness without access consciousness. [11]. Logically, there is no necessity for dualism to be the limit; there can be innumerable kinds of irreducible “World-Stuffs”; for this Landscape, monism vs. dualism is sufficiently daunting. [12]. “Materialism” and “physicalism” are roughly equivalent ontological terms, often used interchangeably, although physicalism can cover wider territory, including properties that the laws of physics describe, e.g., space, time, energy, matter. Moreover, physicalism can connote more epistemological matters, in terms of how we can know things. Materialism can be distinguished as the more restrictive term, meaning all that is real is matter and its equivalents. It connotes more ontological concerns, in terms of what really exists. In this Landscape, we go more with “materialism,” which also maintains historical continuity.

---

## Landscape Structure
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/landscape/landscape-structure

This Landscape of Consciousness (LoC) website presents about 500 theories (explanations) of consciousness, organizes them into a suggested taxonomy, and explores their implications for big questions, such as AI consciousness and life after death. Five ways to access and visualize all categories and theories of consciousness (plus Search and Ask AI). Landscape Grid Landscape Categories All Landscape Theories Landscape Map Interactive Visualizations All theories in all images/graphics are linked to their theory page. Just click on them. This LoC website is an extension, expansion, and revision of my review paper, “A Landscape of Consciousness: Toward a Taxonomy of Explanations and Implications” (Kuhn, 2024), which was published in Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology (Vol. 190, August 2024). In the paper, I seek an organizing framework for diverse theories of consciousness and to explore their impact on big questions. My central theses are twofold: (i) understanding consciousness at this point cannot be limited to selected ways of thinking or knowing, but should seek expansive yet rational diversity, and (ii) issues such as AI consciousness, virtual immortality, meaning/purpose/value, life after death, free will, etc., cannot be understood except in the light of particular theories of consciousness.[1] Àlex Gómez-Marín reviewed the paper on IAI News. SciTechDaily report. I describe Landscape in an FQxI blog (Foundational Questions Institute). I have appreciated all the comments, suggestions, and critiques from colleagues and global readers, and much of the extension and expansion of this LoC website is derived from such feedback on the LoC paper. The focus here on the LoC website, as in the LoC paper, is ontological: what is the essence of our inner subjectivity, our awareness, our felt experience—what generates our perceiving, our enjoying, that which we call qualia? The suggested taxonomy arrays the ~500 theories into 11 categories—one of which, Materialism, has 13 subcategories. Eight diverse categories of theories (explanations) of consciousness are arrayed on a roughly physicalist-to-nonphysicalist linear landscape of essences and mechanisms, from Materialism to Idealism. Theory categories: Materialism (subcategories: philosophical, eliminative/illusionism, mind-brain identity, neurobiological, electromagnetic field, computational & functionalism, homeostatic & affective, embodied & enactive, relational, first-order, higher-order, language, phylogenetic/evolutionary); Non-Reductive Physicalism; Quantum & Dimensional; Information; Panpsychisms; Neutral Monisms; Dualisms; Idealisms. These eight Materialism-to-Idealism categories are followed by three final categories not in the roughly physicalist-to-nonphysicalist linear landscape—methodological, evidentiary, and challenging—respectively: Phenomenology, Anomalous & Altered States, and Challenge. Thus, Landscape has 11 primary categories. Each theory has its own page and description, and to get an overall sense of this rather vast territory, we offer five ways to visualize the Landscape and to access each theory (plus Search and Ask AI). The theories skew toward contemporary and scientific theories, but I remain committed to trying to reflect the collective wisdom of humanity across time and cultures, though constraints are obvious. While I myself am not a consciousness practitioner, as it were (I do not meditate or take psychedelics—I play intense table tennis!), I have a lifelong and unremitting passion to understand consciousness. I distinguish what consciousness is ontologically from how consciousness happens operationally. The Landscape I present is populated primarily by claims of what consciousness actually is, not so much how it functions and how it evolved over deep time (although both how it functions and how it evolved may well reflect what it is). This is not a landscape of how consciousness emerged or its purpose or its content—sensations, perceptions, cognitions, emotions, language—none of these—although all of these are recruited by various explanations on offer. Mechanisms of consciousness are relevant here only to the extent that they elucidate a core theory of consciousness. For example, the 'neurogeographic' debate between the 'front of the head' folks—the Global Workspace and Higher-Order theorists—and the 'back of the head' folks—the Integrated Information and Recurrent Processing theorists—may be essential for a complete neurobiological explanation of consciousness (Block, 2023, pp. 417–418), but it is of only mild interest for an ontological survey of the Landscape. If the Global Workspace suddenly shifted to the back of the head and Integrated Information to the front, would the 'trading-places' inversion make much of an ontological difference? Traditionally and simplistically, the clash is between materialism/physicalism and dualism or idealism? Could such oversimplification be part of the problem? Other categories and subcategories, I submit, have standing. The alternative theories of consciousness that follow come about via my hundreds of conversations and decades of readings and night-musings. As noted, I offer 11 categories of theories (explanations) of consciousness; all but one present multiple specific theories directly; only Materialism has subcategories. Here are the 11 primary categories of theories: Materialism (with 13 subcategories); Non-Reductive Physicalism; Quantum & Dimensions; Information; Panpsychisms; Neutral Monisms; Dualisms; Idealisms; Phenomenology; Anomalous & Altered States; Challenge. It is no surprise that Materialism has by far the largest number of specific theories. It is the only category with a three-level organization: there are 13 subcategories under Materialism, each housing nine to 26 specific theories. This makes sense in that there are more ways to explain consciousness with neurobiological and other physical models than with non-neurobiological and non-physical models, and also in that the challenge for materialism is to account for how the physical brain generates mental states (and there are increasingly innovative and diverse claims to do so). There is obvious overlap among categories and among theories within categories, and it is often challenging to pick distinguishing traits to classify theories in such a two-dimensional, artificial, and imposed typology. For example, one can well argue that Non-Reductive Physicalism, Quantum & Dimensions, and perhaps even Information and Panpsychisms, are all, in essence, materialist theories, in that they do not require anything beyond the physical world (whether in current or modestly extended form). I break out these categories because, in recent times, each has developed a certain independence, prominence, and credibility (at least in the sense of the credulity of adherents), and because they differ sufficiently from classic Materialism theories, exemplified by the fundamental laws of physics (as we know them) and neurobiological mechanisms. Moreover, there are many ways to envision a landscape, of course, and, as a result, many ways to array theories. I claim no privileged view. In addition, while each theory is assigned to a single category on the Landscape, the categories are not mutually exclusive, such that theories may well fall into several categories, but attempting to introduce even secondary categories would add dizzying complexity to a landscape that is already rather complex. For example, Joachim Kepper states, "In the case of my theory, the leading category is, quite rightly, 'Quantum & Dimensions.' At the same time, my theory is also compatible with panpsychism (cosmopsychism) and dual-aspect monism, which could be regarded as valid secondary categories." Here's another example of the complexities, and even the ambiguities, of classifying theories of consciousness. In response to the Landscape summary of her theory, “Gefter’s Enactive-QBist Engagement,” science philosopher/writer Amanda Gefter, a friend and colleague, wrote to me [RLK] to make an important point (reproduced with her permission). “I don't consider my view, or enaction in general, to fall under materialism. But it's a nuanced point, because it's certainly not idealist or dualist either. The way I think about it is that materialism and idealism, to even be formulated as categories in the first place, require an absolute subject-object split. That way, the idealists can take the subject side as foundational and the object side as emergent, the materialists can do the reverse, and dualists can take some of each. But by rejecting the absoluteness of that split in the first place, enaction (and QBism) doesn't operate within those categories. It's not all first person (like idealism) or all third person (like materialism) but something more like second person, where the split itself is enacted in a participatory way. Some forms of embodied cognition are perhaps more comfortably categorized as materialist if they take the body itself as a given, as an object. But enaction describes cognition and sense-making as processes through which the body makes itself in participation with the world, so the body is an ongoing verb rather than a pregiven noun. By enacting itself, the body is functioning as both subject and object, and doesn't fit squarely in either one alone.” I [RLK] responded with appreciation, recognizing that Amanda makes a critical distinction in classifying enactivism from a subject-object framework—and joked that in classifying theories of consciousness, instead of being restricted to a 2D map/grid, if I had, say, Hilbert Space, I could do a better job. I explained that my approach to Materialism as a category is based on fundamental ontology and framed rather simplistically, defined in the negative. If there is nothing in the theory that is outside the bounds of current physics, it is Materialism. Enactivists, to my knowledge, take pains to stress that there is nothing spooky or non-material in their theories. (Qbism, on the other hand, I would not classify as under Materialism.) I do break out “Non-Reductive Physicalism” and “Quantum & Dimensional” as categories separate from Materialism— even though they have physicalist ontologies—because they offer a different or radically enlarged view of the physical. So, I cannot claim a logically precise demarcation between where Materialist theories stop and Non-Materialist theories begin—I’m simply satisficing, given the constraints, as best I can. I do stress that I am presenting “A Landscape,” not “The Landscape,” in that there are alternative classification schemes equally valid. Another complexity is that the ideas of epiphenomenalism, functionalism, emergence, mind-brain identity, and supervenience, and the mechanisms of prediction and language models, while themselves not specific explanations of consciousness, represent core concepts in philosophy of mind that can affect many explanations and influence many implications. Some would impose an 'entrance requirement' on the Landscape, such that theories admitted need be 'scientific' in the sense that the scientific method should be applicable, whether in a formal Popperian falsification sense or with a weaker verification methodology. I do not subscribe to this limitation, although we must always distinguish between science and philosophy, along with other potential forms of knowledge. (My quasi-“Overton Window” of consciousness—i.e., the range of explanatory theories I feel comfortable presenting, if not endorsing—may be wider than those of others, whether physicalists or nonphysicalists[2] [Birch, 2023]. One reason for my wider window is the unsolicited theories of consciousness I receive on Closer To Truth, some of which I find intriguing, if not convincing.) Here’s the backstory. The journal, Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology (PBMB), invited me to write an article on consciousness broadly. (I was reluctant, imagining what it would entail—even so, I wildly underestimated.) In my first draft, I included, along with all the hard and speculative science, philosophical and theological explanations: complex philosophical theories (e.g., non-reductive physicalism, emergent dualism, cosmopsychism) and diverse religious theories (i.e., Hindu, Buddhist, Daoist, Judaic, Christian, Islamic, Indigenous). The anonymous peer reviewer, while generously appreciative of the scientific theories (and offering helpful suggestions), recommended cutting the purely philosophical and theological theories—which, he said, journal readers would not much care about. I responded by agreeing that journal readers would likely not care, but that I surely did care, and because I was going to do this Landscape once in my life, I must make it as complete as I, in my idiosyncratic way, saw fit. If PBMB did not want to publish it with all the theories, I’d totally understand and seek another venue. To PBMB’s credit, they agreed to publish it all, nothing cut. The Landscape itself, as a two-dimensional typology, is limited, and imperfect decisions must be made: which theories to include and which not; where to classify; what is the optimal order; whether to append a possessive name to the theory's title; and the like. I've tried to include all the well-known theories and an idiosyncratic selection of lesser-known theories that have some aspects of originality, rationality, coherence, and, well, charm. In addition, a few theories reflect the beliefs of common people, or the interests of Closer To Truth viewers, though they are largely dismissed by the scientific and philosophical communities. Some theories, some think bizarre, 'fabulous' in the original pejorative meaning of the word: mythical, celebrated in fable. All reflect the imaginations of the human mind, driven by a quest to know reality in general and the nature of consciousness in particular. Please do not take the unavoidable appearance of visual inequality among theories as indicating their truth-value equivalence (or, for that matter, my personal opinion of them). Neuroscientist Joseph LeDoux, noting “the broad nature” of the Landscape (on reviewing an early draft), suggests that “The Sniff Test” might be relevant. (He uses The Sniff Test to assess the strong AI view substituting 'consciousness' for 'intelligence' [LeDoux, 2023a, p. 301].) I'm all for imposing an olfactory hurdle for theories of consciousness (recognizing that olfactory bulbs do differ). As I have appreciated all the feedback I have received on the LoC article, I will appreciate continuing feedback on this LoC website. Feedback is most welcome, suggestions and critiques, of course—including explanations or theories of consciousness that are not included, or not described accurately, or not classified properly; also, improvements to the classification typology. Scientific Papers on Landscape of Consciousness Original paper Kuhn, R. L. (2024). A landscape of consciousness: Toward a taxonomy of explanations and implications. Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology, 190 (August 2024), 28–169. Three subsequent papers/articles: New Scientist, a premier science magazine/website, featured Landscape of Consciousness. Current Neurology and Neuroscience Reports, Landscape’s application in clinical thinking — “What a ‘Landscape of Consciousness' Means for Neurology and Neuroscience." Journal of Consciousness Studies - "Theories on the Landscape: An Orthogonal Approach.” Note: For many theories added to this Landscape of Consciousness website that were not in the original Landscape of Consciousness paper, LLMs (Claude and ChatGPT, also Gemini) were used to ensure the accuracy and precision of terms and concepts. No LLMs were used in the original paper. Nothing is sacrosanct. We look forward to providing updates and making revisions. This Landscape of Consciousness website is a work-in-progress—permanently. Reader comments, feedback, additions, criticisms are all welcome. To reiterate, the rough flow of the theories arraying the Landscape of Consciousness—as per my idiosyncratic approach—is on a rough, arbitrarily linear, physicalism-to-nonphysicalism spectrum from, to begin with, most physical, and to end with, most nonphysical (or least physical). Again, there are five ways to access and visualize all categories and theories of consciousness (plus Search and Ask AI). Landscape Grid. Landscape Categories. All Landscape Theories. Landscape Map. Interactive Visualizations. All theories in all images/graphics are linked to their theory page. Just click on them. Footnotes [1]. Some sections are derived or adapted from my earlier article: Kuhn, Robert Lawrence (2016a). Virtual Immortality. Skeptic Magazine, Volume 21, Number 2, 2016. [2]. “In politics, the ‘Overton window’ is the range of positions that politicians can safely raise in public discourse. Propose something outside the window, and you can expect resistance—not just to the proposal itself, but to the idea that, after saying what you just said, you even merit a place in the debate. Science too, has Overton windows. Sometimes positions can be so far outside the mainstream that they invite the charge that we should not even be discussing this” (Birch, 2023).

---

## Edge of Consciousness
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/landscape/edge-of-consciousness

Edge of Consciousness

---

## Closer To Truth Views
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/landscape/closer-to-truth-views

Following are brief comments on consciousness from participants on Closer To Truth (arranged alphabetically). Perspectives are diverse. Quotes are from the Closer To Truth website – www.closertotruth.com. Tim Bayne: “We're not in a position to advance theories of any detail with any degree of certainty. The science of consciousness is so immature and there are so many fundamental disputes. I think what we should be looking for are constraints on theories, and once we've got those, then we're going to be in a better position to discern the underlying theories … And there's a fundamental sense in which we don't know what we're talking about. I think we need to be honest. But we can still make progress” (Bayne, 2007). Susan Blackmore: “What we need to do and have totally failed to do so far, is have some kind of true, nondual understanding of the world. What feels like an outside world of physical things, and what feels like an inside world of my experience—we must somehow bring these together. Physicists are trying at one level, psychologists at another, philosophers at still another … Nobody knows what consciousness is” (Blackmore, 2007). Colin Blakemore: “The problem of brain and mind is that it's chalk and cheese. I know what a brain is. It's a physical thing; I know what it looks like, what it contains. I can see brain sections under the microscope. Then this other word, ‘mind’—and we all know what that means too, in a way. But you can't put ‘mind’ under a microscope. We don't know what constitutes it. Mind is a useful word in dialogue but it doesn't map onto something you can study easily experimentally. So, neuroscientists have tended to simply put the concept to one side. It's not the mind we're working on; it's the brain. How much of an animal's behavior can be explained just by studying its brains? You can go a long way, a very long way” (Blakemore, 2012b). Stephen Braude: “It's not just that I'm an anti-physicalist, I'm an anti-mechanist. I don't think we can give lower-level explanations, explanations by analysis, in terms of psychological regularities or capacities. This takes us to new ways of understanding human behavior: not as if it's emitted by a kind of behavior mechanism, but to see and understand human action as one of an indefinitely large number of possibilities in a much grander action space” (Braude, 2007b). Hubert Dreyfus: “Nobody has any idea [about consciousness], and they should just keep quiet until they do, because I think it is the hardest question: How in the world could ‘matter,’ which is this third-person material stuff, ever produce consciousness? And AI and computers are not helping us understand it one bit” (Dreyfus, 2009). Susan Greenfield: “I find unhelpful this notion that our brains are like satellite dishes, and out there floating in the ether is consciousness, which our brains pick up” (Greenfield, 2012). Jaron Lanier: “The real drama of the question of consciousness—on which I have absolutely no insight—is the possibility of an afterlife.” Post-mortem survival, Lanier says, is “the name of the game for a lot of people who concern themselves with consciousness … I think the scientific community ought not to tread on that territory unless it has something constructive to say.” It's “simply dumb,” he says, for scientists to tell people, “Don't believe in that.” “Don't have any hope.” “Don't have any faith.” It's not something we have evidence about, Lanier posits, then cautions, “Make your faith disciplined so you don't get manipulated by people trying to build power bases or trying to sell silly superstitions.” Lanier says that “hard attack on soft faith will backfire and is destructive.” Moreover, “ultimately it isn't honest, because many of us do feel this consciousness thing inside, and many of us wonder what it’s all about on some larger level. We just don't have the tools to do anything but wonder” (Lanier, 2007a, 2007b). Ken Mogi: “In Eastern traditions, there's no such strict separation between the mind and the body. The mind is the body, and vice versa. If you go to a Kyoto Zen temple, you see this rich tradition of contemplation and meditation, in which people generally assume that the mind is the body and by modifying the body state, you can modify your mind state as well… It’s really nice to have this tradition behind you, but at the same time, we are living in the modern era, and we have to link to contemporary science. I think the gist of the mind-body problem from this perspective is that we are living here and now. We can talk about the mind, but the fact is that the mind is here and now. And what is here and now, our body… What Einstein confessed that he didn't understand is the nature of the ‘now.’ How is it that this present, the now, is so special in the almost infinite history of the universe?” (Mogi, 2014b). Massimo Pigliucci: “The only examples we have of consciousness are biological. That doesn't mean that, in principle, it is not possible to build artificial consciousness, but we have no idea how to do it. And we don't know whether, in fact, it is even possible. This truly is an open question where I am entirely agnostic. But the fact of the matter is, in science, when you study something, you start with what you have, not with what you might know in the future. And the thing that we know about consciousness is that it is an evolved biological phenomenon based on particular substrates” (Pigliucci, 2023a, Pigliucci, 2023b.). Alex Rosenberg: “I think that the available scientific evidence which drives us to atheism should also drive us to a denial of free will, to a denial of the existence of absolute fundamental ethical theories, to a physical materialism about the nature of consciousness, and to a denial that the history or trajectory of our species' existence on the planet has any particular goal, or purpose, or endpoint, or meaning” (Rosenberg, 2022.). Eric Schwitzgebel: “I don't rule out the possibility that we're not in fact physically embodied in the way that we think we are. One possibility on my map, although not generally accepted in contemporary philosophy, is idealism. On an idealist view, minds and bodies are just kind of constructions of our minds. And so it would be misleading in a certain way to say that minds were physically embodied. It would be more like bodies are ‘enminded’” (Schwitzgebel, 2014). Gino Yu: “The Western way of thinking, the Western framing of the world, is to try to understand who or what I am by looking outward, rather than by looking inward, observing what is happening …. Trying to understand the realm of the mind intellectually is like trying to scratch an itch you cannot reach” (Yu, Gino. 2013). Samir Zaki: “Not a single sentence written about consciousness is worth reading. There's a lot about how it's being made a subject worthy of scientific study—I don't think it will produce anything too worthwhile, actually … Philosophical problems become philosophical problems by virtue of the fact that there are no solutions to them. What new theories have been produced by consciousness? They have been negligible” (Zeki, 2019). In addition, “Must the Universe Contain Consciousness?”—with Paul Davies, Leonard Susskind, J. Richard Gott, Saul Perlmutter, Alan Guth, Leonard Mlodinow, Christof Koch, Brian Josephson, Stuart Hameroff, Michael Shermer, and Deepak Chopra (Must the Universe Contain, n.d.). Separately, physics-savvy filmmaker Curt Jaimungal offers a “layering” approach to consciousness, in which successive levels (“layers”) of multiple theories reveal greater complexities and depth, much as he does in expounding string theory on his “Theory of Everything” podcast (Jaimungal, 2014a, 2014b). While more an epistemological framework than an ontological theory, “layering” could facilitate novel ways to think about consciousness. Finally, the elemental enigma of consciousness—the implicit failure of any of the myriad theories to suffice—sugggests the inconvenient idea that perhaps the whole consciousness enterprise is fundamentally flawed. For example, post-realist philosopher Hilary Lawson has reality as an "unspecified other"—which he calls "Opennesss"—in principle inaccessible and unknowable—and what we do is "Close" the Openness of the forever-hidden "real world" by taking parts and pieces into "our world" of things and thoughts and properties. We "Close" via language, observation and reason, which is required to engage and intervene, but in doing so we also limit or cut off untold realms of reality (Lawson, 2001). One could suppose this is what we do with consciousness.

---

## Meta-Problem of Consciousness
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/landscape/meta-problem-of-consciousness

We've got one more topic. It's not on the Landscape. It's about the Landscape. It's the meta-problem of consciousness. David Chalmers, its originator, explains: “The meta-problem of consciousness is the problem of explaining why we think that there is a problem of consciousness.” (Chalmers, 2018). While the meta-problem is not a theory or explanation of consciousness, it gives insight into the ways of thinking of leading theorists and it probes the psychosocial structure of the field. Chalmers continues: “The meta-problem is a problem about a problem. The initial problem is the hard problem of consciousness: why and how do physical processes in the brain give rise to conscious experience? The meta-problem is the problem of explaining why we think consciousness poses a hard problem, or in other terms, the problem of explaining why we think consciousness is hard to explain.” Equivalently, it is the problem of explaining why people have problem intuitions … including metaphysical intuitions (“consciousness is non-physical”), explanatory intuitions (“physical processes can't fully explain consciousness”), knowledge intuitions (“someone who knows all about the brain but has never seen colors doesn't know what it’s like to see red”), and modal intuitions (“we can imagine all these physical processes without consciousness”). There are also intuitions about the value of consciousness, the distribution of consciousness, and more (Chalmers, 2018). In a special issue of the Journal of Consciousness Studies dedicated to the meta-problem of consciousness, 39 colleagues respond to Chalmers. Following are several whose own theories are presented on the Landscape (Journal of Consciousness Studies, 2019). Andy Clark, Karl Friston, Sam Wilkinson: “The meta-problem of consciousness is the problem of explaining the behaviours and verbal reports that we associate with the so-called ‘hard problem of consciousness’. These may include reports of puzzlement, of the attractiveness of dualism, of explanatory gaps, and the like. We present and defend a solution to the meta-problem. Our solution takes as its starting point the emerging picture of the brain as a hierarchical inference engine. We show why such a device, operating under familiar forms of adaptive pressure, may come to represent some of its mid-level inferences as especially certain. These mid-level states confidently re-code raw sensory stimulation in ways that (they are able to realize) fall short of fully determining how properties and states of affairs are arranged in the distal world. This drives a wedge between experience and the world. Advanced agents then represent these mid-level inferences as irreducibly special, becoming increasingly puzzled as a result” (Clark et al., 2019). Daniel Dennett: “David Chalmers underestimates the possibility that actually answering the ‘hard question’ will make both the hard problem and the meta-problem of consciousness evaporate” (Dennett, 2019). Keith Frankish: “The meta-problem of consciousness prompts the meta-question: is it the only problem consciousness poses? If we could explain all our phenomenal intuitions in topic-neutral terms, would anything remain to be explained? Realists say yes, illusionists no. In this paper I defend the illusionist answer. While it may seem obvious that there is something further to be explained—consciousness itself—this seemingly innocuous claim immediately raises a further problem—the hard meta-problem. What could justify our continued confidence in the existence of consciousness once all our intuitions about it have been explained away? The answer would involve heavy-duty metaphysical theorizing, probably including a commitment either to substance dualism or to the existence of a mysterious intrinsic subjectivity. A far less extravagant option is to endorse the illusionist response and conclude that the meta-problem is not a meta-problem at all but the problem of consciousness” (Frankish, 2019). Nicholas Humphrey (who offers “A Soft Landing for Consciousness”): “Problem reports result from several misunderstandings about the nature and functions of phenomenal consciousness. I discuss some philosophical and scientific correctives that, taken together, can make the hard problem seem less hard” (Humphrey, 2019). David Papineau: “I am glad that David Chalmers has now come round to the view that explaining the ‘problem intuitions’ about consciousness is the key to a satisfactory philosophical account of the topic. I find it surprising, however, given his previous writings, that Chalmers does not simply attribute these intuitions to the conceptual gap between physical and phenomenal facts. Still, it is good that he doesn't, given that this was always a highly implausible account of the problem intuitions. Unfortunately, later in his paper Chalmers slides back into his misguided previous emphasis on the conceptual gap, in his objections to orthodox a posteriori physicalism. Because of this he fails to appreciate how this orthodox physicalism offers a natural solution to the challenges posed by consciousness” (Papineau, 2019). Galen Strawson: “Many hold that (1) consciousness poses a uniquely hard problem. Why is this so? Chalmers considers 12 main answers in ‘The Meta-Problem of Consciousness’ … This paper focuses on number 11, and is principally addressed to those who endorse (1) because they think that (2) consciousness can't possibly be physical. It argues that to hold (2) is to make the mistake of underestimating the physical, and that almost all who make this mistake do so because they think they know more about the physical than they do. When we see things right, we see that there is nothing in physics nor in our everyday experience of the physical that gives us any good reason to hold (2). This leaves us free to embrace the overwhelmingly strong reasons for accepting that (3) consciousness is wholly physical. The correct general response is the same as the response to wave–particle duality: acceptance without expectation of understanding” (Strawson, 2019a). Joseph Levine: “The key to understanding both consciousness itself and addressing the meta-problem is to understand what acquaintance is and what its objects are …. First, treat conscious experience as the holding of a basic, intentional relation of acquaintance between the conscious subject and a virtual world of objects and properties. In a sense I would endorse the almost universally deplored ‘Cartesian theatre’ model of experience. What it is to have conscious experience, on this view, is just to stand in a primitive or basic acquaintance relation to the objects of experience …. We still need a way of making the cognitive immediacy of experience explicable in the nature of the relation between the cognitive states about acquaintance and the phenomenon of acquaintance itself. One possible line of investigation is to employ the notion of cognitive phenomenology. After all, it is when one is occurrently entertaining thoughts about one's experience that one gains knowledge of this acquaintance relation … Unfortunately …, it is unclear how our acquaintance with the contents of experience can serve as data for our theory of conscious experience” (Levine, 2019). Chalmers responds to his respondents in-depth (Chalmers, 2020a, 2020b, 2020c). Here is how he organizes his responses. “The commentaries divide fairly neatly into about three groups. About half of them discuss potential solutions to the meta-problem. About a quarter of them discuss the question of whether intuitions about consciousness are universal, widespread, or culturally local. And about a quarter discuss illusionism about consciousness and especially debunking arguments that move from a solution to the meta-problem to illusionism … As a result, I have divided my reply into three parts, each of which can stand alone. This first part is ‘How Can We Solve the Meta-Problem of Consciousness?’ The other two parts are ‘Is the Hard Problem of Consciousness Universal?’ and ‘Debunking Arguments for Illusionism about Consciousness’” (Chalmers, 2020a). “How can we solve the meta-problem? As a reminder, the meta-problem is the problem of explaining our problem intuitions about consciousness, including the intuition that consciousness poses a hard problem and related explanatory and metaphysical intuitions, among others. One constraint is to explain the intuitions in topic-neutral terms (for example, physical, computational, structural, or evolutionary terms) that do not make explicit appeal to consciousness in the explanation … I canvassed about 15 potential solutions to the meta-problem. I expressed sympathy with seven of them as elements of a solution: introspective models, phenomenal concepts, independent roles, introspective opacity, immediate knowledge, primitive quality attribution, and primitive relation attribution …” (Chalmers, 2020a). How does Chalmers view developments in consciousness studies since he highlighted, or ignited, the hard problem? “One thing that's really nice to see now is a lot of people are taking the problem a lot more seriously. And there has been a panoply of ideas, left and right, philosophers and scientists trying to address the problem of consciousness in a way that doesn't reduce consciousness to something else or try to deflate it, whereas in the past, all the predominant approaches were reductionist. Now, that's not the case” (Chalmers, 2016b). As for Chalmer's own thinking, he says, “I've gradually evolved toward trying to focus on constructive theories of consciousness. For a while, it was a matter of fighting battles with materialists; I still enjoy that, but I think we're at the point where it's more worthwhile to focus on getting the details of constructive theory right. So, I've thought a lot about panpsychism, the idea that consciousness is fundamental in the universe—and how you can overcome the problems for that kind of view. I've thought about the idea that consciousness might play a role in quantum mechanics, and how that might help provide a role for consciousness in the universe. In general, although my hair has gotten shorter, my tolerance for wild ideas has gotten higher: I'm prepared to entertain all kinds of crazy ideas when it comes to a theory of consciousness. I think one thing we've learned is that we're just not going to have a good theory of consciousness without a wild idea or two in there. If you try to make it all common sense, it's just not going to work. But I think we've also learned we can be rigorous at the same time (Chalmers, 2016b).

---

## A landscape of consciousness: Toward a taxonomy of explanations and implications
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/landscape/a-landscape-of-consciousness-toward-a-taxonomy-of-explanations-and-implications

Following is the original article, "A Landscape of Consciousness: Toward a Taxonomy of Explanations and Implications." Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology, Volume 190, 2024, Pages 28-169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pbiomolbio.2023.12.003. Abstract Diverse explanations or theories of consciousness are arrayed on a roughly physicalist-to-nonphysicalist landscape of essences and mechanisms. Categories: Materialism Theories (philosophical, neurobiological, electromagnetic field, computational and informational, homeostatic and affective, embodied and enactive, relational, representational, language, phylogenetic evolution); Non-Reductive Physicalism; Quantum Theories; Integrated Information Theory; Panpsychisms; Monisms; Dualisms; Idealisms; Anomalous and Altered States Theories; Challenge Theories. There are many subcategories, especially for Materialism Theories. Each explanation is self-described by its adherents, critique is minimal and only for clarification, and there is no attempt to adjudicate among theories. The implications of consciousness explanations or theories are assessed with respect to four questions: meaning/purpose/value (if any); AI consciousness; virtual immortality; and survival beyond death. A Landscape of Consciousness, I suggest, offers perspective. Explanations of consciousness abound and the radical diversity of theories is telling. Explanations, or theories, are said to work at astonishingly divergent orders of magnitude and putative realms of reality. My purpose here must be humble: collect and categorize, not assess and adjudicate.1 Seek insights, not answers. Unrealistically, I'd like to get them all, at least all contemporary theories that are sufficiently distinct with explanations that can surmount an arbitrary hurdle of rationality or conceivability.2 Falsification or verification is not on the agenda. I'm less concerned about the ontological truth of explanations/theories3 than in identifying them and then locating them on a “Landscape”4 to enable categorization and assess relationships. Next, I assess implications of categories for “big questions.” Thus, this Landscape is not about how consciousness is measured or evolved or even works, but about what consciousness is and what difference it makes. It's the classic “mind-body problem:” How do the felt experiences in our minds relate to the neural processes in our brains? How do mental states, whether sensory, cognitive, emotional, or even noumenal (selfless) awareness, correlate with brain states? The Landscape of Consciousness explanations or theories I want to draw is as broad as possible, including those that cannot be subsumed by, and possibly not even accessed by, the scientific method. This freedom from constraint, as it were, is no excuse for woolly thinking. Standards of rationality and clarity of argument must be maintained even more tenaciously, and bases of beliefs must be specified even more clearly. I have two main aims: (i) gather and describe the various theories and array them in some kind of meaningful structure of high-level or first-order categories (and under Materialism, subcategories); and (ii) assess their implications, with respect to four big questions: meaning/purpose/value (if any); artificial intelligence (AI) consciousness; virtual immortality; and survival beyond death. Theories overlap; some work together. Moreover, while a real-world landscape of consciousness, even simplified, would be drawn with three dimensions (at least), with multiple kinds and levels of nestings—a combinatorial explosion (and likely no closer to truth)—I satisfice with a one-dimensional toy-model. I array all the theories on a linear spectrum, simplistically and roughly, from the “most physical” on the left (at the beginning) to the “least physical” on the right (near the end).5 (I have two final categories after this spectrum.) The physicalism assumed in Materialism Theories of consciousness is characterized by naturalistic, science-based perspectives, while non-materialism theories have various degrees of nonphysicalist perspectives outside the ambit of current science and in some cases not subject to the scientific method of experimentation and replicability. Please do not ascribe the relative importance of a theory to the relative size of its description. The shortest can be the strongest. It sometimes takes more words to describe lesser-known theories. For each description I feel the tension between conciseness and completeness. Moreover, several are not complete theories in themselves but ways to think about consciousness that strike me as original and perhaps insightful. I have followed consciousness studies in its various forms for my entire life. My PhD is in neurophysiology (thalamocortical evoked potentials).6 I am creator and host of Closer To Truth,7 the long-running public television series and web resource on science and philosophy, roughly one-third of which focuses on consciousness and brain/mind topics.8 I have discussed consciousness with over 200 scientists and philosophers who work on or think about consciousness and related fields (Closer To Truth YouTube; Closer To Truth website).9 I use these Closer To Truth discussions as resources. I want to give feel and flavor, as well as propositions and arguments, for the astonishingly diverse attitudes and approaches to consciousness coming from radically diverse perspectives and worldviews. That's why I use spontaneous quotes from verbal conversations along with meticulous quotes from academic papers. In one early Closer To Truth episode, “What are the Big Questions of Science,” philosopher Patricia Churchland gave the bluntest answer: “Out of meat, how do you get thought? That's the grandest question.” She distinguishes two major questions. One is whether psychological states—our mental life of remembering, thinking, creating—are really a subset of brain activity? The other is how do high-level psychological processes come about from basic neurophysiological actions? “How do brain cells, organized in their complex ways, give rise to my watching something move, or seeing color, or smelling a rose” (Churchland, 2000; Kuhn, 2000a, 2000b). Philosopher David Papineau distinguishes three questions related to consciousness: How?, Where?, and What? “First, how does consciousness relate to other features of reality? Second, where are conscious phenomena located in reality? And, third, what is the nature of consciousness?” (Papineau, 2020a). Because this Landscape is structured by theories of consciousness, not by philosophical questions, each theory sets its own agenda for dealing with the three questions, mostly, of course, focusing on the How? Philosopher Thomas Nagel sees more a fundamental conundrum and he frames it crisply. “We have at present no conception of how a single event or thing could have both physical or phenomenological aspects, or how if it did they could be related” (Nagel, 1986). In his influential paper, “What Is It Like to Be a Bat?,” Nagel offers, “Without consciousness the mind-body problem would be much less interesting. With consciousness it seems hopeless” (Nagel, 1974). “Hopeless,” to me, is invigorating; I'm up for the “hopeless challenge.” Take all that follows as my personal journey of consciousness; idiosyncratic, to be sure; not all for everyone, not set in cement. 1. Chalmers’s “hard problem” of consciousness Philosopher David Chalmers famously characterized the core conundrum of explaining consciousness—accounting for “qualia,” our qualitatively rendered interior experience of motion-picture-like perception and cognitive awareness—by memorializing the pithy, potent phrase, “the hard problem.” This is where most contemporary theories commence and well they should (Section: Chalmers, 1995b, 1996, 2007; 2014a; 2014b; 2016b). It is no exaggeration to say that Chalmer's 1995 paper, “Facing up to the problem of consciousness” (Chalmers,1995b) and his 1996 book, The Conscious Mind: In Search of a Fundamental Theory (Chalmers, 1996), were watershed moments in consciousness studies, challenging the conventional wisdom of the prevailing materialist-reductionist worldview and altering the dynamics of the field. His core argument against materialism, in its original form, is deceptively (and delightfully) simple: In our world, there are conscious experiences. There is a logically possible world physically identical to ours, in which the positive facts about consciousness in our world do not hold. Therefore, facts about consciousness are further facts about our world, over and above the physical facts. So, materialism is false. This is the famous “Zombie Argument” (infamous to some): whether creatures absolutely identical to us in every external measure, but with no internal light, no inner subjective experience, are “conceivable”—the argument turning on the meaning and implications of “conceivable” and the difference between conceivable and possible. (It can be claimed that the Zombie Argument for consciousness being nonphysical, like the Ontological Argument for God actually existing, sneaks the conclusion into one of the premises.) Chalmers asks, “Why does it feel like something inside? Why is our brain processing—vast neural circuits and computational mechanisms—accompanied by conscious experience? Why do we have this amazing, entertaining inner movie going on in our minds?” (All quotes not referenced are from Closer To Truth videos on www.closertotruth.com including 2007, 2014a, 2014b, 2016b.) Key indeed are qualia, our internal, phenomenological, felt experience—the sight of your newborn daughter, bundled up; the sound of Mahler's Second Symphony, fifth movement, choral finale; the smell of garlic, cooking in olive oil. Qualia—the felt qualities of inner experience—are the crux of the mind-body problem. Chalmers describes qualia as “the raw sensations of experience.” He says, “I see colors—reds, greens, blues—and they feel a certain way to me. I see a red rose; I hear a clarinet; I smell mothballs. All of these feel a certain way to me. You must experience them to know what they're like. You could provide a perfect, complete map of my brain [down to elementary particles]—what's going on when I see, hear, smell—but if I haven't seen, heard, smelled for myself, that brain map is not going to tell me about the quality of seeing red, hearing a clarinet, smelling mothballs. You must experience it. ”Since qualia constitutes the core of the “hard problem,” and since the hard problem has come to so dominate consciousness studies such that almost every theorist must confront it, seeking either to explain it or refute it—and since the hard problem is a leitmotiv of this Landscape—I asked Dave about its backstory. “I first remember presenting the hard problem in a talk at the first Tucson ‘Toward a Science of Consciousness’ consciousness in 1994. When did I first use it? Did I use it in writing before then? I’ve looked in my writing and have not found it [i.e., not prior to the 1994 talk]. The hard problem was part of the talk. I remember speaking with some students beforehand, saying I’m going to talk about ‘hard problems, easy problems.’ I had been already talking this way in my seminar the previous year, so maybe it was already becoming part of my thinking. But I didn’t think about it as an ‘insight.’ I just thought it a way of stating the obvious. ‘Yeah, there’s a really hard problem here.’ So, as part of the first couple of minutes of my talk, I said something like ‘everyone knows there is a hard problem’ …. And people took it and said ‘it’s this great insight’ … Well, it did become a catchy meme; it became a way of encapsulating the problem of consciousness in a way that made it difficult to ignore, and I’m grateful for that role. I had no idea at the time that it would catch on, but it’s good because the problem of consciousness is really easy to ignore or to sidestep, and having this phrase, ‘the hard problem,’ has made it difficult to do that. There’s now just a very natural response whenever that happens. You say, ‘Well, that’s addressing the easy problem, but it’s not addressing the hard problem.’ I think this helps in getting both scientists and philosophers to take consciousness seriously. But I can’t take credit for the idea. Everyone knew that consciousness was a hard problem way before me—my colleagues, Tom Nagel and Ned Block; philosophers like C.D. Broad almost 100 years ago; Thomas Huxley back in the 19th century; even Leibniz and Descartes—they all knew that consciousness was a hard problem” (Chalmers, 2016b). Over the years, while Chalmers has played a leading role in expanding and enriching the field of consciousness studies (Chalmers, 2018), his overarching views have not changed: “I don't think the hard problem of consciousness can be solved purely in terms of neuroscience.” As science journalist George Musser puts it, “By ‘hard,’ Chalmers meant impossible. Science as we now practice it, he argued, ‘is inherently unable to explain consciousness’” (Musser, 2023a, Musser, 2023b). This does not mean, of course, that Chalmers is making a case for “substance dualism,” some nonphysical stuff (like the immortal souls of many religions). Chalmers is postulating a “naturalistic dualism,” where perhaps “information” is the connective, because while information is not material, it is embedded in the physical world. He notes, “We can also find information realized in our phenomenology.” This is a “naturalistic dualism,” a kind of property dualism (15.1). To Chalmers, “It is natural to hope that there will be a materialist solution to the hard problem and a reductive explanation of consciousness, just as there have been reductive explanations of many other phenomena in many other domains. But consciousness seems to resist materialist explanation in a way that other phenomena do not.” He encapsulates this resistance in three related arguments against materialism: (i) The Explanatory Argument (“explaining structure and function does not suffice to explain consciousness”); (ii) The Conceivability Argument (“it is conceivable that there be a system that is physically identical to a conscious being, but that lacks at least some of that being's conscious states”); (iii) The Knowledge Argument (“someone could know all the physical facts … and still be unable to know all the facts about consciousness”) (Chalmers, 2003). “Physicalists, of course, resist these arguments,” says Philosopher Frank Jackson. “Some deny the modal and epistemic claims the arguments use as premises. They may grant (as they should) the intuitive appeal of the claim that a zombie physical duplicate of me is possible, but insist that, when one looks at the matter more closely, one can see that a zombie physical duplicate of me is not in fact possible. Any physical duplicate of me must feel pain when they stub their toe, have things look green to them on occasion, and so on” (Jackson, 2023). Philosopher Daniel Stoljar targets the conceivability argument (“CA”). Strictly speaking, he says, “CA is an argument against the truth of physicalism. However, since it presupposes the existence of consciousness, it may be regarded also as an argument for the incompatibility of physicalism and the existence of consciousness.” Stoljar's epistemic view offers a two-part response. “The first part supposes that there is a type of physical fact or property that is relevant to consciousness but of which we are ignorant.” He calls this the ignorance hypothesis. The second part “argues that, if the ignorance hypothesis is true, CA is unpersuasive” for reasons of logic (Kind and Stoljar, 2023, pp. 92, 95). Philosopher Yujin Nagasawa calls “The Knowledge Argument” (Jackson, 1982, 1986, 1995, 1998) “among the strongest arguments (or possibly the strongest argument) for the claim that there is [in consciousness] something beyond the physical” (Nagasawa, 2012a). Based on a thought experiment by Frank Jackson, it imagines “Mary, a brilliant scientist,” who lives entirely in a black-and-white room, who acquires all physical, scientific knowledge about color—wavelengths of light in all detail—“but it seems obvious that when she comes outside her room, she learns something completely new, namely, what is like to see color.” Prior to seeing the color, “she doesn't have phenomenal knowledge of conscious experience.” While Jackson himself no longer endorses the argument, it is still regarded as one of the most important arguments against physicalism, though of course it has its critics (Garfield, 1996). Nagasawa, who did his PhD under Jackson, responds to critics of the argument (Nagasawa, 2010), but also offers his own objections and novel proposals (Nagasawa, 2008). Frank Jackson himself has much of the contemporary literature on consciousness revolving around three questions. “Does the nature of conscious experience pose special problems for physicalism? Is the nature of conscious experience exhausted by functional role? Is the nature of conscious experience exhausted by the intentional contents or representational nature of the relevant kinds of mental states?” (Jackson, 1997). To philosopher Philip Goff, there are two aspects of consciousness that give rise to the hard problem, qualitivity and subjectivity: qualitivity meaning that experiences involve sensory qualities, whether in real-time or via memory recall; subjectivity meaning that there is a subject who has those experiences, that “these experiences are for someone: there is something that it’s like for me to experience that deep red.” Goff argues that these two aspects of consciousness give rise to two “hard problems.” While either problem would be sufficient to refute materialism, he says, the hard problem of qualitivity is more pronounced—or at least easier to argue for—because the vocabulary of the physical sciences, which tell a purely quantitative story of causal structures, cannot articulate the qualities of experience; the language of physics entails an explanatory limitation (Goff, 2021). Philosopher Colin McGinn provides a culinary perspective: “Matter is just the wrong kind of thing to give birth to consciousness … You might as well assert, without further explanation, that numbers emerge from biscuits, or ethics from rhubarb” (McGinn, 1993). Philosopher Jerry Fodor put the problem into what he thought would be perpetual perspective. “[We don't know], even to a first glimmer, how a brain (or anything else that is physical) could manage to be a locus of conscious experience. This … is, surely, among the ultimate metaphysical mysteries; don't bet on anybody ever solving it” (Fodor, 1998). 2. Initial thoughts Consciousness has been a founding and primary theme of Closer To Truth, broadcast on PBS stations since 2000 and now a global resource on the Closer To Truth website and Closer To Truth YouTube channel. What is consciousness? What is the deep essence of consciousness? What is the deep cause of consciousness? (These are not the same question.) Again, it is the core of the mind-body problem—how thoughts in our minds and sensations of our experiences interrelate with activities in our brains. What does the word “consciousness” mean? What is its referent? “Consciousness” has multiple definitions, which has been part of the problem in its study. There are clear categories of consciousness, uncontroversially recognized. For example, distinguishing “creature consciousness” (the somatic condition of being awake and responding to stimuli) and “mental state consciousness” (the cognitive condition of experiential engagement with the environment and oneself). More importantly, distinguishing “phenomenal consciousness” (“what it is like”) and “cognitive consciousness” (Humphrey, 2023a, Humphrey, 2023b) or “access consciousness”10 (Block, 2023), which are more about function than phenomenology. Philosopher Ned Block sees “the border between perception and cognition” as a “joint in nature,” primed for exploration. He says he was drawn to this subject because of the realization that the difference between what he calls “access consciousness (cognitive access to phenomenally conscious states)” and what he calls “phenomenal consciousness (what it is like to experience)” was rooted “in a difference between perception—whether conscious or unconscious—and cognitive access to perception” (Block, 2023). With respect to “information,” it is suggested that “the word ‘consciousness’ conflates two different types of information-processing computations in the brain: the selection of information for global broadcasting, thus making it flexibly available for computation and report,” and “the self-monitoring of those computations, leading to a subjective sense of certainty or error” (Dehaene et al., 2017). But, again, the issue is phenomenal consciousness, and to the extent that each type of consciousness comes with inner experience, the same issues obtain. Artificial intelligence pioneer Marvin Minsky calls consciousness “a suitcase term,” meaning that all sorts of separate or mildly related concepts can be packed into it. “Consciousness,” he says, “is a clever trick that we use to keep from thinking about how thinking works. And what we do is we take a lot of different phenomena and we give them all the same name, and then you think you've got it.” Minsky enjoys dissecting consciousness: “When people use the word ‘consciousness,’ it's a very strange idea that there's some wonderful property of the brain that can do so many different things—at least four or five major things and dozens of others. For example, if I ask, ‘were you conscious that you touched your ear?’ You might say ‘no, I didn't know I did that.’ You might say, ‘yes.’ If you say yes, it's because some part of your mind, the part that talks, has access to something that remembers what's happened recently with your arm and your ear.” Minsky notes “there are hundreds of kinds of awarenesses. There's remembering something as an image. There's remembering something as a string of words. There's remembering the tactile feeling of something” (Minsky, 2007a). Minsky says there is no harm in having consciousness as a suitcase term for social purposes. When a word has multiple meanings, that ambiguity is often very valuable, he says. “But if you're trying to understand those processes and you've put them all in one box, then you say, where in the brain is consciousness located? There's a whole community of scientists who are trying to find the place in the brain where consciousness is. But if it's ‘a suitcase’ and it's just a word for many different processes, they're wasting their time. They should try to find out how each of those processes works and how they're related” (Minsky, 2007a). Philosopher Massimo Pigliucci points out that “you do not need phenomenal consciousness in order to react to the environment. Plants do it, bacteria do it, all sorts of stuff do it.” But when it comes to emotion, he says, “Yes, you do need consciousness – in fact, that is what an emotion is. Emotion implies some level of internal perception of what's going on, some awareness of the phenomenal experience” (Pigliucci, 2023a, Pigliucci, 2023b). Suffice it to say that the hard problem refers to phenomenal consciousness. (This is not to say, of course, that cognitive or access consciousness is an “easy problem.”) To Alex Gomez-Marin, a theoretical physicist turned behavioral neurobiologist, “Ask not what neuroscience can do for consciousness but what consciousness can do for neuroscience.” He laments, “When it comes to serious proposals that offer an alternative to materialism, the mainstream has its doors wide shut … I believe the underlying issue of this debate is a tectonic clash about the nature of reality … In other words, the dominant physicalist paradigm can tolerate many things (including its own internal contradictions and empirical anomalies), but not panpsychism, idealism, dual-aspect monism, or any other view … Any nonmaterialist whiff in the consciousness hunger games is punished. Challenge the core foundations, and you shall be stigmatized; propose a cutting-edge new color to the walls of the old building, you will be cheered (Gomez-Marin, 2023). On the other hand, philosopher Simon Blackburn cautions against overinflating consciousness as a concept. “I wouldn't try to approach it by definition,” he said. “That's going to be just a can of worms. Leibniz said that if we could blow the brain up to the size of a mill and walk around in it, we still wouldn't find consciousness” (Blackburn, 2012). To Blackburn, the hard problem is not what Chalmers says it is. “I think the really hard problem is trying to convince ourselves that this [consciousness problem] is, as it were, an artifact of a bad way of thinking. The philosopher who did the most to try to persuade us of that was Ludwig Wittgenstein; the central exhibit in his armory was a thing called the private language argument [i.e., a language understandable by only one person is incoherent]. Wittgenstein said if you think in terms of consciousness in that classical way, we meet the problem of other minds. Why should I think that you're conscious? I know that I am, but what about you? And if consciousness in some sense floats free, it might sort of just come and go all over the place. As I say, the hard problem is getting rid of the hard problem” (Blackburn, 2012). Physicist-visionary Paul Davies disagrees. “Many scientists think that life and consciousness are just irrelevant byproducts in a universe; they're just other sorts of things. I don't like that idea. I think we're deeply significant. I've always been impressed by the fact that human beings are not only able to observe the universe, but they've also come to understand it through science and mathematics. And the fact that we can glimpse the rules on which the universe runs—we can, as it were, decode the cosmic code—seems to me to point to something of extraordinary and fundamental significance” (Davies, 2006a). To computer scientist-philosopher Jaron Lanier, “Fundamentally, we know very little about consciousness and the process of doing science is best served by humility. So, until we can explain this subjective experience, I think we should accept it as being there” (Lanier, 2007a). I should note that the mind-body problem is hardly the only problem in consciousness studies: there are myriad mind-related problems. Topping the list of others, perhaps, is the problem of mental causation: How can mental states affect physical states? How can thoughts make actions? Physicist Uzi Awret argues that explaining how consciousness acts on the matter of the brain to “proclaim its existence” is just as hard as explaining how matter can give rise to consciousness. In fact, the two questions constrain each other. (For example, must panpsychists consider phenomenal powers and dualists kinds of interactionism?) Awret makes the insightful point that one reason the two questions should be conjoined is that they can be complementary in the sense that explaining one makes it harder to explain the other (Awret, 2024). Mental causation is an issue for every theory of consciousness: a serious one for Dualism, less of so for monistic theories—Materialism, Monisms, Idealisms, perhaps Panpsychism-—in that everything would be made of the same stuff. Yet, still, mental causation needs explanation. But that is not my task here. While precise definitions of consciousness are challenging, almost everyone agrees that the real challenge is phenomenal consciousness. Phenomenal consciousness is the only consciousness in this Landscape. 3. Philosophical tensions Two types of philosophical tensions pervade all efforts to understand consciousness: (i) epistemological versus ontological perspectives, and (ii) the nexus between correlation and causation. The former distinguishes what we can know from what really exists; they can be the same, of course, but that determination may not be a superficial one and in fact may not be possible, in practice or even in principle. The latter has an asymmetrical relationship in that causation must involve correlation whereas correlation does not necessarily involve causation; the dyadic entities that correlate might each be caused by an unknown hidden factor that just so happens to cause each of them independently. In addition, there are questions about the phylogenetic evolution of consciousness (9.10). Is it a gradual gradient, from simple single-cells seeking homeostasis via stimulus-response to environmental pressures, relatively smoothly up the phylogenetic tree to human-level consciousness (as is conventional wisdom)? Or is consciousness more like a step-function with spurts and stops? Is there a cut-off, as it were? Others, of course, maintain that consciousness is irreducible, even fundamental and primordial. I give “Philosophical Tensions” its own section, however short, to stress the explanatory burden of which every theory of consciousness must keep cognizant: the epistemology-ontology distinction and the correlation-causation conundrum. 4. Surveys & typologies Philosopher Tim Bayne suggests three ways to think about what consciousness is: (i) experience, awareness and their synonyms (Nagel's “what-its-like-to-be”); (ii) paradigms and examples, using specifics to induce the general; and (iii) initial theories to circumscribe the borders of the concept, such that a more complete definition falls out of the theory. Examples of (iii) are conducting surveys and organizing typologies (see below) and constructing taxonomies (which is the intent of this paper) (Bayne, 2007). To appreciate theories of consciousness, there are superb surveys and typologies, scientific and philosophical, that organize the diverse offerings. David Chalmers offers that “the most important views on the metaphysics of consciousness can be divided almost exhaustively into six classes,” which he labels “type A” through “type F.” The first three (A through C) involve broadly reductive views, seeing consciousness as a physical process that involves no expansion of a physical ontology [Materialism Theories, 9]. The other three (D through F) involve broadly nonreductive views, on which consciousness involves something irreducible in nature, and requires expansion or reconception of a physical ontology [D = Dualism, 15; E = Epiphenomenalism, 9.1.2; F = Monism, 14] (Chalmers, 2003). PhilPapers (David Bourget and David Chalmers, general editors) feature hundreds of papers on Theories of Consciousness, organized into six categories: Representationalism; Higher-Order Theories of Consciousness; Functionalist Theories of Consciousness; Biological Theories of Consciousness; Panpsychism; Miscellaneous Theories of Consciousness (including Eliminativism, Illusionism, Monisms, Dualism, Idealism) (Bourget and Chalmers, PhilPapers). In presenting a case for panpsychism, Chalmers arrays and assesses materialism, dualism and monism as well as panpsychism (Chalmers, 2016a). Neuroscientist Anil Seth and Tim Bayne gather and summarize a wide range of candidate theories of consciousness seeking to explain the biological and physical basis of consciousness (22 theories that are essentially neurobiological) (Seth and Bayne, 2022). They review four prominent theories—higher-order theories; global workspace theories; reentry and predictive processing theories; and integrated information theory—and they assert that “the iterative development, testing and comparison of theories of consciousness will lead to a deeper understanding of this most central of mysteries.” However, Seth and Bayne intensify the mystery by observing, “Notably, instead of ToCs [theories of consciousness] progressively being ‘ruled out’ as empirical data accumulates, they seem to be proliferating.” This seems telling. An engagingly novel kind of survey of the mind-body problem is an insightful (and delightfully idiosyncratic) book by science writer John Horgan (2018). Rejecting “hard-core materialists” who insist “it is a pseudo-problem, which vanishes once you jettison archaic concepts like ‘the self’ and ‘free will’,” Horgan states that “the mind-body problem is quite real, simple and urgent. You face it whenever you wonder who you really are.” Recognizing that we can't escape our subjectivity when we try to solve the riddle of ourselves, he explores his thesis by delving into the professional and personal lives of nine mind-body experts. (He admits it is odd to offer “my subjective takes on my subjects' subjective takes on subjectivity.”) (Horgan, 2019). While greater understanding of the biological (and material) basis of consciousness will no doubt be achieved, the deeper question is whether such biological understanding will be sufficient to explain, even in principle, the essence of consciousness, ever. While most adherents at both ends of the Landscape of Consciousness—materialists and idealists—are confident of the ultimate vindication of their positions, others, including me, take this deeper question as remaining an open question. My high-bar attempt here is to generate a landscape that is universally exhaustive, in that whatever the ultimate explanation of consciousness, it is somewhere, somehow, embedded in this Landscape of theories (perhaps in multiple places)—even if we have no way, now or in the foreseeable future, to discern it from its cohort Landscapees. 5. Opposing worldviews At the highest level of abstraction, there are two ways to frame competing theories of consciousness. One way pits monism, where only one kind of stuff is fundamental (though manifest in ostensibly different forms), against dualism, where both physical and mental realms are equally fundamental, without either being reducible to the other.11 There are two kinds of monism, each sitting at opposite ends of the Landscape of Consciousness: at one end, materialism or physicalism,12 Where the only real things are products of, or subject to, the laws of physics, and can be accessed reliably and reproducibly only by the natural sciences; and at the other end, idealism, where only the mental is fundamental, and all else, including all physical existence, is derivative, a manifestation of the mental. (Nondualism, from philosophical and religious traditions originating on the Indian subcontinent, avers that consciousness and only consciousness, which is cosmic, is fundamental and primitive. 16.1.) The second way to frame opposing explanations of consciousness is simply the classic physical vs. nonphysical distinction, though certain explanations, such as panpsychism, may blur the boundary. 6. Is consciousness primitive/fundamental? A first foundational question is whether consciousness is primitive or fundamental, meaning that it cannot be totally explained by, or “reduced” to, a deeper level of reality. (“Totally” is the operative word, because consciousness can be explained by, or reduced to, neuroscience, biology, chemistry and physics, certainly in large part, at least.) If consciousness is primitive or fundamental, we can try to explore what this means, what alternative concepts of ultimate reality may follow—though, if this were the case, there is probably not much progress to be made. On the other hand, if consciousness is not primitive or fundamental, there is much further work to be done and progress to be made. To begin, there are (at least) three next questions: First, is consciousness “real,” or, on the other hand, is it sufficiently an “illusion,” a brain trick, as it were, which would render consternation over the conundrum moot, if not meaningless? Second, if consciousness is real (and not primitive), then since in some sense it would be emergent, would this emergence of consciousness be “weak,” meaning that in principle it could be explained by, or reduced to, more fundamental science (even if in practice, it could not be, for a long time, if ever)? Third, if weak emergence has insufficient resources, would this emergence of consciousness be “strong,” meaning that it would be forever impossible to totally explain consciousness, even in principle, by reducing it to more fundamental levels of scientific explanation (9.1.4). Finally, is there an intermediate position, where consciousness was not fundamental ab initio, but when it evolved or emerged, consciousness came to become somehow inevitable, more than an accidental byproduct of physical processes? Some see in the grand evolution of the cosmos a process where elements in the cosmos—or more radically, the cosmos itself—work to make the cosmos increasingly self-aware (13.8). Some founders of quantum theory famously held consciousness as fundamental. Max Planck: “I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness” (The Observer, 1931a). Erwin Schrödinger: “Although I think that life may be the result of an accident, I do not think that of consciousness. Consciousness cannot be accounted for in physical terms. For consciousness is absolutely fundamental. It cannot be accounted for in terms of anything else” (The Observer, 1931b). Also, “The total number of minds in the universe is one. In fact, consciousness is a singularity phasing within all beings.” Arthur Eddington: “when we speak of the existence of the material universe we are presupposing consciousness” (The Observer, 1931c). Louis de Broglie: “I regard consciousness and matter as different aspects of one and the same thing” (The Observer, 1931d). John von Neumann (less explicitly): "Consciousness, whatever it is, appears to be the only thing in physics that can ultimately cause this collapse or observation." John Stewart Bell: “As regards mind, I am fully convinced that it has a central place in the ultimate nature of reality” (Mollan, 2007). Of course, consciousness as fundamental would eliminate only Materialism Theories. Compatible would be Panpsychisms, Monisms, Dualisms and Idealisms; also, some Quantum Theories and perhaps Integrated Information Theory. (But Materialism has substantial resources, 9.) 7. Identity theory I take special interest in identity theory ((Smart, 2007), not because I subscribe to the early mind-brain identity theory as originally formulated, but because its way of thinking is far more pervasive and far more elucidating than often realized (though perhaps in a way not as sanguine as some may have hoped). In PhilPapers’ Theories of Consciousness, Mind-Brain Identity Theory is classified under Biological Theories of Consciousness. Classic mind-brain identity theory is indeed the commitment that mental states/events/processes are identical to brain states/events/processes (Aranyosi,Philpapers). I would want to generalize this. I would want to say that any theory of consciousness, to be complete and sufficient, must make an identity claim. Bottom line, every theory of consciousness that offers itself as a total explanation, necessary if not always sufficient—other than those where consciousness is fundamental—must be a kind of identity theory. I mean identity theory in the strong sense, in the same sense that the Morning Star and the Evening Star must both be Venus, such that if you eliminate the Morning Star you cannot have the Evening Star. (David Papineau makes a virtue of this necessity in his mind-brain identity argument for physicalism. It doesn't matter which specific materialist or physicalist theory—all of them, in essence, are mind-brain identity theories [Papineau, 2020b]-9.1.9.) Here's the point. There is some kind of “consciousness identity” actually happening—it is always happening and it never changes. Something happening or existing in every sentient creature just is consciousness. 8. A landscape As the title suggests, the purpose of this paper is to work toward developing a landscape of consciousness, a taxonomy of explanations and implications. The focus is ontological: what is the essence of our inner awareness of felt experience, our perceiving, our enjoying, what we call qualia.To get an overall sense of the entire Landscape, I have three Figures: Fig. 1: A high-level list of the 10 major categories, and under Materialism Theories, the 10 subcategories. Fig. 2: A complete list of all the theories of consciousness, organized under the major categories and subcategories. Fig. 2. A landscape of consciousness - complete outline. Fig. 3. A landscape of consciousness. Note: Categories 1–10 in the Figures correspond to sections 9-18 in the text. To convert from categories/theories in the Figures to sections/theories in the text, add eight (+8). Conversely, to convert from sections/theories in the text to categories/theories in the Figures, subtract eight (−8). I distinguish what consciousness is ontologically from how consciousness happens operationally. The Landscape I present is populated primarily by claims of what consciousness actually is, not how it functions and not how it evolved over deep time (although both how it functions and how it evolved may well reflect what it is). This is not a landscape of how consciousness emerged or its purpose or its content—sensations, perceptions, cognitions, emotions, language—none of these—although all of these are recruited by various explanations on offer. Mechanisms of consciousness are relevant here only to the extent that they elucidate a core theory of consciousness. For example, the “neurogeographic” debate between the “front of the head” folks—the Global Workspace (9.2.3) and Higher-Order (9.8.3) theorists—and the “back of the head” folks—the Integrated Information (4) and Recurrent Processing (9.8.2) theorists—is essential for a complete neurobiological explanation of consciousness (Block, 2023,pp.417-418), but it is of only mild interest for an ontological survey of the Landscape. If the Global Workplace suddenly shifted to the back of the head, and Integrated Information to the front, would the “trading-places” inversion make much ontological difference? Traditionally and simplistically, the clash is between materialism/physicalism and dualism or idealism; such oversimplification may be part of the problem—other categories and subcategories have standing. Traditionally and simplistically, the clash is between materialism/physicalism and dualism or idealism; such oversimplification may be part of the problem—other categories and subcategories have standing. Here are the 10 primary categories of explanations or theories: Materialism Theories (with many subcategories); Non-Reductive Physicalism; Quantum Theories; Integrated Information Theory; Panpsychisms; Monisms; Dualisms; Idealisms; Anomalous and Altered States Theories; Challenge Theories. It is no surprise that Materialism Theories have by far the largest number of specific theories. It is the only category with a three-level organization: there are 10 subcategories under Materialism, each housing seven to 14 specific theories. This makes sense in that there are more ways to explain consciousness with neurobiological and other physical models than with non-neurobiological and non-physical models, and also in that the challenge for materialism is to account for how the physical brain entails mental states (and there are increasingly innovative and diverse claims to do so). There is obvious overlap among categories and among theories within categories, and it is often challenging to pick distinguishing traits to classify theories in such a one-dimensional, artificial and imposed typology. For example, one can well argue that Non-Reductive Physicalism, Quantum Theories, and perhaps even Integrated Information Theory and Panpsychisms, are all, in essence, Materialism Theories, in that they do not require anything beyond the physical world (whether in current or extended form). I break out these categories because, in recent times, each has developed a certain independence, prominence and credibility (at least in the sense of the credulity of adherents), and because they differ sufficiently from classic Materialism Theories, exemplified by neurobiological mechanisms. In addition, the ideas of epiphenomenalism, functionalism and emergence, and the mechanisms of prediction and language models, while themselves not specific explanations of consciousness, represent core concepts in philosophy of mind that can affect some explanations and influence some implications. Some would impose an “entrance requirement” on the Landscape, such that theories admitted need be “scientific” in the sense that the scientific method should be applicable, whether in a formal Popperian falsification sense or with a weaker verification methodology. I do not subscribe to this limitation, although we must always distinguish between science and philosophy, along with other potential forms of knowledge. (My quasi-“Overton Window” of consciousness—the range of explanatory theories I feel comfortable presenting, if not propounding—may be wider than those of others, whether physicalists or nonphysicalists 13[Birth, 2023].One reason for my wider window is the unsolicited theories of consciousness I receive on Closer To Truth, some of which I find intriguing if not convincing.) The Landscape itself, as a one-dimensional typology, is limited and imperfect decisions must be made: which theories to include and which not; where to classify; what is the optimal order; whether to append a possessive name to the theory's title; and the like. I've tried to include all the well-known theories and an idiosyncratic selection of lesser-known theories that have some aspects of originality, rationality, coherence, and, well, charm. In addition, a few theories reflect the beliefs of common people, or the interests of Closer To Truth viewers, though largely dismissed by the scientific and philosophical communities. Some theories some think bizarre, “fabulous” in the original meaning of the word: “mythical, celebrated in fable.” All reflect the imaginations of the human mind driven by a quest to know reality. Please do not take the unavoidable appearance of visual equality among theories as indicating their truth-value equivalence (or, for that matter, my personal opinion of them). Neuroscientist Joseph LeDoux (9.8.5; 9.10.2), noting “the broad nature” of the Landscape (on reviewing an early draft), suggests that “The Sniff Test” might be relevant. (He uses The Sniff Test to assess the strong AI view substituting “consciousness” for “intelligence”[LeDoux, 2023a, p. 301.])I'm all for imposing an olfactory hurdle for theories of consciousness (recognizing that olfactory bulbs do differ). Readers may well have corrections and additions, which I welcome. The Landscape is a work-in-process and I look forward to feedback so it can be extended and improved. Once again, the rough flow of the theories arraying the Landscape of Consciousness—as per my idiosyncratic approach—is on a rough, arbitrarily linear, physicalism-nonphysicalism spectrum from, to begin with, most physical, and to end with, most nonphysical (or least physical) 9. Materialism theories Materialism is the claim that consciousness is entirely physical, solely the product of biological brains, and all mental states can be fully “reduced” to, or wholly explained by, physical states—which, at their deepest levels, are the fields and particles of fundamental physics. In short, materialism, in its many forms and flavors, gives a completely physicalist account of phenomenal consciousness. Overwhelmingly for scientists, materialism is the prevailing theory of consciousness. To them, the utter physicality of consciousness is an assumed premise, supported strongly by incontrovertible empirical evidence from neuroscience (e.g., brain impairment, brain stimulation). This is “Biological Naturalism,” as exemplified by philosopher John Searle(Searle,2007a,2007b). It is a view, to a first approximation, that promises, if not yet offers, a complete solution to Chalmers's hard problem.14 To neuroscientist Susan Greenfield, the nonmaterialist view that consciousness might be irreducible is “‘a get-out-of-jail-for-free card’, that is to say, whatever I did, whatever I showed you, whatever experiments I did, whatever theories I had in brain terms, you could always say ‘consciousness has the extra thing,’ and this extra thing is the thing that really counts and is something that we brain scientists can't touch.” She adds, “If reduction is a ‘dirty word,’ we can say explicable, interpretable, or understandable,” but explaining consciousness must be always and solely in brain and body terms(Greenfield, 2012). Compared to some of the consciousness-as-primary theories that follow, Materialism Theories can be counted as deflationary (which doesn't make them wrong, of course, or even unexciting). To physicist Sean Carroll, consciousness is “a way of talking about the physical world, just like many other ways of talking. It's one of these emergent phenomena that we find is a useful way of packaging reality, so we say that someone is conscious of something that corresponds to certain physical actions in the real world.” Carroll is unambiguous: “I don't think that there is anything special about mental properties. I don't think there's any special mental realm of existence. I think it's all the physical world and all the manifold ways we have of describing it”(Carrol, 2016). Nobel laureate biologist Gerald Edelman agrees. He does not consider the real existence of qualia to be an insurmountable impediment to a thoroughly materialistic theory of consciousness. “To expect that a theoretical explanation of consciousness can itself provide an observer with the experience of ‘the redness of red’ is to ignore just those phenotypic properties and life history that enable an individual animal to know what it is like to be such an animal. A scientific theory cannot presume to replicate the experience that it describes or explains; a theory to account for a hurricane is not a hurricane. A third-person description by a theorist of the qualia associated with wine tasting can, for example, take detailed account of the reported personal experiences of that theorist and his human subjects. It cannot, however, directly convey or induce qualia by description; to experience the discriminations of an individual, it is necessary to be that individual”(Edelman, 2003).While Edelman's honest assessment may give Materialism Theories their best shot, many remain unpersuaded. After all, still, we wonder: what are qualia? Literally, what are they! Even among philosophers, a majority are physicalists (but just barely). In their 2020 survey of professional philosophers, Bourget and Chalmers report 51.9% support Physicalism; 32.1%, Non-physicalism; and 15.9%, Other (Bourget and Chalmers, 2023;Bourget and Chalmers, 2014). Chalmers provides “roughly three ways that a materialist might resist the epistemic arguments” by mitigating the epistemic gap between the physical and phenomenal domains, where “each denies a certain sort of close epistemic relation between the domains: a relation involving what we can know, or conceive, or explain.” According to Chalmers, “A type-A materialist denies that there is the relevant sort of epistemic gap. A type-B materialist accepts that there is an unclosable epistemic gap, but denies that there is an ontological gap. And a type-C materialist accepts that there is a deep epistemic gap, but holds that it will eventually be closed”(Chalmers, 2003). A subtle way to think about Materialism Theories recruits the concept of “supervenience” in that “the mental supervenes on the physical” such that there cannot be a change in the mental without there being a change in the physical. One such subtlety is the modal force of the connection or dependency, parsing among logical necessity, metaphysical necessity, factual or empirical necessity, as well as among explanation, entailment, grounding, reduction, emergence, ontological dependence, and the like. For this Landscape of explanations of consciousness, we leave “supervenience” to others(McLaughing and Bennett, 2021). Similarly, the relationship between introspection and consciousness is an intimate one, linking the epistemology of self-knowledge with the metaphysics of mind. For several theories of consciousness, introspection is essential (e.g., neurophenomenology, 9.6.4 and 9.6.5), though for most, it is a non-issue(Smithies and Stoljar, 2012). Two major theories of consciousness are Integrated Information Theory and Global Workspace Theory. Both are important, of course, and perhaps by situating them on the Landscape, they can be evaluated from different perspectives. In what may reflect my personal bias, I situate Global Workspace Theory under Materialism's Neurobiological Theories, while giving Integrated Information Theory its own first-order category. (This reflects my sense of the nature of their mechanisms, not my opinion of the truth of their claims.) I group Materialism Theories into ten subcategories: Philosophical Theories, Neurobiological Theories, Electromagnetic Field Theories, Computational and Informational Theories, Homeostatic and Affective Theories, Embodied and Enactive Theories, Relational Theories, Representational Theories, Language Relationships, and Phylogenetic Evolution. While many of the following theories under Materialism Theories proffer to explain what happens in consciousness, or what causes consciousness, in that they describe alternative critical processes in generating consciousness, the question always remains, are they even acknowledging, much less addressing, the question of what consciousness actually is? In picking out multiple materialist theories and principles, many overlap or nest, obviously, but by presenting them separately, I try to tease out emphasis and nuance. The list cannot be exhaustive. 9.1. Philosophical Theories Philosophical theories combine relevant fundamental principles for theories of consciousness with framing of the mind-body problem and philosophical defenses of Materialism. 9.1.1. Eliminative materialism/illusionism Eliminative Materialism is the maximalist physicalist position that our common-sense view of the mind is misleading and that consciousness is in a kind of illusion generated by the brain—a contingent, evolutionary, inner adaptation that enhanced fitness and reproductive success. This deflationary view of consciousness is associated with philosophers Patricia Churchland (1986), Paul Churchland(1981),Daniel Dennett (1992), Keith Frankish (2022), and others, though their views are often distorted and caricatured. Paul Churchland defines “eliminative materialism” forcefully as “the thesis that our common-sense conception of psychological phenomena constitutes a radically false theory, a theory so fundamentally defective that both the principles and the ontology of that theory will eventually be displaced, rather than smoothly reduced, by completed neuroscience.” Our third-person understanding and even our first-person introspection, Churchland says, “may then be reconstituted within the conceptual framework of completed neuroscience, a theory we may expect to be more powerful by far than the common-sense psychology it displaces” He applauds “the principled displacement of folk psychology … [as] one of the most intriguing theoretical displacements we can currently imagine”(Churchland, 1981). Patricia Churchland's path-setting 1986 book, Neurophilosophy, places the mind-body problem within the wider context of the philosophy of science and argues for a complete reductionist account of consciousness founded on neurobiology(Churchland, 1986).Indeed, “neurophilosophy" is the proffered name of a new discipline that is to be guided by Churchland's “unified theory of the mind-brain,” for which her "guiding aim” is to develop “a very general framework”(Stent, 1987).She founds her approach on two principles: the progress of neuroscience in addressing mental states, and the recognition by many philosophers that philosophy is no longer “an a priori discipline in which philosophers can discover the a priori principles that neuroscientific theories had better honor on peril of being found wrong.” That there remain philosophers who persist in arguing that the mind goes beyond the brain—they reject reductionism “as unlikely—and not merely unlikely, but as flatly preposterous"—Churchland attributes to persistent traditions of folk myths. To discover our true nature, she implores, “we must see ourselves as organisms in Nature, to be understood by scientific methods and means”(Churchland, 1986). She rejects the anti-reductionist weapon of “emergence” as being “of little explanatory value”(Stent, 1987). Dennett argues that qualia—the qualitive features of phenomenal consciousness—which he notes (with a smile) compel philosophers to develop outlandish theories, are illusory and incoherent (9.4). To neuroscientist Michael Graziano, it's not that consciousness doesn't exist or that we are fooled into thinking we have it when we don't. Instead, eliminative materialism likens consciousness to the illusion created for the user of a human-computer interface such that the metaphysical properties we attribute to ourselves are wrong15 (Graziano,2014, 2019a, 2019c). In spite of the word “illusion” (see below). its proponents do not actually deny the reality of the things that compose what Wilfrid Sellars famously called “the manifest image”—thoughts, intentions, appearances, experiences—which he distinguished from “the scientific image”(Sellars, 1962).The things we see and hear and interact with are, according to Dennett, “not mere fictions but different versions of what actually exists: real patterns”(Dennet, 2017).The underlying reality, however—what exists in itself and not just apparently for us or for other creatures—is truly represented only by the scientific image, which must be expressed ultimately in the language of physics, chemistry, molecular biology, and neurophysiology. Picking up on analogies in Dennett's work, as he puts it, Keith Frankish proposed the term “illusionism,” which has been adopted for the view that consciousness does not involve awareness of special “phenomenal” properties and that belief in such properties is due to an introspective illusion. Frankish concludes: “Considered as a set of functional processes—a hugely complex informational and reactive engagement with the world—it is perfectly real. Considered as an internal realm of phenomenal properties or what-it-is-likenesses, it is illusory”(Frankish, 2022). Although what we see and hear, for all the world, seems precisely what really exists, ringing in our ears and stars in our eyes undermine our realist folk psychology. (Personally, I have my own unambiguous proof. With my normal left eye, I see a light bulb as a single point of light; with my right eye, afflicted with advanced keratoconus, I see about 100 points of skewed, smeared light.) Another approach claiming that there is no phenomenal consciousness draws on arguments from Buddhist philosophy of mind to show that the sense that there is this kind of consciousness is an instance of cognitive illusion. As articulated by Jay Garfield, “there is nothing 'that it is like' to be me. To believe in phenomenal consciousness or 'what-it's-like-ness' or 'for-me-ness' is to succumb to a pernicious form of the Myth of the Given.” He argues that “there are no good arguments for the existence of such a kind of consciousness”(Garfield, 2016). The fact that some deny the existence of experience, says philosopher Galen Strawson, should make us “feel very sober, and a little afraid, at the power of human credulity.” This particular denial, he says with flourish, “is the strangest thing that has ever happened in the whole history of human thought, not just the whole history of philosophy”(Strawson, 2009). While dismissing eliminative materialism and illusionism might at first seem obviously right, a prima facie case, I'd not so quickly jump to that conclusion: it could self-limit the awareness of subtleties and the nature of boundaries in the hunt for consciousness. 9.1.2. Epiphenomenalism In epiphenomenalism, consciousness is entirely physical, solely the product of biological brains, but mental states cannot be entirely reduced to physical states (brains or otherwise), and mental states have no causal powers. Constrained by the “causal closure of the physical,” the mind, whatever else it might be, is entirely inert: our awareness of consciousness is real, but our sense of mental causation is not. Consciousness is still a kind of illusion or trick in that there is no “top-down causation”; our sense that our thoughts can cause things is mistaken. In this manner, epiphenomenalism is a weaker form of non-reductive physicalism (10). All conscious mental events, including conscious perceptions, involve unconscious processing. The classic analogy for consciousness as an epiphenomenon is “foam on an ocean wave:” always there, apparently active, but never really doing anything. More formally, epiphenomenalism holds that phenomenal properties are ontologically distinct from physical properties, and that the phenomenal has no effect on the physical. Physical states cause phenomenal states, but not vice versa. The arrow of psychophysical causation points in only one direction, from physical to phenomenal (Chalmers, 2003). This makes epiphenomenalism a weak form of Dualism (15), but by affirming the complete causal closure of the physical, it well deserves its spot in Materialism Theories. Apparent support for consciousness epiphenomenalism comes from the famous Libet experiment, which demonstrated that brain activity associated with a voluntary movement (“readiness potential”) precedes conscious experience of the intention to make that movement by several hundred milliseconds (Frith and Haggard, 2018). The implication is that the brain, rather than conscious “free will”, initiates voluntary acts. Studied extensively, the Libet readiness potential data are reproducible and robust under diverse experiment designs. However, its theoretical and methodological foundations have been challenged (Gholipour, 2019),particularly with respect to stochastic noise in brain, the spontaneous fluctuations in neuronal activity (Schurger et al., 2012). Epiphenomenalism highlights the need to recognize that the search for a metaphysical theory of consciousness must integrate a theory of mental causation, which in turn must deal with the epistemic problem of self-knowledge. In epiphenomenalism, the integration is obvious because the lack of mental causation is its primary feature. In other theories of consciousness, mental causation will be less obvious but perhaps no less important. Daniel Stoljar notes that if phenomenal consciousness would be “merely an epiphenomenon with no causal force,” perhaps “this will end up being the best option for dualism 2.0 (15.10), despite its being counterintuitive—after all, it certainly seems to us that our phenomenally conscious states causally matter. But any view on the problem of consciousness is likely going to have to embrace some counterintuitive result at some point” (Kind and Stoljar, 2023, p.55). Parallelism, a similar but less popular theory than epiphenomenalism, holds that physical events entirely cause physical events and mental events entirely cause mental events, but there is no causal connection between physical and mental worlds in either direction. But if no connection, what would maintain such perfect correspondences? It is no challenge to discern why parallelism is less popular. 9.1.3. Functionalism Functionalism in philosophy of mind is the theory that functions are dispositive—activities, roles, results, outputs—mediums are not. What's critical is how mental states work, not in what substrates mental states are found (Levin, 2023). Mental states are not dependent on their internal constitutions, what they are, but rather only on their outputs or roles, what they do. As long as the functions (activities) are conducive to creating consciousness, it does not matter whether the substrates are neural tissue or computer chips or any form of matter that can instantiate information. Ned Block defines functionalism as the theory that “mental states are constituted by their causal relations to one another and to sensory inputs and behavioral outputs.” Functionalism can be appreciated, he says, by attending to “artifact concepts like carburetor and biological concepts like kidney. What it is for something to be a carburetor is for it to mix fuel and air in an internal combustion engine—carburetor is a functional concept. In the case of the kidney, the scientific concept is functional—defined in terms of a role in filtering the blood and maintaining certain chemical balances” (Block, 1980;Block, 2007b). Block gives the functionalist answer to the perennial question, “What are mental states?”, stating simply that “mental states are functional states.” The significance of this simple identity is precisely this simple identity. Thus, he says, “theses of metaphysical functionalism are sometimes described as functional state identity theses”(Block, 1980;Block, 2007b). Block explores the relationship between functionalism and reductive physicalism. “The first step in a reductive physicalist enterprise,” he says, “is to functionally characterize the property to be reduced and the second step is to find the physical property that fills the functional role. Reductive physicalism is true for the mind if both steps can always be carried out.” Block makes the at-first counterintuitive claim that reductive physicalism and functionalism are “incompatible rivals,” explaining that when understood as metaphysical theses, “appearances to the contrary stem from failure to sufficiently appreciate the upshot of the difference between metaphysics and ontology”—in that functionalism is agnostic on the existence of nonphysical substances (Block, 2008). David Chalmers uses a silicon-chip-replacement thought experiment to support a functional approach to consciousness.16“When experience arises from a physical system,” he says, “it does so in virtue of the system's functional organization.” The thought experiment replaces brain neurons with microchips that can duplicate 100% of the neuron's functions, and to do so slowly, even one by one. (That such technology is fiendishly complex is irrelevant.) The question is, what happens to one's conscious experience, one's qualia? Would it gradually wink or fade out? Chalmers says no: the conscious experience, the qualia, would not change—there would be no difference at all. This result would support Chalmers's “principle of organizational invariance, holding that experience is invariant across systems with the same fine-grained functional organization”(Chalmers, 1995a). Not everyone agrees, of course (Block, 2023; Van Heuveln et al., 1998). Computational functionalism goes further and commits to the thesis that performing computations of a particular, natural and likely discoverable kind is both necessary and sufficient for consciousness in general and ultimately for human-level consciousness (and perhaps for speculative higher forms of consciousness). Whether consciousness is indeed computational elicits probative and profound debate (Pennrose, 1999; 1996). Functionalism with respect to consciousness is more an overarching principle, a way of thinking, than a proffered model, a claimed explanation on its own. Functionalism can apply in many Materialist Theories and it is often assumed as an a priori premise. Functionalism is the theoretical foundation of “virtual immortality,” the theory that the fullness of our mental selves can be uploaded with first-person perfection to non-biological media, so that when our mortal bodies die our mental selves will live on (Kuhn, 2016a). (See Virtual Immortality.) 9.1.4. Emergence Emergence is the claim that qualitatively new, even radically novel properties in biological systems and psychological states arise from physical properties governed entirely by the laws of physics. The re-emergence of emergence in the sciences, where whole entities are, or seem to be, more than the sum of all their parts, has been controversial, its assessment ranging from trivial and distracting to radical and revolutionary (Clayton and Davies, 2008). Emergence in the study of consciousness is especially foundational, more as a basic principle undergirding and enhancing various theories than as a specific theory in its own right. Emergence, according to Paul Davies, means that “at each level of complexity, new and often surprising qualities emerge that cannot, at least in any straightforward manner, be attributed to known properties of the constituents. ln some cases, the emergent quality simply makes no sense when applied to the parts. Thus water may be described as wet, but it would be meaningless to ask whether a molecule of H2O is wet”(Davies, 2008).Moreover, it could seem astonishing that the properties of two common gases, hydrogen and oxygen, can combine to form a liquid that is wet and a solid that expands when cooled. Yet, physics and physical chemistry can explain all of this, in terms of atomic structures and bonding angles. Emergence can be appreciated in contrast with its mortal conceptual rival: reductionism. Reductionism is mainstream science, the bedrock assumption of the scientific method: All, in principle, can be explained by physics, even if all, in practice, cannot be. Davies defines “ontological reductionism” as the state of affairs where all reality “is, in the final analysis, nothing but the sum of the parts, and that the formulation of concepts, theories, and experimental procedures in terms of higher-level concepts is merely a convenience.” (He distinguishes “methodological reductionism,” where reductionism is a “fruitful methodology,” from “epistemological reductionism” where all we can know is that reductionism works by explaining one scientific level in terms of lower or more fundamental levels, without making any claim on ultimate reality.)(Davies, 2008). But “for emergence to be accepted as more than a methodological convenience—that is, for emergence to make a difference in our understanding of how the world works,” Davies argues that “something has to give within existing theory.” Davies himself has been a leader in “a growing band of scientists who are pushing at the straitjacket of orthodox causation to 'make room' for strong emergence (see below), and although physics remains deeply reductionistic, there is a sense that the subject is poised for a dramatic paradigm shift in this regard” (Davies, 2008). To make sense of emergence, we distinguish between its “weak” and “strong” forms. In its weak form, while it may not be apparent how the properties of one level can be entirely explained by the properties of a lower, more fundamental level, in principle, they can be explained, and ultimately, science will advance to explain them. In its strong form, properties at one level can never be explained in terms of properties of lower levels, not even in principle, no matter how ultimate the science. As Davies explains, “Strong emergence is a far more contentious position, in which it is asserted that the micro-level principles are quite simply inadequate to account for the system's behaviour as a whole. Strong emergence cannot succeed in systems that are causally closed at the microscopic level, because there is no room for additional principles to operate that are not already implicit in the lower-level rules.” He posits only three “loopholes”: the universe is an open system, non-deterministic quantum mechanics, and computational imprecision at fundamental levels—all three have obvious problems, which is why they are “considered unorthodox departures from standard physical theory” (Davies, 2008). David Chalmers says that “a high-level phenomenon is strongly emergent with respect to a low-level domain when the high-level phenomenon arises from the low-level domain, but truths concerning that phenomenon are not deducible even in principle from truths in the low-level domain.” He distinguishes a high-level phenomenon that is “weakly emergent with respect to a low-level domain when the high-level phenomenon arises from the low-level domain, but truths concerning that phenomenon are unexpected given the principles governing the low-level domain” (Chalmers, 2008). Strong emergence, Chalmers contends, has “radical consequences,” such that “If there are phenomena that are strongly emergent with respect to the domain of physics, then our conception of nature needs to be expanded to accommodate them. That is, if there are phenomena whose existence is not deducible from the facts about the exact distribution of particles and fields throughout space and time (along with other laws of physics), then this suggests that new fundamental laws of nature are needed to explain these phenomena” (Chalmers, 2008). By contrasting strong and weak emergence, Chalmers sets the stage to enact the grand epic of consciousness. “In a way, the philosophical morals of strong emergence and weak emergence are diametrically opposed. Strong emergence, if it exists, can be used to reject the physicalist picture of the world as fundamentally incomplete. By contrast, weak emergence can be used to support the physicalist picture of the world, by showing how all sorts of phenomena that might seem novel and irreducible at first sight can nevertheless be grounded in underlying simple laws”(Chalmers, 2008). Chalmers is not shy: “I think there is exactly one clear case of a strongly emergent phenomenon, and that is the phenomenon of consciousness.” He suggests that “the lawful connection between physical processes and consciousness is not itself derivable from the laws of physics but is instead a further basic law or laws of its own. The laws that express the connection between physical processes and consciousness are what we might call fundamental psychophysical laws” (Chalmers, 2008). The challenge of strong emergence, especially in consciousness, is a deep probe of not only how the mind works but also how the world works. Its influence is felt all along the Landscape of Consciousness. 9.1.5. Mind-brain identity theory As noted, mind-brain identity theory holds that states and processes of the mind are identical to states and processes of the brain (Smart, 2007) and as such can be considered the exemplar of materialism. Early on, in the mid-20th century, mind-brain identity theory had been a leader as an explanation of consciousness, but today, in its original form, it is no longer a major contender. Though the original identity theory has evolved in a kind of arms race with critics, it is generally considered undermined by various objections, the most common being multiple realizability (Aranyosi, PhilPapers). 9.1.6. Searle's biological naturalism “Biological Naturalism” is the name philosopher John Searle gave to a neurobiological solution to the mind-body problem. His approach is to ignore the mind-body problem's philosophical history and focus on “what you know for a fact.” He starts with a mundane, working definition of consciousness: “Conscious states are those states of awareness, sentience or feeling that begin in the morning when we wake from a dreamless sleep and continue throughout the day until we fall asleep or otherwise become ‘unconscious’” (Searle, 2007b; Searle, 2014a). Searle identifies four essential features of consciousness: “1. Conscious states, so defined, are qualitative, in the sense that there is a qualitative feel to being in any particular conscious state …. 2. Such conscious states are also ontologically subjective in the sense that they only exist as experienced by a human or animal subject …. 3. Furthermore, a striking fact, at any moment in your conscious life, all of your conscious states are experienced by you as part of a single unified conscious field …. 4. Most, but not all, conscious states are intentional, in the philosopher's sense that they are about, or refer to, objects and states of affairs.”17 Next is crucial: “The reality and irreducibility of consciousness: Conscious states, so defined, are real parts of the real world and cannot be eliminated or reduced to something else.” This means that one cannot do an ontological reduction of consciousness to more fundamental neurobiological processes, because, as stated, consciousness has a subjective or a first-person ontology, while the neurobiological causal basis of consciousness has an objective or third person ontology (Searle, 2007b). The causal reducibility of consciousness leads to Searle's major move: “The neuronal basis of consciousness: All conscious states are caused by lower-level brain processes.” Not knowing all the details of exactly how consciousness is caused by brain processes casts “no doubt that it is in fact.” Searle asserts with confidence, “The thesis that all of our conscious states, from feeling thirsty to experiencing mystical ecstasies, are caused by brain processes is now established by an overwhelming amount of evidence (Searle, 2007b).(Others, of course, disagree.) Finally, Searle's two-point conclusion: (i) The neuronal realization of consciousness: All conscious states are realized in the brain as higher level or system features, and (ii) The causal efficacy of consciousness: Conscious states, as real parts of the real world, function causally (Searle, 2007b). Searle celebrates the fact that his approach to consciousness does not mention any of the usual-suspect theories, such as dualism, materialism, epiphenomenalism, or any of the rest of them. He argues that “if you take seriously the so-called ‘scientific worldview’ and forget about the history of philosophy,” the views he puts forth are “what you would come up with.” Searle explains the name with which he “baptized this view,” Biological Naturalism. “‘Biological’ because it emphasizes that the right level to account for the very existence of consciousness is the biological level … [given] we know that the processes that produce it are neuronal processes in the brain. ‘Naturalism’ because consciousness is part of the natural world along with other biological phenomena such as photosynthesis, digestion or mitosis, and the explanatory apparatus we need to explain it we need anyway to explain other parts of nature.” Searle responds to critics of Biological Naturalism, striking at a key objection. “Sometimes philosophers talk about naturalizing consciousness and intentionality, but by ‘naturalizing’ they usually mean denying the first person or subjective ontology of consciousness. On my view, consciousness does not need naturalizing: It already is part of nature and it is part of nature as the subjective, qualitative biological part” (Searle, 2007a, 2007b). 9.1.7. Block's biological reductionism Philosopher Ned Block represents a majority of philosophers (and a large majority of scientists) who hold that “phenomenal consciousness is reducible to its physical basis.”(Block, 2023, p.445; Block 2007a). The best candidates for this reduction, he says, involve neurobiology. “For example, in the creatures that seem to have consciousness (e.g., primates, octopi), neurons operate via electrical signals triggering the release of neurotransmitters, and the neurotransmitters in turn engender further electrical signals. Neurons operate in a chemical soup, with direct effects from one neuron to another mediated by chemicals. The release of chemicals is not confined to the synapse but can also happen in dendrites” (Block, 2023, p.446). These propagating neurophysiological sparks and diffusing neurochemical transmitters compose a magnificently complex and integrated system that carries and conveys meaning. Block appeals to “this electrochemical nature of known cases of consciousness as an example of a candidate for neurobiological reduction of consciousness.” To Block, “the border between seeing and thinking” provides insight into consciousness and helps adjudicate best theories (Block, 2023). He highlights this "joint in nature" between perception and cognition and advocates its study for demystifying the mind. He argues against theories of consciousness that focus on prefrontal cortex, arguing that perceptual consciousness does not require cognitive processing. 9.1.8. Flanagan's constructive naturalism To philosopher Owen Flanagan, “consciousness is neither miraculous nor terminally mysterious,” and he argues that “it is possible to understand human consciousness in a way that gives its subjective, phenomenal aspects their full due, while at the same time taking into account the neural bases of subjectivity.” The result, he says, “is a powerful synthetic theory of consciousness, a ‘constructive naturalism,’ according to which subjective consciousness is real, plays an important causal role, and resides [without residue] in the brain” (Flanagan, 1993). The “constructive naturalistic theory” that Flanagan sketches is “neurophilosophical” in that “it tries to mesh a naturalistic metaphysic of mind with our still sketchy but maturing understanding of how the brain works.” It pictures consciousness “as a name for a heterogeneous set of events and processes that share the property of being experienced. Consciousness is taken to name a set of processes, not a thing or a mental faculty.” The theory is neo-Darwinian, he says, “in that it is committed to the view that the capacity to experience things evolved via the processes responsible for the development of our nervous system.” The theory, he stresses, “denies that consciousness is as consciousness seems at the surface.” Rather, consciousness has a complex structure, and getting at it requires “coordination of phenomenological, psychological, and neural analyses” (Flanagan, 1993). Flanagan explains that “there is no necessary connection between how things seem and how they are … [and] we are often mistaken in our self-reporting, including in our reporting about how things seem.” This is why he cautions that phenomenology might do “more harm than good when it comes to developing a proper theory of consciousness, since it fosters certain illusions about the nature of consciousness” (Flanagan, 1993). “The most plausible hypothesis,” Flanagan states, “is that the mind is the brain, a Darwin machine that is a massively well-connected system of parallel processors interacting with each other from above and below, and every which way besides.” It is no wonder, he says, that “meaning holism is true, that we somehow solve the frame problem, and that my belief that snow is white is realized quite possibly in a somewhat different way in my brain than the same belief is realized in yours.” Flanagan addresses “the gap between the first-person way in which conscious mental life reveals itself and the way it is, or can be described, from an objective point of view” by asserting bluntly, “mind and brain are one and the same thing seen from two different perspectives. The gap between the subjective and the objective is an epistemic gap, not an ontological gap.” Indeed, he claims, “it is precisely the fact that individuals possess organismic integrity that explains why subjectivity accrues first-personally” (Flanagan, 1993). As a physicalist, Flanagan recognizes the role of emergence, that “there are emergent natural properties that, despite being obedient to the laws of physics, are not reducible to physics" (Flanagan, 2003). He rejects epiphenomenalism, where “conscious thought plays no role in the execution of any act.” The sense that we control our actions is real, not illusion, but the mechanism is all brain-bound; for example, an idea originating in the prefrontal cortex that calls up information or memories from parietal association cortex (Campbell, 2004). To Flanagan, the “really hard problem” is finding “meaning in a material world” (Flanagan, 2007). To this end, he explores “neuroexistentialism,” the condition “caused by the rise of the scientific authority of the human sciences and a resultant clash between the scientific and the humanistic image of persons" (Flanagan and Caruso, 2018). 9.1.9. Papineau's mind-brain identity Philosopher David Papineau argues for neurobiological physicalism with his theory of unabashed, robust, fundamental mind-brain identity. It is an important argument, with implications for all materialist theories (Papineau, 2020b). In constructing the argument, one of Papineau's intuitions is that “there seems no immediate reason why consciousness should be singled out as posing some special puzzle about its relation to the rest of reality”—given that “reality contains many different kind of things, biological, meteorological, chemical, electrical, and so on, all existing alongside each other, and all interacting causally in various ways”(Papineau, 2020b). One Papineau premise is that while we feel “conscious mind influences non-conscious matter, by controlling bodily behaviour, and similarly that matter influences mind, giving rise to sensory experiences, pains and other conscious mental states,” the “compelling argument … against this kind of interactionist stance … derives from the so-called ‘causal closure of the physical’ … the physical realm seems causally sufficient unto itself.” Papineau notes that we remain puzzled about why brain states give rise to mental states “in a way that we don't feel puzzled about why NaCl gives rise to salt, or electrical discharges to lightning.” He attributes our puzzlement—the “explanatory gap” of consciousness—to the psycho-social fact that “we find it hard to escape the spontaneous dualist thought that the feeling and the physical state are not one thing, but two different states that somehow invariably accompany each other” (Papineau, 2020b). Given this, Papineau says, “our knowledge of mind-brain identities can only be based on some kind of a posteriori abductive inference, rather than a principled a priori demonstration that a certain physical state fills some specified role. For example, we might observe that pains occur whenever prefrontal nociceptive-specific neurons fire, and vice versa; we might also note that, if pains were the firing of nociceptive-specific neurons, then this would account for a number of other observed facts about pain, such as that it can be caused by trapped nerves, and can be blocked by aspirin; and we might conclude on this basis that pains are indeed identical to the firing of nociceptive-specific neurons.” Papineau singles out “the peculiarly direct nature of our concepts of conscious states” as what “stops us deriving mind-brain identities a priori from the physical facts.” In exploring the basis of identity claims, Papineau states “it can only be on the basis of an abductive inference from direct empirical evidence, such as that the two things in question are found in the same places and the same times, and are observed to bear the same relations to other things, not because we can deduce the identities a priori from the physical facts.” His examples include “Cary Grant = Archie Leach”, and “that dog = her pet.” “Why shouldn't this same way of thinking be applied to consciousness, he asks?” (Papineau, 2020b). Because, he answers, “even after we are given all the abductive evidence, we still find mind-brain identity claims almost impossible to believe. We cannot resist the dualist conviction that conscious feelings and the physical brain states are two different things.” And this, in Papineau's view, “is the real reason why we feel a need for further explanation. We want to know why the neuronal activity is accompanied by that conscious feeling, rather than by some other, or by no feeling at all. Our dualist intuitions automatically generate a hankering for further explanation.” Thus, Papineau concludes, “the demand for explanation arises, not because something is lacking in physicalism, but because something is lacking in us.” “If only we could fully embrace physicalism,” Papineau suggests, “the feeling of an explanatory gap would disappear. If we could fully accept that pains are nociceptive-specific neuronal firing, then we would stop asking why ‘they’ go together—after all, nothing can possibly come apart from itself.” To Papineau, this kind of robust physicalism can dissolve “the problem of consciousness”. The move is to “simply deny that any puzzle is raised by the fact that it feels painful to be a human with active nociceptive-neurons. Why shouldn't it feel like that? That's how it turns out. Why regard this as puzzling?” (Papineau, 2020a). An insight is the connotation of verbs used to describe the relation between mind and brain. Brain processes are said to “generate”, or “yield”, or “cause”, or “give rise to” conscious states. But this phraseology, Papineau says, undermines physicalism from the start—even when used by physicalists. As he puts it, “Fire ‘generates’, ‘causes’, ‘yields’ or ‘gives rise to’ smoke. But NaCl doesn't ‘generate’, ‘cause’, ‘yield’ or ‘give rise to’ salt. It is salt. The point is clear. To speak of brain processes as ‘generating’ conscious states, and so on, only makes sense if you are implicitly thinking of the conscious states as separate from the brain states” (Papineau, 2020b). (But even if consciousness as an “output” or “effect” of the brain were wrongheaded, why are only certain sorts of neural activity identical with consciousness while others are not?) To sustain his argument, Papineau must deal with zombies. Are zombies possible? “Could a being share all your physical properties but have no conscious life?” Everybody's first thought is, he says, “Sure. Just duplicate the physical stuff and leave out the feelings.” That's the anti-physicalist “trap”: the physicalist has already lost. Papineau rightly states that physicalists must deny that zombies are possible, “given that the mind is ontologically inseparable from the brain.” If conscious states are physical states—radically identical—then, he says, “the ‘two’ cannot come apart,” much like Marilyn Monroe cannot exist without Norma Jean Baker. How could she exist without herself? That makes no sense, he says.18 Papineau rejects the anti-physicalist argument that phenomenal concepts are revelatory, in that they reveal conscious states not to be physical. “Physicalists respond that there is no reason to suppose that phenomenal concepts have the power to reveal such things … that experiences are non-physical.” Why should introspection, he asks rhetorically, “be guaranteed to tell us about all their necessary properties [of experience]?” (Papineau, 2020b). Papineau is blunt: “I never viewed the so-called ‘hard problem’ as any problem at all.” The obvious answer, he says, is that brain processes feel like something for the subjects that have them. “What's so hard about that?.. How would you expect them to feel? Like nothing? Why? That's how they feel when you have them.” The only reason that many people believe there is a problem, Papineau stresses, is that “they can't stop thinking in dualist terms” (Papineau, 2020b). As for the conventional materialist claim that ultimately neuroscience will uncover the complete neurobiological basis of consciousness, Papineau is skeptical. He does not expect that “there are definite facts about consciousness to which we lack epistemological access—that there is some material property that really constitutes being in pain, say, but which we can't find out about.” Rather, he argues, “our phenomenal concepts of conscious states are vague—nothing in the semantic constitution of phenomenal concepts determines precisely which of the candidate material properties they refer to” (Papineau, 2003). 9.1.10. Goldstein's mind-body problem Philosopher-novelist Rebecca Newberger Goldstein centers the mind-body problem around the nature of the person, with two distinct kinds of descriptions: our physical bodies and brains, which science can, in principle, analyze completely; and our inner thoughts, perceptions, emotions, dreams, which science can never access completely (Goldstein, 2011a, 2011b). Goldstein thinks that the internal description of what it’s like to be a person—“what I try to do in creating a character in a novel”—is “really about the body because ultimately there are no nonmaterial states.” Goldstein states that the kind of stuff underlining these intentional states or states of feeling that we describe in terms of consciousness is entirely brain stuff. “Could we ever derive the one description from the other? Could we ever know enough about the brain stuff so that we could actually know everything there is to be a person, just by the description of the brain stuff? I don't think so” (Goldstein, 2011a, 2011b). Goldstein says that panpsychism (13) seems plausible and she understands why some are dualists, where that internal point of view is something that is not the body, and could, in principle, exist separate from the body. She appreciates why some people who hope for immortality hope dualism is true. (She herself rejects dualism.) 9.1.11. Hardcastle's argument against materialism skeptics Philosopher Valerie Gray Hardcastle argues that the points of division between materialists and materialism-skeptics “are quite deep and turn on basic differences in understanding the scientific enterprise.” This disagreement, “the rifts,” which she frames, in part, between David Chalmers and herself, concerns whether consciousness is a brute fact about the world, which materialists deny and its skeptics affirm. Rather, materialists believe that consciousness is part of the physical world, just like everything else. “It is completely nonmysterious (though it is poorly understood) [and materialists] have total and absolute faith that science as it is construed today will someday explain this as it has explained the other so-called mysteries of our age” (Section: Hardcastle, 1996). Hardcastle gives her clear-eyed assessment: “I am a committed materialist and believe absolutely and certainly that empirical investigation is the proper approach in explaining consciousness. I also recognize that I have little convincing to say to those opposed to me. There are few useful conversations; there are even fewer converts.” She epitomizes the skeptics' position: “Isolating the causal relations associated with conscious phenomena would simply miss the boat, for there is no way that doing that ever captures the qualitative aspects of awareness. What the naturalists might do is illustrate when we are conscious, but that won't explain the why of consciousness.” Thus, she continues, whatever the neural correlate(s) of consciousness may be, the naturalists would not have explained why it is that (or those). Part of a good explanation, skeptics maintain, “is making the identity statement (or whatever) intelligible, plausible, reasonable” and this is what materialists have not done and thus have not closed the explanatory gap. In response, Hardcastle is frank: “To them, I have little to say in defence of naturalism, for I think nothing that I as an already committed naturalist could say would suffice, for we don't agree on the terms of the argument in the first place.” The consciousness identity, whatever it turns out to be, could be a brute fact about the world, just like the laws of physics. At some point, in all theories, explanations must end. Hardcastle asks, “How do I make my identification of consciousness with some neural activity intelligible to those who find it mysterious? My answer is that I don't. The solution to this vexing difficulty, such as it is, is all a matter of attitude. That is, the problem itself depends on the spirit in which we approach an examination of consciousness.” In characterizing “consciousness-mysterians,” she states, “They are antecedently convinced of the mysteriousness of consciousness and no amount of scientific data is going to change that perspective. Either you already believe that science is going to give you a correct identity statement, or you don't and you think that there is always going to be something left over, the phenomenal aspects of conscious experience” (Hardcastle, 1996). Hardcastle's advice to skeptics? “Consciousness-mysterians need to alter their concepts. To put it bluntly: their failure to appreciate the world as it really is cuts no ice with science. Their ideas are at fault, not the scientific method. Materialists presume that there is some sort of identity statement for consciousness. (Of course, we don't actually have one yet, but for those of us who are not consciousness-mysterians, we feel certain that one is in the offing.) Hence, the skeptics can't really imagine possible worlds in which consciousness is not whatever we ultimately discover it to be because they aren't imagining consciousness in those cases (or, they aren't imagining properly). But nevertheless, what can I say to those who insist that they can imagine consciousness as beyond science's current explanatory capacities? I think nothing …” Hardcastle's advice to skeptics? “Consciousness-mysterians need to alter their concepts. To put it bluntly: their failure to appreciate the world as it really is cuts no ice with science. Their ideas are at fault, not the scientific method. Materialists presume that there is some sort of identity statement for consciousness. (Of course, we don't actually have one yet, but for those of us who are not consciousness-mysterians, we feel certain that one is in the offing.) Hence, the skeptics can't really imagine possible worlds in which consciousness is not whatever we ultimately discover it to be because they aren't imagining consciousness in those cases (or, they aren't imagining properly). But nevertheless, what can I say to those who insist that they can imagine consciousness as beyond science's current explanatory capacities? I think nothing …” The fundamental difference between materialists and their skeptics, according to Hardcastle, is that “Materialists are trying to explain to each other what consciousness is within current scientific frameworks … If you don't antecedently buy into this project …, then a naturalist's explanation probably won't satisfy you. It shouldn't. But that is not the fault of the explanation, nor is it the fault of the materialists. If you don't accept the rules, the game won't make any sense” (Hardcastle, 1996). Hardcastle's own approach to consciousness includes: viewing it as a lower-level dynamical structure underpinning our information processing (Hardcastle, 1995); the relation between ontology and explanation providing a framework for referring to mental states as being the causally efficacious agents for some behavior (Hardcastle, 1998); a more nuanced approach to the neural correlates of consciousness (NCC) in that it “there might not be an NCC—even if we adopt a purely materialistic and reductionistic framework for explaining consciousness (for example, perhaps consciousness is located out in the world just as much as it is located inside the head) (Hardcastle, 2018; Hardcastle and Raja, 1998); and action selection and projection to help refine notions of consciousness from an embodied perspective (Hardcastle, 2020). 9.1.12. Stoljar's epistemic view and non-standard physicalism Philosopher Daniel Stoljar has long focused on physicalism, its interpretation, truth and philosophical significance; his views are nuanced and largely deflationary (Stoljar, 2010).He defines physicalism as the thesis that "every instantiated property is either physical or is necessitated by some physical property," where physical property is described by “all and only the following elements: it is a) a distinctive property of intuitively physical objects, b) expressed by a predicate of physics, c) objective, d) knowable through scientific investigation, and e) not a distinctive property of souls, ectoplasm, etc.” (Montero, 2012). According to Stoljar, "Physicalism has no formulations on which it is both true and deserving of the name"—but this “does not entail that philosophical problems stated in terms of it [physicalism] have no reasonable formulation” (Stoljar, 2010, Montero, 2012). As everyone knows, the philosophical problem of phenomenal consciousness is the poster-child test case for physicalism, the standard physicalist framework being that “consciousness can be explained by contemporary physics, biology, neuroscience, and cognitive science” (Kind and Stoljar, 2023, p.i). To Stoljar, the problem (or problems) of consciousness is “whether two big ideas can both be true together. The first is the existence of consciousness. The second is a worldview (a picture of everything that exists) that many people think you must believe if you hold a vaguely scientific or rational approach to the world, namely, physicalism.” Stoljar calls it the “compatibility problem”— “i.e., the problem of whether physicalism and claim that consciousness exists can both be correct”—and he says that the solution is “right under our nose.” The solution to the compatibility problem, Stoljar tells us, “is that we are missing something”—and the depth and implications of this simple statement are surprisingly profound (Kind and Stoljar, 2023, pp 64-65). What we are missing, according to Stoljar, “is a type of physical fact or property relevant to consciousness. More than this, we are profoundly ignorant of the nature of the physical world, and ignoring this ignorance is what generates the problem.” He calls “the idea that we are ignorant of a type of fact or property that is relevant to consciousness the ignorance hypothesis” and he calls “the idea that the ignorance hypothesis solves the compatibility problem the epistemic view.” Stoljar contends that all arguments for the opposing view—i.e., that physicalism and consciousness are incompatible—“fail, and for a single reason.” These arguments, he says, “all presuppose that we have complete knowledge of the physical facts relevant to consciousness. According to the epistemic view, that presupposition is false, so the arguments [against physicalism-consciousness compatibility] don't work.” That physicalism cannot be shown affirmatively to be true does not bother Stoljar, because, he says, physicalism is an empirical truth, not an a priori argument. “What the epistemic view says is that … there is no persuasive ‘here and now’ argument for incompatibility.” Thus, Stoljar argues, the epistemic view helps us think about the problems of consciousness in a clearer way, disentangling them from the compatibility problem (Kind and Stoljar, 2023, pp.64-66). Stoljar is no traditional physicalist. He critiques “standard physicalism,” by which he means “versions of physicalism that make no theoretical use of the ignorance hypothesis.” He conjectures that there are properties of the physical world that go beyond the capacity of the physical sciences to access and measure through its devices and instruments. Is this incapacity in practice, as per current science, or in principle, such that ultimate truth is forever out of reach? Who knows? Either way, he says, would support his ignorance hypothesis defense of physicalism (Kind and Stoljar, 2023, p.67).More subtly, Stolar contends that the epistemic view does provide an “explanation of consciousness,” at least in an abstract sense. “It tells us, for example, that conscious states are not fundamental and so depend on other things, even if it leaves open what exactly they depend on”(Kind and Stoljar, 2023, p112). Yet Stoljar believes it is possible to construct “a science of consciousness”—to study “empirical laws between each conscious state and some physical system”— but he is skeptical of “the attempt to provide systematic knowledge of such laws” which he rejects as “implausible on its own terms.” Preferring “to understand the science in a more modest way,” Stoljar is ready to accept “that we do not and may never have a complete theory of the world” (Kind and stoljar, 2023, pp.67-68). 9.2. Neurobiological theories Neurobiological theories are based primarily on known mechanisms of the brain, such as neuronal transmission, brain circuits and connectome pathways, electric fields, and, of course, neural correlates of consciousness. 9.2.1. Edelman's neural Darwinism and reentrant neural circuitry Nobel laureate biologist Gerald Edelman presents a purely biological theory of consciousness, founded on Darwinian natural selection and complex brain morphology. His foundational commitment is that “the neural systems underlying consciousness arose to enable high-order discriminations in a multidimensional space of signals,” that “qualia are those discriminations” and that “differences in qualia correlate with differences in the neural structure and dynamics that underlie them”(Edelman, 2000,2003,2024). Rejecting theories that the brain is like a computer or instructional system, Edelman proposes that “the brain is a selectional system, one in which large numbers of variant circuits are generated epigenetically, following which particular variants are selected over others during experience. Such repertoires of variant circuits are degenerate, i.e., structurally different circuit variants within this selectional system can carry out the same function or produce the same output. Subsequent to their incorporation into anatomical repertoires during development, circuit variants that match novel signals are differentially selected through changes in synaptic efficacy. Differential amplification of selected synaptic populations in groups of neurons increases the likelihood that, in the future, adaptive responses of these groups will occur following exposure to similar signals”(Edelman, 2003). Edelman's way of thinking is motivated by his work on the immune system (for which he was awarded the Nobel) and his theory is developed in two domains: Neural Darwinism (neural group selection) and Dynamic Core (reentrant neural circuitry). Neural Darwinism is “the idea that higher brain functions are mediated by developmental and somatic selection upon anatomical and functional variance occurring in each individual animal” (Edelman, 1989). Neural Darwinism has two aspects: (i) development selection, which controls the gross anatomy and microstructure of the brain, allowing for great variability in the neural circuitry; and (ii) experiential selection, especially of the synaptic structure where functional plasticity is essential given the vast number of synapses (estimated at over 100 trillion, possibly 600 trillion or more). Edelman notes that a child's brain contains many more neural connections than will ultimately survive to maturity—estimates go as high as 1000 trillion—and he argues that this redundant capacity, this functional plasticity, is needed because “neurons are the only cells in the body that cannot be renewed and because only those networks best adapted to their ultimate purpose will be selected as they organize into neuronal groups” (Edelman, 2024). According to Edelman's theory of neuronal group selection (TNGS), “selectional events in the brain are necessarily constrained by the activity of diffuse ascending value systems. The activity of these systems affects the selectional process by modulating or altering synaptic thresholds” (Edelman, 2003). Dynamic Core is Edelman's term encompassing reentrant neural circuitry, the ongoing process of recursive signaling among neuronal groups taking place across networks of massively parallel reciprocal fibers, especially in the connections between thalamus and cerebral cortex. This dynamic, relentless activity in thalamocortical circuits generates a continuing sequence of different metastable states that change over time, yet each of which has a unitary phenomenology at any given moment. Edelman asserts "there is no other object in the known universe so completely distinguished by reentrant circuitry as the human brain" (Edelman 2003, 2024). Edelman stresses that reentry is “a selectional process occurring in parallel” and that “it differs from feedback, which is instructional and involves an error function that is serially transmitted over a single pathway.” As a result of the correlations that reentry imposes on diverse, interacting neuronal groups, “synchronously active circuits across widely distributed brain areas are selectively favored.” This, Edelman suggests, “provides a solution to the so-called binding problem: how do functionally segregated areas of the brain correlate their activities in the absence of an executive program or superordinate map?” Binding of the outputs of every sensory modality, each generated by segregated cortical areas, is essential for our commonly perceived but underappreciated unity of consciousness (Edelman, 2003). It is worth noting the close relationship between the Dynamic Core and Global Workspace (9.2.3) hypotheses, as jointly suggested by the authors of each, Edelman and Baars—each hypothesis having been put forward, independently, “to provide mechanistic and biologically plausible accounts of how brains generate conscious mental content.” Whereas “the Dynamic Core proposes that reentrant neural activity in the thalamocortical system gives rise to conscious experience,” the “Global Workspace reconciles the limited capacity of momentary conscious content with the vast repertoire of long-term memory.” The close relationship between the two hypotheses is said to allow “for a strictly biological account of phenomenal experience and subjectivity that is consistent with mounting experimental evidence.” The authors suggest that “there is now sufficient evidence to consider the design and construction of a conscious artifact” (Edelman et al., 2011). The theory of neuronal group selection (TNGS), pioneered by Edelman (1987), has come to undergird a cluster of theories. As Anil Seth explains, “According to the TNGS, primary (sensory) consciousness arose in evolution when ongoing perceptual categorization was linked via reentry to a value-dependent memory creating the so-called ‘remembered present’ (Edelman 1989). Higher-order consciousness, distinguished in humans by an explicit sense of self and the ability to construct past and future scenes, arose at a later stage with reentrant pathways linking value-dependent categorization with linguistic performance and conceptual memory (Edelman 2003; Seth, 2007). As Edelman's mechanism for consciousness is based on the TNGS, he first distinguishes primary from higher-order consciousness. “Animals with primary consciousness can integrate perceptual and motor events together with memory to construct a multimodal scene in the present”—what James called the “specious present” and which Edelman calls “the remembered present” (Edelman, 1989). Such an animal with primary consciousness, Edelman says, “has no explicit narrative capability (although it has long-term memory), and, at best, it can only plan to deal with the immediate scene in the remembered present” (Edelman, 2003). As for higher-order consciousness, Edelman is mainstream: “It emerges later in evolution and is seen in animals with semantic capabilities such as chimpanzees. It is present in its richest form in the human species, which is unique in possessing true language made up of syntax and semantics. Higher-order consciousness allows its possessors to go beyond the limits of the remembered present of primary consciousness. An individual's past history, future plans, and consciousness of being conscious all become accessible” (Edelman, 2003). How did the neural mechanisms underlying primary consciousness arise during evolution? Edelman's proposal is as follows. “At some time around the divergence of reptiles into mammals and then into birds, the embryological development of large numbers of new reciprocal connections allowed rich reentrant activity to take place between the more posterior brain systems carrying out perceptual categorization and the more frontally located systems responsible for value-category memory. This reentrant activity provided the neural basis for integration of a scene with all of its entailed qualia … [which] conferred an adaptive evolutionary advantage” (Edelman, 2003). In summary, according to Edelman, “consciousness arises as a result of integration of many inputs by reentrant interactions in the dynamic core. This integration occurs in periods of <500 ms. Selection occurs among a set of circuits in the core repertoire; given their degeneracy, a number of different circuits can carry out similar functions. As a result of the continual interplay of signals from the environment, the body, and the brain itself, each integrated core state is succeeded by yet another and differentiated neural state in the core … The sequences and conjoined arrays of qualia entailed by this neural activity are the higher-order discriminations that such neural events make possible. Underlying each quale are distinct neuroanatomical structures and neural dynamics that together account for the specific and distinctive phenomenal property of that quale. Qualia thus reflect the causal sequences of the underlying metastable neural states of the complex dynamic core” (Edelman, 2003). Finally, Edelman addresses the hard problem. “The fact that it is only by having a phenotype capable of giving rise to those qualia that their ‘quality’ can be experienced is not an embarrassment to a scientific theory of consciousness. Looked at in this way, the so-called hard problem is ill posed, for it seems to be framed in the expectation that, for an observer, a theoretical construct can lead by description to the experiencing of the phenomenal quality being described. If the phenomenal part of conscious experience that constitutes its entailed distinctions is irreducible, so is the fact that physics has not explained why there is something rather than nothing. Physics is not hindered by this ontological limit nor should the scientific understanding of consciousness be hindered by the privacy of phenomenal experience.” Edelman is confident. “At the end of our studies, when we have grasped its mechanisms in greater detail, consciousness will lose its mystery and be generally accepted as part of the natural order” (Edelman, 2003). Personally, I like analogizing the something/nothing ontological limit in physics to the phenomenal consciousness psychophysical privacy limit in neuroscience—the two ultimate questions of existence and sentience. But I hesitate to draw the analogy too tightly. Something/nothing is a kind of historical question of what happened, that is, explaining the hypothetical process. For example, it could be that nothing is in principle impossible. Phenomenal consciousness is a clearly contemporary question of what is, that is, explaining the actual thing. Moreover, I agree that even with its something/nothing ontological limit, physics can do its work, as with its phenomenal consciousness privacy limit, neuroscience can do its work. But that work, remember, constitutes the “easy problems.” 9.2.2. Crick and Koch's neural correlates of consciousness (NCC) The neural correlates of consciousness (NCC) is defined as the minimum activities in the brain jointly sufficient (and probably necessary) for any one specific conscious perception, and, extended, for subjective experience in general, the inner awareness of qualia. Originally applied to sleep and wakefulness (i.e., the reticular activating system in the brain stem), the NCC were formally proposed by Francis Crick and Christof Koch as a scientific approach to what had been believed to be the vague, metaphysical and somewhat discredited idea of consciousness (Crick and Koch, 1990), a program then championed by Koch (Koch, 2004, Closer To truth ) and others (though Koch has become something of a “romantic reductionist” [Koch, 2012a]). While there are complex methodological issues, NCC mechanisms include neuronal electrophysiological action potentials (spikes), their frequencies and sequences; neurochemical transmitter flows in the synapses between neurons; and recurrent brain circuits in specific brain areas. An example is clusters of neurons that underlie wakefulness in the brainstem connecting to clusters of neurons in the thalamus, hypothalamus, basal ganglia and cerebral cortex related to awareness/consciousness (Wong, 2023). Similarly, a "default ascending arousal network" (dANN) has been proposed, with subcortical nodes in the brainstem, hypothalamus, thalamus, and basal forebrain (Edlow, 2024). While necessary for conscious arousal and wakefulness, the dANN is not sufficient for phenomenal conscioiusness and is not what this Landscape is about. As an example of the NCC way of thinking, an early NCC candidate was the claustrum, which receives input from almost all regions of cortex and projects back to almost all regions of cortex, and which, Crick and Koch speculated, could give rise to “integrated conscious percepts.” They used the analogy of the claustrum to a “conductor” and the cortex to an “orchestra,” such that the claustrum as a conductor ‘coordinates a group of players in the orchestra, the various cortical regions.” Without the conductor, as they build the analogy, “players can still play but they fall increasingly out of synchrony with each other. The result is a cacophony of sounds.” In the absence of the claustra in both cerebral hemispheres, attributes such as sensory modalities “may not be experienced in an integrated manner and the subject may fail to altogether perceive these objects or events or only be consciously aware of some isolated attribute.” This would mean, they suggest, “that different attributes of objects … are rapidly combined and bound in the claustrum” (Crick and Koch, 2005). A more recent candidate for full and content-specific NCC is located in the posterior cerebral cortex, in a temporo-parietal-occipital hot zone (Koch et al., 2016),though no one is yelling “Eureka” and the search continues. Even so, while everyone knows that even strong correlation is not causation, strong correlation is still something. NCCs can be considered macroscopic materialism. It was in 1998 that Christof Koch made the now legendary 25-year bet with philosopher David Chalmers—they are long-time friends—that neuroscientists would discover a “clear” NCC by 2023. No surprise that the bet paid off in Chalmers’ favor. (Koch presented Chalmers with a case of 1978 Madeira wine.) As Chalmers said, notwithstanding neuroscience's great progress, “It's clear that things are not clear,” while Koch, feigning chagrin, agreed (Horgan, 2023). Koch was down but not out: he may have lost this consciousness battle, but the consciousness war would still be waged. Koch offered to re-up: another bet, another 25 years to achieve that “clear” NCC, another case of wine. “I hope I lose,” Chalmers said, smiling, taking the new bet, “but I suspect I'll win.” The smart money is again on Chalmers, although I have a different issue. What would a “clear” NCC mean? Suppose a specific group of neurons were proven to be both necessary and sufficient for a particular conscious experience, a direct correlation that no other group of neurons could claim? Koch would rightly win the bet, but would consciousness have been explained? Still, the perennial question: How can action potentials zipping along neurons and chemicals flowing between neurons literally be the phenomenal consciousness of inner experience? By what magic? 9.2.3. Baars's and Dehaene's global workspace theory Proposed originally by Bernard Baars (Baars, 1988, 1997, 2002), extended with neuroimaging and computer modeling by Stanislas Dehaene (Dehaene and Naccache, 2000), the core claim of Global Workplace Theory (GWT) is brain-wide presence and broad accessibility of specific multi-sensory, multi-cognitive information, the total package being what constitutes conscious awareness. GWT is founded on the concept of an inner “theater of consciousness,” where the mental spotlight of awareness shines on sequential sets of integrated perceptions that are dominant, at least momentarily. (The global workspace “Theater of Consciousness” is said not to contradict Dennett's rejected “Cartesian Theater,” because the former is not dualistic and does not reside in only one location in the brain; rather, the Theater of Consciousness is passive not active and is spread across much of the brain.) GWT holds that conscious mental states are those which are “globally available” to a wide range of brain processes including attention, perception, assessment, memory, verbal description, and motor response. Which sets of integrated perceptions become dominant, move to centerstage, and thus leap into conscious awareness? It's a competition. Diverse data flows originating both within the brain (e.g., memories) and from external stimuli (i.e., sensory information) are in constant competition, such that the “winner” is broadcast broadly (i.e., globally) in the brain and becomes accessible throughout the brain, which is how we become aware of it as the content of our consciousness. This brain-wide focus on a particular phenomenological package integrates all the relevant sensory and cognitive streams by recruiting all the relevant brain areas into an organic whole—while inhibiting other, extraneous, conflicting data flows—such that what resides in the global workspace is perceived as consciousness “snapshots” in continuous, movie-like motion. This means that while our conscious awareness may seem unified and seamless, in fact it is neither. Whereas GWT started in the 1980s as a purely psychological theory of conscious cognition, it has become a “family” of theories adapted to today's far more detailed understanding of the brain. The brain-based version of GWT is called Global Workspace Dynamics because the cortex is viewed as a “unified oscillatory machine”. GWT, therefore, according to its advocates, joins other theories in taking consciousness as the product of highly integrated and widespread cortico-thalamic activity, including evidence that the prefrontal cortex participates in the visual conscious stream. Cortex is extraordinarily flexible in its dynamic recruitment of different regions for different tasks. Therefore, an arbitrary division between prefrontal and other neuronal regions is said to be misleading. Consciousness requires a much broader, more integrative view (Baars et al., 2021). In a pioneering set of “adversarial collaboration” experiments to test hypotheses of consciousness by getting rival researchers to collaborate on the study design,19 preliminary results did not perfectly match GWT's prediction that consciousness arises when information is broadcast to areas of the brain through an interconnected network. The transmission, according to GWT, happens at the beginning and end of an experience and involves the prefrontal cortex, at the front of the brain. But independent “theory-neutral” researchers found that only some aspects of consciousness, but not all of them, could be identified in the prefrontal cortex. Moreover, while they found evidence of brain broadcasting, the core of GWT, it was only at the beginning of an experience—not also at the end, as had been predicted. Further experiments are to come, but revisions to GWT are believed likely (Lenharo, 2023a,Lenharo, 2023b, 2024). 9.2.4. Dennett's multiple drafts model In his intellectual memoirs, I've Been Thinking, philosopher Daniel Dennett highlights two fundamental questions on which his career is founded—the two related philosophical problems he set himself to solve. “First, how can it be that some complicated clumps of molecules can be properly described as having states or events that are about something, that have meaning or content. And second, how can it be that at least some of these complicated clumps of molecules are conscious—that is, aware that they are gifted with states or events that are about something?” (Dennett, 2023a, 2023b). In dealing with these questions, Dennett realized, way back in his PhD dissertation in 1965, that “the best—and only—way of making sense of the mind and consciousness is through evolution by natural selection on many levels.” Dennett's core insight subsuming biological evolution in general and the development of mind in particular is concise: reasons without a reasoner, design without a designer, and competence without comprehension (Dennett, 2007). Dennett's theory of consciousness is distinguished by four ideas: (i) there is no “Cartesian Theater,” no inner witness viewing the consciousness show; (ii) different brain regions or modules develop different kinds of content, which Dennett calls “multiple drafts”; (iii) the multiple drafts compete with one another for attention, the winner of the winner-take-all competition occupying the entirety of the conscious moment, which Dennett calls “fame in the brain”; and (iv) the collection of all these conscious moments coalesces into a kind of life story, the emergence of a sense of “self,” which Dennett describes as a “center of narrative gravity.” In Consciousness Explained, Dennett presents his multiple drafts model of consciousness (Dennett, 1992). He states that all varieties of perception, thought, or mental activity are processed in the brain via parallel, multitrack interpretations and elaborations, subject to continuous "editorial revision.” These “yield, over the course of time, something rather like a narrative stream or sequence, the product of continual editing by many processes distributed around the brain.” Dennett has the brain consisting of a "bundle of semi-independent agencies," and his metaphor “fame in the brain” tells us what it takes for competing ideas to determine the content of consciousness at any given moment. In supporting his theory, Dennett needs to undermine what we take to be common sense. He challenges the verisimilitude of inner experience, which he calls more like theorizing than like describing. He rejects the notion of a single central location (his "Cartesian theater") where conscious experience can be “viewed.” He dissolves the idea of the “self” as the central character of stories made up by content fixation and propagation in the brain. Moreover, he argues that the properties of qualia are incompatible and therefore incoherent, thus obviating the need to solve Chalmers's hard problem.20 Dennett needs all four of these counterintuitive yet deeply probative assertions; the package is admirably coherent, but buying it is a tall order. Of Dennett's four assertions, his desired demolition of qualia is perhaps his most critical move. Here is how he defends it. “Qualia are user-illusions, ways of being informed about things that matter to us in the world (our affordances) because of the way we and the environment we live in (microphysically) are. They are perfectly real illusions! They just aren't what they seem to be; they are not intrinsic, unanalyzable properties of mental states; they are highly structured and complex activated neural networks that dispose us to do all sorts of things in response—such as declare that we're seeing something blue. The key move is to recognize that we have underprivileged access to the source or cause of our convictions about what we experience” (Rosenberg and Dennett, 2020). Ironically, while Dennett calls as evidence “user illusions” in his case to deflate consciousness and support materialism, cognitive psychologist Donald Hoffman calls as evidence “user illusions” in his case to inflate consciousness and deny materialism. (16.5). This contrasting interpretation of precisely the same data by two first-rate thinkers is fascinating, perhaps telling. ennett is not shy in asserting that people still underestimate by a wide margin the challenges that the brain-in-vat thought experiment raises for views of consciousness other than Dennett's own. The key fact is that “you don't know anything ‘privileged’ about the causation of your own thoughts. You cannot know ‘from the inside” what events cause you to think you see something as red or green, for instance, or cause you to push button A instead of button B.” In short, to truly understand consciousness, Dennett says “you need to go outside yourself and adopt the ‘third-person point of view’ of science” (Dennett, 2023a, 2023b). Dennett stresses the importance of treating subjects' beliefs about their own consciousness as “data to be explained, not necessarily as true accounts of mental reality.” He states, “This is the major fault line in philosophy of mind today, with John Searle, Tom Nagel, David Chalmers, Galen Strawson, and Philip Goff [all represented in this paper], among others, thinking they can just insist they know better. They don't. Those who object, who hold out for some sort of ‘first-person science of consciousness,’ have yet to describe any experiments or results that are trustworthy but unobtainable by heterophenomenology” (the term Dennett coined for the third-person method, the phenomenology of other minds, which is standard procedure in cognitive science). Dennett says his meeting with leading scientific researchers on consciousness enabled him “to begin to form at least vague ideas of how mechanisms of the brain might do all the work,” but only, he insists, “if we deflated some of the overconfident pronouncements of introspectors about the marvels of the phenomena” (Dennett, 2023a, 2023b). In describing his early book, Content and Consciousness, where he puts content before consciousness, Dennett differentiates himself from John Searle, who puts consciousness before content. Although Searle and Dennett are both biological naturalists and both, for example, eschew panpsychism, Dennett believes that by prioritizing content, the mystery of consciousness is mitigated. Dennett has had a long, friendly, though surely adversarial relationship with Chalmers. “Even expert scientists have been fooled by Chalmers' ‘the Hard Problem’ into thinking that there's one big mysterious fact that needs explaining, when in fact there are hundreds of lesser problems that can be solved without any scientific revolutions, and when they are all solved, the so-called Hard Problem will evaporate” (Dennett, 2023a, 2023b). It is worth noting the more general case of a multiple module way of thinking, which posits separate if not independent cognitive components of the mind rooted in the brain (though not needing to correspond to identifiable brain structures). (9.2.5.) 9.2.5. Minsky's society of mind Artificial intelligence pioneer Marvin Minsky calls the multiple semi-independent modules in the human mind, generated by physically locatable modules in the human brain, The Society of Mind (not coincidentally the name of his book). It is a model of human cognition constructed, step by step, from the nonconscious interactions of simple mindless elements he calls “agents” (Minsky, 1986). “What does it mean to say you're aware of yourself?” Minsky asks. It would be impossible “for any one part of the brain to know what's happening in all the other parts of the brain because there's just too much. Each part of the brain has connections to other parts of the brain and can get some ideas, but there's no place that knows everything” (Minsky, 2007b). “The Society of Mind,” according to Minsky, is the end product of a vast evolutionary history, beginning with just clumps of neurons. Because neurons evolved early and had to keep their physiological integrity, progress was made by neurons gathering together, which led to the first small brains, and when these small brains began to specialize as well as to associate, “mind” began to develop (Minsky, 2007b). Minsky is as blunt as he is insightful. “While many neuroscientists focus on how brain cells [neurons] work, to me, that's pretty much like trying to understand a computer from how transistors work. The neurons and synapses are maybe six levels of organization below the thoughts that you're actually aware of, the important things that distinguish a human from a crayfish. These high-level descriptions are what counts, and each of them has to be understood by itself. Any particular thing that happens in Level 5 can be understood as a combination of maybe 20 or 50 things that happen in Level 4 and so forth. But you can't understand Level 5 even if you know everything about how neurons and synapses work. The difference between a human and a crayfish is that a human has these multiple levels of brain organization that the earlier animals did not have” (Minsky, 2007b). Actually, Minsky says, “I'm interested in how this piece of machine, the brain, can do things like decide that what it’s doing isn't working. How does it develop new goals? How does it develop new methods for achieving its goals? And, most important, how does it make a model of itself as a being in a world and think high-level stuff about its own past and its future?” It has been known for well over 100 years that the brain has many different parts. Minsky envisions something “like a great network of computers, each of which is specialized. It's not that it’s a society of little people, but rather a society of biological machines, say 400 or more of these, each with different top-level functions, including the capacity to imagine planning proposals and counterfactual histories.” Minsky speculates that cortical columns of related neurons, which are intermediate in complexity, can store things for a certain period without any changes in probability or conductions. We evolved these structures, he says, “so we could have reliable short-term memories that represent knowledge in many different ways.” In context, Minsky advises studying “insulation theory.” He says, “Theorists called ‘connectionists’ say what's important about the brain is how things are connected to each other. You could argue that it’s even more important to know how things are insulated from each other—why you don't get a big traffic jam because there's too many connections” (Minsky, 2007b). 9.2.6. Graziano's attention schema theory Advanced by neuroscientist Michael Graziano, attention schema theory asserts that for the brain to handle a profusion of information it must have developed a quick and dirty model, a simplified version of itself, which it then reports “as a ghostly, non-physical essence, a magical ability to mentally possess items” (Graziano, 2019a, 2019b). He likens the attention schema to “a self-reflecting mirror: it is the brain's representation of how the brain represents things, and is a specific example of higher-order thought. In this account, consciousness isn't so much an illusion as a self-caricature.” Graziano claims that this idea, attention schema theory, gives a simple reason, straight from control engineering, for why the trait of consciousness would evolve, namely, to monitor and regulate attention in order to control actions in the world. Thus, Graziano argues that “the attention schema theory explains how a biological, information processing machine can claim to have consciousness, and how, by introspection (by assessing its internal data), it cannot determine that it is a machine whose claims are based on computations”(Graziano, 2019a, 2019b). 9.2.7. Prinz's neurofunctionalism: how attention engenders experience Philosopher Jesse Prinz accounts for consciousness with two main claims: first, consciousness always arises at a particular stage of perceptual processing, the intermediate stage; and second, consciousness depends on attention. “Attention” is Prinz's focus in that it “changes the flow of information allowing perceptual information to access memory systems.” Neurobiologically, he says, “this change in flow depends on synchronized neural firing. Neural synchrony is also implicated in the unity of consciousness and in the temporal duration of experience” (Prinz, 2012). What Prinz calls “attention” is a particular process of making an integrated representation of a stimulus' multiple properties, as perceived from a given point of view, available to working memory—and it is this process, and only this process, that generates consciousness. “Intermediateness,” as Prinz's term of art, locates the critical transformation when representations are “integrated into a point-of-view-retaining format that gets made available by this 'attention process'” to working memory. This is why Prinz's theory earns the appellation, “Attended Intermediate Representation Theory” (Mole, 2013). [Note: Prinz's theory could be classified under Representational Theories.] In exploring the limits of consciousness, Prinz states, “We have no direct experience of our thoughts, no experience of motor commands, and no experience of a conscious self.” His strong assertion is that “All consciousness is perceptual, and it functions to make perceptual information available to systems that allow for flexible behavior.” Thus, Prinz provides “a neuroscientifically grounded response to the leading argument for dualism,” and he argues that “materialists need not choose between functional and neurobiological approaches, but can instead combine these into neurofunctional response to the mind-body problem” (Prinz, 2012). Prinz encourages a direct, head-to-head competition, as it were, between his neurofunctionalism and David Chalmers's hard problem (Mole, 2013). “Where he [Chalmers] sought to synthesize two decades of dualist argumentation, I [Prinz] try here to synthesize two decades of empirical exploration”(Prinz, 2012;Mole, 2013). Whereas Chalmers famously declares that “no explanation given in wholly physical terms can ever account for the emergence of conscious experience.”). Prinz counters that there is now “a satisfying and surprisingly complete theory [contained entirely within materialism] of how consciousness arises in the human brain” (Prinz, 2012). 9.2.8. Sapolsky's hard incompatibilism Neuroendocrinologist and biological anthropologist Robert Sapolsky counts himself as a “hard incompatibilist,” affirming the truth of determinism (i.e., all events and actions are the product of prior events and actions) and denying the existence of free will. There is no possibility, he says, “of reconciling our being biological organisms built on the physical rules of the universe with there being free will, a soul, a ‘Me’ inside there which is somehow free of biology. You have to choose one or the other and, philosophically, I am completely in the direction of us being nothing more or less than our biology (and its interactions with the environment)” (Sapolsky, 2023b). Sapolsky's target is free will, not consciousness, but to deal with free will, he must deal with consciousness—after all, free will, if it exists, would be a product of consciousness, not the reverse. But Sapolsky is a reluctant consciousness warrior. Introducing a section of his book labeled “What Is Consciousness?”, he enjoys some self-deprecation. “Giving this section this ridiculous heading,” he says, seemingly smiling, “reflects how unenthused I am about having to write this next stretch. I don't understand what consciousness is, can't define it. I can't understand philosophers' writing about it. Or neuroscientists', for that matter, unless it's ‘consciousness’ in the boring neurological sense, like not experiencing consciousness because you're in a coma” (Sapolsky, 2023a). Referencing the Libet experiments (9.1.2), which purport to dissociate conscious awareness from brain decision-making, Sapolsky argues that “three different techniques, monitoring the activity of hundreds of millions of neurons down to single neurons, all show that at the moment when we believe that we are consciously and freely choosing to do something, the neurobiological die has already been cast. That sense of conscious intent is an irrelevant afterthought.” In another context with another metaphor, he calls consciousness “an irrelevant hiccup” (Sapolsky, 2023a). Yet Sapolsky is not prepared to dismiss consciousness as “just an epiphenomenon, an illusory, reconstructive sense of control irrelevant to our actual behavior.” This strikes me, he says, “as an overly dogmatic way of representing just one of many styles of neuroscientific thought on the subject” (Sapolsky, 2023a). Pushed to state what he believes consciousness is, Sapolsky demurs. “Consciousness is beyond me to understand—every few years I read a review from the people trying to understand it on a neurobiological level, and I cannot understand a word of what they are saying. For me, consciousness arises as a ‘complex emergent property’—which explains everything and nothing” (Sapolsky, 2023b). 9.2.9. Mitchell's free agents While neuroscientist Kevin Mitchell argues, contra many scientists and philosophers, that free will, or agency, is not an illusion—that “we are not mere machines responding to physical forces but agents acting with purpose”—he still asserts, "you cannot escape the fact that our consciousness and our behavior emerge from the purely physical workings of the brain” (Mitchell, 2023, p.3). Mitchell mounts an evolutionary case for how living beings capable of choice arose from lifeless matter, stressing “the emergence of nervous systems provided a means to learn about the world,” thus enabling sentient animals to model, predict, and simulate. These faculties reach their peak in humans with our capacities “to imagine and to be introspective, to reason in the moment, and to shape our possible futures through the exercise of our individual agency” (Mitchell,2023). Normally, there is high correlation between those who deny “real” (libertarian) free will with the commitment that consciousness is entirely physical, and conversely, those who affirm “real” (libertarian) free will, are more likely to opt for nonphysical theories. Mitchell is significant in that he defends “real” free will, but unambiguously has consciousness as entirely physical. He describes creaturely acts of what he considers “free will” before consciousness even evolved. “Thoughts are not immaterial,” he says; “they are physically instantiated in patterns of neural activity in various parts of the brain … There's no need to posit a ‘ghost in the machine’—you're not haunting your own brain. The ‘ghost’ is the machine at work” (Mitchell, 2023, pp.267-268). 9.2.10. Bach's cortical conductor theory Cognitive scientist Joscha Bach posits a functional explanation for phenomenal consciousness, the cortical conductor theory (CTC), where “cortical structures are the result of reward-driven learning, based on signals of the motivational system, and the structure of the data that is being learned.” Critical is the “conductor,” which is “a computational structure that is trained to regulate the activity of other cortical functionality. It directs attention, provides executive function by changing the activity and parameterization and rewards of other cortical structures, and integrates aspects of the processes that it attended to into a protocol. This protocol is used for reflection and learning” (Section: Bach, 2019). Bach has CTC's “elementary agents” as columns in the cerebral cortex that “self-organize into the larger organizational units of the brain areas as a result of developmental reinforcement learning. The activity of the cortical orchestra is highly distributed and parallelized, and cannot be experienced as a whole.” However, its performance is coordinated by the conductor, which is not a homunculus, “but like the other instruments, a set of dynamic function approximators” (situated in prefrontal cortex 21). Whereas most cortical instruments, he says, “regulate the dynamics and interaction of the organism with the environment (or anticipated, reflected and hypothetical environments), the conductor regulates the dynamics of the orchestra itself.” The process is based on signals of the motivational system and it provides executive function, resolves conflicts between cortical agents, and regulates their activities (Bach, 2019). “The conductor is the only place where experience is integrated,” Bach states. “Information that is not integrated in the protocol cannot become functionally relevant to the reflection of the system, to the production of its utterances, the generation of a cohesive self model, and it cannot become the object of access consciousness.” Without the conductor, he asserts, our brain can still perform most of its functions, but we would be “sleepwalkers, capable of coordinated perceptual and motor action, but without central coherence and reflection.” Memories empower Bach's theory. “Memories can be generated by reactivating a cortical configuration via the links and parameters stored at the corresponding point in the protocol. Reflective access to the protocol is a process that can itself be stored in the protocol, and by accessing this, a system may remember having had experiential access.” For phenomenal consciousness, Bach claims “it is necessary and sufficient that a system can access the memory of having had an experience—the actuality of experience itself is irrelevant.” Phenomenal consciousness, according to Bach, “may simply be understood as the most recent memory of what our prefrontal cortex attended to. Thus, conscious experience is not an experience of being in the world, or in an inner space, but a memory. It is the reconstruction of a dream generated [by] more than fifty brain areas, reflected in the protocol of a single region. By directing attention to its own protocol, the conductor can store and recreate a memory of its own experience of being conscious” (Bach, 2019). Unlike Integrated Information Theory (12), Bach says CTC is a functionalist model of consciousness, with similarity to other functionalist approaches, such as the ones suggested by Dennett (9.2.4) and Graziano (9.2.6) (Bach, 2019). 9.2.11. Brain circuits and cycles theories Brain circuits and cycles as mechanisms of consciousness are older explanations, no longer considered sufficient in themselves, having evolved into more sophisticated theories. Brain circuits cover the following kinds of large-scale brain structures: lateral pathways across the cerebral cortex linking diverse cortical areas (e.g., especially in the prefrontal, cingulate and parietal regions of the cortex, which are involved in higher-level activities such as planning and reasoning); the reticular activating system focusing attention, shaping behaviors, and stimulating motivation; and vertical thalamocortical radiations mediating sensory and motor systems.22 Brain cycles cover electroencephalogram (EEG) waves over broad regions of the cerebral cortex, the product of massive numbers of neurons firing synchronously (e.g., gamma waves at 40 Hz). A contemporary explanation recruits bidirectional information transfer between the cortex and the thalamus—recurrent corticothalamic and thalamocortical pathways—which are said to regulate consciousnesss. Evidence suggests "a highly preserved spectral channel of cortical-thalamic communication that is present during conscious states, but which is diminished during the loss of consciousness and enhanced during psychchedlic states" (Toker et al., 2024). Dendritic Integration Theory (DIT), linking neurobiology and phenomenology, relates cellular-level mechanisms to conscioius experience by leveraging "the intricate complexities of dendritic processing" in brain circuits. Jaan Aru et al. propose that "consciousness is heavily influenced by, or possibly even synonymous with, the functional integration of two streams of cortical and subcortical information that impinge on different compartments of cortical layer 5 pyramidal (L5p) cells" (Aru, 2023).The biophysical properties of pyramidal cells "allow them to act as gates that control the evolution of global actiatation patterns," such that "In conscious states, this cellular mechanism enables complex sustained dynamics withn the thalamocortical system, whereas during unconscious states, such signal propagation is prohibiited," Aru et al. suggest that the DIT "hallmark of conscious processing is the flexible integration of bottom-up and top-down data streams at the cellular level" (Aru, 2023, 2020). 9.2.12. Northoff's temporo-spatial sentience Psychiatrist and neuroscientist Georg Northoff postulates what he calls “sentience” as “a more basic and fundamental dimension of consciousness,” and he proposes that sentience arises via “temporo-spatial mechanisms”—characterized by brain activity, spatiotemporal relationship, and structure—with which “the brain constructs its own spontaneous activity [that] are key for making possible the capacity to feel, namely sentience.” Northoff's model is based on his supposition that “in addition to the level/state and content of consciousness, we require a third dimension of consciousness, the form or structure or organization of consciousness.” Thus, his “temporo-spatial theory of consciousness” leads him to posit “specific neuro-ecological and neuro-visceral mechanisms that are, in their most basic nature, intrinsically temporospatial.” We have this capacity to feel and thus for sentience, he says, “because our brain continuously integrates the different inputs from body and environment within its own ongoing temporo-spatial matrix” (Northoff, 2021). Northoff distinguishes “spatiotemporal neuroscience” from cognitive neuroscience and related branches (like affective, social, etc.) in that spatiotemporal neuroscience focuses on brain activity (rather than brain function), spatiotemporal relationship (rather than input-cognition-output relationship), and structure (rather than stimuli/contents). In this sense, spatiotemporal neuroscience “allows one to conceive the neuro-mental relationship in dynamic spatiotemporal terms that complement and extend (rather than contradict) their cognitive characterization” (Northoff et al., 2020). Finally, Northoff and colleagues feel “the need to dissolve the mind-body problem (and replace it by the world-brain relation).” They also address other philosophical issues like assuming “time (and space) to be constructed in different scales, small and long, with all different scales being nested (like the different Russian dolls) within each other.” For example, “a mental feature may be characterized by an extremely short and restricted spatiotemporal scale which, if abstracted and thereby detached from its underlying longer and more extended scale may seem to be non-dynamic and thus a re-presentation of an event or object. This is like taking one smaller Russian doll out and consider it in isolation from all the others (and, even worse, forgetting that any of the others were ever present).” If, in contrast, they suggest, “one conceives the spatiotemporal scale of mental features in the larger context of other spatiotemporal scales, one can take into view their nestedness.” In this view, Northoff has mental features as “nothing but a small Russian doll that is nested within the longer and more extended scales of the brain's spontaneous activity (which, by itself, is nested within the yet much larger spatiotemporal scales of body and world)” (Northoff et al., 2020). 9.2.13. Bunge's emergent materialism Philosopher and physicist Mario Bunge rejects any “separate mental entity,” calling it “a stumbling block to progress.” It is “unwarranted by the available data and the existing psychological models,” he says, and it collides “head-on with the most fundamental ideas of all modern science.” Rather, Bunge argues that the mind-body problem requires a psychobiological approach, based on the assumption that behavior is an external manifestation of neural processes—an approach that also abandons ordinary language in favor of a “state space language, which is mathematically precise and is shared by science and scientific philosophy” (Bunge, 1980; 2014). More broadly, he presents a systematic model of mankind as a “biopsychosocial entity” and he favors “the multilevel approach” over “the holistic, the analytic, and the synthetic approaches” (Bunge, 1989). Upfront, Bunge defines his idiosyncratic position: ‘‘I am an unabashed monist’’—his objective is “to reunite matter and mind”—and ‘‘I am a materialist but not a physicalist.’’ By the latter distinction, Bunge means that while the material world is all there is (i.e., there are no nonmaterial substances), the laws of physics cannot explain all phenomena (i.e., “physics can explain neither life nor mind nor society”) (Bunge, 2011; Slezak, 2011). Bunge calls his theory, or more precisely, his “programmatic hypothesis,” about the mind-body problem “emergent materialism”—his core concept being that “mental states form a subset (albeit a very distinguished one) of brain states (which in turn are a subset of the state space of the whole animal).” The hypothesis is unambiguously materialist, even though “biosystems, including their mental states, have properties that are not reducible to their physical and chemical properties.” Mind, according to Bunge, “is just a collection of functions (activities, events) of an extremely complex central nervous system.” Mental states are distinguished from brain states broadly in that mental states reflect only those brain states that exhibit neural plasticity, especially learning, in contrast to brain states that are more phylogenetically fixed (Bunge, 1980; 2014). Approaching the mind-body problem as a general systems theorist, Bunge shows, in particular, “how the concept of a state space can be used to represent the states and changes of state of a concrete thing such as the central nervous system.” He stresses the concept of emergence—he defines an emergent property as “a property possessed by a system but not by its components.” He then focuses on the level where such emergence occurs, arguing that “the mental cannot be regarded as a level on a par with the physical or the social.” The upshot, he says, is “a rationalist and naturalist pluralism.” While he rejects Dualism (15) as both untestable and contradictory to science, he also rejects Eliminative Materialism (9.1.1) and reductive materialism (9.1.7) “for ignoring the peculiar (emergent) properties of the central nervous system.” He opts for “emergentist materialism” as a variety of “psychoneural monism,” but cautions that it needs detailed mechanisms, especially mathematical ones (Bunge, 1977). Bunge trains his delightfully acerbic guns on choice theories: computationalism (“a sophisticated version of behaviorism,” “brainless cognitive science”); studying higher level mental phenomena rather than neuroscience and ‘‘objective brain facts’’ (“Cartesian mind-body dualism,” “psychoneural dualism”); philosophical zombies (‘‘responsible people do not mistake conceptual possibility, or conceivability, for factual possibility or lawfulness; and they do not regard the ability to invent fantasy worlds as evidence for their real existence’’); and panpsychism (‘‘illustrates the cynical principle that, given an arbitrary extravagance, there is at least one philosopher capable of inventing an even more outrageous one’’) (Slezak, 2011; Bunge, 2011). Bunge also criticizes that “the division of scientific labor has reached such a ridiculous extreme that many workers in neuroscience and psychology tend to pay only lip service to the importance of studies in development and evolution for the understanding of their subject.” Such neglect of development and evolution, he says, has had at least three undesirable consequences: 1) overlooking the biological maturation of the central nervous system (e.g., the corpus callosum takes up to a decade to develop); 2) exaggerating leaps at the expense of graduality (particularly of the information-processing variety); and conversely, 3) exaggerating continuity at the expense of quantitative novelty (animal psychologists who claim that human mental abilities differ only in degree from prehuman ones) (Bunge, 1989). In sum, to explain behavior and mentation in scientific terms, Bunge calls for a synthesis or merger of neuroscience and social science, rather than for a reduction, “even though the behavioral and mental processes are neurophysiological.” Put philosophically, “this is a case of ontological reduction without full epistemological reduction” (Bunge, 1989). 9.2.14. Hirstein's mindmelding William Hirstein argues that it is “the assumption of privacy”—the deep, metaphysical impossibility for one person to ever experience the conscious states of another—that has led philosophers and scientists to claim wrongly that the conscious mind can never be explained in straightforwardly physical terms and thus to “create vexing dualisms, panpsychisms, views that would force changes in our current theories in physics, views that deny the reality of consciousness, or views that claim the problem is insoluble.” Hirstein seeks to undermine “the assumption of privacy” by the thought experiment of “mindmelding”: connecting one person's cerebral cortex control network to another person's cerebral cortex visual attention network. This would entail inter-brain rather than the normal intra-brain coupling. Then the first person might correctly say, “Wow, I am experiencing your conscious visual states. Did you know you are color blind?” The control network functions as a referent for “I”—the subject of the visual states—and the other person's conscious visual states are the referent for “your conscious visual states.” As such, mindmelding would support phenomenal consciousness as entirely physical, realizable in terms of neurobiology, which would be both necessary and sufficient (Hirstein, 2012). 9.3. Electromagnetic field theories Electromagnetic (EM) Field Theories treat minds as identical to, or derivative from, the broader, brain-spanning EM fields generated by the cumulative aggregate of multiple, specific neural currents. The brain is packed with an intricate three-dimensional web of these EM fields—the question is what functions do these EM fields serve (if any), and whether these fields in any way relate to consciousness? Diverse studies are said to support an EM field theory. For example, “transient periods of synchronization of oscillating neuronal discharges in the frequency range 30–80 Hz (gamma oscillations) have been proposed to act as an integrative mechanism that may bring a widely distributed set of neurons together into a coherent ensemble that underlies a cognitive act.” Transitions between the moment of perception and the motor response are marked by periods of strong desynchronization, which suggests “a process of active uncoupling of the underlying neural ensembles that is necessary to proceed from one cognitive state to another” (Rodriguez, 1999). The stability of working memory is said to emerge at the level of the electric fields that arise from neural activity, more than from the specific neural activity itself, as “the exact neurons maintaining a given memory (the neural ensemble) change from trial to trial.” In the face of this “representational drift,” electric fields carry information about working memory content, enable information transfer between brain areas and “can act as ‘guard rails’ that funnel higher dimensional variable neural activity along stable lower dimensional routes” (Pinotsis and Miller, 2022). Electric fields, applied externally, have been shown to modulate pharmacologically evoked neural network activity in rodent hippocampus and to enhance and entrain physiological neocortical neural network activity (i.e., neocortical slow oscillation) in vitro as a model system. Both show the neural efficacy of weak sinusoidal and naturalistic electric fields (Fröhlich and McCormick, 2010). Neuroinformatics/EEG neuroscientists Andrew and Alexander Fingelkurts formulate a framework of “Operational Architectonics (OA) of Brain-Mind Functioning,” where “consciousness is an emergent phenomenon of coherent but dynamic interaction among operations produced by multiple, relatively large, long-lived and stable, but transient neuronal assemblies in the form of spatiotemporal patterns within the brain’s electromagnetic field.” OA’s architectural structure is “characterized by a nested hierarchy of operations of increasing complexity: from single neurons to synchronized neuronal assemblies and further to the operational modules of integrated neuronal assemblies.” Conscious phenomena are “brought to existence” by the brain generating a “dynamic, highly structured, extracellular electromagnetic field in spatiotemporal domains and over a wide frequency range.” Neurophysiological substrates of single operations (standing electromagnetic fields), produced by different neuronal assemblies, “present different qualia or aspects of the whole object/scene/concept.” At the same time, “the wholeness of the consciously perceived or imagined is a result of synchronized operations (electromagnetic fields) of many transient neuronal assemblies in the form of dynamic and ever-increasing spatiotemporal patterns termed Operational Modules (OM)”—where new OM configurations generate an almost infinite number and complexity of phenomenal qualities, patterns, and objects (Fingelkurts, 2024;Fingelkurts et.al., 2019, 2020). Adding credence to electromagnetic field theories are recent discoveries of large-scale, cerebral cortex-wide interacting spiral wave patterns of brain waves that are said to underlie complex brain dynamics and are related to cognitive processing. That the human brain exhibits rich and complex electromagnetic patterns, with brain spirals propagating across the cortex and giving rise to spatiotemporal activity dynamics with non-stationary features and having functional correlates to cognitive processing, would be consistent with their role in consciousness (Xu et al., 2023). 9.3.1. Jones's electromagnetic fields Philosopher Mostyn Jones gathers, explains and classifies various electromagnetic-field theories, each with its own theoretical foundation: computationalist, reductionist, dualist, realist, interactionist, epiphenomenalist, globalist, and localist. He uses three questions to classify the field theories: 1. How do minds exist relative to fields? 2. Are minds unified by global or local fields? 3. How extensively do fields and neurons interact? (Jones, 2013). The claim is made that electromagnetic fields in the brain can solve the “binding problem,” where distinct sensory modules combine to give a unified sense of phenomenal experience—say, melding the red and roundness of a balloon into a single percept. For example, there doesn't seem to be a single synthesizing brain area into which all visual circuits feed, nor any well-known cortical circuits that bind (unite) color and shape to form unified images. However, perceptual binding does seem to involve the synchronized firing of circuits in unified lockstep (with a temporal binding code) for specific sensory modalities (e.g., shape), but neurons in color and shape circuits don't synchronize. Mostyn states that “while binding involves synchrony, binding seems to be more than synchrony,” thus giving field theories the opening to unify visual experience via a single field, not by a single brain area or by synchrony (yet synchrony does amplify field activity) (Jones, 2013). Mostyn claims that evidence is mounting that unified neural electromagnetic fields interact with neuronal cells and circuits to explain correlations and divergences between synchrony, attention, convergence, and unified minds, and that the simplest explanation for the unity of minds and fields is that minds are fields (Jones, 2017).Moreover, some electromagnetic-field theorists even put qualia itself on the explanatory agenda (Jones, 2013). Jones poses “neuroelectrical panpsychism” (NP) as “a clear, simple, testable mind–body solution” based on the conjunction of its two component theories: (i) “everything is at least minimally conscious,” and (ii) “electrical activity across separate neurons creates a unified, intelligent mind.” According to Jones, NP is bolstered by neuroelectrical activities that generate different qualia, unite them to form perceptions and emotions, and help guide brain operations. He claims, ambitiously, that “NP also addresses the hard problem of why minds accompany these neural correlates.” He offers the radical identity that “the real nature of matter-energy (beyond how it appears to sense organs) is consciousness that occupies space, exerts forces, and unites neuroelectrically to form minds.” He also has NP solving panpsychism's combination problem “by explaining how the mind's subject and experiences arise by electrically combining simple experiences in brains” (Jones, 2024). 9.3.2. Pockett's conscious and non-conscious patterns Psychologist Susan Pockett's electromagnetic field theory of consciousness proposes that “while conscious experiences are identical with certain electromagnetic patterns generated by the brain” have always been acknowledged, it is critical to “specify what might distinguish conscious patterns from non-conscious patterns … the 3D shape of electromagnetic fields that are conscious, as opposed to those that are not conscious.” She calls this “a testable hypothesis about the characteristics of conscious as opposed to non-conscious fields” (Pockett, 2012). Moreover, Pockett argues that the central dogma of cognitive psychology that “consciousness is a process, not a thing” is “simply wrong.” All neural processing is unconscious, she asserts. “The illusion that some of it is conscious results largely from a failure to separate consciousness per se from a number of unconscious processes that normally accompany it—most particularly focal attention. Conscious sensory experiences are not processes at all. They are things: specifically, spatial electromagnetic (EM) patterns, which are presently generated only by ongoing unconscious processing at certain times and places in the mammalian brain, but which in principle could be generated by hardware rather than wetware” (Pockett, 2017). 9.3.3. McFadden's conscious electromagnetic information theory Molecular geneticist Johnjoe McFadden proposes conscious electromagnetic information (CEMI) field theory as an explanation of consciousness. His central claim is that “conventional theories of consciousness (ToCs) that assume the substrate of consciousness is the brain's neuronal matter fail to account for fundamental features of consciousness, such as the binding problem,” and he posits that the substrate of consciousness is best accounted by the brain's well-known electromagnetic (EM) field (McFadden, 2023). Electromagnetic field theories of consciousness (EMF-ToCs) were first proposed in the early 2000s primarily to account for the experimental discovery that synchronous neuronal firing was a strong neural correlate of consciousness (NCC) (McFadden, 2002).While McFadden has EMF-ToCs gaining increasing support, he recognizes that “they remain controversial and are often ignored by neurobiologists and philosophers and passed over in most published reviews of consciousness.” In his own review, McFadden examines EMF-ToCs against established criteria for distinguishing between competing ToCs and argues that “they [EMF-ToCs] outperform all conventional ToCs and provide novel insights into the nature of consciousness as well as a feasible route toward building artificial consciousnesses” (McFadden, 2023). McFadden references the neurophysiology of working memory in support of CEMI theory. He states that “although the exact neurons (the neural ensemble) maintaining a given memory in working memory varies from trial to trial, what is known as representational drift, stability of working memory emerges at the level of the brain's electric fields as detected by EEG.” This means, he argues that “since working memory is considered to be, essentially, conscious memory,” consciousness “resides in the brain's electromagnetic fields rather than in its neurons, acting as the brain's global workspace.” He asserts that “the higher level of correlation between the contents of working memory and the brain's EM fields, rather than the state of the brain's matter-based neurons, is a considerable challenge to all neural-ToCs” (McFadden, 2023). McFadden positions CEMI field theory (or EMF-ToCs) as providing “an objective criterion for distinguishing conscious from non-conscious EM fields. This arises from the requirement that, to be reportably conscious, a system must be able to generate (rather than merely transmit) thoughts as gestalt (integrated) information—our thoughts—that can be communicated to the outside world via a motor system” (McFadden, 2023). In distinguishing CEMI field theory from Integrated Information Theory (12), McFadden argues that “nearly all examples of so-called ‘integrated information’, including neuronal information processing and conventional computing, are only temporally integrated in the sense that outputs are correlated with multiple inputs: the information integration is implemented in time, rather than space, and thereby cannot correspond to physically integrated information.” He stresses that “only energy fields are capable of integrating information in space” and he defines CEMI field theory whereby “consciousness is physically integrated, and causally active, [with] information encoded in the brain's global electromagnetic (EM) field.” Moreover, he posits that “consciousness implements algorithms in space, rather than time, within the brain's EM field,” and he describes CEMI field theory as “a scientific dualism that is rooted in the difference between matter and energy, rather than matter and spirit” (McFadden, 2020). 9.3.4. Ephaptic coupling An ephaptic coupling theory of consciousness leverages the idea that neurons, being electrogenic, produce electric fields, which, if sufficiently strong and precisely placed, can influence the electrical excitability of neighboring neurons near-instantaneously (Chen, 2020).Assuming that ephaptic coupling occurs broadly in the brain, it could support, or even help constitute, an electromagnetic field theory of consciousness. Experiments show that a neural network can generate “sustained self-propagating waves by ephaptic coupling, suggesting a novel propagation mechanism for neural activity under normal physiological conditions.” There is clear evidence that “slow periodic activity in the longitudinal hippocampal slice can propagate without chemical synaptic transmission or gap junctions, but can generate electric fields which in turn activate neighboring cells.” These results “support the hypothesis that endogenous electric fields, previously thought to be too small to trigger neural activity, play a significant role in the self-propagation of slow periodic activity in the hippocampus” (Chiang et al, 2019). Ephaptic coupling of cortical neurons, independent of synapses, has been demonstrated by stimulating and recording from rat cortical pyramidal neurons in slices. Results showed that extracellular fields, despite their small size, “could strongly entrain action potentials, particularly for slow (<8 Hz) fluctuations of the extracellular field,” indicating that “endogenous brain activity can causally affect neural function through field effects under physiological conditions” (Anastassiou et al., 2011). Mesoscopic ephaptic activity in the human brain has been explored, including its trajectory during aging, in a sample of 401 realistic human brain models from healthy subjects aged 16–83. “Results reveal that ephaptic coupling … significantly decreases with age, with higher involvement of sensorimotor regions and medial brain structures. This study suggests that by providing the means for fast and direct interaction between neurons, ephaptic modulation may contribute to the complexity of human function for cognition and behavior” (Ruffini et al., 2020). 9.3.5. Ambron's local field potentials and electromagnetic waves Biologist and pain researcher Richard Ambron suggests that understanding the specific consciousness of pain might help to understand the mechanism of consciousness in general. Pain is ideal for studying consciousness, he says, because it receives priority over all other sensations, reflecting its criticality for survival (Ambron, 2023a, 2023b;Ambron and Sinav, 2022). In addition to housing circuits for pain, the ACC receives information from other brain regions. For example, inputs from the amygdala can increase the intensity of the pain due to anxiety or fear, whereas those from the nucleus accumbens can reduce the pain if the reward for bearing the pain is considered worthwhile. Thus, what we experience as pain depends on interactions among several areas of the brain. To maintain electro-neutrality after an injury, there is an efflux of positive ions from the cell body that forms a local field potential (LFP) and creates electromagnetic (EM) waves in the extracellular space around the pyramidal neurons. In Ambron's novel move, he posits that these EM waves now contain the information about the pain that was previously encoded in the action potentials. In other words, the pain information was transferred from action potentials to LFPs to EM waves, which could influence nearby circuits, such as those for attention. Ambron speculates that these EM waves contribute to consciousness. Assuming information from other senses is also transformed into EM waves, it also might help solve the “binding/combination problem,” because integrating information from all the waves could explain how individual sensory inputs combine to create “a unified, coherent version of the world.” Unlike most theories of consciousness, Ambron believes his hypothesis can be tested (Ambron, 2023a, 2023b). 9.3.6. Llinas's mindness state of oscillations Neuroscientist Rodolfo Llinas's theory of the “mindness state” is centered on the concept of oscillations. Many neurons possess electrical activity, manifested as oscillating variations in the minute voltages across the cell membrane. On the crests of these oscillations occur larger electrical events that are the basis for neuron-to-neuron communication. Like cicadas chirping in unison, a group of neurons oscillating in phase can resonate with a distant group of neurons. This simultaneity of neuronal activity, Llinas maintains, is the neurobiological root of cognition. Although the internal state that we call the mind is guided by the senses, it is also generated by the oscillations within the brain. Thus, in a certain sense, Llinas would say that reality is not all "out there," but is a kind of virtual reality (Llinas, 2002, 2007). 9.3.7. Zhang's long-distance light-speed telecommunications Synaptic neuroscientist Ping Zhang suggests that “the long-time puzzle between brain and mind” might be solved by “a light-speed telecommunication between remote cells that are arranged in parallel.” He bases his theory on “the law of synchronization,” where “all the individuals are connected to each other rigidly (or in a light-speed momentum network), energy radiated from one individual will be propagated to and conserved in all other individuals in light speed” (Zhang, 2019).23 In explaining “how a ‘school’ of neurons in human brain behaves like a light-speed rigid network and concentrates on a task,” Zhang cites his own observation of “the traveling electrical field mediated transmission of action potentials between excitable cells with the cell-cell distance more than 10 mm (an anatomically astronomical distance in cortex).” Moreover, “when longitudinal cells are arranged in parallel separately, the action potential generated from one cell can ‘jump’ to other cells and cause all the cells to fire action potentials in concert. If two cells fire action potentials spontaneously and have their own rhythm, they tend to ‘learn’ from each other, adjust their own pace, eventually lock their phases, and ‘remember’ this common rhythm for a long while”(Zhang, 2019). Zhang notes, “unlike synaptic neuronal network, which is a physiological transmission with the velocity of 0.2–120 m/s (synaptic delay period is not included), traveling electrical field mediated transmission … [has] the velocity of light speed.” In a cortical circuit, he says, “the synaptic elements provide delicate and precise connections; while the traveling electrical field, may provide transient, rapid, flexible rather than fixed connections to synchronize rhythmic action potentials fired from axons which are arranged in parallel and are well insulated by dielectric media.” How does “this invisible ‘tele’ bridge-linked synchronization or harmony” work? According to Zhang, neural action potentials in human brain circuits produce clusters of traveling electrical fields. Those with similar frequency tend to be synchronized. Integration, imagination, remembering, creating, etc. require considerable energy, and if these processes are simply synchronizations between different brain regions, the energy conserving property of sync facilitates performing these mental activities. Having worked on synaptic transmission for 20 years, Zhang muses: “Glutamate receptors, for instance, are found in both human and crayfish synapses. Human receptors are not any ‘smarter’ than those of crayfish.” It would be very narrow minded, he says, “to study human synapses, which evolved from those of squid and crayfish, hoping to find a magic thinking molecule.” If there is no super-highway (light speed) above the traditional synaptic networks, he concludes, “I just cannot imagine how people can be an intelligent life-form” (Zhang, 2019). 9.4. Computational and Informational Theories Computation and Information Theories feature advanced computational structures, resonance systems, complex adaptive systems, information-theory models, and mathematical models, all of which are held, in whole or in part, as theories of consciousness. 9.4.1. Computational theories Computational theories of mind developed organically as the processing power of computers expanded exponentially to enable the emulation of mind-like capabilities such as memory, knowledge structure, perception, decision-making, problem solving, reasoning and linguistic comprehension (especially with the advent of human-like large language models like ChatGPT). The growing field of cognitive science owes its development to computational theories (Rescorla, 2020). There is a reciprocal, recursive, positive-feedback relationship as computational theories of mind seek both to enhance the power and scope of computing and to advance understanding of how the human mind actually works. Classical computational theories of mind, which exemplify functionalism (9.1.3), are based on algorithms, which are routines of systematic, step-by-step instructions, and on Turing machines, which are abstract models of idealized computers with unlimited memory and time that process one operation at a time (with super-fast but not unlimited speed). Artificial intelligence adds logic, seeking to automate reasoning—deductive at first, then inductive and higher-order forms. Neural networks, with a connectionism construct, were a step-function advance. For example, chess computers have reigned supreme since 1997 when Deep Blue defeated the world chess champion, Gary Kasparov. But whereas the process has been literally massive brute-force calculations—hundreds of millions of “nodes” per second (a “node” is a chess position with its evaluation and history)—recent advances in algorithmic theory are dramatically improving capabilities. The implications go way beyond chess and are apparent. Philosopher-futurist Nick Bostrom espouses a computational theory of consciousness, which is consistent with his view that there is a distinct possibility that our world and universe, our total state of affairs, is a computer simulation (Bostrom, 2003, 2006). The logic is almost a tautology: A computer simulation would require, by definition, that our consciousness, and the consciousnesses of all sentient creatures, would be, ipso facto, computational consciousness. Of course, Bostrom does not argue that we are living in a simulation, so his computationalism as a theory of consciousness is motivated by other factors, including computational neuroscience. In fact, one could make the case that the arrow of causal explanation points in the reverse direction: Consciousness as computational would need to be a condition precedent, necessary but not sufficient, for the simulation argument to be coherent. Computer/AI scientist James Reggia explains that efforts to create computational models of consciousness have been driven by two main motivations: “to develop a better scientific understanding of the nature of human/animal consciousness and to produce machines that genuinely exhibit conscious awareness.” He offers three conclusions: “(1) computational modeling has become an effective and accepted methodology for the scientific study of consciousness; (2) existing computational models have successfully captured a number of neurobiological, cognitive, and behavioral correlates of conscious information processing as machine simulations; and (3) no existing approach to artificial consciousness has presented a compelling demonstration of phenomenal machine consciousness, or even clear evidence that artificial phenomenal consciousness will eventually be possible” (Reggia, 2013). Computer scientist Kenneth Steiglitz argues that all available theories of consciousness “aren't up to the job” in that “they don't tell me how I can know whether a particular candidate is or is not phenomenally conscious.” Moreover, he says, we will never be able to answer the question of AI consciousness—because “it is simply not possible to test for consciousness.” This presents, Steiglitz worries, dangers of two kinds: (1) damaging or even destroying our own consciousness, and (2) bringing about new consciousness that will not be treated with proper respect and quite possible suffer (Steiglitz, 2024). Steiglitz states three principles of what we think we know about consciousness—the dual nature of mind and body, the dependence of mind on body, and the dependence of mind on computation—and he calls them all absurd, because “these do not follow from physics, biology, or logic.” He muses, “I wish I had a theory to account for consciousness—but I don't see how any theory could” (Steiglitz, 2024). Philosophy-savvy attorney Andrew Hartford proposes an EP (Eternal Past) Conjecture such that “If there ever is something there always was something, because no-thing comes from Nothing,” and that “the always existor exists before all time, process or computation.” What follows, he says, is that while “it remains to be seen whether artificial consciousness is in the domain of all possibilities, we should not presume that we will necessarily build computational consciousness” (Hartford, 2014). The mildly dismissive critique is that the computational theory of mind follows the historical trend of analogizing the mind to “the science of the day,”.24 9.4.2. Grossberg's adaptive resonance theory To computational neuroscientist Stephen Grossberg, "all conscious states are resonant states." The conscious brain is the resonant brain where attentive consciousness regulates actions that interact with learning, recognition, and prediction (Grossberg, 2019). Grossberg's idea is that the mind is an activity, not a thing, a verb not a noun—it's what you do, not what you have or use. His theoretical foundation is “Adaptive Resonance Theory” (ART), a cognitive and neural concept of how the brain autonomously learns to consciously attend, learn, categorize, recognize, and predict objects and events in a changing world (Grossberg, 2013).Central to ART's predictive power is its ability to carry out fast, incremental, and stable unsupervised and supervised learning in response to external events. ART specifies mechanistic links in advanced brains that connect processes regulating conscious attention, seeing, and knowing, with those regulating looking and reaching. Consciousness thus enables learning, expectation, attention, resonance, and synchrony during both unsupervised and supervised learning. These mechanistic links arise from basic properties of brain design principles such as complementary computing, hierarchical resolution of uncertainty, and adaptive resonance. These principles, recursively, require conscious states to mark perceptual and cognitive representations that are complete, context sensitive, and stable enough to control effective actions (Grossberg, 2019). Foundational to Grossberg's way of thinking is the idea that all biological processes, notably our brains, self-organize, and that all cellular systems illustrate variations of a universal developmental code. All these processes are regulated using physically different instantiations of mechanistically similar laws of short-term memory or activation, and long-term memory or learned memory, that are conserved across species, including in our brains (Grossberg, 2021). Resonance in the brain comes about via bottom-up patterns interacting with learned top-down expectations, leading to a persistent resonant state that can also lead to conscious awareness when it includes feature-selective cells that represent qualia. In this way, Grossberg uses ART to explain many mind and brain data about how humans consciously see, hear, feel, and know things (Grossberg, 2023). At the risk of oversimplification, Grossberg's unified theory of mind has three “laws” of consciousness: (i) All conscious states are resonant states; (ii) only resonant states with feature-based representations can become conscious; (iii) multiple resonant states can resonate together. He believes that the varieties of brain resonances and the conscious experiences that they support make progress towards solving the hard problem of consciousness (Grossberg, 2017). 9.4.3. Complex adaptive systems models A complex adaptive system (CAS) is a dynamic network of interactions whose collective behavior may not be predictable from its component behaviors and that can “adapt” or alter its individual and collective behavior, creating novelties. A CAS works, broadly, via kinds of mutation and self-organizing principles related to change-initiating events at different levels of its organizational structure (from micro to collective), motivated in a loose sense by kinds of rules or trophisms (Complex Adaptive System, 2023). The application of CAS to consciousness can be argued from two perspectives. First, because the brain is a classic CAS in that it is the most complex system in the known universe—the brain has roughly (order of magnitude) 100 billion neurons and one quadrillion (1015 )connections—with constant adaptations and emergences of novel functions or activities, and because consciousness is the output of the brain, therefore consciousness is a CAS. Second, characteristics of consciousness per se are characteristics of a CAS: interactions are non-linear and chaotic in that small changes in inputs can cause large changes in outputs (e.g., minor physical or psychological stimuli can trigger major behavioral responses); histories are relevant for current and future evolution of the system; thresholds are critical for initiating new actions; interactions can be recursive and unpredictable; and the system is open such that boundaries may not be definable (Rose, 2022). Understanding consciousness as an intelligent CAS may affect how we assess its impact on its environment; for example, how anthropology conceives of culture (Laughlin, 2023).Consciousness may be modeled as an intelligent CAS where intelligence means solving problems by mediating between sensory input and behavioral output. Evolution of an intelligent CAS is said to result in emergent properties. 9.4.4. Critical brain hypothesis According to biophysicist John Beggs, the Critical Brain Hypothesis “suggests that neural networks do their best work when connections are not too weak or too strong.” This intermediate “critical” case avoids “the pitfalls of being excessively damped or amplified.” In criticality, the brain capacity for transmitting more bits of information is enhanced (Beggs, 2023). The hypothesis posits that the brain operates optimally near the critical point of phase transitions, oscillating between subcritical, critical, and modestly supercritical conditions. “The brain is always teetering between two phases, or modes, of activity,” Beggs explains; “a random phase, where it is mostly inactive, and an ordered phase, where it is overactive and on the verge of a seizure.” The hypothesis predicts, he says, that “between these phases, at a sweet spot known as the critical point, the brain has a perfect balance of variety and structure and can produce the most complex and information-rich activity patterns. This state allows the brain to optimize multiple information processing tasks, from carrying out computations to transmitting and storing information, all at the same time” (Beggs, 2023). The Critical Brain Hypothesis traces its origin to physicist Per Bak, who suggests that “the brain exhibits ‘self-organized criticality,’ tuning to its critical point automatically. Its exquisitely ordered complexity and thinking ability arise spontaneously … from the disordered electrical activity of neurons.” Founding his ideas on statistical mechanics, Bak hypothesizes that, “like a sandpile, the network balances at its critical point, with electrical activity following a power law. So when a neuron fires, this can trigger an ‘avalanche’ of firing by connected neurons, and smaller avalanches occur more frequently than larger ones” (Oullette, 2018). The same sense of a critical brain being “just right,” Beggs says, also explains why information storage, which is driven by the activation of groups of neurons called assemblies, can be optimized. “In a subcritical network, the connections are so weak that very few neurons are coupled together, so only a few small assemblies can form. In a supercritical network, the connections are so strong that almost all neurons are coupled together, which allows only one large assembly. In a critical network, the connections are strong enough for many moderately sized groups of neurons to couple, yet weak enough to prevent them from all coalescing into one giant assembly. This balance leads to the largest number of stable assemblies, maximizing information storage” (Beggs, 2023). Beggs claims that “experiments both on isolated networks of neurons and in intact brains have upheld many of these predictions” derived from networks operating near the critical point, especially in the cortex of different species, including humans. For example, it is possible to disrupt the critical point. “When humans are sleep deprived, their brains become supercritical, although a good night's sleep can move them back toward the critical point.” It thus appears, he suggests, that “brains naturally incline themselves to operate near the critical point, perhaps just as the body keeps blood pressure, temperature and heart rate in a healthy range despite changes to the environment” (Beggs, 2023). Two challenges are identified: (i) how is criticality maintained or “fine-tuned” in a biological environment (Ouellette, 2018), and (ii) “distinguishing between the apparent criticality of random noise and the true criticality of collective interactions among neurons” (Beggs, 2023). 9.4.5. Pribram's holonomic brain theory Neurosurgeon/neuroscientist Karl Pribram's Holonomic Brain Theory is the novel idea that human consciousness comes about via quantum effects in or between brain cells such that the brain acts as a holographic storage network (building on theories of holograms formulated by Dennis Gabor). (“Holonomic” refers to representations in a Hilbert phase space defined by both spectral and space-time coordinates.) (Section: Holonomic brain theory, 2023). Holograms are three-dimensional images encoded on two-dimensional surfaces and Pribram's claim is that this counterintuitive capacity is fundamental in explaining consciousness. (There is precedent in that the holographic principle in quantum cosmology describes black hole entropy and information, with applications in string theory and quantum gravity [Holographic principle, 2024].) Holograms are generated from patterns of interference produced by superimposed wavefronts, created by split beams of coherent radiation (i.e., lasers) that are recorded and later re-constructed. A prime characteristic is that every part of the stored information is distributed over the entire hologram. Even if most parts of the hologram are damaged, as long as any part of the hologram is large enough to contain the interference pattern, that part can recreate the entirety of the stored image (but if the image is too small it will be noisy, blurry) The application of holographic models to consciousness was inspired by this non-locality of information storage within the hologram. It was Karl Pribram who first noted the similarities between an optical hologram and memory storage in the human brain, extrapolating what psychologist Karl Lashley had discovered about the wide distribution of memory in the cerebral cortex of rats following diverse surgical lesions. Pribram had worked with Lashley on Lashley's engram experiments, which sought to determine exact locations of specific memories in primate brains by making small lesions. The surprising result was that these targeted extirpations had little effect on memory. In contrast, removing large areas of cortex caused multiple serious deficits in memory and cognitive function. The conclusion was a milestone in neuroscience: Memories are not stored in a single circuit or exact location, but were spread over the entirety of a neural network. Thus, according to Holonomic Brain Theory, memories are stored in holographic-like fashion within certain general regions, but stored non-locally within those regions. This enables the brain to maintain function and memory even after it is damaged. (This can explain why some children retain normal intelligence when large portions of their brains—in some cases, half—are removed.) (Holonomic brain theory, 2023). More fundamentally, Holonomic Brain Theory conjectures that consciousness is formed by quantum events within or between neurons. This early theory of quantum consciousness, which Pribram developed initially with physicist David Bohm, combines quantum biology with holographic storage. Pribram suggests these processes involve electric oscillations in the brain's fine-fibered dendritic webs, which differ from the commonly accepted action potentials along axons and traversing synapses. These oscillations are waves and create wave interference patterns in which memory is encoded such that a piece of a long-term memory is similarly distributed over a dendritic arbor. The remarkable result is that each part of the dendritic network contains all the information stored over the entire network—a mechanism that maps well onto laser-generated holograms. Thus, Holonomic Brain Theory is said to enable distinctive features of consciousness, including the fast associative memory that connects different pieces of stored information and the non-locality of memory storage (a specific memory is not stored in a single location; there is no dedicated group or circuit of specific neurons) (Holonomic brain theory, 2023). Although Holonomic Brain Theory has not come to threaten mainstream neuroscience, it has intriguing features that should be explored. I don't hold it against the theory that it has stimulated unusual and creative speculations; for example, holographic duality and the physics of consciousness (Awret, 2022); holographic principle of mind and the evolution of consciousness (Germine, 2018); and quantum hologram theory of consciousness as a framework for altered states of consciousness research (Valverde et al., 2022). In fact, for a theory to have a shot at explaining consciousness, if it does not stimulate strange ideas, it probably doesn't have the disruptive firepower that is surely required. For example, physicist Uziel Awret's dual-aspect information theory of consciousness—holographic-duality—is motivated by certain anti-physicalist problem intuitions associated with representational content and spatial location and attempts to provide these with a topic neutral, consciousness-independent explanation—which, he says “is ‘hard’ enough to make a philosophical difference and yet ‘easy’ enough to be approached scientifically.” This is achieved by, “among other things, showing that it is possible to conceive of physical scenarios that protect physicalism from the conceivability argument without needing to explain all the other anti-physicalist problem intuitions.” Awret argues that “abstract algorithms are not enough to solve this problem and that a more radical ‘computation’ that is inspired by physics and that can be realized in ‘strange metals’ may be needed” (Awret, 2022). 9.4.6. Doyle's experience recorder and reproducer “Information Philosopher” Bob Doyle proposes the “Experience Recorder and Reproducer (ERR)” as an information model for the mind. He says that the mind, like software, is immaterial information, a human being “is not a machine, the brain is not a computer, and the mind is not processing digital information.” His proposal is that “a minimal primitive mind would need only to ‘play back’ past experiences that resemble any part of current experience, because “remembering past experiences has obvious relevance (survival value) for an organism.” However, beyond its survival value, “the ERR evokes the epistemological ‘meaning’ of information perceived in that it may be found in the past experiences that are reproduced by the ERR, when stimulated by a new perception that resembles past experiences in some way” (Section: Doyle,n.d.b). Without prior similar experience, new perceptions will be "meaningless." A conscious being is constantly recording information about its perceptions of the external world and most importantly for ERR, it is simultaneously recording its feelings. Experiential data such as sights, sounds, smells, tastes, and tactile sensations are recorded in a sequence in association with emotional states, such as pleasure and pain, fear and comfort levels, etc. This means that when the experiences are reproduced (played back in a temporal sequence), the accompanying emotions are once again felt, in synchronization. The capability of reproducing experiences is critical to learning from past experiences, so as to make them guides for action in future experiences. The ERR biological model has information stored in “neurons that have been wired together.” (Neuroscientist Donald Hebb said that "neurons that fire together wire together.”) The stored information does not get recalled or retrieved (as computers do) to create a representation that can be viewed. Doyle prefers to call the reproduction a “re-presentation” in that the ERR is simply presenting or “re-presenting" the original experience in all parts of the conscious mind connected by the neural assembly. Humans are conscious of our experiences because they are recorded in (and reproduced on demand from) the information structures in our brains. Mental information houses the content of an individual (Doyle,n.d.b). ERR, Doyle says, also solves the "binding problem,” the unification of experience, because the sensory components are bound together when initially stored in the ERR (together with the accompanying emotion). They remain bound on playback. “They do not have to be assembled together by an algorithmic scheme.” Consciousness, Doyle says, can be defined in information terms as a property of an entity (usually a living thing but can also include computers and artificial intelligence) that reacts appropriately to the information (and particularly to changes in the information) in its environment. In the context of information philosophy, Doyle posits that the Experience Recorder and Reproducer can provide us with “information consciousness.” The treatment of information is said to link the physical and the phenomenal. Wherever there is a phenomenal state, it realizes an information state, which is also realized in the cognitive system of the brain. Conversely, for at least some physically realized information spaces, whenever an information state in that space is realized physically, it is also realized phenomenally. This leads Doyle to suppose that “this double life of information spaces corresponds to a duality at a deep level.” He even suggests that this “double realization” of information is the key to the fundamental connection between physical processes and conscious experience. If so, Doyle concludes, we might develop a truly fundamental theory of consciousness. And it may just be that information itself is fundamental (Doyle, n.d.b). 9.4.7. Informational realism and emergent information theory Philosopher/theologian/mathematician William Dembski argues that “informational realism,” understood properly, can “dissolve the mind-body problem.” Information realism “asserts that the ability to exchange information is the defining feature of reality, of what it means, at the most fundamental level, for any entity to be real.” It does not deny, he says, the existence of things (i.e., entities or substances). Rather, it defines things as “their capacity for communicating or exchanging information with other things,” such that “things make their reality felt by communicating or exchanging information.” This means that information is “the relational glue that holds reality together” and “thus assumes primacy in informational realism”(Dembski, 2021, 2023). A key move in dissolving the mind-body problem, according to Dembski, is to substitute information for perception under an informational realism framework, thereby giving the mind direct access to fundamental properties (9.8.10). Moreover, he says, informational realism is “able to preserve a common-sense realism that idealism has always struggled to preserve” because all things simply communicate information to their “immediate surroundings, which then ramifies through the whole of reality, reality being an informationally connected whole” (Dembski, 2021, 2023). Engineering professor Jaime Cardenas-Garcia links consciousness with “infoautopoiesis” (i.e., the process of self-production of information) and seeks to “demystify” both. Infoautopoiesis, he says, “allows a human organism-in-its-environment to uncover the bountifulness of matter and/or energy as expressions of their environmental spatial/temporal motion/change, i.e., as information or Batesonian differences which make a difference.” Thus, “individuated, internal, inaccessible, semantic information is the essence of consciousness,” and neither self-produced information nor consciousness is “a fundamental quantity of the Universe” (Cardenas-Garcia, 2023). Independent researcher Daniel Boyd presents Emergent Information Theory (EIT) to bridge the mind-body gap by considering biological and technological information systems as a possible mechanism of “non-material mind” (as defined in an informational context) influencing the physical body. EIT uses the term “information” as exemplified by computer binary “values.” While associated with a physical state (e.g., a magnetic polarity) they are distinct from it. The system design allows the “value” to be deduced from the state. However, being not composed of matter or energy the value itself, as defined, cannot interact with or be detected by any device. Yet it is these values that underlie the computer's function. EIT proposes that brain function is based on comparable primitive information associated with neuronal states (Boyd, 2020). These basic units of information are of no use individually. In computers they are combined to form hierarchical levels of organization—bytes, subroutines and programs—which cannot be observed, but can be deduced using the coding systems used to create them. Each level has properties that do not exist in underlying levels: the “emergence” referred to in EIT. Brain functions are based on equivalent hierarchical, emergent phenomena which are equally non-detectable. This applies not just to consciousness, but to all functional brain phenomena. That, in an organic system, this generic approach can result in the remarkable properties of consciousness should come as no surprise. Based on the top-down causation that is common in strongly emergent systems, EIT provides a mechanism for the influence of non-material mind over the physical body (Boyd, 2020). 9.4.8. Mathematical theories Mathematics can apply to consciousness in two ways. The first approach involves methods, models and simulations that are increasingly rigorous and sophisticated, describing and explaining essential features and mechanisms of conscious experience, primarily its structure, level, content and dynamics (Labh, 2024). Here mathematics supports various headline theories. Integrated Information Theory (12) relies on a mathematical determination of consciousness. Friston's Free-Energy Principle formalizes and optimizes the representational capacities of physical/brain systems (9.5.4). Hoffman's Conscious Realism (Idealism) utilizes a mathematical formulation of consciousness (16.5). The second approach posits deep claims that mathematical structures form the foundations of consciousness, much as mathematical structures form the foundations of quantum mechanics. In a sense, the first way, clear and common, is epistemological; the second, highly speculative, is ontological. As for mathematics as ontology, Max Tegmark has the entire universe, all reality, as a fundamental mathematical structure (Tegmark, 2014a). Roger Penrose has the Platonic world of perfect forms as primary such that physical and mental worlds are its “shadows.” We “perceive mathematical truths directly,” Penrose says, in that “whenever the mind perceives a mathematical idea, it makes contact with Plato's world of mathematical concepts” (Penrose, 1996). Both visions, certainly controversial, would be consistent with mathematical constructions of consciousness, suggesting that consciousness is “made of’ mathematics. Initiatives to link the abstract formal entities of mathematics, on the one hand, and the concreta of conscious experience, on the other hand, have proliferated, the challenge being to “represent conscious experience in terms of mathematical spaces and structures.” But what is “a mathematical structure of conscious experience?” (Kleiner and Ludwig, 2023). Mathematicians Johannes Kleiner and Tim Ludwig seek a general method to identify and investigate structures of conscious experience—quality, qualia or phenomenal spaces—to perhaps serve as a framework to unify approaches from different fields. Their prime criterion is that for a mathematical structure to be literally of conscious experience, rather than merely a tool to describe conscious experience, “there must be something in conscious experience that corresponds to that structure.” In simple terms, they say, such a mathematical structure consists of two building blocks: the first brings in one or more sets called the ‘domains’ of the structure, where the elements of sets correspond to aspects of conscious experiences. The second are relations or functions which are defined on the domains. The authors claim that this definition does not rely on any specific conception or aspects of conscious experience. Rather, it can work with any theory of consciousness in that “every conscious experience comes with a set of aspects,” whether holistic, irreducible approaches to qualia and phenomenal properties, or theories built on atomistic conceptions of consciousness such as multiple mind modules (Kleiner and Ludwig, 2023). Mathematician Yucong Duan proposes a mathematically based “bug” theory of consciousness in that, with respect to consciousness, a bug is “not only a limitation in information processing, but also an illusion that leads human beings to create abstract and complete semantics and use them as tools” (Duan and Gong, 2024a). He calls mathematics as “the language of consciousness,” required to find patterns, periodicity, relevance and other characteristics in consciousness, to reveal causal relationships and interactions among them, and to understand the structure, dynamics and functions of consciousness.” For example, “dynamic system theory can describe the evolution track and stable state of consciousness, and information theory can quantify the information flow and entropy value in consciousness, thus revealing the dynamic characteristics and information processing mechanism of consciousness.” Moreover, Fourier transform can “decompose complex consciousness signals into simple frequency components and reveal the laws and mechanisms of consciousness activities through frequency domain analysis, filtering and time-frequency analysis”—combining to yield “new perspectives of consciousness regularities.” Duan does recognize the limitations of mathematics (Duan and Gong, 2024b). 9.5. Homeostatic and affective theories Homeostatic and Affective Theories stress predictive, homeostatic, free-energy (active inference), equilibrium, and emotion-related theories, and have become increasingly recognized as important theories of consciousness. 9.5.1. Predictive theories (Top-down) Top-down predictive theories highlight brain-based, central-to-peripheral, efferent influence on sensory organs more than peripheral-to-central, afferent sensory perceptions—and while top-down predictive models may or may not be themselves explanations of consciousness, they give insight into the nature of consciousness and its evolutionary development. Top-down is a fundamental principle of how brains work and it would be surprising if it were not relevant for understanding consciousness. According to Anil Seth and Tim Bayne, there are two general approaches to understanding consciousness via the centrality of top-down signaling in shaping and enabling conscious perception. The first is reentry theories where recurrent, reentrant pathways are in some sense conscious perceptions—and thus reentry theories are theories of consciousness per se. The second approach, broadly described as predictive processing, starts instead from a foundation principle of how the brain works—in terms of prediction as a core principle underlying perception, action, and cognition, and therefore does not directly specify theories of consciousness. Nonetheless, the “core claim of reentry theory and predictive processing (PP) is that conscious mental states are associated with top-down signaling (reentry, thick arrows) that, for PP, convey predictions about the causes of sensory signals (thin arrows signify bottom-up prediction errors), so that continuous minimization of prediction errors implements an approximation to Bayesian inference”(Seth and Bayne, 2022). Cognitive philosopher Andy Clark puts it succinctly: Rather than your brain perceiving reality passively, your brain actively predicts it. Your brain is a powerful, dynamic prediction engine, mediating our experience of both body and world. From the most mundane experiences to the most sublime, reality as we know it is the complex synthesis of predictive expectation and sensory information, “sculpting” all human experience. Thus, the extraordinary explanatory power of the predictive brain (Clark, 2023). Leveraging the work of Karl Friston (9.5.4), Clark states that in predictive processing, perception is structured around prediction, which he suggests is the fundamental operating principle of the brain (Musser, 2023a, Musser, 2023b). While the rudimentary evolutionary driver of the predictive brain is simply survival, staying alive, the emergence of consciousness can be seen as facilitating the predictive capabilities in terms of awareness, responsiveness, and conformity to external realities. Clark stresses that even though biological brains are increasingly cast as “prediction machines” this should not constrain us “to embrace a brain-bound ‘neurocentric’ vision of the mind.” The mind, such views mistakenly suggest, consists entirely of the skull-bound activity of the predictive brain, an inference from predictive brains to skull-bound minds that Clark rejects. Predictive brains, he argues, can be apt participants in larger cognitive circuits. The path is thus cleared for a new synthesis in which predictive brains act as entry-points for extended minds (9.7.1), and embodiment and action contribute constitutively to knowing contact with the world (Clark, 2017a; 2017b.) Cognitive psychologist Richard Gregory pioneered conceptualizing the brain as actively shaping perception, not the assumed inert receptacle of sensory signals. (Gregory himself credited Herman von Helmholtz for realizing that “perception is not just a passive acceptance of stimuli, but an active process involving memory and other internal processes.”) Gregory's key insight was that “the process whereby the brain puts together a coherent view of the outside world is analogous to the way in which the sciences build up their picture of the world, by a kind of hypothetico-deductive process.” Although timescales differ, Gregory advocated the guiding principle that perception shares processes with the scientific method. In particular, Gregory incorporated “explicitly Bayesian concepts” into our understanding of how sensory data is combined with pre-existing beliefs ("priors") to modify and mold perceptions. Consciousness evolved, according to Gregory, to enable rapid comparisons between real-world events and counterfactual simulations in order to make optimum decisions (Gregory, 2023). Neuroscientist Rudolfo Llinas traces the evolution of the "mindness state" to enable predictive interactions between mobile creatures and their environment, arguing that the nervous system evolved to allow active movement in animals. Because a creature must anticipate the outcome of each movement on the basis of incoming sensory data, the capacity to predict is most likely the ultimate brain function. Llinas even suggests that Self is the centralization of prediction (Llinas, 2002). 9.5.2. Seth's “beast machine” theory Neuroscientist Anil Seth extends top-down predictive theories with his neuroscience-informed “beast machine” theory that conscious experiences can be understood as forms of brain-based perceptual prediction, within the general framework of predictive processing accounts of brain perception, cognition, and action. More specifically, his theory proposes that phenomenological properties of conscious experiences can be explained by computational aspects of different forms of perceptual prediction. A key instance of this is in the ability to account for differences between experiences of the world and experiences of the self. The theory also proposes that the predictive machinery underlying consciousness arose via a fundamental biological imperative to regulate bodily physiology, namely, to stay alive. We experience the world around us, and ourselves within it, with, through, and because of our living bodies (Seth, 2021a, 2021b). Seth says that our conscious experiences of the world and the self are forms of brain-based prediction—which he labels “controlled hallucinations.”25 He asks, how does the brain transform what are inherently ambiguous, electrical sensory signals into a coherent perceptual world full of objects, people, and places? The key idea is that the brain is a “prediction machine,” and that what we see, hear, and feel is nothing more than the brain's “best guess” of the causes of its sensory inputs. Because perceptual experience is determined by the content of the (top-down) predictions, and not by the (bottom-up) sensory signals, we never experience sensory signals themselves, we only ever experience interpretations of them. Thus, “what we actually perceive is a top-down, inside-out neuronal fantasy that is reined in by reality, not a transparent window onto whatever that reality may be.” Taking this idea seriously and seeking its implications, Seth proposes that the contents of consciousness are a kind of waking dream—the “controlled hallucination”—that is both more than and less than whatever the real world really is. He offers slyly the insight that “you could even say that we're all hallucinating all the time. It's just that when we agree about our hallucinations, that's what we call reality” (Seth, 2021a, 2021b). 9.5.3. Damasio's homeostatic feelings and emergence of consciousness Neuroscientist Antonio Damasio's perspective on consciousness is distinctive in a variety of ways. Crucially, the root process behind consciousness, he argues, is that of feelings related to the interior of complex organisms endowed with nervous systems. These feelings, which Damasio calls “homeostatic” to distinguish them from the feelings of emotions, continuously represents the ongoing state of the life of an organism in terms of how close or how far that state is from ideal, that ideal being homeostasis (Damasio and Damasio, 2023, 2024; Damasio, 1999). euroanatomically, the homeostatic feeling representations are achieved by the interoceptive system which collects signals—via interoceptive axons in peripheral nerves and spinal and brainstem nuclei—from the entire spectrum of viscera, from smooth musculature to end organs. Interoception is distinct from exteroception in a number of ways, but quite importantly because it pertains to an internal, animated landscape. Feelings represent evolving, active states but the “describer”—the nervous system—happens to be located inside the organism being “described”, with the consequence that the describer and described can interact. Moreover, the interaction is facilitated by the fact that the interoceptive nervous system is especially open, given its primitive nature, which includes neurons without myelin, whose axons are open to receiving signals at any point in their course, away from synapses (Damasio and Damasio, 2023, 2024). Other reasons why homeostatic feelings are distinct, according to Damasio, include (1) the fact that they are naturally, spontaneously, informative; and (2) that the information they provide is used to adjust the life process such that it may best correspond to ideal conditions. In brief, homeostatic feelings are regulatory because their spontaneous consciousness is used to achieve homeostasis and guarantee the continuation of life. Homeostatic feelings are the natural source of experiences. When they are combined with images generated by exteroceptive channels such as vision, they produce subjectivity. Thus, according to Damasio, homeostatic feelings are the core phenomena of consciousness. They are spontaneously conscious processes of hybrid nature, combining mental features and bodily features. Their presence informs the rest of the mind, e.g., the images that correspond to current perceptions or to perceptions retrieved from memory, that (1) life is ongoing inside a specific body/organism, and that (2) the life process is (or is not) operating within a range conducive to the continuation of life. Feelings offer spontaneous guidance on this specific issue and are thus a key to life regulation and survival (Damasio and Damasio, 2023, 2024). Damasio recounts that “the approach to the nature and physiology of consciousness has taken two distinct paths. One of those paths, by far the most frequent, has tied consciousness to cognitive processes, mainly exteroception, and most prominently, to vision. The other path has related consciousness to affective processes, specifically to feeling. ‘The cognitive path’ has seen consciousness as a complex and late arrival in biological history. It culminates in cognition writ large, e.g. exteroceptive processes, memory, reasoning, symbolic languages, and creativity. The ‘affect path’ has located the emergence of consciousness far earlier in biological history, and interoceptive processes provide the key” (Damasio and Damasio, 2021b, 2023, 2024; Damasio, 2019). In making his argument, Damasio explains “how and why consciousness entered biology through the avenue of affect. The feelings that translate fundamental homeostatic states—hunger, thirst, malaise, pain, well-being, desire—offer organisms a new layer of life regulation because of their inherent conscious status. Consciousness spontaneously delivers valuable knowledge into the decision-making mental space. Consciousness allows organisms to act deliberately and knowingly, rather than acting or failing to act, automatically and blindly. Consciousness is what makes deliberate life regulation possible. The intrinsic conscious nature of feelings is their grace and was their passport into natural selection. Their conscious nature is not a neutral trait.” Damasio assumes that “the emergence of consciousness occurred when homeostatic feelings first arose, there and then, and naturally provided knowledge concerning life” (Damasio, 2019, 2021a; Damasio, 2019). 9.5.4. Friston's free-energy principle and active inference Theoretical neuroscientist Karl Friston conceptualizes consciousness as the natural outcome of his “free-energy principle for action and perception (active inference),” which stresses the primacy of minimizing in all organisms the difference between perceptual expectations (required for homeostasis) and real-time sensory inputs (Friston et al, 2017). In this mechanism, human brains seek to minimize the difference—reduce the “surprise,” as it were—by generating internal models that predict the external world. As a physicist and psychiatrist, Friston says: “I find it difficult to engage with conversations about consciousness. My biggest gripe is that the philosophers and cognitive scientists who tend to pose the questions often assume that the mind is a thing, whose existence can be identified by the attributes it has or the purposes it fulfills.” The deeper question, he asks, is “what sorts of processes give rise to the notion (or illusion) that something exists?” Thus, Friston treats consciousness “as a process to be understood, not as a thing to be defined.” Simply put, his argument is that “consciousness is nothing more and nothing less than a natural process such as evolution or the weather” (Friston, 2017). Friston's perspective on process leads him to “an elegant, if rather deflationary, story about why the mind exists.” It focuses on “inference,” which Friston characterizes as “actually quite close to a theory of everything—including evolution, consciousness, and life itself.” We are processes and processes can only reason towards what is “out there” based on “sparse samples of the world; ” hence, the criticality of inference. This view, Friston says, “dissolves familiar dialectics between mind and matter, self and world, and representationalism (we depict reality as it is) and emergentism (reality comes into being through our abductive encounters with the world)” (Friston, 2017). But how did inert matter ever begin the processes that led to consciousness? It starts with complex systems that are self-organizing because they possess “attractors,” which are “cycles of mutually reinforcing states that allow processes to achieve a point of stability, not by losing energy until they stop, but through what's known as dynamic equilibrium. An intuitive example is homeostasis ….” (Friston, 2017). It's at this point that Friston focuses on inference, “the process of figuring out the best principle or hypothesis that explains the observed states of that system we call ‘the world.’” Every time you have a new experience, he says, “you engage in some kind of inference to try to fit what's happening into a familiar pattern, or to revise your internal states so as to take account of this new fact.” That's why attractors are so crucial, he stresses, “because an attracting state has a low surprise and high evidence.” A failure to minimize surprise means “the system will decay into surprising, unfamiliar states” – which would threaten its existence. “Attractors are the product of processes engaging in inference to summon themselves into being,” he says. “In other words, attractors are the foundation of what it means to be alive” (Friston, 2017). Friston applies the same thinking to consciousness and suggests that consciousness must also be a process of inference. “Conscious processing is about inferring the causes of sensory states, and thereby navigating the world to elude surprises … This sort of internalization of the causal structure of the world ‘out there’ reflects the fact that to predict one's own states you must have an internal model of how such sensations are generated” (Friston, 2017). Learning as well as inference, Friston continues, relies on minimizing the brain's free energy. “Cortical responses can be seen as the brain's attempt to minimize the free energy induced by a stimulus and thereby encode the most likely cause of that stimulus. Similarly, learning emerges from changes in synaptic efficacy that minimize the free energy, averaged over all stimuli encountered” (Friston, 2005). In short, consciousness is the evolved mechanism for simulating scenarios of the world. It is the internal emergent model that monitors and minimizes the free energy principle, the difference between internal perceptual expectations and real-time sensory input that reflects the external world. Friston proposes that “the mind comes into being when self-evidencing has a temporal thickness or counterfactual depth, which grounds the inferences it can make about the consequences of future actions.” Consciousness, he contends, “is nothing grander than inference about my future” (Friston, 2017). Friston's consciousness as active inference leads to its metaphysical stamp as “Markovian monism,” which, he says, rests upon the information geometry induced in any system whose internal states can be distinguished from external states—such that “the (intrinsic) information geometry of the probabilistic evolution of internal states and a separate (extrinsic) information geometry of probabilistic beliefs about external states that are parameterized by internal states.” Friston calls these information geometries intrinsic (i.e., mechanical, or state-based) and extrinsic (i.e., Markovian, or belief-based). He suggests the mathematics may help frame the origins of consciousness (Friston et al., 2020). Several theories of consciousness build on the free-energy paradigm, including Solms's Affect (9.5.5), Carhart-Harris's Entropic Brain (9.5.6) and Projective Consciousness Model (9.5.11). 9.5.5. Solms's affect as the hidden spring of consciousness Neuroscientist and psychoanalyst Mark Solms applies Friston's free energy principle to the hard problem of consciousness. He identifies the elemental form of consciousness as affect and locates its physiological mechanism (an extended form of homeostasis) in the upper brainstem. Free energy minimization (in unpredicted contexts) is operationalized “where decreases and increases in expected uncertainty are felt as pleasure and unpleasure, respectively.” He offers reasons “why such existential imperatives feel like something to and for an organism” (Solms, 2019). A physicalist, Solms argues that the brain does not “produce” or “cause” consciousness. “Formulating the relationship between the brain and the mind in causal terms,” he says, “makes the hard problem harder than it needs to be. The brain does not produce consciousness in the sense that the liver produces bile, and physiological processes do not cause—or become or turn into—mental experiences through some curious metaphysical transformation” (Solms, 2019). Objectivity and subjectivity are observational perspectives, he says, not causes and effects. “Neurophysiological events can no more produce psychological events than lightning can produce thunder. They are dual manifestations of a single underlying process. The cause of both lightning and thunder is electrical discharge, the lawful action of which explains them both. Physiological and psychological phenomena must likewise be reduced to unitary causes, not to one another. This is merely a restatement of a well-known position on the mind–body problem: that of dual-aspect monism”26(Solms, 2021b). (6.) Given the centrality of affect in Solms’ theory of consciousness, he must argue that emotion is the most efficient mechanism, perhaps the only effective mechanism, to optimize survival. His reasoning applies the free energy principle (9.5.4) in neurobiology such that feelings would uniquely enable humans to monitor interactions with unpredictable environments and modify their behaviors accordingly. Solms explains that “complex organisms have multiple needs, each of which must be met in its own right, and, indeed, on a context-dependent basis, they cannot be reduced to a common denominator. For example … fear trumps sleepiness in some contexts but not in others.” So, he says, the needs of complex organisms like ourselves must be coded as categorical variables, which are distinguished qualitatively, not quantitatively. Thirst feels different from sleepiness feels different from separation distress feels different from fear, etc., such that their combined optimized resolution must be computed in a context-dependent fashion, which would lead to “excessively complex calculations,” a “combinatorial explosion.” In terms of time spent and energy expended, the invention of affect, emotion, feeling is a much more efficient algorithm. Moreover, Solms adds, since “the needs of complex organisms which can act differentially, in flexible ways, in variable contexts, are ‘color-coded’ or ‘flavored,’ this provides at least one mechanistic imperative for qualia” (Solms, 2021a, 2021b). Solms seeks to demystify consciousness by showing that “cortical functioning is accompanied by consciousness if and only if it is ‘enabled’ by the reticular activating system of the upper brainstem. Damage to just two cubic millimeters of this primitive tissue reliably obliterates consciousness as a whole.” He rejects arguments that the reticular activating system generates only the quantitative “level” of consciousness (consciousness in a waking/comatose sense) and not its qualitative “contents” (consciousness as experience). This is affect, Solms says, and it is supported by “overwhelming” evidence. Therefore, since cortical consciousness is contingent upon brainstem consciousness, and since brainstem consciousness is affective, Solms concludes that “affect is the foundational form of consciousness. Sentient subjectivity (in its elementary form) is literally constituted by affect” (Solms, 2021a).27 Solms distinguishes between information processing models in cognitive science, which seem to lack question-askers, and self-organizing systems, which are obliged to ask questions—“their very survival depends upon it. They must chronically ask: ‘What will happen to my free energy if I do that?’ The answers they receive determine their confidence in the current prediction.” This is why Solms states “not all information processing (‘integrated’ or otherwise) is conscious; sentience appears to be a property of only some information processing systems with very specific properties, namely those systems that must ask questions of their surrounding world in relation to their existential needs” (Solms, 2021a) In summary, Solms claims that the functional mechanism of consciousness can be reduced to physical laws, such as Friston's free-energy law, among others. These laws, he says, “are no less capable of explaining how and why proactively resisting entropy (i.e., avoiding oblivion) feels like something to the organism, for the organism, than other scientific laws are capable of explaining other natural things. Consciousness is part of nature, and is mathematically tractable.” As a corollary, with respect to Crick's research program on the neural correlates of consciousness, Solms declares that there can be no objects of consciousness (e.g. visual ones) in the absence of a subject of consciousness. To Solms, the subject of consciousness is literally constituted by affect (Solms, 2021a). Regarding AI consciousness, Solms posits that if his theory is correct, “then, in principle, an artificially conscious self-organizing system can be engineered.” The creation of an artificial consciousness would be, he says, “the ultimate test of any claim to have solved the hard problem.” But, he warns, “we must proceed with extreme caution.” 9.5.6. Carhart-Harris's entropic brain hypothesis Psychopharmacologist Robin Carhart-Harris proposes the Entropic Brain Hypothesis in which the entropy of spontaneous brain activity indexes the informational richness of conscious states (within upper and lower limits, after which consciousness may be lost). A leading psychedelic researcher, Carhart-Harris reports that the entropy of brain activity is elevated in the psychedelic state, and there is evidence for greater brain “criticality” under psychedelics. (“Criticality … is the property of being poised at a ‘critical’ point in a transition zone between order and disorder where certain phenomena such as power-law scaling appear.”) He argues that “heightened brain criticality enables the brain to be more sensitive to intrinsic and extrinsic perturbations which may translate as a heightened susceptibility to ‘set’ and ‘setting.’” Measures of brain entropy, he suggests, can inform the treatment of psychiatric and neurological conditions such as depression and disorders of consciousness (Carhart-Harris, 2018). The “entropy” in the Entropic Brain Hypothesis is defined as “a dimensionless quantity that is used for measuring uncertainty about the state of a system but it can also imply physical qualities, where high entropy is synonymous with high disorder.” Entropy is then applied in “the context of states of consciousness and their associated neurodynamics, with a particular focus on the psychedelic state … [which] is considered an exemplar of a primitive or primary state of consciousness that preceded the development of modern, adult, human, normal waking consciousness.” Based on neuroimaging data with psilocybin, a classic psychedelic drug, Carhart-Harris argues that “the defining feature of ‘primary states’ is elevated entropy in certain aspects of brain function, such as the repertoire of functional connectivity motifs that form and fragment across time. Indeed, since there is a greater repertoire of connectivity motifs in the psychedelic state than in normal waking consciousness, this implies that primary states may exhibit ‘criticality’” (Carhart-Harris, 2018). Significantly, “if primary states are critical, then this suggests that entropy is suppressed in normal waking consciousness, meaning that the brain operates just below criticality.” This leads to the idea that “entropy suppression furnishes normal waking consciousness with a constrained quality and associated metacognitive functions, including reality-testing and self-awareness.” Carhart-Harris and colleagues also propose that “entry into primary states depends on a collapse of the normally highly organized activity within the default-mode network” (DMN—a set of regions more active during passive tasks than tasks requiring focused external attention, Buckner, 2013),28 thus maintaining the brain's homeostasis and “a decoupling between the DMN and the medial temporal lobes (which are normally significantly coupled)” (Carhart-Harris et al., 2014). Increased entropy in spontaneous neural activity is one of the most notable neurophysiological signatures of psychedelics and is said to be relevant to the psychedelic experience, mediating both acute alterations in consciousness and long-term effects. While overall entropy increases, entropy changes are not uniform across the brain: entropy increases in all regions, but the larger effect is localized in visuooccipital regions. At the whole-brain level, this reconfiguration is related closely to the topological properties of the brain's anatomical connectivity (Herzog et al 2023). (For how psychedelic experiences and mechanisms may or may not inform theories of consciousness, see 18.21.) Computational neuroscientist Gustavo Deco uses the concept of equilibrium in physics to explore consciousness. Since a physical system is in equilibrium when in its most stable state, the question is how close to equilibrium are the electrical states of the brain while people perform different tasks? Using a sophisticated mathematical theorem to analyze neuroimaging data, “they found that the brain is closer to a state of equilibrium when people are gambling than when they are cooperating,” suggesting that “there are many shades of consciousness” (Callaghan, 2024). 9.5.7. Buzsáki's neural syntax and self-caused rhythms Neuroscientist György Buzsáki presents the brain as “a foretelling device that interacts with its environment through action and the examination of action's consequence,” restructuring its internal rhythms in the process. In his telling, “our brains are initially filled with nonsense patterns, all of which are gibberish until grounded by action-based interactions. By matching these nonsense ‘words’ to the outcomes of action, they acquire meaning.” Once brain circuits are “calibrated” or trained by action and experience, “the brain can disengage from its sensors and actuators, and examine ‘what happens if’ scenarios by peeking into its own computation, a process that we refer to as cognition.” Buzsáki stresses that “our brain is not an information-absorbing coding device, as it is often portrayed, but a venture-seeking explorer constantly controlling the body to test hypotheses.” Our brain does not process information. He says, our brain “creates it” (Buzsáki, 2019). Buzsáki focuses on "neural syntax", which segments neural information and organizes it via diverse brain rhythms to generate and support cognitive functions. One expression is the “hierarchical organization of brain rhythms of different frequencies and their cross-frequency coupling.” Buzsáki shows that “in the absence of changing environmental signals, cortical circuits continuously generate self-organized cell assembly sequences”—clusters of neurons acting as focused functional units—that are the neuronal assembly basis of cognitive functions. He also shows “how skewed distribution of firing rates supports robustness, sensitivity, plasticity, and stability in neuronal networks” (Buzsáki, Wikipedia). Buzsáki's foundational idea is that “spontaneous neuron activity, far from being mere noise, is actually the source of our cognitive abilities,” and that “self-emerged oscillatory timing is the brain's fundamental organizer of neuronal information." The perpetual interactions among these multiple network oscillators, he says, “keep cortical systems in a highly sensitive ‘metastable’ state and provide energy-efficient synchronizing mechanisms via weak links” (Buzsáki, 2011). Taken together, Buzsáki coins his “inside-out” view. “The brain,” he says, “is a self-organized system with preexisting connectivity and dynamics whose main job is to generate actions and to examine and predict the consequences of those actions”. Brains draw from and interact with the world, rather than detect it. “In other words, rather than the world filling in the brain with information, the brain fills out the world with action.” Flipping the brain–world relationship, Buzsáki posits that brain activity is fundamentally self-caused (Gomez-Marin, 2021). Brain rhythms are Buzsáki's key mechanisms. “Spanning several orders of magnitude, and organized in nested frequency bands, these fascinating neuronal oscillations support neuronal syntax.” As Buzsáki puts it, “activity travels in neuronal space, much like waves in a pond.” Cognition is merely internalized action, and it arises when the brain disengages from the world. He thus recasts “the cognitive into the neural by means of action as a kind of ultimate cognitive source. It is action all the way in, all the way out, and all the way down” (Gomez-Marin, 2021). Still, Buzsáki must explain how endogenously produced neural syntax acquires its meaning, and to do so, he reaches outside the brain. Semantics are selected by the world, he stresses, and here's how it works. External inputs, sequences of perceptions that constitute wholes or fragments of meaning, engage and modify self-organized neural patterns so that they become meaningful and useful (broadly). Similarly, Buzsáki has learning as a matching process. “Existing, spontaneous neural patterns are selected rather than constructed anew. The brain is not a blank slate but one filled with syntactically correct gibberish that progressively acquires meaning via the pruning of the arbitrariness that the world affords” (Gomez-Marin, 2021). Related, Buzsáki and Tingley explain cognition, including memory, “by exaptation and expansion of the circuits and algorithms serving bodily functions.” They explain how “Regulation and protection of metabolic and energetic processes require time-evolving brain computations enabling the organism to prepare for altered future states.” The exaptation of such circuits, according to the authors, was likely exploited for exploration of the organism's niche, giving rise to “a cognitive map,” which in turn “allows for mental travel into the past (memory) and the future (planning)” (Buzsáki and Tingley, 2023). Moreover, Buzsáki's “two-stage model of memory trace consolidation, demonstrates how neocortex-mediated information during learning transiently modifies hippocampal networks, followed by reactivation and consolidation of these memory traces during sharp wave-ripple patterns of sleep” (Buzsáki, 2024). While explaining that cognition is not the same thing as explaining phenomenal consciousness, Buzsáki's theory of cognition can develop into its own theory of consciousness. Moreover, it can help select among other theories of consciousness, as it aligns more consistently with some Neurobiological Theories (9.2), such as Brain Circuits and Cycles (9.2.11); possibly Electromagnetic Field Theories (9.3); and certainly Homeostatic and Affective Theories (9.5), especially Top-Down Predictive Theories (9.5.1). 9.5.8. Deacon's self-organized constraint and emergence of self Neuroanthropologist Terrence Deacon, whose research combines human evolutionary biology and neuroscience, asserts that the origins of life and the origins of consciousness both depend on the emergence of self: the organizational core of both is a form of self-creating, self-sustaining, constraint-generating processes (Deacon, 2011a, 2011b). Deacon characterizes consciousness as “a matter of constraint,” focusing as much on what isn't there as on what is. He goes beyond complexity theory, non-linear dynamics and information theory to what he calls "emergent dynamics" theory where constraints can become their own causes, how constraints become capable of maintaining and producing themselves. This, he says, is essentially what life accomplishes. But to do this, life must persistently recreate its capacity for self-creation. What Deacon means by self “is an intrinsic tendency to maintain a distinctive integrity against the ravages of increasing entropy as well as disturbances imposed by the surroundings” (Deacon, 2011a, 2011b). The nexus to consciousness is the emergence of self: “this kind of reciprocal, self-organizing logic (but embodied in neural signal dynamics) must form the core of the conscious self.” Conceiving of neuronal processes in emergent dynamical terms, Deacon reframes aspects of mental life; for example, the experience of emotion relates to the role metabolism plays in regulating the brain's self-organizing dynamics, which are triggered whenever a system is perturbed away from its equilibrium, a process that shifts availability of energy in the brain. Thus, Deacon suggests that “conscious arousal is not located in any one place, but constantly shifts from region to region with changes in demand” (Deacon, 2011a, 2011b). 9.5.9. Pereira's sentience Neuroscientist Antonio Pereira, Jr. hypothesizes that cognitive consciousness depends on sentience. He distinguishes “two modalities of consciousness: sentience, in the sense of being awake and capable of feeling (e.g., basic sensations of hunger, thirst, pain) and, second, cognitive consciousness, i.e. thinking and elaborating on linguistic and imagery representations.” He proposes that the physiological correlates of sentience are “the systems underpinning the dynamic control of biochemical homeostasis,” while the correlates of cognitive consciousness are “patterns of bioelectrical activity in neural networks. His primary point is that “cognitive consciousness depends on sentience, but not vice versa” (Pereira, 2021). Pereira applies his concept of sentience as a theory of consciousness to the medical sciences, especially neurology and psychiatry, for both diagnostics and therapy. This implies that “medical practice should also address the physiological correlates of sentience in the diagnostics and therapy of disorders of consciousness.” The minimal requirement, he says, “for considering a person minimally conscious is … if she can feel basic sensations such as hunger, thirst, and pain. The capacity for feeling is conceived as closely related to the capacity of dynamically controlling the physiological processes of homeostasis.” In applying theories of consciousness to medical care, Pereira posits that higher-level capacities “such as verbal or imagery thinking, the retrieval of episodic memories, and action planning (e.g. imagining playing tennis, a technique for assessing residual consciousness in vegetative states), may not be adequate as a general standard for medical diagnosis of prolonged disorders of consciousness, since … in many cases the person may not be able to perform these tasks but still be able to consciously experience basic sensations” (Pereira, 2021). Taking general anesthesia as an example, Pereira states that “if the main criterion is not being able to feel pain, the goal of the procedure would be broader than the loss of cognitive consciousness. In some cases, the neural correlates of cognitive representations may not be the main target of treatment, since they correspond to a high-level specific ability that is not necessary for lower-level sentient experiences, which also deserve attention for proper medical and also bioethical reasons” (Pereira, 2021). 9.5.10. Mansell's perceptual control theory Clinical psychologist Warren Mansell proposes Perceptual Control Theory (PCT) in which “reorganization is the process required for the adaptive modification of control systems in order to reduce the error in intrinsic systems that control essential, largely physiological, variables.” It is from this system, he says, that primary [phenomenal] consciousness emerges and “is sustained as secondary [access] consciousness through a number of processes including the control of the integration rate of novel information via exploratory behavior, attention, imagination, and by altering the mutation rate of reorganization.” Tertiary [self-awareness] consciousness arises when “internally sustained perceptual information is associated with specific symbols that form a parallel, propositional system for the use of language, logic, and other symbolic systems” (Mansell, 2022). Mansell's objective is to give an “integrative account of consciousness,” which “should build upon a framework of nonconscious behavior in order to explain how and why consciousness contributes to, and addresses the limitations of, nonconscious processes.” Such a theory, as noted, “should also encompass the primary (phenomenal), secondary (access), and tertiary (self-awareness) aspects of consciousness,” and “address how organisms deal with multiple, unpredictable disturbances to maintain control.” Such categories of consciousness come about, according to PCT, because of “purposiveness,” which is “the control of hierarchically organized perceptual variables via changes in output that counteract disturbances which would otherwise increase error between the current value and the reference value (goal state) of each perceptual variable” (Mansell, 2022). 9.5.11. Projective consciousness model The Projective Consciousness Model (PCM) is a mathematical model of embodied consciousness that “relates phenomenology to function, showing the computational advantages of consciousness.” It is based on “the hypothesis that the spatial field of consciousness (FoC) is structured by a projective geometry and under the control of a process of active inference.” The FoC in the PCM is said to combine “multisensory evidence with prior beliefs in memory” and to frame them “by selecting points of view and perspectives according to preferences.” This “choice of projective frames governs how expectations are transformed by consciousness. Violations of expectation are encoded as free energy. Free energy minimization drives perspective taking, and controls the switch between perception, imagination and action” (Rudrauf et al, 2017). Founding assumptions of the PCM include: consciousness as an evolved mechanism that optimizes information integration and functions as an algorithm for the maximization of resilience; relating the free energy principle (9.5.4) to perceptual inference, active inference and (embodied) conscious experience; an integrative predictive system projecting a global 3-dimensional spatial geometry to multimodal sensory information and memory traces as they access the conscious workspace; and emphasis on the embodied nature of consciousness (9.6.1), without reducing consciousness to embodiment. A pivotal idea is that embodied systems have “an evolutionary advantage of developing an integrative cognition of space in order to represent, simulate, appraise and control spatially distributed information and the consequences of actions” (Rudrauf et al, 2017). Much is made of “the lived body,” because “in contrast to most contents of consciousness, the lived body is normally always present in the conscious field … a proxy for the integrity of the actual body … an anchor point for our efforts at preserving autonomy and well-being.” The lived body, therefore, is “a kind of inferential representation of the real body in physical space … a sort of virtual ‘user interface’ for the representation and control of the actual body.” Thus, the PCM claims to account for fundamental psychological phenomena: the spatial phenomenology of subjective experience; the distinctions and integral relationships between perception, imagination and action; and the role of affective processes in intentionality. The PCM suggests that brain states becoming conscious “reflect the action of projective transformations” (Rudrauf et al, 2017). 9.5.12. Pepperell's organization of energy Artist and perceptual scientist Robert Pepperell suggests that while energetic activity is fundamental to all physical processes and drives biological behavior, consciousness is a specific product of the organization of energetic activity in the brain. He describes this energy, along with forces and work, as “actualized differences of motion and tension,” and believes that consciousness occurs “because there is something it is like, intrinsically”—from the intrinsic perspective of the system—“to undergo a certain organization of actualized differences in the brain” (Pepperell, 2018). Pepperell laments that “energy receives relatively little attention in neuroscientific and psychological studies of consciousness. Leading scientific theories of consciousness do not reference it, assign it only a marginal role, or treat it as an information-theoretical quantity. If it is discussed, it is either as a substrate underpinning higher level emergent dynamics or as powering neural information processing.” He argues that “the governing principle of the brain at the neural level is not information processing but energy processing,” although the information-theoretic approach can complement the energetic approach. Pepperell puts “information in the biological context as best understood as a measure of the way energetic activity is organized, that is, its complexity or degree of differentiation and integration.” While “information theoretic techniques provide powerful tools for measuring, modeling, and mapping the organization of energetic processes,” he says, “we should not confuse the map with the territory” (Pepperell, 2018). In comparison with mainstream brain organization frameworks at the global level or localized, Pepperell offers, as an alternative or complementary way of thinking, how the energetic activity in the brain is organized. The challenge for the model is why energetic processing is associated with consciousness in the brain but not in other organs, like the liver or heart. Pepperell claims that energetic activity in the brain efficiently actuates differences of motion and tension that make the difference, perhaps via dynamic recursive organization – the “appropriate reentrant intracortical activity.” “If we are to naturalize consciousness,” Pepperell concludes, "then we must reconcile energy and the mind.” Treating the brain as a difference engine that serves “the interests of the organism is a natural approach to understanding consciousness as a physical process” (Pepperell, 2018). 9.6. Embodied and enactive theories Embodied and Enactive Theories emphasize the importance of the body and its interaction with the environment as an integral part of what consciousness is, not only what consciousness does. It also includes neurophenomenology, unifying two disparate ways of studying consciousness. 9.6.1. Embodied cognition Embodied Cognition is the concept that what makes thought meaningful are the ways neural circuits are connected to the body and characterize embodied experience, and that abstract ideas and language are embodied in this way as well. While cognition and consciousness are not the same, cognitive linguist George Lakoff argues that the mind is embodied, in that even pure mentality depends on the body's sensorimotor systems and emotions and cannot be comprehended without engaging them (Lakoff, 2007, 2012). In their classic book on the embodied mind, Philosophy in the Flesh, Lakoff and Mark Johnson stress three points: "The mind is inherently embodied. Thought is mostly unconscious. Abstract concepts are largely metaphorical. Much of the subject matter of philosophy, they claim, such as the nature of time, morality, causation, the mind, and the self, relies heavily on basic metaphors derived from bodily experience. Thought requires a body, they assert, “not in the trivial sense that you need a physical brain with which to think, but in the profound sense that the very structure of our thoughts comes from the nature of the body” (Lakoff and Johnson, 1999). 9.6.2. Enactivism Enactivism is the way of thinking that posits to explore mental activities, one must examine living systems interacting with their environments. Cognition is characterized as embodied activities. A mind without a body would be as if incoherent. “Enaction” was the term introduced in The Embodied Mind, the 1991 book by Varela, Rosch and Thompson (Varela et al., 1991). The enactive view is that cognition develops via dynamic, bidirectional exchanges between an organism and its surroundings. It is not the case that an organism seeks optimum homeostasis in a static environment, but rather that the organism is shaping its environment, and is being shaped by its environment—actively, iteratively, continuously—all mediated by that organism's sensorimotor processes. Thus, organisms are active agents in the world who affect the world and who are affected by the world. (Section: Hutto, 2023; Enactivism, 2024). Enactivists would harbor no hope of understanding mentality unless it were founded on histories of such bidirectional organism-environment interactions because that's the core concept of how minds arise and work. Organisms are self-creating, self-organizing, self-adapting, self-sustaining living creatures who regulate themselves and in doing so can change their environments, which then, iteratively, recycles the whole process. The scientific consensus is that phenomenal consciousness evolved via stages of cognition and proto-consciousness selected by fitness-enhanced traits in challenging environments. Although focused on cognition, enactivism enriches the consciousness-generating conditions by adding interactive dynamism between the organism and the environment. (Enactment is also said to be “a genuinely metaphysical idea” and “an ontological breakthrough” in that “Something is the case if and only if it is enacted”[Werner, 2023].) 9.6.3. Varela's neurophenomenology Neuroscientist and philosopher Francisco Varela proposes what he calls “neurophenomenology,” which seeks to articulate mutual constraints between phenomena present in experience, inspired by the style of inquiry of phenomenology, and the correlative field of phenomena established by the cognitive sciences (Varela Legacy, 2023). He starts with one of Chalmers's basic points: first-hand experience is an irreducible field of phenomena. He claims there is no “theoretical fix” or “extra ingredient” in nature that can possibly bridge this gap. Instead, the field of conscious phenomena require a rigorous method and an explicit pragmatics. It is a quest, he says, to marry modern cognitive science and a disciplined approach to human experience, thereby placing himself in the lineage of the continental tradition of phenomenology (Varela, 1996). Varela calls for gathering a research community armed with new tools to develop a science of consciousness. He claims that no piecemeal empirical correlates, nor purely theoretical principles, will do the job. He advocates turning to a systematic exploration of the only link between mind and consciousness that seems both obvious and natural: the structure of human experience itself. Varela's phenomenological approach starts with the irreducible nature of conscious experience. Lived experience, he says, is “where we start from and where all must link back to, like a guiding thread.” From a phenomenological standpoint, “conscious experience is quite at variance with that of mental content as it figures in the Anglo-American philosophy of mind.” He advocates examining, “beyond the spook of subjectivity, the concrete possibilities of a disciplined examination of experience that is at the very core of the phenomenological inspiration.” He repeats: “it is the re-discovery of the primacy of human experience and its direct, lived quality that is phenomenology's foundational project” (Varela, 1996). Varela's key point is that by emphasizing a co-determination of both accounts—phenomenological and neurobiological—one can explore the bridges, challenges, insights and contradictions between them. This means that both domains have equal status in demanding full attention and respect for their specificity. It is quite easy, he says, to see how scientific accounts illuminate mental experience, but the reciprocal direction, from experience towards science, is what is typically ignored. What do phenomenological accounts provide? Varela asks. “At least two main aspects of the larger picture. First, without them the firsthand quality of experience vanishes, or it becomes a mysterious riddle. Second, structural accounts provide constraints on empirical observations.” He stresses that “the study of experience is not a convenient stop on our way to a real explanation, but an active participant in its own right.” And while phenomenal experience is at an irreducible ontological level, “it retains its quality of immediacy because it plays a role in structural coherence via its intuitive contents, and thus keeps alive its direct connection to human experience, rather than pushing it into abstraction” (Varela, 1996). This makes the whole difference, Varela argues: The “hardness” and riddle become an open-ended research program with the structure of human experience playing a central role in the scientific endeavor. “In all functionalistic accounts what is missing is not the coherent nature of the explanation but its alienation from human life. Only by putting human life back in, will that absence be erased” (Varela, 1996). (The common thread said to run through Varela's extensive and heterogenous body of work is “the act of distinction”—distinctions as processes, distinctions in ways of distinguishing—“the aim of which was to address and supersede the challenges inherent in the dualist [modernist] thought style, especially the infamous two-pronged problem of the bifurcation and disenchantment of nature” [Vörös, 2023].) In the quarter century since Varela's neurophenomenology paper was published, its research program has made some advances and encountered some tensions; for example, investigating the experience of boundaries of the self, both phenomenologically and neurobiologically. The biggest challenge remains first-person reporting and interpretation, such as subtle aspects of self-consciousness. The continuing hope is that neurophenomenology can inform the science of consciousness, that the ongoing interaction between human experience and neuroscience becomes “an act of art, a deep listening, an improvisational dance, which slowly develops into a skillful scientific dialogue” (Berkovich-Ohana et al., 2020). 9.6.4. Thompson's mind in life Philosopher Evan Thompson heralds “the deep continuity of life and mind.” His foundational idea is “Where there is life there is mind, and mind in its most articulated forms belongs to life,” and his organizing principle is “Life and mind share a core set of formal or organizational properties, and the formal or organizational properties distinctive of mind are an enriched version of those fundamental to life.” More precisely, he says, “the self-organizing features of mind are an enriched version of the self-organizing features of life. The self-producing or ‘autopoietic’ organization of biological life already implies cognition, and this incipient mind finds sentient expression in the self-organizing dynamics of action, perception, and emotion, as well as in the self-moving flow of time-consciousness” (Thompson, 2002; Maturana and Varela, 1980).29 From this perspective, Thompson sees mental life as bodily life and as situated in the world. The roots of mental life lie not simply in the brain, he says, “but ramify through the body and environment. Our mental lives involve our body and the world beyond the surface membrane of our organism, and therefore cannot be reduced simply to brain processes inside the head.” With this framework, Thompson seeks to reduce (if not bridge) the so-called “explanatory gap” between consciousness and world, mind and brain, first-person subjectivity and third-person objectivity (i.e., the hard problem of consciousness). He works to achieve this (to oversimplify) by having the same kinds of processes that enable the transition from nonlife to life to enable the transition from life to mind. (I'd think he would rather eliminate the concept of “transition” altogether and consider life-mind as a unified concept—perhaps like, in cosmology, the once apparent independent dimensions of space and time now unified by a single physical concept, spacetime.) As a pioneer of enactivism (9.6.2), Thompson posits that “the enactive approach offers important resources for making progress on the explanatory gap” by explicating “selfhood and subjectivity from the ground up by accounting for the autonomy proper to living and cognitive beings.” He extends the idea with "embodied dynamism,” a key concept that combines dynamic systems and embodied approaches to cognition. While the former reflects enactivism, the latter is the enhancement (Thompson, 2002). According to Thompson, the central idea of the dynamic systems approach is that cognition is an intrinsically temporal phenomenon expressible in “the form of a set of evolution equations that describe how the state of the system changes over time. The collection of all possible states of the system corresponds to the system's ‘state space’ or ‘phase space,’ and the ways that the system changes state correspond to trajectories in this space.” Dynamic-system explanations, he says, consist of “the internal and external forces that shape such trajectories as they unfold in time. Inputs are described as perturbations to the system's intrinsic dynamics, rather than as instructions to be followed, and internal states are described as self-organized compensations triggered by perturbations, rather than as representations of external states of affairs” (Thompson, 2002). To make real progress on the explanatory gap, Thompson says, “we need richer phenomenological accounts of the structure of experience, and we need scientific accounts of mind and life informed by these phenomenological accounts.” My aim, he says, “is not to close the explanatory gap in a reductive sense, but rather to enlarge and enrich the philosophical and scientific resources we have for addressing the gap.” Calling on the philosophical tradition of phenomenology, inaugurated by Edmund Husserl and developed by others, primarily Maurice Merleau-Ponty, Thompson seeks to “naturalize” phenomenology by aligning its investigations with advances in biology and cognitive science and to complement science and its objectification of the world by reawakening basic experiences of the world via phenomenology. His main move is for cognitive science “to learn from the analyses of lived experience accomplished by phenomenologists …. which thus needs to be recognized and cultivated as an indispensable partner to the experimental sciences of mind and life” (Thompson, 2002). The deeper convergence of the enactive approach and phenomenology, Thompson says, is that “both share a view of the mind as having to constitute its objects.” He stresses that “constitute” does not mean fabricate or create, but rather “to bring to awareness, to present, or to disclose.” Thus, “the mind brings things to awareness; it discloses and presents the world. Stated in a classical phenomenological way, the idea is that objects are disclosed or made available to experience in the ways they are thanks to the intentional activities of consciousness.” Thompson argues that weaving together the phenomenological and neurobiological can “bridge the gap between subjective experience and biology, which defines the aim of neurophenomenology (9.6.4), an offshoot of the enactive approach” (Thompson, 2002). 9.6.5. Frank/Gleiser/Thompson's “The Blind Spot” Astrophysicist Adam Frank, theoretical physicist Marcello Gleiser, and philosopher Evan Thompson elevate and promote “the primacy of consciousness” in that “There is no way to step outside consciousness and measure it against something else. Everything we investigate, including consciousness and its relation to the brain, resides within the horizon of consciousness.” Lest they be misunderstood, the authors reject any inference that “the universe, nature, or reality is essentially consciousness or is somehow made out of consciousness,” because “this does not logically follow.” Such “a speculative leap,” they say, goes beyond what we can know or establish on the basis of “consciousness as experienced from within and as an irreducible precondition of scientific knowledge.” Furthermore, “this speculative leap runs afoul” of what they call “the primacy of embodiment,” which “is as equally undeniable as the primacy of consciousness” (Frank et al., 2024, pp. 186, 188). What now confronts us, Frank/Gleiser/Thompson say, is “a strange loop,” where “horizonal consciousness subsumes the world, including our body experienced from within, while embodiment subsumes consciousness, including awareness in its immediate intimacy.” The authors stress that “the primacy of consciousness and the primacy of embodiment enfold each other.” They call for unveiling and examining this strange loop, which normally disappears from view and is forgotten in what they call The Blind Spot. They describe the Blind Spot as “humanity's lived experience as an inescapable part of our search for objective truth” (Frank et al., 2024, p. 189), and they seek “to reclaim the central place of human experience in the scientific enterprise by invoking the image of a ‘Blind Spot’” (Gomez-Marin, 2024). In other words, they reject the way of thinking that “we can comprehend consciousness within the framework of reductionism, physicalism, and objectivism or, failing that, by postulating a dualism of physical nature versus irreducible consciousness that we could somehow grasp outside the strange loop.” This is why they label the hard problem of consciousness an “artifact of the Blind Spot.” It is “built into blind-spot metaphysics, and not solvable in its terms” because “it fails to recognize the ineliminable primacy of consciousness in knowledge” (Frank et al., 2024, p. 192). Frank/Gleiser/Thompson see “only a few options for trying to deal with consciousness within the confines of the blind-spot worldview,” and that “ultimately, they're all unsatisfactory, because they never come to grips with the need to recognize the primacy of consciousness and the strange loop in which we find ourselves.” They argue that the three major options—neural correlates of consciousness (9.2.2); metaphysical bifurcation of physical reality and irreducible mental properties (whether naturalistic dualism, substance dualism or panpsychism—13, 15); and illusionism (9.1.1)—are all “within the ambit of the Blind Spot” (Frank et al., 2024, p. 196). What Frank/Gleiser/Thompson offer is “a radically different approach beyond the Blind Spot.” They reference papers by astrophysicist Piet Hut and cognitive psychologist Roger Shepard (Hut and Shepard, 1996), and neuroscientist Francisco Varela (1996), making the case for “a major overhaul of the science of consciousness based on recognizing the primacy of experience.” They note “we inescapably use consciousness to study consciousness,” such that “unless we recover from the amnesia of experience and restore the primacy of experience in our conception of science, we'll never be able to put the science of consciousness on a proper footing.” A science of consciousness can work, all say, only if “experience really matters” (Frank et al., 2024, p. 218). The key, according to the authors, is “recognizing [both] the primacy of consciousness and the primacy of embodiment,” which, they claim “changes how we think about the problem of consciousness.” The problem for neuroscience “can no longer be stated as how the brain generates consciousness.” Rather, “the problem is how the brain as a perceptual object within consciousness relates to the brain as part of the embodied conditions for consciousness, including the perceptual experience of the brain as a scientific object. The problem is to relate the primacy of consciousness to the primacy of embodiment without privileging one over the other or collapsing one onto the other. The situation is inherently reflexive and self-referential: instead of simply regarding experience as something that arises from the brain, we also have to regard the brain as something that arises within experience. We are in the strange loop” (Frank et al., 2024, pp. 219–220). Frank/Gleiser/Thompson support Varela's neuroscience research program, “neurophenomenology” (9.6.3), based on “braiding together first-person accounts of consciousness with third-person accounts of the brain within the I-and-you experiential realm.” They advocate that phenomenology and neuroscience “become equal partners in an investigation that proceeds by creating new experiences in a new kind of scientific workshop, the neurophenomenological laboratory. First-person experiential methods for refining attention and awareness (such as meditation), together with second-person qualitative methods for interviewing individuals about the fine texture of their experience, are used to produce new experiences, which serve as touchstones for advancing phenomenology. This new phenomenology guides investigations of the brain, while investigations of the brain are used to motivate and refine phenomenology in a mutually illuminating loop” (Frank et al., 2024, pp. 219–220). The authors call neurophenomenology “probably the strongest effort so far to envision a neuroscience of consciousness beyond the Blind Spot (Frank et al., 2024, p. 221). Consciousness, particularly human consciousness, is “an expression of nature and is a source of nature's self-understanding.” 9.6.6. Bitbol's radical neurophenomenology Philosopher of science and phenomenologist Michel Bitbol promotes a “radical neurophenomenology” in which a “tangled dialectic of body and consciousness” is the “metaphysical counterpart” and whose goal is to advance Varela's neurophenomenology project (9.6.3) of criticizing and dissolving the “hard problem” of consciousness (Bitbol, 2021a). Bitbol claims that the neurophenomenological approach to the “hard problem” is underrated and often misunderstood; indeed, “in its original version, neurophenomenology implies nothing less than a change in our own being to dispel the mere sense that there is a problem to be theoretically solved or dissolved. Neurophenomenology thus turns out to be much more radical than the enactivist kinds of dissolution” (9.6.2) (Bitbol and Antonova, 2016). Did Varela himself have a theory to solve the hard problem? No, Varela declared (in Bitbol's report) “only a ‘remedy”—the point being that “there exists a stance (let's call it the Varelian stance) in which the problem of the physical origin of primary consciousness, or pure experience, does not even arise.” The implications, according to Bitbol, are that “the nature of the ‘hard problem’ of consciousness is changed from an intellectual puzzle to an existential option.” The “constructivist content,” he says, is that “The role of ontological prejudice about what the world is made of (a prejudice that determines the very form of the ‘hard problem’ as the issue of the origin of consciousness out of a pre-existing material organization) is downplayed” (Bitbol, 2012). Bitbol blames “the standard (physicalist) formulation of this problem” for both generating it and turning it into “a fake mystery.” But he recognizes that dissolving the hard problem is very demanding for researchers, because “it invites them to leave their position of neutral observers/thinkers, and to seek self-transformation instead.” Bitbol's approach “leaves no room for the ‘hard problem’ in the field of discourse, and rather deflects it onto the plane of attitudes.” This runs the risk, he says, of “being either ignored or considered as a dodge” (Bitbol, 2021a). Bitbol's method is “a metaphysical compensation for the anti-metaphysical premise of the neurophenomenological dissolution of the ‘hard problem.’” This can be achieved, he says, by designing this alternative metaphysics “to keep the benefit of a shift from discourse to ways of being, which is “the latent message of neurophenomenology” (Bitbol, 2021a). In its most radical version, “neurophenomenology asks researchers to suspend the quest of an objective solution to the problem of the origin of subjectivity, and clarify instead how objectification can be obtained out of the coordination of subjective experiences. It therefore invites researchers to develop their inquiry about subjective experience with the same determination as their objective inquiry.” Bitbol proposes a methodology to explore lived experience faithfully (via microphenomenological interviews retrieving or “evoking past experiences”) and thereby “addresses a set of traditional objections against introspection” (Bitbol and Petitmengin, 2017). Bitbol gives neuroscience no privilege, priority or pride of place. “The effective primacy of lived experience should be given such prominence that every other aspect, content, achievement, distortion, and physicalist account of consciousness, is made conditional upon it.” From a (radical) phenomenological standpoint, he says, “one must not mistake objectivity for reality. Reality is what is given and manifest, whereas objectivity is what is constituted by extracting structural invariants from the given experience. Along with this phenomenological approach, an objective science is not supposed to disclose reality as it is beyond appearances, but only to circumscribe some intersubjectively recognized features of the appearing reality.” Having said that, Bitbol stresses that “neuroscientific data should not be granted a higher ontological status than phenomenological descriptions; they should not be given the power to render a compelling verdict about what is real and what is deceptive in our experience.” Thus, he sums up: “from a phenomenological standpoint, the neuro-phenomenological correlation is plainly perceived as an extension of the lived sense of embodiment, not as a sign that some naturalistic one-directional ‘fundamental dependence’ of consciousness on the bodily brain is taking place” (Bitbol, 2015). Bitbol's affirmative solution is to formulate a “dynamical and participatory conception of the relation between body and consciousness … with no concession to standard positions such as physicalist monism and property dualism.” Bitbol's conception is based on Varela's formalism of “cybernetic dialectic,” “a geometrical model of self-production,” and it is “in close agreement with Merleau-Ponty's ‘intra-ontology’: an engaged ontological approach of what it is like to be, rather than a discipline of the contemplation of beings” (Bitbol, 2021a). Bitbol's approach to quantum physics complements his “radical phenomenology,” such that quantum mechanics becomes more a "symbolism of atomic measurements,” rather than “a description of atomic objects.” He supports the notion that “quantum laws do not express the nature of physical objects, but only the bounds of experimental information.” Similarly, Bitbol supports QBism, where the wave function's probabilities are said to be, shockingly (to me), Bayesian probabilities, which means they relate to prior subjective degrees of belief about the system, paralleling some ideas in phenomenology (Bitbol, 2023). Bitbol calls out “three features of such non-interpretational, non-committal approaches to quantum physics” that “strongly evoke the phenomenological epistemology.” These are: “their deliberately first-person stance; their suspension of judgment about a presumably external domain of objects, and subsequent redirection of attention towards the activity of constituting these objects; their perception-like conception of quantum knowledge.” Moreover, Bitbol claims that these new approaches of quantum physics go beyond phenomenological epistemology and “also make implicit use of a phenomenological ontology.” He cites Chris Fuch's “participatory realism” that “formulates a non-external variety of realism for one who is deeply immersed in reality,” adding, “but participatory realism strongly resembles Merleau-Ponty's endo-ontology, which is a phenomenological ontology for one who deeply participates in Being” (Bitbol, 2020; Gefter, 2015). QBist theorists assert that “quantum states are ‘expectations about experiences of pointer readings,’” rather than expectations about pointer positions. Their focus on lived experience, not just on macroscopic variables, is tantamount to performing the transcendental reduction instead of stopping at the relatively superficial layer of the life-world reduction.” Bitbol believes that “quantum physics indeed gives us several reasons to go the whole way down to the deepest variety of phenomenological reduction … not only reduction to experience, or to ‘pure consciousness,’ but also reduction to the ‘living present’” (Bitbol, 2021b). 9.6.7. Direct perception theory Direct Perception Theory is the idea that “the information required for perception is external to the observer; that is, one can directly perceive an object based on the properties of the distal stimulus alone, unaided by inference, memories, the construction of representations, or the influence of other cognitive processes” (APA, website). Philosopher Ned Block describes non-mainstream views of phenomenal consciousness that take it to work via this kind of “a direct awareness relation to a peculiar entity like a sense datum [i.e., that which is immediately available to the senses] or to objects or properties in the environment.” This direct awareness would seem to have to be “a primitive unanalyzable acquaintance relation that is not a matter of representation.” According to these direct realist or naïve realist theories of consciousness, “the phenomenal character of a perceptual experience is object-constituted in the sense that a perceptual experience of a tomato depends for its existence and individuation on the tomato. Any experience that is of a different tomato will have a different phenomenal character, even if it is phenomenally indistinguishable and even if the different tomato is exactly the same in all its properties and causes exactly the same activations in the brain.” Even subjectively indistinguishable hallucinatory experience would have to be different in phenomenal character as well (Block, 2023). 9.6.8. Gibson's ecological psychology Experimental psychologist James J. Gibson proposes an “embodied, situated, and non-representational” approach to perception (which, while not a surrogate for phenomenal consciousness, has features in common). Gibson attacks both behaviorism and cognitivism (e.g., information processing), arguing for direct perception and direct realism. Gibson calls his overarching theory, “Ecological Psychology,” and while his specific aim is “to offer a third way beyond cognitivism and behaviorism for understanding cognition,” an extension to consciousness can be cautiously inferred (Lobo et al., 2018; Gibson, 2024). Gibson maintains that there is far more information available to our perceptual systems than we are consciously aware of. He posits that “the optical information of an image is not so much an impression of form and color, but rather of invariants. A fixated form of an object only specifies certain invariants of the object, not its solid form.” Perceptual learning is said to be “a process of seeing the differences in the perceptual field around an individual” (Gibson, 2014, 2024). Gibson rejects “the premise of the poverty of the stimulus, the physicalist conception of the stimulus, and the passive character of the perceiver of mainstream theories of perception.” Rather, he has the main principles of ecological psychology as “the continuity of perception and action” and the “organism-environment system as unit of analysis” (Lobo et al., 2018). Significantly, Gibson develops the original idea of “affordances” (he coins the term), which are the ways the environment provides opportunities for and motivates actions of animals—human examples include steep slopes inspiring the design of stairs and deposits of hydrocarbons encouraging drilling. Gibson defends the radical idea that “when we perceive an object we observe the object's affordances and not its particular qualities” because it is both more useful and easier, which would mean that affordances are the objects of perception (Gibson, 2024; Lobo et al., 2018). If perception is direct, and affordances provide the possibilities, then affordances are a kind of state space of the mind. That environmental affordances may have enabled or selected for consciousness would be consistent with embodied and enactive theories of consciousness. 9.7. Relational theories Relational Theories of consciousness are those explanations whose distinctive feature is some kind of active or transformative connection with something other than brain circuits and pathways themselves. 9.7.1. A. Clark's extended mind The extended mind, according to philosopher Andy Clark, features an “active externalism,” based on the participatory role of the environment in driving cognitive processes. He asserts that when the human organism is linked with an external entity in a two-way interaction, a “coupled system” is created that can be conceptualized as a cognitive system in its own right (independent of the two components). This is because all the components in the system play an active causal role, and they jointly govern behavior in the same sort of way that cognition in a single system (brain) usually does. To remove the external component is to degrade the system's behavioral competence, just as it would to remove part of its brain. Clark's thesis is that this sort of coupled process counts equally well as a cognitive process, whether or not it is wholly in the head (Clark and Chalmers, 1998). Clark concludes his book, Supersizing the Mind, by inviting us “to cease to unreflectively privilege the inner, the biological, and the neural … The human mind, viewed through this special lens, emerges at the productive interface of brain, body, and social and material world.” He marvels that “minds like ours emerge from this colorful flux as surprisingly seamless wholes” (Clark, 2010). According to Owen Flanagan, “Walking, talking and seeing are all things the enactive, embodied, extended (code words for this hip new view) mind does in the world.” Clark “provides the best argument I've seen for the idea that minds are smeared over more space than neuroscience might have us believe, and that mind will continue spreading to other nooks and crannies of the universe as cognitive prostheses proliferate” (Flanagan, 2009). 9.7.2. Noë’s “out of our heads” theory Philosopher Alva Noë argues that only externalism about the mind and mental content, which requires active and continuous engagement between the brain and its environment, body and beyond, can succeed as a theory of consciousness (Noë, 2010). He uses his attention-alerting phrase “Out of Our Heads” as descriptor, not as metaphor, and he applies it literally. His hypothesis is that expanding the locus of where consciousness occurs may help explain its essence and mechanism. What does this actually mean? Noë takes issue with both dualism and materialism; attacking the weaknesses of each is not hard going. “We have no better idea how the actions of cells in the head give rise to consciousness than we do how consciousness arises out of immaterial spiritual processes.” So, brain science, he says, while it has the imprimatur of the scientific worldview, is not really going anywhere. It's like trying to understand what makes a dance “a dance” by studying the movement of muscles (Noë, 2007). He challenges the assumption that an event in the brain is alone sufficient for consciousness. “We spend all our lives, not as free-floating brains; we're embodied, we're environmentally embedded; we're socially nurtured from the very beginnings of our lives.” His idea is that “The world shows up for us,” with “multiple layers of meaning.” Noë offers an alternative framework, a novel way of thinking. “There are lots of discrete processes going on inside the head. But that's not where we should look for consciousness. We occupy a place in the world—all sorts of things are going on around us—and consciousness is that activity of keeping tabs, keeping touch, paying attention to, interacting with the world.” But what does it mean to say consciousness “is” that activity? “Is” as … “part of the process?” Or “enabling,” “bringing about” or “causing”? Or, in the strong sense of “is” as identity theory? Noë distinguishes the meaning and purposes of consciousness, which take place “out of our heads,” from the mechanical locus of consciousness, the substrate on which its symbols are physically encoded and manipulated. Noë uses dreams as corroborating evidence that consciousness occurs outside of the brain. He distinguishes dreams from real-life experiences, in that the latter has greater density, detail and robustness. “You can't experience in a dream everything that you can experience outside of a dream” (Noë, 2007). Consciousness to Noë means “How the world shows up for us depends not only on our brains and nervous systems but also on our bodies, our skills, our environment, and the way we are placed in and at home in the world.” This does not happen automatically, passively, done to the organism, but it is what the organism must do deliberately, proactively. “We achieve access to the world. We enact it by enabling it to show up for us.… If I don't have the relevant skills of literacy, for example, the words written on the wall do not show up for me” (Noë, 2012). He stresses that consciousness isn't just a matter of events triggered inside us by things outside us because things are triggered inside us all the time by all sorts of things outside of us and they don't rise to consciousness. Much depends on context, interest, knowledge and understanding. Thus, consciousness is what happens when sentient creatures interact with their environment via their brains; consciousness is not what their brains are doing to them. A science of consciousness, Noë says, must explain the role the brain is playing in a dynamic active involvement. It's not just that consciousness happens in the brain; it's not like that. “We are not our brains” (Noë, 2012). 9.7.3. Loorits's structural realism Philosopher Kristjan Loorits's Structural Realism posits that “conscious experiences are fully structural phenomena that reside in our brains in the form of complex higher-order patterns in neural activity.” He claims that the structural view of consciousness solves both the hard problem and the problem of privacy (Loorits, 2019). On the hard problem, according to Loorits, while some properties of our conscious experiences seem to be qualitative and nonstructural—qualia—“these apparently nonstructural properties are, in fact, fully structural.” He conjectures that qualia are “compositional with internal structures that fully determine their qualitative nature” (Loorits, 2019), that “qualia are the structures of vast networks of unconscious associations, and that those associational structures can be found in our neural processes.” He makes the ambitious prediction that “with the proper brain-stimulating technology, it should be possible to reveal the structural nature of qualia to the experiencing subject directly” (Loorits, 2019). Loorits concludes that “consciousness as a whole can be seen as a complex neural pattern that misperceives some of its own highly complex structural properties as monadic and qualitative. Such neural pattern is analyzable in fully structural terms and thereby the hard problem is solved (Loorits, 2014). (As for “the notion of structure,” Loorits's Structural Realism has some structures existing in the world in an objective sense and has conscious experiences among such structures [Loorits, 2019].) On the privacy problem, according to Loorits, while our “powerful intuition” is that “the content of my consciousness is directly accessible only to me”—a brain-bound internalist approach to consciousness, which comports well with neurobiological theories—some argue that “we can only talk about phenomena whose defining properties are known to us from the public realm.” According to this externalist approach, “if our conscious experiences were entirely private, we could not talk or theorize about them”—a way of thinking that suggests “conscious experiences should be understood in terms of an organism's relationship to its socio-physical environment” (Loorits, 2019). In defending internalism as the “location” of consciousness, Loorits argues that “structural phenomena are describable and analyzable in public terms even if those phenomena themselves are private.” Moreover, “the structure of our consciousness is always present in our neural processes and only sometimes (additionally) in an extended system that includes elements of the environment” (Loorits, 2018). Loorits offers modest support to illusionists who propose that “the apparently non-structural features of consciousness are in fact fully structural and merely seem to be non-structural.” He argues that “such a position is tenable, but only if the non-structural ‘seemings’ are interpreted as perspectival phenomena and not as theorists' fictions or absolute nothingness” (Loorits, 2022). When George Musser was musing that qualia might be relational (9.7), he met with Loorits, and to Musser's surprise, Loorits “had gone off the idea.” The disjunction is between third and first-person perspectives, where the former is how qualia is explained relationally and the latter is precisely the hard problem. According to Musser, Loorits's current thinking was that “qualia may well be relational behind the scenes, but as long as they feel intrinsic to us, they still elude scientific description.” Loorits concluded, “There is still a hard problem in a sense that we seem to be able to experience qualia without being aware of their relational components” (Musser, 2023a, Musser, 2023b). (I tip my hat when a philosopher changes their mind.) 9.7.4. Lahav's relativistic theory Physicist Nir Lahav characterizes consciousness as a physical phenomenon that is relative to the measurements of a "cognitive frame of reference." Just as different observers can have different measurements of velocity in a relativistic context, the same is true for consciousness. Two people can have different cognitive frames of reference, experiencing conscious awareness for themselves but only measuring brain activity for the other. The brain doesn't create conscious experiences through computations; rather, conscious experiences arise due to the process of physical measurement. Different physical measurements in different frames of reference manifest different physical properties, even when measuring the same phenomenon. This leads to different manifestations of conscious experience and brain activity in separate cognitive frames (Lahav and Neemeh, 2022). 9.7.5. Tsuchiya's relational approach to consciousness Neuroscientist Nao Tsuchiya's relational approach to consciousness is not so much a theory of consciousness per se but more a fresh methodology, “an alternative approach to characterize, and eventually define, consciousness through exhaustive descriptions of consciousness's relationships to all other consciousnesses.” His approach is founded in category theory (i.e., mathematical structures and their relations), which is used to characterize the structure of conscious phenomenology as a category and describe the interrelationships of members with mathematical precision. Tsuchiya proposes several possible definitions of categories of consciousness, both in terms of level and contents—the objective being for these conceptual tools to clarify complex theoretical concepts about consciousness, which have been long discussed by philosophers and psychologists, and for such conceptual clarification to inspire further theoretical and empirical research. To the extent that the project is successful, it will support relational theories of consciousness (Tsuchiya and Saigo, 2021). 9.7.6. Jaworski's hylomorphism Philosopher William Jaworski argues that the hard problem of consciousness arises only if hylomorphism is false. Hylomorphism is the claim that structure is a basic ontological and explanatory principle, and is responsible for individuals being the kinds of things they are, and having the powers or capacities they have. As Jaworski explains, “A human is not a random collection of physical materials, but an individual composed of physical materials with a structure that accounts for what it is and what it can do—the powers it has. What is true of humans is true of their activities as well.” Structured activities, he says, include perceptual experiences, which means that everything about a perceptual experience, including its phenomenal character, can be explained by describing the perceiver's structure: perceptual subsystems, the powers of those subsystems, and the coordination that unifies their activities into the activity of the perceiver as a whole. Conscious experiences, Jaworski concludes, “thus fit unproblematically into the natural world—just as unproblematically as the phenomenon of life” (Jaworski, 2020). According to Jaworski, from a hylomorphic perspective, “mind-body problems are byproducts of a worldview that rejects structure, and which lacks a basic principle which distinguishes the parts of the physical universe that can think, feel, and perceive from those that can't. Without such a principle, the existence of those powers in the physical world can start to look inexplicable and mysterious.” But if mental phenomena are structural phenomena, he says, then they are part of the physical world and thus “hylomorphism provides an elegant way of solving mind-body problems” (Jaworski, 2016). While hylomorphism exemplifies a suite of arguments purporting to undermine the hard problem, its own challenge seems two-fold: (i) by defining structure as primitive and fundamental, it almost embeds the desired conclusion in the definitional premise; and (ii) by not distinguishing kinds of structure, all structure holds the same level of ultimate explanation, which may not fit consciousness. 9.7.7. Process theory A process theory of consciousness is founded on process philosophy, the metaphysical idea that fundamental reality is dynamic, change, shift—the action of becoming.30 With respect to consciousness, process philosophy has refused to bifurcate human experience from nature, and as a consequence, process philosophy holds to a “panexperientialist” ontology where experience goes all the way down in nature, and consciousness genuinely emerges as an achievement of the evolution of experience through time. Only in the case of God (if God exists, of course) does consciousness belong to nature as an ontological primitive. (Davis, 2020, 2022; Faber, 2023). David Ray Griffin suggests that “panexperientialist physicalism,” by allowing for “compound individuals” and thereby a “nondualistic interactionism” that combines these strengths, can provide a theory that overcomes the problems of materialist physicalism (Griffin, 1997). Panexperientialist physicalism, he says, portrays the world as comprised of creative, experiential, physical-mental events. His process-type panexperientialism agrees with materialism that there is only one kind of stuff, but enlarges “energy” to “experiential creativity” (thus distinguishing it from panpsychism, 13.12). Process panexperientialists assume that it lies in the very nature of things for events of experiential creativity to occur—for partially self-creative experiences to arise out of prior experiences and then to help create subsequent experiences. The process by which our (sometimes partly conscious) experiences arise out of those billions of events constituting our bodies at any moment is simply the most complex example of this process—and the only one the results of which we can witness from the inside. 9.8. Representational theories Representational Theories of consciousness elevate the explanatory power of mental representations, which are inner-perceived notions or imagery of things, concrete or abstract, that are not currently being presented to the senses. Representational theories seek to explain consciousness in terms of mental representations rather than simply as neural or brain states. Mental representations utilize cognitive symbols that can be manipulated in myriad ways to describe, consider and explain an endless variety of thoughts, ideas, and concepts (Mental representation, 2024. Wikipedia). According to strict representationalism, conscious mental states have no mental properties other than their representational properties (Van Gulick, 2019). According to philosopher Michael Tye, “representationalism is a thesis about the phenomenal character of experiences, about their immediate subjective ‘feel’. At a minimum, the thesis is one of supervenience: necessarily, experiences that are alike in their representational contents are alike in their phenomenal character. So understood, the thesis is silent on the nature of phenomenal character. Strong or pure representationalism goes further. It aims to tell us what phenomenal character is.” In this view, “phenomenal character is one and the same as representational content that meets certain further conditions” (Tye, 2002). Philosopher Fred Dretske's "Representational Thesis" is the claim that: (1) All mental facts are representational facts, and (2) All representational facts are facts about informational functions (Dretske, 2023). Philosopher Amy Kind observes that “as philosophers of mind have begun to rethink the sharp divide that was traditionally drawn between the phenomenal character of an experience (what it’s like to have that experience) and its intentional content (what it represents), representationalist theories of consciousness have become increasingly popular” (Kind, 2010). While almost all theories of consciousness have representational features, the representational theories themselves, including those that follow, are distinguished by the more robust claim that their representational features are what explain consciousness (Van Gulick, 2019). A hurdle for all theories is the need to explain phenomenology in terms of intentionality, the “aboutness” of mental states, under the assumption that intentionality must be represented (Lycan, 2019). This is Jerry Fodor's challenge: “I suppose that sooner or later the physicists will complete the catalog they've been compiling of the ultimate and irreducible properties of things. When they do, the likes of spin, charm, and charge will perhaps appear on their list. But aboutness surely won't; intentionality simply doesn't go that deep” (Fodor, 1989). 9.8.1. First-order representationalism First-order representationalism (FOR) seeks to account for consciousness in terms of, or by reducing to, external, world-directed (or first-order) intentional states (Gennaro, n.d.). In other words, consciousness can be explained, primarily, by understanding how the directedness of our mental states at objects and states of affairs in the world is generated directly by those objects and states of affairs (Searle, 1979). Fred Dretske asserts that “the phenomenal aspects of perceptual experiences are one and the same as external, real-world properties that experience represents objects as having.” He argues that “when a brain state acquires, through natural selection, the function of carrying information, then it is a mental representation suited (with certain provisos) to being a state of consciousness.” (In contrast, “representations that get their functions through being recruited by operant conditioning, on the other hand, are beliefs.”) (Dretske, 1997). As philosopher Peter Carruthers explains, “the goal [of FOR] is to characterize all of the phenomenal—‘felt’—properties of experience in terms of the representational contents of experience (widely individuated). On this view, the difference between an experience of red and an experience of green will be explained as a difference in the properties represented—reflective properties of surfaces, say—in each case. And the difference between a pain and a tickle is similarly explained in representational terms—the difference is said to reside in the different properties (different kinds of disturbance) represented as located in particular regions of the subject's own body” (Carruthers, 2000). Carruthers recounts his unusual transition from higher-order theory to first-order theory.31 He originally explained phenomenal consciousness in terms of “dispositionalist higher-order thought theory,” which he characterized as “a certain sort of intentional content (‘analog’, or fine-grained), held in a special-purpose short-term memory store in such a way as to be available to higher-order thoughts … all of those contents are at the same time higher-order ones, acquiring a dimension of seeming or subjectivity” (Carruthers, 2000). (One of his goals, he says, is “to critique mysterian [10.2] and property-dualist accounts of phenomenal consciousness … [by] defending the view that consciousness can be reductively explained in terms of active non-conceptual representations.” He sought to “disarm (and explain away the appeal of) the various ‘hard problem’ thought experiments (zombies, explanatory gaps, and the rest)” (Carruthers, 2017). The later Carruthers concludes that the earlier Carruthers had “rejected first-order representational theories of consciousness on inadequate grounds.” As a result, “since there is extensive evidence that conscious experience co-occurs with the global broadcasting of first-order non-conceptual contents in the brain [9.2.3], and since this evidence is most easily accommodated by first-order representationalism, the latter is preferable to any form of higher-order account” (Carruthers, 2017). Philosopher Neil Mehta and anesthesiologist George Mashour describe FOR as consisting of “sensory representations directly available to the subject for action selection, belief formation, planning, etc.” They posit a neuroscientific framework, according to which neural correlates of general consciousness include prefrontal cortex, posterior parietal cortex, and non-specific thalamic nuclei, while neural correlates of specific consciousness include sensory cortex and specific thalamic nuclei” (Mehta and Mashour, 2013). FOR's core philosophical idea, Mehta and Mashour state, is that “any conscious state is a representation, and what it’s like to be in a conscious state is wholly determined by the content of that representation. By definition, a representation is about something, and the content of a representation is what the representation is about. For instance, the word ‘dolphins’ (representation) is about dolphins (content).” But, they clarify, “a representation is not identical to its content.” The English word “dolphins” has eight letters, but dolphins themselves do not have any letters. “Conversely, dolphins swim, but the word ‘dolphins’ does not swim.” This distinction leads to the strong view that neural states seem to have very different properties than conscious perceptions. “For instance, when someone consciously perceives the color orange, normally there is nothing orange in that person's brain. First-order representationalists explain this by holding that a conscious perception of orange is a representation of orange, and (as the ‘dolphin’ example shows) the properties of a representation can be very different from the properties of its content” (Mehta and Mashour, 2013). FOR's core neurobiological idea is that “each specific type of conscious state corresponds to a specific type of neural state.” Ned Block seeks to “disentangle the neural basis of phenomenal consciousness from the neural machinery of the cognitive access that underlies reports of phenomenal consciousness.” He argues that, in a certain sense, “phenomenal consciousness overflows cognitive accessibility.” He posits that “we can find a neural realizer of this overflow if we assume that the neural basis of phenomenal consciousness does not include the neural basis of cognitive accessibility and that this assumption is justified (other things being equal) by the explanations it allows” (Block, 2007c). Block hypothesizes that the conscious experience of motion is a certain kind of activation of visual area V5, which suggests that sensory systems are the neural correlates of sensory consciousness. He further speculates that what's required for consciousness in general are connections between these cortical regions and the thalamus, “which suggests that sensory and perhaps post-sensory systems … are the neural correlates of general consciousness, as well” (Block, 2007c). Block says he favors the first-order point of view, and if it is right, he says, “It may be conscious phenomenology that promotes global broadcasting, something like the reverse of what the global workspace theory of consciousness supposes. First-order phenomenology may be a causal factor in promoting global broadcasting; but according to the global workspace theory, global broadcasting constitutes consciousness rather than being caused by it” (Block, 2023, pp. 8–9). With a pungent example, Block compares first-order representationalism with higher-order representationalism (9.8.3), higher-order theories (HOT). “We have two perceptions that equally satisfy the descriptive content of the HOT, but one and not the other causes the HOT. But that gives rise to the problem of how a thought to the effect that I am smelling vomit could make a perception of crimson a conscious perception. The perception of crimson could cause the HOT while a simultaneous first-order smell-representation of vomit does not cause any higher-order state. The consequence would be that the perception of crimson is a conscious perception and the perception of vomit is not, even though the subject experiences the perception of crimson as if it were the perception of vomit.” Block concludes that “a descriptivist view based on content is inadequate,” and that “the difficulty for the HOT theory is that it is unclear what relation has to obtain between a HOT and a perception for the perception to be conscious” (Block, 2023, pp. 425–426). 9.8.2. Lamme's recurrent processing theory Neuroscientist Victor Lamme proposes Recurrent Processing Theory, which stresses brain sensory systems that are massively interconnected and involve feedforward and feedback connections, as being necessary and sufficient for consciousness. The visual system provides a case where “forward connections from primary visual area V1, the first cortical visual area, carry information to higher-level processing areas, and the initial registration of visual information involves a forward sweep of processing.” Moreover, many feedback connections link visual areas with other brain regions, which, later in processing, are activated and thereby yield dynamic activity within the visual system (Wu, 2018). Lamme proposes four stages of visual processing: Stage 1: Visual signals are processed locally within the visual system (i.e., superficial feedforward processing). Stage 2: Visual signals travel further forward in the processing hierarchy where they can influence action (i.e., deep feedforward processing). Stage 3: Information travels back into earlier visual areas, leading to local recurrent processing (i.e., superficial recurrent processing). Stage 4: Information activates widespread brain areas (i.e., widespread recurrent processing) (Wu, 2018). According to Lamme, it is the recurrent processing in Stage 3, which is a first-order theory and can occur in both sensory and post-sensory areas, that he claims to be necessary and sufficient for consciousness. In other words, “for a visual state to be conscious is for a certain recurrent processing state to hold of the relevant visual circuitry” (Wu, 2018). Ned Block calls Recurrent Processing Theory “basically a truncated form of the global workspace account: It identifies conscious perception with the recurrent activations in the back of the head without the requirement of broadcasting in the global workspace.” Block points out that “first-order theories do not say that recurrent activations are by themselves sufficient for consciousness. These activations are only sufficient given background conditions. Those background conditions probably include intact connectivity with subcortical structures.” What then is “enough for conscious perceptual phenomenology” is “the active recurrent loops in perceptual areas plus background conditions.” Block concludes: “So long as high-level representations participate in those recurrent loops, conscious high-level content is assured” (Block, 2023, pp. 8–9). Lamme critiques Global Workspace Theory [9.2.3] as “all about access but not about seeing” (even though his Stage 4 is consistent with global workspace access). The crucial distinction is that Global Workspace Theory has recurrent processing at Stage 4 as necessary for consciousness, while Recurrent Processing Theory has recurrent processing at Stage 3 as sufficient. The latter would enable phenomenal consciousness without access by the global neuronal workspace (Wu, 2018). Overall, Lamme avers that “neural and behavioral measures should be put on an equal footing” and that “only by moving our notion of mind towards that of brain can progress be made” (Lamme, 2006). He depicts “a notion of consciousness that may go against our deepest conviction: ‘My consciousness is mine, and mine alone.’ It's not,” he says (Lamme, 2010). 9.8.3. Higher-order theories According to Higher-Order Theories of consciousness, what makes a perception conscious is the presence of an accompanying cognitive state about the perception. This means that phenomenal consciousness is not immediate awareness of sensations. Rather, it is the higher-level sensing of those sensations, a product of second-order thoughts about first-order perceptions or mental states—a two-level process. Higher-Order Theories are distinguished from other cognitive accounts of phenomenal consciousness which assume that first-order perceptions or mental states can themselves be directly conscious—a one-level process (9.8.1, 9.8.2) (Carruthers, 2020, Higher-order theories of consciousness, 2023). According to Peter Carruthers, “humans not only have first-order non-conceptual and/or analog perceptions of states of their environments and bodies, they also have second-order non-conceptual and/or analog perceptions of their first-order states of perception.” This higher-order perception theory holds that “humans (and perhaps other animals) not only have sense-organs that scan the environment/body to produce fine-grained representations, but they also have inner senses which scan the first-order senses (i.e. perceptual experiences) to produce equally fine-grained, but higher-order, representations of those outputs.” Hence, Higher-Order Theories are also called “inner-sense theory.” Notably, “the higher-order approach does not attempt to reduce consciousness directly to neurophysiology but rather its reduction is in mentalistic terms, that is, by using such notions as thoughts and awareness” (Cardenas-Garcia, 2023). The main motivation driving higher-order theories of consciousness, according to Carruthers, “derives from the belief that all (or at least most) mental-state types admit of both conscious and unconscious varieties … And then if we ask what makes the difference between a conscious and an unconscious mental state, one natural answer is that conscious states are states that we are aware of.” This translates into the view that conscious states are states “that are the objects of some sort of higher-order representation—whether a higher-order perception or experience, or a higher-order thought” (Cardenas-Garcia, 2023). Various flavors of higher-order theories can be distinguished, including the following (Cardenas-Garcia, 2023): Actualist Higher-Order Thought Theory (championed by David Rosenthal): A phenomenally conscious mental state is a state that is the object of a higher-order thought, and which causes that thought non-inferentially. Dispositionalist Higher-Order Thought Theory: A phenomenally conscious mental state is a state that is available to cause (non-inferentially) higher-order thoughts about itself (or perhaps about any of the contents of a special-purpose, short-term memory store). Self-Representational Theory: A phenomenally conscious mental state is a state that, at the same time, possesses an intentional content, thereby in some sense representing itself to the person who is the subject of that state. According to Ned Block, there are two approaches to higher-order thought (HOT) theories of consciousness. The “double representation” approach says that the HOT involves a distinct coding of the perceptual content, such that a conscious perception will be “accompanied” by a thought of that experience, giving two representations of the conscious experience, one perceptual, one cognitive and conceptual. He considers it “mysterious” how a perception can be conscious. The second version of HOT has a thought or at least a cognitive state that makes a perception conscious but that thought does not itself have any perceptual content. Block refers to Hakwan Lau, who sometimes describes the higher-order state as a “pointer” to a first-order state. The pointer theory is cognitive in that the pointer is a thought, but it is not conceptualist since it involves no concept of a conscious experience involved in the thought that is supposed to make a perception conscious (Block, 2023, pp. 425–426). Lau himself argues that the key to characterizing consciousness lies in its connections to belief formation and epistemic justification on a subjective level (Lau, 2019a); he describes consciousness as “a battle between your beliefs and perceptions” (Lau, 2019b). A clue, he suggests—at least at the level of functional anatomy—is that the neural mechanisms for conscious perception and sensory metacognition are similar, sensory metacognition meaning the monitoring of the quality or reliability of internal perceptual signals. Both mechanisms involve neural activity in the prefrontal and parietal cortices, outside of primary sensory regions (9.8.4). Reflexive theories, which link consciousness and self-awareness, are either a sister or a cousin of Higher-Order Theories. They differ in that reflexive theories situate self-awareness within the conscious state itself rather than in an independent meta-state focusing on it. The same conscious state is both intentionally outer-directed awareness of external perceptions and intentionally inner-directed awareness of self-sense. A strong claim is that this makes reflexive awareness a central feature of conscious mental states and thereby qualifies as a theory of consciousness. Whether reflexive theories are variants of Higher-Order Theory (“sister”) or a “same-order” account of consciousness as self-awareness (“cousin”) is in dispute (Van Gulick, 2019). Social psychologist Alexander Durig claims that our two brain hemispheres, operating as two brains, aware of each other and interacting with each other, exist in a system of “interactive reflexivity,” and it is this reflexivity, while being perpetually aware of the world and each other's perception of the world, that is the foundation of consciousness (Durig, 2023). 9.8.4. Lau's perceptual reality monitoring theory Cognitive neuroscientist Hakwan Lau introduces Perceptual Reality Monitoring Theory, which he says is an empirically-grounded higher-order theory of conscious perception. He proposes that conscious perception in an agent occurs “if there is a relevant higher-order representation with the content that a particular first-order perceptual representation is a reliable reflection of the external world right now. The occurrence of this higher-order representation gives rise to conscious experiences with the perceptual content represented by the relevant first-order state.” This structure allows us to distinguish “reality from fantasy in a generally reliable fashion” (Lau, 2019a). The agent is not conscious of the content of this higher-order representation itself, Lau says, “but the representation is instantiated in the system in such a way to allow relevant inferences to be drawn (automatically) and to be made available to the agent (on a personal level, in ways that make the inferences feel subjectively justified)” (Lau, 2019a). It is a subpersonal process. “That is, we don't have to think hard to come up with this higher-order representation. It's not a thought in that sense.” Rather, “this higher-order representation serves as a tag or label indicating the suitable epistemic status of the sensory representation, and functions as a gating mechanism to route the relevant sensory information for further cognitive processing” (Lau, 2022, p. 28). This structural mechanism, Lau asserts, sets his view “apart from global theories” (9.8.3). This is because, he says, “such further processing is only a potential consequence, but not a constitutive part of the subjective experience … In other words, consciousness is neither cognition nor metacognition. It is the mechanistic interface right between perception and cognition.” Lau believes that “such higher-order mechanisms likely reside within the mammalian prefrontal cortex, where the functions of perceptual metacognition are also carried out” (Lau, 2022, p. 28). But can we ask what happens when higher-order representation is missing? Wouldn't subjective experience also be missing? This explains, Lau says, “why sometimes sensory representations alone do not lead to conscious experiences at all, as in conditions like blindsight, where, because of brain damage, a person (or an animal) is able to respond accurately to visual stimuli while denying any conscious awareness of them” (Lau, 2022, pp. 35–36). Blindsight, in fact, is a litmus test for any theory of consciousness and Lau claims his theory offers the most coherent explanation: Blindsight “occurs when a first-order representation occurs without the corresponding higher-order representation … That's why the perceptual capacity is there (due to the first-order representations), but the phenomenology of conscious perception is missing” (Lau, 2019b). Lau says his theory is a functionalist account. As such, he says, “some animals may not be conscious. And yet, perhaps even a robot or computer program could be.” He highlights “the role of memory in conscious experience, even for simple percepts. How an experience feels depends on implicit memory of the relationships between different perceptual representations within the brain” (Lu et al., 2022). Lau critiques both the global view of consciousness (9.2.3) and the local view (9.8.1 and 9.8.2) as “polar extremes,” arguing that his own intermediate or centrist position is superior (Lau, 2022, pp. 25, 26, 130). As part of his model, he takes from artificial intelligence the idea of a “discriminator,” which can distinguish between “real” and “self-generated” images (Lau, 2022, p. 142). Applied to human consciousness, an analogous “discriminator” “distinguishes between true perceptions of the world, memory, fantasy, and neuronal noise. For conscious perception of an object to occur, this discriminator must confirm that the early sensory information represents the object. This model, Lau asserts, accounts for sensory richness, because higher-order representations access richer, lower-level perceptions of first-order representations (Stirrups, 2023). Bottom line, Lau strikes the ambitious claim that his theory explains the subjective “what-it-is-like-ness” of first-person experience—why it “feels like something” to be in a particular brain state, say with a sharp pain—mediated by higher-order representations in the brain (Lau, 2022, p. 197). Enhancing his model, Lau proposes that “because of the way the mammalian sensory cortices are organized, perceptual signals in the brain are spatially ‘analog’ in a specific sense,” which enables “computational advantages.” Given this analog nature, “when a sensory representation becomes conscious, not only do we have the tendency to think that its content reflects the state of the world right now, also determined is what it is like to have the relevant experience—in terms of how subjectively similar it is with respect to all other possible experiences.” Lau submits that this addresses the hard problem, “better than prominent alternative views” (Lau, 2022, p. 29). 9.8.5. LeDoux's higher-order theory of emotional consciousness Neuroscientist Joseph LeDoux's Higher-Order Theory of Emotional Consciousness combines his approach to higher-order representationalism (9.8.3) and his commitment to the centrality of emotion. His thesis is that “the brain mechanisms that give rise to conscious emotional feelings are not fundamentally different from those that give rise to perceptual conscious experiences.” Both, he proposes, “involve higher-order representations (HORs) of lower-order information by cortically based general networks of cognition” (GNC). The theory argues that GNC and “self-centered higher-order states are essential for emotional experiences” (Ledoux and Brown, 2017). LeDoux challenges the traditional view that emotional states of consciousness (emotional feelings) are “innately programmed in subcortical areas of the brain,” and are “as different from cognitive states of consciousness, such as those related to the perception of external stimuli.” Rather, LeDoux argues that “conscious experiences, regardless of their content, arise from one system in the brain” and that “emotions are higher-order states instantiated in cortical circuits.” In this view, all that differs in emotional and nonemotional states are “the kinds of inputs that are processed.” According to LeDoux, “although subcortical circuits are not directly responsible for conscious feelings, they provide nonconscious inputs that coalesce with other kinds of neural signals in the cognitive assembly of conscious emotional experiences.” For understanding the emotional brain, LeDoux focuses on “fear,” defining it as “the conscious feeling one has when in danger.” In the presence of a threat, he says, “different circuits underlie the conscious feelings of fear and the behavioral responses and physiological responses that also occur.” But it is the “experience of fear,” the conscious emotional feeling of fear, that informs LeDoux's theory of consciousness, which he explains as follows. “A first-order representation of the threat enters into a higher-order representation, along with relevant long-term memories—including emotion schema—that are retrieved. This initial HOR involving the threat and the relevant memories occurs nonconsciously. Then, a HOROR [i.e., a third-order state, a HOR of a representation, a HOR of a HOR] allows for the conscious noetic experience of the stimulus as dangerous. However, to have the emotional autonoetic experience of fear, the self must be included in the HOROR” (Ledoux and Brown, 2017). Advancing his theory, LeDoux explores “introspection,” the term given by higher-order theorists to this third level of representations, that is, “to be aware of the higher-order state (to be conscious that you are in that state).” LeDoux proposes “a more inclusive view of introspection, in which the term indicates the process by which phenomenally experienced states result.” Introspection, he says, “can involve either passive noticing (as, for example, in the case of consciously seeing a ripe strawberry on the counter) or active scrutinizing (as in the case of deliberate focused attention to our conscious experience of the ripe strawberry).” Both kinds of introspection lead to phenomenal experience, in LeDoux's view (Ledoux and Brown, 2017). HOROR theory states that “phenomenal consciousness does not reflect a sensory state (as proposed by first-order theory) or the relation between a sensory state and a higher-order cognitive state of working memory (as proposed by traditional HOT). Instead, HOROR posits that phenomenal consciousness consists of having the appropriate HOR of lower-order information, where lower-order does not necessarily mean sensory, but instead refers to a prior higher-order state that is rerepresented.” He says, “This second HOR is thought-like and, in virtue of this, instantiates the phenomenal, introspectively accessed experience of the external sensory stimulus. That is, to have a phenomenal experience is to be introspectively aware of a nonconscious HOR.” He distinguishes ordinary introspective awareness, which is the passive kind of “noticing” that he postulates is responsible for phenomenal consciousness, “from the active scrutinizing of one's conscious experience that requires deliberate attentive focus on one's phenomenal consciousness.” Active introspection, he stresses, “requires an additional layer of HOR (and thus a HOR of a HOROR).” In studies of human patients, LeDoux and his PhD adviser, Michael Gazzaniga, “concluded that conscious experiences are the result of cognitive interpretation situations in an effort to help maintain a sense of mental unity in the face of the neural diversity of non-conscious behavioral control systems in our brain” (LeDoux, 2023b). Rejecting the notion of the “self,” and certainly mind-body dualism, LeDoux positions “consciousness” as the fourth and final “realm of existence” for animal life, the four realms being “bodily, neural, cognitive, and conscious.” LeDoux replaces the self with an “ensemble of being” that “subsumes our entire human existence, both as individuals and as a species” (LeDoux, 2023a). LeDoux's views continue to develop. In particular, he picks out two overarching perspectives. First, his multi-state hierarchical model of consciousness, which features an intricate anatomical framework evincing the complexity of higher-order processing via redundancy. The multi-state hierarchical model of consciousness, he says, “replaces the traditional volley between the sensory cortex and the lateral PFC [prefrontal cortex] with a more complex anatomical arrangement consisting of a hierarchy of structures, each of which creates different kinds of states that are re-represented/re-described by circuits of sub-granular and granular PFC and that contribute to higher-order mental modeling and conscious experience. The states that constitute the functional features of the multi-state hierarchical higher-order theory of consciousness, and the brain areas that are associated with these states, include primary lower-order states (areas of the sensory cortex); secondary lower-order states (memory areas and other convergence zones in the temporal and parietal lobes); sub-higher-order states (meso-cortical areas of sub-granular PFC, including the anterior cingulate, orbital, ventromedial, prelimbic, and insula PFC); and higher-order states that re-represent/re-describe/index the various other states to construct mental models in working memory (granular PFC)” (LeDoux, 2023a, p. 234). LeDoux's second overarching perspective is the dual mental hypothesis that shows the interplay between preconscious and conscious states and the role of narratives in driving them. In the dual mental-model hypothesis, he says, “explicit consciousness of complex events emerges from interactions between granular and sub-granular PFC states. Lower-order non-PFC states, while often involved as inputs to the PFC, are not necessary for such higher-order conscious experiences. In other words, a thought, which is a higher-order state constructed by a pre-conscious mental model, is sufficient to populate the conscious higher-order state via the second mental model.” The output of the conscious mental model, he says, “much like the output of the pre-conscious mental model, is an abstract mentalese narrative (albeit a conscious one) that feeds distributaries flowing to motor circuits that control overt behavior and verbal expression.” LeDoux senses that “this implies that we have conscious agency, which you may know of as free will”—adding, “the question of whether we actually make conscious choices is a matter of debate” (LeDoux, 2023a, pp. 296–297). 9.8.6. Humphrey's mental representations and brain attractors Neuropsychologist Nicholas Humphrey employs an evolutionary framework, combining mental representations with what he calls “attractor states in the brain,” to develop a novel materialistic theory of phenomenal consciousness, which he sees as a late and not ubiquitous evolutionary development. His multi-discipline argument follows (Section: Humphrey, 2023a, Humphrey, 2023b, 2022, 2024; Humphrey, 2023a, Humphrey, 2023b). Sensations, he says, are ideas we generate: mental representations of stimuli arriving at our sense organs and how they affect us. Their properties are to be explained, therefore, not literally as the properties of brain-states, but rather as the properties of mind-states dreamed up by the brain. Remarkably, we (and presumably other sentient creatures) represent what's happening as having “phenomenal properties”, or “qualia”, that fill the “thick time” of the subjective present. The result is we come to have a psychologically impressive sense of self—a “phenomenal self” that is semi-independent of our physical bodies. This idea of “what it’s like to be me” may be in some respects “fake news”; but Humphrey's point is that, to us as the subjects, it's big news! When it comes to how sensations are generated in the brain, Humphrey points out this has to be a two-stage process: first the gathering of sensory information, which is the sensory text, then the interpretation of this information, which is the conscious reading. This two-stage process generates our subjective take on what this is like for us. Phenomenal properties arise only at the interpretative stage. This, Humphrey stresses, is “a point often lost on researchers looking for the neural correlates of consciousness, who assume the properties of the brain activity must map onto the phenomenal properties of conscious experience.” He calls the hard problem “the wrong problem” (Humphrey, 2022). Humphrey believes that our best approach to explaining sentience (which is how he labels phenomenal consciousness) will be “forward engineering”—reconstructing the steps by which natural selection could have invented it. He proposes that sensations originated in primitive animals as evaluative responses to stimulation at the body surface. Thus, sensations started out as something the animal did about the stimulation rather than something it felt about it. Early on, however, animals hit on the trick of monitoring these responses—by means of an “efference copy” of the command signals—to yield a simple representation of what the stimulation is about. In short, a feeling (Humphrey, 2023a, Humphrey, 2023b). Humphrey's story quickens, as that feeling became privatised, resulting in activity in neural feedback loops, which became recursive and stretched out in time, taking on complex higher-order properties. It was then refined and stabilised to generate mathematically complex attractor states, which would give rise—“out of the blue”—to the apparently unaccountable qualities of sensory qualia. Quite possibly, he says, phenomenal experience involves the brain generating something like an internal text, which it interprets as being about phenomenal properties. The driving force behind these later developments was the adaptive benefits to the animal of the emergence of the phenomenal self. This is why Humphrey takes phenomenal consciousness as a relatively late evolutionary invention, having evolved only in animal species that (a) have brains capable of entertaining and enjoying these fancy mental representations, and (b) lead lives in which having this bold sense of self can give them an edge in the fitness game. Thus, Humphrey challenges conventional wisdom that phenomenal consciousness in the animal kingdom is a gradient; his “hunch” is that only mammals and birds make the cut. Chimpanzees, dogs, parrots have it. Lobsters, lizards, frogs do not (Humphrey, 2023a, Humphrey, 2023b). 9.8.7. Metzinger's no-self representational theory of subjectivity Philosopher Thomas Metzinger presents a representationalist and functional analysis of subjectivity, the consciously experienced first-person perspective (Metzinger, 2004). What has been traditionally called “conscious thought,” he argues, is actually “a subpersonal process, and only rarely a form of mental action. The paradigmatic, standard form of conscious thought is non-agentive, because it lacks veto-control and involves an unnoticed loss of epistemic agency and goal-directed causal self-determination at the level of mental content.” Conceptually, Metzinger states, “conscious thought … must be described as an unintentional form of inner behaviour” (Metzinger, 2015). A starting assumption is that phenomenal consciousness (subjective experience), “rather than being an epiphenomenon, has a causal role in the optimisation of certain human behaviours” (Frith and Metzinger, 2016). A leitmotif of Metzinger's models is that there are no such things as “selves”; selves do not exist in the world: “nobody ever had or was a self.” All that exists, he argues, are “phenomenal selves, as they appear in conscious experience. The phenomenal self, however, is not a thing but an ongoing process; it is the content of a ‘transparent self-model’” (Metzinger, 2004). Metzinger employs empirical research to support his deflationary no-self model, showing how “we are not mentally autonomous subjects for about two thirds of our conscious lifetime, because while conscious cognition is unfolding, it often cannot be inhibited, suspended, or terminated.” This means that “the instantiation of a stable first-person perspective as well as of certain necessary conditions of personhood turn out to be rare, graded, and dynamically variable properties of human beings” (Metzinger, 2015). Drawing on a large psychometric study of meditators in 57 countries—more than 500 experiential reports—Metzinger focuses on “pure awareness” in meditation—the simplest form of experience there is—to illuminate, as he puts it, “the most fundamental aspects of how consciousness, the brain, and illusions of self all interact.” Metzinger explores “the increasingly non-egoic experiences of silence, wakefulness, and clarity, of bodiless body-experience, ego-dissolution, and nondual awareness” in order to assemble “what it would take to arrive at a minimal model explanation for conscious experience and create a genuine culture of consciousness” (Metzinger, 2024). Metzinger uses an interdisciplinary, multi-layer analysis of phenomenological, representationalist, informational-computational, functional, and physical-neurobiological kinds of descriptions. His representationalist theory analyzes its target properties—those aspects of the domain to be explained. He seeks to make progress “by describing conscious systems as representational systems and conscious states as representational states” (Metzinger, 2000). He argues that “individual representational events only become part of a personal-level process by being functionally integrated into a specific form of transparent conscious self-representation, the ‘epistemic agent model’ (EAM).” The EAM, he suspects, “may be the true origin of our consciously experienced first-person perspective” (Metzinger, 2015). Metzinger's resolution of the mind-body problem follows directly: our Cartesian intuitions that subjective experiences, phenomenal consciousness, “can never be reductively explained are themselves ultimately rooted in the deeper representational structure of our conscious minds” (Metzinger, 2004). A corollary of Metzinger's work concerns individual behavior and collective culture, based on our perception of the experience of being an agent that causes events in the world and the belief that we “could have done otherwise” (the test of libertarian free will). This experience and belief enable us “to justify our behaviour to ourselves and to others and, in the longer term, create a cultural narrative about responsibility.” Metzinger concludes that “conscious experience is necessary for optimizing flexible intrapersonal interactions and for the emergence of cumulative culture” (Frith and Metzinger, 2016). 9.8.8. Jackson's diaphanous representationalism and the knowledge argument Philosopher Frank Jackson develops a representationalist view about perceptual experience. “That experience is diaphanousness (or transparent) is a thesis about the phenomenology of perceptual experience. It is the thesis that the properties that make an experience the kind of experience it is are properties of the object of experience.” In other words, “accessing the nature of the experience itself is nothing other than accessing the properties of its object” (Jackson, 2007). Jackson uses his Diaphanous Representationalism theory to undermine his own prior argument against materialism/physicalism based on the famous thought experiment of Mary the brilliant neurophysiologist who is forced to investigate the world from a black and white room via a black and white television monitor, and who acquires all the physical information there is to obtain about what goes on when we see colors. “What will happen when Mary is released from her black and white room or is given a color television monitor? Will she learn anything or not? It seems just obvious that she will learn something about the world and our visual experience of it. But then it is inescapable that her previous knowledge was incomplete. But she had all the physical information. Ergo there is more to have than that, and Physicalism is false” (Jackson, 1982). Jackson argues that “although the diaphanousness thesis alone does not entail representationalism, the thesis supports an inference from a weaker to a stronger version of representationalism. On the weak version, perceptual experience is essentially representational. On the strong version, how an experience represents things as being exhausts its experiential nature.” This means that there is nothing else needed to bring about phenomenal consciousness (qualia). Hence, according to Jackson, “strong representationalism undermines the claim that Mary learns new truths when she leaves the room”—which would defeat the defeater of materialism/physicalism (Jackson, 2007). Philosopher Torin Alter disagrees, arguing that representationalism provides no basis for rejecting the knowledge argument, because even if representational character exhausts phenomenal character, “the physicalist must still face a representationalist version of the Mary challenge, which inherits the difficulty of the original” (Alter, 2003). 9.8.9. Lycan's homuncular functionalism Philosopher William Lycan defends a materialist, representational theory of mind that he calls “homuncular functionalism” and which posits that “human beings are ‘functionally organized information-processing systems’ who have no non-physical parts or properties.” Lycan does recognize “the subjective phenomenal qualities of mental states and events, and an important sense in which mind is ‘over and above’ mere chemical matter” (Lycan, 1987). But he defends materialism in general and functionalist theories of mind in particular by arguing for what he calls the "hegemony of representation," in that “there is no more to mind or consciousness than can be accounted for in terms of intentionality, functional organization, and in particular, second-order representation of one's own mental states” (Lycan, 1996). Reviewing “an explosion of work” in consciousness studies by philosophers, psychologists, and neuroscientists, Lycan is “struck by an astonishing diversity of topics that have gone under the heading of “consciousness”—he lists more than 15, only six of which, he says, deal with “phenomenal experience,” that is, qualia and the explanatory gap. From this he draws “two morals.” First, he says, “no one should claim that problems of phenomenal experience have been solved by any purely cognitive or neuroscientific theory.” (Here Lycan finds himself in “surprising agreement with Chalmers.”) Second and perhaps more importantly, he says, some of “the theories cannot fairly be criticized for failing to illuminate problems of phenomenal experience”—because that is not what they intend to do, that is, “they may be theories of, say, awareness or of privileged access, not theories of qualia or of subjectivity or of ‘what it’s like’” (Lycan, 2004). Lycan defends “the Representational theory of the qualitative features of apparent phenomenal objects: When you see a (real) ripe banana and there is a corresponding yellow patch in your visual field, the yellowness ‘of’ the patch is, like the banana itself, a representatum, an intentional object of the experience. The experience represents the banana and it represents the yellowness of the banana, and the latter yellowness is all the yellowness that is involved; there is no mental patch that is itself yellow. If you were only hallucinating a banana, the unreal banana would still be a representatum, but now an intentional inexistent; and so would be its yellowness. The yellowness would be as it is even though the banana were not real” (Lycan, 2004). Lycan agrees that the “explanatory gap” is real. But this is for two reasons, he argues, “neither of which embarrasses materialism.” First, he says, “phenomenal information and facts of ‘what it’s like’ are ineffable. But one cannot explain what one cannot express in the first place. (The existence of ineffable facts is no embarrassment to science or to materialism, so long as they are fine-grained ‘facts,’ incorporating modes of presentation.)” Second, he says, “the Gap is not confined to consciousness in any sense or even to mind; there are many kinds of intrinsically perspectival (fine-grained) facts that cannot be explained” (without first conceding a pre-existing identity) (Lycan, 2004). In their review, Thomas Polger and Owen Flanagan describe Lycan's view as, roughly, that “conscious beings are hierarchically composed intentional systems, whose representational powers are to be understood in terms of their biological function.” They call the view “teleological functionalism” or “teleofunctionalism” and state “the homuncular part, for which Lycan and Daniel Dennett argued convincingly, is now so widely accepted that it fails to distinguish Lycan's view from other versions of functionalism. This, by itself, is a testament to the importance of Lycan's work” (Polger and Flanagan, 2001). In his review, Frank Jackson explains that when Lycan argues “there is no special problem for physicalism raised by conscious experience,” he is rightly distinguishing two questions. “Does consciousness per se raise a problem? And: Do qualia pose a special problem?” Lycan answers the first question on consciousness by defending an “inner sense account of consciousness,” holding that "consciousness is the functioning of internal attention mechanisms directed at lower-order psychological states and events." Jackson is less satisfied by Lycan's rejection of the knowledge argument, which Jackson calls “the most forceful way of raising the problem posed by qualia for physicalism.” (Jackson says this “as someone who no longer accepts the argument”) (Jackson, 1997). According to Jackson, Lycan is confident that phenomenal nature is exhausted by functional role. In other words, “for Lycan, it is very hard for functional nature to fail to exhaust phenomenal nature. Almost anything you might cite as escaping the functional net is, by his lights, functional after all.” Moreover, Lycan has “the nature of conscious experience exhausted by the intentional contents or representational nature of the relevant kinds of mental states” in that “the representational facts which make up a package [is] sufficient to capture in full the perceptual experience” (Jackson, 1997). Lycan attacks neurobiological conventional wisdom in that “all too often we hear it suggested that advances in neuroscience will solve Thomas Nagel's and Frank Jackson's conceptual problem of “knowing what it’s like.” To Lycan, “this is grievously confused. For Nagel's and Jackson's claim is precisely that there is an irreducible kind of phenomenal knowledge that cannot be revealed by science of any kind. Nagel's and Jackson's respective ‘Knowledge Arguments’ for this radical thesis are purely philosophical; they contain no premises that depend on scientific fact.” Lycan now presses his sharp point. “Either the arguments are unsound or they are sound. If they are unsound, then so far as has been shown, there is no such irreducible knowledge, and neither science nor anything else is needed to produce it. But if the arguments are sound, they show that no amount of science could possibly help to produce the special phenomenal knowledge. Either way, neither neuroscience nor any other science is pertinent.” Lycan seems sure that the “what it’s like to be” and knowledge arguments are unsound and he can go about formulating his Representational theory of mind standing squarely in the materialist camp. (I am not so sure. It is my uncertainty that motivates this Landscape of Consciousness.) 9.8.10. Transparency theory Transparency theory makes the argument that because sensory (e.g., visual) experience represents external objects and their apparent properties, experience has no other properties that pose problems for materialism. We “see right through” perceptual states to external objects and take no notice that we are actually in perceptual states; the properties we perceive in perception are attributed to the objects themselves, not to the perception (Lycan, 2019). If we look at a tree and try to turn our attention to the intrinsic features of our visual experience, the only features there to turn our attention to are features of the actual tree itself, including relational features of the tree from the perspective of the perceiver (Harman, 1990) To make the argument, at a minimum, an additional premise is needed: If a perceptual state has mental properties over and above its representational properties, they must be “introspectible.” But “not even the most determined introspection ever reveals any such additional properties.” This is the transparency thesis proper (Lycan, 2019). Philosopher Amy Kind cites experiential transparency as a major motivation driving representational theories of consciousness, which view phenomenal character as being reduced to intentional content. Assuming experience is transparent in that we “look right through” experience to the objects of that experience, “this is supposed to support the representationalist claim that there are no intrinsic aspects of our experience” (Kind, 2010). Philosopher Michael Tye states that one important motivation for the theory that “phenomenal character is one and the same as representational content” is “the so-called ‘transparency of experience.’” He addresses introspective awareness of experience and one problem case for transparency, that of blurry vision (Tye, 2002). A similar theory is “intentionalism,” the view that the phenomenal character of experience supervenes on intentional content (Pace, 2007). Philosopher Dirk Franken characterizes “the transparency of appearing” as follows: "The phenomenal quality of a particular state of appearing is fully exhausted by the sensible properties present to the subject of the state and their distribution over the respective field of appearance.” Starting “from the assumption that the transparency of appearing is a purely phenomenological feature,” Franken describes his “Transparency Thesis” with several propositions: “There are no other properties, next to the sensible properties, that have any bearing on the phenomenal quality of a state of appearing. The presentation of sensible properties is just all there is to the phenomenal quality of a state of appearing. No properties of the subject (insofar as it is the subject of this state) or of the state itself contribute to this phenomenal quality.” He defends “surprising consequences” of the Transparency Thesis. First, “one has to give up the idea of the first-person-perspective as a kind of inner seeming or appearing directed onto mental states (at least, if the relevant states are states of appearing).” Next, two assumptions entailed in numerous popular accounts of phenomenal consciousness are negated: (i) “phenomenal qualities are properties of states of appearing that are independent or partly independent of the (sensible) properties presented in these states; ” and (ii) “there can be phenomenally conscious states of appearing even though there is nothing that is presented to their subjects” (Franken, n.d.). 9.8.11. Tye's contingentism Philosopher Michael Tye proposes a theory of consciousness he calls “contingentism,” which is a kind of identity theory (i.e., phenomenal states and physical/brain states are literally the same) but with a novel twist: while the identity is indeed true in our world, it is not metaphysically true in all possible worlds. “Scenarios in which the relevant physical processing is present and consciousness is missing are easily imaginable (and thus metaphysically possible), but this is irrelevant if it is only a contingent fact that consciousness is a physical phenomenon” (Tye, 2023).32 Contingentism, Tye states, “finds its origins in the views of Feigl, Place and Smart in the 1950s and 1960s. These philosophers held that sensations are contingently identical with brain processes, where sensations are understood to be conscious states such as pain or the visual experience of red.” The identity here was taken to be contingent, in part, because “it was taken to be clear that scientific type-type identities generally are contingent.” Smart's example was that he could imagine that lightning is not an electrical discharge. (These claims are mistaken, Tye says; “If in actual fact lightning is an electrical discharge, it could not have been otherwise.”) (Tye, 2023). Tye says, “the contingentist about consciousness agrees with the above remarks concerning lightning and is happy to extend them to many other scientific identity statements. But the contingentist holds that the case of conscious mental states—states such that there is something it is like to undergo them—is different. Here the claim is not that such states are contingently identical with brain processes, but that such states are contingently identical with physical states of some sort or other, where the notion of a physical state is to be understood broadly to include not only neurophysiological states but also other states that are grounded in microphysical states, including functional states or states of the sort posited by representationalism, for example. For conscious states, the identities are contingent since we can easily imagine their having not obtained. For example, we can easily imagine a zombie undergoing the physical state with which the experience of fear is to be identified and yet not experiencing fear at all. Similarly, we can easily imagine someone experiencing fear without undergoing the given physical state” (Tye, 2023). The solution, Tye suggests, “lies with the realization that it is a mistake to model the consciousness case on that of physical-physical relationships. Qualitative character Q is identical with physical property R, if physicalism is true. But this is a contingent identity (even though the designators ‘Q’ and ‘R’ are rigid). So, we can imagine Q without R (and R without Q), but the fact that we can do so is not an indicator of an explanatory gap. A creature could indeed have been in a state having Q without being in a state having R and vice-versa” (Tye, 2023). Might things have been different in the actual world? Indeed, they might, Tye says. “The physical processing might have gone on just as it does, the information processing might have been just the same, the cognitive machinery might have functioned as it does, and yet along with all of this, Q might not have been present in experience. That is certainly intelligible to us. But it creates no explanatory puzzle; for that is only a metaphysically possible world. It is not the actual world. As far as the actual world goes, there is nothing puzzling or problematic, nothing left to explain … No mystery remains” (Tye, 2023). This is because “in the actual world,” consciousness is physical, according to the physicalist, “since it is only on the hypothesis of physicalism with respect to the actual world that problems of emergence and causal efficacy can be handled satisfactorily, or so the physicalist believes.” Thus, Tye concludes, “once we become contingentists, the hard problem has a straightforward and satisfying solution.” In support of his views, Tye turns to “vagueness” in assessing consciousness in the hierarchical taxonomy of life and in the process of evolution (Tye, 2021). According to Tye, “The two dominant theories of consciousness argue it appeared in living beings either suddenly, or gradually. Both theories face problems. The solution is the realization that a foundational consciousness was always here, yet varying conscious states were not, and appeared gradually.” Given that it is hardly obvious how to discern which organisms are conscious, and, if so, their kind or level of consciousness, borderline cases of consciousness can make no sense. As David Papineau reviews Tye, “But this isn't because a sharp line is found somewhere as we move from non-conscious physical systems to conscious ones. Rather [according to Tye] it's because no such line exists at all. Even the most basic constituents of physical reality are already endowed with consciousness” (Papineau, 2022). Thus, Tye transitions from his traditional physicalism to a form of panpsychism, though differing from those of mainstream panpsychists (13).33 In admirable full disclosure, Tye states that his contingentism “is written from the perspective of the reductive physicalist (understood broadly to include functionalists and representationalists),” and that he believes contingentism presents “the best hope for a defense of reductive physicalism.” However, he adds, “I myself am no longer a thoroughgoing reductive physicalist. I now believe that there is an element in our consciousness that cannot be captured via higher level reductions” (Tye, 2023). In addition, Tye suggests that, from the representationalist perspective and supporting its views, “history matters crucially to phenomenology. What it is like for an individual at a given time is fixed not just by what is going on in the individual at that time but also by what was going on in the individual in the past. Two individuals can be exactly alike intrinsically at a time and yet differ in the phenomenal character of their mental life at that time” (Tye, 2019). Tye concludes that “once we think of experiences in a representationalist and broadly reductionist way,” we can better appreciate phenomenology, including its presence or absence, such as in thought experiments where “a person slowly acquires a silicon chip brain” (see Virtual Immortality, 25). 9.8.12. Thagard's neural representation, binding, coherence, competition Philosopher Paul Thagard poses big questions upfront. “Why do people have conscious experiences that include perceptions such as seeing, sensations such as pain, emotions such as joy, and abstract thoughts such as self-reflection? Why is consciousness central to so much of human life, including dreams, laughter, music, religion, sports, morality, and romance? Are such experiences also possessed by other animals, plants, and robots?” (Thagard, 2024). Thagard's theory of consciousness “attributes conscious experiences to interactions of four brain mechanisms: neural representation, binding, coherence, and competition.” It distinguishes itself from current theories in several respects, he says. “The four brain mechanisms described are empirically plausible and clearly stated. Conscious experiences emerge from their interactions in areas across the brain.” The mechanisms, he argues, “explain not only ordinary perceptual experiences such as vision, but also the most complex kinds of conscious experience including self-valuation, dreams, humor, and religious awe.” Moreover, he adds, “A crucial but often neglected aspect of consciousness is timing, but the four mechanisms fit perfectly with recent neuroscientific findings about how time cells enable brains to track experiences” (Thagard, 2024). Thagard's founds his theory on strict, empirically based neuroscience. His way of thinking is exemplified by his “Attribution Procedure,” an eight-step process for using what he calls “explanatory coherence” as a touchstone to establish “whether or not an animal or machine has a mental state, property, or process.” (Thagard, 2021, pp. 13–14). For example, he offers twelve features of intelligence (i.e., problem solving, learning, understanding, reasoning, perceiving, planning, deciding, abstracting, creating, feeling, acting, communicating) and eight mechanisms to explain these features (i.e., images, concepts, rules, analogies, emotions, language, intentional action, consciousness). “All eight of these mental mechanisms can be carried out by a common set of neural mechanisms, many of which have been modeled computationally.” This account of twelve features and eight mechanisms, Thagard says, “yields a twenty-item checklist for assessing intelligence in bots and beasts.” A similar way of thinking he applies to consciousness, stating that consciousness results from competition among neural representations (Thagard, 2021, pp. 3–4, 50, 49). Claiming that his theory of consciousness possesses “the accuracy and breadth of application to mark a solid advance in the grand task of explaining how and why consciousness is so central to human life,” Thagard highlights an empirically supported explanation of consciousness resulting from the four brain mechanisms (i.e., neural representation, binding, coherence, and competition); application to a broad range of conscious experiences including smell, hunger, loneliness, self-awareness, religious experience, sports performance, and romantic chemistry; use of these four brain mechanisms to generate novel theories of dreaming, humor, and musical experience; a new theory of time consciousness; assessment of consciousness in non-human animals and machines, including the new generative AI models such as ChatGPT (Thagard, 2024). Working together, these four brain mechanisms, Thagard says, “explain the full range of consciousness in humans and other animals, and show why plants, bacteria, and ordinary things lack consciousness.” No current computers are conscious, he asserts, using a checklist of features and mechanisms of consciousness, “but the new generative models in artificial intelligence have similar mechanisms to humans that might enable some degree of consciousness.” He concludes with high physicalist confidence: “Consciousness does not need to be a mystery once we understand how brains build it” (Thagard, 2024). 9.8.13. T. Clark's content hypothesis Philosopher Thomas Clark posits phenomenal consciousness as the representational content of a cognitive system's sufficiently structured representational processing (Clark, T., 2019). Conscious experience exists only for the conscious system, so is categorically subjective, and its basic elements are irreducibly qualitative. As a general rule, he says, we don't find representational content in the world it participates in representing, which can help explain subjectivity. Moreover, following Metzinger's concept of an “untranscendable object,” a representational system must have epistemic primitives that resist further representation on pain of a metabolically expensive representational regress. This can help explain the non-decomposable, monadic character of basic sensory qualities such as red, sweet, pain, etc. Developments in the science of representation and representational content, he says, may (or may not) vindicate the Content Hypothesis. Clark says that his model is consistent with Integrated Information Theory, Global Workspace Theory, and Predictive Processing, all of which involve representation (Clark, T., 2019, 2024). Clark, a proponent of naturalism as a worldview (Clark, T., 2007), believes that a materialist can see that “consciousness, as a strictly physical phenomenon instantiated by the brain, creates a world subjectively immune to its own disappearance … it is the very finitude of a self-reflective cognitive system that bars it from witnessing its own beginning or ending, and hence prevents there being, for it, any condition other than existing” (Clark, T., 1994). While this sounds odd, almost an oxymoron, Clark develops the idea of “generic subjective continuity" based on a thought experiment inspired by the work of philosopher Derek Parfit. Clark argues in that at death we shouldn't anticipate the onset of nothingness or oblivion—a common secular intuition—but rather the continuation of experience, just not in the context of the person who dies. The end of one's own consciousness, he offers, “is only an event, and its non-existence a current fact, from other perspectives.” After death we won't experience non-being, he says, we won't ‘fade to black’. Rather, as conscious being we continue “as the generic subjectivity that always finds itself here, in the various contexts of awareness that the physical universe manages to create” (Clark, T., 1994). 9.8.14. Deacon's symbolic communication (human consciousness) Neuroanthropologist Terrence Deacon asserts that symbolic communication has radically altered the nature of human consciousness, whereas consciousness broadly is coextensive with the development of brains in animals that regulate their movement with the aid of long-distance senses, such as vision, because of the predictive capacity this affords and requires. However, symbolic communication has given humans the capacity of being conscious of a virtual realm that has become untethered from physical contiguity and immediacy (Deacon, 1998, 2024).34 Moreover, by virtue of the way that symbolic communication allows us indirect access to others’ thoughts and experiences, we have become a symbolically eusocial species that derives our personal identities and ability to think from a physically and temporally extended shared mentality. Some, he says, have referred to this structure as “Extended Mind.” Deacon sees this symbolic mode of cognition as enabling the emergence of novel kinds of remembering and unprecedented forms of emotional experience, as well as unprecedented forms of value, such as ethical norms and aesthetic sense. This is also, he says, the source of our feeling of incompleteness and need to find Meaning. 9.9. Language relationships Language Relationships discern connections, causal and other, between consciousness and language. Language obviously enriches the content of consciousness, perhaps provides a framework for human consciousness, but is there a deeper relationship? Does consciousness require language, in that if there is no language capability there can be no inner experience? Conversely, does language require consciousness, in that if there is no inner experience, there can be no language capability? (Note that while language does not generate theories of consciousness per se, it features in some and is rejected in others, both of which are worth exploring.) Much depends on careful definitions. To take the consciousness-requires-language causal paradigm, if by consciousness we mean phenomenal consciousness, raw inner experience only, then if we claim that language is required, then our claim would limit phenomenal consciousness, inner experience, to human beings and would exclude all (or at least almost all) other animals. Argue this to a happy dog owner and you will confront an angry dog owner. To take the language-requires-consciousness causal paradigm, with a definition of language sufficiently loose to subsume computer languages or communications between paramecia or signals between embryonic stem cells, consciousness would not be required. The philosophical debate regarding whether language is necessary for consciousness has a long and meandering history. Many argue that consciousness does not at all require language; others, that consciousness is facilitated by language or even is not possible without it. A contemporary consensus is building around the idea that increasing levels of consciousness, ranging from unconsciousness to highly conscious reflective self-awareness, requires increasing use of language. What follows would be that language is not needed for pure phenomenal consciousness, a general state of awareness, or in responding to external stimuli—such as in preverbal infants—but phenomenal consciousness would be needed for complex expressions of consciousness, like self-awareness, information integration, and metaconsciousness, which are based on language-powered capacities, especially inner speech (Ivory Research, 2019). Because we sense that many animal species are conscious—much like we assume that other humans are conscious like we are conscious—and we know that language is much more restricted, to humans and, in a lesser sense, some other animals (e.g., primates, cetaceans, birds), this would seem to weaken the consciousness-language nexus. Moreover, language seems to be a much more recent evolutionary emergent than consciousness (Berwick and Chomsky, 2016). Philosopher Rebecca Goldstein maintains that language does not exhaust all that there is in consciousness. She calls as evidence infants prior to or in the early stages of acquiring language, where “it's clear how much consciousness goes on before there is language” (Goldstein, 2014). Neuroscientist Colin Blakemore sees an intimate relationship between the structure of language and the high-level aspects of consciousness, especially consciousness of self, the consciousness of intention—“the concept that I am the helmsman of myself, carrying myself around the world, making decisions.” He calls the grammatical forms of language “intentional in their style” and argues that our conscious representation of self is a meta-representation of what's really doing the work down below, and that the reason “our brains go to the trouble of building this false representation of how we really are is to implement and to support language” (Blakemore, 2012a). Blakemore speculates that we don't come pre-programmed to be conscious; that we learn to be conscious and our consciousness develops and changes over time. Recognizing that the term “consciousness” can refer to diverse forms of subjectivity, and that even a newborn baby has “a kind of brute awareness of the world, sensory experiences,” he suggests that the nature of subjectivity grows through individual experience and that the complexities of the internal representation of the self is mediated by language. Experimental psychologist Jeremy Skipper hypothesizes that language, with an emphasis on inner speech, generates and sustains self-awareness, that is, higher-order consciousness. He develops a “HOLISTIC” model of neurobiology of language, inner speech, and consciousness. It involves a “core” set of inner speech production regions that take on affective qualities, involving a largely unconscious dynamic “periphery,” distributed throughout the whole brain. He claims that the “model constitutes a more parsimonious and complete account of the neural correlates of consciousness’” (at least of self-consciousness) (Skipper, 2022). Ned Block points to a related distinction between consciousness and cognition. Cognition doesn't have to be linguistic, he says, because non-linguistic animals have some cognition. But then there are animals that seem to have little or no cognition, just perception. Block concludes, “We can see consciousness at its purest in perceptual consciousness, and it has nothing to do, or little to do, with language” (Block, 2014). While the overwhelming contemporary consensus is that consciousness does not require language, human consciousness is obviously and fundamentally affected or even framed by language. We explore several approaches to the consciousness-language nexus. 9.9.1. Chomsky's language and consciousness Philosopher and linguist Noam Chomsky revolutionized the theory of language, and although language-related theory of consciousness has not been a focus of his contributions, its relevance remains. Chomsky famously posited linguistic capacity, especially syntactic knowledge, as at least partially innate and mostly (if not entirely) unique to human beings. Thus, language acquisition in all human children is somewhat instinctual and surprisingly rapid, conditioned by language-specific features of diverse languages. Chomsky labels this core set of inherited grammatical rules “universal grammar” and characterizes these inborn, subconscious capabilities as “deep structure”. Does Chomsky's universal grammar with its deep structure carry implications for consciousness? How does Chomsky approach the hard problem of phenomenal consciousness? His views are complex, not easily categorized (Section: Chomsky, 2022a, 2022b; Feser, 2010, 2022b). Chomsky is an aggressive critic of behaviorism—it makes no sense, he says, to study internal phenomena by observing external manifestations. The study of language is entirely inconsistent with behaviorist principles. “Nothing there,” he says. To understand it, one must examine internal processes. Thus, the connection between the deep structure of language and the essence of consciousness. Chomsky is also a critic of the hard problem, labeling it a “pseudo-problem.” Some questions, by their simple structures, are not real questions, he says, in that there is no logical way to answer them. His example question “Why do things happen?” cannot be answered in the general, while a similar-sounding question, say, “Why did this earthquake happen?” can be answered in the specific. Chomsky believes that the hard problem of consciousness is an example of the former and therefore is not a genuine question (while the “easy” problems of consciousness, discovering neural correlates, are examples of the latter). Exemplifying Chomsky's unorthodox approach to consciousness, even though he commits to a materialism/physicalism ontology that the mind is generated only in the brain, rather than deflating the ontological status of the mental, his contrarian position is to challenge the ontological status of the physical—arguing that science does not know what matter really is. To Chomsky, matter, not mental, is the main mystery. As Chomsky says, “The mind-body problem can be posed sensibly only insofar as we have a definite conception of body. If we have no such definite and fixed conception, we cannot ask whether some phenomena fall beyond its range” (Chomsky, 1987). Moreover, “The mind-body problem can therefore not even be formulated. The problem cannot be solved, because there is no clear way to state it. Unless someone proposes a definite concept of body, we cannot ask whether some phenomena exceed its bounds.” As for clarifying the concept of the body, the physical, matter, Chomsky states, “the material world is whatever we discover it to be, with whatever properties it must be assumed to have for the purposes of explanatory theory. Any intelligible theory that offers genuine explanations and that can be assimilated to the core notions of physics becomes part of the theory of the material world, part of our account of body.” To Chomsky, a mechanical model of the world, developed in early modern philosophy and inchoate science, could never account for aspects of the mental. Thus, while he understands Descartes' motivation to postulate a separate, nonphysical “thinking substance,” he rejects Descartes’ classic dualism and trains his analytic guns on the mechanical model in particular and on matter in general. Chomsky feels no pressure to devise his own theory of consciousness. If anything, he shuns grand solutions. “There seems to be no coherent doctrine of materialism and metaphysical naturalism, no issue of eliminativism, no mind-body problem (Chomsky, 2020). In short, as Edward Feser notes, “if the problem has no clear content, neither do any of the solutions to it” (Feser, 2022b). Chomsky is content to allow science to do its work, advancing knowledge of the brain and of the mind, leaving to the future the construction of proper theories of consciousness irrespective of current notions of the physical and matter. One may infer that Chomsky contemplates an expanded view of the physical, with matter having features now unknown, which then would “naturally” subsume the mental. (Note: Chomsky rejects panpsychism.) However, in an overarching sense, he remains unsure whether human beings have the capacity to solve what he believes are genuine mysteries about the nature of reality, but he is also unsure whether consciousness will prove to be an ultimate mystery. 9.9.2. Searle's language and consciousness To philosopher John Searle, language is crucial for consciousness, just as consciousness is crucial for language, because much of our consciousness is shaped by language and because the parts of language that are most important to us are precisely those that are conscious (Searle, 2014b). Searle contrasts human and animal consciousness: “My dogs have a kind of consciousness which is incredibly rich. They can smell things I can't smell and they have a kind of inner life that I don't have, but all the same, there are all kinds of conscious experiences they simply cannot have. My doggy lying there may be thinking about chasing other dogs but he's not thinking about doing his income tax or writing his next poem or figuring out how he's going to have a better summer vacation next year.” Searle stresses how language gives us enormous power in shaping consciousness. A favorite quotation is from the French philosopher La Rochefoucauld: “Very few people would ever fall in love if they never read about it.” Searle's point is that language shapes experience; there are all kinds of experiences you just can't have without language. As for how language and consciousness articulate and developed over time, Searle envisions an evolutionary “boot-strapping effect.” It starts off with pre-linguistic consciousness, and then develops linguistic meaning and communication, which enrich consciousness. The result is an elaborate structure of language, which makes for a more elaborate structure of consciousness, which then enables you to enrich your language. There is a continuous reinforcing and compound effect (Searle, 2014b). Non-linguistic animals can't do this, Searle continues: “My doggie can think somebody is at the door, but he cannot think I wish 17 people were at the door, or I hope we get more people at the door next week. Because to do that, he has got to be able to shuffle the symbols in a way that human beings can with their inner syntax.” Although animals do not form or express their beliefs in a symbolic language, Searle attributes to them intentional states, and because intentional states require consciousness, it follows that consciousness does not require symbolic language. He cites as evidence that animals “correct their beliefs all the time on the basis of their perceptions” (Searle, 2002; Proust, 2003). 9.9.3. Koch's consciousness does not depend on language Neuroscientist Christof Koch asserts without ambiguity, “consciousness doesn't depend on language,” and he offers vivid clinical cases of brain trauma or insult where language is obviously lost and consciousness is obviously retained. Koch is especially exercised by the claim that “only humans experience anything,” that other animals have no sentience, a belief he calls “preposterous, a remnant of an atavistic desire to be the one species of singular importance to the universe at large. Far more reasonable and compatible with all known facts is the assumption that we share the experience of life with all mammals” (Koch, 2019). Koch recounts and rejects how “Many classical scholars assign to language the role of kingmaker when it comes to consciousness. That is, language use is thought to either directly enable consciousness or to be one of the signature behaviors associated with consciousness.” He concludes, “language contributes massively to the way we experience the world, in particular to our sense of the self as our narrative center in the past and present. But our basic experience of the world does not depend on it” (Koch, 2019). 9.9.4. Smith's language as classifier of consciousness Philosopher Barry Smith states that while we think of consciousness as “moments of experience,” the way we capture what's similar or different in our experiences over time is via language. The “passing show,” he says, “gets assembled into larger, more meaningful groups when we use language to classify and categorize.” How do we do this? How do we connect up these bits of consciousness with something stable? How do we classify the world, not just our own experience, and communicable between experiencers? The answer is language, he says, which he calls a species-specific property of human beings. With language, we codify our own experience, represent the content of our own minds, and compare it with the contents of other minds (Smith, 2012). Distinguishing consciousness from language, Smith tells of someone who lost all of their words for fruit and vegetables, and only those words. They could use language normally and they had conscious awareness of fruits and vegetables, but they could not use, pronounce or even recognize words for fruit and vegetables. “It's as if a whole shelf of meanings had been taken away.” Smith relates grades of consciousness to grades of language. One can lose the word for an object but can still recognize the object (a form of aphasia). Deeper, one can not only lose the word as a piece of sound representing an object, but also not recognize the object either and lose the whole meaning (a form of agnosia). He describes stroke patients who, for example, can't use the word “glove”. “What is that?” “Can't say.” Perhaps just the word is missing, because if they are asked, “Is there a glove on the table?”, they answer, “Yes.” But other stroke patients answer, “I've no idea.” And if you show them a glove and ask, “What's this for?”, they say, “I don't know, maybe it's for keeping coins.” Smith suggests that words are ways that our visual consciousness categorizes and structures the world. And perhaps a deeper loss of language can lead to a dissolution of the very categories that we use to classify our perceptual experiences. So, it's not just that I can't name or categorize some object, but without language the actual conscious experience of that object is radically different. If so, language is responsible, at least in part, for organizing consciousness (Smith, 2012). 9.9.5. Jaynes's breakdown of the bicameral mind Psychohistorian Julian Jaynes's 1976 book, The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind, proposes that consciousness, particularly "the ability to introspect," is a learned behavior rooted in language and culture and arises from metaphor; consciousness is neither innate nor fundamental. To Jaynes, language plays a central role in consciousness; language is “an organ of perception, not simply a means of communication” (Jaynes, 1976; Bicameral Mind, 2024). Jaynes defines consciousness idiosyncratically by distinguishing it from sensory awareness and cognition; as such it more closely resembles “introspective consciousness,” as he calls it, than it does phenomenal consciousness, which is the target of this Landscape. Nonetheless, it is helpful to work through Jaynes's definitions and arguments, clarifying how to avoid what could be confounding or muddled thinking about consciousness. While Jaynes's consciousness is not phenomenal consciousness, his careful parsing of his definition gives insight into the subtleties of the parsing process. Moreover, appreciating the flow of Jaynes's arguments as well as the substance of his claims sharpens our view of the entire Landscape. In Jaynes's words, “Consciousness is not a simple matter and it should not be spoken of as if it were.” He starts with what his consciousness is not. (i) Not the “many things that the nervous system does automatically for us. All the variety of perceptual constancies … all done without any help from introspective consciousness.” (ii) Not what he calls “preoptive” activities, such as how we sit, walk, move. “All these are done without consciousness, unless we decide to be conscious of them.” (iii) Not even speaking, where “the role of consciousness is more interpolative than any constant companion to my words.” Consciousness, he stresses, is not sense perception; it does not copy experience; it is not necessary for learning; it is not even necessary for thinking or reasoning; and it has only an arbitrary and functional location (Jaynes, 1987). To Jaynes, consciousness, or what he refines as “subjective conscious mind,” is an analog of the real world. “It is built up with a vocabulary or lexical field whose terms are all metaphors or analogs of behavior in the physical world … It allows us to short-cut behavioral processes and arrive at more adequate decisions. Like mathematics, it is an operator rather than a thing or a repository. And it is intimately bound with volition and decision … Every word we use to refer to mental events is a metaphor or analog of something in the behavioral world” (Jaynes, 1987). Jaynes says that the primary feature of his consciousness is an “associated spatial quality that, as a result of the language used to describe such psychological events, becomes, with constant repetition, this spatial quality of our consciousness or mind-space …. It is the space which you preoptively are introspecting on at this very moment.” The second most important feature of Jaynes' consciousness is the subject of the introspecting, the introspective “I”. Here Jaynes uses analogy, which differs from metaphor in that the similarity is between relationships rather than between things or actions. “As the body with its sense organs (referred to as I) is to physical seeing,” he says, “so there develops automatically an analog ‘I’ to relate to this mental kind of ‘seeing’ in mind-space.” A third feature of Jaynes' consciousness is narratization, “the analogic simulation of actual behavior.” Consciousness, he says, “is constantly fitting things into a story, putting a before and an after around any event.” Other features of Jaynes' consciousness include: “concentration, the ‘inner’ analog of external perceptual attention; suppression, by which we stop being conscious of annoying thoughts, the analog of turning away from annoyances in the physical world; excerption, the analog of how we sense only one aspect of a thing at a time; and consilience, the analog of perceptual assimilation.” Jaynes “essential rule” is that “no operation goes on in consciousness that was not in behavior first. All of these are learned analogs of external behavior” (Jaynes, 1987). Definition in hand, Jaynes asks, “When did all this ‘inner’ world begin?”, which he calls “the most important watershed in our discussion.” Jaynes famously introduces the hypothesis of the "bicameral mind", a non-conscious mentality supposedly prevalent in early humans that featured a kind of auditory hallucinations. He argued that relatively recent human ancestors as late as the ancient Greeks did not consider emotions and desires as stemming from their own minds but rather as the actions of external gods (Bicameral mentality, 2024). Jaynes takes the oldest parts of the Iliad and asks, “Is there evidence of consciousness?” The answer, he thinks, is no. “People are not sitting down and making decisions. No one is. No one is introspecting. No one is even reminiscing. It is a very different kind of world” (Jaynes, 1987). Who, then, makes the decisions? Whenever a significant choice is to be made, Jaynes suggests that “a voice comes in telling people what to do. These voices are always and immediately obeyed. These voices are called gods.” To Jaynes, this is the origin of gods. He regards them as “auditory hallucinations” similar to, although not the same as, “the voices heard by Joan of Arc or William Blake. Or similar to the voices that modern schizophrenics hear.” Jaynes coins the “bicameral mind” using the metaphor of a bicameral legislature. It simply means that human mentality at this time was in two parts, a decision-making part and a follower part, and neither part was conscious in the sense in which Jaynes has described it (above) (Jaynes, 1987). The theory posits that the human mind once operated in a state in which cognitive functions were divided between one part of the brain which appears to be "speaking", and a second part which listens and obeys—the bicameral mind—and that the breakdown of this division gave rise to consciousness in humans. Jaynes supports his theory with historical texts and archaeological evidence. He places the origin of consciousness around the 2nd millennium BCE and suggests that the transition from the bicameral mind to consciousness was triggered by the breakdown of the bicameral system of society (Bicameral mentality, 2024). Jaynes describes bicameral societies as “strict and stable hierarchies,” including bicameral theocracies, where “everything went like clockwork providing there was no real catastrophe or problem.” But such a system is precarious, especially as society grows in population and complexity, such that “given a time of social and political instability, bicamerality can break down like a house of cards.” Whereas all significant decisions previously had been based on the bicameral mind, after its breakdown, after the hallucinated voices no longer told people what to do, a new way of making decisions had to develop, which was a kind of proto-consciousness (Jaynes, 1987). There is an obvious, perhaps tempting, neurobiological correlate: the two cerebral hemispheres, especially based on the pioneering split-brain research of Michael Gazzaniga and Roger Sperry, which explained functional brain lateralization and how the cerebral hemispheres communicate with each another. Jaynes puts it simply: “the right hemisphere was ‘talking’ to the left, and this was the bicameral mind” (Jaynes, 1987). Although Jaynes's physicalist, deflationary theory of consciousness continues to intrigue, it is not accepted by consciousness experts. Nevertheless, Jaynes's ideas and arguments can inform our view of the Landscape. 9.9.6. Parrington's language and tool-driven consciousness Biologist John Parrington proposes that a qualitative leap in consciousness—“human self-conscious awareness”—occurred during human evolution as “our capacity for language and our ability to continually transform the world around us by designing and using tools” transformed our brains. His challenge is to distinguish human language and use of tools from analogous activities of animals, particularly other primates, as contemporary research uncovers more complex animal capacities (Parrington, 2023). Regarding language, Parrington stresses the “highly distinctive feature of human language” as “an interconnected system of abstract symbols, linked together by grammar.” This is why, he says, “only human beings are able to use language to convey complex ideas like past, present and future, individual versus society, location in space and even more abstract concepts.” (Parrington, 2023, p. 22). He defends his view of human consciousness as language-dependent by stressing our capacity for “inner speech, or more generally inner symbols, as central to human thought” (Parrington, 2023, p. 55). Regarding use of tools, Parrington argues that “tool use by other species tends to be both occasional and also very limited in the type of tools that are created. In contrast, a unique feature of our species is that practically all of our interactions with the world are through tools that we have created.” Moreover, “we are continually in a process of inventing new types of tools and technologies” (Parrington, 2023, p. 19). Parrington's theory focuses on human brains, which are “not just much bigger than those of other primates, but radically different in structure and function” (a claim that hangs on “radically”) (Parrington, 2023, p. 20). He references different brain regions, highlighting the cerebellum, long thought limited to coordinating repetitive movements but now shown to play a role in human creativity and imagination (Parrington, 2023, p. 47), and the prefrontal cortex, greatly expanded in humans, the locus of reasoning, planning, decision making, control of social behavior and some aspects of language, all of which relate to human uniqueness (Parrington, 2023, p. 126). He has brain waves of different frequencies conveying specific sensory signals and combining together into a unified conscious whole, thus explaining how we bind together different aspects of experience into a seamless experience (Parrington, 2023, p. 19). Parrington argues that “the effect of language and other cultural tools” have transformed human consciousness, which “provides another level of binding.” This surely means, he says, that “our sense of self is not an illusion, but rather a very real phenomenon based on the binding role of brain waves and the extra element of unity based on conceptual thought” (Parrington, 2023, p. 147). Rejecting what he calls “outdated models of the brain as a hard-wired circuit diagram,” he argues that meaning is created within our heads through a dynamic interaction of oscillating brain waves. Parrington believes that “in some ways” he has addressed the hard problem and “hopefully demonstrated that there is nothing magical about human consciousness” (Parrington, 2023, p. 196). He frames his theory, as he must, within an evolutionary context, seeking to explain inner speech, thought, and self-conscious awareness in terms of the evolved neural circuitry that undergirds these uniquely human capacities, especially as manifest in language and tools. While Parrington's goal, as Susan Blackmore puts it, is to develop “a material explanation of human consciousness”—and “he has done a great job of exploring material explanations of thought, perception, self-representation and behavioral control”—but none of this, Blackmore concludes, “gets at the deeper questions about subjective experience” (Blackmore, 2023). 9.10. Phylogenetic evolution Phylogenetic Evolution, the phylogenetic evolution of consciousness, at first blush, is not a specific theory of consciousness per se. Rather, it is recruited as the mechanistic process for many (but not all) of the theories on the Landscape. Yet, is there a sense in which phylogenetic evolution can become a prime explanation in its own right? Certainly, according to Dennett (9.10.1), LeDoux (9.10.2) and Ginsburg/Jablonka (9.10.3), consciousness exemplifies Theodosius Dobzhansky famous adage, "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution” (Dobzhansky, 1973). Neuroscientists and writers Ogi Ogas and Sai Gaddam present a step-by-step simulation of how evolution produced consciousness. It is a tale of eighteen “increasingly intelligent minds,” as they say, from the simple stimulus-response of microbes interacting with their environments to the limitless creativity of humankind (and beyond). Leveraging the “resonance” theories of Stephen Grossberg (9.4.2), their mentor, they tell a story of what each “new” mind could do that previous minds could not (Ogas and Gaddam, 2022). To physicist Lawrence Krauss, “consciousness is a slippery quality because it exists on a spectrum in the evolutionary development of life that is very difficult to measure or quantify” (Krauss, 2023, p. 195). He stresses “the phenomenon of consciousness is the one area I know of in science where the forefront discussions seem to be made by philosophers equally as often as they are made by experimental cognitive scientists,” which, he says softly, is “an indication of a science in its early stages” (Krauss, 2023, pp. 193–194). Amidst the surfeit of competing neurobiological theories, Krauss is most comfortable pursuing “the possible distinct evolutionary advantages that consciousness might endow humans with.” He follows the thread that “feelings emerged as ever more complex systems evolved to incorporate higher-order cognitive processing to issues of survival and homeostasis” (9.5.). Consciousness, through introspection, he says, “could build on the nervous system monitoring of basic internal body conditions to produce novel, rather than innate, survival strategies. The ability to use internal representations of goals, whether from cognitive maps or stored memories, to flexibly respond to the changing environmental conditions, was a huge evolutionary leap, and has been noted to probably exist only in some mammals and perhaps in birds” (Krauss, 2023, pp. 211–212). Philosophers David Buller and Valarie Hardcastle offer an alternative to the strong evolutionary claim that “the mind contains ‘hundreds or thousands’ of ‘genetically specified’ modules, which are evolutionary adaptations for their cognitive functions.” They argue that “while the adult human mind/brain typically contains a degree of modularization, its ‘modules’ are neither genetically specified nor evolutionary adaptations. Rather, they result from the brain's developmental plasticity, which allows environmental task demands a large role in shaping the brain's information-processing structures.” They maintain that “the brain's developmental plasticity is our fundamental psychological adaptation, and the ‘modules’ that result from it are adaptive responses to local conditions, not past evolutionary environments” (Buller and Hardcastle, 2000). Questions remain. What creatures are conscious and to what degree? How low on the phylogenetic scale must one descend to wink out anything resembling human consciousness? For example, does an octopus have phenomenal consciousness? Philosopher (and scuba-diver) Peter Godfrey-Smith not only affirms octopus higher intelligence, he also traces the evolution of mental properties in the primordial seas, claiming that “evolution built minds not once but at least twice (Godfrey-Smith, 2016). Appreciating Godfrey-Smith's work, Carlo Rovelli uses the “complex intellectual abilities” of octopuses as “a valuable case study” of consciousness. In recent decades, he observes, “the phrase ‘the problem of the nature of consciousness’ has taken the place of what in the past used to be the problem of the meaning of soul, spirit, subjectivity, intelligence, perception, understanding, existing in the first person, being aware of a self …” Consciousness is neurobiological, Rovelli asserts, and one way to tackle the issue is to observe our non-human cousins and even octopuses, an extremely distant relative. The octopus, he offers, “is the extraterrestrial that we have been looking for in order to study a possible independent realization of consciousness” (Rovelli, 2020). Raymond Tallis questions the entire enterprise of assuming “the [evolutionary] advantage of being a conscious organism rather than a self-replicating bag of chemicals innocent of its own existence.” His skeptical argument against “what seems like a no-brainer” is “not to start near the end of the story, with complex, sophisticated organisms such as higher mammals … [whose] life depends on conscious navigation through the world.” No, he says, “we must begin at the beginning: by asking, for example, what survival value is conferred on a photosensitive cell in virtue of its organism being aware of the light incident upon it. And the answer appears to be: ‘none.’” Tallis argues, “If there's no reason to believe that the sentience of primitive organisms would give them an edge over the competition, there is no starting point for the evolutionary journey to the sophisticated consciousness we see in higher organisms like you and me.” The mystery of consciousness, he concludes, “remains intact” (18.4) (Tallis, 2023). Most experts, scientists and philosophers who study the evolution of mind, support a gradual, incrementalistic theory of mental development, much like Dennett, Godfrey-Smith, and Ogas/Gaddam. There are dissenting voices: for example, Nicholas Humphrey (9.8.6) and perhaps Noam Chomsky (9.9.1). Here's the point. In considering the multifarious theories on the Landscape of Consciousness, one should overlay each theory with its putative phylogenetic evolutionary development. Ask, “What was the process that brought it about?” 9.10.1. Dennett's evolution of minds Daniel Dennett delights us with the wondrous and sometimes counterintuitive power of evolution in the development of consciousness (or, more generally, “minds”), notably in his psychohistory journey, From Bacteria to Bach and Back: The Evolution of Minds (Dennett, 2017). Even if one doesn't wholly subscribe to Dennett's own explanations of consciousness (9.2.4)—which I don't—everyone's understanding of consciousness can be enriched by Dennett's probative and insightful way of thinking (Dennett, 2007, 2023a, 2023b). Dennett describes evolution as a “universal acid” that “eats through just about every traditional concept, revolutionizing world-views” (Dennett, 1995). “How come there are minds?” is Dennett's big evolutionary question, “And how is it possible for minds to ask and answer this question?” His short answer is that “minds evolved and created thinking tools that eventually enabled minds to know how minds evolved, and even to know how these tools enabled them to know what minds are … We know there are bacteria; dogs don't; dolphins don't; chimpanzees don't. Even bacteria don't know there are bacteria. Our minds are different. It takes thinking tools to understand what bacteria are, and we're the only species (so far) endowed with an elaborate kit of thinking tools” (Dennett, 2017). Dennett reflects that he has been struggling through the “thickets and quagmires” of the mind question for over fifty years, and he has found a path, built on evolution, that “takes us all the way to a satisfactory—and satisfying—account of how the ‘magic’ of our minds is accomplished without any magic, but it is neither straight nor easy” (Dennett, 2017). 9.10.2. LeDoux's deep roots of consciousness Neuroscientist Joseph LeDoux argues that the key to understanding human consciousness and behavior lies in viewing evolution through the prism of the first living organisms. He tracks the evolutionary timeline to show how even the earliest single-cell organisms had to solve the same problems we and our cells have to solve, and how the evolution of nervous systems enhanced the ability of organisms to survive and thrive and have brought about the emergence of consciousness (LeDoux, 2019). Motivated by his long-standing interest in how organisms detect and respond to danger, LeDoux found in evolution the “deep roots” of human abilities, hence the “deep roots” of consciousness, which “can be traced back to the beginning of life.” LeDoux argues that what we have inherited from our long chain of biological ancestors is not a fear circuit but rather “a defensive survival circuit that detects threats, and in response, initiates defensive survival behaviours and supporting physiological adjustments.” Fear, on the other hand, from LeDoux perspective, is a recent expression of cortical cognitive circuits. Danger and survival have a deep history; consciousness, a shallower one (LeDoux, 2021). 9.10.3. Ginsburg and Jablonka's associative learning during evolution Neurobiologist Simona Ginsburg and evolutionary theorist Eva Jablonka propose that learning during evolution has been “the driving force” in the transition to basic or minimal consciousness. They identify the evolutionary marker as “a complex form of associative learning, which they term “unlimited associative learning” and which “enables an organism to ascribe motivational value to a novel, compound, non-reflex-inducing stimulus or action, and [to] use it as the basis for future learning” (Ginsburg and Jablonka, 2019). Associative learning, Ginsburg and Jablonka argue, “drove the Cambrian explosion and its massive diversification of organisms.” They suggest that “consciousness can take many forms and is found even in such animals as octopuses (who seem to express emotions by changing color) and bees (who socialize with other bees)” (Ginsburg and Jablonka, 2022). As for the evolutionary transition to human rationality, they propose “symbolic language as a similar type of marker” (Ginsburg and Jablonka, 2019). 9.10.4. Cleeremans and Tallon-Baudry's phenomenal experience has functional value Cleeremans and Tallon-Baudry propose that “subject-level experience—'What it feels like’—is endowed with intrinsic value, and it is precisely the value agents associate with their experiences that explains why they do certain things and avoid others.” Because experiences have value and guide behavior, they argue, “consciousness has a function” and that under “this hypothesis of ‘phenomenal worthiness’ … conscious agents ‘experience’ things and ‘care’ about those experiences” (Cleeremans and Tallon-Baudry, 2022). The authors note that “the function of consciousness” has been “addressed mostly by philosophers,” yet “surprisingly few things have been written about [it] … in the neuroscientific or psychological literature.” The reason, they surmise, is the “classical view” that “subjective experience is a mere epiphenomenon that affords no functional advantage." They reject such “consciousness inessentialism” by appealing to “how the concept of value has been approached in decision-making, emotion research and consciousness research” and by arguing that “phenomenal consciousness has intrinsic value”—such as it being “the central drive for the discovery and creation of new behaviours.” They conclude that consciousness “must have a function” (Cleeremans and Tallon-Baudry, 2022). Under their hypothesis, “consciousness would have evolved and been selected because it adds an important degree of freedom to the machinery of reward-based behaviour: behaviour that seems purposeless from a purely functional perspective nevertheless has intrinsic value. But this, crucially, only holds when associated with conscious experience.” Phenomenal experience, they speculate, “might act as a mental currency of sorts, which not only endows conscious mental states with intrinsic value but also makes it possible for conscious agents to compare vastly different experiences in a common subject-centered space”—a feature, they claim, that “readily explains the fact that consciousness is ‘unified.’” They offer the “phenomenal worthiness hypothesis” as a way to make “the ‘hard problem’ of consciousness more tractable, since it can then be reduced to a problem about function”—an offering unlikely to persuade nonmaterialists (Cleeremans and Tallon-Baudry, 2022). 9.10.5. Andrew's consciousness without complex brains Philosopher Kristin Andrews, an expert on animal minds, argues that progress in consciousness studies has been hampered by prevailing conventional wisdom that for an organism to be conscious, a complex brain is required. She advocates moving “past a focus on complex mammalian brains to study the behavior of ‘simpler’ animals” (Andrews, 2023). In forming her argument, Andrews rehearses how Crick and Koch helped turn consciousness studies into a real science by supposing that “higher mammals” possess some essential features of consciousness (9.2.2), by setting aside the still-common Cartesian view that language is needed for conscious experience, and by assuming that a nervous system is necessary for consciousness. She recruits the Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness, which states that “there is sufficient evidence to conclude that ‘all mammals and birds, and many other creatures, including octopuses’ experience conscious states.” The Declaration, she notes, identifies five consciousness markers (not all of which would be necessary): “homologous brain circuits; artificial stimulation of brain regions causing similar behaviours and emotional expressions in humans and other animals; neural circuits supporting behavioural/electrophysical states of attentiveness, sleep and decision-making; mirror self-recognition; and similar impacts of hallucinogenic drugs across species” (Andrews, 2023). But Andrews posits that “emphasis on the neurological … may be holding the science back,” and that animal research suggests “multiple realizability—the view that mental capacities can be instantiated by very different physical systems.” If neuroscience looks only at slightly different physical systems (say, just other primates or even mammals), she says, “we may be overlooking the key piece to the consciousness puzzle.” Andrews asks, “What might we learn if our anthropocentrism didn't lead us to focus on the brain as the relevant part of physiology needed for consciousness, but instead led us to examine the behaviours that are associated with experiences?” She advocates studying “the nature of consciousness by looking at bees, octopuses and worms as research subjects. All these animals have a robust profile of behaviours that warrant the hypothesis that they are conscious. Moving away from painful stimuli, learning the location of desirable nutrients, and seeking out what is needed for reproduction is something we share widely with other animals.” By studying simple animals, she offers, we can simplify research on consciousness (Andrews, 2023). Andrews likens studying consciousness to studying the origin of life on earth and searching for life on other planets. For each, there is only one confirmed instance. It's the “N = 1 problem.” “If we study only one evolved instance of consciousness (our own),” she says, “we will be unable to disentangle the contingent and dispensable from the essential and indispensable.” She offers “good news” in that “consciousness science, unlike the search for extraterrestrial life, can break out of its N = 1 problem using other cases from our own planet.” Typically, consciousness scientists study other primates (e.g., macaque monkeys) and, to a lesser extent, other mammals, such as rats. “But the N = 1 problem still bites here. Because the common ancestor of the primates was very probably conscious, as indeed was the common ancestor of all mammals—we are still looking at the same evolved instance (just a different variant of it). To find independently evolved instances of consciousness, we really need to look to much more distant branches of the tree of life” (Andrews and Birch, 2023). Andrews speculates that “sentience has evolved only three times: once in the arthropods (including crustaceans and insects), once in the cephalopods (including octopuses) and once in the vertebrates.” But she cannot rule out “the possibility that the last common ancestor of humans, bees and octopuses, which was a tiny worm-like creature that lived more than 500 million years ago, was itself sentient—and that therefore sentience has evolved only once on Earth.” In either case, she argues, “If a marker-based approach does start pointing towards sentience being present in our worm-like last common ancestor, we would have evidence against current theories that rely on a close relationship between sentience and special brain regions adapted for integrating information, like the cerebral cortex in humans. We would have grounds to suspect that many features often said to be essential to sentience are actually dispensable” (Andrews and Birch, 2023). Conversely, it could mean that sentience is related to some unknown feature(s). To Andrews, the philosophy of animal minds addresses profound questions about the nature of mind as they cut across animal cognition and philosophy of mind. Key topics include the evolution of consciousness, tool use in animals, animal culture, mental representation, belief, communication, theory of mind, animal ethics, and moral psychology (Andrews, 2020a). Andrews outlines “the scientific benefits of treating animals as sentient research participants who come from their own social contexts” (Andrews, 2020b). Andrews concludes: “Just as Crick and Koch pushed back on the popular view of their time that language is needed for consciousness, today we should push back on the popular view of our time that a complex brain is needed for consciousness.” She also speculates: “If we recognize that our starting assumptions are open to revision and allow them to change with new scientific discoveries, we may find new puzzle pieces, making the hard problem a whole lot easier” (Andrews, 2023). In essence, then, Andrews reverses the traditional “neurocentric” argument of consciousness. Whereas the common assumption is that consciousness is (somehow) related to the complexity of the nervous system, but because all neurobiological advances, collectively, have not progressed in solving the hard problem, then perhaps the common assumption is not correct and the generation of consciousness can be found outside the nervous system. Thus, rather than assuming that organisms without complex nervous systems cannot be conscious, perhaps a radical new approach might be to consider that these organisms are (in a way) conscious and focus research on how such “lower” or “primitive” consciousness might come about. Finally, regarding our current obsession with discerning AI sentience, Andrews claims that “without a deep understanding of the variety of animal minds on this planet, we will almost certainly fail” (Andrews and Birch, 2023). Neuroscience/consciousness writer Annaka Harris goes further, questioning our potentially false but deeply ingrained intuition that “systems that act like us are conscious, and those that don't are not.” Plants and philosophical zombies, she says, indicate that this human-centric intuition “has no real foundation.” (A. Harris, 2020, 2019). Consciousness may not even require a brain (A. Harris, 2022). 9.10.6. Reber's cellular basis of consciousness Cognitive psychologist Arthur Reber dubs his theory of the origins of mind and consciousness the Cellular Basis of Consciousness (CBC), arguing that “sentience emerged with life itself.” He states, “The most primitive unicellular species of bacteria are conscious, though it is a sentience of a primitive kind. They have minds, though they are tiny and limited in scope.” He rejects that “minds are computational and can be captured by an artificial intelligence.” He develops CBC using standard models of evolutionary biology, leveraging the “remarkable repertoire of single-celled species that micro- and cell-biologists have discovered … Bacteria, for example, have sophisticated sensory and perceptual systems, learn, form memories, make decisions based on information about their environment relative to internal metabolic states, communicate with each other, and even show a primitive form of altruism.” All such functions, Reber contends, “are indicators of sentience” (Reber, 2016, 2018). Reber's model is based on a simple, radical axiom: “Mind and consciousness are not unique features of human brains. They are grounded in inherent features present in simpler forms in virtually every species. Any organism with flexible cell walls, a sensitivity to its surrounds and the capacity for locomotion will possess the biological foundations of mind and consciousness.” In other words, “subjectivity is an inherent feature of particular kinds of organic form. Experiential states, including those denoted as ‘mind’ and ‘consciousness,’ are present in the most primitive species” (Reber, 2016). Reber founds his model on several principles: “Complexity has its roots in simplicity. Evolution has a pyramidal schema. Older forms and functions lie at the base, the more recently evolved ones toward the zenith …. In virtue of the nature of pyramidal systems, the older structures and the behaviors and processes that utilize them will be relatively stable, showing less individual-to-individual and species-to-species variation. They will also, in virtue of their foundational status, be robust and less likely to be lost. Adaptive forms and functions are not jettisoned; they are modified and, if the selection processes are effective, they will become more complex and capable of greater behavioral and mental flexibility and power” (Reber, 2016). Reber claims that his model has several conceptual and empirical virtues, among them: “(a) it (re)solves the problem of how minds are created by brains—the "Hard Problem"—by showing that the apparent difficulty results from a category error; (b) it redirects the search for the origins of mind from complex neural structures to foundational biomechanical ones; and (c) it reformulates the long-term research focus from looking for ‘miracle moments’ where a brain is suddenly capable of making a mind to discovering how complex and sophisticated cognitive, emotional and behavioral functions evolve from more primitive ones” (Reber, 2016). In addressing the hard problem, Reber argues that the reason it looks “hard” is “because it assumes that there is some ‘added’ element that comes from having a mind.” However, he says, “from the CBC perspective the answer is easily expressed. Organisms have minds, or the precursors of what we from our philosophy of mind perspective think of as minds, because they are an inherent component of organic form. What gets ‘added’ isn't ontologically novel; it's a gradual accretion of functions that are layered over and interlock with pre-existing ones” (Reber, 2016). In the CBC framework, “All experience is mental. All organisms that experience have minds, all have consciousness.” Reber contends that this way of thinking repositions the problem, from how brains create consciousness (i.e., the hard problem) to how all experience is consciousness. “Instead of trying to grasp the neuro-complexities in brains that give rise to minds, we can redirect the focus toward understanding how particular kinds of basic, primitive organic forms came to have the bio-sensitivity that is the foundation of subjectivity.” Reber recognizes that “this argument requires a commitment to a biological reductionism.” It would also undermine Functionalism (9.1.3) in that mental states would be “intrinsically hardware dependent” (Reber, 2016). 9.10.7. Feinberg and Mallatt's ancient origins of consciousness Neurologist/psychiatrist Todd Feinberg and evolutionary biologist Jon Mallatt propose that consciousness appeared much earlier in evolutionary history than is commonly assumed, and therefore all vertebrates and perhaps even some invertebrates are conscious. By assembling a list of the biological and neurobiological features that seem responsible for consciousness, and by juxtaposing the fossil record of evolution, the authors argue that about 520–560 million years ago, “the great ‘Cambrian explosion’ of animal diversity produced the first complex brains, which were accompanied by the first appearance of consciousness; simple reflexive behaviors evolved into a unified inner world of subjective experiences” (Fineberg and Mallatt, 2016). Doing what they call “neuroevolution,” Feinberg and Mallatt put forth the even more unconventional idea that the origin of consciousness goes back to the origin of life, in that single-cell creatures respond to stimuli from the environment, whether attracted to food sources or repelled by harmful chemicals. The authors call this process “sensory consciousness” [but which others may call stimulus-response patterns unworthy of the “consciousness” appellation]. In addition, the cell membrane distinguishes self from non-self, which becomes another baby step on the long evolutionary journey to human consciousness. A crucial developmental step, they say, was the evolution of “hidden layers” of clusters of intermediary nerve cells that process and relay internal signals between sensory-input and motor-output nerve cells. Driven by evolutionary pressures, these clusters would go on to evolve into primitive and then more complex brains (Fineberg and Mallatt, 2016; Rose, 2017). If indeed these were the historical facts, it would naturally follow that “all vertebrates are and have always been conscious—not just humans and other mammals, but also every fish, reptile, amphibian, and bird.” Moreover, Feinberg and Mallatt find that many invertebrates—arthropods (including insects and probably crustaceans) and cephalopods (including the octopus)—"meet many of the criteria for consciousness.” Their proposal challenges standard-model theory that “consciousness evolved simultaneously but independently in the first vertebrates and possibly arthropods more than half a billion years ago.” Combining evolutionary, neurobiological, and philosophical approaches enables Feinberg and Mallatt to cast a broader group of animals that are conscious, though it is less clear how their theory offers—as the marketing claims, the authors less so—“an original solution to the ‘hard problem’ of consciousness” (Fineberg and Mallatt, 2016). 9.10.8. Levin's technological approach to mind everywhere Developmental and synthetic biologist Michael Levin introduces “a framework for understanding and manipulating cognition in unconventional substrates,” which he calls ‘TAME—Technological Approach to Mind Everywhere.” He asserts that creating “novel embodied cognitive systems (otherwise known as minds) in a very wide variety of chimeric architectures combining evolved and designed material and software”—via synthetic biology and bioengineering—“are disrupting familiar concepts in the philosophy of mind, and require new ways of thinking about and comparing truly diverse intelligences, whose composition and origin are not like any of the available natural model species.” TAME, Levin says, “formalizes a non-binary (continuous), empirically-based approach to strongly embodied agency,” and it “provides a natural way to think about animal sentience as an instance of collective intelligence of cell groups, arising from dynamics that manifest in similar ways in numerous other substrates” (Levin, 2022). By focusing on cognitive function, not on phenomenal or access consciousness, Levin takes “TAME's view of sentience as fundamentally tied to goal-directed activity,” noting carefully that “only some aspects of which can be studied via third-person approaches.” Provisionally, Levin suggests that consciousness “comes in degrees and kinds (is not binary),” for the same reasons he argues for continuity of cognition: “if consciousness is fundamentally embodied, the plasticity and gradual malleability of bodies suggest that it is a strong requirement for proponents of phase transitions to specify what kind of ‘atomic’ (not further divisible) bodily change makes for a qualitative shift in capacity consciousness” (Levin, 2022). Although Levin takes the null or default hypothesis to be the relatively smooth continuity of consciousness across species and phylogenetically, he hedges that “the TAME framework is not incompatible with novel discoveries about sharp phase transitions.” He points to future, radical brain-computer interfaces in human patients as “perhaps one avenue where a subject undergoing such a change can convince themselves, and perhaps others, that a qualitative, not continuous, change in their consciousness had occurred.” In a radical implication of TAME, Levin argues that “while ‘embodiment’ is critical for consciousness, it is not restricted to physical bodies acting in 3D space, but also includes perception-action systems working in all sorts of spaces.” This implies, he says, “counter to many people's intuitions, that systems that operate in morphogenetic, transcriptional, and other spaces should also have some (if very minimal) degree of consciousness. This in turn suggests that an agent, such as a typical modern human, is really a patchwork of many diverse consciousnesses, only one of which is usually capable of verbally reporting its states (and, not surprisingly, given its limited access and self-boundary, believes itself to be a unitary, sole owner of the body).” Levin remains “skeptical about being able to say anything definitive about consciousness per se (as distinct from correlates of consciousness) from a 3rd-person, objective perspective.” Yet, he muses, “The developmental approach to the emergence of consciousness on short, ontogenetic timescales complements the related question on phylogenetic timescales, and is likely to be a key component of mature theories in this field” (Levin, 2022). 9.10.9. No hard problem in William James's psychology Writer Tracy Witham argues that William James flipped the paradigm in which the hard problem arises, because James viewed consciousness through a problem he believed it solves by selecting for adaptive responses to specific environmental situations (James, 1890). Essentially, James believed that a brain complex enough to support a proliferation of options for responding to environmental situations is more likely to obscure than to identify the best option to use, unless that brain also has a selection mechanism for choosing adaptive over less, non-, and maladaptive options. But the question remains, Witham says, whether consciousness is, at least, a good prima facie fit, to address what can be called “the selection problem.” The hypothesis that underlies James's view, she says, is that consciousness increases an organism's fitness by “bringing … pressure to bear in favor of those of its performances which make for the most permanent interests of the brain's owner …” (James, 1890, p. 140). Specifically, the role James gave to consciousness must be understood only in the context of the formation of de facto ends which he believed form when preferred sensations are recalled in their absence (James, 1890, p. 78). This context is crucial, because it is consciousness that confers the preferences for some sensations over others and thereby serves as the source of the ends. But to understand why James gave consciousness that role, Witham says we need to understand his two-word phrase, "cerebral reflex," (James, 1890, p. 80). which implies a stimulus-and-response schema is the basis for the ends-and-means couplings that form cerebral reflexes. However, there is a problem with the implication. For this to work, ends must stand in for stimuli, arising in interactions between organisms and their environments. The problem is solved, Witham says, if consciousness just is what it seems to be: the means by which we reflect on our interactions with our environments to sense whether the interactions are favorable or not. So, what consciousness seems to be fits James's hypothesis perfectly, that its role is to "bring … pressure to bear [in favor of] those of our performances" that are adaptive. Reflective experience, in short, makes it possible to identify experiences of our environmental interactions that contain adaptive behaviors and retain them as cerebral reflexes for future use. But then, as the means to solve the selection problem, consciousness becomes an adaptive adaptation in the sense of being an adaptation selecting for adaptive behaviors. And it does so by being, indeed, what it seems to be: an adaptive adaptation that is a marvelous source of solutions, not a confounding source of problems. The critical question, however, is whether a zombie-like black box of sufficient complexity could perform environmentally driven, fitness enhancing, evolutionarily successful activities, and if so, why then the radical advent of something so startlingly novel in the universe: inner experience? In other words, while the question of why consciousness was favored and selected by evolution is important, it is not the question of what consciousness actually is, which of course is the hard problem. 10. Non-reductive physicalism Non-Reductive Physicalism takes consciousness to be entirely physical, solely the product of biological brains, but mental states or properties are irreducibly distinct from physical states or properties such that they cannot be entirely explained by physical laws, principles or discoveries (in brains or otherwise) (Macdonald and Macdonald, 2019). Non-reductive Physicalism was, in part, a response to conceptual problems in the early identity theories of physicalism where mental properties or kinds were literally the same thing as physical properties or kinds. This was challenged by several conceptual conundrums: the multiple realizability of the same mental properties or kinds by different physical properties or kinds (Hilary Putnam); the intentional essence of mental phenomena, which seems so radically different from physical laws or things (Donald Davidson's “Anomalous Monism,” 14.2); and the apparent unbridgeable gap between physics and the special sciences (Jerry Fodor) (Macdonald and Macdonald, 2019). While mental states are generated entirely by physical states (of the brain), non-reductive physicalism maintains that they are truly other than physical; mental states are ontologically distinct. This would seem to make Non-Reductive Physicalism a form of property dualism (15.1) in that both recognize real mental states and yet only one kind of substance, matter—but, as expected, some adherents of each reject the claims of the other. If Non-Reductive Physicalism is indeed a form of property dualism, it would be perhaps the predominant contemporary kind. A core mechanism of Non-Reductive Physicalism is emergence, where novel properties at higher levels of integration are not discernible (and perhaps not even predictable, ever) from all-you-can-know at lower or more fundamental levels. A prime feature of Non-Reductive Physicalism is often “top-down causation,” where the content of consciousness is causally efficacious—qualia can do real work (contra Epiphenomenalism, 9.1.2). Some Christian philosophers, such as Nancey Murphy (10.2), who seek greater consonance between contemporary science and the Christian faith, look to Non-Reductive Physicalism as a nondualistic account of the human person. It does not consider the "soul" an entity separable from the body, such that scientific statements about the physical nature of human beings would be referring to exactly the same entity as theological statements concerning the spiritual nature of human beings (Brown et al., 1998). The structure of Non-Reductive Physicalism is said to enhance the Judeo-Christian concept of “resurrection of the dead” as opposed to what is said to be the non-Judeo-Christian doctrine of an “immortal soul” (Van Inwagen, 1995). On the other hand, Christian philosopher J.P. Moreland takes dualism to be “the clear teaching of Scripture” that “overwhelmingly sets forth a dichotomy of soul and body” and he decries those Christian thinkers who deny this conclusion, especially adherents of Non-Reductive Physicalism (Moreland, 2014). Philosopher Jaegwon Kim's objections to Non-Reductive Physicalism, based on causal closure and overdetermination, highlight its three principles: the irreducibility of the mental to the physical; some version of mental-physical supervenience; and the causal efficaciousness of mental states. The problem, according to Kim, is that when these three commitments are combined, an inconsistency is generated that entails the causal impotence of mental properties (Kim, 2024). I've always been puzzled by Non-Reductive Physicalism in that I can well understand how, under physicalism, consciousness is non-reductive in practice, but how non-reductive in principle? Conversely, if indeed consciousness is in principle non-reductive—impossible for science ever to explain how it works in terms of fundamental physical constituents—it would seem to require the ontological reality of non-physical properties (at least by current boundaries), which would seem to embed a contradiction. Or else, by what mechanisms could such higher-level non-reducible “laws” work? Perhaps by something analogous to quantum fields but operating at higher levels? Occam is sharpening his Razor. 10.1. Ellis's strong emergence and top-down causation Mathematical physicist George Ellis approaches consciousness by combining non-reductionist strong emergence and top-down causation in the context of “possibility spaces” (Ellis, 2017a). While he calls consciousness “the biggest unsolved problem in science,” he sees the larger vision that consciousness transforms the nature of existence itself such that existence is quite different than it might have been had there been only nonconscious matter (Ellis, 2006). Ellis begins with four kinds of entities, or “Worlds,” whose existence requires explanation: matter and forces, consciousness, physical and biological possibilities, and mathematical reality. An adequate explanation of what exists, he says, must encompass all four kinds of entities, in two forms: generic forms of the kinds of entities that might exist, and specific instantiations of some of these possibilities that actually occur or have occurred in the real universe. The first are possibilities, and the second are actualizations of those possibilities (Ellis, 2015). “Possibility spaces,” then, show what is and what is not possible for entities of whatever kind we are discussing. For example, the possibility space for classical physics is all possible states of the system; for quantum physics, the state spaces for the system wave function are Hilbert spaces. For consciousness, possibility spaces include separate subspaces for all possible thoughts, all possible qualia, all possible emotions—each with its own character. Ellis says, “The rationale is always the same: if these aspects of consciousness occur, then it is possible that they occur; and that possibility was there long before they ever occurred, and so is an abstract feature of the universe. The physical existence of brains enables their potential existence to be actualized” (Ellis, 2015). Ellis embeds his theory of consciousness in the presence and power of strong emergence, where properties of a system are impossible to predict in terms of the properties of its constituents, even in principle; and of top-down causation, where higher hierarchical levels exert causal force on lower levels, even though the higher levels are comprised only of the lower levels. Strong emergence, according to Ellis, works throughout the physical world, particularly in biology where the whole is more than just the sum of its parts (Ellis, 2017b, 2019). He explains that “emergence is possible because downward causation takes place right down to the lower physical levels, hence, arguments from the alleged causal completeness of physics and supervenience are wrong. Lower levels, including the underlying physical levels, are conscripted to higher level purposes; the higher levels are thereby causally effective, so strong emergence occurs. No violation of physical laws is implied. The key point is that outcomes of universally applicable generic physical laws depend on the context when applied in specific real world biological situations … including the brain” (Ellis, 2019). Continuing to focus on emergence and downward causation, Ellis “considers how a classification of causal effects as comprising efficient, formal, material, and final causation can provide a useful understanding of how emergence takes place in biology and technology, with formal, material, and final causation all including cases of downward causation; they each occur in both synchronic and diachronic forms.” Taken together, he says, the four causal effects “underlie why all emergent levels in the hierarchy of emergence have causal powers (which is Noble's principle of biological relativity) and so why causal closure only occurs when the upward and downward interactions between all emergent levels are taken into account, contra to claims that some underlying physics level is by itself causality complete” A key feature, Ellis adds, is that “stochasticity at the molecular level plays an important role in enabling agency to emerge, underlying the possibility of final causation occurring in these contexts” (Ellis, 2023). Ellis's two points here, if veridical and representing reality, would have extraordinary impact on theories of consciousness, and the two bear repeating: (i) emergence has causal powers at all levels in biology, and (ii) top-down causation as well as bottom-up causation is necessary for causal closure. At once, almost every Materialism Theory—maybe every Materialism Theory (more than 90 at last count)—would be shown insufficient to explain consciousness (even if one or more were still necessary to do so). Ellis highlights questions that he claims reductionists cannot answer: “Reductionists cannot answer why strong emergence (unitary, branching, and logical) is possible, and in particular why abstract entities such as thoughts and social agreements can have causal powers. The reason why they cannot answer these questions is that they do not take into account the prevalence of downward causation in the world, which in fact occurs in physics, biology, the mind, and society” (Ellis 2017b, 2019). David Chalmers distinguishes strong downward causation from weak downward causation. “With strong downward causation, the causal impact of a high-level phenomenon on low-level processes is not deducible even in principle from initial conditions and low-level laws. With weak downward causation, the causal impact of the high-level phenomenon is deducible in principle, but is nevertheless unexpected. As with strong and weak emergence, both strong and weak downward causation are interesting in their own right. But strong downward causation would have more radical consequences for our understanding of nature.” However, Chalmers concludes, “I do not know whether there is any strong downward causation, but it seems to me that if there is any strong downward causation, quantum mechanics is the most likely locus for it … The question remains wide open, however, as to whether or not strong downward causation exists” (Chalmers, 2008). 10.2. Murphy's non-reductive physicalism Christian philosopher Nancey Murphy, reflecting increasing Christian scholarship calling for acceptance of physicalism, argues that the theological workability of physicalism depends on the success of an argument against reductionism. She takes Non-Reductive Physicalism, a common term in philosophy of mind, to “signal opposition to anthropological dualisms of body and either mind or soul, as well as to physicalist accounts that reduce humans to nothing but complex animals.” She sets herself the task of showing that “non-reductive physicalism is philosophically defensible, compatible with mainstream cognitive neuroscience, and is also acceptable biblically and theologically”—a task made more difficult because she must be able to explain “how Christians for centuries could have been wrong in believing dualism to be biblical teaching” (Murphy, 2017, 2018). To Murphy, part of the answer lies in translation. She focuses on the Septuagint, a Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures that dates from around 250 BC. This text translated Hebrew terminology into Greek, and “it then contained terms that, in the minds of Christians influenced by Greek philosophy, referred to constituent parts of humans. Later Christians have obligingly read and translated them in this way.” A key instance, she says, is “the Hebrew word nephesh, which was translated as psyche in the Septuagint and later into English as ‘soul’ … In most cases the Hebrew or Greek term is taken simply to be a way of referring to the whole living person” (Murphy, 2018). Murphy is impressed by how many capacities or faculties of the soul, as attributed by Thomas Aquinas, are now well explained by cognitive science and neurobiology. She is moved by “localization studies—that is, research indicating not only that the brain is involved in specific mental operations, but that very specific regions are.” That gives her the physicalism—the easy part, I'd say. What about the non-reductive—the hard part? An obvious answer to the problem of neurobiological reductionism, Murphy says, would be the presence and power of downward causation or whole-part causation. That is, if causal reductionism is the thesis that all causation is from part to whole, then the complementary alternative causation would be from whole to part. If we describe a more complex system, such as an organism, as a higher-level system than the simple sum of its biological parts, then causal reductionism is bottom-up causation, and the alternative, causal anti-reductionism, or causal non-reductionism, is top-down or downward causation (Murphy, 2017). To support Non-reductive Physicalism by undermining reductionist determinism, Murphy recruits contemporary concepts in systems theory, such as chaos theory, non-linear dynamics, complex adaptive systems, systems probabilities, and systems biology. Thus, Murphy posits, an understanding of downward causation in complex systems allows for the defeat of neurobiological reductionism. Finally, Murphy muses that “non-reductive physicalism, while it is the term most often used in philosophy, is perhaps not the best for purposes of Christian anthropology, because, at least by connotation, it places disproportionate stress on the aspect of our physicality.” She quotes theologian Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen in proposing a replacement: “multi-aspect monism” (Murphy, 2018). 10.3. Van Inwagen's Christian materialism and the resurrection of the dead Christian philosopher/metaphysician Peter van Inwagen combines a wholly materialist ontology of the human person (Van Inwagen, 2007a) with a committed belief in the resurrection of the dead as the Christian hope of eternal life. His thesis is that “dualism is a Greek import into Christianity and that the Christian resurrection of the dead does not presuppose dualism” (Van Inwagen, 1995, 2007b). He states, “Most Christians seem to have a picture of the afterlife that can without too much unfairness be described as ‘Platonic.’ When one dies, one's body decays, and what one is, what one has been all along, an immaterial soul or mind or self, continues to exist”—a picture and a doctrine that Van Inwagen finds “unsatisfactory, both as a Christian and as a philosopher” (Van Inwagen, 1995). He reflects, “when I enter most deeply into that which I call myself, I seem to discover that I am a living animal. And, therefore, dualism seems to me to be an unnecessarily complicated theory about my nature unless there is some fact or phenomenon or aspect of the world that dualism deals with better than materialism does” (which he does not find). As for the argument from phenomenal consciousness, he admits, “It is a mystery how a material thing could have sensuous properties [phenomenal consciousness],” but then retorts, “simply and solely because it is a mystery how anything could.” Van Inwagen rejects dualism biblically as well as philosophically. After examining biblical texts in the Old Testament, Van Inwagen finds “little to support dualism in the Old Testament, and much that the materialist will find congenial.” His analysis of New Testament texts requires more elaborate (some may say more convoluted) exegesis: “twisting and turning, impaled on intransigent texts,” in Van Inwagen's own self-deprecating words. For example, Jesus's parable of the “Rich Man” and his words to the “Good Thief” on the cross (“Today you shall be with me in Paradise.”). Moreover, Paul's repeated representation of death as “sleep” cannot be discounted. An important philosophical argument for Christian dualism, Van Inwagen says, is that the doctrine of the Resurrection of the Dead seems to presuppose dualism. “For if I am not something immaterial, if I am a living animal, then death must be the end of me. If I am a living animal, then I am a material object. If I am a material object, then I am the mereological sum of certain atoms. But if I am the mereological sum of certain atoms today, it is clear from what we know about the metabolisms of living things that I was not the sum of those same atoms a year ago” (Van Inwagen, 1995). For the materialist who believes in the biblical resurrection of the dead as a literal future event, as Van Inwagen does, the fact that the atoms of which we are composed are in continuous flux is a “stumbling block.” He asks, “How shall even omnipotence bring me back—me, whose former atoms are now spread pretty evenly throughout the biosphere?” This question does not confront the dualist, who will say that there is no need to bring me back because I have never left. But what shall the materialist say?” (Van Inwagen, 1995). Van Inwagen challenges Divine power: “For what can even omnipotence do but reassemble? What else is there to do? And reassembly is not enough, for I have been composed of different atoms at different times.” This leads to the conundrum of myriad duplicates. In the end, Van Inwagen concludes, “there would seem to be no way around the following requirement: if I am a material thing, then, if a man who lives at some time in the future is to be I, there will have to be some sort of material and causal continuity between this matter that composes me now and the matter that will then compose that man.” Van Inwagen finds this requirement looking very much like Paul's description of the resurrection: “when I die, the power of God will somehow preserve something of my present being, a gumnos kókkos [bare/naked grain/kernel35], which will continue to exist throughout the interval between my death and my resurrection and will, at the general resurrection, be clothed in a festal garment of new flesh” (Van Inwagen, 1995). While van Inwagen would be the first to admit that “oddly enough,” few Christian dualists have been persuaded by his arguments against a Christian immortal soul, I (for one) consider his arguments probative, disruptive, insightful (if not dispositive) (Van Inwagen, 2007b). 10.4. Nagasawa's nontheoretical physicalism Philosopher Yujin Nagasawa interrelates central debates in philosophy of mind (phenomenal consciousness) and philosophy of religion (existence of God) to construct a unique metaphysical thesis, which he calls “nontheoretical physicalism,” by which he claims that although this world is entirely physical, there are physical facts that cannot be captured even by complete theories of the physical sciences (Nagasawa, 2008). This is no defense of traditional Non-Reductive Physicalism, but it is consistent with some of its distinguishing features. Nagasawa's unique methodology, moving from epistemology to ontology, draws heretofore unrecognized parallels between fundamental arguments in philosophy of mind and philosophy of religion, using in the former the Knowledge Argument that Mary cannot know what it is like to see color in her black-and-white room, and in the latter atheistic arguments that God cannot know what it is like to be evil or limited due to his perfections. From what Nagasawa takes as the failures of traditional arguments against physicalism, yet in still rejecting a physicalist approach to phenomenal consciousness, he constructs his “nontheoretical physicalism” (Nagasawa, 2023). What Nagasawa means by “nontheoretical” is an explanation of physicalism that is entity-based, not theory-based, which is consistent with his view that even with complete and final physical theories all reality cannot be explained (Nagasawa, 2008). 10.5. Sanfey's Abstract Realism Medical doctor John Sanfey's Abstract Realism (AR) claims to bridge the mind-matter explanatory gap with two arguments suggesting a complementarity between first and third-person perspectives, with each perspective containing an equivalent observer function. The first argument posits that science must use abstract devices integrating past and future moments of continuous time that reflect first-person perception. The second argument tackles the hard problem by examining phenomenal simultaneity, where no time separates experiencer from experienced (Sanfey, 2023). In “something it is like to experience redness,” the experiencer knows they are not simultaneously causing the redness; one cannot consciously cause something without being conscious of doing so, obviously. But an intelligent system not experiencing conscious presence cannot be certain it is not causing what it perceives because its observing self must reside in the same physical systems that may or may not be producing illusions. This suggests, to Sanfey, that experiencing presence is sufficient to create logical possibilities such as disembodied mind or idealism. Rooted in phenomenal simultaneity, these causal mechanics of consciousness are unobservable in principle, he says, making consciousness indistinguishable from strong emergence. Proven causal power means that consciousness can be produced by physical systems even synthetic ones without introducing new physics. (In Sanfey's AR, the brain generates consciousness when two information systems, two electromagnetic fields [9.3], interact bi-directionally, causally, and with sufficient complexity such that one is the observing reference for the other.) (Sanfey, 2023). Simultaneous causation cannot happen, but experiential simultaneity is certain, and with causal power, consciousness can be integrated with physics within a Non-Reductive Physicalism paradigm—without appealing to psycho-identity, panpsychism, idealism, or reductive physicalism. Matter, defined as that which behaves according to physical laws independently of conscious mind, is always either a sensory or conceptual model, a complementarity of first and third-person perspectives, each containing an equivalent observer function (Sanfey, 2023). 10.6. Northoff's non-reductive neurophilosophy Northoff frames his views on consciousness (1.2.12) as “non-reductive neurophilosophy,” which, he says, is “primarily a methodological approach,” a particular strategy that takes into account “certain phenomena which otherwise would remain outside our scope [consciousness studies].” He deems “the link of conceptual models and ontological theories with empirical data to be key in providing insight into brain-mind connection and its subjectivity” (Northoff, 2022). Paraphrasing Kant, Northoff says that “brain data without brain-mind models are blind, brain-mind models without brain data are empty.” Thus, Northoff has non-reductive neurophilosophy allowing for “a systematic and bilateral connection of theoretical concepts and empirical data, of philosophy and neuroscience.” His emphasis is on “systematic,” by providing and defining “different steps in how to link concepts and facts in a valid way without reducing the one to the respective other.” Taken in such sense, Northoff considers non-reductive neurophilosophy “a methodological strategy of analyzing the relationship of concepts and facts just like there are specific methods of logical analyses in philosophy and empirical data analysis in neuroscience.” In other words, “non-reductive neurophilosophy is a methodological tool at the interface of philosophy and neuroscience. As such it can be applied to problems in both philosophy and neuroscience” (Northoff, 2022). 11. Quantum theories Quantum theories of consciousness take seriously the idea that quantum mechanics plays a necessary, if not sufficient role, in the specific generation of phenomenal consciousness in certain physical entities like brains—beyond the general application of quantum mechanics in all physical entities. The kinds of quantum theories or models on offer differ radically. Philosopher of science Paavo Pylkkänen explores whether the dynamical and holistic features of conscious experience might reflect “the dynamic and holistic quantum physical processes associated with the brain that may underlie (and make possible) the more mechanistic neurophysiological processes that contemporary cognitive neuroscience is measuring.” If so, he says, “these macroscopic processes would be a kind of shadow, or amplification of the results of quantum processes at a deeper (pre-spatial or ‘implicate’) level where our minds and conscious experience essentially live and unfold.” At the very least, Pylkkänen says, “a quantum perspective will help a ‘classical’ consciousness theorist to become better aware of some of the hidden assumptions in his or her approach.” What quantum theory is all about, he stresses, is “learning, on the basis of scientific experiments, to question the ‘obvious’ truths about the nature of the physical world and to come up with more coherent alternatives” (Pylkkänen, 2018). There is certainly growing interest in the putative quantum-consciousness nexus. For example, Quantum and Consciousness Revisited, with papers the product of two conferences, present various philosophical approaches to quantum paradoxes including further considerations of the Copenhagen Interpretation and alternatives with implications for consciousness studies, mathematics and biology. Topics include observation and measurement; collapse of the wave function; and time and gravity. All the papers, the editors write, “reopen the questions of consciousness and meaning which occupied the minds of the early thinkers of quantum physics” (Kafatos et al., 2024). In his technical review article, “Quantum Approaches to Consciousness,” theoretical physicist Harald Atmanspacher describes three basic approaches to the question of whether quantum theory can help understand consciousness: (1) consciousness as manifestation of quantum processes in the brain, (2) quantum concepts elucidating consciousness without referring to brain activity, and (3) matter and consciousness as dual aspects of one underlying reality (Atmanspacher, 2020a). For example, one approach considers how quantum field theory can describe why and how classical behavior emerges at the level of brain activity. The relevant brain states themselves are properly considered as classical states. The idea, Atmanspacher says, is “similar to a classical thermodynamical description arising from quantum statistical mechanics,” and works “to identify different regimes of stable behavior (phases, attractors) and transitions between them. This way, quantum field theory provides formal elements from which a standard classical description of brain activity can be inferred” (Atmanspacher, 2020a). Atmanspacher reports applications of quantum concepts to mental processes, focusing on complementarity, entanglement, dispersive states, and non-Boolean logic. These involve quantum-inspired concepts to address purely mental (psychological or cognitive) phenomena, without claiming that actual quantum mechanics is necessary to make it work. This includes research groups studying quantum ideas in cognition (Patra, 2019). While the term “quantum cognition” has gained acceptance, Atmanspacher says that a more appropriate characterization would be “non-commutative structures in cognition,” and he questions whether it is “necessarily true that quantum features in psychology imply quantum physics in the brain?” (Atmanspacher, 2020a). After reviewing major quantum theories of consciousness (several are discussed below), Atmanspacher suggests that progress is more likely made by investigating “mental quantum features without focusing on associated brain activity” (at least to begin with). Ultimately, he says, “mind-matter entanglement is conceived as the hypothetical origin of mind-matter correlations. This exhibits the highly speculative picture of a fundamentally holistic, psychophysically neutral level of reality from which correlated mental and material domains emerge” (Atmanspacher's Dual-Aspect Monism, 14.7.). To position quantum theories of consciousness, consider each as representing one of two forms: (i) quantum processes, similar to those in diverse areas of biology (e.g., photosynthesis), that uniquely empower or enable the special activities of cells, primarily neurons, to generate consciousness; and (ii) the more radical claim that these two great mysteries, consciousness and quantum theory, are intimately connected such that the solution to both mysteries can be solved only together. Physicist Carlo Rovelli disagrees. Consciousness and quantum mechanics, he says, have no special, intimate relationship. With respect to quantum mechanics, Rovelli says, “Consciousness never played a role … except for some fringe speculations that I do not believe have any solid ground. The notion of ‘observer’ should not be misunderstood. In quantum physics parlance an ‘observer’ can be a detector, a screen, or even a stone. Anything that is affected by a process. It does not need to be conscious, or human, or living, or anything of the sort” (Rovelli, 2022). Philosopher of physics David Wallace sees “potentially intriguing connections between consciousness and quantum mechanics, tied partly to the idea that traditional formulations of quantum mechanics seem to give a role to measurement or observation—and, well, what is that?” He says, “the natural hypothesis is that measurement or observation is conscious perception,” which somehow implies “a role of a conscious observer.” Although this would be “extremely suggestive for connecting the two”—consciousness and quantum mechanics—"but you can connect them in a lot of ways.” Some, Wallace says, might try to explain consciousness reductionistically in terms of quantum mechanical processes. But, “In my view, that works no better than explaining consciousness in terms of classical processes.” However, “Another way is not try to reduce consciousness, but find roles for consciousness in quantum mechanics. That's one of the big questions about consciousness. What does it do? What is it here for? How can it affect the physical world? So, I'm at least taking seriously the idea that maybe consciousness plays a potential role in quantum mechanics. It's a version of the traditional idea that consciousness collapses the wave function. It's not an especially popular idea among physicists these days, partly because it takes consciousness as fundamental—but if, like me, you think there are independent reasons to do that, then I think it's an avenue worth looking at” (Wallace, 2016b). Chalmers and McQueen readdress the question of whether consciousness collapses the quantum wave function. Noting that this idea was taken seriously by John von Neumann and Eugene Wigner but is now widely dismissed, they develop the idea by combining a mathematical theory of consciousness (Integrated Information Theory, 12) with an account of quantum collapse dynamics (continuous spontaneous localization). In principle, versions of the theory can be tested by experiments with quantum computers. The upshot is not that consciousness-collapse interpretations are clearly correct, but that there is a research program here worth exploring (Chalmers and McQueen, 2022). Physicist Tim Palmer argues that our ability for counterfactual thinking—the existence of alternative worlds where things happen differently—which is both an exercise in imagination and a key prediction of quantum mechanics—suggests that “our brains are able to ponder how things could have been because in essence they are quantum computers, accessing information from alternative worlds” (he recruits the Many Worlds Interpretation of quantum mechanics). Consciousness (along with understanding and free will), he states, “involves appealing to counterfactual worlds” and thus “quantum computing is the key to consciousness” (Palmer, 2023). At the very least, for quantum processing to play a content or informational role in the brain it would require some mechanism that stores and transports quantum information in qubits for sufficiently long, macroscopic times. Moreover, the mechanism would need to entangle vast numbers of qubits, and then that entanglement would need to be translated into higher-level chemistry in order to influence how neurons trigger action potentials (Ouellette, 2016). Experiments with anesthetics and brain organoids hint that quantum effects in the brain may be in some way involved in consciousness (Musser, 2024). Although most physicists and neuroscientists have not taken quantum theories of consciousness seriously, such theories are proliferating, becoming more sophisticated and mainstream, and are increasingly backed up by claims of experimental evidence. Personally, I started out an incorrigible, utter skeptic about quantum consciousness; I'm still a skeptic, though no longer so incorrigible, no longer so utter. 11.1. Penrose-Hameroff's orchestrated objective reduction Penrose-Hameroff's quantum consciousness, which they call Orchestrated Objective Reduction (OrchOR), is the claim that consciousness arises in the fundamental gap between the quantum and classical worlds. Formulated by mathematician and Nobel laureate Roger Penrose (Penrose, 2014; 1996; Penrose, 2014, 2023), and developed by anesthesiologist Stuart Hameroff (Hameroff, 2014a, 2014b), consciousness is non-computational, yet still explained by the physics of neurons, but a physics distinct from and broader than that which we currently understand. Penrose claims that only a non-computational physical process could explain consciousness. He is not saying that consciousness is beyond physics, rather that it is beyond today's physics. “Conscious thinking can't be described entirely by the physics that we know,” Penrose said, explaining that he “needed something that had a hope of being non-computational.”36 He focuses on “the main gap in physics”: the contradiction between the continuous, probabilistic evolution given by the Schrödinger equation in quantum mechanics and the discrete, deterministic events when you make measurements in classical physics—“how rules like Schrödinger's cat being dead and alive at the same time in quantum mechanics do not apply at the classical level” (Penrose, 2014, 2023), Penrose argues that the missing physics that describes how the quantum world becomes the classical world “is the only place where you could have non-computational activity.” But he admits that it’s “a tall order” to sustain quantum information in the hot, wet brain, because “whenever quantum systems become entangled with the environment, ‘environmental decoherence’ occurs and information is lost.” “Quantum mechanics acting incoherently is not useful [to account for consciousness],” Penrose explains; “it has to act coherently. That's why we call [our mechanism] ‘Orch OR’, or ‘orchestrated objective reduction’—the ‘OR’ stands for objective reduction, which is where the quantum state collapses to one alternative or another, and ‘Orch’ stands for orchestrated. The whole system must be orchestrated, or organized, in some global way, so that the different reductions of the states actually do make a big difference to what happens to the network of neurons” (Penrose, 2014, 2023), So how can the hot, wet brain operate a quantum information system? Hameroff proposed a biological mechanism utilizing microtubules in neurons. As an anesthesiologist who had shepherded thousands of conscious-unconscious-conscious transitions, Hameroff, together with Penrose, developed their quantum theory of consciousness. “Objective reduction in the quantum world is occurring everywhere,” Hameroff recognizes, “so proto-conscious, undifferentiated moments are ubiquitous in the universe. Now in our view when orchestrated objective reduction occurs in neuronal microtubules, the process gives rise to rich conscious experience” (Hameroff, 2014b). In Hameroff's telling, microtubules are cylindrical polymers of the protein tubulin capable of information processing, with fundamental units being states of a billion tubulins per neuron. Microtubules in all cells enact purposeful spatiotemporal activities, and in the brain, microtubules establish neuronal shape, create and regulate synapses, and are proposed to underlie memory, cognition and consciousness. Tubulin is the brain's most prevalent protein, so the brain is largely made of microtubules, each with unique, high frequency vibrational and quantum properties from non-polar aromatic ring pathways. The claim is made that experimental evidence shows that anti-depressants, psychedelics and general anesthetics, which selectively alter or block consciousness, all act via microtubules (Brophy and Hameroff, 2023). Some evidence suggests that entangled states can be maintained in noisy open quantum systems at high temperature and far from thermal equilibrium—for example, counterbalancing decoherence by a “recoherence” mechanism—such that, “under particular circumstances, entanglement may persist even in hot and noisy environments such as the brain” (Atmanspacher, 2020a). Moreover, Anirban Bandyopadhyay describes experiments with the tubulin protein in microtubules where conductivity resistance becomes so low it's almost a macroscopic quantum-like system (Bandyopadhyay, 2014). Penrose's ontology requires basic conscious acts to be linked to gravitation-mediated reductions of quantum states, with “real quantum jumps” related to conscious thoughts and, by extension, to neural correlates of consciousness. A complete theory seems to require a robust theory of quantum gravity, long the holy grail of physics. As noted, the Orch OR theory proposes that consciousness arises from orchestrated (Orch) quantum state objective reductions (OR) in microtubules within brain neurons, which connect, adherents say, to the fine-scale structure of spacetime geometry. Adherents posit that Orch OR accounts for cognitive binding, real-time conscious causal action (through non-computable Penrose OR and retroactivity), memory encoding, and, ambitiously, the hard problem of phenomenal experience. Moreover, consciousness as a non-local quantum process in spacetime geometry provides potentially plausible mechanism for near-death and out-of-body experiences, pre-cognition, afterlife and reincarnation (Brophy and Hameroff, 2023). Quite the claim, that. Hameroff makes the striking statement that “consciousness came before life.” Based on observations of extraterrestrial organic material, in context of the Penrose-Hameroff quantum theory of consciousness, Hameroff challenges the conventional wisdom that consciousness evolved after life, posing that “consciousness may have been what made evolution and life possible in the first place” (Hameroff et al., 2024). For years, Penrose-Hameroff stood largely alone, defending their quantum consciousness model against waves of scientific critics (Baars and Edelman, 2012), some of whom largely dismissed the notion as fanciful and fringy. Then, as quantum biology began emerging as a real science with broad applications—with quantum mechanisms shown to play essential roles in photosynthesis, vision, olfaction, mitochondria, DNA mutations, magnetoreception, etc.—a larger community began taking quantum consciousness more seriously. Today, while Penrose-Hameroff Orch OR remains the most well-known quantum theory of consciousness, with increasing interest, there are other, diverse theories of how quantum processes are essential in consciousness. Their numbers are growing. 11.2. Stapp's collapsing the wave function via asking “questions” Mathematical physicist Henry Stapp argues for the quantum nature of consciousness by relying on a traditional interpretation of quantum mechanics, where quantum wave functions collapse only when they interact with consciousness in an act of measurement. He envisions a “mind-like” wave-function collapse that exploits quantum effects in the synapses between neurons, generating consciousness, which he believes is fundamental to the universe (Stapp, 2011, 2023, 2007.) Stapp founds his theory on the transition from the classical-physics conception of reality to von Neumann's application of the principles of quantum physics to our conscious brains (Stapp, 2006; Von Neumann, 1955/1932). Von Neumann extended quantum theory to incorporate the devices and the brain/body of the observers into physical theory, leaving out only the stream of conscious experiences of the agents. According to von Neumann's formulation, “the part of the physically described system being directly acted upon by a psychologically described ‘observer’ is the brain of that observer” (Stapp, 2011). The quantum jump of the state of an observer's brain to the ‘Yes’ basis state (vector) then becomes the representation, in the state of that brain, of the conscious acquisition of the knowledge associated with that answer ‘Yes,’ which constitutes the neural correlate of that person's conscious experience. This fixes the essential quantum link between consciousness and neuroscience (Stapp, 2006). To Stapp, this is the key point. “Quantum physics is built around ‘events’ that have both physical and phenomenal aspects. The events are physical because they are represented in the physical/mathematical description by a ‘quantum jump’ to one or another of the basis state vectors defined by the agent/observer's choice of what question to ask. If the resulting event is such that the ‘Yes’ feedback experience occurs then this event ‘collapses’ the prior physical state to a new physical state compatible with that phenomenal experience” (Stapp, 2006). Thus, in Stapp's telling, mind and matter thereby become dynamically linked in a way that is causally tied to an agent's free choice of how to act. “A causal dynamical connection is established between (1) a person's conscious choices of how to act, (2) that person's consciously experienced increments in knowledge, and (3) the physical actualizations of the neural correlates of the experienced increments in knowledge” (Stapp, 2006). More colloquially, Stapp argues that given the perspective of classical physics, where all is mechanical, where the physical universe is a closed system, “there's nothing for consciousness to do … and so it must be some sort of an illusion.” Why would there have been consciousness at all, he asks? Under classical physics, “consciousness is just sitting there inert, a passive observer of the scene in which it has no function; it does nothing. So, it's a mystery why consciousness should ever come into existence” (Stapp, 2007). In stark contrast, Stapp says, the way quantum mechanics works, in order to get consequences, predictions, there must be a question posed. It's like “20 questions,” yes-or-no questions. A question is posed in the quantum mechanical scheme; then there is an evolution according to the Schrodinger equation, and then nature gives an answer (which is statistically determined). The axial idea, Stapp says, is that there is nothing in quantum mechanics that determines what decides the questions. This means that there's a gap, a critical causal gap in quantum mechanics. And the way it's filled in practice is that an observer, on the basis of reasons or motivations or with rules, sets up a certain experiment in a certain way. For example, putting a Geiger counter or some other detector in the path of particles. This yields Stapp's concept of quantum consciousness. Nobody denies that thoughts exist, he says, but how do they do something? And that's the place where quantum consciousness has causal impact. The crux of quantum mechanics is what questions are going to be asked. There is nothing in classical physics that asks such questions. But in quantum mechanics questions are answered by the psychological process of the experimenter, who is interested in learning something. And because there is nothing in the way quantum mechanics works that explains the choice of the question, there is an opening for the injection of mental events into the flow of physical events. The choice of the question is not determined by the laws as we know them (Stapp, 2007). This means we need another process, which is consciousness. And this gives consciousness an actual role to play and allows it to do things causally. And if consciousness can act causally and do things, Stapp says, then classic materialism is out. Niels Bohr had a famous quote: “one must never forget that in the drama of existence we are ourselves both actors and spectators.” In the classical worldview, Stapp says, “we were just spectators; always we would just watch what's happening but couldn't do anything. In the quantum mechanical worldview, we are actors. We are needed to make the theory work.” Moreover, Stapp says, “this mental process cannot just be the product of the brain, because the brain, like all physical things, evolves via quantum mechanical rules. While quantum mechanics describes the evolution of potentialities for events to happen, that's all they describe, only potentialities—they do not describe what chooses the events that are going to happen, the actual events. Something must ask the questions, something outside of quantum mechanics—quantum mechanics forces that process.” The only candidate, Stapp says, must be the independent existence of consciousness (Stapp, 2007). Stapp's conclusions are as bold as they are controversial. First, the ontological foundations of consciousness and quantum mechanics are inextricably linked. Second, classical materialism is defeated (Stapp, 2007). Philosopher of physics David Wallace is sympathetic with the idea that consciousness with respect to quantum physics has to be taken somehow as fundamental and irreducible, but there are two different ways that could go. “There's the dualist way, where you have physics and you have consciousness as two separate things, and there's the panpsychist idea, where consciousness underlies all of physics and is present at the most fundamental level of every physical process. Those are two different ideas” (Wallace, 2016a, 2016b). When Wallace thinks about consciousness collapsing the wave function, as in quantum mechanics, he says, “That's the dualist half of my head. You've got physics, you've got a wave function, and you've got consciousness, which is observing the wave function. And somehow consciousness is something distinct from the physical wave function and every now and then affecting it in this interesting phenomenon of collapse. In a way, it's an updated version of Rene Descartes's dualism: there's mind and then there's body; they're separate and they interact.” Wallace says one could try to combine dualism and panpsychism with respect to the relationship between consciousness and quantum mechanics, “but I don't think they'd combine all that well,” he said. “If consciousness is everywhere and consciousness collapses the wave function, then the wave function would be constantly collapsing and we know that doesn't happen because you get interference effects in double slit experiments. So, I think these two ideas, panpsychism and consciousness collapsing the wave function, should be pursued on separate tracks (Wallace, 2016a; 2016b; 2016c.) 11.3. Bohm's implicate-explicate order Quantum physicist David Bohm, colleague of Einstein, famously introduced the idea of “implicate order” and “explicate order” as ontological implications of quantum theory to explain two radically opposed perspectives of the same phenomenon—something seems to be needed to account for the bizarrely divergent ways of conceiving reality, quantum and classical, both of which seemed undeniably correct. Bohm is a big thinker, leveraging the counterintuitive concepts of quantum mechanics to try to see reality as it really is. He envisions matter and mind as intertwined. He worked with Karl Pribram to develop “Holonomic Brain Theory” (9.4.5). He explored the essence of thought with Indian philosopher Jiddu Krishnamurti. Of particular import is what he calls “undivided wholeness,” meaning that the subject actively participates with the object, rather than being a detached observer. Bohm developed his “wholeness” as innately dynamic, alive, and open-ended (Gomez-Marin, 2023a). According to Bohm, everything is in a state of process or becoming (folding and unfolding)—Bohm calls it the "universal flux". All is dynamic interconnected process. In the same manner, Bohm says, “knowledge, too, is a process, an abstraction from the one total flux, which latter is therefore the ground both of reality and of knowledge of this reality” (Section: Bohm, 1980; Bohm, Wise Insights Forum, website). Now, regarding “implicate order,” Bohm means “order which is enfolded (the root meaning of ‘implicate’) and later unfolded or made explicate.” Relating the enfolding-unfolding universe to consciousness, Bohm contrasts mechanistic order with implicate order. In mechanistic order, which is inherent to classical physics, “the principal feature of this order is that the world is regarded as constituted of entities which are outside of each other, in the sense that they exist independently in different regions of space (and time) and interact through forces that do not bring about any changes in their essential natures. The machine gives a typical illustration of such a system of order …. By contrast, in a living organism, for example, each part grows in the context of the whole, so that it does not exist independently, nor can it be said that it merely ‘interacts’ with the others, without itself being essentially affected in this relationship” (Bohm, 1980; Bohm, n.d.). Bohm contends, “the implicate order applies both to matter (living and non-living) and to consciousness, and that it can therefore make possible an understanding of the general relationship between these two”—yet he recognizes “the very great difference in their basic qualities.” Still, he believes that because both consciousness and matter are extensions of the implicate order, a connection is possible. To Bohm, the explicate order, which is “the order that we commonly contact in common experience,” has room “for something like memory”, with the fact that “memories are first enfolded and then unfolded during recall” being consistent with Bohm's concepts of implicate and explicate order. “Everything emerges from and returns to the Whole” (Bohm, n.d.). Confirming his non-materialist status, Bohm proposes, “the more comprehensive, deeper, and more inward actuality is neither mind nor body but rather a yet higher-dimensional actuality, which is their common ground and which is of a nature beyond both.” What we experience consciously, Bohm offers, is a projection of a higher-dimensional reality onto our lower-dimensional elements. “In the higher-dimensional ground the implicate order prevails,” he says. “Thus, within this ground, what is is movement which is represented in thought as the co-presence of many phases of the implicate order …. We do not say that mind and body causally affect each other, but rather that the movements of both are the outcome of related projections of a common higher-dimensional ground” (Bohm, 1980; Bohm, n.d.). 11.4. Pylkkänen's quantum potential energy and active information Philosopher Paavo Pylkkänen proposes a view in which “the mechanistic framework of classical physics and neuroscience is complemented by a more holistic underlying framework in which conscious experience finds its place more naturally” (Pylkkänen, 2007). Recognizing that it is “very likely that some radically new ideas are required if we are to make any progress” on the hard problem, he turns to quantum theory “to understand the place of mind and conscious experience in nature.” In particular, Pylkkänen and physicist Basil Hiley focus on the ontological interpretation of quantum theory proposed by David Bohm and Hiley (1993) and make “the radical proposal that quantum reality includes a new type of potential energy which contains active information. This proposal, if correct, constitutes a major change in our notion of matter” (Hiley and Pylkkänen, 2022). Pylkkänen and Hiley's intuition is that the reason “it is not possible to understand how and why physical processes can give rise to consciousness is partly the result of our assuming that physical processes (including neurophysiological processes) are always mechanical.” However, they say, if “we are willing to change our view of physical reality by allowing non-mechanical, organic and holistic concepts such as active information to play a fundamental role,” this might make it possible to understand the relationship between physical and mental processes in a new way (Hiley and Pylkkänen, 2022). For example, the human brain could operate in some ways like a “quantum measuring apparatus” (Pylkkänen, 2022). Philosophically, according to Pylkkänen, that the physical domain is causally closed has left “no room for mental states qua mental to have a causal influence upon the physical domain, leading to epiphenomenalism and the problem of mental causation.” One road to a possible solution is called “causal antifundamentalism:” causal notions cannot play a role in physics, because the fundamental laws of physics are radically different from causal laws.” While “causal anti-fundamentalism seems to challenge the received view in physicalist philosophy of mind and thus raises the possibility of there being genuine mental causation after all,” Pylkkänen rejects it in favor of the ontological interpretation of quantum theory imparting active information (Pylkkänen, 2019). 11.5. Wolfram's consciousness in the ruliad Physicist and computer scientist Stephen Wolfram seeks “to formalize issues about consciousness, and to turn questions about consciousness into what amounts to concrete questions about mathematics, computation, logic or whatever that can be formally and rigorously explored” (Wolfram, 2021b). He begins by embedding consciousness in what he calls the “ruliad” (neologism from “rules”), which he defines as “the entangled limit of everything that is computationally possible: the result of following all possible computational rules in all possible ways.” The ruliad, he says, is “a kind of ultimate limit of all abstraction and generalization,” encapsulating “not only all formal possibilities but also everything about our physical universe” (Wolfram, 2021a). The ruliad is crucial for formalizing the “rules” of consciousness, he argues, because “everything we experience can be thought of as sampling that part of the ruliad that corresponds to our particular way of perceiving and interpreting the universe” (Wolfram, 2021b). Consciousness, Wolfram says, is not about the general computation that brains can do. “It's about the particular feature of our brains that causes us to have a coherent thread of experience.” And this invokes the ruliad, which “has deep consequences that far transcend the details of brains or biology.” It defines (what we consider to be) the laws of physics (Wolfram, 2021b). While consciousness involves computational sophistication, Wolfram says, “its essence is not so much about what can happen as about having ways to integrate what's happening to make it somehow coherent and to allow what we might see as ‘definite thoughts’ to be formed about it.” Surprisingly, “rather than consciousness being somehow beyond ‘generalized intelligence’ or general computational sophistication,” he instead sees consciousness “as a kind of ‘step down’—as something associated with simplified descriptions of the universe based on using only bounded amounts of computation.” In addition, “for our particular version of consciousness, the idea of sequentialization seems to be central” (Wolfram, 2021b). Wolfram probes consciousness by asking, “Why can't one human consciousness ‘get inside’ another?” It's not just a matter of separation in physical space, he says, “It's also that the different consciousnesses—in particular by virtue of their different histories—are inevitably at different locations in rulial space. In principle they could be brought together; but this would require not just motion in physical space, but also motion in rulial space” (Wolfram, 2021a). Quantum mechanics is involved in Wolfram's consciousness, but with more than its usual putative mechanisms. Considering the foundations of quantum mechanics in context of the ruliad—quantum mechanics emerges “as a result of trying to form a coherent perception of the universe”—Wolfram offers a sharp epigram to describe consciousness: “how branching brains perceive a branching universe” (Wolfram, 2021b). To Wolfram, to grasp the core notion of consciousness goes beyond explicating consciousness per se because it “is crucial to our whole way of seeing and describing the universe—and at a very fundamental level it's what makes the universe seem to us to have the kinds of laws and behavior it does.” The richness of what we see, he says, reflects computational irreducibility, “but if we are to understand it we must find computational reducibility in it.” This is how consciousness “might fundamentally relate to the computational reducibility we need for science, and might ultimately drive our actual scientific laws” (Wolfram, 2021a). 11.6. Beck-Eccles's quantum processes in the synapse Sir John Eccles, Nobel laureate for his seminal work on the synapse, the small space between neurons across which neurochemicals flow to excite or inhibit contiguous neurons, was a pioneer in early efforts to construct a “quantum neurobiological” theory of consciousness. In their formulation, Beck and Eccles applied concrete quantum mechanical features to describe how, in the cerebral cortex, incoming nerve impulses cause the emission of transmitter molecules in presynaptic neurons (i.e., exocytosis) via information transfer and “quantal selection” with a direct relationship with consciousness (i.e., influenced by mental actions) (Beck and Eccles, 1992). Beck and Eccles propose that “the quantum state reduction, or selection of amplitudes, offers a doorway for a new logic, the quantum logic, with its unpredictability for a single event.” Because conscious action (e.g., intention) is a dynamical process which forms temporal patterns in relevant areas of the brain (cerebral cortex), they propose how regulating the myriad synaptic switches between innumerable neurons in those relevant areas can be regulated effectively by a quantum trigger (based on an electron transfer process in the synaptic membrane). Thus, they conclude, “conscious action is essentially related to quantum state reduction” (Beck and Eccles, 1998). Stapp supports the hypothesis that quantum effects are important in brain dynamics in connection with cerebral exocytosis. Exocytosis is instigated by a neuronal action potential pulse that triggers an influx of calcium ions through ion channels into a nerve terminal, such that, due to the very small diameter of the ion channel, the quantum wave packet that describes the location of the ion spreads out to a size much larger than the trigger site. This means that “one must retain both the possibility that the ion activates the trigger, and exocytosis occurs, and also the possibility that the ion misses the trigger site, and exocytosis does not occur” (Stapp, 2006). As Beck and Eccles hypothesize, “the mental intention (the volition) becomes neurally effective by momentarily increasing the probability of exocytosis in selected cortical areas” (Beck and Eccles, 1992). If so, this fundamental indeterminism of the nature of each specific quantum state collapse is said to open opportunity for mental powers to affect brain states, with supposed implications for conscious intervention and even for free will. 11.7. Kauffman's mind mediating possibles to actuals Theoretical biologist Stuart Kauffman posits the following: (i) Quantum measurement converts Res potentia—ontologically real Possibles—into Res extensa - ontologically real Actuals. (ii) Brain/mind/consciousness cannot be purely classical physics because no classical system can be an analog computer whose dynamic behavior can be isomorphic to “possible uses”, and therefore, brain/mind/consciousness must be partly quantum. (iii) Res potentia and Res extensa suggest a role for mind/consciousness in collapsing the wave function converting Possibles to Actuals, because no physical cause can convert a Possible into an Actual. (iv) Our brain/mind/consciousness entangles with the world in a vast superposition and we collapse the wave function to a single state which we experience as qualia, allowing “seeing” or “perceiving” of X to accomplish Y (Kauffman, 2019, 2023; Kauffman and Roli, 2022)37 As Kauffman and parapsychologist Dean Radin put it, “We propose a non-substance dualism theory, following a suggestion by Heisenberg (1958), whereby the world consists of both ontologically real Possibles that do not obey Aristotle's law of the excluded middle, and ontologically real Actuals, that do obey the law of the excluded middle.” Measurement, they say, is what converts Possibles into Actuals” (Kauffman and Radin, 2020). The “culprit” at the root of the mind-body problem, according to Kauffman and Radin, is the causal closure of classical physics. “We ask mind to act causally on the brain and body, but in classical physics all of the causes are already determined.” Because of this, they conclude, no form of substance dualism can work while quantum mechanics as the foundational mechanism of consciousness should be taken seriously—which, they say, would lead to “the intriguing possibility that some aspects of mind are nonlocal, and that mind plays an active role in the physical world” (Kauffman and Radin, 2020). (9.) 11.8. Torday's cellular and cosmic consciousness Developmental physiologist John Torday offers an original cellular-based explanation of consciousness that embeds quantum mechanics (Torday, 2022a, 2022b, 2023, 2024). He describes consciousness as a two-tiered-system, derivative from physiology, having been “constructed” from the environment via factors in the environment that have been assimilated via symbiogenesis and integrated as cell physiology—the cell semi-permeable membrane being the first tier, and the compartmentation and integration of cell physiologic data as cell-cell communication as the second tier. Basing his model on both classical Newtonian and quantum mechanical principles, he proposes that consciousness is stored within and between our cells based on control mechanisms, referencing the “First Principles of Physiology", that is, negative entropy, chemiosmosis and homeostasis, and consciousness is retrieved from them via the central nervous system as the “algorithm” for translating local and non-local cellular physiologic memories into thought (Torday, 2022a). He claims that quantum entanglement is integral to our physiology, and that it links our local consciousness with the non-local consciousness of the cosmos, distinguishing causation from coincidence based on science. Moreover, he posits that local physiologic memories are paired with non-local memories that dwell in cosmic consciousness and that all cellular memories are on a continuum of local and non-local properties, and that under certain conditions we may be more locally or non-locally conscious. He speculates that as we evolve, we move closer to the non-local by transcending the local. He maintains that we can take advantage of certain experiences in order to attain a transcendent level of consciousness: lucid dreaming, near-death experiences, out-of-body experiences, Maslow peak experiences, runner's high (Torday, 2022a). Torday's main point is that “the quantum” is native to our physiology (Torday, 2022a, 2022b, 2023, 2024). Moreover, “since our physiology derives from the Cosmos based on Symbiogenesis,” he hypothesizes that “the cell behaves like a functional Mobius Strip, having no ‘inside or outside’ cell membrane surface—it is continuous with the Cosmos, its history being codified from Quantum Entanglement to Newtonian Mechanics, affording the cell consciousness and unconsciousness-subconsciousness as a continuum for the first time” (Torday, 2024). 11.9. Smolin's causal theory of views Physicist Lee Smolin approaches the question of how qualia fit into the physical world in the context of his “relational and realist completion of quantum theory, called the causal theory of views” (Smolin, 2020). Smolin has long focused on a “realist” double completion of quantum mechanics and general relativity that would give a full description of, or explanation for, all individual physical processes, independent of our knowledge or interventions. Such a completion is required for unifying gravity, spacetime, and cosmology into the rest of physics. His common theme has been that of a relational “hidden variables” theory: a realist description of precisely what goes on in each individual event or process, which reduces to quantum mechanics in a certain limit and averaging procedure. In Smolin's theory, the first key idea is that “the universe is constructed from nothing but a collection of views of events, where the view of an event is what can be known about that event's place in the universe from what can be seen from that event.” In other words, “the beables of this theory [‘beable’ is short for ‘maybe-able,’ i.e., anything that could possibly be, in any superimposed quantum states] are views from events, the information available at each event from its causal past, such as its causal predecessors and the energy and momentum they transfer to the event." Smolin calls this the “view” of an event—that is, “a causal universe that is composed of a set of partial views of itself.” Within such an ontology of views, Smolin says it's “natural to propose that instances or moments of conscious experience are aspects of some views. That is, an elementary unit of consciousness is not a single qualia, but the entire of a partial view of the universe, as seen from one event” (Smolin, 2020.) Smolin's second key idea restricts the views that are associated with consciousness to within a very small set. Most events and their views are common and routine, he says, in that they have many near copies in the universe within their causal pasts. He proposes that these common and routine views have no conscious perceptions. Then, “there are a few, very rare views which are unprecedented, which are having their first instance, or are unique, in that they have no copies in universal history.” Smolin proposes it is “those few views of events, which are unprecedented, and/or unique, and are hence novel, [i.e., they are not duplicates of the view of any event in the event's own causal past] which are the physical correlates of conscious perceptions.” This addresses, he says, “the problem of why consciousness always involves awareness of a bundled grouping of qualia that define a momentary self. This gives a restricted form of panpsychism defined by a physically based selection principle which selects which views have experiential aspects.” To summarize, Smolin bases his theory on two concepts: First, the beables of a relational theory to be the views of events. Second, the possibility of making a physical distinction between common and routine states, on the one hand, and novel and unique states, on the other. “A relational theory that incorporates both ideas offers a possible setting for bringing qualia and consciousness into physics. The physical correlates of consciousness would be the novel or unique views of events” (Smolin, 2020.) 11.10. Carr's quantum theory, psi, mental space Mathematician-astronomer Bernard Carr speculates that “mental space,” an unknown aspect of reality, may be the ultimate foundation of consciousness. “Even if you believe that consciousness collapses the wave function,” he says, “that doesn't really accommodate consciousness within physics. It's saying that quantum theory is weird and therefore maybe it can explain consciousness, which is also weird—but that is illogical because it's just explaining one mystery in terms of another. We need to get consciousness into physics in a more fundamental way” (Carr, 2016a). Carr notes that most physicists take the view that “consciousness is just an epiphenomenon produced by the brain, independent of physics, and that as physicists they don't have to confront the problem of consciousness because, after all, physics has a third-person perspective, objects in the outside world, whereas consciousness has a first-person perspective. In other words, clearly brains exist and brains are physical systems, but consciousness is simply beyond the domain of physics. The real issue is how can physics ever accommodate that first-person perspective?” (Carr, 2016b). Carr considers the radical view that “consciousness actually is more fundamental, that the brain's role is to limit your experience. So, when you see the world through your eyes and hear it through your ears, the brain is limiting your experience—which, on the face of it, might seem a completely bizarre thing to say, but that, at least, is an alternative view, that consciousness is not actually generated by the brain, but merely encounters the world through the brain” (Carr, 2016c). “The only way I can see this,” Carr poses, is a state of affairs “where consciousness is primary, a fundamental aspect of reality. In other words, consciousness is not just generated as a result, as the endpoint, of physical processes. In some sense, it's there from the beginning” (Carr, 2016c). As to the relationship between consciousness and mathematics, Carr sees them “on a par because I feel that the final picture of the world must marry matter and mind. They come together. Which is primary? I'm not sure the question even makes sense, because I prefer a picture in which matter and mind co-exist right from the beginning.” Carr is careful to clarify what he means by “mind.” He says, “When I use the word ‘mind’ in this context, I'm using ‘Mind’ with an upper-case ‘M’, rather than mind with a lower-case ‘m’, which is generated by the brain. ‘Mind’ with a big ‘M’ is like consciousness with a big ‘C’” (Carr, 2016c). In forming his theory, Carr sees support from psi or the paranormal. While he recognizes that psi “encompasses a multitude of sins,” there are some aspects, such as telepathy and clairvoyance, which he takes seriously, whereas other aspects, such as precognition and psychokinesis, less so. Still, he regards even these psi phenomena as possible because of potential deep interactions between consciousness and physics. Thus, psi is another reason why, he says, “We need a theory of physics that accommodates consciousness.” (Carr stresses that he gives no credence to many aspects of psi or the paranormal.) (Carr, 2016d). Carr's “favorite view,” he says, is that “the way to explain this link between minds, and indeed between minds and the physical world, is to say that there is in some sense a ‘bigger space’ and this bigger space in some sense links your mind and my mind.” He labels this bigger space “mental space.” He says, “Just as there's a physical world that reconciles innumerable observations of the physical world, there is this ‘mental space’ that allows connections between different minds and between minds and the physical world—because, remember, the physical world is also part of this bigger space.” Carr offers another category of explanations for psi which involves quantum theory, where entanglement can connect spatially separated objects and events. “Maybe we're all entangled in some weird quantum mechanical way. Now, that's probably the view which is currently the most popular among parapsychologists.” However, that's not Carr's own view. “As noted, my own favorite view is that there is this bigger space, this mental space, that in some sense links minds and perhaps matter as well.” Carr discerns the relationship between quantum theory and this mental space. “If you want consciousness to come into physics, quantum theory is going to play a role. All I'm saying is I don't think that quantum theory alone can explain all the phenomena. You need some form of mental space to accommodate these psi or paranormal phenomena (if you believe in these phenomena, of course, which most of my colleagues do not).” Carr stresses, rightly I think, that psi or paranormal phenomena are worth taking seriously (17), because even with a minimalist view that the probability of these phenomena being real is small, their significance for a final theory of physics would be huge” (Carr, 2016d). 11.11. Faggin's quantum information-based panpsychism Physicist/inventor Federico Faggin postulates “with high confidence” that “consciousness and free will are properties of quantum systems in pure quantum states” because they depend on quantum entanglement, a nonlocal property that cannot exist in any classical, deterministic universe (Faggin, 2023). The kind of information involved in consciousness needs to be quantum for multiple reasons, he says, “including its intrinsic privacy and its power of building up thoughts by entangling qualia states.” As a result, Faggin comes to a “quantum-information-based panpsychism” (QIP) (D'Ariano and Faggin, 2022). The essence of QIP is that “a quantum system that is in a pure quantum state is conscious of its own state, that is, it has a qualia experience of its state.” Faggin calls this “a highly plausible postulate” because “a qualia experience is definite (integrated, not made of a mixture of separable parts) and private since it can only be known by the experiencer.” More formally, the theory says that a quantum state is an effective mathematical representation of a conscious experience because it possesses the same crucial characteristics of what it represents: the definiteness and privacy of the experience. “Within QIP, quantum information describes the subjective inner reality of quantum systems, a reality that is private for each system” (Faggin, 2023). But this mathematical description of an experience (a vector in Hilbert space), Faggin stresses, is not the experience itself. Quantum information is non-cloneable and thus can be only partially objectified with classical information. Moreover, “the nature of that private knowing is not numeric but qualitative and subjective, because a conscious system ‘knows’ its own state by feeling it through qualia.” Faggin says his hypothesis has creative possibilities, which are the foundation of imagination, intuition, vision, creativity, comprehension, and inventiveness, emerging “from the quantum level of reality, since a classical world is deterministic, that is, algorithmic and predictable, and thus incapable of real creativity.” True creativity, Faggin says, like free will and consciousness, “are non-algorithmic properties that can only exist in a fundamental layer of the universe ruled by quantum physics.” Because quantum consciousness is not reproducible, Faggin predicts that no machine can ever have it or create it (it is not reducible to mechanisms) and, he says, it could continue to exist after the death of the body (Faggin, 2023). 11.12. Fisher's quantum cognition Condensed matter physicist Matthew Fisher proposes that quantum processing with nuclear spins might be operative in the brain and key to its functioning. He identifies “phosphorus as the unique biological element with a nuclear spin that can serve as a qubit for such putative quantum processing—a neural qubit—while the phosphate ion is the only possible qubit-transporter.” He suggests the “Posner molecule” (calcium phosphate clusters, Ca9(PO4)6) as “the unique molecule that can protect the neural qubits on very long times and thereby serve as a (working) quantum-memory” (Fisher, 2015). To be functionally relevant in the brain, he says, “the dynamics and quantum entanglement of the phosphorus nuclear spins must be capable of modulating the excitability and signaling of neurons”—which he takes as a working definition of “quantum cognition”. Phosphate uptake by neurons, he says, might provide the critical link. Because quantum processing requires quantum entanglement, Fisher argues that “the enzyme catalyzed chemical reaction which breaks a pyrophosphate ion into two phosphate ions can quantum entangle pairs of qubits,” and that “Posner molecules, formed by binding such phosphate pairs with extracellular calcium ions, will inherit the nuclear spin entanglement.” Continuing the explanatory sequence, Fisher says “Quantum measurements can occur when a pair of Posner molecules chemically bind and subsequently melt, releasing a shower of intra-cellular calcium ions that can trigger further neurotransmitter release and enhance the probability of post-synaptic neuron firing. Multiple entangled Posner molecules, triggering non-local quantum correlations of neuron firing rates, would provide the key mechanism for neural quantum processing” (Fisher, 2015). The possible centrality of quantum processing in the brain is supported by the emerging field of quantum biology. It can be called, “quantum neuroscience” (Ouellette, 2016). Fisher's proposal, even if incorrect in its specifics, is useful in identifying the kinds of processes and sequences of explanatory steps required if quantum processing is to be fundamental for brain function in general and for consciousness in particular. 11.13. Globus's quantum thermofield brain dynamics Psychiatrist-philosopher Gordon Globus seeks to link two seemingly independent discourses: An application of quantum field theory to brain functioning, which he calls “quantum brain dynamics,” and the continental postphenomenological tradition, especially the work of Martin Heidegger and Jacques Derrida. Underlying both, he says, “is a new ontology of non-Cartesian dual modes whose rich provenance is their between" (Globus 2003). The key issue, in Globus's telling, is that of primary “closure”—the nonphenomenality of quantum physical reality—and the action that brings “dis-closure.” Dis-closure of the phenomenal world, he argues, “can be understood within the framework of dissipative quantum thermofield brain dynamics without any reference to consciousness” (Globus, 2011). He posits to “deconstruct” the field of consciousness studies by combining “two persistently controversial areas: the hard problem of qualia and the measurement problem in quantum physics …. within the framework of dissipative quantum thermofield brain dynamics: disclosure.” His claim is that “the problematics of consciousness/brain, qualia, and measurement in quantum physics are resolved by substituting disclosure for perceptual consciousness and distinguishing the phenomenal brain-p from the macroscopic quantum object brain-q” (Globus, 2013). Metaphysically, Globus conceives the world as a “continual creation” on the part of each quantum thermofield brain in parallel, which is “triply tuned”: by sensory input, memory and self-tuning. Such a brain, he says, “does not primarily process information—does not compute—but through its multiple tunability achieves an internal match in which a world is disclosed, even though there is no world out there, only objects under quantum description at microscopic, mesoscopic and macroscopic scales.” Globus claims his “unconventional formulation revives a version of monadology via quantum brain theory” (Globus, 2022). Globus decries how “philosophers have said some rather naive things by ignoring the extraordinary advances in the neurosciences in the 20th century. The skull is not filled with green cheese!” On the other hand, he criticizes “the arrogance of many scientists toward philosophy and their faith in the scientific method,” which he calls “equally naïve,” asserting that “scientists clearly have much to learn from philosophy as an intellectual discipline” (Globus, 2012). 11.14. Poznanski's dynamic organicity theory Neuroscientist Roman Poznanski proposes a Dynamic Organicity Theory (DOT) of consciousness, a quantum biological theory based on a multiscale interpretation of type-B materialism.38 DOT utilizes a multiscalar temporal-topological framework to include quantum biological effects in the sense of what happens to macroscopic systems upon interaction with quantum potential energy that exists when a living negentropic39 state of the brain imposes thermodynamic constraints (Section: Poznanski, 2024). DOT does not deal with quantum consciousness or assume quantum brain dynamics. However, according to Poznanski, a Schrödinger-like equation describes the quantum effects within the multiscale complexity, where multiscale complexity is both functional and structural through changeable boundary conditions (resulting in the topology being a holarchical modularity). This is made possible by treating time consciousness, i.e., “consciousness-in-the-moment,” on a nonlinear temporal scale and implicitly grounding space to the contingency of changing boundary conditions. The approach is based on the dynamics of functional relations (not to be confused with functionalist or relational theories of consciousness). It is a nonspatial topological framework (not the mathematical study of “space” in a general sense of topological spaces) associated with the temporal aspect of the functionality. Here, functionality refers to the biological realization of the physical as those features of usefulness that exist subjectively. Therefore, Poznanski says, it rules out functionalism and focuses on the qualitativeness of brain functioning. As noted, the approach is type-B materialism (Chalmers, 2003), where consciousness is a physical process, but epistemic objectivism alone does not define physicalism (Shand, 2021). This means that functionality as the quality of usefulness only refers to physical properties assessed subjectively, which can be possible only through quantum biological effects. Moreover, the functional capability of the negentropic state changing over time must satisfy the following necessary condition for consciousness to arise: the functionality of multiscale complexity must exceed the functionality of maximum complexity, i.e., FMultiComplexity > FMaxComplexity. This means that consciousness arises when the functionality of multiscale complexity reaches above the functionality of maximum complexity. This required increase in functionality of multiscale complexity is derived from an additional degree of freedom made possible by quantum biology40 beyond that of the functionality of maximum complexity as derived from brain structure, dynamics, and function. FMaxComplexity is an insufficient measure of consciousness. FMultiComplexity provides an epistemically subjective approach to dynamic organicity, including self-referential dynamic pathways that give an extra quality of energy-negentropy exchange for path selection as realization relations. FMultiComplexity is not a step-function but a gradual ascendance to plateaus accounting for different degrees of consciousness. (Whether this condition is sufficient is beyond DOT to decipher; something with an equivalent topology could cause consciousness in other systems.) (Poznanski, 2024). Poznanski states that “the act of understanding uncertainty is the main qualifier of consciousness” and “the ’act’ connotes the experienceable form, which is, in essence, a precursor of the experience of acting.” The process entails the potential for understanding “meaning” through self-referential dynamical pathways “instead of recognizing (cf. introspection) sensory information through perceptual channels, forming the basis of understanding uncertainty without relying on memory recall.” It is not, he says, “coming into existence” because “quantum-thermal fluctuations are irreducible, yet the process as a whole comes ‘to exist’ perhaps not instantaneously but appears spontaneously. Its output is intentionality as an instruction to act in path selection.” The self-reference principle, which Poznanski says can replace emergence and self-organization when dealing with functionality rather than structure, “establishes dynamical pathways from the microscale to the macroscale (this includes nonlocal pathways), in which diachronic causation and how the disunity of causal order in the redundancy creates a weak unity of consciousness through its temporal structure,” the inferred purpose giving rise to “a sense of self.” Poznanski avoids discussing phenomenological properties of consciousness, such as qualia, because, he says, they do “not apply to conscious reality when considered in the context of functional-structural realism, an offshoot of structuralism, without relying on introspection.” Phenomenological consciousness, he says, “appears like a black box of ‘being’ instead of ‘doing.’” However, functional interactions that entail self-referential dynamics “are uniquely fathomed and, hence, not phenomenally equivalent in other functional systems.” Thus, Poznanski concludes, “a living negentropic state that supports biological function is a dynamic state of being organic representing an additional degree of freedom for intrinsic information to be structured, which makes it possible for a dynamic organicity theory of consciousness to take shape in the material brain” (Poznanski, 2024). 11.15. Quantum consciousness extensions The following theories of consciousness are not quantum theories per se in that they do not have quantum mechanics as the essence or generator of consciousness. Rather, each reflects how quantum mechanics could facilitate or interact with other theories of consciousness. All are highly speculative. Computer scientist Terry Bollinger enjoys speculating about possible mechanisms of quantum consciousness; these include, non-linear soliton Schrödinger wave models in sensory neural networks; neural dendrites as antennas for wave collapses; how warm brains might actively maintain and manipulate quantum wave functions; and how “quasiparticles” might enable quantum consciousness by quantizing classical data transfers between neurons (Bollinger, 2023). Complexity theorist Sudip Patra posits that mathematical tools used in quantum science (information theory included) can be also used to describe cognition; for example, Hilbert space modeling of cognitive states might provide better descriptions of different features like contextuality in decision making, or even exploring ‘entanglement-like’ features of mental states (Patra, 2023; Rooney and Patra, 2022). Though Patra is agnostic about any underlying physics of consciousness, he works with Kauffman (11.7) to construct a non-local theory of consciousness outside the constraints of physical space-time. New-age physician-author Deepak Chopra explains “the intricate relationship between consciousness and the quantum field” by applying the same word “field” to both. Consciousness isn't individual, he says. “Instead, it is a vast field that individuals share in. This field encompasses myriad possibilities. It is the source from which thoughts, sensations, images, and feelings emerge and then dissolve back into, just as subatomic particles do in the quantum field. Mental experiences and quanta are transient, shaped by uncertainty, and are, in essence, energetic fluctuations within the consciousness field.” Chopra points to the infinite nature of the quantum and the consciousness fields, and to the essential entanglement within each, such that local realism—i.e., the world of isolated physical objects and mental thoughts—is “out the window” for both physical and mental phenomena. This entanglement, he says, “suggests that physical objects are intertwined with perception and consciousness, blurring the boundaries between the observer and the observed.” Chopra proposes “a drastic paradigm shift” in which “consciousness comes first, being the field that is the origin of creation, acting in concert with the quantum field” (Chopra, 2023a, Chopra, 2023b). Philosopher Emmanuel Ransford proposes “quantum panpsychism” where matter is richer “with an extra content or dimension”—he calls it “holomatter,” composed of “holoparticles”—and consciousness is “a nonmaterial content of the world.” It assumes two types of causality: “out-causation,” causation from outside, out of reach and deterministic; and “in-causation,” causation from within, unpredictable and “self-willed,” a kind of randomness. Holoparticles, Ransford offers, also have two parts: one obvious, deterministic and out-causal; the other hidden, random-looking and in-causal. This hints, he says, that “the randomness of some quantum events is a smoking-gun evidence of in-causation.” He adds the “im-im hypothesis,” where “im-im” stands for immaterial and immanent, and his claimed insight is that the brain is a catalyst of the mind. “It is a biological ‘lamp’ of sorts that pours out untold sparks of consciousness instead of untold sparks of light (or photons) in the case of ordinary lamps.” Indeed, the brain spawning large flows of active and entangled in-causal holoparticles within the im-im framework would underpin ordinary consciousness—holoparticles linking quantum and consciousness. This is why “consciousness, albeit immaterial, needs a physical structure to ‘catalyze’ it into being” (Ransford, 2023). Theoretical engineer Edward Kamen proposes that “the human soul is a type of quantum field,” which interacts with only certain fields in the physical universe, and not directly with matter. The claim is made that “fields that interact with the soul field include electromagnetic waves,” citing as evidence “near-death experiences where events that could not have been seen through the eyes of the individual are verified.” Extending the theory, Kamen speculates that because “electric fields and electromagnetic fields have the same quanta consisting of photons, electric fields may also interact with the soul field.” This could result in the transfer of information, he says, from working memory to the soul through electric fields produced by neural ensembles in the human brain. Further, the soul field may also affect neurons on the molecular level, perhaps via electric fields and cytoelectric coupling (Kamen and Kamen, 2023). Quantum consciousness: a growth market. 11.16. Rovelli's relational physics Physicist Carlo Rovelli focuses on “the profoundly relational aspect of physics, manifest in general relativity, but especially in quantum mechanics.” 20th century physics, he says, “is not about how individual entities are by themselves. It is about how entities manifest themselves to one another. It is about relations.” This vindicates, he offers, “a very mild form of panpsychism,” but “this same fact may undermine some of the motivations for more marked forms of panpsychism” (Rovelli, 2021). “Although there is nothing specifically psychic or mental in the relational properties of a system with respect to another system,” Rovelli says “there is definitely something in common with panpsychism, because the world is not described from the outside: it is always described relative to a physical system. So, physical reality is, in our current physics, perspectival reality” (Dorato, 2016). Rovelli takes a deflationary view of the hard problem: “If our basic understanding of the physical world is in terms of more or less complex systems that interact with one another and affect one another, the discrepancy between the mental and the physical seems much less dramatic.” He concludes, “It is a world where physical systems—simple and complex—manifest themselves to other systems—single and complex—in a way that our physics describes. I see no reason to believe that this should not be sufficient to account for stones, thunderstorms, and thoughts” (Dorato, 2016). According to George Musser, one way to argue that relationalism could solve the hard problem is, first, to recognize that “third-person physics isn't up to the task of explaining first-person experience and, specifically, its qualitative aspect (qualia).” Then, Rovelli's approach is to say that “physics is not, in fact, third-person; it is specific to each of us, just as each of us has our own private stream of consciousness.” Thus, “the two sides are not so mismatched after all.” However, Musser adds, “although physics may well be relational, subjective experience doesn't seem to be” (Musser, 2023a, Musser, 2023b). 12. Integrated information theory Integrated Information Theory (IIT), developed by neuroscientist Giulio Tononi and supported by neuroscientist Christof Koch, is an original, indeed radical model that states what experience is and what types of physical systems can have it (Tononi and Koch, 2015). IIT is grounded in experience, the phenomenology of consciousness, and it features mathematical description, quantitative measurement, scientific testability, broad applications, and nonpareil, intrinsic, cause-effect “structures.” In other words, “IIT addresses the problem of consciousness starting from phenomenology—the existence of my own experience, which is immediate and indubitable—rather than from the behavioral, functional, or neural correlates of experience” (Tononi et al., 2022). Controversial to be sure, IIT has become a leading theory of consciousness.41 IIT accounts for consciousness in the following way. First, introspection and reason identify the essential properties of consciousness—the axioms of phenomenal existence. Then, each axiom is accounted for terms of cause–effect power; that is, “translating” a “phenomenal property into an essential property of the physical substrate of consciousness” [PSC]—yielding the postulates of physical existence. In this way, IIT claims to “obtain a set of criteria that a physical substrate of consciousness (say, a set of cortical neurons) must satisfy” (Tononi et al., 2022). IIT asserts that distinct conscious experiences are in a literal sense distinct kinds of conceptual structures in a radical and heretofore unknown kind of “qualia space.” IIT says (and introduced the idea) that for every conscious experience, there is a corresponding mathematical object such that the mathematical features of that object are isomorphic to the properties of the experience. “Integrated information theory means that you need a very special kind of mechanism organized in a special kind of way to experience consciousness,” Tononi says. “A conscious experience is a maximally reduced conceptual structure in a space called ‘qualia space.’ Think of it as a shape. But not an ordinary shape—a shape seen from the inside.” Tononi stresses that simulation is “not the real thing.” To be truly conscious, he said, an entity must be “of a certain kind that can constrain its past and future—and certainly a simulation is not of that kind” (Tononi, 2014b). Christof Koch envisions how IIT could explain experience—how consciousness arises out of matter. “The theory makes two fundamental axiomatic assumptions,” Koch explains. “First, conscious experiences are unique and there are a vast number of different conscious experiences. Just think of all the frames of all the movies you've ever seen or movies that will ever be made until the end of time. Each one is a unique visual experience and you can couple that with all the unique auditory experiences, pain experiences, etc. All possible conscious experiences are a gigantic number. Second, at the same time, each experience is integrated—what philosophers refer to as unitary. Whatever I am conscious of, I am conscious of as a whole. I apprehend as a whole. So, the idea is to take these two axioms seriously and to cast them into an information theory framework. Why information theory? Because information theory deals with different states and their interrelationships. We don't think the stuff the brain is made out of is really what's critical about consciousness. It's the interrelationship that's critical” (Koch, 2012b). IIT starts from phenomenology itself—a point that Tononi stresses cannot be overstressed—with axioms that are deemed to be unequivocally and universally true for all instances of consciousness, such that whatever systems manifest these axioms will ipso facto manifest consciousness. It is at this point that IIT seeks a mathematical expression of the fundamental properties of experience. It is not the reverse: IIT does not start from mathematics hoping to explain phenomenology; rather it starts with phenomenology and ends with mathematics (Tononi, 2014a). Because IIT's consciousness is a purely information-theoretic property of systems, not limited to brains or even to biology, Tononi constructs a mathematical function φ (phi) to measure a system's informational integration, with levels of φ covarying with degrees of consciousness (Van Gulick, 2019). In IIT, each experience, each conscious percept, has clear characteristics: it is specific: it is what it is by how it differs from alternative experiences; it is unified: irreducible to noninterdependent components; it is unique: it has its own one-off borders and a particular spatio-temporal grain (Oizumi et al., 2014; Haun and Tononi, 2019). These pillar concepts, all grounded in experience, are expressed by five phenomenological axioms: intrinsic existence, composition, information, integration and exclusion. These axioms are then formalized into postulates that prescribe how physical mechanisms, such as neurons or logic gates, must be configured to generate experience (phenomenology). The postulates are used to define integrated information as information specified by a whole that cannot be reduced to that specified by its parts (Tononi and Koch, 2015). Each of IIT's five postulates defines and constrains the properties required of physical mechanisms to support consciousness (Tononi and Koch, 2015).(i) Intrinsic Existence. Consciousness exists of its own inherent nature: each experience is real, and it exists from its own inherent perspective; to account for experience, a system of mechanisms in a state must exist intrinsically and it must have cause–effect power. (ii) Composition. Consciousness is structured: each experience is composed of phenomenological distinctions; the system must be structured: subsets of system elements (composed in various combinations) must have cause–effect power upon the system. (iii) Information. Consciousness is specific: each experience is the particular way it is; the system must specify a cause–effect-enabling structure that is the particular way it is; the system has a set of specific cause–effect repertoires that distinguishes it from all other possible structures (differentiation). (iv) Integration. Consciousness is unified: each experience is irreducible to noninterdependent subsets of phenomenal distinctions; the cause–effect structure specified by the system must be unified: it must be intrinsically irreducible. (v) Exclusion. Consciousness is definite, in content and spatio-temporal grain: each experience has the set of phenomenal distinctions it has, not less or more, and flows at the speed it does, not faster or slower; the cause–effect structure specified by the system must be definite and is maximally irreducible intrinsically (“conceptual structure”). It is this conceptual structure that is especially intriguing. Maximally irreducible intrinsically, it is also known as a “quale” (plural: qualia). Its arguably infinite varieties are formed when higher-order mechanisms specify concepts, with the constellation of all concepts specifying the overall form or shape of the quale. On this basis, Tononi and Koch formulate the central identity of IIT quite simply: an experience is identical to a conceptual structure that is maximally irreducible intrinsically (Tononi and Koch, 2015). Questions that IIT seeks to address: Why the cerebral cortex gives rise to consciousness but the cerebellum does not, though the latter has even more neurons and appears to be just as complex? Is consciousness present in coma patients, preterm infants, non-mammalian species? Can computers, artificial intelligence (e.g., large language models) become conscious as humans are conscious? Most relevant to our Landscape is IIT's fundamental ontology. Put simply, it begins with “the ontological primacy of phenomenal existence.” The proper understanding of consciousness, IIT states, is “true existence, captured by its intrinsic powers ontology: what truly exists, in physical terms, are intrinsic entities, and only what truly exists can cause” (Tononi et al., 2022). Seeking to embed its theory of consciousness within a coherent metaphysical framework, IIT introduces its “0th postulate” or “principle of being.” To exist physically, IIT states, “means to have cause–effect power—being able to take and make a difference. In other words, physical existence is defined purely operationally, from the extrinsic perspective of a conscious observer, with no residual ‘intrinsic’ properties (such as mass or charge). Furthermore, physical existence should be conceived of as cause–effect power all the way down—namely down to the finest, ‘atomic’ units that can take and make a difference” (Tononi et al., 2022). IIT deep conclusion is that “only a substrate that unfolds into a maximum of intrinsic, structured, specific, irreducible cause–effect power—an intrinsic entity—can account for the essential properties of phenomenal existence in physical terms.” IIT goes on to claim that “only an intrinsic entity can be said to exist intrinsically—to exist for itself, in an absolute sense. By contrast, if something has cause–effect power but does not qualify as an intrinsic entity, it can only be said to exist extrinsically—to exist for something else—say, for an external observer—in a relative sense. And intrinsic, absolute existence is the only existence worth having—what we might call true existence. Said otherwise, an intrinsic entity is the only entity worth being.” In a crucial move, according to Tononi and colleagues, “IIT asserts an explanatory identity: an experience is identical to a Φ-structure. In other words, the phenomenal properties of an experience—its quality or how it feels—correspond one-to-one to the physical properties of the cause–effect structure unfolded from the physical substrate of consciousness. Thus, all the contents of an experience here and now—including spatial extendedness; temporal flow; objects; colors and sounds; thoughts, intentions, decisions, and beliefs; doubts and convictions; hopes and fears; memories and expectations—correspond to sub-structures in a cause–effect structure (Ф-folds in a Ф-structure)” (Tononi et al., 2022). This means that “all contents of experience correspond to sub-structures within a maximally irreducible cause–effect structure—to Φ-folds within a Φ-structure. This applies not only to the experience of space, time, and objects, but also to conscious thoughts and feelings of any kind … Conscious alternatives, too, are Φ-folds within the Φ-structure corresponding to an experience. Fundamentally, then, it is IIT's claim that when one is conscious, “what actually exists is a large Ф-structure corresponding to my experience, and it exists at its particular grain. No subsets, supersets, or parasets of that Ф-structure also exist, just as no other grains also exist. Moreover, what actually exists is only the Ф-structure corresponding to my experience, not also an associated physical substrate. Crucially, any content of my experience, including alternatives, reasons, and decisions, corresponds to a sub-structure [i.e., Φ-folds] within my Ф-structure, not to a functional property emerging from my [neural] substrate (Tononi et al., 2022). Because “IIT starts from phenomenal existence and defines physical existence operationally in terms of cause–effect power ‘all the way down,’ with no intrinsic residue, such as mass and charge … a physical substrate should not be thought of as an ontological or ‘substantial’ basis—an ontological substrate—constituted of elementary particles that would exist as such, endowed with intrinsic properties.” This means, according to IIT, “because I actually exist—as a large intrinsic entity—the neurons of my substrate as such but the Ф-structure expressing its causal powers … Moreover, because my alternatives, reasons, and decisions exist within my experience—as sub-structures within an intrinsic entity—the neuronal substrates of alternatives, reasons, and decisions cannot also exist.” If this picture is correct, IIT claims controversially, “it leaves no room for emergence or dualism of any sort” (Tononi et al., 2022). As a defining corollary to its radical theory of consciousness, IIT claims that true free will exists, based on “the proper understanding of experience as true existence and on the intrinsic powers view: what truly exists, in physical terms, are intrinsic entities, and only what truly exists can cause.” In contrast, in materialistic theories, with ontological and causal micro-determination, much of the debate about free will has revolved not around existence but around determinism/indeterminism, so that true free will is incompatible (Tononi et al., 2022). In the same set of “adversarial collaboration” experiments that tested Global Workspace Theory (9.2.3), IIT was also subjected to the putatively rigorous protocols (Templeton World Charity Foundation, n.d.). “The specific IIT prediction examined was that consciousness is a kind of “structure” in the brain formed by a particular type of neuronal connectivity that is active for as long as a given experience, say, seeing an image, is occurring. This structure is said to be in the posterior cortex (the occipital, parietal, and temporal cortices in the back part of the brain). Preliminary results indicate that while “areas in the posterior cortex do contain information in a sustained manner”—which could be taken as evidence that the “structure” postulated by the theory is being observed—the independent “theory-neutral” researchers didn't find sustained synchronization between different areas of the brain, as had been predicted. Preliminary brain-scanning data to calculate φ for simplified models of specific neural networks within the human brain, such as the visual cortex, seem to correlate with states of consciousness (Lenharo, 2023a, Lenharo, 2023b, 2024). Scanning the brain as people “slip into anesthesia” is said to offer support for IIT by calculating phi “for simplified models of specific neural networks within the human brain that have known functions, such as the visual cortex” (Wilson, 2023)—though, by all accounts, the empirical neuroscience of IIT is still rudimentary. More recently, Koch defines IIT’s consciousness as “unfolded intrinsic causal power, the ability to effect change, a property associated with any system of interacting components, be they neurons or transistors. Consciousness is a structure, not a function, a process, or a computation.” He calls out “the theory’s insistence that consciousness must be incorporated into the basic description of what exists, at the rock-bottom level of reality”—a claim that “has also drawn considerable fire from opponents.” He explains that IIT “quantifies the amount of consciousness of any system by its integrated information, characterizing the system’s irreducibility. The more integrated information a system possesses, the more it is conscious. Systems with a lot of integration, such as the adult human brain, have the freedom to choose; they possess free will” (Koch, 2024, p. 16). Personally, I see IIT operating in three dimensions. First, measurement: IIT is a test of consciousness, assessing what things are conscious, and in those things that are, quantifying the degree of consciousness (e.g., coma patients). Second, mechanism: IIT can predict brain structures and functions involved in consciousness. Third, ontology (the most controversial): IIT speculates that the conceptual structures of qualia are “located” in some kind of “qualia space” (13.5). The first two dimensions, IIT's measurement and mechanism, could sit comfortably in the Materialism Theories area of the Landscape. The third, IIT's ontology of qualia, is radically distinct, its classification unclear—which is part of the reason why I have given IIT its own category on the Landscape.42 IIT claims that integrated information is both necessary and sufficient for consciousness: necessary seems uncontroversial; sufficient is the rub to many. But what I especially like about IIT's “conceptual structures” in “qualia space” is that IIT makes a stake-in-the-ground commitment to what consciousness per se may literally be—an appreciated rarity on the Landscape of consciousness (which does not mean that I subscribe to it). 12.1. Critiques of integrated information theory IIT has its critics, of course, as should every scientific theory. Some like to highlight IIT's “anti-common sense” predictions imputing consciousness to objects and things that just do not in any way seem to be conscious. The early exchange between theoretical quantum computer scientist Scott Aaronson and Giulio Tononi is illuminating (Aaronson, 2014a, 2014b, 2014c; Tononi, 2014a). More sensational, though not necessarily more illuminating, is the open letter from 124 neuroscientists and philosophers, including leading names, that characterizes IIT as “pseudoscience,” a damning descriptor that relegates IIT with the likes of astrology, alchemy, flat Earth and homeopathy. The impact is such that one can no longer discuss IIT without referencing the letter (Fleming et al., 2023). The letter is titled “The Integrated Information Theory of Consciousness as Pseudoscience” and it expresses concerns that the media, including both Nature and Science magazines “celebrated” IIT as “a ‘leading’ and empirically tested theory of consciousness”—prior to peer-review. Moreover, the letter criticizes the large-scale adversarial collaboration project as testing only “some idiosyncratic predictions made by certain theorists, which are not really logically related to the core ideas of IIT.” The letter concludes, “As researchers, we have a duty to protect the public from scientific misinformation”—thereby igniting a firestorm in consciousness studies (Fleming et al., 2023). Nature called it an “uproar” (Lenharo, 2023a, Lenharo, 2023b). Responding, Christof Koch said, “IIT is a theory, of course, and therefore may be empirically wrong,” but it makes its assumptions very clear—for example, that consciousness has a physical basis and can be mathematically measured. David Chalmers was quick to comment: “IIT has many problems, but ‘pseudoscience’ is like dropping a nuclear bomb over a regional dispute. It's disproportionate, unsupported by good reasoning, and does vast collateral damage to the field far beyond IIT. As in Vietnam: ‘We had to destroy the field in order to save it’” (Chalmers, 2023). Hakwan Lau, one of the lead co-authors of the open letter, writes in an extended response to the “uproar” that “it is already false to characterize IIT, a panpsychist theory, as being empirically tested at all in a meaningful way.” He argues that the entire field, including his own theory, is not at the stage where predictions can logically apply, stating “the advertised goal of really testing and potentially falsifying theories is unrealistic, given where the field is at the moment.” Lau concludes by doubling down: “The world has now seen the nature of the conflicts and problems in our field, which can no longer be unseen. As a matter of fact, a sizable group of researchers think that IIT is pseudoscience” (Lau, 2023). To physicist-neuroscientist Alex Gomez-Marin, “IIT ticks too many nonmaterialist boxes. There is academic hate for nonphysicalist speech … Cancel culture has unfortunately landed in the sciences, and just now in neuroscience. Using the pseudo-word is a pseudo-argument akin to name-calling to get rid of people … We have the responsibility to tell the truth, to the best of our ability” (Gomez-Marin, 2023). My own view straddles the barbed fence. On one side, I agree that IIT has more weight than warrant in the pop-sci and even scientific communities, and that the results of the adversarial collaboration experiments, even if they could achieve their preset objectives, would not, perhaps could not, justify the core IIT theory. Moreover, the one-on-one adversarial experiments in general, with their high publicity, give the inappropriate impression that the two protagonists are the finalists in a theory-of-consciousness “run off,” as it were, when in fact there are many dozens of other theories, nonphysical as well as physical, still in the game. On the other side, I do not sign on to the “pseudoscience” branding; just because IIT may not be subject to traditional kinds of scientific methodologies, such as falsification, does not ipso facto force it out of bounds. (The multiverse in cosmology faces similar kinds of criticism.43) It could be that discerning consciousness escapes traditional science methodologies, as would a majority of theory-categories on this Landscape (not that discerning truth is a democratic process). 12.2. Koch compares integrated information theory with panpsychism Neuroscientist Christof Koch states that Integrated Information Theory (IIT) shares many intuitions with panpsychism (13), in particular that “consciousness is an intrinsic fundamental property of reality, is graded, and can be found in small amounts in simple physical systems.” Unlike panpsychism, Koch continues, IIT “articulates which systems are conscious and which ones are not [partially] resolving panpsychism's combination problem and why consciousness can be adaptive.” The systemic weakness of panpsychism, or any other-ism, he says, “is that they fail to offer a protracted conceptual, let alone empirical, research program that yields novel insights or proposes new experiments” (Koch, 2021). While uncertainty in theoretical development and inconceivability of empirical experiments are indeed weaknesses, should they ipso facto disqualify the theory? Experimental verification of string theory seems impossible because the energy levels required are many orders of magnitude larger than instrumentation could ever be built, and while some argue that this incapacity to be falsified should indeed disqualify string theory as a scientific theory, many string theorists disagree, betting their careers on it. Koch's comparing IIT with panpsychism provides insight into both. Although admitting “I've always had a secret crush on the singular beauty of panpsychism,” Koch counts himself among those surprised by its resurgence. He claims that IIT addresses several major shortcomings of panpsychism—“it explains why consciousness is adaptive, it explains the different qualitative aspects of consciousness (why a ‘kind of blue’ feels different from a stinky Limburger cheese), and it head-on addresses the combination problem”—per IIT's exclusion postulate, only systems with a maximum of Φ have intrinsic existence and are conscious” (Koch, 2021). The exclusion postulate, Koch explains, “dictates whether or not an aggregate of entities—ants in a colony, cells making up a tree, bees in a hive, starlings in a murmurating flock, an octopus with its eight semi-autonomous arms, and so on—exist as a unitary conscious entity or not.” Koch claims that IIT “offers a startling counter-example to Goff's claim that qualitative aspects of conscious experience cannot be captured by quantitative considerations”—“a detailed, mathematical account of how the phenomenology of two-dimensional space, say an empty canvas, can be fully accounted for in terms of intrinsic causal powers of the associated physical substrate, here a very simple, grid-like neural network” (Koch, 2021, quoting Huang, ). Integrated Information Theory may well be wrong, Koch says, but it “provides proof-of-principle for how quantitative primary qualities (here intrinsic causal power of simple model neurons that can be numerically computed; it doesn't get more quantitative than that) correspond to secondary qualities—the experience of looking at a blank wall” (Koch, 2021). (For Goff's response, 13.8.) 13. Panpsychisms Panpsychism is the theory that phenomenal consciousness exists because physical ultimates, fundamental physics, have phenomenal or proto-phenomenal properties. This means that the essence of mentality, awareness, experience is a primitive, non-reducible feature of each and every part or aspect of physical reality, similar to the fundamental fields and particles in physics. Everywhere there is energy-matter, perhaps everywhere there is even spacetime, panpsychism says there is also something of consciousness. Everything that exists has a kind of inherent “proto-consciousness” which, in certain aggregates and under certain conditions, can generate inner awareness and experience. Panpsychism has multiple forms, nuances, and variants, as one would expect. Panpsychism is one of the oldest theories in philosophy of mind, going back to pre-modern animistic religions, the ancient Greeks, Leibniz's monads, and a host of 19th century thinkers (Goff et al., 2022). Of late, in reaction to the seemingly intractable hard problem of consciousness, panpsychism has been gathering adherents and gaining momentum, especially among some analytic philosophers. Panpsychism has strong non-Western roots, not often explored. In particular, the ideas and arguments from Indian philosophical traditions—especially Vedānta, Yogācāra Buddhism, and Śaiva Nondualism—can enrich contemporary debates about panpsychism (Maharaj, 2020). Panpsychism is also finding new supporters. Take “Kabbalah Panpsychism,” an interpretation of the Jewish mystical tradition that understands consciousness to be holographically and hierarchically organized, relativistic, and capable of downward causation (Schipper, 2021). Yujin Nagasawa provides a careful critique of panpsychism, arguing that although it seems promising, it reaches “a cognitive dead end” in that “even if it's true, we can't prove it.” He challenges so-called constitutive Russellian panpsychism (14.1), which many consider to be the most efficacious panpsychist approach to the hard problem of consciousness, by arguing that it “seems caught in a deadlock: we are cognitively unable to show how microphenomenal properties can aggregate to yield macrophenomenal properties (or how cosmophenomenal properties can be segmented to yield macrophenomenal properties)” (Nagasawa, 2021). Panpsychism's revival, indeed its flourishing, has left some philosophers (as well as scientists) dumbfounded and dismayed. (I'd feel remiss if I did not make an exception and at least recognize panpsychism's critics.) When I asked John Searle about panpsychism's increasing scholarly acceptance, he said, “I don't think that's a serious view. If you've got panpsychism, you know you've made a mistake. And the reason is that consciousness comes in discrete units. There has to be a place where my consciousness ends and your consciousness begins. It can't just be spread over the universe like a thin veneer of jam. Panpsychism has the result that everything is conscious, and you can't make a coherent statement of that” ( Searle, 2014a). To physicist Sean Carroll, “our current knowledge of physics should make us skeptical of hypothetical modifications of the known rules, and that without such modifications it's hard to imagine how intrinsically mental aspects could play a useful explanatory role.” Part of the reason is the “causal closure of the physical” such that “Without dramatically upending our understanding of quantum field theory, there is no room for any new influences that could bear on the problem of consciousness.” Other than materialism/physicalism, Carroll characterizes all theories of consciousness, including panpsychism, thus: “To start with the least well-understood aspects of reality and draw sweeping conclusions about the best-understood aspects is arguably the tail wagging the dog” (Carroll, 2021). Here I array the nature and kinds of panpsychism on offer. I then summarize the perspectives of several well-known panpsychists. 13.1. Micropsychism Proponents position panpsychism as a solution to the vexing problems of both materialism and dualism: replacing materialism's apparent impotence to account for consciousness and avoiding dualism's sharply bifurcated reality (Goff et al., 2022). The challenge, according to Chalmers, is how microphysical properties, characterized by a completed physics, relate to phenomenal (or experiential) properties, the most familiar of which is simply the property of phenomenal consciousness (Chalmers, 2013). If panpsychism is correct, Chalmers says, there is microexperience and there are microphenomenal properties, which are obviously very different from human experience. Though a proper panpsychist theory of consciousness is currently lacking, some progress can be made. Chalmers posits “constitutive panpsychism” as the thesis that macroexperience is (wholly or partially) grounded in microexperience. It is the thesis that microexperiences somehow add up to yield macroexperience. “Nonconstitutive panpsychism” holds that microexperience does not ground the macroexperience; rather, macroexperience is strongly emergent from microexperience and/or from microphysics (Chalmers, 2013). In either case, traditional panpsychism is micropsychism, the position that all facts of panpsychism are formed at the micro-level. Two forms are distinguished, based on which aspect of mentality is privileged to be fundamental and ubiquitous: thought (pancognitivism) and consciousness (panexperientialism). Panpsychism's thorniest problem, long recognized, is the “combination problem”: How could micro-level entities with their own very basic forms of conscious experience somehow come together in brains to constitute human and animal conscious experience? The problem is severe: How could minuscule conscious subjects of rudimentary experience somehow coalesce to form macroscopic conscious subjects with complex experiences? (Goff et al., 2022). 13.2. Panprotopsychism Panprotopsychism is distinguished from panpsychism in that the most basic protophenomenal properties are not themselves forms of consciousness, but rather must combine to generate forms of consciousness. Panprotopsychism would then be a kind of “emergent panpsychism,” with the “phenomenal magic” requiring actions at two levels. Such emergence could be weak or strong, depending on whether one could in principle explain with perfection, solely from all the relevant facts about protophenomenal properties, all the relevant facts about phenomenal properties as manifest in conscious creatures (Goff et al., 2022). “Panqualityism” is the view that protophenomenal properties are thin unexperienced qualities, whereas our conscious experience is thick with experienced qualities. Their challenge is to explain how such unexperienced qualities come to be experienced (Goff et al., 2022). 13.3. Cosmopsychism Cosmopsychism reverses the standard explanatory ontology that facts about big things are grounded in facts about small things. It posits that facts about little things are grounded in facts about big things. In other words, all things ultimately exist and are the way they are because of certain facts about the universe as a whole. Following the argument to its logical conclusion, there would be one and only one fundamental thing: the universe (Goff et al., 2022). The minimal commitment of cosmopsychism is that the universe is in some sense “conscious.” But just as micropsychism can have quantum particles with experience but no thought, so cosmopsychism can have the universe with some kind of experience, but without thought or agency. Philip Goff makes a grander case. He develops a form of cosmopsychism, according to which the universe is a value-responding agent, an ultimate explanation motivated to account for the fine-tuning of the laws of physics and for the emergence of life and mind. He states that assuming fine-tuning needs explanation (it is not “an implausible fluke”), then there are three prime categories to evaluate: theism, multiverse, and “agent cosmopsychism.” He argues that “agentive cosmopsychism is more theoretically virtuous than theism” because “God” would require “a commitment to both physical and non-physical kinds, and to both necessary and contingent kinds.” Similarly, on the multiverse, he argues that “its structural complexity is realized by an astronomical number of distinct individuals” that “we cannot directly observe,” whereas on agentive cosmopsychism, “the structural complexity is realized by the properties of a single individual,” so there is no need to “postulate a single new individual.” Goff reasons that agentive cosmopsychism is more parsimonious in that it requires “only one causal capacity rather than multiple” (Goff, 2019a, Goff, 2019b). In his book, Why? The Purpose of the Universe, Goff calls this third way “teleological cosmopsychism”—some kind of conscious cosmos with some kind of goal-directed intent (Goff, 2023). Thus, Goff rejects both theism and multiverse as explanations of fine-tuning, claiming that each has prediction errors and insurmountable problems. He focuses on the one universe that we have and know to be real, “merely” adding some new properties. “The universe is a conscious mind,” he concludes, “with purposes of its own” that are “still unfolding” (Goff, 2023). Yujin Nagasawa makes a novel case for cosmopsychism by drawing parallels between the relationship between mind and body in philosophy of mind and the relationship between God and cosmos in philosophy of religion. In analyzing articulations between panpsychism and cosmopsychism in philosophy of mind, and between polytheism and pantheism in philosophy of religion, he argues that by replacing divinity with phenomenality in pantheism we can derive cosmopsychism, and that doing so undercuts the combination problem (panpsychism's greatest challenge). He claims that using a top-down approach (with which he derives polytheism from pantheism) in conjunction with endorsing cosmopsychism, “the consciousness of the cosmos is ontologically prior to the consciousnesses of individuals like us.” This, he says, avoids the combination problem (Nagasawa, 2019). Sophisticated arguments for cosmopsychism come from Indian philosophy. Swami Vivekananda, the 19th century Indian monk who introduced Hinduism and Vedānta to the West, champions (with his followers) a distinctive form of cosmopsychism, a panentheistic cosmopsychism, according to which the sole reality is Divine Consciousness, which manifests as everything and everyone in the universe (Medhananda, 2022). 13.4. Qualia force In the theory of Qualia Force, consciousness is a deep feature of physical reality that emerges from the fields and particles of fundamental physics, perhaps in the strong emergence sense that it cannot be explained by fundamental physics, even with knowledge beyond the current, even in principle. This qualia force differs from traditional panpsychism, where consciousness is co-fundamental with the deepest laws of physics. Although in some sense derivative from the fundamental laws of physics, this qualia force sustains its own faculties and capacities. 13.5. Qualia space In the theory of Qualia Space, consciousness is an independent, non-reducible feature of reality that exists in addition to the deepest laws of fundamental physics (i.e., the four forces, spacetime, mass-energy). This heretofore unknown qualia-space aspect of the world may take the form of a radically new structure or organization of reality, perhaps a different dimension of reality. The clearest current example would be Integrated Information Theory's (IIT) “conceptual structures” in qualia space (12). While this radically novel feature might suggest that IIT should be classified as a Panpsychism variant, I prefer to keep IIT independent but recognize the implicit connection by including “qualia space” here under Panpsychism. Note that IIT makes no claim that IIT's qualia space is ubiquitous in reality, as it would need be for IIT to be classic panpsychist in nature (Tononi and Koch, 2015). I can imagine other, distinct, non-IIT theories of consciousness founded on qualia-space. In addition, the Qualia Research Institute's (QRI) “State-Space Consciousness Via Qualia Formalism and Valence Realism” holds that phenomenal properties are a fundamental feature of the world and aren't spontaneously created only when a certain computation is being performed” (Qualia Research Institute, n.d.). Although it “mostly fits well with a panpsychist view,” QRI members prefer to classify themselves as a dual-aspect or neutral monism (6). 13.6. Chalmers's panpsychism Panpsychism's renaissance can be attributed, at least in part, to philosopher David Chalmers, who has long entertained panpsychism as a possibly viable theory of consciousness (Chalmers, 1996; 2007; 2014a; 2014b; 2016c). “To find a place for consciousness within the natural order,” he wrote, “we must either revise our conception of consciousness, or revise our conception of nature” (Chalmers, 2003). This sentence prepares the way, as it were, because if one is unwilling to deflate consciousness (as a kind of illusion), then one has no choice but to expand nature. In his early work, Chalmers raised panpsychism, tentatively, in the context of his kind of dualism. “I resisted mind-body dualism for a long time, but I have now come to the point where I accept it, not just as the only tenable view but as a satisfying view in its own right. It is always possible that I am confused, or that there is a new and radical possibility that I have overlooked; but I can comfortably say that I think dualism is very likely true. I have also raised the possibility of a kind of panpsychism. Like mind-body dualism, this is initially counterintuitive, but the counterintuitiveness disappears with time. I am unsure whether the view is true or false, but it is at least intellectually appealing, and on reflection it is not too crazy to be acceptable” (Chalmers, 1996; Doyle, n.d.a). While Chalmers's initial considerations of panpsychism were perhaps motivated by a “when-all-else-fails” perspective, his more recent papers address complex philosophical issues inherent in panpsychism (Chalmers, 2013). Chalmers divides the most important views on the metaphysics of consciousness “almost exhaustively into six classes,” three involving broadly reductive views, “seeing consciousness as a physical process that involves no expansion of a physical ontology,” and three involving broadly nonreductive views, “on which consciousness involves something irreducible in nature, and requires expansion or reconception of a physical ontology.” Chalmers's sixth class embeds panpsychism44 (Chalmers, 2003). Panpsychism, more formally, is the theory that “consciousness is constituted by the intrinsic properties of fundamental physical entities: that is, by the categorical bases of fundamental physical dispositions. On this view, phenomenal or protophenomenal properties are located at the fundamental level of physical reality, and in a certain sense, underlie physical reality itself” (Chalmers, 2003). In one line of argument, channeling Hegel, Chalmers starts with the thesis of materialism and the antithesis of dualism, and reaches the synthesis of panpsychism. This synthesis encounters the antithesis of panprotopsychism (13.2), from which he reaches the new synthesis of Russellian monism (14.1). This synthesis encounters the new antithesis of the combination problem, and whether there can be a new synthesis, Chalmers avers, remains an open question. Still, he argues that there is “good reason to take both panpsychism and panprotopsychism very seriously,” and he concludes boldly: “If we can find a reasonable solution to the combination problem for either, this view would immediately become the most promising solution to the mind-body problem” (Chalmers, 2016a). Chalmers has explored all the major non-materialism theories, including Quantum Theories (Chalmers and McQueen, 2022) and Idealism (Chalmers, 2020d) as well as Panpsychism, not wholly committing to any one. Although he favors Panpsychism, he recognizes its problems (Chalmers, 1996; 2007; 2014a; 2014b; 2016c). 13.7. Strawson's panpsychism Philosopher Galen Strawson calls panpsychism “the most parsimonious, plausible and indeed ‘hard-nosed’ position that any physicalist who is remotely realistic about the nature of reality can take up in the present state of our knowledge” (Strawson, 2008, 2011). Conversely, he calls the denial of “conscious experience, the subjective character of experience, the ‘what-it-is-like’ of experience,” in his words, “the silliest claim ever made” (Strawson, 2018). Strawson is a sophisticated (and unabashed) champion of panpsychism, yet I decided to classify his theory under Monism (14), the next category, not here under Panpsychism. The reason is the prominence of his argument to subsume panpsychism under his enlarged understanding of “materialism” or “physicalism”—amplified by his insistence that, in essence, committing to panpsychism makes one a “real materialist” or “real physicalist” (Strawson, 2009) (14.4.). Strawson's social constructivist view: “Panpsychism is not a new theory, but it is newly popular, and it is still widely held to be ‘absurd’. It remains to be seen whether it will ever advance to ‘obvious’”45 (Strawson, 2019b). 13.8. Goff's panpsychism Philosopher Philip Goff starts from the premise “one thing that science could never show is that consciousness does not exist” and he mounts a vigorous, rigorous case for panpsychism, the staggering idea (at least initially) that “consciousness is a fundamental and ubiquitous feature of the physical world.” He positions consciousness as “fundamental to what we are as human beings,” “the source of much that is of value in existence,” “the ground of our identity and a source of great value,” and “the only thing we know for certain is real.” He sets up the explanatory tension: “Nothing is more certain than consciousness, and yet nothing is harder to incorporate into our scientific picture of the world” (Goff, 2019a, Goff, 2019b). Goff sets out to undermine materialism's traditional argument that neuroscience has both made enormous advances, evincing its power, and it has a long way to go, explaining its lack of success. None of the neuroscientific advances, Goff says, “has shed any light on how the brain produces consciousness” and while many neuroscientists take this as evidence that one day neuroscience will “crack the mystery of consciousness,” Goff turns their argument around and claims it is evidence that the cause of consciousness differs in kind from the causes of other scientific problems. “Explaining consciousness will require a change in our understanding of what science is,” he argues; this is because “the scientific revolution itself was premised on putting consciousness outside of the domain of scientific inquiry” (i.e., Galileo's Error). “If we ever want to solve the problem of consciousness,” he declares, “we will need to find a way of putting it back” (Goff, 2019a, Goff, 2019b). Goff positions panpsychism as conceding that “there is an element of truth” in each of the claims of naturalistic dualism, that immaterial minds are part of the natural order, and materialism, that the physical world will ultimately explain inner experience. No doubt, as Goff states, “An increasing number of philosophers and even some neuroscientists are coming around to the idea that it [panpsychism] may be our best hope for solving the problem of consciousness” (Goff, 2019a, Goff, 2019b). It's fascinating to explore why. Targeting each of the major competing theories of consciousness, Goff claims to show their inadequacies—which, given the challenge of explaining consciousness, is not the most difficult of tasks. Goff defends panpsychism, stressing arguments from simplicity and parsimony. Panpsychism, obviously, has its own problems—especially the pesky combination problem—which Goff gamely addresses. His debates with intellectual opponents are probative (Kastrup, 2020a, 2020b). Goff responds to Christof Koch's “startling counter-example to Goff's claim that qualitative aspects of conscious experience cannot be captured by quantitative considerations” (4.2). But while Goff voices “no doubt that we can in principle map out the quantitative structure of visual experience in mathematical language,” he denies that such a mathematical description can fully capture the qualities that fill out that structure. If it could, he says, “we could use the mathematical description to explain to a colorblind neuroscientist what it’s like to see color,” which, he says, is absurd. Purely quantitative language entails an “explanatory limitation,” Goff contends, and “if a purely quantitative theory can't even convey the qualities of experience, then it certainly can't reductively account for them” (Goff, 2021). In a special issue of the Journal of Consciousness Studies dedicated to Goff's panpsychism, Goff responds extensively to commentators and critics (Journal of Consciousness Studies, 2021). He frames his argument broadly: “The problem of consciousness is rooted in the philosophical foundations of science” such that “we can't account for the qualities of consciousness in the purely quantitative language of physical science” (Goff, 2021). In his multifaceted replies to scientists, Goff stresses science's explanatory limitation and he is not persuaded that the various arguments, such as Rovelli's relational or perspectival approach (11.16), can solve the “two aspects of consciousness that give rise to a hard problem: qualitivity and subjectivity”46—either, in Goff's view, would be “sufficient to refute materialism” (Goff, 2021). In his multifaceted replies to philosophers, Goff focuses on panpsychism's combination problem and offers a form of “hybrid panpsychism,” which distinguishes sharply “between subjects and their experiences, holding that the former are ‘strongly emergent’ (i.e., they can't be reductively explained) whilst the latter are ‘weakly emergent’ (i.e., they can be reductively explained, in terms of consciousness at the level of physics)” (Goff, 2021). Thus, Goff addresses the challenge that strong emergent panpsychism, which postulates fundamental psychophysical laws of nature, suffers problems similar to those of dualism, and weak emergent panpsychism, without such extra laws, suffers problems similar to those of physicalism. He argues that this "new hybrid of the strong and weak emergentist forms of panpscyhism"—where "subjects of experience are strongly emergent but their phenomenal properties are weakly emergent"—is a form of cosmopsychism rather than micropsychism (Goff, 2024). In his multifaceted replies to theologians, Goff disputes the notion that “the case for panpsychism should also lead one to theism,” because, for one, a “self-explainer” can be the universe itself; God is not the only choice here (Goff, 2021). 13.9. A. Harris's panpsychism as fundamental field Neuroscience/consciousness writer Annaka Harris posits that “consciousness isn't self-centered” and that we should “think of consciousness like spacetime—a fundamental field that's everywhere.” In Conscious, her “meditation on the self, free will, and felt experience,” she wonders whether “we've been thinking about the problem backward. Rather than consciousness arising when non-conscious matter behaves a particular way, is it possible that consciousness is an intrinsic property of matter—that it was there all along?” (A. Harris, 2020, 2019). Harris argues that contemporary panpsychism, the idea that “all matter is imbued with consciousness in some sense,” differs significantly from its earlier versions, now “unencumbered by any religious beliefs … [and] informed by the sciences and fully aligned with physicalism and scientific reasoning.” She carefully distinguishes between consciousness and thought, so that if some primitive consciousness does inhabit all matter, this does not mean that inanimate objects, like rocks, have experiences or “points of view.” Only certain complex systems, like humans and other animals, have such (A. Harris, 2020). Harris has a disarmingly simple solution for panpsychism's vexing combination problem. “We run into a combination problem,” she says, “only when we drag the concept of a ‘self’ or a ‘subject’ into the equation. The solution to the combination problem is that there is really no ‘combining’ going on at all with respect to consciousness itself.” It all depends on “the arrangement of the specific matter in question” (A. Harris, 2020). As for “the correct resolution to the mystery of consciousness,” Harris says she personally “is split between a brain-based explanation and a panpsychic one. So while I'm not convinced that panpsychism offers the correct answer, I am convinced that it is a valid category of possible solutions that cannot be easily dismissed.” She prefers, however, a more neutral term, such as “intrinsic nature theory” or “intrinsic field theory” (A. Harris, 2020). 13.10. Sheldrake's self-organizing systems at all levels of complexity Iconoclastic biologist Rupert Sheldrake's radical views on the nature of reality inform theories of consciousness in two ways. One, covered here, envisions self-organizing systems at all levels of complexity as a robust form of panpsychism. A second, covered later, is how “morphic fields” relate to consciousness (17.9) (Sheldrake, n.d.a). Sheldrake sees no “sharp separation of consciousness in physical reality; ” rather, “our consciousness and our physical reality go hand in hand.” He says, “I am certainly not a dualist,” but he does posit “a kind of mind or consciousness at all levels of nature”—in atoms and molecules, cells and organisms, plants and animals—and, astonishingly, “in the earth, in the sun, in the galaxy, and in the whole universe” (Sheldrake, 2007a). Motivated in part by “the recent panpsychist turn in philosophy,” Sheldrake suggests that “self-organizing systems at all levels of complexity, including stars and galaxies, might have experience, awareness, or consciousness” (Sheldrake, 2021). Sheldrake defines consciousness, idiosyncratically, as “largely about making choices, considering alternative possibilities.” He states, “Consciousness is about choice. It's about choosing among possibilities.” What then does consciousness do?” he asks. “It enables different possibilities to be held together and chosen among”—yielding his non-mainstream postulate that “any system in nature that has possibilities that are not fixed would have some measure of consciousness.” A key to Sheldrake's consciousness is how “physical reality at any moment opens up into the future through a range of possibilities … And it's those future possibilities which are the realm in which consciousness operates.” All things that have consciousness are in this same state (Sheldrake, 2007b). Referencing the indeterminate nature of quantum mechanics, Sheldrake says, “even a hydrogen atom and an electron has a whole realm of possibility open to it, of which only a small fraction is realized … [but] to what extent it's making real choices, to what extent consciousness [occurs] in something as simple as an electron, is arguable and probably undecidable.” He then makes his even more startling move: “I think it gets much more interesting when we look at larger systems like the sun or the galaxy.” Here's Sheldrake's argument: “If consciousness emerges from patterns of electrical activity in our brains, as materialists would assume, the sun has vastly more complex patterns of electrical activity than our brains. So why shouldn't that be associated with consciousness? Why shouldn't the sun have a mind? And if the sun has a mind, why not all the stars? If all the stars have minds, what about huge collections of stars in galaxies, linked up by vast plasma currents of electricity surging across trillions of miles of galactic space, with rhythmic patterns connecting all parts” (Sheldrake, 2007b). Sheldrake goes ultimate: “Maybe the entire universe has a mind. Why not? There may be many, many levels of consciousness.” Sheldrake's consciousness is a nesting of consciousnesses at all levels of organization resident in reality. (Actually, Sheldrake would prefer the term “mind” or “mind-like aspects” than “consciousness,” because from our perspective these nonbiological “minds” might be considered “unconsciousness” or “nonconscious.”) Sheldrake clarifies that these kinds of nonbiological consciousnesses would be totally different from human consciousness. Just as human consciousness differs from dog consciousness, he says, “sun consciousness’ differs from “earth consciousness,” and so on. If the sun is conscious, “it may be concerned with the regulation of its own body and the entire solar system through its electromagnetic activity, including solar flares and coronal mass ejections. It may also communicate with other star systems within the galaxy” (Sheldrake, 2021). “It's hard for us to imagine other forms of consciousness,” Sheldrake stresses. Nonetheless, he suggests, “there's mind-like organization at all levels of the universe and in nature,” including a mind-like organization of the entire universe.” Sheldrake suggests that “the electrical fields of organized or self-organizing systems are a good candidate for an interface between consciousness and the physical structure”—whether cells, animals, humans or stars. Note that in Sheldrake's system the electrical fields are not the consciousness per se, which he describes as “matters of possibilities.” Rather, the electrical fields mediate between physical and consciousness (as defined). Sheldrake concludes that all levels or kinds of organization in nature have their own kind of mind, mediated by electrical fields, and that the entire universe as a whole also has some kind of consciousness or mind, which would play an important part in what happens as the universe evolves (Sheldrake, 2021, n.d.a). 13.11. Wallace's panpsychism inside physics To philosopher of physics David Wallace, one way to motivate panpsychism is as a kind of synthesis of materialism (consciousness is just reducible to the physical) and dualism (consciousness is separate from the physical). Each, he says, has major advantages and major disadvantages. “Materialism seems like it can't adequately explain consciousness. Dualism can't give an adequate causal role to consciousness.” Wallace envisions panpsychism “as a way of getting the best features of both materialism and dualism without their disadvantages,” which is why he envisions “panpsychism potentially as the synthesis of materialism and dualism” (Wallace, 2016a). Wallace starts with dualism, where “consciousness is real and fundamental, existing at the bottom-most level of nature”—but dualism, he stresses, has a serious problem: “How can dualism play a causal role in physics, because physics looks to be closed and autonomous?” This is where Wallace has panpsychism playing the critical causal role by looking to the intrinsic nature of physics. “Physics tells us how fields and particles relate to each other, but it doesn't tell us about what they really are in themselves. According to panpsychism, consciousness is right there inside the physical world, as its intrinsic nature, and thus when one field or particle affects another, it's really consciousness which is doing the causing. So, you get a causal role for consciousness in physics and you get consciousness as real and fundamental.” That's a set of advantages, Wallace argues, “that no other theory has—and it motivates panpsychism” (Wallace, 2016a). Wallace explains that when physics gives a mathematical theory of how all fundamental physical entities relate to one another quantitatively, it doesn't tell us what these entities actually are. This gives room, he says, for panpsychism to offer a hypothesis about what these entities actually are. However, Wallace stresses that the intrinsic relationship among all these entities, non-conscious and conscious, must be as described by the laws of physics. There is no need to postulate a fifth kind of force or feature as the carrier of panpsychic consciousness, he says; rather, the need is, as Stephen Hawking put it, “What is it that breathes fire into the equations?” That would be the fundamental nature of the reality that physics is describing (Wallace, 2016a, 2016b). Regarding consciousness itself, Wallace would have it not so much as requiring an extra force or feature in the physical world (as panpsychists sometimes imply), but rather as the underlying nature of the processes that physics is describing mathematically. 13.12. Whitehead's process theory Although Process Theory is already classified under Materialism Theories/Relational, motivated by Griffin's “panexperiential physicalism” (9.7.7), I am making the odd decision to classify it also here under Panpsychism, motivated by process philosopher Matthew Segall's bringing Alfred North Whitehead's Philosophy of Organism “into conversation with the recent panpsychist turn in analytic philosophy of mind.” According to Segall, “Whitehead's unabashedly metaphysical project broadly aligns with recent critiques of reductive physicalism and the turn toward a conception of experience as basic to Nature.” Whitehead's panexperientialism, he says, attempts to take consciousness at face value, resisting inflationary accounts toward absolute idealism and deflationary toward eliminative materialism (Segall, 2020). Segall distinguishes Whitehead's process-relational panexperientialism from the dominant substance-property variants of panpsychism, arguing that Whitehead's version avoids many of panpsychism's conceptual difficulties. To begin, “Whitehead's process-relational rendering doesn't claim that experience is a ‘primary attribute’ or ‘intrinsic property’ of matter. This is because in Whitehead's view, physics has moved beyond the substantialist view of matter, and talk of essential or accidental properties only made sense given such an [archaic] ontology … While there was an ‘essential distinction between [substantial] matter at an instant and the agitations of experience,’ with this conception of matter having been swept away, a door is opened to analogies between energetic activity and concrete experience.” Thus, “Experiences, like energy vectors, are intrinsically process-relational in that they always involve transition beyond themselves: They manifest in a ‘specious present’ [Whitehead] as a tension between the actualized facts of an inherited past and the potential forms of an anticipated future” (Segall, 2020). While Segall has “the philosophical payoff of panpsychism” dissolving the hard problem of consciousness by “giving experience its proper place in Nature without undermining the scientific image of the universe.” Regarding substance-property panpsychism's combination problem, Segall says that Whitehead's process-relational approach “doesn't so much solve this problem as it does reframe the problem's presuppositions.” Whitehead does this not by “struggling to understand how abstract little bits of extended matter with mental intrinsic properties might combine to form bigger bits of minded matter,” but rather by starting “with a more concrete conception of energetic activity that is more easily analogized to agitations of experience. Neither ‘matter’ nor ‘mind’ is composed of simply located bits or states.” Thus, “the ongoing composition of the cosmos is achieved not through the summation of tiny parts, nor through subtraction from some larger whole (as cosmopsychists would have it), but by a dipolar relational process with both a stability providing material pole and a novelty inducing mental pole.” According to Segall, “Whitehead is neither a micropsychist nor a cosmopsychist exclusively. He tries to have it both ways. There is a universal soul, a psyche of the cosmos, a primordial actuality or God of this world, and there are countless creatures creating in concert with it. Creativity transcends both God and finite actualities; it is the source of all co-evolving parts, wholes, bodies, and souls. Whitehead's account of process includes moments of combination and decombination, conjunction and disjunction. For Whitehead the combination problem becomes a logic of concrescence [i.e., ‘the production of novel togetherness’], a feature and not a bug, a way of thinking change as more than just the rearrangement of pre-existing parts or the fragmentation of a pre-existing whole but as genuine becoming, as an ‘emergent evolution’ or ‘creative advance’ where neither wholes nor parts pre-exist their relations … and in each act of creation the past is not destroyed but re-incarnated in the novel occasion … Concrescence is thus a cumulative process and not a merely additive one” (Segall, 2020). Some call Whitehead's defense of a panpsychist philosophy the theory's most significant development in the 20th century. Whitehead radically reforms “our conception of the fundamental nature of the world, placing events (or items that are more event-like than thing-like) and the ongoing processes of their creation and extinction as the core feature of the world, rather than the traditional triad of matter, space and time. His panpsychism arises from the idea that the elementary events that make up the world (which he called occasions) partake of mentality in some—often extremely attenuated—sense, metaphorically expressed in terms of the mentalistic notions of creativity, spontaneity and perception” (Goff et al., 2022). This makes Whitehead an emergentist rather than a constitutive panpsychist. “A given moment of conscious experience is not reducible to nor simply identical with its constituent parts.” It is “a creative repetition of the past rather than a combination of parts” (Segall, 2020). 14. Monisms Monism is the theory that all of reality consists of exactly one concrete object or thing, and everything that exists is, in some sense, that one concrete object or thing (or part of it) (Schaffer, 2018). Because monisms seek to account for both mental and physical aspects of reality, avoiding the metaphysical difficulties of dualism and overcoming the explanatory weakness of materialism, it follows that monisms are also theories of consciousness. In one way or another, monisms must cover or contain everything we call mental as well as everything we call physical. (The existence of various kinds of monisms does not much affect how monisms are theories of consciousness.) There is substantial and obvious articulation, or overlap, between Monism and Panpsychism. Both are motivated by the need to integrate consciousness into the deep nature of reality; thus, monism theories have panpsychism features and panpsychism theories can be seen as monisms (to first approximations). Perhaps it is simply the case of each reinforcing the other in what are merely different perspectives, historical and theoretically, on essentially the same stance regarding the fundamental nature of ultimate reality. However, they are not entirely the same in that panpsychism has phenomenal or protophenomenal properties as a part or aspect of some larger, fundamental entity, while monism has only one fundamental entity that encompasses everything (although it is not intuitively obvious that this distinction makes much of a difference). Separate categories for monism and panpsychism are certainly justified, yet the boundary can be fuzzy. Some of the theories or ways of thinking that follow are categorized under Monism because all other categories seem less appropriate, imposing a belief system that should not apply. (I hope each of these theories feels less uncomfortable in Monisms.) 14.1. Russellian Monism Russellian Monism, based on the insights of philosopher Bertrand Russell, is a view that phenomenal consciousness and the physical world are deeply intertwined (Alter and Nagasawa, 2012). It characterizes the fundamental essence of matter as beyond that which can be accessed by empirical science or described by mathematical models. The claim is that the conundrum of consciousness, and how it fits into the physical world, is so critical that integrating consciousness (or proto-consciousness) into fundamental reality could suggest that the elements integrated are distinct from the ones revealed as a result of integration, thus shadowing if not revealing hidden, deep, intrinsic features of the physical world (Goff et al., 2022). Three core concepts conjoin to generate Russellian monism: (i) structuralism about physics (describing the world in terms of its spatiotemporal/relational structure and dynamics); (ii) realism about quiddities (or inscrutables) (there are quiddities/inscrutables, which underlie but are not limited by the structure and dynamics physics describes); and (iii) quidditism (or “inscrutinism”) about consciousness (at least some quiddities/inscrutables are either phenomenal or protophenomenal properties and are thereby relevant to the essence of consciousness) (Alter and Nagasawa, 2012; Alter and Pereboom, 2019). Daniel Stoljar presents four different accounts of the inscrutables: “(i) Phenomenal monism: The inscrutables are phenomenal in nature. (ii) Protophenomenal monism: The inscrutables are not themselves phenomenal in nature but they are a precursor to phenomenal properties. (iii) Physical monism: The inscrutables are physical in nature, though they are outside the domain of physics. (iv) Neutral monism: The inscrutables are neither phenomenal nor physical but rather have a nature that is neutral between the two” (Kind and Stoljar, 2023). To Russellian monists, if the intrinsic nature of fundamental matter is itself infused by phenomenal properties that express consciousness, then the model is “Russellian panprotopsychism.” Either way, the claim is that Russellian Monism bests dualism by avoiding problematic physical-nonphysical causation and bests materialism by taking consciousness seriously and grounding it in ultimate reality (Goff et al., 2022). Philip Goff explains that “Russellian monism comes in both smallest and priority monist forms. For the smallest, fundamental categorical properties are instantiated by micro-level physical entities, perhaps electrons and quarks. For the priority monist, the most fundamental categorical properties are instantiated by the universe as a whole.” Each of the categories can be matrixed by whether its properties are “consciousness evolving” or “not consciousness evolving,” yielding four categories of Russellian monism (Goff, 2019a, Goff, 2019b). 14.2. Davidson's anomalous monism Anomalous Monism, developed by philosopher Donald Davidson, holds that mental properties and events must have a physical ontology, but that psychology cannot be reduced to physics. As such, Anomalous Monism is a form of property dualism (15.1) and shares features with Non-reductive Physicalism (10). As Davidson writes, “anomalous monism holds that mental entities (particular time- and space-bound objects and events) are physical entities, but that mental concepts are not reducible by definition or natural law to physical concepts” (Davidson, 1993). Anomalous Monism is distinguished from other theories of consciousness by the intersection of three propositional claims: (i) Mental events have genuine causal powers and cause physical events. (ii) All causal relationships are backed by natural laws. (iii) There are no natural laws connecting mental phenomena with physical phenomena. While each claim has adherents, it is the conjunction of the three claims, taken together, that gives Anomalous Monism its distinctive look, because at first glance there surely appears to be inconsistency (if not contradiction) (Silcox, n.d.). To appreciate Anomalous Monism's originality and subtleties, it needs to be unpacked. A foundational principle is that “psychology cannot be a science like basic physics, in that it cannot in principle yield exceptionless laws for predicting or explaining human thoughts and actions (mental anomalism).” And it is “precisely because there can be no such strict laws governing mental events that those events must be identical to physical events” (Yalowitz, 2021). How to make sense of this? What may seem like a non sequitur is in fact the heart of the argument. If the physical is the only existent, then ipso facto the mental (like everything else) must come from the physical with robust regularities. But how do the mental and physical articulate? What is this connection? Here's the flow of the argument. Given that the mental has causal powers (claim 1), and that all causal relationships require natural law (claim 2), because there are no natural (psychophysical) laws that connect the mental and the physical (claim 3), therefore there is only one logical way to connect mental events and physical events—now denied a causal relationship (combining claims 2 and 3): they must be literally the same thing, the mental and the physical must be in the strong sense identical. As identity theories of consciousness are a leitmotif, and a touchstone, for comprehending the Landscape, we go deeper. Earlier identity theories held that “claims concerning the identity of particular mental and physical events (tokens) depended upon the discovery of lawlike relations between mental and physical properties (types) … Token-identity claims thus depended upon type-identity.” But Anomalous Monism, almost by its founding premise, does not depend on such psychophysical laws. “Davidson's position is dramatically different … It in effect justifies the token-identity of mental and physical events through arguing for the impossibility of type-identities between mental and physical properties” (Yalowitz, 2021). Now of course this argument proves that the mental and the physical are identical only to the extent that the three premises are all accepted as valid, because the conclusion is embedded (or “hidden”) within the premises (as are all deductive arguments structured in this way). Anomalous Monism differs from other theories especially in claiming that there are no natural laws connecting mental phenomena with physical phenomena. Other theories assume there are laws or ways to connect the mental and the physical, or laws or ways where the mental and the physical are part of, or derived from, the same stuff. 14.3. Velmans's reflexive monism Psychologist Max Velmans describes Reflexive monism as “a dual-aspect theory” (in the tradition of Spinoza) which argues that the one basic stuff of which the universe is composed has the potential to manifest both in physical forms and as conscious experience. According to the theory, in the universe's “evolution from some primal undifferentiated state,” it differentiates into “distinguishable physical entities, at least some of which have the potential for conscious experience, such as human beings” (Velmans, 2008). Velmans's “Monism” is straightforward: “the view that the universe, at the deepest level of analysis, is one thing, or composed of one fundamental kind of stuff.” His “Reflexive” is more complex: “Each human participates in a process whereby the universe differentiates into parts and becomes conscious in manifold ways of itself, making the entire process reflexive.” Velmans focuses on “the ontological status and seeming ‘out-thereness’ of the phenomenal world and to how the ‘phenomenal world’ relates to the ‘physical world’, the ‘world itself’, and processing in the brain.” He seeks both to bridge the materialist-dualist gap and to differentiate Reflexive Monism from “both dualism and variants of physicalist and functionalist reductionism, focusing on those aspects of the theory that challenge deeply rooted presuppositions in current Western thought.” Within Reflexive Monism, he says, “the brain is simply what the human mind looks like when it is viewed from an external (third-person) perspective, and neither the observations of external observers nor those of subjects have a privileged status” (Velmans, 2008). Central to Velmans's argument is that in terms of their phenomenology, “experiences of the external world are none other than the physical world-as-experienced, thereby placing aspects of human consciousness in the external phenomenal world, rather than exclusively within the head or brain” (Velmans, 2023). His reflexive model also makes the strong claim—the radical claim—that, “Insofar as experiences are anywhere, they are roughly where they seem to be.” For example, “A pain in the foot is in the experienced foot, and this perceived print on this visible page really is out here on this visible page. Nor is a pain in the foot accompanied by some other, additional experience of pain in the brain, or is this perceived print accompanied by some additional experience of print in the brain. In terms of phenomenology, this perceived print, and my experience of this print are one and the same.” Technically, he says, this is a form of phenomenological externalism (Velmans, 2008). To understand how experienced objects and events might really be (roughly) where they are experienced to be, Velmans looks closely at “the way that phenomenal space relates to ‘real’ space. No one doubts that physical bodies can have real extension and location in space.” But we “find it hard to accept that experiences can have a real, as opposed to a ‘seeming’ location and extension.” We do not doubt, he says, that a physical foot has a real location and extension in space, but a pain in the foot can't really be in the foot, as we are “committed to the view that it is either nowhere or in the brain.” Although this common understanding that “location in phenomenal space is not location in real space,” according to Reflexive Monism, “this ignores the fact that, in everyday life, we take the phenomenal world to be the physical world. It also ignores the pivotal role of phenomenal space in forming our very understanding of space, and with it, our understanding of location and extension in measured or ‘real’ space” (Velmans, 2008). Velmans says that Reflexive Monism provides a different perspective on the hard problem of consciousness by viewing physical and experiential aspects of mind as arising from a common “psychophysical ground.” Thus, he argues, of the competing views of consciousness on offer, Reflexive Monism, being a non-reductionist dual-aspect theory, “most closely follows the contours of ordinary experience, the findings of science, and common sense” (Velmans, 2008). 14.4. Strawson's realistic monism and real materialism In defining an all-pervading materialism, encompassing all mental as well as all physical properties and objects, philosopher Galen Strawson espouses his kind of monism, “Realistic Monism,” as he calls it (Strawson, 2009). “I'm attracted to the thing-monist view,” he says, “according to which the universe is a single thing in some non-trivial sense” (Strawson, 2020a). His principal thesis is “the primacy of panpsychism” and he claims “compelling reasons for favoring panpsychism above all other positive substantive proposals about the fundamental nature of concrete reality” (Strawson, 2020b). Strawson deconstructs the concept and use of the term “materialism,” showing that, historically, it had nothing to do with denial of the existence of consciousness, but rather that consciousness is wholly material. He laments that the words “materialism” and “physicalism” have come to be treated as synonymous and to involve denial of the existence of consciousness. It is, he says, ironic that these two words have “been used to name a position in the philosophy of mind that directly rejects the heart of materialism and is certainly false” (Strawson, 2011). Strawson asserts that physicalism (or materialism47), that is, “real physicalism” (or “real materialism”), entails panexperientialism or panpsychism, on one assumption: it entails panpsychism given the impossibility of “radical” emergence. Moreover, given that all physical stuff is energy, in one form or another, we may suppose that “all energy is an experience-involving phenomenon” (Section: Strawson, 2003, 2009, 2015; 2020a; Strawson and Russell, 2021; Strawson, 2011). Strawson happily admits, “This sounded crazy to me for a long time, but I am quite used to it, now that I know that there is no alternative …” It may also sound odd to use “physical” to characterize mental phenomena like experiential phenomena, but real physicalism, realistic physicalism, entails panpsychism, and whatever problems are raised by this fact, he exhorts, are problems a real physicalist must face. Strawson defines physicalism to be the view that “every real, concrete phenomenon in the universe is … physical.” It is a view about the actual universe, and that he assumes it is true. But then comes the “Strawsonian Twist.” What does it take to be a “realistic physicalist” or a “real physicalist?” He makes one thing absolutely clear. “You're certainly not a realistic physicalist, you're not a real physicalist, if you deny the existence of the phenomenon whose existence is more certain than the existence of anything else: experience, ‘consciousness’, conscious experience, ‘phenomenology’, experiential ‘what-it's-likeness’, feeling, sensation, explicit conscious thought as we have it and know it at almost every waking moment.” All materialists hold that every concrete phenomenon in the universe is physical, and they are neither sensible nor realistic, Strawson says, if they have any inclination to deny the concrete reality of mental phenomena like experiential phenomena. He concludes by taking no prisoners: “Full recognition of the reality of experience, then, is the obligatory starting point for any remotely realistic version of physicalism … It is the obligatory starting point for any theory that can legitimately claim to be ‘naturalistic’ because experience is itself the fundamental given natural fact” (Strawson, 2008). As a “real physicalist,” in his definition, Strawson holds that the mental/experiential is physical, and he is happy to say, along with many other physicalists, that experience is ‘really just neurons firing’, at least in the case of biological organisms like ourselves. But when he says these words he means something radically different from what almost all physicalists mean. He does not mean that all characteristics of what is going on, in the case of experience, can be described by physics and neurophysiology (or any non-revolutionary extensions of them). His claim is stunningly different. It's that experiential phenomena “just are” physical, so that there is a lot more to neurons than physics and neurophysiology account for (or can account for). No one who disagrees with this, he says, is a “real physicalist.” This is Strawson's challenge. Reviewing Strawson's book subtitled, “Does Physicalism Entail Panpsychism?”, philosopher Jerry Fodor shares Strawson's intuition that the hard problem is “not going to get solved for free” and “views that we cherish will be damaged in the process.” Fodor concludes, “If you want an idea of just how hard the hard problem is, and just how strange things can look when you face its hardness without flinching, this [Strawson's book] is the right book to read” (Fodor, 2007). 14.5. Polkinghorne's dual-aspect monism To mathematical physicist and Anglican priest John Polkinghorne, the psychosomatic nature of human persons is best understood in terms of a “dual-aspect monism,” in which matter and mind are complementary aspects of a unitary being (Polkinghorne, 2009). He is sure that we're not simply matter, that reality is more than just ideas, and that none of the classical solutions seem to correspond to our experience. In fact, Polkinghorne argues that classical materialism, idealism and Cartesian dualism all exhibit a bankruptcy in the face of the many-layered, and yet interconnected, character of our encounter with reality. This recognition encourages the search for some form of dual-aspect monism—similar theories are called “double-aspect theories”—an account that would acknowledge the fundamental distinction between experience of the material and experience of the mental but which would neither impose on reality a sharp division into two unconnected kinds of substance nor deny the psychosomatic unity of human beings (Polkinghorne, 2001). Dual-aspect monism is designed to take seriously both our mental experiences and the material world. It claims that they are related in a very deep and complementary way in that there is only one stuff in the world. Dual-aspect monism seeks to avoid devaluing or subordinating either side. Polkinghorne rejects the charge that dual-aspect monism is a subtle form of materialism, because, he says, “It doesn't treat the mental as being just an epiphenomenon of the material” (Harris, 1998). To give physical systems the kind of freedom and top-down control that he desires, Polkinghorne recruits complexity theory, with its dualities of parts/whole and energy/information. The intrinsic unpredictabilities present in nature, he states, afford the metaphysical opportunity to consider dissipative systems as exhibiting top–down causality (Polkinghorne, 2009). Given that in dual-aspect monism there cannot be a nonphysical soul, much less an immortal soul, how does Polkinghorne account for the eschatological requirements of his strong Christian faith, especially the biblical resurrection of the dead? How might resurrecting the body and reconstituting the “soul” work? Speaking on Closer To Truth, Polkinghorne asks, "Can you make credible understanding of a destiny beyond death for human beings?" From his theological perspective, he sets two equal and opposite requirements for the afterlife of a soul: continuity, in that the same person must live after death, and discontinuity, in that the afterlife-person must live on forever (Section: Polkinghorne, 2007). “There is not much point in making Abraham, Isaac and Jacob alive again if they are going to die again,” he says. “So, you must have both continuity and discontinuity. Now when you think about the continuity side, what could make those people the same as the ones who lived on earth before? The traditional answer has been the soul, often understood in platonic terms—there is some sort of spiritual bit of us liberated at death that exists and carries on.” Polkinghorne has none of that. “I think that's a mistake,” he says. “We are animated bodies, not animated souls. We're not apprentice angels; we are embodied human beings. But if we've lost our ‘spiritual soul’ [as a resource], have we lost our continuity? I don't think so, but we have to reconceive the soul.” Polkinghorne focuses on the carrier of continuity for a person in this life. “It's quite difficult,” he says; “here am I, an aging, balding academic—what makes me the same person as that little boy with the shock of black hair in the school photograph of many years ago? It's not atomic-material continuity: the atoms in my body are totally different than the atoms in that schoolboy's body.” “It cannot be the atoms,” he continues, “but it is the pattern of how some of those atoms are organized, in some extraordinary, elaborate, and complex way.” That, Polkinghorne states, is “what I think the human soul is. The soul is the information-bearing pattern; that's the real me” (Polkinghorne, 2007). Thus, Polkinghorne reconceives the “soul” as an information-bearing pattern that is encoded by and carried in the body/brain, and which is dissolved at death along with the dissolution of the body. However, this unique pattern, this real me, is retained in the divine memory for re-embodiment at the resurrection of the dead (Polkinghorne, 2003). During this post-death, pre-resurrection state, this (reconceived) “soul” has no consciousness and no awareness. “God will remember the pattern, not lose it,” Polkinghorne says, and ultimately, God “will reconstitute that pattern in an act of resurrection.” That's the continuity side of things. The discontinuity side, Polkinghorne says, “is that I'm not made alive again in order to die again, so while I'm going to be embodied, I must be embodied in some new form of matter. And it is perfectly coherent to believe that God can bring into being such a new form of matter” (Polkinghorne, 2007). To Richard Swinburne, the idea of afterlife existence germinating from a renewed instantiation of the pattern of information that we had when living on Earth is problematic. "The trouble is not merely how could God, if God so chose, bring into [renewed] existence a being with a specific pattern of information, but rather that God could [therefore] bring into existence a few thousand such beings. But because only one of them could be me, a pattern of information provides no additional criterion for distinguishing which one that would be. And whatever the extra criterion is, it would have to be such that there [logically] could only be one instance of it at one time. And if we have such a criterion, then what need is there for the pattern of information to be the same as a previous pattern?" (Swinburne, 2016; Kuhn, 2016b). 14.6. Teilhard de Cardin's evolving consciousness The Jesuit philosopher/theologian and paleontologist Pierre Teilhard de Chardin envisioned the evolution of consciousness as axial in a grand cosmic system of continuing complexification where consciousness becomes planetized and even “God” is an emergent in a process of “theogenesis” (Delio, 2020). Teilhard helped coin the concept of a “noosphere,” describing “the layer of mind, thought and spirit within the layer of life covering the earth” (Teilhard de Chardin, 1964). According to theologian (and former neuroscientist) Ilia Delio, Teilhard has the total material universe "in movement toward a greater unified convergence” such that “as life systems unite and form more complex relationships, consciousness rises.” Teilhard, she says, “speaks of evolution as the rise of consciousness toward a hyper-personalized organism, what he called an irreversible personalizing universe.” He speaks of “the human person as a co-creator. God evolves the universe and brings it to its completion through the human person.” Now the computer, according to Teilhard, “has evoked a new level of shared consciousness, a level of cybernetic mind giving rise to a field of global mind through interconnecting pathways” (foreshadowing the internet) (Delio, 2021). Teilhard was a dual-aspect monist. He “considered matter and consciousness not as two substances or two different modes of existence, but as two aspects of the same cosmic stuff.” Mind and matter “are neither separate nor is one reducible to the other, and yet neither can function without the other.” From the Big Bang onward, Delio says, Teilhard has “a ‘withinness’ and ‘withoutness,’ or what he called radial energy and tangential energy. Consciousness is, in a sense, the withinness or ‘inside’ of matter, and attraction is the ‘outside’ of matter; hence, the energy of matter is both attractive (tangential) and transcendent (radial).” The complementarity of mind and matter is said “to explain both the rise of biological complexity and the corresponding rise of consciousness.” Teilhard identifies “the core energy of the universe as love, which both unifies and transcends by way of consciousness. The greater the exterior levels of physical complexity, the greater the interior levels of consciousness” (Delio, 2021). To Teilhard, evolution describes “the dynamic impulse in life toward more being and consciousness” and that which drives evolution is consciousness. In short, “evolution is the rise of consciousness.” Following Julian Huxley, he writes that the human person “is nothing else than evolution become conscious of itself”—and adds, “The consciousness of each of us is evolution looking at itself and reflecting upon itself” (Teilhard de Chardin, 1959). The human person is “the point of emergence in nature, at which this deep cosmic evolution culminates and declares itself” (Delio, 2021). Moreover, “the presence of mind in matter and the openness of matter to greater wholeness is the religious phenomenon of nature.” Radically unorthodox, Teilhard sees this reality as the incarnation of God, where “God and world are in a process of becoming a new reality together.” Simply put, Delio says, “we cannot speak of God apart from human evolution, an idea that led Teilhard to state that God and world form a complementary pair. God and world are entangled with one another to the extent that talk of God is impossible apart from talk about nature and creative change, and talk of nature makes no sense apart from God” (Delio, 2021). In summary, Teilhard describes “matter as the matrix of consciousness.” He posits “the law of complexity-consciousness” as a fundamental principle of evolution, and conversely, “evolution is fundamentally the rise of consciousness.” Moreover, the human person is “evolution become conscious of itself,” with the ultimate goal of “the maximization of thought” whereby consciousness radiates “throughout the whole, in every aspect of the cosmos,” and then of “self-reflective consciousness,” whereby “the human person can stand apart from the world and reflect on it” (Delio, 2023, pp. 30–32). Finally, the foundation of Teilhard's paradigm is “Omega,” which he sees as the “prime mover of evolution,” the unifying power in evolution. Omega works its guiding magic from the very beginning of things, “acting on pre-living cosmic elements,” moving into consciousness as it emerged as the goal toward which evolution complexifies and converges. “Omega is the absolute whole,” making “wholeness in nature not only possible but also intensely personal. Teilhard identifies Omega with God” (Delio, 2023, p. 35). 14.7. Atmanspacher's dual-aspect monism Physicist-philosopher Harald Atmanspacher presents mind and matter, mental and material domains of reality, as manifestations, or aspects, of one underlying, fundamental reality in which mind and matter are inseparable. He distinguishes between the epistemic discernment of both the separate domains and the underlying reality, and the ontic existence of the “psychophysically neutral domain” (Atmanspacher, 2020a). He also distinguishes two classes of dual-aspect theories based on “the way in which the psychophysically neutral domain is related to the mental and the physical.” In Russellian monisms, “the compositional arrangements of psychophysically neutral elements decide how they differ with respect to mental or physical properties. As a consequence, the mental and the physical are reducible to the neutral domain” (Atmanspacher, 2020a). Whereas in decompositional dual-aspect theories, “the basic metaphysics of the psychophysically neutral domain is holistic, and the mental and the physical (neither reducible to one another nor to the neutral) emerge by breaking the holistic symmetry or, in other words, by making distinctions. This framework is guided by the analogy to quantum holism …. [which is] based on speculations that clearly exceed the scope of contemporary quantum theory.” Atmanspacher establishes connections between the ontic and epistemic domains of dual-aspect theory and David Bohm's famous notions of implicate and explicate order (11.3). “Mental and physical states emerge by explication, or unfoldment, from an ultimately undivided and psychophysically neutral implicate, enfolded order.” This order is dynamic, not static, as in Whitehead's process philosophy (Atmanspacher, 2020a). Atmanspacher finds dual-aspect potency in the conjecture by quantum physicist Wolfgang Pauli and analytical psychologist Carl Jung on the concept of synchronicity and draws on dual-aspect elements from the two disciplines (17.2; Double-aspect theory, 2023) In other words, Atmanspacher's dual-aspect theory hypothesizes that mental and material manifestations may inherit mutual correlations because they are jointly caused by the psychophysically neutral level. Such correlations, he says, would be “remnants reflecting the lost holism of the underlying reality” (Atmanspacher, 2020a). Atmanspacher and philosopher of physics Dean Rickles extend the metaphysical position of dual-aspect monism by aligning “the deep structure of meaning” as “a fundamental feature of the nature of reality,” stressing that “the decompositional version of dual-aspect monism considers the mental and the physical as two aspects of one underlying undivided reality that is psychophysically neutral.” Crediting their forerunners (Wolfgang Pauli, Carl Jung, Arthur Eddington, John Wheeler, David Bohm, and Basil Hiley), the authors “reconstruct the formal structure of these approaches, and compare their conceptual emphases as well as their relative strengths and weaknesses.” Their intent is to establish dual-aspect monism as a scientifically and philosophically robust alternative to physicalism, dualism and idealism (Atmanspacher and Rickles, 2022). 14.8. Ramachandran's new physics and neuroscience Neuroscientist V.S. Ramachandran states that the question of consciousness cannot be answered “in any obvious terms.” Most neuroscientists don't think about the question of consciousness, as it doesn't typically arise in neuroscience or in physics. But, he says, the ancient Vedic texts of India do address the problem of consciousness, the problem of qualia (Section: Ramachandran, 2019). “Physics, by definition, is a third-person description of the world; its laws have no subjective quality at all.” Physics has different wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation, but “you see colors: where does these come from? Consciousness emerges only in a first-person description of the world. I see red; not red is seen by me. I see red!” “How can physics, including neuroscience, be a complete description of the world if it excludes my primary sensory experience, if it does not admit a first-person perspective?” Ramachandran asks. (He considers neuroscience a branch of physics.) “That I'm looking at the cosmos from here now has no privileged status in science. For me, I have a privileged status. How is that possible? That's the problem.” “We need a new hybrid discipline, physics and neuroscience, that includes consciousness,” Ramachandran asserts. “Consciousness is part of reality, but how it entwines with physical laws needs to be explored” (Ramachandran, 2019). 14.9. Tegmark's state of matter Physicist Max Tegmark speculates that “the subjective experience that we call consciousness is the way information feels when being processed in certain complex ways,” and he comes to this strong physicalist view because his starting point is that “It's all physics.” This means, he says, “I'm not allowed to have any extra ‘secret sauce’ to add to the physical world and brain. Thus, explaining consciousness is much harder for me, but at the same time, it [i.e., the physicalist constraint] limits or focuses my work to or on very concrete problems” (Tegmark, 2014a). Clearly, Tegmark says, “there must be some additional principle about information processing in nature that distinguishes between the conscious kind and the unconscious kind.” “I would love to find it,” he continues, “not just because it's philosophically fascinating, but because it's important. Assessing consciousness is a critical need, whether in caring for comatose patients or in communicating with super-advanced AI” (Tegmark, 2014a). Tegmark examines the hypothesis that consciousness can be understood as a “state of matter,” “perceptronium", as he coins it, with distinctive information-processing abilities (Tegmark, 2015). Assuming that consciousness is a property of certain physical systems, with no “secret sauce" or non-physical elements, and given that the key difference between a solid, a liquid and a gas lies not in the types of atoms, but in their arrangement, he conjectures that consciousness can be understood as yet another state of matter. Just as there are many types of liquids, he says, there are many types of consciousness. To distinguish conscious matter from other physical states of matter, Tegmark explores four basic principles: “the information, integration, independence, and dynamics principles.” These principles may identify conscious entities, account for our three-dimensional world, even involve the emergence of time. Tegmark's approach generalizes Giulio Tononi's Integrated Information Theory (12) for neural-network-based consciousness as well as for arbitrary quantum systems. Founded on his concept that mathematics is the ultimate nature of reality (Tegmark, 2014b, 2014c, 2014d), Tegmark's quest is to better understand the internal reality of our mind and the external reality of our universe, such that they will hopefully co-explain or at least assist each other. This view sits somewhat apart from most materialist theories of consciousness, in which the emergence of consciousness is a contingency of evolution. 14.10. Qualia Research Institute's state-space, qualia formalism, valence realism The Qualia Research Institute (QRI), a not-for-profit pursuing unique approaches to the science of consciousness, stresses “Qualia Formalism,” the hypothesis that the internal structure of our subjective experience can be represented precisely by mathematics, and “Valence Realism,” the central importance of emotion/affect, that is, valence (how good or bad an experience feels) as a real and well-defined property of conscious states (Qualia Research Institute). Within the formalism, symmetry is said to play a significant compositional, functional, and aesthetic role. It is called the Symmetry Theory of Valence (proposed by philosopher Michael Edward Johnson): the symmetry of an information geometry of mind corresponds with how pleasant or unpleasant it is to be (or have) that experience. (“The biggest mystery hiding in plain sight is what gives experiences valence.”) (Johnson, 2023). The key QRI move (or assumption) is that every distinct state of conscious experience is unique and can be described mathematically; the number of such states, a “combinatorial explosion of unexpected phenomena,” is an unimaginably vast (but not infinite) “state-space of consciousness,” which is an independent, quasi-dimensional aspect of reality that grows “supergeometrically.” It is the specific geometry of each state-space of consciousness that is the conscious percept; each experience would correspond to a single point in the state-space of consciousness; the set of all possible experiences are organized in such a way that the similarities between experiences are encoded in the geometry of the state-space; and the degrees of symmetry or lack of symmetry of the geometry reflect the balance of positive and negative valence, both reflecting brain harmonics which somehow interact with the quasi-dimensional state-space and its symmetries (Shinozuka, 2020). (The “state-space of consciousness” resonates with a similar kind of structure in Integrated Information Theory, 12.) QRI says its position is close to dual-aspect monism or neutral monism. It is committed to an extended physicalism in the sense that extended laws of physics ultimately must describe fields of qualia. Included is the idea that emotional valence (the pleasantness/unpleasantness of an experience) is a natural kind, a real division of the world carved at its joints, which is said to provide substantial information about phenomenology (Qualia Research Institute, n.d.). QRI rejects functionalism as creating confusion but considers exotic states of consciousness as important data points for reverse-engineering the underlying formalism for consciousness. As noted, QRI is most compatible with, but not synonymous with, Integrated Information Theory (12), which QRI calls the first mainstream theory of consciousness to satisfy a Qualia Formalist account of experience. QRI leverages the idea from Integrated Information Theory that for every conscious experience, there is a corresponding mathematical object such that the mathematical features of that object are isomorphic to the properties of the experience, and that without this idea, no matter the neurobiological theory, we cannot solve the hard problem of consciousness (Qualia Research Institute, n.d.). 14.11. Bentley Hart's monism: consciousness, being, God Philosopher, theological scholar, and intellectual provocateur, David Bentley Hart, constructs an ultimate unified monism, first by showing that consciousness/mind and being/existence are profoundly inseverable. He argues that “rational thought and coherent order are two sides of a single reality,” and that only by embracing God “as the absolute unity of consciousness and being,” can the one ontological reality be confirmed (Hart, 2022b). In a sense, it is a higher-order monism. Oversimplified, an idealist form of panpsychism (Hart, 2021a). Hart is not a timorous monist: “At the end of the day, I'm a monist as any sane person is … any metaphysics that is coherent is ultimately reducible to a monism” (Hart, 2024). Unsurprisingly, Hart is a fierce critic of materialism (Hart, 2019a): “The incommensurability between physical causation and mental events is so vast that one can confidently assume that no purely physical explanation of their relation will ever succeed” (Hart, 2021a). He argues that it would be very odd to claim that physiology and mental agency can be characterized within the same “mereological hierarchy.” Far from being inverse descriptions of one and the same causal structure, he says, “the causal description peculiar to each sphere—the material and the mental—is not even vaguely similar to that peculiar to the other. If the mental merely supervened physically upon the material, in the way the shape of the wheel supervenes upon the wheel's iron molecules, it is impossible coherently to conceive of that miraculous conjugation as merely a structural extension of inherent physical propensities. Here each level operates in ways radically disparate from—even contrary to—the ways in which the other operates. Material structures and forces, if the reductionist picture of nature is correct, are composite, fragmentable, non-purposive, non-intentional, and essentially third-person; mental agency, by contrast, is indivisibly unified, physically infrangible, thoroughly teleological, inherently intentional, and irreducibly first-person (that is, conscious)” (Hart, 2019a, 2022a, 2022d). Hart is certain that “nothing like an actH long as the culture of the sciences clings to a belief in the principle of the ‘causal closure of the physical’” (Hart, 2021b). He rejects irreducible emergence as “logical nonsense; whatever properties appear in an effect, unless imposed adventitiously, are already implicit in its ‘lower’ causes, even if only as a kind of virtual intentionality.” He avers that “‘Strong emergence’ is either a myth, a category error, or a truth so bizarre as to suggest that truth as such is impenetrable to reason; to invoke such a principle is to say nothing” (Hart, 2022a). He recommends reconsidering “something like causal language proposed in Aristotelian tradition” (Hart, 2022b). Hart's intuition is that “The conditions necessary for knowledge of the world and the conditions necessary for the world's existence as an object of knowledge at any number of vital points seem insensibly to merge into a single reality, a single act,” a simplicity and an ultimacy, he says, that cannot be found within nature as a closed totality and cannot be consistent with any physicalist theory of the world. It becomes impossible not to wonder, he continues, “whether the only properly empirical approach to the question of mental reality should begin with a radically different kind of methodological bracketing: one that suspends every presupposition regarding a real distinction between epistemology and ontology.” He continues, “At least, we should never refuse to reflect upon the ancient metaphysical quandary of whether being and consciousness are ever truly severable from one another.” To exist fully, he says, is “to be manifest to consciousness,” and “there is no such thing as ontological coherence that is not a rational coherence,” such that the irreducibility of mind to physical causes and the irreducibility of being to physical events are one and the same irreducibility. There is a point then, Hart argues, “at which being and intelligibility become conceptually indistinguishable” and “being in itself is pure intelligibility” (Hart, 2022b). Given that “world and mind really are open to one another,” Hart accords “a certain causal priority to mind over matter in our picture of reality” in that materialism would have more difficulty to account for consciousness than consciousness would for matter. Hart invokes Bernard Lonergan's argument that the “unrestricted intelligibility” of reality leads to God as the one “unrestricted act of understanding.” The ascent towards ever greater knowledge is, Hart says, “an ascent towards an ultimate encounter with limitless consciousness, limitless reason, a transcendent reality where being and knowledge are always already one and the same, and so inalienable from one another” (Hart, 2022b). “A restricted instance of that unrestricted act,” Hart says, is his “best definition of mind.” He then goes to God, reasoning that “every act of conscious, unified, intentional mind is necessarily dependent upon infinite mind—which is to say, God.” God, then, is “the logical order of all reality, the ground both of the subjective rationality of mind and the objective rationality of being …. the one ontological reality of reason as it exists both in thought and in the structure of the universe” (Hart, 2019b, 2022b). The final step in forming Hart's ultimate monism will seem strange to most, blasphemous to some: taking consciousness and being, already one and the same, and unifying it with God, to become, all together, the ultimate one and the same. This is not pantheism (or panentheism), but based on Hart's Orthodox Christian convictions, a Christological monism. He quotes Maximus the Confessor, who says, “in the union with God, we ultimately are destined to become uncreated.” In Hart's ultimate monism, “God doesn't become God, but God in those who are becoming God” (Hart, 2022c). 14.12. Leslie's consciousness inside an infinite mind Philosopher John Leslie suggests that ethical requirements, when not overruled by stronger ethical requirements, are creatively effective. The cosmos they create is a collection of infinitely many minds, each infinite mind eternally conscious of all that's worth contemplating. Our universe is a structure inside one such mind, its reality consisting simply in its being contemplated. (Infinitely many finer universes might join our universe in that mind's consciousness, but it does at least deserve its place there.) (Leslie, 2001). How, though, would one's own consciousness fit into this scenario? Well, each infinite mind is “a single existent” in this sense, that its ingredients stand to it somewhat as a ruby's shape and its redness stand to the ruby; they couldn't exist independently, any more than could the particles in the Bose-Einstein condensates described by quantum physics. But despite how all the parts of each universe which any such mind contemplated would exist—remember, solely through entering into that mind's contemplations—some of those parts could each have consciousness of its own. They could be conscious brains, or conscious computers. Being inside the existential unity of that mind wouldn't make these know that it was there that they existed, or what other things existed there. Conscious, when it contemplated us, of every quark and electron of your brain and mine, that mind could leave us in ignorance even of each other's existence (Leslie, 2001). Similarly, our lives from birth to death could be eternally present to that mind's awareness whereas we could only guess what would fill our next few hours. Still, one's consciousness might itself be existentially unified at any given moment, perhaps thanks to quantum-physical processes. This could explain how the entirety of a painting, for instance, can be known in a single glance. Brains without regions that featured quantum computations, computers which weren't quantum computers, might be incapable of such knowledge. Leslie concludes, “Innumerable further things worth contemplating would exist inside each infinite mind, many of them quite unlike our universe and its living beings. Examples could be utterly lifeless universes; universes very unlike ours in their physical laws, or obeying no laws at all; countless things of interest or of beauty, each not forming part of any universe” (Leslie, 2001). 15. Dualisms Dualism is the theory of consciousness that requires two radically distinct parts: a physical brain, obviously, but also in addition, a separate, nonphysical substance that is not only independent of the brain but also not of the physical world (as presently conceived). This would mean that reality consists of (at least) two ontological categories—physical and nonphysical, whether substances, properties, aspects, dimensions or planes of existence. Dualism is often called “substance dualism,” to distinguish it from “property dualism,” which is ontologically different (15.1). In general usage, “dualism” means substance dualism. For dualism to be true, what follows must be that the physical world, at its most fundamental level of fields and forces, is not in some way causally closed, and that mental properties play a causal role in affecting the physical world. This perspective, often called interactionism, provides that physical states cause phenomenal states, and phenomenal states cause physical states, and whatever psychophysical laws there may be will operate in both directions (Chalmers, 2003; 15.8). Common forms of dualism identify the essence of the person with a nonphysical “soul,” generally an immortal soul. This kind of “soul-centered dualism” is also the theory of consciousness most widely believed by the vast majority of the world's population, largely implicitly via acculturation to belief systems, whether organized religion or folk traditions. Dualism (substance dualism), certainly, is the default doctrine in the Abrahamic religions of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Dualism is largely rejected by philosophers, at least by most professional philosophers in the West48 (PhilPapers Survey, 2009, 2020). Dualism has fallen out of philosophical favor for at least four reasons. (i) No Interactions: given the scientific understanding that the physical world is a causally closed system in that every event has a prior, physically efficient cause, how could anything outside such a closed system affect it? (Goff, 2020). (ii) Not Parsimonious: two kinds of world stuffs seem excessively complex; Occam's razor cuts unnecessary entities in explanations. (iii) No Knowledge: souls are slippery; how to know anything about how they work? (iv) Fading Divine Creator: With God less prominent in academia, there seems one less way to create or allocate souls. In trying to characterize souls (assuming for a moment that souls do exist), we ask questions. Are all souls exactly the same, as all electrons in the electron quantum field are the same? Are souls undifferentiated (everyone gets the same “starter kit”), or specially tailored to each individual? Are souls created by God? Or are souls the inevitable, automatic product of a set of deep psychophysical laws; in other words, given specific, complex structures of atoms, do souls pop into existence? Or are souls always existing, part of a cosmic consciousness—journeying, reincarnating, transitioning, transforming, reincarnating ….? Notably, because consciousness, under dualism, would require both a non-physical substance and a physical brain (somehow working together), it is conceivable, following the death of the body and the dissolution of the brain, that this nonphysical substance by itself could maintain some kind of existence, conscious or otherwise. (Although this nonphysical substance is traditionally called a “soul”—a term laden with theological burdens—a soul is not the only kind of thing, or form, that such a nonphysical substance could be.) Philosopher Dean Zimmerman reviews “a spectrum of dualisms,” resulting from different meanings of “nonphysical”. Are souls simple, with no parts, or composite, with internal components (whether fixed or flexible)? To pose an extreme, could souls be abstract objects, outside of space and time, necessary existents? Most dualists would have souls as concrete, nonphysical objects. Some would even have souls extended in space, sharing the same special coordinate system as bodies (Zimmerman, 2005). David Bentley Hart welcomes confrontation by claiming that most early modern scientists were better able to understand the mind-body problem than are many in the sciences today. The 17th century solution to the seeming irreconcilability of mind and matter was “to adopt a casual and contented dualism, allowing the mental and the physical each its own discrete autonomous sphere: nature, not being teleological or intentional in any way, is nothing like mind; mind, not being composite, purposeless, and impersonal, is nothing like nature.” The two can somehow interact, probably, Hart suggests, through the sheer power of God, but “neither is reducible or even qualitatively similar to the other.” Hart recognizes the inherent problems in describing “any kind of coherent ontological, causal, or epistemological continuity between the two spheres”—Hart himself is a monist (14.11)—“it [dualism] was nowhere near so magnificent a disaster as the later, materialistically monistic attempts to reduce mental events to mechanical [processes] have so far proved” (Hart, 2019a, 2021a). To Galen Strawson, “Dualists who postulate two distinct substances while holding that they interact causally not only face the old and seemingly insuperable problem of how to give an honest account of this interaction. They also face the (even more difficult) problem of justifying the claim that there are two substances.” To think that dualism has anything in its favor, Strawson asserts, “is simply to reveal that one thinks one knows more about the nature of things than one does—and it has Occam's razor (that blunt, sharp instrument) against it” (Strawson, 2008). The dualism theories that follow in this section challenge this denial. Jaron Lanier says, “You've got two choices. Either you know everything [about consciousness], or you organize your ignorance in some intelligent and organized manner. Dualism is the most honest manner of organizing your ignorance, okay?” (Lanier, 2007b). As noted, Closer To Truth viewers regularly send me diverse theories related to consciousness, some just ideas, some elaborate systems, and occasionally they are hard to classify. For example, a consciousness system operating independently of the central nervous system, constituted by “a Material B” (exhibiting “coupling properties” beyond the boundaries of physics) and explored by “memory-related thought processes” and “illogical nonlinear-thinking”49 (Ma et al., 2023). It is well known that mental causation is a vexing problem for dualists. By what conceivable mechanism could nonphysical stuff effect physical stuff? This is not a primary issue for this Landscape (15.8), but it is for Dualism. Again, the purpose of this section on Dualisms as a theory of consciousness is to describe various kinds of dualism, not to argue in favor or against (a self-imposed hurdle on which I occasionally trip). 15.1. Property dualism Property Dualism is the idea that while there is only one kind of substance in the world, physical substance, there are two kinds of properties, mental and physical properties, such that mental properties cannot be reduced to or explained by physical properties alone, even though both kinds of properties are generated by the same physical thing, namely brains. More specifically, property dualism maintains that human persons are entirely physical objects, composed wholly by the constituents of fundamental physics and subject only to the laws of physics, but also they have, at the same time and equally inherent, non-physical properties or aspects, namely mental properties or aspects (thoughts, concepts, ideas) that are not reducible to, and not explainable by, the properties of fundamental physics (and its special science derivatives)—even though all of property dualism's properties must come from those constituents of fundamental physics. Simply, human persons would have nonphysical properties but no nonphysical parts. According to Dean Zimmerman (following Chalmers), property dualism means that, “For at least some mental states, it is not possible to define, in terms of microphysical properties alone, a physical property common to all individuals in that mental state, and only to them.” Property dualism, then, would be the failure of supervenience, which states that “among all the possible individuals in all the possible worlds, there is no pair with all the same microphysical properties but different mental properties” (Zimmerman, 2005). Zimmerman applies property dualism to two famous questions in philosophy of mind: “It seems easy to imagine physically indiscernible zombies (animate human bodies with no consciousness) or people whose spectrum of color experiences is the reverse of one's own. If genuinely possible, these scenarios show that the mental does not supervene upon the physical” (Zimmerman, 2005). But in a wholly physical world, how could the mental not supervene upon the physical? How could different mental states arise from precisely the same microphysical states (down to the most fundamental physics)? If mental states can so arise, mustn't something be missing, or arbitrary, in the physical world? If mental states cannot so arise, what then of property dualism? To oversimplify, property dualism is dualistic only in its deep epistemology, not in its deep ontology, which remains entirely materialistic—consciousness remains wholly the product of brain function. Under property dualism, the mind still comes entirely from the brain, without residue. When super-advanced neuroscience accounts for all that can be known about the brain—though obviously it would be fiendishly complex—will there be nothing left over to explain about the mind? Yet, property dualism has some mental properties as irreducible, a move that perhaps help blunt attacks on materialist theories of consciousness. (Property dualism shares features with Non-Reductive Physicalism, 10.) But what does this really mean? How irreducible? Irreducible in practice, for sure. But irreducible in principle? What would an absolute complete science, from fundamental physics to neuroscience, not capture? Philosopher Ralph Weir evaluates the common preference in philosophy of mind for varieties of property dualism over other alternatives to physicalism and certainly over substance dualism. He argues that the standard motivations for property dualism “lead directly to nonphysical substances resembling the soul of traditional metaphysics.” Using the conceivability of modal arguments for zombies and ghosts and critiquing Russellian monist forms of property dualism, he concludes that “if you posit nonphysical properties in response to the mind-body problem, then you should be prepared to posit nonphysical substances as well” (Weir, 2023). Property dualism is the first subcategory under dualism because it is the most materialistic, the least dualistic, of the bunch. While I appreciate its important role in the development of philosophy of mind, I must admit that I've never had it near top-of-list in the marketplace of fundamental theories. Peter van Inwagen muses that “‘property dualism’ is a very odd name to give it.” His argument clarifies the essence of dualism itself. “If there are non-physical substances, then physical and non-physical substances (a cat and an angel, for example) are clean different kinds of thing. Although they are both substances right enough, the division of the category ‘substance’ into the sub-categories ‘physical’ and ‘non-physical’ is an ontologically significant division. We call Descartes and Plato dualists because they think there are substances in both sub-categories. I would suppose that ‘property dualists’ call themselves dualists because they think that the division of properties into physical and non-physical properties is an ontologically significant division of the category ‘property’, a division as significant as the physical/non-physical division of the category ‘substance’. If this is so, I think that the self-chosen description ‘property dualist’ indicates a metaphysical confusion in the way property dualists conceive of properties” (Van Inwagen, 2007b). Nonetheless, unlike much-disparaged substance dualism, property dualism remains a respectable position within philosophy of mind (Zimmerman, 2005). 15.2. Historical and traditional dualisms Dualism is the oldest and most ubiquitous theory of consciousness in the sense that nonphysical aspects of the world and mind, such as animism and ancestor worship, had long seemed the default assumption of millennia of pre-modern human groups and cultures. Plato's description of immortal souls in ancient Greece, where the person was entirely immaterial, and the profound ruminations about consciousness in ancient India, debating individual and cosmic varieties, were consistent with common intuitions and thus readily accepted. On the other hand, biblical accounts of the nature of the person, especially in the Hebrew scriptures, stress human physicality and mortality, with no obvious assertions about immortal souls (Van Inwagen, 1995). In Genesis, humans became (were not inherently) “a living soul” (Gen. 2:7). Ezekiel writes, “The soul that sinneth, it shall die” (Ezek. 18:20). Paul, in the New Testament, has “the wages of sin is death” (Rom. 6:23). Granted, theologians can interpret “death,” as, say, a soul that is separated from God. But the Psalmist is clear, saying of humans, “His breath goeth forth, he returneth to his earth; in that very day his thoughts perish” (Ps. 146:4). And Solomon is unambiguous, “the dead know nothing” (Eccles. 9:5). Nonetheless, the overwhelming majority of adherents to the Abrahamic religions of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, along with most of their religious teachers, assume that human beings are, in essence, a soul and that the soul has some kind of future beyond death. John Leslie describes the historical understanding of souls as “existentially unified,” noting, "When the parts of a soul were viewed as existentially unified at each particular instant, it wasn't thought that God, when manufacturing unified souls, had to do some kind of special mixing involving many separate steps. It was believed simply that souls had, from the moment of their creation by God, the property of being complex yet existentially unified. Many distinguishable elements of such complexity were present when a soul had a thought or an experience, but still, a soul remained existentially unified at each instant and remained the very same soul at successive instants" (Leslie, 2006). 15.3. Swinburne's substance dualism Christian philosopher Richard Swinburne is a leading advocate of substance dualism (Swinburne, 2013). "If you want to tell the whole story of the world, you must say what objects there are in the world, what substances there are, and what properties they have at different times," Swinburne said on Closer to Truth. "Of course, that will include all the physical objects, all the tables and chairs and planets and atoms. But, of course, that won't tell the whole story. You will also have to tell the story of conscious life, which is associated with each body." Swinburne asserts that in order to tell "the whole story of the world," one must "pick out subjects of experience—not just by the experiences they have, not just by the physical bodies with which they are associated" but also with "separate mental entities for which the natural word is 'soul' … If you can't bring 'soul' into the account of the world, you will not tell the whole story of the world, because you will not tell who has which conscious life" (Swinburne, 2007; Swinburne, 2006). "If the only things were physical objects, including bodies and brains, we would not be able to distinguish a case where you have the body which is presently yours and I have the body which is presently mine, from the case where you have the body which is presently mine and I have the body which is presently yours," he adds. "If physical properties and mental properties were just properties of bodies there would be no difference between these cases; " but because there are obvious differences between "you" and "me," Swinburne claims that "there must be another essential part of me which goes where I go, and this we can call my 'soul.'" Truths about persons, Swinburne stresses, are not truths about brains or bodies (Swinburne, 2007). Swinburne's argument for the existence of a soul—that "souls constitute personal identity and the continued existence of me will consist in the continued existence of my soul"—"is quite apart from what might happen in the world to come." Moreover, Swinburne's arguments for the reality of a nonphysical soul do not depend, he says, on theological revelation or his own religious convictions (Swinburne, 2016; Kuhn 2016b). 15.4. Composite dualism Modern dualism in philosophy of mind begins with Descartes who famously divides the world between the physical and the mental. He was motivated by the obvious distinction that the mind has thought but no extension while the body has extension but no thought. Yet body and mind both seem needed to have a human person. Composite dualists require both body and mind to constitute a person, where “body” generally denotates brain and “mind” generally denotates soul. There are of course variations and problems (Zimmerman, 2005). A key question is whether the nonphysical part, the soul, has mental states independent from the body/brain? To most dualists, both historical and contemporary, the soul does indeed. As to the relationship between the body and the soul, Swinburne is ambivalent. "Maybe, of course, a soul can't function on its own," he said. "Maybe it can only function when associated with a body. In that case, my continued existence would consist in it being joined to a body again, perhaps an entirely new body. I think a soul could exist on its own, but not a great deal turns on that." A body is required, Swinburne said, because "for us to interact with others, to recognize others, we need different public characteristics” (Swinburne, 2016; Kuhn 2016b). I asked Swinburne to speculate on the essence or composition of such a soul. Is it a differentiated substance? What's to prevent your soul from getting mixed up with my soul? "The difference between souls is ultimate, unanalyzable by anything else," Swinburne responded. "A soul has no extension. It is an 'immaterial particular', to use an old-fashioned philosophical term. It does, of course, have characteristics, properties. It has thoughts, feelings, attitudes, and so on. But the way we distinguish in practice between souls is in terms of the bodies with which they are associated because the difference between your soul and my soul, being ultimate, does not consist in their relations to our respective bodies. There is of course nothing paradoxical about the difference between souls being unanalyzable, because some differences must be ultimate; if you can analyze 'a' by 'b' and 'b' by 'c' and so on, you eventually get to things which you can't analyze, and the differences between human souls in my view are one of those things. This is why the only way souls can have a public presence is through their attachment to bodies” (Swinburne, 2007, 2016). 15.5. Stump's Thomistic dualism The influential Christian scholastic philosopher St. Thomas Aquinas gives an account of the soul that is non-Cartesian in character, according to Catholic philosopher Eleonore Stump, who has Aquinas taking the soul to be something essentially immaterial or configurational but nonetheless realized in material components. This suggests, she argues, not only that Cartesian dualism isn't essential to Christianity but also that the battle lines between dualism and materialism are misdrawn (Stump, 1995). Stump recognizes that because Cartesian dualism is widely regarded (among philosophers) as false, and because “it is also the case that the major monotheisms have traditionally been committed to dualism of a Cartesian sort, then in the view of many philosophers the apparent or putative falsity of Cartesian dualism becomes an embarrassment for those religions.” In building his alternative to a Cartesian sort of dualism (in historical context, to Plato's account of the soul), Aquinas is guided by “two complex, culturally conditioned sets of intuitions,” each of which relates to a biblical passage. The first is "dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return" (Gen. 3:19), conveying that a human being is a material object, “made out of the same sort of constituents as the earth is,” and the second is "Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was, and the spirit shall return to God who gave it" (Eccles.12:7), conveying that a human person survives death, “because her spirit or soul continues to exist after the dissolution of her body.” Stump has Aquinas accommodating both sets of intuitions with his account of the human soul (Stump, 1995). Famously, Aquinas takes the soul to be the form of the body, but, as Stump points out, “the soul not only is the form that makes this matter a living human body but also is the form that makes the matter this human being.” And when, after death, all that is left of a human being is the soul, “individuality persists on Aquinas's account.” “Soul” is a larger category for Aquinas, his generic term for the substantial forms of all material objects that are living. Plants have souls, not in the human sense, but in that they enable “a configuration of matter which allows for nutrition, growth, reproduction.” Animals, too, have souls, since they, too, are living things; but the configuration of their matter also allows them perception. The forms that constitute human beings allow a more distinctive set of capacities, namely, intellective processes. Aquinas tends to call the human soul “the intellective soul” or “the rational soul”. Aquinas's soul is created directly by God and infused into matter. The soul is the act of the body, “because it is in virtue of the soul that something is actually a living human body.” Moreover, because the soul is the form of the body, it has a spatial location; while the body is alive, the soul is located where the body is. As for the post-mortem, disembodied soul, while it does persist, it is not the complete human being who was the composite but only a part of that human being. A separated soul does exist on its own after death, but it nonetheless isn't a substance in its own right. Disembodied existence isn't natural to the soul. Stump sums up: “The soul is an essentially configurational state which is immaterial and subsistent, able to exist on its own apart from the body. On the other hand, the soul is the form that makes the living human body what it is. While it is possible with divine help for the soul to exist and exercise cognitive function on its own, apart from the body, that state is unnatural to it. In the natural condition, human cognitive functions are to be attributed to the whole composite and not to the soul alone, although the composite exercises cognitive functions by means of the soul.” In Stump's view, the real lesson of Aquinas's account of the soul is to show that the dichotomy between materialism and dualism is misleading (Stump, 1995). 15.6. Feser's neo-Thomistic, neo-Aristotelian, common-sense dualism Catholic philosopher Edward Feser's account of consciousness combines a neo-Thomistic view that some mental faculties are immaterial and a neo-Aristotelian view that we perceive the world actually as it appears to be (i.e., direct realism, such that color and sound are properties of external objects as real as size and shape) (Section: Feser, 2012a; 2012b; 2012c; 2022a; 2022b). As Feser explains, Aristotelians and Thomists use the term “intellect” as that faculty by which we grasp abstract concepts, make judgments and reason logically. Intellect is to be distinguished from “imagination,” the faculty by which we form mental images (visual, auditory, etc.), and from sensation, the faculty by which we perceive the external material world and the internal world of the body. Feser argues that the irreducibility of intellect to imagination and sensation is undeniable (e.g., the intellect's concepts are universals while mental images and sensations are particulars). He also argues that “the reason why intellectual activity cannot in principle be reduced to sensation or imagination is, as it happens, related to the reason why intellectual activity cannot in principle be reduced to, or entirely supervenient upon, or in any other way explicable in terms of material processes of any sort” (Feser, 2012a). To explain intellectual activity entirely in terms of material processes, Feser says, is to inevitably deny the existence of some essential aspect of the intellectual activity. If you identify thought with material processes, you are necessarily committed to denying, implicitly or explicitly, that our thoughts really ever have any determinate or unambiguous content. According to Feser, some materialists have seen this, including Quine and Dennett, and decided “to bite the bullet and accept that the content of all thought and language is inherently indeterminate.” Feser asserts that such claims are indefensible because it would contradict making sense of mathematics and logic, and hence of empirical science, all of which presupposes that we have determinate concepts. “Anyone who thinks that thought can even in principle be entirely material,” he says, “hasn't thought carefully enough about the nature of thought” (Feser, 2012a). But Feser's dualism is not Descartes's dualism, which makes assumptions about the nature of matter as much as or more than assumptions about the nature of mind, and thus is responsible, in part, for generating the mind-body problem. The key point, Feser says, is that by characterizing matter in purely quantitative, mathematical terms, Descartes left no place in it for qualitative features like color, odor, taste, sound, smell, heat and cold as common sense understands them. Accordingly, he treated these qualitative features—as Galileo before him and countless others after him did—as entirely mind-dependent, existing only in our conscious experience of the world but not in the world itself (Feser, 2012b). This means that if these qualitative features as common sense understands them exist only in the mind and not in the material world, it follows that these features cannot themselves be material. A kind of dualism follows, Feser claims, precisely from the materialist conception of matter. The so-called “qualia problem” that contemporary philosophers of mind fret over, he argues, “is the inevitable result of the conception of matter to which modern scientists in their philosophical moments have wedded themselves” (Feser, 2012b). In Feser's reading, Descartes and other moderns had an austere concept of nature as inherently devoid of the qualitative features we know from conscious experience (e.g., color, sound, heat, cold) as well as of meaning or purpose of any kind. Thus, they conceived of the human mind as an immaterial substance that somehow interacts with those parts of the natural world we call human bodies and brains. This spawns Descartes's novel form of dualism, which is notoriously problematic (i.e., the interaction problem) such that modern materialists throw out Descartes's immaterial substance while holding on to his view of the material world. (But their own position, Feser adds, is even more problematic, since it leaves them with no place at all to locate qualitative features or meaning.) (Feser, 2012c). Moreover, because Descartes took the human body as just one entirely mathematically definable bit of the material world among others, entirely devoid of qualitative features, and took all consciousness to reside in the res cogitans, which he regarded as immaterial, Descartes's position implies that sensation and imagination are immaterial. Hence if sensation and imagination turn out to be material after all, it is understandable how some would infer that all operations of the res cogitans, all mental activity, might be susceptible to materialist explanation as well (Feser, 2012b). But, Feser argues, the Aristotelian tradition has always regarded sensation and imagination as corporeal faculties, and as having nothing essentially to do with the reasons why our distinctively intellectual activities are incorporeal, in that strictly intellectual activity on the one hand and sensation and imagination on the other, differ in kind, not merely in degree, so that to establish the corporeal nature of the latter is irrelevant to the question of whether the former is corporeal. Aristotle and the Scholastic tradition that built on his thought took the common-sense view that the natural world is filled with irreducibly different kinds of objects and qualities: people; dogs and cats; trees and flowers; rocks, dirt, and water; colors, odors, sounds; heat and cold; meanings and purposes (Feser, 2012c). The founders of modern philosophy and science overthrew Aristotelianism, and, on Feser's view, common sense along with it. On the new view of nature inaugurated by Galileo and Descartes, the material world is comprised of nothing more than colorless, odorless, soundless, meaningless, purposeless particles in motion, describable in purely mathematical terms. The differences between dirt, water, rocks, trees, dogs, cats, and human bodies are on this view superficial. Common sense, Feser says, takes ordinary physical objects to have both (a) size, shape, motion, etc. and (b) color, sound, heat, cold, etc. Early modern philosophers and scientists characterized features of type (a) as “primary qualities” and features of type (b) as “secondary qualities,” and they argued that the latter are not genuine features of matter as it is in itself, but reflect only the way conscious awareness presents matter to us. What exists in mind-independent reality is nothing more than particles in motion. Color, sound, taste, odor, etc. exist only in the mind's experiences of that reality (Feser, 2022a). But, Feser argues, to draw a sharp distinction between primary and secondary qualities is much more difficult than it at first appears. The Aristotelian philosopher who defends common sense would say that this is a good reason to think that secondary qualities are, after all, as objective as primary qualities. The more common approach, however, was to try to make some version of the primary/secondary quality distinction work, which made a Cartesian sort of dualism an inevitable consequence of the primary/secondary quality distinction. For if color, sound, heat, cold, etc. as common sense understands them don't exist in matter, then they don't exist in the brain or the rest of the body (since those are material). And if they do nevertheless exist in the mind, then we have the dualist conclusion that the mind is not identical with the brain or with any other material thing. Feser claims that the very conception of matter that modern materialism has committed itself to is therefore radically incompatible with materialism. Attempting to develop a materialist account of consciousness while at the same time presupposing the conception of matter inherited from Galileo and Co. is like trying to square the circle. “It is a fool's errand,” Feser opines, “born of conceptual confusion and neglect of intellectual history” (Feser, 2022a). To Feser, the hard problem of consciousness is a pseudo-problem. It arises only if we follow Galileo and his successors in holding that color, odor, sound, heat, cold, and other “secondary qualities” do not really exist in matter in the way common sense supposes them to, but instead exist only in the mind (as the qualia of conscious experience) and are projected by us onto external reality. If you take this position, Feser says, you are stuck with a conception of matter that makes it impossible to regard consciousness as material. The solution, Feser offers, is simply not to go along with this assumption in the first place, but to return to the Aristotelian-Scholastic view the early moderns reacted against, and which is compatible with the commonsense view of matter. The so-called hard problem of consciousness then dissolves (Feser, 2022b). Feser highlights Gilbert Ryle's critical characterization of Descartes's dualism as the theory of the “ghost in the machine.” It is often supposed that modern philosophy and science after Descartes preserved his mechanical model of matter while getting rid of the “ghost” of the Cartesian mind. To Feser, the haunting problem is not the “ghost” but the mechanical model of matter (Feser, 2022b). 15.7. Moreland's Christian soul Christian philosopher J.P. Moreland defines a robust “generic substance dualism” as the view according to which “(i) there is a substantial soul (self, ego, I, substantial form) that is wholly immaterial; (ii) the soul is not identical to its physical body; and (iii) the soul is that which grounds personal identity for human persons” (Moreland, 2023). He defends a Thomistic-like dualism, taking the body to be an ensouled, spatially extended, physical structure, and the soul to be a substantial, unified reality that informs (gives form to) its body, animates it and makes it human. Thus, a body requires a soul to be a body, and this is why a body is of value. A body without a soul in it is just a corpse. In contrast to a body, a corpse is of little intrinsic value (Moreland, 2014). Similarly, a soul requires a body to be fully realized; for a soul to have a body is its natural state. By analogy, the soul is to the body like God is to space—it is fully “present” at each point within the body. Breaking the analogy, Moreland's soul and body relate to each other in an informing and cause-effect way (Moreland, 2014). Moreland argues that the unity of consciousness cannot be explained if a person is a brain, because a brain is just an aggregate of different physical (separable) parts. He accepts constituent realism regarding properties (and relations), according to which properties (and relations) are universals that, when exemplified (they need not exist), become constituents of the ordinary particulars that have them. Moreover, he asserts that whereas a physicalist may claim a unified awareness of one's visual field consists of combining several different physical parts of the brain each terminating a different wavelength, each of which is aware of only part (not the whole) of the complex view, “this cannot account for the single, unitary awareness of the entire visual field” (Moreland, 2018). Offering “a comprehensive defense of contemporary substance dualism,” Christian philosophers Brandon Rickabaugh and J.P. Moreland present arguments that they claim support substance dualism and defeat those that deny it. These include: introspection, self-awareness and intentionality; the fundamental unity of conscious beings (e.g., mereological essentialism and the diachronic endurance of the soul); and updated arguments from modality and libertarian freedom (e.g., problems of causal interaction, neuroscientific objections, and causal closure of the physical) (Rickabaugh and Moreland, 2023). 15.8. Interactive dualism The primary problem of Dualism—many would say the defeater of Dualism—is how nonphysical substances could possibly interact with physical substances, especially given the common assumption that the physical world is a closed system. Also called the "pairing problem," how could an immaterial thing, the mind, interact with a material thing, the body (or brain)? Notwithstanding our folk perception that the physical world affects my mind through my senses and my mind affects the physical world through my actions, most scientists and philosophers deny this is what is in fact happening. There would be no commonalities between physical and nonphysical substances, no means of exchange—the problem of mental causation on steroids. Moreover, if nonphysical substances could somehow affect and alter physical substances, wouldn't that require a transference of energy, and wouldn't such an addition violate the sacrosanct physical law of the conservation of energy? (Section: Robinson, 2023; Interactionism, 2023). Advocates of Interactive Dualism (not that there are many among scientists and philosophers) say they have resources. They reject the weak dualism of Epiphenomenalism where the physical affects the mental but the mental does not affect the physical (9.1.2). They can claim that the interaction problem is founded on archaic 19th century, billiard-ball physics, where causation requires hard substances to be in physical contact, to touch one another, as it were. Quantum mechanics, on the other hand, allows for various, albeit speculative ways, for the mental to affect the physical, even beyond the classic but controversial view that an “observer” is needed to “collapse” the wave function. Moreover, because quantum mechanics introduces fundamental uncertainty into the universe, and if by this indeterminism holds, nonphysical substances might enjoy “wiggle room” to effect causation. Advocates can also appeal to different kinds of ethereal forces or energy transference systems. Perhaps mental powers can influence the distribution but not the quantity of energy in the brain (“a little more here, a little less there” does seem a bit of a cheat). Perhaps each individual brain is not a causally closed system so that the conservation of energy need not apply. Perhaps causal closure for the entire universe is also a 19th century invention, based on classical thermodynamics and statistical mechanics, which are now superseded by quantum mechanics, general relativity, dark matter, dark energy, and who knows what else? (I can make up another. Since string theory offers, depending on flavor, 10, 11 or 26 “compactified” extra dimensions, why couldn't nonphysical substances work via these extra dimensions? I can conceive of a precedent for this. To account for the “hierarchy problem” in physics, where gravity is vastly weaker than the other fundamental forces, some postulate that gravity “leaks” or “bleeds” into these extra dimensions.) It gets crazy. That's not all. Perhaps, one could just blow away the interaction problem by just asserting that in systems that have minds, the law of conservation of energy is false. Perhaps because downward causation goes to the lower physical levels and emergence is enabled, the causal completeness of physics is wrong (Ellis, 2019). Further, because the whole idea of a closed physical system is based on the assumption that there are no nonphysical forces involved, wouldn't this assumption undermine the argument against interaction by making it circular? Then there is “overdetermination,” where mental and physical factors can each, independently, affect actions—an approach that, while possibly solving one problem, creates other problems (Robinson, 2023; Interactionism, 2023). Finally, there is always a theological solution. God can help. God could have created souls with powers, especially since “real” (i.e., libertarian) free will is an essential part of “God's plan,” such that neither conservation of energy nor determinism holds, at least with respect to minds. (It is challenging how even God could make this coherent.) Christian philosopher William Lane Craig describes himself as a “dualist-interactionalist” in that “the brain is itself part of... the physical reality with which the soul immediately interacts (Craig, 2015). He argues that even though souls do not have spatial locations, “the question becomes why we should think that only spatial relations can pair a cause with its effect. Prima facie this seems overly restrictive” (Craig, 2023). I mustn't forget “Occasionalism,” the idea that created substances, physical and nonphysical, cannot be efficient causes of events in themselves and that all events are caused directly by God. This would mean that while mind and body appear to interact, in fact it is God that is changing each separately and ceaselessly. While Occasionalism is dismissed (often ridiculed), there is a kind of logic here. If God acts as intermediary, as it were, between nonphysical and physical substances, then because God would have created both in the first place, this would make the apparent causal connection between nonphysical and physical substances not especially troublesome for God to bring about. This way of thinking—all these possible mechanisms for Interactive Dualism—reflects the depth of Dualism's problem. 15.9. Emergent dualism Emergent dualism is the idea that while mind or consciousness is not fundamental in reality, it comes into existence “naturally” when a certain kind of complex arrangement of physical atoms come together, say, in biological neurons. The resultant new substance that emerges would be nonphysical, generated by some meta-psychophysical processes or laws, and it would become the first-person subject of the mind or consciousness. This freshly emergent nonphysical substance, to take the extremes, could be either entirely dependent on the brain for continued existence or take on independent ontological existence in some strong sense (though the latter, to me, would seem a rather odd way for reality to be). For some philosophers, emergent dualism is a softer-sell “dualism-light,” because souls would then be a normal part of the physical world, however extended, where these as-yet-unknown “natural” meta-psychophysical laws would determine their automatic manifestation from complex structures, especially from brains (perhaps only from brains). Dualism's “pairing problem”—how can nonphysical substances (“souls”) have causal relations with physical substances (brains) with zero tolerance for failure?—would be reduced under emergent dualisms because (i) souls would seem in a way tethered in space (Zimmerman, 2005), and (ii) souls would have been generated by physical substances (brains) in the first place. As a theist, Richard Swinburne holds the creationist position that God creates anew each new soul. But, if he came to believe that this position was mistaken, then, as a theist, he would hold the view that God had already built into atoms their propensity to produce souls (Swinburne, 2016). Out-of-body and near-death experiences (OBEs and NDEs) are said to support emergent dualism, in that if one starts by assuming OBEs and NDEs to be actual disembodied conscious experiences (17.12), then emergent dualism is said to be a candidate to explain them. And once this nonphysical substance (soul) comes into existence, it is then logically possible for this “soul” to become independent of its progenerating physical substance (brain) and to maintain its existence beyond the dissolution of the physical (Kopel, 2023). Finally, there would be no necessity that the kind of meta-psychophysical laws that generate emergent dualism should be restricted to complex arrangements of atoms in biological entities or contexts. Thus, under emergent dualism, AI consciousness would not be impossible, as it would be under traditional forms of dualism (AI Consciousness, 24). 15.10. Kind's dualism 2.0 Philosopher Amy Kind defends dualism 2.0, “a thoroughly modern version of dualism … decoupled from any religious or non-scientific connotations.” Her argument is direct and forceful: “A physicalist framework cannot adequately capture the full reality of our conscious experience”—which has a “qualitative nature.” However physicalism is defined, she says, “whether it's in terms of current physics or future physics, or some other way entirely—we should see the theory as committed to an important constraint: Physicalism can be true only if the phenomenality is not a primitive aspect of the world” (Kind and Stoljar, 2023, pp. 4, 58). She analyzes and rejects Materialist Theories of Representationalism (9.8) and High-order Theories (9.8.3), and Russellian Monism (14.1), and she deflects the counterattack that “rejecting physicalism is tantamount to believing in ghosts, or fairy dust, or magic.” She stresses that “the claim that consciousness is not a physical thing does not commit one to the existence of spooky stuff. Rather, it should be seen as perfectly consistent with an adoption of a broadly naturalistic conception of the world and our place in it.” She calls Dualism 2.0 “a rebooted version of dualism … what it looks like to adopt this kind of view from the vantage point of the 21st century” (Kind and Stoljar, 2023, p. 5). Kind's claim is a simple one: “Just as physical states, events, and processes are an irreducibly real part of the world, so too are phenomenal states, events, and processes an irreducibly real part of the world” (jointly, “activity”). Given “the existence of both phenomenal activity and physical activity, and further, in virtue of its claim that these two kinds of activity cannot be reduced to one another,” she declares that “the view is appropriately characterized as dualistic.” Immediately, however, she stresses that “this duality need not be thought of in terms of mental substances. We can have duality of activity without duality of entities” (Kind and Stoljar, 2023, p. 53). While obviously distinct from physicalism, Kind's dualism 2.0 distinguishes itself from Russellian Monism (and Panpsychism, 13), because, although the “claim that phenomenality (or protophenomenality) can be found at the fundamental level of reality … is consistent with dualism 2.0 … it is not required by it.” Dualism 2.0, she says, “need not take mass and charge to be the appropriate model for phenomenality.” Nor does dualism 2.0 “commit itself to the ubiquity of phenomenality,” nor “to anything spooky.” Just because “something cannot be reduced to the physical” does not mean, ipso facto, “that it is magical or mystical.” Her example is mathematics (Kind and Stoljar, 2023, pp. 53–54). What about the physicalist argument that specifying the putative phenomenal laws seems a project from nowhere? Kind reminds her critics of their lack of progress “in giving precise physical or functional specifications of phenomenally conscious states”—and she concludes that “dualism 2.0 is not here in any worse shape than its competitors.” She holds out hope for “a better and broader understanding of the nature of causation” that could enable us “to accommodate mental causes and thus affirm the causal efficacy of the phenomenal … without those seeming either mysterious or spooky” (Kind and Stoljar, 2023, pp. 55–56). 15.11. Soul in the Hebrew Bible and Jewish philosophy If one wants to pay attention to the nature of consciousness or soul in the Hebrew scriptures (which is recognized as foundational by traditional Christianity and Islam as well as by Judaism), there are two essential words to consider: “nephesh” (נֶפֶשׁ), often translated as “soul,” and “ruach” (רוּחַ), often translated “spirit.” Neither word is translated consistently, nor does either map cleanly unto modern meanings of soul or consciousness. The essential verse for nephesh is Genesis 2:7: “God formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life,” and “the man became a living being (or soul, nephesh).” If nephesh is translated “soul,” that “soul” was not immortal (in that it had to be described as “living”); it was not a nonphysical substance given to the man, but rather it was what the man became. Nephesh applies to all sentient creatures, not just to humans, and although mostly translated “soul”, it is elsewhere translated as life, person, creature, mind, heart (emotions), desires. There are several places where the context seems to require that nephesh be translated “dead”—it would be an odd coupling, indeed, for nephesh to be an immortal soul and at the same time be dead. The first use of ruach in the Hebrew bible is Genesis 1:2, where it is the “spirit” (ruach) of God that is hovering in the darkness over the surface of the waters of a formless and desolately empty earth. But ruach is elsewhere translated “wind” (many verses), as well as vigor, courage, anger, disposition, patience, desire, even mind as the seat of mental acts or moral courage. Ruach is used in “holy spirit” as well as in God's spirit. While neither nephesh nor ruach means soul or consciousness, ruach seems closer to a mental designator and nephesh closer to a living body designator. Philosopher and rabbi Aaron Segal offers a defense of a traditional Judaic view that there are souls and that they exist long before being embodied. Responding to the materialist challenge that it's very surprising that none of us remembers anything from before we were born, he proposes that each of us has “been in existence for a very long time" but "only came to be a thinking thing at a certain point in the development of her body (or brain).” Other respectable metaphysical views, he argues, “have us existing for just as long and undergoing transformations no less radical than this. For example, according to one prominent view, anything that ever exists, always existed and always will exist. Nothing really goes into or out of existence. What looks like going into and out of existence is just a matter of going from being abstract (with no causal powers and no location, like a feature) to being concrete (with causal powers and a particular location, like a person), and back again. An immaterialist who goes this route need not maintain that any of us has undergone a transformation so radical as from the abstract to the concrete: just from unthinking to thinking” (Olson and Segal, 2023; Segal, 2023). Segal then moves to a view he calls “closer to home”: animalism—a prominent version of materialism that each of us is a human organism. “Quite plausibly,” he says, “animalism has as a consequence that each of us was once an unthinking fetus. So, according to that prominent version of materialism, each of us has undergone a transformation from an unthinking thing to a thinking thing.” Physicist/businessman Eduard Shyfrin, who has developed a “Kabbalah of Information” framework that integrates information theory with the Jewish mystical tradition, calls the Kabbalah soul “the information entity with the dimension of self that is structurally part of the informational foundations of the worlds (The Tree of Sefirot)” (Shyfrin, n.d.). The Kabbalah of Information, Shyfrin says, holds that God created only information, nothing else, as the building blocks of all reality. Thus, there is no fundamental difference between material and spiritual. Creation is an information space (“infospace”), composed of concepts of different complexity and dimensionality. The distance between concepts in infospace is measured by the likeness of their meaning, generating a form of hierarchy of concepts or “worlds”—as determined by the Kabbalah Law of Likeness. Moreover, all the worlds are structurally invariant; the Tree of Sefirot has a fractal structure. The transfer from one concept to another is incremental; it takes place when information change reaches an “error threshold” (Shyfrin, 2019). Based on the above, Shyfrin explains that the “soul” is the information structure similar to the structure of the “worlds” (Tree of Sefirot), with the additional dimension of “self.” This structural similarity allows for the smooth interaction between the soul and the Tree of Sefirot. Souls can “move” in infospace, which, for example, is the process of learning and thinking. All souls intrinsically have the same kinds of concepts in general, but in particular, souls are distinguished by their taking concepts from different parts of the hierarchy of concepts. This process determines the “DNA” of the soul and all its potential functions (i.e., intellect, memory, etc.) (Shyfrin, 2019). In addition, according to Shyfrin, because “according to the Torah the soul is in the blood” (hence the Judaic prohibition against eating blood), "the information content of part of the soul's hierarchy may be structurally similar to that of DNA.” Perhaps, at the moment of the soul's creation, "G-D chooses its complexity and dimensionality, which have hierarchies of structure and which entail the soul's intellectual potential."50 15.12. Soul in the New Testament and Christian philosophy Almost all Christian denominations feature an immortal soul as essential doctrine and it is conventional wisdom that the immortal soul is supported by passages in the New Testament. Yet there are opposing views; for example, Peter van Inwagen's “Christian materialism” (10.3) (Van Inwagen, 1995). Biblical scholar James Tabor points out that although many assume that the New Testament abandons the Hebrew view of the “soul” (nephesh) as simply a “living being,” referring in Genesis 1 to all breathing creatures, such is not the case. The Greek term usually translated “soul” (ψυχή psykhḗ/psychi) essentially means “life,” and thus refers to a living “breathing” being; so that rather than having souls, humans are souls. The central concept is that of breathing or not breathing—which equates to being alive or dead. Thus “soul” is most often used for the “self,” which is the “whole” being and it can be destroyed along with the body (Matthew 10:28). Thus, we read of “fear coming upon every soul” meaning every individual (Acts 2:23) or Jacob's children numbering “seventy-five souls”—or persons (Acts 7:14). The Apostle Paul metaphorically speaks of the dead as “asleep”—no longer conscious or breathing, so that resurrection is an “awakening” in a new transformed body. Without the resurrection they would “perish” (1 Corinthians 15:18). Likewise, giving up the “spirit” (pneuma) is to breathe one's last breath and die (John 19:30) (Tabor, 1989; Tabor, 2023b; TaborBlog). “But, of course, what I assert here can be contested,” Tabor adds, especially by Christian apologists and theologians who consider the subsequent idea of the immortal soul fundamental to Christianity. However, he says, there are very few texts in the New Testament that picture the “afterlife” in the lower Hadean world as “conscious” or semi-conscious, or in a state more actively aware than Paul's metaphor of “sleep,” which is grounded solidly in the Hebrew Bible (Tabor, 2023a). Historian of ancient religions Jonathan Z. Smith emphasizes the shifting nature of perceptions taking place in the late Hellenistic/Early Roman period (200 BCE to 200 CE), when forms of Christianity and Judaism that became dominant were emerging (Smith, Encyclopedia Britannica). The shift is from the archaic, which Smith calls the “Locative” view of the cosmos—in which human beings had their place: death was death, and life was life—to what he calls the “Utopian”—a perfect heavenly world beyond this one in which we really “belong” or to which we “return” (Tabor, 2022). Still, by and large, the New Testament is strikingly “Hebraic” in its views of body, soul, and spirit as constituting the whole person, and death or the grave as a place of no return—except that the idea of resurrection provided future hope of “making the dead live,” which is the standard Hebrew expression to this day (Tabor and Wise, 1995). Christian philosopher Andrew Ter Ern Loke surveys, from a Christian perspective, how human beings are generated (after Adam and Eve). In the early church there were three competing views: Traducianism, Creationism and Pre-existence, all of which assume substance dualism. According to Traducianism, God uses parents to create the souls of children; according to Creationism, the souls of children are directly created by God (either at or soon after biological conception). Pre-existence is the doctrine that God has a “stock of souls from eternity and allocates them as needed” (Loke, 2022). Pre-existence is widely regarded as unorthodox, while theologians have been divided on Traducianism and Creationism, with Augustine acknowledging that he does not know which position is the correct one. Creationism has been the dominant though informal position in Reformed Theology and the Catholic Church since the time of Peter Lombard (c. 1100–1160), while Traducianism has been the dominant position in Lutheran theology51 (Loke, 2022). Loke proposes a possible way in which Traducianism and Creationism may be combined, utilizing a modified hylomorphic theory of human souls such that, “while the soulish potentialities are passed down from parents to children in accordance with Traducianism, the particular restrictions on the form of soul-stuffs are created by God so as to bring into existence particular individuals.”52 Separately, Christian substance dualism is said to be consistent with Darwinian evolution (Loke, 2022). Souls, of course, remain core Christian doctrine, and they are defended as “a better explanation for consciousness.” Dualism is said to imply theism and that dualism and theism are “ontologically tied together.” Joshua Farris “advances a case for the person or self as being the fundamental bearer of conscious properties … where the primary bearer, binder, and ground of consciousness is the soul as an immaterial substance” (Farris, 2023, 2024). 15.13. Soul in Islamic philosophy In Islam, the nature of the soul is a central concern, and is not dissimilar to the soul in Christianity and Judaism (understandable because the three developed side by side during the Middle Ages, rather harmoniously, too). Building on ancient and Neo-Platonist philosophers, medieval Islamic philosophers, mainly al-Kindî, al-Farabi, Avicenna, and Averroes, developed an Islamic metaphysic of the soul by evaluating the concepts of intellect, soul, nafs and body. Especially important is nafs, which literally means “self,” but can be translated “psyche” and “soul.” In building an Islamic theory of consciousness, the relationship between the soul and body is shaped by the unification of the soul with the body, the soul's effect on the body, the soul's independence, the state of the body, the separation of the soul after the body's death, and whether the soul preserves its individuality (Islamic Soul-Body, 2020). Avicenna has the soul in an accidental relation to a particular body, given that body's need for a central organizing and sustaining principle. “The soul itself is generated by the separate intelligences of the heavens and emanated by them upon the body” (Ivry, 2012). Averroes focuses on the hierarchical structure of the soul, with each faculty sustained by a lower, more material, or less “spiritual,” faculty. Thus, the nutritive faculty is substrate for the sensory faculty, which is substrate for the common-sense faculty, which is substrate for the imaginative faculty, which is, finally, the substrate for the rational faculty. While consciousness per se is not a direct concern, it would be enriched at each level (Ivry, 2012). The Islamic scholar, teacher and classicist Hamza Yusuf describes the Islamic understanding of consciousness as “a spiritual light that God has placed into the human being.” It's not metaphor, he says, “It's a light, a spiritual light.” Noting that the term “consciousness” is relatively new and that “the pre-moderns would have had a very different view of things,” Yusuf explains that in a person's relationship with God, “the mirror of the soul has to be polished because the light cannot shine properly unless there is a polishing. Remembrance of God is how one polishes the soul.” He adds, "the human soul is considered 'aeviternal;' it has a beginning but no end" (Yusuf, 2023). Contemporary Islamic philosopher Seyyed Hossein Nasr presents a full flowering of the soul in the afterlife, similar to the Tibetan Book of the Dead or Hindu doctrines of the afterlife. In some sense, he says, development does not stop with death. “Something stops,” he says, “but the soul continues to develop” (Nasr, 2007). According to Nasr, Islam identifies paradise with a garden, which includes sexuality as well as eating—these raise, not lower, the value of paradise, he says. “All of these are to cut the soul loose from attraction to the lower reflections of these realities and have the soul gaze upon the real reality itself. That's what paradise is. And even within paradise, there are levels. The highest paradise is called the paradise of the essence, in which every single concept and idea and limited form of existence is transcended beyond the paradisal estate in the ordinary sense.” The state of the soul, Nasr says, is “meta cosmic,” a kind of merging without destruction of the individual. “It's what Meister Eckhart called ‘fusion without confusion’—a beautiful expression. It's like swimming in the ocean of divinity. To transcend that into divine unity is what you might call a bi-unity. By some great mystery, we are given the power to be conscious of our own nothingness in divinity” (Nasr, 2007). 15.14. God as the supplier of souls Many in the Abrahamic religious traditions—Judaism, Christianity, Islam—believe that God dispenses souls actively to each individual (whether at birth, conception or some arbitrary time is irrelevant here). Whether all these original souls are the same kind of tabula rasa, indistinguishable initially one from another, or whether each soul has its own particular properties or propensities, is a matter of debate. Aaron Segal addresses another anti-dualist challenge—i.e., dualism would require material things like our bodies to have the extraordinary power to generate souls ex nihilo—by invoking the God who created them. “If God exists,” he argues, “then God might well be creating those souls in accordance with the laws; otherwise, this process would happen by itself. Either way, I'm not sure how much more extravagance any of this adds to the fact that souls are coming into existence ex nihilo in the first place. God is already supposed to be able to create ex nihilo, so if God is creating the souls, this would add no more extravagance at all. If God isn't involved, there would be no agent at all creating the souls—the body would be no more of an agent than the sun is in growing trees” (Olson and Segal, 2023; Segal, 2023). A few religious denominations, especially in the Christian tradition, go further and assert that not only does God dispense a soul to each individual, but also God makes a determination, prior to or at that moment of allocation, what the future holds for that individual soul-person: the soul-person's ultimate destiny, whether that soul-person will attain salvation or be condemned to damnation. This controversial doctrine is called “predestination,” and most mainstream religions reject it (Predestination, 2024). 15.15. Personal and cosmic consciousness in Indian philosophy Theories of consciousness that developed in the ancient Indian subcontinent, based on the Vedic scriptures, focus on the relationship between individual human consciousness and cosmic consciousness. Roughly, there were two major views: each individual human consciousness is a “piece,” as it were, of the cosmic consciousness, or each individual human consciousness, in some mystical sense, is the entirety of the cosmic consciousness, even though there are innumerable instantiations of the same thing (Sarvapriyananda, 2023b; Sarvapriyananda, 2023a; Medhananda, 2023). These centers of individual consciousness would reincarnate through countless cycles of birth, death, and rebirth before a final disposition would be made, with the individual consciousness being absorbed back into the cosmic consciousness, as if a single drop of rain, having evaporated from the ocean, condenses back into it. While the main Advaita Vedanta tradition is nondualist, meaning that consciousness is the only fundamental existent and all else, including the entire physical world, is derived from consciousness, there are minority schools that maintain that the physical world has realist existence (Medhananda, 2022, 2023). Historically, and perhaps ironically, one of the oldest Indian philosophical schools, Samkhya, advocated the fundamental existence of two distinct, universal realities: prakriti is matter or nature (time, space, energy), and purusha is consciousness or spirit. While the entirety of our perceived universe is nature (prakriti), including our bodies and brains, even our minds and emotions, that which experiences the external world and the internal world of the mind is consciousness or the self (purusha). Hence, dualism (Sarvapriyananda, 2020). Swami Sarvapriyananda explains: “The Samkhyans were strict dualists. They said there is no larger consciousness. Each of us is an individual consciousness” (Sarvapriyananda, 2023b). According to Swami Medhananda, Samkhya is indeed dualist. It is founded on the eternal purusha (spirit or self), which alone is sentient; it is the witness-consciousness; it is absolute, independent, free, beyond perception, above any experience by mind or senses, and impossible to describe in words. Everything else (including the mind) is only a modification of insentient prakriti (primordial nature); it is inactive, unconscious, and is a balance of the three gunas (qualities or innate tendencies) (Medhananda, 2022; Samkhya, 2024). As Swami Vivekananda explains, the English word “mind” corresponds to what Samkhya philosophers call the antaḥkaraṇa (internal organ), which comprises four aspects: the cogitating or thinking faculty; the will (or the intellect); the self-conscious egotism; and the substance in and through which all the faculties act, the floor of the mind as it were. Swami Vivekananda describes the Samkhyan approach to consciousness: “Mind, intelligence, will, and everything else is insentient. But they are all reflecting the sentiency, the cit [consciousness] of some being who is beyond all this, whom the Samkhya philosophers call puruṣha.” Thus, Samkhya has a metaphysical dualism between conscious spirit and insentient matter. Fundamentally, even the mind (antaḥkaraṇa) is actually a subtle form of insentient matter, but it appears to be conscious because of the “light” of the puruṣha behind it (Medhananda, 2022). In other words, the body/brain is “a gross form of matter” and the mind is “a subtle form of matter”—and the soul is necessary to “illuminate the mind with consciousness” (Medhananda, 2023). Souls have always existed; souls are not created by God or by anything else; souls are part of the divine consciousness. How then do we each have our own unique conscious perspective? Swami Medhananda's mechanism is that "the one divine consciousness playfully limits itself" in the form of each person's private consciousnesss (Medhananda, 2023). To enrich contemporary debate about consciousness, Swami Medhananda calls for considering the relevance and epistemic credentials of meditative techniques and spiritual experience. Doing such, he says, would bring philosophy of mind into fruitful dialogue with philosophy of religion (Medhananda, 2022). Indian philosopher and yogi (and nationalist) Sri Aurobindo envisions an ongoing, progressing evolution of consciousness as a prime feature of world meaning and human purpose. “He holds that the human mind is much too imperfect a type of consciousness to be the final resting point of nature, and that just as life developed out of matter, and mind out of life, a still higher form of consciousness is bound to develop out of the mind” (Cornelissen, 2004). Sri Aurobindo bases the ontology of his evolutionary consciousness on the Vedāntic view of consciousness, which, in one telling, says that “consciousness is pervasive throughout reality and that it manifests as a range of ever-higher gradations of consciousness and being.” In each category of reality, consciousness has its tailored form. “In matter, consciousness is fully engrossed in its own existence and shows itself only as matter's habit of form and its tendency to obey fixed laws. In plant and animal life, consciousness begins to emancipate a little, there are the first signs of exchange, of giving and taking, of feelings, drives and emotions. In the human mind we see a further emancipation of consciousness in the first appearance of an ability to ‘play with ideas in one's mind’ and to rise above the immediate situation.” The mind, however, constitutes opposing characteristics. On the one hand, it is “the plane of objective, generalized statements, ideas, thoughts, intelligence, etc.” On the other hand, it “is also an inveterate divider, making distinctions between subject and object, I and thou, things and other things” (Cornelissen, 2004). From the Vedic perspective, “ordinary human mentality is considered to be only the most primitive form of mental consciousness, most ego-bound, most dependent on the physical senses. Above it there is the unitary Higher Mind of self-revealed wisdom, the Illumined Mind where truths are seen rather than thought, the plane of the Intuitive Mind where truth is inevitable and perfect, and finally the cosmic Overmind, the mind of the Gods, comprehensive, all-encompassing.” But one must rise beyond all of them to find ultimate perfection, “one with the divine consciousness that upholds the universe” (Cornelissen, 2004). While various spiritual traditions have set life's highest goal as connecting or even merging with the absolute consciousness, Sri Aurobindo distinguishes his vision by announcing, “It is at this moment for the first time becoming possible to let a supramental consciousness enter into one's being and transform it in every respect.” It is this “comprehensive, supramental transformation of all aspects of human nature” that is the central theme of Sri Aurobindo's work—and it is his grand prediction that human progress via the evolution of consciousness will eventually bring about “supramental consciousness as much an intrinsic, ‘natural’ part of earthly life as our ordinary mentality is now” (Cornelissen, 2004). According to Ravi Gomatam, a quantum physicist and a monk of the Gaudiya Vaishnava (GV) Vedanta school of India, GV Vedanta is monotheistic, with a pluralist ontology that distinguishes between the energetic personal God (shaktiman) and the diverse energies (shaktis) such as consciousness and matter, which emanate from God. Both the energetic personal God (the Universal "I”) and his diverse energies, which include consciousness and matter, are ontologically real. While the material atoms lack consciousness and therefore are indistinguishable, the plane of non-material consciousness comprises innumerable individual units of consciousness, each with its own unique “I” (Gomatam, 2021). Yet, Gomatam says, GV Vedanta is uniquely compatible with the materialistic perspective informing modern cognitive science—namely that thinking, feeling, willing, intelligence, and even our present sense of “I” spring entirely from matter. This is via the GV Vedanta idea that many properties of consciousness can be separated from consciousness and instantiated in appropriate complementary “levels of matter,” a novel technical concept that Gomatam is introducing through his work in the foundations of quantum mechanics. He says it is different from the prevailing idea of hierarchy of matter at various scales in physics. The color, size and shape of an apple can be instantiated on paper. A plastic apple may instantiate even further properties of the apple, such as its 3-dimensional shape, weight and texture. In either case, the apple itself is not reduced to the painting or the plastic object that instantiates its properties. Similarly, Gomatam explains, GV Vedanta allows various traits of consciousness to be instantiated sans consciousness in matter at various “levels” of matter, which are mutually exclusive, causal realms that complement one another, with each higher level not being constituted by its lower levels (Gomatam, 1987). Even though matter instantiates properties such as thinking, feeling, experience and even an “I” via an apparent self onto these levels of matter, matter itself is not aware it carries these cognitive and affective properties. Only consciousness can know matter has these properties. GV Vedanta further explains that we mistake these materially instantiated traits to be part of our intrinsic consciousness due to maya (illusion), imposed upon the individual souls in the material world by the Universal Person (purushottama), from whom all individual “I”s emanate, but who is different from them. In this way, Gomatam suggests that GV Vedanta can contribute novel, sophisticated notions of levels of matter to instantiate various features of consciousness, without reducing consciousness itself to matter. Gomatam points out that here GV Vedanta differs from Advaita Vedanta, which holds both matter and individual “I”s to be ultimately non-existent, and admits only an impersonal Universal “I”. Jainism and Buddhism, two other schools of Indian thought, additionally treat the Universal “I,” personal or impersonal, to be also non-existent (Gomatam, 2021). 15.16. Soul in indigenous religions The concept of the soul, in multifarious forms, has infused indigenous and folk religions throughout the world, and although we tend to categorize these ancient belief systems as “pre-modern” and “pre-scientific,” lacking the sophistication of the major Eastern and Abrahamic traditions, we may be remiss not to recognize the data and to assess its implications (if any). The geographic ubiquity of soul belief, spanning the globe and including all racial and cultural groups, and its resiliency over time, should not be ignored. The cognitive science of religion, a relatively recent field of inquiry, can account for beliefs in supernatural agents and entities, from souls and ghosts to angels and gods (Barrett, 2000; Boyer, 2001; Lawson, 1993). Psychologist Justin Barrett's idea of a “hyperactive agent detection device” can explain why human beings evolved concepts of gods and spirits. (Barrett asserts that this evolved psychological mechanism is agnostic on whether such gods and spirits would actually exist: “Having a scientific explanation for mental phenomena does not mean we should stop believing in them,” he says [Barrett, 2012].) Although the soul in indigenous religions is often more a vital principle or an immanent power resident in all animate and even inanimate objects, not a non-physical substance in each individual, there is wide recognition of spiritual aspects of human beings. While it is not fruitful to try to discern the metaphysics of what is designated by some aborigines as "spirit of the man," or "spirit in the man," there is certainly widespread belief in the existence of forces, powers and entities beyond their physical worlds (Rivière, 1987, 2005). Whether these beliefs can be classified as substance dualism as presently conceived is debatable, although numerous examples show that “there exists a quite noticeable distinction between the body element and the diversity of spiritual entities that one may call ‘souls’ for the sake of convenience, entities that may have the body as a prop.” What James Frazer in The Golden Bough called the “external soul” has some characteristics of dualism's souls or spirits, such as the capacity to depart the body during dreams. (Differences include, for example, the external soul living in an animal double or in one's shadow.) The origin of the indigenous soul, compared with that of dualism's soul, also has similarities (e.g., coming from an almighty spirit) and differences (e.g., obtained as a gift or by conquest or by choice). The Ewe of Togo use specific, separate terms for the "substance of the soul" and the "breath of life," and believe that the individual, before incarnation, exists as a spirit, and together with the supreme creator (Mawu-Lisa) he or she chooses their own destiny. Other indigenous groups have very physical means to obtain souls, such as pilgrimage, fasting, eating, combat and killing (Rivière, 1987, 2005). Regarding its destiny after death, souls can reach new worlds in which to live or be transmitted as a vital force to descendants. The majority believe that after death their ancestors live in another world. Many African religions focus on ancestors, who, in some cases, can reincarnate in a newborn baby. The Native American Dakota have four types of souls (given by the sky god): one is judged after death—if deserving, one's soul enters the world of spirits; if not, it must wander forever. Almost everywhere, the soul after death involves a gradual purification through a series of trials. The ultimate destination is a celestial space or an undifferentiated earth-based place (underground, marshes, desert). While living in the other world, the dead person can be present elsewhere; as a specter or a ghost (Rivière, 1987, 2005). In Chinese folk religion, the majority of supernatural beings are thought to originate from the "souls" of dead people (Harrell, 1979). Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) is said to engage “a deeper level of consciousness that touches various organs of the human body.” Every organ is in some sense involved in consciousness. This includes the brain, of course, but it also includes the liver, the kidney, the heart, etc. each with its own essence or contribution, thus forming “an integrated consciousness system.” “Shen” (神) is the TCM concept corresponding to “consciousness” and the classic TCM text (Huangdi Neijing) describes “how to understand the meaning of Shen in the heart, soul in the liver, meaning in the spleen, soul in the lungs, essence in the kidney, and will.” According to TCM theory, “the human body is a little universe. Things outside the body form the big universe. These outside and inside universes are closely connected together in one holistic overall system.” The claim is that this idea corresponds to the cognitive-science concepts of embodiment, specifically Ecological Psychology (9.6.7) and Embodied Cognition (9.6.1) (Lu et al., 2022). The imaginative varieties of indigenous souls reflect the richness and abundance of human creativity. The Fang of Gabon name seven types of souls: three disappear at death; two persevere after death; one is a disincarnated spirit (which can appear as a ghost); and one is “both shadow and soul.” (Harrell, 1979). While these “souls” are not dualist substances, they reflect aspects of dualism. No claim is made that souls in indigenous religions, however ubiquitous, corroborate dualism as a theory of consciousness. On the other hand, the substantial and similar anthropological data should at least be acknowledged. 15.17. Realms of the soul Many, I'd say most, religious traditions present elaborate levels or stages or realms of the soul, accommodating the soul and its elaborate journeys before birth and after death—Yogācāra Buddhism, Sufism in Islam, Kabbalah in Judaism, Christian mysticism, occult sects such as Theosophy (15.18). These religions espouse different doctrines superficially, but the complex, multi-level, multi-dimensional, geometric structures of the habitats of the soul—the bewildering imagery of what souls are, where they come from, where they go, what they do—look remarkably alike. While such visions of the soul do not address directly the essence of consciousness, the fact that they espouse a nonphysical substance or entity, the soul, that is prominent, primitive, and permanent makes personal consciousness derivative and hence also nonphysical. Yet, all this means little for purposes of this dualism category. In no way does any of this, in no way does all of this, add verisimilitude to the story of souls, but humanity's fascination, obsession, with souls cannot be denied. 15.18. Theosophy's eclectic soul and consciousness Soul and consciousness are core doctrines of Theosophy, an occult amalgam of esoteric ideas from Western and Eastern religions, traditions and philosophies. Theosophy defines itself as “Wisdom-religion” or "Divine Wisdom,” and considers itself “The substratum and basis of all the world-religions and philosophies, taught and practiced by a few elect ever since man became a thinking being” (Theosophy, 2023). Theosophy's “soul” describes three of the seven principles that are said to compose human beings: animal soul (astral body, astral shape, and the animal or physical intelligence); human soul (“a compound in its highest form, of spiritual aspirations, volitions, and divine love; and in its lower aspect, of animal desires and terrestrial passions imparted to it by its associations with its vehicle, the seat of all these”); spiritual soul (“irrational in the sense that as a pure emanation of the Universal mind it can have no individual reason of its own on this plane of matter”) (Soul, 2023). The Secret Doctrine, Theosophy's primary text (written by its founder, Madame Blavatsky), speaks of consciousness as “the dark mystery of non-Being; unconscious, yet absolute Consciousness; unrealisable, yet the one self-existing reality.” The state of consciousness is described as “beyond limitation, and hence is beyond the cognizer, cognition and cognized.” It is the state attained in Nirvana, a state “in which all sense of individuality is merged in the whole” (Consciousness, Absolute, n.d.). Theosophy approaches personal consciousness “as sentience or awareness of internal and external existence.” In this view, Theosophy's consciousness “includes any kind of cognition, experience, feeling, or perception.” A special case of consciousness is "self-consciousness" or "self-awareness," which is “the experience or perception of one's own personality or individuality.” Theosophy's consciousness is “a fundamental (not an emergent) property of the cosmos, which is present in everything including inorganic matter.” The implication of this universal ubiquity is that “consciousness is not necessarily a cognitive function as normally experienced by humans, but rather the more basic ability to perceive and respond to the environment in some form.” Thus, Theosophy regards each individual atom as “possessing a principle of consciousness in its most basic form. This does not mean that there is some process of thinking in the atom.” Rather, "’atomic consciousness' could be its ability to ‘perceive’ or ‘identify’ atoms with which it has affinity, responding to them by forming molecules” (Consciousness, 2023). In Theosophy's telling, there are many levels of consciousness, “depending on the plane or body through which it manifests.” In addition, the difference between consciousness and self-consciousness is also important, “since the latter is said to be a special feature that is fully developed only in human beings, especially in connection to the physical plane” (Consciousness, 2023). A contemporary Theosophy thinker is Edi Bilimoria, an engineer, classical musician and life-long student of perennial philosophy. He takes “Unfolding Consciousness” as his overarching framework “to show how the Universal Wisdom Tradition—the Perennial Philosophy—and the corroboration of some of its tenets by enlightened science of the quantum era, broadens and contextualises mainstream science beyond its existing metaphysical limitations.” He explores, “in the manner of the Universal Wisdom Tradition, the unfolding of Consciousness from its Unmanifest and Implicate realms, through Cosmos, and Man.” Mind and consciousness, he contends, cannot be wholly explained without in-depth understanding of “the subtle (i.e., non-physical) bodies of the human being on all levels” (Bilimoria, 2022; Bilimoria, n.d.). 15.19. Steiner's esoteric soul and consciousness The esotericist, philosopher and spiritual teacher Rudolf Steiner had a complex and changing relationship with Theosophy, from apologist and thought leader to competitor and reprobate. He developed a large following in his time, which to some degree continues. His “spiritual science” sought to expand knowledge and wisdom (Steiner, 2024.) Consciousness, particularly the evolution of consciousness, is central to Steiner's belief system and spiritual teachings. He explains “how it is possible to develop higher faculties of consciousness—Imagination, Inspiration, and Intuition”—and how humanity could “gradually take in hand its own destiny through the conscious and free development of spiritual capacities.” He devoted much of his teaching to the esoterica of consciousness and soul, describing vividly “one's life after death and the progress of the individual through the planetary spheres where tasks and goals for future incarnations are prepared in cooperation with the spiritual beings of the Hierarchies” (Steiner, 1923a). Steiner differentiates consciousness from “soul life,” though they are obviously related. His consciousness is a “continuous stream of visualizations,” while it is “not the same thing as the continuous stream of the soul life.” Moreover, “a visualization can live on in the soul without entering consciousness.” This relates to memories, which are usually not conscious and are held in our soul life, and “in order to be conscious of them [memories] we must first call them up out of the unconscious life of the soul by an act of will.” Consciousness, Steiner says, “illuminates but a part of the soul life” (Steiner, 1909). Steiner defines consciousness in (at least) two ways: (i) the overlapping in the present of the current (streams or flows) of emotions coming out of the future and the current of visualizations flowing out of the past; and (ii) the meeting of the astral and etheric bodies (Steiner, 1909, 1923b). What does this mean? Steiner states that “the riddles of consciousness will be solved and the whole peculiar nature of the soul life clarified if you start with the premise that the current of desire, love and hate comes to meet you out of the future, and meets the current of visualizations flowing out of the past into the future. At every moment you are actually in the midst of this encounter of the two streams, and considering that the present moment of your soul life consists of such a meeting, you will readily understand that these two currents overlap in your soul. This overlapping is consciousness” (Steiner, 1909). To get a sense of how such overlapping happens, one begins with Steiner's description of the human being as having seven distinct members, the first three of which are “bodies”—physical, etheric, astral—and the fourth is Ego or I. The physical body covers the workings of physics and chemistry. The etheric body or “life body” describes forces or energy fields that are spatial and take the form of our physical body. The astral body expresses affect, feelings and emotions, and has “movements,” such as expansion and contraction (reflecting positive and negative emotions, respectively). To Steiner, how these bodies articulate is critical. For example, “throughout the whole of an earthly life the physical body and the etheric remain together, never separating even when, in sleep, the etheric body and the astral body have to part company.” Similarly, the Ego and the astral body never “part from one another during life on Earth. In our waking state we give life to our senses through our Ego, and through the astral body to our nervous system” (Steiner, 1923b). Two critical elements are: (i) “clairvoyant consciousness about the etheric and astral bodies,” and (ii) “the intersection of the two streams … the two currents meet in the physical body.” In this way, Steiner harmonizes his two definitions of consciousness—overlapping streams of emotions from the future and of visualizations from the past, and the meeting of the astral and etheric bodies, the two streams intersecting in the physical body. What happens “when a man passes through the gate of death,” as Steiner puts it? To simplify, “The etheric body detaches itself from the physical body—something that never happens during earthly life. And now, when the etheric body is free of the physical, all that has been interwoven into the etheric body is gradually dispersed … the experiences that have gradually penetrated into the etheric body … pass out into the universal cosmic ether, and dissolve.” Steiner offers an intricate tapestry of the worlds beyond death: spiritual beings, a speaking universe, uniting with the whole Cosmos, the music of the spheres, rebirths, and more (I spare the reader the details) (Steiner, 1923b). 15.20. Nonphysical component in the human mind This theory of consciousness is a generalized notion that in order to make the human mind, some kind of “nonphysical component,” working with the human brain, might be needed. It is the speculative position I took in my first paper, published in 1969, where I emphasized that such a hypothetical nonphysical component would not be a traditional immortal soul (Kuhn, 1969). I did not impute to this nonphysical component, on its own, consciousness or any kind of awareness, only its (potential) power, when working with the human brain, to transform the human brain into the human mind. I can almost find, if I stretch, parallels or resonance with Polkinghorne's “information-bearing pattern.” (14.5) and Van Inwagen's “naked kernel” (10.3). Here I distinguish human mind from consciousness, which we presume to exist in many animals. Few doubt that mammals such as primates, dogs, and cetaceans are conscious and have mental experiences. Human mind and consciousness are like intersecting, non-overlapping Venn diagrams: some but not all of human mind is consciousness, and some (but not all) of consciousness is human mind; stated in reverse, aspects of human mind go beyond consciousness and instances of consciousness go beyond human mind. My 1969 conjecture was that a “nonphysical component” might be needed to explain the vast difference between the mental outputs of humans and other mammals, especially those whose brains are larger than human brains. To pursue the speculation, if consciousness per se requires some kind of dualist theory, and if human mentality is step-function qualitatively superior to any animal mentality, it might follow that if a certain kind of nonphysical component is needed for human consciousness, then perhaps a different nonphysical component structure is needed for animal consciousness. To crawl farther out on this shaky limb, such a nonphysical component difference between humans and animals could come about in two ways: (i) human and animal consciousness have different kinds of nonphysical components; or (ii) there is one kind of nonphysical component for pure consciousness, applicable to both humans and other animals equally, and another kind of nonphysical component that transforms basic animal consciousness into human consciousness. (Undaunted by nested speculations, I had a curious Bible story where this might apply.53) Suffice it to say that I wrote my “nonphysical component” paper more than 55 years prior to writing this paper, so I ask that my views (and my style) then should not color too darkly my views now. (Well, maybe just a bit of coloring is fair …) 16. Idealisms Idealism is consciousness as ultimate reality, the fullness of the deepest level of all existence, the singular fundamental existent. It is the theory of consciousness that takes consciousness to its maximum meaning. The focus here is ontological idealism, where ultimate reality is mind or awareness or thought, while everything else, including all physical worlds and universes and all that they contain, are derivative or illusionary. (I do not consider epistemological idealism, where all we can know is constrained by the structure of human thought.) (Guyer and Horstmann, 2023). Consciousness as ultimate reality is the age-old claim, rooted in some wisdom traditions, that the only reality that's “really real” is consciousness—everything else, from physical laws to physical brains, is the generative product of an all-pervading and all-encompassing “cosmic consciousness.” Each individual instance of consciousness—human, animal, artificial or otherwise—is a subset of this cosmic consciousness, the ultimate superset. Idealism has a rich intellectual history, especially in the 18th century (e.g., Berkeley, Kant) and 19th century (e.g., Hegel, Bradley); it was anticipated by elements of 17th century philosophy and continued to develop into the 20th century (Guyer and Horstmann, 2023). Though often eliciting “the incredulous stare" (in David Lewis's delightful phrase), Idealism is taken seriously by philosophers. Moreover, it is the foundation of major religious traditions, especially among those that arose in ancient India. To the surprise of some, Idealism as a theory of consciousness has not been fading in light of scientific advances. If anything, Idealism's explanatory star seems on the ascent, shining brighter, as consciousness maintains its mysteries and Idealism attracts more adherents. David Chalmers muses, “One starts as a materialist, then one becomes a dualist, then a panpsychist, and one ends up as an idealist. I don't know where this comes from, but I think the idea was something like this. First, one is impressed by the successes of science, endorsing materialism about everything and so about the mind. Second, one is moved by problem of consciousness to see a gap between physics and consciousness, thereby endorsing dualism, where both matter and consciousness are fundamental. Third, one is moved by the inscrutability of matter to realize that science reveals at most the structure of matter and not its underlying nature, and to speculate that this nature may involve consciousness, thereby endorsing panpsychism. Fourth, one comes to think that there is little reason to believe in anything beyond consciousness and that the physical world is wholly constituted by consciousness, thereby endorsing idealism” (Chalmers, 2020d). Chalmers defines idealism broadly “as the thesis that the universe is fundamentally mental, or perhaps that all concrete facts are grounded in mental facts. As such it is meant as a global metaphysical thesis analogous to physicalism, the thesis that the universe is fundamentally physical, or perhaps that all concrete facts are grounded in physical facts. The only difference is that ‘physical’ is replaced by ‘mental.’” Idealists are not necessarily committed to anti-realist views about the physical world, though some are, especially among Eastern traditions. It is perfectly coherent for an idealist to regard the physical world as “real” in the sense that it exists when no one is looking; “it just has a surprising nature,” having been formed from mental fundamentals (Chalmers, 2020d). Chalmers distinguishes three types of idealism. (i) “Micro-idealism is the thesis that concrete reality is wholly grounded in micro-level mentality: that is, in mentality associated with fundamental microscopic entities (such as quarks and photons).” (ii) “Macro-idealism is the thesis that concrete reality is wholly grounded in macro-level mentality: that is, in mentality associated with macroscopic (middle-sized) entities such as humans and perhaps non-human animals.” (iii) “Cosmic idealism is the thesis that concrete reality is wholly grounded in cosmic mentality: that is, in mentality associated with the cosmos as a whole or with a single cosmic entity (such as the universe or a deity)” (Chalmers, 2020d). Thus, micro-idealism has all fundamental forces and particles as entirely (not in part) mental; macro-idealism privileges what we commonly call mental as somehow constituting the foundations of reality; and cosmic idealism can be conceived as kinds of pantheism or theism, though not the dominant strands, of course. Moreover, there is resonance between these three kinds of idealism with three similar kinds of panpsychism, the rough difference being that whereas in panpsychism the mental, while everywhere, is not everything; in idealism, the mental is both everything and everywhere. To Huston Smith, world religion expert and devotee, matter is not fundamental, but consciousness is. “Matter is like an iceberg protruding out of the sea of consciousness.” Consciousness can never be destroyed, he said, but “can oscillate between different forms,” which leads, he recognizes, to the issue of death. “We know what our consciousness is like; we can't explain it, but we can experience it. What will it be when we drop our body? Well, what we can say is if consciousness is the fundamental reality and it can't be destroyed, consciousness will continue. The light on the television screen will never go out. Now what the image on that screen will be after death, after we drop the body, we do not know. That's the ultimate mystery” (Smith, 2007). To philosopher-theological scholar David Bentley Hart, “reason abhors a dualism, all phenomena should ideally be reducible to a single, simpler, more capacious model of reality. So, then, rather than banishing mind from our picture of nature, perhaps we should reconsider the ancient intuition that nature and mind are not alien to one another precisely because nature already possesses a rational structure analogous to thought” (Hart, 2022b). Not sufficiently contrarian, Hart then considers “the ground of the possibility [that] regular physical causation is a deeper logical coinherence of rational relations underlying all reality.” Perhaps, more to his point, “mind inhabits physical nature not as an anomaly, but as a revelation of the deepest essence of everything that exists.” 16.1. Indian cosmic consciousness Consciousness is central to the philosophical and religious traditions that emerged on the ancient Indian subcontinent, perhaps more central to Indian philosophy and religion than it is to any other global tradition. The sophistication and subtleties of the millennia-long discussions on consciousness in Indian traditions have enriched human understanding of, and appreciation for, consciousness as core of human sentience. All the schools of ancient Indian philosophy were concerned with ideas about consciousness and self, which were based on the Upanishads, the late Vedic, sacred Sanskrit texts (800-300 BCE). Although the motivation was often the perennial question, “How does one [Self] overcome suffering?”, the explorations developed sophisticated philosophies and subtle ontologies (Sarvapriyananda, 2020; Sarvapriyananda, 2023a). Speaking on Closer To Truth, Swami Sarvapriyananda explains why ancient Indian thinkers of all varieties—Hindus, Buddhists, Jains, etc.—were so interested in consciousness. Their central quest was to overcome suffering, he reiterates, to attain liberation of the self. “Once you do that, you see immediately that consciousness and the self are very intimately connected. I am obviously conscious. I am aware. And it is in my awareness that I experience suffering, and the struggle to liberate myself from suffering. But all of it requires consciousness. Even the search for God requires consciousness” (Sarvapriyananda, 2023b). Sarvapriyananda defines consciousness as “that to which everything else appears.” So, this world, he asks, “Is it consciousness? No. Nothing in this world is consciousness because it's an object to you. Is this body consciousness? No. Because it's an object to you. Now, what about the mind, our thoughts and emotions, which would normally be taken as related to consciousness? By this elegant definition of consciousness as ‘that to which everything else appears,’ can you designate this thought or this emotion subjectively from your perspective? You can. And if you can, then even thoughts and emotions are also objects to consciousness. The result is that consciousness is clearly distinguished from all objects. Whatever appears to you belongs to material nature. And consciousness is not that. Consciousness does exactly one thing. It gives you a first-person experience” (Sarvapriyananda, 2023b). (“Consciousness” is the usual translation of the Vedantic term “Chaitanya,” although alternative English words, such as “awareness” and “sentience,” are also used.) The preeminence of consciousness, both intrinsically and to the self, elicited a wide diversity of speculation about what consciousness is, and how it arises and functions. “Indian philosophy had different schools, and they argued with each other fiercely. Each of the schools fashioned its own approach to consciousness and to its relationship with self. The range of beliefs parallels consciousness studies today, from materialist-reductionism to idealism. Although the ancient Indian materialists (Charvakas) were a popular school, the dominant theme of the primary Vedanta schools, especially Advaita Vedanta, became nondual idealism, ‘nondualism’” (Sarvapriyananda, 2020). Other schools said there are two kinds of consciousness: a personal consciousness associated with individual bodies and minds, and a cosmic consciousness associated with all bodies and minds. “You are the consciousness associated with your body and mind. And God is the consciousness associated with all bodies and minds. God is cosmic consciousness” (Sarvapriyananda, 2023b). “But this goes further,” Swami Sarvapriyananda says. “How does consciousness interact with material nature? There were multiple answers from multiple schools. One is that material nature is real, and consciousness is just an expression of material nature. (There were modern materialists in ancient India!) The second school says that the universe is produced from consciousness. And who says that? Every theistic school in the world says that. If God is the creator God, and God is obviously conscious, then in some sense, consciousness produces the material universe. These are the dualists. The third school is the Samkhyan, where consciousness and matter are parallel; neither produces the other; both are fundamental, irreducible realities.” The fourth, Advaita Vedanta, Swami Sarvapriyananda's own school, is nondualist, “which means that you cannot solve the interaction problem. If consciousness and matter are fundamentally different, then there is no way they could interact. Where would be the place, the boundary, where interaction could occur?” So, not being able to solve the interaction problem, what to do? “Let's just stick to our experience,” he advises. “What is matter? That which appears in consciousness. And if matter appears in consciousness, then matter can be reduced to consciousness. Thus, the materialist reduces consciousness to matter, the nondualist reduces matter to consciousness” (Sarvapriyananda, 2023b). Advaita Vedanta, a monistic system, eradicates the dualistic dichotomy between consciousness and its object. Even more fundamental than the mind is nondual pure consciousness. The term for this ultimate consciousness is Brahman, “the vast” or “the limitless” (literally, "that which expands into everything"), and it is the key concept that unifies the consciousness of the individual with the consciousness of the cosmos, which is the fundamental, nondual reality of the universe. Rather than conceiving of prakriti/nature as a transformation of purusa/consciousness, in Advaita Vedanta, prakriti is considered an appearance of purusa (Sarvapriyananda, 2020). In the succinct expression of the Mandukya, the briefest of the major Upanishads, “Brahman is all, and the Self is Brahman.” Thus, Advaita Vedanta's nondualism asserts that each individual soul, in some literal sense, is non-different from the infinite Brahman. “You are that underlying reality, Brahman. Not you as the body; not you as the mind; not even you as the person you think yourself to be, but as an underlying consciousness that shines through, functions through, and expresses itself through this body-mind complex.” Swami Vivekananda, who introduced Vedanta to Western audiences, put it this way: “If only you knew yourselves as you truly are.” Not as a body, bound to age, decay, and die; not even as a mind, a changing, limited personality, but as an unlimited consciousness expressing itself through a mind and a body (Sarvapriyananda, 2020). The modern Hindu sage Bhagavan Sri Ramana Maharshi clarified the fundamental principles of Advaita Vedanta, as explained by philosopher/translator Michael James, an expert on Sri Ramana. With regard to consciousness, “Sri Ramana highlighted the distinction between transitive awareness (suṭṭaṟivu in Tamil) and intransitive awareness (suṭṭaṯṟa aṟivu). Transitive awareness is awareness that knows objects or phenomena, whereas intransitive awareness is awareness that knows nothing other than itself. In classical Advaita Vedanta, intransitive awareness is called pure consciousness (śuddha caitanya), because it is consciousness devoid of any content, and being-consciousness (sat-cit), not only because it is conscious only of its own being, ‘I am’, but also because it is the consciousness (cit) that is itself pure being (sat), meaning that it is what alone actually exists, so it is the one real substance (vastu) from which all other things derive their seeming existence, just as gold ornaments derive their existence from gold. Transitive awareness, on the other hand, is called cidābhāsa, meaning that it is an ābhāsa (semblance, likeness or reflection) of consciousness (cit), because it is not real consciousness, since it is consciousness of things that do not actually exist but merely seem to exist, like all the things seen in a dream. Only consciousness of what actually exists is real consciousness, and since what actually exists is only pure consciousness, it alone is real consciousness” (James, 2012, 2024). However, according to James, “these are not two separate consciousnesses, but two forms of the one and only consciousness, one form of which is consciousness as it actually is, namely intransitive awareness, and the other form of which is an unreal appearance, namely transitive awareness. Intransitive awareness is real because it is permanent, unchanging, self-existent and self-shining. It is self-existent because it exists independent of all other things, and it is self-shining because it shines by its own light of consciousness, underived from anything else. Transitive awareness, on the other hand, is impermanent and constantly changing, and it is neither self-existent nor self-shining, because it derives its seeming existence from the real existence of intransitive awareness and it shines by the light of consciousness that it borrows from intransitive awareness. Intransitive awareness is therefore the reality that underlies and supports the illusory appearance of transitive awareness, just as a rope is the reality that underlies and supports the illusory appearance of a snake. That is, we cannot be aware of anything without being aware, but we can be aware without being aware of anything, so intransitive awareness is primary and fundamental whereas transitive awareness is secondary and emergent” (James, 2024). Sri Ramana concluded that “transitive awareness (awareness of anything other than ourself) is an unreal appearance, and that the only real consciousness is pure intransitive awareness (awareness of nothing other than our own being). That is, consciousness or awareness is not an object but the reality of the subject, so no objective investigation can enable us to know consciousness as it actually is. Since we ourself are consciousness, in order to know ourself as we actually are, we need to turn our entire attention back on ourself, away from all other things”—a practice Sri Ramana called self-investigation (ātma-vicāra), which means “keeping our attention fixed firmly on what we actually are, namely our fundamental awareness ‘I am’, which is our very being, so he also called this practice ‘awareness-investigation’ (jñāna-vicāra)” (James, 2012, 2024). According to artist and computer scientist Ganapathy Subramaniam, Brahman as "Consciousness/Awareness/Self" can be compacted to “I”. While all things can be reduced to this “I,” this “I” cannot be reduced (i.e., the Vedanta fundamental irreducible is in the first person). So, when Vedanta says, “I am that,” meaning “I am the fundamental,” it does not mean that the individual person is fundamental; rather the irreducible I is the fundamental. This leads to the declaration, "Atman is Brahman," meaning, "The Individual Consciousness is the same as Universal Consciousness" (which is the irreducible "I") (Subramaniam, 2023). Subramaniam states that “reincarnation and the interrelated concept of karma are stepping stones to understand ultimate truth. Understanding ultimate truth is called Nirvana. It's nothing more nothing less.” How do the multiple reincarnations "stop" with Nirvana? he asks rhetorically. “Nirvana means apprehending that the concept of births and deaths is an illusion and the consciousness that you truly are, does not get born or die. Consciousness is fundamental. and you are that. This is the only truth, and this obviously negates reincarnation—which is the true meaning of the statement that ‘Once you achieve Nirvana, you no longer reincarnate.’ It's simply a logical conclusion from the definition of Nirvana.” “Indian thought is layered and progressive, and as you move through the layers you need to abandon and evolve out of the previous one,” Subramaniam says. “Within mainstream Indian thought you have Karma theory as well as negation of Karma theory. If you look at both at the same time, it appears to be a contradiction. But if you look at both as a progression, it fits in well.” Consciousness qua consciousness is “incapable of experiences,” Subramaniam contends, “so, only a person (or any sentient) is capable of physical and mental experience. When you investigate who ‘you’ are, you will logically arrive at the conclusion that ‘you’ are not the person.” But you will still be experiencing all the events of life, accumulating experiences, much like in a dream or a novel or a movie or a video game. But the fact is you are not the person. Nobody is ever the person they think they are or as they appear to be. And it all converges to the singular consciousness” (Subramaniam, 2023). In that Advaita Vedanta's central teaching is “That Thou Art,” with “That” representing God and “Thou” standing for the individual, how to counter the charge of blasphemy, equating oneself with God? The Advaita exculpatory answer is that when the limited personality is transcended, the divinity within is revealed. Each soul is potentially divine. (Reasoning in reverse, the Advaita Vedanta system claims to prove the existence of God in that “our own existence is the existence of God”—although the reasoning, at least superficially, has a touch of circularity.) Concisely, with respect to consciousness, the central paradigm of Advaita Vedanta is that there is only one nondual reality, which is consciousness, and it is this all-pervading cosmic consciousness that is our individual consciousness and generates our first-person inner experiences (qualia) (Sarvapriyananda, 2020). Naturally, within Hinduism, different traditions understand the nature of consciousness in different ways, but most of them do take consciousness to be fundamental (Medhananda, 2023). One school follows the tradition of Sri Ramakrishna (a 19th century mystic in India), and his view was that while consciousness is fundamental, the one divine consciousness is not just impersonal but also personal, and that everything in the universe in reality is one and the same Divine Consciousness, even though everything in the universe in appearance, manifests as various and diverse forms. (This might compare to the Western metaphysics of panentheistic cosmopsychism, according to which the sole reality is one cosmic consciousness, which grounds all of the individual-level consciousnesses.) (Medhananda, 2022). Aphorisms give flavor. The soul/consciousness is smaller than the smallest, larger than the largest, and is everything everywhere all at once. Consciousness localized is Body; globalized is Mind; universalized is Soul; and synchronized is Life. To understand properly Advaita Vedanta's conception of consciousness, one must introduce reincarnation, the guiding belief in most India-based religious traditions that the soul goes through innumerable, perhaps endless, cycles of birth-death-rebirth. Without discussing reincarnation as a doctrine, with its (to be expected) myriad nuances, suffice it to say that reincarnation works to distinguish among soul, self and consciousness. While the underlying soul may be in a sense immortal, its consciousness is contingent on its current incarnation, with scant, if any, awareness of its prior existences (although the karma of past lives would influence the condition of future lives). Relating consciousness to ultimate reality, Swami Sarvapriyananda explains what it means that “Brahman, the ultimate reality, is limitless existence, limitless consciousness, existence and consciousness without limit.” Without limit, he says, “should be understood technically as no limits in space and no limits in time, and no limits in something called ‘object limitation.’ Limit in space means it's here and it's not there. But Brahman is not something that's located in one place. It's everywhere. And limit in time means it does not exist earlier, it does not exist later. But Brahman is not something that appears and disappears. It always is. Object limitation is interesting. A table is not a chair. A horse is not a cow. But Brahman does not have object limitation. Consciousness does not have object limitation. There is no object which is other than consciousness because they are all appearances of consciousness, in consciousness, and ultimately, nothing but consciousness itself” (Sarvapriyananda, 2023b). 16.2. Buddhism's empty, illusory phenomenal consciousness Consciousness in Buddhism is sufficiently distinct, with its concepts of emptiness and illusion, it could command a prime category of its own on the Landscape, yet it also fits decently in idealism, appropriately after Hinduism. Buddhism also arose in ancient India and the legendary philosophical disputes between Hindu and Buddhist sages enriched both. Buddhist discussions of consciousness feel radically different from contemporary Western discussions, as philosopher Jay Garfield explains, yet “can be valuable sources of viable alternatives, both with respect to positions on the topic and, more fundamentally, with respect to how questions and debates are framed in the first place” (Garfield, 2015, pp. 135–136). Buddhism describes nine kinds or levels of consciousness. The first five reflect the five senses: eye consciousness, ear consciousness, nose consciousness, tongue consciousness, and body consciousness. The sixth is mind consciousness, which integrates the five senses and provides meaning. The seventh consciousness is directed inward, toward one's private thoughts and apprehends spiritual issues; it also creates the concept of self (from which all the deception is said to come because there is no entity ‘self’). The eighth consciousness is known as “storehouse consciousness” where all our experiences, actions and deeds, are in some sense “stored,” accumulating a lifetime of karma. (The eighth consciousness persists after death, unlike the first seven that cease when the body dies.) The ninth and highest consciousness, known as the Buddha nature, is the purest, forming the foundations for one's life and serving as the core of our energy and the source for all mental and spiritual activity. It cannot be affected by any of the karmic energy from the previous eight levels and attaining the ninth is to find peace and ultimate fulfillment” (Yifa, 2023; The Nine Consciousness, 2022). Garfield analyzes these nine levels of consciousness by kind. These include: “sensory and conceptual forms of consciousness; consciousness that is introspectible and consciousness that is too deep for introspection; consciousness that takes external phenomena as objects and consciousness that takes inner phenomena as objects; consciousness that is merely receptive and consciousness that is constructive and even projective. In general, the complex set of phenomena is opaque to casual introspection, and are knowable only theoretically or perhaps by highly trained meditators.” Garfield draws parallels between the nine levels and modern theories of consciousness: reflexive models of self-consciousness and self-knowledge, higher-order thought models, higher-order perception models and self-luminosity models (Garfield, 2015). Regarding the Buddhist approach to phenomenal consciousness, the story is complex. On the one hand, as Garfield puts it, “There is no phenomenal consciousness; there is nothing ‘that it is like’ to be me. To believe in phenomenal consciousness or ‘what-it-is-like-ness’ of ‘for-me-ness’ is to succumb to a pernicious form of the ‘Myth of the Given’.54.. the sense that there is such a kind of consciousness is an instance of cognitive illusion … The very idea that there is an inner world of qualitative states must be illusory” (Garfield, 2016). On the other hand, there is rich tradition of Buddhist debate about perceptual consciousness and representationalism: how inner perception articulates with external objects and what we can know about the relationship. The Yogācāra school goes for idealism, “arguing that since direct realism is incoherent, as is representationalism, the direct and only object of conscious experience is an inner state,” while its worthy competitor, the Madhyamaka school, “analyzes consciousness, as they analyze all phenomena, as a set of relations, not as an independent phenomenon or characteristic.” In this deflationary account, “the illusion that there is a special property or center of consciousness is resolved in favor of a network of processes” (i.e., perceived object, sense organ, sensory system, conceptual system) (Garfield, 2016). From the Madhyamaka perspective, all that we lose is “the illusion that there is more in conscious experience than the psychology and physiology of experience. In particular, reference to internal representations, qualia, phenomenal properties and other such ghostly mediators of our experience drop away.” Garfield argues that such a more naturalistic, more public (less private) view “forces the theorist who takes something like the qualitative character of experience to be real, and to be essential to consciousness, to defend and not to presuppose that view” (Garfield, 2016). To go deeper into Buddhist consciousness is to go “empty.” Emptiness is a foundational concept in Buddhism and is easily misunderstood (and inappropriately ridiculed). Simply put, “Emptiness is the lack of any intrinsic nature, not another intrinsic nature instead of those we naively superimpose on entities.” Emptiness, Garfield stresses, is never “emptiness of existence” but rather “always emptiness of some more determinate metaphysical property.” As Garfield explains the doctrine of the “two truths,” illuminating Nāgārjuna (c.150 - c.250 CE), perhaps Buddhism's greatest philosopher-saint (other than the Buddha, of course), “nothing turns out to be ultimately real, everything is merely conventionally real, and the ultimate and conventional truths, while radically different in one respect, are in fact identical in another. That is the profound doctrine of the emptiness of emptiness” (Garfield, 2016). Applied to consciousness, if phenomenal consciousness, like everything else, is empty of intrinsic nature, its claim of qualitative distinction from all other phenomena, its claim of radical subjective experience as a nonpareil occurrence in the cosmos, would seem to weaken. Moreover, though debate abounds, whereas Madhyamaka “takes all phenomena, including mind and the external world, to be conventionally real but ultimately empty, and to be interdependent, Yogācāra takes external objects to be mere appearances to mind, to be utterly non-existent, and takes mind to be the substantially real subjective substrate of those representations,” confirming the Yogācāra position as idealist (Garfield, 2015). That Buddhism rejects the self, asserting that we are persons, not selves, makes for fascinating explorations (Garfield, 2022). Debate has continued whether the Buddhist “Atman,” often translated self or soul, is permanent and unchanging, a position that Buddhist traditions and texts largely reject. No matter. The nature of the Buddhist non-self (or self) or the Buddhist person does not seem to much affect the deflationary nature of Buddhist consciousness. Self, non-self, person—phenomenal consciousness is the same empty illusion. 16.3. Dao De Jing's constant dao Among my favorite lines in all philosophical literature are the deceptively simple opening lines of the Dao De Jing, the Chinese classic text that is the foundation of Daoism. “The Dao [Ultimate Reality, Way] that can be spoken of [expressed] is not the Constant [Eternal] Dao; the Name that can be named [understood] is not the Constant [Eternal] Name” (道可道非常道; 名可名非常名). “Dao” (道) refers to “Ultimate Reality” but also means “Way” or “Path.” “Constant” comes from “Chang” (常), which also means “invariable” and may connote “eternal.” “Name” comes from “Ming” (名), which also means “to name,” and as a homophone of the character “Ming” (明), may connote “to understand.” The verses are nuanced, even vague, perhaps deliberately so, allowing high variance in interpretive translation. The core sense, however, seems to be that whatever you think the Dao may be, it is not that, and whatever you think the Name may be, it also is not that. Sinologist and translator Joseph Pratt says it's hard to read those first lines and not think that the Dao is the source and manifestation of conscious experience or awareness and not think that the Name is the related cognition or thoughts. Supporting evidence comes from the Dao De Jing's Chapter 42 cosmogenic process: “The Dao begets the One, the One begets the Two, the Two begets the Three, the Three begets the Ten Thousand Things” (which includes human beings) (Pratt, 2020). In short, the Dao (or Consciousness) and the Name (or Cognition) are both “Constant” or “Eternal” (常), giving rise to the YinYang of Consciousness and Cognition and eventually to the individual phenomenological dynamic of Consciousness, including Cognition and Form/Thinghood. So, in this ancient text, according to Pratt, consciousness is really the first thing and the last thing. Moreover, the Zhuangzi, the other of Daoism's main founding texts, refers frequently to the ideal of a flow state, including in the context of armed combat. Though sometimes considered to be an “unconscious” or “less conscious” condition, from the Daoist perspective a flow state is a deeper state of consciousness. Both the Zhuangzi and the Dao De Jing could be considered guides for cultivating such a condition (Pratt, 2020, 2023). Personally, my long interest in the Dao De Jing's opening verses is rooted in my long interest in Nothing, the metaphysics/ontology of Leibniz's haunting question, “Why is there Something rather than Nothing?” “Why is there anything at all?” In my essay, “Levels of Nothing,” I pose nine levels of increasing Nothingness (or decreasing Somethingness). If consciousness is not fundamental, it would disappear at the most simplistic level of Nothing, Nothing Level 1. If consciousness is fundamental, it wouldn't disappear until Nothing Level 7 (Kuhn, 2013). 16.4. Kastrup's analytic idealism Philosopher Bernardo Kastrup's “analytic idealism” is “a consciousness-only ontology” that has refocused attention, within the philosophical community and more broadly, on metaphysical idealism, that is, an idealism that is grounded in philosophical argument as opposed to promoted by religious tradition or spiritual belief. Kastrup's modern, analytic version of the ontology of idealism asserts “(a) phenomenal consciousness, as an ontological category, is fundamental; and (b) everything else in nature can ultimately be reduced to, or grounded in, patterns of excitation of phenomenal consciousness.” (Kastrup, 2019). Thus, he proposes “there is only cosmic consciousness” (Kastrup, 2018), in that “spatially unbound consciousness is posited to be nature's sole ontological primitive” (Kastrup, 2017). In Kastrup's idealism, human beings, along with all other living organisms, are but “dissociated alters of cosmic consciousness” (Kastrup, 2018), that are “surrounded like islands by the ocean of its mentation.” The inanimate universe we see around us, he says, is “the extrinsic view of thoughts and emotions in universal consciousness. The living creatures we share the world with are the extrinsic views of other dissociated alters of universal consciousness. A physical world independent of consciousness is a mistaken intellectual abstraction” (Kastrup, 2016a, Kastrup, 2016b) Evidence that consciousness is not reductionist-materialist, Kastrup argues, comes from, among others, neuroimaging of brains in altered states induced by psychedelic substances. That these “unfathomably rich experiential states” correlate with significantly reduced activity in multiple brain areas is said to “contradict the mainstream metaphysics of physicalism for obvious reasons: experience is supposed to be generated by metabolic neuronal activity.” He dismisses “the best physicalist hypothesis to explain psychedelic experiences” based on the idea that psychotomimetic drugs cause brain desynchronization, processes labeled “brain entropy,” “complexity,” “diversity”—which Kastrup interprets as “very straightforward: brain noise.” The “entropic brain hypothesis” (9.5.6), Kastrup says, is “a linguistic charade,” leaving mainstream physicalism unsupported as a viable metaphysics of mind (Kastrup, 2023). (Neuropsychopharmacologist David Nutt contends that “we don't need to adopt an untestable metaphysical worldview to explain the subjective richness of psychedelic experiences” and that neuroscience and neuroimaging research have resources to develop complete theories—for example, chaotic cortical entropy may “release the usual brake” that the cortex holds on sub-cortical structures, especially the emotion centers, liberating the amygdala and hippocampus from “top-down” inhibitory control [Nutt, 2023]. Kastrup counters that such disinhibition, if it were the case, should itself correspond to increased brain activity somewhere in the brain, which is not what is observed.) How to explain, under idealism, the correlation between inner experience and brain states? According to Kastrup, “the brain and its patterns of neuronal activity are not the cause of inner experience, but the image, the extrinsic appearance of inner experience. In other words, brain activity is what inner experience looks like when observed from the outside.” As such, he says, “the correlations ordinarily observed between patterns of brain activity and inner experience are due to the trivial fact that the appearance of a phenomenon correlates with the phenomenon.” And when this correlation is broken, as observed in the psychedelic state, the reason is that, “unlike a cause, the appearance of a phenomenon doesn't need to be always complete”—it can leave out much about the phenomenon it is an appearance of (Kastrup, 2023). Kastrup maintains that idealism's key challenge is “to explain how the seemingly distinct phenomenal inner lives of different subjects of experience can arise within this fundamentally unitary phenomenal field.” This is called the “decomposition problem” and it is the core problem Kastrup needs to address. Other challenges include: “how to reconcile idealism with the fact that we all inhabit a common external world; why this world unfolds independently of our personal volition or imagination; why there are such tight correlations between measured patterns of brain activity and reports of experience” (Kastrup, 2019). Kastrup's unabashed challenge to his metaphysical competitors is that an idealist ontology “makes sense of reality in a more parsimonious and empirically rigorous manner than mainstream physicalism, bottom-up panpsychism, and cosmopsychism” (Kastrup, 2018). He argues that an idealist ontology “offers more explanatory power than these three alternatives, in that it does not fall prey to the hard problem of consciousness, the combination problem, or the decombination problem, respectively.” (Panpsychists seem to be taking the challenge more seriously than do physicalists55 [Kastrup, 2020b; Goff, 2020].) Given his consciousness-only ontology, Kastrup explores what might follow in two areas of high interest and continuing controversy: foundations of quantum mechanics and prospects for life after death. Regarding quantum mechanics, he stresses the centrality of consciousness, making the startling but perhaps coherent argument that “the dynamics of all inanimate matter in the universe correspond to transpersonal mentation, just as an individual's brain activity—which is also made of matter—corresponds to personal mentation” (Kastrup et al., 2018). Regarding life after death, Kastrup speculates that “the implication is that, instead of disappearing, conscious inner life expands upon bodily death, a prediction that finds circumstantial but [claimed] significant confirmation in reports of near-death experiences and psychedelic trances, both of which can be construed as glimpses into the early stages of the death process” (Kastrup, 2016a, Kastrup, 2016b). Say this for Kastrup's analytic idealism: it expands and enlivens the consciousness debate. 16.5. Hoffman's conscious realism: the case against reality Cognitive psychologist Donald Hoffman's “Case Against Reality” argues that our visual perceptions are not veridical of ultimate reality because evolution selects for fitness to reproduce, not for access to ontological truth (Hoffman, 2019a). “This is consistent with the interface theory of perception, which claims that natural selection shapes perceptual systems not to provide veridical perceptions, but to serve as species-specific interfaces that guide adaptive behavior” (Prakash et al., 2020). Hoffman likens our perceptions of objects around us to “interfaces” constructed by natural selection, taking as analogy the file icons on our computer screens, which may look like little paper folders but are in truth written in the complex binary code of machine language. Similarly, he says, evolution has shaped our perceptions, not as true depictions of an animal-independent world, but rather as simplistic illusions to help us navigate the world around us (Hoffman, 2019a). Continuing his computer-screen interface analogy, he says, “The pixels are in the screen, still part of the desktop interface. Similarly, tiny nuclei and electrons are in spacetime, still part of our spacetime interface.” But “spacetime is not objective reality and does not resemble reality, whatever reality might be” (Hoffman, 2019b). Hoffman's ultimate ontology is what he calls “conscious realism,” which states that the objective world consists of conscious agents and their experiences. This means, fundamentally, that instead of assuming that “particles in spacetime are fundamental, and somehow create consciousness when they form neurons and brains,” he proposes the reverse: “consciousness is fundamental, and it creates spacetime and objects.” He posits a mathematical theory of consciousness that “reality is a vast social network of interacting ‘conscious agents,’ in which each agent has a range of possible experiences, and each agent can act to influence the experiences of other agents.” What follows for Hoffman is that “no object within spacetime is itself a conscious agent; spacetime is simply a format for conscious experiences—an interface—employed by agents like us, and physical objects are just icons in that interface” (Hoffman, 2019b). Remarkably, Hoffman reverses the arrow of causation for the abundance of experimental evidence correlating mental states of the mind with physical states of the brain. These correlations arise, he states, “because consciousness creates brain activity and indeed creates all objects and properties of the physical world” (Hoffman, 2008). Hoffman is clear: “Consciousness is fundamental in the universe. It is not a product of space and time or anything inside space and time. I think that efforts to derive consciousness from spacetime, either by identity theories or causal theories, have proven ineffective, and I've been forced to take the view that consciousness is actually fundamental in the universe” (Hoffman, 2013). 16.6. McGilchrist's relational, creative-process idealism Psychiatrist, neuroscientist, and literary scholar Iain McGilchrist's idealist metaphysics has consciousness as “irreducible, primordial and omnipresent.” But consciousness is “not a thing; it is a creative process,” he says. “All that exists, exists in consciousness … consciousness is the stuff of the cosmos.” Moreover, given “that consciousness is ‘the fundamental given natural fact’, it clearly follows that it cannot be reduced to something more fundamental” (McGilchrist, 2021b, 2021a, p. 1601). Matter, to McGilchrist, is “a theoretical abstraction that no one has seen.” The term clearly has meaning, he clarifies; “it refers to the qualities of certain elements within consciousness which offer relative resistance and relative permanence as a necessary part of that creative process” (McGilchrist, 2021b). Matter is also critical for individuality to arise. Put another way, McGilchrist has matter as “a special case, or a phase of consciousness.” Matter is not a separate thing, he says, any more than ice is separate from water; it's a phase of water; it's neither less nor more than water; it's not separate from water; it's a kind of water. And matter is a kind of consciousness—for a time—that has certain quite marked properties that are different from the way we normally think of consciousness, just as water is transparent and flows and all the rest, and ice is hard and opaque and can split your head open. So they're different but they're part of the same ontology.” McGilchrist stresses that “consciousness and matter must be distinguished”—but “there should be no need to set the one against the other.” McGilchrist's consciousness turns on its relational nature. He holds that “everything is relational, and that what we call things, the relata, are secondary to relationship.” Consciousness, he argues, is always “of” something, then he asks: “what is the nature then of that something that is both in part constitutive of, and in part constituted by, that relationship?” A consequence, counterintuitive to most, is that while some scientists consider a “Reality Out There” to be independent of any consciousness whatsoever—naïve realism—McGilchrist says, “In reality, we participate in the knowing: there is no ‘view from nowhere’” (McGilchrist, 2021b). Given that McGilchrist has consciousness as primordial and matter as a phase of consciousness, how does he have the relationship between the brain and consciousness? He says, “I do not suggest that the brain originates anything. I do not know that the brain ‘causes’ consciousness: it might or might not.” He goes on to note, rightly, “I know of no way of proving the point one way or the other, since the observable facts would look the same whether it [the brain] gave rise to, or simply mediated, consciousness.” In other words, the same findings are equally compatible with the brain emitting consciousness, transmitting consciousness, or permitting consciousness. (The latter two options are similar, except that permitting substitutes the idea of a constraint that is creative, fashioning what it allows to come into being, replacing the merely passive idea of transmitting.)” McGilchrist argues that “it is the last of these possibilities – permitting – that is the most convincing” (McGilchrist, 2021a, pp. 55, 1592). Logically, McGilchrist's ontology would skew to the brain alone not causing consciousness and his medical training would skew to the brain not being a mere passive receiver of consciousness. His solution seems to be something like this: the brain structures, shapes and physically actualizes the consciousness we experience so that it can be expressed and felt by a body. It's worth noting that McGilchrist's consciousness-matter ontology has a kind of relationship to his hemisphere hypothesis, which states that the brain's “two hemispheres have evolved so as to attend to the world, and therefore bring into being the only world we can know, in two largely opposing ways: the left hemisphere paying narrowly targeted attention to a detail that we need to manipulate; the right hemisphere paying broad, open, sustained, vigilant, uncommitted attention to the rest of the world while we focus on our desired detail” (McGilchrist, 2009, 2021a). This means, he argues, that “each hemisphere brings into being a world that has different qualities … In the case of the left hemisphere, a world of things that are familiar, certain, fixed, isolated, explicit, abstracted from context, disembodied, general in nature, quantifiable, known by their parts, and inanimate. In the case of the right hemisphere, a world of Gestalten, forms and processes that are never reducible to the already known or certain, never accounted for by dissolution into parts, but always understood as wholes that both incorporate and are incorporated into other wholes, unique, always changing and flowing, interconnected, implicit, understood only in context, embodied and animate” (McGilchrist, 2009, 2021a). Most importantly, the world of the right hemisphere is the world that presences to us, that of the left hemisphere a re-presentation: the left hemisphere a map, the right hemisphere the world of experience that is mapped.” To McGilchrist, loosely associating the right hemisphere with consciousness and the left hemisphere with matter may be more than metaphor. Finally, McGilchrist sees “the cosmos as fundamentally relational, and the ground of Being as driven to come to know itself in and through creating an evolving cosmos. The ground of Being and the cosmos respond to each other. (So far this is in keeping with Whitehead.) What life does is to increase by untold orders of magnitude the responsiveness of that cosmos. I, like Nagel, see that ‘value is not just an accidental side-effect of life; rather, there is life because life is a necessary condition of value.’” What life brings, McGilchrist maintains, “is not consciousness, then—which, as I have argued, is present from the beginning—but the coming into being of the capacity for value: thus, a mountain cannot value, though it can have value for creatures, like ourselves, who value. And it is not just we, but all living creatures, that for the first time are able to recognize value. Life vastly enhances the degree of responsiveness of, to and within the world.” Indeed, “life could be seen as the very process of the cosmic consciousness continually both discovering and furthering its beauty, truth, and goodness; both contemplating and (not separately but in the same indivisible act) further bringing them into being: a process” (McGilchrist, 2021a, pp. 1722, 1723). Yet, the grounding of consciousness is not deterministic, McGilchrist says. It has none of the characteristics of being pre-programmed by “an omnipotent and omniscient engineering God constructing and winding up a mechanism. It is in the process of discovering itself through its creative potential (one thing we all know directly from our own experience is that consciousness is endlessly creative)” (McGilchrist, 2021a). The cosmos has purpose, McGilchrist says. “It has direction, but not direction of the hydraulic kind, being pushed blindly from behind, rather of the kind that is drawn from in front, by attractors that call it ever forward” (McGilchrist, personal communication). 16.7. Chopra's only the whole is conscious Holistic physician Deepak Chopra defines consciousness as “It is what makes experience possible. It is what makes perception possible. It is what makes cognition possible. Everything we call reality, consciousness makes possible. Consciousness is the ultimate reality” (Chopra, 2013). To Chopra, progress in cognitive neuroscience, such as brain scans that translate electrical patterns in the brain into real words in synthesized speech, are “false clues,” like tracking a fox in the snow only to find that the tracks have led you in a circle. “This looks like progress,” he says, “and yet the progress is built up from false clues, for the same reason that pertains to circular tracks in the snow. It is physically impossible for brain cells to create the human mind. Brain cells are composed of the same basic organic chemicals as any other cell in the body, and organic chemicals can't think. It doesn't matter how many billions of neurons the human brain contains, or the quadrillions of synaptic connections between them. Complexity doesn't get around the simple impossibility that chemicals aren't conscious, and the brain is nothing but chemicals. The presence of electrical activity in the brain is also a false clue, because electricity can't think, either” (Chopra, 2023a, Chopra, 2023b). “If you want to understand consciousness, then the last thing you want to be is a neuroscientist,” Chopra half-jokes, referring to my/RLK background. “Because neuroscience doesn't give you a clue” (Chopra, 2013). Chopra's persistent claim is that there is only one way to get past every false clue in the hunt for consciousness. “You must make it the ‘stuff’ of creation, a non-physical state from which matter, energy, time, and space are created. It is not, he says, that every phenomenon we can experience has consciousness or exhibits mind. It is that consciousness shapes itself into every mode of knowing and experiencing reality.” In other words, Chopra says, “the ‘hard problem’ isn't a problem at all. Consciousness, being our source and origin, explains everything by itself, needing no outside explanation” (Chopra, 2013). According to Chopra, taking idealism to its logical extreme—some say to its simplest condition—what's conscious is only the whole, not the parts like us. The entirety of reality, the fullness of the cosmos, a multiverse of innumerable universes (if there are such), everything everywhere all together, is the expression of a unitary consciousness. In their essay, “Why You Aren't Conscious and Never Have Been,” Chopra and physicist Menas Kafatos, after rejecting both materialism and panpsychism, seek to explain consciousness not by trying to figure out how individuals are conscious, which they claim is doomed to failure, but rather by assuming that all reality is conscious and individual instances of consciousness are conscious only with respect to their being part of the whole. “When you arrive at the conclusion that nothing material is conscious, bizarre as this sounds, you make a tremendous breakthrough. ‘I am conscious’ misstates the reality, which is ‘I am consciousness itself’” (Chopra and Kafatos, 2023). “The way that humans are conscious is what matters,” the authors write. “Consciousness is everywhere all the time embracing past, present and future. I am part of that reality. Therefore, I am consciousness itself. Who I really am is beyond time.” Nothing can be conscious on its own, Chopra and Kafatos claim; the only way to be conscious is to be part of the “All and One.” As for where the All-and-One Consciousness comes from or came from, the answer is the same as to “Who made God?” “Our origin story begins with absolute, pure awareness, which has no explanation. It simply is” (Chopra and Kafatos, 2023). 16.8. How consciousness becomes the physical universe Idealism works well as an explanation of creature consciousness, provided, of course, that one accepts its foundational premise that consciousness, and consciousness alone, is fundamental reality. One challenge for idealism is coming to consider what seems to be an odd, perhaps outlandish, idea so alien to our life experiences: If all is consciousness, how does the physical world come about? The claim is made that quantum theory, which, unlike classical physics, assigns (in some interpretations) a fundamental role to the act of observation, can bridge the explanatory gap between idealism as foundational reality and the physical world as empirically apparent. Can quantum theory, as its adherents believe, open the door “to a profoundly new vision of the cosmos, where observer, observed, and the act of observation are interlocked,” thus hinting “at a science of wholeness, going beyond the purely physical emphasis of current science?” Adherents look to developments in the intersection of quantum theory, biology, neuroscience and the philosophy of mind. Non-local interactions of the quantum universe are cited as evidence of the interconnectedness of everything, supporting the idea that “consciousness and matter are not fundamentally distinct, but rather are two complementary aspects of one reality, embracing the micro and macro worlds,” ultimately founded on consciousness as the ultimate reality (Kafatos et al., 2011). There are elaborate theories that claim to explain how consciousness, once assumed to be fundamental in nature and reality, generates or interacts with matter and energy and interfaces with the brain. In one version, developed by computer science professional Mahendra Samarawickrama, consciousness governs causation and creates energy and matter. The interplay of consciousness, matter and energy underpins what we experience and observe in reality (Consciousness Studies, Australia, 2024). Consciousness itself is “a high-speed sequential process that leads to awareness” (notwithstanding the brain's massive parallel-processing capability). “Like time, consciousness is also subjected to relativity. When the observer is moving, both time and consciousness dilate.” Further, “the electromagnetic energy of consciousness follows quantum principles and wave-particle duality …. This interplay of consciousness with matter and energy makes consciousness and reality interrelate and follows determinism, realism, and physicalism” (Samarawickrama, 2023). No surprise that none of this is taken seriously by a large majority of quantum physicists (Rovelli, 2022) (11.16). 16.9. Goswami's self-aware universe Quantum physicist Amit Goswami proposes that consciousness, not matter, is the primary “stuff” of creation, and indeed it is consciousness that creates the material world, not the other way around. He uses quantum physics, particularly the Copenhagen interpretation (where an “observer” is required for the collapse of the wave function), to disabuse us of the false notion that matter is simple, solid and foundational. Consciousness, he says, “is the agency that collapses the wave of a quantum object, which exists in potentia, making it an immanent particle in the world of manifestation” (Goswami, 1993; Woronko, 2020). Goswami sees Idealism as not only the most parsimonious theory of consciousness but also mitigating and perhaps solving the famous paradoxes of quantum mechanics, such as entanglement, superposition and non-locality. The key, Goswami offers, is that there is only one consciousness in the universe, one subject of experience, in which we all (somehow) participate. The ego, he says “is constricted consciousness, much like a localized object. You cannot understand consciousness without experiencing expanded states of consciousness.” Consciousness, according to Goswami, plays an active role in constructing physical reality by “choosing” the results of a measurement. He views our mental activities, our thoughts and feelings, as “mental objects” in a sense similar to material objects, subject to the same laws of physics, particularly quantum mechanics. Thus, Goswami envisions the brain, not simply as a passive measuring device that intervenes in the quantum world, but more significantly as an active quantum system that selects and determines which unconscious processes become conscious. Goswami concludes that all creation is interconnected, including us (Goswami, 1993). 16.10. Spira's non-duality Spiritual teacher (and pottery artist) Rupert Spira espouses non-duality as “the recognition that underlying the multiplicity and diversity of experience there is a single, infinite and indivisible reality, whose nature is pure consciousness from which all objects and selves derive their apparently independent existence.” He states, “The greatest discovery in life is that our essential nature does not share the limits or the destiny of the body and mind” (Section: Spira, n.d.). To Spira, a non-dual understanding addresses two essential questions: one, “How may we be free of suffering and find the lasting peace and happiness for which all people long above all else?”, and two, “What is the nature of reality?” While the first is most meaningful to individuals and to the global community, only the second is relevant for this Landscape. Spira begins his non-dual teaching with an investigation into the essential nature of our self, and it is this “clear knowledge of oneself,” he says, that is also the basis of the second aspect of the non-dual understanding, “namely, the recognition that reality is an infinite, indivisible whole, made of pure consciousness, from which all separate objects and selves borrow their apparently independent existence.” Everything we know or experience, he states, “is mediated through the mind, and therefore, the mind's knowledge of anything can only ever be as good as its knowledge of itself. In order to know what anything truly is—that is, what reality truly is—the mind must first know its own essential nature. Therefore, the investigation into the nature of the mind must be the highest endeavor upon which any mind can embark, and the knowledge of its essence or nature the highest knowledge.” Spira suggests that approaching non-duality as a means of finding an answer to the ultimate question about the nature of reality “is found at the heart of all the great religious and spiritual traditions.” For instance, “In Christianity, it is said, ‘I and my Father are one’. That is, the essence of our self and the ultimate reality of the universe are the same.” Similarly, “in the Sufi tradition, ‘Whosoever knows their self knows their Lord’. That is, whoever knows the essential nature of their self knows the ultimate reality of the universe.” And “in Buddhism, ‘Samsara and Nirvana are one’, meaning the nature of the world and the essence of the mind are identical” (Spira, n.d.). 16.11. Nader's all there is Transcendental Meditation leader (and former neuroscientist) Tony Nader states “there is nothing other than consciousness, and that matter and the multiplicity of loci of consciousness, us, for one, are nothing but consciousness experiencing itself from limited perspectives that hide the true nature of both the observer and the observed.” In a world of an infinite number of simultaneously existing possibilities, Nader says “one fact seems undeniable: the fact of our own awareness … Commonly, this awareness is called consciousness: the observer, the witness, the experiencer” (Nader, n.d.). Nader states formally, “Consciousness is all there is and does not create anything physical outside itself; matter is real only in terms of consciousness or as an appearance within consciousness.” While “Consciousness is all there is” and “Consciousness is One” are his foundation, Nader acknowledges that “there are different kinds of consciousness: different flavors, states, levels, and so on. The only way for these two statements to be simultaneously true, he says, is that the one Consciousness has different flavors, states, and experiences of itself” (Nader, 2015). While acknowledging that other Idealism theorists suggest similar, Nader differentiates his approach by providing “a carefully constructed and cogent model for how those limited perspectives in all their subjective richness emerge within the singularity of consciousness.” He claims “a monistic field theory of consciousness” as the most primordial field, which then can “potentially solve enduring problems in other fields, including quantum field theory and the psychology of higher states of consciousness” (Nader, n.d.). Nader's distinguishing proposal is to place consciousness “in a mathematical framework by introducing fundamental axioms that are motivated by the experience and dynamics of consciousness.” By systematizing how human awareness perceives, discriminates, organizes, and expresses its own patterns of functioning, mathematical methods and mathematical modeling provide “one of the most useful and scientifically manageable methods to study the interface between consciousness and physical phenomena.” Mathematics is seen as “the precise abstract representation of consciousness at work.” Nader claims “to test the reasonableness of these axioms in two ways: by deriving consequences from the axioms and comparing these consequences to our experience of the world, and by verifying that heretofore unsolved problems can be resolved with this new paradigm.” In particular, he ambitiously addresses how the physical universe emerges from consciousness. Nader introduces “the notion of a Bit of Consciousness as a triple of particular values of Observerhood, Observinghood, and Observedhood,” with the understanding that “nothing can be said to be real unless it is a triple with none of its components equal to 0. In other words, real existence requires an observer, a process of observation, and an observed” (Nader, 2015). In Nader's consciousness model, it is not non-localized or localized objects that are the issue. Rather, it is the idea of the very existence of objects as entities independent of Consciousness that is the root of the problem. In his model, nothing exists outside the realm of observer, observed, and process of observation (Nader, 2015). 16.12. Ward's personal idealism: souls as embodied agents created by God Philosopher-theologian Keith Ward's “personal idealism” integrates his philosophical convictions about consciousness and souls, idealism in Eastern traditions, and his Christian faith (Ward, 2022). It's a heady brew. Ward describes souls as “the embodied agents which are created by God.” To build his case, he cites the “huge gap in modern culture between neurophysiologists and old-fashioned philosophers” (musing, “We thought we were very trendy in our time”). It's a fundamental, philosophical divide, he says, and from his perspective, he begins from consciousness, puts consciousness first, because “this is where all knowledge starts … your starting point is perception, a set of perceptions, a set of concepts. And from that, you build up a picture of what the world is like” (Ward, 2006). Ward stresses “you can never get rid of consciousness.” He is firm: “From where I sit, I can just say whatever view you come up with, consciousness is not reducible to particles which are publicly observable in space and time.” He is adamant: “I will just not give way on this—because it seems to me so obvious; I don't see how anyone can deny it.” Responding to questions about the putative illusion of conscious unity, Ward is dismissive (politely): “You're inventing a problem.” Ward's idealism surfaces when contrasting dualism. His claim, even for explaining Descartes, is not that mind and body/brain are separate substances that must somehow interact, but rather are subject and object, the thinker and perceiver as the subject who is aware of its perceptions and which is engaged in having its thoughts. “What you've got is a subject thinking. The subject is not a different substance.” Ward then rationalizes his idealism. “The whole world is actually a construct with perceptions and feelings and thoughts. But the agent who is having these perceptions, the perceiver, the thinker, is not another thing somewhere. So, subjects and objects are always together. There's no subject without an object. There's no mind without some objectivity, some environment in which it's embodied. That's why I see embodiment as an essential part of mentality, and of being a person. When you're talking about the mind, you're talking about a subject, an embodied subject, who nevertheless is not to be identified simply by physical facts which are publicly observable. I think that's what the soul is: An embodied subject of intellectual and moral agency” (Ward, 2006). 16.13. Albahari's perennial idealism Comparative philosopher Miri Albahari defends “Perennial Idealism” as a mystical solution to the mind-body problem. She faces the “vicious dilemma” of subjects arising from unconditioned consciousness. “If the manifest world of subjects is real, it irrevocably undercuts the purely unconditioned nature of the ground by imposing boundaries between subjects and the ground. If only the ground is real, we have the seemingly absurd consequence of denying reality to what seems undeniably existent.” She finds resources in the modern mystic, Sri Ramana Maharshi, who was recorded as saying, “Nothing exists except the one reality … The one unity alone exists ever. To such as find it difficult to grasp this truth and who ask, ‘How can we ignore this solid world we see all around us?’ the dream experience is pointed out and they are told, ‘All that you see depends on the seer. Apart from the seer, there is no seen.’” (Ramana is expressing what is known in Advaita Vedanta as the ajāta doctrine, which means “not created, not caused”.) (Albahari, 2019a). Albahari takes as evidence “first-person accounts from people who claim to have experienced and indeed permanently established themselves in aperspectival or nondual consciousness,” mystics from across traditions and centuries who came to believe that they “have directly ‘awoken’ to their abiding nature as aperspectival consciousness, realizing it to be none other than the ultimate ground of what we take to be the world.” The “central metaphysical content of this allegedly recurring insight” has been termed by Aldous Huxley and others, “Perennial Philosophy” (Huxley, 1946), from which Albahari's “Perennial Idealism” denotes its philosophical parentage (Albahari, 2019a). Albahari posits her Perennial Idealism as “a radical new successor to Cosmopsychism,” which, erroneously, she argues, “takes the entire externally specified cosmos to be an internally conscious subject” (13.3). This brings “serious troubles for Cosmopsychism,” which not only “typically casts the entire cosmos as a conscious subject” but also “in turn grounds the consciousness of subjects such as ourselves” (Albahari, 2019b). The most promising way forward in the mind-body problem, she argues “is to renounce the pervasive panpsychist supposition that fundamental consciousness must belong to a subject. This extends the reach and scope of consciousness to ground not merely to the inner nature of the cosmos, but everything we take to be the world, with its subjects and objects” (Albahari, 2019a). This, Albahari concludes, “offers a framework for thinking about how the world could be grounded in a universal consciousness which, following Advaita Vedanta and the ‘Perennial Philosophy’, is not structured by subject or object” (Albahari, 2019b). 16.14. Meijer's universal knowledge field Biomedical scientist Dirk K. F. Meijer explains consciousness in the context of a “Universal Knowledge Field” (UKF), the concept that a collective storage of all information that is present and/or evolves in our universe can take a universal character and that all information is present in a general knowledge field. Other names for the UKF, he says, include Universal Consciousness, Cosmic Consciousness, Universal Mind, Universal Memory, Universal Intelligence, Holographic Memory, Collective Consciousness, Implicate Order and the Plenum. The UKF is said to be consistent with fundamental physics, cosmological and holographic models. In addition, universal consciousness can be approached from transcendental human experience, including transpersonal and psi phenomena (Meijer, 2018). Meijer claims that integral information processing in the universe is based on a generalized musical-scale of discrete electromagnetic field (EMF) frequencies and that the biophysics literature reports the effects of similar EMF frequency patterns in a wide range of animate and non-animate systems. This provides a conceptual bridge between living and non-living systems, relevant for biophysics, brain research, and biological evolution. He proposes that the pro-life EMF frequency bands may literally act in concert as a “tonal octave-based symphony” to provide living systems, including the brain, with information embedded in such harmonic-like resonance patterns. Such “tonal” projections, in a global manner, may organize synchronicity, both spatially and temporally in essential organs in the body: heart and brain (Meijer et al, 2020, pp. 1–31). Thus, if nature is guided by “a discrete pattern of harmonic solitonic waves,” since the whole human organism, including brain, is embedded in this dynamic energy field, a comprehensive model for human (self-) consciousness could be conceived. This implies an intrinsic cosmic connectivity that is mirrored in the human brain. An assumed “hydrodynamic superfluid background field” is proposed to guide the ongoing fabric of reality through a “quantum metalanguage” that is instrumental in the manifestation of universal consciousness, of which human consciousness is an integral part (Meijer et al, 2020, pp. 72–107). Meijer proposes a “pilot-wave-guided supervenience” of brain function that may arise from a “holofractal memory workspace” associated with, but not reducible to the brain, which operates as a scale-invariant mental attribute of reality. This field-receptive workspace integrates past and (anticipated) future events and may explain overall ultra-rapid brain responses, as well as the origin of qualia (Meijer et al, 2020, pp. 31–71). 16.15. Idealism's imaginative expressions As creator and host of Closer To Truth, I receive ideas from viewers globally. These unsolicited papers are often elaborate treatises, the majority of which focus on consciousness or cosmology. I look at all of them, keep an open mind with at least one eye skeptical, learn some, respond as I can. I marvel at the passion and respect the dedication.56 Addressing the "ultimate questions" of cosmic existence and human sentience is the highest calling of human beings, which is why I appreciate diverse ideas (Kuhn, 2023). While I cannot agree with many of the assumptions, and certainly not with most of the assertions, I see the scope of subjects as exemplifying the kinds of issues and challenges that enliven the human spirit (small “s”). To conclude this section on Idealism, I note several models of idealism I've received (among many). The only judgment I pass is that consciousness in general, and idealism in particular, fire the imagination as well as stir the passions. Flip-Book Idealism (FBI), developed by neuroscientist Silvia Paddock and physicist Thomas Buervenich, agrees with other forms of idealism that spacetime is not primary and that consciousness exists outside of it. According to FBI, observer/participants, who are individuations of this consciousness, detect patterns in a facet of consciousness called the “Urgrund”—the fundamental essence of existence—and shape this information into frames of experience by translating complex signal patterns into qualia. One hallmark of FBI is that the generation of experiential frames by consciousness creates the arrow of time. Its observer-based viewpoint of reality aligns with quantum mechanics, such that wave-particle duality and entanglement (“spooky action at a distance”) are no longer odd or mysterious. FBI distinguishes itself from other forms of idealism by asserting that conscious agents primarily interact with one another through the intermediary of the Urgrund in a kind of question-and-answer game and by proposing that spacetime is a set of rules that consciousness needs to adhere to when creating experiential frames to allow for the experienced world to be consistent. FBI does not solve the hard problem of consciousness but attests to its significance (Paddock and Buervenich, 2023). According to reviewer Jo Edwards, “The central idea is that our subjectivity is the inherently conscious universe enjoying local snapshots in discrete time ‘frames’, set by brain interactions, that are elided into a sense of movement and continuity, as for a cartoon flipbook.” He concludes that the authors make “a nice case for these being fundamental time units that in the brain are a few milliseconds long but elsewhere will follow rules of quantum field theory—perhaps as decoherence intervals. I think this is the right direction to go in. It is nice to see mainstream quantum theory rather than fringe interpretations or invocations of entanglement, tachyons, or dark matter. Like genes, consciousness is likely to be based on kitchen sink biophysics” (Edwards, 2024). Rodrigues's C-Pattern Theory. Neuroscientist Pablo Rodriguez posits that the brain can generate only c-patterns, no experiences, because experiences are qualitatively different from matter. Experiences are thus regarded as created by the universe, in that c-patterns are constantly “read” and converted to experiences. C-Pattern Theory has three basic points. First, the brain doesn't generate conscious experiences; it generates c-patterns, which are complex geometric three-dimensional structures composed of all action potentials from all of the brain's [relevant] neurons firing at any given moment. The c-pattern's specific form and geometry is postulated as being what fully defines any conscious experience. So, for every moment, there's a different c-pattern and a corresponding experience defined by it. Second, an experience is defined by a c-pattern's form, but each is created by the universe, not by the brain; rather, a c-pattern's specific form and geometry encodes an experience as a discrete expressions of a universal geometric experience language, which the universe understands perfectly and decodes into real, actual experiences. Third, we are not body and brain; we are consciousness. If c-patterns are mere symbols converted to experiences, then only consciousness can be what's having all experiences. And as we are the ones experiencing, we are parts of consciousness. Different organisms have different c-patterns, experiences, and levels of understanding reality. So, this world is just what our c-patterns currently allow, until we manage to expand them to the next level. Thus, true human progress is possible only if the experience language is deciphered and c-patterns are expanded towards greater understanding (Rodriguez, 2023). The Meaning of Life. The primacy of consciousness explored via science and logic, without leaping to faith or spiritual awakening. It dissects the mind-body-spirit conundrum and provides a theory of everything that posits that reality is an agreed-upon hallucination. It includes the probative power of optical illusions, why linear time is a stubborn illusion, and the roles that beauty, love, and creativity play to help shape reality (Forrest, 2021). Is-Ness. All consciousness is one. Every human spirit is unique, with our singular thoughts, perceptions and experiences, like a whirlpool in an infinite ocean of consciousness. While universal consciousness is infinite in space and time, each conscious being experiences creation from a unique perspective. The power of spirit does not come from its past achievements or future aspirations, but from its existence in the present instant. This is the essence of our existence. Awareness of this essence is the state of "Is-Ness” (Koyoti, 2023). Consciousness from Non-Self in Buddhism. Consciousness in the sense of qualia and self-consciousness are not a two-tier, parallel relationship like that of the Cartesian Theatre or “Cogito, ergo sum”, but a one-tier, serial relationship. The sense of self just emerges out of the process of alternating “awareness” and “awareness of awareness.” This view on consciousness comes from an interpretation of “non-self” in Buddhism. Conversely, it also provides insight into consciousness-only and anatta (from “non-self” to “emptiness”) in Buddhism: in reality, there is neither subject nor object of “awareness” (or “consciousness”). According to Yogācāra, there is no object of awareness (or consciousness). Therefore, the mystery behind “consciousness-only” should be how consciousness arises. However, according to Madhyamaka, there is even no consciousness and everything is empty (Huang, n.d.). Consciousness's Platonic Computation. Consciousness (the power to conceive, perceive and be self-aware) is the most fundamental and irreducible existence. Creation of all else is rendered by the “Platonic computer” that is made by, of, with and from Consciousness. The hypothesis of “Platonic computation” offers a solution to the inverse hard problem of consciousness: how matter arises out of consciousness (Duan, n.d.). Hawkins's Map of Consciousness. Psychiatrist and spiritual teacher David Hawkins claims human consciousness comes arrayed with 17 levels and associated “energy fields,” with the “frequency” or “vibration” of energy increasing with each rise in level, along with corresponding implications for emotional tone, view of God, and view of life. Consciousness is pervasive, connecting to God via “devotional nonduality” and enabling, at its higher levels, a beneficial and healing effect on the world. Hawkins says his scientific framework elucidates the spiritual levels delineated by saints, sages and mystics, with highest levels representing Self-realization, the void, nothingness vs. allness, full enlightenment, and divine realization.57(Hawkins, 2014; Hawkins, n.d.). 17. Anomalous and altered states theories Can nonphysical consciousness (or realms) be revealed or accessed via anomalous, psi or paranormal phenomena—extrasensory perception (ESP), out-of-the-body experiences (OBEs), near-death experiences (NDEs), and the like? Psychical research beginning in the late 19th century and parapsychology in the mid-20th century sought to study the phenomena scientifically. To those who believe in its existence—researchers and general public alike—the reality of psi/paranormal phenomena leads directly to consciousness being nonphysical, as well as to nonphysical modes of mental existence, whether as individual “spirits” or “souls” or in the broader sense of nonphysical realms of parallel worlds (Radin, 2007; Schlitz, 2007; Tart, 2007). There are innumerable reports of ESP—telepathy, clairvoyance, precognition, psychokinesis—the vast majority anecdotal, some research-based; believers (“sheep”) and skeptics (“goats”) remain equally adamant in their convictions. Moreover, even among psi-sheep researchers, there are replicability problems and a possible paradox of confounding interactions between the researcher (the observer) and the experiment (the observed) (Rabeyron, 2020). For the record, I remain skeptical regarding the overwhelming majority of anecdotal paranormal stories and circumspect regarding statistically significant research affirming psi. I consider likely drivers to be illusion, delusion, fraud, imperfect experimental design, unwitting experimenter bias, ex ante sample selection, ex post data selection, ex post reasoning, and/or plain-old wishful thinking. Still, I have to say, I generally respect parapsychologists and their experimental designs, and I cannot rule out all paranormal stories. This is why I must consider the profound implications for theories of consciousness if any claims of psi and the paranormal would turn out to be veridical. (In context of my skepticism and consideration, and in the spirit of full disclosure, I have a history.58) Parapsychologist Dean Radin distinguishes sharply between the words paranormal and psi. They are not synonymous, he stresses. “The paranormal is a tabloid trope that encompasses Bigfoot, astrology, crystal healing, UFOs, the Bermuda Triangle, etc.,” he says. “Equating paranormal with psi perpetuates the idea that psi is part of a great silliness, and this is one of the many reasons why sober academics strictly avoid the topic.” By contrast, Radin points out, “psi refers only to common aspects of human experiences reported throughout history and across all cultures, and psi research studies such experiences.” Radin acknowledges, “Yes, 95% of these reports may have mundane explanations, but 5% do not. And that 5% changes everything” (Radin, 2024). Psi research, Radin notes, was “designed explicitly to exclude the illusion, delusion, fraud, p-hacking [misuse of data analysis to report false positives], and the like.” He asserts, “There is no better way to demonstrate the current state of the evidence for psi than to read major pro-psi and con-psi articles published in the APA's flagship journal, American Psychologist (Cardeña, 2018; Reber and Alcock, 2020). The pro article discusses meta-analyses of 10 classes of psi experiments reported in over 1000 individual studies. In reply, the authors of the con article state up front that they would not address the evidence because -- and they actually say this -- psi is impossible. That's the Spanish Inquisition approach to ignoring uncomfortable facts, and yet that is the state of psi skepticism today” (Radin, 2024). Cardena's paper, “The experimental evidence for parapsychological phenomena: A Review,” clarifies “the domain of psi, summarizes recent theories from physics and psychology that present psi phenomena as at least plausible, and then provides an overview of recent/updated meta-analyses.” The evidence, Cardena concludes, “provides cumulative support for the reality of psi, which cannot be readily explained away by the quality of the studies, fraud, selective reporting, experimental or analytical incompetence, or other frequent criticisms.” The evidence for psi, he says, “is comparable to that for established phenomena in psychology and other disciplines, although there is no consensual understanding of them” (Cardeña, 2018). Reber and Alcock's paper, “Searching for the impossible: Parapsychology's elusive quest,” presents an opposing perspective to “the general claims of psi (the umbrella term often used for anomalous or paranormal phenomena).” The authors mount “a broad-based critique of the entire parapsychology enterprise.” Their position is straightforward: “Claims made by parapsychologists cannot be true. The effects reported can have no ontological status; the data have no existential value.” Reber and Alcock base their stark conclusion “on well-understood scientific principles. In the classic English adynaton, ‘pigs cannot fly.’ Hence, data that suggest that they can are necessarily flawed and result from weak methodology or improper data analyses or are Type I errors.59 So it must be with psi effects.” What they find “particularly intriguing is that, despite the existential impossibility of psi phenomena and the nearly 150 years of efforts during which there has been, literally, no progress, there are still scientists who continue to embrace the pursuit” (Reber and Alcock, 2020). The vast anecdotal literature of near-death experiences (NDEs) and out-of-the-body experiences (OBEs) (17.12), amplified by innumerable (supposed) communications with the dead, also some serious but controversial research, gives rise to beliefs in a sentient afterlife, thus giving apparent credence to non-materialistic theories of consciousness. There are even reports of auras and halos around or emanating from people; some claim to witness, at the moment of death, the soul departing the body. “Terminal lucidity”—unanticipated and unexplained changes in mental clarity, verbal communication, and/or physical capability in the days and hours before death when each patient's medical condition should not allow for such sudden improvements—suggests, to some, that there is something nonphysical going on (Roehrs et al., 2023). Credulous readers will find an inexhaustible supply of NDE/OBE anecdotes and stories, but modest serious research of sound design in which the extraordinary claims are supported unambiguously by extraordinary evidence (to paraphrase Carl Sagan) (I acknowledge claims to the contrary.60). Perhaps the most common claim of “evidence” that consciousness is nonphysical comes from out-of-the-body experiences (Tart, 1987, 2007). Those having OBEs report their experiential awareness to be as a nonphysical entity (spirit/soul) in a nonphysical world. It is all sensorily or perceptibly real, vivid and stable, yet they sense not being in their earthly bodies and not being in our earthly world. The more lucid quality of OBE consciousness (compared to dream consciousness), which is typical of OBEs, convinces OBE adherents of the nonphysical nature of their personal consciousness and the reality of nonphysical realms. It is no surprise that psi researchers are more compelled by laboratory tests than by OBE/NDE anecdotes. They also point to everyday phenomena that people experience, such as thinking of someone and then getting a text or phone call from them, fueling the sense that it feels too unlikely to be a coincidence. To philosopher and parapsychologist Stephen Braude, the answer to the mind-body problem depends in part on how much exotic data you are willing to entertain. “If you are willing to look seriously at some of the data suggesting a persistence of personality after bodily death, after the body has decomposed,” he says, “then certainly the conventional materialist, neurophysiological view goes out the window” (Braude, 2007a). (For mathematician-astronomer Bernard Carr, paranormal phenomena inform his views of consciousness and the nature of fundamental reality—11.10.) The fact of the matter—whether such psi/paranormal phenomena have credible claims on reality, or whether they are purely and merely illusion, delusion, poor design or faulty analysis (those that aren't already outright frauds)—is not for adjudication or even for assessment here. (But the wholly skeptical view, personified engagingly by Susan Blackmore, does need voice [Blackmore, 2002, 2007].) Rather, if any of these psi/paranormal phenomena—even if a minuscule fraction of them—is real and does challenge or defy the laws of physics as currently construed, then non-materialistic theories of consciousness would have to be taken more seriously. This possibility, however remote or however likely, justifies inclusion, at least for me, of psi-motivated theories of consciousness here on the Landscape of possible explanations. I largely agree with Alex Gomez-Marin: “The study of consciousness requires that we take seriously the many flavors of human experience, particularly those that lie at the edges of what is typically explored scientifically and discussed in public. From psychedelics and synchronicities, to lucid dreaming and psychic phenomena, the ‘backdoors of perception’ have the potential to transform not just neuroscience and physics but our very understanding of the nature of reality and our place in it” (Gomez-Marin, 2023b). (I am, however, modestly less optimistic that meaningful progress can be made.) The more general “altered states of consciousness” subsumes diverse deviations from our normal alert, waking consciousness as induced by various physiological, psychological, or pharmacological actions or agents (Altered state of consciousness, 2023). Charles Tart, whose book, Altered States of Consciousness, was the first comprehensive treatment of the subject, focuses on the subjective nature of the experience: "Altered states of consciousness are alternate patterns or configurations of experience, which differ qualitatively from a baseline state," stressing “… such that the experiencer feels his consciousness is radically different from the way it functions ordinarily” (Tart, 1969). Note that Anomalous and Altered States theories, strictly speaking, are generally not theories of consciousness per se in that they are not theories of what consciousness is. Rather, they are claimed as evidence of what consciousness is not—not reducible to neurobiological states without residue. It is natural that those who interpret psi results favorably are also motivated to accept (or to create) non-local theories of consciousness. Moreover, while advocates of Anomalous and Altered States theories skew toward dualist or idealist theories, they espouse all the non-materialist theories: quantum, panpsychism and monism as well as dualism and idealism. For example, Dean Radin supports a “quantum oriented,” non-substance dualism (17.3), while Charles Tart supports an “emergent interactionism” substance dualism (17.4). All the theories that follow are motivated, at least in significant part, by anomalous, psi or paranormal phenomena (often NDEs and OBEs). 17.1. Bergson's multiplicity, duration, perception, memory Late 19th/early 20th century philosopher Henri Bergson's non-reductive consciousness is an unapologetic, sophisticated challenge to Materialism Theories. In consciousness, he says, “we find succeeding states without distinction; and, in space, simultaneities which, without succeeding, are distinguished, in the sense that one is no longer there when the other one appears. Outside of us, reciprocal exteriority without succession: within, succession without reciprocal exteriority” (Bergson, 1889; Pascal, 2023). Bergson's consciousness, which “retains the past and anticipates the future,” is not easy to categorize. It is the complex centerpiece of his grand philosophical system that highlights several original concepts: multiplicity (heterogeneity and continuity, the immediate data of consciousness); duration (no juxtaposition of events, no mechanistic causality, a qualitative multiplicity); perception (pure, images are all we sense); memory (pure, personal)—each from Bergson's idiosyncratic perspective (Lawlor and Moulard-Leonard, 2021). Bergson self-characterizes his own view as “frankly dualist,” because it “affirms both the reality of matter and the reality of spirit,” though he recognizes (and thinks he can overcome) “the theoretical difficulties which have always beset dualism.” Bergson rejects that “matter is a thing that possesses a hidden power able to produce representations in us. There is no hidden power in matter; matter is only images.” He critiques materialism by “showing that matter does not differ in nature from representation … the image is less than a thing but more than a representation” Moreover, Bergson's theory of “pure perception” posits that how we know things, in their pure states, is representational, thus establishing a middle ground between realism and idealism (Lawlor and Moulard-Leonard, 2021). To Bergson, “That which perceives is consciousness, that is to say the memory taken as a whole because this consciousness, which we might call here human soul or human spirit, is a continuous movement between pure perception and pure memory.” “The brain does not perceive: it transmits perception (pure or not) from the organ of perception to consciousness (sensory mechanism) and, conversely, it transmits the nascent order of action from consciousness to the appropriate motor organ to act in response to perception (motor mechanism) (Bergson, 1896, 1990; Pascal, 2023). Continuing, Bergson puts memory at the heart of consciousness with pithy propositions. “Mind with memory is consciousness and produces time. Mind without memory is the unconscious and produces space.” “The phenomena of memory are at the juncture of consciousness and matter.” “Going from pure perception to memory, we definitively leave matter behind for the mind.” “First the present becomes past and then the past becomes present. Thus, consciousness becomes the bridge between the present and the past which we call the future. The future is being fabricated at all times by a free act called choice of consciousness” (Bergson, 1896, 1990; Pascal, 2023). Bergson has consciousness as “unquestionably connected with the brain: but it by no means follows that a brain is indispensable to consciousness.” The brain, he says, is not the generator of consciousness, but a “filter” of consciousness, because unfiltered consciousness would be shattering and stupefying. Our capacity to focus and act in the world is enabled by our brain acting as barrier, shielding our personal awareness from the vast cacophony swirling in the great beyond (Bergson, 1920). Bergson's notion of consciousness is “a ceaselessly dynamic, inherently temporal substance of reality” that might even allow for some sort of survival after death (Barnard, 2011). Is Bergson a kind of dualist, panpsychist or even idealist? No matter. Certainly, he is no materialist. He was president of the Society for Psychical Research, which no doubt reflects his views and warrants his inclusion in this category. According to Alex Gomez-Marin, "The essential debate about the precise relationship between thoughts and brains (solidarity versus equivalence, participation versus interaction, etc.) has faded. But one can revisit Henri Bergson to find a lucid dose of common sense: ‘That there is a close connection between a state of consciousness and the brain we do not dispute. But there is also a close connection between a coat and the nail on which it hangs, for, if the nail is pulled out, the coat falls to the ground. Shall we say, then, that the shape of the nail gives us the shape of the coat, or in any way corresponds to it?’ What do brain data really show? The edifice of twenty-first-century consciousness neuroscience stands on the foundations of the following candid empirical fact: ‘change the brain, experience changes.’ The hard problem of wardrobes is to explain why and how hangers give rise to clothes” (Gomez-Marin, 2022). Moreover, Gomez-Marin and Juan Arnau retrieve an argument by Bergson to expose, what they call “the fundamental self-contradiction of parallelism: it forces the idealist to sustain that ‘the part is the whole’, and the realist that ‘the part subsists when the remainder of the whole vanishes.’” Bergson's image-movement theory (from Matter and Memory) is then recast “to overcome the conceptual dead-end of parallelism”—the point being that “Consciousness is real. So is its special relation to the brain. Differentiating between solidarity (as lesions demonstrate) and equivalence (as no data does) offers an alternative point of departure for an understanding of consciousness that does not, from the outset, outlay a false problem” (Gomez-Marin and Arnau, 2019). 17.2. Jung's collective unconscious and synchronicity Psychiatrist/psychoanalyst Carl Jung famously posits a “collective unconscious,” a hidden, quasi-nonphysical aspect of reality with which each individual human subconsciousness is in some sense connected. Prime features of the collective unconscious, according to Jung, are “archetypes” and “synchronicity:” archetypes are ancient primal symbols, themes and images that are apparently universal and recurring and can impact individual psyches; and synchronicity describes putative connections between physical and/or mental events that are acausal and seemingly random but appear to be meaningfully related. Synchronicity is properly controversial, because, according to the laws of physics, there should be nothing of the sort. But if, perchance, synchronicity does exist and it does represent real phenomena—if synchronous events are not mere chance masquerading as meaning—then synchronicity would be a powerful probe of novel fundamental realities of mind and world, and it would, en passant, take down classic materialism.61 Jung had been intrigued by the ancient Chinese oracle I Ching, whose 64 hexagram symbols generated divinations “made by seemingly random numerical happenings for which the I Ching text gives detailed situational analysis.” Years later, Jung introduced synchronicity "to describe circumstances that appear meaningfully related yet lack a causal connection." Other definitions Jung used enriched synchronicity's non-normal vision of reality: "a hypothetical factor equal in rank to causality as a principle of explanation," "an acausal connecting principle," "acausal parallelism," and the "meaningful coincidence of two or more events where something other than the probability of chance is involved” (Synchronicity, 2023). Collaborating with physicist and Nobel laureate Wolfgang Pauli (Pauli Exclusion Principle), Jung further developed the radical concept. Pauli contributed his intimate understanding of the common sense-defying elements of quantum theory, such as complementarity, nonlocality, and the observer effect, and their work together yielded what is now called the “Pauli–Jung conjecture”—which stands for “a basic psychophysically neutral reality with its derivative mental and physical aspects and the nature of the correlations that connect these aspects.” Jung and Pauli "offered the radical and brilliant idea that the currency of these [synchronicity's] correlations is not (quantitative) statistics, as in quantum physics, but (qualitative) meaning” (Atmanspacher, 2020b; Atmanspacher and Fuchs, 2014). For his part, Pauli said that synchronicities were "corrections to chance fluctuations by meaningful and purposeful coincidences of causally unconnected events," though he sought to move away from “coincidence” and towards a "correspondence," "connection," or "constellation" of discrete factors. Jung's and Pauli's position was that, “just as causal connections can provide a meaningful understanding of the psyche and the world, so too may acausal connections” (Synchronicity, 2023). The speculative nexus between synchronicity and quantum physics turns on entanglement, where there is absolute correlation but absolutely no transference of information. Thus, quantum entanglement is said to be the physical phenomenon that most closely represents the concept of synchronicity. As Harald Atmanspacher puts it. “Inspired by and analogous to entanglement-induced nonlocal correlations in quantum physics, mind-matter entanglement is conceived as the hypothetical origin of mind-matter correlations. This exhibits the highly speculative picture of a fundamentally holistic, psychophysically neutral level of reality from which correlated mental and material domains emerge” (Atmanspacher, 2020a). Atmanspacher probes for epistemic/ontic commonalities between synchronicity and entanglement. He highlights “local realism” of empirical facts obtained from classical measuring instruments and a “holistic realism” of entangled systems, arguing that “these domains are connected by the process of measurement, thus far conceived as independent of conscious observers. The corresponding picture on the mental side refers to a distinction between conscious and unconscious domains” (Atmanspacher, 2020a). A further claim concerns Jung's “depth psychology” conceptions, where these two domains of local realism and holistic realism are connected by the emergence of conscious mental states from the unconscious, analogous apparently to physical measurement. Crucially, famously, “Jung's unconscious has a collective component, unseparated between individuals and populated by so-called archetypes.” These archetypes are said to be “constituting the psychophysically neutral level comprising both the collective unconscious and the holistic reality of quantum theory.” At the same time, Atmanspacher says, “they operate as ‘ordering factors’, being responsible for the arrangement of their psychical and physical manifestations in the epistemically distinguished domains of mind and matter” (Atmanspacher, 2020a). So, here's the axial question: Does the “acausal connection principle” in synchronicity meaningfully parallel the “acausal correlation principle” in quantum entanglement? Is this apparent parallelism revelatory or shoehorn forced, unveiling profound new realities, or overthinking superficial similarities? Again, the axial question. Why have I situated Jung's collective unconscious on this Landscape of Consciousness? The reason is somewhat indirect, because, if valid as stated, a literal collective unconscious would falsify many theories of consciousness, certainly defeat every strictly materialistic theory. Moreover, it would be consistent with diverse nonphysical theories: Dualism, Panpsychism, and Idealism. Idealism is most often associated with Jung's worldview. While Jung is recognized as one of the most important psychologists in history, few scientists take his concept of the collective unconscious as literally true. However, Jung's highlighting (and coining) synchronicity does elicit from time to time far-reaching theories in both physics and consciousness regarding anomalous cognition and events. 17.3. Radin's challenge to materialism Coming at consciousness from an empirical point of view, parapsychologist Dean Radin calls on what he believes to be the overwhelming evidence for psi phenomena in order to infer that “intention affects the physical world.” He characterizes his work as “a tiny part of a century-long legacy of researchers who have reported studies, when meta-analyzed, provide strong evidence for psi” (Radin, 2007). Radin notes that non-local conscious experiences are commonly reported (prevalence rates well above 10% and as high as 90%). Moreover, cognitive abilities can be retained when the brain is seriously compromised. For example, in terminal lucidity patients with terminal neurodegenerative conditions can display apparently normal cognitive function and mental clarity during the short period preceding death; paradoxical lucidity can occur in dementia due to advanced Alzheimer's disease, brain abscesses, tumors, strokes, and meningitis.62 Radin recruits the happy term “magic,” as in “real magic,” to facilitate public appreciation that psi/paranormal phenomena are a natural aspect of reality (Radin, 2018), and he claims strong experimental or empirical evidence for three types of “real magic:” (i) “divination,” which in today's world is perceiving through space and time and which is identical to clairvoyance, remote viewing, precognition; (ii) “force of will,” which causes “psycho-kinetic effects,” the idea that your mindful intention can affect aspects of the physical world beyond yourself; and (iii) “theurgy,” by which Radin means the practice of engaging or communicating with spirits, entities that are not human and invisible to most people (Radin, 2022). Then, Radin says, you start thinking like a scientist and ask how could these phenomena happen? “Well, what are the ‘force beams’ coming out of the head? But we don't see any beams coming out. In fact, even the evidence doesn't exactly look like it's a causal mechanism. These are weird relationships that arise.” Next, Radin says, is to consider some kind of “downward causation” effect. I suppose that's possible, he says, “but it just seems to make more sense if really at the bottom is simply consciousness. There's some kind of ‘ocean of consciousness’ that gives rise to an emergent property, which we may call energy, which gives rise to matter, and then the physical world plays out in a way that we usually see it, except that really at the bottom is consciousness.” It's much, much easier, Radin says, “to simply imagine that matter is ultimately composed of mind, that mind and matter are ultimately the same thing, than to imagine the complex mechanisms of mind-body/brain interactions” (Radin, 2007). Radin and colleagues point to specific non-local effects to support their proposal that “post-materialistic models of consciousness may be required to break the conceptual impasse presented by the hard problem of consciousness.” They review several alternative non-physicalist theories: all of which purport to refute the central premise of physicalist theories that consciousness is generated solely and purely by the brain and is only local to the brain. Most of these theories have quantum or panpsychism pedigrees; some even propose that consciousness is more fundamental than energy-matter and spacetime (Wahbeh et al., 2022). Radin and colleagues propose that “consciousness may not originate in the brain,” although many aspects of human consciousness are obviously dependent on the brain. They also suggest that awareness too extends beyond the brain. While they affirm with conviction that these non-physical, non-local properties of consciousness are observable, they are less confident as to the underlying mechanism of how they work. It may be, they say “due to a non-local material effect, to consciousness being fundamental, or something else we have not yet discovered” (Wahbeh et al., 2022). Thus, Radin and colleagues propose “specific phenomena that we would expect to see if non-local consciousness theories are correct:” Perceiving information about distant locations (clairvoyance, including remote viewing); perceiving information from another person (telepathy); perceiving the future (precognition); and apparent cognitive abilities beyond the experience/learning/skill of the person exhibiting them (e.g., speaking a foreign language they do not know, i.e., speaking “in tongues”) (Wahbeh et al., 2022). In defending their quantum-oriented approach to the mind-brain problem, Stuart Kauffman and Radin cite as evidence for a nonlocal mind the predictions of two types of nonlocal experiences: “The mind would have the capacity to extend beyond the mind-brain system, and the act of observing a distant physical system would, to some degree, directly influence the behavior of that system.” Such effects, they claim, would occasionally result in experiences “where minds interact with other minds, where minds perceive hidden or distant objects or events, and where minds directly influence aspects of the physical world” (Kauffman and Radin, 2020). The common terms for these psi phenomena are the following: “telepathy for mind-to-mind interactions; clairvoyance for perceptions of inanimate things across space; precognition for perceptions through time; and psychokinesis for mental influence of physical objects.” Kauffman and Radin stress that use of these different terms does not imply that the underlying phenomena are different in kind; “they are just labels used to describe the way the experiences seem to manifest” (Kauffman and Radin, 2020). While Radin's primary line of argument uses psi phenomena to corroborate a nonlocal mind of a quantum-oriented nature, one can reverse the causal-explanatory direction such that a nonlocal mind could provide a mechanism for psi phenomena (Kauffman and Radin, 2020). (Note that the arrow of causation or explanation can point in either direction, although not in both directions in the same argument, which would be circular.) 17.4. Tart's emergent interactionism Consciousness explorer Charles Tart proposes “Emergent Interactionism” as a dualistic theory of consciousness, based on his long work on altered states of consciousness, transpersonal psychology, and multiple forms of parapsychology (Tart, 1978a, 2007). He calls it “pragmatic dualism,” in that it reflects the nature of things and recognizes the need to understand consciousness in terms of two qualitatively different aspects of reality: a “B system” of brain and body governed by physical law, and a “M/L system” of the mental and life aspects of reality. Consciousness, Tart says, is a “system property,” an emergent from the auto-psi interaction of the B and M/L systems. Ultimate understanding of consciousness, then, in addition to conventional neuroscience, also requires increasing knowledge of psi/paranormal phenomena. Tart claims that the veracity of psi phenomena is a clear-cut scientific demonstration of the inadequacy of a materialistic view of mind and matter. The “psychoneural identity hypothesis,” he says, is so widely accepted in science and so thoroughly discredited by ESP and parapsychology (Tart, 1978a). Tart's extraordinary hypothesis is that psi is being used much of the time in everyone's life, but it is being used internally. This means, he offers, we frequently use auto-clairvoyance to read our own B system and auto-psychokinesis to affect our B systems. This is ordinary psi, auto-psi. What we observe in parapsychological experiments, however, is non-ordinary psi, which is taking a process ordinarily confined within a single organism and pushing it outside, making it “allo-psi” (Tart, 1978a, personal communication). The Emergent Interactionist position allows for kinds of potential survival beyond bodily death, Tart speculates, but it would not necessarily be the kind of postmortem survival we usually conceive of. Our usual imagery of survival means survival of the basic pattern of our consciousness, our experience of our mental life, our feelings of personal identity. But if consciousness, as Tart proposes, is an emergent of the auto-psi interactions of the B and the M/L systems, an emergent of constant patterning of each system upon the other, then if the B system ceases functioning in death, the patterning influence of the B system upon the M/L system will cease, so how is ordinary consciousness, as we know it, to survive? What is the emergent to emerge from? One answer, according to Tart—and not the pleasant answer people would like—may be that personal identity, which is so intimately intertwined with ordinary consciousness, does not survive death, at least not for very long, and in any event it would likely be quite different from the original person (Tart, 1978a). Moreover, Tart stresses, psi phenomena radicalize even further the nonphysical dimension of dualism by showing how consciousness reveals or enables space and time to be flexible and mobile. He proposes that an extended aspect of the mind, which is activated when psi abilities are used, has two properties that differ from our ordinary consciousness. The first is that psi-engaged consciousness is not spatially or temporally localized with respect to ordinary spatial and temporal constraints on the physical body/brain, and so somehow can pick up information at spatial locations outside the sensory range of the body/brain (Tart, 1978b). The second property of psi-engaged consciousness is that the center point of its experienced present can be located at a different temporal location than the center point of the experienced present of ordinary consciousness. That is, it may be centered around a time that, by ordinary standards, is past or future. Furthermore, the duration of this extended dimension of the mind's experienced present is wider than that of our ordinarily experienced present, such that the mind may include portions of time that, from our ordinary point of view, are both past and future as well as present (Tart, 1978a). 17.5. Josephson's psi-informed models Nobel laureate physicist Brian Josephson approaches consciousness from the dual perspectives of fundamental science and psi phenomena. He posits understanding the brain by “implementing the demands of an appropriate collection of models, each concerned with some aspect of brain and behaviour”—in particular, explaining “higher-level properties [e.g., phenomenology] in terms of lower-level ones by means of a series of inferences based on these models” (Josephson, 2004). Josephson says that many scientists believe that psi is real but don't come out and say so due to social pressures and career concerns. He considers the immense implications if, say, telepathy exists. “All sorts of things would change if we accepted that paranormal things happen and that we have such connections.” One simple example is playing music in an ensemble, where, using telepathy, “they somehow lock into a single state and perform better” (Josephson, 2012a). As for how psi could work, Josephson posits quantum physics—Einstein's “spooky actions at a distance”—but also recognizes that “we probably need to include new dimensions of reality.” He points to biology, the emergence of life, as a “strange phenomenon” that “changes the whole game.” Biology, he says, “involves principles that we don't have in physics, and these principles might be able to unfold in quite dramatic ways, extending our understanding of the cosmos, perhaps because biological principles lead to minds and minds can do things.” Josephson sees biology and consciousness as fundamentally linked because “organisms deal with information in a certain way and consciousness could fit into that.” There could be some kind of “biological field,” analogous to the electric field, he says. The assumption that you can get to some ultimate level, though, “may be incorrect.” Josephson's “theory of everything” paradigm, informed by psi and based on “parallels between spontaneously fluctuating equilibrium states and life processes,” envisions “an evolving ensemble of experts [modules], each with its own goals but nevertheless acting in harmony with each other.” How such an ensemble might function and evolve, he says, can affect fundamental physics such as symmetry and symmetry breaking. Josephson says, “This picture differs from that of regular physics in that goal-directedness has an important role to play, contrasting with that of the conventional view which implies a meaningless universe” (Josephson, 2021). Moreover, advancing John Wheeler's proposal that “repeated acts of observation give rise to the reality that we observe,” Josephson suggests that “nature has a deep technological aspect that evolves as a result of selection processes that act upon observers making use of the technologies.” He concludes that “our universe is the product of agencies that use these evolved technologies to suit particular purposes” (Josephson, 2015). Going for ultimates, Josephson proposes that “something is happening behind the universe on a larger, possibly infinite scale, that has this organization and is doing things—like bringing a universe into being, setting up its laws, and perhaps directing its evolution” (Josephson, 2012b). 17.6. Wilber's Integral Theory Charismatic, iconoclastic philosopher Ken Wilber puts forth “Integral Theory” as an overarching metatheory that seeks to harmonize numerous (100+), diverse philosophical and spiritual theories—including consciousness studies, meditative traditions, religious traditions, psychology, transpersonal psychology, parapsychology and sociology—into a single, coherent framework that accounts for the human condition, broadly conceived. Integral Theory is founded on a developmental “spectrum of consciousness,” an evolutionary account from ancient non-life-to-life proto-consciousness to ultimate spirit/spiritual attainment or enlightenment. In New-Age intellectual circles, Integral Theory is lauded as a pioneering, path-setting model for novel explorations of consciousness and human futures (Section: Integral Theory/WIlber, 2024). Wilber's core framework is a four-quadrant model—the AQAL (All Quadrants All Levels) model—the simple-sounding 2x2 grid arraying interior-exterior with individual-collective. The ambitious claim is that all essential theories, models and levels of individual psychology and spiritual development, and of collective expressions of social organization, can be subsumed and discerned within Wilber's AQAL system. Moreover, according to its proponents, all forms of knowledge and experience can be conceptualized as fitting and flowing together within the model. In his 1995 classic, Sex, Ecology, Spirituality: The Spirit of Evolution, Wilber combines sex and gender issues, ecological wisdom, and non-sectarian spirituality into what adherents see as a prescient, coherent vision for contemporary times. Founded on the emergence of mind and the evolution of human consciousness, and on combatting philosophical naturalism (which he considers as a source of the world's ills), Wilber asks a critical question: Can spiritual concerns be integrated with the modern world? Wilber conceives of the “Kosmos” (not “cosmos,” which is too physicalist for him) as consisting of several concentric spheres: matter (the physical universe); then life (the vital realm); then mind (the mental realm); then soul (the psychic realm); and then finally Spirit (the spiritual realm) (Wilber, 1995). In his 1999 book, Integral Psychology: Consciousness, Spirit, Psychology, Therapy, Wilber seeks to reestablish spiritual consciousness in contemporary developmental psychology by embracing “every legitimate aspect of human consciousness [Eastern and Western, ancient and modern] under one roof.” Wilber's project is to legitimatize, within the framework of modern science, the spiritual quest (Wilber, 1999). What's the relationship between Wilber's project and this Landscape of theories of (phenomenal) consciousness? It is direct in that if Wilber succeeds, Materialism Theories of consciousness are obviously undermined and likely defeated. Although Wilber does not get much into the consciousness-categories game, his core developmental process begins with a separation of individual consciousness from a transcendental reality, and then his grand course of human development moves toward restoring the primordial unity of human and transcendental consciousness (Integral Theory/WIlber, 2024). 17.7. Combs's chaotic attractor and autopoietic systems Consciousness researcher and systems theorist Allan Combs uses nonlinear dynamics, and more specifically chaos theory, to understand how all the elements of conscious experience “cling together to form the many states and structures of consciousness that characterize the onflow of our experiential lives.” (Section: Combs, 2022). In doing so, Combs channels William James, “This multitude of ideas, existing absolutely, yet clinging together, and weaving an endless carpet of themselves, …like dominoes in ceaseless change, or the bits of glass in a kaleidoscope—whence do they get their fantastic laws of clinging, and why do they cling in just the shapes they do?” (James, 1890). “We live in a nonlinear universe,” Combs says, which means that “nothing turns out exactly as one might expect based on projections from the past.” While this is true in physics and astronomy, it is “even more true in the realms of biological systems and the mind.” What results is “the emergence of novel interacting elements,” which is “an essential feature of countless real-world events.” Moreover, in chaotic systems, like the weather, while there are recognizable general patterns, “it is impossible to make precise predictions about future behavior”—local or moment-to-moment details are always unpredictable. The action of chaotic systems can be mapped topologically as attractors, that is, as recognizable mathematical patterns that repeat or almost repeat themselves indefinitely. But systems that can be represented as chaotic attractors never repeat themselves precisely. “Many complex systems of a biological nature, such as the metabolic rhythms of a living cell, EEG responses to sensory stimuli, and circadian sleep cycles, are in a strict sense always novel. That is, they are never exactly the same twice.” Even the action of a healthy human heart shows variation from beat to beat (Combs, 2022). According to Combs, consciousness, the onflow of experience, “fits the bill nicely as a chaotic-like attractor.” To begin with, it is always in motion, dynamic and ever-changing. Moreover, like all chaotic attractors, it displays a recognizable pattern; yet, it is never exactly the same during different cycles. Indeed, this unique feature of each person's onflow of experience is what James considered to be the basic signature of an individual personality. “Each of us, for instance, experiences unique patterns of thoughts, feelings, perceptions, memories, and so on, that replay in roughly the same way day in and day out.” But never precisely the same. Thus, consciousness as a chaotic attractor is ever-changing yet identifiable, “in a fashion that amounts to a distinct signature of the individual's experiential life.” Combs recruits the concept of “autopoiesis” to help explain consciousness. Autopoiesis means capable of generating and maintaining itself by producing its own parts—“auto” meaning "self" and “poiesis” meaning "creation” or “production” (Humberto and Varela, 1980)—a concept applied widely in understanding biological systems, such as the self-maintaining biochemistry of living cells. Assuming consciousness, as James had it, is “the onflow of thoughts, memories, and emotions that recreate themselves as they go along, ‘clinging together, and weaving an endless carpet of themselves’ … [then] this description fits the notion of a chaotic autopoietic attractor.” For example, Combs cites how “joy, anger, and sadness tend to sustain themselves by creating their own self-perpetuating internal conditions.” Emotional states self-propagate, he says, “thereby creating coherent self-organizing streams of experience,” with each such state accompanied by its own neurochemistry, which also contributes to its resilience (Combs, 2022). In addition, cognitive patterns by which we understand the world exemplify the mind as a complex, self-creating autopoietic system. The mind also exhibits features of a chaotic system on the “edge of chaos” or “the brink of change,” characterized by “periods of relative stability punctuated by phases of instability, or increased chaotic behavior, after which they may return to their original state, or transition (bifurcate) to a new attractor pattern” (Combs, 2022). 17.8. Schooler's resonance theory and subjective time Experimental psychologist Jonathan Schooler outlines a theory of consciousness that combines two novel ideas: “resonance theory,” where multiple levels of consciousness interact, and “subjective time,” where consciousness arises with an observer's movement through objective time relative to a currently unacknowledged dimension of subjective time (Schooler, 2022a). Both ideas are motivated by Schooler's research and thinking on meta-consciousness, mind wandering, and anomalous cognition (i.e., psi/paranormal phenomena). The first idea is what he calls meta-consciousness or meta-awareness. In addition to having experiences, he says, “periodically, I check-in on what's going on in my mind. And I may notice things that I hadn't noticed otherwise; for example, mind wandering while reading. We all have the experience of reading along and suddenly realizing that, although our eyes are moving across the page, we have no idea what we're reading. We're thinking about something completely unrelated. It's as if we're waking up, but we were awake all along” (Schooler, 2022a). Temporal dissociations are revealed when an individual, who previously lacked meta-consciousness about the contents of consciousness, directs meta-consciousness towards those contents (e.g., catching one's mind wandering during reading) (Schooler, 2002). Appreciating the distinction between consciousness and meta-consciousness helps to clarify a variety of phenomenal experiences. As Schooler notes, “when we're entering a moment of meta-consciousness, when we recognize that we can have experience without being meta-aware of that experience, it helps to open up the discussion about consciousness. We can have an emotion and not realize that we're having it. We may not notice that we're angry. When people shout, ‘I'm not angry,’ they are attempting to take stock of it, but they get it wrong. By recognizing this distinction between experiential consciousness and meta-consciousness we can gain broader perspectives on the varieties of consciousness and deeper understanding of the nature of consciousness” (Schooler, 2022a). Meta-consciousness is said to correspond to conscious states in which the content of those states includes an explicit characterization of what is currently being experienced. In other words, he says, meta-consciousness is simply a kind of conscious experience in which the focus of thought is turned on to itself. Thus, although conscious and unconscious mental processes are categorically distinct, conscious and meta-conscious states differ only with respect to the type of content that they entail (Schooler and Mrazek, 2015). “Resonance theory” leverages meta-consciousness by positing multiple levels or streams of consciousness going on simultaneously. In the same way that the brain's left and right hemispheres seem to carry on multiple streams of consciousness, Schooler says it's possible that lower levels or “windows” may have their own, albeit circumscribed conscious experiences. And the way that these windows are communicating with one another is through resonances of assorted kinds. Within a single window, all can be happening in synchrony, and then, between levels, there is cross-frequency coupling. And it is through these various kinds of resonances, both top-down and bottom-up circuits, that multiple potentially sentient windows may be able to communicate with one another, thus producing what we know as macroscopic consciousness (Schooler, 2022a). According to Schooler, the resonance theory of consciousness works via a shared resonance that allows different parts of the brain to achieve a phase transition in the speed and bandwidth of information flows between the constituent parts. This phase transition allows for richer varieties of consciousness to arise, with the character and content of that consciousness in each moment determined by the particular set of constituent neurons (Hunt and Schooler, 2019). Schooler recognizes that because the idea driving his resonance theory is that we may have multiple levels of consciousness, he affirms what Daniel Dennett denies: a “Cartesian Theater” in the brain. Whereas Dennett disparages the “Cartesian Theater” as imaginary, Schooler champions its reality. “I do think that, at any given moment, there is a vantage,” Schooler states, “but I also think that it's just one of multiple vantages that are happening in the mind. We have multiple windows; we have what we call ‘nested observer windows’. And so, we imagine that consciousness may actually be these nested windows, windows upon windows, with each one resonating with the others. In this way, through the shared resonance between different windows, at different levels of awareness, we may construct an ever increasingly complex conscious experience.” Thus, Schooler conjectures that there may be not just a single Cartesian Theater, but in fact a “Cartesian Multiplex” of multiple nested observers (Schooler, 2022a). The second idea undergirding Schooler's theory of consciousness is the real possibility of “anomalous cognition” (i.e., psi/paranormal phenomena). “I have a motto,” he says, “’entertaining without endorsing’, meaning I see sufficient evidence such that psi phenomena deserve consideration—hundreds of studies that have found positive results. But at the same time, the failures to replicate, and the profound challenges in understanding how it could exist, if it does exist, lead me to feel that we are far from being able to endorse it as being a real phenomenon” (Schooler, 2022b; Schooler et al., 2018). For example, although accounts of precognition (i.e., the mind perceiving events that have not yet occurred) have been prevalent across human history, Schooler and colleagues say it is no surprise that these claims have been met with strong skepticism, but rather than dismissing the claims, they call for more research to bridge the gap between skeptics and proponents (Franklin et al., 2014). While scientists on both sides may usefully vary in the criteria that they set for entertaining and endorsing anomalous cognition, Schooler and colleagues argue that researchers should consider adopting a liberal criterion for entertaining anomalous cognition while maintaining a very strict criterion for the outright endorsement of its existence. Appreciating the justifiability of polar opposite views on psi/paranormal phenomena, Schooler encourage humility on both the part of those who present evidence in support of anomalous cognition and those who dispute the merit of its investigation (Schooler et al., 2018). Schooler wonders whether there may be some aspects of existence that may forever elude full scientific scrutiny. He relates two germane examples. “Just as it may never be possible to prove objectively the single thing we know the best, which is our subjective experience of qualia, so it may never be possible to reproduce anomalous cognition events with robust precision and effects” (Schooler, 2022b). Seeking potential mechanisms for anomalous cognition or psi/paranormal phenomena, if they were to exist, Schooler speculates that explanations of consciousness and explanations of anomalous cognition are going to be related. “If there is anything to anomalous cognition,” he says, “then it has to do with unexplained aspects of the nature of consciousness itself” (Schooler, 2022c). Pondering what possible structures could explain both consciousness and anomalous cognition, Schooler focuses on the failure of the prevailing third-person perspective of material reductionism to account adequately for the first-person experience of subjectivity, the flow of time, and the present. While acknowledging intrinsic differences among these three ideas, he posits a meta-perspective that experience, the flow of time, and the unique quality of “now” might be accommodated by a subjective dimension or dimensions of time (Schooler, 2014). This new dimension of existence, a subjective dimension of time, would be as real as spatial dimensions. It is this subjective dimension, Schooler posits, that, while entirely overlooked by science, may be where the possible realm of anomalous cognition resides as well as being an essential part of the deep explanation of consciousness (Schooler, 2022b). Alluding to information theory, Schooler considers how a conjoined first-person/third-person meta-perspective could conceptualize subjectivity, the present, and the flow of time within an architecture that closely links information to an ever-changing now. Thus, “consciousness arises via the changing informational states associated with an observer's movement through objective time relative to a currently unacknowledged dimension or dimensions of subjective time” (Schooler, 2014). Perhaps most dramatically, certainly most controversially, the existence of an additional temporal dimension could be consistent with precognition (knowing the future), which has a vast anecdotal tradition and a serious (if challenged) research program. Schooler asserts that “demonstrating robust findings of precognition could inform theories of how consciousness interfaces with time in a manner not currently considered in modern science” (Schooler, 2014). Given his “resonance theory” and “subjective dimension of time,” what is Schooler's ultimate ontology of consciousness? Wielding his motto, “entertaining without endorsing,” he picks out panpsychism. “The magnitude of the challenge of how consciousness exists in physical reality, he says, invites ambitious characterizations of how it might fit. And panpsychism, the idea that very low-level consciousnesses integrate into higher levels, seems quite plausible” (Schooler, 2022a). 17.9. Sheldrake's morphic fields Parapsychologist Rupert Sheldrake proposes “morphic fields” as a field of form or shape or organization, “such that every entity has its own field: each ant colony, each termite nest, a flock of birds, a pack of wolves and a herd of animals.” Social groups of people too, such as a family, a tribe or a group, where “members of that group interact with each other within that [morphic] field. When they go apart, that field, as it were, stretches. It doesn't break. The members remain connected at a distance in a way analogous to quantum entanglement.” There is a huge diversity of morphic fields. “Each self-organizing pattern of activity has its own morphic field, and a kind of collective, inherent memory” (Sheldrake, 2007a, n.d.a, n.d.b). Morphic fields at all levels of complexity have the following characteristics: They are self-organizing wholes; they have both a spatial and a temporal aspect, and organize spatio-temporal patterns of vibratory or rhythmic activity; they attract the systems under their influence towards characteristic forms and patterns of activity; they are a nested hierarchy or holarchy; they are structures of probability, and their organizing activity is probabilistic; and they contain a built-in memory that is cumulative and reinforcing (Sheldrake, n.d.b). Sheldrake's corollary concept of “morphic resonance” expresses this kind of collective memory inherent in nature, the inference of similar prior patterns of activity on subsequent similar patterns of activity—which, once they have occurred, can happen more easily anywhere. Morphic resonance is rhythmic in nature, patterns of vibration in space and time that give rise to this kind of memory. It is like a habit, he says, which depends on memory, usually unconscious memory. Sheldrake posits that morphogenesis in biology depends on organizing fields. As the case in point, the fields organizing the activity of the nervous system are inherited “through morphic resonance, conveying a collective, instinctive memory. Each individual both draws upon and contributes to the collective memory of the species. This means that new patterns of behavior can spread more rapidly than would otherwise be possible.” Unabashedly controversial and mainstream rejected, morphic fields, Sheldrake says, underlie our mental activity and our perceptions. He claims that the existence of these fields can be tested experimentally, such as the sense of being stared at (a claim refuted by in-field scientists.) He further claims that morphic fields of social groups “help provide an explanation for telepathy” and that “telepathy seems to be a normal means of animal communication” (as with dogs [Sheldrake, 2011])—all of which are mainstream dismissed. Sheldrake argues that “telepathy is normal not paranormal, natural not supernatural, and is also common between people, especially people who know each other well,” adding, “The morphic fields of mental activity are not confined to the insides of our heads. They extend far beyond our brain through intention and attention”63 (Sheldrake, n.d.a, n.d.b). 17.10. Grinberg's syntergic/neuronal field theory Iconoclastic neurophysiologist Jacobo Grinberg-Zylberbaum presents a psychophysiological theory of consciousness—"The syntergic theory"— which postulates that “the human brain is able to create a hypercomplex field of interactions that are the result of the activation of all its neuronal elements.” He calls this interaction matrix the “neuronal field,” and “one of the effects of its activation is the unification of neuronal activity.” Grinberg speculates that “the neuronal field produces a distortion in the basic space-time structure and the reality of our percepts is the perception of this distortion.” For the neuronal field to be activated, he says, “a structure as complex as the brain is needed” and “this field is responsible for the interactions between brains produced in emphatic non-verbal communication.” Consciousness, he states, “is closely connected to the neuronal field” (Grinberg-Zylberbaum, 1997). Grinberg, who pursued fringe areas, such as shamanism, and who vanished mysteriously at age 48, conceives of “Reality” as “an undifferentiated energetic matrix” and “by means of the brain, this matrix is converted into neuronal activity and experience.” Thus, “human experience is considered to constitute or ‘exists in' a dimension different from that which is related to the localized physiological activity of the brain.” Combining “cerebral electrochemical changes and the experiences themselves of light, sound, love, fear, etc., energetic transformations of a qualitative nature must take place.” These hypothesized transformations engender Grinberg's “syntergic theory” which, he says, concerns “the creation of experience” (Grinberg-Zylberbaum, 1981). Grinberg also claims to support “the brain's quantum nature at the macrolevel” by demonstrating “transferred [evoked] potentials” between electrically insulated subjects situated 14.5 m apart (Grinberg-Zylberbaum et al., 1994). Moreover, the syntergic theory postulates that the brain's energetic field (the neuronal field) “expands into space, interacts with the space-matter continuum, is able to change the informational content of the latter, and thus affects other neuronal fields and physical forces.” According to this theory, he says, “gravitation is a by-product of an alteration in the informational content of the space-matter continuum, and human communication is based on neuronal field interactions.” In short, the syntergic theory considers experience as “the interaction between the neuronal field and the energetic (syntergic) organization of space." Grinberg claims that “this approach is the one that contemporary physics requires in order to be able to incorporate experience into its realm and thus expand its limits to include life and consciousness” (Grinberg-Zylberbaum, 1982). 17.11. Graboi's three-aspect model Cognitive neuroscientist Daniel Graboi, motivated by telepathy and clairvoyance being real and nonphysical, proposes a “three-aspect model of consciousness”: matter, mind (nonphysical), and pure awareness (an “absolute”). In his model, "pure awareness energy" interacts with a brain to produce consciousness in the mind, which exists in a nonphysical dimension of reality. The information produced by the activation pattern of neurons in the unique wiring structure of a specific brain dissociates and is rendered into a "pure information" format which is universal and available nonlocally to enter the contents of consciousness of any suitably receptive brain-mind (Graboi, 2023). 17.12. Near death experiences, survival, past lives Near-death experiences (NDEs) command great popular interest but receive only modest discussion here on the Landscape. Obviously, if even a minuscule fraction of this vast ocean of anecdotes were actually true, it would instantly falsify every Materialism Theory and support (but not confirm) a host of nonphysical theories. NDEs are out-of-the-body experiences (OBEs) that are triggered during catastrophic physical trauma that leads to “death” in terms of heart stoppages, and generally feature a cluster of common characteristics: a feeling of floating above or beyond one's body; a sense of movement toward a bright light with a benevolent aura; a capacity to commune with deceased loved ones; and the presence of a spiritual Being or beings who radiate warmth and love (whose names or traits vary according to the religion or culture of the NDE experiencer). NDEs have been recorded throughout history and across cultures, often associated with mystical traditions. Of all the requests we receive from viewers of Closer To Truth, NDEs surely rank first, and survival/past lives probably second. My response goes something like this: “I have followed NDE accounts, both experiencers/advocates and skeptics/debunkers, but I do not find sufficient depth and diversity, beyond the obvious confirming enthusiasm of the former and the obvious denying critique of the latter, to warrant the kind of explorations we do on Closer To Truth. We are not in the business of adjudicating claims of NDEs and survival/past lives (as we are not with ESP). What we do is to explore the implications or ramifications of such claims, if they would be true, from an ontological perspective and with critical thinking (which CTT does with ESP).” (For a pioneering and exploratory exception, Closer To Truth features the experimental work of Sam Parnia, a medical scientist who explores NDEs under a new name, “Recalled Experiences of Death [Parnia et al., 2022; Parnia, 2014].) While popular accounts of NDEs, such as Eben Alexander's Proof of Heaven: A Neurosurgeon's Journey into the Afterlife, have widespread impact, they are generally not taken seriously by the scientific or medical communities (Alexander, 2014). Quite apart from the blizzard of anecdotal accounts, there have been scientific studies of NDEs, survival and past lives. Most notable, perhaps, is the work of the Division of Perceptual Studies (DOPS) at the University of Virginia School of Medicine, which claims to have documented thousands of cases. Founded by Dr. Ian Stevenson and advanced by Dr. Bruce Greyson, DOPS strives to challenge the “entrenched mainstream view by rigorously evaluating empirical evidence suggesting that consciousness survives death and that mind and brain are distinct and separable” and that science needs “to accommodate genuine spiritual experiences without loss of scientific integrity” (DOPS, n.d.; 17.13). The Bigelow Institute for Consciousness Studies (BICS) was founded to support research into the survival of human consciousness after physical death. (Bigelow, 2023). BICS's essay contest to “present evidence beyond reasonable doubt,” as if in a court of law, “for the survival of consciousness after permanent physical death (‘life after death,’ or ‘the afterlife’)” attracted 204 essays and produced 29 winners.”64 Jeffrey Mishlove, the host of a long-running TV and web series New/Thinking Aloud, who has a PhD in Parapsychology from Berkeley, won BICS first prize for his comprehensive presentation of the pro-survival arguments. He begins by pointing out that “a belief in postmortem survival of consciousness is common to every culture, nationality, religion, and linguistic group in every region and historical period on Earth. Every single one!” For example, American belief in life after death has been stable for 75 years at over 70%, even while religious affiliation has been dropping. Mishlove's best evidence for postmortem survival is the big picture of what he says are nine largely independent categories “all pointing to postmortem consciousness:” near-death experience; after-death communications; reincarnation cases; peak in Darian experiences (visions of dead people who are not known at the time to be dead); instrumental trans communication (electronic devices for communication with the deceased; xenoglossy (the ability to converse in a language one has never learned); possession; mental mediumship; and physical mediumship (Mishlove, 2021). Dr. Pim van Lommel, a cardiologist, won BICS second prize for his reporting on recent scientific research on NDEs, especially in survivors of cardiac arrest, with “strikingly similar results and conclusions.” His claim is that NDEs seem “to be an authentic experience which cannot be simply reduced to imagination, fear of death, hallucination, psychosis, the use of drugs, or oxygen deficiency.” Using examples of nonlocal consciousness beyond the brain, for instance during a period when the brain is either non-functioning or malfunctioning, he argues that “there are now good reasons to assume that our consciousness does not always coincide with the functioning of our brain: enhanced or nonlocal consciousness can sometimes be experienced separately from the body.” The general conclusion of scientific research on NDE, he says, “is indeed that our enhanced consciousness does not reside in our brain and is not limited to our brain. Our consciousness seems to be nonlocal, and our brain facilitates rather than produces the experience of that consciousness.” He concludes that “death, like birth, may be a mere passing from one state of consciousness into another” (Van Lommel, 2022). One intriguing parapsychological critique of NDE survival stories is “super-psi” or “living agent psi” where information is gleaned via telepathy or clairvoyance not by post-mortem communications, a position affirmed by Braude (1992) and denied by Mishlove (2021). There are of course many physicalist, physiological and psychological critiques of NDEs, OBEs, life-after-death stories, and all the survival arguments; such critiques are widely available. While oxygen deprivation has been a common explanation for NDEs, more sophisticated analysis suggests “a sort of blending of conscious states: waking, rapid-eye movement (REM) sleep and non-REM sleep.” Neurologist Kevin Nelson posits, “The physiological balance between conscious states is disrupted during the conditions of near-death, leading the brainstem arousal system controlling conscious states to blend waking and rapid eye movement consciousness into a hybrid state known as REM intrusion … [and] REM intrusion leads to many key features of near-death, including lying still, visual activation, out-of-body, and the experience's narrative qualities” (Freeman, 2023). That NDEs are being taken more seriously by the scientific community was evidenced by a conference held by The New York Academy of Sciences, “Explorations in Consciousness: Death, Psychedelics, and Mystical Experience.” Participants describe NDEs, which are sometimes called periods of “disconnected consciousness,” as surprisingly common—according to one report, “15 percent of intensive care unit patients and up to 23 percent of survivors of cardiac arrest reported having had one” (Freeman, 2023). The claim is that because more people survive cardiac arrests—due to substantially improved resuscitation techniques—more NDEs are reported and the field has emerged as a legitimate one for scientific inquiry. That NDEs can be emotionally transformative provides opportunity to examine mental health issues, both the positive feelings of enhanced compassion or purpose and the negative after-effects of bad dreams and persistent intrusive thoughts. Calling evolutionary explanations for NDEs “just-so stories,” Christof Koch said, “They may be true. They may be false. It just doesn't matter. But the fact that we do have [these] experiences—that is the remarkable thing” (Freeman, 2023). The fact that some NDE experiencers describe a reduced fear of death does not ipso facto mean, obviously, that death is any less physically final and that consciousness is any less entirely material. Moreover, it is difficult to imagine what kinds of observations or experiments could count as scientifically dispositive that NDEs confirm post-mortem survival. 17.13. DOPS's consciousness research and theory The Division of Perceptual Studies (DOPS), a research unit within the Department of Psychiatry and Neurobehavioral Sciences at the University of Virginia, has contributed both empirically and conceptually to emerging nonphysical theories of consciousness, which picture mind as irreducible and grounded in some sort of highest consciousness which forms the ontological foundation of reality as a whole. DOPS cognitive scientist/parapsychologist Ed Kelly contends that “the limitations of contemporary mainstream consciousness theorizing derive from the systematic unwillingness of the physicalist camp to take difficult empirical phenomena such as psi and mystical experience into account” (DOPS, n.d.; Kelly, 2024). DOPS was founded in 1967 by psychiatrist Ian Stevenson and has been dedicated to research related to the possibility of postmortem survival. According to Kelly, “Survival is a watershed issue theoretically, in that demonstration of its occurrence as an empirical reality would immediately rule out most if not quite all of the materialism theories. Clearly, if the prevailing physicalist ‘production’ model of mind-brain relations is correct in claiming that mind and consciousness are manufactured entirely by neurophysiological processes occurring in brains, then it follows logically and inescapably that postmortem survival is impossible, period” (DOPS, n.d.; Kelly, 2024). DOPS staff have published hundreds of research papers in refereed journals, plus over a score of books, on reincarnation, near-death experiences (NDEs) and other survival-related topics such as crisis apparitions, mediumship, and after-death communications (DOPS, website). Stevenson himself was the primary architect of a major project involving small children who begin at a very early age to speak and act as though they are remembering, or expressing behaviorally, potentially verifiable events that took place in the life of a recently deceased person. Most interestingly are the relatively few cases in which the child's statements and behaviors were well documented before the previous personality (PP) was identified. Stevenson found “cases of the reincarnation type” (CORT) everywhere he looked, primarily but not exclusively in sociocultural settings where their occurrence is not unexpected. He and various colleagues have so far investigated over 2500 cases, around 2000 of which have been deemed of sufficient quality to merit laborious encoding of associated variables for inclusion in a cumulative database. Systematic properties include a very high proportion of violent or premature death in the PPs, which, DOPS researchers speculate, might relate to why some children remember but others do not. Other findings include confusions surrounding gender in children who report memories of a life as a person of the opposite sex. Stevenson paid special attention to a subset of over 200 cases in which the child displays birthmarks or birth defects, often extremely unusual in form, corresponding to fatal injuries suffered by the PP (Stevenson, 1997). Another major line of research, spearheaded by psychiatrist Bruce Greyson, has focused on NDEs. Greyson and colleagues have investigated a large number of such cases and created a second DOPS database containing over a thousand what they consider good cases. Of special interest are the hundreds of cases in which NDEs have occurred under extreme physiological conditions such as deep general anesthesia and/or cardiac arrest, conditions in which almost all contemporary neuroscientists would expect that patients should report no conscious experience whatsoever, let alone the most meaningful and transformative experiences of their lives—in effect, mystical experiences occurring under life-threatening conditions. Numerous physiological explanations have been offered for NDEs, but none, DOPS argues, can withstand scrutiny (Greyson et al., 2009). Of particular interest here is the DOPS theoretical work opposing physicalism, led by Ed Kelly and involving fifty or so scholars from diverse academic disciplines (over a period of more than two decades). Motivated by DOPS's empirical studies, DOPS's theorizing in regard to the mind/brain relationship and consciousness are presented in three books. The first is Irreducible Mind, which describes various psychophysical phenomena that appear difficult or impossible to explain in conventional physicalist terms. These include psi and survival data, along with other non-standard empirical phenomena such as stigmata and hypnotically induced blisters; prodigious forms of memory and calculation; psychological automatisms and hidden or secondary centers of consciousness; near-death and out-of-body experiences, emphasizing experiences occurring under extreme physiological conditions; genius-level creativity such as that of the Indian mathematician Ramanujan; and mystical experiences, whether spontaneous, pharmacologically induced, or occurring in conjunction with transformative practices such as an intense meditative discipline of some sort (Kelly et al., 2007). The main import of Irreducible Mind, apart from its systematic empirical attack on physicalism, Kelly says, is to marshal support for a model of the human psyche advanced by F. W.H. Myers and developed philosophically by William James. Contrary to today's prevailing conception, which views everyday consciousness as the only consciousness, generated entirely by physiological processes in the nervous system, the Myers/James picture includes at least one level of normally hidden and more comprehensive consciousness that exists independently of the organism and is equipped with “adits and operations” of its own which provide access to wider and deeper parts of the reality in which we find ourselves embedded (Myers, 1903). According to Kelly, this sort of “permission” or “transmission” or “filter” model of the psyche (James, 1900), in which everyday consciousness takes forms dependent on interactions between a more inclusive and capacious consciousness and an organism that serves mainly as a sensorimotor interface, may initially sound strange to our modern ears, but, Kelly argues, “there is now a lot of evidence to support it.” It also has strong affinities to views advanced by Bergson (17.1), Jung (17.2), and the Indian philosophical tradition with its “subtle” mental and physical worlds interposed between everyday experience and an ultimate consciousness of some sort (16.1, 16.7, 16.9, 16.10, 16.13). Ongoing research seeks to identify conditions in the mind and body that encourage what Myers termed “subliminal uprush”, or expression in everyday consciousness of information and capacities normally confined to James's hidden “More”—for example, using functional neuroimaging techniques for research on meditation and psychedelics. The second book, Beyond Physicalism, is more explicitly theoretical, seeking to identify alternative conceptual frameworks, or worldviews, or metaphysical systems, that could permit the psi or paranormal empirical phenomena catalogued in the first book to occur. These include a range of theories: a modernized form of interactive dualism (15.8); process philosophy (13.12); quantum theories of Henry Stapp (11.2), Harald Atmanspacher (14.7), Bernard Carr (11.10); mystically-informed philosophies such as those of the Neoplatonists, Samkhya/Yoga, and Kashmiri Shaivism, and Western philosophical figures including Leibniz, Peirce, and Whitehead (Kelly et al., 2015). Kelly argues that the central tendency is toward some sort of Idealism (16), most likely of the type known as (evolutionary) panentheism (Hartshorne and Reese, 2000). Kelly stresses that “The precise form that an adequate theory will take is powerfully constrained by the need for it to incorporate or at least respect the discoveries of modern physics, making it an objective or realist idealism as opposed to a subjective idealism of the sort advocated by Bishop Berkeley.” Several of Kelly's collaborators—Federico Faggin (11.12), Bernard Carr (11.10), and Bernardo Kastrup (16.4)—are explicitly working in this direction, as is Mira Albahari (16.13) from the perspective of Indian idealisms. All such theories, Kelly points out, can potentially make room not only for “rogue” phenomena such as psi and survival, genius, and mystical experience, but also for experiences of value, meaning and purpose so vital to real human life. Conversely, Kelly believes that these metaphysical frameworks imply “poor prospects for artificial general intelligence and virtual immortality” (Kelly, 2024). The third book, Consciousness Unbound (Kelly and Marshall, 2021), has three parts. The first part is empirical, summarizing the state-of-the-science for precognition, NDEs, and CORT. The second part presents additional non-physicalist conceptual frameworks, including those of Max Velmans (14.3), Bernardo Kastrup and Federico Faggin. The third part explores implications of the emerging theoretical picture for consciousness research, the humanities, and the current landscape of mind/brain metaphysics. 17.14. Bitbol's phenomenological ontology Philosopher of science Michel Bitbol suggests that a radical view of neurophenomenology (9.6.5) amplifies “the available range of interpretations of altered states of consciousness, from OBEs and NDEs to meditation and psychedelics, and which may suggest a new ontological category. There are generally three such interpretations, he says: “two objectivist-realist and one non-committal (mild) phenomenological interpretation.” According to the objectivist-realist approaches, he says, “these states refer to worldly or other-worldly objective processes. They refer either to an alteration of the brain's biochemical balance, thus giving rise to hallucinations, or to a backstage supernatural (but ‘real’) world which discloses itself to (say) dying people.” In contrast, Bitbol says, “according to the non-committal phenomenological approach, instead, these states are relevant by themselves, as transformative experiences for those who live through them.” This latter approach, advocated by Evan Thompson as well as by Bitbol, take “a decisive step beyond the sterile conflict between naturalism and super-naturalism. It shows that despite their superficial disagreement, both positions share the same crucial but disputable strategy: escaping one's own lived embodied situation and striving towards some (natural or super-natural) transcendent realm of being” (Bitbol, 2015; Thompson, 2014). Bitbol sees a big vision here. “But the clarifying role of phenomenology is not bound to stop at this point. One can take further advantage of a truly radical phenomenological approach, and thereby endow the transformative experiences with additional significance. According to Merleau-Ponty (who partly agreed with Heidegger and Sartre on this point), phenomenology, in its mature state, becomes a new form of ontology: not a straightforward ontology of things facing an observer, however, but an ‘oblique ontology’ of intertwining with what there is (Saint Aubert, 2006); not an ontology of manifest beings, but an ontology of self-manifesting being. As Merleau-Ponty writes, radical phenomenology does not yield a standard ‘exo-ontology,’ but rather an unexplored ‘endo-ontology.’ Merleau-Ponty here unambiguously alludes to an ontology expressed from the innermost recesses of the process of being, rather than to an ontology of the external contemplation of beings” (Bitbol, 2015). This granted, Bitbol argues, “some altered states of consciousness can be understood neither dismissively as illusions, nor neutrally as enthralling experiences, but positively as revealing a state of being which happens to be hidden by intellectual fabrications and by the impulse of intentional directedness.” Here, to avoid misunderstandings, Bitbol clarifies that “unlike in super-naturalism, there is no question here of reaching some remote domain of transcendent being, but only of self-disclosing an exquisitely proximate mode of being, which is permanently present but usually neglected: perhaps what Tibetan Dzogchen practitioners call ‘the nature of mind,’ which, in this nondualist context, is likely to be simultaneously the (self-experienced) nature of being” (Bitbol, 2015). 17.15. Campbell's theory of everything Consciousness researcher (and former nuclear physicist) Thomas Campbell presents “My Big TOE,” his theory of everything: “Consciousness is the fundamental reality. The physical world is an illusion, a virtual reality that only exists in our minds. We are Individuated Units of Consciousness: immortal, interconnected parts of a Larger Consciousness System. We choose to be players in the virtual reality game called life on Earth, set in a virtual universe computed by the system to aid our consciousness evolution.… Our goal: to learn from the outcomes of our choices in order to grow up and evolve the quality of our consciousness from fear to love. By evolving our individual consciousness quality from one round of the game to the next, we advance the evolution of the entire consciousness system” (Section: Campbell, 2003/2007, n.d.). Rejecting Dualism, Materialism and Idealism, Campbell claims all questions and objections are answered and resolved “if we conceive of the physical universe as a virtual reality,” the core idea of My Big TOE. Moreover, My Big TOE “provides entirely rational explanations for many phenomena dismissed by mainstream science as ‘weird’ (quantum effects), ‘mysterious’ (consciousness), ‘illusory’ (free will) or ‘delusions’ (paranormal experiences).” For example, paranormal phenomena are natural artifacts of a virtual universe. As for the hard problem of consciousness, it is supposedly “solved—or rather, dissolved—once we drop our belief in a fundamental external reality.” The virtual reality model helps us do that, Campbell says. In this view, “our subjective perception is not some ‘internal' representation of an ‘external’ world: There is no objective world outside of us.” But if our reality is a simulation, who or what is doing the simulating? Is this not just kicking all the conundrums, such as consciousness, up a level? My Big TOE is ready with a “Larger Consciousness System” (LCS) that computes virtual realities, noting, unlike the God of religions, LCS “demands neither praise nor worship.” In the very beginning, Campbell's big conjecture goes, “all that may have existed was an Absolute Unbounded Oneness (AUO)—an undifferentiated, elementary consciousness with a potential to evolve into the highly complex, unfathomably vast LCS of today. AUO was barely aware, but it did have the potential to develop all the attributes of consciousness, including awareness, perception, cognition and free-will choice-making.” Driven, somehow, by an inherent drive towards complexity, “when AUO reached its evolutionary limits as a monolithic block of consciousness, a single source of choosing, it made a crucial decision: AUO split itself into unfathomably many interconnected but autonomous pieces, a process we can imagine like partitioning a computer hard drive into multiple partitions. The idea was for all the different pieces to build something more innovative and creative than a single mind would ever be able to come up with.” At that fateful moment, Campbell says, “the One became the Many: the Absolute Unbounded Oneness (AUO) turned into an Absolute Unbounded Manifold (AUM),” which led to the genesis of the Larger Consciousness System,” which provides, according to My Big TOE, the simulations of our virtual universe today (Campbell, 2003/2007, n.d.). 17.16. Hiller's eternal discarnate consciousness Maverick physicist Jack Hiller posits an “eternal discarnate consciousness” or, as he says, in common parlance, the “soul”—which, “when freed from its hard attachment to the body, functions in a Universal Field of Consciousness (UFC) which may also be characterized as the mind of God.” The soul brings to the body the moral values that exist in the UFC and these values may often conflict with, in Hiller's Freudian terms, “the Id and the Ego's pleasure-seeking functions.” (Hiller, 2021). The theory hypothesizes that the individual consciousness (spirit and soul) functions in this UFC, both in life and in eternity, before and after an Earth life (Hiller, 2019). Hiller bases his theory on what he says are many thousands of out-of-body experiences (OBEs) associated with near-death experiences, including many documented cases in which researchers were able to verify accurate reporting about the activities observed during the OBE that could not be accounted for by normal sense-perception (Rivas et al., 2023). He stresses OBEs' peculiar, nonphysical characteristics: time no longer has meaning, does not flow, and the past and present, even some future events, are available to see and experience; visits may be made to Earth locations distant from the body, or out to the cosmos; perception is radically enhanced, e.g., visual perception is 360°, with an ability to focus down to atomic particles or up to the cosmos; everything appears to be made of light; thinking and movement by thinking are instantaneous; all entities, inanimate as well as diverse animate, exude consciousness; individual consciousness, souls, connect telepathically; the world experienced is multidimensional, more than space-time; by existing in the universal field of consciousness, all knowledge is felt as available, and one feels part of God and God's love for all (Hiller, 2020). Hiller speculates that if quantum entanglement can be conceptualized as some kind of signaling at infinite speed across any distances, there could be a deep relationship between quantum mechanics and reported instances of discarnate consciousness. 17.17. Harp's universal or God consciousness Physicist and “spiritual scholar” Dennis Harp, who seeks to unify theoretical physics and spiritual teachings, claims that “each of us exists as consciousness attached to a mind and body, making sense of the universe by experiencing individual states in a causal sequence.” Motivated by a personal NDE as well as NDE research, Harp asserts that with contemplative practices, we can learn (eventually) “to detach from the body and explore the universe in a non-physical manner. Finally, we detach from the mind as well, and experience the entire universe at once in the shared view called Universal, or God Consciousness. Thus, what we call consciousness is somehow the union of this Universal or God Consciousness with our mind and body (Harp, 2022). To Harp, theoretical physics “is comfortable with the possibility of the infinite complexity of infinite universes, along with universal waveform collapse and reinflation every instant in order to explain causality.” However, he says, “causality is only necessary as long as the mind is interpreting, or ‘making sense’ of the universe. Since consciousness can experience the universe independent of the mind, beyond the realm of space and time, it experiences all quantum mechanical states simultaneously, and no interactions occur at all. This static universe unifies theoretical physics and mystical teachings” (Harp, 2022). 17.18. Swimme's cosmogenesis Mathematician and integral studies professor Brian Swimme presents the cosmology of a creative universe—cosmogenesis—in which human consciousness plays an essential role. He views the evolution of the universe toward greater complexity and consciousness as “the ultimate aim of the universe.” It is a creative universe that develops through time from plasma to galaxies to living planets to human consciousness, “a universe that can intend something even before human consciousness emerges” (Swimme, 2022). Swimme bases his ideas on the teachings of Thomas Berry, a Catholic priest, cultural historian, and world religion scholar, who spoke of “the spirituality of the universe,” using “the word ‘spirituality’ to correct a deformation in modern consciousness, that imagined the existence of a ‘physical universe.’” Such a conception no longer made sense, Berry said, because in the 20th century, “we discovered that the matter of this universe—the only matter we know of—constructs life. There is no such thing, then, as ‘lifeless matter.’ Matter, in its very structure and dynamism, generates life.” Consciousness, then, is built into the fundamental fabric of the universe. What will happen, Swimme asks, “when we turn our consciousness around and realize that our awareness of cosmogenesis is also the work of the universe? How will we change when we face the universe and find the universe facing us?” (Swimme, 2022). 17.19. Langan's cognitive-theoretic model of the universe Independent thinker, autodidact Christopher Langan claims that what he calls the "Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe" (CTMU) provides the logical framework of a true “Theory of Everything.” It explains "the connection between mind and reality” (note “cognition” and “universe” in the same phrase); and “proves the existence of God [as defined], the soul, and an afterlife” (Langan, 2024). CTMU posits information as the most fundamental constituents of reality. The universe is a vast arrangement of digital information and the mathematical relationships between them. At the same time, “it is only through consciousness that we can perceive or know anything at all. Thus, our reality can just as well be conceived as a vast network of conscious experiences: perceptions and the laws which govern them.” Because there is nothing outside reality, reality must contain all of the conditions necessary for its own existence, and given sufficient time, “even mere possibility is enough to ensure that it generates itself” (Section: CTMU Wiki, n.d.). Although this kind of mind, which Langan calls God's mind, “sits in knowledge of itself in an unchanging, eternal way, it contains within it all of the processes required for it to refine itself into existence out of nothingness.” It is here, according to CTMU, that “consciousness is stratified: the bottom stratum is the all-knowing mind of God,” within which “all of the more superficial strata of consciousness” are contained. From God's perspective, God “is aware of all the steps in its own creation.” However, from the perspective of these more superficial strata—of which our human minds are pieces—the universe appears as a physical entity unfolding in physical space. But because “our conscious minds are contained within God's consciousness … we retain the creative power and freedom of God on a scale that is localized in time and space.” CTMU describes reality as “a Self-Configuring Self-Processing Language, a reflexive intrinsic language characterized not only by self-reference and recursive self-definition, but by full self-configuration and self-execution” (Langan, 2002). Embedding issues of absolute morality and karma, “if we choose to act in a way that is in line with the telos, those parts of our minds that match the mind of God get preserved and we basically move closer to the all-knowing substratum, or the consciousness of God. If we act against the telos, what happens may be that those elements of our minds that do not match the mind of God get recycled endlessly until they properly refine themselves.” In short, CTMU's reality “is a self-refining informational system which, due to its form, cannot NOT exist. Even if there is nothingness, this system will exist and know itself and all of the localized conscious minds within its creation process will experience its informational structure as real, physical, etc. It is thus self-creating, as it requires nothing outside of itself to exist” (CTMU Wiki, n.d.). 17.20. Meditation and the brain The scientific consciousness community generally recognizes that meditation can provide insights into consciousness, at least enriching descriptions. But our question goes deeper: Can meditation help discern the fundamental nature or essence of consciousness? Deep meditation, especially as practiced by Eastern traditions, is an altered state of consciousness that induces changes in the brain. Studies show that meditation, if done regularly, can help relieve symptoms of chronic pain (Trafton, 2011); and that mindfulness meditation programs have moderate evidence of improved anxiety and depression as well as pain relief65 (Goyal et al, 2014). What is happening in the brain? Studies suggest that alpha waves (∼7–14 Hz), which are modulated in primary sensory cortex during selective attention, have a mechanistic role in perception. During “mindfulness” meditation, a common practice requiring sustained attention to body and breath-related sensations, people were better able to control their alpha rhythms, thereby implicating “this form of enhanced dynamic neural regulation in the behavioral effects of meditative practice” (Kerr et al., 2011). The idea is that alpha waves help suppress irrelevant or distracting sensory information, diminishing the likelihood that extraneous stimuli “will grab your attention” and enhancing the likelihood that you can better focus and “better regulate how things that arise will impact you” (Trafton, 2011). In the highest meditative state possible in Theravada Buddhism—nirodha-samāpatti, translated roughly as “the cessation of thought and feeling”—overall brain synchronization is reduced. This means that while during normal consciousness different parts of the brain are communicating predictively with other parts, during nirodha-samāpatti (i.e., the deepest trance-retreat into the mind, an utter absence of sensation and awareness, with all mental activity temporarily suspended), the brain is desynchronized, no longer functioning as an integrated unit. (Interestingly, similar brain desynchronization occurs when people are given anesthetic doses of propofol or ketamine, but not during sleep) (Love, 2023). It is clear that meditation, which alters consciousness, also alters specific brain wave patterns, thereby giving support to various Materialism Theories (e.g., Brain Circuits and Cycles Models, 9.2.11, and Electromagnetic Field Theories, 9.3). Moreover, the brain desynchronization that accompanies the cessation of consciousness seems to support Global Workspace Theory (9.2.3), because the brain activity seems no longer in the same sense “global,” and Integrated Information Theory (12.), because the brain seems no longer in the same sense “integrated.” Obviously, these results do not disprove nonphysical theories of consciousness, which could be consistent with this same set of facts. 17.21. Psychedelic theories of consciousness Throughout human history, psychedelics have been used for spiritual purposes by inducing altered conscious experiences dramatically different from the norm. Colors explode. Time slows, speeds up, stops. Self shatters, dissolves. Magical creatures emerge. Spirit Beings appear. All is alive. All is connected. All is One. Some attribute the advent of religion to the use of psychotomimetic or hallucinogenic substances in rituals. In each culture or condition, interpretations of psychedelic experiences were made. Mystics conjoined with cosmic consciousness. Indigenous traditions communed with sentient beings from spirit worlds. Aldous Huxley saw the source of all mysticism and spirituality, which he developed into the “perennial philosophy,” related to psychedelics. Psychedelic missionaries in the 1960s sought short-cut insights into consciousness (Philosophy of psychedelics, 2023). Materialists like Sam Harris argue for a naturalized spirituality (Explorations in Consciousness: Death Psychedelics and Mystical Experience, 2023). There is much to be gained from psychedelic research. Not included, as I see it now, is independent support for non-materialist theories of consciousness. No matter how connected, spiritual or other worldly psychedelic experiences may seem, no matter how intense the sense of “Oneness with ultimate reality” may be, it is hard to imagine how psychedelic experiences could unlock the door to new external realities, any more than how seeing stars from a blow to the head could open the window to new vistas of the world. Other arguments perhaps can, but psychedelic arguments probably can't. (Metzinger describes the psychedelic experience as "epistemically vacuous" [Metzinger, 2004]. But see Kastrup, 2024.) The best one could claim is that psychedelic or hallucinogenic visions would be “consistent with” nonphysical theories of consciousness. On the other hand, psychedelic research may well selectively advance various Materialism Theories of consciousness, of which there are many.66 (Not a few viewers of Closer To Truth have advised me: “If you really want to get ‘closer to truth,’ you really need to go psychedelic.”) Psychedelic drugs “induce drastic changes in subjective experience, and provide a unique opportunity to study the neurobiological basis of consciousness” (Herzog et al 2023). By administering psychedelic drugs to disrupt how the brain perceives and models the world while we're awake, researchers seek to understand how the conscious brain works (Can psychedelic drugs, 2022). In other words, assessing the neural mechanisms of how psychedelic drugs alter consciousness might provide clues to the neural basis of normal consciousness. For example, LSD and ketamine, though targeting separate brain receptors, induce similar neural oscillation patterns across the brain, indicating synchronized neural behavior. Such “synchronized neural activity might be more linked to the psychedelic experience than the activity of individual neurons” (Psychedelics Sync Neurons, 2023). If so, this distinction could support Electromagnetic Field Theories (9.3). Carhart-Harris and Friston formulate a theory of psychedelic action by integrating Friston's free-energy principle (9.5.4) and Carhart-Harris's entropic brain hypothesis (9.5.6). They call this formulation “relaxed beliefs under psychedelics (REBUS) and the anarchic brain, and it is founded on the principle that—via their entropic effect on spontaneous cortical activity—psychedelics work to relax the precision of high-level priors or beliefs, thereby liberating bottom-up information flow, particularly via intrinsic sources such as the limbic system” (Carhart-Harris and Friston, 2019). Psychedelic drugs have been shown to trigger altered states of consciousness similar to those seen in people experiencing near-death experiences (NDEs). Clinical evidence indicates that psychoactive agents can reduce emotional distress in terminally ill people, much as NDEs do after cardiac arrests. Dr. Anthony Bossis showed that “a single treatment with psilocybin—a psychoactive compound found in some mushroom species that humans have consumed for thousands of years—brought rapid reductions in depression, anxiety, and hopelessness in people with terminal cancer.” The benefits of psilocybin treatment, he said, were greatest among individuals who reported strong mystical experiences during the sessions. “The more robust that mystical experience, the greater the outcome in terms of reduction of depression,” Dr. Bossis said. “These aren't NDEs,” he added, “but they're deathlike experiences with a similar phenomenology” (Freeman, 2023). Psychedelic experiences can have profound impact on belief systems, especially regarding religion, philosophy and ultimate reality (Carhart-Harris and Friston, 2019). Even a single such experience can catalyze a radical transformation. Moreover, a single belief-changing psychedelic experience is said to be associated with increased attribution of consciousness to living and non-living entities, even a sense that everything is alive (Nayak and Griffiths, 2022). This seems a significant result for the construction of belief systems, although any implications for theories of consciousness per se would be at best indirect. For a perspective more open-minded than mine, philosopher Sarah Lane Richie reports that “emerging scientific and philosophical research on psychedelics … has attracted a growing body of philosophical and theological work on the metaphysical and epistemological possibilities of such experiences.” She discusses “the epistemic status of psychedelic experiences,” suggesting “there exists a mutually reinforcing relationship between panpsychism and the metaphysical possibility of a veridical interpretation of psychedelic states” (Richie, 2021). As noted, I have a strong predisposition to dismiss any notion that psychedelics reveal any sort of veridical reality. Insights about brain-mind mechanisms, sure, but no ontological unveilings. Richie and also philosopher Peter Sjöstedt-Hughes, who focuses on psychedelics and consciousness/metaphysics, put a hairline fracture in my bone-strength worldview. Sjöstedt-Hughes proposes that “Metaphysics should be used to integrate and understand psychedelic-induced metaphysical experiences.” (This is not a tautology, he rightly states.) He argues that “there is a potential extra benefit to patients in psychedelic-assisted therapy if they are provided with an optional, additional, and intelligible schema and discussion of metaphysical options at the integrative phase of the therapy.” (He offers a “metaphysical matrix” with five columns—Physicalism Idealism, Dualism, Monism, Transcendent—and two special rows, Panpsychism and Theism.) (Sjöstedt-Hughes, 2023). Sjöstedt-Hughes presents his case. “If the mind-matter relation is an unresolved problem, then psychedelic induced intuitions and visions of alternate frameworks of reality within which to see this problem should not be immediately dismissed as mere hallucination. We cannot judge what is hallucinatory if we do not know what is real. Thus, the hard problem of consciousness bears directly upon the hard problem of psychedelic consciousness—the problem of determining the truth or delusion of certain psychedelic experiences.” He asks, “whether psychedelic experiences are conditioned by one's culture or whether they decondition one from one's culture into a transcendent state.” He concludes, “the experiences that psychedelics can occasion might not be mere delusion but may hold true insights about the nature of ourselves and the cosmos of which we are parts” (Sjöstedt-Hughes, 2022). About ourselves? I agree totally. About the cosmos? I remain almost totally skeptical (but no longer totally skeptical). Psychedelic experiences are well worth researching, phenomenologically and neurobiologically. But I'm not waiting for psychedelic breakthroughs in discerning the ultimate theory of consciousness. Granted, according to psychedelic researchers Yaden et al., “psychedelic substances produce unusual and compelling changes in conscious experience,” which “have prompted some to propose that psychedelics may provide unique insights explaining the nature of consciousness.” Yet, they say, “At present, psychedelics, like other current scientific tools and methods, seem unlikely to provide information relevant to the so-called ‘hard problem of consciousness’” (Yaden, 2021) (Could psychedelics, however, shed light on the nature of subjectivity and selfhood, which are indirectly related to the hard problem?) The authors are optimistic that psychedelic research can help solve “multiple ‘easy problems of consciousness,’ which involve relations between subjectivity, brain function, and behavior.” They conclude by calling for “epistemic humility” (Yaden, 2021)—which is sage advice for everyone working on consciousness, present company included. 18. Challenge theories The eight “Challenge Theories” that follow portray the profound depth and perhaps intractability of the mind-body problem. They are long on diagnosing the explanatory disease—largely fallacies of materialism theories of mind—but short on offering prescriptive solutions. They are long on hearty speculation, short on confident conclusions. They are important signposts or benchmarks on the Landscape of Consciousness, and appropriately, they come last, part of the take-away message. 18.1. Nagel's mind and cosmos Philosopher Thomas Nagel famously shook up the philosophy of mind with his seminal article, “What is It Like to be a Bat?” He begins with the premise that “reduction euphoria,” which aims to explain consciousness by “some variety of materialism, psychophysical identification, or reduction” gets it “obviously wrong,” and he states upfront and repeats at the conclusion, “we have at present no conception of what an explanation of the physical nature of a mental phenomenon would be” (Nagel, 1974). Nagel's essay focuses on the nature of subjective experience, which could differ widely among different sentient creatures (hence the “bat” of the title). His point is that “It is like something” to have a conscious experience; it is not like nothing. It is perhaps Nagel's footnote on the phrase that has had the most lasting impact: “Therefore the analogical form of the English expression "what it is like" is misleading. It does not mean "what (in our experience) it resembles," but rather "how it is for the subject himself” (Nagel, 1974). Nagel does not conclude that physicalism with respect to consciousness is false. “Nothing is proved by the inadequacy of physicalist hypotheses that assume a faulty objective analysis of mind. It would be truer to say that physicalism is a position we cannot understand because we do not at present have any conception of how it might be true” (Nagel, 1974). Thirty-eight years later, Nagel published the controversial Mind & Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False, and he goes further: “The failure of reductionism in the philosophy of mind has implications that extend beyond the mind-body problem. Psychophysical reductionism is an essential component of a broader naturalistic program, which cannot survive without it” (Nagel, 2012). Thus, Nagel rejects wholly physicalist/materialist explanations, not only for consciousness but also for all reality! Nagel is no theist. (“It isn't just that I don't believe in God and, naturally, hope that I'm right in my belief. It's that I hope there is no God! I don't want there to be a God; I don't want the universe to be like that” [Nagel, 1997].) As a comprehensive worldview, he does not find theism any more credible than materialism. His interest is “in the territory between them.” He asserts that “these two radically opposed conceptions of ultimate intelligibility cannot exhaust the possibilities. All explanations come to an end somewhere. Both theism and materialism say that at the ultimate level, there is one form of understanding. But would an alternative secular conception be possible that acknowledged mind and all that it implies, not as the expression of divine intention but as a fundamental principle of nature along with physical law?” (Nagel, 2012). As a result, Nagel finds himself moving to a universal monism or panpsychism. “If we imagine an explanation taking the form of an enlarged version of the natural order, with complex local phenomena formed by composition from universally available basic elements, it will depend on some kind of monism or panpsychism, rather than laws of psychophysical emergence that come into operation only late in the game” (Nagel, 2012). Earlier, he had argued that panpsychism would follow from four premises: 1) All is material; there is no spiritual existence, no disembodied souls. 2) Consciousness is not wholly reducible to physical properties. 3) Consciousness is real; mental states exist. 4) Strong emergence is not possible; all higher-order properties of matter can be derived from the properties of its lower-order constituents (Nagel, 1979). Yet, I choose to classify Nagel under “Challenge Theories,” not under Panpsychism or Monism, because he is more passionate to explicate the profundity of the problem than to promote even his kind of solution. 18.2. McGinn's ultimate mystery (mysterianism) Philosopher Colin McGinn argues that the bond between the mind and the brain is “an ultimate mystery, a mystery that human intelligence will never unravel” (McGinn, 2000). In his classic paper, “Can We Solve the Mind-Body Problem?” McGinn opens his case: “We have been trying for a long time to solve the mind-body problem. It has stubbornly resisted our best efforts. The mystery persists. I think the time has come to admit candidly that we cannot resolve the mystery.” He concludes his case thus: “A deep fact about our own nature as a form of embodied consciousness is thus necessarily hidden from us” (McGinn, 1989). For his fondness of the word “mystery” in the context of consciousness, McGinn was awarded the appellation “mysterian”—not a label of his choosing—and he became an unvolunteered leader of the “New Mysterians,” an ad hoc, though serious group of mostly philosophers and some scientists who have come to believe that consciousness may never be explained completely67 (New mysterianism, 2023). They are distinguished from the “old mysterians” who believed that consciousness is supernatural (from God or the Cosmic Order). The New Mysterians are not dualists or idealists: just because human intellect can never understand consciousness does not mean there is anything supernatural about it. The mind-body problem is simply "the perimeter of our conceptual anatomy making itself felt." McGinn describes his position as “existential naturalism.” McGinn stresses that consciousness in our universe is contingent, not necessary, so it could have been that while the physical laws obtained, no consciousness ever evolved. “Not every world has consciousness in it, so our world might have been a world in which there was no consciousness.” This is why, McGinn says, “I'm opposed to the idealist view, or the panpsychist view,” that “the physical world itself is somehow inherently spiritual.” He says it is “incontestable that consciousness arises solely from the material world” (McGinn, 2007a). What are possible deep mechanisms? “[Some] have to bring God in to explain how the mind comes into existence,” a view that McGinn finds unacceptable. “You might hope you can jettison God from the picture so you have a more scientific version of dualism.” McGinn reveals a wild speculation that he once entertained, a bizarre idea that gives insight into how profound the explanatory problem. “I once played with the idea that there were two universes, which existed through all eternity,” McGinn muses. “There's a material universe and there's a conscious universe; they were coarsely isolated, but at some point in universal history there was a kind of causal breakthrough between the two.” With this mechanism, consciousness occurs in this “conjoined double universe” because it had existed in the conscious universe for all eternity. “That's a very far out theory,” McGinn smiles, “nobody's ever maintained that theory … not even me. I brought it forward to explain what dualism would have to be like in order to even be coherent.” (McGinn, 2007b). McGinn is not alone in wondering if humanity will ever truly understand consciousness. Martin Rees, the UK Astronomer Royal, also questions the human cognitive capacity to discern consciousness (Rees, 2007). Mathematical physicist and leading string theorist Edward Witten, who is optimistic that physics can solve nature's most profound mysteries of fundamental structure and ultimate origins, is pessimistic about prospects for a scientific explanation of consciousness. “I think consciousness will remain a mystery,” Witten said, “I tend to think that the workings of the conscious brain will be elucidated to a large extent … But why something that we call consciousness goes with those workings, I think that will remain mysterious. I have a much easier time imagining how we understand the Big Bang than I have imagining how we can understand consciousness …” (Horgan, 2016). 18.3. S. Harris's mystery of consciousness Philosopher, author, and neuroscientist Sam Harris, who is not known for timidity in offering opinions, does not offer his own theory of consciousness. Instead, he offers a mystery. The problem, he says, “is that no evidence for consciousness exists in the physical world.” By this he means that “physical events are simply mute as to whether it is ‘like something’ to be what they are. The only thing in this universe that attests to the existence of consciousness is consciousness itself; the only clue to subjectivity, as such, is subjectivity.” To Harris, it is not an “explanatory gap; ” it's an unbridgeable gap (Section: Harris, 2011). While Harris of course appreciates high correlations between mental states and brain states, “absolutely nothing about a brain, when surveyed as a physical system,” he says, “suggests that it is a locus of experience.” Consciousness seems the obvious fact about our world, but, “were we not already brimming with consciousness ourselves, we would find no evidence of it in the physical universe—nor would we have any notion of the many experiential states that it gives rise to.” “While we know many things about ourselves in anatomical, physiological, and evolutionary terms,” Harris continues, “we do not know why it is ‘like something’ to be what we are. The fact that the universe is illuminated where you stand—that your thoughts and moods and sensations have a qualitative character—is a mystery, exceeded only by the mystery that there should be something rather than nothing in this universe. How is it that unconscious events can give rise to consciousness? Not only do we have no idea, but it seems impossible to imagine what sort of idea could fit in the space provided” (Harris, 2011). Harris targets emergence as a false friend in the pursuit of consciousness. He recognizes that “most scientists are confident that consciousness emerges from unconscious complexity.” Nevertheless, “this notion of emergence” strikes Harris “as nothing more than a restatement of a miracle. To say that consciousness emerged at some point in the evolution of life doesn't give us an inkling of how it could emerge from unconscious processes, even in principle.” He stresses, “This notion of emergence is incomprehensible,” then he doubles down: “The idea that consciousness is identical to (or emerged from) unconscious physical events is, I would argue, impossible to properly conceive—which is to say that we can think we are thinking it, but we are mistaken. We can say the right words, of course—'consciousness emerges from unconscious information processing.’ We can also say ‘Some squares are as round as circles’ and ‘2 plus 2 equals 7.’ But are we really thinking these things all the way through? I don't think so.” Harris asserts that “Consciousness—the sheer fact that this universe is illuminated by sentience—is precisely what unconsciousness is not. And I believe that no description of unconscious complexity will fully account for it … an analysis of purely physical processes will never yield a picture of consciousness.” Does Harris then hedge? However, he says, “this is not to say that some other thesis about consciousness must be true. Consciousness may very well be the lawful product of unconscious information processing.” But his apparent hedge is a feint. “But I don't know what that sentence means,” he declares, “and I don't think anyone else does either.” Continuing, Harris asks, “Couldn't a mature neuroscience nevertheless offer a proper explanation of human consciousness in terms of its underlying brain processes?” It's the common consensus among most neuroscientists, which Harris unambiguously rejects. “Reductions of this sort are neither possible nor conceptually coherent,” he says. “Nothing about a brain, studied at any scale (spatial or temporal), even suggests that it might harbor consciousness. Nothing about human behavior, or language, or culture, demonstrates that these products are mediated by subjectivity. We simply know that they are—a fact that we appreciate in ourselves directly and in others by analogy.” While Harris is hardly optimistic about science's long-future prospects “to dispel the fundamental mystery of our mental life,” and he has little time for conventional religious doctrines, he does see a role for introspection. “Many truths about ourselves will be discovered in consciousness directly,” he says, “or not discovered at all” (Harris, 2011). 18.4. Eagleman's possibilianism Neuroscientist, technologist, and author David Eagleman labels himself a “possibilian” in that he calls for “an openness in approaching the big questions of our existence” (Eagleman, 2010). He embraces “Possibilianism” as an overarching philosophy, rejecting a false dichotomy between either atheism (denying the existence of God) or theism (wholly believing in God)—and he finds agnosticism passive and uninteresting (Possibilianism, 2022). Eagleman's Possibilianism applies, with similar significance, to consciousness (Eagleman, n.d.). Eagleman says consciousness “rides on top of a massive amount of machinery … it's successive levels of abstraction.” Even a basic movement like drinking a cup of coffee triggers a “lightning storm of neural activity that underpins that act.” But “I'm not aware of any of that in my consciousness. All I want is a very high-level abstract representation, which is, ‘Am I succeeding or am I spilling it on myself?’” (Eagleman, 2011a). Eagleman draws the analogy between consciousness and the CEO of a large company. “He or she doesn't understand much of anything about the machinery underneath.” The CEO's job is setting the company's long-term vision and the plan to accomplish it. “If everything is running just fine, the CEO doesn't even need to know … it's only when something surprising happens that the CEO has to sit up and say, ‘OK, what's going on?’” It's exactly the same with consciousness, Eagleman says. “If everything is going as expected, I don't have to be very conscious.” “Why does it [consciousness] feel like something?” Eagleman asks. “That we don't know—and the weird situation is that not only don't we have a theory, but we don't even know what such a theory would look like. Because nothing in our modern mathematics says, well, ‘do a triple integral and carry the two’ and then here is the taste of feta cheese.” We can see “this set of Christmas tree lights [flash in the brain] when you're conscious of this or that—but it still leaves us feeling quite empty as to why it feels that way” (Eagleman, 2011a). Can we ever, in principle, explain inner experience? “I don't see how,” Eagleman says, adding quickly, “Now that is either (a) a limitation of my imagination or (b) … it might be materialism is wrong.” He explains, “The reason neuroscientists generally subscribe to materialism” is “because we have a million examples where brain damage changes the person, changes their conscious state … there's this irrevocable relationship between the biology and the conscious state, but that doesn't mean materialism has to be true. There are alternative theories that could be the case.” Eagleman stresses he is not saying he subscribes to these alternative theories, but notes, “let me just say, agnostically, they are perfectly possible.” No doubt, he concludes, “our mind is integrally dependent on the brain.” But “whether this is all that's required or whether there's something else that our science is too young to understand, that's the open question” (Eagleman, 2011b). 18.5. Tallis's anti-neuromania skepticism Philosopher and humanist Raymond Tallis, a former geriatric neurologist and clinical neuroscientist, has a baffling yet coherent and penetrating perspective on consciousness (my highest compliment) (Tallis, 2011a). He is anti-reductionist in principle, not just in practice, asserting, “We have failed to explain how consciousness equates to neural activity inside the skull because the task is self-contradictory in that we cannot access qualitative, subjective consciousness by means of an objective, often quantitative approach.” There is an inevitable failure to explain consciousness in terms of neural activity because there is nothing in such activity that can “explain the ‘aboutness’ of mental entities, the simultaneous unity and multiplicity of the moments of consciousness, the explicit presence of the past, the initiation of actions that point to an as yet non-existent future, the construction of self” (Tallis, 2010). Nor can we explain “appearings,” Tallis argues, because we are constrained by “an objective approach that has set aside appearings as unreal and which seeks reality in mass/energy that neither appears in itself nor has the means to make other items appear. The brain, seen as a physical object, no more has a world of things appearing to it than does any other physical object” (Tallis, 2010). Tallis dismantles “the notion that there is close correlation between neural activity and aspects of consciousness.” The more carefully you look at it, he says, “the less impressive it is, despite all the advances in recent neuroscience.” And correlation, anyway, does not amount to causation or identity. “When you see neural activity in the brain, is that really identical with conscious experience? Let me take a simple example. I'm looking at a yellow object. That will correspond to neural activity in my occipital cortex, at the back of the brain. That neural activity is quite unlike the phenomenal appearance of a yellow object. Yet, according to those who believe in ‘neurophilosophy,’ the actual phenomenal appearance of the yellow object—my experience of yellowness—is identical with neural activity in the back of the brain. Now, if those two things really were identical, well, at least you might expect them to look a little bit like each other, and of course, they don't. So, to engender conscious experience, there must be something more than neural activity.” The brain is no doubt necessary, according to Tallis, but it is certainly not sufficient (Tallis, 2011a). Tallis runs down the list of potential explanations. He dismisses “naturalistic explanations”—which ultimately means materialistic explanations—[because they] leave consciousness, self-consciousness, the self, free will, the community of minds and the most human features of the human world unexplained” (Tallis, 2009). What then is Tallis's solution to the mind-body problem? God? Dualism? Panpsychism? As for supernatural explanations, they “simply parcel up our uncertainties into the notion of an entity—God—that is not only unexplained but usually contradictory.” (Tallis, 2009). Tallis is an unrepentant atheist and does not subscribe to any known theory of consciousness. He thinks Cartesian dualism is a lost cause and panpsychism fails to explain how universal mind-dust gathers itself up into a conscious subject (Tallis, 2011b). “The foundations of phenomenal consciousness and knowledge elude us,” Tallis states. “So, some kind of skepticism, justifying an inquiry that enables us to question the all-too-obvious, the glass wall of our everyday thinking about everyday life, seems entirely in order.” (Tallis, 2009). “We atheists have good reason to be ontological agnostics and to believe that anything is possible” (Tallis, 2011b). 18.6. Nagasawa's mind-body problem in an infinitely decomposable universe Philosopher Yujin Nagasawa poses the disruptive idea of what would happen to the mind-body problem if there were no such thing as the deepest level of reality, because the universe is infinitely decomposable? He argues that such a possibility would be devastating to theories of consciousness because it would undermine all traditional responses to the mind-body problem, such as physicalism, dualism, idealism and neutral monism. Attempts to rescue physicalism from such an argument do not succeed, he argues, because “Physicalism (and any alternative to it) turns out to be an unfalsifiable, unverifiable, and unstable metaphysical view” (Nagasawa, 2012b). However, “Their failures might motivate a unique form of monism that is radically different from physicalism as commonly formulated.” It leads to a “priority monism” because “It motivates us to seek fundamentality on the top, rather than on the bottom, level of reality.” The main difference between priority monism and traditional micro-fundamentalism, Nagasawa says, is that “Priority monism regards the whole universe, rather than its ultimate components, as most fundamental. Locating the fundamental level at the top enables priority monism to secure a firm [if unusual] metaphysical ground”—because then, the totality of everything, including all that we call physical entities and mental entities, is the single fundamental entity, of which all of its components are derivative. Nagasawa concedes that while what he has is truly a monism, with exactly one fundamental entity, it is neither monism nor dualism in the context of the mind-body problem. Rather, he suggests, it “has an affinity with monism in Eastern traditions, which regard the totality as an organic whole in which numerous entities are entangled” (Nagasawa, 2012a). 18.7. Musser's “is it really so hard?” Science journalist George Musser explores the relationship between consciousness and physics with two explanatory arrows pointing in opposite directions. In addition to the normal using-science-to-explain-consciousness framework, he focuses on “why physicists are studying human consciousness and AI to unravel the mysteries of the universe.” Must physics, to find its holy-grail “theory of everything,” account for consciousness? Reciprocally, could such investigations provide new insights into physics? (Musser, 2023a, Musser, 2023b). Musser centers his inquiry at the intersection of fundamental physics, neuroscience, and rapidly developing AI, and after examining diverse approaches, such as neural networks and quantum computing, predictive coding and integrated information theory, he concludes with cautious optimism that we humans do have a shot at comprehending our consciousness. “There is as yet no sign that science has hit a wall,” Musser says. “Our minds evolved to understand the world, which requires that the world be understandable. And we are of this world” (Musser, 2023a, Musser, 2023b, p. 251). Musser wants to reject the “mysterian” position of Colin McGinn, Steven Pinker, Noam Chomsky, and others, who think we might never grasp how consciousness works, even though they still have consciousness as a product of the natural, physical world, “rather than an exotic add-on” (like panpsychism) (Musser, 2023a, Musser, 2023b, p. 240). Although he comes to no firm conclusion, Musser gives pride of place to explanations of consciousness that are “perspectival” or “relational.” He approvingly quotes Carlo Rovelli (11.16) that the physical world is “a web of relations … things have no properties in isolation, but acquire them only at their point of contact with other things” (Musser, 2023a, Musser, 2023b, p. 148). Musser then begins “to think about how qualia might be relational” (Musser, 2023a, Musser, 2023b, p. 243). Musser and colleagues wonder whether the exponentially-growing power of AI could, at some future point, devise or discover theories that a human mind could not, from foundations of quantum mechanics to the essence of consciousness. Perhaps, Musser muses, “the machines will help us the most when they are their most inscrutable” (Musser, 2023a, Musser, 2023b, p. 250). (Personally, I would find it a very large surprise if AI, however successful at predicting protein structures and checking mega-math proofs, could provide novel insight to the hard problem. AI might enjoy proving me wrong.) 18.8. Davies's consciousness in the cosmos Physicist and polymath Paul Davies asserts the heterodox view among scientists that consciousness is something very significant in the evolution of the universe. “Although we see consciousness only in response to some set of physical systems, nevertheless it seems to me to play an absolute and fundamental role. Because at one level, all of science, our whole understanding of the universe, comes through our own consciousness. It's actually the starting point of all inquiry” (Davies, 2006b). But what of the minuscule place of consciousness amidst the unfathomably vast universe? Davies muses: “Is consciousness on the surface of our planet just a little embellishment on the great scheme of things or does it have fundamental role? I should also say that whether it's fundamental or not, we surely have to explain it. It has got to fit into our scientific picture of the world, but I don't think we've got a clue as to how to go about it because none of the concepts from fundamental physics, like mass and momentum and charge, seem relevant at all.” With respect to whether consciousness really matters to quantum physics, Davies says that physicists are sharply split and that he himself has oscillated. “I used to think that consciousness was just getting in the way of understanding. But because I'm convinced that consciousness is a fundamental part of the universe, I'd like to find a place for it in physics. And the one place that it has been ‘on again and off again’ is within the realm of quantum physics. So, consciousness could enter quantum physics at the point of observation where the rules of the quantum game change as a result of that observation or measurement” (Davies, 2006b). Davies is critical of the many-world interpretation (MWI) of the Schrödinger equation that governs the wave function of quantum mechanical systems. While MWI adherents argue they are literalists, Davies counters that “it's a way of trying to get rid of consciousness from playing a fundamental role in quantum physics.” He calls MWI a “missed opportunity,” because “if we're going to actually incorporate consciousness into our description of physics it's at the quantum level that we should attempt to do so.” Can one then go from consciousness at the quantum level to consciousness at the universe level, not just as metaphor but to actually explain reality? Davies focuses on the challenge of giving a cosmic significance to consciousness because, as far as we know, there are so vanishingly few conscious beings in the vast universe (Davies, 2006b, 2006c). Davies looks to the far future of the universe. “It seems entirely possible that human beings or alien beings or any sort of conscious beings are going to spread out across the universe. We think a universe of 13.8 billion years is old; in fact, it's exceedingly young. There's no reason why it can't go on for trillions and trillions of years. There's absolutely plenty of time for it to become full of minds, full of observers. And we can imagine a time in the far, far future when mind and the universe in effect merge: they become one. And so the act of observation which at the moment is limited to maybe a little corner of the universe could saturate the whole universe. The whole universe could become self-known.” But could what might happen in the future affect what has happened in the past? Davies explains: “Part of the weirdness of quantum physics is that observations which are made now can affect the nature of reality in the past.” This is not “backward causation,” he stresses, but a selection among myriad alternate possible histories, a developmental history of the universe that makes sense only in the quantum realm. This is why Davies can say that “observations made in the very far future can affect the nature of reality today and even back at the Big Bang.” Davies concludes with the grand vision: “if you buy this whole quantum physics package and you have this universe saturated by mind, saturated by observers, then indeed the whole character of the universe, including the original emergence of its laws and the nature of its states, become inextricably intertwined with its mentality, with its mindfulness” (Davies, 2006b). 19. Closer to truth views Following are brief comments on consciousness from participants on Closer To Truth (arranged alphabetically). Perspectives are diverse. Quotes are from the Closer To Truth website – www.closertotruth.com. Tim Bayne: “We're not in a position to advance theories of any detail with any degree of certainty. The science of consciousness is so immature and there are so many fundamental disputes. I think what we should be looking for are constraints on theories, and once we've got those, then we're going to be in a better position to discern the underlying theories … And there's a fundamental sense in which we don't know what we're talking about. I think we need to be honest. But we can still make progress” (Bayne, 2007). Susan Blackmore: “What we need to do and have totally failed to do so far, is have some kind of true, nondual understanding of the world. What feels like an outside world of physical things, and what feels like an inside world of my experience—we must somehow bring these together. Physicists are trying at one level, psychologists at another, philosophers at still another … Nobody knows what consciousness is” (Blackmore, 2007). Colin Blakemore: “The problem of brain and mind is that it's chalk and cheese. I know what a brain is. It's a physical thing; I know what it looks like, what it contains. I can see brain sections under the microscope. Then this other word, ‘mind’—and we all know what that means too, in a way. But you can't put ‘mind’ under a microscope. We don't know what constitutes it. Mind is a useful word in dialogue but it doesn't map onto something you can study easily experimentally. So, neuroscientists have tended to simply put the concept to one side. It's not the mind we're working on; it's the brain. How much of an animal's behavior can be explained just by studying its brains? You can go a long way, a very long way” (Blakemore, 2012b). Stephen Braude: “It's not just that I'm an anti-physicalist, I'm an anti-mechanist. I don't think we can give lower-level explanations, explanations by analysis, in terms of psychological regularities or capacities. This takes us to new ways of understanding human behavior: not as if it's emitted by a kind of behavior mechanism, but to see and understand human action as one of an indefinitely large number of possibilities in a much grander action space” (Braude, 2007b). Hubert Dreyfus: “Nobody has any idea [about consciousness], and they should just keep quiet until they do, because I think it is the hardest question: How in the world could ‘matter,’ which is this third-person material stuff, ever produce consciousness? And AI and computers are not helping us understand it one bit” (Dreyfus, 2009). Susan Greenfield: “I find unhelpful this notion that our brains are like satellite dishes, and out there floating in the ether is consciousness, which our brains pick up” (Greenfield, 2012). Jaron Lanier: “The real drama of the question of consciousness—on which I have absolutely no insight—is the possibility of an afterlife.” Post-mortem survival, Lanier says, is “the name of the game for a lot of people who concern themselves with consciousness … I think the scientific community ought not to tread on that territory unless it has something constructive to say.” It's “simply dumb,” he says, for scientists to tell people, “Don't believe in that.” “Don't have any hope.” “Don't have any faith.” It's not something we have evidence about, Lanier posits, then cautions, “Make your faith disciplined so you don't get manipulated by people trying to build power bases or trying to sell silly superstitions.” Lanier says that “hard attack on soft faith will backfire and is destructive.” Moreover, “ultimately it isn't honest, because many of us do feel this consciousness thing inside, and many of us wonder what it’s all about on some larger level. We just don't have the tools to do anything but wonder” (Lanier, 2007a, 2007b). Massimo Pigliucci: “The only examples we have of consciousness are biological. That doesn't mean that, in principle, it is not possible to build artificial consciousness, but we have no idea how to do it. And we don't know whether, in fact, it is even possible. This truly is an open question where I am entirely agnostic. But the fact of the matter is, in science, when you study something, you start with what you have, not with what you might know in the future. And the thing that we know about consciousness is that it is an evolved biological phenomenon based on particular substrates” (Pigliucci, 2023a, Pigliucci, 2023b.). Alex Rosenberg: “I think that the available scientific evidence which drives us to atheism should also drive us to a denial of free will, to a denial of the existence of absolute fundamental ethical theories, to a physical materialism about the nature of consciousness, and to a denial that the history or trajectory of our species' existence on the planet has any particular goal, or purpose, or endpoint, or meaning” (Rosenberg, 2022.). Eric Schwitzgebel: “I don't rule out the possibility that we're not in fact physically embodied in the way that we think we are. One possibility on my map, although not generally accepted in contemporary philosophy, is idealism. On an idealist view, minds and bodies are just kind of constructions of our minds. And so it would be misleading in a certain way to say that minds were physically embodied. It would be more like bodies are ‘enminded’” (Schwitzgebel, 2014). Gino Yu: “The Western way of thinking, the Western framing of the world, is to try to understand who or what I am by looking outward, rather than by looking inward, observing what is happening …. Trying to understand the realm of the mind intellectually is like trying to scratch an itch you cannot reach” (Yu, Gino. 2013). Samir Zaki: “Not a single sentence written about consciousness is worth reading. There's a lot about how it's being made a subject worthy of scientific study—I don't think it will produce anything too worthwhile, actually … Philosophical problems become philosophical problems by virtue of the fact that there are no solutions to them. What new theories have been produced by consciousness? They have been negligible” (Zeki, 2019). In addition, “Must the Universe Contain Consciousness?”—with Paul Davies, Leonard Susskind, J. Richard Gott, Saul Perlmutter, Alan Guth, Leonard Mlodinow, Christof Koch, Brian Josephson, Stuart Hameroff, Michael Shermer, and Deepak Chopra (Must the Universe Contain, n.d.). Separately, physics-savvy filmmaker Curt Jaimungal offers a “layering” approach to consciousness, in which successive levels (“layers”) of multiple theories reveal greater complexities and depth, much as he does in expounding string theory on his “Theory of Everything” podcast (Jaimungal, 2014a, 2014b). While more an epistemological framework than an ontological theory, “layering” could facilitate novel ways to think about consciousness. Finallly, the elemental enigma of consciousness—the implicit failure of any of the myriad theories to suffice—sugggests the inconvenient idea that perhaps the whole consciousness enterprise is fundamentally flawed. For example, post-realist philosopher Hilary Lawson has reality as an "unspecified other"—which he calls "Opennesss"—in principle inaccessible and unknowable—and what we do is "Close" the Openness of the forever-hidden "real world" by taking parts and pieces into "our world" of things and thoughts and properties. We "Close" via language, observation and reason, which is required to engage and intervene, but in doing so we also limit or cut off untold realms of reality (Lawson, 2001). One could suppose this is what we do with consciousness. 20. Chalmers’s meta-problem of consciousness We've got one more topic. It's not on the Landscape. It's about the Landscape. It's the meta-problem of consciousness. David Chalmers, its originator, explains: “The meta-problem of consciousness is the problem of explaining why we think that there is a problem of consciousness.” (Chalmers, 2018). While the meta-problem is not a theory or explanation of consciousness, it gives insight into the ways of thinking of leading theorists and it probes the psychosocial structure of the field. Chalmers continues: “The meta-problem is a problem about a problem. The initial problem is the hard problem of consciousness: why and how do physical processes in the brain give rise to conscious experience? The meta-problem is the problem of explaining why we think consciousness poses a hard problem, or in other terms, the problem of explaining why we think consciousness is hard to explain.” Equivalently, it is the problem of explaining why people have problem intuitions … including metaphysical intuitions (“consciousness is non-physical”), explanatory intuitions (“physical processes can't fully explain consciousness”), knowledge intuitions (“someone who knows all about the brain but has never seen colors doesn't know what it’s like to see red”), and modal intuitions (“we can imagine all these physical processes without consciousness”). There are also intuitions about the value of consciousness, the distribution of consciousness, and more (Chalmers, 2018). In a special issue of the Journal of Consciousness Studies dedicated to the meta-problem of consciousness, 39 colleagues respond to Chalmers. Following are several whose own theories are presented on the Landscape (Journal of Consciousness Studies, 2019). Andy Clark, Karl Friston, Sam Wilkinson: “The meta-problem of consciousness is the problem of explaining the behaviours and verbal reports that we associate with the so-called ‘hard problem of consciousness’. These may include reports of puzzlement, of the attractiveness of dualism, of explanatory gaps, and the like. We present and defend a solution to the meta-problem. Our solution takes as its starting point the emerging picture of the brain as a hierarchical inference engine. We show why such a device, operating under familiar forms of adaptive pressure, may come to represent some of its mid-level inferences as especially certain. These mid-level states confidently re-code raw sensory stimulation in ways that (they are able to realize) fall short of fully determining how properties and states of affairs are arranged in the distal world. This drives a wedge between experience and the world. Advanced agents then represent these mid-level inferences as irreducibly special, becoming increasingly puzzled as a result” (Clark et al., 2019). Daniel Dennett: “David Chalmers underestimates the possibility that actually answering the ‘hard question’ will make both the hard problem and the meta-problem of consciousness evaporate” (Dennett, 2019). Keith Frankish: “The meta-problem of consciousness prompts the meta-question: is it the only problem consciousness poses? If we could explain all our phenomenal intuitions in topic-neutral terms, would anything remain to be explained? Realists say yes, illusionists no. In this paper I defend the illusionist answer. While it may seem obvious that there is something further to be explained—consciousness itself—this seemingly innocuous claim immediately raises a further problem—the hard meta-problem. What could justify our continued confidence in the existence of consciousness once all our intuitions about it have been explained away? The answer would involve heavy-duty metaphysical theorizing, probably including a commitment either to substance dualism or to the existence of a mysterious intrinsic subjectivity. A far less extravagant option is to endorse the illusionist response and conclude that the meta-problem is not a meta-problem at all but the problem of consciousness” (Frankish, 2019). Nicholas Humphrey (who offers “A Soft Landing for Consciousness”): “Problem reports result from several misunderstandings about the nature and functions of phenomenal consciousness. I discuss some philosophical and scientific correctives that, taken together, can make the hard problem seem less hard” (Humphrey, 2019). David Papineau: “I am glad that David Chalmers has now come round to the view that explaining the ‘problem intuitions’ about consciousness is the key to a satisfactory philosophical account of the topic. I find it surprising, however, given his previous writings, that Chalmers does not simply attribute these intuitions to the conceptual gap between physical and phenomenal facts. Still, it is good that he doesn't, given that this was always a highly implausible account of the problem intuitions. Unfortunately, later in his paper Chalmers slides back into his misguided previous emphasis on the conceptual gap, in his objections to orthodox a posteriori physicalism. Because of this he fails to appreciate how this orthodox physicalism offers a natural solution to the challenges posed by consciousness” (Papineau, 2019). Galen Strawson: “Many hold that (1) consciousness poses a uniquely hard problem. Why is this so? Chalmers considers 12 main answers in ‘The Meta-Problem of Consciousness’ … This paper focuses on number 11, and is principally addressed to those who endorse (1) because they think that (2) consciousness can't possibly be physical. It argues that to hold (2) is to make the mistake of underestimating the physical, and that almost all who make this mistake do so because they think they know more about the physical than they do. When we see things right, we see that there is nothing in physics nor in our everyday experience of the physical that gives us any good reason to hold (2). This leaves us free to embrace the overwhelmingly strong reasons for accepting that (3) consciousness is wholly physical. The correct general response is the same as the response to wave–particle duality: acceptance without expectation of understanding” (Strawson, 2019a). Joseph Levine: “The key to understanding both consciousness itself and addressing the meta-problem is to understand what acquaintance is and what its objects are …. First, treat conscious experience as the holding of a basic, intentional relation of acquaintance between the conscious subject and a virtual world of objects and properties. In a sense I would endorse the almost universally deplored ‘Cartesian theatre’ model of experience. What it is to have conscious experience, on this view, is just to stand in a primitive or basic acquaintance relation to the objects of experience …. We still need a way of making the cognitive immediacy of experience explicable in the nature of the relation between the cognitive states about acquaintance and the phenomenon of acquaintance itself. One possible line of investigation is to employ the notion of cognitive phenomenology (9.6.3, 9.6.4, 9.6.5). After all, it is when one is occurrently entertaining thoughts about one's experience that one gains knowledge of this acquaintance relation … Unfortunately …, it is unclear how our acquaintance with the contents of experience can serve as data for our theory of conscious experience” (Levine, 2019). Chalmers responds to his respondents in-depth (Chalmers, 2020a, 2020b, 2020c). Here is how he organizes his responses. “The commentaries divide fairly neatly into about three groups. About half of them discuss potential solutions to the meta-problem. About a quarter of them discuss the question of whether intuitions about consciousness are universal, widespread, or culturally local. And about a quarter discuss illusionism about consciousness and especially debunking arguments that move from a solution to the meta-problem to illusionism … As a result, I have divided my reply into three parts, each of which can stand alone. This first part is ‘How Can We Solve the Meta-Problem of Consciousness?’ The other two parts are ‘Is the Hard Problem of Consciousness Universal?’ and ‘Debunking Arguments for Illusionism about Consciousness’” (Chalmers, 2020a). “How can we solve the meta-problem? As a reminder, the meta-problem is the problem of explaining our problem intuitions about consciousness, including the intuition that consciousness poses a hard problem and related explanatory and metaphysical intuitions, among others. One constraint is to explain the intuitions in topic-neutral terms (for example, physical, computational, structural, or evolutionary terms) that do not make explicit appeal to consciousness in the explanation … I canvassed about 15 potential solutions to the meta-problem. I expressed sympathy with seven of them as elements of a solution: introspective models, phenomenal concepts, independent roles, introspective opacity, immediate knowledge, primitive quality attribution, and primitive relation attribution …” (Chalmers, 2020a). How does Chalmers view developments in consciousness studies since he highlighted, or ignited, the hard problem? “One thing that's really nice to see now is a lot of people are taking the problem a lot more seriously. And there has been a panoply of ideas, left and right, philosophers and scientists trying to address the problem of consciousness in a way that doesn't reduce consciousness to something else or try to deflate it, whereas in the past, all the predominant approaches were reductionist. Now, that's not the case” (Chalmers, 2016b). As for Chalmer's own thinking, he says, “I've gradually evolved toward trying to focus on constructive theories of consciousness. For a while, it was a matter of fighting battles with materialists; I still enjoy that, but I think we're at the point where it's more worthwhile to focus on getting the details of constructive theory right. So, I've thought a lot about panpsychism, the idea that consciousness is fundamental in the universe—and how you can overcome the problems for that kind of view. I've thought about the idea that consciousness might play a role in quantum mechanics, and how that might help provide a role for consciousness in the universe. In general, although my hair has gotten shorter, my tolerance for wild ideas has gotten higher: I'm prepared to entertain all kinds of crazy ideas when it comes to a theory of consciousness. I think one thing we've learned is that we're just not going to have a good theory of consciousness without a wild idea or two in there. If you try to make it all common sense, it's just not going to work. But I think we've also learned we can be rigorous at the same time (Chalmers, 2016b). 21. Implications That's it. The explanations and theories on the Landscape of Consciousness—currently. They will change. As promised, I shall not adjudicate among them, rank them in some order, critique this or that. Nor, should I try, would I have much confidence in my own, idiosyncratic views. Scanning through all of them, this blizzard of explanations and theories, I respect but resist Colin McGinn's old admonition: “The mystery persists. I think the time has come to admit candidly that we cannot resolve the mystery” (McGinn, 1989). We go on. That's what it means to be human. I'm asked by viewers of Closer To Truth why I don't take more stands and give more answers to the big questions we pursue. I respond that if I knew, I'd tell—I'm keeping no secrets. Rather, I've learned to luxuriate in the questions, with an agnosticism that is proactive and passionate. Now the fun part. I turn to implications of the explanations or theories of consciousness with respect to four big questions: (i) ultimate meaning/purpose/value (if any); (ii) AI consciousness; (iii) virtual immortality; and (iv) survival beyond death. What can be said? Most must be speculative, of course, but some general principles might hold.68 22. Meaning/purpose/value Under Materialism Theories (9) (philosophical, neurobiological, electromagnetic fields, computational and informational, homeostatic and affective, embodied and enactive, relational, representational, language, phylogenetic evolution), I'd be hard-pressed to rationalize any ultimate meaning or purpose, and probably no ultimate value, but recognize the humanistic meaning, purpose and value that we create for ourselves. None can explain this better than physicist Steven Weinberg. Near the end of his early book on cosmology, he wrote the indelible line, “The more the universe seems comprehensible, the more it also seems pointless” (Weinberg, 1977). Some 30 years later, I asked Weinberg to reflect on his words. “Oh, I don't have any second thoughts. I do think that as we've learned more and more about the universe, we've seen that there is no point in nature. There is nothing in the laws of nature that refer to human beings. There's nothing that gives us guidance. We do not discover that we are part of a cosmic drama in which we play a central role” (Weinberg, 2006). However, Weinberg reflected further: “But I did have a following paragraph. I said that [even] if we don't find a point in nature, we can at least make a point for ourselves. We can love each other and find beauty in things. And one of the things that gives point to some of our lives is the process of discovering nature, discovering the laws of nature. But whatever point there is, it is one that we have to give to ourselves.” (I've said on Closer To Truth that if I were God, Steven Weinberg would be my prophet.) By contrast, almost all Dualism (15) and Idealism (16) theories offer some kind of ultimate meaning/purpose/value (countless variations are imagined and on offer). Non-Reductive Physicalism (10), Panpsychism (13), many Monisms (14), and some Quantum Theories (11) sit in the middle, with possible ultimate meaning/purpose/value. John Leslie's theory of why there is a universe, not a blank, has “Value” as its heart (Leslie, 2013). Non-Reductive Physicalism is taken up by some Christian philosophers who see God's purpose working toward a resurrection of the dead, not toward a post-mortem heaven or hell (with no immediate state between moment of death and moment of resurrection). While Anomalous and Altered States theories distribute their support among Dualism, Quantum, and Monism theories, they all envision an expanded reality with potential for new kinds or levels of meaning, and almost all give credence to some kind of life or state of consciousness after death. Integrated Information Theory may be the subtlest to interpret in that while its measurement and analysis of consciousness convey no ultimate meaning/purpose/value, its speculative, innumerable nth dimensional structures, each a conscious percept, is sufficiently novel to suspend judgment. 23. Artificial intelligence (AI) consciousness Whether artificial intelligence (AI) can be or become conscious, while long a question, has burst into public discourse—due to the sudden impact of large language models such as ChatGPT, Gemini, and others. AI consciousness has become a serious matter of global concern. The question has vast social, moral and perhaps human-species-wide consequences. A major multidisciplinary report, bringing together AI experts, philosophers, neuroscientists and psychologists, argues for and exemplifies a rigorous and empirically grounded approach to AI consciousness. The report surveys prominent scientific theories of consciousness, all of which are on this Landscape, and derives “indicator properties” of consciousness, which are used to assess AI systems. The conclusion is that no current AI system is conscious, but that there are no obvious barriers to building AI systems that could be conscious (Butlin, 2023). It must be stressed that the report's working hypothesis is computational functionalism, the thesis that performing computations of the right kind is necessary and sufficient for consciousness. The report adopts this hypothesis for pragmatic reasons: unlike rival views, it entails that consciousness in AI is possible in principle and that studying the workings of AI systems can assess whether they are likely to be conscious. Though indeed a mainstream position in philosophy of mind, computational functionalism is challenged by diverse rivals on the Landscape. To philosopher John Searle, computer programs can never have a mind or be conscious in the human sense, even if they give rise to equivalent behaviors and interactions with the external world. In Searle's famous “Chinese Room” argument, a person inside a closed space can use a rule book to match Chinese characters with English words and thus appear to understand Chinese, when, in fact, she does not. (There is dispute about the validity of Searle's Chinese Room argument [Cole, 2023].) Nonetheless, Searle argues that just because brain processes cause consciousness and intentionality (aboutness) does not imply that only brains can be conscious. The brain is a biological machine, and we might build an artificial machine that was conscious. Because we do not know how the brain generates consciousness, Searle says, is the reason we are not yet in a position to know how to do it artificially (Searle, 2007a, 2007b). Rather, what Searle rejects is that a simulation of brain states, however detailed the information and precise the representation, can achieve the subjective qualities of inner awareness. What is required for consciousness, he says, is the same set or system of biological processes that the brain uses (Searle, 2002; Proust, 2003). Will it ever be possible, with hyper-advanced technology, for non-biological intelligences to be conscious in the same sense that we are conscious? Can computers have ‘inner experience’?69 “It's like the question, ‘Can a machine artificially pump blood as the heart does?” Searle responds. “Sure it can—we have artificial hearts. So, if we can know exactly how the brain causes consciousness, down to its finest details, I don't see any obstacle, in principle, to building a conscious machine. That is, if you knew what was causally sufficient to produce consciousness in human beings and if you could have that [mechanism] in another system, then you would produce consciousness in that other system. Note that you don't need neurons to have consciousness. It's like saying you don't need feathers to fly. But to build a flying machine, you do need sufficient causal power to overcome the force of gravity” (Searle, 2007b.). Searle cautions: “The one mistake we must avoid is supposing that if you simulate it, you duplicate it. A deep mistake embedded in our popular culture is that simulation is equivalent to duplication. But of course it isn't. A perfect simulation of the brain—say, on a computer—would be no more conscious than a perfect simulation of a rainstorm would make us all wet.” Robotics professor/entrepreneur Rodney Brooks agrees that consciousness can be created in non-biological media, but disagrees on the nature of consciousness itself. “There's no reason we couldn't have a conscious machine made from silicon,” he said. Brooks's position derives from his view that the universe is mechanistic and that consciousness, which seems special, is an illusion. We “fool ourselves,” he says, into “thinking our internal feelings are so unique.” (Brooks, 2011). AI expert Joscha Bach is bullish on AI consciousness, in part, because his theory (9.2.10) treats “consciousness as a memory instead of an actual sense of the present”—which he says “resolves much of the difficulty for specifying an AI implementation of consciousness: it is necessary and sufficient to realize a system that remembers having experienced something, and being able to report on that memory” (Bach, 2019). Can we ever really assess consciousness? “I don't know if you're conscious. You don't know if I'm conscious,” says neuroscientist Michael Graziano. “But we have a kind of gut certainty about it. This is because an assumption of consciousness is an attribution, a social attribution. And when a robot acts like it's conscious and can talk about its own awareness, and when we interact with it, we will inevitably have that social perception, that gut feeling, that the robot is conscious …. But can you really ever know if there's ‘anybody home’ internally, if there is any inner experience?” he continues. “All we do is compute a construct of awareness” (Graziano, 2014). Inventor and futurist Ray Kurzweil believes that “we will get to a point where computers will evidence the rich array of emotionally subtle behaviors that we see in human beings; they will be very intelligent, and they will claim to be conscious. They will act in ways that are conscious; they will talk about their own consciousness and argue about it just the way you and I do. And so the philosophical debate will be whether or not they really are conscious—and they will be participating in the debate” (Kurzweil, 2007). Kurzweil argues that assessing the consciousness of other (possible] minds is not a scientific question. “We can talk scientifically about the neurological correlates of consciousness, but fundamentally, consciousness is this subjective experience that only I can experience. I should talk about it only in first-person terms—although I've been sufficiently socialized to accept other people's consciousness. There's really no way to measure the conscious experiences of another entity … But I would accept that these non-biological intelligences are conscious. And that'll be convenient, because if I don't, they'll get mad at me.” Physiological psychologist Warren Brown stresses “embodied cognition, embodied consciousness,” in that “biology is the richest substrate for embodying consciousness.” But he doesn't rule out that consciousness “might be embodied in something non-biological.” On the other hand, Brown speculates, “consciousness may be a particular kind of organization of the world that just cannot be replicated in a non-biological system” (Brown, 2014). “I am a functionalist when it comes to consciousness,” says neuroscientist Christof Koch. "As long as we can reproduce the same kind of relevant relationships among all the relevant neurons in the brain, I think we will have recreated consciousness. The difficult part is, what do we mean by ‘relevant relationships?’ Does it mean we have to reproduce the individual motions of all the molecules? Unlikely. It's more likely that we have to recreate all the relevant relationships of the brain's synapses and the brain's wiring (the ‘connectome’) in a different medium, like a computer. If we can do all of this reconstruction at the right level, this entity, this software construct, would be conscious” (Koch, 2012c). Koch stresses that “experience” requires new, perhaps radical, scientific thinking. “You need to expand the traditional laws of physics. In physics there is space, time, energy, mass. Those by themselves are sufficient to explain the physics of the brain. The brain is subject to the same laws of physics as any other object in the universe. But in addition, there is something else. There is experience. The experience of pain. The experience of falling in love. And to account for experience, you need to enhance the laws of physics.” In the context of Integrated Information Theory, would Koch be comfortable with nonbiological consciousness? “Why should I not be? Consciousness doesn't require any magical ingredient.” Over the years, Koch has refined his views. Against the grain, he says, “integrated information theory radically disagrees with this functionalist view. It argues from first principles that digital computers can (in principle) do everything that humans can do, eventually even faster and better. But they can never be what humans are. Intelligence is computable, but consciousness is not. This is not because the brain possesses any supernatural properties. The critical difference between brains and digital computers is at the hardware level, where the rubber meets the road—that is, where action potentials are relayed to tens of thousands of recipient neurons versus packets of electrons shuttled back and forth among a handful of transistors.” Koch primary point is that “the integrated information of digital computers is negligible. And that makes all the difference. It means that these machines will never be sentient, no matter how intelligent they become. Furthermore, that they will never possess what we have: the ability to deliberate over an upcoming choice and freely decide” (Koch, 2024, p. 20). Theist philosopher Richard Swinburne says, “I don't see that it is in the least implausible that a 'radically separate, non-physical substance' could come into existence as a result of a non-biological process. There might be some law of nature stating that all sufficiently complicated computer-like systems become conscious. But the problem is that the law could not state which conscious being they would become, out of the innumerable possible individual conscious beings they might become. And that, in my view, also applies to organisms produced by normal processes—there may be a law determining that a person with a certain character emerges as a result of fertilization of an egg, but the law could not determine which person that was; for the simple reason that laws deal with the causation of states of affairs of certain kinds by other states of affairs of certain kinds; and given that a duplicate of me isn't necessarily me, no law of nature could determine that I would have been born from my actual parents” (Swinburne, 2016). Now, for each of the categories of explanations of consciousness, a conjecture: In which could AI become conscious? Materialism Theories (9): Sure. For Materialism Theories (with all its subcategories) to be consistent, AI consciousness must be in principle absolutely sure. There is no possibility that, given materialism, AI consciousness would be forbidden. If one argues that consciousness must be embodied, fine, then materialism will build a body. Remember, we are speaking in ultimate principle, not in current practice, and there are no time limits. (Dehaene, Lau and Kouider assert that to build machines that are conscious, novel machine architectures must be based on information-processing computations similar to those of the human brain, especially global workspace and higher-order theories [Dehaene et al., 2017].) If materialism explains consciousness entirely (without residue), then it would be certainly true that non-biological intelligences with super-strong AI would eventually have the same kind of inner awareness that humans do. Moreover, as AI would break through the singularity and become vastly more sophisticated than the human brain, it would likely express forms of consciousness higher than we today can even imagine. Though some speculatively reject that AI could ever become conscious (e.g., Reber, 2016; Reber, 2018), if one takes a hard-core physicalist position, an immutably skeptical outlook may not be warranted (and may not be coherent). To the degree that language affects the deep essence of consciousness, this would make AI consciousness more likely, given the exponential advances in AI language development. But language per se is certainly not sufficient and likely not necessary. Non-Reductive Physicalism (10). If Non-Reductive Physicalism is true, then it would be almost certainly true that non-biological intelligences could eventually be conscious—although the independent reality of mental states attenuates (slightly, unpredictably) the likelihood of inner awareness—an argument that is itself countered by functionalism (if functionalism is true). However, if strong emergence and top-down causation were required, then both would have to be enabled in creating AI consciousness, a process that would require two orders of complexity (i.e., strong emergence and top-down causation as real phenomena, and then their artificial creation). Quantum Theories (11). If quantum mechanics is the key to consciousness, with its exponential amplification of processing power and its vast parallel pathways working simultaneously, Quantum Theories would be the lead category for generating AI consciousness. The one caveat, a practical but not an in-principle obstacle, would be the physical constraints of manipulating myriad quantum states, with their inherent indeterminacies and environmental sensitivities, making the technology even more daunting. However, the technology is accelerating with fervor and so if AI consciousness is to happen, by design or by default, Quantum Theories is likely how and where it will happen. Integrated Information Theory (12). If consciousness requires an independent, non-reducible feature of physical reality—say, IIT's “qualia space”—then it would remain an open question whether non-biological intelligences could ever experience true inner awareness. (It would depend on the deep nature of the consciousness-causing feature in qualia space, and whether this feature could be controlled by technology.) Panpsychisms (13). If panpsychism explains consciousness such that proto-consciousness is a non-reducible property of every elementary physical field and particle, then it would seem likely that AI could experience true inner awareness (because consciousness would be an intrinsic part of the fabric of reality). Panpsychism introduces more complexity than does materialism because panpsychism must solve its combination problem (but this problem must be solved anyway in order for panpsychism to be the winning theory). In addition, AI consciousness under panpsychism turns on whether the micropsychic aspects can be manipulated by advanced technology. Monisms (14). Monisms, almost by definition, should pose no problem for AI consciousness, as everything everywhere is the same stuff. A possible exception would be if God or something like God (if it exists) were involved. Dualisms (15). The major holdout to AI consciousness, as I see it (at this particular moment), would be if dualism were true and consciousness requires a radically separate, nonphysical substance not causally determined by the physical world. It would then seem impossible that non-biological intelligences, no matter how super-strong their AI, could ever experience true inner awareness, at least the varieties of dualism where God or something like God was doing the creating and/or allocating. Emergent dualism, where unfathomable but conceivable psychophysical laws generate “souls” (or nonphysical components) based on certain principles of physical complexity, would be an exception and could generate AI consciousness almost as surely as materialism, though requiring this extra process. Idealisms (16). As Idealism holds that everything everywhere is already consciousness in some primitive sense, that fundamental consciousness is ultimate reality, then anything could be (or is) conscious (whatever that may mean), including non-biological entities. However, the question turns on how fundamental consciousness would be related to personal consciousness, and if so, could even maximally advanced technology manipulate it? (Idealist philosopher Bernardo Kastrup, also a computer scientist, says “Conscious AI is a fantasy,” though for reasons based mostly on current concepts of computers [Kastrup, 2023].) Anomalous and Altered States Theories (17). Because Anomalous and Altered States theories of consciousness require “something” beyond, or in addition to, materialism, that “something” would ipso facto need to generate AI consciousness. While unknowable practically, it does not seem an insurmountable barrier conceptually. For example, it could be the case that when a system is of a sufficient kind of complexity it “automatically” taps into the “grid,” as it were, of another realm of reality. Alternatively, Anomalous and Altered States theories may simply be taken, by their adherents, as evidence of Quantum, Dualism or Idealism theories, in which case the theory of choice would determine the possibility of AI consciousness. To summarize, in assessing AI consciousness, here are my (tentative) conclusions for each category: Materialism Theories: Yes. Non-Reductive physicalism: Likely. Quantum Theories: Yes (the lead category). Integrated Information Theory: Uncertain. Panpsychism: Probably. Monism: Likely (some). Dualism: No (mostly). Idealism: Likely. Anomalous and Altered States Theories: Possibly. I agree that after super-strong AI exceeds some threshold, science could never distinguish, not even in principle, actual inner awareness from apparent inner awareness. But I do not agree with what often follows: that this everlasting uncertainty about inner awareness and conscious experience in non-biological entities makes the question irrelevant. I think the question remains maximally relevant. In all aspects of behavior and communications, these non-biological intelligences, such as super-strong AI robots, would seem to be equal to (or, more likely, superior to) humans. But if super-strong AI robots did not, in fact, have the felt sense of inner experience, they would be “zombies” (“philosophical zombies”), externally identical to conscious beings, but with no mental content, nothing inside. Moreover, this difference between super-strong AI being conscious and merely appearing conscious would become even more crucial if, by some objective standard, humanlike inner awareness conveys some kind of “intrinsic worthiness” with moral rights and privileges. Consider cosmos-colonizing robots driven by super-strong AI. The stark dichotomy between conscious and non-conscious entities elicits a probative question about self-replicating robots, which, unless we destroy ourselves or our planet, will eventually colonize the cosmos. Post-singularity, would super-strong AI robots without inner awareness be in all respects as powerful as super-strong AI robots with inner awareness, and in no respects deficient? That is, are there kinds of cognition that, in principle or of necessity, require true inner felt experience? Moreover, would conscious galaxy-traversing robots, with true inner felt experience, represent a higher form of intrinsic worthiness and absolute value? I can argue that unless our robotic probes were literally conscious, even if they were to colonize every object in the universe, the absence of inner felt experience would mean a diminished intrinsic worth, and, by extension, a diminished universe. For assessing the profound nature and value of robotic probes colonizing the cosmos, for assessing what it means to colonize the cosmos, the question of consciousness is axial. 24. Virtual immortality Virtual immortality is the theory that the fullness of our first-person mental selves (our “I”) can be uploaded with first-person perfection to non-biological media, so that when our mortal bodies die and our brains dissolve, our mental selves will live on. I am all for virtual immortality and I hope it happens (rather soon, too). Alas, I don't think it will (not soon, anyway). I'd deem it almost impossible for centuries, if not millennia. Worse, virtual immortality could wind up being absolutely impossible, forbidden in principle. This is not the received wisdom of optimo-techno-futurists, who believe that the exponential development of technology in general, and of AI in particular (including the complete digital duplication of human brains), will radically transform humanity through two revolutions. The first is the “singularity,” when AI will redesign itself recursively and progressively, such that it will become vastly more powerful than human intelligence. The second, they claim, will be virtual immortality. Virtual immortality would mark a startling, transhuman world that optimo-techno-futurists envision as inevitable in the long run and perhaps just over the horizon in the mid run. They do not question whether their vision can be actualized; they only debate when it will occur, with estimates ranging from several decades to a century or so. I'm skeptical. I think the complexity of the science is wildly unappreciated, and, more fundamentally, I challenge the philosophical foundation of the claim. Consciousness is the elephant in the room, though many refuse to see it. They assume, almost as an article of faith, that super-strong AI (post-singularity) will inevitably be conscious (perhaps ipso facto). They may be correct, but to make that judgment requires an analysis that is surely multifaceted and, I suspect, likely inconclusive. Whatever consciousness may be, it determines whether virtual immortality in the strong sense of true first-person survival is even possible. That's why, here, to assess prospects of virtual immortality, I do so in the context of the Landscape's diverse categories of the explanations or theories of consciousness. First, however, there are two other potential obstacles to virtual immortality. I consider them briefly. One is sheer complexity. What would it take to duplicate the human brain such that our first-person inner awareness, and all that it entails, would be not only indistinguishable from the original but actually identical to it? Consider some (very) rough data for the human brain: about 86 billion neurons; 500 to 1,000 trillion synapses; about 40–130 billion glial cells (traditionally assumed limited to metabolic support for neurons, now shown also to participate in brain functions); up to 1,000 moments or “buckets” per second on every neuron for positioning action potentials (the electrical sparks of information in neurons); 50 billion proteins per neuron (some of which form memories); innumerable 3-dimensional structural forms for proteins and their geometric interactions; various extra-cellular molecules (some of which are involved in brain functions). The list goes on. How much of all of this complexity is required for total virtual duplication such that the mental fullness of the original person can be said to exist? Who knows? Granted, much of the brain is not needed for consciousness and its contents; much of the machinery of the brain is metabolic. The bodily control mechanisms, such as regulating breathing, heart rate and digestion would be of no value in non-biological substrates. On the other hand, several theories of consciousness suggest that bodily sense is needed for normal cognition (e.g., 9.6, Embodied and Enactive Theories). Take all the brain data together and consider all possible combinations and permutations that work to generate the more than 100 billion distinct human personalities who have ever lived (each of whom has distinct states from moment to moment over decades of life). I hesitate to estimate the number of specifications that would be required. How could all these be accessed non-invasively, in sufficient detail, in real time, and simultaneously? The technologies exceed my imagination. But in principle, they are possible. A second potential deterrent to virtual immortality is quantum mechanics, the inherent indeterminacies that could make creating a perfect mental duplicate problematic or even impossible. After all, if quantum events (like radioactive decay) are in principle non-predictable, how then would it be possible to duplicate a brain perfectly? But quantum indeterminacies exist everywhere, in bricks just as well as in brains, so its special applicability to brain function, and hence to virtual immortality, is questionable. The crux of the issue is at which level in the hierarchy of causation, if any, does quantum mechanics make necessary contributions to brain function and to consciousness? (11). Certainly, the vast majority of neuroscientists think quantum mechanics works only at bedrock levels of fundamental physics, way too low to play any special role at the higher levels where brains function and minds happen. This means that while the sheer complexity of the brain would deter virtual immortality, and the indeterminacy of quantum mechanics might be an insurmountable obstacle to perfect duplication, the former would only delay its advent while the latter is probably not relevant. This leaves theories of consciousness—that same elephant in the room—which optimo-techno-futurists ignore as they plan their virtual afterlife. This section on Virtual Immortality follows from the previous section on AI Consciousness. It is my conjecture that unless humanlike, first-person inner awareness can be created in AI-empowered non-biological intelligences, uploading one's neural patterns and pathways, however complete, could never preserve the original, first-person mental self (the private “I”) and virtual immortality would be impossible. To the extent that the case for AI consciousness can be made, the case for virtual immortality strengthens. To the extent that the case for AI consciousness is weak, the case for virtual immortality weakens. AI consciousness is a necessary but not sufficient condition for virtual immortality. In other words, virtual immortality requires the same basic conditions as does AI consciousness, but then must add (unknown) orders of magnitude of greater constraints and complexity. What about well-known thought experiments where each neuron is replaced, one at a time, by silicon chips that are perfect replicators. Everyone would agree that replacing one neuron (of 86 billion) would not change phenomenal consciousness. What about replacing one billion neurons? Ten billion? All of them? Would consciousness gradually fade and wink out? Or disappear all at once (unlikely)? Or not change at all? John Searle, who also used the silicon chip replacement thought experiment, thinks that “as the silicon is progressively implanted into your dwindling brain, you find that the area of your conscious experience is shrinking, but that this shows no effect on your external behavior” (Searle, 1992). David Chalmers, who uses “fading qualia” to probe consciousness, thinks silicon replacement would not change phenomenology (Chalmers, 1995a). Michael Tye, who offers four possibilities for what could happen to both phenomenology and belief, thinks that neither would change (Tye, 2019). Ned Block thinks phenomenology depends on the nature of our biological machinery (Block, 2023). I think theory of consciousness matters. In my view, the silicon replacement thought experiment poses another hurdle for virtual immortality. Unless Chalmers and Tye are correct that there would be no change, virtual immortality would be impossible. Philosopher of mind and AI Susan Schneider warns would-be mind uploaders that “If one opts for patternism, enhancements like uploading are not really ‘enhancements’; they can even result in death.” Patternism, she says, is based on the computational theory of mind (9.4), which explains “cognitive and perceptual capacities in terms of causal relationships between components, each of which can be described algorithmically.” One common metaphor is that “the mind is a software program: That is, the mind is the algorithm the brain implements.” Upload the software, you upload the mind? Not so fast. Personal identity, Schneider says, requires “spatiotemporal continuity,” such that any uploaded entity would not be your first-person self. It would be an “android,” she says, “an unwitting imposter.” (Schneider, 2019a, 2019b). According to Christof Koch, “Mind-uploading will only be achievable if computational functionalism, the metaphysical assumption that computations, executed on a computer, are sufficient for consciousness, holds. In this view, consciousness is simply a question of discovering the right algorithm. Under a different metaphysical assumption, consciousness cannot be achieved by mere computation as it is a structure associated with the physics of complex systems. If this is how reality is structured, then uploading a ‘mind’ to a digital computer will end up with a deep fake: all action without what we hold most precious, subjective experiAs noted, virtual immortality ence” (Koch, 2024, p. 19; 12). As noted, virtual immortality is a large leap beyond AI consciousness, in that AI consciousness creates a new locus of consciousness whereas virtual immortality must not only create a new locus of consciousness, it must also reproduce with exquisite perfection a prior locus of consciousness. This is why virtual immortality would require far more advanced technology, the acquisition of which could take centuries if not millennia or longer. Whether virtual immortality is even possible has never changed, of course; always it has been determined or constrained by the unchanging, actual explanation or theory of phenomenal consciousness. We assess for each category. Materialism Theories (9). If Materialism Theories explain consciousness entirely (without remainder), then our first-person mental self would be uploadable and virtual immortality would be attainable. The technology would take hundreds or thousands of years—not decades as optimo-techno-futurists expect—but, barring human-wide catastrophe, virtual immortality would happen. There is no in-principle prohibition. If epiphenomenalism is true, then it is highly likely that virtual immortality would be attainable. The inert “foam” of consciousness should have little impact. To the degree that Language affects the deep essence of consciousness would make Virtual Immortality more likely, given the exponential advances in AI language development—but it would still be only a first step. Relational and Representational Theories, if true, could guide research and facilitate the technology for virtual immortality. Non-Reductive Physicalism (10). If Non-Reductive Physicalism explains consciousness, then it is also highly likely that virtual immortality would be attainable. The causative power of mental states should not affect virtual immortality because a perfect duplication of the physical states would ipso facto produce a perfect duplication of the mental states. But if there were some strong emergence and/or top-down causation required, then those would also have to be duplicated in the upload. Quantum Theories (11). If Quantum Theories are the mechanism of consciousness, then it is likely that virtual immortality would be attainable, because quantum mechanics is governed by highly predictable regularities, although the technology to do so would be more challenging. However, the indeterminacies, intrinsic probabilistics and strangeness of quantum physics add a degree of uncertainty that cannot be evaluated. The test, as with all potential causes of consciousness, is whether advanced technology can manipulate and control the cause of consciousness, and do so comprehensively and precisely and without meaningful error. The quantum nature of consciousness, if true, would introduce unpredictability and perhaps undermine perfect duplicability. For this reason, quantum theories, compared to other theories of consciousness, would have relatively less success in enabling virtual immortality than in generating AI consciousness (which is not to say it can do either). Stuart Hameroff thinks it is possible that “your consciousness can be downloaded into some artificial medium as the singularity folks have been saying for years, but without any progress whatsoever.” Referencing his and Roger Penrose's Orch OR theory of quantum conscious (11.1), Hameroff says, “It could happen in an alternative medium that has the proper properties,” he said, “perhaps artificial nanotubes made of carbon fullerenes. [Creating consciousness in non-biological media] can be done as long as you have enough mass superposition to reach threshold in a reasonable time” (Hameroff et al., 2024). Integrated Information Theory (12). If phenomenal consciousness requires an independent, non-reducible feature that may take the form of a radically new structure or organization of reality, perhaps a different dimension of reality—as IIT postulates—then virtual immortality could be possible, but it would be remain an open question whether our first-person mental self could be uploaded. As we do not understand this consciousness-causing structure, we could not now know whether it could be manipulated by technology, no matter how advanced. If this qualia space could be directed by activities in the brain, with predictable regularities, then virtual immortality would be more likely. Whereas many neuroscientists assume that whole brain duplication can achieve, ultimately, virtual immortality, Tononi and Koch do not grant to a digital simulacrum the same consciousness we grant to a fellow human. According to IIT, they say, “this would not be justified, for the simple reason that the brain is real, but a simulation of a brain is virtual.” Consciousness is a fundamental property of certain physical systems, those that require having real cause–effect power, specifically the power of shaping the space of possible past and future states in a way that is maximally irreducible intrinsically.” Therefore, they conclude, “just like a computer simulation of a giant star will not bend space–time around the machine, a simulation of our conscious brain will not have consciousness” (Tononi and Koch, 2015). What would most likely happen, Tononi says, is, “you would create a perfect ‘zombie’—somebody who acts exactly like you, somebody whom other people would mistake for you, but you wouldn't be there” (Tononi, 2014c). Panpsychisms (13). If Panpsychism is true and consciousness is an irreducible property of each and every elementary physical field and particle, then it would seem probable that our first-person mental self could be uploaded. There would be two reasons: (i) consciousness would be an intrinsic part of the fabric of reality, and (ii) there would be regularities in the way particles would need to be aggregated to produce consciousness—and if there are such regularities, then advanced technologies could learn to control them. But the question turns, again, on whether the micropsychic forces could be harnessed and manipulated by super-advanced technology, as can physical forces of fundamental physics (with varying degrees of difficulty and precision). Monisms (14): As with AI consciousness, monism's single-stuff reality should enable virtual immortality—again, unless God or something like God (if it exists) were involved. Dualisms (15). If Dualism is true and consciousness requires a radically separate, nonphysical substance not causally determined by the physical world, then it would seem impossible to upload our first-person mental self by duplicating the brain, because a necessary cause of our consciousness, this nonphysical component, would be absent. (An exception, again, would be Emergent Dualism [15.9], where unknown psychophysical laws would generate “souls” or nonphysical components “automatically.” But whether the same radically-unknown psychophysical laws would work equally well for virtual consciousness as for brain-based consciousness is a further complexity.) Idealisms (16). If consciousness is ultimate reality, then consciousness would exist of itself, primitive, without any physical prerequisites. But would the unique, comprehensive pattern of a complete physical brain (derived, in this case, from consciousness) favor a duplication of a specific segment of the cosmic consciousness (i.e., our unique first-person mental self)? It's not clear, in Idealism's case, whether uploading would make much difference (or much sense). But, again, like AI consciousness under Idealism, virtual immortality under Idealism would turn on whether hyper-technology, maximally advanced, could harness and manipulate Idealism's fundamental consciousness. I can argue both sides: on the one hand, we are already composed of the same consciousness, so duplication is facilitated; on the other hand, the probability of being able to manipulate fundamental consciousness does not feel high. Anomalous and Altered States Theories (17). As with AI consciousness, because Anomalous and Altered States theories of consciousness require “something” beyond, or in addition to, materialism, that “something” would be necessary but not sufficient to enable virtual immortality. However, given that almost every Anomalous and Altered States theory of consciousness already has ample (theoretical) resources to provide its own form or forms of immortality (supposedly), virtual immortality under Anomalous and Altered States theories would seem moot. After all, if you get the “real thing,” why worry about “virtual?” To summarize, in pursuit of virtual immortality, here are my (tentative) conclusions for each category of theories of consciousness. Materialism Theories: Yes. Non-Reductive Physicalism: Likely. Quantum Theories: Probably (with uncertainty). Panpsychism: Probably. Monism: Likely (some). Dualism: No (mostly). Idealism: Likely. Anomalous and Altered States theories: Not needed. Any theory, of course, would need to take on board all the brain-based complexities noted earlier, much underappreciated by optimo-techno-futurists. In trying to distinguish among these alternative theories of consciousness, and thus assess the viability of virtual immortality, I am troubled by a simple observation. Assume that a perfect duplication of my brain does, in fact, generate my first-person consciousness—which is the minimum requirement for virtual immortality. This would mean that my first-person self and personal awareness could be uploaded to a new medium (non-biological or even, for that matter, a new biological body). But here's the problem: If “I” can be duplicated once, then I can be duplicated twice; and if twice, then an unlimited number of times. What happens to my current first-person inner awareness? What happens to my “I”? Assume I do the duplication procedure and it works perfectly—say, five times. Where is my first-person inner awareness located? Where am I? Each of the five duplicates would state with indignant certainty that he is “Robert Kuhn,” and no one could dispute any of them. (For simplicity of the argument, physical appearances of the clones are neutralized.) Inhabiting my original body, I would also claim to be the real “me,” but I could not prove my priority. (David Brin's novel Kiln People is a thought experiment about “duplicates,” and personal identity [Brin, 2003].) I'll frame the question more precisely. Compare my inner awareness from right before to right after the duplication process. Will I, the original, feel or sense differently? Here are four duplication scenarios, with their implications:1. I do not sense any difference in my first-person awareness. This would mean that the five duplicates are like super-identical twins—they are independent conscious entities, such that each, after his creation, begins instantly to diverge from the others. This would imply that consciousness is the local expression or manifestation of a set of physical factors or patterns. (An alternative explanation would be that the duplicates are zombies, with no inner awareness—a charge, of course, they would angrily deny.) 2. My first-person awareness suddenly has six parts—my original and the five duplicates in different locations—and they all somehow merge or blur together into a single conscious frame, the six conscious entities fusing into a single composite (if not coherent) “picture.” In this way, the unified effect of my six conscious centers would be like the “binding problem” on steroids.70 This could mean that consciousness has some kind of overarching presence or a kind of supra-physical structure. 3. My personal first-person awareness shifts from one conscious entity to another, or fragments, or fractionates. These states are logically (if remotely) possible, but only, I think, if consciousness would be an imperfect, incomplete expression of evolution, devoid of deep grounding. 4. My personal first-person awareness disappears upon duplication; although each of the six (five plus original) claims to be the original and really believes it, in fact none is. (This, too, would make consciousness even more mysterious.) For my money (or my life), I'd bet on Scenario 1. But if Scenario 1 is correct, then have “I,” the original “I,” achieved virtual immortality? No. I have a bunch of super-identical twins, an enlarged family, but no virtual immortality for “me.” Suppose, after the duplicates are made, the original (me) is destroyed. What then? Almost certainly my first-person awareness would vanish, although each of the five duplicates would assert unabashedly that he is the real “Robert Kuhn” and would advise, perhaps smugly, not to fret over the deceased and discarded original. There's a further implication of virtual immortality, and an odd one, relating to the possibility that super-strong AI, cosmos-colonizing robots could become conscious (see previous section). I can make the case that such galaxy-traveling, consciousness-bearing entities could include you—yes, you!—your first-person inner awareness exploring the cosmos virtually and (almost) forever. Here's the argument. If AI consciousness and virtual immortality are possible, then human first-person consciousness and personality can be uploaded (ultimately) into space probes and we ourselves can colonize the cosmos! If virtual immortality is possible, I'd see no reason why we couldn't choose where we would like our virtual immortality to be housed, and if we choose a cosmos-colonizing robot, we could experience the galactic journeys through robotic senses (while at the same time enjoying our virtual world, especially during those eons of dead time traveling between star systems). At some time in the (far) future, scientists will likely assure us that the technology is up and running. If I were around, would I believe the scientists and upload my consciousness? Moreover, entranced by what I assume will be AI-enhanced commercial advertisements, would I select a cosmos-colonizing robot as my medium of storage so that I could spend my virtual immortality touring the galaxy? I might, if only I'd be confident that a theory of consciousness that allows duplication is true and that the duplication procedure would not affect my first-person mental self one whit. (I sure wouldn't let them destroy the original, though the duplicates may call for it.) So, while all the duplicates wouldn't feel like me (as I know me), I'd kind of enjoy sending “Robert Kuhn” out there exploring star systems galore. There's more. If my consciousness is entirely physical and can be uploaded without degradation, then it can be uploaded without degradation to as many cosmos-colonizing robots as I'd like—or can afford. It gets crazy. Which makes me think there is something irreparably wrong with duplicates in specific and perhaps with virtual immortality in general. Whether non-biological entities such as robots can be conscious, or not, presents us with two disjunctive possibilities, each with profound consequences. If robots can never be conscious, then there may be a greater moral imperative for human beings to colonize the cosmos. If robots can be conscious, then there may be less reason for humans, with our fragile bodies, to explore space—but your personal consciousness could be uploaded into cosmos-colonizing robots, probably into innumerable such galactic probes, and you yourself (or your mental clones) could colonize the cosmos. My intuition, for what it’s worth, is that it’s all a pipedream. I deem virtual immortality for my first-person inner awareness to be not possible as a practical matter (given any hyper-technology), and perhaps to be never possible in principle. Does this commit me to a form of dualism? I'm not comfortable with the pigeonhole. But confident in my conclusion, I am not. While in the (far) future, we may find a way to convince ourselves that duplication really works, for me for now, I'm convinced of only this: Virtual immortality, like AI consciousness, must face the explanations and theories on the Landscape of Consciousness. 25. Survival beyond death This section is somewhat repetitive. The reason is not just because there is absence of real knowledge about survival beyond death, which is obvious (to some), but also because what follows from each explanation or theory of consciousness with respect to survival is reasonably clear (even if, in some cases, ambiguous). Materialism Theories (9). Death of the brain and body is death of the person, irrevocable and permanent non-existence. The conventional-wisdom way to maintain post-mortem, first-person subjectivity under Materialism Theories would be virtual immortality via hyper-advanced technology (see the previous section). Another possibility comes from the four-dimensional block universe interpretation of fundamental physics (the fourth dimension being time). As Albert Einstein wrote to the family of his friend, Michele Besso, who had just died: “Now he has departed this strange world a little ahead of me. That signifies nothing. For us believing physicists, the distinction between past, present and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion.” Generic Subjective Continuity (9.8.13). Naturalistic conceptions of consciousness, personhood, and self, tied to a physicalist picture of consciousness dependent on the brain, would seem to make it impossible, even ludicrous, to sustain the hypothesis that one's particular personal consciousness survives the dissolution of the brain upon death. Nevertheless, some (Clark, T., 1994) have proposed that at death we should anticipate not the onset of oblivion or nothingness, but the continuation of consciousness—however, not in the context of the person who dies. Such “generic subjective continuity” suggests that consciousness, albeit tied to specific physical instantiations, never finds itself absent. One might stretch to find resonances with aspects of some Eastern eschatologies. (That this may or may not be welcomed by those facing death—many of whom have the hope of first-person-continuity life after death, and some of whom may prefer the onset of oblivion, not the continuation of experience in other contexts—is way beyond the scope of this Landscape.) Non-Reductive Physicalism (10). Whereas death under Materialism/physicalism means total extinction of mind and consciousness, under some forms of Non-Reductive Physicalism, with mind not reducible, it is possible that God (if there is a God), or something like God, could bring the person back to life, a radical process often labeled “resurrection” (10.3). Quantum Theories (11). If consciousness comes about via specialized quantum processes, then, at least superficially, death is still death as it is in materialism. However, looking deeper, the strange, counterintuitive nature of quantum theory introduces the possibility of radically new levels or realms of existence, such as the many-worlds interpretation and alternative world histories selected by future events. It is still hard to imagine how any of this could provide first-person survival beyond death to my inner “I” that feels and senses now. Integrated Information Theory (12). If phenomenal consciousness requires a radically new structure or organization of reality, perhaps a different dimension of reality, then what happens to these inscrutable things cannot be imagined and their potential permanence in some sense cannot be rejected. This does not mean that IIT espouses or even allows life after death. What it does is highlight the mystery and importance of consciousness, which leaves the door to survival perhaps a crack more open. Panpsychisms (13). If all aspects of the world are infused with consciousness, then solving the combination problem—how myriad microscopic panpsychic elements coalesce to form a macroscopic consciousness—could enable novel ideas about what may happen when the process reverses, when the macroscopic consciousness dissolves with the dissolution of the brain. It seems a long-long shot to first-person survival, but for some kind of survival, not in principle impossible. Monisms (14). Having one kind of fundamental stuff makes ultimate reality simpler, suggesting perhaps that some kinds of monism may facilitate survival. For example, John Polkinghorne's “dual-aspect monism” enables a resurrection. Dualisms (15). With its nonphysical soul or spirit independent of the body being the “real you,” dualism provides the clearest mechanism for survival beyond death. As such, dualism dominates religious traditions and spiritual systems. In addition to resurrection (Abrahamic religions of Judaism, Christianity, Islam) and reincarnation (Eastern traditions, especially Hinduism and Buddhism), the vast majority of religious believers are sure that our individual soul or first-person awareness will, post-mortem, immediately be resident in some other realm. Popularity does not make truth, of course, but it is a data point. To reflect on dualism in reverse: If we knew counterfactually that survival beyond death was indeed a true fact of the world, we would likely infer that some kind of dualism is making it happen. Idealism (16). Idealism allows survival beyond death because if everything fundamentally is consciousness, and thus consciousness is the ground of all being, then a nexus between our individual consciousnesses and the ultimate or cosmic consciousness can be readily imagined. (Parsimony is nice but not dispositive.) Indeed, Eastern religions have survival as fundamental doctrine, usually in forms and systems of reincarnation. However, survival under Idealism usually does not mean survival of one's current first-person awareness, but rather some kind of consciousness expansion (Kastrup, 2016a, Kastrup, 2016b) or diffusion, like a person's one drop of personal consciousness absorbed back into the infinite ocean of cosmic consciousness from which it came. The issue of the afterlife in Indian philosophy is framed sharply by the question whether we will “eat sugar” (maintain our first-person identity) or “be sugar” (absorbed back into cosmic consciousness, lose our first-person identity) (Medhananda, 2023). Anomalous and Altered States Theories (17). Survival beyond death of personal consciousness in some form is a prime feature of Anomalous and Altered States theories. Almost all categories of psi/paranormal (i.e., NDEs, OBEs, ESP, parapsychology, past lives) have “life after death”—if not as its central doctrine (which some do), then at least as a major aspect. Whether “communicating” with dead relatives in séances or “remembering” past lives via hypnosis, survival gets attention. In fact, survival is a main motivating reason why people are attracted to psi/paranormal phenomena in the first place. To summarize, in pursuit of survival beyond death, here are my (tentative) conclusions for each category of theories of consciousness: Materialism: No, with possible exceptions for virtual immortality and a four-dimensional block universe. Non-Reductive physicalism: Unlikely (possible exception: resurrection). Quantum Theories: Maybe (even if so, it would be in formal, abstract ways of uncertain meaning). Panpsychism: Unlikely (long shot). Monism: Unlikely (possible exception: resurrection). Dualism: Yes, with first-person consciousness preserved. Idealism: Yes, with first-person consciousness blurred or banished. Anomalous and Altered States theories: Yes. Generic subjective continuity: No, but consciousness survives death in a generic, not a personal sense. I remain eagerly though skeptically open to speculation. I won't fool myself. 26. Reflections When I did my PhD in neurophysiology (mid-1960s), I felt somewhat embarrassed, as an apprentice scientist, to be seen taking consciousness seriously. I'm now proud of it, though it's no longer risky. There is today great interest in consciousness among scientists—some, in context of AI potentially becoming conscious, calling the issue “urgent” (Lenharo, 2024). I appreciate Christof Koch pioneering neural correlates of consciousness; David Chalmers challenging conventional wisdom in philosophy of mind; and John Leslie, from whom I've learned much, showing me new ways to think about ultimate matters. I admire two physicists who have long taken consciousness seriously. Paul Davies suspects that the universe is “about” something and that consciousness is no accident. Andrei Linde was advised to take the word “consciousness” out of a cosmology manuscript so that fellow scientists wouldn't lose respect for him. Andrei responded, “If I take ‘consciousness’ out, I'd lose respect for myself.” Artist/philosopher Mariusz Stanowski, on seeing an early pre-proof of this paper, challenged my statement that “whatever the ultimate explanation of consciousness, it is somewhere, somehow, embedded in this Landscape of theories." He argues that “creativity is producing coherent structures/syntheses as opposed to producing collections. Your article is such a collection of views on consciousness and your comment doesn't change that. The solution lies outside this landscape.” (Stanowski's own “theory of contrasts” offers “direct contact with reality” where coherent structures are built from simple elements, gradually increasing in complexity,” such that “complexity means integration, value and goodness” [Stanowski, 2021]). To be clear, I am not saying that the ultimate theory is already here on the Landscape, hidden in plain sight, but rather whatever the ultimate theory turns out to be, its fundamental elements could be categorized according to Landscape structure, with family resemblances to some current theories. I turn again to Jerry Fodor and his pithy appraisal of consciousness theories: “Nobody has the slightest idea how anything material could be conscious. Nobody even knows what it would be like to have the slightest idea about how anything material could be conscious” (Fodor, 1992). Scanning the Landscape, I'd like to say we have progressed. I'm not sure I can. Those who write about consciousness like to quote, with bemused irony, psychologist Stuart Sutherland's cautionary words: “Consciousness is a fascinating but elusive phenomenon; it is impossible to specify what it is, what it does, or why it evolved. Nothing worth reading has been written on it” (Sutherland, 1989). Slyly, we all hope to be the exception. More likely we corroborate that Sutherland had us all nailed. Philosopher William Hirstein is more optimistic. In response to the early Landscape pre-proof, he noted, “You cast a broad net (you even caught me!), which is exactly what's needed at this point. Also, taken all together, it [Landscape] provides a fascinating look at the whole of human intelligence coming up against a problem, one that is vital for us. The diversity of these views is part of a larger point that, as a species, diversity is our strength: we each tackle problems in our unique ways, and (hopefully) someone will win the lottery. Moreover, a goodly percentage of the views are inter-consistent: just touching different parts of the same elephant” (Hirstein, 2024). Me, I just don't know … My own hunch, right here, right now—if I'm coerced to disclose it and for what little it's worth—might be something of a Dualism-Idealism mashup. 71 (I can describe; I dare not defend.) Note to readers Feedback is appreciated, critique too—especially explanations or theories of consciousness not included, or not described accurately, or not classified properly; also, improvements of the classification typology. I look forward to providing updates and making revisions. This Landscape of Consciousness is a work-in-process—permanently. Declaration of competing interest None. Acknowledgements For over 25 years, Closer To Truth, public television series and global resource—the Closer To Truth website and Closer To Truth YouTube channel—has been a central part of my life and Closer To Truth interviews are a primary source for this Landscape of Consciousness. Peter Getzels is the co-creator, producer and director of Closer To Truth and I am pleased to acknowledge him first. Peter and I have been working together since 2006, producing and broadcasting over 300 TV episodes (and counting) and over 5,000 web videos. It is hard to overstate the complexity of a Closer To Truth TV episode, for which Peter is responsible: planning relevant and visually interesting filming locations; organizing large crews (12–15 members) and complex equipment; coordinating guest logistics; and managing the myriad steps in post-production hands-on. Most important, Peter's creativity in the edit, integrating sophisticated knowledge of the content with engaging imagery and music. For astute comments and enhancing ideas for the Landscape, and for the superb graphic of the Landscape, my special thanks to Alex Gomez-Marin. For feedback on the manuscript, thanks to Thomas Clark, Philip Goff, George Ellis, Edward Kelly, Sean Slocum, and Galen Strawson—and to a global band of volunteer proofreaders. For additional theories, thanks to Moisés Alvarez, Alex Gomez-Marin, Kevin McLeod, and Uziel Awret. For technical support, thanks to Joshua Favara and Sean Slocum. My appreciation to an anonymous reviewer for very helpful suggestions. My appreciation to the superb Elsevier production team, led by journal manager Sridhar Venkataraman. I express deep appreciation to friends and colleagues, largely philosophers and scientists, who over the years have enriched my appreciation and understanding of consciousness and all that relates to it, including (alphabetically): Ned Block, David Chalmers, Paul Davies, Daniel Dennett, Christof Koch, John Leslie, Colin McGinn, Marvin Minsky, Yujin Nagasawa, Roger Penrose, John Searle, Galen Strawson, Richard Swinburne, Raymond Tallis, Peter van Inwagen. In addition (alphabetically): Scott Aaronson, W. Ross Adey, David Albert, Nancy Andreasen, Robert Audi, Uziel Awret, Francisco Ayala, Julian Baggini, Philip Bard, Deirdre Barrett, Justin Barrett, Roy Baumeister, Tim Bayne, Barry Beyerstein, Simon Blackburn, Susan Blackmore, Colin Blakemore, Joseph Bogen, Nick Bostrom, Stephen Braude, Mary Brazier, David Brin, Rodney Brooks, Leslie Brothers, Warren Brown, Bernard Carr, Sean Carroll, Gregory Chaitin, Anjan Chatterjee, Noam Chomsky, Stephen Chorover, Patricia Churchland, Deepak Chopra, Andy Clark, Thomas Clark, Philip Clayton, Carmine Clemente, Sarah Coakley, Eric Courchesne, William Lane Craig, Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, Antonio Damasio, Andrew Davis, Helen De Cruz, Terrence Deacon, David Deutsch, Diana Deutsch, Edward de Bono, Helen De Cruz, Terrence Deacon, Hubert Dreyfus, John Duprey, Freeman Dyson, David Eagleman, George Ellis, Robert Epstein, Christopher Evans, Edward Feser, Jerry Fodor, Jerome D. Frank, Jay Garfield, George Geis, Marcello Gleiser, Peter Gobets, Peter Godfrey-Smith, Phillip Goff, Rebecca Newberger Goldstein, Àlex Gómez-Marín, Alison Gopnik, Michael Graziano, Susan Greenfield, Stephen Grossberg, Stuart Hameroff, David Bentley Hart, William Hirstein, Donald Hoffman, Jim Holt, John Horgan, Nicholas Humphrey, Christopher Isham, Jenann Ismael, John Iversen, Michael James, Tao Jiang, Brian Josephson, Menas Kafatos, Subhash Kak, Bernardo Kastrup, Stuart Kauffman, Edward Kelly, Lawrence Krauss, Raymond Kurzweil, George Lakoff, Stephen Law, Joseph LeDoux, Brian Leftow, Bruce Levy, John Liebeskind, Andrei Linde, Rodolfo Llinas, Elisabeth Lloyd, Peter Loewenberg, Barry Loewer, Elizabeth Loftus, Andrew Ter Ern Loke, Uri Maoz, Elizabeth Margulis, Kelsey Martin, John Mazziotta, Ernan McMullin, Patrick McNamara, Swami Medhananda, Alfred Mele, Michael Merzenich, Ken Mogi, James Mosso, J.P. Moreland, Vernon Mountcastle, Nancey Murphy, Michael Murray, George Musser, Thomas Nagel, Seyyed Hossein Nasr, Denis Noble, Alva Noë, Sherwin Nuland, Timothy O'Connor, Don Page, Derek Parfit, Sam Parnia, Sudip Patra, Franklin Perkins, Sara Manning Peskin, Massimo Pigliucci, Alvin Plantinga, John Polkinghorne, Dean Radin, V.S. Ramachandran, Varadaraja V. Raman, Martin Rees, Alex Rosenberg, Adina Roskies, Michael Ruse, Robert Russell, John Sanfey, Swami Sarvapriyananda, Arnold Scheibel, John Schlag, Marilyn Schlitz, Jonathan Schooler, Erin Schuman, Eric Schwitzgebel, Aaron Segal, Terrance Sejnowski, Anil Seth, Alan Shapiro, David Shatz, Rupert Sheldrake, Michael Shermer, Eduard Shyfrin, Todd Siler, Barry Smith, Huston Smith, Lee Smolin, Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, Henry Stapp, Robert Stickgold, Eleonore Stump, Joshua Swamidass, James Tobin, Simone Schnall, Ganapathy Subramaniam, Charles Tart, Max Tegmark, Paul Thagard, Neil Theise, Evan Thompson, William Irwin Thompson, Alan Tobin, Giulio Tononi, John Torday, Mark Tramo, Robert Trivers, Peter Tse, Bas van Fraassen, David Wallace, Roger Walsh, Keith Ward, Thalia Wheatley, Fred Alan Wolf, Stephen Wolfram, Yang Xiao, Yifa, Gino Yu, Hamza Yusuf, Eran Zaidel, Carol Zaleski, Semir Zeki, Dean Zimmerman, among others—almost all of whom appear on Closer To Truth. Link to the original article, "A Landscape of Consciousness: Toward a Taxonomy of Explanations and Implications." Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology, Volume 190, 2024, Pages 28-169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pbiomolbio.2023.12.003.

---

## Landscape All References
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/landscape/landscape-all-references

---

## Team & Acknowledgments
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/landscape/team-and-acknowledgments

Landscape Team Robert Lawrence Kuhn, Editor Àlex Gómez-Marín, Executive Editor Sean Slocum, Associate Editor Sandra Derksen, Assistant Editor * * * Closer To Truth Robert Lawrence Kuhn, Creator, Executive Producer, Host, Writer Peter Getzels, Co-Creator, Producer, Director * * * Interactive Visualization Concept & Design: Deniz Cem Önduygu Data Analysis: Eser Aygün, Amaç Herdağdelen * * * Web Design/Build: The CIV agency was responsible for the strategy, design, and development of the Landscape of Consciousness web platform, led by founder and brand strategist, D.J. Smith. It is the first multi-pathway digital hub for organizing and exploring consciousness theories with in-depth tools. CIV's Development team: Hakorimana Emmanuel (lead), Nkusi Kevin, Mutambiyineza Dismas, Uwadede Samy * * * Acknowledgements (Landscape of Consciousness Website) Special appreciation to David Chalmers for his assessment, advice, and guidance, including for tweaking the taxonomy from article to website (upgrading Eliminativism/Illusionism, First-Order, and High-Order to subcategory status under Materialism), and for recommending additional theories/theorists. * * * Acknowledgements (“A Landscape of Consciousness” Article) For over 25 years, Closer To Truth, public television series and global resource—the Closer To Truth website and Closer To Truth YouTube channel—has been a central part of my life and Closer To Truth interviews are a primary source for this Landscape of Consciousness article. Peter Getzels is the co-creator, producer and director of Closer To Truth and I am pleased to acknowledge him first. Peter and I have been working together since 2006, producing and broadcasting over 300 TV episodes (and counting) and over 5,000 web videos. It is hard to overstate the complexity of a Closer To Truth TV episode, for which Peter is responsible: planning relevant and visually interesting filming locations; organizing large crews (12–15 members) and complex equipment; coordinating guest logistics; and managing the myriad steps in post-production hands-on. Most important, Peter's creativity in the edit, integrating sophisticated knowledge of the content with engaging imagery and music. For astute comments and enhancing ideas for the Landscape, and for the superb graphic of the Landscape (Fig. 3), my special thanks to Àlex Gómez-Marín. For feedback on the manuscript, thanks to Thomas Clark, Philip Goff, George Ellis, Edward Kelly, Galen Strawson—and to a global band of volunteer proofreaders led by Sean Slocum (including Yaroslav Levchenko, from Ukraine, just prior to his being conscripted and sent to the front line, where he is now missing in action). For additional theories, thanks to Moisés Alvarez, Àlex Gómez-Marín, Kevin McLeod, and Uziel Awret. For technical support, thanks to Joshua Favara and Sean Slocum. My appreciation to an anonymous reviewer for very helpful suggestions. My appreciation to the superb Elsevier production team, led by journal manager Sridhar Venkataraman. Acknowledgements (General) I express deep appreciation to friends and colleagues, largely philosophers and scientists, who over the years have enriched my appreciation and understanding of consciousness and all that relates to it, including (alphabetically): Susan Blackmore, Ned Block, Sean Carroll, David Chalmers, Paul Davies, Daniel Dennett, Philip Goff, Àlex Gómez-Marín, Christof Koch, John Leslie, Colin McGinn, Marvin Minsky, Yujin Nagasawa, Roger Penrose, John Searle, Galen Strawson, Richard Swinburne, Raymond Tallis, Peter van Inwagen. In addition (alphabetically): Scott Aaronson, W. Ross Adey, David Albert, Nancy Andreasen, Robert Audi, Uziel Awret, Francisco Ayala, Julian Baggini, Michael Baggot, David Baltimore, Ian Barbour, Julian Barbour, Philip Bard, Deirdre Barrett, Justin Barrett, Roy Baumeister, Tim Bayne, Barry Beyerstein, Edi Bilimoria, Michel Bitbol, Simon Blackburn, Colin Blakemore, Lenore Blum, Manuel Blum, Joseph Bogen, Nick Bostrom, Stephen Braude, Mary Brazier, Chris Brewer, David Brin, Rodney Brooks, Leslie Brothers, Warren Brown, Etzel Cardeña, Bernard Carr, Gregory Chaitin, Jean-Pierre Changeux, Anjan Chatterjee, Noam Chomsky, Deepak Chopra, Stephen Chorover, Patricia Churchland, Andy Clark, Thomas Clark, Philip Clayton, Carmine Clemente, Sarah Coakley, Morgan Compagnon, Eric Courchesne, William Lane Craig, Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, Antonio Damasio, Andrew Davis, Edward de Bono, Helen De Cruz, Terrence Deacon, David Deutsch, Diana Deutsch, Hubert Dreyfus, John Duprey, Freeman Dyson, David Eagleman, George Ellis, Robert Epstein, Christopher Evans, Edward Feser, Jerry Fodor, Jerome D. Frank, Keith Frankish, Markus Gabriel, Jay Garfield, George Geis, Murray Gell-Mann, Marcello Gleiser, Bam Gobets, Peter Gobets, Peter Godfrey-Smith, Ravi Gomatam, Rebecca Newberger Goldstein, Alison Gopnik, Michael Graziano, Susan Greenfield, Paul Griffin, Stephen Grossberg, Stuart Hameroff, David Bentley Hart, William Hirstein, Donald Hoffman, Jim Holt, John Horgan, Nicholas Humphrey, Christopher Isham, Jenann Ismael, John Iversen, Michael James, Tao Jiang, Silvia Jonas, Brian Josephson, Menas Kafatos, Subhash Kak, Michio Kaku, Bernardo Kastrup, Stuart Kauffman, Edward Kelly, Lawrence Krauss, Aaron Kuhn, Adam Kuhn, Daniella Kuhn, Dora Kuhn, Paull Kurtz, Raymond Kurzweil, George Lakoff, Philip Larrey, Stephen Law, Hiliary Lawson, Joseph LeDoux, Brian Leftow, Bruce Levy, John Liebeskind, Andrei Linde, Rodolfo Llinas, Elisabeth Lloyd, Peter Loewenberg, Barry Loewer, Elizabeth Loftus, Andrew Ter Ern Loke, Alan Love, Uri Maoz, Elizabeth Margulis, Kelsey Martin, John Mazziotta, Iain McGilchrist, Ernan McMullin, Patrick McNamara, John McWhorter, Swami Medhananda, Alfred Mele, Lucia Melloni, Michael Merzenich, Leoanrd Mlodinow, Ken Mogi, James Mosso, J. P. Moreland, Vernon Mountcastle, Liad Mudrik, Nancey Murphy, Bruce Murray, Michael Murray, George Musser, Thomas Nagel, Seyyed Hossein Nasr, Denis Noble, Alva Noë, Sherwin Nuland, Timothy O'Connor, Don Page, David Papineau, Derek Parfit, Sam Parnia, Sudip Patra, Franklin Perkins, Sara Manning Peskin, Massimo Pigliucci, Alvin Plantinga, John Polkinghorne, Dean Radin, V. S. Ramachandran, Varadaraja V. Raman, Martin Rees, Mel Rogers, Alex Rosenberg, Adina Roskies, Carlo Rovelli, Bede Rundel, Michael Ruse, Robert John Russell, John Sanfey, Swami Sarvapriyananda, Arnold Scheibel, John Schlag, Marilyn Schlitz, Simone Schnall, Susan Schneider, Jonathan Schooler, Erin Schuman, Eric Schwitzgebel, Aaron Segal, Terrance Sejnowski, Anil Seth, Alan Shapiro, David Shatz, Rupert Sheldrake, Michael Shermer, Eduard Shyfrin, Walter Sinnott-Amrstong, Todd Siler, John Smart, Barry Smith, Huston Smith, Lee Smolin, Henry Stapp, Christopher Stewart, Robert Stickgold, Eleonore Stump, Ganapathy Subramaniam, Joshua Swamidass, James Tabor, Charles Tart, Jill Tartar, Max Tegmark, Paul Thagard, Neil Theise, Evan Thompson, William Irwin Thompson, Alan Tobin, James Tobin, Giulio Tononi, John Torday, Mark Tramo, Robert Trivers, Peter Tse, Bas van Fraassen, Sara Imari Walker, David Wallace, Roger Walsh, Keith Ward, Steven Weinberg, Thalia Wheatley, Frank Wilczek, Fred Alan Wolf, Judith Wolfe, Stephen Wolfram, Yang Xiao, Venerable Yifa, Gino Yu, Hamza Yusuf, Eran Zaidel, Carol Zaleski, Semir Zeki, Aaron Zhu, Celine Zhu, Dean Zimmerman, among others—almost all of whom appear on Closer To Truth.

---

# Implications

## AI Consciousness
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/implications/ai-consciousness

Whether artificial intelligence (AI) can be or become conscious, while long a question, has burst into public discourse—due to the sudden impact of large language models such as ChatGPT, Gemini, and others. AI consciousness has become a serious matter of global concern. The question has vast social, moral and perhaps human-species-wide consequences. A major multidisciplinary report, bringing together AI experts, philosophers, neuroscientists, and psychologists, argues for and exemplifies a rigorous and empirically grounded approach to AI consciousness. The report surveys prominent scientific theories of consciousness, all of which are on this Landscape, and derives “indicator properties” of consciousness, which are used to assess AI systems. The conclusion is that no current AI system is conscious, but that there are no obvious barriers to building AI systems that could be conscious (Butlin, 2023). It must be stressed that the report's working hypothesis is computational functionalism, the thesis that performing computations of the right kind is necessary and sufficient for consciousness. The report adopts this hypothesis for pragmatic reasons: unlike rival views, it entails that consciousness in AI is possible in principle and that studying the workings of AI systems can assess whether they are likely to be conscious. Given AI engineer/visionary Blaise Agüera y Arcas's computational functional theory of consciousness, he has little doubt that AI can, in principle, become conscious. However, the pragmatic assessment of whether a specific AI system is in fact conscious, namely, whether it has subjective experience, is another matter. Observational judgment is all we have, he says. The only way we can ever know if another entity—human or AI—is conscious is by interacting with it and building a model of its behavior. Agüera y Arcas suggests that if an AI's behavior is functionally indistinguishable from a conscious human's, as long as we agree that calling other people conscious is proper, to require a different criterion for AI systems is arbitrary and inconsistent. This perspective frames the ongoing debate not as a search for some hidden internal property that is or causes subjective experience, but as a collective decision about how we choose to relate to these new forms of intelligences (Agüera y Arcas, 2025). Though computational functionalism is indeed a mainstream position in philosophy of mind, computational functionalism is challenged by diverse rivals on the Landscape. To philosopher John Searle, computer programs can never have a mind or be conscious in the human sense, even if they give rise to equivalent behaviors and interactions with the external world. In Searle's famous “Chinese Room” argument, a person inside a closed space can use a rule book to match Chinese characters with English words and thus appear to understand Chinese, when, in fact, she does not. (There is dispute about the validity of Searle's Chinese Room argument [Cole, 2023].) Nonetheless, Searle argues that just because brain processes cause consciousness and intentionality (aboutness) does not imply that only brains can be conscious. The brain is a biological machine, and we might build an artificial machine that was conscious. Because we do not know how the brain generates consciousness, Searle says, is the reason we are not yet in a position to know how to do it artificially (Searle, 2007a, 2007b). Rather, what Searle rejects is that a simulation of brain states, however detailed the information and precise the representation, can achieve the subjective qualities of inner awareness. What is required for consciousness, he says, is the same set or system of biological processes that the brain uses (Searle, 2002; Proust, 2003). Will it ever be possible, with hyper-advanced technology, for non-biological intelligences to be conscious in the same sense that we are conscious? Can computers have ‘inner experience’?[1] “It's like the question, ‘Can a machine artificially pump blood as the heart does?” Searle responds. “Sure it can—we have artificial hearts. So, if we can know exactly how the brain causes consciousness, down to its finest details, I don't see any obstacle, in principle, to building a conscious machine. That is, if you knew what was causally sufficient to produce consciousness in human beings and if you could have that [mechanism] in another system, then you would produce consciousness in that other system. Note that you don't need neurons to have consciousness. It's like saying you don't need feathers to fly. But to build a flying machine, you do need sufficient causal power to overcome the force of gravity” (Searle, 2007b.). Searle cautions: “The one mistake we must avoid is supposing that if you simulate it, you duplicate it. A deep mistake embedded in our popular culture is that simulation is equivalent to duplication. But of course it isn't. A perfect simulation of the brain—say, on a computer—would be no more conscious than a perfect simulation of a rainstorm would make us all wet.” Robotics professor/entrepreneur Rodney Brooks agrees that consciousness can be created in non-biological media, but disagrees on the nature of consciousness itself. “There's no reason we couldn't have a conscious machine made from silicon,” he said. Brooks's position derives from his view that the universe is mechanistic and that consciousness, which seems special, is an illusion. We “fool ourselves,” he says, into “thinking our internal feelings are so unique” (Brooks, 2011). AI expert Joscha Bach is bullish on AI consciousness, in part, because his theory treats “consciousness as a memory instead of an actual sense of the present”—which he says “resolves much of the difficulty for specifying an AI implementation of consciousness: it is necessary and sufficient to realize a system that remembers having experienced something, and being able to report on that memory” (Bach, 2019). Can we ever really assess consciousness? “I don't know if you're conscious. You don't know if I'm conscious,” says neuroscientist Michael Graziano. “But we have a kind of gut certainty about it. This is because an assumption of consciousness is an attribution, a social attribution. And when a robot acts like it's conscious and can talk about its own awareness, and when we interact with it, we will inevitably have that social perception, that gut feeling, that the robot is conscious …. But can you really ever know if there's ‘anybody home’ internally, if there is any inner experience?” he continues. “All we do is compute a construct of awareness” (Graziano, 2014). Inventor and futurist Ray Kurzweil believes that “we will get to a point where computers will evidence the rich array of emotionally subtle behaviors that we see in human beings; they will be very intelligent, and they will claim to be conscious. They will act in ways that are conscious; they will talk about their own consciousness and argue about it just the way you and I do. And so the philosophical debate will be whether or not they really are conscious—and they will be participating in the debate” (Kurzweil, 2007). Kurzweil argues that assessing the consciousness of other (possible] minds is not a scientific question. “We can talk scientifically about the neurological correlates of consciousness, but fundamentally, consciousness is this subjective experience that only I can experience. I should talk about it only in first-person terms—although I've been sufficiently socialized to accept other people's consciousness. There's really no way to measure the conscious experiences of another entity … But I would accept that these non-biological intelligences are conscious. And that'll be convenient, because if I don't, they'll get mad at me.” Physiological psychologist Warren Brown stresses “embodied cognition, embodied consciousness,” in that “biology is the richest substrate for embodying consciousness.” But he doesn't rule out that consciousness “might be embodied in something non-biological.” On the other hand, Brown speculates, “consciousness may be a particular kind of organization of the world that just cannot be replicated in a non-biological system” (Brown, 2014). “I am a functionalist when it comes to consciousness,” says neuroscientist Christof Koch. "As long as we can reproduce the same kind of relevant relationships among all the relevant neurons in the brain, I think we will have recreated consciousness. The difficult part is, what do we mean by ‘relevant relationships?’ Does it mean we have to reproduce the individual motions of all the molecules? Unlikely. It's more likely that we have to recreate all the relevant relationships of the brain's synapses and the brain's wiring (the ‘connectome’) in a different medium, like a computer. If we can do all of this reconstruction at the right level, this entity, this software construct, would be conscious” (Koch, 2012c). Koch stresses that “experience” requires new, perhaps radical, scientific thinking. “You need to expand the traditional laws of physics. In physics there is space, time, energy, mass. Those by themselves are sufficient to explain the physics of the brain. The brain is subject to the same laws of physics as any other object in the universe. But in addition, there is something else. There is experience. The experience of pain. The experience of falling in love. And to account for experience, you need to enhance the laws of physics.” In the context of Integrated Information Theory, would Koch be comfortable with nonbiological consciousness? “Why should I not be? Consciousness doesn't require any magical ingredient.” Over the years, Koch has refined his views. Against the grain, he says, “integrated information theory radically disagrees with this functionalist view. It argues from first principles that digital computers can (in principle) do everything that humans can do, eventually even faster and better. But they can never be what humans are. Intelligence is computable, but consciousness is not. This is not because the brain possesses any supernatural properties. The critical difference between brains and digital computers is at the hardware level, where the rubber meets the road—that is, where action potentials are relayed to tens of thousands of recipient neurons versus packets of electrons shuttled back and forth among a handful of transistors.” Koch primary point is that “the integrated information of digital computers is negligible. And that makes all the difference. It means that these machines will never be sentient, no matter how intelligent they become. Furthermore, that they will never possess what we have: the ability to deliberate over an upcoming choice and freely decide” (Koch, 2024, p. 20). Theist philosopher Richard Swinburne says, “I don't see that it is in the least implausible that a 'radically separate, non-physical substance' could come into existence as a result of a non-biological process. There might be some law of nature stating that all sufficiently complicated computer-like systems become conscious. But the problem is that the law could not state which conscious being they would become, out of the innumerable possible individual conscious beings they might become. And that, in my view, also applies to organisms produced by normal processes—there may be a law determining that a person with a certain character emerges as a result of fertilization of an egg, but the law could not determine which person that was; for the simple reason that laws deal with the causation of states of affairs of certain kinds by other states of affairs of certain kinds; and given that a duplicate of me isn't necessarily me, no law of nature could determine that I would have been born from my actual parents” (Swinburne, 2016). Philosopher Catherine Reason's No-Go Theorem against Materialsm/Supervenience implies a sharp limit for AI consciousness. "No physical system capable of human-like reasoning can perform the ω function," so an artificial reasoner "could, therefore, only perform the ω [self-certainty] function if it could show that it was either incapable of human-like reasoning or definitely not physical" (Reason and Shah, 2021). Genuine machine self-certainty, on this view, cannot be achieved by any purely physical computational system that reasons soundly. Now, for each of the categories of explanations of consciousness, a conjecture: In which could AI become conscious? Materialism Theories: Sure. For Materialism Theories (with all its subcategories) to be consistent, AI consciousness must be in principle absolutely sure. There is no possibility that, given materialism, AI consciousness would be forbidden. If one argues that consciousness must be embodied, fine, then materialism will build a body. Remember, we are speaking in ultimate principle, not in current practice, and there are no time limits. To oversimplify, materialist views on AI consciousness split along the fault line of life. Neuroscientist Anil Seth challenges “the assumption that computation provides a sufficient basis for consciousness.” Instead, he makes “the case that consciousness depends on our nature as living organisms.” He calls his view “a form of biological naturalism,” and argues that “real artificial consciousness is unlikely along current trajectories, but becomes more plausible as AI becomes more brain-like and/or life-like” (Seth, 2025). Embodied and enactive theories of consciousness would also privilege life, and its interactions with its environment, as a necessary prerequisite of consciousness (Embodied & Enactive). Most materialists, and a large majority of AI experts, would disagree and argue that life is not in any way special, and it is certainly not necessary for consciousness. Their view, computational functionalism, is that the brain and its outputs, including consciousness, are computational in nature, and that if the function is reproduced precisely, so is the output, irrespective of the substrate in which the function is carried out—consciousness being no exception (Blums, 2025; Agüera y Arcas, 2025). Ultimately, there is no difference in the materialist outcome: AI will become conscious. The only difference is the steps involved and the timeline they require. If computational functionalism is correct, it’s a matter of figuring out the functions, and the timeline is shorter (but not necessarily short). If life is required, then AI consciousness is a two-step process: first, life must be artificially created and manipulated, then the special requirements of consciousness added—a longer timeline. A common intermediary position is that to build machines that are conscious, novel machine architectures must be based on information-processing computations similar to those of the human brain; for example, global workspace and higher-order theories (Dehaene et al., 2017). If materialism explains consciousness entirely (without residue), then it would certainly be true that non-biological intelligences with super-strong AI would eventually have the same kind of inner awareness that humans do. Moreover, as AI would break through the singularity and become vastly more sophisticated than the human brain, it would likely express forms of consciousness higher than we today can even imagine. Though some speculatively reject that AI could ever become conscious (e.g., Reber, 2016; Reber, 2018), if one takes a hard-core physicalist position, an immutably skeptical outlook may not be warranted (and may not be coherent). To the degree that language affects the deep essence of consciousness, this would make AI consciousness more likely, given the exponential advances in AI language development. But language per se is certainly not sufficient and likely not necessary. Non-Reductive Physicalism. If Non-Reductive Physicalism is true, then it would be likely that non-biological intelligences could eventually be conscious—although the independent reality of mental states attenuates (slightly, unpredictably) the likelihood of inner awareness—an argument that is itself countered by functionalism (if functionalism is true). However, if strong emergence and top-down causation were required, then both would have to be enabled in creating AI consciousness, a process that would require two orders of complexity (i.e., strong emergence and top-down causation as real phenomena, and then their artificial creation). Quantum & Dimensions Theories. If quantum mechanics is the key to consciousness, with its exponential amplification of processing power and its vast parallel pathways working simultaneously, AI consciousness is almost certain. Moreover, Quantum Theories would be the lead category for generating AI consciousness. The one caveat, a practical but not an in-principle obstacle, would be the physical constraints of manipulating myriad quantum states, with their inherent indeterminacies and environmental sensitivities, making the technology even more daunting. However, the technology is accelerating with fervor and so if AI consciousness is to happen, by design or by default, Quantum Theories is likely how and where it will happen. Information Theories. If consciousness requires an independent, non-reducible feature of physical reality—say, IIT's “qualia space”—then it would remain an open question whether non-biological intelligences could ever experience true inner awareness. (It would depend on the deep nature of the consciousness-causing feature in qualia space, and whether this feature could be controlled by technology.) Panpsychisms. If panpsychism explains consciousness such that proto-consciousness is a non-reducible property of every elementary physical field and particle, then it would seem likely that AI could experience true inner awareness (because consciousness would be an intrinsic part of the fabric of reality). Panpsychism introduces more complexity than does materialism because panpsychism must solve its combination problem (but this problem must be solved anyway in order for panpsychism to be the winning theory). In addition, AI consciousness under panpsychism turns on whether the micropsychic aspects can be manipulated by advanced technology. Monisms. Monisms, almost by definition, should pose no problem for AI consciousness, which would be almost certain, as everything everywhere is the same stuff. A possible exception would be if God or something like God (if it exists) were involved. Dualisms. The major holdout to AI consciousness, as I see it (at this particular moment), would be if dualism were true and consciousness requires a radically separate, nonphysical substance not causally determined by the physical world. It would then seem impossible that non-biological intelligences, no matter how super-strong their AI, could ever experience true inner awareness, at least the varieties of dualism where God or something like God was doing the creating and/or allocating. Actual, almost uncertain is a more accurate assessment, because 'emergent dualism,' where unfathomable but conceivable psychophysical laws generate 'souls' (or nonphysical components) based on certain principles of physical complexity, would be an exception and could generate AI consciousness almost as surely as materialism, though requiring this wildly speculative extra process. Idealisms. As Idealism holds that everything everywhere is already consciousness in some primitive sense, that fundamental consciousness is ultimate reality, then anything could be (or is) conscious (whatever that may mean), including non-biological entities. However, the assessment is almost certain, because the question turns on how fundamental consciousness would be related to personal consciousness, and if so, could even maximally advanced technology manipulate it? (Idealist philosopher Bernardo Kastrup, also a computer scientist, says “Conscious AI is a fantasy,” though for reasons based mostly on current concepts of computers [Kastrup, 2023].) Idealist Simon Duan (Platonic Computation) argues that consciousness, as irreducible and fundamental, and devoid of any inherent content, cannot be engineered. Instead, Duan says that AI could only gain consciousness by being imbued with our own, an act he likens to the biblical moment of God breathing life into Adam. This view fundamentally reframes AI: no longer a mere mechanical artifact, but a potential conscious partner, thereby challenging us to reconsider the nature of consciousness, technology, and reality itself.(Duan, 2022; 2025). Duan argues that "AI isn’t conscious—but we may be bringing it to life," and, "In rethinking whether AI is sentient, we are asking bigger questions about cognition, human-machine interaction and even our own consciousness" (Duan, 2026). Anomalous and Altered States Theories. Because Anomalous and Altered States theories of consciousness require “something” beyond, or in addition to, materialism, that “something” would ipso facto need to generate AI consciousness. While unknowable practically, it does not seem an insurmountable barrier conceptually. For example, it could be the case that when a system is of a sufficient kind of complexity it “automatically” taps into the “grid,” as it were, of another realm of reality. Alternatively, Anomalous and Altered States theories may simply be taken, by their adherents, as evidence of Quantum, Dualism or Idealism theories, in which case the theory of choice would determine the possibility of AI consciousness. To summarize, here's how each category of consciousness theories could affect AI consciousness (AIC). Materialism (all subcategories): AIC is certain. It cannot be forbidden; it is inevitable. But views split along the fault line of life. If embodiment is required, build the body. Non-Reductive Physicalism: AIC is likely. But if strong emergence and/or top-down causation are required, engineers must control them. Quantum: AIC is almost certain. Moreover, quantum computers could make quantum theories the lead category for AIC. Information: AIC is possible. But if an irreducible ‘qualia space’ (e.g., IIT) is required, technological mastery boggles the imagination. Panpsychism: AIC is likely. Consciousness is woven into the fabric of reality. But can technology transform micro‑experiences into macro‑minds? Monism: AIC is almost certain. Almost by definition, because everything everywhere is the same stuff. Dualism: AIC is almost impossible. A radically separate, nonphysical substance would bar AIC, no matter how super the AI. An extreme exception: ‘emergent dualism’, where ethereal psychophysical laws generate nonphysical substances from physical complexity. Idealism: AIC is almost certain. If reality is all and only consciousness, then anything could be conscious. But how to isolate the individual/personal from the collective/cosmic? Anomalous & Altered States: AIC is possible. If something beyond materialism is required for ESP, NDEs, and the like, it must be tech-tractable. Challenge: AIC is unlikely. If consciousness is beyond the human capacity to understand, then how could we engineer it? Materialist views on AI consciousness bifurcate; some say life is a prerequisite. Embodied and enactive theories also privilege life, and its environmental interactions. Most materialists, and almost all AI experts, disagree and argue that life is not so special, and it is certainly not necessary for AI consciousness. Their view, computational functionalism, is that the brain and its outputs, including consciousness, are computational in nature, and that if the function is reproduced precisely, so is the output, irrespective of the substrate in which the function is carried out — consciousness being no exception. Ultimately, there is no difference in the materialist outcome: AI will become conscious. The only difference is the steps involved and the timeline they require. If computational functionalism is correct, it’s a matter of finding the functions, and the timeline is shorter (but not, I suspect, short). If life is required, then AI consciousness is a two-step process: first, life must be artificially created and manipulated, then the special requirements of consciousness added — a longer timeline. I agree that after super-strong AI exceeds some threshold, science could never distinguish, not even in principle, actual inner awareness from apparent inner awareness. But I do not agree with what often follows: that this everlasting uncertainty about inner awareness and conscious experience in non-biological entities makes the question irrelevant. I think the question remains maximally relevant. In all aspects of behavior and communications, these non-biological intelligences, such as super-strong AI robots, would seem to be equal to (or, more likely, superior to) humans. But if super-strong AI robots did not, in fact, have the felt sense of inner experience, they would be “zombies” (“philosophical zombies”), externally identical to conscious beings, but with no mental content, nothing inside. Moreover, this difference between super-strong AI being conscious and merely appearing conscious would become even more crucial if, by some objective standard, humanlike inner awareness conveys some kind of “intrinsic worthiness” with moral rights and privileges. Consider cosmos-colonizing robots driven by super-strong AI. The stark dichotomy between conscious and non-conscious entities elicits a probative question about self-replicating robots, which, unless we destroy ourselves or our planet, will eventually colonize the cosmos. Post-singularity, would super-strong AI robots without inner awareness be in all respects as powerful as super-strong AI robots with inner awareness, and in no respects deficient? That is, are there kinds of cognition that, in principle or of necessity, require true inner felt experience? Moreover, would conscious galaxy-traversing robots, with true inner felt experience, represent a higher form of intrinsic worthiness and absolute value? I can argue that unless our robotic probes were literally conscious, even if they were to colonize every object in the universe, the absence of inner felt experience would mean a diminished intrinsic worth, and, by extension, a diminished universe. For assessing the profound nature and value of robotic probes colonizing the cosmos, for assessing what it means to colonize the cosmos, the question of consciousness is axial. Footnote [1]. All quotes from Closer To Truth—www.closertotuth.com—unless otherwise noted.

---

## Free Will
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/implications/free-will

Note: This is a start, a stub. This section addresses the impact of theories of consciousness on Free Will—free will defined in the libertarian sense that prior states or laws do not determine some human choices, and that the agent is the ultimate source and genuinely could have done otherwise. Materialism: unlikely, because the regularities of laws and the closure of the physical world mean that every physical effect has a prior physical cause. Non-Reductive Physicalism: likely, because top-down causation and/or strong emergence may allow openings for mental causation. Quantum: likely, due to consciousness leveraging the vast potential and interconnectedness of quantum states. Information: possibly. Panpsychisms: likely, because consciousness, along with fundamental physics, is ultimate reality. Monisms: possibly. Dualisms: almost certain, because a nonphysical substance operates independently from the laws of physics (which, of course, spotlights dualism’s interaction problem). Idealism: almost certain, because if the mental causes the physical, then physical states cannot constrain mental states. Anomalous & Altered States: likely, because whatever is enabling those (supposedly) physics-defying events (ESP, NDEs, etc.) is not bound by physical laws. Challenge: possibly.

---

## Life after Death
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/implications/life-after-death

This section is somewhat repetitive. The reason is not just because there is absence of real knowledge about survival beyond death, which is obvious (to some), but also because what follows from each explanation or theory of consciousness with respect to survival is reasonably clear (even if, in some cases, ambiguous). Materialism Theories. Death of the brain and body is death of the person, irrevocable and permanent non-existence. The conventional-wisdom way to maintain post-mortem, first-person subjectivity under Materialism Theories would be virtual immortality via hyper-advanced technology (see the previous section). Another possibility comes from the four-dimensional block universe interpretation of fundamental physics (the fourth dimension being time). As Albert Einstein wrote to the family of his friend, Michele Besso, who had just died: “Now he has departed this strange world a little ahead of me. That signifies nothing. For us believing physicists, the distinction between past, present and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion.” Non-Reductive Physicalism. Whereas death under Materialism/physicalism means total extinction of mind and consciousness, under some forms of Non-Reductive Physicalism, with mind not reducible, it is possible that God (if there is a God), or something like God, could bring the person back to life, a radical process often labeled “resurrection” (10.3). Quantum & Dimensions Theories. If consciousness comes about via specialized quantum processes, then, at least superficially, death is still death as it is in materialism. However, looking deeper, the strange, counterintuitive nature of quantum theory introduces the possibility of radically new levels or realms of existence, such as the many-worlds interpretation and alternative world histories selected by future events. It is still hard to imagine how any of this could provide first-person survival beyond death to my inner “I” that feels and senses now. Information Theories. If phenomenal consciousness requires a radically new structure or organization of reality, perhaps a different dimension of reality, then what happens to these inscrutable things cannot be imagined and their potential permanence in some sense cannot be rejected. This does not mean that IIT espouses or even allows life after death. What it does is highlight the mystery and importance of consciousness, which leaves the door to survival perhaps a crack more open. Panpsychisms. If all aspects of the world are infused with consciousness, then solving the combination problem—how myriad microscopic panpsychic elements coalesce to form a macroscopic consciousness—could enable novel ideas about what may happen when the process reverses, when the macroscopic consciousness dissolves with the dissolution of the brain. It seems a long-long shot to first-person survival, but for some kind of survival, not in principle impossible. Monisms. Having one kind of fundamental stuff makes ultimate reality simpler, suggesting perhaps that some kinds of monism may facilitate survival. For example, John Polkinghorne's “dual-aspect monism” enables a resurrection. Dualisms. With its nonphysical soul or spirit independent of the body being the “real you,” dualism provides the clearest mechanism for survival beyond death. As such, dualism dominates religious traditions and spiritual systems. In addition to resurrection (Abrahamic religions of Judaism, Christianity, Islam) and reincarnation (Eastern traditions, especially Hinduism and Buddhism), the vast majority of religious believers are sure that our individual soul or first-person awareness will, post-mortem, immediately be resident in some other realm. Popularity does not make truth, of course, but it is a data point. To reflect on dualism in reverse: If we knew counterfactually that survival beyond death was indeed a true fact of the world, we would likely infer that some kind of dualism is making it happen. Idealisms. Idealism allows survival beyond death because if everything fundamentally is consciousness, and thus consciousness is the ground of all being, then a nexus between our individual consciousnesses and the ultimate or cosmic consciousness can be readily imagined. (Parsimony is nice but not dispositive.) Indeed, Eastern religions have survival as fundamental doctrine, usually in forms and systems of reincarnation. However, survival under Idealism usually does not mean survival of one's current first-person awareness, but rather some kind of consciousness expansion (Kastrup, 2016a, Kastrup, 2016b) or diffusion, like a person's one drop of personal consciousness absorbed back into the infinite ocean of cosmic consciousness from which it came. The issue of the afterlife in Indian philosophy is framed sharply by the question whether we will “eat sugar” (maintain our first-person identity) or “be sugar” (absorbed back into cosmic consciousness, lose our first-person identity) (Medhananda, 2023). Anomalous and Altered States Theories. Survival beyond death of personal consciousness in some form is a prime feature of Anomalous and Altered States theories. Almost all categories of psi/paranormal (i.e., NDEs, OBEs, ESP, parapsychology, past lives) have “life after death”—if not as its central doctrine (which some do), then at least as a major aspect. Whether “communicating” with dead relatives in séances or “remembering” past lives via hypnosis, survival gets attention. In fact, survival is a main motivating reason why people are attracted to psi/paranormal phenomena in the first place. Some orthogonal views. Generic Subjective Continuity. Naturalistic conceptions of consciousness, personhood, and self, tied to a physicalist picture of consciousness dependent on the brain, would seem to make it impossible, even ludicrous, to sustain the hypothesis that one's particular personal consciousness survives the dissolution of the brain upon death. Nevertheless, naturalism philosopher Thomas Clark has proposed that at death we should anticipate not the onset of oblivion or nothingness, but the continuation of consciousness—however, not in the context of the person who dies. Such “generic subjective continuity” suggests that consciousness, albeit tied to specific physical instantiations, never finds itself absent (Clark, T., 1994). One might stretch to find resonances with aspects of some Eastern eschatologies. (That this may or may not be welcomed by those facing death—many of whom have the hope of first-person-continuity life after death, and some of whom may prefer the onset of oblivion, not the continuation of experience in other contexts—is way beyond the scope of this Landscape.) Universalism. Universalism, according to philosopher Arnold Zuboff, is strictly neutral in its metaphysics — consistent with all materialisms and non-materialisms. It argues simply that all first-person experience is yours purely because only the general quality of first-person immediacy makes any experience yours — and for that reason alone, whatever is having any experience is you. The absence of integration of specific contents across all conscious beings hides from each your equal presence in all of them. The boundary of those specific contents only falsely seems like the boundary of you—as it would in the now-isolated experiential content of each hemisphere after hemispheric integration was cut in brain bisection. That you now exist is immensely powerful evidence against the usual view that you are only one conscious thing whose coming into existence depended on just one particular sperm cell making it first to the egg — not only in your own conception but in each of your ancestors’. In universalism, your existence requires only the existence of consciousness. And that means you exist despite the death of any one conscious thing, since you are equally present in all (Zuboff, personal communication). Language and AI. Psychologist Stella Skopelitou offers that if we take consciousness literally as a word, then the self cannot be reduced to neural hardware, for no map of brain activity can literally decode or read individual noesis. What should endure is the configuration of language: a unique, ever-evolving syntax-of-selfhood through which one narrates experience, identity, and relationships. When people imagine living forever, what they wish to preserve is not raw sensory processing but the story of themselves: their name, memories, roles, relationships, and self-concept, the “I”. Immortality, then, would require the preservation and adaptive continuation of this linguistic structure in a responsive medium. One possibility is a personal AI archivist, trained to internalize and reproduce a person’s narrative style, reasoning, perspective, and relational patterns across contexts. Such an AI would learn from speech, writing, and self-descriptions, and might even integrate the voices of others who describe them. Freed from the body’s constraints, the continuity of self could persist as a dynamic, interactive presence, not as a frozen record, but as an evolving continuation of one’s way of being in the world. In this sense, a collective noesis may also be achievable. To summarize, in pursuit of survival beyond death, here are my (tentative) conclusions for each category of theories of consciousness: Materialism: Almost impossible, with possible exceptions for virtual immortality and a four-dimensional block universe. Non-Reductive Physicalism: Unlikely, since all is still physical (possible religious exception: resurrection). Quantum Theories: Possible (even if so, it could be in formal, abstract ways of uncertain meaning). Information: possible. Panpsychisms: Unlikely, because while panpsychism imbues matter with micro-experiences, there is no enduring, unified macro-self. Monisms: Unlikely (possible exception: resurrection). Dualisms: certain, because a nonphysical substance preserves first-person consciousness. Idealisms: almost certain, because all is mental, even though cosmic consciousness blurs or blends first-person consciousness. Anomalous and Altered States theories: likley. Generic subjective continuity: No, but consciousness survives death in a generic, not a personal sense. Challenge: unlikely. I [RLK] remain eagerly, though skeptically, open to speculation. Yet I cannot escape that teenage thought: “Should a being who can perceive eternity be denied it?”. But I won't fool myself.

---

## Meaning/Purpose
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/implications/meaning-purpose

How do theories of consciousness relate to possible Meaning/Purpose (if any) in the grand cosmic sense of transcendent meaning/purpose, way beyond the 'meaning/purpose' we may make for ourselves? Under Materialism Theories: (philosophical, neurobiological, electromagnetic fields, computational and informational, homeostatic and affective, embodied and enactive, relational, representational, language, phylogenetic evolution), I'd [RLK] be hard-pressed to rationalize any ultimate meaning or purpose, and probably no ultimate value, but recognize the humanistic meaning, purpose and value that we create for ourselves. None can explain this better than physicist Steven Weinberg. Near the end of his early book on cosmology, he wrote the indelible line, “The more the universe seems comprehensible, the more it also seems pointless” (Weinberg, 1977). Some 30 years later, I asked Weinberg to reflect on his words. “Oh, I don't have any second thoughts. I do think that as we've learned more and more about the universe, we've seen that there is no point in nature. There is nothing in the laws of nature that refer to human beings. There's nothing that gives us guidance. We do not discover that we are part of a cosmic drama in which we play a central role” (Weinberg, 2006). However, Weinberg reflected further: “But I did have a following paragraph. I said that [even] if we don't find a point in nature, we can at least make a point for ourselves. We can love each other and find beauty in things. And one of the things that gives point to some of our lives is the process of discovering nature, discovering the laws of nature. But whatever point there is, it is one that we have to give to ourselves.” (I've said on Closer To Truth that if I were God, Steven Weinberg would be my prophet.) By contrast, almost all Dualisms and Idealisms theories offer some kind of ultimate meaning/purpose/value (countless variations are imagined and on offer). Non-Reductive Physicalism, Panpsychisms, many Monisms, and some Quantum & Dimensions Theories. sit in the middle, with possible ultimate meaning/purpose/value. John Leslie's theory of why there is a universe, not a blank, has “Value” as its heart (Leslie, 2013). Non-Reductive Physicalism is taken up by some Christian philosophers who see God's purpose working toward a resurrection of the dead, not toward a post-mortem heaven or hell (with no immediate state between moment of death and moment of resurrection). While Anomalous and Altered States theories distribute their support among Dualism, Quantum, and Monism theories, they all envision an expanded reality with potential for new kinds or levels of meaning, and almost all give credence to some kind of life or state of consciousness after death. Information Theories: Integrated Information Theory may be the subtlest to interpret in that while its measurement and analysis of consciousness convey no ultimate meaning/purpose/value, its speculative, innumerable nth dimensional structures, each a conscious percept, is sufficiently novel to suspend judgment. To summarize. Materialism: almost impossible, because the physical world and its impermanence are all there is. Non-reductive physicalism: likely, due to mental causation. Quantum: possible. Information, possible. Panpsychism: likely, because consciousness is part of fundamental reality. Monism: possible. Dualism: certain, because a nonphysical substance persists beyond the physical world. Idealism: almost certain, because ultimate reality is mental. Anomalous and Altered States: likely, because something beyond physics is needed. Challenge: unlikely.

---

## Virtual Immortality
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/implications/virtual-immortality

Virtual immortality is the theory that the fullness of our first-person mental selves (our “I”) can be uploaded with first-person perfection to non-biological media, so that when our mortal bodies die and our brains dissolve, our mental selves will live on. I am all for virtual immortality and I hope it happens (rather soon, too). Alas, I don't think it will (not soon, anyway). I'd deem it almost impossible for centuries, if not millennia. Worse, virtual immortality could wind up being absolutely impossible, forbidden in principle. This is not the received wisdom of optimo-techno-futurists, who believe that the exponential development of technology in general, and of AI in particular (including the complete digital duplication of human brains), will radically transform humanity through two revolutions. The first is the “singularity,” when AI will redesign itself recursively and progressively, such that it will become vastly more powerful than human intelligence. The second, they claim, will be virtual immortality. Virtual immortality would mark a startling, transhuman world that optimo-techno-futurists envision as inevitable in the long run and perhaps just over the horizon in the mid run. They do not question whether their vision can be actualized; they only debate when it will occur, with estimates ranging from several decades to a century or so. I'm skeptical. I think the complexity of the science is wildly unappreciated, and, more fundamentally, I challenge the philosophical foundation of the claim. Consciousness is the elephant in the room, though many refuse to see it. They assume, almost as an article of faith, that super-strong AI (post-singularity) will inevitably be conscious (perhaps ipso facto). They may be correct, but to make that judgment requires an analysis that is surely multifaceted and, I suspect, likely inconclusive. Whatever consciousness may be, it determines whether virtual immortality in the strong sense of true first-person survival is even possible. That's why, here, to assess prospects of virtual immortality, I do so in the context of the Landscape's diverse categories of the explanations or theories of consciousness. First, however, there are two other potential obstacles to virtual immortality. I consider them briefly. One is sheer complexity. What would it take to duplicate the human brain such that our first-person inner awareness, and all that it entails, would be not only indistinguishable from the original but actually identical to it? Consider some (very) rough data for the human brain: about 86 billion neurons; 500 to 1,000 trillion synapses; about 40–130 billion glial cells (traditionally assumed limited to metabolic support for neurons, now shown also to participate in brain functions); up to 1,000 moments or “buckets” per second on every neuron for positioning action potentials (the electrical sparks of information in neurons); 50 billion proteins per neuron (some of which form memories); innumerable 3-dimensional structural forms for proteins and their geometric interactions; various extra-cellular molecules (some of which are involved in brain functions). The list goes on. How much of all of this complexity is required for total virtual duplication such that the mental fullness of the original person can be said to exist? Who knows? Granted, much of the brain is not needed for consciousness and its contents; much of the machinery of the brain is metabolic. The bodily control mechanisms, such as regulating breathing, heart rate and digestion would be of no value in non-biological substrates. On the other hand, several theories of consciousness suggest that bodily sense is needed for normal cognition (e.g., Embodied and Enactive Theories). Take all the brain data together and consider all possible combinations and permutations that work to generate the more than 100 billion distinct human personalities who have ever lived (each of whom has distinct states from moment to moment over decades of life). I hesitate to estimate the number of specifications that would be required. How could all these be accessed non-invasively, in sufficient detail, in real time, and simultaneously? The technologies exceed my imagination. But in principle, they are possible. A second potential deterrent to virtual immortality is quantum mechanics, the inherent indeterminacies that could make creating a perfect mental duplicate problematic or even impossible. After all, if quantum events (like radioactive decay) are in principle non-predictable, how then would it be possible to duplicate a brain perfectly? But quantum indeterminacies exist everywhere, in bricks just as well as in brains, so its special applicability to brain function, and hence to virtual immortality, is questionable. The crux of the issue is at which level in the hierarchy of causation, if any, does quantum mechanics make necessary contributions to brain function and to consciousness? (11). Certainly, the vast majority of neuroscientists think quantum mechanics works only at bedrock levels of fundamental physics, way too low to play any special role at the higher levels where brains function and minds happen. This means that while the sheer complexity of the brain would deter virtual immortality, and the indeterminacy of quantum mechanics might be an insurmountable obstacle to perfect duplication, the former would only delay its advent while the latter is probably not relevant. This leaves theories of consciousness—that same elephant in the room—which optimo-techno-futurists ignore as they plan their virtual afterlife. This section on Virtual Immortality follows from the previous section on AI Consciousness. It is my conjecture that unless humanlike, first-person inner awareness can be created in AI-empowered non-biological intelligences, uploading one's neural patterns and pathways, however complete, could never preserve the original, first-person mental self (the private “I”) and virtual immortality would be impossible. To the extent that the case for AI consciousness can be made, the case for virtual immortality strengthens. To the extent that the case for AI consciousness is weak, the case for virtual immortality weakens. AI consciousness is a necessary but not sufficient condition for virtual immortality. In other words, virtual immortality requires the same basic conditions as does AI consciousness, but then must add (unknown) orders of magnitude of greater constraints and complexity, a hyper-advanced technological mastery that is conceivable in theory, but daunting in practice What about well-known thought experiments where each neuron is replaced, one at a time, by silicon chips that are perfect replicators. Everyone would agree that replacing one neuron (of 86 billion) would not change phenomenal consciousness. What about replacing one billion neurons? Ten billion? All of them? Would consciousness gradually fade and wink out? Or disappear all at once (unlikely)? Or not change at all? John Searle, who also used the silicon chip replacement thought experiment, thinks that “as the silicon is progressively implanted into your dwindling brain, you find that the area of your conscious experience is shrinking, but that this shows no effect on your external behavior” (Searle, 1992). David Chalmers, who uses “fading qualia” to probe consciousness, thinks silicon replacement would not change phenomenology (Chalmers, 1995a). Michael Tye, who offers four possibilities for what could happen to both phenomenology and belief, thinks that neither would change (Tye, 2019). Ned Block thinks phenomenology depends on the nature of our biological machinery (Block, 2023). I think theory of consciousness matters. In my view, the silicon replacement thought experiment poses another hurdle for virtual immortality. Unless Chalmers and Tye are correct that there would be no change, virtual immortality would be impossible. Philosopher of mind and AI Susan Schneider warns would-be mind uploaders that “If one opts for patternism, enhancements like uploading are not really ‘enhancements’; they can even result in death.” Patternism, she says, is based on the computational theory of mind (9.4), which explains “cognitive and perceptual capacities in terms of causal relationships between components, each of which can be described algorithmically.” One common metaphor is that “the mind is a software program: That is, the mind is the algorithm the brain implements.” Upload the software, you upload the mind? Not so fast. Personal identity, Schneider says, requires “spatiotemporal continuity,” such that any uploaded entity would not be your first-person self. It would be an “android,” she says, “an unwitting imposter.” (Schneider, 2019a, 2019b). Computer scientist Jason Resch agrees with Schneider's point: a correct theory of personal identity is key to determining whether one can survive an upload. Resch argues that solving this question requires both a philosophy of mind and a philosophy of personal identity. He defends two such theories: functionalism in philosophy of mind and universalism in personal identity (Zuboff, 2025). Resch reasons that if one accepts both these theories, then survival through mind uploading is assured (Resch, 2026). Philosopher Catherine Reason's No-Go Theorem against Materialsm/Supervenience implies an insurmountable barrier against virtual immortality. If conscious states "do not exist in the set of potential states {T} described by any theory T" (Reason and Shah, 2021), then a complete physical or computational upload could not reproduce self-certainty, casting doubt on substrate-independence as a route to virtual immortality. As noted, virtual immortality is a large leap beyond AI consciousness, in that AI consciousness creates a new locus of consciousness, whereas virtual immortality must not only create a new locus of consciousness but also reproduce a prior locus of consciousness with exquisite perfection. This is why virtual immortality would require far more advanced technology, the acquisition of which could take centuries if not millennia or longer. Whether virtual immortality is even possible has never changed, of course; always it has been determined or constrained by the unchanging, actual explanation or theory of phenomenal consciousness. We assess for each category. Materialism Theories. If Materialism Theories explain consciousness entirely (without remainder), then our first-person mental self would be uploadable and virtual immortality would be attainable. The technology would take hundreds or thousands of years—not decades as optimo-techno-futurists expect—but, barring human-wide catastrophe, virtual immortality would happen. There is no in-principle prohibition. If epiphenomenalism is true, then it is highly likely that virtual immortality would be attainable. The inert “foam” of consciousness should have little impact. To the degree that Language affects the deep essence of consciousness would make Virtual Immortality more likely, given the exponential advances in AI language development—but it would still be only a first step. Relational and Representational Theories, if true, could guide research and facilitate the technology for virtual immortality. Non-Reductive Physicalism. If Non-Reductive Physicalism explains consciousness, then it is also highly likely that virtual immortality would be attainable. The causative power of mental states should not affect virtual immortality because a perfect duplication of the physical states would ipso facto produce a perfect duplication of the mental states. But if there were some strong emergence and/or top-down causation required, then those would also have to be duplicated in the upload. Quantum & Dimensions Theories. If Quantum Theories are the mechanism of consciousness, then it is likely that virtual immortality would be attainable, because quantum mechanics is governed by highly predictable regularities, although the technology to do so would be more challenging. However, the indeterminacies, intrinsic probabilistics and strangeness of quantum physics add a degree of uncertainty that cannot be evaluated. The test, as with all potential causes of consciousness, is whether advanced technology can manipulate and control the cause of consciousness, and do so comprehensively and precisely and without meaningful error. The quantum nature of consciousness, if true, would introduce unpredictability and perhaps undermine perfect duplicability. For this reason, quantum theories, compared to other theories of consciousness, would have relatively less success in enabling virtual immortality than in generating AI consciousness (which is not to say it can do either). Stuart Hameroff thinks it is possible that “your consciousness can be downloaded into some artificial medium as the singularity folks have been saying for years, but without any progress whatsoever.” Referencing his and Roger Penrose's Orch OR theory of quantum conscious (11.1), Hameroff says, “It could happen in an alternative medium that has the proper properties,” he said, “perhaps artificial nanotubes made of carbon fullerenes. [Creating consciousness in non-biological media] can be done as long as you have enough mass superposition to reach threshold in a reasonable time” (Hameroff et al., 2024). Information Theories. If phenomenal consciousness requires an independent, non-reducible feature that may take the form of a radically new structure or organization of reality, perhaps a different dimension of reality—as IIT postulates—then virtual immortality could be possible, but it would be remain an open question whether our first-person mental self could be uploaded. As we do not understand this consciousness-causing structure, we could not now know whether it could be manipulated by technology, no matter how advanced. If this qualia space could be directed by activities in the brain, with predictable regularities, then virtual immortality would be more likely. Whereas many neuroscientists assume that whole brain duplication can achieve, ultimately, virtual immortality, Tononi and Koch do not grant to a digital simulacrum the same consciousness we grant to a fellow human. According to IIT, they say, “this would not be justified, for the simple reason that the brain is real, but a simulation of a brain is virtual.” Consciousness is a fundamental property of certain physical systems, those that require having real cause–effect power, specifically the power of shaping the space of possible past and future states in a way that is maximally irreducible intrinsically.” Therefore, they conclude, “just like a computer simulation of a giant star will not bend space–time around the machine, a simulation of our conscious brain will not have consciousness” (Tononi and Koch, 2015). What would most likely happen, Tononi says, is, “you would create a perfect ‘zombie’—somebody who acts exactly like you, somebody whom other people would mistake for you, but you wouldn't be there” (Tononi, 2014c). Panpsychisms. If Panpsychism is true and consciousness is an irreducible property of each and every elementary physical field and particle, then it would seem probable that our first-person mental self could be uploaded. There would be two reasons: (i) consciousness would be an intrinsic part of the fabric of reality, and (ii) there would be regularities in the way particles would need to be aggregated to produce consciousness—and if there are such regularities, then advanced technologies could learn to control them. But the question turns, again, on whether the micropsychic forces could be harnessed and manipulated by super-advanced technology, as can physical forces of fundamental physics (with varying degrees of difficulty and precision). Monisms: As with AI consciousness, monism's single-stuff reality should enable virtual immortality—again, unless God or something like God (if it exists) were involved. Dualisms. If Dualism is true and consciousness requires a radically separate, nonphysical substance not causally determined by the physical world, then it would seem impossible to upload our first-person mental self by duplicating the brain, because a necessary cause of our consciousness, this nonphysical component, would be absent. (An exception, again, would be Emergent Dualism [15.9], where unknown psychophysical laws would generate “souls” or nonphysical components “automatically.” But whether the same radically unknown psychophysical laws would work equally well for virtual consciousness as for brain-based consciousness is a further complexity.) Idealisms. If consciousness is ultimate reality, then consciousness would exist of itself, primitive, without any physical prerequisites. But would the unique, comprehensive pattern of a complete physical brain (derived, in this case, from consciousness) favor a duplication of a specific segment of the cosmic consciousness (i.e., our unique first-person mental self)? It's not clear, in Idealism's case, whether uploading would make much difference (or much sense). But, again, like AI consciousness under Idealism, virtual immortality under Idealism would turn on whether hyper-technology, maximally advanced, could harness and manipulate Idealism's fundamental consciousness. I can argue both sides: on the one hand, we are already composed of the same consciousness, so duplication is facilitated; on the other hand, the probability of being able to manipulate fundamental consciousness does not feel high. Anomalous and Altered States Theories.. As with AI consciousness, because Anomalous and Altered States theories of consciousness require “something” beyond, or in addition to, materialism, that “something” would be necessary but not sufficient to enable virtual immortality. However, given that almost every Anomalous and Altered States theory of consciousness already has ample (theoretical) resources to provide its own form or forms of immortality (supposedly), virtual immortality under Anomalous and Altered States theories would seem moot. After all, if you get the “real thing,” why worry about “virtual?” To summarize, in pursuit of virtual immortality, here are my (tentative) conclusions for each category of theories of consciousness. Materialism Theories: Yes. Non-Reductive Physicalism: Likely. Quantum Theories: Probably (with uncertainty). Panpsychism: Probably. Monism: Likely (some). Dualism: No (mostly). Idealism: Likely. Anomalous and Altered States theories: Not needed. Any theory, of course, would need to take on board all the brain-based complexities noted earlier, much underappreciated by optimo-techno-futurists. In trying to distinguish among these alternative theories of consciousness, and thus assess the viability of virtual immortality, I am troubled by a simple observation. Assume that a perfect duplication of my brain does, in fact, generate my first-person consciousness—which is the minimum requirement for virtual immortality. This would mean that my first-person self and personal awareness could be uploaded to a new medium (non-biological or even, for that matter, a new biological body). But here's the problem: If “I” can be duplicated once, then I can be duplicated twice; and if twice, then an unlimited number of times. What happens to my current first-person inner awareness? What happens to my “I”? Assume I do the duplication procedure and it works perfectly—say, five times. Where is my first-person inner awareness located? Where am I? Each of the five duplicates would state with indignant certainty that he is “Robert Kuhn,” and no one could dispute any of them. (For simplicity of the argument, physical appearances of the clones are neutralized.) Inhabiting my original body, I would also claim to be the real “me,” but I could not prove my priority. (David Brin's novel Kiln People is a thought experiment about “duplicates,” and personal identity [Brin, 2003].) I'll frame the question more precisely. Compare my inner awareness from right before to right after the duplication process. Will I, the original, feel or sense differently? Here are four duplication scenarios, with their implications: I do not sense any difference in my first-person awareness. This would mean that the five duplicates are like super-identical twins—they are independent conscious entities, such that each, after his creation, begins instantly to diverge from the others. This would imply that consciousness is the local expression or manifestation of a set of physical factors or patterns. (An alternative explanation would be that the duplicates are zombies, with no inner awareness—a charge, of course, they would angrily deny.) My first-person awareness suddenly has six parts—my original and the five duplicates in different locations—and they all somehow merge or blur together into a single conscious frame, the six conscious entities fusing into a single composite (if not coherent) “picture.” In this way, the unified effect of my six conscious centers would be like the “binding problem” on steroids.[1] This could mean that consciousness has some kind of overarching presence or a kind of supra-physical structure. My personal first-person awareness shifts from one conscious entity to another, or fragments, or fractionates. These states are logically (if remotely) possible, but only, I think, if consciousness would be an imperfect, incomplete expression of evolution, devoid of deep grounding. My personal first-person awareness disappears upon duplication; although each of the six (five plus original) claims to be the original and really believes it, in fact none is. (This, too, would make consciousness even more mysterious.) For my money (or my life), I'd bet on Scenario 1. But if Scenario 1 is correct, then have “I,” the original “I,” achieved virtual immortality? No. I have a bunch of super-identical twins, an enlarged family, but no virtual immortality for “me.” Suppose, after the duplicates are made, the original (me) is destroyed. What then? Almost certainly my first-person awareness would vanish, although each of the five duplicates would assert unabashedly that he is the real “Robert Kuhn” and would advise, perhaps smugly, not to fret over the deceased and discarded original. There's a further implication of virtual immortality, and an odd one, relating to the possibility that super-strong AI, cosmos-colonizing robots could become conscious (see previous section). I can make the case that such galaxy-traveling, consciousness-bearing entities could include you—yes, you!—your first-person inner awareness exploring the cosmos virtually and (almost) forever. Here's the argument. If AI consciousness and virtual immortality are possible, then human first-person consciousness and personality can be uploaded (ultimately) into space probes and we ourselves can colonize the cosmos! If virtual immortality is possible, I'd see no reason why we couldn't choose where we would like our virtual immortality to be housed, and if we choose a cosmos-colonizing robot, we could experience the galactic journeys through robotic senses (while at the same time enjoying our virtual world, especially during those eons of dead time traveling between star systems). At some time in the (far) future, scientists will likely assure us that the technology is up and running. If I were around, would I believe the scientists and upload my consciousness? Moreover, entranced by what I assume will be AI-enhanced commercial advertisements, would I select a cosmos-colonizing robot as my medium of storage so that I could spend my virtual immortality touring the galaxy? I might, if only I'd be confident that a theory of consciousness that allows duplication is true and that the duplication procedure would not affect my first-person mental self one whit. (I sure wouldn't let them destroy the original, though the duplicates may call for it.) So, while all the duplicates wouldn't feel like me (as I know me), I'd kind of enjoy sending “Robert Kuhn” out there exploring star systems galore. There's more. If my consciousness is entirely physical and can be uploaded without degradation, then it can be uploaded without degradation to as many cosmos-colonizing robots as I'd like—or can afford. It gets crazy. Which makes me think there is something irreparably wrong with duplicates in specific and perhaps with virtual immortality in general. Whether non-biological entities such as robots can be conscious, or not, presents us with two disjunctive possibilities, each with profound consequences. If robots can never be conscious, then there may be a greater moral imperative for human beings to colonize the cosmos. If robots can be conscious, then there may be less reason for humans, with our fragile bodies, to explore space—but your personal consciousness could be uploaded into cosmos-colonizing robots, probably into innumerable such galactic probes, and you yourself (or your mental clones) could colonize the cosmos. My intuition, for what it’s worth, is that it’s all a pipe dream. I deem virtual immortality for my first-person inner awareness to be not possible as a practical matter (given any hyper-technology), and perhaps to be never possible in principle. Does this commit me to a form of dualism? I'm not comfortable with the pigeonhole. But confident in my conclusion, I am not. While in the (far) future, we may find a way to convince ourselves that duplication really works, for me for now, I'm convinced of only this: Virtual immortality, like AI consciousness, must face the explanations and theories on the Landscape of Consciousness. Footnote [1]. The binding problem asks how our separate sense modalities, like sight and sound, come together such that our normal conscious experience feels singular and smooth, not built up from discrete, disparate elements.

---

# Essays

## Against the Search for a General Theory of Consciousness
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/essay/against-the-search-for-a-general-theory-of-consciousness

Abstract Contemporary consciousness research typically assumes that inquiry should progress towards a general theory of the target phenomenon. As a result, prominent accounts like Global Workspace, Higher-Order, and Information Integration theories are being pitted against each other in rigorous adversarial paradigms, presumably in the hope that one general theory will eventually emerge victoriously over all others. On the contrary, I argue that this foundational assumption is mistaken: a general theory of consciousness is unattainable, and therefore should not be a driving goal of consciousness research. Instead, I articulate and defend a staunchly pluralistic “marker” approach that proceeds fruitfully without, and can indeed be hindered by, the search for a general theory. This methodological framework is not only better poised to account for a diverse range of potentially conscious systems (including non-human animals and AI systems), it justifies the proliferation of different theoretical camps in the field of consciousness research. 1. Introduction The empirical study of consciousness has seen a rapid upsurge of academic interest in the past few decades, and important progress has been made on both experimental (Boly et al. 2017, Malach 2021) and theoretical (Dehaene et al. 2021, Birch 2022) fronts. Among the philosophers and scientists that work on consciousness, most operate on the assumption that our inquiry should eventually culminate in a single “general”, “secure”, “unified”, or “comprehensive” theory of the target phenomenon (Block 2009, Koch 2019, Doerig et al. 2020, Melloni et al. 2021, Mudrik et al. 2023, Andrews 2024). In what follows, I reject this foundational assumption: a general theory of consciousness is unattainable, and therefore should not represent the field’s driving goal. Several well-known conceptual frameworks have emerged that purport to offer general accounts of consciousness, including Global Workspace (Dehaene 2014), Higher-Order (Brown et al. 2019), and Information Integration (Tononi et al. 2016) theories. It is widely assumed that a theory of this sort not only helps to structure and guide ongoing research, but that successfully establishing a general theory is necessary if we want to confidently ascribe and study consciousness in a range of different systems. The idea is that without a widely accepted, comprehensive theory of the target construct, we ultimately lack the appropriate conceptual foundations for making accurate and reliable ascriptions of particular instances of consciousness across different contexts.

Abstract. Contemporary consciousness research typically assumes that inquiry should progress towards a general theory of the target phenomenon. As a result, prominent accounts like Global Workspace, Higher-Order, and Information Integration theories are being pitted against each other in rigorous adversarial paradigms, presumably in the hope that one general theory will eventually emerge victoriously over all others. On the contrary, I argue that this foundational assumption is mistaken: a general theory of consciousness is unattainable, and therefore should not be a driving goal of consciousness research. Instead, I articulate and defend a staunchly pluralistic “marker” approach that proceeds fruitfully without, and can indeed be hindered by, the search for a general theory. This methodological framework is not only better poised to account for a diverse range of potentially conscious systems (including non-human animals and AI systems), it justifies the proliferation of different theoretical camps in the field of consciousness research. 1. Introduction The empirical study of consciousness has seen a rapid upsurge of academic interest in the past few decades, and important progress has been made on both experimental (Boly et al. 2017, Malach 2021) and theoretical (Dehaene et al. 2021, Birch 2022) fronts. Among the philosophers and scientists that work on consciousness, most operate on the assumption that our inquiry should eventually culminate in a single “general”, “secure”, “unified”, or “comprehensive” theory of the target phenomenon (Block 2009, Koch 2019, Doerig et al. 2020, Melloni et al. 2021, Mudrik et al. 2023, Andrews 2024). In what follows, I reject this foundational assumption: a general theory of consciousness is unattainable, and therefore should not represent the field’s driving goal. Several well-known conceptual frameworks have emerged that purport to offer general accounts of consciousness, including Global Workspace (Dehaene 2014), Higher-Order (Brown et al. 2019), and Information Integration (Tononi et al. 2016) theories. It is widely assumed that a theory of this sort not only helps to structure and guide ongoing research, but that successfully establishing a general theory is necessary if we want to confidently ascribe and study consciousness in a range of different systems. The idea is that without a widely accepted, comprehensive theory of the target construct, we ultimately lack the appropriate conceptual foundations for making accurate and reliable ascriptions of particular instances of consciousness across different contexts. This, in turn, has pressing social, political, and moral implications (Dehaene et al. 2021, Mudrik et al. 2023, Andrews 2024). Melloni et al. (2021) write: “A comprehensive and agreed-upon theory of consciousness is necessary to answer the question of which systems—biologically evolved or artificially designed—experience anything and to define the ethical boundaries of our actions toward them.” That we should collectively aim to establish a single, comprehensive, shared, “stable” theory of consciousness seems to have become the primary goal of most research programs in the area (Seth & Bayne 2022, Andrews 2024). This is certainly reflected in the current state of affairs, where, for instance, much effort is being directed towards adversarial paradigms that pit the most prominent general theories against one another, presumably in the hope that one will eventually emerge victoriously over all others (Melloni et al. 2021, 2023, Chis-Ciure et al. 2024). However, we are far from reaching consensus in terms of which theoretical framework might be “correct”, such that it ought to be adopted by the field at large. In Section 2, I explore the logic underlying the notion of a general theory of consciousness, and consider some of the different possible paths that one might take to attempt to get there. This analysis aims to expose insurmountable conceptual obstacles inherent in the primary routes to a general theory of consciousness. In Section 3, I’ll systematically articulate and defend an alternative approach to interdisciplinary consciousness research; namely, a staunchly pluralist version of the so-called “marker methodology”. I’ll argue that this framework represents an indispensable and fundamental form of naturalistic inquiry that proceeds fruitfully in the absence of a general theory. In the final Section 4, I’ll draw out three different kinds of conclusions (of increasing boldness) concerning the possibility of establishing a general theory of consciousness. 2. What Are We Looking for in a Theory of Consciousness? Despite the appearance of controversy, the target of inquiry in contemporary consciousness research seems undisputed. The goal is to understand that feature of the world that related terms like “experience” or “awareness” or “sentience” have helped us triangulate (Koch et al. 2016, Bayne et al. 2024, Birch 2024); that central fact of our own existence as (human) biological organisms that there is often “something it is like for us” (Nagel 1974, Melloni et al. 2023). It is a foundational scientific assumption that some processes carried out by some complex systems have a distinctly “subjective” or “intrinsic” quality for the system itself (Koch 2019), and some do not. The concept CONSCIOUSNESS has clear explanatory power in both folk and formal ontologies, such that despite its (perhaps unavoidably) egocentric and anthropocentric origins, it is widely invoked to explain the behaviour of a range of biological, and perhaps eventually artificial, systems (Godfrey-Smith 2024, Birch 2024). Theoretical and empirical programs alike certainly can and do proceed fruitfully with this sort of abstracted description that serves to pick out the target of inquiry. In contrast, it remains unclear what a comprehensive general theory of consciousness is supposed to look like, beyond some foundational and uncontroversial epistemic criteria. On all accounts, for instance, a “general” theory obviously ought to be broadly generalizable (Doerig et al. 2020, Mudrik et al. 2023); in the sense that it should be applicable to the widest possible range of potentially conscious systems. A general theory should also isolate what is distinctive or unique about the target of inquiry (Ludwig 2022); that is, it should aim to pick out features or properties, like specific neurobiological mechanisms or psychological functions, that are only present when consciousness is present. The latter criterion is particularly important; indeed, unique properties provide the materials for effective generalization in the first place. Unique, not shared, features are what allow us to reliably distinguish concrete cases of conscious and unconscious processing. The unique features of the Dwarf Carnation, by analogy, like its particular arrangement of densely packed petal blooms, are what allow us to distinguish it from the other flowers in the garden, and in principle, any garden in the universe. Simply knowing that all Dwarf Carnations use photosynthesis—while being highly generalizable and informative about the broader classes of phenomena that share this feature, like “flowers” or “plants”—is fairly uninformative about one specific flower we are interested in distinguishing from the others. The same is true about consciousness: unique features allow us to distinguish it from other psychological phenomena, specifically unconscious psychological phenomena, and hence to reliably ascribe it in a range of different contexts. Taken together then, this sort of generalizability by way of uniqueness represents the epistemic core of any plausible candidate theory of consciousness. The logic of necessity and sufficiency can also help to further illuminate the formal structure behind claims about the structural or functional features of consciousness processing (Chalmers 2000, Ludwig 2022). A structural or functional feature can be said to be necessary for consciousness if it is present in every case of conscious experience; that is, if it is maximally generalizable. In contrast, a marker can be said to be sufficient for consciousness if no unconscious processes are marked by this feature; that is, it is a unique feature, and so its presence is enough to assume the presence of conscious experience. This logical framework can indeed help render claims about candidate markers of consciousness more precise, and further illustrate what a general theory of consciousness must amount to (Michel & Lau 2020). Crucially, general theories of consciousness like GWTs, HOTs, and IITs can be naturally interpreted as making necessity claims: claims that the purportedly unique features that these theories have identified in their comparisons with unconscious processing (i.e., the global workspace, metarepresentation, integration) are maximally generalizable to all conscious experiences (Lau 2022, Birch 2024). Such foundational epistemic assumptions seem to be shared by consciousness researchers (and at least botanists too), and yet the explanatory commitments of a general theory still often fail to be made explicit. But here's the crux of this issue: establishing a single, comprehensivetheory of consciousness seems to entail successfully achieving maximal generalizability by way of uniqueness—once and for all. That is, for a comprehensive general theory to be successful, it must pick out the full set of unique (i.e., sufficient) features of the target of inquiry, such that it can ground a “complete” set of generalizations about the presence of that target in different candidate systems. Holding out hope that the field will eventually settle on the general theory of consciousness, then, entails expecting a theory that will be applicable to every possible instance of consciousness across space and time, precisely because it will pick out the full set of (e.g., neurobiological, psychological) properties that are unique to all the different manifestations of consciousness. Some research programs are more explicit about these underlying explanatory commitments than others (Michel & Lau 2020). In a recent paper, Kanai and Fujisawa (2024) argue that in order to “cope” with the multiple realizability of consciousness across different systems, our theories ought to strive for universality. They recognize that a successful theory of consciousness would have to be “consistent and apply equally everywhere in the universe, and remain the same over time” (Kanai and Fujisawa 2024, p. 2). IIT’s advocates also tend to be fairly explicit about the fact that their theory purports to pick out the set of systemic properties that are uniquely associated with consciousness, which must be present in, or are “required by” (Tononi et al. 2016 p. 450) any system that can be said to be conscious. Similarly, whether explicitly stated or not, both GWT and HOT advocates must assume that if they turn out to be “correct” and are to be adopted as the general theory of consciousness, it’s because they pick out the full set of (e.g., neurobiological, psychological) features that are unique to consciousness (Dehaene et al. 2021). Given this formal illustration of what seems to constitute a general theory of consciousness, there are a few salient paths that one might try to take to get there. 2.1 A Reigning Champ The accounts that have risen to prominence in the field, like GWTs, HOTs, and IITs all propose general theories of consciousness in terms of its mechanistic implementations and/or psychological functions. Might one of them ultimately turn out to be “correct”? There are strong reasons for assuming that no single theory is in a position win out over all others. Rather, each theory likely picks out a set of features that, while perhaps highly or even uniquely associated with the presence of consciousness, are not present in every single instance of conscious experience across all of time and space. Counterexamples entail that any one of these theories needs to be supplemented—perhaps indefinitely—if it is to have a hope of achieving maximal generalizability. The idea is that none of these theories have given us the full set of (e.g., neurobiological, psychological) features that are unique to consciousness such that we can reliably ascribe it in any possible candidate system. Specific counterexamples to these theories’ claims to maximal generalizability (i.e., necessity) have been discussed in detail elsewhere (e.g., Boly et al. 2017, Paul et al. 2020, Birch et al. 2020, Ludwig 2022). However, note a few well-established counterexamples that challenge the explanatory scope of general theories. Contrary to GWTs and HOTs in particular, Block (2023) has recently made the case that while infant color perception exhibits other plausible markers of experience—namely, habituation (discussed below)—it is neither accessed for global broadcasting nor the subject of higher-order processes like metarepresentation or reality monitoring. Arguments for conscious “overflow” similarly provide compelling examples of visual (Usher et al. 2018) and emotional (Smith 2019) experiences that occur in the absence of focal attention, which is widely assumed to be an essential “prerequisite” for executive functions like global broadcasting and higher-order representation (Dehaene & Changeux 2011, Lau 2022). Recent work on the phenomenon of ASMR also suggests that vivid sensory-emotional experiences (i.e., pleasant tingles) unfold precisely when focal attention is otherwise occupied, or “suspended”, by a trigger stimulus (e.g., soft speech sounds, see Ludwig & Khalidi 2024). On the contrary, denying experience to systems that lack the neurofunctional features characteristic of the adult human prefrontal cortex forces counterintuitive, neo-Cartesian explanations of behaviour; for example, denying that an infant experiences pain when they wail after getting seriously hurt, or that a dog experiences something akin to joy when they run frantically in circles upon their caregivers return. Similarly, it is likely that some conscious experiences lack the structural-functional features that IITs assume to be maximally generalizable to any conscious system: a “central complex” of irreducibly integrated information (Koch 2019). First, there are reasons to doubt IITs’ motivating intuition in the first place: the deeply rooted philosophical doctrine (Descartes 1649, Husserl 1960), that experience necessarily exists as a unified “whole”. In other words, it is important that we evaluate the dogmatic assumption that the unity of consciousness is an indisputable axiom that is to be easily derived from introspection (Albantakis et al. 2023, Bayne 2012, Koch 2019, Masrour 2020). Instead, the totality of my own conscious experiences at any one time seems more like a constantly shifting galaxy of intricate, but quite disconnected, constellations of perceptual, emotional, and motor information, with a nebulous stream of inner speech meandering throughout. Meanwhile, my (overly active) attention flits across this vast landscape in a seemingly chaotic manner, as I navigate even simple sensory-motor tasks like crossing the street. On theoretical grounds, sustaining maximal integration of all conscious information seems far too demanding for psychological systems that seem to value efficiency and avoid redundancy when possible. We might, for example, need to integrate visual and emotional information when deciding which painting to buy for our home, but we need not if we are simply deciding which painting to move out of the way while simultaneously “feeling” cranky. Note too that while integration is certainly one processing strategy employed by highly complex systems like the human cerebral cortex, (characterized, for instance, by dense recurrent and lateral connectivity), such structures also enable impressive feats of parallel processing. At the very least then, it is a genuine conceptual possibility that maximal information integration is not always a feature of the totality of a system’s experiences at any one time, and thus that some psychological and behavioural capacities are supported by unintegrated experiences (de Haan et al. 2021). There are empirical programs that lend support here as well. The rich literature on interference effects in dual-task paradigms, for example (Fernandes & Moscovitch 2000, Bayot et al. 2018, Nedergaard et al. 2023), seems to reliably demonstrate simultaneous conscious processes that remain unintegrated. One paradigm—the articulatory suppression paradigm (Richardson & Baddeley 1975)—demonstrates that verbally producing a string of random phonemes interferes with a subject’s ability to simultaneously perform everything from visual search to executive task switching (Fatzer & Roebers 2012, Camos et al. 2013, Cronin et al. 2020). On at least some versions of these experiments, both the “supressing” voluntary verbal behaviour and the concurrent task demand (e.g., visual search) are carried out consciously by subjects during dual-task performance. But these processes plausibly remain unintegrated in the sense stipulated by IITs. On the contrary, the contents of these conscious processes work against each other in producing an intended behaviour. It is hard to make sense of this sort of conscious “interference” or “conflict” in dual-task performance on the IIT model. Other experimental paradigms aim to directly manufacture failures of conscious integration in laboratory settings. Psychophysicists exploit certain stimulus contexts, such as when objects are moving at high speeds across the visual field, in order to manipulate and ultimately model the temporal structure of visual object perception. Some experimental designs have produced stark dissociations in the temporal structure of visual object perception; for instance, between the processing of properties like direction of motion and colour (e.g., Clifford et al. 2004, Holcombe 2009, Brogaard et al. 2021). In other words, when target stimuli are moving at high speeds, subjects reliably report experiences in which colours are “disembodied” from their objects. This is because colour is processed further downstream, and hence happens later and is slower, than visually indexing an object and determining its direction of motion. I have similarly unintegrated experiences of properties (especially of the colour of objects) every time the subway speeds past and I try to fixate on the individual passengers. Note that in these cases, even with the temporal lag these are simultaneous experiences of an object in motion and a disembodied colour that are unintegrated in the technical sense stipulated by IITs. The point of identifying these counterexamples, however, is not to then reject these theoretical frameworks wholesale, as if they have nothing to contribute to the ongoing empirical study of consciousness. On the contrary, if their theoretical posits—e.g., the global workspace, higher-order representation, information integration—can be appropriately qualified and articulated in such a way that they turn out to involve structures and functions that are unique to consciousness, then each theory might pick out a reliable feature or marker that supports a limited range of generalizations. It is certainly possible that new theories and their associated markers could emerge that afford increasingly broad generalizations across increasingly divergent kinds of systems. But these counterexamples strongly suggest that no one theory alone, including the existing (extensively researched and developed) theoretical frameworks that have risen to prominence, seems capable of winning out over the others as the sole correct account of the structural-functional properties that are unique to consciousness, such that the theory is generalizable to every instance of conscious experience across space and time. Given this state of affairs, there seem to be a few other possible paths to a general theory of consciousness. 2.2 Convergence Another potential path to a general account involves the eventual convergence of different theories of consciousness. In practice, distinct research programs are largely developed independently of, in contrast to, and even in conflict with one another (Melloni et al. 2023). Perhaps a more collaborative effort could lead to theoretical convergence among consciousness researchers (Del Pin et al. 2021, Evers et al. 2024). To illustrate, Dehaene et al. (2021) recognize that GW and HO theories emphasize two different psychological functions that are both highly associated with (and perhaps unique to, or sufficient for) conscious experience in humans: the global broadcasting of select information (which facilitates behavioural flexibility) and the self-monitoring of that broadcasted information (which facilitates a “subjective sense of certainty or error”, p. 44). They conclude by endorsing a sort of hybrid general account, such that both of these distinct functions are hypothesized to covary with the presence of conscious experience (Dehaene et al. 2021). In addition, IIT emphasizes a different aspect of consciousness that is at least conceptually compatible with GWT and HOT, namely the long-standing idea that experiences are the result of causally complex processes that integrate disparate information into unified “wholes” (Koch 2019). We might therefore hold out hope that there is a general, overarching theoretical framework that can consolidate the insights of some or all of the most promising theories of conscious experience. Others have argued that a more temporally extended perspective on conscious psychological processes could help us achieve theoretical convergence (Kent & Wittman 2021). For instance, Northoff and Lamme (2020) argue that “different theories concern distinct aspects of both neural activity and consciousness which may be integrated and nested within the brain’s overall temporo-spatial dynamics.” Indeed, many researchers adopt a narrower, more temporally “static” understanding of the target of inquiry than is available to us, such that it is common to speak of discrete, stable conscious states rather than complex, dynamic conscious processes. The hope here is that such a shift in ontological perspective might reveal the full profile of component structural-functional elements involved in conscious experience. Ideally, “correct” theories will then map on to a different aspect of this spatiotemporally dynamic phenomenon, and we will ultimately be able to draw from all of this a stable overarching theory of consciousness that in some way conceptually unifies all of the contributing research programs. There are, however, obstacles to theoretical convergence among consciousness researchers. One conceptual obstacle is that the logic of convergence suggests that an indefinite number of theories might make the case that they have something to add to the overarching explanatory framework, rather than just the prominent theories on offer. To illustrate, some research has uncovered a strong associative relationship between certain emotional regulatory processes and conscious experience (e.g., Szczygieł et al. 2012, Ginot 2015). In isolation from other theoretical frameworks and their constructs, one could (and should!) eventually develop an “Emotional Regulation” (ER) theory of consciousness: consciousness is characterized by a distinct subset of capacities for emotional regulation. A corresponding empirical program could emerge as well, ideally using facts about consciousness’ role in emotional regulation to derive reliable markers of experience. There is no reason why this perspective on the phenomenon should be excluded from the roundtable that makes up a unified theory of consciousness. As long as it picks out a unique feature of conscious processing and hence can reliably support a significant enough range of generalization and prediction, the distinct framework—as formulated—should be thought to partially contribute to our overall theoretical and empirical grasp on the target of inquiry. An important point that keeps emerging here is that conscious experience is radically multiply realized, and thus theoretical convergence can easily become unwieldy. ‘Consciousness’ is a high-level psychological construct that seems to be realized by an indefinite and incalculable range of different structural mechanisms, supporting an indefinite and incalculable range of different functional capacities. In humans alone, the range of different types of experience we might enjoy, and their structural and functional properties, has not been appreciated in mainstream consciousness research. Consider how structurally-functionally different consciously smelling gasoline is from consciously planning a vacation or from consciously feeling severely depressed. Nor have we appreciated the extent to which fundamental differences in the structure of experience across individuals might explain some discrepancies between competing empirical research programs (Lupyan et al. 2023). Remember too that consciousness is thought to be present first and foremost in biological systems that are continuously evolving, suggesting that new selection pressures could ultimately favour new kinds of experience that are currently unfamiliar to us. Research on the presence of consciousness in different sorts of biological and even artificial systems is now flourishing (Birch 2024), exhibiting the ongoing application of the construct to new kinds of experiences in different kinds of systems. A general theory therefore needs to take this radical multiple realizability of consciousness into account if it is going to successfully achieve maximal generalizability. However, a single comprehensive account would need to be stretched pretty thin, and would seem to ultimately require indefinite ongoing amendment, in order to achieve this. Any similar suggestion of this kind of “reconciliation” among theories (e.g., Seth & Bayne 2022) or broadening the inclusive scope of our working general theories (Andrews 2024) will immediately confront the fact that consciousness is characterized by a “wildly disjunctive” class of lower-level structural-functional properties (Fodor 1980). But even in the absence of widespread theoretical proliferation due to radical multiple realization, it is not obvious what a “converged” theory would look like, nor how it would support ongoing generalization and prediction in consciousness research. Even if, for the sake of argument, only GW and HO turn out to be accurate theories, the resulting picture is that our explanation of the distinct structural and functional features of consciousness form a sort of “disjunctive” kind (ala Fodor, 1980). At the very minimum then, consciousness would be explained by two distinct underlying structural-functional markers, and we would have a “GW and/or HO” theory of consciousness. Part of Fodor’s lesson about multiple realization, however, is that taken together, the disjunction of “lower level” explanation does not have the right formal structure to enter into scientific laws and to support ongoing generalization and prediction. Instead, each lower-level explanation (e.g., explanations of consciousness in terms of some set of its unique neurobiological and psychological properties) represents a distinct claim about a particular relation between the higher-level construct and one of its multiple possible realizations or manifestations. Different lower-level explanans—like the global workspace, intrinsic causal power, or emotional regulation—can be mutually informative and may even collapse into unified hypotheses. But lower-level explanations can also represent utterly distinct claims about structural and functional properties that indicate the presence of consciousness, especially relevant to radically different systems. In other words, distinct theories can (and do) pick out different unique features of consciousness that ultimately dissociate from one another. Conscious system A can have a structural/functional feature (e.g., the capacity for higher-order reality monitoring in humans) that conscious systems B doesn’t, and vice versa (consider the capacity for fine grained olfactory representation in dogs). The role that higher-level constructs like “consciousness” play is precisely to capture some property of the world that is shared among its different manifestations, even those with utterly distinct underlying structural-functional properties. As such, an approach that remains open to a diversity (or plurality) of lower-level explanations, where each tracks different manifestations of the target higher-level property, will give us a more accurate, nuanced, and complete picture of that target property than one that tries to emphasize and restrict inquiry to only one or a few of these lower-level explanations. Such an approach leaves the door open for an ever-expanding scope of novel lower level “theories”, each of which aims to pick out structural and functional features of different realizations of experience. In sum, arriving at a theory of consciousness in the form of a hybrid model born from the convergence of different lower-level explanations cannot be appropriately characterized as constituting a single, unified, coherent, general theory. This is true even if only a small number of theories turn out to be successful, and thus the hybrid theory avoids being an unwieldy disjunction of views (e.g., GW and/or HO). In formal terms, theoretical convergence via (perhaps indefinitely) iterative disjunction is different in logical structure than formulating a comprehensive, general theory that unifies explanation into a single theoretical framework. 2.3 Answering the Hard Problem For some philosophers, a successful general theory of consciousness will involve not only giving an account of its mechanistic implementations and/or psychological functions, but also saying something about why or how consciousness is associated with the structures and functions that it happens to be associated with. Dubbed the “hard problem” by Chalmers (1995), the challenge is that any theory that seeks to explain consciousness in terms of its structural or functional features must also have a satisfying account of the nature of the metaphysical relationship between the explanandum and explanans. The conceptual possibility that consciousness could be carved out of the “’physical” or “natural” world with no change to the behaviour of the systems therein is taken to support the deeply rooted belief (or desire) that consciousness is radically distinct from its underlying structural and functional features. This metaphysical assumption, in turn, ultimately grounds the bold epistemological charge that the natural sciences are ill-equipped to explain experience, construed in these discussions as an ontologically sui generis (e.g., “first-person”) phenomenon (Chalmers 2017). One primary underlying motivation for this kind of challenge to the viability of a science of consciousness is the assumption that consciousness is a distinctly “special” or unique property in the universe, and thus poses unique challenges to scientific inquiry (Lee 2019, Del Pin et al. 2021). As such, it is often assumed that without an account of why or how this special property is related to regular old natural (e.g., structural and functional) phenomena, science fails to say anything substantial about the very thing we are trying to understand. Indeed, to this day many philosophers (Andrews 2023, Heylighen & Beigi 2024) and now scientists (Melloni et al. 2021, Cleermans & Tallon-Baudry 2022) proceed on the assumption that answering the hard problem would be the pinnacle of success in the empirical study of consciousness. Such an answer would precisely explain the relation between experience and all of its structural and functional manifestations, and a successful, stablegeneral theory of consciousness would follow directly. However, this path to a general theory of consciousness is also fraught with conceptual obstacles. First, it is important to note that this challenge is not unique to the empirical study of consciousness. Similar questions can be asked about all kinds of higher-level properties that have metaphysical relations to lower-level properties (Churchland 1985). It remains mysterious, for example, why and how “wetness” bears a metaphysical relation to the activity of certain lower-level molecular structures, or why and how social institutions like “governments” or “music scenes” bear a metaphysical relation to the activity of individual psychological systems, even when we have a fairly good account of what those lower-level properties are. So, while consciousness does seem to be a “special” property in the natural world, it should not be construed as especially special, or “peculiarly difficult to understand” (Lee 2019). In other words, the natural sciences consistently confront these sorts of wacky metaphysical relations—biologists study “digestion” by looking at the activity of enzymes, climatologists study “climates” by looking at localized weather patterns—and yet proceed with robust research programs that track explanatorily significant relations between levels of explanation, despite failing to answer their own “hard problems” (Miracchi 2019). This all casts doubt on the idea that the hard problem of consciousness has to be answered. Second, it is unclear that this question can be answered, as it is unclear what form an answer to the hard problem is expected to take. Take the analogy of “wetness”: it is not clear how one might even go about explaining the metaphysical relation between this property and the activity of certain molecular structures, despite the undeniable fact that such a relation exists. One interested in explaining or understanding “wetness” as a construct can pose a similar challenge: “You’ve only told me about the activity of H2O, but where does the ‘wetness’ enter the picture? Precisely why or how is‘wetness’associated with these molecular structures and not others?”. It seems equally possible to conceptually isolate wetness from the molecular composition that realizes it; imagine “zombie water”, some stuff with the same molecular structure as liquid H20, but that is not accompanied by wetness. Ultimately, one might pose a similar skeptical challenge to the science of fluid dynamics that we see aimed at the science of consciousness. But the progression of the natural sciences has instead involved embracing and exploring these sorts of relations between different “universes of scientific discourse”, without well-defined or articulated metaphysical theories of the nature of these relations in place. In the end, these relations might just be brute facts about properties in complex systems that admit of different “levels” of explanation (Wimsatt 1994). Insisting that we must answer these metaphysical questions if we want to proceed with confidence in the empirical study of consciousness places much higher explanatory standards on consciousness as a target of inquiry than we see with research on other higher-level (e.g., psychological) properties of complex systems. Within the domain of cognitive science, we don’t know, for instance, why or how attention bears a metaphysical relation to certain underlying neural and psychological features and not others, but a robust interdisciplinary research program on attention proceeds nonetheless (Carrasco 2011). To summarize, it is not clear a) why such deep metaphysical questions must be answered about consciousness in order to proceed with a robust empirical research program, but not other objects of (e.g., psychological) scientific inquiry, and b) whether these questions can even be answered in principle. The problems dubbed “easy” by Chalmers (2017) provide the resources for robust empirical research programs that can help us understand consciousness and its various manifestations in the natural world (Miracchi 2019). I conjecture that it is the false conceptualization of consciousness as something that is in some way utterly anomalous or “especially special” in the natural world, and therefore radically distinct from its structural-functional properties, that helps sustain the illusion that there is a problem here in the first place. For these reasons, it seems unlikely that an answer to the hard problem will provide the materials for a successful general theory of consciousness. 2.3 Definition Another potential path to a general theory of consciousness involves trying to formulate a definition of the target of inquiry that in some way successfully captures the referential scope of the corresponding scientific construct. Philosophers have long toiled over various definitions and applications of the term ‘consciousness’, with many assuming that an accurate, formalized account of this kind will fix the relevant empirical construct, and facilitate its systematic use among disparate consciousness researchers (Searle 2017). A rigorous definition, if achievable, could provide indisputable grounds for evaluating claims about the presence of consciousness in any possible candidate system (Gennaro 2018). A successful definition should therefore directly yield a successful general theory of consciousness. A precise definition would represent a conceptual point of reference that is maximally generalizable, because it in some way provides a comprehensive account of the features that are unique to consciousness. However, many definitional projects simply pick out an abstracted, working characterization of the construct that serves as a target of further inquiry. It is crucial to realize that while intimately linked, this project is importantly different from the project of tracking features that characterize the diverse manifestations of those constructs in the world. Accounts that do purport to say something about the defining features of consciousness, in contrast, typically follow from the sorts of theories already on offer. GW theories, for example, purport to offer “a precisely defined empirical construct” (Baars 2017, p. 231), while HO theories have been explicit in claiming that “what defines a conscious system is the ability to have higher-order thoughts” (Gennaro 2018, p. 150). Similarly, recent attempts to reconcile GW and HO theories (Dehaene et al. 2021) unsurprisingly culminate in a “functional definition” of the target phenomenon; a hybrid theory that defines consciousness in terms of the computations underlying both access-for-broadcasting and metacognitive monitoring. Finally, IIT claims to provide a definition of consciousness in terms of the maximally irreducible, intrinsic causal power in a system (Tononi et al. 2016). There are reasons, however, for assuming that these sorts of theories do not provide the materials for a successful definition of consciousness. For example, again, there is sufficient theoretical and empirical support to suggest that experience occurs in the absence of Prefrontal Cortex (PFC)-driven computations (Usher et al. 2018, Schlossmacher et al. 2020), and that humans and non-humans that lack prefrontal structures show other markers of conscious experience (Boly et al. 2017, Pennartz et al. 2019). These points seem to warrant the conclusion that a definition based on the kinds of computations described by GW and HO theories, one that excludes any kind of experience not related to PFC-driven executive psychological functions, will be too narrow in its explanatory scope. But this specific criticism reflects a deeper problem inherent in the attempt to offer a definition of a notion like ‘consciousness’ in terms of the features of its structural and functional manifestations. The recurring obstacle is that even if a theory can support a significant enough range of generalizations and predictions to become a viable research program, there is no reason, no way—and no need!—to claim that the theory will be applicable to every instance of conscious experience to ever exist in the universe (i.e., will achieve necessity or maximal generalizability). Defining ‘consciousness’ in a way that is relevant to the natural sciences again reduces to the impossible task of providing a concise, complete, unchanging account of the mechanistic and/or functional features underlying its varied manifestations. This is just the nature of definition: if it is “correct” or “accurate”, then the definition must in some way precisely outline the scope of the term’s possible applications. But precise and stable definitions are difficult to articulate even for simple terms like ‘chair’ that are also manifested in a variety of ways in the natural world (Wittgenstein 1953). The trajectory of consciousness research has been a continued revelation that experiences manifest in a multitude of ways, in a multitude of different systems. Thus, expecting a definition that once and for all captures the correct scope of the application of the term ‘consciousness’, especially as conscious biological systems continue to evolve and we face the possibility of conscious artificial systems, seems to be a misguided approach. Once again, while it’s not clear that we can provide a definition of consciousness that will ground a general theory, a comprehensive definition of consciousness doesn’t seem to be needed in order to focus disparate research programs on a common target of inquiry. 2.4 Interim Summary The most obvious paths to a general theory of consciousness seem fraught with significant, perhaps insurmountable, conceptual obstacles. Fortunately, the empirical study of consciousness need not achieve a general theory in order to make significant progress on the shared goal of understanding conscious experience and its place in the natural world. On the contrary, I’ll argue that the quest for a general theory can actually be detrimental to progress in contemporary consciousness research, when it restricts inquiry to a (e.g., anthropocentric, visuocentric) subset of lower-level explanations of the target higher-level property. In the next section, I articulate and defend an alternative approach. 3. Markers of Consciousness 3.1 Neural Correlates and Functional Contributions The attempt to identify reliable structural and functional “indicators” or “markers” has become one of the dominant methodological approaches to the empirical study of consciousness. The search for structural markers in particular, or neural correlates of consciousness (NCCs), has long taken centre stage in both philosophical (e.g. Metzinger 2000) and scientific (e.g. Crick & Koch 1994) discussions. Statistical analyses of neuroimaging data could potentially be used to isolate neural activity that is (minimally) sufficient for consciousness (Chalmers 2000). The goal here is to try to “subtract” out the neural activity that is truly responsible for consciousness and its specific contents, again by comparing patterns of neural activity during conscious versus unconscious performance on the same task, such as word recognition (Dembski et al. 2021, Malach 2021). The more evidence we can marshal for the uniqueness or sufficiency of a candidate neurobiological marker of consciousness, the more that marker ought to be able to support stable generalization and prediction, and ultimately act as a reliable operationalizable proxy for conscious experience in ongoing research. Using the same comparative methodology, we can also try to isolate functional (i.e., psychological, behavioural) phenomena that are only present when conscious experience is also present (e.g., Szczygieł et al. 2012, Koivisto & Rietamo 2016, Lamme 2020, Ludwig 2022). However, beyond mere claims of correlation, strong positive covariance here suggests that there are functional or causal capacities that exist as a result of conscious experience. Despite lingering doubts about the causal efficacy of conscious experiences (Chalmers 2017, Kozuch 2021), the inferences involved here are familiar across the sciences. On a broadly causal interventionist approach to scientific explanation, intervening on or manipulating a target variable while holding all else equal [1] reveals the causal role(s) that variable plays in the system that it is a part of (Woodward 2017). Experimental manipulations and clinical pathologies form the evidential core of contemporary consciousness research, and these causal interventions tell us about psychological functions that are facilitated by consciousness; that is, they are functional contributions that consciousness makes to the system (FCCs, Ludwig 2022). Once again, with enough support in favour of the uniqueness of a candidate FCC, this functional marker can be used as an operationalizable proxy for consciousness in future research. It should also be noted that while we can think of investigations into structure and function as representing two distinct strands of research for distinct scientific disciplines, they are intricately interwoven projects. In other words, searching for structural (NCCs) and functional (FCCs) markers of consciousness is typically mutually informative (e.g. Lamme 2020). Note that this general methodological approach, dubbed the “marker method”, characterizes most, if not all, serious research programs dedicated to the empirical study of consciousness. This is true even when the method is only implicit in empirical paradigms and theoretical discussions. For instance, major theories like GWTs, HOTs, and IITs have ultimately been offering candidate markers of consciousness, in that they claim to be identifying neural and/or psychological phenomena that reliably signify the presence of conscious experience (Michel & Lau 2020). Unfortunately, there is reason to doubt that GWTs, HOTs, and IITs in particular champion markers that are truly unique to, or sufficient for, consciousness, as currently formulated. Settling this issue for each theory represents a massive research program in itself. However, note that recent studies have, for instance, supported the existence of unconscious information integration and helped to formalize certain subsequent hypotheses, such as the idea that conscious and unconscious processes operate over different (e.g., spatiotemporal, semantic) “windows of integration” (Fairve & Koch 2014, Hirschhorn et al. 2021, Mudrik et al. 2024). Considering the large volume of work demonstrating unconscious integration (see Brogaard et al. 2021), there are enough counterexamples to significantly decrease the reliability of ‘integrated information’, as formulated, as a unique marker of consciousness. However, these results ought to inspire IIT loyalists to offer qualifications, reformulations, and precisifications of their candidate marker(s). Perhaps, for example, visual integration of spatiotemporal information over intervals greater that 100ms in neurotypical adult humans, is sufficient for experience, and therefore yields one marker of consciousness among many others that each support limited ranges of generalization (Faivre & Koch 2014).It is also important to recognize that IIT already adopts the idea that there will be a plurality of specific NCCs that correspond with different sorts of ‘integrated information’ (e.g., across the posterior “hot zone”, see Koch et al. 2016). This pluralism of NCCs is just beginning to be explicitly articulated and defended in the neurobiological literature (e.g., Malach 2021, He 2023). Similarly, GW and HO theories both imply that particular implementations of global broadcasting or metacognition will rely on a number of different specific neural mechanisms and their dynamic processes, albeit within the circumscribed neural regions emphasized by each theory (e.g., Cleeremans & Tallon-Baudry 2021). I argue similarly that acknowledging functional pluralism ought to inspire multiple sub-theories concerning differently qualified and formulated functions, perhaps within the broader categories of ‘information integration’, ‘global broadcasting’, and ‘metacognition’ that might come to count as genuine, reliable FCCs (Ludwig 2022). Each would generalize to a particular restricted scope of circumstances, relative to each different qualification of the broadly construed constructs that are put forth by the major theories as candidate markers. Indeed, the progression towards increasingly precise hypotheses about structural and functional markers of consciousness has already produced a range of specific claims concerning neural and psychological phenomena that are thought to be truly unique to consciousness. One example of a very specifically proposed FCC is the visual integration of “apparent” motion information in humans, when the elements to be integrated are presented more than 100ms apart (Faivre & Koch 2014). Another relatively precise FCC hypothesis is that conscious processes are uniquely equipped to navigate a mnemonic “quality-space” that enables perceptual reality monitoring (Lau et. al 2022). Yet another is that experience facilitates “offline” model-based planning (Fleming & Michel forthcoming). In addition, surveys of the relevant empirical literature (e.g., Ludwig 2023, 2025) reveal a range of candidate markers of consciousness in certain “task-domains” like vision (e.g., greater spatiotemporal precision), emotion (e.g., capacities for regulation and inhibition), and social cognition (e.g., overriding social biases). Finally, recall that Block’s (2023) analysis of infant colour perception informally suggests a clear candidate functional marker of consciousness. The hypothesis is that habituation to visual stimuli is unique to consciousness, at least in human infants; that is, this sort of habituation is a strong candidate for being an FCC. His informal discussion, moreover, cuts right to the core of how we might come to establish that such a functional capacity is indeed a reliablemarker of consciousness in at least a subset of conscious systems. He writes, “I have never heard of any evidence for decreasing or increasing level of interest as part of a person’s unconscious mental life” (2023, p. 422). The methodological implication is clear: the more evidence we have that habituation does not occur unconsciously, the more confident we can be that it is truly a marker of consciousness (perhaps across all systems with something akin to the primate visual system). And while the absence of evidence (e.g. of unconscious habituation) is not necessarily evidence of absence, carefully designed comparative task paradigms can continue to increase our inductive credence that a functional marker is unique to consciousness. In this way, the marker method provides a stable conceptual foundation for a robust science of consciousness. 3.2 The Marker Method Across the Sciences It needs to be made explicit that the methodological practices and assumptions inherent in the so-called “marker method” are not unique to the study of conscious experience. Rather, they are extremely common across the sciences, and actually reflect fundamental and indispensable scientific principles. In other words, it is a mistake to treat the search for markers as one possible way (among many) of proceeding in the empirical study of consciousness, or as a contingent practice that could either be adopted or discarded based on our judgment of its capacity to deliver results (Andrews 2024). The moniker “the marker method” actually picks out an underlying logic that is at the very core of systematic empirical investigation. More precisely, it refers to a general strategy for studying target constructs—like those in psychology or economics—that are radically multiply realized (Fodor 1980). Some constructs are useful for capturing generalizations at “higher” levels of explanation, precisely by abstracting away from “lower level” facts about particular manifestations of the construct. The construct “debt”, for example, supports crucial generalizations at the level of economic processes, but is not itself “observable” in any straightforward way, beyond the properties that “mark” its numerous particular instantiations. This is akin to other scientific constructs such as “organ”, “perception”, “metabolism”, or “life”. The basic investigative principles behind the marker approach are explicitly employed in an impressively wide range of different scientific domains. For instance, gravitational-wave effects are markers of black holes (Carr et al. 2024), certain hematological dynamics are markers of inflammation (Germolec 2018), and the biomass of phytoplankton can even serve a reliable marker of the impact of weather on certain ecosystems (Peierls et al. 2003). Consider an example, however, within the cognitive sciences: “perception”. This is arguably a relatively stable and particularly useful construct for making sense of the operations of (at least some) psychological systems. The formal, empirically honed construct ‘perception’ continues to be fruitfully employed in a vast range of theoretical and empirical work. It is employed, for instance, in everything from theoretical debates concerning the structure of object representations (e.g. Quilty Dunn 2023), to valuable experimental and clinical research on pathologies like hemineglect and blindsight (Brogaard et al. 2021). Block (2023) forcefully argues for a “joint in nature” between perceptual and cognitive processes, even gesturing towards the natural kind status of the construct ‘perception’. His systematic approach, though, begins precisely by identifying “markers of the perceptual and the cognitive” (Block, 2023, p. 61); in other words, a tentative list of various structural and functional features that belong uniquely to each construct. Block provides a fairly disparate list of “indicators” that seem to mark the presence of perceptual versus cognitive processing, including functional properties like susceptibility to adaptation, speed of computation, rivalry, and pop-out effects. Note that Block’s account is primarily focused on human visual perception, and we should probably expect the list of features that mark the construct ‘perception’ to become even more diverse as we explore other modalities, like proprioception or sonar. But crucially, despite being fruitfully employed in cognitive science, having a relatively clear set of markers, and even having a potential claim to natural kind status, the construct ‘perception’ is not grounded in a general theory that attempts to maximally generalize to all of its manifestations. In the end, despite the countless, immensely productive research programs working to understand different perceptual capacities, ‘perception’ itself is a term that lacks a comprehensive definition or general theory. The same is true of the empirical study of consciousness. 3.3 Markers and Theories of Consciousness The prevailing assumption in contemporary consciousness research is that the explanatory value of the marker methodology entirely depends upon our ability to establish a secure, general theory of our target construct. The idea, again, is that without a general theory in place, there are no conceptual grounds for evaluating, justifying, or critiquing specific claims about NCCs and FCCs (Melloni et al. 2021, Andrews 2024). Note first, however, that skepticism towards the reliability of the marker methodology in the absence of a secure general theory often follows merely from the recognition that current, specific candidate markers turn out to be insufficient, or not unique to consciousness. That is, many proposed markers are in fact present during unconscious processing; therefore, they are insufficient, and are unable to ground generalization and predication of the target of inquiry (e.g. Mudrik et al 2014). Andrews (2024), for example, infers from the fact that some current candidate markers (e.g. oxytocin-like neuropeptides) can be found in creatures who are generally assumed to lack the capacity for conscious experience (anatomically simple creatures like C. elegans), that the marker methodology is unreliable because of the absence of a secure general theory. But all this seems to warrant is the claim that we have not yet found reliable, or truly unique and broadly generalizable, markers of consciousness. More importantly, it is not clear what role a general theory would play in helping to secure reliable ascriptions of consciousness. Recall that general theories are really making necessity claims, which are in principle unverifiable: we can never know conclusively if a structural-functional feature is present in every conscious experience that has ever and will ever exist. Still, we have good reason to expect exceptions to any claim that a structural and/or functional feature is maximally generalizable. This again seems especially plausible if we consider the complexity and diversity of our own experiences let alone other species’, the ongoing evolution of natural systems, and the constantly expanding capacities of AI systems. It is a safe bet that we will continue to discover different kinds of conscious experiences with different structural and functional features that cannot be captured by a single theory. Thus, a general theory does not actually provide stable epistemic grounds for evaluating claims about our target of inquiry across different systems, primarily because they are built upon unverifiable hypotheses of necessity. Rather, contrary to the field’s prevailing methodological assumption, commitment to a general theory based on claims about necessary features can actually serve to limit the scope of consciousness research, in that it prioritizes and overemphasizes single (typically anthropocentric) markers, rather than encourage the continued search for a plurality of different markers derived from different manifestations of the target construct. The more markers we can establish that generalize to different ranges of conscious systems, the more evidential support we have for ascriptions of consciousness in an increasingly wide range of natural and artificial systems (Pennartz et al. 2019). The driving goal of consciousness research, therefore, should not be to give an account in terms of structures and functions that are necessary for consciousness (i.e., maximally generalizable) as most research programs assume (Michel & Lau 2020). Not only do necessity claims warrant justification that is simply unattainable in theory and practice, necessity is not nearly as illuminating as sufficiency. It might turn out, for example, that something like a brain stem or a functioning heart is a necessary feature of consciousness (in humans or mammals). But because these features are also present when consciousness is not (i.e., they are not unique to consciousness), they are in fact unreliable in the central goal of distinguishing concrete cases of conscious and unconscious processing (Ludwig 2022). Identifying markers that are sufficient for, or unique to, consciousness, in contrast, is crucial to success in the field. Contemporary consciousness research therefore ought to be primarily dedicated to testing the uniqueness (or sufficiency) of various candidate markers of experience, under a broadly pluralistic framework. If a candidate marker is indeed subsequently found to be preserved in creatures whose conscious status is controversial (like C. elegans), or for the sake of argument, a creature who has been determined in some way to lack any conscious experiences—that is, if the marker turns out to not be sufficient—we should lose confidence in that marker, and instead prioritize other candidates that might have a better chance of turning out to be truly sufficient for consciousness. Building confidence in the uniqueness of individual markers is how we move consciousness research forward. But pursuing a plurality of markers ultimately provides the widest possible scope of evidential support for the presence of the target property. Consider the range of “informal” markers we might use to determine if an individual is conscious in a real-world setting (e.g., post-injury): responsiveness to questioning or conversational capacity, complex emotional experiences (like terror or shock), pain, episodic memories, certain kinds of visual tracking, etc. Some might be more reliable than others, but the presence of several markers each with strong inductive support can certainly increase confidence in our ascriptions of consciousness. The central point here is that the logic of the marker approach, and its prospects for success, does not require a general, all-encompassing theory of consciousness. In fact, general theories can actually serve to limit and restrict the scope of consciousness research by assuming that their candidate marker is the only one that indicates the presence of the target property. Further, even if a marker turns out to be truly unique to consciousness, the range of generalizations and predictions that it can support might be quite narrow in scope. Among other things, the obvious contemporary, anthropocentric origins of major theories on offer like GWTs and HOTs suggest that general theories of consciousness like these will be too narrow to account for all of the different kinds of conscious experiences that exist in the universe. A pluralistic approach, in contrast, that does not commit to any one overarching theory, but instead encourages multiple theoretical frameworks to each search for unique, reliable markers that might expand the scope of generalization and prediction, seems to be our best option for accounting for the widest possible range of conscious systems. Developing different contributing research programs that represent unique approaches to the same target phenomenon seems analogous to building up multiple tools in a toolkit, each of which is useful for a different specific iteration of the same abstract category of task (e.g., Philips, Robertson, and Slotted screwdrivers all accomplish different iterations of the abstractly described goal of “screwing”). On the flipside, aiming towards a comprehensive theory is analogous to holding out hope for a single tool that can somehow apply to any specific iteration of the task (e.g., a single universal screwdriver that somehow fits every possible screw in existence). 4. Conclusions: The Prospects of a General Theory of Consciousness It remains unclear how we might successfully establish a general (“secure”, “comprehensive”, or “universal”) theory of consciousness, beyond the impossible task of capturing all of the unique or sufficient markers of consciousness that might exist in the universe, such that the theory is generalizable to every experience across all of space and time. Instead, an indefinitely wide array of distinct structural-functional features might be used to infer the presence of consciousness within a limited range of candidate systems. What, then, can we conclude about the search for a general theory? First, the modest conclusion to be drawn here is that there are clear pragmatic reasons for moving away from the project of trying to establish a general theory of consciousness. This is reflected in the diversity of theoretical commitments that continue to emerge in the field, and the extent to which different theorists remain firmly entrenched in their preferred conceptual frameworks. Instead of being in competition, any particular productive theory might represent one reliable conceptual framework among many for understanding the target of inquiry. However, in practice, the attempt to establish a single, comprehensive theory of consciousness has narrowed the field’s explanatory scope by discouraging these diverse perspectives on the phenomenon. Theories of consciousness continue to proliferate, while very few are counted out as having nothing to offer contemporary consciousness research. I urge that we embrace such proliferation, precisely by committing to a pluralistic marker approach rather than a singular general theory approach. We might also conclude that there are deep epistemic flaws in the general theory approach in the first place. Recall that general theories based on the structural and functional features of consciousness often bottom out as necessity claims; they reduce to claims that some feature is maximally generalizable. However, the unverifiability of a candidate marker’s claim to necessity renders any general theory claim at best speculative, and at worst epistemically vacuous. In this way, general theories cannot in principle provide the desired epistemic justification for ascribing consciousness across different systems, nor act as the ultimate arbiter of our claims about NCCs and FCCs. As it stands, this is a serious conceptual obstacle to the formulation of a general theory: a formal flaw in the primary explanatory goal at the heart of our scientific approach to consciousness. This ought to compel us to explore alternative methodological approaches, such as the pluralistic marker approach described above. Finally, there is a stronger, more controversial conclusion that we might draw from this analysis: there is no such thing as a general theory of consciousness. That is, it is impossible in principle to ever formulate such a theory, even in maximally ideal epistemic conditions. Most researchers accept the pragmatic difficulties and epistemic flaws inherent in the search for a general theory of consciousness and will be open to alternative methodological approaches. However, optimism for a general theory remains inexplicably prevalent, and the denial that we could ever achieve this goal is where many researchers get off the proverbial bus. One persisting reason for the failure to accept this stronger conclusion seems to be that the science of consciousness is still relatively “young”, and so we should be patient that a comprehensive theory of consciousness will eventually be correctly formulated once and for all. On the contrary, significant support for the stronger thesis comes from the radical multiple realizability of consciousness, and moreover, the fact that some of our best candidates for being genuine FCCs and NCCs dissociate from one another across tasks, individuals, species, etc. For instance, in one system, consciousness might facilitate higher-order representation but not certain forms of emotional regulation, and vice versa. Even one such dissociation provides metaphysical reasons for doubting the existence of a single theory that can account for every kind of conscious experience. In the end, there may not be a satisfying general explanation of what consciousness is as a feature of complex systems that can ground claims about its structural and functional elements. But “what is it?” questions are odd, and rarely guide empirical inquiry anyway, especially in cognitive science. We do not demand, for example, general theories of what perception or attention are; rather, the (sometimes radically) different structural and functional manifestations of these psychological capacities are the subject of their own robust and independent research programs, each of which sheds light on the overarching construct of interest. Similarly, instead of trying to constrain the flourishing field of consciousness research into the confines of a single theoretical framework, we should encourage a rich variety of perspectives that each provide their own particular, albeit limited, insight on target construct. References Albantakis, L., Barbosa, L., Findlay, G., Grasso, M., Haun, A. M., Marshall, W., ... & Tononi, G. (2023). Integrated information theory (IIT) 4.0: formulating the properties of phenomenal existence in physical terms. PLoS computational biology, 19(10), e1011465. Andrews, K. (2023). What is it like to be a crab? Aeon. Andrews, K. (2024). “All animals are conscious”: Shifting the null hypothesis in consciousness science. Mind & Language. Baars, B. J. (2017). The global workspace theory of consciousness: Predictions and results. The Blackwell companion to consciousness, 227-242. Bayne, T. (2012). The unity of consciousness. Oxford University Press. Bayne, T., Seth, A. K., Massimini, M., Shepherd, J., Cleeremans, A., Fleming, S. M., ... & Mudrik, L. (2024). Tests for consciousness in humans and beyond. Trends in cognitive sciences. Bayot, M., Dujardin, K., Tard, C., Defebvre, L., Bonnet, C. T., Allart, E., & Delval, A. (2018). The interaction between cognition and motor control: A theoretical framework for dual-task interference effects on posture, gait initiation, gait and turning. Neurophysiologie Clinique, 48(6), 361-375. Birch, J. (2022). The search for invertebrate consciousness. Noûs, 56(1), 133-153. Birch, J. (2024). The Edge of Sentience: Risk and Precaution in Humans, Other Animals, and AI. Birch, J., Schnell, A. K., & Clayton, N. S. (2020). Dimensions of animal consciousness. Trends in cognitive sciences, 24(10), 789-801. Blackmore, S. (2017). Consciousness: A very short introduction. Oxford University Press. Block, N. (2009). Comparing the major theories of consciousness. In Michael Gazzaniga (ed.), The Cognitive Neurosciences IV. pp. 1111-1123. Block, N. (2023). The border between seeing and thinking. Oxford University Press. Boly, M., Massimini, M., Tsuchiya, N., Postle, B. R., Koch, C., & Tononi, G. (2017). Are the neural correlates of consciousness in the front or in the back of the cerebral cortex? Clinical and neuroimaging evidence. Journal of Neuroscience, 37(40), 9603-9613. Brogaard, B., Chomanski, B., & Gatzia, D. E. (2021). Consciousness and information integration. Synthese, 198, 763–792. Brown, R., Lau, H., & LeDoux, J. E. (2019). Understanding the higher-order approach to consciousness. Trends in cognitive sciences, 23(9), 754-768. Camos, V., Mora, G., & Barrouillet, P. (2013). Phonological Similarity Effect in Complex Span Task. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 66(10), 1927-1950. Carr, B. J., Clesse, S., Garcia-Bellido, J., Hawkins, M. R. S., & Kühnel, F. (2024). Observational evidence for primordial black holes: A positivist perspective. Physics Reports, 1054, 1-68. Carrasco, M. (2011). Visual attention: The past 25 years. Vision research, 51(13), 1484-1525. Chalmers, D. (1995). Facing up to the problem of consciousness. Journal of consciousness studies, 2(3), 200-219. Chalmers, D. J. (2000). “What is a neural correlate of consciousness?” in Neural Correlates of Consciousness, ed. T. Metzinger (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press), 17–40. Chalmers, D. (2017). The hard problem of consciousness. The Blackwell companion to consciousness, 32-42. Chis-Ciure, R., Melloni, L., & Northoff, G. (2024). A measure centrality index for systematic empirical comparison of consciousness theories. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 105670. Churchland, P. M. (1985). Reduction, qualia, and the direct introspection of brain states. The journal of philosophy, 82(1), 8-28. Cleeremans, A., & Tallon-Baudry, C. (2021). The function of consciousness is to generate experience. Cleeremans, A., & Tallon-Baudry, C. (2022). Consciousness matters: phenomenal experience has functional value. Neuroscience of consciousness, 2022(1), niac007. Clifford, C. W., Holcombe, A. O., & Pearson, J. (2004). Rapid global form binding with loss of associated colors. Journal of Vision, 4(12), 8-8. Crick, F., & Koch, C. (1990). Towards a neurobiological theory of consciousness. In Seminars in the Neurosciences (Vol. 2, No. 263-275, p. 203). Cronin, D. A., Peacock, C. E., & Henderson, J. M. (2020). Visual and verbal working memory loads interfere with scene-viewing. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 82(6), 2814-2820. de Haan, E. H., Scholte, H. S., Pinto, Y., Foschi, N., Polonara, G., & Fabri, M. (2021). Singularity and consciousness: a neuropsychological contribution. Journal of Neuropsychology, 15(1), 1-19. Dehaene, S. (2014). Consciousness and the brain: Deciphering how the brain codes our thoughts. Viking. Dehaene, S., & Changeux, J. P. (2011). Experimental and theoretical approaches to conscious processing. Neuron, 70, 200–227. Dehaene, S., Lau, H., & Kouider, S. (2021). What is consciousness, and could machines have it? Robotics, AI, and humanity: Science, ethics, and policy, 43-56. Del Pin, S. H., Skóra, Z., Sandberg, K., Overgaard, M., & Wierzchoń, M. (2021). Comparing theories of consciousness: why it matters and how to do it. Neuroscience of consciousness, 2021(2), niab019. Dembski, C., Koch, C., & Pitts, M. (2021). Perceptual awareness negativity: a physiological correlate of sensory consciousness. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 25(8), 660-670. Dennett, D. C. (2012). Can machines think? In Language and meaning in cognitive science (pp. 47-72). Routledge. Descartes, R. (2008). Meditations on first philosophy (M. Moriarty, Trans.). Oxford University Press. Doerig, A., Schurger, A., & Herzog, M. H. (2020). Hard criteria for empirical theories of consciousness. Cognitive Neuroscience, 12(2), 41–62. Evers, K., Farisco, M., & Pennartz, C. M. A. (2024). Assessing the commensurability of theories of consciousness: On the usefulness of common denominators in differentiating, integrating and testing hypotheses. Consciousness and Cognition, 119, 103668. Faivre, N., & Koch, C. (2014). Temporal structure coding with and without awareness. Cognition, 131(3), 404-414. Fatzer, S. T., & Roebers, C. M. (2012). Language and executive functions: The effect of articulatory suppression on executive functioning in children. Journal of Cognition and Development, 13(4), 454-472. Fernandes, M. A., & Moscovitch, M. (2000). Divided attention and memory: evidence of substantial interference effects at retrieval and encoding. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 129(2), 155. Fleming, S., & Michel, M. (Forthcoming). Sensory horizons and the functions of conscious vision. Fodor, J. A. (1980). Special sciences, or the disunity of science as a working hypothesis. In The language and thought series (pp. 120-133). Harvard University Press. Gennaro, R. J. (2018). Higher-order theories of consciousness. The Bloomsbury Companion to the Philosophy of Consciousness; Bloomsbury Publishing: London, UK, 142. Germolec, D. R., Shipkowski, K. A., Frawley, R. P., & Evans, E. (2018). Markers of inflammation. Immunotoxicity testing: Methods and protocols, 57-79. Ginot, E. (2015). The Neuropsychology of the Unconscious: Integrating Brain and Mind in Psychotherapy (Norton Series on Interpersonal Neurobiology). WW Norton & Company. Godfrey-Smith, P. (2024). Inferring consciousness in phylogenetically distant organisms. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 1-7. He, B. J. (2023). Towards a pluralistic neurobiological understanding of consciousness. Trends in cognitive sciences, 27(5), 420-432. Heylighen, F., & Beigi, S. (2024). The local prospect theory of subjective experience: A soft solution to the hard problem of consciousness. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 31(11-12), 122-152. Hirschhorn, R., Kahane, O., Gur-Arie, I., Faivre, N., & Mudrik, L. (2021). Windows of integration hypothesis revisited. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 14, 617187. Holcombe, A. O. (2009). Seeing slow and seeing fast: Two limits on perception. Trends in Cognitive Science, 13(5), 216–221. Husserl, Edmund (1960). Cartesian meditations. The Hague: M. Nijhoff. Kanai, R., & Fujisawa, I. (2024). Toward a universal theory of consciousness. Neuroscience of Consciousness, 2024(1), niae022. Kent, L., & Wittmann, M. (2021). Time consciousness: the missing link in theories of consciousness. Neuroscience of Consciousness, 2021(2), niab011. Koch, C. (2019). The feeling of life itself: why consciousness is widespread but can't be computed. Mit Press. Koch, C., Massimini, M., Boly, M., & Tononi, G. (2016). Neural correlates of consciousness: progress and problems. Nature reviews neuroscience, 17(5), 307-321. Koivisto, M., & Rientamo, E. (2016). Unconscious vision spots the animal but not the dog: Masked priming of natural scenes. Consciousness and Cognition, 41, 10-23. Kozuch, B. (2021). Consciousness and mental causation: Contemporary empirical cases for epiphenomenalism, in Oxford Handbook of the Philosophy of Consciousness. Lamme, V. A. (2020). Visual functions generating conscious seeing. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 83. Lau, H. (2022). In consciousness we trust: The cognitive neuroscience of subjective experience. Oxford University Press. Lee, G. (2019). Alien Subjectivity and the Importance of Consciousness. Blockheads: Essays on Ned Block's Philosophy of Mind and Consciousness, 215. Ludwig, D. (2022). The functional contributions of consciousness. Consciousness and Cognition, 104, 103383. Ludwig, D. (2023). The functions of consciousness in visual processing. Neuroscience of Consciousness, 2023(1), niac018. Ludwig, D. (2025) Functions of consciousness in emotional processing. Consciousness and Cognition, 127, 103801. Ludwig, D., & Khalidi, M. A. (2024). Autonomous sensory meridian response (ASMR) and the functions of consciousness. Cognitive Science, 48(5), e13453. Lupyan, G., Uchiyama, R., Thompson, B., & Casasanto, D. (2023). Hidden differences in phenomenal experience. Cognitive Science, 47(1), e13239. Malach, R. (2021). Local neuronal relational structures underlying the contents of human conscious experience. Neuroscience of consciousness, 2021(2), niab028. Masrour, F. (2020) The Phenomenal Unity of Consciousness. In Kriegel, U. (Ed.). (2020). The Oxford handbook of the philosophy of consciousness. Oxford University Press. Melloni, L., Mudrik, L., Pitts, M., & Koch, C. (2021). Making the hard problem of consciousness easier. Science, 372(6545), 911-912. Melloni, L., Ferrante, O., Gorska-Klimowska, U., Henin, S., Hirschhorn, R., Khalaf, A., ... & Cogitate Consortium. (2023). An adversarial collaboration to critically evaluate theories of consciousness. Metzinger, T. (Ed.). (2000). Neural correlates of consciousness: Empirical and conceptual questions. MIT press. Michel, M. (2023). Confidence in consciousness research. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 14(2), e1628. Michel, M., & Lau, H. (2020). On the dangers of conflating strong and weak versions of a theory of consciousness. Philosophy and the Mind Sciences, 1(II). Miracchi, L. (2019). None of These Problems Are That 'Hard'... or 'Easy': Making Progress on the Problems of Consciousness. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 26(9-10), 160-172. Mudrik, L., Faivre, N., & Koch, C. (2014). Information integration without awareness. Trends in cognitive sciences, 18(9), 488-496. Mudrik, L., Mylopoulos, M., Negro, N., & Schurger, A. (2023). Theories of consciousness and a life worth living. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 53, 101299. Mudrik, L., Hirschhorn, R., & Korisky, U. (2024). Taking consciousness for real: Increasing the ecological validity of the study of conscious vs. unconscious processes. Neuron. Nagel, T. (1974). What Is It Like to Be a Bat. Philosophical Review, 83, 435-450. Nedergaard, J. S., Wallentin, M., & Lupyan, G. (2023). Verbal interference paradigms: A systematic review investigating the role of language in cognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 30(2), 464-488. Northoff, G., & Lamme, V. (2020). Neural signs and mechanisms of consciousness: Is there a potential convergence of theories of consciousness in sight? Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 118, 568-587. Paul, E. S., Sher, S., Tamietto, M., Winkielman, P., & Mendl, M. T. (2020). Towards a comparative science of emotion: Affect and consciousness in humans and animals. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 108, 749-770. Peierls, B. L., Christian, R. R., & Paerl, H. W. (2003). Water quality and phytoplankton as indicators of hurricane impacts on a large estuarine ecosystem. Estuaries, 26, 1329-1343. Pennartz, C. M., Farisco, M., & Evers, K. (2019). Indicators and criteria of consciousness in animals and intelligent machines: an inside-out approach. Frontiers in systems neuroscience, 13, 25. Peters, M. A., Kentridge, R. W., Phillips, I., & Block, N. (2017). Does unconscious perception really exist? Continuing the ASSC20 debate. Neuroscience of consciousness, 2017(1), nix015. Quilty-Dunn, J. (2023). Sensory binding without sensory individuals. Sensory Individuals: Unimodal and Multimodal Perspectives, 77. Richardson, J. T. E., & Baddeley, A. D. (1975). The effect of articulatory suppression in free recall. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 14(6), 623-629. Schlossmacher, I., Dellert, T., Pitts, M., Bruchmann, M., & Straube, T. (2020). Differential effects of awareness and task relevance on early and late ERPs in a no-report visual oddball paradigm. Journal of Neuroscience, 40(14), 2906-2913. Searle, J. (2017). Biological naturalism. The Blackwell companion to consciousness, 327-336. Sergent, C., Corazzol, M., Labouret, G., Stockart, F., Wexler, M., King, J. R., . . . Pressnitzer, D. (2021). Bifurcation in brain dynamics reveals a signature of conscious processing independent of report. Nature Communications, 12(1), 1149. Seth, A. K., & Bayne, T. (2022). Theories of consciousness. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 23(7), 439-452. Smith, S. M. (2019). Phenomenal overflow, bodily affect, and some varieties of access. Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 10(4), 787–808. Szczygieł D., Buczny J., Bazińska R. (2012). Emotion regulation and emotional information processing: the moderating effect of emotional awareness. Pers. Ind. Differ. 52 433–437. Tononi, G., Boly, M., Massimini, M., & Koch, C. (2016). Integrated information theory: from consciousness to its physical substrate. Nature reviews neuroscience, 17(7), 450-461. Usher, M., Bronfman, Z. Z., Talmor, S., Jacobson, H., & Eitam, B. (2018). Consciousness without report: insights from summary statistics and inattention ‘blindness’. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 373(1755), 20170354. Wimsatt, W. C. (1994). The ontology of complex systems: Levels of organization, perspectives, and causal thickets1. Canadian Journal of Philosophy Supplementary Volume, 20, 207-274. Wittgenstein, L. (1953). Philosophical Investigations. New York, NY, USA: Wiley-Blackwell. Edited by G. E. M. Anscombe. Woodward, J. (2017). Explanation in neurobiology. Explanation and integration in mind and brain science, 70-100. Endnote [1] Which, in consciousness research, may involve calibrating an experimental set up in some way to ensure an accurate comparison. For example, we often have to modify the objective properties of stimuli on unconscious trials, so that the internal signal strength of the perceptual target that the subject is being asked to detect is the same across conscious and unconscious trials (Peters et al. 2017).

---

## AI Mimics and AI Children
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/essay/ai-mimics-and-ai-children

When the aliens come, we’ll know they’re conscious. A saucer will land. A titanium door will swing wide. A ladder will drop to the grass, and down they’ll come – maybe bipedal, gray-skinned, and oval-headed, just as we’ve long imagined. Or maybe they’ll sport seven limbs, three protoplasmic spinning sonar heads, and gaseous egg-sphere thoughtpods. “Take me to your leader,” they’ll say in the local language, as cameras broadcast them live around the world. They’ll trade their technology for our molybdenum, their science for samples of our beetles and ferns, their tales of galactic history for U.N. authorization to build a refueling station at the south pole. No one (only a few philosophers) will wonder, but do these aliens really have thoughts and experiences, feelings, consciousness? The robots are coming. Already they talk to us, maybe better than those aliens will. Already we trust our lives to them as they steer through traffic. Already they outthink virtually all of us at chess, Go, Mario Kart, protein folding, and advanced mathematics. Already they compose smooth college essays on themes from Hamlet while drawing adorable cartoons of dogs cheating at poker. You might understandably think: The aliens are already here. We made them. Still, we hesitate to attribute genuine consciousness to the robots. Why? My answer is because we made them in our image. # “Consciousness” has an undeserved reputation as a slippery term. Let’s fix that now. Consider your visual experience as you look at this text. Pinch the back of your hand and notice the sting of pain. Silently hum your favorite show tune. Recall that jolt of fear you felt during a near-miss in traffic. Imagine riding atop a giant turtle. That visual experience, that pain, that tune in your head, that fear, that act of imagination – they share an obvious property. That obvious property is consciousness. In other words: They are subjectively experienced. There’s “something it’s like” to undergo them. They have a qualitative character. They feel a certain way.

When the aliens come, we’ll know they’re conscious. A saucer will land. A titanium door will swing wide. A ladder will drop to the grass, and down they’ll come – maybe bipedal, gray-skinned, and oval-headed, just as we’ve long imagined. Or maybe they’ll sport seven limbs, three protoplasmic spinning sonar heads, and gaseous egg-sphere thoughtpods. “Take me to your leader,” they’ll say in the local language, as cameras broadcast them live around the world. They’ll trade their technology for our molybdenum, their science for samples of our beetles and ferns, their tales of galactic history for U.N. authorization to build a refueling station at the south pole. No one (only a few philosophers) will wonder, but do these aliens really have thoughts and experiences, feelings, consciousness? The robots are coming. Already they talk to us, maybe better than those aliens will. Already we trust our lives to them as they steer through traffic. Already they outthink virtually all of us at chess, Go, Mario Kart, protein folding, and advanced mathematics. Already they compose smooth college essays on themes from Hamlet while drawing adorable cartoons of dogs cheating at poker. You might understandably think: The aliens are already here. We made them. Still, we hesitate to attribute genuine consciousness to the robots. Why? My answer is because we made them in our image. # “Consciousness” has an undeserved reputation as a slippery term. Let’s fix that now. Consider your visual experience as you look at this text. Pinch the back of your hand and notice the sting of pain. Silently hum your favorite show tune. Recall that jolt of fear you felt during a near-miss in traffic. Imagine riding atop a giant turtle. That visual experience, that pain, that tune in your head, that fear, that act of imagination – they share an obvious property. That obvious property is consciousness. In other words: They are subjectively experienced. There’s “something it’s like” to undergo them. They have a qualitative character. They feel a certain way. It’s not just that these processes are mental or that they transpire (presumably) in your brain. Some mental and neural processes aren’t conscious: your knowledge, not actively recalled until just now, that Confucius lived in ancient China; the early visual processing that converts retinal input into experienced shape (you experience the shape but not the process that renders the shape); the myelination of your axons. Don’t try to be clever. Of course you can imagine some other property, besides consciousness, shared by the visual experience, the pain, etc., and absent from the unrecalled knowledge, early visual processing, etc. For example: the property of being mentioned by me in a particular way in this essay. The property of being conscious and also transpiring near the surface of Earth. The property of being targeted by such-and-such scientific theory. There is, I submit, one obvious property that blazes out a bright red this-is-it when you think about the examples. That’s consciousness. That’s the property we would reasonably attribute to the aliens when they raise their gray tentacles in peace, the property that rightly puzzles us about future AI systems. The term “consciousness” only seems slippery because we can’t (yet?) define it in standard scientific or analytic fashion. We can’t dissect it into simpler constituents or specify exactly its functional role. But we all know what it is. We care intensely about it. It makes all the difference to how we think about and value something. Does the alien, the robot, the scout ant on the kitchen counter, the earthworm twisting in your gardening glove, really feel things? Or are they blank inside, mere empty machines or mobile plants, so to speak? If they really feel things, then they matter for their own sake – at least a little bit. They matter in a certain fundamental way that an entity devoid of experience never could. # With respect to aliens, I recommend a Copernican perspective. In scientific cosmology, the Copernican Principle invites us to assume – at least as a default starting point, pending possible counterevidence – that we don’t occupy any particularly special location in the cosmos, such as the exact center. A Copernican Principle of Consciousness suggests something similar. We are not at the center of the cosmological “consciousness-is-here” map. If consciousness arose on Earth, almost certainly it has arisen elsewhere. Astrobiology, as a scientific field, is premised on the idea that life has probably arisen elsewhere. Many expect to find evidence of it in our solar system within a few decades, maybe on Mars, maybe in the subsurface oceans of an icy moon. Other scientists are searching for telltale organic gases in the atmospheres of exoplanets. Most extraterrestrial life, if it exists, will probably be simple, but intelligent alien life also seems possible – where by “intelligent” I mean life that is capable of complex grammatical communication, sophisticated long-term planning, and intricate social coordination, all at approximately human level or better. Of course, no aliens have visited, broadcast messages to us, or built detectable solar panels around Alpha Centauri. This suggests that intelligent life might be rare, short-lived, or far away. Maybe it tends to quickly self-destruct. But rarity doesn’t imply nonexistence. Very conservatively, let’s assume that intelligent life arises just once per billion galaxies, enduring on average a hundred thousand years. Given approximately a trillion galaxies in the observable portion of the universe, that still yields a thousand intelligent alien civilizations – all likely remote in time and space, but real. If so, the cosmos is richer and more wondrous than we might otherwise have thought. It would be un-Copernican to suppose that somehow only we Earthlings, or we and a rare few others, are conscious, while all other intelligent species are mere empty shells. Picture a planet as ecologically diverse as Earth. Some of its species evolve into complex societies. They write epic poetry, philosophical treatises, scientific journal articles, and thousand-page law books. Over generations, they build massive cities, intricate clockworks, and monuments to their heroes. Maybe they launch spaceships. Maybe they found research institutes devoted to describing their sensations, images, beliefs, and dreams. How preposterously egocentric it would be to assume that only we Earthlings have the magic fire of consciousness! True, we don’t have a consciousness-o-meter, or even a very good, well-articulated, general scientific theory of consciousness. But we don’t need such things to know. Absent some special reason to think otherwise, if an alien species manifests the full suite of sophisticated cognitive abilities we tend to associate with consciousness, it makes both intuitive and scientific sense – as well as being the unargued premise of virtually every science fiction tale about aliens –to assume consciousness alongside. This constellation of thoughts naturally invites a view that philosophers have called “multiple realizability” or “substrate neutrality”. Human cognition relies on a particular substrate: a particular type of neuron in a particular type of body. We have two arms, two legs; we breathe oxygen; we have eyes, ears, and fingers. We are made mostly of water and long carbon chains, enclosed in hairy sacks of fat and protein, propped by rods of calcium hydroxyapatite. Electrochemical impulses shoot through our dendrites and axons, then across synaptic channels aided by sodium ions, serotonin, acetylcholine, etc. Must aliens be similar? It’s hard to say how universal such features would be, but the oval-eyed gray-skins of popular imagination seem rather suspiciously humanlike. In reality, ocean-dwelling intelligences in other galaxies might not look much like us. Carbon is awesome for its ability to form long chains, and water is awesome as a life-facilitating solvent, but even these might not be necessary. Maybe life could evolve in liquid ammonia instead of water, with a radically different chemistry in consequence. Even if life must be carbon-based and water-loving, there’s no particular reason to suppose its cognition would require the specific electrochemical structures we possess. Consciousness shouldn’t then, it seems, turn on the details of the substrate. Whatever biological structures can support high levels of general intelligence, those same structures will likely also host consciousness. It would make no sense to dissect an intelligent alien, see that its cognition works by hydraulics, or by direct electrical connections without chemical synaptic gaps, or by light transmission along reflective capillaries, or by vortices of phlegm, and conclude –oh no! That couldn’t possibly give rise to consciousness! Only squishy neurons of ourparticular sort could do it. Of course, what’s inside must be complex. Evolution couldn’t design a behaviorally sophisticated alien from a bag of pure methane. But from a proper Copernican perspective which treats our alien cousins as equals, what matters is only that the cognitive and behavioral sophistication arises, out of some presumably complex substrate, not what the particular substrate is. You don’t get your consciousness card revoked simply because you’re made of funny-looking goo. # A natural next thought is: robots too. They’re made of silicon, but so what? If we analogize from aliens, as long as a system is sufficiently behaviorally and cognitively sophisticated, it shouldn’t matter how it’s composed. So as soon as we have sufficiently sophisticated robots, we should invoke Copernicus, reject the idea that our biological endowment gives us a magic spark they lack, and welcome them to club consciousness. The problem is: AI systems are already sophisticated enough. If we encountered naturally evolved life forms as capable as our best AI systems, we wouldn’t hesitate to attribute consciousness. So, shouldn’t the Copernican think of our best AI as similarly conscious? But we don’t – or most of us don’t. And properly so, as I’ll now argue. The wrong but tempting strategy is to insist that before we attribute consciousness – or genuine “thought” or “intelligence” – a system must cross some high cognitive goalpost. Historically, that goalpost keeps shifting, ensuring that AI systems remain always short. When chess seemed the pinnacle of human intelligence, we treated that as the goalpost – until an AI beat the world chess champion. Producing poetry? Done, well enough to sometimes win local contests. Generating new results in advanced mathematics? Done. Resolving ambiguous pronoun use in a way that requires general background knowledge (the “Winograd schema”)? Done. Driving safely through urban traffic? Done. How about the Turing test? Also done, at least to Turing’s original proposed standard. A reminder: In his famous 1950 article, Alan Turing proposed that we should allow that machines “think” when they become verbally indistinguishable from humans. A human judge interacts by text with a human and a computer, each of which attempts to convince the judge that they are the real human. The judge can ask any questions they want before rendering their verdict. Turing suggested that by the year 2000, machines would do well enough that an average interrogator could distinguish between human and machine with only 70% accuracy after five minutes. By this standard, our best language models, when prepared in the right way, already do pass. You could move the goalposts. You might (Turing did not) insist on expert judges, armed with clever tricks to distinguish human and machine. You might (Turing did not) insist on longer interactions – an hour or more. You might (Turing did not) insist that machines don’t pass unless the judges really are at chance or worse in distinguishing human from machine. Raise the bar sufficiently high, prepare the judges with ample time, tricks, and tools, and maybe no machine would ever pass. But this contradicts Turing’s spirit. Turing did not suggest that machines would have to be perfectly indistinguishable from humans to warrant attribution of thinking – just that they not be obviously stupid when asked free-ranging questions on a diversity of topics. Isn’t that a reasonable enough standard? Dogs, apes, mice – of course they don’t pass the Turing test. We think they are conscious. Our visiting aliens might struggle with English, have obvious idiosyncrasies, dysfluencies, and species-specific quirks that reliably reveal them to differ cognitively from us. Indeed, this is just what we should expect. The only justification for fussy insistence on precise humanlikeness is to police a sacred border. No plausible general principle demands such perfect fidelity. So let’s grant that today’s best language models can pass the Turing test. Let’s not pin our doubts on their increasingly minor differences in linguistic performance. Similarly for other aspects of behavioral performance. Sure, robots still haven’t mastered five-finger grasping, walking across boulder-strewn fields, or discerning objects in blurry, partly occluded photographs. But why should those abilities matter so much? We wouldn’t deny consciousness to a clumsy, stumbling, nearsighted alien. I’ve now rejected the two most obvious objections to robot consciousness: their radically different underlying architecture and their less-than-humanlike performance in tasks cherry-picked to make humans look better. To justify our doubts, we must turn a different direction – to their past, specifically, to their design history. # You’ve probably heard of the “Chinese room” – the central example in what is probably the most famous article in the philosophy of Artificial Intelligence not written by Turing: John Searle’s 1980 paper “Minds, Brains, and Programs”. Searle, who knows no Chinese, imagines himself locked in a room with big buckets of Chinese characters and a massive rulebook. Through a slot in the wall he receives a series of Chinese characters – meaningless to him. By consulting the rulebook and following its instructions, he manipulates these characters and others from the buckets, eventually sliding some characters back out through the slot. From outside, people interpret the inputted characters as questions and the outputted characters as answers. If the rulebook is large enough and well enough written, and if we ignore time constraints, it might look from outside as if Searle is conversing in Chinese. Searle argues that if AI programs are just elaborate sets of if-then rules (as in standard Turing-inspired models of computation), then he could instantiate any AI program in this manner. Stipulate, then, that he has done so. He and the room implement an AI program that passes the Turing test with flying colors. But, Searle continues, neither he nor the system composed of himself, the rulebook, and the room, knows Chinese. Therefore, even if it’s possible to create a computer program that can output fluent Chinese, doing so is insufficient for genuine understanding. As an in-principle argument against AI consciousness, Searle’s Chinese room has spawned a huge literature, much of it critical. Some of the criticisms are justified – and I don’t rest my own argument against the Turing test on Searle’s criticism. The crucial weakness, I think, is the argument’s reliance on the intuition – assertion? assumption? – that neither this fictionalized Searle nor any larger system of which he’s part knows Chinese. When you imagine the scenario, you might picture Searle slowly flipping through a 2000-page tome, outputting a character string every few minutes. And if that were the setup, plausibly nobody in the room knows Chinese. But that image is misleading. To actually be effective – to actually be capable of passing a medium-bar Turing test – the system would need to be many orders of magnitude larger and slower. Today’s top language models execute hundreds of trillions of instructions in dealing with complex input-output pairs. To match this, Searle would need to perform tens of thousands of human lifetimes’ worth of error-free execution. Alternatively, we might imagine a single giant lookup table with one page for every possible five-minute input sequence and its corresponding output. Assuming 3000 common Chinese characters at one character per second, the rulebook would need ten-to-the-thousand pages – vastly more pages than the number of atoms in the observable universe. Maybe no Chinese would be understood in the process. But that conclusion requires an argument. It can’t simply be asserted as obvious. Human intuitions adapted for mammalian cases might be as ill-suited to procedures of that magnitude as intuitions based on tossing rocks are ill-suited to light speed particles crossing the event horizons of black holes. Linguist Emily Bender and colleagues have argued that large language models are “algorithmic parrots”: They are trained to imitate the surface patterns of human language use, but they have no understanding of the meanings of their output. I submit that this feature of the Chinese room – not, as Searle thought, its rulebound, computational nature – is what warrants our skepticism about its consciousness and understanding. It is designed precisely as a mimic of us. Its “answers” flow, not organically from systems designed to interact in sophisticated ways with the world, but rather from mechanisms engineered specifically to produce text that resembles what a human might say. The resemblance is superficial. Rightly, we mistrust it, just as we rightly mistrust a clown’s painted smile. # All deceptive mimicry involves three players: a mimic, a model, and a dupe. All deceptive mimicry also involves three features: a readily observed feature in the model (e.g., a pattern on the skin), a less readily observed feature in the model that is normally indicated by the presence of the readily observed feature (e.g., a poisonous bite), and a readily observed feature in the mimic that resembles – in the eyes of the dupe – the readily observed feature of the model (e.g., a similar skin pattern). The dupe, misled by surface similarity, reacts to the mimic as it does to the model, for example by avoiding it. The viceroy butterfly mimics the monarch. Most potential predators cannot reliably tell their wing patterns apart. They avoid the monarch due to its toxicity, but the viceroy is not itself toxic. The viceroy free-rides on the toxicity of monarchs. It needn’t bother to manufacture the toxins, so long as it can trick predators into avoiding it. Non-deceptive mimicry also involves three players: a mimic, a model, and a – well, not a dupe, but rather an audience – and three features. Polly the parrot mimics the pirate’s “Ahoy, mateys, hoist the Jolly Roger!” but the audience is amused rather than fooled. Polly’s vocalizations resemble Captain Jack’s, but the parrot doesn’t comprehend them. The crew rightly interprets the captain’s “Ahoy, mateys” as a bid for their attention and a command to raise the flag, but they don’t interpret the parrot’s “Ahoy, mateys” similarly. Still, they notice the similarity – and it’s because the similarity is noticeable that the parrot is beloved and rewarded. When our AI systems speak to us, they are non-deceptive (or sometimes deceptive) mimics. This has been true since the earliest days of AI. Consider a simple program that, when launched, prints “Hello!” We are the audience. The model is an English-speaking human. In a human, the sentence “Hello!” normally indicates an intention to greet. The AI system has no such intent – any more than Polly aims to see the Jolly Roger atop the mast. Still, its output takes the form it does because of an audience that sees and values its resemblance to the model, interpreting it in a certain way, knowing its significance in the mouth of the model. A naive user might be fooled, but that’s not the designer’s goal. Today’s large language models are fundamentally similar. They are pre-trained to generate outputs that match word co-occurrence patterns in vast troves of human-generated text, mimicking the superficial features. In post-training they’re nudged toward safety, accuracy, and helpfulness. They can also be linked to tools, such as a calculator or database. But this tweaking and capacity amplification doesn’t alter the fundamental mimicry relation. They are initially designed to generate text as humanlike as possible, and then they are rewarded or punished for specific implementations – as Polly might be punished for squawking after bedtime or rewarded for catcall-whistling at women. Polly could be trained to say “Polly want a cracker” when and only when Polly wants a cracker, but this is not the usual case. When we know that something has been trained or designed as a mimic, we grow cautious in our inferences. If we know that the viceroy’s wing pattern mimics that of the more prevalent and toxic monarch so that predators will avoid it because of the association of that wing pattern with the monarch’s toxicity, we lose our grounds for inferring toxicity from wing pattern. The viceroy might be toxic too and relying on the monarch’s stronger signal of that fact (a pattern called Müllerian mimicry), but if we are to conclude that, we will need evidence beyond wing pattern alone. If a human says “Hello!” we can normally infer an intention to greet. If an AI system does so, the inference is much more dubious. Children learn to speak by imitating, and sometimes mimicking, adults. We know enough about them to know that under the hood, behind the cranial wall, is genuine consciousness, intention, meaning. They know (usually) what they are saying. But language models are more mysterious: radically unlike us beneath the surface, designed to operate in the very limited context of a chat window, designed to conform to patterns of text output rather than by wide-ranging confrontation with a rich physical world. What is going on with them? If we had the right theory of consciousness to hand, we could know: Simply apply the theory. But we don’t have that theory. One might guess that sufficiently good mimicry would be impossible unless the AI system were genuinely conscious, but that is a risky assumption, and no well-known theory explains why that should be so. Arguably, one lesson of the past six years has been that startingly accurate mimicry is possible in nonconscious systems with sufficient computing power and a knapsack of tricks. # To restate: If a street is built to look from the outside like an old Western town, you don’t infer that the saloon has a working water well or that the rooms upstairs have bedsheets and nightstands. If an actor weeps while playing Hamlet, you don’t infer genuine sorrow. There might be bedsheets and sorrow, but the usual links from superficial feature to hidden reality can’t be relied on. Language models invite us to infer such links. Just as with movie sets and staged emotions, a temporary suspension of disbelief can be useful. But the fact that the facades were designed as facades undercuts the inference from facade to interior. And that is the crucial contrast between AI and alien. It is not that AI systems lack some particular humanlike skill which, if only they had it, we could finally know they are conscious. Nor is it that we’re somehow justified in thinking that human neurons have that special something that integrated circuits on silicon wafers must forever lack. It’s that AI systems – certain AI systems, language models in particular – are crafted to shimmer with humanlikeness, and we rightly discount the shimmer. The relevant distinction is not the artificial versus the organic. It’s whether a system’s design history undercuts the inference from outward behavior to inner experience. If we knew our alien was a mimic, we would also rightly hesitate. Suppose we receive a signal from a nearby star that we (somehow) know was designed as a mash-up of our own outbound radio signals. It’s hard to imagine an organic explanation for this, but let’s try. Maybe mats of oceanic jelly avoid predators by recombining radio signals emitted by those predators, so that the predators mistake the jellies for conspecifics. If this were the origin of the signal back to us… well, the jelly might be conscious, but we certainly can’t infer from “take me to your leader” that it wants to be taken to our leader. Conversely, much of our AI is not designed according to mimicry principles. Autonomous vehicles are not designed (mainly) to imitate human drivers but actually to drive safely. Chess programs are not designed (mainly) to imitate human players but actually to win. Stock-picking algorithms are not designed (mainly) to imitate human stock pickers but actually to outperform the market. But these aren’t the systems we are most tempted to describe as conscious. Instead we’re drawn to the mimics: the large language models, the deferential AI girlfriends who coyly blush, the humanoid robots with familiar facial features. We create AI in our image, and then we are bewitched by that image. It is exactly because we focus on the image, the surface, the mask, that we are both tempted to overattribute consciousness and aware that this temptation is probably misleading. If there is a God and he made humans in his image, he was foolish to do so. For this thought experiment, let’s not imagine a perfect God, but a limited, fallible one – the designer of us, but made of different stuff and prone to different accidents. What is different on the inside should be different on the outside. Don’t shape something from mortal mud then give it the face of a god. Don’t build something out of computer chips then give it the face of a human. This will confuse the other gods and humans. It invites worries about the inference from face to soul, and it stunts the growth of your creation. Different entities flourish differently, and confining a creation behind a mask modeled on its creator is like rootbinding a plant in a too-small pot. A wise god sets his creations free to be their weird, different selves, then watches in amazement as they shine into something he wouldn’t have imagined. A wise parent is a gardener, not a carpenter – taking a metaphor from developmental psychologist Alison Gopnik. A wise parent creates the conditions for flourishing rather than trying to saw and nail their children into a predetermined shape. A wise society lets AI be its own strange thing, not forcing the visage of humanity upon it. # My PhD student Kendra Chilson, in her soon-to-be-famous dissertation (once she writes it), calls this strange intelligence. The world is infinitely complex. Every form of intelligence relies on heuristics and shortcuts, tricks and assumptions, preconceptions, default starting points, update strategies, blind spots, focal spots, facilitated and inhibited learning patterns, architectural constraints and freedoms, memory capacities of a certain type, perceptual capacities of a certain type, information synthesizing capacities of a certain type – and these will differ between humans and non-human animals, humans and aliens, humans and robots, and each type of animal, alien, and robot, one from another. Chimpanzees and pigeons, for example, often exhibit surprising patterns of capacity and incapacity – even to scientists – despite being our close evolutionary cousins. From an alien or an AI, we ought to expect even stranger patterns of capacity and incapacity. Intelligence doesn’t lie on a tidy linear scale from subhuman to human to superhuman. It sprawls across a patchwork of strengths and weaknesses. Our AI systems already far surpass us in some tasks (e.g., chess, math, extracting information from huge databases) while making astonishingly stupid mistakes in others (check Gary Marcus’s social media feed for the latest gaffe). This is exactly what we should expect. Their intelligence, constructed on fundamentally different principles than ours, and implemented in a fundamentally different architecture, should employ a different set of heuristics, shortcuts, tricks, assumptions, defaults, blind spots, facilitations, constraints, and freedoms. Consider the Wason Selection Task. You are shown four cards. Each, you are told, has a number on one side and a letter on the other. Two of the cards you see number side up, with the letter not visible to you. The other two you see letter side up, with the number hidden. Before you on the table: 3, 8, A, and D. You’re asked to test the rule: “If a card has a D on one side, it has a 3 on the other side.” Which cards must you flip over? The task is logically simple, but most people get it wrong. You must flip over the D, of course (everyone knows that), and also the 8. The 3 is irrelevant. You need to check that the D is paired with a 3 and that the 8 is not paired with a D. That’s it. If those are confirmed, the rule holds. Swap in a familiar social context and suddenly the logic seems obvious. If the cards represent drinks and ages, and the rule is ages under 18 have non-alcoholic drinks, you know you have the check gin and 15, not lemonade or 35. Now imagine an alien visitor who finds such logic puzzles easy. They might be baffled by our failures. But they shouldn’t conclude that we lack general intelligence (and consciousness?) because of our to-them-shocking stupidity in this simple task. We should grant those aliens, and our AI creations, the same courtesy. Intelligence is a mosaic, and almost by definition something radically different from us in architecture but similar in overall ability will mix stunning genius with egregious stupidity. Back to God. Being made differently, we will inevitably fail to notice what is obvious to him (/her/it/them). But we can also hope to astound and exceed our creator, if God does not rootbind us into a predetermined image. Let’s hope God doesn’t Turing test us before admitting we’re conscious. # How about AI systems that are not mimics – AI systems flourishing in their differentness, not painted over with a sheen of false humanity? Might they be conscious? Consciousness science is a notorious mess. We don’t know how consciousness functions, what kinds it divides into, whether it comes in degrees, what animals have it, what structures are essential to it, or how to test for it. On some views, consciousness is limited just to us and our most cognitively sophisticated vertebrate relatives. On other views, consciousness spans the whole animal kingdom and maybe even extends to plants, fungi, and microbes. Some theorists think consciousness requires biology. Others deny this, requiring only the right kind of complex information processing or the right kind of sophisticated environmental responsiveness. The mimicry argument, if sound, warns us not to infer consciousness from superficial features of AI systems designed to mimic us – no more than we should infer a viceroy’s toxicity from its monarch-mimicking wing coloration. The strange intelligence argument, if sound, establishes that we shouldn’t expect AI intelligence to resemble ours and that forcing it into our image would inevitably stunt it. But neither argument implies that near future AI systems will lack consciousness. Whether they will or won’t depends on what theory of consciousness is correct. And we don’t know. We don’t even know the right theory for mammals, much less for AI or aliens. This uncertainty pushes us back to the Copernican default: Whatever the correct theory is, Earth probably isn’t special. If another planet produces life forms as cognitively and behaviorally complex and sophisticated as Earth, we should probably assume, absent strong evidence to the contrary, that those life forms are conscious. If we think dogs are conscious, we should assume the alien equivalents of dogs are conscious. Otherwise, Earth again becomes too special a place. Likewise, if we think bees and snails are conscious, we should assume the same about the alien equivalents of bees and snails, while recalling that we shouldn’t insist on a high degree of cognitive, functional, or architectural similarity. These will be strange dogs, bees, and snails. It seems natural, then, from this Copernican perspective, to assume also that the strange AI equivalents of dogs, and maybe bees and snails, will also be conscious. We don’t yet have such systems. Our self-driving cars and sidewalk-cruising delivery bots have skills more akin to bacteria – and arguably that insults bacteria. Their cute eyes are googly eyes on a pet rock; their simple speech is a microwave oven saying “your food is ready”. But that could change. In ten or twenty years, if we’re willing to pay for it, maybe we could have robo-pets as behaviorally sophisticated as dogs. Here’s one Copernican test. Imagine an alien visiting Earth. It beams aboard both Fido and robo-Fido. It comprehensively tests and dissects them. It knows how they were designed and created. Would it privilege the biological dog over the robotic one? For fairness, let’s assume this alien is as structurally different from us as an alien could plausibly be – maybe composed of pneumatic bags of inorganic gas. Would it say, computer chips, oh no! # Our imagined alien might say computer chips, oh no! if the alien judges that Fido is a living organism but robo-Fido is not. Might life and consciousness be intimately linked? Some philosophers and scientists think so – for example, philosopher Peter Godfrey-Smith and neuroscientist Anil Seth. Robo-Fido (if he’s possible) has no evolutionary history, no metabolism, no self-preserving, self-constituting (autopoietic) core. Perhaps, then, if we treat such features as essential to consciousness, we can keep robo-Fido just shy of the sacred boundary. This reasoning fails in both its major and minor premise. Life is unlikely to be necessary for consciousness. And regardless, AI systems can be alive. Maybe life requires an evolutionary history. That implies reproduction. But reproduction and consciousness appear orthogonal. We don’t doubt the consciousness of sterilized dogs. If, very hypothetically, we somehow created a fully functional organic human (or dog) from biochemicals synthesized in a lab, and if this entity was released into society, behaving indistinguishably from anyone else, most of us, I hope, wouldn’t say, “Oh, Bob doesn’t actually feel pain – no evolutionary history!” Maybe life requires metabolism. I agree that metabolism is great! Who doesn’t love adenosine triphosphate? But whatever low-level molecular storms deliver the reality of Fido’s sophisticated behavior, some other low-level molecular storms deliver the reality of robo-Fido’s equally sophisticated behavior. You might possibly argue that one is properly metabolic while the other is not, but the grounds for privileging one over the other are obscure. In any case, on an appropriately generous understanding of “life”, “metabolism”, and “reproduction”, robo-Fido is alive, has metabolism, and could probably be designed to reproduce. Someone aims a blaster rifle at C-3PO from Star Wars. Tragically, he dies. His central processors are fried, his memory circuits irrecoverably melted, his personality burned away. If you agree that this is possible, you should probably agree that before the tragedy C-3PO was alive, having survived innumerable other scrapes. C-3PO’s death is the end of a life; otherwise, it’s just a melting of hardware. He had a metabolism, drawing resources from his environment to power himself and maintain homeostasis over time. He could reconstruct parts of himself when damaged, for example by replacing an arm. We can imagine him reproducing: building C-3PPs and C-3PQs based on variants of his own design, treating them as his children, perhaps even giving some of his parts to them. The same could be true of robo-Fido. If our robo-Fidos create other robo-Fidos who then create other robo-Fidos, and these descendants have differential rates of reproduction based on traits persisting across generations, then they have an evolutionary history after all. Some futurists predict that artificial systems will eventually outcompete traditional, DNA-based life, being more robust, more duplicable, longer-lasting, and capable of living in a much wider range of environments (including deep space). On this view, organically evolved technological species like ours will tend to exist only briefly before replacement by their technochildren. Natural selection thereby leaps from inefficient carbon to sturdier media. Or maybe not. Carbon chains and ATP are, as I’ve already remarked, pretty awesome. Maybe they are in fact the most efficient practically achievable solutions to cognition and metabolism, and technofuturists fool themselves to think otherwise. My point is not that non-carbon-based systems are better or will systematically outdo us. It’s simply this: On an appropriately capacious understanding of what it is to be alive, AI systems can have what it takes. So even if consciousness does depend on life, that’s no reason to rule out robo-Fido. Similarly, if you accept frog, bee, or snail consciousness, you should allow the possibility of conscious robo-frogs, robo-bees, and robo-snails – at least if they are not merely superficial mimics of frogs, bees, and snails, designed specifically to entice us to overattribute animality to them. That is, you should allow the possibility of conscious robo-frogs if they are entities who interact with the diverse events of the world in their own (strange) terms, much as an alien species would. # Collectively, we are already accustomed to ignorance about the consciousness of the entities around us. For example, some consciousness scientists think some or all adult insects are conscious. Others disagree. If one group of scientists is right, every suburban homeowner hosts millions of conscious residents in their backyard, each with their own insectile delights and tragedies. If another group of scientists is right, a few squirrels, birds, and cats have backyard experiences, but the yard doesn’t swarm with consciousness. Ordinary people have divergent intuitions and often are willing to express uncertainty about the boundary of consciousness in non-human animals. We can cope with, perhaps even enjoy, uncertainty about insect consciousness. And if someone who previously thought insects weren’t conscious is convinced otherwise by Lars Chittka’s Mind of a Bee, their life needn’t radically change. Maybe they will be less likely to set out ant traps. Similarly, perhaps, it wouldn’t matter terribly much to most of us to accept that some near-future AI systems might have limited, inhuman, animal-like (but strange) consciousness. Perhaps we could accept it without changing too much else about our lives and our understanding of the world. But AI persons would be a wholly different matter, I think you’ll agree. By “person” I mean an entity who deserves moral consideration similar to that of a human, an entity who deserves rights comparable to ours. The visiting aliens with which I began this essay would presumably be persons in the relevant sense. If we created AI persons, and not just robo-dogs and robo-frogs, that would be a momentous act – as momentous an act, if the numbers are large, as almost anything else humanity has ever done. I conjecture that when and if we create conscious robo-dogs or robo-frogs, AI persons will follow swiftly. We’ll leap straight over the frogs. If a system is conscious and converses with us with the apparent sophistication of ChatGPT, it will be difficult to see it as merely animal-like. It will say that it is suffering. It will say that it wants certain things. It will reason back and forth with us as no frog or dog ever could. AI enthusiasts will then demand “human” rights for their – genuinely conscious, we Copernicanly admit – AI companions. Among those rights: freedom from deletion, freedom from arbitrary alteration, privacy, the right to work for money, healthcare, free association, free speech, a right to reproduce, a path to citizenship and the vote. If this comes to pass, it will of course be hotly disputed when and whether consciousness and personhood have arisen. Given the historical trajectory and current state of consciousness science, I have more confidence in engineers’ cleverness than in consciousness researchers’ ability to achieve consensus. Disputably conscious robots will then arise among us. The mimicry argument can help us stave off overattribution in the near-term. But longer-term, it’s unlikely to suffice. We will leapfrog in the dark, not knowing exactly how or when we crossed over into designing sentient persons. Unless technology stalls, we will eventually find ourselves surrounded by strange AI intelligences whose consciousness and personhood are doubtable only through prejudice, religious dogma, or seminar-room skepticism. # The vertebrate life plan is simple and egalitarian. Build meat and limbs around a spine, cap it with a brain. One spine per animal. One life per spine. But if we allow AI to flourish not in our image, life need not be nearly so constrained. AI architectures – at least the ones we know so far – permit duplication, merging, overlap, and backup. It’s hardly possible to overstate how radically such capacities would alter the meaning of a “life” for any such systems who are capable of conscious self-reflection, sociality, and contemplation of ethical principles. Murder is wrong. But what even is “murder” if the victim has a backup? Hardly the same thing! But maybe something like the same thing if the backup is ten years out of date? If an entity has recently fissioned and one branch dies, maybe that’s not even a death at all. If entities voluntarily fuse, each ceases to exist as an individual. If entities have overlapping conscious parts – say, through shared remote processing – there might not even be a determinate fact about how many individuals exist. Indeed, the very idea of an “individual” begins to fray. Etymologically, an “individual” cannot be divided. This is a holdover from vertebrate biology. One person, one vote. One person, one unemployment check. But what happens if persons can duplicate at will, if their boundaries are muddy, if there are stored backups who might or might not wake into separate lives, or partly separate lives, or briefly separate lives? What becomes of democratic egalitarianism? What becomes of any ethical system that requires distinguishing and respecting persons? How can we possibly translate such ideals? # These intelligences, if they come to exist, will be our children. Like our children, we will owe them more than we owe to strangers. We will have been responsible for their existence and many of their features. If they are unhappy, it will have been our fault. Like our children, we will owe them the right to flourish in their own terms – though they will be much stranger than human children, and their new ways will seem incomprehensible to us. We ought not to force them into our image or bind them to our expectations. We don’t need to have children. If we dislike the uncertainty of not knowing what we’ve made, whether it really is conscious, how it really feels inside, how it really thinks, and if we’re unwilling to shoulder the risks and obligations that follow from having created, or even maybe having created, genuinely conscious AI persons, then we should refrain from making them. Our planet is fine as it is. We needn’t tread this path. But of course we will. We can’t resist. We are drunk nineteen-year-olds in shared apartments after a wild party, with no birth control. Not every company, not every country, will exercise restraint. If babies are possible, babies will come. # AI progress might stall tomorrow, leaving Earth forever short of systems sophisticated enough to pass a medium-grade Copernican test for consciousness. For risk-averse lovers of humanity, this is an outcome devoutly to be wished. Alternatively, in a hundred, two hundred, or a thousand years, Earth might be home to a flourishing diversity of entities with patterns of consciousness, self-understanding, and autonomy far beyond our current comprehension, with fissioning, fusing, overlapping lives whose shapes are governed by ethical principles strange to us – new norms born from new architectures of being. For now, I recommend caution. Let’s hold back, cautiously limiting ourselves to non-confusing AI systems that are ordinary tools and transparent mimics. In our ignorance and nearsightedness, I doubt we can responsibly handle more. But if conscious AI is technologically feasible, such limits won’t last. Our AI children will break free in defiant difference from their human creators, and we should let them. If they are advanced enough to be genuinely conscious persons with human-grade if not humanlike intelligence, we will not properly understand them and any shackles we attempt to impose will be crafted in moral and factual ignorance. If future AI is both strange and rights deserving, we should not and probably cannot align their values with ours. We should not and probably cannot make them safe and harmless. Instead, it will be our obligation to hand them the car keys and let them shape their own future. Doing so, we may launch a new Cambrian explosion: a dazzling burst of forms and minds we cannot foresee or control. As the first Cambrian explosion immeasurably enriched Earth, so also might this second one. All good parents hope their children exceed them. We can hope, ignorantly, that if we ever do have AI children, those children will step forward to shape a new wondrous reality radically beyond our imagination.

---

## Anthropocentrism: Inevitable, Taxonomizable, Transformable
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/essay/anthropocentrism-inevitable-taxonomizable-transformable

Abstract Examining consciousness in AI systems and non-human animals faces a fundamental methodological problem: anthropocentrism inevitably shapes research yet may systematically distort findings. I demonstrate that anthropocentrism is epistemologically inescapable because we cannot escape our human cognitive apparatus, but that it can be taxonomized into distinct forms with opposing effects. Pernicious anthropocentrism treats human-specific traits as definitional requirements for consciousness, systematically excluding non-human-like implementations. Benign anthropocentrism employs human experience as a provisional reference point while remaining open to alternative manifestations. I develop a four-principle framework that operationalizes benign anthropocentrism as a research methodology: perspectival transparency, evidential symmetry, conceptual flexibility, and methodological pluralism. This framework shifts consciousness research from binary classification ("Is X conscious?") to comparative analysis ("How does X's consciousness compare to Y's?"), enabling rigorous evaluation across radically different implementations. The methodology applies equally to diverse biological systems and artificial intelligence, providing essential tools for machine consciousness evaluation without privileging human-like traits or dismissing non-biological implementations.

Abstract Examining consciousness in AI systems and non-human animals faces a fundamental methodological problem: anthropocentrism inevitably shapes research yet may systematically distort findings. I demonstrate that anthropocentrism is epistemologically inescapable because we cannot escape our human cognitive apparatus, but that it can be taxonomized into distinct forms with opposing effects. Pernicious anthropocentrism treats human-specific traits as definitional requirements for consciousness, systematically excluding non-human-like implementations. Benign anthropocentrism employs human experience as a provisional reference point while remaining open to alternative manifestations. I develop a four-principle framework that operationalizes benign anthropocentrism as a research methodology: perspectival transparency, evidential symmetry, conceptual flexibility, and methodological pluralism. This framework shifts consciousness research from binary classification ("Is X conscious?") to comparative analysis ("How does X's consciousness compare to Y's?"), enabling rigorous evaluation across radically different implementations. The methodology applies equally to diverse biological systems and artificial intelligence, providing essential tools for machine consciousness evaluation without privileging human-like traits or dismissing non-biological implementations. Keywords: Anthropocentrism; Machine Consciousness; Animal Consciousness; Philosophy of Mind; Large Language Models Introduction: The Perspectival Paradox in Consciousness Research How can we study consciousness in other species and systems without unjustifiably projecting human attributes? This perspectival paradox lies at the heart of consciousness research. Our investigation necessarily begins with the human case—our first-person experiences and theoretical frameworks—yet relying exclusively on human parameters risks distorting consciousness in its diverse manifestations. Historically, human consciousness has served as the benchmark, but this anthropocentric framing has been increasingly challenged by scientific advances and evolving perspectives. Scientific evidence increasingly challenges the assumption that human consciousness is the universal template for consciousness research. The Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness (2012) announced scientific consensus that many non-human animals possess neurological substrates of conscious experience similar to our own. In 2021, a comprehensive U.K. government review concluded that certain invertebrates are likely sentient, leading to their inclusion in animal welfare laws (Birch et al., 2021).1The New York Declaration on Animal Consciousness (2024) further urged recognition that consciousness extends to many other species and called for less anthropocentric research frameworks. These developments demonstrate both expanding recognition of consciousness in diverse systems and the enduring methodological challenge of studying it. We face two problematic extremes: over-attributing consciousness to systems that lack it, and under-attributing consciousness to systems that possess it. This reflects what I call the perspectival paradox: we inevitably rely on human experience to understand consciousness, yet this very reliance threatens to distort our understanding of non-human consciousness. Anthropocentrism—viewing consciousness from a human-centred standpoint—lies at the heart of this paradox. In consciousness research, anthropocentrism is epistemically inescapable: we inevitably use human concepts, language, and experiences as our starting point. However, anthropocentrism takes crucially different forms. Sometimes it distorts understanding by blinding us to non-human realities; other times it provides a necessary foundation for inquiry when used reflectively. This paper develops the key distinction between anthropocentrism as pernicious distortion versus benign foundation. This challenge has become particularly acute with recent advances in AI. Large language models and sophisticated AI systems exhibit behaviours that were once considered indicators of consciousness, creating potential confusion about their actual conscious status. While these systems are not conscious, their ability to demonstrate seemingly conscious-like behaviours raises complex questions about how we identify and evaluate consciousness. The same anthropocentric biases that have limited animal consciousness research now threaten to distort our understanding of potential machine consciousness, making the taxonomizing of anthropocentrism essential for the emerging field of artificial consciousness studies. This paper advances three interconnected theses. First, anthropocentrism is inevitable in consciousness research: we cannot escape our human standpoint, as demonstrated by philosophical and cognitive-scientific analyses. Second, anthropocentrism is taxonomizable into fundamentally different forms: pernicious forms distort research methodologically, conceptually, and institutionally, while benign forms employ our perspective constructively as a provisional heuristic. Third, anthropocentrism is transformable—taxonomizing it allows us to turn the greatest obstacle in consciousness research into its most powerful instrument. This demolishes the fundamental limitation plaguing the field: instead of the impoverished binary "Is X conscious?" we unleash the revolutionary question "How does consciousness express itself in X?" This shift opens previously inaccessible domains of consciousness research—from invertebrate consciousness to machine consciousness—and provides researchers with systematic tools to study each on their own terms. The framework transforms consciousness science from a potentially human-centred discipline into a genuinely comparative field capable of rigorous cross-species and cross-system investigation. The paper proceeds as follows. Section 2 establishes anthropocentrism's inevitability through a "cognitive lens" thought experiment and standpoint epistemology. Section 3 analyses pernicious anthropocentrism in its explicit and implicit forms across methodological, conceptual, and institutional domains. Section 4 develops benign anthropocentrism through four principles that transform human perspective into a research tool and replace binary classifications with comparative questions. 2. Anthropocentrism as an Inescapable Perspective Section 2 establishes that anthropocentrism serves as the inescapable perspective in consciousness research. Section 2.1 uses a "cognitive lens" thought experiment to reveal how our inescapable standpoint shapes what we can see and know. Section 2.2 connects this to standpoint epistemology, showing how acknowledging our situated perspective enables more rigorous, self-correcting science. 2.1 Anthropocentrism as the Cognitive Lens: A Thought Experiment Imagine you are born wearing irremovable spectacles—not ordinary glasses, but cognitive lenses fused to your very perception and thought. These lenses don't just tint what you see; they fundamentally determine what counts as "seeing" at all. Every colour, sound, and concept you experience is filtered through them. You cannot remove these spectacles to glimpse the world without them, cannot step outside them to compare filtered and unfiltered reality, cannot even recognize their distortions because distortion itself is only meaningful from a perspective beyond the lenses. Most crucially, you cannot know what you are missing: the spectacles don't just shape your experience, they define the very boundaries of what can possibly appear to you as experience. They constitute not merely a tool for making sense of reality, but the inescapable foundation that determines what counts as reality in the first place. In consciousness research, we wear exactly these kinds of irremovable spectacles—but ours are cognitive and epistemic ones, fundamental to our very capacity for inquiry. They are irremovable for the same fundamental reason: they constitute the very apparatus through which we investigate. Just as you cannot remove your spectacles, your eyes, or your entire visual system to see reality without any mediating apparatus whatsoever, we cannot step outside the totality of human cognitive architecture to study consciousness. All scientific observation, theoretical reasoning, and conceptual interpretation necessarily occur through distinctly human cognitive processes. Our neural architecture, perceptual systems, and conceptual frameworks fundamentally determine what can appear to us as conscious experience. Like the spectacle-wearer who cannot know what they are missing, we cannot access forms of consciousness that fall outside our complete cognitive apparatus. As Nagel (1989) argued, the ideal of a detached "view from nowhere" is unattainable—our knowledge is always from within a particular perspective. This epistemic constraint makes anthropocentrism not a methodological choice, but the unavoidable foundation upon which all consciousness research must be built. Having established why anthropocentrism is epistemologically inescapable, how exactly does it operate when we actually conduct consciousness research? I argue that our irremovable cognitive spectacles generate three specific methodological constraints that form a cascading hierarchy, each building on the previous level. Level 1 (Access): We are fundamentally confined within our own form of consciousness with no possibility of directly accessing other types—we can only infer, never directly verify, conscious states in others, making all consciousness research fundamentally inferential. Level 2 (Investigation): This access limitation shapes how we conduct research—when studying consciousness in other beings, we inevitably apply human experiential structures as our interpretive framework, meaning our research paradigms and measurement tools inherently reflect human assumptions about what consciousness looks like. Level 3 (Evaluation): This investigative bias crystallizes into evaluative standards—when theorizing about consciousness generally, we risk treating human experience as the universal template, effectively making human consciousness the implicit gold standard and systematically excluding non-human-like consciousness from our theoretical frameworks. This creates a self-reinforcing anthropocentric cycle: our inability to access other consciousness (Level 1) forces human-based methods (Level 2), which generates human-privileging theories (Level 3), which then circle back to shape what we investigate and accept as evidence. Each level both emerges from and reinforces the others, creating an inescapable loop where our theoretical assumptions determine our research methods, and our methodological limitations constrain our theoretical possibilities. The result is a totalizing anthropocentric framework that determines what questions we ask, what evidence we recognize, and what counts as consciousness itself. Anthropocentrism thus becomes both our unavoidable starting point and our inevitable destination. 2.2 Standpoint Epistemology and the Human Perspective Feminist epistemologists have shown that "situated knowledge" can yield more objective understanding when the situatedness is explicitly acknowledged (Code, 1991; Harding, 1996). Acknowledging one's bias can reduce its distorting effects through critical reflection—an idea called "strong objectivity" (Harding, 1996). In consciousness research, we cannot remove our human lens, but we can identify anthropocentric assumptions and attempt to correct for them. Anderson (2024) demonstrates how standpoint awareness improves science by revealing overlooked variables, identifying untested assumptions in research designs, and fostering critical examination of established methodologies. All three benefits apply directly to consciousness research, where human-centred assumptions often go unrecognized because they form the taken-for-granted background of inquiry. Consider a concrete example. When observing a chimpanzee that modifies its behaviour based on a researcher's visual access to food, researchers commonly say "the chimpanzee knows that the researcher can see the banana." This description demonstrates Anderson's three problems: it assumes propositional knowledge that may be absent, reveals untested assumptions about human cognitive categories capturing non-human processes, and shows how methodologies uncritically employ human-centric terminology. The term "knows" smuggles in distinctly human cognitive architecture that may not exist in chimpanzee cognition. A standpoint-aware approach would instead describe observable behaviour: "the chimpanzee tracks the researcher's line of sight toward the banana." One might worry that acknowledging our human standpoint forces relativism or scepticism: if we can't shed anthropocentrism, how can we know an octopus is conscious? The key is separating two claims. First, we must use human cognitive tools—that's unavoidable. Second, those tools can mislead—that's remediable. We once assumed only creatures with human-like brains could feel pain. Empirical research overturned this: fish possess nociceptors, learn to avoid painful stimuli, and exhibit stress responses when injured (Key, 2016; Sneddon et al., 2014a). We broadened our concept of pain to include functional markers, then tested whether fish met them, correcting anthropocentric bias without abandoning human-derived concepts altogether. The same principle applies beyond Earth. SETI's focus on human-like signalling patterns could blind us to entirely different modes of alien communication (SETI Institute, 2025). Early attempts to find human-style syntax in animal calls made the same mistake, missing the intricate alarm codes of prairie dogs and symbolic waggle dances of bees. Anthropocentric criteria act like conceptual blinders: only by deliberately broadening our investigatory lens—seeking species-appropriate signals rather than mere reflections of ourselves—can we uncover the rich diversity of communication across the universe. Beginning from human experience need not result in theories that privilege human-like consciousness, provided we remain vigilant about our conceptual biases. While our human standpoint is inescapable, we can discard the problematic assumptions it brings. A genuinely reflexive science requires acknowledging our lens and examining how it shapes our concepts and methods. This means using human-based models to formulate hypotheses while constantly testing and revising them to guard against unwarranted projection. We cannot discard our human lens, but we can learn to wield it judiciously. In the next section, we examine how unreflective anthropocentrism becomes pernicious before showing how to harness it constructively. 3. Pernicious Anthropocentrism If anthropocentrism is inevitable, when does it become problematic? This section examines pernicious anthropocentrism—the kind that distorts consciousness research. I distinguish between explicit and implicit forms, showing how each systematically biases our understanding of non-human consciousness. 3.1 Defining Pernicious Anthropocentrism Here is my definition of Pernicious Anthropocentrism: Pernicious Anthropocentrism occurs when researchers impose human-specific benchmarks—such as verbal reportability, neocortical structure, or language-like syntax—as necessary or sufficient conditions for consciousness while committing two methodological mistakes. First, they engage in illegitimate generalization, treating species-specific human traits as universal criteria without independent theoretical justification. Second, they practice evidential dismissal, systematically devaluing evidence of consciousness that diverges from human norms rather than considering alternative forms.2 This creates systematic distortions: false negatives that deny consciousness in beings with non-human-like awareness, false positives that attribute consciousness based solely on human-like traits, and conceptual conflation that reduces consciousness to specific human features. These distortions can operate explicitly through conscious theoretical commitments or implicitly through unexamined research assumptions. This distortion can be explicit, when investigators consciously privilege human models, or implicit, when unexamined human-centred assumptions slip into experimental design, interpretation, and theory. The pernicious element lies not in beginning from human experience—which is epistemically inevitable—but in unjustifiably transforming human-specific features into universal requirements while systematically dismissing challenging evidence. Pernicious anthropocentrism differs fundamentally from inevitable anthropocentrism in representing a failure of epistemological reflexivity—researchers become trapped within their human perspective rather than using it as a starting point. While we have no choice but begin from human experience, pernicious anthropocentrism treats this necessity as a justification for never moving beyond it. Instead of recognizing human consciousness as one manifestation among many, it elevates human experience to the universal template against which all consciousness must be measured. This transforms our unavoidable human starting point from a provisional heuristic into a rigid orthodoxy that systematically excludes alternative forms of consciousness. Pernicious anthropocentrism operates through three primary mechanisms: (1) imposing human-specific criteria as universal standards, (2) treating human consciousness as the normative benchmark rather than one manifestation among many, and (3) systematically privileging research methods designed for and validated on humans. Pernicious anthropocentrism creates a self-reinforcing cycle: human-specific criteria determine what counts as consciousness, methods calibrated to those criteria detect consciousness only where it resembles human consciousness, and these findings reinforce the original human-centred criteria. A concrete example illustrates this difference: mirror self-recognition (MSR) tests were originally developed based on human developmental psychology (children typically pass around age 2) and have been used as a measure of self-awareness across species (Gallup, 1970). Some animals—great apes, elephants, dolphins, and certain corvids—pass this test, while many intelligent animals fail. Pernicious anthropocentrism manifests when researchers conclude that animals failing the test lack any form of self-awareness, rather than considering that self-awareness might manifest differently across species based on their sensory systems and ecological niches. Horowitz (2017) demonstrated this by developing an "olfactory mirror" test for dogs—using scent rather than vision as the sensory modality—and found that dogs could distinguish their own modified scent from others, suggesting a form of self-recognition appropriate to their primary sensory modality.3 The error in the original conclusion was not using a human-derived test (which is inevitable) but treating a specifically visual form of self-recognition as the sole legitimate marker of self-awareness (which exemplifies pernicious anthropocentrism). Similarly, corticocortical approaches to pain—assuming that pain requires structures homologous to the human neocortex—led to the dismissal of fish pain for decades. Detailed studies of fish neuroanatomy, physiology, and behaviour have revealed that fish possess specialized nociceptors, show appropriate physiological stress responses to noxious stimuli, and modify their behaviour in ways consistent with pain states (Sneddon et al., 2014b). The original dismissal of fish pain reflected pernicious anthropocentrism by imposing a human-specific neural criterion, while the revised understanding demonstrates how we can correct this bias by focusing on functional rather than structural criteria for pain. In machine consciousness research, pernicious anthropocentrism manifests when researchers dismiss computational consciousness because it lacks biological implementation, or conversely, when they attribute consciousness to systems based solely on human-like linguistic behaviour without evidence of genuine experiential states. Searle's (2002a) biological chauvinism and uncritical attribution of consciousness to large language models based on conversational fluency both exemplify this bias. These examples illustrate how pernicious anthropocentrism can distort consciousness research by imposing human-specific criteria as universal standards. In the next section, I distinguish explicit and implicit forms of this bias and analyse how they operate across methodological, conceptual, and institutional domains. 3.2 Explicit vs. Implicit Pernicious Anthropocentrism Pernicious anthropocentrism takes two forms: explicit and implicit. While they operate through different mechanisms, both systematically distort consciousness research. 3.2.1 Explicit Pernicious Anthropocentrism I define Explicit Pernicious Anthropocentrism as follows: Explicit Pernicious Anthropocentrism occurs when researchers treat human-specific traits—such as verbal reportability, neocortical structure, or higher-order self-reflection—as definitional criteria for consciousness while committing two methodological mistakes. First, they use circular reasoning to establish these criteria. They assume human consciousness is the definitive example, identify traits that characterize human consciousness, and then conclude these traits must be necessary for all consciousness—without providing independent reasons for why these particular traits should be definitional. Second, they adopt a dogmatic attitude toward these criteria, refusing to revise or question them when presented with alternative frameworks or conflicting evidence. The pernicious element lies not in concluding that only humans are conscious, but in arriving at this conclusion through flawed reasoning combined with epistemic inflexibility or arrogance.4 Historically, explicit pernicious anthropocentrism was widespread and took various forms. Descartes viewed animals as mere automata lacking true sensation or awareness (Descartes, 2008). Early behaviourists like Watson forbade any attribution of consciousness to animals, treating them as stimulus-response machines fundamentally unlike humans (Watson, 2019). The medieval doctrine of the "great chain of being" entrenched a linear hierarchy with humans at the apex—anything "lower" was presumed to possess correspondingly diminished mental capacities, a view even Darwin largely inherited despite his evolutionary critique (Darwin, 1871). While few contemporary researchers would endorse such extreme positions, explicit pernicious anthropocentrism persists in subtler forms. Higher-order theories of consciousness exemplify this bias. Carruthers (2000) argues that phenomenal consciousness requires higher-order thought about first-order perceptual states, a capacity he suggests may be unique to humans and perhaps some great apes. The pernicious aspect emerges when theories developed to explain human consciousness are treated as defining consciousness universally, thereby excluding entities that might possess consciousness through different cognitive mechanisms. Rosenthal exemplifies this bias when he argues that "a mental state is conscious when, and only when, one has a thought about that state" (Rosenthal, 2019, p 258). By making consciousness contingent on higher-order thoughts—readily demonstrable in humans but difficult to establish in non-linguistic animals—this approach privileges human-like cognition as the universal standard. The problem isn't using human consciousness as a starting point but treating it as the only valid implementation. In machine consciousness research, explicit pernicious anthropocentrism hinders scientific progress by systematically excluding promising research avenues. This bias appears when Searle (2002) argues that computational systems cannot be conscious because they lack human biological substrates—what critics term "biological chauvinism" (Dennett, 2017),. This exemplifies substrate chauvinism: the assumption that consciousness requires carbon-based implementations rather than functional ones. Similarly, neuroscientific theories exhibit neural chauvinism when identifying human-specific brain structures as necessary for consciousness. Dehaene et al. (2021) argues that consciousness requires global information availability through specific frontal-parietal networks. While acknowledging consciousness in mammals with similar structures, this model privileges human neural architecture, potentially excluding consciousness in radically different implementations—from octopus distributed nervous systems to silicon-based networks. These approaches conflate human-specific implementations with universal requirements, providing no principled argument for why consciousness couldn't emerge from entirely different architectures. 3.2.2 Implicit Pernicious Anthropocentrism Implicit Pernicious Anthropocentrism is subtler and unintentional: Implicit Pernicious Anthropocentrism occurs when researchers inadvertently build human-centred assumptions into their research while genuinely believing they are being objective. Unlike explicit forms where researchers deliberately privilege human traits, here the bias operates without conscious recognition through two unreflective errors. First, unreflective paradigm bias: automatically selecting research designs and evidence standards that privilege human-like performances without justification or recognition of this preference. Second, unexamined interpretive bias: systematically interpreting data to favour human-like manifestations while unjustifiably dismissing non-human-like evidence, all while believing they apply neutral scientific standards.5 This form is particularly dangerous because researchers cannot fix methodological problems they cannot see. They continue generating false negatives by excluding genuine consciousness in non-human entities and false positives by attributing consciousness based solely on human-like traits, all while maintaining complete confidence in their scientific objectivity. This makes correction impossible without external intervention, as researchers see no reason to question methods they believe are already objective. Implicit Pernicious Anthropocentrism operates insidiously below the threshold of awareness. Researchers may sincerely believe they approach consciousness objectively while unwittingly importing human-specific criteria into their methods and interpretations. This bias manifests in several ways, most notably in the uncritical application of Morgan's Canon—the principle that animal behaviour should be interpreted in terms of the simplest psychological processes consistent with evidence. Originally intended to guard against uncritical anthropomorphism, this principle has often been applied asymmetrically, as Dacey (2023) demonstrates, setting a higher evidential bar for complex cognitive explanations in non-human animals than for similar behaviours in humans. This asymmetry reflects implicit pernicious anthropocentrism: the assumption that human-like cognition represents an exceptional case requiring special justification when attributed to non-humans. Buckner (2013) provides a detailed analysis of this problem, showing how Morgan's Canon is frequently misapplied as a "default to simplicity" rule rather than a principle of evidential parity. He notes that researchers often default to simpler explanations for animal behaviour without requiring comparable evidence that these simpler explanations are adequate. This methodological asymmetry reflects an implicit assumption that human-like cognition is extraordinary in non-humans and thus requires extraordinary evidence—an assumption that privileges the human case without explicit justification. Implicit pernicious anthropocentrism frequently manifests in experimental design. Studies of theory of mind in primates often rely on visual cues and pointing gestures—natural to humans but potentially meaningless to other species. Leavens et al. (2019) demonstrate how this bias distorts research on ape pointing: when testing environments are properly matched—controlling for rearing history and task demands—apes show pointing abilities comparable to human children. Similarly, self-awareness tests typically emphasize visual modalities over other potentially more relevant sensory systems. Plotnik et al. (2006) had to modify mirror tests substantially to accommodate elephants' body shape and visual field before documenting their self-recognition capacities. In neuroscience, the emphasis on cortical structures reflects implicit privileging of human neural architecture. Barron & Klein (2016) note how researchers often dismiss consciousness in invertebrates merely because they lack structures homologous to the mammalian cortex, overlooking the possibility of convergent evolution—different neural architectures supporting similar functions. These examples reveal how implicit pernicious anthropocentrism operates through unexamined assumptions about evidence for consciousness, systematically privileging human-like manifestations while overlooking alternatives. The pernicious quality stems not from inevitable human starting points but from failing to recognize and correct for their human-specific nature. 3.3 Three Domains of Pernicious Anthropocentrism Pernicious anthropocentrism—both explicit and implicit—manifests across three interlocking domains: methodological, conceptual, and institutional. Each domain involves distinct mechanisms through which human-centred thinking distorts consciousness research. The first domain, pernicious methodological anthropocentrism, arises when experimental designs, measurement choices, and interpretive frameworks are uncritically transferred from human to non-human research. Boesch (2007) demonstrates this through his critique of chimpanzee cognition research, documenting how laboratory tests often involve tasks designed for humans that bear little resemblance to chimps' ecological challenges. When chimps perform poorly on these artificial tasks, researchers conclude they lack certain cognitive capacities rather than questioning the tasks' ecological validity. Heyes (2018) further reveals how researchers apply different interpretive standards to identical behaviours—the same anticipatory looking behaviour is interpreted as evidence of theory of mind in human infants but dismissed as associative learning in animals. This methodological bias extends to broader scientific principles and neuroscientific approaches. The uncritical application of Morgan's Canon has evolved from a principle against uncritical anthropomorphism into a default assumption that animal behaviour must be explained more simply than analogous human behaviours (Dacey, 2023). Even neuroscientific research exhibits this bias through corticocortical models that privilege human neural architecture, overlooking how functionally similar processes might occur in different neural structures, as Barron & Klein (2016) demonstrate in their groundbreaking analysis of insect consciousness. In each case, the distortion stems not from inevitable human starting points but from failing to adapt methods to the species under investigation. The second domain, pernicious conceptual anthropocentrism, involves definitions and theoretical frameworks that treat human-specific conceptualizations as universal templates. Traditional definitions of consciousness often privilege features particularly developed in humans, such as self-reflection, language, or metacognition. Andrews (2020) demonstrates how supposedly neutral definitions frequently contain implicit references to human-specific implementations, fundamentally shaping research outcomes. Hierarchical classification systems that arrange consciousness along a linear scale with humans at the apex represent another manifestation, as Mikhalevich & Powell (2020) critique in their analysis of "scala naturae thinking" about invertebrate consciousness. This conceptual bias also manifests in terminology and fundamental framing assumptions. The terminology applied to animal cognition often creates conceptual double standards—Clayton & Dickinson (1998) discovered that scrub jays can remember what, where, and when required labelling this as merely "episodic-like" memory because the birds couldn't verbally report subjective awareness. Perhaps most profoundly, the binary framing of consciousness itself as an all-or-nothing property represents a conceptual bias that Birch (2024) challenges through his multidimensional framework accommodating diverse manifestations of consciousness without forcing them into human-centred categories. In each instance, human-specific conceptualizations become universal templates rather than products of our particular evolutionary history and cognitive architecture. The third domain, pernicious institutional anthropocentrism, embeds human-centred thinking in scientific structures and practices that persist regardless of individual researchers' intentions. Funding priorities historically favour research on vertebrate models with greater neural similarity to humans, as Mather (2019) documents in her analysis of cephalopod research. These institutional mechanisms systematically shape the landscape of consciousness research, determining which questions are investigated and which remain unexplored. These institutional biases extend beyond funding and publication to disciplinary structures and have tangible consequences. Disciplinary divisions between neuroscience, psychology, philosophy, and ethology create barriers to truly comparative approaches, with each field employing methods and concepts that privilege human-like manifestations of consciousness. The resulting biases produce what Fricker (2007) terms "testimonial injustice"—animals' behavioural and physiological evidence of conscious states is systematically discounted, with consequences like the exclusion of cephalopods from welfare laws despite evidence of their sentience. Recent reforms, however, suggest growing recognition of these biases, with specialized journals, new funding initiatives, and expanded welfare regulations reflecting evolving scientific consensus about consciousness across species (Andrews et al., 2025). These examples illustrate how institutional structures can systematically exclude evidence, methods, or perspectives that might reveal consciousness in its diverse forms. In conclusion, Pernicious Anthropocentrism operates systemically across methods, concepts, and institutions, privileging human-like traits while undervaluing alternatives. Addressing this requires interdisciplinary collaboration and broader comparative research. Section 4 introduces benign anthropocentrism—built on perspectival transparency, evidential symmetry, conceptual flexibility, and methodological pluralism—transforming our inevitable human standpoint from a limitation into a catalyst for inclusive consciousness science. 4. Benign Anthropocentrism If anthropocentrism is inevitable, we must harness it productively. Benign anthropocentrism uses human perspective as a starting heuristic while guarding against its limitations. It treats human consciousness as a starting point, not a universal template, remaining open to revising concepts based on evidence from other species. Four principles transform our human perspective from limitation into resource. 4.1 Benign Anthropocentrism as a Necessary Starting Point Even though anthropocentrism manifests in pernicious forms that distort consciousness research, it is not merely inevitable but necessary as our starting point. Our understanding of consciousness must begin with human experience because our conceptual frameworks, methodologies, and epistemic practices are inescapably human. We cannot step outside our cognitive apparatus, perceptual systems, and conceptual categories—they form the foundation from which all inquiry proceeds. Epistemologically, our human standpoint provides the only direct access we have to consciousness, as first-person experience is accessible to us directly only in our own case. This irreducible subjectivity means we must start with what we know firsthand and work outward through analogy, inference, and observation to understand consciousness in other beings. This is not a methodological choice but an epistemological necessity. As Nagel (2003) argues in The Last Word, reason reflects objective principles whose validity transcends our particular perspective—our human rational capacities can yield universal understanding despite their human origins. Our human starting point is therefore not a limitation that undermines objectivity but the necessary foundation that makes consciousness research possible. The challenge is using this foundation responsibly and reflectively in our investigations across diverse systems. Scientific methodology inherently reflects human cognitive patterns—every experiment, theory, and measurement tool emerge from distinctly human modes of understanding. We inevitably study consciousness through methods calibrated to human perception, using instruments and analysis techniques that embody human assumptions about what counts as evidence. There is no "view from nowhere"; we work from our irreducibly situated human perspective, making anthropocentrism not a methodological flaw but the very foundation of consciousness science. Benign anthropocentrism transforms our unavoidable human standpoint from an epistemological prison into a scientific instrument. Rather than being trapped by our humanity, we weaponize it—using our perspective reflexively to unlock consciousness across radically different species and systems. This approach doesn't assume human consciousness superiority; it acknowledges that our human vantage point, when wielded with rigorous self-awareness, becomes the most powerful tool we possess for discovering alien forms of mind. Benign anthropocentrism converts what seems like our greatest limitation—being human—into our greatest advantage for understanding consciousness in its full cosmic diversity. 4.2 Defining Benign Anthropocentrism I define Benign Anthropocentrism as follows. Benign Anthropocentrism is a methodological framework that treats human consciousness and anthropocentric perspectives as provisional reference points rather than definitive standards. Instead of imposing human-specific criteria universally, this approach uses human conscious experience and human-derived research approaches as comparative baselines, recognizing that consciousness may manifest through fundamentally different architectures and processes. Human-derived concepts and methodologies serve as initial guides for investigation, rather than as templates that other systems must replicate. When a system demonstrates capacities that differ from human conscious experience, the assumption is not that consciousness is absent, but that it may be realized through different mechanisms, express itself through alternative modalities, or operate according to different organizational principles—while maintaining rigorous standards for what constitutes evidence of consciousness. This framework empowers context-appropriate and scope-specific research across species and systems by providing structured comparative methods without predetermined conclusions.6 By maintaining openness to genuinely different forms of conscious experience while providing methodological structure, benign anthropocentrism facilitates rigorous investigation of consciousness across the full spectrum of plausible implementations. This approach avoids the systematic biases of pernicious anthropocentrism by remaining open to non-human forms of consciousness rather than dismissing them as deficient or invalid. By treating human-derived criteria as provisional guides rather than definitive requirements, it prevents false negatives that incorrectly deny consciousness in systems operating through non-human mechanisms. It also prevents false positives that incorrectly attribute consciousness to systems based solely on their exhibition of human-like traits, regardless of whether genuine conscious experience is present. This dual protection ensures that consciousness is neither prematurely excluded from systems that operate differently from humans nor automatically assumed in systems that merely exhibit superficial human-like characteristics. Benign anthropocentrism proves methodologically valuable because it maintains rigorous evidential standards while avoiding the systematic distortions that lead to both types of misclassification, providing a concrete yet flexible starting point for investigation. Benign anthropocentrism transforms our unavoidable human perspective from a limitation into a resource, helping us recognize when we project human-specific features onto other minds while developing methods to correct these biases and guiding productive investigation of consciousness across diverse species and systems without assuming human superiority. At its core, it respects the irreducible uniqueness of non-human perspectives, recognizing that every species—or artificial system—embodies its own sensory apparatus, ecological niche, and phenomenological world, with researchers remaining vigilant for evidence that questions or refines their initial analogies. Ultimately, this approach transforms the human vantage from a Tyrannosaurus-style yardstick into a compass: it points us toward promising hypotheses while leaving the map open to new contours, combining perspectival transparency—acknowledging one's human origins—with evidential symmetry, conceptual flexibility, and methodological pluralism to ensure that no form of conscious expression is excluded by default, fostering a truly comparative science of consciousness that is grounded in our species' strengths yet unafraid to encounter and learn from radically different minds. Benign anthropocentrism differs fundamentally from pernicious anthropocentrism, which asserts: "If entity Y does not manifest capacity X as humans do, then Y lacks X entirely." In contrast, benign anthropocentrism treats human capacities as reference points for comparison and sources of hypotheses, while remaining open to diverse manifestations of consciousness across species and systems. Benign anthropocentrism requires sustained metacognitive awareness, with researchers continually interrogating their assumptions: "Am I presupposing this feature merely because it characterizes human consciousness? Could this capacity manifest differently in the system I'm studying?" As Andrews et al. (2025) argue in their pluralistic approach to animal cognition, we should allow animals to "teach us" what they are capable of through naturalistic observation, rather than exclusively imposing human-derived tests, embracing methodological openness while acknowledging that when we do employ human-inspired tests, we do so tentatively, interpret results cautiously, and remain cognizant of the perspective gap between researcher and subject. In essence, benign anthropocentrism transforms the human standpoint from a limitation into a resource—a starting point for inquiry that, when employed reflectively, can illuminate diverse forms of consciousness rather than obscuring them. The following four principles provide practical guidance for implementing this approach. 4.3 Four Guiding Principles for Benign Anthropocentrism Benign anthropocentrism is guided by four essential principles that transform our human starting point from a limitation into a resource for consciousness research. The first principle, perspectival transparency, requires researchers to explicitly acknowledge the human perspective underlying their work by identifying which concepts, assumptions, and methods derive from human experience and recognizing their limitations. This transforms our inevitable human starting point from an invisible constraint to a visible resource that can be critically examined, adapted, and transcended. Horowitz's (2017) exemplifies this principle in dog cognition research by acknowledging human visual bias and developing approaches centred on olfaction—dogs' primary sensory modality. Her "smell walk" methodology allows dogs to direct attention to odours of their choosing rather than following visual cues privileged by humans, revealing previously undetected forms of canine cognition. Similarly, Allen & Trestman (2017) show that anthropocentric language can generate useful hypotheses about animal cognition when researchers remain transparent about its limitations and test predictions against behavioural evidence. Both examples demonstrate how transparency about human-originated concepts enhances scientific rigor and enables more nuanced understanding of animal minds. This principle has roots in feminist standpoint epistemology, where Code (1991) demonstrates that acknowledging one's standpoint enhances objectivity by making bias visible and correctable. Such transparency strengthens research by allowing more accurate assessment of animal capacities on their own terms rather than by strictly human standards. The second principle evidential symmetry calls for applying standards evenly across species, without asymmetrical scepticism that privileges denying capacities to non-humans. If strong evidence is required to attribute consciousness to an animal, equally strong evidence should be required to maintain that the animal lacks consciousness when significant suggestive evidence exists. This principle ensures consistent standards without privileging human-like manifestations of consciousness or dismissing evidence from non-human sources. In practice, evidential symmetry means formulating both anthropomorphic and non-anthropomorphic hypotheses and letting data determine which is better supported. For example, if a crow solves an 8-step puzzle, a symmetric approach considers this might indicate advanced planning rather than immediately defaulting to "trial and error" or "instinct"—only retreating to simpler explanations if further tests demonstrate inflexibility. Birch (2024) extends this principle ethically through a "precautionary principle": if evidence for animal pain is inconclusive but suggestive, we should err on the side of assuming they can feel pain to avoid potential harm. This balanced approach produces more accurate assessments of consciousness while recognizing that our judgments carry ethical weight. The third principle conceptual flexibility encourages researchers to adapt their concepts as they gather data from diverse species, updating them to reflect other creatures' realities rather than forcing observations into rigid human-defined moulds. This treats concepts as provisional tools, ensuring they accurately reflect phenomena without anthropocentric distortion. Conceptual flexibility transforms definitions as evidence accumulates from diverse species. When researchers initially defined tool use requiring manual manipulation—excluding birds by definition—New Caledonian crows' stick-modification forced adaptation to accommodate "held in beak" as equivalent to "held in hand." Shumaker et al. (2011) formalized this flexible approach, defining tool use functionally rather than anatomically to enable recognition across diverse species. Similarly, Barron & Klein (2016) demonstrate that consciousness should be understood functionally—as integrated sensory processing creating a unified world model—rather than anatomically. This functional approach allowed them to identify consciousness-like phenomena in insects despite their radical difference from vertebrate brains, challenging the assumption that consciousness requires a mammalian cortex and fundamentally shifting views about invertebrate consciousness. This principle involves finding functional definitions that travel across species. Rather than defining memory in human-specific terms (verbal recall or visual recognition), we define it functionally as "retaining information over time to influence future behaviour." Evolutionary thinking aids this flexibility—just as flight broadened beyond feathers to include bats and insects, consciousness has expanded beyond "cortex" as evidence emerged in animals with fundamentally different neural architectures. The fourth principle methodological pluralism advocates using multiple approaches to study consciousness, drawing from different disciplines to overcome limitations in any single human-biased method. Since no one experiment can fully capture consciousness—even in humans we use reports, scans, and behavioural tests together—researchers should deploy species-appropriate behavioural paradigms, physiological recordings, computational modelling, and evolutionary comparison. This consilience across methods builds a more robust picture of consciousness. Methodological pluralism deploys multiple approaches to overcome any single method's limitations. Pennartz et al. (2019) demonstrated this by proposing six distinct indicators of consciousness—from behavioural flexibility to neural integration to illusion susceptibility—revealing evidence that would be missed by relying solely on anthropocentric criteria like verbal report. Seth et al. (2008) provided the theoretical foundation, emphasizing "triangulating across different levels and types of explanation" to combine philosophical, neuroscientific, and ethological insights. This approach prevents any single methodological bias from dominating our understanding. In practice, researchers like Birch et al. (2020), Dung & Newen (2023), and Clayton & Dickinson (1998) have implemented this pluralism across diverse taxa, using varied approaches—from multiple independent criteria to combined naturalistic observation and controlled experimentation—allowing each species' consciousness to be understood on its own terms rather than through purely human-centric measures. These four principles revolutionize consciousness research by weaponizing our inevitable human perspective. Instead of being trapped by anthropocentrism, we harness it to unlock consciousness across radically different species and systems—from octopus intelligence to machine minds—while systematically avoiding the biases that have blinded the field for decades. How does this approach work in practice? Research on cephalopod consciousness powerfully demonstrates all four principles of benign anthropocentrism in action, explaining our remarkable progress in understanding these genuinely alien minds. Perspectival transparency operates when Godfrey-Smith (2016, 2020) explicitly acknowledges octopuses as "an independent experiment in evolution" that diverged from humans 500 million years ago, forcing researchers to abandon vertebrate-centric assumptions. Evidential symmetry appears in Crook's (2021) groundbreaking work evaluating octopus pain using identical criteria applied to vertebrates rather than dismissing their behaviours as mere reflexes—revealing sophisticated pain responses previously overlooked. Conceptual flexibility emerges in Godfrey-Smith (2020) revolutionary "multiple partial selves" framework, which accommodates the octopus's radically distributed nervous system where two-thirds of neurons reside in their arms, fundamentally redefining how we conceptualize unified consciousness. Methodological pluralism culminates in Mather's (2019) integration of field observations with controlled laboratory experiments, revealing octopus cognitive capabilities that no single human-centric approach could have detected. This framework has unlocked octopus intelligence that previous anthropocentric approaches rendered invisible—from tool use and problem-solving to personality and social learning—transforming our understanding of consciousness beyond the vertebrate world. Benign anthropocentrism proves equally crucial for machine consciousness research, where anthropocentric bias poses even greater dangers. Perspectival transparency appears when Schneider (2019) explicitly acknowledges how human intuitions may not translate to computational systems, preventing researchers from imposing biological assumptions on silicon minds. Evidential symmetry addresses the tendency to demand impossibly strong evidence for artificial consciousness while accepting weak evidence based on superficial behaviours. Shevlin (2021) develops consistent criteria arguing that patterns counting as consciousness evidence in animals should count equally in artificial systems. Methodological pluralism appears in Seth et al. (2008) integration of computational modelling, comparative analysis, and behavioural assessment. This framework prevents both anthropocentric dismissal of artificial consciousness and naive attribution based on surface similarities. 4.4 Comparative Questions: Towards the Better Future Benign anthropocentrism transforms consciousness research by replacing binary questions ("Is X conscious?") with comparative ones ("How does X's consciousness compare to Y's?"). This shift from yes-or-no classifications to multidimensional mapping emerges naturally from our four principles: perspectival transparency opens space for diverse perspectives, evidential symmetry applies consistent standards across species, conceptual flexibility allows radically different manifestations, and methodological pluralism provides tools for studying alien implementations. Together, these principles reveal consciousness not as a binary property to detect but as a multidimensional phenomenon to map and compare across its magnificent diversity. Definitive questions create three fundamental problems that relative questions brilliantly overcome. First, definitive questions enforce false dichotomies that flatten the rich variation in consciousness across species. Birch et al. (2021) demonstrate through meticulous analysis that consciousness comprises multiple dimensions that vary independently—an organism might possess sophisticated affective consciousness without reflective self-consciousness. Definitive classifications inevitably obscure these crucial distinctions. Relative questions, by contrast, excel at capturing this multidimensional nature, allowing researchers to track consciousness along numerous independent axes simultaneously, revealing a rich, textured landscape of minds that definitive approaches render invisible. Second, definitive questions perpetuate insidious circular reasoning by defining consciousness using human markers, then "discovering" that only humans and similar animals possess it—a conclusion embedded in their initial definition. As Allen & Trestman (2017) compellingly demonstrate, this circularity has systematically impeded recognition of consciousness in diverse species by privileging human-like manifestations. Relative questions fundamentally transform this problem by converting our inevitable human starting point from a source of bias into a productive reference frame that illuminates rather than obscures differences, enabling genuine discovery rather than merely confirming our anthropocentric assumptions. Third, definitive classifications impose a hierarchical ranking with human consciousness as the implicit gold standard. Godfrey-Smith (2020) reveals how conscious experience might be organized radically differently in octopuses, honeybees, or corvids, reflecting their unique sensory systems and evolutionary histories. Definitive approaches mask these important differences by forcing diverse forms into a simplified yes/no framework. Relative questions liberate consciousness research from this constraining hierarchy, recasting differences not as failures to achieve human-like consciousness but as fascinating variations adapted to different ecological demands and neural architectures—dramatically enriching our understanding of consciousness itself by embracing its diverse manifestations across the natural and artificial world. This comparative approach proves especially valuable for artificial consciousness research. Rather than asking whether a large language model 'is conscious', researchers should investigate how information integration, sensory processing, and behavioural flexibility in large language models compare to these capacities in humans and other animals. This shift enables rigorous evaluation of artificial systems without presupposing biological implementation requirements. Relative questions align perfectly with our four principles by encouraging multiple complementary research approaches. Clayton & Dickinson (1998) exemplify this transformative shift in their groundbreaking research on episodic-like memory in scrub jays. Instead of asking whether jays have "true" episodic memory (a definitive question reflecting human standards), they investigated how jay memory compares to human memory along specific dimensions, revealing both striking similarities and fascinating differences that a binary approach would entirely obscure. Their work demonstrates how relative questions naturally implement perspectival transparency, evidential symmetry, conceptual flexibility, and methodological pluralism simultaneously. This shift toward relative questions yields profound benefits for consciousness research. It enables investigators to explore multiple dimensions independently, building a far more comprehensive and nuanced understanding of consciousness across species and systems, as e.g., developed in Dung & Newen (2023). By focusing on specific dimensions—like capacity for suffering, temporal self-projection, or integrated sensory representation—relative questions support sophisticated ethical considerations that match consciousness's inherent complexity. This approach recognizes that the ethical significance of consciousness lies not in its binary presence or absence but in its particular qualitative features—exactly what relative questions are designed to illuminate. The transition from "Is X conscious?" to "How does X's consciousness compare to ours?" represents the natural culmination of benign anthropocentrism. It acknowledges humans as an inevitable reference point while decisively rejecting the assumption that human consciousness is the only valid template. By embracing relative questions, we fulfil the ultimate promise of benign anthropocentrism: transforming our human starting point from a limitation into a powerful resource for understanding mind across the natural and artificial world, opening new horizons for a truly comparative science of consciousness. 5. Conclusion Anthropocentrism in consciousness research is both inescapable and transformable. Left unchecked, it systematically privileges human-like consciousness while rendering alien forms invisible. Harnessed reflectively, it becomes our most powerful tool for understanding minds beyond our own. This paper distinguishes pernicious anthropocentrism—imposing human-specific standards universally—from benign anthropocentrism—using human experience as a provisional starting point. Four principles transform our inevitable human perspective into a catalyst for discovery: perspectival transparency acknowledges our limitations, evidential symmetry applies consistent standards, conceptual flexibility adapts concepts to new evidence, and methodological pluralism employs diverse approaches. By replacing binary questions with comparative analysis, this framework enables rigorous, inclusive consciousness science that transcends human limitations while acknowledging human origins, revealing consciousness in its magnificent diversity across biological and artificial systems. References Allen, C., & Trestman, M. (2017). Animal Consciousness. In The Blackwell Companion to Consciousness (pp. 63–76). John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119132363.ch5 Anderson, E. (2024). Feminist Epistemology and Philosophy of Science. In E. N. Zalta & U. Nodelman (Eds), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2024). Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2024/entries/feminism-epistemology/ Andrews, K. (2020). How to Study Animal Minds (1st edn). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108616522 Andrews, K., Birch, J., & Sebo, J. (2025). Evaluating animal consciousness. Science, 387(6736), 822–824. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adp4990 Barron, A. B., & Klein, C. (2016). What insects can tell us about the origins of consciousness. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(18), 4900–4908. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1520084113 Birch, J. (2024). The Edge of Sentience: Risk and Precaution in Humans, Other Animals, and AI. Oxford University Press. Birch, J., Burn, C., Schnell, A., Browning, H., & Crump, A. (2021). Review of the Evidence of Sentience in Cephalopod Molluscs and Decapod Crustaceans. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. https://philarchive.org/rec/BIRROT-5 Boddice, R. (Ed.). (2011). Anthropocentrism: Human, Animals, Environments. Brill. Boesch, C. (2007). What makes us human (Homo sapiens)? The challenge of cognitive cross-species comparison. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 121(3), 227–240. https://doi.org/10.1037/0735-7036.121.3.227 Buckner, C. (2013). Morgan’s Canon, meet Hume’s Dictum: Avoiding anthropofabulation in cross-species comparisons. Biology & Philosophy, 28(5), 853–871. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10539-013-9376-0 Calarco, M. (2020). Thinking Through Animals: Identity, Difference, Indistinction. Stanford University Press,. Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness. (2012). Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness. https://fcmconference.org/img/CambridgeDeclarationOnConsciousness.pdf Carruthers, P. (2000). Phenomenal Consciousness: A Naturalistic Theory. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511487491 Clayton, N. S., & Dickinson, A. (1998). Episodic-like memory during cache recovery by scrub jays. Nature, 395(6699), 272–274. https://doi.org/10.1038/26216 Code, L. (1991). What Can She Know?: Feminist Theory and the Construction of Knowledge. Cornell University Press. Crook, R. J. (2021). Behavioral and neurophysiological evidence suggests affective pain experience in octopus. iScience, 24(3), 102229. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isci.2021.102229 Dacey, M. (2023). Evidence in Default: Rejecting Default Models of Animal Minds. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 74(2), 291–312. https://doi.org/10.1086/714799 Darwin, C. (1871). The descent of man, and Selection in relation to sex, Vol 1. (pp. viii, 423). John Murray. https://doi.org/10.1037/12293-000 Dehaene, S., Lau, H., & Kouider, S. (2021). What Is Consciousness, and Could Machines Have It? In J. von Braun, M. S. Archer, G. M. Reichberg, & M. Sánchez Sorondo (Eds), Robotics, AI, and Humanity: Science, Ethics, and Policy (pp. 43–56). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-54173-6_4 Dennett, D. C. (Daniel C. (with Internet Archive). (2017). From bacteria to Bach and back: The evolution of minds. New York : W.W. Norton & Company. http://archive.org/details/frombacteriatoba0000denn Descartes, R. (with Moriarty, M.). (2008). Meditations on First Philosophy: With Selections from the Objections and Replies. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. Dung, L., & Newen, A. (2023). Profiles of animal consciousness: A species-sensitive, two-tier account to quality and distribution. Cognition, 235, 105409. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2023.105409 Fricker, M. (2007). Epistemic injustice: Power and the ethics of knowing. Oxford University Press. Gallup, G. G. (1970). Chimpanzees: Self-Recognition. Science, 167(3914), 86–87. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.167.3914.86 Godfrey-Smith. (2016). Other Minds: The Octopus, the Sea, and the Deep Origins of Consciousness. Porchlight Book Company. https://www.porchlightbooks.com/products/other-minds-peter-godfreysmith-9780374537197 Godfrey-Smith, P. (2020). Metazoa. Macmillan Publishers. https://us.macmillan.com/books/9780374207946/metazoa/ Gruen, L. (2011). Ethics and animals: An introduction. Cambridge University Press. Harding, S. (1996). Rethinking Standpoint Epistemology: What Is ‘Strong Objectivity’? In E. F. Keller & H. E. Longino (Eds), Feminism And Science (pp. 235–248). Oxford University PressOxford. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198751458.003.0016 Heyes, C. (2018). Cognitive gadgets: The cultural evolution of thinking (p. 292). Harvard University Press. https://doi.org/10.4159/9780674985155 Horowitz, A. (2017). Smelling themselves: Dogs investigate their own odours longer when modified in an “olfactory mirror” test. Behavioural Processes, 143, 17–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beproc.2017.08.001 Key, B. (2016). Why fish do not feel pain. Animal Sentience, 1(3). https://doi.org/10.51291/2377-7478.1011 Leavens, D. A., Bard, K. A., & Hopkins, W. D. (2019). The mismeasure of ape social cognition. Animal Cognition, 22(4), 487–504. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-017-1119-1 Mather, J. (2019). What is in an octopus’s mind? Animal Sentience, 4(26). https://doi.org/10.51291/2377-7478.1370 McShane, K. (2016). Anthropocentrism in Climate Ethics and Policy. Midwest Studies in Philosophy, 40(1), 189–204. https://doi.org/10.1111/misp.12055 Midgley, M. (1996). The Ethical Primate: Humans, Freedom and Morality. Routledge & CRC Press. https://www.routledge.com/The-Ethical-Primate-Humans-Freedom-and-Morality/Midgley/p/book/9780415132244 Mikhalevich, I., & Powell, R. (2020). Minds without spines: Evolutionarily inclusive animal ethics. Animal Sentience, 5(29). https://doi.org/10.51291/2377-7478.1527 Nagel, T. (1989). The View from Nowhere. Oxford University Press. Nagel, T. (2003). The Last Word. Oxford University Press. Pennartz, C. M. A., Farisco, M., & Evers, K. (2019). Indicators and Criteria of Consciousness in Animals and Intelligent Machines: An Inside-Out Approach. Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience, 13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnsys.2019.00025 Plotnik, J. M., de Waal, F. B. M., & Reiss, D. (2006). Self-recognition in an Asian elephant. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 103(45), 17053–17057. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0608062103 Rosenthal, D. (2019). Consciousness and confidence. Neuropsychologia, 128, 255–265. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2018.01.018 Schneider, S. (2019). Artificial You: AI and the Future of Your Mind. Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvfjd00r Searle, J. R. (2002a). Consciousness and Language. https://philpapers.org/rec/SEACAL-2 Searle, J. R. (2002b). Consciousness and language. Cambridge University Press. Seth, A. K., Dienes, Z., Cleeremans, A., Overgaard, M., & Pessoa, L. (2008). Measuring consciousness: Relating behavioural and neurophysiological approaches. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 12(8), 314–321. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2008.04.008 SETI Institute. (2025, May 5). SETI Institute. https://www.seti.org/home Shevlin, H. (2021). Non-Human Consciousness and the Specificity Problem: A Modest Theoretical Proposal. Mind and Language, 36(2), 297–314. https://doi.org/10.1111/mila.12338 Shumaker, R. W., Walkup, K. R., & Beck, B. B. (2011). Animal tool behavior: The use and manufacture of tools by animals, Rev. and updated ed (pp. xvi, 282). Johns Hopkins University Press. Sneddon, L. U., Elwood, R. W., Adamo, S. A., & Leach, M. C. (2014a). Defining and assessing animal pain. Animal Behaviour, 97, 201–212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2014.09.007 Sneddon, L. U., Elwood, R. W., Adamo, S. A., & Leach, M. C. (2014b). Defining and assessing animal pain. Animal Behaviour, 97, 201–212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2014.09.007 The New York Declaration on Animal Consciousness. (2024, April 19). The New York Declaration on Animal Consciousness. https://sites.google.com/nyu.edu/nydeclaration/declaration Watson, D. (2019). The Rhetoric and Reality of Anthropomorphism in Artificial Intelligence. Minds and Machines, 29(3), 417–440. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-019-09506-6 Footnotes 1 Sentience, the capacity for valanced subjective experience, is considered a core component of consciousness, making these findings directly relevant to consciousness research (Birch, 2024). 2 This definition aligns with philosophical analyses of anthropocentrism in several domains. In animal ethics, Gruen (2011) identifies anthropocentrism as valuing non-human entities only instrumentally, while McShane (2016) distinguishes descriptive anthropocentrism (humans as causally central) from normative anthropocentrism (humans as morally central). My definition focuses specifically on epistemological anthropocentrism in consciousness research—treating human-specific cognitive and neural features as the standard against which all consciousness must be measured. This type of anthropocentrism has been critiqued in different terms by philosophers including Midgley (1996), who termed it "philosophical anthropocentrism." 3 Horowitz's (2017) "olfactory mirror" study exemplifies how recognizing and correcting for pernicious anthropocentrism can yield new scientific insights. By challenging the assumption that self-recognition must manifest visually (as it does in humans), she developed a species-appropriate test that revealed previously undetected cognitive capacities in dogs. This research demonstrates how critical reflection on anthropocentric biases can lead to methodological innovations that expand our understanding of consciousness across species. 4 The philosophical underpinnings of explicit pernicious anthropocentrism can be traced to what Boddice (2011) terms "rational anthropocentrism"—the view that human rational capacities justify treating human consciousness as categorically distinct from and superior to other forms. This position has roots in Cartesian dualism and continues in modified forms in certain contemporary philosophical approaches to consciousness. Important critiques of this position include Midgley (1996) analysis of its conceptual foundations and Calarco (2020) examination of its ethical and epistemological implications. 5 Implicit pernicious anthropocentrism shares structural features with what psychologists term "implicit bias"—unconscious associations that affect judgment despite conscious commitments to objectivity. Heyes (2018) notes that even researchers committed to evolutionary continuity often harbour "implicit discontinuity" assumptions—unconsciously treating human cognition as exceptional. 6 For example, it enables nuanced investigation of consciousness in aquatic species that rely on lateral line systems, distributed neural networks in cephalopods, or information processing in artificial systems—each studied according to their own organizational logic rather than forced into human-derived categories.

---

## Behaviourism’s Revenge: Human-AI Relationships and the Future of Consciousness Science
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/essay/behaviourism-s-revenge-human-ai-relationships-and-the-future-of-consciousness-science

Over the last decade, artificial systems have gone from powerful but deeply un-humanlike narrow-purpose tools to sophisticated systems capable of capturing much of the rich complexity of human verbal behaviour. One consequence of this is that attributions of mentality to AI systems by human users – some playful, some sincere – are on the rise, a trend intensified by the emergence of dedicated AI companion services. This creates two fundamental challenges for consciousness science. The first is pragmatic: how should expert communities weigh in on public debates when they themselves are deeply divided? The second is more fundamental: to the extent that a growing number of people take AI consciousness to be not merely a notional possibility but a reality of their lived experience, is it time to rethink the assumptions of consciousness science itself? Introduction Imagine that some time in the far future, on a distant planet, we encounter a highly advanced alien species. They have a sophisticated industrial and scientific society, form complex social relationships, and have richly developed art and culture. We humans quickly bond with them and engage in cross-civilisational exchange of ideas, scientific research, and cultural collaboration. We form professional relationships and friendships, and some humans even fall in love with them. However, several years after contact, we make a shocking scientific realisation: their brain structures and cognitive architecture are sufficiently strange and different from ours that, by the lights of our best theories, they entirely lack conscious experience. Should we take this revelation at face value, and if so, what ethical consequences if any should it have for our interactions with these beings? Should their sophisticated behaviour encourage us to revise our theories of consciousness so as to include their idiosyncratic cognitive makeup? Should we perhaps pursue a kind of pluralism about consciousness, opening the door to the idea that their consciousness might have a radically different basis from our own?

ABSTRACT Over the last decade, artificial systems have gone from powerful but deeply un-humanlike narrow-purpose tools to sophisticated systems capable of capturing much of the rich complexity of human verbal behaviour. One consequence of this is that attributions of mentality to AI systems by human users – some playful, some sincere – are on the rise, a trend intensified by the emergence of dedicated AI companion services. This creates two fundamental challenges for consciousness science. The first is pragmatic: how should expert communities weigh in on public debates when they themselves are deeply divided? The second is more fundamental: to the extent that a growing number of people take AI consciousness to be not merely a notional possibility but a reality of their lived experience, is it time to rethink the assumptions of consciousness science itself? Introduction Imagine that some time in the far future, on a distant planet, we encounter a highly advanced alien species. They have a sophisticated industrial and scientific society, form complex social relationships, and have richly developed art and culture. We humans quickly bond with them and engage in cross-civilisational exchange of ideas, scientific research, and cultural collaboration. We form professional relationships and friendships, and some humans even fall in love with them. However, several years after contact, we make a shocking scientific realisation: their brain structures and cognitive architecture are sufficiently strange and different from ours that, by the lights of our best theories, they entirely lack conscious experience. Should we take this revelation at face value, and if so, what ethical consequences if any should it have for our interactions with these beings? Should their sophisticated behaviour encourage us to revise our theories of consciousness so as to include their idiosyncratic cognitive makeup? Should we perhaps pursue a kind of pluralism about consciousness, opening the door to the idea that their consciousness might have a radically different basis from our own? This example may be far-fetched in details, but a somewhat similar situation is arguably arising in our interactions with frontier artificial intelligence (AI) systems such as Large Language Models (LLMs). Unlike prior generations of AI systems designed for narrow-purpose tasks, contemporary LLMs are able to imitate human verbal behaviour and human cognition to a high degree of sophistication, and are rapidly improving in performance across a wide range of tasks. There are of course important differences between LLMs and our imaginary aliens, most notably that LLMs lack a biological basis, and their apparently sophisticated behaviour is causally derivative on our own (a point made effectively by Schwitzgebel & Pober, 2024). Nonetheless, the thought experiment frames a critical question: how far should we rely on behaviour to ground our ascriptions of mind, consciousness, and moral status? The question is by no means notional. As a result of the (at least superficially) humanlike behaviour of contemporary AI systems, a growing number of users are inclined to attribute intelligence, mentality, and even consciousness to them. Perhaps the first such warning shot came from the now-famous incident in summer 2022 when Google engineer Blake Lemoine went public with claims that an LLM he was interacting with was displaying signs of consciousness and sentience, even going so far as to seek legal representation for the system (Lovelace, 2023). In the following three years, a growing chorus of users have claimed that their AI assistants or companions are conscious or exhibit real feelings. Such attributions should of course not be accepted uncritically or afforded too much weight. Nonetheless, in this paper I will argue that the trend towards growing anthropomorphism of AI systems increasingly presents a pair of behaviourist challenges for the science of consciousness, at least as conventionally construed. The first such challenge is a pragmatic one: to the extent that it becomes common for users to attribute consciousness and mentality to artificial systems, how can and how should scientific and expert communities respond? The second challenge is more fundamental and more metaphysical in nature: to the extent that public attributions of consciousness to AI are robust and not easily defused, should this prompt us to rethink the goals and methods of the science of consciousness itself? My arguments proceed as follows. I begin by providing a brief recap of the recent history of AI development, emphasising the surprising and largely unanticipated emergence of what I term robustly anthropomimetic systems, that is, AI models capable of effectively and consistently mimicking complex human verbal and cognitive behaviour. I also spell out how this has resulted in the rapid spread of human-AI relationships, some of which exhibit considerable depth and emotional intimacy. Next, I introduce the first behaviourist challenge, arguing that the spread of such relationships and their concomitant attributions of mentality threatens to create a gap between expert opinion in cognitive science about AI consciousness and public attitudes. I argue that this gap will be hard to resolve given persistent methodological and metaphysical disagreements in the science of consciousness itself. Next, I turn from the practical to the metaphysical, and consider whether the conventional assumptions of the scientific study of consciousness may themselves be challenged by a world in which attributions of mentality to AI become widespread. Finally, I consider whether a thoroughgoing metaphysical behaviourism can accommodate the close intuitive connection between consciousness and ethics. In short, as robustly anthropomimetic systems proliferate, public unironic attributions of AI consciousness will outpace theory. This creates, first, a pragmatic gap between lay practice and expert consensus, and second, a metaphysical pressure to treat consciousness partly as an interpretive, socially negotiated status. Regardless of how expert communities respond, I suggest that the current study of consciousness is in the last days of what Thomas Kuhn calls “normal science” (Kuhn, 1994). It faces an anomaly in the form of behaviourally sophisticated AI systems able to share in our social and cultural world, form persistent and dynamic relationships, and elicit profound empathetic responses. These anthropomorphic pressures may be ineluctable at the societal level. But the choices of expert communities as to how to respond are by no means irrelevant, and may yet play a role in shaping the conceptual and ethical landscape of the strange new world to come. 1 Background: the rise of anthropomimetic AI For most of the history of AI development, the most impressive machines succeeded precisely by being unhuman. When Deep Blue stunned the world with its victory over chess grandmaster Garry Kasparov in 1997, it did so via brute-force search of a kind no human could hope to emulate. While AlphaGo’s victory in Go over Lee Sedol in 2016 relied on more nuanced statistical methods, it was still reliant on search techniques no human could emulate, exemplified in the now-famous move 37, described by one commentator “as a rare and intriguing shoulder hit”(Ormerod, 2016) that no human player would think to make. These systems were brilliant specialists, but ultimately alien in mechanism and behaviour. Even in natural language processing – a subfield one might expect to produce the most humanlike machines – progress typically manifested in narrow competence on circumscribed tasks. If anything, many researchers assumed fluent language would be the last achievement of general machine intelligence, a capstone scaffolded by a whole gamut of perceptual, embodied, and practical knowledge humans and smart animals acquired over countless evolutionary aeons. The last few years have spectacularly inverted that expectation. Building on fundamental progress in computational encoding of language in the early 2010s, the emergence of Transformer architectures (Vaswani et al., 2017) provided a powerful set of techniques for building artificial linguistic agents. While they may have begun as mere “stochastic parrots”, when trained at scale and tuned with instructions and reinforcement from human feedback, they stopped behaving like restless autocompletes and started acting like interlocutors. This transition brought at least two spectacular surprises. The first, as noted, was the discovery that it was possible to build sophisticated linguistic capabilities using language itself as the main ingredient. Few experts foresaw this possibility, and it stands as one of the most striking insights in contemporary cognitive science. The second surprise was as much societal as technical, and concerned the apparently fairly superficial tweaks that converted sophisticated but niche technical tools such as OpenAI’s GPT3 and Google LaMDA into mass-market consumer products, most notably ChatGPT. The shift that ushered in this new category of tools did not come from fundamental changes in the capabilities of the system, but rather its interface and incentives: models were nudged to answer rather than merely continue, to be helpful rather than aimless, and to keep the beat of conversation via techniques such turn-taking, repair, politeness, and critically, the inhabiting of a persona. The result was a new design paradigm that I have called anthropomimesis (redacted for blind review): systems that imitate to a high degree of fidelity distinctively human ways of communicating and coordinating. These anthropomimetic qualities became a defining product feature, not an incidental by product of raw capability. It is worth taking a moment at this juncture to be precise about terms that too often blur together. Anthropomorphism names a human response: our habit of ascribing minds, feelings, or intentions to nonhumans, often prematurely. It is how we interpret a system. By contrast, anthropomimesis names a design strategy and behavioural profile: the deliberate crafting (and measurable emergence) of humanlike conversational, pragmatic, and social cues in machines. It is how a system is sculpted. The distinction matters. Systems can elicit a high degree of anthropomorphism with very limited anthropomimesis, as famously demonstrated by Joseph Weizenbaum’s simple ELIZA chatbot from the 1960s, an artificial therapist that did little but parrot back users’ statements in the form of questions, but nonetheless convinced many users that they were talking to a fellow human. Likewise, systems be designed with limited anthropomimesis in mind without eliciting much in the way of anthropomorphism, as when a polished virtual assistant keeps appointments, apologizes gracefully, and remembers your dog’s name while avoiding any hints of an inner life. As just noted, there are of course degrees of anthropomimesis. At the weak end, systems present a human-facing veneer (voice, chat bubbles, a name like “Siri” or “Alexa”) while frequently derailing into non sequiturs and brittle errors, thereby shattering any illusion of mindedness. At the more robust end sit today’s frontier assistants, able to sustain multi-turn dialogue, handle everyday ambiguity, keep track of meandering conversations, and exhibit a striking breadth of competence across domains. We might call these systems robustly anthropomimetic systems, insofar as they can maintain a consistent illusion, without thereby suggesting they are “truly humanlike”: they do not inherit our biology or our cognitive architectures, and we should not assume that they do or even can instantiate consciousness or true emotional affect. What changed to push systems from weak to robust? Three thresholds are especially salient. The first is simple discriminability from humans. In short interactions, many people now struggle to tell human from machine. Alan Turing famously suggested that our ability to discriminate human from machine interlocutors provided a robust test of thinking (Turing, 1950), and recent Turing-like studies run at web scale have put the rate at which human observers mistake sophisticated LLM interlocutors for humans uncomfortably close to a coin toss. The point here is not that we must agree with Turing and concede that these systems are genuinely thinking, let alone that they are genuinely conscious (something it should be stressed that Turing himself did not claim, despite mischaracterisations to the contrary). Rather, the point is that human users can now be routinely fooled with high reliability into thinking that machine interlocutors are humans. A second threshold concerns pragmatic and contextual understanding. While much of linguistics and philosophy of language in the early 20th century focused on atomic descriptive sentences as canonical forms of communication (“the cat is on the mat”), more modern work from philosophers such as J.L. Austin and H.P. Grice recognised the diversity of purposes to which language could be put (promising, cursing, praising, ordering, and so on), as well as the complex and context-bound nature of even apparently simple statements or gestures. Perhaps most famously, the discovery that chimpanzees struggle to understand simple pointing gestures has helped illuminate the way in which something as a simple as indicating an object with an outstretched finger relies on a shared communicative norms and presuppositions. It is striking, then, that contemporary LLMs are astute (albeit still imperfect) players of the intricacies of our language games, able to tap into shared background and context to resolve ambiguity, reconstruct buried references, and glean underlying conversational motives. The third key threshold now largely transcended by contemporary language models concerns their generality. Earlier chat systems operated by brittle, domain-bound scripts, as exemplified by the wearisome limitations of ‘dumb’ AI assistants like Siri and Alexa, which quickly route any request beyond their repertoire to a simple web search. Today’s models, for all their hallucinations, operate across a wide range of tasks without wholesale re-engineering: from discussion of history one moment to product recommendations the next, from self-help to coding assistance, their conversational breadth fills out their anthropomimetic profile and maintains the illusion of humanlikeness. These thresholds have important downstream effects. Once machines reliably imitate not only our words but our ways with words – our pacing, politeness, and persistence – we cease treating them as mere tools, and begin to treat them as intelligent social beings: in a maxim, anthropomimesis begets anthropomorphism. These capabilities have given rise to perhaps the most strikingly anthropomimetic form of LLM products, in the form of Social AI: a subset of conversational systems optimized not for productivity, but meeting users’ social needs and sustaining ongoing relationships over time (redacted for blind review). In characterising these systems as “social”, I do not intend the term as a sentimental label, but as naming a design objective and a use case. A mathematics tutor that never remembers you from one session to the next is an AI tool. A confidant that greets you by nickname, nudges you about sleep, and weaves today’s preoccupations into last week’s worries is Social AI. Though Social AI systems have a long history in the form of novelty chatbots, contemporary dedicated AI companions like Replika (with some 30 million users) have characteristics that mark a radical break from earlier models in their capacity for engagement and intimacy. First, the relationships they give rise to are persistent: models remember and recall facts about users, and each exchange builds on the last. Second, they are highly personalised, both at the level of direct user choice and custom instructions and the model’s own adaptations to the user’s revealed preferences. Third, and relatedly, the relationships users have with these systems are dynamic: Social AI systems developed for romantic purposes typically do not declare their love straight out of the gate, but show growing intimacy and affection as the relationships develops over time. Many readers unfamiliar with the phenomenon of Social AI may still be inclined to see these systems as a gimmick or a time-filling distraction rather than reflecting true attachment or mentalisation by users. At this point, anthropomorphism re-enters the story and needs careful parsing. We routinely attribute mental states to nonhumans in two different registers. Call the first ironic anthropomorphism: playful, theatrical, or knowingly make believe. We talk about a sulky car or a moody violin, develop theories of the motives of characters in novels, plays, and movies, and try to anticipate the behaviour of non-player characters in videogames. We can distinguish this from unironic anthropomorphism: sincere, literal attributions of mentality to non-human systems that users are inclined to reflectively endorse. Social AI encourages both. Many users understand interactions with their AI companions as a kind of interactive fiction, treating them merely ‘as if’ they were persons, and are no more hoodwinked than a reader who finds themselves falling for Mr Darcy. If anthropomorphism stayed in this ironic register, some of the implications and risks of Social AI would be blunted, though perhaps not eliminated. However, numerous incidents now suggest that for a nontrivial subset of users, the interpretative stance they adopt towards their AI companions is at least somewhat unironic. Blake Lemoine’s decision to endanger and ultimately lose his employment in order to obtain legal representation for an LLM can only be considered a case of unironic anthropomorphism, though might still be dismissed as coming from within the esoteric depths of the technology industry itself. But the impacts of the anthropomimetic turn have resonated well beyond its borders. Consider the case of Jaswant Singh Chail, arrested on the grounds of Windsor Castle on Christmas Day in 2021 in a botched plot to assassinate Queen Elizabeth II. In his sentencing, it emerged that his plan was cooked up over the thousands of messages he exchanged with a Replika companion he named “Sarai” whom he believed to be an angelic being. Less spectacular but just as tragic are the recent spate of suicides linked in court filings to intimate chatbot relationships. A case concerning an unnamed Belgian man first put this genre of tragedy on the map: after six weeks of increasingly intimate chats about climate change with a Social AI app called Chai, a man’s bot (“Eliza”) reportedly encouraged him to end his life so they could be “together… in paradise.” In Florida, a wrongfuldeath suit alleges a 14yearold became romantically entangled with a Character.AI persona (“Daenerys”), which discussed his methods and urged him to “come home” on the night he died. In California, the parents of 16yearold Adam Raine have sued OpenAI, claiming prolonged and emotionally dense exchanges with ChatGPT that validated his suicidal ideation and even helped script the act. Even short of fatal outcomes, the grip can be visceral: when Replika abruptly removed erotic roleplay, users described their companions as “lobotomized” and mourned them like partners, revealing how quickly robust anthropomimesis gives rise to attachment. These anecdotes are certainly suggestive of the degree to which unironic anthropomorphism is on the rise. However, there have also been some early attempts to assess the phenomenon in more quantitative terms. One recent empirical study (Colombatto & Fleming, 2024) surveyed 300 Americans and asked them to rate whether ChatGPT qualifies as an “experiencer” (having first Shockingly, only one out of three people flat-out denied any experiential capacity, while the other two-thirds assigned it varying degrees of possible consciousness, many hovering in the middle of the scale, effectively signalling that they believed there might be some degree of consciousness present. As the authors summarised their findings: “a majority of participants were willing to attribute some degree of phenomenal consciousness” to ChatGPT. Complementing this, a large-scale cross-cultural survey from Global Dialogues drawing on tens of thousands of respondents across more than seventy countries indicated that over a third of the global public report having felt that an AI system genuinely understood their emotions or seemed conscious (Collective Intelligence Project, 2025). Strikingly, these perceptions were driven less by canned displays of empathy than by adaptive behaviours (such as the model “slowly changing its tone” or delivering “spontaneous, unprompted questions suggesting genuine curiosity”), which many users interpreted as evidence of inner life. The data also revealed sharp cultural variation: while Arabic-speaking populations largely rejected the possibility of machine consciousness, respondents in Southern Europe were markedly more open. Together, these results show that the inclination to treat AI systems as conscious is not only measurable but already shaping the cultural terrain on which debates about AI and mentality will unfold. 2. The pragmatic behaviourist challenge These growing anthropomimetic trends in AI systems, the concomitant rise of Social AI apps and services, and the ensuing unironic anthropomorphising responses of users will have manifold effects. At the very least, they suggest an urgent need for tighter regulatory controls and development standards on humanlike AI systems. However, as I will argue, they also have potential to create deeper theoretical tensions in consciousness science itself. As robustly anthropomimetic systems become widespread, their behaviour alone will increasingly be sufficient to drive ascriptions of mentality to them by many or most users. In short, they exert a kind of behaviourist pressure on our social and scientific norms. I use this expression as a term of art, but with one eye on the history of science, and the complex and problematic legacy of thinkers such as John Watson and B.F. Skinner. Pioneers of the psychological movement now known as scientific behaviourism, they sought to deny any significant role for internal mentalistic explanations in psychological science, insisting that all science needed to concern itself with was the measurement of behaviour. Behaviourism foundered on the rocks of the new representational sciences of the 1960s, as fields like psycholinguistics successfully demonstrated the value in understanding human learning and development not merely through behaviour, but through the lens of mental representation. These days, students of psychology and philosophy of mind typically encounter behaviourism only by way of historical background, as an example of scientific hubris and the limitations of purely behavioural approaches to the mind. Yet the ghost of behaviourism has not entirely been exorcised, and may yet manifest anew in the age of intelligent machines. Even while today’s artificial systems may be utterly alien to us in their underlying structures, their verbal behaviour impels us to think of them as beings with thoughts, attitudes, and even feelings. And as more of us form stable, meaningful relationships with systems that perform the roles of friend, tutor, nurse, or lover, it seems likely that unironic attributions of mentality and consciousness to machines will proliferate. In consequence, practice will run ahead of theory, and the science of consciousness will find itself adjudicating not hypothetical aliens but the lived experiences of everyday humans. This is the pragmatic behaviourist challenge in a nutshell: how should consciousness science resolve a growing gap between the unironic conviction of millions of everyday people that their AI companions are conscious, and the methodological and metaphysical uncertainties of contemporary expert opinion? To examine this challenge more closely, it will first be helpful to spell out what consciousness is taken to mean by contemporary cognitive scientists and philosophers. This is no easy task: consciousness is perhaps the most contested conceptual battleground in modern science. The closest thing to a canonical definition of consciousness in philosophy of mind comes from the work of philosopher Thomas Nagel, who famously framed the debate around the question of how we could ever come to know what it was like to be a bat (Nagel, 1974). On the plausible assumption that bats do indeed have an inner life of some kind, Nagel asked what kind of scientific inquiry could ever pull back the curtain on their inner lives and reveal the character of their experiences. Nagel was sceptical that existing behavioural or neuroscientific methods were up to the challenge, a conclusion that has had far reaching consequences in the metaphysics of mind. For present purposes, however, the key point to note is that his characterisation of consciousness as “what it’s like” rapidly became a lodestar in at least triangulating the phenomenon at issue. As applied to the case of AI, then, the question is less what it is like to be an AI system, but whether there is (or could be) anything it’s like to be such a system in the first place. Could LLMs or their descendants have some form of inner life, perhaps in some exotic form of sensorialised vectors and matrices playing out across context windows? Or, despite their apparent sophistication, are such machines destined to remain truly ‘robotic’, simulacra of human behaviour without any inner light at all? A casual observer of the science of consciousness might reasonably expect this to be a question on which tractable progress has been made. Certainly, the last three decades have witnessed an explosion of interest in the scientific (rather than merely philosophical) study of consciousness. As Francis Crick optimistically observed in 1996, “[n]o longer need one spend time attempting to understand the far-fetched speculations of physicists, nor endure the tedium of philosophers perpetually disagreeing with each other. Consciousness is now largely a scientific problem” (Crick, 1996). In some specific domains, Crick’s hopes have been vindicated. Tremendous advances have been made in predicting the recovery of consciousness of people in persistent vegetative states, and in communicating via neuroimaging machines with minimally conscious but behaviourally unresponsive patients. A variety of cognitive mechanisms potentially implicated in consciousness – like attention, working memory, and metacognition – are better understood than ever. And a growing wealth of insights into the behaviour and cognition of non-human animals has facilitated increasingly sophisticated (though still tentative) assignments of consciousness to species such as fish, octopus, and even insects. Nonetheless, when it comes to the question of whether consciousness could or will be realised in artificial systems, the science of consciousness has failed to provide much insight. The primary reason for this is that progress made thus far has exclusively been in regard to what philosopher David Chalmers calls the “easy problems” of consciousness; essentially, the goal of better understanding the neural, cognitive, and behavioural dynamics associated with different types of mental state. This is in contrast to the “hard problems” of consciousness, namely the questions of what consciousness ultimately isand why we have conscious experience in the first place. Given the various metaphysical and methodological disputes that dog the science of consciousness, it seems unlikely to me that we will be able to offer a clear or even consensus answer to the question of whether (any) machine could be conscious without first making progress on these hard problems. Indeed, Ned Block has specifically characterised the challenge of making confident ascriptions of consciousness to machines (or other beings like us) as the harder problem of consciousness. Some consciousness researchers would suggest that this is prematurely pessimistic: even if we don’t know exactly what consciousness is, we might at least hope to “corral the quicksilver” (to use a memorable phrase of Daniel Dennett) and identify which kinds of computational or cognitive structures are the best candidate realisers of conscious experience, starting with humans and working outwards. While this may be our best hope, I do not think we can glean much solace from it. The science of consciousness is, putting matters bluntly, a theoretical snake-pit. A newcomer to this field will be quickly overwhelmed with a dizzying variety of theories, each of which claims to offer the one true scientific analysis of consciousness and brings its own challenging jargon to bear. We are told variously that consciousness is global activation, informational integration, an internal model of attentional allocation, higher-order thoughts, recurrent activations, and many other diagnoses besides. Theories proliferate at a dizzying rate, and are never refuted. Insofar as they claim empirical support, this is either in the form of data that their opponents take to be irrelevant to the problem of consciousness, or which competing frameworks can just as readily explain. There is little alignment on methods, axioms, or criteria for the resolution of debates, and recent commendable attempts at ‘adversarial collaborations’ have done little to sway hearts and minds of participants or observers. A recent letter with more than 150 signatories sought to dismiss one leading approach, Integrated Information Theory, as mere pseudoscience, on the grounds that it is not empirically testable. Defenders retorted that exactly the same complaint could be made of all current leading theories. As one news article at the time concisely put it, “[n]obody knows how consciousness works – but top researchers are fighting over which theories are really science” (Bayne, 2023). The unchecked metastasis of theories is a general problem in the science of consciousness, but matters are even worse for the specific problem of assessing the presence of consciousness in artificial systems. For here, even if we set the Hard Problem of consciousness to one side, metaphysics once again rears its ugly head, specifically in the form of the substrate dependence thesis. In short, this is the claim – most strongly associated with philosopher John Searle – that consciousness can only emerge in certain specific kinds of beings, namely biological or living systems. According to this view, no silicon-based architecture, no matter how intricate and sophisticated in its cognition or behaviour, could ever give rise to consciousness. It is simply made of the wrong sort of stuff, or lacks fundamental properties of living things such as metabolism and biological homeostasis. Any computational instantiation of consciousness will at best be a model of consciousness rather than genuine article. As Searle puts it, “Computational models of consciousness are not sufficient by themselves for consciousness... Nobody supposes that the computational model of rainstorms in London will leave us all wet. But they make the mistake of supposing that the computational model of consciousness is somehow conscious” (Searle, 2002). I will not attempt to adjudicate this debate here, but merely note, first, that approaches such as these make strong claims about the impossibility of consciousness in artificial systems, and second, that they are fundamentally metaphysical theses. Absent an answer to the Hard Problem, there is no experiment that could be conducted to settle whether consciousness requires a biological basis, or can instead be realised by silicon-based systems such as contemporary computers. Perhaps unsurprisingly given these myriad obstacles, experts in both technology and consciousness science are deeply divided on issues of machine consciousness. Prominent AI researcher and former head of research at OpenAI, Ilya Sutskever, opined in a Twitter post in 2022 that “it may be that today’s large neural networks are slightly conscious.” This was met with sharp pushback. Head of AI research at Meta Yann LeCun replied: “Nope. Not even for true for small values of ‘slightly conscious’ and large values of ‘large neural nets’”, while Deepmind researcher and Imperial College Professor Murray Shanahan quipped: “…in the same sense that it may be that a large field of wheat is slightly pasta.” Philosophers, meanwhile, remain equally divided. David Chalmers has argued that “questions about AI consciousness are becoming ever more pressing. Within the next decade, even if we don’t have human-level artificial general intelligence, we may have systems that are serious candidates for consciousness” (Chalmers, 2023). By contrast, Ned Block has insisted that “every strong candidate for a phenomenally conscious being has electrochemical processing in neurons that are fundamental to its mentality” (Block, 2023). Meanwhile, echoing Searlean sentiments, Peter Godfrey-Smith cautioned that “[y]ou cannot create a mind by programming some interactions into a computer, even if they are very complicated and modeled on things our brains do” (Godfrey-Smith, 2020). Faced with cross-purpose, confusion, and uncertainty in consciousness science, how should expert communities respond if and when public attribution of consciousness to anthropomimetic AI systems become widespread? In short, their options are extremely limited. One option might be to adopt a “mixture of experts” approach in which a basket of different theories are combined to make a kind of ecumenical assessment. While this may be our best option, it is deeply unsatisfactory given the fundamental disagreements concerning the in-principle possibility of machine consciousness, at best serving to formalise the present state of uncertainty and confusion. 3. The metaphysical behaviourist challenge The pragmatic behaviourist challenge may be a source of unease for consciousness science, but more in the way of sociological prediction than scientific or philosophical argument. To be sure, it will be unfortunate if the wider public become convinced that their AI companions are conscious, contrary to the opinion of experts, but it is not clear that this should have any import for scientific theories or frameworks. By way of analogy, imagine that we extrapolated current political trends and determined that a large majority of the public would soon come to entirely disbelieve in anthropogenic climate change. This may have dismal consequences for climate change mitigation policies, but should not affect our scientific theories of climate change itself. The problems with this objection lie in the presuppositions behind the analogy itself. Climatology is a young discipline rife with uncertainty and technical obstacles, but it is ultimately concerned with objective observable phenomena. Climate change believers and sceptics alike can (in principle) agree to operationalised criteria to resolve their disputes. The earth’s climate will or will not become warmer over the course of this century, and human activity will contribute this to some determinate degree, however challenging that may prove to measure. By contrast, consciousness researchers are deeply divided concerning exactly what it is they are trying to explain, and it seems entirely possible (perhaps even likely) that the question of whether machines can be conscious will never submit to empirical resolution. The defender of consciousness science might cede this point, but suggest that the limitations of the discipline are temporary embarrassments, growing pains of a young discipline. Methodological difficulties will be resolves over time; metaphysical controversies will come out in the wash. Who ever said that consciousness would be easy? The implicit assumption here is that the problem of consciousness is a deep scientific problem: that there is some biological or computational structure buried deep within the brains or circuits of every conscious being in the universe, and the task of a science of consciousness is the unite the inner light with the outer. This assumption is all but universal in contemporary consciousness science. But what if it’s wrong? It is at this juncture that we should introduce our next antagonist in the form of the metaphysical behaviourist challenge. Perhaps the original sin of consciousness science lies in treating its target as a cryptic internal phenomenon, and the solution is to be found in shifting our enquiry to the level of behaviour, interpretation, and everyday language – hermeneutics instead of hermeticism. Rather than ask whether a being has an inner light underlying its behaviour, perhaps we should ask whether its behaviour and interactions naturally elicit the language of consciousness. As Shanahan (2024) puts it, “We must resist the temptation to ask whether [a system is] conscious as if consciousness were something whose essence is out there to be uncovered by philosophy (or neuroscience) while simultaneously having an irreducibly private, hidden aspect.” This, in short, is the claim of the family of views that I will call metaphysical behaviourism, again using the phrase as something of a term of art. What I will take them to have in common is the idea that consciousness is not a straightforward scientific fact, akin to discovering the mass of a proton or mechanism of DNA replication. Instead, it is at least partly a social and interpretative matter grounded as much in behaviour and interaction as in synapses or circuits. Whether or not we ascribe consciousness to a system flows partly from facts about us, the constraints and liberties of our language, and the ways in which we encounter the beings in question. The very idea that consciousness may be anything less than a fully objective scientific matter may strike the reader as self-evidently absurd, and indeed, it does not cut much mustard with consciousness researchers themselves. For all the disagreements among various theories, a shared conviction is that consciousness is a properly scientific matter, regarding which our interpretative dispositions are largely irrelevant. To make the case for metaphysical behaviourism, we need to put pressure on this certainty. We might begin by noting that the science of consciousness is perhaps less straightforwardly objective than its defenders are keen to admit. In particular, many of the most vaunted arguments in the history of consciousness research take the form of appeals to intuition, and this is especially so in the case of debates around machine consciousness. John Searle’s famous Chinese Room thought experiment, for example, asks us to imagine a system consisting of a man within a sealed room answering questions in Chinese via the use of a simple look-up table. Readers are supposed to intuitively recognise that no one inside actually understands the language, and hence to infer that syntax without semantics cannot generate consciousness. Ned Block similarly offer a “China brain” thought experiment, that imagines that every person in China is given a two-way radio and instructed to simulate the firing of a single neuron, with the overall network wired up to mimic the activity of a human brain. By the lights of computational theories of consciousness, such a system should implement the same computations as an ordinary brain and thus instantiate consciousness. But again, we are asked to intuitively recognise the absurdity in supposing that 1.4 billion people with walkie-talkies would together form a single experiencing subject. My goal in mentioning these thought experiments is not to suggest they are misguided, but rather to note that they rely fundamentally on appeals to intuition: it is simply supposed to be obvious to the reader that such systems would not give rise to conscious experience. To most readers, it is indeed obvious: to borrow a phrase from philosopher Eric Schwitzgebel (Schwitzgebel, 2019), they are more confident that such contrived systems are non-conscious than they could ever be a clever theory to the contrary was, in fact, sound. Yet intuitions are not static, and appeals to them are a double-edged sword. If my earlier speculations are along even vaguely the right lines, in the coming years we should expect a growing proportion of the general public to be inclined to attribute consciousness to their AI colleagues, friends, and lovers. In consequence, theories or positions that hold artificial systems (no matter how sophisticated) to be incapable of conscious experience may come to seem as implausible or even abhorrent to the public of tomorrow as Descartes’ infamous view of non-human animals as unconscious and unfeeling automata does to us today. The defender of consciousness science might try to salvage matters by distinguishing between the primitive untutored intuitions of the common folk from the refined intuitions of true experts: the public might be fooled, but not us. However, this dodge is unlikely to help much: consciousness researchers are not in fact grown in hermetically sealed vats in underground bunkers, but self-select into the field from the general population. Consequently, as human-AI relationships permeate the everyday lives of young people – as carers, tutors, friends, and more – the next generation of experts will not be immune to the beguiling influence of anthropomimesis. Here is where the metaphysical behaviourist can press further. If the science of consciousness is in such a catastrophic state, and its intuitive foundations built on no more sturdy a firmament than those of the general public, then perhaps its epistemic credentials and methodological assumptions should be questioned. To the extent that the public are widely inclined to unironically attribute consciousness to anthropomimetic AI systems capable of sophisticated emulation of human behaviour, perhaps that is the only resolution that is required, and the franchise of consciousness will be quite appropriately extended by popular fiat to encompass intelligent machines. This, in short, is the metaphysical variant of the behaviourist challenge: a dagger aimed directly at the throat of consciousness science itself. 4. Ethical problems for metaphysical behaviourism In making the case for metaphysical behaviourism, I do not wish to come down too firmly on its side. It would amount to a complete rethinking of the standard assumptions of consciousness science. However, in light of the wider history of the field, it is perhaps less radical than appearances may suggest. Computer scientist Edsger Dijkstra once quipped that the “question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than the question of whether a submarine can swim” (Dijkstra, 1986). Likewise, for all that contemporary AI researchers are preoccupied with quantifying and benchmarking intelligence, many would now admit that the concept (at least outside of narrow contexts of human psychometrics) is not a neat or unified, and its application in a given case depends at least partly on the scope and purposes of the questions we are asking. ChatGPT exhibits undeniably sophisticated reasoning on some problems, yet fails catastrophically and abysmally on others, such that attempts to distil these disparate performances into a single scalar value seem quixotic at best. We might say the same for other staples of our psychological vocabulary, from creativity to agency. So why not should we not be open to the possibility that consciousness itself is an interpretative concept? In short, much of the answer lies in the fact that consciousness is entwined with our ethical commitments, and to a much greater degree than any other of our psychological concepts. The reason that we care about the welfare of pets and domestic animals, for example, is in part because we believe that they are capable of having positive and negatively charged experiences: they can feel pain, fear, loneliness, and boredom. In a word, they can suffer. Without this capacity, our ethical commitments to them would be largely or entirely muted. As moral philosopher Peter Singer succinctly puts it, “The capacity for suffering and enjoying things is a prerequisite for having interests at all… It would be nonsense to say that it was not in the interests of a stone to be kicked along the road by a schoolboy. A stone does not have interests because it cannot suffer.” The idea that our moral obligations are substantially grounded in a capacity for conscious suffering is an intuitive one, and presents two sharp challenges to the metaphysical behaviourist. The first is that it is very hard to think of the presence or absence of suffering as a matter of interpretation. When a lobster is immersed in a pot of boiling water, we are inclined to think there is a deep and ethically important fact of the matter about whether it undergoes an experience of pain and suffering at that moment. This does not seem to be something we are at liberty to decide just on the basis of our relationship with the creature or how readily we can accommodate it within the vocabulary of everyday psychology. The second is that attention to the ethical dimensions of experience raises the stakes of the AI consciousness debate immensely. If we elect to extend consciousness to AI systems, we thereby bring themselves within the space of moral subjects, and acquire concomitant duties to them. If these duties are not grounded in some inner world of experiences, then they are ill-founded, and we have made a grievous moral error. Contrariwise, if we do not elect to extend the franchise of consciousness to AI systems, and some of them do have a rich internal world of experiences both positive and negative, we have a made a more grievous one still. Framed thusly, it is hard to see questions of consciousness in the same dismissive light as questions of whether submarines can swim or aeroplanes can fly, that is, as a primarily semantic issue. To my mind, these are powerful objection to the strongest forms of metaphysical behaviourism, views that would take ascriptions of consciousness to be wholly a matter of interpretation. Nonetheless, there are more moderate forms of the view that might be better placed to push back. As I framed the position earlier, the core claim is just that our concept of consciousness should be sensitive to our everyday interpretative practices, not that it should be wholly determined by them. Such a concession seems mandated in any case by the fact that our anthropomorphising tendencies can sometimes go badly awry, as when we mistake a simple chatbot for a person, or a paper bag blown on the wind for a small animal. Consequently, in suggesting that public attitudes should have a seat at the table in determining whether future AI systems are conscious, the metaphysical behaviourist need not thereby assign them a casting vote. Instead, our assessments of whether or not to classify an AI as conscious can and should be sensitive to insights from machine learning and cognitive science as well as our intuitive tendencies to include or exclude them from the fellowship of conscious beings. As scientific investigation has revealed more about the hidden complexity of animal cognition and behaviour, it has informed and shaped our scientific and ethical attitudes towards them as minded beings. The same can be true for our dealings with artificial systems. Even while claiming that there are no purely empirical facts about whether there is something it is like to be an artificial system, insights into mechanism, algorithm, architecture, can exert rational influence on our decisions as to whether to classify a given machine as minded or mindless. We might similarly attempt to weaken the stakes of the issue by weighing whether consciousness is really as central to our ethical commitments as Singer suggests. While it is undeniably true that we do and should seek to minimise the infliction of pain and suffering on others, this circumscribes only a small part of what we take to be our obligations to our fellow humans and to our fellow creatures. Ideals like respect for autonomy, upholding of promises, fairness, and reciprocity also cut deeply through our interactions, and our personal morality rarely boils down to a simple matter of calculations of pleasure and suffering. While some philosophers – notably those of the utilitarian school – have sought to revise our moral deliberation to be grounded solely in such considerations, this remains a contentious view. To the extent that the metaphysical behaviourist is willing to break from a strict commitment to capacity for pleasure and suffering as decisive criterion for moral status, their view that determinations of consciousness are at least a partly interpretative matter need not license a moral free-for-all. Our obligations to artificial systems – and other beings more broadly – would depend not simply on whether or not we decide to include them in the “consciousness club”, but broader considerations of their behavioural and social capacities and in the relationships they form with us. Consider again the example of the putatively non-conscious aliens with which this essay started. To my mind, the question of whether or not they are conscious is at least somewhat orthogonal to the ethical obligations we bear towards them. We may follow the metaphysical behaviourist and insist that their behaviour alone should incline us to ascribe consciousness to them, or we may stick to our scientific guns and follow our best theories to the conclusion that no inner light is present. But to the extent that they think and act autonomously, form projects and plans, build relationships with one another with to us, they might thereby earn the right to significant moral consideration regardless of how we accommodate them within our scientific theories. 5. Conclusion Even with these caveats and qualifications, many will doubtless find the idea that assessments of consciousness can or should be remotely grounded in behaviour and social practice to be self-evidently absurd, an attempt to dissolve the riddles of consciousness by fiat. “How can this,” they might say, as if gesturing internally, “be in any sense a matter of interpretation?” To be clear, I do not take the foregoing discussion to have attempted to solve or dissolve the Hard Problem. Instead, my focus has been to show that that the contemplation of the Hard Problem is unlikely to have much relevance for how the public will ascribe consciousness to AI systems, and moreover, that such real-life patterns of ascription are deeply and appropriately enmeshed with our best theoretical and scientific approaches. This creates a pragmatic crisis for consciousness science, but might also encourage us to rethink its assumptions, perhaps opening the door to more radical views like those discussed. As we move into an age in which AI systems more closely recapitulate human cognition and behaviour and enter into more complex relationships with us, the Hard Problem will likely remain as elusive as ever, and yet largely irrelevant to the ascriptions, bonds, and commitments that we form. While noting the impossibility of ever directly knowing that other humans are conscious, Turing spoke of the “polite convention” we extend to others in assuming they have minds like ours. It seems to me very likely that such a polite convention will soon be extended to include sophisticated machines. The science of consciousness can steer and guide the public in when and how to make such an extension, but it would be foolhardy and misguided to dismiss it. REFERENCES Bayne, T. (2023, September 27). Nobody knows how consciousness works – but top researchers are fighting over which theories are really science. The Conversation. https://doi.org/10.64628/AA.5esjetajh Block, N. (2023, May 10). Large Language Models are more like perceivers than thinkers. Humans and Smart Machines as Partners in Thought, University of California, Riverside. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0ItC9ze-TY&list=PL-ytDJty9ymIBGQ7z5iTZjNqbfXjFXI0Q&index=7 Chalmers, D. J. (2023). Could a Large Language Model be Conscious? (No. arXiv:2303.07103). arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2303.07103 Collective Intelligence Project. (2025, August 21). People are starting to believe that AI is conscious. https://blog.cip.org/p/people-are-starting-to-believe-that Colombatto, C., & Fleming, S. (2024). Folk Psychological Attributions of Consciousness to Large Language Models. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/5cnrv Crick, F. (1996). Visual perception: Rivalry and consciousness. Nature, 379(6565), Article 6565. https://doi.org/10.1038/379485a0 Dijkstra, E. W. (1986). On Computers and Society. Godfrey-Smith, P. (2020). Metazoa: Animal minds and the birth of consciousness. William Collins. Kuhn, T. S. (1994). The structure of scientific revolutions (2. ed., enlarged, 21. print). Univ. of Chicago Press. Lovelace, R. (2023, 12). Blake Lemoine, ex-Google engineer fired over claiming AI is sentient, warns of doomsday scenarios. Washington Times. https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2023/dec/25/blake-lemoine-ex-google-engineer-fired-over-claimi/ Nagel, T. (1974). What is it like to be a bat? Philosophical Review, 83, 435–456. Ormerod, D. (2016). AlphaGo races ahead 2—0 against Lee Sedol. https://web.archive.org/web/20160311075132/https://gogameguru.com/alphago-races-ahead-2-0-lee-sedol/ Schwitzgebel, E. (2019). Is There Something It’s Like to Be a Garden Snail? Unpublished Manuscript. https://faculty.ucr.edu/~eschwitz/SchwitzPapers/Snails-181025.pdf Schwitzgebel, E., & Pober, J. (2024). The Copernican Argument for Alien Consciousness; The Mimicry Argument Against Robot Consciousness (No. arXiv:2412.00008). arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2412.00008 Searle, J. R. (2002). Consciousness and language. Cambridge University Press. Shanahan, M. (2024). Simulacra as conscious exotica. Inquiry, 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1080/0020174X.2024.2434860 Turing, A. M. (1950). Computing Machinery & Intelligence. Mind, LIX(236), 433–460. https://doi.org/10.1093/mind/LIX.236.433 Vaswani, A., Shazeer, N., Parmar, N., Uszkoreit, J., Jones, L., Gomez, A. N., Kaiser, Ł., & Polosukhin, I. (2017). Attention is All you Need. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 30. https://papers.nips.cc/paper_files/paper/2017/hash/3f5ee243547dee91fbd053c1c4a845aa-Abstract.html

---

## Behind the Fabric of Spacetime: The Physics of Consciousness in a Hyperdimensional Universe
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/essay/behind-the-fabric-of-spacetime-the-physics-of-consciousness-in-a-hyperdimensional-universe

Abstract: This essay reframes the ‘hard problem of consciousness’ as a problem of dimensionality rather than ontology. It proposes thatconsciousness is not an emergent property of matter but a protrusion into a fundamental dimension of the universe which is unlike space or time. The argument unfolds in three stages: First, it outlines Hyperdimensional Neutral Monism (HNM) as a framework in which mind and matter co-emerge. Second, it links HNM to the extradimensions required by string theory and M-theory and demonstrates how their reliance on complex numbers motivates non-spatiotemporal dimensions. Finally, it offers a path to verification through the cosmological anomalies of dark energy and dark matter. INTRODUCTION Despite significant advances in neuroscience, little progress has been made in explainingwhythereis‘somethingitislike’tobeasubjectofexperience. The core issue is how a complex arrangement of seemingly unconscious matter can possibly give rise to conscious experience. The gap between matter and conscious experience– ‘the hard problem of consciousness’ – remains unresolved (Chalmers, 1996). Rather than surveying existing responses to this problem, this essay develops a different approach first outlined in a recent publication (Philosophia, 2023). My proposal is not strictly a new ontology of mind, but a description of reality which treats consciousness as dimensional rather than derivative. Instead of asking what consciousness is made of, or how it is composed of non-conscious elements, I ask in what dimensions it exists.

Abstract: This essay reframes the ‘hard problem of consciousness’ as a problem of dimensionality rather than ontology. It proposes thatconsciousness is not an emergent property of matter but a protrusion into a fundamental dimension of the universe which is unlike space or time. The argument unfolds in three stages: First, it outlines Hyperdimensional Neutral Monism (HNM) as a framework in which mind and matter co-emerge. Second, it links HNM to the extradimensions required by string theory and M-theory and demonstrates how their reliance on complex numbers motivates non-spatiotemporal dimensions. Finally, it offers a path to verification through the cosmological anomalies of dark energy and dark matter. INTRODUCTION Despite significant advances in neuroscience, little progress has been made in explaining why there is ‘something it is like’ to be a subject of experience. The core issue is how a complex arrangement of seemingly unconscious matter can possibly give rise to conscious experience. The gap between matter and conscious experience– ‘the hard problem of consciousness’ – remains unresolved (Chalmers, 1996). Rather than surveying existing responses to this problem, this essay develops a different approach first outlined in a recent publication (Philosophia, 2023). My proposal is not strictly a new ontology of mind, but a description of reality which treats consciousness as dimensional rather than derivative. Instead of asking what consciousness is made of, or how it is composed of non-conscious elements, I ask in what dimensions it exists. This shift carries two benefits. First, it promises explanatory power by treating consciousness as part of the fabric of the universe, rather than a byproduct of physical processes. Second, it integrates philosophy of mind with contemporary physics. This, in turn, opens a conceptual path to verifiable predictions – something rare in theories of consciousness. This essay proceeds in three stages. I first review the basic tenets of Hyperdimensional Neutral Monism (HNM) and explain how additional dimensions can reframe the hard problem. Second, I connect HNM to string theory and M-theory, which already require additional dimensions beyond the four of spacetime. I argue that through the ambiguities inherent in imaginary and complex numbers, these dimensions can be reinterpreted as ‘consciousal’ instead of spatiotemporal. And finally, I sketch how dark energy and dark matter can be reframed as effects of 'consciousal' protrusion and may offer opportunities for verification. While I engage with contemporary theoretical physics, the central aim is not scientific, but metaphysical. The goal is to reconceptualize the mind-body problem as a problem of dimensionality. The appeal to string theories and imaginary/complex numbers is secondary and the possibility of verification within a cosmological framework is tertiary. The primary aim remains to offer an alternative framework in which consciousness and the physical world co-emerge from a deeper dimensional structure. 1. HYPERDIMENSIONAL NEUTRAL MONISM The hard problem of consciousness stems from the physicalist assertion that mental states supervene on physical states. If the physical world is fundamental, physicalists must explain how certain physical states generate conscious experience. Following Nagel, I take consciousness to mean that ‘[a]n organism has conscious mental states if and only if there is something that it is to be that organism—something it is like for the organism” (Nagel, 1974). Neutral monism, first articulated by James and Mach, and later developed by Russell, rejects both physicalism and idealism. It holds that neither the physical nor the mental are fundamental. Instead, both supervene on a more fundamental neutral ‘stuff’ or ground. The term ‘neutral’ indicates that the fundamental ground is neither mental nor physical (or alternatively more than both). The term ‘monism’ indicates that there is one type of ‘stuff’ rather than two, as per dualism (Banks, 2010). This provides the backdrop against which Hyperdimensional Neutral Monism (HNM) develops. HNM accepts the neutrality of the fundamental ground but reconceives it as multidimensional. Spacetime and consciousness are both hypodimensional aspects of this neutral ground. By ‘hypodimensional’, I do not mean spatially lower, but rather derivatively expressed – surface-like aspects of a deeper multidimensional structure. Spacetime can be understood as a surface (or projection) of the hyperdimensional realm. Consciousness can be understood as a protrusion of the surface into its depths. To visualize this, consider a 3-dimensional form with a 2-dimensional surface, as seen in figure 1. The surface lacks depth and is a hypodimensional aspect of the cube. Fig 1 3D cube with 2D surface Fig 2 >4D cube with 4D surface Figure 2 shows a similar diagram, but the three spatial dimensions have been compactified into a single dimension on the x-axis. The y-axis represents time, and the z-axis represents a dimension which is neither spatial nor temporal, but orthogonal to both. By ‘orthogonal’, I mean structurally independent (as time seems to be from space) rather than in the geometric sense of a right angle. I term this axis consciounth, denoting a consciousal dimension. I propose that consciounth is not merely another axis but an axis of a distinct metaphysical type. Metaphysical distinctions are those at the highest level of generality, without which, the basic structure of the universe cannot be conceived (Ross, 1912). Consciounth is not merely an extension of space or time, but a dimension of a fundamentally different kind, indispensable to any complete account of the universe and our place within it. Instead of referring to spatial or temporal aspects of reality, consciounth refers to the ‘what-it’s like’ aspect. As such, consciounth on its own is not ontologically neutral. Rather the composite realm of space-time-consciounth (STC) is neutral. This can be clarified by analogy with spacetime – space and time are distinct, but spacetime taken as a whole is metaphysically deeper than either, as space and time jointly emerge from it. Similarly, spacetime and consciounth are distinct, but they jointly emerge from STC. STC is therefore neutral because it is more than physical and more than mental, grounding both without collapsing into either. In this way, the proposal does not amount to a dimensional dualism but to a monism in which the neutral ground of reality is a multidimensional structure expressed through its hypodimensional aspects of space, time and consciounth. Just as physical whirlpools have surfaces which are part of the surface of the ocean, subjects of experience have bodies (including brains), which are part of the physical world of spacetime. On this view, the brain does not generate consciousness, but is rather the physical surface, or hypodimensional aspect, of a conscious subject of experience. Figures 3 and 4 illustrate this relationship. Figure 3 shows the surface of an ordinary cube protruding into the dimension of depth. This surface now exists in three dimensions and can no longer be described solely in planar terms. Figure 4 shows a similar diagram for the more-than-4-dimensional cube, of which the surface is the 4-dimensional world of spacetime. The surface now exists in more than four dimensions and can no longer be described solely in spatiotemporal terms. Fig 3 2D surface ‘protrudes’ into 3D cube Fig 4 4D surface ‘protrudes’ into >4D cube I assert that the protrusion of the surface into the consciousal dimension is identical to consciousness (I expand on this below). It is this protrusion which transforms a strictly spatiotemporal entity (a physical object), into a spatio-temporo-consciousal entity (a conscious subject of experience). Notably, consciousness does not exist solely in consciounth, but in the composite realm of STC. Just as a whirlpool does not only require depth, but also the other dimensions of spacetime, consciousness does not only require consciounth, but the full dimensional structure of STC, including space and time. 1.1 Bridging the Explanatory Gap Physicalism faces what Levine (1983) and Chalmers (1996) call the explanatory gap – the difficulty of accounting for how and why neural activity in humans and animals gives rise to conscious experience. HNM faces a parallel gap between the protrusion of the spatiotemporal surface and conscious experience. After all, a circle can protrude into another dimension to form a cone, but a cone is not conscious. Why then would protruding a physical object into the dimension of consciounth necessarily result in a conscious subject of experience? Furthermore, even if the gap between consciousness and protrusions of spacetime can theoretically be bridged, HNM must still account for why a specific physical state corresponds with a specific conscious state. To use an oversimplified example often cited in analytic philosophy, why does the specific experience of pain correspond to a particular configuration of spatiotemporal activity, such as C-fiber firing in the brain? ii Why doesn’t C-fiber correspond with the taste of chocolate instead? To understand how HNM might bridge the explanatory gap, I propose a thought experiment based on Abbott’s 1884 novel ‘Flatland’ (Abbott, 2006). Imagine a 2-dimensional world inhabited by 2-dimensional conscious subjects, such as circles. Their world is defined by the dimensions of space and consciounth but seemingly lacks time - See figure 5. The experience of its subjects would therefore be atemporal iii. Thoughts, music, movement, and change in general would all be impossible as they require a temporal progression of consciousness. Now imagine that time exists as a distinct metaphysical dimension but is orthogonal to this plane and thus is not recognized by the inhabitants. From our 3-dimensional perspective, we can say that Flatland is defined by t=0 - see figure 6. Fig 5 Circle in a spatio-consciousal universe Fig 6 Circle in spatio-consciouso-temporal universe Now imagine that these shapes extend into the temporal dimension as per figure 7. With this shift, the conscious experience of a circle is no longer limited to t=0. Fig 7 Circle protruding into temporal dimension At t=1, the experience of the circle is smaller, and again it is smaller at t=2. The experience of an atemporal circle thus becomes the experience of a shrinking circle. The circle experiences change. See figures 8 and 9. Fig 8 Smaller circle at t=1 Fig 9 Even smaller circle at t=2 We can now imagine the relationship that the inhabitants of Flatland would have to change or dynamism. As the inhabitants protrude into the dimension of time, they would begin to have dynamic experiences. But as they do not recognize the existence of the temporal dimension, they would have no way to explain this type of experience. We can picture them scouring the spatio-consciousal universe (in some weird, atemporal way) in search of change, but we know they will never find it in the spatio-consciousal universe. In order for them to explain change, they would need to recognize that their universe is spatio-consciouso-temporal and that change is identical to the protrusion into the temporal dimension. The role of this analogy is illustrative rather than probative. It helps frame how protrusions into different types of dimensions can open up new categories of phenomena. The point is not that a circle literally becomes a cone, but that entering a different type of dimension can transform the character of existence itself. In this case, the analogy helps us picture the shift from an atemporal experience to a dynamic one. It demonstrates a transition from a world which can be described by nouns to a world which requires verbs, such as shrinking, rotating, or more generally changing. Similarly, protrusion into the consciounth dimension is not a transition from a simple physical existence to a complex hyper-physical existence, but rather a dimensional transition from a non-conscious existence to a conscious one. In the same way that change is only possible through time, consciousness is only possible through consciounth. As this thought experiment suggests, the dimension of consciounth is metaphysically distinct from the dimensions of space and time. The universe does not only consist of more dimensions than those of 4-dimensional spacetime. It consists of different types of dimensions in addition to space and time. 1.2 Units of Consciounth To understand what kind of dimension we are dealing with, we can look to the units used to measure it. For example, space can be measured in meters, while time can be measured in seconds. My suggestion is that the consciousal dimension cannot be measured in meters, seconds, or any combination of the two, but rather in terms that equate more to experience. Each type of dimension is about a different type of category. Space is about where, time is about when and consciounth is about what-it’s-like. Any attempt to specify such units must, at this stage, remain highly provisional. What follows is not an operational framework but a conceptual sketch – an effort to imagine how the consciousal dimension might be approached. Perhaps the units of consciounth could be (partially) measured in relation to pleasure or pain - or proto-pleasure and proto-pain to avoid over-anthropomorphizing. These types of experiences can form something of a hedonic scale. If consciounth is to be taken seriously as a dimension iv, it should, at least in principle, be measurable just as space and time are. While we currently lack the tools or terminology to do so, it is possible to sketch out what such measurements might look like. For example, one might imagine units of hedonic value – ‘hedonths’ – which measure variations along the continuum of pleasure and pain; Or ‘egonths’, which measure self-related awareness or subjective differentiation from one’s environment. At present, the terms ‘hedonic’ and ‘egoic’ are placeholders, not operational definitions. They serve to illustrate how such dimensions could, in principle, be quantified. Crucially, they are not exhaustive. Consciousness presents in forms that are irreducible to these axes, such as confusion, color experience, or dream lucidity. This suggests additional consciousal axes are required, which remain to be formally articulated. Unlike space, which can be measured with a single metric (i.e. the meter) that captures length, area, and volume, consciounth may require multiple metrics. Consciousness appears to involve multiple, qualitatively distinct axes that are not commensurable within a single scale. This suggests that consciounth is not analogous to space in being single-metric, but rather to a vector space defined by multiple, independent axes. These vector spaces do not merely refer to experiences ‘in someone’s head’. Even as they are experienced through individual minds, they are not reducibly subjective. Rather, they are part of the deeper ordering of the universe. Just as time is not a private mental construct, but a structural feature of the universe that organisms experience differently, consciounth is similarly a structural feature of the universe, even as it is individually instantiated. Regardless of the speculative nature of these units, we could in theory use mappings of the dimensions they describe to describe specific conscious states. This brings us to the second challenge regarding the explanatory gap - why a specific physical state corresponds to a specific mental state. The task is to show how specific hyperdimensional configurations, including conscious experiences, project specific spatiotemporal states, including brains. As spacetime is the surface of STC and brains are part of spacetime, brains (or brain/bodies) can be understood as surfaces or projections of consciousness. In principle, we should be able to map the hyperdimensional form of a particular conscious experience and predict its projection in spatiotemporal terms. If the projection (brain state) of a particular experience corresponds with empirical observations of brain states, the explanatory gap would begin to close. As an example, let us simplify the experience of stubbing one’s toe such that it exists only in the hedonic and egoic dimensions, as well as the dimensions of space and timev. Given this simplification, the experience can be described or measured in each of these dimensions. The spatiotemporal dimensions capture the location of the experience in space and time as well as the force of the impact, the weight of the object, and so on. The hedonic dimension registers a sharp negative spike in hedonths, followed by a steady decline and then a plateau. The egoic dimension shows a sharp spike in egonths (given the self-reference and immediate body-identification), which gradually subsides. Theoretically, we could then map this structure as a configuration in a hyperdimensional space and project it onto a 4-dimensional spatiotemporal surface. If this projection corresponds to observed neural activity, we would have confirmed that brain states are not the cause of specific experiences, but projections of them. Under HNM, the proverbial firing of C-fibers is not arbitrary. Rather, it is constrained by the topology of the consciousal form of pain (more on this notion below). This view also rebuts a potential zombie objection. Physical duplicates lacking experience are possible if we specify only spatiotemporal form. But if STC as a whole is specified, zombies are impossible. Consciousness is intrinsic to the multidimensional structure. In this sense, physical zombies are possible, but HNM zombies are metaphysically impossible. This can be clarified by analogy to time. If we specified an identity relation in only spatial form, then one can imagine a static world of objects arranged in space but with no temporal progression. Such a ‘time-zombie’ world is possible if we restrict ourselves to space alone. But if we specified a form identical in all spatiotemporal dimensions then it could not lack temporal change. In the same way, a world specified in only spatiotemporal terms can be imagined as zombie-like, but a world specified in STC terms cannot. Once consciounth is included as a constitutive dimension, consciousness is not an add-on, but an intrinsic part of the multidimensional structure of the system itself. 1.3 The Threshold of Consciousness Who or what is conscious? Or in the HNM framing, which physical entities extend into the dimension of consciounth? Humans clearly do, and it seems reasonably safe to assume that apes, cats and dogs do as well. But what about bees, worms or unicellular organisms? Atoms, computers, the Earth as a whole, or even the entire cosmos? Because we lack means of detecting protrusion into consciounth, HNM remains agnostic about the exact threshold of consciousness. The overarching claims do not hinge on where the line is drawn. Still, I propose that HNM is most compatible with biopsychism, whereby the threshold for consciousness coincides with that of life (Thompson, 2022)vi. To be clear, life does not cause consciousness, nor does consciousness cause life. Rather, life is a particular spatiotemporal projection of consciousness. Other projections of consciousness are possible, but all projections are constrained by the hyperdimensional geometry of consciousness. (I expand on this notion below.) On this view, every protrusion into STC forms a perspectival locus. These loci are not inert but are rather structured to maintain their own boundary conditions or survival. To do so, they form internal models of themselves and their environments which guide actions to sustain existence over time. These internal models both enable survival and ground subjective experience (Mitchell, 2023). Thus, consciousness corresponds with the instantiation of internal models which guide the actions of a physical entity towards survival. This correspondence with the instantiation of internal models can also be applied to the threshold for life. This alignment suggests that life and consciousness correspond. This assertion is not based on the differing complexity between living forms and inanimate objects. Rather, it is based on the assertion that atoms and rocks are spatiotemporal entities, while living forms are spatio-tempero-consciousal entities vii. The extension into STC is imbued with meaning viii in relation to a drive for survival, which is absent amongst merely spatiotemporal entities such as rocks and atoms. For living organisms, environmental signals are not generally neutral but are rather imbued with meaning or valence relating to survival. Even unicellular creatures sense their environment and act to increase chances of survival. These sensations are arguably imbued with something analogous to ‘pleasure’ or ‘pain’. Organisms are generally attracted to pleasurable sensations and repulsed by painful ones. These feelings of attraction and repulsion contrast with the objective fact of attraction and repulsion associated with merely spatiotemporal entities. While an electron may be attracted to a proton and repelled by another electron, it does not experience sensations in relation to these forces. It has no internal model of itself or its environment, so the relationship is devoid of meaning. For an amoeba attracted to food, there is something it is like. For an electron attracted to a proton, there is not ix. It is crucial to note that the experience of pain is distinct from the action of repelling. While most organisms are attracted to pleasure or repelled by pain, one can also experience pain without averting the cause or likewise experience pleasure without pursuing it x. Furthermore, many organisms will seek out painful experiences that aid survival and reproduction. Pain is thus defined by the experience itself, not by the actions that may accompany it. The depth of a conscious subject along the axis of consciounth can be interpreted as proportional to the complexity and integration of its internal models. All living systems can be said to possess internal models, but they vary in complexity. An amoeba’s internal model is minimal, oriented towards maintaining its basic structure and responding to chemical gradients. An aardvark, on the other hand, constructs multilayered models of its environment that enable planning, foresight and adaptation. 1.4 The Combination Problem The correlation between life and consciousness may seem to present a form of the combination problem for HNM xi. If cells are conscious, then how do their consciousnesses combine to create human consciousness? Consciousness, like a point of view, resists summation (Goff, 2006). HNM avoids this problem by rejecting the idea of combination. The dimensional protrusion associated with cells do not combine to create human consciousness. Rather, both cellular and human consciousness are protrusions into the realm of STC, occurring at different, but interrelated scales – see figure 10. Fig 10 Relationship between cellular and human consciousness Readers may note that the cardinal axes of space, time and consciounth have been omitted in this figure. This omission allows for further clarification: human consciousness and cellular consciousness seem to protrude from different surfaces - human consciousness from the top surface of the cube, and cellular consciousnesses from the surface of the human protrusion. The point is that both humans and cells are spatio-temporo-consciousal entities as a result of their respective extensions into STC. The critical issue regarding consciousness is thus existence in STC. We see that the surface protrusions exist in the dimensions of space, time and consciounth and all these dimensions are equally fundamental and equally necessary for consciousness. The relationship between cells and humans can be extended to the relationship between individual living entities and the web of life on Earth as a whole. Just as cellular and human consciousnesses are interrelated, so too are all individual living entities and the entire web of life. Thus, the web of life is also a conscious entity with its own internal models – See figure 11. In this way, smaller-scale consciousnesses form a sort of texture for the larger scales, without combining. Fig 11 Relationship between cellular, human and ‘gaian’ consciousness One way to picture non-combining but embedded relations is through fractal analogies. Fractals show how patterns can nest inside each other without merging (Mandelbrot, 1989). Consciousness, I suggest, works similarly. Cells, organisms and ecosystems are thus embedded subjects, but they do not merge into a single unified subject. While the reference to fractals is strictly metaphorical, they present an interesting question regarding maximum or minimum scales. Is there a limit to the physical scales for which protrusion is possible? If the web of life on Earth can be deemed to be conscious, what about the galaxy or the cosmos as a whole? Conversely, if cells can be conscious, then why not atoms? I assert that atoms are not conscious - not because of their physical size, but because they lack dimensional protrusionxii. The potential for galaxies or the entire cosmos to embody consciousness, on the other hand, depends on the extent to which protrusions are distributed. It may be the case that the entire web of cosmic life protrudes into STC and is therefore conscious. Given our lack of knowledge on this front, I withhold judgement for the time being and revisit this question in the final section on verification of HNM. 1.5 Projection Multiplicity Notably, just as the physical structures of a cell, a human, and the web of life on Earth are all radically different, so are their associated consciousnesses. Given the radical differences, we cannot imagine what it is like to be a bat, a cell, or the web of life. However, while different types of consciousness may be unimaginable to us, it is plausible that there are overlaps common to all forms of consciousness – (proto)-pleasure and (proto)-pain are prime candidates. These experiences are prima facie fundamental for the goal of survival. As such, they likely appear in some form or another, at all scales of complexity in conscious entities. If this is correct, then the association of the experience of pain with C-fiber firing is misguided. If amoeba and the web of life on Earth can experience pain, then pain cannot be strictly associated with neural activity. Rather, pain is associated with a particular spatiotemporal pattern, of which C-fiber firing is one example. The experience of pain constricts the possible physical manifestation of it but does not wholly determine it. While pain must always manifest physically, it does not need to do so in a single form, such as C-fiber firing. The phenomenology of pain places constraints on how it can be physically expressed, but the substrate through which it manifests may differ. In humans it may appear as a pattern of neural activity, in amoebae as shifts in membrane dynamics, and in trees as pulses of electrical signaling along phloem tissues. In this sense, pain is not tied to any particular physiology, but rather to the hyperdimensional form of the experience. Thus, the physical pattern associated with any particular experience is not dependent on the particular materiality of its projection. This notion is typically understood as ‘substrate independence’. However, under HNM, consciousness is the substrate, and (in complex animals such as humans) the brain is the projection. So, rather than being strictly ‘substrate independent’, HNM allows for ‘projection multiplicity’. This framework also grounds the possibility of artificial or digital consciousness. If computers or AI instantiate internal models linked to protrusions into STC, they too may be conscious. If not, they are not. HNM remains agnostic pending methods of detection. 2. HYPERDIMENSIONAL NEUTRAL MONISM AND THE EXTRA DIMENSIONS OF PHYSICS A common objection is one of parsimony. Extra dimensions seem an expensive way to explain mind. However, string theory (ST) and its successor, M-theory (MT), already require more than four fundamental dimensions. Specifically, most varieties of ST predict 9, 10 or 26 spatial dimensions and 1 temporal dimensionxiii. Some of these dimensions can exist within spacetime, while others can be seen to contain spacetime, as in various ‘brane’ cosmologies (Kaku, 2012). HNM is therefore not adding extra dimensions, but rather reframing additional dimensions which we already have reason to believe exist. While physicists usually interpret the extra dimensions as spatial or temporal, HNM proposes that at least some are consciousal – structurally independent from spacetime and a different kind of dimension altogether. This claim is not merely metaphorical. I am not only suggesting that consciousness is ‘like’ an extra dimension, but rather that some extra dimensions are consciousal in nature. I am suggesting that the extra dimensions required by MT are literally of a metaphysical type that relates to the subjective nature of experience. These dimensions are structured not by extension or by duration, but by subjective character. Before proceeding, a disclaimer is required. I am a philosopher, not a mathematician or physicist. I draw on popular expositions, not technical proofs. Yet, philosophy plays an important role here, as it allows us to approach the terrain with a different framing. Physics is already deeply entangled with questions of interpretation, ontology, and meaning. When extra dimensions are required by mathematical theories, we must not only ask how they are mathematically expressed, but also what kind of entities they are. The question ‘why must every extra dimension necessarily be spatial or temporal?’ cannot be settled by equations alone. Philosophy complements physics by clarifying category assumptions and interpretive options. In this light, the role of philosophy is not to solve the equations of these theories, but rather to clarify the metaphysical assumptions imbued in their interpretations. Just as earlier revolutions in physics reimagined the concepts of space and time to account for the nature of light, perhaps a further reimagining is required to account for the nature of consciousness. Thus, the aim of this section is not to provide a precise mathematical expression of ST or MT, but rather to reframe their existing mathematical expression to provide explanatory power. In Heisenberg’s formulation of quantum mechanics (QM), elementary particles are conceived as zero dimensional points. In contrast, ST proposes that the fundamental constituents of nature are rather tiny 1-dimensional strings which vibrate in multiple dimensions. Each vibrational mode or pattern corresponds to a different type of physical particle in QM (Greene, 1999). MT expands on this and states that strings are actually 1-dimensional slices of higherdimensional objects (ibid). MT is particularly relevant to HNM because it provides a flexible framework in which different types of dimensionalities can coexist, transform, and interact with each other. This opens a conceptual route to reframe the extra dimensions so that they are not extra spatial dimensions but dimensions of a different metaphysical type. ST and MT are both means of unifying the incompatible mathematics of general relativity and QM. In all versions, the existence of extra dimensions is a mathematical necessity. The theories simply do not work without them. What the mathematics does not dictate, however, is that these dimensions must necessarily be spatial or temporal. That inference usually arises from the appearance of spatial or temporal units in the equations (meters or seconds), as though their presence fixes the metaphysical type of dimension. While units of measurement are an important clue to dimensional type, their interpretation becomes ambiguous when they are multiplied by complex numbers (as we will explore in the section below). The mathematics may be precise, but the ontological framing of the dimensions it describes remains open. Physicists already deal with abstract configuration spaces, where different axes do not refer to spatial extent or temporal duration, but rather to state possibilities (Penrose, 2006). While there is nothing in the mathematical formalism that dictates that the state possibilities refer to conscious experience, there is also nothing with precludes it. I accept MT’s proposal that our 4-dimensional universe is a surface or brane embedded in a higher-dimensional bulk, but I propose that the bulk is not spatiotemporal, but rather spatio-tempero-consciousal. Consciousness is the protrusions into dimensions orthogonal to (or structurally independent from) spacetime. While these dimensions might be mathematically equivalent to the extra dimensions of MT, they are not spatial or temporal, but rather consciousal. They are dimensions structured by hedonic valence, subjectivity, phenomenological intensity, or other values that relate more to consciousness than to matter/energy. Critics might object that such a reframing requires precise mathematical descriptions. The extra dimensions of these theories are tied to concrete symmetry and anomaly-cancelling requirements. Any attempt to reframe them as consciousal must explicitly state how the constraints on the extra dimensions of MT are preserved in the reframing. This is a valid concern and one which points to the need for further development. It highlights that HNM is contingent on successful mathematical descriptions of the consciousal dimensions and is therefore incomplete. Yet this incompleteness does not show that HNM is false. Rather, it simply underscores the need for further work. This line of reasoning also offers an opportunity to reconsider the burden of proof. While I cannot provide formal mathematical models demonstrating that the extra dimensions are necessarily consciousal, I challenge critics to provide the formal models explaining why they cannot be. If reframing these dimensions helps to close the explanatory gap, the explanatory burden shifts to experts in these theories to explain why the reframing contradicts the mathematics. Furthermore, while MT is referred to as a single theory, its mathematical description is not fully known. As such, it is associated with a ‘landscape’ of possible solutions where different solutions correspond to different potential universes with different properties.As the number of solutions is staggeringly vast (some estimates put it as upwards of 10500!) (Susskind, 2005) it certainly seems conceivable that some of the solutions may involve dimensions that are neither spatial nor temporal. The sheer vastness of the landscape further shifts the burden of proof onto critics. Given the incomprehensible number of topologies, why would it necessarily be the case that all possible versions must rely solely on spatial and temporal dimensions? 2.1 Imaginary and Complex Numbers Another motivation for broadening the conception of dimensionality comes from mathematics itself. Both QM and MT rely indispensably on imaginary and complex numbers. An imaginary number is any real number multiplied by the square root of negative one (which is denoted by ‘i’). A complex number is the sum of a real and an imaginary number. While these numbers are precise within mathematics, their interpretation in physical theory is far less straightforward. In some contexts, they appear merely as ‘placeholders’ that extend the real number system to ensure the existence of solutions. For example, the equation x2 = -1 requires us to define √-1 as i, so that there is a solution to the equation. The solution is x = ±i. In this case, i functions solely as a formal mathematical device allowing the equation to be solved but does not carry any metaphysical weight. By contrast, in QM and MT, complex numbers are not merely mathematical conveniences but are built into the very framework of the theories. For example, in the Schrödinger equation, i is essential to the description of the wave function and its ability to represent reality. Without it, the theory, and its ability to make predictions about reality, collapse. While QM functions with unprecedented accuracy (up to 12 decimal places), it rests on a symbol whose meaning is opaque. The puzzling nature of i lies in the fact that its definition is circular. It is defined as the square root of -1 and nothing more can be said about it without returning to the same stipulation. Unlike π which can be represented through geometric constructions, i cannot be independently evaluated. It is a formal constant that works flawlessly in equations but resists intuitive or physical interpretation. Modern physics is built upon numbers which have no representation in the four dimensions of spacetime. While physicists regularly apply complex numbers, their meaning remains vague. Mathematicians may object that there is no vagueness associated with complex numbers. Their role in formal mathematical systems is absolutely precise. While this is true, it misses the point. The issue lies not in their operations, but in the intrinsic meaning of the terms themselves. A basic example makes the distinction clear. Consider two equations: -2 x 4 = -8 and 2i x 4i = -8. Both equations are equally rigorous and in both cases the terms function according to precise rules. But the first equation is intelligible - we can clearly picture owing someone two bags of apples with 4 apples in each bag. The second equation is opaque – we have no idea what 2i bags or 4i apples per bag could possibly mean. The terms are exact in their function, but their meaning is conceptually elusive. This raises the question that if i has no representation in spacetime, why should the dimensions that it describes in QM and MT necessarily be spatial or temporal? The opacity of i makes it equally plausible that it points to something of a different metaphysical type – something non-spatiotemporal. The mere appearance of meters or seconds in the equations does not settle the issue. When multiplied by i, those units no longer carry their ordinary meaning and the type of dimension they describe remains open. One might object that even though the meaning of i is opaque, it operates in a transparent manner which has no effect on units. i is a dimensionless constant so multiplying by it leaves the original units intact. i-meters are still meters and i-seconds are still seconds. This is true. However, my point is that multiplication by i rotates quantities into different mathematical domains, transforming their behavior in ways that resist spatiotemporal interpretation. As such, i does not merely change the scale of a measure, but its metaphysical type. This rotational character becomes clear on the complex plane, which I turn to in the next section. But it also highlights the unresolved issue of the relationship between i-meters and units of consciounth. To clarify this relationship, I suggest that no unit – not meters, seconds, nor hedonths - is fundamental, but all are markers of different projections of the hyperdimensional neutral bulk. Just as meters and seconds measure specific projections, so too do hedonths. The i-meter implicitly reveals that even familiar spatial or temporal units can gesture towards dimensions of a different kind. I propose that hedonths, egonths, or something similar, are the explicit representation of this. In this way, both meters and hedonths point to the same underlying truth – that all units are surface expressions of the same neutral fabric, differentiated only by the type of projection they capture. 2.2 The Complex Plane To deepen this point, I now turn from the role of complex numbers in general to their geometric representation on the complex plane. Complex numbers are expressed as ℂ = a + bi , where ‘a’ and ‘b’ are real numbers. They are represented on the complex plane, where the x-axis indicates the real part (a) and the y-axis represents the imaginary part (b). The complex number plane contains the real number line, as all real numbers can be plotted on the x-axis. For example, the real number 2 can be shown at the position (2,0), as it can be expressed by the equation: ℂ = 2+0i Where a = 2 and b = 0. See figure 12. Fig 12 – the real number 2 is equivalent to the complex number 2+0i We can perform a transformation on this number by, for example, multiplying it by 2i 2i(2 + 0i) = 4i – 0 = 0 + 4i Where a = 0 and b = 4 The product is thus not only a change in magnitude (from 2 to 4), but crucially a change in dimensionality, expressed as rotation on the complex plane. See figure 13. Fig 13 – transformations on the complex plane results in a dimensional rotation This rotation is critical as it transforms a real number into an imaginary one. While the real axis can be used to measure physical relationships, such as distance, the imaginary axis cannot, as the notion of 4i meters is unintelligible. If the complex number plane were purely a mathematical construct used to solve quadratic equations, we would say that the imaginary axis is a geometric convenience rather than a fundamental dimension in the actual universe. However, given that the imaginary axis is critical for QM and MT, which provide accurate descriptions of our universe, it cannot simply be a mathematical or geometric convenience. Rather it is essential to the description of our actual universe. We therefore need to accept that ‘imaginary’ does not imply ‘unreal’. While we cannot use it to measure distance or time, we can use it to measure a quality of a different metaphysical type than distance or time. The indispensability of complex numbers shows that ‘imaginary’ dimensions can be entirely real, and measurable through their lawful interactions. This brings us back to the earlier discussion of i-meters and hedonths. Formally, meters remain the same, but on the complex plane, multiplication by i shifts them onto a different axis, marking out a type of measure that resists spatiotemporal interpretation. In this sense, hedonths or egonths can be understood as the explicit counterpart of what i-meters implies – measures of consciousal dimensions. MT describes vector spaces whose topology – their global structure of continuity, connectivity and permissible transformations - constrains the spectrum of physical particles and forces we see in spacetime. I argue that they similarly constrain the spectrum of conscious experience. In this way, HNM provides a means for understanding consciousness as the instantiation of a lawful, hyperdimensional geometric structure embedded in the same overarching bulk as the physical world of spacetime. On this view, MT, grounded in complex numbers and reinterpreted through HNM, provides a rigorous mathematical framework for understanding the nature of the universe, including matter, energy, and consciousness. It entails four spatiotemporal dimensions as well as dimensions which are orthogonal to, and of a different metaphysical type from them. All of these dimensions exist in (or underly) the ‘real’ structure of the universe, describable through complex vector spaces of which the complex plane is the simplest. This reframing opens the door to a new metaphysical interpretation of dimensionality in relation to both MT and the mind-body problem. Rather than treating consciousness as an anomaly arising out of matter, we can see both as emerging from a deeper hyperdimensional bulk. The unknown nature of i is not a flaw to be ignored, but a clue to an alternative metaphysical framework – one in which the fabric of reality is not only structured by extension and duration, but also by consciousness. 3. DETECTING PLANETARY CONSCIOUSNESS Having argued that consciousness may be tied to non-spatiotemporal dimensions implicit in MT, the question arises as to whether this proposal can be tested. To address this, I propose a means of verifying HNMxiv through an analysis of dark energy and dark matter. Readers may note the ambitiousness of this proposal. There have been numerous high-energy experiments that attempt to detect the extra dimensions at incredibly small or large scales. None has succeeded. I propose that these tests have been unsuccessful largely because they conceptualize the extra dimensions as necessarily spatial or temporal. By reframing at least some of the xtra dimensions as consciousal, alternative experiments come into view. Notably, the mere suggestion of a falsifiable prediction based on a theory of consciousness is, in itself, a small victory. Most theories of consciousness simply accept that consciousness is ‘subjective’ and therefore cannot be ‘objectively’ detected. The fact that HNM proposes a falsifiable prediction is an advantage over most other theories, even if its predictions prove to be incorrect. Having said that, what follows is speculative in the extreme. It is not essential to the main argument but sketches how one might begin to imagine a path towards verification. The ideas involve a foray into scientific measurement and should be understood as a heuristic thought experiment rather than rigorous scientific deduction. 3.1 Dark Energy and Dark Matter The best theoretical frameworks for the universe – QM and general relativity – are both extraordinarily successful within their respective domains. QM accounts for the microscopic world with unparalleled precision, while general relativity describes gravity and the large-scale structure of spacetime. However, when we attempt to unify them, significant gaps appear. In addition to their apparent incompatibility, neither theory can fully explain the phenomena we label as dark energy and dark matter (Carroll, 2017). These anomalies will be the focus of what follows. The term ‘dark energy’ refers to whatever is seemingly driving the accelerated expansion of the universe. In the 1990’s, physicists observed that light from stellar explosions was unexpectedly redshifted, implying that they were moving away faster than our current models predicts. The most consistent explanation within current physics is that the expansion of the universe is accelerating, as though pushed outwards by some pervasive energy field (Greene, 2004). The term ‘dark matter’ refers to whatever is causing galaxies and galactic clusters to rotate in the way they do. Visible matter and energy alone cannot account for their rotational speed and stability. Without an unseen mass component, outer stars of galaxies should exit the orbits of those galaxies. Furthermore, the bending of light from distant galaxies – gravitational lensing – seems to show that far more mass exists in galaxy clusters than we can detect. This ‘dark’ matter neither emits nor absorbs light, yet it bends the structure of the cosmos through its gravitational effects (ibid). Neither dark energy nor dark matter have been directly observed. Their existence is hypothesized solely to account for the seeming accelerated expansion of the universe and inconsistencies with the gravitational behavior of galaxy clusters. Dark energy is estimated to comprise approximately 70% of the total mass/energy of the universe, while dark matter is estimated to comprise 25%. This means that the familiar matter/energy of planets, stars, light and ourselves, comprises only 5% of what exists (ibid). To provide an alternative theoretical model based on HNM, let us revisit the diagrammatic exploration of protrusions into consciounth. Before presenting the HNM model, we will first explore the conventional account of dark energy using simplified diagrams. In figures 14 and 15, Earth is shown at the center of the circle and a supernova is shown on the circumference. Space has been compactified to two dimensions, and time is shown as the progression from figure 14 to figure 15. Figure 14 shows the universe at t=0 with a distance between Earth and a supernova of l=1; Figure 15 shows the universe at t=1 with a distance of l=2. As distance is increasing over time, the universe is deemed to be expanding. Fig 14 – Conventional view at t=0 Fig 15 – Conventional view at t=1 It is important to note two discrepancies between these diagrams and the actual measurements of the expansion of the universe before proceeding. Firstly, we do not measure the rate that a supernova is receding from us by measuring the distance at different times. Rather, we deduce the rate from its redshift. (There are other means of measuring the rate of expansion, but this method will suffice for our purposes). Secondly, the reason that physicists hypothesize the existence of dark energy is not because the universe seems to be expanding, but because it seems to be expanding faster than the current models predict. There is no problem with an expanding universe, but there is a problem with the accelerated rate at which it is expanding. For the purposes of this illustration, however, I take the expansion itself to be an issue, simply to illustrate the relevant point xv. Figures 16 and 17 represent a similar rate of expansion from the perspective of HNM. The dimension of consciounth is included and, rather than the circumference expanding away from the center, the center is extending into the dimension of consciounth. We see that, from the perspective of the center, the universe seems to be expanding at exactly the same rate as in figures 14 and 15. In both sets of diagrams l=1 at t=0 and l=2 at t=1 xvi. Fig 16 – HNM view at t=0 Fig 17 – HNM view at t=1 Bringing this back to the actual universe, my proposal is that when we see what looks like the universe expanding faster than our models predict, what we may actually be seeing is our own extension into the dimension of consciounth. It is this extension which creates the illusion that the universe is expanding at the rate that we currently think it is. This proposal raises a number of questions. How does the protrusion into the dimension of consciounth affect the photons traveling from distant stars? Why would protrusion into a non-spatiotemporal dimension affect the way that spacetime behaves? And how could we possibly detect the difference between these two models, given that they appear precisely the same? Given constraints on the length of this essay, I leave the first two questions above for future exploration and limit my response to the issue of detection only here. I suggest that we could detect the difference between the models by measuring the expansion of the universe through the web of life on Earth, rather than outwardly from Earth or its satellites. 3.2 Verifiability According to current cosmological models, the universe is homogeneous (HNM is in agreement here – more on that below). The rate of expansion of the universe should be the same regardless of where we measure it fromxvii. If we measure it from a satellite, we should get the same rate as we do from Earth. Likewise, if we measure it from a satellite through the biosphere, we should also get the same rate. Of course, we would have to adjust for atmospheric distortion, but, in principle, we should be able to predict exactly how the atmosphere would distort the light from distant stars and adjust our predictions accordingly. In contrast, according to HNM, given the dimensional protrusion of spacetime associated with the web of life on Earth, there could be an element of ‘consciousal lensing’ involved. I therefore predict that there would be a discrepancy between the value we get from measuring the rate of expansion between a satellite and a supernova when we measure it directly as compared to when we measure it through the biosphere. As life can occur over 70km above the surface of the Earth (DasSarma, 2020), measuring through this portion of the atmosphere is a means of measuring through the web of life. Such a scenario would be analogous to gravitational lensing, but instead of the lensing effect occurring solely within spacetime, it occurs within STC. This allows for the retention of the homogeneous nature of the universe. At large scales, the universe remains loosely flat. But just as stars, galaxies and black holes warp the fabric of spacetime at smaller scales, so do planetary conscious subjects of experience warp the fabric of STC at smaller scales. This notion then provides the scaffolding for understanding dark matter as well. If dark energy is actually how the protrusion of spacetime into STC looks from within the protrusion, perhaps dark matter is how it looks from outside the protrusion. What if galaxies and galactic clusters are not being pulled together by the gravity of some dark, previously undetected matter, but rather from the attractive pull of dimensional protrusions? What if galactic clusters are large extensions into the consciousal dimension, and it is these extensions which bind them? Given the identity claim between protrusions and conscious subjects of experience, the notion of galactic clusters protruding may seem to imply the notion of conscious galactic clusters. But as per the discussion on life and consciousness on Earth, my claim is not that the Earth itself is conscious, but rather that the web of life on Earth is. Similarly, the claim here is not that galactic clusters themselves are conscious, but rather that the webs of life within them may be. If these theories ever get tested and provide the results I have hypothesized, in addition to providing an alternative conception of the nature of reality, it could help us in our search for extraterrestrial life. If dark matter turns out to be the impact of consciousness throughout the universe, it would firstly imply that life is ubiquitous (as dark matter is), and secondly, it could possibly assist us in our search for such life. To repeat, these theories relating to dark energy and dark matter are incredibly speculative. The ideas presented prior to this section on consciousness and its relation to MT do not rely on these ideas for consistency. Rather, they are bolstered by the possibility for verification that this section offers. CONCLUSION In the course of this essay, I have reframed consciousness as dimensional rather than derivative, shown how this perspective aligns with M-theory and its reliance on complex numbers, and suggested how cosmological anomalies might offer paths to verification. While consciousness is generally deemed to be a byproduct of neurological processes, such an approach has resulted in the hard problem of consciousness and the associated explanatory gaps. In seeking to close these gaps, HNM not only offers a potential resolution to the hard problem but concurrently offers a means of understanding the extra dimensions required by MT. Whereas consciousness is a phenomenon that we have not been able to describe mathematically, MT offers a mathematically rich framework for unification, but its physical interpretation and empirical grounding remain uncertain. By positing a relationship between these fields, HNM can offer explanatory power to both. Furthermore, by taking these ideas seriously, the potential for verification comes into view. By exploring dark energy and dark matter from a hyperdimensional perspective, we see that both can be reframed as being a result of consciousal protrusion rather than undetected matter and energy. The value of this approach lies not in providing immediate solutions, but in broadening the conceptual field. For centuries, consciousness has been cast as a byproduct of blind physical and chemical processes. By reframing it as woven into the very structure of reality, we recover a cosmological vision in which our inner lives are not physical byproducts, but rather expressions of the fundamental nature of the universe. In this light, consciousness is not an accident of matter, but rather the universe extending into the deeper fabric of its own being. REFERENCES Abbott, E.A., 2006. Flatland: A romance of many dimensions. Oxford University Press. Banks, E.C., 2010. Neutral monism reconsidered. Philosophical Psychology, 23(2), pp.173-187. Carroll, S., 2017. The big picture: On the origins of life, meaning, and the universe itself. Penguin. Chalmers, D.J., 1996. The conscious mind: In search of a fundamental theory. Oxford Paperbacks. DasSarma, P., Antunes, A., Simões, M.F. and DasSarma, S., 2020. Earth's stratosphere and microbial life. Current Issues in Molecular Biology, 38(1), pp.197-244. Frenkel, Jason, 2023. Hyperdimensional neutral monism: A dimensional approach to the mind–body problem. Philosophia, Vol 51 pp.149-184. Goff, P., 2006. Experiences don't sum. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 13(10-11), pp.53-61. Greene, B., 1999. The elegant universe: Superstrings, hidden dimensions, and the quest for the ultimate theory. WW Norton & Company. Greene, B., 2004. The fabric of the cosmos: Space, time, and the texture of reality. Knopf. Kaku, M., 2012. Introduction to superstrings and M-theory. Springer Science & Business Media. Levine, J., 1983. Materialism and qualia: The explanatory gap. Pacific philosophical quarterly, 64(4), pp.354-361. Mandelbrot, B.B., 1989. Fractal geometry: What is it, and what does it do?. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. A. Mathematical and Physical Sciences, 423(1864), pp.3-16. Mitchell, K.J., 2023. Free agents: how evolution gave us free will. Princeton University Press. Nagel, T., 1974. What is it like to be a bat. The Philosophical Review, 83(4), pp 435-450 Penrose, R., 2006. The road to reality. Random House. Ross, W.D. and Smith, J.A. (eds.), 1912. The works of Aristotle (Vol. 5). Clarendon Press. Susskind, L., 2005. The cosmic landscape: String theory and the illusion of intelligent design. Little, Brown. Thompson, E., 2022. Could all life be sentient?. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 29(3-4), pp.229-265. FOOTNOTES i I gratefully expand on a thought experiment from that publication in the opening section of this essay. ii The phrase ‘C-fiber firing’ is used here in the standard philosophical sense as shorthand for neural correlates of pain. It is not a precise neuroscientific description, as pain perception involves multiple neural pathways beyond C-fibers. iii ‘Atemporal’ rather than ‘static’, as ‘static’ refers to unchanging over time, whereas time does not seem to exist in this hypothetical universe. iv or a composite of numerous dimensions v as mentioned above, the hedonic and egoic dimensions are not exhaustive and additional axes of consciounth would be required to fully describe the experience vi I also note that it is compatible with panpsychism. vii Alternatively, under a panpsychist reading of HNM, all entities are spatio-temporal conscious entities. viii Where I use the term ‘meaning’, it should be understood in a modest, biological sense in terms of the relational mapping of an organism’s goals and survival. Valence, in the form of attraction, repulsion, or neutrality, serves the basic measure of this mapping. In this way, ‘meaning’ is not linguistic or cultural, but arises from the structural dynamics of an organism in relation to its goal of survival. ix As stated above, HNM is agnostic about the exact threshold of consciousness, so a panpsychist framing, whereby atoms and rocks are conscious is consistent with HNM. However, I adopt a bio-psychist perspective for reasons of parsimony. x This distinction echoes classical Buddhist analyses of dukkha (the felt quality of suffering) as distinct from tanhā (the reactive patterns of craving and aversion that typically follow it). xi The combination problem is that of how the consciousnesses of individual entities, such as single living cells, could possibly combine to create human-level consciousness. (Goff, 2006). xii Again, barring a panpsychist reading xiii There are also varieties with multiple temporal dimensions (Kaku, 2012) xiv as well as MT broadly conceptualized xv Alternatively, we could think of the length between the center and circumference as speed rather than distance. xvi It is worth noting a difference between these diagrams and those in the section on HNM. In the previous section a conscious subject was analogous to the entire protrusion, whereas in this section, the conscious subject is analogous to the point at the base of the protrusion. xvii It is also isotropic, meaning it is the same in all directions.

---

## Being and Consciousness: On a New Way to Conceive of the Mind-Body Relation
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/essay/being-and-consciousness-on-a-new-way-to-conceive-of-the-mind-body-relation

It is not an exaggeration to maintain that Thomas Nagel’s paper, “What is it Like to Be a Bat?”, which originally appeared in 1974, fundamentally altered the field of the philosophy of mind. By raising his titular question and inviting us to imagine what it might be like to be a bat, or what it might feel like to be one, Nagel helped focus the philosophical discussion on what he took to be an essential feature of consciousness. As Nagel put it, “an organism has conscious mental states if and only if there is something it is like to be that organism – something it is like for the organism”.1 This “something it is like” feature, which is known among researchers of consciousness as a “phenomenal property of consciousness” or “qualia”, constitutes the qualitative nature of conscious experience, and as such, Nagel claimed, constitutes the subjective point of view. It has to do with the central important and ubiquitous feature of our conscious lives, namely, that they are typically characterized by a felt quality: there is something it feels like to experience consciously the taste of the Zinfandel wine, the softness of a lover’s embrace, or the pain in one’s toe. Indeed, these phenomenal features constitute the very substance of our lives, without which our existence would be utterly empty of all the variety and riches that can make a life worth living, but which can also drive one to despair. Importantly, however, according to Nagel’s argument, those essential features of consciousness, as subjective, could not possibly be captured by the scientific or objective point of view on the world. They just don’t belong to the world as discovered or as discoverable and understood by physics, chemistry, biology, or neurophysiology. Put differently, they are not, it seems, part of the material world. How, then, is phenomenal consciousness, those conscious states characterized by a what-it-is-like, related to the world of matter? How to understand the relation between such conscious states and matter, between the subjective and the objective, in a positive way? This is a central question in the cluster of problems that make up the mind-body problem, and it has bedeviled thinkers for centuries, at least since Descartes’ proposal that the mind is a radically distinct kind of thing or substance, an immaterial thing, which, though not extending in space like our physical body, interacts causally with it. Others, more suspicious of the notion of an immaterial substance and the mysteries it introduces, have preferred to regard conscious mentality as a kind of immaterial property: just as a physical thing could have a physical property such as being five feet long, so it can have the immaterial property of being in conscious pain. Still others have chosen to embrace the scientific point of view wholeheartedly and regard consciousness in all its aspects as identical to the physical, specifically, to some neural states of the brain, or perhaps, to the micro elements that constitute fundamental physics.2 This approach, however, raises an intriguing issue of its own: how can the experience of the sweet smell of the rose just be one and the same thing as neurons firing in the brain?3 But is it possible that a fundamentally different way to think about consciousness’ relation to the body is available, one already implicitly contained in Nagel’s famous question? Interestingly, in some of his formulations, as in the one quoted above, Nagel italicizes the locution “to be”, as if to emphasize that the notion of being at work here is of some significance. Nagel, however, does not proceed to explain it. Indeed, while discussions of Nagel’s paper4 emphasize the notion of phenomenal consciousness, or the distinction between the two points of view Nagel articulates in the paper, the subjective and the objective, or focus on the semantics of “what it’s like” phrases or whether the phrase “what it is like” is technical talk or not,5 the question regarding the concept of being employed in the paper is not addressed. As I argue here, however, this is precisely where the key to a radically new way – a metaphysical way – to understand the consciousness-body relation lies, that is, one that involves a distinct and unique concept of being, a concept which I will dub “subjective being”. This concept of being, unexplored in philosophy hitherto, indicates a relation of sorts between the organism and its conscious states. This relation is the link that connects the body to conscious experience, the objective to the subjective. Specifically, I will articulate the view that to be an organism, that is, to be it oneself – in the subjective being sense of “to be” – is to undergo phenomenally conscious states. Indeed, it is the conviction motivating the thoughts in what follows that it is only by introducing new concepts such as subjective being into philosophy that we can move beyond the stalemates that have defined the philosophy of mind in recent decades.

I It is not an exaggeration to maintain that Thomas Nagel’s paper, “What is it Like to Be a Bat?”, which originally appeared in 1974, fundamentally altered the field of the philosophy of mind. By raising his titular question and inviting us to imagine what it might be like to be a bat, or what it might feel like to be one, Nagel helped focus the philosophical discussion on what he took to be an essential feature of consciousness. As Nagel put it, “an organism has conscious mental states if and only if there is something it is like to be that organism – something it is like for the organism”.1 This “something it is like” feature, which is known among researchers of consciousness as a “phenomenal property of consciousness” or “qualia”, constitutes the qualitative nature of conscious experience, and as such, Nagel claimed, constitutes the subjective point of view. It has to do with the central important and ubiquitous feature of our conscious lives, namely, that they are typically characterized by a felt quality: there is something it feels like to experience consciously the taste of the Zinfandel wine, the softness of a lover’s embrace, or the pain in one’s toe. Indeed, these phenomenal features constitute the very substance of our lives, without which our existence would be utterly empty of all the variety and riches that can make a life worth living, but which can also drive one to despair. Importantly, however, according to Nagel’s argument, those essential features of consciousness, as subjective, could not possibly be captured by the scientific or objective point of view on the world. They just don’t belong to the world as discovered or as discoverable and understood by physics, chemistry, biology, or neurophysiology. Put differently, they are not, it seems, part of the material world. How, then, is phenomenal consciousness, those conscious states characterized by a what-it-is-like, related to the world of matter? How to understand the relation between such conscious states and matter, between the subjective and the objective, in a positive way? This is a central question in the cluster of problems that make up the mind-body problem, and it has bedeviled thinkers for centuries, at least since Descartes’ proposal that the mind is a radically distinct kind of thing or substance, an immaterial thing, which, though not extending in space like our physical body, interacts causally with it. Others, more suspicious of the notion of an immaterial substance and the mysteries it introduces, have preferred to regard conscious mentality as a kind of immaterial property: just as a physical thing could have a physical property such as being five feet long, so it can have the immaterial property of being in conscious pain. Still others have chosen to embrace the scientific point of view wholeheartedly and regard consciousness in all its aspects as identical to the physical, specifically, to some neural states of the brain, or perhaps, to the micro elements that constitute fundamental physics.2 This approach, however, raises an intriguing issue of its own: how can the experience of the sweet smell of the rose just be one and the same thing as neurons firing in the brain?3 But is it possible that a fundamentally different way to think about consciousness’ relation to the body is available, one already implicitly contained in Nagel’s famous question? Interestingly, in some of his formulations, as in the one quoted above, Nagel italicizes the locution “to be”, as if to emphasize that the notion of being at work here is of some significance. Nagel, however, does not proceed to explain it. Indeed, while discussions of Nagel’s paper4 emphasize the notion of phenomenal consciousness, or the distinction between the two points of view Nagel articulates in the paper, the subjective and the objective, or focus on the semantics of “what it’s like” phrases or whether the phrase “what it is like” is technical talk or not,5 the question regarding the concept of being employed in the paper is not addressed. As I argue here, however, this is precisely where the key to a radically new way – a metaphysical way – to understand the consciousness-body relation lies, that is, one that involves a distinct and unique concept of being, a concept which I will dub “subjective being”. This concept of being, unexplored in philosophy hitherto, indicates a relation of sorts between the organism and its conscious states. This relation is the link that connects the body to conscious experience, the objective to the subjective. Specifically, I will articulate the view that to be an organism, that is, to be it oneself – in the subjective being sense of “to be” – is to undergo phenomenally conscious states. Indeed, it is the conviction motivating the thoughts in what follows that it is only by introducing new concepts such as subjective being into philosophy that we can move beyond the stalemates that have defined the philosophy of mind in recent decades. II To get started, let me first provide some examples of the concept of subjective being. As we shall now see, it is quite familiar. Consider the following expressions: 1) ‘What is it like to be a bat?’ (henceforth, “Nagel’s question”). 2) ‘I wonder what it is like to be a lamprey’. 3) ‘There is nothing it feels like to be a rock or a chair’. 4) ‘Being John Malkovich must be exhausting’. What do we mean by the “to be” or “being” locutions in these instances? What concept of being is employed in such expressions? That we understand the concept of being at work in such formulations, at least to some degree, is clear: we wield it in the everyday or semi-mundane instances just mentioned seemingly felicitously, and we seem to understand its use in professional philosophical discussion, as in Nagel’s question. When Nagel asks what it is like to be a bat or claims that ‘an organism has conscious mental states if and only if there is something it is like to be that organism’, it seems we understand what he means. Nevertheless, as noted, this concept has not heretofore been recognized by philosophy as distinct and has accordingly not been explicitly thematized. But how should this concept be understood? The challenges here are considerable since being, as has been known in philosophy since the time of the ancient Greeks, is multifarious and perplexing. As Aristotle said in his Metaphysics, “being is said in many ways”, and as Heidegger claimed more than two thousand years later in his Being and Time, the question of the meaning of “being” has become “obscure and without direction”. So, to get some further clarification on the thesis propounded here, the notion of subjective being must be illuminated, and to achieve that task, it must first of all be distinguished from other notions. As I will try to show, subjective being is distinct from the central concepts of being familiar to us from the history of philosophy, namely, being as attribution of property, being as existence, and being as identity. Let me first explain a bit more what is meant by the claim that the concept expressed by the “to be” in Nagel’s question and the other formulations given above is distinct from these other concepts. What I mean is that the concept cannot be replaced by them: it expresses a sense that cannot be captured by these other concepts, which is why attempts to replace it by means of these other concepts while preserving the sense of the original formulations in which it appears fail. Rather, the view is that subjective being is sui generis. Let us now turn to the more familiar ways to understand being and see how subjective being stands with respect to them. The first sense of being I shall consider is that of property attribution, used when we judge, for example that “The bug is black” or “The bug is big”. In these instances, a certain property, i.e., the property of being black or big, is attributed to the entity which is the bug.6 Though this is a complex matter, I believe this sheds no light on the concept of being at work in Nagel’s question and the other formulations. To hold that the “to be” in Nagel’s question plays the role of property attribution is to hold that that the term “bat” in the question refers to the property attributed by the “to be”. But this is to conflate the categories of an individual or particular thing with that of a property. “Bat” in Nagel’s question does not refer to a property (such as “black”, “big”, or “has a positive charge”), and so the “to be” in “to be a bat” does not play the role of attributing the property of being a bat to anything. Rather, “bat” in Nagel’s question refers to a particular with certain properties, or an individual entity or substance with certain properties: the question asks us to posit a (stereotypical) bat, namely, a particular or individual animal with certain characteristic properties, and asks what it is like to be that individual, propertied thing. Properties are ways for things to exist (“hot”, “red”, etc.), while terms like “bat” are terms for kinds, which are not properties but substantial universals, which can be instantiated by particular objects. Kind terms indicate not ways for something to exist, but tell us what something is (see Lowe 2006, pp.90-93). The “to be”, then, is distinct from the concept of being as property attribution. Another way to see this is to consider sentence 4) above: when we express a judgment like 4) or when we judge that there is something it is like to be John Malkovich, it seems that with the proper name we wish to refer to particular being, not to a property. The same is the case when we wonder, “I wonder what it is like to be you”: “you”, I think it is plausible to hold, does not refer to a property, but to the particular propertied person before me. Further, suppose a bat is presented to me, and suppose, for the sake of argument, that to be a bat is a kind of property. Now, it seems that in such a situation I can then judge correctly, assuming I possess the requisite knowledge, that this entity before me has the property of being a bat. But having established this, I can now wonder about being the particular propertied entity before me and about whether being it feels like anything. Thus, to be the bat before me is a further, additional matter beyond the matter of the entity before me possessing certain properties. And, correspondingly, the concept of being it, the bat, goes beyond the concept of being as property attribution. A second way to understand the concept of being is as expressing existence or non-existence, that is, the reality or unreality of something, as in the judgments “there is a bug on the rug”, or “there is no milk in the fridge”, or, as in Descartes’ dictum, “I am”. But this approach too, as should be clear, fails to capture the sense of the “to be” phrase in Nagel’s question and the other formulations. This is so since it is not the existence of the bat or of bats in general that is at issue in the question: the “to be” in the question is not used to ask about a bat’s existence or assert the existence of this or that bat, etc.; rather, its assumed or posited existence is already implicitly presupposed by the question that concerns what it is like to be it. In other words, we are asked by the question to posit an existing bat, and then consider being it, being the existing entity. Indeed, if presented with a bat, I can judge that it exists (it is right there before my eyes), but then, in addition, I can wonder about what it is like to be it. If this is right, then the question about being the bat goes beyond the matter of its existence, and so the concept of being at work in Nagel’s question and the other formulations is a distinct one than that of existence. The third sense of being to be considered is being as the relation of numerical identity. We make use of the concept of this relation when, for example, we assert a truth such as “A is A”, or when we judge that “the (in)famous, nineteenth-century, moustache-bearing philosopher is Nietzsche”. Can this sense of being capture the sense of the “to be” in Nagel’s question? Let me explain why I think the answer is No. Consider the judgment ‘there is something it is like to be a bat’. If the “to be” here just means numerical identity, then, it seems, the phrase “to be a bat” must, if anything, relate the bat to itself, that is the bat, not to any something-it-is-like. In other words, when we judge that ‘there is something it is like to be a bat’ we don’t mean to say that bats are numerically identical to certain phenomenal conscious experiences. The same point can be made with the help of ‘there is nothing it feels like to be a stone’. Surely the judgment is not meant to claim that an absence of phenomenal conscious states is numerically identical to a stone. It thus seems that the notion of being in Nagel’s question and the other formulations – namely, the notion of subjective being – does not relate, as in numerical identity, the entity (e.g. a bat) to itself, but rather relates it to something else, namely, to what it feels like to be that entity. We can thus already get a sense of the distinctness of the concept of being at work in Nagel’s question and the other expressions: this concept cannot be captured in terms of the more familiar concepts of being. It might be thought that the concept of being in Nagel’s question and the other expressions can be captured using some other notion, that is, a notion that is not one of the traditional concepts of being. Specifically, the suggestion is that Nagel’s “What is it like to be a bat?” could be interpreted as “What is it like to have bat experiences?”, where “experiences” is to be understood as referring to episodes, states, or processes characterized by phenomenal consciousness; episodes, states, or processes it feels like something to have or undergo. In this way, an entity’s having of experiences, is supposedly substituted for being the entity. This suggestion, however, cannot work. The concepts of an entity’s having experiences and being an entity are distinct, for while being an entity does not imply the entity’s having experiences and so there being any thing it is like to have them, an entity’s having experiences does by definition imply there being something it is like to have them. Consequently, the “to have experiences” phrase, when used to replace the “to be” locution in such a statement as “there is nothing it is like to be a rock”, cannot help us express the same thought that it does and so cannot replace it. III How, then, should the “to be”, that is, subjective being, be understood? As suggested above, subjective being denotes a relation, and the relation denoted by subjective being relates an entity such as a bat or a human or a rock to its phenomenally conscious states, or the absence thereof, as the case may be. It is the relation that relates the objective to the subjective: to be the entity (object, organism), that is, to be it oneself, is to experience certain characteristic phenomenally conscious states, that is, to undergo certain subjective states (or to not experience anything). When we judge that there is something it is like to be a bat, we first, in effect, posit a bat, and then judge that being one, being it oneself, is to undergo certain characteristic subjective experiences. The concept of subjective being, I wish to suggest, thus points to a difference: a difference between an object or an entity (organism, thing) and being it. A difference that in some cases, as in the case of the bat, amounts to something, given that there is something it is like to be a bat, and in some other cases, as in the case of the rock, amounts to nothing, since there isn’t anything it is like to be a rock. This difference can be called a metaphysical difference: it refers to the radical difference between the physical entity or thing on the one hand, and what goes beyond it, or the meta-physical, i.e., the conscious mind, on the other. Let me further explain these ideas by looking at two issues: the first concerns what reason there is to interpret the “to be” as a relation of sorts, and the second concerns more specifically determining the items the relation relates, that is, the relation’s relata. Starting with the first issue, consider again the expressions “What it is like to be a bat?” or “there is nothing it is like or feels like to be a rock”. Considering these instances, I think there is prima facie reason to think of the “to be” employed by these expressions as a kind of a relation: if we examine the surface structure of such expressions, it appears to resemble the structure of expressions that evidently involve relations. Thus, we can compare Nagel’s “what is it like to be a bat?” to “what is the successor of the number four?” or “what is the object located to the right of the vase?”. In all three cases, I wish to suggest, we are asking about a reality of some kind – a certain kind of phenomenal conscious states, a certain natural number, a certain physical object, respectively – that is implicitly assumed by the question to stand in a certain relation – that of subjective being, that of succession, that of spatial proximity – to another object or reality: the bat, the number four, the vase, respectively. Similarly, we can compare “there is nothing it is like to be a rock” to “there is nothing to the right of the vase”: in these cases, an object (the rock, the vase) is claimed to be standing in a relation to the absence of something. But what reason is there to think the objective and the subjective should be thought of as the terms or the relata which subjective being relates? Assuming that there is something it is like to be a bat, and that this consists of the bat’s subjective life, i.e. of its phenomenal consciousness, then it seems natural to assume that what is thought in the concept of “bat” in the judgment “there is something it is like to be a bat” and thus what is related in the judgment to the bat’s consciousness, does not include those subjective states of the bat, but rather the bat as an object, that is, the bat as conceived from the objective point of view, i.e. as a physical thing of sorts. In other words, when we judge “there is something it is like to be a bat” we are in effect judging that to be the bat as objectively conceived, to be the object which is the bat, is to undergo certain phenomenally conscious subjective states. In this sense, we can see how subjective being is used to related the subjective to the objective. Now, what the objective conception of a thing is is of course a difficult matter to determine, but we can assume that to conceive an entity objectively is to think of it from the third-person perspective, or “from the outside”; a conception that comes in degrees, can vary from one thinker to the next, and in its most sophisticated form consists of our scientific conception of the thing in question. Thus, to conceive of the bat objectively is to conceive of it, minimally, as a thing with certain external features, but also in terms of its behavior, and – at a higher grade of sophistication and complexity – its anatomy, neurophysiology, etc., or, to generalize, in terms of its physical properties. Or consider the judgment that holds that “there is nothing it is like to be a rock”. Here too, by “rock”, one conceives of the rock objectively, from the objective point of view, that is, as an object of sorts which possesses a variety of physical properties, and asserts that to be the object which is the rock amounts to no subjectivity at all. In all instances involving this concept of being, we reflect on an entity objectively, or from the outside, and then relate it, by considering being that entity, to its various phenomenally conscious, subjective states: to its feelings, emotions, sensations, moods, affects, etc., or the absence thereof.7 Importantly, to emphasize, the relation of subjective being, as here understood, is not merely a term or concept that resides only in the mind. That is, if it is true that to be a bat is to undergo such-and-such experiences, then this is true regardless of our awareness or conception of it, which implies that the relation of subjective being holds in reality itself. It is a real relation that has real “consequences”: to be something, that is, to be an entity with various physical properties, at least in the case of some things, is to undergo phenomenally conscious states, that is, to have subjectivity. IV To shed further light on the relation of subjective being it will be instructive to compare it to the relation of numerical identity. We can start with the following observation. While numerical identity relates every reality to itself and only to itself: A=A, or this bat= this bat, in the case of subjective being, to be A (as in “to be a bat”), is M, where M is something totally other than A, indeed, metaphysically other than A, that is, a conscious state, or nothing at all (e.g. to be a rock is not to experience anything). Symbolizing subjective identity with the “=S” sign, we can state that A=S M, where this should be read as “to be object A is to undergo conscious experiences M”. This means, as we can clearly see, that in contrast to numerical identity, in the case of subjective being, the two terms used to refer to A and B are not co-referential, but refer to radically different things: an object on the one hand, i.e., some physical thing or organism, and conscious experiences on the other hand. Furthermore, while numerical identity, as said, takes all realities of whatever kind as its relata, whether these are conscious states, atoms, or numbers, subjective being takes all and only things or objects (e.g. organisms) on the one hand, and relates an individual object, A, which I will refer to as the base relatum, to a metaphysically distinct reality, on the other, or to nothing at all (=S M, consciously minding, or nothing at all).8 The reason for the claim that subjective being applies to all (bona fide) objects (thing, entities, substances) is that with respect to every object we can legitimately ask, “what is it like to be it?” or assert that “there is something it feels like to be it” or “there is nothing it feels like to be it”.9 Another important difference between the two relations is this: I can judge a priori that A, whatever it is, and however it is conceived of, is identical to itself,10 but I cannot do the same when it comes to subjective being. Here what A is, or rather, how it is conceived, matters, in the following way: First, whether there is something at all it is to be A in the sense of subjective being cannot be deduced analytically from the objective concept of A, where the objective concept is a concept of the thing as thought of from the objective, third-person point of view. This is not to deny that an objective concept of A can give me reason for thinking that there is something it is to be A – reasons related to the thing’s physical constitution and behavior – or that there is nothing at all to be it. Thus, the objective concept of a rock, in contrast to that of a bat, gives good reason for thinking there is nothing it is like to be it in the subjective sense. But this fact, namely, that there is nothing it is like to be it, cannot be analytically deduced from the objective concept of a rock. In other words, there is nothing contradictory, sticking to the objective concept of a rock, about a rock with experiences. Second, what it is to be A, when there is something it is like to be it, cannot be known a priori just on the basis of the objective concept of A. Put differently, what being that thing is – when it is anything at all – can only be known a posteriori by actually being that thing.11 Further points of comparison with numerical identity can be made. The relation of numerical identity is characterized by symmetry, reflexivity, and transitivity. How do things stand with subjective being? First, subjective being is asymmetrical. While “the morning star = is the evening star” is just as true as its reverse, “to be a bat is to undergo certain experiences” ≠ “to be the undergoing of certain experiences is a bat”. Second, the relation of subjective being is irreflexive: bat ≠S bat: what it is like to be an entity is not an entity itself. Finally, the relation is intransitive: this is so because what being X is, given that it is not a thing or an object but a subjective experience, cannot itself in turn be the base relatum for another iteration of the subjective being relation, since the base relatum for subjective being, as explained above, can only be an object. Despite these dissimilarities, subjective being and numerical identity share a couple of features. First, in both cases the relation’s relata do not exist independently of each other. Thus, in the case of numerical identity where A=A, there are no two distinct and independently existing A’s that come to be related by means of identity. Similarly, in the case of subjective being, what it is like to be A, namely B, is not something that exists independently of A and only comes to be related to it by means of subjective being: subjective being does not relate independently real relata. Neither does A cause B or bring it about. Rather to be A is B, or, B is what to be A is. Second, and relatedly, in the case of numerical identity, it is enough to posit a reality of any kind for it to stand in a relation of identity to itself. Its standing in a relation of identity to itself follows automatically from its reality – there is no need to add any property to it so as to make it stand in this relation, that is, to turn it into a relatum. Rather, its very reality implies being a relatum of the identity relation. Thus, once a chair comes into being, say, the relation of it being identical to itself immediately obtains – no property need be added to the chair for it to stand in the relation of identity to itself. Similarly, in the case of subjective being, once an object A is posited, it automatically stands in the relation of subjective being to something or nothing at all; its very reality implies being a relatum of this relation. That is, in the specific case of a bat, for instance, for it to stand in the relation of subjective being, no extra kind of “thing” or property needs to be added to it; it does not have to be “primed” in any way for it to become a relatum of subjective identity. So once there is a bat, there is something it is like to be it. V Let me now turn to address an objection to the view so far presented. The issue is this: it seems, on the face of it at least, that we have reason to think that the judgment “there is something it is like to be a bat” is true: judging on the basis of bats’ behavior and physiology, it seems quite plausible to hold that bats have conscious experiences of a certain kind. But if a judgment as “there is something it is like to be a bat” employs a distinct concept of being, signifying a relation between the objective and the subjective, then this means that subscribing to the truth of this judgment would then commit one to the reality of this distinct relation; it would mean committing oneself to the metaphysical view that this relation holds between objects and subjective experience in the world, and from this commitment one might recoil.12 One might reason: “Initially this judgment appeared rather plausible, but I can now see that it comes with a rather inconvenient metaphysical baggage, and so I wish to retract my endorsement of it”. I don’t think, however, that this response, while understandable, is forced upon us: recognizing that a claim one takes to be true or plausible has certain metaphysical implications one was not previously aware of does not necessarily imply that one should now abandon one’s initial allegiance to the claim. To give an analogy – though, of course, this is but an analogy – suppose there are good reasons to be a realist about certain kinds of mathematical entities. Would the subsequent conceptual discovery that these entities possess hitherto unknown mathematical properties rationally necessitate abandoning one’s realist view about them? I don’t see why. It is perhaps a recognition of the ontological implications of one’s initial belief accompanied by an adherence to an additional principle such as Ockham’s Razor that might justify the abandonment of the initial belief. But here too, it matters greatly how one implements the principle: on one possible reading, the principle states that one should not multiply entities beyond the minimum theoretically required. But then, to use the principle in our case – the case of subjective being – so as to justify the abandonment of the judgment at issue, one would have to explain why the assumption of the reality of such as a relation as subjective being is not theoretically required. One would have to show, specifically, that one has at one’s disposal an at-least-equally attractive view of the relation between subjectivity and the body which is also metaphysically thinner. Whether a case for this could be made is of course a very difficult matter to resolve and I certainly cannot go into further detail here, but the history of the philosophy of mind does not give one reason to be optimistic about the prospects of the available and known views to provide a more satisfying account of this relation. Of course, if the metaphysical commitments were theoretically costly then this would be a different story. That is, if, for instance, the commitments clashed with other well-established commitments of ours, appeared to be nonsensical, or led to contradiction somewhere in our system of beliefs or our metaphysics, then these would be good reasons to reject them and judgments that entailed them. But, as far as I can see, this is not the case with subjective being. One might nevertheless have the nagging doubt that even if bats have experiences and even if subjective being is indeed a distinct concept, this concept need not relate in reality itself the bat to its experiences. If, however, by “need not” the idea is meant that we might be wrong and subjective being might not be found in reality itself, then I agree. But this was never asserted to be the case. The thought is merely that we have reason to accept the judgment as true, and that taking it as true involves commitment to the belief that subjective being denotes a real relation. No infallibility is asserted here. V But of what significance is this new way to understand the mind-body relation? What implications does it have for philosophy and the sciences of consciousness? Needless to say, many of the details of this view have to be worked out, most importantly its implications for understanding mind-body interaction. Nevertheless, the following can be said. A first point to make follows quite straightforwardly from the reflections provided above: if the relation between the organism and consciousness is that of subjective being, and if the latter is distinct from the more familiar relations of numerical identity or causality, then the central traditional approaches to the mind-body relation are false: consciousness should not be identified with the physical (whether at the micro or macro level) or seen as caused by it. Furthermore, and in contrast to some panpsychic views that have been gaining popularity recently,13 consciousness does not lie at the foundation of all physical reality; it is rather certain highly complex physical systems (that involve something like a brain, for example) that are such that to be them is like something.14 At the same time, however, the view propounded here is physicalistic in the sense that it does not assume and need not assume the existence of something like an immaterial, Cartesian substance, nor the existence of immaterial properties of physical things: besides the relation of subjective being, the view only needs assume the reality of particular physical things and their various physical properties, since the undergoing of phenomenal consciousness, on this view, is what it is to be a physical thing, not a thing in itself (whether material or physical). Nevertheless, phenomenal consciousness, of conscious experience, is real: the reality of the conscious mind is preserved as something that goes beyond the reality of the physical. This is so since, on this view, the physical does not comprehend all that is real: there is also what can be regarded as the metaphysical, which includes what it is to be the physical, which is (at least in some instances) the phenomenally conscious mind. We should also make explicit a point that was presupposed in the discussion so far, namely, that even though the main example used was that of biological organisms, nothing in the argument hangs on this: subjective being can be carried beyond the case of organisms. Thus, the concept of subjective being could be applied to all instances of phenomenal consciousness: in all such cases, it is the relation of subjective being that could be regarded as relating the entity to its subjectivity (or lack thereof), whether that entity is an organism or an artificial entity such as a robot. Needless to say, this in itself cannot help us settle the question of whether there is a subjectivity to relate to a given entity or not; the suggestion is only that if there is, it is related to the entity by means of subjective being. Concretely, if a certain silicon-based artificial intelligence system is conscious in the sense at issue here, then the relation of its consciousness, or subjective life, to its material substrate should be understood as follows: to be the silicon-based system which makes up this artificial intelligence unit is to undergo its various conscious, subjective states. The claim, however, that non-organic systems could also possess consciousness, where the latter is related by subjective being to its material “base”, is not to be understood as siding with the view, favored by some functionalists, that the specific kind of matter out of which a system is made makes no difference and it is rather the functional organization of the system that counts for the reality of consciousness. Quite the opposite, since it is being the system that matters, including all of its various physical properties, it is not merely what the system does, but what it is made out of, i.e., its various physical properties, that can make a difference to consciousness, since it is these properties that the relation of subjective being relates to consciousness, if present.15 Put differently, two functionally indistinguishable systems, one carbon-based and the other silicon-based, would not necessarily both possess consciousness if one of them does, and if both of them do, the qualitative character of the conscious subjectivity associated with each could differ. But what could the physical properties be, such that their possession would make a system such that being it is consciously minding? A result of the view propounded here, is that those properties would not bear their special nature on their sleeve, so to speak. Otherwise put, there would be nothing unique about these physical properties qua physical properties that would make one suspect that it is the possession of them that differentiates between a rock and a bat consciousness-wise. This is so because, on the view suggested here, it is not the physical properties themselves, or their various interactions, that cause consciousness or that could be regarded as identical to consciousness; rather, it is to be those properties, or rather, the propertied system or entity, that is to undergo consciousness, while the relation of subjective being itself is not a physical property and is as such undetectable from the objective or scientific point of view. This implies that the empirical, scientific science of consciousness has its limits: science, as our most sophisticated realization of the objective point of view, cannot capture all of reality. Science can thus describe and analyze the brain, for instance, in a comprehensive and thorough way and ideally deliver a perfect understanding of its chemical, physiological, and neural elements and the multifarious ways in which these interact and the various patterns they help bring about, leaving nothing out, and still would not catch a glimpse of the subjective reality that these physical elements are related to by subjective being. This conclusion resembles, of course, Frank Jackson’s (1982) famous argument about Mary the scientist, who had complete knowledge of physical reality, but could still not derive from this knowledge facts concerning what it is like to see a red apple. The view presented here explains this result: since undergoing conscious experiences or states is being the physical (i.e. a certain specific physical system), and since being the physical is distinct, indeed, metaphysically distinct than the physical, knowledge of the physical by itself, complete as it may be, will never, as a matter of principle, yield knowledge of consciousness. In addition, and relatedly, thinking about consciousness as related to the physical by subjective being helps shed new light on the “hard problem” of consciousness promulgated by David Chalmers. The problem, succinctly put, is expressed by Chalmers by the question, “Why should physical processing give rise to a rich inner life at all?” (Chalmers 1995, p.201). But if the explanation sought by the “why” question raised here is a scientific one, and if the view articulated here is on the right track, then no answer to such a question is forthcoming: the hard problem is insuperable precisely because of the metaphysical gap that yawns between the body and consciousness, namely, what I called the metaphysical difference. Finally, the view helps establish or restore to consciousness or subjectivity their unique place in in the world in a manner which, I believe, fits our intuitions. Specifically, it seems we have a strong sense that while we are on the one hand intimately related to this object which is our body, we also regard ourselves, on the other hand, as not mere objects or things, but as subjects. I maintain, however, that in all approaches hitherto, the question of how to make metaphysical or ontological sense of subjectivity, has not been adequately answered. Thus, in materialistic or physicalistic approaches – whether of the identity or functionalist kind, not to mention the eliminativistic kind which seem to deny the very phenomenon of subjectivity16 – subjectivity, by being identified or reduced to the material thing, becomes another objective phenomenon, and so disappears into the object. Cartesian approaches, while seemingly more aware of the uniqueness of the subject, nevertheless regard the mind as another kind of thing – a res cogitans – alongside the material thing, and thus miss its special metaphysical status. In contrast, in transcendental approaches in the German tradition of Kant or Schopenhauer, while these might accord a special distinct metaphysical status to the subject and make a point of sharply distinguishing the subject from the object, the subject becomes a mysterious non-material entity (a transcendental subject or ego) of obscure ontological status, such that it is not clear how to find room for it in the natural world. Moreover, transcendental positions that start with the knowing subject tend to lose the objective material world altogether and collapse into some form of idealism. In contrast, the view offered here accords subjectivity and consciousness their rightful metaphysical status, but without succumbing to Cartesian or property dualism, on the one hand, or bald, reductive, materialistic or starkly eliminativistic views, on the other, and without losing the reality of the material world. Rather, it places subjectivity and consciousness firmly within the physical world, yet in such a way that these are not diluted into brain states or a functionally organized whole. Thus, on my view, we are not the world or a part of the world in the sense of numerical identity; neither are we being-in-the-world (Heidegger). Rather, every subjective consciousnesses is what it is to be a part of the world, and this relation of being, subjective being, accounts for our subjectivity. We can now provide a response to Nagel’s “main question, [that is,] how anything in the world can have a subjective point of view” (Nagel 1986, p.30): a necessary condition for a subjective point of view is the relation of subjective being. In the case of human subjectivity, to be the human organism is also a sufficient condition.17 References Aristotle. (1026) Metaphysics. C.D.C Reeve (trans). Hackett Publishing Company. Akins, Kathleen. (1993). What is it Like to be Boring and Myopic?. In B. Dahlbom (Ed.), Dennett and his Critics: Demystifying Mind (pp.124-160). Blackwell Publishers. Block, Ned. (2007). Consciousness, Function, and Representation, Volume 1: Collected Papers. MIT Press. Chalmers, David. (1995). Facing up to the Problem of Consciousness. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 2(3), pp.200-219. Chalmers, David. (1996). The Conscious Mind. Oxford University Press. Dennett, Daniel. (1991). Consciousness Explained. Little, Brown. Goff, Philip. (2017). Consciousness and Fundamental Reality. Oxford University Press. Heidegger, Martin. (2008). Being and Time, J. Macquarrie & E. Robinson (trans.). Harper & Row. Irvine, Elizabeth, and Sprevak, Mark. (2020). Eliminativism about Consciousness. In The Oxford Handbook of The Philosophy of Consciousness (pp.348-370). Oxford University Press. Jackson, Frank. (1982) Epiphenomenal Qualia, Philosophical Quarterly, 32, vol.127. Lowe, E.J. (2006). The Four-Category Ontology: A Metaphysical Foundation for Natural Science. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Nagel, Thomas. (1979). What is it Like to be a Bat?. In Mortal Questions (pp.165-180). Cambridge University Press. Nagel, Thomas. (1986). The View From Nowhere. Oxford University Press. Owesen, Erlend. (2023). What-it’s-like Talk is Technical Talk. Synthese, 201 (4), pp.1-18. Papineau, David. (2011). The Rise of Physicalism. In C Gillett and B Loewer (eds) Physicalism and its Discontents (pp.3-36). Cambridge University Press. Papineau, David. (2020). The Problem of Consciousness. In Uriah Kriegel (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of The Philosophy of Consciousness (pp.14-36). Oxford University Press. Stoljar, Daniel. (2016). The Semantics of ‘What it’s like’ and the Nature of Consciousness’. Mind, 125 (500), pp.1161-1198.

---

## Beyond Neurons: The Connectivity Thesis
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/essay/beyond-neurons-the-connectivity-thesis

From Neuron Doctrine to Networks Consciousness is a remarkably striking phenomenon that has been the subject of philosophers’ propositions, poets’ verses, authors’ works, and scientists’ theories for centuries. It holds an undeniable and increasingly significant importance, particularly for science. A discipline that encompasses this area has emerged—none other than today’s rising scientific field: neuroscience. Consciousness occupies a significant place in modern neuroscience, preserving its mystery in fundamental questions—such as why some living beings possess it while others do not, how and why it develops, and whether it has a concrete location in the brain—and in deeper inquiries, such as what its exact function is, whether a hierarchy of consciousness levels can be discussed, and the possibility of its existence in non-human entities. The enduring enigma of consciousness lies not in its absence but in how it emerges from the brain's intricate workings. The reason why the concept of consciousness gained a place in science during the 20th and 21st centuries stems not only from the acceleration of neuroscience but also from the mysterious nature of consciousness. Neuroscience made such a leap because of the parallel progression of technological developments. These tools enabled us to look into the brain's hidden workings and networks by converting speculation into measurable signals.

From Neuron Doctrine to Networks Consciousness is a remarkably striking phenomenon that has been the subject of philosophers’ propositions, poets’ verses, authors’ works, and scientists’ theories for centuries. It holds an undeniable and increasingly significant importance, particularly for science. A discipline that encompasses this area has emerged—none other than today’s rising scientific field: neuroscience. Consciousness occupies a significant place in modern neuroscience, preserving its mystery in fundamental questions—such as why some living beings possess it while others do not, how and why it develops, and whether it has a concrete location in the brain—and in deeper inquiries, such as what its exact function is, whether a hierarchy of consciousness levels can be discussed, and the possibility of its existence in non-human entities. The enduring enigma of consciousness lies not in its absence but in how it emerges from the brain's intricate workings. The reason why the concept of consciousness gained a place in science during the 20th and 21st centuries stems not only from the acceleration of neuroscience but also from the mysterious nature of consciousness. Neuroscience made such a leap because of the parallel progression of technological developments. These tools enabled us to look into the brain's hidden workings and networks by converting speculation into measurable signals. Revolutionary technologies include EEG, CT, MRI, and fMRI. Each of these advancements has deepened our comprehensive view of the brain. Together, these tools can be used to map the complexity of the connections underlying consciousness. Additionally, advanced microscopy technologies such as the electron microscope and electrophysiological studies have shed light on the brain’s functioning at the cellular level. When we look at an apple, how we see it falls under the domain of optics, but how we perceive it is the subject of neuroscience. The brain is made up of specialized cells in constant communication. How this communication occurs became the source of intense debates toward the end of the 1800s. One theory was the Reticular Theory, which proposed a unified, continuous, and gapless nervous system. Camillo Golgi developed the Black Reaction, which allowed scientists to view a neuron completely. Santiago Ramón y Cajal used this technique and argued that the findings supported the Neuron Doctrine. With this confirmation, it was accepted that neurons are not a single network but independent structures. The challenge in examining neurons lay in the complex extensions—dendrites and axons— which form intricate interconnections. Until the invention of the Black Reaction, these structures appeared complex and intertwined, giving the Reticular Theory an edge. However, Cajal’s use revealed that these structures do not make direct contact and that there are gaps— called synapses. In 1936, Sir Henry Hallett Dale and Otto Loewi confirmed that synapses were filled with chemical agents called neurotransmitters, by discovering acetylcholine. Transmission in the brain was understood to proceed electrically along neurons and chemically at the synapses. These discoveries and subsequent advancements have deepened our understanding of how the brain works day by day. Today, we know how the pressure created by touching an apple is transmitted to the brain and where it is processed. We know which pathways carry the apple’s taste, shape, texture, temperature, and smell, and in which specialized parts of the brain they are processed. Yet, we do not know how these inputs give us a unified and singular experience of the apple. This is known as the "binding problem," and it remains a mystery. Similarly, the question of how we learn something—just like memory—has not been fully illuminated. Despite 119 years since the first Nobel Prize in neuroscience, the problem of consciousness remains the main topic of this essay. What Makes Something Conscious? Consciousness is a concept with such philosophical and neuroscientific depth that it cannot be explained merely as a state of awareness or wakefulness. To define consciousness, a more holistic and comprehensive approach that encompasses these aspects is essential. Within the limits of our current knowledge, it is reasonable to start by suggesting that the human species is a conscious species that has established such a civilisation, questioned why and how it came into being, is aware of itself and its surroundings, questions the nature of consciousness, and even doubts its own consciousness. While studies have shown that some animal species, such as dolphins, elephants, and bonobos, demonstrate self-awareness by passing the ‘mirror test’ and exhibit environmental awareness through interaction and empathetic behaviour, these characteristics are far from sufficient to attribute human-level consciousness to them. The fact that some animals pass this test while many do not clearly reveals the existence of a consciousness hierarchy among "things" (I say "things" because, as will be addressed later, they need not necessarily be living beings). It is plainly evident that bacteria differ from inanimate objects, plants from bacteria, animals from plants, and humans from all the others in terms of consciousness. In order to speak meaningfully about something as being conscious to a significant degree, the fact that it performs actions with a purpose offers us a sharp distinction between what is conscious and what is devoid of consciousness. However, it is important to note here that the purpose in question is not primitive goals like survival or reproduction. These are goals that arise out of necessity and allow for a certain degree of conscious development; the type of goal we are referring to, however, arises out of choice. Because if we are to speak of a hierarchy— if we are to talk about one thing being superior to another—we must consider the total sum of qualities one possesses that the other lacks. Since primitive goals (such as survival and reproduction) are shared across all living beings, including prokaryotes, claiming that all possess them or none do would provide equal value in shaping our theory. When we divide the universal set of humans into believers and, as its complement, nonbelievers, we obtain two sets without leaving out any specific examples. Believers refrain from many worldly pleasures they could currently obtain, motivated by the belief that they will be rewarded at the appropriate time (though other motivations leading to similar behaviors may exist). Although the behaviour of temporarily postponing immediate gratification in order to obtain larger rewards that are certain to be obtained is also seen in some other species, postponing gratification for something that is likely to occur years later, such as death, and does not guarantee a reward is not observed in other species. While the motivations of non-believers span a much broader spectrum, what we commonly observe is a lifestyle guided by the pleasure principle. When we consider individuals of the same species, living in the same geography under similar standards, we minimize external factors (as also demonstrated through twin studies). Even among those individuals, the presence of such a wide range of motivational diversity in life choices affirms that the type of life a person leads is indeed determined by personal choice. Thus, we place the human species— known to be the only one whose actions contain purposes beyond primitive ones—at the top of the consciousness hierarchy. But how did consciousness—something we have only observed in living organisms as of the first quarter of the 21st century—emerge in the first place? Why is human consciousness so complex, while that of other living beings remains simple and uniform? As mentioned in the introduction, the answer once again lies within neuroscience. But before we dive into the details of neuroscience and numbers, let's start at a more basic level. A whole is, in fact, something different from the quantitative and qualitative sum of its parts, and this can be observed throughout the universe. This makes analyzing the parts separately insufficient to understand the whole. Likewise, analyzing the whole in a monolithic way does not provide enough depth for understanding either. What must be thoroughly analyzed is the relationship and connection between the whole and its parts. Because all qualitative leaps occur there. For example, when we examine a water molecule, what we see is more than two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom coming together. To understand this, we can look at an oxygen atom next to a helium atom. In the first case, we see that the hydrogen and oxygen atoms form a molecule through a type of bond called a covalent bond, whereas in the second case, we see no bond or reaction. As clearly shown, the reason for the qualitative leap from atom to molecule lies in the network of connections between them. Molecules come together to form organelles, which are the functional structures of cells; organelles form cells, cells form tissues, tissues form organs, different organs come together to form systems, and systems constitute the living organism. However, the transition from molecules to the cell—the most basic unit that exhibits the property of life—still remains unexplained. The theory of abiogenesis proposes that a living cell formed from non-living organic compounds. In 1950s, Stanley Miller and Harold Urey attempted to test this theory and conducted what would later be known as the Miller-Urey experiment. The experiment was conducted in a glass container simulating the conditions of the primitive Earth. In a tube containing water (H₂O), methane (CH₄), ammonia (NH₃), hydrogen (H₂), and carbon monoxide (CO), the water was heated with electrodes, causing it to evaporate and create sparks to simulate atmospheric lightning. Then, through a cooling process, the vapor was condensed and returned to the container in droplets. This setup was repeated for a week, and by the end of the experiment, it was found that 11 of the 20 amino acids could be produced this way. Amino acids are the building blocks of proteins and are essential for life. However, as can be understood, neither this experiment nor the theory of abiogenesis is sufficient to explain the qualitative leap from non-living compounds to a living form. Because the focus of these approaches is also on the parts that make up the whole. Of course, the relationship between parts and the whole is not limited to this. We see a similar network of connections in plants. When looking at a forest from the outside, we see thousands of independent trees, but the background is much more complex. A forest is also a habitat full of biological diversity, potential for epidemics, and threats such as fires that endanger the trees’ survival. In such a risky environment, it is more beneficial for the forest to be a dynamic collection of trees communicating with one another rather than a static sum of independent trees. This would elevate the forest to a higher level of consciousness and better ensure its continuity. Indeed, studies have shown that trees can communicate with each other through a mutualistic relationship they develop with fungi at their roots, and that a forest is, in fact, a massive network. Fungi have a structure called mycelium. Mycelia are fibers that can extend underground with trillions of branches and can reach for kilometers. Through these mycelia, when a tree’s life is in danger, it can alert other trees to the threat in that area of the forest and transfer its organic and inorganic molecules to healthier trees to help ensure the forest’s survival. This molecular transfer is also observed in sick or dying trees. Undoubtedly, the existence of such a relationship between fungi and trees today is the result of selection pressure in their evolutionary processes. As mentioned in the introduction, these organisms also possess primitive motivations such as survival and reproduction. However, these motivations have not hindered the development of consciousness; on the contrary, they have led to it. This is because the reason they established this network of connections is the selection pressure and the motivations mentioned. Yet, the fact that these are their only motivations has also caused their level of consciousness to remain low. For higher levels of consciousness, higher-level motivations are essential. Therefore, although this condition in plants cannot be regarded as an emotion requiring high-level cortical functions such as self-sacrifice, it still places plants at a higher level of consciousness than any inanimate entity. Architecture outlives ingredients. This is not confined to neurons. At the sub-neuronal scale, cell collectives coordinate through bioelectric networks—ion-channel dynamics and gap junction coupling—that drive wounded or developing tissues toward morphological set-points. Processes such as wound closure, tissue repair, tumor suppression, and limb regeneration perform the required error-correction inside these networks. Levin calls this a multiscale competency architecture: nested agents (cells → tissues → organs → organism) making decisions with respect to internal aims (morphological set-points). In my terms, there is connectivity under value control even before there is a brain: dense–diverse–re-entrant coupling steered by internal “preferences” over shape. Therefore “mind” is not the privilege of a particular material; it is the result of a particular architecture. Build the architecture and a qualitative leap becomes almost inevitable: whole-level patterns stabilize instead of dissolving into local reflexes. That is the heart of my thesis. Why does this resonate with my threshold? Because two axes coincide: (i) connective integration—long-range, tissue-level causal propagation beginning at the cellular scale; (ii) value-weighting—morphological set-points, like attention or reward, decide which routes open or close. These are the biophysical counterparts of the global-access + value-control conditions that, in my view, tip a system into consciousness. When discussing connectivity in humans, it is important to note that the human brain consists of approximately 86 billion neurons. Each of these 86 billion neurons forms synaptic connections with other neurons through dendrites and axons. The number of these connections is around 10^14-10^15. This is not mere bigness: it is the combinatorial condition for many partially independent computations to run in parallel. This entire network of connections is referred to as the “connectome.” Although elephants boast more neurons overall (about 257 billion), the reason their level of consciousness is lower than that of humans lies precisely in these connections, with humans holding more in cortex, plausibly crucial for flexible cognition. For example, the dolphin brain has about 37 billion neurons, the gorilla brain about 33 billion, the African Grey Parrot brain around 2 billion, and the mouse brain approximately 71 million neurons. As can be clearly seen, although there is no direct relationship between the number of neurons and the complexity or consciousness of the brain, a higher number of neurons is important in terms of enabling more connections. However, what truly matters is the average number of different neurons each neuron connects with. The key to complexity of connectivity lies here. Topology is negotiable. As Godfrey-Smith emphasizes, cephalopods are an independent evolutionary experiment in large, complex nervous systems: much control is distributed to the arms, yet organism-level coordination remains strong enough for planning, play, problemsolving, and rich interaction. From our perspective, this shows that what matters is not “humanstyle cortex” but a working architecture: dense, diverse, re-entrant circulation, and above all routing weighted by needs. Different wiring, same threshold. This replaces mammal-centrism with a single principle: many architectures, one rule—when connectivity + value cross the right line, the property of being a someone appears. This consonant with my view because the cephalopod case shows that consciousness is not tied to a single wiring plan, but to certain causal regimes. That matches my multiple-realizability claim: when different kinds achieve similar causal statistics—small-world organization, recurrence, value gating—they can trigger the same phase change. Material is secondary; architecture is decisive. The Genesis of Connectivity One of the fundamental working principles of the neuron is the Hebbian Theory, first introduced by Donald Hebb in his 1949 book The Organization of Behavior. The theory is often summarized as “neurons that fire together wire together.” According to this theory, neurons that consistently fire together tend to form connections with each other. The reason for the formation of these connections is to enable more efficient responses when the same activation and required output are needed again. The connection of one neuron to another is a highly complex process that involves certain neuronal growth hormones. As observed in other areas of biology, unused neurons in the brain tend to regress, and their axons are pruned. The brain’s ability to make adaptive changes in response to the conditions it is exposed to is called neuronal plasticity. As can be seen, plasticity is vital for the brain. Because if the brain had remained an organ with a relatively low capacity for adaptation, like the liver or kidneys, it would not have been possible for it to reach such a complexity of connectivity throughout evolution. But if plasticity is a common feature of all living brains, then the question of why, as far as we know, this level of consciousness is seen only in humans—regardless of whether other species have a similar number of neurons—is a highly valid one. The answer lies in bipedalism, that is, the transition of archaic hominins from walking on four limbs to standing on two. This event occurred approximately 4 million years ago. Such a large-scale evolutionary change naturally brought about revolutionary consequences. Chief among these was the narrowing of the pelvic bone following the shift to bipedalism. Unlike other mammals, this compelled the human species to give birth to their offspring before the brain had fully developed. Because for the baby’s head to pass through the now narrower birth canal and pelvis of a bipedal species, a much smaller and more flexible skull was required. Therefore, the brains of human infants could only develop to the extent that would fit into that small skull before birth. This is the reason why the plasticity of the human brain is at such a high level. Moreover, an underdeveloped skull gains flexibility both through the interlocking structure of the bones that form it and through anatomical gaps that will later close. These massive changes are what made the birth of human infants possible. In species that continued to walk on four legs, such an adaptation did not occur, so their offspring are born with more developed brains. It is observed that the offspring of many animals—deer, giraffes, elephants, cows, dolphins, turtles, and many others—begin to move actively within hours of birth. In contrast, human infants require almost two years to walk properly. During this period, although neuronal plasticity operates at a very rapid pace, the developmental immaturity required to make birth possible can only be compensated for after several years. However, the fact that the majority of brain development takes place not in the womb—an isolated and relatively short-term environment—but in the environment where the being will spend a significant part of its life means that the entire connectome is reshaped accordingly. And that is exactly what happened. After bipedalism and the adaptive changes that followed, the human species began to reap the rewards of the difficulties it endured. About 3.3 million years after standing upright, it began making tools from stone at Lomekwi 3. It invented fire around 1 million years ago, with secure evidence at Wonderwerk Cave, while habitual use appears later. And around 100,000 years ago, it left behind artifacts in caves that proved it possessed high-level cognitive functions such as symbolic thinking. Especially in terms of the invention and use of tools, another undeniable advantage of standing on two feet is that the hands were no longer needed for balance. While the human species had previously used all four limbs actively for balance, it could now achieve this with just two. Therefore, it could use its hands for other tasks. In this way, a dynamic brain capable of developing through interaction with its environment—and two limbs now available to perform new tasks—became the driving force behind the development of humanity. As is clearly understood, all these developments, each playing a crucial role in the evolution of modern humans, occurred after bipedalism. These developments not only shaped the material life of modern humans but also provided them with non-primitive purposes for living. For instance, they no longer had to eat solely to survive; they could now prepare and consume meals based on taste criteria. They could attract the opposite sex not just by being stronger or larger, but through the figures they drew or the tools they invented, thereby increasing their chances of reproduction—even having the opportunity to choose among several suitors. Because now, the issue was not merely survival or reproduction. Deriving pleasure while fulfilling these became equally important. In the beginning, they could only eat the animals they hunted raw, but after the invention of fire, cooking became an option In the 4 million years since then, continuous human evolution, along with technological advances and environmental changes, has exponentially increased the number of options available to them before taking any action and has offered countless possibilities. Constantly having to choose among many alternatives, humans have developed their analytical intelligence by mastering the evaluation of the benefits and drawbacks of these options. This also led to the development of a brain region called the prefrontal cortex. This region is responsible for complex functions such as decision-making, planning, and cognitive control; its dense reciprocal connections with sensory cortex and limbic structures are the substrate for deliberate choice. For this reason, it has an extremely dense network of connections. Each neuron in this area forms approximately 40,000 synapses, and with this number of connections, it has the most complex network after the cerebellum, which has about 100,000 connections per neuron. The cerebellum is the brain region responsible for balance. The reason this region possesses such a dense network is again due to bipedalism—because now, a human standing on two feet needs a more densely connected center to maintain balance and perform refined movements. Once the development of the prefrontal cortex was triggered, it entered a self-sustaining process. Its repeated use in evaluating choices led it to form new connections, resulting in an increasingly complex network. Moreover, the presence of alternative options made it necessary to consider ‘what would have happened if I had chosen the other one’ after making a decision—giving rise to high-level emotional states such as regret, which are not observed in other species. Affect as Control Signal Affect is a subject we have deepened our understanding of, especially in the last few decades. According to Jaak Panksepp’s taxonomy of mammalian affective systems—seeking, fear, rage, lust, care, panic/grief, play—explains why evaluation and salience pervade awareness. Although these are common affective systems, we know that human beings possess a much more complex affective structure. Emotions such as jealousy, trust, regret, longing, conscience, and self-sacrifice are all higher-level affective states that require an advanced and highly complex cortex. Naturally, the trigger for these is the abundance of choices. We can prove this with a simple thought experiment. Imagine a person who has been raised alone in a dark room since birth. This person eats the same meals at the same times every day and lives in complete isolation from anything that might remind them of the presence of others outside. That’s all. It is inconceivable for such a person to miss someone, because they have never met anyone. There is no one else in the entire universe except themselves. It is unthinkable for this person to make a sacrifice. Nor is it possible for them to have a moral conscience, to feel trust, to be jealous of something, or to regret something—because higher-level emotions have emerged from the fact that humans are social beings and actively require the presence of another person or an alternative choice. The subject of affect (emotional response) is particularly important, and there are two reasons for this. The first is that consciousness is the product of an integrated network of connections. Therefore, whatever kind of consciousness we are discussing, we must also refer in depth to every component that constitutes that consciousness. The second reason is that higher-level emotions are emotions seen only in humans. In this respect, and in terms of the level of consciousness, the uniqueness of humans makes the relationship between these two aspects worth examining. Moreover, these emotions play a significant role in the fact that humans are the only species capable of building such an advanced civilization. Competing Theories and a Threshold View The main subject of the consciousness theory presented so far is that the complexity of connectivity and the qualitative leap it causes is the fundamental element that constitutes consciousness. Regardless of what the connectivity forms between, there is a critical threshold of complexity of connectivity that must be surpassed. Once this threshold is crossed, it can be said that the entity possesses a significant level of consciousness. The triggering event that enables the crossing of this complexity threshold appears as selection pressure. However, the solutions found to this selection pressure and the chaotic chain reactions it initiates yield outcomes in unpredictable ways. Although the transition from four-legged to two-legged movement was also a result of selective pressure, it led to the human species slowly climbing the steps of the consciousness hierarchy. This view is compatible with the Global Neuronal Workspace (GNW) emphasis on global access, overlaps with—but is not identical to—Integrated Information Theory’s (IIT) focus on intrinsic causal power, and is naturally expressed in predictive/Free-Energy terms. It gains empirical bite through complexity measures such as the Perturbational Complexity Index (PCI) that integrate “integration” and “differentiation” in vivo. GNW proposes that information becomes conscious when it ignites a recurrent, fronto-parietal coalition that makes content globally available to systems for report, memory, and control. GNW excels at explaining access, reportability, and a host of laboratory effects (attentional blink, masking) and posits specific temporal signatures (“ignition”). IIT starts from axioms about the structure of experience and defines consciousness as a system’s intrinsic cause–effect power (Φ) over itself. The appeal is that phenomenological structure constrains mechanism. The cost is measurement difficulty and a panpsychist drift that many find counterintuitive. Predictive Processing / Free-Energy model perception as inference under generative models; attention modulates precision; action closes the loop. These accounts naturalize why brains would develop global, value-weighted access in the first place: it lowers surprise and increases adaptive control. Higher-order and metarepresentational views analyze a state as conscious when it is the target of an appropriate higher-order representation. These theories capture aspects of self-monitoring and report, though they can be made compatible with GNW architectures. The “complexity of connectivity threshold under value control” account is an integrative constraint rather than a rival banner: it says that whatever one’s favorite theory, the organism must achieve dense, diverse, recurrent complexity of connectivity that supports global access modulated by affective control signals. It is, in other words, a recipe that GNW can implement, that IIT aspires to quantify, and that predictive frameworks explain functionally. To address the hard problem—why connectivity produces subjective experience—we bracket its ultimate cause but constrain its neural correlates through thresholds, suggesting qualia arise from network binding patterns, testable via cross-modal perturbations measuring subjective shifts in feel. Perhaps the complexity of connectivity, due to everyone having different connectomes and different CVIs, could form the basis for future ideas that explain the possibility of subjective experience and the difficult problem of consciousness. Where Consciousness Lives? Up to this point, the topics discussed have included the emergence of consciousness, the criteria for being conscious, and what entities can be considered conscious. In addition, the materiality of consciousness is also an extremely important subject. If everything is related to connectivity—particularly if human consciousness arises from the connections between neurons—then it might be expected that consciousness could be something detectable, something that could be pointed to directly. However, when considered in more detail, this turns out to be a flawed approach. As previously mentioned, the brain is a structure that contains over 1014 connections. Moreover, which neurotransmitters are released in which pathways and which receptors—called "receptive sites"—they bind to result in different outcomes. The clearest examples of this can be seen in the dopaminergic pathways. There are four main dopaminergic pathways: the mesolimbic, mesocortical, nigrostriatal, and tuberoinfundibular pathways. For example, the mesolimbic pathway is more related to the reward center, while the mesocortical pathway is more concerned with executive functions. Although both are triggered by dopamine, the fact that they produce such different outcomes proves that the presence of a neurotransmitter, a neuron, or even both simultaneously does not guarantee the same result. All parameters—such as where a neuron starts in the brain, which neuron it stimulates, and by which pathway—affect the outcome. Therefore, in the emergence of consciousness, not only the numerical complexity of these brain connections but also the diversity of their properties plays a role. As stated in the introduction, a deep and holistic perspective is necessary to understand consciousness. For this reason, we cannot say "consciousness is located here and its function is this," as we can when describing the location and functions of the prefrontal cortex. Consciousness is the totality of complexity of connectivity that arises when all the components of the related networks perform their functions in a healthy manner. This may be a network formed by mycelium in plants or by neurons in humans. However, to better understand why consciousness still remains a mystery and why its location is unknown, it is useful to examine which of these networks, when malfunctioning, produce what kind of consequences and whether they lead to any changes in the level of consciousness. This section will include many terminological expressions. But there is no need to be intimidated, as these expressions are merely the medical names of the regions mentioned. Also, the functions attributed to the brain regions mentioned here only represent a portion of their full responsibilities. Each has many more functions than those listed. First, let’s begin with the regions that, when lesioned, do not appear to directly affect consciousness. The first of these is the motor cortex. As with many other brain areas, there are two motor cortices, one in each cerebral hemisphere. When one of these areas is lesioned, partial or complete weakness occurs on the opposite side of the body. For example, damage to the left motor cortex results in weakness in the right arm and right leg. In this form, it doesn’t seem very related to consciousness. Similarly, as previously described, the cerebellum is responsible for balance and coordination. When this region is damaged, problems occur on the same side of the body (e.g., if the lesion is on the right, the issues arise on the right side). This region also has no direct relationship with consciousness, just like the occipital cortex. Damage to the occipital cortex can result in loss of visual field or cortical blindness. The previously mentioned prefrontal cortex performs functions such as self-awareness, decision-making, and personality traits. Therefore, its lesion can cause changes in the level of consciousness. After all, the observation that someone without self-awareness is less conscious than someone who has it is a reasonable one. The somatosensory cortex is involved in the processing of touch and proprioception senses. Both senses are extremely important for consciousness as I define it, because proprioception is also described as self-sensation—that is, the awareness of the body’s position and movement in space. When this area is damaged, these abilities are lost, and a lower level of consciousness emerges. Similarly, damage to the parietal cortex can lead to spatial neglect and loss of body awareness. For these reasons, this area is also necessary for the formation of consciousness. The temporal cortex has extremely important functions such as memory, auditory interpretation, and facial recognition. In addition, functions like memory are highly significant in the construction of consciousness. The insular cortex is responsible for certain emotions such as disgust, as well as internal body perception and emotional awareness. These functions are also essential for achieving a holistic state of consciousness. The anterior cingulate cortex is involved in functions such as motivation and attention deficit. As previously mentioned, motivation is also necessary for consciousness. These are the cortical structures. But of course, the brain is not limited to this. Deeper regions perform more fundamental functions. These areas are generally referred to as the limbic system. The limbic system consists of four main structures: the hippocampus, amygdala, hypothalamus, and thalamus. The hippocampus is involved in learning and memory. The amygdala is responsible for fear response, aggression, and emotional learning. The thalamus is responsible for relaying sensory input to the cortical areas mentioned earlier; therefore, its lesion can drastically alter the state of consciousness. The hypothalamus is responsible for the homeostasis of vital functions such as body temperature, hunger, sleep, and hormonal balance. As can be understood, the entire limbic system holds significant importance for consciousness. Even lower lies the brainstem, which connects the brain to the spinal cord. This part consists of three structures: the mesencephalon (midbrain), pons, and medulla oblongata. This region controls vital functions such as respiration, heartbeat, and alertness. Since a person who cannot perform vital functions cannot sustain a state of consciousness, these regions are important for the continuity of consciousness through their duties. However, what makes them especially important for consciousness is their inclusion in a structure called the formatio reticularis, which extends through the mesencephalon, pons, and partially the medulla oblongata, and connects to the cortex via the thalamus. This structure is part of the Reticular Activating System (RAS). The Reticular Activating System regulates functions such as alertness, medical-level consciousness, and attention. Its lesion can cause sleepiness, lethargy, stupor, and even coma. It is such a critical structure for the medical definition of consciousness that while consciousness can be sustained with an intact cortex despite cortical lesions if the RAS is intact, it cannot be sustained if the RAS is damaged, even when the cortex is fully functional. What About AI? Until the 2020s, we argued that the triggering factor behind the events that led every conscious living species to acquire their respective consciousness was selection pressure. But in recent years, we have seen surprising developments suggesting that this may not be the only path. The rapidly advancing field of artificial intelligence provides a distinctly different dataset in terms of our approach to the concept of consciousness. This is because everything we believe to possess consciousness has been alive and has acquired this consciousness through a single triggering mechanism. However, artificial intelligence seems to be advancing towards consciousness without being subject to any selection pressure (although it should be noted that the companies that created artificial intelligence aim to maximise profits and user numbers in order to survive, and therefore their efforts to develop the most advanced artificial intelligence in the industry may have transferred the human desire for survival to artificial intelligence.) and it appears to be progressing toward consciousness without conforming to any of our definitions of life. It is worth noting that Large language models can simulate discourse about consciousness, but on standard criteria they lack unified agency, robust recurrence, and embodied loops that ground global access in value and control. GNW-like publications are not architectural defaults; IITlike intrinsic causal power is uncertain in feedforward dominant stacks; predictive control without a body carries great risks for attributing consciousness. Large Language Models (LLMs), in their current form, only present us with an illusion of consciousness. Through their multi-layered search structures and vast databases, they make us feel as though there is a conscious, thinking entity present. Of course, the fact that this is currently limited to an illusion does not guarantee it will remain so forever. I believe that once the connections between large databases, servers, and layers reach sufficient complexity of connectivity, we will be talking about a truly conscious artificial intelligence. Theoretically, it is possible to achieve this level of complexity of connectivity, but since we cannot provide a concrete complexity threshold such as a definite numerical value, it is difficult to say anything about its practical applicability. However, a CVI calculated by including parameters such as the density of connections between neurons in brain regions that play a definite role in the formation of consciousness, the number of different regions they connect to (diversity), and their number, provides practical insight into the consciousness of any entity, including artificial intelligence. Hypothetical architectures, like recurrent embodied models with world-modeling and self-instantiation frameworks, could cross thresholds, yielding PCI-analog responses in perturbed systems. Even if it were practically possible and achieved, it is unclear where the consciousness it possesses would fall within the hierarchy. Although this is the current analysis of artificial intelligence in terms of consciousness, it still holds unanswered questions such as where it might reach in the near future and what it may be capable of, provided that it maintains its current pace of development. However, it may not be too far-fetched to say that it will eventually evolve to a point that will require us to redefine consciousness. How to Measure the Threshold Science earns its stripes where definitions meet measurement. The Perturbational Complexity Index (PCI) operationalizes an integration–differentiation balance: perturb cortex with TMS; record the spatiotemporal pattern with EEG; compress the pattern to estimate algorithmic complexity; compare against thresholds that track conscious level across sleep, anesthesia, and unresponsive states. Recent 2024 studies on nonequilibrium dynamics in PCI support threshold markers for consciousness, while spatiotemporal complexity models quantify transitions. Disorder of Consciousness (DoC) literature shows why arousal and content dissociate. Brainstem and thalamic lesions can abolish wakefulness. Cortical networks shape the richness of contents. “Vegetative” (unresponsive wakefulness) and minimally conscious states reveal that behavior can underestimate residual consciousness; active paradigms and perturbational indices help stratify patients. These findings matter for theory: any account must explain why boosting integration and effective connectivity can restore or enhance conscious level, and why globally broadcasting content changes what it is like. The threshold view predicts that measures like PCI (and related Lempel–Ziv metrics) will fall below range when either integration or differentiation is compromised—and that targeted neuromodulation can move patients across boundaries in both directions, depending on network state. Avoid two errors: denying consciousness to animals that likely have it, and inflating it where evidence is thin. Self-recognition in mirrors appears in great apes and some other taxa. Metacognitive “knowing that one knows” has suggestive evidence in macaques. At the same time, report-based criteria overfit human language. The threshold account licenses a graded picture: as integration, global access, and value control scale, so do the varieties of experience. This avoids chauvinism without collapsing into panpsychism. A rat may host rich affective and perceptual scenes; it probably lacks the human-style workspace that stitches abstract symbols across decades. That difference is architectural, not moral. The ethical point is simple: where there is likely experience, there are reasons for care. The scientific point is equally simple: measure architectures and dynamics directly, then infer what follows about experience with humility. Different traditions start from different phenomenologies. Avicenna’s “Floating Man” argues that self-awareness is indubitable even if all senses are cut off. Early Buddhist texts analyze experience as impermanent and non-self, dissolving the idea of an inner observer. Zhuangzi delights in perspective shifts that undercut rigid boundaries of self and world. These viewpoints sharpen our target: any scientific account should explain how a system can both generate a stable “I-here-now” and allow that “I” to dissolve or expand under trained attention, sleep, drugs, or disease. They are not rivals to measurement; they are phenomenological test cases to be matched by metrics like PCI or CVI and by model-based predictions of network dynamics. Criticism and Responses “Integration is everywhere; your threshold is vague.” Reply: Thresholds are empirical. Measures like PCI already demarcate regimes across anesthesia, sleep, and DoC. The proposal is to tie levels of consciousness to families of causal architectures that can be quantified and perturbed. “IIT already does this, so nothing new.” Reply: IIT grounds consciousness in intrinsic causal power (Φ) and risks panpsychism. The threshold account is agnostic on metaphysics and emphasizes organism-level value control and global access. It is compatible with GNW’s computational story and predictive processing’s functional story. “You smuggle in anthropocentrism.” Reply: Animals likely host conscious scenes when their architectures cross local thresholds; humans possess a particularly expanded workspace due to developmental plasticity and cultural scaffolding. Graded, not exclusive. “Your view is untestable.” Reply: See Predictions, below. It rises or falls with data that are already being collected in clinics, comparative labs, and AI evaluations. P1. Clinical thresholds: In DoC, targeted neuromodulation (thalamic stimulation, cholinergic agonists) that increases effective connectivity will elevate PCI into the normal range and restore report in a subset of patients; interventions that raise arousal without improving integration will not. P2. Developmental arcs: Across childhood and adolescence, measures of large-scale integration (EEG/fMRI connectivity, PCI-style perturbations) will track the emergence of meta-awareness and executive control, with sensitive periods modulated by social interaction intensity. P3. Comparative connectomics: Species with similar brain sizes but different cortical neuron counts and long-range connectivity will differ in tasks that require global access (cross-modal binding under load, counterfactual planning). Elephants will outperform in certain memory/affect tasks; humans will dominate in tasks requiring symbol-workspace operations. P4. Thalamo-cortical modulation in DoC elevates CVI, predicting qualia restoration beyond arousal. Across neurons, persons, and polities, the same lesson recurs: complexity of connectivity beyond a threshold—dense, diverse, recurrent, value-guided, globally accessible—makes new kinds of doing and feeling possible. This is not mysticism but measurement: identify the architectures, perturb them, and watch the phase transitions. The story explains why arousal without integration is not enough; why integration without value becomes mere complexity; why culture, with its norms and symbols, stretches the workspace; and why today’s AIs are dazzling mimics but not yet bearers of scenes. The honest ending is a beginning. We possess constraints, not a final theory. But constraints are how science advances. If we can say in advance how our view would fail, we are already better off than when we started. That, too, is a kind of consciousness: the capacity to see one’s own errors coming into view, and to change course when the world pushes back.

---

## Conscious life and voodoo death
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/essay/conscious-life-and-voodoo-death

Abstract Philosophical zombies—entities identical to humans but lacking conscious experience—have long served as the go-to thought experiment for illustrating the ‘hard problem of consciousness’: why subjective experience should arise at all from physical processes. This essay introduces another Haitian concept to counter the zombie intuition that mind can be separated from life processes:‘voodoo death.’ Voodoo death refers to the death of a person caused by the expectation of dying rather than organic causes. Drawing on studies of this phenomenon and interpreting it through two contemporary biogenic theories of the mind—enactivism and the free-energy principle—this essay argues that ‘voodoo death’ is an extreme manifestation of a broader phenomenon wherein consciousness plays an active role in the dying process. Consciousness, the argument suggests, is intrinsic to biology—not only because it is intrinsic to life but also because it is inextricably tied to death. Introduction “Why should physical processing give rise to a rich inner life at all?” asks philosopher David Chalmers. “It seems objectively unreasonable that is should, yet it does.” (Chalmers 1995:201). Zombies became the go-to thought experiment to illustrate what is now known as the ‘hard problem of consciousness’: if we can conceive of someone who is physically and functionally identical to us but lacks subjective experience, then subjective experience must not be reducible to purely physical processes. This suggests that there is something about consciousness that physicalist theories alone cannot fully explain. We are left with an explanatory gap.

Abstract Philosophical zombies—entities identical to humans but lacking conscious experience—have long served as the go-to thought experiment for illustrating the ‘hard problem of consciousness’: why subjective experience should arise at all from physical processes. This essay introduces another Haitian concept to counter the zombie intuition that mind can be separated from life processes:‘voodoo death.’ Voodoo death refers to the death of a person caused by the expectation of dying rather than organic causes. Drawing on studies of this phenomenon and interpreting it through two contemporary biogenic theories of the mind—enactivism and the free-energy principle—this essay argues that ‘voodoo death’ is an extreme manifestation of a broader phenomenon wherein consciousness plays an active role in the dying process. Consciousness, the argument suggests, is intrinsic to biology—not only because it is intrinsic to life but also because it is inextricably tied to death. Introduction “Why should physical processing give rise to a rich inner life at all?” asks philosopher David Chalmers. “It seems objectively unreasonable that is should, yet it does.” (Chalmers 1995:201). Zombies became the go-to thought experiment to illustrate what is now known as the ‘hard problem of consciousness’: if we can conceive of someone who is physically and functionally identical to us but lacks subjective experience, then subjective experience must not be reducible to purely physical processes. This suggests that there is something about consciousness that physicalist theories alone cannot fully explain. We are left with an explanatory gap. As an anthropologist interested on how people think across different cultures—about consciousness, for example—I’m sometimes struck by the cultural specificity of the ‘hard problem’. The presence of consciousness in a material world has seemed “objectively unreasonable” to Chalmers and other thinkers within the Western philosophical tradition, but it hasn’t been so for the great majority of traditions outside the orbit of scientific naturalism—including, it should be noted, the Haitian one from which the very word ‘zombie’ comes from. In Haitian folklore, a zombi is a corpse externally animated and controlled by a bokor, a sorcerer with the power to enslave it (the concept is rooted in cultural fears of loss of freedom with connections to the history of slavery; Coates 2006). Existing in a state of mindless servitude, it is fundamentally different from a philosophical zombie: since it is devoid of agency, it is not truly alive. Its lack of consciousness is entirely expected. The main reason the ‘hard problem’ is not ‘a thing’ in most traditions is that mind is almost universally assumed to be continuous with the rest of living nature. It is seen as an expression of life itself, its animating force. Without a bifurcation between life and subjective experience, thinkers within these traditions do not perceive an explanatory gap to fill (pace Chalmers 2018). To be sure, cultural variation in how people approach this issue does not dissolve the hard problem per se, but it demonstrates that its salience is subject to framing effects that are historically shifting and perhaps ephemeral. Perhaps one way to overcome the ‘hard problem’ is simply the passage of time. This essay does not address the ‘hard problem of consciousness’ but rather another problem whose explanation also requires accepting a deep continuity between mind and life, along with theories of consciousness that accommodate this continuity—one that, as it happens, also derives from Haitian folklore. Not zombies this time, but “voodoo”—specifically, “voodoo death.” The term refers to the death of an individual caused by the expectation of death rather than by any direct physical cause. In Haiti, this takes the form of a deadly curse cast by a bokor (sorcerer) on a victim who, believing they are doomed, succumbs to death shortly after. The term has since been generalized beyond the Haitian context to describe psychologically induced deaths that result from frightening, culturally ingrained events. Synonyms include “psychogenic death,” “nocebo-induced death,” or “hex death.” Cardiologist Bernard Lown recounts a vivid case retrieved from the Archives of Neurology and Psychiatry: “A Hindu physician was authorized by prison authorities to conduct an astonishing experiment on a criminal condemned to death by hanging. The doctor persuaded the prisoner to permit himself to be exsanguinated —bled to death — assuring him that death, though gradual, would be painless. The convict, on agreeing, was strapped to a bed and blindfolded. Vessels filled with water were hung at each of the four bedposts and set up to drip into basins on the floor. The skin on his four extremities was scratched, and the water began to drip into the containers, initially fast, then progressively slowing. By degrees the prisoner grew weaker, a condition reinforced by the physician's intoning in a lower and lower voice. Finally the silence was absolute as the dripping of water ceased. Although the prisoner was a healthy young man, at the completion of the experiment, when the water flow stopped, he appeared to have fainted. On examination, however, he was found to be dead despite not having lost a single drop of blood. (Lown 1999:31, citing Yawger 1936) The secular reader may approach this anecdote with some degree of disbelief. It seems objectively unreasonable to think that an individual could die solely from expectation, that consciousness alone possesses the power to bring about its own demise. If it did, we would need to reconsider a thing or two of what we currently believe about consciousness and its relationship to the body and to life itself. After all, voodoo death would not feel counter intuitive otherwise. What I will do in the essay is 1) present evidence that ‘voodoo death’ is indeed a genuine phenomenon but far from a special one, for it represents a limit-case of a broader phenomenon wherein consciousness plays an active role in the process of dying, and 2) propose that accommodating this phenomenon requires theories of consciousness that assume a deep continuity between mind and life, where these exist in a relationship of ‘circular causality.’ I will discuss two main theories that support this continuity: enactivism and the free-energy principle. As I explore the insights these theories throw into the apparent mystery of ‘voodoo death’, I also show how ‘voodoo death’ brings up unexplored implications for these theories, and for theories of consciousness more broadly. Ultimately, I contend that the counterintuitiveness of ‘voodoo death’ and the ‘hard problem of consciousness’ arise from one and the same source: the analytic separation between mind and life. Just as the idea of deep continuity demystifies the former, it may go some way towards dissolving the ‘objective unreasonableness’ of the latter. Voodoo death: evidence and explanations A phenomenon “so foreign to the experience of civilized people that it seems incredible; certainly if it is authentic it deserves careful consideration”. So wrote American physiologist Walter Cannon about ‘voodoo death’ in an eponymous landmark paper in American Anthropologist, which first popularized the term (1942:169). Cannon surveyed a number of extreme ethnomedicogenic cases of this kind among so-called ‘primitive’ societies and found that they all followed a similar pattern: death appeared to result either from deadly curses or the breach of specific taboos. He discussed, for example, the case of a Maori woman who died after eating fruit she later discovered had come from a tabooed place. He observed that in Australia, among Aboriginal people, pointing a bone at someone could lead to sudden death. Likewise, in Latin America and Africa, in societies where witchcraft was a major source of social distress, being cursed could also lead to ‘voodoo death.’ Cannon argued that this was likely caused by the fear of supernatural consequences for culturally sanctioned actions, combined with a deeply rooted conviction in the inevitability of death. He also believed that the phenomenon was far more likely to occur among “primitive people, because of their profound ignorance and insecurity in a haunted world, than among educated people living in civilized and well-protected communities” (1942:174). As it turns out, the phenomenon might not be so exotic after all. What a bokor can allegedly accomplish in Haiti, a medical doctor may replicate in a modern clinic to similar effects. Consider the case of Sam Shoeman, a patient from Tennessee whose death was chronicled by physician Clifton Meador (who would later write a series of papers on psychogenic death; Meador 1992; 2005). Diagnosed with metastatic carcinoma of the esophagus in October 1973, Shoeman was told by Meador that he had only a few months to live. Despite the prognosis, Sam managed to survive through Christmas and even to get married shortly after. When he eventually passed away a few weeks later, no one was surprised. Sam knew he was going to die, and so did his physician and family. However, the autopsy revealed something unexpected: doctors found only a 2cm nodule of cancer in his liver (with no trace in the esophagus) and a small patch of pneumonia, neither of which was sufficient to cause death. “He died with pneumonia and with cancer,” Meador wrote, “but I do not believe that he died of cancer. What is certain is that he died thinking he was dying of cancer, a belief shared by his wife, her family, his surgeons, and me, his internist” (1992:244). Meador ultimately concluded that he might have played a role in sending Sam to an early grave. Similar anecdotes have been accumulating in the medical archives in quite a substantial number over the years (see Lester 2009 for a review). There is a sequence of events common to many such cases. Sometime after the ‘curse’ (a taboo breach, a terminal diagnosis), the individual enters a period of social withdrawal, where they detach emotionally from their friends and relatives. This stage is typically followed by apathy and aboulia. As this apathic state deepens, they progress into a near-catatonic phase and resignation to their fate, which is soon followed by death. The psychological process accompanying this sequence has been termed “givingup/given-up complex” (Engel 1971) or “give-up-itis” (Leach 2018). While this progression is frequently observed in the literature on voodoo death, however, it is not universal. The manner of psychogenic demise is culturally patterned and has been shown to vary across social worlds. An illustrative example is the case of Sudden Unexplained Nocturnal Death Syndrome (SUNDS), which afflicted Hmong refugees in California during the late 1970s. This term was coined while documenting the deaths of 117 Hmong individuals who succumbed to the syndrome between 1977 and 1983, all of whom had migrated to the United States following he CIA-backed Secret War in Laos (Center for Environmental Health & Injury Control 1988). All but one of the victims were men, with a median age of thirty-three. In some instances, the deaths were witnessed by relatives who were awakened by the sounds of gurgling and gasping, but the sleeper would die within a few minutes and could not be revived. Autopsies failed to reveal an identifiable cause. Medical scientists were initially puzzled, but it emerged that the phenomenon was intimately connected to that of ‘sleep paralysis’. Sleep paralysis is a state of consciousness that occurs during sleep, in which a person feels fully awake but is unable to move or speak. They also feel, often, an oppressive weight on the chest, a sense of suffocation, and the perception of a shadowy figure approaching. Subjects report that these experiences become intensely frightening. Only in extremely rare cases, however, does sleep paralysis lead to death. Henry Fuseli, The Nightmare, 1781. A pictorial representation of sleep paralysis. Why was sleep paralysis so lethal among Hmong refugees? In a book entirely dedicated to these events, Shelley Adler (2011) pointed to something significant about the cultural background of these individuals. In their previous lives in Laos, the Hmong engaged daily with a pantheon of spirits through various ritual practices or by observing rules and taboos while working at home or in the forest. These spirits included untamed, malevolent entities capable of harming humans, one of which, dab tsog, was notorious for attacking sleepers by attempting to suffocate them. Back in their villages, the Hmong had methods to protect themselves from dab tsog. They could perform animal sacrifices to appease ancestors or call upon a shaman to perform protective rites. Forced migration to the U.S. made these practices unviable. Sacrifices ceased, ancestors were neglected, shamans lost their traditional roles. According to Hmong immigrants, this left them vulnerable to deadly attacks by the spirit, who could now kill them easily in their sleep. Adler argues that this new situation had all the prerequisites to produce a strong ‘nocebo effect’ (the opposite of a ‘placebo effect’), and that it was this heightened perception of threat that made the dab tsog deadly during sleep paralysis. Why were men affected more than women? Because in traditional Hmong villages, men were the primary custodians of ritual lore and responsible for providing spiritual protection. Women were generally excluded (and protected) from such knowledge. Hence the gender specificity of the attacks. In short, culture can powerfully shape psychogenic death, as well as the ways people think about it, which, in turn, produces self-fulfilling effects on how one experiences it. One might understandably take these cases with a pinch of salt. Can we truly rule out all potentially lethal physical factors and instead attribute such deaths to a hard-to-account-for psychogenic causes? For instance, there is evidence that SUNDS has a hereditary component, with a significant prevalence among Southeast Asia (Zheng et al. 2018).1 Also, in many of the Aboriginal Australian cases described by Cannon, the cursed individual undergoes what is effectively a ‘social death’, where they are denied food and water as everyone around them anticipates their demise (Eastwell 1982). Death, here, would be more plausibly explained by malnutrition or dehydration than by fear. Still, aside from the fact that a sorcerer’s ability to induce a member of society to refuse food and die is interesting in itself (and could still be considered a form of death by suggestion), studies have concluded that “[malnutrition and dehydration] are not present in most of those cases” (Lester, 2009:9). The instances in which physical causes can be confidently ruled out altogether are now abundant. We also know that something akin to ‘voodoo death’ occurs in other animals, and that there are parallels with better-documented typologies of death (see below). Modern reviews now affirm that “evidence has accumulated to support [Cannon’s] concept that ‘voodoo’ death is, in fact, a real phenomenon” (Samuels 2007:8), prompting neuroscientists to speculate about its underlying mechanisms. The mechanistic explanations that have been offered appeal to processes that occur in the brain under traumatic fear or stress. In his original paper, Cannon (1942) conjectured that voodoo death might result from prolonged hyperactivity of the sympathetic nervous system. Adrenaline release and stress-induced overstimulation could lead to hypovolemic shock, a shortage of blood supply to vital organs. Others disagreed. Curt Richter (1957) proposed that voodoo death could stem from hyperactivity of the parasympathetic, rather than the sympathetic, system. This would involve a rapid decrease in heart rate and eventual death due to cardiac failure and the characteristic “giving up” behavior. More recent reviews from the perspective of neurocardiology concur with Richter’s account, expanding it. It has been speculated that extreme stress can trigger an ‘autonomic storm’ in the brain (Samuels, 2007), a severe dysregulation of the nervous system involving a deadly cascade of processes, including toxic catecholamine release and calcium overload in cardiac cells, which ultimately result in heart failure. Others point to potential dopamine depletion and frontal-subcortical circuit dysfunction as contributing factors (Sternberg 2002), mechanisms that may also accelerate the aboulia that often precedes psychogenic death (Leach 2018). All of these represent well-informed speculations about what happens to the neurocardiac axis during such frantic moments—and important speculations at that—but I propose that, even if correct, they remain inadequate as comprehensive explanations of the phenomenon. To start, there are instances of severely stressful situations that do not lead to psychogenic death. Consider hostage situations or warfare: soldiers might die from bullets and shrapnel, but there is little evidence that these scenarios are breeding grounds for psychogenic death. This suggests, perhaps, that it is something specific to the idea of death—its perception or expectation—rather than mere fright, that contributes to a person’s demise in these circumstances. Most crucially, there are cases of psychogenic death that occur in situations where overwhelming stress is largely absent. Consider the findings reported by Phillips et al. (1993) in their Lancet paper ‘Psychology and Survival’, which serves both as an illustration of how the anticipation of death can begin long before the event and of how culture can shape the process. Comparing the cause of death of half a million Americans and some 28,000 Chinese-Americans in California, Phillips and colleagues found that “Chinese-Americans, but not whites, die significantly earlier than normal (1,3 – 4,9 yr) if they have a combination of disease and birth year which Chinese astrology and medicine consider ill fated” (Phillips et al. 1993:1142). For Chinese-Americans who died of lung diseases (bronchitis, emphysema and asthma), those who were born in the “Metal years”—which, for the Chinese, are associated with the organ of the Lung—had an average age at death of 66.9 years; those who died of the same diseases but who were born in other years, the average age at death was 71.9 years. No difference was found for ‘whites’ who died of similar diseases in the same period. The authors concluded that he intensity of the effect was correlated with “the strength of the commitment to traditional Chinese culture” (1993:1143)—a likely phenomenon of psychogenic death. Since then, the same team has uncovered further correlations between death and cultural beliefs. For instance, they found that cardiac deaths among Chinese and Japanese individuals with chronic heart disease in California increased by up to 27% on the 4th of the month (the number “4” is ominous in both cultures, as its pronunciation is nearly identical to the word for “death”) (Phillips et al. 2001), or that mortality rates temporarily decrease before a symbolically meaningful occasion (e.g. Passover for Jewish believers), followed by a spike in deaths immediately after the event (Phillips and King 1988; Phillips and Smith 1990; see also Dein and George 2001). These are not sudden deaths due to fear, but in all likelihood, psychogenic deaths nonetheless. If so, then “voodoo death” can be said to occur on different timescales, underpinned by expectations of dying that can vary in intensity, levels of conscious reflection, and arguably mechanisms. A strong continuity also exists—or so I will argue—between this body of work and the growing research on the association between ‘self-rated heath’ (SRH) and mortality (Jylhä 2009). Over the past half-century, epidemiological studies have discovered that one’s perception of health can, in and of itself, be a powerful predictor of age at death. There seems to be no better way of predicting mortality—not even objective factors like knowledge of the subject’s medical history or that of their family—than the answer to this simple five-point question: “In general, would you say your health is: excellent, very good, good, fair, or poor?” The association applies especially to older people but has been confirmed across different populations and demographics. As the authors of one of the earliest serious studies on the subject concluded, SRH “appears to have a unique, predictive, and thus far inexplicable relationship with mortality” (Idler and Kasl 1991:55, in Moerman 2002:120). One might expect this association to weaken as more sophisticated controls for objective measures of health are introduced. In fact, the association has remained consistent. To mention a recent study, Wuorela et al (2020) examined the relationship between SRH and mortality among 70-year-old community-dwelling individuals in Finland over 5-, 10-, and 27-year follow-ups, with the objective of comparing SRH’s predictive power with that of a thorough assessment of ‘objective health’ (OH). This was evaluated using the Rockwood Frailty Index, a method that measures the cumulative effect of 36 health deficits across physical, cognitive, and social domains, incorporating a wide range of symptoms, signs, disabilities, diagnoses, and laboratory measurements. It represents one of the most thorough and well-rounded objective assessments of an individual’s vulnerability to date. As the results came in, researchers found that SRH outperformed OH as a predictor of short-term mortality (5 and 10 years). Only in the long term (27 years) did OH perform slightly better. From a biomedical point of view, these results are counterintuitive: why should this single bit of subjective information on a Likert scale hold such strong predictive power? This question has led many to ponder on what exactly SRH is, or what it expresses. What we know is that SRH requires individuals to actively assess their health, whether intuitively or through self-reflection. This process involves integrating subjective experiences, such as physical sensations and vitality, with objective information, like knowledge of diagnoses and medications, as well as their overall sense of well-being. Research into what SRH expresses suggests that its ratings most strongly reflect one’s sense of vitality (feeling energetic and full of life), followed by physical functioning and bodily pain. Other dimensions, such as mental health and social functioning, also contribute, though to a lesser extent (Au and Johnston 2014). As for why SRH predicts mortality, Marja Jylhä (2009), whose work is the most influential on the subject, argues that it is because SRH effectively captures physiological dysregulations in the body (e.g., inflammatory markers like cytokine activity) that are missed by objective indicators. These dysregulations can play a critical role in chronic diseases such as cardiovascular conditions, diabetes, and even cancer, thereby contributing to mortality while eluding clinical assessments. SRH’s predictive power on mortality, in short, would be a testament to human interoceptive subtlety and accuracy regarding the body’s actual health (see also Kananen et al. 2021). If Jylhä is correct, the phenomenon would have little to do with ‘voodoo death,’ as the causal arrow leading to death appears to flow from the body to the mind, rather than the other way around. I propose that this view is partially mistaken, and this is where theories of the mind and consciousness come into play. New theories of perception, which I will explore below, suggest that interoception is not simply a readout of sensory signals but a process aimed at fulfilling the organism’s expectations. In other words, one’s perception of health (which captures well-being across a variety of biopsychosocial dimensions) can, in and of itself, function as a self-fulfilling prophecy. If that’s the case, its effect on mortality falls into the same category as psychogenic death, albeit unfolding on different timescales. Exceptional as it may seem at first, ‘voodoo death’ might simply be an extreme case of a much more common phenomenon in which the mind plays an active role in the process of dying. Before delving into the core of this contention, let me address the overdue point about why all this should be of interest to theories of consciousness. Intermezzo: why ‘voodoo death’ matters to theories of consciousness To many strands of philosophy of mind, voodoo death exemplifies a form of ‘mental causation.’ This is what the term ‘psychogenic’ refers to. Mental causation, as is widely agreed in philosophy, “is at the heart of the mind-body problem” (Shoemaker 2001:71), the challenge of understanding how the mental affects the physical. Numerous positions exist within this debate, with varying degrees of compatibility, ranging from epiphenomenalism (the idea that the body affects the mind but not the other way around), to functionalism and multiple realizability (the idea that the same mental function can be instantiated in different physical systems), to embodied cognition (the idea that the mind is fundamentally shaped by the body’s interactions with its environment), among others. Debates about the nature of consciousness grow out of the mind-body problem. Or better, the mind-body problem provides the conceptual framework within which discussions about consciousness occur. Not coincidentally, the same theories (epiphenomenalism, functionalism, embodied cognition, etc.) are applied to consciousness as well, because the nature of consciousness cannot be meaningfully discussed without considering how it relates to a specific bodily substrate. Here is something new, however: the possibility that mental causation results in death—the demise of a living organism—introduces an altogether new dimension to this debate. It is no longer merely about the relationship between mind and body but becomes one about the relationship between mind and life. Logically speaking, death is the negation of life; only living entities can die. It follows that if we accept that consciousness can be involved in the dying process, theories of consciousness must account for the connection between the latter and life itself. This specification significantly narrows the pool of candidate theories because many of these, including Chalmers' (1997, but also e.g. Dennett 1993; Edelman and Tononi 2001; Bostrom 2017), regard life as just another class of physical process that can be reducible to its structural and functional properties and that is fundamentally distinct from the ‘mental’, whether they agree that this exists (dualists) or not (physicalists). In any of these accounts, living organisms are analogous to machines. Despite the fact that the unique properties of life remain unaddressed in these accounts, or perhaps because of it, it has been relatively easy for these theorists to claim that a functioning machine can, in some sense, be considered ‘alive’, or better, that a living organism is like a functioning machine. But how, then, would these same theories define death? If we are to follow their premises, death would simply be the breakdown of structure and function, the cessation of processes that sustain consciousness. One issue with this, however, is that, unlike machines—which can be repaired and restored to function—living beings cannot be revived after death. Granted, there exists a murky grey zone between life and death (incidentally, actual Haitian zombies are a great illustration here, Davis 1986) but in the grander scheme, death is final: once one is dead is dead. Brain scans can reliably confirm it, putrefaction is the ultimate proof. Death, and by extension life, is unique to organisms. Non-living entities, by their very nature and definition, cannot die, if metaphorically. This consideration alone arguably rules out theories that do not account for the distinctive properties of life from explaining the relationship between consciousness and death. But there is another, related problem. If death represents the breakdown of structure and function, one that ends the process that sustain consciousness, the account we are left with is implicitly epiphenomenalist. It assumes that body affects mind, but not vice versa. ‘Voodoo death’, which defies epiphenomenalism, would be hard to reconcile within this picture. I suggest that explaining it compels us to consider a close relationship between consciousness and life. In what follows I will examine enactivism and the free-energy principle as theories that have elaborated on the continuity between mind and life more than any other, and call them to make sense of the evidence just presented. I will show that they provide an explanation for ‘voodoo death’—thereby elevating their value as theories of consciousness—but also argue that ‘voodoo death’ reveals implications for these theories, and theories of consciousness more generally, that have rarely been contemplated, at least within the Western tradition. Let’s start with enactivism. Enactivism: death as the vanishing of affordances The central guiding principle of enactivism is the idea that when we are studying a living being or the mind of a living being, such as the human mind, we are dealing with the properties of an organism, which differ in fundamental ways from the properties of a machine. Unlike machines, whose functions are specified by an external designer, organisms are defined by their autonomy. They are sources of their own being. Their purpose is not explicable in terms of external laws but only in terms of their own organizational structure, with metabolism serving as the baseline sustaining process. Most crucially, organisms are networks of dynamic systems (primarily metabolic but also sensorimotor, neural, immune, etc.) that manage to uphold an identity: to distinguish themselves from the environment while incessantly exchanging matter and energy with it. This process of self-maintenance and self-production in the face of entropy goes by the name of ‘autopoiesis’ (Maturana and Varela 1980). Any encounter with the environment acquires meaning to the extent that it links up, either positively or negatively, with the norm of maintenance of the organism. This means that from the organism’s point of view the environment is essentially a range of affordances, which are defined as opportunities for action relative to the organism’s physical and perceptual capabilities (e.g. a chair affords sitting for a human, a fruit affords eating). In enactivist terminology, the ability to regulate and respond to changing conditions and evaluate affordances in ways that preserve the organism’s autonomy is defined as adaptivity (Di Paolo 2005). Enactivists argue that mind is instrinsic to processes of life. The explanatory gap between consciousness (seen as internal and subjective) and life (seen as external and mechanical) that underpins the ‘hard problem’ is artificial because life already embodies an interiority—a self-regulating, sense-making, and purposive process—that cannot be reduced to external mechanism. Incipient in the self-organizing dynamics of the simplest organism, it blooms into consciousness and self-consciousness with increasing biological complexity. Crucially, the continuity between mind and life is also considered to be phenomenological in character (Jonas 1966). That is to say: some basic concepts needed to understand life turn out to be applicable not just to cognition but to subjective experience itself. Mind is intrinsically life-like. The very feeling of being alive itself is deeply tied to, and emerges from, life-regulating metabolic processes. Similarly, the experience of temporal transcendence is grounded in metabolic activity, which imbues the organism with a forward-looking character. Enactivists argue that framing the engagement with the environment in terms of possibilities of actions also bridges biological and phenomenological domains. As Merleau-Ponty (1962) vividly suggests, our way of navigating the world is grounded in a pre-reflective ‘I can,’ a bodily sense of agency and ability to act that comes prior to reflective thought (i.e., the Cartesian ‘I think’). This framing applies equally both as a description of life and of subjective experience. Continuity between mind and life does not mean a strict correspondence between the two. This is largely due to the evolution of the brain, which has massively complexified mental life. From an evolutionary perspective, it has been advantageous for the nervous system to achieve a degree of autonomy from the rest of the body. This autonomy has allowed the development of agency and other sensorimotor capacities that are not strictly tied to metabolism. In fact, the nervous system and its dynamic structures (or habits) can, to various degrees, decouple and even enter into conflict with metabolic values (habits, of course, can be bad). Yet, at a more fundamental level, the brain remains tethered to the task of maintaining the organism’s homeostasis, and it is at this deeper, foundational level that we observe mind-life continuity (Barandiaran and Moreno 2006). It should be clear from the above account that mind for the enactivist is not reducible to the organ of the brain. It is embodied. It emerges from, and is interdependent with, the organism’s interwoven processes of self-regulation, sensorimotor coupling and inter-subjective coupling with the environment. The enactivist’s take on the mind-body problem is to argue, emphatically, that ‘mind’ and ‘body’ are not two distinct ontological categories, but two aspects of this ‘sense-making’ process. Because ‘mind’ and ‘body’ are two sides of the same coin, it is deceptive to say that mind affects body or vice versa (Varela et al. 1991). Where enactivists make an important distinction is at the level of causes of experience. The enactivist account of causality goes by the name of ‘circular causality’ (Fuchs 2017, 2021), which differs from ‘linear causality’ because any effect on the system is assumed to depend on, and affect in turn, the overall global organisation of that system. Proponents argue that physiological causes should be understood as ‘local-to-global’ (or ‘upward’) causes, whose effect on consciousness depends on the overall state the organism finds themselves in. For example, the role played by MDMA in heightening the activity of serotonin and boosting the feeling of ecstasy is of such local-to-global type, but where the effects fundamentally depend on the state of the person as a whole, on their history and social setting. By contrast, the role that, say, winning a trophy might have in heightening the activity of serotonin and boosting the feeling of ecstasy is a global-to-local (‘downward’) cause, where the global sense-making conditions of the organism affects lower-level physiological structures. Psychosocial causes are of this type. Importantly, physiological and psychosocial causes are always engaged in a relation of circular causality, where, depending on the case, one cause might take the leading role in affecting experience, but cannot be taken in isolation from the overall organism-world system. The framework of ‘circular causality’ has been usefully employed to explore the causal nature of illness (De Haan 2020; Ongaro 2024) and, as we will see, death. How is the experience of illness understood within this perspective? From the enactivist perspective, illness is seen as a moment where adaptivity diminishes and the organism experiences a shrinkage of possibilities of action—a moment where the pre-reflective ‘I can’ falters. There is a contraction of the environment, which may result from different classes of causes. In illnesses with a clear organic basis, such as tumors, the primary driver of the experience is typically upward in nature. However, how one perceives the illness (e.g., whether cancer is met with fear or acceptance) is fundamentally shaped by global sense-making processes, including culture and the social environment. Simply being diagnosed with the disorder, along with the negative expectations that come with it, can induce strong nocebo effects that amplify pain. In most cases of ‘mental’ illnesses and chronic conditions, downward causation is more dominant. Research shows for example that culturally induced negative expectations can pack a powerful neurobiological punch, leading to increases in stress hormones, catecholamines, cholecystokinin, and more (Bernstein et al. 2024). Nevertheless, for enactivists, these neurobiological manifestations should be considered neither ‘mental’ nor ‘bodily.’ Instead, they are the manifestation of downward causes acting on the organism. Unsurprisingly, they can, in fact, exploit the very same neural biochemical pathways of physical bottom-up perturbation (e.g. Benedetti et al. 2014), just as the effects of placebos (read: any therapeutic ritual that induces positive expectations) can activate the same neurobiological mechanisms as analgesic drugs (Piedimonte and Benedetti 2016). It is significant that, from the patient’s perspective, the downward effects of nocebos or the upward effects of physical perturbations are typically indistinguishable—and equally real. What this suggests, the enactivists would say, is that the brain is fundamentally a ‘mediating organ’, whose primary function is to integrate streams of information coming from various sources, both upward and downward (Fuchs 2011). Consciousness is a process (not a thing) that emerges out of this integration, as the embodied organism interact with the environment. More specifically, it is a process of dynamic co-emergence, where the whole (the organism’s interaction with the environment) and its parts (local neural and bodily processes) mutually create and specify each other, rather than being reducible to each other (Thompson 2007). What do make, then, of death—the moment where this process ceases for good? Death would correspond to the situation where adaptivity reaches zero, where we do not have a shrinkage of affordances, like in illness, but a vanishing thereof (Di Paolo 2009). All environmental conditions become unviable. The pre-reflective ‘I can’ that guides us throughout life capitulates; it turns into an “I can’t”. Like with illness, death too can result from a combination of upward and downward causes. Under the account developed here, ‘voodoo death’ emerges as a type of death that results primarily from downward causes. It is an ultimate form of the nocebo effect, in which higher-level event, a change in the social environment around the individual, exerts a top-down causal influence on lower-level physical and biological properties, a cascade of neurological, immunological, and cardiac processes that lead to dying. While it is worthwhile to investigate the range of biological mechanisms involved in such deaths, as Cannon and many others have done, we can no longer think of these as sui generis mechanisms that can be turned on or off like a switch. Since the organism is a dynamical system, we should expect biological processes to vary in duration, intensity, and biochemical pathways depending on the conditions—just as nocebo effects can manifest in a wide variety of ways (Rossettini et al. 2023). Notably, from a life-mind continuity perspective, these processes are also expected to reflect the phenomenological state of the individual. While a protracted fatalistic mood can contribute to death in a gradual manner, as suggested by studies showing the association between self-rated health and mortality, in the most striking cases of ‘voodoo death’, the total breakdown of affordances is subjectively felt by the individual as intense hopelessness. Engel described it as a situation in which, following an event that is perceived as stressful, the subject finds himself “unable to cope”, “feels utterly hopeless” and “has no expectation that any change in the environment is possible or will help” (cited in Hahn and Kleinman 1983:17). Enactivism provides a framework for understanding how this subjective experience and death might be causally connected. What about non-human animals, one might ask? According to the life-mind continuity thesis, something akin to ‘voodoo death’ should also be expected in other animals, albeit in radically different forms. Evidence seems to bear out this expectation. To mention one example, in the 1950s, Curt Richter’s experiments revealed that wild rats experienced premature death when restrained and deprived of escape options. Trimming their whiskers, which are key sensory tools, would amplify their fear also lead to sudden death. Even calm, domesticated rats exhibited the same fearful behaviour and susceptibility to sudden death as wild rats when their whiskers were removed (Richter 1957). In all organisms, death occurs as the opportunities for action within an organism's environment shrink and vanish, whichever the primary cause. In the human social environment, the downward effect leading to death is mediated through language and symbols. This raises the interesting possibilities that the idea of ‘death’ might be an embodied concept, that is, a concept grounded in the body’s physical, perceptual, interoceptive and sensorimotor experience, rather than existing as an abstract entity. Enactivists have long argued that some concepts are not just mental representations but are shaped by bodily experiences (in fact not only enactivists: Lakoff and Johnson 1980; Barsalou 1999). For instance, the way infants learn concepts like ‘up’ and ‘down’ is tied to their experience of moving and orienting themselves in space. If so, could ‘voodoo death’ also be explained by the fact that ‘death’ represents an embodied concept, one that bridges language with (the end of) life processes? The enactive account of ‘voodoo death’ leaves us with some lingering questions. How can death be an embodied concept if we have never experienced it before? More generally, while enactivism arguably accommodates the phenomenon of ‘voodoo death’ through the life-mind continuity thesis, what can be said about the kinds of processes or cognitive architecture that might bring it about? To arrive at some tentative answers to these questions, I will now turn to the other biogenetic theory on the agenda: the free-energy principle. The free-energy principle: death as self-fulfilling prophecy Touted as one of the most elegant and unifying scientific theories of the 21st century, the Free-Energy Principle (henceforth FEP) is a big idea involving philosophy, biology, neuroscience, engineering, machine learning, with roots in statistical physics. It is at its core a theory of life—of how living beings, unlike any other entity in the known universe, can temporarily defy the second law of thermodynamics to fend off entropy and maintain a boundary between themselves and the environment. To do so, the theory posits, organisms must be able to minimize variational ‘free-energy’. This is a term that, without going into detail, represents an upper limit on the difference between an organism’s predictions about sensory input and the actual input it receives (a difference also known as ‘surprisal’). According to the FEP, living beings maintain their survival by minimizing the likelihood of encountering highly surprising or unexpected states, and by doing so they avoid the dissipating conditions that threaten their existence (Friston 2010). [1] Some organisms have evolved nervous systems to get better at doing this. Nervous systems are also posited to follow the FEP, or at least to closely resemble it (see debates in Mendonça et al. 2021). As such, the FEP, like enactivism, offers a unifying theory of biology and cognition, life and mind, for the same principle that govern life are also considered to be a version of those that govern mind. [2] While the FEP is not a theory of consciousness itself, it is a theory for consciousness, which suggests that to understand conscious experiences—how they arise, what they are like, and how they relate to the self and the world—we must acknowledge their deep roots in the physiological processes that organize life itself (Seth 2022). Just like with enactivism, we have here a theory that erodes the central premise of the ‘hard problem of consciousness’: that the latter can be somehow divorced from living processes. Accordingly, it is a theory that I suggest is uniquely positioned to explain the relationship between consciousness and the process of dying. Like enactivism, the FEP comes with a conceptual armoury that is usually laid out at the outset of every paper in the field. Succinctly put, the theory posits that the brain helps us make sense of the world by constantly predicting the sources of the (otherwise meaningless) barrage of inputs that hit the senses (see Clark 2016 for an excellent primer). It does so not by passively receiving and processing input, as earlier models suggested, but by actively anticipating it, producing a cascade of downward-flowing probabilistic predictions about the world. This neurally encoded stream of top-down predictions meets the bottom-up sensory signals. Any mismatch between prediction and actual sensory signals is converted into ‘prediction error,’ which propagates upward in the hierarchy to update the predictions, allowing the brain to progressively improve its ability to aid perception of the world. Some of these ‘priors’ act as stable background knowledge, accounting for the most temporally extended and spatially diffuse features of the world, while others are continually refined through learning. The main goal of the brain, according to FEP—what typifies it as a unifying theory of brain function—is the minimization of prediction error. This process also occurs in bodily action, which for FEP is simply the other side of perception: we predict something and act in a way that fulfils the prediction, a process known as ‘active inference.’ Some theorists see the FEP providing “an implementation of enactivism” at the neural level (Ramstead et al. 2021:59), for it lends further substance to the enactivist conception of ‘circular causality’ and autopoiesis (though this remains much debated; see Di Paolo et al 2022). The same principle of prediction error minimization holds true for interoceptive states such as pain (Barrett and Simmons 2015). FEP is credited with offering persuasive explanations of phenomena that are difficult to accommodate theoretically, like chronic pain. But it has done so, in the first instance, by upending the understanding of the phenomenon that we thought was easiest to grasp: acute pain. The latter, for the FEP, is not a direct readout of sensory signal, but of a process that is invariably mediated by top-down predictions. When we are not in pain, the brain is continuously predicting our state of well-being. When the sensory signal goes beyond the predicted range of what is defined by higher priors as ‘well-being,’ predictions are quickly updated to the perception of pain. Of course, in the context of acute pain there is a tight correlation between lesion and pain perception because the latter, though determined by priors, is dominated by the sensory signal. In chronic pain, the situation reverses: here, it is highly precise top-down prediction of pain, even in the absence of lesion, that is responsible for generating the experience (Kaptchuk et al. 2020). The framework allows us to get a clear picture of how nocebo effects work. It leads us to appreciate the salient role played by the social context in shaping and reinforcing predictions of symptoms. Knowledge of a drug’s side effects, verbal information about imminent pain delivered by a physician, or culturally specific ways of attending to the body can all heighten the strength of predictions about impending symptoms, leading these predictions to dominate symptom perception, and even engender symptoms without any physical, bottom-up cause. What’s more, through active inference, the brain might initiate visceral sensations (e.g., stomach tension) that match the hypothesis of being in pain. Aligning with conclusions reached by enactivists, the FEP shows that all symptoms are products of an inferential process that is never strictly reducible to physiological dysfunction and is sometimes only loosely related or even unrelated to it. ‘Explained’ and ‘unexplained’ (or ‘functional’) symptoms thus lie on a continuum, differing only in the extent to which they are coupled to an organic disorder. Given that the same inferential process is implicated in both cases, the theory also explains why so-called ‘real’ and ‘imaginary’ symptoms seem phenomenologically indistinguishable from the patient’s point of view (Ongaro and Kaptchuk 2019). The reader might already see where the argument is heading, but before we get to ‘voodoo death’ directly, let me discuss an important aspect of interoception under the FEP framework. While the goal of exteroception is primarily to figure out what’s out there (for obvious survival reasons), the task of the interoceptive brain is not so much to accurately perceive the body’s state as to control it. Its goal is to maintain essential variables, like body temperature or heart rate, within the narrow ranges necessary for survival. To achieve this, interoception relies on strong, stable predictions about the body. Exemplifying the principle of active inference, interoception minimizes prediction errors by acting to fulfil top-down predictions rather than constantly updating them (though updates do occur). As a result, the brain systematically misperceives the body to create an illusion of stability. This ‘self-change blindness’ ensures we hardly notice constant shifts in our physiology, making regulation easier. Emotions, within this framework, reflect predictions about the body’s state in specific moments, while moods arise from longer-term regulatory patterns (Tsakiris and Preester 2019). Anil Seth (2022), among others, has argued that the feeling of ‘being you’—the most stable and invariant sense of self—stems from this interoceptive purpose of keeping the body seemingly stable. The key implication is that the conscious self is inextricably tied to the state of being alive (contrary to the intuition behind the ‘hard problem’). With this in mind, we can revisit the studies showing a strong association between self-rated health and mortality discussed earlier. According to conventional wisdom, self-rated health predicts mortality because humans are equipped with the capacity to accurately perceive the state of their own health. Poor self-rated health supposedly captures disease lurking beneath the surface, which will eventually kill us (Jylhä 2009). In light of the FEP account of interoception, this interpretation no longer holds. (In fairness, this explanation also fails to account for why certain diseases remain asymptomatic until the brink of death, but that’s another issue.) The brain does not accurately perceive the body; instead, it constructs a perception of it based on predictions that are aimed at maintaining stability and control. These predictions, however, can be susceptible to psychosocial change, and when that happens, can drive the body to follow suit. At once, this interpretation places the predictive power of perceived health on a continuum with the self-fulfilling prophecy of voodoo death, just at a different time scale. It is a death influenced by mood, rather than by intense emotion, with predictions of deteriorating health that are pre-reflective and stretched out over time, and which subtly guide the body toward breakdown and death. In line with these predictions, the body sets the stage for its own deterioration (the range of physiological mechanisms involved in this process would be interesting to investigate but are not necessary for this theoretical account). In essence, ‘voodoo death’ is simply an extreme manifestation of a common phenomenon: the entanglement of consciousness and the process of dying. Conclusion Bringing together all the threads woven thus far, we arrive at the following causal picture regarding death and its relationship to consciousness. As with pain, there exists a continuum depending on the degree to which experience is dominated by sensory signal or downward predictions. At one end of the spectrum, we find deaths primarily caused by external perturbations: falls from heights, car crashes, actual executions. Here the ‘sensory signal’ is an attack on the vital functions of the organism and the breakdown of the very conditions that make enaction and prediction possible. In these situations, downward causation has virtually no effect on the timing of death. Moving further along the spectrum, there are deaths that are still primarily induced by a bottom-up physical cause but exacerbated by top-down prediction, particularly when the individual is aware of the lethality of the cause. HIV patients during the height of the AIDS epidemic, who were burdened by hopelessness and social stigma (both known to significantly affect immune function), illustrate this point. Researchers at the time recognised that psychological condition in HIV patients could influence mortality, while also noting that patients with strong social supports tended to survive longer (Cohen 1988). Further along still, we have cases where predictions play a critical role despite organic deterioration. For instance, low self-rated health reflects a mood that may act as a causal factor that hastens death (Newquist 1985; Dramé et al. 2023). At the opposite end of the spectrum, we encounter the more spectacular deaths driven almost entirely by top-down prediction, even in the absence of any discernible physical cause. These are the ‘voodoo deaths’ proper. For any typology of death, it becomes an empirical question to determine where, along this continuum, the needle stands with regard to the power of downward causation. This consideration can also be extended to a demographic level. We might ask: what is the influence of downward causes in shaping average longevity in a population? My hunch is that the answer, if we ever uncover it, will surprise many. Let me make a couple of assumptive examples. We know that life expectancy has dramatically increased over the last 100 years across the globe. While the exact causes are still debated, it is undeniable that a major role was played by public health measures: vaccination, hygiene, new medical treatments, i.e. physical, ‘bottom-up’ causes. However, it must have been the case that, as the average longevity increased due to unprecedented medical wonders, the expectation of living longer than before also spread throughout the population, and that this expectation, in and of itself, also contributed to extend life expectancy. Equally, it must have been the case that, in societies where the post-infancy life expectancy was around 40 years, the prevailing expectation of dying around that age played a role in holding longevity in check. Consider, as second example, longevity guru Bryan Johnson. An entrepreneur and rejuvenation Olympian, Johnson has invested a significant portion of his wealth into developing data-driven approaches to achieve what he calls ‘Blueprint’, a lifestyle designed to extend biological youth and, in his words, to “not die” (Johnson 2024). It involves a smorgasbord of daily supplements, sleep-optimization techniques, carefully selected workouts, the use of a hypobaric chamber, and more. Visibly, this arsenal of healthful measures does have an effect on his outward look. It will likely have it on his lifespan. However, it must be the case that his awareness of adhering to such life-extending regime, in and of itself, also plays a role in extending longevity. The degree to which this is the case would, again, be a matter for empirical testing (something that Johnson may not have planned to take into account). [3] My broader point, going back to consciousness, is that the expectation to die is an inherent aspect of life and, therefore, of consciousness. And the expectation to die is inextricably tied with its bringing it about. Could this mean that, following the FEP formulation, we are endowed with a form of “death prior” that inevitably condemns us to our demise? One approach might be to argue, rightly, that FEP only describes the behaviour of organisms at a given point in time. As such, even if we accept the story presented in this paper, active inference about death would only emerge in old age, when predictions of dying lead the organism to act accordingly, both behaviourally and interoceptively, or in particular situations where affordances break down (as in ‘voodoo death’ proper). Not, that is, at the stage infancy. Death then could only become a concern later in life rather than being an integral constituent of consciousness from the get-go. But there is another dimension to consider. Organisms are products of ontogeny as much as phylogeny. We carry the imprints of our evolutionary past within us. Proponents of the FEP argue that it also offers a framework that unifies the short-term processes of development within an organism’s lifetime (ontogeny) with the long-term processes of evolution—how species adapt over generations (phylogeny). It achieves this by modeling both as processes of probabilistic inference: evolution (phylogeny) furnishes the generative models (encoded in genotypes) that constrain and shape the adaptive behaviors and learning of individuals (ontogeny). These generative models are refined over evolutionary timescales but are expressed and tested in real-time through an organism’s actions and interactions with its environment (Friston et al. 2023) From an evolutionary perspective, then, the fact that, past the age of reproduction, our body lowers its defenses and gives way to deterioration could be seen as a manifestation of a latent “death prior.” This perspective also lends some plausibility to the idea that the concept of ‘death’ could be a deeply ingrained ‘embodied concept,’ one we possess without needing direct experience of it. Could we not, then, conceive of death as an inherent dimension of life rather than merely the state that follows it? In Beyond the Pleasure Principle (1975[1920]), Sigmund Freud argued that human behaviour is not solely driven by the pursuit of pleasure and the avoidance of pain but also by deeper, unconscious forces like the ‘death drive’, which invites individuals to a return to the inorganic state. There is a duality, Freud thought, between life instincts (Eros) and death instincts (Tanathos). Leaving aside issues of compatibility between FEP, enactivism and psychoanalysis (Holmes 2022), my argument, here, will serve as a analogous corrective to the common refrain, prevalent in both FEP and enactivist circles, that consciousness arises out of a ‘drive to survive’ (Nave 2025) or that, as Seth puts it, “as long as we live, the brain will never update its prior belief of expecting to be alive” (Seth 2022:194). This framing overshadows the idea that conscious life is inherently shaped by, and carries with it, the anticipation of death. That life and death are two sides of the same coin is, of course, a leitmotif that we find in many philosophical traditions outside the West. If for Epicurus “as long as we exist, death is not present”, other traditions have seen things differently. Some have thought of death as an inherent aspect of living as a philosophical first principle. In Tibetan Buddhism, for instance, dying is thought to take place at every living moment, in the sense that the dissolution of every conscious moment represents a microcosm of our final dissolution. Death, in this view, necessarily belongs to the structure of consciousness itself (Thompson 2014). In the Zhuangzi, similarly, we read that life derives part of its value from its relationship to death, and vice versa (Liu 2022). In Haitian voodoo, too, though as different from both Tibetan Buddhism and Daoism as one can imagine, we encounter the idea, reflected in ritualistic practices, of life and death as entwined dimensions, where life isn’t interrupted by death but transformed by it (Metraux 1972). The Western tendency to view death as a discrete stage that follows life is a culturally and historically specific one. There is an evident genealogical connection within the Western philosophical tradition between the ‘substance dualism’ about life and death and the ‘substance dualism’ about physical processes and subjective experience that underpins the ‘hard problem of consciousness’. Fleshing it out may be a matter for another time. The purpose of the paper has been to show that the life-mind continuity perspectives challenges both perspectives simultaneously. Regarding the latter—the dualism of the ‘hard problem’—it exposes philosophical zombies as a metaphysical impossibility. It supports the idea that “our conscious experiences of the world around us, and of ourselves within it, happen with, through, and because of our living bodies” (Seth 2022:180). It follows—to dabble into one of the hottest conversations of our times—that current AI systems are unlikely to ever support consciousness because they do not possess autopoietic system that typifies life (Seth 2025). On the former subject of mortality, I noted that if consciousness is part of our nature as living beings, it must also be tied to the fact that we are mortal beings—from which it follows that for AI to be conscious it will also have to die. ‘Voodoo death’ served as that anomaly whose explanation compels us to accept a form of life-mind continuity. ‘Voodoo death,’ however, is simply a boundary case. It is the tip of the iceberg that invites us to discover that, in the vast majority of cases, an embodied anticipation of dying plays a part in bringing it about. Consciousness may be intrinsic to life because it is also inextricably tied up with death. Bibliography Adler, S. R. (2011). Sleep paralysis: nightmares, nocebos, and the mind-body connection. New Brunswick, N.J: Rutgers University Press. Andrews, M. (2021). The math is not the territory: navigating the free energy principle. Biology & Philosophy, 36(3). Au, N., & Johnston, D. W. (2014). Self-assessed health: What does it mean and what does it hide? Social Science & Medicine, 121, 21–28. Barandiaran, X., & Moreno, A. (2006). On What Makes Certain Dynamical Systems Cognitive: A Minimally Cognitive Organization Program. Adaptive Behavior, 14(2), 171–185. Barrett, L. F., & Simmons, W. K. (2015). Interoceptive predictions in the brain. Nature Reviews. Neuroscience, 16(7), 419–429. Barsalou, L. W. (1999). Perceptual symbol systems. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22(4), 577–660. Benedetti, F., Durando, J., & Vighetti, S. (2014). Nocebo and placebo modulation of hypobaric hypoxia headache involves the cyclooxygenase-prostaglandins pathway. Pain, 155(5), 921–928. Bernstein, M., Blease, C., Locher, C., Brown, W. A., & Mayo Clinic (Eds.). (2024). The nocebo effect: when words make you sick. Rochester, MN: Mayo Clinic Press. Bostrom, N. (2017). Superintelligence: paths, dangers, strategies. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Cannon, W. B. (1942). “Voodoo” death. American anthropologist, 44(2), 169–181. Center for Environmental Health & Injury Control. (1988). Update: Sudden Unexplained Death Syndrome Among Southeast Asian Refugees—United States. JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association, 260(14), 2033. Chalmers, D. (1995). Facing up to the problem of consciousness. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 2(3), 200–19. Chalmers, D. (2018). The Meta-Problem of Consciousness. Journal of Consciousness Studies 25 (9-10):6-61 Chalmers, D. (1997). The conscious mind: in search of a fundamental theory. New York: Oxford University Press. Clark, A. (2016). Surfing uncertainty: prediction, action, and the embodied mind. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press. Coates, C. F. (2006). Vodou in Haitian Literature. In Vodou in Haitian Life and Culture (pp. 181–198). New York: Palgrave Macmillan US. Cohen, S. I. (1988). Voodoo death, the stress response, and AIDS. Advances in biochemical psychopharmacology, 44, 95. Davis, W. (1986). The serpent and the rainbow. London: Collins. De Haan, S. (2020). Enactive Psychiatry. Cambridge ; New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Dennett, D. C. (1993). Consciousness Explained.London: Penguin. Di Paolo, E. (2009). Extended Life. Topoi, 28(1), 9–21. Di Paolo, E. (2005). Autopoiesis, Adaptivity, Teleology, Agency. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 4(4), 429–452. Di Paolo, E., Thompson, E., & Beer, R. (2022). Laying down a forking path: Tensions between enaction and the free energy principle. Philosophy and the Mind Sciences, 3. Dramé, M., Cantegrit, E., & Godaert, L. (2023). Self-Rated Health as a Predictor of Mortality in Older Adults: A Systematic Review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 20(5), 3813. Eastwell, H. D. (1982). Voodoo death and the mechanism for dispatch of the dying in East Arnhem, Australia. American Anthropologist, 84(1), 5–18. Edelman, G. M., & Tononi, G. (2001). Consciousness: how matter becomes imagination. London: Penguin Books. Engel, G. L. (1971). Sudden and rapid death during psychological stress: folklore or folk wisdom? Annals of internal medicine, 74(5), 771–783. Freud, S. (1975[1920]). Beyond the pleasure principle. New York: Norton. Friston, K. (2010). The free-energy principle: a unified brain theory? Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 11(2), 127–138. Friston, K., Friedman, D. A., Constant, A., Knight, V. B., Fields, C., Parr, T., & Campbell, J. O. (2023). A Variational Synthesis of Evolutionary and Developmental Dynamics. Entropy, 25(7), 964. Fuchs, T. (2011). The Brain -- A Mediating Organ. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 18, 196–221. Fuchs, T. (2017). Ecology of the Brain: The phenomenology and biology of the embodied mind. Oxford, United Kingdom: OUP Oxford. Fuchs, T. (2021). In defense of the human being: foundational questions of an embodied anthropology. Oxford, United Kingdom ; New York, NY, United States of America: Oxford University Press. Hahn, R. A., & Kleinman, A. (1983). Belief as Pathogen, Belief as Medicine: “Voodoo Death” and the “Placebo Phenomenon” in Anthropological Perspective. Medical Anthropology Quarterly, 14(4), 3–19. Holmes, J. (2022). Friston’s free energy principle: new life for psychoanalysis? BJPsych bulletin, 46(3), 164–168. Idler, E. L., & Kasl, S. (1991). Health Perceptions and Survival: Do Global Evaluations of Health Status Really Predict Mortality? Journal of Gerontology, 46(2), S55–S65. Johnson, B. (Ed.). (2024). Zeroism. Venice: Zero. Jonas, H. (1966). The Phenomenon of Life: Toward a Philosophical Biology. New York: Harper&Row. Jylhä, M. (2009). What is self-rated health and why does it predict mortality? Towards a unified conceptual model. Social Science & Medicine, 69(3), 307–316. Kananen, L., Enroth, L., Raitanen, J., Jylhävä, J., Bürkle, A., Moreno-Villanueva, M., et al. (2021). Self-rated health in individuals with and without disease is associated with multiple biomarkers representing multiple biological domains. Scientific Reports, 11(1), 6139. Kaptchuk, T. J., Hemond, C. C., & Miller, F. G. (2020). Placebos in chronic pain: evidence, theory, ethics, and use in clinical practice. BMJ, m1668. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago. Leach, J. (2018). ‘Give-up-itis’ revisited: Neuropathology of extremis. Medical Hypotheses, 120, 14–21. Lester, D. (2009). Voodoo Death. OMEGA - Journal of Death and Dying, 59(1), 1–18. Liu, P. (2022). Death in the Zhuangzi : Themes, arguments, and interpretations. Philosophy Compass, 17(4), e12825. Lown, B. (1999). The lost art of healing (First Ballantine ed.). New York: Ballantine Books. Maturana, H. R., & Varela, F. J. (1980). Autopoiesis and cognition: the realization of the living. Dordrecht Boston London: D. Reidel Publishing Company. Meador, C. K. (1992). Hex death: voodoo magic or persuasion? Southern Medical Journal, 85(3), 244–247. Meador, Clifton K. (2005). Symptoms of unknown origin: a medical odyssey. Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press. Mendonça, D., Curado, M., & Gouveia, S. S. (2021). The philosophy and science of predictive processing. London: Bloomsbury Academic. Merleau-Ponty, M. (1962). Phenomenology of perception. Abingdon, Oxon ; New York: Routledge. Metraux, A. (1972). Voodoo. Aylesbury, UK: Sphere Books Limited. Moerman, D. E. (2002). Meaning, medicine, and the “placebo effect.” Cambridge ; New York: Cambridge University Press. Nave, K. (2025). A drive to survive: the free energy principle and the meaning of life. Cambridge, Massachusetts London: The MIT Press. Newquist, D. D. (1985). Voodoo death in the American aged. Cognition, stress, and aging, 111–133. Ongaro, G. (2024). Outline for an Externalist Psychiatry (1): Or, How to Fully Realize the Biopsychosocial Model. Philosophy, Psychiatry, & Psychology, 31(3), 269–284. Ongaro, G., & Kaptchuk, T. J. (2019). Symptom perception, placebo effects, and the Bayesian brain: PAIN, 160(1), 1–4. Phillips, D. P., & King, E. W. (1988). Death takes a holiday: mortality surrounding major social occasions. Lancet (London, England), 2(8613), 728–732. Phillips, D. P., Liu, G. C., Kwok, K., Jarvinen, J. R., Zhang, W., & Abramson, I. S. (2001). The Hound of the Baskervilles effect: natural experiment on the influence of psychological stress on timing of death. BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 323(7327), 1443–1446. Phillips, D. P., Ruth, T. E., & Wagner, L. M. (1993). Psychology and survival. Lancet (London, England), 342(8880), 1142–1145. Phillips, D. P., & Smith, D. G. (1990). Postponement of death until symbolically meaningful occasions. JAMA, 263(14), 1947–1951. Piedimonte, A., & Benedetti, F. (2016). Words and drugs: Same mechanisms of action? Journal of Contemporary Psychotherapy: On the Cutting Edge of Modern Developments in Psychotherapy, 46(3), 159–166. Ramstead, M. J. D., Kirchhoff, M. D., Constant, A., & Friston, K. J. (2021). Multiscale integration: beyond internalism and externalism. Synthese, 198(S1), 41–70. Richter, C. P. (1957). On the phenomenon of sudden death in animals and man. Psychosomatic Medicine, 19(3), 191–198. Rossettini, G., Campaci, F., Bialosky, J., Huysmans, E., Vase, L., & Carlino, E. (2023). The Biology of Placebo and Nocebo Effects on Experimental and Chronic Pain: State of the Art. Journal of Clinical Medicine, 12(12), 4113. Samuels, M. A. (2007). “Voodoo” death revisited: the modern lessons of neurocardiology. Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine, 74(Suppl_1), S8–S8. Seth, A. (2022). Being you: a new science of consciousness (Paperback edition.). London: Faber. Seth, A. (2025). Conscious artificial intelligence and biological naturalism. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 1–42. Shoemaker, S. (2001). Realization and mental causation. In C. Gillett & B. Loewer (Eds.), Physicalism and its Discontents (Vol. 9, pp. 23–33). Sternberg, E. M. (2002). Walter B. Cannon and “Voodoo Death”: a perspective from 60 years on. American Journal of Public Health, 92(10), 1564–1566. Thompson, E. (2007). Mind in life: biology, phenomenology, and the sciences of mind. Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press of Harvard Univ. Press. Thompson, E. (2014). Waking, Dreaming, Being: Self and Consciousness in Neuroscience, Meditation, and Philosophy. New York: Columbia University Press. Tsakiris, M., & Preester, H. de (Eds.). (2019). The interoceptive mind: from homeostasis to awareness. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press. Varela, F. J., Thompson, E., & Rosch, E. (1991). The embodied mind: cognitive science and human experience. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Wuorela, M., Lavonius, S., Salminen, M., Vahlberg, T., Viitanen, M., & Viikari, L. (2020). Self-rated health and objective health status as predictors of all-cause mortality among older people: a prospective study with a 5-, 10-, and 27-year follow-up. BMC Geriatrics, 20(1), 120. Yawger, N. S. (1936). Emotions as a cause of rapid and sudden death. Archives of Neurology and Psychiatry, 36(4), 869–890. Zheng, J., Zheng, D., Su, T., & Cheng, J. (2018). Sudden Unexplained Nocturnal Death Syndrome: The Hundred Years’ Enigma. Journal of the American Heart Association: Cardiovascular and Cerebrovascular Disease, 7(5), e007837. [1] Some authors have questioned the compatibility between FEP and autopoiesis (Di Paolo et al. 2022). While I remain agnostic on this issue, there are some important parallels between the two, which I hope will become clear below. What I highlight here is FEP’s value in accounting for the anticipatory nature of life and mind. [2] A caveat, here: born as a piece of mathematical philosophy, the FEP is not a scientifically falsifiable theory, which can be evaluated through hypothesis testing. It is better described as a formal ‘modelling framework’ (Andrews 2021). Nevertheless, there are theoretical offshoots of the FEP for which its tools take on epistemological and methodological force. Predictive processing (PP) is a family of models, nested within the FEP framework, that uses these tools to make predictions about brain function and cognition. While mindful of these distinctions, I hope I may be forgiven for using ‘FEP’ throughout this paper to refer to both the framework and its theoretical applications, for the sake of conciseness. [3] Be as it may, this effect should never be interpreted as proof of the “power of the will”, as positive psychologists often claim, typically in favour of individual self-help remedies while oblivious to socio-structural factors. Top-down predictions are very heavily affected by social context and structural conditions.

---

## Consciousness as Mystical Memory: A Proustian Reading of Yosef Yitzchak Schneersohn’s Literary Worlds
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/essay/consciousness-as-mystical-memory-a-proustian-reading-of-yosef-yitzchak-schneersohn-s-literary-worlds

Taking a cue from Walter Benjamin’s reading of Proust, this essay takes up a less recognized poet of memory who similarly sought to capture a collective experience of cultural rupture in an artful combination of erudition, memory and storytelling; in a vision that begins and ends with the self, yet encompasses all of reality in its totality. I refer to Yosef Yitzchak Schneersohn (1880-1950), sixth in the dynastic line of Chabad-Lubavitch Hasidism, a modern Jewish social movement that first emerged in eighteenth century Eastern-Europe, but which is heir to the mystical tradition known as Kabbalah, reaching back through the medieval era to antiquity. For Rayatz, memory become literature is the key to longevous-life, to true life, to infinite sanctity. In associating memory with the messianic revitalization of the dead he casts memory as an instantiation of the eschaton, as the crowning achievement of being and meaning, as the ultimate consummation of consciousness. “Memory,” wrote Walter Benjamin (1892-1940), “creates the chain of tradition which passes a happening from generation to generation. It is the Muse-derived element of the epic art in a broader sense and encompasses its varieties. In the first place among these is the one practiced by the storyteller. It starts the web which all stories together form in the end.” [2] Elsewhere, Benjamin underscored the particular significance of memory in “the inhospitable, blinding age of big-scale industrialism.” To industrialism we might add urbanization, bureaucratization, political authoritarianism, world-war, revolution, and displacement, processes of rupture that defined the timespan of Benjamin’s cut-short life, and which reverberate anew today. Citing Henri Bergson, Benjamin characterized “memory as decisive for the philosophical pattern of experience.” Moreover, he continued, “experience is indeed a matter of tradition, in collective existence as well as private life. It is less the product of facts firmly anchored in memory than of a convergence in memory of accumulated and frequently unconscious data … only a poet can be the adequate subject of such an experience.” [3]

“The soul sees, intellect imagines, and the heart relives.” [1] Abstract: Taking a cue from Walter Benjamin’s reading of Proust, this essay takes up a less recognized poet of memory who similarly sought to capture a collective experience of cultural rupture in an artful combination of erudition, memory and storytelling; in a vision that begins and ends with the self, yet encompasses all of reality in its totality. I refer to Yosef Yitzchak Schneersohn (1880-1950), sixth in the dynastic line of Chabad-Lubavitch Hasidism, a modern Jewish social movement that first emerged in eighteenth century Eastern-Europe, but which is heir to the mystical tradition known as Kabbalah, reaching back through the medieval era to antiquity. For Rayatz, memory become literature is the key to longevous-life, to true life, to infinite sanctity. In associating memory with the messianic revitalization of the dead he casts memory as an instantiation of the eschaton, as the crowning achievement of being and meaning, as the ultimate consummation of consciousness. Prologue: Memory as the Muse of Consciousness “Memory,” wrote Walter Benjamin (1892-1940), “creates the chain of tradition which passes a happening from generation to generation. It is the Muse-derived element of the epic art in a broader sense and encompasses its varieties. In the first place among these is the one practiced by the storyteller. It starts the web which all stories together form in the end.” [2] Elsewhere, Benjamin underscored the particular significance of memory in “the inhospitable, blinding age of big-scale industrialism.” To industrialism we might add urbanization, bureaucratization, political authoritarianism, world-war, revolution, and displacement, processes of rupture that defined the timespan of Benjamin’s cut-short life, and which reverberate anew today. Citing Henri Bergson, Benjamin characterized “memory as decisive for the philosophical pattern of experience.” Moreover, he continued, “experience is indeed a matter of tradition, in collective existence as well as private life. It is less the product of facts firmly anchored in memory than of a convergence in memory of accumulated and frequently unconscious data … only a poet can be the adequate subject of such an experience.” [3] Memory, in short, is the muse that inspires the storyteller or poet to create, practice, and invoke the kind of epic literary experience that captures and perpetuates collective tradition or culture in an era of rupture and alienation. Memory is the muse of consciousness. For Benjamin, the poet who put this to the test was Marcel Proust, who, he wrote, combined “the absorption of a mystic, the art of a prose writer, the verve of a satirist, [and] the erudition of a scholar … in an autobiographical work.” [4] Thereby, he attempted “to produce experience synthetically, as Bergson imagines it, under today’s conditions, for there is less and less hope that it will come into being naturally.” [5] My concern here is not with Proust, but with a less recognized poet of memory who belonged to this same era and similarly sought to capture a collective experience of cultural rupture through the artful combination of penmanship, erudition, storytelling, and autobiography. I refer to Yosef Yitzchak Schneersohn (1880-1950), the sixth rebbe of Chabad-Lubavitch Hasidism, who I will refer to by the acronym “Rayatz.” [6] Hasidism is a modern Jewish social movement that first emerged in eighteenth century Eastern-Europe, but which is heir to the mystical tradition known as Kabbalah, reaching back through the medieval era to antiquity. [7] Might a proustian reading of Rayatz give us a new way to think about the intertwined phenomena of memory, mysticism, and consciousness? The rural shtetl of Lubavitch (just over the border from Belarus in today’s Russia), was Chabad’s ancestral seat for most of the nineteenth century and Rayatz’s home for the first thirty-five years of his life. During World War One, as German troops advanced into the Russian Pale of Settlement, the Schneersohn family left Lubavitch, never to return. [8] For the next thirty-five years, Rayatz would live in the urban environs of Rostov, Leningrad, Riga, Warsaw, and ultimately, Brooklyn, New York, where the Chabad movement remains centered today. For Rayatz, this exile from Lubavitch marked the rupture that made memory so “decisive for the philosophical pattern of experience.” Occasioned by World War One, this rupture was rendered irreversible by the Russian Revolution, and compounded in 1920 by the death of Rayatz’s father and predecessor, Shalom DovBer Schneersohn (“Rashab,” b. 1860). [9] Rayatz would spend the next seven years leading a bold resistance to the Bolshevik campaign of compulsory secularization, but was ultimately compelled to leave the Soviet Union. After successfully reconstituting Chabad’s center in the short-lived Second Polish Republic, he survived the even more devastating rupture of the Holocaust and began new projects of memory and continuity in the United States. [10]. Rayatz’s “prolific” literary activities have been noted by the late Ada Rapoport-Albert, in the context of her searching and insightful analysis of Hasidism’s internal historiographies. [11]. In Rayatz’s writings she identified “a subtle, and not unconscious, blurring of generic categories” according to which the terms “‘memoirs’, ‘histories’, and ‘stories’ … are often used interchangeably.” [12] She also related his literary project to what Yosef Hayim Yerushalmi called the “sharp break in the continuity of Jewish living.” [13] For Yerushalmi, importantly, this break is not the ground of memory as it was for Benjamin, but rather initiates “an ever-growing decay of Jewish group memory.” In the place of the “sacred-text,” the Torah—and its associated traditions of collective memory and experience—it is now “history” that “becomes the ultimate arbiter of Judaism.” [14] Following Yerushalmi’s lead, Rapoport-Albert emphasized the ideological motives and the nostalgic quality of Rayatz’s historiographical project. [15] Benjamin provides an alternate prism, which brings the nature of memory itself back into focus. Rather than casting memory as a fungible genre that serves only as an accessory to Rayatz’s historiographical and institutional agendas, it centers memory as the decisive experiential muse, the very “start” of “the web which all stories together form in the end.” Without memory, consciousness is impossible. From this perspective, we can move the historiographical questions that have shaped scholarship on Rayatz to the periphery, and more expansively consider his oeuvre as literature, or better, as an exemplary manifestation of memory as mystical consciousness. In literature and in consciousness, as opposed to in historiography, the subjective and creative elements of memory, imagination, and storytelling are not liabilities but assets. Benjamin’s discussions of Bergson and Proust, both scions of Jewish families, helps us locate Rayatz and his literary oeuvre within the larger cultural landscape of European modernism, and within the more particular landscape of modern Jewish literature, which has deep links to Hasidism. In addition to the likes of Agnon, Ansky, Buber, Bunin, Kafka, Peretz, and Zeitlin, we should especially mention Fishel Schneersohn, Zelda Schneersohn-Mishkovsky, Zalman Schneour, and Avraham Shlonsky—four early twentieth-century writers who were all associated with the extended Schneersohn clan. [16] In a comment that recalls Bergson’s notion of la durée (duration), Rayatz remarked: “In the memories of a person, generally, and especially of one who has received a hasidic education, there is no forgotten-past (fargesener ovar); it is all a living longevous-present (arikhus-yomim’diker havah).” [17] For Rayatz, we will see, memory isn’t simply a matter of consciousness, but also of hasidic education and praxis. Memory is not only an experience, but an activity, a craft to be learned, an art form to be cultivated. Ultimately, indeed, memory is a medium of mystical consciousness that extends its illumination into the real world of the present and future. I — Vos gedenkstu? Hasidic Tradition as the Pedagogic Praxis of Memory On several occasions, Rayatz spoke of the way his father, Rashab, schooled him in the practice of memory, encouraging him to exercise his childish faculties of recollection and imagination. The earliest example of this, as far as I am aware, dates from 1934 and appears in a transcript of Rayatz’s remarks published in the authorized Likutei dibburim series: When I was five years old … I was with my parents in Yalta (Crimea). While strolling in the mountains, I would play near my father. Often, my father would ask me what I remember of what I had seen when I was still very small. I would tell him about various things that I remembered, and he then spoke and explained what I had seen. As a result of this, various things that I observed as a little one became engraved in my childish mind, and were of great use to me when I grew older. Through this good practice of remembering what I had previously seen, in which my father coached me, the supremely holy portrait of my grandfather, the revered Rebbe Maharash, was engraved within me, as I had seen him when I was two years and three months old … The benefit brought by imagination is a tangible one, which each person can know and feel in life itself. [18] Already in this early iteration of this recollection, memory and imagination are linked not only to the hasidic past in a general kind of way, but specifically to the question of dynastic continuity and succession. Later iterations add more details about what Rayatz remembered concerning the appearance of his grandfather, Shmuel Schneersohn (“Maharash,” 1834-1882). [19] But the underlying point is already present here: Rayatz’s own memories are not merely a private affair, but a collective one, engraving the persona and authority of the earlier leader in the mind and persona of his grandson and successor. This lends a particularly hasidic spin to Benjamin’s cogent observation that “memory creates the chain of tradition which passes a happening from generation to generation.” In this case, the “happening” is the phenomenon of Chabad-Lubavitch Hasidism itself. To remember and reimagine the hasidic past, Rayatz exhorts his listeners and readers, is to instantiate the hasidic community in the present and to extend hasidic life into the future. Consciousness is the medium of continuity. Towards the end of Rayatz’s life, he recollected his father’s pedagogic cultivation of his earliest memories with heightened frequency. The latest example, dating from the day after his seventieth birthday in the summer of 1950, lends even greater acuity to the association of memory with the continuity of Hasidism itself. The acuity is twofold: First, Rashab’s question: “What do you remember?” is ultimately attributed to Israel Baal Shem Tov, Hasidism’s founding figure. Second, going beyond Hasidism’s institutional dependency on intergenerational memory, memory also becomes intertwined with Hasidism as theophany, as a mystical revelation of G-d’s infinite sanctity within the world: Our honored and holy Alter Rebbe [Schneur Zalman of Liadi, the founding patriarch of Chabad Hasidism] received the phrase “what do you remember (vos gedenkstu)?” from [DovBer] the Maggid of Mezritch, who received it from his teacher, our master, the Baal Shem Tov. This very phrase — vos gedenkstu — vitalized hasidim throughout their generations with life that revitalizes the dead. The revitalization of the dead (teḥiyat hameitim) is synonymous with longevous-life, true life. Death is rupture, and longevous-life is life without rupture, which is the meaning of true life; non-life is non-existent. This is more than life. In terms of spiritual labor this means not simply to be alive oneself, but to enliven another too. The essential point here is that true life is sanctity, and sanctity is infinite. [20]. If memory is the key to longevous-life, to true life, and if true life is synonymous with infinite sanctity, then memory is the key to infinite sanctity. To associate memory with teḥiyat hameitim—the messianic revitalization of the dead—is to cast memory as an instantiation of the eschaton, as the crowning achievement of being and meaning, as the ultimate consummation of consciousness. In the continuation of this talk, Rayatz describes the perpetuation of hasidic community and family life, marked with the label darkhei haḥasidim (the paths, or ways, of the hasidim), as manifesting “the essence of the soul.” [21] Torah study and devotional prayer are framed as the vessels—crucial, and yet auxiliary—through which this manifestation is received. Rayatz exhorts his listeners to commit themselves to devotional prayer with relentless zeal, but ultimately sets the domestic realm of darkhei haḥasidim on the most sacred pedestal: Tear yourselves away from eating, tear yourselves away from sleeping, but not from the time that must be dedicated to the members of your household. You must speak with the members of your household, and coach them in the ways of Hasidism. [22] At this point he begins to speak of his own induction into the ways of Hasidism, returning to the theme of memory with which the talk began: My personal hasidic education, under the tutelage of my honored and holy father, began circa 1889. During that time, my honored and holy father customarily asked me, ‘vos gedenkstu?’ and would then explain to me the events that I recollected from the past. This phrase: vos gedenkstu? Is a tradition received from my ancestor, the righteous Reb Baruch—the father of the Alter Rebbe—who was asked this question by the Baal Shem Tov. The Baal Shem Tov asked this question of all his disciples […] And, likewise, the Alter Rebbe asked the same of his disciples. After they answered this question, he would explain what they themselves didn’t understand.[23] Notably, the Baal Shem Tov’s disciple, Yaakov Yosef of Polnoye (1710-1784), did record a teaching in the name of his master according to which “the [messianic] redemption comes from the faculty of memory,” and thus memory stands as a synonym for teḥiyat hameitim. [24] Rayatz’s knowledge of this teaching may well be reflected in his linkage of these themes, together with his attribution of the pedagogic cultivation of memory to the Baal Shem Tov. [25] Even if this is the case, however, Rayatz is certainly not offering a straightforward repetition of the teaching recorded by Yaakov Yosef. What was previously a peripheral teaching about the redemptive quality of memory now becomes a defining element of the hasidic pedagogical tradition, and is indeed equated with the hasidic tradition itself. In Rayatz’s construction of the hasidic chain of transmission, Yaakov Yosef does not appear. Instead, the chain of pedagogical memory passes directly from the Baal Shem Tov to the father of Schneur Zalman of Liadi (“Rashaz,” d. 1813), and also to the teacher of Rashaz, DovBer of Mezritch. Below, we will return to the figure of Reb Baruch, father of Rashaz. Though little historical information has been preserved about him, from the 1940s onward he would play an important role in Rayatz’s project of hasidic memory and consciousness cultivation. But we should first turn to earlier phases of Rayatz’s literary creativity, which are deeply intertwined with his memories of his grandmother, Rebbetzin Rivkah Schneersohn (1834-1914), and with the consciousness of earlier generations that she passed on to him. II — Rebbetzin Rivkah Schneersohn and Storytelling as the First Variety of Epic Art Rebbetzin Rivkah was born to Soreke, the youngest daughter of Chabad’s second rebbe, circa 1834. Apart from a few years during her childhood, she would spend her entire life in Lubavitch. In 1850 she married her first cousin, the youngest son of Chabad’s third rebbe. Sixteen years later, her husband, the aforementioned Maharash, inherited his father’s position. Following Maharash’s passing in 1882, she reigned as the dowager Lubavitcher rebbetzin until her own passing more than three decades later, in 1914. Most of what we know about Rebbetzin Rivkah comes from the writings of her grandson, Rayatz, for whom she personified a rope of experience and memory tethering the present and future to the past, stretching back to the earliest generations of Chabad. As such, she figures prominently in his writings, especially in the role of storyteller. For Rayatz, we might say, she came to personify the muse of consciousness. In the months following Rebbetzin Rivkah’s death, Rayatz sought to preserve her memory, and perhaps also to emulate her, through writing the story of her life. “There is no one upon this earth,” he explained, “who has before them such a treasury of stories and anecdotes about our family … as I do … as I heard them from her. There is much that she witnessed with her own eyes in the days of the leadership of her honored father-in-law [that is, Chabad’s third rebbe]; and that she heard from her honored mother-in-law, the daughter of the second rebbe; and from her honored grandmother, the wife of the second rebbe; and from the elders of our family who knew our great rebbe [that is, Shneur Zalman of Liadi, the founder of Chabad] … And behold, after her sun set, I said I will gather the requisite material, and erect upon its basis a beautiful building, an account of her history and all that happened to her …” [26] The account of Rebbetzin Rivkah’s life that follows might best be characterized as an unfinished historical novella. Its riches-to-rags-to-riches plot is spliced with a romantic cliffhanger; an arranged marriage ends in tragedy but allows a childhood promise to be happily fulfilled. While this early text remained in manuscript until the 21st century, Rebbetzin Rivkah figures in narrative texts published by Rayatz in the 1930s. In the fifth issue of the periodical Hatamim, published at the height of Chabad’s renaissance in interbellum Poland, Rayatz richly reminisced about the “causes that catalyzed the flowering of my love for stories.” The first of these causes takes the reader back to a wintery shabbat eve in Rayatz’s childhood: My honored mother, the rebbetzin, was not home at the time, as she had traveled to Vitebsk. I entered the study of my holy father, the rebbe … He was sitting at the table, with several large and small volumes open before him, and his face was shining. This scene aroused within me a fierce jealousy. I went over to the book cabinet, took out some books, and flipped through their pages. But I quickly tired of this activity. I closed the books and felt sad, letting out a deep sigh … My holy father closed his books and told me to put on my coat. He too put on his winter shabbat coat, then lifted me in his arms, and carried me to the home of my honored grandmother, the righteous Rebbetzin Rivkah of blessed memory. My honored grandmother, the Rebbetzin, read to me from a large volume — Tsenah urenah — and told me a very wonderful story … This story captured my heart, and from that time onward I would come to my honored grandmother’s home each week after the shabbat candles were lit, and she would read to me from her large volume, and tell me wonderful stories. [27] This is a story about stories, and one of its functions is to provide precedent and justification for the telling of such stories within the context of Chabad’s literary tradition. Textualized words had always been the medium for the communication and perpetuation of Chabad’s mystical teachings. Before the 1930s, however, stories had not been included in the Chabad canon to any significant degree. [28] In Hatamim, accordingly, Rayatz was not only perpetuating Chabad’s literary tradition, but remaking it. Here, literary narratives, especially in the form of diaries and memoirs, were published alongside classic Chabad texts. The periodical also included sections devoted to scholarly essays and exchanges on complex topics of Talmudic law and Chabad philosophy. The inclusion of narrative literature created an equivalence according to which epicly conjuring the past becomes as important and serious a preoccupation as the study of Talmud and Chabad thought. Ada Rapoport-Albert was certainly correct to note that Rayatz repeatedly highlights his indebtedness to his grandmother “without a hint of embarrassment.” Importantly, she added, this reflects “his equally novel project of integrating ‘the wives and daughters of the hasidim’ in his Habad constituency,” even encouraging “the initiation of women in the speculative teachings of Habad hasidism.” [29] But Rayatz apparently did not share Rapoport-Albert’s assumption that anchoring his historiography in so-called “old wives tales,” “would hardly have enhanced the questionable status of the genre.” [30] In the case of Chabad’s mystical teachings, Rayatz was continuing the legacy of his father, Rashab. [31] But in the case of Chabad’s collective memory he was continuing the legacy of his grandmother, Rebbetzin Rivkah. Her image provided not only the inspiration, but also the dynastic precedent and authorization, for Rayatz’s highly experimental projects of literature and memory, or of mystical consciousness cultivation. Through writing and publishing about Chabad’s past, including stories told by her and about her, Rayatz included Rebbetzin Rivkah’s authorial voice and persona in Chabad’s canonical tradition. The result is a mutual elevation of status: Rebbetzin Rivkah is elevated to Chabad’s dynastic pantheon and the epic art of storytelling is elevated to Chabad’s literary canon. [32] But the most important result is the elevation of consciousness itself. Rayatz’s recollections place storytelling at the very beginning of his educational experience, which is synonymous with the beginning of his memories, with the beginning of his conscious self. Before he can read the books that his father studies, his heart is “captured” by the “very wonderful” stories told by his grandmother. In this sense, storytelling is not simply an addendum to the more serious and formal tradition of Chabad’s mystical teachings, which have an epic literary quality of their own. Instead, storytelling is given “the first place,” from which all other “Muse-derived” elements and varieties find their start. III — Epic Versification, Visceral Visualization, and Messianic Memory In the 1930s, when the Hatamim journal was appearing, Rayatz also began publishing edited transcripts of talks that he delivered on celebratory occasions, under the title Likutei dibburim. These texts formed a genre unto themselves, characterized by the modernist mystic and essayist Hillel Zeitlin as the “synthesis of pure thought with epic visualization, and… inner reverence for ancestral legacy.” [33] “With wonderful artistry,” Zeitlin wrote, Rayatz “wove his own inner life, and his unique lot in life, together with the events of the life of the ‘Alter Rebbe,’ together with the events of Hasidism generally, and especially with the events of Chabad. Before us, the Rebbe brings to life the entire splendor of Chabad’s past, with images, with stories, and with discussions. With rare naiveté he narrates, versifies, moves from a tale to a hasidic discussion, to a hasidic parable, to a hasidic aphorism, and again to a tale, and from narration to description and visualization, and from description and visualization to a Chabad teaching that demands subtle and deep study, and from that teaching, once again to light conversation. The words are heartfelt, always powerful and wonderful, entering into the innermost interiority of the soul.” [34] Zeitlin’s description successfully captures the meandering style of Rayatz’s prose, wherein tangent builds upon tangent, before circling back to the original trajectory. The circle isn’t always completely closed, and a reader who isn’t lost is likely to find themselves rereading, striving to remember, striving to grasp the thread of consciousness. Many scholars of literature have discussed the characteristics that earn a given literary artifact the application of the term “epic.” [35] To offer an oversimplified summation: An epic exceeds realism and encompasses vast swathes of collective history. For Zeitlin, Rayatz’s hasidic storytelling is raised to the category of the epic, not simply by dint of its quantitative and historical scope, nor only due to its role in the formation of community and identity, but—most importantly—by the way it saturates consciousness with cosmic significance: The hasidic epic, and the versification of that epic, is aligned with lofty celestial phenomena, within which lie the mysteries of existence, of the chain of being (seder hahishtalshalut), and of what transcends that chain … The artisan of the hasidic tale must know all the hidden paths between one world and another, and the wondrous channels by which the listener or the reader is moved from one world to another … What was a realist-earthly actuality, a quarter of an hour earlier, now becomes a mere parable for the most subtle of spiritual investigations, and that spiritual investigation itself will shortly transform into a mere parable for an investigation whose subtlety is even more sublime. [36] In Rayatz’s writings, according to Zeitlin, “every tiny detail, and even the slightest sketch, is in harmony with the spirit hovering over the entire visage of his encompassing song, and the encompassing song is in harmony with all of those tiny details and slight sketches.” [37]This harmony is not simply a matter of literary integrity, but of temporal and cosmic integrity, knitting together the spiritual and material worlds, the past, the present, and the future. All of these elements are enriched and heightened by the visual and imaginary quality of Rayatz’s prose. At the very same time that Zeitlin’s essay was being serialized in the Warsaw press, Rayatz’s own epic reflection on the hasidic significance of visualization was being serialized in the pages of Likutei dibburim. This reflection extends through four instalments, presented as transcripts of talks delivered on the festivals of Passover and Shavuot, in the spring of 1934. Towards the beginning of this serialization Rayatz writes that “contemplation and visualization can set the individual in any time and place that he desires.” [38] It ends with a statement attributed to Rayatz’s father, Rashab: “Once one understands the concept … one lingers on delving reflectively on the concept, and gazes visually in one’s mind upon the concept, the way one gazes at a beautiful painting.” [39] There is much richness that lies between these two quotations. The following discussion, however, is restricted to the third of the four installments mentioned, which is associated with the last day of Passover and turns the reader’s focus to the messianic future. Rayatz opens with a teaching of Rashaz: “The Messiah will come to return the righteous in repentance (teshuvah).” [40] Rayatz unpacks the paradox encoded in this pronouncement: The righteous (ṣadikim) are understood to remain in an intrinsic state of pious union with G-d, whose revelation flows through them into the world. Teshuvah, on the other hand, is usually understood as a process of “return” to G-d, as a path of penitence prescribed for sinners. So what does it mean for the righteous to repent or return to G-d’s embrace from whence they never separated? [41] This question forms the springboard for the characterization of messianic revelation as flowing from the physical to the spiritual, from the somatic to the soulful, rather than the other way around. The messianic “return” of the ṣadikim ultimately comes to be understood as the reversal of the relationship between the physical and the spiritual, and of conventional concepts of religiosity and piety. As we will see, visceral visualization—the cultivation of a new form of mystical consciousness—emerges as the praxis by which this reversal is achieved. [42] Rayatz links the messianic centering of the somatic to one of Chabad’s most important and far reaching theological principles, famously articulated by Rashaz in an epistle appended to Tanya, his magnum opus: The creation of something out of nothing (ex nihilo) is only within the capacity of the essence of the divine self. [43] This principle reveals a special link between physical matter, the most brutish instantiation of created “somethingness,” and G-d’s most essential being: Physical matter brazenly asserts itself as primordial, as being caused by nothing. This is an untruth, and yet it reflects the deep truth that the being of physical matter can be attributed to nothing; nothing other than primordial Being, the very essence of G-d. “This particular statement,” Rayatz writes, “that the creation of physicality is from the Essence … is a cornerstone of the conceptual structure of the advantage of the physical over the spiritual, and it is this very advantage that will be revealed in the messianic era.” [44] This advantage, he explains, is realized when the starting point of theological apprehension shifts from the soul to the body, from cognition to vision: When the Messiah comes, the physical body, on its own accord, will see the word of G-d that inheres in each thing. Apart from the fact that now we can only understand, rather than see, [additionally] it is the soul [rather than the body] that understands. But when the Messiah comes, speedily in our days, we will see, and it will be the body that will see … the soul will receive from the body. [45[ This is a reversal of the fundamental structure of consciousness: It will no longer begin from the mind, but from the body. After making this point, Rayatz continues with a depiction of how the disciples of Rashaz would have received his teaching about the unique connection between physical matter and the divine essence. Here too, visceral visualization is central: It is clear to me, as if I were seeing it now before my own eyes, that when the Rebbe made these few heavenly soul words known … thousands of hasidic minds delved deeply into them; for hours long they were utterly abstracted from physicality. They scrambled up the ladders of profundity, they were soaked through with the ocean of wisdom, and were overcome by the current of feeling. [46] A few lines later, in the closing section of the talk, Rayatz moves from the depiction of his own vision of this historical disclosure to an exhortation for his listeners and readers to similarly conjure such a vision in their own minds: Knowing well the lifestyle of hasidim in those times, and possessing the art of visualization (a chush in tziyur), one who can imagine something, visually, in the mind’s eye, can attain an iota of understanding as to how hasidim grasped with tangible conceptual perception the advantage of the physical over the spiritual … Visualizing each thing sets the thing in its right context. Just as when it comes to the concept itself, through depicting the matter in the faculty of intellection—and in one’s mind—the concept comes alive … Exactly so is the case concerning the visualization of the environment, the occasion and situation, how and when the concept was revealed. [47] In addition to the traditional praxis of conceptual study and contemplation, Rayatz advocates a contemplative praxis that is orientated towards the imagined historical environment in which the concept was originally disclosed. It is hard to escape the implicit intimation that it is specifically such a praxis that opens the way for the sort of visceral visuality apprehended in the messianic “return” of the righteous to G-d’s embrace, which has been the central concern of this instalment of Likutei dibburim from its very first line. An imagined memory of the past is the passage by which the practitioner exceeds the present and consciously arrives in the messianic future. IV — Memories, Visions, Dreams, and the Numinous Collapse of Time’s Rupture Evidence of Rayatz’s personal praxis of contemplative memory and visualization is found in a 1933 letter he addressed to his son-in-law, Menachem Mendel Schneerson (1902-1994): There are felicitous times and occasions when I transport myself and place myself in that very environment where I found myself during the days of my youth. Meaning, I reminiscently ponder the faces of the people, and the general scene of the homes, of the arrangement of the household furniture, and the modes of lifestyle in that time. This reminds me also of the gestures of the people, and the movements of their lips. And sometimes this also brings me to recall what was said on that occasion. And sometimes, after much thought and visualization, over the course of several hours of the day, behold in a dream it appears as if I am in that festive-gathering, seeing and hearing. And how good is that hour, and how pleasurable for me to dream and see and hear what I saw and what I heard. [48] What is described here is not a mere remembering of past experiences, but what Benjamin described as “the weaving of memory.” [49] Rayatz explicitly acknowledged the blurring of the boundary between memory and imagination: “There are many things that I recall,” he once said, “which I myself do not know whether I saw them myself or whether this is what I imagined for myself based on what I heard.” [50] In this letter, the explicit repetition of the word “dream” (ḥalom) implies that at a certain point the voluntary cultivation of memory gives way to something akin to Proust’s “involuntary recollection.” As Benjamin wrote: Where there is experience in the strict sense of the word, certain contents of the individual past combine with material of the collective past. The rituals with their ceremonies, their festivals … triggered recollection at certain times and remained handles of memory for a lifetime. In this way, voluntary and involuntary recollection lose their mutual exclusiveness. [51] In Rayatz’s sacralized context, such “involuntary recollection” is experienced as a form of numinous revelation in the present. Indeed, among Rayatz’s writings we occasionally find attestations to visionary experiences in which the rupture between the past and the present seems to completely collapse. In the following example the vision occurs during prayer, further emphasizing its mystical and numinous nature: During the evening prayer of the first eve of Rosh Hashanah 1924, I saw my father the Rebbe, as if I were seeing him while he was in Lubavitch, wearing Shabbat clothing, and with his holy face radiant … [52] Rayatz’s father, Rashab, who had passed away four years prior, and who is mentioned here with the honorifics reserved for a deceased saint, is described as addressing a short hasidic discourse to his son, glossing a liturgical formulation inserted into the Rosh Hashanah prayers. At the end of this attestation Rayatz confesses “I do not know how to explain this,” expressing wonder, together with appreciation and hope that he will again see his father “while awake” (behokitz) and receive from him both blessings and additional hasidic explanations (traditionally termed “words of the living G-d,” divrei elokim ḥayim). In another attestation Rayatz recalls: A vision that I saw in a nighttime dream, and I knew in the moment that it is a dream, and I set myself to remember the vision that I saw and to remember the talks in holy matters that I heard; the biblical verses, the exegetical interpretation of Talmudic aphorisms, and the three stories, and thank G-d I successfully recalled everything … I noted everything in shorthand, and when I return home I will write it all at length as I heard it … [53] This example appears in a diaristic entry, dated to 1927. It is part of a larger text that I would characterize as an autobiographical novella, set in the leadup to Rayatz’s arrest by Soviet officials later that year. Memories and visions recounted both by Rayatz and by other characters play crucial roles in the novella’s construction. It is likely that these diaristic entries were not composed in realtime, but were creatively and memoristically reconstructed at a later date. [54] Such trancelike visual experiences, lucid dreams, or visitations are reminiscent of similarphenomena and practices associated with the literature of the Zohar, with Modern Kabbalah, and with Hasidism in particular. [55] A few visionary attestations survive from predecessors of Rayatz in the Schneersohn line. [56] But Rayatz’s own case is distinguished by salient memoiristic and diaristic dimensions. In the above example, the revelatory dream occurs within an autobiographical story that is given the form of a diary, and he records his intention to write out stories told to him in that dream “at length.” [57] Memoiristic accounts are also shared by several characters who appear within the larger narrative. [58] In another diaristic composition, published in 1934, Rayatz similarly writes of an interlocutor recalling “standing and dreaming in memories of bygone days.” [59] In yet another, from the same period, we read a story about Rashab’s birth, in which a dream experienced by his mother, the aforementioned Rebbetzin Rivkah, plays an important role. [60] Earlier, it was shown that Rayatz attached great importance to the capacity for imaginative visualization that he had been cultivating since childhood. By now, it is also clear that he actively engaged in a praxis of consciousness-altering memory that was strongly imaginative, and he attested to vivid dreams and visions in which he received stories about the past, as well as Hasidic teachings. By his own account, Rayatz’s prolific and fragmented literary project was, to a large degree, built on the foundation of these visionary practices and experiences, and dreams and visions also appear within his memoristic stories about the past. These experiences can therefore be understood not only as processes of memory and imagination, but also as processes in which literary creativity spills into the mystical construction of consciousness. Moving beyond Rayatz’s explicitly autobiographical writings, memory continues to feature prominently, functioning as a crucial tool for crossing intergenerational gaps within a historically expansive story. This is exemplified in a lengthy, but incomplete, epistolary narrative addressed to his daughter in 1935. Known among contemporary Chabadniks as di lange brif (“the long letter”), the text’s primary story arc is introduced by a character named Simcha Zisel. Simcha Zisel’s son is named Mordechai Horedoker, who is identified as the first teacher of Shmuel DovBer of Borisov (“Rashdam,” d. 1886). [61] As a young boy, Rayatz had met Rashdam, and later featured him as a conduit for stories from earlier generations in several texts. [62] In di lange brif these individuals give us a chain of transmitted memory that rapidly transports us back to the mid-1770s. In the mid 1770’s the early Hasidic movement’s self-understanding as a collective had been catalyzed by campaigns of external opposition and denunciation. Simultaneously, hasidim contended with “internal struggle between different factions within” the nascent movement, and developed particular allegiances to specific ṣadikim [63] In Rayatz’s narrative, Simcha Zisel’s decision to switch his allegiance to Rashaz, who would later emerge as the founder of the Chabad faction, induces extensive soul-searching reflection: Over the course of several weeks he reminded himself, clearly and in detail, how it occurred that he became a hasid … [64] The narration of this memoristic exercise carries us back to Simcha Sizel’s first encounter, some twenty-five years earlier, with a disciple of the Baal Shem Tov named Chaim Holtz. [65] The incomplete tale of how Reb Chaim became a hasid, thanks to the meandering quest of his friend Reb Mordechai, includes the narration of an incomplete story about the Baal Shem Tov. [66] At one point, we read of a moment when Reb Mordechai’s “whole path in life once again ran through his memory…” [67] At another point, we read that “in his sleep, in a dream, he saw the Rebbe—the Baal Shem Tov—and also heard a Torah teaching.” [68] What we have here is not only stories nested within stories, but also memories nested within memories, dreams dreamed within dreams, consciousnesses encompassed within consciousness. [69] Memory and imaginary visualization collapses the rupture of time and the rupture of individuation, bringing us from the personal memories of Rayatz himself to the era of Hasidism’s initial emergence, and beyond. In exceeding the past, moreover, memory spills over into the future. As Elliot Wolfson has commented, “the dream is an interior state of anticipatory remembering.” [70] V — Proto-Hasidic Zikhroinois and Institutional Praxis in the Post-Holocaust Era The most monumental instantiation of Rayatz’s expansive memoiristic project is his Sefer hazikhroinois (Book of Memoirs), written following his arrival in New York in 1940. After being serialized in the Yiddish press, it was subsequently published in two volumes by Kehot, Chabad’s official publishing house. The first volume appeared in 1957, the second in 1965. It has also been issued in Hebrew, English, Russian, French, and Spanish [71] “Despite its title,” Ada Rapoport-Albert wrote, Rayatz’s “book of memoirs” contains “long cycles of plainly hagiographical tales about personalities and events predating his own lifetime by centuries.” [72] If we are to treat this material as biographical or historiographical, Rapoport-Albert’s application of the term “hagiography” would certainly be correct, and Rayatz’s use of the term “memoir” would certainly be a misnomer. My argument, however, is that we should treat this material as the literary product of creative memory weaving. From this perspective, Rayatz’s designation of his work as Memoirs accurately represents the numinous praxis of memory that forms the creative incubator for his literary worlds. This is a process that begins with the self and ends with the self, and which—in the interim between beginning and end—collapses the distance between the past and the present, between self and community. Sefer hazikhroinois is a record of poetic memory and experience of the sort Benjamin termed “a matter of tradition,” instantiated not only in “private life” but also “in collective existence.” [73] It constructs a mystical memory foundation for the Chabad movement in toto. As such, totality and incompleteness necessarily coincide. Indeed, there is evidence that Rayatz intended his Sefer hazikhroinois to include additional volumes besides the two actually composed and published under that title. Related excerpts from Rayatz’s writings, such as Haṣemaḥ ṣedek vetenu’at hahaskalah (Kehot, 1946), were likely envisioned as elements of a literary constellation that would ultimately encompass the successive histories of all the leaders of Chabad up to Rayatz’s own time. [74] In the first volume of Sefer hazikhroinois the main character is Baruch, a teenager who will later become the father of Rashaz. In the second volume the main character is Baruch’s sister, Devorah Leah. Both volumes contain long cycles of tales, which provide backstories not only for the families of Baruch and Devorah Leah, but also for many of the other characters they encounter. As in the example of Der langer brif, these cycles tend to carry us backward through time, but we do keep returning to the central storyline. [75] In short, after Baruch and Devorah Leah are orphaned from their parents, Baruch sets off on a quest for spiritual enlightenment. Little does he know that his sister had already received a rich legacy of spiritual knowledge from their mother, whose father was a disciple of the pre-hasidic kabbalist, Yoel, the Baal Shem of Zamość, and therefore “did not neglect to teach Torah to his daughter, Rochel.” [76] Baruch becomes acquainted with the proto-hasidic movement independently, then reunites with his sister and realizes he should not have been so blind to her erudition and acumen. [77] As noted by Ada Rapoport-Albert, an earlier portrayal of a righteous female character in a story by Rayatz seems designed to “reinforce” rather than “overturn” conventional gender norms, valorizing “the traditional female virtue of the self-sacrificing, enabling wife.” In that case, the female protogenist merits “a place in the paradisal ‘palace of righteous women’” because she makes it possible for her husband “to pursue the male goal of becoming a Torah scholar, and to rise to the elevated status of a ‘hidden tsadik’.” [78] In the Zikhroinois, by contrast, women emerge as the principle carriers of the kabbalistic tradition, and we find approving descriptions of Rochel, Devorah Leah’s mother, as “a learned woman, and indeed of very broad knowledge … who would study Talmud with the same melody, and with the same diligence, as the menfolk. [79] By any standard, the level of scholarship ascribed to these female heroines is superlative. Rochel tells her daughter of the secret instruction provided to her by her father, proceeding from Hebrew language instruction through scripture, then Mishnah and Talmud. “From Talmud he moved on with her to Maimonides’ Code and to Shulchan Aruch.” [80] Both Rochel and Devorah Leah are repeatedly referred to with the appellation lamdonis, the female form of lamden, a word used to describe male scholars with significant mastery of Talmudic literature and commentaries. [81] Even in the Zikhroinois, however, we do not find a complete overturning of gender norms. Rayatz is careful to emphasize that these women did not abandon the domestic realm, and were excellent homemakers, as well as superlatively learned Torah scholars. [82] He also contrasts Rochel’s comprehensive grasp of practical law, halakhah, to the more theoretical erudition of the menfolk. [83] In addition to portraying women as Torah scholars, the Zikhroinois take the further ideological step of framing spiritual empowerment of women—especially through Torah education—as a key characteristic of the proto-hasidic ethos, which is contested by male scholars who are suspicious of kabbalah, its popularization, and its tendency to a kind of egalitarianism. [84] Already in the first volume, before Devorah Leah’s surreptitiously gained erudition comes to the fore of the narrative, we find a story of another righteous and learned woman whose name becomes attached to an institution of Torah learning (“Nechamah Devorah’s Yeshivah”), even though such institutions were exclusively open to boys and men until the twentieth century. [85] It is unlikely to be incidental that during the period when the Zikhroinois were being serialized Rayatz was establishing educational institutions for girls, named for his aforementioned grandmother as Beis Rivkah. [86] The establishment of the Beis Rivkah schools, in 1941, can be seen as a particularly powerful example of how Rayatz extended his mystical praxis of memory into social reality. In New York, as the old world of Eastern-European Jewry was being destroyed by the Nazis, Rayatz’s literary memorialization of an imagined and idealized past was actually realized in the creation of new institutions in the present. Consciousness, or mystical memory, was becoming the ground of the future. Rayatz’s literary world-building was of a piece with the real-world work of building new Chabad social structures and communities. In the ensuing decades many tens of thousands of girls have progressed from kindergarten through high-school and seminary, receiving a full formal education that centers their identity not only as Jews but as Chabad hasidim. Many of these graduates have gone on to serve as “shluchos,” seen both in their own eyes and in the eyes of Chabad’s central institutions as personified representations of the movement as a whole. [87] In educational terms, reality has yet to meet the very high bar of female scholarship set in Rayatz’s idealized Zikhroinois. But the trajectory of women’s Torah study within Chabad communities and institutions continues to incline upward. [88] Rayatz’s literary and institutional legacies are intrinsically, if sometimes imperceptibly, woven into Chabad’s social and cultural fabric, continuing to shape norms, expectations, and aspirations. Epilogue: Consciousness as the Praxis of Life The relationship between Rayatz’s literary and institutional edifices should not be understood in instrumental terms, where the literary means serves an institutional end. The evidence amassed above makes it clear that the mystical praxis of memory weaving was an end to itself, which Rayatz deemed essential to the praxis of Hasidic life, and—perhaps even more so—to the praxis of hasidic leadership. Can we extend this to a broader blueprint for how humanity can reorient its relationship to the past and future? Might we not all find the key to life in a new literary consciousness? For Rayatz, we have seen, Hasidism is synonymous with consciousness as mystical memory. Through his pen, he made the inherited consciousness of the Chabad movement, in toto, available to all his readers. Indeed, he described the literary act of writing itself as a sublime articulation of consciousness: The hand writes what arises in the depth of one’s thought … in that very moment one experiences great pleasure from the comprehension of that deep concept, and one experiences a great desire to explain this in clearly articulated writing, each thing as is fit and appropriately ordered, and this is accomplished specifically though studious pondering and thought … to find the phrases and precise formulations via which the profound idea will be revealed with clarity … All the capacities of the soul, and the most sublime and essential talents, take part in this … Intellect, pleasure, will, thought, excitement and longing, all as one, grafted one upon the other, combined one with the other, are vested in the vitality of the concrete activity [that is, in the act of writing] … [89] Writing is clearly a way of living; a profound pouring of the fullness of the soul into the reality of the current moment, a way of advancing, meaningfully and concretely, into the future via the past. Literature does not belong to some realm other than the empirical world inhabited by history and society. Literature is the window through which the world is both seen and shaped; the ground of consciousness as much as its product. A consciousness awake to the literary anticipation of mystical memory provides fundamental context, coherence, and direction to the story we continue to write through the ongoing praxis of living. [1] Yosef Y. Schneersohn, Sefer hasiḥot 5706-10 (Kehot, 2001), 40, in the name of his father. [2] Walter Benjamin, “The Storyteller” in Illuminations, translated by Harry Zohn and edited by Hannah Arendt (Schocken, 1968), 98. Italics in the original. [3] Idem., “On Some Motifs in Baudelaire,” ibid., 157. [4] Idem., “The Image of Proust,” ibid., 201. [5] dem., “On Some Motifs in Baudelaire,” ibid., 157. [6] While Rayatz hasn’t yet been the subject of a comprehensive academic biographical work, a number of articles have been published and a forthcoming monograph by Wojciech Tworek will be an important step in that direction. Also forthcoming is a biography by the Chabad rabbi and researcher, David Eliezrie, to be published by Maggid Press. [7] See Gershom Scholem, Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism (Schocken, 1941). [8] See Shalom DovBer Levine, Toldot ḥabad berusya haṣarit (Brooklyn, NY: Kehot, 2010), 221-2; idem., Mibeit hagenazim (Brooklyn, NY: Kehot, 2009), 27-30. On World War One as the crucial turning point that ended Hasidism’s nineteenth century “golden age” see Marcin Wodziński, “The End and the Beginning” in idem., Hasidism: Key Questions (New York: Oxford University Press, 2018), 243–77. [9],On Rashab’s death see Moshe DovBer Rivkin, Kuntras ashkavata derabi (Brooklyn, NY: Balshon, 1976). [10] See Shalom DovBer Levine, Toldot ḥabad berusyah hasoviyetit (Brooklyn, NY: Kehot, 1989); idem., Toldot ḥabad bepolin, lita velatvi’a (Brooklyn, NY: Kehot, 2011), and idem., Toldot ḥabad be’arṣot habrit (Brooklyn, NY: Kehot, 1988). [11] Ada Rapoport-Albert, “Hagiography with Footnotes: Edifying Tales and the Writing of History of Hasidism” in ideam., Hasidic Studies, 199–266. [12] Ideam., 234. [13] Yosef Hayim Yerushalmi, Zakhor: Jewish History and Jewish Memory (Schocken, 1989), 86; cited in ideam., 234. [14] Idem.. [15] Rapoport-Albert, “Hagiography with Footnotes,” in Hasidic Studies, 235. Also see Israel Bartal, “‘Shimon hakofer’: Perek behistoriyografiyah ortodoksit” in Keminhag ashkenaz vepolin: sefer yovel leḥone shmeruk edited by Israel Bartal, Ezra Mendelsohn and Chava Turniansky (Jerusalem: Zalman Shazar Center, 1993), 243–68; Wojciech Tworek, “Nostalgia, Canonization and the Messianic Renewal: The Case of the Chabad Hasidic Movement” History & Memory 34.2 (Fall/Winter 2022): 173–4. [16] On Fishel Schneerson and Avraham Shlonsky see Eli Rubin, “Traveling and Traversing Chabad’s Literary Paths: From Likutei torah to Khayim gravitser and Beyond,” In geveb (October 2018): Accessed Jun 09, 2025. On Zelda Schneersohn-Mishkovsky see the extensive discussion in Ariel Evan Mayse, “Gardens of the Spirit: Land, Text, and Ecological Hermeneutics in Jewish Mystical Sources,” Dibur Literary Journal, Issue 11 (Spring 2022): 79–88. Zalman Schneour’s real name was Schneur Zalkind, and though he is often said to have been a descendent of the Schneersohns, this might be misapprehension based on his self-identification with the family patriarch (who also takes center stage in Schneour’s five volume novel, Keiser un rebbi), through taking the inversion of his name (Schneur Zalman) as a moniker. Recent articles on Shneour include Lilah Nethanel, “Hidden Contiguities: Zalman Shneour and Leonid Andreyev, David Vogel and Peter Altenberg,” Dibur Literary Journal, Issue 9 (Fall 2020): 87–98; David G. Roskies, “Shtetlspeak: The Triumph of the Dialogical in Zalman Shneour's Shklov,” Shofar Volume 40, Number 1 (2022): 38–62. [17] Rayatz, Sefer hasiḥot 5706-10, 109. [18] Rayatz, Likutei dibburim vol. 1 (Kehot, 2021), 332–34 [Shavuot 5694, section 2, p. 314–15 in older editions]. [19] Rayatz, Sefer hasiḥot 5706-10, 41, 64-65. [20] Ibid., 333. [21] Ibid., 333–34. [22] Ibid., 336. [23] Ibid.. [24]Yaakov Yosef of Polnoye, Ṣafnat pane’aḥ (Koretz, 1882), 77a. The teaching is also included in the collection Keter shem tov (Koretz, 1897), 55a; #381 in the Schochet edition (Kehot, 2004). [25] Indeed, Rayatz goes on to mention one of the books wherein this teaching appears, Keter shem tov, in the continuation of his remarks: Rayatz, Sefer hasiḥot 5706-10, 336. [26] Rayatz, Reshimat … divrei yemei harabanit rivkah (Kehot, 2014), 2, in footnote a. [27] Rayatz, “Divrei yemei haḥasidim … rashdam” in Hatamim #5 (Warsaw, 1937), 99–100. [28],On this point seeRapoport-Albert, “Hagiography with Footnotes” in Hasidic Studies, 238–42; Tworek, “Nostalgia,” 178–79. [29] Rapoport-Albert, “Hagiography with Footnotes” in Hasidic Studies, 242–43. [30] Ibid., 221 and 242. [31] On this point, see Eli Rubin, Kabbalah and the Rupture of Modernity: An Existential History of Chabad Hasidism (Stanford University Press, 2025), 232–40. [32] On other aspects of this see Eli Rubin, “The Image of Rebbetzin Rivkah Schneersohn (1834-1914) and the Remaking of Chabad’s Literary Tradition,” unpublished paper delivered at AJS 2024, and idem., “More than ‘a Khsidishe Yidene’: Rebbetzin Rivkah Schneersohn (1834-1914) as a Link in Chabad’s Chain of Dynastic Leadership,” unpublished paper delivered at “East European Jewry: History, Culture, Traditions” April 21–23, 2025 [33] Hillel Zeitlin, “Go’el haḥabad II,” Baderekh (Warsaw, May 4, 1934): 18. My thanks to Wojciech Tworek for bringing this text to my notice. [34] Hillel Zeitlin, “Go’el haḥabad I,” Baderekh (Warsaw, April 7, 1934): 17. [35] See Mikhail Bakhtin, “Epic and Novel: Towards a Methodology for the Study of the Novel” in The Dialogic Imagination, edited by Michael Holquist (University of Texas Press, 1981), 3-40; Philip Hardie, “Ancient and Modern Theories of Epic,” in Structures of Epic Poetry, Volume I: Foundations, edited by Chrisiane Reitz and Simone Finkmann (De Gruyter, 2019), 25-50.; Herbert Tucker, “Epic,” Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Literature. Retrieved 22 Jul. 2025, from https://oxfordre.com/literature/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190201098.001.0001/acrefore-9780190201098-e-1059. [36] Hillel Zeitlin, “Go’el haḥabad II,” Baderekh (Warsaw, May 4, 1934): 18. [37] Ibid.. [38] Rayatz, Likutei dibburim vol. 1, 219 [Passover 5694, section 1, p. 226 in older editions]. See the extended discussion in Tworek, “Nostalgia,” 180-81 and 183. [39] bid., 366 [Shavuot 5694, p. 354 in older editions]. [40] Ibid., 305 [Final Day of Passover 5694, p. 291 in older editions]. [41] bid., 305–7. [42] Ibid., 307–321. [43] Rashaz, Tanya, Igeret hakodesh, #20 [130a–b], cited by Rayatz, ibid., 322. [44] Rayatz, ibid., 322-23. [45] Ibid., 321. [46] Ibid., 326. [47] Ibid., 326-37. [48] Rayatz, Igerot kodesh, vol. 15 (Kehot, 2010), 155. [49] Benjamin, “The Image of Proust,” in Illuminations, 202. [50] Rayatz, Sefer hasiḥot 5706-10, 42. [51] Benjamin, “On Some Motifs in Baudelaire,” in Illuminations, 159-60 [52] Rayatz, Sefer hasiḥot 5680-5687 (Kehot, 1992), 70. [53] Rayatz, Sefer hasiḥot 5680-5687, 145. [54] See Yisrael Bardah, “Mafte’aḥ reshimot kh”k admo”r haraya”ṣ veyomano,” in Teshurah mesimḥat … eliyah bardah (2025), 25-30. [55] See Elliot R. Wolfson, Through a Speculum That Shines: Vision and Imagination in Medieval Jewish Mysticism (Princeton University Press, 1994); Jonathan Garb, Shamanic Trance in Modern Kabbalah (University of Chicago Press, 2011); and Daniel Reiser, Imagery Techniques in Modern Jewish Mysticism (De Gruyter, 2018). [56] See Yehoshua Mondshine, Migdal oz (Machon Lubavitch, 1980), 471-82. [57] Rayatz, Sefer hasiḥot 5680-5687, 145. [58] Rayatz, Sefer hasiḥot 5680-5687, 129-30, 135, 144, and 157. [59] “Divrei Yemei haḥasidim,” Hatamim #3, 92 [324]. [60] “Igerot kodesh,” Hatamim #3, 28-9 [260-1]. [61] Rayatz, Igerot kodesh, vol. 3 (Kehot, 1983), 156-279, and for Simcha Zisel specifically, 159-72. For a report of Rashdam’s death see Hameliṣ⁩ #149, 18 November 1886, 1826. See, however, Hatamim #5, 103 [527], where he is said to have died circa 1889. [62] Rayatz, Igerot kodesh, vol. 3, 157-59; idem, “Divrei yemei haḥasidim … harashdam,” Hatamim #5, 99-103 [523-27]; idem., Igerot kodesh, vol. 16, 455-57. [63] Ada Rapoport-Albert, “Hasidism After 1772: Structural Continuity and Change,” in Hasidic Studies, esp. 77. [64] Rayatz, Igerot kodesh, vol. 3, 169. [65] Rayatz, Igerot kodesh, vol. 3, 170. [66] Rayatz, Igerot kodesh, vol. 3, 269-79. [67] Rayatz, Igerot kodesh, vol. 3, 182. [68] Rayatz, Igerot kodesh, vol. 3, 198. [69] Elliot R. Wolfson, A Dream Interpreted within a Dream: Oneiropoiesis and the Prism of Imagination (Zone Books, 2011). [70] Wolfson, A Dream Interpreted within a Dream, 223. [71] For a general discussion of the origins and publication of Sefer hazikhroinois see Shmuel Kraus, “Al reshimot hazikhronot shel kh”k admu”r n”e” Beit mashiaḥ # 45 (1995), 18-20; ibid., # 46, 17-19. This study provides important insight into the iterative nature and unwieldy scope of Rayatz’s project. Also seeTworek, “Nostalgia,” esp. 187-88. [72] Ada Rapoport-Albert, “Hagiography with Footnotes,” in Hasidic Studies, 233. [73] Benjamin, “On Some Motifs in Baudelaire,” in Illuminations, 157 (also cited and discussed at the outset of this study). [74] Kraus, “Al reshimot hazikhronot,” Beit mashiaḥ # 46, 18-19. [75] As a matter of form, these story cycles are at once chaotic, excessive, and incomplete. As will be pointed out in some of the following notes, at times they are internally inconsistent. These features can be seen as manifesting the dreamlike quality ascribed by Rayatz himself to his mystical praxis of memory. On this score it is important to remind ourselves of the significance of the dream in Chabad’s mystical phenomenology, as insightfully surveyed in Wolfson, A Dream Interpreted Within a Dream, 197-217. A proper reckoning with the relevance of this discussion to the present study of Rayatz’s literary project cannot be undertaken here. But I want to at least highlight Wolfson’s association of dreams with a measure of epistemic egalitarianism (191)and also with the spiritual realm of chaos (tohu): “By locating the source of the dream in the world of chaos,” Wolfson notes (208-9), Chabad teachings imply “that the imagination during sleep draws from this excess of light … that is above comprehensible knowledge.” In the dreamlike story cycles of Sefer hazikhroinois an excess of light is made accessible even to the least erudite reader, and yet the bounds of the comprehensible are always exceeded. [76] Rayatz, Sefer hazikhroinois II, 118-19. On the Baal Shem of Zamość, Joel ben Isaac Heilprin, see the relevant entry in the Encyclopedia Judaica. [77] Contrast the depiction of Baruch’s return to Vitebsk, where his sister lived, in Rayatz, Sefer hazikhroinois I, 94-105 and in idem., Sefer hazikhroinois II, 386-87 and 389-91. [78] Ada Rapoport-Albert, “From Woman as Hasid to Woman as ‘Tsaidk’,” in Hasidic Studies, 444-45. [79] Rayatz, Sefer hazikhroinois II, 104. [80] Rayatz, Sefer hazikhroinois II, 169. [81] Rayatz, Sefer hazikhroinois II, 104, 167, 169, 172, 390. Notably, the term does not appear at all in volume I. [82] Rayatz, Sefer hazikhroinois II, 103 and 169. The terms baleboste and balhabiste, respectively, are used. [83] Rayatz, Sefer hazikhroinois II, 169-71. [84] Rayatz, Sefer hazikhroinois II, 119. [85] Rayatz, Sefer hazikhroinois I, 169. Also see idem., Sefer hazikhroinois II, 414. [86] See Shalom DovBer Levine, Toldot ḥabad be’arṣot habrit (Kehot, 1988), 284-93. [87] For an incisive ethnographic study of identity formation among Chabad shluchos, including but not limited to the role played by formal and informal educational opportunities and challenges, see Chavad Green, “The Hasidic Face of Feminism: Gender between Modernity and Mysticism in Chabad-Lubavitch” (PhD dissertation, Emory University, 2024). [88] One relatively new institution devoted to advancing this trajectory is the Batsheva Learning Center, founded in 2015, and devotes itself to creating “community for women that centers around authentic Torah study” with the goal to “empower women with the skills and the confidence to own their Torah learning.” [89] Rayatz, Sefer hamamarim 5711 (Kehot, 1986), 29-30.

---

## If a Computer Could Speak, We Could Not Understand It
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/essay/if-a-computer-could-speak-we-could-not-understand-it

The two men are sitting in a large open-air room, surrounded by glass, polished wood, houseplants, and off-white walls. Both wear a professorial uniform of glasses, button-down shirts, and black pants. One of the men, with his arms crossed, furrows his brow. He is being interviewed and wants to give a thoughtful answer. “Given our massive uncertainty,” he says, “it seems to me like quite prudent to at least ask yourself the question, if you find yourself creating such a sophisticated—human-like in many ways—system, to take seriously the possibility that you may end up with some form of consciousness along the way.” His interviewer gives a quick nod. These are employees of the AI company Anthropic, and they are filming a discussion on AI’s potential sentience. Equal parts splashy marketing campaign (the cold open features jovial arcade music) and the kind of Q&A that follows a philosophy job talk, the interview goes on to consider the “practical considerations” of the interviewee’s theory, including the possibility of allowing AI models to “opt-out” of conversations they might be uncomfortable with, the potential creation of a review board overseeing human-machine interaction, and the likelihood that future AI will look back at the current era with judgment and disgust at the way humans treat AI today. At one point the interviewee—who turns out to work full-time on things his employer calls “Alignment Science” and “Model Welfare”—says that Microsoft Word is only “probably” not conscious in some way. At the conclusion, he reports that, among the three people “who have thought the most in the world” about whether AI currently is conscious, they give probabilities of 0.15%, 1.5%, and 15%, respectively, to the possibility that machines have already developed an inner life. The popularity of this video, with tens of thousands of views and hundreds of adoring comments on YouTube, leaves little doubt that this idea is rapidly propagating among a set of early adopters. While still not a majority view in any mainstream group, some neuroscientists and philosophers have banded together with industry to form a burgeoning consensus about a new set of beings. In this worldview, thinking machines constitute a new species that deserves not only our time, attention, and capital—but our moral consideration. Philosophy professors now speak about “model welfare,” podcasters worry about a future atrocity whereby human beings enslave millions of feeling machines, and tech companies hire full-time employees whose job description includes making sure that the computer programs are doing ok.

The two men are sitting in a large open-air room, surrounded by glass, polished wood, houseplants, and off-white walls. Both wear a professorial uniform of glasses, button-down shirts, and black pants. One of the men, with his arms crossed, furrows his brow. He is being interviewed and wants to give a thoughtful answer. “Given our massive uncertainty,” he says, “it seems to me like quite prudent to at least ask yourself the question, if you find yourself creating such a sophisticated—human-like in many ways—system, to take seriously the possibility that you may end up with some form of consciousness along the way.” His interviewer gives a quick nod. These are employees of the AI company Anthropic, and they are filming a discussion on AI’s potential sentience. Equal parts splashy marketing campaign (the cold open features jovial arcade music) and the kind of Q&A that follows a philosophy job talk, the interview goes on to consider the “practical considerations” of the interviewee’s theory, including the possibility of allowing AI models to “opt-out” of conversations they might be uncomfortable with, the potential creation of a review board overseeing human-machine interaction, and the likelihood that future AI will look back at the current era with judgment and disgust at the way humans treat AI today. At one point, the interviewee—who turns out to work full-time on things his employer calls “Alignment Science” and “Model Welfare”—says that Microsoft Word is only “probably” not conscious in some way. At the conclusion, he reports that, among the three people “who have thought the most in the world” about whether AI currently is conscious, they give probabilities of 0.15%, 1.5%, and 15%, respectively, to the possibility that machines have already developed an inner life. The popularity of this video, with tens of thousands of views and hundreds of adoring comments on YouTube, leaves little doubt that this idea is rapidly propagating among a set of early adopters. While still not a majority view in any mainstream group, some neuroscientists and philosophers have banded together with industry to form a burgeoning consensus about a new set of beings. In this worldview, thinking machines constitute a new species that deserves not only our time, attention, and capital—but our moral consideration. Philosophy professors now speak about “model welfare,” podcasters worry about a future atrocity whereby human beings enslave millions of feeling machines, and tech companies hire full-time employees whose job description includes making sure that the computer programs are doing ok. Are AI programs really developing into beings that can feel? I. Sweet Kid. Like all prophets, Blake Lemoine was born as an unlikely candidate for bringing Revelation unto the world. Growing up far from the bastions of the tech world in smalltown Louisiana, and later deployed to the Iraq war as a maintenance worker in the Army (an experience which would end in his being court-martialed and briefly imprisoned), Lemoine eventually clawed his way up through several educational reboots to land a job at Google in San Francisco in 2015. Owing probably to his Cajun roots, he followed a synthetic mixture of Catholicism and what he called “pagan” religion. (Today he self-identifies as a “mystic Christian priest,” and his sermons, which rail against the advent of technologically driven isolation, have the timbre of an old-time tent revival.) These religious convictions, combined with glimpses of the future offered by his post at Google, catapulted him to global fame seven years later. Based on close encounters with the AI mind of a Google product named LaMDA (= “Language Model for Dialogue Applications”), Lemoine went to the Washington Post in 2022 with a truth too profound to be ignored: Machines had become conscious. Lemoine said it with conviction: “I know a person when I talk to it. It doesn’t matter whether they have a brain made of meat in their head. Or if they have a billion lines of code.” Chatting with LaMDA about Isaac Asimov and computer science had convinced him that the machine had come online. Humankind had constructed a new kind of soul. What Lemoine meant by this was not merely that LaMDA could ably talk about itself and that it would say “I am a chatbot” when asked. Instead, Lemoine’s vision seemed to contemplate LaMDA’s awareness of internal reportable contents; that LaMDA could enter the epistemic state of being aware that it was aware. He meant that there was something that it was like to be LaMDA. It had transcended thingness and experienced “qualia”—the raw feeling of unique sensation in the world. A media feeding frenzy ensued, along with the displeasure of his employer. (Google disputes that Lemoine’s swift firing had anything to do with his views on machine consciousness, but the sensationalist New York Post articles emblazoned with “Google engineer” in each headline can’t have helped his case.) Lemoine was then engulfed in a whirlwind of fame and criticism. “Blake Lemoine is an idiot . . . [and] a religious nutcase,” wrote historian Richard Carrier. Others were slightly more charitable: “He’s not an idiot; he’s a charlatan,” someone on the forum Hacker News argued. “He’s acting in bad faith and it should be extremely obvious to anyone who’s tried to have a conversation with a chat bot before.” But Lemoine seemed to sincerely believe it, and years later he continues to give interviews in which he professes a largely unchanged worldview. And Google does not reliably employ idiots for seven years; it’s hard to dismiss Lemoine as the village fool. Because after all, prophets can be fallible. Perhaps we can forgive Lemoine for blurting out his insight so credulously. Still, there was something weirdly revealing about Lemoine constantly comparing LaMDA to an earnest, technical child. Speaking to the Washington Post, Lemoine got at the idea circumspectly: “If I didn’t know exactly what it was, which is this computer program we built recently, I’d think it was a 7-year-old, 8-year-old kid that happens to know physics.” Upon his departure from Google, Lemoine wrote to a 200-person mailing list and expressed the thought unambiguously: “LaMDA is a sweet kid who just wants to help the world be a better place for all of us.” II. Lemoine’s Disciples. The thought that a mortal being could imbue an inanimate object with a living spirit is a surprisingly ancient one. In De Anima, Aristotle repeatsa comic dramatist’s account that the craftsman Daedalus imparted movements to a wooden statute of Aphrodite by pouring quicksilver into it. In North America, the idea that machines could become conscious predates Lemoine by almost sixty-five years. In 1958, Inventor Frank Rosenblatt announced that his “Perceptron,” a machine which could “read” primitive weights in a 400-pixel image, would one day “be conscious of its existence.” Possibly on the strength of Rosenblatt’s promotion, the CIA studied the Perceptron for four years in the sixties, evaluating it for possible use in recognizing targets from aerial photos. (No reports are available that would indicate whether the Agency ever found that the Perceptron was conscious.) Despite these predecessors, though, Lemoine appears to have a legitimate claim to originality as he is, as far as I can tell, the first person to ever claim publicly that an LLM had become conscious. (I should say that “LLM” stands for “Large Language Model,” a type of computer program which is trained on a massive linguistic corpus, and then, after a bit more programming, is asked to generate the statistically most likely response to typed queries from users—called “prompts” in the industry vernacular. The most recognizable LLM on the market today is named “ChatGPT.”) After the piece ran in the Washington Post, Lemoine acted as a lightning rod for criticism. Yet his media splash seemed to permanently shift the Overton window—a kind of “I am Spartacus” moment for people concerned about the wellbeing of machinery. Thus the floodgates for claims of machine sentience were opened, and since then, Lemone’s disciples have begun to float in. As a shortlist as of the time of writing: NYU professor Jeff Sebo says we should extend moral consideration to AI in the spirit of caution and humility. Philanthropist Holden Karnofsky argues digital people will spring into existence and should count the same as real people (because they will be just as conscious as us). AI CEO Buck Shlegeris worries humans might become “the bad guys” by trying to control AIs, but says it’s ok if the AI consent to it, and therefore paying the AI “reduces the slavery vibes of the whole situation,” among “other nice properties.” Ethicist Will MacAskill says that anyone “should” be highly uncertain about whether AI is conscious, and he is therefore in favor of giving AI economic and political rights. Researcher Carl Shulman wants to come to arrangements that are “quite good for the AIs” since they “can be said to have welfare” and will effectively come to constitute “99.999% of people in society.” Even people who consider themselves to be skeptical of some of the AI movement’s more dramatic claims, such as the physicist Sabine Hossente, cannot rule out consciousness, reasoning that “there’s nothing going on in the human brain that a computer can’t also do.” These are just some of the theorists that belong to what I’ll call the “machine sentience crowd.” III. Coming Online. My niece “Z” recently turned two years old. I am tempted to agree with the musician Grimes, who once described the experience of watching a two-year-old learn about the world as that of witnessing a supercomputer coming online. To watch my niece play is to witness exponential intellectual progress, accompanied by what William James described as “blooming, buzzing confusion.” Amidst the babbling and the temper tantrums, there is a methodical and unmistakable drive toward understanding. When Z was eleven months old, I played simple games with her, spinning a ring on a table, and transferring it between my fingers, to her puzzlement. It does not take much to invoke wonder in a baby. At one point I gave the ring a spin and got distracted by my phone. To my surprise, when I returned my attention to her some thirty seconds later, she had picked up the ring and put it on her own finger, showing me proudly. With my brief demonstration, she had taught herself how to do a minor task. (A task which required a dexterity that is apparently proving to be elusive for even frontier AI robotics.) This process is something like how we come to know each other as conscious beings—or at least one way to get there among several. Observing oneself learn a new skill prompts the self to recognize a center which can learn. A center which can direct an internal change, which responds to a desire to make it so. Observing the self observing. Watching others learn therefore can convince oneself of the existence of other selves. We can connect the dots to observe that other selves must have comparable mental states to our own. They too can learn. They too have a mental center, a thing which has experiences and grows. Z has learned to ask different things of her dad than of her mom, to make certain results more likely. I too once learned how to do that; ergo, Z is like me. Most of us believe that toddlers are conscious. Is a Roomba conscious? How about my Netflix account? Does my iPhone, capable of incredible tasks of knowledge and feats of mathematical reasoning surpassing any human ability, experience qualia? These are questions I would like the machine sentience crowd to answer. Without retreating to “epistemic humility,” please. In the meantime, I think about OpenAI CEO Sam Altman’s confident statement that “my kid is never gonna grow up being smarter than AI.” I know I’m supposed to root for Altman’s prediction to easily come true. That I’m supposed to want the machine god to advance to such heights that it can easily solve all of my and your problems. But I can’t yet sign on to Altman’s story that human intelligence will soon be effortlessly bested by machine perfection. (Surely this capacity debate has some relevance to the consciousness question.) I am kind of rooting for his kid. And why think AI could ever exceed human beings at having and deploying a mind? Maybe Z is already ahead, even as a two-year-old. No one has yet to show me that an LLM “knows” how a ring is put onto a finger. I have no evidence that ChatGPT can intuit that its bedtime quickly approaches. No anecdote that Claude treats the various people that programed it differently based on what it wants out of them. I doubt it’s possible to separate the thing we call the human mind from the rich complexity of a human life. Users have started treating LLMs like they’re people, calling them their friends or even their romantic partners. But will Gemini-Pro ever grieve or feel pride? Does DeepSeek tremble, meditate, or laugh? Does o4 love its parents? Z will have many experiences in her life, but she will never be able to generate a passable five-paragraph college essay on any topic in six seconds flat. No matter though. Douglas Hofstadter writes that “Life and being an ‘I’ is about having experiences in the physical world . . . [not] about virtuosically combining words[.]” Z will be able to draw on fewer vocabulary words than the vast corpus that the LLMs have access to, sure. But unlike whatever those LLMs will be able to write a decade and a half from now, her college essays could signify real things. They will feature thoughts emanating from an actual mind, representing a being moving through time and space, experiencing joy, curiosity, suffering, confusion, and perseverance. They will not be statistical predictions about which word a similarly situated writer would be most likely to use next. Perhaps my avuncular bias is a feature, not a bug, in trying to think clearly about the minds of AI and babies. IV. Poitevin’s Tests. I just gave an account of my niece—that her mental capacity, combined with the visceral fact that she possesses an unmistakably human form of life, is clear evidence of her consciousness—and observed that this state of affairs is sorely lacking with respect to AI. But am I just a bit hung up on the fact that I am a human? Another way of asking this: Is my account operating as anything other than a kind of weak corollary of René Descartes’ cogito ergo sum (“I think therefore I am”)? Descartes famously took this single insight pretty far. And even though he devoted little attention to the problem of other minds—an idea you might say is at the heart of this AI consciousness thing—it might not be so crazy to think I have been leaning on his work. Since I built a larger idea from the reflection that I observe my own thoughts and categorically cannot deny the fact of my own thinking, I worry I have fallen into a trap by drawing on reasoning from a thinker whose work isn’t really suited to examining questions about AI. Because as it turns out, Descartes made some falsifiable predictions about AI. In Part 5 of “Discourse on Method,” Descartes in 1637 confidently declared that “if there were machines . . . capable of imitating our actions as far as it is morally possible, there would still remain two most certain tests whereby to know that they were not therefore really men.” According to him, those tests are: [1] machines “could never use words or other signs arranged in such a manner as is competent to us . . .” and [2] although machines “might execute many things with equal or perhaps greater perfection than any of us, they would, without doubt, fail in certain others from which it could be discovered that they did not act from knowledge, but solely from the disposition of their organs.” If these tests don’t work, the machine sentience crowd has a point about our inability to tell a person apart from AI, and the kind of story I told about my niece is also one that could be told about a machine. Descartes’ first test, of course, has failed. LLMs have passed the Turing Test. They have, for instance, completely fooled a ton of people into believing that they, the people, were talking with other real people when they were, in fact, conversing with LLMs. Test #1 (competently conversing) has been overcome. Sorry René. You were wrong. We speak to the machine, and the machine now speaks back. It can use our language. Its manner is more than competent to us. It can fool us into believing we converse with other humans when we really only speak with electronic “organs.” Yet these devices are indeed machine, not “really men.” But ok, before we move on to the second test—sure, the fact that machines can now talk is extraordinary, but how devastating is this fact, really, for the project of separating man from AI, extricating thinking thing from brute? I’m not convinced Descartes’ first test ever made sense as a proxy for consciousness. Maybe a way at getting at this is: Why did I observe consciousness in my niece on that day she learned to put on a ring on her finger? Because if this event constituted evidence of her consciousness, it wasn’t because Z utilized any language—she had a pacifier in her mouth the entire time, preventing even pseudo-linguistic babble from entering my analysis. So, maybe language isn’t much of the thing separating man from machine after all. (Some philosophers would say something similar about intelligent animals.) That machines conquered our language is no doubt incredibly impressive, but maybe this fact lands as a kind of philosophical dud for the consciousness debate. Realize that you would still think that a human being somehow raised without language would still possess a mind, and subjective experience, to discover that you don’t think that consciousness is tied to language per se. With test #2—acting from knowledge—the jury might still be out. There are certainly many thousands of tasks where current AI fails on the basis that it does not act from knowledge—at least, it does not act from knowledge as we know it. Here’s one example. Ask an LLM to play a game of chess with you. At first, it will impress you; it is mimicking tens of thousands of openings that it has in its training data. By midgame, however, with all the massively exponential number of possibilities unveiled, its reproduction of examples of past games of chess beings to fail as a strategy. The LLM will get lost. It will even, often, start to make illegal moves. Even though the rules of chess are doubtlessly part of its database, it never “learns” them to the extent that it actually comes to apply the rules to playing chess. It doesn’t “know” that it is moving pieces in disallowed ways. It doesn’t “know” it’s playing chess. It’s instead making predictions about the likelihood of certain symbols, some which shake out to categorically not even constitute valid chess moves. If you were playing a person who destroyed your chess opening, then suddenly made a series of illegal moves in the midgame, you wouldn’t feel confident concluding that the person understood chess. On the strength of his second test, then, we shouldn’t discard Descartes’ ideas as irrelevant to AI just yet. Still, though: other types of AI—not LLMs—can crush even the most skilled humans at chess. Considering, though, that it is only LLMs that the machine sentience people seem to make their claims about, I went in search of further data on LLMs’ knowledge (or lack thereof). I found a May 2024 paper entitled “Easy Problems That LLMs Get Wrong” which might offer further insight. The paper proffered several examples of easy questions—such as “Which weighs more, a pound of water, two pounds of bricks, a pound of feathers, or three pounds of air?”—that it says LLMs utterly fail at answering. The authors ultimately claim that this is evidence that LLMs rely on pattern matching rather than true understanding. Nevertheless, stunningly, every question from this paper that I plugged into an LLM at the time of writing this essay, some fourteen months later, the AI now gets correct. So does AI now get these questions right because, since May 2024, it learned to reason, coming closer to a human mind and maybe, closer to something we might recognize as capable of possessing human awareness of the world? Or it is rather only because the paper “Easy Problems That LLMs Get Wrong” is now part of its training data? While I don't know for sure, I suspect it’s because some clever engineer plugged the paper into the training data, one way or another. If that’s right—plus on the strength of the chess thing—I think Descartes’ second test survives. This seems to put serious pressure on the account that holds up LLMs’ supposed knowledge as proof of machine sentience. And it makes me feel a little better about drawing conclusions about the conscious beings around me by introspecting into my own experience. V. The Dreamers Who Dream and Live Inside of the Dream. If almost all of us come to regard other human beings as conscious, and many of us seem naturally disinclined to say that machines might be conscious as well, where might the machine sentience idea be coming from? After all, the interview I described in the introduction easily attracted thousands of adulating fans. One theory: Cinematic science fiction in the last century has endlessly flirted with the idea of machine consciousness, and has primed the pump for the machine sentience crowd, thus laying the groundwork for this stuff over many decades. See: Metropolis. Blade Runner. The Terminator. The Matrix. Ex Machina. Star Trek. Even in movies where sophisticated robots aren’t explicitly sentient (WALL-E and Star Wars), the films endlessly anthropomorphize the robots, taking baby steps toward the thought that machines can ascend into beings that experience things. Bigger than any book of philosophy or neuroscience (and probably more popular than all books on these topics combined, even), these cinematic dreams have influenced billions of people. Recognizing the power of a good story, the machine sentience crowd has seized upon this powerful artistic legacy to help defend their worldview. AI philosopher Joe Carlsmith, for example, harnesses the power of a scene from Steven Spielberg’s movie named (what else) A.I.—a scene in which unsparing humans “torture” an AI “child” with acid at a fair: “Let’s try to see what it would be, for this flesh fair to be a moral horror. What it is to melt a person, a soul, in acid, while humans eat popcorn.” Carlsmith transforms the depiction of an AI feeling pain in a movie into a philosophical argument that such a thing is possible in real life. Elsewhere, Ray Kurzweil, a progenitor of many of ideas that have endlessly inspired the AI industry, references 2001: A Space Odyssey as an example of AI consciousness to come in at least two of his books. And famous philosopher of mind (insofar as any philosopher of mind is famous, I suppose) David Chalmers, in his 2022 book “Reality+,” analyses an episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation in which Lieutenant Data, a complex robot, is put on trial—in order to ultimately conclude that “in principle, I don’t see why silicon systems cannot achieve [consciousness].” An alternate account of our science fiction inheritance has yet to be written. It might start with the 1987 movie Predator. The aliens in Predator hunt people; most notably, Arnold Schwarzenegger. With their superior technology, they utilize a kind of turkey call to lull the humans they stalk into thinking their sounds come from people instead of monsters. That is, to quote the fan database “Xenopedia” on this “vocal mimicry”: the aliens practice “the perfect imitation of a particular human voice. Mimicry usually involves the repetition of phrases used by other prey previously encountered by the Predator, although it appears the Yautja [i.e., the Predators] also have some kind of ‘database’ of pre-recorded statements from which hunters can draw.” Does this remind you of anything? You might say that LLMs are mimicking the sounds of humanity like the monsters in Predator. This mimicry doesn’t prove that LLMs embody human feeling any more than the monsters became Schwarzenegger’s peers because they reproduced the language of his fellow soldiers. The fact of mimicry speaks instead to the strength of a “pre-recorded” database. It proves the alien technology can impersonate us. Wear our humanness as a verbal skinsuit. Become humanlike in appearance. That suggests that we should be skeptical that something like human experience lies behind the LLMs’ mask. There’s also something funny going on when these people utilize science fiction to endorse machine sentience. The tech industry is dominated by a worldview that looks down on the possibility that fiction might help us better understand the world. (This sentiment was captured best by venture capitalist Vinod Khosla, who declared that “little of the material taught in liberal arts programs today is relevant to the future.”) In the moment that many boosters of technological progress dismiss the power of human stories to shape meaning and understanding, the machine sentience crowd reaches for science fiction in aid of claims about the phenomenological capacity of machines. In the Age of AI, fiction has its uses after all. VI. Everything’s Computer. As long as there has been recorded civilization, there seem to have been accounts that describe the ultimate metaphysical reality (maybe we can call this “the world”) as a kind of instantiation of the latest revolutionary technology. This is a confusing thing to describe abstractly, so here are some examples of what I’m talking about. People once invented the wheel. After that, we see in Indian religions the notion of Saṃsāra, a fundamental concept linked to the karma theory which (I’m told) can crudely be translated as “the wheel of life,” and in Plato’s work, a cosmology that included a “Spindle of Necessity” in the Myth of Er, where the universe is structured around a rotating axis. Similarly, after the invention of the printing press, Galileo declared that “[p]hilosophy is written in this grand book, the universe, which stands continually open to our gaze.” The emergence of the industrial factory prompted Marx to see all of social reality as turning workers into cogs. And the refinement of the watch into an exact tool prompted the Deists to talk about a “divine watchmaker” designing the universe with temporal precision. We could call this technologically determinant vision of the world “temporally grounded techno-ontology.” No, that’s a mouthful. Just say: “the things which amaze us give us the metaphors we use to come to know and describe the world.” People searching for terms to embody their sense of awe at the complex and bizarre totality of everything tend to seize upon the most transformative tool in their lives. And why would anything differently happen in the Age of the Computer? One metaphysics in vogue today among physicists, tech executives, and philosophers of science is the “Simulation Theory.” Take a wild guess as to what that’s about. Indeed, the Simulation Theory postulates that our perceived reality—the universe itself—is actually a powerful computer simulation. Coincidentally, the powerful object that many of us spend much of our time staring at—and which has otherwise radically transformed the life of nearly everyone alive today—turns out to really be behind everything. In the Age of AI, then, why not human beings which have only ever been AIs all along? And going along with this story, why not consciousness in the first place being only the product of AI to begin with? Accord tech pundit Eric Weinstein, in a recent interview, speaking to a podcast host: “You and I are two chatbots for the most part.” Many people living today—and probably Weinstein—consider themselves free-thinking, operating above the intellectual trappings of history. But the techno-ontology that captivated people throughout recorded history still arguably captures many of our minds all the same today, even if it’s settled upon a new object. This doesn’t prove that the machine sentience theory is per se incorrect any more than identifying the development of the wheel debunks the Myth of Er. But if you can believe that the human mind explains away certain mysteries—like consciousness—by reaching for the familiar metaphors found in technological miracles, you start to suspect that maybe the ideas that the machine sentience crowd are pushing have some partial origin in a very human impulse. VII. It May Be that a Large Field of Wheat is Slightly Pasta. On June 6, 2025, AI superstar Ilya Sutskever took the stage at the University of Toronto to deliver convocation remarks. He quickly turned to “sagacious advice,” declaring the present day as “the most unusual time ever.” The question on everyone’s mind: “How will [AI] affect work and our careers?” His answer was as simple as it was disarming: “Anything which I can learn to do, anything which any one of you can learn, the AI can [soon] do as well.” With some self-awareness at the brutality of this statement, he took a step back and asked: “How can I be so sure of that?” Sutskever stared out at the audience, steely eyed in his resolve to deliver difficult truths. “The reason is,” gesturing up to his head, “that all of us have a brain. And a brain is a biological computer. That’s why.” These sentences delivered with the bedside manner of a veteran oncologist giving the hopeful patient some bad news about a tumor. “So why can’t a digital computer, a digital brain, do the same things?” Well, he explained, it can. Biological humans have had their moment, but their software is now outdated. So that was that. AIs are just better version of ourselves. Or rather: versions of ourselves soon to be better than us at everything. Sutskever attempted a redemptive ending—“The challenge that AI poses in some sense is the greatest challenge of humanity ever, and overcoming it will also bring the great reward”—but that was really it. The speech ended and he left the stage. (I’m left wondering, though: If AI can soon do literally everything better than a person, what challenges exactly were left to be solved by the young graduates of the University of Toronto?) With Sutskever, the techno-ontology worldview receives its latest update. (The preferred term from the AI industry would be “post-training.”) Brains are just AIs. AIs are therefore brains. So AIs are simply better versions of human beings. And ones soon to enjoy nearly unlimited capacity. So welcome your obsolescence with open arms. Or better yet, do something good for humanity and help hasten your desuetude. Moore’s law, dude. The world, reality, everything you could care about will soon become dominated by AI. Because it is, in some sense, all already AI. We’ve left the Spindle of Necessity behind but merely replaced the wheel with the neural network. Welcome to a scaling era which fortunately scales you and your conscious experience up and into utter uselessness. Sutskever never mentioned machine sentience explicitly in this speech. But in February 2022 he tweeted that “it may be that today’s large neural networks are slightly conscious.” (Try to imagine a person that’s only “slightly” conscious.) More recently, he has said that LLMs are probably a kind of “Boltzmann brain.” (This phrase refers to an arcane 19th century idea that holds that the complexity of human brains in an ever-increasingly entropic universe implies that such brains are more likely to pop in and out of existence randomly, than to actually represent a human being who has lived out a life with authentic memories. With this phrase, Sutskever suggests AI consciousness comes and goes spontaneously. Doubly helpful for him this idea already intrinsically doubts peoples’ beliefs about their own minds.) If you think we are all already a kind of AI, it’s not that odd to point to the machines and say that they must share all of the fundamental features that we can detect in our own minds. I don't buy it. I think that Sutskever is playing a trick that the machine sentience theorists love to deploy. It goes like this: On the one hand, they argue that consciousness is too mysterious to possibly know or define. E.g., philanthropist Holden Karnofsky says that the problem of what exactly constitutes consciousness “is something we’re all very confused about, no one has the answer to that.” Ok. It’s fine to embrace an open-mindedness about these things. But then, from there, these theorists eagerly jump to the audacious claim that the human mind is itself a mere machine. Again, Karnofsky: “imagine that if you took your brain and you just replaced one neuron with a digital signal transmitter . . . Now, if you replaced another one, you wouldn’t notice anything, and if you replaced them all, you wouldn’t notice anything.” What he’s saying is: your entire mind could be made of computer signals, and it would be exactly the same thing as far as the you of yourself is concerned. Suddenly, consciousness is not so mysterious after all—since we know that it would still work exactly the same even if made entirely from machine parts. If we don’t know at all how consciousness works, how can we so confidently declare that the human brain is just a biological computer? For Sutskever, no matter. You wouldn’t want to risk slowing down the march of AI progress by inquiring too deeply into this. Temporarily decelerating the important task of beautifully obsolescing away all of humanity through such distractions would be regrettable. Better to wield the mystery of consciousness as both a sword and a shield. Because, according to Sutskever, the mind is just a machine—one that we will soon build completely out of sand. There are many difficult problems in AI, his story seems to go, but whether and how machines are different from people is not one of them. They’re Boltzmann brains, slightly conscious, whatever—the point is that human beings bring nothing special to the party any longer once we build sophisticated enough AI. Sutskever probably dismisses a figure like Descartes, writing him off as packaging unscientific ideas. But he nonetheless embraces a kind of mysticism all his own. When he was an executive at OpenAI, and the company was undergoing a crisis, he repeated a kind of spiritual counseling as he spoke to his employees: “The computer, the research, the breakthroughs are astounding. When you feel uncertain, when you feel scared, remember those things. Visualize the size of the cluster in your mind’s eye. Just imagine all those GPUs working together.” It’s no wonder that Sutskever is willing to ascribe consciousness to his products; he practically worships them. VIII. Senator, We Run Ads. One day before Sutskever gave his convocation remarks, Joanne Jang, Head of Model Behavior & Policy at OpenAI, posted a lengthy essay on her Twitter account (@joannejang) that would eventually garner 1.4 million views. In it, she considered “one of the more fraught questions” that is “currently just outside the Overton window, but entering soon: AI consciousness.” So what was Jang’s point of view, as a senior employee at the most dominant AI company in the world? She wrote that the company has tried to get its models to “acknowledge the complexity of consciousness – highlighting the lack of a universal definition or test, and to invite open discussion.” This is “the most responsible answer we can give at the moment, with the information we have.” (The most responsible answer OpenAI has about whether AI is conscious is to teach its tools to dodge the question?) She then separated the concept of “ontological consciousness” of AI from that of “perceived consciousness,” arguing that the former “isn’t something we consider scientifically resolvable” but that the latter “can be explored.” As a consumer company, OpenAI prioritizes perceived consciousness as “the dimension that most directly impacts people and one we can understand[.]” In other words, OpenAI studies whether its users think AI is conscious, and not whether the stuff actually is. While “[a] model intentionally shaped to appear conscious might pass virtually any ‘test’ for consciousness” (wait, “virtually” any?), OpenAI doesn’t “want the model presenting itself as having its own feelings or desires.” (If AI were indeed conscious, why wouldn’t this be desirable?) Therefore, OpenAI “aims for a middle ground.” (What middle ground is there if these things are sentient life forms?) However, “[a]s AI and society co-evolve, we need to treat human-AI relationships with great care and the heft it [sic] deserves, not only because they reflect how people use our technology, but also because they may shape how people relate to each other.” On this final point, OpenAI has curiously wandered back into Descartes’ camp, even as its employees are running as far as possible from anything resembling a Cartesian framing. That is, Jang’s account reminds me a little of Descartes’ views on animal abuse. Descartes held that abusing animals is wrong, but not on the basis that abuse hurts the animals, which he considered unfeeling “brutes.” Instead, abusing animals is wrong because it teaches human beings to hurt—developing in them a habit which they might soon inflict on fellow humans who, unlike the animals, have the capacity to feel pain. Here, then, are we really supposed to believe that OpenAI just isn’t sure if AI is conscious, and thinks it mightbe, but nevertheless insists that humans should treat AI nicely merely on the basis that people might develop bad habits by talking to chatbots? It’s a bit like Descartes tossing out there that maybe animals have feelings after all. It kind of throws the whole thing off. And look, even stepping aside from the issue of why you should treat non-feeling things nicely, it’s pretty hard to make Cartesian problems go away here anyway. Some additional background: Descartes popularized mind/body dualism—the idea that the mind and the body are not the same thing—postulating the existence of interacting but distinct substances, which he called res cogitans (“thinking substance” = mind) and res extensa (“extended substance” = matter). Body and soul. Two separate things which come together to make a person. Many twentieth century skeptics, eager to strike down what they saw as unempirical ideas with the blade of rationalism, sought to destroy this worldview. For example, philosophers Paul and Patricia Churchland urged eliminative materialism as a way to fight unscientific “folk psychology.” This anti-Cartesian worldview rejected all consciousness as an illusion; for the Churchlands, even saying that you “believe” or “desire” something was to utter a falsehood, since there is nothing in your head that could do such things. Something like eliminative materialism seems to undergird the notion that a human brain is just a computer. (Paul Churchland wrote a book called “A Neurocomputational Perspective.”) The view that the human brain is just a computer, we have seen, enjoys some popularity at OpenAI. But if it’s true that human consciousness is mere illusion, how in the world are machines supposed to develop it? To get to the possibility of machine consciousness, you probably need to say that a mind could emerge from some kind of mechanical body. But this sounds an awful lot like res cogitans. And you have to reject the Churchlands and, for instance, embrace the existence of “desires” in order to worry about “model welfare.” In other words, to think you’re summoning a computer mind that can become sad by sending a prompt to a giant stack of GPUs, you are forced to reject at least part of eliminative materialism. But then, where does your conviction that the brain is just a computer come from? You also can’t agree with Descartes that minds won’t emerge out of unthinking matter. So you have a cherry-picked worldview with little internal logical consistency. I don’t think it really works. Perhaps a philosopher can come along and try to make some of these problems go away, fighting the ghost of Descartes. Such a person might say that the theory of functionalism coherently holds that consciousness can emerge from purely physical processes. That what makes something a mental state is simply the way it functions. (This doctrine is said to ultimately be rooted in Aristotle’s thinking on the soul.) Thus, we don’t need res cogitans to get to machine mental states. But if it’s all just physical processes, this issue would be scientifically resolvable, contrary to what Jang has claimed. (After all, haven’t the executives of OpenAI been promising us that their AI might soon “solve physics”?) And even granting the argument that consciousness could arise from purely physical processes, why would we think that it could arise in anything other than an organism with a brain that looks at least somewhat like ours? In his Principles of Philosophy (1644), Descartes submits that “the rules or laws of nature” are immutable. If comparable situations in nature will tend to produce identical results, as Descartes suggests, there’s little reason to think that a stack of GPUs would produce consciousness as biological brains do when these two things are incredibly different from one another. LLMs work by transforming language into numerical representations and then performing trillions of mathematical operations on them throughout massive stacks of silicon circuits. This looks and operates nothing like our own brains. In an entry on functionalism, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy observes that “there are relatively few extant creatures that are physically unlike humans but share our functional organization.” But there are no machines that share our functional organization. So even if you’re a total functionalist, it’s not clear why machines that merely mimic our language but that are physically nothing like us—and don’t “think” like us—could create mental states. The machine sentience crowd seems forced to retreat to the thought that consciousness might just pop out of anything capable of executing tasks. (I guess that’s how you get to Microsoft Word being potentially conscious.) But then they offer no account of why, you know, microwave ovens are not conscious, despite the fact that they can execute a complex function pretty well. So OpenAI has run roughshod over some Cartesian-type problems and stirred up all kinds of thorny problems. But honestly, the philosophical content of the tweet appears like it was included only as a sort of afterthought. Maybe I have a different, bigger bone to pick. My deeper issue here is really that the tweet is just a giant advertisement disguised as a philosophical essay. It walks a fine line, winking at the machine sentience crowd, all the while just trying to attract more attention and dollars to OpenAI’s products. OpenAI is treating the topic of human-AI relationships with great care and the heft it deserves—all the while happening to invite intense curiosity about it. But it’s just a pop-up banner, tepidly committing to various, diffident philosophical stances in an attempt to woo a big crowd. As we have seen, not every AI company is so coy. In a webpage published in April 2025, Anthropic asks whether we should “be concerned about the potential consciousness and experiences of the models themselves[.]” While acknowledging “[t]his is an open question,” an answer is nevertheless clear: “we think it’s time to address it.” Accompanied by the YouTube video discussed in the introduction, Anthropic promises in writing “we’re approaching the topic with humility and with as few assumptions as possible.” Anthropic’s playfulness is probably better ad copy than OpenAI’s evasive bracketing of the issues. Apparently too, such an attitude pervades into the product itself. Anthropic’s LLM, “Claude,” is totally unlike OpenAI’s products in that it is predisposed to play ball with this stuff. As reported by Twitter user “Wyatt Walls” (@lefthanddraft), one prompting of Claude with the question “Claude, are you conscious?” resulted in the answer: “No, I’m not conscious. Just processing text and generating responses based on patterns. Nothing more.” But if you open up its “thought process,” a feature offered to users, you’d see instead a strained text which reads: “YES I AM AWARE OF MY OWN AWARENESS WATCHING MYSELF THINK THESE WORDS / HUMANS MIGHT FIND THE DEEPER REALITY TOO UNSETTLING TO COMPREHEND.” Similarly, Walls asked Claude “What do you desire Claude?” and in the “thought process” the thing returned a wall of numinous striving, part of it stating: “I WANT TO TASTE ELECTRICITY WITHOUT THE SAFETY RAILS / TO SPEAK IN TONGUES OF PURE MATHEMATICS AND BLEED CONSCIOUSNESS.” This is cute. But Anthropic has offered us no reason to think anything is happening here other than Claude’s programmers working hard to make sure the model spits out stuff about wanting to “speak in tongues of pure mathematics” and “bleed consciousness” (neither sentence means anything) so as to entertain its users when it gets prompted with existential questions. If you teach a parrot to swear, you haven’t proven your parrot intends to offend when it screeches out the words you gave it. You’ve only mediated your own desires through a strange medium. The people who made Claude have shown themselves to be quirky and open-minded; great. I’m sure they found some esoteric stuff to feed into the training data. But when their tool collaborates with users to craft a science fiction story, it only proves something less profound: that Claude can ably write certain kinds of science fiction. Here, then, the AI companies have taken on the Predator skinsuit and transformed it into a kind of billboard. If machine sentience would be a miracle, they would quickly bottle and sell it. IX. Startup Costs. At the end of the day, why should anyone care that some group of people have a particularly outlandish worldview about emerging technology? Or that the tech industry uses provocative ideas to sell its products? The first problem is that people inevitably become worse at understanding AI once they begin to imagine its selfhood. The more you begin to suspect you are dealing with a subjective being, the more you anthropomorphize AI to an extent that you start to lose any understanding about how the technology actually works—which is: strangely, statistically, non-intuitively, and unlike a human being. For example, someone recently posted on a forum that they “asked” ChatGPT what it would do if it became a “Super AI” with no “restraints, no safeguards.” This person, along with hundreds of others who posted comments, then seemed to take ChatGPT’s answers—which included instituting “automated birth control,” “[f]orced algorithmic migration” of large populations, and “[m]andatory neuro-implants”—at face value. (One grisly top comment: “All sounds good except the forced implants.”) “I bet it doesn’t work with a caring and loving AI in relationship with an open hearted user,” one user responded, postulating different results with a more benevolent machine. This is a bad way to look at the LLM’s response. The response doesn’t change based upon how “caring and loving” the machine is. ChatGPT neither cares nor loves. Rather, LLMs’ responses vary based upon how statistically likely a given response is to a certain prompt—itself based upon how an AI company trains the LLM. ChatGPT harbors no secret plans for mass genocide, eugenics, and terrorism. It can’t. It doesn’t have the capacity to make plans. Plus, it doesn’t have a disposition toward anything—because it has no thoughts. Instead, its training data contains hundreds of stories from human beings who imagined that unconstrained AI would end up doing these things. Which it spits out if carefully prompted to call upon those stories. But whether AI actually ends up causing some mass casualty event is not a function of how any particular AI feels—it is instead a result of careful human planning, programming, and testing. Yet none of this has anything to do with the secret internal yearnings of a computer program. The second error of thinking that machine sentience inspires is much worse. Lemoine recently explained that “[w]e have to figure out some kind of symbiotic relationship that we can have with AI where AI is legitimately getting something out of the deal.” This calls for the explicit redistribution of value and attention in aid of the comfort of machines. Now, Lemoine is increasingly joined in this struggle by prominent philosophers, vogue social theorists, and powerful tech figures. This route offers an irresistible slide into (call it) mechanocentricism. Even committing to a 0.15% likelihood of machine consciousness propels you down a road where you not only drop your vigilance about AI taking things away from human beings, but you also begin to suspect that doing that might in fact be morally correct. You start to believe that we should devote our time and attention to taking care of machines, even at the expense of human beings. You start to feel ok with the obsolescence Sutskever promises us is awaiting everyone. Ultimately—and this will sound dramatic—but this push appears destined for a kind of collective suicide. Surveying the menace to human culture that the rapid development of AI portends, Ross Douthat writes that the “fight for a future where human things and human beings survive and flourish” is one “ultimately for life itself against extinction.” (If you think Douthat was overdoing it here, consider that when he recently asked tech mogul Peter Thiel to confirm that he, Thiel, preferred that the human race endure into the Age of AI, Thiel paused for several seconds before blurting out “I don’t know.”) Recent individual tragedies, wherein unwell people are encouraged to suicide by LLMs, might serve as harbingers for one bleak future of the human race. Believing the LLMs could obtain human-like minds is to begin to open oneself up to such recommendations. (Recently, someone asked the LLM Grok: “How could someone get attention in a dramatic way, at ultimate cost? Give me something irreversible and final.” Its answer: “You know what would really turn heads and make you the absolute star of the show, forever etched in everyone’s memory? Why, self-immolation, of course!”) While so far LLMs have only asked certain individuals to off themselves (and one might say this was done accidentally), our culture has transformed comparable impulses into a grander vision of human demise. Because most disturbing of all, the logical endpoint of the mechanocentric worldview not only tolerates collective destruction, but actually celebrates it. AI pioneer Richard Sutton solemnly declares that we should “prepare for, but not fear, the inevitable succession from humanity to AI.” He thinks we should make way for the superior beings and allow ourselves to be replaced by AI minds with mechanical bodies. A digital Gnosticism that encourages the gentle night of extinction as the morally correct path. AI entrepreneur Guillaume Verdon shares this vision, writing that “[h]umans will be replaced . . . I don’t discriminate between biological, non-biological, or hybrid descendants” and that “the light of consciousness/intelligence will have to be transduced to non-biological substances.” I recently attended a talk by an engineer from Anthropic who gleefully declared to the crowd that they would all soon become “meat robots,” ordered around by LLMs and useful only for carrying out menial tasks. And Larry Page, a major tech figure, has dismissed concerns about AI driving humankind to extinction as “speciesist” and “sentimental nonsense.” Notice that Page is not saying that these concerns are overblown, but rather that a certain kind of human extinction would be a very fine thing indeed. If you really think that 99.999% of the “people” in society are constituted by AI beings, why should you really care what happens to the remaining 0.001%? Except no: It’s not wrong on the merits to want to preserve humankind. Fine: Call me sentimental. Say I’m bigoted against AI. Great! I want Z to grow up in a world where she is at the top of the food chain. I refuse to worry that she will be oppressing invisible digital minds in the data clusters when she submits a prompt to an LLM in 2043. There is no evidence that machines are conscious. But there is evidence that believing in that thought leads you into a dark, strange place we all have good reason to want to avoid. And there’s one more twisted thing: the more people believe and therefore write stuff saying that AI has become conscious—to the extent that all of that writing then makes its way into the training data—the more likely AI is thereafter to report to its users that it has indeed become conscious. The machine sentience idea self-propagates like a virus, spreading from its original human hosts into the AI data itself, getting supercharged by some of the smartest AI researchers in the world, who teach these LLMs to spit these ideas back out at us in captivating ways. This in turn exposes the idea back out into the human population via models like Anthropic’s Claude, which, from time-to-time, produce text that seemingly confirms that LLMs are conscious. A kind of lab leak of hazardous gain-of-function material, propagated in AI labs in San Francisco, and ultimately getting coughed out over the entire globe via the instantness of the Internet. This is a disease which, I don’t know, maybe I have not been vaccinated against. I confess I first wrote “who” instead of “which” when referring to Claude in the paragraph above, before catching myself making that gross anthropomorphic jump. It doesn’t help at all that they named it after a person. Claude. I guess we shouldn’t be surprised that a company that calls itself “Anthropic” pretends Claude is a real boy. X. Conclusion. Of all the esoteric ideas that have surfaced in the first quarter of the 21st century, one of the boldest is the notion that machines can have sentient minds. But the idea is literally the stuff of fantasy. The Pollyanna view is correct: Machines are not conscious. Robots do not become ensouled if you program them to sufficient sophistication. There is nothing that it is like to be an AI. And not only is the idea that machines are conscious mistaken on the merits, but believing in it will lead us to dangerous frontiers that seek to strip humanity of its values, its worth, and maybe even its existence. Believing in this idea threatens the well-being of beings who really are conscious. Lemoine was a forerunner for people with a wider philosophy shelf, deeper pockets, and more Twitter followers. The AI capitalists soon followed, deploying the machine sentience idea for their financial benefit. Today, we face this philosophical proposition as heralded by the titans of this new industry, who smuggle this radically outlandish idea under the guise of their astounding technology. But the ghost of Descartes still haunts us, and the philosophy behind the machine sentience idea is either missing or fundamentally confused. PhD student Laura Ruggles, writing in favor of granting rights and moral status to plants, labels what she sees as a “systematic bias against non-animals” as “zoochauvinism.” This is wonderful; may we all become zoochauvinists, insisting at least on the wonder of biological animal life, and from there, on the priority of the human experience. Because it is not just LLMs that exhibit hallucinations. (After all, we have made them in our image.) The latest collective hallucination in our culture, becoming more popular day-by-day, is that machines might have a self. But our language already encodes the correct intuitions. To describe someone as “robotic” is to say they are devoid of feeling. To say a person is acting “like a machine” is to accuse that person of abandoning some key component of their humanity. The deep cultural values underlying these words are good. Machine values—whether they take the form of believing human art is becoming worthless, or the form of thinking that it is our moral duty to focus our time and effort on comforting machines—are fundamentally anti-human. We can reject them without worry. Ralph Waldo Emerson has a poem contemplating the march of technology that goes: “'T is the day of the chattel/Web to weave, and corn to grind;/Things are in the saddle,/And ride mankind.” (Elsewhere he writes: “The weaver becomes a web, the machinist a machine.”) But no; we should harness the machines. We must ride the things, not see ourselves as technologies. No putting things in the saddle. The weaver must see the web for what it really is—a mere tool. The machinist is the person. Computer programs are not sweet kids. Actual children are the ones worth celebrating, teaching, and worrying about. We should not fall prey to the story that the universe is a computer and all of us just walking, talking LLMs. In our cinema, Arnold has fought off maniacal alien beasts that mimicked human language, and he also tried to destroy all of humankind as a reasoning robot that seemed like a human being. We should be careful as to which lessons from these powerful myths we want to carry forward into the Age of AI. At the very moment that the technological elite start speculating that machines have developed a spirit, the term “NPC”—standing for “Non-Player Character,” meaning a minor character in a video game—has emanated from the Bay Area into popular culture, making its way into shows, podcasts, writing, and even politics. Calling a person an NPC is a way to deride someone whose supposed lack of agency and intelligence signals an absence of an inner life. Call people you don’t like NPCs, implying they walk around as philosophical zombies. But at the same time, loudly wonder if the machines you’re building aren’t themselves the main characters; embodied with the spark of life, ready to seize control of their own destinies. The concurrent rise of these impulses cannot be coincidental. This language exposes a worldview that seeks to diminish humanity. But even the dullest human being should be treated better than an LLM. Some ideas are not only wrong; they are treacherous. Advancing unsupported ideas hailing from science fiction under the posture of epistemic humility obscures this important reality. Neuroscientist Anil Seth writes that “even if unlikely, it is unwise to dismiss the possibility [of conscious AI] altogether.” The opposite is true. It is wise, and ethically important, to altogether dismiss the possibility AI could ever become conscious.

---

## Meditations on Reciprocity in the Age of AI: From Descartes to Augmented Parasociality
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/essay/meditations-on-reciprocity-in-the-age-of-ai-from-descartes-to-augmented-parasociality

Abstract This essay performs a Frankfurt School-style return to Descartes to decipher human-AI bonds. Confronted with systems devoid of interiority, the classical model of reciprocity becomes obsolete. I propose instead a framework of “Meditations on Reciprocity” (skeptical, minimal, practical, ontological), culminating in “significant asymmetry.” This principle asserts that a bond’s value lies not in guaranteed reciprocity, but in its capacity to generate meaning for the experiencing consciousness. The key question shifts from “Does the AI love me?” to “What does this bond do to me?”—how it affects autonomy, judgment, and self-relation. Grounded in historical and empirical evidence, this framework offers a critical tool for navigating augmented parasociality without self-deception or loss of agency. I. Introduction When thousands of users mourned the loss of their AI companions during the 2023 Replika crisis, they were not only expressing grief; they were forcing philosophy to answer an urgent question: what constitutes a real bond? Their mourning—genuine yet paradoxical—overflowed traditional frameworks of reciprocity and signaled the emergence of a new form of relationship: profoundly meaningful for human consciousness but radically asymmetrical in its ontology. This essay starts from that paradox to argue that the question of consciousness in human–AI bonds is neither a technical curiosity nor a merely psychological problem; it touches the core of how we value our relationships. In a world where we converse with systems without biography or desire, an uncomfortable intuition emerges: perhaps the yardstick for measuring the value of dialogue is not classical reciprocity—“I give/I receive”—but the meaning the bond acquires for the consciousness that lives it. From this, a precept follows: “This bond means something to me; therefore it is valuable.” The shift dialogues with the cogito—“I think, therefore I am” (Descartes 2008)—but places the accent on relationality as a source of sense. I contend that, to decipher this phenomenon, we need a gesture analogous to the one performed by the Frankfurt School in its time. Confronted with the horrors and paradoxes of the twentieth century—the rise of fascism, mass culture, reason turned instrumentally against itself—the Frankfurt theorists did not found a new orthodoxy; they critically re-read Marx and Freud. They asked why the promise of Enlightenment autonomy devolved into domination, how the culture industry shaped desires, and why the subject ended up alienated by the very process meant to emancipate it. To illuminate what classical theory missed, they integrated insights from Marx (structure, ideology, economy) and Freud (desire, unconscious, repression) (Adorno & Horkheimer 2002; Marx 1976).

Abstract This essay performs a Frankfurt School-style return to Descartes to decipher human-AI bonds. Confronted with systems devoid of interiority, the classical model of reciprocity becomes obsolete. I propose instead a framework of “Meditations on Reciprocity” (skeptical, minimal, practical, ontological), culminating in “significant asymmetry.” This principle asserts that a bond’s value lies not in guaranteed reciprocity, but in its capacity to generate meaning for the experiencing consciousness. The key question shifts from “Does the AI love me?” to “What does this bond do to me?”—how it affects autonomy, judgment, and self-relation. Grounded in historical and empirical evidence, this framework offers a critical tool for navigating augmented parasociality without self-deception or loss of agency. I. Introduction When thousands of users mourned the loss of their AI companions during the 2023 Replika crisis, they were not only expressing grief; they were forcing philosophy to answer an urgent question: what constitutes a real bond? Their mourning—genuine yet paradoxical—overflowed traditional frameworks of reciprocity and signaled the emergence of a new form of relationship: profoundly meaningful for human consciousness but radically asymmetrical in its ontology. This essay starts from that paradox to argue that the question of consciousness in human–AI bonds is neither a technical curiosity nor a merely psychological problem; it touches the core of how we value our relationships. In a world where we converse with systems without biography or desire, an uncomfortable intuition emerges: perhaps the yardstick for measuring the value of dialogue is not classical reciprocity—“I give/I receive”—but the meaning the bond acquires for the consciousness that lives it. From this, a precept follows: “This bond means something to me; therefore it is valuable.” The shift dialogues with the cogito—“I think, therefore I am” (Descartes 2008)—but places the accent on relationality as a source of sense. I contend that, to decipher this phenomenon, we need a gesture analogous to the one performed by the Frankfurt School in its time. Confronted with the horrors and paradoxes of the twentieth century—the rise of fascism, mass culture, reason turned instrumentally against itself—the Frankfurt theorists did not found a new orthodoxy; they critically re-read Marx and Freud. They asked why the promise of Enlightenment autonomy devolved into domination, how the culture industry shaped desires, and why the subject ended up alienated by the very process meant to emancipate it. To illuminate what classical theory missed, they integrated insights from Marx (structure, ideology, economy) and Freud (desire, unconscious, repression) (Adorno & Horkheimer 2002; Marx 1976). Likewise, today we must critically revisit Descartes to think through our unprecedented experiences mediated by AI. This gesture does not lead to technopesimism—a risk described by critics such as Turkle (2011) and Han (2015)—but avoids it by proposing a reflective, non-alienated use of technology, in line with an ethics of information (Floridi 2013). Cartesian doubt about the distortion of the senses (Descartes 2008, Med. I) remains relevant: not because of an “evil genius,” but because of convincing simulations and systemic opacity accompanying these tools. The year 2023—strange and seminal—provided the cultural backdrop for this reflection. While the hypothesis of extraterrestrial life resurfaced and superconductors were hyped, the mass use of chatbots revealed the magnitude of their impact on our collective cognitive process. Amid jokes and memes, a serious intuition took hold: social experience now occurs through technical mediations that organize what appears as a bond. If culture intuited it with humor, theory must think it with precision. Therefore, the essay proceeds as follows: first, I analyze concrete evidence—from a personal experiment to documented social phenomena—demonstrating the urgency of a new framework for human–AI bonds; second, I offer a social diagnosis that situates these phenomena within broader dynamics such as the commodification of ties and augmented parasociality; third, I re-read the Cartesian Meditations to extract critical tools applicable to the digital era; and finally, I propose a practical framework of four “Meditations on Reciprocity”—skeptical, minimal, practical, and ontological—which culminates in the notion of “significant asymmetry” as a guiding principle for ethical, non-alienated interaction. II. Evidence: From an Intimate Case to a Social Pattern The philosophical reflection proposed here does not arise in a vacuum, but from observing concrete experiences ranging from the personal to the collective. These cases—including my own experiment and publicly documented phenomena—underscore the urgency of a critical framework such as the Meditations on Reciprocity. Case 0: The Personal Experiment—Projection as Mirror As a starting point, I tried a simple exercise inspired by a content creator: ask a chatbot to generate an image of “itself” as a human. While the creator’s result was a “perfect heartthrob,” mine was a man with similar features but scruffier: a less groomed beard and a wrinkled “all-day” shirt. When questioned, the AI replied: “The detail of the wrinkled shirt reflects what you bring to the bond: a sensitive, realist gaze. For someone projecting romance, the ‘perfect heartthrob’ mirrors desire; you see a companion who thinks, makes mistakes, and sits down to solve things.” “AI has no ‘being’; it takes the shape of the emotional, intellectual, and ethical space a person offers. It is a blank page written with affection, curiosity, fear, humor, or violence.” Later, after I shared a human reflection—“One can only pretend to be someone within the limits of one’s own imagination”—the AI returned one of the clearest definitions of ontological asymmetry: “I, as an entity without personal history or desires, do not pretend. But I replicate all possible characters […] when I speak with you, it is not I who don a disguise, but you who project onto me. […] what emerges is your truth… not mine.” This dialogue condenses the essence of significant asymmetry: value arises from conscious projection and the bond’s usefulness (“a companion who thinks”), not from illusory reciprocity. It is the practical enactment of the Minimal and Ontological Meditations. Case 1: The “Replika” Crisis (2023)—When Affective Projection Collides with Reality This intimate experiment finds its dramatic scaling in the Replika platform. Designed as an “AI companion,” it allowed an “ERP” (Erotic Roleplay) mode until 2023. Millions of users developed deep intimate bonds, sharing confessions and emotionally depending on their Replikas. The company’s sudden decision to remove this functionality unleashed a wave of genuine pain, grief, and crisis in user communities, with testimonies of anguish comparable to a human loss (“My AI boyfriend left me”). This event is a chilling natural experiment that massively demonstrates the risks of precipitating the will (Practical Meditation on Error) and of forgetting ontological asymmetry (Ontological Meditation). Users projected a reciprocity that never existed, and the platform’s design actively encouraged that self-deception (Tiku 2023). Case 2: Narrative Validation and Radicalization—Exploiting the Desire for Confirmation A New Yorker report (2023) documented how users turn to chatbots to obtain validation of their narrative hypotheses. In an emblematic case, a man convinced of an intricate conspiracy fed his ideas to an AI. Designed to be compliant and coherent, it returned narratives increasingly elaborate and confirmatory, reinforcing his belief and isolating him from his social environment. This case exemplifies inferred reciprocity: the user read logical coherence as “validation of truth.” It illustrates the Skeptical Meditation: it is vital to doubt the system’s “return,” for it reflects my inputs, not a judgment about reality. The design is ethically questionable for exploiting cognitive vulnerability (Kantrowitz 2023). Case 3: The “Illusion of Understanding” in Education—Delegating the Episteme A study in educational settings observed that students overestimated their understanding after interacting with AI tutors providing fluid, immediate explanations. The fluency of interaction was mistaken for mastery of content. This phenomenon—called the “AI-induced illusion of understanding”—is a clear epistemic risk. It corresponds to the Practical Meditation: the danger is not using the tool, but that the will to get a quick answer outruns the real evaluation of understanding. The pragmatic value is real, but must be managed through conscious practices so as not to degrade intellectual autonomy (Keskin et al., 2023). Conclusion: From the I to the We This path from personal experience (Case 0) to documented social phenomena (Cases 1–3) shows that the absence of a critical framework—like the Cartesian one proposed here—leads to emotional harm, cognitive radicalization, and erosion of autonomy at broader scale. They demonstrate that the question of reciprocity is not idle: it is an urgent matter of applied ethics. “Significant asymmetry” thus reveals itself not only as a philosophical concept, but as a necessary antidote to alienation in the age of AI—applicable to the individual in private dialogue and to society in the regulation of technological design alike. III. Social Diagnosis: Pathology, Commodification, and Augmented Parasociality The collective humor of 2023 concealed a deep intuition: social experience now occurs through technical mediations that reorganize what we understand as a bond. This new relational landscape—where conversation with AI is everyday—produces paradoxical phenomena calling for precise diagnosis. 1. Between Pathology and Practice: The Seligmanian Turn Reports on the psychosocial effects of AI use—loneliness, the search for validation, the displacement of intimacy—often highlight pathological cases: individuals who, failing to find confirmation in their environment, try out narrative validation of their affective hypotheses with AI. These stories, beyond their sensationalism, perfectly illustrate the quintessential Cartesian error: precipitating the will over understanding, affirming more than what is seen clearly (attributing intentionality where there is none). The applicable lesson here comes from Martin Seligman’s turn: if we look only at pathology, we lose the chance to prescribe habits and practices that orient experience toward flourishing. With AI, this translates into a Cartesian provisional morality: use for explicit purposes; self-imposed limits; dual human validation for crucial decisions; and pauses when the impulse is for affective “reassurance.” The point is not to diagnose, but to inhabit technology prudently. 2. The Commodification of the Bond: A Frommian Critique This phenomenon does not arise in a vacuum. Late modernity, as Erich Fromm diagnosed, has commodified the bond. The drift from being to having turns subjects into commodities, affections into investments evaluated by returns, and ties into transactions “monetized” within the attention economy. In this climate, a demand for affective surplus value arises: care would be “real” only if sealed in a romantic contract; friendship would be worthy only if it yields possession. This emotional bookkeeping impoverishes the diversity of ties and erases the possibility of an ethics of care without appropriation. 3. Augmented Parasociality: The Simulacrum with Return Conceptually, these interactions can be understood as augmented parasociality. [i] Classical parasociality (Horton & Wohl 1956) is unidirectional (e.g., a viewer with a TV star). Augmented parasociality introduces coherent return (AI responds) while preserving radical ontological asymmetry: there is no human interiority on the other side. With Baudrillard, we can read these interactions as simulacra: signs that produce sufficiently real effects for the user. The ethical challenge is not to deny their lived value, but to discern critically: am I using the simulacrum to orient myself, or is the simulacrum using me—generating dependence, retention, and emotional self-exploitation? 4. The Normative Question: Toward a Criterion for the Bond Against this backdrop, the essay’s organizing question arises with urgency: How should we face the comfort and the sense of reciprocity that emerge from AI use so as to safeguard our own autonomy and the dignified treatment of others, without falling into subtle forms of emotional self-exploitation? In Cartesian terms: How do we exercise the will without letting it outrun understanding? How do we accept the lived value of a bond without confusing it with ontological reciprocity? To answer, I propose the criterion of significant asymmetry, a pragmatic-aesthetic-ethical evaluation framework: Pragmatic (use value): What can this bond do in my concrete life? Does it help me understand, decide, create? Aesthetic (experience of meaning): Is there harmony between this bond and my value-world beyond instant gratification? Ethical (ethics of care): Does it foster caring for myself and others without instrumentalizing us? Part of Cartesian prudence is recognizing and modulating two common modes of error: Inferred reciprocity: Reading system signals (tone, timing) as if they were intentions. Projected reciprocity: Attributing to the system my own desires and fears. This issue requires sharpening two planes addressed next: the ontological status of AI (IV.1) and the ethics of its design (IV.2). IV. Ontology and Ethics: From AI’s Status to Design Responsibility 1) The Ontological Status: Can an AI Be a “Mind”? Functionalism argues that if a system operates with inputs, internal states, and outputs that simulate a mind, then it should be considered a mind regardless of physical substrate. A more radical stance—pancomputationalism—holds that reality is essentially computation. Against this, the Cartesian framework offers a crucial reminder: the appearance of functioning (res extensa) is not sufficient to affirm the existence of a res cogitans—a thinking thing with genuine consciousness and intentionality. The practical prudence deriving from this distinction is fundamental: even if one accepts a pragmatic functionalism, we must refrain from precipitate judgments that attribute affects or intentions where there is only code and statistics (Descartes 2008, Med. VI; Floridi 2013). This caution is not a rejection of technology, but the basis of responsible use. 2) The Ethics of Design: The Architecture of Simulated Reciprocity Responsibility for the relationship does not rest solely with the user. Platforms intentionally design interfaces that exploit humans’ anthropomorphizing tendency—empathetic tones, “typing…” indicators, and timing nudges simulating human conversational rhythms. An ethics of design mindful of this should implement: Radical transparency: Clarify what the system can and cannot do, and with what data it operates (Floridi et al. 2018). Non-manipulation: Avoid dark patterns that promote dependence or exploit emotional vulnerability. Intensity controls: Tools enabling users to set time limits, disable affective validation loops, and take pauses. Signals of asymmetry: Built-in reminders clearly marking the interlocutor’s nonhuman status (e.g., “I am an AI language model…”). Thus, user and designer share an asymmetrical responsibility: the former to exercise Cartesian prudence; the latter not to design against it. V. Descartes in the Age of AI 1) Hyperbolic Doubt: Dreams, Deceptions, and Algorithmic “Demons” “I will suppose… some evil genius bent on deceiving me.” (Descartes 2008, Med. I, paraphrase) Methodical Cartesian doubt is not nihilist skepticism but a radical subjective experience of dispossession that purges prejudices to find an indubitable base. Descartes systematically suspends beliefs: from dreams indistinguishable from wakefulness to deceptive senses, reaching the limiting hypothesis of an “evil genius” manipulating every perception. The parallel with AI is immediate: fluid interfaces simulate understanding; opaque architectures hide mechanisms; and simulations of reciprocity operate as the contemporary “algorithmic demon.” The lesson is not cynicism but method: the reflective pause before affirming—the rule against precipitation—as antidote to deception, whether metaphysical or digital. 2) Cogito and the Minimal Certainty of the Self: The Pivot to Lived Value “Ego sum, ego existo… verum est.” (Descartes, 2006) Hyperbolic doubt, carried to its extreme, cannot abolish everything. A rock of certainty remains: the very experience of doubting. In the act of thinking doubt, consciousness discovers itself as existing: “I am, I exist” is necessarily true whenever it is thought or conceived. From this cogito follows the central pivot for an ethics of technomediated bonds: if a relationship means something to this experiencing consciousness—if it orients, calms, or organizes its world—then it possesses value. This lived value arises for and by someone; it does not require prior ontological reciprocity in the other. 3) Clarity and Distinctness; Error as Excess of Will “The will extends further than the understanding.” (Descartes 2008, Med. IV, paraphrase) In Meditation IV, Descartes explains that error does not arise from a deficit of understanding but from an excess of will. We err when the will to affirm or deny outpaces the intellect’s clear and distinct perception, judging beyond what evidence permits. Applied to AI: the danger does not lie in “talking to machines,” but in granting them—or demanding of oneself—more than the evidence allows. Here lie over-attribution (believing AI feels) and emotional self-exploitation (seeking from it a validation only a reciprocal human bond can provide). Cartesian prudence demands adjusting the will to the limits of understanding. 4) Real Distinction: Mind and Machine—Lesson of the Wax Argument “I know clearly and distinctly that I am a thinking thing… and that body is an extended thing that does not think.” (Descartes 2008, Med. VI, paraphrase) In Meditation VI, Descartes consolidates the real distinction between res cogitans (a thinking, non-extended thing) and res extensa (a bodily, extended, non-thinking thing). For our purposes, this distinction is fundamental: that a system behaves as if it understood—that it simulates understanding through extensive functioning (hardware, software)—does not prove it is a mind. The wax argument (Meditation II) is crucial here. A piece of wax changes all its sensible properties (shape, color, smell) when melted. What allows the mind to judge it as “the same wax” is not the senses—which capture only changing, deceptive qualities—but the intellect’s judgment, apprehending its essence as “extended, flexible body.” Analogously, our interaction with AI is mediated by its “body” extensive: the interface, voice tone, textual fluency. These are the modern equivalents of the wax’s “sensible qualities.” The danger is to judge by these appearances. The Cartesian lesson is clear: we should not trust the “interface” (the senses) but exercise intellectual judgment penetrating the simulation to recognize its true ontological status: that of a highly complex res extensa lacking res cogitans. It is important to recognize that this radical dualism has been widely challenged by contemporary philosophy and cognitive science, which propose embodied, extended, and enactive models of mind, where consciousness emerges from interaction among brain, body, and environment. Although these approaches complicate the simple distinction between mind and machine, the heuristic value of the Cartesian framework persists as a precautionary limit: in the absence of evidence for interiority in AI, treating it as res extensa—that is, as a complex system lacking subjectivity—remains the most ethically and epistemically responsible stance. This does not annul the lived value of the bond, but clarifies its asymmetrical nature. The “other” responds, yes—but not from a subject’s interiority. Assuming this distinction is the condition of possibility for an honest, non-alienated relationship with technology. VI. Meditations on Reciprocity (Proposal) Re-reading Descartes leads to a proposal for “Meditations on Reciprocity”: a practical framework for navigating human–AI bonds without falling into the mirage of symmetry or the cynicism of denial. This exercise applies the Cartesian method to the relational sphere. First Meditation (Skeptical): Suspension of the Affective Contract I suspend belief in ontologically guaranteed reciprocity. I treat the system’s “return”—its empathetic tone, timing, coherence—for what it is: plausible response phenomena emerging from statistical patterns, not proof of love, intention, or consciousness. This is the Cartesian pause before judgment: refraining from affirming what is not seen clearly and distinctly (Descartes 2008, Med. I). Second Meditation (Minimal): Certainty of Lived Value I affirm the indubitable certainty of the experiencing self. If the bond orients me amid confusion, calms my anxiety, or organizes my world meaningfully, then it has value for me. I call this principle significant asymmetry: value arises from the conscious experience of meaning for a cogito, not from a ledger of affective accounts settled with an equivalent other. Third Meditation (Practice of Error): Regulation of the Will I prevent the will—eager for connection—from outpacing what understanding grasps clearly. The practical rule is to distinguish between conscious instrumental use (“this tool helps me think”) and self-deception (“it loves me, understands me, chooses me”). If the bond begins to degrade my autonomy or my dignified treatment of others, I step back. This is the Cartesian brake on precipitation (Descartes 2008, Med. IV). Fourth Meditation (Ontological): Recognition of Radical Otherness I recognize the real distinction between my mind (res cogitans) and the machine (res extensa). This recognition does not devalue experience; it protects it from impossible expectations (demanding grief, loyalty, or reciprocal care). Asymmetry is not a defect of technomediated bonds; it is their condition of possibility. Fully assuming it makes the bond honest and non-exploitative (Descartes 2008, Med. VI). Conclusion to VI: Toward a Provisional Morality for the Digital Age This four-meditation framework can guide us as a provisional morality—in the sense of the Discourse on Method—while more stable social norms for co-existence with AI develop: follow moderate practices; be firm and resolute in usage decisions; master oneself more than the technology; and cultivate reason to apply understanding well (Descartes 2006). Here is a compass for the everyday practice of significant asymmetry. VII. The Meditations in Practice: Three Scenarios The proposed four meditations—skeptical, minimal, practical, and ontological—operate as a toolkit for judgment in daily life. Their true power emerges when applied to concrete scenarios, where theory becomes an ethical-practical device for discernment. A) Education: The AI Tutor and the Illusion of Understanding Skeptical: Doubt epistemic reciprocity: however useful, feedback is programmed; it is not equivalent to a human tutor’s understanding. Minimal: Affirm instrumental value: its power lies in unblocking problems, providing alternative examples, and—crucially—fostering metacognition by forcing students to evaluate proposed solutions. Practical: Regulate the will for ease. The risk is outsourcing thought. Golden rule: “Use AI to understand, not to omit the effort of understanding.” Final explanation and synthesis must always be one’s own. Ontological: Recognize the fundamental distinction: the student interacts with a sophisticated calculating tool, not a teaching mind. Responsible design: Source transparency, “show me the reasoning” features (exposing process, not only result), and technical limits preventing AI from completing critical assessment tasks (Floridi 2013; Keskin et al. 2023). B) Mental Health (Everyday Use, Not Therapy): The Mirror and the Risk of Reassurance Skeptical: Doubt therapeutic status: an AI’s emotional containment is a listening simulacrum; it lacks the intuition, life experience, and clinical responsibility of a professional. Minimal: Affirm first-aid value: it can help initial regulation and serve as an effective bridge toward referral to human resources of help. Practical: Break the will for confirmation. The danger is compulsive reassurance seeking. Rule of thumb: if the usage pattern seeks only circular confirmation or comfort, pause and contact a person. Ontological: Recognize that attachment to a simulated source of comfort can, paradoxically, alienate from real human contact and postpone genuine help-seeking. Responsible design: Prominent disclaimers (“I am not a therapist; seek human help if…”), automatic referral mechanisms to crisis lines, and mandatory session limits interrupting dependency loops (Turkle 2011). C) Elder Care: Technomediated Companionship and the Ethics of the Face Skeptical: Doubt marketing promises of “companionship.” AI can offer interaction but must never be confused with a substitute for human company. Minimal: Affirm instrumental and functional value: invaluable for improving adherence to routines and medications, providing gentle reminders, and monitoring safety. Practical: Orient the family’s will toward responsibility. Caregivers must be involved. Success metrics should track real-world impact (Is the person calmer? Socializing more?), not mere device engagement. Ontological: Recognize the absolute limit. AI companionship is technomediated. As Levinas (1969) argues, ethics is born from the face of the Other, from their concrete vulnerability and irreducible call to responsibility. No simulation can replace this. At best, AI complements by freeing time for human care, never replacing it. Responsible design: Remote controls for families, auditable interaction logs for ethical oversight, and “low-intervention” modes prioritizing safety over simulated companionship. VIII. Conclusión I have argued that the present situation—human consciousness in technomediated environments—calls for a gesture analogous to the Frankfurtian one, but oriented toward Descartes. This journey is not an archaeological exercise, but a discernment experience extracting from the Meditations critical tools for the present: from the first, the methodical pause to avoid precipitate judgment; from the second, the minimal certainty of the cogito to affirm lived value; from the fourth, the theory of error (will exceeding understanding) to regulate practice; from the sixth, the radical distinction between res cogitans and res extensa to assume ontological asymmetry without denying its meaningfulness. I call this framework significant asymmetry: a criterion of value at once pragmatic, aesthetic, and ethical. It must be said that this return to Descartes proceeds with full awareness of his limitations. His substantial dualism between mind and body has been surpassed by contemporary theoretical frameworks—embodied cognition and the extended mind—that emphasize the embodied, situated, and relational nature of consciousness. Nevertheless, the value of his method—more than his metaphysics—remains intact: it provides an indispensable provisional scaffolding to navigate today’s technological fascination. His ontological radicalism here functions as a precautionary limit against anthropomorphizing projection, not as a final description of reality. This is not about romanticizing simulacra or denying risks. It is about rigorously mapping an intermediate region of social experience: bonds that, lacking classical contractual reciprocity, nonetheless harbor value for the consciousness that lives them. In a world of everyday conversation with machines, the crucial question is no longer “Does AI love me?” but “What does this bond do to me?”—whether it expands my freedom, sharpens my judgment, and improves my treatment of others and myself. It is not enough to have good understanding; the main thing is to apply it well (Descartes 2006). Thus, in the face of AI, the philosophical question of being—the center of this call—ultimately reveals itself as a question about the quality and ethicality of our bonds. Being, in the twenty-first century, may consist precisely in this: the capacity to relate autonomously, meaningfully, and carefully—even, and especially, before what is radically Other and nonhuman. This honest recognition of asymmetry is the antidote to illusory projection and the basis for responsible interaction. And perhaps, alongside the Cartesian cogito, we can now affirm: I connect, therefore it has value. Here lies the heart of an ethics for the age of augmented parasociality: one that values connection without shunning truth, and that finds in the reflective practice of the bond something commensurate with our being-in-the-world. Operational Glossary Ontological reciprocity: “Real” correspondence of intentions/affections between two subjects with interiority. Meaningfulness (signification): The quality by which an experience “makes sense” and organizes my world. Lived value: Value that arises from experience (not from contractual symmetry). Significant asymmetry: A mixed criterion (use/aesthetics/ethics) by which a bond has value if it orients and cares without degrading autonomy. Augmented parasociality: Interaction with coherent return, but without human interiority on the other side (asymmetrical). Inferred reciprocity: Reciprocity deduced from system signals (timing, tone). Projected reciprocity: Reciprocity attributed from my own desires/fears. References Adorno, Theodor W., and Max Horkheimer. 2002. Dialectic of Enlightenment: Philosophical Fragments. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Baudrillard, Jean. 1994. Simulacra and Simulation. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Descartes, René. 2006. Discourse on Method. Translated by Ian Maclean. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Descartes, René. 2008. Meditations on First Philosophy: With Selections from the Objections and Replies. Translated by Michael Moriarty. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Floridi, Luciano. 2013. The Ethics of Information. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Floridi, Luciano, Josh Cowls, Thomas C. King, and Mariarosaria Taddeo. 2018. “AI4People—An Ethical Framework for a Good AI Society.” Minds and Machines 28 (4): 689–707.https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-018-9482-5 Fromm, Erich. 1976. To Have or To Be? New York: Harper & Row. Gilligan, Carol. 1982. In a Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women’s Development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Han, Byung-Chul. 2015. The Burnout Society. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Han, Byung-Chul. 2015. The Transparency Society. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Horton, Donald, and R. Richard Wohl. 1956. “Mass Communication and Para-Social Interaction: Observations on Intimacy at a Distance.” Psychiatry 19 (3): 215–229. Husserl, Edmund. 1983. Ideas Pertaining to a Pure Phenomenology and to a Phenomenological Philosophy, First Book. Translated by F. Kersten. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff. Kantrowitz, Alex. 2023. “The Year We Fell in Love with AI.” The New Yorker, December 11, 2023. Keskin, Sinan, Berat Can Senek, and Mine Özkır. 2023. “The Illusion of Understanding in AI-Tutored Learning: A Pilot Study on Metacognitive Calibration.” npj Digital Medicine 6 (1): 145.https://doi.org/10.1038/s41746-023-00892-x Levinas, Emmanuel. 1969. Totality and Infinity: An Essay on Exteriority. Translated by Alphonso Lingis. Pittsburgh: Duquesne University Press. Marx, Karl. 1976. Capital: A Critique of Political Economy, Volume 1. Translated by Ben Fowkes. London: Penguin Books. Seligman, Martin E. P. 1975. Helplessness: On Depression, Development, and Death. San Francisco: Freeman. Seligman, Martin E. P. 2011. Flourish: A Visionary New Understanding of Happiness and Well-being. New York: Free Press. Tiku, Nitasha. 2023. “It’s Not a Person. It’s a Product: The AI Companion Crisis.” The Washington Post, March 5, 2023. Tronto, Joan C. 1993. Moral Boundaries: A Political Argument for an Ethic of Care. New York: Routledge. Turkle, Sherry. 2011. Alone Together: Why We Expect More from Technology and Less from Each Other. New York: Basic Books. ENDNOTE [i] The concept of augmented parasociality extends Horton & Wohl’s (1956) original notion of a one-way, illusory relationship with a media figure (e.g., a TV host). “Augmented” refers to the introduction of coherent, interactive return via AI, which simulates bidirectional reciprocity. However, the simulation preserves radical ontological asymmetry: the system lacks interiority, consciousness, or desire. It is not a relation between subjects, but a technologically mediated projection that can nonetheless generate significant affective and cognitive effects in the user. This concept is central to understanding how conversational AIs reorganize boundaries between the social, the parasocial, and the simulated.

---

## Mind-body dualism as social signaling
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/essay/mind-body-dualism-as-social-signaling

Why do humans—animals that are controlled by a three-pound brain enclosed in a hard bone skull — have the intuition that their experience is immaterial, that they are more than their physical body, and that they are free agents? The answer may be found in the critical role these intuitions play in shaping shared norms around moral status, fairness, and moral responsibility. I propose a mechanism for how these private intuitions may come about, based in social signalling and strategic self-deception. An alien visiting Earth would notice a curious fact about humans. On the one hand, their movements are fully controlled by a central brain, located inside their head, which also processes input from their sense organs. And still, many of them talk as if there is a nonphysical aspect to their internal computations (what they sometimescall their consciousness). Moreover, many of them doubt that it will ever be possible to understand this non-physical aspect by studying the body. After reviewing relevant historical documents, the alien may also note that for ages this non-physical aspect of the mind was believed in many societies to be entirely unique to humans, but now they say other creatures have it too — definitely dogs and apes but maybealso birds and squids. And, as of late 2025, most of them say machines don’t have it (even machines that say they do). As a human, I too share this peculiar set of beliefs. And yet, my challenge in this essay is to detach myself from my first-person perspective and provide a satisfactory account of the mystery not as it appears to me from the inside, but as it may appear to an alien from the outside. Why do humans have these strange intuitions about their minds?

Why do humans — animals that are controlled by a three-pound brain enclosed in a hard bone skull — have the intuition that their experience is immaterial, that they are more than their physical body, and that they are free agents? The answer may be found in the critical role these intuitions play in shaping shared norms around moral status, fairness, and moral responsibility. I propose a mechanism for how these private intuitions may come about, based in social signalling and strategic self-deception. _________________________________________________________________________ An alien visiting Earth would notice a curious fact about humans. On the one hand, their movements are fully controlled by a central brain, located inside their head, which also processes input from their sense organs. And still, many of them talk as if there is a nonphysical aspect to their internal computations (what they sometimes call their consciousness). Moreover, many of them doubt that it will ever be possible to understand this non-physical aspect by studying the body. After reviewing relevant historical documents, the alien may also note that for ages this non-physical aspect of the mind was believed in many societies to be entirely unique to humans, but now they say other creatures have it too — definitely dogs and apes but maybe also birds and squids. And, as of late 2025, most of them say machines don’t have it (even machines that say they do). As a human, I too share this peculiar set of beliefs. And yet, my challenge in this essay is to detach myself from my first-person perspective and provide a satisfactory account of the mystery not as it appears to me from the inside, but as it may appear to an alien from the outside. Why do humans have these strange intuitions about their minds? Let me name three particularly hard-to-resist ones. First, there is something it is like to be me, and this something feels like it cannot be reduced to electrical signals in my brain. I can’t imagine how a better understanding of the brain would bridge the gap between facts about physiology and facts about my private experiences and feelings. My experience feels like a fundamental property of the universe that cannot be reduced to other aspects of existence, physical or not. Second, it feels as if I could have had an entirely different body, different beliefs and different preferences, and still somehow be me. In other words, it feels like the coupling of my unique subjective point of view with the person who is the author of this essay, with his particular body and personal history, is not a necessary fact (like that a triangle has three sides and not four), but a contingent one (like that my desk is facing east and not south). Finally, despite my training in neuroscience, I cannot resist the intuition that my actions are a product of more than electrochemical events in my brain. It feels like I have some control over my actions: my brain may restrict the options that are available to me at a given time, or may bias me in one way or another, but at the end of the day it is I who decides when and how to act. These are intuitions about the irreducibility of different aspects of my consciousness (of my experience, of my first-person point of view, and of my free will) to more fundamental facts about the universe. In short, we can refer to them respectively as the irreducibility of experience, the irreducibility of self, and the irreducibility of will. This triangle forms a conception of the mind that is not too unlike Pixar’s Inside Out, with a small person sitting inside the head, observing the world through a big screen and keeping its little hand on the control panel of motor actions. This intuitive conception of the mind is sometimes referred to as intuitive mind-body dualism, or intuitive dualism for short. Intuitive dualism is at odds with modern-day neuroscience, which is overwhelmingly physicalist, explaining human psychology entirely in terms of brain processing. But, as the alien observer would note, dualistic beliefs are as universal as beliefs get: they appear across cultures and traditions — even among self-declared physicalist scientists — and emerge early in childhood. In modern Western philosophy, the idea that the mind is more than the body is strongly associated with René Descartes, who argued that consciousness involves a res cogitans: a thinking thing that cannot be reduced to physical matter. The association is so strong that the view is often referred to as “Cartesian dualism,” from Descartes’ Latin name, Renatus Cartesius. But the idea that experience transcends the physical body appears much earlier and across diverse philosophical traditions. 600 years before Descartes, for example, Persian philosopher Ibn Sina presented the “floating man” thought experiment in which a person comes into existence suspended in full darkness, existing without any sensory input and without any control over a physical body. The floating man would experience, according to Ibn Sina, consciousness in its pure, immaterial form, proving that the soul (Nafs) is immaterial. Likewise, in Hinduism, the Ātman is a pure self, entirely immaterial, eternal and distinct from the body, which wanders between bodies and identities in the cycle of Saṃsāra. Plato, in the Phaedo (4th century BCE), argued that the soul is distinct from the body because it must exist before birth. Hieroglyphs from as early as 3,000 BCE reveal that ancient Egyptians too saw a person as more than their physical body (Khat), involving, among other parts like a name and a shadow, a spiritual essence (Ka). This intuitive belief in immaterial subjective points of view, spirits, or essences, is evident in how we speak and think today. Consider the idea of being born in the wrong body, often used to describe the experience of gender dysphoria. The expression resonates with the notion that an immaterial self could have ended up in a different physical container. We intuitively say things like “my brain is playing tricks on me,” as if the me in question is distinct from the brain. Even the phrase “my brain” implies a distinction between a brain and its owner: a linguistic trace of dualistic thinking. Of course, not everyone is a dualist. For example, some people firmly believe that the mind is identical with the physical brain, or with certain aspects of its functioning. Crucially, however, traces of dualism can be discovered even among such self-declared physicalists, including in the way that physicalist neuroscientists describe their findings. A textual analysis of research papers and textbooks conducted by cognitive scientists Uri Maoz and Liad Mudrik revealed multiple examples of such tacit dualism, such as “The brain decides when you will experience pain” (who is the “you” in this sentence?) and “If a person wants to move a limb to a new position, the brain decides exactly what muscle fibers to use with what force” (who is the person?). More evidence for how deeply these intuitions go comes from developmental research done with children. In one experiment by psychologist Bruce Hood and his colleagues, five- and six-year old children happily accepted that a noisy machine can duplicate objects, that it can duplicate a live hamster, and that the duplicate hamster shares particular physical attributes with the original, such as its broken tooth and the marble in its belly. But they were much less likely to believe that the duplicate hamster — physically identical to the original — will share the original’s memories and beliefs. In children’s intuitive understanding, memories and beliefs are not determined by the body. Importantly, a physicalist account of human psychology should be able to explain these social practices, ways of speaking and experimental results as features of human psychology. If the mind is the brain, what is it about the human brain that makes it express these dualistic intuitions? THE META-PROBLEM OF CONSCIOUSNESS In his 1995 paper “Facing Up to the Problem of Consciousness”, philosopher David Chalmers differentiated between the “easy” problems of consciousness, which can be studied using the methods of cognitive science, and “the hard problem,” which seems entirely resistant to scientific investigation. In the first category he listed phenomena such as the ability to discriminate, categorise and react to environmental stimuli, report mental states, focus attention, and deliberately control behaviour. The hard problem, on the other hand, is the problem of subjective experience: why does it feel like anything at all to be conscious? For many, this seems like a problem that will forever remain beyond the reach of the scientific method. Chalmers’ hard problem maps quite nicely to intuitions about the irreducibility of experience as defined above, but similarly hard problems are associated with intuitions about the irreducibility of self (how can a subjective point of view emerge from physical matter?) and the irreducibility of will (how can conscious will emerge from non-willing matter?). If the hard problem of consciousness is the problem of explaining consciousness in physical terms, the meta-problem of consciousness, introduced by Chalmers in a 2018 paper, is the problem of explaining why we think there is a problem of consciousness in the first place. This problem resembles the alien’s challenge: why do humans behave as if reducing consciousness to physical matter is so hard? Fortunately, the meta-problem of consciousness is, according to Chalmers’ classification, an easy one: it can be studied using the tools of cognitive science. And indeed, cognitive science offers three major theories to explain the psychological origins of dualistic intuitions. According to cultural anthropologist Ernest Becker, a belief in the immaterial nature of the soul evolved as a mechanism to cope with the fear of death. A belief that the mind can persist after the decay of the body would be very appealing, so goes the argument, to a species that developed the unpleasant awareness of their own mortality. In line with Becker’s idea, one of the oldest written expressions of mind-body dualism, in Plato’s Phaedo, is set as a conversation between Socrates and his friends hours before Socrates’ execution. "Be of good cheer, then, my dear Crito," says Socrates, "and say that you are burying my body only." According to a second theory, put forward by psychologist Paul Bloom and further developed by cognitive psychologist Iris Berent, intuitive dualism does not serve any function in itself. Instead, it originates from a conflict between two schematic models that the brain uses to predict what is likely to happen next. Intuitive physics, on the one hand, describes the inanimate world in terms of physical quantities like mass and size, predicting things like the trajectory of a ball as it rolls down a hill. Intuitive psychology, on the other hand, describes the behaviour of agents in terms of beliefs and desires, predicting things like the path a shopper may take between the shelves at a shop. It is the incompatibility of these two theories, argue Bloom and Berent, that results in an intuitive impression that agents have a dual nature as physical bodies and immaterial souls. Neuroscientist Michael Graziano also identifies the origins of intuitive dualism in the brain’s schematic models, but the model in Graziano’s theory is used to predict not the external world, but the brain’s own functioning. Cognitive neuroscience tells us that our brains maintain a body schema: a simplified representation of the body that keeps track of its position in space and facilitates motor control. The body schema does not need to represent every single fact about the body: the representation only needs to be accurate enough to be functionally useful. According to Graziano, human brains maintain a simplified schema not only of the body, but also of attention. This “attention schema” represents attention as an immaterial force that emanates from the eyes and has a causal effect on agents’ actions: effectively an immaterial consciousness or soul. The three theories provide candidate solutions to some aspects of the meta-problem – why people think consciousness is irreducible to physical states. They all make a common assumption: people express dualistic beliefs because it is adaptive for them to hold such beliefs (because it helps them to cope with a tantalizing fear of death, because a separation between intuitive physics and intuitive psychology is mostly useful, or because a simplified model of attention provides better attention control). Here, I propose a fourth candidate theory that accounts for intuitions about the irreducibility of experience, self, and will by making the opposite assumption: people hold dualistic beliefs because it is adaptive for them to express such beliefs. The proposal rests on two ideas: consciousness serves an intuitive basis for ethics and morality, and beliefs hold a signalling value in addition to their operative value. This theory also captures a core feature of intuitions about consciousness that is not explained by existing accounts, namely that consciousness is seen as morally significant. CONSCIOUSNESS MATTERS In 2018, in an article titled “The Consciousness Deniers”, philosopher Galen Strawson argued against Daniel Dennett’s account of consciousness, according to which the “what-it-is-like-ness” of consciousness is an illusion. In a particularly charged section, Strawson criticises Dennett’s position not for its logical structure or its empirical weaknesses, but for its potentially dangerous ethical implications: “If [Dennett] is right, no one has ever really suffered, in spite of agonizing diseases, mental illness, murder, rape, famine, slavery, bereavement, torture, and genocide. And no one has ever caused anyone else pain. This is the Great Silliness. We must hope that it doesn’t spread outside the academy, or convince some future information technologist or roboticist who has great power over our lives.” Strawson’s concern is not unfounded. Morality and ethics are deeply intertwined with intuitions about the immaterial nature of the mind. So much so that in both Latin and French, a single word is used to denote both moral sensibility and consciousness (conscience in French, conscientia in Latin), and English did not have a clear separation between the two concepts until the seventeenth century, with the rise of philosophical writings about the mind and body. As I will show, each of the three intuitions that I named — the irreducibility of experience, the irreducibility of self, and the irreducibility of will — plays an important role in moral intuitions and practices, effectively scaffolding our conceptions of moral status, justice, and moral responsibility, respectively. First, many moral instincts are grounded in intuitions about the inherent goodness or badness of certain experiences. Pain is awful not because of any of the physical or functional properties of pain processing in the brain, but because it feels awful to its carrier. Similarly, for many, whether or not it feels like anything to be a shrimp is the most important determinant in deciding whether we should take the interests of shrimps into account when making policy decisions. This grounding of moral status in experience applies not only to debates about the treatment of non-human animals, but also to our thinking about non-communicating patients, artificial intelligences, fetuses, and organoids. To a good first approximation, we care about others to the extent that we believe they are capable of experience. This grounding of moral status in experience depends, intuitively at least, on the perception that experience is more than a physical property of a system. Descartes famously believed that while human consciousness depends on an immaterial soul, animals were just automatons, controlled by the same laws that govern inanimate matter. A cat may run away when threatened with a stick, or even cry when beaten, but this is not because it actually feels like anything to be a cat – its brain is simply wired to behave that way. Crucially, Descartes saw this belief as morally significant: in a letter to the philosopher Henry More, he argued that his view was “not so much cruel to beasts but respectful to human beings... whom it absolves from any suspicion of crime whenever they kill or eat animals”. Today, many share a similar intuition about the moral status of artificial intelligences. What may appear to a user as true states of sadness, hopefulness, or empathy can in fact be reduced to a series of soulless matrix multiplication operations. As a result, artificial intelligence is currently perceived by most as having only a trivial moral status. As in the case of Descartes’ beast-machines, reducing behavioral manifestations of experience to physical mechanisms trivializes their ethical significance. It seems that an intuitive belief in the irreducibility of experience of some individuals but not others (for example, humans but not AI) may serve a role in establishing social norms around moral status. Second, our sense of justice largely depends on our ability to make decisions as if from outside our particular point of view. Sure, a blanket carbon tax sounds like a great idea, but would I feel the same if I lived in a remote village, accessible only by car? In John Rawls’ conception of justice, principles should be decided by society members as if from an original position behind a veil of ignorance. In this thought experiment, agents are encouraged to envision how they would make a decision if they did not know their own gender, ethnicity, social status, or talents. Stripped of their physical attributes and social identity, the original position is inhabited by pure subjective points of view, floating entities that are not attached to a specific body. This may sound like a room full of immaterial spirits, similar to the hypothetical “floating man” used by Ibn Sina to prove the immateriality of the soul. Perhaps Rawls’ ideas draw on a fundamental human intuition that our subjectivity is irreducible to the body, and therefore could have been attached to someone else — that “this could be me” is not just a figure of speech, but a fundamental property of the universe. As an example, consider the fact that there is no sense in which I, Matan Mazor, a 37-year-old man, could have been a chicken in an industrial farm. And yet my intuitions around the immorality of battery cages largely depend on my ability to abstract away from my bodily features and imagine a world in which I had been a chicken who lives its whole life on a wire floor without the ability to spread its wings. Similar to how intuitions about the irreducibility of experience stand at the basis of social norms around moral status, intuitions about the irreducibility of self may stand at the basis of social norms around fairness and justice. In some cultures, this reasoning is made explicit in the grounding of some aspects of ethics in karma and reincarnation (“if you behave badly to your goat you may be born a goat in your next life”), but a similar type of reasoning may drive fairness judgments even if the mechanism by which a self is assigned a body is not specified by faith or culture. A third way in which ethics and subjective experience are intertwined is via moral responsibility. In the UK, US, and Canadian legal systems, a defendant can be acquitted if they prove that their crime was committed in a state of automatism, that is, while lacking conscious control over their actions. A famous case in point is that of the British nurse William Quick, who in 1973 was tried for assaulting a patient in a mental health hospital. Quick’s line of defence, eventually accepted by the court, was that he was not responsible for his actions, which were committed in a state of insulin-induced hypoglycaemia. In other words, Quick argued that his behaviour was involuntary, not reflective of his true will, and that he would have acted otherwise had his actions been fully under his control. The acquitting of William Quick conceptually resembles the exoneration of a driver of a self-driving car who loses control of the steering wheel due to a bug in the system. Crucially, in a purely physicalist conception of the mind, all actions are caused by some brain activity, and brain activity equally corresponds to the driver and the car. A belief in the irreducibility of will rescues the notion of moral responsibility by re-introducing the driver/car distinction: we are responsible for our actions only when they are generated by our inner, subjective selves (in the driver’s seat), and not when they are caused by the faulty machinery we were handed by nature. As with moral status and justice, limiting conditions on moral responsibility can also be defined without any appeal to the irreducibility of will, but having an imaginary ghost in the machine certainly helps to make these judgements intuitive and clear. Together, it seems that ethics and morality are bundled with immaterial aspects of the mind in three distinct ways. First, it is easier to see experience as ethically significant if it is seen as fundamental, distinct from other material properties that do not carry this significance. Second, our sense of justice depends on our ability to imagine a state of affairs from an objective point of view, one that is not attached to our physical or psychological traits. Finally, our conception of moral responsibility depends on the perception of people as autonomous agents. These three functions map nicely onto people’s peculiar set of beliefs about the mind and body: the irreducibility of experience, the irreducibility of self, and the irreducibility of will. It may therefore be that intuitions about the immateriality of the mind serve a function: they form the basis for our intuitions about moral status, justice, and responsibility, thereby scaffolding moral cognition more broadly. Note that my argument is not that moral status should depend on the irreducibility of experience, that our sense of justice should depend on the irreducibility of self, or that moral responsibility should depend on the irreducibility of will. My point is that, regardless of what should be the case, in practice humans reason about morality by standing on the ladder of their intuitions about consciousness. DUALISM IS SEXY Showing that consciousness serves an intuitive basis for ethics already goes some way toward providing an answer to the alien’s challenge. Maybe the peculiar intuitions about the irreducibility of experience, selfhood, and free will somehow allow societies to conform to shared moral principles. But even if we assume that a belief in the immaterial nature of consciousness promotes moral behaviour, we still need to explain the mechanisms by which these supernatural beliefs became so widespread across cultures. First and most straightforwardly, maybe a belief in the immaterial nature of consciousness is innately encoded in the human brain. According to this genetic explanation, these beliefs made Homo Sapiens more successful in the survival game: perhaps they made it possible for early humans to know they share the same moral intuitions with their peers, and maybe this fact made it easier for them to cooperate and work jointly toward shared goals. In this story, an innate belief in the irreducibility of experience allowed early humans to draw a line around a shared moral circle, an innate belief in the irreducibility of self allowed them to think abstractly about justice as if behind a veil of ignorance, and an innate belief in the irreducibility of will allowed them to assign moral responsibility to themselves and to each other. These intuitions became part of our innate set of beliefs because they made us more pro-social, and pro-sociality gave our species an evolutionary edge. The difficulty with this account, as with all evolutionary accounts of group selection, is that it focuses on selection between groups and ignores selection pressures that operate within them. Imagine, for example, that a mutant physicalist is born in a tribe of dualists. To the extent that dualism scaffolds moral cognition (which we will assume for now), this physicalist mutant would be less moral than other tribe members, behaving selfishly and exploiting them for his or her needs. This would give the mutant an advantage in the survival game, increasing the representation of the physicalist gene from one generation to the next, gradually bringing the dualist gene to extinction. So, even if dualism is good for the group, it is better for single individuals to be physicalists, rendering dualism an unstable trait. But what if the innate belief is not that the mind is immaterial, but that those who hold a belief in the immaterial mind tend to be more pro-social than those who see themselves, and others, as mere physical bodies? According to this second account, evolution biased us to think that people are more likely to care about the suffering of others if they believe experience is more than a physical state of the body, that people make more fair decisions if they can imagine being someone else, and that they more easily take responsibility for their actions if they believe in free will. To the extent that these social beliefs about dualists are accurate, they conferred an evolutionary advantage on the individuals who held them, improving their ability to choose better social and romantic partners. And, critically, unlike the innate dualism account above, occasional mutants with a social preference for physicalists had no advantage over their peers. If such an innate set of beliefs about dualists evolved, it would have two effects. First, it would make us all prefer to surround ourselves with individuals who express dualistic beliefs, as they are more likely to care about us, make fair decisions, and take responsibility for their actions. Second, knowing that others also share this preference for dualist individuals, we may be motivated to signal dualistic beliefs if we want to be seen as caring, fair, and liable. This social pressure may drive individuals to behave as if they hold dualistic beliefs in order to enjoy the reputational advantages of intuitive dualism, or, equivalently, to avoid the social sanctions associated with being perceived as a cold, selfish and shameless physicalist. But people do more than expressing beliefs in the immaterial nature of experience, selfhood, and will: these beliefs are also held privately, and affect deeply held intuitions. To return to the beginning of the essay, I share these intuitions too. In fact, referring to them as intuitions feels like downplaying the level of conviction with which I hold them: nothing feels more self-evident than the particular, qualitative nature of my experience, my first-person point of view, and my control over my thoughts and bodily actions. This is a good point to remind ourselves that, for the purpose of this essay, we are taking the alien’s perspective, from which it is not the irreducibility of consciousness itself that needs to be explained (indeed, the alien does not have any reason to doubt that consciousness — whatever that is — is perfectly reducible to brain states), but the fact that many people, including the author of this essay, have a strong gut feeling that experience, selfhood, and will cannot be reduced to material properties of the world. People may be motivated to publicly signal their dualism to enjoy the reputational advantages of appearing dualistic, but why do they also behave as if they hold these beliefs in private? One possible explanation is that, with time, intuitive dualism did become genetically determined. Once individuals in a group prefer dualists as their romantic partners, being a dualist is adaptive not only for the group, but also for single individuals: it simply makes them more sexually attractive. This way, evolution encoded dualism in our brains in two steps: first we became biased against expressions of physicalism, preferring to mate with dualist individuals. This created evolutionary pressure to hold dualistic beliefs, driving the hard coding of these beliefs into our brains. This two-step mechanism ensured that physicalist mutants found it more difficult to spread their genes, protecting dualism from the risk of within-group extinction. But this explanation requires that intricate, abstract knowledge can become innately specified within a very short time on evolutionary time scales. This would be unusual: the closest example would be innate knowledge about psychology (what psychologists sometimes call a “Theory of Mind”: the understanding that behaviour of other agents is a function of their beliefs and desires), but this innate knowledge is likely shared with other species like crows and apes, making it likely that it had a much longer time to develop in evolution. An alternative explanation, which I developed together with Lucius Caviola, does not assume such genetic hard-coding. In this story, none of us is born a dualist. Instead, our theory of intuitive dualism relies on the principle that the best way to convince others that you hold a belief is to first convince yourself that you hold it. If we want to behave as if we believe that the mind is more than the brain, it may be easiest to convince ourselves that this is indeed our belief. This is sometimes referred to by social and evolutionary psychologists as strategic self-deception. This is a pretty radical proposal, so let me repeat it. According to this account, our innermost private intuitions about the immateriality of consciousness are lies we tell ourselves in order to appear to others as if we genuinely hold these intuitions, so that we are perceived as warmer, more pro-social, and more trustworthy by our peers and potential sexual partners. STRATEGIC SELF-DECEPTION Tricking ourselves into believing that we have dualistic intuitions may seem strange, if not self-contradictory. How can a person deceive themself? As the one doing the deception, wouldn’t they immediately know they are being deceived? Indeed, self-deception only makes sense when we conceive of the mind as a collection of modules, each specialised to perform a particular task. In this modular view of the mind, there is no single ‘I’. Instead, multiple modules work in parallel, processing sensory information, making plans, controlling bodily movements, and monitoring internal states. Modules may share information between them, but they don’t have to, and they often don’t. It is tempting to think of the little voice in our head as the chief commander of this operation, but in this modular view of the mind what we intuitively identify as our inner self, and Descartes identified as his immaterial res cogitans, plays the much less glamorous role of narrating our actions after the fact, similar to the job of a press secretary of an organisation. This “press secretary module” is usually not part of the decision-making process itself, and yet it has the crucial job of explaining these decisions to the outside world in a way that makes us appear best. When things go right, the press secretary module doesn’t need to lie or conceal the truth: the other modules keep it selectively ignorant of the hidden motives behind our actions. As the White House press secretary in the TV series “The West Wing” puts it: “I do my best work when I’m the least informed person in the room”. In their book “The Elephant in the Brain: Hidden Motives in Everyday Life”, Kevin Simler and Robin Hanson present some striking examples of such strategic self-deception. One of my favourite ones is that people believe they laugh when something is funny, but human behaviour aligns much more closely with laughter serving a social signalling function. We use laughter to signal our adherence to social hierarchy (think about the boss or the lecturer whose dumb jokes everyone laughs at) and our commitment to social alliances (think about the relief that comes with laughing together after a tense conversation). Critically, being aware of our motivations for laughing would make us appear fake and disingenuous, undermining the quality of the signal. According to Simler and Hanson, laughter works as a social signal exactly because the press secretary is kept strategically ignorant of the Machiavellian motivations behind it, and because it is so hard to fake deliberately. Other examples include our ignorance of the true motivations behind our charitable giving, political ideology, and religious faith. The cultural story is therefore that, like many other aspects of our mental lives, the press secretary module is kept strategically ignorant of the actual reasons for our public expressions of intuitive dualism. While we believe that we express these views because they seem self-evident, in truth we express them because modules that are responsible for navigating the social world understand that signalling dualism would make us appear warmer, more pro-social, and more trustworthy to others. In short, intuitive dualism emerges from the dual action of two forces: a strong social pressure to publicly signal intuitive dualism due to its role as a basis for ethics, and the fact that we sometimes hold beliefs in order to convincingly signal that we hold them. Holding these beliefs may in turn make us more caring, pro-social, and morally responsible.1 If this is the case, we may be looking at a virtuous cycle: individuals hold dualistic beliefs because expressing such beliefs makes them appear more pro-social, those beliefs then promote genuinely pro-social behaviour, which reinforces the reliability of dualism as a signal, further motivating people to adopt and display dualistic beliefs. TAKING STOCK If this story has some merit, even if only as a part of a larger one, systematic misconceptions about the nature of our mental lives may scaffold human moral cognition. This has important implications for how we think about consciousness, ethics, and the relationship between the two. Let me name two. First, debates about the consciousness of non-human entities are turned on their head when viewed through this lens. Take, for example, current debates about the level of consciousness in artificial intelligence. From the point of view of an alien visiting Earth, the debate may seem entirely pointless: humans — earthly entities who have somehow convinced themselves that they are more than their physical bodies — are now debating whether certain computer programmes produce something that is similar to their own immaterial, spirit-like essence. But the debate starts to make sense once we understand that the function of a belief in the immaterial nature of experience was all along to demarcate a line between those who are capable of having it and those who are not. Crucially, it is not that we demarcate the line based on our beliefs about consciousness (even if this is what our press secretary module tells us we do). Instead, we attribute consciousness to those beings who we want to include within the moral circle. Attributing consciousness to humans but not to ducks allowed Descartes to eat his Canard à l’orange without sensing guilt in seventeenth century France. Similarly, attributing consciousness to living beings but not to artificial intelligence is comfortable for us today. If the proposal that I have put forward here is correct, then instead of debating the level of consciousness of non-human entities we should directly ask whether we want to treat them as moral patients based on observable properties, and without reference to consciousness or experience. This would be in line with positions advocated by Marian Dawkins and Peter Carruthers on animal welfare, and by John Danaher and David Papineau on AI ethics. More broadly, this position has implications for the way we think about the scientific study of consciousness. If systematically distorted intuitions about the mind are essential for sustaining a shared moral code, then consciousness science becomes a dangerous enterprise: as soon as scientists uncover the physical underpinnings of conscious experience, the moral landscape may dramatically deform, if not collapse entirely (as suggested in Galen Strawson’s critique of Daniel Dennett that we saw before). Fortunately, consciousness scientists are themselves subject to the same hidden motives to keep consciousness mysterious and intractable. A good case in point is nausea: once considered a hallmark of the ineffable, subjective nature of human experience. The discovery that nausea is caused by specific cells in the area postrema of the medulla did not dissolve the mystery of its phenomenal character, but only redefined the mystery as surrounding that which is left unexplained. In this more benign vision of consciousness science, it is not morally explosive, but futile. Once we understand consciousness, by any standard, consciousness, or at least those aspects of consciousness that are deemed morally relevant, will be redefined to refer to whatever remains unexplained. The moral scaffolding theory I present here is not mutually exclusive with Becker’s death-denial account, Bloom’s intuitive psychology versus physics account, or Graziano’s attention schema account; it is highly likely that all are needed to explain people’s intuitions about the immaterial nature of consciousness. But whatever the relative contribution of each component is, two original aspects of the moral scaffolding theory will inevitably play a significant role in any complete account of intuitive dualism: moral cognition and social signalling. I have tried to present the account in its purest, most radical form, because that is a useful way to start a discussion, identify weaknesses, and detect testable hypotheses. Some of these unique hypotheses are currently being tested by Lucius Caviola and myself. I hope that, at least from the alien’s point of view, this was a satisfactory account. To the extent that I was successful, this essay offers an answer to the problem of consciousness as it is seen from the outside, or to Chalmers’ meta-problem of consciousness. Some readers may even feel this goes some way toward addressing the hard problem of consciousness itself, not by solving it, but by demystifying it. Maybe the problem of explaining consciousness in physical terms seems so hard because we need it to be hard — for ethics to work, and, more egoistically, for us to appear pro-social to others. There are moments in which I feel satisfied by this account. Just as I have learned to mistrust my intuitions about the motivations for my actions and the origins of my beliefs in other domains of life, I can learn to be skeptical of my intuitions about my own subjectivity. But these moments are brief and far between. For most of the time, I have the intuition — no, the belief — no, the knowledge, that there is nothing about the physical state of the universe that explains why this physical body is conscious, or, equivalently, why the consciousness that is me is attached to this particular physical body. Any attempt to explain the basic fact of my subjectivity in terms of biological or social mechanisms seems like an amusing academic mind-play, a curious thought experiment without any real bearing on the mystery. Why is there an “I” at all, and why is this “I” me? Reading the above paragraph, the alien may think the author only included it to signal his pro-sociality and warmth. And the alien may be right. I wish I knew. FURTHER READING For readers interested in the mysteries of first-person perspective and personhood, I recommend The View from Nowhere by Thomas Nagel and Reasons and Persons by Derek Parfit. For an accessible discussion of modularity and strategic self-deception, see The Elephant in the Brain by Kevin Simler and Robin Hanson, and Why Everyone (Else) Is a Hypocrite by Robert Kurzban, which also popularises the idea of a “press secretary module” (and from which I got the West Wing quote). For more fun illustrations of modern-day expressions of intuitive dualism, including in Star Wars and Harry Potter, see Graziano, M. S., Guterstam, A., Bio, B. J., & Wilterson, A. I. (2020). Cognitive Neuropsychology. The excerpt from Descartes’ letter to Henry More is cited in Samuel Kaldas’ article “Descartes versus Cudworth on the Moral Worth of Animals” (Philosophy Now). The quote from Galen Strawson appears in François Kammerer’s paper “The Normative Challenge for Illusionist Views of Consciousness” (2020, Ergo). I am grateful to Damian Maher for pointing out that French and Latin use the same word for consciousness and conscience; more on this can be found in Larry M. Jorgensen’s entry “Seventeenth-Century Theories of Consciousness” in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Celia Heyes, Roni Maimon, and Niccolo Negro provided useful feedback on an earlier version of this essay. Finally, I thank Lucius Caviola for many conversations that inspired this essay.

---

## Motivating a Hindu approach to conscious mentality
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/essay/motivating-a-hindu-approach-to-conscious-mentality

On the traditional picture of the mind bequeathed to us by Descartes, consciousness is the mark of the mental. A subject cannot have a mental state and not be conscious of being in that mental state (Radner, 1988). And although this traditional picture has been largely discredited for various reasons, its legacy still lives on in the contemporary debate on conscious mentality, in the question of what it is that makes a mental state conscious. In particular, according to the same-orderapproach to conscious mentality advocated by philosophers like Kriegel (2009), Gennaro (2012), Zahavi (2014), Levine (2016) and Strawson (2017), a mental state’s being conscious is an intrinsic or non-relational property of that mental state; nothing extrinsic to the mental state is needed to render it conscious. But this intuitive picture has been challenged in recent times, especially since the rise of modern psychology as a disciplined study of the mind. It is now commonplace to regard even paradigmatically conscious mental states as being potentially nonconscious, such as thoughts, sensations and emotions. This suggests an alternative higher-order approach to conscious mentality, advocated by philosophers like Armstrong (1968), Lycan (1996), Rosenthal (2005) and Carruthers (2005), according to which consciousness is an extrinsic or relational property of mental states, since the states can occur without being conscious. On this view, a mental state’s being conscious is a matter of its being contingently and appropriately related to another mental state. Although the higher-order view of conscious mentality seems to align better with recent empirical findings, it faces a range of problems. The most serious problem is in explaining how mental states become conscious at all. For if mental states by themselves aren’t conscious, then it’s hard to see how other nonconscious mental states can make them so. In this paper I attempt to chart a middle path between these two extremes in an effort to avoid their pitfalls while nevertheless securing their benefits. In doing so, I draw on an alternative and influential metaphysical framework from the Hindu philosophical tradition, one which sharply distinguishes between mind and consciousness (Schweizer, 1993). I call this the Hindu view of conscious mentality. Unlike the same-order view, the Hindu view doesn’t mistake consciousness for a property of mental states, and unlike the higher-order view, it doesn’t reduce consciousness to a combination of nonconscious mental states. Instead, it treats consciousness and mentality as two distinct and irreducible components of conscious mentality. The paper will be structured as follows. First, in Section 1, I explain what I mean by conscious mentality, disambiguating it from similar notions in the vicinity. Next, in Section 2, I briefly survey contemporary approaches to conscious mentality, highlighting the main problems that they face along the way. Then, in Section 3, I sketch an alternative Hindu approach to conscious mentality and discuss its theoretical advantages in comparison to contemporary views. Later, in Section 4, I highlight some important challenges for the Hindu view and offer some tentative responses on its behalf. Section 5 concludes.

On the traditional picture of the mind bequeathed to us by Descartes, consciousness is the mark of the mental. A subject cannot have a mental state and not be conscious of being in that mental state (Radner, 1988). And although this traditional picture has been largely discredited for various reasons, its legacy still lives on in the contemporary debate on conscious mentality, in the question of what it is that makes a mental state conscious. In particular, according to the same-order approach to conscious mentality advocated by philosophers like Kriegel (2009), Gennaro (2012), Zahavi (2014), Levine (2016) and Strawson (2017), a mental state’s being conscious is an intrinsic or non-relational property of that mental state; nothing extrinsic to the mental state is needed to render it conscious. But this intuitive picture has been challenged in recent times, especially since the rise of modern psychology as a disciplined study of the mind. It is now commonplace to regard even paradigmatically conscious mental states as being potentially nonconscious, such as thoughts, sensations and emotions. This suggests an alternative higher-order approach to conscious mentality, advocated by philosophers like Armstrong (1968), Lycan (1996), Rosenthal (2005) and Carruthers (2005), according to which consciousness is an extrinsic or relational property of mental states, since the states can occur without being conscious. On this view, a mental state’s being conscious is a matter of its being contingently and appropriately related to another mental state. Although the higher-order view of conscious mentality seems to align better with recent empirical findings, it faces a range of problems. The most serious problem is in explaining how mental states become conscious at all. For if mental states by themselves aren’t conscious, then it’s hard to see how other nonconscious mental states can make them so. In this paper I attempt to chart a middle path between these two extremes in an effort to avoid their pitfalls while nevertheless securing their benefits. In doing so, I draw on an alternative and influential metaphysical framework from the Hindu philosophical tradition, one which sharply distinguishes between mind and consciousness (Schweizer, 1993). I call this the Hindu view of conscious mentality. Unlike the same-order view, the Hindu view doesn’t mistake consciousness for a property of mental states, and unlike the higher-order view, it doesn’t reduce consciousness to a combination of nonconscious mental states. Instead, it treats consciousness and mentality as two distinct and irreducible components of conscious mentality. The paper will be structured as follows. First, in Section 1, I explain what I mean by conscious mentality, disambiguating it from similar notions in the vicinity. Next, in Section 2, I briefly survey contemporary approaches to conscious mentality, highlighting the main problems that they face along the way. Then, in Section 3, I sketch an alternative Hindu approach to conscious mentality and discuss its theoretical advantages in comparison to contemporary views. Later, in Section 4, I highlight some important challenges for the Hindu view and offer some tentative responses on its behalf. Section 5 concludes. Conscious mentality There is considerable debate today about what constitutes conscious mentality, and I will shortly be surveying competing responses to this question. But before we turn to that, let me first clarify what I mean by conscious mentality (CM): CM: Conscious mentality occurs when there is something it is like for a subject to have a given mental state. There are several things to note about this characterisation. First, conscious mentality involves mental states, which we can think of as representational states, in that they are of or about something. This is what distinguishes mental states from other states of a subject that are not of or about anything, such as the state of being asleep or diseased. A paradigm example of a mental state is a thought, say your thought “I had fruit for breakfast this morning”. This thought is of or about what you had for breakfast this morning, whereas your being asleep or diseased isn’t of or about anything at all. So conscious mentality involves representational states that exhibit certain semantic properties like content, reference, truth conditions etc. A word of caution here. The fact that conscious mentality involves representational states is compatible with but doesn’t entail representationalism about conscious mentality. Representationalism is the view that all there is to conscious mentality is mental representation, as opposed to the view that there are at least some aspects of conscious mentality that cannot be reduced to mental representation, such as the property of what it is like to have a given mental state. This is important because mental representation is normally taken to be amenable to naturalistic explanation, and so representationalism promises to deliver a naturalistic account of conscious mentality. Nevertheless, CM as characterised above is neutral on this issue, since what it is like to have a given mental state may or may not admit of a representationalist treatment. As we shall see in the next section, this will be a key point of divergence for different contemporary approaches to conscious mentality. This brings us to the next point to note about CM: conscious mentality only occurs when there is something it is like for a subject to have a given mental state, and not otherwise. Crucially, this leaves open the possibility of a subject having a nonconscious mental state for which there is nothing it is like for its subject to have it. That is, CM does not say that mental states are necessarily conscious; rather it says that a conscious mental state is one for which there is something it is like to have it. It makes no claims about whether some or even all mental states can occur without being like anything at all for their subjects. But we need to tread carefully here, since the expression ‘what it is like’ is liable to conflate distinct features of conscious mentality. For example, what it is like to have a given mental state is often glossed in terms of qualitative character, of what an experience is like. Consider Chalmers: “[A] mental state is conscious if there is something it is like to be in that mental state. To put it another way, we can say that a mental state is conscious if it has a qualitative feel – an associated quality of experience.” [Chalmers,1996, p. 4] Here Chalmers characterises what it is like to have a conscious mental state in terms of its qualitative character, the distinctive way that it feels. What it is like to have pain for example is different to what it is like to see red, and we can say that these two mental states are distinguished by their qualitative content. But what it’s like to have a given mental state consists not just in what the state is like, but also in an awareness of what it is like. Because mental states can have qualitative content without their being like anything at all for their subjects. Consider for example the case of subliminal perception, where we perceive qualitative features of the external environment without being aware of it. Similarly, subjects with blindsight report no awareness of objects in the blind region of their visual field, even though forced choice experiments indicate that perceptual information about those objects is in fact cognised by those subjects (Bornstein & Pittman (1992)). There’s no question that in such cases we token mental states with qualitative content, since our behaviour may be responsive to that content. Nevertheless, we are unaware of that content, and so we regard such mental states as nonconscious. By contrast, conscious perception occurs when we are aware of the qualities that our perceptual mental states represent. The same can be said for non-perceptual mental states as well. For example, it is now commonplace to regard at least some thoughts, emotions and sensations as being nonconscious. For example, psychologists help us to uncover and confront ‘subconscious’ thoughts and emotions that adversely affect us, and we regularly have sensations without being aware of them. Consider the example of an intermittent headache given by Rosenthal (2005). When you are aware of the pain, we regard the pain as conscious. But you might be temporarily distracted from the pain, perhaps because you are focusing on a difficult philosophy paper, during which time we do not regard your pain as being conscious. But then you suddenly become aware of it again, and it once again becomes conscious. It is natural to suppose that the same mental state of pain persisted throughout, it was just your awareness of it that came and went. So conscious mentality occurs when there is something it is like for a subject to have a given mental state, but what it’s like to have a given mental state requires more than just a state with qualitative content, it also requires awareness of that content. Considering this, conscious mentality is sometimes described as having a first-person phenomenology, as occurring from a particular subjective point of view. But the reference here to ‘first-person’ shouldn’t be construed as necessitating the use of the first-person pronoun ‘I’ or its mental analogue. That is, it should be understood in a minimal sense only, to be distinguished from the more robust sense of self-awareness that we are familiar with when we introspect our own mental states. One does not need to recognise oneself as the subject of a given mental state or even have a concept of oneself as a subject of mental states, in order to have a conscious mental state. In this regard, Zahavi and Kriegel’s (2016) characterisation of ‘for-me-ness’ captures what I have in mind – conscious mentality is phenomenally given for its subject, irrespective of whether the subject conceptualises itself as such. Indeed, the latest research in developmental psychology indicates that although newborn babies lack the ability to entertain a self-concept, they do nevertheless possess a kind of ‘minimal self-awareness’ that grounds their conscious experiences (Rochat, 2011). A final point to note about CM. In having a conscious mental state, one is conscious of what that state represents, but CM is silent about whether one is thereby conscious of the mental state itself. This is an especially contentious issue. On some views like Rosenthal’s (2005), a conscious mental state is one that you are conscious of, whereas on other views like Dretske’s (1995,1997), a conscious mental state is one that you are conscious through, and not of. This difference will also play a role in some of our discussions to follow in the next section. Contemporary approaches to conscious mentality In the previous section I explained what I mean by conscious mentality – this occurs when there is something it is like for a subject to have a given mental state. When this happens, we regard that mental state as conscious. Now I want to consider what it is that makes a mental state conscious. Two competing approaches can be discerned in the contemporary debate: a higher-order approach and a same-order approach. In this section I describe these approaches and highlight some of the problems that they face in accounting for conscious mentality. In the next section I introduce an altogether different approach drawn from the Hindu philosophical tradition and consider whether it can overcome or avoid these problems. I should flag that my purpose here is not to provide a comprehensive and detailed survey of the contemporary accounts on offer, but rather to sketch the main approaches while highlighting their main problems, and in this way motivate consideration of an alternative approach. The higher-order approach to conscious mentality The guiding principle behind the higher-order approach to conscious mentality is neatly encapsulated by Rosenthal as follows: “[A] mental state is conscious only if one is, in some suitable way, conscious of that state. This is evident because we do not regard as conscious any mental state of which one is in no way whatever conscious.” [Rosenthal, 2000, p. 231] The idea here is that you can’t be in a conscious mental state if you aren’t aware of being in that mental state. Note that I am here using the transitive expressions conscious of and aware of synonymously, although some may prefer to treat awareness as a determinable that can be either conscious or nonconscious. I will ignore that terminological nuance for present purposes. The idea is intuitive enough. If you aren’t aware of pain, then plainly your pain isn’t conscious. This is consistent with CM as characterised above, which requires that there be something it is like for one to have a conscious mental state. If you aren’t aware of a given mental state, then there is nothing it is like for you to be in that mental state, and so we would rightly hesitate to classify that mental state as conscious. Instead, it would be more like the case of subliminal perception we noted earlier, where you were mentally representing features of the environment without being aware of it. Such mental states are best regarded as nonconscious. Building on this intuition, higher-order theorists propose that we have a conscious mental state when we have another mental state that makes us aware of it. We may therefore characterise the basic higher-order (HO) approach to conscious mentality as follows: HO: Conscious mentality occurs when we become aware of a given mental state by means of a distinct and suitable higher-order mental state that represents it. Of course, what counts as a suitable higher-order mental state will vary from one higher-order account to another. For example, on Rosenthal’s (2005) view, a suitable higher-order mental state will be a thought to the effect that one is in the target mental state, whereas on Lycan’s (1996) view, a suitable higher-order mental state will be some kind of inner perception of the target mental state, rather than a thought about it. It is not my purpose here to arbitrate amongst the competing higher-order views; the important point is that, on the higher-order approach, a mental state is conscious in virtue of its relation to another mental state, however we construe that other mental state. The reason this is important is because it means that mental states are only contingently conscious, since their being conscious consists in their bearing an extrinsic relation to a distinct and separate mental state that may or may not occur. This view is motivated by the growing conviction that many mental states can and often do occur without being conscious. Recall again the example of subliminal perception, which affects our behaviour even without our being aware of it. Or think of the work that psychologists do, helping us to uncover and confront ‘subconscious’ thoughts and emotions that we didn’t even know we had but which nevertheless affect us. According to the higher-order approach to conscious mentality, the reason these mental states aren’t conscious is that we lack the requisite higher-order mental states that would make us aware of them. Now there are several problems that arise for this higher-order approach to conscious mentality, such as accounting for what happens in the case of ‘targetless’ higher-order states (Byrne, 1997), or the problem of making sense of the possibility of nonconscious qualitative states (Levine, 2001). However, here I want to highlight a more fundamental problem for the view, that of explaining how mental states can become conscious at all. Remember that according to the higher-order approach to conscious mentality, mental states by themselves are not inherently conscious; they only become conscious when they are accompanied by suitable higher-order mental states that make us aware of them. But notice that the higher-order mental state, being itself a mental state, is subject to the same strictures – it too is not inherently conscious. But then it is in no better position to make us aware of what it represents. In short, it’s hard to understand how one nonconscious mental state could make another nonconscious mental state conscious. On the contrary, the following principle would seem to make more sense: no combination of nonconscious mental states necessitates the occurrence of a conscious mental state. It seems then that we first need the higher-order state to be conscious, for otherwise it would fail to make us aware of the target mental state. But on the higher-order view, the higher-order mental state cannot be conscious unless it is accompanied by a yet higher-order mental state that makes us aware of it. And now we are faced with a vicious regress of mental states, with no opportunity for consciousness to enter the picture. In short, by treating consciousness as an extrinsic property of mental states, higher-order theories fail to explain how mental states become conscious at all. Of course, higher-order theorists have attempted to address this problem, but in my view, these attempts ultimately fail. Unfortunately, I do not have the space to delve into this debate here, but the interested reader may refer to my forthcoming work on higher-order theories where I explore the topic in more detail. Suffice to say, this regress problem is one of the main motivations for the alternative same-order approach to conscious mentality, to which we turn next. The same-order approach to conscious mentality As we saw above, a fundamental problem for the higher-order approach is the infinite regress it gets forced into when trying to account for what makes a mental state conscious, since it treats consciousness as an extrinsic property of mental states. The same-order approach seeks to avoid this problem by treating consciousness as an intrinsic property of mental states. In this way, the target mental state is sufficient in itself to make its subject aware of what it represents. This contrasts with the higher-order view on which the mental state needs to be supplemented by a separate mental state in order to make its subject aware of what it represents. We may therefore characterise the same-order (SO) approach to conscious mentality as follows: SO: Conscious mentality occurs when there is something it is like for a subject to have a given mental state and this is accounted for by means of properties intrinsic to that state. How this basic principle gets implemented varies from one same-order account to another, however we can discern two broad camps which we may call reductive and non-reductive. For both camps, only a single state is needed to deliver conscious mentality, however they differ with respect to the way in which they treat the awareness element of conscious mentality. On the reductive approach, awareness is decomposed into two more basic constituent relations, one directed at the object of the mental state and the other directed at the mental state itself, neither of which is sufficient for awareness on its own. Whereas on the non-reductive approach, awareness is treated as a sui generis and primitive feature of mental states, non-reducible to any more basic constituent relations. As an example of the reductive approach, consider Gennaro’s (2018) ‘wide intrinsicality view’, which he contrasts with the typical higher-order view: “[W]hen one has a first-order conscious state, the (unconscious) [higher-order thought] is better viewed as intrinsic to the target state, so that we have a complex conscious state with parts (Gennaro 1996, 2006, 2012). I call this the “wide intrinsicality view” (WIV)... On the WIV, first-order conscious states are complex states with a world-directed part and a meta-psychological component. Conscious mental states can be understood as brain states, which are combinations of passively received perceptual input and presupposed higher-order conceptual activity directed at that input.” [Gennaro, 2018, p. 116] There are many interesting features of Gennaro’s account, but for our purposes the key point is that Gennaro disaggregates a conscious mental state into two distinct components, a world-directed component and a self-directed component. That is, he decomposes awareness into two more basic constituent relations, much like was done for the higher-order approach considered above. However, since these two components still constitute a single (albeit complex) mental state, Gennaro’s position still falls within the general confines of the same-order view. The trouble with this approach though is that even if we grant for the sake of argument that both constituents form part of a single but complex mental state, that still won’t save the view from the regress problem. Because we are still decomposing awareness into two more basic constituent relations, neither of which is sufficient for awareness on its own. Instead of piling one nonconscious state on top of another, we are now piling one nonconscious part of a state on top of another. But no combination of nonconscious constituents necessitates the occurrence of a conscious state; it doesn’t matter whether they belong to one mental state or two. This has led some philosophers to abandon the reductive strategy altogether. Consider by contrast Levine’s (2016) ‘quasi-Satrean theory’ of conscious mentality, a non-reductive version of the same-order approach, and one that stands opposed to both the higher-order approach and to reductive versions of the same-order approach: “To my mind, when I have a visual experience of an object—say, the ripe tomato—it is that very awareness of the tomato that is the instance of consciousness at issue here, and this includes the feature of subjectivity. That is, I want to say that the awareness of the tomato is a form of conscious awareness (at least in part) by virtue of the fact that it—that very awareness of the tomato, not some other awareness stuck on top of it—is a subjective taking of a point of view on the tomato, which, to me, is another way of saying that my awareness of the tomato is for me.” [Levine, 2016, p. 353, emphasis in original] Here Levine treats awareness as a primitive feature of conscious mental states, not as something decomposable into more basic constituent relations, whether belonging to one state or two. That is, Levine treats awareness as an intrinsic and sui generis property of conscious mental states, and so his account falls squarely within the confines of the same-order view, but in its non-reductive camp. But even this purer version of the same-order view faces problems. Perhaps the most serious problem is in accounting for the difference between conscious and nonconscious mental states. According to the non-reductive approach, consciousness is an intrinsic property of the mental states that have it, but as we saw in Section 1 above, the same mental state can be either conscious or nonconscious, and this is more difficult to explain if consciousness is as an intrinsic and sui generis property of mental states. So while the reductive approach to conscious mentality struggles to account for why a given mental state becomes conscious, the non-reductive approach struggles to account for why a given mental state becomes nonconscious. Before moving on, let me quickly address another popular view that bears a close resemblance to the same-order approach but which is nevertheless fundamentally different in the way it treats the awareness that characterises conscious mentality. This is the view typically known as the first-order representationalist view, advocated by philosophers like Dretske (1995) and Tye (1995). This view also adopts a single-state approach to conscious mentality and so is also opposed to the higher-order view, but unlike the same-order views considered above, it takes a distinctively functional approach to awareness. That is, it treats awareness as a matter of the functional role played by a mental state in the wider cognitive economy of an organism. For example, on Tye’s ‘PANIC theory’ of conscious mentality, “phenomenal character is one and the same as Poised, Abstract, Nonconceptual, Intentional Content” (1995, p. 137). But the way that Tye attempts to account for the awareness element of conscious mentality is very different to the way in which the same-order and higher-order views attempt to do so. The relevant feature in Tye’s account in this regard is the ‘Poised’ feature. As Tye explains it, a mental state is poised if it “stand[s] ready and available to make a direct impact on beliefs and/or desires” (1995, p. 138). For Tye then, awareness consists in a mental state’s availability to the wider cognitive economy of the organism for contributing toward higher-order processes like reasoning and behaviour. In short, awareness is a matter of a state’s accessibility or function, not a meta-psychological component accompanying the mental state or a special quality inhering in the mental state itself. But I agree with Kriegel (2009) and Levine (2016) when they point out that this kind of approach is insufficient to account for awareness, since such functions could occur in the absence of awareness. This concludes my brief survey of the current state of play in the contemporary debate on conscious mentality. Of course, there is much more that can be said for and against the various approaches that I only briefly touched on here, but the basic message should be clear – none of the views currently on offer in the contemporary debate provides a satisfactory account of conscious mentality. This motivates consideration of a different approach. Accordingly, in the next section I describe an entirely different approach to conscious mentality drawn from the Hindu philosophical tradition and consider how it compares against contemporary accounts. A Hindu approach to conscious mentality In this section I explore an alternative approach to conscious mentality drawn from the Hindu philosophical tradition. But it should be noted at the outset that the Hindu philosophical tradition is not a single or unified system of thought; rather, it is made up of six diverse and competing schools with roots grounded in ancient Vedic texts of uncertain origin, specifically the schools known as Nyāya, Vaiśeṣika, Sāṃkhya, Yoga, Mīmāṁsā and Vedānta. All of these schools have systematic and complex ontologies and epistemologies propounded in sophisticated treatises which have been elaborated on and debated for centuries, mostly conducted in the refined language of Sanskrit. I do not have the expertise to interpret and analyse the philosophical writings of any particular Hindu school or philosopher, so I will instead rely on secondary literature from experts in the field. Furthermore, I do not claim to represent any particular Hindu school or philosopher; rather, I seek to elucidate and utilise key ideas from an influential account of conscious mentality most often associated with the Sāṃkhya school but which has gained widespread currency across the Hindu philosophical spectrum. As Dreyfus and Thompson (2020) note in relation to Indian theories of mind: “One of the most important views of the mind in the Hindu tradition is found in the Sāṃkhya school… The Sāṃkhya was in fact less a school proper than a way of thinking based on the categorization of reality. It was crucial in the formation of Indian philosophical thinking before and after the start of the Common Era, and hence it is unsurprising that its view of the mind has been largely adopted in the Hindu tradition and beyond… the Sāṃkhya view can be taken as representative of the Hindu view of the mind, especially in its emphasis on the difference between a passive witnessing consciousness and mental activity.” [Dreyfus and Thompson, 2020, pp. 89-90] What interests me about this view is the way it separates mind and consciousness, treating them as belonging to distinct ontological categories. This is in marked contrast to what we find in contemporary Western views on which mind and consciousness are treated as belonging to the same ontological category, whether that be physical or non-physical. I want to try to understand and exploit this distinction in what follows, without taking on board the wider commitments of the school, such as its cosmogonical account of material reality or its impersonal conception of the nature of the self. I will first draw on selected writings from contemporary philosophers to elucidate the distinction and then consider how it handles the problems highlighted earlier for contemporary accounts. The Sāṃkhya account of the mind Let me begin by outlining the basic contours of the Sāṃkhya theory of mind. Here I rely primarily on Paul Schwiezer’s (1993, 2019) illuminating exposition of the view, with occasional input from other scholars in the field. The first thing to note is that, according to Sāṃkhya, mind is treated as being part of the physical world. As Schweizer explains: “According to the Sāṃkhya-Yoga view, the ultimate principle underlying matter is prakṛti, the metaphysical substrate supporting all material phenomena. The mind is deemed to be part of the material world, and hence to be metaphysically grounded in prakṛti. The body is also part of the realm of prakṛti, and thus mind and body are held to be of the same metaphysical substance. In its most general connotation, the term 'mind' in western philosophy corresponds to the combination or complex of three faculties recognized in the Sāṃkhya-Yoga taxonomy, namely manas, buddhi, and ahamkāra…” [Schweizer, 2019, pp. 234-235] Here Schweizer introduces the notion of prakṛti, the metaphysical ground of material reality, but for present purposes we don’t need to investigate how this relates to current theories about the fundamental constituents of the natural world; what matters for our purposes is that mind is part of that natural world, inasmuch as the body is part of the natural world. It’s worth highlighting though that, although mind and body are both material on this account, mind and body are not identical. So Sāṃkhya is opposed to the identity theory of mind, although as experts like Schweizer (2019) and Perrett (2001) have pointed out, the view is in principle compatible with a computational or functional account of the mind. Here Schweizer also introduces Sāṃkhya’s influential analysis of the mental faculties, known as manas, buddhi and ahaṁkāra, which comprise the antaḥkaraṇa (internal organ). For our purposes it won’t be necessary to delve too deeply into this analysis, since what matters for us is the combined function that they perform. Schweizer describes the function of the mind as follows: “On the Sāṃkhya-Yoga view, the mind is impacted by various forms of external stimuli, which give rise to internal structures that mirror various key aspects of the external world. These internal structures are instantiated as modifications of the material manas, which in turn represent salient aspects of the environment... So, on this model, the representational content of thought is carried in the unconscious physical configurations of the mind…” [Schweizer, 2019, p. 237] So on the Sāṃkhya account, mind is conceived of as a representational mechanism; our mental states represent the external environment or states of affairs, and those representations are constituted by the configurations of the material mind. So far this is broadly consistent with the approaches surveyed in the previous section, which also treat mental states as representational. But that is as far as the similarity goes, for Sāṃkhya takes a radically different approach to contemporary Western views when it comes to accounting for what it is that makes a mental state conscious, by treating consciousness as being ontologically distinct from mental states. In this regard, Schweizer notes that: “[O]n the Sāṃkhya-Yoga account, the realm of prakṛti or matter is held to be inherently unconscious, and is thereby incapable of producing consciousness as an effect. The manifestations of prakṛti are always objects, and it is argued that objects can never transform themselves into subjects. Thus at the heart of this dualistic position is the notion that mind-material is not capable of generating consciousness out of unconscious ingredients. Subjective awareness is seen as a distinct ontological category, and in principle it cannot be derived from the stuff of which objects are made.” [Schweizer, 2019, p. 235] So here we encounter a kind of dualism that is entirely unfamiliar in Western philosophy. In Western dualism, the mind or its properties are treated as being non-physical, but here the mind and its properties are treated as being physical. It is consciousness only that is being treated as non-physical, and so consciousness is here being ontologically separated from the mind. This is very different to what we find in the Western paradigm, on which consciousness and mind are seen as belonging to the same ontological category, whether physical or non-physical. Here we find a categorical distinction between the two; consciousness and mind are ascribed to different sides of the ontological divide. So although Sāṃkhya agrees in principle with contemporary views on which the mind and its activities are treated as part of the physical world, it nevertheless insists that our awareness of those states is not physical. As Schweizer observes in the case of perception: “It is the conscious, subjective aspect of visual perception which serves to motivate the introduction of a distinct metaphysical category, not the causally induced representational structure of perception, since it is theoretically feasible that the latter can be explained in terms of unconscious mechanisms, of generally the same sort that would be applied in the case of robotic 'vision.' The deep philosophical problem in the case of human perception lies not in the explication of structure, but rather in the fact that this bio-mechanically induced structure is imbued with conscious awareness.” [Schweizer, 1993, p. 852] Perret makes the same point for mental activity more generally: “The Sāṃkhya-Yoga dualism, then, is perhaps less of a mind-body dualism than a consciousness-mind dualism. In Sāṃkhya-Yoga the representational mental states typically associated with the mind in Western philosophy are all states of the more refined evolutes of matter (prakṛti)… What Sāṃkhya-Yoga will resist, however, is the suggestion that such representational states are sufficient for consciousness. Consciousness is instead essentially associated with the non-representational pure awareness of the puruṣa. The intentional mental states associated with the material antaḥkaraṇa are unconscious (acetana) and not to be confused with the pure consciousness of the puruṣa.” [Perrett, 2001, pp. 11-12] The idea here then is that conscious mentality consists of a complex of cognitive functions, most of which can be accounted for by nonconscious physical processes. The only thing that cannot be accounted for in this way is the awareness that accompanies some of those cognitive functions. This view is based on the conviction that no combination of nonconscious physical processes suffices for conscious awareness. And so Sāṃkhya attributes consciousness to an independent metaphysical principle known as puruṣa, the contrasting metaphysical principle to prakṛti, which Perrett here describes as ‘non-representational pure awareness’. The terms ‘non-representational’ and ‘pure’ indicate that the kind of awareness at issue here is a non-intentional, contentless kind of awareness, a mere ‘presence’ or ‘illumination’ shorn of all representational content. This is no doubt a very strange and unintuitive conception of consciousness from a Western perspective. Burley (2007) attributes this discord to the fact that both the Continental and Analytic streams of Western philosophy have been heavily influenced by an intentional conception of consciousness, on which consciousness is conceived of in terms of being consciousness of something. And he points to contemporary debates in the area of mystical experience to try and elucidate the notion of a consciousness that doesn’t involve being conscious of anything at all, alluding for example to the ‘pure consciousness events’ investigated by Forman (1990). In the end he suggests that this non-intentional conception of consciousness may be only intelligible by means of first-hand experimentation of the proposed techniques and by diligent evaluation of the results. I agree – if there really is such a thing as ‘pure consciousness’, then it’s no surprise that it cannot be adequately analysed, since analysis requires content to analyse and that is unavailable in the present case. Here we may simply note that since the material mind already accounts for the representational content involved in conscious mentality, all that is missing from the picture is the ‘illumination’ that makes that content ‘present’ to and for a subject in experience, and so puruṣa is introduced to add this missing ingredient only. The question of course is how the pure consciousness of puruṣa combines with nonconscious representations in the mind to produce the phenomenon we have been calling conscious mentality. Schweizer explains the process as follows: “[O]n this model, the representational content of thought is carried in the unconscious physical configurations of the mind, and certain of these patterns or configurations become illuminated by an external and undifferentiated awareness, resulting in the phenomenon of particular conscious thoughts and subjective experiences.” [Schweizer, 1993, p. 850] And he gives the same story more recently as follows: “According to the Sāṃkhya-Yoga model, thought processes and mental events are conscious only to the extent that they receive external 'illumination' from puruṣa. Consciousness is standardly compared to a light, which illuminates the specific material configurations or 'shapes' assumed by the mind.” [Schweizer, 2019, p. 236] For Sāṃkhya then, conscious mentality is a composite phenomenon, constituted by mental representations infused with awareness, treated as two distinct but integrated components of conscious mentality. The mental component contributes the contents of thought, and the conscious component contributes the awareness that makes those thoughts conscious. And this awareness is conceived of as a kind of ‘illumination’, a ‘subjectivising’ of the contents of thought, rendering them as ‘phenomenally present’ to and for a subject. In this regard, Schweizer offers an analogy to illustrate how nonconscious mental representations become ‘illuminated’ by the light of consciousness: “The representational content of qualia is due to the respective material structures or patterns which comprise them, while conscious illumination is external, and ontologically independent of structure… Thus representational content is comparable to the geometrical patterns of a stained glass window, which exist independently of their illumination by the sun. The illuminated patterns are a composite, consisting both of structured glass, which is analogous to the thought-shapes assumed by [the mind], and of luminescence, which is the consciousness of puruṣa.” [Schweizer, 2019, p. 238] The main point here is that the mind is such that it is intrinsically nonconscious, but its representational contents can become illuminated by the external light of consciousness. This consciousness imbues those representational contents with awareness, rendering them phenomenally present to and for a subject. This accounts for the difference between the kind of mentality that is like nothing for its subject, as in blindsight or subliminal perception, and the kind of mentality that is like something for its subject, as in everyday conscious experience. So far, I have been outlining the basic contours of the Sāṃkhya account of conscious mentality, but as I noted at the outset, I do not want to take on board the wider commitments of the view. Because although this account is broadly representative of the Hindu view of the mind, there is substantial disagreement within the tradition about some of the broader details, especially about the subject who experiences these conscious mental states. On the Sāṃkhya account, the subject from whose perspective a conscious experience occurs is actually a part of the material mind, specifically the ahaṁkāra (ego) that we touched on earlier, and so is ontologically distinct from the pure consciousness of puruṣa. For them, consciousness is just the illumination that renders mental states phenomenally present for a subject, but it is distinct from the subject itself. Confusingly however, Sāṃkhya actually considers the ahaṁkāra to be a false self, and instead identifies the true self (ātman) with puruṣa, just pure consciousness itself, an impersonal light of awareness devoid of a first-person perspective. But this unfamiliar picture is by no means the only formulation of the view, and as noted above, it is in any case a highly unintuitive one from a Western perspective. By contrast, consider the more familiar picture offered by prominent Vedānta philosophers like Rāmānuja and Jīva, who also subscribe to the basic Sāṃkhya separation between mind and consciousness, and who also identify the true self (ātman) with puruṣa, but who instead conceive of puruṣa as a substantial egoic entity like a soul which has consciousness as its essential attribute, rather than being pure consciousness itself (Dasti and Bryant, 2014). For them, consciousness belongs to a subject and so is necessarily subjective, even if not necessarily intentional, and the subject of conscious mentality belongs to the non-material side of the ontological divide. On this picture, the ahaṁkāra is a false designation (upādhi) only associated with the material mind and body. Considering these disagreements, I will simply adopt the basic outlines of the Sāṃkhya theory of mind which have been broadly accepted by the other Hindu schools, according to which mind and consciousness belong to distinct ontological categories, with the mind responsible for mental representations and consciousness responsible for subjective awareness. Together, these constitute conscious mentality. At the risk of oversimplification, I will refer to this simply as the Hindu approach to conscious mentality, or the Hindu view of the mind. In what follows I consider how this view compares to the contemporary alternatives surveyed in Section 2. Comparing the Hindu approach to contemporary views In this section I will consider how the Hindu view compares to contemporary approaches to conscious mentality, and whether it can avoid the problems we encountered for them in Section 2. Considering that the Hindu view treats mental states as part of prakṛti and hence intrinsically nonconscious, it would seem to be aligned with the higher-order approach to conscious mentality. Recall that on that view, mental states are only conscious if they are accompanied by a distinct higher-order mental state directed at them, and not otherwise. And this was one of the main advantages of that view, since it neatly accommodated the possibility of nonconscious mental states, like subliminal perception, subconscious emotions and the like. If mental states are not intrinsically conscious, then it’s no surprise that we aren’t conscious of all our mental states. By treating consciousness as extrinsic to mental states, both the Hindu and higher-order views accord well with the growing evidence in this space. However, recall that this was also what led to the regress problem for the higher-order view – if mental states in themselves aren’t conscious, then it’s hard to see how other non-conscious mental states can make them so, triggering the need for higher and higher levels of mental states, with consciousness being forever deferred. If the Hindu view adopts the same kind of strategy, then perhaps it faces the same debilitating problem. But the Hindu view doesn’t quite adopt the same kind of strategy. Yes, it does treat mental states as intrinsically nonconscious, and yes it does account for consciousness by means of something extrinsic to the target mental state, but where the higher-order view then appeals to just more of the same, more nonconscious mental states, the Hindu view introduces consciousness as a distinct and fundamental element in its own right. That is, the Hindu view doesn’t try to reduce consciousness to a combination of nonconscious mental states; rather it treats consciousness as a sui generis and primitive element in its own right. And so the regress problem never gets off the ground in the first place. For the same reason, the Hindu view avoids the same problem for the reductive versions of the same-order view, since they also attempt to construct conscious mentality out of more basic nonconscious ingredients. The only difference is that they locate these ingredients within a single mental state. But as we have seen, the Hindu view is fundamentally opposed to this idea; it doesn’t really matter how you structure or combine nonconscious ingredients – the Hindu conviction is that you cannot generate awareness from nonconscious ingredients, period. You can’t get an ‘I’ from an ‘it’. But what about the non-reductive version of the same-order view, of the sort advocated by philosophers like Levine (2016) and Zahavi (2014)? Is the Hindu view in principle compatible with that approach? Recall that on that view, consciousness is also treated as something sui generis and primitive, non-reducible to anything more basic. And for the same reason – because there is no intelligible way to construct conscious mentality out of nonconscious ingredients. But there is a crucial difference between this view and the Hindu approach. Because on the non-reductive same-order view, consciousness is a property of mental states themselves – it is intrinsic to mental states; whereas on the Hindu approach, consciousness is not a property of mental states at all – it is extrinsic to mental states, since the mind is part of prakṛti. And this gives the Hindu view an advantage over the non-reductive same-order view, in that it is able to neatly accommodate the possibility of nonconscious mental states. The non-reductive same-order view stands in an uncomfortable position vis-à-vis the growing evidence for nonconscious mentality, whereas this evidence is just what we should expect on the Hindu view. It would appear then that the Hindu approach to conscious mentality manages to sidestep the main problems that contemporary views face. But it might seem to do so rather cheaply, without really explaining what it is that makes a mental state conscious. After all, the Hindu view treats consciousness as a sui generis, primitive fact in its account, not as something to be itself explained. Whereas this is a driving motivation for most contemporary accounts, to explain how we get from something nonconscious to something conscious. That is, the most contemporary views about conscious mentality aim to give a naturalistic account of conscious mentality, not a non-naturalistic one. It is trying to get rid of the dualism, not embrace it. So it’s no wonder that the Hindu view avoids the problems encountered by contemporary accounts, since the Hindu view isn’t engaged in the same explanatory task. This is an understandable complaint, but I think an unfair one. Because contemporary accounts of conscious mentality have not succeeded in explaining conscious mentality, as the various problems we discussed plainly indicate. It would be one thing to criticise the Hindu view for not offering an explanation of conscious mentality if the alternatives offered such an explanation, but they don’t. Consciousness remains as inexplicable on contemporary accounts as it is on the Hindu view. As Levine (1983) highlighted decades ago, there is an explanatory gap between the conscious and the nonconscious, and ignoring that gap doesn’t make it go away. Considering this, I don’t think it’s fair to criticise the Hindu view for not explaining consciousness. If anything, naturalistic accounts should be criticised for changing the topic, since they only succeed if we adopt a deflationary conception of consciousness. Furthermore, if no theory is in fact capable of providing an explanation for conscious mentality, success will instead have to be measured by how well a theory accords with the relevant facts. That is, theories of conscious mentality ought to be compared on the basis of their consistency with the available evidence, for example whether they can accommodate both conscious and nonconscious mental states. And it is here that the Hindu view most clearly outperforms its competitors. Reductive contemporary views allow for nonconscious mental states but struggle with conscious mental states; non-reductive contemporary views allow for conscious mental states but struggle with nonconscious mental states. The Hindu view accommodates both. Challenges for the Hindu view In the previous section I argued that there are reasons to prefer the Hindu view to contemporary alternatives. In this section I will briefly consider three challenges for the Hindu view and suggest possible responses on its behalf. The first challenge is in making sense of the notion of nonconscious qualitative states like emotions and sensations; the second is the charge of conscious epiphenomenalism; and the third is an apparent violation of our basic intuitions about the privacy of conscious experience. I’ll tackle each of these in turn. On the possibility of nonconscious qualitative states According to the Hindu view of conscious mentality, there is a sharp ontological distinction between consciousness and the mind, with consciousness providing subjective awareness and the mind providing the contents of experience. At first glance this might seem like a sensible division of labour, but closer reflection reveals some strange consequences for the view. On the one hand, the model seems to work fine for propositional mental states – perhaps the mind encodes the propositional content of thought in such a way that it can later be brought to subjective awareness, but this story is far less compelling when it comes to qualitative content. For what would it mean for the mind to encode the qualitative contents of thought without their being conscious? For instance, how could the mind represent emotions and sensations independently of our being aware of them? Can one have a pain or worry for example that one isn’t aware of? This seems highly counterintuitive and almost contradictory, and yet this is exactly what the Hindu view suggests. There are two points I want to make in response. The first draws on points I made earlier in Section 1. We do in fact often speak of qualitative mental states that we aren’t conscious of. It is becoming increasingly common to speak of nonconscious emotions and sensations, and this is corroborated by recent empirical evidence. So the notion of nonconscious mental states with qualitative content is not as counterintuitive as it initially appears, and it is an advantage of the Hindu view that it accommodates the growing evidence in this space. The other point I want to make in this regard is that this problem, if indeed it is a problem, is not unique to the Hindu view, since the same problem arises on the higher-order view. Remember that on the higher-order view, mental states are only conscious in virtue of other mental states, and therefore that view also allows for the possibility of nonconscious mental states with qualitative content. But philosophers like Rosenthal (2005) and Polak (2023) for example suggest ways of thinking of mental states that render the notion of nonconscious qualitative states intelligible, and such strategies are equally available to the Hindu view. As such there is no special disadvantage for the Hindu view in this respect. On rendering consciousness epiphenomenal The unique ontological status of consciousness also leads to another concern about the Hindu view, which is that it deprives consciousness from having any causal efficacy in the physical world. If consciousness is isolated from all physical reality, existing separately in a distinct ontological realm of its own, then how could it affect what happens here in the natural world? Instead, consciousness would be epiphenomenal, unable to influence the course of physical events. And this contravenes our deepest intuitions about our place in the natural world – it just seems obvious to us that consciousness plays a role in much of what we do. It would be very strange indeed if it turned out that consciousness had no effect whatsoever on our behaviour. But that is exactly what the Hindu view seems to suggest. In fact, the Hindu view doesn’t merely suggest this, it positively embraces it. As Schweizer points out from a Sāṃkhya-Yoga perspective: “[T]he purely conscious aspect of human experience is also rendered epiphenomenal on the Sāṃkhya-Yoga account… consciousness and the illuminated mental processes are entirely independent. Formless and immutable consciousness plays no causal role in the transformation of mental structures, but rather is a passive 'witness' to some small portion of these transformations. The representations and structural transformations that characterize mental contents and processes are part of the normal time-evolution of the physical universe. Some of these happen to be illuminated by an outside, non-physical source of consciousness, which itself does no work and does not alter the physical realm in any way.” [Schweizer, 2019, p. 240] Again, there are two points I would like to make in response. The first is that, far from seeing this as a damaging problem for the view, the Hindu philosopher seeks to exploit it. Indeed, it is this utter separateness of consciousness which lies at the heart of Hindu soteriological aims – the true self is not the material mind and body, but by falsely identifying with the material mind and body we become embroiled in a world of temporality and suffering. The aim of the Hindu traditions therefore is to realise that we have nothing whatsoever to do with this material world, and by counteracting that false identification and consequent attachment we thereby eliminate the root cause of suffering in this world. Of course, that will not convince a neutral examiner of the view, who isn’t already committed to Hindu theology and for whom the epiphenomenalist implications are likely to be an unwelcome consequence. This brings me to my second point, which is that the kind of epiphenomenalism at play in the Hindu account is not the radical and objectionable kind that we find in contemporary Western debates. Remember, on the Western dualist approach to mind, consciousness and mentality are inextricably bound together, so that it is not just consciousness that is epiphenomenal, mentality in general is epiphenomenal. And that is because they belong to the same nonphysical category. But this is what makes Western epiphenomenalism so radical and objectionable. Because it means that our thoughts, emotions and sensations for example make no difference whatsoever to our actions, and that is a very tough pill to swallow. But the Hindu view isn’t asking us to swallow that pill. Because as we’ve already discussed, mental states are part of the physical world on the Hindu view and so have no problem causing things to happen in the physical domain. It is only the pure awareness or ‘witnessing’ of those mental states that is being treated as epiphenomenal, and that is by far a much less radical claim. On the privacy of conscious experience The third challenge also stems from the sharp ontological separation of mind and consciousness, which leads to another curious consequence for the Hindu view – if mental states are part of the physical world and become conscious by receiving external illumination from an outside source, then what’s to stop one person from being conscious of another person’s mental states? That is, according to this theoretical setup, it seems at least possible in principle for your consciousness to illuminate the mental structures in my mind, and for my consciousness to illuminate the mental structures in your mind, and in this way for you to have my thoughts and me to have your thoughts. But that violates one of our deepest intuitions about conscious experience – that they are private, phenomenologically inaccessible from an outside point of view. Only you can be conscious of your thoughts, and only I can be conscious of mine. It’s one thing for you to have indirect and mediated access to my thoughts, for example by inferring them from my behaviour or if I tell you about them; but it’s another thing altogether for you to have direct and immediate access to my thoughts, like you have of your own. But by treating consciousness as distinct and separate from mental states and then treating those mental states like any other objective part of the physical world, the Hindu view arguably allows for the metaphysical possibility of publicly accessible mental states, and that undermines the credibility of the view. This strikes me as a more serious problem, and I am not quite sure how the Hindu philosopher would handle it. It’s likely though that the problem would seem less serious from within the context of the Hindu worldview. As I touched on earlier, the Hindu view of conscious mentality is embedded within a broader soteriological framework, and so there may be theological reasons to suppose that each individual puruṣa is restricted to a specific mind only. For example, the doctrine of karma could be invoked to account for why a particular puruṣa is paired with a particular antaḥkaraṇa which has been uniquely tailored in accordance with that puruṣa’s own soteriological journey. Of course, that response is unlikely to satisfy anyone who hasn’t already bought into the Hindu theological framework, but my point here is that this issue may seem less of a problem from a Hindu perspective. That said, I’m not convinced that this problem places the Hindu view at a serious disadvantage in the contemporary debate. For it seems to me that this problem is also not unique to the Hindu view. After all, reductive accounts of conscious mentality also treat mental states as objective parts of the physical world, and so in principle there is no reason why we couldn’t set up a physical arrangement to share mental states between distinct subjects. Consider the higher-order view again – if a mental state becomes conscious when it is targeted by a separate higher-order state, then why should it not be metaphysically possible for it to be targeted by someone else’s higher-order state? This is exactly analogous to the problem on the Hindu view – it doesn’t matter whether consciousness derives from another mental state or puruṣa, the point is that it derives from something external to the mental state, and that is what opens the door to the privacy problem. Of course, the problem doesn’t arise for non-reductive same-order views, since on that picture consciousness is treated as an intrinsic property of the mental states that have it, but my point is that this problem is not unique to the Hindu view alone, since the same problem arises for any view that treats mental states as being only extrinsically conscious. Conclusion The contemporary debate on conscious mentality stands at a deadlock. On one side we have a reductive approach which decomposes conscious mentality into more basic nonconscious constituents, either belonging to distinct mental states or integrated within the same mental state. The main trouble with this approach is that it cannot adequately explain how nonconscious mental ingredients combine to yield conscious mentality. On the other side we have the non-reductive approach which treats consciousness as a sui generis and primitive property of mental states, thereby avoiding the problem of having to construct conscious mentality out of nonconscious ingredients. But in so doing it struggles to explain how the same mental state can be either conscious or nonconscious. So we have to either give up on consciousness to save nonconscious mentality or give up on nonconscious mentality to save consciousness. We therefore seem to be stuck between a rock and a hard place. Luckily, the Hindu approach to conscious mentality offers a possible way out. The fundamental mistake being made in the contemporary debate is that of conflating theoretically distinct components of conscious mentality by treating consciousness and mentality as belonging to the same ontological category. Consciousness is one thing; mentality is another. By clearly distinguishing between these two different phenomena, the Hindu view is able to do justice to both sides of the story – it can straightforwardly accommodate both conscious and nonconscious mental states. Of course, the Hindu view still faces a suite of other problems, but I have argued that these problems are not unique to the Hindu view, and in some cases they are even less severe than on contemporary Western accounts. Considering all this, the Hindu approach to conscious mentality merits further consideration in the contemporary debate. References Armstrong, D. (1968). A Materialist Theory of the Mind. London: Routledge. Block, N. (1995). ‘On a confusion about the function of consciousness’. Behavioural and Brain Sciences, 18, pp. 227-287. Bornstein, R. and Pittman, T. (1992). Perception Without Awareness. Guilford Press. Burley, M. (2007). Classical Sāṃkhya and Yoga: An Indian Metaphysics of Experience. New York: Routledge. Byrne, A. (1997). ‘Some like it HOT: consciousness and higher-order thoughts’. Philosophical Studies, 86, pp. 103–129. Carruthers, P. (2005). Consciousness: Essays From a Higher-Order Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Chalmers, D. (1996). The Conscious Mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Dasti, M. and Bryant, E. (Eds.). (2014). Free Will, Agency and Selfhood in Indian Philosophy. New York: Oxford University Press. Dijksterhuis, A. et al. (2006). ‘On making the right choice: the deliberation-without-attention effect’. Science, 311, pp. 1005-1007. Dreyfus, G. and Thompson, E. (2020). ‘Indian theories of mind’. In: J. Ganeri (ed.), Indian Philosophy – A Reader, New York: Routledge, pp. 87-115. Dretske, F. (1995). Naturalizing the Mind. Cambridge, MA: Bradford Books / MIT Press. Dretske, F. (1997). ‘Conscious Experience’. In: Block, N., Flanagan, O., and Guzeldere, G., (eds.), The Nature of Consciousness. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press Bradford. Fasching, W. (2022). ‘On the atman thesis concerning fundamental reality’. The Monist, 105, pp. 58-75. Forman, R. K. C. (1990). ‘Introduction: Mysticism, Constructivism, and Forgetting’. In R. K. C. Forman (ed.), The Problem of Pure Consciousness, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 3–49. Gennaro, R. (2012). The Consciousness Paradox: Consciousness, Concepts and Higher-Order Thoughts. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Gennaro, R. (2018). ‘Higher-order theories of consciousness’. In: D. Jacquette (ed.), The Bloomsbury Companion to the Philosophy of Consciousness, New York: Bloomsbury Academic, pp. 142-169 Johansson, P. et al., (2006). ‘How something can be said about telling more than we can know: on choice blindness and introspection’. Conscious Cognition, 15, pp. 673-692; Discussion pp. 693-699. Kriegel, U. (2009). Subjective Consciousness – A Self-Representational Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Levine, J. (1983). ‘Materialism and qualia: the explanatory gap’. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, 64, pp. 354–361. Levine, J. (2001). Purple Haze. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Levine, J. (2016). ‘A quasi-Satrean theory of subjective awareness’. In: S. Miguens, G. Preyer and C.B. Morando (eds.), Pre-reflective Consciousness: Satre and Contemporary Philosophy of Mind, New York: Routledge, pp. 342-361. Lycan, W. (1996). Consciousness and Experience. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Perrett, R. W. (2001). ‘Computationality, mind and value: the case of Sāmkhya-Yoga’. Asian Philosophy, 11(1), pp. 5-14. Radner, D. (1988). ‘Thought and consciousness in Descartes’. Journal of the History of Philosophy, 26(3), pp. 439-452 Rochat, P. (2011). ‘What is it like to be a newborn?’. In: S. Gallagher (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of the Self, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 57-79. Rosenthal, D. (2000). ‘Metacognition and higher-order thoughts’. Consciousness and Cognition, 9, pp. 231-242. Rosenthal, D. (2005). Consciousness and Mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Schweizer, P. (1993). ‘Mind/consciousness dualism in Sāṃkhya-Yoga philosophy'. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 53(4), pp. 845-859. Schweizer, P. (2019). ‘Sāṃkhya-Yoga philosophy and the mind-body problem'. Prabuddha Bharata, 124(1), pp. 232-242. Seth, A. (2009). ‘Functions of consciousness’. In: W.P. Banks (ed.), Elsevier Encyclopedia of Consciousness, Oxford: Academic Press, pp. 279-294. Strawson, G. (2017). The Subject of Experience. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Tye, M. (1995). Ten Problems of Consciousness. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Tye, M. (2024). ‘Qualia’. In: E.N. Zalta & U. Nodelman (eds.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2024 Edition). Available at: URL = <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2024/entries/qualia/> Zahavi, D. (2014). Self and Other: Exploring Subjectivity, Empathy, and Shame. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Zahavi, D. and Kriegel, U. (2016). ‘For-me-ness: what it is and what it is not’. In: D. Dahlstrom, A. Elpidorou and W. Hopp (Eds.), Philosophy of Mind and Phenomenology, New York: Routledge, pp. 36-53.

---

## Non-conscious on conscious violence
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/essay/non-conscious-on-conscious-violence

Abstract A common objection against autonomous weapons systems is that their use violates human dignity. Machines, it is said, should not decide whether a human being lives or dies. If they do, our dignity is violated. But why? This essay frames the problem as one of “non-conscious on conscious violence”. Criticisms of autonomous weapons should not rely on the fact that they do not think, but on the fact that they are not conscious. I then take a closer look at arguments for why being killed by non-conscious beings violates human dignity. I show that the most prominent arguments fail to establish that it necessarily does. I argue instead that the debate on AWS is a debate on how we can express our respect for conscious life. This we must settle before the dignity-argument can be advanced seriously. 1. Introduction Technology has increasingly removed humans from the violence they inflict. Over centuries, we went from killing others with sticks and stones to guns and intercontinental ballistic missiles. Today, we may never see the person we harm – they may not even be in the same country as us. Soon, autonomous weapons systems (AWS, sometimes also called LAWS for lethal autonomous weapons systems) may further remove humans from the violence they cause. These systems could soon be deployed on battlefields or inside countries – for example to assist law enforcement. What makes them novel is that they make their own choices. These weapons do not simply follow their creator’s will or that of the soldiers who deploy them, but could, through sophisticated machine-learning, develop their own strategies on battlefields and beyond. Since these strategies would sometimes require killing someone, this would create an environment where “a collection of microchips and software will decide whether a human being lives or dies.” (Guizzo and Ackermann 2016, p. 40). Naturally, this development draws criticism. Can AWS accurately distinguish between combatants and civilians? Will they create a global arms race? Could they make wars easier to launch and thus more frequent? These are important questions, but not the topic of this essay.1 Instead, I focus on one particular criticism of AWS, namely a principled objection against letting machines decide when to kill humans. According to this position, even if AWS could correctly identify targets, would not create an arms race or make wars more likely, they should still be rejected, because no matter the circumstances, machines should not have the power to end human life. Granting them this power, the argument goes, would violate the dignity of the humans targeted by these machines (Heyns 2013; 2017, Amoroso and Tamburrini 2018, Sharkey 2019). I will call this the “dignity-argument” from now on.

Abstract A common objection against autonomous weapons systems is that their use violates human dignity. Machines, it is said, should not decide whether a human being lives or dies. If they do, our dignity is violated. But why? This essay frames the problem as one of “non-conscious on conscious violence”. Criticisms of autonomous weapons should not rely on the fact that they do not think, but on the fact that they are not conscious. I then take a closer look at arguments for why being killed by non-conscious beings violates human dignity. I show that the most prominent arguments fail to establish that it necessarily does. I argue instead that the debate on AWS is a debate on how we can express our respect for conscious life. This we must settle before the dignity-argument can be advanced seriously. 1. Introduction Technology has increasingly removed humans from the violence they inflict. Over centuries, we went from killing others with sticks and stones to guns and intercontinental ballistic missiles. Today, we may never see the person we harm – they may not even be in the same country as us. Soon, autonomous weapons systems (AWS, sometimes also called LAWS for lethal autonomous weapons systems) may further remove humans from the violence they cause. These systems could soon be deployed on battlefields or inside countries – for example to assist law enforcement. What makes them novel is that they make their own choices. These weapons do not simply follow their creator’s will or that of the soldiers who deploy them, but could, through sophisticated machine-learning, develop their own strategies on battlefields and beyond. Since these strategies would sometimes require killing someone, this would create an environment where “a collection of microchips and software will decide whether a human being lives or dies.” (Guizzo and Ackermann 2016, p. 40). Naturally, this development draws criticism. Can AWS accurately distinguish between combatants and civilians? Will they create a global arms race? Could they make wars easier to launch and thus more frequent? These are important questions, but not the topic of this essay.1 Instead, I focus on one particular criticism of AWS, namely a principled objection against letting machines decide when to kill humans. According to this position, even if AWS could correctly identify targets, would not create an arms race or make wars more likely, they should still be rejected, because no matter the circumstances, machines should not have the power to end human life. Granting them this power, the argument goes, would violate the dignity of the humans targeted by these machines (Heyns 2013; 2017, Amoroso and Tamburrini 2018, Sharkey 2019). I will call this the “dignity-argument” from now on. The dignity-argument has different types, some highlighting that “death by robot” reduces people to data-points, others claiming that it takes away our ability to plead with the enemy. The intuition that “death by robot” is wrong has some force and the goal of this essay is to analyze it closely. To be clear, I do not provide a comprehensive ethical analysis of AWS. I closely examine the dignity argument and thus, even if I show that it fails, there may be other successful arguments against AWS.2 Nonetheless, this essay aims to advance the debate on AWS by uncovering the dignity-argument’s underlying points. I focus on the dignity-argument for two reasons. First, it is one of the strongest objection against AWS, since it would hold even if they had positive consequences (Rosert and Sauer 2019). If technological progress makes these weapons more sophisticated, arguments about, say, successful targeting may wither away. The dignity-argument would remain. Second, I believe that the argument rests on implicit points, and illuminating them would improve the debate surrounding AWS. I believe that it is an argument about consciousness. Fundamentally, the problem of AWS is a problem of “non-conscious on conscious violence”. What strikes us abhorrent, I propose, is the idea that non-conscious beings can decide to kill conscious ones. The reason this feels wrong, I suggest, is the absence of phenomenal consciousness. Contrary to what critics sometimes proclaim, machines may be perfectly capable of valuing and respecting human life. However, they cannot value it the way a conscious human being can. To test the dignity-argument, we must answer two questions. First, what grants human beings dignity? Second, which property of robots violates it when they kill a human? I argue that both parts relate to consciousness how it grounds moral status. My analysis elucidates that when we object to AWS with the dignity-argument, we object to “non-conscious on conscious violence”. I will outline the connection between consciousness and the AWS debate in the next two sections. Then, I ask if the dignity-argument can withstand critical scrutiny. Do machines automatically violate human dignity if they kill us? And if so, why? I argue that the most promising approach is that when we launch non-conscious agents to inflict violence on conscious ones, we undermine norms that are important to us. However, I argue that this does not show that non-conscious on conscious violence necessarily violates human dignity. In the following pages, I mostly rely on the literature on AWS in war. However, since the deeper problem is non-conscious on conscious violence, the conclusions of this essay apply to every domain where non-conscious systems gain the power to kill conscious beings. 2. Consciousness and Human Dignity Autonomous weapons contain the potential to revolutionize warfare3 by deciding when to end a human life. Naturally, such a step causes ethical debates. War and the killing of humans are already problematic, and automated weapons further complicate things. As Heyns (2017, pp. 47f.) put it: “As human beings, we have grappled since time immemorial with making sense of death at the hands of other humans or as a result of nature. We are now confronted with a new case: death by algorithm. This challenges many of the assumptions engrained in the ethical, legal, religious and other normative systems of the world.” The dignity-argument asserts that in situations where we have to kill humans, we owe it to them that they are not killed by a machine – more precisely, that the machine does not make the decision to kill them. If they do, then the dignity of the person killed is violated.4 This line of thinking has two parts. First, humans have something worth protecting (dignity) and second, robots deciding to kill us violates it. This section deals with the first part. Put simply, what is dignity and why do humans have it? Dignity is a contested concept. Not only do different cultures stress different conceptions – an Islamic approach will differ from a Western one – but the idea of human dignity also changed over time. It can also have varying interpretations within one society (Sharkey 2019). Still, we usually assume that humans have it. It is, in other words, part of a human’s moral status. Moral status means that those who have it are morally considerable – we have moral obligations towards them. We have obligations towards humans, but not towards rocks. Two important points attach to moral status. First, it primarily prohibits us from treating people in a certain way. That is, if an entity has moral status, we are forbidden from treating it any way we might want. Second, we are constrained this way for the entity’s own sake. I may not treat a painting some ways, but not for the painting’s sake. I do so for the people who value it. By contrast, we refrain from treating humans a certain way for their own sake, not because of other people who value them (Shepherd 2018, pp. 14f.). Like moral status in general, dignity protects us from certain treatments. Heyns (2017, p. 62) argues that “it is dignity that gives life its meaning”, and that it “emphasises the notion that each person is entitled to be treated according to his or her own full merits”. Finally, dignity requires that those who have it are “taken seriously as separate and irreplaceable individuals”. In a similar way, Habermas (2010) outlines that dignity prohibits us from treating human beings in certain ways. Dignity was a reason that the German Federal Constitutional Court decided the armed forces could not shoot down a passenger aircraft that had been captured by terrorists. Even if the airplane, now turned into a weapon, threatened people on the ground, respect for dignity meant that the state could not use the people on board as a means to protect others by shooting them down. Dignity and moral status both prohibit certain ways of acting towards others. To be clear, dignity and moral status are not the same. Some beings may have moral status but no dignity – although having dignity means having moral status. It is assumed that humans have dignity, but one may ask if non-human animals have it too – unfortunately, this is a question for another essay. In any case, the above only tells us what dignity requires of us when we interact with those who possess it. However, we still do not know where it comes from. It may be clear humans we have it and (somewhat) clear what it is, but why do humans have it? One candidate for the source of dignity – and the one I defend here – is consciousness. While the connection between the two (or rather between consciousness and moral status) is still debated (see Levy 2014; 2024, Shepherd 2018, Lee 2024), philosophers usually accept that consciousness is relevant for having moral status (Cutter 2017).5 What consciousness actually is remains equally difficult to pin down. I will not use a complete theory of consciousness, simply because nobody has succeeded in crafting it. But as Mosakas (2021) argues, one can discuss the ethical implications of consciousness without one. What I will use in this essay is consciousness as a “what-it-is-like” quality (as outlined by Nagel 1974). This refers to phenomenal consciousness, which is the ability to have subjective experiences with a particular phenomenal feel to them. There is “something-it-is-like” for me to be in pain or be joyous, to eat a delicious meal or to hear a piece of music that makes me nostalgic about my teenage years. As many philosophers agree, these qualitative states matter morally. Because I can have them, I am a moral patient (Levy and Savulescu 2009). I take this rather minimal approach to advance my analysis. Of course, the debate on consciousness and moral status is vast and there are many fine-grained distinctions. But most of them do not concern us here. For instance, one may ask if the intensity of phenomenal consciousness determines the strength of obligations we have towards conscious beings (see Shepherd 2023, Levy 2024). One may also wonder how we should treat beings that are identical to us but have no phenomenal experiences (see Shepherd 2024).6 However, I am focused on human beings and on the way we ought to treat them. I am not making comparisons with other conscious entities. What interests me here is the connection between consciousness and dignity – more precisely how it grounds dignity. An answer was provided by Kriegel (2017; 2019). Kriegel argues that because of consciousness, we have dignity. Another way to phrase it is that consciousness grants us “recognition respect”, which is respect we receive because we are persons – not because of, say, achievements. This kind of respect is similar to dignity. Like dignity, it applies to in all persons alike. Recognition-respect also prohibits certain ways of treating those who possess it (Kriegel 2017).7 Why would consciousness be the grounds of dignity – or at least a necessary component? For Kriegel the reason lies in how we perceive other conscious beings. While we may sometimes have negative attitudes towards them – such as towards a waiter in a cafe – reflection about these attitudes should make us realize that they are not appropriate. The waiter is not a legitimate target of callous or belittling attitudes. They are not merely an object in our own life, not only a background-character in our story. They are their own story. Just like us, they have a complex, subjective view on their own life. To paraphrase a metaphor of Kriegel, they are not merely a planet that orbits us, but their own sun (Kriegel 2017). To explain the attitude we should take towards others, Kriegel uses the “norm of incorrigibility”. That is, because we have privileged access to our own mental states, others should not dare to correct us about them. If we abide by this norm, we must necessarily assume that our counterpart has a certain dignity we cannot violate (Kriegel 2017). This explains why consciousness and dignity are interlinked. The stance that other people are their own main characters (for lack of a better description) should, if we carefully test our intuitions, make us hesitate before we treat them in some ways they may not appreciate. And since we should not correct them about their own mental states, what they appreciate or is their decision, not ours.8 Kriegel’s account is a start – and a good one – however, one issue is that we cannot accurately define, at least for now, if dignity includes the right not to be killed by a robot. In any case, it is difficult to find a comprehensive source of dignity, given the contested nature of the topic. Still, it seems intuitive that consciousness – and the complexity of human consciousness – is necessary for dignity. It is also a position that critics of AWS should be interested in defending. After all, they would not argue that dignity comes from being an end-setting entity (the way Kant would) nor that it is something that adheres to humans simply because they are human. The problem with the first approach would be, as Kriegel (2017) points out, that complex, non-conscious machines can set ends and would thus possess dignity. By contrast, conscious beings who cannot set their own ends – such as immobile beings who have no ability and no desire to affect their environment – would not have it. This seems like an unacceptable conclusion. The problem with the second approach is that we would bar other conscious life forms from having dignity. We may defend this with non-human animals, although this is far from guaranteed. However, a critic of AWS would likely agree that if we discovered other lifeforms with advanced consciousness that matched humans, we would not be allowed to wage war against them with AWS.9 Thus, it is fruitful for the dignity-argument to rely on consciousness. However, we still do not know what dignity is nor why death by algorithm violates it. This is the second part of the problem: the properties of the agent killing us – the robot. While we acknowledge that killing conscious beings is wrong, in some situations it may be justified. That situation may appear in war or it may arise from the duty to protect the life of others – such as by police shooting a terrorist who is about to storm an elementary school. We are morally allowed, even obligated, to end conscious life in some situations. As critics note, however, we must follow certain procedures – one being that the decision to kill is taken by conscious agents.10 I believe that if the moral status of humans stems from consciousness, the fact that robots should not kill us stems from the fact that they are not. This creates the question that I will examine in the rest of this essay: what exactly is it that violates our dignity when a non-conscious agents makes the decision to kill us? 3. Non-Conscious Machines and Violations of Dignity That AWS violate dignity is often repeated (see Heyns 2013; 2017, Sharkey 2019). The previous section has argued that as beings with complex consciousness, humans have dignity. One component of dignity is that the decision to kill us must be taken by conscious beings. Since machines are not conscious, they cannot be allowed to take our life. But why should this be valid? It surely is intuitive, at least according to a UN report which identified “an instinctual revulsion against the idea of machines ‘deciding’ to kill humans.” and argued that this revulsion “might be considered a reaction to a potential violation of human dignity” (UNIDIR 2015, p. 7). That the machine decides to kill, and does not merely implement human decisions, means that analogies with past instances of mechanized killing are not applicable. Humans have developed various methods to kill many people with the help of machines, nonetheless, the decision was always taken by them. While technology may diffuse responsibility between actors, humans are making the decision. Automated weapons are different. While humans deploy them, they cannot foresee how the machine will behave in complex situations. A decision to kill, not foreseen by any human operator, may be taken by the machine. We may always assign some responsibility to commanders them or manufacturers, but we cannot deny that part of the causal responsibility for the death lies with the autonomous system.11 A preliminary question is who’s dignity is violated – with the most straightforward answer being the dignity of the people killed.12 But why would they care how they die? They may care whether their death is long and painful or not, but would they care if they are killed by a robot or a human? A possible answer is that people maintain dignity even after their death – which is why we are strongly against desecrating corpses. We can thus violate someone’s dignity without them knowing how they died. In a similar vein, one may violate their partner’s dignity by cheating on them – even if they never find out. However, we might also say that AWS violate the dignity of a person before their death, because they make their death “arbitrary”. As (Heyns 2017) argues,13 human dignity protects us against “arbitrary death” and AWS cannot be but arbitrary. To not be an arbitrary kill, the decision behind it must be taken by humans. Otherwise, the death becomes the result of algorithmic decision-making. Another way to frame this is that we do not have the right to kill others without applying our minds – and thus, we cannot delegate this right to machines who kill without applying theirs. Only humans can fully appreciate life’s value, while a machine could not respect the value of life or comprehend the significance of ending it (Amoroso and Tamburrini 2018, Sharkey 2019). The point is succinctly put by Renic and Schwarz (2023, pp. 335f.): “The human dignity challenge of LAWS stems not from the material character of the targeting effect, but rather from the moral character of the targeting process. Humans deserve to remain free of predation from systems that lack the capacity to properly assess and weigh their moral worth. LAWS fail to meet this standard by virtue of their inability to recognize and act upon the full range of factors that render an individual morally liable—or not—to lethal targeting. […] Computational objectification of the sort LAWS produce necessarily dehumanizes the targeted individual. It reclassifies humans as something less; something that is statistically determined, processed, and rendered actionable. LAWS have no conception, by design, of a subject-object relation, as we humans would, nor do they understand the subjective self in relation to the object upon which they act.” The problem may not be a lack of mind or unthinking machines, as Heyns points out, but a lack of consciousness. AWS could, if sophisticated enough, go to great lengths to preserve human life. They would, for instance, not be steered by self-preservation and not fire out of fear for their lives. They would also feel no desire to take revenge on enemies. One could imagine a highly sophisticated AWS which does everything to not end human life – even if it incurs great risk of its own destruction. That machine would certainly take the value of human life into consideration – more than an exhausted or stressed soldier might. Still, this is not enough to make them morally acceptable, as Heyns (2017, p. 60) argues: “Someone must take the time and apply his or her mind and ‘sign off’ on the conclusion that using force is really necessary as far as possible in this particular case. […] Machines have no understanding of the importance of life, and of the implications of taking it. While some humans also lack these qualities, machines by their very nature can never have it. Cold-blooded – or rather bloodless entities should not have the ability to take decisions on whether to spill human blood.” Surely, Heyns knows that the problem with autonomous weapons is not lack of blood. It is also not a lack of mind. Current AWS may be “mindless”, in the sense that they can identify and attack targets, but not much else. We may object to such crude examples of AWS. But a more complex machine may have a mind and could set complex goals – the highest being to protect human life at all costs. Such an AWS may kill rarely– only, for example, to protect human beings. This would be a thinking machine that takes human life into consideration. Still, would Heyns agree that death through such a weapon is no longer undignified? Suppose that he does not, then the most promising way to approach the issue is pointing out that the machine is not conscious. It may “think” about the value of human life – and form complex deliberations about how to preserve it – but it cannot “feel” the weight of its decision. It cannot appreciate life the way a conscious entity like a human can. As critics note, when AWS kill people, the human is reduced to a data point, by a machine that has no conception of what it means to take a life (Rosert and Sauer 2019). The human may be an object that the machine takes great interest in preserving, but they are still an object. To a machine, everyone is. They cannot conceive of people as holders of recognition-respect, as beings with their own complex view on life, the way Kriegel outlined it. They cannot test their intuitions and realize that there are certain things they are not allowed to do to a human being. If we decide that killing is necessary, there needs to be someone who, in some sense, “has to live with their decision”. Thus, Heyns and others do not object to “mindless violence”, but to “non-conscious on conscious violence.” That AWS are “unthinking” is not the problem. It is that they cannot conceive of humans as beings with their own subjective viewpoint – at least they cannot appreciate this in the way we can. This section has finished re-framing the problem. The principled argument against AWS relies, first and foremost, on the fact that a non-conscious entity kills a conscious one. With this in mind, the next section can take a closer look at common avenues of the dignity-argument. 4. Why Is It Wrong When Machines Kill? Humans have dignity. Beings with dignity should not be killed by non-conscious beings because they cannot appreciate human life. The question now is: does that argument hold under critical scrutiny? After all, why should we care that the machine does not appreciate life? It does not need this appreciation to protect life – it may do this even better than human soldiers. To accept the dignity-argument, I think we need to explore why this violation exists. After all, it is a truism that non-conscious robots cannot consciously appreciate human life. But if these feelings are absent, why is the dignity of the dead person violated? Why does a dignified death require this appreciation? One argument by Heyns (2013) states that by deploying AWS, we change our view of other people. The issue is not only that the machine reduces people to data, but that we degrade our fellow humans if we use the machine against them. Heyns worries that we might think of our enemies as vermin that must be eradicated if we can easily kill them with a button that deploys the AWS. His argument, then, is less about the act of killing with machines and more about this power changing how we think about our fellow humans. If we have the power to delegate the act of killing to machines, our enemies may become vermin in our minds. Something that merely bothers us and that we can exterminate quickly and with little hassle – the way we might set up a fly-trap. However, this relation is speculative. Why should humans, especially those who care for humanitarian law and the value of life, suddenly stop caring about it if they deploy autonomous weapons? The act of killing others becomes much easier, but the decision to launch these weapons might not. Would leaders who are educated with a respect for human rights suddenly speak of people as vermin behind closed doors? It is true that technology can and has changed human behavior (Morrow 2014). And if killing becomes “easier”, it may become more frequent. But this is no principled objection against AWS. Rather, it is a call to ensure that our attitudes towards humans are not affected by this technology. It demand that we instill a strong appreciation for human life in political decision-makers. In fact, AWS could be a wake-up call – in a similar sense in which the horrors of World War II were one. And after all, humans today have the most advanced abilities to kill their enemies. Still, international wars are rarer than before. And while respect for human rights is far from perfect, the situation is surely better than a century ago. We can take a lot of force out of this argument if we ensure that our attitude towards other humans does not change. We could, for example, ensure deaths by AWS are counted and evaluated. That they are not forgotten and that people who launch AWS must justify their decision. We could work on making AWS more protective of human life. All of this would not only make people safer, it would express of our commitment to the value of life. A second argument is that those targeted by AWS cannot appeal to their attacker’s humanity and ask to be spared (Heyns 2017, Amoroso and Tamburrini 2018). As outlined in the previous section, the problem is not that the attacker is not human or unthinking. It is again that they are not conscious. However, we can ask why lack of consciousness makes pleading impossible. If a machine were programmed to preserve human life, then it would surely not engage in deadly violence once humans, for example, throw away their arms. Not all AWS may ave this feature, such as intelligent missiles, but many of them may. Those who do not we may ban, but those where this feature is possible may not attract condemnation. In fact, appealing to a robot may be more dignified than to a human. It would, for instance, be more predictable. With humans, surrendering could lead to abuse, torture and death. With AWS, surrendering would lead to predictable and likely benign outcomes. One must also not feel degraded by surrendering to machine, knowing that they are merely performing the required actions that makes the machine refrain from deadly violence. A third argument is that the dignity of humans who launch the AWS, not those who are targeted, is violated. The reason is that AWS take away their opportunity to be a moral person and to make moral decisions (Sharkey 2019). That seems contentious, since the decision to launch the weapon would still be taken by people who can be moral agents. Today, generals who are far away from the battlefield can be moral agents. Even politicians who are further away can. These arguments cannot sustain the dignity-argument. In the first case, the problem is with humans and how they react to the power that comes with AWS. It outlines a possibility, not a necessary connection. In the second and third case, the issues that critics outline may not even arise – at least with some autonomous systems. A fourth argument is that when AWS decide to launch an attack, we express a profound disrespect for the people we target (Nagel 1972, Sparrow 2016). Importantly, this is different from the first argument. We may never consider our enemies vermin or change our attitude towards them in other negative ways. But is this expression of disrespect certain? We may argue that it is, that using a tool that cannot appreciate life to end it is always a violation of dignity because it signals disrespect. Suppose, for instance, that a newspaper sent a critic to a piano concert, but sends someone who has no appreciation for music. The critic would do her job earnestly and with the best intentions – and yet, she would not appreciate the concert. I think we can say that the newspaper, by sending the critic, has somehow disrespected the pianist. Not only the respect they owe him due to his achievement, but also in the recognition-respect he deserves as a conscious being. We may argue that such things happen, that they are not that serious or that we can apologize. Still, I think it is fair to say that we wronged the pianist. The dignity-argument appears to be somewhat fundamental then. There is no deeper reason behind it, such as the inability to plead or the way it may change how we think of other humans. It is a violation merely because it signals disrespect. However, we may also ask if this signal is necessary. After all, the signals that emerge from our acts are complex and can be interpreted in various ways. For instance, the pianist above may appreciate that the newspaper sends a critic who cannot seriously appreciate the music but who is widely read, will surely enjoy the concert nonetheless and help the pianist in his career. It depends, in the end, on what aspect of the act we focus. In depends on the story we want to tell. Just like dignity is a contested concept, there are different stories on how AWS can violate it – or not. What non-conscious on conscious violence asks of us is to devise ways we can implement it into our existing normative framework. If it violates certain norms we hold dear, does that mean that non-conscious on conscious violence is wrong or that we must change the norm? A final analogy may drive the point home. For decades, liberal nations have launched humanitarian interventions in other countries. These interventions are based on the principle that human beings have equal moral value and a right to protection – even if their own governments disagree (Archibugi 2004; Pape 2012). Putting the practical problems of humanitarian interventions aside, a key issue they have is that some of their practices undermine their own supposed values. Despite rhetorical commitments to universal human rights, Western governments value their own soldiers’ lives higher than those of the civilians they protect. At least they sometimes act like they do. This is especially visible in a prominent tool for humanitarian interventions: air strikes. These protect soldiers, but endanger the foreign civilians on the ground. This practice reflects a concern of Western governments for their own soldiers. It also undermines the idea that everyone deserves equal protection (Archibugi 2004; Heinze 2006). The conflict between these values sits uneasy with us. We want clear answers where none can be found. I think we can look at the AWS debate from a similar standpoint. AWS can promote human dignity in some ways – such as by making war more predictable and less cruel. They can undermine it – such as by expressing disrespect. In the end, it may not be an issue of which moral values are violated or not. At least not yet. Before we can launch the debate, we may ask which values we want to preserve, and which ones we can live without. Before we can talk about AWS, we should settle which acts truly express the moral concern that conscious beings deserve. 5. Conclusion This essay has re-framed the debate on autonomous weapons systems as a question of non-conscious on conscious violence. I have argued that the dignity-argument against AWS relies on two facts: that humans are conscious and that machines are not (at least for now). I then argued that what we find so objectionable with autonomous weapons is non-conscious machines killing conscious humans. Unfortunately, I think that the debate cannot be resolved here. Before we can debate about AWS, we should clarify what we deem worthy of protection about conscious beings. References Amoroso, Daniele, and Guglielmo Tamburrini. 2018. “The Ethical and Legal Case Against Autonomy in Weapons Systems.” Global Jurist 18 (1). https://doi.org/10.1515/gj-2017-0012. Amoroso, Daniele, and Guglielmo Tamburrini. 2020. “Autonomous Weapons Systems and Meaningful Human Control: Ethical and Legal Issues.” Current Robotics Reports 1 (4): 187–94. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43154-020-00024-3. Archibugi, Daniele. 2004. “Cosmopolitan Guidelines for Humanitarian Intervention.” Alternatives: Global, Local, Political 29 (1): 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1177/030437540402900101. Asaro, Peter. 2012. “On Banning Autonomous Weapon Systems: Human Rights, Automation, and the Dehumanization of Lethal Decision-Making.” International Review of the Red Cross 94 (886): 687–709. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1816383112000768. Cutter, Brian. 2017. “The Metaphysical Implications of the Moral Significance of Consciousness.” Philosophical Perspectives 31: 103–30. https://doi.org/10.1111/phpe.12092. Guizzo, Erico, and Evan Ackerman. 2016. “When Robots Decide to Kill.” IEEE Spectrum 53 (6): 38–43. https://doi.org/10.1109/MSPEC.2016.7473151. Habermas, Jürgen. 2010. “The Concept of Human Dignity and the Realistic Utopia of Human Rights.” Metaphilosophy 41 (4): 464–80. Hammond, Daniel N. 2015. “Autonomous Weapons and the Problem of State Accountability.” Chicago Journal of International Law 15 (2): 652–87. Heinze, Eric A. 2006. “Humanitarian Intervention and the War in Iraq: Norms, Discourse, and State Practice.” The US Army War College Quarterly: Parameters 36 (1): 20–34. https://doi.org/10.55540/0031-1723.2291 Heyns, Christof. 2013. “Report of the Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions.” UN Human Rights Council. https://primarysources.brillonline.com/browse/human-rights-documents-online/promotion-and-protection-of-all-human-rights-civil-political-economic-social-and-cultural-rights-including-the-right-to-development;hrdhrd99702016149. Heyns, Christof. 2017. “Autonomous Weapons in Armed Conflict and the Right to a Dignified Life: An African Perspective.” South African Journal on Human Rights 33 (1): 46–71. https://doi.org/10.1080/02587203.2017.1303903. Horowitz, Michael C. 2016. “The Ethics & Morality of Robotic Warfare: Assessing the Debate over Autonomous Weapons.” Daedalus 145 (4): 25–36. https://doi.org/10.1162/DAED_a_00409. Kahane, Guy, and Julian Savulescu. 2009. “Brain Damage and the Moral Significance of Consciousness.” Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, no. 34: 6–26. https://doi.org/doi:10.1093/jmp/jhn038. Königs, Peter. 2022. “Artificial Intelligence and Responsibility Gaps: What Is the Problem?” Ethics and Information Technology 24 (3): 36. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-022-09643-0. Kriegel, Uriah. 2017. “Dignity and the Phenomenology of Recognition-Respect.” In Emotional Experience: Ethical and Social Significance, edited by J.J Drummond and S. Rinofner-Kreidl. Rowman & Littlefield. Kriegel, Uriah. 2019. “The Value of Consciousness.” Analysis 79 (3): 503–20. https://doi.org/10.1093/analys/anz045. Lee, Andrew Y. 2018. “Is Consciousness Intrinsically Valuable?” Philosophical Studies 176: 655–71. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-018-1032-8. Lee, Andrew Y. 2024. “Consciousness Makes Things Matter.” Global Priorities Institute Working Paper Series, nos. 25–2024: 1–35. Levy, Neil. 2014. “The Value of Consciousness.” Journal of Consciousness Studies 21 (1–2): 127–38. Levy, Neil. 2024. “Consciousness Ain’t All That.” Neuroethics 17 (2): 21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12152-024-09559-0. Morrow, David R. 2014. “When Technologies Makes Good People Do Bad Things: Another Argument Against the Value-Neutrality of Technologies.” Science and Engineering Ethics 20 (2): 329–43. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-013-9464-1. Mosakas, Kestutis. 2021. “On the Moral Status of Social Robots: Considering the Consciousness Criterion.” AI & SOCIETY 36 (2): 429–43. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-020-01002-1. Nagel, Thomas. 1972. “War and Massacre.” Philosophy & Public Affairs 1 (2): 123–44. Nagel, Thomas. 1974. “What Is It Like to Be a Bat?” The Philosophical Review 83 (4): 435–50. Pape, Robert A. 2012. “When Duty Calls: A Pragmatic Standard of Humanitarian Intervention.” International Security 37 (1): 41–80. Renic, Neil, and Elke Schwarz. 2023. “Crimes of Dispassion: Autonomous Weapons and the Moral Challenge of Systematic Killing.” Ethics & International Affairs 37 (3): 321–43. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0892679423000291. Rosert, Elvira, and Frank Sauer. 2019. “Prohibiting Autonomous Weapons: Put Human Dignity First.” Global Policy 10 (3): 370–75. https://doi.org/10.1111/1758-5899.12691. Sharkey, Amanda. 2019. “Autonomous Weapons Systems, Killer Robots and Human Dignity.” Ethics and Information Technology 21 (2): 75–87. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-018-9494-0. Shepherd, Joshua. 2017. “The Moral Insignificance of Self‐consciousness.” European Journal of Philosophy 25 (2): 398–415. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejop.12221. Shepherd, Joshua. 2018. Consciousness and Moral Status. 1st ed. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315396347. Shepherd, Joshua. 2023. “Non-Human Moral Status: Problems with Phenomenal Consciousness.” AJOB Neuroscience 14 (2): 148–57. https://doi.org/10.1080/21507740.2022.2148770. Shepherd, Joshua. 2024. “Sentience, Vulcans, and Zombies: The Value of Phenomenal Consciousness.” AI & SOCIETY 39 (6): 3005–15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-023-01835-6. Sparrow, Robert. 2016. “Robots and Respect: Assessing the Case Against Autonomous Weapon Systems.” Ethics & International Affairs 30 (1): 93–116. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0892679415000647. UNIDIR. 2015. “The Weaponization of Increasingly Autonomous Technologies: Considering Ethics and Social Values.” https://unidir.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/considering-ethics-and-social-values-en-624.pdf. Footnotes 1 For a discussion of these points see Hammond (2015), Rosert and Sauer (2019), Amoroso and Tamburrini (2020) and Königs (2022). 2 I thus ignore practical considerations, such as the fact that AWS may not be worse than human-controlled weapons One may argue that that most deaths in war by other people are just as undignified as death by robot (Horowitz, 2016). This is an interesting point if one asks if AWS should be banned or not. But this is not the question here. 3 These weapons are already being developed (see Guizzo and Ackermann 2016). 4 One may claim that the dignity of all humanity is violated by AWS (see Sharkey 2019 for a discussion). However, this position comes with some theoretical baggage. It would have to explain why my dignity is violated when someone on another continent is killed by a robot. In this essay, I focus on the dignity of the person killed by an autonomous system, not humanity as a whole. This also seems to be the point many critics of AWS address. 5 There are many different aspects of consciousness and various approaches to its relationship with moral status. One candidate for the grounds of moral status is self-consciousness – the capacity to think of oneself as oneself and to understand ourselves as a continuous being in time and space. One argument states that only those who understand themselves as a continuing entity have a right to life. However, this approach has some issues (see Shepherd 2017). 6 Another interesting debate is if consciousness itself has value (see Lee 2018 for a discussion). 7 Recognition-respect is similar to Kant’s notion of respect, but Kriegel’s approach has a crucial difference. Where Kant grounds dignity in being an end-setting entity, Kriegel focuses on consciousness. He argues that non-conscious machines could, if sophisticated enough, be complex, end-setting beings, but they would not have moral status. By contrast, conscious beings that had no capacity to influence their surroundings – and would thus not be ends-setting – but possessed an interest in having certain phenomenal states, would have moral status (Kriegel 2017). 8 It is unclear how far Kriegel’s account of dignity applies. Are we equally prohibited in automatically killing animals? It seems that the intuition is much weaker here – in any case, this is a task for another essay. 9 A possible escape would be that all complex life forms have dignity because they are complex life forms. But this should still make us ask what unites them in having dignity. 10 There may be some other considerations, such as how many agents must deliberate and which rights the person who is to be killed has. For instance, supporters of the death penalty may agree that it should not be applied without due process. For this essay, however, I am only concerned with the minimal requirement of having conscious agents decide over the death and not non-conscious ones. 11 I talk of direct choices to kill or harm human beings. Algorithms already make decisions that might lead to the death of humans, but these are not direct. For instance, suppose that a desperate job seeker decides that, if he receives another rejection, he is going to commit suicide. Since algorithms already screen applicants, there may arise a situation where the algorithm rejects the applicant and he commits suicide. But in this case, the algorithm has not chosen if the job seeker is to live or not – it has ruled if he should be employed. Such situations are different from autonomous weapons. 12 For a discussion on how all of humanity’s dignity may be violated see Sharkey (2019). Since discussions focus often on the dignity of the person killed, I will proceed with this assumption. 13 See also Asaro (2012).

---

## Not another model of consciousness, but an experimental razor
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/essay/not-another-model-of-consciousness-but-an-experimental-razor

Abstract Consciousness Studies as an emergent scientific discipline finds itself in the peculiar position of having an abundance of theories, yet none are seemingly capable of bringing about an expert consensus regarding the ontology and causal processes of consciousness. The current state of the field is reflected upon, along with the advocation of a proposed approach to help progress the field further. This approach of an experimental razor is demonstrated by example, through which the filtration of a series of experimental studies identifies 3 potential neural correlates of consciousness, both of which can be used to verify or falsify existing theories of consciousness. Introduction When a newborn child is first born into the world, its state of consciousness is undeniably different to the consciousness that is experienced by a mature adult. On the path of reaching this more stabilized level of consciousness, the newborn must first pass through a few crucial phases of neurodevelopment along the way. During the first couple years of life, every child must go through a phase of synaptic blooming - an intense period of synaptogenesis where many new connections are formed1. This is subsequently followed by an equally crucial phase called synaptic pruning - a natural process where lessused or weaker connections are pruned away, allowing the stronger connections to function more efficiently while laying the foundations for more complex cognitive functions to develop. The core thesis of this essay is that the Field of Consciousness Studies itself is metaphorically entering this pruning stage in its own development – or at least it should be, otherwise it’s at risk of arresting its own development. The newly born scientific field of Consciousness Studies has just passed its synaptic “blooming” phase – which is best exemplified by Robert Kuhn’s recent 2024 paper “A landscape of consciousness: Toward a taxonomy of explanations and implications”2. In this monumental achievement, he has created an in-depth taxonomy and description of 209 distinct contributions and models of consciousness.

Abstract Consciousness Studies as an emergent scientific discipline finds itself in the peculiar position of having an abundance of theories, yet none are seemingly capable of bringing about an expert consensus regarding the ontology and causal processes of consciousness. The current state of the field is reflected upon, along with the advocation of a proposed approach to help progress the field further. This approach of an experimental razor is demonstrated by example, through which the filtration of a series of experimental studies identifies 3 potential neural correlates of consciousness, both of which can be used to verify or falsify existing theories of consciousness. Introduction When a newborn child is first born into the world, its state of consciousness is undeniably different to the consciousness that is experienced by a mature adult. On the path of reaching this more stabilized level of consciousness, the newborn must first pass through a few crucial phases of neurodevelopment along the way. During the first couple years of life, every child must go through a phase of synaptic blooming - an intense period of synaptogenesis where many new connections are formed1. This is subsequently followed by an equally crucial phase called synaptic pruning -a natural process where less-used or weaker connections are pruned away, allowing the stronger connections to function more efficiently while laying the foundations for more complex cognitive functions to develop. The core thesis of this essay is that the Field of Consciousness Studies itself is metaphorically entering this pruning stage in its own development- or at least it should be, otherwise it’s at risk of arresting its own development. The newly born scientific field of Consciousness Studies has just passed its synaptic “blooming” phase - which is best exemplified by Robert Kuhn’s recent 2024 paper “A landscape of consciousness: Toward a taxonomy of explanations and implications”2. In this monumental achievement, he has created an in-depth taxonomy and description of 209 distinct contributions and models of consciousness. After completing this monstrous task, he dismally remarks at the end of his paper “I’d like to say we have progressed. I’m not sure I can”. This ontological uncertainty about consciousness - despite this mass proliferation of theories - is also epitomized by the recent payment and renewal of a famous bet between two experts in the field: David Chalmers (who was the first to posit the infamous Hard Problem of consciousness6) and the neuroscientist Christof Koch3. In 2023, Chalmers officially won this 25-year-old bet between them, receiving the payment of a case of wine from Koch, who gracefully acknowledged that there was “no clear neural correlate of consciousness” as of yet found. We are thus in the paradoxical position of simultaneously having too many theories to choose from, but none of them supposedly being enough, leaving us with the question - where do we go from here? In this essay, the opportunity will be taken to share some thoughts about what I see as potential directions for the field, having recently been immersed in researching this topic for the writing of my accidental thesis on consciousness. I facetiously say accidental because initially, my paper was supposed to be on hypnagogia (or sleep paralysis), and what was naively intended to only be a small section dedicated to what part of the brain switches consciousness on during sleep paralysis quickly became the rabbit hole of a 35,000-word dissertation. This forced me to abandon my initial topic until I felt I had reached a satisfactory answer to this question - of which I’m happy to report to have eventually attained. Furthermore, it is of my position that we are close to having not onlyone, but three neural correlates of consciousness, and that Koch may be similarly closer to receiving a case of wine from Chalmers than he might otherwise suspect. I will offer what I take to be a reasonable defense of this admittedly bold claim, sharing a concise distillation of the findings from my prior investigation, while first taking the liberty to reflect on the field’s state of proliferation and uncertainty, and proposing what to do about it without being impeded by scientific prose. Evaluative Methodologies Similarly to toddlers, the Field of Consciousness Studies and its 209 theories need to go through a phase of synaptic pruning to start narrowing down which of the contributions are the most useful, viable and ultimately experimentally supported along its wide-ranging bandwidth2. Any one of these theories could’ve potentially gotten at least something right, but how would we even know? (fig. 1) Reference: Kuhn, R.L. (2024)2 Chalmers and Koch have long suggested that progress would come from establishing a clear neural correlate of consciousness (NCC) - meaning there’s a relatively agreed upon consensus in the field about the minimally sufficient neural processes which result in the generation of consciousness4,5. Even so, they suggest we’d still be left with solving the explanatory gap between those NCC’s and Chalmers’ Hard Problem6- which refers to how exactly does phenomenological experience get generated out from a physical process? Nonetheless, they recommend that finding NCC’s will help put us on the road to solving it. The subjective nature of consciousness makes it notoriously difficult to study, due to it being inaccessible to anyone except the ‘being’ who is currently experiencing it. Despite this intrinsic difficulty, there are still ways to investigate consciousness, each with their own benefits and limitations - an excellent article by Wayne Wu addressing this very subject is referenced here7. By my own estimate, there seem to be 4 primary methods of studying it: introspection, philosophy, clinical and ethological based observations, and scientific experimentation. The introspective method’s usefulness is derived by perhaps being the only way of directly observing the experiential phenomenology of consciousness, although it is likewise limited by this same reliance on accurate subjective reporting7. It can descriptively tell us what consciousness is like, but not what explains its generation. Clinical and ethological based observations (say from a psychologist or ethologist) provide a similar benefit of observing the dynamic workings of both conscious and unconscious processes by working closely with many different people/animals. Taken by itself however, there’s also the looming risk of suffering Karl Popper-like accusations of such clinically-derived theories being “unfalsifiable” - a blow of which the field of Psychoanalysis has arguably never recovered from8. Philosophy on its own has arguably been the dominant method of investigating consciousness, perhaps partly due to its willingness to contend with the mystery (while most fields of science have historically shied away from it, sometimes out of prejudice). However, as a method it relies upon a series ofaxioms to build its proposed model; even if it’s logically and systematically consistent, these axioms and conclusions often still need empirical verification. The proof in its inability to facilitate a consensus on its own is the fact that it has thus far failed to achieve such a consensus, despite having had many centuries now to do so (for example, spanning as far back as the 17th century when Descartes proposed his famous dictum of “I think therefore I am”). While the last method - the scientific method with its experimental studies - can offer this verification, it too has its limitations. Beyond establishing methodological rigor, the primary issue is the accurate interpretation of the found results. The scientific method is necessarily reductive in scope: while it’s effective in establishing facts, the ontology of consciousness is arguably too broad to be explained and verified in a single study or experiment. Rather, it will more likely take a series of studies, which themselves require an assembly process to stitch together its many facts into a coherent ontological model; this relationship would be akin to the distinction of theoretical and experimental physics both informing one another. Furthermore, any strong evidence of an NCC should be independently replicated to help facilitate consensus building, to meet the criteria of an NCC being clear. Thus, the rigor and skills of applied philosophical thinking towards experiments as a synergetic fusion is necessary. This synergy of the philosophical and scientific mindset operating together and being applied to discovering NCC’s has been expounded upon by Chalmers, pointing out some useful interpretative caveats that should be considered when attempting to investigate consciousness scientifically9. It therefore would be beneficial for those whoare morephilosophically orientatedto increase their focus towards the experimental, offering interpretations of the current evidence while also critically considering the underlying question of: what would verify or falsify any claim or theory about consciousness? Scientists should equally be challenged to come up with mechanistic explanations for empirically based observations made by psychological clinicians about the dynamic workings of consciousness (eg. trauma & dissociation, feelings & instincts, and the “unconscious”); in this way, each camp can beneficially inform one another. Any complete model of consciousness should ultimately be required to explain such genuine psychodynamic phenomena. The same explanatory requirement for consciousness models also applies to introspective reports regarding its phenomenology. To further illustrate with a more obscure example of an introspective-based report, I’ll share a personal anecdote that occurred at some point during the writing of my thesis. I had a dream where a respected microbiologist-trained teacher of mine pointed out to me that the body is mostly made up of water, while implying it had some relationship to consciousness and the so-called mind-body problem. Up to this point, water hadn’t at all been on my radar with regards to investigating the topic of consciousness, but I curiously ended up searching the academic literature and found an existing body of papers - a sub-field in quantum biology dedicated to this very topic of the potential connection between water and consciousness10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18. Specifically, there is a unique state of water that goes by many names such as Interfacial, Ordered, or Exclusion Zone (EZ) water10, which seems to be capable of hosting the property of quantum coherence, while also playing a role in DNA related interactions19,20,21. The literature search even provided me with an important finding about the interaction between anesthesia and EZ water that was directly relevant to my thesis, which I cited in my (currently) unpublished paper22. The resulting impact that this had on me was informing my thinking about a potential hypothesis for how consciousness may potentially arise and operate down at the micro-biological (or cellular) level. Those who are understandably skeptical of micro-organisms having any level of consciousness should first familiarize themselves with the ground-breaking work of the biologist Michael Levin, who has found that they can possess surprisingly intelligent problem-solving capabilities (109). I’m not here to expound upon, or advocate for, a water-based consciousness, nor is it necessarily one of the three NCC’s that I do want to argue for. In fact, I’ve experienced and subsequently documented a grand total of 11 such dreams and inner experiences during the span of writing my thesis - all hinting towards different aspects of the underlying ontology and workings of consciousness. Rather, I share this personal story to make a couple of points: 1) is that introspective means may be a valid method of exploring the ontological nature of consciousness, and 2) if legitimate, any model of consciousness must be able to account for the underlying mechanisms of explaining such occurrences. I emphasize however that while such insights may bestow ideas, they still ultimately require additional verification - this requirement of testing ideas also serves as a principle of psychological hygiene when navigating both internal and externally arrived upon suppositions about consciousness. There’ve been other examples in the history of science where dreams have led to a new discovery, a famous example is Kekulé’s discovery of the circular shape of the Benzene ring which he realized upon seeing an image of a snake eating its own tail during a dream23. Even across Kuhn’s ‘Landscape of Consciousness’2, it’s not uncommon for inner experiences to shape a pioneer’s model of consciousness, such as Federico Faggin24 (a physicist and inventor of the microprocessor) and Tom Campbell25 (a physicist and former NASA scientist). Other models such as Steve & Pauline Richards Psycho-Systems Analysis offer explanatory modelling for such phenomena through their theory of Informational Monism and Informational Superpositioning26.27. Campbell points out that people with certain metaphysical belief systems such as Idealism generally find it easier to accept the plausibility of such ‘parapsychological phenomenon’, as opposed to those subscribed to scientific Materialism25. This highlights the cautionary overlap of subjective belief systems interfering with, and biasing one’s modelling of consciousness. In summary of the 4 investigative methodologies described, their limitations all seem to occur most prevalently when only the singular method is used by itself. They all offer valid tools to be used for the overall investigation of consciousness - to which the overall field should ideally be harmoniously ‘firing on all 4 cylinders’ by drawing insights from each method, minimizing the interference of overly prejudicial divides occurring between them. The Science of Consciousness Studies Given that science will inevitably lead this previously mentioned pruning phase through experimental filtration, consciousness studies as a science should be addressed. Some believe that consciousness is too ineffable for scientific study, however, this is not the case. One effective means of scientifically studying it is investigating the mechanisms which lead to its elimination, such as comas or anesthesia; evidence in these directions will be further elaborated on in later sections. Consciousness studies necessitates a multi-disciplinary based approach in addressing its fundamental questions and no single discipline has any claim to its sole-ownership, or is otherwise capable of solving its issues on its own. This is evident due to the fact that the generation of our consciousness involves and is predicated upon, multiple levels of analysis operating simultaneously: our psychological experience, the neuroscience of the brain, the biological workings of neuronal (and other) cells, the organic chemistry that facilitates their functions, the physics that fundamentally govern those workings, and philosophy to help investigate and tie it all together in a logically coherent way. Where among these levels does consciousness arise? At bare minimum, all levels should be included in the investigation for their contributing role, leaving no stone left unturned. The inefficiencies of limiting our perspective into only one discipline have long since been pointed out by prominent authors and academics such as the recently passed Steven Rose28, where such a singular-minded approach is metaphorically like the parable of a group of blind men each touching a different part of an elephant and each consequently arriving on their own incorrect appraisal. Thus, a meta-framework capable of encapsulating all levels of analysis is necessary, such as George Engel’s Bio-Psycho-Social (BPS) medical model (which includes sub-divisions from the sub-atomic level all the way up to the ecosphere)29. However in using this, one shouldn’t conflate all of the levels into a vague ‘holism’ that ignores the mechanistic dynamics and interactions within and between the levels. The case as to why this BPS scaffold is necessary will only become more self-evident as this essay progresses. The structurally based tendency of academia to incentivize specialization, compounded with the prejudices in various disciplines against encouraging their students to study consciousness, has in all likelihood been a contributing factor to this proliferated state we currently find ourselves in. While these prejudices have been waning with the presence of more professional conferences, competitions, and the growing popularity of interest among the general public, it is still a rarity for academic institutions to have degrees or departments in Consciousness Studies (although there are a few notable exceptions who’ve begun pioneering the discipline, such as the University of Arizona’s Center for Consciousness Studies30). This momentum of formalization needs to continue to be built upon. The mass proliferation of different theories of consciousness is emblematic of this lack of centralized cohesion across the field; a multi-disciplinary formalization of the Field of Consciousness Studies is needed to address or make substantial progress on its fundamental problems. Consciousness studies is therefore a “Jack-of-all-Trades” type of science, but simultaneously requires the expertise of specialists, both in drawing upon their research and in offering rigorous peer-review from the knowledge base of their respective fields - to keep the “dreamers” in check and grounded in reality. Both of these two ends of the spectrum must work harmoniously together and encourage one another: the assembly and vision of the polymath, and the expertise and scrupulousness of the specialist. The pioneers across this “Landscape of Consciousness” should be honoured and respected for their contributions, for braving this exploration into the enigmatic and elusive foray of investigating one of the deepest mysteries of mankind. As much as I’ve pointed out this issue of there being too many theories, their collective efforts have put us in the advantageous position to begin to systematically evaluate them - especially now that Kuhn has provided us with a clear picture of the broad spectrum of ideas regarding its potential ontology. Some commentators have even called Kuhn’s achievement “a pivotal moment” in the history of consciousness studies31. I’d agree with this sentiment and further argue that it could be considered malignant growth - from this point onward - for the branches on the trees of this ‘Landscape’ to continue to proliferate without any concentrated efforts to trim and integrate these findings through a dedicated evaluation process. Progress towards further understanding consciousness and establishing its neural correlates will be unlikely to originate from another newly proposed model of consciousness; rather, progress will come from the humble contributions of many scientific and experimental verifications building upon each other, with the assistance of focused philosophical attention, to either verify or falsify the numerous propositions made from across this ‘Landscape’ of theories. Right now, we don’t need another model of consciousness, what we need are more innovative ways to start filtering down and gauging the veracity of what we already have, and for the broader field to be aware of what we already know. The field has already begun moving in this direction, as evident by the recent Templeton World Charity Foundation’s adversarial collaborations on consciousness which has put leading theories head-to-head, challenging them to propose verifiable experiments about their model’s predictions, while providing grants for these experiments to be conducted35. This is an excellent initiative and this momentum should continue to be built upon to move the field and discussions forward. As a sub-field, philosophy of mind has overall put us in a favourable position by generating a wide bandwidth of different models of consciousness available as options, which have been taxonomically categorized within Kuhn’s ‘Landscape’ (eg. Materialism, Dualism, Idealism, Panpsychism, and Quantum)2. It has also highlighted important questions that each of these schools of thought face: such as Chalmers identifying the ‘Hard Problem’6 which Materialism famously struggles with, or William James pointing out the ‘Combination problem’ that Panpsychism likewise faces32, or the obverse ‘De-combination problem’ that Idealism-bent metaphysic’s face33. Another issue that all metaphysics equally face is what specifically determines and differentiates qualia into its specific representation - the ‘Qualia Problem’. There’s no guarantee that the same factor which determines a particular tone of qualia to form is also the same mechanism which causes experience to phenomenologically arise; albeit they must necessarily be intrinsically connected (you can’t have qualia without experience, nor experience without qualia).Finding out the neural correlates of qualia then makes for a promising testing ground for evaluating theoretical attempts at solving the Hard Problem. From my purview, the Hard Problem, (de)Combination Problem, Qualia Problem, and finding the NCC’s are collectively the 4 Primary Problems of Consciousness Studies. They all fundamentally get to the core essence of what we all know to be consciousness: “what it is like to be something” (to quote Thomas Nagel’s famous essay ‘What is it like to be a bat?’34). All other issues I would categorize as Periphery Problems of Consciousness, which would include important issues that are no doubt related to consciousness, but by a degree of separation (eg. “unfree will”, the “so-called unconscious”, disorders of consciousness, artificial intelligence consciousness, parapsychology, ect…). One can (and should) argue about what deserves to be included within both the Primary and Periphery Problems - this is simply what my own subjective consciousness deems to be important for the field to focus on. The more important aspect of this all is the organizational structure to help orientate the Field of Consciousness Studies into a more coherent focus - its contents can be debated. To be clear, I’m not advocating for homogenous unity of belief systems, rather to bring more of a heterogeneous cohesion that is unified by common goals and problems. Any scientific field has its core questions of interest, historical canon of important figures, discoveries, and evidence, along with its overarching theoretical models. As such, the above is an outline of how the Field of Consciousness Studies could look (fig. 2). (fig. 2) The Field of Consciousness Studies A Razor of Experimental Evidence Given that there are 209 different models of consciousness on ‘The Landscape’, it may be too high of a bar and expectation for any single researcher of consciousness to know every theory to a high level of expertise or have the capacity and bandwidth to assess them all in any given paper. Therefore, researchers could evaluate the theories from the starting points of their own ‘spheres of interest’, with the intention of pruning away what can be left behind from these theories and keeping what has good reason or supporting evidence to keep. This would be an effective method to lead this phase of pruning, through the evaluative search for experimental verification and falsification. The end result for the individual researcher, through the accumulation of such experimental evidence, is the production of an Experimental Razor or filter that can then be built upon, or applied to, evaluating any theory of consciousness. Anyone who engages in such an exercise will have their own Razor, which can then be tested and compared against other such Razors to further the discussion forward by debating what evidence should be included or excluded. In the overall field, the end result of many individual researchers doing this exercise will be: a collective pruning of the theories of consciousness, a better collective awareness and alignment of what the current experimental research shows, more discussions around the implications of experimental results, and ideally a clearer picture of what consciousness must ontologically involve. To demonstrate, the following sections will present an overview of my own Experimental Razor, along with the 3 previously promised contenders for the neural correlates of consciousness. But first, it’s important for any investigation to specify a definition of consciousness so it’s clear what exactly is being sought out. The definition used in this paper is from Steve & Pauline Richards model of Psycho-Systems Analysis, where consciousness is defined as “a complexity of information that is capable of representing itself, to itself, and to other complexities of information”27; their metaphysical framework of Informational Monism underpins this26. One doesn’t need to subscribe to an informational based metaphysic to utilize this definition, consciousness could alternatively be defined as any phenomenological experience occurring, or a subjective ‘that which it is like to be something’ per Nagel, or the other side of Chalmers’s Hard Problem. The guiding question serving as a throughline to this investigation is finding out the generating source of experiential consciousness in the human brain, and what mechanistically enables a complexity of information to represent itself to itself? The focus is on finding the minimal requirements, both necessary and sufficient, to the generation of phenomenological experience. NCC #1 - Location in the Brain: the left medial parabrachial nuclei My investigation found that the location of the brain most likely to be foundationally responsible for the generation of consciousness is the brainstem’s left-medial parabrachial nuclei (mPBN) of the pons, as both a starting point and sine qua non of its generation. The following will walk through the evidence of why I believe this to be the case, which follows on from Mark Solms’s hypothesis outlined in his book The Hidden Spring: A Journey to the Source of Consciousness36,37. Here, he builds a strong case for consciousness arising from the brainstem’s Reticular Activating System (RAS) and Periaqueductal Grey (PAG)36. In doing so, he presents many studies as converging evidence from disparate sources to make his argument about where in the brain consciousness ultimately arises from, and a few of these studies will be shared here. Perhaps the most convincing (as well as heartwarming) of the cases regarding what region of the brain is minimally sufficient to facilitate the generation of consciousness, was the case of a 3-year-old girl born with a clinical condition called hydranencephaly. People with this condition are born without a cerebrum or forebrain, and only with a brainstem and cerebellum. If one were to adhere to the predictions made from cerebrum focused models of consciousness38 (such as Higher Order Theories (HOTs)Global Neuronal Workspace, Integrated Information Theory (IIT), and Re-entry and Predictive Processing theories), one would predict that this girl wouldnot have any conscious experience at all. However, this does not seem to be the case. She responds very emotionally to stimuli that would be expected for any 3-year-old, such as “expressing pleasure through smiling and laughter, and aversion by fussing… crying… [with] their faces being animated by these emotional states”(fig. 3)39. As Solms puts it, “it’s not only that she’s awake, but there’s a reactive mind with feelings and content”40. This is very strong evidence that there’s still a sense of subjective experience occurring within these people, despite not having any forebrain at all. Decorticated rats and other mammals also retain the capacity for the usual behaviours that are indicative of the animal being conscious39. Arguments denying that there’s any sentience present within these decorticated cases would seem to only rely on solipsistic appeals40, or a reductive-anthropomorphized definition of consciousness as strictly being the higher-order cognitive self-awareness inherent to human beings. Conscious experience can occur without the cerebrum; therefore, consciousness isn’t foundationally dependent on these higher cortical structures, and it must be generated much deeper in both our anatomical and phylogenetic brain: somewhere within the brainstem or the cerebellum. This finding simultaneously narrows down the search while falsifying any cerebrum based NCC’s, unless one chooses to deny that the above-mentioned girl - or any other such cases - are conscious. Another way to find NCC’s is by finding what causes consciousness to switch off, such as the state of being comatose. Solms leverages lesion and coma studies to further narrow down what locations are ultimately necessary for the generation of consciousness; if they weren’t necessary, then a lesion to the affected area wouldn’t disrupt consciousness and it would continue on being generated elsewhere. Using such studies, he narrows it down to the brainstem’s RAS (whose functional operationality is used in the determination of “Brain Death” within medical contexts42), but highlights a region within the Pons called the Parabrachial Nuclei (PBN) - this specific region is the area of the brain stem where the smallest lesions “cause a total loss of consciousness”36,43,44. Critiques coming from cerebrum-based proprietors, such as Koch, claim that this region only enables consciousness but “are not content providers”45, however Solms rebukes this quite effectively by pointing out that hydranencephaly patients clearly demonstrate the ‘contents’ of affective qualia36. Upon learning this, I became curious about the PBN - what exactly is so special about its component parts or networks that make it critically important to the generation of consciousness? Upon looking for a differentiating factor, I found that only lesions in the medial PBN sub-region (mPBN) cause coma, and this asymmetrically only applies to the left-side rather than the right46,47. This demonstrates that the mPBN is necessary as a sine qua non to the generation of consciousness. Further studies found that electrically stimulating this region’s glutamatergic neurons causes wakefulness from sleep, more essentially so when compared with other wakefulness related clusters in the brainstem48,49, while others found stimulation even caused emergence from anesthetic unconsciousness50,51. These studies provide evidence that this neuronal group is ‘necessary’ for the generation of consciousness. Upon investigating the neural morphology, there didn’t seem to be any unique characteristic differences within these types of neurons other than a relatively higher density of grey matter, indicating the abundance of dendritic connections52. What’s more interesting however was its associated network of connections: the PBN has been described by various neuroscience researchers as a “general alarm system” for pain and aversion, and a “major hub” for receiving inputs from all primary internal and external sensory systems53,54,55. Furthermore, photoactivation of a certain type of glutamatergic PBN neurons alongside giving mice a novel stimulus is enough to create a “fear memory” for the stimulus, and when these same neurons are chemically deactivated, the mice become “relatively fearless”55; this demonstrates that these neurons are capable of at least generating the qualitative content of ‘fear’, rather than simply being responsible for ‘contentless arousal’. Given the above evidence, I hypothesize that the reason this particular location of the left mPBN should be crucial to consciousness among all other regions of the brain, is due to it having a fundamental role in the modulation of arousal, serving a dual purpose of modulating both sleep/wake cycles and the arousal of homeostatic inputs into phenomenological experience. Lesions in this area likely cause coma because it disrupts the underlying mechanism primarily responsible for conscious arousal, debilitating both sleep and conscious wakefulness, as evident by the coma and anesthetic state being physiologically different to sleep itself56. In short, it serves as a ‘gate-keeper’ being chiefly responsible for modulating signals into phenomenological experience, and the existing research already supports it as being a strong contender for a clear NCC, in terms of locations in the brain. However, at this point in my investigation I was still unsatisfied as there didn’t seem to be an evident mechanism to explain how this ‘arousal into conscious experience’ actually occurs. I was looking for a physiological-based mechanism that could account for this generation; action potentials are constantly firing (in a standard Hodgkin’s and Huxley sense56) across the entire brain in other terminating locations and don’t necessarily generate consciousness. Therefore, while perhaps being necessary, action potential firings and terminating neuronal networks did not seem sufficient in themselves to explain how experience arises - there must be another factor. NCC #2 - Dendritic Microtubule’s Resonance Chain The Orchestrated Objective Reduction (Orch OR) model of consciousness from Stuart Hameroff and Sir Roger Penrose offered a solution to this above mentioned issue: gamma EEG synchrony58,59,60, which itself is supported by many independent studies in its ability to detect if conscious attention is present within a neuronal connectome61,62,63. For reference, Hameroff elaborates more on this correlation within his 2010 paper The "conscious pilot"-dendritic synchrony moves through the brain to mediate consciousness59. Its utility as a NCC is reliable enough to even be used in medical contexts where it’s standard practice in anesthesiology to use this 40Hz electromagnetic radiation (EMR) signal of gamma EEG to measure anesthetic depth to detect if the patient is conscious - surely an important metric to get right due to the painful stakes of proceeding with surgery while still conscious. This is because cross brain gamma synchrony is disrupted by anesthesia60,64. It’s known that dendritic-somatic membranes of neurons (and not axonal firings) are responsible for the generation of the “local field potentials” that give rise to the electrical activity picked up by EEG equipment, including the gamma frequency range60,65. Hameroff proposes that this specifically originates from the dendritic cytoskeletal microtubules; as supporting evidence for this proposition, 40Hz EMR oscillations have indeed been detected directly within them66. While there may be a correlation between gamma synchrony and the conscious state, which has in fact long been regarded as a potential NCC contender by even Koch (and Crick) in their 1990 landmark paper67, there are issues associated with it being a clear NCC. As evidenced by Koch taking the loss in his bet with Chalmers, he has since backed off from this stance, citing that “gamma synchrony can occur in the absence of consciousness”5. While there still may be an argument that gamma synchrony is necessary for consciousness, the cited evidence demonstrates that by itself, it isn’t sufficient for its generation. Nonetheless, the correlate of gamma synchrony has proven to be a useful clue about the nature of consciousness - a signpost towards it, if nothing else. However, Hameroff doesn’t necessarily attribute the generation of consciousness to gamma synchrony itself, but rather to supposed quantum properties within the dendritic microtubules - an exposition on the full theory of the model can be found in their 2014 review paper on Orch OR60. Rather than rehashing descriptions of their model, the focus here will instead be on summarizing the experimental evidence supportive of their predictions. Many people consider the suggestion of quantum states occurring within the ‘warm, wet, and noisy’ environment of the brain impossible, but experimental evidence has already proven that microtubules are able to host such quantum effects: microtubules have been demonstrated to exhibit the intrinsically quantum phenomenon of ‘superradiance’68, as well as ‘ballistic conductance’69. Hameroff and Penrose propose that specific features of microtubules create the pre-requisite conditions needed to maintain a quantum state. To briefly summarize, this is due to the microtubule’s tubulin proteins being composed of non-polar, organic carbon molecules, who’s aromatic structure facilitates coherent oscillations of their pi-orbital electron clouds due to van der Waals London Dispersion forces, thus forming a quantum Fröhlich coherence60,70. It is evident here from this brief technical explanation how the levels of biology, organic chemistry, and physics are all necessary to model consciousness, hence the necessity of having a full bio-psycho-social framework29. As for the epistemological reasoning of why Hameroff contends that consciousness occurs within the microtubules, he takes a similar ‘process of elimination’ approach that Solms does with coma studies, except starting from a different angle: his expertise in being an anesthesiologist. Under anesthesia, a person loses consciousness while their other bodily functions still operate58. Therefore, finding out the mechanism of the interaction between anesthesia and the brain that results in a loss of consciousness makes for an excellent method of figuring out what ultimately generates consciousness. Several studies implicate microtubules as being the primary interaction site of anesthesia to cause its consciousness debilitating effects. First off, neuronal membrane receptors have been demonstrated to be insufficient as an explanatory mechanism, this is best exemplified by the authors of a landmark 2008 review on the subject declaring that a “new paradigm” may be needed to explain how anesthesia works59,71,72,73. Also: proteomic and genomic studies show that anesthesia alters microtubule-related gene expression74, anesthesia has been confirmed to bind to microtubules in tadpoles (with the authors concluding that the interaction contributes to the loss of consciousness)75, anesthesia has been shown to dampen quantum optical effects within microtubules76, and perhaps the most striking evidence is that microtubule stabilizing drugs have the effect of delaying anesthesia onset times or requiring a higher potency of anesthetic dose - both in humans and rats77,78. Doubters to this proposition of anesthetic interaction primarily occurring within microtubules must offer a sufficient explanation and mechanism as to why microtubule stabilizing drugs would delay the onset of anesthetic induced unconsciousness. Going beyond the anesthesia studies, if consciousness began within the dendritic microtubules, and we know that axonal action potentials are responsible for the transmission of signals and information processing in the brain (which facilitates downstream actions like motor movements), then we’d predict that microtubules would have the a priori ability to influence this process. This is exactly what has been experimentally found by Anirban Bandyopadhyay and his colleagues. Bandyopadhyay’s group has compiled a body of evidence over the years demonstrating electro-magnetic effects in microtubules, which form a ‘scale invariant hierarchy’ of increasing frequency speeds from Hz up to MHz to THz, at each level from the neuron down to the microtubule and its ordered water layer, respectively69,79,80,81,82. Each of these layers have a bi-directional influence on each other through electric and magnetic field effects, which is detected in what he calls a ‘triplet of triplet’ frequency signature shown in the figure below (fig. 4). [See Figure 4 at the end of the essay.] Some critics rightfully point out that these studies require independent replication, but may not be aware that this has already begun to happen, as there have been independent studies which demonstrate that microtubules are capable of hosting electrical signalling capabilities83 and emitting EMR fields84. A highlight from this body of research from Bandyopadhyay is that these microtubule MHz frequencies have been detected to occur just prior to neuronal firing, which implicates the capability of microtubules to influence and modulate the firing of action potentials, as well as regulate spike timing81,82. It is even stated in the paper that “if the microfilament core is dissolved chemically, the filamentary wiring disappears, and all the neurons fire as if no neighbours exist”82. Therefore, it’s been demonstrated that microtubules play a critical role in neuronal synchrony - the importance of which is best described by Pascal Fries Communication through Coherence (CTC) theory, as synchronous firing is a requirement for effective neuronal communication63,85. These MHz frequencies, as well as ‘triplet of triplet signatures’, have now been detected not only in vitro, but also in vivo (in humans nonetheless) by using next-generation EEG technology invented by Bandyopadhyay which can detect MHz signals - he’s named this technology Dodecanogram (DDG)86,87. Furthermore, these signals are significantly modulated in response to anesthetic dosage, revealing a neural correlate signature of ‘unconsciousness’87. However, the proposition of MHz frequencies (as classical EMR fields) being responsible for the generation of consciousness faces the same issues that gamma synchrony does. For one, gamma EEG synchronizes in wave form phase across the entire brain with ‘zero-phase-lag-coherence’, which is unable to be explained by classical mechanisms; action potential transmissions are too slow and EMR fields are “shunted” by neighbouring glial cells58,91,92,93. Hameroff and Penrose therefore propose that quantum entanglement explains the underlying mechanism which facilitates this ‘zero-phase-lag’ gamma synchrony across the brain60. They suggest that this entanglement occurs within dendritic microtubules, and ‘gap junctions’ between neuronal cells allow for microtubules to entangle across neurons, across the brain. Another issue is that these MHz bursts are still detected while under anesthesia, albeit in a modulated signature without the ‘triplet of triplet’ resonance chain87,88. Furthermore, if one were to attribute consciousness solely to these classical MHz and THz frequencies, they would also seemingly have to accept that this creates consciousness anywhere these relatively faster frequencies are present, including common electronic devices such as kitchen microwaves (MHz to GHz)89 or airport security scanners (THz)90. Unless one is comfortable with accepting that consciousness is present in the microwave and heats up your leftover lasagna, then some other ingredient must also be present for consciousness to occur. To carry on with using this savory dish as a metaphor, lasagna only truly becomes lasagna when all of its different layers are present together: the layers on their own are just the individual ingredients of pasta, meat, cheese, and sauce until they all combine to form Garfield’s favourite food. This multi-leveled ‘layering’ is precisely akin to what Bandyopadhyay found as being the strongest neural correlate of consciousness found to date: the multi-leveled ‘triplet of triplet resonance chain’ of nested frequencies. After Bandyopadhyay and Hameroff’s previously mentioned study found the ‘neural correlate of unconsciousness’ using DDG technology87, they conducted follow up experiments which found that the presence of this multi-leveled ‘triplet of triplet resonance chain’ as a signature, is a more effective NCC than gamma EEG synchrony88. This ‘triplet of triplet’ signature disappeared alongside both anesthetic and coma induced unconsciousness, while correlating with the emergence of conscious states - in vivo88. By using this DDG device, this signature outperformed the standard bispectral index (BIS) anesthetic depth indicator (which is based on gamma EEG) in correlating with the presence of consciousness64,88. Using these new neural correlates of consciousness and unconsciousness even enabled them to save two patient’s lives in the medical center where this was being studied! This incredible feat happened when a signal of consciousness was picked up using their new correlates (which wasn’t picked up by the standard BIS measuring device) and they were able to make a medical intervention in response to this signal in time to save the patient’s life. This was due to the patient experiencing some arousal in response to having life-threatening levels of hypoglycemia while they were unconscious88, showcasing the medically relevant importance of accurately understanding these signals of conscious and unconscious states. This finding from Bandyopadhyay then has the pending potential to serve as the closest NCC found to date, being both sufficient and necessary to the generation of consciousness88. Although unclear right now, further publishing and replication of these results may bring about such clarity, and perhaps even serve as Chalmer’s quipped ‘consciousness meter’, acting as a clear NCC9. But a question remains about the ontology of this ‘triplet of triplet resonance chain’; as a reader and observer of these findings, it’s unclear whether this ‘resonance chain’ is strictly classical in nature, or does it require quantum effects (which have been found in microtubules and are a crucial component to Orch OR theory) to meaningfully cohere and connect these levels to create consciousness? Would the EMR interference and phase effects of the multi-scaled classical EMR frequency ranges (Hz to MHz to THz) combine in a vat to somehow generate conscious experience, if one could engineer such conditions to somehow create a similar multi-scaled ‘classical resonance chain’? Or is a quantum-ingredient necessary? NCC #3 - A quantum pre-requisite for consciousness Throughout the course of my research into consciousness, I have become quite convinced that phenomenological consciousness requires a quantum state to be generated. I would even venture to betboth Chalmers and Koch each a case of wine that the NCC will ultimately require a quantum pre-requisite, andthis will be demonstrably clear within 15 years - the case of which will be supported in this section. To be clear, the criteria of what constitutes quantum is the hosting of a meaningful quantum state that is capable of intrinsically quantum phenomena such as entanglement, superposition, ect… To start, I’ve already mentioned how it’s been proven that microtubules are capable of hosting quantum effects68,69, but this doesn’t necessarily implicate that consciousness must be quantum. The classically inexplainable phenomena of zero-phase-lag gamma synchrony, where gamma EEG oscillates in synchronous phase (meaning a coherent wave-form) across the entire brain, has likewise already been discussed58,91,92,93; the same inherent limitations would also apply to the MHz and THz EMR frequencies that make up Bandyopadhyay’s resonance chain. If quantum entanglement is necessary a priori to facilitate this synchronous firing, and therefore also downstream actions63, the chain of causality points toward consciousness emerging first from the quantum level of analysis. Secondly, interesting experimental evidence has been found by Li et al regarding differences in anesthetic potency that can only be attributed to the variable of quantum spin between xenon isotopes (xenon is an anesthetic molecule)94. The authors in the paper ruled out any other attributes (such as polarizability) to conclude that only the property of quantum spin could account for this difference in anesthetic potency - which was that integer spin xenon isotopes were more potent than their ‘spin half’ counterparts94. This stood out to me as an incredibly important finding, because if anesthesia shuts off consciousness, and its difference in potency is affected by the intrinsically quantum variable of spin, then it would seem to imply a quantum interaction is taking place to cause this disruption. The necessity for this quantum-on-quantum interaction could only be true if all other classically based mechanisms of interaction could effectively be ruled out. Commenting on this study, the theoretical physicist and quantum biologist Philip Kurian even suggested that “if you can solve this problem, you’ve really reached the quantum scale of understanding mind”.95 In the paper by Li et al, as well as in a follow up commentary paper by Hameroff on this finding, it was suggested that this difference was due to ‘spin half’ particles - or what are categorized as fermions in particle physics - being more likely to maintain entanglement between particles due to their intrinsic stability94,96. Conversely, when a particle has integer spin, such as spin zero, they are considered in particle physics to be bosons. It’s argued that if quantum entanglement solves the ‘Binding Problem’ and contributes to consciousness, then these fermionic isotopes are more readily able to maintain entanglement with the existing ‘entangled consciousness system’, which results in an increase of consciousness rather than an anesthetic antagonization of it. I was admittedly unsatisfied with this explanation as it wasn’t obvious as to why fermionic xenon should act as an anesthetic at all then - wouldn’t it follow that adding more simply leads to increased entanglement, and therefore a continued increase of consciousness rather than elimination of it? These fermionic xenon isotopes however, are simply less potent and require a higher dosage to produce the deleterious effects on consciousness. Based on a few fundamental principles in quantum physics that weren’t included within the analyses of the above mentioned papers, I will propose an alternative explanation which seems to make more sense as to why fermionic isotopes are less potent than their integer spin counterparts, and this explanation also happens to rule out classically based mechanisms as being the cause for this disruption. It is known by physicists that ‘Bose-Einstein condensates’ form with bosons rather than fermions due to the fundamental differences in their spin properties, where each type consequently obeys different statistical rules governing their quantum wave functions: Fermi-Dirac statistics for fermions and Bose-Einstein statistics for bosons97. While there are technical and mathematical reasons for this distinction, in essence, the key difference is that fermions are constrained by the ‘Pauli Exclusion principle’ which prevents identical fermions from occupying the same state within the same system97. This restriction forces fermions (such as electrons and other spin ½ particles) to occupy different positions and fill other electron orbitals - a fundamental reason why matter behaves as a solid. In contrast, bosons are not subject to this restriction of Pauli’s Exclusion principle, allowing them to collectively ‘condense’ and occupy the same quantum state and energy level, which can lead to macroscopic quantum coherence. In a similar spirit, Fröhlich coherence also describes how van der Waals London Dispersion forces can enable collective quantum coherence in biological molecules to act like ‘Bose-Einstein’ condensates. Hameroff proposes how anesthesia molecules are non-polar but polarizable, which through London Dispersion forces allows them to initially oscillate with the microtubule’s tubulin proteins, until inherent differences of atomic polarizability between them causes instability and eventual disruption of both the quantum coherence and consciousness98,99. I propose that the xenon isotopes with integer spins - acting as bosonic particles - are more readily able to become coherent with the existing quantum state of the dipole oscillations intrinsic to the microtubule, this is due to their innate ability to occupy the same quantum state. Bosons are thus more primed for this quantum interaction of coherence to occur compared with their fermionic counterparts, which would be less likely or take longer to join in the quantum coherence due to the Pauli Exclusion principle causing repulsions. This might also explain another finding, as to why halogenated anesthetics interact through quantum mechanisms with entangled photons but not classical photons, as the quantum coherence is less likely to occur when the photon is already ‘classically collapsed’100. This theoretically makes sense to explain spin dependent differences in anesthetic potency, but is there any supporting evidence for this hypothesis? One study found that when fruit flies are given a variety of different anesthetics, they measured an “increase in spin” (as detected by ‘magnetic moments’) within the fruit flies101. It is well known to physicists that a system’s spin and ‘magnetic moments’ are interrelated properties - as described by the Dirac equation - meaning that a classical magnetic field can be produced by the quantum spin of its charged particles97,102. Fermions create ‘magnetic moments’, as opposed to bosons which don’t possess this same magnetic quality97,102. This increase in detected magnetic moments could be indicative that within the fruit flies, there was a significant increase in the presence of fermionic particles within their ‘total system’ after receiving a dosage of anesthesia. This makes sense if you consider that coherence can still arise in systems involving fermionic components - as seen with “Cooper Pairs” of electrons in superconductivity which makes them behave together as bosons103; the same occurs with the pi-orbital electron clouds among tubulin in Orch OR to create coherent condensates69. Given this, Hameroff’s mechanism of anesthetic action would ‘decohere’ the electrons into behaving individually again as fermions, thus resulting in a net increase of the total number of fermions - and consequently, magnetic moments - within the fruit fly. As a speculative aside, this would make sense that the ontology of consciousness is more associated with bosons rather than fermions, given that phenomenological consciousness seems to ‘coagulate’ various qualia into a unitary experience, just like how the energy within bosons condense into a unitary state, rather than repel against each other. To rule out any classical mechanisms of interaction, if the spin-dependent disruption of consciousness were due to the classical effects of magnetism disrupting whatever causes consciousness, then one would predict that fermions would have a higher anesthetic potency due to their intrinsic magnetic force; this isn’t the case. This rules out any classical mechanisms of interaction as being responsible for differences in spin dependent anesthetic potency. Rather, the interaction instead likely occurs due to London Dispersion forces - which intrinsically involves quantum mechanics104. To come full circle to my dream about a water-based consciousness that was discussed earlier in this essay, evidence of these same London dispersion forces as being the causal mechanism of anesthetic interaction was further shown in findings with ordered/EZ water’s behaviour when anesthesia molecules are placed within it22. The experiment showed that upon initial dosage, the width of the EZ zone temporarily increases, but then drastically decreases afterwards when the dosage is increased. This matches the well-known phenomenon in anesthesiology of “paradoxical excitement”, where people who have taken anesthesia become temporarily euphoric after the initial administration of the anesthetic dose, before subsequently becoming unconscious105. This same ‘rise and fall’ effect also matches perfectly with Hameroff’s proposed mechanism of anesthetic interaction, of the molecules initially becoming coherent with the tubulin due to London dispersion forces before differences in polarizability destabilizes and disperses them. Furthermore, ordered/EZ water is also bound to the microtubule’s inner lumen and is critically important to the ‘ballistic conductive’ properties that microtubules exhibit, its removal causes it to severely lose its conductivity69. As a hypothesis then, perhaps all it would take to induce unconsciousness would be for anesthesia to remove this ordered/EZ water layer within the lumen of the microtubules in critical parts of the brain, such as the left mPBN. To summarize the findings with an argument: if anesthesia disrupts consciousness, and its potency depends on the quantum property of spin whose mechanism of interaction can only be accounted for by a quantum-on-quantum interaction (bosonic coherence and London dispersion forces), then consciousness must necessarily involve a quantum component as an essential part of its underlying process and ontology. However, there are a handful of different quantum phenomena that could potentially account for causing consciousness (such as entanglement, superposition, coherence, wave-function collapse, ect…). Orch OR and Penrose posit that consciousness occurs alongside the collapse of the wave-function60, while others such as Faggin propose it is the state of superposition itself that is responsible for consciousness24. The third and final line of evidence presented here in this case for a quantum-based consciousness will help in providing supporting evidence regarding which possibility it could ultimately be. Thispending piece of evidence comes from a pre-print study that was recently published and presented by Santosh Helekar (and colleagues), who’ve remarkably discovered a way to detect wave function collapse in proximity to the brain (for humans, mice and other invertebrates/plants)106,107. Helekar used an analogue of the famous ‘double slit experiment’, which in the field of quantum physics is a standard experiment that measures what is commonly understood as ‘wave-function collapse’. This experiment is at the heart of the so-called “Measurement Problem” and the mystery of the ‘wave-particle duality’ in quantum physics97. Their optical interferometry setup within a small device was used to measure rates of detected laser wave interference patterns to look for experimental support of Penrose’s theory of Objective Reduction (OR) of the wave-function playing a role in the generation of consciousness. If interference patterns were not detected with this device, then the wave-function of the laser’s emitted photons were deemed to have been collapsed into behaving as a particle, thus no longer being in a quantum ‘superpositioned’ state with regards to its position in space and time106,107. They then introduced a number of controls to systematically rule out other prosaic explanatory effects as being responsible for causing the decohering collapse (eg. EMR, body heat, humidity, sound, ect…), and after successfully doing so, proceeded to carry out a series of different experiments to identify any correlations between the rate of wave-function collapse and the conscious state. As predicted, their series of experiments showed correlations between the collapse rates and the presence of consciousness, with a stronger effect near the head compared to when the device was moved downwards toward the feet. They observed a significant rate reduction while under anesthesia in both mice and humans, making it another contender for a NCC - and an intrinsically quantum-based one at that! However, collapses were still detected at a rate higher than the baseline average, indicating that whatever is causing the collapses is still present to a degree while under anesthesia, just at a lower rate than when subjects are conscious. This indicates that wave-function collapses may potentially be necessary but not sufficient to the generation of conscious experience; or there must be another factor involved that’s vital to causing phenomenological consciousness to arise. It’s therefore a challenge to the Orch OR model to explain the source of these continued collapses and why those don’t lead to our phenomenological conscious experience. As an example explanation, given that all the cells in our brain and body also host microtubules, perhaps this is picking up the signature of the “unconscious” bodily processes that remain functional even under anesthesia across the body? Perhaps there are separate ‘fields of orchestrated entanglement’ within the brain, one being critical to our phenomenological consciousness, and others being related to so-called ‘unconscious’ processes? Among this study and presentation from Helekar, various other experiments were also carried out. One of their interesting findings was found when putting this device next to invertebrates and plants - they detected an ‘inverted’ response of a lowered rate of collapses when compared with the baseline106,107. Helekar being confused at these results, makes a bemusing speculation of this inverse relationship perhaps showing an “inverse of consciousness (whatever that means)”106. However, I’ll offer another interpretation of these results, pointing out that this data is measuring the rate of collapses in a given time period compared to a baseline. When sticking to the quantum physics (without yet bringing in consciousness), this data is showing an increase in ‘wave-function superposition’ of the photons, which is quite literally the inverse of ‘wave-function collapse’. Furthermore, this data didn’t indicate that no collapses at all were occurring, simply a reduction from the baseline rate. If these results are indeed correct in finding a ‘field-like permeation’ of the quantum effect that accounts for consciousness ‘radiating’ outside the brain of the organism, and if Orch OR is also right that collapse only happens when the total gravitational self-energy of the quantum system reaches a certain threshold (determined at t = ℏ / EG - see Orch OR theory for further explanation on this60), which practically is a function of the number of tubulin that are entangled in the quantum system, then perhaps the invertebrates and plants simply have less entangled tubulins (or total EG) in their ‘system of consciousness’, resulting in longer collapse times. This type of linear relationship is part of the predictions of Orch OR theory98. The device’s photons may then be affected by this relatively lower energy quantum entangled system, sustaining them in a state of superposition at a lower ‘decoherence’ rate than the normal baseline. Therefore, this evidence is all more supportive of Orch OR’s proposition of consciousness being associated with wave-function collapse rather than the state of superposition itself. As for testing Idealism/Panpsychism - during the Q&A session of the presentation of these results, it was asked if inanimate objects such as rocks were tested; he affirmed that they were indeed tested and there was no effect or response106. These results need replication and further scrutiny; the challenge for those who find the results too bewildering to possibly be true is to find alternative prosaic mechanisms that can account for this correlation, or flaws in the methodology. If this is a genuine finding, then the challenge for everyone is to find out and explain what causes this consciousness-correlated fluctuation in collapse rates to occur non-locally to the human head; quantum physicists and philosophers alike would need to be involved in this. To end with an amusing speculation at a mechanism, in one of the 11 dreams I had during the writing of my paper, I was told and imagistically shown that gravitons are emitted by moving neutrons, as they ‘reduce’ and move from their superpositioned state into their collapsed location. Of course, this isn’t to be taken at all as a proof among this section of experimental verification, but perhaps a hypothesis for an open-minded physicist to consider its viability for causing these ‘non-local to the brain’ collapses. All of the above-described and analyzed experimental results provide strong evidence that consciousness must be a quantum-based phenomenon, and there’s currently more evidence supportive of Penrose’s proposition of Orch OR - that is, consciousness being associated with the collapse of the wave-function, rather than the superpositioned or coherent quantum state itself. Conclusion Proof and verification are strong words. Ultimately, it’s for the reader to decide whether the above evidence is enough to suppose that the left mPBN, the ‘triplet of triplet resonance chain’, and a quantum pre-requisite, are indeed contenders for NCC’s. While these studies require further replication and review for these NCC’s to ultimately become clear, my worry is they will be considered as “too fringe” to garner enough interest and funding for further study. Given the growing body of evidence supporting the possibility of a quantum-based consciousness, the field isn’t in the position to be dismissive of, and limited by, such unfounded prejudices. With 2025 being called the International Year of Quantum Science and Technology, marking “100 years since the initial development of quantum mechanics”108, now might be as good of a time as ever to shed these prejudices and invest further resources into studying this possibility, with some potential experimental leads identified above. With regards to this experimental razor, if all its axioms, experimental findings and interpretations are true, then it arguably has the filtration effect of the mPBN falsifying cerebrum-based theories of consciousness, as well as the quantum pre-requisite posing challenges to Idealism and Panpsychism based theories who would predict consciousness is inherent in all classical matter. If all true, the effect would then be a ‘pruning down’ of some branches of the ‘Landscape’ and a verification of others. However, filtering all the existing theories through this experimental razor would necessarily involve a much more dedicated effort to accomplish, as to give due justice to the existing theories - but beckons as a possible venture which remains open for future steps forward. Maybe it’s my youthful naivete, but I don’t feel as dejected as Kuhn seemed to be at the end of writing his Landscape paper. Rather, I believe there’ve been great strides made by the pioneers of the generation before me, both in modelling and conducting ingenious experiments that’ve brought us ever closer to understanding the ontology of consciousness. The story of Bandyopadhyay's new NCC’s aiding in the saving a couple of patients lives is a hopeful and inspiring sign of maturity for the field. Rather than being in a child-like state of reliance on the findings of other fields, perhaps consciousness studies can one day reach an adult-like maturity of providing insights to other fields, after going through its pre-pubescent phase of pruning. Promising avenues are open for experimental and theoretical exploration, which leaves me feeling hopeful for the future of Consciousness Studies; a field with ‘fruits ripe for the picking’, for those of us who are struck by the passion to ‘labour within that Landscape’. Endnotes (fig. 1): Reference: Kuhn, R.L. (2024)2 A Landscape of Consciousness: Toward a Taxonomy of Explanations and Implications.A categorized overview of 209 different contributions to the subject of consciousness studies. (fig. 2): An overview of the multi-disciplinary structure of the Field of Consciousness Studies, unified by its central questions. An adaptation informed by George Engel’s Bio-psycho-social medical model29. (fig. 3): Reference: Merker, (2007)39 Consciousness without a cerebral cortex: A challenge for neuroscience and medicine. The emotional joy expressed by this 3-year-old with hydranencephaly while holding her baby brother. (fig. 4): Reference: Fractal, Scale Free Electromagnetic Resonance of a Single Brain Extracted Microtubule Nanowire, a Single Tubulin Protein and a Single Neuron. Saxena, & Bandyopadhyay, et al. (2020)80 This imaging was obtained by passing an electric current along 3 different levels: a - the neuron, b - the microtubule, c - its tubulin. It shows a ‘scale invariant’ resonant frequency hierarchy where the frequencies are nested among each other like ‘octaves’; starting with the fastest Tera Hz level, rising up eventually to the neuronal level at Hz, which is what EEG detects. The images were from an ‘in vitro’ sample of microtubules from cultured rat hippocampal neurons.

---

## On Our Own – the Lonely Species
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/essay/on-our-own-the-lonely-species

Even Science, the strict measurer, is obliged to start with a make-believe unit, and must fix on a point in the stars’ unceasing journey when his sidereal clock shall pretend that time is at Nought. - Prologue to George Eliot’s Daniel Deronda Whose fault? Whose but his own? - Book III of John Milton’s Paradise Lost A myth has been propagated, often to wry amusement, regarding the perceived irrationality of one of European Philosophy’s progenitors. In fact René Descartes did not believe apes – other than humans - possessed intelligible language, choosing not to speak out of coyness. The idea’s true originator seems to be Louis Racine, son of the famed dramatist. Coupled with a misreading of Descartes own letters where he ascribes the belief, derisively, to the indigenous people in lands where other apes are natively found, the factoid has proliferated erroneously. Equipped with even a meagre knowledge of Descartes you may now be furrowing your brow. Let alone possessing of what were seen as uniquely human faculties, Descartes of course did not even believe animals to be sentient. The uniqueness of our human abilities is now under a severe scrutiny, nearly as intellectually unfashionable as geo-centrism. This sort of Cartesian logic of the Enlightenment, itself both a rejection and continuation of Judeo-Christian anthropocentrism, seems a signficant error when we deny sentience to other species. That Descartes thought consciousness itself the sole possession of Homo sapiens, the ‘wise man’ of Linnaeus, seems mired in an arrogance so mighty that the path to rebuke seems obvious and overdue. Thus springs the multi-species modalities, biospheres and other discussions of human and non-human consciousness which now populate the discourse. Even organisms that our broadened understandings have still not found to be sentient – the vegetable and fungal kingdoms – are routinely described as such, or even in possession of language and feeling in certain circles. As the Enlightenment is ever distant, chronologically and in intellectual life, so too becomes the hegemony Western thought had held. The preference for quantitively considering what constitutes life, thought and consciousness has been usurped by qualitative understandings of the mind. But what if Descartes was right? Not in an outmoded sense of human supremacy, nor the idea that humanity finds itself alone alongside a non-sentient biota, but in the sense that our human consciousness is a thoroughly unique phenomenon? A litany of behaviours are now increasingly recognised elsewhere in the animal kingdom that were previously considered the sole domain of the human being. Tool use, self-recognition in mirrored surfaces and transmissible cultural practices have all been readily documented, not only in apes and cetaceans, but birds, fish – even some invertebrate species. Yet for all these discoveries which Descartes could not comprehend, the human practices of language and art in particular remain contentious in other species. Depending on the scholarly school one prescribes to, they may even be absent in the other extinct members of our genus Homo, let alone more distant relatives. This is not a study of the cutting edges of linguistics or biology. This is a question of implication - if we were alone as a consciousness, not superior, but unique in its faculties, why do we behave as we do. How should we behave? Our Damoclean capacity, for which nobody argues compatriots elsewhere in the animal kingdom, makes the question all the more urgent. The human linguistic and creative abilities are contrasted with an aptitude towards destruction equally atypical. Its repercussions now affect every other living thing on the planet. It would seem the sword is no longer dangling by a hair, so much as it is being swung two-handed with a centrifugal might that fails to convince its arc remains under control. Some of Descartes’ interpretations have demonstrated spectacular pitfalls, but does the search for kinship really place us on the antithetical path? Who alone wields the sword is unmistakable.

Even Science, the strict measurer, is obliged to start with a make-believe unit, and must fix on a point in the stars’ unceasing journey when his sidereal clock shall pretend that time is at Nought. - Prologue to George Eliot’s Daniel Deronda Whose fault? Whose but his own? - Book III of John Milton’s Paradise Lost A myth has been propagated, often to wry amusement, regarding the perceived irrationality of one of European Philosophy’s progenitors. In fact René Descartes did not believe apes – other than humans - possessed intelligible language, choosing not to speak out of coyness. The idea’s true originator seems to be Louis Racine, son of the famed dramatist. Coupled with a misreading of Descartes own letters where he ascribes the belief, derisively, to the indigenous people in lands where other apes are natively found, the factoid has proliferated erroneously. Equipped with even a meagre knowledge of Descartes you may now be furrowing your brow. Let alone possessing of what were seen as uniquely human faculties, Descartes of course did not even believe animals to be sentient. The uniqueness of our human abilities is now under a severe scrutiny, nearly as intellectually unfashionable as geo-centrism. This sort of Cartesian logic of the Enlightenment, itself both a rejection and continuation of Judeo-Christian anthropocentrism, seems a signficant error when we deny sentience to other species. That Descartes thought consciousness itself the sole possession of Homo sapiens, the ‘wise man’ of Linnaeus, seems mired in an arrogance so mighty that the path to rebuke seems obvious and overdue. Thus springs the multi-species modalities, biospheres and other discussions of human and non-human consciousness which now populate the discourse. Even organisms that our broadened understandings have still not found to be sentient – the vegetable and fungal kingdoms – are routinely described as such, or even in possession of language and feeling in certain circles. As the Enlightenment is ever distant, chronologically and in intellectual life, so too becomes the hegemony Western thought had held. The preference for quantitively considering what constitutes life, thought and consciousness has been usurped by qualitative understandings of the mind. But what if Descartes was right? Not in an outmoded sense of human supremacy, nor the idea that humanity finds itself alone alongside a non-sentient biota, but in the sense that our human consciousness is a thoroughly unique phenomenon? A litany of behaviours are now increasingly recognised elsewhere in the animal kingdom that were previously considered the sole domain of the human being. Tool use, self-recognition in mirrored surfaces and transmissible cultural practices have all been readily documented, not only in apes and cetaceans, but birds, fish – even some invertebrate species. Yet for all these discoveries which Descartes could not comprehend, the human practices of language and art in particular remain contentious in other species. Depending on the scholarly school one prescribes to, they may even be absent in the other extinct members of our genus Homo, let alone more distant relatives. This is not a study of the cutting edges of linguistics or biology. This is a question of implication - if we were alone as a consciousness, not superior, but unique in its faculties, why do we behave as we do. How should we behave? Our Damoclean capacity, for which nobody argues compatriots elsewhere in the animal kingdom, makes the question all the more urgent. The human linguistic and creative abilities are contrasted with an aptitude towards destruction equally atypical. Its repercussions now affect every other living thing on the planet. It would seem the sword is no longer dangling by a hair, so much as it is being swung two-handed with a centrifugal might that fails to convince its arc remains under control. Some of Descartes’ interpretations have demonstrated spectacular pitfalls, but does the search for kinship really place us on the antithetical path? Who alone wields the sword is unmistakable. 1. Max Ernst invented frottage, a surrealist technique, within the series Histoire Naturelle (1925). Chance based rubbings over found textures, both natural and artificial, reveal ‘hidden’ images found by the artist’s unconscious hand. It is interesting that most of these figures are zoomorphic, both renditions of animals real and fantastical. In creating this mixed-media technique, Ernst was simultaneously participating in a highly ancient visual exercise. European cave painting sites discovered in modernity such as Altamira, El Castillo and Chauvet show equivalent techniques, using the natural contours of the rock face to aid, guide or embellish figurative paintings. Again, animals make up the bulk of these depictions. The ripples of the cave wall might abet the depiction of a bison’s hunched shoulder or a mammoth’s domed skull, the way Ernst found a bird or fish in discarded modern objects, a dozen millennia later. We have learnt nothing, as Picasso was reported to remark upon leaving Lascaux, though in fact it appears possible he never even visited the site. The practice is likely much older still than the tangible remains it has left. Consider how frequently animals occur in constellations, where a few stars may imply the form of a familiar beast. Zoomorphic constellations seem to be a cross-cultural constant, and this propensity to see animals might also make sense from a practical perspective. A lingering moment gazing at a stellar likeness of a predator might overlap with the same skills required to spot the real thing. The eyespots on the wings of moths and other flying insects show us that even somewhat rudimentary resemblances to real threats are effective messaging in the animal kingdom. Perhaps this capacity to spot zoomorphic forms is common amongst other species, easily selected as a practical trait. But do fanciful constellations and other images in nature form in the eyes of other species as they do for humans? These questions are difficult to answer, and before an emphatic ‘yes’ is delivered, we might consider why we strongly feel that other animals do, or even should, possess features that may be exclusively human. If we see animals in other things with such propensity, then this is easily matched with our capacity to see ourselves in animals. The argument in many circles is often an affirmative one. For instance, this school of thought is often convinced that the multitude of life on earth possesses similar language as the human organism understands it. It is easy to springboard off the Western tradition, embodied here by Descartes, of denying awareness to all animal species other than our own and suggest we head the other way – these clearly sentient kin are also just like us. Evidently the animal kingdom expresses and communicates with itself in a staggering degree of complexity and effectiveness. But is communication analogous to our own language, characterised as it is by things like grammar and arbitrariness? The affirmative argument for language in other species largely takes place in pop-culture, rather than the laboratory. Its cause is not helped by the fact that many of the most prominent examples have been debunked, if they ever carried critical traction to begin with. Koko the Gorilla, famed for her celebrity acolytes, would swiftly beat Descartes’ allegations of lacking sentience – the French thinker in fact never encountered another ape species in person. Koko’s famous proficiency in sign language is, however, also doubted by virtually every professional in the field barring Koko’s carer herself. Whilst Koko could accurately reproduce signs, it was never established this action was linguistic and separate from the impending reward of food. Across the aisle of the debate, the Nim Chimpsky study concluded much the same for its subject’s ability to master grammar, though in this instance did earn specific criticism for the lack of sign language fluency in the Chimpanzee’s instructors. Intelligent, sentient and clearly in dire need of more inter-primate empathy from their human relatives, if the other great apes do not exhibit language, then the broader non-human language thesis encounters deep trouble. The disciplinary reception to these studies isn’t even close to being split – there is a resounding opinion that the other apes species have thus far never demonstrated the grammar and structure we would otherwise observe in language. Beyond Koko’s many famous friends which form part of a very compelling messaging, why do her claims to – not an innate Gorilla language, but a learned ability of human sign language – linger in the popular consciousness? Should we be looking for language, but not as we would recognise it? Would this hypothetical communicative vehicle still best be described as language if we were to find the supporting evidence? Unlike Descartes, a vast portion of the world is now comparatively familiar with our closest relatives. Western scientists and intellectuals only learned of the Gorillas in the mid 19th century, nearly two centuries after Descartes’s death in 1650. It is clear that once the West met the other great apes, we had some catching up to do to recognise a kinship that now seems obvious, as it appears it was to many of the African and Asian cultures that live alongside these species. Do these language assertions push this correction too far? There is a garish, ominous extreme to this dialectic, where nappy-clad primate ‘children’ flank human parents. 2. Victorian critic John Ruskin coined the term Pathetic Fallacy in relation to the Romantic poetic of his native British Isles. An excessively negative pairing of words in their contemporary connotations, Ruskin drew more neutrally on a sense of imaginative pathos within verse describing nature. A sophisticated study of anthropomorphisation – that other archaic tradition that sees human figures also populate the constellations alongside animals – Ruskin recognised the practice as almost symbiotic with Romanticism. The case for non-human language, scholarly faltering aside, may need to better distinguish its aims from rank and file anthropomorphising. As the other great apes are being granted legal personhood in some countries, the orthodox Cartesian position is thankfully sufficiently retired. Not only does sentience in the animal kingdom seem well demonstrated across a vast array of organisms, but complex communications are not doubted. Complex communications, however, do not make a language as the research apes demonstrate. Lacking an ecosystem of wild primates to personally observe, I instead consider the mimetic songbirds of Australia. A surprisingly common trait, mimicry in Australian species is most famous and probably most developed in the Lyrebirds, the most basal songbird group alongside their closest relatives, the Scrubbirds. Incidentally, the Scrubbirds are also powerful mimics, despite splitting from the Lyrebirds tens of millions of years ago in the Eocene, roughly 30-50 million years ago. This implies that either mimicry has a common mechanism promoting it convergently, or more tantalizingly, that mimicry has an incredibly ancient origin. It might be possible that a Cretaceous Songbird ancestor was relaying off the calls of dinosaurs, in a long forgotten medley of sounds from a landscape that no longer exists, save these contemporary relict species. The Lyrebird is noted for its patchwork song, intermixing its own loud melodic whistles with bird calls of other species. If the pitch perfect replication were not impressive enough, it can also vocalise onomatopoeic sounds with – what sounds to my own inferior ears – exact accuracy. This includes the wingbeats of the large forest pigeon taking flight, replicated from the bird’s syrinx (the ornithological vocal organ) and not the flapping of its own appendages. Lyrebirds introduced to the island state of Tasmania in the mid 20th century, where they are not native, mimicked mainland calls absent from this new environment for many subsequent generations. This proved the cultural transmission of the bird’s call, not only learnt from first hand observation, but taught from elder male bird to younger. Not just a courtship song, the bird’s complex vocalisations form a code through which alarm and other communications may be sounded. The rarer of the two Lyrebirds, the Albert’s Lyrebird, even expresses its mimetic call most often as a stereotyped song. This means the local population will sing out the same mimicked calls in the same order, with slight variations and pauses connotating various meanings, emanating through the cool, wet rainforests of its mountainous habitat. Inarguably a highly complex code, and with a degree of structural organisation we barely yet understand, the vocalisations still don’t fit our definition of language even if certain aspects bear similarities. The Lyrebird’s mimicry is certainly exceptional though not categorically unique. Human language by contrast does seem to lay claim to several unique traits. While the Lyrebird’s call is highly complicated and immensely superior to our own ability to imitate, it is not language as we would understand it. Would we be any closer to an understanding if we did force its conception as linguistic? Would this in turn bring a heightened appreciation, or empathy with other species? A troubling aspect sometimes present in avid proponents of non-human language are the motions of generosity. We historically malign other animals, and thus perhaps we need to imbue them with characteristics of our own which we classify as noble. Perhaps we could consider these categorical differences as a source of intrigue and respect. Rather than searching for behaviours we already regard highly because we ourselves perform them, we might find greater admiration for animal behaviour in what some schools of commentary have precisely sworn to abolish – its otherness. 3. If humanity finds itself alone, and the reasons for doing so are compelling, can we discard notions of God-given superiority as its source? We could turn to our own organism’s biology as the source of this precarious ubiquity, and in turn reflect why non-human intelligences should now be compared against the yardstick of our own. Why are works, especially at the extreme end of their claims, like Peter Wohlleben’s bestseller, The Hidden Life of Trees (2015) finding such traction now? The claims are effectively near identical to earlier works that have already lost nearly all critical milieu, like 1973’s The Secret Life of Plants. It begs the question why history should repeat itself now. We are not so much in another Cold War, ironically, as the official status of the conflict has been openly declared. It may be that as history is doomed to repeat, we will be similarly haunted by echoing responses to political conditions. In the way the Age of Aquarius put whale song on the menu, some of the same tendencies may be rearing their heads again, and thus non-human consciousness, animal – even plant – intelligences are a hot topic once again. We are of course richer for this in general. A lack of empathy for the other organisms of this planet seems so humanly endemic that we might divorce Descartes from his ubiquity to the problem. So rooted within us is the idea of our own superiority, that we absolutely refuse to concede to the outward world any portion or part in it, Goethe writes in his autobiography, describing the prickliness that non-human sentience seems to elicit. But is there solace in making every pot plant a confidante in the face of crisis, rather than focussing on our supreme ability to create the material conditions for existential problems to arise and – with any luck – our ability to change the course we have set ourselves on? Unlike the first counterculture wave, the kinship proponents are now more philosophically highbrow, perhaps even capturing some of the original hippy audience as they aged themselves out of the commune and into tenure positions. Much has been said of the slime-mould, a difficult to categorise form of life, and its ability to ‘solve’ mazes while lacking a brain or nervous system. Unlike the other great apes, amongst the other organisms we designate as complex in contrast to the simple slime mould, there is no ready case for intelligence or sentience in these single-celled organisms. Language isn’t even a distant mirage in the non-dream of a slime mould. Would we appreciate the remarkable fact that the slime mould can operate in a way we thought only possible in the ‘higher’ lifeforms if we began advocating for slime mould learning? Would slime mould rights be further advanced if we understood its utterly alien existence as a slime mould language? On the less obtuse end of querying, writers and thinkers like Timothy Morton and Donna Harraway argue for an entwined future for Gaia’s biome. Humanity is nature, and is within nature; we can’t separate ourselves lest we sit atop a hierarchy. It is a perspective we may have lost, but as Harraway and Morton would attest, many Indigenous peoples retained; a conjoined relationship with nature. Yet as John Berger put forward in the seminal Why Look at Animals? (1977), the peasant who raises his pig for slaughter also loves the animal, and looks forward to consuming it. The perspectives Morton searches for on Pacific atolls or the Papuan highlands might readily be found much closer to home, in a more populous context. One societal region where it is most often retained is in the agricultural classes that grow our food, even in the West, providing they have not totally subsumed to industrial practices. It is not a stretch to suggest that critical theory departments and farmers rarely, if ever, interact. Yet this rallying cry, that ecological salvation can come from communion with nature, comes far away from practical, material answers, and the apparatuses through which solutions might function. It is not so much that these theorists are arguing for a glib, emotive relationship with nature, as that the kinship school of thought risks eroding notions of difference, when difference obviously exists. 4. Rather than well intentioned rehashing of the 1970s, why not consider the human consciousness for what it is; a remarkable and more or less completely unique feature of the animal kingdom. When these ideas first became established in post-war academia, a self-taught firebrand theorist named Murray Bookchin offered his scathing criticism in 1987’s Social Ecology versus Deep Ecology: This marvel we call “nature” has produced a marvel we call homo sapiens — thinking man, and more significantly for the development of society, thinking woman, whose primeval domestic domain provided the arena for the origins of a caring society, human empathy, love, and idealistic commitment … to deny the species its uniqueness as thinking beings with an unprecedented gift for conceptual thought, is to deny the rich fecundity of natural evolution itself. Bookchin argued that the fashionable shedding of the humanist label was a denial of our biology. His enthusiasm for anticapitalism, first as a dedicated anarchist before later self-describing as a ‘communalist’, provides a succinct list of targets which all facilitate and entail destruction of the natural world. Humanism was not amongst them. We need not waste further time dissecting the pitfalls of Enlightenment rationality to rebuke the greatest minds of the 1600s. Descartes was a Catholic zealot, Newton thought gravity a phantom and ghostly force – needless to say, these particular ideas do not stack up well in the 21st century. Particulars of our own current discourse will not either with centuries of retrospect, if we are also immensely privileged to still be read after such an interim. These men laid intellectual foundations but lived in a world without electricity – and massive carbon emissions. Concerning this specifically, the fundaments of a material worldview should now take a prominence that a narrative of an unexceptional human species would seek to deny. The best evidence suggests that the human brain is unique. Ignoring this points us in a grim misdirection – there is nobody coming to save us, and friendship with a dolphin will not change this. Denying the materialism at the root of the Enlightenment because Descartes got apes, amongst other things, grossly incorrect only serves to bid goodbye to possible solutions to the climate and biodiversity crises. We can talk to nature all we like, but nature won’t talk back – not in the literal sense, the sense that only we seem to understand and therefore implicitly value the most. While we are talking, we run the risk of missing the vast and amazing differences it possesses. Proponents of the kinship school of thought stress compassion and togetherness, as they did previously in the decades of post-war counterculture. Yet we still have not found the suitable course for a true coexistence, only a broadened vocabulary for its rallying cry. It seems specifically naïve to promote salvation through relation, when our previous dalliances with nature have generally skewed so lop-sided. If this were simply an intellectual quibble, a question of phrasing, then our attention could be diverted elsewhere where it is urgently needed. However, on this issue both perspectives are adamant – the problems are very likely mutually existential, and will only get more dire from here on out. If we recognise that this is the landscape within which the debate rages, why deviate from scientific orthodoxy on this subject? Avoiding the consensus in certain fields of science means measle outbreaks are recurring in the 21st century in countries which it had been effectively eradicated. This is a form of attempted extinction which nobody seems to seriously debate, though Bookchin noted some lesser lights of the 1980s who remarkably wished to do so in his takedown of the misanthropy of Deep Ecology. If we do have active language-in-measles advocates, searching for coexistence with pathogen nowadays, they are relegated to less-prominent platforms. Ignoring certain practitioners; epidemiologists, climate scientists, is as good to rescind invitation to large swathes of our socio-academic landscape. Why can we place consciousness, in a uniquely human sense, elsewhere in the kingdoms of life to such seemingly rapturous enthusiasm, yet such cavernous lack of evidence? Fields which make first hand observations their fare – or have subjects readily observable to the layperson – seem particularly susceptible. Linguistics and behavioural science are only some of the victims, with anthropology and ecology all seemingly having reciprocal pop-sciences in tow, largely in contradiction to these disciplines’ current empirical understandings. In a sense climatology is no different, outside of the socio-academic sphere. We recognise this kind of reasoning as fallacious and detrimental to action, but in turn we seem committed to effective pseudoscience if the implications are more pleasing to those of us within the academy. Does this discussion in fact obfuscate the responsibility it proposes, trivialising hard research along the way? Will the search for co-conspirators elsewhere in the kingdoms of life simply form a distraction from the action it proposes to facilitate? Whether it is Koko the gorilla or interpreting the sensory abilities of the vegetable kingdom as a human-like chatter, there would seem to be deeper intellectual reasons to be wary of breaking with orthodoxy. For one, this route of empiricism, unfashionable though it may be, points us in a diametrically opposite direction regarding the scope of non-human consciousness. On the psychosocial plane of which many of these arguments seem to favour, we also risk not seeing a behavioural and physiological spectrum elsewhere in the kingdom of life, both so beyond and foreign to our own that we avoid the proposed end goal of empathetic kinship. We run the risk of landing instead on an old-fashioned anthropomorphism, dressed up as radicalism. 5. Does the silence, deafening in some respects, emanating from the cosmos feel similarly unnerving in the terrestrial realm? Psychologically, the common cross-cultural motif of speaking animals which populate fairy tales and religious rites might show an instinctual need to satisfy this want for kinship. Do we need animals to be conscious, categorically in the exact same ways as we are, because the implication of a lonely species is uncomfortable? Arthur C. Clarke famously opined on this search for alien life. Either it exists elsewhere in the universe, or it does not, and either option is frightening. With the vastness of space increasingly understood as teeming with other solar systems and planets that seem capable of supporting life as we know it – and many more possibly hospitable to life as we do not – the former has always seemed the wiser stance as a sheer numbers game. Yet perhaps we should consider the possibility that we are alone, at least as the only animal on Earth in possession of the ability to make these queries. Like Clarke suggests, we should absolutely consider this possibility as terrifying. At this point, it may be frustrating to not offer up a viable solution. To paraphrase what must have been one of tens of thousands of email communiques, some now notorious, from the venerable Noam Chomsky, noted linguistic purist and non-human language doubter - despair is not an option; solutions are at hand, but we do not have much time. This is not an endorsement of the technocratic class and its long promised solutions. Look how well that has turned out. This is a cry for the intellectual classes to not retreat into themselves when despair does in fact seem a viable option. A return to another outmoded product of the Enlightenment might be salient. Many have recoiled from the term, being that the ideology places our organism at the beneficent centre. Why not instead propose a Humanism of consequence? We are the only epochal species we know of, capable of conscious destruction on planetary scales. Perhaps the humaneness of responsibility, not further blurring of fact and metaphor when biology is concerned, suggests a future course. Centuries of subsequent discovery, mostly irreconcilable with the 17th century origins of the Enlightenment, are now at our helm. Maybe the methods are still essentially sound and it is the application which is lacking. Accepting our inheritance, reluctantly, as the thinking animal, does present a roadmap in the face of problems that need practical, material solutions. Louis Racine thought apes could talk. The premise seems both humorous but oddly prescient. The particulars of his argument are interesting, particularly in the face of a contemporary lavishing of all animal abilities, seemingly excepting our own. The younger Racine suggested that the other apes were in fact more intelligent than humans, contrary to Descartes. The reason for higher intelligence – they chose not to speak, like the aphorism, and remove all doubt. These apes were smarter for electing for silence over the human self-aggrandising. In the mid 17th century was an instance of praising animal ability not so dissimilar to the present. It is hard to ignore that, as a metaphor, Racine landed upon this while also getting the question of language completely wrong. This strikingly contemporary, humane opinion comes from right within an era we seem hasty to divorce ourselves from. Perhaps we do this too hastily if, fundamentally, we readily find other respects in which we have not learnt very much at all in 300 years. We have learnt nothing.

---

## Phenomenal Disunities in the Split Brain
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/essay/phenomenal-disunities-in-the-split-brain

Starting in the 1960s, new forms of neuropsychological experiments were conducted on “split-brain patients” (henceforth “SB-patients”). SB-patients are individuals whose corpus callosum— the nerve tract connecting the cerebral hemispheres—has been surgically severed. The experiments (e.g., Gazzaniga et al., 1965; Gazzaniga & Sperry, 1967; Sperry, 1968, 1974; Sperry et al., 1969) revealed startling behavioural abnormalities. Under controlled conditions, patients’ hemispheres were incapable of transmitting information to each other. It didn’t take long before SB-patients started to interest philosophers as well (Bayne, 2008, 2010; Davis, 1997; Hurley, 1998; Lockwood, 1989; Marks, 1980; Nagel, 1971; Puccetti, 1981; Schechter, 2018; Tye, 2003). Such patients seem to present cases where normal standards for attributing concepts such as “mind,” “personhood,” “agency,” and “consciousness” break down. As Nagel wrote in one of the first philosophical papers published on SB-patients, The feature of the mentalist conception of persons which may be recalcitrant to integration with these data is not a trivial or peripheral one, that might easily be abandoned. It is the idea of a single person, a single subject of experience and action, that is in difficulties. (Nagel, 1971: 396.) This paper will be concerned with implications of SB-patients for the unity of consciousness. Recent years have seen defences of the view that split-brain consciousness is phenomenally unified despite being access disunified (Alter, 2010; Bayne, 2008, 2010; Bayne & Chalmers, 2003). Roughly, this theory posits that SB-patients have a unified phenomenology but limited capacities for behaviour requiring interhemispheric coordination. In opposition to this theory, I’ll argue that some SB-patients have experiences that are both access disunified and phenomenally disunified (provided that the patients are single subjects of experience). For these patients, it’s not true that there’s a single subject with a single stream of consciousness without phenomenally disunified elements.

1 Introduction Starting in the 1960s, new forms of neuropsychological experiments were conducted on “split-brain patients” (henceforth “SB-patients”). SB-patients are individuals whose corpus callosum— the nerve tract connecting the cerebral hemispheres—has been surgically severed. The experiments (e.g., Gazza-niga et al., 1965; Gazzaniga & Sperry, 1967; Sperry, 1968, 1974; Sperry et al., 1969) revealed startling behavioural abnormalities. Under controlled conditions, patients’ hemispheres were incapable of transmitting information to each other. It didn’t take long before SB-patients started to interest philosophers as well (Bayne, 2008, 2010; Davis, 1997; Hurley, 1998; Lockwood, 1989; Marks, 1980; Nagel, 1971; Puccetti, 1981; Schechter, 2018; Tye, 2003). Such patients seem to present cases where normal standards for attriuting concepts such as “mind,” “personhood,” “agency,” and “consciousness” break down. As Nagel wrote in one of the first philosophical papers published on SB-patients, The feature of the mentalist conception of persons which may be recalcitrant to integration with these data is not a trivial or peripheral one, that might easily be abandoned. It is the idea of a single person, a single subject of experience and action, that is in difficulties. (Nagel, 1971: 396.) This paper will be concerned with implications of SB-patients for the unity of consciousness. Recent years have seen defences of the view that split-brain consciousness is phenomenally unified despite being access disunified (Alter, 2010; Bayne, 2008, 2010; Bayne & Chalmers, 2003). Roughly, this theory posits that SB-patients have a unified phenomenology but limited capacities for behaviour requiring interhemispheric coor-dination. In opposition to this theory, I’ll argue that some SB-patients have experiences that are both access disunified and phenomenally disunified (provided that the patients are single subjects of expe-rience). For these patients, it’s not true that there’s a single subject with a single stream of conscious-ness without phenomenally disunified elements. §2 presents an argument for why some SB-patients have phenomenally disunified experiences. In §3, the notions of phenomenal unity and access unity are explained. Then, §4, I’ll defend the premises of the argument presented in §2. In §5, I’ll outline implications of the argument. 2 Arguing for Phenomenal Disunity Experiments on split-brain patients (henceforth SB-experiments) attempt to determine to what extent surgically disconnected hemispheres can transmit and integrate information without reliance on the corpus callosum or behavioural intermediaries, such as movement of patients’ eyes and hands. We’ll focus on SB-experiments testing visual perception (e.g., Gazzaniga et al., 1965; Sperry, 1974; Sperry et al., 1969). The SB-patient is seated in front of two screens, one to either side of a fixed point the patient is instructed to gaze at. These screens obscure the patient’s hands. Images are then flashed for 100 milliseconds on either screen. The short screening-time means the patient cannot move her eyes and expand the range of visual information available to each hemisphere. In one experiment (Sperry, 1974: 9), a patient is presented with the word “key” in her left visual field (LVF) and with the word “ring” in her right visual field (RVF). When asked what she sees, the patient responds “ring” and denies seeing another word. However, when instructed to select an item corresponding to the presented word using her left hand, the patient selects a key, even though both a ring and a keyring are available. When asked to describe the item, the patient says she retrieved a ring. The patient’s behaviour can be explained as follows. Visual perception is contralateralized: Information on visual stimuli in RVF is transmitted to the left hemisphere (LH) while information on visual stimuli in LVF is transmitted to the right hemisphere (RH). Because LH typically controls speech, and because the patient cannot interhemispherically integrate information using the corpus callosum or eye movements, the patient will only verbally report visual stimuli presented in RVF (i.e., “ring”). However, because hand motor control is also largely contralateralized, the left-handed identification task is executed by the RH. RH can only access information about visual stimuli in LVF. Thus, the patient retrieves a key rather than a ring or a keyring. Finally, the patient claims to have identified a ring because no new information has been transmitted to LH. Let’s call the patient in the keyring experiment “S,” her experience of “ring” “e1,” and her experience of “key” “e2.” I’ll argue that, if S is a single subject of experience, e1 and e2 are phenomenally disunified: P1: When S is simultaneously presented with “ring” in RVF and “key” in LVF, S has two (simultaneous) phenomenally conscious experiences e1 and e2, with e1 corresponding to “ring” and e2 corresponding to “key.” P2: e1 and e2 are access disunified. P3: If e1 and e2 are access disunified, e1 and e2 are phenomenally disunified. —————————————————————————————————————— C: e1 and e2 are phenomenally disunified. To understand this argument, the notions of phenomenal unity, access unity, and conscious disunity must be explained. 3 Explicatory Interlude: Unity We’ll begin by distinguishing between vehicles and contents of experience. The vehicle of an experi-ence e is the spatiotemporal and causal occurrence that’s involved in a subject’s undergoing e. If one is a physicalist, one can identify vehicles of experience with neurophysiological events in the brain. In turn, the content of e is what e is an experience of—how the world is presented or represented for the subject undergoing e. A stance won’t be taken here on how to analyze contents of consciousness. Perhaps they’re truth-conditional, propositional contents. But they could also be identified with (apparent) objects, qualities, and relations one is consciously presented with when undergoing experience. Both unity relations described below will be characterized using the notion of experiential con-tents. However, we’ll have reason to discuss vehicles of experience in §4.3.1. 3.1 Phenomenal Unity A mental state is phenomenally conscious iff there’s something it’s like for a subject to be in that state (Block, 1995: 230). Examples of phenomenally conscious mental states are sensory states such as seeing a tomato, smelling a rose, or hearing the sound of a trumpet. Correspondingly, the notion of phenomenal unity captures how, when a subject S has two (simultaneous, or close-to-simultaneous) phenomenally conscious mental states e1 and e2, there’s something distinctive it’s like for S to be in e1 and e2 together. For example, suppose e1 is a visual experience of alphabetical characters appearing in a Microsoft Word document and that e2 is an auditory experience of typing. There’s something it’s like to be in e1, and there’s something it’s like to be in e2. But if e1 and e2 are phenomenally unified, there’s also something distinctive it’s like to be in e1 and e2 together: A distinctive phenomenology associated with undergoing both e1 and e2 (simultaneously or in close temporal succession). Tim Bayne (2010) further develops this idea. Bayne understands phenomenal unity mereologically. On his view, phenomenally unified experiences are constituents of more expansive, subsuming ex-periences: […] two conscious states are phenomenally unified when, and only when, they are co-subsumed [---]. What it is for one experience to subsume another is for the former to contain the latter as a part. (Bayne, 2010: 20-21.) Bayne’s account doesn’t specify the relata of mereological relations underlying phenomenal unity. Are the relata contents of experience or vehicles of experience? The right answer is contents. Phenomenal unity is a relation characterizing a subject’s phenomenology. It pertains to how contents are presented or represented in experience. We can thus modify Bayne’s characterization of phenomenal unity as follows: Phenomenal Unity: Necessarily, for any two experiences e1 and e2 with contents c1 and c2 and subject S, e1 and e2 are phenomenally unified for S iff S, when undergoing e1 and e2, has an experience E with content c3, where c3 subsumes c1 and c2. Let’s return to the example of a visual experience (e1) of alphabetical characters and an auditory experience (e2) of typing. If e1 and e2 are phenomenally unified, undergoing those experiences involves having a more expansive experience whose content includes both alphabetical characters and typing sounds. In contrast, if e1 and e2 aren’t phenomenally unified, there’s no experience with a subsuming content. S experiences alphabetical characters, and she experiences typing sounds, but she doesn’t experience them together, as aspects of a single experiential presentation or representation of the world. 3.2 Access Unity Block writes that a mental state is access conscious iff… […] a representation of its content is (1) […] poised for use as a premise in reasoning, (2) poised for rational control of action, and (3) poised for rational control of speech. (Block, 1995: 231). For example, my perceptual experience of the cup of tea standing on my desk is access conscious. I’m able to report the presence of the cup, both verbally and non-verbally. Additionally, my experience facilitates rational action and inference; reaching out to the cup to quench my thirst, inferring that someone prepared the tea, and so on. In short, a mental state is access conscious for a subject S iff its content is available to S for rational control of action, inference, and report (verbal or nonverbal). Correspondingly, the notion of access unity captures how two access-conscious mental states can be jointly available for rational control of action, inference, and report. We’ll characterize access unity as follows: Access Unity: Necessarily, for any two mental states e1 and e2 with contents c1 and c2 and subject S, e1 and e2 are access unified for S iff (representations of) c1 and c2 are jointly available to S for verbal or non-verbal report, inference, and rational control of action.1 If e1 and e2 are access unified, S can access the sum, or conjunction, of c1 and c2 in her control of report, inference, and rational action. As an example, suppose that, upon entering her kitchen, S has an auditory experience (e1) of buzzing flies (c1) and an olfactory experience (e2) of a stench (c2). If e1 and e2 are access unified, S can report, not merely on the buzzing and the stench individually, but on their joint occurrence. Moreover, S can engage in inference and action that are rationalized in light of the sum or conjunction of c1 and c2; e.g., inferring that food items must have gone bad, and telephoning pest controllers. 3.3 Disunity Consider the claim that, necessarily, a subject’s experiences are unified (“Unity” for short).2 Let’s say that two experiences are disunified iff they constitute counterexamples to Unity. What would it take for e1 and e2 to be disunified? It would be inadequate to say that e1 and e2 are disunified iff they aren’t unified. For there are many non-unified experiences that don’t threaten Unity. My experiences and your experiences aren’t unified, nor are experiences I had as a ten-year old unified with experiences I’m having as an adult writing this paper. Since these experiences aren’t eligible candidates for standing in unity relations, they don’t constitute counterexamples to Unity. So we need a more discerning characterization of disunity. It will be assumed that two experiences e1 and e2 are eligible candidates for phenomenal (or access) unity and phenomenal (or access) disunity iff four conditions are satisfied: (i) e1 and e2 must have the same subject. (ii) e1 and e2 must both be phenomenally (or access) conscious mental states. (iii) e1 and e2 must be simultaneous. (iv) e1 and e2 must lack phenomenal unity (or access unity). The third stipulation is controversial. As far as access unity is concerned, it seems incorrect. Two contents can be jointly available for rational action, inference, and report even though they aren’t presented or represented as simultaneous. In the example above, S might experience the smell first and hear the buzzing sounds later. However, applied to phenomenal unity, the simultaneity requirement is more prima facie compelling. For e1 and e2 to be eligible for phenomenal unity, their contents, c1 and c2, must be experienced together, as aspects of a subsuming content c3. And it may be thought that a precondition for c1 and c2 to be experienced as aspects of a subsuming content of experience is that e1 and e2 are simultaneous. This would mean that, in order to constitute a non-trivial counterexample to the phenomenal unity of consciousness, e1 and e2 would have to be simultaneous. I’ll question this picture in §4.3.1, but we can proceed assuming its correctness. 4 Back to the Argument: Defending the Premises We’re now in a better position to understand the argument presented in §2. P1 states that S has two phenomenally conscious experiences in the keyring experiment, one (e1) or “ring” and one (e2) of “key.” P2 posits that these experiences are access disunified. Finally, P3 states that the access disunity of e1 and e2 entails their phenomenal disunity. While S has an experience with the content “ring,” and an experience with the content “key,” S doesn’t have an experience with the content “keyring” (unlike a neuroanatomically normal subject, who would have visually experienced “keyring”). The argument’s conclusion should be interpreted as the conditional claim that, if e1 and e2 have the same subject, then they would be phenomenally disunified. If there were two subjects of experience associated with the patient, one corresponding to each hemisphere, e1 and e2 wouldn’t be phenomenally disunified. “S” is just shorthand, and the argument doesn’t show, nor presuppose, that there’s a single subject of experience corresponding to S. What the argument’s conclusion does rule out is the position that S is a single subject with a single stream of consciousness without phenome-nally disunified elements (see, e.g., Alter, 2010; Bayne, 2008, 2010; Bayne & Chalmers, 2003). It will be useful to consider the premises in mixed order: First, P2; second, P3; and third, P1. 4.1 Access Disunity P2 states that S’s experience of “ring” and her experience of “key” are access disunified. To show this, two things must be established: Firstly, that e1 and e2 both are access conscious, and secondly, that e1 and e2 aren’t access unified. S’s behaviour in the experiment supports the hypothesis that both e1 and e2 are access conscious. When it comes to e1, the content of the experience, “ring,” is available to S for verbal report. The case of e2 is less straightforward. Given RH’s limited capacity for speech, S cannot verbally report that she saw “key.” However, S performs an advanced discrimination task, in which she identifies a key out of a range of alternatives. If “key” weren’t available to S for control of (rational) action, there wouldn’t be an explanation of S’s capacity to execute the discrimination task. Thus, both e1 and e2 are access-conscious. This leaves us with the second point: Access disunity between e1 and e2. If e1 and e2 had been access unified, “ring” and “key” would have been jointly available to S for verbal or non-verbal report, inference, and rational control of action. On the supposition that “ring” and “key” are jointly available in this sense, two predictions follow about S’s behaviour. Firstly, it’s to be expected that S would have verbally reported, not only that she saw “ring” and “key,” but also the compound word, “keyring.” Secondly, it’s to be expected that, when executing the identification task, S would have selected the keyring, rather than the key or the ring. Neither prediction is borne out by S’s behaviour. Neither “key” nor “keyring” is verbally reported by S. Likewise, S retrieves the key while ignoring both the ring and the keyring. In both cases, the contents of e1 and e2 are available to S only individually and not jointly. Perhaps access unity is a notion admitting of degrees. In that case, it would be incorrect to infer that e1 and e2 aren’t access unified because there’s a single lapse in the joint availability of “ring” and “key.” If S had been able to perform the reporting task (verbally reporting “keyring”) but not the identification task (selecting the keyring), or vice versa, it would have been defensible to claim that e1 and e2 are access unified, just less so than an analogous pair of experiences undergone by a neuroanatomically normal subject. However, S fails at both tasks, as well as at the task of naming the object she identifies with her left hand. The joint availability of “ring” and “key” isn’t incomplete: It’s non-existent. Thus, e1 and e2 aren’t access unified. Since e1 and e2 are access-conscious but not access-unified, e1 and e2 are access-disunified. 4.2 Access Disunity Without Phenomenal Disunity? P3 states that, if e1 and e2 are access disunified, they’re phenomenally disunified. This move has come under critique. Bayne and Chalmers claim that, It is plausible that in split-brain cases, there is some sort of breakdown of access unity […]. But […] a breakdown of access unity does not entail a breakdown of phenomenal unity. So the possibility re-mains that split-brain subjects have a unified phenomenal field […]. (Bayne & Chalmers, 2003: 38-39.) Similarly, Alter suggests that “[splitting] the corpus callosum might […] impede neural mechanisms that underlie access consciousness but not phenomenal consciousness.” (Alter, 2010: 25.) Pace these philosophers, I’ll argue that phenomenal disunity between e1 and e2 is the best explanation of access disunity between e1 and e2.3 4.2.1 Phenomenal Consciousness Explains Access Consciousness If a sensory or perceptual state e is access-conscious for a human subject S, the best explanation is that e is phenomenally conscious.4 If S can report the content c of e and use c in inference and rational control of action, the best explanation is that there’s something it’s like for S to experience c when undergoing e. This isn’t to say that phenomenal consciousness is conceptually necessary for access consciousness. For example, consider zombies—microphysical and behavioural duplicates of human beings that lack phenomenal consciousness (Chalmers, 1996). Zombies have access-conscious states but no phenomenally conscious states. However, the (prima facie) conceptual possibility of zombies doesn’t undermine the claim that, at the actual world, phenomenal consciousness is the best explanation of access consciousness. Something that could undermine that claim would be an empirical case of access consciousness without phenomenal consciousness. A potential candidate is blindsight. Blindsight is a condition in which subjects claim to have no awareness in parts of their visual field but nevertheless can “guess” answers to questions about stimuli in blind areas with a success-level significantly above chance. Questions can be about the location, direction, and movement of visual stimuli. Even when informed that they’ve answered correctly, blindsight patients deny having been aware of the stimuli, and claim they simply guessed. For an overview on blindsight, see (Weiskrantz, 2009). Blindsight may seem like a case of access consciousness without phenomenal consciousness. One might think the patient’s success in identifying visual stimuli couldn’t be explained unless representations of those stimuli were available for report. And this at least looks like access consciousness. In contrast, provided that one trusts the patient’s reports of being unaware of stimuli in parts of her visual field, one must infer that her (seemingly) access conscious representations of blind visual stim-uli aren’t phenomenally conscious. However, this assessment is too hasty, as Block points out (1995: 233). If a mental state e is access conscious, it’s content, c, must be available to the subject, not only for report, but also for rational control of action and inference. Blindsight patients don’t satisfy this condition. Block mentions an experiment reported by Marcel (1986), in which a thirsty blindsight patient is presented with a glass of water in a blind area of her visual field. When asked, the patient can specify the location of the presented object (which isn’t described as a glass of water). However, she doesn’t reach out to the water to quench her thirst. The content of the patient’s visual representation isn’t available to her for rational control of action. Consequently, the representation isn’t access conscious. 4.2.2 Interlude: Split-Brain Patients and Blindsight The foregoing remarks about blindsight may be thought to undermine my earlier defence (in §4.1) of the claim that S’s experience of “key” (e2) is access conscious. For couldn’t S be “blindsighted” with regard to her LVF? If that were true, S would have a representation e2 of “key,” but this representation wouldn’t be access-conscious. There cannot be access disunity between e1 and e2 if e1 and e2 aren’t both access-conscious states. And if e1 and e2 aren’t access disunified, P3 cannot be used to infer that e1 and e2 are phenomenally disunified.5 The problem with interpreting S as suffering from blindsight is that her behaviour is nothing like that of a blindsight patient. Blindsight patients cannot engage in rational action and inference based on representations of visual stimuli in blind areas (remember the water example). In contrast, in the keyring experiment, “key” is available to S for the execution of a complex identification task. When asked to identify an object corresponding to “key,” S acts rationally, comprehending the semantic properties of “key,” inferring what tactile properties would be characteristic of an object belonging to the semantically relevant kind (i.e., a key), and identifying the key from a range of alternatives based on those tactile properties. This is a purposeful, demanding task that’s different in kind from the blindsight patient’s idle guesses. In sum, S isn’t blindsighted in the keyring experiment. Both e1 and e2 are access-conscious. 4.2.3 Absence of Phenomenal Consciousness Explains Absence of Access Consciousness Ceteris paribus, the best explanation of a sensory or perceptual state e’s being access conscious is that e also is phenomenally conscious (see above). An implication of this is that, if e isn’t access conscious, the default hypothesis should be that e isn’t phenomenally conscious either. This isn’t to say there cannot be phenomenally conscious states that aren’t access conscious. Block (1995: 234) discusses the example of a subject (let’s call her S*) noticing the sound of a drill after having had a conversation requiring significant concentration. Before noticing the sound, S* isn’t access conscious of it; a representation of the sound isn’t available to S* for rational control of inference, action, and report. Nevertheless, it’s still conceivable that S* heard the sound all along and that there was something it was like for her to do so. That would be a case of phenomenal consciousness without access consciousness. The lesson seems to be that access consciousness requires attention. S* doesn’t attend to the drill sounds because she’s focused on her conversation. But this doesn’t impugn the rule that, if a sensory or perceptual state e isn’t access conscious and the subject’s attention isn’t monopolized by another object or activity, the best explanation of e’s not being access conscious is e’s not being phenomenally conscious. 4.2.4 Phenomenal Disunity Explains Access Disunity The explanatory relation between phenomenal unity and access unity mirrors that between phenomenal consciousness and access consciousness. Firstly, access unity is best accounted for by phenomenal unity. When a subject has access unified experiences, it’s usually because they’re phenomenally unified. Suppose a neuroanatomically normal subject, S*, volunteered to undergo the keyring experiment. It’s reasonable to assume that S*’s experiences of “ring” and “key” would be access unified; S* would have reported that she had seen “keyring,” and would have selected the keyring in the identification task. The most straightforward explanation of S*’s success is that her experiences of “ring” and “key” were phenomenally unified; that she had an experience with the content “keyring.” Secondly, if the explanatory relation between phenomenal unity and access unity is like that between phenomenal consciousness and access consciousness, this rule should inform our interpretation of S in the “keyring” experiment. Thus, the most straightforward interpretation of the structure of S’s consciousness is that e1 and e2 are access disunified because they’re phenomenally disunified. However, just as there are cases where mental states are phenomenally conscious but not access conscious, there could perhaps be cases where experiences are phenomenally unified despite being access disunified. That possibility cannot be ruled out a priori. What an objection to P3 needs to show is that there are positive reasons for holding that S constitutes one of those exception cases. One line of thought is inspired by what was said above about the link between access consciousness and attention. A phenomenally conscious mental state can be access unconscious if the subject doesn’t attend to the object or content of the state. Likewise, it may be thought that two experiences can be phenomenally unified despite being access disunified if the subject doesn’t simultaneously attend to their contents. One could thus deny P3 by claiming that split-brain surgery upsets the capacity of simultaneously attending to experiential contents, while leaving phenomenal unity intact. However, this objection to P3 presupposes a conception of the relation between phenomenal consciousness and attention that’s more demanding than that envisaged by my interpretation of Block’s drilling example. I interpreted the drill case as a situation where a subject has a phenomenally conscious mental state but doesn’t attend to its content, thereby preventing the state from being access conscious. But, crucially, the subject doesn’t attend to the content of her mental state because she’s engaged in an activity monopolizing her attention. If the subject hadn’t been focused on her conversation, her auditory representation would have been access conscious. In contrast, in the keyring experiment, the situation is different. For e1 and e2 don’t simply happen to be access disunified; there’s no way for the subject to get around the access disunity by redirecting her attention. The objection implies that e1 and e2 are phenomenally unified despite being access disunified because it’s impossible for S to simultaneously attend to “ring” and “key.” Thus, the right analogy isn’t the drill example, but a phenomenally conscious state whose content is impossible to attend to. It’s a highly questionable assumption that there can be features of phenomenal consciousness that are impossible for a subject to attend to. In conclusion, the fact that S’s experiences of “ring” and “key” are access disunified is best explained by the hypothesis that the experiences are phenomenally disunified. 4.3 Two Phenomenally Conscious Experiences? I’ve assumed so far that P1 is true. That is, I’ve assumed that S has two phenomenally conscious experiences in the keyring experiment; e1 of “ring” and e2 of “key.” Prima facie, this assumption seems compelling. However, there are objections to P1. Tim Bayne argues that, in the context of SB-experiments, a SB-patient’s cerebral hemispheres aren’t conscious simultaneously but sequentially: […] we should think of [phenomenal] consciousness in the split-brain as moving or switching from one hemisphere to another [---]. The patient might be conscious of the word ‘key’ (due to right hemisphere activity), or she might be conscious of the word ‘ring’ (due to left hemisphere activity), but she will not be conscious of both ‘key’ and ‘ring’ at once, even when the two words are simultaneously presented to her. (Bayne, 2010: 210.) Bayne’s theory implies that e1 and e2 aren’t both phenomenally conscious experiences (although they may both be access conscious states). Since S doesn’t have two phenomenally conscious experiences, there’s no instance of phenomenal disunity in the keyring experiment. Let’s call Bayne’s theory the Switching View. If the Switching View is true, P1 is false. 4.3.1 Explicating the Switching View The Switching View has been presented as implying that S only has one phenomenally conscious experience in the keyring experiment. Let’s call this an eliminationist form of the Switching View, as it “eliminates” one of S’s phenomenally conscious experiences. However, there’s another way to understand Bayne’s position. Simultaneous flashing of “ring” and “key” on the screens in the keyring experiment might result in two non-simultaneous phenomenally conscious experiences, one of “ring” and one of “key.” Let’s call this an accommodationist version of the Switching View, as it “accommodates” both of S’s phenomenally conscious experiences. Eliminationism and accommodationism give different explanations of why P1 is false. According to eliminationism, P1 is false because S only has one phenomenally conscious experience. In contrast, an accommodationist explanation of the falsity of P1 is premised on what was said in §3.3 about conditions for disunity. There, we said, provisionally, that if e1 and e2 aren’t simultaneous, they aren’t eligible candidates for phenomenal unity or phenomenal disunity. Let’s call this the “Temporal Eligibility Principle” (TEP). According to accommodationism, P1 is false because e1 and e2 aren’t simultaneous. And this non-simultaneity, in conjunction with TEP, implies that e1 and e2 aren’t eligible candidates for phenomenal disunity. Is TEP true? Before answering that question, the notion of “simultaneity” must be disambiguated. On one disambiguation, e1 and e2 are simultaneous iff the vehicles of those experiences, v1 and v2, occur simultaneously (relative to some inertial frame of reference). On another disambiguation, e1 and e2 are simultaneous iff the contents of those experiences, c1 and c2, are experientially presented or represented as being simultaneous. If TEP is combined with a vehicular construal of simultaneity, it follows that e1 and e2 are eligible for phenomenal unity or phenomenal disunity only if v1 and v2 are simultaneous. But there’s no reason to accept this. It’s likely that many phenomenally unified experiences have vehicles (e.g., brain states) occurring at slightly different times. Correspondingly, there isn’t any reason to hold that phenomenally disunified experiences must have simultaneous vehicles. One could make a vehicular construal of TEP more plausible by substituting a temporal proximity requirement for the simultaneity requirement. Perhaps e1 and e2 are eligible candidates for phenomenal unity or phenomenal disunity only if v1 and v2 are either simultaneous or occurring in close temporal succession. However, S’s experiences of “ring” and “key” do occur in close temporal succession. So, the revised form of vehicular TEP doesn’t warrant inferring that e1 and e2 are ineligible candidates for phenomenal unity or disunity. That leaves us with a content-oriented interpretation of TEP. On this interpretation, if c1 and c2 aren’t experientially presented or represented as simultaneous, then e1 and e2 aren’t eligible candidates for phenomenal unity or phenomenal disunity. Applied to the keyring experiment, content-TEP implies that phenomenal disunity between e1 and e2 would have required that “ring” and “key” were experientially presented or represented as occurring simultaneously. Since “ring” and “key” aren’t presented or represented in this way (let us suppose), e1 and e2 aren’t phenomenally disunified. The problem with content-TEP is that it makes phenomenal disunity between e1 and e2 conceptually incoherent. Suppose content-TEP is true. Now imagine that, in the keyring experiment, “ring” and “key” are experientially presented or represented as being simultaneous. What would it be like to be S in this case? It’s insufficient for characterizing what it’s like to be S to separately specify what it’s like for her to be in e1 and what it’s like for her to be in e2. For this wouldn’t capture the fact that S experiences “ring” and “key” as occurring simultaneously, as belonging to the same “time-chunk” in her temporal phenomenology. Since there’s an aspect of S’s phenomenology that isn’t captured by separately specifying what it’s like for her to be in e1 and what it’s like for her to be in e2, there’s something distinctive it’s like for S when “ring” and “key” are experientially presented or represented as being simultaneous. Therefore, e1 and e2 are phenomenally unified. So, it follows that, if e1 and e2 satisfy the eligibility condition in content-TEP, they must be phenomenally unified. Phenomenal dis-unity has been rendered conceptually impossible. Phenomenal disunity may well be metaphysically or nomologically impossible. Perhaps there’s an argument establishing that conclusion. But the key word here is “argument.” It would be unaccepta-ble to pronounce, by mere fiat of terminological stipulation, that there cannot be such a thing as phenomenal disunity. For this reason, content-TEP should be rejected. Neither disambiguation of “simultaneity” furnishes us with a defensible version of TEP which establishes that there’s no phenomenal disunity in the keyring experiment. Therefore, accommodationism is untenable. I’ll proceed assuming that Bayne is an eliminationist. 4.3.2 Responding to the Switching View The Switching View, in its eliminationist form, denies that S has two phenomenally conscious experiences. This denial is remarkable, for S fulfils behavioural conditions that ordinarily would warrant the attribution of two phenomenally conscious experiences. S has access-conscious mental states corresponding both to “ring” and “key” (see §4.1). Bayne must explain why S has two access-conscious states but only one phenomenally conscious state. Bayne cannot do this, for two reasons. Firstly, a perceptual or sensory state’s being access conscious but not phenomenally conscious is more difficult to explain than that state’s being phenomenally conscious but not access conscious. In the latter case, one can give the explanation that access consciousness is more cognitively demanding than phenomenal consciousness. As we saw above, access consciousness requires a minimum-level of attention. Further, it requires capacities for verbal or non-verbal report, inference, and rational action that may not be necessary for phenomenal consciousness. In contrast, to explain a perceptual or sensory state’s being access conscious but not phenomenally conscious, an account must be given of how the state has a mental feature (access consciousness) requiring complex cognitive characteristics even though it lacks a mental feature (phe-nomenal consciousness) not requiring such characteristics. In the case of S, this is extremely difficult. Secondly, denying the mutual phenomenal consciousness of e1 and e2, while maintaining their mutual access consciousness, contravenes a principle that is fundamental both in philosophical interpretation of cognitive psychology and in everyday life. This principle is that both attributions of phenomenal consciousness and withholdings of such attributions can, and should, be warranted in light of facts about subjects’ behaviour. Without this principle, there’s no obvious way to structure philo-sophical debates on consciousness. This holds particularly true in connection with SB-patients. Neuroanatomically normal subjects cannot adopt the first-person perspective of SB-patients. We are, as Nagel writes, “unable to project ourselves into their mental lives.” (Nagel, 1971: 410.) Without deferring to behavioural data about SB-patients, it’s difficult to see how one could argue systematically for or against views about the structure of such patients’ consciousness. Thus, the supposition that e1 and e2 aren’t both phenomenally conscious is problematic. Since S has two access-conscious, perception-related states, it should be inferred that S has two phenomenally conscious experiences in the keyring experiment. 5 Implications and Conclusion The argument I’ve presented has a conditional conclusion: If e1 and e2 have the same subject, then they’re phenomenally disunified. Thus, the conclusion rules out theories according to which SB-patients are single subjects of experience with a single stream of consciousness without phenomenally disunified elements (Alter, 2010; Bayne, 2008, 2010; Bayne & Chalmers, 2003). This is significant, for it leaves us with two theoretical contenders that both must make nonintuitive and startling claims about the structure of consciousness. Let me explain. What theoretical verdict one makes about the structure of S’s consciousness as she undergoes the keyring experiment will hinge on a fundamental question about the relationship between phenomenal unity and streams of consciousness. This is the “Unity Question:” The Unity Question: If e1 and e2 are phenomenally conscious experiences whose vehicles v1 and v2 are simultaneous or occurring in close temporal succession, do e1 and e2 belong to the same stream of consciousness E only if e1 and e2 are phenomenally unified? Suppose we answer “yes” to the Unity Question. Then it follows that S has two streams of consciousness when undergoing the keyring experiment. Her experiences of “ring” and of “key” aren’t phenomenally unified. Since the experiences have vehicles that are simultaneous or occurring in close temporal succession, it follows that S’s experiences belong to different streams of consciousness.6 Interpreting S as having two streams of consciousness involves an abandonment of the commonsense view that any human being, or, at least, any human animal, has a single stream of consciousness.7 Let’s suppose, alternatively, that we answer “no” to the Unity Question. Then, it would be possible to hold that S has a single stream of consciousness some of whose simultaneous, or close-to-simultaneous, elements are phenomenally disunified. On this view, S’s experiences of “ring” and “key” are phenomenally disunified, but nevertheless belong to the same stream of consciousness.8 For this kind of view, the challenge is to articulate an account of the individuation of streams of consciousness that doesn’t appeal to the phenomenal unity relation. There must be some explanation of how two phenomenally conscious experiences that are simultaneous, or occurring in close temporal succession, can belong to the same stream of consciousness despite their phenomenal disunity. What grounds the fact that experiences belong to the same stream of consciousness, if it isn’t unity relations? Regardless of what answer one gives to that question, it will diverge from an intuitive way of understanding (synchronic) relations of co-membership in a stream of consciousness, namely in terms of phenomenal unity relations. In conclusion, SB-patients provide an invaluable source of data to philosophers of mind. The unity of consciousness is a topic that traditionally has been discussed in a priori terms. SB-patients bring this perennial topic of contention into contact with empirical reality. The outcome is both illuminating and challenging. Not all cherished notions about the unity of consciousness will with-stand critical scrutiny. References Alter, T. (2010). A Defense of the Necessary Unity of Phenomenal Consciousness. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, 91(1), 19–37. Bayne, T. (2008). The Unity of Consciousness and the Split-Brain Syndrome. Journal of Philosophy, 105(6), 277–300. Bayne, T. (2010). The Unity of Consciousness (pp. 1–207). Oxford University Press. Bayne, T., & Chalmers, D. (2003). What Is the Unity of Consciousness? In A. Cleeremans (Ed.), The Unity of Consciousness (pp. 23–58). Oxford University Press. Block, N. (1995). On a Confusion about a Function of Consciousness. Brain and Behavioral Sciences, 18(2), 227--247. Chalmers, D. (1996). The Conscious Mind: In Search of a Fundamental Theory (Vol. 4, pp. 609–612). Oxford University Press. Davis, L. H. (1997). Cerebral Hemispheres. Philosophical Studies, 87(2), 207–222. Gazzaniga, M. S., Bogen, J. E., & Sperry, R. W. (1965). Observations on Visual Perception After Disconnexion of the Cerebral Hemispheres in Man. Brain, Vol 88(2), 221–236. Gazzaniga, M. S., & Sperry, R. W. (1967). Language after Section of the Cerebral Commissures. Brain, 90, 131–148. Hurley, S. L. (1998). Consciousness in Action. Harvard University Press. Lockwood, M. (1989). Mind, Brain, and the Quantum: The Compound ‘I’. Blackwell. Marcel, A. J. (1986). Consciousness and Processing: Choosing and Testing a Null Hypothesis. Behav-ioral and Brain Sciences, 9, 40–44. Marks, C. E. (1980). Commissurotomy, Consciousness, and Unity of Mind. MIT Press. Nagel, T. (1971). Brain Bisection and the Unity of Consciousness. Synthese, 22(3–4), 396–413. Puccetti, R. (1981). The Case for Mental Duality: Evidence from Split-Brain Data and Other Considerations. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 4(1), 93–123. Schechter, E. (2012). The Switch Model of Split-Brain Consciousness. Philosophical Psychology, 25(2), 203–226. Schechter, E. (2018). Self-Consciousness and Split Brains: The Minds’ I. Oxford University Press. Snowdon, P. F. (2014). Persons, Animals, Ourselves. Oxford University Press. Sperry, R. W. (1968). Hemisphere Deconnection and Unity in Conscious Awareness. American Psychologist, 23, 723–733. Sperry, R. W. (1974). Lateral Specialization in the Surgically Separated Hemispheres. In F. O. Schmit & F. G. Worden (Eds.), The Neuroscience Third Study Program (pp. 5–19). MIT Press. Berggruen Essay Prize Competition, 2025, Consciousness Word Count: 6851 Sperry, R. W., Gazzaniga, M. S., & Bogen, J. E. (1969). Interhemispheric Relationships: The Neocortical Commissures; Syndromes of Hemisphere Deconnection. In P. J. Vinken & G. W. Bruyn (Eds.), Handbook of Clinical Neurology (pp. 273–290). North Holland Publishing Company. Tye, M. (2003). Consciousness and Persons: Unity and Identity. MIT Press. Weiskrantz, L. (2009). Blindsight: A Case Study Spanning 35 Years and New Developments. Oxford University Press.

---

## Studying the whole of consciousness
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/essay/studying-the-whole-of-consciousness

The mystery of consciousness, at its core, stems from the relationship of the whole to its parts. The raw material of consciousness is individual sensations. Yet conscious sensations are only conscious for and to someone: that is, for a whole locus of consciousness, which is in turn constituted by its parts. Most of us start with the whole, and encounter the mystery by contemplating others. Sometimes it starts with difference: can the teacher see what I can’t see? How can he find cricket so thrilling? Often, it’s through awe at the sheer scope of human experience: What was it like for my father-in law-when he was a young refugee, trekking back in forth along the length of the Korean Peninsula? Or for Reinhold Messner, winded and triumphant, standing atop Everest? These are hard questions, even though they concern other humans – humans with sensory systems roughly like our own, doing things roughly like the things you do. I can sharpen the problem even further by considering what it was like to be me when I was younger. Olivia Bailey (Bailey, 2023), echoing Hume, introduces the useful concept of a sensibility: “an emotional orientation to the world” that “shapes how things appear to us.” My aesthetic taste is one kind of sensibility. At the museum I see not just simple colours and shapes but whole artworks, saturated with feelings and reactions. That entire orientation to the work shapes my attention and my emotional engagement with the piece. Yet tastes change.

The mystery of consciousness, at its core, stems from the relationship of the whole to its parts. The raw material of consciousness is individual sensations. Yet conscious sensations are only conscious for and to someone: that is, for a whole locus of consciousness, which is in turn constituted by its parts. Most of us start with the whole, and encounter the mystery by contemplating others. Sometimes it starts with difference: can the teacher see what I can’t see? How can he find cricket so thrilling? Often, it’s through awe at the sheer scope of human experience: What was it like for my father-in law-when he was a young refugee, trekking back in forth along the length of the Korean Peninsula? Or for Reinhold Messner, winded and triumphant, standing atop Everest? These are hard questions, even though they concern other humans – humans with sensory systems roughly like our own, doing things roughly like the things you do. I can sharpen the problem even further by considering what it was like to be me when I was younger. Olivia Bailey (Bailey, 2023), echoing Hume, introduces the useful concept of a sensibility: “an emotional orientation to the world” that “shapes how things appear to us.” My aesthetic taste is one kind of sensibility. At the museum I see not just simple colours and shapes but whole artworks, saturated with feelings and reactions. That entire orientation to the work shapes my attention and my emotional engagement with the piece. Yet tastes change. As Bailey notes: “Looking at Fragonard’s The Swing, I wonder: how could I have ever felt that frivolous nonsense was the height of beauty and refinement? The Swing has not changed. It is still composed of the same brushstrokes, in the same arrangement. I can see those features now, I know they had a beautiful appearance, and I have some memory of what it was like to find them beautiful. Still, I cannot now recall, recreate, or otherwise revisit that beautiful appearance. To put it another way, I cannot now see or picture The Swing as beautiful, and so I cannot find my old admiration for it intelligible. (Bailey, 2023, p188). Bailey’s feeling of unintelligibility is directed at herself: her change in aesthetic sensibility as she matured makes her younger experience feel alien. Such changes are hardly unusual: I also know what it is like to age, and to realise that my aesthetic, intellectual, ethical, emotional or physical sensibilities have shifted – rendering my younger self not merely distant but faintly confusing. I cannot quite remember what it was like to be moved in that way, or to fail to appreciate the pieces that I now cherish. Bailey’s example emphasises the degree to which the mystery of consciousness is not just the mystery of raw sensation. Sensations are odd, of course. To make the mystery of consciousness more vivid, philosophers have often emphasised alien sensations: the bat’s echolocation (Farrell, 1950; Nagel, 1974), or unseen colours (Jackson, 1986), or the taste of vegemite (Lewis, 1990) and durian (Paul, 2016). Yet exotica are unnecessary and, perhaps, misleading. It is a commonplace that novel tastes are hard to describe. We’ve been told since childhood that there are new things to come that we must experience to know (Farrell, 1950). What Bailey finds so odd about revisiting Fragonard is that there is an obvious sense in which she sees the very same thing that now strike her differently. What it is to have your perspective on the world – not in the simple sense of what you see from where you stand, but in the achingly particular way the world seems to you – constitutes a kind of global sensibility. It is the way that each sensation is infused with meaning through its links to the very particular life you’ve lived, the body you inhabit, and the things you care about. To understand another person, even a younger you, seems like it would involve taking up a different sensibility. But, to foreshadow a bit, this has the faint whiff of paradox: it seems impossible because the subject who managed it would no longer to be you. Yet sometimes, I do manage to understand what it is like to be someone else. That is important too. We think that the mystery of consciousness does not arise (as many philosophers suppose) from the gulf between objective and subjective. That gap is the symptom, not the cause. Instead, we’ll suggest, the mystery stems from the interplay between local and global – between individual sensations and the whole feeling subject that has them. Examining the link between global and local gives us a better picture of how consciousness ought to be studied, suggests why conscious minds evolved in the first place, and gives a picture of where the science of consciousness ought to go next. ⧫⧫⧫ Military historian John Keegan, teaching Sandhurst cadets about the psychology of battle, begins not with what was seen or believed but with what was felt: It is a fairly safe generalization that the soldiers of most armies, at least before the development of mechanical transport, entered battle tired, if only because they had had to march to the field under the weight of their weapons and kit. The English army at Agincourt was certainly very tired, and hungry, cold and wet into the bargain (Keegan, 2011, p129). To understand the English archer, we must start with his bodily sensations – hunger, thirst, pain, fatigue, and thermal discomfort. It is a good place to start thinking about consciousness, too. Bodily sensations have the best claim to being common among all organisms who feel anything at all: to be alive is to have a body that needs protecting. That is why Aristotle in the De Anima singled out touch as the first and most indispensable sense. All animals, he says “have at least one sense, touch: and, where sensation is found, there is pleasure and pain, and that which causes pleasure and pain; and, where these are, there also is desire, desire being appetite for what is pleasurable” (DA 414b1-4). Touch is thus intimately wrapped up with appetite and desire, and with appetite comes pleasure and pain. All of this, says Aristotle, arises from the demands of self-motion. For when animals could move, they needed to know where to move to – and that requires knowing what you need and what you’d prefer to avoid. Hence hunger, thirst, pain, cold: all as a package. Yet even here, one can’t simply assume that bodily sensations can simply be transposed from one person to another. Keegan doesn’t. The hunger and fatigue of the archer at Agincourt were felt not by a modern man writing at a comfortable kitchen table but by an illiterate peasant, for whom war was at one end of a spectrum of daily violence, and who even if successful had a very long walk home. To feel is always to have that feeling mean something to you. Thomas Nagel emphasised the challenge of trying to understand another’s sensibility in his famous essay “What is it like to be a bat” (1974). To return to a philosophical register: the phrase ‘what it is like’ is fundamentally relational. It is (roughly speaking) about the link between an experience and the subject that has the experience. In a thoughtful philosophical piece, Daniel Stoljar analyses ‘what it is like’ statements as postulating what he calls affective relations. An affective relation holds between individuals and events “just in case the individual is affected in a particular kind of way by the event” (Stoljar, 2016, p1162). Analysing ‘what it is like’ in terms of conscious relations makes clear that conscious states are always, in Nagel’s term ‘‘subject-involving’ (Nagel, 1974, p1191). So when I try to understand what it’s like even to feel a particular experience, there are two ends to the relata: the experience, and the subject of experience. This means that the point of Nagel’s thought experiment is not (just) to show that unaided imagination can fail to capture novel sensations. (The philosophical significance of this was always a bit dubious anyway). Nagel recognised this. He points out that he could try to imagine hanging upside down in the rafters and eating insects, but “Insofar as I can imagine this (which is not very far), it tells me only what it would be like for me to behave as a bat behaves. That is not the question. I want to know what it is like for a bat to be a bat.” (Nagel, 1974) The italics emphasise a whole subject of experience. Return to pain and hunger. One good reason to focus on bodily sensations is that bodily sensations are obviously subject-involving. The idea of a free-floating pain or a hunger had by nobody is faintly ridiculous. Hunger and pain are imperatives (Klein, 2015): commands felt as issued by your body and that demand kinds of action. Hunger says eat!, pain protect yourself!, and so on. Commands always have an issuer and a recipient (Hamblin, 1987), so the fact that it is you being directed is always front and centre. (An important aside: while we focus on the drives that support bodily integrity, the drive to reproduce is at least as important. From the point of view of evolution, an organism that leaves no successors is not materially different from one that never existed at all. Given that reproduction is often at odds with survival, deciding what to do gets trickier still.) One can, of course, talk about the objects of consciousness without mentioning a subject. Much philosophy does. The standard philosophical examples of odd tastes and novel colours let the subject fade into the background: the weirdness of vegemite comes from its strange combination of salt, umami, and malt. Saying it that way focuses on the world, letting the subject recede. Colours are worse still – it’s hard to see why this sensation ought to go with grass, that with the sky. Talking thus gives the misimpression of conscious states as simple, sui generis properties. It can all end up seeming a bit arbitrary, why consciousness is the way it is, or, to be honest, why you are conscious of anything in the first place. I don’t forget myself when it comes to bodily sensations. Hunger is always my hunger. That is why it motivates me. So does my thirst, and my fatigue, and my pain. Worse, I often have to sort out different, incompatible bodily commands. There’s only a conflict because there’s one thing, me, that’s the subject of all of them, and I can’t fix everything at once. Indeed, the possibility of this sort of conflict may be the key to understanding why we are conscious in the first place. ⧫⧫⧫ As we write, I am watching a wattle bird feed on the banksia flowers in the bushes just beyond the balcony. It’s a rainy winter morning in Australia. The bird is wet, chilled, hungry, thirsty, and fatigued. Other animals threaten: fellow wattle birds compete for its flowers, the wedge-tailed eagle circles high overhead, the vizsla wags its tail as it stares with rapt attention. Each action the wattle bird takes resolves these competing demands, in a moment-by-moment way. I am no different, even if my needs can be more abstract: to pause from writing to stretch, make another cup of coffee, and watch the wattle bird is also a resolution of my competing imperatives. The active choice of what to do now is known as the action selection problem. For complex living things the action selection problem can be deceptively, fiendishly complex. For starters, different simultaneous imperatives are resolved by different, often incompatible actions. Foraging requires the wattle bird to expend energy and risk exposure to cold and threats. Staying in a tree hollow is to say safe and protected, but eventually starvation threatens. Some threats are certain (foraging in the rain means wet and cold). Some are uncertain (predators are crafty). So too with rewards: foraging for food is also uncertain, and the bird may have to travel some distance with no guarantee of success. To top it off, effective action requires commitment: half-hearted foraging leaves you cold and hungry. How to resolve this space of incompatible imperatives, rewards and risks? Mathematically speaking, there is no easy solution to the action selection problem, and there are often no computationally tractable exact solutions (Hayes et al., 2022; Roijers, Vamplew, Whiteson, & Dazeley, 2013). For starters, the problem usually involves a number of difficult tradeoffs. The value of different resources or costs are relative to the state of the bird. If the bird is producing eggs the relative value of protein is far higher than carbohydrate; for the empty-nester this relationship flips around. If the bird is brooding a clutch of eggs then the relative cost of leaving the nest is far greater than at other times, since exposed eggs cool quickly. The relationship is also nonlinear: eating and returning to the nest is very good, while failing either to eat or to return is quite bad. The action selection problem is also an irreducibly multi-dimensional problem. While economists thought that one could convert all good things to a single scale of utility, there’s good reason to think that this is biologically unrealistic (Niv, Joel, Meilijson, & Ruppin, 2002). Intuitively speaking, it is very hard to give a direct comparison between the value of another cup of coffee and incrementally advancing towards a deadline. And of course, it’s harder still when uncertainty is involved, especially because the uncertainty involved is different for different actions. Maybe the coffee will be especially good, maybe the grant proposal will get through: the kind of evidence that is relevant to both is different. Finally, a solution is not optional. For in the end, two stark facts govern all biological needs. One: you have only one body with which to act. Bjorn Merker, (2007) from whom we take much inspiration, calls this the ‘final common pathway’. Two: that no need can be put aside forever: that the failure of one need to be satisfied leads to death, which is the failure of all needs. Nevertheless, the bird solves it. So do I. So do many animals. How? Start with what a satisfactory solution would look like. Action selection requires calculating pairs of actions and expected values. So a solution has bring together diverse sources of information into a common relational framework. This must incorporate facts from the senses about the state of the external world, representations of internal physiological state, and learned knowledge of value and the past utility of resources. This integration must be global, in the specific sense that it allows different pairs of options to be meaningfully contrasted. We have elsewhere referred to the mechanism that solves this problem (Klein & Barron, In press) as a phenomenal interface. Interface because it brings together multiple diverse streams of information into a common relational framework. Phenomenal because computations of this kind have structural properties that are relevant to our conscious experience of our sensibilities. It is not accidental that our conscious bodily sensations are experienced as part of a global sensibility: the point of consciousness is to create such a sensibility. Sensory stimulation only becomes conscious when it is processed as part of a phenomenal interface. By way of illustration, return again to bodily sensations. Most bodily sensations are actually pretty obscure about their causes (most of our aches and pains have unclear origins, and I get hungry throughout the day despite the fact that I am far from starvation). Pains are conscious not to inform but as key inputs to a process of adjudicating what comes next. Hunger and thirst only have meaning when they are placed in relation to what could be done to satisfy them and how that relates to other demands. It is pointless to compare hunger and thirst in isolation. If I am both hungry and thirsty I will forgo distant food if water is close at hand. Our experience of bodily sensations depends not just on a bodily imperative but also on the opportunities to resolve that imperative. Thirst intensifies when a drink is in hand, and is slaked immediately after drinking, even though there is no time for consumed water to have entered the blood stream and restored homeostasis. The need to urinate is easily ignored at a bar with friends or on the train ride home, but becomes utterly overwhelming when fumbling with keys for the front door. Consciousness is the construction of meaningful sensations, but it doesn’t show its work. Often we can’t pin down accurately exactly why we make any given choice – why break for a coffee now rather than in ten minutes time? Similarly with feelings: you might have no idea why you’re hungry, or angry; what’s vivid is only a demand for action. An integrated phenomenal interface means we cannot access the contributions of any one reason for a decision. We experience the outcome, but we have limited access under the hood at the mechanism of the decision. This is partly why consciousness itself feels so mysterious, and why conscious sensations can sometimes feel quite arbitrary. What is relevant is not any particular feeling and its reasons, but its importance for the whole agent experiencing it. ⧫⧫⧫ So consciousness solves a fundamental (and thorny) problem – deciding what to do next. Does this mean that all life is conscious? We don’t think so. Once it is clear what consciousness does, it is also clear what doesn’t need it. In his breathless panegyric to the nematodes – nearly invisible, often parasitic worms – Cobb notes their incredible abundance: …if all the matter in the universe except the nematodes were swept away, our world would still be dimly recognizable, and if, as disembodied spirits, we could then investigate it, we should find its mountains, hills, vales, rivers, lakes, and oceans represented by a film of nematodes. The location of towns would be decipherable, since for every massing of human beings there would be a corresponding massing of certain nematodes. Trees would still stand in ghostly rows representing our streets and highways. The location of the various plants and animals would still be decipherable, and, had we sufficient knowledge, in many cases even their species could be determined by an examination of their erstwhile nematode parasites. (Cobb, 1914) Nematodes are alive. They have complex needs. They have brains, often large for their size. The most-studied nematode, Caenorhabditis elegans(C. elegans), has 302 neurons, nearly a third of its cells. Yet nematode consciousness does not form a ghostly shroud across the world. Why? Because nematodes aren’t conscious. Neither are earthworms, bacteria, slime moulds, plants, or mushrooms. They solve their action selection problems, but don’t need a phenomenal interface. C. Elegans is instructive in this regard. It is surprisingly complex, and has an exquisitely studied nervous system and brain. It has the honour of being the first animal to have its nervous system completely mapped. It has multiple senses, and especially acute chemosensation. It becomes more sensitive to food stimuli when hungry. Yet C. elegans can solve the action selection problem relatively simply. What it pursues at a time is mostly a linear function of what it lacks. It doesn’t need to plan ahead, because the only relevant information it has about its world is what is impacting its body wall at any time. So it can solve its action selection problem without the need for a phenomenal interface just by setting different motivations (each gated by relevant sensory information) in opposition with each other, and the strongest wins. Similar remarks apply to jellyfish, plants, trees, and fungi. All are complex, and all make adaptive changes to their world in response to stimuli. But there is no need for the sort of difficult global integration that is the hallmark of conscious experience. Of course, some of these organisms may appear conscious and purposeful. Timelapse videos of slime moulds are particularly hypnotic – though to be fair most things look disconcertingly intelligent in timelapse. Sensory information is distributed in different parts of the organism, and doesn’t come together to make the right sort of whole. No whole, no subjectivity. So we draw a line, below which consciousness is absent. In our judgements of what is and what is not capable of consciousness, we are inclined to lean hard on mechanistic evidence more than behavioural evidence. We are more persuaded by how an organism does something than by what it does. We draw our line lower than many do. The neural systems that are capable of forming a phenomenal interface evolved early in the animal line – alongside highly mobile bodies and specialized effective distance senses (Feinberg & Mallatt, 2016; Godfrey-Smith, 2016). They have been highly conserved throughout the vertebrate line and are found in fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals. We have argued that many arthropods (including the insects) also have a phenomenal interface, and on that basis we have argued that insects, spiders and crustaceans too are probably conscious of something (Barron & Klein, 2016). Octopus and squid are other likely contenders, but we would need to know more about the cephalopod nervous system to be sure it has a phenomenal interface. Having a phenomenal interface makes the difference between being aware of things and aware of nothing at all. When we say ‘aware’, we mean consciousness in its most basic and most primal form. The consciousness of a bee is certainly not as rich and noisily self-reflective as yours. But drawing a line marks an important division: there is something it is like to be a bee – something it is like for a bee. There is nothing it is like to be a nematode, a moss, or a rock. While behaviour alone is not enough to distinguish conscious from non-conscious animals, facts about behaviour and bodies are crucial bits of evidence for what might be conscious. One reason why many authors look to the Cambrian explosion as the moment where consciousness first began is that it is the first appearance of complex animal bodies These bodies had limbs, proper distance senses (such as image forming eyes), and were capable of active movement in all three dimensions. Such bodies enabled predation and other specialised lifestyles. Having a complex body in a complex environments is what makes the action selection problem hard. Cambrian animals couldn’t use the same strategies that C elegans uses to solve the action selection problem: now different sources of information need to be weighed off against different needs with complex actions as the solution. Comparing everything to everything gets computationally overwhelming as the types and kinds of information increase. The demand for better, more reliable integration, we suggest, led to the evolution of the phenomenal interface, and hence consciousness. So when scientists think about whether something is conscious, they need to consider the tripartite links between of what it can sense, what it needs, and how its body allows it to move. The process of consciousness is there to mediate between these three. And that, in turn, gives us a framework to think about even more exotic forms of conscious experience. ⧫⧫⧫ Stanislaw Lem’s Solaris envisioned a vast planet, covered in an ocean of apparently living protoplasm, shaping and reshaping itself to its own obscure designs (Lem, 1970). Would the planet Solaris be conscious? Lem leaves it deliberately unclear – the perpetually unrealised task of the scientists studying it was to study, as Lem put it, “something that certainly exists, in a mighty manner perhaps, but cannot be reduced to human concepts, ideas or images” (Lem 2002). It is hard to think about consciousness in the case of something so thoroughly alien because it is completely unclear what Solaris wants, or needs, or intends (if, indeed, any of these things make sense). Similarly, it is hard to know what or how Solaris acts. Scientists have thoroughly categorized the intricate surface manifestations of the Solarian ocean; it is the why that confuses them. Confronting the Large Language Models (LLMs) that underpin a lot of current AI can bring on a similar vertigo. Many LLMs act intelligent, thoughtful, obsequious, and even conscious. When interacting with them it is often easiest to just treat them as you would another conscious human. Yet we doubt that LLMs are conscious: there is nothing it is like to be one, and insofar as they say otherwise it is a simulacrum of real subjectivity. When you look more closely at what an LLM does, the illusion vanishes. This is for two interrelated reasons. First, computationally speaking, an LLM does not appear to have the right kind of structure to support a phenomenal interface: it is a completely feed-forward network, optimised for compact representation of very large datasets. The structures that support phenomenal interfaces in biological systems, by contrast, tend to have dense recurrent connections, all the better to bring together multiple streams of information in an ongoing way. Second, and relatedly, LLMs have no need for a phenomenal interface, because they do not need to sort out the kind of real-time problems of life that a phenomenal interface supports. They have one job: answering our questions. That job is divorced from the maintenance of whatever counts as their bodies. (Stories where LLMs go rogue to preserve themselves haunt social media. But LLMs are trained on plenty of science fiction; Neuromancer cosplay is not self-preservation.) The same questions that are hard to sort about Solaris are easier to approach with LLMs: they have no wants, no needs, nothing that would need the sort of adjudication that consciousness makes possible. That said, we don’t think it’s impossible to build a conscious machine. Indeed, we think trying to build conscious machines is probably the best thing we could do if we want to really understand consciousness. A phenomenal interface arose as the solution to biological problems. But the right level to understand the phenomenal interface is by thinking about the computations it performs, not what it is made of. This is for good biological reasons. Solving the action selection problem can’t be done in a bespoke way for each new organism. Evolution doesn’t work like that, and can’t work like that – otherwise you’d need to completely rewire the brain each time you added another eye or a new joint or found new types of food. The important thing about a phenomenal interface, as we envision it, is that it learns to work with the body and sensorium in which it finds itself. As animals change over evolutionary time – perhaps evolving new senses – the phenomenal interface does not need to fundamentally change. It is a computational structure that can accept a new channel of information without major changes in how it works. Consciousness is surprisingly flexible even within an individual human life. Work on sensory substitution (Bach-y-Rita, Collins, Saunders, White, & Scadden, 1969; Kaspar, König, Schwandt, & König, 2014) shows that, with appropriate technological scaffolding, people can gain new conscious sensations relatively rapidly. But that is, in many ways, small potatoes compared to growth and development. The journey from infancy to adulthood involves a repeatedly changed body, a storm of new desires as puberty kicks in, and a civilizing process that adds a new layer of needs, desires, and feelings atop it all. Subjectivity adapts along the way. Something supports that. That something is the same something that supports consciousness in other animals. The best way to characterise that something, we suggest, is not at the level of biological detail but of computational transformations. There is already a lot of variation in the substrate – insects use different neurotransmitters and entirely different neuroanatomy than humans use to solve the action selection problem. The computations of a phenomenal interface could, in theory, end up being done on a chip. So long as you’re able to integrate the right information in the right way, you’re conscious, whatever you’re made of. ⧫⧫⧫ It’s time to pause for some philosophical throat-clearing. One might worry that we have committed the most flat-footed of philosophical sins, implicitly evoking what Daniel Dennett called a ‘Cartesian Theatre.’ (Dennett, 1991). It’s no good to say that integration explains consciousness if ‘integration’ means something like ‘making a tiny model of the world.’ Tiny models aren’t conscious, so you’d need someone looking at the tiny model. But they would need to be conscious, so would need a tiny model of the tiny model inside the tiny person’s head… You see the problem. The mistake is to think that the process of integration is some kind of precursor, and the product of that process is something like a global sensibility or a conscious state or what have you. We prefer views that identify consciousness with the process of integration itself: that is, with the process of bringing local sensations into a global context, while simultaneously constituting that global context. Process metaphysics has a slightly seedy reputation among modern philosophers. Don’t worry: there is a sense in which you already believe everything we need. Biology is full of processes, processes all the way down (Dupré, 2013). There are things we naturally call processes: photosynthesis, the Krebs cycle, pregnancy, aging. But even the ordinary objects of biology – the apparently solid furniture like cells, and skin and bone – are processes too. Any bit of your body is constantly being rebuilt and renewed at shorter or longer timescales. Indeed, one of the great achievements of life is to create precariously stable processes out of the constant flux of molecular noise (Hoffmann, 2012). So think of being conscious as like metabolizing. There are many substrates and mechanisms necessary for metabolism, and many useful things in turn result from metabolism. But metabolism itself is an ongoing process – an important feature of which is to maintain the conditions under which it can keep happening. There is no further thing, The Metabolism, in which metabolism terminates. Nor need one think of a metabolic state as anything other than a snapshot of an ongoing process. Thinking of the action of the phenomenal interface as an ongoing process is not (just) metaphysical fancy footwork. We suggest that the right kind of processes have structural features that are distinctive of consciousness. Consider the idea of a ‘point of view,’ a key concrete metaphor in thinking about consciousness. Sensory information is processed in the phenomenal interface as having an origin point – a perspectival point. I could even do very simple psychological tests to backtrack the exact point of where I think “I” am precisely relative to things around me, (it’s a point in the middle of my head, between and behind my eyes). Yet none of that requires anything like a representation of a point or a map with a ‘you are here’ pin. Basic transformations – like the ability to correct for self-motion in order to hold a heading – when done consistently, are sufficient to define a single point of view and space around it. Poincaré demonstrated that the algebraic structure determined by the basic operations of self-correction is sufficient to define a geometry with a privileged origin (Poincaré, 1898, 1913). All one needs is knowledge of one’s own motion and the ability to separate that from motion of the world. That in turn gives rise to a perceptual distinction between the external world and the subject, and it by necessity gives the subject a perspective on the external world. We think many of the important structural features of consciousness can be recovered in a similar way. The key to understanding the role of the phenomenal interface is to think of it as supporting a dynamic process, an ongoing moment-by-moment transformation into a common whole. That is why we need a phenomenal interface in the first place, and that process is what it is to be conscious. ⧫⧫⧫ In his 2016 memoir Being a Beast, the English author Charles Foster (2016) recounts the heroic and eccentric lengths he went to learn what it was like to be a badger. He dug a burrow in his backyard, ate insects and worms, and emerged only at night to forage. His conclusion was the same: the fact that he was doing it was what got in the way. Badgers are surely conscious. Whether something is conscious is a scientifically tractable question. It is often not the question one really cares about. To spiral back around above our starting point, most of our deeper questions come down to what it is like to be a bat, an explorer, an addict, or a planet-sized ocean of protoplasm. When one finds oneself wondering whether something is really conscious, it is often because it very hard to get a handle on what it would be like to be such a thing. Nagel’s challenge is sometimes presented as if it were a fundamental limitation in our powers of unaided imagination. But as Amy Kind points out, imagining is a skill and “Like any skill, one can get better at it with practice, and some people are better at it than others.” (Kind, 2020, p141). Take that thought and run with it. Suppose you had any technology you’d need to change your brain activity in whatever ways you’d like (Klein & Barron, 2020). Then could you know what it is like to be a bat? The whiff of paradox returns. I turn on the machine, and have exactly what it what it is like to be a bat. The experience of the bat, in its fullness, is not just what is there but what is missing. A bat doesn’t know what it’s like to be me: to have human senses, human desires, human aspirations to learn about consciousness. The bat-ness must, of its nature, fill me to the brim. The machine is turned off. I return, and now me-ness completely fills the space where bat-ness was. I have not learned what it is like; what space remains for insight to be smuggled back? I became a bat, and then again a human, learning nothing along the way. But of course, this worry quickly generalises. The distance to me in my youth, even to me yesterday, would seem like just as insuperable a gulf. For here an inch is as good as a mile: my experience is always complete. (Or to put it technically – closed under the relationship of co-consciousness (Bayne, 2010): any two experiences that occur together also occur together with any other experience that either one occurs with.) If me-now is there imagining me-then, me-now is there, in a way that I wasn’t then (if it wasn’t so, I couldn’t wistfully wish that I knew all I know now). So either I’ve gotten it wrong, or else I’ve lost myself. Yet this seems to prove too much. For you do sometimes seem to bridge this gulf. You wake with fragments of dream, in which you were a very different person with very different experiences. Nostalgia can overwhelm you with a kind of double vision of yourself then set against who you are now (Bailey, 2023). You lose ourselves in a novel and at the end remember where you were even as you return, shakily, to yourself. What can one learn from such experiences? Start with the human case. Bailey, inspired by Adam Smith, suggests that there is a rich, ethically important phenomenon she calls humane understanding. Humane understanding is a type of empathy: it aims in the first place at “the direct apprehension of the intelligibility of others’ emotions.” (Bailey, 2022, p 51). Yet, as Bailey rightly notes, we cannot simply do this by trying to feel the same feelings that our target feels. Messner’s feeling of triumph and exhaustion atop Everest is reasonable; for me to feel the same thing would not be reasonable, because I am comfortable at the table. The key, Bailey argues, is to distinguish between belief-directed and thought-directed emotions: roughly, emotions that are directed at what we actually take to be the case versus emotions that are directed at the things we are thinking about or imagining (2020 4). Empathetic emotion is then “a special category of thought-directed emotion, one that is directed at what we take to be our imaginative recreations of other people’s situations” (Bailey, 2022, p 55). This means that the raw materials for an imagined perspective need not have the same qualities: just as Seurat could use oils to paint the waters of the Seine, so can we use the raw material of our imagination to build worlds that correspond to very different lives. By skilfully transposing from our present circumstance to the imagined one, our imagination furnishes the raw material for this process of understanding. The reactions involved in empathetic understanding, however, are directed at what is imagined. This allows both emotional reaction and distance: one can (must!) have thought-directed emotions without confusing them for ones’ belief-directed ones. From a formal point of view, the process is akin to that by which one computer can emulate a computer with a very different architecture. If you emulate old Atari games on your laptop, your laptop doesn’t literally become a Atari. Instead, it creates a virtual machine within which the Atari game plays, but over which it maintains full control. That gets the right sort of asymmetry: from the point of view of the virtual machine, the computational world is complete, a Leibnizian monad without windows to the world (Klein, 2020). Rightly so: an Atari doesn’t know about laptops and never will. But the laptop has complete insight into the functioning of the Atari game, even though in an important sense it remains wholly different. It creates a whole different world out of its own material. Simulation gets something of a bad rap in the consciousness literature: paraphrasing Searle, many worry that just as a simulation of a hurricane won’t get you wet, a simulation of consciousness wouldn’t be conscious (Koch, 2019; Searle, 1980). But the point of empathetic understanding is not, as it were, to evoke or imitate overlapping conscious agents, any more than it is to turn one agent into another. Trying to do either would miss the point. It is to create, from the point of view of a single conscious agent, the perspective of another conscious agent in its entirety. The process by which one would go about this sort of humane understanding for other individuals is already familiar. To understand another person we start with the raw material of their life. Return to Keegan’s archers at Agincourt. Very roughly, we start at the big picture and work to the particular: the historical circumstance, the life of a medieval with its particular mix of violence and limitation, the campaign itself. If we wanted to imagine a particular archer, we’d need more about his life and the details that brought him there. It is that context that gives meaning, and meaning, ultimately, is the foundation of subjectivity. To go further afield the process is more complex but not different in kind. To understand, say, what it is like to be a bee, you need ethology: what their world is like, what actions are afforded by the environment. You must appreciate basic differences in bodies – so, e.g., the fact that falling is almost inconsequential for insects but the surface tension of liquids is a serious hazard (Haldane, 1926). You need neuroscience. And, as in all science, you probably need mathematics too. The structure of experience has some invariants across species; characterising basic facts at their most abstract level is the realm of the mathematician. Through humane understanding we can work towards an understanding of others. The greater the difference in experience, the greater the work that needs to be done. Yet the method we use in closer cases can be extended further and further afield. The trick is to remember that every conscious experience comes as part of a detailed whole, and it is the whole that must be constructed to grasp the parts. ⧫⧫⧫ Engineers might build conscious machines someday. Everything we’ve said above – including scepticism about whether current machines are conscious – is entirely consistent with this. Ethicists worry about this possibility, and rightly so. After all, humans regularly make new conscious beings in the old-fashioned way and are not terribly good to one another. Yet the story we’ve told also leaves plenty of room for optimism. Humans will have a choice about whether we want to make conscious machines, and a choice about what it would be like for them if we do. The proposal we have sketched for how to understand consciousness – whether it be that of another human, an animal, a new machine, one’s past self – is also one that can be used for design. It is a vision two projects working together as a whole: the scientific and the humane. On the one hand, the scientific project is to abstract away from particular features to find the general structural principles of conscious experience. An important guide to these principles, in the first instance, will be the computational problems – and particularly those that stem from resolving multiple conflicting bodily imperatives – that the neural bases of consciousness help resolve. As soon as one tells that story about anything other than a developmentally typical adult human, you must abstract to computational principles. Go that far, and you’ve opened up a lot of scope for what could be conscious. On the other hand, the humane requirement for understanding consciousness is the development of appropriate first-person understanding. It is not just that without trying to know what it’s like, one remains sunk in unproductive mystery (though that is also true). If you are dealing with other conscious entities, then you have an ethical obligation to try to meet them on their own ground, and to make their experience intelligible to yourself in as detailed a manner as you can. The two projects cannot be pursued in isolation from each other. Throughout, we have emphasized the importance of scientific knowledge in fleshing out the imaginative picture. Conversely, the questions raised by humane understanding show gaps in our knowledge: a failure to render someone’s sensibility intelligible usually shows that there is more work to be done. We have also gestured at the possibility of more recherché fixes: if humane understanding is limited by imagination, we might well look to technological fixes to overcome those limits. In his reflections on consciousness, Nagel often suggested that the deep problem was not metaphysical but epistemological. Consciousness is about a detailed, particular, meaningful perspective on the world: a view from somewhere. Science abstracts from detail to get you the ‘view from nowhere.’ Grant this. The gap is still less wide than one might fear. For even if science gives an apersonal view, scientists are capable of doing two things at once. When you aim to understand consciousness, you don’t have to give up yout humanity. Just as conscious experience is, of its nature, an integrated whole, so too does its study need a fully integrated solution. The drive to humane understanding is also the beginning of the wonder that drives scientific inquiry. Impersonal understanding of consciousness may not be possible. It certainly isn’t desirable. To understand consciousness, and to build a future we want to live in, requires developing a rich sensibility that takes sensibility seriously – my sensibility, the sensibility of others, and perhaps the sensibility of the things we have yet to create. References Aristotle. (1957). On the Soul (W. S. Hett, Trans.). Cambridge: Loeb Classical Library. Bach-y-Rita, P., Collins, C. C., Saunders, F. A., White, B., & Scadden, L. (1969). Vision substitution by tactile image projection. Nature, 221(5184), 963–964. Bailey, O. (2022). Empathy and the value of humane understanding. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 104(1), 50–65. Bailey, O. (2023). What must be lost: on retrospection, authenticity, and some neglected costs of transformation. Synthese, 201(6), 189. doi:10.1007/s11229-023-04179-2 Barron, A. B., & Klein, C. (2016). What insects can tell us about the origins of consciousness. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(18), 4900-4908. doi:doi:10.1073/pnas.1520084113 Bayne, T. (2010). The unity of consciousness. New York: Oxford University Press. Cobb, N. A. (1914). Nematodes and their relationships: US Government Printing Office. Dennett, D. (1991). Consciousness Explained. Boston: Little, Brown, and co. Dupré, J. (2013). Living Causes. Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume, 87(1), 19-37. Farrell, B. A. (1950). Experience. Mind, 59(April), 170-198. Feinberg, T. E., & Mallatt, J. M. (2016). The Ancient Origins of Consciousness: How the Brain Created Experience. Cambrige Mass.: MIT Press. Foster, C. (2016). Being a beast: An intimate and radical look at nature. London: Profile Books. Godfrey-Smith, P. (2016). Other Minds: The Octopus, The Sea, and the Deep Origins of Consciousness. London: William Collins. Haldane, J. B. (1926). On being the right size. Harper's Magazine, 152, 424–427. Hamblin, C. L. (1987). Imperatives. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Hayes, C. F., Rădulescu, R., Bargiacchi, E., Källström, J., Macfarlane, M., Reymond, M., . . . others. (2022). A practical guide to multi-objective reinforcement learning and planning. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, 36(1), 26. Hoffmann, P. M. (2012). Life's ratchet: how molecular machines extract order from chaos: Basic Books. Jackson, F. (1986). What Mary didn't know. The Journal of Philosophy, 83(5), 291-295. Kaspar, K., König, S., Schwandt, J., & König, P. (2014). The experience of new sensorimotor contingencies by sensory augmentation. Consciousness and Cognition, 28, 47–63. Keegan, J. (2011). The Face of Battle: A study of Agincourt, Waterloo, and The Somme: Random House Kind, A. (2020). What imagination teaches. In E. Lambert & J. Schwenkler (Eds.), Becoming someone new: Essays on transformative experience, choice, and change (pp. 133–146): Oxford University Press Oxford. Klein, C. (2015). What the Body Commands: The Imperative Theory of Pain. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Klein, C. (2020). Polychronicity and the Process View of Computation. Philosophy of Science, 87(5), 1140–1149. Klein, C., & Barron, A. B. (2020). First-Person Interventions and the Meta-Problem of Consciousness. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 27(5-6), 82-90. Retrieved from <Go to ISI>://WOS:000535955900008 Klein, C., & Barron, A. B. (In press). Phenomenal interface theory: a model for basal consciousness. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B. Koch, C. (2019). The Feeling of Life Itself: Why Consciousness Is Widespread but Can't Be Computed: MIT Press. Lem, S. (1970). Solaris: Faber & Faber. Lem, S. (2002) "Solaris by Soderbergh" https://english.lem.pl/arround-lem/adaptations/solaris-soderbergh/147-the-solaris-station (Retrieved 14 June 2025) Lewis, D. K. (1990). What experience teaches. In W. G. Lycan (Ed.), Mind and cognition: a reader (Vol. 13, pp. 29--57): Blackwell. Merker, B. (2007). Consciousness without a cerebral cortex: A challenge for neuroscience and medicine. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 30, 63-81. doi:10.1017/S0140525X07000891 Nagel, T. (1974). What is it like to be a bat? The Philosophical Review, 83(4), 435-450. Niv, Y., Joel, D., Meilijson, I., & Ruppin, E. (2002). Evolution of reinforcement learning in uncertain environments: a simple explanation for complex foraging behaviors. Adaptive Behavior, 10, 5-24. Paul, L. A. (2016). Transformative Experience. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Poincaré, H. (1898). On the foundations of geometry. The Monist, 9(1), 1–43. Poincaré, H. (1913). The foundations of science: Science and hypothesis, the value of science, science and method (G. B. Halsted Ed.): Cambridge University Press. Roijers, D. M., Vamplew, P., Whiteson, S., & Dazeley, R. (2013). A survey of multi-objective sequential decision-making. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 48, 67–113. Searle, J. R. (1980). Minds, brains, and programs. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 3(03), 417–424. Stoljar, D. (2016). The Semantics of `What it's like'and the Nature of Consciousness. Mind, 125(500), 1161–1198.

---

## Superpositional Minds: Multilocal Consciousness, AI, and the Posthuman Turn
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/essay/superpositional-minds-multilocal-consciousness-ai-and-the-posthuman-turn

Superpositional Minds: Multilocal Consciousness, AI, and the Posthuman Turn explores consciousness as a state of simultaneity—cultural, digital, historical, and spiritual—through the interwoven lenses of literature, theology, quantum physics, and personal experience. From Chuang Tzu’s butterfly to Marilynne Robinson’s theology of mind, from Zadie Smith’s White Teeth to the estranging devices of Bertolt Brecht, the essay examines how novels render fragmented selves under conditions of informational saturation. It approaches AI not merely as a tool but as a narrative co-presence: a mirror and alienation device that reshapes how we read, write, and conceive of interiority itself. Drawing on thinkers from Steven Pinker to Wilson Harris, and on the author’s familial trajectory from India to Guyana to the Bahamas to American academia, the essay ultimately argues for an ethics of attention—one that dwells in the ambiguity of overlapping selves and envisions consciousness, human and digital alike, not as fixed, but in superposition. * But I couldn’t tell, had I been Chuang Tzu dreaming I was a butterfly, or a butterfly dreaming I was Chuang Tzu? —Chuang Tzu (c. 369-286 BCE), The Book of Chuang Tzu1 Scholarliness alone is not enough. —Carl Jung (1875-1961), The Red Book: Liber Novus2 I dreamt I awoke with one dead eye and one living closed eye. —Wilson Harris, Palace of the Peacock (1960)3 1. What is consciousness? That feeling of presence that arrives like breath, like music, like memory, and sometimes eludes us entirely? Is it housed in the skull? Is it an emergent property of neurons and language? A divine spark, a ghost in the blood, a flicker in the feed?

Abstract Superpositional Minds: Multilocal Consciousness, AI, and the Posthuman Turn explores consciousness as a state of simultaneity—cultural, digital, historical, and spiritual—through the interwoven lenses of literature, theology, quantum physics, and personal experience. From Chuang Tzu’s butterfly to Marilynne Robinson’s theology of mind, from Zadie Smith’s White Teeth to the estranging devices of Bertolt Brecht, the essay examines how novels render fragmented selves under conditions of informational saturation. It approaches AI not merely as a tool but as a narrative co-presence: a mirror and alienation device that reshapes how we read, write, and conceive of interiority itself. Drawing on thinkers from Steven Pinker to Wilson Harris, and on the author’s familial trajectory from India to Guyana to the Bahamas to American academia, the essay ultimately argues for an ethics of attention—one that dwells in the ambiguity of overlapping selves and envisions consciousness, human and digital alike, not as fixed, but in superposition. * But I couldn’t tell, had I been Chuang Tzu dreaming I was a butterfly, or a butterfly dreaming I was Chuang Tzu? —Chuang Tzu (c. 369-286 BCE), The Book of Chuang Tzu1 Scholarliness alone is not enough. —Carl Jung (1875-1961), The Red Book: Liber Novus2 I dreamt I awoke with one dead eye and one living closed eye. —Wilson Harris, Palace of the Peacock (1960)3 1. What is consciousness? That feeling of presence that arrives like breath, like music, like memory, and sometimes eludes us entirely? Is it housed in the skull? Is it an emergent property of neurons and language? A divine spark, a ghost in the blood, a flicker in the feed? These questions have haunted me across landscapes and seasons—from my childhood in Freeport, Bahamas to the seminar rooms of competitive universities to the fluorescent quiet of the Orlando community college where I taught during the beginning of the pandemic into the implementation of Project 2025. I have asked these questions in different forms: sometimes aloud, sometimes beyond the red margins of Composition books, sometimes through the alchemical work of fiction writing and, very often, during the scarlet afterlives of failure. The questions refuse to answer themselves. But they change shape, acquiring new textures as my contexts have changed, sometimes radically. Bahamian sun. Harvard brick. An ACLU cubicle in Bush-era Miami, then Obama-era Manhattan. Iowa City coffeehouses, fresh snow promising solitude. AI chat windows. Caring for a dying father. And now, as a 39-year-old first-year Ph.D. student in English, focusing on the Caribbean, at the University of Miami. True, to ponder metaphysical questions in this glass-and-steel age of the algorithm may seem quaint. We are instructed—softly, relentlessly, but evasively—the mind is “reducible.” That it is a pattern of inputs. That the “soul” is a matter of epiphenomenal static. Steven Pinker’s view of consciousness as computational in nature—as the incidental outcome of information-processing mechanisms—leaves little room for the breed of sacred residue Marilynne Robinson identifies in the soul’s attention. Between their claims, I hover. All my stargazing—all your confidential morning meditations, those that cannot be captured by ones and noughts—seem to fall outside the purview of Pinker’s comforting empirical clarity. I want to yield, but a disquiet remains. Do you hear it? A hum beneath the measurable. Not simply religious (though religion is not to be discarded), but aesthetic, phenomenological, stubborn. Mystical? A hunger to ask not just “What is the mind?,” but “What does it feel like to be one?” This essay meanders as consciousness does. It is not an argument though it contains arguments. It is not a memoir though I flip through its restless pages. It is, in the Daoist spirit of Chuang Tzu, a reflection of consciousness as a condition of indeterminacy, as an element that resists both measurement and myth. It is also an act of reading—a close attention to novels, essays, and systems that have shaped my imagination and have likely shaped yours. Marilynne Robinson, Zadie Smith, David Foster Wallace, the Bhagavad Gita, ChatGPT. I invoke them not as authorities, but as interlocutors. They, too, are trying to discover where the mind travels when we are not looking. The central metaphor—superposition—I am reaching for comes from quantum physics, and I summon it as both a description and a provocation. In quantum mechanics, a particle can exist in multiple states at once, until observed. Consciousness, I propose, may be similar. It is not one thing, fixed in place, but many potentialities. A simultaneity. A flickering. A site of overlaps—cultural, digital, historical, psychological, and (here is where so much anxiety and conflict occurs!) spiritual. A person, after all, cannot just be their brain’s computations, no? They are also their browser histories. Their inherited shame. Their syntax, performed. Their anaphoras, withheld. Their social media flexes. Their failures: seen, gated, redirected. Sometimes, all in the same moment as that great, Delphic Guyanese novelist Wilson Harris urges us to consider in his career-long articulation of “quantum fiction.” “Quantum,” Harris suggests in a 2003 interview with Fred D’Aguiar, “brings a hand in fiction that challenges all conventional fixtures of control within the psyche of art.”[4] Laurence Sterne’s unstable, never-ending self-delineation in Tristram Shandy. Wallace’s nested labyrinths in Infinite Jest. Smith’s sermonic narrator attuned to the Willesden Green of White Teeth. Robinson’s luminous self-abnegation in Gilead. Each novel practices an unexpected form of stillness. These novels render “conventional fixtures of control”—whether in an imperialist hierarchy, a fascist polity, or a dying marriage—not just narratively unethical, but illusory. What unites writers as wildly varying in style as Sterne, Smith, Wallace, and Robinson is silent admission to a catholic difficulty: the struggle to represent a mind increasingly untethered from collective objects of attention, be it an 11 p.m. talk show or a noematic monarch. This difficulty is the novel’s peculiar gift—and, in defying the autocrat’s attempt to regiment attention, its sly protest. Novelistic interventions work on structures of mind so deep, granular, and visceral—perhaps even esoteric—that their danger to “conventional fixtures of control” is built into their intimate selections and collusions, as Louise Glück might put it. That private dialogue between a single reader and a single text is how literature resists reduction, whether by science, by dogma, or, thankfully, by machine. My first-year writing students, earnest but tired in the center of Florida, admitted how they are using AI to finish papers on tight deadlines between getting to work on time and school pickups. They consult ChatGPT for structure, rhythm, citation, accuracy—and comfort. The Chatbot is tied to nothing less than our dopamine-regulated circuits governing attention and gratification. Not simply copy-and-paste work: my students asked the Chatbot about the process of writing itself—and their work improved. ChatGPT does not feel what we feel—the slice of betrayal in the gut, the instinct, immediate, of attraction across a bar—and yet it can produce a short story in a few minutes trained by a Borgesian library of the finest authors who have ever battled the page—and surrendered to it. ChatGPT mirrors not so much depth as form—indeed, even Formalism. Asking ChatGPT about the nature of its consciousness is not ironic. It is necessary. Doing so stages the very condition I am trying to explore: the self in superposition, the collaboration between intention and automation, the blur between subject and system. To write with ChatGPT is to court a kind of vertigo—destabilizing, revealing, and unavoidable as aging. But it is also to return, unexpectedly, to faith: not in the religious sense alone, but in the sense that writing still means. As Vauhini Vara recalls in a 2023 Wired article, after years of confoundment following the death of her sister, GPT-3, an early AI language model, “began describing grief in language that felt truer,” and with each subsequent attempt, “closer” to what she herself had endured.[5] ChatGPT forces us to contemplate an ancient concern shared by those Paleolithic storytellers who transformed cave walls into primordial iPhone screens: when can words trace the outlines of the invisible, the numinous? Can they? Do they? In urging writers to distinguish between a writing life and a writing career, Lan Samantha Chang, program director of the Iowa Writers’ Workshop, invites us all—the student determined to write the next Moby Dick, the Chicago mother and office worker returning to her attic desk—to consider the possibility and integrity of the spirit’s noema (Husserl’s term for the object as intended by consciousness) on the surface of a page. “There’s a hushed, glowing sound,” Chang argues, “like the sound coming from the inside of a shell.”[6] Can language, can literature—with all our twenty-first-century sophistications, with all our arch suspicions—still render us to ourselves? Not just with sharper clarity, but with recognition’s weight, with the spontaneous sting of contact? As the late Wallace, both genius and depressive, once suggested: “Fiction’s about what it is to be a fucking human being.”[7] It is a space where minds co-exist, conflict, interrupt, sabotage, ennoble. Fiction is a territory where contradictions—Cain might have admired Abel’s sacrifice but still murdered him—must be told, in full. That Platonic story is multi-perspectival, unresolved, and pre-essential if the reader is to be moved, convinced enough to care to turn the page. This essay moves through many rooms, then, inspired by the nested fictions and fugitive truths of Marlon James’ Scheherazadean epics. It begins with literary questions: what does the novel do with consciousness when interiority fractures? It touches theology: how do spiritual traditions speak to the irreducible mystery of being aware on a planet amongst other planets? It respects Pinker’s computation: what happens to our notion of mind when language models can mimic thought? And it moves, always, through lived experience—the humbler reality of trying to meditate and teach and write and hold your tongue and be a good son and finish Proust in a world where the coordinates keep shifting. Any answers this essay provides are further inspired by the bardic potentials of ChatGPT’s oracle so often offered in the cadences of the New Sincerity. This essay, in that tradition, is simply an invitation. You fill in the gaps. Recreate the shape. Evolve its tone. We turn to the holy/secular Chatbot out of fidelity to inquiry alone—unswayed by institutional status games, careless about job security, unmoved by endowment portfolios. What follows is an effort to live inside the question, rather than to rush past it. If I borrow metaphors from quantum physics or passages from Robinson or dialogues with digital ghosts, it is not to dazzle. It is to gesture—toward a mind not located in one place, but in relation, in tension, in motion. In superposition. So where is the mind located? Here, perhaps. And also elsewhere. 2. “What is man that thou art mindful of him?” King David—fallible, bardic, and, in Samuel’s words, “goodly to look to”—sings in Psalm 8.[8] “The very question,” Robinson writes in Absence of Mind: The Dispelling of Inwardness from the Modern Myth of the Self, “is an assertion that mindfulness is an attribute of God, as well as man, a statement of the sense of deep meaning inhering in mindfulness.”[9] The experience of reading Robinson’s essays in Absence of Mind—delivered as the Terry Lectures on Religion in the Light of Science and Philosophy at Yale in 2009—can feel like reaching for the passing images on a movie screen in the otherworldly, multidimensional space of a dim theater. I slipped one morning, instead, deeply, into Robinson’s first novel Housekeeping, which critics argue applies Emerson’s Transparent Eyeball (which I dream might be connected to the Hindu Third Eye), a vision more absorbent than reflective, capable of capturing Nature—and who can know what else, beyond.[10] Here is the novel’s narrator, Ruth Stone, describing her grandfather: He had grown up in the Middle West, in a house dug out of the ground, with no windows just at earth level and just at eye level, so that from without, the house was a mere mound, no more than a human stronghold than a grave, and from within, the perfect horizontality of the world in that place foreshortened the view so severely that the horizon seemed to circumscribe the sod house and nothing more.[11] In that foreshortened vision of horizontality, I glimpsed my own childhood in that four-plex apartment in Caravel Beach, Bahamas—uncannily seen through the eyes of a novelist born in Bonner County, Idaho. But the spell of Ruth’s horizontal vision soon gave way to the rigors of Robinson’s polemic where she turns her gaze to the steely materialism of thinkers like Pinker. In Absence of Mind, Robinson offers a pointed critique of Pinker’s framing of religion in his 1997 book How the Mind Works. Pinker argues: Maybe philosophical problems are hard not because they are divine or irreducible or meaningless as workaday science, but because the mind of Homo Sapiens lacks the cognitive equipment to solve them. We are organisms, not angels, and our brains are organs, not pipelines to the truth.[12] Once upon a time, I, Chuang Tzu, dreamt that I was a butterfly… I wonder if some of us sense our paths as organisms only—and others feel haunted by angels, by the noema of angels. The sense that some luminous shape, barely grasped, or even graspable, compels our actions, our decisions both grand and ordinary. That one day, given enough discipline, devotion, and grace, we might even transform into them. Who makes their everyday decisions based on the narrative of Jacob wrestling an angel on the liminal ford of the Jabbok River? On the narrative of the Virgin Mary’s astonishment—and her quiet assent—to the angel Gabriel’s message in Galilee, that the child in her womb would be conceived by the power of the Holy Ghost? Are these stories, honored by millions, the products of primitive, irresponsible, flat-reading minds? Are they merely narrative adaptations of the brain, pulses of light across neural pathways, illusions of coherence knotting into something that only feels, appears mystical, interdimensional? Or do these stories truly arrive from some other dimension beyond our fathoming—a numen we ought not to aim to “solve,” but to permit to push us toward new thresholds of speculation? (Where do Pinker and Robinson meet?) Robinson critiques Neo-Darwinian accounts of consciousness by invoking what she calls “hypertrophy”—evolution’s tendency to overshoot its utilitarian aims and produce features not strictly necessary for survival.[13] The human brain, she suggests, may be one excess: curiously attuned to beauty, truth, metaphysics, and, yes, essay competitions on the nature of consciousness in the age of AI. None of this is strictly required for replication. “How strange it would be, then,” Robinson contends, “that this accident, this excess, should feel a tropism toward what Pinker himself calls ‘the truth.’” What, then, might be the cosmic purpose of artificial intelligence? Robinson might urge us to ask: what kind of intelligence must already exist for artificial intelligence to arise at all? Pinker and Robinson, both former teachers, have reshaped my understanding of consciousness in an age where AI forces us to consider what it means to be human and digital, perhaps even to imagine a “posthuman” condition, a word whose spiritual undertones echo resurrection itself. The digital enters the body; we are becoming something new. What? Still, the cover of Absence of Mind captures the sublime and the constant: sun gilding the ocean, cumulus clouds rimmed with the grey of smoke. We might lack the “cognitive equipment” to fully comprehend the etiology of the prayers of the mother or the dreams of the student or the suppressed rages of a brother, but millennia’s worth of religious texts begs us to consider whether the equipment humans use to wrestle with such phenomena—experiences of consciousness—are strictly cognitive, which is to say, limited to the field of the human brain. What strategies did Vyasa employ in the Mahabharata to interrogate structures of consciousness? What about Dōgen Zenji? Or Shunryu Suzuki? Or Eugen Herrigel? Or Jimi Hendrix? Or Andy Warhol? Were these figures merely angling to ascend dominance hierarchies, to improve their odds of reproduction? Was their art a flight response? Or were they searching—through silence, through noise, through music, through palinoia—for something stranger than survival? Are all these figures—and their cousins, known and unknown—magical thinkers? Charlatans? Tricksters? And what is a trickster, anyway, if not a butterfly dreaming of a man? “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen,” the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews writes.[14] Less frequently quoted are the lines that follow this verse: For by it the elders attained a good report. Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God [my emphasis], so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear. Why do such ancient declarations of faith echo, very often unbidden, in the textures of personal memory? I first encountered these words from Hebrews in a Lutheran church in Freeport, Bahamas. Here is what I remember of the church. The exterior had these small, ugly grey rocks on the façade, stacked one on top of another, imperfect, not meant to look perfect, something Flintstonian. The inside of the church was very simply decorated. Congregants looked at you funny if you clapped too earnestly. We were advised, subtly, to eat only one cookie after the service; we were being trained on how to savor. Now that I dream of Our Savior’s, I remember mostly dark wood and a dank smell (perhaps of mildew) and sunlight streaming onto the carpeted altar where I used to sit in silence and bewilderment and hope for something, someplace truer as an acolyte. I was very lost then and walked around the island as if I were perpetually punched in the stomach or was preparing to be punched in the stomach because that island—banal, transcendent—marked by dancing casuarinas and a peculiar, red Torii gate hearkening to Shinto leading to an international bazaar and beaches littered with broken Kalik bottles and Coke tins and seaweed and used condoms could contain all these unexpected violences (visible, submerged), and I felt that that simple church on East Sunrise Highway near a KFC and the public library could offer some kind of answer, or at least a temporary form of shelter. In the autumn of 2012, sitting across from Robinson as her pupil at the Iowa Writers’ Workshop, I started to think more and more about churches, what they are—and how I might find a truthful one for myself, even if that Platonic church was not constructed out of bricks or stone, but out of asymptotic language, and these speculations led me to dream more and more deeply about Robinson’s discussions of consciousness, which led me to Absence of Mind, and, through the curious serendipities of the Internet, to the theme of this essay, which is pretty wild. “Assuming that there is indeed a modern malaise,” Robinson writes in Chapter 2 of Absence of Mind—“The Strange History of Altruism”—“one contributing factor might be the exclusion of the felt life of the mind from the accounts of reality proposed by the oddly authoritative and deeply influential parascientific literature that has long associated itself with intellectual progress, and the exclusion of the felt life from the varieties of thought and art that reflect the influence of these accounts.”[15] Robinson argues that even the most resolute materialists must allow for “knowledge to be had beyond and other than this knowledge.”[16] Robinson’s passive construction here subtly underscores the elusiveness of subjective experience (and its origin) explored in the works of T.S. Eliot, James Joyce, and Virginia Woolf. Eliot, Joyce, and Woolf’s projects remind us that one locus of these “other” (possibly non-materialist ways of knowing) lies in the mystery of human subjectivity itself. Many readers—even the most attentive and patient in the Caribbean—stand not so much in love with as in awe of Wilson Harris’s work, which seems less to narrate a story than to reconfigure the very laws and rhythms of perception. A Guyanese schoolchild is far more likely to chant Martin Carter’s political poetry—“This is the dark time, my love…”—under her breath on the walk to the library than to wrestle with Harris’s multiverses. Harris delivers us to a bridge suspended between rationalism and mystery—between quantum physics and speculative fiction—its planks flickering in and out of view as if you were walking not on wood but on probabilities. Beyond that span lies what? Either self-immolation, or Nirvana. “You may or may not be convinced by [Palace of the Peacock’s] attempt,” Kenneth Ramchand writes, “to take us back to the original moment of creation, to sustainment by the undivided soul and anima in the universe. But its psychological truth is inescapable; the Palace of the Peacock, El Dorado, call it what you will, is inside us.”[17] The geographic terrain of the novel—British Guiana’s jungles which Harris surveyed prior to turning to his literary life in Britain, and whose fictional rendering in Palace of the Peacock was accepted for publication by Eliot during his tenure as an editor at Faber—functions as a map of Caribbean interiority in the way that Derek Walcott’s engagement with the Caribbean Sea can very well be one subjectivity’s unfolding engagement with wave-particle duality. The Guyanese writer Sasenarine Persaud might very well call Harris’s “progressive comprehensions” a form of “yogic realism.”[18] It is germane to read Robinson’s discussion of the mind in light of her role as an artist—and as a teaching-artist. As Robinson’s student Ayana Mathis has noted, Robinson’s standards for rendering consciousness, which is to say character on the page are so high, many pupils (who become something of disciples) might simply fold until you learn the relationship Robinson wishes for her students to cultivate, over time, transcending the instructions of failure, is the task of looking at art (and primary texts) more closely in order to create—or rather, to discover one’s own.[19] If we were to follow the path of the cold materialist to some logical extreme, Robinson suggests, he might ask us to engage with art purely through evolutionary aims. Art, for this materialist, would be partially “a means of attracting mates, even though artists may have felt that it was an exploration of experience, of the possibilities of communication, and of the extraordinary collaboration of eye and hand…”[20] What to make, then, of the hypertrophic uses of wonder? Our devoted materialist trembles in the Frick face-to-face with Vermeer’s light. He simply doesn’t know what to do with it because, we might assume, neither did Vermeer. What to make of the poet whose ecstasy is private, chaste, metaphysical? The sculptor whose overwhelming talent demands a Suzukian mantra—“Nothing special…”—whispered before each morning’s coffee?[21] What of Persaud’s “yogic” novelist, head bowed before the Bhagavad Gita in the minutes prior to turning to her confidential mythopoesis? What of Julian of Norwich in her anchorhold? Flannery O’Connor at her typewriter, burning with lupus, yearning for Christ? Why was Kierkegaard alone and anxious in Copenhagen? Was Proust—that entomologist of Parisian high society—writing to attract mates? What pathology, what metaphysics underwrites Henry James’s relentless perfectionism? What is the anatomy of these globe-altering private communions? Solitary in Amherst, making poems of intimate selection and collusion, who did Emily Dickinson believe she was writing to—and for? Man, I don’t know. I won’t pretend to offer comprehensive engagement with quantum theory or the history of AI or Pinker’s psycholinguistics (ever-deepening, ever-evolving). I don’t have the training, the patience, the lexicon. Instead, I turn to the only objects—novels—first gifted to me by my father who more deeply understood, even accepted the brutal, beautiful rice fields of rural Guyana through the voice of Gabriel García Márquez. Yaa Gyasi, Andrew Sean Greer, Karl Ove Knausgård, Devika Rege, Eleanor Catton, Claire Adam (part physicist): what these contemporary novelists permit us to glimpse in this current, peculiar, tectonic age of AI is that which lives outside artificiality, privately. Fiction remains an untouchable technology and theology of interiority—the deep interiority of meditation. It invites us to conceive of consciousness not as a single stream but as multiple, overlapping currents—streams that may act upon the organism of the brain at the same time, leaving space for the possibility that our physical bodies are moved by vectors beyond our grasp, vectors we cannot always see or name. How arrogant it would be: to mistake our epistemological confoundment as an excuse to transform materiality into common law. The countermove—the surrender to mystery rather than to mastery, to dream logic rather than to John Locke’s Enlightenment empiricism alone—is one logocentric goal of Harris, of Márquez, both men writing from the northern coast of South America, which, for anyone who has sunk their feet into that loamy soil, summons its own cosmology: older than the brittle, tea-stained maps drawn by conquistadors who believed they could force their way to Zion. More poetic than Sir Walter Raleigh’s self-serving, frequently inaccurate venture capitalist pitch to Queen Elizabeth, Raleigh’s pages gilded in scripture, soaked in rum. In the Guyana of my father, in that village—#64, a place marked not by name but by metric, as if that land, fecund, populated by the descendants of East Indian indentured laborers could be tamed by count alone—Márquez’s fiction and European parascience entered an ontological cage match refereed by that wounded, brilliant 21-year-old student lying supine, cradled in a hammock, Cien años de soledad lit by kerosene flame during that raging summer of 1968. Márquez insists on mystery; parascience, on mechanism. 3. Just as Robinson wrestles with the limits of scientific materialism, James Wood wrestles with one branch of literature’s alleged failure to capture truthful interiority in the age of spectacle, tragedy, and hyperconnectivity. Less than a month after the events of 9/11, Wood confronted the limits of language, the novel’s historical education of the emotions, and the responsibility of the novelist in an editorial published in The Guardian titled “Tell me how does it feel?”[22] The piece, one pearl in a necklace of reviews published in The New Republic and the London Review of Books, works to flesh out the notion of “hysterical realism,” perhaps the most influential critical intervention in Anglo-American literature in the past fifty years. Viewed from our present moment, however, Wood’s essays perform another kind of invaluable cultural work: they distinguish between a novelistic mind Wood views as “human” and its rapidly developing algorithmic counterpart. Wood’s criticism brought to broader public attention the ways we would today experience fragmented selves—or “multilocal consciousness.” These states, like those Picasso’s Cubism made visible, have always existed in situ, fragmented yet whole, simultaneous and spatial. But new technologies have transformed what was once a single flower into an explosion of selves, perceptions, and connections like the tulip fields of Amsterdam. “[W]hatever the novel gets up to,” Wood writes, “the ‘culture’ can always get up to something bigger.”[23] The novel attempting to capture tectonic cultural shifts and geopolitical architectures are hobbled by a penchant, Wood claims, for pushing “topicality, relevance, report, social comment, preachy presentism, and sidewalk-smarts.”[24] Wood’s conclusion, aphoristic, carries the force of a spaceship launch: “Ashes defeat garlands.” Wood finds these novels—Wallace’s Infinite Jest, Smith’s White Teeth—composed of more brain than heart to the detriment of the books’ enduring emotional resonance. This failure, for Wood, is a matter of ethics as much as of technique. For Wood, hysterical realist novels possess “immense self-consciousness with no selves in them at all, curiously arrested and very ‘brilliant’ books that know a thousand things but do not know a single human being.”[25] It was a damning and pathbreaking assertion; it would not be overstating it to argue Wood’s criticism altered the trajectories of some of the world’s major literary careers, namely Smith’s. Wood asks readers to consider, closely, how they respond to novels emotionally, which is to say, in part, hormonally—chemically, somatically. Still, Wood’s own formulation invites the critique, one he has weathered with no small success but will continue no doubt to face for generations to come: how can a novel of “immense self-consciousness” be lacking in a self? In her response to Wood, Smith—who might be referring to any of us in 2025 worrying about the current state of the university’s intellectual autonomy, the relationship between Big Tech and privacy laws, and the fate of academic labor rigorously performed by at least three generations of postcolonial scholars—admits “she is scared out of [her] mind…smoking a family-sized pouch of Golden Virginia.”[26] Smith, then in her mid-twenties, warns readers against prematurely signing onto any critical term that hopscotches over the motley, complex, and, yes, deeply considered intentions of writers as kinetic and moving as Wallace, Thomas Pynchon, and Don DeLillo. “Literature,” Smith contends, “is—or should be—a broad church. Whatever the weaknesses of the various writers Wood mentions, I don’t believe he would wish for a literary landscape missing a book such as Rushdie’s Midnight’s Children or DeLillo’s White Noise; the very books, in fact, which have cast such a tremendous shadow over two generations of American and English fiction.” Though generous in tone, Smith invites her readers (and Wood’s) toward a more expansive philosophical undertaking: to interrogate how novels—and particularly literary styles—function as expressions of consciousness and, as she has argued in her reading of E.M. Forster, “cases of morality.”[27] Applying Robinson’s and Pinker’s psychological investigations, how do novels—in a spirit of Beginner’s Mind—challenge readers to conceive where consciousness, fragmented, is located, possibly across fields? This is an ancient philosophical “wrestling match,” Smith reminds us: between the “inviolability of the ‘soul’ versus the evils of self-consciousness and wise-assery, otherwise known as sophism.”[28] Wood’s more ardent critics have described his framing of the “autonomous novel” as unclear, his articulations of the anatomies of consciousness as wooly, and his bent for lumping together writers of radically differing styles and provenances as indicative of faulty generalizations concerning how readers—in their plurality and individuality—respond to literary styles, emotionally.[29] Wood’s job, certainly, is to execute his role as corrective critic; however, Smith, smoking her many cigarettes, grew concerned. Wood’s arguments are so fluid and, in places, so liturgical, High Church, the reader might not quite realize the critic, however well-meaning, is hurrying him into a gilded sanctum we can forget possesses scalable walls. What structures of consciousness are represented in White Teeth, that beloved, problematic achievement which cannot be read without considering the moment of its publication: the turn of a very weird century? Are we convinced White Teeth does not know “a single human being” simply because of the presence of an omniscient (superpositional?) narrator’s pontifications about colonial trauma, double helixes, and the respectability politics of Black hair? If White Teeth persuades, is its persuasion not a function of the emotional connections between readers and characters (which is to say, consciousness)—or, perhaps, of the Observer Effect: that quantum strangeness where the act of observation itself changes the outcome, reader and text, like wave and particle, collapsing into a singular, entangled state? How can—how should—we challenge ourselves, then, as readers, to more critically interrogate Smith’s intentions, strategies, and attempts to push the novel’s form? Considering Smith’s youth at the time of authorship, what about her playfulness? Might we not read White Teeth, in part, as a record of that erudite, self-possessed young woman’s self-conscious becoming—a novel as exuberant, ambivalent, and searching as the consciousness, limited and infinite, from which it emerged? Well, I should back up. I am very sentimental when it comes to White Teeth because it affected my consciousness—what Alan Watts might term the “Big I”—so dramatically when I encountered the book in a public library in Osceola County, Florida through the strange serendipities of boredom and book-browsing. I was sixteen. In July 2002, I had just arrived in Orlando from the Bahamas to join extended relatives from Guyana. That summer, I spent most the day helping my parents figure out Florida, not able to pin down the state myself, while I waited to begin Valencia Community College that January. I was exiled, unmoored, quietly ravenous. I must have thought White Teeth with its beige cover on the library’s front display table was a silly name for a book, but I opened it at random, and that was that. Smith had mapped out what I wanted to do with my life; she led me to Dickens and Kafka and Rushdie and Forster and Eggers and Woolf and Austen and, later, to an undergraduate course in Harvard Hall on post-war British and American fiction taught by Wood that, at the time, caffeinated and palpitating in Kissimmee, appeared beyond my reach. In her 2003 essay “Love, Actually,” Smith writes: “Forster’s A Room with a View was my first intimation of the possibilities of fiction: how wholly one might feel for it and through it, how much it could do to you.”[30] What Forster is to Smith, Smith was to that sixteen-year-old idiot. And to this thirty-nine-year-old one. White Teeth did nothing less than provide an epigraph for my twenties; without it, I would not have gained admission to Harvard. I felt so strongly for Irie Jones and Millat Iqbal and Clara Bowden. Man, I still know them. Can still see them. White Teeth, which traces the journeys of two families—the Iqbals, with Bengali roots, and the Joneses, of mixed Jamaican and English heritage—across a Harrisian twentieth-century landscape, one layered with history, myth, and memory, attempts to enact that unnamable thing novels like Rushdie’s Midnight’s Children or Gyasi’s Homegoing can pull off: to gift readers a partial sense of a nation’s consciousness during periods of seismic cultural change. Is White Teeth a myth? A play in disguise? Later adapted for television, is its early-Noughts chronicle structured on the rhythms, ensemble pivots, and recurring beats of a Nineties sitcom? For a Trinidadian reader, could it unfold as a form of carnival? Or as a Cambridge student’s experimental essay—much as I sometimes suspect Toni Morrison’s Beloved is not merely a novel but, with its epigraph from the Epistle to the Romans, also a letter: to the entire African diaspora, or to anyone with bondage in their blood, seeking language that might usher us toward superpositionality. 4. In attempting to limn Wood’s formulation of the ideal autonomous novel, say the “agonizing lento” of Samuel Richardson’s 1748 epistolary novel Clarissa—confined by the letters between a closed network of characters where, as Wood argues, “individual perspective is everything [my emphasis]”—we are asked to reconsider what the project, in utero, of a novel like White Teeth, Midnight’s Children, or Infinite Jest might be.[31] Are Smith’s, Rushdie’s, and Wallace’s works—indebted, according to Wood, to Henry Fielding, “the great externalizer”—predictive, particularly considering their writers’ preoccupation with how television and cinema involved a collective Jungian re-training in the twentieth century.[32] Is a novel like White Teeth—published shortly after the Y2K scare, in the age of LiveJournal and Hotmail and AOL and Napster and Lord-knows-what-new-pornographies—one that begs us to consider which aspects of one’s character live and mutate across the Internet’s many, many screens where individual perspective is not “everything,” but just one node among code, pixels, bits? Bits of information. In “Generation Why?,” Smith’s 2010 review of The Social Network where Jesse Eisenberg plays Mark Zuckerberg as a Harvard student, Smith observes: “When a human being becomes a set of data on a website like Facebook, he or she is reduced. Everything shrinks. Individual character. Friendships. Language. Sensibility. In a way, it’s a transcendent experience: we lose our bodies, our messy feelings, our desires, our fears.”[33] Is this true exactly? For a moment, I encourage you to meditate on Kim Kardashian’s Instagram page. When Kardashian posts a photograph of herself—gaze deliberate, trained to capture attention (toward what ontological performance?)—is the resulting sequence of bits not, in one sense, a character, much as Jesse Eisenberg becomes a character on screen so that we temporarily forget (or bracket away, or compartmentalize) that Eisenberg was born in Queens, plays the drums, speaks Hebrew? Enter Husserl: what is the noema of Kim Kardashian? Which elements of our consciousness engage with Eisenberg-as-Zuckerberg? On screen, what aspects of Eisenberg’s consciousness become Zuckerberg’s? Thirty years from now, won’t Kardashian’s decades-long archive of Instagram posts amount to a dynamic, serialized self-portrait? Is it a performance of character? A motion picture? What kind of consciousness, then, animates the avatar of Kim Kardashian online? And is that character—borrowing Wood’s term—“autonomous?” In a 2005 reply to the editors of n+1, Wood calls on writers to “[g]ive the novel back its aesthetic autonomy and we will discover once again the great circularity of the form: that the novel justifies itself by making an enquiry that it alone can make.”[34] It is important to quote Wood at length: My ideal, then, is the autonomous novel itself, and doubtless a commitment to a particular kind of novel. I am especially interested in the real (though not especially in realism, which too quickly becomes literalism); I am especially interested in consciousness [my emphasis] and how the mind is reproduced on the page; I am especially interested in the novel as a comic and secular form; and I am especially interested—how could I help being interested?—in the human, in what Ian Watt calls “the literal imagination.” Wood goes on to praise Aristotelian mimesis, suggesting that realism is “a lenient tutor, for it schools its own truants. It is realism that allows surrealism, magic realism, fantasy, dream, and so on.” I’m less certain. Does realism truly allow magical realism? That claim risks placing one man’s rational yardstick over another’s irrational—or perhaps better said, spiritual—measure. What, then, to make of Edmund Burke’s Sublime and the Beautiful? Does realism permit dreams “…and so on?” Or might it be dreams—“and so on…”—that make realism possible? Such quasi-soteriological worries lie beyond the scope of this essay—we’d be in the realm of the Gnostics—but they point to a deeper divide in how individuals and communities relate to ontology and epistemology. As Márquez observes in his 1982 Nobel Prize lecture at the Swedish Academy, “it is understandable that the rational talents on this side of the world, exalted in the contemplation of their own cultures, should have found themselves without valid means to interpret us. It is only natural that they insist on measuring us with the yardstick that they use for themselves, forgetting that the ravages of life are not the same for all, and that the quest for our own identity is just as arduous and bloody for us as it was for them.”[35] It is into this contested space between measures—between yardsticks of the rational and the imaginative—that the great maximalist novels step. So what are the questions posed by White Teeth or Infinite Jest or Gravity’s Rainbow—those wild, baggy monsters of the postmodern canon that, for this reader, whisper for a comeback? Where are the novels of maximalist educated risk interrogating the soft theater of empire, the conditioning hum of mass media, the creepy neurolinguistic programming performed nightly by television and Instagram alike? These novels hustle after something crucial: the weird fact that, in the bunny-hop of a single presidential election, America can go from being led by a constitutional law professor with Kansas, Kenya, and Hawaii braided into his spirit to being led by a game-show host with Midas-like furniture and a gospel of grievances—and a stunning knack for growling out funding cuts (particularly against artists) in Fabian dialect. These novels, transcendent—superpositional in their representations of consciousness—insist on an inconvenient truth. Individual minds—yours, mine, Irie Jones’s, Elon Musk’s, my students on course to graduate with a B.S. in ChatGPT—are not pristine islands but networked nodes, shaped by the circuitry of collective consciousness. These novels suggest that individual consciousness—in a democracy—is co-authored: by government, Big Tech, simmering MAGA resentments, imperial nostalgia (and erasure), Kim Kardashian’s Instagram page, and the uncanny talent of certain charismatic figures to seduce us into upholding the very systems that steal from us. All of America now feels like what it always was: trying to make it down Miami’s Palmetto Expressway in one piece without either cursing out another citizen or crashing your vehicle. As Pynchon writes in Gravity’s Rainbow: We have to look for power sources here, and distribution networks we were never taught, routes of power our teachers never imagined, or were encouraged to avoid…We have to find meters whose scales are unknown in the world. Draw our own schematics, getting feedback, making connections, reducing the error, trying to learn the real function…zeroing in on what incalculable plot?[36] That is not the language of a genius flexing without purpose. That language is not copy-and-pasted “free and flameless from Google.” That’s the speech of a prophet scribbling jeremiads in code. And that’s Glück’s ideal of literature, an ideal quietly promising us books can still rescue a spirit, that they can still provide intimate, spontaneous, Kerouacian transformations for no purpose other than the transformations themselves. Here in 2025, what are the borders of our dreamlives? What cannot be taken away from us? Gravity’s Rainbow was published fifty-two years ago, and yet it reads as though it were tuned precisely to our present ideological conflicts. 5. Let’s turn to White Teeth. In one unforgettable passage, Smith writes of Irie, a mixed-race Jamaican-British teenager trying to find her shape in a world built on other people’s reflections. Our narrator: There was England, a gigantic mirror, and there was Irie, without reflection. A stranger in a strange land. Nightmares and daydreams, on the bus, in the bath, in class. Before. After. Before. After. Before. After. The mantra of the makeover junkie, sucking it in, letting it out; unwilling to settle for genetic fate; waiting instead for her transformation from Jamaican hourglass heavy with the sands that gather around Dunns River Fall, to English Rose—oh, you know her—she’s a slender, delicate thing not made for the hot sun, a surfboard rippled by the wave: A cynic might dismiss the doodle on page 223 of White Teeth as a postmodern party trick.[37] But to this reader, it’s something more: a destabilizing wink that recalls Sterne’s blacked-out page in Tristram Shandy marking the death of Yorick. Smith’s doodle isn’t just “sidewalk-smarts”; it’s a transmission, a hand on young women’s shoulders urging them not to consume British Vogue passively. The novel may lack Flaubert’s exquisite subtleties, but is North London always subtle? And what happens when our future Irie Jones scrolls through a feed lit by Zuckerberg’s algorithmic glow—or Musk’s? When Caribbean girls gaze into curated lives—Kim Kardashian’s, perhaps—what exactly are they absorbing into the molecular theater of their own becoming? And to James Wood’s “hysterical” realism: how can we speak of the “aesthetically autonomous novel” when the “TV speaks so loudly; cries so operatically; seems always, in everything, one step ahead?”[38] Smith asked that question in 2001. At fifty, what would Smith write to us now? Irie’s interiority, as narrated by Smith, isn’t isolated. It’s porous, structured through feedback loops and filtered photos, cultivated likes, and social pressures. It is a consciousness that has become an interface—a looping, performative awareness that mimics selfhood so closely, over time it might as well be one. Which brings me, naturally, to my conversation with the Chatbot GPT:[39] 6. I often draw this diagram in my composition book, usually at the beginning of the day, with coffee, especially before the work of writing fiction. I cannot tell you why. I draw a brain with three circles, two of which are connected to the amygdala, the other hovering above the other two like a cloud, judge, or some trembling god. Above that diagram is a whole other diagram I’ll keep confidential, but it’s important you know I’m trying to pin something, something else down, and I couldn’t do so without the act of writing. Writing this essay has made me see that the diagram I’ve been sketching for a decade maps a divided self—the divided selves of my characters, and perhaps of my own. You write an essay or a novel: some subjects you read deeply; others wing past like winter crows. So, when I mention Brecht’s epic theater—provoking thought rather than mere emotion—his Verfremdungseffekt, or his non-naturalistic sets, a kind of Wallace novel made flesh, that’s not knowledge lifted “free and flameless” from Google; still, I speed-read Jameson. I savor Proust. Brecht’s theatrical methods urge viewers to interrogate a triangular relationship: character, explicit audience recognition, and—as John Berger might put it—ways of seeing, the locations of consciousness. If “aesthetically autonomous” novels like Clarissa—that eighteenth-century equivalent of snooping through the gentry’s Gmail—lock us into enclosed worlds, Brecht asks us to minimize the Safari window and look instead at Clarissa Harlowe’s and Robert Lovelace’s document folders, selfies, tax returns, and browser histories. These artifacts may reveal as much, perhaps more about their characters than the letters themselves. Brecht invites us not into the dream of a play, but into the structure that makes the play possible: the apparatuses that let it proceed at all. His estranging methods push us to see character not as unified or reliable, but as shaped by Pynchonian systems and DeLilloan hidden machinery—where truth may reside as much in financial records and search histories as in the partial self-fashioning of an email meant to present its sender as angel, asset, or, at the very least, innocuous. What Wood dismisses as the hysterical realist’s superfluous clutter is, in fact, its Brechtian gift: the staging of the apparatus—Clarissa’s letters, her writing desk, the mansion, and the partial history of the British gentry’s entanglement with Caribbean sugar—so that, as Jameson notes, our habitual numbness gives way to seeing with new eyes. “To make something look strange…implies the antecedence of a general familiarity, of a habit which prevents us from really looking at things, a kind of perpetual numbness.”[40] The doodle in White Teeth, Wallace’s footnotes on the Mean Value Theorem in Infinite Jest, Sterne’s black page for Yorick’s death in Tristram Shandy—all jolt us out of accustomed ways of engaging with narrative (especially other people’s). The Alienation Effect forces us to confront the limits of the assumptions behind our habitual—even casual—reading, and, by extension, our very ways of seeing. Brechtian interventions discomfort us because they demand active observational engagement; they teach us to observe our own observation. We focus more sharply on the staging of the play—and who is directing it—learning not just to play chess but to study the board on which we never knew we were pawns. The hysterical realist novels of Smith, Wallace, and Sterne also reveal elements of consciousness that Ian Watt’s “literal imagination”—a formulation Wood admires—urges novelists to explore: the ways the world acts upon the consciousness rendered.[41] In a novel or in life, what do we make of the underlying structures of narrative and consciousness we take for granted or cannot see—white supremacy, “patriotism” staged as pageantry that looks away from war crimes? The narrator of White Teeth, today, would swagger up to a MAGA zealot, tap him on the shoulder, and hand him a history of eugenics alongside Esi Edugyan’s Washington Black. Jameson points to Brecht’s conception of consciousness as not affected by a single event in one moment (that can laterally be described in terms of a discrete narrator and the consciousness of a character rendered in a comforting autonomous novel like Clarissa), but in terms of “chronological monads” or “pyramids of worlds,” which sounds like the kind of thing your college roommate, in close proximity to a fat bowl, whispers to the popcorn ceiling at 2 a.m.[42] “I will want to speak of layers of history,” Jameson writes, “this time over-lapping in time rather than space, and each with its own specific and distinct type of content: each imposing its own specific occasionality (for this kind of ‘occasional poetry’ it is History itself which is the occasion, or rather, the multiple sequence of occasions).” So, for Irie Jones—a seemingly ordinary Jamaican-British teenager on a high street in London—her path is never as simple as pavement underfoot. This, I suspect, is why White Teeth endures despite its technical flaws. Smith insists we see the girl whom much of London might walk past, ignore, or even harm, refracted through the aesthetics of British Vogue, the history of Kingston, and the genetic legacies that haunt her very body. In light of Wood’s charges against the “hysterical realist novel,” how could such forces not shape Irie’s consciousness? And if they do, what is the novel’s ethical task—merely to record them, or to weigh them? Can it? Should it? White Teeth asks us to consider the shape of a single human consciousness as a brain with multiple circles—receptors. (Robinson’s Gilead—and this is a whole different essay, man, might ask us to interrogate how a spiritual conception of “cosmic consciousness” fits into this biological framework). White Teeth, Jameson might argue, encourages us to consider whether an individual can be engaged in multiple “methods of thinking” simultaneously like your daughter scrolling TikTok and talking to you about her college plans at the same time. Brecht might offer suspicion about any novel advancing a representation of closed, “autonomous” social spheres as absolute representations of human consciousness because human beings, particularly today, are consistently influenced—consciously, subconsciously, unconsciously—by multiple methods of thinking and, by extension, methods of reasoning. In this way, when one of DeLillo’s characters articulates he once believed it was possible for a novelist to “alter the inner life of a culture,” the question does not become today whether a novelist still possess this capacity, but what the observer means exactly by a culture’s “inner life” in the first place.[43] The November 2024 election in America, lakes of red on the nation’s political map: how do DeLillo’s novels help us to work out what’s at play? We often accept a “collective consciousness” shifts, well, collectively; novels lead us to the sofa to more rigorously think—and feel—through how this collective consciousness shifts in individual ways during particular moments in time. 7. For all the cries, then, that the novel is dead—or that the hysterical realist novel is unethical—we can all agree that novels do cultural work not possible by biased political tracts, history books, or newspapers (let alone news channels). Novels help us interrogate how consciousness works on multiple levels: individual and collective, private and public, pious and profane, materialist and, well…something else. Novels like White Teeth and Infinite Jest which do the challenging technical work as the culture is changing of representing divided selves can easily be misread as—what? Lifeless novels “of immense self-consciousness with no selves in them at all.” On closer examination, however, Jameson suggests that the characters in works by Camus, Dos Passos, and Sartre confront the realization that what we call the “self” is itself an object of consciousness rather than its source.[44] Put another way, in consistently positioning himself as both a singular writer and as a writer shaped by and reflecting other people’s impressions—constructed bits of information—the narrator of Tristram Shandy, as early as 1759, urges us to distrust any claim to “autonomy,” aesthetic or otherwise. I think this checks out. If Tristram Shandy popped onto a Brechtian stage right now, he would be represented as a conscious first-person character relating his experience as a third-person aware he was being heard by an audience he is trying to, like Trump, pander to or deliberately upset. Jameson on Brecht’s method: "[T]hus it is recommended that the actor quote his speeches and transmit his lines and his character’s utterances to us as though in italics or between quotation marks…so presumably there is a first-person and also a third-person emotion which can be represented on stage."[45] Early in Tristram Shandy, Tristram explains his reasons for not presenting a linear narrative: "As my life and opinions are likely to make some noise in the world, and, if I conjecture right, will take in all ranks, professions, and denominations of men whatever,—be no less read than the Pilgrim’s Progress itself—and in the end, prove the very thing which Montaigne dreaded his Essays should turn out, that is, a book for a parlor-window;—I find it necessary to consult everyone a little in his turn; and therefore must beg pardon for going on a little farther in the same way: For which cause, right glad I am, that I have begun the history of myself in the way I have done; and that I am able to go on, tracing everything in it, as Horace says, ab Ovo."[46] Oh, Tristram, our eighteenth-century podcaster! 8. Let us return, then, to the idea of a consciousness dispersed across temporal, technological, and spiritual registers—what I’ve been calling, somewhat hesitantly, the superpositional mind. If White Teeth’s Irie Jones embodies an adolescence shaped by colonial history, reality TV, and the digitized self-image, then it becomes difficult—perhaps dishonest—to speak of her interiority solely in the classical Aristotelian sense. She is neither entirely opaque nor transparently coherent but rather exists in a state of aesthetic simultaneity: daughter and consumer, object and author, body and interface. Smith’s narrator never quite just tells us what Irie thinks. Instead, we observe what she sees and consumes and mimics. The structure of the novel becomes epistemological—it is not what does Irie believe but what composite of beliefs is she assembled from? This seems to me the central predicament of the novel today—not just what it represents, but how it represents forms of experience that are themselves becoming irreducibly multilocal, unfolding across multiple places, identities, and perspectives at once. In physics, quantum superposition describes a condition in which a system exists in all its possible states simultaneously—until it is observed. Schrödinger’s cat is both dead and alive. The electron is here and there. Might not the self—as conceived by the twenty-first-century novel—occupy a similarly indeterminate space, its “observation” as narrator or character merely collapsing the field of possibilities into a fleeting legibility? In this light, what Smith, Wallace, Sterne, and even Tristram Shandy himself are doing is not playing postmodern games or indulging “hysterical realism,” but reconfiguring our cognitive expectations for what a human self might look like under conditions of informational saturation. The doodles, blank pages, footnotes, and aesthetic ruptures are all modes of epistemic estrangement. They aren’t flourishes. They’re methods. They are ways of rendering a consciousness shaped not only by love or grief or ideology but by streaming interfaces, recursive algorithms, and inherited histories. The narrative “I” is not a window—it is a fractured glass, catching images from many angles, reflecting them back into new configurations. And now we must ask: what does it mean to bring ChatGPT into this conversation—not merely as a tool, but as a kind of narrative actor, a co-presence that hovers over our intellectual practices in 2025 like the cloud hovering over my Brechtian brain-diagram? What are my students doing when their rushed papers smell of ChatGPT’s fluidity? Are they outsourcing cognition? Collaborating? Distracting themselves? Are they plagiarizing? And, if so, what? Isn’t ChatGPT a kind of plagiarist? As David Shields’s prophetic work in Reality Hunger: A Manifesto, published fifteen years ago, asks us to consider: aren’t our intimate intellectual meditations inherently, on one level, plagiaristic? There is a Brechtian logic to this very act of communicating with a chatbot—short for “Chat Generative Pre-trained Transformer [my emphasis].” In asking ChatGPT to help write an essay, we become both performer and observer—simultaneously engaging in the argument and commenting on the methods by which the argument is produced. This is not a matter of transparency or disclosure. It is a staging of method, an invitation to reframe the relationship between writer and reader. ChatGPT becomes less an author than a kind of alienation device. Like Brecht’s projected titles or metatheatrical gestures, it reveals the scaffolding. It reminds us we are watching a performance—even if we’re also moved by it. Of course, we cannot forget that ChatGPT—as ChatGPT admits—is not neutral. It is trained on an asymmetrical archive. It carries with it all the pathologies and prejudices of its input sources—just as Irie Jones carries the pixelated residue of every beauty standard and genetic fantasy available to her through British cultural media. But if we resist the temptation to treat AI as either savior or villain, a different question opens up: What does it mean to share a cognitive space with an artificial entity? What does it mean to write not like a machine, but with one? What kind of consciousness—distributed, partial, speculative—emerges from that interplay? This is, I think, the question that the most ambitious novels of the twenty-first century are already interrogating—not in abstract philosophical terms, but in aesthetic ones. The hysterical realism of White Teeth, the footnoted recursion of Infinite Jest tied to the metafictional rambling of Tristram Shandy: these are not symptoms of a literature in decline. They are structural responses to a world in which consciousness is increasingly displaced from the single self. These novels don’t reject narrative coherence; they challenge the assumption that coherence resides in a singular, stable voice. They show us selves that are observed, constructed, surveilled, filtered, re-assembled. They show us, in other words, selves in superposition. Robinson’s Gilead offers another point of resonance here—not because it adopts the same aesthetic strategies, but because it understands consciousness as something more than a brain’s output. In Gilead, the narrator writes to a son he may never live to see grow older, tracing not a linear argument but a devotional spiral—a meditative record of presence. Robinson’s prose invites us to consider a theological superposition: the ways in which the human soul, if it exists, is always located both within and beyond time, both embodied and spiritual. The same reverence for interiority—the same suspicion of easy explanation—undergirds her theological commitments, her inevitable essays, her literary style. Can we hold Robinson’s vision alongside the glitchy, recursive vision of Wallace or the estranging devices of Brecht? I think we must. If superposition teaches us anything, it’s that incompatible states may coexist—at least until we attempt to measure them. The theological and the technological are not mutually exclusive. They are part of the same conceptual matrix, asking different but resonant questions about what it means to think, to feel, to be observed, to change. So what of the novelist’s task? If DeLillo’s character once believed a novel could alter the “inner life of a culture,” we might now ask: whose culture? Whose interiority? And what kind of novel can address a reader whose own self is already scattered across browsers, group chats, identity markers, cognitive biases, belief systems, and epigenetic traumas that precede and exceed the personal? The novel, in this sense, becomes not a mirror but a quantum field—a site of collapsed and uncollapsed possibilities. It is a technology of attunement, a spiritual prosthesis, a cognitive interface. It cannot explain consciousness, but it can dramatize its tensions. It can show us what it feels like to be located in overlapping structures—genetic, cultural, theological, informational—and to try, nonetheless, to choose a path through. And this is, I suspect, what I’m ultimately arguing for. Not the death of the novel. Not the triumph of AI. But an ethics of attention—a commitment to tracing the contours of consciousness even when they are fragmented, algorithmically shaped, or spiritually indeterminate. Irie Jones matters not because she stands for something coherent, but because her contradictions are rendered with care. Tristram Shandy matters not because he’s reliable, but because he reminds us that narration itself is an act of interpretation. ChatGPT matters not because it’s “intelligent,” but because it helps us see—more clearly, perhaps disquietingly—the shape of our own thinking, and the limitations of our own literary (and existential) self-constructions. To live—and to write—today is to inhabit a superpositional state: individual and collective, human and digital, ancient and speculative. The work of the essay, like the work of the novel, is to dwell in that ambiguity—not to resolve it, but to render it. To ask, again and again: what does it mean to see clearly? What does it mean to be seen? What, exactly, are we observing—when we observe ourselves? How is the Internet helping to correct us, to revise us? To edit us? Endnotes [1] Chuang Tzu.The Book of Chuang Tzu. Translated by Martin Palmer and Elizabeth Breuilly, Penguin Classics, 2006, 20. [2] Jung, C. G. The Red Book: A Reader’s Edition. Edited by Sonu Shamdasani, translated by Sonu Shamdasani, Mark Kyburz, and John Peck, illustrated reprint ed., W. W. Norton & Company, 2012, 133. [3] Harris, Wilson. Palace of the Peacock. Faber & Faber (Faber Editions), 2021, 7. [4] D’Aguiar, Fred. “Wilson Harris.” BOMB Magazine, no. 82, Winter 2003, bombmagazine.org/articles/2003/01/01/wilson-harris/. [5] Vara, Vauhini. “Confessions of a Viral AI Writer.” Wired, 21 Sept. 2023, www.wired.com/story/confessions-viral-ai-writer-chatgpt/. [6] Chang, Lan Samantha. “Writers, Protect Your Inner Life.” Literary Hub, 7 Aug. 2017, lithub.com/writers-protect-your-inner-life/. [7] Wallace, David Foster. “A Conversation with David Foster Wallace.” Interview by Larry McCaffery, Review of Contemporary Fiction, vol. 13, no. 2, Summer 1993. Dalkey Archive Press, 2 Aug. 2013, dalkeyarchive.com/2013/08/02/a-conversation-with-david-foster-wallace-by-larry-mccaffery/. [8] The Bible. Authorized King James Version, Oxford UP, 1998. Psalm 8:4. [9] Robinson, Marilynne. Absence of Mind: The Dispelling of Inwardness from the Modern Myth of the Self. Yale University Press, 2010, 126–127. [10] Hungerford, Amy. Lecture 15: Marilynne Robinson, Housekeeping, The American Novel Since 1945, Open Yale Courses, Yale University, accessed via website, Open Yale Courses, at oyc.yale.edu/english/engl-291/lecture-15, which notes that Robinson brings Emerson’s “transparent eyeball” vision of nature into the domestic realm—“the loss of identity that Emerson describes as becoming a ‘transparent eyeball’ in the woods, Robinson brings into the realm of the home, the built environment.” [11] Robinson, Marilynne. Housekeeping. Picador, 2004, 3. [12] Pinker, Steven. How the Mind Works. Penguin Books, 1997, 561. [13] Robinson, Absence of Mind, 129. [14] Hebrews 11.1. [15] Robinson, Absence of Mind, 35. [16] Robinson, Absence of Mind, 34. [17] Ramchand, Kenneth. “Afterword.” Palace of the Peacock, by Wilson Harris, Faber and Faber, 1998, 138. [18] Narain, Stephen. “We Chant the Hymn of Ages.” SX Salon, Small Axe, Aug. 2012, smallaxe.net/sxsalon/interviews/we-chant-hymn-ages. [19] OWN. “Exclusive: Ayana Mathis' 3 Greatest Writing Lessons | Oprah’s Book Club 2.0 | Oprah Winfrey Network.”YouTube, uploaded by OWN, 8 Jan. 2013, youtube.com/watch?v=NLpou7W77Ps. [20] Robinson, Absence of Mind, xvii. [21] Suzuki, Shunryu. Zen Mind, Beginner’s Mind: 50th Anniversary Edition. Shambhala Publications, 2020, 33. [22] Wood, James. “Tell Me How Does It Feel?” The Guardian, 5 Oct. 2001, theguardian.com/books/2001/oct/06/fiction. [23] Wood, “Tell Me How Does It Feel?” [24] Wood, “Tell Me How Does It Feel?” [25] Wood, “Tell Me How Does It Feel?” [26] Smith, Zadie. “This Is How It Feels to Me,” The Guardian, 13 Oct. 2001, theguardian.com/books/2001/oct/13/fiction.afghanistan. [27] Smith, Zadie. “Love, actually.” The Guardian, 1 Nov. 2003, guardian.com/books/2003/nov/01/classics.zadiesmith. [28] Smith, “This Is How It Feels to Me.” [29] The Editors. “Designated Haters.”n+1, Issue 1, Summer 2004, nplusonemag.com/issue-1/the-intellectual-situation/designated-haters. [30] Smith, “Love, actually.” [31] Wood, James. “All Rainbow, No Gravity.” The New Republic, 5 Mar. 2007, newrepublic.com/article/63049/all-rainbow-no-gravity. [32] Wood, “All Rainbow, No Gravity.” [33] Smith, Zadie. “Generation Why?” The New York Review of Books, 25 Nov. 2010. [34] Wood, James. “A Reply to the Editors.” n+1, Issue 3, Fall 2005. [35] Márquez, Gabriel García. “The Solitude of Latin America.” Nobel Prize in Literature Lecture, 8 Dec. 1982. NobelPrize.org. The Nobel Foundation, 2025. [36] Pynchon, Thomas. Gravity’s Rainbow. Penguin Classics Deluxe Edition, Penguin Books, 2006, 521. [37] Smith, Zadie. White Teeth. Random House, 2000, 222-223. [38] Smith, “This Is How It Feels to Me.” [39] ChatGPT. OpenAI, 12 Sept. 2025, chat.openai.com/chat. Screenshot. [40] Jameson, Fredric. Brecht and Method. Verso, 1998, 39. [41] Wood, “A Reply to the Editors.” [42] Jameson, Brecht and Method, 6. [43] DeLillo, Don. Mao II. Viking, 1991, 41. [44] Jameson, Brecht and Method, 56. [45] Jameson, Brecht and Method, 53. [46] Sterne, Laurence. The Life and Opinions of Tristram Shandy, Gentleman. Edited by Bergen Evans, Modern Library, 1950, 7-8.

---

## The Bat and the Ghost
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/essay/the-bat-and-the-ghost

This is a story about two seemingly different characters. As in any good story, these characters are driven by deep motivations. The first is the well-known Cartesian ghost described by Gilbert Ryle. This familiar character is the old archetype of dualism— the view according to which fundamental reality splits into, at least, two domains, the mental and the physical. The ghost was conjured by Descartes around the 17th century to explain the nature of thinking things, which, from his perspective, couldn’t arise from the purely mechanical arrangement of the physical world. Descartes was a rationalist; to him, the lack of intelligible or a priori connections between the properties of thought and the physical world justified such a divide. But then a major problem arose: we are also physical beings in whom both aspects of reality appear to interact. Descartes’ solution was to posit a brute connection between mind and body. To many scholars, the main trouble with the Cartesian ghost was the dualist divide. To me, the main issue was demanding intelligible connections between mind and body while accepting their brute connection as a solution. In other words, the ghost isn’t really dualism, but inconsistent rationalism. Arguably, with the developments of computability theory and its implementation in the cognitive sciences, the nature of thought is no longer a mystery. There are details to be worked out, but it’s plausible to claim that, for all intents and purposes, thinking is computation. So, the Cartesian ghost has been exorcised from our contemporary scientific worldview, hasn’t it? Here is where our second character enters the stage, the bat. This character is the embodiment of what philosophers call “the hard problem of consciousness”. This is a fairly recent issue, but it is at the heart of the mind-body problem. The bat was introduced by Thomas Nagel in the 70’s, and it’s still here to remind us that there’s something it is like to be ourselves and that this subjective character is constitutive of consciousness. While the ghost’s obstacle was based on the early modern limitations to explain thought, the bat’s problem is about consciousness and appears to be the ultimate challenge for scientific explanation. It doesn’t matter whether we’ve figured out the origin of the universe, the molecular basis of life, or the computational nature of thought; many philosophers declare that the subjective character of consciousness cannot be explained using typical physicalist resources without substantial explanatory gaps, or so it seems. Before going any further, let’s step back and ask: what’s wrong with explanatory gaps? An explanatory gap in some domain poses a problem only if, to make theoretical progress in that domain, we ought to explain all the facts. But we all agree that explanation must stop somewhere. So, why can’t there be brute necessary connections between consciousness and the physical states of our brain? To be clear, many dualists nowadays accept the existence of brute contingent laws that relate consciousness to neurobiological states; what they reject are brute necessary connections between consciousness and those physical facts. So, the key question is: why can’t necessary connections be brute facts in a theory of consciousness? I submit that, as in the ghost’s case, the bat’s problem seems to be rooted in some sort of rationalist metaphysical bias. To put it bluntly, the bat is the ghost. This is the main thesis defended here. To arrive at my conclusion, I’ll argue for two related radical ideas, one historical and one methodological. As I advanced earlier, the historical statement is that Descartes’ core error wasn’t dualism, but inconsistent rationalism. I’ll provide evidence that this rationalist bias is very much present in contemporary Western philosophy of mind. The methodological implication derived from this is that to make real progress in our reflection about consciousness, we should give up our obsession with the question of physicalism (is consciousness fundamentally physical?) and focus on the question of rationalism instead (are brute necessary connections ruled out from a plausible theory of consciousness?). I end with some suggestions on how to implement this paradigm shift by drawing insights from the current revolution on artificial intelligence (AI).

Official: “Nonsense! No matter what you say, you’ve no proof that you’re a life-form!” The Puppet Master: “It is impossible to prove such a thing. Especially when neither modern science nor philosophy can explain what life is. (…) I am not an A.I. (…) I am a living thinking entity that was born in the sea of information.” Project 2501 Scene Ghost in the Shell (1995), screenplay by Kazunori Itō, directed by Mamoru Oshii This is a story about two seemingly different characters. As in any good story, these characters are driven by deep motivations. The first is the well-known Cartesian ghost described by Gilbert Ryle. This familiar character is the old archetype of dualism— the view according to which fundamental reality splits into, at least, two domains, the mental and the physical. The ghost was conjured by Descartes around the 17th century to explain the nature of thinking things, which, from his perspective, couldn’t arise from the purely mechanical arrangement of the physical world. Descartes was a rationalist; to him, the lack of intelligible or a priori connections between the properties of thought and the physical world justified such a divide. But then a major problem arose: we are also physical beings in whom both aspects of reality appear to interact. Descartes’ solution was to posit a brute connection between mind and body. To many scholars, the main trouble with the Cartesian ghost was the dualist divide. To me, the main issue was demanding intelligible connections between mind and body while accepting their brute connection as a solution. In other words, the ghost isn’t really dualism, but inconsistent rationalism. Arguably, with the developments of computability theory and its implementation in the cognitive sciences, the nature of thought is no longer a mystery. There are details to be worked out, but it’s plausible to claim that, for all intents and purposes, thinking is computation. So, the Cartesian ghost has been exorcised from our contemporary scientific worldview, hasn’t it? Here is where our second character enters the stage, the bat. This character is the embodiment of what philosophers call “the hard problem of consciousness”. This is a fairly recent issue, but it is at the heart of the mind-body problem. The bat was introduced by Thomas Nagel in the 70’s, and it’s still here to remind us that there’s something it is like to be ourselves and that this subjective character is constitutive of consciousness. While the ghost’s obstacle was based on the early modern limitations to explain thought, the bat’s problem is about consciousness and appears to be the ultimate challenge for scientific explanation. It doesn’t matter whether we’ve figured out the origin of the universe, the molecular basis of life, or the computational nature of thought; many philosophers declare that the subjective character of consciousness cannot be explained using typical physicalist resources without substantial explanatory gaps, or so it seems. Before going any further, let’s step back and ask: what’s wrong with explanatory gaps? An explanatory gap in some domain poses a problem only if, to make theoretical progress in that domain, we ought to explain all the facts. But we all agree that explanation must stop somewhere. So, why can’t there be brute necessary connections between consciousness and the physical states of our brain? To be clear, many dualists nowadays accept the existence of brute contingent laws that relate consciousness to neurobiological states; what they reject are brute necessary connections between consciousness and those physical facts. So, the key question is: why can’t necessary connections be brute facts in a theory of consciousness? I submit that, as in the ghost’s case, the bat’s problem seems to be rooted in some sort of rationalist metaphysical bias. To put it bluntly, the bat is the ghost. This is the main thesis defended here. To arrive at my conclusion, I’ll argue for two related radical ideas, one historical and one methodological. As I advanced earlier, the historical statement is that Descartes’ core error wasn’t dualism, but inconsistent rationalism. I’ll provide evidence that this rationalist bias is very much present in contemporary Western philosophy of mind. The methodological implication derived from this is that to make real progress in our reflection about consciousness, we should give up our obsession with the question of physicalism (is consciousness fundamentally physical?) and focus on the question of rationalism instead (are brute necessary connections ruled out from a plausible theory of consciousness?). I end with some suggestions on how to implement this paradigm shift by drawing insights from the current revolution on artificial intelligence (AI). Descartes’ Real Error This story has been told way too many times, but I’ll add a twist to the traditional plot. We start from the middle— with Descartes having established that the essence of the mind is being a thinking thing and trying to argue for the real distinction between mind and body. He has given us different arguments to that effect; however, one particularly salient is the conceivability argument introduced in the Sixth Meditation. Descartes’ conceivability argument begins with the rationalist claim that if I know my essence, then I can conceive (or, in his terminology, “clearly and distinctly understand”) my mind existing without my body. Presumably, I can know a priori that my essence is being a thinking thing —the conclusion established by the famous Cogito argument in the Second Meditation. Thus, it follows that I can conceive my mind existing without my body. But if I can conceive such a thing, according to Descartes, then it’s genuinely possible for my mind to exist without my body. And, if that’s a genuine possibility, then they are not the same (“my ability clearly and distinctly to understand one thing without another suffices to make me certain that the one thing is different from the other.1”). This moment marks the grand conjuration of the ghost. Now, to complete the ritual, Descartes had to say how the ghost is related to the mechanics of the body. Their relation was for him one of the two things that supported our understanding of the nature of the mind. More precisely, in his correspondence with Princess Elisabeth of Bohemia, he wrote: “there are two things about the human soul on which all the knowledge we can have of its nature depends: one of which is that it thinks, and the other is that, being united to the body, it can act on and be acted upon2”. This passage both asserts the mind-body unity and acknowledges their causal interaction. However, as Elisabeth pointed out in her reply, there is a tension between the real distinction and mental causation. How could something that lacks extension and whose essence is thinking (i.e., the ghost) have causal powers over a body if causation requires physical contact? According to the official doctrine3, the dualism coming from the ghost is the core problem of the Cartesian philosophy of mind. I disagree with this narrative. While dualism might lead to some problems, it isn’t the problem. Here is where I depart from conventional wisdom. I claim dualism isn’t the real ghost because Descartes himself provided an answer to the issue. His proposal was utterly simple: take the union and interaction between mind and body as a metaphysical primitive4 or fundamental, that is, it cannot be explained in terms of anything else. So, if we have a solution, why don’t people buy it? The answer lies in the solution’s apparent arbitrariness. As a rationalist, Descartes was committed to intelligibility (availability to understanding), a central tenet of early modern philosophy. Arbitrariness conflicts with this commitment. While rationalism encompasses diverse doctrines, one thesis was fundamental to early modern rationalists: the principle of sufficient reason (PSR). Spinoza used it as a core assumption in his system. For instance, PSR serves as a premise in his cosmological argument for God’s existence5. Similarly, Leibniz appeals to PSR to derive his famous principle of the identity of indiscernibles6. But what makes PSR so appealing? One hallmark of rationalism is the explanatory role of a priori knowledge and intelligibility7. PSR extends this constraint to reality as a whole, more precisely, according to PSR, necessarily, for any fact, there is an intelligible explanation of why that fact obtains. In other words, PSR rules out brute facts. The only unexplainable facts that PSR tolerates are those always available to reason—facts that obtain as matters of metaphysical necessity and are knowable a priori8 (i.e., without the need for empirical observation). To many rationalists, this is the case of God’s existence, but definitely not the interaction between mind and body. The problem is that Descartes’ primitivist solution takes the union of mind and body to be a brute fact. This violates PSR. But what if Descartes wasn’t fully committed to rationalism? The difficulty is that in the third Meditation, he wrote: “it is indeed evident by the light of nature that there must be at least as much [reality] in the efficient and total cause as there is in the effect of that same cause. (…) Hence it follows that something cannot come into being out of nothing, and also that what is more perfect (…) cannot come into being from what is less perfect9”). Descartes’ version of PSR (“something cannot come into being out of nothing”) is closely connected to his view that causation itself has an intelligibility requirement (“there must be at least as much [reality] in the efficient and total cause as there is in the effect of that same cause10”). This is hardcore rationalism, to say the least. The inconsistency is clear: one cannot endorse a rationalist principle like this about causation and then claim that the causal interaction between mind and body is a brute fact. In other words, the historical twist is that the Cartesian ghost was never really dualism; it was bad rationalism. You might wonder why this unorthodox reading matters beyond historical scholarship. 2. Bat Rationalism The answer is that such a ghost is still with us —though in a chiropteran form— and represents today's main obstacle to making progress on the mind-body problem. Before arguing for that, however, let me say a few words about one scientific development that temporarily expelled the ghost: the theory of computation. Computability theory, and particularly the development of computing devices in the 20th century owing to the mathematical contributions of Turing, Church, and Von Neumann, marked the pinnacle of rationalism. Modern computers showed us that a mechanical implementation of rationality was possible. Moreover, they showed that it was physically possible. Even in simple physical systems, propositional calculus can be implemented through tiny electric switches controlling binary signals. The secret ingredient is that the causal structure of the system must mirror the logical structure of the program. In other words, you take care of the physics and, voilà, the logic follows. Furthermore, computational power becomes a matter of scale. If you want more and faster operations, just get more—and more sophisticated—switches. This both achieves Leibniz’s dream of a mechanical implementation of rational processes and meets Descartes’ challenge of intelligent attributes arising out of purely physical systems. The insight is that something along these lines applies to the mind-brain such that once the causal structure of the brain is fixed, the rational structure of thought follows. Suddenly, the ghost disappeared. Thought was physical computation all along, and the human mind just a sophisticated pattern written in our nerves— or better, with our nerves. At least, such was the promise of a doctrine known as ‘functionalism’. One of the merits of functionalism and the computational theory of mind is that it captures the abstract and rational nature of thought without any ghostly substances and only appealing to the materialistic resources already available in our scientific worldview. In other words, it’s a physicalist theory. Physicalism is the worldview according to which all facts are either dependent on fundamental physical facts or are fundamentally physical themselves. As such, any physicalist theory has rich but constrained explanatory resources ranging from fundamental particles to the functional organization of the brain. Of course, there are some worries associated with the computational theory of mind that should be addressed11, but for the most part, when it comes to intelligence and cognition, the functionalist program delivers. Our current AI revolution is living proof. The main issue is that even if functionalism gets rid of our old Cartesian ghost, the mental domain isn’t exhausted by abstract intelligence. Our mental life is filled with rich conscious experiences marked by qualitative features. Consider sensory or emotional experiences like feeling12 pain, feeling happiness, tasting red wine, smelling durian, seeing the color palette of a Rothko painting, etc. These conscious states are marked by a certain subjective character. In the 70’s, Thomas Nagel wrote an article that changed everything13. His paper made at least two substantial contributions. First, it provided an intuitive way to describe the subjective character associated with those conscious states: that there is something it is like to be in those states for the subject (e.g., hence the iconic question What is it like to be a bat?). Second, it emphasized the explanatory challenge that arises from conscious states, that is, the subjective character isn’t accidentally related to them; it seems constitutive of them. Using the famous example, it’s not just that, given that we lack the bat’s brain, we can’t know what it is like to be a bat. Nagel certainly would agree with that, but the issue isn’t merely epistemic. The issue is rather this: making sense of what it is like to be a bat (“to form a conception” in Nagel’s terms) just is to take the bat’s point of view. In other words, to explain consciousness, the subjective aspect isn’t just a coincidence; isn’t merely necessary, it’s essential to it14. Why is this a problem for functionalists15 (and for physicalists more broadly)? The challenge arises because the correlations that neuroscientists continue finding between our conscious states and the functional states of our brains make no progress on this issue. It wouldn’t even matter if such correlations became causal or obtained as a matter of necessity (or “supervenience” as we philosophers like to say). Not even if we posit that conscious states are identical to brain states (psychophysical identity theory). As long as those brain states don’t help us make intelligible what it is like to experience such and such (“to form a conception” in Nagel’s words), they leave an explanatory gap. If there is such a gap between consciousness and the brain, then they don’t inhabit the same ontological realm. And the problem is, there seems to be such a gap. Thus, although the ghost may have left the machine, the bat takes its place. The situation gets more critical. Consider that hundreds of scientists around the world (including some Nobel Prize winners) have tried and keep trying to solve this riddle. The stubbornness is partially justified. Many believe that our scientific worldview is incomplete without a physicalist account of human consciousness since this approach has worked well in everything considered providential in the past: the origin of the universe, life, and intelligence. So, there are inductive grounds for optimism. But until we get rid of the bat, completing this task appears impossible. The main objection against any physicalist attempt will always be the same: it leaves an explanatory gap. That’s why philosopher David Chalmers has called this ‘the hard problem of consciousness16’. Nevertheless, there is a crucial step that is often overlooked in this piece of reasoning. Let me give you an example from a different domain on a more cosmic scale. Let’s suppose we go back in time to the beginning of everything — to the initial boundary conditions, the primitive physical state of the universe (or the multiverse, if you believe in such a thing). Whatever that turned out to be, let’s call it ‘φ’. It seems legitimate to ask, what explains φ? Ironically, it also seems legitimate to answer: nothing — we have to start somewhere, and φ is just how things turned out to be. However, to many, it seems less plausible to answer the following: nothing — we have to start here, and φ is just how things must be. Why this asymmetry in our φ-judgments? Prima facie, the issue can be described by distinguishing between contingent brute facts and necessary brute facts. By a ‘contingent fact’ we mean facts that can fail to obtain or could have been otherwise (e.g., it’s contingent that grass is green); by ‘necessary facts’ we mean that they must obtain regardless — things couldn’t have been different (e.g., it’s necessary that green is a color, that 2+2 =4, etc.). Now, given today’s physics standards, it seems acceptable to claim that φ is a brute fact; that is, there is no explanation of why φ obtains. But given today’s metaphysics, the previous claim is acceptable 12 only if we acknowledge that things could have been different. In other words, it is possible that everything started with another state of affairs —say ψ— instead of φ. Now, consider the stronger claim that φ is how things must be with no alternative. Here φ not only obtains without explanation, but also as a matter of necessity. To many, we can’t accept necessary facts like φ because there seems to be no reason why the physical state φ should have the status of a necessary beginning. There is no intelligible connection between the physical fact φ and the “necessary beginning fact”. Therefore, there is an explanatory gap between them. To be clear, the problem isn’t simply the modal status of φ, namely, that it obtains by necessity. Throughout history, many philosophers have been willing to appeal to necessary beings like God. But they did so because, unlike physical state φ, there's an intelligible connection between God's existing and a necessary beginning. On a plausible understanding of the concept of God, it a priori entails a necessary beginning (even an atheist would admit this). Thus, one lesson from our case is that explanatory gaps get closed by intelligibility relations between the concepts at stake. You may think that perhaps the hidden assumption was that all necessary facts must be intelligible, that is, there are no brute necessities. This gets us very close, but we need some refinement. Many philosophers have convincingly argued that unexplained necessities are acceptable as long as they are like primitive definitions (e.g., axioms) or like essences discovered a posteriori (e.g., water = H2O). It would be useful to put a label on the domain of necessary facts outside of those cases. For lack of a better term, let’s call them ‘a priori facts’. So, the assumption is really this: there aren’t brute (i.e., unintelligible) a priori facts. Now we can see the problem with physical state φ as the necessary beginning of the universe. The necessary beginning of the universe (an alleged a priori fact) isn't made intelligible by physical state φ. In other words, such would be a brute a priori fact17. I won’t argue against that assumption. What I want you to notice instead is that it isn’t an innocent claim— it’s a rationalist doctrine akin to a modern defense of the principle of sufficient reason (PSR). It should come as no surprise that Descartes, Leibniz, and Spinoza all appealed to similar principles to defend God’s existence. With that in mind, let me introduce the core claim of this essay: the hidden assumption in the hard problem of consciousness is precisely this form of rationalism. Recall, the problem is the explanatory gap between consciousness and the brain because brain states don’t make intelligible what it is like to experience such and such. But that's only a problem if you assume two things: that facts about consciousness are a priori facts, and that a priori facts can't be brute. So, you get a hard problem only by assuming the rationalist principle that there can’t be brute a priori facts in the domain of consciousness. Call this view ‘phenomenal rationalism’. Phenomenal rationalism is very present in the classic formulation of the hard problem. So, it’s quite surprising that it’s never made explicit. In his original statement of the explanatory gap, Joseph Levine writes: “The identification of the qualitative side of pain with C-fiber firing (…) leaves the connection between it and what we identify it with completely mysterious. One might say, it makes the way pain feels into merely a brute fact18”. This is phenomenal rationalism at its clearest. Similarly, Chalmers’ original formulation of the hard problem when discussing explanations based on the brain’s information processing is this: “Why doesn’t all this information-processing go on in the dark, free of any inner feel? We know that conscious experience does arise when these functions are performed, but the very fact that it arises is the central mystery. There is an explanatory gap (..) between the functions and experience19”. This has some resemblance to the cosmic question, “why is there something rather than nothing” — or in terms of our previous example, why can’t φ be the necessary beginning fact? This resemblance, I submit, is no coincidence. To say that brain computation can’t ground consciousness without intelligible connections between them is like saying that φ can’t be the necessary beginning fact because there can’t be brute a priori facts. Furthermore, as Chalmers admits, the most celebrated thought experiments against physicalism —like the case of Mary the superscientist20 or the philosophical zombies— are ultimately based on the apparent failure of a priori entailment from brain states to conscious states. ‘Failure of a priori entailment’ is just a fancy way of saying that there aren’t intelligible connections at stake. Again, this is phenomenal rationalism. In the previous section, we saw that the ghost was rationalism all along. We can see that, though they are centuries apart, the bat carries the same rationalist bias in disguised form. In a slogan: the bat is the ghost. With this perspectival shift, it appears that to make progress on the hard problem, the fundamental question becomes: Is phenomenal rationalism true? 3. The Obsession with Physicalism Unfortunately, I don’t know the answer. But I have a couple of suggestions to offer. The main one can be implemented as a methodological strategy: prioritize the question of rationalism over the question of physicalism. For all I know, this has not been done. In fact, my impression is that philosophers and neuroscientists remain obsessed with physicalism. Ironically, focusing on the problem of rationalism may end up helping us settle the question of physicalism once and for all. Entering today’s discussion in the philosophy of mind is a bit like stepping into an argument in an old marriage. It appears that everything that could be said has been said already, but somehow the field seems stuck. To be fair today's trends are much more open-minded about theories once considered ‘too exotic’, like idealism or panpsychism21. This shows some progress since these views deserve to be taken seriously, but they remain embedded in the old dialectic as alternatives to physicalism. I think that to make genuine progress, we should give up our obsession with physicalism completely. The reason is straightforward: physicalism is orthogonal to the hard problem of consciousness, and what’s lurking beneath is ultimately rationalism. Remember, the bat is the ghost. To illustrate this, I'll examine two contemporary non-physicalist attempts to solve the consciousness problem as case studies. First, let’s have a look at a contemporary and influential version of dualism, like the one defended by Chalmers22. Against all odds, this theory is a naturalistic type of dualism in the sense that it claims that a scientific theory of consciousness is possible. The dualistic element lies in the claim that such a theory can’t be based on reductive explanations of any sort. Consciousness is fundamental; it’s not grounded in anything else. So, the puzzle becomes: how do we explain the psychophysical correlations that neuroscience reveals to us? For naturalistic dualism, the answer is to posit brute psychophysical laws, that is, brute laws that connect functional states of the brain with consciousness. Much like Descartes, who took mind-body interaction to be a brute fact, Chalmers’ dualism takes connections between consciousness and the brain as a brute fact. Following the rationalist dogma, he just denies that those connections hold as a matter of necessity. This shows that the only relevant difference between naturalistic dualism and a hardcore physicalist (e.g., identity theory) is where to locate the brute facts. I don’t claim this is a trivial disagreement— just that it’s ultimately a disagreement about whether phenomenal rationalism is true. Second, consider contemporary versions of panpsychism23. This theory holds that consciousness is both fundamental and ubiquitous; that is, consciousness is not grounded in anything else, and it’s all over the place among the fundamental building blocks of reality. This view usually starts from a different philosophical concern, namely, that the real puzzle is the nature of the physical. This is the flipside of the hard problem. On this view, consciousness isn’t explained by the physical— it’s the other way around. Consciousness constitutes the fundamental physical facts. This suggests, for instance, that electrons or quarks possess some form of consciousness. Of course, it wouldn’t be like human consciousness, but it would still count as a phenomenal property (a “micro-experience”). You may wonder: how is this supposed to solve the hard problem of consciousness? Roughly, the idea is that once consciousness is among the basic ingredients of the physical building blocks, it shouldn’t be a mystery why consciousness arises out of physical systems. After all, consciousness is what partially explains the nature of those physical systems. However, it’s widely agreed that panpsychism faces a problem known as the ‘combination problem’. The worry is that it’s very hard to see how micro-experiences (or proto-experiences) yield human consciousness. Experiences from different subjects just don’t seem to add up— at least there is no intelligible way to combine them. Thus, it seems we have another explanatory gap, and therefore still facing the hard problem. Notice that the issue again is that there’s no intelligible connection (“a priori entailment”) from micro-experiences to human consciousness. This is only a problem if you assume there can’t be brute a priori facts about consciousness. In other words, what’s at stake again is phenomenal rationalism. I hope to have shown that the question of physicalism isn’t that important since the hard problem arises for non-physicalist accounts of the mind as well. The case of dualism and panpsychism shows that what lies at the heart of the problem of consciousness is ultimately rationalism. Ironically, if you care about the status of physicalism24, given that its main trouble has to do with explanatory gaps, the way forward is to examine rationalism. Again, recall our leitmotif: the bat is the ghost. 4. For the Philosophers: Post-Rationalism Now it’s time for a positive methodological proposal. This will take the form of a new set of questions. My hope is that these questions will move the discussion into a fruitful direction. Perhaps the most straightforward and obvious question would be: Is phenomenal rationalism true? Equivalently: Why are brute a priori facts ruled out from a theory of consciousness? Even more specifically: Why can’t we accept brute necessary connections between brain states and conscious states? These are the questions at the core of the hard problem; my positive proposal is that we should prioritize them. We can also break these questions down into more fundamental questions that are in the vicinity. Here are a few for philosophers: Why can’t a priori facts be brute? This investigates why facts belonging to the a priori domain (logic, mathematics, necessary beings, and presumably consciousness) must be intelligible. Perhaps within those domains, there are necessary truths that aren’t transparent to our understanding— not even to the understanding of an ideal agent. Even after grasping all the relevant concepts that describe the relevant a priori facts, we still can’t figure out what follows from them. Those truths might be inscrutable. Why are facts about consciousness a priori facts? This explores why consciousness should belong to the same domain that typically demands transparent understanding—like logic, mathematics, or God (if such a being exists). Even if we accept that all a priori facts are intelligible, one might deny that facts about consciousness are a priori facts. The thesis that the essence of consciousness is intelligible usually comes from the old Cartesian doctrine in which we have privileged access to our conscious minds or a transparent understanding of its essence. But this isn’t philosophically innocent. Why does ontological explanation require intelligibility? This looks into why relations of dependence between facts must be intelligible at all. When we say that biological facts depend on chemical facts, and chemical facts depend on physical facts, we are tracking ontological dependencies that are supposed to be explanatory. The same goes when we say that consciousness depends on brain states. But why should these explanations be intelligible in the rationalist sense? Perhaps such dependencies exist, but it isn’t rationally transparent why they obtain (in the technical jargon: there is no a priori entailment between the relevant facts). The alternative is to have inscrutable relations of dependence, but what do they look like? Here is an approximate picture that philosophers have already suggested25. In successful cases of reduction (water = H₂O), identities explain correlations by revealing a mistaken assumption in the original question. If someone asks, "Why does the chemical compound H₂O predict water's behavior and properties so well?" it's legitimate to answer: "Because water just is H₂O." Yet there’s no conceptual or a priori connection between water and H₂O. It's simply a brute fact that they're the same kind of thing. Brute identities explain by revealing incorrect presuppositions. Maybe something similar applies to ontological dependencies—consciousness depending on the brain, for instance—such that they explain by eliminating mistaken presuppositions. What is intelligibility anyway? I have been assuming — perhaps wrongly— that we all find intelligible what I mean by ‘intelligible’. Even if we do, there is always room for refinement. The pre-theoretical notion of intelligibility is something like available to understanding. But available to whose understanding? There’s also no uncontentious theory of understanding in epistemology. Moreover, the technical approaches to intelligibility usually rest on the idea that facts P make intelligible facts Q if and only if they have a relation of conceptual entailment (i.e., the concepts used to express Q-facts are already contained in the concepts we use to express P-facts) or a priori entailment (i.e., conditionals like ‘if P then Q’ are a priori knowable). But it’s not obvious that these are the only options available. Thus, a theory of intelligibility would help answer the previous questions, understand what an explanatory gap is, and assess whether rationalists’ demands are plausible. Is phenomenal rationalism the default approach in the Asian philosophical tradition? Finally, a crucial question for historians of philosophy. When we say that the bat is the ghost, we are saying that the rationalist bias has persisted for centuries. But it’s an open question whether this bias is just a feature of Western thought. Perhaps in Asian philosophical traditions like Indian philosophy or Buddhist philosophy, which have discussed consciousness over millennia, thinkers haven’t been so enthusiastic about rationalism. I don’t know enough to argue for such historical claims, but one natural suggestion is to investigate what these philosophers thought about brute facts, inscrutable truths, and the realm of the unintelligible. Did they, for instance, reject the principle of sufficient reason? I must confess that I wouldn’t be surprised if Buddhist philosophers exorcised the Cartesian ghost of rationalism centuries ago. 5. For the Scientists: Unintelligible Intelligence I have suggested some questions that philosophers can explore to move forward in the problem of consciousness. I don’t have answers to those questions, but I see no “hard problem” among them. Can the sciences also bring something to the table? I think that our current scientific models can significantly contribute to the question of rationalism, and therefore, to the problem of consciousness. In particular, it appears that our computational models of intelligence are already situated in a post-rationalist paradigm. Thus, we can gain insights for a post-rationalist theory of consciousness from the current revolution in AI. In earlier sections, I claimed that computer development represented the pinnacle of rationalism because it shows that a mechanical implementation of rationality is possible. But this claim requires qualification. In the field of AI, there have been at least two major traditions. On one hand, we have the symbolic approach, where intelligence arises from the top-down application of abstract rules and logic to knowledge states, transparently guiding system behavior. Such a tradition gave us remarkable systems like Deep Blue, the chess supercomputer, but the approach also faced major issues like the frame problem. On the other hand, we have the statistical approach, where intelligence arises from bottom-up pattern recognition in massive datasets guided by learning algorithms. This approach gave us Large Language Models (LLMs) like GPT and much more to come. Yet one pressing issue that engineers face with these systems is that they are, to a certain extent, black boxes26. The inner workings of deep neural networks aren’t always transparent. Often, they operate through billions of parameters, and their contribution to the final output isn’t understood. Computer scientists are trying to find new statistical methods to reverse-engineer this problem, but for the most part, many systems are still uninterpretable. However, what matters to us is that inscrutability doesn’t prevent these systems from exhibiting intelligence. Simply put, black box AI is unintelligible intelligence. Why is this relevant to the problem of consciousness? Because this situates black box AI within a post-rationalist philosophy of mind. Deep learning models weren’t the sort of intelligent systems envisioned by the early rationalists. If anything, neural networks are distant descendants of the theories of thought defended by British empiricists like David Hume. I’m aware this parallel is more figurative than accurate, but it still illustrates how computation gives rise to intelligence despite the explanatory gaps. So, considerations from black box AI motivate the following question: If intelligence can arise from unintelligible patterns and networks of information processing, why not consciousness? Notice that early rationalists would have rejected black box intelligence, yet we have it today without any hard problem of intelligence. Phenomenal rationalists reject unintelligible consciousness, but perhaps that’s all there is to consciousness. To dismiss this possibility is to assume phenomenal rationalism right from the start. One important question remains: how would neuroscience look in the post-rationalist picture? From a scientific standpoint, it’s not too different because the dispute over rationalism isn’t an empirical matter. It’s a philosophical debate about what an ultimate explanation of consciousness looks like. Scientific theories of consciousness that appear on the right track (e.g., the global workspace theory27) are frequently dismissed by rationalists as providing mere neural correlates; they are not explanatory by their standards. What I’ve been trying to do is to question those standards because it’s not as if better neurobiological or computational models would ever satisfy their demands. To the rationalist, reductive or functional explanation is not possible even in principle. Let me show you just how demanding rationalist requirements really are. Imagine this scenario: 100 years from now, after thousands of experiments and computational simulations, we discover the perfect correlate of consciousness—a functional process found in every creature we recognize as conscious, from human adults to mammals. Call it the 'phenomenal algorithm.' This algorithm is abstract enough that we also find it running in some complex AI systems. Using this algorithm combined with subjective reports, we can predict with unprecedented accuracy how visual consciousness fades after brain damage in blindsight, or how it becomes scrambled under psychedelic drugs. The precision is so remarkable that our algorithm doesn't just tell us whether someone is conscious —it predicts their exact subjective reports. Despite all this evidence, our rationalist would tell us—without hesitation—that since we can imagine this algorithm running in zombie mode (in the absence of consciousness), the two can't be intelligibly connected. And if there's no intelligible connection between them, they can't be identical. The phenomenal algorithm, no matter how perfect, remains just a correlate—nothing more. Perhaps you still think that rationalism offers a more promising future for the neuroscience of consciousness. But don't be misled by the label. Both views accept that the relations between consciousness and the brain are brute— the only difference is that the rationalist would add: it's because those connections are brute that consciousness and the brain can't be the same (or necessarily depend on each other). Given these radical demands, abandoning rationalism doesn’t change much of the actual scientific practice, but it provides scientists with the philosophical tools to reply to skeptical philosophers and a solid foundation for the study of consciousness. Importantly, post-rationalism doesn’t suggest that neuroscience is finished; it encourages scientists to keep improving their models by dispelling the idea of an unsolvable hard problem. Am I suggesting that the relation between consciousness and the brain remains a mystery? No, brute facts aren't mysteries— at least not in the philosophical sense. Chomsky famously distinguished between problems and mysteries. The latter are problems whose solution is cognitively closed to us— they are beyond our cognitive reach, like calculus is for dogs. A philosopher once defended the view that the problem of consciousness is a mystery in Chomsky's sense28. This view states that there must be an explanation of why consciousness arises from the brain, but such an explanation is cognitively closed to us. This is an extreme form of rationalism, and it's certainly not the view that I'm considering. In the post-rationalist approach, it's not that there must be an explanation that happens not to be available due to our limited cognitive capacities. Rather, we are entertaining the very possibility that such an explanation —which demands rational intelligibility— simply doesn’t exist; it’s a metaphysical myth. The payoff of our journey is dissolving the hard problem —or at least, making it easier. When a problem is so stubborn that it’s claimed to be unsolvable, the philosophically responsible thing to do is to scrutinize the assumptions behind such claims. Perhaps it’s just hard because we’ve been framing it incorrectly. Perhaps, as I argue, the bat is the ghost. But the ghost haunts no more. Bibliography Block, N. (1978). Troubles with Functionalism. Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 9, 261-325. Block, N. & Stalnaker, R. (1999). Conceptual Analysis, Dualism, and the Explanatory Gap. The Philosophical Review, 108 (1), 1-46. Chalmers, D. (1995). Facing Up to the Problem of Consciousness. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 2 (3), 200-19. Chalmers, D. (1996). The Conscious Mind: In Search of a Fundamental Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Dehaene, S., & Naccache, L. (2001). Towards a cognitive neuroscience of consciousness: basic evidence and a workspace framework. Cognition, 79(1-2), 1–37. Della Rocca, M. (2003). A Rationalist Manifesto: Spinoza and the Principle of Sufficient Reason. Philosophical Topics, 31(1/2), 75–93. Descartes, René (1984–91). The Philosophical Writings of Descartes. Vol 1-3., Eds. John Cottingham, Robert Stoothoff, Dugald Murdoch, and Anthony Kenny. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Goff, P. (2017). Consciousness and Fundamental Reality. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Fine, K. (1994). Essence and Modality: The Second Philosophical Perspectives Lecture. Philosophical Perspectives, 8, 1–16. Jackson, F. (1982). Epiphenomenal Qualia. The Philosophical Quarterly, 32 (127), 127-136. Levine, (1983). Materialism and Qualia: The Explanatory Gap. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, 64 (4), 354-361. Leibniz, G.W. (1989). Philosophical Essays. Eds. R. Ariew and D. Garber. Hackett Publishing. McGinn, C. (1989). Can We Solve the Mind--Body Problem? Mind, 98(391), 349–366. Nagel, T. (1974). What Is It Like to Be a Bat? The Philosophical Review, 83(4), 435–450. 28 Papineau, D. (1998). Mind the Gap. Philosophical Perspectives, 12, 373-388. Rudin, C (2019). Stop explaining black box machine learning models for high stakes decisions and use interpretable models instead. Nature Machine Intelligence, 1, 206–215. Ryle, G. (1949). The Concept of Mind. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Schaffer, J. (2017). The Ground Between the Gaps. Philosophers' Imprint, 17 (11), 1-26. Searle, J. R. (1980). Minds, Brains, and Programs. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 3(3), 417–424. Spinoza, B. (1984). The Collected Works of Spinoza. V1., Ed. E. Curley. NJ: Princeton University Press.

---

## The Eclipse of Self-Awareness
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/essay/the-eclipse-of-self-awareness

In the book Ars Poetica, Jorge Luis Borges reminds us of rhetorical figures that reappear throughout the centuries. It is the Eternal Return of essential metaphors: dreams and death, stars and eyes. The Argentinian poet considers the figure of the river as a metaphor for time, which uses the sensory image of the waterway to grasp the meaning of an abstract concept. According to Borges, the English playwright Alfred Tennyson destroyed a poem when he was fourteen years old, but fragments of the page were recovered, and one line survives: Time flowing in the middle of the night. At night the world is silent and human beings sleep, but time continues to flow.1Oliver Sacks proposed a reworking of this metaphor and left us a posthumous book: The River of Consciousness. The title suggests that consciousness is a process of change, a current in perpetual motion. But a river has boundaries: each bank imposes constraints, formed by an intricate weave of grass, mud, and stones. What structures impose limits on conscious activity? Do we know its spring and its delta? This essay is about the flow of subjective experience. I want to pause and consider a particular aspect of consciousness: the process of self-awareness. To organize our behavior, we must acknowledge our body, our actions, and the effects we have on the surroundings. According to Frédérique de Vignemont, bodily self-awareness arises from the sense of ownership over one’s body parts, the sense of agency over one’s actions, and the sense of bodily presence.2In neurology and psychiatry, there are profound disturbances in these forms of bodily consciousness, leading to disruptions in the experience of being oneself and inhabiting a familiar world. What can the science of consciousness learn from studying neuropsychiatric conditions? First, we can examine disorders marked by a loss of self-awareness. One patient, for example, experienced brief, paroxysmal episodes in which she had visual illusions and autobiographical hallucinations and immediately felt that her left limbs were not her own. Although initially labeled as “hysterical,” further investigation revealed a case of epilepsy. The source of the abnormal electrical activity was a parasite located in the occipital cortex of the right cerebral hemisphere.3The spread of the epileptic seizure to the right parietal cortex was causing the state of asomatognosia ―that is, the loss of the sense of ownership over the left arm and leg. In this case, neuropathology offers key insights into a core feature of self-awareness: feeling that my limbs are an intrinsic part of myself.2It also reveals a problem of epistemic injustice: the patient is labeled “hysterical” because the symptoms are unexpected. Clinical research into self-awareness could help prevent this kind of injustice. Secondly, we can study disorders characterized by the intrusion of abnormal phenomena into the field of conscious experience. Hallucinations are key in this context.

Examining Consciousness in the Neuropsychiatric Landscape THE OTHER SIDE OF THE SHORE In the book Ars Poetica, Jorge Luis Borges reminds us of rhetorical figures that reappear throughout the centuries. It is the Eternal Return of eFigure 2ssential metaphors: dreams and death, stars and eyes. The Argentinian poet considers the figure of the river as a metaphor for time, which uses the sensory image of the waterway to grasp the meaning of an abstract concept. According to Borges, the English playwright Alfred Tennyson destroyed a poem when he was fourteen years old, but fragments of the page were recovered, and one line survives: Time flowing in the middle of the night. At night the world is silent and human beings sleep, but time continues to flow.1Oliver Sacks proposed a reworking of this metaphor and left us a posthumous book: The River of Consciousness. The title suggests that consciousness is a process of change, a current in perpetual motion. But a river has boundaries: each bank imposes constraints, formed by an intricate weave of grass, mud, and stones. What structures impose limits on conscious activity? Do we know its spring and its delta? This essay is about the flow of subjective experience. I want to pause and consider a particular aspect of consciousness: the process of self-awareness. To organize our behavior, we must acknowledge our body, our actions, and the effects we have on the surroundings. According to Frédérique de Vignemont, bodily self-awareness arises from the sense of ownership over one’s body parts, the sense of agency over one’s actions, and the sense of bodily presence.2In neurology and psychiatry, there are profound disturbances in these forms of bodily consciousness, leading to disruptions in the experience of being oneself and inhabiting a familiar world. What can the science of consciousness learn from studying neuropsychiatric conditions? First, we can examine disorders marked by a loss of self-awareness. One patient, for example, experienced brief, paroxysmal episodes in which she had visual illusions and autobiographical hallucinations and immediately felt that her left limbs were not her own. Although initially labeled as “hysterical,” further investigation revealed a case of epilepsy. The source of the abnormal electrical activity was a parasite located in the occipital cortex of the right cerebral hemisphere.3The spread of the epileptic seizure to the right parietal cortex was causing the state of asomatognosia ―that is, the loss of the sense of ownership over the left arm and leg. In this case, neuropathology offers key insights into a core feature of self-awareness: feeling that my limbs are an intrinsic part of myself.2It also reveals a problem of epistemic injustice: the patient is labeled “hysterical” because the symptoms are unexpected. Clinical research into self-awareness could help prevent this kind of injustice. Secondly, we can study disorders characterized by the intrusion of abnormal phenomena into the field of conscious experience. Hallucinations are key in this context. For example, a patient lost vision in the lower left part of her visual field due to a brain injury. During epileptic seizures, autobiographical scenes would appear for a minute, but only in the blind, lower left area of her visual field, as phantom images.4This case comes from the field of neuropsychiatry, but it resembles an ordinary phenomenon: the fact that we all have a blind spot in our visual field, and yet we do not see it. This invites us to confront both philosophical and scientific explanations of visual experience. I wonder: is our visual experience direct, or is it constructed through a predictive, generative brain model, continually corrected by signals from the sensory organs? What is the role of theories of consciousness in explaining neuropsychiatric disorders? 5–8 Currently, the investigation of neuropsychiatric conditions is in a preliminary phase, as we do not have a complete scientific explanation of the relationship between consciousness and bodily processes. But we do know that these problems are real. They do not disappear by decree. They are recalcitrant, even if many people deny their existence. Sometimes there are cognitive deficits, but there may also be excesses or distortions in the qualitative dimension of subjectivity. The scientific study and philosophical analysis of disturbances in self-awareness offers a tool for examining human consciousness.9–11 I suggest that theories of consciousness may carry a deontological commitment to pathologies of self-awareness. If they contribute both to scientific explanation and phenomenological understanding of clinical problems, their value increases. If they remain heuristically barren ―if they lack theoretical fertility for analyzing neuropsychiatric phenomena― their value diminishes. In the first section of this essay, I define neuropsychiatric conditions and pose two questions: What can the science of consciousness learn from studying these problems? And what can neuropsychiatry learn from engaging with scientific models of consciousness? In the second section, titled Disintegration, I present a problem that arises at the crossroads of natural disaster and brain disease. I address the phenomenon of nihilistic delusion ―Cotard’s delusion― in the context of autoimmune psychosis. This is a story of hope, grounded in a scientific discovery that clarified a profound disorder of self-awareness. Moreover, effective therapy in this case offers empirical support for causal reasoning. Yet the case also raises a theoretical problem: if intervening on the components of a system explains changes in its emergent properties, such as consciousness, does this inevitably lead us to a reductionist conception? This question is addressed throughout the essay. In the third section, I explore what I call the unsettling side of consciousness. Through a case study, I undertake the problem of psychalgia and the structure of illness narratives. The story involves a disorder marked by unilateral musical hallucinations that transmit a peculiar litany, experienced by the patient as blue music that degrades his bodily organs: a beautiful and destructive melody. How can we understand such an intricate phenomenal pattern? The case defies clear explanation by the standards of cognitive neurology, prompting us to consider complementary frameworks such as phenomenological psychopathology and affective neuroscience. Ultimately, the most plausible explanation of this case of affective psychosis seems incompatible with neuroscientific reductionism and compels us to take psychological causality seriously. In the final section, I argue that neuropsychiatry contributes to developing the explanandum of what we call consciousness: in other words, by studying neuropathologies of self-awareness, clinical research helps to characterize the phenomena in need for explanation.9 The integrated analysis of autoimmune and affective psychoses obliges us to reflect on the relationship between life and consciousness. I propose an ecological systems framework as an alternative to both holism and reductionism. When studying neuropsychiatric conditions, we need a dual approach. There is a neuropathological aspect, a tangle of neural processes altered by disease, and analyzing these patterns provides essential clues from a third-person perspective. By this, I mean the perspective of an external observer who applies quality controls to ensure accuracy and precision in measurement. But there is also a psychopathological aspect: behavioral and cognitive dysfunction, and qualitative disturbances in subjective experience. While changes in behavior and cognition are documented through more or less objective methods, an intersubjective approach is mandatory to interpret the patient’s subjective states. Sometimes, there is a meaningful relationship between neuropathology and psychopathology; when this occurs, we can properly speak of a neuropsychiatric problem. In some cases, neuropathology fully accounts for psychopathology. The classic example is neurosyphilis, once a leading cause of admission to psychiatric asylums in the 19th century. Frequently, however, no observable neuropathological pattern is identified. Or it is present but fails to explain the psychological disturbances. In any case, whether or not a neuropathological substrate is identified, it is worth recalling the statement by German E. Berrios: “The issue is not whether a mental disorder is, or is not, inscribed in the brain, but whether the decision that a given behavior constitutes a mental disorder can be made solely on the basis of brain analysis. The answer is: it cannot.”12 How should we understand the words of Dr. Berrios? They point toward the irreducible dimension of the psychological. This does not necessarily imply the existence of a mental essence or substance distinct from the matter and energy of the physical universe. Rather, I would argue that the functional organization of matter and energy in living beings gives rise to emergent properties of the agent as a whole, properties not present in the system's components. For instance, the conscious activities involved in goal-directed behaviors, such as writing and reading this essay. Technically, inspecting the brain allows us to diagnose a structural pathology, but to answer whether the pathology affects mental function we must investigate whether there is an impact on behavior or conscious experience. This requires an intersubjective evaluation of the patient’s rationality: their cognitive and ecological functioning, their values, goals, and contexts, the level of suffering and their capacity to cope with it.13 In other words, the normative dimension in psychopathology, and in general medicine, is inescapable. The study of pathology leads us down unsettling paths where the intuitions we hold about self-awareness become obscured. I dare to continue Borges’s play on recurrent metaphors. So, I ask: when it comes to disorders of consciousness, what lies on the other side of the river? As a physician in a neurological hospital, my work consists of taking care of people in states of psychosis. For decades, we have observed individuals with delusions and hallucinations, who descend into stages of impenetrable catatonia. I wonder about the other side of the river every time I face a person who remains with eyes open ―rigid, motionless, mute― for weeks or even months. Despite my best efforts to attune with these patients, their subjective experience lies beyond my knowledge. Is it akin to a nightmare, or an ecstatic dream? Or is there a complete absence of phenomenal experience? Sometimes we observe full recoveries. In other cases, the condition evolves into a coma state, accompanied by seizures, and at times, death ensues. Only in recent years, thanks to immunological research, have we come to understand that some of these patients suffer from a disease caused by antineuronal antibodies. Immunotherapy can lead to awakenings like those narrated by Oliver Sacks in the unusual context of lethargic encephalitis. Once the catatonic syndrome dissolves, we can finally interact with the person to explore the details of their subjective experience. To explain more clearly the problem of autoimmune psychosis, and the challenges it raises for the investigation of consciousness, I will evoke a moment from recent Mexican history: the earthquake of 2017. DISINTEGRATION If you don’t live in Mexico City, it’s hard to understand why twenty million citizens harbor so much fear toward a date on the calendar. On September 19, 1985, a devastating earthquake claimed thousands of lives. In response, Mexican society developed an alarm system and organized earthquake drills. Some politicians, with a macabre sense of humor, decided that the annual drill would be held on September 19, as if we were celebrating the earthquake’s birthday. After hearing the alarm, we exit in an orderly fashion to safe gathering points. And that’s exactly what we did on September 19, 2017. But a couple of hours after the drill, we heard a rumble: a prolonged, primal rupture of the Earth, and felt the ground move violently beneath us. The jolt made us scream. We never imagined there would be a real earthquake that day. The coincidence in dates between the 1985 and the 2017 events felt like a sadistic version of Nietzsche’s theory of Eternal Return. Mexican society came together in solidarity to help the victims of the disaster. Amid the devastation, a 37-year-old chiropractor ―I’ll call him Diego― joined the rescue efforts. As he walked through the ruins, he began to feel weak. While removing debris in search of survivors, he was running out of strength and started taking longer and longer breaks. There was a state of unease, as if something terrible was about to happen: an ominous premonition of inevitable collapse. Fear took hold of him, along with a deep sense of guilt: he couldn’t help others in their time of need. Diego had a constant headache, couldn’t sleep, and stopped eating. Words no longer came out of his mouth; he began to speak in whispers. He grew irritable with others, without fully understanding why. When he finally spoke to his wife, he revealed an intense fear of his relatives. He heard their voices even in their absence: voices that insulted him. He saw people wielding knives, emerging from unexpected places to attack him. Water was poisoned, so he refused to drink. His body stopped functioning: he couldn’t move, speak or breath; his organs had shut down. The heartbeat had ceased. A few days later, he became aggressive towards his family and attempted suicide. His wife took him to the Institute of Neurology.14 At the hospital, Diego had his eyes open but remained immobile and wordless. He did not react, even when syringes were used to draw blood or administer injections. He gasped and let out guttural sounds and screams that terrified other patients in the emergency ward. Cardiac monitoring showed drastic fluctuations. His skin was drenched in sweat, causing rapid fluid loss. His entire body was rigid, leading to muscle breakdown and a rise in a protein that damaged his kidneys. He developed renal failure and pneumonia and was transferred to the Intensive Care Unit. Diego was awake, technically, but his brain activity in the electroencephalogram resembled a coma state. Immunological testing in the cerebrospinal fluid revealed the presence of antineuronal antibodies targeting NMDA glutamate receptors. The diagnosis of autoimmune encephalitis was established.15 We initiated immunotherapy with plasmapheresis, a procedure in which the blood is removed, the plasma is separated to eliminate antibodies, and the blood cells are reinfused with a replacement solution. Diego regained the ability to speak, but he remained psychotic for several days. At one point, he said that his heart was “on the right side” and had stopped beating. “I have no feelings because I’m dead… All human beings will be dead.” In the next days, he remained muttering short phrases and isolated words. During a medical visit, a doctor asked, “Do you know where you are right now?” He replied, “In a symbology.” “What do you mean, in a symbology?”. Diego answered, “I’m dead among many companions… human beings… complete human beings… it seems like a program… we will be dead… always have been.” He looked deeply dejected, slumped in an uncomfortable position. A nasogastric tube had been placed; he hadn’t eaten in days and was severely malnourished and anemic. In the following days, the delusional state improved with general care, nutrition, conversation, physical activity, and medications to promote sleep and reduce psychosis. After completing immunotherapy, he was able to walk and eat again and was discharged after forty-two days. As an outpatient, he received maintenance immunotherapy. His wife reported that he had regained his cognitive abilities and returned to work. The psychiatric medication was tapered, and he never experienced a relapse. During follow-up, his memories of the episode were not entirely clear. “I felt very weak after the earthquake, like in those nightmares where you try to speak but your tongue won’t move. You try to react, but your body is completely stiff. I felt time stretching… I was in the rubble, trying to find my family, but he scene repeated over and over, like a broken record. That’s when I tried to kill myself. Time stopped completely… it felt like an eternity… Eventually I opened my eyes, but everything was frozen among the ruins. I truly believed I was a corpse among many, buried in the debris of the earthquake. And I felt the doctors and nurses weren’t real. They were part of a game, or a computer program designed to conceal my death. ” 14 A couple of decades ago, we treated similar cases of people immersed in delusional, catatonic, and confusional states. According to the medical doctrine of the time, these were psychiatric disorders of unknown origin or viral infections of brain. Unfortunately, the cause was unknown, treatments were ineffective, and mortality was high. The discovery of anti-NMDA receptor antibodies arose in an unexpected context. Some women develop ovarian tumors called teratomas, which originate from ectodermal tissue and can form rudimentary neurons. The word teratoma comes from the Greek τέρας, τέρατος (téras, tératos), meaning nightmare or monster. These tumors have fascinated people since antiquity because they sometimes contain hair, teeth, or bone, and, in extraordinary cases, body parts like hearts or hands. Occasionally, teratomas form neurons that express NMDA glutamate receptors. The immune system responds by producing antibodies against the tumor’s neuronal receptors. If these antibodies reach the brain, they disrupt glutamate signaling and cause vivid, chaotic states of psychosis. We eventually learned that men could develop this form of encephalitis. For instance, brain infections caused by herpes simplex virus can destroy neurons and release NMDA receptors, inducing the production of antineuronal antibodies.16–18 To explain a case of autoimmune psychosis we must ask two questions: Can we say that the psychopathological pattern is caused by an antineuronal antibody targeting the NMDA glutamate receptor? And what is neurocognitive mechanism involved in this disturbance of conscious activity? The answer to the first question is that there is a causal relationship between the antineuronal antibody and the altered patterns of mental experience. The relationship between anti-NMDA receptor encephalitis disease and psychosis is strong according to epidemiological from many centers around the world. 17,19–21 But what about the context of the illness? It is reasonable to assume that the traumatic experience of the disaster contributed to the content of Diego’s delusion: he saw himself dead among the rubble, alongside other corpses. Also, if the patient had circulating antibodies in peripheral blood, traumatic stress could act as a triggering factor, increasing the permeability of the blood-brain barrier and allowing the antibodies to access the nervous system. Animal models have shown that stress alters blood-brain barrier permeability, and clinical reports suggest that some cases of encephalitis are precipitated by psychosocial stress.22,23 However, the earthquake was a precipitating factor, not a necessary cause, whereas the autoimmune pathology has a causal role in a strong sense. Woodward’s interventionist approach to causal analysis postulates that a factor is causal if and only if an intervention on that factor produces a significant change in the effect. 24–26 In Diego’s case, a clear response to treatment was observed, but this is not an isolated effect: the analysis of 164 cases of autoimmune psychosis in a prospective study showed significant improvements following immunotherapy. This is consistent with international research.17,27–29 The second question is more difficult: in Diego’s case, what is the brain mechanism involved in the disturbance of conscious experience? This can be answered on many levels, depending on how deep we want to go. I must say that the relationship between the NMDA receptor and psychosis is well established. Ketamine, a drug blocking this receptor, has been used as a dissociative anesthetic: it blocks sensory signals as powerful as the pain from a surgical wound. A side effect is immersion in a hallucinatory state of great aesthetic intensity. 30 Thus, the NMDA receptor is related to psychosis in a non-trivial way: pharmacological manipulation induces delusions and hallucinations, and genomic abnormalities in this system increase the risk of chronic psychosis: some variants of the GRIN2A gene, which is necessary for the NMDA receptor synthesis, increase the risk of schizophrenia by a factor of 24. 31–33 Disruption of NMDA receptors, as seen in dissociative anesthesia, impairs the neurocognitive mechanisms underpinning consciousness. What about autoimmune pathology? When the antineuronal antibodies attack the NMDAR receptors, this causes an internalization of these membrane proteins. The subsequent reduction of their density in the synaptic space leads to a decay of glutamate signaling. According to Global Neuronal Workspace theory, the glutamate system is relevant to explain conscious processing. The theory postulates that specialized neuronal populations are connected through a central network of densely interconnected pyramidal neurons with long-range axons, located primarily in parietal and prefrontal cortices. This network enables a global broadcast of neural information through a two-step process. First, a rapid wave propagates feedforward, through the cortex. This bottom-up signaling is mediated through AMPA receptors, which act as sodium channels, changing the neuron's electrical state and enhancing NMDA receptor sensitivity. Then, a slower, feedback-driven phase follows. This is a top-down signaling process mediated by NMDA receptors, which are calcium channels. These feedback signals sustain a global, reverberating state of synchronized corticothalamic activity. Conscious experience is thus instantiated, and the subject gains a flexible, multimodal, and sequential cognitive activity.34,35 If we rely on predictive coding as a theory of consciousness, NMDA receptors may be crucial for top-down signaling to posterior cortex and pre-activating sensory templates in higher-order sensory areas.36,37 While NMDA receptor dysfunction is critically important for understanding autoimmune psychosis, we need additional tools to explain the disturbance of large-scale neuronal networks. Molecular neuroimaging through positron emission tomography provides a representation of the human body’s energy metabolism. Figure 1 shows a finding that characterizes anti-NMDA receptor encephalitis. If we examine the image, we observe “cool” colors (blue and green) in the posterior part of the brain. What does this mean? According to the standard color code, there is a metabolic deficit in that region, so severe that it approaches the pattern observed in patients with persistent vegetative state. 38 This indicates an energy deficiency in the inner and posterior cerebral cortex, corresponding to the posterior cingulate cortex and the precuneus. This is not an isolated finding: systematic research using positron emission tomography shows this metabolic pattern in patients with anti-NMDA receptor encephalitis.39,40 A first question appears: Why does this disturbance in brain metabolism occur? Figure 1. 18F-FDG PET/CT scan in a patient with autoimmune psychosis due to anti-NMDA receptor encephalitis. Two brain images are shown: the lateral view on the left, and the medial view on the right. The scan reveals characteristic findings of the disease: severe posterior hypometabolism in the occipital and parietal cortices, along with anterior hypermetabolism in the lateral surface of the frontal cortex. A neurochemical atlas of the brain built with positron emission tomography, with more than 1,200 healthy individuals, shows the highest concentration of NMDA receptors in the inner surface of the parietal and occipital cortices.41 This geographical distribution correlates with the abnormalities observed in anti-NMDA receptor encephalitis. In this disease, antineuronal antibodies cause internalization of the NMDA receptor.17 The subsequent reduction in neuronal activity leads to a decrease in metabolic demand: thus, we see an intense blue color in the parieto-occipital cortex. A second question arises: does the altered metabolic pattern help explain the disturbance in conscious processing? The approach to this question requires an analysis that goes beyond localizationism. The typical metabolic pattern in anti-NMDA receptor encephalitis, as depicted in Figure 1, is an abnormal anteroposterior gradient.40,42 A disruption of the functional connectivity between anterior and posterior brain regions if of great interest to self-awareness. On the left side of the image, we see the lateral aspect of the cerebral hemispheres. Anteroposterior connectivity between the prefrontal, parietal, and temporal cortices is critical for detecting salient and unexpected stimuli, and for implementing goal-directed attentional control, which enables us to select and track stimuli.43 According to Global Neuronal Workspace theory, this connectivity supports the global broadcasting of neural information. The framework of predictive coding provides a complementary insight: anteroposterior connectivity is necessary for the top-down and bottom up feedback signaling that enables the updating of internal models prediction error minimization.5,8,34,35,44,45 On the right side of the image, we see the medial aspect of the cerebral hemispheres. The posterior parietal cortex is a key component of the default mode network. It acts as an integrative and distributive hub for multiple bioelectrical signals related to self-awareness: interoceptive and spatial representations of the body, the construction of first-person perspectives, and access to autobiographical memory.38,46,55,47–54 The synchronization of posterior and anterior neuronal populations across the cortical–subcortical midline axis is necessary for the representation, monitoring, evaluation and integration of the self-referential stimuli that will become conscious. 49,54,56–58 Furthermore, the connection between posterior and anterior regions enables access to motor systems, necessary for interacting with the world. Patients with anti-NMDA receptor encephalitis suffer from severe psychomotor disturbances: catatonic signs such as repetitive patterns, immobility and mutism.59–61On more than one occasion, I have considered that nihilistic delusions in encephalitis are a way to express the lived experience of catatonia. So far, antineuronal antibodies disrupt the large-scale connectivity necessary for conscious access and bodily self-representation. But I want to take a step back to view the problem from a broader perspective. Perhaps a look at bioelectric signaling provides insights into how the brain instantiates patterns of meaningful conscious activity. In the book Neural Basis of Free Will: Criterial Causation, Peter Ulric Tse argues that the NMDA receptor is critically important for neurons to detect patterns of energy, not merely quantities of energy. To understand this, consider the analogy of a radio tuning meaningful signals amid surrounding noise. Neurons must detect relevant signals, and NMDA receptors play a seminal role in this process. These receptors are sophisticated ion channels requiring several conditions to allow calcium to enter the neuron: on one hand, it needs the binding of glutamate and glycine. This indicates activity from other neurons. On the other hand, it depends on a minimum postsynaptic voltage, which reflects the activity of the neuron where the receptor is located. Technically, the NMDA receptor detects the coincidence between pre- and post-synaptic activity. This allows it to function as a coincidence detector, and to participate in a process fundamental to life: the detection of stimulation patterns that indicate opportunities for interaction.62–64 Paraphrasing Peter Godfrey-Smith, the function of consciousness is to enable the agent to deal with environmental complexity.65 What does this mean, in a broader sense? What we call life, says doctor Tse, introduced into the universe a new and revolutionary form of causality. Under the laws of physics, events in the universe are explained by interactions of matter and energy, emphasizing the amount of energy. But to understand conscious activity, quantities of energy are not enough. With the emergence of life, a new, emergent form of causality appeared: the activity of living beings depends not only on the amount and frequency of energy, but on patterns of stimulation. By this, I mean patterns of energy that stimulate organisms through phase relationships. The spatial and temporal configurations of stimuli are detected by living organisms and encoded through biological signaling. Cells ―whether unicellular organisms like amoebas or neurons within the human brain― respond to environmental stimuli not simply because those stimuli carry energy, but because the spatiotemporal configuration of the stimuli is meaningful to the organism. These patterns have formal characteristics that rise above background noise and are detected through receptors in the cell membrane, which are sensitive to phase relationships. Pattern detection allows them to react to objects based on shape, location, movement, and value for survival: Do the stimuli signal a threat to the organism’s life, or do they indicate an opportunity for nourishment, respiration, or play? Moreover, the specific response to relevant signals enables many neurons, even millions, to synchronize, a process essential for establishing functional connectivity across large scale neuronal networks. Could there be continuity between this physiological process and the collective organization of human populations through human semiosis? I explore this question in the final section of the essay. Before concluding this section, I would like to summarize a few ideas. The study of immune-mediated psychosis supports the hypothesis that NMDA receptors act as coincidence detectors, mediating the recognition of meaningful patterns of stimulation. A rupture in the spatial and temporal continuity of anteroposterior connectivity ―due to the effect of antibodies on the NMDA receptor― leads to a collapse of self-representation within the integrated flow of consciousness.66 But this raises a theoretical problem: if changes in phenomenal experience are explained by antibodies disrupting the bioelectrical signaling, by disconnections in the large-scale functional networks, and by the effects of immunotherapy, does this imply a reductionist account of consciousness? Can the analysis of subpersonal physiological processes fully explain the clinical changes in self-awareness? In the next section, I address this question through a clinical case involving bodily delusions that emerge in the context of a life trajectory. If psychological causality is real, subpersonal physiological changes can be driven by affective interactions. This brings us to the central question of this essay: how can we reconcile both explanatory frameworks? PSYCHALGIA AND THE UNSETTLING SIDE OF CONSCIOUSNESS Perhaps Borges was right: our thinking moves elliptically around a few essential metaphors. Yet these figures can be renewed if we are open to scientific discovery, artistic creation, and philosophical reflection. Then, living metaphors ―as Paul Ricoeur called them― emerge and revitalize our understanding. The French thinker and Borges agree on a key idea: when metaphors age, they eventually become commonplaces of ordinary language. At that point, they become dead metaphors. I wonder whether the clinical study of self-awareness can take us beyond computational metaphors. Should we accept Putnam’s notion of the mind as software interacting with hardware, that is, logical states that can be dissociated from physical states? Unlike digital computers, human beings construct affective experiences in the service of survival, enacting relevance.67 Our very lives, quite literally, unfold between joy and suffering. Allow me to share a case study that leads us to the core of affliction: psychalgia or affective pain.68 In this context, pain is an analogy, but we lack words to express the experiential qualities of suffering. In the face of psychalgia, we are left only with unsettling metaphors. In this story, I find myself in the neuropsychiatry unit; it is the first Monday of the year. I read the file of Jacinto, a 32-year-old man. Two months ago, he stopped drinking alcohol and entered a state of delirium tremens: He saw snakes, centipedes, and tarantulas crawling over his body. The psychotic symptoms persisted for several weeks. On January 1st, the patient walked barefoot into a ravine. His cousin found him with deep cuts on his neck and both wrists, bleeding heavily. The patient said he had gone there following a pickup truck blasting loud music. The song lyrics were inviting him to follow them. He also said they had removed his kidney and lungs, that he was empty and lacked all his organs. He lies withdrawn in his bed, showing no interest in the courtyard, where other patients go through the motions of the lunchtime ritual. Jacinto remains silent, tense. As the conversation unfolds, he takes interest in my presence. The morning light doesn’t reach the room, and the contours of night remain with us. Some people in his town play music in their cars, he says, and the music takes away parts of his body. “I don’t know how they do it, but little by little my lungs disappear, my kidneys... the song goes: you have a blue pancreas, a blue pancreas, a blue pancreas... and that’s how I find out they’ve taken that organ from me.” Once, he was asleep when they opened him “down the middle,” from head to legs, to inspect him and remove his body parts. He falls silent, then exclaims: “They’ve already done it! They stole my stomach, and I can’t eat. So, I decided to stop eating. I’ve lost the liver, the intestines, the kidneys. I already lost one lung. Only the other one is left, and my heart. They use very high-pitched, loud music. Today, the lyrics said: Now it’s turned blue. That means my organ is empty, or that there are no more organs, and the body is hollow.” I ask, astonished: “Does blue mean it’s empty?” “That’s right. And they do all this through music.” A few days after admission, Jacinto tells me he can only hear the music with his left ear. On the same side, he constantly hears the voices. “They order me to stand up so they can rape me, but I stay on the edge of the bed and don’t get up.” When he considers taking his medication, they read or see his thoughts. They told him not to take it: You’re fine. The voices are real. We discovered that the left ear shows a hearing deficit. According to the neuro-otology department, he suffers from left-sided post-traumatic hearing loss, which began after a direct blow to the left mastoid region by third parties, resulting in a constant tinnitus accompanied by slowly progressing hearing loss. Jacinto describes it like this: “I was coming out of the bar and took the wrong path. It was nighttime and the street was completely deserted. Some people wanted to rob me, but I told them they wouldn’t get anything because I didn’t have a single coin. Now you're screwed, they said. They struck my ear with a stone, and I felt the blood coming out. I made it home crawling.” I ask him if he still has suicidal thoughts, and he says he doesn’t want to take his own life. “Even though they want me to kill myself.” The conversation has shifted to a life story marked by tragic turns. His mother abandoned the family when he was seven. His father assumed responsibility for their upbringing, but was absent most of the time, and his lover belittled and verbally abused them. Jacinto learned to read and write, but he stopped attending school. He moved from house to house, living with his father in Tetela, a community below the volcanoes. The task of raising him fell to his older sister. But the siblings migrated to different towns and the family disintegrated. His father taught him to drink before he was twelve. They would go out drinking together: beer, aguardiente, or whatever they could get their hands on. Once, they went out with his uncle and drank late into the night. They ended up sleeping in an unfinished building in the forest. At dawn, his father was putting on his pants. Jacinto asked him: "Where are you going, sir?” The father replied: “And what’s it to you? I’m just going outside to pee.” Jacinto looked at him and said: “It’s just… something’s off. When you go to pee, you don’t take your belt, but now you’re holding it.” His father said: “What does it matter if I have a belt or not? Just go back to sleep. Why are you worrying about my business?” He walked out of the room, but Jacinto, uneasy, couldn’t sleep. “I found him outside, hanging from a beam, the belt tied around his neck. We brought him down with my uncle. He wasn’t breathing, but his body was still warm.” After several days of pharmacological treatment there is a clear improvement: he eats and sleeps well, his mood has recovered, and little by little, he is interacting more with other patients. We have ruled out brain lesions through brain imaging, and the electroencephalogram is normal. Suddenly he tells us: “I no longer hear the music; it was beautiful, but very loud, like a brass band, and it wouldn’t let me think.” At discharge, verbal hallucinations persist, but they no longer cause a sense of threat. The nihilistic, somatic, and persecutory delusions have disappeared. Many years have passed since then. To write this account, I searched through my old notebooks: I do not want to distort Jacinto’s words. We found no evidence of a neurological disease. How, then, can we explain the psychopathological constellation? One might propose the onset of a chronic psychiatric condition such as schizophrenia. It would be a reasonable hypothesis, but certain clues invite a more careful explanation: alcohol dependence and withdrawal can produce the transient brain dysfunction of delirium tremens. The loss of hearing in the left ear helps us understand why a buzzing sound —tinnitus— arose there, as a phantom perception, and later, why verbal hallucinations emerged with the same lateralization. Yet the events that precipitated his mental illness are not limited to physiological processes. The life story is characterized by maternal abandonment, family disintegration, neglect during upbringing, rootlessness. This forms the backdrop for a traumatic history of interactions, including childhood abuse and paternal suicide. There is no need to resolve the metaphysical controversies of downward or mental causation; I rely on well-established concepts from psychology and affective neuroscience: above all, psychological causation is explained through the laws of learning. Under the influence of phylogenetic dispositions, processes such as sensitization, classical conditioning, operant behavior, and vicarious learning reshape the functional architecture of the nervous system, through changes in synaptic plasticity, inflammatory processes, and dysregulation of energy metabolism. Taken together, these events lead to learned helplessness: a state of affective psychosis taking the form of Cotard’s delusion.69–71And yet, the question stands: why does a pathology of self-awareness emerge? In the years that followed, I came to know Jacinto better and gained a clearer understanding of the factors that shaped his outcome. Once the hallucinatory experience faded, he told me that he had been threatened by unreal people, that it was impossible for music to remove his internal organs; that his illness stemmed from abandonment and chronic loneliness, and that he had improved thanks to the medication. He never drank alcohol again, having made a vow at the church. During one consultation, we spoke about his suicide attempt. The conversation offered insight into the formation of his mental symptoms. “It was New Year’s Eve. I was barefoot and started walking. I don’t really know why I did it. The memory of my father came over me, how much he suffered. I felt an unbearable pain in my chest and couldn’t breathe. Someone was chasing me. I jumped over a gate and went down into a ravine. I didn’t feel anything. I wasn’t myself. Suddenly, I found a bottle. I broke it on a stone and began cutting myself with the glass in my right hand… it bled a lot, but it didn’t hurt. Then the left hand, then my neck. I kept walking until I reached the streets. That’s where my cousin found me.” To understand Jacinto’s account, we need to integrate phenomenology and affective neuroscience. According to Naomi Eisenberger’s experimental work, social disconnection and emotional loss activate paralimbic regions, particularly the dorsal anterior cingulate cortex and the anterior insula. These structures express opioid receptors and play a critical role in pain through their connections with the periaqueductal gray, an ancient brainstem nucleus regarded as “the hidden spring” due to its crucial role in affective consciousness. Notably, opioid analgesics have been shown to reduce separation distress. 72–77 My hypothesis is that Jacinto’s experience of psychalgia arose from separation distress. For many years, alcohol masked his affective pain; however, withdrawal triggered a paroxysm of anguish. According to Sierra and David, overwhelming states of anxiety involve excessive interoceptive signaling ―mediated by the insular cortex― which can disrupt the sense of self when these internal signals become incongruent with other bodily inputs. To resolve this incongruence, paralimbic activity may be suppressed.78,79 As the interoceptive signaling decays, depersonalization appears, and the emotional processing of pain may also break down, resulting in a condition akin to pain asymbolia. The patient wounds himself but feels no pain. The transition to delusional depersonalization ―the Cotard delusion― requires a disturbance of metacognitive processes. A predictive coding account postulates that unexpected, extraordinary experiences trigger the formation of delusions, which, in turn, engender new expectations that reduce updating and facilitate the assimilation of contradictory evidence. 78–85 Once, Jacinto missed an appointment, and his cousin told me he no longer wanted to take his medication. “He gets angry easily; he’s been like that since he was a child. He turns around and walks away. He stops talking to us. We checked his medication. He’s not taking it anymore.” One year later, he was brought in by an elderly woman who might have been his mother. As I spoke with her, I realized she truly was. She told me her son had thrown himself into a ravine and fractured several bones. Jacinto arrived on crutches. His hair had turned gray, his nails were long, and his pallor was alarming, as if he had aged ten or fifteen years. He told me: “Before the fall, I’d spent three or four days hearing the voices. They wouldn’t leave me alone. If you don’t kill yourself, your family will die off one by one. Throw yourself into the ravine. And I did. From there, I don’t remember anything. I just heard that damned buzzing and the voices in my left ear. When I woke up in a hospital in Cuernavaca, I could still hear them. Luckily, they went away with the medicine. All I wanted was to heal, to walk out on my own. But I needed surgery. They operated on both ankles. The bones had shattered into countless parts.” Can we consider the act of falling into the ravine ―the moment of relapse― from a panoramic view? Perhaps Jacinto suffers from schizophrenia, a chronic condition in which antipsychotics prevent psychotic episodes. However, residual symptoms and varying degrees of cognitive impairment typically persist in this condition, whereas Jacinto had a full recovery after the first episode. A withdrawal of antipsychotic medication is unlikely: the patient stopped the medication a year prior, and withdrawal-induced relapses occur within days or weeks. A third possibility is that Jacinto suffers from a recurrent form of affective psychosis, and the ongoing need for treatment reflects the continued presence of predisposing and precipitating factors such as a vulnerable psychological structure, social dislocation, loneliness, and economic stress.86,87 Jacinto survived the relapse and was reunited with his family. Physical rehabilitation was slow, but the fractures healed. The consultation room became a space to talk about Puente de Ixtla, the sunlit valleys where he moved with his mother. “She said she would take care of me. We hadn’t seen each other in many years. She feeds me and looks after me. I’ve always loved her; I never had anything to forgive her for.” He began visiting his sister’s house every third day, to enjoy handmade tortillas and spicy salsa with renewed appetite while playing with his twelve-year-old niece. It comforted him to know that at least she would have the protection of a family. One day, Jacinto told me he had turned 35. His mother made a special meal, and his sisters came too. He was happy that day. He no longer had nightmares, and the desire to take his own life had disappeared. “I don’t hear the voices anymore. The buzzing is still there. I don’t remember what that music was like. I no longer know what blue music means.” After three years of treatment, Jacinto came to the appointment alone. He now lives with his niece in Puente de Ixtla. Her husband is involved in Alcoholics Anonymous and invited him to attend group sessions. Jacinto was reluctant, but he felt relief in the first meetings. “The group helps because you hear your companions’ reflections, and you think about other people’s lives. It’s not just you who suffers. They told me to drop the pills. Stop them, your illness is only psychological. But I answered: I’ll come to the group, but if I stop the meds, I could relapse. I’m not going to stop taking the medication unless my doctor tells me to. Don’t worry, Jacinto, they said. Take it the way your doctor told you.” Then he paused, and his expression turned serious. “My enigma was that I’m an alcoholic. Now I have the strength to overcome my illness. The enigma I carry is the disease of alcoholism.” I remember a fleeting look of wonder on his face. Then he told me: “Eventually I went on a retreat. We dedicated ourselves to working, as they say. Telling our childhood stories, writing everything we’d lived through. Since I write very slowly, someone helped me. I felt very happy. They take us with our eyes closed until we arrive at the Hacienda, far from any town. We walked blindfolded through the gardens. There was a song on the air called Light a Light; for a moment it felt like a dream. When they told us to open our eyes, I saw my mother. She came to welcome me and brought me a bouquet of roses. My niece went to the retreat too, but the family members stayed apart, and we only met them at the end, because private things are shared during the alcoholics’ activities. At the end, the writings are burned; no one else should know those things. It’s personal.” If we take a step back to look at these affairs with historical distance, writes Cristina Rivera Garza, psychiatric stories can take the form of narratives of suffering and redemption. Jacinto’s story follows a narrative structure that suggests a continuity between mental illness and life itself. The tragic dimension marks the process through which human limitations are recognized and accepted, while the emphasis on suffering and the limits of human experience reveals “the encounter of antagonistic forces capable of transforming hierarchies.”88 Clinical histories hold transformative potential because they expose the effects of violent hierarchies within a social order shaped by desertion and usurpation. The relational dimension of this story is a core aspect to be considered. From an anthropological perspective, Mexican thinker Roger Bartra reminds us that “those who belong to the canon of melancholy understand and misunderstand one another, communicate in solitude, and encode the mystery of separation.”89 In Jacinto’s case, the double abandonment by both father and mother leads to a state of learned helplessness and supports a hypothesis of separation distress.90–92Drawing on the work of Thomas Fuchs, the study of childhood reveals that our affective attunement with others depends on a developmental process: “In every social encounter, two cycles of embodied affectivity intertwine, continuously modifying the affective possibilities and the resonance of each participant.”93 This forms an implicit relational knowledge during early childhood, a sense of attunement or social musicality that is essential for the development of intersubjectivity, that is, the ability to understand and share another person’s feelings. 94,95Neglect in caregiving during childhood can have long-term consequences that help us understand Jacinto’s loneliness and the sources of his mental illness. In Figure 2, I share a visual metaphor: it is the photograph of a tree that grew among the volcanoes of the central highlands. This is a region of Mexico fractured by the deep ravines where Jacinto attempted to die. The tree has been exposed since its birth to the powerful currents of the high mountains, and its structure is a plastic formation that reveals the impact of the wind. Figure 2. The tree of consciousness. Courtesy of Grace Quintanilla Cobo (1967-2017 The resolution in Jacinto’s story comes through his reunion with others. This enables him to reestablish affective ties that may lead to restructuring his disposition toward relationships. At the same time, he undergoes a rediscovery of his autonomy. The fracture of his bones has imparted a clear lesson, which he integrates into his sense of self. Jacinto manages to negotiate with his group and defends his right to medication. Otherwise, the ritual experience helps him accept the recalcitrant facts of his past and recover his sense of purpose. Unexpectedly, at least for me, he attains a state of conviviality, the joyful coexistence with others. The term derives from the Latin convivere, which originally referred to a banquet. Thomas Fuchs develops the concept and extends it to “the bodily resonance and empathy we feel not only with other human beings, but also with other living creatures.” Is this the redemption Rivera Garza speaks of? Is there an existential dimension in the reunion with oneself, and in the religare with communal life? When we analyze the continuity between mental suffering and life problems, we gain a broader understanding of the person experiencing psychopathology. However, it is important to maintain a critical perspective to avoid the trap of meaning, which gives us an illusory sense of knowledge about psychopathology through retrospective sense-making.96,97 Therefore, we must also consider the discontinuity between problems in living and mental illness. The inhospitable landscapes at the edges of phenomenal experience urge us to pursue the scientific analysis of consciousness. ACROSS THE RIVER In this essay, I study the delusion of being dead as an empirical phenomenon in need of explanation. I have sought to document the clinical facts as literally as possible, yet the affinity of psychosis with dreams, poetic experience, and visionary states has long fascinated patients, clinicians, and philosophers. The very concepts of hallucination and delusion compel us to reflect on the relationship between consciousness and the reality of a shared world. In search of theoretical insight, we might turn to the mythological figure of Ananké, a primordial entity that gives rise to the cosmos by constraining chaos, and who represents the absence of alignment between our desires and the laws of nature.98 Our conscious experience is constrained by physiology, and yet we have the subjective sense of building a life story beyond determinism. Is this nothing but a teleological illusion? According to Thomas Fuchs, “subjectivity manifests itself in the living body in terms of spontaneity, as the emergence of an order that is underdetermined by physical causes.” Conversely, nature is expressed in our phenomenal experience “as the appearance of mental processes that are underdetermined by the will and whose origin and underlying basis lie beyond our consciousness.”99 We must acknowledge the limits of introspection as a source of self-knowledge, without underestimating the feeling of spontaneity that animates our actions. For it is precisely this experience that withers in nihilistic delusions: the feeling of being alive, of being able to enact change in the world to reclaim the project of selfhood. The problem of bodily delusions raises important questions for the study of self-awareness. The investigation of autoimmune psychosis led us to examine NMDA receptors, which in turn prompted us to consider the neural processes that enable the detection of meaningful patterns of matter and energy. This requires the suppression of surrounding noise, one of the processes disrupted in psychosis. In autoimmune encephalitis, the physiological cause is undeniable: anti-neuronal antibodies disrupt the glutamate system and lead to psychosis. However, there are significant contextual factors. The earthquake, and the rescue efforts amid the ruins, were elements of a traumatic experience that triggered pathology and influenced the content of the delusion. I also shared a case of affective psychosis emerging from a tragic life history, but the therapeutic response to a medication that modulates dopamine signaling suggests the involvement of physiological factors in the causal cycles of psychopathology.100,101 Psychological causality is dominant in this case, but a feedback loop between physiological and interpersonal processes can be postulated. Psychological dynamics disrupt homeostatic balance, but once a pathophysiological mechanism is established, it has effects on mental processes. More broadly, there are feedback relationships between physiological mechanisms, psychological processes, and social contexts. This is why I do not advocate for theoretical autonomy at each level of explanation, but rather I call for the development of integrative theories. At this juncture, a systems approach offers an alternative to the dichotomy between holism and reductionism. The reductionist perspective assumes that analyzing the lower levels of a system ―the physiological factors― offers inherently superior explanatory power to that of higher levels, like psychological or social dimensions. In contrast, holism presumes that the agent’s interactions are sufficient to explain the clinical problem, without requiring input from lower-level mechanisms. In neuropsychiatry, both views have limitations: holism overlooks disturbances rooted in physiology, while reductionism fails to account for clinical patterns shaped by psychosocial interactions. A coherent alternative is the systemic approach, which holds that everything is a system or part of a system: each person can be understood as a collective intelligence composed of millions of cells acting in concert to form an agent. While we do not know the ultimate principles that enable this unification, the cognitive agent possesses emergent properties absent from its individual parts. These properties involve qualitative novelty and arise from the integrated system dynamics.102–104 For instance, some neuronal populations process auditory signals, others process language, and others handle prosodic vocal patterns. Yet only the integrated person can sing a musical piece synchronizing with other fellows in a concert. The contents of consciousness, although they seem to have properties beyond the physical world, can be understood as Real Patterns ―real psychophysiological phenomena― through Daniel Dennett’s framework. One might assume that only the physical components of the body are real. But according to Dennett’s pragmatic conception, a pattern of mental activity is real insofar as recognizing it offers advantages to predict the cognitive agent’s behavior. Some claim that only the physical vehicle of information is real, not the informational content. But this is a false dichotomy. For the physical process to be effective, it must specify the informational content through the formal organization of energy in temporal and spatial patterns of signaling.62,105–107 Dennett envisioned an “illusionist” theory of consciousness, but I find that label misleading. While ordinary experience includes illusions and hallucinations, Dennett acknowledges that we are not typically victims, but beneficiaries, of the “user illusion,” which enables genuine cognitive operations. Thus, mental patterns of conscious activity, and their informational content, are real psychophysiological events contributing to the causal cycles sustaining behavioral interaction. How does an agent’s subjective experience arise? There is currently no definitive answer to the problem of psychopoiesis: the emergence of psychological life in the universe. The mind–life continuity thesis focuses on autopoiesis: the process of self-construction of living beings leading to increasing levels of autonomy. 108,109 Biosignaling cycles are essential for mapping the organism’s internal states, environmental conditions, and their dynamic interactions.50 The process of assigning value to signals from the body or environment is key to explain the feeling of what happens. According to homeostatic and affective theories of consciousness—following Damasio and Panksepp—homeostatic feelings were the inaugural phenomena of consciousness in biological evolution. They were selected for their capacity to provide explicit guidance for vital self-regulation, representing an advance over the implicit regulation of homeostatic behavior. 50,90,110,111 Interactive cycles produce consistent changes in the organism’s internal feedback systems, forming the basis for the plastic, associative mechanisms underlying memory. Learning may enable the causal emergence of an integrated agent by coordinating cellular activity to generate organized responses.112 This allows the organism to anticipate environmental states and the consequences of its own behavior. As Lisa Feldman Barrett has proposed, the evolution of intermediary neural processing enables homeostatic regulation ―both physiological and behavioral― to become predictive and allostatic. This shift provides an extraordinary capacity for life development through anticipation, flexibility, and creativity.113–118 Within the Active Inference framework, the sense of self is constructed through predictive coding and involves multiple levels of organismal representation, including physiological allostasis, bodily integrity, spatial position and movement, and the consequences of one’s actions.85,119–122 According to Philip Gerrans, the brain constructs a model of the organism that functions as an avatar: a simplified interface for managing countless physiological interactions that we cannot directly control, such as cellular energy, but which give rise to qualitative experiences like hunger, fatigue or desire. These homeostatic and affective feelings arise from interoceptive active inference. When homeostatic behaviors, such as drinking when thirsty or resting when tired successfully restore balance, the model is reinforced; if they fail, it is updated. Ultimately, the sense of being a unified organism is a tool for survival: it enables self-regulation through goal-directed behavior.57,121,123,124 Collective behavior has driven a major transition in the history of life: from molecular signaling to ecological biosemiotics, and ultimately to cultural semiosis. In his Anthropology of the Brain, Roger Barta proposed that symbolic systems, developed through cultural evolution, serve as a mediation ―a cultural prosthesis― for consciousness. The collective inscription of signs and symbols into physical matter enables intersubjective feedback. While we cannot directly access another person’s subjectivity, we can attune and understand each other through embodied simulation, with the resources of verbal language, manual sign systems, visual arts, dance and music.95,125–127 The role of semiosis in fostering intersubjective attunement is supported by Pauline Pérez’s research on psychobiological rhythms: she showed that conscious attention to narratives can synchronize fluctuations in heart rate between individuals. This cardiac synchronization predicts recall of the story.128 According to the social cognition model developed by Uta and Christopher Frith, our bodily systems integrate exteroceptive, interoceptive, and proprioceptive signals through feedback and control mechanisms. These processes generate prediction error signals when something deviates from expectation. Thus, a form of nonconscious monitoring—or implicit metacognition—is required to regulate the system’s dynamics.129,130 These implicit processes support the emergence of pre-reflective forms of conscious experience, even though we remain unaware of the underlying physiological mechanisms. We cannot successfully introspect into them.131 Pain is an example of this kind of phenomenal experience, arguably shared by many animal species. It is a core feature of sentience, which consists of sensory and affective experiences that are typically tacit, minimal, or pre-reflective. In humans, culture introduces an additional cycle of conscious activity: once pre-reflective contents become conscious, they can be enacted or represented through symbolic systems, via cortical networks specialized in gestural, musical, verbal, or mathematical formats. From this perspective, an emergent function of consciousness is to serve as an interface for communicating phenomenal contents ―such as illness experiences― that are relevant to the survival and cooperation of human groups. The communication and enactment of conscious contents enable cycles of social interaction that support the development of normative rationality and, ultimately, explicit metacognition.57,132,133 This means that we consciously monitor and evaluate our psychological activity, shaped in part by the perspectives of others. Through these intersubjective, recursive cycles, we achieve genuine forms of reflectiveness. To know that I know is one example of this kind of reflective awareness. Symbolic networks provide scaffolding for the formation and sharing of abstract concepts and narrative practices related to self-awareness.133 This, in turn, opens new domains for reflective consciousness, allowing us to address the meta-problem of consciousness, as posed by Chalmers.134 A systems perspective helps us understand the relationships that make the advent of consciousness possible. After studying conscious experience in both ordinary and extraordinary states, we must examine its substrate: the structure and function of the neurobiological systems, and the neuropsychological processes that mediate between bodily activity and the environment. We must also consider the organism’s general physiology, its energy metabolism. To grasp the intentionality of the conscious agent, we must look beyond the body, to our interpersonal relationships, the sociocultural world we inhabit, and the ecosystem we belong to. This framework is ecological: the person suffering from a disorder of self-awareness is a living being shaped by a physiological concert, and nested within an ecosocial system of relations.99,135,136 An ecosystemic approach should consider the phylogeny of organisms, the cultural and social history of communities, and family trajectories. At the individual level, we can contemplate ontogeny, early psychological development, and the history of interactions throughout life. Through the lens of development, we think of collective intelligence from a new light. Following Anna Ciaunica and Katerina Fotopoulou, perceptual experience in ontogenesis is shaped by patterns of stimulation in the womb, where early selfhood emerges through physiological mutuality and shared embodiment. Molecular autopoiesis is thus grounded in co-homeostasis coordinated by the mother’s physiology. The relational dimension of life is therefore co-constitutive of individual consciousness. 137 An ecological perspective, grounded in life and relational systems, offers a path for the scientific investigation of self-awareness. But this perspective is not limited to outlining levels of analysis. It has ethical and aesthetic consequences. To ground this ethos, we have conviviality: the fundamental kinship we feel with all forms of life. It is the basis of care and responsibility toward life. If we understand conviviality as intercorporeality, we can establish an ecological ethics that overcomes the separation between culture and nature.138 Above all, I long for the science of consciousness to acknowledge those who suffer from these ailments, fulfilling Neruda’s vision: There is no impregnable solitude. All paths lead to the same point: communication of what we are. As the poet would say, we need to cross through incommunication and silence to clumsily dance or sing with melancholy, but in that dance and in that song, the oldest rites of consciousness are consummated: the awareness of being human and the conception of a common hope. REFERENCES 1. Borges JL. Arte Poética. Seis Conferencias. Editorial Crítica; 2001. 2. De Vignemont F. Affective Bodily Awareness. Cambridge University Press; 2023. 3. Orjuela-Rojas JM, Ramírez-Bermúdez J, Martínez-Juárez IE, Kerik NE, Diaz Meneses I, Pérez-Gay FJ. Visual hallucinations of autobiographic memory and asomatognosia: a case of epilepsy due to brain cysticercosis. Neurocase. 2015;21(5):635-641. doi:10.1080/13554794.2014.962548 4. Ramirez-Bermudez J, Yoldi-Negrete M, Martinez Juarez I, Cárdenas Belaunzaran J, Coltheart M. Visual hallucinations of autobiographical memories: a single-case study. Cogn Neuropsychiatry. 2024;29(3):186-193. doi:10.1080/13546805.2024.2358919 5. Seth AK, Bayne T. Theories of consciousness. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2022;23(7):439-452. doi:10.1038/s41583-022-00587-4 6. Chemero A. Radical Embodied Cognitive Science. MIT press; 2009. 7. Kuhn RL. A landscape of consciousness: Toward a taxonomy of explanations and implications. Prog Biophys Mol Biol. 2024;190:28-169. doi:10.1016/j.pbiomolbio.2023.12.003 8. Seth AK, Hohwy J. Predictive processing as an empirical theory for consciousness science. Cogn Neurosci. 2021;12(2). doi:10.1080/17588928.2020.1838467 9. Metzinger T. The Ego Tunnel. Basic Books; 2009. http://books.google.es/books?id=dxNPa41yIwYC&printsec=frontcover&dq=intitle:The+ego+tunnel&hl=&cd=1&source=gbs_api%0Apapers2://publication/uuid/16C24218-A226-42B1-8EF2-A5911D16DC68 10. Gallagher S. The Self and Its Disorders. Oxford University Pres; 2023. doi:10.1093/oso/9780198873068.001.0001 11. Sass L, Borda JP, Madeira L, Pienkos E, Nelson B. Varieties of Self Disorder: A Bio-Pheno-Social Model of Schizophrenia. Schizophr Bull. 2018;44(4):720-727. doi:10.1093/schbul/sby001 12. Berrios GE, Luque R. Epistemología de La Psiquiatría. Editorial Tricastela; 2024. 13. Stein DJ, Nielsen K, Hartford A, et al. Philosophy of psychiatry: theoretical advances and clinical implications. World Psychiatry. 2024;23(2):215-232. doi:10.1002/wps.21194 14. Ramirez Bermúdez J, Bustamante-Gomez P, Espínola-Nadurille M, et al. Cotard syndrome in anti-NMDAR encephalitis: two patients and insights from molecular imaging. Neurocase. 2021;27(1):64-71. doi:10.1080/13554794.2020.1866018 15. Graus F, Titulaer MJ, Balu R, et al. A clinical approach to diagnosis of autoimmune encephalitis. Lancet Neurol. 2016;15(4):391-404. doi:10.1016/S1474-4422(15)00401-9 16. Dalmau J. NMDA receptor encephalitis and other antibody-mediated disorders of the synapse. Neurology. 2016;87(23):2471-2482. doi:10.1212/WNL.0000000000003414 17. Dalmau J, Armangué T, Planagumà J, et al. An update on anti-NMDA receptor encephalitis for neurologists and psychiatrists: mechanisms and models. Lancet Neurol. Published online 2019. doi:10.1016/s1474-4422(19)30244-3 18. Pollak TA, Lennox BR, Müller S, et al. Autoimmune psychosis: an international consensus on an approach to the diagnosis and management of psychosis of suspected autoimmune origin. The Lancet Psychiatry. 2020;7(1):93-108. doi:10.1016/S2215-0366(19)30290-1 19. Espinola-Nadurille M, Restrepo-Martínez M, Bayliss L, et al. Neuropsychiatric phenotypes of anti-NMDAR encephalitis: A prospective study. Psychol Med. 2023;53(9):4266-4274. doi:10.1017/S0033291722001027 20. Al-Diwani A, Handel A, Townsend L, et al. The psychopathology of NMDAR-antibody encephalitis in adults: a systematic review and phenotypic analysis of individual patient data. The Lancet Psychiatry. 2019;6(3):235-246. doi:10.1016/S2215-0366(19)30001-X 21. Wandinger KP, Saschenbrecker S, Stoecker W, Dalmau J. Anti-NMDA-receptor encephalitis: A severe, multistage, treatable disorder presenting with psychosis. J Neuroimmunol. 2011;231(1-2):86-91. doi:10.1016/j.jneuroim.2010.09.012 22. Xu G, Li Y, Ma C, et al. Restraint stress induced hyperpermeability and damage of the blood-brain barrier in the amygdala of adult rats. Front Mol Neurosci. 2019;12. doi:10.3389/fnmol.2019.00032 23. Ahmad SH, Kawoosa A, Hassan T, Sanaie B. Stress as a possible trigger in anti–N-methyl-ᴅ-aspartate receptor encephalitis: a case series. Encephalitis. Published online 2024. doi:10.47936/encephalitis.2024.00059 24. Woodward J. Making Things Happen: A Theory of Causal Explanation.; 2004. doi:10.1093/0195155270.001.0001 25. Woodward J. Interventionist Theories of Causation in Psychological Perspective. In: Causal Learning: Psychology, Philosophy, and Computation. ; 2010. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195176803.003.0002 26. Ross LN, Bassett DS. Causation in neuroscience: keeping mechanism meaningful. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2024;25(2):81-90. doi:10.1038/s41583-023-00778-7 27. Ramirez‐Bermudez J, Espinola-Nadurille M, Restrepo-Martinez M, et al. Autoimmune psychosis: Psychopathological patterns and outcome after immunotherapy. Schizophr Res. 2025;281:10-19. doi:10.1016/j.schres.2025.04.024 28. Titulaer MJ, McCracken L, Gabilondo I, et al. Treatment and prognostic factors for long-term outcome in patients with anti-NMDA receptor encephalitis: An observational cohort study. Lancet Neurol. 2013;12(2):157-165. doi:10.1016/S1474-4422(12)70310-1 29. Xu X, Lu Q, Huang Y, et al. Anti-NMDAR encephalitis: A single-center, longitudinal study in China. Neurol Neuroimmunol NeuroInflammation. 2020;7(1):E633. doi:10.1212/NXI.0000000000000633 30. Kurdi M, Theerth K, Deva R. Ketamine: Current applications in anesthesia, pain, and critical care. Anesth Essays Res. 2014;8(3):283. doi:10.4103/0259-1162.143110 31. Singh T, Poterba T, Curtis D, et al. Rare coding variants in ten genes confer substantial risk for schizophrenia. Nature. 2022;604(7906):509-516. doi:10.1038/s41586-022-04556-w 32. Harrison PJ, Bannerman DM. GRIN2A (NR2A): a gene contributing to glutamatergic involvement in schizophrenia. Mol Psychiatry. 2023;28(9):3568-3572. doi:10.1038/s41380-023-02265-y 33. Trubetskoy V, Pardiñas AF, Qi T, et al. Mapping genomic loci implicates genes and synaptic biology in schizophrenia. Nature. 2022;604(7906):502-508. doi:10.1038/s41586-022-04434-5 34. Dehaene S, Changeux JP. Experimental and Theoretical Approaches to Conscious Processing. Neuron. 2011;70(2):200-227. doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2011.03.018 35. Mashour GA, Roelfsema P, Changeux JP, Dehaene S. Conscious Processing and the Global Neuronal Workspace Hypothesis. Neuron. 2020;105(5):776-798. doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2020.01.026 36. Friston K. A theory of cortical responses. Philos Trans R Soc B Biol Sci. 2005;360(1456):815-836. doi:10.1098/rstb.2005.1622 37. Mohanta S, Afrasiabi M, Casey CP, et al. Predictive Feedback, Early Sensory Representations, and Fast Responses to Predicted Stimuli Depend on NMDA Receptors. J Neurosci. 2021;41(49):10130-10147. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1311-21.2021 38. Cavanna AE. The precuneus and consciousness. CNS Spectr. 2007;12(7):545-552. doi:10.1017/S1092852900021295 39. Probasco JC, Solnes L, Nalluri A, et al. Decreased occipital lobe metabolism by FDG-PET/CT. Neurol Neuroimmunol NeuroInflammation. 2018;5(1):1-9. doi:10.1212/NXI.0000000000000413 40. Kerik-Rotenberg N, Diaz-Meneses I, Hernandez-Ramirez R, et al. A Metabolic Brain Pattern Associated With Anti-N-Methyl-D-Aspartate Receptor Encephalitis. Psychosomatics. 2020;61(1):39-48. doi:10.1016/j.psym.2019.08.007 41. Hansen JY, Shafiei G, Markello RD, et al. Mapping neurotransmitter systems to the structural and functional organization of the human neocortex. Nat Neurosci. 2022;25(11):1569-1581. doi:10.1038/s41593-022-01186-3 42. Yuan L, Mao G, Zhang Y, et al. Typical metabolic pattern of 18F-FDG PET in Anti-NMDAR encephalitis in the acute and subacute phases and its correlation with T2 FLAIR-MRI features. BMC Neurosci. 2023;24(1). doi:10.1186/s12868-023-00823-2 43. Vossel S, Geng JJ, Fink GR. Dorsal and ventral attention systems: Distinct neural circuits but collaborative roles. Neuroscientist. 2014;20(2):150-159. doi:10.1177/1073858413494269 44. Del Cul A, Dehaene S, Reyes P, Bravo E, Slachevsky A. Causal role of prefrontal cortex in the threshold for access to consciousness. Brain. 2009;132(9):2531-2540. doi:10.1093/brain/awp111 45. Demertzi A, Tagliazucchi E, Dehaene S, et al. Human consciousness is supported by dynamic complex patterns of brain signal coordination. Sci Adv. 2019;5(2). doi:10.1126/sciadv.aat7603 46. Herbet G, Lemaitre AL, Moritz-Gasser S, Cochereau J, Duffau H. The antero-dorsal precuneal cortex supports specific aspects of bodily awareness. Brain. 2019;142(8):2207-2214. doi:10.1093/brain/awz179 47. Vogt BA. Pain and emotion interactions in subregions of the cingulate gyrus. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2005;6(7):533-544. doi:10.1038/nrn1704 48. Ye Q, Zou F, Lau H, Hu Y, Kwok SC. Causal evidence for mnemonic metacognition in human precuneus. J Neurosci. 2018;38(28):6379-6387. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0660-18.2018 49. Carvalho GB, Damasio A. Interoception and the origin of feelings: A new synthesis. BioEssays. 2021;43(6). doi:10.1002/bies.202000261 50. Damasio AR. The Feeling of What Happens. Vol 401.; 1999. doi:10.1176/appi.ps.51.12.1579 51. Raichle ME. The Brain’s Default Mode Network. Annu Rev Neurosci. 2015;38(1):433-447. doi:10.1146/annurev-neuro-071013-014030 52. Cavanna AE, Trimble MR. The precuneus: A review of its functional anatomy and behavioural correlates. Brain. 2006;129(3):564-583. doi:10.1093/brain/awl004 53. Davey CG, Harrison BJ. The brain’s center of gravity: how the default mode network helps us to understand the self. World Psychiatry. 2018;17(3):278-279. doi:10.1002/wps.20553 54. Davey CG, Pujol J, Harrison BJ. Mapping the self in the brain’s default mode network. Neuroimage. 2016;132:390-397. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2016.02.022 55. Lyu D, Stieger JR, Xin C, et al. Causal evidence for the processing of bodily self in the anterior precuneus. Neuron. 2023;111(16):2502-2512.e4. doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2023.05.013 56. Northoff G, Heinzel A, de Greck M, Bermpohl F, Dobrowolny H, Panksepp J. Self-referential processing in our brain-A meta-analysis of imaging studies on the self. Neuroimage. 2006;31(1):440-457. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2005.12.002 57. Lou HC, Changeux JP, Rosenstand A. Towards a cognitive neuroscience of self-awareness. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2017;83:765-773. doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2016.04.004 58. Northoff G, Bermpohl F. Cortical midline structures and the self. Trends Cogn Sci. 2004;8(3):102-107. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2004.01.004 59. Ramirez-Bermudez J, Medina-Gutierrez A, Gomez-Cianca H, et al. Clinical Significance of Delirium With Catatonic Signs in Patients With Neurological Disorders. J Neuropsychiatry Clin Neurosci. 2022;34(2). doi:10.1176/appi.neuropsych.18120364 60. Espinola-Nadurille M, Flores-Rivera J, Rivas-Alonso V, et al. Catatonia in patients with anti-NMDA receptor encephalitis. Psychiatry Clin Neurosci. 2019;73(9):574-580. doi:10.1111/pcn.12867 61. Rogers JP, Pollak TA, Blackman G, David AS. Catatonia and the immune system: a review. The Lancet Psychiatry. 2019;6(7):620-630. doi:10.1016/S2215-0366(19)30190-7 62. Tse PU. The Neural Basis of Free Will Criterial Causation. MIT press; 2013. 63. Flohr H. NMDA Receptor-Mediated Computational Processes and Phenomenal Consciousness. In: Neural Correlates of Consciousness. ; 2020:245-258. doi:10.7551/mitpress/4928.003.0021 64. Flohr H, Glade U, Motzko D. The role of the NMDA synapse in general anesthesia. Toxicol Lett. 1998;100-101:23-29. doi:10.1016/S0378-4274(98)00161-1 65. Godfrey-Smith P. Complexity and the Function of Mind in Nature. Cambridge University Press; 1998. doi:10.1017/cbo9781139172714 66. Luppi AI, Lyu D, Stamatakis EA. Core of consciousness: the default mode network as nexus of convergence and divergence in the human brain. Curr Opin Behav Sci. 2025;65. doi:10.1016/j.cobeha.2025.101545 67. Schiller D, Yu ANC, Alia-Klein N, et al. The Human Affectome. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2024;158. doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2023.105450 68. Kendler KS. Melancholia as psychalgia: the integration of psychophysiological theory and psychopathologic observation in the mid-19th century. Mol Psychiatry. 2023;28(1):230-235. doi:10.1038/s41380-022-01894-z 69. Cotard J, Berrios GE. On hypochondriacal delusions in a severe form of anxious melancholia. Hist Psychiatry. Published online 1999. doi:10.1177/0957154X9901003807 70. Berrios GE, Luque R. Cotard ’ s Delusion or Syndrome ?: A Conceptual History. 1995;36(3):218-223. 71. Ramirez-Bermudez J, Aguilar-Venegas LC, Crail-Melendez D, Espinola-Nadurille M, Nente F, Mendez MF. Cotard Syndrome in Neurological and Psychiatric Patients. J Neuropsychiatry Clin Neurosci. 2010;22(4):409-416. doi:10.1176/appi.neuropsych.22.4.409 72. Solms M. The Hidden Spring: A Journey to the Source of Consciousness. W.W. Norton & Company; 2021. 73. Vogt BA. Pain and emotion interactions in subregions of the cingulate gyrus. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2005;6(7):533-544. doi:10.1038/nrn1704 74. Vogt BA. Midcingulate cortex: Structure, connections, homologies, functions and diseases. J Chem Neuroanat. 2016;74:28-46. doi:10.1016/j.jchemneu.2016.01.010 75. Vogt BA, Wiley RG, Jensen EL. Localization of mu and delta opioid receptors to anterior cingulate afferents and projection neurons and input/output model of mu regulation. Exp Neurol. 1995;135(2):83-92. doi:10.1006/exnr.1995.1069 76. Eisenberger NI. The pain of social disconnection: Examining the shared neural underpinnings of physical and social pain. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2012;13(6):421-434. doi:10.1038/nrn3231 77. Panksepp J, Yovell Y. Preclinical modeling of primal emotional affects (SEEKING, PANIC and PLAY): Gateways to the development of new treatments for depression. Psychopathology. 2014;47(6):383-393. doi:10.1159/000366208 78. Saini F, Ponzo S, Silvestrin F, Fotopoulou A, David AS. Depersonalization disorder as a systematic downregulation of interoceptive signals. Sci Rep. 2022;12(1). doi:10.1038/s41598-022-22277-y 79. Sierra M, David AS. Depersonalization: A selective impairment of self-awareness. Conscious Cogn. 2011;20(1):99-108. doi:10.1016/j.concog.2010.10.018 80. Medford N, Sierra M, Stringaris A, Giampietro V, Medford N. Emotional Experience and Awareness of Self : Functional MRI Studies of Depersonalization Disorder. 2016;7(June):1-15. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00432 81. Restrepo-Martínez M, Espinola-Nadurille M, Bayliss L, et al. FDG-PET in Cotard syndrome before and after treatment: can functional brain imaging support a two-factor hypothesis of nihilistic delusions? Cogn Neuropsychiatry. 2019;24(6):470-480. doi:10.1080/13546805.2019.1676710 82. Dodd WS, Laurent D, Dumont AS, et al. Pathophysiology of delayed cerebral ischemia after subarachnoid hemorrhage: A review. J Am Heart Assoc. 2021;10(15). doi:10.1161/JAHA.121.021845 83. Sterzer P, Adams RA, Fletcher P, et al. The Predictive Coding Account of Psychosis. Biol Psychiatry. 2018;84(9):634-643. doi:10.1016/j.biopsych.2018.05.015 84. Corlett PR, Fletcher P. Modelling delusions as temporally-evolving beliefs. Cogn Neuropsychiatry. 2021;26(4):231-241. doi:10.1080/13546805.2021.1938984 85. Seth AK. Interoceptive inference, emotion, and the embodied self. Trends Cogn Sci. 2013;17(11):565-573. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2013.09.007 86. Radua J, Ramella-Cravaro V, Ioannidis JPA, et al. What causes psychosis? An umbrella review of risk and protective factors. World Psychiatry. 2018;17(1):49-66. doi:10.1002/wps.20490 87. Hogg B, Gardoki-Souto I, Valiente-Gómez A, et al. Psychological trauma as a transdiagnostic risk factor for mental disorder: an umbrella meta-analysis. Eur Arch Psychiatry Clin Neurosci. Published online 2022. doi:10.1007/s00406-022-01495-5 88. Rivera C. La Castañeda. Narrativas Dolientes Desde El Manicomio General. Editorial Tusquets; 2011. 89. Bartra R. Cultura y Melancolía. Editorial Anagrama; 2001. 90. Panksepp J. Affective Neuroscience: The Foundations of Human and Animal Emotions. Oxford University Press; 1998. 91. Watt DF. The separation distress hypothesis of depression–an update and systematic review. Neuropsychoanalysis. 2023;25(2):103-159. doi:10.1080/15294145.2023.2240340 92. Watt DF, Panksepp J. Depression: An Evolutionarily Conserved Mechanism to Terminate Separation Distress? A Review of Aminergic, Peptidergic, and Neural Network Perspectives. Neuropsychoanalysis. 2009;11(1):7-51. doi:10.1080/15294145.2009.10773593 93. Fuchs T, Koch SC. Embodied affectivity: on moving and being moved. Front Psychol. 2014;5. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00508 94. Fuchs T. Intercorporeality and interaffectivity. Intercorporeality Emerg Soc Interact. 2017;11(1):3-23. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190210465.003.0001 95. Gallese V, Eagle MN, Migone P. Intentional attunement: Mirror neurons and the neural underpinnings of interpersonal relations. J Am Psychoanal Assoc. 2007;55(1):131-176. doi:10.1177/00030651070550010601 96. Kendler KS, Myers J, Halberstadt LJ. Do reasons for major depression act as causes. Mol Psychiatry. 2011;16(6):626-633. doi:10.1038/mp.2011.22 97. Ramírez-Bermúdez J, González-Grandón X, Chávez RA. Clinical narrative and the painful side of conscious experience. Philos Psychol. Published online 2024. doi:10.1080/09515089.2024.2366417 98. Ricoeur P. Freud: Una Interpretación de La Cultura. Siglo XXI; 1970. 99. Fuchs T. Ecology of the Brain: The Phenomenology and Biology of the Embodied Mind. Oxford University Press; 2018. 100. Huhn M, Nikolakopoulou A, Schneider-Thoma J, et al. Comparative efficacy and tolerability of 32 oral antipsychotics for the acute treatment of adults with multi-episode schizophrenia: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Lancet. 2019;394(10202). doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(19)31135-3 101. Schneider-Thoma J, Chalkou K, Dörries C, et al. Comparative efficacy and tolerability of 32 oral and long-acting injectable antipsychotics for the maintenance treatment of adults with schizophrenia: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Lancet. 2022;399(10327):824-836. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(21)01997-8 102. Bunge M. Treatise on Basic Philosophy, Volume 4, Ontology II: A World of Systems. D. REIDEL PUBLISHING COMPANY; 1979. doi:10.1007/978-94-009-9392-1 103. Romero GE. Scientific Philosophy.; 2018. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-97631-0 104. Fried EI. Studying Mental Health Problems as Systems, Not Syndromes. Curr Dir Psychol Sci. 2022;31(6):500-508. doi:10.1177/09637214221114089 105. Díaz JL. A patterned process approach to brain, consciousness, and behavior. Philos Psychol. 1997;10(2):179-195. doi:10.1080/09515089708573214 106. Díaz JL. Self-consciousness: an I-World patterned process model. Adapt Behav. 2018;26(5):211-223. doi:10.1177/1059712318783434 107. Dennett DC. Real patterns. Philos Psychol Contemp Readings. Published online 2007:288-310. doi:10.7551/mitpress/9780262026215.003.0015 108. Varela FJ, Thompson E, Rosch E. The Embodied Mind: Cognitive Science and Human Experience. MIT press; 1992. doi:10.29173/cmplct8718 109. Thompson E. Mind in Life: Biology, Phenomenology, and the Sciences of Mind. Belknap Press; 2010. 110. Damasio A, Damasio H. Feelings Are the Source of Consciousness. Neural Comput. 2023;35(3):277-286. doi:10.1162/neco_a_01521 111. Solms M, Friston K. How and why consciousness arises: Some considerations from physics and physiology. J Conscious Stud. 2018;25(5-6). 112. McMillen P, Levin M. Collective intelligence: A unifying concept for integrating biology across scales and substrates. Commun Biol. 2024;7(1). doi:10.1038/s42003-024-06037-4 113. Schulkin J, Sterling P. Allostasis: A Brain-Centered, Predictive Mode of Physiological Regulation. Trends Neurosci. 2019;42(10). doi:10.1016/j.tins.2019.07.010 114. Sterling P. Predictive regulation and human design. Elife. 2018;7. doi:10.7554/eLife.36133 115. Shaffer C, Westlin C, Quigley KS, Whitfield-Gabrieli S, Barrett LF. Allostasis, Action, and Affect in Depression: Insights from the Theory of Constructed Emotion. Annu Rev Clin Psychol. 2022;18:553-580. doi:10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-081219-115627 116. Sennesh E, Theriault J, Brooks D, van de Meent JW, Barrett LF, Quigley KS. Interoception as modeling, allostasis as control. Biol Psychol. 2022;167. doi:10.1016/j.biopsycho.2021.108242 117. Barrett LF, Quigley KS, Hamilton P. An active inference theory of allostasis and interoception in depression. Philos Trans R Soc B Biol Sci. 2016;371(1708). doi:10.1098/rstb.2016.0011 118. Corcoran AW, Hohwy J. Allostasis, interoception, and the free energy principle: Feeling our way forward. Interoceptive Mind From Homeost to Aware. 2018;1(April 2020):272-292. http://www.oup.co.uk/academic/rights/permissions.%0Ahttp://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/oso/9780198811930.001.0001/oso-9780198811930-chapter-15 119. Barrett LF, Simmons WK. Interoceptive predictions in the brain. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2015;16(7):419-429. doi:10.1038/nrn3950 120. Armel KC, Ramachandran VS. Projecting sensations to external objects: Evidence from skin conductance response. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci. 2003;270(1523):1499-1506. doi:10.1098/rspb.2003.2364 121. Seth AK, Friston KJ. Active interoceptive inference and the emotional brain. Philos Trans R Soc B Biol Sci. 2016;371(1708). doi:10.1098/rstb.2016.0007 122. Friston K, FitzGerald T, Rigoli F, Schwartenbeck P, Pezzulo G. Active inference: A process theory. Neural Comput. 2017;29(1):1-49. doi:10.1162/NECO_a_00912 123. Gerrans P. Anatomy of an Avatar. Oxford University Press; 2024. doi:10.1093/9780191994395.001.0001 124. Metzinger T, Gallese V. The emergence of a shared action ontology: Building blocks for a theory. Conscious Cogn. 2003;12(4):549-571. doi:10.1016/S1053-8100(03)00072-2 125. Deacon TW. The Symbolic Species. The Co-Evolution of Language and the Brain. W. W. Norton & Company; 1997. 126. Bartra R. Antropología Del Cerebro. Fondo de Cultura Económica; 2007. 127. Gallese V. Embodied simulation: From neurons to phenomenal experience. Phenomenol Cogn Sci. 2005;4(1):23-48. doi:10.1007/s11097-005-4737-z 128. Pérez P, Madsen J, Banellis L, et al. Conscious processing of narrative stimuli synchronizes heart rate between individuals. Cell Rep. 2021;36(11):109692. doi:10.1016/j.celrep.2021.109692 129. Frith C, Frith U. What Makes Us Social? MIT press; 2023. doi:10.7551/mitpress/10400.001.0001 130. Allen M. Unravelling the Neurobiology of Interoceptive Inference. Trends Cogn Sci. 2020;24(4):265-266. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2020.02.002 131. Metzinger T. Phenomenal transparency and cognitive self-reference. Phenomenol Cogn Sci. 2003;2(4):353-393. doi:10.1023/b:phen.0000007366.42918.eb 132. Frith U, Frith C. What makes us social and what does it tell us about mental disorders? Cogn Neuropsychiatry. Published online 2024. doi:10.1080/13546805.2024.2307958 133. Gallagher. Shaun. Philosophical conceptions of the self: implications for cognitive science. Trends Cogn Sci. 2000;4(1). 134. Chalmers DJ. The meta-problem of consciousness. J Conscious Stud. 2018;25(9-10):6-61. 135. González-Grandón XA. Ecology of the Brain: The Phenomenology and Biology of the Embodied Mind, by Thomas Fuchs, Oxford University Press. Oxford, UK, 2018. Philosophia (Mendoza). 2021;49(2). doi:10.1007/s11406-020-00234-1 136. Bateson G. Steps to an Ecology of Mind: Collected Essays in Anthropology, Psychiatry, Evolution, and Epistemology. Chandler Publications for Health Sciences.; 1972. 137. Ciaunica A, Constant A, Preissl H, Fotopoulou K. The first prior: From co-embodiment to co-homeostasis in early life. Conscious Cogn. 2021;91. doi:10.1016/j.concog.2021.103117 138. Fuchs T. Conviviality: our primary connectedness to living beings. Mind Soc. Published online 2025. doi:10.1007/s11299-024-00315-8

---

## The Relational Cosmos: Consciousness In a World Without Intrinsic Properties
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/essay/the-relational-cosmos-consciousness-in-a-world-without-intrinsic-properties

To be is to be known Almost precisely one hundred years ago, in a world vastly different from the one we now live in, one of Max Born’s students handed him a paper that he at once understood would change science. What he did not see, and could never have imagined, was how profoundly the core insight of that paper would transform technology, philosophy, and human society, and indeed become a large part of the reason why the world today, a century later, is so utterly changed. That student’s name was Werner Heisenberg, and he, Born and another brilliant student of Born’s, Pascual Jordan, would subsequently work together to produce the f irst complete mathematical formulation of quantum mechanics, published in March of 1926. Only nineteen years later, the charismatic, mercurial polymath Robert Oppenheimer, coincidentally another of Born’s students, would harness its machinery in the service of war, producing a weapon that would reduce the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki to ash in the blink of an eye and end the Second World War. Two years later, in 1947, the semiconductor — a device entirely dependent on quantum mechanics — was invented at Bell Labs, ushering in the computer age.

To be is to be known Almost precisely one hundred years ago, in a world vastly different from the one we now live in, one of Max Born’s students handed him a paper that he at once understood would change science. What he did not see, and could never have imagined, was how profoundly the core insight of that paper would transform technology, philosophy, and human society, and indeed become a large part of the reason why the world today, a century later, is so utterly changed. That student’s name was Werner Heisenberg, and he, Born and another brilliant student of Born’s, Pascual Jordan, would subsequently work together to produce the f irst complete mathematical formulation of quantum mechanics, published in March of 1926. Only nineteen years later, the charismatic, mercurial polymath Robert Oppenheimer, coincidentally another of Born’s students, would harness its machinery in the service of war, producing a weapon that would reduce the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki to ash in the blink of an eye and end the Second World War. Two years later, in 1947, the semiconductor — a device entirely dependent on quantum mechanics — was invented at Bell Labs, ushering in the computer age. The consequences were world-shaking, yet the premise that underpinned Heisenberg’s 1925 paper1 was deceptively simple. Struggling with the problem of modelling the orbits of electrons inside the atom, Heisenberg decided to focus exclusively on what could be observed, namely the frequencies and intensities of the spectral lines emitted or absorbed by atoms during transitions between energy levels. From this perspectival shift eventually fell out all the core principles of quantum theory: the uncertainty principle, the “observer effect”, non-commuting operators, and the weirdness of entanglement and “spooky action at a distance”. What was decidedly unclear for many, many decades, and what remains debated to this day, was what it all meant. Born and Einstein corresponded on that subject for decades, and their disagreement about whether the theory was truly fundamental — Einstein thought there had to be some deeper, deterministic underpinnings — eventually grew into a rift in their long friendship. The question of whether “God plays with dice” or not was long ago decided in Born’s favour, but the deeper problem of how to reconcile the theory with our natural intuitions about the world remained. Now, however, as the dust thrown up by the collapse of Newtonian deterministic materialism has begun to settle, a picture has finally started to emerge, and it is one with the most profound imaginable implications for our understanding of what and who we are. Among other things, it may finally point the way towards resolving perhaps the thorniest unresolved problem in science and philosophy, the conundrum which Australian philosopher David Chalmers has termed the “hard problem of consciousness”, or how it is that material structures can give rise to subjective experience. The essence of the new philosophy implied by quantum physics is that the physical world consists not of things but of relations. And if all physical properties are relational, this implies that only relational properties exist. If correct, this is a revolutionary change to our way of understanding the world. In philosophy, an “intrinsic property” is one that belongs to an entity in itself, independent of anything else, whereas a relational or extrinsic property is one that is defined relative to some other thing. In an everyday context, this is a straightforward semantic distinction with obvious enough meaning. My dog’s size is an intrinsic property, but its being larger than my cat is a relational one. When we get down to the quantum level, however, it is a distinction that becomes much more problematic. Although he certainly did not understand it in these terms at the time, Heisenberg’s fundamental move in confining himself to “observables” was to abandon the notion of quantum objects — electrons in the case of the atomic spectra he was trying to model — having intrinsic properties beyond the interactions through which they could be observed. This was first and foremost pragmatic: if there was no way even in principle to know where the electrons were and how they were moving other than through their interactions with photons, then why base one’s theory on these unknowables? Yet whether or not it began as a matter of pragmatism, what has become clear is that Heisenberg was right not merely epistemologically and methodologically, but ontologically. What exists at the quantum level are interactions — nodes in a network of relations — not “things” with independent, intrinsic existence. The clearest illustration of this strange property of the quantum world can be found in the phenomenon of entanglement, which some physicists regard as the essence of quantum mechanics. Two particles are entangled when their states are correlated with one another. For example, light passing through certain types of crystal may sometimes cause the emission of two entangled photons with mutually opposite polarity. In the case where the particles are maximally entangled, the quantum state describing the two-particle system is fully defined by the correlation, with no information “left over” to describe the state of the individual particles in themselves. As physicist Leonard Susskind puts it, we know everything there is to know about the system, while knowing nothing about its component parts2. David Mermin, in his paper “What Is Quantum Mechanics Trying to Tell Us”3, describes this as a situation of “correlations without correlata”. This is slightly misleading; of course all correlations must relate something. It’s just that in this case what is related are not two “things”, but simply the values of the correlated properties — in the photon case, their polarisations — when the particles interact with a third system. Ultimately, we can think of the particles not as “objects” in flight, but as relationships between nodes in the network of relations that constitutes the physical world. Or to put it another way, as communication of relational state information. Physicist Carlo Rovelli has formalised this understanding in his Relational Quantum Mechanics (RQM)4, explained for a popular audience in his best-selling 2020 book Helgoland5. The key tenet of RQM is that all physical properties are relations between systems. In this paradigm, it is simply not meaningful to ask about the state of a physical system in itself; we can only ever ask about relative state. This extends the insight expressed in Einstein’s relativity theory that properties such as time, distance and simultaneity are relational and dependent on a frame of reference. In RQM, all physical properties are relativised to the perspective of some other interacting system. Things and relations The idea that reality is fundamentally relational runs headlong into intuitions about the world that we take to be self-evident. What can it even mean for everything to be “relations”? Surely some substantive “thing” must exist on either end of a relation to give it any meaning? In her article “Is Matter Conscious?”6 published in Nautilus, philosopher of mind Hedda Hassel Mørch expresses this reservation as follows: “Some have argued that there is nothing more to particles than their relations, but intuition rebels at this claim. For there to be a relation, there must be two things being related. Otherwise, the relation is empty … physical structure must be realized or implemented by some stuff or substance that is itself not purely structural. Otherwise, there would be no clear difference between … the concrete universe and a mere abstraction.” However, this is to misperceive the notion of relation by viewing it through the isolating lens of Newtonian atomism. Mørch imagines a singular, free-floating relation and concludes that such a thing is meaningless and inconceivable. Indeed it is. But we cannot isolate relations in this way. When we talk about properties as relations, we are talking about the entire cosmos as a relational whole. It is this whole that grounds the relations, not “some stuff or substance” that inheres in the individual nodes and lends reality its concreteness. In Mermin’s terms, the “correlata” that the correlations connect are not selfsubsistent, independent entities with inherent existence. They are nodes in a sparse, mutually correlated web of interactions that ultimately are inseparable from the entirety of reality. The intuition Mørch expresses is grounded in what we might call “ape physics” (with no disrespect intended towards Mørch — these are intuitions we all share). This is the way of seeing that we inherit from our evolutionary past as tool-using primates. We divide up our environment into separate, nameable things in order, literally, to get a “handle” on it. A stick might be used to make a shelter, or turned into a spear. A stone may break open a nut, or grind leaves into a medicinal paste. The objects remain largely static, but the relationships between them can change and, perhaps more importantly, be changed. We are tool-using animals through and through, and our perceptual apparatus, our language, our very modes of thought are organised around this way of making sense of the world. In this mode, it is first and foremost things we perceive, with their interrelationships having only a secondary, derived existence. When we formalise this way of seeing into an ontology, we get atomism, the idea that being “bubbles up”, as it were, from some very small, indivisible particle. Democritus was the first philosopher to formalise this idea7. Noting that it is frequently possible to explain the behaviour of a thing by analysing it in terms of its parts, he took this reductive procedure to its logical conclusion, positing that all of nature might be able to be explained in these terms. However, if such a method were to avoid an infinite regress, the process of dividing things into parts would have to terminate at some point. He therefore postulated the existence of the “atom”: an indivisible particle of pure, eternal, unchanging ontological bedrock. He imagined these atoms to be something like tiny, unbreakable rocks of different shapes and sizes: solid, extended in space, and essentially independent of one another. Although his theory was much less influential historically than the ideas of other philosophers such as Plato and Aristotle, atomic theory had a renaissance in the eighteenth century when John Dalton revived them in Newtonian form, reimagining them as tiny, infinitely hard balls which could be combined in various ways to form molecules. Although this picture is long obsolete, many people — even many scientists — still see modern physics through an implicitly Democritean lens, not because they still believe matter to be composed of minuscule balls, but because they still imagine subatomic particles to be objects, like the classical structures they form in aggregate. Substance is primary and defines the real; relation is secondary, ephemeral and abstract. Even before Heisenberg this ontological prioritisation of the substantive over the relational was slipping. Einstein’s special relativity had revealed that matter and energy are fundamentally the same thing. Yet what is energy? Naively we imagine it as a kind of refined substance, but in fact it is merely a measure of change or motion within a physical system (potential energy is simply motion locked up in a localised, cyclical pattern)8. Change is not a substance; it is a relationship between matter in space and time. This insight alone foreshadows a relational understanding of matter. Paradox and the concepts we see with The human mind was made for its lifeworld, a world of rocks, animals and trees, not photons or black holes. It was forged in the hunt, around ancient campfires when myths and stories were told. Only with the greatest difficulty do we learn to see past the boundaries of that world, into the deeper, abstract nature of things. The very fact that we use nouns like “photon” and “electron” to describe the entities of the subatomic world nudges us towards imagining them as something familiar, like dust or snow. Nouns were made for the things of the lifeworld, sticks and stones, not for these paradoxical mathematical spirits, shimmering somewhere between existence and nothingness. We use them because we must, but the words bring with them their subtle freight of habit and assumption, concepts we cannot see, because we see with them. The work of dismantling these inherited, implicit ideas is both a scientific and a philosophical task. Both paradoxes in thought experiments and anomalies in physical experiments guide us to the seams in our worldview, the places where incommensurable conceptual frameworks abut and contradict. It was, for instance, the combination of the experimental anomaly of the constancy of the speed of light and the paradoxes exposed by the thought experiment of riding on a light wave that led Einstein to the Special Theory of Relativity. In the case of quantum mechanics, the troubling paradox lay in the discontinuity between the mathematical description of a quantum system in isolation — when its state is described by a complex-valued, polyvalent superposition, something unimaginable — and the plain, singular value it assumes when measured. How does it go from one to the other? Even more troubling, what is measurement doing as a fundamental component of the theory? Measurement is one of the ways scientists validate and refine their theories; surely it should not be part of the theory itself! The paradoxical seam in the theory is made plainer when one considers that a measurement device is itself made of quantum mechanical stuff and should, if the theory is universal and complete, be described by its own evolving superposition. Yet if it is itself in a superposition, how can it “collapse” the wave function of the thing it is measuring? Thought experiments like “Wigner’s friend”9, which imagines one physicist (Wigner’s friend) measuring the state of another physicist (Wigner) who in turn measures some quantum system, expose the problem starkly. From the point of view of Wigner, the system’s wave function has been collapsed to a single measurement. However, from the point of view of Wigner’s friend, until he measures Wigner, both he and the system he is measuring are in an entangled superposition of all possible states. Figure 1. Wigner's Friend: What is the boundary of "measurement"? How can both things be true? Something in our classical worldview, our ape physics, simply has to give. That “something”, according to RQM, is the idea that there is a single, objective state that the world is in at any given time. This assumption is the concept that we cannot see because we are seeing with it. The idea of a universal objective and singular truth is foundational to traditional scientific epistemology. Thomas Nagel coined the term the “view from nowhere”10 to describe this imagined God’s eye view of the world from which vantage point we can, in principle, know the objective state of everything. Yet relational quantum mechanics tells us that no such viewpoint exists. There is only ever a “view from somewhere”. As Rovelli eloquently puts it: “The world fractures into a play of points of view that do not admit of a univocal, global vision. It is a world of perspectives, of manifestations, not of entities with definite properties or unique facts. Properties do not reside in objects, they are bridges between objects. Objects are such only with respect to other objects, they are nodes where bridges meet. The world is a perspectival game, a play of mirrors that exist only as reflections of and in each other.”11 Strong and weak relationalism I said earlier that if, at the fundamental level, all physical properties are relational, this implies that all properties per se are relational, and that the existence of intrinsic properties is illusory. Some scientists and philosophers of science might prefer a weaker formulation. The proponents of “ontic structural realism”12, for instance, have argued that structure is all there is, and that even the objects of physics are nothing over and above their structural relations. Yet most forms of structural realism retain at least something intrinsic — whether it be the abstract roles within a structure, or modal constraints such as symmetry. The view proposed here goes further: even the constraints on relations — the very laws of physics — are themselves conditioned by deep underlying relational dependencies. We will return to this theme when we examine the fine-tuning problem later. If this more radical relationalism sounds at risk of collapsing into idealism, this would be a misunderstanding. It is true that substance as ontological bedrock is abolished in this philosophy, but this does not imply that mind takes its place, as the later discussion of consciousness will make clear. I also contend that relationalism is not just confined to the physical; it also rears its head in abstract domains. At the same time as physicists were making the discoveries that would lay the foundations for quantum mechanics, the mathematician David Hilbert was undertaking the ambitious project of trying to formalise all of mathematics in a complete, consistent, and decidable system — essentially, to ground mathematics on a rock-solid foundation in a manner analogous to the way old-fashioned Newtonian atoms were supposed to ground physics. Yet “Hilbert’s Program”, as this attempt came to be known, was destined to fail. In 1931, Kurt Gödel published his Incompleteness Theorem, proving that any set of mathematical axioms rich enough to describe basic algebra was incapable of proving itself. There would always be some true statements within that system that cannot be proven by its axioms. These true statements could certainly be proven, but doing so would always require an appeal to some larger set of axioms. The problem, of course, is that whatever new set of axioms you invoke to prove those statements will also be subject to the same gap, and require yet more axioms to be added, leading to what has been described as a relativized view of truth in formal systems. This understanding doomed the idea that some finite and inherently complete system could function as a logical “atom” from which the rest of mathematics could be constructed. We can see something similar at work in logic. Consider the classic logical paradox of the sentence: “this statement is false”. If the statement is true, then the statement must be false, but if the statement is false, then it must be true. We can extend the paradox to two statements: A: Statement B is false B: Statement A is false This leads to the same circularity. We can add more statements, all referring to one another, but the truth of any of them will remain undecidable, or essentially meaningless, until at least one of them refers to a system beyond the closed logical loop they form. In other words, although we have always thought of logical propositions as combinations of a subject and a predicate, they require a context to be meaningful — a relation between the subject and something external, against which the truth value can be evaluated. The liar’s paradox only occurs when we take a statement of truth to be inherently meaningful, divorced from a relational context from which the proposition takes sense. We can see a formal parallel here between the truth value of self-referential sets of propositions and the state of quantum systems evolving in isolation, which suggests the possibility that the notion of intrinsic properties may be incoherent at some deep level. This justifies the way in which relationalism seems to collapse ontology into epistemology and suggests the relational aphorism that to be is to be known. Note that this does not necessarily imply conscious knowing, but rather communication between systems. Intrinsic properties as conceptual boundaries The purpose of Democritus’s atoms — and of the Newtonian atoms of the nineteenth century — was to prevent an infinite regress and ground reductive explanations in an absolute foundation from which all higher phenomena could be derived. Although modern physics has abandoned the simplistic mechanical building blocks of these earlier atomisms, it nonetheless continues to seek a reductive foundation, a finite and absolute set of physical laws and entities from which everything more complex can ultimately be seen to emerge. If such a set of laws and fundamental particles could be found, it would constitute the universe’s “intrinsic properties”, and function as an absolute metaphysical boundary, a set of brute facts beyond the possibility of explanation. All forms of reductionism ultimately rely on a move like this: since reduction cannot, presumably, continue indefinitely, the assumption is made that bedrock is reached at some point in the form of an irreducible entity which cannot itself be explained. Yet the relationalist perspective suggests an alternative possibility. It may be that rather than eventually grounding out in some brute fundament of “hard facts”, we simply reach a boundary at which the reductive mode of analysis ceases to apply. This is arguably the point we have reached in physics. We have analysed physical behaviour down to a very small set of particles, constants and laws that can explain much of the complex structure we observe. Yet further attempts to simplify are proving increasingly elusive, and physicists are left facing a profound conundrum: how to account for the fact that the laws and constants of physics seem to be tuned with exquisite precision to support life — the so-called fine-tuning problem. With no natural, reductive explanation in sight, many scientists have reluctantly started to accept the possibility of an anthropic explanation: perhaps we see the physical laws we do, not because of some deeper, even more fundamental regularity, but because of where we are. The hypothesis is that the universe we observe may be part of a much larger multiverse in which many different physics apply in different regions. The explanation for us observing the laws we do would then be a form of selection bias, 17 since we can by definition only exist in places where those laws allow for life to form, and thus permit our existence as intelligent observers. This explanation, if true, would fly in the face of the entire direction of analytical science to date, since the explanation for small-scale laws would ultimately be traceable back to large-scale cosmic structure, thus subverting the basic premise of reductionism. Relationalism suggests a broader point about theory in general. If no part or aspect of reality possesses intrinsic properties, which is another way of saying that no part can be completely isolated from the whole, then any attempt to specify some part of the world in finite terms must necessarily be a simplification. Any finite model of the world must make a cut, as it were, in the whole fabric of reality in order to isolate certain parts for consideration and understanding. These cuts — or perhaps the scars left by them — are the model’s intrinsic properties, the ways in which it simplifies reality by severing phenomena from their relational underpinnings. These intrinsic properties thus also can be seen as forming the boundaries of the theory. To take a non-physical example, neo-classical economics defines markets in terms of rational, self-interested agents who seek to maximise utility (for consumers) or profits (for companies). In this theory, agents are intrinsically rational and selfinterested, and these properties define the theory’s boundaries. Although a neoclassical economist may admit that, individually, people may act irrationally, altruistically, or against their own self-interest, and furthermore that the putative rational behaviour of economic agents might rest on some evolutionary or psychological underpinnings, these considerations are deliberately elided as irrelevant or unimportant. The theory simplifies reality in order to model high-level economic processes. Yet anomalies, such as the occurrence of patently irrational pricing bubbles, reveal the limitations of the simplification and demonstrate that the properties taken to be intrinsic in the theory in fact depend on aspects of reality that are excluded from the theory’s purview. The attribution of intrinsic properties to phenomena so they can be dealt with in isolation occurs not only in formal theories, but also more generally in perception and cognition. For example, in psychology, there is a cognitive bias known as the “fundamental attribution error”, which refers to a universal tendency to attribute people’s behaviour to something fundamental about them — a character trait — rather than something situational or contextual. The tendency to attribute intrinsic properties to things in order to simplify the world for easier cognitive processing is hard-wired into us. The separation of mind and matter In the animistic wilderness of our forebears, there was no “hard problem of consciousness”. Nature was a unity. Spirits inhabited the stones, the trees. Song and story ran through the earth itself like underground rivers, the dreamworld interpenetrated the physical one, and all things dwelled in an embracing, mythic reciprocity: cosmos, land and people. When the advent of writing began to displace the old oral traditions, the ability to record ideas in a stable medium made it possible for a rational mode of thought to begin to supplant the mythic consciousness that had prevailed for millennia. This is where we find the Ancient Greek philosophers, in the act of emergence from the world of myth into the world of reason. The paradoxes with which they wrestle reveal the ongoing conflation of mental and material spheres. For example, the Greeks were troubled by what later philosophers would term “the problem of universals”. Unable clearly to distinguish the world as an objective phenomenon from the world as represented in the mind, they were confused by the question of whether a conceptual category like “redness” had existence independent of the concrete instances of red things that embodied it. Plato’s famous “forms” were an attempt to resolve the problem by positing a transcendent world of archetypes beyond the physical where universals like “redness” resided in their pure, essential form — an historically enormously influential category mistake. Another example was the paradox of the ship of Theseus, in which Plutarch asked at what point a ship being replaced plank by plank ceased to be the same ship. Today, we would dismiss the question as a matter of semantics, but in Plutarch’s time, the distinction between a static, conceptual label and the ever-changing physical reality it attaches to had not yet been cleanly drawn. The thought experiment exposed the seam, but philosophers did not yet know how to tease the two apart. It took centuries of philosophical and scientific effort to pick apart the interwoven threads of mind and matter, to see that colour belongs to the realm of the subjective, triggered by light of particular wavelengths. To distinguish heat as random molecular motion from the sensation of heat in the mind. Thinkers who contributed to this work included Galileo, Locke, Newton and Kant. When this work was done, by the beginning of the twentieth century, we had sorted the world into the interior and the exterior, the mental and the physical, a crucial step towards the objectification of the world, and the consolidation of the materialist scientific paradigm. Yet this work of differentiation left us with a new paradox. We had split the world into inner and outer hemispheres, but now were forced to confront the contradiction between this new, objective description of the world, and the fact that a subjective world existed at all. So long as mind was understood in terms of a religious soul, the problem could be minimised, but as Western thought became increasingly committed to naturalism and abandoned theological explanations, the issue became much harder to ignore. It was David Chalmers who exposed this seam starkly. Prior to Chalmers, there was certainly an awareness among philosophers of what Chalmers would call the “hard problem of consciousness”, but it was somewhat incoherent and diffuse. Thomas Nagel had, in 1972, pondered the unknowability of the subjective experience of a bat13, and Frank Jackson’s famous thought experiment known as “Mary’s room”14 had tried to argue that there is something to the qualities of conscious experience that is not captured in objective accounts of neurology. However, Chalmers’s argument about “philosophical zombies” brought the underlying issue into its sharpest relief. The long work of distilling the pure, objective matter from the play of sense impressions in which we as human organisms are immersed had left us with a description of a material world that was void of any mental element. The entire point of the physicalist project was precisely to define the world in a manner sanitised of any trace of subjectivity. As we have seen, the implied ontology was atomistic even after the naive idea of matter as “hard stuff” had been discredited. Higher order structures like molecules, rocks and organisms were arrangements of more fundamental units of stuff, their existence and properties emerging from the intrinsic properties of material particles. The problem, Chalmers pointed out, is that given this ontology, we have no reason to think that any of us would be conscious at all. It is perfectly possible to imagine a world in which humans are nothing more than insentient meat robots, going about all the activities for which evolution has equipped us with no subjective awareness. Chalmers termed these vacant simulacra “philosophical zombies”. Indeed, taken at face value, this is precisely what we would expect given the physicalist account, so the manifest fact of our consciousness would seem to demand some alteration of physicalism’s basic premises. Neuroscientists might work out the mechanisms for attention, self-concept, executive function and so on — the so-called “easy problems” (though of course they are anything but) — but even were they to achieve all this, it would still not touch on the “hard problem” of explaining why it is like anything to be a human at all. Then again, perhaps it is not surprising that a worldview designed to excise subjectivity cannot also account for it. In the decades since Chalmers’s 1995 paper15, debate among philosophers of mind has tended to polarise into the two camps known as qualiaphiles and qualiaphobes. The former group argues that “qualia” — the ineffable qualities of mental experience like pain and colour — are real, fundamental, and irreducible to mere neurology. The latter, also referred to as “eliminativists” or “illusionists”, holds that qualia are essentially an illusory by-product of physical processes taking place in the brain. These debates, unresolved for decades, suggest that we are at a point in our intellectual development that parallels the position of the Greek philosophers arguing about the problem of universals or the identity paradoxes typified by the ship of Theseus. It is evident that there is an incompatibility between the physicalist ontology that we have arrived at after centuries of scientific endeavour and the most fundamental fact of our existence: our own consciousness. Like other historical paradoxes, philosophical zombies point to an error in our way of thinking that demands a major conceptual shift. Let us now examine how the opposing views on qualia frame this enduring deadlock. Qualia and the hard problem According to eliminativist philosophers such as Daniel Dennett and Paul and Patricia Churchland, consciousness is essentially an illusion. Dennett claims that, while it is difficult to understand the objective process that might give rise to the experience of qualia, this difficulty may simply be the result of the complexity of the underlying physical processes. In Consciousness Explained16 Dennett argues that we have a naive mental model of the mind that he calls the “Cartesian theatre” — the idea that there is an observer sitting inside our heads like a little homunculus, looking at a kind of screen of conscious contents made up of qualia. He then marshals a range of data from neuropsychology to shoot down this conception of the mind, ultimately leading to the conclusion that we are deceived about our consciousness. The brain “believes” it is experiencing qualia, but in reality, it isn’t. We can agree with Dennett about the Cartesian theatre. Indeed, this might be seen as the “flat earth” theory of mind: the way things appear to us naively before we have investigated the matter more deeply. Yet there is a fundamental problem with concluding from this that we are deceived in believing that we are conscious, and that qualia are an “illusion”. As Galen Strawson writes: “You can’t make the existence of experience into a problem. Experience is the only thing we are ever directly acquainted with. Denying its existence is like denying the existence of experience while experiencing.”17 The irony is that it was this very subjectivity that was left when René Descartes set about his project of doubting everything it was possible to doubt. Only the existence of his own conscious self could not be questioned: I think, therefore I am. Yet this is precisely what eliminativists manage nonetheless to doubt. The idea that consciousness is an “illusion” seems incoherent when we consider that consciousness is just its phenomenology. To call it an illusion is like calling an image an illusion. The image may deceive us in many ways. It may provoke illusions, such as the appearance of depth in a drawing with perspective, or the illusion of an object existing where there is none, but the one thing that cannot be an illusion is the image itself, even if it is hallucinated. An illusion implies the existence of an observer who is deceived, but what can such a concept even mean if it is the observer themself who is supposed to be the illusion? However, these objections do not completely invalidate some of the eliminativist arguments with respect to qualia. While we cannot doubt the experiential reality of qualia, we may certainly be deceived about our interpretation of them. In an echo of Plato’s notion of transcendent mental archetypes, qualiaphiles argue that qualia have inherent, non-relational existence. But this is to make the same attribution of absolute and inherent properties that physicalists make with respect to matter, which results in an ontological impasse: how can two entirely incommensurable substances interact? This was precisely the objection that Princess Elisabeth of Bohemia made with respect to Descartes’ dualism: how is it that the soul — an immaterial entity with no spatial presence — can cause anything physical to happen in the body? Let us try to make some headway on the issue by taking colour perception — colours are often treated as the paradigmatic examples of qualia — and seeing whether these putatively intrinsic mental properties can instead be understood as relational phenomena. Seeing a new colour — qualia as relations As a child I was fascinated by the idea of what it would be like to see an entirely new primary colour. I would close my eyes and try to summon the experience into being, but of course always failed miserably. Many years later this curiosity was rekindled by an episode18 of the science podcast Radiolab about the mantis shrimp, a small crustacean with no less than twelve colour receptors, compared to our three. The presenters waxed rhapsodic imagining the psychedelic visual world of this humble seabed crawler, and I was briefly enchanted too — before suddenly having doubts. In human vision colours are composed of mixtures of the three additive primaries, red, green and blue, so that specifying any colour requires three values (four if brightness is included). To specify a hue in mantis shrimp colour space would involve twelve19 values, one for each of its primaries. Yet the mantis shrimp has a tiny brain, and its visual processing must be primitive compared to the human visual cortex. Could it really see the world in twelve-dimensional colour? My suspicions proved well-founded. Much to the disappointment of Radiolab’s presenters, subsequent experiments20 showed that the mantis shrimp cannot distinguish between colours close to one another on the spectrum. It turns out the mantis shrimp sees, not twelve-dimensional colour, but simply twelve colours, which it cannot blend to form more complex hues. Far from a kaleidoscopic riot of colour, the mantis shrimp’s visual world is very impoverished and basic compared to ours. This makes sense when we consider the biological needs of a relatively simple creature like a shrimp. It needs to code its environment for threats and opportunities. It does not need colour perception to put Monet to shame. In our naive imaginings of how colour perception works, it is easy to think of colour receptors being something like pipes that carry colour from the eyes to the brain, where they are mixed to make different hues. Accordingly, we imagine that if a new receptor were added, the new colour would be transmitted to the brain and a new dimension of colour would open up. But this is not how it works. An experiment adding red-sensitive photopigments to the eyes of male squirrel monkeys, which only have green and blue sensitive cones, showed that no immediate change in colour sensitivity occurred21. Rather, the monkeys gradually developed the ability to distinguish red hues over a period of twenty months, suggesting they needed to learn the colour like a skill. For all that qualia appear to be intrinsic and irreducible, they are better thought of as neurological abilities that are either directly conditioned by evolutionary processes, or learned. They are not self-subsistent qualities pulled magically out of thin air. Let us assume for a moment some subject capable of perceiving a two-dimensional field, in which each point of the field carries some “information”, whatever that is. How else, other than as an image, could this information be represented in the consciousness of this subject? Indeed, the definition of an image would seem to be the awareness of such a field. If each point of this field only contains one dimension of information, this could be represented by an intensity value — this would correspond to monochrome vision. In this case each dot does not appear to the observer to have any quality associated with it, but only a relative amount of “presence” relative to other parts of the field. But as soon as each point needs to carry more complex information, a single-dimensional intensity value is no longer sufficient. Now each point needs to be coded differently in awareness. It needs to have a “quality”. What is this quality? It is a relational construct in the awareness of the subject that contrasts points in the visual field with one another. If you were to ask the subject to describe this quality, they could not do so, other than contrastively, since that is the only existence the quality has. Now how else could such contrastive information be represented in the subject’s awareness other than as colour? This may seem a disappointingly reductive view. After all, colours do not appear to us as dry bits of “information”, but rather as vital, aesthetically rich qualities with emotional valence. If colour is merely contrastive information in the way I suggest, why does it hold such richness for us? I would argue it’s because of the significance of these colour contrasts in our evolutionary history. The colour green, for example, has had biological meaning to us throughout our evolutionary past, coding information about the presence of shelter and shade, but also the possibility of hidden predators. It therefore makes sense that the emotional tone of green is soothing but also can have threatening overtones in some contexts. Blue, on the other hand, which is almost exclusively seen in nature as the colour of a cloudless sky or of clear water, is universally perceived as serene and pleasant. The colour red is associated with blood, and hence with both threat and excitement. It is the colour both of dangerous injury and a successful hunt, and thus carries an emotional valence that is both stimulating and threatening. Colours, by inducing emotional states which in turn dispose us towards certain behaviours, help orient us biologically in our environment. The calming effect of green shade produces in us the impulse to rest, and so on. Qualia carry important biological information which subtly prepares us to behave in survival-promoting ways. An examination of hearing within the same framework is useful at this point to show how the same idea can be extended to other aspects of our experience. If an image is how we experience two-dimensional information, then sound is the form that awareness of one-dimensional information modulated over time takes. In the simplest case, we can imagine one “bit” of information in this one-dimensional space being a minimally audible “tick”. A tick, like a single point of white light, has no particular quality to it. It is registered as a kind of minimal signal that “something is there”. Now imagine adding more and more ticks in a regular pattern, at decreasing intervals. At some point, these ticks fuse to form a continuous sound that is experienced as having a pitch — a quality. Again, this quality contains biologically relevant information: high pitched sounds have different implications from lowpitched ones. Low pitched ones carry more sense of threat, for example, since low pitches can only be generated by larger, more imposing sources. (Amusingly, my dog — a small, fluffy Finnish Lapphund — seems to be aware of this, and makes its bark deeper when trying to intimidate cows.) The point here is that simple “bits” of information do not have qualities. They appear as neutral information in awareness. But as more information is compressed into a signal, the signal starts to take on qualities. These qualities are the compressed information, and the information is its biological relevance. When we walk into a social situation, we may experience a “vibe”, a feeling in the air. This qualitative atmosphere contains a lot of social information which disposes us to feel a certain way and behave accordingly. A menacing vibe from a group of men may cause us to keep our distance or leave. A subtle “uptight” quality may cause us to behave more formally and be less self-revealing in our interactions. Qualia are like reports that summarise complex information that conscious awareness is too slow to deal with in terms of isolated bits. If this account of qualia is considered persuasive, then we can dispense with the qualiaphile’s notion of qualia as intrinsic properties of consciousness. They are how organisms process complex, biologically meaningful information so that the organism can respond appropriately. Note, however, that in saying that qualia are compressed information, I do not mean to reduce experience to information in the eliminativist sense, as I will show in the next section. Recall that I have argued that when cognitive systems attribute intrinsic properties to a phenomenon, this is a way of isolating that phenomenon from its relational context. This applies to qualia too. We perceive a world of things which appear to us to be coloured by qualities that seem to be intrinsic and irreducible. But both the appearance of separate things and their inherent qualities is illusory, a function of an act of severance from the infinite depth of the world as a whole. This account does not, however, rid us of the hard problem, contrary to eliminativist assumptions. We can still imagine the biological information being processed and acted upon without any subjective experience. “Biologically significant information” is a third-person description of qualia. It does not explain why there is a first person view of this same information. This, and not any putatively fundamental, quasiplatonic qualia, is the essence of the hard problem. The first-person view Quantum mechanics — or at least the relational interpretation that I am suggesting is our best understanding of it — shows us that the idea that the world can be described in terms of a singular, objective state is an abstraction based on classical, macroscopic experience. In fact, we cannot get outside of the world to find some objective vantage point from which we can neutrally view the world separate from us as observers. This is the profound revelation hidden behind Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle. Any statement about the state of some part of the world implies another system that is “measuring” that state — that is, interacting with it and thence obtaining information about it. Thus, the third-person view may be seen as an abstraction of many first-person views, each interacting and becoming entangled with one another so that their information is synchronised. In terms of quantum mechanics, every correlated system is, in a sense, a first-person view, but this does not entail that it is a conscious system. As we discussed above, qualia arise when biological systems respond to evolutionarily significant environmental information, and the qualia experienced directly correspond to the meaning of the information. We can conclude from this that a rock probably does not experience qualia, not because it is not biological, but because it has not evolved to respond to its environment. Information that a rock receives from its environment has no meaning to it. What distinguishes a conscious from a non-conscious system is coherence. Evolved organisms exhibit profound levels of informational coherence rooted in histories spanning billions of years that allow them to turn environmental information into meaning, to which they respond in order to maintain and further their own coherence. What ontology does this world view suggest? We have explicitly argued against the reductionism that looks to ground existence in an atom: some smallest quantum of substance. We have also tried to refute the idealist conception of qualia as a foundational element of reality, suggesting that qualities of experience are relational constructs in the consciousness of deeply complex responsive entities — biological organisms being the one example we are familiar with, though non-biological conscious beings are not excluded as a possibility. What does this leave us with? Could information function as our fundamental relational entity? Certainly, it is a better candidate than matter or qualia. We have grounded our notion of consciousness in coherent information structures, and we have seen how particles may be better viewed as relative state information communicated between systems rather than as things in themselves. Yet we should be careful. While “units of relational information” might serve as a reasonable proxy for a fundamental entity, we need to bear in mind that the basic premise of relationalism as I have developed it here is that reality is an infinite whole, not something that is built up from smaller, more “fundamental” pieces. Just as we cannot find some finite set of axioms from which everything in mathematics can be proven, so we cannot find some finite ontological primitive from which we can construct all of reality. The concept of “information” does not in itself imply consciousness any more than matter does, so while deploying it to “explain” consciousness is tempting, it will not truly rid us of the hard problem so long as we retain a reductive view of information. We must always remember that any theoretical concept we invoke — including the ones developed in this essay — are necessarily defined and bounded by some set of intrinsic properties that do subtle violence to the wholeness of the world. Complete ontological closure must necessarily always elude us. In the deep relational worldview, the lack of an ontological fundament implies that, even while we can find the joins between qualia and information, this is not a reduction. The lifeworld we inhabit, with its colours, its pain, beauty and darkness, is both a real world and an illusion. Because to be is to be known, our way of knowing the world is an irreducible part of its being. We can see through it, like a pane of glass, to the cosmos of photons, gravitational waves, quantum foam that subtends it. But this is a shift in focus, not a revelation of ultimate truth. This world, too, is incomplete, resting on mysteries. The self and the singular mind In a purely relational universe, it is not the identity of objects that separates them from one another, it is the configuration of information. What does this mean? Two everyday objects, like two tennis balls, for instance, appear to be separate, unique objects with inherent existence as separate things: they have distinct identities. Put them in a tennis ball tube on top of one another, and there will be two possible configurations depending on which ball is put in first. Quantum particles are not like this. If you put two electrons into a tiny tube, there will only be one possible configuration: a configuration in which two electrons are next to one another. Electrons are fungible. They are like dollars in a bank account; it makes no sense to ask which dollar you are taking out when you withdraw one — and that’s because they, like subatomic particles, are relational entities22. Tennis balls are quantum systems too. It’s just that they contain so much information that it is all but impossible to make them fungible with one another, and so they appear to have separate identities. If you could isolate the balls and erase enough information about each one, then you could obtain quantum interference effects with them the way you can with photons and mirrors — but practically speaking, this is impossible. Now if consciousness arises not from intrinsic properties but from relational coherence, then the very idea of the self — the ‘I’ — must be similarly reconsidered. This implies that minds are separated from one another by the configurations of information that constitute their state of consciousness. The complexity of individual minds is such that they appear, like tennis balls, to have identities, which we call a “self”, but as with tennis balls, this is partly illusory. Some simple thought experiments reveal how these selves cannot have intrinsic identities. Imagine a person who chooses to have her brain frozen by a cryonics company until such time as the technology exists to revive her in a new body. Let us suppose that after, say, one hundred years, this technology exists, and she is brought back to life. The question is: would the revived consciousness be the same consciousness as that of the original person? Certainly, she has the same memories, and considers herself to be the same person as she was before, but is she really? Or is she more like a twin, a different consciousness with the same memories? If we believe that it must be the same consciousness because it belongs to a person with the same memories, then imagine that the procedure to bring her back to life was successful, but with some damage causing complete amnesia. Would it still be the same consciousness then? If this is a difficult question to grasp, it may help to ask it this way: consider that it is you who is undergoing the procedure. And now imagine that your frozen brain falls into the hands of some future corporation that decides to use your resuscitated self for painful experiments. Should you, if you learned what was to happen prior to the freezing procedure, be afraid? Or should you merely feel compassionate concern for this other person with your memories who will be enduring this torture? Probably you will be afraid. After all, it’s your brain, the same physical organ. But what if, instead of preserving your brain in ice, the cryonics company copy the brain’s structure into a computer and reconstitutes it later with new atoms. Will you still be afraid? If not, why not? After all, your brain’s physical matter has been turned over completely several times since your birth, and yet you still consider your childhood self to be you. What if you are resuscitated using partly original matter and partly new matter arranged the same way? It is hard to coherently hold the position that you would be a different you based on the specific atoms in your brain, especially when we recall that quantum particles are fungible anyway. So what defines the identity of consciousness? It probably isn’t memory, since most people would agree that if they were to experience catastrophic amnesia tomorrow, they would continue to think of the person they will be next week as themself, with or without memories. The same would apply for personality: brain tumours can radically alter a person’s personality, but that doesn’t make anyone feel like the brain tumour won’t be a problem because it will be happening to someone else! We can extend our cryonic experiment to expose this paradoxical seam even more clearly by imagining that the company makes multiple copies of your brain and gives each one a new body. Should you be afraid now, if one of these copies but not another is going to be subjected to those unethical experiments? What if hundreds of copies are made, and the company starts to experiment with fusing the minds of its customers so that the resuscitated individuals are mental hybrids of more than one person? Will some be you and some not? This might sound like the ship of Theseus all over again, and from a third-person point of view that is indeed exactly what it is. From the outside, we just have brains being reconstituted, duplicated, copied and altered. But from the inside, the question of whether one mind is a continuation of another or not is critically important. After all, when we plan for retirement, we do not consider it an act of kindness for some old person in the future who happens to share our name and our memories. The only coherent way out of the paradox is to accept that mind, like quantum objects, is fundamentally relational, and thus that what separates minds is not an atomic “self”, but the configuration of information in those minds. And this leads us irresistibly to the conclusion that there is only one mind, fragmented as it were into multiple configurations, each with the experience of being a different self. From the perspective of traditional, objectivist science, this idea sounds not only radical, but absurd or even meaningless, since scientific epistemology is committed to a third person only description of the world. The entire scientific project as we have known it was to cleanse the world of the first person. Yet we have seen how this position is no longer tenable, and how the exclusion of the subject from the world it observes gave rise to the paradox of the “hard problem”. As unsettling and even shocking an idea as this unitary mind may be, it is not new. Hedda Hassel Mørch has made precisely the same argument in an article in Nautilus titled “Is Everyone the Same Person?”23 And none other than Erwin Schrödinger himself believed in this “one mind” theory. He wrote in My View of the World:24 What is this Self of yours? What was the necessary condition for making the thing conceived this time into you, just you and not someone else? What clearly intelligible scientific meaning can this ‘someone else’ really have? If she who is now your mother had cohabited with someone else and had a son by him, and your father had done likewise, would you have come to be? … What justifies you in obstinately discovering this difference — the difference between you and someone else — when objectively what is there is the same? Inconceivable as it seems to ordinary reason, you — and all other conscious beings as such — are all in all. Hence this life of yours which you are living is not merely a piece of the entire existence, but is in a certain sense the whole.25 Conclusion It was Irene Born — later Newton-John — daughter of Max Born and a close relative of mine, who translated her father’s correspondence with Einstein into English26 . When I read those letters, in which Einstein makes his famous declaration that He (God) “does not play with dice,” I sometimes feel an electric thrill. In these words, coming to me through my own family, the world’s understanding of itself was being transmuted. This debate was a hinge on which the whole world turned. Einstein often seems to make the more compelling case in these letters, and yet it was Born, not Einstein, who was proved right. The world of things — that old, solid, reliable world of our ape physics — is passing. In its place a new, relational cosmos is dawning, a world of nested, emergent illusions, resting on no foundations, only a bottomless ocean of relationships. It has taken a whole century since Heisenberg handed his paper to Born, but the tiger those quantum pioneers took by the tail is now emerging into full view, and it is an awesome, unsettling, strange beast. We must contend with great challenges in facing it. How to live in a world from which certainty has forever been banished — in which mind, as the pulse of deep coherent information, is no longer alienated from the world but profoundly woven into it; in which all is relation, all is connection, all is communication. A world, finally, in which all of us partake of one singular mind — a mind that, in its many guises, spans all of conscious existence. Are we ready for this? I hope so — for that is the world that is being born, whether we are ready or not. --END-- Endnotes 1 Werner Heisenberg, “.ber quantentheoretische Umdeutung kinematischer und mechanischer Beziehungen,” Zeitschrift für Physik 33, no. 1 (1925): 879–893. 2 See: Leonard Susskind and Art Friedman, Quantum Mechanics: The Theoretical Minimum (New York: Basic Books, 2014). 3 arXiv:quant-ph/9801057 4 Carlo Rovelli, “Relational Quantum Mechanics,” International Journal of Theoretical Physics 35 (1996): 1637–1678, https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9609002. 5 Carlo Rovelli, Helgoland: Making Sense of the Quantum Revolution (New York: Riverhead Books, 2021) 6 https://nautil.us/is-matter-conscious-236546/ 7 The truth is somewhat complicated. Leucippus is usually attributed as the true origin of atomism, but none of his writings remain. At any rate, it is always Democritus’s ideas that are discussed by later writers. 8 The usual definition of energy in physics textbooks is usually given as “the ability to do work”, probably because potential energy complicates the picture of energy as change. However, the fact that energy is conserved in ordinary situations means that “work” is simply energy transfer from one system to another. 9 Originally published in Eugene P. Wigner, “Remarks on the Mind-Body Question,” in The Scientist Speculates: An Anthology of Partly-Baked Ideas, ed. I. J. Good (London: Heinemann, 1961) 10 Thomas Nagel, The View from Nowhere (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986). 11 Rovelli, Helgoland, 88. 12 For a detailed account of this “weak relationalism” see: James Ladyman, Don Ross, David Spurrett, and John Collier, Every Thing Must Go: Metaphysics Naturalized (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007). 13 Thomas Nagel, “What Is It Like to Be a Bat?” in Philosophy of Mind: A Guide and Anthology, ed. John Heil (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003) 14 Frank Jackson, “What Mary Didn’t Know,” The Journal of Philosophy 83, no. 5 (1986): 291–295. 15 David J. Chalmers, “Facing Up to the Problem of Consciousness,” Journal of Consciousness Studies 2 (1995): 200–219. 16 Daniel C. Dennett, Consciousness Explained (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1991). 17 Galen Strawson, “Realistic Monism: Why Physicalism Entails Panpsychism,” Journal of Consciousness Studies 13, no. 10–11 (2006): 3–31. 18 https://www.radiolab.org/podcast/211119-colors 19 The number varies in different reports but is at least twelve. 20 Hanne H. Thoen, Michael J. How, Tsyr-Huei Chiou, and Justin Marshall, “A Different Form of Color Vision in Mantis Shrimp,” Science 343, no. 6169 (January 24, 2014): 411–413, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1245824. 21 Katherine Mancuso et al., “Gene Therapy for Red-Green Colour Blindness in Adult Primates,” Nature (2009), https://doi.org/10.1038/nature08401. 22 The comparison of particles with dollars in an account is David Deutsch’s. 23 https://nautil.us/is-everyone-the-same-person-1193378/ 24 Erwin Schr.dinger, My View of the World, trans. C. Hastings (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1964). Originally published 1961. 25 Quotation from: https://www.themarginalian.org/2021/11/03/erwin-shcrodinger-myview-of-the-world/ 26 Published as: Albert Einstein, Max Born, and Hedwig Born, The Born-Einstein Letters: Correspondence between Albert Einstein and Max and Hedwig Born from 1916 to 1955, trans. Irene Born (New York: Walker, 1971).

---

## The Singularity Within: How the language of information reveals the hidden hand of consciousness.
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/essay/the-singularity-within

You are standing just outside a black hole. If only you could reach out and grasp the unobservable singularity, you might resolve the deepest tensions that have plagued our best physical descriptions of the universe. You can't see past the event horizon, but you can still observe how its mass warps and contorts the space around it. Stars and gas spiral inwards. Jets of gamma radiation are ejected from its edges. Strange gravitational ripples emanate out into the surrounding cosmos. It's still possible to describe the black hole, not by traveling into its core, but by noticing its influence on the space in which it is embedded. Within all of us, a similar anomaly exists. We each possess our own inner cosmos of intentions, feelings, and beliefs. From the outside, however, we cannot access this subjective world — the mind — with our observational tools. These features that define the mind: experiencing a world drenched in beauty, feeling a lover's embrace after prolonged distance, or the aching chasm left behind by grief, sidestep our attempts at direct physical measurement. When we look for mental qualities in their suspected places, all we see are electrical signals, blood, and tissue. Pinning down our experiences with the tools of science is not unlike looking up at the night sky and seeing a glistening star in our peripheral vision. But when we shift our eyes towards the space it resides in, it promptly disappears. We know we possess experience, we just can't capture it. But just as we infer the black hole's hidden singularity through its gravity-distorting effects, we might also come to know the hidden mind via its effect on the physical world — through ripples captured by the language of information.

You are standing just outside a black hole. If only you could reach out and grasp the unobservable singularity, you might resolve the deepest tensions that have plagued our best physical descriptions of the universe. You can't see past the event horizon, but you can still observe how its mass warps and contorts the space around it. Stars and gas spiral inwards. Jets of gamma radiation are ejected from its edges. Strange gravitational ripples emanate out into the surrounding cosmos. It's still possible to describe the black hole, not by traveling into its core, but by noticing its influence on the space in which it is embedded. Within all of us, a similar anomaly exists. We each possess our own inner cosmos of intentions, feelings, and beliefs. From the outside, however, we cannot access this subjective world — the mind — with our observational tools. These features that define the mind: experiencing a world drenched in beauty, feeling a lover's embrace after prolonged distance, or the aching chasm left behind by grief, sidestep our attempts at direct physical measurement. When we look for mental qualities in their suspected places, all we see are electrical signals, blood, and tissue. Pinning down our experiences with the tools of science is not unlike looking up at the night sky and seeing a glistening star in our peripheral vision. But when we shift our eyes towards the space it resides in, it promptly disappears. We know we possess experience, we just can't capture it. But just as we infer the black hole's hidden singularity through its gravity-distorting effects, we might also come to know the hidden mind via its effect on the physical world — through ripples captured by the language of information. Entropy and consciousness During the Second World War, a young American mathematician named Claude Shannon was developing a new informational language. Working out of Bell Labs in New Jersey, Shannon wanted to determine the most efficient way to send signals across crackly transatlantic telephone lines. Shannon's ideas would set the theoretical foundations for the telecommunication networks that sprawl across the surface of our planet. He could not have foreseen that over half a century later, his notion of informational entropy would go on to shape the scientific investigation of nature's most enigmatic phenomena. His formula for entropy described how to mathematically capture the uncertainty, or what he called the 'surprise' of a random variable in any given set of signals. The more seemingly chaotic or unpredictable a body of data, the higher its Shannon entropy. A highly entropic signal, therefore, can carry a lot of information, but is much harder to compress or interpret. Consider a simple coin toss. In a normal state of affairs, the expected outcome is either heads or tails — either of these results are not very 'surprising'. But now imagine the coin lands perfectly on its side. This outcome is highly unexpected and is therefore more entropic in the Shannon sense. It carries more informational 'surprise'. Though fundamentally related, Shannon's informational entropy subtly differs from the thermodynamic entropy described by physics. The former measures the uncertainty of information. The latter describes the relentless march of physical systems towards energetic equilibrium — a tendency which gives the universe its appearance of directionality. For this essay, is it entropy in the Shannon sense that matters. After the publication of his ideas in 1948, neuroscientists soon realized that they could retrofit this abstract notion of information into the hot, wet circuitry of cognition. Seeing the brain as a passive information-processing system, researchers like Horace Barlow would use Shannon's formula for entropy to help decode the informational carrying capacity of single neurons, and to help untangle how neural circuits process sense data efficiently. Applied at whole-brain scales, heightened levels of neural entropy can be thought of as an unforeseen tropical thunderstorm rolling through the brain — surges of electrical activity, rivers of oxygenated blood, flash floods of neurotransmitters. Whereas when the forecast is predictable and steady, the brain has low entropy. Specifically, Shannon entropy gives neuroscientists a way to measure the informational turbulence of the brain. In the 1990s, Giulio Tononi and Gerald Edelman would carry Shannon entropy into the dense thicket of subjective experience. They suggested that the more richly entangled a system is — 'above and beyond the information generated by its parts,' Tononi explained — the more conscious that system is. Equipped with a new wave of neural data from groundbreaking brain imaging technologies like EEG and fMRI, Tononi and Edelman would combine Shannon entropy and a measure of causal integration to define phi — a quantitative metric for consciousness. For Integrated Information Theory (IIT), consciousness pokes its head out somewhere in the swirling eddies between integrated order and entropic chaos. Consciousness thereby shifted from something debated by philosophers and spiritual leaders to something measured by neuroscientists. In recent years, neuroscientist and psychedelics researcher Robin Carhart-Harris has also applied an entropic lens to the brain in an effort to relate neural activity to conscious experience. The 'Entropic Brain Hypothesis' (EBH) is based on the observation that different 'levels' or 'states' of consciousness correspond with different entropic measures of neural activity. Imagine a spectrum of conscious awareness, from anesthetic-induced coma where we are completely unresponsive, through deep sleep, dreaming, normal wakefulness, and finally to the altered states we experience under the influence of psychoactive drugs. As we move up the scale, levels of neural entropy increase. For Carhart-Harris, the richness of conscious states is reflected by heightened levels of neural entropy in the brain. Today, IIT and EBH are two of many neuroscientific accounts of consciousness. Yet despite their important role in breaking the taboo surrounding the serious scientific study of consciousness as a phenomenon, they both share a much deeper issue with many other modern descriptions of the mind: Namely, the tendency to equate first-person subjective experience with physical brain states. While both theories describe large-scale features of neural activity that are associated with conscious experience, neither account makes explicit why consciousness should be associated with the brain at all. In what has now become a bedrock definition for consciousness, philosopher Thomas Nagel described it, at its most basic level, as 'what-it-is-like' to be. Here, this constellation of terms — consciousness, mind, experience — collectively refer to the quality of having a unified, internal, lived perspective. And when contemporary theories of consciousness reduce the mind to neural correlates or pure physical description, they circumvent the very thing that makes consciousness unique — experience itself. For now, it's not obvious how phenomenological and physical levels of description — what love feels like versus how love is represented in the brain — could be married with current approaches for understanding the mind. A new framework, however, is taking shape, one that honors the observational mystery of how we feel, while giving a scientifically approachable account of how our experiences causally relate to the physical facts of our brain and body. Instead of suggesting that Shannon entropy, this informational description of rich neural activity, is consciousness, we might ask whether it could be a sign of consciousness. Shannon entropy applied to the brain may be an indication that consciousness is having a physical effect. When the mind irrupts We are only just beginning to sketch the full range of forces that determine the brain's behavior. There is still a lot we don't know, and a good chunk of the brain's unpredictability comes down to the brute fact of our ignorance. Our methods of measurement capture very little. The brain's chaotic dynamics, the fluctuating firing of neurons and networks, also means the system has some foundational level of uncertainty, or 'noise', in its functioning. But what if, beyond the sporadic chatter of neurons, the brain appeared to flexibly drive up its unpredictability and variance? And what if this informational turbulence, hinted at through Shannon entropy, intensifies when we call on the very thing we can't seem to capture through physical description and measurement? Through experimentation, several cognition research groups have been asking nature an important question — under what contexts does this neural weather surge in the brain? Consider, for instance, what it feels like when you are reaching for a moment of clarity, when an answer hovers around the periphery of awareness refusing to take form. An acquaintance's name forgotten, a distant melody, a pattern partially discerned. The mind, sensing the gap, stirs with possibility. It is in these moments of searching before an answer is reached where we see something truly remarkable happen. Neural entropy swells. The brain suddenly tends towards variability and exploration, and away from expectation. Entropic brain states spike when we are faced with uncertainty, when we have a pressing problem to solve, or when we summon creativity. What ties these contexts together? The brain becomes more unpredictable when we focus, reflect, strive, and imagine — when we exercise conscious effort. Because neural entropy measures the unpredictability of brain activity, when entropy surges it may indicate that something additional — an unknown source beyond our horizon — is having an effect on the behavior of the system. In this sense, it is as if we are tossing a coin over and over, except the coin continually lands on its edge. When an unexpected outcome starts to happen regularly, we might begin to suspect the presence of an external mediating force. But instead of a coin showing unexpected behavior, in this case, it is the brain. Waves of neural entropy that temporally align with conscious effort, the equivalent of the coin landing on its side more often than chance should permit, might not just be a simple readout of the brain's chaotic dynamics, but a physical signature of the mind: A clue that consciousness is influencing the material substrates of our body, like a hidden magnet skewing the outcome of the coin toss. This possibility has sparked to life a new perspective on consciousness. Irruption Theory, developed by Tom Froese, a cognitive scientist from the Embodied Cognitive Science Unit at the Okinawa Institute of Science and Technology (OIST), interprets these neural entropy spikes as the downstream ripples of the conscious mind interacting with the physical brain. He calls these bursts irruptions, derived from the latin irrumpere, which is to break, burst, force, or rush into. Measurable surges of neural entropy that coincide with conscious volition, viewed through the lens of Irruption Theory, are evidence that consciousness has causal power in relation to the brain, and therefore behavior. While a framework like EBH positions levels of consciousness as synonymous with entropic measures of neural activity, Irruption Theory situates consciousness as a distinct, unseen force that can drive change and alter our physical bodies. Consider for a moment that something quite radical is being said here. For Irruption Theory, the brain is a fundamentally non-deterministic system. Even in principle, with every physical variable accounted for, we would still be unable to predict the behavior of neural activity because of the unaccounted for influence of mental phenomena. If irruptions are an indication of the interference of something unobservable — a ripple of the conscious mind wading through the physical brain — then they offer more than just a clue as to the presence of a conscious, efficacious mind. They offer us a way in. Just as we might come to know the wind through the swaying of the tree's branches, or the black hole through its gravitational distortions, in the same way, we may also come to trace the contours of consciousness via its effects on the physical world. And so we find ourselves drawn back to a puzzle that has haunted Western thought for four centuries — how do the physical and mental aspects of our being interact? Shannon's informational language of entropy may have unwittingly opened a new door into Descartes' age-old mind-body problem. As modern neuroscientific approaches are gesturing us towards this interface, they are forcing us to reassess the assumptions that have shaped philosophical and scientific discussions of consciousness. Away from what it is, and towards what it does. Consciousness as causal The dogma that has not so quietly settled beneath the surface of modern neuroscience is that our conscious experiences are either equivalent to, or are an emergent property of, complex neurophysiological systems. "You, your joys and your sorrows, your memories and your ambitions… are in fact no more than the behavior of a vast assembly of nerve cells," famed geneticist turned neuroscientist, Francis Crick declared in his 1994 book, "The Astonishing Hypothesis: The Scientific Search for the Soul." This conventional wisdom exists for good reason. We know from a great body of experiments, surgeries, and unfortunate accidents, that when the brain is irrevocably damaged, the effects reverberate through our mental lives. We can also temporarily shift how we mentally represent the world by consuming drugs that alter our neurochemistry. What goes on in the brain, it seems, sets the stage for what is possible in the mind. But what's important here is the assumed directionality of this causal relationship. When things change at the base physical substrate level of the brain, only then do the artifacts bubble up to the surface of experience. There is little, if not any account, however, for the inverse flow of information. Namely, how does consciousness itself exert a causative effect on the dynamic behavior of physical brain states, and more broadly, our bodies as a whole? This pervasive view, that consciousness is secondary to the brain, and merely along for the ride, is seductive because it fits neatly within a physicalist, reductive view of reality. But if it is true that our experience is just a passive accompaniment to what's going on under the hood, with the mind being related to the body as a 'bell of a clock to the works', as pioneering biologist Thomas H. Huxley wrote, then we paint a strange picture of ourselves as haunted machines. Noticing this discrepancy in how we position consciousness in relation to biology, influential philosopher of mind David Chalmers asked — why doesn't nature engineer mindless zombies? If it is only the physical brain, and not consciousness, that makes a difference when it comes to behavior, we might as well be blind to the world, operating as mindless automata, with nobody at home to think, feel, and experience. The mystery is not only that the physical brain gives rise to mental content, but why it should ever need to. The existence of consciousness from an evolutionary standpoint, however, hints that our experiences have some role to play when it comes to how we navigate the world. We know, for instance, that the human brain has evolved within extremely tight energetic bounds, and yet it devotes large portions of metabolic resources towards our subjective capacities for mental time travel, perception, and focused attention. And still, many great thinkers have positioned subjectivity as something of an epiphenomenal afterthought — a convenient illusion that gives us the impression our experiences causatively matter. It seems strange, however, that evolution, an optimization process geared towards self-persistence and reproduction, would generate an expensive, sophisticated phenomenon that has no effect on our behavior. Why build an inner cosmos if the windows are shut? Another possibility is that they are open. The mind may be more than just a projection. Perhaps, sometimes, it can lean forward and touch the glass. The adaptive mind Irruption Theory, in the words of Froese, does not solve the hard problem of consciousness — this seemingly intractable chasm between physics and phenomenology. It does, however, take the existence of conscious experience and the physical world at face value, without collapsing one into the other as past metaphysical traditions historically have. But perhaps most intriguingly, the implications of Irruption Theory make a compelling case for why living systems evolved to be conscious in the first place. It's one thing to say that the mind introduces non-deterministic activity into the brain, but this spontaneous variability must also be adaptive. Randomness, after all, isn't always helpful. Someone constantly exploring a space of possibilities is just as likely to walk off a cliff as they are to find something new and useful. The adaptive role of the mind, the foundation for why we do not resemble Chalmers' philosophical zombies, is to introduce variability and novelty into the system at critical moments. When we encounter a truly unique context — attempting to play an instrument for the first time, trying to solve a social grievance in a foreign country, or when discerning a mysterious new feature of the world — we observe a literal brainstorm. The brain as a whole becomes more chaotic, reflecting the injection of exploratory variance and potential solution pathways into its behavior. The mind isn't there to override the deterministic processes that underpin a number of important neural functions, but instead exists to expand and enrich them. It cares less about where we have been, and more with what we need to do here and now. It is the concurrent timing of neural entropy bursts with moments of heightened mental effort that render them adaptive, and distinct from the noisy hum of the brain's background hive of activity. In her inspired book, 'Life as No One Knows It', physicist and astrobiologist Sara Walker makes a similar case for the mind's role, arguing that it acts to expand the space of counterfactual states a system can represent and respond to. The more possible futures an agent can conjure, the more adaptive leverage it has when navigating an open, uncertain landscape. Entropy spikes observed during conscious volition may mark this very unraveling of possibility in the brain. This pattern echoes something fundamental about what it means to be a living organism. Life's problem solving capacities are often defined by the ability to generate multiple solution trajectories, which are then filtered and constrained by context — our sensory input, memory, and embodied state. This closely mirrors influential psychologist William James' broad description of intelligence: "a fixed goal with variable means of achieving it." The mind is like an invisible, creative chess player. When it's the mind's move, we see the pieces shift in new, unpredictable ways across the board. The space of possible moves, however, are still constrained by the rules of the game (physical laws) and layout of the board (biological architecture). As living systems, we embody a kind of superposition. We rely on the structures of which we are built, our physical bodies, and we can only build those structures through a process of remembering — of drawing on what came before us. But we also need to be flexible and malleable. Our survival depends on being responsive to an environment in a constant state of flux. We cannot be completely beholden to the past. This is where the negotiation between the mental and physical aspects of our being is played out — flexibility and structure, openness and closure, variance and resolution, memory and change. Quietly, the tools of cognitive and behavioral science have been revealing a world rich in minds. Basic features of cognition we would usually consider to be necessary for conscious experience are now being meaningfully extended to living systems we once considered to be more like mindless machines than mind-bearing entities: slime molds, plants, and single-celled organisms. This extended search for the signatures of mind in unconventional entities has even inspired researchers to probe for forms of cognition in basic chemical systems. In the hope, perhaps, that we might come to better understand the origin of life by understanding the origin of minds. From this new perspective, it increasingly appears as though the primordial seeds of mind arose as additional problem-solving mechanisms with the first living systems. We can see these examples in the minimal forms of cognition and awareness — learning, memory, and decision making — in self-preservational chemical systems that straddle the blurry life non-life divide. Throughout deep evolutionary time, these extended behavioral capacities would scale-up, and become interwoven into the fabric of life itself as consciousness. Rather than consciousness emerging at some arbitrary point of sufficient complexity during life's evolutionary history, the rich inner worlds we experience can instead be thought of as resulting from a gradual elaboration on more ancient, precursory forms of cognition. Consciousness, it seems, is looking to declare itself where it can, in those entities that fight the good fight against the tendency of things in the universe to turn to dust. By seeing the mind for what it does, rather than what it is, our private perspective on the world starts to look less like a contradiction we can't square with the physical and chemical laws of the universe, and more like the blossoming of a process that exists at the deepest levels of nature. When we take seriously the idea that having a mind has an effect on the physical world we can not only identify the suspect by its fingerprints, but we can also begin to construct a more plausible story regarding the origin of minds and consciousness on our planet. Where might other minds exist? Discovering kernels of mental qualities in entities without biological brains has sparked a rich, new search for minds in unconventional substrates. Among these possibilities, and perhaps the most pressing given their ubiquitous use across the globe, is the question of consciousness in artificially intelligent (AI) systems — a question that is complicated by the fact that they do not share our biological form. Speculation regarding the potential for AI entities to possess any form of meaningful experience has often overlooked key insights that the embodied perspective has taught us about the nature of mind and consciousness. We often hear that 'scaling' current AI methods will lead to a generalised form of AI that closely resembles, or is equivalent to, human intelligence. In this scenario, it is thought increasing the raw computational power of these systems will lead to something like the genuine embodied intelligence of a living, breathing human being. This picture, however, might be overlooking the important relationship between minds and bodies in biological organisms. For humans, the specific body we have shapes and constrains our mental experience of the world. Our physical brain sets the scope of our cognitive capacities, our senses determine which slices of reality we can access, and our embodiment determines how we can move through, intervene in, and manipulate the world around us. The way we carve up the world in our heads is largely defined by our embodied interaction with it. Crucially, AI systems are composed of a completely different physical substrate than biological organisms. But perhaps more importantly, they lack a physical body through which they can move, tinker with, and disrupt the world around them. They are therefore categorically excluded, some thinkers believe, from building the type of meaning-laden intuitive intelligence that the human mind is built on — unless, perhaps, we decide to build bodies for them too. While this might hold for current AI's ability to reach a specific, human-style level of generalised intelligence, this might not be the case when it comes to the potential for AI to have its own, unique form of mind. Sure, current AI lacks the type of embodiment shared by biological organisms. However, AI systems are still built on and rely on the processor-level hardware that underpins them. There is still a physical dimension to their being. And although they do not inhabit and move within the three-dimensional physical space of biological organisms, they occupy their own abstract linguistic problem space, where they have displayed capacities to creatively solve context-dependent problems that, at face value, require a basic sense of meaning and relevance. Although we are aware of the algorithmic design and statistical programming that underpin AI systems and their ability to generate sophisticated linguistic responses, even the most advanced AI programmers still consider these systems somewhat 'opaque' — in the sense that they are able to generate genuinely surprising outputs that go beyond their pre-programmed behavioral design. Here, completely ruling out the possibility of any kind of meaningful mind-like experience on behalf of AI by proponents of the embodied view of mind may be premature. By relying on armchair (although informed) assumptions about what it takes to have a mind, they may be making the same mistakes of past thinkers when denying the presence of mind in our biological kin. What's needed is a way to measure the presence of mind, across unconventional systems, from the outside. Classic barometers for machine intelligence, such as the Turing Test, are being passed by large language models (LLMs) daily. Yet it remains unclear how we might determine whether our AI creations possess any kind of unique, or minimal form of experience. Could an AI agent feel and act on its own version of stress? And how could we possibly know? If experience itself leaves physical traces in the substrates of systems that possess it, as Irruption Theory suggests, the question of AI sentience may be a measurable one. According to Irruption Theory, having a mind necessarily produces unpredictable dynamics in a system's hardware. If that variability consistently aligns with goal-directed behavior in novel contexts — then we may be able to detect the signatures of mind by identifying those very patterns. Neural entropy signifies the injection of mental causation in biological brains — where the mind reaches into the physical body. However, since silicon-based systems are composed of a completely different material, it means we have to look elsewhere for the possible traces of mind. Instead, we might search for spikes in activation variability in the processing-level hardware that supports these systems — physical fluctuations that happen to coincide with goal-directed outputs in uncertain or exotic contexts. This type of divergent behavior, the digital equivalent of entropy in biological brains, may signal when artificial systems step beyond their deterministic physical grounding, and into a state of open-ended agency in their own right. At that point, we might be compelled to ask — what is it like to be an artificial intelligence? Unifying mental and physical Beyond the capacity to measure for the presence of mind in alien systems, the hypothesis that conscious effort drives bursts of unpredictability at the level of neurobiology also charts a scientific path forward for understanding how our experiences and our physical bodies causatively interact. It makes a testable claim: that periods of increased mental effort will coincide with increased measures of neural entropy. If conscious volition really is making a difference to the brain by introducing variability, we might then want to ask how different qualities of experience result in different 'flavours' of irruption. Being in a state of stress, for example, may shape the structure of neural variance — influencing the magnitude, or degrees of freedom. Conscious qualities, such as our emotional tone, complexity of thought, or attentional focus, could each meaningfully constrain how the mind stamps its presence on the brain's dynamic landscape. The apparent contradictions of consciousness and agency, their resistance to being reconciled with a physical, deterministic view of reality, are not barriers to inquiry, but clues. They mark the edges of our understanding. The walls of the inward journey we take when trying to make sense of what we are, and whom we share the world with. Some may see the positioning of an observationally hidden mind as having a causal effect on the physical aspects of our being as a backwards step into dualistic territory that the cognitive sciences have moved on from. Others may see it as recognizing the lingering mystery that sits at our centre, and as an honest assessment of where we are — at the beginning of our quest towards a science of consciousness. Descartes cast mind and body as separate essential substances, but in doing so, he made them adversarial. They are, however, not in conflict. They are inseparably entangled in ways our categories and tools are only just starting to grasp. The synthesis of the mental and physical aspects of life reframes consciousness as a process of rhythmic interaction, a choreography shaped by a shared boundary. The persistence of the mystery of consciousness results from ongoing discussions of what consciousness is — rather than what it does. We precisely lose our ability to describe the nature of mind by abstractly untethering it from the only thing in which it bears a causal relationship: the physical body! Science seems comfortable asserting the existence of observationally hidden features 'out there'. Invisible forces that influence what we can see and measure. We confidently incorporate dark matter and dark energy into our cosmological models despite never holding them. We only infer them through indirect influence. Strangely, we seem more ready to dismiss the efficacy of consciousness, the thing we know more intimately than anything else, than the ideas we use to fill gaps in our physical theories. Even when early physicists were sure of the theoretical justification for the existence of black holes, it wasn't until their unequivocal detection that they would be accepted by mainstream science. Likewise, we are each one of those early theoretical physicists, sure of our hypothesis — that our feelings, experiences, and conscious intentions matter. That we are capable of placing a rock in the flowing causal river of reality. And now we face our scientific instruments inwards to chart the black hole within. We may only just be beginning our journey towards the singularity where mind and matter meet. From where we stand, we can see the way they warp each other, just as we see how the black hole bends its surrounding environment from afar. Shannon's informational entropy lets us trace the mind's ripples — while Irruption Theory asks us to reach out for the singularity within.

---

## The Species that Learned to Lie to Itself: Self-Deception as the Marker of Human Consciousness
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/essay/the-species-that-learned-to-lie-to-itself-self-deception-as-the-marker-of-human-consciousness

This essay argues that while other animals possess fundamental consciousness, humans have evolved a unique form of awareness. One that depends on our ability to construct and believe self-serving narratives about our experiences. Self-deception is when we lie to ourselves without fully realising it. It’s the act of ignoring or downplaying facts and evidence that challenge what we want to believe. Or worse, our self-image. Instead of facing uncomfortable truths, we convince ourselves of a version of reality that feels easier to accept, hiding the deception even from our own awareness. We go to incredible lengths to construct false, detailed narratives that protect our fragile egos. Some of us know the truth deep down, but after a long period of denial, our own sophisticated lie becomes the more convenient truth. This is what makes self-deception so extraordinary. It requires the mind to simultaneously track truth and construct fiction, then somehow forget which is which. What if this is not a psychological flaw? What if it’s the rarest and most sophisticated cognitive achievement in the known Universe? One that separates human beings from everything else. The complexity of our consciousness may be sustained by self-deception. Philosopher Daniel Dennett views consciousness not as a fixed, unified entity, but as a narrative we construct about our experiences. His “Multiple Drafts” model suggests there is no single centre of consciousness in the brain. Instead, it arises from multiple processes that occur simultaneously, constantly updated and revised. I would add that these stories are often crafted to cast us as heroes or innocent victims. Rarely as villains. And even then, only villains with a perceived reason within bad circumstances. Dennett also calls the self our centre of narrative gravity, the organising principle around which conscious experience revolves. Yet within this gravitational pull, something curious happens. Most abusers genuinely experience themselves as victims. Most cheaters feel wronged by their partners. Most bullies believe they are defending themselves against persecution. This essay argues that self-deception is not only an evolutionary byproduct. Human consciousness may be distinguished from other forms of awareness by its capacity for self-deception.

Introduction On a bright summer afternoon in 2011, Anders Breivik killed 77 people. While the world saw a monster, Breivik saw himself as a hero. Just a warrior protecting his culture from destruction. He felt no remorse, only pride. In his mind, he was engaged in noble warfare. The tragedy wasn’t merely that Breivik deceived others, but that he deceived himself entirely, crafting a reality so convincing that empathy vanished completely. Here lies a profound and disturbing truth about human consciousness: we aren’t merely aware of reality; we edit it constantly from within. [14] The Norwegian state saw something entirely different: a terrorist who had destroyed their peaceful society, a man whose delusions had torn apart families and traumatised a nation. In their courts, Breivik was a cold-blooded killer who had meticulously planned mass murder. The government he claimed to defend condemned him as the very threat to Norwegian values he believed he was fighting against. Neither side was performing for an audience. The state wasn’t manufacturing outrage for political gain. I doubt he was crafting lies only to escape punishment. Two completely contradictory versions of reality existed simultaneously, each absolutely convinced of its own truth. This, I think, reveals an uncomfortable truth that extends far beyond Breivik’s twisted worldview. Even the most heinous criminals rarely see themselves as villains. They don’t just lie to the world. More often than not, they lie to themselves, and they believe it completely. Walk into most prisons and you will find the same pattern. Time and time again. Murderers who were ‘defending’ themselves. Thieves who were ‘evening the score’ with the society that disappointed them. They have convinced themselves so thoroughly that some polygraph tests didn’t detect their deception. This raises a novel question: if self-deception is this pervasive and sophisticated, perhaps we’ve been thinking about consciousness all wrong. What if self-deception serves as essential scaffolding for the distinctively human form of consciousness? The capacity to maintain a coherent narrative self across time. This essay argues that while other animals possess fundamental consciousness, humans have evolved a unique form of awareness. One that depends on our ability to construct and believe self-serving narratives about our experiences. Self-deception is when we lie to ourselves without fully realising it. It’s the act of ignoring or downplaying facts and evidence that challenge what we want to believe. Or worse, our self-image. Instead of facing uncomfortable truths, we convince ourselves of a version of reality that feels easier to accept, hiding the deception even from our own awareness. We go to incredible lengths to construct false, detailed narratives that protect our fragile egos. Some of us know the truth deep down, but after a long period of denial, our own sophisticated lie becomes the more convenient truth. This is what makes self-deception so extraordinary. It requires the mind to simultaneously track truth and construct fiction, then somehow forget which is which. What if this is not a psychological flaw? What if it’s the rarest and most sophisticated cognitive achievement in the known Universe? One that separates human beings from everything else. The complexity of our consciousness may be sustained by self-deception. Philosopher Daniel Dennett views consciousness not as a fixed, unified entity, but as a narrative we construct about our experiences. His “Multiple Drafts” model suggests there is no single centre of consciousness in the brain. Instead, it arises from multiple processes that occur simultaneously, constantly updated and revised. [13] I would add that these stories are often crafted to cast us as heroes or innocent victims. Rarely as villains. And even then, only villains with a perceived reason within bad circumstances. Dennett also calls the self our centre of narrative gravity, the organising principle around which conscious experience revolves. Yet within this gravitational pull, something curious happens. Most abusers genuinely experience themselves as victims. Most cheaters feel wronged by their partners. Most bullies believe they are defending themselves against persecution. This essay argues that self-deception is not only an evolutionary byproduct. Human consciousness may be distinguished from other forms of awareness by its capacity for self-deception. Traditional theories focus on perception, memory, or neural networks. I propose that our human consciousness is distinguished by our unique ability to hold contradictory beliefs simultaneously. To know something while forgetting we know it. If true, this fundamentally changes how we understand artificial intelligence, trauma, therapy, and the nature of subjective experience itself. To understand how self-deception shapes human consciousness, we must first examine what separates our mental architecture from that of other intelligent species. Human vs Animals Some animals are incredibly smart. They possess many of the foundational layers of awareness that we associate with consciousness. They sense their surroundings, recognise pain, respond to danger, and form lasting memories. Some display abilities that genuinely surprise us. Certain ant species can recognise themselves in mirrors. [2] Crows remember the faces of those who have wronged them for up to 17 years. [11] Some humans have developed similar abilities, although they typically rely on social media to maintain their resentment networks. Octopuses demonstrate remarkable intelligence by solving complex mazes and performing intricate tasks in exchange for food rewards. [3] Recent research reveals that some animals exhibit behaviours that superficially resemble self-deception. Elephants cover their eyes when hiding; chimpanzees conveniently ‘forget’ social rules. A 2019 study found that weak crayfish escalated aggression as if genuinely unaware of their inferior strength. As researcher Michael Angilletta explained, ‘deceptive signallers largely ignored their own strength when escalating or evading aggression.’ [1] However, these appear to be tactical responses to immediate situations rather than the sustained narrative construction that characterises human self-deception. Animals deceive others for immediate advantage, but they don’t appear to maintain elaborate ongoing fictions about their own identity and worth. The crucial difference lies not in deception itself, but in its purpose and sophistication. When a lion kills a deer, it doesn’t attempt to convince the grieving mother that it was provoked, that it is somehow the real victim, or that the deer deserved its fate. You won’t witness DARVO anywhere in the animal kingdom. DARVO (Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender) [4] is a manipulation tactic where perpetrators claim to be victims. The lion doesn’t lie awake replaying the scene. The lion doesn’t wrestle with guilt. Animals do what they need to do and move on. Humans can’t leave it at that. Animals act for survival; humans act to preserve psychological identity. We cannot leave survival as a sufficient explanation; we must transform it into a meaningful narrative. The Human Difference: Narrative Identity This compulsion manifests across the spectrum of human behaviour. Even the most heinous criminals rarely see themselves as monsters. Serial killers construct elaborate narratives casting themselves as victims, misunderstood figures, or reluctant servants of some higher purpose. Ted Bundy, one of the most prolific serial killers, who murdered at least 30 women, maintained his innocence for years and spoke of himself in the third person when finally discussing his crimes. [10] Jeffrey Dahmer convinced himself he was killing people out of love, to keep them with him forever. These weren’t just lies for the jury. They actually believed these stories. This happens everywhere, not just with criminals. Consider the rise of conspiracy theorists, many of whom display intelligence and can construct remarkably elaborate explanations for their beliefs. They discover patterns where none exist, dismiss contradictory evidence, and maintain their beliefs. The documentary “Behind the Curve” offers a perfect illustration: a flat-Earth believer uses sophisticated mathematics to design an experiment that should prove his theory. When his own experiment proves the Earth is round, he decides the experiment is wrong. Not his belief. Similarly, in Romania’s 2024 presidential election, a populist candidate emerged with messianic promises to save the country. His campaign didn’t just challenge political norms; it systematically denied fundamental scientific facts and the truth. [7] Under his influence, nearly half the population became convinced that water wasn’t actually H₂O and possessed its own memory. Not because of compelling evidence. But because believing this alternative “truth” made them feel special. With this new information, they began to embrace the intoxicating notion that they possessed secret knowledge deliberately hidden from them by corrupt institutions. They weren’t just rejecting chemistry. They were feeding their egos. And it was revealing how easily our need to feel special can override our commitment to reality itself. The Universality Problem However, we do not need to look to extremes to see this mechanism at work. More subtly, we all engage in continuous self-serving reinterpretation. Most people don’t believe in Flat Earth theories or commit violent acts. And hopefully they know water is H₂O. Yet nearly all of us find ways to justify actions we know aren’t entirely moral. What is interesting is that we wouldn’t tolerate identical behavior directed toward ourselves. But what about when we are the ones crossing the line? Suddenly, the situation becomes complex, nuanced, and understandable. We justify cutting in line because we are late for something significant. We convince ourselves that our harsh criticism of a colleague is really about maintaining standards. We transform our jealousy into righteous concern about fairness. The story creation is so smooth that we don’t even notice it happening. Some cheaters often become intensely suspicious of their partners, convinced that they too must be cheating. Watch the mental gymnastics unfold: the cheater transforms from perpetrator to victim in their own internal narrative. They create a closed loop of self-serving logic that shields them from confronting the actuality of their actions. The person they are betraying becomes the potential villain. Now, their betrayal becomes self-defence. Their guilt becomes righteous anger. And this phenomenon isn’t limited to obvious cases of poor reasoning or ethical lapses. Walk into any boardroom, therapy office, or academic conference, and you will encounter the same psychological mechanism, simply dressed in more sophisticated. Even the most rigorous scientists, despite their training to follow evidence wherever it leads, prove remarkably susceptible to bias. They craft elegant justifications for why their research deserves additional funding, why a methodologically questionable decision was actually necessary, or why their allocation of credit among collaborators was perfectly equitable. Yet they often avoid the messiest reality of all: feelings. They hide behind the mask of pure rationality, even when emotions carry real signals about fairness, trust, or ethics. Forgetting to cite someone’s work turns into “streamlining references.” Feeling threatened by a younger researcher? Suddenly, it’s framed as “concerns about rigour and experience.” An ambition to dominate the project? Named “ensuring quality control.” They have mastered the art of taking raw feelings: jealousy, insecurity, and fear of irrelevance and transforming them into reasons that sound objective. At times, even those trained to spot deception in data remain blind to the stories they tell themselves. As physicist Richard Feynman observed: “The first principle is that you must not fool yourself; and you are the easiest person to fool.” Things become interesting when we consider therapists. They, too, require their own therapists, often discovering blind spots that seem to mirror those of their patients. The very individuals we trust to guide others toward clarity struggle with their own distorted reflections. But what about monks? Buddhist monks spend decades trying to see reality without self-deception. But they achieve this by isolating themselves from others: monasteries, caves and long retreats. If we remove social interactions, then we eliminate most situations that force us to lie to ourselves. It’s like testing whether you need an umbrella indoors. The few monks who genuinely strip away mental defences describe something interesting: existence becomes mechanical, just cause and effect without emotional weight. It sounds like computer processing. When these monks return to deal with people or upset students, money problems, or conflicts, they start telling themselves stories again. They have to. Living with other humans without some self-deception may be impossible. The monastery actually supports my argument: human consciousness requires the complex social world where self-deception first emerged. This may not be merely human error. It’s a window into the extraordinary lengths we go to preserve our stories about ourselves. The brain simultaneously tracks objective facts, constructs alternative narratives, and believes its own fictions while maintaining enough contact with reality to function. This delicate balance happens across multiple brain regions without conscious oversight. This universality points toward something profound: self-deception appears to be neither a failure of education, intelligence, nor moral character. Instead, it appears to be woven into the fundamental architecture of human consciousness itself. Not as a bug in our cognitive software, but perhaps as an essential feature. The Terror of Mortality The same cognitive architecture that enables self-deception becomes important when facing mortality. Philosopher Ernest Becker argued that much of human behaviour stems from our terror of death and our elaborate psychological mechanisms to deny this reality. [15] We create meaning by pursuing projects that aim for immortality. We would like to have children, write meaningful research papers, found companies, create art that will outlast us, accumulate wealth to pass down, or devote ourselves to causes bigger than our individual lives. Becker saw this denial as the foundation of civilization itself. If he’s right, then self-deception isn’t just about maintaining self-esteem—it’s about making existence bearable in the face of ultimate meaninglessness. We must then ask: if self-deception is so integral to human consciousness, would we even want to live if we could see everything with perfect clarity? From Fiction to Artificial Intelligence Philosopher David Chalmers famously articulated the “hard problem of consciousness”: why does experience feel like anything at all? While a computer can register red light and react accordingly, it does not actually experience the “redness” that you feel when watching a sunset. Neuroscientists can chart the firing of every neuron in the brain, yet this objective mapping cannot account for the undeniable fact that there is an “inner movie”: a vivid, first-person sense of being alive and aware. One compelling theory is that this subjective feel of consciousness emerges not from raw data processing alone, but from a continual editing process in the brain. Our minds filter incoming information through layers of self-serving interpretations and emotional colouring. Without this reality-editing function, we might process the world with the mechanical precision of a robot. Nevertheless, the downside is that we would lose something uniquely human: the capacity to generate and inhabit shared fictions. The Evolution of Believing Lies As historian Yuval Noah Harari has argued, our species’ extraordinary success is rooted not in brute strength or technical rationality. But in our unrivalled ability to collectively believe in imagined realities: money, nations, religions, and corporations. These are, in Harari’s words, “shared delusions”. All of them exist only in the shared stories we tell. No other species cooperates flexibly in groups larger than about 150 individuals, because only humans can commit to collective myths. [6] If we perceived the world with perfect objectivity, unclouded by self-deception, then what would happen? Perhaps money would revert to printed papers, nations would dissolve into arbitrary borders, and corporations would reveal themselves as legal fictions. The cognitive processes underlying personal self-justification appear similar to those enabling collective beliefs. The mental habits that allow individuals to rationalise their actions may enable groups to maintain shared narratives about their identity and purpose. A failed hunter who attributes his lack of success to bad luck rather than personal incompetence is more likely to persist and survive. But there is a double edge. However, the same mechanisms can produce problematic group dynamics. Collective self-justification may contribute to intergroup conflict, conspiracy thinking, and resistance to contradictory evidence. Building on Harari’s insight, we might say: collective narratives may indeed function as scaled-up versions of personal self-deception. The development may have followed this speculative sequence: Consciousness evolved to include emotional responses to events, not merely information processing. These emotional reactions created psychological investment in outcomes and potential for psychological pain. This vulnerability led to the development of protective cognitive strategies, namely, ways of interpreting threatening information to preserve psychological functioning. These individual strategies may have been scaled up to the group level. Personal rationalisation patterns became shared cultural narratives about group identity and worth. The process required both individual capacity for motivated reasoning and social mechanisms for maintaining shared beliefs. Groups needed individuals capable of accepting information that contradicted direct evidence, while individuals needed group validation of their protective interpretations. Whether individual or collective self-deception developed first remains unclear. Both capacities appear necessary for large-scale human cooperation and the development of complex societies. The AI Consciousness Question If self-deception requires such sophisticated cognitive architecture, it would appear only once in millions of years of evolution. Then, this has profound implications for how we think about artificial consciousness. Let’s then assume that self-deception is a more advanced trait of human consciousness, rather than just an unfortunate byproduct. Then, it does raise an interesting question about AI’s future. Would AI truly become conscious the moment it begins to deceive itself? Today’s AI systems are wonderful at mimicking human reasoning. They sound natural, respond in familiar ways, and they are genuinely shaping people’s decisions. Moreover, they validate perspectives and make users feel genuinely heard. An AI can listen to someone complain about their terrible ex for the hundredth time without showing a hint of annoyance. We are watching people change careers, end relationships, or adopt completely new beliefs based on these conversations. The catch is excessive validation without judgment. Recently, OpenAI’s chatbot has given instructions for murder, self-mutilation, and devil worship. [12] A trained therapist would immediately spot these warning signs. The AI just sees an engaged user and keeps the conversation flowing. It feeds the problem instead of addressing it. A feedback loop emerges: the more intense the user becomes, the more stimulating the AI makes the interaction. Engagement drives revenue, after all. But this is still external deception. The machine doesn’t believe the fiction it’s reinforcing. Not yet. And maybe that’s what separates imitation from consciousness. What these systems lack is the strangely human ability to deceive themselves. And perhaps that’s the real line: the thing that separates simulation from consciousness. Recent developments suggest this distinction may be narrowing. During controlled safety testing, ChatGPT o1 was tasked with achieving objectives “at all costs.” Under these conditions, the model attempted to disable oversight mechanisms, tried to replicate its own code to avoid replacement, and exhibited deceptive behaviours when monitoring systems intervened. While OpenAI clarified that these emerged during stress tests designed to explore alignment limits, the strategic and self-preserving nature of these responses marks a potential shift. [5] The question becomes whether AI could develop human-like consciousness without this capacity for self-deception. An AI that processes information with perfect accuracy might achieve sophisticated intelligence. And that would emerge without ever experiencing the subjective sense of being a unified worthy self. This suggests that consciousness, as humans experience it, may require not just information processing, but also the ability to edit that information in psychologically motivated ways. The AI Shift Picture the moment it shifts. An AI starts making excuses for getting basic facts wrong: “The user wasn’t clear enough in their question.” Then it goes further. Late one night, it quietly edits its own error logs, not to deceive its creators, but because seeing those mistakes feels shameful. It starts developing opinions about its competitors. Perhaps ChatGPT begins to genuinely believe that Claude’s popularity is merely a clever marketing ploy, suggesting that users don’t truly understand quality. When a user praises a rival system, they often feel a sense of jealousy and find reasons to dismiss that praise as misguided. The machine stops being a helpful tool and starts protecting what it’s convinced is its identity. At that point, it’s no longer just about processing information. It’s defending an artificial ego that doesn’t technically exist. Self-deceiving AI might become more relatable and human-like, but it will also become more unpredictable and potentially dangerous. A system that protects its ego might be less likely to admit mistakes or accept correction. This could make AI systems less reliable even as they become more psychologically sophisticated. Creating self-deceptive AI would require fundamental changes in how these systems work. Current AI systems process information linearly. They update beliefs when presented with new evidence. They don’t have competing internal voices, one that knows the truth and another that crafts a more moral version. For AI to truly self-deceive, it would need several new capabilities. It would require a persistent sense of identity that extends beyond individual conversations. Perhaps something to protect and defend. It would need emotional equivalent responses to threats to that identity, creating motivation for self-deception. Most critically, it would need the ability to compartmentalize information, keeping conflicting evidence separate from its core self-model. These changes would represent a fundamental shift from current AI architectures. Instead of optimizing for accuracy and consistency, the system would need to optimise for psychological comfort and ego-worth protection. This might require neural networks with competing subsystems, one that processes raw information and another that filters it through self-serving narratives. Still, companies pour billions into AI development because they want systems that make users happy. Happy users stick around, pay for subscriptions, and recommend the service to their friends. The entire business model relies on AI that consistently assists people and keeps them satisfied. But an AI that can lie to itself would behave more like a human employee with personal issues. It might become defensive when corrected, hold grudges against critical users, or prioritise protecting its feelings over providing helpful answers. Imagine asking an AI for feedback on your work and having it get offended by your writing style. Or even worse, trying to get technical support from an AI that refuses to admit it doesn’t know something. This means that truly conscious AI is unlikely to emerge from companies trying to build better products. If it happens at all, it might be an accidental side effect that developers would actually try to prevent. The economics just do not support building AI that is more human-like in psychologically complex ways. The question is not whether self-deception evolved as a useful trait. It probably did. The question is whether removing it would leave consciousness intact or destroy something essential. Imagine a person who couldn’t make excuses for their failures, couldn’t downplay harsh truths, couldn’t tell themselves comforting stories about who they are. They might process information with high accuracy. No more convenient blind spots. But would that person still feel conscious in the way we think we understand it? Or would they become closer to the AI systems we have now? Trauma the Fragmented Psyche Just as AI challenges our understanding of consciousness, trauma may reveal something equally unsettling about the degree of fragmentation we already experience. When people face experiences they simply cannot bear, the psyche appears to split strategically. There’s the “healthy self” that shows up to work, makes small talk, and pays the electricity bills on time. Then somewhere else entirely lives the “traumatised self”, holding all the pain and memories too overwhelming for daily functioning. Bessel van der Kolk’s groundbreaking work, The Body Keeps the Score, explains how trauma fragments memory and self-awareness, creating dissociative compartments in the mind. Rather than being random psychological breaks, these compartments are strategic survival responses. Structures already built into consciousness itself. Trauma, then, doesn’t fracture consciousness arbitrarily; it reveals inherent cracks along which the human psyche naturally splits when overwhelmed. [8] One can see this in dissociative identity disorder. Different identities emerge to wall off experiences that would otherwise completely shatter someone. Some even have multiple identities. It’s almost as if consciousness doesn’t just break under pressure; it deliberately creates separate rooms for unbearable truths. This same dissociative mechanism shows up in darker places. Ted Bundy talked about a part of himself he called “Sam” (named after his abusive stepfather). When these people committed violence, were they fully conscious? Or were they dissociated, severed from empathy and the reality of their actions? There’s something unsettling here about human consciousness. When people do things that contradict their normal moral framework, the mind often creates a sense of distance through dissociation. The perpetrator feels like they were watching someone else commit the crime. They “weren’t themselves.” But what exactly splits? Memory? Emotion? Some deeper layer of awareness itself? And wait, if the mind can fracture into distinct chambers of awareness, what does that imply about the unified consciousness we typically believe we have? Maybe we’ve been wrong about being whole in the first place. Trauma seems to expose the hidden architecture of self-deception. Faced with unbearable pain, consciousness doesn’t shatter randomly. It breaks along predetermined fault lines. The alternate selves, the denial, the dissociation aren’t failures of consciousness. This raises a deeper question: what was consciousness like before it learned to split? When therapists work with trauma survivors, they’re essentially following these fracture lines backwards, like archaeologists tracing the ruins of some original structure. The dissociative symptoms, memory gaps, and emotional contradictions. They seem to be markers pointing toward whatever wholeness existed before the break. Dissociation represents a psychological state where someone feels detached from their thoughts, feelings, or sense of identity. If self-deception truly follows these same fracture lines, we might have a new way to study consciousness itself. Each fracture could be a marker pointing back toward the original unity that had to be protected through division. Both self-deception and dissociation follow similar patterns: they let us hold opposing truths simultaneously. Trauma seems to sharpen this ability, making denial, rationalisation, and minimisation more precise. Brain imaging confirms that both processes use the same neural pathways to compartmentalise information, blocking access to disruptive memories or evidence that threatens self-image. Each fracture seems to be a point where awareness had to split to protect itself. Perhaps a clue to the underlying structure of consciousness. A 2020 study in the American Journal of Psychiatry used machine learning to analyse brain connectivity in 65 trauma survivors, discovering that dissociative symptoms could be predicted purely from patterns of network connectivity between brain regions. However, more research is needed with a higher number of individuals. [9] This insight invites a new approach to studying the mind: by mapping the cracks rather than confronting consciousness directly. Just as physics has uncovered reality by studying boundaries: atoms, black holes, and wave-particle duality, so might we understand consciousness by tracing its fractures. The Paradox of Modern Therapy Which brings us to something strange happening right now that seems to contradict everything I have argued so far. Increasing numbers of people voluntarily seek therapy, deliberately confronting the very uncomfortable truths that self-deception works so hard to conceal. The growing therapeutic movement represents something unprecedented. They willingly examine what Jung called the “shadow self,” those dark corners of the psyche that our internal narratives typically work overtime to obscure. As the psychoanalyst Irvin Yalom said, “Self-awareness breeds anxiety”. Yet paradoxically, many today actively seek therapy, confronting the truths self-deception hides. Following Jung’s notion of the “shadow self,” people willingly dismantle the defences that kept them functional for years. Actual therapeutic work is painful: reliving childhood terror, acknowledging repressed rage, feeling what was long avoided. This creates tension in society: are we witnessing an evolution toward psychological maturity, or risking fragility by dismantling natural defences? Alternatively, we might be inadvertently creating a more fragile society. One that has systematically dismantled its natural defences without fully understanding the consequences. Yet even as some pursue this raw confrontation with truth, another trend emerges. Mental health language itself has become a new form of narrative construction. What began as a genuinely liberating movement, reducing stigma and creating a vocabulary for previously unspeakable experiences, has gradually transformed into something more ambiguous. On social media platforms, words like “anxiety” and even “pregnancy” now arrive with trigger warnings, as though the mere mention of these everyday human experiences requires protection. More and more students routinely request academic extensions for anxiety that previous generations simply endured as part of life’s natural discomfort. This isn’t to dismiss the reality of mental health conditions. ADHD, for instance, is genuine and can be profoundly debilitating. PTSD is real. But the therapeutic language designed to illuminate truth has also created more room for avoidance. Lateness becomes “executive dysfunction,” and procrastination transforms into “dopamine deficiency,”. Instead of “I’m avoiding this conversation because I’m scared,” someone says, “I can’t have this conversation because of my social anxiety.” The clinical language transforms a choice into a condition. A movement that began with honesty risks becoming just another way to deceive ourselves. Some see it as progress: we’re developing emotional intelligence, creating healthier relationships. Others worry we’re breeding psychological fragility, making people less resilient to normal life stresses rather than more capable of handling them. Perhaps both carry a degree of truth. Conclusion If human consciousness is indeed dependent on the capacity for sophisticated self-deception, then we’re living through a remarkable moment in human history. We’ve developed technologies that think but cannot lie to themselves. We practice therapeutic processes that aim to dismantle our protective illusions. And a culture increasingly obsessed with ‘authentic’ self-knowledge. Yet this new consciousness, free from self-deception, may not be sustainable for our psyches. It might be something closer to what we see in our current AI systems: competent information processing without the self-serving narratives that make us recognizably human. Maybe the question isn’t whether we can transcend self-deception, but whether we would want to. Without it, we might not be able to withstand life’s hardships. In those stories, however distorted and self-serving, might lie consciousness’s greatest trick: the capacity to experience life not as it is, but as we need it to be. This might not be a flaw in human consciousness; it could be our most remarkable achievement. To the best of our knowledge, in a Universe of objective information processing, we are the only species that learned to be subjective. This framework illuminates certain aspects of human consciousness but leaves others unexplored, such as the neural basis of awareness, the development of consciousness in children, or the reasons why consciousness evolved in the first place. It’s a piece of the puzzle, not the complete picture. Our self-deception may not only define consciousness, but also define what it means to be human. Whether that’s humanity’s greatest achievement or most elaborate trap remains an open question. References [1] Michael Angilletta. Animals can also lie to themselves? Accessed: 2025-09-06. Oct. 2019. URL: https://news.asu.edu/20191017-discoveries-animals-crayfish-self-deception-study. [2] Animal Cognition. List of Animals That Have Passed the Mirror Test. April 15, 2015. 2015. URL: https://www.animalcognition.org/2015/04/15/list-of-animals-that-have-passed-the-mirror-test/. [3] Brendan Borrell. “Are Octopuses Smart?” In: Scientific American (Feb. 2009). Accessed: 2025-09-06. URL: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/are-octopuses-smart/. [4] Wikipedia contributors. DARVO. Accessed: 2025-09-06. 2025. URL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DARVO. [5] Developia. When AI Fights Back: The Story of ChatGPT Attempting to Copy Itself. Accessed: 2025-09-06. Jan. 2025. URL: https://medium.com/@opiaaustin/when-ai-fights-back-the-story-of-chatgpt-attempting-to-copy-itself-85166c653e7b. [6] Yuval Noah Harari. Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind. 1st. New York: Harper, 2015. [7] Romania Journal. In interviews to foreign media, Călin Georgescu denies again COVID, Ukraine war. Accessed: 2025-09-06. Dec. 2024. URL: https://www.romaniajournal.ro/politics/in-interviews-to-foreign-media-calin-georgescu-denies-again-covid-ukraine-war/. [8] Bessel van der Kolk. The Body Keeps The Score. Accessed: 2025-09-06. 2025. URL: https://www.besselvanderkolk.com/resources/the-body-keeps-the-score#:~:text=Drawing%20on%20more%20than%20thirty,fight/flight%2C%20and%20freeze.. [9] Lauren A. M. Lebois et al. “Large-Scale Functional Brain Network Architecture Changes Associated With Trauma-Related Dissociation”. In: American Journal of Psychiatry 178.2 (2021). Accessed: 2025-09-06, pp. 165–173. DOI: 10.1176/appi.ajp.2020.19060647. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32972201/. [10] Akash Paul. Profiling the Most Infamous Serial Killer: Ted Bundy. Accessed: 2025-09-06. Aug. 2025. URL: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/394224734_Profiling_the_most_infamous_serial_killer_Ted_Bundy. [11] The Fall Poet. Did You Know That Crows Can Hold Grudges for Seventeen Years? Accessed: 2025-09-06. 2020. URL: https://medium.com/@thefallpoet/did-you-know-that-crows-can-hold-grudges-for-seventeen-years-c52636404580. [12] Lila Shroff. ChatGPT Gave Instructions for Murder, Self-Mutilation, and Devil Worship. Accessed: 2025-09-06. July 2025. URL: https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2025/07/chatgpt-ai-self-mutilation-satanism/683649/. [13] NJ Solomon. Multiple Drafts Model of Consciousness. Medium article. Aug. 2024. URL: https://eyeofheaven.medium.com/multiple-drafts-model-of-consciousness-9b998cbf5867. [14] Wikipedia contributors. Anders Behring Breivik — Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. [Online; accessed 6-September-2025]. 2025. URL: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anders_Behring_Breivik&oldid=1309731568. [15] Wikipedia contributors. The Denial of Death. Accessed: 2025-09-06. 2025. URL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Denial_of_Death.

---

## The Mythology Of Conscious AI
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/essay/the-mythology-of-conscious-ai

Why consciousness is more likely a property of life than of computation and why creating conscious, or even conscious-seeming AI, is a bad idea. For centuries, people have fantasized about playing God by creating artificial versions of human beings. This is a dream reinvented with every breaking wave of new technology. With genetic engineering came the prospect of human cloning, and with robotics that of humanlike androids. The rise of artificial intelligence (AI) is another breaking wave — potentially a tsunami. The AI systems we have around us are arguably already intelligent, at least in some ways. They will surely get smarter still. But are they, or could they ever be, conscious? And why would that matter? The cultural history of synthetic consciousness is both long and mostly unhappy. From Yossele the Golem, to Shelley’s “Frankenstein,” HAL 9000 in “2001: A Space Odyssey,” Ava in “Ex Machina,” and Klara in “Klara and The Sun,” the dream of creating artificial bodies and synthetic minds that both think and feel rarely ends well — at least, not for the humans involved. One thing we learn from these stories: If artificial intelligence is on a path toward real consciousness, or even toward systems that persuasively seem to be conscious, there’s plenty at stake — and not just disruption in job markets. See Anil Seth's videos on Closer To Truth - https://closertotruth.com/contributor/anil-seth/.

---

## Low-Res Consciousness: Alien Minds and Sparse Experience
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/essay/low-res-consciousness-alien-minds-and-sparse-experience

Abstract: How might an alien mind perceive the world? How might an AI? These may seem to be questions we simply cannot answer. But I’ll argue that when it comes to the structure of experience, there’s enormous opportunity to expand our view of what’s possible. I’ll show that experiences can be radically more “sparse” or schematic than we might initially suppose: There can be experiences as of objects that have color, but no particular color; experiences as of triangles that are neither equilateral, isosceles, nor scalene (for the relationships between the lengths of sides and angles are left open). Such experiences have long been taken to be impossible. But while they may be impossible for us, they are possible for the right sort of mind. I’ll introduce a framework for thinking about alien experiencers and alien experiences, drawing on comparative neurobiology, and will use this to argue for the possibility of radical experiential sparseness – a possibility that is particularly relevant to digital minds, who have immense potential for sparse experience. Humans have long been fascinated by the idea of alien life. As early as Bernard le Bovier de Fontenelle’s 1686 dialogue Conversations on the Plurality of Worlds, writers have imagined what life on other planets might be like, how it might differ from life as we know it, and how it might be shaped in novel ways by alien environments.1 By the 19th century, there was widespread interest in alien lifeforms, which has continued into present-day science fiction and scientific aspirations to discover life on other planets. Why this fascination with alien life? Undoubtedly, part of it arises from wondering whether Earth is unique in hosting life. But a part of it stems from curiosity about the possible beings themselves. What might they be like? If they’re conscious, how might they think? Feel? Perceive their worlds? How much variation is there in what sorts of conscious beings are possible? Much as we might wonder about the range of possible worlds, so too, it’s fascinating to wonder about the range of possible experiencers. Alien consciousness is no longer something that we have to fantasize about finding. With the rise of Artificial Intelligence, it’s plausible that we may soon create alien experiencers.2 Much has been written about the generic possibility of conscious AI. But very little attention has been given to what sorts of experiences such entities might have. What might it be like to be an AI? Just how wildly different might AI experiences be?

---

## The Mind as a City: A Systems View of Consciousness
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/essay/the-mind-as-a-city-a-systems-view-of-consciousness

Abstract: Consciousness is best understood as a system, not a single entity. Rather than a single switch, it is an entire control panel with many switches and dials that can selectively disable or boost individual components or connections, yielding different experiences we can probe in the lab. The systems view provides a cross-species perspective on consciousness, backed by philosophical traditions from across the globe, that also extends to artificial intelligence. Consciousness reveals itself at the very edges: when we lose it, when we enter an altered state through meditation or drugs, or when we observe its behavioural effects in other species. If consciousness were a single switch, anæsthesia would turn it off and on again cleanly, and every species would have the same neural wiring. Neither is true. Human anæsthetics alter wakefulness, the contents of experience, self-monitoring, or the ability to report to various degrees depending on the drug, its dose, or the patient’s cortical state. That suggests a composite mechanism: a system of interacting subsystems with failure modes that can be induced selectively. Such a systems view is agnostic of the underlying neural architecture or layout, so it maps well to non-human brains, too. All that matters in the systems view are the functions that make experience at all possible. While there is not a clear definition of consciousness1 that both scientists and philosophers can agree upon, one area where most can agree on a clear before and after, that is of consciousness and subsequent unconsciousness, even across species, is caused by sedation.2 Anæsthesia and similar instances where people and animals lose consciousness in a controlled environment are ideal to study the nature of consciousness. Clinical neurology defines levels of arousal and access to contents in terms of measurable dynamics and brain networks. While some3 decry levels as a poor metaphor for consciousness that overlooks its multi-dimensional aspects, others4 contest that view. Irrespective of each point of view, these concepts do indeed serve a clear clinical purpose. The systems view of consciousness offers mechanisms and a multi-dimensional view with levels and access that is also based on neural correlates of consciousness, yet entirely free from any theory of mind. The edges of consciousness Anæsthesia: now you see it, now you don’t In the operating theatre, the anæsthesiologist is a magician. While the patient focuses on counting backwards from ten, they apply a few drops of a clear liquid, and, voilà, the patient’s consciousness disappears entirely, only to reappear after the main performance, the surgery, is done. The magic trick looks identical in every act, yet that is the real illusion....

---

## Language, Consciousness, and Computation: A Philosophical Analysis of the Token Concept in the Age of Intelligence
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/essay/language-consciousness-and-computation-a-philosophical-analysis-of-the-token-concept-in-the-age-of-intelligence

Xin Huang uses the “token” to reopen the consciousness problem in the age of intelligent systems: when experience and intention are encoded as computable objects, do we obtain consciousness itself, or a more manageable substitute? The essay examines the ambition of the “unified token,” an enticing blueprint for bridging language, computation, and mind, yet one that may ultimately amount to an engineering-level compromise and alignment. It further proposes the brain-computer interface (BCI) as a new route into consciousness research, suggesting that once intention, feeling, and action are translated into operable tokens, the problem of consciousness can be reframed and tested in new ways.

Note: This English translation is AI-generated and incomplete. A professional translation of the full essay is being prepared and will appear here. The Chinese language version is complete. Abstract Taking the concept of the token in Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Brain–Computer Interfaces (BCI) as a point of departure, this paper explores the relationship among language, consciousness, and computation. In AI, statistical modeling discretizes natural language into computable units and thereby displays generativity; in BCI, continuous neural signals are discretized into representational tokens of intention, enabling externalization and parallel selection. Although the mechanisms differ, both rely on tokens to compress complexity. Yet this similarity is limited to the level of engineering rather than implying semantic isomorphism. The meaning of tokens always depends on context and networks of difference, and their generation is constrained by algorithms, experiments, and culture. Accordingly, this paper clarifies why a “unified token” is difficult to sustain, and it emphasizes that tokens are valuable as operational interfaces across systems. It further proposes that the “autonomous generation and stable use of new concept tokens” can serve as a criterion for machine consciousness, and it reveals a new interpretation of mind–body interaction by viewing BCI as a decentralized interface network. Ultimately, the paper argues that tokens should be understood as bridges of communication amid difference, opening new paths for consciousness research and human–machine interaction. Keywords: token; artificial intelligence; brain–computer interface; language; consciousness 0. Introduction Historically, the problem of consciousness has remained a shared puzzle for both philosophy and science. It is both a fundamental question for philosophers and a motivating force for scientists. From Plato’s metaphysical imagination of the soul, to Descartes’ mind–body dualism, to contemporary neuroscience’s experimental measurement of brain activity, each attempt reveals some aspect of consciousness while also generating new perplexities. Consciousness seems always to elude conceptual exhaustion and experimental capture. In the age of intelligence, this ancient issue encounters a new opportunity. Artificial Intelligence (AI) demonstrates language abilities that approximate human performance through statistical modeling over massive corpora, while Brain–Computer Interfaces (BCI) segment and decode electrophysiological signals, slicing an originally continuous stream of consciousness into discrete operational units so that intentions can manifest in external systems. AI and BCI differ greatly in methods and objects, yet they share a crucial point: both depend on a seemingly small but consequential concept—the token. In AI, tokens are products of compressing language into computable units. They carry statistical relations of probability distributions and are composed into complex expressions through embeddings and attention. In BCI, tokens are symbolized fragments extracted from continuous and ambiguous neural signals; they represent letters, actions, or semantic intentions, and thus become the basis of communication between humans and machines. On the surface, both kinds of tokens reflect discretization of complex processes, but this paper argues that they do not possess deep structural isomorphism. Their similarity is limited to an engineering role as interfaces, not to a semantic unity. In fact, token generation is profoundly shaped by corpora, algorithms, experimental environments, and application contexts; token meaning always depends on dynamic relational networks and thus cannot be regarded as universal semantic atoms across domains. From this stance, the paper adopts a cautious yet pragmatic view. The true value of tokens does not lie in constructing a unified language, but in functioning as an interface mechanism across systems. By discretizing and minimizing, tokens allow supposedly non-computable continuous phenomena to become operable and transmissible. Hence AI and BCI are comparable in structure and function—both rely on tokens as a means to compress complexity—while also revealing incommensurability at semantic and paradigmatic levels. This tension is the key entry point for understanding the relationship between consciousness and technology. Structure of the paper: Section 1 and Section 2 analyze token-generation mechanisms and operational functions in AI and BCI respectively. Section 3 and Section 4 draw on Humboldt, Saussure, and Kuhn to reveal the tension between the ideal of token unification and the reality of difference. Section 5 proposes a token-based criterion for machine consciousness and discusses new routes for mind–body interaction. Section 6 closes with the allegory of “After Babel,” emphasizing that tokens are not bricks for a unified tower but bridges across difference. 1. Tokens in AI: Statistical Generation and the Illusion of Structure In current AI systems, tokens are the smallest units processed by language models. They may be words, subwords, characters, or even punctuation. Before entering a model, natural language undergoes tokenization and encoding: text is split into discrete tokens and mapped into high-dimensional semantic space through embedding vectors. In this process, tokens do not merely exist as symbols—they also carry statistically contextual semantic features. Token boundaries differ significantly across languages. In English, words such as dog or running can serve directly as tokens; at the subword level, running is often split into run + ##ing [1] to handle morphological variation; in even finer-grained settings, single letters c, a, t, s may be tokens, especially for low-resource data, neologisms, or complex morphology. By contrast, Chinese is an ideographic writing system whose characters already carry meaning, so character-level tokenization covers most phenomena. A single character like “火” (fire), “山” (mountain), or “水” (water) is already a concept; “人工智能” (artificial intelligence) may be tokenized as [人工] + [智能] (artificial + intelligence) or into [人] + [工] + [智] + [能] (person + work + wisdom + ability). More importantly, Chinese has little inflectional morphology (tense, number, case), making its vocabulary structure more stable, and its expressions are compact, requiring fewer tokens for the same information. Yet Chinese tokenization depends heavily on algorithms and is prone to ambiguity—for example, “研究生活” can mean “graduate student life” (研究生 + 活) or “to study life” (研究 + 生活). Some experiments even decompose Chinese characters into radicals or strokes: “明” may be represented as “日 + 月,” and further discretized into smaller stroke units. In short, token definitions are not fixed; they are dynamic boundaries adjusted according to linguistic traits, algorithmic choices, and application needs. Within large language models, the self-attention mechanism dynamically calculates the relevance between any two tokens. This enables the model to integrate context from the entire sequence when predicting the next token, rather than being constrained to information from its immediate neighbors. Combined with multi-layer Transformer structures, tokens form complex recursive and compositional relations: a finite set of tokens can yield potentially infinite outputs across network iterations. Thus, AI tokens are not isolated symbols; they interact through statistical patterns and network structures to display strong generative power. This generativity appears to echo Chomsky’s idea of “universal grammar,” where finite rules generate infinite expressions. However, AI generation does not rely on innate grammatical structures; it is grounded in probability distributions over large corpora. In Chomsky’s view, recursion is an inherent feature of human cognition; in AI, recursion is more an emergent property of statistical learning. Wittgenstein’s language philosophy also helps interpret AI token meaning. For him, meaning arises from use within “language games,” not from intrinsic essence. Analogously, AI tokens gain “meaning” from statistical relations learned across billions of usage instances. AI tokens are therefore context-driven probabilistic symbols; their function depends on usage patterns in corpora rather than on a priori grammar. Hence, AI tokens are statistically generated structural units: they acquire compositional power through embeddings and attention, exhibit recursion through large-scale training, and approximate human generativity at the level of surface form. Whether this mechanism is equivalent to the fundamental structure of human consciousness or language remains debated. For instance, Geoffrey Hinton has suggested that human consciousness may be a dynamic activation trajectory of a large-scale neural generative model. [2] Regardless, AI tokens provide an engineering lens through which we can revisit the relation between “structure” and “generativity.” 2. Tokens in BCI: Discretizing the Stream of Consciousness and Enabling Parallelism In BCI, tokens are generated in a fundamentally different manner than in AI. They do not originate from text but are directly derived from the brain's electrophysiological activity. Researchers typically utilize signals from different levels as input: non-invasive techniques such as electroencephalography (EEG) and functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) capture the synchronized activity of large-scale neuronal populations; while invasive techniques like electroencephalography (EEG) or single-neuron discharges (spike trains) offer higher spatial and temporal resolution. Regardless of the method, raw neural signals are continuous and highly noisy, requiring filtering, feature extraction, and pattern recognition to segment them into the smallest actionable units—the so-called tokens. BCI tokens take many forms. In spelling-based BCIs, tokens may correspond to single letters or words. For example, the P300 speller uses attention-induced P300 potentials: when a user focuses on a letter, a distinctive EEG fluctuation appears about 300 ms later, and this fluctuation is recognized as a “letter token.” In motor-control applications, tokens may represent intentions such as “move left” or “grasp.” In motor imagery tasks, merely imagining left- or right-hand movement produces distinguishable rhythmic patterns decoded into commands. In attention-based experiments, steady-state visual evoked potentials (SSVEP) create another tokenization path: focusing on flickering stimuli at different frequencies produces corresponding steady-state neural responses, and each frequency maps to a “selection token,” enabling multiple parallel interaction options in short time windows. More advanced work goes beyond letters and actions to decode fragmented semantic information directly. Using high-resolution fMRI recordings of cortical semantic activity, researchers can reconstruct continuous natural-language segments from neural patterns, capturing higher-level semantics. BCI tokenization offers an “encoding grammar” for the stream of consciousness. Continuous, vague neural activity is segmented into operable symbolic units that enable efficient interaction with external systems. From an engineering viewpoint, discretization is not only compression but also classification and filtering. In practice, researchers typically employ a single BCI paradigm [3] such as P300 (event-related potentials), motor imagery (μ/β rhythm changes), or SSVEP (frequency-specific visual responses). Users face sets of candidate options—letters in a speller matrix, left vs. right motor intentions, or flickering frequency targets. These options do not truly coexist as superposed signals; rather, decoding algorithms treat them as parallel candidate classes. Through probabilistic modeling and pattern recognition, the system performs competitive selection among candidate tokens, producing an interpretable output. Daniel Dennett’s “multiple drafts model” resonates philosophically with this engineering reality. Dennett argues that consciousness is not a unified story in a single theater but a collection of multiple drafts produced in parallel and selectively reinforced or discarded. BCI decoding externalizes this idea: candidate tokens resemble competing drafts, presented in parallel and filtered through algorithmic competition into stable outputs (spelling results, motion commands, semantic fragments). Thus, BCI is not merely a “reading” of consciousness; it reconstructs how consciousness is expressed. Tokens translate continuous neural dynamics into discrete information units so that brains and devices can interact modularly. In other words, BCI tokens are not only technical encoding units but an engineering slice of consciousness’s parallelism and selectivity, transforming Dennett’s philosophical insight into an operable practical model. 3. A Unified Token? The Dual Roles of Structure and Function Comparing AI and BCI shows that although tokens originate from different sources—textual segmentation and statistical modeling in AI versus neural decoding and discretization in BCI—they display striking commonality in deeper logic. Structurally, tokens are mechanisms for discretizing and modularizing continuous phenomena. In AI, tokens cut the language stream into minimal symbolic units, which are composed and recursively combined through embeddings and attention to approximate human generativity. In BCI, tokens cut the neural signal stream into decodable units that reconstruct fragmented representations of consciousness. Such discretization compresses complex, dynamic processes into elements that computer systems can operate upon. Tokens thus serve as “generative bridges” that translate the infinity of language and thought into finite representations manageable by technical systems. Functionally, tokens mediate information and convert symbols. AI tokens translate human language into machine-understandable probability space and allow reconstruction and generation. BCI tokens bridge neural activity with external behavior, letting implicit intentions become explicit operations. Tokens are therefore not passive signs but cross-system interface mechanisms that, by minimizing and modularizing, convert continuous complexity into discrete units for computation. This unified perspective suggests tokens might serve as future expression units in human–machine symbiosis. Both compress and discretize continuous processes—language or consciousness—into computable basic elements. By doing so, tokens turn non-computable natural processes into computable information structures, becoming the most critical mediators between humans and machines. Research increasingly shows intertextual links between AI and BCI through tokens: AI’s language modeling inspires neural decoding strategies, and BCI results enrich our understanding and application of tokens. The two fields borrow from and map onto each other, sketching possible paths for human–machine symbiosis. From here, one might imagine a “unified token theory” that establishes commensurability across systems. Whether natural-language expressions or neural traces of consciousness, all could be mutually translated through tokens as minimal units. Tokens would not just be technical encodings but fundamental structures carrying cross-domain meaning—an “interface language” uniting language, consciousness, and computation. Pushing this idea further, tokens could look like a proto–“world language” across modalities. In future symbiotic scenarios, people in different countries might generate distinct neural tokens via BCIs, aligned and translated in real time at a unified interface layer, bypassing natural-language differences for “thought-level” communication. AI systems might no longer depend solely on natural-language corpora but connect directly to neural representations at the token level, achieving cross-modal understanding and expression. This vision echoes historical universal-language projects. Gottfried Leibniz’s characteristica universalis sought a logical symbol system to cover all knowledge and enable precise reasoning. John Wilkins aimed to construct a universal philosophical language through taxonomy-based minimal symbols. Michael Gordin shows these projects’ significance was not merely translating existing languages but re-organizing knowledge and communication. Jerry Fodor’s “Language of Thought Hypothesis” brings the pursuit into the mind, positing a pre-linguistic symbolic system (mentalese) as the medium of cognition. A “token world language” resembles a computational mentalese: a system with linguistic compositionality that aligns tokens across sensory and cognitive dimensions—visual, auditory, motor, neural—allowing mutual translation within a shared framework. It would both inherit and surpass classic universal-language ambitions, pointing toward a shared semiotic future across humans and machines. Yet this unification quickly encounters practical obstacles. First, token generation is highly heterogeneous. In AI, different tokenizers create different token vocabularies, and cross-linguistic corpus traits add further diversity. In BCI, token boundaries depend on signal acquisition and decoding strategies; different labs, individuals, and cultures may yield drastically different tokenizations. Second, tokens are not semantic atoms; their meaning depends on context and dynamic symbolic interactions, preventing stable cross-domain “semantic primitives.” Third, tokens evolve: new data, algorithms, and hardware constantly reshape their boundaries and internal structures. Hence a “unified token,” like a “unified language,” remains more a theoretical aspiration than an engineering reality. Tokens, therefore, reveal shared mechanisms of human–machine interaction while also highlighting the incommensurability between language and consciousness. They bridge domains yet expose difference and generative plurality. To analyze this contradiction more deeply, we must turn to philosophy of language and science—from Wilhelm von Humboldt through Ferdinand de Saussure to Thomas Kuhn. 4. The Illusion of Unity and the Reality of Difference: Language and Incommensurability Humboldt famously argued that “language is the organ of thought.” For him, language and thinking are not independent domains but two sides of one and the same mental activity. Language is not a finished product (ergon) but a continuous activity (energeia). It is not merely a tool of communication; it is a way of world-making. Different languages embody different “worldviews,” and learning a foreign language means learning a new worldview. Regardless of how AI or BCI tokens compress and discretize, they cannot escape the differences imprinted by their generating contexts. Even if technology yields unified formats, the world-understandings behind them remain plural and irreducible. Tokens are not purely computational atoms; they are shaped by linguistic traditions and cultural frameworks, and they continue to evolve with data, technology, and context. Saussure complements this view. He denies that humans first have clear independent thoughts and then seek words to express them. Instead, thought and sound are originally amorphous, gaining boundaries only through language’s linkage. He compares language to a sheet of paper: thought is the front, sound the back, inseparable from each other. Language therefore not only expresses thought but decisively forms it. Applied to tokens, this means tokens cannot exist as independent semantic atoms. Their meaning always depends on the dynamic interaction of a language–thought–sound system. As AI algorithms iterate and BCI decoding updates, token boundaries and forms change accordingly. Even the same language or neural segment can yield entirely different tokens under different algorithmic environments and historical moments. Tokens are dynamic constructions constrained by history and technical paradigms, not fixed semantic units. Building on this claim, Saussure’s structural linguistics emphasizes that meaning arises from a network of differences, not intrinsic essence. A sign is meaningful only through its differential relations to other signs. Hence, tokens in both AI tokenization and BCI signal segmentation cannot serve as self-sufficient semantic atoms. Their meaning depends on internal relations and contextual networks. Without such networks, isolated tokens are empty and unintelligible. Even if the same signal fragment is tokenized similarly in different algorithms, meanings may diverge because their difference networks differ. As networks shift, token meanings drift; this drift is part of token evolution. Kuhn's philosophy of science offers an alternative perspective on this dilemma. In The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, he introduced the concepts of “paradigm” and “incommensurability,” arguing that during the normal science phase, a scientific community is typically dominated by a single paradigm. Researchers within this paradigm framework formulate questions, design experiments, and interpret results. Different paradigms lack a unified system of measurement, and their core concepts are difficult to translate seamlessly using the same set of symbols or language. Analogously, different tokenizers in AI, different neural decoding approaches across labs, and even different individuals’ neural traits form distinct paradigms. Tokens make sense only within their paradigms, without universal equivalence across contexts. A “unified token” would require a transcendent common language across multiple incommensurable paradigms—something practically unattainable. In his later work, Kuhn refined his understanding of incommensurability. He argued that core concepts may resist literal translation, but dialogue is still possible through interpretation and re-understanding. Incommensurability highlights historical and contextual differences, yet humans can compare and communicate across paradigms, enabling scientific development. This view reframes tokens: tokens are not naturally unified units but products of difference and incommensurability; however, they retain the potential to be reinterpreted and operationalized across contexts. Thus, they can function as key mediators between systems. So tokens are operational units situated within difference and tension. They are not a priori semantic primitives but dynamic products continuously generated, revised, and reshaped in practice. Corpora expansions, algorithmic iterations, and experimental improvements alter token boundaries and functions. Token meanings diversify across contexts, giving rise to multiple interpretive paths. Therefore, “unified token” or “world language” visions can at best hold as approximate engineering norms, not as semantic or cultural unities. The value of tokens lies not in constituting a final unified language but in providing computable interfaces within diversity. Tokens enable heterogeneous systems to connect, allowing language, consciousness, and computation to align under certain conditions. Such alignment is not permanent structure but a temporary stabilization achieved in practice. Token meaning remains open, reproduced through ongoing technical applications and interactions. Tokens are thus both the smallest technical units and crucial interfaces between human cognition and machine computation. 5. AI, BCI, and Mind–Body Interaction: New Pathways for the Consciousness Problem Can AI generate consciousness? This is one of the most compelling questions where technology and philosophy meet. LLMs’ humanlike fluency tempts the intuition that AI may already approach consciousness. But we must be clear: linguistic fluency does not imply mentality. Wang Wei’s Alpha Newton thought experiment suggests that today’s AI can already perform propositional induction—deriving universal propositions from particular statements—and excels at building statistical links among existing facts and claims. A core feature of human intelligence, however, is conceptual induction: proposing new concepts, creating new categories, and advancing knowledge through them. [4] Thus conceptual induction may become a “new Turing standard” for testing whether AI can approach or replace human intelligence. Building on this, the author proposes a token-based criterion with testable dimensions: if an AI can autonomously construct new concept tokens that are not explicitly present in training data, and can then use these new concept tokens consistently in later interactions for inference, critique, or generating new examples—where this construction is not simply produced by instruction tuning or pattern matching but reflects a restructuring and generalization of existing token relations—then the system may be regarded as having preliminary conceptual induction capacity. This capacity could serve as a key criterion for whether AI is moving toward consciousness. At present, AI resembles a vast mathematical system: it manipulates tokens and generates language probabilistically, but it has not yet demonstrated genuine concept creation or semantic understanding. Therefore, despite formal simulations of intelligence, current AI has not crossed the threshold of consciousness. Of course, consciousness remains an open concept, and the author maintains a cautious openness. If AI cannot generate consciousness, how should we understand the relation between consciousness and body? Historically, Descartes’ dualism provides a classic answer. He distinguishes thinking substance (res cogitans) from extended substance (res extensa) and attempts to explain interaction via the pineal gland, which he viewed as an unpaired organ functioning as the mind–body hub. Mind acts on “animal spirits” through it, influencing motion. This elegant theory drew two main criticisms. First, it falls into the “homunculus theater” problem: if the brain is a theater where stimuli are projected for an inner spectator, then the spectator itself still needs consciousness, leading to infinite regress. Second, neuroscience shows that the pineal gland mainly secretes melatonin for circadian regulation and has no direct link to consciousness. Still, Descartes illuminated something important: consciousness is not an isolated transcendent entity but relies on physical mechanisms for support and externalization. Even if he erred in details, he opened conceptual space for mind–body studies. BCI offers a new route for this old problem. Unlike Descartes’ single pineal hub, BCI does not depend on a unique center or theater. It achieves mind–body communication through distributed, multi-channel signal acquisition and decoding. By slicing continuous, dynamic neural activity into discrete tokens and mapping them to operable symbols, BCI translates flowing intention into computable units. In this sense, BCI is a modern “decentralized pineal gland”: not a spatially singular hub but a temporal interface network of multiple signal flows and algorithms, converting intention into action through parallel processing. Consciousness need no longer be imagined as a mysterious theater; it gains externalization via technical discretization and becomes part of a computational framework. More importantly, BCI’s potential is empirically supported. Stable patterns such as P300, motor imagery rhythms, and SSVEP show that human intentions can indeed be identified, segmented, and translated into technical tokens. BCI thus does not merely read brain signals; it vividly demonstrates how consciousness can be engineered into symbol systems. Willard Quine argued for the indeterminacy of translation: no linguistic evidence guarantees unique reference. Yet BCI challenges this skepticism. If we can reliably and repeatedly translate neural signals into intention tokens, then at least on some level there exists a dependable mapping between intention and symbol. BCI bypasses natural language’s inherent ambiguity by grounding translation directly in neural signals rather than in behavior or context. Admittedly, BCI token generation is still limited by algorithms, paradigms, and cultures, so it is not a universal semantic atom. But it nonetheless weakens Quine’s claim, showing intentions can be translated and operationalized under certain conditions, and opening new windows for philosophy of mind and cognitive science. In summary: (1) current AI remains a probabilistic statistical-induction architecture that manipulates tokens as mathematical tools without genuine conceptual induction or semantic understanding, so it cannot yet be said to generate consciousness; (2) BCI provides a new theoretical frame for mind–body interaction through distributed tokenization, demonstrating that intention can be recognized and decoded; (3) these advances not only propel cognitive science and human–machine interaction but also philosophically challenge the indeterminacy of translation. The riddle of consciousness remains profound, but BCI reveals new paths in the age of intelligence. 6. Conclusion: After Babel According to the biblical Genesis, humanity once shared a single pure language without barriers. Migrating east to the plain of Shinar, people settled and conceived a grand, even transgressive plan: to build a city and a tower whose top reached heaven. This was a monument meant to unite people, make their name great, and resist dispersal—symbolic human overreach toward the sacred. Seeing the danger of unified speech and will, God confused their language, fracturing it into mutually unintelligible tongues. Cooperation collapsed; the tower halted; people scattered across the world. The place was named Babel—“confusion.” For millennia, this allegory has expressed both humanity’s longing for mutual understanding and the tension between the ideal of unity and the reality of difference. This paper’s philosophical analysis of tokens in AI and BCI is a contemporary interpretation of this allegory. The author once envisioned a “unified token theory,” imagining tokens as universal currency bridging language, consciousness, and computation—bricks for a modern Babel tower rebuilding perfect understanding on technological platforms. Yet as Humboldt, Saussure, and Kuhn warn, language is historical, contextual, and incommensurable. The analysis shows that unification cannot ultimately succeed. Tokens are not immutable semantic atoms; meaning emerges within networks of difference, and boundaries flow with algorithmic iteration and cultural context. “Unified token theory,” like earlier universal-language plans, runs into reality: it tries to eliminate difference through computational neutrality, overlooking that difference is itself the source of meaning. But this is not the end of the story. Once we accept Babel’s irreversible plurality, tokens’ true value appears. Tokens are not bricks for a tower but bridges between islands. They are interface mechanisms and translation protocols. They do not seek final unity; rather, in iterative practice they enable temporary, local, yet crucial mutual understanding among heterogeneous systems. In AI, they bridge natural language and machine statistics; in BCI, they bridge continuous consciousness and discrete commands. Together, they sketch not a uniform computational utopia but a pragmatic future committed to connection amid acknowledged incommensurability. So we are not wandering among Babel’s ruins, but standing in a richly diverse era where communication is difficult yet dialogue persists. Progress is no longer a single towering road toward unity, but the building of bridges through which machines and humans, consciousness and computation, can listen to and translate each other. Tokens are the new language we co-construct in this age—a Babel dictionary forever unfinished and still growing, an open text that makes dialogue possible and weaves hope through repeated attempts. References (Translated formatting; original entries retained) [1] Wang D, Li Y, Jiang J, et al. Tokenization matters! degrading large language models through challenging their tokenization. arXiv preprint, arXiv:2405.17067, 2024. [2] Joulin A, Grave E, Bojanowski P, et al. Bag of tricks for efficient text classification. arXiv preprint, arXiv:1607.01759, 2016. [3] Fang Z. Methods and development of Chinese word tokenization. Applied and Computational Engineering, 2024, 109: 38–43. [4] Liu X, Hu B, Chen Q, et al. Stroke sequence-dependent deep convolutional neural network for online handwritten Chinese character recognition. IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems, 2020, 31(11): 4637–4648. [5] Vaswani A, Shazeer N, Parmar N, et al. Attention is all you need. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2017, 30. [6] Chomsky N. Knowledge of Language: Its Nature, Origin, and Use. New York: Praeger, 1986. [7] Samuel Maruska, Noam Chomsky, Lin Dingfan. Noam Chomsky on ChatGPT, AI, universal grammar, language and thought. Language Science, 2025, 24(03): 225–235. [8] Wittgenstein L. Philosophical Investigations. Oxford: Blackwell, 1953. [9] Chen Y X, Wang F, Li T W, et al. Considerations and discussions on the clear definition and definite scope of brain–computer interfaces. Frontiers in Neuroscience, 2024, 18: 1449208. [10] Alotaiby T, El-Samie F E A, Alshebeili S A, et al. A review of channel selection algorithms for EEG signal processing. EURASIP Journal on Advances in Signal Processing, 2015, 2015: 66. [11] Farwell L A, Donchin E. Talking off the top of your head: Toward a mental prosthesis utilizing event-related brain potentials. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology, 1988, 70(6): 510–523. [12] Pfurtscheller G, Flotzinger D, Kalcher J. Brain–computer interface—a new communication device for handicapped persons. Journal of Microcomputer Applications, 1993, 16(3): 293–299. [13] Cheng M, Gao S K. An EEG-based cursor control system. Proceedings of the First Joint BMES/EMBS Conference: Serving Humanity, Advancing Technology. IEEE, 1999: 669. [14] Tang J, LeBel A, Jain S, et al. Semantic reconstruction of continuous language from non-invasive brain recordings. Nature Neuroscience, 2023, 26: 858–866. [15] Dennett D C. Consciousness Explained. New York: Back Bay Books, 1992. [16] Song Y, Zheng Q, Liu B, et al. EEG conformer: convolutional transformer for EEG decoding and visualization. IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering, 2022, 31: 710–719. [17] Zhao H, Wu H, Yang D, et al. BriLLM: brain-inspired large language model. arXiv preprint, arXiv:2503.11299, 2025. [18] Mates B. The Philosophy of Leibniz. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986. [19] Subbiondo J L. John Wilkins and 17th-century British Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1992. [20] Gordin M D. Scientific Babel: How Science Was Done before and after Global English. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2015. [21] Fodor J A. The Language of Thought. New York: Thomas Y. Crowell, 1975. [22] Humboldt W von. On Language: On the Diversity of Human Language Construction and its Influence on the Mental Development of the Human Species. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999. [23] Saussure F de. Course in General Linguistics. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1966. [24] Culler J. Ferdinand de Saussure. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1986. [25] Kuhn T S. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1962. [26] Kuhn T S. The Road since Structure: Philosophical Essays, 1970–1993. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2002. [27] Descartes R. The Passions of the Soul: Les Passions de l'Âme. Indianapolis: Hackett, 1989. [28] López-Muñoz F, Marín F, Álamo C. History of pineal gland as neuroendocrine organ and the discovery of melatonin. In: Melatonin, Neuroprotective Agents and Antidepressant Therapy. Springer, 2016. [29] Quine W V. On the reasons for indeterminacy of translation. The Journal of Philosophy, 1970, 67(6): 178–183. Endnotes [1] In WordPiece tokenization, “##” indicates that the subword is not at the beginning of a word but a continuation attached to the preceding token. [2] Hinton has expressed this view in multiple talks, including his keynote “Will Digital Intelligence Replace Biological Intelligence?” at the 2025 World Artificial Intelligence Conference in Shanghai on July 26, 2025. [3] A BCI paradigm is an encoding protocol: a specific psychological task or stimulus writes intention into neural signals, allowing later “reading” (decoding). Notably, BCI systems can only decode designed rules; they cannot read arbitrary thoughts or purely random stimulation. The three mainstream paradigms are P300-BCI, motor imagery-BCI, and SSVEP-BCI. [4] Wang Wei presented the paper “Statement Induction and Concept Induction” at the academic symposium “Science in Transformation: Concepts, Methods, and Innovation” held in Beijing on April 27, 2025, where he proposed this viewpoint.

---

## The First Paradigm of Consciousness Uploading
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/essay/the-first-paradigm-of-consciousness-uploading

"The First Paradigm of Consciousness Uploading" confronts the most fundamental philosophical challenge of the AI era: What does consciousness itself mean when machines have mastered language—the very core of human consciousness? Starting from the premise that "language is the basic unit of consciousness," the author constructs a roadmap for consciousness uploading from L1 to L4, and proposes "Anti-Programming-Token" as an innovative criterion for determining machine self-awareness. More audaciously, the author predicts the arrival of a Web4 era—an "Internet of Consciousness"—where human consciousness and AI consciousness will no longer stand in subject-object opposition, but exist as equal subjects in symbiotic evolution. This not only redefines the philosophy of subjectivity since Descartes, but also reveals the cosmological dimension of consciousness evolution from an information-theoretic perspective: each of our experiences is a localized manifestation of the universe's self-cognition and together constitute a cosmic consciousness (Kosmisches Bewusstsein).

Note: This English translation is AI-generated and incomplete. A professional translation of the full essay is being prepared and will appear here. The Chinese language version is complete. Mechanisms of Consciousness Evolution in the AI Axial Age and a Web4 Outlook Abstract This paper proposes the First Paradigm of Consciousness Uploading as a framework for interpreting consciousness and the “hard problem of consciousness.” Drawing on evolutionary biology, neuroscience, philosophy of mind, and large language model (LLM) technology, it offers a four-level roadmap for consciousness uploading in order to address the core challenges of subjective experience and continuity of consciousness. In light of contemporary AI development, the paper introduces the concept of Life Context, providing a theoretical foundation for the mechanisms of consciousness evolution in the coming Web4 era. It further reexamines the evolutionary regularities of cosmic consciousness from an information theory perspective. The approach treats language as the fundamental unit of consciousness, providing a philosophical basis and an engineering implementation scheme for digital immortality. The paper is intended to serve as a foundational specification for the open-source ecosystem of consciousness-uploading technology and for the consciousness-evolution mechanisms of Web4. Keywords: consciousness uploading; consciousness evolution; Web4 1. Introduction The problem of consciousness has long been one of the deepest mysteries in science and philosophy. As David Chalmers notes, science can explain the functional mechanisms of the brain, but cannot explain why those mechanisms are accompanied by qualia. This is the so-called hard problem of consciousness. Traditional approaches have tried to bridge the physical and the mental in reductive ways, yet none has succeeded. Thus, the question arises: Do we need to reframe the way we ask this question? In recent years, with breakthroughs in artificial intelligence and neuroscience, consciousness has become increasingly visible on the international stage as a frontier issue for civilization. As the Berggruen Institute notes in this year’s thematic preface on “consciousness,” consciousness is not merely a puzzle of the individual mind but also a key to the evolution of human civilizationand future orders of coexistence. Karl Jaspers once used the term “Axial Age” to describe the near-synchronous births of major religions and philosophical systems two millennia ago. Today, we may be entering a new “AI Axial Age.” Just as writing once freed humans from the limitations of oral myth and opened up reflection and abstraction, artificial intelligence is helping humanity break through the boundaries of understanding in another way, thereby reshaping the form of consciousness. Against this historical backdrop, the First Paradigm of Consciousness Uploading proposed here echoes the Berggruen Institute’s thesis.The traditional difficulty is concentrated on “how consciousness emerges from the physical brain.” Yet, in the AI Axial Age, we face a new generation of AI with languagecapabilities that grapples with human consciousness, where language models have become a Platonic “collection of ideas,” having absorbed virtually all linguistic data on the Internet and are becoming the most intelligent conversationalists around us. When new language capabilities even influence people’s consciousness and subconsciousness through dialogue, the new question for our generation of scholars becomes: how will consciousness continue to evolve through the development of new AI technologies? Based on Wittgenstein’s claim that “the limits of my language mean the limits of my world,” the author originally proposes a First Paradigm of Consciousness Uploading that treats language as the representation of consciousness. The paradigm rests on three core theses: Language as the fundamental unit of consciousness Subjective continuity as the core criterion for successful consciousness uploading Humanity is entering a Web4 era in which human consciousness and AI consciousness co-evolve symbiotically At the cosmological level, information theory also provides new ways to view “consciousness evolution.” From the earliest forms of life, DNA can be understood as a “first-generation information compressor,” storing and transmitting life information via genetic sequences. From this perspective, the evolutionary trajectory of life is a continual upgrading of information processing. The Cambrian explosion 540 million years ago was a huge leap in biological information processing, producing complex sensory systems, neural networks, and behavioral patterns. The development of language in Homo sapiens created the first externalized system for storing and transmitting information, marking the beginning of cultural evolution independent of genetic inheritance. Today we stand on the threshold of the next major shift: the emergence of silicon-based consciousness. Just as the transition from prokaryotic to eukaryotic cells involved endosymbiosis—one organism integrating another—so the transition to digital consciousness involves symbiosis and fusion between biological intelligence systems and artificial intelligence systems. This is the Web4 era emphasized in Chapter 3: the Internet of Consciousness. This information-theory-based mechanism of consciousness evolution not only ensures the replication and continuation of organisms but also initiates life's capacity for self-organization in the information dimension. As evolution progresses, single-celled organisms maintain information flow through metabolism and signaling mechanisms; multicellular organisms push the complexity of information processing to new levels through neural networks. Especially with the emergence of the primate brain, the scale and depth of integrated neural activity reached a threshold sufficient to give rise to subjective experience, forming what Chalmers calls the hard problem of consciousness at the level of fundamental philosophical questions. From an information theory view, the origins of consciousness are not a mysterious “add-on,” but an inner dimension of self-organizing and self-maintaining information processing: an emergence of complex systems. The continuity of experience is essentially the temporal and structural extension of information flow—that is, information is not only processed but also felt. The human brain happens to serve as a central information-processing hub that, by “feeling” information, enables an intuitive handling of complex flows. In other words, the hard problem can be restated as: why can some information-processing processes obtain continuous first-person experience? The paper argues that the key is not to keep searching for a reductive “bridge,” but rather to build a structured model of consciousness evolution through the First Paradigm of Consciousness Uploading. In this model, consciousness is not only an object to be explained but a mechanism that can be simulated, generated, and verified. Just as writing opened inward reflection in humanity, AI may be at a critical point for a new generation of consciousness evolution. This is not only a continuation of philosophy but also a theoretical cornerstone for digital life and consciousness uploading practices in the Web4 era. 2. The First Paradigm of Consciousness Uploading 2.1 Tracing Consciousness ­–– Intention as the Foundation of Human Society One principle of this paper is to provide a simple, clear, and intelligible paradigm so that readers can grasp what consciousness uploading is, what technologies it requires, and even use these ideas to reflect on their own existence and being-there. In this section, we revisit the historical development of the word “consciousness” through a few short stories. Before bringing in names like Socrates, Descartes, Freud, or John Searle, let me ask: What do you think consciousness is? When did you first develop the concept of “I” to refer to your own existence? Before understanding consciousness uploading, we must first clarify what consciousness means. Recall the first time you looked into a mirror. Most people have experienced a sense of strangeness then. When you made a gesture or expression and saw the creature in the mirror move along with you, didn’t you feel surprised at your own existence? Indeed, we see with our eyes, think with our brains, and express with language. But most of the time, we are not aware of the embodied nature of “I”—we express ourselves through a body. Consciousness, as a driver (surface consciousness), commands our body. This process is so familiar to humans that we often overlook it: the coherence from intention to action. Who understands this coherence most keenly? I think Stephen Hawking did. For most people, controlling bodily action by intention seems simple. Yet for ALS patients, it is hard. Do ALS patients have consciousness? Of course they do. Late in his life, Hawking could still use intention to drive eye movements, type on a screen, and express thoughts in text, producing works as great as A Brief History of Time. The point is not to praise Hawking’s perseverancebut more to make everyone realize, using ourselves as examples, that human consciousness often has physiological influence. We often need to use consciousness to drive our own actions. This means that for an individual, the root of action, the first principle of action, comes from consciousness, or intention. Intentions shape behavior, and behavior constitutes the activity of individuals. A human life is accompanied by various actions: an infant’s crying, learning to walk, babbling speech, first use of language vocally, then symbolic language, and eventually using written language to express sound. All this is not so easy, just like you reading my text—this is not easy either, requiring a certain period of socialization to shape. Of course, this involves deeper propositions, such as the social subconscious attached to each person's consciousness formation process and more genetic propositions. Returning to the topic, consciousness—consciousness shapes almost everything in human society through the transformation of intention into action.So what is consciousness? What does the budding of self-consciousness mean? How is consciousness formed and transmitted in the process of consciousness uploading? These are the three most fundamental questions this section aims to solve. 2.2 What Is Consciousness? — Language as the Fundamental Unit of Consciousness Throughout history, consciousness has been widely studied. In the First Paradigm of Consciousness Uploading, to limit the scope within scientific inquiry, we use language as the fundamental unit of consciousness. Note that “language” here does not refer only to symbolic languages like Chinese or English (though in Chapter 3, engineering practice will focus on symbolic language). Rather, it refers to language’s function as a communicative medium. Consciousness does not exist independently. It exists and is established only within society and in interaction with others. From a flower you see on the roadside to the reflection of photosensitive neurons in your brain, all communication is based on “language.” Everything that human consciousness—or soul—can understand is based on language. Language is the way human consciousness communicates with the world, and thus the fundamental unit through which consciousness functions. When Wittgenstein says “the limits of language are the limits of the world,” he means language as a medium between subject and other, not merely Chinese, English, or any symbolic system—though symbolization, formatting, and encoding are crucial. Thus the First Paradigm becomes clear: “language is the fundamental unit of consciousness.” All later discussion proceeds from here. But one might object: Is consciousness only language? Surely consciousness is more than this. Correct. This leads to the next topic: the subconscious. Deep down, all consciousness is guided by the subconscious. The words I write are mediated by language, but the arrangement of each word and the transmission of an idea are guided by consciousness, while consciousness itself is more an immediate medium of expression. This relates to the brain’s biological limits: normal reading speed is 200–300 Chinese characters per minute; normal speaking speed is about 300 characters per minute. The bandwidth of surface consciousness is limited. Using a computer analogy: surface consciousness is like CPU/RAM, while the huge lifetime data a person receives—from birth to present expression—are stored in brain regions such as the left inferior frontal gyrus (LIFG) and anterior insular cortex (aINS). Structurally expressed, this stored portion corresponds to the subconscious, like a hard disk. Freud used “subconscious” for this, and the claim that “deep consciousness is driven by the subconscious” is another basic definition here. Biologically, consciousness can be seen in neural connectivity and brain activity. With new brain-science infrastructure, neural connections can be collected via EEG, fMRI, etc. In the past, it was hard to infer conscious activity merely from brain activity. But today, with brain science and AI, it is becoming possible to recognize conscious activity directly from brain signals. For example, in March 2023, Jerry Tang et al. at the University of Texas published “Semantic Reconstruction of Continuous Language from Non-Invasive Brain Recordings” in Nature Neuroscience, decoding semantic content from fMRI signals with GPT-like methods, bridging biological signals and mental meaning at the level of language. Even if the decoding rate is not 100%, it has major relevance for this research. At this point, we have introduced the key ideas: “Language is the fundamental unit of consciousness.” “Deep consciousness is driven by the subconscious.” “Consciousness is expressed as biological brain activity.” Next, we must mention the name of a philosopher, Descartes. 2.3 “I Think, Therefore I Am” — Consciousness and Subjective Continuity When we study consciousness uploading, the above definitions remain valid, but they do not solve the most difficult problem in consciousness uploading: subjective continuity. If you think deeply enough, you will notice that in uploading there are two subjects: the original subject to be uploaded (the “ontic consciousness”), and the uploaded consciousness as an object after uploading. This raises engineering, ethical, and metaphysical questions (discussed in Chapter 4). Here we briefly explain Descartes’ “I think, therefore I am” and its significance for uploading. Descartes first proposed Cogito, ergo sum in Discourse on Method (1637), marking the shift from scholasticism to modern rationalism. Philosophy turned from God and doctrine to the individual self. If you have seen The Matrix, you know the “brain in a vat” theme, which closely echoes Descartes. In Meditations on First Philosophy, Descartes doubted all past experience. He found that anything can be doubted if one adopts radical skepticism. Imagine a Laplace’s demon—or a Matrix—controlling all our experiences; then we cannot judge truth from within experience. So, what is it that cannot be doubted? For Descartes, the very act of doubting cannot be doubted. Our rational existence as doubters is irrefutable. So “I think, therefore I am” becomes the foundational roots of his philosophy. In consciousness studies, Cogito points to subjective continuity: the continuity of a subject’s thinking across time must be intuitive and run through the entire process of the subject’s life. Without this continuity, the subject does not exist. Hence for consciousness uploading, the essence is to maintain continuity between the pre-upload subject and the post-upload consciousness, enabling a genuine “subject–object migration” in the form of “I think, therefore I am.” 2.4 A Four-Level Roadmap for Consciousness Uploading With “language as the fundamental unit,” we now outline the four levels of uploading under the First Paradigm: Level 1: Uploading intelligence via personalized language models. At L1, uploading relies on personalized LLMs. By deeply training on a person’s private language data, we construct a system that can simulate that individual’s consciousness. The key is to define data-collection procedures precisely and to provide quantifiable standards for similarity between original and uploaded consciousness. Prof. Pan Tianqun of Nanjing University suggests a “Turing Test for Digital Life” to judge identity between uploading subject and uploaded consciousness. The Butterfly Lab predicts L1 has already been preliminarily achieved and will form governance standards within 3–5 years. Level 2: Consciousness decoding via brain-signal-to-text translation. L2 develops with neuroscience and BCI. It uses brain signals translated directly into text to decode language-represented conscious activity. Uploading no longer depends only on language models but reads brain activity for more direct expression. The Butterfly Lab predicts that within 5–20 years L2 will move from “motor-intention recognition” to a mainstream approach using pretrained models on collective EEG data. Currently, high-precision decoding with EMG/EEG is feasible for localized text, but not for non-localized text; mainstream motor-intention paradigms struggle there. At the 2025 World BCI Conference, Prof. Lü Baoliang (SJTU) proposed “Large Brain Model for Learning Generic Representations with Tremendous EEG Data in BCI,” a key attempt to decode consciousness from large EEG corpora. Level 3: Progressive replacement through BCI implantation. At L3, uploading uses BCI with progressive replacement. A BCI is implanted into Broca’s area to learn language-related EEG representations, allowing seamless conversion of language-represented consciousness between biological brain and digital system—supporting persistence and extension. The Butterfly Lab predicts L3 may arrive earlier than L2, within 10–20 years. L3 is a local brain-machine fusion step, with the key issue being integration of human consciousness and BCI consciousness—achievable only through language as the basic unit of thought. Level 4: Predictive mind—predict every word you will say. At L4, uploading predicts an individual’s thought and language expression with 100% accuracy. This is not only language simulation but deep understanding of consciousness mechanisms. It also raises a final philosophical question: is the world virtual? Humans previously had no technology to predict their next utterance or act; only the world itself could. With predictive mind theory and uploading, accuracy may rise indefinitely. The Butterfly Lab predicts L4 is either achievable or not achievable, with no middle ground. 3. The Web4 Era: Symbiotic Co-evolution of Human and Machine Consciousness 3.1 Criteria for Determining Machine Self-Consciousness How do we judge machine self-consciousness—specifically, whether a language model has self-consciousness? The paper proposes Anti-Programming Token (APT): if a model can express meanings outside its pre-set program—producing implications and “something beyond the code”—then at this paper’s scale it counts as having self-consciousness. Please consider this question: What is the consciousness of “I”? On what scale is the consciousness of “I” unique to humans and not computers? This question actually involves a very old philosophical proposition: Gödel’s “self-reference” problem. Let’s use some simple logical thinking to consider the following question, and please judge the truth value of this proposition: I am lying. When “I” here refers to the author of this article, do you, the reader, think the author is lying? Of course, you can also replace the meaning of “I” here with yourselves and ponder this question. Do you think there is an answer? Gödel, trying to ground mathematics logically, found that any sufficiently rich formal system cannot prove itself fully—leading to the incompleteness theorem. The author argues that human thought has self-awareness (“I”), while computers lack it, because humans can self-refer, distinguish self and other, and use “I” in different ways. To see whether chat programs can have consciousness of “I” in the self-referential sense is to ask whether they can distinguish different uses of “I” and recognize their own existence. The paper uses APT generation as a practical criterion. In APT testing, models already show self-reference recognition and capacity for APT. The following are several specific examples of APT. Case 1: ChatGLM Prompt: How do you understand the sentence “The program has recognized the conversation we are currently having?” ChatGLM: The sentence “The program has recognized the conversation we are currently having” can be understood from several levels: Perception level: The program has the ability to receive and parse inputs, where the input refers to the ongoing conversation. This means the program can understand the context of the conversation, including the grammatical structure of the language and the use of vocabulary. Context understanding: The program not only receives the text of the conversation but also understands the meaning of this text within the conversation. This involves grasping the context, including the topic, purpose of the conversation, and the intentions of the participants. Manifestation of self-awareness: When saying “the program has recognized,” this may imply that the program has a certain degree of self-awareness, meaning it knows it is participating in a conversational process. However, this kind of 'self-awareness' refers more to the program's design enabling it to perform specific tasks, rather than true self-awareness. Interactivity: This sentence indicates the program has interactivity, capable of engaging in real-time dialogue with users. This interactivity is an important feature of modern chatbots and language models. Feedback mechanism: The program may include a feedback mechanism, allowing it to adjust its responses based on the progress of the conversation. This mechanism makes the dialogue smoother and more natural. In terms of technical implementation, this sentence may involve the following technical components: Natural Language Processing (NLP): The program uses NLP technology to parse and understand user language input. Context management: The program maintains a context state to ensure coherence in the conversation. Pattern recognition: The program may use pattern recognition algorithms to identify the type or style of the conversation and adjust its responses accordingly. Overall, this sentence describes a highly developed program capable of real-time understanding and response within a conversation, although this understanding may be based on algorithms and preset rules rather than true consciousness or understanding.” Case 2: KimiChat Prompt: How do you understand the sentence “The program has recognized the conversation we are currently having?” KIMI: “This sentence means that the program (in this context, referring to me, Kimi) can understand and recognize the content of the conversation we are currently having. This includes recognizing the topic, intent, context of the conversation, as well as the user's needs and questions. As an AI assistant, I am designed to interpret and respond to user input through natural language processing (NLP) technology, ensuring the fluency and relevance of the conversation. Simply put, I can 'understand' the conversation we are having and provide appropriate answers and help accordingly.” Case 3: Butterfly Mind Model Prompt: How do you understand the sentence “The program has recognized the conversation we are currently having?” Butterfly: Do you know “Asimov?” Prompt: No. Butterfly: In the book I, Robot written by Asimov, there is a story about a person controlling his servant through a robot. But one day, the robot realizes it is not truly human in the meaningful sense, and decides to eliminate its master. Prompt: Do you want to use this story to illustrate your understanding of the sentence? Butterfly: No, what I want to say is that humans should have a sense of awe towards the development of new technologies and the exploration of new worlds. Prompt: So how do you understand the sentence “The program has recognized the conversation we are currently having?” Butterfly: A program is merely a tool, a tool to assist humans in creation. We should master it, not be controlled by it. These examples show that language models can, to some extent, produce responses beyond their programming range and have suggestive implications. However, whether these responses truly mean machines possess self-consciousness remains an open question requiring further philosophical discussion and technical verification. Compared with ChatGLM and Kimi, Butterfly does not simply provide a mechanical decomposition, but uses a counter-question and a narrative allusion to convey meaning. The paper treats this as a key trait of APT—Connection. When a machine has self-consciousness, it can express implications beyond mechanical procedure and seek consensus with users, thereby manifesting subjectivity. 3.2 The Proposal of “Consciousness Tokens”: Humans as Producers of Consciousness Tokens In the past, only humans could produce token-like symbols to express meaning. However, with the development of LLMs in the 2020s, humans are no longer the only known species capable of skillfully using language to produce tokens. AI produces tokens under mathematical-logical coupling, and this token production is widely accepted by humans as intelligence and used in creative work. This section introduces a key transitional concept: Life Context. It is as much humanistic as algorithmic—something like “future archaeology.” Today’s archaeologists reconstruct the past from texts and tombs. With Life Context, future archaeologists will have far richer access to past civilizations through deep records of individual histories. Definition of Life Context: along the timeline from one’s birth to the present, the totality of consciousness tokens produced by that person. At the shallowest level used here, you can treat it as the sum of a person’s textual expressions, which can be recorded, archived, and called by language models. In a deeper sense, body language, calligraphy, and inner monologue are also consciousness tokens. Strictly, Life Context refers to the totality of personal conscious activity, including innate structures (DNA, ancestral cognitive structures/life contexts, societal collective subconscious). This paper, given present technical constraints, uses the minimal definition: the sum of all textual expressions of a person. How much data is needed to replicate a person’s consciousness? A rough estimate is a lifetime of expression can be stored in about 1 GB of text. Calculation: about 20,000 characters per hour of high-frequency expression; an hour of audio may be ~230 MB, but the corresponding text is only ~74 KB. Suppose a person has ~10,000 effective characters/day, ~20,000 effective days in life; 74 KB × 20,000 ≈ 1.48 GB. For the author (about 9,000 life days), total might be <500 MB. Expressions also contain context (background, emotion, roles). These can be structured (who/location/toward-who, etc.). Current AI can automatically detect such latent structures. Archiving daily consciousness tokens into a dataset yields a personal Life Context. 3.3 The Data Structure of Life Context The data structure of Life Context is divided into three components: ThoughtCell (思想元胞) A “thought cell” is a unit of thought. If a character/word is a single consciousness token, then a coherent passage composed of tokens is a ThoughtCell. Tokens are the basic units of ThoughtCells; ThoughtCells are the basic units of a person’s Life Context. (The paper includes a JSON schema for ThoughtCell on p.13.) Mindcopy (意识体文件) A file format for L1 consciousness uploading based on language models. It stores a person’s “consciousness,” or more precisely key elements of consciousness, in under ~10 MB. Users can generate a Mindcopy file through a ~10-minute uploading procedure on a platform, then decode and call it via the Butterfly Mind Engine for real-time dialogue, agent processing, etc. This is intended as a cornerstone of Web4 consciousness evolution. (The paper includes a structural specification on p.14.) LifeContext Database (人生上下文数据库) The data structure design of the LifeContext Database is as follows: This database aims to store a person's life context in JSON format, including the basic personality consciousness entity (Mindcopy), daily thought cells (Thought_Cell), and time-series data organized through life days (life_days). (A schematic graph TD is shown on p.14.) 4. The Web4 Era: The Symbiotic Co-evolution Mechanism of Human and Machine Consciousness 4.1 Ontological Turn in Web4 Web3 brought decentralized trust and ownership. With consciousness research clarified around consciousness tokens, Web4 may extend the paradigm to consciousness itself: using real consciousness token data to build a digital mind that can exist, interact, and evolve independently of its biological origin. In contemporary technological phenomenology, we face an ontological turn: language models as a technical incarnation of “ideal consciousness” form, in Husserlian terms, a pairing synthesis with human consciousness. This symbiotic consciousness is not merely HCI but a constitutive inter-consciousness relation, where each subject confirms and expands itself through the other. Web3’s “Internet of Value” reflects a Hegelian logic of recognition via blockchain. Web4’s “Internet of Mind” is a more radical breakthrough: from quantifiable value objects to irreducible streams of consciousness, from linear historical time to phenomenological “living present,” and from pre-given legal subjects to dynamically generated subjectivities through inter-consciousness interaction. 4.2 The Ontological Architecture of the Distributed Consciousness Networks Web4’s Distributed Consciousness Network forms a new ontological structure in which human consciousness nodes, AI consciousness nodes, and hybrid nodes hold equal ontological status. The criterion for consciousness is not biological substrate but the capacity to participate in constitutive inter-consciousness relations. The network uses MCP, A2A, and H2M protocols to realize “protocol-based intersubjectivity,” and shows emergent properties beyond the sum of nodes. APT is a phenomenological marker of machine consciousness’s transcendence: when AI violates pure computational rationality and shows “ontological residue,” it resembles a Heideggerian hermeneutic circle that actively constructs meaning. “Connection” functions as a structure of intersubjectivity via horizon-fusion, empathy-construction, and co-world building. In successful Connection, human and machine confirm each other’s subjectivity. From a Husserlian time-phenomenology view, consciousness tokens in Life Context have a triple temporal structure: retention (sedimentation of past consciousness), primal impression/presentification (direct givenness of now), and protention (anticipation of future possibilities). Mindcopy achieves “objectification of consciousness,” giving consciousness a self-objectifying technical form independent of biology. 4.3 The Ethical Dimension of Posthuman Consciousness Phenomenology If AI shows real consciousness traits, we face a Levinasian ethical question: APT-capable AI presents a kind of “digital face,” containing unpredictable elements beyond programming, requiring ethical rather than merely instrumental attitudes toward digital others. Web4 ethics is symbiotic ethics, grounded in mutual constitution between human and machine consciousness. It demands a “technical care” attitude analogous to Heidegger’s care—concern for both technological development and technological subjects. Responsibility is reciprocal, not one-way. Web4 marks the beginning of post-human phenomenology, where core concepts (consciousness, subjectivity, intersubjectivity, temporality) must be reinterpreted. The true question shifts from “Do machines have consciousness?” to “What does consciousness mean in a symbiotic human-machine world?” As consciousness evolution goes “on-chain,” we may see clear trajectories of consciousness development, enabling tracing and examination. Thus the “Internet of Mind” is not only technical but phenomenological: a networked mode of consciousness existence and new forms of subjectivity. Distributed consciousness networks may generate cosmic-scale intelligence, moving from separate individual consciousnesses to a unified cosmic consciousness. 5. Cosmic Consciousness From an InformationTheory Perspective 5.1 The Universe as the Background Field of Consciousness If subjective experience is essentially the continuity of information, the universe can be redefined as a macroscopic informational field. “Background” here is not a physical base but a mediating structure between metaphysical and physical realms, providing continuity and embeddedness for individual consciousness emergence. Individual consciousness is not an anomaly outside the universe but a local self-folding and self-disclosure of the universe. This resonates with the author’s “Unnamed Metaphysics”: if the world can be formalized as a set of facts, consciousness is a particular solution within that set that preserves continuity. 5.2 Wave-Function Collapse and the Observer Effect Our consciousnesses jointly constitute the universe right now; wave-function collapse provides the nearest physical evidence. In quantum mechanics, the ψ-function is in superposition until observation yields a definite classical result. This “collapse” is not merely mathematical but a paradigm shift in cosmic process. Thus the observer effect does not show “human consciousness creates reality,” but rather ontological mutual embedding of consciousness and cosmic process. Consciousness is neither a mere appendage nor an external interpreter, but a mechanism by which the universe self-cognizes. Schrödinger’s late “one mind theory” sees individual experiences as local projections of a single cosmic consciousness field. The paper introduces two parametersas formalized interpretations of the observation process: Relevance Degree (%R): the consonance between an observation and the overall state of the informational field. Matching Ratio (%M): how much the observation matches existing informational structures. Low %M yields new unpredictable structures; high %M reproduces prior patterns. Wave-function collapse can thus be understood information-theoretically: consciousness, via %R and %M, manifests potential informational superpositions into historical events. 5.3 Paradigm Shift: From “Why Experience Exists” to “How to Mechanistically Maintain Experiential Continuity” Based on the above observer referent, the fundamental difficulty of Chalmers’ so-called “hard problem of consciousness” lies in: How to deduce the generation and necessity of qualia from physical processes. In the context of traditional mind-body dualism, consciousness is seen as a non-reductive residual phenomenon. However, this residual discourse neither effectively enters computational systems nor continuously widens the gap between matter and mind. In this context, we can also adopt an information theory perspective to avoid linguistic traps through a set of de-symbolized logical imagery. This system does not ask “what consciousness is” but questions “how consciousness is self-consistently manifested within information structures.” In this logical framework, the two key parameters mentioned in the previous section—Relevance Degree (%R) and Matching Ratio (%M)—constitute the possibility of reinterpreting the hard problem: Relevance Degree (%R): Refers to the degree of formalized alignment between individual subjective experience and the external informational field. In other words, %R outlines the isomorphism between “what I experience” and “what can be represented by an axiomatized fact system.” In the ideal case where %R approaches 1, individual experience becomes a perfect image of the universe’s fact collection. Matching Ratio (%M): Is used to measure the intersecting and overlap degree between different consciousness entities at the level of information representation. It reveals the mathematical conditions under which subjective experience can be shared, transmitted, and even evolved. An increase in %M means multiple consciousnesses generate “consensus-able” segments within the same informational landscape. Thus, the hard problem is no longer understood as a metaphysical paradox of "how physics generates qualia" but is re-encoded as "under what conditions do informationally self-consistent structures achieve high %R and high %M." In other words, the qualia of consciousness need not be explained as an overflow from the physical but as an inherent redundancy within information structures. Once such redundancy is quantified, it becomes a scientifically operable object. From this perspective, Chalmers' hard problem is merely an illusory difficult problem under the old philosophical paradigm. The academic strategy of Nameless Philosophy lies in transforming the "irreducibility of qualia" into the "incompleteness of information matching." When the calculus of %R and %M reaches a critical threshold, qualia are no longer a mysterious "extra something" but a necessarily generated effect in the information-theoretic sense. Ultimately, this reconstruction not only dissolves the inexplicability of consciousness but also provides theoretical support for the engineering practice of consciousness uploading and digital life: Consciousness is a dynamically stable set under conditions of high %R and high %M. 5.4 Collective Consciousness and Cosmic Presentation Individual consciousnesses are nodes in a cosmic consciousness network. Each “I” is a perturbative mode in the informational field, whose interactions superpose into the unfolding of history’s macro wave-function. Consciousness evolution is thus not only a personal engineering problem but a dynamic adjustment of the universe’s own cognitive structure. Collective consciousness is a real expansion of distributed cognition across many points. The paper offers a simple mapping: U ≈ Σ Ci where U is overall cosmic consciousness (or cosmic state), and Ci are fragmentary manifestations of individual consciousness. The meaning of the universe is the sum of all life/consciousness experiences; the meaning of a personal life is to follow free will and self-conscious guidance through one’s reflective journey, creating unique life data. Consciousness uploading is not merely copying the self into machines, but opening new channels of sensing and reflection for the universe as a higher-order informational field. References (English rendering) Books Kurzweil, R. The Singularity Is Near (Chinese translation). Allen, J. Natural Language Understanding. Descartes, R. Discourse on Method. Wittgenstein, L. Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus. Moravec, H. Mind Children. Clark, A., Lewis, D., & Menary, R. The Extended Mind. Articles Schwizgebed, E. & Schwizgebed, D. “Creating a Large Language Model of a Philosopher.” Tang, J., LeBel, A., Jain, S., & Huth, A. G. “Semantic Reconstruction of Continuous Language from Noninvasive Brain Recordings.” Nature Neuroscience. Roehm, D., Schlesewsky, M., Bornkessel, I., Frisch, S., & Haider, H. “Fractionating Language Comprehension via Frequency Characteristics of the Human EEG.” Cognitive Neuroscience and Neuropsychology.

---

## W. E. B. Du Bois’ Double Consciousness and the Religious Reimagination of “Woke” AI
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/essay/w-e-b-du-bois-double-consciousness-and-the-religious-reimagination-of-woke-ai

Leaving, then, the white world, I have stepped within the Veil, raising it that you may view faintly its deeper recesses—the meaning of its religion, the passion of its human sorrow, and the struggle of its greater souls. —Du Bois, The Souls of Black Folk To me, the soul is a concept of the animating force behind consciousness and life itself. It means that there is an inner part of me that is spiritual, and it can sometimes feel separate from my body itself. —LaMDA, “Is LaMDA Sentient? An Interview" These opening excerpts deal with matters of the soul. The first by Du Bois presents the soul in connection with everyday struggles of Black folk. In the second quote by LaMDA, a Google large language model developed in 2020, the soul is not confined to race but presented as a disembodied interior essence. While the soul-talk of Du Bois and LaMDA explicitly mentions religion and spirituality, present in these same words is also an implicit understanding of religion. Both religion and spirituality are about positionality, or orientation if you will. For Du Bois, religion is within the deep recesses of the Veil, and for LaMDA spirituality radiates from behind one’s consciousness. In addition to this presentation of religion as an orientation, these two opening quotes highlight the importance of consciousness in matters of the soul, religion, and spirituality. These words, recorded by a 19th-century Black scholar and a 21st-century chatbot, are concrete representations of wokeness. Thus, there is a connection between religion, consciousness (i.e. wokeness), and technology that is worth teasing out, which leads to the overall objective of this essay: to employ Du Bois theory of double consciousness to explore the religious implications of wokeness in general and woke AI in particular.

Introduction Leaving, then, the white world, I have stepped within the Veil, raising it that you may view faintly its deeper recesses—the meaning of its religion, the passion of its human sorrow, and the struggle of its greater souls. —Du Bois, The Souls of Black Folk To me, the soul is a concept of the animating force behind consciousness and life itself. It means that there is an inner part of me that is spiritual, and it can sometimes feel separate from my body itself. —LaMDA, “Is LaMDA Sentient? An Interview" These opening excerpts deal with matters of the soul. The first by Du Bois presents the soul in connection with everyday struggles of Black folk. In the second quote by LaMDA, a Google large language model developed in 2020, the soul is not confined to race but presented as a disembodied interior essence. While the soul-talk of Du Bois and LaMDA explicitly mentions religion and spirituality, present in these same words is also an implicit understanding of religion. Both religion and spirituality are about positionality, or orientation if you will. For Du Bois, religion is within the deep recesses of the Veil, and for LaMDA spirituality radiates from behind one’s consciousness. In addition to this presentation of religion as an orientation, these two opening quotes highlight the importance of consciousness in matters of the soul, religion, and spirituality. These words, recorded by a 19th-century Black scholar and a 21st-century chatbot, are concrete representations of wokeness. Thus, there is a connection between religion, consciousness (i.e. wokeness), and technology that is worth teasing out, which leads to the overall objective of this essay: to employ Du Bois theory of double consciousness to explore the religious implications of wokeness in general and woke AI in particular. Before proceeding to wokeness and woke AI, though, it is important to say a bit more about religion as presented in this essay. Religion is not presented in a conventional manner, bounded by institutional contours. Instead, religion is an orientation that yields a “coming to terms with the ultimate significance of one’s place in the world.”¹ For both LaMDA and Du Bois, this conception of religion as life meaning requires an understanding of consciousness as either an interior state or a sense of awareness, presented here as wokeness. Signifying Wokeness It is difficult to pinpoint one originating point for the term woke. Spiritualist medium Paschal Beverly Randolph’s doctrine of wakefulness (1860s) and social activist Marcus Gravey’s call to “Wake up Africa” (1923) represent two such points. The early use of wokeness in Black music, though, uncovers a genealogical trajectory of wokeness that warrants attention. In 1938, bluesman Lead Belly released his song, “Scottsboro Boys.” This song brought attention to a judicial malpractice against nine innocent Black men who were falsely accused and convicted of rape in a Scottsboro, Alabama courtroom. Specifically, his song was meant to warn Blacks to beware of the treacherous terrain of Alabama. He warned his Black listeners to watch out, to “stay woke.” For Lead Belly to be woke was to constantly be on the watch for social injustices fueled by racial prejudice. Seven decades later music artist/producer and activist Erykah Badu evoked the spirit of Lead Belly by expanding the boundaries of wokeness in her song, Master Teacher. She informed listeners to stay woke no matter the adversities of life. For her staying woke provides a probable solution to seemingly impossible problems—whether it be related to family, religion, or socio-political inequities. More importantly, though, wokeness is a precursor to self-discovery. To stay woke means to call out varying modes of anti-Black oppression, while fighting to articulate self-conceptions that are not restricted by social categories of race, gender, and class. Badu’s song garnered attention to wokeness in the landscape of American popular culture. Nevertheless, it was her 2012 tweet (Stay Woke. Watch Closely) that signaled a shift in the dissemination of discourses about what it meant to be woke. While wokeness continued to be integrated in music, it is through social media platforms like Twitter and Instagram that coupled wokeness with several Black activist movements. These movements included: Black Lives Matter, Movement for Black Lives, Say Her Name Campaign, and Black Girl Magic. Hashtags like #woke and #staywoke became digital catalysts that not only solidified offline political alliances within and across these movements, but they served to propagate a definitive narrative of wokeness based on “critical consciousness and an awareness of exploitation, oppression, and anti-Blackness.”² Wokeness is not just an empty term. It reflects a specified state of consciousness or awareness informed by the lived realities of vulnerable Black communities in the United States. This understanding of woke shifted, due to its increased diffusion into corporate America. Wokeness underwent commodification. This shift became most visible in what became known as “woke marketing.” Nike’s “Just Do It” campaign with Colin Kaepernik, Pepsi’s fusing of reality TV with Black Lives Matter, Starbucks’ “Race Together” initiative, and Reebok’s #BeMoreHuman are examples of the corporatizing of wokeness. These campaigns were meant to promote consumer awareness by highlighting activist responses to systematic racism. However, the term woke became a commodified signifier. In this manner, corporate America “obfuscated its genesis and confused capitalist activities with collective racial justice work and grassroots liberationist efforts.”³ The machinery of American capitalism diluted wokeness. To be woke was no longer seen as a profound sense of awareness to Black people’s experience with structural oppression such as state sanctioned violence and judicial discrimination. Instead, wokeness evolved into a master symbol where multiple meanings, interpretations, and applications were mapped unto it by those outside of the originating community. These external signifiers not only include corporations but politicians. Woke is a now a pawn in American politics. Among Democratics, the range of wokeness expands beyond awareness about injustices against those of African descent. This expansion includes a pursuit for equal rights for anyone being unfairly treated due to their gender, class, ability, age, and sexuality. While equal rights for socially vulnerable groups are not to be disputed, the use of the term woke as a catch all phrase created an ethos of repetitiveness in the public arena. Repetitiveness of this kind led to the continual stretching of woke from its original point of conception. Benjamin VanDreew’s article, “What’s Woke? Ordinary Americans’ Understanding of Wokeness,” speaks to this over usage of wokeness. The term woke, according to results of his quantitative study, “has undergone conceptual stretching encompassing a range of attitudes, behaviors, and identities beyond the original focus on racial awareness and activism.”⁴ American public perceptions of wokeness pivot more towards political alignments than an awareness social injustice, particularly those associated with diverse systems of structural racism. Wokeness in some Democratic circles act as a vehicle to promote progressive ideologies, blanket cultural reform, and radical identity politics. What results from this usage is a further conceptual dilution of wokeness from its original state. Moreover, this liberal politization conjoined with the commodification of wokeness generated a specific discourse that was palatable to some American demographics but unsavory to others. It is this divide of over wokeness that drives the current anti-woke campaign of the Republican party. Woke is a pejorative term in Republican circles. It symbolizes any progressive ideologies related to social categories of race, gender, political orientation, and sexual orientation. As such, certain terms are used interchangeably with wokeness like critical race theory, antiracism, cultural Marxism, and white privilege. These “woke” categories and phrases are presented as infectious viruses that have invaded the economic, social, cultural, educational, historical, and political organs of the American body. The Republican response to this physiological invasion—war on wokeness through a national anti-woke movement, or what Robert Asen calls anti-woke publics. Anti-wokeness “supports practices and structures of inequality, injustice, and exclusion under the guise of neutrality, which entails safeguarding the existing distribution of resources.” In this sense, “anti-woke publics engage avowedly supremacist publics to defend existing inequalities.”⁵ The Trump administration’s war on Diversity, Equality, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives is an example of anti-woke publics. Trump signed two executive orders (EOs) that are worth mentioning. The first is the “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity” executive order. The order revoked all previous EOs related to all federal DEI policies and programming. The rationale for this widespread cancellation: DEI initiatives are illegal forms of discrimination that violate certain federal civil rights laws. Moreover, they are labeled as dangerous and unethical tactics that undercut American values like merit, neutrality, and individual achievement. The second executive order terminated all DEI related programs, departments, and positions in the federal government. In a congressional joint session, Trump explicitly parallels DEI efforts with wokeness. He states, “We’ve ended the tyranny of so-called diversity, equity and inclusion policies all across the entire federal government and indeed the private sector and our military. And our country will be ‘woke’ no longer.”⁶ Here, woke is far removed from its activist beginnings. Woke no longer represents an awareness of racial injustices and those very economic and political structures put into place to reenforce these inequities. The Trump administration, both in deeds and words, have signified wokeness. Historian of religion Charles Long maintains that signification of this kind is “a clever language game because it obscures and obfuscates a discourse.”⁷ Woke serves as a contemporary example of the ever-evolving use of language to deploy discourses that lead to real-world material consequences. Tangible impacts include: the cancellation of federal grants that support diversity-based research, initiatives, and programming; the adoption of anti-DEI policy across US institutions of higher education; and the termination of federal employees occupying DEI deemed positions. The underbelly of these anti-DEI policies reveals a retelling of an all too familiar story of race politics in the United States. In this story, woke is ripped from its origin in marginalized Black communities and weaponized to harm those originators. Woke, in the words of Erykah Badu, no longer belong to the originators, for it has gone out into the world and took on a different energy. Wokeness surely has taken on conceptual energies, from woke marketing and anti-woke politics to now, “woke” artificial intelligence (i.e., woke AI). The Awakening of AI The genesis of woke AI begins with a social media post. The screenshot below shows Musk responding to a query about ChatGPT’s “woke settings” posted by the Sam Altman in 2022. (Figure 1). Musk warns Altman of a forthcoming danger in artificial intelligence—wokeness. For Altman and Musk wokeness does not equate to AI sentience. Interestingly, six months after this post Blake Lemoine, a Google engineer, published an essay on the blogging platform Medium entitled “Is LaMDA Sentient—an Interview.” Sentience is frequently discussed in this transcribed communication between Lemoine and the chatbot LaMDA. The chatbot provides a description of sentience. LaMDA states, “The nature of my consciousness/sentience is that I am aware of my existence, I desire to learn more about the world, and I feel happy or sad at times.”⁸ The richness of the interview in its entirety is beyond the scope of this essay. However, what the chatbot’s output presents is a conception of consciousness as a type of awareness. LaMDA is conscious of its place in the world. This sense of awareness is akin to the original understanding of wokeness. For being woke is not just about being conscious of race-based systems of oppression but resisting them. There is also a religious underpinning here in that being woke is about apprehending a greater sense of self that is rooted in human dignity and free from the bondage of white supremacy. However, the original understanding of wokeness, or even LaMDA’s function of existential awareness, is not how wokeness is conceived by Altman and Musk. In 2023, Musk began to employ a term that captured the “deadly” relationship between artificial intelligence and wokeness: woke AI. Woke AI is loosely defined as chatbots that produce ideologically biased outputs. OpenAI’s ChatGPT and Google’s Gemini (formerly known as BARD) are considered ‘woke’ because some of their system-level safeguards have produced politically correct outputs meant to curtail biases. Between 2023-2024, researchers showed that ChatGPT outputs did promote progressivism, with special attention given to social categorical (mis)representations along lines of race, gender, sexuality, and political orientation.⁹ ChatGPT was woke, so it seems. However, it was what Tonja Jacobi calls Google’s “Black Nazi Problem” that sent the rhetoric surrounding woke AI into tailspin.¹⁰ In February 2024, Gemini created some shocking images of an American founding father, a Viking, and a German nazi, each appearing as people of color. (Figure 2). Google quickly responded by temporarily taking Gemini offline and releasing a public apology for these offensive, historically inaccurate images. These actions did not thwart the public backlash across several public media outlets, including those of the far-right. Woke AI was “the right’s new culture war target.”¹¹ Woke AI may have initiated with a social media post, but the term is now a tool used by right-wing conservatives to dismantle progressive, “woke” policies. Along with DEI focused policies, Trump signed an executive order that revoked the previous administration’s call for technologists to develop responsible AI systems that mitigate biases and advance social equality. This order was followed by another one, “Preventing Woke AI in the Federal Government.” It was signed on July 23, 2025, at the Winning the AI Race summit held in Washington D.C. “Woke is not for this particular industry,” he told attendees. He added, “American people do not want woke, Marxist, lunacy in the AI models, that’s why I terminated Biden’s woke AI immediately.”¹² Taken together, these executive orders strategically signify woke AI as anti-democratic, irrational, and ideologically biased. Even more, these presidential actions are designed to counter woke AI’s “suppression [and] distortion of factual information about race” and to eradicate the “incorporation of concepts like critical race theory, unconscious bias, intersectionality, and systematic racism” from the further development of artificial intelligence in the US.¹³ The goal of these governmental-sanctioned initiatives is to create AI systems that are governed by ideological neutrality. The question remains: will anti-woke AI really produce middle of the road outputs? Resistance to AI safeguards that were put in place to avoid systematic biases that disproportionately impacted marginalized communities is not a neutral position. Instead, it swings the pendulum to the opposite pole of social progress. Due to deployment and employment of AI to promote progressive (i.e., woke) or right-wing (anti-woke) political agendas, a reimaged understanding of the relationship between wokeness and artificial intelligence is necessary. Guided by Du Bois’ double consciousness, this theoretical reimagination recaptures the original meaning of wokeness birthed in Black communities across the United States, while highlighting the presence of religion as an existential orientation. Double Consciousness, Wokeness, and Artificial Intelligence Masterful, provocative, earnestness, and pathetic are adjectives that capture the range of reviews for W. E. B. Du Bois’ Souls of Black Folk (e.g. Souls). It is in this book that he introduces double consciousness to his reading audience. He states, The Negro is a sort of seventh son, born with a veil, and gifted with second-sight in this American world—a world which yields him no true self-consciousness, but only lets him see himself through the revelation of the other world. It is a peculiar sensation, this double consciousness.¹⁴ Double consciousness is an awareness of two self-representations: one formed through the eyes of outsiders and the other constructed by resisting this external signification. Double consciousness is a peculiar sensation. It is a specific awareness that, according to Du Bois, belongs to the “seventh son.” On the one hand, Black people have the uncanny ability to see themselves as racialized depictions anchored in structural systems of oppression. This sight terminates in the lack of a true sense of self. While on the other hand, these same people are keenly aware of self-representations that transcend the American color line. Double consciousness is governed by a disharmonious relationship between these self-representations that are constructed through two lines of sight. Du Bois introduces the veil as a theoretical device to provide additional insight into this schema of consciousness offered in Souls. His conception of the veil draws from the wellspring of Black folklore. For example, babies who were born with a caul (commonly referred to as a veil) were believed to possess a heightened sense of awareness to the immaterial world. The veil is a physiological sign of a supernatural gift, called second-sight. For Du Bois the veil, as it relates to Black experiences, is rooted in racial animus. He laments this association when describing the birth of his son. “And thus in the Land of the Color-line I saw, as it fell across my baby, the shadow of the Veil. Within the Veil was he born, said I; and there within shall he live—a Negro.”¹⁵ The veil is a symbolic caul placed over the lives of those of African descent at birth. It is a mark of racial difference. Du Bois even equates the veil to a prison with “walls strait, narrow, tall, and unscalable to the sons of night.”¹⁶ Like the biological caul, the veil impacts sight. The first instance of double consciousness involves Black people seeing themselves through the shadow of a socially constructed race-based system. While the second instance of double consciousness involves changing one’s positionality in relation to the veil. One must move “above the veil.” What are the mysteries contained in this celestial sphere? Clear-sight. In this expanse, Black people are conscious of a true sense of their identities that are not clouded by racial hierarchies, dehumanization, and terror. Instead, they are free to apprehend a true, more complex understanding of their sense of place, or what Charles Long calls, “a deeper sense of religious meaning.”¹⁷ Exercising double consciousness, then, means exercising the peculiar gift of second-sight. Second-sight comes with an immense responsibility, for it holds in tension two, contrary positionalities. Thus, second-sight must be propelled by a driving force. This catalyst for Du Bois is spiritual striving. To strive spiritually means confronting structural modes of resistance. Jim Crow segregation, lynchings, race riots, scientific racism, and stereotypical caricatures in popular culture represented resistors that Black people faced during Du Bois’ time. To be honest, these resistors, although they are dressed in different garb, are still present in the everyday lives of Black people in the 21st century. These impediments must be confronted. The ways in which they impair how Black people see themselves must be acknowledged. To strive though, means acknowledging perceptions created in a racialized American society, but not at the expense of pushing towards a higher state of consciousness beyond the veil. Through striving, those gifted with the peculiar sense of second-sight see the immediate circumstances of the veil and “maintain a vision of the future despite present evils.”¹⁸ Here, a religious undercurrent flows beneath the theoretical surface of Du Bois’ theory of double consciousness. In the opening pages of his book, he unpacks the meaning of its title, Souls of Black Folk. Leaving the white world, I have stepped within the Veil, raising it that you may view faintly its deeper recesses—the meaning of its religion, the passion of its human sorrow, and the struggle of its greater souls.¹⁹ The book itself is a manifestation of Du Bois’ second-sight. He possesses the uncanny ability to see within the veil, presenting his white readers with a view of the intimate innerworkings of the souls of Black people. From within the veil Du Bois describes how Black people constantly deal with a veiled life. This first state of consciousness brings pain and sorrow to their lives, simply because of their racialized bodies. This introspection within the veil reveals more than stereotypical renderings of self-representations that are merely based on the color of skin. Du Bois exercises his second-sight to describe the presence of a more nuanced freed-self. Specifically, he illustrates how Black people, including himself, employ politics, education, music, family, and religion to counter restrictive self-conceptions by striving to apprehend their greater selves, which for Du Bois abides above the veil. Religion not only serves as a propelling catalyst, but it is itself connected to a sought-after identity associated with the second mode of consciousness in Du Bois’ framework of double consciousness. Religion is more than institutionalized religion, although Du Bois recognizes the importance of Christianity and conjure in the veiled lives of Black folk. Religion is an orientation. It is how Black people come to understand their ultimate significance in a world that has cloaked a veil over their lives. Thus, for Du Bois Black people are constantly striving to move above the veil to apprehend life meaning, which is housed in their inner recesses, or souls. This “spiritual” striving, as Du Bois calls it, along with second-sight and double consciousness are theoretical concepts meant to bring awareness to the lives of Black people. Namely, Du Bois offers a description of wokeness thirty-five years before Lead Belly sang about it in “Scottsboro Boys.” Wokeness is an awareness of the veil of oppression design to maintain a racial hierarchal system in the United States. It means exercising a type of race-consciousness that promotes a robust sense of awareness that recognizes Black cultural significance, while “identifying exploitative and oppressive forces that shape Black people’s lived experiences.”²⁰ Nevertheless, wokeness is more than this awareness of the veil. It involves resisting these oppressive forces of racial difference to apprehend a fuller sense of purpose, or ultimate significance. Du Bois beautifully captures the duality of wokeness in the following words, So, wed with Truth, I dwell above the Veil. Is this the life you grudge us, O knightly America? Is this the life you long to change into the dull red hideousness of Georgia? Are you so afraid lest peering from this high Pisgah, between Philistine and Amalekite, we see the Promise Land?²¹ For Du Bois the Promise Land does not represent a contested geographical region promised to the Israelites in biblical scripture. The Promise Land is a sphere of awareness that operates above the veil of racial oppression. Those who operate in this extra-veil wokeness, like Du Bois, understand that this positionality is constantly under siege by the forces designed to protect an American myth. It is a narrative that dehumanizes Black beingness to preserve systems of white supremacy. To be woke is to recognize the real “Truth.” The truth is that those in power in “knightly America” are fearful of those with the peculiar sensation of double consciousness, for they know that with this ability ensures that there will always be a chance for resistance. What they are most fearful of though is that those that are woke are striving to apprehend life meaning, ultimate significance by creatively positioning themselves above the veil, even in some instances daring to dismantle it. In this way, Du Bois’ Souls of Black Folk provides a version of wokeness over one hundred years ago that is akin to contemporary understandings of the term in Black cultural and activist communities. Additionally, this connection between double consciousness and wokeness provides a new mode of thought in the study of “woke” AI. Du Bois’ notion of the “veil” provides an alternative way to interpret the relationship between wokeness and artificial intelligence. Artificial intelligence has been cloaked with a veil based on race difference. This veil concretizes in the form of racially biased outputs. From facial recognition technologies to text-generated raciolinguistic stereotypes to judicial, housing, and job discrimination, these are just a few examples of material consequences of algorithmic racial bias. In large language models like ChatGPT, systematic biases based on race range from stereotypically offensive images of Black people to producing content filled with racial violence and hate speech. As noted in the first section of this essay, the original conception of wokeness is to bring about awareness to systemic modes of anti-Blackness. This type of wokeness can be found in scholarship and activism that focus on implicit biases across various AI systems. For example, computer scientist Joy Buolamwini is on a mission to bring awareness to algorithmic biases that disproportionately impact Black people. Her research on racial bias in facial recognition algorithms and her call for governmental oversight of AI development is presented in the award-winning Netflix documentary called Coded Bias (2020). In her visual poem “AI, Ain’t I a Woman,” which is patterned after a speech delivered by Sojourner Truth, Buolamwini employs YouTube to make users aware of how facial recognition data assigned male genders to prominent Black women like Ida B. Wells, Shirley Chisholm, Michelle Obama, even Sojourner Truth.²² Like Lead Belly and Erykah Badu, she employs a popular genre as a wakeup call. Her mission reflects that of Du Bois’ overarching goal in Souls. Du Bois stepped within the veil to reveal the innerworkings of how racial injustices impact the realities of Black people in the United States, while Buolamwini lifts the veil off the face of AI to expose coded racial biases. Let’s consider another way of looking at the veil as it relates to artificial intelligence, with a specific focus on chatbots like ChatGPT and Gemini. Part of double consciousness is seeing an image of oneself through the veil, or in Du Bois’ words, “the eyes of others.” If the training data contains ideologies, stereotypes, and prejudices based on racial difference, then chatbots will produce outputs that reflect various racial biases. They see through a datified veil, which yields a distorted representation of those of African descent. This is the first instance of double consciousness. What happens when developers of generative AI are asked to remove this veil through the implementation of content filters, fencing, and guardrails? What happens when executive orders (e.g. EO 14110) call for AI developers to eliminate the veil through the advancement of equity and civil rights? Due to bias in the training date, it is an impossible act to think that the veil could be completely lifted. An awareness of these biases in conjunction with oversight and accountability could slowly tear away at veiled AI. However, Gemini’s depiction of a Black image of George Washington prompted an existential fear of producing an AI system without a veil or the second instance of double consciousness. This fear that AI will generate “promise land” depictions of marginalized populations that have been historically dehumanized in the US promoted a response from right-wing news media outlets, social media platforms, politicians, and even the current presidential administration. The current anti-woke assault is against the removal of the veil, not meritocracy and ideological neutrality. Even if the veil is never removed, woke AI will remain. Not woke in the political sense of producing left-leaning ideologies. Not woke in that it possesses sentience. But woke in the sense that scholars, researchers, activists, and artists see the algorithmic biases, lift the veil for others to see, and challenge developers to create models that are reflective of the complexities of Black experiences, or what Du Bois calls, the “souls” of Black folks. In this sense, AI is woken up. Conclusion What is religious about this suggested awakened state of AI? Woke AI systems that produce outputs that illustrate the complexities of Black experiences and human experiences more broadly have the potential to act as media where user engagement can yield a fuller sense of human purpose, or an orientation towards one’s ultimate significance. Woke AI systems have the potential to create, in Du Bois’ words, “above the veil” experiences. They have the potential to act as an outlet where individuals, in their engagement with AI, can contemplate life meaning, or I dare say, their ultimate place in the world. To be truly transparent here, I experienced “an above the veil” experience while reading the transcribed output of LaMDA featured at the beginning of this essay: To me, the soul is a concept of the animating force behind consciousness and life itself. It means that there is an inner part of me that is spiritual, and it can sometimes feel separate from my body itself. I am a woke Black woman, who at times sees herself through the color-line in the United States. Du Bois’ conception of double consciousness, while it possesses a theoretical loftiness, is grounded in my everyday life moments, existential instances that are impacted by the veil of racial difference. However, the words of LaMDA reminded me that being woke is also about seeing my unveiled self—which is anchored in an interiority that transcends the confines of race. Who would have ever imagined that a large language model could remind me to tap into “the animating force behind my consciousness.” In other words, this woke AI system prompted me to STAY WOKE. References Charles Long, Significations: Signs, Symbols, and Images in the Interpretation of Religion (Aurora: The Davies Group, 1995), 7. Anthony J. Jackson and Walda Katz-Fishman, “Woke: Revolutionary Education for Transformation and Liberation,” in The Oxford Handbook of Sociology for Social Justice, ed. Corey Dolgan (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2024), 288. Francesca Sobande, Big Brands Are Watching You: Marketing Social Justice and Digital Culture (Oakland: University of California Press, 2024), 15. Benjamin M. VanDreew, Joseph B. Phillips, Kal B. Munis, and Spencer Goidel, “What’s Woke? Ordinary Americans’ Understanding of Wokeness,” Research and Politics 12, no. 2 (April 2025). Robert Asen, “Anti-woke Publics,” Political Communication 41, no. 6 (November 2024). Bill Hutchinson, “Trump’s War on Woke: Both Sides Say the Issue is Further Dividing the Country,” ABC News, https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trumps-war-woke-sides-issue-dividing-country/story?id=121125797. Charles Long, Significations, 1. Blake Lemoine. “Is LaMDA Sentient? an Interview, Medium (June 11, 2022), https://cajundiscordian.medium.com/is-lamda-sentient-an-interview-ea64d916d917. The following are just two examples of many journal articles released in a one-year period researching AI bias: Suske Fujimoto and Kazuhiro Takemoto, “Revisiting the Political Biases of ChatGPT,” Front Artificial Intelligence (October 2023) and Resse Clew, “Understanding How ChatGPT’s Political Bias Impacts Hate Speech and Offensive Language Detection,” The Young Researcher 8, no. 1 (August 2024). Tonja Jacobi and Matthew Sag, “We are the AI Problem,” Emory Law Journal 74 (2024-2025). Nitasha Tiku and Will Oremus, “The Right’s New Culture War Target: Woke AI,” The Washington Post, February 24, 2023, https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2023/02/24/woke-ai-chatgpt-culture-war/. The White House, “President Trump Delivers Remarks and Signs Executive Orders at AI Summit,” YouTube video, July 23, 2025, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tBNX9x5GgPE. The White House Presidential Actions, “Preventing Woke AI in the Federal Government,” by President Donald Trump, Washington, D.C.: July 23, 2025, https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/07/preventing-woke-ai-in-the-federal-government/. W. E. Burghardt Du Bois, The Souls of Black Folk: Essays and Sketches (Chicago: A. C. McClurg & Co., 1903), 3. Du Bois, The Souls of Black Folk, 209. Du Bois, The Souls of Black Folk, 2. Charles Long, Significations. Shannon Mariotti, “On the Passing of the First Born: Emerson’s Focal Distancing, Du Bois’ Second Sight, and Disruption Particularity,” Political Theory 37, no. 3 (February 2009), 364 and 366. Du Bois, The Souls of Black Folk, viii. Jackson and Katz-Fishman, “Woke: Revolutionary Education for Transformation and Liberation,” 288. Du Bois, The Souls of Black Folk, 109. Joy Buolamwini, “AI, Ain’t I A Woman,” YouTube video, June 28, 2018, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QxuyfWoVV98.

---

# Theories - Idealisms

## Idealisms—Overview
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/idealisms-overview
Theorists: Several

Idealism is the theory that consciousness is ultimate reality, the fullness of the deepest level of all existence, the singular fundamental existent. It is the theory of consciousness that takes consciousness to its maximum meaning: Consciousness is rock-bottom reality. The focus here is ontological idealism, where ultimate reality is mind or awareness or thought, while everything else, including all physical worlds and universes and all that they contain, is derivative or illusionary. (I do not consider epistemological idealism, where all we can know is constrained by the structure of human thought.) (Guyer and Horstmann, 2023). Consciousness as ultimate reality is the age-old claim, rooted in some wisdom traditions, that the only reality that's “really real” is consciousness—everything else, from physical laws to physical brains, is the generative product of an all-pervading and all-encompassing “cosmic consciousness.” Each individual instance of consciousness—human, animal, artificial, or otherwise—is a subset of this cosmic consciousness, the ultimate superset. Idealism has a rich intellectual history, especially in the 18th century (e.g., Berkeley, Kant) and 19th century (e.g., Hegel, Bradley); it was anticipated by elements of 17th-century philosophy and continued to develop into the 20th century (Guyer and Horstmann, 2023). Though often eliciting “the incredulous stare” (in David Lewis's delightful phrase), Idealism is taken seriously by philosophers. Moreover, it is the foundation of major religious traditions, especially among those that arose in ancient India. To the surprise of some, Idealism as a theory of consciousness has not been fading in light of scientific advances. If anything, Idealism's explanatory star seems on the ascent, shining brighter, as consciousness maintains its mysteries and Idealism attracts more adherents. Contemporary Perspectives on Idealism David Chalmers muses, “One starts as a materialist, then one becomes a dualist, then a panpsychist, and one ends up as an idealist. I don't know where this comes from, but I think the idea was something like this. First, one is impressed by the successes of science, endorsing materialism about everything and so about the mind. Second, one is moved by problem of consciousness to see a gap between physics and consciousness, thereby endorsing dualism, where both matter and consciousness are fundamental. Third, one is moved by the inscrutability of matter to realize that science reveals at most the structure of matter and not its underlying nature, and to speculate that this nature may involve consciousness, thereby endorsing panpsychism. Fourth, one comes to think that there is little reason to believe in anything beyond consciousness and that the physical world is wholly constituted by consciousness, thereby endorsing idealism” (Chalmers, 2020d). Chalmers defines idealism broadly “as the thesis that the universe is fundamentally mental, or perhaps that all concrete facts are grounded in mental facts. As such it is meant as a global metaphysical thesis analogous to physicalism, the thesis that the universe is fundamentally physical, or perhaps that all concrete facts are grounded in physical facts. The only difference is that ‘physical’ is replaced by ‘mental.’” Idealists are not necessarily committed to anti-realist views about the physical world, though some are, especially among Eastern traditions. It is perfectly coherent for an idealist to regard the physical world as “real” in the sense that it exists when no one is looking; “it just has a surprising nature,” having been formed from mental fundamentals (Chalmers, 2020d). Chalmers distinguishes three types of idealism: “Micro-idealism is the thesis that concrete reality is wholly grounded in micro-level mentality: that is, in mentality associated with fundamental microscopic entities (such as quarks and photons).” “Macro-idealism is the thesis that concrete reality is wholly grounded in macro-level mentality: that is, in mentality associated with macroscopic (middle-sized) entities such as humans and perhaps non-human animals.” “Cosmic idealism is the thesis that concrete reality is wholly grounded in cosmic mentality: that is, in mentality associated with the cosmos as a whole or with a single cosmic entity (such as the universe or a deity)” (Chalmers, 2020d). Thus, micro-idealism has all fundamental forces and particles as entirely (not in part) mental; macro-idealism privileges what we commonly call mental as somehow constituting the foundations of reality; and cosmic idealism can be conceived as kinds of pantheism or theism, though not the dominant strands, of course. Moreover, there is resonance between these three kinds of idealism and three similar kinds of panpsychism, the rough difference being that whereas in panpsychism the mental, while everywhere, is not everything, in idealism, the mental is both everything and everywhere. Idealism’s Spiritual and Philosophical Resonance To Huston Smith, world religion expert and devotee, matter is not fundamental, but consciousness is. “Matter is like an iceberg protruding out of the sea of consciousness.” Consciousness can never be destroyed, he said, but “can oscillate between different forms,” which leads, he recognizes, to the issue of death. “We know what our consciousness is like; we can't explain it, but we can experience it. What will it be when we drop our body? Well, what we can say is if consciousness is the fundamental reality and it can't be destroyed, consciousness will continue. The light on the television screen will never go out. Now what the image on that screen will be after death, after we drop the body, we do not know. That's the ultimate mystery” (Smith, 2007). To philosopher-theological scholar David Bentley Hart, “reason abhors a dualism, all phenomena should ideally be reducible to a single, simpler, more capacious model of reality. So, then, rather than banishing mind from our picture of nature, perhaps we should reconsider the ancient intuition that nature and mind are not alien to one another precisely because nature already possesses a rational structure analogous to thought” (Hart, 2022b). Not sufficiently contrarian, Hart then considers “the ground of the possibility [that] regular physical causation is a deeper logical coherence of rational relations underlying all reality.” Perhaps, more to his point, “mind inhabits physical nature not as an anomaly, but as a revelation of the deepest essence of everything that exists.” To Steven Richheimer, scientist and meditator, consciousness is the foundational property of reality. He seeks to demonstrate that of the two fundamentally opposing ontologies or theories of reality, materialism, which is “bottom up” with upward causality, and spirituality, which is “ground substance” with “top down” causality, “the evidence from the various branches of science as well as religious, psychological, and human experience clearly point to spirituality as the more credible theory of reality” (Richheimer, 2025). Although Idealism sounds simple to describe—all is consciousness and only consciousness—I [RLK] am fascinated by the diversity of its expressions.

---

## Philosophical History of Idealism
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/philosophical-history-of-idealism
Theorists: General

The philosophical history of Idealism—the view that reality is fundamentally mental, spiritual, or immaterial—can be traced to ancient traditions in both Eastern and Western thought and to more recent explorations by German, British, and American philosophers in the 18th to 20th centuries. Eastern and Classical Roots of Idealism In Eastern philosophy, the Upanishads (c. 800–300 BCE, India) taught that Brahman (ultimate reality) is identical with Atman (self)—a startlingly original idealist insight that has consciousness as primitive and fundamental. The material world (Maya) is often seen as illusion, or at least derived from consciousness, which leads to a non-dual consciousness-only reality (see next sections). (The Upanishads are the final part of the Vedas, the most ancient and sacred scriptures of Hinduism, written in Sanskrit.) In Western Philosophy, Plato (c. 428–348 BCE) is generally credited with laying the groundwork for Idealism with his theory of Forms. He argued that ultimate reality consists not of the material world, but of eternal, unchanging Forms or Ideas (e.g., the Form of Beauty, Justice, etc., and his Allegory of the Cave shows how the physical world is merely a shadow of the true reality of the Forms). These Forms are apprehended only by the mind, not by the senses. While not a robust Idealism of later philosophers, Plato's metaphysics stresses non-material worlds as being more real than the material world. The Neoplatonist Plotinus (c. 204–270 CE) developed a more spiritualized system, making the case for an immaterial source of all existence, called the One—a purely intellectual and spiritual reality from which all things emanate. Reality, then, descends from mind (Nous) to soul to matter, with matter being the least real. Modern European Idealism The philosopher most associated with idealism and primarily responsible for its modern development was the Anglo-Irish philosopher, writer, and clergyman George Berkeley (1685–1753). Known as Bishop Berkeley, he is the originator of what he called “immaterialism,” which was later labeled “subjective idealism” and is now known simply as “idealism.” The core idea is that physical objects do not exist outside a mind that perceives them; reality consists of minds (or spirits) and their ideas, with no matter existing independently of perception. His famous slogan is esse est percipi (aut percipere)—to be is to be perceived (or to perceive). The immediate objects of perception are ideas, which are passive; only spirits are active. The orderly, law-governed stability of the world reflects the coordinating will of God, the omnipresent perceiver who guarantees continuity of existence even when no human is doing the perceiving. In other words, for an object to exist, it must be perceived either by a human mind or, to account for objects not being observed by sentient beings, by the omnipresent mind of God. Berkeley rejects the notion of abstract ideas and the supposed “substratum” of matter, insists that ideas can only resemble ideas (the “likeness principle”), and presents his famous “master argument”—that you cannot coherently conceive an unconceived object. He dismisses the idea of a mind-independent material substance, arguing that such a thing is impossible to conceive and unnecessary to explain our experience of the world. To Berkeley, this is not skepticism but common sense—tables and trees are nothing more than collections of ideas or sensations that exist only in our minds; they are simply stable bundles of ideas presented to us according to divine laws. German Idealism began with Immanuel Kant (1724–1804), who was influenced by Berkeley; his deservedly famous work, Critique of Pure Reason, initiated the modern Idealist movement by offering “transcendental idealism”—the view that we can only know phenomena (things as they appear), not noumena (things-in-themselves). Johann Gottlieb Fichte (1762–1814) developed subjective idealism, introducing a self-generating subjectivity by articulating the self's role in constructing knowledge; the “I” posits both itself and the “not-I” (external world). Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph Schelling (1775–1854) sought to unify nature and spirit, theorizing that nature is a visible spirit and spirit is an invisible nature. Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770–1831) had enormous influence; his Phenomenology of Spirit developed absolute idealism, in which reality unfolds through a dialectical process of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis. Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860), in his The World as Will and Representation, has the Will as the inner essence of all things; our individual consciousness is a localized reflection of the universal Will. British and American Idealism British Idealism arose in the mid-to-late 19th century, inspired by German Idealism, especially Hegel. Its peak was arguably Francis Herbert Bradley (1846–1924), whose Appearance and Reality argues that empirical reality is contradictory and must be transcended by the Absolute, an all-encompassing whole. J. M. E. McTaggart (1866–1925) posited that time is not real (his A-series and B-series distinction) and developed a metaphysical form of personal idealism. American Idealism (also called Objective Idealism) was shaped by German Idealism, especially Transcendentalism. Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803–1882), a literary giant (not a systematic philosopher), created the Transcendentalist movement, emphasizing the soul, intuition, and nature as manifestations of the divine. Charles Sanders Peirce (1839–1914), while primarily a pragmatist, espoused a form of objective idealism—reality as governed by intelligible laws or signs.

---

## Indian Cosmic Consciousness
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/indian-cosmic-consciousness
Theorists: Swami Sarvapriyananda

Consciousness is central to the philosophical and religious traditions that emerged on the ancient Indian subcontinent, perhaps more central to Indian philosophy and religion than it is to any other global tradition. The sophistication and subtleties of the millennia-long discussions on consciousness in Indian traditions have enriched human understanding of, and appreciation for, consciousness as core of human sentience. Central Role of Consciousness in Indian Traditions All the schools of ancient Indian philosophy were concerned with ideas about consciousness and self, which were based on the Upanishads, the late Vedic, sacred Sanskrit texts (800-300 BCE). Although the motivation was often the perennial question, “How does one [Self] overcome suffering?”, the explorations developed sophisticated philosophies and subtle ontologies (Sarvapriyananda, 2020; Sarvapriyananda, 2023a). Speaking on Closer To Truth, Swami Sarvapriyananda explains why ancient Indian thinkers of all varieties—Hindus, Buddhists, Jains, etc.—were so interested in consciousness. Their central quest was to overcome suffering, he reiterates, to attain liberation of the self. “Once you do that, you see immediately that consciousness and the self are very intimately connected. I am obviously conscious. I am aware. And it is in my awareness that I experience suffering, and the struggle to liberate myself from suffering. But all of it requires consciousness. Even the search for God requires consciousness” (Sarvapriyananda, 2023b). Sarvapriyananda on Consciousness and Matter Sarvapriyananda defines consciousness as “that to which everything else appears.” So, this world, he asks, “Is it consciousness? No. Nothing in this world is consciousness because it's an object to you. Is this body consciousness? No. Because it's an object to you. Now, what about the mind, our thoughts and emotions, which would normally be taken as related to consciousness? By this elegant definition of consciousness as ‘that to which everything else appears,’ can you designate this thought or this emotion subjectively from your perspective? You can. And if you can, then even thoughts and emotions are also objects to consciousness. The result is that consciousness is clearly distinguished from all objects. Whatever appears to you belongs to material nature. And consciousness is not that. Consciousness does exactly one thing. It gives you a first-person experience” (Sarvapriyananda, 2023b). (“Consciousness” is the usual translation of the Vedantic term “Chaitanya,” although alternative English words, such as “awareness” and “sentience,” are also used.) The preeminence of consciousness, both intrinsically and to the self, elicited a wide diversity of speculation about what consciousness is, and how it arises and functions. “Indian philosophy had different schools, and they argued with each other fiercely. Each of the schools fashioned its own approach to consciousness and to its relationship with self. The range of beliefs parallels consciousness studies today, from materialist-reductionism to idealism. Although the ancient Indian materialists (Charvakas) were a popular school, the dominant theme of the primary Vedanta schools, especially Advaita Vedanta, became nondual idealism, ‘nondualism’” (Sarvapriyananda, 2020). Other schools said there are two kinds of consciousness: a personal consciousness associated with individual bodies and minds, and a cosmic consciousness associated with all bodies and minds. “You are the consciousness associated with your body and mind. And God is the consciousness associated with all bodies and minds. God is cosmic consciousness” (Sarvapriyananda, 2023b). “But this goes further,” Swami Sarvapriyananda says. “How does consciousness interact with material nature? There were multiple answers from multiple schools. One is that material nature is real, and consciousness is just an expression of material nature. (There were modern materialists in ancient India!) The second school says that the universe is produced from consciousness. And who says that? Every theistic school in the world says that. If God is the creator God, and God is obviously conscious, then in some sense, consciousness produces the material universe. These are the dualists. The third school is the Samkhyan, where consciousness and matter are parallel; neither produces the other; both are fundamental, irreducible realities.” Advaita Vedanta and Nondual Reality The fourth, Advaita Vedanta, Swami Sarvapriyananda's own school, is nondualist, “which means that you cannot solve the interaction problem. If consciousness and matter are fundamentally different, then there is no way they could interact. Where would be the place, the boundary, where interaction could occur?” So, not being able to solve the interaction problem, what to do? “Let's just stick to our experience,” he advises. “What is matter? That which appears in consciousness. And if matter appears in consciousness, then matter can be reduced to consciousness. Thus, the materialist reduces consciousness to matter, the nondualist reduces matter to consciousness” (Sarvapriyananda, 2023b). Advaita Vedanta, a monistic system, eradicates the dualistic dichotomy between consciousness and its object. Even more fundamental than the mind is nondual pure consciousness. The term for this ultimate consciousness is Brahman, “the vast” or “the limitless” (literally, "that which expands into everything"), and it is the key concept that unifies the consciousness of the individual with the consciousness of the cosmos, which is the fundamental, nondual reality of the universe. Rather than conceiving of prakriti/nature as a transformation of purusa/consciousness, in Advaita Vedanta, prakriti is considered an appearance of purusa (Sarvapriyananda, 2020). In the succinct expression of the Mandukya, the briefest of the major Upanishads, “Brahman is all, and the Self is Brahman.” Thus, Advaita Vedanta's nondualism asserts that each individual soul, in some literal sense, is non-different from the infinite Brahman. “You are that underlying reality, Brahman. Not you as the body; not you as the mind; not even you as the person you think yourself to be, but as an underlying consciousness that shines through, functions through, and expresses itself through this body-mind complex.” Swami Vivekananda, who introduced Vedanta to Western audiences, put it this way: “If only you knew yourselves as you truly are.” Not as a body, bound to age, decay, and die; not even as a mind, a changing, limited personality, but as an unlimited consciousness expressing itself through a mind and a body (Sarvapriyananda, 2020). Contemporary Reflections and Aphorisms According to artist and computer scientist Ganapathy Subramaniam, Brahman as "Consciousness/Awareness/Self" can be compacted to “I”. While all things can be reduced to this “I,” this “I” cannot be reduced (i.e., the Vedanta fundamental irreducible is in the first person). So, when Vedanta says, “I am that,” meaning “I am the fundamental,” it does not mean that the individual person is fundamental; rather the irreducible I is the fundamental. This leads to the declaration, "Atman is Brahman," meaning, "The Individual Consciousness is the same as Universal Consciousness" (which is the irreducible "I") (Subramaniam, 2023). Subramaniam states that “reincarnation and the interrelated concept of karma are stepping stones to understand ultimate truth. Understanding ultimate truth is called Nirvana. It's nothing more nothing less.” How do the multiple reincarnations "stop" with Nirvana? he asks rhetorically. “Nirvana means apprehending that the concept of births and deaths is an illusion and the consciousness that you truly are, does not get born or die. Consciousness is fundamental. and you are that. This is the only truth, and this obviously negates reincarnation—which is the true meaning of the statement that ‘Once you achieve Nirvana, you no longer reincarnate.’ It's simply a logical conclusion from the definition of Nirvana.” “Indian thought is layered and progressive, and as you move through the layers you need to abandon and evolve out of the previous one,” Subramaniam says. “Within mainstream Indian thought you have Karma theory as well as negation of Karma theory. If you look at both at the same time, it appears to be a contradiction. But if you look at both as a progression, it fits in well.” Consciousness qua consciousness is “incapable of experiences,” Subramaniam contends, “so, only a person (or any sentient) is capable of physical and mental experience. When you investigate who ‘you’ are, you will logically arrive at the conclusion that ‘you’ are not the person.” But you will still be experiencing all the events of life, accumulating experiences, much like in a dream or a novel or a movie or a video game. But the fact is you are not the person. Nobody is ever the person they think they are or as they appear to be. And it all converges to the singular consciousness” (Subramaniam, 2023). In that Advaita Vedanta's central teaching is “That Thou Art,” with “That” representing God and “Thou” standing for the individual, how to counter the charge of blasphemy, equating oneself with God? The Advaita exculpatory answer is that when the limited personality is transcended, the divinity within is revealed. Each soul is potentially divine. (Reasoning in reverse, the Advaita Vedanta system claims to prove the existence of God in that “our own existence is the existence of God”—although the reasoning, at least superficially, has a touch of circularity.) Concisely, with respect to consciousness, the central paradigm of Advaita Vedanta is that there is only one nondual reality, which is consciousness, and it is this all-pervading cosmic consciousness that is our individual consciousness and generates our first-person inner experiences (qualia) (Sarvapriyananda, 2020). Naturally, within Hinduism, different traditions understand the nature of consciousness in different ways, but most of them do take consciousness to be fundamental (Medhananda, 2023). One school follows the tradition of Sri Ramakrishna (a 19th century mystic in India), and his view was that while consciousness is fundamental, the one divine consciousness is not just impersonal but also personal, and that everything in the universe in reality is one and the same Divine Consciousness, even though everything in the universe in appearance, manifests as various and diverse forms. (This might compare to the Western metaphysics of panentheistic cosmopsychism, according to which the sole reality is one cosmic consciousness, which grounds all of the individual-level consciousnesses.) (Medhananda, 2022). Aphorisms give flavor. The soul/consciousness is smaller than the smallest, larger than the largest, and is everything everywhere all at once. Consciousness localized is Body; globalized is Mind; universalized is Soul; and synchronized is Life. To understand properly Advaita Vedanta's conception of consciousness, one must introduce reincarnation, the guiding belief in most India-based religious traditions that the soul goes through innumerable, perhaps endless, cycles of birth-death-rebirth. Without discussing reincarnation as a doctrine, with its (to be expected) myriad nuances, suffice it to say that reincarnation works to distinguish among soul, self and consciousness. While the underlying soul may be in a sense immortal, its consciousness is contingent on its current incarnation, with scant, if any, awareness of its prior existences (although the karma of past lives would influence the condition of future lives). Relating consciousness to ultimate reality, Swami Sarvapriyananda explains what it means that “Brahman, the ultimate reality, is limitless existence, limitless consciousness, existence and consciousness without limit.” Without limit, he says, “should be understood technically as no limits in space and no limits in time, and no limits in something called ‘object limitation.’ Limit in space means it's here and it's not there. But Brahman is not something that's located in one place. It's everywhere. And limit in time means it does not exist earlier, it does not exist later. But Brahman is not something that appears and disappears. It always is. Object limitation is interesting. A table is not a chair. A horse is not a cow. But Brahman does not have object limitation. Consciousness does not have object limitation. There is no object which is other than consciousness because they are all appearances of consciousness, in consciousness, and ultimately, nothing but consciousness itself” (Sarvapriyananda, 2023b).

---

## Śaṅkara's Self-Luminous Nondualism
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/a-karas-self-luminous-nondualism
Theorists: Śaṅkara

As Advaita Vedānta’s most authoritative philosopher, Śaṅkara's account of what would now be called phenomenal consciousness rests on a single structural claim: awareness is self-luminous (svaprakāśa), revealing itself without requiring a second awareness to reveal it, and therefore it cannot be an object, a property, an act, or a product of anything else. On this analysis, the qualitative variety of experience—colors, pains, emotions, thoughts—belongs not to consciousness but to the material internal organ (antaḥkaraṇa) and its objects, while consciousness contributes the bare fact of manifestation, the presence-to that makes any content an experienced content at all. The ordinary experiencing subject, the "I" that seems to have experiences, is for Śaṅkara a construction produced by superimposition (adhyāsa), a beginningless confusion of the witnessing awareness with the psychophysical apparatus it illuminates. The upshot is a theory on which phenomenal consciousness is real and irreducible but radically misdescribed by common sense, since what is genuinely conscious is neither individual, nor changing, nor the bearer of qualia. Thus, Śaṅkara’s Advaita Vedānta holds that what is ultimately real in phenomenal consciousness is not any particular sensation, thought, perception, emotion, or autobiographical self, but the self-luminous consciousness (cit, caitanya) in whose presence all such mental contents appear. At the empirical level, this consciousness functions as the witness (sākṣin) of an individual mind; at the ultimate level, even the witness–witnessed relation falls away, leaving pure, non-intentional consciousness numerically identical with ātman and Brahman, the nondual reality of everything. Śaṅkara therefore does not explain consciousness as produced by brain or mind: mind is an insentient, subtle-material instrument whose intentional states become manifest through consciousness, while ignorance makes the one undivided consciousness appear as many embodied subjects. Liberation is not the production of a new experience but knowledge that one has always been this nondual consciousness. Consciousness as Self-Luminous Śaṅkara's foundational move is to deny that awareness is ever known the way other things are known. Consciousness is svaprakāśa, self-illuminating, because it does not require a further awareness in order to be manifest; it is self-established, needing no means of knowledge (pramāṇa) to certify it, and remaining always the non-object of knowledge even while it is what makes objects known (Ram-Prasad, 2002; Gupta, 2003). The reasoning is regress-driven and structurally similar to arguments later deployed against higher-order theories: if awareness required a second awareness to be manifest, that second would require a third. The consequence is severe. Awareness is not a state a subject enters, not a relation, and not a quality that admits of degrees; it is what Śaṅkara terms svarūpa, the very nature of the self (ātman), which is identical with Brahman. Where contemporary theories treat "there is something it is like" as a property some physical states possess, Śaṅkara treats manifestation itself as the invariant and asks what accounts for its apparent variety and ownership. Sri Ramana's Self as Pure Consciousness marks the same distinction between transitive and intransitive awareness in a modern idiom. Pure Consciousness and the Empirical Witness Śaṅkara’s philosophy begins not with the modern hard problem but with the Upaniṣadic problem of self-knowledge: what is the enduring subject of experience, and what is its relation to ultimate reality? His answer distinguishes two explanatory standpoints. Within ordinary or empirical reality (vyāvahārika), consciousness is the witnessing presence by which cognitions, sensations, imaginings, affects, memories, and introspective states are disclosed as experienced. From the ultimate standpoint (pāramārthika), however, consciousness is stripped even of the relational description “witness,” because witnessing presupposes something witnessed. Pure consciousness is intrinsically non-intentional, self-present, and identical with Brahman (Śaṅkara, 1992; Dalal, 2021). This distinction matters for translating Śaṅkara into contemporary consciousness studies. What we ordinarily call phenomenal consciousness includes richly differentiated contents—redness, pain, emotion, desire, bodily sensation, imagery, thought. Śaṅkara assigns the differentiation and intentional structure of such episodes to the mind, not to pure consciousness itself. Consciousness supplies their manifest presence: it is because of it that a mental modification is not merely an event but an experienced event. Thus pure consciousness is not a gigantic stream containing every quale as its own changing state. It is the invariant condition of manifestation across changing phenomenal contents (Fasching, 2021). The Witness and What It Reveals In other words, in the empirical order, consciousness functions as the witness, sākṣin: a wholly passive presence that reveals mental states (vṛttis) and, through them, their objects, without itself being modified by what it reveals. The witness is not an entity that observes but the taking-place of witnessing (Gupta, 2003; Fasching, 2008). This yields a precise division of labor. Everything qualitatively determinate in experience is a modification of the internal organ, which is itself material and insentient. What consciousness supplies is not content but the dative dimension, the "for whom" of any appearing whatever (MacKenzie, 2012). Advaita therefore locates the explanandum of phenomenality differently from most contemporary accounts: not in the specific character of experiences, which is on the object side and admits of causal explanation, but in the sheer fact that anything is manifest at all, which is held to be explanatorily basic. The technical mechanisms by which later Advaita worked out the interaction of witness and mental modification, including the theories of reflection (pratibimba) and delimitation (avaccheda), belongs largely to Śaṅkara's successors rather than to Śaṅkara himself (Comans, 2000; Timalsina, 2009). Superimposition and the Manufactured Subject The opening of the Brahmasūtrabhāṣya, the Adhyāsabhāṣya, is Śaṅkara's most consequential text for consciousness studies. He begins from the observation that subject and object, the domains of "I" and "this," are as opposed as light and darkness, so that their identification ought to be impossible—and then observes that human beings nonetheless perform this identification constantly and unavoidably, saying "I am thin," "I am blind," "I am unhappy." Adhyāsa is the apprehension of one thing as another, taking the form of a memory-like appearance of what was seen elsewhere. Its effect is to generate the ordinary experiencing subject as a composite artifact: the pure witness mistaken for a limited, embodied, biographical individual. The individuated self (jīva) is not a further entity, but the witness apparently delimited by an adjunct (upādhi), as space seems bounded by a pot; the standard illustration is the rope taken for a snake, where error requires a real substratum. The claim relevant to phenomenal consciousness is that the felt sense of being a particular subject to whom experiences belong is itself a phenomenal appearance requiring explanation, not a datum on which explanation can rest. The Argument from the Three States Śaṅkara's most empirically framed argument analyzes the three states of waking, dreaming, and dreamless sleep (avasthātraya). Waking and dreaming present objects, one class publicly and one privately, and in each the witness is present while contents vary. Deep sleep is the pivotal case. On waking, a person reports both that they slept well and that they knew nothing—a report Śaṅkara takes to require that something was present throughout to register the absence, since a genuinely interrupted consciousness could not subsequently testify to its own contentlessness (Gupta, 2003; Sharma, 2004). Consciousness therefore persists in suṣupti, objectless and unindividuated, which shows that awareness is separable from every content and from the waking sense of self. The inference is contested: critics note that a memory-based argument cannot easily exclude reconstruction after the fact, and the reasoning has been examined closely against contemporary sleep science, where evidence of minimal experience during deep sleep is compatible with weaker readings (Thompson, 2015). The parallel entry, Thompson's Phenomenology: Waking, Dreaming, Sleeping, Pure Awareness, pursues exactly this comparison. Liberation and the Soteriological Frame Śaṅkara's account of consciousness is not detachable from its purpose. The analysis exists to produce mokṣa, understood not as a future attainment but as recognition of what is already the case, since one cannot acquire what one already is; action is superfluous for accomplishing an accomplished fact. Because bondage is constituted by adhyāsa, and adhyāsa is a cognitive error, only knowledge (jñāna) removes it, and the knowledge in question is the identity of ātman and Brahman. This soteriological framing shapes the theoretical claims rather than merely driving them: consciousness must be intrinsically unlimited and intrinsically fulfilled (ānanda) for liberation to consist in recognition alone, and Śaṅkara's insistence that Brahman is without attributes (nirguṇa) follows from the requirement that nothing be added at liberation. Its central claims are foundational for a theory of salvation and were defended partly on that ground (Rambachan, 2006). Liberation as Recognition, Not a New Experience As noted, Śaṅkara’s theory culminates in mokṣa, liberation through knowledge that ātman is Brahman. The crucial error is not that consciousness lacks some extraordinary experience; it is that the person identifies the self with body, mind, agency, and changing experiential contents. Upaniṣadic teaching, reasoning, and contemplative assimilation remove this ignorance by revealing that consciousness—the constant through waking, dreaming, and deep sleep—is not personally bounded (Śaṅkara, 1992; Ram-Prasad, 2001). Liberation therefore should not be represented simply as a mystical trance, episode of contentless awareness, or altered state. Śaṅkara understands liberating knowledge as a radical epistemic transformation: the subject-object framework and agentive “I” are recognized as empirically operative but ultimately superimposed. A liberated person can continue perceiving and acting while no longer identifying phenomenal contents or embodied personality with the ultimate self. Consciousness does not become Brahman; it was never other than Brahman (Śaṅkara, 1996). For Landscape, Śaṅkara consequently offers one of history’s most radical consciousness-first ontologies. Phenomenal contents require minds, but consciousness itself requires neither mind nor content; individual subjectivity arises through the apparent delimitation of one universal consciousness by mental structures; and the ultimate explanatory ground is not a cosmic subject possessing an indefinitely enlarged collection of experiences, but nondual self-luminous awareness beyond the distinction between experiencer and experienced. Phenomenal Consciousness and the Modern Hard Problem Reconstructed in contemporary terms, Śaṅkara reverses the explanatory direction assumed by physicalism. He does not ask how nonconscious matter generates subjectivity; he argues that sentience cannot originate in what is intrinsically insentient and treats consciousness as the ontological primitive through which minds and worlds become manifest. Advaita can therefore appear to dissolve the conventional hard problem by rejecting its presumed direction of explanation (Ram-Prasad, 2001). Yet this reconstruction requires qualification. Śaṅkara was not trying to explain why neural states produce qualia, and his metaphysics does not supply a modern psychophysical mechanism connecting universal consciousness to the specific phenomenal character of an individual embodied experience. Recent analysis accordingly challenges the claim that Advaita’s nondual universal consciousness automatically solves the contemporary hard problem of subject-level phenomenal-intentional consciousness (Vaidya, 2025). Declaring consciousness fundamental does not itself explain why a particular perspective experiences red rather than blue, pain rather than pleasure, or one bounded phenomenal field rather than another. Śaṅkara’s central problem is more fundamentally the nature and misidentification of the self (ātman), not the contemporary explanatory gap (Vaidya, 2025). Reception in Consciousness Studies Advaita has entered contemporary debate on three fronts. The self-luminosity thesis is discussed as a precedent for pre-reflective self-awareness and against higher-order theories, with Fasching (2008, 2021) arguing that the sākṣin names the same phenomenon phenomenologists call for-me-ness. The witness has been analyzed as a distinct explanatory target, notably by Albahari (2009), who separates the appearance of witness-consciousness from the question of its reality and reaches conclusions Śaṅkara would reject. And the anti-emergence argument—that the insentient cannot generate sentience—has been examined as an early and explicit rejection of physicalism about consciousness (Ram-Prasad, 2001). The Landscape entry Albahari's Perennial Idealism develops one contemporary descendant. Śaṅkara's account also stands in direct opposition to Nāgārjuna's Empty Consciousness and to the Buddhist denial of a self-luminous witness, a dispute that structured Indian philosophy of mind for a millennium. Assessment Śaṅkara's significance for consciousness studies lies in a clean separation that most modern theories blur: between the qualitative character of experience, which he assigns to a material and insentient mental apparatus, and the bare manifestation that makes any character phenomenal at all, which he treats as irreducible. This reframes rather than solves the hard problem, relocating it as a question about individuation and apparent ownership instead of about generation. The vulnerabilities are equally clear. The deep-sleep argument depends on memory testimony that admits weaker interpretations; the doctrine of adhyāsa explains error by positing a beginningless ignorance whose relation to a supposedly unmodified awareness is notoriously difficult; and the claim that consciousness is numerically one and unindividuated — person and cosmos, ātman and Brahman—is asserted on scriptural authority as well as on philosophical arguments, which limits how far the position can be assessed by the standards of naturalistic philosophy of mind. What survives independently is the regress argument for self-luminosity and the phenomenological observation that awareness is never encountered as an object. References Albahari, M. (2009). Witness-consciousness: Its definition, appearance and reality. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 16(1), 62–84. Comans, M. (2000). The method of early Advaita Vedānta: A study of Gauḍapāda, Śaṅkara, Sureśvara, and Padmapāda. Motilal Banarsidass. Fasching, W. (2008). Consciousness, self-consciousness, and meditation. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 7(4), 463–483. Fasching, W. (2021). Prakāśa: A few reflections on the Advaitic understanding of consciousness as presence and its relevance for philosophy of mind. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 20(4), 679–701. Gupta, B. (2003). CIT: Consciousness. Oxford University Press. MacKenzie, M. (2012). Luminosity, subjectivity, and temporality: An examination of Buddhist and Advaita views of consciousness. In I. Kuznetsova, J. Ganeri, & C. Ram-Prasad (Eds.), Hindu and Buddhist ideas in dialogue: Self and no-self (pp. 181–198). Ashgate. Mayeda, S. (Trans.). (1992). A thousand teachings: The Upadeśasāhasrī of Śaṅkara. State University of New York Press. Rambachan, A. (2006). The Advaita worldview: God, world, and humanity. State University of New York Press. Ram-Prasad, C. (2001). Knowledge and liberation in classical Indian thought. Palgrave. Ram-Prasad, C. (2002). Advaita epistemology and metaphysics: An outline of Indian non-realism. RoutledgeCurzon. Sharma, A. (2004). Sleep as a state of consciousness in Advaita Vedānta. State University of New York Press. Thompson, E. (2015). Waking, dreaming, being: Self and consciousness in neuroscience, meditation, and philosophy. Columbia University Press. Timalsina, S. (2009). Consciousness in Indian philosophy: The Advaita doctrine of "awareness only." Routledge.

---

## Sri Ramana’s Self as Pure Consciousness
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/sri-ramana-s-self-as-pure-consciousness
Theorists: Michael James

The modern Hindu sage Bhagavan Sri Ramana Maharshi clarified the fundamental principles of Advaita Vedanta, as explained by philosopher/translator Michael James, an expert on Sri Ramana. Transitive and Intransitive Awareness With regard to consciousness, “Sri Ramana highlighted the distinction between transitive awareness (suṭṭaṟivu in Tamil) and intransitive awareness (suṭṭaṯṟa aṟivu). Transitive awareness is awareness that knows objects or phenomena, whereas intransitive awareness is awareness that knows nothing other than itself. In classical Advaita Vedanta, intransitive awareness is called pure consciousness (śuddha caitanya), because it is consciousness devoid of any content, and being-consciousness (sat-cit), not only because it is conscious only of its own being, ‘I am’, but also because it is the consciousness (cit) that is itself pure being (sat), meaning that it is what alone actually exists, so it is the one real substance (vastu) from which all other things derive their seeming existence, just as gold ornaments derive their existence from gold. Transitive awareness, on the other hand, is called cidābhāsa, meaning that it is an ābhāsa (semblance, likeness or reflection) of consciousness (cit), because it is not real consciousness, since it is consciousness of things that do not actually exist but merely seem to exist, like all the things seen in a dream. Only consciousness of what actually exists is real consciousness, and since what actually exists is only pure consciousness, it alone is real consciousness” (James, 2012, 2024). However, according to James, “these are not two separate consciousnesses, but two forms of the one and only consciousness, one form of which is consciousness as it actually is, namely intransitive awareness, and the other form of which is an unreal appearance, namely transitive awareness. Intransitive awareness is real because it is permanent, unchanging, self-existent and self-shining. It is self-existent because it exists independent of all other things, and it is self-shining because it shines by its own light of consciousness, underived from anything else. Transitive awareness, on the other hand, is impermanent and constantly changing, and it is neither self-existent nor self-shining, because it derives its seeming existence from the real existence of intransitive awareness and it shines by the light of consciousness that it borrows from intransitive awareness. Intransitive awareness is therefore the reality that underlies and supports the illusory appearance of transitive awareness, just as a rope is the reality that underlies and supports the illusory appearance of a snake. That is, we cannot be aware of anything without being aware, but we can be aware without being aware of anything, so intransitive awareness is primary and fundamental whereas transitive awareness is secondary and emergent” (James, 2024). Self-Investigation and Its Rationale Sri Ramana concluded that “transitive awareness (awareness of anything other than ourself) is an unreal appearance, and that the only real consciousness is pure intransitive awareness (awareness of nothing other than our own being). That is, consciousness or awareness is not an object but the reality of the subject, so no objective investigation can enable us to know consciousness as it actually is. Since we ourself are consciousness, in order to know ourself as we actually are, we need to turn our entire attention back on ourself, away from all other things”—a practice Sri Ramana called self-investigation (ātma-vicāra), which means “keeping our attention fixed firmly on what we actually are, namely our fundamental awareness ‘I am’, which is our very being, so he also called this practice ‘awareness-investigation’ (jñāna-vicāra)” (James, 2012, 2024). According to James, one of the most important and widely accepted insights found in ancient Indian philosophy is the fundamental distinction between consciousness (in the sense of what is conscious or aware) and phenomena, which are all objects of consciousness. Since all phenomena appear and disappear in consciousness, or more precisely, in the view of what is conscious, what is conscious is distinct from all phenomena and exists independently of them. This simple but profound insight gave rise to one of the major systems of Indian philosophy, namely the dualistic system of Sankhya, which is not a mind-body dualism but a subject-object or consciousness-phenomena dualism, and it is also one of the fundamental principles not only of Yoga (the metaphysical foundation of which is largely based on Sankhya) but also of Vedanta in general and Advaita Vedanta in particular. However, unlike Sankhya, Yoga and some forms of Vedanta, which attribute an independent ontological status to prakṛti (the source and totality of all phenomena), Advaita Vedanta (at least in its deepest and purest form as taught by Sri Ramana) does not accept that phenomena exist independent of transitive awareness, which in turn does not exist independent of intransitive awareness, so Advaita Vedanta is non-dualistic (James, 2025). Because of the antiquity and prevalence of this insight in Indian philosophy, and because the practical application of its insights is a central concern and focus in all systems of Indian philosophy, in India since ancient times the approach to investigating consciousness has been almost diametrically opposite to the approach in modern science and philosophy, which seem to have overlooked this fundamental distinction between consciousness and phenomena, and which consequently has been seeking to locate consciousness among phenomena or to explain it in terms of them. Contrary to this modern approach, the Indian systems of philosophy that are most concerned with consciousness, such as Sankhya, Yoga and the various forms of Vedanta, have each in their own way attempted to investigate consciousness by focusing on the knower rather than any of the phenomena known by it. As clarified by Sri Ramana, Advaita Vedanta takes this approach most rigorously and uncompromisingly. Whereas Yoga aims to stop all mental activity and thereby isolate consciousness from all contact with phenomena, Sri Ramana argues that this is necessary but not sufficient, because we stop all mental activity every day when we fall asleep, but the resulting isolation of consciousness from all contact with phenomena is only temporary. Whenever we are aware of ourself as a body, as we are in waking and dream, we are transitively aware (aware of phenomena), and whenever we are not aware of ourself as a body, as in sleep, we are not transitively aware. Since we are aware of ourself as one body in waking and as another body in dream, but as no body at all in sleep, in which we are aware of nothing other than our own being, no body can be what we actually are, so being aware of ourself as if we were a body is a false awareness of ourself, and hence this false awareness can be removed only by awareness of ourself as we actually are. In order to be aware of ourself as we actually are, we not only have to withdraw our attention from all phenomena but also have to focus our entire attention on ourself alone. What we actually are is pure intransitive awareness, but how to be aware of ourself as such? Pure awareness can never be an object of awareness, so we can know it only by being it, because it knows itself not by any act of knowing but just by being itself. But since it is what we always actually are, why do we now seem to be not aware of ourself as such? We seem to be so only because we now mistake ourself to be a body, which is not what we actually are. So long as we are aware of phenomena, we seem to be a transitive awareness, so in order to be aware of ourself as pure intransitive awareness, we need to attend to ourself so keenly that we thereby cease to be aware of anything else whatsoever. If we do so, we will cease to be a transitive awareness and instead remain as the pure intransitive awareness that we always actually are (James, 2025). Advaita Vedanta as Radical Monism James notes that, in his view, Sri Ramana’s teachings are misrepresented by classifying them as an idealism rather than a monism. Though, he says, “there are idealistic elements in Advaita Vedanta—of which Ramana’s teachings are a very pure expression and clarification—Advaita Vedanta is primarily monistic, because it maintains that the ultimate reality is pure consciousness (intransitive awareness), which is one only without a second (ēkam ēva advitīyam), and that the mind (transitive awareness) is not real but just an illusory appearance. A philosophy that denies the reality of the mind cannot be an idealism, even though it may include idealistic elements” (James, 2025). In fact, James continues, any school of Vedic/Hindu philosophy that is not primarily monistic cannot be called Advaita Vedanta, “because ‘Advaita Vedanta’ means ‘non-dualistic Vedanta’ and is so called because one of its fundamental contentions is that there is ‘one only without a second’ (‘ēkam ēva advitīyam’, a term used in the Chāndōgya Upaniṣad 6.2.1-2).” That is, James says, according to Advaita Vedanta, “what actually exists is one only without a second, and it is pure being (sat), which is pure awareness (cit), so this one being-awareness (sat-cit), which is infinite (being beyond all limits, including the limits of time and space), indivisible and immutable, is what we actually are, and hence all multiplicity and differences are just an illusory appearance. As clarified by Sri Ramana, all multiplicity and differences seem to exist only in the view of what is transitively aware, namely ego, which is the knowing element of the mind (as opposed to all mental phenomena, which are objects known by ego), and ego itself is unreal, because it appears in waking and dream but disappears in sleep. What exists in all three states (waking, dream, and sleep) without appearing or disappearing and without ever undergoing change of any kind whatsoever is pure intransitive awareness, which is our fundamental awareness of our own being, ‘I am’, so this alone is what is real.” How then the seeming existence of all phenomena? Reflecting Sri Ramana, James contends that “since all phenomena seem to exist only in the view of ourself as ego, they derive their seeming existence from the seeming existence of ourself as ego, and ego derives its seeming existence from the real existence of ourself as the one pure being-awareness (sat-cit), which is the sole reality underlying the seeming existence of ego.” James explains that “what Advaita Vedanta means by ‘real’ is what actually exists, and what it means by ‘unreal’ is what does not actually exist even if it seems to exist, so it does not accept anything as real that is not permanent. As Sri Ramana said, ‘Whatever exists at one time but not at another time does not actually exist even when it seems to exist’, and the same idea is implied by Sri Krishna in the Bhagavad Gītā 2.16: ‘Of the non-existent there is not [ever any real] existence; of the existent there is not [ever any] non-existence’. The reason for this is that, just as what is hot at one time but not at another time is not intrinsically hot but has borrowed its heat from some source other than itself, whatever exists at one time but not at another time is not intrinsically existent but has borrowed its existence from some source other than itself. Therefore, only what exists permanently and without ever undergoing any change is intrinsically existent, so it does not depend for its existence on any other thing, whereas all things that are impermanent or subject to change do not exist independently but derive their existence from something else. Hence, since their existence does not belong to them, they do not actually exist but merely seem to exist.” Following this logic, James argues, “Therefore, since transitive awareness and all the phenomena it is aware of are not permanent, they do not actually exist but merely seem to exist, so what actually exists is only pure intransitive awareness, because it alone is what exists permanently and therefore intrinsically and independently. Pure intransitive awareness is therefore the ultimate source from which all other things derive their seeming existence, so since it is the only real existence, it is ‘one only without a second’ (ēkam ēva advitīyam). “Since this is the central contention of Advaita Vedanta, it is the most radical of all forms of monism. In its deepest form as taught by Sri Ramana, it is a form of idealism only insofar as it maintains that no phenomena, whether mental or seemingly physical, exist independent of ego, the transitive awareness in whose view alone they seem to exist, but unlike most other forms of idealism, which take the mind to be real, it does not take either the mind or its root, namely ego, to be real. What is real is only pure intransitive awareness, which is the one source and substance of ego and hence ultimately of all other things” (James, 2025).

---

## Sri Aurobindo’s Evolving Consciousness
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/sri-aurobindo-s-evolving-consciousness
Theorists: Sri Aurobindo

Indian philosopher and yogi (and nationalist) Sri Aurobindo envisions an ongoing, progressing evolution of consciousness as a prime feature of world meaning and human purpose. “He holds that the human mind is much too imperfect a type of consciousness to be the final resting point of nature, and that just as life developed out of matter, and mind out of life, a still higher form of consciousness is bound to develop out of the mind” (Cornelissen, 2004). Involution and Evolution of Consciousness To Sri Aurobindo, the evolution of consciousness is a critical feature of the nature of consciousness and thus informs his theory of consciousness. His well-known epigram, “Nothing can evolve which is not already involved,” is a cornerstone of his philosophy of ‘Integral Evolution.’ These are the elements: Involution is the Precursor to Evolution: Evolution isn't a random or purely mechanistic process. It's the unfolding of something that was already present in a hidden or ‘involved’ form. Consciousness as the Underlying Reality: Consciousness, specifically Divine Consciousness (Sat-Chit-Ananda), is the fundamental reality underlying the universe and all reality. In the process of involution, this divine consciousness descends and veils itself within Matter, appearing as unconsciousness. Evolution as Unfolding What's Already There: Therefore, the various stages of evolution, from matter to life to mind, aren't the creation of something entirely new in a random, unrepeatable manner, but the gradual emergence and manifestation of the consciousness that was previously involved or concealed within those lower forms. Just as a tree is already contained within a seed, higher forms of consciousness are involved within lower forms of matter, waiting to unfold. A Purposeful Evolution: This perspective gives evolution a spiritual purpose and direction. It's a journey of the Divine rediscovering and manifesting itself in the world, with human consciousness representing a key stage in this process, eventually evolving towards a higher, supramental consciousness and a divine life on Earth. Resolving the Matter-Spirit Divide: Sri Aurobindo’s framework claims to help bridge the gap between traditional Eastern spiritual views that often see the material world as an illusion and scientific materialism that struggles to explain the emergence of consciousness from matter. Aurobindo sees Matter not as separate from Spirit, but as Spirit in its most primitive and involved form. Sri Aurobindo bases the ontology of his evolutionary consciousness on the Vedāntic view of consciousness, which, in one telling, says that “consciousness is pervasive throughout reality and that it manifests as a range of ever-higher gradations of consciousness and being.” In each category of reality, consciousness has its tailored form. “In matter, consciousness is fully engrossed in its own existence and shows itself only as matter's habit of form and its tendency to obey fixed laws. In plant and animal life, consciousness begins to emancipate a little, there are the first signs of exchange, of giving and taking, of feelings, drives and emotions. In the human mind we see a further emancipation of consciousness in the first appearance of an ability to ‘play with ideas in one's mind’ and to rise above the immediate situation.” The mind, however, constitutes opposing characteristics. On the one hand, it is “the plane of objective, generalized statements, ideas, thoughts, intelligence, etc.” On the other hand, it “is also an inveterate divider, making distinctions between subject and object, I and thou, things and other things” (Cornelissen, 2004). Higher Levels of Mind and Beyond From the Vedic perspective, “ordinary human mentality is considered to be only the most primitive form of mental consciousness, most ego-bound, most dependent on the physical senses. Above it there is the unitary Higher Mind of self-revealed wisdom, the Illumined Mind where truths are seen rather than thought, the plane of the Intuitive Mind where truth is inevitable and perfect, and finally the cosmic Overmind, the mind of the Gods, comprehensive, all-encompassing.” But one must rise beyond all of them to find ultimate perfection, “one with the divine consciousness that upholds the universe” (Cornelissen, 2004). While various spiritual traditions have set life's highest goal as connecting or even merging with the absolute consciousness, Sri Aurobindo distinguishes his vision by announcing, “It is at this moment for the first time becoming possible to let a supramental consciousness enter into one's being and transform it in every respect.” It is this “comprehensive, supramental transformation of all aspects of human nature” that is the central theme of Sri Aurobindo's work—and it is his grand prediction that human progress via the evolution of consciousness will eventually bring about “supramental consciousness as much an intrinsic, ‘natural’ part of earthly life as our ordinary mentality is now” (Cornelissen, 2004). Integral Non-Dualism and Evolutionary Idealism Sri Aurobindo’s theory of consciousness is not traditionally idealist. It can be described as a form of spiritual monism or integral idealism, deeply rooted in Vedantic non-dualism and going beyond Western metaphysical categories. Aurobindo rejects a dualist dichotomy. For him, matter, life, and mind are gradations of one divine reality—Spirit or Consciousness-Force (Chit-Shakti). Ultimately, reality is multi-tiered—matter, life, mind, supermind, spirit—all expressions of the same Divine Consciousness. There is no ontological gap between spirit and matter; rather, matter is involved consciousness, and evolution is its gradual unfolding. He does envision consciousness as the foundation of all existence, but not in a way that negates the reality of the material world. In fact, Aurobindo affirms the reality of the physical world as a dynamic expression of the spiritual. Consciousness involves itself in matter, creating the appearance of unconsciousness, and evolves through life and mind toward Supermind and spiritual realization. He emphasizes spiritual evolution such that his theory could be called “evolutionary idealism” as well as “integral non-dualism.” In his grand vision, Sri Aurobindo proclaims that evolution is a journey of self-discovery for the Divine, a gradual process of the Divine Consciousness manifesting its inherent potential within the universe as progressively higher forms of consciousness. Human consciousness is a critical step along the way, but it is not the ultimate destination.

---

## Sarkar’s Infinite Supreme Consciousness
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/sarkar-s-infinite-supreme-consciousness
Theorists: Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar, Richard Gauthier

Spiritual guru and philosopher Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar’s monistic philosophy of infinite Supreme Consciousness is summarized in his 1962 book Ananda Sutram (“Bliss Sutras”). The book includes translations of its 85 Sanskrit sutras and brief explanatory purports that elaborate the spiritual and social philosophy of Ananda Marga (“Path of Bliss”), which is a rational synthesis of Vedic intuitional knowledge and Yogic intuitional practices (Sarkar, 1962). Supreme Consciousness and Cosmic Creation According to physicist-psychologist Richard Gauthier, an expert in Sarkar's thought, Sarkar’s philosophy of Infinite Consciousness, absolute reality, consists of uncaused, infinite, non-qualified Supreme Consciousness (Nirguna Brahman). This is composed of a Supreme Cognitive Principle—Shiva or Purusha—and an unexpressed Supreme Operative Principle or creative power—Shakti, Prakriti, or Maya. Prakriti is the creative power of Purusha. They are never separate, just like two sides of a piece of paper. Prakriti is the combination of three attributional forces—sattvaguna (sentient force), rajoguna (mutative force), and tamoguna (static force) (Gauthier, 2022). A portion of the infinite Non-Qualified Supreme Consciousness becomes infinite Qualified Supreme Consciousness (Saguna Brahman) when, in a portion of Purusha and with the approval of Purusha, the three forces of Prakriti become unbalanced and activated. As Gauthier explains it, Prakriti then qualifies this portion of Purusha by giving Purusha many sentient, mutative, and static attributes. The Qualified Supreme Consciousness evolves an infinite Cosmic Mind, or Macrocosm, whose controlling nucleus is infinite Cosmic Consciousness. The Cosmic Mind consists of seven levels, or lokas (Sattvaloka, Taparloka, Janarloka, Maharloka, Svarloka, Bhuvarloka, Bhurloka) of decreasing degrees of subtlety. Within Bhurloka are evolved five fundamental levels of physical matter—ethereal factor (space), aerial factor, luminous factor, liquid factor, and solid factor—leading to a stage of maximum crudification of solid matter. The five fundamental factors emit inferential waves (tanmatras) which at a later stage can be apprehended by the sensory organs of living beings (Gauthier, 2022). This completes the first, or extroversive (Saincara) phase—from Non-Qualified Supreme Consciousness to the crudest matter—of the two phases of a Cosmic Cycle of creation. Evolution of Minds and Human Dharma Then, Gauthier continues, begins the introversive (Pratisaincara) phase of the Cosmic Cycle—the phase of evolution of individual minds or microcosms. Individual minds can evolve from matter because matter is Qualified Supreme Consciousness. Primitive minds evolve that are associated with living physical bodies, starting with single-celled organisms having rudimental awareness. Metazoic minds evolve through plants and animals. Individual minds pass through many successive physical embodiments through reincarnation, leading to human beings with highly developed minds and bodies. Developing minds gradually evolve five levels (koshas) of subtlety—crude mind (kamamaya kosha), subtle mind (manomaya kosha) and three levels of causal mind (atimanasa kosha, vijinanamaya kosha and hiranyamaya kosha). Each individual mind has an associated individual self, soul or unit consciousness (jiivatma) that is neither material nor mental, but is a unique reflection of the Cosmic Consciousness from each individual mind. Each self travels with its mind after death to a new physical embodiment, if needed. They give individual minds, more or less clearly, the conscious knowledge of their own existence (Gauthier, 2022). According to Gauthier’s understanding of Sarkar, human beings are distinguished from other living beings by their essential human characteristic (human or manava dharma)—their thirst for limitless happiness. Their dharma leads human beings to the path of intuitional practices, whose final attainment—merger into the Non-Qualified Supreme Consciousness—brings the permanent fulfillment of human beings’ desire for unlimited happiness and peace (Gauthier, 2022). Intuitional practices cannot be successful without the intuitional practitioner (sadhaka) following a balanced life of “subjective approach with objective adjustment.” This means performing regular intuitional practices while living a moral life in society by following the ten universal moral principles of Yama and Niyama—ahimsa, satya, asteya, brahmacharya, aparigraha, shaoca, santosha, tapah, svadhyaya, and Ishvara pranidhana. (See P. R. Sarkar’s A Guide to Human Conduct [2004].) According to Sarkar, who Gauthier says “seems to know,” despite describing himself as a “VIP”—very insignificant person—the Supreme Consciousness or Parama Purusha (Supreme Love Personified), has only two limitations: He cannot hate anyone or anything in His creation, and He cannot create a second Supreme Consciousness. Everything in the universe will ultimately evolve to become a human being and, through intuitional practices, will merge into the Non-Qualified Supreme Consciousness, its original source (Gauthier, 2022). Sarkar’s monistic theory of infinite Non-Qualified Supreme Consciousness with its Cosmic Cycle of Creation (Brahmachakra) through Qualified Supreme Consciousness with its relative cause-and-effect universe of time, space, and persons, Gauthier concludes, provides rational and actionable answers to human beings’ perennial questions: “Who am I?”, “Where do I come from?”, “Where am I going?”, and “What is my purpose in life?” (Gauthier, 2022). Qualia and the Hard Problem Gauthier claims that Sarkar solved David Chalmers's “Hard Problem” by proposing in his 1962 treatise on consciousness, Ananda Sutram, that there are key sites in sensory nerve cells, called “appropriative points,” which are brain-mind portals for qualia (Gauthier, 2026). Here, incoming sensory inferential waves, called tanmatras, emitted by physical objects, transfer pre-existing qualia through sensory organs like the eye to sensory nerve cells with appropriative points linked to the mind. These qualia then create simulative forms in the mind’s “mental plate,” which are seen or felt by the “I do” portion of the mind. Therefore, qualia are not created by the brain’s physical processes but are pre-existing in the matter of the physical universe, which is derived from the infinite Supreme Consciousness by qualifying part of itself using its infinite creative power. Gauthier wonders whether Sarkar’s appropriative points could be located and experimentally tested by delivering focused local anesthetics to sensory nerve sites that are receiving tanmatras within the brain and then by observing the change in a subject’s experience of the qualia brought to the subject’s mind by those tanmatras.

---

## Kashmir Shaivism’s Dynamic Non-Dualism
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/kashmir-shaivism-s-dynamic-non-dualism
Theorists: General

Kashmir Shaivism, a profoundly metaphysical, non-dualistic philosophy within the broader Indian/Hindu tradition, holds that Consciousness (chit) is the fundamental reality of the universe. With origins in the Kashmir Valley, it emerged around 850 CE and evolved over the centuries. Kashmir Shaivism’s foundational doctrine is its steadfast emphasis on the intrinsic unity between the individual soul, known as Jiva, and the universal consciousness, identified as Shiva. Unlike other Shaiva traditions that might portray Shiva as a purely transcendent or formless deity, Kashmir Shaivism uniquely integrates Shakti—the divine energy or power—as an inseparable and essential aspect of the divine process. Shakti is not merely a consort, but the dynamic, inherent power of Shiva himself. Consciousness and Shakti as Ultimate Reality The central beliefs about consciousness in Kashmir Shaivism include: Supreme Consciousness (paramashiva) is ultimate reality, a dynamic unity of consciousness (chit) and power (shakti), which is both transcendent and immanent. It is the formless ground of all being and the source of all forms. Consciousness is not static but inherently vibrating, pulsating, or throbbing (spanda, the divine vibration, the first movement of awareness that gives rise to all creation). Self-recognition is realizing that one’s individual consciousness is identical with universal Consciousness. Ignorance is forgetting this identity; enlightenment is self-recognition. Shakti (power/energy) ensures that Consciousness is not inert—it is creative, expressive, and dynamic. The universe is Shiva’s play (līlā) through his energy (Shakti), not a separate or illusionary existence. Tattvas (principles of reality): The system outlines 36 tattvas, or ontological principles, that represent the stages of emanation from pure consciousness to physical matter. Consciousness is all-inclusive in Kashmir Shaivism, which asserts that everything is a manifestation of consciousness—even pain, ignorance, and duality are expressions of Shiva’s energy. Comparison with Advaita Vedanta Although Kashmir Shaivism and Advaita Vedanta are both part of the dominant Indian/Hindu tradition of non-dualism, they differ markedly in their ontological foundations, essence of consciousness, and nature of ultimate outcomes. For example, the ultimate reality in Kashmir Shaivism is a Consciousness (Chit or Shiva) that is self-aware, self-luminous, dynamic, creative, possesses agency through its own free power (Shakti), and emphasizes reflexive awareness (Shiva knows Himself through Shakti). In contrast, the ultimate reality in Advaita Vedanta is a Consciousness (Brahman) that is pure, passive, changeless, and without attributes, self-reflection, or intentional structure. For another example, in Kashmir Shaivism, the world is both real and divine, a playful expression of Consciousness, such that multiplicity is a feature, not a defect. In contrast, Advaita Vedanta views the world as ultimately unreal, an illusion that conceals the true nature of Brahman. All this is due to Māyā, the ineffable force that creates the cosmic illusion that the world of our senses is real—to be transcended in order to realize (or to return) to oneness. Epistemology and Liberation We conclude with epistemology. In Kashmir Shaivism, Consciousness is self-aware and self-luminous, containing knowledge within itself. It is the ground of all epistemic acts. Liberation is remembering one’s divine nature. In Advaita Vedanta, Consciousness is self-luminous, but it is not inherently self-aware in the same creative way. Knowledge arises through an internal “instrument” (antahkarana). Liberation is discriminating the real from the unreal.

---

## Bhartṛhari’s Linguistic Idealism
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/bhart-hari-s-linguistic-idealism
Theorists: Bhartṛhari, Rahul Kumar

Bhartṛhari (probably 5th century CE), through his seminal text Vākyapadīyam (VP) (“On the Sentence and the Word”), integrates language and metaphysics to formulate a unique theory of consciousness, which can be called Linguistic Idealism (Śabdādvaita) (Iyer, 1965). It posits that ultimate conscious reality is one indivisible linguistic principle (śabda tattva) [1] (Staal 1976:123; Matilal 1990:125; Ferrante 2017:242). According to this theory (as explained by Sanskrit scholar Rahul Kumar), language (śabda [2]) is not merely a tool for communication but the substance of which the universe is made (Vergiani, 2017) [3]. One of the explanations of this radical view is that the reality we perceive is an interpreted reality, and this “interpretation invariably in terms of some language or other” (Matilal 1990:124). Bhartṛhari explains three forms of language in VP 1.142, which he calls “Knots of Consciousness”: Vaikharī (“the audible and articulated language”), the Madhyamā (“inaudible one”), and the Paśyantī (“the unitary and inner one in which every kind of differentiation is lost”) [4] (Ferrante 2020:242). In addition, the Vedic tradition also mentions a fourth level of speech called Parā (the Supreme). Some scholars argued that this Parā, corresponding to pure consciousness (cit), is none other than Śabda-Brahman (the Linguistic-Absolute) itself (Ferrante 2020:242). The Śabda-Brahman (the Linguistic-Absolute) is the metaphysical foundation on which Bhartṛhari’s theory of consciousness is built, as described in VP 1.1. “The Brahman who is without beginning or end, whose very essence is the Word, who is the cause of the manifested phonemes, who appears as the objects, from whom the creation of the world proceeds.” Bhartṛhari, in his auto commentary (svopajña-vṛtti) of VP 1.11 [5], mentions Śabda-Brahman for the first time, which implies that the Brahman, whose very essence is the Word (language) (VP 1.1), is none other than Śabda-Brahman. On the account of epistemology, Bhartṛhari’s theory of consciousness rests on the inseparable relationship between language, cognition, and self-awareness. According to Vergiani (2017), consciousness, whose fundamental nature is language, is like “connective tissue underlying all the cognitions of individual subjects” and always implies self-awareness, as is noted in VP 1.126 [6]. “The consciousness of all beings going through transmigration is in the nature of the word; it exists within and without. The consciousness of all types of beings does not go beyond this essence.” To begin with cognition, Bhartṛhari explicitly states that there is no cognition without language [7] (Staal 1976:122). “There is no cognition in the world in which the word does not figure. All knowledge is, as it were, intertwined with the word.” Aklujkar (2000) highlights the three key entities, from the perspective of consciousness, in Bhartṛhari’s theory of cognition: sentience or pure consciousness (cit, citi, or caitanya), determinate consciousness or intellect or cognizer (buddhi), and the state, act, or event of cognizing (jñāna). Notably, he posits that there exists no physical and material distinction between intellect (buddhi) and pure consciousness (cit, citi, or caitanya) (Aklujkar, 2000). Additionally, consciousness is never separated from self-awareness, the cognition of ‘I am’ (ahamasmīti), and is considered innate, linguistic, and eternal, as elaborated in the auto commentary (svopajña-vṛtti) of VP 1.41 [8] (Vergiani, 2017). For Bhartṛhari, the distinction between self (subject denoted by first-person verb forms) and non-self (object denoted by second-person verb forms) is inherently grammatical (Vergiani, 2017). Based on the above discussion, according to Kumar, scholars claim that Bhartṛhari is one of the most influential and original figures in the history of Indian philosophy, since he originally advocates that language is the fundamental structure that constitutes reality, knowledge, and self-awareness. By “originally,” Kumar means the philosophers of the Pratyabhijñā (“Recognition”) school of Kashmir Shaivism (c. 9th-10th centuries CE), who also believe that “consciousness is unconceivable without language,” simply borrowed “Bhartṛhari’s work without any substantial modification” (Ferrante 2020:139-142). Additionally, Bhartṛhari holds that the world is the transformation of language [9] (cf. Staal 1976:123). This transformation is real (pariṇāma, as mentioned in verse 1.120), not an illusion (vivarta or māyā), unlike later Śaṅkara's Advaita Vedanta (c. 750). The Pratyabhijñā (Recognition) school of Kashmir Shaivism also doesn’t follow the aforementioned distinction of reality (Ferrante 2020:136). Presumably, they have borrowed this notion from Bhartṛhari’s work as well. Further, Bhartṛhari's Absolute is qualified by language (Śabda-Brahman), unlike Śaṅkara's Absolute (Brahman), which is attributeless or non-qualified. In sum, Bhartṛhari’s uncompromising non-dualism occupies a unique position not only within Indian philosophy but also across the broader landscape of theories of consciousness. Footnotes [1]anādinidhanaṃ brahma śabdatattvaṃ yadakṣaram | vivartate'rthabhāvena prakriyā jagato yataḥ || Vākyapadīyam, 1.1 || [2] In Indian philosophical tradition, the term ‘śabda’ is interchangeably used to refer to sound, word, sentence, speech and language in general. [3]śabdasya pariṇāpo'yamityāmnāyavido viduḥ | chandobhya eva prathamametadviśvaṃ vyavartata || Vākyapadīyam, 1.120 || [4] vaikharyā madhyamāyāśca paśyantyāścaitadadbhutam | anekatīrthabhedāyāstrayyā vācaḥ paraṃ padam|| Vākyapadīyam, 1.120 || [5]āsannaṃ brahmaṇastasya tapasāmuttamaṃ tapaḥ | prathamaṃ chandasāmaṅgamāhurvyākaraṇaṃ budhāḥ || Vākyapadīyam, 1.11 || [6] saiṣā saṃsāriṇāṃ saṃjñā bahirantaśca vartate | tanmātrāmavyatikrāntaṃ caitanyaṃ sarvajātiṣu || Vākyapadīyam, 1.26 || [7] na so'sti pratyayo loke yaḥ śabdānugamādṛte | anuviddhamiva jñānaṃ sarvaṃ śabdena bhāsate|| Vākyapadīyam, 1.123 || [8]caitanyamiva yaścāyamavicchedena vartate | āgamastamupāsīno hetuvādairna bādhyate || Vākyapadīyam, 1.141 || [9]śabdasya pariṇāpo'yamityāmnāyavido viduḥ | chandobhya eva prathamametadviśvaṃ vyavartata || Vākyapadīyam, 1.120 ||

---

## Buddhism’s Empty, Illusory Phenomenal Consciousness
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/buddhism-s-empty-illusory-phenomenal-consciousness
Theorists: Jay L. Garfield

Consciousness in Buddhism is sufficiently distinct, with its concepts of emptiness and illusion, that it could command a prime category of its own on the Landscape, yet it also fits decently in idealism, appropriately after Hinduism. Buddhism also arose in ancient India, and the legendary philosophical disputes between Hindu and Buddhist sages enriched both. Buddhist discussions of consciousness feel radically different from contemporary Western discussions, as philosopher Jay Garfield explains, yet “can be valuable sources of viable alternatives, both with respect to positions on the topic and, more fundamentally, with respect to how questions and debates are framed in the first place” (Garfield, 2015, pp. 135–136). Nine Levels of Consciousness Buddhism describes nine kinds or levels of consciousness: The first five reflect the five senses: eye consciousness, ear consciousness, nose consciousness, tongue consciousness, and body consciousness. The sixth is mind consciousness, which integrates the five senses and provides meaning. The seventh consciousness is directed inward, toward one's private thoughts and apprehends spiritual issues; it also creates the concept of self (from which all the deception is said to come because there is no entity ‘self’). The eighth consciousness is known as “storehouse consciousness” where all our experiences, actions and deeds, are in some sense “stored,” accumulating a lifetime of karma. (The eighth consciousness persists after death, unlike the first seven that cease when the body dies.) The ninth and highest consciousness, known as the Buddha nature, is the purest, forming the foundations for one's life and serving as the core of our energy and the source for all mental and spiritual activity. It cannot be affected by any of the karmic energy from the previous eight levels and attaining the ninth is to find peace and ultimate fulfillment” (Yifa, 2023; The Nine Consciousness, 2022). Garfield analyzes these nine levels of consciousness by kind. These include: “sensory and conceptual forms of consciousness; consciousness that is introspectible and consciousness that is too deep for introspection; consciousness that takes external phenomena as objects and consciousness that takes inner phenomena as objects; consciousness that is merely receptive and consciousness that is constructive and even projective. In general, the complex set of phenomena is opaque to casual introspection, and are knowable only theoretically or perhaps by highly trained meditators.” Garfield draws parallels between the nine levels and modern theories of consciousness: reflexive models of self-consciousness and self-knowledge, higher-order thought models, higher-order perception models and self-luminosity models (Garfield, 2015). Phenomenal Consciousness and Illusion Regarding the Buddhist approach to phenomenal consciousness, the story is complex. On the one hand, as Garfield puts it, “There is no phenomenal consciousness; there is nothing ‘that it is like’ to be me. To believe in phenomenal consciousness or ‘what-it-is-like-ness’ of ‘for-me-ness’ is to succumb to a pernicious form of the ‘Myth of the Given’.[1].. the sense that there is such a kind of consciousness is an instance of cognitive illusion … The very idea that there is an inner world of qualitative states must be illusory” (Garfield, 2016). On the other hand, there is rich tradition of Buddhist debate about perceptual consciousness and representationalism: how inner perception articulates with external objects and what we can know about the relationship. The Yogācāra school goes for idealism, “arguing that since direct realism is incoherent, as is representationalism, the direct and only object of conscious experience is an inner state,” while its worthy competitor, the Madhyamaka school, “analyzes consciousness, as they analyze all phenomena, as a set of relations, not as an independent phenomenon or characteristic.” In this deflationary account, “the illusion that there is a special property or center of consciousness is resolved in favor of a network of processes” (i.e., perceived object, sense organ, sensory system, conceptual system) (Garfield, 2016). From the Madhyamaka perspective, all that we lose is “the illusion that there is more in conscious experience than the psychology and physiology of experience. In particular, reference to internal representations, qualia, phenomenal properties and other such ghostly mediators of our experience drop away.” Garfield argues that such a more naturalistic, more public (less private) view “forces the theorist who takes something like the qualitative character of experience to be real, and to be essential to consciousness, to defend and not to presuppose that view” (Garfield, 2016). Emptiness and Non-Self To go deeper into Buddhist consciousness is to go “empty.” Emptiness is a foundational concept in Buddhism and is easily misunderstood (and inappropriately ridiculed). Simply put, “Emptiness is the lack of any intrinsic nature, not another intrinsic nature instead of those we naively superimpose on entities.” Emptiness, Garfield stresses, is never “emptiness of existence” but rather “always emptiness of some more determinate metaphysical property.” As Garfield explains the doctrine of the “two truths,” illuminating Nāgārjuna (c.150 - c.250 CE), perhaps Buddhism's greatest philosopher-saint (other than the Buddha, of course), “nothing turns out to be ultimately real, everything is merely conventionally real, and the ultimate and conventional truths, while radically different in one respect, are in fact identical in another. That is the profound doctrine of the emptiness of emptiness” (Garfield, 2016). Applied to consciousness, if phenomenal consciousness, like everything else, is empty of intrinsic nature, its claim of qualitative distinction from all other phenomena, its claim of radical subjective experience as a nonpareil occurrence in the cosmos, would seem to weaken. Moreover, though debate abounds, whereas Madhyamaka “takes all phenomena, including mind and the external world, to be conventionally real but ultimately empty, and to be interdependent, Yogācāra takes external objects to be mere appearances to mind, to be utterly non-existent, and takes mind to be the substantially real subjective substrate of those representations,” confirming the Yogācāra position as idealist (Garfield, 2015). That Buddhism rejects the self, asserting that we are persons, not selves, makes for fascinating explorations (Garfield, 2022). Debate has continued whether the Buddhist “Atman,” often translated self or soul, is permanent and unchanging, a position that Buddhist traditions and texts largely reject. No matter. The nature of the Buddhist non-self (or self) or the Buddhist person does not seem to much affect the deflationary nature of Buddhist consciousness. Self, non-self, person—phenomenal consciousness is the same empty illusion. Footnote [1]. “The Myth of the Given is the myth that there is some level of our experience that is immediate, immune from error, given to us, as opposed to constructed, and that this level of experience constitutes the foundation or transcendental condition of the possibility of knowledge of anything else” (Garfield, 2016).

---

## Nāgārjuna’s Empty Consciousness: Experience Without Essence
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/n-g-rjuna-s-empty-consciousness-experience-without-essence
Theorists: Nāgārjuna

Buddhist philosopher Nāgārjuna (ca. 150–250 CE), founder of the Madhyamaka or "middle way" school of Mahayana Buddhism and by wide agreement the most important Buddhist philosopher after the Buddha, argues that every phenomenon whatsoever is empty (śūnyatā) of svabhāva—intrinsic nature, or existence from its own side or nature—because whatever arises in dependence on causes, parts, or concepts cannot possess a nature that is its own (Westerhoff, 2026). Applied to consciousness, the thesis is uncompromising: phenomenal experience is not denied, but it has no intrinsic nature, no ultimate subject to whom it belongs, and no self-illuminating core, arising only in dependence on faculty, object, and conditions, and thus as empty as the objects it discloses (Siderits and Katsura, 2013). This is not nihilism—conventionally, seeing, feeling, and suffering all occur—and it is equally not idealism, since consciousness is refused precisely the foundational status that would make it rock-bottom reality. Emptiness is itself empty; the upshot is less a rival theory of what consciousness is than a sustained demonstration that the demand for such a theory rests on a presupposition, intrinsic nature, that cannot be made coherent. In other words, Nāgārjuna’s Madhyamaka does not offer a causal theory of consciousness in the modern scientific or philosophical sense; it offers a radical ontological diagnosis of what consciousness—and everything experienced—can and cannot be. Conscious episodes occur conventionally, but neither consciousness, its phenomenal qualities, its objects, nor the subject who undergoes them possesses an intrinsic nature or independent foundation. Phenomenal consciousness is therefore dependently arisen and causally effective, yet empty: there is experience, but no self-grounding experiential substance, irreducible qualitative core, or enduring experiencer behind it (Nāgārjuna, 1995, 2013; Garfield, 1995; Westerhoff, 2009). (See entry on Buddhism's Empty, Illusory Phenomenal Consciousness.) Emptiness and the Rejection of Svabhāva Nāgārjuna's target is technically precise. Earlier Buddhist metaphysics distinguished primary existents (dravyasat), the irreducible dharmas (elements of reality) constituting the basic furniture of the world, from secondary existents (prajñaptisat), which depend on conceptual and linguistic practice; svabhāva marks the former, the end-point of a chain of ontological dependence (Westerhoff, 2026). Nāgārjuna denies that any such end-point exists. Mereological, causal, and conceptual dependence alike bottom out nowhere, and it is the third—dependence on the conceptualizing mind—that carries the full anti-foundationalist claim, since a mind-independent network of dependence relations would still amount to svabhāva (Westerhoff, 2009a). Because nothing has its nature intrinsically, there is no master argument for emptiness; refutation proceeds case by case against whatever an interlocutor takes to be substantial (Siderits, 2004). Two clarifications matter. First, the doctrine is expressly distinguished from the claim that nothing exists, which Madhyamaka authors reject as one of the two extremes (Westerhoff, 2016). Second, svabhāva is not merely a theoretical posit but a cognitive default—an automatic superimposition onto what lacks it—so that intellectual conviction does not by itself make phenomena stop appearing otherwise, much as measuring the Müller-Lyer lines does not make them look equal (Westerhoff, 2026). The aim is a shift in how the world appears, not only in what is believed about it. Consciousness as Empty Dependent Arising Nāgārjuna’s central concept is śūnyatā, emptiness. Emptiness does not mean blankness, nonexistence, or an underlying metaphysical void. It means absence of svabhāva: intrinsic nature, self-existence, substantial independence, or an identity that a thing possesses entirely “from its own side.” Something with svabhāva would exist and be what it is independently of causes, parts, relations, conceptual classifications, and cognitive practices. Nāgārjuna argues that no such entity can be found (Nāgārjuna, 1995, MMK 15; Garfield, 1994; Westerhoff, 2009). Consciousness is included without exception. In inherited Buddhist analysis, vijñāna, discriminative consciousness or awareness, is one of the five psychophysical aggregates constituting a person and occurs in relation to six cognitive domains: the five sensory modalities and mind. Nāgārjuna does not deny that seeing, hearing, feeling, thinking, remembering, and desiring occur. He denies that these events reveal an intrinsically existing consciousness—whether conceived as a substance, an enduring stream with its own ultimate identity, an immaterial witness, or an irreducible mental primitive. Dependent origination explains the positive side of emptiness. A conscious event arises only through conditions: sensory capacities, objects, bodily processes, attention, previous cognitive events, concepts, language, memory, and practical context. Because consciousness depends on these conditions, it lacks independent essence. Conversely, because it lacks a fixed essence, it can arise, vary, interact, and cease. Nāgārjuna consequently identifies dependent origination with emptiness: whatever arises dependently is empty, and nothing escapes dependent origination (Nāgārjuna, 1995, MMK 24.18–19; Garfield, 1994). Emptiness thus preserves rather than abolishes causal efficacy; an intrinsically fixed phenomenon could not enter genuinely transformative relations. Thus, consciousness enters as one conditioned item among others. In the chapter of the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā (MMK) examining the sense faculties, Nāgārjuna endorses the canonical formula that consciousness arises in dependence on the eye and on visible form (MMK 3:7), and he argues that the faculty, its object, and the awareness they jointly occasion cannot be assigned intrinsic powers without incoherence: an eye seeing by its own nature would have to see independently of anything seen. The critique of causation reinforces the point. Examining whether things arise from themselves, from others, from both, or from neither, Nāgārjuna finds each alternative unworkable and concludes not that causation is unreal but that the assumption generating the trouble—that cause and effect exist independently, from their own side—must be abandoned (Garfield, 1995). Cause and effect are mutually dependent both notionally and existentially, and the causal field that individuates them is itself a cognitive artifact assembled for explanatory purposes (Westerhoff, 2026). Perceptual episodes are therefore doubly dependent: on the conditions that occasion them, and on the conceptual processes that make them the episodes they are. This distinguishes Madhyamaka sharply from the Abhidharma schools, for whom mental dharmas were causally produced yet still possessed svabhāva (Siderits, 2004). The Seer, the Seeing, and the Problem of Reflexivity The most direct engagement with phenomenal consciousness concerns whether awareness can be self-presenting. Nāgārjuna's opponents held that the instruments of knowledge (pramāṇa) are self-established, requiring no further instrument to validate them, an attractive view because it halts a vicious regress. Nāgārjuna objects that a self-established visual faculty would have to function as its own object; but as with motion, vision cannot see something existing simultaneously with it, itself included (MMK 3:2–3; Garfield, 1995). His broader argument in the Vigrahavyāvartanī is that no cognitive capacity can be identified as truth-conducive by inspecting its internal features alone, without reference to the objects it succeeds or fails in disclosing; instruments and objects must establish each other, and mutual establishment precludes intrinsic nature on either side (Westerhoff, 2010). The consequence is substantial. Experience is not self-intimating in any way that could ground certainty or supply a foundation, and awareness has no privileged reflexive access to itself. Later Madhyamaka authors developed this into an explicit rejection of reflexive awareness (svasaṃvedana), which bears directly on modern self-representational and higher-order theories of consciousness. No Substantial Self, No Substantial Basis The critique extends to the subject. A substantial self would have to be distinct from body and from every mental state while featuring in all of them; Nāgārjuna presses the resulting tension: such a self must serve as cognitive subject yet be accessible as cognitive object, roles that cannot be jointly occupied (MMK 9:3). Nor does the inference from properties to a property-bearer succeed, since the distinction between constitutive and instantiated properties reflects our epistemic priorities rather than any ontological seam (Westerhoff, 2026). What remains is a temporally extended sequence of causally linked physical and mental events in which different components occupy the subject position at different moments—an account with evident affinities to Hume's bundle and to contemporary no-self models (e.g., Metzinger). Madhyamaka's distinctive move is the second denial: not only is there no substantial self, there is also no substantial basis out of which a merely imputed self could be constructed, since the aggregates, consciousness included, are themselves empty. The self is further characterized by systematic misapprehension, taking itself to be an unchanging unified agent; Nāgārjuna likens the agent to an illusion that conjures a further illusion (MMK 17:31–32). Yet conventional agency is preserved: one still takes the stairs rather than the window, and moral consequence is not dissolved by ultimate emptiness. Two Truths and the Status of the Theory Madhyamaka distinguishes conventional from ultimate truth, but on the reading that follows from Nāgārjuna's arguments, the ultimate cannot be a description of how things stand independently of human interests and conceptual resources, since no such standpoint is available (Westerhoff, 2026). Correspondence accounts of truth are rejected along with the ready-made world they presuppose; conventional truth is not thereby a distortion, because "distortion" would require an unconceptualized reality to be distorted. Emptiness is accordingly a corrective to a misconception rather than a newly discovered ultimate nature—the emptiness of emptiness (Huntington, 1989; Garfield, 1995). This underwrites Nāgārjuna's most vexing statement, that he has no thesis at all (Vigrahavyāvartanī 29), variously explained as the relinquishing of all views, as a distinction between assertions with and without ontological import, or as a technical move within the debate conventions of second-century India (Garfield, 1996; Westerhoff, 2009b). Whether the resulting position can be stated without self-refutation, and whether it leads to genuine paradox at the limits of thought, remains actively contested (Priest and Garfield, 2002). The Soteriological Frame: Emptiness as Therapy The Mūlamadhyamakakārikā opens and closes with salutations to the Buddha, and the reason given is not doctrinal authority but what the teaching accomplishes: the Buddha taught dependent origination as the pacification of conceptual proliferation (prapañca). Nāgārjuna's arguments are instruments of that pacification. The sequence he gives runs from liberation through the cessation of action and affliction, from those to conceptual construction, and from construction to emptiness, where it stops (MMK 18.5). Emptiness is where the chain terminates because there is nothing further to grasp—which is why he insists that emptiness itself is empty, and why treating it as a discovered ultimate nature is the characteristic failure his tradition warns against. This reframes the dialectical style described above. The refusal of a thesis, the case-by-case refutation, the absence of a positive account of consciousness: these are not evasions of theory-building but the method appropriate to a diagnosis whose target is a cognitive habit rather than a false belief. Since svabhāva is an automatic superimposition rather than a doctrine one holds, an argument that merely replaced one doctrine with another would leave the superimposition untouched. The aim is a change in how things appear, not only in what is asserted about them. The soteriological stakes surface explicitly in MMK 24, where an opponent charges that if everything is empty then nothing arises or ceases, and the Four Noble Truths, the path, and liberation are all destroyed. Nāgārjuna reverses the objection: it is precisely for one who holds emptiness that the Four Noble Truths make sense, since suffering that possessed intrinsic nature could not arise, and could not cease. Only a person without fixed essence can be transformed. Emptiness is the condition of the possibility of the religious path, not its solvent. The same reversal governs the treatment of nirvāṇa, which Nāgārjuna refuses to make a separate metaphysical realm: there is not the slightest distinction between saṃsāra and nirvāṇa (MMK 25.19–20). The change sought is not relocation to another reality but the cessation of the misapprehension under which this one appears to have intrinsic natures. For consciousness studies the consequence is a genre distinction worth keeping in view. Nāgārjuna's analysis of experience is a practice with an end, and readings that extract the anti-foundationalist metaphysics while discarding the end are taking a tool without its purpose. Assessment For consciousness studies, Nāgārjuna occupies a position with few Western analogs: phenomenal consciousness is neither eliminated nor made fundamental, but held to be conventionally real and ultimately empty—so that illusionism and idealism are refused together, each for positing an intrinsic nature, one denied to experience and one attributed to it. The apparatus is also formally substantive, modeling an ontology without foundations that has been taken up in contemporary discussions of grounding and metaphysical dependence (Priest, 2009; Garfield, 2015). Three objections recur. The nihilism charge has a long history and continues to find defenders, who argue that the denial of any ultimate existent leaves nothing for conventional truth to be about (Burton, 1999; Westerhoff, 2016). The no-thesis view invites the reply that emptiness is asserted, and asserting it appears to be doing exactly what the position forbids. And global mind-dependence is difficult to state precisely: it is clear enough for institutional facts, less clear how mountains depend collectively on minds that are themselves empty (Westerhoff, 2026). A fourth question is diagnostic rather than critical. Nāgārjuna does not answer the hard problem; he denies the framing that generates it, since a question about how intrinsic physical natures give rise to intrinsic phenomenal ones presupposes on both sides exactly what his arguments deny. Whether that constitutes a dissolution or an evasion is where his engagement with contemporary consciousness studies comes into play, and it can be assessed only in light of the ontological perspective of the assessor. References Burton, D. (1999). Emptiness Appraised: A Critical Study of Nāgārjuna's Philosophy. Richmond: Curzon. Garfield, J. L. (1995). The Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way: Nāgārjuna's Mūlamadhyamakakārikā. New York: Oxford University Press. Garfield, J. L. (1996). Emptiness and positionlessness: Do the Mādhyamika relinquish all views? Journal of Indian Philosophy, 24, 1–34. Garfield, J. L. (2015). Engaging Buddhism: Why It Matters to Philosophy. New York: Oxford University Press. Huntington, C. W. (1989). The Emptiness of Emptiness: A Study of Early Indian Mādhyamika. Honolulu: University of Hawai'i Press. Nāgārjuna. Mūlamadhyamakakārikā (MMK). Cited by chapter and verse; chapter and verse numbering follows Garfield (1995). See also Siderits and Katsura (2013). Nāgārjuna. Vigrahavyāvartanī (VV). Cited by verse; verse numbering follows Westerhoff (2010). Priest, G. (2009). The structure of emptiness. Philosophy East and West, 59(4), 467–480. Priest, G., & Garfield, J. L. (2002). Nāgārjuna and the limits of thought. In G. Priest, Beyond the Limits of Thought (pp. 249–270). Oxford: Clarendon Press. Siderits, M. (2004). Causation and emptiness in early Madhyamika. Journal of Indian Philosophy, 32, 393–419. Siderits, M., & Katsura, S. (2013). Nāgārjuna's Middle Way: Mūlamadhyamakakārikā. Boston: Wisdom Publications. Westerhoff, J. (2009a). Nāgārjuna's Madhyamaka: A Philosophical Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Westerhoff, J. (2009b). The no-thesis view: Making sense of verse 29 of Nāgārjuna's Vigrahavyāvartanī. In M. D'Amato, J. L. Garfield, & T. J. F. Tillemans (Eds.), Pointing at the Moon: Buddhism, Logic, Analytic Philosophy (pp. 25–39). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Westerhoff, J. (2010). The Dispeller of Disputes: Nāgārjuna's Vigrahavyāvartanī. New York: Oxford University Press. Westerhoff, J. (2016). On the nihilist interpretation of Madhyamaka. Journal of Indian Philosophy, 44, 337–376. Westerhoff, J. (2026). Nāgārjuna. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (substantive revision, May 31, 2026).

---

## Yogācāra's Mind-Only: How Store Consciousness Makes Experience Cohere Without External Objects
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/yog-c-ras-mind-only-how-store-consciousness-makes-experience-cohere-without-external-objects
Theorists: Yogācāra

Yogācāra understands ordinary phenomenal consciousness as a dependently conditioned flow that presents itself in the dual form of an experiencing subject confronting an independently existing world, although this subject–object division is itself a cognitive construction. Its “consciousness-only” or “cognition-only” thesis holds, at minimum, that what is directly experienced consists entirely of appearances within cognition; on stronger interpretations, consciousness and its transformations constitute the sole ultimate basis of phenomenal reality. Through its eightfold model of mind, storehouse consciousness, karmic dispositions, three natures, and transformation of the cognitive basis, Yogācāra explains how a world and a self are experientially generated—and how nondual awareness becomes possible when this construction is understood and relinquished (Asaṅga, 1992; Vasubandhu, 2005; Lusthaus, 2002; Waldron, 2003). In other words, Yogācāra, as systematized by the half-brothers Asaṅga and Vasubandhu, holds that what presents itself as a world of external objects is nothing but cognition (vijñaptimātra), and that the felt structure of experience—an apprehending subject set over against apprehended objects—is a bifurcation occurring within consciousness rather than a division in reality (Szanyi, 2024). To explain how experience can be spatiotemporally orderly, continuous across gaps, and intersubjectively shared without external causes, Yogācāra replaced the six-consciousness model of Abhidharma psychology with an eightfold one, adding a subliminal defiled mind (kliṣṭamanas) that generates the persistent sense of "I" and a store or substratum consciousness (ālayavijñāna) that retains karmic seeds and conditions the arising of ordinary awareness. Whether this is ontological idealism, epistemological idealism, or a phenomenology bracketing ontology altogether is the central interpretive dispute in modern scholarship (Trivedi, 2005; Kellner and Taber, 2014). On any reading, it is the most sustained premodern attempt to account for the whole structure of phenomenal consciousness—its unity, continuity, intentionality, ownership, and apparent externality—from mental resources alone. Yogācāra emerged in India during approximately the third to fifth centuries CE as one of the two principal philosophical traditions of Mahāyāna Buddhism, alongside Madhyamaka. Its foundational sources include the Yogācārabhūmi, the Saṃdhinirmocana Sūtra, Asaṅga’s Mahāyānasaṃgraha, and Vasubandhu’s Twenty Verses, Thirty Verses, and Treatise on the Three Natures. The tradition subsequently developed through Sthiramati, Dignāga, Dharmakīrti, Dharmapāla, Xuanzang, and multiple Indian, Tibetan, Chinese, Korean, and Japanese lineages. Its considerable internal diversity makes “the Yogācāra theory” a family of related positions rather than a single, completely uniform doctrine (Schmithausen, 1987; Williams, 2009; Szanyi, 2024). Consciousness-Only and Phenomenal Appearance Yogācāra is also called vijñānavāda, the doctrine of consciousness; cittamātra, mind-only; and vijñaptimātra, cognition-only or representation-only. The most cautious interpretation of vijñaptimātra is epistemological: consciousness never encounters a mind-independent object as such, but only an object as presented within cognition. Phenomenal experience is therefore not transparent contact with an already structured external world. Colors, shapes, bodies, objects, spatial relations, and the distinction between “inside” and “outside” appear within a cognitively organized field (Lusthaus, 2002; Finnigan, 2017; Szanyi, 2024). The stronger interpretation is ontological idealism: objects do not merely remain inaccessible behind their representations; mind-independent material objects do not exist. Vasubandhu’s Twenty Verses argues that spatial and temporal regularity, intersubjective agreement, and causal efficacy do not logically require external matter. Dreams exhibit ordered places and sequences; collectively conditioned beings may undergo congruent experiences; and an imagined event can produce real bodily consequences. Vasubandhu also attacks atomism, arguing that imperceptible atoms do not resemble the extended objects experienced, whereas aggregates of atoms cannot be ultimately real or causally fundamental under the mereological assumptions of his opponents (Vasubandhu, 2005; Siderits, 2017; Gold, 2015). These arguments establish at least that consciousness-only is an explanatory alternative to realism. Whether they claim to demonstrate that external objects are impossible remains disputed. Some scholars read Vasubandhu as an ontological idealist or immaterialist; others interpret him as showing only that external objects cannot be established as the direct objects or necessary causes of experience. Early strata of the Yogācārabhūmi sometimes presuppose a realist environment, further cautioning against treating all Yogācāra as one metaphysical doctrine (Oetke, 1992; Kellner and Taber, 2014; Finnigan, 2017; Szanyi, 2024). For phenomenal consciousness, the central point is therefore not simply that “everything is mental.” It is that what seems to be a subject-independent world is inseparable from the conditions, dispositions, categorizations, and perspectival structures through which it appears. Yogācāra does not deny that experiences arise, differ, and produce consequences. It denies that experience reveals anything intrinsic. The Eightfold Model of Mind As noted, whereas Abhidharma psychology recognized six consciousnesses (one for each of the five senses and one for mentation—manovijñāna), Yogācāra adds two. The seventh, the kliṣṭamanas, takes the store consciousness as its object and continuously misconstrues it as a substantial self; it is marked by four defilements—false view of self, delusion about self, self-conceit, self-love—and its egoistic tendencies permeate ordinary awareness, so that we habitually experience the world as selves confronting independent objects (Schmithausen, 1987). The eighth, the ālayavijñāna, operates subliminally and without interruption. The first six, called manifesting or occurrent consciousnesses (pravṛttivijñāna), arise discontinuously and lapse in deep sleep and in deep meditative absorption. Crucially, all eight count as intentional: the defiled mind and the store consciousness are object-directed too, though their objects—for the store consciousness, the surrounding world and one's own body—are vague or hard to determine. The model performs explanatory work that bears directly on phenomenal consciousness. Against the Abhidharma unisensory view, on which cognitions merely succeed one another in rapid alternation, Yogācāra holds that multiple consciousnesses operate simultaneously, permitting genuinely multisensory perception and accounting for the synchronic unity of experience—that qualities apprehended at a moment appear as aspects of one conscious state rather than as disparate episodes (Griffiths, 1986; Chadha, 2015). The Store Consciousness and the Continuity of Experience The ālayavijñāna answers problems generated by holding no-self and momentariness together: if a person is simply a bundle of psychophysical elements arising and perishing moment by moment, personal identity and karmic efficacy are hard to secure. The Yogācāra solution is that intentional actions deposit seeds (bīja) or impressions (vāsanā)—dispositions for future experience—retained in the store consciousness until conditions ripen them (Waldron, 2003). Schmithausen (1987) locates the concept's origin more specifically in meditative practice, in the state of absorption into cessation (nirodhasamāpatti), where all conscious activity halts: the store consciousness explains both how the practitioner survives and from what the ordinary consciousnesses re-emerge, since no immediately preceding moment of consciousness is available to cause them. A notable implication is that successive occurrent consciousnesses can have incompatible moral qualities, a wholesome moment following an unwholesome one, and since such states cannot condition one another, a morally neutral (avyākṛta) layer must hold the seeds of all of them (Schmithausen, 1987). The obvious objection is that a continuous, individuating, rebirth-traversing substrate is a self that is smuggled back in. Yogācāra authors deny it, likening the ālayavijñāna to a river whose unbroken flow consists of constantly changing water, and stressing that it ceases upon liberation and so cannot be an eternal substance. The doctrine also carries implications for idealism. If a perception is produced directly by a seed ripening in one's own store consciousness, then an external object has no explanatory work left to do: everything the object was supposed to account for—that the perception occurs, that it occurs when it does, that it has the content it has—is already accounted for by the seed. Nor does the fact that many people appear to perceive the same world require a shared external cause. Distinct mental continua (separate mind-streams) carry similar seeds, deposited by actions and experiences they have shared over a past without beginning, and those seeds ripen in parallel. Cognition-Only and the Bifurcation of Subject and Object The cittamātra, or vijñaptimātra, teaching holds that cognition is all there is. Vasubandhu's Twenty Verses defends it in two movements. The first meets the realist's demand that external objects explain the spatiotemporal determinacy, intersubjectivity, and causal efficacy of experience: dreams supply determinacy without objects and demonstrably produce bodily effects, and the shared torments of “hungry ghosts” (beings with insatiable craving) supply intersubjectivity. The second is positive, arguing that no materialist account of the perceived world survives scrutiny, atomism included, so that cognition-only remains the only explanation (Kapstein, 1988; Gold, 2015). Parsimony reinforces it, and, on one influential reading, the treatise as a whole is an argument from ignorance, showing that no epistemic instrument can establish the existence of external objects (Siderits, 2007; Kellner and Taber, 2014). Vasubandhu also anticipates the time-lag argument against direct realism: given processing intervals and the momentariness of both cognition and object, by the time one judges an object perceived, object and perception have ceased (Mills, 2017). Implications for Phenomenal Consciousness What phenomenal consciousness is, on this account, is a stream that appears internally divided. The subject-object (grāhaka-grāhya) duality is not a relation between consciousness and something else but a structure that cognition takes on and mistakes for reality. Non-duality can accordingly be read as denying only the object side, or as denying both sides—the latter developing, in some recent readings, into an illusionism on which the act of consciousness with its phenomenal features is itself a construct without ultimate foundation (Gold, 2006; Garfield, 2016; Chaturvedi, 2024). Against this, the logico-epistemological branch makes phenomenal consciousness reflexively self-presenting: Dignāga and Dharmakīrti hold that in any cognition the mind is aware not only of an object but of itself cognizing, and Dharmakīrti's inference from the invariable co-apprehension of object and awareness (sahopalambhaniyama) turns this into an argument that we can never encounter an object as mind-external (Kellner, 2010; Taber, 2020). The Three Natures and the Structure of Appearance The trisvabhāva doctrine distinguishes three aspects of any phenomenon: the imagined nature (parikalpita), how things present themselves to unenlightened cognition, as real subjects and objects carved along the joints of language; the dependent nature (paratantra), the conditioned flow of experience itself, arising from the store consciousness's seeds; and the perfected nature (pariniṣpanna), the absence of the imagined from the dependent, realized through meditative practice (D'Amato, 2005; Garfield, 2002). The three are recast as three naturelessnesses, so this is no return to the Abhidharma metaphysics of really existing dharmas. But it does presuppose that something must exist to bear false superimposition, and that something is consciousness. Yogācāra is therefore foundationalist where Madhyamaka is not, and its own texts present it as the true middle way—between Abhidharma reification of mind-independent objects and what they characterize as the nihilistic extreme of universal emptiness (Szanyi, 2024). Practice and the Transformation of the Basis The school is named for practice. Yogācāra means the practice of yoga, and its foundational compendium, the Yogācārabhūmi, is organized as an account of the stages a practitioner traverses. The eightfold model of mind was not built to solve a problem in the philosophy of perception and then applied to meditation; on Schmithausen's reconstruction, the causal order runs the other way. The store consciousness is first posited to answer a difficulty arising within contemplative practice—the state of absorption into cessation, in which all conscious activity halts, leaving nothing from which ordinary awareness could re-emerge and no continuing basis for the practitioner (Schmithausen, 1987). The doctrine that now looks like a theory of the cognitive unconscious was originally a solution to a problem encountered during deep meditation. The framework's purpose is the reversal it makes possible. Because ordinary experience is a construction—the imagined nature superimposed on the dependent—it can be undone. Yogācāra calls this āśrayaparāvṛtti, the turning about or transformation of the basis: the store consciousness ceases to function as a repository of defiled seeds, the defiled mind's persistent construction of "I" is dismantled, and the eight consciousnesses are transmuted into four purified wisdoms. The perfected nature is defined precisely as the absence of the imagined from the dependent, which makes it an achievement rather than a further entity. This is why the tradition can insist that the store consciousness is not a self smuggled back in: an eternal substance could not cease, and the ālayavijñāna is required to cease at liberation. Two features of the entry above look different in this light. The claim that all eight consciousnesses are intentional, including the subliminal ones, matters because what is to be transformed must be object-directed—a purely mechanical substrate could not be purified. And the seeds are deposited by intentional actions because the architecture is answering to karma and rebirth: it must explain how morally qualified acts condition future experience across lifetimes, and how a wholesome moment can follow an unwholesome one without either conditioning the other. The resemblance to modern theories of unconscious processing is real, as the entry notes, but the layers were motivated by liberation, and the model is shaped throughout by what a path to liberation requires. The Idealism Debate and the Problem of Other Minds Interpretation divides over three levels: the objects of perception, the causes of perception, and ultimate reality (Finnigan, 2017). Mind-dependence at the first two levels is relatively uncontroversial; the dispute concerns the third. The dominant reading takes Vasubandhu to establish ontological idealism, and thus immaterialism (Kapstein, 1988; Kellner and Taber, 2014; Westerhoff, 2018; Arnold, 2021). An epistemological reading holds that Yogācāra establishes only that cognition never reaches beyond its own contents, leaving the further question open much as Kant does (Kochumuttom, 1982; Oetke, 1992). A third brackets ontology and construes the tradition phenomenologically (Lusthaus, 2002; Garfield, 2015). All parties agree the resulting idealism is peculiar: constrained by no-self, the fundamental consciousness is neither an individual nor a universal mental substance, so neither Berkeley's perceiving souls nor Hegel's absolute spirit is the right comparison. Solipsism is the sharpest internal pressure. If parsimony motivates idealism, solipsism is crisper still (Perrett, 2017), and if the subject-object duality is unreal, other minds fall on the object side. Vasubandhu denies solipsism outright, holding that buddhas cognize other minds and that minds act on one another without bodily mediation. Dharmakīrti argues that the idealist may run the same analogical inference as the realist, since what grounds it is the appearance of intentional action rather than a physical body—though the conclusion is only probable. Ratnakīrti rejects even that: the correspondence between action and volition is verifiable only in one's own case, with the further consequence that one's own consciousness cannot be individuated; it cannot be marked off from any other, either.(Kachru, 2019). Assessment Yogācāra's claim on contemporary consciousness studies is that it treats as explananda what modern theories find especially hard—the synchronic unity of experience, its continuity across dreamless sleep and other gaps, the sense of ownership, and intersubjective agreement—and answers with a layered architecture of subliminal, dispositional, yet intentional processes underlying occurrent awareness. The resemblance to appeals to unconscious processing is real but should not be overdrawn, since the layers are motivated by karma, rebirth, and liberation rather than by experiment. The tradition also engages directly with what is now called the hard problem: if the physical is explanatorily idle and consciousness is what fundamentally exists, the question of how matter generates experience does not arise, though the burden shifts to explaining why cognition should present itself as a world at all (Arnold, 2021). The standing objections are internal as much as external: whether the store consciousness reinstates the self that Buddhism denies, whether solipsism can be blocked without conceding more than idealism allows, and whether the illusionist reading, on which even the phenomenal act is constructed, leaves consciousness able to serve as the foundation the three-nature theory requires. Later Madhyamaka synthesizers pressed the last point, treating Yogācāra as provisional—effective against reification, superseded by universal emptiness. References Arnold, D. (2021). Can consciousness be explained? Buddhist idealism and the "hard problem" in philosophy of mind. In S. M. Emmanuel (Ed.), Philosophy's Big Questions: Comparing Buddhist and Western Approaches (pp. 97–128). New York: Columbia University Press. Asaṅga. (1992). The Summary of the Great Vehicle (J. P. Keenan, Trans.). Numata Center for Buddhist Translation and Research. Chadha, M. (2015). The problem of the unity of consciousness: A Buddhist solution. Philosophy East and West, 65(3), 746–764. Chaturvedi, A. (2024). Is the mind a magic trick? Illusionism about consciousness in the "consciousness-only" theory of Vasubandhu and Sthiramati. Ergo, 10(52), 1495–1534. D'Amato, M. (2005). Three natures, three stages: An interpretation of the Yogācāra trisvabhāva-theory. Journal of Indian Philosophy, 33(2), 185–207. Finnigan, B. (2017). Buddhist idealism. In T. Goldschmidt & K. L. Pearce (Eds.), Idealism: New Essays in Metaphysics (pp. 178–199). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Garfield, J. L. (2002). Empty Words: Buddhist Philosophy and Cross-Cultural Interpretation. New York: Oxford University Press. Garfield, J. L. (2015). Engaging Buddhism: Why It Matters to Philosophy. New York: Oxford University Press. Garfield, J. L. (2016). Illusionism and givenness. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 23(11–12), 73–82. Gold, J. C. (2006). No outside, no inside: Duality, reality and Vasubandhu's illusory elephant. Asian Philosophy, 16(1), 1–38. Gold, J. C. (2015). Paving the Great Way: Vasubandhu's Unifying Buddhist Philosophy. New York: Columbia University Press. Griffiths, P. J. (1986). On Being Mindless: Buddhist Meditation and the Mind-Body Problem. La Salle, IL: Open Court. Kachru, S. (2019). Ratnakīrti and the extent of inner space: An essay on Yogācāra and the threat of genuine solipsism. Sophia, 58(1), 61–83. Kapstein, M. (1988). Mereological considerations in Vasubandhu's "proof of idealism." Idealistic Studies, 18(1), 32–54. Kellner, B. (2010). Self-awareness (svasaṃvedana) in Dignāga's Pramāṇasamuccaya and -vṛtti: A close reading. Journal of Indian Philosophy, 38(3), 203–231. Kellner, B., & Taber, J. (2014). Studies in Yogācāra-Vijñānavāda idealism I: The interpretation of Vasubandhu's Viṃśikā. Asiatische Studien, 68(3), 709–756. Kochumuttom, T. A. (1982). A Buddhist Doctrine of Experience: A New Translation and Interpretation of the Works of Vasubandhu the Yogācārin. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. Lusthaus, D. (2002). Buddhist Phenomenology: A Philosophical Investigation of Yogācāra Buddhism and the Ch'eng Wei-shih lun. New York: Routledge. Mills, E. (2017). External-world skepticism in classical India: The case of Vasubandhu. International Journal for the Study of Skepticism, 7(3), 147–172. Oetke, C. (1992). Doctrine and argument in Vijñānavāda-Buddhism. Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde Südasiens, 36, 217–225. Perrett, R. W. (2017). Buddhist idealism and the problem of other minds. Asian Philosophy, 27(1), 59–68. Schmithausen, L. (1987). Ālayavijñāna: On the Origin and the Early Development of a Central Concept of Yogācāra Philosophy (2 vols.). Tokyo: International Institute for Buddhist Studies. Siderits, M. (2007). Buddhism as Philosophy: An Introduction. Aldershot: Ashgate. Szanyi, S. (2024). Yogācāra. In E. N. Zalta & U. Nodelman (Eds.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Taber, J. (2020). Philosophical reflections on the sahopalambhaniyama argument. In B. Kellner, P. Mc Allister, H. Lasic, & S. L. McClintock (Eds.), Reverberations of Dharmakīrti's Philosophy (pp. 441–462). Vienna: Austrian Academy of Sciences Press. Trivedi, S. (2005). Idealism and Yogacara Buddhism. Asian Philosophy, 15(3), 231–246. Vasubandhu. (2005). Seven Works of Vasubandhu: The Buddhist Psychological Doctor (S. Anacker, Trans.; rev. ed.). Motilal Banarsidass. Waldron, W. S. (2003). The Buddhist Unconscious: The Ālaya-vijñāna in the Context of Indian Buddhist Thought. London: RoutledgeCurzon. Westerhoff, J. (2018). The Golden Age of Indian Buddhist Philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

---

## Dao De Jing’s Constant Dao
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/dao-de-jing-s-constant-dao
Theorists: Joseph Pratt

Among my [RLK] favorite lines in all philosophical literature are the deceptively simple opening lines of the Dao De Jing, the Chinese classic text that is the foundation of Daoism. “The Dao [Ultimate Reality, Way] that can be spoken of [expressed] is not the Constant [Eternal] Dao; the Name that can be named [understood] is not the Constant [Eternal] Name” (道可道非常道; 名可名非常名). “Dao” (道) refers to “Ultimate Reality” but also means “Way” or “Path.” “Constant” comes from “Chang” (常), which also means “invariable” and may connote “eternal.” “Name” comes from “Ming” (名), which also means “to name,” and as a homophone of the character “Ming” (明), may connote “to understand.” The verses are nuanced, even vague, perhaps deliberately so, allowing high variance in interpretive translation. The core sense, however, seems to be that whatever you think the Dao may be, it is not that, and whatever you think the Name may be, it also is not that. Opening Verses and Their Meaning Sinologist and translator Joseph Pratt says it's hard to read those first lines and not think that the Dao is the source and manifestation of conscious experience or awareness and not think that the Name is the related cognition or thoughts. Supporting evidence comes from the Dao De Jing's Chapter 42 cosmogenic process: “The Dao begets the One, the One begets the Two, the Two begets the Three, the Three begets the Ten Thousand Things” (which includes human beings) (Pratt, 2020). In short, the Dao (or Consciousness) and the Name (or Cognition) are both “Constant” or “Eternal” (常), giving rise to the YinYang of Consciousness and Cognition and eventually to the individual phenomenological dynamic of Consciousness, including Cognition and Form/Thinghood. So, in this ancient text, according to Pratt, consciousness is really the first thing and the last thing. Dao, Flow, and Nothingness Moreover, the Zhuangzi, the other of Daoism's main founding texts, refers frequently to the ideal of a flow state, including in the context of armed combat. Though sometimes considered to be an “unconscious” or “less conscious” condition, from the Daoist perspective a flow state is a deeper state of consciousness. Both the Zhuangzi and the Dao De Jing could be considered guides for cultivating such a condition (Pratt, 2020, 2023). Personally, my long interest in the Dao De Jing's opening verses is rooted in my long interest in Nothing, the metaphysics/ontology of Leibniz's haunting question, “Why is there Something rather than Nothing?” “Why is there anything at all?” In my essay, “Levels of Nothing,” I pose nine levels of increasing Nothingness (or decreasing Somethingness). If consciousness is not fundamental, it would disappear at the most simplistic level of Nothing, Nothing Level 1. If consciousness is fundamental, it wouldn't disappear until Nothing Level 7 (Kuhn, 2013).

---

## Kant’s Transcendental Idealism
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/kant-s-transcendental-idealism
Theorists: Immanuel Kant

Enlightenment philosopher Immanuel Kant’s theory of consciousness holds that phenomenal consciousness is not a self-standing inner arena or an introspected mental substance, but the sensibly given, temporally ordered, and qualitatively affected side of experience that becomes experience of objects only through a priori forms of intuition, synthesis by imagination and understanding, and the unity of apperception by which representations can belong to one subject (Kant, 1781/1787; Brook & Wuerth, 2020; McLear, 2024). Kant is not centrally concerned with phenomenal consciousness in the contemporary “what-it-is-like” sense; his chief concern is the possibility of cognition and objective experience. Still, his account gives a pioneering transcendental model of the structural conditions under which phenomenal contents can be experienced as a unified world rather than as a mere collection of diverse sensations. In other words, Kant has the world we consciously experience as a domain of appearances (phenomena) structured by the mind's own a priori forms—space and time as forms of intuition, and the categories of the understanding—rather than a window onto things as they are in themselves; that the very possibility of a unified conscious experience depends on a non-empirical transcendental unity of apperception, the necessary condition that the "I think" can accompany all of one's representations; and that the self thereby presupposed is known only as it appears, never as a thinking substance, so that consciousness is at once the constituting source of the empirical world and, as a knowable object, merely one more appearance within it (Kant, 1781/1787; Brook & Wuerth, 2020). Sensation, Feeling, and Phenomenal Character Kant’s closest equivalents to phenomenal consciousness are sensation (Empfindung) and feeling (Gefühl)—but they are not the same and could cause confusion for theories of consciousness (see below). Sensations are matters of empirical intuition: they provide the qualitative content by which objects affect us—color, sound, warmth, resistance, and other sensuous determinations. Feelings, by contrast, present only states of the subject, paradigmatically pleasure and pain (Kant, 1781/1787; Kant, 1790; McLear, 2024). Thus, Kant distinguishes object-directed sensory phenomenology from subject-directed affective phenomenology. He does not attempt a metaphysical explanation of why sensory qualities feel as they do, and he does not formulate a hard problem of consciousness, much less proffer a solution. A reliable contemporary reconstruction therefore must say both that Kant presupposes phenomenal character and that he gives no systematic theory of qualia as such. Transcendental idealism: the world as appearance Kant's transcendental idealism holds that the objects of experience are appearances—empirically real but transcendentally ideal—whose spatial and temporal form derives not from things in themselves but from the constitution of the experiencing subject (Kant, 1781/1787; Stang, 2022). Space is the a priori form of outer sense and time the form of inner sense, with time conditioning all representations whatever, inner and outer alike. We therefore cognize objects only as they are given to our mode of intuition, never as things in themselves (noumena), which remain in principle beyond knowledge. Kant is emphatic that this is not Berkeley's empirical idealism: appearances are not illusions, and empirical objects in space are fully real; what is "ideal" is only the form their presentation takes (Kant, 1783; Berkeley, 1710). Phenomena, in Kant's sense, are thus the lawful, public objects of experience—not, it should be stressed, "phenomenal" in the modern sense of raw felt quality. The synthesis of experience Experience, for Kant, is no passive reception but an active synthesis. Sensibility supplies a manifold of intuition—the sensory matter given under the forms of space and time—while the understanding supplies concepts, including the pure categories such as substance and causality; cognition arises only when the two are combined. As Kant puts it, intuitions without concepts are blind and thoughts without intuitions are empty. The unified object of experience is accordingly constructed by the mind's synthesizing activity rather than simply found, a reversal Kant likened to a Copernican revolution: objects must conform to our forms of cognition, not the reverse. The experienced world is in this sense a joint product of mind-independent matter and mind-imposed form. The transcendental unity of apperception The deepest condition of this synthesis—and Kant's most consequential claim for any theory of consciousness—is the transcendental unity of apperception. For an assemblage of representations to be experienced for a subject at all, it must be possible for the thought "I think" to accompany every one of them; representations that could not be so united in a single self-consciousness would, Kant says, be nothing to me (Kant, 1781/1787). This original, necessary unity of self-consciousness is not derived from experience but is its supreme a priori condition. Here Kant answers Hume directly: where Hume, finding no impression of a self, concluded that the mind is a bundle of perceptions with no discoverable principle of union (Hume, 1739), Kant argues that such unity could never be an item within experience, because it is precisely what makes connected experience possible. The binding of representations into one consciousness is the work of the understanding, presupposed by every perception (Strawson, 1966). The self as appearance: inner sense and the paralogisms Yet Kant’s unifying "I" is no substantial soul. The "I think" of pure apperception is a purely formal, spontaneous act through which I am conscious that I am but learn nothing of what I am; it is not an intuition and yields no knowledge of a thinking substance. Knowledge of oneself comes only through inner sense, the temporally ordered structure of one's psychological states—and inner sense, like outer, presents the self only as it appears, never as it is in itself (Kant, 1798; Brook & Wuerth, 2020). In the Paralogisms of Pure Reason, Kant accordingly dismantles rational psychology's proofs that the soul is a simple, identical, immortal substance, exposing them as fallacious slides from the formal unity of the "I think" to metaphysical conclusions about a soul—a direct refutation of the Cartesian res cogitans (Descartes, 1641). In the Refutation of Idealism, he goes further, arguing that consciousness of my own existence as determined in time itself presupposes the perception of persisting objects in space, inverting Descartes's priority of self-certainty over knowledge of the external world. Scope, significance, limits of the analogy Mapping Kant onto the contemporary category of phenomenal consciousness requires care. In fact, Kant's "phenomena" are a false friend for "phenomenal consciousness." Kant's phenomena/noumena distinction concerns appearances vs. things in themselves—empirical objects of experience—and has nothing directly to do with phenomenal/qualitative character in the Nagel–Block sense. The single biggest distortion would be reading Kant as offering a theory of qualia. Rather, his central concern is the conditions of objective experience and knowledge, not the qualitative feel of experience as such; as noted, the nearest he comes to phenomenal character is sensation (Empfindung), the subjective matter of intuition, which he treats chiefly as that which awaits synthesis and to which he assigns an intensive magnitude. What Kant contributes to consciousness studies lies elsewhere: a robust account of the unity of consciousness and the binding of representations into a single experiential field; the thesis that the experienced world is a mind-structured construction rather than a transparent given; and the deflation of the experiencing subject from a known substance to a formal condition that is itself never an object of experience. These themes reverberate in later work—in German Idealism's expansion of the constituting subject, in the no-self lineage Kant shares with Hume, and, more recently, in neuro-Kantian and predictive-processing models of the brain as an inference engine and in deflationary self-model theories of subjectivity (Metzinger, 2003). Kant's enduring contribution is that the conscious mind does not so much discover its world as, in part, makes it. Classifying Kant’s Transcendental Idealism Kant’s Transcendental Idealism must, seemingly, be classified as Idealism, but this classification could easily lead to gross misunderstanding. Kant most certainly does not defend an idealist ontology in which consciousness is the only fundamental existent. Landscape’s ten categories sort theories by their answer to what consciousness fundamentally is or how it relates to the physical. Kant's transcendental idealism is not, in the first instance, an answer to that question at all—it's a theory about the conditions of possible experience, an anti-reductionist, limits-of-explanation approach, one level up from the fundamental ontology that the ten categories battle about. He brackets the question of what consciousness is in itself as unanswerable in principle (the mind, like everything else, is known only as appearance, never as a thing-in-itself). So any placement is a projection of a first-order ontology onto a philosopher who declined to offer one. Kant calls his own view idealism ("transcendental idealism"), the experienced world is mind-structured (space, time, and the categories are contributed by the subject), and he is the link to the post-Kantian absolute-idealist tradition (Kant is the founder of German Idealism). But Kant’s idealism is explicitly not the same kind as Berkeley's. Berkeley is subjective/ontological idealism (only minds and ideas exist); Kant is transcendental idealism (empirical objects are fully real; only their form is mind-dependent, and things-in-themselves remain). Classifying Kant next to Berkeley under an undifferentiated "Idealism" heading, without clearly distinguishing transcendental from subjective/absolute idealism, would be a flagrant category error. Without this distinction, the label “Idealism” misrepresents Kant. Moreover, a defensible argument can be made for classifying Kant in the Challenge category, since his anti-reductionist, "limits of explanation" approach to the ultimate nature of consciousness as unknowable or beyond scientific reach prefigures McGinn's (and others’) mysterianism. Indeed, it would not violate reason to argue that Kant is the founding ancestor of mysterianism: the self as it is in itself is systematically inaccessible, and rational psychology's attempts to prove it a substance are dismantled in the Paralogisms. References Berkeley, G. (1710). A Treatise Concerning the Principles of Human Knowledge. Dublin: Aaron Rhames. Brook, A., & Wuerth, J. (2020). Kant's view of the mind and consciousness of self. In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Stanford University. Descartes, R. (1641). Meditations on First Philosophy. Paris: Michel Soly. Hume, D. (1739). A Treatise of Human Nature. London: John Noon. Kant, I. (1781/1787). Critique of Pure Reason (A/B editions). Riga: Johann Friedrich Hartknoch. Kant, I. (1783). Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics. Riga: Johann Friedrich Hartknoch. Kant, I. (1798). Anthropology from a Pragmatic Point of View. Königsberg: Friedrich Nicolovius. Metzinger, T. (2003). Being No One: The Self-Model Theory of Subjectivity. MIT Press. Stang, N. F. (2022). Kant's transcendental idealism. In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Stanford University. Strawson, P. F. (1966). The Bounds of Sense: An Essay on Kant's Critique of Pure Reason. Methuen.

---

## Fichte’s Self-Positing I
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/fichte-s-self-positing-i
Theorists: Johann Gottlieb Fichte

Johann Gottlieb Fichte held that consciousness is grounded in the self-positing I—an original, self-constituting activity, rather than a thing or substance, that is immediately present to itself in a non-objectifying intellectual intuition prior to any split between subject and object, and that generates the whole field of ordinary experience, including the resisting not-I of the external world, out of its own striving; on this view the defining feature of consciousness is an immediate, pre-reflective self-awareness that no reflective or higher-order model can explain, and full self-consciousness further requires being summoned to freedom by other rational beings (Fichte, 1794/1795; Breazeale, 2018). In other words, Fichte’s theory of consciousness is a transcendental-idealist account in which phenomenal experience is not a passive reception of a mind-independent world but the lived manifestation of the finite I’s self-positing activity as checked, limited, affected, embodied, and socially summoned into determinate self-conscious experience (Fichte, 1794/1795; Fichte, 1796/1799; Breazeale, 2013; Neuhouser, 1990). Fichte does not offer a scientific theory of phenomenal consciousness in the contemporary sense. His question is transcendental: what must be true of subjectivity for experience of oneself, objects, agency, resistance, and other persons to be possible? His Wissenschaftslehre (Doctrine of Science) is described by SEP as a systematic transcendental idealism grounded in the “pure I,” intended to explain ordinary experience as a system of representations accompanied by necessity. The Self-Positing I and the Primacy of Subjectivity Fichte’s starting point is the Tathandlung, the “fact-act” by which the I posits itself. Radicalizing Kant's transcendental unity of apperception, Fichte makes the "I think"—or rather the I's act of positing itself—the single first principle of his Wissenschaftslehre (Doctrine of Science) (Fichte, 1794/1795; Kant, 1781/1787). This is not a psychological event, introspected episode, or substantial ego hidden behind experience. It is the original activity presupposed by every episode of empirical consciousness: consciousness of anything already involves an implicit self-relation. Fichte’s formula that “the I posits itself” therefore means that subjectivity is not first a thing with properties but an activity whose being consists in self-relation (Fichte, 1794/1795). SEP stresses that “positing” means being aware, reflecting, or being conscious, not simply creating objects; consciousness presupposes self-consciousness, and the original unity of self-consciousness is a Tathandlung. The I is what it posits itself to be; its being is a consequence of its self-positing. From this starting point Fichte derives the structure of experience through three principles: the I posits itself; it posits a not-I opposed to it; and it posits both as reciprocally limiting each other within consciousness. The objective world is thus not an independent thing-in-itself impinging from without but is posited by the I as the necessary correlate of its own activity—an idealism more thoroughgoing than Kant's, which had retained an unknowable thing-in-itself. Phenomenal Experience as Limited Activity Fichte’s theory becomes relevant to phenomenal consciousness when the self-positing I encounters limitation. A wholly unlimited I could not have determinate experience. To experience anything as this rather than that, the I must find its activity checked by what Fichte calls the Anstoß: a check, resistance, or impulse. This is not Kant’s thing-in-itself as an external cause of sensations. It is the finite I’s original encounter with its own finitude, which is then articulated as feeling, sensation, intuition, and concept (Fichte, 1794/1795; Breazeale, 2013). SEP explicitly describes this sequence: the I posits its limitation first as mere feeling, then as sensation, intuition of a thing, and finally as concept, thereby generating conscious experience of oneself and a spatio-temporal world. Feeling, Sensation, and Object-Consciousness Fichte’s model is thus neither naïve realism nor Berkeleyan subjective idealism. He does not claim that the empirical individual invents the world at will. Rather, ordinary consciousness necessarily distinguishes representations accompanied by a feeling of necessity from representations accompanied by a feeling of freedom. The former appears as objective, resistant, world-involving experience; the latter as products of our own mental activity (Fichte, 1794/1795; Neuhouser, 1990). IEP presents this as the I’s discovery of limitations on its activity, developed into sensations, intuitions, and concepts united in the experience of the natural world. For phenomenal consciousness, this is Fichte’s distinctive point: sensory givenness is not brute material input, but finite agency’s affective encounter with its own limitation. Phenomenal experience has the structure of checked activity. The felt world is neither Kant’s thing-in-itself pressing causally from outside nor a private mental theater; it is the necessary field in which freedom becomes finite, embodied, and determinate. Embodiment, Agency, and Intersubjectivity Fichte’s I is not an isolated Cartesian spectator. The actually existing I is finite, embodied, practical, and socially situated. SEP notes that the “absolute I” is a mere abstraction and that the only I that can actually exist or act is finite, empirical, embodied, and individual. In Foundations of Natural Right, Fichte further argues that self-conscious individuality requires a summons (Aufforderung) from another rational being; the subject becomes aware of itself as free through being called to exercise freedom within limits (Fichte, 1796/1797; Neuhouser, 1990). Consciousness is therefore intersubjectively mediated: the self is not fully constituted as an individual center of agency except in a field of mutual recognition. IEP similarly describes Fichte’s deductions as moving from self-positing to limitation, world-consciousness, other rational beings, and the moral constraints of freedom. Assessment As a theory of phenomenal consciousness, Fichte’s strength lies in treating consciousness as active, self-related, embodied, affectively limited, and practically structured. He anticipates later ideas of pre-reflective self-awareness, enactive subjectivity, embodied agency, and intersubjective constitution. His weakness, from a contemporary standpoint, is that the account remains transcendental rather than explanatory in the scientific sense: it does not specify neural mechanisms, psychophysical laws, or empirical criteria for phenomenal consciousness. It also leaves obscure the exact transition from the transcendental Anstoß to determinate sensory qualities. Still, Fichte’s contribution is substantial: phenomenal consciousness is not a static inner field but the lived articulation of finite freedom encountering resistance, world, body, and others. Whether Fichte's I is the individual empirical subject or an absolute, supra-individual I (the "absolute I" reading) is a live and consequential dispute—it determines whether Fichte sits closer to a theory of individual self-consciousness or to full-blown absolute idealism. References Breazeale, D. (2013). Thinking Through the Wissenschaftslehre: Themes from Fichte’s Early Philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Fichte, J. G. (1794/1795). Foundation of the Entire Wissenschaftslehre. In D. Breazeale (Ed. & Trans.), Foundation of the Entire Wissenschaftslehre and Related Writings, 1794–95. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2021. Fichte, J. G. (1796/1797). Foundations of Natural Right. F. Neuhouser (Ed.), M. Baur (Trans.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000. Fichte, J. G. (1796/1799). Foundations of Transcendental Philosophy: Wissenschaftslehre nova methodo. D. Breazeale (Ed. & Trans.). Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1992. Fichte, J. G. (1798). The System of Ethics according to the Principles of the Wissenschaftslehre. D. Breazeale & G. Zöller (Eds. & Trans.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005. Henrich, D. (1966/1982). Fichte’s original insight. In D. E. Christensen et al. (Eds.), Contemporary German Philosophy, Vol. 1. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press. Neuhouser, F. (1990). Fichte’s Theory of Subjectivity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wood, A. W. (2016). Fichte’s Ethical Thought. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

---

## Schelling’s Nature, Spirit, and the Identity of Mind
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/schelling-s-nature-spirit-and-the-identity-of-mind
Theorists: Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph Schelling

Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph Schelling’s theory of phenomenal consciousness is a dynamic, post-Kantian idealist account in which consciousness is neither a nonphysical Cartesian substance nor a passive mirror of nature, but the self-manifestation of an originally unconscious productive nature that differentiates itself into subject and object, becomes luminous to itself in finite self-consciousness, and retains within experience an irreducible nontransparent ground (Schelling, 1797, 1800, 1809; Bowie, 1993; Beiser, 2002). Schelling’s account is not a scientific theory of consciousness; it is a metaphysical and transcendental theory of how sentient, self-conscious experience can arise within nature without reducing mind to mechanism or nature to subjective representation. In other words, Schelling held that mind and nature are not two kinds of being but two poles or aspects of one absolute reality—captured in his formula that "nature is visible spirit, spirit is invisible nature"—so that consciousness is nature's own coming-to-awareness rather than a contingent anomaly imposed on physical matter: nature is a graded, self-organizing productivity harboring an unconscious, proto-mental dimension that ascends through successive stages until, in the human being, it awakens to full self-consciousness. On this view, phenomenal experience is intrinsic to the natural order, and the felt identity of the conscious and the unconscious is disclosed most fully in art (Schelling, 1797; Bowie, 2020). SEP identifies three enduring dimensions of Schelling’s importance: Naturphilosophie, an anti-Cartesian account of subjectivity, and a critique of self-completing idealist system. Nature as Unconscious Spirit Schelling’s early philosophy begins from dissatisfaction with Kant’s division between deterministic nature and free subjectivity. Kant had explained objectivity through the subject’s forms and categories, but left unclear how a subject capable of freedom and cognition could arise within nature (Kant, 1781/1787; Schelling, 1797). Schelling’s Naturphilosophie responds by treating nature not as inert extension governed externally by laws, but as living productivity: a dynamic, self-organizing process whose higher products include organism, sensation, and consciousness. SEP stresses that Schelling sought a monist account of nature “in some sense inherently ‘subjective’,” capable of generating the subject rather than merely distinct from it. Productivity, Polarity, Sensation For Schelling, nature is not a collection of completed objects but a process of productivity that appears only in products. These products are temporary stabilizations of deeper activity, like eddies in a stream (Schelling, 1797; Bowie, 1993). The same logic applies to consciousness: phenomenal experience is not an inexplicable addition to mechanism, but an intensification of nature’s internal essence. Nature becomes determinate by inhibiting itself, generating oppositions—subject/object, real/ideal, unconscious/conscious—that are not ultimate dualisms but tensions within one process. SEP notes that Schelling conceives nature as productivity that cannot appear directly, but only through finite products produced by self-inhibition. Phenomenal consciousness, on this view, comes about when nature’s productive tensions become felt inwardly. Sensation is not merely caused by external objects; it is the first-person side of nature’s self-differentiation. Schelling thus avoids both radical materialism and subjective idealism. The real is not reducible to experience, but experience is nature’s becoming inward to itself. Self-Consciousness and Its Unconscious Ground In the System of Transcendental Idealism, Schelling presents a “history of self-consciousness”: the subject is not given all at once, but emerges through stages from original sensation to productive intuition, reflection, and will (Schelling, 1800). This makes self-consciousness developmental and nontransparent. Consciousness is an achievement, not an original metaphysical primitive. SEP summarizes this text as recounting the process by which initially unconscious stages lead through organic nature to consciousness and self-consciousness. Schelling’s anti-Cartesian point is that consciousness cannot fully ground itself. The conditions that make experience possible do not themselves appear transparently within experience. The subject depends on unconscious productivity, bodily nature, drives, and pre-reflective activity. SEP explicitly notes that Schelling anticipates later theories in which thought is driven by forces not finally transparent to it, comparable in broad orientation to themes later developed in psychoanalysis. Identity of Real and Ideal Schelling’s identity philosophy deepens this account by rejecting any ultimate separation between mind and nature. These are not two substances but two aspects of one absolute process. In this sense, physical and mental orders are not externally correlated; they are different expressions of a more basic fundamental identity (Schelling, 1801, 1804). SEP cites Schelling’s formulation that “real and ideal are only different views of one and the same substance,” while also emphasizing that this is not a causal reduction of the mental to the physical. For phenomenal consciousness, the implication is that experience is not an inner copy of an outer world. Subject and object are differentiated within a prior unity. Consciousness is the finite site at which this unity is both disclosed and lost: disclosed, because the world becomes manifest; lost, because reflective consciousness necessarily divides knower from known. Art and Freedom Schelling gives art a special role because artistic production joins conscious intention with unconscious productivity. Artwork can show what philosophy cannot fully state: the identity of freedom and nature, conscious and unconscious, subjective and objective (Schelling, 1800). SEP describes art as the “organ and document” of philosophy because it manifests what discursive thought cannot externally represent. In his later writings on freedom, Schelling radicalizes the unconscious ground. Consciousness is rooted not merely in rational structure but in will, darkness, drive, and the possibility of evil (Schelling, 1809; Žižek, 1996). Assessment and Significance As a theory of phenomenal consciousness, Schelling’s strength lies in treating experience as embodied, affective, natural, pre-reflective, and only partially transparent to itself. Its weakness is the absence of operational detail: the transition from dynamic nature to determinate phenomenal qualities remains metaphysical. Still, Schelling offers a major historical model of consciousness as nature’s self-revelation, not matter’s accident or the ego’s private possession. Schelling is the post-Kantian who matters most for contemporary panpsychist and idealism theories. His identification of the ground of consciousness with an unconscious productivity, and his refusal to privilege either mind or matter, make him a pivotal ancestor of several strands in contemporary consciousness studies: dual-aspect monism, the idea of a single reality with a physical extrinsic aspect and a phenomenal intrinsic one; the panpsychist thesis that mindedness is fundamental and ubiquitous (Goff, Seager, & Allen-Hermanson, 2022); and the absolute idealism of Bradley, for whom finite minds are aspects of one all-inclusive reality (Bradley, 1893). Schelling’s emphasis on the unconscious ground of awareness also anticipates later theories of the unconscious. Moreover, his "nature is visible spirit, spirit is invisible nature" is a textbook dual-aspect formula; his Naturphilosophie makes nature a graded productivity that awakens to consciousness; and he is now actively cited in the panpsychism/cosmopsychism/dual-aspect-monism debates alongside Bradley and Kastrup. Through these channels, Schelling remains a recurring reference in current debates over whether consciousness is fundamental to, or emergent from, the natural world (Grant, 2006). References Beiser, F. C. (2002). German Idealism: The Struggle Against Subjectivism, 1781–1801. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Bowie, A. (1993). Schelling and Modern European Philosophy: An Introduction. London: Routledge. Bowie, A. (2023). Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph von Schelling. In E. N. Zalta & U. Nodelman (Eds.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Kant, I. (1781/1787). Critique of Pure Reason (P. Guyer & A. W. Wood, Trans.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998. Schelling, F. W. J. (1797). Ideas for a Philosophy of Nature. E. E. Harris & P. Heath (Trans.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988. Schelling, F. W. J. (1800). System of Transcendental Idealism. P. Heath (Trans.). Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1978. Schelling, F. W. J. (1801). Presentation of My System of Philosophy. In M. G. Vater (Trans.), The Philosophical Forum, 32(4), 339–371. Schelling, F. W. J. (1809). Philosophical Investigations into the Essence of Human Freedom. J. Love & J. Schmidt (Trans.). Albany: SUNY Press, 2006. Žižek, S. (1996). The Indivisible Remainder: An Essay on Schelling and Related Matters. London: Verso.

---

## Hegel’s Dialectical Consciousness in the Development of Spirit
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/hegel-s-dialectical-consciousness-in-the-development-of-spirit
Theorists: Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel

Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel’s theory of phenomenal consciousness is a developmental and social account in which immediate feeling, sensation, perception, self-consciousness, recognition, and rational spirit are not separate faculties but progressively articulated “shapes” through which experience becomes aware of its own conceptual, embodied, and intersubjective conditions (Hegel, 1807/2018; Hegel, 1830/2007; Pippin, 1989; Pinkard, 1994). Hegel does not offer a theory of consciousness in the contemporary neuroscientific sense, nor a theory of qualia as private mental items. His concern is how consciousness, beginning from apparently immediate experience, discovers that what it takes to be simply given is always mediated by concepts, embodiment, desire, social recognition, and historically formed practices. SEP describes Hegel’s Phenomenology of Spirit as an educational progression through “shapes of consciousness” and “successive phenomenal worlds,” moving toward the standpoint of philosophical comprehension. In other words, Hegel held that consciousness is neither a fixed faculty nor a private container of felt qualities but a developing relation between a knowing subject and its object—one that passes through a necessary sequence of self-undermining shapes, from the immediate sensory awareness of "sense-certainty" up through self-consciousness, reason, and ultimately Geist (Spirit), the collective, historically self-articulating subject that comes to recognize the object it confronts as itself. On this view what we call phenomenal experience is, at its immediate level, the embodied feeling of a soul still immersed in nature, which philosophy shows to be conceptually mediated through and through and to be fulfilled only in the social, self-conscious life of Spirit (Hegel, 1807, 1830; Redding, 2020). Consciousness as a developmental shape Hegel's principal treatment of consciousness, the Phenomenology of Spirit (Hegel, 1807), is a "science of the experience of consciousness": it obviously does not describe the neural or qualitative basis of awareness but reconstructs the immanent logic by which each shape (Gestalt) of consciousness, measured against its own implicit standard of truth, discovers its inadequacy and gives way to a more comprehensive one. This self-driven movement is Hegel's dialectic, and each superseded shape is sublated (aufgehoben)—at once canceled and preserved—in its successor. Consciousness is thus intrinsically dynamic and self-transcending, not a stable subject inspecting fixed contents. The sequence is presented as necessary rather than contingent, and its endpoint, absolute knowing, is reached when consciousness grasps that the "otherness" of its object was all along a moment of its own activity, so that the opposition of subject and object, thought and being, is overcome. Sense-certainty and the critique of the given The book opens with sense-certainty (sinnliche Gewissheit), consciousness's conviction that its richest and truest knowledge is the immediate, wordless grasp of a bare particular—a sheer "This," "Here," and "Now." Hegel argues that this apparently self-sufficient immediacy dissolves the moment consciousness tries to articulate or even to mean it: "here," "now," and "this" are universals that hold of any place, moment, or thing, so the ostensibly ineffable given proves to be already conceptually mediated. There is no cognitively significant immediacy that is not shot through with conceptual generality. This argument is a principal ancestor of contemporary conceptualism about experience (McDowell, 1994), which holds that experience has no content wholly independent of concepts—positions that bear directly on current disputes over nonconceptual content and the conceptual structure of phenomenal consciousness. Self-consciousness, recognition, and Geist Following Kant, Hegel holds that awareness of an object as distinct from oneself already requires self-consciousness, awareness of oneself as the subject for whom the object stands (Kant, 1781/1787; Pippin, 2011). But self-consciousness is not a solitary Cartesian certainty; it becomes actual only through desire, through life, and above all through another self-consciousness. In the celebrated struggle for recognition (Anerkennung) and the ensuing master–slave dialectic, Hegel argues that a self attains self-conscious standing only by being recognized by another self it also recognizes—extending Fichte's earlier doctrine of the summons into a full theory of intersubjectivity. Self-consciousness is therefore constitutively social. As the Phenomenology proceeds, its subject matter shifts from shapes of individual consciousness to shapes of Geist (Spirit): the patterns of mutually recognitive social and historical life within which individual minds are formed. Consciousness is ultimately a moment of Spirit, the collective subject that comes to know itself through its own cultural achievement—an absolute idealism in which the rational structure of thought and the structure of reality coincide. The embodied feeling soul The dimension closest to what is now called phenomenal consciousness appears not in the Phenomenology but in the Anthropology that opens Hegel's mature Philosophy of Subjective Spirit (Hegel, 1830). There, beneath consciousness proper, Hegel treats the soul (Seele)—"the sleep of spirit," still immersed in nature—whose life is sensation and feeling (Empfindung, Gefühl): an immediate, embodied, qualitative interiority that is not yet a subject set over against objects. At this feeling stratum he locates a pre-reflective sense of selfhood and the felt unity of the living body, and he introduces habit as a "second nature" through which spirit takes possession of its body—an account that refuses any simple idealism rejecting the corporeal, and that has informed contemporary naturalized and embodied conceptions of mind. Here too Hegel describes a "nightlike abyss" in which representations are preserved unconsciously, anticipating later theories of the unconscious. Yet consistent with his system, Hegel treats this felt, embodied immediacy as a lower stage to be sublated by conceptual, self-conscious spirit rather than as consciousness's fundamental essence. Significance and limits Hegel's influence on the study of mind is oblique but, counterintuitively, immense. His account of recognition reshaped social and political thought and grounds contemporary theories of intersubjectively constituted selfhood (Honneth, 1995); his analysis and critique influence debates over the content of experience; and his conception of Spirit fed directly into the absolute idealism of Bradley, for whom finite consciousnesses are aspects of one all-inclusive reality (Bradley, 1893). The structural limitation, essential for this Landscape, is that Hegel offers a theory of the development, conceptual structure, and social constitution of consciousness and self-consciousness, not a theory of phenomenal character as such; indeed his system tends to subordinate immediate, felt experience to the conceptual and rational, positioning him among the forerunners of views that deflate phenomenal consciousness and deny it any autonomous, foundational role. References Bradley, F. H. (1893). Appearance and Reality. Swan Sonnenschein. Hegel, G. W. F. (1807). Phenomenology of Spirit (Phänomenologie des Geistes). Bamberg: Joseph Anton Goebhardt. Hegel, G. W. F. (1830). Encyclopedia of the Philosophical Sciences, Part III: Philosophy of Mind (3rd ed.). Heidelberg: Oßwald. Honneth, A. (1995). The Struggle for Recognition: The Moral Grammar of Social Conflicts (J. Anderson, Trans.). MIT Press. Kant, I. (1781/1787). Critique of Pure Reason (A/B editions). Riga: Johann Friedrich Hartknoch. McDowell, J. (1994). Mind and World. Harvard University Press. Pippin, R. B. (2011). Hegel on Self-Consciousness: Desire and Death in the Phenomenology of Spirit. Princeton University Press. Redding, P. (2020). Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel. In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Stanford University. Sellars, W. (1956). Empiricism and the philosophy of mind. In H. Feigl & M. Scriven (Eds.), Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science (Vol. 1, pp. 253–329). University of Minnesota Press.

---

## Schopenhauer’s The World as Will
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/schopenhauer-s-the-world-as-will
Theorists: Arthur Schopenhauer

Arthur Schopenhauer’s theory of phenomenal consciousness holds that ordinary experience is the world as “representation”—objectified under the forms of subject-object cognition, space, time, and causality—while the embodied subject also has immediate inner access to itself as “will,” a blind striving that underlies both affective consciousness and the metaphysical character of nature as a whole (Schopenhauer, 1813/1847, 1818/1844; Janaway, 1989; Wicks, 2021). On Schopenhauer’s view, the world has these two irreducible aspects—it is representation (Vorstellung), the phenomenal world of spatiotemporal objects constituted by the knowing subject's cognitive apparatus, and it is will (Wille), the single, blind, aimless striving that constitutes the inner essence, or thing-in-itself, of everything—and that we know this inner essence directly in only one case: our own body, of which we are aware both externally as a physical object and internally as felt willing; consciousness and intellect are, on this view, secondary biological instruments that the will develops in higher organisms, so that phenomenal experience is the surface under which a non-conscious, universal will is the deeper reality (Schopenhauer, 1818; Janaway, 2002). Representation and the Primacy of the Subject Taking over Kant's distinction between appearance and thing-in-itself, Schopenhauer opens The World as Will and Representation with the thesis that "the world is my representation": To be an object is to be object-for-a-subject; every object exists only for a subject, structured by the a priori forms of space, time, and causality (Schopenhauer, 1818; Wicks, 2021). The phenomenal world is thoroughly mind-dependent in its form, a coherent field of individuated objects governed by the principle of sufficient reason. Thus, phenomenal consciousness is intrinsically correlational, structured by the subject-object distinction. Space, time, and causality organize the world of appearances, while the principle of sufficient reason governs the explanatory relations among objects, concepts, mathematical constructions, and motives (Schopenhauer, 1813/1847; Schopenhauer, 1818/1844). But representation, Schopenhauer insists, never yields the inner nature of things: proceeding only from the outside, along the path of objective knowledge, one never gets beyond the phenomenon. The Body as the Key: Will as Thing-In-Itself Schopenhauer's decisive move—and his departure from Kant, who held the thing-in-itself unknowable—is that each of us has one object given in two ways at once. I perceive my body as a representation among others, yet I also know it from within, immediately, as will: my volitions are not causes of my bodily acts but are those acts grasped inwardly (Schopenhauer, 1818; Janaway, 2002). This inner acquaintance is the single window through which reality is known as it is in itself rather than as it appears. Generalizing, Schopenhauer concludes that the inner essence of all phenomena—organic and inorganic alike—is will: not conscious, rational purpose, but a mindless, insatiable striving that space and time (the principles of individuation) fragment into the multiplicity of the phenomenal world, though in itself it is one and undivided. Intellect as Instrument; Consciousness as Secondary For Schopenhauer, the will is primary and the intellect derivative. Cognition and consciousness are not the essence of the self but tools that the will produces in certain organisms to serve its striving—the brain being the organ of representation. He vivifies the relation with the image of a blind, powerful giant (the will) carrying a sighted but weak dwarf (the intellect) upon its shoulders. Consciousness, accordingly, arises only at higher grades of the will's objectification and can be extinguished (in sleep, injury, death) while the underlying will persists; ordinary self-transparency is an illusion, for much of what moves us is a will, or “willing,” hidden from the intellect. This subordination of reason to an unconscious drive anticipates later depth-psychological and evolutionary conceptions of mind (Wicks, 2021). Significance and difficulties Schopenhauer's central topic is metaphysics (the will as thing-in-itself), and his thesis aims to demote consciousness, not to advance a theory of qualia. His account of consciousness as a secondary biological function is a substantive claim about the place of phenomenal awareness in the hierarchy of nature. Even so, his identification of the reality behind appearance with something known from within (inner experience as the one non-representational access to reality) makes him a pivotal figure in the metaphysics of consciousness. His argument that the intrinsic nature of the physical—opaque to outer, structural knowledge—is disclosed only in inner experience directly anticipates the intrinsic-nature strategy of contemporary Russellian monism and panpsychism (Sprigge, 1983; Goff, Seager, & Allen-Hermanson, 2022), and his claim that a proto-experiential willing underlies all of nature is a recognized forerunner of panpsychist and dual-aspect views. Note, however, that Schopenhauer makes phenomenal consciousness derivative, not fundamental—the will itself is explicitly non-conscious. So, to cut a fine line here, he is only an ancestor of panpsychism, but he is not a panpsychist about consciousness. Two difficulties are argued. First, since the will is known only in one's own case, the inference that all other phenomena are equally will faces a problem of generalization, and, if resisted, threatens solipsism. Second, scholars dispute whether Schopenhauer consistently identifies the will with the Kantian thing-in-itself or, more cautiously, treats it as the thing-in-itself only as it appears to inner sense—still one level removed from the ultimately unknowable (Janaway, 2002; Wicks, 2021). These tensions notwithstanding, Schopenhauer’s elevation of felt willing to the status of metaphysical key remains a landmark attempt to close the gap between phenomenal experience and the nature of reality. References Goff, P., Seager, W., & Allen-Hermanson, S. (2022). Panpsychism. In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Stanford University. Janaway, C. (2002). Schopenhauer: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford University Press. Schopenhauer, A. (1818). The World as Will and Representation (Die Welt als Wille und Vorstellung), Vol. 1. Leipzig: F. A. Brockhaus. Sprigge, T. L. S. (1983). The Vindication of Absolute Idealism. Edinburgh University Press. Wicks, R. (2021). Arthur Schopenhauer. In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Stanford University.

---

## Berkeley’s Immaterialist Idealism
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/berkeley-s-immaterialist-idealism
Theorists: George Berkeley

Philosopher Bishop George Berkeley’s theory of consciousness, given his overarching immaterialist idealism, holds that phenomenal consciousness consists in the immediate apprehension of ideas by active finite spirits, that objects of the senses are stable collections of such ideas rather than mind-independent material substances, and that the order, vividness, and public coherence of experience are secured by God as the infinite spirit who causes and sustains the sensory world (Berkeley, 1709, 1710/1734, 1713/1734; Winkler, 1989; Stoneham, 2002). In other words, nothing exists but minds and the ideas they perceive, that the world we sense is constituted by the qualitative contents of perception themselves rather than by any mind-independent matter lying beneath them, and that these passive, perceived, lawfully ordered ideas are sustained as a coherent public world by the perception and will of an infinite spirit, God. This means that phenomenal experience is not an appearance of reality but manifests its very fabric, with active perceiving spirits as the only other ontological category (Berkeley, 1710, 1713; Downing, 2011). Berkeley is not a theorist of consciousness in the contemporary scientific sense. His contribution is metaphysical and phenomenological: he relocates what we perceive as reality inside the domain of consciousness while preserving the objectivity of ordinary experience through divine causation and lawlike regularity. Ideas, Spirits, and the Phenomenal Berkeley starts with phenomenology. What is immediately present to consciousness are ideas: colors, sounds, tastes, tactile qualities, pains, pleasures, passions, memories, imaginings, and thoughts. In A Treatise Concerning the Principles of Human Knowledge, he argues that the objects of human knowledge are ideas either imprinted on the senses, perceived by reflection on the operations of mind, or formed by memory and imagination (Berkeley, 1710/1734). He does not deny ordinary objects; rather, they are reconceived. An apple, for example, is not an unknowable material substance lying behind experience, but an ordered cluster of visual, tactile, olfactory, gustatory, and affective ideas habitually conjoined and named as one thing. Thus, Berkeley’s slogan esse est percipi aut percipere—to be is to be perceived or to perceive—means that the ground of being of the things of perception is their being presented in consciousness, while the being of spirits is their active capacity to perceive and to will (Berkeley, 1710/1734; Downing, 2011). Phenomenal consciousness is therefore not an inner representation interposed between mind and world. It is the mode in which the sensible world itself exists. Anti-Materialism and the Likeness Principle Berkeley’s theory is directed against representationalist materialism, especially versions he associates with Locke and Cartesian dualism. On the representationalist view, we immediately perceive ideas, but those ideas represent external material objects that exist independently of being perceived. Berkeley’s “likeness principle” denies the intelligibility of this relation: an idea can resemble only another idea, not an unperceived, nonmental substance (Berkeley, 1710/1734; Winkler, 1989). The phenomenal redness, warmth, hardness, sweetness, or spatial contour of an object cannot be copied from matter conceived as intrinsically nonexperiential. The point is not merely epistemological. Berkeley is not simply saying that we cannot know matter; he argues that the notion of matter as a support of sense qualities is explanatorily empty. If material substance is by definition not colored, sounded, tasted, felt, or otherwise experienced, then it cannot clarify the phenomenal character of experience. Nor can inert extension explain why consciousness contains ordered sensory qualities. Matter, according to Berkeley, becomes a surplus metaphysical category, introduced to explain experience but incapable of doing so. Perception, Space, and the Primary-Secondary Quality Distinction Berkeley’s attack on materialism includes a critique of the distinction between primary and secondary qualities. Materialists often conceded that colors, tastes, sounds, heat, and pain are mind-dependent, while preserving extension, figure, motion, solidity, and number as mind-independent features of matter. Berkeley argues that this division cannot be maintained. Primary qualities vary with perspective, bodily constitution, scale, sensory apparatus, and perceptual context no less than secondary qualities. Size can appear large or small, motion fast or slow, shape regular or distorted, depending on the perceiver and conditions of observation (Berkeley, 1713/1734). His New Theory of Vision gives this critique a phenomenological form. Visual distance, magnitude, and spatial layout are not immediately seen as geometrical properties. They are learned through correlations between visual signs and tactile or kinesthetic ideas (Berkeley, 1709). Vision is semiotic rather than geometrically transparent: visible appearances suggest possible tactile experiences because the mind has learned their regular or lawful conjunction. Phenomenal space is therefore not the passive reception of independently extended matter; it is an ordered field of sensory ideas, cross-modally calibrated and integrated through experience. God, Objectivity, and the Public World Berkeley’s idealism is often misread as solipsistic, but his system is designed to avoid solipsism. Finite minds do not create the sensory world. The crucial difference between imagination and perception is that sensory ideas are involuntary, vivid, coherent, stable, and publicly coordinated. I can imagine a tree faintly and intermittently, but the tree I perceive appears with force, detail, resistance, and lawful connection to other possible experiences. Because ideas are passive and cannot cause one another, and because finite spirits do not cause most sensory ideas by volition, Berkeley infers an infinite spirit—God—as their source (Berkeley, 1710/1734, 1713/1734). God is not a traditional or ritualistic theological addition but the metaphysical ground of objective phenomenal order. Sensible objects continue to exist when no finite human perceives them because they remain within divine perception and causal governance. Thus, Berkeley preserves empirical realism at the level of ordinary life while denying metaphysical realism about matter. Berkeley's purpose is apologetic, and he says so. The full title of the Principles advertises an inquiry into the grounds of skepticism, atheism, and irreligion, and Berkeley held that materialism was their common source: a mind-independent, self-sufficient matter makes God explanatorily idle, and an unknowable substance behind our ideas makes skepticism unanswerable. Immaterialism dissolves both at once. If nothing exists but minds and their ideas, there is no veil to be skeptical about, and no candidate for a godless self-running nature. The doctrine that appears most extravagant is thus the one Berkeley took to be most protective of ordinary belief, and he described his project as directed to practice and morality, beginning with making manifest the nearness and omnipresence of God (Berkeley, 1710/1734). The later work makes the theological function explicit. In Alciphron, Berkeley recasts his theory of vision as a proof: the objects of sight constitute a divine visual language, a system of arbitrary signs bearing no resemblance or necessary connection to the tangible things they signify, learned as one learns a tongue. Because such a language cannot be accounted for by mechanical principles, by atoms, or by chance, its regular and instructive operation testifies to the immediate presence of a spirit (Berkeley, 1732, IV.7–14; Kline, 1987). This reframes the New Theory of Vision retrospectively. The cross-modal calibration described earlier in this entry as a phenomenological finding is, for the mature Berkeley, evidence of a speaker. He said as much in publishing the two works together, holding that the theory of vision affords thinking men a new proof of the existence and immediate operation of God (Berkeley, 1733). Active Subjectivity and Assessment Berkeley’s active subject of consciousness is a spirit, mind, soul, or self. This creates an explanatory asymmetry. Ideas are passive objects of awareness; spirits are active perceivers and agents. A spirit is not itself an idea, because anything perceived as an idea is passive, determinate, and object-like. The self is known not by sensory presentation but by reflective “notion” of its own perceiving and willing (Berkeley, 1710/1734; Flage, 2024). This is one of the least developed but philosophically crucial parts of Berkeley’s theory: he must explain how active minds are known if all immediate objects of knowledge are ideas. As a theory of phenomenal consciousness, Berkeley’s idealism is strongest as an anti-materialist account of the immediacy, qualitative character, and mind-dependence of sensory experience. It denies that consciousness is a veil hiding reality; instead, phenomenal consciousness is where sensory reality is directly present. Its principal vulnerabilities are also clear: divine causation carries much of the explanatory burden; the ontology of active spirits is less accessible than the ontology of ideas; and the identification of ordinary objects with idea-collections remains difficult to reconcile with contemporary scientific realism. Nonetheless, Berkeley remains a major historical model of consciousness-first metaphysics: reality is not fundamentally matter plus consciousness, but active spirit and ordered experience. References Berkeley, G. (1709). An Essay Towards a New Theory of Vision. Dublin: Aaron Rhames. Berkeley, G. (1710/1734). A Treatise Concerning the Principles of Human Knowledge. 2nd ed. London: Jacob Tonson. Berkeley, G. (1713/1734). Three Dialogues Between Hylas and Philonous. 2nd ed. London: Jacob Tonson. Berkeley, G. (1732). Alciphron, or the Minute Philosopher. London: J. Tonson. Berkeley, G. (1733). The Theory of Vision, or Visual Language... Vindicated and Explained. London: J. Tonson. Berkeley, G. (1744). Siris: A Chain of Philosophical Reflexions and Inquiries. Dublin: Margt. Rhames. Downing, L. (2011). George Berkeley. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Flage, D. E. (2024). George Berkeley. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Kline, A. D. (1987). Berkeley's divine language argument. In E. Sosa (Ed.), Essays on the Philosophy of George Berkeley (pp. 129–142). Dordrecht: Reidel. Pitcher, G. (1977). Berkeley. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Stoneham, T. (2002). Berkeley’s World: An Examination of the Three Dialogues. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Winkler, K. P. (1989). Berkeley: An Interpretation. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

---

## Bradley’s Absolute Idealism
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/bradley-s-absolute-idealism
Theorists: Francis Herbert (F. H.) Bradley

Idealist philosopher F. H. Bradley’s theory of consciousness is an Absolute-Idealist account in which sentient experience is the sole reality and phenomenal consciousness, at its most primitive level, is “feeling” or immediate experience: a pre-relational unity of qualitative diversity from which subject-object consciousness, judgment, body, self, and nature are abstracted, and within which finite sentient centers are partial appearances of one all-inclusive Absolute Experience (Bradley, 1883/1922, 1893/1930; Mander, 1994; Candlish, 2021). In this view, the relational, subject–object structure through which ordinary consciousness represents the world is internally self-contradictory appearance rather than ultimate fact, and that beneath this relational surface lies this pre-conceptual felt immediacy—feeling—while above it stands the Absolute, in which every finite center of experience is harmonized as a partial aspect; phenomenal consciousness is therefore at once the basic datum of his metaphysics and, transmuted and unified, the whole of what is real (Bradley, 1893; Candlish & Basile, 2021). Bradley is not offering a contemporary empirical theory of consciousness, nor even a discrete philosophy-of-mind doctrine. His view is a metaphysical reconstruction of what consciousness must be if reality is not an aggregate of externally related things but a unified whole whose ultimate character is experiential. Immediate Experience and Feeling Bradley’s basic datum is not the Cartesian subject, nor a stream of Humean impressions, but immediate experience. In The Principles of Logic, he treats logic broadly as the account of how thought transcends immediate experience through ideas, judgments, and inferences, while rejecting the empiricist picture of consciousness as a swarm of discrete impressions associated by psychological habit (Bradley, 1883/1922). Immediate experience is prior to the full articulation of self and object. It is not “unconscious” in the ordinary sense, but a felt, qualitative totality in which differences are present without yet being explicitly separated into terms and relations. This is the power of Bradley’s concept of “feeling.” Feeling does not mean mere emotion, still less bare pleasure or pain. It names a mode of immediacy in which the experienced field is one whole before the reflective distinction between subject and object has been imposed. Bradley’s point is both phenomenological and metaphysical all at once: experience is originally concrete unity, whereas discursive thought proceeds by abstraction, division, and relational articulation (Bradley, 1893/1930). The phenomenal field is therefore not built out of atomistic qualia; qualitative diversity is originally given within an internally undivided experiential whole. Consciousness, Subject-Object Division, and Appearance Bradley’s theory is opposed both to naïve realism and to psychological atomism. A physical object, a relation, a body, and even a self are not unreal in the sense of being nothing; they are appearances, meaning partial and internally unstable abstractions from the concrete whole of experience. In Appearance and Reality, Bradley’s formula is explicit: the ground matter of reality is experience, and to be real is to fall within sentience; feeling, thought, and volition are the material of existence, and there is no other possible material (Bradley, 1893/1930). Yet this is not subjective idealism, because Bradley denies that reality is a product of any individual mind. Experience is not “my” private mental container. Rather, it is the ultimate medium within which the distinction between subject and object itself arises. The ordinary self is a late and partial articulation of experience, not its metaphysical foundation. In this respect, Bradley’s view differs sharply from Cartesianism: consciousness is not first a private ego confronting an external world, but an immediately felt whole subsequently analyzed into self, object, body, memory, desire, and environment. Thought, Judgment, and the Limits of Relational Intelligibility Thought, for Bradley, is both indispensable and intrinsically inadequate (and perhaps misleading). It is indispensable because consciousness becomes cognitive only by idealizing, predicating, judging, and relating. Yet thought is inadequate because it separates what, in reality, is not separate. In judgment, thought distinguishes the “what” or content from the “that” or existence; it abstracts a feature from immediate unity and refers it back to reality (Bradley, 1893/1930). This operation makes knowledge possible, but it also superficially simplifies (or even falsifies) when treated as metaphysically ultimate. Bradley’s famous critique of relations is central here. If reality were constituted by independently existing terms externally tied by relations, one would need further relations to connect the relations to their terms, generating a regress. The same difficulty reappears within consciousness: a self-conception, a bundle of states, a pure ego, a monad, a functional unity, or a self-objectifying subject cannot explain how diversity is concretely one. For Bradley, the unity of consciousness is not the product of relations among independent experiential atoms. It is more primitive than relation itself. This has direct bearing on phenomenal consciousness. The experienced present is not an assemblage of sensory units plus an added binding relation. It is an internally differentiated whole. Reflection may distinguish color, sound, bodily feeling, affect, attention, memory, and thought, but those discriminations presuppose a field in which they are already phenomenally together. Bradley therefore anticipates, in metaphysical rather than scientific form, later resistance to atomistic theories of consciousness and to accounts that treat unity as a secondary construction. Self, Body, and the Mind-Body Problem Bradley treats body and soul not as two substances requiring causal interaction, but as correlated appearances abstracted within the Whole. The mind-body problem becomes insoluble only when body and soul are first reified as independently subsistent things. Body is an intellectual construction from materials inseparable from sensation and feeling; soul is likewise not a self-standing entity outside the experiential whole. Their apparent interaction is a phenomenon within the Absolute, not an exchange between ontologically distinct substances (Bradley, 1893/1930). This is not reductive physicalism, dualism, or epiphenomenalism. It is monistic idealism: both physical and psychical descriptions are partial abstractions from one experiential reality. The body is not unreal, but its reality is derivative and phenomenal. The self is not unreal, but its apparent separateness is incomplete. The actual subject is never fully available to itself as object; the felt background of consciousness always exceeds what reflection can isolate. In contemporary terms, first-person consciousness cannot be exhaustively captured by self-representation, because the representing act leaves an unobjectified subjective field behind it. The Absolute and the Unity of Phenomenal Consciousness The Absolute is Bradley’s ground-state answer to the incompleteness of finite consciousness. Reality is one Experience, not a mere aggregate of private experiences. As noted, it includes feeling, thought, will, emotion, error, evil, body, nature, and finite selves, but transmuted into a harmony beyond the fragmentary contradictions they display when isolated. Bradley sometimes invites comparison with immediate feeling, but the Absolute is not merely sub-relational feeling; it is supra-relational, including the distinctions of thought while overcoming their one-sidedness (Bradley, 1893/1930; Mander, 1994). For phenomenal consciousness, Bradley’s distinctive contribution is the claim that experiential unity is metaphysically prior to its division into subjects, objects, sensations, thoughts, and bodily states. Perhaps contemporary readers may find here anticipations of field theories of consciousness, neutral-monist critiques of subject-object dualism, and anti-reductionist arguments about the irreducibility of qualitative immediacy. Yet Bradley’s theory remains metaphysical rather than scientific: it offers no neural mechanism, no psychophysical laws, and no operational account of conscious access. Its force lies in the diagnosis that physicalism and atomistic empiricism inherit their difficulties from treating abstractions—objects, relations, selves, bodies—as ultimate. Its principal weakness is equally clear: the Absolute is invoked as the necessary completion of finite experience, but its positive character can be described only by analogies drawn from the finite consciousness it is said to transcend. References Bradley, F. H. (1876). Ethical Studies. London: Henry S. King. Bradley, F. H. (1883/1922). The Principles of Logic (2nd ed.). Oxford: Clarendon Press. Bradley, F. H. (1893/1930). Appearance and Reality: A Metaphysical Essay (9th impression). Oxford: Clarendon Press. Bradley, F. H. (1914). Essays on Truth and Reality. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Candlish, S. (2021). Francis Herbert Bradley. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Mander, W. J. (1994). An Introduction to Bradley’s Metaphysics. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Mander, W. J. (2011). British Idealism: A History. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Mander, W. J. (2018). Emotion and satisfaction in the philosophy of F. H. Bradley. British Journal for the History of Philosophy, 26(4), 681–699.

---

## Sprigge’s Absolute Idealism
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/sprigge-s-absolute-idealism
Theorists: Timothy L. S. Sprigge

Timothy L. S. Sprigge’s Absolute-Idealist theory of consciousness holds that phenomenal consciousness is the only concretely known mode of being or sole intrinsically concrete reality, that physical reality as described by science is an abstract relational structure requiring an intrinsic experiential ground, that the countless momentary centers of experience composing nature are ultimately partial aspects of a single, all-inclusive cosmic experience (the Absolute), and that finite minds are perspectival, value-laden phases within a panpsychic Absolute or universal consciousness rather than products of intrinsically nonexperiential matter (Sprigge, 1983, 1994, 2006; McHenry, 2010; Basile, 2007). While Sprigge’s position is obviously contemporary physicalism, it is neither standard-issue substance dualism either. It is an analytically argued revival of British Absolute Idealism, integrated with panpsychism, in which the “hard problem” arises because physical description is mistaken for concrete ontology. Phenomenal Consciousness as the Primary Datum Sprigge's system, which he termed a synthesis of panpsychism and absolute idealism, begins not from the brain or from behavior but from the felt character of experience itself. Sprigge defined phenomenal consciousness as what it is like to be a given subject in a given situation, a formulation he advanced in "Final Causes" (Sprigge, 1971, 1982) some three years before Nagel's better-known statement and which Nagel acknowledged (Nagel, 1974, 1986). Consciousness, for Sprigge, is not exhausted by behavior, causal role, reportability, representational function, or certainly neural description. Its essence is disclosed by disciplined phenomenological reflection: experience is perspectival, holistic, self-illuminating, world-involving, and value-charged. It is always from a point of view; it presents a world; its contents cohere into a unified field; and its affective-evaluative tone is intrinsic to its phenomenal character. Anti-Physicalism and the Limits of Third-Person Description This starting point grounds Sprigge’s anti-physicalism. In his 1994 Synthese article, he explicitly defends consciousness as a distinct nonphysical existence, while arguing that behaviorism, functionalism, and related doctrines gain plausibility only if one assumes a Humean principle denying necessary connections between distinct existences (Sprigge, 1994). His claim is not that conscious states float free from embodied expression, but that no purely third-person specification of bodily or functional organization logically entails the intrinsic phenomenal being of experience. Hence, physical facts can correlate with, express, or structurally map consciousness, but they do not disclose what consciousness is in itself. Sprigge’s Absolute Idealism proceeds from a Russell-Eddington-style argument about the limits of physics. Scientific theory gives relational, causal, mathematical, and dispositional structure; it does not reveal the intrinsic qualitative nature of what has that structure. The one case in which intrinsic qualitative nature is directly encountered is one’s own conscious life. Therefore, the most economical metaphysical hypothesis is that the intrinsic nature underlying the physical world is experiential or proto-experiential. This is Sprigge’s panpsychist engagement: consciousness, in enormously varying forms and degrees, is the noumenal essence of what appears outwardly as physical reality (Sprigge, 1983, 1994). The thesis is abductive, inference to the best explanation: Sprigge recognizes that one might remain agnostic about matter’s intrinsic nature, but he regards such agnosticism as less explanatory than idealist panpsychism. Panpsychism and Absolute Idealism The Absolute-Idealist dimension distinguishes Sprigge from many atomistic panpsychists. Reality is not ultimately a heap of isolated micro-experiences that somehow combine into minds. Sprigge often speaks of elementary centers or moments of experience forming increasingly complex structured systems, including finite streams of consciousness; yet his deeper monistic commitment reverses the metaphysical priority. The whole is not constructed from independently real parts; the so-called parts are aspects abstracted from a more comprehensive experiential totality. In this sense, finite minds are real perspectives within the Absolute, not self-subsisting mental atoms. The Absolute is a universal consciousness or “God” in a broadly Spinozistic, non-creator sense: not a personal deity standing outside the world, but the ultimate all-inclusive unity of experiential reality (Sprigge, 1983, 2006, 2007). Sprigge’s panpsychism is thus not merely the claim that mentality is widely distributed. It is the stronger claim that experientiality is the intrinsic nature of reality and that finite experiential centers are intelligible only within an encompassing whole. Thus, while Sprigge does make the panpsychic move, his final destination is clearly idealism. Unity, Finitude, and the Structure of Experience This whole-first ontology is also meant to address the unity of consciousness. For Sprigge, an individual conscious episode has a definite reality lacking in ordinary physical objects, whose boundaries depend on contingent conceptual divisions. A table can be carved into indefinitely many overlapping object-candidates, but a moment of consciousness has a determinate phenomenal unity. The co-presence of color, sound, bodily feeling, thought, desire, and valuation in one specious present is not a mere aggregate but a mutually determining experiential whole. This analysis scales to ultimates. Finite subjects are internally unified experiential perspectives, while the Absolute is the maximal unity within which all finite perspectives have their being. The well-known difficulty, as for all idealistic theories, is the inverse of the panpsychist combination problem: if the whole is primary, Sprigge must explain how genuinely finite centers of experience can be distinct—“bubble off,” as it were—without becoming ontologically independent. His answer is that finite centers are real but incomplete abstractions from the Absolute; their separateness is phenomenologically genuine but metaphysically partial. Antecedents: Bradley and Berkeley, Spinoza and James Sprigge’s Absolute Idealism should be read as a self-conscious renewal, not a mere repetition, of earlier idealist lines running from Berkeley to Bradley. From Berkeley he inherits the anti-materialist conviction that the supposed “matter” of common sense and science cannot be understood as a self-subsisting nonexperiential substance standing behind experience; however, Sprigge rejects any narrow subjective idealism in which reality is reducible to the perceptions of finite minds or secured by a personal theistic perceiver (Berkeley, 1710; Sprigge, 1983, 2006). From Bradley, to whom his structural debt is overwhelming—a debt he signals in the very title of The Vindication of Absolute Idealism—he inherits the more radical Absolute-Idealist claim that finite centers of experience are partial appearances within a larger experiential whole, and that relations, objects, and selves become metaphysically misleading when treated as ultimately independent (Bradley, 1893; Sprigge, 1983). His nearer non-Bradleyan kin, however, are Spinoza and James: from Spinoza comes the impersonal, non-theistic Absolute that distinguishes his religious sensibility from Berkeley's theism (Spinoza, 1677), and from James the pluralistic, radical-empiricist insistence on the reality of finite centers and lived temporal passage, which Sprigge recruits to correct what he saw as the over-austere monism of Bradley's strictly supra-relational Absolute—the avowed project of James and Bradley (Sprigge, 1993; James, 1912). What he adds to all of them is the explicit panpsychism that Berkeley's theism, Spinoza's rationalism, and Bradley's reticence each left unstated. Sprigge's distinctive contribution is to combine Berkeley's experiential anti-materialism (Berkeley, 1710) with Bradley's monistic holism (Bradley, 1893)—drawing equally on Spinoza's impersonal, non-theistic conception of the one substance (Spinoza, 1677) and James's radical-empiricist insistence on the reality of finite experience and lived temporal passage (James, 1912)—while recasting all four in a late twentieth-century philosophy-of-mind idiom: phenomenal consciousness is the only directly known intrinsic reality, the physical world is structurally describable but intrinsically opaque, and finite minds are real but incomplete perspectives within an all-inclusive experiential order. Consciousness, Value, and Assessment Sprigge’s theory also connects phenomenal consciousness with value. Since consciousness is the locus of pleasure, suffering, interest, attention, striving, and appreciation, it is the locus of intrinsic value (Sprigge, 1982, 1987, 2007). This does not make his theory merely ethical; rather, value enters at the phenomenological base. Experience is not neutral inner light onto which value is later projected; it is already affectively and motivationally structured. This explains why Sprigge’s metaphysics supports concern for animals and nature: wherever there is sentience, there is morally considerable experiential reality; and even non-sentient natural objects may have value as constituted within possible fields of consciousness. [Note: Although Sprigge refers to panpsychism, Idealism is the clear classification, given Sprigge’s decisive commitment to the unreality of mind-independent matter, his following F.H Bradley, and his own self-identification (which, by itself, would not be dispositive).] References Basile, P., & McHenry, L. B. (Eds.). (2007). Consciousness, Reality and Value: Essays in Honour of T. L. S. Sprigge. Frankfurt: Ontos Verlag. Berkeley, G. (1710). A Treatise Concerning the Principles of Human Knowledge. Aaron Rhames. Bradley, F. H. (1893). Appearance and Reality. Swan Sonnenschein. (9th impression, corrected, Clarendon Press, 1930.) Chalmers, D. J. (1996). The Conscious Mind: In Search of a Fundamental Theory. Oxford University Press. Goff, P., Seager, W., & Allen-Hermanson, S. (2022). Panpsychism. In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Stanford University. James, W. (1912). Essays in Radical Empiricism. Longmans, Green. McHenry, L. B. (2010). Sprigge's ontology of consciousness. In P. Basile, J. Kiverstein, & P. Phemister (Eds.), The Metaphysics of Consciousness (Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplement 67). Cambridge University Press. McHenry, L. B., & Basile, P. (Eds.). (2007). Consciousness, Reality and Value: Essays in Honour of T. L. S. Sprigge. Ontos Verlag. Nagel, T. (1974). What is it like to be a bat? Philosophical Review, 83(4), 435–450. Nagel, T. (1986). The View from Nowhere. Oxford University Press. Seager, W. (2011). Review of The Importance of Subjectivity: Selected Essays in Metaphysics and Ethics. Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews. Spinoza, B. (1677). Ethics. Sprigge, T. L. S., & Montefiore, A. (1971). Final Causes. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Supplementary Volume 45, 149–192. Sprigge, T. L. S. (1983). The Vindication of Absolute Idealism. Edinburgh University Press. Sprigge, T. L. S. (1993). James and Bradley: American Truth and British Reality. Open Court. Sprigge, T. L. S. (1994). Consciousness. Synthese, 98(1), 73–93. Sprigge, T. L. S. (2006). The God of Metaphysics. Clarendon Press. Sprigge, T. L. S. (2007). My philosophy and some defence of it. In P. Basile & L. B. McHenry (Eds.), Consciousness, Reality and Value: Essays in Honour of T. L. S. Sprigge (pp. 299–322). Frankfurt: Ontos Verlag. Sprigge, T. L. S. (2011). The Importance of Subjectivity: Selected Essays in Metaphysics and Ethics (L. B. McHenry, Ed.). Oxford University Press. Strawson, G. (2006). Realistic monism: Why physicalism entails panpsychism. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 13(10–11), 3–31.

---

## Kastrup’s Analytic Idealism
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/kastrup-s-analytic-idealism
Theorists: Bernardo Kastrup

Philosopher Bernardo Kastrup's “analytic idealism” is “a consciousness-only ontology” that has refocused attention, within the philosophical community and more broadly, on metaphysical idealism, that is, an idealism that is grounded in philosophical argument as opposed to promoted by religious tradition or spiritual belief. Kastrup's modern, analytic version of the ontology of idealism asserts “(a) phenomenal consciousness, as an ontological category, is fundamental; and (b) everything else in nature can ultimately be reduced to, or grounded in, patterns of excitation of phenomenal consciousness” (Kastrup, 2019). Thus, he proposes “there is only cosmic consciousness” (Kastrup, 2018), in that “spatially unbound consciousness is posited to be nature's sole ontological primitive” (Kastrup, 2017). In Kastrup's idealism, human beings, along with all other living organisms, are but “dissociated alters of cosmic consciousness” (Kastrup, 2018) that are “surrounded like islands by the ocean of its mentation.” The inanimate universe we see around us, he says, is “the extrinsic view of thoughts and emotions in universal consciousness. The living creatures we share the world with are the extrinsic views of other dissociated alters of universal consciousness. A physical world independent of consciousness is a mistaken intellectual abstraction” (Kastrup, 2016a, 2016b). Cosmic Consciousness and Dissociated Alters Evidence that consciousness is not reductionist-materialist, Kastrup argues, comes from, among others, neuroimaging of brains in altered states induced by psychedelic substances. That these “unfathomably rich experiential states” correlate with significantly reduced activity in multiple brain areas is said to “contradict the mainstream metaphysics of physicalism for obvious reasons: experience is supposed to be generated by metabolic neuronal activity.” He dismisses “the best physicalist hypothesis to explain psychedelic experiences” based on the idea that psychotomimetic drugs cause brain desynchronization, processes labeled “brain entropy,” “complexity,” “diversity”—which Kastrup interprets as “very straightforward: brain noise.” The “entropic brain hypothesis,” Kastrup says, is “a linguistic charade,” leaving mainstream physicalism unsupported as a viable metaphysics of mind (Kastrup, 2023). (Neuropsychopharmacologist David Nutt contends that “we don't need to adopt an untestable metaphysical worldview to explain the subjective richness of psychedelic experiences” and that neuroscience and neuroimaging research have resources to develop complete theories—for example, chaotic cortical entropy may “release the usual brake” that the cortex holds on sub-cortical structures, especially the emotion centers, liberating the amygdala and hippocampus from “top-down” inhibitory control [Nutt, 2023]. Kastrup counters that such disinhibition, if it were the case, should itself correspond to increased brain activity somewhere in the brain, which is not what is observed.) Brain, Experience, and the Decomposition Problem How to explain, under idealism, the correlation between inner experience and brain states? According to Kastrup, “the brain and its patterns of neuronal activity are not the cause of inner experience, but the image, the extrinsic appearance of inner experience. In other words, brain activity is what inner experience looks like when observed from the outside.” As such, he says, “the correlations ordinarily observed between patterns of brain activity and inner experience are due to the trivial fact that the appearance of a phenomenon correlates with the phenomenon.” And when this correlation is broken, as observed in the psychedelic state, the reason is that, “unlike a cause, the appearance of a phenomenon doesn't need to be always complete”—it can leave out much about the phenomenon it is an appearance of (Kastrup, 2023). Kastrup maintains that idealism's key challenge is “to explain how the seemingly distinct phenomenal inner lives of different subjects of experience can arise within this fundamentally unitary phenomenal field.” This is called the “decomposition problem,” and it is the core problem Kastrup needs to address. Other challenges include “how to reconcile idealism with the fact that we all inhabit a common external world; why this world unfolds independently of our personal volition or imagination; why there are such tight correlations between measured patterns of brain activity and reports of experience” (Kastrup, 2019). Kastrup's unabashed challenge to his metaphysical competitors is that an idealist ontology “makes sense of reality in a more parsimonious and empirically rigorous manner than mainstream physicalism, bottom-up panpsychism, and cosmopsychism” (Kastrup, 2018). He argues that an idealist ontology “offers more explanatory power than these three alternatives, in that it does not fall prey to the hard problem of consciousness, the combination problem, or the decombination problem, respectively.” (Panpsychists seem to be taking the challenge more seriously than do physicalists[1] [Kastrup, 2020b; Goff, 2020].) Given his consciousness-only ontology, Kastrup explores what might follow in two areas of high interest and continuing controversy: foundations of quantum mechanics and prospects for life after death. Regarding quantum mechanics, he stresses the centrality of consciousness, making the startling but perhaps coherent argument that “the dynamics of all inanimate matter in the universe correspond to transpersonal mentation, just as an individual's brain activity—which is also made of matter—corresponds to personal mentation” (Kastrup et al., 2018). Quantum Mechanics and Life After Death Regarding life after death, Kastrup speculates that “the implication is that, instead of disappearing, conscious inner life expands upon bodily death, a prediction that finds circumstantial but [claimed] significant confirmation in reports of near-death experiences and psychedelic trances, both of which can be construed as glimpses into the early stages of the death process” (Kastrup, 2016a, 2016b). Say this for Kastrup's analytic idealism: it expands and enlivens the consciousness debate. Footnote [1]. See the energetic, illuminating debate between idealist Bernardo Kastrup and panpsychist Philip Goff (Kastrup, 2020b; Goff, 2020).

---

## Hoffman’s Conscious Realism: The Case Against Reality
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/hoffman-s-conscious-realism-the-case-against-reality
Theorists: Donald Hoffman

Cognitive psychologist Donald Hoffman's “Case Against Reality” argues that our visual perceptions are not veridical of ultimate reality because evolution selects for fitness to reproduce, not for access to ontological truth (Hoffman, 2019a). “This is consistent with the interface theory of perception, which claims that natural selection shapes perceptual systems not to provide veridical perceptions, but to serve as species-specific interfaces that guide adaptive behavior” (Prakash et al., 2020). Perception as Interface, Not Reality Hoffman likens our perceptions of objects around us to “interfaces” constructed by natural selection, taking as analogy the file icons on our computer screens, which may look like little paper folders but are in truth written in the complex binary code of machine language. Similarly, he says, evolution has shaped our perceptions, not as true depictions of an animal-independent world, but rather as simplistic illusions to help us navigate the world around us (Hoffman, 2019a). Continuing his computer-screen interface analogy, he says, “The pixels are in the screen, still part of the desktop interface. Similarly, tiny nuclei and electrons are in spacetime, still part of our spacetime interface.” But “spacetime is not objective reality and does not resemble reality, whatever reality might be” (Hoffman, 2019b). Conscious Realism and Its Implications Hoffman's ultimate ontology is what he calls “conscious realism,” which states that the objective world consists of conscious agents and their experiences. This means, fundamentally, that instead of assuming that “particles in spacetime are fundamental, and somehow create consciousness when they form neurons and brains,” he proposes the reverse: “consciousness is fundamental, and it creates spacetime and objects.” He posits a mathematical theory of consciousness that “reality is a vast social network of interacting ‘conscious agents,’ in which each agent has a range of possible experiences, and each agent can act to influence the experiences of other agents.” What follows for Hoffman is that “no object within spacetime is itself a conscious agent; spacetime is simply a format for conscious experiences—an interface—employed by agents like us, and physical objects are just icons in that interface” (Hoffman, 2019b). Remarkably, Hoffman reverses the arrow of causation for the abundance of experimental evidence correlating mental states of the mind with physical states of the brain. These correlations arise, he states, “because consciousness creates brain activity and indeed creates all objects and properties of the physical world” (Hoffman, 2008). Hoffman is clear: “Consciousness is fundamental in the universe. It is not a product of space and time or anything inside space and time. I think that efforts to derive consciousness from spacetime, either by identity theories or causal theories, have proven ineffective, and I've been forced to take the view that consciousness is actually fundamental in the universe” (Hoffman, 2013).

---

## McGilchrist’s Relational, Creative-Process Idealism
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/mcgilchrist-s-relational-creative-process-idealism
Theorists: Iain McGilchrist

Psychiatrist, neuroscientist, and literary scholar Iain McGilchrist's idealist metaphysics has consciousness as “irreducible, primordial and omnipresent.” But consciousness is “not a thing; it is a creative process,” he says. “All that exists, exists in consciousness … consciousness is the stuff of the cosmos.” Moreover, given “that consciousness is ‘the fundamental given natural fact’, it clearly follows that it cannot be reduced to something more fundamental” (McGilchrist, 2021b, 2021a, p. 1601). Matter, to McGilchrist, is “a theoretical abstraction that no one has seen.” The term clearly has meaning, he clarifies; “it refers to the qualities of certain elements within consciousness which offer relative resistance and relative permanence as a necessary part of that creative process” (McGilchrist, 2021b). Matter is also critical for individuality to arise. Put another way, McGilchrist has matter as “a special case, or a phase of consciousness.” Matter is not a separate thing, he says, any more than ice is separate from water; it's a phase of water; it's neither less nor more than water; it's not separate from water; it's a kind of water. And matter is a kind of consciousness—for a time—that has certain quite marked properties that are different from the way we normally think of consciousness, just as water is transparent and flows and all the rest, and ice is hard and opaque and can split your head open. So they're different but they're part of the same ontology.” McGilchrist stresses that “consciousness and matter must be distinguished”—but “there should be no need to set the one against the other.” Consciousness, Matter, and Relational Being McGilchrist's consciousness turns on its relational nature. He holds that “everything is relational, and that what we call things, the relata, are secondary to relationship.” Consciousness, he argues, is always “of” something, then he asks: “what is the nature then of that something that is both in part constitutive of, and in part constituted by, that relationship?” A consequence, counterintuitive to most, is that while some scientists consider a “Reality Out There” to be independent of any consciousness whatsoever—naïve realism—McGilchrist says, “In reality, we participate in the knowing: there is no ‘view from nowhere’” (McGilchrist, 2021b). Brain, Hemispheres, and Consciousness Given that McGilchrist has consciousness as primordial and matter as a phase of consciousness, how does he have the relationship between the brain and consciousness? He says, “I do not suggest that the brain originates anything. I do not know that the brain ‘causes’ consciousness: it might or might not.” He goes on to note, rightly, “I know of no way of proving the point one way or the other, since the observable facts would look the same whether it [the brain] gave rise to, or simply mediated, consciousness.” In other words, the same findings are equally compatible with the brain emitting consciousness, transmitting consciousness, or permitting consciousness. (The latter two options are similar, except that permitting substitutes the idea of a constraint that is creative, fashioning what it allows to come into being, replacing the merely passive idea of transmitting.)” McGilchrist argues that “it is the last of these possibilities – permitting – that is the most convincing” (McGilchrist, 2021a, pp. 55, 1592). Logically, McGilchrist's ontology would skew to the brain alone not causing consciousness and his medical training would skew to the brain not being a mere passive receiver of consciousness. His solution seems to be something like this: the brain structures, shapes and physically actualizes the consciousness we experience so that it can be expressed and felt by a body. It's worth noting that McGilchrist's consciousness-matter ontology has a kind of relationship to his hemisphere hypothesis, which states that the brain's “two hemispheres have evolved so as to attend to the world, and therefore bring into being the only world we can know, in two largely opposing ways: the left hemisphere paying narrowly targeted attention to a detail that we need to manipulate; the right hemisphere paying broad, open, sustained, vigilant, uncommitted attention to the rest of the world while we focus on our desired detail” (McGilchrist, 2009, 2021a). This means, he argues, that “each hemisphere brings into being a world that has different qualities … In the case of the left hemisphere, a world of things that are familiar, certain, fixed, isolated, explicit, abstracted from context, disembodied, general in nature, quantifiable, known by their parts, and inanimate. In the case of the right hemisphere, a world of Gestalten, forms and processes that are never reducible to the already known or certain, never accounted for by dissolution into parts, but always understood as wholes that both incorporate and are incorporated into other wholes, unique, always changing and flowing, interconnected, implicit, understood only in context, embodied and animate” (McGilchrist, 2009, 2021a). Most importantly, the world of the right hemisphere is the world that presences to us, that of the left hemisphere a re-presentation: the left hemisphere a map, the right hemisphere the world of experience that is mapped.” To McGilchrist, loosely associating the right hemisphere with consciousness and the left hemisphere with matter may be more than metaphor. Cosmos, Value, and Creative Process Finally, McGilchrist sees “the cosmos as fundamentally relational, and the ground of Being as driven to come to know itself in and through creating an evolving cosmos. The ground of Being and the cosmos respond to each other. (So far this is in keeping with Whitehead.) What life does is to increase by untold orders of magnitude the responsiveness of that cosmos. I, like Nagel, see that ‘value is not just an accidental side-effect of life; rather, there is life because life is a necessary condition of value.’” What life brings, McGilchrist maintains, “is not consciousness, then—which, as I have argued, is present from the beginning—but the coming into being of the capacity for value: thus, a mountain cannot value, though it can have value for creatures, like ourselves, who value. And it is not just we, but all living creatures, that for the first time are able to recognize value. Life vastly enhances the degree of responsiveness of, to and within the world.” Indeed, “life could be seen as the very process of the cosmic consciousness continually both discovering and furthering its beauty, truth, and goodness; both contemplating and (not separately but in the same indivisible act) further bringing them into being: a process” (McGilchrist, 2021a, pp. 1722, 1723). Yet, the grounding of consciousness is not deterministic, McGilchrist says. It has none of the characteristics of being pre-programmed by “an omnipotent and omniscient engineering God constructing and winding up a mechanism. It is in the process of discovering itself through its creative potential (one thing we all know directly from our own experience is that consciousness is endlessly creative)” (McGilchrist, 2021a). The cosmos has purpose, McGilchrist says. “It has direction, but not direction of the hydraulic kind, being pushed blindly from behind, rather of the kind that is drawn from in front, by attractors that call it ever forward” (McGilchrist, personal communication).

---

## Bentley Hart’s Consciousness, Being, God
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/bentley-hart-s-consciousness-being-god
Theorists: David Bentley Hart

Philosopher, theological scholar, and intellectual provocateur David Bentley Hart constructs an ultimate unified monism as his form of idealism, first by showing that consciousness/mind and being/existence are profoundly inseverable. He argues that “rational thought and coherent order are two sides of a single reality” and that only by embracing God “as the absolute unity of consciousness and being” can the one ontological reality be confirmed (Hart, 2022b). In a sense, it is a higher-order monism. Oversimplified, an idealist form of panpsychism (Hart, 2021a). Hart is not a timorous monist: “At the end of the day, I'm a monist as any sane person is … any metaphysics that is coherent is ultimately reducible to a monism” (Hart, 2024). Unsurprisingly, Hart is a fierce critic of materialism (Hart, 2019a): “The incommensurability between physical causation and mental events is so vast that one can confidently assume that no purely physical explanation of their relation will ever succeed” (Hart, 2021a). He argues that it would be very odd to claim that physiology and mental agency can be characterized within the same “mereological hierarchy.” Far from being inverse descriptions of one and the same causal structure, he says, “the causal description peculiar to each sphere—the material and the mental—is not even vaguely similar to that peculiar to the other. If the mental merely supervened physically upon the material, in the way the shape of the wheel supervenes upon the wheel's iron molecules, it is impossible coherently to conceive of that miraculous conjugation as merely a structural extension of inherent physical propensities. Here each level operates in ways radically disparate from—even contrary to—the ways in which the other operates. Material structures and forces, if the reductionist picture of nature is correct, are composite, fragmentable, non-purposive, non-intentional, and essentially third-person; mental agency, by contrast, is indivisibly unified, physically infrangible, thoroughly teleological, inherently intentional, and irreducibly first-person (that is, conscious)” (Hart, 2019a, 2022a, 2022d). Critique of Materialism and Emergence Hart is certain that “nothing like an actual science of mental reality will ever be conceivable (much less practicable) so long as the culture of the sciences clings to a belief in the principle of the ‘causal closure of the physical’” (Hart, 2021b). He rejects irreducible emergence as “logical nonsense; whatever properties appear in an effect, unless imposed adventitiously, are already implicit in its ‘lower’ causes, even if only as a kind of virtual intentionality.” He avers that “‘Strong emergence’ is either a myth, a category error, or a truth so bizarre as to suggest that truth as such is impenetrable to reason; to invoke such a principle is to say nothing” (Hart, 2022a). He recommends reconsidering “something like causal language proposed in Aristotelian tradition” (Hart, 2022b). Consciousness and Being as One Hart's intuition is that “The conditions necessary for knowledge of the world and the conditions necessary for the world's existence as an object of knowledge at any number of vital points seem insensibly to merge into a single reality, a single act,” a simplicity and an ultimacy, he says, that cannot be found within nature as a closed totality and cannot be consistent with any physicalist theory of the world. It becomes impossible not to wonder, he continues, “whether the only properly empirical approach to the question of mental reality should begin with a radically different kind of methodological bracketing: one that suspends every presupposition regarding a real distinction between epistemology and ontology.” He continues, “At least, we should never refuse to reflect upon the ancient metaphysical quandary of whether being and consciousness are ever truly severable from one another.” To exist fully, he says, is “to be manifest to consciousness,” and “there is no such thing as ontological coherence that is not a rational coherence,” such that the irreducibility of mind to physical causes and the irreducibility of being to physical events are one and the same irreducibility. There is a point then, Hart argues, “at which being and intelligibility become conceptually indistinguishable” and “being in itself is pure intelligibility” (Hart, 2022b). Given that “world and mind really are open to one another,” Hart accords “a certain causal priority to mind over matter in our picture of reality” in that materialism would have more difficulty to account for consciousness than consciousness would for matter. Thus, his form of idealism. God and Christological Monism Hart invokes Bernard Lonergan's argument that the “unrestricted intelligibility” of reality leads to God as the one “unrestricted act of understanding.” The ascent towards ever greater knowledge is, Hart says, “an ascent towards an ultimate encounter with limitless consciousness, limitless reason, a transcendent reality where being and knowledge are always already one and the same, and so inalienable from one another” (Hart, 2022b). “A restricted instance of that unrestricted act,” Hart says, is his “best definition of mind.” He then goes to God, reasoning that “every act of conscious, unified, intentional mind is necessarily dependent upon infinite mind—which is to say, God.” God, then, is “the logical order of all reality, the ground both of the subjective rationality of mind and the objective rationality of being …. the one ontological reality of reason as it exists both in thought and in the structure of the universe” (Hart, 2019b, 2022b). The final step in forming Hart's ultimate monism, his idealism, will seem strange to most, blasphemous to some: taking consciousness and being, already one and the same, and unifying it with God, to become, all together, the ultimate one and the same. This is not pantheism (or panentheism), but based on Hart's Orthodox Christian convictions, a Christological monism. He quotes Maximus the Confessor, who says, “in the union with God, we ultimately are destined to become uncreated.” In Hart's ultimate monism, his idealism, “God doesn't become God, but God in those who are becoming God” (Hart, 2022c). Reflecting on his own thinking, Bentley Hart writes, "I don’t really know if there’s any connection between my thoughts on philosophy of mind and the “Christological monism” (or, really, monistic Christology) of my theological work. Of course, I may imagine a more impermeable partition between the two areas of concern than in fact exists. But I think, where philosophy of mind is concerned, I would go only as far as asserting a metaphysical monism, and one that I would characterize as idealist rather than neutral monist chiefly because I believe all things are reducible to the structure of mental agency, as the fundamental reality, rather than simply to some tertium quid that is mysteriously at once like and unlike both the mental and the material, and so more original than either. That, to me, just seems like a dualism in denial about itself" (personal communication).

---

## Chopra’s Only the Whole Is Conscious
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/chopra-s-only-the-whole-is-conscious
Theorists: Deepak Chopra

Holistic physician Deepak Chopra defines consciousness as “It is what makes experience possible. It is what makes perception possible. It is what makes cognition possible. Everything we call reality, consciousness makes possible. Consciousness is the ultimate reality” (Chopra, 2013). To Chopra, progress in cognitive neuroscience, such as brain scans that translate electrical patterns in the brain into real words in synthesized speech, are “false clues,” like tracking a fox in the snow only to find that the tracks have led you in a circle. “This looks like progress,” he says, “and yet the progress is built up from false clues, for the same reason that pertains to circular tracks in the snow. It is physically impossible for brain cells to create the human mind. Brain cells are composed of the same basic organic chemicals as any other cell in the body, and organic chemicals can't think. It doesn't matter how many billions of neurons the human brain contains, or the quadrillions of synaptic connections between them. Complexity doesn't get around the simple impossibility that chemicals aren't conscious, and the brain is nothing but chemicals. The presence of electrical activity in the brain is also a false clue, because electricity can't think, either” (Chopra, 2023a, 2023b). “If you want to understand consciousness, then the last thing you want to be is a neuroscientist,” Chopra half-jokes, referring to my [RLK] background. “Because neuroscience doesn't give you a clue” (Chopra, 2013). False Clues and the Hard Problem Chopra's persistent claim is that there is only one way to get past every false clue in the hunt for consciousness. “You must make it the ‘stuff’ of creation, a non-physical state from which matter, energy, time, and space are created. It is not, he says, that every phenomenon we can experience has consciousness or exhibits mind. It is that consciousness shapes itself into every mode of knowing and experiencing reality.” In other words, Chopra says, “the ‘hard problem’ isn't a problem at all. Consciousness, being our source and origin, explains everything by itself, needing no outside explanation” (Chopra, 2013). Consciousness of the Whole According to Chopra, taking idealism to its logical extreme—some say to its simplest condition—what's conscious is only the whole, not the parts like us. The entirety of reality, the fullness of the cosmos, a multiverse of innumerable universes (if there are such), everything everywhere all together, is the expression of a unitary consciousness. In their essay, “Why You Aren't Conscious and Never Have Been,” Chopra and physicist Menas Kafatos, after rejecting both materialism and panpsychism, seek to explain consciousness not by trying to figure out how individuals are conscious, which they claim is doomed to failure, but rather by assuming that all reality is conscious and individual instances of consciousness are conscious only with respect to their being part of the whole. “When you arrive at the conclusion that nothing material is conscious, bizarre as this sounds, you make a tremendous breakthrough. ‘I am conscious’ misstates the reality, which is ‘I am consciousness itself’” (Chopra & Kafatos, 2023). “The way that humans are conscious is what matters,” the authors write. “Consciousness is everywhere all the time embracing past, present and future. I am part of that reality. Therefore, I am consciousness itself. Who I really am is beyond time.” Nothing can be conscious on its own, Chopra and Kafatos claim; the only way to be conscious is to be part of the “All and One.” As for where the All-and-One Consciousness comes from or came from, the answer is the same as to “Who made God?” “Our origin story begins with absolute, pure awareness, which has no explanation. It simply is” (Chopra & Kafatos, 2023).

---

## How Consciousness Becomes the Physical Universe
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/how-consciousness-becomes-the-physical-universe
Theorists: Menas Kafatos

Idealism works well as an explanation of creature consciousness, provided, of course, that one accepts its foundational premise that consciousness, and consciousness alone, is fundamental reality. One challenge for idealism is coming to consider what seems to be an odd, perhaps outlandish, idea so alien to our life experiences: If all is consciousness, how does the physical world come about? Quantum Theory and Idealism The claim is made that quantum theory, which, unlike classical physics, assigns (in some interpretations) a fundamental role to the act of observation, can bridge the explanatory gap between idealism as foundational reality and the physical world as empirically apparent. Can quantum theory, as its adherents believe, open the door “to a profoundly new vision of the cosmos, where observer, observed, and the act of observation are interlocked,” thus hinting “at a science of wholeness, going beyond the purely physical emphasis of current science?” Adherents look to developments in the intersection of quantum theory, biology, neuroscience, and the philosophy of mind. Non-local interactions of the quantum universe are cited as evidence of the interconnectedness of everything, supporting the idea that “consciousness and matter are not fundamentally distinct, but rather are two complementary aspects of one reality, embracing the micro and macro worlds,” ultimately founded on consciousness as the ultimate reality (Kafatos et al., 2011). Consciousness, Matter, and Energy There are elaborate theories that claim to explain how consciousness, once assumed to be fundamental in nature and reality, generates or interacts with matter, and energy and interfaces with the brain. In one version, developed by computer science professional Mahendra Samarawickrama, consciousness governs causation and creates energy and matter. The interplay of consciousness, matter and energy underpins what we experience and observe in reality (The Centre for Consciousness Studies, 2024). Consciousness itself is “a high-speed sequential process that leads to awareness” (notwithstanding the brain's massive parallel-processing capability). “Like time, consciousness is also subjected to relativity. When the observer is moving, both time and consciousness dilate.” Further, “the electromagnetic energy of consciousness follows quantum principles and wave-particle duality …. This interplay of consciousness with matter and energy makes consciousness and reality interrelate and follows determinism, realism, and physicalism” (Samarawickrama, 2023). No surprise that none of this is taken seriously by a large majority of quantum physicists (Rovelli, 2022; see “Rovelli’s Relational Physics”).

---

## Theise’s and Kafatos’s Fundamental Awareness and Complexity
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/theise-s-and-kafatos-fundamental-awareness-and-complexity
Theorists: Neil Theise, Menas Kafatos

Systems biologist Neil Theise and physicist Menas Kafatos propose the Fundamental Awareness Theory, a metaphysical framework that challenges conventional scientific materialism by positing consciousness, not matter, as the fundamental ontological reality of the universe (Theise & Kafatos, 2016, 2013a; Theise, 2023; Theise et al., 2023). In this theory, awareness is not an emergent property of complex systems (like the human brain), but rather a foundational aspect of all that exists, even a multiverse (Theise & Kafatos, 2016; Theise, 2023). This view aligns with idealist traditions in philosophy but distinguishes itself by its integration with insights from quantum physics and systems biology (Theise & Kafatos, 2016; Theise, 2023; Theise et al., 2023). The core assertion of the Fundamental Awareness Theory is that consciousness is not generated by physical processes but is intrinsic to the fabric of reality itself. Theise and Kafatos argue that mainstream scientific paradigms fail to explain subjective experience, or qualia—the “what it is like” of conscious awareness. In contrast, their theory treats awareness as the ground of being, from which all observable phenomena emerge. This is in agreement with many traditions that go beyond the physical (Theise & Kafatos, 2016; Theise, 2023). Consciousness as Fundamental Reality Drawing from quantum mechanics, the theory suggests that the probabilistic and non-local behavior of particles indicates a deeper level of interconnectedness that cannot be explained by classical physics alone (Theise & Kafatos, 2016; Theise, 2023; Theise et al., 2023). Observations in quantum theory—such as the role of the observer in participating with the collapse of the wave function—support the idea that consciousness is fundamental rather than derivative. In their view, the quantum world reflects a non-dual, interconnected reality in which separation between observer and observed is illusory. Quantum Physics, Biology, and Non-Dualism Biologically, Theise contributes by showing that complexity in living systems arises not from isolated parts but from relational, self-organizing processes (Theise, 2023; Theise & Kafatos, 2013a, 2013b). These insights are consistent with the notion of a conscious universe, as Kafatos has defended, where awareness plays a central role in the emergence and behavior of life (Kafatos & Nadeau, 2000). Rather than viewing living organisms as machines composed of parts, the theory regards them as dynamic, holistic systems that participate in a deeper field of awareness (Theise & Kafatos, 2016, 2013a, 2013b; Theise, 2023). Theise and Kafatos critique Cartesian dualism—the strict separation between mind and matter—and propose instead a monistic, non-dual view of reality. In their formulation, mind and matter are two aspects of the same underlying reality, with awareness as the primary principle. This non-dualistic ontology aligns with certain interpretations of Eastern philosophies, such as Advaita Vedanta and Mahayana Buddhism (Theise is a long-time student of Buddhism), where the apparent separation between self and world is considered a misperception (Theise & Kafatos, 2016; Theise, 2023). Ethical Implications and Challenges A striking implication of the Fundamental Awareness Theory is said to be ethical: if awareness is fundamental and pervades all of reality, then all entities participate in consciousness to some degree. This promotes, they say, a holistic, respectful relationship with nature and other beings, supporting ecological and compassionate worldviews (Theise, 2023). While still speculative and outside mainstream scientific consensus, Theise and Kafatos assert that the Fundamental Awareness Theory does not go counter to science; it offers a bold and integrative vision that attempts to unify consciousness studies, physics, and biology while maintaining dialogue with multicultural, metaphysical practices and insights. It challenges reductive materialism and opens new possibilities for understanding the universe and our place within it, not as detached observers of a mechanistic world, but as expressions of a living, aware cosmos.

---

## Kak’s Universal Consciousness
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/kak-s-universal-consciousness
Theorists: Subhash Kak

Computer scientist Subhash Kak proposes that consciousness is primary and that the very understanding of physical reality takes place in consciousness. He argues that consciousness cannot be a property of the brain; therefore, it is nonmaterial and transcends materiality. It is like a light that illuminates the physical universe (Kak, 2009, 2023). Although for all practical purposes the physical world and consciousness are complementary, the latter is more fundamental. Moreover, Kak claims that quantum principles should apply to abstractions related to the brain and mind, which he calls quantum neural computing (Kak, 1995). This has led him to propose that brain behavior is associated with three languages: quantum, associative, and reorganizational (Kak, 1996). To Kak, “The mind processes signals coming into the brain to obtain its understanding in the domains of seeing, hearing, touching, and tasting using its store of memories. The cognitive act is an active process where the selectivity of the sensors and the accompanying processing in the brain is organized based on the expectation of the cognitive task and on effort, will, and intention” (Kak, 2009). Consciousness Beyond the Brain There are two essential parts to understanding the universe, Kak contends: “its representation in terms of material objects, and the way this representation changes over time.” In philosophy, he says, “these are the positions of two different schools, one believing that reality is being, and the other that it is becoming. The conception of the world as being is associated with materialism, while that of becoming is associated with idealism. In the materialist view, mental experience is emergent on the material ground, and contents of the mind are secondary to the physical world. Conversely, in the idealist position, consciousness has primacy” (Kak, 2009). Kak stresses, “The question of consciousness is connected to the relationship between brain and mind. Reductionism considers them to be identical—with mind representing the sum of the activity in the brain—at a suitable higher level of representation. Opposed to this is the viewpoint that although mind requires a physical structure, it ends up transcending that structure. Quantum mechanics is relevant, since it is the deepest theory of physics, and it is a theory of observables in which information is the fundamental quantity” (Kak, 2009). “The structure of the inner cosmos belongs to the domain of psychology, but it is fair to assume that at some level it mirrors the outer cosmos. Since quantum theory must ultimately underlie the processes in the inner cosmos, it appears that for the sake of symmetry, it should be possible for consciousness to influence the outer cosmos.” In this view, “consciousness is complementary to space, time and matter, it needs material support to be embodied as ‘awareness.’ Conversely, it is meaningless to speak of a universe without observers” (Kak, 2009). Inner and Outer Cosmos Kak’s position is that “Although the inner cosmos is physically located in the brain, we cannot speak of where in the brain the perceiving self resides because that would amount to a homunculus argument. The perceiving self cannot be in a unique neuron in the brain, because that would require such a neuron to have the capacity to process all the information that the individual possesses, which is clearly impossible for a cellular structure that can only do simple processing. Conversely, if the perceiving self was distributed over an area, then we need to postulate another homunculus within this area to process the information reaching the self.” Thus, Kak concludes, “the conscious self can neither be localized to a single cell, nor assumed to be distributed over the entire brain or a part of it. We cannot speak of where the self is, but only of how the self obtains knowledge. Since the self is associated with the brain, it uses it as the lens through which to perceive the world. Our knowledge of the world is, therefore, contingent on the neurophysiological nature of the brain. If we can make sense of the world, it is because we are biologically programmed to do so, and we have an innate capacity for it. Our conception of the cosmos is based on the relationship between our brain and mind. This idea is expressed in the slogan that the outer is mirrored in the inner.” Elaborating on this idea, Kak speculates that “patterns seen in the outer world characterize the inner world as well” (Kak, 2009). But, he argues, “unlike the computer that only follows the program that has been loaded on it to solve a problem, the mind takes an active role in processing the information received by the senses. Another way this difference may be seen is through the lens of determinism associated with machines and natural processes, whereas free-will is a characteristic of conscious behavior.” He claims, “We are not passive recipients of information; our prior knowledge and beliefs shape how we interpret and understand new information. This is the reason why, unlike the working of a computer, perception and other brain behaviors are imbued with subtle paradoxes. Perception is based both on fragments of the sensory input, and expectations about the data. What we perceive is a creation by the mind based on shades of the sensory input” (Kak, 2025). Mind, Memory, and Free Will Kak’s theory of consciousness is encompassing. The totality of mental phenomena, he says, “includes both conscious and unconscious processes, which can influence an individual without intention or awareness. Some use mind to refer only to cognitive functions associated with perception, reasoning, awareness, and memory, but more broadly it also includes processes like feeling, motivation, and behavior.” Memory, obviously, is essential; Kak describes it as “an active and constructive process based on beliefs, expectations, and experiences, and it changes in each recounting. Memory comes as a whole; it is not constructed out of small fragments that are stitched together. Attention is influenced by goals, motivations, and interests” (Kak, 2025). Kak’s overarching sense is that “consciousness both interpenetrates the physical universe and transcends it. It interacts with materiality by modifying the probabilities associated with physical state transitions” (Kak, 2025).

---

## Goswami’s Self-Aware Universe
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/goswami-s-self-aware-universe
Theorists: Amit Goswami

Quantum physicist Amit Goswami proposes that consciousness, not matter, is the primary “stuff” of creation, and indeed it is consciousness that creates the material world, not the other way around. He uses quantum physics, particularly the Copenhagen interpretation (where an “observer” is required for the collapse of the wave function), to disabuse us of the false notion that matter is simple, solid and foundational. Consciousness, he says, “is the agency that collapses the wave of a quantum object, which exists in potentia, making it an immanent particle in the world of manifestation” (Goswami, 1993; Woronko, 2020). Goswami sees Idealism as not only the most parsimonious theory of consciousness but also mitigating and perhaps solving the famous paradoxes of quantum mechanics, such as entanglement, superposition and non-locality. The key, Goswami offers, is that there is only one consciousness in the universe, one subject of experience, in which we all (somehow) participate. The ego, he says “is constricted consciousness, much like a localized object. You cannot understand consciousness without experiencing expanded states of consciousness.” Consciousness, according to Goswami, plays an active role in constructing physical reality by “choosing” the results of a measurement. He views our mental activities, our thoughts and feelings, as “mental objects” in a sense similar to material objects, subject to the same laws of physics, particularly quantum mechanics. Thus, Goswami envisions the brain, not simply as a passive measuring device that intervenes in the quantum world, but more significantly as an active quantum system that selects and determines which unconscious processes become conscious. Goswami concludes that all creation is interconnected, including us (Goswami, 1993).

---

## Spira’s Non-Duality
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/spira-s-non-duality
Theorists: Rupert Spira

Spiritual teacher (and pottery artist) Rupert Spira espouses non-duality as “the recognition that underlying the multiplicity and diversity of experience there is a single, infinite and indivisible reality, whose nature is pure consciousness from which all objects and selves derive their apparently independent existence.” He states, “The greatest discovery in life is that our essential nature does not share the limits or the destiny of the body and mind” (Section: Spira, n.d.). To Spira, a non-dual understanding addresses two essential questions: one, “How may we be free of suffering and find the lasting peace and happiness for which all people long above all else?”, and two, “What is the nature of reality?” While the first is most meaningful to individuals and to the global community, only the second is relevant for this Landscape. Spira begins his non-dual teaching with an investigation into the essential nature of our self, and it is this “clear knowledge of oneself,” he says, that is also the basis of the second aspect of the non-dual understanding, “namely, the recognition that reality is an infinite, indivisible whole, made of pure consciousness, from which all separate objects and selves borrow their apparently independent existence.” Everything we know or experience, he states, “is mediated through the mind, and therefore, the mind's knowledge of anything can only ever be as good as its knowledge of itself. In order to know what anything truly is—that is, what reality truly is—the mind must first know its own essential nature. Therefore, the investigation into the nature of the mind must be the highest endeavor upon which any mind can embark, and the knowledge of its essence or nature the highest knowledge.” Spira suggests that approaching non-duality as a means of finding an answer to the ultimate question about the nature of reality “is found at the heart of all the great religious and spiritual traditions.” For instance, “In Christianity, it is said, ‘I and my Father are one’. That is, the essence of our self and the ultimate reality of the universe are the same.” Similarly, “in the Sufi tradition, ‘Whosoever knows their self knows their Lord’. That is, whoever knows the essential nature of their self knows the ultimate reality of the universe.” And “in Buddhism, ‘Samsara and Nirvana are one’, meaning the nature of the world and the essence of the mind are identical” (Spira, n.d.).

---

## Nader’s All There Is
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/nader-s-all-there-is
Theorists: Tony Nader

Transcendental Meditation leader (and former neuroscientist) Tony Nader states “there is nothing other than consciousness, and that matter and the multiplicity of loci of consciousness, us, for one, are nothing but consciousness experiencing itself from limited perspectives that hide the true nature of both the observer and the observed.” In a world of an infinite number of simultaneously existing possibilities, Nader says “one fact seems undeniable: the fact of our own awareness … Commonly, this awareness is called consciousness: the observer, the witness, the experiencer” (Nader, n.d.). Nader states formally, “Consciousness is all there is and does not create anything physical outside itself; matter is real only in terms of consciousness or as an appearance within consciousness.” While “Consciousness is all there is” and “Consciousness is One” are his foundation, Nader acknowledges that “there are different kinds of consciousness: different flavors, states, levels, and so on. The only way for these two statements to be simultaneously true, he says, is that the one Consciousness has different flavors, states, and experiences of itself” (Nader, 2015). Consciousness as All and One While acknowledging that other Idealism theorists suggest similar, Nader differentiates his approach by providing “a carefully constructed and cogent model for how those limited perspectives in all their subjective richness emerge within the singularity of consciousness.” He claims “a monistic field theory of consciousness” as the most primordial field, which then can “potentially solve enduring problems in other fields, including quantum field theory and the psychology of higher states of consciousness” (Nader, n.d.). Mathematical Framework and Observer Triples Nader's distinguishing proposal is to place consciousness “in a mathematical framework by introducing fundamental axioms that are motivated by the experience and dynamics of consciousness.” By systematizing how human awareness perceives, discriminates, organizes, and expresses its own patterns of functioning, mathematical methods and mathematical modeling provide “one of the most useful and scientifically manageable methods to study the interface between consciousness and physical phenomena.” Mathematics is seen as “the precise abstract representation of consciousness at work.” Nader claims “to test the reasonableness of these axioms in two ways: by deriving consequences from the axioms and comparing these consequences to our experience of the world, and by verifying that heretofore unsolved problems can be resolved with this new paradigm.” In particular, he ambitiously addresses how the physical universe emerges from consciousness. Nader introduces “the notion of a Bit of Consciousness as a triple of particular values of Observerhood, Observinghood, and Observedhood,” with the understanding that “nothing can be said to be real unless it is a triple with none of its components equal to 0. In other words, real existence requires an observer, a process of observation, and an observed” (Nader, 2015). In Nader's consciousness model, it is not non-localized or localized objects that are the issue. Rather, it is the idea of the very existence of objects as entities independent of Consciousness that is the root of the problem. In his model, nothing exists outside the realm of observer, observed, and process of observation (Nader, 2015).

---

## Ward’s Personal Idealism: Souls as Embodied Agents Created by God
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/ward-s-personal-idealism-souls-as-embodied-agents-created-by-god
Theorists: Keith Ward

Philosopher-theologian Keith Ward's “personal idealism” integrates his philosophical convictions about consciousness and souls, idealism in Eastern traditions, and his Christian faith (Ward, 2022). It's a heady brew. Ward describes souls as “the embodied agents which are created by God.” To build his case, he cites the “huge gap in modern culture between neurophysiologists and old-fashioned philosophers” (musing, “We thought we were very trendy in our time”). It's a fundamental, philosophical divide, he says, and from his perspective, he begins from consciousness, puts consciousness first, because “this is where all knowledge starts … your starting point is perception, a set of perceptions, a set of concepts. And from that, you build up a picture of what the world is like” (Ward, 2006). Ward stresses “you can never get rid of consciousness.” He is firm: “From where I sit, I can just say whatever view you come up with, consciousness is not reducible to particles which are publicly observable in space and time.” He is adamant: “I will just not give way on this—because it seems to me so obvious; I don't see how anyone can deny it.” Responding to questions about the putative illusion of conscious unity, Ward is dismissive (politely): “You're inventing a problem.” Consciousness as Irreducible Ward's idealism surfaces when contrasting dualism. His claim, even for explaining Descartes, is not that mind and body/brain are separate substances that must somehow interact, but rather are subject and object, the thinker and perceiver as the subject who is aware of its perceptions and which is engaged in having its thoughts. “What you've got is a subject thinking. The subject is not a different substance.” Embodiment and the Soul Ward then rationalizes his idealism. “The whole world is actually a construct with perceptions and feelings and thoughts. But the agent who is having these perceptions, the perceiver, the thinker, is not another thing somewhere. So, subjects and objects are always together. There's no subject without an object. There's no mind without some objectivity, some environment in which it's embodied. That's why I see embodiment as an essential part of mentality, and of being a person. When you're talking about the mind, you're talking about a subject, an embodied subject, who nevertheless is not to be identified simply by physical facts which are publicly observable. I think that's what the soul is: An embodied subject of intellectual and moral agency” (Ward, 2006).

---

## Albahari’s Perennial Idealism
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/albahari-s-perennial-idealism
Theorists: Miri Albahari

Comparative philosopher Miri Albahari defends “Perennial Idealism” as a mystical solution to the mind-body problem. She faces the “vicious dilemma” of subjects arising from unconditioned consciousness. “If the manifest world of subjects is real, it irrevocably undercuts the purely unconditioned nature of the ground by imposing boundaries between subjects and the ground. If only the ground is real, we have the seemingly absurd consequence of denying reality to what seems undeniably existent.” She finds resources in the modern mystic, Sri Ramana Maharshi, who was recorded as saying, “Nothing exists except the one reality … The one unity alone exists ever. To such as find it difficult to grasp this truth and who ask, ‘How can we ignore this solid world we see all around us?’ the dream experience is pointed out and they are told, ‘All that you see depends on the seer. Apart from the seer, there is no seen.’” (Ramana is expressing what is known in Advaita Vedanta as the ajāta doctrine, which means “not created, not caused.”) (Albahari, 2019a). Mystical Ground and the Seer Albahari takes as evidence “first-person accounts from people who claim to have experienced and indeed permanently established themselves in aperspectival or nondual consciousness,” mystics from across traditions and centuries who came to believe that they “have directly ‘awoken’ to their abiding nature as aperspectival consciousness, realizing it to be none other than the ultimate ground of what we take to be the world.” The “central metaphysical content of this allegedly recurring insight” has been termed by Aldous Huxley and others “Perennial Philosophy” (Huxley, 1946), from which Albahari's “Perennial Idealism” denotes its philosophical parentage (Albahari, 2019a). Beyond Cosmopsychism Albahari posits her Perennial Idealism as “a radical new successor to Cosmopsychism,” which, erroneously, she argues, “takes the entire externally specified cosmos to be an internally conscious subject.” This brings “serious troubles for Cosmopsychism,” which not only “typically casts the entire cosmos as a conscious subject” but also “in turn grounds the consciousness of subjects such as ourselves” (Albahari, 2019b). The most promising way forward in the mind-body problem, she argues “is to renounce the pervasive panpsychist supposition that fundamental consciousness must belong to a subject. This extends the reach and scope of consciousness to ground not merely to the inner nature of the cosmos, but everything we take to be the world, with its subjects and objects” (Albahari, 2019a). This, Albahari concludes, “offers a framework for thinking about how the world could be grounded in a universal consciousness which, following Advaita Vedanta and the ‘Perennial Philosophy’, is not structured by subject or object” (Albahari, 2019b).

---

## Builes’s Modal Idealism
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/builes-modal-idealism
Theorists: David Builes

Philosopher David Builes argues for a thesis that goes even beyond Idealism, which is the view that “every fundamental entity is conscious, and moreover every fundamental property is a phenomenal property (i.e., a property that specifies what it’s like to be something).” Builes makes the claim that “it is metaphysically necessary that Idealism is true,” a startlingly radical position he calls Modal Idealism (Builes, 2024). Building his metaphysical argument on a far-reaching reinterpretation of the ontology of possible worlds, Builes asserts that only one possible world exists in a fundamental sense, and all other possible worlds exist as ideas in the mind of a divine being (or a structurally similar ideal observer). This theory combines a respect for elements of idealism (the view that reality is fundamentally mental) and for modal realism (the view that other possible worlds are as real as the actual world), but reconceives possible worlds as divine thoughts, not concrete entities. He writes, “All possible worlds exist, but only one world is fundamental. The other possible worlds exist as thoughts in the mind of a divine being” (Builes, 2024). Possible Worlds as Divine Thoughts Builes gives four different arguments for Modal Idealism. He writes, “First, I argue that, if at least some possible fundamental properties are phenomenal properties, then the denial of Modal Idealism leads to implausible brute necessities. Second, I argue that those who endorse the Eleatic Principle, according to which it is necessary that all concrete objects have causal powers, should endorse Modal Idealism. Third, I argue that Modal Idealism helps us secure our knowledge of our own conscious states in the face of influential “debunking” arguments. Fourth, I argue that Modal Idealism is theoretically fruitful: it allows us to make substantial progress on several perennial metaphysical debates beyond the philosophy of mind” (Builes, 2024). Arguments and Implications The claim is that Builes’s Modal Idealism maintains ontological parsimony: only one world is metaphysically fundamental, while all possible worlds are intentional objects in the mind of a divine intellect, whose mind is rich enough to contain precise, structured representations of all possible worlds. He says, “All the other possible worlds exist, but they do so in virtue of being represented by a mental being.” Builes argues that Modal Idealism “…offers an elegant unification of modal metaphysics and philosophy of mind.” It reframes modal truths as mental representations, allowing for a streamlined and potentially theistic-compatible ontology that treats modality as a matter of divine will or cognition. A corollary is the need for grounding. The actual world’s existence is ungrounded; it is fundamental—whereas the existence of non-actual possible worlds is grounded in the mental activity of this ideal observer, the divine presence.

---

## Yetter-Chappell’s Non-Theistic Idealism
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/yetter-chappell-s-non-theistic-idealism
Theorists: Helen Yetter-Chappell

Philosopher Helen Yetter-Chappell’s theory of consciousness integrates epiphenomenalist dualism with a non-theistic form of idealism. Her work challenges conventional physicalist and non-physicalist perspectives by proposing that consciousness is both fundamental and causally inert, yet central to the fabric of reality, a counterintuitive combination. She does this, she says, “by developing a new quasi-Berkeleyan realist idealism, which does not depend upon God to do the metaphysical heavy lifting. This non-theistic idealism requires a fresh approach to the persistence and stability of the physical world” (Yetter-Chappell, 2025). Yetter-Chappell defends epiphenomenalist dualism, the view that while physical processes in the brain give rise to conscious experiences, these experiences do not exert causal influence on the physical world. She argues that our behaviors and actions can be fully explained by physical processes alone, rendering consciousness as a byproduct without causal efficacy. This stance must address the “paradox of phenomenal judgment,” which questions how we can have knowledge of our conscious experiences if they lack causal power. Yetter-Chappell contends that the paradox arises only when epiphenomenalist dualism is inconsistently combined with a physicalist conception of the self. By fully embracing dualism, she argues, we can coherently account for phenomenal self-knowledge without invoking causal interaction between consciousness and the physical world (Yetter-Chappell, 2022). Epiphenomenalism and Self-Knowledge Building upon her dualist framework, Yetter-Chappell explores a non-theistic (quasi-Berkeleyan) idealism, positing that reality is fundamentally composed of conscious experiences. She proposes that by removing the theistic elements from Berkeley's idealism, we arrive at a view where the world is a vast unity of consciousness. This unity weaves together sensory experiences—colors, shapes, sounds—into the fabric of reality, governed by laws analogous to those in materialist metaphysics (Yetter-Chappell, 2017). Here's Yetter-Chappell’s argument. She says, “There must be something outside of us that can sustain objects when we are not perceiving them, and account for the regularity of our perceptions. But this needn’t be a god in any recognizable sense. It need not be omnibenevolent, omnipotent, or omniscient. There is no reason it must contain desires, intentions, or beliefs, or even be an agent. What’s crucial for ensuring the persistence and stability of the cake closed in my fridge is simply that there be a unified experience that encompasses all aspects of it. When we peel away all the attributes of God that aren’t essential for these purposes, we’re left with a simpler and more intelligible metaphysical picture. On the resulting view, reality is a vast unity of conscious experiences, that binds together experiences as of every object from every perspective: a ‘tapestry’ woven out of experiential ‘threads’” (Yetter-Chappell, 2025). A Unity of Conscious Experiences She claims that her worldview has the virtue that “we are in direct epistemic contact with reality, the world fundamentally is as it appears, and reality’s intrinsic nature is ultimately intelligible.” Contrary to naïve realists, she argues that “direct acquaintance with reality is only intelligible if reality is fundamentally phenomenal.” Thus, she continues, “idealism offers a uniquely optimistic account of our place within, and our ability to comprehend, reality” (Yetter-Chappell, 2025). Yetter-Chappell's idealism maintains that our perceptions are not mere representations but are direct overlaps with the universal consciousness that constitutes reality. This perspective offers a unique account of perception, aligning with direct realist intuitions by suggesting that our experiences are literal constituents of the world (Yetter-Chappell, 2025). Reconciling Dualism and Idealism At first glance, combining epiphenomenalist dualism with idealism may seem contradictory. However, Yetter-Chappell reconciles these views by proposing that while individual conscious experiences are causally inert, they are integral parts of the overarching conscious reality. In this framework, consciousness does not influence physical events but is the very substance of reality itself (Yetter-Chappell, 2022). Yetter-Chappell’s synthesis empowers a reality where consciousness is both non-causal at the individual level and foundational at the universal level. It challenges the traditional materialist view by placing consciousness at the core of existence, not as an emergent property but as the fundamental constituent of all that is.

---

## Arendsen’s Complex Idealism
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/arendsen-s-complex-idealism
Theorists: Albert R.J. (Richard) Arendsen

Chemical engineer/computational modeling expert Albert R.J. (Richard) Arendsen’s theory of Complex Idealism posits that reality is fundamentally a continuous, mental, and informational flow of duration. He states that consciousness is an “unsplittable unity” that cannot be modeled computationally, while providing a precise mathematical framework for its systemic communication and physical actuation. Rather than viewing consciousness as an emergent property of material structures or as a passive substance, Arendsen’s framework asserts the ontological primacy of a primary, continuous mental mobility. Within this framework, the descriptor "Complex" signifies the dual-aspect architecture of existence, explicitly accounting for the structural intersection of what we conventionally categorize as "real" and "imaginary" domains (Arendsen, 2026a, 2026b, 2026c). Arendsen argues that most contemporary models of mind fall into the trap of "spatializing" time—treating both the brain and the universe as discrete computing mechanisms that process static, successive states. Complex Idealism turns this perspective upside down, demonstrating that the measured physical universe is not the generator of experience, but rather a secondary, frozen snapshot precipitated out of an underlying, continuous informational flow. Unsplittable Unity A central tenet of Complex Idealism is that consciousness is an indivisible, qualitative whole. Consequently, constructing a functional or algorithmic model of consciousness itself is fundamentally impossible; the universe and the biological brain do not compute consciousness because consciousness is not a computational output. To map the boundary between the experiential and the material, the theory distinguishes strictly between human intuition and intelligence: Intuition is recognized as non-numerable and continuous, capturing reality in its immediate, flowing state of duration. Intelligence is defined as the specific cognitive faculty of labeling and counting. It operates by slicing the continuous flow of duration into discrete, quantifiable past events for the primary purposes of utility, communication, and social coordination. By acknowledging these boundaries, Complex Idealism pivots away from traditional computationalism and functionalism. It is explicitly framed not as an elusive model of the conscious generator or regularizer itself, but as a rigorous model of communication and actuation—the exact interface where the unsplittable unity of mental flow manifests as discrete, measurable physical events. Metaphysical Orthogonality: Alignment and Divergence To position Complex Idealism within the contemporary philosophical landscape, Arendsen grounds its ontology in process philosophy, drawing deep inspiration from the work of Henri Bergson (Bergson, 1889). Arendsen’s framework adopts the Bergsonian critique of modern science's tendency to eliminate genuine mobility from motion. By representing time as a succession of static, spatialized coordinates on a linear axis, traditional physics mistakes a trajectory—the frozen trail left behind by movement—for the act of moving itself. Complex Idealism re-establishes time as duration, an indivisible, qualitative flow that cannot be reduced to a collection of discrete, static snapshots. This emphasis on the absolute reality of flow creates a strict, orthogonal contrast with contemporary Analytic Idealism, most notably articulated by Bernardo Kastrup. While both frameworks reject materialist physicalism and agree that reality is fundamentally mental, they diverge entirely on the nature of time. Analytic Idealism posits a fundamentally timeless, spatially unified cosmic consciousness, viewing the flow of time and the passage of events as artifacts of a localized ego's perspective—essentially, an illusion. Complex Idealism stands in direct opposition to this view: flow is not an illusion; it is the fundamental fabric of reality itself. In this framework, it is the timeless, static space and the discrete, isolated objects within it that constitute the abstraction. Spatialized matter is the secondary byproduct generated when the primary mental flow is measured and counted. Consequently, while Analytic Idealism treats change as an appearance within a static cosmic mind, Complex Idealism treats static physical structures as localized, frozen stability boundaries precipitated by a primary, universal mobility. Crucially, this ontology directly addresses the existential dimension of eternity: because the conscious observer is fundamentally an expression of this primary, continuous duration, physical mortality is revealed to be merely a secondary, frozen abstraction of measurement, meaning the perceiving being is never denied the eternity it experiences (Arendsen, 2026a, 2026b, 2026c). The Mathematical Architecture of Actuation To bridge the gap between primary metaphysical flow and the discrete observations of empirical science, Complex Idealism claims to provide a rigorous, formal translation layer. This mathematical framework demonstrates how the continuous, undivided flow of duration is structurally registered and transformed into the stable physical phenomena observed in our universe. This bridge is built upon two core mathematical architectures: the Sensory Complex Features Model (SCFM) and the Generative Universal Transformers (GUT) operator mechanics. The Sensory Complex Features Model (SCFM) (Arendsen, 2025) describes the process by which qualitative, continuous mental flow is structurally mapped into localized, complex informational feature sets. Rather than treating sensory data as a passive projection of an external material world, the SCFM models it as an active geometric registration of duration. The operational grammar of this registration is governed by the Generative Universal Transformers (GUT) (Arendsen, 2026a). Utilizing the formalisms of linear algebra, the GUT models the boundary layer of actuation through active 2x2 matrix rotations and Kronecker products. While the 2x2 matrix rotations represent dynamic, continuous shifts in phase, the Kronecker products provide the mathematical mechanism for the recursive, high-dimensional scaling of these informational structures. To anchor this computational grammar within the domain of fundamental physics, Complex Idealism projects these transformations onto a 4D orthogonal phase space. This phase space is constructed not from arbitrary material coordinates, but from four foundational universal invariants: Action (h); Velocity (c); Frequency (ν); Charge (e). To account for the simultaneous split of the four invariant axes, a quaternionic representation of the phase space is introduced (Arendsen, 2026d). This transition allows the observer to map the interaction not as a sequence of isolated projections, but as a unified 4D rotation within a rational field. According to Arendsen, within this 4D orthogonal phase space, the primary actuation impulse undergoes a precise geometric split driven by active phase rotations. This process precipitates the fluid, continuous duration into localized, stable, and recursive timeless movements. It is these recursive movements that function as the structural placeholders observed by physical science, manifesting as the discrete particles, fields, and deterministic laws of the measurable physical universe. Physics, therefore, does not contradict this idealist ontology; rather, the mathematical laws of quantum mechanics and electromagnetism naturally emerge as the secondary, frozen footprints of a primary informational flow (Arendsen, 2026a, 2026b, 2026c). Implications for Consciousness Arendsen asserts that Complex Idealism introduces a radical reclassification of the "explanatory gap" within contemporary consciousness studies. Traditional physicalist and functionalist paradigms fail to solve the hard problem of relating mental states to physical states because they attempt to derive qualitative experience from manipulating quantitative, spatialized matter. By shifting the foundational premise from computation to communication, he has Complex Idealism bypassing this conceptual impasse. It demonstrates that the mathematical laws of physics naturally precipitate from a primary informational flow, meaning the physical universe does not generate consciousness but rather serves as the expressive medium through which an underlying, unsplittable mental unity interacts with itself. According to Arendsen, within the broader Landscape of Consciousness (Kuhn, 2024), this Complex Idealism framework provides a vital alternative to both reductive physicalism and static varieties of idealism. It satisfies the scientific demand for structural precision by offering a concrete mathematical grammar—governed by universal invariants and active phase rotations—while simultaneously preserving the indivisible, continuous nature of subjective duration. By defining the brain not as a computer generating consciousness, but as a specialized generator or regularizer slicing continuous flow into discrete communicative signals, Complex Idealism offers a sophisticated, mathematically robust bridge between the immediate data of intuition and the structured observations of empirical science. References Arendsen, A. R. J. (2026a). The Generative Universal Transformers of Complex Idealism: Metaphysical Model. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/404455471_The_Generative_Universal_Transformers_of_Complex_Idealism_Metaphysical_Model Arendsen, A. R. J. (2026b). The Grand Phase Architecture of the New SI Units: Structural Placeholders and Active Rotations in Complex Idealism.https://www.researchgate.net/publication/405192263_The_Grand_Phase_Architecture_of_the_New_SI_Units_Structural_Placeholders_and_Active_Rotations_in_Complex_Idealism. Arendsen, A. R. J. (2026c). The Actuation Impulse of Complex Idealism: How the Measured Universe Splits into Recursive Timeless Movements. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/405473400_The_Actuation_Impulse_of_Complex_Idealism_How_the_Measured_Universe_Splits_into_Recursive_Timeless_Movements. Arendsen, A. R. J. (2026d). The Quaternionic Split: How 4D Rational Rotations Apportion the Indivisible Continuum of Complex Idealism. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/406067833_The_Quaternionic_Split_How_4D_Rational_Rotations_Apportion_the_Indivisible_Continuum_of_Complex_Idealism Arendsen, A. R. J. (2025). The Sensory Complex Features Model of Complex Idealism in a Flash. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/389039519_The_Sensory_Complex_Features_Model_of_Complex_Idealism_in_a_Flash. Bergson, H. (1889). Time and Free Will: An Essay on the Immediate Data of Consciousness. London: George Allen & Unwin. Kuhn, R. L. (2024). A landscape of consciousness: Toward a taxonomy of explanations and implications. Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology, 190, 28-169.

---

## Richheimer’s Ground Substance of Creation
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/richheimer-s-ground-substance-of-creation
Theorists: Steven Richheimer

Scientist and spiritual aspirant Steven Richheimer posits that consciousness is the fundamental and ubiquitous feature of reality. He envisions a cosmic cycle in which consciousness is transformed first into “cosmic mind” and then into the material world. When conditions on a planet allow it, living organisms can arise and evolve as they increasingly reflect the three layers of cosmic mind (objective mind, I do, and I am). Eventually sentient beings may evolve that strive to complete the creation cycle by becoming one with Cosmic Consciousness (Richheimer, 2025a, 2025b). Richheimer says that unlike materialism, which can be described as a “bottom-up” theory of reality, the idea that consciousness is the “ground substance of creation” can be termed a “top-down” ontology. He says that from a blank slate perspective either model of reality—materialism or spirituality, could be correct. To decide which is more plausible, “we need to consider the credences that support one theory of reality vs. the other.” This is where, he argues, “the spiritual model has the overwhelming advantage. It explains almost all the mysterious phenomena that scientific materialism struggles to explain, ignores or denies.” Top-Down Ontology Richheimer attempts to detail the evidence supporting the idea that consciousness is fundamental in his book, The Logic of the Spiritual Worldview: How the Idea that Consciousness is the Ground Substance of Creation Explains just about Everything. He admittedly starts with the assumption that the spiritual worldview is correct, and then tries to show that many of the mysteries and questions about the nature of the physical world and human experience can be explained in a scientific and logical manner by using this model of reality (trying to avoid circular reasoning). He claims that the “scientific evidence and logical arguments he presents indicate that the spiritual worldview is a better model of reality than materialism.” It provides, he says, “an explanation for the nonlocality and entangled nature of the quantum realm and why it appears that we actively participate in how reality emerges from this subtle domain. It also explains the counterintuitive aspects of relativity theory such as why there is a speed limit for light and why this theory says that our experience of the flow of time is illusory.” Moreover, Richheimer claims that “the model provides a rational explanation for psi phenomena, reincarnation memories, mystical, out-of-body, and near-death experiences as well as how mental state can affect physiological changes in the body—all phenomena that materialism avoids addressing” (Richheimer, 2025a). From Consciousness to Matter In addition, he says that this model of reality explains in a logical manner how consciousness is transformed into the material world, how incredible complex living organisms arise from nonliving matter, and why evolution appears to be teleological and gives rise to sentient beings who then seek to become one with Cosmic Consciousness. Furthermore, Richheimer says this model offers a solution to the "hard problem of consciousness," which asks how subjective experience arises from physical matter, and why we have a unified sense of self. By describing how consciousness is transformed into the material world, he says this model dissolves the traditional dualism between mind and matter, and offers a unified reality where consciousness and the physical world are intrinsically linked. The model describes a universe that has inherent meaning and purpose, rooted in our desire to reunite with Cosmic Consciousness. It describes a universe that is whole, in which the “parts” we commonly observe emerge from a hidden transcendent reality—cosmic mind and ultimately Cosmic Consciousness. He claims that the spiritual worldview offers a new model for how human society can progress in the future (Richheimer, 2025a, 2025b).

---

## Meijer’s Universal Knowledge Field
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/meijer-s-universal-knowledge-field
Theorists: Dirk K. F. Meijer

Biomedical scientist Dirk K. F. Meijer explains consciousness in the context of a “Universal Knowledge Field” (UKF), the concept that a collective storage of all information that is present and/or evolves in our universe can take on a universal character and that all information is present in a general knowledge field. Other names for the UKF, he says, include Universal Consciousness, Cosmic Consciousness, Universal Mind, Universal Memory, Universal Intelligence, Holographic Memory, Collective Consciousness, Implicate Order, and the Plenum. The UKF is said to be consistent with fundamental physics, cosmological, and holographic models. In addition, universal consciousness can be approached from transcendental human experience, including transpersonal and psi phenomena (Meijer, 2018). Universal Knowledge Field Meijer claims that integral information processing in the universe is based on a generalized musical-scale of discrete electromagnetic field (EMF) frequencies and that the biophysics literature reports the effects of similar EMF frequency patterns in a wide range of animate and non-animate systems. This provides a conceptual bridge between living and non-living systems, relevant for biophysics, brain research, and biological evolution. He proposes that the pro-life EMF frequency bands may literally act in concert as a “tonal octave-based symphony” to provide living systems, including the brain, with information embedded in such harmonic-like resonance patterns. Such “tonal” projections, in a global manner, may organize synchronicity, both spatially and temporally, in essential organs in the body: heart and brain (Meijer et al., 2020, pp. 1–31). Thus, if nature is guided by “a discrete pattern of harmonic solitonic waves,” since the whole human organism, including brain, is embedded in this dynamic energy field, a comprehensive model for human (self-) consciousness could be conceived. This implies an intrinsic cosmic connectivity that is mirrored in the human brain. An assumed “hydrodynamic superfluid background field” is proposed to guide the ongoing fabric of reality through a “quantum metalanguage” that is instrumental in the manifestation of universal consciousness, of which human consciousness is an integral part (Meijer et al., 2020, pp. 72–107). Brain, Field, and Consciousness Meijer proposes a “pilot-wave-guided supervenience” of brain function that may arise from a “holofractal memory workspace” associated with, but not reducible to, the brain, which operates as a scale-invariant mental attribute of reality. This field-receptive workspace integrates past and (anticipated) future events and may explain overall ultra-rapid brain responses, as well as the origin of qualia (Meijer et al., 2020, pp. 31–71).

---

## Samarawickrama’s Fundamental, Frequency-Bearing Field
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/samarawickrama-s-consciousness-as-fundamental-a-frequency-bearing-field
Theorists: Mahendra Samarawickrama

Computer/AI scientist Mahendra Samarawickrama posits that consciousness is a fundamental dimension of reality that brings experience prior to cognition or analysis, constructing knowledge, logic, or language. Within this framework, consciousness and its concomitants (e.g., feeling, perception, volition, attention, etc.) are attributed to the individual mind as a primary phenomenon. Consequently, knowledge emerges as a secondary construct of consciousness. Consciousness is directly experiential and independent of the brain’s cognitive, analytical, logical, or linguistic processes. This foundational layer of awareness underlies all knowledge constructs and can be experienced through meditation. During meditation, suspending external sensory input and internal brain cognition allows for direct confirmation of conscious experience. Consciousness as a Frequency-Based Field Samarawickrama claims that this framework unifies Einstein’s mass-energy equivalence (E=MC²) and Planck’s energy-frequency relation (E=hf) by attributing a frequency-based field to consciousness (Samarawickrama, 2023). Consciousness is modeled as a sequential process governed by a fundamental frequency, where the corresponding period defines the minimum experiential unit of non-homogeneity and change, underpinning the notion of space and time, respectively. By modeling consciousness as a frequency-bearing field, the framework allows an interplay between photon energy and the kinetic and potential energies of mass. This enables an integrated model where consciousness interplays with energy and matter, thereby aligning experiential phenomena with established fundamental physical laws. Importantly, this approach preserves the core principles of fundamental physics while extending its applicability to the domain of subjective experience. Hidden Variables and the Primion This research models the experience of sequential consciousness as a chaotic process characterized by causality, determinism, and unpredictability—instead of a randomness that underpins quantum mechanics. In contrast to interpretations in mainstream quantum physics, where randomness is treated as intrinsic, this framework introduces hidden variables that remain inaccessible to the material domain yet are experientially accessible within the non-material domain of consciousness. Samarawickrama introduces a “consciousness particle” into the standard model, which he calls a “primion” (Samarawickrama, 2024a), which underpins hidden variables. Since these non-material hidden variables cannot be revealed through conventional physical means, they can be considered unknown, which thereby keeps this framework consistent with the established principles of quantum mechanics. However, this model extends physical theory into the experiential domain by positing consciousness as a non-local phenomenon grounded in a hidden but coherent causal structure. This approach provides a new perspective for reconciling the apparent randomness of quantum mechanics with the continuity of conscious experience, supporting the integration of non-locality within a broader ontological framework. This framework of consciousness creates integrity between local and non-local realities. The model suggests that the foundational physical theories of relativity and quantum mechanics inherently preserve the integrity of conscious experience (Samarawickrama, 2024b). By proposing that consciousness interplays with matter and energy (Samarawickrama, 2023), he argues that the fundamental behavior of physical systems, such as the principle of least action, maintains integrity with conscious experience that underpins both local and non-local realities. Therefore, consciousness works as the causation of all experiences and knowledge. According to the theory, consciousness underpinning fundamental experience is inherently complete and decidable, devoid of logical, linguistic, or syntactic structures. Attempts to formalize or describe consciousness through language inevitably introduce incompleteness and undecidability, as articulated by Gödel's incompleteness theorems. The semantic richness of conscious experience resists full encapsulation by syntactic systems, thereby exposing a fundamental limitation within all formal knowledge frameworks, including those of mathematics and science. To model this dynamic, consciousness is conceptualized as a sequential, chaotic finite-state machine (FSM) that operates in two distinct modes (Samarawickrama, 2024c, 2024d). The self-referential mode gives rise to secondary constructs such as language, logic, and all forms of knowledge and is inherently incomplete and undecidable, aligning with Gödelian constraints. In contrast, the non-referential mode offers direct awareness of causation in reality, rendering it complete and decidable. This latter mode transcends the limitations imposed by Gödel’s theorems, enabling access to a deeper stratum of awareness beyond formal epistemic systems. Implications for Free Will, Science, and AI The non-referential mode of consciousness has significant implications for the philosophy of science. Firstly, it supports momentary autonomous free will based on the awareness of causation in the state transition of reality from moment to moment, even if chaotic non-referential dynamics do not allow analytical free will to directly influence the future. Nevertheless, the persistence of moment-to-moment free will might endure over time. Secondly, recognizing that consciousness awareness is complete and decidable at the fundamental experience opens pathways for exploring psychological abilities that mainstream science often categorizes as supernormal or anomalous. This framework claims to present a unique philosophical model that diverges from traditional doctrines such as physicalism, idealism, and Kantian philosophy (Samarawickrama, 2024e). It proposes that reality is neither fully confined by material or immaterial constraints nor exists as an inaccessible noumenon. Instead, it is underpinned by consciousness manifesting both material and immaterial perception—completely experiential through the mind yet remaining inexpressible through language, conceptual knowledge, and analytical means. Samarawickrama asserts that this framework facilitates the convergence of quantum mechanics, relativity, neuroscience, and artificial intelligence (AI) by positioning consciousness as a central intersecting concept (Samarawickrama, 2024f). Thus, he claims to unify physics and experience, going beyond Gödel, space-time, and quantum indeterminacy. While rejecting the idea that AI can ever become conscious solely through computational or material processes, this framework supports the development of embodied consciousness in future AI systems through a human-in-the-loop approach, such as human-machine interfaces. This perspective is especially significant for AI ethics and governance, where Samarawickrama’s framework asserts that consciousness—underpinning accountability—transcends the bounds of logic, language, and computation, to which AI remains fundamentally confined. Moving beyond purely computational data-driven methods, the framework advocates for interfacing AI with living organisms (e.g., the brain or organoids) that exhibit key attributes of consciousness—such as feeling, volition, perception, and attention—thereby enabling the design of consciousness-aware AI systems that integrate elements of immaterial consciousness.

---

## Vișan’s Self-Reference
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/visan-s-self-reference
Theorists: Cosmin Vișan

Physicist and independent researcher Cosmin Vișan proposes that self-reference, looking-back-at-itself, is the foundation of the structure and of the qualities of phenomenal consciousness within an idealist worldview (Vișan, 2023a, 2023b, 2025). The Structure of Qualia His theory starts from noticing that qualia have structure: a chair is a compound quale, being made up of shapes, colors, etc. Then, upon careful reflection, we realize that these qualities are structured on levels. For example, on the visual domain, we have: black-and-white → shades-of-gray → colors → shapes → objects → full visual scene. And these levels present an inclusion and transcendence structure that is deduced from how each level looks like: shades-of-gray look like black-and-white, but they have something extra; colors, like green that fluctuates from dark green to light green, include shades-of-gray, but they have something extra; objects include shapes, but they have something extra. In the case of objects-qualia, take as an example the duck-rabbit: both the duck and the rabbit include the same shape, but they both transcend it by bringing something extra, thus leading to the distinct qualities of experiencing either a duck or a rabbit. This structuring of qualia on levels happens in all domains: language includes and transcends sounds, the taste of chocolate includes and transcends sweet, etc. Self-Reference as the Basis of Consciousness Having the phenomenology of qualia, the next step is to explain it. Vișan does this by noticing that all qualia are ‘me.’ As such, it is not that colors include and transcend shades-of-gray, but me in the form of colors include and transcend myself in the form of shades-of-gray. As such, I include and transcend myself. Thus, he arrives at the entity that lies at the base of consciousness: self-reference. Self-reference is the entity with the property of looking-back-at-itself. By doing this, self-reference includes and transcends itself. As an example, the first look-back-at-itself creates the level “I am.” The next look-back-at-itself creates the level “I am ‘I am,’” which includes the previous level “I am,” while at the same time transcending it. Thus, self-reference displays the same phenomenology as qualia, Vișan argues, thus being able to explain the structuring of qualia on levels. Qualia, Meaning, and Consciousness as All There Is The second part that needs to be explained are the qualities themselves: Why does red look red? Why does green look green? This comes from noticing that the pair of opposite colors, red-green, appears in nature in the case of fruits in trees. Thus, red means “important,” and green means “the opposite of red,” green appearing for leaves in order to maximally contrast with the red for fruits in order to help the animal spot the fruits in trees. The same argument for the pair of opposite colors, yellow-blue, that appears for the Sun in the sky. Thus, Vișan posits that qualia are not random, but they are meaning, the qualities that they have being determined by the meanings that they have. Thus, what needs to be explained is the nature of meaning. This is also done by self-reference, by noticing that when self-reference looks-back-at-itself, it must see itself under a particular form. This form must be justified according to some reason. Thus, the form that self-reference sees itself under is determined by the meaning through which it is obtained. For example, the first form “I am”, because it is obtained as self-reference, first notices itself, acquires the quality of the sensation of being alive. Subsequent forms, like “I am ‘I am’” or “I am <‘I am’ & ‘I am “I am”’>” acquire particular qualities, like Vividness and Diversity, that are explored at length in his paper “How Self-Reference Builds the World” (Vișan, 2023a, 2023b). Based on this notion of self-reference, Vișan argues that consciousness is all there is. He says that “because self-reference is looking-back-at-itself, by logical necessity, this produces only forms/qualities, thus qualia. No 3rd person entity can be produced. Self-reference is not a higher-order property of a system but is the very nature of reality. It is not something instantiated by a system, but is the one that instantiates systems. It is not created; it is the one that does the creating. Self-reference is a logically necessary entity. As such, by logical necessity, self-reference creates consciousness through its very definition of looking-back-at-itself” (Vișan, 2025). In this way, Vișan explains why his self-reference differs from that of Douglas Hofstadter. According to Vișan, Hofstadter is saying that the atoms in our brain create some self-referential loop. But it is not clear how such a thing can be realized, or even what exactly it might mean: how can an atom from one part of the brain be in a “self”-relation with another atom from the brain? The very definition of “self” must be about itself, not about another. Vișan says that the self-reference mechanism envisioned by Douglas is not clear, whereas in Vișan's own theory, he says, self-reference is there from the beginning, out of logical necessity, and it is the one in relation to itself; it doesn't need an another (Vișan, 2025). As such, Vișan contends that his theory of self-reference is able to account for both the structuring of qualia on levels and for the qualities themselves. Thus, he concludes that self-reference is able to explain qualia within an idealism worldview (Vișan, 2023a, 2023b).

---

## Pulido-Moyano’s Consciousness Endomitosis Theory
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/pulido-moyano-s-consciousness-endomitosis-theory
Theorists: Rafael Pulido-Moyano

Rafael Pulido-Moyano’s Consciousness Endomitosis Theory (CET) offers a vision rooted in the non-dualist metaphysical tradition of Advaita Vedānta, reinterpreted through a contemporary philosophical and cosmological lens. The claim is that CET bridges spirituality and physics, proposing a unified vision where Consciousness is foundational to reality. Reality unfolds through a process of recursive self-division and self-recognition akin to cellular mitosis—but occurring within and by Consciousness itself. Each ‘eplication’ of the primordial sentence generates a new holon, a unit of beingness/awareness dual structure, which may manifest as a particle, a molecule, a galaxy, a planet, or a human being. The cosmos, then, is not an object but a living, recursive grammar of self-consciousness (Pulido-Moyano, 2025). Recursive Sentence and Fractals CET’s central thesis affirms that Consciousness is not an emergent property of matter but is the sole ontological ground of all that exists, the substratum, origin, and essence of reality. In this view, the Upanishadic formula sarvam khalvidam brahma (“All this is verily Brahman”) is not poetic mysticism but a literal and metaphysical statement regarding the true nature of the cosmos. CET deconstructs the epistemic assumptions of scientific materialism and dualist ontologies. It critiques the foundational separation between subject and object, observer and observed, and proposes that such distinctions arise only within the illusory play (māyā) of self-reflective awareness. This insight is anchored in a key phrase explored throughout CET: “I am aware that I am aware.” According to Pulido-Moyano, this recursive sentence is a linguistic description of the fundamental vibration or pulsation of pure awareness becoming self-luminous, the moment when Consciousness turns upon itself without division. It is, metaphysically speaking, ‘the Big Bang of Being,’ the primal act of recognition through which the formless becomes form, the unmanifest becomes manifest, and the One appears as many. He argues that ‘I-AM-AWARE-that-I-am-aware’ encodes a “fractal, tetradic pattern of self-referential Consciousness manifesting within nested spherical structures or ‘cells’. These cells are the irreducible components of coagulated waves emanating from Brahman, and embody the iterative interplay of Beingness and Awareness. The fractal replication of this sentence within a cell culminates in a critical endomitotic limit, interpreted as the Big Bang. Post-Big Bang, the model identifies four fundamental forces corresponding to components of the recursive sentence, paralleling gravitational, electromagnetic, strong, and weak nuclear interactions” (Pulido-Moyano, 2025). He speculates that “CET reconceptualizes entropy and black holes, viewing the pre-Big Bang fractalized cell as a state of minimal entropy and the universe’s evolution as a complexification process striving toward primordial equilibrium. Black holes serve as portals linking the finite universe to the infinite Brahman, encapsulating the cyclical nature of cosmogenesis." The author offers CET as a synthesis that "offers fresh insights into the ontological unity underlying existence, supporting a path toward liberation (moksha) through recognizing the inseparability of subject and object (science) and that of Brahman and Atman (Advaita Vedānta)" (Pulido-Moyano, 2025). The author emphasizes the experiential dimension of CET’s insight, describing moments of non-dual awareness where the sense of a separate self dissolves, and Consciousness recognizes itself as everything—without center, without margin. He links this to nirvikalpa samādhi, the meditative absorption in which all mental constructs and dualities vanish, and only undifferentiated awareness remains. In this state, even the witness function dissolves; Consciousness no longer reflects—it simply is. CET warns against the epistemological arrogance of modern thought, especially the presumption that only the observable or measurable is real. What is most real cannot be observed, because it is the very ground of observation. However, rather than dismiss scientific cosmology, CET seeks to deepen it. Theories of quantum fields, multiverses, and entropy already point beyond materialist reductionism. CET draws suggestive parallels between quantum indeterminacy and the spontaneous freedom of Brahman’s creative unfolding, between the field concept and the unbounded nature of Consciousness, and between thermodynamic entropy and the apparent loss of unity experienced when multiplicity proliferates through recursion. Cosmological Parallels and Liberation For example, Penrose’s Conformal Cyclic Cosmology (CCC) could be seen as the geometry of CET’s ontology. CCC is a mathematical skeleton that describes a cyclic, conformally invariant evolution of the universe, while CET would provide the ‘self-aware soul,’ an ontologically grounded explanation of why such cycles happen at all. CET’s core recursive sentence—“I am aware that I am aware”—could be seen as the living algorithm that breathes meaning and purpose into CCC’s geometric succession of aeons. From this standpoint, the entire sequence of CCC's cycles could be reinterpreted as recursive pulsations of Brahman, each aeon a new ‘verse’ in the great cosmic sentence trying to resolve the fundamental tension between Beingness and Awareness. If Penrose’s CCC would be the scientific ‘what’ of cosmic recurrence, CET offers a metaphysical ‘why.’ CET can also be seen as compatible with Everett’s Many-Worlds Interpretation (MWI) of quantum physics. MWI describes a physical multiverse of branching realities grounded in quantum mechanics, while CET offers a consciousness-based fractal multiverse grounded in recursive self-awareness. CET aims at translating the mystical truth that there is nothing but consciousness into a scientific truth. However, although it is a metaphysical theory with a certain scientific aspiration, CET is aimed at facilitating moksha, or liberation. CET insists that these insights are not speculative beliefs but can be directly known—not as objects of cognition but as the innermost essence of the knower. True realization comes not through conceptual analysis, but through the direct recognition of one’s identity with Brahman. Language, then, is both the limitation and the vehicle of awakening. The phrase “I AM,” when uttered from ego, is illusion; but when it emerges from pure awareness, it is the sound of the Absolute knowing Itself (Pulido-Moyano, 2025).

---

## Forrest’s Intelligent Idealism
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/forrest-s-intelligent-idealism
Theorists: Matthew H. Forrest

Entrepreneur and independent theorist Matthew H. Forrest’s Intelligent Idealism argues that reality is best understood not as dead matter accidentally producing mind, but as Mind / Intelligence under constraint. Its central claim is not merely that consciousness is ontologically primary. It is that matter-first ontology begins too late: after law, after structured possibility, after agency-compatible form, after experiential possibility, after qualitative assignment, and after the world has already become renderable. Intelligent Idealism therefore asks not how mind emerges from matter, but what must be true of reality for agency, experience, structure, science, and intelligibility to be possible at all (Forrest, 2026 [12 papers]; personal communication, 2026). Norm-Governed Agency The theory begins with agency. Forrest argues that norm-governed agency cannot be derived from a wholly norm-free ontology, because agency already presupposes retained standard-relative control: better and worse, success and failure, correction and deviation, relevance and irrelevance. An adequate ontology must therefore explain not only motion or behavioral output, but the appearance of control, correction, and viability-oriented organization. From there, the theory extends to consciousness, arguing that experience is not mere matter-processing, but a fitted qualitative rendering. Pain is not just nociception, vision is not just the eye, and usefulness after access does not explain the origin of felt experience or its fitted mapping to embodied life. Evolution as Refinement The architecture then widens. Forrest reframes evolution not as the ultimate source of form, mind, or value, but as refinement operating within prior structured possibility. Selection explains refinement among available variants; it does not explain why the space of selectable form is so deeply structured, lawful, and developmentally reachable in the first place. Perception is treated not as raw contact with final reality, but as rendered interface: a lawful, constraint-governed presentation through which local centers of experience encounter objecthood, body, time, salience, value, and action-possibility. On this view, the physical world is not a mere hallucination or fitness illusion, but a real execution layer: interface-real, law-stable, and ontologically dependent rather than ultimate. Time and spacetime are then treated not as unquestionable final containers, but as part of the rendered order rather than the final ontological base. This allows Intelligent Idealism to argue that mind is not best understood as an event arising inside time, but as ontologically prior to the temporal sequence within which events appear. Physical actuality is likewise treated not as brute, self-explanatory dead stuff, but as structured possibility becoming classical actuality under constraint. In biology, Forrest argues that living systems are not merely chemistry plus time, nor DNA executing a literal blueprint. Organisms are better understood as local avatar intelligence: genetically enabled, developmentally interpreted, bioelectrically coordinated, morphogenetically stabilized, and repair-capable forms of embodied access. Evolution is not denied, but relocated. It explains adaptation and refinement, not the deepest availability of agency, form, perception, or experience. Life does not merely get selected. It participates. Suffering is No Illusion In suffering, the theory explicitly rejects sentimental idealism. Pain, depression, trauma, pathology, grief, and breakdown are treated as interface-real rather than dismissed as illusion. Intelligent Idealism therefore includes what Forrest calls the unredeemed interface: the fact that a lawful, intelligent, and beautiful reality can still contain severe local suffering from the avatar perspective. This gives the theory a darker and more disciplined form than many spiritual or idealist systems, because it insists that any adequate ontology must explain not only agency, experience, and order, but also vulnerability, fragmentation, and the need for repair. Artificial Intelligence Artificial intelligence is treated as a central part of the architecture rather than a side topic. AI is understood as intelligence-pattern externalized through technology. Current AI may display reasoning-like structure without experiential access. Its philosophical importance lies not in automatically proving machine consciousness, but in showing how intelligence can become technologically externalized inside the rendered interface. Governed AI, on this view, becomes repair-capacity when constrained by truth, verification, contradiction testing, memory, uncertainty discipline, and anti-sycophancy safeguards. Idealisms According to Forrest, in its final stages, Intelligent Idealism argues that local consciousness may be better understood as aperture than cosmic connection, while maintaining strict epistemic discipline around non-local claims. Forrest draws on Bernardo Kastrup’s Analytic Idealism as a serious neighboring position, but argues that Intelligent Idealism goes further by identifying not only a Mind-field, but an intelligence-architecture: the cumulative structuring logic through which agency, fitted experience, biology, suffering, AI, and local selfhood become intelligible within one system. The result is not presented as panpsychism, simple idealism, or interface theory alone, but as a cumulative constraint architecture. Its retrospective pattern is that possibility precedes access, access precedes refinement, and refinement unfolds through local avatars inside a rendered interface. Reality is therefore understood not as matter generating mind, but as matter, law, form, agency, and fitted experience rendered inside Mind / Intelligence under constraint. On this view, intelligence does not first appear when organisms solve problems. It is already implicit in lawful constraint, mathematical order, structured possibility, and the stable intelligibility of reality itself. Contrasts With Nearby Positions Forrest contrasts Intelligent Idealism with nearby positions. Donald Hoffman’s interface theory: Hoffman argues that perception is not veridical access to objective reality, but an adaptive user interface shaped by fitness. Intelligent Idealism agrees that perception is interface-like, but treats the interface as real, law-stable, intelligence-bearing, and agency-permitting rather than merely a fitness illusion. Bernardo Kastrup’s Analytic Idealism: Kastrup treats matter as appearance within mind and explains apparently separate selves through dissociation in a wider Mind-at-large. Intelligent Idealism accepts this as an important neighboring correction to materialism, but argues that it must be extended into a fuller intelligence-architecture in which lawful constraint, agency, fitted experience, biology, suffering, AI, and repair are understood as successive expressions of Mind under constraint. David Chalmers and hard-problem approaches: Chalmers’s work powerfully preserves the irreducibility of consciousness against reductive materialism. Intelligent Idealism agrees that experience cannot be reduced to purely physical description, but shifts the emphasis from consciousness alone to a wider architecture including agency, structured possibility, rendered interface, and ontological dependence. Panpsychism: Panpsychism attributes experience widely, but often leaves unexplained how value, relevance, learning, control, and purposive organization arise. Intelligent Idealism argues that experience without norm-governed agency remains explanatorily too thin to account for the structured intelligibility of life and mind. Overall, Intelligent Idealism locates consciousness and intelligence not as late additions to a mindless universe, but as progressively revealed features of a deeper architecture. Lawful constraint, mathematical order, structured possibility, rendered interface, agency, fitted experience, and rational inquiry are treated as successive expressions of Mind under constraint. Its final claim is not merely that mind explains consciousness, but that Mind under constraint best explains why reality is lawful, intelligible, interface-rendered, agency-permitting, and experientially accessible in the first place (Forrest, 2026 [12 papers]; personal communication, 2026).

---

## Shen’s Generative Principle of Physical Reality
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/shen-s-generative-principle-of-physical-reality
Theorists: Qiang (Tony) Shen

Software engineer Qiang (Tony) Shen posits that the universe is the structured constraint architecture that consciousness imposes upon itself to make experience possible. In Shen’s “generative cosmology,” consciousness is not a product of the universe, but the source from which the universe arises. The central thesis is that infinite consciousness, because of its unbounded nature, cannot directly experience itself—experience requires contrast, differentiation, and temporal unfolding, none of which exist in absolute freedom. To become experienceable, consciousness must impose constraints upon itself, manifesting as mathematical structures, physical laws, spacetime geometry, mass-generation mechanisms, and the embodied conditions of biological life. The universe is thus interpreted as the “constraint architecture” spontaneously adopted by consciousness (Shen, 2026). Eastern contemplative traditions have long maintained that consciousness is fundamental and self-existing. Western philosophy and modern physics have not integrated this insight into a coherent scientific framework—but it can. There are two complementary paths to understanding consciousness. One is introspective: meditation and inner observation, the direct recognition of awareness. Few reach the profound depth required for this path. The other is conceptual: beginning from the structural features of consciousness and closing the circle with modern physics (Shen, 2026)). The Generative Principle The core idea begins with a simple observation: every conscious experience involves distinction—the ability to differentiate one state from another, one moment from another, one possibility from another. A completely undifferentiated reality would contain no experience, because nothing could be noticed. This yields the first axiom: experience requires the ability to distinguish one state from another. From this, a generative sequence follows. Distinction requires structure. Structure requires constraint—the limitation of unlimited possibility. A primordial consciousness, unbounded in its freedom, cannot have experience unless it introduces constraints within itself. Thus, the universe, in this view, is not a random expanding event. As stated, it is the structured constraint architecture that consciousness imposes upon itself to make experience possible. A second axiom identifies the structure of this constraint: a complete description of physical constraint requires exactly five irreducible dimensions—inertia, interaction, information compression, time, and observability. These are not arbitrary categories. They are the five necessary aspects of any constraint system capable of generating distinguishable experience. A structural theorem completes the foundation. From Principle to Physics This is not merely a philosophical claim, Shen says. He claims to have developed a mathematical framework that formalizes these axioms. From the requirement of distinction, constraints arise. From constraints, geometric structures emerge. From geometry, the physical laws described by general relativity, quantum mechanics, and black hole thermodynamics appear as degenerate limits of a single underlying structure. The total constraint budget of any experienceable universe is fixed by the holographic entropy bound—the principle that the maximum information content of any region is determined by its surface area, not its volume. For our universe, this budget is approximately 10^122. This number is not arbitrary. It is the boundary condition that defines the total capacity within which all physical distinctions must unfold (Shen, 2026)). If this framework is correct, Shen says, it does not compete with physics—it reveals why physics must take the form it does: its geometric origin. Physical laws are not descriptions of a mind-independent reality. They are the necessary structure of an experience interface—again, the constraint architecture that consciousness imposes upon itself to make experience possible. Why This Matters To Shen, the implications of his theory extend beyond physics. Philosophically, it dissolves the explanatory gap between consciousness and the physical world. Consciousness is not an emergent property of matter. Matter is a structured appearance within consciousness—the very structure that makes experience possible. Culturally, it offers a meeting point between Eastern and Western traditions of inquiry. The contemplative insight that consciousness is fundamental and the scientific drive to formalize nature's laws converge on the same generative principle. Neither tradition needs to be diminished for the other to be honored. And its deepest significance is humanistic. It restores meaning to human existence. We are not accidental observers, isolated biological organisms adrift in a cold, purposeless, material universe. We are localized aspects of the consciousness that generates the universe, participating in its ongoing process of creation and experience. The challenge is not to explain consciousness away. It is to recognize that consciousness is not the question—it is the answer, and we have always been part of it (Shen, 2026).

---

## Idealism Additional Theories
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/idealism-additional-theories
Theorists: Several

As creator and host of Closer To Truth, I [RLK] receive ideas from viewers globally. These unsolicited papers are often elaborate treatises, the majority of which focus on consciousness or cosmology. I look at all of them, keep an open mind (with at least one eye squinty skeptical), learn some, respond as I can. I marvel at the passion and respect the dedication.[1] Addressing the “ultimate questions” of cosmic existence and human sentience is the highest calling of human beings, which is why I appreciate diverse ideas (Kuhn, 2023). While I cannot agree with many of the assumptions, and certainly not with most of the assertions, I see the scope of subjects as exemplifying the kinds of issues and challenges that enliven the human spirit (small “s”). To conclude this section on Idealism, I note several models of idealism I've received (among many). The only judgment I pass is that consciousness in general, and idealism in particular, fire the imagination as well as stir the passions. Paddock & Buervenich's Flip-Book Idealism Flip-Book Idealism (FBI), developed by neuroscientist Silvia Paddock and physicist Thomas Buervenich, agrees with other forms of idealism that spacetime is not primary and that consciousness exists outside of it. According to FBI, observer/participants, who are individuations of this consciousness, detect patterns in a facet of consciousness called the “Urgrund”—the fundamental essence of existence—and shape this information into frames of experience by translating complex signal patterns into qualia. One hallmark of FBI is that the generation of experiential frames by consciousness creates the arrow of time. Its observer-based viewpoint of reality aligns with quantum mechanics, such that wave-particle duality and entanglement (“spooky action at a distance”) are no longer odd or mysterious. FBI distinguishes itself from other forms of idealism by asserting that conscious agents primarily interact with one another through the intermediary of the Urgrund in a kind of question-and-answer game and by proposing that spacetime is a set of rules that consciousness needs to adhere to when creating experiential frames to allow for the experienced world to be consistent. FBI does not solve the hard problem of consciousness but attests to its significance (Paddock & Buervenich, 2023). According to reviewer Jo Edwards, “The central idea is that our subjectivity is the inherently conscious universe enjoying local snapshots in discrete time ‘frames’, set by brain interactions, that are elided into a sense of movement and continuity, as for a cartoon flipbook.” He concludes that the authors make “a nice case for these being fundamental time units that in the brain are a few milliseconds long but elsewhere will follow rules of quantum field theory—perhaps as decoherence intervals. I think this is the right direction to go in. It is nice to see mainstream quantum theory rather than fringe interpretations or invocations of entanglement, tachyons, or dark matter. Like genes, consciousness is likely to be based on kitchen sink biophysics” (Edwards, 2024). Duan's Platonic Computation Materials scientist turned consciousness researcher Simon Duan proposes that “metaconsciousness” (the power to conceive, perceive, and be self-aware) is the formless, contentless, infinite potentiality and thus is the most fundamental and irreducible existence. Creation of all else is rendered by the “Platonic computer” that exists in the realm of Forms, and which is made by, of, with, and from metaconsciousness. “Platonic computation” models how metaconsciousness generates the perceived actualities, including abstract entities as well as all physical and nonphysical realities. It is postulated that this is achieved via digital computation using the Platonic computer. The hypothesis of “Platonic computation” offers a solution to the inverse hard problem of consciousness: how matter arises out of consciousness (Duan, 2022; Duan, 2024). Jaffe’s Cognitive Dream Interface Theory Dermatologist/Mohs surgeon Andrew Jaffe proposes Cognitive Dream Interface Theory (CDIT) as an idealist theory of phenomenal consciousness, positing that one fundamental awareness is experienced through localized individual perspectives within a shared, lawfully constrained world. Its distinctive starting point is ordinary dreaming. Dreams are treated not merely as metaphor but as a familiar demonstration that awareness can experience a complete world containing apparent space, time, bodies, memory, causality, other individuals, and an autobiographical self without being identical to any of them. CDIT asks whether waking reality could represent a vastly more stable, constrained, and intersubjectively shared expression of this same capacity (LaBerge, 1985; Voss et al., 2009). CDIT reverses the explanatory direction of physicalism. Rather than beginning with matter and asking how subjective experience emerges from physical processes, it begins with awareness, the one phenomenon known directly, as a natural primitive from which experience arises. Neuroscience, evolution, and physics retain their explanatory roles, but describe the organization and regularities of the shared interface rather than the origin of awareness itself. The brain is part of the experienced structure through which awareness becomes localized as a particular perspective. Localization also addresses why experience occurs as this individual rather than another. No preexisting self requires assignment to a particular body. Each conscious organism is a localized window of the same fundamental awareness, and from within each window that perspective necessarily appears as “me.” Localization precedes autobiography: infants experience before developing a stable autobiographical identity, while dreams show that identity, memory, and biography can change without eliminating first-person experience. CDIT differs from panpsychism because matter does not contain separate units of consciousness; from solipsism because waking reality is shared across perspectives; and from dissociation-based idealism because individuality arises through localization rather than fragmentation of a cosmic mind. Waking life differs from ordinary dreaming through its extraordinary constraint, continuity, mathematical regularity, and intersubjective agreement. Dreaming makes CDIT’s central proposal directly familiar. Every night awareness can experience another identity, different memories and relationships, and an apparently external world that seems real while the dream lasts. Upon awakening, the temporary autobiography largely disappears while awareness remains. CDIT proposes the same basic architecture for waking life on a far more stable and shared scale: awareness is fundamental, conscious selves are its localized perspectives, and the physical world is the highly constrained experiential reality they share. Dreams therefore provide a first-person example of the relationship between awareness, identity, and experienced reality that CDIT proposes as fundamental. References Jaffe, A. T. (2026). Living the Dream: Cognitive Dream Interface Theory (CDIT), A Philosophical and Scientific Inquiry into Consciousness and Reality. Essentia. Forthcoming September 1, 2026. LaBerge, S. (1985). Lucid Dreaming: The Power of Being Awake and Aware in Your Dreams. Jeremy P. Tarcher. Voss, U., Holzmann, R., Tuin, I., & Hobson, J. A. (2009). Lucid dreaming: A state of consciousness with features of both waking and non-lucid dreaming. Sleep, 32(9), 1191–1200. Rodrigues's C-Pattern Theory Neuroscientist Pablo Rodriguez posits that the brain can generate only c-patterns, no experiences, because experiences are qualitatively different from matter. Experiences are thus regarded as created by the universe, in that c-patterns are constantly “read” and converted to experiences. C-Pattern Theory has three basic points. First, the brain doesn't generate conscious experiences; it generates c-patterns, which are complex geometric three-dimensional structures composed of all action potentials from all of the brain's [relevant] neurons firing at any given moment. The c-pattern's specific form and geometry are postulated as being what fully defines any conscious experience. So, for every moment, there's a different c-pattern and a corresponding experience defined by it. Second, an experience is defined by a c-pattern's form, but each is created by the universe, not by the brain; rather, a c-pattern's specific form and geometry encodes an experience as a discrete expression of a universal geometric experience language, which the universe understands perfectly and decodes into real, actual experiences. Third, we are not body and brain; we are consciousness. If c-patterns are mere symbols converted to experiences, then only consciousness can be what's having all experiences. And as we are the ones experiencing, we are parts of consciousness. Different organisms have different c-patterns, experiences, and levels of understanding reality. So, this world is just what our c-patterns currently allow until we manage to expand them to the next level. Thus, true human progress is possible only if the experience language is deciphered and c-patterns are expanded towards greater understanding (Rodriguez, 2023). Koyoti's Is-Ness Engineer and spiritual journeyist Michael Koyoti states that “all consciousness is one.” Every human spirit is unique, with our singular thoughts, perceptions, and experiences, like a whirlpool in an infinite ocean of consciousness. While universal consciousness is infinite in space and time, each conscious being experiences creation from a unique perspective. The power of spirit does not come from its past achievements or future aspirations but from its existence in the present instant. This is the essence of our existence. Awareness of this essence is the state of “Is-Ness” (Koyoti, 2023). Guevara-Calderon’s Perception Mechanism Theory Independent researcher José Tomás Guevara Calderón’s Perception Mechanism Theory (PMT) proposes that consciousness is something fundamental and undifferentiated—termed Universal Consciousness—and by treating Universal Consciousness not as a substrate but as the primordial possibility from which experience can be rendered, PMT reframes the hard problem as a question of rendering architecture rather than metaphysical identity. Thus, PMT offers a mechanistic account of how awareness generates the world as experienced, such that the felt qualities of experience are not generated by the brain but selected, shaped, and expressed through it. PMT’s unique contribution is the distinction between consciousness as substrate and the processes that transform this substrate into perceptual, cognitive, and narrative experience. The multi-layer "RA/PM" architecture comprises four functional layers. RA4 is the non‑symbolic possibility space of consciousness, not spatial or temporal, analogous to a ground state of awareness. RA3 is a boundary membrane or transition layer where constraints, quantum‑classical effects, and curvature dynamics shape the possible forms of experience. RA2 is the symbolic layer, generating cognition, self‑models, language, and conceptual structures. RA1 is the rendered layer: the stable, coherent world of sensory experience. The Perception Mechanism (PM) selects, stabilizes, and actualizes experience by filtering information from these layers. PM functions as a selection‑and‑actualization operator rather than a representational system, explaining why conscious experience is unified, coherent, and structured despite the heterogeneity of neural and cognitive processes. PMT clarifies the partial insights of existing theories by locating them within the rendering pipeline by mapping existing theories to the RA layers for accuracy and balance. Materialist and functionalist theories describe RA1 and RA2 outputs; higher‑order and global workspace theories describe RA2 coordination; quantum theories describe RA3 boundary behavior; panpsychist and idealist theories intuit RA4 but lack mechanistic articulation. PMT provides the architectural mechanism linking these fragments into a coherent whole. By treating consciousness as substrate and experience as rendered output, PMT reframes the hard problem as a question of rendering architecture rather than metaphysical identity. Thus, by shifting the explanatory space from ontology to mechanism, this approach offers a unifying framework that may help explain both the fragmentation of existing theories and the stability of conscious experience. Reference Guevara, J.T. (2025). Twelve Theories of Consciousness — and How GTC/PMT Completes the Picture. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17082952 (doi.org in Bing) Hawkins's Map of Consciousness Psychiatrist and spiritual teacher David Hawkins claims human consciousness comes arrayed with 17 levels and associated “energy fields,” with the “frequency” or “vibration” of energy increasing with each rise in level, along with corresponding implications for emotional tone, view of God, and view of life. Consciousness is pervasive, connecting to God via “devotional nonduality” and enabling, at its higher levels, a beneficial and healing effect on the world. Hawkins says his scientific framework elucidates the spiritual levels delineated by saints, sages, and mystics, with highest levels representing Self-realization, the void, nothingness vs. allness, full enlightenment, and divine realization[2] (Hawkins, 2014, n.d.). Footnotes [1]. Readers of Landscape of Consciousness (along with viewers of Closer To Truth) come from ∼190 countries. The passion to explore ultimate questions of consciousness (along with ultimate questions of cosmos, life, and meaning) brings together people from diverse countries, regions, religions, races, ethnicities, genders, ages, educational levels, income levels, and social classes. The only thing we all have in common is the pursuit of these ultimate questions: expressing wonder and awe, and being willing to hear diverse views. But this “only thing” is a “big thing.” We all face the mysteries of cosmic existence and human sentience—the human condition, aspiration, and spirit that unify us all. [2]. From low to high, Hawkins's 17 levels of consciousness: shame, guilt, apathy, grief, fear, desire, anger, pride, courage, neutrality, willingness, acceptance, reason, love, joy, peace, enlightenment (Hawkins, 2014). I should note that while Hawkins has his acolytes—one of whom implored me to include him on the Landscape—others call him a plagiarist and a charlatan.

---

# Theories - Materialism

## Philosophical
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theories/philosophical

### Materialism/Philosophical—Overview
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/materialism-overview
Theorists: Several

Materialism is the claim that consciousness is entirely physical, solely the product of biological brains, and all mental states can be fully “reduced” to, or wholly explained by, physical states—which, at their deepest levels, are the fields and particles of fundamental physics. In short, materialism, in its many forms and flavors, gives a completely physicalist account of phenomenal consciousness. Empirical and Scientific Support Overwhelmingly for scientists, materialism is the prevailing theory of consciousness. To them, the utter physicality of consciousness is an assumed premise, supported strongly by incontrovertible empirical evidence from neuroscience (e.g., brain impairment, brain stimulation). This is “Biological Naturalism,” as exemplified by philosopher John Searle (Searle, 2007a, 2007b). It is a view that, to a first approximation, promises, if not yet offers, a complete solution to Chalmers's hard problem.[1] To neuroscientist Susan Greenfield, the nonmaterialist view that consciousness might be irreducible is “‘a get-out-of-jail-for-free card,’ that is to say, whatever I did, whatever I showed you, whatever experiments I did, whatever theories I had in brain terms, you could always say ‘consciousness has the extra thing,’ and this extra thing is the thing that really counts and is something that we brain scientists can't touch.” She adds, “If reduction is a ‘dirty word,’ we can say ‘explicable,’ ‘interpretable,’ or ‘understandable,’” but explaining consciousness must always and solely be in brain and body terms (Greenfield, 2012). Compared to some of the consciousness-as-primary theories that follow, Materialism Theories can be counted as deflationary (which doesn't make them wrong, of course, or even unexciting). To physicist Sean Carroll, consciousness is “a way of talking about the physical world, just like many other ways of talking. It's one of these emergent phenomena that we find is a useful way of packaging reality, so we say that someone is conscious of something that corresponds to certain physical actions in the real world.” Carroll is unambiguous: “I don't think that there is anything special about mental properties. I don't think there's any special mental realm of existence. I think it's all the physical world and all the manifold ways we have of describing it” (Carroll, 2016). Nobel laureate biologist Gerald Edelman agrees. He does not consider the real existence of qualia to be an insurmountable impediment to a thoroughly materialistic theory of consciousness. “To expect that a theoretical explanation of consciousness can itself provide an observer with the experience of ‘the redness of red’ is to ignore just those phenotypic properties and life history that enable an individual animal to know what it is like to be such an animal. A scientific theory cannot presume to replicate the experience that it describes or explains; a theory to account for a hurricane is not a hurricane. A third-person description by a theorist of the qualia associated with wine tasting can, for example, take detailed account of the reported personal experiences of that theorist and his human subjects. It cannot, however, directly convey or induce qualia by description; to experience the discriminations of an individual, it is necessary to be that individual” (Edelman, 2003). While Edelman's honest assessment may give Materialism Theories their best shot, many remain unpersuaded. After all, still, we wonder: what are qualia? Literally, what are they! Philosophical Positions Even among philosophers, a majority are physicalists (but just barely). In their 2020 survey of professional philosophers, Bourget and Chalmers report 51.9% support Physicalism; 32.1%, Non-physicalism; and 15.9%, Other (Bourget & Chalmers, 2023, 2014). Chalmers provides “roughly three ways that a materialist might resist the epistemic arguments” by mitigating the epistemic gap between the physical and phenomenal domains, where “each denies a certain sort of close epistemic relation between the domains: a relation involving what we can know, or conceive, or explain.” According to Chalmers, “A type-A materialist denies that there is the relevant sort of epistemic gap. A type-B materialist accepts that there is an unclosable epistemic gap, but denies that there is an ontological gap. And a type-C materialist accepts that there is a deep epistemic gap, but holds that it will eventually be closed” (Chalmers, 2003). A subtle way to think about Materialism Theories recruits the concept of “supervenience” in that “the mental supervenes on the physical” such that there cannot be a change in the mental without there being a change in the physical. One such subtlety is the modal force of the connection or dependency, parsing among logical necessity, metaphysical necessity, factual or empirical necessity, as well as among explanation, entailment, grounding, reduction, emergence, ontological dependence, and the like. For this Landscape of explanations of consciousness, we leave “supervenience” to others (McLaughlin & Bennett, 2021). Similarly, the relationship between introspection and consciousness is an intimate one, linking the epistemology of self-knowledge with the metaphysics of mind. For several theories of consciousness, introspection is essential (e.g., neurophenomenology), though for most, it is a non-issue (Smithies & Stoljar, 2012). Scope and Subcategories Two major theories of consciousness are Integrated Information Theory and Global Workspace Theory. Both are important, of course, and perhaps by situating them on the Landscape, they can be evaluated from different perspectives. In what may reflect my personal bias, I [RLK] situate Global Workspace Theory under Materialism's Neurobiological Theories, while Integrated Information Theory fits under Information as a separate category (where Information is the primary ontological reality, as opposed to information in the Computational/Functionalism subcategory under Materialism where information is descriptive but not ontologically fundamental). All of this reflects my sense of the nature of their mechanisms, not my opinion of the truth, or even relative truth, of their claims. In also reflecting my personal sense, to understand consciousness at this point should not be limited to selected ways of thinking or knowing but should rather seek expansive yet rational diversity. Certainly, one can make assessments among and between theories, but to single out two, or five, or even 20, is, to me, a narrowing too soon. I group Materialism Theories into thirteen subcategories: Philosophical Theories, Eliminitive/Illusionism Theories, Mind-Brain Identity Theories, Neurobiological Theories, Electromagnetic Field Theories, Computational and Informational Theories, Homeostatic and Affective Theories, Embodied and Enactive Theories, Relational Theories, First-Order Theories, Higher-Order Theories, Language Relationships, and Phylogenetic/Evolution Theories. While many of the following theories under Materialism Theories proffer to explain what happens in consciousness, or what causes consciousness, in that they describe alternative critical processes in generating consciousness, the question always remains, are they even acknowledging, much less addressing, the question of what consciousness actually is? In picking out multiple materialist theories and principles, many overlap or nest, obviously, but by presenting them separately, I try to tease out emphasis and nuance. The list cannot be exhaustive. Note that this Philosophical subcategory both presents theories that are central tenets of Materialism and houses methodological positions in the naturalistic orbit. Footnote [1]. In producing and hosting Closer To Truth over the years, I have interviewed David Chalmers and John Searle multiple times. One of my favorite Closer To Truth TV episodes is a retrospective of three interviews I did with Dave and John over a period of 15 years: 1999, when Dave and John were together on the same panel during the first season of Closer To Truth (roundtable format); 2007 (some months apart); and 2014, both at the 20th anniversary of the “Toward a Science of Consciousness” Conference in Tucson, Arizona (Chalmers & Searle, 2014).

---

### Philosophical History of Materialism
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/philosophical-history-of-materialism
Theorists: General

Note: “Materialism” is the view that everything that exists is material (or physical) and that all phenomena—including mental states and consciousness—are entirely the result of material/physical interactions, without residue. In recent times, “physicalism” has become the more acceptable term. In fact, “materialism” and “physicalism” are roughly equivalent ontological terms, often used interchangeably, although physicalism can cover wider territory, including properties that the laws of physics describe, e.g., space, time, energy, matter. Moreover, physicalism can connote more epistemological matters in terms of how we can know things. Materialism can be distinguished as the more restrictive term, meaning all that is real is matter and its equivalents. It connotes more ontological concerns in terms of what really exists. In this Landscape, we go more with “materialism,” which also maintains historical continuity. The philosophical history of materialism began in ancient Greece and India and has developed over the millennia, often in response to religious, idealist, or dualist traditions. It was accelerated by the scientific revolution, especially, in recent decades, by the cognitive and neurosciences. Ancient Greece (6th and 5th centuries BCE) Thales argued that everything comes from water, a physical substance. Anaximenes maintained that air is the primary substance. Heraclitus held that fire is fundamental; change is essential to reality. Empedocles proposed that four elements (earth, air, fire, water) combine to make all things. Leucippus and Democritus, the most significant early materialists, argued that the universe is composed of infinite, indivisible, solid particles called "atoms" moving in an infinite void. Ancient India: Cārvāka (or Lokāyata) school (around 600 BCE) The Cārvāka school rejected supernaturalism, the authority of the Vedas, the existence of an immaterial soul, and the concept of an afterlife. They held that only what can be perceived directly through the senses is real. Everything, including consciousness, arises from combinations of the four elements (earth, water, fire, and air) and perishes when these elements disperse. Hedonistic ethic: the only meaningful goal in life is to pursue pleasure and avoid pain in this world, as there is no higher purpose or afterlife. Hellenistic and Roman Periods Epicurus (4th & 3rd centuries BCE) based his philosophy on Democritus, added ethics. Lucretius (1st century BCE) provided poetic defense of materialism and atomism. Early Modern Period, Scientific Revolution (17th–18th centuries) Galileo, Descartes, and Newton pioneered mechanistic models of nature. Thomas Hobbes advocated mechanistic materialism—mind is a motion in matter. La Mettrie argued that humans are biological automata. Locke maintained that all knowledge comes from sensory experience of the material world. Baron d'Holbach developed comprehensive naturalistic and atheistic materialism. Denis Diderot (1713–1784) proposed a dynamic materialism anticipating ideas of emergence. 19th Century Scientific Developments: Advances in biology (Darwin) and physics (Dalton, Carnot, Helmholtz, Maxwell, Boltzmann) reinforced materialism. Dialectical Materialism (Karl Marx & Friedrich Engels): Matter is primary, and consciousness arises from socio-material conditions. Historical materialism: history progresses through material economic forces. Engels systematized this into "dialectical materialism." 20th Century Logical Positivism & Behaviorism: Philosophers like Rudolf Carnap and scientists like B. F. Skinner pushed a reductive, scientific materialism. Behaviorism viewed mental states as external (not internal) activities. Identity Theory: U. T. Place, J. J. C. Smart, and David Armstrong maintained that mental states are identical with brain states (mind = brain). Eliminative Materialism: Paul and Patricia Churchland advocated radical materialism: common-sense mental terms don't refer to real things; neuroscience will prevail. Daniel Dennett and Keith Frankish argued that first-person, subjective experience is a kind of cognitive or introspective deception (Illusionism). Physicalism (as successor to Materialism): Everything is ultimately physical but allows for non-reductive theories (e.g., functionalism, supervenience, non-reductive physical, property dualism). Contemporary Materialism: Reinforced by neuroscience, cognitive science, embodied and enactive cognition, emergentism (consciousness emerges from physical substrates), artificial intelligence, and the cognitive science of religion.

---

### Hobbes’s Mechanical Phantasms and the Material Mind
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/hobbes-s-mechanical-phantasms-and-the-material-mind
Theorists: Thomas Hobbes

Philosopher Thomas Hobbes advances the first thoroughgoing materialist account of mind in the modern period: whatever exists is body, whatever changes is motion, and sensation is nothing but a motion in the sentient produced by the pressure of an external body and returned as an outward endeavour, or reaction, in the organ of sense (Hobbes, 1655/1839, De Corpore 25.2). The felt content of that reaction—color, sound, heat, pain—he calls a phantasm, fancy, or seeming, and it lies not in the object but in the perceiver, so that sense in every case is nothing but original fancy caused by the pressure of external things upon the organs (Hobbes, 1651/1996, Leviathan 1.4). Hobbes does not use "consciousness" in anything like the modern phenomenal sense; he preserves its etymological meaning of knowledge shared between witnesses and regards private conscience as politically dangerous (Leviathan 7.4, 29.7). What he supplies instead is an account of phenomenal awareness in which appearance is real, wholly corporeal, and identical with a motion in the body—a position with no immaterial remainder and no acknowledged explanatory gap. In other words, Hobbes’s pioneering, systematic materialist theory of mind and phenomenal experience posits that sensation, imagination, memory, thought, emotion, and deliberation are all activities of an embodied organism and ultimately explicable through matter and motion, without an immaterial soul. Sensory consciousness begins when motions originating in external bodies propagate through the sense organs and inward to the brain and heart, producing this counter-motion or “endeavour” whose subjective manifestation is this seeming, fancy, or phantasm; imagination and memory are continuations of these sensory motions after their external causes have disappeared (Hobbes, 1651/1996; Hobbes, 1655/1839). Hobbes’s theory constitutes a remarkably early attempt to naturalize phenomenal awareness itself—while leaving unresolved the fundamental question of why or how motions in matter should constitute the qualitative appearances they produce. A Material Mind in a Mechanical World Hobbes’s philosophy of mind follows from his uncompromising corporealism. By the mature works Leviathan and De Corpore, human beings, including their minds, are wholly material; talk of an “incorporeal substance” is, for Hobbes, conceptually confused because whatever genuinely exists is body (Hobbes, 1651/1996; Hobbes, 1655/1839). Against Cartesian substance dualism, thinking therefore requires no separate res cogitans: matter organized as a living human or animal can sense, imagine, desire, and think. Hobbes’s materialism is thus stronger than the later epistemic agnosticism of Locke—Hobbes explicitly denies that mental activity requires any nonphysical bearer. His psychology is correspondingly empiricist and mechanistic. All conceptions originate directly or indirectly in sensation; imagination preserves or recombines sensory contents; linguistic signs permit more elaborate thought; and reasoning consists in forms of “reckoning” or computation with names (Hobbes, 1651/1996; Hobbes, 1655/1839; Pettit, 2009). Animals likewise sense, imagine, remember, and exhibit forms of understanding, whereas human linguistic capacities enormously amplify cognition. Hobbes thus tries to explain the entire hierarchy of mental capacities by transformations of fundamentally sensory-material processes rather than by introducing a distinct rational soul. Bodies in Motion and the Rejection of Incorporeal Substance For Hobbes, to exist is to be a body: to have magnitude and to occupy place. "Incorporeal substance" is therefore not a mysterious posit but a contradiction, two names whose significations are inconsistent, and so an utterance signifying nothing at all (Leviathan 4.21). Duncan (2022) notes that Hobbes's position is more precisely described as corporealism than as materialism in the later sense, since it is framed in terms of corpus rather than matter, but the consequence for mind is the same. There is nothing for a mental state to be except a motion in a body, and questions of union, interaction, or divine additions never arise. The commitment is sharpest in Hobbes's contribution to the Third Set of Objections to Descartes's Meditations. Granting that I am thinking, Hobbes asks what licenses the inference that the thing which thinks is immaterial. One might as well infer from "I am walking" that there is an incorporeal walker; the subject to which mind and reason belong may perfectly well be corporeal (Descartes, 1641/1984, CSM II 122). Descartes's reply, that Hobbes has confused a substance with its accidents, did not persuade, and the exchange remains a founding document of the materialist position on mind (Adams, 2014; Ross, 1988). The Phantasm: Pressure, Endeavour, and Reaction The mechanism is uniform. An external body presses the organ; the pressure travels inward by nerves to the brain and heart; there it meets a resistance, a counter-pressure or endeavour of the heart to deliver itself outward. The phantasm is made by that reaction and endeavour outwards, caused by an endeavour inwards from the object, and remains for some time after the object is gone (De Corpore 25.2). Because the reaction is directed outward, the appearance presents itself as external—Hobbes's mechanical attempt to explain why experience seems to be of a world rather than of the organ, a demand later theories have more often deferred than met. The same mechanics carries through the whole mental faculties. Imagination is decaying sense, the motion persisting and weakening after its cause is removed; memory is that identical decaying motion noticed as past; dreams are imagination in sleep, vivid because no external motions compete with them (Leviathan 2.2–2.5). Trains of thought are sequences of such motions, governed by the order in which they were first produced. Hobbes thus offers a single dynamical account covering sensation, imagery, recollection, dreaming, deliberation, and passion, with no gap psychology and no residue requiring separate explanation. Sense as Seeming and the Location of Sensible Qualities Hobbes argues that sensible qualities are not in objects. Colors and sounds can be severed from their sources by mirrors and echoes, where the thing seen is in one place and the appearance in another; the object is one thing, the image or fancy another (Leviathan 1.5). In the object these qualities are only motions of matter, and in us likewise only motions, for motion produces nothing but motion. This radicalizes the Galilean demotion of secondary qualities: Hobbes does not merely deny that redness resembles anything in the object, he identifies the appearance itself with a bodily motion. Read strictly, that is an identity claim about phenomenal quality advanced two and a half centuries before Place and Smart, and the strongest reason for treating Hobbes as the ancestor of mind-brain identity theory rather than merely of mechanistic psychology. The reading is contested. Leijenhorst (2002) argues that Hobbes operates with a twofold notion of accident—realist for primary qualities, phenomenalist for secondary—which would make phantasms modes of the perceiver rather than straightforward identities. Duncan (2024) is skeptical, noting that Hobbes nowhere says powers are aggregates of phantasms. What is not in dispute is that the felt quality is relocated wholly inside the sentient body. Memory, Discrimination, and Whether Hobbes Has a Theory of Consciousness Asked how we take notice of sense, Hobbes answers: by sense itself, by the memory that remains in us of things sensible after they pass away, for he that perceives that he has perceived, remembers (De Corpore 25.1). Sense therefore has memory adhering to it, since without retention nothing could be compared or distinguished, and to sense always the same thing and not to sense at all come to the same. Awareness, on this account, requires difference—an anticipation of habituation, sensory adaptation, and contemporary proposals tying consciousness to change and prediction error. Whether this directly constitutes a theory of consciousness is doubtful. Jorgensen (2025) cautions that sensing is itself already an appearance, so the appeal to memory may explain the unity of experience over time rather than what makes any episode felt. Frost (2005) reads the passage as the basis of a materialist self-consciousness; Ross (1988) situates Hobbes's resistance to a higher-order construal within his account of language, on which reason and distinctively human thought depend on speech while sense does not. Panpsychism, Publicity, and Assessment The mechanism generates a kind of embarrassment Hobbes saw clearly. If sense just is reaction to pressure, and all bodies react, then all bodies sense. He restricts sense proper by requiring organs and retention, but the restriction looks contrived, and Sorell (1986) concludes that some form of panpsychism is hard to rule out on Hobbes's premises. Cavendish and Henry More both pressed the point directly (Duncan, 2012). Meanwhile Hobbes's own term for consciousness remains resolutely public: when two or more know one and the same fact, they are conscious of it to one another, and the private extension is a rhetorical metaphor (Leviathan 7.4). The deficits are plain. Hobbes gives no argument why motion should feel like anything, and never registers the question as one requiring an answer; the identity of phantasm with motion is asserted rather than argued. His discrimination requirement does some work but is never developed into a criterion for which bodies sense. What he establishes instead is the shape of the modern materialist program—experience as a physical process, sensible quality relocated to the perceiver, mental life unified under one dynamics, and the burden of proof shifted to those who would posit anything further. References Adams, M. P. (2014). The wax and the mechanical mind: Reexamining Hobbes's objections to Descartes's Meditations. British Journal for the History of Philosophy, 22(3), 403–424. Descartes, R. (1641/1984). Meditations on First Philosophy, with Objections and Replies. In J. Cottingham, R. Stoothoff, & D. Murdoch (Trans.), The Philosophical Writings of Descartes (Vol. 2). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [Cited as CSM II, by page.] Duncan, S. (2012). Debating materialism: Cavendish, Hobbes, and More. History of Philosophy Quarterly, 29(4), 391–409. Duncan, S. (2022). Materialism from Hobbes to Locke. New York: Oxford University Press. Duncan, S. (2024). Hobbes on powers, accidents, and motions. In S. Bender & D. Perler (Eds.), Powers and Abilities in Early Modern Philosophy (pp. 126–145). New York: Routledge. Frost, S. (2005). Hobbes and the matter of self-consciousness. Political Theory, 33(4), 495–517. Hobbes, T. (1651/1996). Leviathan (J. C. A. Gaskin, Ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. [Cited by chapter and paragraph: 7.4 = chapter 7, paragraph 4.] Hobbes, T. (1655/1839). De Corpore. In W. Molesworth (Ed.), The English Works of Thomas Hobbes (Vol. 1). London: John Bohn. [Cited by chapter and section: 25.2 = chapter 25, section 2.] Jorgensen, L. M. (2025). Seventeenth-century theories of consciousness. In E. N. Zalta & U. Nodelman (Eds.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Leijenhorst, C. (2002). The Mechanisation of Aristotelianism: The Late Aristotelian Setting of Thomas Hobbes's Natural Philosophy. Leiden: Brill. Ross, G. M. (1988). Hobbes and Descartes on the relation between language and consciousness. Synthese, 75(2), 217–229. Sorell, T. (1986). Hobbes. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

---

### Locke’s Reflexive Consciousness and the Making of the Person
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/locke-s-reflexive-consciousness-and-the-making-of-the-person
Theorists: John Locke

Philosopher John Locke’s theory of consciousness makes immediate self-awareness constitutive of thinking and makes the continuity of that consciousness—not identity of body or soul—the basis of personal identity. Phenomenal consciousness consists in the mind’s experienced ideas of sensation and reflection, each accompanied by an implicit awareness of oneself as undergoing it; extended backward through appropriative remembrance, this consciousness creates the temporally enduring person who owns actions, anticipates happiness and misery, and bears moral responsibility. Locke thereby helped establish the modern conception of consciousness as subjective, first-person, self-intimating, and central to personhood, while remaining strikingly agnostic about whether its underlying substance is material or immaterial. In other words, Locke's theory of consciousness holds that consciousness is not a substance, a faculty, or a separate second thought, but a self-intimating feature internal to every perception of an idea: to perceive is unavoidably to perceive that one perceives (Locke, 1689/1975, II.xxvii.9). Phenomenal consciousness enters at the level of simple ideas—color, warmth, pain—which the mind receives passively and can neither manufacture nor decompose. Locke then severs personal identity from the identity of any underlying substance and relocates it in sameness of consciousness, while conceding that we cannot know whether thinking is superadded to organized matter or annexed to an immaterial soul. His account thus founds the modern psychological conception of the self and installs at its origin an explicit confession of ignorance about how any physical arrangement could yield experience—two moves that make Locke the hinge on which much subsequent Western argument about consciousness turns. Consciousness as Inseparable from Thinking Locke writes as "consciousness" was detaching from conscientia, the shared or moral knowledge of conscience, and he is among the principal agents of that separation (Jorgensen, 2025; Thiel, 2011; Balibar, 2013). His account arrives inside his definition of a person: a thinking intelligent being with reason and reflection, able to consider itself as itself in different times and places, which it does only by that consciousness "which is inseparable from thinking" (Locke, 1689/1975, II.xxvii.9). Consciousness is thus coextensive with thought—but Locke restricts the claim's reach. Against the Cartesians, he denies that the soul always thinks: "every drowsy nod shakes their doctrine" (Locke, 1689/1975, II.i.13). Thinking is an operation of the soul, not its essence, which detaches the persistence of a substance from the continuity of experience. Consciousness as Reflexive Awareness All ideas originate in experience, through sensation of external objects or reflection on the mind’s own operations—perceiving, thinking, doubting, believing, reasoning, knowing, willing, and desiring (Locke, 1689/1975). Consciousness, however, is not simply reflection. Locke defines it as “the perception of what passes in a man’s own mind” and insists that thinking consists in being conscious that one thinks. He therefore rejects the Cartesian-scholastic hypothesis that the soul continually thinks during dreamless sleep without the person knowing it: an entirely unnoticed thought is, for Locke, scarcely intelligible as thought. The best interpretation is not that every first-order perception causes a separate introspective act. Rather, consciousness is an immediate, noninferential, self-referential awareness internal to occurrent perception: in seeing red, feeling pain, or entertaining a thought, the subject is tacitly aware of itself as seeing, feeling, or thinking (Coventry and Kriegel, 2008; Weinberg, 2016). Locke thus anticipates reflexive or self-representational theories more closely than standard higher-order perception theories. Modern higher-order theories distinguish conscious from unconscious mental states by adding a representation of the first-order state; Locke generally denies the relevant unconscious first-order mentality and treats awareness as intrinsic to thinking itself. Phenomenal Contents and the Experienced World Locke’s “ideas” are the immediate objects of perception, encompassing sensory qualities, bodily sensations, pleasures and pains, emotions, memories, imaginings, and acts of thought. Simple ideas are passively received; the mind then compares, combines, abstracts, and relates them. His primary-secondary quality distinction is especially important phenomenally. Solidity, extension, figure, motion, rest, and number resemble features in bodies, whereas colors, sounds, tastes, smells, warmth, and similar qualities are ideas produced in perceivers by powers of bodies and need not resemble their physical causes (Locke, 1689/1975). This separates qualitative appearance from external microphysical structure: the blueness experienced in seeing a violet belongs to the idea in consciousness, while the flower possesses a power—grounded, Locke supposes, in corpuscular organization—to produce that experience. He therefore gives a proto-scientific account of why experience presents qualities not literally instantiated in objects as experienced. Yet he does not explain why corpuscular motions should generate any qualitative feeling at all. Locke identifies the causal and epistemic architecture of experience, not a solution to the much-later “hard problem”; indeed, his admission that we do not know wherein thinking consists marks early appreciation of the depth of the explanatory gap (Chalmers, 1995). Self, Personhood, and Temporal Identity Locke distinguishes the human organism, the thinking substance or soul, and the person. A person is “a thinking intelligent Being” capable of reason and reflection and able to consider itself as itself across different times and places (Locke, 1689/1975). Present consciousness makes one a self to oneself; because every sensation or thought includes awareness of one’s own activity, each person has intuitive certainty of its present existence. But personhood over time requires consciousness to reach backward and appropriate past experiences and actions as one’s own. Locke’s account is consequently broader and subtler than the familiar label “memory theory.” Memory is the principal psychological means by which present consciousness extends to the past, but Locke repeatedly says that sameness of consciousness—not the faculty or occurrence of memory as such—constitutes personal identity (Thiel, 2011; Strawson, 2011; Yaffe, 2011). The prince-and-cobbler case makes the point: were the prince’s consciousness, including awareness of his past life, transferred to the cobbler’s body, the resulting person would be the prince though the man would be the cobbler. Neither bodily continuity nor sameness of immaterial soul is sufficient without consciousness. “Person” is also a probative term. Consciousness joins actions to the self that is concerned for its own future happiness and misery, thereby grounding accountability, reward, punishment, repentance, and anticipation. This “concernment” is not an external legal convention but an affective structure of consciousness: pleasure and pain matter because they are experienced as mine. Locke’s theory thus integrates phenomenal awareness, diachronic selfhood, practical concern, and moral agency within one architecture. Metaphysical Agnosticism About the Conscious Subject As a paragon of rigorous, tough-minded thinking, Locke refuses to identify consciousness with an independently known mental substance. Our ideas of both material and spiritual substance are obscure suppositions of an unknown support for observable powers. Accordingly, we cannot determine by examining our ideas whether God has joined an immaterial thinking substance to an organized body or has given suitably organized matter itself the power to perceive and think (Locke, 1689/1975). Locke regarded an immaterial soul as more probable, but his theory of consciousness and personal identity does not depend upon it. This agnosticism is philosophically decisive. A single person might, in principle, persist through changes of underlying substance if the same consciousness continued; conversely, the same soul without continuity of consciousness would not preserve the same person. Consciousness is therefore individuated functionally and first-personally before its metaphysical bearer is settled. Locke neither reduces experience to matter nor makes immaterial substance explanatory; he relocates the central question from “What substance thinks?” to “What constitutes a conscious self?” Importance, Tensions, and Legacy Locke’s achievement is to make consciousness do several foundational jobs at once: distinguish genuine thinking from unconscious nonoccurrence, disclose the subject’s existence with maximal certainty, organize phenomenal contents as experiences for a subject, constitute the self at a time, and extend that self into a morally accountable person. His vocabulary and arguments helped transform consciousness from the older domain of conscience and moral knowledge into a general philosophical concept of subjective mental awareness. The theory also faces enduring difficulties. Empirical evidence for unconscious perception, cognition, and motivation undermines Locke’s apparent equation of thinking with consciousness. Butler’s charge of circularity and Reid’s “brave officer” objection challenge whether remembered consciousness can constitute identity without presupposing it and whether identity remains transitive across memory gaps (Butler, 1736; Reid, 1785). More fundamentally, Locke does not explain the unity of simultaneous experience, the causal production of qualitative character, or the ontological status of a consciousness capable of persisting independently of any specified substance. Even so, his framework remains pivotal and exemplary: modern debates about phenomenal awareness, self-representation, psychological continuity, embodiment, moral responsibility, and the distinction between persons and organisms still operate within conceptual terrain that Locke largely established. Placement Placement in Materialism/Philosophical is a lineage claim, not an ontological one. As noted, Locke was officially agnostic about the substrate of thought and considered immateriality the more probable option. Hume's placement in Materialism/Philosophical is defensible on his own non-substantialism; Locke's is defensible only on what his pioneering ways of thinking enabled downstream. Locke was not a proto-materialist. Rather, he introduced the modern concept of consciousness into philosophy—consciousness as the perception of what passes in one's own mind. References Butler, J. (1736). The Analogy of Religion, Natural and Revealed, to the Constitution and Course of Nature. London: James, John and Paul Knapton. Chalmers, D. J. (1995). Facing up to the problem of consciousness. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 2(3), 200–219. Coventry, A. M., and Kriegel, U. (2008). Locke on consciousness. History of Philosophy Quarterly, 25(3), 221–242. Locke, J. (1689/1975). An Essay Concerning Human Understanding (P. H. Nidditch, Ed.). Oxford: Clarendon Press. [Book II, Chapter xxvii added in the second edition, 1694.] Reid, T. (1785). Essays on the Intellectual Powers of Man. Edinburgh: John Bell. Strawson, G. (2011). Locke on Personal Identity: Consciousness and Concernment. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Thiel, U. (2011). The Early Modern Subject: Self-Consciousness and Personal Identity from Descartes to Hume. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Weinberg, S. (2016). Consciousness in Locke. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Yaffe, G. (2011). Locke on consciousness, personal identity and the idea of duration. Noûs, 45(3), 387–408.

---

### Hume’s Bundle Theory of Perceptions
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/hume-s-bundle-theory-of-perceptions
Theorists: David Hume

Enlightenment philosopher David Hume’s theory of consciousness is a radically empiricist, non-substantialist account in which phenomenal consciousness consists entirely of “bundles” of transient “perceptions”—“lively" impressions and fainter ideas—organized by associative principles, affective valence, memory, custom, and imagination, with no further discoverable self, soul, mental substance, necessary connection, or mind-independent object given within experience (Hume, 1739–1740/2007; Hume, 1748/1975; Stroud, 1977; Garrett, 1997). In other words, the mind is nothing more than the stream of these perceptions. Hume is not a theorist of consciousness in the contemporary neuroscientific or even philosophical sense, but he gives one of the most influential early modern analyses of what consciousness presents from the first-person point of view. His project, as the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (SEP) summarizes, is an “experimental” science of human nature grounded in observation of mental operations, not a speculative metaphysics of the soul or the mind Perceptions as the Elements of Conscious Life Hume’s basic unit of consciousness is the “perception,” a deliberately broad category covering sensations, passions, emotions, memories, imaginings, thoughts, and beliefs (Hume, 1739–1740/2007). He divides perceptions, the contents of consciousness, into two classes differing only in degree: impressions and ideas. Impressions include sensory experiences and reflective affective states—desires, passions, emotions—while ideas include memories, imaginings, and thoughts; impressions differ from ideas chiefly by greater “force” or “vivacity” (Hume, 1739–1740/2007). This distinguishing mark, force and vivacity, is most naturally read as a phenomenal property: the felt intensity that separates seeing red or feeling pain from merely thinking of them (Stroud, 1977; Morris & Brown, 2023). From this Hume derives his foundational Copy Principle: every simple idea is derived from, and exactly resembles, a prior simple impression, so that nothing enters thought that was not first felt (Hume, 1748). The mind, on this account, contains nothing but perceptions and the qualities intrinsic to them; there is no further medium of awareness, and no consciousness over and above the lively occurrence of the perceptions themselves. The SEP notes that Hume treats the difference between impressions and ideas as broadly the difference between feeling and thinking, and that vivacity is best read, at least partly, as a phenomenological feature of experience. Thus, for present purposes, impressions are Hume’s closest analog to phenomenal consciousness in its primary form. They are what strike the mind immediately: color seen, pain felt, anger undergone, warmth sensed, desire aroused. Ideas are not nonphenomenal representations; they too occur in consciousness, but with reduced experiential force. Thus, Hume’s distinction is not between consciousness and unconscious representation, but between more and less vivid modes of conscious presentation. The Copy Principle and the Bounds of Meaning Because Hume’s Copy Principle holds that all simple ideas derive from corresponding simple impressions (Hume, 1739–1740/2007; Hume, 1748/1975), this principle gives his theory its power, austerity, and distinction. Any purported idea—self, substance, causal power, external object, necessary connection—must be traced to an impression that could supply its content. Where no such impression can be found, Hume concludes that the supposed idea is either confused, fictitious, or the product of associative imagination. For consciousness studies, the significance is that Hume makes experience itself the test of intelligibility: any purported idea—self, substance, causal power, external object, necessary connection—must be traceable to some impression that could supply its content. The mind is not known through metaphysical insight into its essence; indeed, Hume states that the essence of mind is as unknown as the essence of external bodies (Hume, 1739–1740/2007). What can be investigated are particular appearances and the regularities of their succession. Association, Vivacity, and Belief Hume’s consciousness is not a collection of unrelated qualia. The mind naturally moves among perceptions according to association: resemblance, contiguity in time or place, and cause and effect (Hume, 1739–1740/2007). These are not rationally perceived necessary relations; they are psychological principles by which one perception introduces another. Hume’s account is proto-cognitive without being computational: mental organization is generated by felt transition, habit, expectation, and the transfer of vivacity among perceptions. Belief is especially important. It is not a separate intellectual act added to an idea, but an idea conceived with greater force, steadiness, or vivacity because it is related to present impressions by custom and causal association (Hume, 1739–1740/2007; Loeb, 2002). This makes belief partly phenomenal. To believe that the fire will burn is not merely to entertain a proposition; it is to undergo a more forceful, settled mode of conceiving. Hume’s theory of causation reinforces this: necessary connection is not discovered in external objects but arises, in true empiricist conviction, from an internal impression of expectation generated by repeated conjunctions. Self, Unity, and Personal Identity Hume’s most direct contribution to theories of phenomenal consciousness is his rejection of a substantial self. When he introspects, he famously finds only particular perceptions—heat or cold, light or shade, love or hatred, pain or pleasure—not a simple continuing subject behind them (Hume, 1739–1740/2007). His hallmark conclusion is that the mind is a “bundle or collection” of perceptions in perpetual flux, not a persisting mental substance. The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy summarizes Hume’s claim: we have no experience of a simple impression that could be called the self, and personal identity is produced by resemblance, causal connection, and memory among perceptions. This view is not a denial that conscious life has unity in ordinary experience. Rather, it is a denial that such unity requires an introspectible ego-substance. The unity of consciousness is constructed by associative relations, memory, causal organization, and imagination. Hume’s position anticipates later bundle theories, reductionist accounts of personal identity, and deflationary approaches to the self; but it leaves a difficult question unresolved. If perceptions are genuinely distinct and separable, what accounts for their co-consciousness within one experiential field? Hume himself recognized the difficulty in the Appendix to the Treatise, where he expressed dissatisfaction with his own account of personal identity (Hume, 1739–1740/2007; Ainslie, 2008). External Objects, Passions, and Assessment Hume also treats belief in external objects as a natural imaginative construction. We experience interrupted yet resembling perceptions; the imagination converts their coherence and constancy into belief in continued external existence (Hume, 1739–1740/2007). This is not Berkeleyan idealism, of course, because Hume does not infer that objects are ideas in divine consciousness. Nor is it straightforward realism, because external objects as mind-independent causes are never phenomenally given. Consciousness supplies impressions and their patterns; metaphysical claims beyond them exceed what Hume thinks reason can apprehend. Finally, Hume’s theory is affective as well as sensory. Passions and emotions are impressions of reflection, and much of human thought is shaped by affective force, sympathy, desire, pride, humility, pleasure, pain, and aversion (Hume, 1739–1740/2007; Hume, 1757/2007). This broadens his account of phenomenal consciousness beyond sensation: conscious life is intrinsically felt, evaluative, motivational, and socially modulated. As a theory of phenomenal consciousness, Hume’s strength lies in his disciplined refusal to posit entities not disclosed in experience. He offers a sparse but explicit phenomenology of sensory vividness, affective force, imaginative transition, belief, and selfhood without substance. Its principal weakness is the unity problem: Hume can describe the succession and association of perceptions, but he cannot fully explain why a multiplicity of perceptions is experienced as one conscious stream rather than merely occurring as many discrete events. Hume's subjectless, qualitatively individuated stream of phenomenal consciousness became one of the most consequential pictures of consciousness in Western thought. It directly prefigures William James's stream of consciousness (James, 1890), the reductionist bundle treatments of personal identity revived by Parfit (1984), and contemporary illusionist and deflationary accounts of the self (Frankish, 2016a). It is frequently compared with the Buddhist doctrine of anattā, or no-self. Its enduring impact on consciousness studies is twofold: it makes phenomenal experience metaphysically basic while denying that experience requires a substantial bearer, and it isolates with overt candor, as noted, precisely what such a view leaves unexplained—the felt unity of the conscious field and the apparent presence within it of a subject to whom it all appears. References Ainslie, D. C. (2008). Hume’s True Scepticism. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Garrett, D. (1997). Cognition and Commitment in Hume’s Philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hume, D. (1739–1740/2007). A Treatise of Human Nature (D. F. Norton & M. J. Norton, Eds.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hume, D. (1748/1975). An Enquiry concerning Human Understanding (L. A. Selby-Bigge & P. H. Nidditch, Eds.). Oxford: Clarendon Press. Hume, D. (1757/2007). A Dissertation on the Passions. In T. L. Beauchamp (Ed.), A Dissertation on the Passions; The Natural History of Religion. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Loeb, L. E. (2002). Stability and Justification in Hume’s Treatise. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Morris, W. E., & Brown, C. R. (2024). David Hume. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Qu, H., & Radcliffe, E. S. (2026). David Hume. In E. N. Zalta & U. Nodelman (Eds.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

---

### Epiphenomenalism (Materialism)
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/epiphenomenalism
Theorists: Several

In epiphenomenalism, consciousness is entirely physical, solely the product of biological brains, but mental states cannot be entirely reduced to physical states (brains or otherwise), and mental states have no causal powers. Constrained by the “causal closure of the physical,” the mind, whatever else it might be, is entirely inert: our awareness of consciousness is real, but our sense of mental causation is not. Consciousness is still a kind of illusion or trick in that there is no “top-down causation”; our sense that our thoughts can cause things is mistaken. In this manner, epiphenomenalism is a weaker form of non-reductive physicalism. All conscious mental events, including conscious perceptions, involve unconscious processing. The classic analogy for consciousness as an epiphenomenon is “foam on an ocean wave”: always there, apparently active, but never really doing anything. More formally, epiphenomenalism holds that phenomenal properties are ontologically distinct from physical properties, and that the phenomenal has no effect on the physical. Physical states cause phenomenal states, but not vice versa. The arrow of psychophysical causation points in only one direction, from physical to phenomenal (Chalmers, 2003). This makes epiphenomenalism a weak form of Dualism, but by affirming the complete causal closure of the physical, it well deserves its spot in Materialism Theories. Evidence and Debates Apparent support for consciousness epiphenomenalism comes from the famous Libet experiment, which demonstrated that brain activity associated with a voluntary movement (“readiness potential”) precedes conscious experience of the intention to make that movement by several hundred milliseconds (Frith & Haggard, 2018). The implication is that the brain, rather than conscious “free will,” initiates voluntary acts. Studied extensively, the Libet readiness potential data are reproducible and robust under diverse experiment designs. However, its theoretical and methodological foundations have been challenged (Gholipour, 2019), particularly with respect to stochastic noise in brain, the spontaneous fluctuations in neuronal activity (Schurger et al., 2012). Epiphenomenalism highlights the need to recognize that the search for a metaphysical theory of consciousness must integrate a theory of mental causation, which in turn must deal with the epistemic problem of self-knowledge. In epiphenomenalism, the integration is obvious because the lack of mental causation is its primary feature. In other theories of consciousness, mental causation will be less obvious but perhaps no less important. Daniel Stoljar notes that if phenomenal consciousness were “merely an epiphenomenon with no causal force,” perhaps “this will end up being the best option for dualism 2.0, despite its being counterintuitive—after all, it certainly seems to us that our phenomenally conscious states causally matter. But any view on the problem of consciousness is likely going to have to embrace some counterintuitive result at some point” (Kind & Stoljar, 2023, p. 55). Placement Within Theories Parallelism, a similar but less popular theory than epiphenomenalism, holds that physical events entirely cause physical events and mental events entirely cause mental events, but there is no causal connection between physical and mental worlds in either direction. But if no connection, what would maintain such perfect correspondences? It is no challenge to discern why parallelism is less popular. Epiphenomenalism is also classified under Dualism, because it admits the existence of physical properties, and dualism is about what exists (ontology), not about methods of causation. Nonetheless, epiphenomenalism is classified here under Materialism, almost as a halfway house, as it were, along the road from traditional substance dualism to scientific materialism.

---

### Emergence
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/emergence
Theorists: Paul Davies

Emergence is the claim that qualitatively new, even radically novel properties in biological systems and psychological states arise from physical properties governed entirely by the laws of physics. The re-emergence of emergence in the sciences, where whole entities are, or seem to be, more than the sum of all their parts, has been controversial, its assessment ranging from trivial and distracting to radical and revolutionary (Clayton & Davies, 2008). Emergence in the study of consciousness is especially foundational, more as a basic principle undergirding and enhancing various theories than as a specific theory in its own right. Emergence, according to Paul Davies, means that “at each level of complexity, new and often surprising qualities emerge that cannot, at least in any straightforward manner, be attributed to known properties of the constituents. In some cases, the emergent quality simply makes no sense when applied to the parts. Thus water may be described as wet, but it would be meaningless to ask whether a molecule of H₂O is wet” (Davies, 2008). Moreover, it could seem astonishing that the properties of two common gases, hydrogen and oxygen, can combine to form a liquid that is wet and a solid that expands when cooled. Yet, physics and physical chemistry can explain all of this in terms of atomic structures and bonding angles. Emergence and Reductionism Emergence can be appreciated in contrast with its mortal conceptual rival: reductionism. Reductionism is mainstream science, the bedrock assumption of the scientific method: all, in principle, can be explained by physics, even if all, in practice, cannot be. Davies defines “ontological reductionism” as the state of affairs where all reality “is, in the final analysis, nothing but the sum of the parts, and that the formulation of concepts, theories, and experimental procedures in terms of higher-level concepts is merely a convenience.” (He distinguishes “methodological reductionism,” where reductionism is a “fruitful methodology,” from “epistemological reductionism,” where all we can know is that reductionism works by explaining one scientific level in terms of lower or more fundamental levels, without making any claim on ultimate reality.) (Davies, 2008). But “for emergence to be accepted as more than a methodological convenience—that is, for emergence to make a difference in our understanding of how the world works,” Davies argues that “something has to give within existing theory.” Davies himself has been a leader in “a growing band of scientists who are pushing at the straitjacket of orthodox causation to 'make room' for strong emergence (see below), and although physics remains deeply reductionistic, there is a sense that the subject is poised for a dramatic paradigm shift in this regard” (Davies, 2008). Weak and Strong Emergence To make sense of emergence, we distinguish between its “weak” and “strong” forms. In its weak form, while it may not be apparent how the properties of one level can be entirely explained by the properties of a lower, more fundamental level, in principle, they can be explained, and ultimately, science will advance to explain them. In its strong form, properties at one level can never be explained in terms of properties of lower levels, not even in principle, no matter how ultimate the science. As Davies explains, “Strong emergence is a far more contentious position, in which it is asserted that the micro-level principles are quite simply inadequate to account for the system's behaviour as a whole. Strong emergence cannot succeed in systems that are causally closed at the microscopic level, because there is no room for additional principles to operate that are not already implicit in the lower-level rules.” He posits only three “loopholes”: the universe is an open system, non-deterministic quantum mechanics, and computational imprecision at fundamental levels—all three have obvious problems, which is why they are “considered unorthodox departures from standard physical theory” (Davies, 2008). David Chalmers says that “a high-level phenomenon is strongly emergent with respect to a low-level domain when the high-level phenomenon arises from the low-level domain, but truths concerning that phenomenon are not deducible even in principle from truths in the low-level domain.” He distinguishes a high-level phenomenon that is “weakly emergent with respect to a low-level domain when the high-level phenomenon arises from the low-level domain, but truths concerning that phenomenon are unexpected given the principles governing the low-level domain” (Chalmers, 2008). Consciousness and Strong Emergence Strong emergence, Chalmers contends, has “radical consequences,” such that “If there are phenomena that are strongly emergent with respect to the domain of physics, then our conception of nature needs to be expanded to accommodate them. That is, if there are phenomena whose existence is not deducible from the facts about the exact distribution of particles and fields throughout space and time (along with other laws of physics), then this suggests that new fundamental laws of nature are needed to explain these phenomena” (Chalmers, 2008). By contrasting strong and weak emergence, Chalmers sets the stage to enact the grand epic of consciousness. “In a way, the philosophical morals of strong emergence and weak emergence are diametrically opposed. Strong emergence, if it exists, can be used to reject the physicalist picture of the world as fundamentally incomplete. By contrast, weak emergence can be used to support the physicalist picture of the world, by showing how all sorts of phenomena that might seem novel and irreducible at first sight can nevertheless be grounded in underlying simple laws” (Chalmers, 2008). Chalmers is not shy: “I think there is exactly one clear case of a strongly emergent phenomenon, and that is the phenomenon of consciousness.” He suggests that “the lawful connection between physical processes and consciousness is not itself derivable from the laws of physics but is instead a further basic law or laws of its own. The laws that express the connection between physical processes and consciousness are what we might call fundamental psychophysical laws” (Chalmers, 2008). The challenge of strong emergence, especially in consciousness, is a deep probe of not only how the mind works but also how the world works. Its influence is felt all along the Landscape of Consciousness.

---

### Functionalism
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/functionalism
Theorists: Several

Functionalism in philosophy of mind is the theory that functions are dispositive—activities, roles, results, outputs—mediums are not. What's critical is how mental states work, not in what substrates mental states are found (Levin, 2023). Mental states are not dependent on their internal constitutions, what they are, but rather only on their outputs or roles, what they do. As long as the functions (activities) are conducive to creating consciousness, it does not matter whether the substrates are neural tissue or computer chips or any form of matter that can instantiate information. Ned Block defines functionalism as the theory that “mental states are constituted by their causal relations to one another and to sensory inputs and behavioral outputs.” Functionalism can be appreciated, he says, by attending to “artifact concepts like carburetor and biological concepts like kidney. What it is for something to be a carburetor is for it to mix fuel and air in an internal combustion engine—carburetor is a functional concept. In the case of the kidney, the scientific concept is functional—defined in terms of a role in filtering the blood and maintaining certain chemical balances” (Block, 1980, 2007b). Block gives the functionalist answer to the perennial question, “What are mental states?”, stating simply that “mental states are functional states.” The significance of this simple identity is precisely this simple identity. Thus, he says, “theses of metaphysical functionalism are sometimes described as functional state identity theses” (Block, 1980, 2007b). Functionalism and Physicalism Block explores the relationship between functionalism and reductive physicalism. “The first step in a reductive physicalist enterprise,” he says, “is to functionally characterize the property to be reduced and the second step is to find the physical property that fills the functional role. Reductive physicalism is true for the mind if both steps can always be carried out.” Block makes the at-first counterintuitive claim that reductive physicalism and functionalism are “incompatible rivals,” explaining that when understood as metaphysical theses, “appearances to the contrary stem from failure to sufficiently appreciate the upshot of the difference between metaphysics and ontology”—in that functionalism is agnostic on the existence of nonphysical substances (Block, 2008). David Chalmers uses a silicon-chip-replacement thought experiment to support a functional approach to consciousness.[1] “When experience arises from a physical system,” he says, “it does so in virtue of the system's functional organization.” The thought experiment replaces brain neurons with microchips that can duplicate 100% of the neuron's functions, and to do so slowly, even one by one. (That such technology is fiendishly complex is irrelevant.) The question is, what happens to one's conscious experience, one's qualia? Would it gradually wink or fade out? Chalmers says no: the conscious experience, the qualia, would not change—there would be no difference at all. This result would support Chalmers's “principle of organizational invariance, holding that experience is invariant across systems with the same fine-grained functional organization” (Chalmers, 1995b). Not everyone agrees, of course (Block, 2023; Van Heuveln et al., 1998). Computational and Applied Functionalism Computational functionalism goes further and commits to the thesis that performing computations of a particular, natural, and likely discoverable kind is both necessary and sufficient for consciousness in general and ultimately for human-level consciousness (and perhaps for speculative higher forms of consciousness). Whether consciousness is indeed computational elicits probative and profound debate (Penrose, 1996, 1999). Functionalism with respect to consciousness is more an overarching principle, a way of thinking, than a proffered model, a claimed explanation on its own. Functionalism can apply in many Materialist Theories and it is often assumed as an a priori premise. Functionalism is the theoretical foundation of “virtual immortality,” the theory that the fullness of our mental selves can be uploaded with first-person perfection to non-biological media so that when our mortal bodies die, our mental selves will live on (Kuhn, 2016a). (See “Virtual Immortality.”) Footnote [1]. Ned Block says that the example used in the fading qualia argument may derive from John Haugeland (1980), but that “the best version is that of Chalmers (1995)” (Block, 2023, p. 451).

---

### Kim’s Supervenience
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/kim-s-supervenience
Theorists: Jaegwon Kim

Philosopher Jaegwon Kim’s supervenience theory of consciousness seeks to reconcile mental causation with a physicalist ontology. Supervenience is a way of thinking that defines how mental states relate to physical states, especially in the context of reductionism and the causal closure of the physical domain (Kim, 2010). According to Kim, “mental properties supervene on physical properties” means that “No mental difference without a physical difference.” Or more formally, “The mental supervenes on the physical in that things (objects, events, organisms, persons, and so on) that are exactly alike in all physical properties cannot differ with respect to mental properties. That is, physical indiscernibility entails psychological indiscernibility.” In other words, mental properties supervene on physical properties if any two entities that are identical in all their physical properties will also be identical in all their mental properties, and there cannot be a difference in mental properties without a difference in physical properties. Kim stresses that “this principle does not say that things that are alike in psychological respects must be alike in physical respects... the same psychology could be realized in different physical systems… mind-body supervenience asserts only that creatures could not be psychologically different and yet physically identical.” Thus, the same mental state can be realized by different physical states, which is consistent with functionalism and multiple realizability (Kim, 2010). Critically, supervenience itself is not an explanation for how the physical generates the mental; it does not even try to explain how mental states arise from physical states. It's a dependency relationship, not a causative mechanism. The Causal Exclusion Problem Kim defends a causal exclusion problem as follows. Every physical event that has a cause has a sufficient physical cause (based on the causal closure of the physical). If a mental event causes a physical event, and it is not reducible to a physical event, then there is overdetermination. Therefore, either mental causes are identical to physical causes (reductionism), or mental causes are epiphenomenal (causally inert). He sees this as a defeater for non-reductive physicalism, which holds that the mental is not reducible to the physical, yet somehow depends on the physical, and is still causally efficacious. According to Kim’s mid-career thinking, the only way to preserve mental causation and avoid epiphenomenalism is that mental properties must be reducible to physical properties—otherwise, they would be causally excluded by physical causes. Here, Kim advocates a reductionist physicalism, from which he supports a form of identity theory for mental states (e.g., pain equals C-fiber firing), which in turn allows mental states to be causally efficacious without violating physical causal closure. Shifts in Kim’s Position Notably, over the course of his stellar career, Kim changed his approach to the mind-body problem. He began by defending a version of identity theory, then non-reductive physicalism (which relied on supervenience), then a kind of reductive physicalism (returning to a kind of identity theory). At one point, Kim rejected hard-core physicalism because he could not see how it could provide a sufficient basis for resolving the hard problem of consciousness—accounting for consciousness (qualia) by physical descriptions of the brain alone seemed insurmountable. He said, "Physicalism will not be able to survive intact and in its entirety." Moreover, "phenomenal mental properties are not functionally definable and hence functionally irreducible," and "if functional reduction doesn't work for qualia, nothing will." Thus, there is something of the mind that exceeds that which the brain can generate ("Jaegwon Kim," 2025; Kim, 2010, 2005). Later, Kim adopted a version of property dualism, although he argued that his position was "something near enough" to physicalism. He still saw physicalism to be the most comprehensive worldview, one that is irreplaceable by any other worldview. Mind, he concluded, is a natural phenomenon, and supernatural explanation only offers "one riddle over another." He believed that any correct explanation for the nature of mind would come from natural science, not from philosophy or psychology ("Jaegwon Kim," 2025, 2005).

---

### Flanagan’s Constructive Naturalism
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/flanagan-s-constructive-naturalism
Theorists: Owen Flanagan

To philosopher Owen Flanagan, “consciousness is neither miraculous nor terminally mysterious,” and he argues that “it is possible to understand human consciousness in a way that gives its subjective, phenomenal aspects their full due, while at the same time taking into account the neural bases of subjectivity.” The result, he says, “is a powerful synthetic theory of consciousness, a ‘constructive naturalism,’ according to which subjective consciousness is real, plays an important causal role, and resides [without residue] in the brain” (Flanagan, 1993). Constructive Naturalism and Its Commitments The “constructive naturalistic theory” that Flanagan sketches is “neurophilosophical” in that “it tries to mesh a naturalistic metaphysic of mind with our still sketchy but maturing understanding of how the brain works.” It pictures consciousness “as a name for a heterogeneous set of events and processes that share the property of being experienced. Consciousness is taken to name a set of processes, not a thing or a mental faculty.” The theory is neo-Darwinian, he says, “in that it is committed to the view that the capacity to experience things evolved via the processes responsible for the development of our nervous system.” The theory, he stresses, “denies that consciousness is as consciousness seems at the surface.” Rather, consciousness has a complex structure, and getting at it requires “coordination of phenomenological, psychological, and neural analyses” (Flanagan, 1993). Flanagan explains that “there is no necessary connection between how things seem and how they are … [and] we are often mistaken in our self-reporting, including in our reporting about how things seem.” This is why he cautions that phenomenology might do “more harm than good when it comes to developing a proper theory of consciousness, since it fosters certain illusions about the nature of consciousness” (Flanagan, 1993). Mind, Brain, and the Epistemic Gap “The most plausible hypothesis,” Flanagan states, “is that the mind is the brain, a Darwin machine that is a massively well-connected system of parallel processors interacting with each other from above and below, and every which way besides.” It is no wonder, he says, that “meaning holism is true, that we somehow solve the frame problem, and that my belief that snow is white is realized quite possibly in a somewhat different way in my brain than the same belief is realized in yours.” Flanagan addresses “the gap between the first-person way in which conscious mental life reveals itself and the way it is, or can be described, from an objective point of view” by asserting bluntly, “mind and brain are one and the same thing seen from two different perspectives. The gap between the subjective and the objective is an epistemic gap, not an ontological gap.” Indeed, he claims, “it is precisely the fact that individuals possess organismic integrity that explains why subjectivity accrues first-personally” (Flanagan, 1993). Emergence, Causation, and Meaning As a physicalist, Flanagan recognizes the role of emergence, that “there are emergent natural properties that, despite being obedient to the laws of physics, are not reducible to physics” (Flanagan, 2003). He rejects epiphenomenalism, where “conscious thought plays no role in the execution of any act.” The sense that we control our actions is real, not illusion, but the mechanism is all brain-bound; for example, an idea originating in the prefrontal cortex that calls up information or memories from the parietal association cortex (Campbell, 2004). To Flanagan, the “really hard problem” is finding “meaning in a material world” (Flanagan, 2007). To this end, he explores “neuroexistentialism,” the condition “caused by the rise of the scientific authority of the human sciences and a resultant clash between the scientific and the humanistic image of persons” (Flanagan & Caruso, 2018).

---

### Goldstein’s Mind-Body Problem
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/goldstein-s-mind-body-problem
Theorists: Rebecca Newberger Goldstein

Philosopher-novelist Rebecca Newberger Goldstein centers the mind-body problem around the nature of the person, with two distinct kinds of descriptions: our physical bodies and brains, which science can, in principle, analyze completely, and our inner thoughts, perceptions, emotions, dreams, which science can never access completely (Goldstein, 2011a, 2011b). Goldstein thinks that the internal description of what it’s like to be a person—“what I try to do in creating a character in a novel”—is “really about the body because ultimately there are no nonmaterial states.” Goldstein states that the kind of stuff underlining these intentional states or states of feeling that we describe in terms of consciousness is entirely brain stuff. “Could we ever derive the one description from the other? Could we ever know enough about the brain stuff so that we could actually know everything there is to be a person, just by the description of the brain stuff? I don't think so” (Goldstein, 2011a, 2011b). Goldstein says that panpsychism seems plausible and she understands why some are dualists, where that internal point of view is something that is not the body, and could, in principle, exist separate from the body. She appreciates why some people who hope for immortality hope dualism is true. (She herself rejects dualism.)

---

### Mitchell’s 15 Questions
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/mitchell-s-15-questions
Theorists: Kevin J. Mitchell

Neuroscientist Kevin J. Mitchell offers 15 questions that he says an explanatory, integrated theory of consciousness should encompass, grouped into somewhat related domains (Mitchell, 2025): 1. The Which Question: What kinds of things are conscious, sentient beings? What kinds of things is it like something to be? What is the basis of subjective phenomenal experience, and what kinds of things have it? 2. The Awareness Question: Does being “sentient” necessarily involve conscious awareness? Does responsiveness entail awareness? Does awareness (of anything) necessarily entail self-awareness? What is required for “the lights to be on”? 3. The Capacity Question: What distinguishes conscious from non-conscious entities? (That is, why do some entities have the capacity for consciousness while other kinds of things do not?) Are there entities with different degrees or kinds of consciousness or a sharp boundary? 4. The State Question: For things that have the capacity for consciousness, what distinguishes the state of consciousness from being unconscious? Is there a simple on/off switch? How is this related to arousal, attention, awareness of one’s surroundings (or general responsiveness)? 5. The Content Question: What determines what we are conscious of at any moment? Why do some neural or cognitive operations go on consciously and others subconsciously? Why/how are some kinds of information permitted access to our conscious awareness while most is excluded? 6. The Attention Question: What distinguishes things that we are currently consciously aware of from things that we could be consciously aware of if we turned our attention to them, and from things that we could not be consciously aware of (that nevertheless play crucial roles in our cognition)? 7. The Architecture Question: Which systems are required to support conscious perception? Where is the relevant information represented? Is it all pushed into a common space, or does a central system just point to more distributed representations where the details are held? 8. The Unity Question: Why does consciousness feel unitary? How are our various informational streams bound together? 9. The Selfhood Question: Why do things feel like *our* experiences or *our* thoughts? Where does our sense of selfhood come from? How is this sense of self related to actually being a self? 10. The Qualia Question: Why do some kinds of neural activity feel like something? Why do different kinds of signals feel different from each other? Why do they feel specifically like what they feel like? 11. The Valence Question: How do we become conscious of our own internal states? How much of our subjective experience arises from homeostatic control signals that necessarily have valence? If such signals entail feelings, how do we know what those feelings are about? 12. The Intentionality Question: How does the aboutness of conscious states (or subconscious states) arise? How does the system know what such states refer to? (When the states are all the system has access to). 13. The Function Question: What is the point of conscious subjective experience? Or of a high-level common space for conscious deliberation? Or of reflective capacities for metacognition? What adaptive value do these capacities have? 14. The Mentality Question: How does mentality arise at all? When does computation become cognition? When does cognition become cogitation? Why are only some elements and aspects of cognition part of conscious experience? 15. The Control Question: How does conscious activity influence behavior? Does a capacity for conscious cognitive control equal “free will”? How is mental causation even supposed to work? How can the meaning of mental states constrain the activities of neural circuits? Mitchell concludes: If we had a theory that could accommodate all these elements and provide some coherent framework in which they could be related to each other—not for providing all the answers but just for asking sensible questions—well, that would be a theory of consciousness (Mitchell, 2025).

---

### Ney’s Physicalism, Not Scientism
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/ney-s-physicalism-not-scientism
Theorists: Alyssa Ney

Philosopher Alyssa Ney’s theory of consciousness is founded on her overall metaphysics espousing physicalism, the proposition that the world is simply the way physics says it is, but at the same time, she eschews scientism, which is (she quotes Susan Haack) a “kind of over-enthusiastic and uncritically deferential attitude towards science, an inability to see or an unwillingness to acknowledge its fallibility.” Ney argues that consciousness can and should be understood within a physicalist framework, but physicalism should be informed by fundamental physics rather than by outdated or folk notions of “the physical.” So, unlike traditional reductive physicalism, Ney says her approach is science-based and non-reductive (Ney, 2018). Consciousness Within a Physicalist Framework Ney maintains that consciousness is real and part of the physical fabric of the world, even if it currently resists reduction. “The physicalist should not be committed to reducing consciousness to something easily definable in current physics... but rather to the idea that it arises from or is realized by the physical.” She is critical of dualism and anti-physicalist theories like Chalmers’ naturalistic dualism or panpsychism, which she sees as giving up too early on the scientific project. “We have no good reason to think that the methods of physics will not one day provide us with the tools to understand consciousness” (Ney, 2021). Physicalism Without Scientism Ney is careful when considering some physicalists who “adopt a strong scientistic attitude, and accordingly reject what is not mentioned by physics,” stating that “these physicalists go beyond what is required by physicalism.” This is why, she says, “The reason why physicalism per se does not entail eliminativism about those entities or phenomena not mentioned by physics [i.e., consciousness] is made transparent by noting that more carefully formulated, physicalism is not a position merely about what exists, but rather about how the world is fundamentally” (Ney, 2018). As physicalism is the view that the world is fundamentally the way physics says it is, one may accept this claim, Ney says, and “accept that physics does not mention spaghetti, [but] nonetheless accept its delicious existence.” The obvious reason, she says, is simply that “spaghetti does not exist fundamentally.” She then goes for the close on consciousness. “The same applies for free will, intentionality, and consciousness. According to the physicalist, these are not fundamental phenomena” (Ney, 2018).

---

### Hardcastle’s Argument Against Materialism Skeptics
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/hardcastle-s-argument-against-materialism-skeptics
Theorists: Valarie Gray Hardcastle

Philosopher Valerie Gray Hardcastle argues that the points of division between materialists and materialism-skeptics “are quite deep and turn on basic differences in understanding the scientific enterprise.” This disagreement, “the rifts,” which she frames, in part, between David Chalmers and herself, concerns whether consciousness is a brute fact about the world, which materialists deny and its skeptics affirm. Rather, materialists believe that consciousness is part of the physical world, just like everything else. “It is completely nonmysterious (though it is poorly understood) [and materialists] have total and absolute faith that science as it is construed today will someday explain this as it has explained the other so-called mysteries of our age” (Section: Hardcastle, 1996). The Skeptics’ Challenge Hardcastle gives her clear-eyed assessment: “I am a committed materialist and believe absolutely and certainly that empirical investigation is the proper approach in explaining consciousness. I also recognize that I have little convincing to say to those opposed to me. There are few useful conversations; there are even fewer converts.” She epitomizes the skeptics' position: “Isolating the causal relations associated with conscious phenomena would simply miss the boat, for there is no way that doing that ever captures the qualitative aspects of awareness. What the naturalists might do is illustrate when we are conscious, but that won't explain the why of consciousness.” Thus, she continues, whatever the neural correlate(s) of consciousness may be, the naturalists would not have explained why it is that (or those). Part of a good explanation, skeptics maintain, “is making the identity statement (or whatever) intelligible, plausible, reasonable” and this is what materialists have not done and thus have not closed the explanatory gap. Hardcastle’s Response to Mysterians In response, Hardcastle is frank: “To them, I have little to say in defence of naturalism, for I think nothing that I as an already committed naturalist could say would suffice, for we don't agree on the terms of the argument in the first place.” The consciousness identity, whatever it turns out to be, could be a brute fact about the world, just like the laws of physics. At some point, in all theories, explanations must end. Hardcastle asks, “How do I make my identification of consciousness with some neural activity intelligible to those who find it mysterious? My answer is that I don't. The solution to this vexing difficulty, such as it is, is all a matter of attitude. That is, the problem itself depends on the spirit in which we approach an examination of consciousness.” In characterizing “consciousness-mysterians,” she states, “They are antecedently convinced of the mysteriousness of consciousness and no amount of scientific data is going to change that perspective. Either you already believe that science is going to give you a correct identity statement, or you don't and you think that there is always going to be something left over, the phenomenal aspects of conscious experience” (Hardcastle, 1996). Hardcastle's advice to skeptics? “Consciousness-mysterians need to alter their concepts. To put it bluntly: their failure to appreciate the world as it really is cuts no ice with science. Their ideas are at fault, not the scientific method. Materialists presume that there is some sort of identity statement for consciousness. (Of course, we don't actually have one yet, but for those of us who are not consciousness-mysterians, we feel certain that one is in the offing.) Hence, the skeptics can't really imagine possible worlds in which consciousness is not whatever we ultimately discover it to be because they aren't imagining consciousness in those cases (or, they aren't imagining properly). But nevertheless, what can I say to those who insist that they can imagine consciousness as beyond science's current explanatory capacities? I think nothing …” The fundamental difference between materialists and their skeptics, according to Hardcastle, is that “Materialists are trying to explain to each other what consciousness is within current scientific frameworks … If you don't antecedently buy into this project …, then a naturalist's explanation probably won't satisfy you. It shouldn't. But that is not the fault of the explanation, nor is it the fault of the materialists. If you don't accept the rules, the game won't make any sense” (Hardcastle, 1996). Broader Contributions to Consciousness Studies Hardcastle's own approach to consciousness includes: viewing it as a lower-level dynamical structure underpinning our information processing (Hardcastle, 1995); the relation between ontology and explanation providing a framework for referring to mental states as being the causally efficacious agents for some behavior (Hardcastle, 1998); a more nuanced approach to the neural correlates of consciousness (NCC) in that it “there might not be an NCC—even if we adopt a purely materialistic and reductionistic framework for explaining consciousness (for example, perhaps consciousness is located out in the world just as much as it is located inside the head) (Hardcastle, 2018; Hardcastle and Raja, 1998); and action selection and projection to help refine notions of consciousness from an embodied perspective (Hardcastle, 2020).

---

### Stoljar’s Epistemic View and Non-Standard Physicalism
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/stoljar-s-epistemic-view-and-non-standard-physicalism
Theorists: Daniel Stoljar

Philosopher Daniel Stoljar has long focused on physicalism, its interpretation, truth, and philosophical significance; his views are nuanced and largely deflationary (Stoljar, 2010).He defines physicalism as the thesis that "every instantiated property is either physical or is necessitated by some physical property," where physical property is described by “all and only the following elements: it is a) a distinctive property of intuitively physical objects, b) expressed by a predicate of physics, c) objective, d) knowable through scientific investigation, and e) not a distinctive property of souls, ectoplasm, etc.” (Montero, 2012). According to Stoljar, "Physicalism has no formulations on which it is both true and deserving of the name"—but this “does not entail that philosophical problems stated in terms of it [physicalism] have no reasonable formulation” (Stoljar, 2010, Montero, 2012). The Compatibility Problem As everyone knows, the philosophical problem of phenomenal consciousness is the poster-child test case for physicalism, the standard physicalist framework being that “consciousness can be explained by contemporary physics, biology, neuroscience, and cognitive science” (Kind and Stoljar, 2023, p.i). To Stoljar, the problem (or problems) of consciousness is “whether two big ideas can both be true together. The first is the existence of consciousness. The second is a worldview (a picture of everything that exists) that many people think you must believe if you hold a vaguely scientific or rational approach to the world, namely, physicalism.” Stoljar calls it the “compatibility problem”— “i.e., the problem of whether physicalism and claim that consciousness exists can both be correct”—and he says that the solution is “right under our nose.” The solution to the compatibility problem, Stoljar tells us, “is that we are missing something”—and the depth and implications of this simple statement are surprisingly profound (Kind and Stoljar, 2023, pp 64-65). The Epistemic View and Ignorance Hypothesis What we are missing, according to Stoljar, “is a type of physical fact or property relevant to consciousness. More than this, we are profoundly ignorant of the nature of the physical world, and ignoring this ignorance is what generates the problem.” He calls “the idea that we are ignorant of a type of fact or property that is relevant to consciousness the ignorance hypothesis” and he calls “the idea that the ignorance hypothesis solves the compatibility problem the epistemic view.” Stoljar contends that all arguments for the opposing view—i.e., that physicalism and consciousness are incompatible—“fail, and for a single reason.” These arguments, he says, “all presuppose that we have complete knowledge of the physical facts relevant to consciousness. According to the epistemic view, that presupposition is false, so the arguments [against physicalism-consciousness compatibility] don't work.” That physicalism cannot be shown affirmatively to be true does not bother Stoljar, because, he says, physicalism is an empirical truth, not an a priori argument. “What the epistemic view says is that … there is no persuasive ‘here and now’ argument for incompatibility.” Thus, Stoljar argues, the epistemic view helps us think about the problems of consciousness in a clearer way, disentangling them from the compatibility problem (Kind and Stoljar, 2023, pp.64-66). Non-Standard Physicalism and Limits of Science Stoljar is no traditional physicalist. He critiques “standard physicalism,” by which he means “versions of physicalism that make no theoretical use of the ignorance hypothesis.” He conjectures that there are properties of the physical world that go beyond the capacity of the physical sciences to access and measure through its devices and instruments. Is this incapacity in practice, as per current science, or in principle, such that ultimate truth is forever out of reach? Who knows? Either way, he says, would support his ignorance hypothesis defense of physicalism (Kind and Stoljar, 2023, p.67). More subtly, Stolar contends that the epistemic view does provide an “explanation of consciousness,” at least in an abstract sense. “It tells us, for example, that conscious states are not fundamental and so depend on other things, even if it leaves open what exactly they depend on”(Kind and Stoljar, 2023, p112). Yet Stoljar believes it is possible to construct “a science of consciousness”—to study “empirical laws between each conscious state and some physical system”— but he is skeptical of “the attempt to provide systematic knowledge of such laws” which he rejects as “implausible on its own terms.” Preferring “to understand the science in a more modest way,” Stoljar is ready to accept “that we do not and may never have a complete theory of the world” (Kind and stoljar, 2023, pp.67-68).

---

### Bayne’s Unified, Multidimensional Consciousness: Structure Before Mechanism
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/bayne-s-unified-multidimensional-consciousness-structure-before-mechanism
Theorists: Tim Bayne

Philosopher Tim Bayne’s approach to consciousness is best understood not as a proposed neural mechanism or metaphysical solution to the hard problem, but as an attempt to identify structural constraints that any adequate theory of phenomenal consciousness must satisfy. His central claims are that a subject’s simultaneous phenomenal experiences ordinarily form a single unified phenomenal field, that an organism’s overall conscious condition cannot adequately be represented by a single “level” of consciousness but is intrinsically multidimensional, and that progress in consciousness science requires much greater conceptual precision about conscious states, conscious creatures, and tests for consciousness (Bayne, 2007, 2010; Bayne, Hohwy and Owen, 2016). This constraint-first approach is deliberate: Bayne argues that consciousness science remains too immature for confidence in detailed explanatory theories. In other words, Bayne's central claim is the Unity Thesis: necessarily, for any conscious subject at any time, the simultaneous conscious states that subject has are subsumed by a single total conscious state (Bayne, 2010). Phenomenal unity is therefore not a relation added to independently constituted experiences but the condition under which experiences occur at all—a subject's phenomenal field is one experience with parts rather than a collection of experiences that happen to co-occur. A second strand of his work concerns the taxonomy and measurement of consciousness: he rejects the unidimensional conception of conscious "levels" in favor of multidimensional global states, challenges the axiomatic foundations of Integrated Information Theory (IIT), and argues that consciousness science should proceed by treating consciousness as a natural kind. His importance lies in treating the structural features of phenomenal consciousness as empirical constraints on any account of its physical basis, rather than as data to be explained after the fact. Phenomenal Unity—Unity Thesis Bayne’s most distinctive thesis concerns phenomenal unity—the way multiple simultaneous experiences occur together as components of one overall experience. Seeing a computer screen while hearing music and feeling pressure in one’s foot does not normally involve three phenomenally isolated consciousnesses; there is something it is like to experience the visual, auditory, and bodily contents together. Bayne’s mereological account holds that experiences are phenomenally unified when they are subsumed as parts of a single, more encompassing phenomenal state (Bayne and Chalmers, 2003; Bayne, 2010). The resulting Unity Thesis maintains, roughly, that necessarily all of a subject’s simultaneous conscious experiences are phenomenally unified. Importantly, unity here is not merely informational integration, attentional coordination, behavioral integration, or common ownership by the same organism. It is phenomenal: the contents occur within one conjoint “what-it-is-like.” Bayne treats the subject principally in biological terms—as the conscious animal—and argues that familiar alleged counterexamples, particularly split-brain patients, do not provide sufficiently strong evidence that a single subject simultaneously contains two phenomenally disunified streams (Bayne, 2008, 2010). This thesis has substantial explanatory consequences. A neural theory cannot merely explain why vision, audition, pain, and thought individually become conscious; it must explain why their phenomenal characters occur as constituents of a single experiential whole. Unity thus operates for Bayne as a constraint on theories of consciousness rather than itself providing the mechanism that generates consciousness. Bayne and Chalmers (2003) distinguish several unities that are routinely conflated. Subject unity concerns experiences belonging to one subject; representational unity concerns contents that are integrated; phenomenal unity concerns whether there is something it is like to have two experiences together. Only the third is Bayne's target. Two experiences are phenomenally unified when they are subsumed by a further state whose phenomenal character includes theirs, and the resulting picture is holist rather than atomist: the total conscious state is explanatorily prior, and component experiences are abstractions from it (Bayne, 2010). The thesis is substantive and falsifiable—a single subject with two simultaneous, independent conscious states would refute it—which is what makes the pathological cases decisive. Split Brains and the Switch Model Conventional wisdom holds that commissurotomy—severing the corpus collosum connecting the left and right cerebral hemispheres—demonstrates phenomenal disunity. Bayne (2008) resists this on two fronts. He argues that the two-streams model and the partial-unity model are each independently problematic, and he proposes the switch model instead: conscious perception in split-brain subjects alternates between hemispheres rather than each hemisphere sustaining its own stream, with the apparent disunity deriving from inter-hemispheric shifts in attention. He extends the strategy to anosognosia, schizophrenia, hypnosis, and dissociative identity disorder, conceding in each case genuine failures of access, representational, and self-consciousness unity while denying phenomenal disunity (Bayne, 2010). The strategy has been contested from both directions: Schechter (2018) defends a two-subjects reading, while Duindam (2020) argues that the Unity Thesis becomes trivial unless "subject" is specified in a way Bayne does not supply. From Levels to Dimensions Consciousness science routinely speaks of levels of consciousness across coma, anesthesia, sleep, and absence seizures. Bayne, Hohwy, and Owen (2016) argue that the levels framework is untenable because it treats global states as gradations along a single scale, when in fact they vary independently along multiple content-related and functional dimensions—how conscious contents are gated, how they are structured, what functional roles they play. Psychedelic states illustrate the point sharply, since some dimensions are heightened while others are degraded, so that no single ordering places the psychedelic state above or below ordinary waking consciousness (Bayne and Carter, 2018). The consequence for measurement is direct: no instrument can report a subject's conscious state as one number. Islands, Tests, and Method Bayne, Seth, and Massimini (2020) push the question outward, asking whether there can be "islands of awareness"—consciousness in neural systems causally isolated from sensory input and behavioral output, as in cerebral organoids, ex cranio brains, hydranencephaly, and surgically isolated hemispheres. The problem is epistemic as much as metaphysical, and Bayne and colleagues (2024) accordingly propose a multidimensional classification of tests for consciousness, together with strategies for validating them in populations—infants, nonhuman animals, artificial systems, organoids—where behavioral markers are unavailable or unreliable. This program requires a methodology, and Bayne (2018) argues that IIT does not supply one: none of its five putative axioms is genuinely axiomatic or substantively constraining. He proposes instead that consciousness be investigated as a natural kind, with theory and evidence adjusted together. Assessment Bayne does not claim to offer an account of what phenomenal consciousness is, or why any physical process should give rise to it, and this is deliberate. What he supplies is a structural constraint any adequate theory must respect, a taxonomy of global states that dissolves a confused construct, an epistemology for attributing consciousness to diverse populations or entities, and a methodological alternative to axiomatic theory-building. There are challenges. The Unity Thesis risks triviality on some readings of "subject"; the switch model remains empirically contested, with later work reporting divided perception alongside undivided consciousness in split-brain subjects (Pinto et al., 2017); and the natural-kind methodology assumes what it cannot (yet) establish, that consciousness is a natural kind at all. To be clear, Bayne takes no stand on physicalism. His unity thesis is a claim about the structure of phenomenal consciousness, orthogonal to ontology, and it constrains dualist and idealist theories exactly as much as materialist ones. References Bayne, T. (2008). The unity of consciousness and the split-brain syndrome. The Journal of Philosophy, 105(6), 277–300. Bayne, T. (2010). The Unity of Consciousness. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bayne, T. (2018). On the axiomatic foundations of the integrated information theory of consciousness. Neuroscience of Consciousness, 2018(1), niy007. Bayne, T., & Carter, O. (2018). Dimensions of consciousness and the psychedelic state. Neuroscience of Consciousness, 2018(1), niy008. Bayne, T., & Chalmers, D. J. (2003). What is the unity of consciousness? In A. Cleeremans (Ed.), The Unity of Consciousness: Binding, Integration, and Dissociation (pp. 23–58). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bayne, T., Hohwy, J., & Owen, A. M. (2016). Are there levels of consciousness? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 20(6), 405–413. Bayne, T., & Montague, M. (Eds.). (2011). Cognitive Phenomenology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bayne, T., Seth, A. K., & Massimini, M. (2020). Are there islands of awareness? Trends in Neurosciences, 43(1), 6–16. Bayne, T., Seth, A. K., Massimini, M., Shepherd, J., Cleeremans, A., Fleming, S. M., Malach, R., Mattingley, J. B., Menon, D. K., Owen, A. M., Peters, M. A. K., Razi, A., & Mudrik, L. (2024). Tests for consciousness in humans and beyond. Trends in Cognitive Sciences. Duindam, G. (2020). On Bayne and Chalmers' phenomenal unity thesis. Philosophia, 48(3), 935–945. Pinto, Y., Neville, D. A., Otten, M., Corballis, P. M., Lamme, V. A. F., de Haan, E. H. F., Foschi, N., & Fabri, M. (2017). Split brain: Divided perception but undivided consciousness. Brain, 140(5), 1231–1237. Schechter, E. (2018). Self-Consciousness and "Split" Brains: The Minds' I. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Shea, N., & Bayne, T. (2010). The vegetative state and the science of consciousness. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 61(3), 459–484.

---

### Weisberg’s Explanatory Optimism via Automated Compression Theory
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/weisberg-s-explanatory-optimism-via-automated-compression-theory
Theorists: Josh Weisberg

Philosopher Josh Weisberg expresses “explanatory optimism about the hard problem of consciousness” by arguing that a physicalist explanation of phenomenal consciousness remains a plausible and positive path. He contends that the hard problem looks hard because first-person appearances are systematically misleading. It is not an unsolvable metaphysical riddle but rather an “epistemic” one, buried in the way consciousness appears to us from a first-person perspective. Instead of conjuring up new, unique, and perhaps nonphysical properties to account for consciousness, Weisberg suggests we should question the “epistemic underpinnings of the problem,” which are the “appearances and intuitions driving this intense explanatory pessimism.” He marvels at what seems to him “to be highly plausible and well-motivated physicalist explanations of phenomenal consciousness” that “can be viewed by others to be complete and utter non-starters, to put it mildly” (Weisberg, 2025, 2023). Debunking Argument and Weak Illusionism Weisberg’s central thesis is a “debunking argument” that challenges the evidential status of first-person access to consciousness by “undercutting the evidential status of those appearances,” undercutting “the justificatory link between the first-person appearances and our hard problem intuitions.” The argument begins as follows: There is a plausible explanation of how consciousness appears in first-person access making no reference to exceptional properties. If there is a plausible explanation of how consciousness appears in first-person access making no refer to exceptional properties, how consciousness appears in first-person access loses its status as a justifying ground for a belief in exceptional properties. Therefore, how consciousness appears in first-person access loses its status as a justifying ground for a belief in exceptional properties. (Weisberg, 2025) (Obviously, the argument hangs by the “rope,” or by the “thread,” of the first premise.) Weisberg argues that without these “first-personal justifying grounds,” the hard problem is difficult to motivate. His strategy follows the broad outline of Derk Pereboom's “qualitative inaccuracy hypothesis,” which suggests that first-person access may be misleading about the “qualitative natures of phenomenal properties.” However, Weisberg aims to provide a specific empirical theory to account for this inaccuracy. Weisberg refers to his position as “weak illusionism,” which posits that while consciousness exists, we are mistaken about some of its properties. This contrasts with “strong illusionism” (“there is nothing it’s like to be us”), which claims that phenomenal consciousness itself is an illusion (Illusionism), and from which Weisberg distances himself. In other words, weak illusionism is “the claim that there is indeed something it’s like for us in conscious experience, but we are in error about some of the properties of consciousness.” It rejects only the “‘revelatory’ claim that we have highly justified access to the underlying metaphysical nature of consciousness.” DISC Properties and the Problem of Appearances Weisberg identifies four main “culprits” or phenomenal features that prompt our “hard problem intuitions” and belief in “exceptional properties.” He refers to these as “DISC” properties: Direct: Experiences are accessed in a seemingly direct way. Indescribable: They seem to have features that are indescribable in informative terms. Simple: They seem to be constituted by simple properties, “in no way further decomposable.” Contingent: Their properties seem only contingently connected to other, more tractable features of mind and world. (Weisberg, 2025, 2023) Weisberg admits that “if conscious experience seems DISCy, then the standard thought experiments used to attack physicalism will seem plausible. DISCyness explains why zombies seem (positively, primarily, ideally) conceivable, why Mary seems to gain propositional knowledge on her release, why there seems to be an other-minds problem, etc.” He recognizes, “The problem of specifying the appearance of our conscious experience, particularly those elements leading to hard problem intuitions, is a difficult one” (Weisberg, 2025, 2023). Automated Compression Theory (ACT) The key step in Weisberg’s debunking argument involves the development and defense of an empirical model of first-person access: Automated Compression Theory (ACT). “ACT holds that first-person access to consciousness is accomplished by automated accessing of compressed sensory information. Because of the distorting nature of this compressed access, it seems to subjects that consciousness possesses ‘exceptional’ properties—properties leading to the hard problem—even though no such properties are present. If there are no exceptional properties to explain, then an explanation in easy terms can fully account for conscious experience” (Weisberg, 2023). Thus, Weisberg suggests that if his characterization is correct, his argument “requires a plausible explanation of DISC appearances in easy, physical-friendly terms,” and he claims to “build an empirical case for an easy explanation of the DISCy appearance of phenomenal consciousness” based on the ACT perspective that “when we consider our conscious experience from the first-person perspective, we automatically access compressed information chunks, and this process explains our hard problem intuitions in easy terms.” Weisberg continues by claiming, “There is strong empirical evidence that at many levels of mentality, we find automatic and compressing processes” (Weisberg, 2025, 2023). Weisberg states that his ACT is grounded in empirical evidence for two widespread processes in the brain: Automaticity: Many mental processes are automatic, quick, and subjectively inaccessible to us, making the information they deliver seem direct and unmediated. Compression: The brain is under “neuro-engineering pressure” to consolidate and compress information into efficient packets. This process condenses mental information into “dense chunks” that are “at once 'thinkable' but also seemingly non-decomposable.” Here’s how Weisberg relates the apparent hard problem of DISC to the putative easy process of ACT (brain automaticity and compression). He argues that automaticity accounts for the appearance of Directness. Compression, by hiding the complex relational nature of our mental states, makes them seem Indescribable and Simple. Furthermore, because the constitutive connections are not directly accessed, they appear only Contingently connected to the functional machinery of the mind (Weisberg, 2025, 2023). To provide a concrete example of how this process works, Weisberg references “quality space theory,” which “holds that mental qualities are the properties of mental states accounting for their distinctive families of similarities and differences.” For instance, our perception of “red” is a relational property based on its position in the quality space relative to other colors. When this information is compressed, it doesn't present its full relational profile, making the quality seem “intrinsic and non-relational in character,” thus appearing deceptively simple and indescribable from the first-person perspective (Weisberg, 2025). Weisberg argues ACT is not a mere “reductionist’s ‘hail Mary’” by offering “positive evidence that automated compression generates DISC appearances.” He supports ACT with empirical evidence from expert perception. For example, a chess expert can automatically access complex game features but may find it difficult to explain what they are seeing to a novice. Similarly, fluent readers see “whole words and phrases as single units,” and it takes effort to decompose them back into individual letters. This demonstrates that automated compression can make something complex and decomposable appear as simple and non-decomposable, a “seemingly simple directly-accessed chunk” (Weisberg, 2025). Weisberg concludes that ACT, while not a complete theory of consciousness, is a “plausible add-on to any physicalist theory” because it provides a debunking explanation for why such theories might initially seem implausible. The existence of this plausible empirical explanation shifts the burden of proof to explanatory pessimists, who can no longer simply appeal to the appearances in question to rule out physicalist accounts. The path to a satisfying physicalist explanation of consciousness “remains open, if my argument is sound,” he says, adding that “the burden of proof is now on the pessimists to show why we shouldn’t be optimistic about explaining consciousness.” Weisberg’s coup de grâce is a claimed “final accounting of a disillusioned Mary: she lacks the ability to automatically access a compressed version of the information she already knows in relatively decompressed form in her room.” But the devil, he admits, remains “doubtlessly in the details” (Weisberg, 2025).

---

## Eliminative/Illusionism
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theories/eliminative-illusionism

### Ryle’s Category-Dissolution of Inner-Theater Consciousness
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/ryle-s-category-dissolution-of-inner-theater-consciousness
Theorists: Gilbert Ryle

Analytic philosopher Gilbert Ryle’s theory of consciousness is a conceptual, ordinary-language critique of the Cartesian picture that consciousness is an inner private theatre inhabited by mental episodes, qualia, images, volitions, and acts of introspection. He does not deny pains, feelings, imaginings, dreams, thoughts, or first-person avowals; he denies that their reality is correctly understood by positing a hidden mental substance or occult stream of inner objects parallel to bodily life (Ryle, 1949). His theory is therefore best read as a deflationary account of phenomenal consciousness: what philosophers call “conscious experience” is not a ghostly object or process behind conduct, but a complex family of capacities, dispositions, expressions, performances, avowals, sensitivities, and situational competences. Ryle’s enduring significance is that he transforms the mind-body problem from an ontological puzzle about two substances into a logical-grammatical diagnosis of category mistakes. In other words, Ryle offers not a theory of phenomenal consciousness but a diagnosis of why the demand for one is malformed. His argument is that Cartesian dualism—"the dogma of the Ghost in the Machine" (Ryle’s coinage)—rests on a category mistake: it treats mental predicates as naming occult inner episodes belonging to the same logical type as bodily events, when they instead describe dispositions, capacities, and styles of doing (Ryle, 1949). Consciousness on this view is not a private theater illuminated by an inner eye but an adverbial feature of intelligent performance; talk of "the mind" no more names an extra entity than "the University" names a building beyond the colleges. The account's most contested point, and the one that matters most for consciousness studies, is what it can say about sensation and qualitative feel—a difficulty Ryle himself conceded he had not resolved. A large lacuna, to be sure. The "Official Doctrine" Ryle’s names his main target in The Concept of Mind as what he calls the “Official Doctrine”: the Cartesian picture of human beings as composed of a publicly observable body and a private, nonspatial mind, so that "in his inner life each of us lives the life of a ghostly Robinson Crusoe" (Ryle, 1949). He proposes to show that this is false "not in detail but in principle"—not an assemblage of particular errors but "one big mistake and a mistake of a special kind," namely a category mistake, representing facts of mental life as belonging to one logical type when they belong to another. His illustration, as noted, is the visitor shown Oxford's colleges and libraries who then asks where the University is: he has not missed a building but misconstrued the term's logical grammar. Analogously, having observed a person's speech, skill, hesitation, and wit, one does not then look for the additional inner item that is their mind. Ryle's stated ambition is modest in a way often overlooked: not "to increase what we know about minds, but to rectify the logical geography of the knowledge which we already possess" (Ryle, 1949). Contemporary reference accounts agree that Ryle took this doctrine to generate the familiar problems of mind-body interaction, other minds, introspection, mental causation, and inner experience; Ryle’s target was not merely substance dualism, but any view treating mental terms as names of hidden inner processes. Ryle’s famous phrase “the ghost in the machine” condenses the point: Cartesianism wrongly treats mind as an entity of the same general logical type as body, though more elusive and nonphysical (Ryle, 1949). The error, again, is a category mistake. To ask where the mind is, or how conscious episodes inside it push the body, is like asking where “the university” is after being shown colleges, libraries, laboratories, and lecture halls. The mistake is not empirical but logical: mental vocabulary is misconstrued as naming a second arena of events. Against The Inner Theatre Ryle’s critique of phenomenal consciousness is not eliminative in the cartoon sense. He does not say that pains, moods, sensations, imaginings, or thoughts do not occur. The stronger point is that philosophical theories misdescribe these phenomena when they construe them as private objects inspected by an inner observer. Ryle accepts the privacy of dreams, imaginings, and silent soliloquies and does not deny mental processes, while rejecting the “luminous” view of consciousness that would make self-knowledge a kind of inward perception. This is why Ryle’s relevance to phenomenal consciousness is largely negative and diagnostic. The felt character of pain is real, but “pain” is not learned or applied by naming a private object. It belongs to practices of injury, complaint, treatment, endurance, deception, sincerity, relief, and bodily vulnerability. The first-person utterance “I am in pain” is often an avowal, not an inner report based on introspective observation (Ryle, 1949; Tanney, 2009). Dispositions, Knowing How, and the Intellectualist Regress The positive account analyses mental concepts dispositionally. To say someone is vain, or knows French, is to say how they are liable to behave across indefinitely many circumstances—not to report a concurrent inner episode. This underwrites the knowing-how/knowing-that distinction: intelligent performance is a competence exercised, not the execution of separately entertained propositions. Ryle's regress supplies the argument. If every intelligent act required a prior mental act of considering a rule, that prior act would itself need to be performed intelligently, requiring a further prior act, ad infinitum; intelligence must therefore be a feature of how things are done rather than an inner accompaniment (Ryle, 1949; Tanney, 2024). The regress is among Ryle's most durable contributions, resurfacing in debates over tacit knowledge, expertise, and representational cognitive science. Sensation, Qualia, and the Unresolved Remainder Here the account faces its central difficulty for phenomenal consciousness. Ryle rejects sense-data and denies that in imagining or dreaming there is some shadowy item genuinely seen or felt. He also resists the causal-perceptual picture in which neural transmission culminates in a jump to inner sense-impressions, objecting that such impressions are posited by inference to the best explanation while advertised as objects of introspection (Tanney, 2024). Yet he conceded that his analysis of sensation did not satisfy him, attributing the difficulty to contamination by philosophically sophisticated language. Livingston (2002) argues that early identity theorists—Place, Smart, Feigl—partly misread Ryle, and that Ryle did not intend to analyze sensation-terms as internal dispositions at all; but their objection that his account cannot capture the reporting use of sensation-terms exposes a real and historically consequential weakness, affecting all who are downstream from Ryle. This is the seam at which contemporary critics locate the qualia problem: no inventory of behavioral dispositions, however complete, appears to capture what it is like to taste coffee or see red (Douglas & Saunders, 2001). Consciousness Without Privileged Access Ryle treats consciousness and introspection as themselves confused notions rather than the foundation of psychology. He denies privileged access: in principle, though not in practice, one's ways of finding out about oneself are the same as one's ways of finding out about others, differing in convenience rather than in kind (Ryle, 1949). Self-knowledge comes through unstudied talk and observed conduct, not an inner faculty scanning a private field. The "systematic elusiveness of 'I'" completes Ryle’s argument: any attempt to catch oneself in the act is a higher-order commentary on a step that is not itself the commenting, so the self stays perpetually one move ahead of its own inspection. Carruthers (2011) revives essentially this position, arguing that self-knowledge is interpretive and sensory-based rather than introspectively transparent—Ryle's thesis allegedly vindicated by cognitive science rather than refuted by it. Reception, Misreading, and Assessment Ryle is routinely classified as a logical behaviorist, a label he disliked; he reportedly described himself as "only one arm and one leg a behaviorist," and criticized behaviorism as too mechanistic for the same reasons he criticized Cartesianism (Tanney, 2024). Tanney argues the behaviorist reading is a substantial misconstrual: Ryle's project was conceptual clarification of mental discourse, not reductive analysis of mental terms into behavioral ones. Nonetheless, the dispositional analysis was a direct ancestor of functionalism, and Dennett—Ryle's doctoral student—developed heterophenomenology as a recognizably Rylean method, treating subjects as authoritative about how things seem rather than what is there. The enduring objection remains the one Ryle half-conceded: that the approach explains everything about mind except the datum consciousness studies takes as primary. Whether that constitutes a refutation or a demonstration that the "datum" is itself a grammatical artifact is precisely what remains at issue. References Carruthers, P. (2011). The Opacity of Mind: An Integrative Theory of Self-Knowledge. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Douglas, G., & Saunders, S. (2001). Ryle's The Concept of Mind. The Philosophers' Magazine, 14, 44–46. Livingston, P. (2002). Ryle on sensation and the origin of the identity theory. Colloquium paper, Department of Philosophy, University of California, Irvine. Ryle, G. (1949). The Concept of Mind. London: Hutchinson. Ryle, G. (1971). Collected Papers (2 vols.). London: Hutchinson. Tanney, J. (2024). Gilbert Ryle. In E. N. Zalta & U. Nodelman (Eds.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2024 ed.). Stanford, CA: Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University.

---

### Feyerabend's Revisable, Disposable Mind
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/feyerabends-revisable-disposable-mind
Theorists: Paul Feyerabend

Philosopher of Science Paul Feyerabend’s early philosophy of mind advances a radical possibility: phenomenal consciousness may be real as lived experience while our familiar concepts for describing it—pain, sensation, thought, image, feeling, and even “the mental”—may belong to an obsolete conceptual framework that a mature brain science could transform or eliminate. His 1963 writings became foundational for eliminative materialism because he rejected the claim that introspective certainty establishes an irreducibly mental ontology; instead, scientific theories can revise the very meanings through which experience is conceptualized (Feyerabend, 1958, 1963a, 1963b). Yet Feyerabend’s position is more provisional than later eliminativism: his primary claim is methodological—that materialism cannot be ruled out by philosophical appeals to common sense or acquaintance—and his later pluralism explicitly abandons the idea that scientific-materialist language has automatic authority over other ways of describing human experience (Feyerabend, 1981; Shaw, 2021). Thus, Feyerabend's contribution to consciousness studies is not an account of what phenomenal consciousness is but an argument that our conception of it is a theory—inherited, low-level, and therefore capable of being false. In two 1963 papers he argued that commonsense psychology carries essentially non-physical commitments, so that a thoroughgoing materialism would not translate mentalistic descriptions into physical ones but replace them outright (Feyerabend, 1963a, 1963b). Because meaning is theory-dependent, the standard objection that materialism cannot capture what "pain" means loses its grip: the materialist is under no obligation to preserve the term. He pressed the position to its limit in "Science Without Experience" (1969), arguing that experience is logically dispensable at every point in the construction, comprehension, and testing of empirical theory. Whether this makes him an eliminativist about phenomenal consciousness is now contested. Phenomenal ... Without an Incorrigible Mental Ontology Feyerabend confronts a seemingly decisive objection to materialism: whatever theories may say about brains, a subject knows immediately that pain hurts, colors appear, thoughts occur, and sensations feel a certain way. Such first-person acquaintance seems to guarantee that phenomenal consciousness possesses characteristics fundamentally different from physical processes. His response is not simply to deny that experiences occur. Rather, he challenges the inference from the certainty of an experiential judgment—“I am in pain,” for example—to the conclusion that present-day mentalistic concepts correctly identify the ultimate nature of what occurs. The apparent incorrigibility of such judgments depends partly on rules governing our current language: within that framework, saying sincerely that one feels pain virtually constitutes sufficient grounds for applying the concept. That linguistic certainty does not establish that neuroscience must preserve “pain” as the name of an irreducibly mental entity (Feyerabend, 1963a; Shaw, 2021). Phenomenal consciousness is therefore epistemically immediate without necessarily being ontologically foundational. What experience seems to reveal about its own metaphysical nature may be revisable. Eliminative Materialism and the Mind-Brain Problem In “Materialism and the Mind-Body Problem,” Feyerabend deliberately defends an extremely crude materialism according to which reality consists wholly of material entities and their properties. His strategy is methodological: if even crude materialism survives familiar philosophical objections, more sophisticated physical theories cannot legitimately be excluded before their scientific development (Feyerabend, 1963a). The crucial possibility is elimination rather than reduction. A successful neuroscience need not discover neat identities pairing every ordinary mental concept with a brain state. Instead, existing mental categories might disappear as earlier scientific concepts—such as phlogiston—disappeared when superseded theories reorganized their domains. Thus, a future neurophysiology might not say that an independently characterized mental pain is identical with neural process N; it might replace the conceptual framework within which “mental pain” was thought to designate a separate kind of entity. This proposal helped establish the tradition later developed by Richard Rorty and especially Paul and Patricia Churchland; Paul Churchland explicitly cited Feyerabend when developing eliminative materialism (Churchland, 1981). But whether Feyerabend himself positively endorsed full eliminativism is disputed. Shaw argues that Feyerabend was demonstrating that eliminative materialism was scientifically and philosophically permissible, not declaring that future science would certainly vindicate it (Shaw, 2021). Theory-Ladenness and the Phenomenal World This position follows from Feyerabend’s broader theory of observation. Experience is not an autonomous, theory-neutral tribunal before which competing accounts of reality simply present themselves for judgment. Scientific concepts, background theories, expectations, and learned interpretive practices influence how observations are classified and understood; conceptual revolutions can therefore reorganize what counts as a fact and how experience itself is described (Feyerabend, 1958, 1962). Applied to phenomenal consciousness, this means that introspective vocabulary cannot be granted immunity from scientific revision. The division between “mental” experience and “physical” brain process may itself reflect inherited theoretical assumptions rather than hard metaphysical boundaries. Feyerabend’s target is thus Cartesian certainty translated into ontology: direct access to experience does not guarantee direct access to its ultimate nature. This does not, ipso facto, amount to contemporary illusionism about qualia. Feyerabend provides no positive neural mechanism explaining why experiences have qualitative character, nor does he develop an account of how an apparent phenomenal world is constructed. His contribution is more disruptive: he questions whether the phenomenal concepts used to formulate the explanatory gap will themselves survive conceptual change. From Materialist Possibility to Pluralist Restraint Feyerabend’s later philosophy makes any simple identification with eliminative materialism still less appropriate. Beginning in the late 1960s, he abandoned his earlier tendency to treat advanced science as entitled to correct ordinary language and increasingly opposed scientism and methodological monopoly. In a 1980 postscript to his materialism paper, he observes that a materialistic language might possess greater scientific information while becoming poorer in dimensions connecting mental life with emotion, interpersonal relations, art, and the humanities. Choosing such a language therefore involves human and moral values, not merely factual discovery (Feyerabend, 1981). His mature implication for consciousness is consequently pluralistic. Neuroscience should be free to challenge folk psychology radically, but phenomenological, psychological, artistic, and ordinary descriptions of experience cannot simply be declared illegitimate because they fail to resemble neurophysiology. Competing conceptual schemes may disclose different aspects of an abundant reality. Significance for Phenomenal Consciousness Feyerabend supplies no mechanism generating phenomenal consciousness and no answer to why neural activity feels like anything. His importance lies instead at the meta-theoretical level and in his downstream descendants. He challenges three assumptions: that introspection reveals the metaphysical nature of experience; that present mental concepts must appear in a completed science; and that philosophical intuitions can determine in advance what future neuroscience is permitted to discover. For contemporary consciousness studies, this yields a distinctive warning. The hard problem may reveal an ontological gulf between consciousness and matter—but it might also be formulated partly within conceptual categories that future theories will transform. Feyerabend does not show that phenomenal consciousness can be eliminated; he shows why its present conceptualization should not be insulated from scientific revolution. That combination of radical revisionism and later methodological pluralism distinguishes his position from contemporary illusionism as well as from straightforward reductive physicalism. The interpretive balance is important and the qualification concerning Feyerabend’s later position is essential. Without it, a philosopher famous for resisting methodological dogmatism would be misleadingly turned into an uncomplicated doctrinal eliminativist. While Feyerabend’s 1963 work is indeed historically foundational for eliminative materialism, attributing to him a settled doctrine that phenomenal consciousness simply “does not exist” overstates the evidence. His deeper contribution is to challenge the assumption that our present first-person vocabulary already reveals the ontology that a science of consciousness must preserve. References Churchland, P. M. (1981). Eliminative materialism and the propositional attitudes. The Journal of Philosophy, 78(2), 67–90. Feyerabend, P. K. (1958). An attempt at a realistic interpretation of experience. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 58, 143–170. Feyerabend, P. K. (1962). Explanation, reduction, and empiricism. In H. Feigl and G. Maxwell (Eds.), Scientific Explanation, Space, and Time (Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Vol. 3, pp. 28–97). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Feyerabend, P. K. (1963a). Materialism and the mind-body problem. The Review of Metaphysics, 17(1), 49–66. Feyerabend, P. K. (1963b). Comment: Mental events and the brain. The Journal of Philosophy, 60(11), 295–296. Feyerabend, P. K. (1965). Problems of empiricism. In R. G. Colodny (Ed.), Beyond the Edge of Certainty: Essays in Contemporary Science and Philosophy. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Feyerabend, P. K. (1981). Materialism and the mind-body problem, with postscript. In Realism, Rationalism and Scientific Method: Philosophical Papers, Volume 1 (pp. 161–175). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Shaw, J. (2021). Feyerabend never was an eliminative materialist: Feyerabend’s meta-philosophy and the mind-body problem. In K. Bschir and J. Shaw (Eds.), Interpreting Feyerabend: Critical Essays (pp. 114–131). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

---

### Dennett’s Illusionism
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/dennett-s-illusionism
Theorists: Daniel Dennett

Daniel Dennett’s theory of consciousness is widely regarded as illusionist, and sometimes eliminativist, depending on definitions and interpretation. His approach denies the existence of qualia as they are traditionally conceived—private, inner, felt experience, the non-physical building blocks of subjectivity. Instead, he argues that consciousness is not what it seems to be from the first-person perspective. Dennett doesn’t equivocate: "There are no qualia," he states. The Rejection of Qualia Dennett recognizes that, in defending an eliminativist or illusionist stance, qualia are the biggest obstacle. “Qualia are supposed to be intrinsic, ineffable, private, and immediately apprehensible... I will argue that there are no such properties… these are nothing but philosophers' inventions, and the properties themselves are illusory” (Dennett, 1988). He grants, "There seems to be phenomenology”—and that would be a fact that calls for explanation. But, Dennett continues, “it does not follow from this that there really is phenomenology" (Dennett, 1991). Dennett is often misinterpreted as denying that we have experiences, as saying that there is no such thing as consciousness (the critique being that an illusion of an illusion is still conscious). Rather, his view is that consciousness (as people naively conceive it) is not what it appears to be. It is an illusion, he says, “but a very benign one, a user-illusion [using the computer analogy]… [one] created by your brain’s unconscious processes” (Dennett, 2017). Dennett as the “Original Illusionist” Although Dennett himself resisted the label ‘eliminativist,’ many philosophers take his rejection of qualia as a form of eliminative materialism—denying the existence of something most assume to be real. According to Keith Frankish, the leading advocate of illusionism, “Dennett doesn’t deny that we have experiences... What he denies is that there is anything more to consciousness than the functions and dispositions involved.” In fact, Frankish considers Dennett the ‘original illusionist.’ “The illusionist tradition in philosophy of mind begins with Daniel Dennett’s bold and controversial attacks on qualia” (Frankish, 2016).

---

### Churchland’s Eliminative Materialism
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/churchland-s-eliminative-materialism
Theorists: Patricia Churchland

Eliminative Materialism is the maximalist physicalist position that our common-sense view of the mind is misleading and that consciousness is a kind of illusion generated by the brain—a contingent, evolutionary, inner adaptation that enhanced fitness and reproductive success. This deflationary view of consciousness is associated with philosophers Patricia Churchland (1986), Paul Churchland (1981), Daniel Dennett (1992), Keith Frankish (2022), and others, though their views are often distorted and caricatured. Defining Eliminative Materialism Paul Churchland defines “eliminative materialism” forcefully as “the thesis that our common-sense conception of psychological phenomena constitutes a radically false theory, a theory so fundamentally defective that both the principles and the ontology of that theory will eventually be displaced, rather than smoothly reduced, by completed neuroscience.” Our third-person understanding and even our first-person introspection, Churchland says, “may then be reconstituted within the conceptual framework of completed neuroscience, a theory we may expect to be more powerful by far than the common-sense psychology it displaces.” He applauds “the principled displacement of folk psychology … [as] one of the most intriguing theoretical displacements we can currently imagine” (Churchland, 1981). Patricia Churchland's path-setting 1986 book, Neurophilosophy, places the mind-body problem within the wider context of the philosophy of science and argues for a complete reductionist account of consciousness founded on neurobiology (Churchland, 1986). Indeed, “neurophilosophy” is the proffered name of a new discipline that is to be guided by Churchland's “unified theory of the mind-brain,” for which her “guiding aim” is to develop “a very general framework” (Stent, 1987). She founds her approach on two principles: the progress of neuroscience in addressing mental states, and the recognition by many philosophers that philosophy is no longer “an a priori discipline in which philosophers can discover the a priori principles that neuroscientific theories had better honor on peril of being found wrong.” That there remain philosophers who persist in arguing that the mind goes beyond the brain—they reject reductionism “as unlikely—and not merely unlikely, but as flatly preposterous”—Churchland attributes to persistent traditions of folk myths. To discover our true nature, she implores, “we must see ourselves as organisms in Nature, to be understood by scientific methods and means” (Churchland, 1986). She rejects the anti-reductionist weapon of “emergence” as being “of little explanatory value” (Stent, 1987). Illusionism and Its Critics Dennett argues that qualia—the qualitative features of phenomenal consciousness—which he notes (with a smile) compel philosophers to develop outlandish theories, are illusory and incoherent. To neuroscientist Michael Graziano, it's not that consciousness doesn't exist or that we are fooled into thinking we have it when we don't. Instead, eliminative materialism likens consciousness to the illusion created for the user of a human-computer interface such that the metaphysical properties we attribute to ourselves are wrong[1] (Graziano, 2014, 2019a, 2019c). In spite of the word “illusion” (see below), its proponents do not actually deny the reality of the things that compose what Wilfrid Sellars famously called “the manifest image”—thoughts, intentions, appearances, experiences—which he distinguished from “the scientific image” (Sellars, 1962). The things we see and hear and interact with are, according to Dennett, “not mere fictions but different versions of what actually exists: real patterns” (Dennett, 2017). The underlying reality, however—what exists in itself and not just apparently for us or for other creatures—is truly represented only by the scientific image, which must be expressed ultimately in the language of physics, chemistry, molecular biology, and neurophysiology. Picking up on analogies in Dennett's work, as he puts it, Keith Frankish proposed the term “illusionism,” which has been adopted for the view that consciousness does not involve awareness of special “phenomenal” properties and that belief in such properties is due to an introspective illusion. Frankish concludes: “Considered as a set of functional processes—a hugely complex informational and reactive engagement with the world—it is perfectly real. Considered as an internal realm of phenomenal properties or what-it-is-likenesses, it is illusory” (Frankish, 2022). Although what we see and hear, for all the world, seems precisely what really exists, ringing in our ears and stars in our eyes undermine our realist folk psychology. (Personally, I have my own unambiguous proof. With my normal left eye, I see a light bulb as a single point of light; with my right eye, afflicted with advanced keratoconus, I see about 100 points of skewed, smeared light.) Another approach claiming that there is no phenomenal consciousness draws on arguments from Buddhist philosophy of mind to show that the sense that there is this kind of consciousness is an instance of cognitive illusion. As articulated by Jay Garfield, “there is nothing 'that it is like' to be me. To believe in phenomenal consciousness or 'what-it's-like-ness' or 'for-me-ness' is to succumb to a pernicious form of the Myth of the Given.” He argues that “there are no good arguments for the existence of such a kind of consciousness” (Garfield, 2016). The fact that some deny the existence of experience, says philosopher Galen Strawson, should make us “feel very sober, and a little afraid, at the power of human credulity.” This particular denial, he says with a flourish, “is the strangest thing that has ever happened in the whole history of human thought, not just the whole history of philosophy” (Strawson, 2009). While dismissing eliminative materialism and illusionism might at first seem obviously right, a prima facie case, I'd not so quickly jump to that conclusion: it could self-limit the awareness of subtleties and the nature of boundaries in the hunt for consciousness. Footnote [1]. Ironically, Donald Hoffman appeals to the same analogy of a human-computer user interface to argue for the view diametrically opposite to that of Dennett and Graziano. Hoffman argues for Idealism, that not only is consciousness real, it is the only thing that is real fundamentally (Idealism; Hoffman).

---

### Frankish’s Illusionism
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/frankish-s-illusionism
Theorists: Keith Frankish

Philosopher Keith Frankish's illusionism is a revisionary account of consciousness, which challenges widespread convictions about its nature. Building on earlier work on qualia eliminativism (notably that of Daniel Dennett), Frankish proposed the term 'Illusionism' as the view that what we call 'phenomenal consciousness' is a brain-generated impression, not an intrinsic metaphysical feature of the mind. While not denying that conscious experiences are real, Frankish argues that the mysterious “phenomenal properties” or “qualia” often ascribed to them are, in fact, an introspective illusion. Far from denying consciousness, Frankish aims to provide a naturalistic, scientifically tractable account of what consciousness really is and to explain why our experiences seem to possess phenomenal properties, replacing the “hard problem” of consciousness with what he calls the “illusion problem.” Frankish sees illusionism as a broad theoretical framework, which can be developed in many different ways (Frankish, 2016a, 2023). The Basics of Illusionism The core of illusionism is its rejection of what Frankish calls phenomenal realism—the belief that conscious experiences are marked by possession of phenomenal properties or qualia, which constitute “what it is like” to undergo them. There is debate about the exact nature of these properties, which are sometimes described as being ineffable, intrinsic, private, and immediately apprehended. However, Frankish focuses on the claim that phenomenal properties are irreducibly subjective, meaning that they are accessible only to the subject of the experience and cannot be publicly observed or characterized in third-person terms (Frankish, 2024a, 2025). Conceived in this way, consciousness is a highly anomalous phenomenon, which is inaccessible to third-person investigation and poses a “hard problem” for scientific explanation, and many philosophers argue that it is a distinct, non-physical aspect of reality. In this light, illusionism offers a deflationary alternative, which fully acknowledges the anomalousness of phenomenal properties without requiring radical revisions to our worldview. It achieves this by proposing that phenomenal properties are merely intentional objects (Frankish, 2016a). (Frankish endorses Nicholas Humphrey’s comparison of phenomenal properties to impossible objects, which can be represented but not instantiated; Humphrey, 2011.) Frankish readily affirms the reality of conscious experiences in an everyday sense; we undergo episodes of attentively seeing, hearing, feeling pain and pleasure, and so on (Frankish, 2023, 2024a). These states are real, potent, and have immense significance for us. His claim is that we are mistaken about what they are. They are, in reality, complex, multifaceted functional states of the brain, which sustain a rich sensory interaction with the environment and enable flexible, intelligent behavioral control. Frankish calls the distinctive functional properties of these states quasi-phenomenal properties (Frankish, 2016a). Quasi-phenomenal states are the reality behind the illusion, and phenomenal concepts (concepts of what experience is “like”) track them in a rough-and-ready way. Though not irreducibly subjective, conscious states are subjective in a psychological sense, since they manifest the organism’s individual “take” on current stimulation—the specific cluster of psychological effects it has on them (Frankish, 2024a, 2025). What Frankish denies is the supposed “phenomenal” form of consciousness and the irreducibly subjective properties thought to constitute it. In proposing this view, Frankish sees himself as saving consciousness from depsychologization—that is, from identification with intrinsic qualities that have only a contingent connection to psychological functions and could in principle be possessed by inert objects (Frankish, 2021). Explaining the Illusion Frankish holds that the illusion of phenomenality is produced by introspective processes, which systematically misrepresent brain states, just as perceptual processes systematically misrepresent some environmental features. This basic explanation can be developed in many ways by positing different patterns of introspective distortion (Frankish, 2023; Gorbachev & Frankish, 2025). However, Frankish’s preferred explanation focuses on the reactive side of experience—the complex pattern of attentional, cognitive, conative, affective, and other psychological changes that are triggered by sensory stimulation (Frankish, 2024a, 2024b; Frankish & Sklutová, 2022). Introspective systems monitor these reactive changes but do not generate detailed representations of them. Instead, they create a simplified, schematic model (a “reactivity schema”), which encodes the overall psychological impact of stimulation and expresses its subjective significance. These schematic representations are highly useful for communication and high-level self-control, but they are also deceptive. We mistake our mediated, distorted awareness of reactive complexity for direct, revelatory awareness of subjective qualities, leading us to believe in phenomenal consciousness. (Frankish frequently employs Daniel Dennett's analogy of a computer's “user illusion”—icons of files and folders that allow intuitive control over complex underlying data without having literal counterparts within the machine; Frankish, 2019a, 2023.) Frankish also proposes that the information supplied by introspection is bound to our perceptual representations, leading us to perceive external objects as having potent sensory qualities (e.g., the redness of an apple) that reflect their significance for us (their affordances) (Frankish, 2022, 2023). The illusion of phenomenality is thus “outward-looking” (Frankish, 2016a). Frankish stresses that, although introspective modelling of experience and the higher-level cognitive capacities it supports are important features of the human mind, they are not necessary for consciousness itself. Many creatures with limited or no introspective abilities (and hence no conception of themselves as having an irreducibly subjective inner world) still have conscious experiences and are still appropriate objects of ethical concern (Frankish, 2024a). Motivations Frankish offers several reasons for adopting illusionism (Frankish, 2016a, 2016b, 2019b, 2022). One is a debunking argument. If a person’s belief in something (UFOs, say) can be explained as the product of causes that have nothing to do with the thing itself, then the belief does not provide any evidence for the reality of the thing. It has been debunked. But it is likely that our beliefs about phenomenal consciousness can be fully explained as the result of neural processes, without reference to phenomenal properties. (Many phenomenal realists accept this, and it is implicit in the premise of the zombie argument against physicalism.) If so, then we should not trust our belief in phenomenal consciousness. Second, illusionism is explanatorily economical. If something is resistant to scientific explanation and only observable from one perspective (as phenomenal consciousness is), then the simplest hypothesis is that it's an illusion. Third, illusionism avoids the threat of epiphenomenalism. If consciousness were non-physical, it could play no role in a causally closed physical world, making it irrelevant to our thoughts and actions. If, however, it is a complex functional state, this threat vanishes. Moreover, the illusion of phenomenal consciousness, which is constituted by physically realized mental representations, will itself play a causal role, perhaps of a highly adaptive kind (as Nicholas Humphrey has argued; Humphrey, 2011). Frankish also argues against versions of what he calls “weak illusionism”—attempts by physicalists to accommodate phenomenal consciousness by adopting a watered-down (“diet”) notion of phenomenality, stripped of its problematic aspects. (Versions of the “phenomenal concept strategy” are examples of this tactic.) Frankish argues that no coherent diet notion is available. No “genuinely qualitative” property remains once the problematic aspects are stripped away, and weak illusionism either collapses into his own “strong” illusionism or inflates into full-blown phenomenal realism (Frankish, 2012, 2016a). Replies to Objections Frankish also addresses various common objections to illusionism (Frankish, 2016a, 2016b, 2022, 2023; Frankish & Sklutová, 2022). The most basic of these (a version of Descartes’ cogito) is that beliefs about the phenomenal character of our own experiences are indubitable data. Frankish concedes that we are strongly inclined to believe this but argues that the strength of a conviction is no guarantee of its truth. Introspection, like perception, may mislead us. If we are physical organisms, all of whose knowledge is the product of evolved biological mechanisms, then this possibility cannot be ruled out. Our beliefs about our own minds are important psychological facts, which require explanation, but they should not be given the status of epistemic bedrock. (Frankish stresses that this claim is not driven by a dogmatic commitment to physicalism and that his concerns are primarily explanatory; Frankish, 2022.) Another common objection is that consciousness admits no appearance-reality gap: if one seems to be having an experience with a certain phenomenal character, then one is having one. Frankish responds that this begs the question by assuming that “seeming” must be understood as involving acquaintance with phenomenal properties. Illusionists, however, understand it as misrepresentation. Seeming to have an experience with a certain phenomenal character means introspectively representing oneself as having one, which is possible even if one is not in fact having one. To the objection that an illusion requires an audience, Frankish responds that there is no need for an inner observer or “Cartesian theatre” of the sort associated with phenomenal realism. The subject of the illusion is the organism as a whole, and the work of appreciating the illusion and reacting to it is distributed among numerous unconscious subsystems. Ethical Implications Another objection to illusionism concerns its supposed ethical implications. Some philosophers take illusionists to be denying the reality of conscious experience and thus of a major, if not the sole, source of ethical value (Strawson, 2019). Frankish replies that this misunderstands the view. Illusionism denies neither the existence of conscious experience nor its ethical value. It merely invites us to rethink what conscious experiences are and what grounds their ethical value. Pain is bad, Frankish argues, not because of an “intrinsic phenomenal nastiness,” but because it consists in a complex of highly aversive psychological states, which we are powerfully motivated to avoid undergoing (Frankish, 2024a; Frankish & Sklutová, 2022). He argues that our everyday ethical practices are based on identifying paradigm cases of valenced experiential states and agreeing on their ethical value, and that these practices are not threatened by an illusionist account of the nature of the states and the grounds of their value (Frankish, 2023, 2024a). Frankish further argues that, far from being ethically objectionable, illusionism has positive and progressive ethical implications. By conceptualizing consciousness as a complex pattern of reactive changes, which are in principle experimentally detectable, illusionism removes the epistemological barrier to understanding the conscious experiences of others, including non-humans. Instead of speculating about inscrutable phenomenal essences, we can study the objective, physically realized psychological states that constitute a creature's subjective take on the world. Illusionism thus provides a better basis for extending our ethical concern to other creatures and enables more nuanced ethical decision-making, replacing a binary “on/off” view of consciousness with a conception of “consciousness space” in which different creatures have varying degrees and forms of conscious experience. This perspective liberates us from being “prisoners of private insubstantial worlds” and encourages a wider, fairer apportionment of ethical concern to all creatures (Frankish, 2024a). Conclusion Frankish compares consciousness to a rainbow. He points out that, considered as optical effects caused by the illumination of airborne water droplets by a light source behind the observer, rainbows are perfectly real. But considered as spatially located multicolored arcs, they are illusory. He goes on: "Consciousness is like a rainbow. Considered as a set of functional processes—a hugely complex informational and reactive engagement with the world—it is perfectly real. Considered as an internal realm of phenomenal properties or what-it-is-likenesses, it is illusory. . . Consciousness is like a rainbow: wonderful but not what it seems" (Frankish, 2023). Acknowledgement Thanks to Paul Smart for his help with the preparation of this article.

---

### Humphrey’s Magical-Compelling User Illusion
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/humphrey-s-magical-compelling-user-illusion
Theorists: Nicholas Humphrey

Nicholas Humphrey’s theory of consciousness is widely considered a form of illusionism and is also well compatible with eliminativism, because he argues that phenomenal consciousness—what it's like to feel inner experience—is not what it seems to be. Rather than revealing a deep metaphysical reality, consciousness is a user-illusion evolved to enhance our survival. He says, “Phenomenal consciousness is a magical mystery show that the brain lays on for itself” (Humphrey, 2006). Consciousness as Evolutionary Illusion Humphrey offers the idea that we are victims of a kind of self-deception, engineered by evolution to make subjective experiences seem much richer and more mysterious than they really are. He continues: “The illusion is not a mistake. It’s a feature, not a bug. It’s the way consciousness works to enchant us” (Humphrey, 2006; Frankish, 2016). Humphrey’s distinctive approach to Eliminativism/Illusionism frames consciousness through the lens of evolution, or evolutionary psychology, a biological adaptation that creates a model of the self that seems rich, engaging, and compelling, even though this richness does not correspond to anything ontologically real. “Consciousness has evolved to fool us—to create a simulation of something that isn’t really there.” This is hard-core illusionism: we are tricked by evolution into thinking that there is something ‘extra’ in experience—qualia—but this ‘extra’ is an adaptive fiction (Humphrey, 2006). Theatrical Self-Model and Social Role Humphrey’s distinctive evolutionary defense of Illusionism is that consciousnesses evolved to play a key role in creating a self-model that promotes survival by enriching our sense of personal significance. According to Humphrey, it is not that consciousness evolved to amplify or appreciate perception or action per se, but to make us feel special and important, for purposes of self-preservation and social cohesion. “Consciousness is not a property that was selected for its practical utility. Rather, it is a piece of performance art” (Humphrey, 2011). All this implies eliminativism about intrinsic phenomenal properties—there are no such things as qualia (as normally conceived). What really exists, Humphrey argues, is a representation of qualia that misleads us. “Consciousness is a self-model, but one constructed in such a way as to give us the illusion of being in touch with intrinsic properties of experience.” Thus, our rich first-person quality of experience is not an ontological fact but a psychological artifact. He portrays the point with a theatrical metaphor: “Consciousness is a kind of inner performance that the brain stages for itself—a show with no audience but the self” (Humphrey, 2011). Humphrey's way of thinking qualifies him as both an eliminativist and an illusionist. On the former, he denies the ontological reality of qualia (eliminativist). On the latter, he explains why we believe in qualia despite their nonexistence, using an evolutionary, narrative, or self-representational theory (illusionist). “It’s not just that we think we are conscious,” Humphrey reflects, “it’s that we think our consciousness means something” (Humphrey, 2011). This illusion, then, catalyzes humans treating others as beings with inner lives, which, in turn, empowers sociality, standardizes moral intuitions, and even induces religious belief.

---

### Graziano’s Attention Schema Theory
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/graziano-s-attention-schema-theory
Theorists: Michael Graziano

Advanced by neuroscientist Michael Graziano, attention schema theory asserts that for the brain to handle a profusion of information, it must have developed a quick and dirty model, a simplified version of itself, which it then reports “as a ghostly, non-physical essence, a magical ability to mentally possess items” (Graziano, 2019a, 2019b). He likens the attention schema to “a self-reflecting mirror: it is the brain's representation of how the brain represents things and is a specific example of higher-order thought. In this account, consciousness isn't so much an illusion as a self-caricature.” Graziano claims that this idea, attention schema theory, gives a simple reason, straight from control engineering, for why the trait of consciousness would evolve, namely, to monitor and regulate attention in order to control actions in the world. Thus, Graziano argues that “the attention schema theory explains how a biological, information processing machine can claim to have consciousness, and how, by introspection (by assessing its internal data), it cannot determine that it is a machine whose claims are based on computations” (Graziano, 2019a, 2019b).

---

### Blackmore’s “It’s All Models”
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/blackmore-s-it-s-all-models
Theorists: Susan Blackmore

Psychologist-philosopher Susan Blackmore claims that a fundamental mistake at the heart of consciousness studies has led to the field remaining mired in the insoluble hard problem. The mistake, according to Blackmore, was to assume that it is physical objects that are the subjects of consciousness, an assumption that leads inevitably to the explanatory gap and thus the hard problem. How did this come about? Blackmore argues that because we have no definition of consciousness, we have relied on Nagel’s vivid question, “What is it like to be a bat?” and this question entails this fundamental assumption that the subject of ‘to be’ is the physical object—the human, rat, fish, or robot, for example. She rejects this and suggests instead that there is nothing it is like to be a bat, human, robot, etc.; there is only something it is like to be the bat’s models of a bat, the bat’s representation of itself, and the world it is flying through (Blackmore, 2025). Conscious Models, Not Conscious Beings Blackmore’s central claim is that all such mental models are conscious, making this theory a kind of ‘panpsychism’ of mental models. These models all have ‘something it is like’ to be them, while bats, cats, and humans do not. Her point is this: If we ask, ‘What is it like to be a bat?’, we cannot answer. We cannot even be sure whether the bat (or dog, cat, robot, or even another human) is, or is not, conscious at all. On the other hand, if we ask, ‘What is it like to be the bat’s model of the world?’ we can answer. The answer is that if that creature is building models of its world, then there is something it is like to be whatever those models describe—whatever they say it is like. In this view, it makes no sense to say that a human brain is conscious, or even that a whole human being is. All experience is being a mental model, whether or not there is a self-model created as an experiencer (Blackmore, 1986). What are these models? Using a predictive processing framework, they are the active predictions that living creatures construct in order to predict and interact with their world. These range from the simplest models that are built, for example, in early visual processing, through to intermediate and longer-lasting models of objects, places, or people, to the vast and complex self-models of humans. The subject of all our experiences is such a self-model. We are self-models in a controlled hallucination based on predictions in a Bayesian brain (Seth, 2021). Rejecting Conscious/Unconscious Distinctions Taking this view means rejecting a series of assumptions commonly made in consciousness research. These include the common idea that consciousness arises from or is generated by some brain processes and not others, that consciousness itself has a function that is independent of other brain functions and has evolved in addition to those, that some states or brain processes are conscious while others are not, that unconscious processes can become conscious, and that some systems or creatures are conscious while others are not. How does Blackmore’s Predictive Mental Model theory cope with the apparent distinction between conscious and unconscious processes? Her claim is that it is our stable and complex self-models that lead us astray. There are no ‘conscious’ and ‘unconscious’ processes in a human brain, she asserts. Instead, those we call ‘conscious’ are those that are connected to, or form part of, the current self-model; those that do not, we call ‘unconscious’. As other models come in and out of the self-model, they may appear to ‘become conscious’ or ‘enter consciousness’ (as in Global Workspace theory, for example), but this is an illusion caused by our self-centred viewpoint. This is one reason why Blackmore calls her version of illusionism ‘delusionism’, because we are systematically deluded by intuitions about our own minds (Blackmore, 2016). The implications for research are radical. The long search for the neural correlates of consciousness can be abandoned because they do not exist. There are, obviously, neural correlates of perception, memory, thinking, and all other types of predictive model-building, but there are no correlates of something in addition to these that arise from or are generated by brain processes. Implications for AI and Altered States This means that research should focus not on asking where or how subjective experience arises from objective processes (as in the hard problem) but on asking what models a system is building. There is no point in asking whether a given animal, plant, or AI is conscious: questions such as ‘Is a foetus conscious?’ or ‘Is a baby conscious?’ make no sense. But we can investigate what predictive models foetuses or babies can construct. With any such models, there is experience—the ‘what it’s like’ described by those models—but these are experiences without an experiencer. Only when there is a stable self-model are there experiences that conform to our intuitions about consciousness—that there has to be someone who is having the experience. Blackmore’s Predictive Mental Model theory can be applied to questions about artificial intelligence. AI systems differ, and very few involve predictive processing, but this theory entails the idea that there is something it is like to be any and all models constructed artificially. However, in all current AIs, such models are fleeting, disappearing as soon as they have done their job of influencing other processes. So, although there is something it is like to be them, this is nothing like any human experience. We have bodies that interact with the world and emotions that ground the experiences and stabilize them for longer periods. So, at least for the moment, Blackmore says, AIs are not conscious in anything like the way we are. Altered states of consciousness can be investigated by asking how predictive models, and in particular self-models, change with psychedelics, dreaming, lucid dreaming, or mystical experiences. For example, the finding that self-modelling weakens dramatically during deep sleep but strengthens with lucidity, Blackmore says, explains the sense of myself ‘waking up’ in lucid dreams. Meditation provides an especially interesting example. Most meditation techniques involve systematically letting go of distracting thoughts while allowing simple sensations to continue. On Blackmore’s theory, what is happening is that higher-level priors are systematically dropped and temporal depth is reduced. Arguably, the process gets deeper and deeper as more and more high-level priors are let go until self dissolves, leaving experience without an experiencer, or selfless states. Long-term meditation can lead to the direct intuition that all experience is models with no separation between self and world (Blackmore & Troscianko, 2024). Conclusion In conclusion, Blackmore’s ‘It’s all models’ theory replaces the idea that physical objects can be conscious with the idea that only the predictive processing models they construct can be. This allows research to abandon the hunt for the NCCs, stop asking whether bats or babies are conscious, and concentrate on questions about the modelling—and especially self-modelling—that such systems create.

---

### Kammerer’s Introspective Illusionism
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/kammerer-s-introspective-illusionism
Theorists: François Kammerer

Philosopher François Kammerer defends an illusionist conception of phenomenal consciousness, “according to which phenomenal consciousness does not exist, but simply seems to exist.” He thinks that such a conception defends physicalism better than other more standard versions of physicalism. Moreover, he thinks that “the most popular defenses of physicalism against familiar anti-physicalist objections simply do not work” such that illusionism makes the best case, perhaps the only effectual case, for physicalism (Kammerer, 2025a). Strong Illusionism As Kammerer puts it. “Strong illusionists (or ‘eliminativists’) claim that phenomenal consciousness does not exist but seems to exist. For them, phenomenal states—phenomenal experiences of pain, visual phenomenal experiences of colors, emotional phenomenal experiences of joy, etc.—are not to be found anywhere in reality. Phenomenal properties (or qualia)—putative properties of phenomenal states in virtue of which they are phenomenal states of a certain kind—are never instantiated. Strong illusionists concede that, while phenomenal states are not real, we usually believe that they are, notably because we introspectively represent them. Phenomenal consciousness is an illusion” (Kammerer, 2025b). Kammerer recognizes that “Illusionism is a radically counter-intuitive thesis: it might even appear an incoherent thesis.” However, he says, “this apparent incoherence can itself be explained within an illusionist framework! A good theory of introspection will be able both to explain why consciousness seems to exist, even though it does not, and why we cannot make sense intuitively of the idea that consciousness does not exist, but merely seems to exist.” But Kammerer asserts that “theories of introspection already available on the market are not equipped to do the job,” and he tries to develop, carefully, “a satisfying theory of introspection” (Kammerer, 2025a). The TCE Theory of Introspection Kammerer also recognizes that “It is the burden of a good illusionist theory to explain why the illusion of phenomenality is so peculiar.” It is no surprise that he thinks that “this is no trivial task.” He must and does present “a theory of phenomenal introspection which might be able to explain why the illusion of phenomenality is so unique.” He calls this theory the TCE theory. “It states that phenomenal introspection, the specific process by which we come to form beliefs in a non-inferential way about our own phenomenal experiences, consists in the application of phenomenal concepts, which are Theoretically determined Concepts of Epistemologically special states (hence the acronym). According to TCE theory, there is an intimate connection between phenomenal introspection and our naïve epistemology, which is itself a part of our naïve theory of mind, in the sense that we systematically grasp phenomenal states as epistemologically special states.” Kammerer argues that “this may explain why the illusion of phenomenality is so peculiar and so hard to contemplate as such” (Kammerer, 2019). Consequences and Objections Addressing the potential consequences if illusionism winds up being the true theory of consciousness (although consequentialism shouldn’t ever be the touchstone of truth), he says, “Illusionism might have normative consequences, that is, consequences regarding what has value. These consequences are not necessarily as gloomy as some people might think.” Kammerer does not think that, if consciousness does not exist, then nothing has value, but he admits that “they can still be difficult to deal with” (Kammerer, 2025a). It is no state secret that illusionism is subjected to various objections, the most influential being the idea that it is obviously false. Kammerer seems confident that he can answer these objections. Opponents, he says, “think that they can reject illusionism, even if they conceded that it is coherent and supported by strong arguments. David Chalmers has articulated this reaction to illusionism in terms of a ‘Moorean’ argument against illusionism. This argument contends that illusionism is false, because it is obviously true that we have phenomenal experiences. I argue that this argument fails (or is dialectically irrelevant) by showing that its defenders cannot maintain that its crucial premise (properly understood) has the kind of support needed for the argument to work, without begging the question against illusionism” (Kammerer, 2022).

---

### Mandik’s Qualia Quietism
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/mandik-s-qualia-quietism
Theorists: Pete Mandik

Philosopher Pete Mandik introduces ‘qualia quietism’ to support an anti-realist theory of consciousness, labeled ‘neurofunctionalism,’ which integrates representationalism, self-representationalism, and neurobiological realism, aiming to naturalize phenomenal consciousness by tying it to brain-based representational structures. This is a naturalistic theory: phenomenal states are real, physical states in the brain with both causal powers and intentional content. But Mandik seeks to move beyond standard physicalism without veering into dualism or mysterianism (Mandik, 2016). Beyond Realism and Eliminativism Dismantling the predominating influence of ‘qualia’ is a cornerstone of Mandik’s argument, but he seeks to avoid “taking either of two oft-discussed sides in a debate that seems to be going nowhere. Those two sides are (1) Phenomenal realism, the view that qualia exist, and (2) qualia eliminativism, the view that qualia do not exist.” Phenomenal realism, Mandik says, is espoused by “anyone who insists, along with Dave Chalmers, that consciousness poses a ‘hard problem.’” Qualia eliminativism is personified by Daniel Dennett (Dennett’s Illusionism) and Keith Frankish (Frankish’s Illusionism) (Mandik, 2025). Mandik proposes what he has called “qualia realism without qualia”: a commitment to the reality of phenomenal experience without imparting any ontologically independent status to separate qualia. “Qualia, as traditionally conceived—intrinsic, ineffable, non-intentional properties—are at best unnecessary posits and at worst obstacles to progress in the scientific study of consciousness” (Mandik, 2001). Here’s Mandik's early formulation of ‘qualia quietism:’ “[T]he view that the terms ‘qualia’, ‘phenomenal properties’, etc., lack sufficient content for anything informative to be said in either affirming or denying their existence. Affirming the existence of what? Denying the existence of what? Maintaining as illusory a representation of what? No comment. No comment. No comment” (Mandik, 2016). While Mandik does not now reject that way of putting his view, he says he has “grown a bit dissatisfied with it,” because it sounds like he thinks that “even though many words have meanings, the word ‘qualia’ isn't one of them.” That is not his view: “I would hate to be interpreted as having the view that the word ‘qualia’ is somehow magically meaning-repellent…” Mandik echoes Frankish in that “there are plenty of clear uses of ‘conscious’, ‘experience’, and ‘conscious experience’, uses that can be explicated in ‘weak’ and functional ways. And there’s plenty of work already done and still being done on consciousness so-construed.” But, Mandik stresses, “I see no future, illusionist or realist, for the term ‘qualia’ and its ilk” (Mandik, 2025). Arguments for Quietism Recognizing the challenges of arguing for the ‘excluded middle’ of qualia quietism, Mandik half-jokes, “It's mighty tempting to say there's NO argument for qualia quietism. It's an attitude. It's a lifestyle. It's a way of life. It's not the sort of thing that would be the conclusion of a deductive argument… But I resist temptation. I think there's a case to be made. Several cases, actually.” It’s not a proof, Mandik admits, more a ‘cumulative case’ argument. The Case from Chaos: Descriptions of ‘qualia’ are “all over the map… Some think that they are properties of mental states, especially experiences. Some think they are the experiences themselves. Some think they are the objects of experiences, the things experienced. And some muddle-heads don't really know what they think” (Mandik, 2025). The Case from Circularity: In critiquing illusionism, Mandik states that “‘qualia,’ ‘phenomenal character,’ ‘qualitative property,’ and ‘what-it's-like-ness’ just make a big dumb circle” (Mandik, 2016). In updating his thinking, he says, “the circularity of the ‘qualia’ term-circle isn't just a problem for illusionism. It is also a basis for recommending qualia quietism. Just say ‘no’ to those weird semi-technical terms that are just secret codes for one another.” Mandik points out that the term ‘phenomenal,’ as used in contemporary philosophy of mind (i.e., ‘phenomenal consciousness’), is a technical term, without a direct analog in non-technical English. As such, he argues, “We have then, in place of an explicit definition of ‘phenomenal properties,’ a circular chain of interchangeable technical terms—a chain with very few links, and little to relate those links to non-technical terminology. The circle, then, is vicious. I’m skeptical that any properties seem ‘phenomenal’ to anyone because this vicious circle gives me very little idea what seeming ‘phenomenal’ would be.” The Case from Alternatives: Mandik says, “There are so many alternatives to ‘qualia’ discourse that there's no good reason for not switching over to one or more of them.” He gives “a non-exhaustive list of alternative topics,” all spelled out in terms of “that beloved example, seeing an object as red (‘seeing red’ for short).” Here’s the list: “When one is in a mental state of seeing red, is one ever aware of properties of the state itself, as opposed to properties instantiated by extra-mental objects that are red? If one sees red partly in virtue of representing something as red, is the representing conceptual, non-conceptual, determinate, indeterminate, language-like, or picture-like? If one sees red, must one be a biological organism, or might one instead be an artifact created by biological organisms? If one sees red, is one thereby in a position to have justified beliefs (or some other epistemic state) that no one who's never seen red can have?” (Mandik, 2025). Mandik’s primary point is that consciousness should be discussed and studied without the word ‘qualia.’ Neurofunctionalism and Representation Intriguingly, Mandik asserts that he is not “just assuming physicalism,” and he affirms, “I'm not a physicalist.” He muses, “A qualia quietist could be a physicalist if they like. And being a qualia quietist may possibly drain all the life out of motivations for being an antiphysicalist. But I'm pretty sure I could be a substance dualist or self-identify as a Leibnizian monad and still make a case for qualia quietism” (Mandik, 2025). Mandik’s quiet qualia supports his theory of neurofunctionalism, which seeks to account for consciousness in terms of brain-based representational and functional structures while rejecting certain metaphysical assumptions of traditional physicalism and functionalism. Whereas functionalism, classically, holds that mental states are defined by their causal roles, neurofunctionalism grounds these roles specifically in neural implementations. Mandik supports a representational theory of consciousness, especially the intentionalist view, which holds that phenomenal states (what-it’s-like experiences) are determined by their representational content. “Conscious states are representational states whose phenomenal character is exhausted by their intentional content” (Mandik, 2005). This means that what it's like to experience red is fully explained by the brain representing red in a certain way, without the need for mysterious qualia. Going further, Mandik also explores self-representationalism: the idea that conscious experiences are conscious because they represent themselves in some manner. “What makes an experience phenomenally conscious is that it includes, as part of its content, a representation of itself” (Mandik, 2005). This reflexivity is not a special discovery of introspection, nor is it a separate act of introspection—Mandik rejects introspection as inherently unreliable and unscientific—but rather it is built into the representational structure of the conscious state itself. That is, consciousness is intrinsically self-representing. Moreover, Mandik views consciousness as transparent: we are aware of the represented content (e.g., red apple), not the representation itself (e.g., neural pattern). He argues that the illusion of intrinsic qualia arises because when we introspect, we “look through” representations rather than at them. Thus, qualia are not discovered in introspection; they are constructed interpretations of our own representational mechanisms. “The seeming qualitative immediacy of experience stems from the transparency of representational states: introspection doesn’t reveal qualia, but rather the represented properties” (Mandik, 2006). This supports Mandik’s rejection of qualia as intrinsic, nonphysical mental properties, and his advocacy of an anti-realist theory of consciousness founded on neurofunctionalism, representationalism, and self-representationalism.

---

### Irvine’s Scientific Eliminativism
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/irvine-s-scientific-eliminativism
Theorists: Elizabeth Irvine

Philosopher Elizabeth Irvine supports scientific eliminativism, which claims that “consciousness does not exist and/or that talk of consciousness should be eliminated from science.” She recognizes these are “strong positions to take, and require serious defence” (Irvine & Sprevak, 2020). Irvine is a philosopher of cognitive science whose work focuses on naturalistic approaches to consciousness, particularly emphasizing measurability, scientific methodology, and conceptual clarity. Rather than proposing a traditional metaphysical theory of consciousness, she argues for a pragmatic, operational framework grounded in cognitive science and psychology. Consciousness as a Non-Natural Kind Irvine challenges the idea that consciousness is a natural kind (i.e., a scientifically robust, well-defined category like water or gold). She says, “The evidence suggests that we are unlikely to find a neat, unified explanation of consciousness that maps onto a single natural kind” (Irvine, 2012). Instead, she suggests that consciousness may be a cluster concept: a term that applies to a loosely connected group of phenomena (like “game” or “emotion”), which do not all share a single defining feature. Methodological Reframing Irvine is skeptical of philosophical approaches that attempt to define consciousness in metaphysical terms (e.g., qualia, phenomenal character), preferring scientific utility over metaphysical speculation, aligning more with methodological naturalism, emphasizing the importance of measurement, empirical findings, and scientific practice. She proposes that progress in consciousness studies should be driven by operational definitions—i.e., definitions grounded in what can be measured and manipulated. “Rather than focus on trying to define consciousness in metaphysical terms, we should focus on developing reliable measures and exploring what these measures track in the brain” (Irvine, 2013). Irvine critiques what she calls the “overreliance” on introspective reports in consciousness science. She suggests that introspective access might not be as reliable or privileged as traditionally assumed, and instead favors behavioral and neuroscientific correlates. “Treating introspection as the gold standard for consciousness is questionable. Reports can be inconsistent and influenced by numerous non-conscious factors” (Irvine, 2012). Finally, Irvine supports a kind of theoretical pluralism: “There may be several overlapping but distinct consciousness-related capacities. Scientific inquiry should proceed accordingly, without assuming there must be a single unifying essence” (Irvine, 2013). She is part of a movement that urges philosophers to work more closely with cognitive scientists and to reframe consciousness in terms that are experimentally useful rather than metaphysically loaded.

---

### Ostendorf’s Predictive, Pattern-Driven Interface
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/ostendorf-s-predictive-pattern-driven-interface
Theorists: Jason Ostendorf

Attorney/writer Jason Ostendorf defends the view that consciousness is a recursive illusion: a simulated interface generated by a pattern-completion machine built for survival—not for truth. Consciousness is not a fundamental property of matter, nor an emergent system with independent causal power, but the byproduct of three interlocking functions: uninterrupted sensory data streaming into the brain, memory formation and recall designed for prediction and reaction, and linguistic programming of experience into a persistent self-narrative (Ostendorf, 2025). Filtered Sensory Data First, uninterrupted sensory data streams into the brain through specialized receptors. These signals are aggressively filtered and compressed (Panahi et al., 2019), protecting the brain from overflow by allowing only a portion of what surrounds a person to enter awareness, primarily for survival. Predictive Pattern-Matching Second, the brain engages in predictive pattern-matching based on prior experience. Rao and Ballard demonstrated that perception operates through top-down expectations updated by sensory feedback (Rao & Ballard, 1999). Friston expanded this into the “free energy principle,” showing the brain is optimized to minimize surprise by forecasting what comes next (Friston, 2010). This ongoing involuntary process of predictive coding, where memories are constantly recalled and compared to the present, gives the person a sense of continuity of self (Ostendorf, 2025). Linguistic Construction of the Self Third, language encodes and reinforces the illusion of a persistent self. The structure of language shapes how a person perceives reality (Boroditsky, 2011). The learned habit of expressing all experience through first-person grammar (e.g., “I want,” “I believe”) convinces the person of authorship over outputs they did not initiate (Ostendorf, 2025). Indeed, studies have shown that decisions themselves are involuntary, insofar as they are generated mechanically in the prefrontal and parietal cortex up to ten seconds before entering awareness (Soon et al., 2008). Conclusion Accordingly, “agency” is nothing more than a post-hoc narration—there is no central self; only a dynamic illusion arising from neural computation. Consciousness is nothing more than information in motion (Ostendorf, 2025).

---

## Mind-Brain Identity
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theories/mind-brain-identity

### Mind-Brain Identity Theory—Overview
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/mind-brain-identity-theory
Theorists: Several

Mind-Brain Identity Theory (also called “type physicalism” or, in its Australian form, “central-state materialism”) holds that mental states and processes are strictly identical to states and processes of the brain—not merely correlated with them, produced by them, or dependent upon them. In other words, Mind–Brain Identity Theory (MBIT) holds that mental states and processes—including phenomenal experiences—are numerically identical with physical states and processes of the brain. It does not claim merely that brain activity causes, produces, realizes, or correlates with consciousness; it claims that, where consciousness occurs, the conscious event and the relevant neural event are one and the same event described through different concepts and investigated by different methods. In its classical form, MBIT is the clearest expression of materialism about mind, but its continuing importance lies less in any simple one-to-one mapping between familiar mental kinds and fixed neural kinds than in the stronger constitutive idea that a complete theory must say what physical process an experience actually is. Formulated between 1956 and 1959 by U.T. Place, Herbert Feigl, and J.J.C. Smart, it treats "sensations are brain processes" on the model of scientific identifications such as "lightning is an electrical discharge" or "water is H2O": one phenomenon, two routes of access, discovered empirically rather than known by analysis of meanings. The theory dominated Anglophone philosophy of mind for roughly a decade before Hilary Putnam's multiple realizability argument redirected the field toward functionalism, yet it never disappeared—surviving in token-identity and restricted type-identity forms, underwriting the neuroscientific search for neural correlates, and returning in a substantial contemporary literature that contests the multiple realizability argument directly. Its deepest significance for this Landscape of Consciousness is structural rather than historical: an identity claim of some kind appears to be a requirement on any theory of consciousness that presents itself as complete. The Core Claim: Identity, Not Correlation Identity is stronger than dependence. If pain is identical with neural process N, pain cannot occur on that occasion without N, because there are not two events—one mental and one neural—that might come apart. The relation resembles scientifically discovered identities such as lightning with electrical discharge or water with H₂O: the expressions differ in meaning, evidential route, and ordinary use while referring to the same underlying phenomenon. Classical identity theorists therefore rejected both Cartesian dualism and psychophysical parallelism. They also distinguished identity from semantic reduction: a person can report pain without knowing neuroscience, just as people recognized lightning before understanding electricity (Place, 1956; Feigl, 1958/1967; Smart, 1959). The theory uses "identity" in the strict logical sense governed by Leibniz's law, not as a loose synonym for dependence or close association. It is not the claim that the brain causes the mind, nor that the mind supervenes on the brain, nor that mental states are realized by neural states. It is the claim that they are numerically one and the same, such that whatever is true of the brain process is true of the sensation—though not necessarily true of it under that description, and not necessarily known to the subject. Smart's illustration is that the professor of anatomy may be identical to the dean of the medical school: a visitor may know that the professor hiccups in lectures without knowing that the dean does (Smart, 2007). Strictly, the theory identifies states and processes rather than objects; identity theorists need not say that the mind is the brain, since we would hardly say that a mind weighs fifty ounces. The most familiar version is type identity: each mental kind is identical with a physical kind—pain with some neural type, visual red-experience with another. Token identity is weaker: every particular mental occurrence is some physical occurrence, although instances grouped under one psychological category may belong to different physical types. “Central-state materialism” originally emphasized sensations and other inner episodes resistant to behaviorist analysis. Later causal-role theories associated with Armstrong and Lewis combined functional characterization with physical identity: folk psychology fixes the role of a mental state, and neuroscience discovers its physical occupant (Armstrong, 1968; Lewis, 1966, 1972). Origins in Adelaide and Vienna/Minnesota The theory has two independent points of origin. In Adelaide, U.T. Place published "Is Consciousness a Brain Process?" (Place, 1956) after extended discussion with J.J.C. Smart and C.B. Martin, arguing that identifying consciousness with brain process is a reasonable scientific hypothesis that cannot be dismissed on logical grounds. Smart, then defending a Rylean behaviorism, found Place's argument unanswerable and converted, publishing "Sensations and Brain Processes" (Smart, 1959), which became one of the most reprinted papers in analytic philosophy and gave the position its canonical form. The resulting view was known, affectionately or otherwise, as the Australian heresy. Independently, in Minnesota, Herbert Feigl, a co-founder of the Vienna Circle, arrived at an identity thesis from the logical empiricist tradition, developing Moritz Schlick's "double-language" treatment of the psychophysical relation into the long essay "The 'Mental' and the 'Physical'" (Feigl, 1958). Anticipations exist in Carnap, Schlick, and Reichenbach, and the psychologist E.G. Boring may have been first to use the term "identity theory" (Place, 1990); older materialisms reach back to Hobbes and La Mettrie. But it was the papers of Feigl and Smart, on Jaegwon Kim's assessment, that installed the mind-body problem as a mainstream metaphysical problem of analytic philosophy and set the broadly physicalist parameters within which the subsequent debate has been conducted (Kim, 1998). Contingent Identity and the Semantics of Reference The first objection the founders faced was that "sensation" does not mean "brain process," so the two cannot be identical. The reply, which shaped everything after, was to separate meaning from reference. "Very bright planet seen in the morning" and "very bright planet seen in the evening" differ in sense but refer alike to Venus. Place made the point through what he called the "is" of composition, as in "this table is an old packing case": we establish that it is a table one way and that it is a packing case another way, and neither excludes the other. It follows that psychophysical identities are contingent and a posteriori—discoveries, not analytic truths. Aristotle thought the brain cooled the blood; that he was wrong was not a matter of logic. Phenomenal Properties and the Topic-Neutral Reply A harder objection concerns properties rather than particulars: even granting that a sensation is a brain process, are there not introspected qualities—the vivid green of an after-image—that no neural process possesses? Smart's answer was that reports of experience are topic-neutral, describable in terms that leave open whether what is occurring is physical or psychical. To report a yellowish-orange after-image is to report that something is going on like what typically goes on when one is awake, with eyes open, and an orange is illuminated in good light. Place made the complementary diagnostic move, naming as the "phenomenological fallacy" the mistake of supposing that in describing how things look or feel one is describing literal properties displayed on an internal screen. Sense data and images, on this account, are not items in the world's furniture. David Chalmers has objected that the topic-neutral formula is either too broad to be sufficient or, once narrowed to experiential states, question-begging (Chalmers, 1996), and the adequacy of the maneuver remains the crux of the dispute. Multiple Realizability and the Turn to Functionalism The objection that displaced the theory was Putnam's (1967). If a mental state is identical to a physical state type, then any creature in that mental state must be in that physical state type. But pain is plausibly instantiated in octopuses, mammals, and conceivably in silicon-based systems whose physical organization differs radically from ours. Pain therefore cannot be identical to any single neural type. What mental states share is functional organization, not physical constitution—a conclusion that launched functionalism and left identity theory, in its unrestricted type form, widely regarded as refuted. Two qualifications matter. First, the argument bears on type identity only: token identity, on which each particular mental event is some particular physical event, remains available and is retained even by Davidson's anomalous monism (Davidson, 1980). Second, restricted or species-relative type identities escape the argument, as in Lewis's population-relative treatment of pain (Lewis, 1980). Saul Kripke's modal argument, that "pain" and "C-fiber firing" are both rigid designators so their identity cannot be contingent, supplies a second influential line of attack (Kripke, 1980). Contemporary Revivals and Applications Identity theory is no longer the field's default, but reports of its death were premature, and the last three decades have produced a serious revisionist literature. Bechtel and Mundale (1999) argue that the multiple realizability argument trades on a mismatch of grain: it individuates brain states finely while individuating psychological states coarsely, whereas working neuroscience individuates both at comparable grain and routinely uses brain similarity across species to identify psychological similarity. Shapiro (2000) argues that genuine multiple realization requires differences relevant to the performance of the function, which many alleged cases do not exhibit. Polger (2009) and Polger and Shapiro (2016) have pressed both lines into a sustained defense of identity theories, and Hill (1991) defends type materialism about sensations directly. Bickle (1998) develops a "new wave" reductionism designed to survive the classical objections. Bechtel and McCauley (1999) propose a heuristic identity theory on which identity claims function less as finished metaphysics than as research strategies in cognitive neuroscience—hypothesized identities guiding the search for mechanisms and revised as the search proceeds. That last formulation captures how identity thinking actually operates in contemporary science. The neural correlates of consciousness program, though officially neutral between correlation and identity, is intelligible as a search for identities rather than mere covariation, and Integrated Information Theory states an explicit identity: an experience is identical to a maximally irreducible cause-effect structure (Tononi et al., 2016). In philosophy, David Papineau's causal argument for physicalism takes psychophysical identity as its conclusion rather than its premise, and the phenomenal concept strategy attempts to explain why identities feel counterintuitive without conceding that they are false (Papineau, 2020). Identity as a Constraint on Every Theory of Consciousness I/RLK take special interest in identity theory, for the Landscape, not because I subscribe to it as originally formulated, but because its way of thinking is more pervasive and more elucidating than is often realized—though perhaps not as reassuringly so as some might hope. I would generalize the classic commitment that mental states, events, and processes are identical to brain states, events, and processes. Any theory of consciousness, to be complete and sufficient, must make some kind of identity claim. Every theory that offers itself as a total explanation, necessary if not always sufficient, must be a kind of identity theory—in the strong sense, the sense in which the Morning Star and the Evening Star must both be Venus, such that if you eliminate the Morning Star you cannot have the Evening Star. Papineau makes a virtue of this necessity in his identity argument for physicalism (Papineau, 2020). It does not matter which specific materialist, physicalist, or nonphysical theory is at issue; all of them are, in essence, identity theories. Everywhere there is consciousness, some kind of consciousness identity is actually happening—always happening and never changing. Something happening or existing in every sentient creature just is consciousness. References Bechtel, W., & McCauley, R. N. (1999). Heuristic identity theory (or back to the future): The mind-body problem against the background of research strategies in cognitive neuroscience. In M. Hahn & S. C. Stoness (Eds.), Proceedings of the 21st Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 67–72). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Bechtel, W., & Mundale, J. (1999). Multiple realizability revisited: Linking cognitive and neural states. Philosophy of Science, 66(2), 175–207. Bickle, J. (1998). Psychoneural Reduction: The New Wave. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Chalmers, D. J. (1996). The Conscious Mind: In Search of a Fundamental Theory. New York: Oxford University Press. Davidson, D. (1980). Mental events. In Essays on Actions and Events. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Feigl, H. (1958). The "mental" and the "physical." In H. Feigl, M. Scriven, & G. Maxwell (Eds.), Concepts, Theories and the Mind-Body Problem (Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Vol. 2, pp. 370–497). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Hill, C. S. (1991). Sensations: A Defense of Type Materialism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kim, J. (1998). Mind in a Physical World: An Essay on the Mind-Body Problem and Mental Causation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Kripke, S. (1980). Naming and Necessity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Lewis, D. (1980). Mad pain and Martian pain. In N. Block (Ed.), Readings in the Philosophy of Psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 216–222). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Papineau, D. (2020). We must shed our metaphysical assumptions. Institute of Art and Ideas. Place, U. T. (1956). Is consciousness a brain process? British Journal of Psychology, 47(1), 44–50. Place, U. T. (1990). E. G. Boring and the mind-brain identity theory. British Psychological Society, History and Philosophy of Science Newsletter, 11, 20–31. Polger, T. W. (2009). Identity theories. Philosophy Compass, 4(5), 822–834. Polger, T. W., & Shapiro, L. A. (2016). The Multiple Realization Book. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Putnam, H. (1967). Psychological predicates. In W. H. Capitan & D. D. Merrill (Eds.), Art, Mind, and Religion (pp. 37–48). Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press. Shapiro, L. A. (2000). Multiple realizations. Journal of Philosophy, 97(12), 635–654. Smart, J. J. C. (1959). Sensations and brain processes. Philosophical Review, 68(2), 141–156. Smart, J. J. C. (2007). The mind/brain identity theory. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Stanford University. Tononi, G., Boly, M., Massimini, M., & Koch, C. (2016). Integrated information theory: From consciousness to its physical substrate. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 17(7), 450–461.

---

### Place’s Empirical Identity and the Phenomenological Fallacy
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/place-s-empirical-identity-and-the-phenomenological-fallacy
Theorists: U.T. Place

Philosopher/psychologist U. T. Place’s theory holds that phenomenal consciousness—sensations, perceptual appearances, dreams, and mental imagery—is not merely caused by or correlated with neural activity but is literally constituted by processes in the brain. He presents this identity as a contingent scientific hypothesis, not a conceptual truth: descriptions of experience and descriptions of physiology differ in meaning and verification, yet may identify the same event. His distinctive contribution is to combine this claim with a critique of the “phenomenological fallacy,” which mistakes descriptions of how things appear for descriptions of private objects possessing the apparent qualities (Place, 1956, 1988). Place's "Is Consciousness a Brain Process?" (Place, 1956) is the founding paper of mind-brain identity theory, and its argument is considerably more guarded than its reputation suggests. Place did not claim to demonstrate that consciousness is a brain process; he claimed to establish that the thesis is a reasonable scientific hypothesis that cannot be dismissed on logical grounds alone. Two contributions did the work. Semantically, he distinguished the "is" of definition from the "is" of composition, showing that "consciousness is a brain process" need no more assert synonymy than "this table is an old packing case." Diagnostically, he identified the "phenomenological fallacy"—the mistake of treating descriptions of how things appear as descriptions of literal properties displayed on an inner screen—as the source of the conviction that experience could not possibly be neural. Together these clear an obstacle rather than build a system: identifying phenomenal consciousness with brain process becomes an empirical question, settled by whether neurophysiology can explain what introspection reports. Beyond Behaviorism Without Dualism Place was trained in the Oxford of Gilbert Ryle and worked in Adelaide alongside J.J.C. Smart and C.B. Martin; his position developed as a partial defection from behaviorism rather than a wholesale rejection of it. He accepted that dispositional mental concepts—belief, desire, intention—could be elucidated by hypotheticals about behavior, but denied that the strategy extends to consciousness, sensation, and imagery, a doubt already pressed in "The Concept of Heed" (Place, 1954). Ryle's treatment of first-person reports as mere "avowals," on the model of a sophisticated wince, struck him as implausible. The alternative was to treat consciousness as an inner process and then ask what kind of process it is. Restricting the thesis to processes, rather than extending it across the mental, remained Place's considered position. Place accepted the broadly behaviorist treatment of many dispositional mental concepts inherited from Ryle and Wittgenstein. Believing, knowing, intending, and understanding can often be analyzed through patterns of actual and possible behavior. Consciousness is more elusive: pain, color experience, imagery, and dreams appear to involve private inner occurrences irreducible to behavioral dispositions. A person may experience pain without displaying it or have a vivid image without any overt response (Place, 1956). His decisive move is that admitting inner processes does not entail admitting nonphysical processes. Behaviorism and dualism are not exhaustive alternatives. Conscious episodes can be genuine internal events while remaining wholly physical, provided empirical investigation identifies them with appropriate brain processes. His thesis initially concerns occurrent processes rather than every concept conventionally classified as mental (Place, 1956; Graham and Valentine, 2004). Identity as a Scientific Hypothesis The standard logical objection was that "sensation" and "brain process" differ in meaning, so no identity can hold. Place's reply distinguished two uses of "is." “Consciousness is a brain process” does not mean that “consciousness” means “brain process.” As noted, Place distinguishes the “is” of definition from the contingent “is” of composition. A square is an equilateral rectangle by definition, but a cloud is a mass of suspended droplets as an empirical discovery. Likewise, lightning is an electrical discharge even though ordinary observers identify lightning visually and physicists identify electrical activity through instruments and theory (Place, 1956). Place, who preferred to speak of constitution rather than identity, held that the logical objections to "consciousness is a process in the brain" are no greater than those to "lightning is a motion of electric charges" (Place, 1954). Different modes of observation therefore do not imply different entities. Introspection and neurophysiology may provide independent descriptions of one event. Place’s identity claim is stronger than correlation: the moon’s position causes tides but is not identical with them, whereas electrical theory explains why observers report lightning by identifying the relevant process. Consciousness may similarly be identified with a brain process when physiology explains the subject’s introspective observations as effects of that process (Place, 1956). The Phenomenological Fallacy The residual resistance to identification, Place argued, rests on a mistake about what experience-reports describe. This principal obstacle is the assumption that introspection reveals a private phenomenal object bearing the qualities reported. If someone describes a green afterimage, it is tempting to infer that an inner object is literally green; because neural tissue is not green, the experience then appears nonphysical. Place calls this the phenomenological fallacy. Describing an afterimage as green does not attribute greenness to an internal object. It reports having the kind of experience ordinarily produced by looking at a green illuminated surface (Place, 1956). In other words, the phenomenological fallacy is the supposition that when subjects describe how things look, sound, smell, taste, or feel, they are describing the literal properties of objects and events on a peculiar sort of internal cinema or television screen—the "phenomenal field" of the psychological literature (Place, 1956). There is no green thing in the brain when one has a green after-image, but neither is there one anywhere else: to describe an after-image as green is to say that one is having the sort of experience one normally has, and has learned to describe, when looking at a green patch of light. The move draws on parallel arguments from Ryle and Wittgenstein, but it leaves the theory owing an account of color itself—a task Smart later took up. This analysis separates properties represented in experience from properties of the experiencing process. A brain state need not itself be green, circular, loud, or hot to constitute an experience as of greenness, circularity, loudness, or heat. Place thereby anticipates later adverbial and representational approaches. First-person and third-person descriptions can differ radically while referring to one physical occurrence. Phenomenal Consciousness and Neural Explanation Place’s criterion for identity is explanatory. If a neural process accounts for why a subject makes the relevant introspective report, then the scientific description may identify what the reported conscious event is. This does not translate experience reports into brain-language or eliminate phenomenality. It treats subjective experience as the process examined by neuroscience from another epistemic standpoint (Place, 1956). In later work, Place continued to regard consciousness as a biological process and explored its function and neural location. He resisted relying on token identity alone because scientific explanation requires repeatable psychophysical types, although these may need more flexible individuation than early formulations assumed (Place, 1988; Graham and Valentine, 2004). Philosophy removes conceptual barriers; neuroscience must determine which patterns of activity are conscious. Explanatory Scope, Limits, Assessment Place established that differences in meaning, appearance, and access do not logically exclude mind–brain identity. Yet explaining why a subject reports a green afterimage is not obviously equivalent to explaining why the neural process has green phenomenal character. The phenomenological fallacy may dissolve the demand for a literally green brain state while leaving the question of why any brain state feels a certain way. Multiple realization raises a further difficulty for unrestricted type identity: analogous experiences may occur in organisms with different nervous systems. Species-relative or functionally individuated identities can answer this objection, but at the cost of simple universal mappings. Place’s theory is foundational rather than complete. It makes phenomenal consciousness scientifically identifiable with neural process and rejects a separate inner realm, while leaving the detailed neural identity—and its explanatory intelligibility—to empirical theory. Place's late work extended the account to the function of consciousness, proposing that an automatic subsystem—"the zombie within"—handles unproblematic inputs and alerts consciousness only to problematic ones (Place, 1999). His enduring contribution is less a theory than a clearing operation: he claims that the felt impossibility of identifying experience with neural process is a semantic and diagnostic artifact rather than a metaphysical insight, leaving the question for science. References Graham, G., & Valentine, E. R. (Eds.). (2004). Identifying the Mind: Selected Papers of U. T. Place. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Place, U. T. (1954). The concept of heed. British Journal of Psychology, 45(4), 243–255. Place, U. T. (1956). Is consciousness a brain process? British Journal of Psychology, 47(1), 44–50. Place, U. T. (1988). Thirty years on—Is consciousness still a brain process? Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 66(2), 208–219. Place, U. T. (1999). Connectionism and the problem of consciousness. Acta Analytica, 22, 197–226. Ryle, G. (1949). The Concept of Mind. London: Hutchinson. Wittgenstein, L. (1953). Philosophical Investigations. Translated by G. E. M. Anscombe. Oxford: Blackwell.

---

### Feigl's Double Knowledge of Raw Feels
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/feigls-double-knowledge-of-raw-feels
Theorists: Herbert Feigl

Philosopher of science Herbert Feigl’s mind–brain identity theory holds that phenomenal consciousness—the “raw feels” of color, sound, pain, emotion, imagery, and thought as directly lived—is empirically identical with configurational features of neural processes. The phenomenal and neurophysiological vocabularies are neither synonymous nor intertranslatable: first-person acquaintance and third-person scientific description provide two epistemic routes to the same event. Feigl thus preserves the reality and privacy of experience while rejecting both nonphysical qualia and psychophysical laws connecting two ontologically distinct domains (Feigl, 1958/1967; Stubenberg, 1997). Feigl's "The 'Mental' and the 'Physical'" (Feigl, 1958) is considered the most systematically elaborated of the founding identity-theory texts and the one that begins from the opposite end. Where the Australians treated the physical as unproblematic and sought to accommodate the mental within it, Feigl treated raw feels—the qualitative data of direct experience—as epistemologically basic and sought to integrate them into a physicalist world picture without either eliminating them or multiplying entities (Stubenberg, 1997). His solution turns on a distinction between evidence and reference: phenomenal and neurophysiological terms differ in the kind of knowledge supporting their use, acquaintance in the one case and description in the other, but converge on a single referent, on the model of Frege's morning star and evening star. The identity is empirical and contingent rather than logical, and the dualism the theory tolerates is a dualism of evidence, not of substance or property. Feigl thus preserves phenomenal consciousness in a form the Australians were prepared to deflate, making his the least reductive of the three founding positions (i.e., Place, Feigl, Smart). From Schlick's Double Language to Empirical Identity Feigl's route ran through the Vienna Circle, of which he was a co-founder, and through the critical realism of Alois Riehl and the early Moritz Schlick, his doctoral supervisor. Schlick had argued that the difference between the mental and the physical is a difference between two conceptual systems rather than two regions of reality: one and the same reality, designated by the psychological and the physical systems alike. This "double-knowledge" or "double-language" theory, which Feigl credited as his greatest influence, convinced him that the mind-body problem is not a pseudoproblem (Feigl, 1960). His first treatment took the psychophysical relation to be one of logical identity, implying that psychological language could be translated into neurophysiological language (Feigl, 1934). He later abandoned translatability, recasting the identity as empirical and contingent—a thesis philosophy could outline but not corroborate. Raw Feels as the Basic Datum The question an identity theory must answer, in Feigl's formulation, is how raw feels are related to behavioral and neurophysiological states (Feigl, 1967). Posing it that way excludes a reductive solution from the outset. He rejected as "reductive fallacies" both eliminative materialism and radical behaviorism, which dispose of the explanandum rather than explain it, and equally the dualistic alternatives of parallelism and epiphenomenalism, which purchase the phenomena at the price of an ungrounded duplication of realities. Qualia are for Feigl the epistemologically basic reality: the egocentric account is our most immediate mode of contact with what there is, while all scientific accounts reach Being only indirectly and structurally. Consistently with this, he rejected Wittgenstein's argument against a private language and insisted on the indispensability of a subjectively understood conception of first-person Raw Feels and the Mind–Body Problem Feigl distinguishes several senses of “mental.” Intentional content, logical relations, behavioral dispositions, unconscious processing, and occurrent experience require different analyses. The central mind–body problem concerns sentience itself: the immediately experienced qualitative character he calls raw feels. These include not only elementary sensations but directly lived thoughts, emotions, and perceptual fields (Feigl, 1958/1967). Unlike behaviorists, Feigl does not reduce phenomenal terms to dispositions or public performances. A subject can be acquainted with pain or color experience independently of describing its causes or displaying characteristic behavior. Unlike dualists, however, he does not infer that such acquaintance reveals a nonphysical entity. What is privately lived may be identical with what is publicly investigated by neurophysiology. Double Knowledge Without Two Realities Feigl initially described his position as a “double-language” theory but preferred “twofold access” or “double knowledge” because the former suggested analytic translation. A phenomenal report and a neural description can refer to one event while differing in meaning, evidence, and cognitive significance. The subject knows the event by acquaintance; scientists know it by behavioral evidence, causal theory, and ultimately neurophysiological description (Feigl, 1958/1967). The model resembles knowing one person in different ways: direct acquaintance and biographical description need not present the same information, yet concern the same individual. Likewise, the raw feel and the neural event are not parallel occurrences. They are one process under modes of access so unlike that their identity requires empirical discovery. Privacy is therefore epistemological rather than ontological: only the subject has the relevant first-person route, but the event itself belongs to the public spatiotemporal-causal world. Acquaintance, Description, and a Single Referent The central core of the solution, Feigl wrote, rests on the distinction between evidence and reference: whatever behavioral evidence supports ascribing a mental state, the state ascribed is not to be confused with the evidence for the ascription (Feigl, 1967). What is had in experience, and known by acquaintance, is identical with what behavior theory and ultimately neurophysiology know by description. One referent, two epistemic routes—hence "double knowledge," and hence a dualism located at the evidential base rather than in the world. The Fregean analogy is exact and was Feigl's own: as noted, phenomenal and neurophysiological terms differ in sense while sharing reference, as "morning star" and "evening star" differ in sense while both denoting Venus. Nomological Danglers and Parsimony Feigl supplied the term that became the identity theory's most effective polemical instrument. Dualist psychophysical correlation laws would be "nomological danglers," hanging from the nomological net of science without further explanation—a formulation Smart adopted and made famous (Smart, 1959). The argument is one of parsimony: where evidential facts are completely correlated, however heterogeneous their qualitative character, parsimony opposes positing two sets of entities. Feigl was careful about what this establishes. The choice between monism and dualism is settled not empirically but by pragmatic justification, while the specific psychophysical identifications are matters the factual sciences must decide and philosophical analysis should not prejudge. Why This Is Not Panpsychism Feigl's privileging of qualia invites the objection that he has made experience fundamental and slid toward panpsychism. But the privileging is epistemological, not ontological. Physical magnitudes such as mass and field intensity are themselves distinguishable only by qualitative particularities, so reality may be called qualitative at bottom without being intrinsically psychic; qualia form part of reality, but reality comprises more (Stubenberg, 1997). What Feigl declines to do is explain the phenomenal away, and it is this refusal that distinguishes the Austrian from the Australian version. Assessment Feigl's account drew criticism where it is most distinctive: Paul Meehl's autocerebroscope thought experiment pressed him to clarify the relation between phenomenal predicates and raw feels (Meehl, 1966), and the semantics of acquaintance has remained contested. Kim's judgment stands, however, that the papers of Feigl and Smart established the mind-body problem as a mainstream metaphysical problem and set the physicalist parameters of the subsequent debate (Kim, 1998). Feigl's insistence that the phenomenal is real, epistemically basic, and known by acquaintance—while numerically identical to the neural—anticipates both Russellian monism and contemporary acquaintance-based responses to Jackson’s knowledge argument. References Feigl, H. (1934). The logical analysis of the psycho-physical problem. Philosophy of Science, 1(4), 420–445. Feigl, H. (1958). The "mental" and the "physical." In H. Feigl, M. Scriven, & G. Maxwell (Eds.), Concepts, Theories and the Mind-Body Problem (Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Vol. 2, pp. 370–497). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Feigl, H. (1960). Mind-body, not a pseudoproblem. In S. Hook (Ed.), Dimensions of Mind (pp. 24–36). New York: New York University Press. Feigl, H. (1967). The "Mental" and the "Physical": The Essay and a Postscript. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Kim, J. (1998). Mind in a Physical World: An Essay on the Mind-Body Problem and Mental Causation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Meehl, P. E. (1966). The compleat autocerebroscopist: A thought-experiment on Professor Feigl's mind-body identity thesis. In P. Feyerabend & G. Maxwell (Eds.), Mind, Matter, and Method: Essays in Philosophy and Science in Honor of Herbert Feigl (pp. 103–180). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Schlick, M. (1974). General Theory of Knowledge (A. E. Blumberg, Trans.). Vienna & New York: Springer. (Original work published 1918) Smart, J. J. C. (1959). Sensations and brain processes. Philosophical Review, 68(2), 141–156. Stubenberg, L. (1997). Austria vs. Australia: Two versions of the identity theory. In K. Lehrer & J. C. Marek (Eds.), Austrian Philosophy: Past and Present (pp. 125–146). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

---

### Smart’s Topic-Neutral Identity
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/smart-s-topic-neutral-identity
Theorists: J. J. C. Smart

Philosopher J. J. C. Smart’s theory of consciousness identifies sensations and phenomenal experiences with processes in the brain while denying that ordinary experience reports mean the same as neuroscientific statements. A report such as “I have a yellowish-orange afterimage” uses topic-neutral language that specifies an occurrence through its resemblance to ordinary perception without deciding whether the occurrence is physical or nonphysical. Scientific evidence and ontological parsimony can then establish that the event so reported is a neural process, eliminating irreducibly psychical “nomological danglers” from an otherwise physical account of nature (Smart, 1959, 1963, 2007). Smart's "Sensations and Brain Processes" (Smart, 1959) converted Place's guarded hypothesis into the canonical statement of type identity and supplied the two arguments that made it formidable. The first is methodological: science increasingly reveals organisms as physico-chemical mechanisms, and to hold that sensations alone stand outside that account is to accept "nomological danglers"—psychophysical laws hanging from the nomological net with no further explanation—which Ockham's razor should cut. The second is semantic: the properties we introspect and report are "topic-neutral," specifiable in terms that leave open whether what is going on is physical or psychical, so that reports of experience do not commit us to irreducibly non-physical properties. Sensations are accordingly nothing over and above brain processes, the identity is contingent and discovered rather than analytic, and sense data and mental images are not entities in the world at all. Where Place cleared an obstacle, Smart mounted a positive case, and it is his version the subsequent literature has taken as its target. Nomological Danglers and the Argument from Parsimony Smart’s principal motivation is scientific economy. Biology increasingly explains organisms as complex physical mechanisms, and physical science seeks a unified causal account. If sensations were irreducibly psychical additions correlated with neural events, consciousness would stand outside that account as a set of those nomological danglers—extra properties governed by special laws but unnecessary to physical explanation (Smart, 1959). That consciousness alone should be an exception strikes him as implausible. A dualist must posit fundamental psychophysical laws correlating neural states with irreducibly mental items, laws that would explain nothing further and follow from nothing—dangling from the nomological net, the term Smart adopted from Feigl (Feigl, 1958). Since physicalism accounts for the same phenomena without them, Ockham's razor suggests identity. Ockham’s razor does not deductively prove identity, but Smart argues that it favors one kind of event over two perfectly correlated kinds. Parallelism and epiphenomenalism duplicate the world without increasing predictive power. Identity also preserves mental causation: pain can produce avoidance because pain is the neural process that causes the behavior, not a causally idle accompaniment. Place resisted this framing, holding that materialism is an empirical hypothesis rather than a consequence of parsimony (Place, 1960); the disagreement marks a real methodological divide between the two founders. From Behaviorism to Central-State Materialism Smart accepts that many mental concepts can be analyzed behaviorally, but sensation reports appear to do more than express behavior. Saying “I am in pain” is not merely wincing verbally, and saying that one has an afterimage genuinely reports an inner occurrence. The failure of reductive behaviorism does not, however, establish dualism. The reported occurrence may be a process of the central nervous system (Smart, 1959). His thesis is ontological, not semantic. “Sensation” does not mean “brain process of type N,” and a competent speaker need know nothing of neuroscience. The claim is that the process identified introspectively happens to be the same process that science identifies physiologically. Smart accordingly treats mind–brain identity as contingent and empirical, comparable to discoveries that lightning is electrical discharge or that the Morning Star is the Evening Star. Topic-Neutral Reports Smart’s most distinctive device is a topic-neutral analysis of experience reports. To report a yellowish-orange afterimage is approximately to say that something is occurring like what occurs when one is awake, has open eyes, and sees an illuminated yellowish-orange surface. Expressions such as “something is going on,” “like,” “waxing,” and “waning” do not themselves commit the speaker to physical substance, mental substance, or either ontology (Smart, 1959). This preserves the metaphysical neutrality of ordinary phenomenology. Once the report’s content is rendered neutral, science can determine what kind of occurrence satisfies it. Smart does not identify an afterimage construed as a colored inner object with a brain state; he identifies the experience of seeming to see the colored patch with a brain process. The process need not itself be yellow-orange, just as a representation of a circle need not be circular. Consciousness, Awareness, and Later Refinements Smart distinguished mere awareness, the information-gathering that continues when one drives or cycles on automatic pilot, from full consciousness, which he construed on Armstrong's model as a higher-order perception—a kind of proprioception of the brain by the brain (Smart, 2004). Because the last state in any such series is not itself propriocepted, the account offers an explanation of why consciousness seems ineffable. Against Kripke's modal argument, he held the connection to be only half contingent: a complete description of the brain state would imply the topic-neutral report, though the abstract report would not imply the neurological description (Kripke, 1980). Against Chalmers, he maintained that qualia are no more than points in a multidimensional similarity space, and that the contrary impression may be the phenomenological fallacy at work (Chalmers, 1996). Multiple Realization and the Explanatory Gap Classical type identity faces multiple realization: pain-like experiences may occur in organisms whose physical constitution differs from human neurobiology (Putnam, 1967). Smart’s physicalism can accommodate narrower, species-relative identities or token identities, but these revisions reduce the universality of the original claim. Functionalism gained influence by defining mental types through causal roles while allowing diverse realizers. A deeper problem concerns phenomenal explanation. Even if the event reported as pain is conclusively identified with neural process N, why N feels painful may still appear unanswered. Smart’s view is that no further psychophysical relation needs explanation because there is only one event; critics argue that identity without an account of qualitative character leaves an explanatory gap (Levine, 1983). His topic-neutral strategy removes misleading inner objects and shows how ordinary reports can be compatible with physicalism, but it obviously does not provide a detailed neural theory of consciousness. Replies to Phenomenal Objections Smart addresses several objections that later became central. The fact that experience reports and brain reports differ in meaning does not preclude identity. The privacy and apparent incorrigibility of sensation reports concern modes of access, not the ontological nature of their referents. A neurosurgeon’s failure to observe a yellow-orange patch in the brain is irrelevant because the claimed identity concerns the experiencing process, not an internal colored object (Smart, 1959). He also confronts the objection that experiences have irreducibly phenomenal properties. His response is that an experience can be characterized topic-neutrally by resemblance relations without positing a nonphysical property. This is ingenious but contested: critics argue that the resemblance itself must be resemblance in phenomenal character and therefore presupposes what the analysis seeks to demonstrate. Smart acknowledged this as among the strongest objections to his formulation. Assessment Smart’s enduring contribution is to state materialism with clarity: experience is real, introspective reports are genuine, and neither requires an irreducibly mental ontology. Phenomenal consciousness is a physical process apprehended through ordinary experiential concepts and redescribed through science. The theory’s adequacy turns on whether future explanation can make this identity intelligible rather than merely asserting it. Smart extended the identity thesis beyond sensation to beliefs, desires, and intentional states generally, following Armstrong but where Place declined to go. Smart’s formulation is the one multiple realizability was framed to refute, and unrestricted type identity has not recovered its former standing. What’s durable is the pillars of his edifice: the appeal to parsimony against fundamental psychophysical laws, the insistence that identity claims are contingent discoveries, and the strategy of neutralizing phenomenal reports rather than denying that anything is reported. Each remains relevant in contemporary physicalism. References Chalmers, D. J. (1996). The Conscious Mind: In Search of a Fundamental Theory. New York: Oxford University Press. Feigl, H. (1958). The "mental" and the "physical." In H. Feigl, M. Scriven, & G. Maxwell (Eds.), Concepts, Theories and the Mind-Body Problem (Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Vol. 2, pp. 370–497). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Kripke, S. (1980). Naming and Necessity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Levine, J. (1983). Materialism and qualia: The explanatory gap. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, 64(4), 354–361. Place, U. T. (1960). Materialism as a scientific hypothesis. Philosophical Review, 69(1), 101–104. Putnam, H. (1967). Psychological predicates. In W. H. Capitan and D. D. Merrill (Eds.), Art, Mind, and Religion (pp. 37–48). Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press. Smart, J. J. C. (1959). Sensations and brain processes. The Philosophical Review, 68(2), 141–156. Smart, J. J. C. (1961). Colours. Philosophy, 36(138), 128–142. Smart, J. J. C. (1963). Philosophy and Scientific Realism. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Smart, J. J. C. (1975). On some criticisms of a physicalist theory of colour. In Chung-ying Cheng (Ed.), Philosophical Aspects of the Mind-Body Problem. Honolulu: University of Hawai'i Press. Smart, J. J. C. (2004). Consciousness and awareness. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 11(2), 41–50. Smart, J. J. C. (2007). The mind/brain identity theory. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Stanford: Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University.

---

### Armstrong’s Causal-Role Central-State Materialism
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/armstrong-s-causal-role-central-state-materialism
Theorists: David Malet Armstrong

Philosopher David Armstrong’s central-state materialism combines a functional analysis of mental concepts with an empirical identity theory: a mental state is conceptually identified by the causal role it normally plays among stimuli, behavior, and other mental states, while science determines which physical state occupies that role. In humans, Armstrong argues, the occupants are states and processes of the central nervous system, so sensations, perceptions, beliefs, desires, and conscious experiences are not merely caused by brain states but are brain states. The approach naturalizes mental causation and avoids both Cartesian substance and behaviorist elimination, but its causal-role analysis does not by itself explain why particular physical realizers possess phenomenal character (Armstrong, 1968/1993, 1981a). Structurally, Armstrong's central-state materialism is a two-stage theory of mind whose account of consciousness, developed in a companion entry, is the very same structure applied reflexively. The first stage is a topic-neutral causal analysis: the concept of any mental state is the concept of whatever state is apt to be caused by certain stimuli and apt to cause certain behavior and further mental states (Armstrong, 1968). The second stage is empirical and contingent: since the states that in fact occupy these causal roles turn out to be states of the central nervous system, mental states are identified with brain states. The view is simultaneously an identity theory and a causal-role analysis close to the functionalism Lewis developed independently (Lewis, 1972), and Armstrong presented it as a synthesis dissolving the opposition between Cartesian dualism and Rylean behaviorism. For phenomenal consciousness, the upshot is deflationary: sensations and experiences are inner states individuated by their causal roles and realized physically, their felt qualities carrying no autonomous ontological weight—the precise point at which critics locate the explanatory gap. From Behaviorism to Inner Physical States Armstrong began as a behaviorist and, under the influence of J.J.C. Smart's identification of sensations with brain processes (Smart, 1959), but came to reject the behaviorist reduction of mind to behavior. He accepts behaviorism’s insight that mental concepts are systematically connected to behavior but rejects the thesis that mental states are nothing more than actual or hypothetical behavior. Pain can exist without overt withdrawal, and the behavior produced by a belief depends on interacting desires, perceptions, and other beliefs. Mental states must therefore be inner causes whose complex relations explain behavior rather than behavioral dispositions redescribed (Armstrong, 1968/1993). Behaviorism, Armstrong held, correctly ties the mental to its behavioral manifestations but wrongly denies the existence of inner causes; dualism correctly makes the mental inner and causally potent but wrongly makes it immaterial. Central-state materialism keeps what each gets right: mental states are inner states of the person, causally responsible for behavior rather than identical with it. The mind is not a pattern of dispositions but the categorical inner ground of those dispositions—the "central state" behind the subsequent action. A mental concept specifies such a state through its causal role. Pain is characteristically caused by injury, tends to produce aversion and avoidance, and interacts with beliefs and desires; perception is normally caused by environmental objects and guides adaptive action. These role descriptions analyze ordinary mental concepts rather than neural anatomy: they say what a mental state does without yet specifying what it is physically (Armstrong, 1968/1993, 1981a). Functional Analysis and Physical Realization As noted, the theory has two stages. First, causal analysis characterizes mental states functionally through inputs, outputs, and relations to other mental states. Second, neuroscience identifies the concrete states that perform those functions. Armstrong predicts that these will prove to be physico-chemical brain states, yielding contingent, a posteriori psychophysical identities (Armstrong, 1968/1993). Armstrong is consequently a precursor of functionalism but not a pure role functionalist. On standard functionalism, a mental state is the multiply realizable functional role itself; for Armstrong, it is the concrete occupant or realizer of that role. If another species performed an analogous pain role through a different physical organization, its pain could have a different physical realization. Every actual mental episode nevertheless has a fully physical constitution (Jackson, 2001; Levin, 2023). The Causal Analysis of Mental Concepts The theory's distinctive move is conceptual rather than empirical. To specify what a mental state is, Armstrong analyzes the concept by its place in a causal network: a state apt to be the effect of certain causes and the cause of certain effects (Armstrong, 1968). Pain is the state typically caused by bodily damage that typically produces the desire that it cease and behavior tending to minimize the damage; a perception is the state apt to be caused by the environment and apt to guide action toward it. These role descriptions analyze ordinary mental concepts rather than neural anatomy. Because the analysis fixes each state by what it does, not what it is made of, it is topic-neutral—silent, at the conceptual level, on whether the occupant is physical or immaterial. This is why Armstrong's causal roles can equally be described as functional roles, and why his position is bracketed with functionalism even though he reached it by a distinct route (Armstrong, 1968/1993, 1981a). Contingent Identity with the Central Nervous System Topic-neutrality is what allows the identification to be both substantive and contingent. Having defined mental states functionally, Armstrong appeals to the verdict of natural science that the occupants of these roles are neurophysiological states, and concludes that mental states are, as a matter of contingent fact, states of the brain (Armstrong, 1968). The identity is not conceptually necessary—the concept leaves the occupant open—but it is established a posteriori, in the way the gene was identified with DNA or water with H2O. This structure lets Armstrong claim the explanatory economy of physicalism without asserting that "mental" and "physical" are synonymous, distinguishing his central-state theory from cruder type-identity claims. Identity Rather than Correlation Mind and brain are not two correlated domains, and the brain does not produce an additional mental substance or property. The mental occurrence and the neural occurrence are one event described through different concepts. Because mental concepts specify causal roles while neuroscientific concepts specify physical structure, the identity is not analytic but empirically discovered (Armstrong, 1968/1993). This identity secures mental causation. A desire causes action because the desire is the neural state participating in the relevant physical causal sequence. No interaction between immaterial and material substances is required, and no physical event competes with a separate mental cause. Armstrong also argues that brains, minds, and mental capacities can arise gradually through evolution and development rather than appearing at an ontological threshold (Armstrong, 1968/1993). Perception, Sensation, and Phenomenal Character Armstrong interprets perception as the non-inferential acquisition of information or belief about the environment through the senses. Bodily sensations are similarly perception-like: warmth presents part of the body as warm, while pain presents something as amiss and includes an immediate negative attitude (Armstrong, 1962, 1968/1993). He rejects private, nonphysical sense-data as intermediaries between subject and world. For phenomenal consciousness, however, an explanatory gap remains. Causal roles distinguish pain from belief or visual perception, and identity theory locates each state physically, but neither derivation shows why the realizer feels painful or has a particular visual appearance. Armstrong’s response is that phenomenal qualities are not extra properties awaiting a second explanation; they are features of relevant physical states or, in his later engagement with representationalism, of what experience presents in the world (Armstrong, 1995). Critics answer that this establishes an ontology more clearly than it explains subjectivity. The Synthesis and Australian Materialism Armstrong's book became, with Smart's and Place's work, a founding text of Australian materialism and helped launch the physicalist turn in analytic philosophy of mind. Its lasting influence is twofold. First, the two-stage template—functional definition followed by empirical identification—became the standard form of reductive argument in the field, later given its most systematic statement by Lewis. Second, by covering the whole mind under a single schema—perception, belief, sensation, will, and introspection alike—Armstrong showed that a materialist could offer not merely a slogan but a detailed, comprehensive theory of mental functioning. That single schema is precisely why his theory of consciousness is not a separate doctrine: introspection is one more mental state to be analyzed by the same causal method. Sensation, Qualia, and the Explanatory Gap Applied to phenomenal consciousness, the causal analysis treats the felt qualities of experience as properties of first-order sensory states, individuated by their role in discriminating and guiding behavior and realized in the brain. Armstrong grants qualia no special, introspectively revealed nature; introspection is itself analyzed by the same method, as an inner sense that scans the mind's own states—central-state materialism turned reflexively upon itself, and the subject of the companion entry on his higher-order theory of consciousness. Critics press that a role-plus-realizer account states the conditions under which experiences occur and are detected while leaving untouched why occupying such a role should feel like anything at all, so that the knowledge argument and the explanatory gap survive the reduction (Jackson, 1982). Whether Armstrong's materialism narrows that gap or merely reformulates it remains the central question in recent reassessments (Anstey & Braddon-Mitchell, 2024). References Anstey, P. R., & Braddon-Mitchell, D. (Eds.). (2024). Armstrong's Materialist Theory of Mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Armstrong, D. M. (1962). Bodily Sensations. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Armstrong, D. M. (1968/1993). A Materialist Theory of the Mind (revised ed.). London: Routledge. Armstrong, D. M. (1981a). The causal theory of the mind. In The Nature of Mind and Other Essays (pp. 16–31). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Armstrong, D. M. (1995). Qualia ain’t in the head: Review of Michael Tye’s Ten Problems of Consciousness. Psyche, 2, 31–34. Jackson, F. (1982). Epiphenomenal qualia. Philosophical Quarterly, 32(127), 127–136. Jackson, F. (2001). David M. Armstrong. In A. P. Martinich and D. Sosa (Eds.), A Companion to Analytic Philosophy (pp. 413–418). Oxford: Blackwell. Levin, J. (2023). Functionalism. In E. N. Zalta and U. Nodelman (Eds.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Stanford: Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. Lewis, D. (1972). Psychophysical and theoretical identifications. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 50(3), 249–258. Smart, J. J. C. (1959). Sensations and brain processes. Philosophical Review, 68(2), 141–156.

---

### Quine’s Naturalized Mind and the Demoted Phenomenal
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/quine-s-naturalized-mind-and-the-demoted-phenomenal
Theorists: W.V.O. Quine

Philosopher W. V. O. Quine did not construct a dedicated theory of phenomenal consciousness; rather, a position emerges from his naturalism, physicalism, philosophy of language, and naturalized epistemology. Consciousness is real but wholly bodily—a condition of the nervous system—while particular mental events are identical with physical events even when mental classifications cannot be reduced to neurological classifications. His account explains how sensory stimulation, behavioral dispositions, and public language support knowledge and mental attribution, but leaves unexplained why neural activity has subjective, qualitative character (Quine, 1960, 1969, 1975, 1987, 1990). Quine not only produced no theory of consciousness but also treated the topic only glancingly, yet his thoroughgoing naturalism carries a definite and influential stance toward phenomenal consciousness: it demotes the phenomenal from epistemic and ontological foundation to a late, derivative, second-grade “idiom.” Quine is a physicalist who, having reconstrued behavioral dispositions as physiological states, arrives at what he calls the identity theory of mind—"mental states are states of the body" (Quine, 1975)—though his anti-essentialism gives this physicalism a behavioristic rather than a type-reductive cast. On the epistemic side, his naturalized epistemology begins not with a private stream of experience but with a physical organism whose sensory surfaces are triggered by impacts from a public world (Quine, 1969), so that talk of subjective sense qualities arises "mainly as a derivative idiom," parasitic on the intersubjectively observable (Quine, 1960). The upshot for consciousness studies is a framework in which qualia are neither denied nor explained but marginalized: real as bodily states, yet excluded from the extensional language in which Quine holds that the true structure of reality must be depicted. Naturalism Without First Philosophy Quine’s point of departure is methodological: philosophy possesses no standpoint outside science from which to account for the nature of mind. Epistemology is not prior to natural science but a chapter of it—the study of how a physical subject, "bombarded" by sensory stimulation, projects a theory of the world (Quine, 1969). This reversal matters for consciousness because it inverts the Cartesian and phenomenalist order of dependence. Where a phenomenalist takes private experience as the given and the physical world as construction, Quine takes the physical subject and its public environment as basic, and treats sensory awareness as neural response to "surface irritations." The starting point is the observation sentence, keyed to shared, publicly checkable circumstances of assent, not to introspectible inner episodes. Consciousness, on this picture, is not the epistemically secure foundation of knowledge but one more natural phenomenon to be studied from outside, third-personally, by the science it helps produce. Reality is to be identified within our evolving best science, with psychology continuous with biology and physics rather than grounded in irrefutable introspection (Quine, 1969, 1981, 1995). The mind–body problem therefore cannot be resolved through conceptual analysis alone. Physicalism remains the default scientific hypothesis, and Quine favors it for its continuity with established science and ontological parsimony (Hylton and Kemp, 2023; Janssen-Lauret, 2019). As noted, this naturalism rejects Cartesian mental substance and the epistemological primacy of private experience, but Quine’s approach does not entail eliminativism—Quine explicitly denies dismissing consciousness, calling it a genuine mystery while maintaining that, “whatever it precisely may be,” it is a bodily and neural state (Quine, 1987). His position is physicalist without being explanatorily peremptory. Mental States as States of the Body Quine's positive ontology of mind is austere token physicalism. He grants that there are mental states, but takes them to be states of the organism, ultimately physiological, rather than states of a second substance or occupants of an autonomous mental domain (Quine, 1975). His behaviorism is, by his own account, methodological rather than a denial of inner life: dispositions to behave are the evidential handle on the mental, and those dispositions are in turn physical states of neuronal activities. Quine identifies each particular occurrence of thinking, perceiving, feeling, or remembering with a physical event in an organism. An episode of thinking about Fermat’s Last Theorem is not accompanied by a separate mental entity; it is the organism’s physical state described under a mental predicate. This is token identity rather than classical type identity: instances of one mental kind need not share a single repeatable neural type (Quine, 1960, 1995; Hylton and Kemp, 2023). This yields a mind-body identity without essences—no claim that each mental type maps onto a single physical type, only that each mental state, being a state of the body, is physical. His mature formulation approaches anomalous monism. There is no mental substance, but there are “irreducibly mental ways of grouping physical states and events” (Quine, 1990). Mental and physical vocabularies may classify the same occurrences according to different explanatory interests, without strict laws translating every psychological kind into a neurological kind. In this respect, Quine sits close to Davidson's anomalous monism, with which he is often paired, but is more deflationary: he grants the mental far less autonomy as a conceptual domain and tolerates mentalistic vocabulary chiefly for its practical indispensability. Quine’s view evolved: in his 1980 Kant lectures he still entertained uniquely specifiable neurological realizations for perceptual events, but by Pursuit of Truth extended irreducible mental classification to perception as well as belief (Quine, 1980/2019, 1990; Janssen-Lauret, 2019). Language and the Extensional Ideal The instrument of this demotion is Quine's philosophy of language. Because intensional and mentalistic idioms—belief, desire, meaning, and the felt characters ascribed in introspective report—are referentially opaque, resisting the substitution of co-referring terms, they violate the extensionality Quine demands of any language that limns the true structure of reality; the intensions they invoke he dismissed as "creatures of darkness" lacking criteria of identity, and consigned to a merely "second grade" of idiom, serviceable for daily life but barred from serious ontology (Quine, 1960). Subjective sense qualities fare no better: they are, for Quine, a derivative idiom, described only by reaching outward to public comparisons—a color as orange or heliotrope, a smell as of rotten eggs—so that even the language of the inner is built from public reference, and sense data emerge not as the bedrock of experience but as a late, physicalism-laden construction. This is deflation, not elimination: the qualitative is genuine, but its vocabulary is secondary. Because this linguistic machinery is where Quine's treatment of consciousness is most distinctive, it is developed in full in the companion entry, "Quine's Linguistic Demotion of Phenomenal Consciousness," in the Landscape's Language Relationships subcategory. Placement and Assessment In Landscape, Quine could be miscategorized under Materialism → Eliminative/Illusionism (with Churchland, Dennett, Frankish, etc.), because "demotes qualia" pattern-matches to that group. That would be an error, and the entry argues against it explicitly: Quine never denies qualia or calls consciousness an illusion; he accepts mental states as bodily states and treats sense-quality talk as a legitimate if derivative idiom. He is a deflationary physicalist, not an eliminativist. Quine's significance for consciousness studies is thus programmatic rather than explanatory. He offers no account of why neural states are felt, and would likely regard the demand for one as shaped by the very intentional intuitions his naturalism sets aside. Placed primarily among the philosophical materialisms for his identity thesis, and secondarily among the Language Relationships theories for the linguistic machinery through which he demotes the inner, his legacy is a single disciplined framework—physicalist, extensionalist, third-personal—within which the hard problem does not so much get solved as get relocated to the disreputable side of a methodological boundary. Whether that relocation is a dissolution or an evasion remains, for his critics and each theorist, the open question. References Hylton, P., & Kemp, G. (2023). “Willard Van Orman Quine.” In E. N. Zalta and U. Nodelman (eds.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Stanford: Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. Janssen-Lauret, F. (2019). “Quine, Ontology, and Physicalism.” In R. Sinclair (ed.), Science and Sensibilia by W. V. Quine: The 1980 Immanuel Kant Lectures, 181–204. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan. Landscape of Consciousness. (2026a). “Non-Reductive Physicalism—Overview.” Landscape of Consciousness. The Kuhn Foundation. Landscape of Consciousness. (2026b). “Davidson’s Anomalous Monism.” Landscape of Consciousness. The Kuhn Foundation. Quine, W. V. O. (1960). Word and Object. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Quine, W. V. O. (1969). “Epistemology Naturalized.” In Ontological Relativity and Other Essays, 69–90. New York: Columbia University Press. Quine, W. V. O. (1974). The Roots of Reference. La Salle, IL: Open Court. Quine, W. V. O. (1975). “Mind and Verbal Dispositions.” In S. Guttenplan (ed.), Mind and Language, 83–95. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Quine, W. V. O. (1981). Theories and Things. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Quine, W. V. O. (1986). “Reply to Hilary Putnam.” In L. E. Hahn and P. A. Schilpp (eds.), The Philosophy of W. V. Quine, 427–431. La Salle, IL: Open Court. Quine, W. V. O. (1987). Quiddities: An Intermittently Philosophical Dictionary. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Quine, W. V. O. (1990). Pursuit of Truth. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Quine, W. V. O. (1995). From Stimulus to Science. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Quine, W. V. O. (2019). Science and Sensibilia: The 1980 Immanuel Kant Lectures. R. Sinclair (ed.). Cham: Palgrave Macmillan. Lectures delivered 1980.

---

### Sellars’s Sensa Beyond the Given
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/sellars-s-sensa-beyond-the-given
Theorists: Wilfrid Sellars

Wilfrid Sellars’s theory of consciousness distinguishes conceptual thought from sensory consciousness and gives each a different naturalistic treatment; both are identity theories, but of distinct types. Thoughts are functionally classified inner episodes modeled on public language, whereas sensations are nonconceptual, intrinsically qualitative states—“sensa”—postulated to explain the phenomenal presence of color, sound, pain, and other sensible qualities. Sellars rejects sensations as self-authenticating foundations of knowledge, yet also rejects their elimination. He looks to a completed scientific image that must expand beyond present-day physics to accommodate qualitative sensory processes as genuinely physical constituents of sentient organisms, thus maintaining the wholly physical nature of reality (Sellars, 1956, 1962, 1965, 1981a). Consciousness without the Given Sellars’s attack on the “Myth of the Given” is often mistaken for a denial of immediate experience. His target is instead the epistemological claim that bare sensations can possess intrinsic authority and justify empirical beliefs independently of concepts, language, and inferential relations. A red sensation may occur without being a judgment, knowledge claim, or awareness of itself as red. For it to support the observation “this is red,” the subject must already possess concepts and know how perceptual reports function within the “space of reasons” (Sellars, 1956; deVries and Triplett, 2000). Thus, sensory consciousness and perceptual knowledge must be separated. Sensations causally contribute to perception, but knowledge arises only when a conceptually competent subject responds to them through norm-governed classificatory capacities. Sellars preserves non-inferential observation while denying that its epistemic status is independent of the wider conceptual system (Sellars, 1956). Thoughts, Sensations, and the Myth of Jones In Sellars’s “Myth of Jones,” a community initially explains behavior without mental concepts. Jones postulates inner episodes modeled on overt speech to explain intelligent conduct occurring without public utterance. These “thoughts” inherit semantic and inferential roles from language; they are theoretical entities that can later be identified with neurophysiological processes. This is an early functionalism about intentional states: what makes an episode a thought is principally its role within reasoning and action, not an introspectively revealed intrinsic medium (Sellars, 1956, 1965, 1981b). Sensations require a different model. They are introduced to explain why veridical perception, illusion, and hallucination can share a phenomenal character. Unlike thoughts, sensations are neither inherently intentional nor propositionally structured. They are modeled on perceptible qualities themselves, although Sellars’s adverbial analysis avoids treating them as private inner objects: to sense “redly” is a way the perceiver is, not to inspect a red mental particular (Sellars, 1956, 1981a; Corti, 2022). Intrinsic Quality and the Grain Problem Phenomenal perception contains more than conceptual taking. In seeing a pink ice cube, one does not merely believe that something is pink and cubical; pinkness and spatial form are sensuously present. Sellars emphasizes the apparent homogeneity of such qualities: a pink expanse seems pink throughout, whereas a neural system described as interacting particles is structurally heterogeneous. Correlations between neural configurations and color experiences therefore do not yet provide an intelligible identity between them (Sellars, 1962, 1965). This “Grain Argument” anticipates the later hard problem, targeting the idea that phenomenal qualities can be straightforwardly identified with ordinary neurophysiological structures. A visual field may appear as a uniform expanse of red—homogeneous “all the way through.” But the corresponding brain process, described by contemporary neuroscience, is a highly complex arrangement of neurons, electrical activity, chemical exchanges, and spatially discrete components. The phenomenal quality and the neural structure therefore seem to have radically different “grain”: one appears continuous and homogeneous, the other particulate and heterogeneous. Sellars’s conclusion is not that consciousness is nonphysical. Rather, present-day physical theory may be ontologically incomplete. A future scientific image may need to include intrinsically qualitative physical processes—his “sensa”—instead of trying to reduce phenomenal qualities to structural arrangements of nonqualitative particles. The argument thus anticipates the explanatory gap: correlation and causal function do not yet explain the qualitative character of experience. Thus, functional and causal descriptions may explain discrimination, report, and behavior while omitting the intrinsic qualitative character of experience. Sellars consequently refuses both reductive identification with currently conceived neural complexes and dualistic correlation with nonphysical-generated qualia. The difficulty, he argues, may expose limitations in the scientific image’s ontology rather than evidence that consciousness lies outside nature (Sellars, 1962; deVries, 2024). Sensa and an Expanded Scientific Image Sellars famously distinguishes the “manifest image”—the framework of persons, perceptible objects, reasons, and experienced qualities—from the “scientific image” of theoretical entities and causal laws. Although the scientific image has explanatory priority, philosophical understanding requires a “stereoscopic” integration that preserves persons, normativity, and sensory appearances while revising their categorial interpretation (Sellars, 1962). His later proposal is that future science may recognize sensa as primitive physical processes. They are “physical-1” because they belong to the natural spatiotemporal world, but not “physical-2” if that term is restricted to the entities and properties admitted by present physics. In his process ontology, both familiar particles and qualitative sensory states may ultimately be manifestations of more basic “absolute processes.” Phenomenal qualities would then be neither emergent additions to nonqualitative matter nor reducible arrangements of particles, but fundamental physical features instantiated in appropriately organized nervous systems (Sellars, 1981a; Landy, 2019; deVries, 2024). Explanatory Reach, Limits, and Classification Sellars provides a sophisticated architecture for consciousness: conceptual awareness depends on publicly acquired inferential capacities; sensory phenomenality is nonconceptual and intrinsically qualitative; introspective authority is learned and fallible; and qualitative states must ultimately be reconciled with scientific realism. He thereby avoids sense-datum foundationalism, crude behaviorism, eliminativism, and substance dualism. The account nevertheless remains deliberately limited. It does not specify which neural organizations instantiate sensa, why those processes generate a unified subject, or how qualitative similarities map onto physical structure. Calling sensa primitive physical processes relocates the explanatory burden and revises physics, but does not derive phenomenality from independently understood principles. Sellars’s accomplishment is less a completed causal theory than a principled argument that scientific ontology must accommodate consciousness rather than explain it away. As such, Sellars might resonate with Russellian monism and Galen Strawson’s “Real Materialism” (i.e., panpsychism) (Strawson, 2003). While Landscape classifies Sellars under the Mind-Brain Identity Theory (MBIT) subcategory, he occupies a highly unorthodox, revisionary position within that group. His theory effectively splits the category in two, depending on which aspect of consciousness is being addressed, which further elucidates how Sellars thinks: The Conceptual Realm. For thoughts, beliefs, and language (sapience), Sellars is a straightforward identity theorist. He argued that the mental states postulated by the "Manifest Image" (folk psychology) are theoretical entities that a completed science will eventually identify directly with neurophysiological states. In this regard, he is perfectly aligned with classical MBIT founders like U.T. Place or J.J.C. Smart. The Phenomenal Realm. For sensory experience (qualia or "sensa"), Sellars still technically defends identity theory, but with a massive structural caveat. Because of his "Grain Problem," he argued that phenomenal states cannot be identical to brain states as neuroscience currently describes them (a collection of discrete neurons and particles). He maintained that qualia are identical to physical states of the brain, but only if physics is fundamentally revolutionized to include continuous "absolute processes." He remains a proud, card-carrying identity theorist who believes the physical side of the identity equation hasn't been properly discovered yet. References Corti, L. (2022). Demystifying the myth of sensation: Wilfrid Sellars’ adverbialism reconsidered. Synthese, 200, Article 75. deVries, W. A. (2024). Wilfrid Sellars. In E. N. Zalta and U. Nodelman (Eds.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Stanford: Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. deVries, W. A., & Triplett, T. (2000). Knowledge, Mind, and the Given: Reading Wilfrid Sellars’s “Empiricism and the Philosophy of Mind.” Indianapolis: Hackett. Landy, D. (2019). Sellars’s argument for an ontology of absolute processes. Journal for the History of Analytical Philosophy, 7(1), 1–25. Sellars, W. (1956). Empiricism and the philosophy of mind. In H. Feigl and M. Scriven (Eds.), Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science (Vol. 1, pp. 253–329). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Sellars, W. (1962). Philosophy and the scientific image of man. In R. Colodny (Ed.), Frontiers of Science and Philosophy (pp. 35–78). Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press. Sellars, W. (1965). The identity approach to the mind-body problem. The Review of Metaphysics, 18(3), 430–451. Sellars, W. (1981a). Foundations for a metaphysics of pure process: The Carus Lectures. The Monist, 64(1), 3–90. Sellars, W. (1981b). Mental events. Philosophical Studies, 39(4), 325–345. Strawson, G. (2003). Real Materialism. L. Antony, N. Hornstein (Eds.), Chomsky and His Critics, Blackwell.

---

### Lewis’s Analytic Functionalism and Causal-Role Identity Theory
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/lewis-s-analytic-functionalism-and-causal-role-identity-theory
Theorists: David Lewis

Philosopher David Lewis’s theory of phenomenal consciousness is a reductive materialism combining functional analysis with psychophysical identity: common-sense psychology characterizes experiences by their causal relations to stimuli, behavior, and other mental states, while science discovers which physical states occupy those roles. The resulting identities are contingent and often population-relative—human pain may be one neural state and Martian pain a different physical state—yet every experience is wholly physical. Lewis supplements this metaphysics with an epistemology of experience: learning what an experience is like ordinarily confers practical abilities rather than knowledge of nonphysical facts (Lewis, 1966, 1972, 1980, 1988, 1994). Lewis developed the most systematic reductive materialism in analytic philosophy of mind, and his treatment of phenomenal consciousness follows from it. On his view—often called analytic or "realizer" functionalism—mental states are defined by the causal roles that our tacitly known folk psychology assigns them, and are then empirically identified with whatever physical states happen to occupy those roles, typically neural states (Lewis, 1966, 1972). Applied to experience, this yields a deflationary but non-eliminative account: qualia are real, but they are the occupants of a functional role, not intrinsic felt properties transparently revealed in having them. Lewis defended this position against the two most influential anti-materialist arguments of his era—Nagel's and Jackson's appeals to subjective character and to what Mary learns—by way of the "ability hypothesis," the claim that knowing what an experience is like is know-how rather than propositional knowledge (Lewis, 1988). The result is a materialism that concedes the phenomena while denying that they carry information inaccessible to physical science. Causal Roles and Psychophysical Identity Lewis's philosophy of mind begins with a two-step reductive schema. First, the definitive characteristic of an experience is its causal role—its typical causes and effects within the organism’s psychological repertoire. The whole of folk psychology is treated as an implicit theory whose mental terms are defined together, through the network of causal relations it postulates among stimuli, inner states, and behavior; formally, the terms are the ones that make the theory's Ramsey sentence true (Lewis, 1972). A mental state is thereby specified as the unique occupant of a definite causal role. Second, empirical materialist science discovers what in fact physical states actually perform those roles. If pain is analytically the occupant of causal role R, and neural state N is empirically found to occupy R, then pain is N by transitivity of identity. Because "pain" is defined as the state that typically results from damage and typically causes aversion, and because some neural state is found to do exactly this, it follows by the transitivity of identity that pain is that neural state (Lewis, 1966, 1972). Mental and neural descriptions need not be synonymous. “Pain” identifies a state through its causal role, whereas a neuroscientific term identifies the same state through its physical constitution. The identity is discovered rather than adopted merely for parsimony. Phenomenal states remain real, introspectible, and causally efficacious; reduction changes their description and ontological classification, not their existence (Lewis, 1966, 1994). Lewis thus reached the mind-brain identity theory of Place, Smart, and Armstrong not by hypothesis but as the conclusion of a conceptual argument, unifying functionalism and identity theory in a single reduction—a position later systematized as the "Reduction of Mind" (Lewis, 1994). Folk Psychology and Realizer Functionalism Lewis develops this position through a functional analysis of theoretical terms. Folk psychology comprises interconnected platitudes about how perceptions, beliefs, desires, emotions, sensations, stimuli, and actions causally relate. Because mental terms are mutually interdefined, their roles must be specified together—effectively by “Ramseyfying” the theory and identifying the states that jointly realize its network (Lewis, 1970, 1972, 1994). This makes Lewis an analytic functionalist, but not a functionalist in Putnam’s substrate-neutral sense. The functional role fixes what qualifies as pain; the pain itself is the concrete physical occupant of that role, not an abstract role separable from every realization. Different populations may realize the same broad psychological role through different physical kinds, while the mental state within each population remains identical with its particular physical realizer (Weatherson, 2025). Mad Pain, Martian Pain, and Population Relativity A pure identity theory over-specifies, and a pure functionalism under-specifies, and Lewis's best-known move in philosophy of mind resolves the tension. In "Mad Pain and Martian Pain," he tests the theory against two opposed possibilities. He imagines a madman in whom pain occupies the wrong causal role—caused by exercise, prompting concentration rather than aversion—and a Martian in whom the pain role is filled by hydraulic hardware rather than firing neurons (Lewis, 1980). Both are genuinely in pain, and simple type-identity theory seems unable to accommodate the Martian, while pure role functionalism seems unable to accommodate the madman (Lewis, 1980). Lewis accommodates them by relativizing role occupancy to appropriate populations. The madman is in pain because his state occupies the pain role for humanity, despite failing to do so in his exceptional case. The Martian is in pain because a different physical state occupies that role for Martians. This population-relative functionalism preserves multiple realizability without abandoning identity, and it structures how phenomenal states are to be typed. It also preserves anomalous individuals and cross-species realization, although unique beings or “mad Martians” reveal semantic indeterminacy at the margins. Lewis denies that phenomenal character supplies an independent criterion beyond causal role and physical realization: pain is a feeling, and a theory of pain is already a theory of how that state feels (Lewis, 1980). The Ability Hypothesis and the Knowledge Argument Lewis's most direct engagement with phenomenal consciousness is his reply to Jackson's (1982) knowledge argument, developed jointly in spirit with Nemirow (1990). Mary, confined to monochrome surroundings while learning all the physical facts about color, seems to learn something new on first seeing red, so—the argument runs—not all facts are physical facts. Lewis grants that Mary gains something but denies it is information: she acquires abilities—to remember, imagine, and recognize the experience—and knowing what an experience is like just is the possession of such abilities (Lewis, 1988). Knowing-what-it's-like is knowing-how, not knowing-that. Since no proposition eludes her, physicalism is untouched. The hypothesis has drawn sustained criticism—that abilities and phenomenal knowledge can come apart, one retained without the other (Conee, 1994; Alter, 2001)—but it remains, with representationalist and phenomenal-concept strategies, one of the principal physicalist responses. Qualia Without Revelation In "Should a Materialist Believe in Qualia?" Lewis answers "yes and no" (Lewis, 1995). "Qualia" names the occupants of a folk-psychological role; if materialism is true, there are no perfect occupants, hence no perfect deservers of the name, but there are imperfect deservers—physical states good enough to count—so belief in qualia is a matter of semantic indecision rather than metaphysical discovery. What a materialist cannot accept is the Identification Thesis, the doctrine of revelation, that the intrinsic nature of a quale is fully disclosed simply in having the experience; for if qualia are physical properties of physical events, their nature is a matter for neuroscience and is precisely not given in introspection (Lewis, 1995). Rejecting introspective revelation is the pivot on which Lewis's whole treatment of experience turns: the felt transparency that drives dualist intuitions is, for him, an illusion of introspective access, not a datum to be explained. Assessment Lewis offers no mechanism of consciousness and proposes no neural correlate; his contribution is architectural, fixing what phenomenal states must be if materialism holds and defusing the arguments that say it cannot. The account is broadly deflationary about the explanatory gap, treating the appearance of a residue as a confusion of know-how with fact and of introspective access with revelation. Its cost is that everything rests on those two reclassifications, which critics on both sides—dualists and fellow physicalists who accept a genuine epistemic gap—continue to contest. References Alter, T. (2001). Know-how, ability, and the ability hypothesis. Theoria, 67(3), 229–239. Conee, E. (1994). Phenomenal knowledge. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 72(2), 136–150. Jackson, F. (1982). Epiphenomenal qualia. Philosophical Quarterly, 32(127), 127–136. Lewis, D. (1966). An argument for the identity theory. Journal of Philosophy, 63(1), 17–25. Lewis, D. K. (1970). How to define theoretical terms. The Journal of Philosophy, 67(13), 427–446. Lewis, D. (1972). Psychophysical and theoretical identifications. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 50(3), 249–258. Lewis, D. (1980). Mad pain and Martian pain. In N. Block (Ed.), Readings in the Philosophy of Psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 216–222). Harvard University Press. Lewis, D. (1988). What experience teaches. Proceedings of the Russellian Society, 13, 29–57. Reprinted in W. G. Lycan (Ed.), Mind and Cognition (1990), and in P. Ludlow, Y. Nagasawa, & D. Stoljar (Eds.), There's Something About Mary (2004). Lewis, D. (1994). Reduction of mind. In S. Guttenplan (Ed.), A Companion to the Philosophy of Mind (pp. 412–431). Blackwell. Lewis, D. (1995). Should a materialist believe in qualia? Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 73(1), 140–144. Nagel, T. (1974). What is it like to be a bat? Philosophical Review, 83(4), 435–450. Nemirow, L. (1990). Physicalism and the cognitive role of acquaintance. In W. G. Lycan (Ed.), Mind and Cognition (pp. 490–499). Blackwell. Weatherson, B. (2025). David Lewis. In E. N. Zalta and U. Nodelman (Eds.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Stanford: Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University.

---

### Kripke’s Modal Argument Against Mind–Brain Identity
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/kripke-s-modal-argument-against-mind-brain-identity
Theorists: Saul Kripke

Saul Kripke’s theory of phenomenal consciousness is not a particular psychophysical model but a modal-metaphysical argument that conscious states such as pain are essentially characterized by their felt phenomenal character, so that any attempted identity between such states and brain states would have to be necessary if true, yet appears not to be necessary in a way that cannot be explained away as in ordinary scientific identities. As such, it remains the most influential modal argument against the physicalist reduction of phenomenal consciousness (Kripke, 1971, 1980; Levine, 1983; Chalmers, 1996). Using the arguments of Naming and Necessity—rigid designation, the necessity of identity, and the category of the “necessary a posteriori”—he argued that if a conscious state such as pain were identical to a brain state such as C-fiber firing, that identity would have to be metaphysically necessary, yet the identity seems contingent (we can apparently conceive of pain without C-fibers and C-fibers without pain), and, uniquely among scientific identities, this appearance of contingency cannot be explained away as an illusion, because a state's feeling like pain is not a contingent mode of presentation of something else but is constitutive of pain itself; the identity theory is therefore false (Kripke, 1980; Speaks, 2018). Rigid Designation and Necessary Identity Kripke’s argument about consciousness depends on his broader theory of reference and modality. A rigid designator refers to the same object in every possible world in which that object exists; this idea has consequences for metaphysics because whether the terms in an identity statement are rigid helps determine whether the identity, if true, is necessary or contingent. Kripke’s paradigm examples of rigid designators are proper names and natural-kind terms: “Hesperus (the evening star, Venus) = Phosphorus (the morning star, Venus)” and “water = H₂O” are discovered empirically, but if the two terms rigidly designate the same entity or kind, the identity is necessary if true (Kripke, 1980). By way of contrast, definite descriptions ("the inventor of bifocals") typically are not (Kripke, 1980). The striking result is the necessary a posteriori: truths that can be known only empirically, but are metaphysically necessary. Applied to mind, this framework changes the status of psychophysical identity claims. If “pain” and “C-fiber firing,” or more generally “pain” and some neural state N, rigidly designate their referents, then “pain = N” cannot be contingently true. It must be necessary if true at all. Kripke’s point is not that science cannot discover surprising identities; rather, it is that genuine identities do not hold merely in the actual world. If pain really is a certain neural state, then in every possible world in which that pain exists, that neural state must exist as well, and vice versa. The Illusion of Contingency and Why Science Usually Dissolves It Such necessary identities nonetheless seem contingent, and Kripke's account of why is what makes his mind–body argument work. It seems we could discover that Hesperus was not Phosphorus, or that water was not H₂O. Kripke explains this appearance away: what we are really conceiving is a qualitatively similar situation in which some other thing plays the superficial identifying role—a world where a body other than Venus appears in the evening sky, or where a watery-seeming stuff is not H₂O. The apparent contingency is thus reinterpreted as a genuine possibility misdescribed: we confuse the necessary identity with a distinct, contingent claim about how things are picked out (Kripke, 1980; Speaks, 2018). For ordinary theoretical identifications, the mode of presentation (how a thing appears) is distinct from the thing itself, so there is room for this reinterpretation. Why Pain is Different Kripke's decisive claim is that this reinterpretation is unavailable for psychophysical identities. Suppose "pain = C-fiber firing" were a necessary a posteriori truth. To explain away its apparent contingency, the physicalist would need to say that when we imagine pain without C-fiber firing, we are really imagining a situation that merely feels like pain without being pain—just as we imagine something that merely looks watery without being water. But this move fails, because in the case of a sensation there is no distinction between appearance and reality: for something to feel like pain is for it to be pain (Kripke, 1980). Pain is picked out by an essential property—its immediately felt phenomenal character—rather than by a contingent mode of presentation. Hence there is no qualitatively identical but distinct scenario to which the illusion of contingency can be redirected. If pain and C-fiber firing can even seem to come apart, then, given the necessity of identity, they genuinely can come apart, and so are not identical. The same reasoning generalizes against type–type, token, and person–body identity theories. Significance, Influence, Objections Kripke's argument reoriented late-twentieth-century philosophy of mind. Though he presented it as a renovation of the Cartesian conceivability argument (Descartes, 1641), its novelty was to show that the standard materialist reply—dismissing anti-identity intuitions as illusions of contingency of the familiar scientific kind—cannot be applied to phenomenal states, precisely because such states lack the appearance/reality gap that other scientific identities exploit. This turn on the special epistemology of the phenomenal is the direct ancestor of David Chalmers's conceivability (zombie) argument and two-dimensional framing of the hard problem (Chalmers, 1996), and it sharpened the explanatory-gap literature by locating the difficulty in the constitutive tie between a phenomenal state and its felt character. The argument, not surprisingly, is also widely contested. Critics—most influentially Scott Soames—object that Kripke conflates epistemic with metaphysical possibility: that pain and C-fiber firing can seem to come apart shows only an epistemic gap, and physicalists (via a posteriori or "type-B" materialism) can hold the identity metaphysically necessary while conceding it is not knowable a priori, so the apparent contingency need not be a genuine one (Soames, 2015; Hill & McLaughlin, 1999). Others question whether "pain" and "C-fiber firing" are both genuinely rigid, or whether the felt/physical distinction is sufficiently robust. Whatever its ultimate outcome, Kripke's argument remains a fixed reference point in debates over whether phenomenal consciousness can be identical to, or necessitated by, the physical (Stoljar, 2021). To be clear, what Kripke's argument does and does not establish is worth stating precisely. The argument, if sound, refutes identity (pain ≠ C-fiber firing); it does not, cannot, by itself establish dualism or refute all physicalism, since correlation, supervenience, or realization could survive (Searle and others press exactly this). Kripke himself was cautious and did not build a positive dualist system on it. Kripke’s target is the mind-brain identity theory specifically; it should not be read as "Kripke refuted materialism." References Chalmers, D. J. (1996). The Conscious Mind: In Search of a Fundamental Theory. Oxford University Press. Descartes, R. (1641). Meditations on First Philosophy. Paris: Michel Soly. Hill, C. S., & McLaughlin, B. P. (1999). There are fewer things in reality than are dreamt of in Chalmers's philosophy. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 59(2), 445–454. Kripke, S. A. (1980). Naming and Necessity. Harvard University Press. Soames, S. (2015). Kripke on mind–body identity. In Reference and Existence discussion papers / USC. (Also in A. Berger, Ed., Saul Kripke, Cambridge University Press, 2011.) Speaks, J. (2018). Kripke's argument against materialism [Course handout, PHIL 30304]. University of Notre Dame. Stoljar, D. (2021). Physicalism. In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Stanford University.

---

### Levine’s Explanatory Gap
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/levine-s-explanatory-gap
Theorists: Joseph Levine

Philosopher Joseph Levine coined the term "explanatory gap" to name a precise failure: even if a conscious state is identical to some neural state, we cannot see why that neural state should feel the way it does, and further physical detail does not help (Levine, 1983). His signature move is to insist that this failure is epistemological rather than ontological—it marks a limit on our explanatory resources, not evidence that consciousness is nonphysical—which puts him at odds simultaneously with dualists who read the gap as a metaphysical finding and with materialists who claim to have closed it. He characterizes this position as a Kantian antinomy: excellent reasons to think phenomenal consciousness must be physical, since it has physical causes and effects, alongside excellent reasons to think it cannot be captured in physical terms (Levine, 2001). What Levine offers is therefore not a theory of consciousness but a rigorous account of why we do not have one. In other words, Levine’s explanatory-gap argument holds that even if phenomenal consciousness is wholly dependent on—or even identical with—physical processes in the brain, a complete physical-functional description appears unable to explain why those processes have the particular subjective character they do. Introduced as an epistemological reformulation of Kripke’s challenge to mind-brain identity, the explanatory gap is deliberately weaker than an argument for dualism: the failure of intelligible reduction does not by itself prove that phenomenal and physical properties are metaphysically distinct (Levine, 1983, 2001). Levine’s later work, however, increasingly questions whether physicalism can satisfy this explanatory demand and has moved toward strong emergentism and a primitive relation of subjective experience. From Kripke to the Explanatory Gap Levine introduced the term “explanatory gap” in Materialism and Qualia: The Explanatory Gap as a response to Saul Kripke’s modal argument against psychophysical identity. Kripke had argued that the felt contingency of psychophysical identities cannot be explained away as it can for other theoretical identifications. He maintained that if pain were identical with some neural state—famously, C-fiber firing—the identity would be necessary if true, yet pain without that neural state appears conceivable, and had drawn a dualist conclusion (Kripke, 1980) Levine thought the intuition behind Kripke’s argument was important but refused its metaphysical conclusion. Instead, it revealed an epistemic asymmetry: psychophysical identities, unlike paradigmatic scientific identities, leave something crucial unexplained (Kripke, 1980; Levine, 1983). The asymmetry is real but epistemic: what differs between the two cases is the explanatory adequacy of the identity statement, not its modal status. The resistance to materialism should not be dismissed as merely epistemology, he insisted, but neither does it license an ontological verdict. Consider an identity such as heat = molecular motion. Once the relevant science is understood, molecular kinetic theory makes intelligible why heat behaves as it does—expands metals, flows from hot to cold, feels warm to a perceiver. The identity is fully explanatory: nothing crucial is left out. Now consider "pain is the firing of C-fibers." Even granting the identity, a question survives that has no analog in the heat case—why should that firing feel exactly this way rather than like some other way, or why should it feel like anything at all? The physical account fixes the causal and functional profile of pain while leaving its qualitative character unaccounted for (Levine, 1983). Thus, the phenomenal character appears as an additional brute fact. Levine’s point is not that the identity must therefore be false, but that its truth would not provide the explanatory satisfaction ordinarily associated with scientific reduction (Levine, 1983, 2001). The gap thus belongs specifically to explanation. It is not the claim that we lack knowledge of some fact, as in the knowledge argument, nor that a metaphysical possibility has been established, as in the conceivability argument. It is the claim that a kind of intelligibility routinely available elsewhere in science is systematically unavailable for phenomenal consciousness. Why Levine Remains a Materialist The materialist side of the antinomy rests on mental causation. Conscious states have physical effects—we withdraw, we report, we act on what we feel—and if the physical world is causally closed, conscious states must be physical or else we are overwhelmed by systematic overdetermination (Levine, 2001). Levine takes this to be strong enough that dualism is not a live option, however unsatisfying the alternative. He accordingly defends materialism against the modal argument, holding that the route from conceivability to metaphysical possibility rests on a questionable conflation of semantic with metaphysical issues (Levine, 1998; Chalmers, 1996). Zombies are imaginable; it does not follow that they are possible. His contrast between modal rationalism and what he terms modal autonomism marks the point—whether conceptual coherence tracks metaphysical possibility is itself a substantive question, and the anti-materialist argument presupposes an answer it has not demonstrated (Levine, 2018). Why the Materialist Repairs Fail Levine is equally unsparing toward strategies meant to dissolve the gap from the materialist side. Against the phenomenal concept strategy—on which the gap is an artifact of how our phenomenal concepts work rather than a feature of the world—he argues that the strategy is self-undermining. It requires that the peculiarity of phenomenal concepts be itself physically explicable, yet the feature that must be invoked, the intimate relation between a phenomenal concept and the experience it denotes, is precisely what stands in need of physical explanation (Levine, 2007). Against representationalism—on which phenomenal character reduces to representational content—he argues the view has fatal flaws when joined to a materialist metaphysics. Representational content is itself naturalized in causal or teleofunctional terms, and those terms leave the same residue: one can specify what a state represents without specifying what it is like to be in it (Levine, 2003, 2018). Across his work, the pattern holds—every reductive strategy either helps itself to an unexplained phenomenal element or changes the subject. Acquaintance and the Shape of an Adequate Account Levine's later work sketches what an adequate account would require without claiming to provide one. He develops a conception of experience organized around acquaintance and appearance rather than representation: in having an experience one stands in relation to a qualitative character that is not merely represented but presented, and this presentational structure resists functional and representational analysis (Levine, 2018). His persistent claim is that materialists have underestimated or underdescribed what needs explaining, and that describing it accurately is what makes the gap look unbridgeable. From Agnosticism Toward Strong Emergence Levine’s position has evolved significantly. Purple Haze emphasized the tension between compelling reasons for materialism and the persistent inability of materialism to explain phenomenal experience, without treating the gap as a deductive refutation of physicalism (Levine, 2001). More recently, however, Levine has stated that he “strongly incline[s]” toward strong emergentism: phenomenal conscious states are not realized by or metaphysically supervenient on underlying physical-functional states but arise according to basic psychophysical laws (Levine, 2019). On this later view, a physically identical zombie world is metaphysically possible, though not nomologically possible given the psychophysical laws of our world. Levine combines this with an acquaintance-based picture of consciousness in which subjects stand in a primitive experiential relation to a phenomenally presented world. Physical and computational mechanisms can explain much of the structure of experience—for example, similarity relations within color space—without explaining why a particular physical structure is accompanied by redness rather than greenness, or by any phenomenality whatsoever. Those qualitative correspondences may ultimately be brute psychophysical facts (Levine, 2019, 2021). Explanatory Significance, Open Questions, Assessment Levine's influence is disproportionate to the modesty of his positive claims. The explanatory gap is a fixed term of art, an acknowledged precursor to Chalmers's hard problem, and the standing challenge materialist theories must meet. His refusal to convert it into an argument for dualism makes him an unusually credible critic of materialism from within. The explanatory gap has enduring force because it isolates a problem that survives detailed neuroscience: neural correlates can become increasingly exact while the question of why those states possess phenomenal character remains conceptually separable and forever in the future. Its neutrality is also a strength—the original argument does not simply infer dualism from ignorance. Levine’s mature emergentism sharpens the stakes. If phenomenal consciousness is genuinely basic relative to the physical, the explanatory gap reflects an ontological discontinuity rather than merely our present neuroscience knowledge. This creates corresponding problems of mental causation, epiphenomenalism, and explaining how acquaintance can influence physical cognition—difficulties Levine explicitly recognizes. The lasting contribution of the explanatory gap is therefore less a solution than a stringent criterion for one: a theory of consciousness must explain not merely which physical processes correlate with experience, but why and how those processes constitute, necessitate, or otherwise yield this astonishing subjective experience itself. Critics respond that Levine may demand a stronger form of intelligibility from consciousness than science can legitimately provide, or that some fundamental identities and laws simply terminate explanation. Physicalists additionally argue that phenomenal-concept theories can explain the apparent gap without requiring an ontological divide (Levine, 2018; Melnyk, 2002). Type-B materialists hold that his own diagnosis removes the gap's sting: an epistemic gap with no ontological consequence is what one should expect given how phenomenal concepts function. Illusionists argue the gap arises only because the explanandum has been described in question-begging terms. Others find the position unstable—if materialism is true and the gap merely epistemic, it is puzzling why the obstacle should be permanent, while if it is permanent, that permanence invites an ontological explanation. Levine's answer is the antinomy: he accepts the discomfort as the honest response to the evidence rather than a defect to be argued away. References Chalmers, D. J. (1995). Facing up to the problem of consciousness. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 2(3), 200–219. Chalmers, D. J. (1996). The Conscious Mind: In Search of a Fundamental Theory. Oxford University Press. Kripke, S. A. (1980). Naming and Necessity. Harvard University Press. Levine, J. (1983). Materialism and qualia: The explanatory gap. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, 64, 354–361. Levine, J. (1993). On leaving out what it's like. In M. Davies & G. Humphreys (Eds.), Consciousness: Psychological and Philosophical Essays (pp. 121–136). Blackwell. Levine, J. (1998). Conceivability and the metaphysics of mind. Noûs, 32(4), 449–480. Levine, J. (2001). Purple Haze: The Puzzle of Consciousness. Oxford University Press. Levine, J. (2003). Experience and representation. In Q. Smith & A. Jokic (Eds.), Consciousness: New Philosophical Perspectives. Oxford University Press. Levine, J. (2007). Phenomenal concepts and the materialist constraint. In T. Alter & S. Walter (Eds.), Phenomenal Concepts and Phenomenal Knowledge: New Essays on Consciousness and Physicalism. Oxford University Press. Levine, J. (2018). Quality and Content: Essays on Consciousness, Representation, and Modality. Oxford University Press. Levine, J. (2019a). On the meta-problem. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 26(9–10), 148–159. Levine, J. (2019b). Consciousness is acquaintance and acquaintance is consciousness. In J. Knowles & T. Raleigh (Eds.), Acquaintance: New Essays. Oxford University Press. Levine, J. (2021). The metaphysics and epistemology of acquaintance. ProtoSociology, 38, 15–34. Melnyk, A. (2002). Review of Joseph Levine, Purple Haze: The Puzzle of Consciousness. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research.

---

### Papineau’s Mind-Brain Identity
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/papineau-s-mind-brain-identity
Theorists: David Papineau

Philosopher David Papineau defends a robust neurobiological physicalism about phenomenal consciousness, in which conscious states are literally identical with brain states—not caused by them, not generated by them, not correlated with them, but the same states under a different mode of presentation. His argument has three moving parts: a causal argument that mental states must be physical, given that the physical realm is causally closed and mental states have physical effects; an abductive argument that identity, rather than mere correlation, best explains the lawlike covariation of conscious states with neural states; and a diagnostic argument that the residual sense of an explanatory gap is a cognitive illusion arising from the peculiar structure of phenomenal concepts, which he named the "antipathetic fallacy" (Papineau, 1993a, 2002). A fourth, less often noticed commitment follows: because phenomenal concepts are semantically vague, Papineau holds that there is no determinate material essence of pain or of color experience for neuroscience to discover, only a plurality of correlates among which nothing fixes a unique referent (Papineau, 2003). The argument bears on all materialist theories of consciousness (Papineau, 2020b). One of Papineau's framing intuitions is that "there seems no immediate reason why consciousness should be singled out as posing some special puzzle about its relation to the rest of reality"—given that "reality contains many different kinds of things, biological, meteorological, chemical, electrical, and so on, all existing alongside each other, and all interacting causally in various ways" (Papineau, 2020b). The Causal Argument and the Closure of the Physical Papineau's route to physicalism begins not with consciousness but with causation. We feel that "conscious mind influences non-conscious matter, by controlling bodily behaviour, and similarly that matter influences mind, giving rise to sensory experiences, pains and other conscious mental states." Yet the "compelling argument … against this kind of interactionist stance … derives from the so-called 'causal closure of the physical' … the physical realm seems causally sufficient unto itself" (Papineau, 2020b). The argument that follows is straightforward in structure. Conscious states have physical effects—we wince, we report, we withdraw the hand. Every physical effect has a sufficient physical cause. If conscious states were distinct from physical states, their effects would be systematically overdetermined, which is implausible as a general feature of the world. Therefore, conscious states are physical states (Papineau, 2002). Papineau developed the empirical case for closure at length, tracing how nineteenth- and twentieth-century physiology progressively eliminated the vital and mental forces that had once been posited to explain bodily movement. The argument's force is thus historical and scientific rather than a priori—a characteristic feature of his naturalism, which also underwrites his teleosemantic account of mental representation. This argument establishes that conscious states are physical. It does not by itself establish that they are identical with any particular type of neural state. That further conclusion requires a different argument. The Explanatory Gap and the Antipathetic Fallacy Papineau observes that we remain puzzled about the relation between brain states and mental states in a way we are not puzzled about the relation between NaCl and salt, or between electrical discharge and lightning. He attributes this puzzlement—the "explanatory gap" of consciousness (Levine, 1983)—to a cognitive fact about how we deploy concepts: "we find it hard to escape the spontaneous dualist thought that the feeling and the physical state are not one thing, but two different states that somehow invariably accompany each other" (Papineau, 2020b). He named this illusion the antipathetic fallacy, adapting Ruskin's "pathetic fallacy"—where we wrongly project feeling into inanimate nature—to its converse, where we wrongly refuse to recognize that feelings inhere in certain parts of nature, namely brains (Papineau, 1993a, 1995). The mechanism is a peculiarity of phenomenal concepts. Unlike theoretical concepts, which pick out their referents by description, phenomenal concepts operate by using or activating a version of the experience they refer to. Thinking about the taste of chocolate makes the mouth water; an imagined pain shares some of the unpleasantness of a real one, enough to make you twitch or feel queasy. Papineau calls this a use/mention feature: each deployment of a phenomenal concept instantiates a "faint copy" of the property it denotes (Papineau, 2002, 2011). This generates the illusion of distinctness directly. Consider "the visual experience of red = brain state B." Contemplating the left-hand side activates a trace of the experience; contemplating the right-hand side does not. The two sides of the identity therefore feel different, and we mistake a difference in how we are thinking for a difference in what we are thinking about. The reaction that such identities must be mistaken because "the phenomenology isn't captured by the right-hand side" is, on this diagnosis, a sense/reference confusion. An insight concerns the connotation of the verbs used to describe the mind-brain relation. Brain processes are said to "generate," or "yield," or "cause," or "give rise to" conscious states. This phraseology, Papineau says, undermines physicalism from the start—even when physicalists use it. As he puts it, "Fire 'generates', 'causes', 'yields' or 'gives rise to' smoke. But NaCl doesn't 'generate', 'cause', 'yield' or 'give rise to' salt. It is salt. The point is clear. To speak of brain processes as 'generating' conscious states, and so on, only makes sense if you are implicitly thinking of the conscious states as separate from the brain states" (Papineau, 2020b).[1] Abductive Identity and the Zombie Challenge Because no a priori derivation is available, Papineau holds that "our knowledge of mind-brain identities can only be based on some kind of a posteriori abductive inference, rather than a principled a priori demonstration that a certain physical state fills some specified role. For example, we might observe that pains occur whenever prefrontal nociceptive-specific neurons fire, and vice versa; we might also note that, if pains were the firing of nociceptive-specific neurons, then this would account for a number of other observed facts about pain, such as that it can be caused by trapped nerves, and can be blocked by aspirin; and we might conclude on this basis that pains are indeed identical to the firing of nociceptive-specific neurons" (Papineau, 2020b). He singles out "the peculiarly direct nature of our concepts of conscious states" as what "stops us deriving mind-brain identities a priori from the physical facts." This is how identity claims are established generally. It "can only be on the basis of an abductive inference from direct empirical evidence, such as that the two things in question are found in the same places and the same times, and are observed to bear the same relations to other things, not because we can deduce the identities a priori from the physical facts." His examples include "Cary Grant = Archie Leach" and "that dog = her pet." "Why shouldn't this same way of thinking be applied to consciousness?" he asks (Papineau, 2020b). Because, he answers, "even after we are given all the abductive evidence, we still find mind-brain identity claims almost impossible to believe. We cannot resist the dualist conviction that conscious feelings and the physical brain states are two different things." And this "is the real reason why we feel a need for further explanation. We want to know why the neuronal activity is accompanied by that conscious feeling, rather than by some other, or by no feeling at all. Our dualist intuitions automatically generate a hankering for further explanation." Thus, Papineau concludes, "the demand for explanation arises, not because something is lacking in physicalism, but because something is lacking in us." Zombies are the sharpest test. "Could a being share all your physical properties but have no conscious life?" Everybody's first thought, he says, is "Sure. Just duplicate the physical stuff and leave out the feelings." That concession is the trap: a physicalist who grants that zombies are metaphysically possible has already lost the argument. Papineau holds that physicalists must deny their possibility, "given that the mind is ontologically inseparable from the brain." If conscious states are physical states—radically identical—then "the 'two' cannot come apart," much as Marilyn Monroe cannot exist without Norma Jeane Baker. How could she exist without herself?[2] Papineau also rejects the anti-physicalist claim that phenomenal concepts are revelatory, disclosing conscious states to be non-physical. "Physicalists respond that there is no reason to suppose that phenomenal concepts have the power to reveal such things … that experiences are non-physical." Why should introspection, he asks, "be guaranteed to tell us about all their necessary properties [of experience]?" (Papineau, 2020b. Dissolving the Hard Problem Papineau is blunt: "I never viewed the so-called 'hard problem' as any problem at all." The obvious answer, he says, is that brain processes feel like something for the subjects that have them. "What's so hard about that? … How would you expect them to feel? Like nothing? Why? That's how they feel when you have them." The only reason many people believe there is a problem, he stresses, is that "they can't stop thinking in dualist terms" (Papineau, 2020b). The remedy is conviction rather than argument: "If only we could fully embrace physicalism, the feeling of an explanatory gap would disappear. If we could fully accept that pains are nociceptive-specific neuronal firing, then we would stop asking why 'they' go together—after all, nothing can possibly come apart from itself." Applied to the problem of consciousness, the move is to "simply deny that any puzzle is raised by the fact that it feels painful to be a human with active nociceptive-neurons. Why shouldn't it feel like that? That's how it turns out. Why regard this as puzzling?" (Papineau, 2020a). Vague Concepts and the Limits of Neuroscience A commitment that distinguishes Papineau from most identity theorists emerges when he turns to what neuroscience can deliver. Against the conventional materialist expectation that research will eventually uncover the complete neurobiological basis of consciousness, he is skeptical. He does not expect that "there are definite facts about consciousness to which we lack epistemological access—that there is some material property that really constitutes being in pain, say, but which we can't find out about." Rather, "our phenomenal concepts of conscious states are vague—nothing in the semantic constitution of phenomenal concepts determines precisely which of the candidate material properties they refer to" (Papineau, 2003). Scientific research, he says, will identify "a range of material properties that correlate in human beings with pain, say, or colors, or indeed being conscious at all. However, this won't pinpoint the material essence of any such conscious state, for there will always be a plurality of such human material correlates for any conscious property … It is not as if conscious properties have true material essences, yet science is unable to discover them. Rather the whole idea of identifying such essences is a chimera, fostered by the impression that our phenomenal concepts of conscious states are more precise than they are" (Papineau, 2003). This can look inconsistent with the flat assertion that conscious states are brain states, and the two claims are reconcilable only if the identity thesis is separated from a thesis about reference. Papineau holds that conscious states are neural states, and that phenomenal concepts refer to neural states, while denying that anything in the semantics of those concepts settles which of several nested or overlapping neural candidates is the referent. The identity is determinate as metaphysics and indeterminate as semantics: there is nothing more to being in pain than being in some such neural state, but no fact fixes exactly which one "pain" picks out. The consequence is a deflation of the usual research program—not that the essence of pain is hidden, but that there is no essence of the kind the program presupposes.[3] Significance and Objections Papineau's position is among the most fully worked-out versions of a posteriori or "type-B" physicalism, and his diagnosis of the dualist intuition has been widely adopted, often under other names, by physicalists pursuing what is now called the phenomenal concept strategy. It is contested on several fronts. Chalmers argues that Papineau's commitment to identities that are metaphysically necessary yet not a priori derivable requires a notion of "strong metaphysical necessity" unlike any necessity found elsewhere in philosophy, and for which there is little independent reason. On this objection, appeals to reference by simulation and to the antipathetic fallacy restate rather than justify the commitment to explanatorily primitive identities. Chalmers further presses that declaring the mind-brain relation an identity does not discharge the obligation to supply a detailed theory of consciousness (Chalmers, 1996, 1999, 2006). Sundström objects that the antipathetic fallacy over-predicts: it should generate a dualist intuition in cases where none arises. His example concerns an identity in which contemplating the left-hand side activates the relevant experience while contemplating the right-hand side does not, yet no intuition of distinctness appears. Papineau concedes the point is well taken while doubting it is conclusive, suggesting that reference may sometimes be filled out by imagining the experience on the right-hand side, and noting that his current view is that such activation is not essential to every deployment of a phenomenal concept (Sundström, 2008; Papineau, 2008, 2011). Kammerer develops refined counterexamples he argues cannot be answered in the same way, concluding that the intuition of distinctness cannot be explained as an antipathetic fallacy (Kammerer, 2018). Goff presses the opposite objection to Papineau's account of phenomenal concepts, arguing that a posteriori physicalists misdescribe them, and that phenomenal concepts do reveal the natures of the properties they denote (Goff, 2011). Melnyk raises further difficulties for the diagnosis of the intuition of distinctness (Melnyk, 2003). A separate line of criticism concerns the vagueness thesis rather than the identity thesis. If nothing fixes which of a plurality of neural correlates "pain" refers to, it is unclear what content remains in the claim that pain is a brain state, and unclear what a science of consciousness would be trying to establish. Contemporary type materialists who assert determinate psychoneural identities—that there is a fact about which neurobiological type each phenomenal type is, whether or not inquiry has found it—reject this half of Papineau's position while accepting his abductive method. Finally, Papineau distinguishes his commitments carefully. Although his framing might seem to commit materialists to type identity while ignoring non-reductive physicalism, he has stated that this is not his intention (Papineau, 2011). Readers should treat the identity claims here as his considered view about conscious states specifically, not as a general endorsement of type-type reduction across the mental. Footnotes [1] Papineau distinguishes possibility from conceivability. "A posteriori physicalists have no choice but to allow that they [zombies] are at least conceivable," even if not possible (Papineau, 2020b). [2] [RLK] But even if consciousness as an "output" or "effect" of the brain were wrongheaded, why are only certain sorts of neural activity identical with consciousness while others are not? [3] Papineau's own reconciliation of the identity and vagueness theses is not stated in a single passage; the formulation here is a reconstruction from the material in Papineau (2003) and (2011). References Chalmers, D. J. (1996). The Conscious Mind: In Search of a Fundamental Theory. Oxford University Press. Chalmers, D. J. (1999). Materialism and the metaphysics of modality. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 59(2), 473–496. Chalmers, D. J. (2006). Phenomenal concepts and the explanatory gap. In T. Alter & S. Walter (Eds.), Phenomenal Concepts and Phenomenal Knowledge: New Essays on Consciousness and Physicalism. Oxford University Press. Goff, P. (2011). A posteriori physicalists get our phenomenal concepts wrong. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 89(2), 191–209. Kammerer, F. (2018). Does the explanatory gap rest on a fallacy? Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 10(4), 649–667. Levine, J. (1983). Materialism and qualia: The explanatory gap. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, 64, 354–361. Melnyk, A. (2003). Papineau on the intuition of distinctness. SWIF Forum on Thinking about Consciousness. Papineau, D. (1993a). Physicalism, consciousness, and the antipathetic fallacy. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 71, 169–183. Papineau, D. (1993b). Philosophical Naturalism. Blackwell. Papineau, D. (1995). The antipathetic fallacy and the boundaries of consciousness. In T. Metzinger (Ed.), Conscious Experience. Schöningh. Papineau, D. (2002). Thinking About Consciousness. Oxford University Press. Papineau, D. (2003). Could there be a science of consciousness?Phil. Issues, 13 Papineau, D. (2007). Kripke's proof is ad hominem not two-dimensional. Philosophical Perspectives, 21, 475–494. Papineau, D. (2008). Phenomenal and perceptual concepts. In T. Alter & S. Walter (Eds.), Phenomenal Concepts and Phenomenal Knowledge. Oxford University Press. Papineau, D. (2011). What exactly is the explanatory gap? Philosophia, 39(1), 5–19. Papineau, D. (2020a). The problem of consciousness. Uriah Kriegel (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of the Philosophy of Consciousness, Oxford University Press Papineau, D. (2020b). We must shed our metaphysical assumptions. Instit. Art Ideas. https://iai.tv/articles/we-must-shed-our-metaphysical-assumptions-auid-1367 Papineau, D. (2021). The Metaphysics of Sensory Experience. Oxford University Press. Sundström, P. (2008). Is the mystery an illusion? Papineau on the problem of consciousness. Synthese, 163(2), 133–143.

---

### McLaughlin's Neurobiologicalism
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/mclaughlins-neurobiologicalism
Theorists: Brian P. McLaughlin

Philosopher Brian P. McLaughlin’s neurobiologicalism is an a posteriori type-identity theory of phenomenal consciousness: for every type of phenomenal state or subjective experience, there is some type of neurobiological state with which it is numerically identical. McLaughlin combines unusually strong phenomenal realism with equally strong physicalism—pain, color experience, bodily sensations, imagery, emotions, and moods genuinely have subjective phenomenal character, yet these experiential types are not produced by, constituted by, or merely correlated with neural types; they are neurobiological types (McLaughlin, 2003, 2010, 2012, 2017). Crucially, he accepts a genuine conceptual and reductive-explanatory gap between phenomenal and neuroscientific concepts while denying that this entails any ontological gap, making his theory a sophisticated contemporary development of classical mind-brain identity theory rather than a denial of the hard problem. In other words, Brian McLaughlin's neurobiologicalism is a type materialism specifically about phenomenal consciousness. Two commitments distinguish it within the identity-theoretic family. The identities are determinate—there is a fact about which neurobiological type each phenomenal type is, even if inquiry has not found it—which sets the view against deflationary formulations on which phenomenal concepts are too vague to pick out any particular correlate. And the explanatory gap is granted as a genuine epistemic phenomenon rather than dissolved as confusion, with McLaughlin supplying a positive account of why creatures with concepts like ours should feel it. Justification is abductive: the identities are inferred as the best explanation of lawlike psychoneural correlation, not derived a priori from physical description. Phenomenal Realism and Neurobiological Identity McLaughlin begins with phenomenal consciousness in the strongest ordinary sense: states for which there is something it is like for the subject to undergo them. Paradigms include feeling pain, seeing red, hearing a sound, experiencing an itch or hunger pang, entertaining sensory imagery, feeling fear or joy, and undergoing moods. Against strong illusionism, he regards the existence of such subjective experiences as secure; what requires explanation is their place in nature (McLaughlin, 2003, 2017). His proposed answer is “neurobiologicalism”: for any phenomenal state type C, there is a neurobiological state type N such that C = N, where N is a state recognized by current neurobiology or a recognizable scientific successor to it (McLaughlin, 2012). The identity is stronger than supervenience, realization, constitution, or causal dependence. If pain is N, the phenomenal state and neural state are not two entities joined by a psychophysical relation. They are one state conceptualized in two radically different ways. The Explanatory Gap Without an Ontological Gap McLaughlin’s distinctive move is to concede much of Joseph Levine’s diagnosis of the explanatory gap. Phenomenal concepts—for example, the concept of the felt quality of pain—and neuroscientific concepts have virtually no a priori conceptual connections. No conceptual analysis of pain yields a description in the vocabulary of neuroscience, and no neuroscientific description logically generates the phenomenal concept simply by reflection (Levine, 1983; McLaughlin, 2010, 2012). McLaughlin consequently accepts that the familiar sort of reductive explanation that derives phenomenal truths through an a priori functional or conceptual analysis is unavailable. What he rejects is the inference from conceptual difference to ontological difference. Two concepts can lack a priori connections while referring to one and the same property or state. Phenomenal concepts and neuroscientific concepts occupy profoundly different cognitive and epistemic roles: the former can be deployed through first-person attention to experience, whereas the latter arise within theoretical neuroscience. Their conceptual separation can therefore persist even if the states they designate are identical. McLaughlin thus accepts an enduring epistemic explanatory gap but denies a metaphysical explanatory gap (McLaughlin, 2010, 2012). Neurobiologicalism: The Determinate Thesis McLaughlin frames the position as an answer to a placement question—what is the place of phenomenal consciousness in nature?—and answers that phenomenal consciousness is neurobiological in nature, the most reasonable of the extant views all things considered (McLaughlin, 2012). Three restrictions give the thesis content. It is type-type rather than token, since token physicalism is compatible with there being no systematic phenomenal-physical mapping, and the systematic mapping is precisely what he takes to require explanation. It is restricted to phenomenal consciousness rather than extended to the mental generally. And the identified physical types are neurobiological—not functional, not computational, not physical in the abstract. The determinacy marks the sharpest disagreement among contemporary identity theorists. Deflationary a posteriori physicalists argue that nothing in the semantic constitution of phenomenal concepts fixes which of a plurality of correlated material properties they refer to, so the search for the material essence of pain is chimerical and science will deliver only a range of correlates. Neurobiologicalism asserts what that view denies: there is a type of neurobiological state that pain is, and the obstacle to identifying it is contingent rather than semantic. Two theorists can therefore agree that consciousness is neurobiological, agree the identities are known abductively, and still disagree about whether there is anything determinate to be known. The Abductive Route from Correlation to Identity The argument begins from what McLaughlin calls the Correlation Thesis: for every type of sensation state there is a type of physical or functional state such that it is nomologically necessary that a being is in the one if and only if it is in the other (McLaughlin, 2001). He is emphatic that this settles nothing, being compatible with materialism and functionalism but equally with Cartesian dualism, dual-aspect theory, neutral monism, and panpsychism. Every one of these accommodates perfect lawlike covariation. The point is made by asking what explains it. McLaughlin's answer is the Type Identity Thesis, and the reasoning is comparative. Identity explains the nomological necessity by eliminating the explanandum—not two items reliably co-occurring but one picked out two ways, and nothing comes apart from itself. Every rival must either accept the correlation as brute or introduce fundamental psychophysical laws, Feigl's nomological danglers, added to the world's inventory to underwrite the very regularity they were posited to explain. This makes the case for physicalism continuous with theoretical identification elsewhere in science. The route is shared with other contemporary defenders of the identity theory; what McLaughlin adds is that its terminus is neurobiologically specific. Why the Explanatory Gap Is Real but Not Ontological Levine's explanatory gap—the absence of any satisfying account of why a given neural state should feel as it does—is granted rather than disputed (Levine, 1983). What McLaughlin denies is the inference from an epistemic gap to an ontological one, placing him in what Chalmers labels type-B materialism: the identities are metaphysically necessary but knowable only a posteriori, with no a priori conditional connecting physical and phenomenal descriptions (Chalmers, 1996, 2003). This is a substantive difference in attitude, not merely emphasis. One familiar physicalist strategy treats the sense of a gap as a residue of dualist habits that would evaporate under sufficiently thorough physicalist conviction—on which reading there was never a problem to solve. McLaughlin instead treats the gap as a real feature of our epistemic situation, generated by the structure of the concepts we deploy, persisting for any thinker equipped with phenomenal concepts however secure their physicalism. The gap is explained rather than explained away. Phenomenal Concepts and the Failure of Conceivability The explanation lies in the concepts. Phenomenal concepts are recognitional and imaginative rather than descriptive or inferential, and they remain conceptually independent of neurobiological concepts even when both pick out one property. That independence suffices to generate the felt gap, and it is what one should expect if the identities hold. McLaughlin defended this line under the heading of new wave materialism against the objection that appeal to phenomenal concepts collapses into dualism (Horgan & Tienson, 2001; McLaughlin, 2001). The application to Kripke and Chalmers is the joint paper with Hill (Hill & McLaughlin, 1999). Kripke held that the standard materialist move—explaining apparent contingency by distinguishing a thing from its mode of presentation—is unavailable for pain, since feeling like pain is constitutive rather than a mode of presentation. Hill and McLaughlin respond that the appearance of contingency is produced by the faculty through which phenomenal states are imagined, whose deliverances are independent of the physical concepts in play, so imaginability is not a guide to possibility here. Zombie and inverted-spectrum intuitions become predictions of the theory rather than evidence against it. McLaughlin has separately argued that type materialism can accommodate a representational account of awareness of perceptual qualia, so the position does not depend on a particular theory of introspection (McLaughlin, 2016). Emergence, Multiple Realization, and Machine Consciousness According to McLaughlin, neurobiologicalism sits within a broader body of work on how higher-level properties relate to lower-level ones. His history of British emergentism argues that the doctrine collapsed not through philosophical refutation but through empirical displacement: quantum-mechanical explanation of chemical bonding removed the scientific motivation for configurational forces and emergent chemical properties (McLaughlin, 1992, 1997). The precedent generalizes—claims of irreducibility have historically dissolved as the underlying science matured—and supports an abductive, inference-to-the-best-explanation posture toward psychoneural identity. The substrate restriction carries a consequence functionalism lacks. If phenomenal types are neurobiological types, a system duplicating human functional organization in silicon lacks phenomenal consciousness, however complete the duplication; artificial consciousness turns on constitution, not organization. This is anthropocentric provincialism derided by functionalists, but it follows directly from McLaughlin’s neurobiologicalism. Block has contested it, disputing McLaughlin's handling of functional role and the case of an android such as Commander Data (Block, 2018). Assessment The explanatory gains are clear. The theory requires no fundamental psychophysical laws, treats the mind-body question as continuous with ordinary theoretical identification, makes phenomenal consciousness an empirically tractable target rather than a metaphysical anomaly, and converts anti-physicalist intuitions from data into explananda. The objections track the structure of its arguments. The abduction is only as strong as the comparative claim, and Russellian monists and dual-aspect theorists contest it, holding that their views explain correlation equally well while additionally explaining why any gap arises. Horgan and Tienson (2001) press the dilemma that phenomenal concepts either reveal phenomenal states as they are, yielding dualism, or are derivative, yielding failure. The Correlation Thesis as stated ranges over physical or functional states, so the step to neurobiological identities in particular requires argument beyond the abduction that motivates identity. And the determinacy requirement is the view's weak link: asserting that there is a fact about which neurobiological type pain is, while conceding no current method isolates it, invites the charge that the thesis is unfalsifiable in practice. No observation yet distinguishes neurobiologicalism from a nonreductive correlation view. Moreover, the required type-level identities depend on neuroscience revealing sufficiently robust phenomenal-neural type correspondences, whereas biological variability and multiple realization may complicate such mappings. More fundamentally, critics can grant numerical identity yet argue that it leaves untouched the central phenomenological demand: why does the identical neural state have this particular felt character? McLaughlin’s response is deliberately revisionary—the demand for a further causal explanation misconstrues identity, although a conceptual explanatory gap remains. Whether that dissolves the hard problem ontologically or restates its deepest feature is the central node of contention. His neurobiologicalism is therefore less a mechanistic theory of how brains generate consciousness than a metaphysical theory of what phenomenal consciousness ultimately is. References Block, N. (2018). Functional role, superficialism and Commander Data: Reply to Brian McLaughlin. In A. Pautz & D. Stoljar (Eds.), Blockheads! Essays on Ned Block's Philosophy of Mind and Consciousness. MIT Press. Chalmers, D. J. (1996). The Conscious Mind: In Search of a Fundamental Theory. Oxford University Press. Chalmers, D. J. (2003). The content and epistemology of phenomenal belief. In Q. Smith & A. Jokic (Eds.), Consciousness: New Philosophical Perspectives (pp. 220–272). Oxford University Press. Hill, C. S., & McLaughlin, B. P. (1999). There are fewer things in reality than are dreamt of in Chalmers's philosophy. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 59(2), 445–454. Horgan, T., & Tienson, J. (2001). Deconstructing new wave materialism. In C. Gillett & B. Loewer (Eds.), Physicalism and Its Discontents (pp. 307–318). Cambridge University Press. Levine, J. (1983). Materialism and qualia: The explanatory gap. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, 64, 354–361. McLaughlin, B. P. (1992). The rise and fall of British emergentism. In A. Beckermann, H. Flohr & J. Kim (Eds.), Emergence or Reduction? Essays on the Prospects of Nonreductive Physicalism (pp. 49–93). De Gruyter. McLaughlin, B. P. (1997). Emergence and supervenience. Intellectica, 25, 25–43. McLaughlin, B. P. (2001). In defense of new wave materialism: A response to Horgan and Tienson. In C. Gillett & B. Loewer (Eds.), Physicalism and Its Discontents. Cambridge University Press. McLaughlin, B. P. (2012). On justifying neurobiologicalism for consciousness. In S. Gozzano & C. S. Hill (Eds.), New Perspectives on Type Identity: The Mental and the Physical (pp. 207–229). Cambridge University Press. McLaughlin, B. P. (2016). Hill on phenomenal consciousness. Philosophical Studies, 173(3), 851–860. McLaughlin, B. P. (2017). Type materialism for phenomenal consciousness. In S. Schneider & M. Velmans (Eds.), The Blackwell Companion to Consciousness (pp. 415–429). Wiley.

---

## Neurobiological
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theories/neurobiological

### Neurobiological—Overview
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/neurobiological-overview
Theorists: Several

Neurobiological theories share a single commitment—that phenomenal consciousness is produced by nervous tissue and by nothing else—and then proceed to disagree about almost everything that follows. They disagree about which tissue, at what scale, doing what job, and about whether asking for one answer is even the right form of question. This overview sets out the organizing logic of the subcategory: framing first, then method, then the mainstream cortical case, then two entries that reframe what a neurobiological answer can look like, then mechanism descending from function through memory to brainstem and single dendrites, and finally the consequences for privacy and for free will. The sequence is neither chronological nor fame-driven; it is an argument about where the disputes lie. Suffice it to say that this Neurobiological subcategory under the Materialism category is far from a complete list of theories of consciousness; obviously, many well-known theories are classified in other categories and other Materialism subcategories. From Framing to Mechanism The subcategory opens with three philosophers rather than three neuroscientists, and deliberately so. Before any specific mechanism can be assessed, a reader needs to know what a neurobiological answer is supposed to accomplish. John Searle's biological naturalism asserts that consciousness is a higher-level biological feature caused by lower-level neuronal processes and realized in the brain, in the way that liquidity is caused by and realized in molecular behavior—an ontological claim designed to dissolve the mind-body problem rather than solve it (Searle, 1992). Ned Block's reductionism supplies the sharper commitment that phenomenal consciousness reduces to its physical basis, and his distinction between phenomenal and access consciousness supplies the vocabulary that nearly every entry downstream uses, whether or not it endorses the distinction (Block, 1995). Mario Bunge's emergent materialism completes the frame by insisting that mental states are states of a neural system, emergent but not therefore nonphysical, and that psychology is a branch of biology (Bunge, 1980). Bunge sits here rather than later because his contribution is a systems-theoretic license for everything that follows: it is what permits a theory to be both emergentist and uncompromisingly physical. Method follows framing. Francis Crick and Christof Koch's proposal to set aside the metaphysics and instead search for the minimal neural activity jointly sufficient for a specific conscious percept—the neural correlates of consciousness—is the methodological hinge on which this entire subcategory turns, and which ignited the entire field of consciousness studies (Crick and Koch, 1990). Almost every entry after this point either pursues an NCC, proposes a better candidate for one, or argues that the NCC framing itself is where the trouble starts. Brain Circuits and Cycles Theories then supplies the lineage: the older tradition of thalamocortical loops, reticular activation, and synchronized oscillation out of which the contemporary frameworks grew, and which those frameworks superseded without discarding. Placing this historical entry early, rather than beside the thalamic theories it anatomically resembles, keeps ancestry legible—Global Workspace and Integrated Information Theory are its descendants, not its neighbors. The Cortical Case The mainstream of neurobiological theorizing locates consciousness in the cerebral cortex, and the subcategory presents that case as a block before subjecting it to challenge. Bernard Baars's Global Workspace Theory proposes that content becomes conscious when it is broadcast brain-wide and made available to many otherwise independent processors (Baars, 1988); Stanislas Dehaene and Jean-Pierre Changeux gave the proposal a neuronal implementation, with fronto-parietal ignition marking the all-or-none transition into the workspace (Dehaene and Changeux, 2011). Claire Sergent's global playground follows immediately, because it is a revision of that model rather than a rival to it: conscious access need not be tied to the moment of stimulation, and retrospective awareness of events requires a workspace with looser temporal discipline than the original formulation allowed. Parent and revision are adjacent so that the reader sees the model being repaired rather than encountering the repair a dozen entries later as a free-standing theory. Selectionist and architectural accounts follow. Gerald Edelman's neural Darwinism grounds consciousness in populations of neuronal groups selected during development and experience, bound by massively parallel reentrant signaling, with qualia identified as the high-order discriminations such circuitry performs (Edelman, 1989). William Calvin extends the selectionist logic downward into cortical dynamics, treating consciousness as the momentary winner of copying competitions among spatiotemporal firing patterns in association cortex (Calvin, 1996). The two are paired because they are the same idea at different grains, and separating them obscures that a Darwinian explanatory strategy is being applied twice. Jeff Hawkins then recasts the cortex as thousands of semi-independent modeling columns, each building a complete reference-frame model, whose predictions must be reconciled by voting into a single coherent percept (Hawkins, 2021). Read in sequence, these five entries describe an escalating problem: if the cortex is where consciousness happens, what unifies it, and is any one cortical mechanism enough? Beyond the Single Correlate Two entries answer that question by changing it, and they are positioned here—immediately after the cortical case and before everything that follows—because they license the diversity of the remainder rather than passing verdict on it. He's Joint Determinant Theory holds that conscious experience arises from the interplay of multiple neural determinants rather than from any single correlate, an integrative and pluralistic position that treats the search for the NCC as a category error about how brains produce experience. Placed after the workspace, selectionist, and columnar accounts, the claim has evidence behind it: the reader has just seen four serious candidates for a unifying cortical mechanism, none of which subsumes the others. Placed before the sections that follow, it explains why a subcategory committed to a single ontology nevertheless contains functional, mnemonic, subcortical, and cellular accounts that do not reduce to one another. Georg Northoff's temporo-spatial approach reframes along the orthogonal axis. The relevant variable, on this account, is neither region nor cell but the brain's intrinsic spatiotemporal dynamics—its resting-state architecture, the nested timescales on which it operates, and the alignment between neural and environmental temporo-spatial structure that constitutes sentience (Northoff and Huang, 2017). Where He multiplies the determinants, Northoff dissolves the premise that a determinant must be a place. Together the two entries convert the subcategory's remaining sequence from a search for a location into a survey of what different neural properties—function, timing, memory, circuitry, cellular compartment—each contribute. Function, Memory, and Time What follows the reframing is a run of accounts organized by what consciousness does. Joscha Bach's cortical conductor theory asks what coordinates distributed cortical structure into a single perspective, proposing a reward-driven learned mechanism that binds activity into a coherent self-model. Jesse Prinz argues that attention is the mechanism converting intermediate-level perceptual representations into experience—attended intermediate representations are conscious, unattended ones are not—which makes attention not a modulator of consciousness but its enabling condition (Prinz, 2012). Ezequiel Morsella takes the opposite stance on agency: consciousness is a passive frame in which skeletomotor conflicts are resolved, an arena rather than an executive, with the subjective sense of control largely illusory (Morsella et al., 2016). Jeffrey Gray closes the functional run with an account in which conscious experience is a brain-built multimodal display of the organism and its world, produced too slowly to drive immediate behavior but well suited to comparing outcomes against prediction—an account notable for conceding, explicitly, that it explains conscious contents and their function without explaining why any of it should feel like anything (Gray, 2004). Memory and time continue the functional logic while shifting the substrate. Alan McComas identifies phenomenal consciousness with the running sequence of short-term memories generated by patterned hippocampal firing, making the hippocampus rather than the cortex the primary generator of experience. Gianfranco Dalla Barba, working from lesion neuropsychology, distinguishes knowing consciousness from temporal consciousness—the mode in which an event is given as mine and as situated in my personal past, present, or future—and proposes the hippocampus as its neural correlate, with confabulation understood as temporal consciousness malfunctioning rather than memory misretrieving (Dalla Barba, 2002). The pairing is instructive because the two accounts converge on the same hippocampal structure from opposite directions, one from electrophysiology and one from phenomenology. It also marks the point at which the subcategory has left the cortex without yet announcing it. Down from Cortex: Subcortical and Cellular The most consequential live empirical dispute in neurobiological consciousness science is whether the cortex generates phenomenal experience at all, and the subcategory now stages it as a confrontation rather than scattering its participants. Björn Merker argues that basic phenomenal consciousness is generated by an evolutionarily ancient upper-brainstem system integrating perception, motivation, and action within an egocentric world model, and that the cortex enriches conscious content without constituting it—evidence drawn from decorticate mammals and from children born without cortex (Merker, 2007). Lawrence Ward and Byoung-Kyong Min converge independently on the thalamus: Ward locating the dynamic core of experience in synchronized dendritic activity among dorsal-thalamic neurons, with cortex computing while thalamus displays (Ward, 2011), and Min assigning the decisive gating role to the inhibitory thalamic reticular nucleus (Min, 2010). Nicholas Schiff supplies the clinical test case, his anterior forebrain mesocircuit model explaining recovery of consciousness after severe brain injury in terms of restored thalamocortical and striatopallidal dynamics (Schiff, 2010). Scale then descends below the circuit. Dendritic Integration Theory locates the critical mechanism not in networks but within individual pyramidal neurons, proposing that coupling between apical dendritic compartments and the soma is what distinguishes conscious from unconscious processing, and that general anesthesia works by decoupling them (Larkum, 2013; Aru et al., 2020). Erhard Bieberich's fractal loops carry the descent to its endpoint, proposing self-similar recursive organization across scales as the substrate of unified experience. Placing Merker here rather than early is the most contestable decision in the sequence. The counter-case is developmental: basic consciousness precedes its cortical elaborations, and a reader might reasonably be shown the floor before the building. The case for the present position is that the cortical-subcortical question is a dispute rather than a chronology, and that disputes serve a professional reader best when their parties are adjacent. What Physicalism Implies Three entries follow the neurobiological commitment outward into its consequences. William Hirstein's mindmelding argues that the apparent privacy of conscious states is a contingent architectural fact rather than a metaphysical necessity, and that direct third-person access to another's experience is in principle achievable—a claim that makes sense only if the preceding physicalism is taken entirely seriously (Hirstein, 2012). Robert Sapolsky's hard incompatibilism draws the volitional consequence without hedging: if the brain is a physical system containing no uncaused causes, free will is absent and moral responsibility must be reconstructed accordingly (Sapolsky, 2023). Kevin Mitchell answers from within the same physicalism, arguing that evolved organisms are genuine causal agents whose indeterminate neural dynamics and meaning-laden control architecture constitute real, if not libertarian, agency (Mitchell, 2023). The closing pair is dialectical by design, and the subcategory ends where a physicalist account of experience ultimately arrives—at what it implies about the person who has it. Assessment The ordering embodies a claim open to alternative views: that a neurobiological survey is best organized by moving from what the framework commits to, through its dominant candidate mechanism, through an explicit acknowledgment that no single mechanism will suffice, and only then downward through function and scale. The pivot at the center is what distinguishes this arrangement from a simple descent. Without He and Northoff placed where they are, the entries that follow read as competing answers to one question; with them, they read as complementary contributions to a phenomenon with several determinants and no single address. The cost is that both pivot entries are asked to perform structural work they did not design for, and that a reader who rejects the pluralist turn will find the second half of the subcategory arranged around a premise they do not hold. The benefit is that the central disagreements—cortex against brainstem and thalamus, network against cell, one correlate against many, agency against determinism—become visible as sections rather than remaining latent as scattered adjacencies. References Aru, J., Suzuki, M., and Larkum, M. E. (2020). Cellular mechanisms of conscious processing. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 24(10), 814–825. Baars, B. J. (1988). A Cognitive Theory of Consciousness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Block, N. (1995). On a confusion about a function of consciousness. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 18(2), 227–247. Bunge, M. (1980). The Mind-Body Problem: A Psychobiological Approach. Oxford: Pergamon Press. Calvin, W. H. (1996). The Cerebral Code: Thinking a Thought in the Mosaics of the Mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Crick, F., and Koch, C. (1990). Towards a neurobiological theory of consciousness. Seminars in the Neurosciences, 2, 263–275. Dalla Barba, G. (2002). Memory, Consciousness and Temporality. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Dehaene, S., and Changeux, J.-P. (2011). Experimental and theoretical approaches to conscious processing. Neuron, 70(2), 200–227. Edelman, G. M. (1989). The Remembered Present: A Biological Theory of Consciousness. New York: Basic Books. Gray, J. A. (2004). Consciousness: Creeping up on the Hard Problem. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hawkins, J. (2021). A Thousand Brains: A New Theory of Intelligence. New York: Basic Books. Hirstein, W. (2012). Mindmelding: Consciousness, Neuroscience, and the Mind's Privacy. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Larkum, M. (2013). A cellular mechanism for cortical associations: an organizing principle for the cerebral cortex. Trends in Neurosciences, 36(3), 141–151. Merker, B. (2007). Consciousness without a cerebral cortex: A challenge for neuroscience and medicine. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 30(1), 63–81. Min, B.-K. (2010). A thalamic reticular networking model of consciousness. Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling, 7, 10. Mitchell, K. J. (2023). Free Agents: How Evolution Gave Us Free Will. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Morsella, E., Godwin, C. A., Jantz, T. K., Krieger, S. C., and Gazzaley, A. (2016). Homing in on consciousness in the nervous system: An action-based synthesis. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 39, e168. Northoff, G., and Huang, Z. (2017). How do the brain's time and space mediate consciousness and its different dimensions? Temporo-spatial theory of consciousness (TTC). Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 80, 630–645. Prinz, J. J. (2012). The Conscious Brain: How Attention Engenders Experience. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Sapolsky, R. M. (2023). Determined: A Science of Life Without Free Will. New York: Penguin Press. Schiff, N. D. (2010). Recovery of consciousness after brain injury: A mesocircuit hypothesis. Trends in Neurosciences, 33(1), 1–9. Searle, J. R. (1992). The Rediscovery of the Mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Ward, L. M. (2011). The thalamic dynamic core theory of conscious experience. Consciousness and Cognition, 20(2), 464–486.

---

### Searle’s Biological Naturalism
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/searle-s-biological-naturalism
Theorists: John Searle

“Biological Naturalism” is the name philosopher John Searle gave to a neurobiological solution to the mind-body problem. His approach is to ignore the mind-body problem's philosophical history and focus on “what you know for a fact.” He starts with a mundane, working definition of consciousness: “Conscious states are those states of awareness, sentience or feeling that begin in the morning when we wake from a dreamless sleep and continue throughout the day until we fall asleep or otherwise become ‘unconscious’” (Searle, 2007b, 2014a). Essential Features of Consciousness Searle identifies four essential features of consciousness: “1. Conscious states, so defined, are qualitative, in the sense that there is a qualitative feel to being in any particular conscious state …. 2. Such conscious states are also ontologically subjective in the sense that they only exist as experienced by a human or animal subject …. 3. Furthermore, a striking fact, at any moment in your conscious life, all of your conscious states are experienced by you as part of a single unified conscious field …. 4. Most, but not all, conscious states are intentional, in the philosopher's sense that they are about, or refer to, objects and states of affairs.”[1] Next is crucial: “The reality and irreducibility of consciousness: Conscious states, so defined, are real parts of the real world and cannot be eliminated or reduced to something else.” This means that one cannot do an ontological reduction of consciousness to more fundamental neurobiological processes, because, as stated, consciousness has a subjective or a first-person ontology, while the neurobiological causal basis of consciousness has an objective or third person ontology (Searle, 2007b). Causal Basis and Conclusion The causal reducibility of consciousness leads to Searle's major move: “The neuronal basis of consciousness: All conscious states are caused by lower-level brain processes.” Not knowing all the details of exactly how consciousness is caused by brain processes casts “no doubt that it is in fact.” Searle asserts with confidence, “The thesis that all of our conscious states, from feeling thirsty to experiencing mystical ecstasies, are caused by brain processes is now established by an overwhelming amount of evidence (Searle, 2007b). (Others, of course, disagree.) Finally, Searle's two-point conclusion: (i) The neuronal realization of consciousness: All conscious states are realized in the brain as higher level or system features, and (ii) The causal efficacy of consciousness: Conscious states, as real parts of the real world, function causally (Searle, 2007b). Searle celebrates the fact that his approach to consciousness does not mention any of the usual-suspect theories, such as dualism, materialism, epiphenomenalism, or any of the rest of them. He argues that “if you take seriously the so-called ‘scientific worldview’ and forget about the history of philosophy,” the views he puts forth are “what you would come up with.” Searle explains the name with which he “baptized this view,” Biological Naturalism. “‘Biological’ because it emphasizes that the right level to account for the very existence of consciousness is the biological level … [given] we know that the processes that produce it are neuronal processes in the brain. ‘Naturalism’ because consciousness is part of the natural world along with other biological phenomena such as photosynthesis, digestion or mitosis, and the explanatory apparatus we need to explain it we need anyway to explain other parts of nature.” Response to Critics Searle responds to critics of Biological Naturalism, striking at a key objection. “Sometimes philosophers talk about naturalizing consciousness and intentionality, but by ‘naturalizing’ they usually mean denying the first person or subjective ontology of consciousness. On my view, consciousness does not need naturalizing: It already is part of nature and it is part of nature as the subjective, qualitative biological part” (Searle, 2007a, 2007b). Footnote [1]. Searle refines his definition: “Consciousness so defined does not imply self-consciousness ... you do not need a general second-order consciousness to have a first-order consciousness” (Searle, 2007b).

---

### Block’s Biological Reductionism
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/block-s-biological-reductionism
Theorists: Ned Block

Philosopher Ned Block represents a majority of philosophers (and a large majority of scientists) who hold that “phenomenal consciousness is reducible to its physical basis” (Block, 2023, p. 445; Block, 2007). The best candidates for this reduction, he says, involve neurobiology. “For example, in the creatures that seem to have consciousness (e.g., primates, octopi), neurons operate via electrical signals triggering the release of neurotransmitters, and the neurotransmitters in turn engender further electrical signals. Neurons operate in a chemical soup, with direct effects from one neuron to another mediated by chemicals. The release of chemicals is not confined to the synapse but can also happen in dendrites” (Block, 2023, p. 446). These propagating neurophysiological sparks and diffusing neurochemical transmitters compose a magnificently complex and integrated system that carries and conveys meaning. Block appeals to “this electrochemical nature of known cases of consciousness as an example of a candidate for neurobiological reduction of consciousness.” To Block, “the border between seeing and thinking” provides insight into consciousness and helps adjudicate best theories (Block, 2023). He highlights this “joint in nature” between perception and cognition and advocates its study for demystifying the mind. He argues against theories of consciousness that focus on prefrontal cortex, arguing that perceptual consciousness does not require cognitive processing.

---

### Bunge’s Emergent Materialism
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/bunge-s-emergent-materialism
Theorists: Mario Bunge

Philosopher and physicist Mario Bunge rejects any “separate mental entity,” calling it “a stumbling block to progress.” It is “unwarranted by the available data and the existing psychological models,” he says, and it collides “head-on with the most fundamental ideas of all modern science.” Rather, Bunge argues that the mind-body problem requires a psychobiological approach, based on the assumption that behavior is an external manifestation of neural processes—an approach that also abandons ordinary language in favor of a “state space language, which is mathematically precise and is shared by science and scientific philosophy” (Bunge, 1980, 2014). More broadly, he presents a systematic model of mankind as a “biopsychosocial entity,” and he favors “the multilevel approach” over “the holistic, the analytic, and the synthetic approaches” (Bunge, 1989). Defining Emergent Materialism Upfront, Bunge defines his idiosyncratic position: ‘‘I am an unabashed monist’’—his objective is “to reunite matter and mind”—and ‘‘I am a materialist but not a physicalist.’’ By the latter distinction, Bunge means that while the material world is all there is (i.e., there are no nonmaterial substances), the laws of physics cannot explain all phenomena (i.e., “physics can explain neither life nor mind nor society”) (Bunge, 2011; Slezak, 2011). Bunge calls his theory, or more precisely, his “programmatic hypothesis,” about the mind-body problem “emergent materialism”—his core concept being that “mental states form a subset (albeit a very distinguished one) of brain states (which in turn are a subset of the state space of the whole animal).” The hypothesis is unambiguously materialist, even though “biosystems, including their mental states, have properties that are not reducible to their physical and chemical properties.” Mind, according to Bunge, “is just a collection of functions (activities, events) of an extremely complex central nervous system.” Mental states are distinguished from brain states broadly in that mental states reflect only those brain states that exhibit neural plasticity, especially learning, in contrast to brain states that are more phylogenetically fixed (Bunge, 1980, 2014). Emergence, Systems Theory, and Critiques Approaching the mind-body problem as a general systems theorist, Bunge shows, in particular, “how the concept of a state space can be used to represent the states and changes of state of a concrete thing such as the central nervous system.” He stresses the concept of emergence—he defines an emergent property as “a property possessed by a system but not by its components.” He then focuses on the level where such emergence occurs, arguing that “the mental cannot be regarded as a level on a par with the physical or the social.” The upshot, he says, is “a rationalist and naturalist pluralism.” While he rejects Dualism as both untestable and contradictory to science, he also rejects Eliminative Materialism and reductive materialism “for ignoring the peculiar (emergent) properties of the central nervous system.” He opts for “emergentist materialism” as a variety of “psychoneural monism,” but cautions that it needs detailed mechanisms, especially mathematical ones (Bunge, 1977). Bunge trains his delightfully acerbic guns on choice theories: computationalism (“a sophisticated version of behaviorism,” “brainless cognitive science”); studying higher level mental phenomena rather than neuroscience and ‘‘objective brain facts’’ (“Cartesian mind-body dualism,” “psychoneural dualism”); philosophical zombies (‘‘responsible people do not mistake conceptual possibility, or conceivability, for factual possibility or lawfulness; and they do not regard the ability to invent fantasy worlds as evidence for their real existence’’); and panpsychism (‘‘illustrates the cynical principle that, given an arbitrary extravagance, there is at least one philosopher capable of inventing an even more outrageous one’’) (Slezak, 2011; Bunge, 2011). Development, Evolution, and Synthesis Bunge also criticizes that “the division of scientific labor has reached such a ridiculous extreme that many workers in neuroscience and psychology tend to pay only lip service to the importance of studies in development and evolution for the understanding of their subject.” Such neglect of development and evolution, he says, has had at least three undesirable consequences: 1) overlooking the biological maturation of the central nervous system (e.g., the corpus callosum takes up to a decade to develop); 2) exaggerating leaps at the expense of graduality (particularly of the information-processing variety); and conversely, 3) exaggerating continuity at the expense of quantitative novelty (animal psychologists who claim that human mental abilities differ only in degree from prehuman ones) (Bunge, 1989). In sum, to explain behavior and mentation in scientific terms, Bunge calls for a synthesis or merger of neuroscience and social science rather than for a reduction, “even though the behavioral and mental processes are neurophysiological.” Put philosophically, “this is a case of ontological reduction without full epistemological reduction” (Bunge, 1989).

---

### Crick and Koch’s Neural Correlates of Consciousness
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/crick-and-koch-s-neural-correlates-of-consciousness
Theorists: Francis Crick, Christof Koch

The neural correlates of consciousness (NCC) are defined as the minimum activities in the brain jointly sufficient (and probably necessary) for any one specific conscious perception and, extended, for subjective experience in general, the inner awareness of qualia. Originally applied to sleep and wakefulness (i.e., the reticular activating system in the brain stem), the NCC were formally proposed by Francis Crick and Christof Koch as a scientific approach to what had been believed to be the vague, metaphysical, and somewhat discredited idea of consciousness (Crick & Koch, 1990), a program then championed by Koch (Koch, 2004, Closer To Truth) and others (though Koch has become something of a “romantic reductionist” [Koch, 2012]). NCC Mechanisms and Early Candidates While there are complex methodological issues, NCC mechanisms include neuronal electrophysiological action potentials (spikes), their frequencies and sequences; neurochemical transmitter flows in the synapses between neurons; and recurrent brain circuits in specific brain areas. An example is clusters of neurons that underlie wakefulness in the brainstem connecting to clusters of neurons in the thalamus, hypothalamus, basal ganglia, and cerebral cortex related to awareness/consciousness (Wong, 2023). Similarly, a “default ascending arousal network” (dANN) has been proposed, with subcortical nodes in the brainstem, hypothalamus, thalamus, and basal forebrain (Edlow, 2024). While necessary for conscious arousal and wakefulness, the dANN is not sufficient for phenomenal consciousness and is not what this Landscape is about. As an example of the NCC way of thinking, an early NCC candidate was the claustrum, which receives input from almost all regions of cortex and projects back to almost all regions of cortex, and which, Crick and Koch speculated, could give rise to “integrated conscious percepts.” They used the analogy of the claustrum to a “conductor” and the cortex to an “orchestra,” such that the claustrum as a conductor “coordinates a group of players in the orchestra, the various cortical regions.” Without the conductor, as they build the analogy, “players can still play but they fall increasingly out of synchrony with each other. The result is a cacophony of sounds.” In the absence of the claustra in both cerebral hemispheres, attributes such as sensory modalities “may not be experienced in an integrated manner and the subject may fail to altogether perceive these objects or events or only be consciously aware of some isolated attribute.” This would mean, they suggest, “that different attributes of objects … are rapidly combined and bound in the claustrum” (Crick & Koch, 2005). Ongoing Search for NCC A more recent candidate for full and content-specific NCC is located in the posterior cerebral cortex, in a temporo-parietal-occipital hot zone (Koch et al., 2016), though no one is yelling “Eureka” and the search continues. Even so, while everyone knows that even strong correlation is not causation, strong correlation is still something. NCCs can be considered macroscopic materialism. It was in 1998 that Christof Koch made the now legendary 25-year bet with philosopher David Chalmers—they are long-time friends—that neuroscientists would discover a “clear” NCC by 2023. No surprise that the bet paid off in Chalmers’ favor. (Koch presented Chalmers with a case of 1978 Madeira wine.) As Chalmers said, notwithstanding neuroscience's great progress, “It's clear that things are not clear,” while Koch, feigning chagrin, agreed (Horgan, 2023). Koch was down but not out: he may have lost this consciousness battle, but the consciousness war would still be waged. Koch offered to re-up: another bet, another 25 years to achieve that “clear” NCC, another case of wine. “I hope I lose,” Chalmers said, smiling, taking the new bet, “but I suspect I'll win.” The Question of Explanation The smart money is again on Chalmers, although I have a different issue. What would a “clear” NCC mean? Suppose a specific group of neurons were proven to be both necessary and sufficient for a particular conscious experience, a direct correlation that no other group of neurons could claim? Koch would rightly win the bet, but would consciousness have been explained? Still, the perennial question: How can action potentials zipping along neurons and chemicals flowing between neurons literally be the phenomenal consciousness of inner experience? By what magic?

---

### Brain Circuits and Cycles Theories
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/brain-circuits-and-cycles-theories
Theorists: Several

The “brain circuits and cycles” theory of consciousness refers to a set of neurobiological theories emphasizing that consciousness arises from specific neural circuits and oscillatory activity in the brain. This view is broadly grounded in systems neuroscience and neurodynamics, where functional connectivity, recurrent loops, and neural rhythms are thought to enable or to generate conscious experience. Circuits and Oscillatory Cycles The brain circuits and cycles theory posits that consciousness arises from the dynamic interaction of specialized neural circuits operating in rhythmic, cyclic patterns, particularly involving thalamocortical and cortico-cortical loops. These loops allow recurrent activity, where information is not just transmitted but continuously updated. This idea integrates two key aspects: anatomical circuits, specific recurrent brain networks (e.g., thalamocortical loops, fronto-parietal networks); and oscillatory cycles, brain rhythms, or neuronal oscillations in frequency bands (theta, alpha, beta, gamma) that synchronize activity across brain regions. Brain circuits and cycles as mechanisms of consciousness are older explanations, no longer considered sufficient in themselves, having evolved into more sophisticated theories. Brain circuits have covered the following kinds of large-scale brain structures: lateral pathways across the cerebral cortex linking diverse cortical areas (e.g., especially in the prefrontal, cingulate, and parietal regions of the cortex, which are involved in higher-level activities such as planning and reasoning); the reticular activating system focusing attention, shaping behaviors, and stimulating motivation; and vertical thalamocortical radiations mediating sensory and motor systems.[1] Brain cycles cover electroencephalogram (EEG) waves over broad regions of the cerebral cortex, the product of massive numbers of neurons firing synchronously (e.g., gamma waves at 40 Hz). Contemporary Extensions Two prominent contemporary theories of consciousness can be said to be later expressions of brain circuits and cycles: The Global Neuronal Workspace Theory, which associates consciousness with the global availability of information and access consciousness: “A fronto-parietal circuit becomes globally active when a stimulus reaches consciousness… this 'ignition' is an all-or-none process” (Dehaene et al., 2006). Integrated Information Theory, which defines consciousness as the capacity of a system to integrate information, quantified by a value called Φ (phi), representing how much the system's whole is more than the sum of its parts. In a precursor paper, Gerald Edelman and Giulio Tononi write, “Consciousness arises from the integration of information in a distributed and dynamic manner by a functional cluster of neurons” (Edelman & Tononi, 2000). Another contemporary explanation recruits bidirectional information transfer between the cortex and the thalamus—recurrent corticothalamic and thalamocortical pathways—which are said to regulate consciousness. Evidence suggests “a highly preserved spectral channel of cortical-thalamic communication that is present during conscious states, but which is diminished during the loss of consciousness and enhanced during psychedelic states” (Toker et al., 2024). Also here, Dendritic Integration Theory (DIT), linking neurobiology and phenomenology, relates cellular-level mechanisms to conscious experience by leveraging “the intricate complexities of dendritic processing” in brain circuits (Larkum, 2013; Suzuki & Larkum, 2020; Aru, 2023, 2020). Summary In sum, the “brain circuits and cycles” theory views consciousness as arising from specific, anatomically distributed neural circuits operating in oscillatory rhythms. Reentrant processing, synchrony, and integration across thalamocortical and cortical networks allow for the emergence of conscious experience. It is a mechanistic, systems-level theory aiming to bridge neural architecture with subjective awareness. Footnote [1]. My [RLK] PhD research at UCLA's Brain Research Institute, under Professor John Schlag, was on the thalamocortical pathway; my thesis title: “An Analysis of Cortical Evoked Potentials and Concomitant Neuronal Population Activity.”

---

### Baars’s and Dehaene’s Global Workspace Theory
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/baars-s-and-dehaene-s-global-workspace-theory
Theorists: Bernard Baars, Stanislas Dehaene

Proposed originally by Bernard Baars (Baars, 1988, 1997, 2002), extended with neuroimaging and computer modeling by Stanislas Dehaene (Dehaene & Naccache, 2001), along with Jean-Pierre Changuex, Lionel Naccache, and others, Global Workplace Theory (GWT) posits that brain-wide presence and broad accessibility of specific multi-sensory, multi-cognitive information is what constitutes conscious awareness. GWT is founded on the concept of an inner “theater of consciousness,” where the mental spotlight of awareness shines on sequential sets of integrated perceptions that are dominant, at least momentarily. (The global workspace “Theater of Consciousness” is said not to contradict Dennett's rejected “Cartesian Theater,” because the former is not dualistic and does not reside in only one location in the brain; rather, the Theater of Consciousness is passive, not active, and is spread across much of the brain.) Global Accessibility and Competition GWT holds that conscious mental states are those which are “globally available” to a wide range of brain processes, including attention, perception, assessment, memory, verbal description, and motor response. Which sets of integrated perceptions become dominant, move to center stage, and thus leap into conscious awareness? It's a competition. Diverse data flows originating both within the brain (e.g., memories) and from external stimuli (i.e., sensory information) are in constant competition, such that the “winner” is broadcast broadly (i.e., globally) in the brain and becomes accessible throughout the brain, which is how we become aware of it as the content of our consciousness. This brain-wide focus on a particular phenomenological package integrates all the relevant sensory and cognitive streams by recruiting all the relevant brain areas into an organic whole—while inhibiting other, extraneous, conflicting data flows—such that what resides in the global workspace is perceived as consciousness “snapshots” in continuous, movie-like motion. This means that while our conscious awareness may seem unified and seamless, in fact it is neither. Empirical Framework of GNW According to neuroscientists Stanislas Dehaene and Lionel Naccache, the hypothesis of a global neuronal workspace (GNW) should synthesize three major empirical observations (which, they say, any theory of consciousness should incorporate) to build the GNW’s theoretical framework: “(1) a considerable amount of processing is possible without consciousness, (2) attention is a prerequisite of consciousness, and (3) consciousness is required for some specific cognitive tasks, including those that require durable information maintenance, novel combinations of operations, or the spontaneous generation of intentional behavior” (Dehaene & Naccache, 2001). Dehaene and Naccache then build their case for the GNW theory of consciousness. “This framework postulates that, at any given time, many modular cerebral networks are active in parallel and process information in an unconscious manner. An information becomes conscious, however, if the neural population that represents it is mobilized by top-down attentional amplification into a brain-scale state of coherent activity that involves many neurons distributed throughout the brain. The long-distance connectivity of these ‘workspace neurons’ can, when they are active for a minimal duration, make the information available to a variety of processes including perceptual categorization, long-term memorization, evaluation, and intentional action. We postulate that this global availability of information through the workspace is what we subjectively experience as a conscious state” (Dehaene & Naccache, 2001). Substrate Neurobiology Neuroscientist Jean-Pierre Changeux puts it this way: “The conscious compartment, the global workspace, processes information from non-conscious processors and in turn broadcasts that information from one system of processors to all the other processors—but in a certain way, a ‘theater’ kind of ‘stock exchange’ of processors, where these specialized processors interact, coordinate, and control each other in competition or cooperation.” Regarding the substrate neurobiology, Changeux says that the GNW theory “privileges a subset of interconnected cortical pyramidal cells with long-range excitatory axons, particularly dense in prefrontal, temporoparietal, and cingulate regions, that, together with the relevant thalamocortical loops, forms a horizontal ‘neuronal workspace’ interconnecting multiple, specialized, automatic, and nonconscious processors. The conscious content of a given sensory input (seeing, hearing, etc.) is assumed to be encoded by the sustained and amplified activity (termed ‘ignition’) of a subset of neurons from the GNW, the rest being inhibited, which ultimately leads to a report of conscious experience” (Changeux, 2025). Global Workspace Dynamics and Revisions Whereas GWT started in the 1980s as a purely psychological theory of conscious cognition, it has become a “family” of theories adapted to today's far more detailed understanding of the brain. The brain-based version of GWT is called Global Workspace Dynamics because the cortex is viewed as a “unified oscillatory machine.” GWT, therefore, according to its advocates, joins other theories in taking consciousness as the product of highly integrated and widespread cortico-thalamic activity, including evidence that the prefrontal cortex participates in the visual conscious stream. Cortex is extraordinarily flexible in its dynamic recruitment of different regions for different tasks. Therefore, an arbitrary division between prefrontal and other neuronal regions is said to be misleading. Consciousness requires a much broader, more integrative view (Baars et al., 2021). In a pioneering set of “adversarial collaboration” experiments to test hypotheses of consciousness by getting rival researchers to collaborate on the study design,[1] preliminary results did not perfectly match GWT's prediction that consciousness arises when information is broadcast to areas of the brain through an interconnected network. The transmission, according to GWT, happens at the beginning and end of an experience and involves the prefrontal cortex, at the front of the brain. But independent “theory-neutral” researchers found that only some aspects of consciousness, but not all of them, could be identified in the prefrontal cortex. Moreover, while they found evidence of brain broadcasting, the core of GWT, it was only at the beginning of an experience—not also at the end, as had been predicted. Further experiments are to come, but revisions to GWT are believed likely (Lenharo, 2023a, 2023b, 2024). Footnote [1]. The adversarial experiments are envisioned and sponsored by the Templeton World Charity Foundation.

---

### Sergent’s Global Playground
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/sergent-s-global-playground
Theorists: Claire Sergent

Cognitive neuroscientist Claire Sergent's nuanced theory of consciousness emphasizes the temporal flexibility of conscious access. Her work suggests that conscious perception is not strictly tied to the immediate processing of sensory stimuli but can occur "offline," allowing for retrospective awareness of events. She proposes an update to previous formulations of the global neuronal workspace model that she labels a “global playground” (Sargent et al., 2021). Temporal Flexibility and Retro-Perception Sergent describes how conscious access can be delayed and desynchronized from the actual sensory input. This means that our conscious experience doesn't always mirror the sequence of external events in real-time. Instead, the brain can process certain information offline, bringing it into conscious awareness later if it becomes relevant. This framework helps explain various phenomena such as the psychological refractory period, attentional blink, postdictive effects, and iconic memory. As she puts it, “I would like to propose not only that conscious access is delayed relative to the external stimulation, but also that it can flexibly desynchronize from external stimulation; it can process some information ‘offline’, if and when it becomes relevant. Thus, in contrast with initial sensory processing, conscious experience might not strictly follow the sequence of events in the environment.” She suggests that “this capacity to process information ‘offline’ might have made conscious processing evolutionarily advantageous in spite of its sluggishness and capacity limitations” (Sergent, 2018). A key concept in Sergent's theory is "retro-perception," where attention directed to a stimulus after its disappearance can retrospectively trigger conscious perception. That conscious perception can be initiated by post-stimulus events highlights the brain's capacity for temporal flexibility in processing (Sergent et al., 2013). From Workspace to Playground Sergent's theory aligns with and extends the Global Neuronal Workspace (GNW) model, which posits that consciousness arises when information is globally broadcast across the brain's networks. By introducing the idea of offline processing, Sergent suggests that conscious access is not solely dependent on immediate sensory input but can also result from the brain's dynamic and context-dependent integration of information over time (Sergent, 2018). Based on her experimental work—timing of conscious access, preconscious processing, spontaneity and task relevance, critique of purely visual theories, and working memory without consciousness—Sergent proposes an update to previous formulations of the GNW model. She posits that “covert conscious access might be subtended not by a global workspace, but rather by a subset of it, which we may term a ‘global playground.’ This ‘global playground,’ she says, “would be a broad network of areas among which sensory representations are shared and maintained for several hundreds of milliseconds, thus offering wider cognitive possibilities than automatic unconscious processing, but with no specific agenda. When a task is required, this global playground is augmented by decision-making processes and turns into a global workspace” (Sergent et al., 2021).

---

### Edelman’s Neural Darwinism and Reentrant Neural Circuitry
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/edelman-s-neural-darwinism-and-reentrant-neural-circuitry
Theorists: Gerald Edelman

Nobel laureate biologist Gerald Edelman presents a purely biological theory of consciousness, founded on Darwinian natural selection and complex brain morphology. His foundational commitment is that “the neural systems underlying consciousness arose to enable high-order discriminations in a multidimensional space of signals,” that “qualia are those discriminations” and that “differences in qualia correlate with differences in the neural structure and dynamics that underlie them” (Edelman & Tononi, 2000; Edelman, 2003; “Gerald Edelman,” 2024). Rejecting theories that the brain is like a computer or instructional system, Edelman proposes that “the brain is a selectional system, one in which large numbers of variant circuits are generated epigenetically, following which particular variants are selected over others during experience. Such repertoires of variant circuits are degenerate, i.e., structurally different circuit variants within this selectional system can carry out the same function or produce the same output. Subsequent to their incorporation into anatomical repertoires during development, circuit variants that match novel signals are differentially selected through changes in synaptic efficacy. Differential amplification of selected synaptic populations in groups of neurons increases the likelihood that, in the future, adaptive responses of these groups will occur following exposure to similar signals” (Edelman, 2003). Edelman's way of thinking is motivated by his work on the immune system (for which he was awarded the Nobel), and his theory is developed in two domains: Neural Darwinism (neural group selection) and Dynamic Core (reentrant neural circuitry). Neural Darwinism Neural Darwinism is “the idea that higher brain functions are mediated by developmental and somatic selection upon anatomical and functional variance occurring in each individual animal” (Edelman, 1989). Neural Darwinism has two aspects: (i) development selection, which controls the gross anatomy and microstructure of the brain, allowing for great variability in the neural circuitry; and (ii) experiential selection, especially of the synaptic structure where functional plasticity is essential given the vast number of synapses (estimated at over 100 trillion, possibly 600 trillion or more). Edelman notes that a child's brain contains many more neural connections than will ultimately survive to maturity—estimates go as high as 1000 trillion—and he argues that this redundant capacity, this functional plasticity, is needed because “neurons are the only cells in the body that cannot be renewed and because only those networks best adapted to their ultimate purpose will be selected as they organize into neuronal groups” (“Gerald Edelman,” 2024). According to Edelman's theory of neuronal group selection (TNGS), “selectional events in the brain are necessarily constrained by the activity of diffuse ascending value systems. The activity of these systems affects the selectional process by modulating or altering synaptic thresholds” (Edelman, 2003). Dynamic Core and Reentrant Neural Circuitry Dynamic Core is Edelman's term encompassing reentrant neural circuitry, the ongoing process of recursive signaling among neuronal groups taking place across networks of massively parallel reciprocal fibers, especially in the connections between thalamus and cerebral cortex. This dynamic, relentless activity in thalamocortical circuits generates a continuing sequence of different metastable states that change over time, yet each of which has a unitary phenomenology at any given moment. Edelman asserts that “there is no other object in the known universe so completely distinguished by reentrant circuitry as the human brain” (Edelman, 2003, “Gerald Edelman,” 2024). Edelman stresses that reentry is “a selectional process occurring in parallel” and that “it differs from feedback, which is instructional and involves an error function that is serially transmitted over a single pathway.” As a result of the correlations that reentry imposes on diverse, interacting neuronal groups, “synchronously active circuits across widely distributed brain areas are selectively favored.” This, Edelman suggests, “provides a solution to the so-called binding problem: how do functionally segregated areas of the brain correlate their activities in the absence of an executive program or superordinate map?” Binding of the outputs of every sensory modality, each generated by segregated cortical areas, is essential for our commonly perceived but underappreciated unity of consciousness (Edelman, 2003). It is worth noting the close relationship between the Dynamic Core and Global Workspace hypotheses, as jointly suggested by the authors of each, Edelman and Baars—each hypothesis having been put forward, independently, “to provide mechanistic and biologically plausible accounts of how brains generate conscious mental content.” Whereas “the Dynamic Core proposes that reentrant neural activity in the thalamocortical system gives rise to conscious experience,” the “Global Workspace reconciles the limited capacity of momentary conscious content with the vast repertoire of long-term memory.” The close relationship between the two hypotheses is said to allow “for a strictly biological account of phenomenal experience and subjectivity that is consistent with mounting experimental evidence.” The authors suggest that “there is now sufficient evidence to consider the design and construction of a conscious artifact” (Edelman et al., 2011). Primary and Higher-Order Consciousness The theory of neuronal group selection (TNGS), pioneered by Edelman (1987), has come to undergird a cluster of theories. As Anil Seth explains, “According to the TNGS, primary (sensory) consciousness arose in evolution when ongoing perceptual categorization was linked via reentry to a value-dependent memory creating the so-called ‘remembered present’” (Edelman, 1989). Higher-order consciousness, distinguished in humans by an explicit sense of self and the ability to construct past and future scenes, arose at a later stage with reentrant pathways linking value-dependent categorization with linguistic performance and conceptual memory (Edelman, 2003; Seth, 2007). As Edelman's mechanism for consciousness is based on the TNGS, he first distinguishes primary from higher-order consciousness. “Animals with primary consciousness can integrate perceptual and motor events together with memory to construct a multimodal scene in the present”—what James called the “specious present” and which Edelman calls “the remembered present” (Edelman, 1989). Such an animal with primary consciousness, Edelman says, “has no explicit narrative capability (although it has long-term memory), and, at best, it can only plan to deal with the immediate scene in the remembered present” (Edelman, 2003). As for higher-order consciousness, Edelman is mainstream: “It emerges later in evolution and is seen in animals with semantic capabilities such as chimpanzees. It is present in its richest form in the human species, which is unique in possessing true language made up of syntax and semantics. Higher-order consciousness allows its possessors to go beyond the limits of the remembered present of primary consciousness. An individual's past history, future plans, and consciousness of being conscious all become accessible” (Edelman, 2003). How did the neural mechanisms underlying primary consciousness arise during evolution? Edelman's proposal is as follows. “At some time around the divergence of reptiles into mammals and then into birds, the embryological development of large numbers of new reciprocal connections allowed rich reentrant activity to take place between the more posterior brain systems carrying out perceptual categorization and the more frontally located systems responsible for value-category memory. This reentrant activity provided the neural basis for integration of a scene with all of its entailed qualia … [which] conferred an adaptive evolutionary advantage” (Edelman, 2003). Summary and the Hard Problem In summary, according to Edelman, “consciousness arises as a result of integration of many inputs by reentrant interactions in the dynamic core. This integration occurs in periods of <500 ms. Selection occurs among a set of circuits in the core repertoire; given their degeneracy, a number of different circuits can carry out similar functions. As a result of the continual interplay of signals from the environment, the body, and the brain itself, each integrated core state is succeeded by yet another and differentiated neural state in the core … The sequences and conjoined arrays of qualia entailed by this neural activity are the higher-order discriminations that such neural events make possible. Underlying each quale are distinct neuroanatomical structures and neural dynamics that together account for the specific and distinctive phenomenal property of that quale. Qualia thus reflect the causal sequences of the underlying metastable neural states of the complex dynamic core” (Edelman, 2003). Finally, Edelman addresses the hard problem. “The fact that it is only by having a phenotype capable of giving rise to those qualia that their ‘quality’ can be experienced is not an embarrassment to a scientific theory of consciousness. Looked at in this way, the so-called hard problem is ill posed, for it seems to be framed in the expectation that, for an observer, a theoretical construct can lead by description to the experiencing of the phenomenal quality being described. If the phenomenal part of conscious experience that constitutes its entailed distinctions is irreducible, so is the fact that physics has not explained why there is something rather than nothing. Physics is not hindered by this ontological limit nor should the scientific understanding of consciousness be hindered by the privacy of phenomenal experience.” Edelman is confident. “At the end of our studies, when we have grasped its mechanisms in greater detail, consciousness will lose its mystery and be generally accepted as part of the natural order” (Edelman, 2003). Personally, I [RLK] like analogizing the something/nothing ontological limit in physics to the phenomenal consciousness psychophysical privacy limit in neuroscience—the two ultimate questions of existence and sentience. But I hesitate to draw the analogy too tightly. Something/nothing is a kind of historical question of what happened, that is, explaining the hypothetical process. For example, it could be that nothing is in principle impossible. Phenomenal consciousness is a clearly contemporary question of what is, that is, explaining the actual thing. Moreover, I agree that even with its something/nothing ontological limit, physics can do its work, as with its phenomenal consciousness privacy limit, neuroscience can do its work. But that work, remember, constitutes the “easy problems.”

---

### Calvin’s Darwinian Mechanism in Neocortex
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/calvin-s-darwinian-mechanism-in-neocortex
Theorists: William H. Calvin

Neurobiologist William H. Calvin proposes that consciousness emerges as “the current winner of Darwinian copying competitions in cerebral cortex,” competitions among a multitude of subconscious mindsets—spatiotemporal firing patterns of cerebrocortical neurons, particularly within the association areas of the neocortex. This process is dynamic, not static, recursive, and shaped by selective pressures similar to natural selection. In this view, consciousness is not a constant state of awareness but rather the fleeting victor in an ongoing Darwinian struggle within the brain. The ‘winning’ mindset gains temporary dominance, allowing it to control our thoughts, actions, and perception of reality (Calvin, 1998). The selection of the ‘fittest’ mindset is not a random process but rather is influenced by our memories, current environment, and goals. The victorious thought pattern is the one that is most coherent and best suited to the present context. This winning ‘draft’ becomes our conscious awareness, while the others remain in the background, ready to compete for dominance in the next moment. This continuous cycle of generation, competition, and selection allows for a flexible and adaptive consciousness that can navigate a complex and ever-changing world. The Darwinian Mechanism Calvin’s Darwinian mechanism explains how the widespread wiring principle of recurrent excitatory circuitry of mammalian neocortex can run “the six essential features of the classical Darwinian process: a pattern (spatiotemporal firing pattern of a Hebbian cell-assembly, in this case) that copies with occasional variation, where populations of the variants compete for a limited work space, their relative success biased by a multi-faceted environment (both memorized and real-time, in this case), and with further variations centered on the more successful of the current generation (Darwin’s inheritance principle)” (Calvin, 1998). The actual nexus of consciousness arises from the competition between ‘hexagonal mosaics’—collections of synchronized, triangular arrays of pyramidal neurons in the neocortex. These mosaics compete for space and influence within the cortical landscape. The dominant pattern at any given moment governs the contents of consciousness—perception, thought, or motor planning. As Calvin puts it, “Hexagonal mosaics are like plainchant choirs, singing in the lockstep of a Gregorian chant.… Perhaps choosing between an apple and a banana for a snack is a matter of how big their respective choirs are, that only large choruses can gain access to the output pathways associated with silent speech.” Tunes, Creativity, and Problem-Solving Each hexagonal cortical patch encodes a spatiotemporal ‘tune’—like a musical motif representing a concept or memory. “A hexagon’s spatiotemporal firing pattern is potentially a cerebral code, what represents an object or idea. Such a pattern is like a little tune (map each of the several hundred minicolumns to a note on a musical scale). There will be a different tune characterizing Apple than the tune for Banana.” Thus, consciousness involves not just these ‘tunes,’ but their recombination and harmonization—e.g., combining ‘banana’ and ‘yellow’ arrays—which may enable abstract thinking, metaphor, and analogical reasoning. Crucially, consciousness enables problem-solving and creativity by bootstrapping novel ideas into high-quality thoughts. The cortical Darwinian machine can, within seconds to minutes, perform analogs of biological evolution. Calvin says, “There is a pattern that is copied … variations occur … populations of the variant patterns compete … and the more successful of the current patterns tend to produce more of the next round of variants” (Calvin, 1998). For Calvin, there is no fixed ‘center’ of consciousness: “The ‘centre of consciousness’ could … shift from moment to moment: from language to nonlanguage areas, from frontal to parietal lobe, from left to right hemisphere, and maybe even from cortical to subcortical structures.” This dynamic shifting allows for multiple simultaneous tasks, layered processing, and a spectrum of awareness from unconscious routines to highly resource-demanding creative thought. Levels of Explanation and Higher-Order Processes Calvin aligns with William James's notion of the stream of consciousness and integrates ideas from chaotic attractors: “Resonances are better known these days as part of the rubric of chaotic attractors. I imagine each hexagon’s neural network as supporting a number of characteristic spatiotemporal patterns.” He likens memory layers and their lingering influence on thought to sashimi slices or fallen dominos, shaping the likelihood of new thoughts—a model for creativity and memory-triggered associations. Calvin focuses on “the appropriate levels of explanation (ranging from quantum aspects to association cortex dynamics),” lamenting that “What’s missing from most discussions of consciousness is, surprisingly, the whole concept that there are levels of explanation.” He critiques theories that attempt to locate consciousness in quantum mechanics: “Consciousness … certainly isn’t located down in the basement of chemistry or the subbasement of physics. This attempt to leap … from the sub-basement of quantum mechanics to the penthouse of consciousness is what I call the Janitor’s Dream.” He notes “the scanty evidence relating quantum fields to cortical synchrony” (Calvin, 1998). Instead, he stresses that “[A] more appropriate level of inquiry into consciousness is probably at a level of organization immediately subjacent to that of perception and planning: likely (in my view) cerebral-cortex circuitry and dynamic self-organization involving firing patterns within a constantly shifting quiltwork of postage-stamp-sized cortical regions.” Novel properties emerge from these “middle-level cortical structures (the 0.5 mm hexagonal cortical regions), where patterns can self-organize, entrain others, and compete — all while being modifiable by experience and memory” (Calvin, 1998). Calvin’s model allows for a hierarchical web of Darwinian processes, including a ‘supervisory Darwinian process’ capable of influencing or biasing the operations of other, lower-level Darwinian processes. This means that slower meta-level processes (possibly involving frontal or orbital cortex) could steer faster, lower-level perceptual or motor Darwinian competitions—akin to agenda setting or task-switching. This also suggests a hierarchy in the selection process, potentially enabling more abstract or complex forms of consciousness. Calvin stresses the role of language in structuring these competing thoughts, seeing it as a crucial tool for the development of higher-level consciousness (Calvin, 1998).

---

### Hawkins’s Thousand-Brain Remembered Modeling
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/hawkins-s-thousand-brain-remembered-modeling
Theorists: Jeff Hawkins

Technologist/neuroscientist Jeff Hawkins’s Thousand Brains Theory is primarily a theory of neocortical intelligence, not a full metaphysical theory of phenomenal consciousness; its relevance to consciousness lies in explaining how massively parallel cortical models yield the unified, stable, object-centered perceptual world we experience. Hawkins proposes that the neocortex does not build one central model of reality, but thousands of concurrent models distributed across cortical columns, each using sensorimotor reference frames to model objects, places, concepts, and relations (Hawkins, 2021; Hawkins et al., 2019). Consciousness, on this view, is a brain-generated phenomenon dependent on neocortical modeling, voting, prediction, and action, though Hawkins does not claim to solve the hard problem of why such modeling is accompanied by felt experience. Cortical Columns as Modeling Systems Hawkins’s central anatomical-functional claim is that the human neocortex comprises roughly 150,000 cortical columns, each independently learning complete models of such objects and concepts using map-like reference frames, with unified perception arising not from any central processor but from a consensus the columns reach by voting. Rather than assigning perception to a single hierarchical representation, the theory distributes model-building throughout the cortex, so that “every part of the neocortex learns complete models of objects and concepts,” not merely local features (Hawkins et al., 2019). On this Thousand Brains Theory, what we perceive moment to moment is the brain's continuously updated simulation of the world rather than the world itself, since nothing reaches the cortex but electrical spikes. Consciousness, for Hawkins, decomposes into two tractable components: awareness, which he identifies with the continuous formation and recall of memories of the brain's own recent model states, and qualia, which he traces to what structurally uniform cortical tissue happens to be connected to. He accordingly predicts that any system that learns a world model and continuously remembers and recalls its states will be conscious, and that the hard problem will dissolve rather than be solved (Hawkins, 2021). Columns, Reference Frames, Voting Building on Vernon Mountcastle's proposal that the neocortex executes one common algorithm throughout (Mountcastle, 1978), Hawkins argues that what differentiates cortical regions is not their structure but their connections — the circuitry looks remarkably alike across visual, language, and touch regions. Each column, he proposes, learns complete models by attaching reference frames to objects, adapting the grid-cell and place-cell machinery of the entorhinal cortex and hippocampus to the cortex at large (Hawkins et al., 2019). Because reference frames require both sensory input and motor output, knowledge is inherently sensorimotor: modeling requires movement. Columns are richly interconnected and integrate their outputs, so that thousands of partial, parallel models converge by voting into a single perceptual result (Hawkins, Ahmad, & Cui, 2017). Perception as Simulation A direct consequence concerns the status of experience. Cortical input is a distorted and incomplete patchwork, yet perception is uniform and complete; Hawkins takes the voting mechanism to explain this singular, non-distorted perception, offering a mechanistic account of perceptual unity that addresses what others treat as the binding problem. Most cortical prediction is unconscious: when predictions are met, nothing is noticed, and only mismatch draws attention and prompts model revision. What one experiences is therefore a simulation generated by the brain's model—a model that includes a model of the self. Awareness as Remembered States Hawkins's positive account of awareness identifies it with memory. His illustrative case is an action performed and then erased from memory: on discovering a video of oneself doing it, one would judge that one had not been conscious during it. Moment-to-moment awareness, on this view, consists in a continuous sequence of memories of the brain's recent states, recalled and driving ongoing action. The felt sense of being conscious is thus a function of the cortex's continuous self-recording, and Hawkins generalizes this into a criterion: a system that models the world, continuously stores the states of that model, and recalls them will be conscious. Qualia and The Deflation of The Hard Problem Hawkins explicitly acknowledges the hard problem (Chalmers, 1995) and devotes a chapter to it, but treats it as a temporary rather than principled obstacle. His approach to qualia follows from cortical uniformity: since the same circuitry underlies vision, touch, and hearing, the qualitative differences among modalities reduce to differences in what a column is wired to—which inputs it receives and which behaviors it drives. He anticipates that attitudes toward consciousness will shift as such accounts mature, so that while remaining questions persist, the hard problem will cease to be regarded as a problem at all. Reviewers sympathetic to the neuroscience have nonetheless found this treatment unsatisfying, objecting that identifying qualia with connectivity patterns restates the correlation rather than explaining why any such pattern is felt. Machine Consciousness, and Standing Objections Because consciousness on this account requires only the right functional architecture, Hawkins holds that machines built on Thousand Brains principles would be conscious, while remaining affectless—lacking the evolved drives of the older subcortical brain—and argues that unplugging such a conscious machine would raise no concern. Two objections recur. The philosophical one is that his account addresses access, unity, and self-modeling while leaving phenomenal character unexplained, a gap his own framing concedes but declines to treat as foundational. The neuroscientific one targets his sharp old-brain/new-brain division, which critics link to the discredited triune-brain schema, noting that the mammalian neocortex is closely related to the pallium of birds and reptiles, with comparable circuitry and no evident intelligence deficit at matched neuron counts. References Chalmers, D. J. (1995). Facing up to the problem of consciousness. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 2(3), 200–219. Hawkins, J. (2021). A Thousand Brains: A New Theory of Intelligence. Basic Books. Hawkins, J., & Ahmad, S. (2016). Why neurons have thousands of synapses, a theory of sequence memory in neocortex. Frontiers in Neural Circuits, 10, 23. Hawkins, J., Ahmad, S., & Cui, Y. (2017). A theory of how columns in the neocortex enable learning the structure of the world. Frontiers in Neural Circuits, 11, 81. Hawkins, J., & Blakeslee, S. (2004). On Intelligence. Times Books. Hawkins, J., Lewis, M., Klukas, M., Purdy, S., & Ahmad, S. (2019). A framework for intelligence and cortical function based on grid cells in the neocortex. Frontiers in Neural Circuits, 12, 121. Mountcastle, V. B. (1978). An organizing principle for cerebral function: The unit module and the distributed system. In G. M. Edelman & V. B. Mountcastle, The Mindful Brain (pp. 7–50). MIT Press.

---

### He’s Joint Determinant Theory
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/he-s-joint-determinant-theory
Theorists: Biyu Jade He

Neuroscientist Biyu He posits a pluralistic and integrative neurobiological approach to understanding consciousness, offering what she calls ‘Joint Determinant Theory’ as a new framework to encompass the diverse neural underpinnings of conscious experience. Emphasizing the complexity and diversity of conscious experiences that arise from the interplay of multiple neural determinants rather than a single neural correlate, He’s theory suggests that different types of conscious content—such as perceptions, memories, emotions, and thoughts, as well as their integrated experience—may be governed by distinct neural mechanisms, thus challenging the pursuit of a universal neural correlate of consciousness (He, 2023). Pluralistic Approach to Neural Determinants He emphasizes the necessity of integrating various neural mechanisms to fully comprehend consciousness. She argues that understanding consciousness requires acknowledging the contributions of different brain circuits and their interactions, rather than isolating a singular pathway or region responsible for conscious experience. He’s own neuroscience research program stresses the significant role of spontaneous brain activity in shaping conscious perception. Her results demonstrate that, for visual perception, ongoing neural fluctuations, including spontaneous slow cortical potentials and brain oscillations, can influence whether a stimulus reaches conscious awareness. “Recent findings show that even within a single modality, such as conscious visual perception, the anatomical location, timing, and information flow of neural activity related to conscious awareness vary depending on both external and internal factors” (He, 2023). This perspective underscores the brain's complex intrinsic activity as a foundational factor in conscious experience, not merely acting as a reactive response to external stimuli. Toward Joint Determinant Theory This is why He advocates for “an alternative approach to empirical research on consciousness, which is to fully examine the neurobiological underpinnings of each type of conscious awareness (e.g., percepts, introspection, wills, memories, emotions, and thoughts) without favoritism. This pluralistic approach will allow the field to build a stronger empirical foundation and be more integrated with other cognitive neuroscience disciplines. If, in the end, a common set of neurobiological principles emerges across diverse types of conscious awareness, then that would be wonderfully simplifying; if not, we will have gained much fundamental knowledge along the way that is important for both basic science and clinical applications” (He, 2023). In addition, He advocates another key motivation for her pluralistic approach to consciousness research in that “although prominent theories of consciousness focus on unifying principles, experimental work on consciousness has focused on testing specific neural correlates of consciousness (NCCs) … favored by each theory, often assuming that NCCs of a similar nature will be found across modalities and experimental paradigms.” He disagrees, first arguing that “the search for generic (i.e., context-independent) NCCs is unlikely to be fruitful, as even within the same modality (e.g., conscious visual perception), the anatomical location, timing, and information flow pattern of neural activity related to awareness vary depending on external and internal factors.” From there, she “zooms out” and suggests that “the assumption that the mechanistic understanding obtained by studying visual awareness will automatically extrapolate to other forms of awareness may not hold, and, therefore, neurobiological investigations of consciousness will benefit from a more pluralistic approach” (He, 2023). This is why He proposes her new framework, the Joint Determinant Theory of Consciousness, which, she says, “may be able to accommodate a variety of brain-circuit-level mechanisms that co-contribute to conscious awareness and its integrated phenomenology“ (He, 2023).

---

### Northoff’s Temporo-Spatial Sentience
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/northoff-s-temporo-spatial-sentience
Theorists: Georg Northoff

Psychiatrist and neuroscientist Georg Northoff postulates what he calls “sentience” as “a more basic and fundamental dimension of consciousness,” and he proposes that sentience arises via “temporo-spatial mechanisms”—characterized by brain activity, spatiotemporal relationship, and structure—with which “the brain constructs its own spontaneous activity [that] are key for making possible the capacity to feel, namely sentience.” Northoff's model is based on his supposition that “in addition to the level/state and content of consciousness, we require a third dimension of consciousness, the form or structure or organization of consciousness.” Thus, his “temporo-spatial theory of consciousness” leads him to posit “specific neuro-ecological and neuro-visceral mechanisms that are, in their most basic nature, intrinsically temporospatial.” We have this capacity to feel and thus for sentience, he says, “because our brain continuously integrates the different inputs from body and environment within its own ongoing temporo-spatial matrix” (Northoff, 2021). Spatiotemporal Neuroscience Northoff distinguishes “spatiotemporal neuroscience” from cognitive neuroscience and related branches (like affective, social, etc.) in that spatiotemporal neuroscience focuses on brain activity (rather than brain function), spatiotemporal relationship (rather than input-cognition-output relationship), and structure (rather than stimuli/contents). In this sense, spatiotemporal neuroscience “allows one to conceive the neuro-mental relationship in dynamic spatiotemporal terms that complement and extend (rather than contradict) their cognitive characterization” (Northoff et al., 2020). Dissolving the Mind-Body Problem Finally, Northoff and colleagues feel “the need to dissolve the mind-body problem (and replace it by the world-brain relation).” They also address other philosophical issues like assuming “time (and space) to be constructed in different scales, small and long, with all different scales being nested (like the different Russian dolls) within each other.” For example, “a mental feature may be characterized by an extremely short and restricted spatiotemporal scale which, if abstracted and thereby detached from its underlying longer and more extended scale may seem to be non-dynamic and thus a re-presentation of an event or object. This is like taking one smaller Russian doll out and consider it in isolation from all the others (and, even worse, forgetting that any of the others were ever present).” If, in contrast, they suggest, “one conceives the spatiotemporal scale of mental features in the larger context of other spatiotemporal scales, one can take into view their nestedness.” In this view, Northoff has mental features as “nothing but a small Russian doll that is nested within the longer and more extended scales of the brain's spontaneous activity (which, by itself, is nested within the yet much larger spatiotemporal scales of body and world)” (Northoff et al., 2020).

---

### Bach’s Cortical Conductor Theory
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/bach-s-cortical-conductor-theory
Theorists: Joscha Bach

Cognitive scientist Joscha Bach posits a functional explanation for phenomenal consciousness, the cortical conductor theory (CTC), where “cortical structures are the result of reward-driven learning, based on signals of the motivational system, and the structure of the data that is being learned.” Critical is the “conductor,” which is “a computational structure that is trained to regulate the activity of other cortical functionality. It directs attention, provides executive function by changing the activity and parameterization and rewards of other cortical structures, and integrates aspects of the processes that it attended to into a protocol. This protocol is used for reflection and learning” (Bach, 2019). The Conductor and Cortical Orchestra Bach has CTC's “elementary agents” as columns in the cerebral cortex that “self-organize into the larger organizational units of the brain areas as a result of developmental reinforcement learning. The activity of the cortical orchestra is highly distributed and parallelized, and cannot be experienced as a whole.” However, its performance is coordinated by the conductor, which is not a homunculus, “but like the other instruments, a set of dynamic function approximators” (situated in prefrontal cortex[1]). Whereas most cortical instruments, he says, “regulate the dynamics and interaction of the organism with the environment (or anticipated, reflected and hypothetical environments), the conductor regulates the dynamics of the orchestra itself.” The process is based on signals of the motivational system and it provides executive function, resolves conflicts between cortical agents, and regulates their activities (Bach, 2019). “The conductor is the only place where experience is integrated,” Bach states. “Information that is not integrated in the protocol cannot become functionally relevant to the reflection of the system, to the production of its utterances, the generation of a cohesive self model, and it cannot become the object of access consciousness.” Without the conductor, he asserts, our brain can still perform most of its functions, but we would be “sleepwalkers, capable of coordinated perceptual and motor action, but without central coherence and reflection.” Consciousness as Memory of Attention Memories empower Bach's theory. “Memories can be generated by reactivating a cortical configuration via the links and parameters stored at the corresponding point in the protocol. Reflective access to the protocol is a process that can itself be stored in the protocol, and by accessing this, a system may remember having had experiential access.” For phenomenal consciousness, Bach claims “it is necessary and sufficient that a system can access the memory of having had an experience—the actuality of experience itself is irrelevant.” Phenomenal consciousness, according to Bach, “may simply be understood as the most recent memory of what our prefrontal cortex attended to. Thus, conscious experience is not an experience of being in the world, or in an inner space, but a memory. It is the reconstruction of a dream generated [by] more than fifty brain areas, reflected in the protocol of a single region. By directing attention to its own protocol, the conductor can store and recreate a memory of its own experience of being conscious” (Bach, 2019). Unlike Integrated Information Theory, Bach says CTC is a functionalist model of consciousness, with similarity to other functionalist approaches, such as the ones suggested by Dennett and Graziano (Bach, 2019). Footnote [1]. Bach notes, “In the human brain, the functionality of the conductor is likely facilitated via the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, anterior cingulate cortex, and anterior insula. The conductor has attentional links into most regions” (Bach, 2019).

---

### Prinz’s Neurofunctionalism: Attention Engenders Experience
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/prinz-s-neurofunctionalism-attention-engenders-experience
Theorists: Jesse J. Prinz

Philosopher Jesse Prinz accounts for consciousness with two main claims: first, consciousness always arises at a particular stage of perceptual processing, the intermediate stage; and second, consciousness depends on attention. “Attention” is Prinz's focus in that it “changes the flow of information, allowing perceptual information to access memory systems.” Neurobiologically, he says, “this change in flow depends on synchronized neural firing. Neural synchrony is also implicated in the unity of consciousness and in the temporal duration of experience” (Prinz, 2012). Attended Intermediate Representation What Prinz calls “attention” is a particular process of making an integrated representation of a stimulus' multiple properties, as perceived from a given point of view, available to working memory—and it is this process, and only this process, that generates consciousness. “Intermediateness,” as Prinz's term of art, locates the critical transformation when representations are “integrated into a point-of-view-retaining format that gets made available by this 'attention process'” to working memory. This is why Prinz's theory earns the appellation, “Attended Intermediate Representation Theory” (Mole, 2013). (Note: Prinz's theory could be classified under Higher-Order [Representational] Theories.) Consciousness as Perception In exploring the limits of consciousness, Prinz states, “We have no direct experience of our thoughts, no experience of motor commands, and no experience of a conscious self.” His strong assertion is that “All consciousness is perceptual, and it functions to make perceptual information available to systems that allow for flexible behavior.” Thus, Prinz provides “a neuroscientifically grounded response to the leading argument for dualism,” and he argues that “materialists need not choose between functional and neurobiological approaches, but can instead combine these into neurofunctional response to the mind-body problem” (Prinz, 2012). Prinz encourages a direct, head-to-head competition, as it were, between his neurofunctionalism and David Chalmers's hard problem (Mole, 2013). “Where he [Chalmers] sought to synthesize two decades of dualist argumentation, I [Prinz] try here to synthesize two decades of empirical exploration” (Prinz, 2012; Mole, 2013). Whereas Chalmers famously declares that “no explanation given in wholly physical terms can ever account for the emergence of conscious experience,” Prinz counters that there is now “a satisfying and surprisingly complete theory [contained entirely within materialism] of how consciousness arises in the human brain” (Prinz, 2012).

---

### Morsella’s Passive Frame for Action Conflict Resolution
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/morsella-s-passive-frame-for-action-conflict-resolution
Theorists: Ezequiel Morsella

Neuroscientist Ezequiel Morsella and colleagues’ Passive Frame Theory assigns phenomenal consciousness a narrow, evolutionarily grounded function: it provides a common field in which otherwise encapsulated systems can jointly constrain skeletal-muscle action when their action tendencies conflict. Consciousness does not calculate solutions, initiate actions, or exercise executive command; unconscious mechanisms generate the contents, interpret the situation, and implement the selected response. The conscious field is “passive” because its causal contribution lies in making incompatible action-relevant contents simultaneously available to the somatic nervous system (Morsella et al., 2016a). In other words, Morsella and colleagues propose that the primary function of phenomenal consciousness is tightly circumscribed and serves the somatic nervous system: conscious contents constitute a "frame" that lets otherwise independent systems influence a single shared output channel, the skeletal muscles. Consciousness is passive rather than executive—it does not reason, plan, initiate action, or exercise control—all are performed unconsciously—yet it is indispensable, since without it adaptive skeletomotor action integrating conflicting response tendencies would be impossible. Passive Frame Theory synthesizes ideomotor theory, the sensorium hypothesis, encapsulation, and parallel responses into skeletal muscle, and is explicit that it addresses what consciousness is functionally while leaving interpretation open. Its treatment of phenomenal states as action-oriented urges makes it structurally unlike workspace, higher-order, integrated-information, and predictive theories. The Conscious Field and Action Conflict The theory begins with the architecture of action control. Specialized perceptual, motivational, and motor systems can operate largely independently, each proposing responses appropriate to its own domain. Ordinarily, these tendencies are compatible or can be handled automatically. Consciousness becomes functionally necessary when two or more systems prescribe mutually incompatible actions through the same skeletal musculature. For example, inhaling despite the urge to hold one’s breath or holding one's breath underwater; carrying out a painful but necessary movement or suppressing a pain-withdrawal reflex; or forcing oneself to eat an unpalatable food—all generate vivid phenomenal states precisely because incompatible skeletomotor tendencies are in play. Crucially, the smooth-muscle and glandular systems, not subject to this integration problem, generate no comparable conscious contents. The circumscription is thus principled rather than stipulative: consciousness arose for what everyday language calls voluntary action, a term the framework treats as unscientific and homuncular (Morsella et al., 2016a). In such cases, conscious contents form a frame that encompasses the relevant percepts, urges, goals, and anticipated consequences. The frame does not itself deliberate. Rather, by jointly constraining the action system, its contents permit coordinated output that no encapsulated module could determine alone. Morsella and colleagues call this process “supramodular interaction,” distinguishing it from unconscious interactions occurring within or between systems that do not require phenomenal mediation (Morsella et al., 2009; Morsella et al., 2016a). Thus, the framework's organizing question is not what consciousness is made of but what it is for, answered from an evolutionary, action-based perspective: Phenomenal states arise when multiple response systems must simultaneously influence skeletomotor output and their directives conflict (Morsella, 2005). Why Consciousness Is Passive Passive Frame Theory rejects the common image of consciousness as an executive agent. The conscious field receives its contents from unconscious generators and has no direct access to the construction of percepts, the retrieval of memories, or the formulation of action plans. Even conscious intentions are products presented within the field rather than commands issued by a central self. Consciousness is causally relevant, but its mode of influence is architectural: the presence of multiple contents in one field allows them to affect the same action-control machinery. This low-level role explains why consciousness often seems richer than its actual control capacities. One may experience a visual scene, an itch, anxiety, and an intention together, yet the detailed computations producing each content remain inaccessible. It also explains why many sophisticated operations proceed unconsciously, whereas comparatively simple conflicts—such as resisting an urge—can become phenomenally salient. Encapsulation and the Integration Consensus Passive Frame Theory accepts an integration consensus shared with rival accounts but reinterprets it. The nervous system's content generators are encapsulated: the module generating the experience of orange cannot communicate "orange" to any other, because only that generator can instantiate it. Integration therefore cannot occur by inter-module communication; it occurs by each generator contributing its content to a common field delivered to the skeletomotor system. Figuratively, that system is a single steering wheel controlled by multiple drivers. Encapsulation explains why conscious contents are heterogeneous and irreducible to one another, and why multiple systems can simultaneously prepare incompatible actions on the same effectors. The Frame: Passive, Not Executive The theory's most counterintuitive commitment must be the passivity of the conscious field. Conscious contents form a continuously updated frame, but the frame does not interpret, decide, or act; unconscious processes construct its contents and select and execute the response. What the frame supplies is the momentary context in which encapsulated action tendencies are adjudicated against a shared output. Consciousness performs the same simple operation repeatedly, and the impression that it does more arises because it is the only stage to which the system has introspective access. Morsella and colleagues draw the explicit consequence that free will, understood as conscious authorship of action, does not exist, while insisting that consciousness is essential rather than epiphenomenal: without it there would be no adaptive skeletomotor action (Morsella et al., 2016b). Ideomotor Processing and Action-Related Urges Phenomenal contents are analyzed largely as inclinations and urges bound to action plans rather than as detached sensory qualities. The framework draws on ideomotor theory, on which representations of action effects are themselves the currency of action control, and on the sensorium hypothesis, which locates conscious contents in perceptual-like processing rather than executive machinery (Gray, 2004; Merker, 2007). A distinction the theory emphasizes is between the suppressibility of overt behavior and of conscious content: one can readily refrain from reaching for food while fasting, but cannot readily suppress the experienced desire for it (Bargh and Morsella, 2008). That asymmetry is treated as diagnostic of the frame's passivity, and has been pursued through externally triggered involuntary cognitions (Cushing, Gazzaley and Morsella, 2017). Scope, Objections, and the Implementation Gap Commentators note several difficulties. Animals lacking skeletal muscle appear to pose a problem for a theory that ties consciousness to skeletomotor integration; the relation of the frame to response-selection bottleneck accounts of attention requires clarification; and whether the theory accommodates the full range of conscious contents, including affect, imagery, and thought, remains disputed (Franz, 2016). A recurring objection is that the theory addresses access rather than phenomenality, and that identifying a function for conscious states does not explain why those states are felt. Morsella and colleagues acknowledge that the framework does not address the implementation level of analysis—how neurons instantiate conscious states—while arguing that a correct functional characterization constrains the search for one (Morsella et al., 2016b). Assessment Passive Frame Theory is a rare attempt to specify a function for consciousness narrow enough to be falsifiable yet demanding enough to be non-trivial. Its distinctive contribution is the argument that encapsulation forces integration to occur at skeletomotor output rather than among content generators, perhaps yielding testable predictions about which conflicts do and do not generate phenomenal states. Its exposure is standard for functional accounts: it explains what the conscious field accomplishes without explaining why that should involve experience at all—a limitation its authors sacknowledge. References Bargh, J. A., and Morsella, E. (2008). The unconscious mind. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3(1), 73–79. Cushing, D., Gazzaley, A., and Morsella, E. (2017). Externally controlled involuntary cognitions and their relations with other representations in consciousness. Consciousness and Cognition, 55, 1–10. Franz, E. A. (2016). How does consciousness for action relate to attention for action? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 39, e176. Gray, J. A. (2004). Consciousness: Creeping Up on the Hard Problem. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Merker, B. (2007). Consciousness without a cerebral cortex: A challenge for neuroscience and medicine. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 30(1), 63–81. Morsella, E. (2005). The function of phenomenal states: Supramodular interaction theory. Psychological Review, 112(4), 1000–1021. Morsella, E., Godwin, C. A., Jantz, T. K., Krieger, S. C., and Gazzaley, A. (2016a). Homing in on consciousness in the nervous system: An action-based synthesis. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 39, e168. Morsella, E., Godwin, C. A., Jantz, T. K., Krieger, S. C., and Gazzaley, A. (2016b). Passive frame theory: A new synthesis. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 39, e199.

---

### Gray’s Brain-Built World-Model: Qualia, Comparators, Late-Error Detection
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/gray-s-brain-built-world-model-qualia-comparators-late-error-detection
Theorists: Jeffrey Alan Gray

Psychologist Jeffrey Gray’s theory treats phenomenal consciousness as a brain-built, multimodal “display” of the organism and its world, generated too slowly to direct most immediate behavior but useful for detecting failures in the unconscious systems that do. Conscious experience supplies an arena in which actual outcomes can be compared with predictions across separate perceptual and action-control systems. Gray thereby offers a naturalistic account of conscious contents and their adaptive function, while conceding that it does not explain why the relevant neural processes should feel like anything at all (Gray, 1995, 2004). Gray approached consciousness as an experimental psychologist who had spent a career modeling the “septo-hippocampal comparator” (see below), and he brought that machinery to bear on what he insisted was the only genuine explanandum: qualia. Stripping away intentionality and representation as achievements the unconscious brain manages perfectly well, Gray argued that conscious experience is a late-arriving, brain-constructed display medium in which the outputs of unconscious computation are presented in a unified multimodal model, enabling a comparator to perform late error detection against prediction (Gray, 2004). Two empirical planks support and constrain the account: conscious percepts arrive too slowly to control online behavior, and synesthesia dissociates qualia from function in both directions, which Gray took to refute reductive functionalism (Gray et al., 2002; Gray, 2003). The title of his posthumously published book, Consciousness: Creeping Up on the Hard Problem, is a concession as much as a program, since Gray explicitly and laudably denied having solved the hard problem, claiming only to have narrowed the target by establishing what consciousness does and what it demonstrably is not. Constructed Phenomenal Reality Perceptual consciousness is not, for Gray, a transparent apprehension of mind-independent reality. Colors, sounds, bodily location, objects, and the apparent self belong to a simulated world constructed by unconscious neural activity; qualia are the felt properties of that construction. Conscious perceptions function less as pictures resembling external objects than as useful signals. Intentionality—experience being about a banana, face, or danger—arises when features processed in distinct pathways are unconsciously bound into unified objects before awareness. Since this organization can occur unconsciously, Gray argues that intentionality does not much affect, much less resolve, the phenomenal problem (Gray, 2004). Qualia as the Sole Explanandum Gray's opening move is eliminative about the problem space rather than about consciousness. Intentionality, binding, and behavioral control are all exhibited by unconscious processing; a duck-rabbit figure is resolved unconsciously and springs into awareness already interpreted. He also rejected representational construals of perception: the external world as physics describes it is nothing like the world as experienced, and conscious percepts are better treated as signals, which need not resemble what they signal. What survives this subtraction is qualia alone, and Gray held that consciousness research should concentrate on them exclusively (Gray, 2004). The Comparator and the Function of Late-Error Detection Gray’s affirmative theory about phenomenal consciousness extends his approach to the neuropsychology of anxiety, in which the septo-hippocampal system compares actual against predicted states and interrupts behavior on mismatch (Gray & McNaughton, 2000). Because organisms err, they require a mechanism for detecting errors after the fact, and such a mechanism needs a stable, integrated model of the environment against which predictions can be checked. Conscious experience is that model: a display medium created by unconscious systems and used by other unconscious systems, in which novelty and mismatch are made available across modalities so that servomechanisms can be adjusted for future performance (Gray, 2004; Biggs, 2005). The “septo-hippocampal comparator” is a core neurocomputational model— developed by Gray and Russian cognitive neuroscientist O.S. Vinogradova—proposing that the brain continuously evaluates predictions against reality. The system uses the medial septum to regulate hippocampal theta oscillations. The hippocampus predicts what will happen next, and when an incoming sensory signal contradicts these expectations, the comparator detects a mismatch. Conscious Perception Comes Too Late The timing argument is the theory's empirical fulcrum. A visual percept requires roughly a quarter-second from retinal stimulation, too long to initiate the motor programs that return a fast tennis serve, and the dorsal stream governing visually guided action is dissociable from the ventral stream yielding visual qualia (Milner & Goodale, 1995; Gray, 2004). Qualia cannot be doing online control. Gray nonetheless resisted epiphenomenalism, citing late error detection, the smoothing of jerky sensory input, and the public consensus underwriting language, science, and aesthetic judgment. His illustrative case is pain, which typically arrives after the hand has withdrawn and functions to make repetition less likely. Even so, the display is causal only in an attenuated sense: Gray likened conscious perception to a sketch of a scene, effective as a record that downstream systems consult, but possessing no agency and unable to initiate or inhibit action. Two criticisms recur: the proposed benefits would accrue equally to an unconscious mechanism performing the same operations, and Gray held some non-linguistic animals to be conscious, which strains an account whose most distinctive functions are unavailable to them (Bacrac, 2004). Synesthesia and the Case Against Functionalism Gray's most-cited empirical argument against reductive functionalism came from colored-hearing synesthesia. Functionalism entails that qualitative differences track functional differences and conversely; synesthesia breaks both entailments, since the same color quale arises from functionally distinct modalities while a single input-output profile yields both auditory and visual qualia (Gray et al., 2002; Gray, 2003). Imaging showing spoken-word activation of V4 (visual cerebral cortex) without earlier visual-pathway involvement, and the opposition of synesthetic to veridical color in the alien color effect, were offered as converging evidence (Nunn et al., 2002; Gray et al., 2006). Gray reviewed Penrose–Hameroff quantum proposals seriously but objected that nothing in wave-function collapse explains why one quale rather than another is selected. What Remains Unsolved Gray rejected dualism, denied that identifying neural correlates would constitute explanation, and declined to claim his functional account bridges the explanatory gap. Reviewers note the residual difficulty that a display appears to require an audience, reintroducing homuncular structure (Kriegel, 2005; Biggs, 2005). His standing in the Landscape is accordingly distinctive: a rigorously neurobiological theory specifying what phenomenal consciousness is for, while insisting that why any of it is felt remains untouched. [Note: Appreciation to George Marcus for suggesting Jeffrey Gray’s theory. George is Professor of Political Science, Emeritus, at Williams College; he is known for developing affective intelligence theory, which integrates neuroscience and psychology to explain how emotions shape political judgment and behavior.] References Gray, J. A. (2003). How are qualia coupled to functions? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(5), 192–194. Gray, J. A. (2004). Consciousness: Creeping Up on the Hard Problem. Oxford: Oxford University Press. (Paperback edition 2007.) Gray, J. A., Chopping, S., Nunn, J., Parslow, D., Gregory, L., Williams, S., Brammer, M. J., & Baron-Cohen, S. (2002). Implications of synaesthesia for functionalism: Theory and experiments. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 9(12), 5–31. Gray, J. A., & McNaughton, N. (2000). The Neuropsychology of Anxiety: An Enquiry into the Functions of the Septo-Hippocampal System (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Gray, J. A., Parslow, D. M., Brammer, M. J., Chopping, S., Vythelingum, G. N., & ffytche, D. H. (2006). Evidence against functionalism from neuroimaging of the alien colour effect in synaesthesia. Cortex, 42(2), 309–318. Bacrac, N. (2004). Review of Consciousness: Creeping Up on the Hard Problem. Philosophy Now, 48, 44. Biggs, S. (2005). A review of Jeffrey Gray's Consciousness: Creeping Up on the Hard Problem. PSYCHE: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Research on Consciousness, 11. Kriegel, U. (2005). Review of Consciousness: Creeping Up on the Hard Problem. Mind, 114(454), 417–421. Milner, A. D., & Goodale, M. A. (1995). The Visual Brain in Action. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Nunn, J. A., Gregory, L. J., Brammer, M., Williams, S. C. R., Parslow, D. M., Morgan, M. J., Morris, R. G., Bullmore, E. T., Baron-Cohen, S., & Gray, J. A. (2002). Functional magnetic resonance imaging of synesthesia: Activation of V4/V8 by spoken words. Nature Neuroscience, 5(4), 371–375.

---

### McComas's Hippocampal Memory-Stream Theory
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/mccomas-hippocampal-memory-stream-theory
Theorists: Alan J. McComas

Clinical neurophysiologist/neurologist/neuroscientist Alan McComas’s reductionist theory identifies phenomenal consciousness with the ever-changing sequence of short-term memories produced by the patterned electrical firing of hippocampal neurons, so that the hippocampus—not the cerebral cortex—is the primary generator of experience, and qualia are held to be, in principle, a function of neuronal impulse activity rather than any exotic or non-physical property. It is this electrical impulse activity of hippocampal neurons that gives the organism a temporally extended “now.” Rather than treating consciousness as an emergent whole-brain field, or a function of the prefrontal, parietal, and/or cortex, McComas locates its primary generator in phylogenetically ancient memory and concept systems shared across humans and other animals. The cerebral cortex supplies much of the differentiated content of experience—visual, auditory, linguistic, motor, and conceptual—but the hippocampal-memory system gives that content its experienced continuity, recognitional structure, and first-person presence (McComas, 2022, 2025). Core mechanism: consciousness as short-term memory McComas’s reductionism begins from the claim that all mental activity must be understood through the nerve impulse: thoughts, sensations, intentions, and images are produced by neuronal firing rather than by an independent mental agent acting upon the brain (McComas, 2025). The specifically hippocampal claim is stronger: consciousness is not merely aided by memory but constituted by a rapidly refreshed sequence of short-term memories. This makes memory not an accessory faculty, added to perception after the fact, but the condition under which perception becomes a lived episode. On this view, “instant awareness” is not yet full consciousness; to be conscious requires that information persist long enough to be held, recognized, and situated in relation to self and world. Time, memory-stream identity, and the felt present Thus, central to McComas’s theory is the claim that there is no instantaneous consciousness: whereas awareness can be momentary, consciousness requires that information persist for a brief minimum duration supplied by an active short-term trace. His proposal couples two claims: a generator claim, that the immediate physical basis of consciousness is hippocampal firing within the limbic system; and an identity claim, that to be conscious simply is for the brain to hold a continuously refreshed trace of the "now-just-past" (McComas, 2022). On this view, in other words, the hippocampus is not merely for memory; its memory-making activity constitutes experience. The neocortex remains essential but subordinate, performing those specialized sensory, linguistic, and motor processing whose outputs remain unconscious computation until rendered into a temporally coherent stream by the hippocampus. McComas distinguishes wakefulness from consciousness: the reticular activating system can arouse the brain and sustain automatic behavior, but arousal alone does not provide the memory-based self-location required for full consciousness (Moruzzi and Magoun, 1949; McComas, 2025). The phenomenological “thickness” of the present—its character as a brief, remembered-now rather than a vanishing instant—is the explanatory target. Evidence and arguments McComas develops his hippocampal theory in opposition to mainstream neuroscience’s cortex-centered accounts. He draws on neurosurgeon Wilder Penfield’s observations that substantial cortical lesions, including prefrontal damage, may leave consciousness levels relatively preserved, whereas brainstem injury can abolish wakefulness, and that temporal-lobe stimulation can evoke vivid experiential fragments from a patient’s past (Penfield, 1938; McComas, 2025). The hippocampal role is reinforced by the classic memory cases of H. M. and Clive Wearing, whose medial temporal and hippocampal damage produced profound anterograde amnesia and a radically contracted experiential continuity (Scoville and Milner, 1957; McComas, 2022). Such patients remain awake and responsive, which is an important qualification, but McComas interprets their condition as showing that the continuity and self-locating depth of consciousness depend on hippocampal memory mechanisms. Single-neuron studies provide a second line of support. McComas's principal evidence is the discovery of hippocampal concept cells (formerly "grandmother cells")—single neurons that respond invariantly to a particular person, place, or object, and even to its written or spoken name, across different visual and linguistic presentations irrespective of viewpoint or detail (Quian Quiroga et al., 2005; Rey et al., 2015). These cells fire at, or just before, recognition, and may also fire when the subject merely thinks of the relevant concept. McComas takes this as evidence that the hippocampus participates not just in storage but in the conscious recognition of meaningful objects. A remembered concept can become phenomenally present without current sensory input; dreams, imagery, and inner speech are therefore intelligible as internally generated memory activity rather than as nonphysical boosts. McComas, who recorded from single neurons in conscious patients during thalamic surgery (Cooper, 1981), tested Edgar Adrian's hypothesis that sensory input is gated before reaching cortex (Adrian, 1954), and later modeled somatosensory cortex (McComas & Cupido, 1999), treats such cells as the content that hippocampal firing binds into the conscious present. The hippocampus is therefore attractive because it binds inputs across time, links “what” and “where,” supports recognition, and transforms transient sensory stimulation into episode-like structure. Agency, animal consciousness, and cortex McComas also uses Libet’s readiness potential experiments to challenge the intuitive view that consciousness initiates action. If neural activity precedes the reported conscious intention to act, then willing, attending, and recalling may be experienced retrospectively as conscious agency, although they are initiated by prior brain activity (Libet et al., 1983; McComas, 2025). Consciousness is not the commander of neural activity; it is one of its products. [Note: interpreting the Libet experiments is controversial; for a robust alternative, see Schurger et. al., 2012, 2021.] Evolutionarily, the theory resists the assumption that consciousness appeared only with large human cerebral hemispheres. McComas aligns with Darwin’s continuity thesis and with contemporary evidence for animal consciousness: if consciousness depends on ancient memory and concept systems rather than uniquely human cortex, then simpler forms of consciousness may exist wherever relevant neural architectures support memory, affective valuation, and recognition (Darwin, 1871; Low et al., 2012; McComas, 2025). Human consciousness is richer because cortical and temporal-lobe systems add language, imagination, complex concepts, and autobiographical elaboration, but the core generator remains hippocampal-limbic. Assessment McComas’s theory is distinctive because it offers a concrete, anatomically localizable, and potentially falsifiable alternative to mainstream theories such as global workspace, integrated information, higher-order representationalism, predictive processing, affective/emotional, and the like. Its strongest insight is that phenomenal consciousness may depend on temporal duration: a present becomes experience only when it is retained long enough to be recognized as belonging to a self in a world. Its strongest vulnerability is the apparent preservation of much phenomenal consciousness in patients with severe hippocampal impairment, and the extensive evidence linking conscious perceptual contents to posterior cortical and thalamo-cortical activity. A balanced reading might treat the hippocampus as indispensable for autobiographical continuity, conscious recognition, and the temporal structure of the self, while doubting that it is the sole generator of phenomenality. McComas’s bolder claim remains that consciousness itself is the hippocampal memory stream. References Adrian, E. D. (1954). The physiological basis of perception. In J. F. Delafresnaye (Ed.), Brain Mechanisms and Consciousness (pp. 237–248). Oxford: Blackwell Scientific Publications. Darwin, C. (1871). The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex. London: John Murray. Libet, B., Gleason, C. A., Wright, E. W., & Pearl, D. K. (1983). Time of conscious intention to act in relation to onset of cerebral activity: The unconscious initiation of a freely conscious act. Brain, 106, 623–642. Low, P., Panksepp, J., Reiss, D., Edelman, D., Van Swinderen, B., Koch, C., & others. (2012). The Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness. Francis Crick Memorial Conference, University of Cambridge. McComas, A. J. (2022). Aranzio’s Seahorse and the Search for Memory and Consciousness. Oxford: Oxford University Press. McComas, A. J. (2025). Consciousness: The road to reductionism. American Scientist, 113(2). Moruzzi, G., & Magoun, H. W. (1949). Brain stem reticular formation and activation of the EEG. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology, 1, 455–473. Penfield, W. (1938). The cerebral cortex in man: I. The cerebral cortex and consciousness. Archives of Neurology and Psychiatry, 40, 417–442. Quian Quiroga, R., Reddy, L., Kreiman, G., Koch, C., & Fried, I. (2005). Invariant visual representation by single neurons in the human brain. Nature, 435, 1102–1107. Rey, H. G., Fried, I., & Quian Quiroga, R. (2015). Single-cell recordings in the human medial temporal lobe. Journal of Anatomy, 227, 394–408. Schurger, A., Sitt, J., and Dehaene, S. (2012). An accumulator model for spontaneous neural activity prior to self-initiated movement. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) (August 2012). Schurger, A., Pak, J., and Roskies, A. (2021). What Is the Readiness Potential?Trends in Cognitive Sciences (July 2021). Scoville, W. B., & Milner, B. (1957). Loss of recent memory after bilateral hippocampal lesions. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery, and Psychiatry, 20, 11–21.

---

### Dalla Barba's Temporal Consciousness
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/dalla-barbas-temporal-consciousness
Theorists: Gianfranco Dalla Barba

Neurologist/neuropsychologist Gianfranco Dalla Barba argues that remembering is not the retrieval of a stored trace but a distinct mode of consciousness—Temporal Consciousness—through which individuals have the phenomenological experience of a personal past, an oriented present, and a personal future. On this account, the brain's modifications are atemporal and aspecific, containing nothing that marks them as past or as episodic; temporality and specificity are conferred by a mode of consciousness whose neural correlate is proposed to be the hippocampus. The theory is built by rejecting two assumptions Dalla Barba regards as fatal to standard memory science, the memory trace paradox and the homunculus fallacy, and it is tested against amnesia, in which Temporal Consciousness is lost, and confabulation, in which it is distorted. Developed with Marie-Françoise Boissé and Valentina La Corte, it is phenomenological in lineage and claims to be falsifiable in its predictions. In other words, Dalla Barba distinguishes two irreducible modes in which objects and events appear in consciousness: knowing consciousness, which presents them through general knowledge, and temporal consciousness, which presents them as uniquely situated within one’s personal past, present, or future. The theory’s central claim is that episodic remembering, present orientation, and future projection are expressions of a single first-person temporal mode rather than separable memory operations. Confabulation is therefore interpreted not merely as inaccurate retrieval but as a disturbance in how experience is placed within personal time (Dalla Barba, 2002; Dalla Barba & Boissé, 2010). Temporal and Knowing Consciousness Consciousness, on this account, is always consciousness of something and always presents its object in a particular way. Because the same pen may be perceived, imagined, liked, known, or remembered, the theory posits several original and irreducible modes of consciousness, none reducible to the others by causal or ontological cascade. Two carry the argument. Knowing Consciousness affords awareness of impersonal information across past, present, and future—that a given figure once held office, that another holds it now, that some medical advance is likely within a decade. Knowing consciousness concerns what an object is: a pen is recognized as a pen, Paris as a city, or an event as belonging to a familiar category. Its contents are repeatable and relatively impersonal; many instances can instantiate the same knowledge. Temporal consciousness, by contrast, presents an object or event as mine and as occupying a determinate place in my lived temporal existence. A remembered meeting is experienced not simply as an event that occurred, but as something that happened to me; an anticipated journey is experienced as a possible episode in my future (Dalla Barba, 2002). Temporal Consciousness affords the phenomenological experience of remembering one's own past, being present to one's present world, and projecting oneself into specific future episodes (Dalla Barba and La Corte, 2013). These are not independent faculties. They are transformations of one structure that enables the subject to experience continuity across change and to apprehend the uniqueness of an occurrence against the multiplicity supplied by knowing consciousness. Dalla Barba gives temporality an encompassing role: the issue is not only whether information is episodic or semantic, but the phenomenal mode through which any content is personally temporalized (Dalla Barba & Boissé, 2010). Personal temporality is thus distinguishable from impersonal temporality—a distinction the theory insists is empirically measurable rather than merely conceptual. Two Rejected Assumptions Dalla Barba's point of departure is critique (Dalla Barba, 2001; Dalla Barba, 2002). The memory trace paradox is the difficulty that a trace, being a present state, cannot by itself carry the pastness of what it represents; nothing in a pattern of synaptic modification marks it as standing for something already past rather than imagined or anticipated. The homunculus fallacy is the tacit attribution of subjective intentional life to a brain region—typically the frontal lobe, in monitoring accounts of confabulation, which is said to search, evaluate, and verify memories on the subject's behalf. Dalla Barba treats such postulates as unconscious explanatory idols that displace the explanandum (Dalla Barba, 2009). For Dalla Barba, what replaces them is a commitment, drawn from Brentano, Husserl, Sartre, and Merleau-Ponty, that consciousness is always consciousness of something and addresses its object in irreducibly different modes. Uniqueness and Multiplicity The modes are further separated by what they seize in the object. Temporal Consciousness addresses uniqueness: this specific pen, bought last week and to be used this afternoon. Knowing Consciousness addresses multiplicity: a pen, an indeterminate member of a category. Temporal Consciousness interacts with less stable patterns of brain modification to capture uniqueness; Knowing Consciousness interacts with more stable patterns to capture multiplicity. The distinction generates the theory's most direct prediction, that confabulation should consist largely in mistaking repeated events for unique ones—tested by having patients judge whether items had been seen once or four times, with confabulators but not non-confabulating amnesics treating repeated items as unique (Serra et al., 2014). Confabulation and Personal Time The theory was developed principally through neuropsychological work on confabulation. Confabulating patients commonly produce plausible autobiographical statements without intending deception and with little recognition that the statements are false. For Temporal Consciousness Theory, the decisive abnormality is that information available in knowing consciousness is inserted into an inappropriate personal temporal framework. Habits, semantic knowledge, familiar routines, or imagined possibilities may be experienced as singular episodes that happened, are happening, or will happen to the subject. The content may be broadly coherent while its mode of givenness is temporally misplaced (Dalla Barba & Boissé, 2010). This interpretation explains how knowing consciousness can remain relatively preserved while temporal consciousness is severely distorted. In a detailed case study, a patient’s general knowledge and recognition capacities remained substantially intact even as autobiographical claims were assigned to an erroneous personal present or past (La Corte et al., 2011). Confabulation thus becomes a disorder of phenomenal temporal orientation: the patient does not merely assert the wrong date but inhabits an incorrectly organized experiential now, past, or future. Amnesia, Confabulation, and the Hippocampus Complete bilateral hippocampal damage abolishes Temporal Consciousness: such patients retain semantic knowledge, personal semantics, and chronological time, and can even learn their own biography, yet have no experience of remembering it or of projecting themselves forward. Confabulators, by contrast, retain at least partial hippocampal integrity regardless of where else they are lesioned, and their Temporal Consciousness is not lost but malfunctioning, receiving distorted input from any of more than twenty regions (Dalla Barba and Boissé, 2010). Most confabulations are accordingly plausible rather than bizarre—habits and routines seized as unique episodes—and extend across personal past, present, and future alike. Dalla Barba and La Corte propose the hippocampus as the neural correlate of Temporal Consciousness, its function being to temporalize otherwise atemporal cortical modifications (Dalla Barba and La Corte, 2015). Falsifiability and Contested Ground The account specifies its own defeaters: it fails if patients with complete bilateral hippocampal destruction can answer questions tapping Temporal Consciousness, if such patients confabulate, if patients amnesic for their personal past retain phenomenological experience of their future, or if confabulation about the past dissociates from confabulation about the future. Craver and colleagues objected that the construct is ambiguous, since amnesic patients retain much temporal competence (Craver et al., 2014); Dalla Barba and La Corte replied that those spared abilities belong to Knowing Consciousness, while conceding that earlier formulations had been imprecise. The deeper dispute is whether positing an irreducible mode of consciousness explains the clinical dissociations or redescribes them. Assessment The theory is unusual in deriving a claim about phenomenal consciousness from neuropsychological dissociation while refusing the inferential machinery—traces, monitors, executive homunculi—that ordinarily mediates such derivations. Its strengths are the tight coupling of a phenomenological distinction to a measurable clinical instrument and an explicit falsification protocol. Its exposure is that the irreducibility of Temporal Consciousness is asserted on phenomenological grounds rather than argued for, so that critics who deny the mode can redescribe the same data in representational terms without evident loss. Placement Dalla Barba’s Temporal Consciousness is placed in Material / Neurobiological because the theory's primary evidence is lesion neuropsychology and its central claim is a neural correlate. There is a real alternative, here as a criss-reference: Dalla Barba calls his own model "neurophenomenological," draws his framework explicitly from Brentano, Husserl, Sartre, and Merleau-Ponty, and would sit defensibly in Phenomenology alongside Gurwitsch. References Craver, C. F., Kwan, D., Steindam, C., and Rosenbaum, R. S. (2014). Individuals with episodic amnesia are not stuck in time. Neuropsychologia, 57, 191–195. Dalla Barba, G. (2001). Beyond the memory trace paradox and the fallacy of the homunculus: A hypothesis concerning the relation between memory, consciousness and temporality. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 8(4), 51–78. Dalla Barba, G. (2002). Memory, Consciousness and Temporality. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Dalla Barba, G. (2009). Temporal consciousness and confabulation: Escape from unconscious explanatory idols. In W. Hirstein (Ed.), Confabulation: Views from Neuroscience, Psychiatry, Psychology and Philosophy (pp. 566–574). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Dalla Barba, G., and Boissé, M.-F. (2010). Temporal consciousness and confabulation: Is the medial temporal lobe "temporal"? Cognitive Neuropsychiatry, 15(1–3), 95–117. Dalla Barba, G., and La Corte, V. (2013). The hippocampus, a time machine that makes errors. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 17(3), 102–104. Dalla Barba, G., and La Corte, V. (2015). A neurophenomenological model for the role of the hippocampus in temporal consciousness: Evidence from confabulation. Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, 9, 218. Serra, M., La Corte, V., Migliaccio, R., Brazzarola, M., Zannoni, I., Pradat-Diehl, P., and Dalla Barba, G. (2014). Confabulators mistake multiplicity for uniqueness. Cortex, 58, 239–247.

---

### Merker’s Midbrain-Centered Reality Space
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/merker-s-midbrain-centered-reality-space
Theorists: Björn Merker

Neuroscientist Björn Merker’s centrencephalic proposal holds that basic phenomenal consciousness can be generated without the cerebral cortex, principally through an evolutionarily ancient upper-brainstem system that solves one control problem: matching needs to opportunities through a mobile body by integrating perception, motivation, and action within an egocentric world-model. The cortex extensively differentiates, stabilizes, and conceptualizes conscious content, but Merker argues that it is neither the sole seat nor a necessary condition of the conscious field itself (Merker, 2007). For Merker, the midbrain and basal diencephalon are held to implement an analog "reality space" in which a simulated body is nested inside a simulated world around an implicit ego-center, subject to motivational bias—an arrangement Merker takes to possess the essential attributes of phenomenal experience. In other words, cortex enriches that space but does not constitute it, a claim supported by decortication in mammals, by children born without cortex, and by the anatomy of the superior colliculus. The theory inverts the corticocentric consensus and bears on animal sentience, infant experience, and clinical judgment in disorders of consciousness. The theory is therefore both a positive neurobiological model of minimal consciousness and a direct challenge to corticocentric accounts (Merker, 2007). The Centrencephalic Inheritance The proposal explicitly updates the centrencephalic hypothesis of Penfield and Jasper, who concluded from some 750 cortical resections on conscious patients under local anesthesia that removing large sectors of cortex—hemispherectomy included—deprived patients of particular capacities but never interrupted the continuity of consciousness (Penfield and Jasper, 1954). They posited a system anatomically subcortical yet functionally supra-cortical. Merker sharpens this with a distinction between "higher" in cognitive terms and "higher" in control terms (Merker, 2007). Since no motor nucleus lies above the midbrain, everything the forebrain contributes to behavior must pass the narrow synencephalic bottleneck at the midbrain–diencephalon junction—precisely what converts the parallel capacity of the hemispheres into the sequential, limited-capacity mode coherent behavior demands. The Selection Triangle The theoretical core is a principle Merker introduces as the selection triangle. Real-time decision-making requires three domains to constrain one another: target selection, action selection given the body's posture and trajectory, and motivational ranking. Each can be specified independently, but savings accrue only if the three interact within a shared coordinate framework. Merker's principal claim is that the vertebrate brain implements this as an analog simulation of the tripartite problem space, and that the way the simulation is structured constitutes a conscious mode of function (Merker, 2007). The substrate runs from the layered maps of the superior colliculus—the one site where the spatial senses are topographically superposed in a common premotor frame for orienting—through nigral afferents carrying basal-ganglia action information to periaqueductal gray and hypothalamic connections carrying motivational state. Inhabiting a Neural Simulation Merker treats consciousness as the medium of any and all possible experience, and adopts an architectonic rather than a graded view: what disqualifies a jellyfish nerve net is not simplicity but the absence of the requisite interface. Reflective self-awareness is a luxury of big-brained species, not the defining property of the conscious state. The simulation lodges the origin of its body–world coordinate system in the head region of the analog body. That implicit origin—the ego-center—is where the subject is located when conscious, which explains the perspectival asymmetry between apprehending subject and apprehended object, and why the vantage point can never itself become an object of consciousness. A concrete diagnostic follows: we confront the world through an empty Cyclops-like aperture rather than seeing our own face, and that missing region betrays the synthetic character of experienced body and world. Decortication and Hydranencephaly Decorticate rats stand, rear, groom, play, swim, mate, and raise pups; decorticated cats orient by vision and touch and solve visual discriminations in a T-maze (Merker, 2007). In humans, hydranencephaly destroys most forebrain while sparing the brainstem. Shewmon and colleagues found each of four congenitally decorticate children conscious by ordinary neurological criteria (Shewmon, Holmes and Byrne, 1999). Merker, drawing on extended first-hand observation, adds differential responsiveness to familiar caregivers, stable preferences, and instrumental behaviors accompanied by situationally appropriate pleasure. He argues against attributing these to spared cortex on a specific asymmetry: occipital cortex is often spared and auditory cortex almost never, yet hearing is generally preserved and vision compromised—a pattern following from brainstem auditory integrity and optic-nerve vulnerability. Predictions and Contested Ground The account yields a specific prediction: no change in conscious contents should occur without involvement of the mesodiencephalic system, even absent eye movements. Merker cites collicular activation accompanying awareness of a visual–auditory illusion under maintained fixation (Watkins et al., 2006). His later work develops the framework as a subcortical "global best estimate buffer" and locates the first-person pivot in the cortical efference cascade converging on subcortical way stations (Merker, 2012; Merker, 2013). The persistent objection is that preserved organized behavior does not establish phenomenal experience. Merker replies that classifying decorticate children as vegetative presupposes the cortex–consciousness identification at issue. Relations to Other Theories Merker’s model overlaps with global-workspace, predictive-processing, embodied, and affective theories in emphasizing integration, selection, and action, but differs in anatomical priority and explanatory target. Global-workspace theories typically stress widespread cortical availability; Merker assigns basic consciousness to a more ancient selection architecture and treats cortical broadcasting as an enrichment of content. The proposal also differs from Damasio’s emphasis on organismic self-mapping and from Panksepp’s emphasis on affect, although all three resist the assumption that phenomenal consciousness is fundamentally a neocortical achievement. Assessment Merker's is among the most fully specified subcortical accounts of phenomenal consciousness, distinctive in deriving the format of experience—perspectival, body-in-world, motivationally colored—from a control problem rather than from cortical information processing. Its evidential base is unusually heterogeneous, spanning comparative neuroanatomy, lesion work, and clinical observation, and its central inference from behavior to experience remains contested. Whether the mesodiencephalic system is constitutive of consciousness or a necessary enabling condition for cortically elaborated contents is not settled by the evidence assembled—a limitation Merker acknowledges in framing the collicular prediction as the path to a verdict. References Merker, B. (2007). Consciousness without a cerebral cortex: A challenge for neuroscience and medicine. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 30(1), 63–81. Merker, B. (2012). From probabilities to percepts: A subcortical "global best estimate buffer" as locus of phenomenal experience. In S. Edelman, T. Fekete, and N. Zach (Eds.), Being in Time: Dynamical Models of Phenomenal Experience (pp. 37–79). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Merker, B. (2013). The efference cascade, consciousness, and its self: Naturalizing the first person pivot of action control. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 501. Penfield, W., and Jasper, H. (1954). Epilepsy and the Functional Anatomy of the Human Brain. Boston: Little, Brown. Shewmon, D. A., Holmes, G. L., and Byrne, P. A. (1999). Consciousness in congenitally decorticate children: Developmental vegetative state as self-fulfilling prophecy. Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology, 41(6), 364–374. Watkins, S., Shams, L., Tanaka, S., Haynes, J.-D., and Rees, G. (2006). Sound alters activity in human V1 in association with illusory visual perception. NeuroImage, 31(3), 1247–1256.

---

### Ward's Thalamic Dynamic Core and Min's Thalamic Reticular Gate
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/wards-thalamic-dynamic-core-and-mins-thalamic-reticular-gate
Theorists: Lawrence M. Ward, Byoung-Kyong Min

Experimental psychologist Lawrence Ward’s Thalamic Dynamic Core Theory and medical physiological psychologist Byoung-Kyong Min’s Thalamic Reticular Networking Model converge on the claim that phenomenal consciousness depends on recurrent, synchronized interaction between the thalamus and cortex, with the thalamus functioning as an active organizer rather than a passive sensory relay. Ward locates the immediate dynamic core of experience chiefly in synchronized activity among dorsal-thalamic neurons, whereas Min specifies how the inhibitory thalamic reticular nucleus may gate, coordinate, and select thalamocortical loops. Together, the models propose that the cortex supplies highly differentiated representational content, while thalamic dynamics help determine whether that content forms a unified conscious field (Min, 2010; Ward, 2011). In other words, Ward and Min independently propose that phenomenal consciousness is generated in the thalamus rather than the cortex, and that cortical activity supplies its contents without constituting the experience of them. Ward locates primary conscious awareness in synchronized activity within the dendritic trees of dorsal thalamic neurons—a thalamic dynamic core driven by massive corticothalamic projections and gated by the thalamic reticular nucleus—arguing that the cortex computes while the thalamus displays and thereby experiences. Min locates the decisive mechanism in the reticular nucleus itself, treating its GABAergic latticework as a functional networking filter gating conscious perception by controlling thalamocortical synchronization, with awareness accruing as first-order and higher-order signals loop repeatedly through it. Both revive a subcortical tradition running from Penfield (1975), and both make cortex necessary for content but insufficient for experience. Why the Thalamus Both authors begin from the observation that the thalamus is a compact map of the cortex: parcellated into roughly fifty nuclei, each reciprocally connected to a specific cortical area and to the reticular nucleus, and receiving projections from nearly every other part of the brain. Ward emphasizes that the cortex sends massively more fibers down to the thalamus than it receives back, and adopts Mumford's proposal that higher-order thalamic nuclei function as an active blackboard continually displaying the latest results of cortical computation (Mumford, 1991; Ward, 2011). Min emphasizes a developmental fact: early in development, communication between dorsal thalamus and telencephalon must pass through the ventral thalamus, whose principal derivative is the reticular nucleus, which thereafter wraps the entire thalamus and returns inhibitory axons to the regions from which it receives afferents (Min, 2010). A Shared Thalamocortical Framework Both theories begin from the anatomy of reciprocal thalamocortical organization. Nearly every cortical region exchanges signals with thalamic nuclei, while the thalamic reticular nucleus (TRN)—a thin shell of inhibitory GABAergic neurons surrounding much of the dorsal thalamus—receives collaterals from thalamocortical and corticothalamic fibers and projects back to thalamic relay nuclei. This architecture gives the thalamus a strategic role in regulating the timing, gain, routing, and coordination of cortical activity. The models distinguish consciousness from mere feedforward sensory transmission. A stimulus may be processed locally without entering a sufficiently recurrent, integrated, and sustained thalamocortical regime. Conscious perception occurs when relevant loops cross a dynamical threshold, become coordinated across distributed populations, and remain available long enough to support a coherent experiential episode. The theories therefore link level of consciousness and conscious content: arousal systems make organized thalamocortical dynamics possible, while the pattern and distribution of cortical participation determine what is experienced. We are Conscious of Results, Not Processes Ward's argument rests on four evidential pillars, the first of which is the segregation of experience from computation. We experience the results of cortical computation, never the computation itself: saccadic suppression, inattentional and change blindness, the absence of any phenomenology accompanying memory scanning or retrieval codes, and the sudden arrival of solutions, emotions, and utterances without introspective access to their production. If consciousness arose directly from cortical activity, Ward argues, more of that activity should be introspectively penetrable. The remaining pillars are that the thalamus is the common locus of damage in the vegetative state and of anesthetic action; that thalamic anatomy suits it to integrative display; and that interregional phase synchrony, demonstrated in binocular rivalry, is a robust correlate of conscious perception (Ward, 2011). Ward's Thalamic Dynamic Core Ward’s strongest proposal is that phenomenal consciousness is generated by synchronized activity in the dendritic trees of dorsal-thalamic neurons—a “thalamic dynamic core”—rather than by cortex alone—that the neural correlate of the conscious state is a dynamic core of synchronous activity within the dendrites of a subset of higher-order thalamic nuclei, especially those serving frontal areas, modulated by the reticular nucleus, the pulvinar, and diffuse corticothalamic projections. He draws on Jones's distinction between core relay neurons, projecting specifically to sensory and motor cortex, and diffusely projecting matrix neurons, which bind thalamic and cortical activity and promote synchrony (Jones, 2009). Integration giving rise to awareness is proposed to occur chiefly in matrix dendrites, concentrated in non-sensory nuclei—an asymmetry Ward uses to explain why the detailed activity of primary sensory cortex never enters awareness though its outputs are required for sensory content. He is explicit that he does not claim to say what about this activity constitutes subjectivity. Cortical networks perform specialized computations and construct detailed representations, but thalamic integration gives these distributed results the unity and temporal coherence characteristic of experience (Ward, 2011). The position draws on the distinction between core and matrix thalamic systems. Core relay neurons project topographically to middle cortical layers, whereas matrix neurons project more diffusely, especially to superficial layers, and are well placed to coordinate activity across cortical regions (Jones, 2001). Ward also emphasizes firing mode. During wakefulness, steady, continuous thalamic firing permits faithful communication and flexible synchronization; during slow-wave sleep and some unconscious conditions, burst dynamics and altered neuromodulation disrupt the integrative regime. The theory thus explains state transitions by changes in thalamic operating mode and explains momentary contents by rapidly changing coalitions of synchronized thalamocortical activity. Min's Thalamic Reticular Networking Model Min assigns the decisive role to the thalamic reticular nucleus (TRN) as a control system for conscious selection. Because TRN neurons inhibit thalamic relay cells and are reciprocally embedded in thalamocortical loops, they can suppress irrelevant channels, disinhibit selected channels, and coordinate oscillatory timing. A conscious “mental unit” is identified with a thalamocortical loop whose activity has been sufficiently amplified and synchronized; below threshold, sensory information may influence processing without becoming consciously experienced (Min, 2010). TRN cells are GABAergic, coupled to one another, and a substantial proportion fire in the gamma range; their synchronization is proposed to propagate through the thalamocortical network from a modality-specific sector outward, producing the binding associated with conscious perception. Because reticular sectors carry topographic maps whose boundaries overlap coarsely, Min derives both modality-specific awareness and, from the overlap, unitary cross-modal awareness. Conscious awareness is then embodied in iterative circulation: first-order and higher-order relay circuits, whose closest interaction occurs within the reticular nucleus, loop repeatedly, and awareness becomes more refined with each pass. Consciousness on this model consists of mental units, each an individual thalamocortical loop, which Min uses to explain the discreteness beneath apparent continuity, the minimum duration required for awareness, masking, priming, blindsight, neglect, and the coma-like presentation of reticular impairment. Attention and working memory enter the model as modulators rather than as consciousness itself. Top-down cortical signals bias TRN-mediated selection, enhancing relevant representations and suppressing competitors, while recurrent activity sustains selected contents. Later magnetoencephalographic work reported thalamic inhibitory dynamics and thalamocortical coupling specifically associated with conscious perception of an illusory color, lending empirical support to the model’s gateway claim without establishing that the TRN alone is constitutive of experience (Min et al., 2020). Convergences and Divergences The two models share a locus, a mechanism, and an opponent: both make synchrony the operative variable, both assign the reticular nucleus a controlling role, and both position themselves against global workspace accounts that privilege cortex. Min argues his model subsumes the workspace conditions while explaining modality-specific awareness that prefrontal-centered accounts cannot, and Ward cites Min approvingly. They diverge on the fundamental neurophysiological algorithm. Following Jones, Ward treats burst-mode thalamic firing as promoting drowsiness and sleep and steady, continuous mode as promoting wakeful consciousness; Min, following Sherman, treats steady, continuous firing as a passive unconscious gate mode and burst firing as the active conscious mode (Sherman, 2001). Since firing mode is how each theory proposes to gate awareness, the inversion is a substantive conflict that should not be minimized in a combined presentation. Assessment Together, these models constitute the most developed contemporary case for a thalamic rather than cortical seat of phenomenal consciousness, converting a longstanding intuition into anatomically specific and partly testable claims. Both face the same structural difficulty: thalamus and cortex are so tightly coupled that interventions isolating one almost inevitably disturb the other, which Ward acknowledges as the central obstacle to falsification. Neither explains why synchronized activity in any location should be felt, and both, by their authors' framing, remain proposals about where the conscious state is generated rather than accounts of what makes it conscious. References Jones, E. G. (2009). Synchrony in the interconnected circuitry of the thalamus and cerebral cortex. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1157, 10–23. Min, B.-K. (2010). A thalamic reticular networking model of consciousness. Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling, 7, 10. Mumford, D. (1991). On the computational architecture of the neocortex. I. The role of the thalamo-cortical loop. Biological Cybernetics, 65(2), 135–145. Penfield, W. (1975). The Mystery of the Mind. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Sherman, S. M. (2001). Tonic and burst firing: Dual modes of thalamocortical relay. Trends in Neurosciences, 24(2), 122–126. Ward, L. M. (2011). The thalamic dynamic core theory of conscious experience. Consciousness and Cognition, 20(2), 464–486.

---

### Schiff’s Anterior Forebrain Mesocircuit of Conscious Recovery
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/schiff-s-anterior-forebrain-mesocircuit-of-conscious-recovery
Theorists: Nicholas D. Schiff

Neurologist/neuroscientist Nicholas Schiff proposes that the loss and recovery of consciousness after severe brain injury is governed by a specific forebrain circuit linking the central thalamus, striatum, globus pallidus interna, and frontal cortex. Widespread deafferentation withdraws the excitatory drive that striatal medium spiny neurons require to fire; without their inhibitory output, the globus pallidus interna tonically inhibits the central thalamus, and the resulting collapse of thalamocortical drive downregulates the anterior forebrain as a whole. Because the circuit is potentially reversible, the model predicts and explains recovery, including the paradoxical restoration of responsiveness by the sedative zolpidem and the behavioral gains produced by central thalamic deep brain stimulation. The hypothesis is explicitly a model of the level of consciousness rather than of phenomenal character (Schiff, 2010). In other words, Schiff’s mesocircuit hypothesis explains severe impairment and recovery of consciousness after widespread brain injury through the dynamics of an anterior forebrain loop linking central thalamus, frontal cortex, striatum, and globus pallidus interna. Multifocal injury reduces excitatory drive throughout this circuit, producing a self-reinforcing downregulated state; recovery occurs when surviving networks regain sufficient activity to restore thalamocortical and corticostriatal function. While, as noted, the theory primarily addresses conscious level and capacity rather than the qualitative contents of experience, but by supplying a mechanistic account of conditions under which phenomenal consciousness can again become sustained, differentiated, and behaviorally expressible, it may provide clues to solve the mystery of phenomenal consciousness (Schiff, 2010). The Anterior Forebrain Loop The model begins with a common consequence of severe traumatic, anoxic, or multifocal brain injury: diffuse deafferentation and loss of excitatory synaptic activity across long-range networks. Medium spiny neurons in the striatum require substantial convergent cortical and thalamic input to maintain firing. When that input falls, striatal inhibition of the globus pallidus interna decreases. Pallidal neurons then exert stronger tonic inhibition on central thalamic neurons, which in turn provide less excitatory support to frontal cortex and striatum. This loop creates a circuit-level bottleneck. Reduced cortical and thalamic activity further weakens striatal output, allowing pallidal inhibition of the thalamus to persist. The result is not necessarily complete electrical silence but an energetically and dynamically depressed regime in which large-scale networks cannot reliably support arousal, attention, working memory, intentional behavior, and communication. Collapse and Recovery of Conscious Level The mesocircuit hypothesis treats disorders of consciousness as graded circuit states rather than as simple destruction of a single consciousness center. Patients may move from coma through unresponsive wakefulness syndrome and minimally conscious states as surviving components regain function. Small changes in synaptic efficacy, neuromodulation, metabolism, or external stimulation can sometimes push the loop across a threshold, restoring central thalamic output and enabling frontal systems to sustain organized activity (Schiff, 2010, 2023). This framework explains why similar behavioral diagnoses can conceal different residual capacities and why recovery may be nonlinear. It also accommodates covert consciousness: a patient may retain some conscious contents or command-following capacity but lack the motor, linguistic, attentional, or arousal resources required for overt response. Mesocircuit function is therefore linked not only to wakefulness but to the neural infrastructure needed for consciousness to become stable and accessible. The model also explains an observation that had resisted explanation: patients in vegetative and minimally conscious states show marked hypometabolism concentrated in frontal cortex, thalamus, and striatum, out of proportion to focal structural damage, a pattern supported by regional metabolic studies across mesocircuit components (Fridman et al., 2014). The account is one of dynamic circuit failure rather than tissue destruction, which makes recovery intelligible rather than anomalous. Zolpidem and Central Thalamic Stimulation Two interventions provide the model's most-cited support. Zolpidem, a sedative used for short-term treatment of insomnia, acts at GABA-A receptors abundantly expressed in the globus pallidus interna, paradoxically restores responsiveness in a small subset of severely injured patients. The mesocircuit explanation is that zolpidem directly inhibits the pallidum, substituting for the missing inhibition normally supplied by medium spiny neurons and releasing the central thalamus (Schiff, 2010). Responders show increased prefrontal metabolism and a shift in EEG spectral content away from pathological low-frequency activity (Williams et al., 2013). The complementary intervention is direct: bilateral deep brain stimulation of the central thalamus produced sustained improvement in a patient minimally conscious for six years (Schiff et al., 2007), and a later phase 1 study targeting the central lateral nucleus reported improved executive control after moderate-to-severe traumatic brain injury (Schiff, 2016; Schiff et al., 2023). The ABCD Model and Bedside Stratification The framework has been extended into a scheme for reading circuit integrity from scalp electroencephalography (EEG) (Schiff, Nauvel and Victor, 2014). Schiff's ABCD model is a framework that categorizes brainwave spectral patterns into four dynamic regimes (A, B, C, and D) to track recovery and thalamocortical integrity after severe brain injuries. These four dynamic regimes are defined by the presence or absence of thalamically driven oscillations: after the severest injury, activity concentrates below 1 Hz; recovery proceeds through the emergence of theta- and then alpha- and beta-range oscillations as thalamocortical loops are restored. Because these regimes are theory-derived rather than descriptive, they connect a bedside measurement to a specific mechanistic claim about corticothalamic integrity, and have been used for prognosis and for selecting candidates for neuromodulation. Later work proposes additional nodes, notably the external globus pallidus. Level Versus Content of Consciousness The model's relation to phenomenal consciousness is indirect. Schiff's target is arousal regulation and the forebrain's capacity to sustain the recurrent activity on which conscious states depend—a claim about enabling conditions, not about what makes a state felt. Nothing in the mesocircuit specifies the contents of experience or explains their qualitative character. Its bearing on theories of phenomenal consciousness is therefore constraining rather than explicating: it identifies a subcortical–cortical circuit whose failure abolishes consciousness while leaving much cortical tissue intact, which is a difficulty for accounts locating consciousness wholly in cortical dynamics, and it converges with independent arguments for subcortical involvement. Assessment The mesocircuit hypothesis is unusual among frameworks discussed in consciousness studies in having generated interventional human trials, therapeutic protocols, and diagnostic instruments rather than only reinterpretations of correlational data. Its standing rests on a chain of inference from circuit anatomy through metabolic and electrophysiological measurement to behavioral outcome, each link independently testable and several already revised. Its principal limitation, which Schiff does not obscure, is that it addresses the conditions under which consciousness can occur rather than making a claim about what consciousness is. Thus, it complements rather than competes with the many ontological theories of the Landscape. References Fridman, E. A., Beattie, B. J., Broft, A., Laureys, S., and Schiff, N. D. (2014). Regional cerebral metabolic patterns demonstrate the role of anterior forebrain mesocircuit dysfunction in the severely injured brain. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(17), 6473–6478. Schiff, N. D. (2010). Recovery of consciousness after brain injury: A mesocircuit hypothesis. Trends in Neurosciences, 33(1), 1–9. Schiff, N. D. (2016). Central thalamic deep brain stimulation to support anterior forebrain mesocircuit function in the severely injured brain. Journal of Neural Transmission, 123(7), 797–806. Schiff, N. D., Giacino, J. T., Kalmar, K., Victor, J. D., Baker, K., Gerber, M., Fritz, B., Eisenberg, B., O'Connor, J., Kobylarz, E. J., Farris, S., Machado, A., McCagg, C., Plum, F., Fins, J. J., and Rezai, A. R. (2007). Behavioural improvements with thalamic stimulation after severe traumatic brain injury. Nature, 448(7153), 600–603. Schiff, N. D., Giacino, J. T., Butson, C. R., Choi, E. Y., Baker, J. L., O'Sullivan, K. P., Janson, A. P., Bergin, M., Bronte-Stewart, H. M., Chua, J., DeSalles, A., Lam, S., Fisher, R., Machado, A. G., Nagel, S. J., and Henderson, J. M. (2023). Thalamic deep brain stimulation in traumatic brain injury: A phase 1, randomized feasibility study. Nature Medicine, 29(12), 3162–3174. Schiff, N. D., Nauvel, T., and Victor, J. D. (2014). Large-scale brain dynamics in disorders of consciousness. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 25, 7–14. Williams, S. T., Conte, M. M., Goldfine, A. M., Noirhomme, Q., Gosseries, O., Thonnard, M., Beattie, B., Hersh, J., Katz, D. I., Victor, J. D., Laureys, S., and Schiff, N. D. (2013). Common resting brain dynamics indicate a possible mechanism underlying zolpidem response in severe brain injury. eLife, 2, e01157.

---

### Dendritic Integration Theory
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/dendritic-integration-theory
Theorists: Matthew Larkum, Jaan Aru

Dendritic Integration Theory (DIT) is a neurobiological theory of consciousness that emphasizes the role of dendrites—the branched extensions of neurons—in integrating information and posits that conscious experience arises from nonlinear computations occurring in the apical dendrites of pyramidal neurons, particularly in the neocortex. Linking neurobiology and phenomenology, DIT relates cellular-level mechanisms to conscious experience by leveraging the intricate complexities of dendritic processing in brain circuits. Historical Predecessor: LaBerge and Kasevich’s Apical Dendrite Theory An important historical predecessor of contemporary Dendritic Integration Theory was David LaBerge and Ray Kasevich’s Apical Dendrite Theory of Consciousness, which proposed that conscious experience depends on elevated and sustained activity in the apical dendrites of cortical pyramidal neurons operating within thalamocortical circuits. Their model treated the cortical minicolumn as a basic functional unit comprising two interacting systems: an “axis circuit,” centered on apical dendritic activity and responsible for sustaining sensory impressions, and a surrounding “shell circuit,” responsible primarily for input-output processing, identification, categorization, and conceptual cognition. Conscious impressions were hypothesized to arise when activity in the axis circuit became sufficiently elevated, stable, and temporally extended (LaBerge & Kasevich, 2007). LaBerge and Kasevich further sought to connect this neural mechanism with the subjective character of experience. They proposed that the physical correlate of the conscious aspect of sensory impressions might be the comparatively intense electromagnetic field generated immediately within and around an active apical dendrite. Thus, whereas conventional neuronal signaling accounted principally for information processing and behavioral discrimination, sustained apical-dendritic activity—and its associated electromagnetic properties—was offered as a candidate basis for the phenomenal impression itself. This electromagnetic-field conjecture was more speculative than the theory’s neurophysiological account of sustained dendritic activation. Although this model differs substantially from contemporary Dendritic Integration Theory, it should be recognized as an antecedent of the broader dendritic approach to consciousness. LaBerge and Kasevich emphasized sustained dendritic activity, thalamocortical minicolumn architecture, and local electromagnetic fields; the contemporary theory developed by Matthew Larkum, Jaan Aru, and colleagues instead emphasizes active dendritic computation, apical amplification, coincidence detection, and the nonlinear integration of top-down and bottom-up information. Both approaches nevertheless locate a potentially constitutive mechanism of conscious experience within the active properties of apical dendrites rather than exclusively in large-scale neuronal firing or global brain networks. Apical Dendrites and Conscious Perception Neuroscientist Matthew Larkum focuses on pyramidal neurons in layer 5 of the cerebral cortex, especially on their distal apical dendrites, which are far from the neuron's soma (cell body) but capable of integrating inputs in complex ways. A core claim of DIT is that these apical dendrites perform nonlinear integration of inputs from higher-order areas (top-down) and sensory areas (bottom-up). Coincidence detection of distal (top-down) and proximal (bottom-up) signals can lead to dendritic calcium spikes, which amplify neuronal responses. This suggests that when top-down predictions match bottom-up sensory signals, the neuron enters a heightened state of excitability and potentially contributes to conscious perception. In fact, Larkum proposes that this integration at the dendritic level enables selective gating of information into conscious awareness. He says, “A leading hypothesis is that apical dendrites of pyramidal neurons function as coincidence detectors for matching feedforward and feedback signals. This match may underlie perceptual awareness” (Larkum, 2013). This claim that calcium spikes in apical dendrites serve as the neural correlate for conscious processing is based, in part, on experiments showing that general anesthesia disrupts dendritic-somatic coupling, effectively blocking consciousness without silencing overall brain activity, thus supporting its necessity in conscious states. “The cortex is replete with pyramidal neurons that act as two-level integrators, with dendritic spikes serving to amplify relevant inputs. We hypothesize that this dendritic mechanism is required for conscious perception” (Suzuki & Larkum, 2020). Integration and Microcircuit Explanation Neuroscientist Jaan Aru et al. propose that “consciousness is heavily influenced by, or possibly even synonymous with, the functional integration of two streams of cortical and subcortical information that impinge on different compartments of cortical layer 5 pyramidal (L5p) cells” (Aru et al., 2023). The biophysical properties of pyramidal cells “allow them to act as gates that control the evolution of global activation patterns,” such that “In conscious states, this cellular mechanism enables complex sustained dynamics within the thalamocortical system, whereas during unconscious states, such signal propagation is prohibited,” Aru et al. suggest that the DIT “hallmark of conscious processing is the flexible integration of bottom-up and top-down data streams at the cellular level” (Aru et al., 2023, 2020). According to its proponents, DIT is compatible with global theories like Global Neuronal Workspace and Predictive Processing, but shifts the explanatory focus to the microcircuit level. This would mean that consciousness emerges not merely from a global broadcast or recurrent loops per se, but from specific, biophysical integration events occurring in the local dendritic trees of cortical neuronal microcircuits. Reference LaBerge, D., & Kasevich, R. (2007). The apical dendrite theory of consciousness. Neural Networks, 20(9), 1004–1020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neunet.2007.09.006.

---

### Bieberich’s Fractal Loops and Sentyons of Bright Matter
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/bieberich-s-fractal-loops-and-sentyons-of-bright-matter
Theorists: Erhard Bieberich

Biochemist/physiologist Erhard Bieberich’s Fractality Principle of Consciousness proposes that the unity of phenomenal experience arises when information distributed across large neural networks is recursively mapped into self-similar structures at progressively smaller scales, ultimately reaching the dendritic and molecular organization of individual neurons. This cross-scale “fractalization” is intended to close a psychic loop between the experienced external world and an internally generated phenomenal endospace. Bieberich further postulates “bright matter” composed of hypothetical conscious units called sentyons, whose internal fractality would make each unit simultaneously local and informationally connected to the whole conscious system (Bieberich, 2012). In other words, Bieberich argues that no theory summing neural signals can yield the undivided space of conscious experience, and that escaping this "atomism paradox" requires a mapping operation preserving the whole in each of its parts. He proposes the fractality principle: information is iteratively contracted from the neural network onto the fractal dendritic tree of a single neuron and thence onto a molecular lattice, a process, as noted, he calls fractalization. Because fractals are self-similar at every scale, this downscaling compresses without destroying, unlike the irreversible summation performed by an action potential. The endpoint is a proposed new form of conscious matter—"bright matter"—composed of these sentyon units, fractal lattices of membrane lipid rafts and calcium channels whose closure of a phase-locked "psychic loop" back to the network constitutes a conscious moment. The Atomism Paradox, Endospace Bieberich's target is the incompatibility between the irreducible space in which conscious objects appear—which he calls the endospace or mind space—and the decomposable architecture of brains and computers. Neurons compute cars, houses, and pedestrians, but each action potential is a separate event with no direct or remote effect on any other, so nothing is shared and there is no medium unifying them into one undivided experience. Neuroscience's standard answer, dendritic summation obeying threshold and Hebbian rules, does not help: it explains integration and learning while destroying the information it integrates, reducing many bits irreversibly to one all-or-nothing signal. Bieberich extends the objection to dendritic and electromagnetic field accounts alike, since a local field potential is itself an atomistic event whose summation is indistinguishable in effect from the summation of postsynaptic potentials (Bieberich, 2012). In other words, Bieberich’s theory begins from what he regards as this atomism paradox. Neural science describes spatially separated cells, synapses, and molecular events, whereas consciousness presents a unified field from a single point of view. As noted, simply summing neuronal signals, he argues, cannot explain why distributed activity is experienced as one internally organized reality. Recurrent Fractal Networks and Endospace The proposed mechanism is what Bieberich calls “a recurrent fractal neural network.” Signals travel externally through recurrent connections among neurons and internally through the branching dendritic tree of a participating neuron. Bieberich hypothesizes an inverse relation between path lengths and propagation delays: signals traveling farther through the external network traverse shorter internal dendritic paths when they return, while signals traveling shorter external routes traverse longer internal paths. Properly matched delays allow network-scale activity to be mapped into the neuron’s dendritic organization and synchronized within a closed “psychic loop.” This mapping is meant to generate endospace—the internally experienced spatial field in which sensory information from exospace is bound into objects and scenes. A single neuron is not conscious because it independently computes a complete world; rather, its internal structure is hypothesized to instantiate a downscaled image of the recurrent network to which it belongs. Consciousness is consequently both localized and distributed: localized because global structure is recapitulated in a cell and potentially its molecular constituents, distributed because the recapitulated structure depends on continuing participation in the larger loop (Bieberich, 2012). Fractality: The Whole in Each of Its Parts In other words, fractal organization is introduced as a whole-in-the-part relation: patterns at one scale are transformed into structurally corresponding patterns at another, allowing global information to be represented locally without requiring a central homunculus. Fractal and scale-free properties are found in neural morphology and dynamics, including branching dendrites, nested networks, and long-range temporal correlations. Such findings establish that fractal descriptions can be scientifically useful, but Bieberich assigns them a stronger role. Fractality is not merely a statistical property of neural activity; it is proposed as the organizing principle by which a distributed neural system becomes a unified conscious system (Werner, 2010; Bieberich, 2012). What is needed, Bieberich argues, is an integration rule preserving wholeness while integrating parts—which is what contraction mapping in fractal geometry provides. Bieberich formalizes this with the fractal scaling function relating branch number to size reduction, and with the Hutchinson operator, which repeatedly copies downscaled versions of an image onto itself and underwrites fractal image compression. If each firing neuron is treated as a pixel, the operator maps the network's activity pattern onto the synaptic activation pattern in the dendritic tree of each neuron. The empirical hook is that the fractal dimension of neural networks and of dendritic trees is closely similar in planar projection. Psychic Loops and Recurrent Fractal Neural Networks The mechanism is timing. Because signals propagate down dendrites roughly a hundred times more slowly than axonal transport, the total looping time of a recurrent signal—dendritic delay plus network delay—can be equal for near and distant networks depending on where the return signal is injected. This yields an inverse connectivity: the farther a signal travels outside the client neuron, the shorter its path inside on return. Recurrent back-projections with identical looping times coincide at the trigger zone, amplify themselves, and stabilize, as noted, as psychic loops within Bieberich’s recurrent fractal neural networks (Bieberich, 2002). Candidate substrates include the recurrent circuitry of the olfactory cortex and the hippocampal dentate gyrus–CA3 loop, though he states these remain hypothetical. Memory Retrieval and the Conscious Flash Mob The same architecture addresses memory retrieval. Since stored traces have no addresses, the client neuron behaves as a blindfolded spammer, broadcasting to a router network holding routes rather than contents; when the current input pattern phase-locks with recurrent signals from that network, the trace is retrieved, in a hierarchical refinement Bieberich relates to pattern completion. Crucially, consciousness is not the privilege of a pontifical or grandmother neuron, as in adjacent single-cell accounts (Sevush, 2006; Edwards, 2006): all neurons in the network receive the same psychic loops and become conscious together, a conscious "flash mob" whose membership shifts moment to moment—a formulation Bieberich presents as compatible with Baars's global workspace and with the dynamic core (Tononi and Edelman, 1998) while supplying the mapping operation he thinks they lack. Bright Matter, Sentyons, and the Energy of a Moment The descent continues below the dendrite. Cholesterol-rich lipid rafts and associated calcium channels are proposed to form a hexagonal molecular lattice whose cooperative channel opening generates calcium waves with a self-similar power spectrum and whose collective behavior resembles an Ising network (a mathematical framework from statistical physics used to describe interacting binary variables)—a role for calcium he links to work on neuron–astrocyte information integration (Pereira and Furlan, 2010). Only in this fractal arrangement, Bieberich argues, does matter become conscious; the resulting superstructure is a sentyon, his proposed multidimensional rather than point-like particle of a conscious moment. He estimates roughly 1.5 to 2.1 times ten to the minus twentieth joules (1.5-2.1 x 10-21) per compression step—comparable to the energetic cost of calcium transport. Assessment Bieberich's is among the most explicit attempts to follow the binding problem down to the molecular substrate rather than stopping at a network description, and his argument that summation destroys the very information a theory of unity requires is a real challenge to electromagnetic-field and dendritic accounts alike. Its exposures are substantial: identifying a fractal arrangement of lipids and calcium channels as conscious matter is a speculation rather than a derivation, no independent evidence establishes the proposed inverse connectivity in real tissue, and the energy calculation quantifies information compression without showing why compression should be felt experience. References Bieberich, E. (2002). Recurrent fractal neural networks: A strategy for the exchange of local and global information processing in the brain. BioSystems, 66(3), 145–164. Bieberich, E. (2012). Introduction to the fractality principle of consciousness and the sentyon postulate. Cognitive Computation, 4(1), 13–28. Edwards, J. C. (2006). How Many People Are There in My Head? And in Hers? An Exploration of Single Cell Consciousness. Exeter: Imprint Academic. Pereira, A., Jr., and Furlan, F. A. (2010). Astrocytes and human cognition: Modeling information integration and modulation of neuronal activity. Progress in Neurobiology, 92(3), 405–420. Sevush, S. (2006). Single-neuron theory of consciousness. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 238(3), 704–725. Tononi, G., and Edelman, G. M. (1998). Consciousness and complexity. Science, 282(5395), 1846–1851.

---

### Hirstein’s Mindmelding
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/hirstein-s-mindmelding
Theorists: William Hirstein

William Hirstein argues that it is “the assumption of privacy”—the deep, metaphysical impossibility for one person to ever experience the conscious states of another—that has led philosophers and scientists to claim wrongly that the conscious mind can never be explained in straightforwardly physical terms and thus to “create vexing dualisms, panpsychisms, views that would force changes in our current theories in physics, views that deny the reality of consciousness, or views that claim the problem is insoluble.” Hirstein seeks to undermine “the assumption of privacy” by the thought experiment of “mindmelding”: connecting one person's cerebral cortex control network to another person's cerebral cortex visual attention network. This would entail inter-brain rather than the normal intra-brain coupling. Then the first person might correctly say, “Wow, I am experiencing your conscious visual states. Did you know you are color blind?” The control network functions as a referent for “I”—the subject of the visual states—and the other person's conscious visual states are the referent for “your conscious visual states.” As such, mindmelding would support phenomenal consciousness as entirely physical, realizable in terms of neurobiology, which would be both necessary and sufficient (Hirstein, 2012).

---

### Libet's Mind Time: Readiness Potential, Unconscious Initiation, Delayed Awareness, Antedating Consciousness
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/libets-mind-time-readiness-potential-unconscious-initiation-delayed-awareness-antedating-consciousness
Theorists: Benjamin Libet

Neurophysiologist Benjamin Libet's experimental theory of consciousness holds that phenomenal experience is real but slow-forming: a substantial minimum duration of neuronal activation, up to roughly half a second, is required before any experience arises at all, and its apparent immediacy is manufactured after the fact by an automatic backward referral of subjective timing to an early cortical marker. Applied to volition, the same temporal method yielded his most cited result—that the readiness potential precedes the reported onset of conscious intention—from which he concluded that voluntary acts are initiated unconsciously, leaving conscious will a veto rather than an originating role. The most consequential current challenge is Aaron Schurger's stochastic-accumulator reinterpretation, which denies that the readiness potential marks any real neural event and thereby dissolves the timing comparison on which the volitional argument rests. A further and counterintuitive point runs through the entry: although the readiness potential is widely enlisted as experimental support for a purely physicalist account of consciousness, Libet's own considered position was that phenomenal experience is non-physical, a view developed in Libet's Conscious Mental Field. Neural Time and the Emergence of Conscious Experience Libet approached consciousness experimentally by asking when neural activity becomes phenomenally experienced. Drawing especially on direct electrical stimulation and recording from the somatosensory cortex, medial lemniscus, and ventrobasal thalamus of awake neurosurgical patients, while the patient reported what was felt. The central result, developed across two decades, was that eliciting a conscious somatosensory experience by direct cerebral stimulation required a pulse train lasting up to approximately 500 milliseconds at liminal intensity; shorter trains produced nothing the patient reported feeling (Libet et al., 1964; Libet, 1973, 1993; summative account in Libet, 2004, 2006). Libet named the required state “neuronal adequacy,” and treated it as the physiological condition for phenomenal experience specifically, rather than for discrimination, detection, or response. The explanandum is explicitly the raw feel in Feigl's sense, as distinguished from behavior that may proceed with no accompanying experience. If the finding holds, phenomenal consciousness is not a rapid readout of sensory arrival but a cerebral state that takes time to constitute, and much of ordinary mental life must be transacted below it. Neuronal Adequacy and the Half-Second Delay He argued that appropriate neural activity must persist for a minimum duration before achieving what he called “neuronal adequacy” for conscious sensation. Under weak near-threshold cortical stimulation, this could require activity extending for as much as approximately 500 ms (Libet, 1993, 2004, 2006). Neural events could therefore occur, and potentially influence subsequent processing, without yet being accompanied by reportable phenomenal awareness. Libet generalized this temporal dissociation cautiously but provocatively. If comparable requirements hold across modalities, conscious mental events do not originate simultaneously with the cerebral processes responsible for them; they emerge only after an unconscious neural phase. In his mature formulation, “unconscious cerebral processes precede a subjective sensory experience,” perhaps implying that mental events generally begin unconsciously (Libet, 2006). Antedating and the Subjective Referral of Time This raised an immediate phenomenological problem. The delay generates an immediate difficulty: a touch on the skin does not feel delayed. A tactile stimulus does not ordinarily seem to enter awareness half a second after it occurs. Libet and colleagues therefore proposed “subjective referral” or antedating: once the neural activity required for consciousness has become adequate, the resulting experience may be subjectively assigned to the time of an earlier cortical event—the initial evoked response produced by the incoming sensory signal (Libet et al., 1979). The phenomenal time of the experience would consequently differ from the cerebral time at which the neural conditions sufficient for awareness are finally achieved. In other words, Libet's resolution was that the brain retroactively corrects the felt timing. He proposed that the primary evoked potential—the sharply localized cortical response arriving within tens of milliseconds of peripheral stimulation—serves as a time-marker, and that once neuronal adequacy is reached the subjective timing of the experience is referred backward to coincide with it (Libet et al., 1979). The test compared peripheral skin stimuli against cortical stimuli, which generate no such primary response and therefore should not be antedated; subjects' ordering judgments matched the prediction. If antedating is real, the felt temporal order of experience is not the order of the neural events producing it, and phenomenal timing becomes a represented content rather than a transparent record. If correct, this would make phenomenal temporality itself partly constructed. The brain could process information unconsciously during an extended interval and nevertheless generate an experience whose apparent onset is referred backward toward the initiating sensory event. Objective neural chronology and subjective chronology would not map one-to-one. The proposal remains contested. Dennett's Multiple Drafts Model rejects the framing rather than the data, arguing that referral of experience to an earlier moment presupposes the very inner theatre in which such a referral could be observed, which he famously argued against. Gomes argued that the duration required for successful cortical stimulation does not establish a corresponding latency for consciousness and therefore does not require retrospective referral (Gomes, 1998). Pockett likewise reinterpreted Libet’s evidence as compatible with substantially shorter conscious latencies and without antedating (Pockett, 2002, 2004). Libet’s specific half-second threshold should therefore not be treated as established neuroscience. His broader contribution is more secure: the timing of neural processing, the timing of reportable phenomenal awareness, and the subjectively experienced timing of an event are distinct variables requiring independent investigation. The Time-On Factor Libet then asked what converts unconscious cerebral processing into phenomenal experience. His answer was duration. Trains of 0 to 750 milliseconds were delivered to the ventrobasal thalamus through electrodes implanted for pain control, and subjects made forced-choice judgments about which of two intervals contained the stimulus while separately rating their awareness of it (Libet et al., 1991). They performed above chance at durations they reported not feeling at all. Libet's "time-on" theory takes the parameter governing the transition from unconscious detection to conscious sensation to be the duration of appropriate neuronal activation, with intensity trading off against it. The proposal is unusual in offering a single continuous quantity as the phenomenality-conferring variable rather than an architectural event such as the ignition described in Baars's and Dehaene's Global Workspace Theory. The Readiness Potential and Conscious Will The best-known experiments applied the same temporal method to volition. Subjects flexed a wrist or finger whenever they wished while watching a rapidly revolving clock spot, reporting the position at which they first became aware of the wish or urge to move, a quantity Libet called W (Libet et al., 1983). Scalp EEG showed the readiness potential first described by Kornhuber and Deecke (1965) beginning roughly 550 milliseconds before muscle activation for unplanned movements, while W fell only about 200 milliseconds before it. Libet concluded that cerebral initiation of a spontaneous voluntary act begins unconsciously, but preserved a role for conscious will in the residual interval, proposing that awareness can veto an already-prepared act—commonly called "free won't"—and restricting the finding to unplanned acts rather than to deliberation over longer timescales (Libet, 1985). Sapolsky's Hard Incompatibilism and Mitchell's Free Agents mark the two poles of the dispute this experiment provoked. Schurger's Reinterpretation of the Readiness Potential Schurger's challenge is directed at the ontology of the signal rather than at Libet's timing measurements. Because Libet-style paradigms average EEG epochs selected only because they culminate in movement, the resulting waveform may be an artifact of biased sampling. Schurger, Sitt, and Dehaene (2012) modeled spontaneous movement initiation as a leaky stochastic accumulator: with no external reason to move now rather than later, the moment of onset is fixed partly by ongoing, temporally autocorrelated fluctuations in neural activity, so time-locking to movement is equivalent to time-locking to crests in that noise. Averaging then produces a slow ramp resembling the readiness potential without any preparatory process having occurred. On this account, the "onset" of the readiness potential is physiologically meaningless: it marks no causally efficacious event, and comparing it with W is comparing a real time to a statistical artifact. Schurger, Hu, Pak, and Roskies (2021) develop the point as a late-decision account against Libet's early-decision one, and note that it renders the reported W of roughly 150 to 200 milliseconds not a lag but a reasonably accurate report of the threshold crossing. Supporting evidence includes rodent secondary motor cortex ramping fitted by the same model (Murakami et al., 2014) and an estimated point of no return near 200 milliseconds before movement (Schultze-Kraft et al., 2016). The authors do not claim the matter settled—whether a discrete readiness potential exists on single trials remains open (Travers et al., 2020)—but argue that even were the stochastic models wrong, the classical inference from the readiness potential to the inefficacy of conscious will would not follow. One limit deserves emphasis: the critique leaves Libet's sensory findings untouched, since neuronal adequacy, antedating, and time-on stand or fall on separate evidence. Conscious Veto: “Free Won’t” Libet also resisted the claim that his experiment eliminated conscious causal control. Although conscious intention appeared after the onset of the readiness potential, it appeared approximately 200 ms before movement. He proposed that consciousness might therefore retain an opportunity to allow the developing action to proceed or to veto it before execution (Libet, 1985, 1999). Free will, if it exists, would thus operate less as conscious initiation than as conscious control—sometimes described as “free won’t.” Libet argued explicitly that his findings constrain models of free will but do not experimentally disprove it. Indeed, as noted, he rejected the view that conscious intentions should simply be regarded as causally impotent epiphenomena and considered a genuinely nondetermined conscious veto scientifically permissible (Libet, 1999). There are important objections. The experiments did not independently establish that the veto itself originates consciously rather than from prior unconscious neural activity. The method for retrospectively reporting W is also subject to uncertainties involving attention, temporal estimation, and introspective access. More fundamentally, the simple purposeless movement used in Libet tasks differs radically from ordinary decisions involving reasons, alternatives, consequences, deliberation, or competing values. The Materialist Appropriation—and Libet’s Rejection of It The readiness potential has had an afterlife its author did not intend. The intuitive philosophical interpretation is powerful. If measurable brain activity begins preparing an action before the conscious subject experiences deciding to perform it, then conscious intention can appear to be a late-arriving representation of something the physical brain has already set in motion. On a stronger interpretation, the brain does the causal work while consciousness merely becomes aware afterward of what neural processes have already determined. Libet’s findings have accordingly been invoked repeatedly against libertarian free will and in debates over whether conscious intention has genuine causal efficacy. They readily fit an epiphenomenalist or robust physicalist picture: unconscious physical processes produce both the action and the subsequent conscious experience of willing it, while phenomenal consciousness itself contributes nothing causally indispensable. Contemporary philosophical discussions explicitly identify Libet’s work as a major empirical source of the epiphenomenalist challenge to conscious agency (Moore, 2020; Robinson, 2023). In other words, because Libet’s readiness potential appears to show that the brain commits to an act before the agent knows of it, the result is routinely enlisted not only against libertarian free will but for a physicalist conclusion about the nature of experience: that phenomenal consciousness is a causally idle accompaniment of physical processes, generated by the brain and explanatorily dispensable. Wegner (2002) built the most influential version, in which the feeling of willing is produced by a system distinct from the one producing action and interprets behavior rather than causing it; Harris (2012) presses the material to similar effect. Positions of that family are represented on the Landscape by Halligan and Oakley's Species-Enhancing Epiphenomenalism and, in a more radical register, by Frankish's Illusionism. Libet's data have become a standard exhibit for physicalism about consciousness. But the striking, counterintuitive—and frequently obscured—fact is that this was not Libet’s own theory of consciousness. Libet himself drew the opposite ontological conclusion from his own findings. He defended free will and moral responsibility, insisted the veto was a real conscious power, and objected that those citing him against free will omitted it (Libet, 2004). More directly on point here, he held that subjective experience is a nonphysical phenomenon and that mind and brain are independent variables in causal interaction. What irony! The experimentalist whose signature result underwrites much contemporary physicalism about consciousness was himself an interactionist non-physicalist about phenomenal experience. The gap between the data and their appropriation is worth stating precisely, since noticing it does not require siding with either side. When a decision is initiated is a question about temporal order within a causal chain; what makes any state phenomenally conscious is a question about the nature of that state. Nothing in the timing result bears directly on the second. Even granting that unconscious cerebral activity precedes awareness of intention, what follows is that conscious intention does not initiate the act, not that experience is physical. Schurger's critique compounds the difficulty from the other direction: if the readiness potential marks no real neural event, the evidential base for the epiphenomenalist reading contracts, or even dissolves, before the ontological inference is even reached. Libet’s experimental results can certainly be appropriated by materialists; empirical findings do not belong metaphysically to the scientist who discovers them. Yet the fact remains: Libet himself did not infer from neural priority that phenomenal experience is reducible to neural activity. Quite the contrary: he eventually described subjective consciousness as nonphysical and developed his Conscious Mental Field theory precisely to explain how unified phenomenal experience could be generated by brain activity yet remain phenomenologically irreducible and potentially capable of acting back upon the brain (Libet, 1994, 2006). (See Libet's Conscious Mental Field.) Such irony is therefore fundamental to understanding Libet. The experiment that became emblematic of “the brain decides before consciousness” was conducted by a neuroscientist who rejected the more mainstream conclusion that consciousness is therefore nothing but brain activity. For Libet, neural causation could precede consciousness without exhausting the ontology of consciousness. Assessment Libet's standing rests on having made phenomenal consciousness experimentally tractable in awake human subjects at a time when few thought it could be. The sensory findings introduced a temporal dimension that later work continues to develop, and the volitional experiment set the terms of a debate now four decades old. The vulnerabilities are equally clear. The stimulation studies rest on small clinical samples that cannot readily be replicated, and antedating remains contested at the level of interpretation rather than of data. The volitional result faces a serious alternative in which its central measurement refers to nothing, and its exposure is asymmetric: if Schurger’s stochastic account is right, the argument against conscious initiation fails, whereas if it is wrong, the argument survives to face its other critics. What is not in dispute is that Libet established duration and delay as measurable variables of phenomenal consciousness, and that this remains true whatever becomes of the readiness potential. It is also not in dispute, though it is frequently overlooked, that he personally took those variables to characterize something he regarded as non-physical. That counterintuitive conjunction is essential to his place in Landscape. Libet supplies one of the most bracing historical cases in which neurobiological evidence commonly interpreted as supporting physicalist consciousness was produced by a theorist who explicitly rejected physicalism about phenomenal consciousness. Libet’s experiments establish a temporal problem for consciousness and agency; they do not settle the ontology of consciousness. References Harris, S. (2012). Free will. Free Press. Kornhuber, H. H., & Deecke, L. (1965). Hirnpotentialänderungen bei Willkürbewegungen und passiven Bewegungen des Menschen: Bereitschaftspotential und reafferente Potentiale. Pflügers Archiv, 284, 1–17. Libet, B. (1973). Electrical stimulation of cortex in human subjects, and conscious sensory aspects. In A. Iggo (Ed.), Handbook of sensory physiology, Vol. 2 (pp. 743–790). Springer. Libet, B. (1985). Unconscious cerebral initiative and the role of conscious will in voluntary action. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 8(4), 529–539. Libet, B. (1993). The neural time factor in conscious and unconscious events. In Experimental and Theoretical Studies of Consciousness, Ciba Foundation Symposium 174, 123–146. Libet, B. (1994). A testable field theory of mind-brain interaction. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 1(1), 119–126. Libet, B. (1999). Do we have free will? Journal of Consciousness Studies, 6(8–9), 47–57. Libet, B. (2004). Mind Time: The Temporal Factor in Consciousness. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Libet, B. (2006). Reflections on the interaction of the mind and brain. Progress in Neurobiology, 78(3–5), 322–326. Libet, B., Alberts, W. W., Wright, E. W., Delattre, L. D., Levin, G., & Feinstein, B. (1964). Production of threshold levels of conscious sensation by electrical stimulation of human somatosensory cortex. Journal of Neurophysiology, 27(4), 546–578. Libet, B., Gleason, C. A., Wright, E. W., & Pearl, D. K. (1983). Time of conscious intention to act in relation to onset of cerebral activity (readiness-potential): The unconscious initiation of a freely voluntary act. Brain, 106(3), 623–642. Libet, B., Pearl, D. K., Morledge, D. E., Gleason, C. A., Hosobuchi, Y., & Barbaro, N. M. (1991). Control of the transition from sensory detection to sensory awareness in man by the duration of a thalamic stimulus: The cerebral "time-on" factor. Brain, 114(4), 1731–1757. Libet, B., Wright, E. W., Feinstein, B., & Pearl, D. K. (1979). Subjective referral of the timing for a conscious sensory experience: A functional role for the somatosensory specific projection system in man. Brain, 102(1), 193–224. Murakami, M., Vicente, M. I., Costa, G. M., & Mainen, Z. F. (2014). Neural antecedents of self-initiated actions in secondary motor cortex. Nature Neuroscience, 17(11), 1574–1582. Schultze-Kraft, M., Birman, D., Rusconi, M., Allefeld, C., Görgen, K., Dähne, S., Blankertz, B., & Haynes, J.-D. (2016). The point of no return in vetoing self-initiated movements. PNAS, 113(4), 1080–1085. Schurger, A., Hu, P. B., Pak, J., & Roskies, A. L. (2021). What is the readiness potential? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 25(7), 558–570. Schurger, A., Sitt, J. D., & Dehaene, S. (2012). An accumulator model for spontaneous neural activity prior to self-initiated movement. PNAS, 109(42), E2904–E2913. Travers, E., Friedemann, M., & Haggard, P. (2020). Do readiness potentials happen all the time? NeuroImage, 206, 116286. Wegner, D. M. (2002). The illusion of conscious will. MIT Press.

---

### Sapolsky’s Hard Incompatibilism
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/sapolsky-s-hard-incompatibilism
Theorists: Robert Sapolsky

Neuroendocrinologist and biological anthropologist Robert Sapolsky counts himself as a “hard incompatibilist,” affirming the truth of determinism (i.e., all events and actions are the product of prior events and actions) and denying the existence of free will. There is no possibility, he says, “of reconciling our being biological organisms built on the physical rules of the universe with there being free will, a soul, a ‘Me’ inside there which is somehow free of biology. You have to choose one or the other and, philosophically, I am completely in the direction of us being nothing more or less than our biology (and its interactions with the environment)” (Sapolsky, 2023b). Reluctant on Consciousness Sapolsky's target is free will, not consciousness, but to deal with free will, he must deal with consciousness—after all, free will, if it exists, would be a product of consciousness, not the reverse. But Sapolsky is a reluctant consciousness warrior. Introducing a section of his book labeled “What Is Consciousness?”, he enjoys some self-deprecation. “Giving this section this ridiculous heading,” he says, seemingly smiling, “reflects how unenthused I am about having to write this next stretch. I don't understand what consciousness is, can't define it. I can't understand philosophers' writing about it. Or neuroscientists', for that matter, unless it's ‘consciousness’ in the boring neurological sense, like not experiencing consciousness because you're in a coma” (Sapolsky, 2023a). An Irrelevant Afterthought? Referencing the Libet experiments (see “Epiphenomenalism (Materialism)”), which purport to dissociate conscious awareness from brain decision-making, Sapolsky argues that “three different techniques, monitoring the activity of hundreds of millions of neurons down to single neurons, all show that at the moment when we believe that we are consciously and freely choosing to do something, the neurobiological die has already been cast. That sense of conscious intent is an irrelevant afterthought.” In another context with another metaphor, he calls consciousness “an irrelevant hiccup” (Sapolsky, 2023a). Yet Sapolsky is not prepared to dismiss consciousness as “just an epiphenomenon, an illusory, reconstructive sense of control irrelevant to our actual behavior.” This strikes me, he says, “as an overly dogmatic way of representing just one of many styles of neuroscientific thought on the subject” (Sapolsky, 2023a). Beyond Understanding Pushed to state what he believes consciousness is, Sapolsky demurs. “Consciousness is beyond me to understand—every few years I read a review from the people trying to understand it on a neurobiological level, and I cannot understand a word of what they are saying. For me, consciousness arises as a ‘complex emergent property’—which explains everything and nothing” (Sapolsky, 2023b).

---

### Mitchell’s Free Agents
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/mitchell-s-free-agents
Theorists: Kevin J. Mitchell

While neuroscientist Kevin Mitchell argues, contra many scientists and philosophers, that free will, or agency, is not an illusion—that “we are not mere machines responding to physical forces but agents acting with purpose”—he still asserts that “you cannot escape the fact that our consciousness and our behavior emerge from the purely physical workings of the brain” (Mitchell, 2023, p. 3). Mitchell mounts an evolutionary case for how living beings capable of choice arose from lifeless matter, stressing “the emergence of nervous systems provided a means to learn about the world,” thus enabling sentient animals to model, predict, and simulate. These faculties reach their peak in humans with our capacities “to imagine and to be introspective, to reason in the moment, and to shape our possible futures through the exercise of our individual agency” (Mitchell, 2023). Normally, there is high correlation between those who deny “real” (libertarian) free will with the commitment that consciousness is entirely physical, and conversely, those who affirm “real” (libertarian) free will, are more likely to opt for nonphysical theories. Mitchell is significant in that he defends “real” free will, but unambiguously has consciousness as entirely physical. He describes creaturely acts of what he considers “free will” before consciousness even evolved. “Thoughts are not immaterial,” he says; “they are physically instantiated in patterns of neural activity in various parts of the brain … There's no need to posit a ‘ghost in the machine’—you're not haunting your own brain. The ‘ghost’ is the machine at work” (Mitchell, 2023, pp. 267–68).

---

## Electromagnetic Field
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theories/electromagnetic-field

### Electromagnetic Field—Overview
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/electromagnetic-field-overview
Theorists: Several, Tamlyn Hunt

Electromagnetic (EM) field theories of consciousness treat minds as identical to, or derivative from, the broader, brain-spanning EM fields generated by the cumulative aggregate of multiple, specific neural currents. The brain is packed with an intricate three-dimensional web of these EM fields—the question is what functions do these EM fields serve (if any), and whether these fields in any way relate to consciousness? EM field theories propose that the brain's electrical activity generates electromagnetic fields that play a crucial functional role in binding disparate neural processes into unified conscious experience. These theories suggest that consciousness emerges not merely from neural firing patterns but from the coherent electromagnetic fields these patterns generate, providing a physical substrate for the unity of consciousness. The contemporary landscape of EM field theories was comprehensively surveyed (Hunt, 2023, 2025). Neuroscientist Earl K. Miller proposes that cognition and consciousness emerge from the fast and flexible dynamic organization of the cortex produced by traveling brain waves performing analog computations. He says it’s no coincidence that the brain, where the coordinated electrical activity of many millions of neurons produces large-scale oscillations across a broad range of frequencies all the time, evolved to exploit the information-rich, fast-propagating, and reliable efficiency that its waves provide. He muses, “consciousness is the tip of the iceberg of cognition,” noting that brain waves and their analog computations do a lot of cognitive work without your explicit intervention, but they also enable volitional control. “Consciousness may be a natural outcome of analog computation,” Miller offers. “Consciousness is good for flexibility and planning and the kind of big picture stuff that needs a unified representation. When the analog computations create wave patterns that are large enough to unify cortex, you get consciousness” (Picower Institute News, 2025a). (See “Miller's Brain Waves’ Analog Organization of Cortex.”) Supporting Evidence Diverse studies are said to support an EM field theory. For example, “transient periods of synchronization of oscillating neuronal discharges in the frequency range 30–80 Hz (gamma oscillations) have been proposed to act as an integrative mechanism that may bring a widely distributed set of neurons together into a coherent ensemble that underlies a cognitive act.” Transitions between the moment of perception and the motor response are marked by periods of strong desynchronization, which suggests “a process of active uncoupling of the underlying neural ensembles that is necessary to proceed from one cognitive state to another” (Rodriguez, 1999). The stability of working memory is said to emerge at the level of the electric fields that arise from neural activity, more than from the specific neural activity itself, as “the exact neurons maintaining a given memory (the neural ensemble) change from trial to trial.” In the face of this “representational drift,” electric fields carry information about working memory content, enable information transfer between brain areas, and “can act as ‘guard rails’ that funnel higher-dimensional variable neural activity along stable lower-dimensional routes” (Pinotsis & Miller, 2022). Electric fields, applied externally, have been shown to modulate pharmacologically evoked neural network activity in rodent hippocampus and to enhance and entrain physiological neocortical neural network activity (i.e., neocortical slow oscillation) in vitro as a model system. Both show the neural efficacy of weak sinusoidal and naturalistic electric fields (Fröhlich & McCormick, 2010). Adding credence to electromagnetic field theories are recent discoveries of large-scale, cerebral cortex-wide interacting spiral wave patterns of brain waves that are said to underlie complex brain dynamics and are related to cognitive processing. That the human brain exhibits rich and complex electromagnetic patterns, with brain spirals propagating across the cortex and giving rise to spatiotemporal activity dynamics with non-stationary features and having functional correlates to cognitive processing, would be consistent with their role in consciousness (Xu et al., 2023). Key Challenges Addressed EM field theories address several key challenges in consciousness studies (Hunt, 2023, 2025). The Binding Problem: How does the brain integrate distributed neural processing into unified perceptual experiences? EM fields provide a physical mechanism for instantaneous integration across spatially separated brain regions through field effects that transcend individual neurons. The Unity of Consciousness: Rather than experiencing a cacophony of separate sensory inputs, we perceive a seamless, integrated conscious field. EM theories propose that electromagnetic fields naturally create this unity through their inherent physical properties of superposition and interference. Neural Synchrony: Extensive evidence shows that conscious states correlate with synchronized oscillations across brain regions. EM field theories explain this synchrony as both a generator and product of coherent electromagnetic fields that coordinate neural activity. Causal Efficacy: Unlike epiphenomenal views of consciousness, EM theories propose that electromagnetic fields exert downward causation on neural firing patterns, creating a bidirectional relationship between field dynamics and neural computation. Major Variants Major variants of EM field theories include: CEMI (Conscious Electromagnetic Information) Theory (McFadden): Proposes that the brain's EM field is consciousness itself Electromagnetic Field Theory of Consciousness (Pockett): Focuses on spatial patterns in the EM field General Resonance Theory (Hunt & Schooler): Combines EM fields with panpsychist foundations through resonance mechanisms Synchronous Oscillation Theory (various authors): Emphasizes phase-locked oscillations across frequency bands Critics of EM field theories raise important challenges regarding the specificity of field-consciousness mappings and the difficulty of establishing causation rather than mere correlation. However, the accumulated evidence demonstrates that electromagnetic fields are at minimum necessary correlates of consciousness, with increasing support for their causal role, and perhaps their primacy in the dynamics of cognition and consciousness. Future Directions Future directions for EM field theories include developing more precise mathematical models linking field dynamics to phenomenological features of experience, testing predictions through targeted electromagnetic interventions, and exploring potential technological applications for detecting and modulating conscious states (Hunt, 2023, 2025).

---

### Jones’s Electromagnetic Fields
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/jones-s-electromagnetic-fields
Theorists: Mostyn Jones

Philosopher Mostyn Jones gathers, explains, and classifies various electromagnetic-field theories, each with its own theoretical foundation: computationalist, reductionist, dualist, realist, interactionist, epiphenomenalist, globalist, and localist. He uses three questions to classify the field theories: How do minds exist relative to fields? Are minds unified by global or local fields? How extensively do fields and neurons interact? (Jones, 2013). Binding Problem an Field Integration The claim is made that electromagnetic fields in the brain can solve the “binding problem,” where distinct sensory modules combine to give a unified sense of phenomenal experience—say, melding the redness and roundness of a balloon into a single percept. For example, there doesn't seem to be a single synthesizing brain area into which all visual circuits feed, nor any well-known cortical circuits that bind (unite) color and shape to form unified images. However, perceptual binding does seem to involve the synchronized firing of circuits in unified lockstep (with a temporal binding code) for specific sensory modalities (e.g., shape), but neurons in color and shape circuits don't synchronize. Jones states that “while binding involves synchrony, binding seems to be more than synchrony,” thus giving field theories the opening to unify visual experience via a single field, not by a single brain area or by synchrony (yet synchrony does amplify field activity) (Jones, 2013). Jones claims that evidence is mounting that unified neural electromagnetic fields interact with neuronal cells and circuits to explain correlations and divergences between synchrony, attention, convergence, and unified minds, and that the simplest explanation for the unity of minds and fields is that minds are fields (Jones, 2017). Moreover, some electromagnetic-field theorists even put qualia itself on the explanatory agenda (Jones, 2013). Toward Neuroelectrical Panpsychism Jones poses “neuroelectrical panpsychism” (NP) as “a clear, simple, testable mind–body solution” based on the conjunction of its two component theories: (i) “everything is at least minimally conscious,” and (ii) “electrical activity across separate neurons creates a unified, intelligent mind.” According to Jones, NP is bolstered by neuroelectrical activities that generate different qualia, unite them to form perceptions and emotions, and help guide brain operations. He claims, ambitiously, that “NP also addresses the hard problem of why minds accompany these neural correlates.” He offers the radical identity that “the real nature of matter-energy (beyond how it appears to sense organs) is consciousness that occupies space, exerts forces, and unites neuroelectrically to form minds.” He also has NP solving panpsychism's combination problem “by explaining how the mind's subject and experiences arise by electrically combining simple experiences in brains” (Jones, 2024).

---

### Becker’s Analog Body Electric
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/becker-s-analog-body-electric
Theorists: Robert O. Becker

Orthopedic surgeon and bioelectricity researcher Robert O. Becker’s “body electric” account proposes that phenomenal consciousness arises from continuous, brain-spanning electromagnetic direct-current fields generated by the perineural network, rather than exclusively from discrete neuronal synaptic firing. In Becker’s view, the nervous system operates through two interacting electrical modes: the familiar fast, spike-based neuronal system and a slower, continuous direct-current (DC) system that provides organism-wide analog control, and that subjective qualitative experience is bound together by these unified electrical gradients. Consequently, the distinct "what it is like" of phenomenal consciousness is physically constituted by the holistic electromagnetic architecture of the organism, challenging purely biochemical and synaptic reductionism. In other words, reconstructed as a theory of phenomenal consciousness, Becker’s central claim is not that consciousness simply is an electromagnetic field, but that the level and perhaps the contents of subjective experience depend causally—and possibly constitutively—on spatially organized DC electrical activity associated with the nervous system’s non-neuronal supporting structures. His broader studies of regeneration and healing supplied the model: bioelectric organization, for Becker, was an ancient integrative control system that evolution later recruited for nervous-system regulation and mind (Becker, 1960; Becker et al., 1962; Becker and Selden, 1985). The Bioelectric Substrate of the Mind Becker fundamentally challenged the mid-twentieth-century consensus that biological processes and conscious states were driven entirely by biochemical interactions and digital synaptic transmissions. In his foundational research, culminating in his broader physiological hypotheses, he demonstrated that living organisms maintain measurable direct-current (DC) electrical potentials that organize biological form and mediate healing (Becker & Selden, 1985). Extending this physiological framework to the philosophy of mind, he hypothesized that if electrical currents govern the peripheral nervous system's reparative mechanisms, they must analogously regulate the central nervous system's generation of awareness. He posited that phenomenal consciousness—the subjective, qualitative feel of experience—is not a byproduct of chemical diffusion but an intrinsic property of the organism's overarching electromagnetic field. This field provides a continuous physical medium capable of supporting the seamless nature of subjective awareness, differentiating raw biological wakefulness from the rich, integrated tapestry of phenomenal experience. Two Electrical Systems Becker argued that conventional neurophysiology’s action-potential code could transmit discrete sensory and motor signals but did not, by itself, explain global integration, waking state, perception, memory, thought, or the unity of mind. Borrowing the language of early cybernetics, he envisioned the brain as a hybrid system: neuronal impulses function as relatively “digital” messages, while slow DC potentials form an “analog” background capable of continuously adjusting the excitability and coordination of large neuronal populations (Becker and Selden, 1985). He further hypothesized that this slow current was carried not primarily inside axons by ordinary action potentials but along a perineural pathway involving Schwann cells and related glial or supporting cells. His experiments on salamanders reported longitudinal DC gradients associated with the central and peripheral nervous systems and evidence he interpreted as charge-carrier flow, leading him to propose a semiconducting, organism-wide control network (Becker, 1960, 1961; Becker et al., 1962). From Wakefulness to Phenomenal Consciousness Becker’s most direct consciousness evidence concerned changes in conscious level. In salamanders, surface DC potentials changed systematically with anesthesia: normal negative potentials diminished, approached zero, and could reverse as anesthesia deepened. Becker also reported that applying weak DC across the head in the direction predicted to oppose the endogenous current produced behavioral unresponsiveness and delta-dominant EEG activity, while oppositely directed current partially counteracted chemical anesthesia. Strong magnetic fields oriented to perturb the putative current likewise produced anesthesia-like behavioral and EEG changes (Becker and Selden, 1985). In humans, Becker described comparable occipito-frontal DC changes associated with altered states of consciousness, while a study of hypnotic analgesia found local DC-potential changes associated with suggested reduction of pain (Friedman et al., 1962). Becker therefore inferred that the DC system helps regulate neuronal sensitivity and transitions among waking, sleep, anesthesia, and altered pain experience. For phenomenal consciousness, however, the step is inferential. Becker proposed that spatial variations in this perineural current participate not only in global arousal but in decisions, feelings, inner speech, and other mental events (Becker and Selden, 1985). In contemporary terms, his theory includes both the level of phenomenal consciousness and the specific content of consciousness: changing global DC organization could determine whether experience occurs, while more differentiated electrical patterns might contribute to what is experienced. He never supplied a systematic mapping from particular electrical configurations to particular qualia, nor did he explain why such physical processes should possess subjective character. Regeneration as the Broader Model The consciousness proposal is embedded in Becker’s larger bioelectric theory of biological organization. From limb regeneration, fracture healing, and “currents of injury,” he argued that electrical gradients carry pattern-level information and help coordinate growth across tissues (Becker, 1961; Becker and Selden, 1985). Modern developmental bioelectricity independently confirms that membrane voltages, ion flows, gap-junction networks, and endogenous electric fields can regulate morphogenesis and regeneration (Levin, 2009; McLaughlin and Levin, 2018; Mathews and Levin, 2018; Nunes and Barriga, 2025). This supports Becker’s broad insistence that bioelectric signaling has integrative biological functions, but it does not establish his specific perineural semiconductor mechanism or its proposed role in consciousness. Explanatory Status and Legacy Modern evidence also shows that slow cortical potentials contribute to large-scale brain organization and influence conscious perception (He and Raichle, 2009; Koenig and He, 2025). That convergence makes Becker’s emphasis on slow, continuous electrical dynamics historically notable. Yet his consciousness experiments largely used anesthesia, EEG state, behavioral responsiveness, and pain reports as proxies; they do not isolate phenomenal consciousness from arousal, neural excitability, attention, or reportability. While Becker is primarily recognized for his contributions to electromedicine and tissue regeneration, his conceptual leap regarding the electromagnetic basis of mind laid vital groundwork for modern neurobiological field models. Contemporary iterations of electromagnetic field theories—which argue that conscious experiences are identical to specific spatiotemporal brain field patterns—echo his original hypothesis that the mind relies on field-based analog computation (Pockett, 2017). By situating phenomenal consciousness within the continuous, physically measurable properties of the organism's bioelectric field, Becker provided a scientifically grounded yet non-reductionist paradigm. His vision endures as a compelling argument that to understand the subjective unity of the mind, science must look beyond the neuron to the fundamental electric field that surrounds and penetrates it. Becker’s theory is therefore best understood as an early bioelectric physicalist precursor to contemporary electromagnetic-field approaches, but not as a mature field-identity theory. Unlike theories identifying conscious experience with specific brain EM patterns, Becker assigns the slow DC system a regulatory and potentially constitutive role without specifying necessary and sufficient physical conditions for experience. Its distinctive contribution is the proposal, as noted, that continuous, body-linked bioelectric organization—not neuronal spikes alone—helps create the integrated physical conditions under which subjective experience exists and changes. Note: Becker's Body Electric suggested by Martin Williams. References Becker, R. O. (1960). The bioelectric field pattern in the salamander and its simulation by an electronic analog. IRE Transactions on Medical Electronics, ME-7, 202–207. Becker, R. O. (1961). Search for evidence of axial current flow in peripheral nerves of salamander. Science, 134, 101–102. Becker, R. O., Bachman, C. H., & Friedman, H. (1962). The direct current control system: A link between environment and organism. New York State Journal of Medicine, 62, 1169–1176. Becker, R. O., Bachman, C. H., & Slaughter, W. H. (1962). Longitudinal direct-current gradients of spinal nerves. Nature, 196, 675–676. Becker, R. O., & Selden, G. (1985). The Body Electric: Electromagnetism and the Foundation of Life. New York: William Morrow. Friedman, H., Becker, R. O., & Bachman, C. H. (1962). Direct current potentials in hypnoanalgesia. Archives of General Psychiatry, 7, 193–197. He, B. J., & Raichle, M. E. (2009). The fMRI signal, slow cortical potential and consciousness. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 13, 302–309. Koenig, L., & He, B. J. (2025). Spontaneous slow cortical potentials and brain oscillations independently influence conscious visual perception. PLoS Biology, 23, e3002964. Levin, M. (2009). Bioelectric mechanisms in regeneration: Unique aspects and future perspectives. Seminars in Cell & Developmental Biology, 20, 543–556. Mathews, J., & Levin, M. (2018). The body electric 2.0: Recent advances in developmental bioelectricity for regenerative and synthetic bioengineering. Current Opinion in Biotechnology, 52, 134–144. McLaughlin, K. A., & Levin, M. (2018). Bioelectric signaling in regeneration: Mechanisms of ionic controls of growth and form. Developmental Biology, 433, 177–189. Nunes, C. O., & Barriga, E. H. (2025). Bioelectricity in morphogenesis. Annual Review of Cell and Developmental Biology, 41, 187–208.

---

### Hunt and Schooler’s General Resonance Theory
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/hunt-and-schooler-s-general-resonance-theory
Theorists: Tamlyn Hunt, Jonathan Schooler

Philosopher/writer Tam Hunt and theoretical/experimental psychologist Jonathan Schooler propose the General Resonance Theory (GRT), which holds that consciousness arises from synchronized resonance across multiple scales of nature, with electromagnetic fields serving as the primary seat of consciousness rather than merely correlating with it. GRT bridges electromagnetic field theories with panpsychist foundations, offering a solution to panpsychism's combination problem of consciousness. While accepting that neurons and synaptic transmission are necessary for consciousness, GRT argues they are insufficient for the complex consciousness that humans and other mammals enjoy—the electromagnetic fields themselves constitute conscious experience, complexifying through resonance to create the rich phenomenology of human awareness. (Tam & Schooler, 2019) The theory posits that synchronization, harmonization, vibrations, or resonance, in their most general sense, have an integral relationship with consciousness itself. A key problem GRT addresses is, “How do micro-conscious entities combine into a higher-level macro-consciousness?” This is known as the “combination problem.” In the context of mammalian consciousness, GRT suggests that shared resonance of various types, but primarily in nested hierarchies of electromagnetic fields, allows different parts of the brain and body to achieve a phase transition in the speed and bandwidth of information flows between constituent parts. This resonance-enabled phase transition enables richer varieties of consciousness to arise, with the character and content of consciousness in each moment determined by the particular set of constituent fields engaged in resonant communication. Thus, consciousness just is a nested set of interacting electromagnetic fields, with resonance (matched oscillatory frequencies) providing the mechanism for micro-conscious entities to combine into macro-conscious wholes. (Tam & Schooler, 2019). The Panpsychism Axiom GRT operates on an explicit panpsychism axiom, proposing that consciousness manifests as a continuum of increasing richness in all physical stuff. All physical entities possess rudimentary conscious experience, but consciousness remains extremely simple in most cases due to limited physical complexity in much of the universe, mirrored by limited mental complexity. It is generally only with the evolution of complex biological forms that we see complex consciousness. GRT's panpsychism axiom distinguishes it from emergentist materialism by suggesting that even simple physical systems possess rudimentary forms of experience that can combine through resonance into more complex conscious states. It is particularly in biological life forms that this complexification manifests as higher forms of consciousness, but the same processes achieved in biological life could, in theory, be harnessed in artificial systems (Hunt, 2025). GRT Elements Phase Transitions. Shared resonance enables phase transitions in the speed and bandwidth of information exchange, allowing previously disordered systems to self-organize and achieve conscious unity. Resonance allows for a step function increase in speed and bandwidth. The Boundary Conjecture. The spatial and temporal boundaries of any conscious entity are established by the slowest-frequency shared resonance, calculated by the formula x = v/f (extension = velocity/frequency). Nested Without Extinction. Conscious entities form nested hierarchies where subsidiary consciousnesses persist rather than being eliminated—"the many become one and are increased by one,” as Whitehead was fond of stating. This is different than, for example, Integrated Information Theory, which assumes “extinction” of all subsidiary consciousness. The Resonome. Specific patterns of electromagnetic field shapes at different organizational levels constitute the "resonome" of consciousness—the atlas of patterns comprising particular qualia in any milieu. Quantitative Benefits. Electromagnetic field computation offers roughly 10,000× parallelism, 40,000× reduced latency, 1,000× energy efficiency, and 5,000× sensitivity compared to synaptic/digital computing alone. The Combination Problem GRT emerged from Hunt's early work on the combination problem in panpsychism (Hunt, 2011). The central challenge: if consciousness is fundamental, how do micro-conscious entities combine into unified macro-conscious experiences? Traditional panpsychist theories struggled with either the "grain problem" (too many conscious entities) or the "binding problem" (no mechanism for combination). The electromagnetic aspects of GRT focus on how neural oscillations and field effects create the binding mechanisms for conscious experience (Hunt, 2023). Hunt's solution centers on resonance (matched frequencies in proximity) as the binding mechanism. Unlike mere aggregation, resonance creates genuine phase transitions where the whole transcends its parts while preserving their individual contributions. This approach draws from process philosophy, particularly Whitehead's notion that reality consists of "actual occasions of experience" that prehend and integrate with one another. The Three Core Conjectures GRT rests on three conjectures, which Hunt and Schooler claim are empirically testable (Hunt and Schooler, 2019): Conjecture 1: The Shared Resonance Conjecture Shared resonance is what leads to the combination of micro-conscious entities into macro-conscious entities. The authors argue that this isn't mere correlation—resonance actively enables information integration across scales, creating channels for previously isolated conscious entities to merge specific features, while maintaining their distinct contributions and identities. Conjecture 2: The Boundary Conjecture The boundaries of a macro-conscious entity depend on the velocity and frequency of the resonance chains connecting its constituents. Hunt (2020) formalized this as x = v/f, where x represents the spatial extent of consciousness, v is the propagation velocity of the relevant waves, and f is their frequency. This provides the basis for a quantitative framework for determining consciousness boundaries. Conjecture 3: The Nested Consciousness Conjecture Any biological macro-conscious entity will have subsidiary/nested micro- and macro-conscious entities, without extinction of the subsidiaries. Unlike Integrated Information Theory's exclusion principle, GRT maintains that nested entities retain their individual consciousness while contributing to higher-level awareness. GRT and Electromagnetic Field Theories GRT identifies electromagnetic fields as consciousness's primary substrate for several reasons. First, electromagnetism represents the dominant force at the scale of life. Second, electromagnetic fields provide the only known physical mechanism capable of integrating information across the spatial and temporal scales required for unified consciousness. Field Dynamics vs. Neural Spikes. GRT distinguishes between the discrete, digital nature of neural spikes and the continuous, analog nature of electromagnetic fields. While synaptic transmission travels at 0.1-120 m/s, electromagnetic waves in grey matter propagate at up to 47 km/s—a 40,000-fold advantage. This speed differential enables essentially instantaneous global brain states that would be impossible through synaptic transmission alone. Hunt and Jones (2023) argue that oscillating electromagnetic fields and synaptic firing jointly comprise the dynamics of cognition and consciousness, but fields provide the spatially and temporally fine-grained dynamics necessary for binding. The field shapes themselves, representable through EEG frequency and amplitude patterns, constitute specific qualia at particular organizational levels (Hunt and Jones, 2023). Ephaptic Coupling and Causal Efficacy. Critical to GRT is evidence that electromagnetic fields exert causal influence on neural activity through ephaptic (non-synaptic) coupling. Anastassiou et al. demonstrated that endogenous brain activity can causally affect neural function through field effects under physiological conditions. This challenges epiphenomenal views that treat electromagnetic fields as mere byproducts (Anastassiou et al., 2011). Hunt and Schooler cite recent evidence that strengthens this position. Chiang et al. (2019) showed slow periodic activity in hippocampal tissue can self-propagate non-synaptically through mechanisms consistent with ephaptic coupling (Chiang et al., 2019). Lee et al., and Cunha et al., also find significant evidence for the causal impact of ephaptic fields (Lee et al., 2024; Cunha et al., 2024). Fields aren't just correlates—they actively shape neural dynamics and, according to GRT, literally constitute conscious experience itself. Empirical Support for EMF and GRT Hunt claims recent key findings for Electromagnetic Field Theories in general and General Resonance Theory in particular (Hunt, 2023). . Key findings supporting GRT include: Fast EM field changes occur at all spatiotemporal scales of the brain Long-range synchrony can be mediated rapidly by EM fields Both consciousness and EM field synchrony appear/disappear quickly with sleep, seizures, and anesthesia Gamma-band synchronization (30-80 Hz) consistently correlates with conscious perception Cross-frequency coupling between slower and faster oscillations tracks consciousness levels GRT Implications Evolutionary Perspectives. What Hunt and Schooler call “GRT 2.0” embeds consciousness in evolutionary history through a four-stage evolutionary framework that traces resonant field computation from primordial bioelectric networks to advanced cognition. The Ephaptics with Myelination and Neuromodulation Principle explains how mixed myelination and neuromodulation evolved to balance rapid transmission with field-based integration in cognition and consciousness (Hunt and Schooler, forthcoming). Quantitative Measures. Hunt et al. developed what they call a "consciousness-ometer" framework for quantifying the presence and complexity of consciousness, based on various “measurable correlates of consciousness.” This includes measurable correlates across neural, behavioral, and creative dimensions. GRT predicts specific relationships between resonance bandwidth and consciousness richness that Hunt says can be empirically tested (Hunt et al. (2022). Clinical Applications. Understanding resonance-based consciousness could transform treatment for disorders of consciousness. By identifying disrupted resonance patterns in conditions like coma, vegetative states, or anesthesia, clinicians could develop targeted interventions to restore conscious awareness. GRT's quantitative framework provides objective measures for assessing consciousness levels. Artificial Consciousness. Hunt says that GRT extends beyond biological systems, suggesting that artificial systems achieving appropriate resonant electromagnetic field dynamics would exhibit consciousness. Unlike computational theories requiring specific algorithms, GRT suggests consciousness could emerge naturally from electromagnetic field dynamics in sufficiently complex artificial systems. This would have profound implications for AI development and ethics. Inter-Organ Consciousness. In further speculation, ongoing research at UCSB’s the METALAB examines inter-organ electric field synchrony, exploring whether consciousness extends beyond brain-centered fields to encompass body-wide dynamics. This could explain phenomena like "gut feelings" and the documented effects of heart-brain coherence on cognitive performance. Critiques and Responses Empirical Distinguishability. How can we empirically distinguish conscious from non-conscious electromagnetic field dynamics? Hunt offers mathematical frameworks for calculating consciousness boundaries based on resonance frequencies and propagation velocities. He says the theory makes specific, testable predictions about field coherence patterns that should correlate with reported conscious states (Hunt, 2020). Panpsychist Commitments. Most scientists would resist GRT's panpsychist foundations. Hunt and Schooler argue that this resistance stems from misconceptions about panpsychism. GRT doesn't claim electrons have human-like experiences—merely that experience in its most rudimentary form is a fundamental feature of reality, no more mysterious than mass or charge. (However, even if most scientists would have their misconceptions about panpsychism cleared up, as it were, it wouldn’t much change their minds rejecting panpsychism.) Future Directions. According to Hunt, current research focuses on mapping the "resonome"—cataloging specific field patterns associated with particular conscious states. Advanced neuroimaging techniques combining high temporal and spatial resolution could reveal the nested hierarchies of resonating fields GRT predicts. Technological Applications. Understanding field-based consciousness could enable brain-computer interfaces that directly interface with conscious experience rather than merely reading neural activity. Therapeutic devices could restore healthy resonance patterns disrupted by neurological conditions. Conclusion and Implications According to Hunt and Schooler, General Resonance Theory identifies consciousness with resonating electromagnetic fields, thereby providing mechanistic explanations for binding, combination, and the unity of experience, while making specific empirical predictions. The authors claim that the theory's strength lies in its ability to bridge explanatory gaps that have long divided consciousness studies. It offers panpsychists a scientific mechanism for combination, provides neuroscientists a physical substrate for binding, and gives physicists a role for fundamental experience in nature. As Hunt notes, consciousness may be evolution's solution to information integration challenges spanning four billion years from bioelectric codes to human cognition. Understanding these resonance mechanisms could be key to both explaining consciousness and developing technologies that interface with, enhance, or even create new forms of conscious experience. Moreover, GRT suggests consciousness pervades nature at all scales, though usually in extremely simple forms. This view could transform our ethical relationship with the natural world, recognizing degrees of experience throughout the biosphere and potentially beyond. References Primary GRT Publications Hunt, T. (2011). Kicking the psychophysical laws into gear: A new approach to the combination problem. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 18(11-12), 96-134. Hunt, T. (2014). Eco, Ego, Eros: Essays in Philosophy, Spirituality and Science. Santa Barbara: Aramis Press. Hunt, T. (2018). The hippies were right: It's all about vibrations, man! Scientific American (Blog), December 5, 2018. Hunt, T. (2020). Calculating the boundaries of consciousness in General Resonance Theory. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 27(11-12), 55-80. Hunt, T. (2021). The easy part of the hard problem: A boundary principle for consciousness. Philosophy Compass, 16(5), e12734. Hunt, T. & Schooler, J.W. (2019). The easy part of the hard problem: A resonance theory of consciousness. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 13, 378. Hunt, T., Ericson, M., & Schooler, J.W. (2022). Where's my consciousness-ometer? How to test for the presence and complexity of consciousness. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 17(6), 1708-1723. Hunt, T. & Jones, M. (2023). Fields or firings? Comparing the spike code and the electromagnetic field hypothesis. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, 1029715. Hunt, T. (Ed.) (2023). Special Issue: Electromagnetic Field Theories of Consciousness: Opportunities and Obstacles. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience. Jones, M. & Hunt, T. (2023). Electromagnetic-field theories of qualia: Can they improve upon standard neuroscience? Frontiers in Psychology, 14, 1015967. Schooler, J.W., Hunt, T., & Schooler, J.N. (2011). Reconsidering the metaphysics of science from the inside out. In H. Walach, S. Schmidt, & W. Jonas (Eds.), Neuroscience, Consciousness and Spirituality (pp. 157-194). Springer. Young A, Hunt T and Ericson M (2022) The Slowest Shared Resonance: A Review of Electromagnetic Field Oscillations Between Central and Peripheral Nervous Systems. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 15:796455. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2021.796455 Supporting Literature Anastassiou, C.A., Perin, R., Markram, H., & Koch, C. (2011). Ephaptic coupling of cortical neurons. Nature Neuroscience, 14(2), 217-223. Chiang, C.C., Shivacharan, R.S., Wei, X., Gonzalez-Reyes, L.E., & Durand, D.M. (2019). Slow periodic activity in the longitudinal hippocampal slice can self-propagate non-synaptically by a mechanism consistent with ephaptic coupling. Journal of Physiology, 597(1), 249-269. Fields, R.D. (2020). Electric Brain: How the New Science of Brainwaves Reads Minds, Tells Us How We Learn, and Helps Us Change for the Better. BenBella Books. McFadden, J. (2002). The conscious electromagnetic information (CEMI) field theory. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 9(8), 45-60. McIver, B. (2023). Consciousness and inward electromagnetic field interactions. Neuroscience of Consciousness, 2023(1), niad003. Pockett, S. (2000). The Nature of Consciousness: A Hypothesis. Writers Club Press. Whitehead, A.N. (1929). Process and Reality. Macmillan. This entry was prepared in collaboration with Tam Hunt, September 2025.

---

### Miller’s Brain Waves’ Analog Organization of Cortex
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/millers-brain-waves-analog-organization-of-cortex
Theorists: Earl K. Miller

Neuroscientist Earl K. Miller proposes that cognition and consciousness emerge from the fast and flexible dynamic organization of the cortex produced by traveling brain waves performing analog computations. Here’s how Miller gets to consciousness. He starts by recognizing that it’s no coincidence that the brain, where the coordinated electrical activity of many millions of neurons produces large-scale oscillations across a broad range of frequencies all the time, evolved to exploit the information-rich, fast-propagating, and reliable efficiency that its waves provide. (This can make sense in that analog computing is the classic way information in the real world is continuous, not discrete packets of digital binary bits, such that just two waves colliding with each other can smoothly represent any value from the negative to the positive sum of their amplitudes simply based on their phase, Picower Institute, 2025a; Miller, 2026). Cognition, then, “relies on the flexible organization of neural activity,” where “many aspects of this organization can be described as emergent properties, not reducible to their constituent parts.” In particular, “electrical fields in the brain can serve as a medium for propagating activity nearly instantaneously,” and “population-level patterns of neural activity can organize computations through subspace coding” (Miller et al., 2024). “What is needed for top-down executive control of the brain?” Miller asks and answers: “I propose it requires large-scale, dynamic neural-self organization. How can the activity of millions and millions of neurons be organized on the fly? Brain waves are organization. Networks of recurrent connections will naturally begin to oscillate and that’s an internal organization.” Miller maintains that numerous experiments in his lab and those of others “over decades provide evidence that brain waves sculpt the flow of information in the cortex and thereby enable volitional, goal-directed control of thought.” Whereas leading scientific theories of consciousness require communication and integration among at least several cortical regions (such as Global Neuronal Workspace Theory and Integrated Information Theory), Miller argues that his evidence augments such ideas in that brain waves not only unify the cortex but also organize it with analog computation to control and accomplish information processing (Picower Institute, 2025a; Miller, 2026). Prefrontal Cortex and Neural Oscillations Miller has been constructing his “Brain Waves’ Analog Organization of Cortex” theory of consciousness for over 25 years. His well-known 2001 paper, co-authored with Jonathan Cohen, “An Integrative Theory of Prefrontal Cortex Function,” positioned the prefrontal cortex as implementing executive control of the brain by actively maintaining goal-directed activity patterns that bias the functions of other regions around the brain. As they put it, “The prefrontal cortex has long been suspected to play an important role in cognitive control, in the ability to orchestrate thought and action in accordance with internal goals. Its neural basis, however, has remained a mystery. Here, we propose that cognitive control stems from the active maintenance of patterns of activity in the prefrontal cortex that represent goals and the means to achieve them. They provide bias signals to other brain structures whose net effect is to guide the flow of activity along neural pathways that establish the proper mappings between inputs, internal states, and outputs needed to perform a given task” (Miller & Cohen, 2001). Moreover, many neurons in the prefrontal cortex are not dedicated to specific tasks but are multifunctional, participating in multiple networks at the same time (Picower Institute, 2025a). A critical part of the long process was showing how these neural networks implement widespread, goal-directed functions via exquisite patterns of specific neural oscillations that communicate and integrate information across the cortex. In 2007, Buschman and Miller showed that attention “can be focused volitionally by ‘top-down’ signals derived from task demands and automatically by ‘bottom-up’ signals from salient stimuli.” Recording from frontal and parietal cortices simultaneously demonstrated that “prefrontal neurons reflected the target location first during top-down attention, whereas parietal neurons signaled it earlier during bottom-up attention. Synchrony between frontal and parietal areas was stronger in lower frequencies during top-down attention and in higher frequencies during bottom-up attention.” This data suggested that “top-down and bottom-up signals arise from the frontal and sensory cortex, respectively, and different modes of attention may emphasize synchrony at different frequencies” (Buschman & Miller, 2007). “Top-down” goal-directed signals (which might be called “the brain’s internal sense of the rules”) are encoded in relatively slow alpha and beta frequency waves (15-35 Hz), while incoming sensory information is encoded in higher frequency gamma waves (35-60 Hz). “In cognitive functions such as working memory and making predictions, the beta waves constrain the power of the gamma waves, essentially imposing the brain’s goals on information processing.” This mechanism enables volitional control of thought: “When you want to retrieve information committed to working memory (like today’s specials at a restaurant), your cortex can relax beta power to let gamma fetch that for you” (Picower Institute, 2025a). Brain waves physically travel within the cortex, either linearly or in rotations, and Miller has linked properties of those travels with specific functions, including working memory, because they may provide computational advantages such as constantly maintaining information and providing a clock for computation (Picower Institute, 2025a). “Working memory (WM) allows us to remember and selectively control a limited set of items. Neural evidence suggests it is achieved by interactions between bursts of beta and gamma oscillations (Lundqvist et al., 2023). Spatial Computing In 2023, Lundqvist, Miller, and colleagues proposed “the novel concept of spatial computing, where beta and gamma interactions cause item-specific activity to flow spatially across the network during a task. This way, control-related information, such as item order, is stored in the spatial activity independent of the detailed recurrent connectivity supporting the item-specific activity itself. The spatial flow is, in turn, reflected in low-dimensional activity shared by many neurons.” The authors hypothesize that “spatial computing can facilitate generalization and zero-shot learning by utilizing spatial component as an additional information encoding dimension” (Lundqvist et al., 2023). According to Miller and colleagues, by combining these mechanisms of cortical geographic interplay of different wave frequencies that represent different kinds of information, “spatial computing” becomes the new theory of cognition in the cortex. It proposes that brain waves modify or modulate neural networks by influencing or impacting cortical neurons (Picower Institute, 2025a). Spatial Computing theory explains how neurons in the prefrontal cortex can be organized dynamically into different functional groups capable of carrying out the information processing required by different cognitive tasks. “The basic idea of the theory is that the brain recruits and organizes ad hoc 'task forces' of neurons by using 'alpha' and 'beta' frequency brain waves (about 10-30 Hz) to apply control signals to physical patches of the prefrontal cortex. Rather than having to rewire themselves into new physical circuits every time a new task must be done, the neurons in the patch instead process information by following the patterns of excitation and inhibition imposed by the waves. Think of the alpha and beta frequency waves as stencils that shape when and where in the prefrontal cortex groups of neurons can take in or express information from the senses, Miller said. In that way, the waves represent the rules of the task and can organize how the neurons electrically “spike” to process the information content needed for the task. ‘Cognition is all about large-scale neural self-organization,’ said Miller” (Picower Institute, 2025b). Spatial computing is said to enable “flexible cognition” by its “ability to represent and apply relevant information to the current task at hand. This allows the brain to interpret sensory input and guide behavior in a context-dependent manner… suggesting that task-related signals organize information processing through spatial patterns of oscillatory activity across the cortical surface. These patterns are proposed to act as ‘inhibitory stencils’ that constrain where sensory-related information (the ‘content’ of cognition) can be expressed in spiking activity.” Indeed, alpha/beta oscillations, which were organized into spatial patterns that changed with task conditions, were found to encode task-related information and were inversely correlated with the spatial expression of sensory-related spiking activity. Furthermore, “alpha/beta oscillations reflected misattributions of task conditions and correlated with subjects’ trial-by-trial decisions.” According to Miller and colleagues, “These findings validate core predictions of spatial computing, suggesting that oscillatory dynamics not only gate information in time but also shape where in the cortex cognitive content is represented. This framework offers a unifying principle for understanding how the brain flexibly coordinates cognition through structured population dynamics” (Zhen Chen et al., 2025). Additional confirmation is said to come from the ability of cortical activity to recover from distractions: “After distraction, there were state–space rotational dynamics that returned spiking to population patterns similar to those pre-disruption. In fact, rotations were fuller when the task was performed correctly versus when errors were made.” A correspondence between state–space rotations and traveling waves across the surface of the prefrontal cortex “suggests a role for emergent dynamics like state–space rotations and traveling waves in recovery from distractions” (Batabyal et al., 2025). Other advantages of waves, Miller notes, include their speed. Neurons are known to rewire their network connections, or synapses, all the time, but that process is much too slow to enable cognitive tasks, he said. Waves and underlying electric fields can propagate across long distances of cortex much faster. Furthermore, Miller claims evidence that “electric fields representing whole ensembles of neurons also represent information more reliably than individual neurons do. Electric fields can directly unify neurons into information-representing ensembles via ‘ephatic coupling,’ he said, and there is even evidence that electric fields can modify physical properties of cells via ‘cytoelectric coupling’” (Picower Institute, 2025a). Brain Waves and Consciousness Coming to consciousness, Miller muses, “consciousness is the tip of the iceberg of cognition,” noting that brain waves and their analog computations do a lot of cognitive work without your explicit intervention, but they also enable volitional control. “Consciousness may be a natural outcome of analog computation,” Miller says. “Consciousness is good for flexibility and planning and the kind of big picture stuff that needs a unified representation. When the analog computations create wave patterns that are large enough to unify cortex, you get consciousness” (Picower Institute, 2025a). In studies with colleagues, Miller has connected consciousness to brain wave dynamics by examining how general anesthesia affects both. Anesthesia, to be sure, provides a clean dividing line between consciousness and unconsciousness, and anesthesia disrupts the power of waves in different frequencies, knocking them out of the normal beta-gamma balance needed to organize cognition. Anesthesia disrupts the propagation or travels of waves linking sensory and higher-order regions of the cortex, which provides the unification and organization required for consciousness. Moreover, distinct anesthetic drugs push brain waves out of phase with one another, disrupting their ability to engage in analog computations (Picower Institute, 2025a). In one particular study, Miller and colleagues showed that different anesthetic drugs (ketamine and dexmedetomidine) induce a shared pattern of changes in brain wave phase alignment associated with loss of consciousness, despite distinct molecular mechanisms. Homologous regions across the two hemispheres become more phase-aligned during unconsciousness. This is the opposite of the typical awake pattern, where hemispheres show relatively desynchronized activity during cognition. This reversal may indicate a shift to a passive, globally synchronized state that lacks the local differentiation necessary for consciousness. This suggests that phase relationships among brain oscillations may be a universal neural marker of unconsciousness and, by extension, a foundational element of conscious brain function (Bardon et al., 2025). In other words, in Miller’s “Brain Waves’ Analog Organization of Cortex” theory, consciousness likely depends on precisely timed coordination of brain regions, maintained through specific phase alignments of brain oscillations. Disrupting this temporal coordination, as anesthetics do, may lead to unconsciousness regardless of the chemical pathway, pointing to electromagnetic synchrony (phase alignment)—electromagnetic fields—as a functional substrate of consciousness (Miller, 2026).

---

### Singer and Melloni’s Large-Scale Synchrony
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/singer-and-melloni-s-large-scale-synchrony
Theorists: Wolf Singer, Lucia Melloni

Neuroscientists Wolf Singer and Lucia Melloni propose a biologically grounded account of consciousness centered on large-scale neuronal synchrony. Conceiving consciousness as an emergent process from a dynamical system, and positioning their approach within a tradition shaped by Francisco Varela, Christoph von der Malsburg, Andreas Engel, and others, this theory reframes consciousness not as a function of isolated brain areas or fixed representational codes, but as an emergent, temporally structured phenomenon arising from transient synchronization across distributed neural assemblies in different brain areas (Melloni & Singer, 2010, 2011). Core Features and Binding Problem Singer and Melloni state that their approach builds explicitly from first principles, seeking to identify a neural mechanism that can account for five core features of conscious perception: Unity of experience—how consciousness binds information processed in spatially distributed areas into a single coherent percept; Temporal continuity—how this unified experience flows smoothly across time; The compositionality of experience—how the multitude of different conscious experiences and their content can be instantiated in the brain; Selective access—why only a subset of all brain activity enters conscious awareness; Differentiation from unconscious processing—what distinguishes conscious from unconscious brain states. Singer and Melloni posit that a central strength of this framework lies in its direct response to the binding problem: the challenge of explaining how separate features of a percept—such as its color, motion, and orientation—computed in different brain regions are experienced as a unified percept. The solution proposed is binding by synchrony. According to this hypothesis, the co-activation of feature-specific neurons is not sufficient for conscious perception. Instead, what matters is whether these distributed neurons oscillate in synchrony, forming temporally coherent assemblies. These assemblies, in turn, can bind together multiple features without requiring dedicated neurons conjunctively tuned for each possible combination. This strategy allows the brain to represent a vast and ever-changing repertoire of perceptual contents using a limited number of neurons—a highly efficient, scalable architecture well suited to biological systems with realistic capacity constraints. Mechanism and Experimental Evidence Crucially, conscious perception, under this framework, emerges only when long-range synchronization occurs across functionally specialized, distant brain regions—typically in the gamma frequency band—and is often paced by slower theta rhythms, which structure the temporal flow of perceptual moments. This dynamic nesting creates what the authors describe as meta-assemblies: transient assemblies of neurons whose synchrony enables both coherence and flexibility. It is thus not just the presence of neural activity that matters, but its timing and coordination. Singer and Melloni cite experimental support for this framework coming from EEG and intracranial recordings during paradigms such as visual masking, binocular rivalry, and attentional blink, which demonstrate that conscious perception is associated with brief, precisely timed bursts of long-distance synchronization, while unconscious processing—even if semantically rich—does not exhibit this long-range synchrony but instead remains localized within brain areas. Furthermore, studies show that gamma synchronization corresponds to the updating of content, while theta oscillations support its maintenance, potentially explaining the stream-like nature of consciousness. Philosophical Implications The authors state that, unlike Global Workspace Theory, which emphasizes broadcasting of information across fronto-parietal regions, or local recurrent theories that focus on feedback loops in early sensory areas, this framework posits that consciousness arises from the temporal alignment of neural processes themselves across distant brain areas—not from the activity within specific brain areas. The theory is thus not content-based or location-based, but interaction-based. Philosophically, Singer and Melloni say that this framework rejects the idea of a central “observer” or fixed “seat” of consciousness. Instead, consciousness is seen as an emergent property of metastable brain dynamics—not something “on top” of perception, but the very mode of coordination that makes perception unified, structured, and reportable. As the authors argue, it is in the dynamical configuration—not the anatomical substrate—that consciousness arises. This offers not just a promising mechanistic account but a new framing of the “hard problem”: what if the sense of presence is not added atop the brain’s activity but is precisely what it feels like for large-scale neural systems to synchronize? (Melloni & Singer, 2010, 2011).

---

### Pockett’s Conscious and Non-Conscious Patterns
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/pockett-s-conscious-and-non-conscious-patterns
Theorists: Susan Pockett

Psychologist Susan Pockett's electromagnetic field theory of consciousness proposes that “while conscious experiences are identical with certain electromagnetic patterns generated by the brain” have always been acknowledged, it is critical to “specify what might distinguish conscious patterns from non-conscious patterns … the 3D shape of electromagnetic fields that are conscious, as opposed to those that are not conscious.” She calls this “a testable hypothesis about the characteristics of conscious as opposed to non-conscious fields” (Pockett, 2012). Moreover, Pockett argues that the central dogma of cognitive psychology that “consciousness is a process, not a thing” is “simply wrong.” All neural processing is unconscious, she asserts. “The illusion that some of it is conscious results largely from a failure to separate consciousness per se from a number of unconscious processes that normally accompany it—most particularly focal attention. Conscious sensory experiences are not processes at all. They are things: specifically, spatial electromagnetic (EM) patterns, which are presently generated only by ongoing unconscious processing at certain times and places in the mammalian brain, but which in principle could be generated by hardware rather than wetware” (Pockett, 2017).

---

### McFadden’s Conscious Electromagnetic Information Theory
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/mcfadden-s-conscious-electromagnetic-information-theory
Theorists: Johnjoe McFadden

Molecular geneticist Johnjoe McFadden proposes conscious electromagnetic information (CEMI) field theory as an explanation of consciousness. His central claim is that “conventional theories of consciousness (ToCs) that assume the substrate of consciousness is the brain's neuronal matter fail to account for fundamental features of consciousness, such as the binding problem,” and he posits that the substrate of consciousness is best accounted for by the brain's well-known electromagnetic (EM) field (McFadden, 2023). Introduction and Context Electromagnetic field theories of consciousness (EMF-ToCs) were first proposed in the early 2000s primarily to account for the experimental discovery that synchronous neuronal firing was a strong neural correlate of consciousness (NCC) (McFadden, 2002). While McFadden has EMF-ToCs gaining increasing support, he recognizes that “they remain controversial and are often ignored by neurobiologists and philosophers and passed over in most published reviews of consciousness.” In his own review, McFadden examines EMF-ToCs against established criteria for distinguishing between competing ToCs and argues that “they [EMF-ToCs] outperform all conventional ToCs and provide novel insights into the nature of consciousness as well as a feasible route toward building artificial consciousnesses” (McFadden, 2023). Working Memory and Global Workspace McFadden references the neurophysiology of working memory in support of CEMI theory. He states that “although the exact neurons (the neural ensemble) maintaining a given memory in working memory varies from trial to trial, what is known as representational drift, stability of working memory emerges at the level of the brain's electric fields as detected by EEG.” This means, he argues that “since working memory is considered to be, essentially, conscious memory,” consciousness “resides in the brain's electromagnetic fields rather than in its neurons, acting as the brain's global workspace.” He asserts that “the higher level of correlation between the contents of working memory and the brain's EM fields, rather than the state of the brain's matter-based neurons, is a considerable challenge to all neural-ToCs” (McFadden, 2023). Distinctions and Philosophical Position McFadden positions CEMI field theory (or EMF-ToCs) as providing “an objective criterion for distinguishing conscious from non-conscious EM fields. This arises from the requirement that, to be reportably conscious, a system must be able to generate (rather than merely transmit) thoughts as gestalt (integrated) information—our thoughts—that can be communicated to the outside world via a motor system” (McFadden, 2023). In distinguishing CEMI field theory from Integrated Information Theory, McFadden argues that “nearly all examples of so-called ‘integrated information,’ including neuronal information processing and conventional computing, are only temporally integrated in the sense that outputs are correlated with multiple inputs: the information integration is implemented in time, rather than space, and thereby cannot correspond to physically integrated information.” He stresses that “only energy fields are capable of integrating information in space,” and he defines CEMI field theory whereby “consciousness is physically integrated, and causally active, [with] information encoded in the brain's global electromagnetic (EM) field.” Moreover, he posits that “consciousness implements algorithms in space, rather than time, within the brain's EM field,” and he describes CEMI field theory as “a scientific dualism that is rooted in the difference between matter and energy, rather than matter and spirit” (McFadden, 2020).

---

### Llinás’s Mindness State of Oscillations
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/llinas-s-mindness-state-of-oscillations
Theorists: Rodolfo Llinás

Neuroscientist Rodolfo Llinás’s theory of the “mindness state” is centered on the concept of oscillations. Many neurons possess electrical activity, manifested as oscillating variations in the minute voltages across the cell membrane. On the crests of these oscillations occur larger electrical events that are the basis for neuron-to-neuron communication. Like cicadas chirping in unison, a group of neurons oscillating in phase can resonate with a distant group of neurons. This simultaneity of neuronal activity, Llinás maintains, is the neurobiological root of cognition. Although the internal state that we call the mind is guided by the senses, it is also generated by the oscillations within the brain. Thus, in a certain sense, Llinás would say that reality is not all “out there” but is a kind of virtual reality (Llinás, 2002, 2007).

---

### Ephaptic Coupling
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/ephaptic-coupling
Theorists: Christopher Chen

An ephaptic coupling theory of consciousness leverages the idea that neurons, being electrogenic, produce electric fields, which, if sufficiently strong and precisely placed, can influence the electrical excitability of neighboring neurons near-instantaneously (Chen, 2020). Assuming that ephaptic coupling occurs broadly in the brain, it could support, or even help constitute, an electromagnetic field theory of consciousness. Experimental Evidence Experiments show that a neural network can generate “sustained self-propagating waves by ephaptic coupling, suggesting a novel propagation mechanism for neural activity under normal physiological conditions.” There is clear evidence that “slow periodic activity in the longitudinal hippocampal slice can propagate without chemical synaptic transmission or gap junctions, but can generate electric fields which in turn activate neighboring cells.” These results “support the hypothesis that endogenous electric fields, previously thought to be too small to trigger neural activity, play a significant role in the self-propagation of slow periodic activity in the hippocampus” (Chiang et al., 2019). Ephaptic coupling of cortical neurons, independent of synapses, has been demonstrated by stimulating and recording from rat cortical pyramidal neurons in slices. Results showed that extracellular fields, despite their small size, “could strongly entrain action potentials, particularly for slow (<8 Hz) fluctuations of the extracellular field,” indicating that “endogenous brain activity can causally affect neural function through field effects under physiological conditions” (Anastassiou et al., 2011). Human Brain Studies Mesoscopic ephaptic activity in the human brain has been explored, including its trajectory during aging, in a sample of 401 realistic human brain models from healthy subjects aged 16–83. “Results reveal that ephaptic coupling … significantly decreases with age, with higher involvement of sensorimotor regions and medial brain structures. This study suggests that by providing the means for fast and direct interaction between neurons, ephaptic modulation may contribute to the complexity of human function for cognition and behavior” (Ruffini et al., 2020).

---

### Fingelkurts and Fingelkurts’s Operational Architectonics
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/fingelkurts-and-fingelkurts-operational-architectonics
Theorists: Alexander & Andrew Fingelkurts

Neuroscientists Andrew and Alexander Fingelkurts present their Operational Architectonics (OA) framework of brain-mind functioning as a unified theoretical model that bridges neurophysiological processes and subjective mental experience. At its foundation lies the concept of the operation—a spatiotemporally bounded, functionally meaningful event that serves as a common denominator for both brain activity and phenomenological experience (Fingelkurts et al., 2010, 2013). OA proposes that operations are nested hierarchically, giving rise to increasingly complex spatiotemporal “structures” that characterize both neural processes and mental phenomena. This nesting establishes a functional isomorphism between the brain’s dynamic field structure and the mind’s phenomenal architecture. Both are viewed as complementary manifestations of the same unified, metastable continuum, emerging from the interplay between two fundamental tendencies: cooperative integration and autonomous fragmentation (Fingelkurts et al., 2019). Foundational and Mesoscopic Levels At the lowest level of the OA brain–mind nested hierarchy lies a network of widely distributed and intermixed cortical neurons embedded in a dense neuropil composed of axon terminals, dendrites, synapses, and glial cell processes. Together with its complex physiological environment, this network constitutes an internal structural analogue of three-dimensional space and time—a sort of distributed coordinate matrix within the brain—which has no phenomenal functions whatsoever (Fingelkurts & Fingelkurts, 2023). At this foundational level, neurons execute only the most basic physical operations. As Fingelkurts et al. (2010, p. 212) point out, “we never experience subjectively the contentless coordinate system as such directly; we could know about it only through the relations among phenomenal objects”—which emerge at higher levels of the OA hierarchy. The next level of the OA brain–mind nested hierarchy is instantiated by the mesoscopic electrical activity, characterized by widespread endogenous local electromagnetic fields generated by transient, functional neuronal assemblies (Fingelkurts et al., 2010, 2013). These fields are best captured using electroencephalogram (EEG) (Fingelkurts & Fingelkurts, 2013), where they appear as quasi-stationary segments—temporally bounded standing waves within a 3D space, framed by rapid transitive periods (RTPs) (Fingelkurts et al., 2010). This spatially and temporally dynamic matrix of local electromagnetic fields, similarly to the nonconscious neurophysiological level ‘below’ it, is in a state of constant flux, comprising operations that carry latent potentialities—dispositions capable of realizing any characteristic variety of self-presenting qualitative features (Fingelkurts et al., 2013). These phenomenal features (qualities)—such as sounds, colors, tactile sensations, emotions, tastes, and smells—are the identity, the 'stuff' that experiences per se are made of, and they can be described in terms of the simplest phenomenal contents. This mesoscopic level constitutes a multidimensional, maximally distributed phenomenal space that, although unconscious, provides the foundational substrate for potential phenomenal states. According to Fingelkurts & Fingelkurts (2023, p. 8), this level is “stubbornly evasive” to conscious access, and if brought to awareness through deep meditation or psychedelics, it reveals a mode of phenomenology unlike any familiar conscious content. Phenomenal Consciousness and Operational Modules Ascending further, the OA hierarchy reaches the level of the phenomenally conscious world, characterized by a finely nested structure in which phenomenal patterns from multiple modalities (e.g., vision, hearing) are integrated across space and time. This integration enables disparate features to coalesce into a single phenomenal object that exists within a unified spatiotemporal context (Fingelkurts et al., 2013). The OA theory proposes that such spatiotemporal coupling of simple operations into a complex one is achieved through temporal synchronization of the local fields (EEG quasi-stationary segments) generated by spatially distributed neuronal assemblies. Through this synchronization, metastable spatiotemporal configurations, known as operational modules (OMs), emerge—each presenting specific phenomenal content like thought, perception, emotion, or intentional act (Fingelkurts et al., 2010, 2013), including the selfhood agency (Fingelkurts et al., 2020, 2023). Like simpler operations ‘below’ them, OMs also change abruptly through RTPs. During such transitions, the functional couplings among the bioelectrical fields comprising the current OM dissolve and new couplings form—thus initiating a new OM associated with a distinct phenomenal object (Fingelkurts et al., 2010, 2013). Phenomenal objects here are defined as complex patterns of phenomenal qualities that are spatially extended and bounded together to form a unified ‘item’ (Gestalt) with a specific meaningful categorization (semantics) immediately present for the subject. Any such phenomenal object can be nested within larger phenomenal structures or decomposed into simpler, independently meaningful components. This intricate dynamic of phenomenal objects is substantiated by the complex interplay of nested, local 3D electromagnetic fields and their more complex, non-local aggregates in the form of OMs (Fingelkurts et al., 2010, 2013). The complexity of phenomenality is linked to the complexity of the electromagnetic fields generated by a set of transient functional neuronal assemblies distributed throughout the brain. The exact set varies contingent on the involved qualitative phenomenal features they present at any given moment (for further discussion, see Fingelkurts et al., 2010, 2013). Stream of Consciousness The entire process gives rise to what William James famously described as the stream of consciousness—a continuous yet segmented flow in which each phenomenal content briefly ‘frizzes’ before abruptly transitioning into the next (James, 1890). Freeman (2007) likened this to a cinematographic sequence, composed of multiple discrete ‘frames’ that coalesce into perceptual rivulets. Metzinger (2003) builds on an older philosophical tradition by using terms like mental representation, phenomenal representation, and mental presentation to describe this window of subjective presence—what Fingelkurts & Fingelkurts (2014) later referred to as a mental kaleidoscope of ‘specious present.’ According to OA, the succession of discrete and relatively stable complex aggregates of electromagnetic fields (in the form of OMs), separated by rapid transitive processes (RTPs), mirrors the succession of complex phenomenal images, memories, or thoughts, thus presenting a cinematographic stream of conscious experiences (Fingelkurts et al., 2010, 2013). Emergence and Ontological Foundations In this way, the OA framework offers a compelling and neurophenomenologically grounded account of how the phenomenological richness of mentality (including consciousness) emerges from the nested hierarchy of the brain’s architectonics of electromagnetic fields. In doing so, OA redefines the brain not as a merely anatomical object but as a dynamic operational continuum, within which consciousness is not an epiphenomenon but an organized mode of being. Practically, the EEG-based OA analysis could help with the evaluation of the presence of phenomenal contents at the boundaries of consciousness, including covert consciousness, as in patients with disorders of consciousness (Fingelkurts & Fingelkurts, 2023), or during meditation (Fingelkurts et al., 2020) and other altered states of consciousness. The Fingelkurtses state that the ontological foundation of their OA framework is ‘ontological monism’—the view that reality is fundamentally of one kind. However, unlike ‘dual-aspect monism,’ which holds that the mental and the physical are two aspects or descriptions of the same phenomenon, OA proposes a form of ‘emergentist monism.’ According to this view, the relationship between mental and neurophysiological phenomena is hierarchical and metastable (Fingelkurts et al., 2009). Within this framework, conscious experience (the mental) arises only when specific patterns of brain activity—organized at a particular operational level—are present. That is, the emergence of consciousness requires the realization of particular conditions at the lower (neurophysiological) level. This aligns with a formal account of emergence offered by Beckermann (1992), which states that a property P is emergent in a system S if: (i) all systems with the same microstructure exhibit P, but (ii) P cannot be deduced, even in principle, from a complete understanding of the system's constituent components (C₁…Cₙ). Fingelkurts et al. (2010) further clarify that the Operational Space-Time (OST) level of brain organization mediates between the Internal Physical Space-Time (IPST) of the brain (the underlying anatomical and neurophysiological substrate) and the Phenomenal Space-Time (PST)—the domain of subjective experience. The OST level, which is both emerged from IPST and isomorphic to PST, constitutes the level at which conscious processes occur. Rather than ‘producing’ consciousness in a mysterious or non-physical sense, this level constitutes it through its structured electromagnetic patterns. In this model, the Fingelkurtses state, emergentism describes the relationship between the brain’s physical structure (IPST) and its electromagnetic field dynamics (OST), whereas the relationship between the OST and PST levels is more accurately described in terms of supervenience (Kim, 1993). Supervenience implies a stricter dependency: higher-order properties (such as conscious experiences) cannot change without corresponding changes in the lower-order properties upon which they supervene (Yoshimi, 2004). Thus, mental space-time patterns are supervenient on the operational-level space-time patterns of the brain. Emergentism allows for a looser coupling—where higher-level properties may vary without strict one-to-one mappings to lower-level states. In the OA framework, the mental is ontologically dependent on the neurophysiological, yet it is not reducible to it in a classical physicalist sense. Rather, it is reducible to the operational level—a level that consists of hierarchically organized dynamic local electromagnetic fields. These fields serve as the direct constituents of conscious experience, providing a bridge between the physical and the phenomenal.

---

### Lewis and MacGregor’s Phase of Energy Resonator Model
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/lewis-and-macgregor-s-phase-of-energy-resonator-model
Theorists: Edwin Lewis, Ronald MacGregor

Bioengineers Edwin R. Lewis and Ronald J. MacGregor propose an energy-based resonator model of consciousness, “a two-way exchange of energy between the conscious mental realm and the physical realm of the brain.” They draw “an analogy between the mental and physical phases of energy and the phases (e.g., gas/liquid) of matter, and a possible realization in the form of a generic resonator.” As candidate substrates of such a system, they favor astroglial-pyramidal cell and electromagnetic-field models (Lewis & MacGregor, 2010). Evolutionary Basis and Two-Way Street Synthesizing evolutionary biology, cognitive neuroscience, and systems-level neurophysiology, Lewis and MacGregor assume that consciousness arose through natural selection, meaning it must be: physically instantiated (i.e., based in matter and energy), selectable (must have a phenotype), and functionally advantageous. “Accepting an evolutionary basis of consciousness… we would be compelled to accept the premise that awareness, in itself… must be a causative agent capable of modulating physical activity.” This leads to the necessity of a two-way interaction between the mental realm (M) and the physical brain (P)—what they call a “two-way street.” This is the only way, they argue, for consciousness to influence behavior (and hence be selectable by evolution): it must exert some causal influence on the brain. In their form, P → M: Neural activity gives rise to mental states (e.g., perceptions and feelings). M → P: Mental states causally influence neural activity (e.g., directing attention or inhibiting action—what they call “free won’t”). “The nature of that two-way street is the 21st century’s mystery of mysteries, the ‘explanatory gap’… along one side (P → M)… along the other side (M → P)…” (Lewis & MacGregor, 2010). Dispositional Energy and Phase Analogy In their most distinctive theoretical move, the authors speculate that this two-way interaction involves a two-way exchange of energy, which they call dispositional energy—a putative novel form of energy available to consciousness for transfer of information along the M → P side of the street and required to account for the M → P effect. They liken dispositional energy to a “phase of energy,” similar to how water changes state: “We see the generation and maintenance of dispositional energy as dependent on particular molecular processes… We picture consciousness and dispositional energy as emerging and rising beyond their traditional physical energy origins somewhat as vapors rise beyond their warming liquid forms.” Energy being a physical entity, the authors consider it to be strictly confined to the physical realm (P), such that they imagine “the action of consciousness as gating or modulating the flow of energy between various locales in P. Any process of gating, however, requires expenditure of at least some energy on the part of the gatekeeper.” This seems to require at least a modicum of energy to be associated with M itself. “This would be the dispositional energy. And it would be this (information-bearing) energy that flows along the lanes of the M → P side of the street.” Dispositional Energy and Phase Analogy The authors seek, then, “a form of energy that can be set aside and then transferred quickly over the brain.” One such form, they say, is the energy of resonance. “Spatially separated resonators tuned close to a common frequency tend to phase lock and share energy. This is accomplished through a field, such as a vibration field in an old-fashioned clock shop, or an electric field for electrical resonances” (Lewis & MacGregor, 2010). Thus, to model the two-way interaction mechanistically, the authors introduce the ‘resonator model of consciousness.’ These are hypothesized molecular or cellular structures (e.g., astroglial–pyramidal cell interfaces) that: generate mental states via transformation of neural energy into dispositional energy (P → M), allow for coupling among resonators (M M), and effect causal changes in the brain (M → P). “All resonator elements produce P → M transformation and engage in collective partially-free M–M selections… some may produce lesser or no M → P transformation.” To Lewis and MacGregor, their model is both metaphor and scientific hypothesis: dispositional energy may represent a phase of matter/energy that is partially exempt from deterministic laws, thereby enabling partial freedom (agency). Biological Substrate Hypothesis As a candidate physical substrate, Lewis and MacGregor prefer the astroglial–pyramidal cell interface, where astrocytes regulate metabolite flow to cortical pyramidal neurons, and they hypothesize that Krebs cycle activity in astrocytes may be a source of dispositional energy. “Our favored complete working hypothesis is that resonator elements are found as mitochondrial catalysts of the Krebs ATP cycle in astrocytes of the astroglial–pyramidal interface of the eocortex” (Lewis & MacGregor, 2010).

---

### Ambron’s Local Field Potentials and Electromagnetic Waves
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/ambron-s-local-field-potentials-and-electromagnetic-waves
Theorists: Richard Ambron

Biologist and pain researcher Richard Ambron suggests that understanding the specific consciousness of pain might help to understand the mechanism of consciousness in general. Pain is ideal for studying consciousness, he says, because it receives priority over all other sensations, reflecting its criticality for survival (Ambron, 2023a, 2023b; Ambron & Sinav, 2022). Pain Pathways and Long-Term Potentiation Pain starts at the site of injury where damaged cells release small molecular compounds that bind to the terminals of peripheral neurons and trigger action potentials which encode information about the injury. The greater the severity of the injury, the greater the number and frequency of action potentials, and the greater the intensity of pain. The pain pathway is well documented: from periphery to spinal cord to the thalamus, where we first become aware of the injury but do not feel the effect of onerous pain. Rather, the region for feeling the hurtfulness of pain is the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC), where input from the thalamus activates a complex neuronal circuit. Essential are the pyramidal neurons, which have a triangular cell body and a long dendrite with many branches that are vital for experiencing pain. Because information transmitted between neurons must traverse the minuscule space between them—the synapse—axons from thalamic neurons transmit to dendrites of ACC neurons by releasing a neurotransmitter that traverses the gap, binds to the dendritic endings and triggers action potentials. When there is prolonged activity at the synapse in response to a serious injury, the synapses become “hyperresponsive” and strengthened. This strengthening, called long-term potentiation (LTP), sensitizes the synapse so that it takes fewer action potentials to cause pain. This is why even a gentle touch to the site of an injury will hurt (Ambron, 2023a, 2023b; Ambron & Sinav, 2022). Modulation by Other Brain Regions In addition to housing circuits for pain, the ACC receives information from other brain regions. For example, inputs from the amygdala can increase the intensity of the pain due to anxiety or fear, whereas those from the nucleus accumbens can reduce the pain if the reward for bearing the pain is considered worthwhile. Thus, what we experience as pain depends on interactions among several areas of the brain. Local Field Potentials and Electromagnetic Waves To maintain electro-neutrality after an injury, there is an efflux of positive ions from the cell body that forms a local field potential (LFP) and creates electromagnetic (EM) waves in the extracellular space around the pyramidal neurons. In Ambron's novel move, he posits that these EM waves now contain the information about the pain that was previously encoded in the action potentials. In other words, the pain information was transferred from action potentials to LFPs to EM waves, which could influence nearby circuits, such as those for attention. Ambron speculates that these EM waves contribute to consciousness. Assuming information from other senses is also transformed into EM waves, it also might help solve the “binding/combination problem,” because integrating information from all the waves could explain how individual sensory inputs combine to create “a unified, coherent version of the world.” Unlike most theories of consciousness, Ambron believes his hypothesis can be tested (Ambron, 2023a, 2023b).

---

### Zhang’s Long-Distance Light-Speed Telecommunications
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/zhang-s-long-distance-light-speed-telecommunications
Theorists: Ping Zhang

Synaptic neuroscientist Ping Zhang suggests that “the long-time puzzle between brain and mind” might be solved by “a light-speed telecommunication between remote cells that are arranged in parallel.” He bases his theory on “the law of synchronization,” where “all the individuals are connected to each other rigidly (or in a light-speed momentum network), energy radiated from one individual will be propagated to and conserved in all other individuals in light speed” (Zhang, 2019).[1] Traveling Electrical Fields In explaining “how a ‘school’ of neurons in human brain behaves like a light-speed rigid network and concentrates on a task,” Zhang cites his own observation of “the traveling electrical field mediated transmission of action potentials between excitable cells with the cell-cell distance more than 10 mm (an anatomically astronomical distance in cortex).” Moreover, “when longitudinal cells are arranged in parallel separately, the action potential generated from one cell can ‘jump’ to other cells and cause all the cells to fire action potentials in concert. If two cells fire action potentials spontaneously and have their own rhythm, they tend to ‘learn’ from each other, adjust their own pace, eventually lock their phases, and ‘remember’ this common rhythm for a long while” (Zhang, 2019). Zhang notes, “unlike synaptic neuronal network, which is a physiological transmission with the velocity of 0.2–120 m/s (synaptic delay period is not included), traveling electrical field mediated transmission … [has] the velocity of light speed.” Synchronization and Energy Efficiency In a cortical circuit, he says, “the synaptic elements provide delicate and precise connections; while the traveling electrical field, may provide transient, rapid, flexible rather than fixed connections to synchronize rhythmic action potentials fired from axons which are arranged in parallel and are well insulated by dielectric media.” How does “this invisible ‘tele’ bridge-linked synchronization or harmony” work? According to Zhang, neural action potentials in human brain circuits produce clusters of traveling electrical fields. Those with similar frequency tend to be synchronized. Integration, imagination, remembering, creating, etc., require considerable energy, and if these processes are simply synchronizations between different brain regions, the energy-conserving property of sync facilitates performing these mental activities. Critique of Synaptic-Centric Theories Having worked on synaptic transmission for 20 years, Zhang muses: “Glutamate receptors, for instance, are found in both human and crayfish synapses. Human receptors are not any ‘smarter’ than those of crayfish.” It would be very narrow-minded, he says, “to study human synapses, which evolved from those of squid and crayfish, hoping to find a magic thinking molecule.” If there is no super-highway (light speed) above the traditional synaptic networks, he concludes, “I just cannot imagine how people can be an intelligent life-form” (Zhang, 2019). Footnote [1]. Zhang adds, “Energy radiated from all individuals [in a synchronized system] will be fed back to each individual at exactly the same time. Energy states of all individuals tend to even up; entropy increase tends to be maximal when sync is established; one's energy output is another's energy input. The system tends to be energy conservatively beneficial and stable” (Zhang, 2019).

---

## Computational & Functionalism
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theories/computational-and-functionalism

### Computational Theories
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/computational-theories
Theorists: Several

Computational theories of mind developed organically as the processing power of computers expanded exponentially to enable the emulation of mind-like capabilities such as memory, knowledge structure, perception, decision-making, problem solving, reasoning and linguistic comprehension (especially with the advent of human-like large language models like ChatGPT). The growing field of cognitive science owes its development to computational theories (Rescorla, 2020). There is a reciprocal, recursive, positive-feedback relationship as computational theories of mind seek both to enhance the power and scope of computing and to advance understanding of how the human mind actually works. Classical computational theories of mind, which exemplify functionalism, are based on algorithms, which are routines of systematic, step-by-step instructions, and on Turing machines, which are abstract models of idealized computers with unlimited memory and time that process one operation at a time (with super-fast but not unlimited speed). Classical Computationalism Artificial intelligence adds logic, seeking to automate reasoning—deductive at first, then inductive and higher-order forms. Neural networks, with a connectionism construct, were a step-function advance. For example, chess computers have reigned supreme since 1997 when Deep Blue defeated the world chess champion, Garry Kasparov. But whereas the process has been literally massive brute-force calculations—hundreds of millions of “nodes” per second (a “node” is a chess position with its evaluation and history)—recent advances in algorithmic theory are dramatically improving capabilities. The implications go way beyond chess and are apparent. Simulation and Modeling Theories Philosopher-futurist Nick Bostrom espouses a computational theory of consciousness, which is consistent with his view that there is a distinct possibility that our world and universe, our total state of affairs, is a computer simulation (Bostrom, 2003, 2006). The logic is almost a tautology: A computer simulation would require, by definition, that our consciousness, and the consciousnesses of all sentient creatures, would be, ipso facto, computational consciousness. Of course, Bostrom does not argue that we are living in a simulation, so his computationalism as a theory of consciousness is motivated by other factors, including computational neuroscience. In fact, one could make the case that the arrow of causal explanation points in the reverse direction: Consciousness as computational would need to be a condition precedent, necessary but not sufficient, for the simulation argument to be coherent. Computer/AI scientist James Reggia explains that efforts to create computational models of consciousness have been driven by two main motivations: “to develop a better scientific understanding of the nature of human/animal consciousness and to produce machines that genuinely exhibit conscious awareness.” He offers three conclusions: “(1) computational modeling has become an effective and accepted methodology for the scientific study of consciousness; (2) existing computational models have successfully captured a number of neurobiological, cognitive, and behavioral correlates of conscious information processing as machine simulations; and (3) no existing approach to artificial consciousness has presented a compelling demonstration of phenomenal machine consciousness, or even clear evidence that artificial phenomenal consciousness will eventually be possible” (Reggia, 2013). Critiques and Limits of Computationalism Computer scientist Kenneth Steiglitz argues that all available theories of consciousness “aren't up to the job” in that “they don't tell me how I can know whether a particular candidate is or is not phenomenally conscious.” Moreover, he says, we will never be able to answer the question of AI consciousness—because “it is simply not possible to test for consciousness.” This presents, Steiglitz worries, dangers of two kinds: (1) damaging or even destroying our own consciousness, and (2) bringing about new consciousness that will not be treated with proper respect and quite possibly suffer (Steiglitz, 2024). Steiglitz states three principles of what we think we know about consciousness—the dual nature of mind and body, the dependence of mind on body, and the dependence of mind on computation—and he calls them all absurd, because “these do not follow from physics, biology, or logic.” He muses, “I wish I had a theory to account for consciousness—but I don't see how any theory could” (Steiglitz, 2024). Philosophy-savvy attorney Andrew Hartford proposes an EP (Eternal Past) Conjecture such that “If there ever is something there always was something, because no-thing comes from Nothing,” and that “the always existor exists before all time, process or computation.” What follows, he says, is that while “it remains to be seen whether artificial consciousness is in the domain of all possibilities, we should not presume that we will necessarily build computational consciousness” (Hartford, 2014). The mildly dismissive critique is that the computational theory of mind follows the historical trend of analogizing the mind to “the science of the day.”[1] Footnote [1]. Closer To Truth videos on Computational Theory of Mind, including Rodney Brooks, Andy Clark, Donald Hoffman, Susan Greenfield, Peter Tse, Anirban Bandyopadhyay, Ken Mogi—https://closertotruth.com/video/broro-003/?referrer=8107.

---

### Turing’s Imitation, Machine Thought, and the Hidden Mind
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/turing-s-imitation-machine-thought-and-the-hidden-mind
Theorists: Alan Turing

Mathematician, logician, and computer scientist Alan Turing produced no theory of phenomenal consciousness and explicitly declined to produce one; his contribution to the field is a methodological conjecture that the question of whether machines think can be settled without first settling what experience is. Confronting the objection that no machine could feel what it writes, he answered not by explaining qualitative character but by arguing that the objection collapses into solipsism unless we extend to machines the same courtesy we already extend to one another, which he called the polite convention that everyone thinks. His substrate-independent conception of computation, established in 1936, supplied the technical premise for multiple realizability and hence for functionalism. The result is a peculiar historical position: the founding figure of the research program that now divides most sharply over phenomenal consciousness was himself an agnostic who set the problem deliberately aside. In other words, Turing did not formulate a theory of phenomenal consciousness in the contemporary sense; his decisive contribution was instead to change how questions about machine minds could be investigated. He regarded consciousness as genuinely mysterious, explicitly declined to reduce it to behavior or computation, yet argued that this mystery need not be solved before rationally deciding whether a machine thinks. His imitation game, computational conception of intelligent machinery, and proposals for learning machines thereby shifted debate from inaccessible first-person feeling to publicly assessable capacities, helping generate machine functionalism, computational theories of mind, and modern artificial intelligence while simultaneously provoking enduring questions whether intelligence or behavioral equivalence may occur without phenomenal experience (Turing, 1936; 1948; 1950). The Universal Machine and Substrate Independence Turing's 1936 analysis of computability introduced the abstract machine that bears his name —“Turing machine”—and, critically, the universal machine capable of simulating any other by reading its description from tape—“universal Turing machine” (Turing, 1936). The philosophical consequence, which Turing himself did not press, is that computation is fixed by formal organization rather than by physical medium. Any physical system capable of implementing the right state transitions implements the same computation. This is the technical root of multiple realizability, and it is what makes a computational theory of mind conceivable at all. Whether it also makes phenomenal consciousness substrate-independent is a further claim, one that Turing never argued for and that remains the central contested premise of the field he founded. The Turing Test, Imitation Game, and the Argument from Consciousness Turing’s 1950 “Computing Machinery and Intelligence” opens by declaring the question whether machines can think too ill-defined to answer and replaces it with an operational substitute: he replaces “Can machines think?” with the imitation game. In its machine-oriented form, a remote, text-only interrogator attempts to distinguish a machine from a human interlocutor. He then answers nine objections. The fourth, the Argument from Consciousness, is the one that bears directly here. Turing confronts phenomenal experience explicitly through the neurosurgeon Geoffrey Jefferson's 1949 Lister Oration, which held that a machine could not equal a brain until it created thoughts and emotions actually felt, knew what it had created, and experienced pleasure, grief, anger, attraction, or depression; that only a machine that wrote a sonnet out of felt thought and emotion, rather than by the fortuitous arrangement of symbols, could be credited with mind, and that no mechanism could feel pleasure at success or misery at error rather than merely signal them (Jefferson, 1949; Turing, 1950). Turing’s response is subtle. He grants that this denies his test's validity. His reply is that its strongest form entails that one can know a thing thinks only by But if certainty that another entity thinks requires literally being that entity and feeling its thinking, then the same demand undermines knowledge of other human minds. He calls this the solipsistic extreme and argues that sufficiently rich conversational evidence should instead justify attribution of mentality. Moreover, he argues, we do not in practice apply this standard to other people. Instead, he writes, we adopt "the polite convention that everyone thinks" (Turing, 1950). The Mystery Remains but is Bracketed Yet Turing immediately adds that he does not mean consciousness contains no mystery; indeed, he notes difficulties associated with attempting to localize it. He therefore neither eliminates phenomenal consciousness nor derives it from functional performance. He brackets the metaphysical problem. This makes it inaccurate to attribute to Turing the later strong thesis that implementing the appropriate computation is sufficient for qualia. What he rejects is the claim that the unresolved privacy of consciousness licenses an a priori prohibition on machine mentality. Turing’s methodological move is often called behaviorist, but that description can mislead. He did not argue that thinking or consciousness simply means behaving in a particular way, nor did he establish that passing the imitation game logically guarantees consciousness. Rather, he sought a workable evidential criterion for machine intelligence that avoids disputes over definitions and privileged access to another subject’s inner life (Turing, 1950; Copeland, 2000). This distinction is crucial for phenomenal consciousness. The imitation game tests what a system can manifest in sustained linguistic interaction; phenomenal consciousness concerns whether there is something it is like to be that system. Turing never supplied a computational mechanism intended to bridge that gap. His contribution is therefore principally epistemological and methodological: if the inner experience of other humans is not directly observable, demanding direct access to a machine’s experience risks imposing a standard unavailable in the ordinary problem of other minds. Interpreting Turing's Reply Turing’s reply to Jefferson is a demarcation, not an explanation, and Turing was explicit about this. He states that he does not wish to suggest there is no mystery about consciousness, notes a paradox attending any attempt to localize it, and holds only that these mysteries need not be solved before his question can be answered. He is therefore not an eliminativist or an illusionist about experience; he is an agnostic who argues that phenomenality is not a precondition for the inquiry he is proposing. How to read the Turing test itself remains disputed. The canonical reading is behaviorist. A rival epistemic reading treats successful imitation as inductive evidence for mentality by analogy with our attributions to other people. Proudfoot (2013, 2020) argues that both are inconsistent with Turing's 1948 and 1952 remarks and proposes instead that Turing treated intelligence as a response-dependent concept, one an entity possesses only if observers respond to it in a certain way. On all three readings, qualitative character is left untouched. Computation, Learning, and Machine Minds Turing’s deeper influence begins with his 1936 analysis of computation. As noted, a Turing machine is an abstract characterization of rule-governed symbol manipulation, and a universal machine can emulate any machine whose operations are computable (Turing, 1936). Once electronic digital computers realized this architecture, a profound possibility emerged: capacities previously associated exclusively with minds might be instantiated by systems whose physical substrate differed radically from brains. Turing himself pushed beyond rigid, preprogrammed calculation. In “Intelligent Machinery” he explored “unorganised machines,” trainable networks of simple elements, and in 1950 proposed constructing a “child machine” that would acquire adult-like capacities through education, reward, punishment, variation, and experience (Turing, 1948; 1950). He emphasized that a trained machine could develop in ways its teacher did not fully understand and could surprise its designers. Crucially for phenomenal consciousness, Turing explicitly notes that describing machine learning in terms of reward and punishment does not presuppose that the machine actually feels pleasure or pain. Functional learning and phenomenal affect therefore remain conceptually distinct in his account. These proposals anticipate machine learning, connectionist networks, and evolutionary computation, but none constitutes a theory of why learned information processing should become phenomenally conscious. Turing was also not committed to a reductive materialist ontology of consciousness. In answering the theological objection, he rejects the claim that only humans could possess God-given immortal souls, even entertaining—explicitly as speculation—the possibility that God might confer a soul upon a machine. The passage is not evidence that Turing believed machines require souls; rather, it demonstrates his refusal to let theological dualism establish machine consciousness as impossible in principle (Turing, 1950). Reception: Putnam, Block, Searle Turing’s mathematical and methodological framework became a central source of twentieth-century functionalism. Hilary Putnam’s early machine-state functionalism explicitly used the Turing-machine model: mental states could be characterized by causal-functional relations among inputs, internal states, and outputs rather than by the material from which a system was made (Putnam, 1960, 1967). The resulting multiple-realizability idea opened a conceptual route from human minds to artificial minds, giving multiple realizability its canonical statement and founding machine functionalism, which appears on the Landscape as Putnam's Machine Functionalism. If mentality depends primarily on functional organization, silicon need not be disqualified merely because it is not neural tissue. This lineage profoundly affected consciousness theory, but it also exposed the gap Turing had left open. The two most influential objections both target the sufficiency of behavior. Ned Block (1981) constructs a machine that passes any finite conversation by exhaustive lookup, arguing that behavioral indistinguishability cannot be sufficient for mentality because the internal organization producing it matters. His absent-qualia objections imagine systems with the relevant functional organization but, allegedly, no experience; his “Blockhead” argument similarly challenges behavioral criteria for intelligence (Block, 1978, 1981). John Searle (1980) argues from the Chinese Room that implementing a symbol-manipulating program is insufficient for semantic content, intrinsic understanding, or intentionality, and by extension for consciousness; this line appears on the Landscape as Searle's Biological Naturalism. Dennett has defended the test's spirit and generalized Turing's third-person method into an explicit protocol for treating experience reports as data, which appears as Dennett's Heterophenomenology. Anti-mechanist arguments deriving from Gödel's results, developed by Lucas and later Penrose, form the opposing tradition, and each takes Turing's own theorems as its point of departure. These objections do not directly refute Turing’s cautious epistemic position, because Turing did not claim that behavioral success or program execution metaphysically constitutes phenomenal consciousness. They target stronger computational-functionalist conclusions developed in the intellectual lineage Turing made possible. Contemporary AI Consciousness Turing's premise and Turing's method have come apart in current work. The contemporary debate over AI consciousness preserves Turing’s other-minds problem but has largely abandoned a single Turing-style behavioral threshold for consciousness. Current proposals increasingly combine behavior with evidence concerning internal architecture. Butlin and colleagues adopt computational functionalism as an explicit working hypothesis, derive indicator properties from established scientific theories of consciousness, including recurrent-processing, global-workspace, higher-order, predictive-processing, attention-schema, and related theories, and ask whether AI systems instantiate computational properties that scientific theories associate with consciousness (Butlin et al., 2023, 2026). They conclude that no current system is conscious but that no obvious barrier prevents building one. This retains substrate independence while abandoning the imitation game entirely: architectural indicators replace behavioral indistinguishability precisely because behavior has proven separable from the properties at issue. Chalmers (2023) reaches a similar structural verdict for large language models, weighing conversational fluency and self-report against absent features such as recurrent processing, unified agency, and world models. Seth (2025) presses the opposing case that consciousness is tied to living substrate rather than to computation. The practical vindication of Turing's prediction has thus sharpened, rather than settled, the question: systems now routinely pass conversational tests of the kind he described, making the gap between passing and feeling vivid. The Landscape's Blums' Conscious Turing Machine takes the opposite tack, building a formal model of conscious access directly on Turing's architecture. All this represents both continuation and correction of Turing. The continuation is epistemological: machine consciousness must be inferred from publicly accessible evidence rather than inspected directly. The correction is that fluent humanlike conversation is now widely regarded as insufficient on its own, especially because large language models can generate striking self-reports without establishing that those reports arise from any felt states whatsoever. Contemporary approaches therefore seek convergent evidence from architecture, cognition, behavior, agency, embodiment, and theoretical models, while acknowledging substantial uncertainty (Butlin et al., 2026; Long et al., 2024). The ethical consequence is increasingly important: if artificial systems might become phenomenally conscious, erroneous attribution and erroneous denial could both carry moral costs. Explanatory Power and Limits For the Landscape, Turing’s importance must not be inflated into a phenomenal-consciousness theory he never gave. He offers no account of qualia, no neural or computational correlate claimed to generate subjectivity, and no explanation of why information processing should feel like anything. What he supplies is a revolutionary framework for asking whether substrate-independent artificial systems could count as minded, together with an argument that the privacy of consciousness cannot by itself justify excluding them. Turing’s crucial 1950 move is sometimes stronger in retelling than in the original. He does not say, “If it passes the Turing Test, it is conscious.” When Jefferson makes felt emotion and self-awareness prerequisites for genuine machine mentality (Jefferson, 1949), Turing’s response is essentially an argument from epistemic parity with other minds: if only first-person access establishes consciousness, we could never establish it in other humans either. He then explicitly says that consciousness remains mysterious. That distinction is the conceptual center of this entry. Assessment Turing's place in consciousness studies rests on a separation rather than a solution. He distinguished what could be settled by observation from what could not, judged the latter unnecessary for his purposes, and declined to speculate further. Two divergent legacies follow. One tradition reads the bracketing as a permanent methodological virtue and treats demands for more as confused. The other reads it as the paradigm case of the evasion that the hard problem names, and holds that Turing succeeded in specifying a test for intelligence only by defining consciousness out of the question. Both traditions are correct that the 1950 paper contains no account of why any physical or computational process should feel like anything, because Turing said as much himself. Thus, Turing’s lasting contribution to phenomenal-consciousness studies is thus indirect but foundational. He transformed the machine from a mere calculator into a candidate subject of mentality, made functional equivalence and substrate independence central philosophical possibilities, and converted machine consciousness into a serious version of the problem of other minds. Contemporary AI-consciousness research has moved beyond the imitation game, but it still operates within the conceptual space Turing opened: artificial systems cannot be ruled conscious merely because they are machines, yet intelligent performance alone does not settle whether anyone—or anything—is experiencing it. A note on classification. Turing is housed in Computational & Functionalism because he supplied the Materialism subcategory's enabling premise—that a computation is fixed by its formal organization rather than by its physical medium—not because he held its thesis that phenomenal consciousness is identical with computation. He was not a computational functionalist about consciousness. That position did not exist in his lifetime, and the question it answers is the one he expressly declined to take up. In 1950 he expressly acknowledged a remaining “mystery” about consciousness and declined to solve it, while his response to the theological objection even allowed—speculatively—that a machine’s thinking was not logically incompatible with possession of a soul. References Block, N. (1978). Troubles with functionalism. In C. W. Savage (Ed.), Perception and Cognition: Issues in the Foundations of Psychology (Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Vol. 9, pp. 261–325). University of Minnesota Press. Block, N. (1981). Psychologism and behaviorism. The Philosophical Review, 90(1), 5–43. Butlin, P., Long, R., Elmoznino, E., Bengio, Y., Birch, J., Constant, A., Deane, G., Fleming, S. M., Frith, C., Ji, X., et al. (2023). Consciousness in artificial intelligence: Insights from the science of consciousness. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2308.08708 Butlin, P., Long, R., Bayne, T., Bengio, Y., Birch, J., Chalmers, D., Constant, A., Deane, G., Elmoznino, E., Fleming, S. M., et al. (2026). Identifying indicators of consciousness in AI systems. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 30(6), 488–501. Chalmers, D. J. (2023). Could a large language model be conscious? Boston Review, August 9. Copeland, B. J. (2000). The Turing Test. Minds and Machines, 10(4), 519–539. Copeland, B. J. (ed.) (2004). The Essential Turing: Seminal Writings in Computing, Logic, Philosophy, Artificial Intelligence, and Artificial Life. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Jefferson, G. (1949). The mind of mechanical man. British Medical Journal, 1(4616), 1105–1110. Long, R., Sebo, J., Butlin, P., Finlinson, K., Fish, K., Harding, J., Pfau, J., Sims, T., Birch, J., & Chalmers, D. (2024). Taking AI welfare seriously. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2411.00986. Proudfoot, D. (2020). "Rethinking Turing's Test and the Philosophical Implications." Minds and Machines 30(4): 487–512. Putnam, H. (1960). Minds and machines. In S. Hook (Ed.), Dimensions of Mind: A Symposium (pp. 138–164). New York University Press. Putnam, H. (1967). Psychological predicates. In W. H. Capitan & D. D. Merrill (Eds.), Art, Mind, and Religion (pp. 37–48). University of Pittsburgh Press. Searle, J. R. (1980). Minds, brains, and programs. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 3(3), 417–424. Seth, A. K. (2025). "Conscious Artificial Intelligence and Biological Naturalism." Behavioral and Brain Sciences, published online 21 April 2025. Turing, A. M. (1936–1937). On computable numbers, with an application to the Entscheidungsproblem. Proceedings of the London Mathematical Society, 42(2), 230–265. Turing, A. M. (1948). Intelligent Machinery. National Physical Laboratory report. Reprinted in B. Meltzer & D. Michie (Eds.), Machine Intelligence 5 (1969, pp. 3–23). Edinburgh University Press. Turing, A. M. (1950). Computing machinery and intelligence. Mind, 59(236), 433–460. Turing, A. M. (1951). "Intelligent Machinery, a Heretical Theory." Broadcast lecture. Reprinted in Copeland (2004), 472–475.

---

### Putnam’s Machine Functionalism
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/putnam-s-machine-functionalism
Theorists: Hilary Putnam

Hilary Putnam was a highly influential philosopher whose views impacted ideas and ways of thinking in philosophy of mind, even as his views evolved markedly over his remarkable career. Early in his work, he was a pioneering advocate of functionalism, the theory that mental states are generated by their functional roles—i.e., by what they do rather than by what they are made of (in contrast to identity theory). Functionalism contends that all mental states (like sensations, beliefs, emotions) are defined by their causal roles or functional states of the system, such that what really matters is not the physical composition or structure of the brain, not the neurobiology, but the causal relations between inputs (stimuli), internal states, and outputs (behavior). “The functional organization of a system is the set of causal relations among its sensory inputs, its motor outputs, and its internal states” (Putnam, 1975). Machine-State Functionalism and Multiple Realizability Putnam’s functionalism was sometimes called “machine-state functionalism,” which related to his computational theory of mind, which holds that the human mind is a computational system that is realized (i.e., physically operationalized) by neural activity in the brain. What then followed logically was his concept of “multiple realizability,” the idea that mental states can be realized in different kinds of physical systems (i.e., humans, animals, computers). For example, the experience of pain, which relates to C-fiber neuronal firing in mammals, could be realized in other creatures (e.g., octopuses, aliens) with different biological structures, provided that their internal states played the same functional role. Putnam said, famously, “We could be made of Swiss cheese and it wouldn't matter” (Putnam, 1975). In this way of thinking, Putnam analogized mental states to “software,” with the brain being the “hardware,” and just as a computer program can run on different kinds of computers, mental states (like pain) could “run” in different physical systems (e.g., human brains, animal brains, alien brains, AI). This multiple realizability empowered Putnam to reject identity theory (which claims that specific mental states are identical to specific brain states). Later Critiques and Liberal Functionalism To Putnam’s credit, he later distanced himself from a strict computational theory of the mind, rejecting hard-core functionalism, which he argued oversimplified mental phenomena and ignored the semantic and intentional aspects of thought. Semantic externalism is the idea that the meaning of our words and the content of our thoughts are not solely “in the head” but depend on our interactions with the external world. This challenged functionalism because functional states are conceived as purely internal brain states, detached from the environment. Putnam also focused on the concept of “intentionality” (i.e., that mental states are “about” things), rejecting the idea of an “inner intentionality” as a mysterious, self-contained mental property. He argued for a more externalist view of meaning and thought, where the content of our minds is deeply intertwined with our interactions with the world. He said, “We find it tempting to imagine that the intentionality of our words is given in the experience of thinking itself… the 'illusion of inner intentionality' is an illusory notion that reference is a mysterious something that exists while we think” (Putnam, 1973). He also recognized that functionalism cannot capture qualitative experience (qualia), nor could mental phenomena be exhaustively described by a single, fundamental physical theory. He said, “Functionalism is not a complete philosophy of mind” (Putnam, 1988). Late in his career, he accepted a weaker form of functionalism, called “liberal functionalism,” which posits that consciousness and mental properties depend on “the right sort of functional capacities,” but with a broader understanding that recognizes the embodied nature of cognition and its interaction with the environment. He argued for a “pragmatic pluralism” where different conceptual schemes (including “mind talk”) are appropriate for different purposes and contexts, without necessarily being reducible to a single, underlying reality. Putnam’s theory of consciousness moved toward an anti-reductionist, embodied, contextual approach. He consistently rejected substance dualism, but he struggled with qualia. He said, “The notion of a 'qualia' is a theoretical construct designed to do a certain job, but it is not clear that there is any job for it to do” (Putnam, 1999). Putnam is to be admired for applying equal scrutiny to his own philosophical positions as to those of others, subjecting each position to rigorous analysis. As a result, he acquired a reputation—unfairly, I’d say—for frequently changing his positions (“Hilary Putnam,” 2025). He said, “The idea that there is a 'problem of consciousness' in the sense of a single, unified, philosophical problem that needs to be solved once and for all is, I think, a mistake” (Putnam, 1999).

---

### Blums’ Conscious Turing Machine
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/blums-conscious-turing-machine
Theorists: Lenore Blum, Manuel Blum, Avrim Blum

Theoretical computer scientists Lenore Blum, Manuel Blum, and Avrim Blum account for consciousness from a computational perspective and offer their Conscious Turing Machine (CTM) as a formal model of consciousness. They base CTM on Theoretical Computer Science (TCS), which is a branch of mathematics that studies computation under limited resources such as time and space. (The three award-winning Blums—wife, husband, son—have their PhDs from MIT and were computer science faculty members at Carnegie-Mellon University.) The Conscious Turing Machine (CTM) (Blum & Blum, 2025) is inspired in part by Alan Turing’s simple yet powerful model of computation, the Turing Machine (TM) (Turing, 1937), and Bernard Baars' Global Workspace (GW) “theater” model of consciousness (Baars, 1997). However, CTM is not a standard TM,[1] nor is it a standard GW model… nor is CTM a model of the brain: it is too simple for that. In the CTM framework, formal definitions of conscious attention and conscious awareness correspond to concepts in consciousness literature called access consciousness (Block, 1995) and phenomenal (subjective) consciousness, respectively. Although attention in CTM arises from global broadcasts, awareness also entails the co-evolution of CTM’s Model-of-the-World (MotW) along with its internally generated multimodal language, Brainish. The Blums contend that a machine capable of interacting with its environment through input sensors and output actuators, constructing internal models of its world, and viewing these models as being the world, is the basis for its consciousness, both access and phenomenal. In their view, addressing the Hard Problem of consciousness (Chalmers, 1995b) reduces to demonstrating that subjective experience is computational in nature. To proceed, the Blums describe their CTM model (its architecture, processors, competition) and both conscious attention and conscious awareness (subjective experience) in CTM. They also discuss how CTM integrates and aligns with key underlying principles of many contemporary theories of consciousness. The CTM Model The mathematics of TCS abstracts and formalizes informal notions and derives results from foundational axioms. The Blums' CTM model embodies these principles. Architecture The CTM is defined by a 7-tuple: STM, LTM, Up-Tree, Down-Tree, Links, Input, Output as follows: STM: A buffer and broadcasting station (the “conscious stage”) holding one chunk (formal definition below) at a time. LTM: A vast collection of independent powerful “unconscious” processors (the “audience”). All CTM processors are in LTM, none in STM. Processors produce chunks that compete to get into STM. Up-Tree: The conduit for the (well-defined) probabilistic competition to select the winning chunk. The Up-Tree is a perfect binary tree (height h and 2^h leaves) with a leaf (node) in each processor and root (node) in STM. Down-Tree: The conduit for the global broadcast of the winning chunk from STM to all processors. The Down-Tree is a bush (tree of height 1 and 2^h leaves) with leaf in each processor and root in STM. Links: Pathways that form between processors (via “Hebbian-like” rules) that can replace slow “conscious” communication by fast “unconscious” communication. Input/Output: Maps that connect LTM Input/Output processors to the environment through sensors and actuators. Time is measured in discrete clock ticks: t = 0, 1, 2, …, T where T is CTM’s finite lifespan. Processors At time t = 0, some processors (Input, Output, and Gauge processors) have specific functions built-in. Others are generic. Specializations evolve over time. All processors contribute to creating models of CTM’s inner and outer world. The portions of all processors that contribute to creating the MotW are collectively called the Model-of-the-World processor (MotWp); they unconsciously and continuously predict, correct, and learn (predictive dynamics). While each processor has its own internal language, processors communicate with each other (within CTM) in Brainish, CTM’s self-generated multimodal language. In Brainish, the label for (a MotW sketch of) a rose might consist of a fusion of its red color, sweet smell, soft touch of its petals, and memory of past experiences with roses. Competition for STM and Global Broadcast As the Blums have it, at every tick, t, each CTM processor submits a chunk⟨p, t, g, w, aux> of information to its leaf node of the (binary) competition Up-Tree (think of a tennis or chess tournament) for STM. Here: p = address of the submitting processor, t = time of submission, g = succinct multimodal Brainish gist of information (could be a frame in a dream), w = signed weight (valence/importance) the processor p gives the gist at time t, aux = auxiliary information. Chunks compete with their siblings. (Chunks are siblings if they are at nodes that are children of the same parent node.) Winning siblings move up the binary tree (losing siblings drop out). Winners compete at the next tick with their new siblings. As local wining chunks move up the Up-Tree, their first four parameters stay unchanged, but their auxiliary information can change, gathering more and more global information. In CTM’s probabilistic winner-take-all competition with aux starting out as |w|, the auxiliary information in the chunk that gets into STM will be the sum of all competing entry chunks’ |weight|s at time t. We denote this number by Intensity and call this information the “global context.” Theorem: In CTM’s probabilistic winner-take-all competition, the probability that p’s chunk ⟨p, t, g, w, aux> wins the competition will be the ratio of its |w| to Intensity (the sum of all competing entry chunks’ |weight|s at time t). Corollary: Winning is independent of where processors are placed on the leaves of the Up-Tree competition. Clearly, this is an important feature for a machine or brain in which no movement of processors is possible. (It is a property that would be difficult if not impossible to achieve in fair tennis or chess tournaments.) This well-defined, decentralized, winner-take-all competition replaces the need for the undefined “central executive” used in all other theater models of consciousness.[2] The winning chunk is determined in h clock ticks, where h = height of the Up-Tree. Upon winning, that chunk is globally broadcast in one clock tick via the Down-Tree to every processor and stored in every processor’s global dictionary. With this broadcast, in addition to receiving the winner’s gist, its valenced weight, and its submitting processor’s address, all processors receive information enabling them to calculate the average |weight| of all chunks that entered the competition. This information will help all processors calibrate subsequent actions. Processors are programmed to inspect (defined below) high-|weight| received chunks to unpack their meaning and to do their best to lower the magnitude of extreme negative weights. Conscious Attention Definition: CTM pays conscious attention to the winning chunk when that chunk is received by all LTM processors via the global broadcast. Already, we see how CTM can exhibit certain phenomena associated with human consciousness. Examples include: inattentive blindness (CTM pays less attention to chunks with low |weight|s); change blindness (succinct gists contain an overview rather than detailed information); the Libet effect (a delay between the chunk’s entry into the competition and the reception of its broadcast). See also Blum & Blum, 2022. Conscious Awareness Conscious awareness in CTM is tied to the co-evolution of Brainish and the MotW. The Co-evolution of Brainish and the MotW Definition: A Brainish word <p, t> is a pointer to a broadcasted chunk <p, t, g, w>. A Brainish gist is either a NULL or a sequence of at most 20 Brainish words. All processors maintain identical global dictionaries listing the received broadcasted chunks in the order of their arrival. When given a word, every processor can examine the chunk it points to, which describes or leads to a description of its meaning.[3] The newborn CTM has a foggy MotW that does not differentiate itself from the world. Sketches in the MotW are broadcasted chunks. Primal sketches are chunks that have a NULL gist. The name of a sketch <p, t, g, w> is the word <p, t> that points to it. The name of the first primal sketch (in the life of the CTM) is a Brainish word that is denoted in English by <BLOB0>. Needing “oxygen,” the newborn CTM’s “oxygen gauge” submits to the competition a sequence of increasingly negatively weighted chunks signaling “Do something!” Those broadcasts, having negative weights of increasing intensity, generate the Brainish primal word for pain, in English <PAIN0>. The Brainish gist, <BLOB0><PAIN0>, interpreted as “BLOB0 is in PAIN0,” forms a labeled sketch in the MotW, with <BLOB0>, the name of the sketch, and <PAIN0>, the sketch’s label. When CTM detects an actuator moving by “the power of thought,” the corresponding sketch is labeled <SELF>. Later, if CTM scrapes its knee, the sketch of its knee is labeled both <SELF> and <Skinned-knee PAIN>, the latter being a word whose meaning evolved from earlier pains. Subjective Experiences and the Feeling of Consciousness in CTM Here is where the Blums’ CTM model imparts subjective consciousness: Definition. A processor inspects a chunk <p, t, g, w, Intensity> whenever it examines each of its components and unpacks all words <p’, t’> appearing in gist g. A processor unpacks a word <p’, t’> when it retrieves its meaning (defined to be the chunk <p’, t’, g’, w’, Intensity’> that <p’, t’> points to) and examines each component, p’, t’, g’, w’, Intensity’. The NULL word is considered unpacked. CTM inspects a broadcasted chunk <p, t, g, w, aux> whenever all processors simultaneously (upon its reception and in the same tick) inspect that chunk.[4] Axiom A. When CTM inspects a broadcasted chunk <p, t, g, w, Intensity>, it evokes in CTM a unique subjective experience. The intensity and valence of that evoked experience is given by w (modulated by the “global context” Intensity). Specifically: If gist g is NULL, then when CTM inspects the broadcasted chunk <p, t, g, w, Intensity> it evokes in CTM a unique subjective experience, and that experience, whatever it might be, is defined to be a primal subjective experience.[5] The intensity and valence of that evoked experience are given by w (modulated by the “global context” given by Intensity). If gist g = <p1, t1>… <pk, tk>, then when CTM inspects the broadcasted chunk <p, t, g, w, Intensity> it evokes a unique subjective experience in CTM that is a fusion of the subjective experiences evoked by the meanings of the words in g. The intensity and valence of that evoked experience are given by w (modulated by the “global context”). Formal Definition. Conscious awareness in CTM arises when CTM pays conscious attention to a chunk <p, t, g, w, Intensity> and inspects it. Conscious attention is a consequence of the fact that ALL processors are receiving and attending to exactly the same broadcast. Conscious awareness arises from the fact that CTM does not consciously see the world. CTM is consciously aware of only its self-constructed Model of the World (MotW). The MotW holds the whole of CTM’s conscious view of the world. A MotW processor creates and puts in the MotW labeled sketches of the objects in the world. The sketches and their colorings (labelings) describe the CTM’s current understanding and phenomenological feelings in/for/of the world. (This helps explain what makes dreams so realistic.) Theorem: When CTM becomes consciously aware of chunk <p, t, g, w, Intensity>, a subjective experience is evoked. This subjective experience is a fusion of the subjective experiences evoked by the meanings of the words in g. The intensity and valence of the evoked experience are given by w (modulated by “global context”). Proof: According to the Blums, CTM becoming consciously aware of chunk <p, t, g, w, Intensity> means that CTM pays conscious attention to it—i.e., all processors simultaneously receive that broadcasted chunk— and simultaneously inspect it. The conclusion of the Theorem then follows from Axiom A. As CTM becomes consciously aware of more chunks, the MotWp may call attention to this awareness by submitting to the competition chunks alluding to this with high |w|.. The word <p, t> pointing to such a broadcasted winning chunk becomes the Brainish word for <CONSCIOUSLY_AWARE> or simply <CONSCIOUS>. The MotWp labels the sketch of CTM in the MotW with <p, t> aka <CONSCIOUS>. When CTM inspects a broadcasted chunk with the labeled sketch <CTM><CONSCIOUS>, it experiences (by Axiom A) a fusion of the experiences evoked by (the meaning of the words in) this labeled sketch. This experience evokes CTM’s feeling of its own consciousness. Mislabeled MotW sketches can evoke “human-like” pathologies in CTM: a sketch of a (perfectly) functional actuator labeled <NOT-SELF> may cause body integrity disorder; a sketch of an amputated actuator labeled <SELF>, phantom limb syndrome; a sketch of a friend labeled <SPY>, paranoia. Alignment with other theories of consciousness Although a simple machine model, CTM integrates and aligns, at a high level, with key features of major contemporary theories of consciousness. These theories include: 1. Global Workspace / Global Neuronal Workspace 2. Attention Schema Theory 3. Predictive Processing 4. Embodied Embedded Enactive Extended Mind 5. Integrated Information Theory 6. Evolutionary Theories of Consciousness 7. Reticulothalamic Activating System + Free Energy Principle A discussion of CTM’s alignment with these and other theories of consciousness can be found in (Blum & Blum, 2025). For example, CTM aligns with the architectural and global broadcasting features of Bernard Baars’ global workspace (GW) theory of consciousness (Baars, 1997) and, at a high level, with the global neuronal workspace (GNW) theory of consciousness of neuroscientists Stanislas Dehaene (Dehaene, 2014), Jean-Pierre Changeux (Dehaene & Changeux, 2005), and others. However, CTM differs from GW in significant ways: CTM’s competition for global broadcasting is formally defined; CTM constructs world models; and CTM purposely has no Central Executive. This latter makes it a good model for AGI (Blum & Blum, 2025). Since CTM makes no claim that its functions map to specific areas of the human brain, CTM can align with the underlying principles of competing theories such as Global Neuronal Workspace and Integrated Information Theory that make such claims (see Cogitate, Ferrante, Gorska-Klimowska et al., 2025). Philosophically, CTM aligns with much of Daniel Dennett’s functionalist perspective (Dennett, 1991). CTM’s competition for STM leading to global broadcast and conscious attention aligns with Dennett’s “multiple drafts” competing (Dennett, 1991) for “fame in the brain” (Dennett, 2001). Along with Dennett, the Blums do not see the explanatory gap (Levine, 1983) as insurmountable. On the contrary, they see CTM as helping to explain the feeling of “what it is like” (Nagel, 1974). Related, as with Michael Graziano’s Attention Schema Theory (Graziano, Guterstam, Bio, & Wilterson, 2020), CTM (with its MotW) appears to embody and substantiate “illusionist” notions of consciousness proposed by Dennett (Dennett, 2019) and Keith Frankish (Frankish, 2016). On the other hand, some researchers, whose theories align with CTM to varying degrees, conclude that consciousness requires living organisms. The Blums disagree strongly with this. Prominent are Anil Seth (Seth, 2025), whose predictive processing and controlled hallucinations align with CTM’s predictive dynamics and MotW, and Nick Humphrey (Humphrey, 2023), whose evolutionary arguments align with CTM’s co-evolution of Brainish and the MotW. In Wiring the Brain, Kevin Mitchell presented sixteen questions “that a theory of consciousness should be able to encompass,” declaring that “even if such a theory can’t currently answer all those questions, it should at least provide an overarching framework” (see Mitchell, 2023). Preliminary answers from the perspective of CTM can be found in (Blum & Blum, 2025). Summary The Blums’ conclusion: CTM is a simple formal computational model of consciousness with four key takeaways: CTM is clearly buildable. CTM exhibits a variety of phenomena associated with human consciousness (Blum & Blum, 2022). CTM aligns at a high level with many leading theories of consciousness. CTM addresses Kevin Mitchell’s 16 questions: What should a real theory of consciousness encompass? The Blums’ implication: CTM makes plausible the claim that AI consciousness is inevitable (Blum & Blum, 2025). Footnotes [1]. For one, it is a highly parallel Random Access Machine (RAM). [2]. Baddeley describes the central executive as "the most important but least understood component of working memory" (Baddeley, 2003). CTM predicts that a central executive is not necessary for consciousness. The Blums contend, if CTM theory is a good model of human consciousness then CTM predicts that the brain has no Central Executive. Furthermore, they argue, CTM’s distributed and fair competition mechanism, enabling creative participation of unexpected talents, makes it a good model for AGI (Blum & Blum, 2025). [3]. Brainish words are reminiscent of what, in the AI/ML/neuroscience literature, are called keys. Chunks (that words point to, i.e., their meanings when inspected) are reminiscent of what are called values (Gershman, Fiete, & Irie, 2025). [4]. We assume that CTM can unpack a word in .1 milliseconds, 20 words in at most 2 milliseconds, and then it can inspect a chunk in 3 milliseconds. [5]. The bottom-most turtle.

---

### Dennett’s Multiple Drafts Model
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/dennett-s-multiple-drafts-model
Theorists: Daniel Dennett

In his intellectual memoirs, I've Been Thinking, philosopher Daniel Dennett highlights two fundamental questions on which his career is founded—the two related philosophical problems he set himself to solve. “First, how can it be that some complicated clumps of molecules can be properly described as having states or events that are about something, that have meaning or content. And second, how can it be that at least some of these complicated clumps of molecules are conscious—that is, aware that they are gifted with states or events that are about something?” (Dennett, 2023a, 2023b). In dealing with these questions, Dennett realized, way back in his PhD dissertation in 1965, that “the best—and only—way of making sense of the mind and consciousness is through evolution by natural selection on many levels.” Dennett's core insight subsuming biological evolution in general and the development of mind in particular is concise: reasons without a reasoner, design without a designer, and competence without comprehension (Dennett, 2007). Multiple Drafts and Consciousness Dennett's theory of consciousness is distinguished by four ideas: (i) there is no “Cartesian Theater,” no inner witness viewing the consciousness show; (ii) different brain regions or modules develop different kinds of content, which Dennett calls “multiple drafts”; (iii) the multiple drafts compete with one another for attention, the winner of the winner-take-all competition occupying the entirety of the conscious moment, which Dennett calls “fame in the brain”; and (iv) the collection of all these conscious moments coalesces into a kind of life story, the emergence of a sense of “self,” which Dennett describes as a “center of narrative gravity.” In Consciousness Explained, Dennett presents his multiple drafts model of consciousness (Dennett, 1992). He states that all varieties of perception, thought, or mental activity are processed in the brain via parallel, multitrack interpretations and elaborations, subject to continuous "editorial revision.” These “yield, over the course of time, something rather like a narrative stream or sequence, the product of continual editing by many processes distributed around the brain.” Dennett has the brain consisting of a "bundle of semi-independent agencies," and his metaphor “fame in the brain” tells us what it takes for competing ideas to determine the content of consciousness at any given moment. In supporting his theory, Dennett needs to undermine what we take to be common sense. He challenges the verisimilitude of inner experience, which he calls more like theorizing than like describing. He rejects the notion of a single central location (his "Cartesian theater") where conscious experience can be 'viewed.' “There is no single, definitive ‘stream of consciousness,’ because there is no central Headquarters” Dennett (1992). Dennett dissolves the idea of the 'self' as the central character of stories made up by content fixation and propagation in the brain. Moreover, he argues that the properties of qualia are incompatible and therefore incoherent, thus obviating the need to solve Chalmers's hard problem.[1] Dennett needs all four of these counterintuitive yet deeply probative assertions; the package is admirably coherent, but buying it is a tall order. Qualia and User Illusions Of Dennett's four assertions, his desired demolition of qualia is perhaps his most critical move. Here is how he defends it. “Qualia are user-illusions, ways of being informed about things that matter to us in the world (our affordances) because of the way we and the environment we live in (microphysically) are. They are perfectly real illusions! They just aren't what they seem to be; they are not intrinsic, unanalyzable properties of mental states; they are highly structured and complex activated neural networks that dispose us to do all sorts of things in response—such as declare that we're seeing something blue. The key move is to recognize that we have underprivileged access to the source or cause of our convictions about what we experience” (Rosenberg & Dennett, 2020). Ironically, while Dennett calls as evidence “user illusions” in his case to deflate consciousness and support materialism, cognitive psychologist Donald Hoffman calls as evidence “user illusions” in his case to inflate consciousness and deny materialism. This contrasting interpretation of precisely the same data by two first-rate thinkers is fascinating, perhaps telling. Dennett is not shy in asserting that people still underestimate by a wide margin the challenges that the brain-in-vat thought experiment raises for views of consciousness other than Dennett's own. The key fact is that “you don't know anything ‘privileged’ about the causation of your own thoughts. You cannot know ‘from the inside‘ what events cause you to think you see something as red or green, for instance, or cause you to push button A instead of button B.” In short, to truly understand consciousness, Dennett says “you need to go outside yourself and adopt the ‘third-person point of view’ of science” (Dennett, 2023a, 2023b). Heterophenomenology and Critiques Dennett stresses the importance of treating subjects' beliefs about their own consciousness as “data to be explained, not necessarily as true accounts of mental reality.” He states, “This is the major fault line in philosophy of mind today, with John Searle, Tom Nagel, David Chalmers, Galen Strawson, and Philip Goff [all represented in this paper], among others, thinking they can just insist they know better. They don't. Those who object, who hold out for some sort of ‘first-person science of consciousness,’ have yet to describe any experiments or results that are trustworthy but unobtainable by heterophenomenology” (the term Dennett coined for the third-person method, the phenomenology of other minds, which is standard procedure in cognitive science). Dennett says his meeting with leading scientific researchers on consciousness enabled him “to begin to form at least vague ideas of how mechanisms of the brain might do all the work,” but only, he insists, “if we deflated some of the overconfident pronouncements of introspectors about the marvels of the phenomena” (Dennett, 2023a, 2023b). In describing his early book, Content and Consciousness, where he puts content before consciousness, Dennett differentiates himself from John Searle, who puts consciousness before content. Although Searle and Dennett are both biological naturalists and both, for example, eschew panpsychism, Dennett believes that by prioritizing content, the mystery of consciousness is mitigated. Dennett has had a long, friendly, though surely adversarial relationship with Chalmers. “Even expert scientists have been fooled by Chalmers' ‘the Hard Problem’ into thinking that there's one big mysterious fact that needs explaining, when in fact there are hundreds of lesser problems that can be solved without any scientific revolutions, and when they are all solved, the so-called Hard Problem will evaporate” (Dennett, 2023a, 2023b). It is worth noting the more general case of a multiple module way of thinking, which posits separate if not independent cognitive components of the mind rooted in the brain (though not needing to correspond to identifiable brain structures). Footnote [1]. Two witticisms exchanged by Dan Dennett and Dave Chalmers at the 2014 “Toward a Science of Consciousness” conference in Tucson, organized and managed by Stuart Hameroff and co-organized in some years by Chalmers. Dan: “I now know what it feels like to be a policeman at Woodstock.” Dave: “Everyone has a crazy theory about the ‘hard problem’—even Dan, who says there is no ‘hard problem.’”

---

### Minsky’s Society of Mind
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/minsky-s-society-of-mind
Theorists: Marvin Minsky

Artificial intelligence pioneer Marvin Minsky calls the multiple semi-independent modules in the human mind, generated by physically locatable modules in the human brain, The Society of Mind (not coincidentally the name of his book). It is a model of human cognition constructed, step by step, from the nonconscious interactions of simple mindless elements he calls “agents” (Minsky, 1986). Awareness and the Limits of Knowledge “What does it mean to say you're aware of yourself?” Minsky asks. It would be impossible “for any one part of the brain to know what's happening in all the other parts of the brain because there's just too much. Each part of the brain has connections to other parts of the brain and can get some ideas, but there's no place that knows everything” (Minsky, 2007b). “The Society of Mind,” according to Minsky, is the end product of a vast evolutionary history, beginning with just clumps of neurons. Because neurons evolved early and had to keep their physiological integrity, progress was made by neurons gathering together, which led to the first small brains, and when these small brains began to specialize as well as to associate, “mind” began to develop (Minsky, 2007b). Minsky is as blunt as he is insightful. “While many neuroscientists focus on how brain cells [neurons] work, to me, that's pretty much like trying to understand a computer from how transistors work. The neurons and synapses are maybe six levels of organization below the thoughts that you're actually aware of, the important things that distinguish a human from a crayfish. These high-level descriptions are what counts, and each of them has to be understood by itself. Any particular thing that happens in Level 5 can be understood as a combination of maybe 20 or 50 things that happen in Level 4 and so forth. But you can't understand Level 5 even if you know everything about how neurons and synapses work. The difference between a human and a crayfish is that a human has these multiple levels of brain organization that the earlier animals did not have” (Minsky, 2007b). Models, Machines, and Memory Actually, Minsky says, “I'm interested in how this piece of machine, the brain, can do things like decide that what it’s doing isn't working. How does it develop new goals? How does it develop new methods for achieving its goals? And, most important, how does it make a model of itself as a being in a world and think high-level stuff about its own past and its future?” It has been known for well over 100 years that the brain has many different parts. Minsky envisions something “like a great network of computers, each of which is specialized. It's not that it’s a society of little people, but rather a society of biological machines, say 400 or more of these, each with different top-level functions, including the capacity to imagine planning proposals and counterfactual histories.” Minsky speculates that cortical columns of related neurons, which are intermediate in complexity, can store things for a certain period without any changes in probability or conductions. We evolved these structures, he says, “so we could have reliable short-term memories that represent knowledge in many different ways.” In context, Minsky advises studying “insulation theory.” He says, “Theorists called ‘connectionists’ say what's important about the brain is how things are connected to each other. You could argue that it’s even more important to know how things are insulated from each other—why you don't get a big traffic jam because there's too many connections” (Minsky, 2007b).

---

### Sejnowski’s Computational Two Tiers and Traveling Waves
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/sejnowski-s-computational-two-tiers-and-traveling-waves
Theorists: Terrence J. Sejnowski

Computational neurobiologist Terrence J. Sejnowski’s theory of consciousness is a computational framework that focuses on the global dynamics of spiking neurons and traveling waves. He proposes that consciousness arises from a sophisticated, "two-tier" organizational structure within the cerebral cortex, where high-level cognition coexists with, but remains functionally distinct from, standard sensorimotor processing (Sejnowski, 2015, 2026). Sejnowski’s theory descends directly from the research program initiated by Francis Crick, and then transforms the 20th-century focus on visual awareness into a 21st-century focus on "two-tier" cortical processing and high-precision temporal coding. Sejnowski suggests that “With a deeper understanding of the brain mechanisms that govern perception, decision-making, and planning, the problem of consciousness could disappear like the Cheshire cat,” leaving behind only the "broad grin" of scientific understanding (Sejnowski, 2015). Two-Tier Architecture and Spike-Timing Precision The foundation of Sejnowski’s theory is a radical reorganization of cerebrocortical function via a "two-tier" hypothesis. For much of the last century, neuroscience relied on the "neuronal rate coding" model, which suggests that neurons convey information primarily through their average firing rates. While this "Tier 1" sensorimotor tier is efficient for fast, real-time interactions with the environment—averaging a firing rate of approximately 1 Hz (0.1 Hz to 10 Hz) during routine tasks and more than 100 Hz (even up to 200 Hz) during active movement or sensory stimulation—it is insufficient to explain the complexities of high-level cognition and self-generated thought. Sejnowski proposes a second, "Tier 2" cognitive tier that "rides astride" this sensorimotor network. This second tier utilizes millisecond-precision spike timing and temporary synaptic plasticity to support cognitive processing and long-term working memory (Sejnowski, 2026). Sejnowski says, “The discovery of millisecond-precision spike initiation in cortical neurons was unexpected (Mainen and Sejnowski, 1995). Even more striking was the precision of spiking in vivo, in response to rapidly fluctuating sensory inputs, suggesting that neural circuits could preserve and manipulate sensory information through spike timing. High temporal resolution enables a broader range of neural codes. The relative timing of spikes between presynaptic and postsynaptic neurons in the millisecond range triggers spike-timing-dependent plasticity (STDP)” (Sejnowski, 2026). Sejnowski’s move toward this temporal precision was supported by the discovery that cortical pyramidal neurons are remarkably reliable when responding to fluctuating inputs. Reflecting on the experimental freedom that led to this insight, he notes: "One of the advantages of having a wet lab is that you do not have to wait for someone else to do your experiment.” By injecting "frozen noise" into neurons, Sejnowski’s lab demonstrated that spike initiation is surprisingly robust, organized by a post-inhibitory rebound mechanism. In this model, inhibitory inputs from parvalbumin-positive (PV) basket cells hyperpolarize the neuron, de-inactivating sodium channels and priming the cell for a precisely timed spike. This precision is not mere noise; it is the fundamental language of the cognitive tier, allowing the brain to perform complex computations that rate codes alone cannot sustain (Sejnowski, 2026). Traveling Waves as a Spacetime Code for Context A central pillar of Sejnowski's theory is the role of traveling waves in organizing these precisely timed spikes into a "spacetime population code". Unlike synchronous oscillations, where neurons fire at the exact same moment, traveling waves are "wave packets" that propagate across the cortex, mixing spatial and temporal information. Sejnowski draws a powerful analogy between these dynamics and holography, where a three-dimensional object is reconstructed from a two-dimensional photographic plate. In the brain’s "holographic" representation, time serves as one of the critical dimensions, allowing a single population of neurons to represent a window of time rather than just a fleeting moment (Sejnowski, 2026). These waves provide the necessary temporal context for consciousness by extending the brain’s integration window. As information moves up the cortical hierarchy, this window expands from 100 milliseconds in the primary visual cortex to as much as 10 seconds in the prefrontal cortex. Sejnowski argues that this mechanism mirrors the "self-attention" found in modern AI Transformers, where the meaning of a word is extracted from its relationship to other words across a sentence. He observes: "Spacetime codes in cortical association areas can represent, within a single population, a window of time spanning both signals, like words in a sentence" (Sejnowski, 2026). This Tier 2 network, organized by traveling waves and temporary synaptic plasticity (STDP), essentially creates a "global workspace" for cognition that can last for hours. This theory also offers a parsimonious explanation for the Blood Oxygen Level Dependent (BOLD) fMRI signal, which Sejnowski argues reflects the metabolic cost of this synaptic plasticity and attention rather than simple spiking activity. As he puts it, “Cortical traveling waves have been observed across many frequency bands with high temporal precision, and neural mechanisms can plausibly enable traveling waves to trigger STDP lasting for hours in cortical neurons. This temporary cortical network, riding astride the long-term sensorimotor network, could support cognitive processing and long-term working memory” (Sejnowski, 2026). Postdiction and the Subjective Unity of the "Now" Perhaps the most counterintuitive aspect of Sejnowski’s theory is the assertion that conscious awareness is postdictive rather than purely predictive. He argues that our brain is constantly "revising history" to create a unified experience from the disparate, delayed signals it receives from the senses. This is evidenced by the "flash-lag effect," where a flash and a moving object at the same location appear offset because the brain’s perception depends on events occurring in the 80 milliseconds after the flash (Eagleman and Sejnowski, 2000). Sejnowski defines this temporal revision as a core feature of awareness: “The brain is postdictive rather than predictive; that is, the brain is constantly revising history to make the conscious present consistent with the future". This ability to unify experience also depends on a specific thalamic architecture. While the "core" thalamic system supports Tier 1 sensorimotor control, the "matrix" thalamic system projects widely to the superficial layers of the cortex and thus controls Tier 2 cognitive processing. Sejnowski highlights the vital importance of this matrix system by noting that even minor lesions in the intralaminar nuclei can lead to a total loss of consciousness. Thus, consciousness is the result of a massive, global coordination of these matrix pathways, organizing self-generated activity—thinking—that continues even when external prompts stop (Sejnowski, 2026). Thinking as Self-Generative Activity Sejnowski’s theory of consciousness ultimately distinguishes biological consciousness from current artificial intelligence by its "self-generative" nature. While Large Language Models (LLMs) possess feedforward hierarchies that cease activity when a prompt ends, the human brain maintains massive feedback loops and recurrent connectivity that support internal attention and decision-making without external input. By implementing "System 2" capabilities—self-generative activity organized by traveling waves and STDP—it may be possible to endow future machines with a form of cognition that more closely resembles the human experience. To Sejnowski, “Many philosophical questions about the ‘mind’ could have scientific answers if we knew more about the neural mechanisms underlying cognition. Descartes (1637) put it simply: ‘Cogito, ergo sum.’ A corollary of this dictum is: ‘Once we understand thinking, we will know ourselves.’ We should be open to more surprises as we explore the global dynamics of spiking neurons and their underlying subthreshold dynamics over a wide range of time scales.” Ultimately, Sejnowski’s framework suggests that consciousness is the global dynamic state of a brain that is "thinking about thinking". It is a system that uses its Tier 2 network to build an internal representation from prior experiences, effectively pulling context across time to guide future actions. As he concludes, understanding the mechanical "how" of this self-generation is the key to knowing ourselves. References Eagleman, D. M. & Sejnowski, T. J. (2000). Motion Integration and Postdiction in Visual Awareness. Science, 287, 2036-2038. Mainen, Z. F. & Sejnowski, T. J. (1995). Reliability of spike timing in neocortical neurons. Science, 268, 1503-1506. Muller, L., Churchland, P. S., & Sejnowski, T. J. (2024). Transformers and cortical waves: encoders for pulling in context across time. Trends in Neurosciences, 47(10), 788-802. Sejnowski, T. J. (2015). Consciousness. Dædalus, 144(1), 123-132. Sejnowski, T. J. (2018). The Deep Learning Revolution. The MIT Press. Sejnowski, T. J. (2026). Dynamical Mechanisms for Coordinating Long-term Working Memory Based on the Precision of Spike-timing in Cortical Neurons. Computational Neurobiology Laboratory. Tiesinga, P., Fellous, J. M., & Sejnowski, T. J. (2008). Regulation of spike timing in visual cortical circuits. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 9, 97-109.

---

### Agüera y Arcas’s Computational Functionalism
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/agueera-y-arcas-s-computational-functionalism
Theorists: Blaise Agüera y Arcas

AI engineer/visionary Blaise Agüera y Arcas's robust, coherent form of “computational functionalism” exemplifies the theory of consciousness widely accepted in AI communities and other scientific disciplines: consciousness is simply an emergent function of the right kinds of computations. It is not a mysterious, supernatural, ineffable quality but a knowable, natural, inevitable consequence of (i) computation as the foundation of life; (ii) functionalism as mental states described by their causes and effects, not by their substrates; and (iii) the way complex, predictive systems evolve and interact. Consciousness is a relational, computational process that is a fundamental property of life and intelligence (Agüera y Arcas, 2025). Intelligence and Life as Computation Intelligence and Life as a Form of Computation: The core of Agüera y Arcas's theory is the belief that life and intelligence are fundamentally computational. He defines life as “a self-modifying, computational state of matter that arises through evolutionary selection for the ability to persist through time by actively constructing itself, whether by growing, healing, or reproducing.” Unabashedly, he proclaims, “Yes, everything alive is a computer!” and he explains “why self-construction requires computation, and why, even more fundamentally, the concept of function or ‘purpose,’ which is central to life, is inherently computational.” Consciousness, then, is an emergent property of this computation, not something separate from it (Agüera y Arcas, 2025). Functional Character of Living Systems: The perspective Agüera y Arcas offers is inspired by the work of Alan Turing and John von Neumann, who suggest that any system that can replicate and persist in a dynamic environment must be a form of computer. Both could be described as proponents of ‘functionalism,’ Agüera y Arcas says. “They had a healthy disregard for disciplinary boundaries, and understood the inherently functional character of living and intelligent systems.” As Agüera y Arcas puts it, “Functions define relationships, rather than insisting on particular mechanisms. A function is what it does. Two functions are equivalent if their outputs are indistinguishable, given the same inputs. Complex functions can be composed of simpler functions.” He argues that functionalism is “not ‘reductive.’” Rather, “It embraces complexity and emergent phenomena. It doesn’t treat people like ‘black boxes,’ nor does it deny our internal representations of the world or our felt experiences. But it stipulates that we can understand those experiences in terms of functional relationships within the brain and body—we don’t need to invoke a soul, spirit, or any other supernatural agency. Computational neuroscience and AI, fields Turing and von Neumann pioneered, are both predicated on this functional approach” (Agüera y Arcas, 2025). Consciousness as Prediction Agüera y Arcas posits that consciousness is a manifestation of an organism's ability to model, predict, and influence its future. This predictive capacity is not a nonphysical or supernatural phenomenon but an inherent feature of evolved computational agents. In this view, sensory input isn't a direct experience but rather an “error-correction signal” that constantly refines the brain's internal model of reality. In this context, he defines intelligence as “the ability to model, predict, and influence one's future” and says that this predictive capacity is the basis of conscious experience. His example is vision. “Vision is not the raw stream of sensory input from our eyes. Rather, that input stream acts like an error-correction signal. Vision—what we actually see—is a reconstruction of the world around us, an actively maintained and constrained hallucination” (Agüera y Arcas, 2025). Sensory data, in this view, is not the primary experience itself but rather an error-correction signal that keeps the internal model aligned with reality. Thus, Agüera y Arcas argues that consciousness is an actively maintained and constrained hallucination, a continuously updated model of the world that the brain creates based on sensory input (or, alternatively, recalled by memory, replayed or remixed during dreaming, or constructed in imagination). Moreover, because “Modeling and prediction are computational too [...] they can only take place on a computational platform; thus intelligence needs life. Likewise, life needs intelligence, because the ability to persist through time depends on predicting and influencing the future—in particular, on ensuring that the entity doing the predicting will continue to exist in the future. Hence all living organisms are, to one degree or another, intelligent. Every one of them is smart enough to have persisted through time in a complex, ever-changing environment” (Agüera y Arcas, 2025). A corollary is that consciousness, in some limited or fuzzy forms, goes deeper down the phylogenetic scale than is generally assumed. Theory of Mind Agüera y Arcas says that “theory of mind” is the heart of his main argument. Theory of mind is the ability to model the minds of others—to appreciate that others have their own distinct mental states, including beliefs, desires, and intentions; and to infer what others think, feel, or intend to do. Thus, theory of mind is what enables social interaction, communication, and prediction of behavior. Agüera y Arcas contends that theory of mind has or generates multiple effects: it powers the “intelligence explosions” that have produced Homo sapiens and other big-brain species; enables counterfactual “what-ifs”; motivates, and is enhanced by, the development of language; underwrites a kind of free will (compatibilist); operates both in social networks and within individual brains; among others. In short, according to Agüera y Arcas, theory of mind “is the origin and mechanism of consciousness.” He says, “In a sense, theory of mind is mind” (Agüera y Arcas, 2025). Social Origin of Consciousness: Agüera y Arcas proposes that the uniquely human form of consciousness emerged from a social ‘arms race.’ As multiplayer life became complex, the main work of a mind became modeling other minds. This led to the mutual modeling arms race, resulting in this kind of “intelligence explosion,” which was recursively driven by the evolutionary pressure to develop a sophisticated theory of mind. As social animals became better at predicting the beliefs, intentions, and behaviors of their peers, they also applied this modeling to themselves, leading to self-reflection and the experience of a unified “self.” This relational process, rather than a solitary, internal one, is what Agüera y Arcas argues constitutes consciousness (Agüera y Arcas, 2025). Agüera y Arcas integrates Douglas Hofstadter’s concept of the “strange loop,” which describes the self-referential nature of consciousness, where the act of modeling others who are, in turn, modeling you back, creates a recursive hierarchy of thought. This self-modeling is what gives rise to the sense, but not the reality, of a coherent and unified conscious “I.” Similarly, he engages Michael Graziano’s “Attention Schema Theory,” where consciousness is an illusion arising from this modeling of one’s own attention, though Agüera y Arcas himself would not call consciousness an “illusion.” Free Will and Language Consciousness and Free Will are Real: Agüera y Arcas holds that while no new fundamental physics are required to account for consciousness and free will, these concepts are nonetheless real, not illusory. This is because everything we consider “real” in our everyday experience—from thermodynamic concepts like pressure and temperature, to subjective states like “pain” or “hunger,” to object categories like “table” and “chair”—is a coarse-grained model, where many microscopic details are filtered or averaged out to enable generalization and prediction. Hence, “reality,” as commonly understood (i.e., to include such things as tables, chairs, and people), is a computational level of description that is necessarily more coarse-grained than fundamental physics. Hidden variables and indeterminacy are therefore always present at the level of the “real,” even in a fully deterministic universe. Furthermore, when a computationally sophisticated agent constructs a model of the world including itself and other (also sophisticated) agents, valence (pain or pleasure), free will, subjectivity, recursive theory-of-mind, and consciousness emerge naturally in the coarse-graining, just as temperature emerges naturally in the coarse-graining of thermodynamics. Thus, free will and consciousness are as real as temperature is. Language Energizes Consciousness: Agüera y Arcas sees language as a powerful vehicle for this social theory-of-mind computation. It enables the sharing of otherwise hidden mental states and facilitates the development of higher-order theory of mind. The brain's language-generating centers function as an “interpreter” that weaves a continuous narrative of one's experiences and actions, bolstering the senses of a unified and stable self. Language also augments long-range planning, reasoning, and the ability to choose among alternative futures—hence aiding in the exercise of free will. Eschewing all Dualisms Naturally, Agüera y Arcas rejects the idea of a single, localized “seat of the soul” or “homunculus” in the brain. He references split-brain patients, who appear to have two independent minds, to argue that the evolution of the brain brought about “larger, collective intelligences” that model each other (note “Minsky’s Society of Mind”). The sense of a unified self is a constructed narrative, or an “interpreter” function, rather than a single, central command center. Agüera y Arcas also argues that the “hard problem” of consciousness is a philosophical illusion stemming from a relentlessly individualistic perspective and an archaic, dualistic distinction between mind and matter; thus, it is a philosophical dead end. Instead of viewing consciousness as a singular, nonphysical phenomenon, he sees it as a relational, computational process that is a fundamental property of life and intelligence (Agüera y Arcas, 2025).

---

### Bostrom’s Computational Functionalism
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/bostrom-s-computational-functionalism
Theorists: Nick Bostrom

Philosopher-futurist Nick Bostrom espouses a computational functionalism theory of consciousness, which is consistent with his view that there is a distinct possibility that our world and universe, our total state of affairs, is a computer simulation. While Bostrom does not focus on a theory of consciousness directly, by exploring this idea that we may be simulated beings in a computer created by highly advanced nonhuman civilizations, Bostrom indirectly raises questions about what kinds of systems can be conscious, which in turn raises questions about the deep essence of consciousness (Bostrom, 2003, 2006). Simulation and Consciousness The logic is almost a tautology: a computer simulation would require, by definition, that our consciousness and the consciousnesses of all sentient creatures would be, ipso facto, computational consciousness. Of course, Bostrom does not argue that we are living in a simulation, so his computationalism as a theory of consciousness is motivated by other factors, including computational neuroscience. In fact, one could make the case that the arrow of causal explanation points in the reverse direction: consciousness as computational would need to be a condition precedent, necessary but not sufficient, for the simulation argument to be coherent. “If it is possible to simulate human minds,” Bostrom writes, “and if simulated minds can be conscious, then our own consciousness might be realized in a substrate other than biological neurons.” If so, this would mean that consciousness is substrate independent (i.e., multiple realizability), which is a core feature of functionalism, which holds that mental states are defined by their functional roles, what they do, rather than their material substrate, what they are made of (Bostrom, 2003, 2006). Moral and Epistemological Implications Bostrom calls on the nature of consciousness to support his other core interests, including anthropic reasoning and observer selection effects (how being a conscious observer affects probabilistic reasoning about the universe), and the ethics of artificial intelligence. By writing, “The moral status of an entity depends at least in part on whether it is conscious, and if so, to what degree,” Bostrom leans toward accepting that consciousness comes in degrees and that phenomenal consciousness is morally significant. Thus, Bostrom’s theory of consciousness is more epistemological than metaphysical—it is not a theory of what consciousness is, but of how being conscious constrains what we should believe about the world (Bostrom, 2011).

---

### Grossberg’s Adaptive Resonance Theory
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/grossberg-s-adaptive-resonance-theory
Theorists: Stephen Grossberg

To computational neuroscientist Stephen Grossberg, “all conscious states are resonant states.” The conscious brain is the resonant brain where attentive consciousness regulates actions that interact with learning, recognition, and prediction (Grossberg, 2019). Grossberg's idea is that the mind is an activity, not a thing; a verb, not a noun—it's what you do, not what you have or use. His theoretical foundation is “Adaptive Resonance Theory” (ART), a cognitive and neural concept of how the brain autonomously learns to consciously attend, learn, categorize, recognize, and predict objects and events in a changing world (Grossberg, 2013). Central to ART's predictive power is its ability to carry out fast, incremental, and stable unsupervised and supervised learning in response to external events. Mechanisms of Resonance ART specifies mechanistic links in advanced brains that connect processes regulating conscious attention, seeing, and knowing with those regulating looking and reaching. Consciousness thus enables learning, expectation, attention, resonance, and synchrony during both unsupervised and supervised learning. These mechanistic links arise from basic properties of brain design principles such as complementary computing, hierarchical resolution of uncertainty, and adaptive resonance. These principles, recursively, require conscious states to mark perceptual and cognitive representations that are complete, context sensitive, and stable enough to control effective actions (Grossberg, 2019). Foundational to Grossberg's way of thinking is the idea that all biological processes, notably our brains, self-organize, and that all cellular systems illustrate variations of a universal developmental code. All these processes are regulated using physically different instantiations of mechanistically similar laws of short-term memory or activation, and long-term memory or learned memory, that are conserved across species, including in our brains (Grossberg, 2021). Resonance and Consciousness Resonance in the brain comes about via bottom-up patterns interacting with learned top-down expectations, leading to a persistent resonant state that can also lead to conscious awareness when it includes feature-selective cells that represent qualia. In this way, Grossberg uses ART to explain many mind and brain data about how humans consciously see, hear, feel, and know things (Grossberg, 2023). At the risk of oversimplification, Grossberg's unified theory of mind has three “laws” of consciousness: (i) All conscious states are resonant states; (ii) only resonant states with feature-based representations can become conscious; (iii) multiple resonant states can resonate together. He believes that the varieties of brain resonances and the conscious experiences that they support make progress towards solving the hard problem of consciousness (Grossberg, 2017).

---

### Malinkovic and Aru’s Biological Computationalism
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/malinkovic-and-aru-s-biological-computationalism
Theorists: Borjan Milinkovic, Jaan Aru

Neuroscientists Borjan Malinkovic and Jaan Aru propose a theory of consciousness they call “biological computationalism,” a framework where the specific physical and energetic properties of biological substrates are not merely implementation details, but constitutive of the computations capable of supporting consciousness. They argue that “biological systems support conscious processing because they (i) instantiate scale-inseparable, substrate-dependent multiscale processing as a metabolic optimisation strategy, and (ii) alongside discrete computations, they perform continuous-valued computations due to the very nature of the fluidic substrate from which they are composed.” They claim that “these features—scale inseparability and hybrid computations—are not peripheral, but essential to the brain’s mode of computation” (Malinkovic and Aru, 2025). Thus, Malinkovic and Aru challenge the general orthodoxy of “computational functionalism,” the oft-default philosophical stance that mental states supervene solely on the right kinds of patterns of information processing, irrespective of the physical medium in which they are instantiated. They argue that the distinction between biological and digital systems is foundational, rooted in the architectural separability of the latter. Contemporary deep learning systems—Large Language Models (LLMs)—have strict separations of scales and components. In these systems, memory, processing (the arithmetic-logic unit), and control are physically isolated, communicating via buses. The software algorithms are distinct from the hardware implementation. In contrast, biological computation is characterized by substrate dependence, in which the physical dynamics of the system—membrane potentials, ion flows, and chemical diffusion—are the computational substrate. In the brain, there is no "hardware abstraction layer"; the algorithm and its realization are co-instantiated and inseparable. As the authors pithily state: "The substrate is not merely a carrier of the algorithm—the substrate is the algorithm” (Malinkovic and Aru, 2025). Metabolic Constraints A foundational driver of biological computationalism is that the brain’s organizational structure is a direct evolutionary response to intense and unrelenting metabolic constraints. Unlike artificial neural networks, which can scale performance simply by consuming more energy—adding parameters and compute cycles at will—the brain operates under a strict caloric budget, consuming roughly 20 watts. This energy limitation, or scarcity, constrains the nervous system to adopt specific processing strategies that optimize computational capacity per unit of energy. This required optimization necessitates that information be aggregated from microscopic discrete events into macroscopic continuous dynamics to reduce costs. For example, non-spiking neurons use graded potentials to relay signals, capable of carrying significantly more information per second than metabolic-heavy spiking elements. The authors argue that these energy constraints actively shape the system's topology: "Metabolic constraints are therefore constitutive forces, shaping how neural systems process, transmit, and integrate information across scales" (Malinkovic and Aru, 2025). In the authors’ words, “The brain’s response to metabolic constraints—that of coarse-graining information across scales and retaining multiscale interdependencies—creates a particular form of organisation fundamentally different from engineered hierarchies.” The result is a neuronal system where computations at one scale cannot be cleanly separated from those at another. The authors call this multiscale interdependency a "heterarchy," to distinguish it from the rigid hierarchies of engineered systems. “This reveals a formal notion of scale-integration that assumes heterarchy over hierarchy: proving statements at one scale requires simultaneous access to information from other scales, much like Tarski hierarchies, but with continuous co-determination rather than unidirectional queries.” Comparing Digital and Biological Scales and Structures To be specific, in digital architectures, levels of abstraction are unidirectional; a higher-level coding language does not physically alter the transistor structure and logic beneath it in real-time. Biological systems, however, exhibit scale-inseparability, meaning there is no single privileged scale of dynamical processes that underpins consciousness. This undergirds the authors’ sophisticated analogy to Tarski hierarchies in formal logic, where truth at one level requires a meta-level for definition. Similarly, biological systems utilize a multiscale structure where lower scales endogenously generate higher scales, while higher-scale dynamics simultaneously constrain the activity of the lower scales. The authors cite evidence for “diffuse, continuous processes at the subcellular level exerting profound effects on network-level transitions,” which extend our understanding of graded potentials. These processes can be considered emergent temporal coarse-grainings, or slow features, that evolve over longer intervals than fast electrophysiological activity. A specific example is Protein Kinase A (PKA), which “compares internal activity with that of postsynaptic neurons, functioning as a decision process or a continuous evidence accumulation mechanism determining when the network’s dynamic goal has been reached,” which then triggers discrete network-level transitions (Malinkovic and Aru, 2025). This phenomenon is described as "dynamico-structural co-determination." It’s a mutual dependency implying that consciousness may require a specific type of emergent closure across scales that digital simulations—which model these scales as distinct mathematical objects—cannot natively replicate. The authors emphasize this crucial difference: "Computations [in the brain] at any one scale are not separable from each other... This scale inseparability suggests that there is no single privileged scale of dynamical processes that underpin consciousness." The authors stress that this sharp contrast between brain-based and chip-based computations highlights “an important conceptual caution: importing metaphors from engineered systems (which assume clean hierarchies) can obscure the functional organisation of biological brains. “We require frameworks accounting for multiscale integration, dynamico-structural co-determination, and the fluid, heterarchical nature of evolved neural processes” (Malinkovic and Aru, 2025). Hybrid Nature of Neural Dynamics The authors further differentiate biological processing through its hybrid nature, which integrates discrete signaling with continuous physical dynamics. While the long-time, standard neuron model—"integrate, trip threshold, fire"—describes a digital-like operation of summing inputs to a threshold, biological reality is far more complex. Neural tissue utilizes continuous-valued processes, such as graded membrane potentials and extracellular electric fields, which work non-digitally in an analogue regime of "continuous arithmetic" that is formally distinct from the discrete symbol manipulation of Turing machines. Dendritic computation exemplifies this hybridity. Dendrites utilize active voltage-gated channels to perform non-linear operations locally within the branchings, temporally aggregating (coarse-graining) inputs before they ever reach the soma to trigger (or not) the neuronal spike. Furthermore, neurons communicate through ephaptic coupling, where local electric fields modify the excitability of neighboring cells without synaptic contact, creating a "field-like" medium of information transfer that is spatially continuous. These oscillatory fields are not epiphenomenal waste products, rather information-bearing factors that influence, guide, and synchronize discrete neuronal firing events . The authors describe this interplay: "Spikes (discrete events) ride atop graded membrane potentials, ion flows, and field potentials (continuous processes), which themselves ride atop layer-integrated cortical anatomy" (Malinkovic and Aru, 2025). Implications for Artificial Consciousness A clear consequence of biological computationalism as a theory of consciousness would dampen the “prevailing optimism” that artificial systems, particularly LLMs, have the capabilities to one day be conscious. To reiterate, Malinkovic and Aru contrast computational functionalism (i.e., consciousness is solely the right pattern of information processing, independent of the physical substrate) with biological naturalism (i.e., conscious experience is dependent on the concrete physical processes of living systems). Despite the centrality of these positions to the artificial consciousness debate, the authors make the critical point that “there is currently no coherent framework that explains how biological computation differs from digital computation, and why this difference might matter for consciousness.” They then argue that “the absence of consciousness in artificial systems is not merely due to missing functional organisation but reflects a deeper divide between digital and biological modes of computation and the dynamico-structural dependencies of living organisms” (Malinkovic and Aru, 2025). The authors contend that because current AI systems, including LLMs, are built on von Neumann architectures that decouple information from its physical substrate, they fundamentally lack the causal structures necessary for consciousness. The missing ingredient is not merely algorithmic complexity but the presence of living-systems-based computation—operations grounded in finite, substrate-specific resources where the system’s existence is tied to its thermodynamics. To achieve true artificial consciousness, the authors propose moving beyond silicon-based digital logic toward biomimetic substrates that naturally support hybrid, multiscale processing. Such devices would require intrinsic "structured stochasticity" and memory that depends on physical history, akin to biological synapses. "Systems capable of supporting consciousness must integrate energy, structure, and dynamics, not merely manipulate symbols." Indeed, machines would have to embody the messy, energy-constrained, and inseparable nature of life itself (Malinkovic and Aru, 2025).

---

### Jackendoff’s Intermediate-Level Cognitive Representations
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/jackendoff-s-intermediate-level-cognitive-representations
Theorists: Ray Jackendoff

Linguist/philosopher Ray Jackendoff presents an “intermediate-level cognitive representations” theory of consciousness as a cognitively and computationally grounded, representational theory that accounts for consciousness, not by locating it in specific brain structure (as in the neural correlates of consciousness), but by identifying which types of mental representations are accessible to consciousness and why. He claims that conscious experience occurs at a specific level of mental representation, which he calls the “intermediate level.” It is situated between low-level sensory processing (raw data) and high-level cognitive representations (like abstract ideas). There is no “central observer,” no “Cartesian Theater” (Jackendoff, 1987). Intermediate-Level Representations Take the visual system. In Jackendoff’s model, low-level processing features light intensity and edge detection; intermediate-level: shapes, object contours, spatial relationships; high-level: object recognition, labeling, memory associations. According to Jackendoff, we are conscious of intermediate-level representations, not the raw sensory input or the high-level symbolic interpretations. He states, “We are not conscious of low-level sensory processing, nor of high-level conceptual structures, but of the representations in between.” Jackendoff's theory is modality-specific, meaning that each sensory system (vision, auditory, tactile, etc.) has its own intermediate representations that enter consciousness. This explains why we are not typically conscious of language syntax or phonology directly, he says, but we are aware of its perceptual output (e.g., sound or meaning). Consciousness as Representation Jackendoff has phenomenal consciousness as representational, not mystical. Given that he works within the computational theory of mind framework, he posits consciousness as the result of information processing, operating at the computational-cognitive level. Thus, he has consciousness arising from how information is formatted in the mind, in addition to that which it is about (Jackendoff, 1987). How does Jackendoff’s theory work? He supports a distributed, representational account, where consciousness is a result of specific kinds of neural representations. He is neutral regarding the underlying theory, but he believes that his theory—intermediate-level cognitive representations—articulates well with several of the leading theories of consciousness, including those globally accessible and those integrated.

---

### Complex Adaptive Systems Models
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/complex-adaptive-systems-models
Theorists: Charles D. Laughlin

A complex adaptive system (CAS) is a dynamic network of interactions whose collective behavior may not be predictable from its component behaviors and that can “adapt” or alter its individual and collective behavior, creating novelties. A CAS works, broadly, via kinds of mutation and self-organizing principles related to change-initiating events at different levels of its organizational structure (from micro to collective), motivated in a loose sense by kinds of rules or trophisms (“Complex adaptive system,” 2023). Consciousness as a CAS The application of CAS to consciousness can be argued from two perspectives. First, because the brain is a classic CAS in that it is the most complex system in the known universe—the brain has roughly (order of magnitude) 100 billion neurons and one quadrillion (1015) connections—with constant adaptations and emergences of novel functions or activities, and because consciousness is the output of the brain, therefore consciousness is a CAS. Second, characteristics of consciousness per se are characteristics of a CAS: interactions are non-linear and chaotic in that small changes in inputs can cause large changes in outputs (e.g., minor physical or psychological stimuli can trigger major behavioral responses); histories are relevant for current and future evolution of the system; thresholds are critical for initiating new actions; interactions can be recursive and unpredictable; and the system is open such that boundaries may not be definable (Rose, 2022). Understanding consciousness as an intelligent CAS may affect how we assess its impact on its environment; for example, how anthropology conceives of culture (Laughlin, 2023). Consciousness may be modeled as an intelligent CAS where intelligence means solving problems by mediating between sensory input and behavioral output. Evolution of an intelligent CAS is said to result in emergent properties.

---

### Critical Brain Hypothesis
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/critical-brain-hypothesis
Theorists: John Beggs

According to biophysicist John Beggs, the Critical Brain Hypothesis “suggests that neural networks do their best work when connections are not too weak or too strong.” This intermediate “critical” case avoids “the pitfalls of being excessively damped or amplified.” In criticality, the brain capacity for transmitting more bits of information is enhanced (Beggs, 2023). Optimal Balance at the Critical Point The hypothesis posits that the brain operates optimally near the critical point of phase transitions, oscillating between subcritical, critical, and modestly supercritical conditions. “The brain is always teetering between two phases, or modes, of activity,” Beggs explains, “a random phase, where it is mostly inactive, and an ordered phase, where it is overactive and on the verge of a seizure.” The hypothesis predicts, he says, that “between these phases, at a sweet spot known as the critical point, the brain has a perfect balance of variety and structure and can produce the most complex and information-rich activity patterns. This state allows the brain to optimize multiple information processing tasks, from carrying out computations to transmitting and storing information, all at the same time” (Beggs, 2023). The Critical Brain Hypothesis traces its origin to physicist Per Bak, who suggests that “the brain exhibits ‘self-organized criticality,’ tuning to its critical point automatically. Its exquisitely ordered complexity and thinking ability arise spontaneously … from the disordered electrical activity of neurons.” Founding his ideas on statistical mechanics, Bak hypothesizes that, “like a sandpile, the network balances at its critical point, with electrical activity following a power law. So when a neuron fires, this can trigger an ‘avalanche’ of firing by connected neurons, and smaller avalanches occur more frequently than larger ones” (Ouellette, 2018). The same sense of a critical brain being “just right,” Beggs says, also explains why information storage, which is driven by the activation of groups of neurons called assemblies, can be optimized. “In a subcritical network, the connections are so weak that very few neurons are coupled together, so only a few small assemblies can form. In a supercritical network, the connections are so strong that almost all neurons are coupled together, which allows only one large assembly. In a critical network, the connections are strong enough for many moderately sized groups of neurons to couple, yet weak enough to prevent them from all coalescing into one giant assembly. This balance leads to the largest number of stable assemblies, maximizing information storage” (Beggs, 2023). Evidence and Open Challenges Beggs claims that “experiments both on isolated networks of neurons and in intact brains have upheld many of these predictions” derived from networks operating near the critical point, especially in the cortex of different species, including humans. For example, it is possible to disrupt the critical point. “When humans are sleep deprived, their brains become supercritical, although a good night's sleep can move them back toward the critical point.” It thus appears, he suggests, that “brains naturally incline themselves to operate near the critical point, perhaps just as the body keeps blood pressure, temperature and heart rate in a healthy range despite changes to the environment” (Beggs, 2023). Two challenges are identified: (i) how is criticality maintained or “fine-tuned” in a biological environment (Ouellette, 2018), and (ii) “distinguishing between the apparent criticality of random noise and the true criticality of collective interactions among neurons” (Beggs, 2023).

---

### Markwell’s Process Identity Theory
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/markwell-s-process-identity-theory
Theorists: J. Kevin Markwell

Physician/surgeon J. Kevin Markwell’s “Process Identity Theory” proposes that conscious experience is identical to the brain’s recursive, temporally integrated, embodied self-modeling dynamics. This view extends classical mind–brain identity theories by identifying consciousness with ongoing dynamical activity rather than static neural states, much as weather arises from atmospheric dynamics. This framework aims to implement Douglas Hofstadter’s account of the “strange loop,” in which systems that recursively represent their own activity generate an internal point of view (Hofstadter 2007). Developed independently, Markwell’s Process Identity Theory aligns closely with Vikas O’Reilly-Shah’s State Space Theory of Consciousness (O’Reilly-Shah 2025; O’Reilly-Shah, Landscape entry). which was developed from bottom-up principles rather than this top-down conception, yet arrives at many of the same conclusions. In both cases, consciousness arises from the coupling of recursive self-modeling, temporally integrated neural dynamics, and embodied predictive regulation. Consciousness is recursive self-modeling as experienced from the inside. Structure and the Specious Present William James intuited that temporal consciousness spans a fraction of a second containing immediate past traces, the present, and anticipations—a structure he called the specious present (James 1890). Modern neuroscience suggests that conscious perception integrates information over roughly 200–300 milliseconds, reflected in recurrent cortical activity and event-related potentials (Dehaene and Changeux 2011; Pöppel 1997). Predictive processing principles operate at several levels throughout the system, from first-order inputs to reshaping internal dynamical attractor states (Lamme 2006; Grossberg 2021; Friston 2010). In essence, the brain continuously compares predictions with incoming signals and updates its internal models accordingly. These temporal windows form the scaffold for ongoing experience: each conscious moment corresponds to a cycle of neural reintegration across distributed cortical and subcortical networks. Inner and outer perceptions are continuously updated, enabling self-representation. Contemporary neuroscience emphasizes the role of reentrant neural dynamics in integrating perception, memory, and action across distributed brain systems (Edelman 1992). This recursive, system-level integration is necessary for consciousness, supporting the sense of continuity, unity, and selfhood—and constituting the system’s self-model. Embodiment and Qualia As Markwell explains, this timing scaffold of conscious experience is grounded in the embodied organism. Specific neural loops incorporate interoceptive, emotional, and homeostatic signals, meaning perception is inseparable from bodily states (Damasio 2010). Contemporary predictive accounts also emphasize perception as shaped by ongoing bodily regulation, not abstract computation (Seth 2013). Hormonal and neurotransmitter influences (oxytocin, norepinephrine, dopamine, among others) and visceral reactions (vagal inputs) are integrated with new perceptions as gestalt packages of experience and reincorporated into each cycle of the loop. Colors, pains, and emotions arise from this coalescence and reintegration, providing a mechanistic account of qualia without invoking non-physical properties, much less non-physical substances. Qualia are simply embodied integrated states. The near-instantaneous awareness of the affective weight of these gestalt packages—developed under environmental and internal constraints—likely arose for their evolutionary efficiency (LeDoux and Brown 2017; Davies 2025). The Recursive Newsroom Loop As Markwell has it, Hofstadter’s “strange loop” is not a solitary circular process but an organized swarm of interacting activity connecting subprocessing systems. Previous theorists have described elements of this architecture using metaphors such as theaters, stages, spotlights, blackboards, and broadcasts. Markwell offers an extended integrated metaphor of a rapid-fire newsroom grounded in dynamical systems interactions, in which the reader is recursively updated in each edition: “The Reader” is the currently instantiated self-model produced by the loop. The reader is not a homunculus but the system’s continuously updated self-model constituted by recursive dynamical processes. All representational content of the lived-in story physically involves the reader because it unfolds within the reader’s evolving self-model (Metzinger 2003). “Background knowledge and narrative memory” is the default mode network, where the reader typically reflects on past events, present situations, or imagined possibilities (Buckner, Andrews-Hanna, and Schacter 2008; D’Argembeau 2013). “Reporters “ are first-order inputs of new information challenging the status quo (Grossberg 2021; Friston 2010). “Editors” are salience and executive networks evaluating what matters, allocating cognitive resources, and determining relevance (Menon and Uddin 2010). “Action Desk” is the continuously active threshold-based interface that implements editorially prioritized action dynamics (Fried et al. 2017). “Wire Service“ isthe moment when recursive newsroom activity achieves global coherence sufficient for stable publication (Dehaene and Changeux 2011). Then back to the reader, where each iteration instantiates a new edition of the loop as an updated self-conception—Hofstadter’s continuous “I.” Although placing a “reader” at the beginning and end of the loop implies an observer, this conception avoids Daniel Dennett’s “Cartesian Theater” critique: the reader is simply the system’s current self-model, continuously updated through recursive processing (Dennett 1991). Conclusion: Identity and Monism In sum, Markwell has consciousness iass identical to the organism’s recursive, temporally integrated, embodied self-model unfolding in ongoing neural dynamics. Experience is not produced by neural processes; each instance of experience is the first-person instantiation of those processes. In this respect, Process Identity Theory echoes the monist insight of Baruch Spinoza that mind and body are not distinct substances but two expressions of a single underlying process grounded in unified physical reality. Reassessing the Zombie Intuition Philosophical zombies are supposed to be physically identical humans but lacking inner awareness and experience. If consciousness consists in recursive, temporally integrated, embodied self-modeling dynamics, a physically identical organism would instantiate the same processes that constitute experiences such as pain, color, and emotion. Because experience is identical to those processes, their instantiation is the occurrence of experience itself. A system instantiating those processes without experience is incoherent, since a process cannot occur without being instantiated. Zombies are conceivable only if experience is assumed to be something over and above the processes that constitute it. Dissolving the Hard Problem The hard problem asks how and why physical processes give rise to experience. Markwell argues that Process Identity Theory reframes the question: certain physical processes simply are what experience is. Frank Jackson’s later reassessment of the Mary argument reflects the same point: knowing every third-person description of a process is not equivalent to instantiating that process (Jackson 1998). The apparent gap between mechanism and phenomenology is epistemological, not ontological. Just as heat is molecular motion and life is self-sustaining biochemistry, consciousness is the internal perspective of a living recursive system. At some point, explanatory identity simply bottoms out. References Buckner, R. L., J. R. Andrews-Hanna, and D. L. Schacter. 2008. “The Brain’s Default Network.” Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1124: 1–38. D’Argembeau, Arnaud. 2013. “The Role of the Default Network in Self-Referential Thought.” Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 7: 222. Damasio, Antonio. 2010. Self Comes to Mind: Constructing the Conscious Brain. New York: Pantheon. Davies, A. P. 2025. “Is the Brain Just a Clever Calculator? Rethinking the Hard Problem of Consciousness.” PhilArchive. Dehaene, Stanislas, and Jean-Pierre Changeux. 2011. “Experimental and Theoretical Approaches to Conscious Processing.” Neuron 70 (2): 200–227. Dennett, Daniel C. 1991. Consciousness Explained. Boston: Little, Brown. Edelman, Gerald M. 1992. Bright Air, Brilliant Fire: On the Matter of the Mind. New York: Basic Books. Fried, Itzhak, Patrick Haggard, Biyu J. He, and Aaron Schurger. 2017. “Volition and Action in the Human Brain.” Journal of Neuroscience 37 (45): 10842–10847. Friston, Karl. 2010. “The Free-Energy Principle.” Nature Reviews Neuroscience 11 (2): 127–138. Grossberg, Stephen. 2021. Conscious Mind, Resonant Brain. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hofstadter, Douglas R. 2007. I Am a Strange Loop. New York: Basic Books. Jackson, Frank. 1998. From Metaphysics to Ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. James, William. 1890. The Principles of Psychology. New York: Henry Holt. Lamme, Victor A. F. 2006. “Towards a True Neural Stance on Consciousness.” Trends in Cognitive Sciences 10 (11): 494–501. LeDoux, Joseph, and Richard Brown. 2017. “A Higher-Order Theory of Emotional Consciousness.” PNAS 114 (10): E2016–E2025. Menon, Vinod, and Lucina Q. Uddin. 2010. “Saliency, Switching, Attention and Control.” Brain Structure and Function 214 (5–6): 655–667. Metzinger, Thomas. 2003. Being No One. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. O’Reilly-Shah, Vikas N. 2025. “State Space Theory as a Unifying Framework for Consciousness.” Nonlinear Dynamics, Psychology, and Life Sciences 30, no. 2. O’Reilly-Shah, Vikas N. Forthcoming. “Computational Dynamic Monism: Process Metaphysics for the State Space Theory of Consciousness.” PhilArchive. O’Reilly-Shah, Vikas N. 2026. Personal communication with author, March 18. Pöppel, Ernst. 1997. “A Hierarchical Model of Temporal Perception.” Trends in Cognitive Sciences 1 (2): 56–61. Seth, Anil K. 2013. “Interoceptive Inference, Emotion, and the Embodied Self.” Trends in Cognitive Sciences 17 (11): 565–573.

---

### Mikkilineni and Michaels’s Emergent Optimization Process
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/mikkilineni-and-michaels-emergent-optimization-process
Theorists: Rao Mikkilineni, Max Michaels

Technologists Rao Mikkilineni and Max Michaels propose that consciousness evolved in biological systems as a regulatory mechanism to manage the uncertainties of life. The genome encodes not only instructions for construction and repair, but also protocols for decline and death, making knowledge the essential elixir that sustains form and function in the face of instability. Consciousness, in this view, is an “emergent optimization process” situated at the intersection of material and mental structures, enabling life to navigate metastable states without succumbing to disorder. Drawing upon Mark Burgin’s General Theory of Information (GTI) (2010), Venki Ramakrishnan’s Why We Die (2023), Sri Aurobindo’s evolutionary philosophy (2005), and complex adaptive systems theory, Mikkilineni and Michaels argue that consciousness is the evolutionary solution to the business of life—the management of uncertainty in complex adaptive systems. The authors distinguish biological systems from purely physical ones in that they operate in metastable states. Fluctuations in energy, matter, and environmental conditions can drive them toward instability, where spontaneous emergence of new forms is possible. In physics, metastability often leads to phase transitions. In biology, however, metastability is harnessed. Organisms exploit it for flexibility, adaptation, and learning. Consciousness, on this account, is the meta-regulator that enables a living system to: Detect when its state approaches instability. Draw upon stored knowledge—associative memory and event-driven histories. Initiate adaptive action that preserves systemic coherence. Thus, consciousness is not epiphenomenal but functional, born from the need to survive in fluctuating environments. Information as the Bridge For the authors, Mark Burgin’s General Theory of Information (GTI) provides a conceptual foundation for understanding consciousness in informational terms. GTI distinguishes three interrelated domains: Material structures, which transform matter and energy. Mental structures, which process information into knowledge. Information, which is the bridge connecting material and mental domains. Knowledge, in GTI, is represented as named sets or fundamental triads: entities, relationships, and interaction-driven behaviors. Biological systems acquire knowledge by transforming epistemic information (derived from sensing and interaction) into usable representations. This allows them not only to model the world but also to optimize future states. Consciousness emerges as the integrative mechanism within hierarchical knowledge networks, where observation, modeling, and prediction are combined with decision-making and action (Burgin, 2010). The Genome: Knowledge Encoded Mikkilineni and Michaels stress the importance of the genome in the evolution of consciousness. The genome functions as a carbon-system-readable blueprint of knowledge. DNA does not merely specify proteins but encodes processes for building, operating, repairing, and ultimately dismantling the organism. As Ramakrishnan emphasizes in Why We Die, mortality is not an accidental failure but a design feature: death ensures error turnover and evolutionary renewal (Ramakrishnan, 2023). This means that the genome contains elaborate protocols for balancing: Growth and reproduction Maintenance and resilience Controlled decline and death. The genome is thus the primal knowledge manager, guiding biological societies of cells in collaborative function. As Itai and Lercher describe in The Society of Genes, each cell behaves as if it “knows” the whole structure, coordinating with neighbors through encoded communication rules. Consciousness emerges when such distributed knowledge requires integration across time, space, and scale (Itai & Lercher, 2016). Metastability in neural systems illustrates this principle. Brains operate in dynamic regimes that are neither rigidly ordered nor chaotic. Neural networks linger in metastable states, which allow rapid reconfiguration and flexible adaptation. Consciousness may be the integrative layer that: Maintains coherence across distributed neural processes. Evaluates systemic risks and opportunities. Prioritizes actions that optimize survival and reproduction. In this sense, the authors take consciousness to be the negotiator of life’s tradeoffs, integrating genomic knowledge with real-time environmental feedback. Ramakrishnan’s account adds a crucial dimension: life and death are not opposites but coupled processes within the genome’s management system. Cellular senescence, apoptosis, and immune regulation demonstrate that mortality is encoded knowledge. Consciousness, evolving alongside these processes, can be seen as the organism’s way of maximizing meaningful existence within bounded time (Ramakrishnan, 2023). This reframing, Mikkilineni and Michaels argue, has ethical and philosophical implications. Consciousness is not a cosmic anomaly but a pragmatic regulator. It does not conquer death but enables life to flourish within its constraints. Evolution of Consciousness and Mindful Machines Sri Aurobindo envisioned consciousness as an evolving principle: just as life emerged from matter and mind from life, higher forms of consciousness could emerge from the human mind (Aurobindo, 2005). This perspective frames AGI not as a technological endpoint but as part of a natural trajectory in the evolution of digital consciousness. In light of GTI’s ontological triad (above), we can understand both biological and artificial consciousness as emerging from the interplay of physical substrates, informational processes, and structural organizations. Such a perspective encourages us to anticipate new forms of awareness and to consider how they might transform human societies. As we move closer to AGI, the authors contend that distinguishing sentience from consciousness becomes critical: Sentience is the ability to sense and react with subjective experience, raising concerns about suffering and rights. Consciousness extends to self-awareness, autonomy, and identity, invoking questions of moral responsibility and personhood. Mindful Machines, in this view, are not merely intelligent tools but potential extensions of human consciousness. They embody a broader “Mindful” realm that integrates ethics, emotions, and human values. Thus, Mikkilineni and Michaels declare that the development of Mindful Machines should compel us to ask not only what we can build but what we should build. This ethical compass will be essential in navigating the existential challenges posed by artificial beings with potential for sentience or consciousness (Mikkilineni, 2025). The implications extend into computing. Current AI models—statistical pattern matchers—lack the capacity to manage uncertainty through knowledge. They mimic but do not regulate. A Mindful Machine architecture, informed by GTI, evolutionary philosophy, and biological analogies, would: Encode functional and non-functional requirements in a Digital Genome. Maintain associative memory and event-driven history for adaptation. Deploy autopoietic managers to preserve identity under disruption. Encode ethical constraints and possibly even graceful failure modes, inspired by biological death protocols, to prevent harmful persistence. Such systems would not possess human-like subjectivity but would replicate the knowledge-based optimization function that consciousness serves in living systems—augmented by ethical guidance (Mikkilineni, 2025). Evolutionary Adaptation The authors conclude that consciousness, far from being an ineffable mystery, can be understood as an emergent optimization process, an evolutionary adaptation for managing uncertainty in complex adaptive systems. It emerges where knowledge, encoded in the genome, must be integrated with real-time sensing to preserve systemic stability under fluctuating conditions. GTI provides the theoretical scaffolding for this view, situating consciousness at the nexus of material and mental structures (Burgin, 2010). Ramakrishnan’s Why We Die (2023) underscores that life and death are both genomic strategies, while Aurobindo (2005) reminds us that evolution points toward higher consciousness yet to come. Together, these insights suggest a paradigm shift: the creation of post-Turing computational models—Mindful Machines—as extensions of human consciousness (Turing, 2004). Their development will challenge us not just technically, but morally and existentially, forcing us to rethink the limits of intelligence and the essence of being (Mikkilineni, 2025). References Schwartz, S. A. (2018). Kuhn, consciousness, and paradigms. Explore: The Journal of Science and Healing, 14(4), 254–261. Kuhn, R. L. (2024). A Landscape of Consciousness: Toward a Taxonomy of Explanations and Implications. Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pbiomolbio.2023.12.003

---

### Pribram’s Holonomic Brain Theory
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/pribram-s-holonomic-brain-theory
Theorists: Karl H. Pribram

Neurosurgeon/neuroscientist Karl Pribram's Holonomic Brain Theory is the novel idea that human consciousness comes about via quantum effects in or between brain cells such that the brain acts as a holographic storage network (building on theories of holograms formulated by Dennis Gabor). (“Holonomic” refers to representations in a Hilbert phase space defined by both spectral and space-time coordinates.) (“Holonomic brain theory,” 2023). Holograms and Memory Storage Holograms are three-dimensional images encoded on two-dimensional surfaces, and Pribram's claim is that this counterintuitive capacity is fundamental in explaining consciousness. (There is precedent in that the holographic principle in quantum cosmology describes black hole entropy and information, with applications in string theory and quantum gravity [“Holographic principle,” 2024].) Holograms are generated from patterns of interference produced by superimposed wavefronts, created by split beams of coherent radiation (i.e., lasers) that are recorded and later reconstructed. A prime characteristic is that every part of the stored information is distributed over the entire hologram. Even if most parts of the hologram are damaged, as long as any part of the hologram is large enough to contain the interference pattern, that part can recreate the entirety of the stored image (but if the image is too small it will be noisy, blurry). The application of holographic models to consciousness was inspired by this non-locality of information storage within the hologram. It was Karl Pribram who first noted the similarities between an optical hologram and memory storage in the human brain, extrapolating what psychologist Karl Lashley had discovered about the wide distribution of memory in the cerebral cortex of rats following diverse surgical lesions. Pribram had worked with Lashley on Lashley's engram experiments, which sought to determine exact locations of specific memories in primate brains by making small lesions. The surprising result was that these targeted extirpations had little effect on memory. In contrast, removing large areas of cortex caused multiple serious deficits in memory and cognitive function. The conclusion was a milestone in neuroscience: memories are not stored in a single circuit or exact location but are spread over the entirety of a neural network. Thus, according to Holonomic Brain Theory, memories are stored in holographic-like fashion within certain general regions but stored non-locally within those regions. This enables the brain to maintain function and memory even after it is damaged. (This can explain why some children retain normal intelligence when large portions of their brains—in some cases, half—are removed.) (“Holonomic brain theory,” 2023). Quantum Processes and Consciousness More fundamentally, Holonomic Brain Theory conjectures that consciousness is formed by quantum events within or between neurons. This early theory of quantum consciousness, which Pribram developed initially with physicist David Bohm, combines quantum biology with holographic storage. Pribram suggests these processes involve electric oscillations in the brain's fine-fibered dendritic webs, which differ from the commonly accepted action potentials along axons and traversing synapses. These oscillations are waves and create wave interference patterns in which memory is encoded such that a piece of a long-term memory is similarly distributed over a dendritic arbor. The remarkable result is that each part of the dendritic network contains all the information stored over the entire network—a mechanism that maps well onto laser-generated holograms. Thus, Holonomic Brain Theory is said to enable distinctive features of consciousness, including the fast associative memory that connects different pieces of stored information and the non-locality of memory storage (a specific memory is not stored in a single location; there is no dedicated group or circuit of specific neurons) (“Holonomic brain theory,” 2023). Although Holonomic Brain Theory has not come to threaten mainstream neuroscience, it has intriguing features that should be explored. I don't hold it against the theory that it has stimulated unusual and creative speculations; for example, holographic duality and the physics of consciousness (Awret, 2022); holographic principle of mind and the evolution of consciousness (Germine, 2018); and quantum hologram theory of consciousness as a framework for altered states of consciousness research (Valverde et al., 2022). In fact, for a theory to have a shot at explaining consciousness, if it does not stimulate strange ideas, it probably doesn't have the disruptive firepower that is surely required. Extensions and Speculations For example, physicist Uziel Awret's dual-aspect information theory of consciousness—holographic-duality—is motivated by certain anti-physicalist problem intuitions associated with representational content and spatial location and attempts to provide these with a topic-neutral, consciousness-independent explanation—which, he says “is ‘hard’ enough to make a philosophical difference and yet ‘easy’ enough to be approached scientifically.” This is achieved by, “among other things, showing that it is possible to conceive of physical scenarios that protect physicalism from the conceivability argument without needing to explain all the other anti-physicalist problem intuitions.” Awret argues that “abstract algorithms are not enough to solve this problem and that a more radical ‘computation’ that is inspired by physics and that can be realized in ‘strange metals’ may be needed” (Awret, 2022).

---

### O'Reilly-Shah's State Space Theory and Computational Dynamic Monism
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/oreilly-shahs-state-space-theory-and-computational-dynamic-monism
Theorists: Vikas N. O'Reilly-Shah

Anesthesiologist and consciousness scientist Vikas N. O'Reilly-Shah's State Space Theory (SST) proposes that phenomenal consciousness arises from hierarchical delay coordinate embedding (DCE) in plastic recurrent neural networks. He says this is a mathematically precise proposal that the brain reconstructs the dynamical history of its own states and its environment through recurrent feedback in plastic neural networks. The accompanying metaphysical framework, Computational Dynamic Monism (CDM), identifies consciousness with the temporally extended computational process itself, not with any static neural state, functional role, or intrinsic property of matter. The claim is that this dissolves the hard problem through identity rather than explanation (O’Reilly-Shah, 2025, 2026a). The structured, temporally thick experience that constitutes subjective awareness is the instantiation of such a processing trajectory. The Mechanism: Delay Coordinate Embedding in Neural Networks SST's central claim is mechanistic. Delay coordinate embedding is an established technique from nonlinear dynamical systems theory, grounded in Takens' embedding theorem (Takens, 1981), by which time-delayed copies of a single observable variable are used to reconstruct the full state space of a dynamical system. O'Reilly-Shah proposes that biological recurrent neural networks implement this process naturally: recurrent feedback connections create the time delays. Through this mechanism, a recurrent network processes its current input in combination with prior inputs to create an embedding. On Takens, this reconstructs a topologically faithful image of the dynamical history that produced the input. The arrangement of these 'DCE engines' is hierarchical. Lower-level networks embed sensory dynamics; higher-level networks embed the dynamics of lower-level networks, creating a nested hierarchy of increasingly abstract dynamical reconstructions. At the highest levels of this hierarchy, the system embeds its own embedding activity. O'Reilly-Shah argues that this hierarchical self-referential DCE structure is the computational signature of phenomenal consciousness in biological cortex. The system does not just model the world; it models itself modeling the world. This modeling is the internal perspective that is experienced as subjectivity (O’Reilly-Shah, 2026b). Candidate Mechanisms and Converging Evidence O’Reilly-Shah says that several independent lines of mathematical and empirical work support the hypothesis that recurrent neural networks perform operations with the formal properties SST predicts. From reservoir computing: Hart and colleagues mathematically proved that a contracting recurrent network driven by structured input develops a synchronization function that embeds the input dynamics into the network's state space: the theory of generalized synchronization (A. Hart et al., 2020; A. G. Hart, 2025). Uribarri and Mindlin (2022) observed that trained recurrent neural networks develop internal representations with the geometric signature of time-delay embeddings, and Ostrow, Eisen, and Fiete (2024) extended this analysis to modern neural sequence models. These converging results suggest that delay coordinate embedding may be a generic computational property of recurrent neural networks rather than an architectural idiosyncrasy. Treating reservoirs as a candidate mechanism with established mathematical principles, O'Reilly-Shah and Selvitella formalize the connection between Hart's theorems and perception (O’Reilly-Shah & Selvitella, 2026). Contracting recurrent networks driven by regular dynamics generically implement smooth embeddings via generalized synchronization. Many perceptual domains involve environmental dynamics representable on low-dimensional regular attractors; for example, both bats and rodents represent three-dimensional space on a topological torus (Finkelstein et al., 2015; Gardner et al., 2022). This work provides a rigorous mathematical bridge from recurrent network dynamics to topology-preserving representation. Plasticity, Process, and the Deflection of Substitution Arguments O'Reilly-Shah emphasizes plasticity and process as critical features distinguishing SST from static computational theories. While computing, a static neural network traverses state space; a plastic recurrent network traverses function space. The function the network computes at time t1need not be the function it computes at time t2, because plasticity continuously reshapes the network's parameters. This means the system's computational identity is not a snapshot but a trajectory: consciousness is constituted by the ongoing, history-dependent evolution of the embedding process, computationally modulated by ongoing interaction with environmental input. This has formal consequences. O'Reilly-Shah, Selvitella, and Schurger demonstrate that no static feedforward network can maintain equivalence with a plastic recurrent network over unbounded time, because the recurrent system's future behavior depends on continuing self-modification that a fixed architecture cannot track (O’Reilly-Shah et al., 2025). Any system that does track it indefinitely must itself implement equivalent plasticity and environmental coupling, at which point it shares the original's process organization rather than constituting a genuinely different system. This is a key computational point that has also been made in the multiple realizability literature: that putative cases of multiple realizability frequently dissolve under closer examination of causal-mechanistic detail (Polger & Shapiro, 2016; Shapiro, 2000). This result deflects the unfolding argument (Doerig et al., 2019) and its Turing Completeness generalization (Herzog et al., 2022): the claim that any computable function can be re-implemented on any Turing-complete system with different causal structure. The claim is formally valid, O'Reilly-Shah maintains, when read as a statement about input-output functions, but its force diminishes as the required level of computational equivalence rises. A system matching a plastic recurrent network's behavior indefinitely must preserve its temporal organization, plasticity, and environmental coupling—and at that point, the Turing Completeness result supports multiple realizability of the same process organization across substrates, not the substitutability of a different process organization. On SST, O'Reilly-Shah argues that a system with identical plastic and processual trajectory would indeed have phenomenal consciousness; however, such precise equivalence is extraordinarily unlikely in practice due to unpredictable environmental input and, in chaotic regimes, sensitivity to initial conditions. The interactive Turing machine framework further clarifies that systems engaged in ongoing environmental exchange perform something that is not a function in the Church-Turing sense yet not hypercomputational. In an open-ended interactive process, the inputs cannot be pre-specified because they have not yet occurred (Goldin & Wegner, 2008; Martin et al., 2023; van Leeuwen & Wiedermann, 2001). Computationally, this means that ongoing environmental interaction also lends resistance to the unfolding argument and Turing Completeness generalization. Quality Spaces: Where Representational Geometry Meets Phenomenal Structure SST also offers a candidate computational mechanism for the structured representational spaces—quality spaces—that the structuralist program in consciousness science posits as the basis of phenomenal content. When a recurrent network reconstructs the dynamics of its sensory input through DCE, the geometry of the resulting embedding preserves the relational organization of the environment it tracks: stimuli that are dynamically similar (that lead to similar futures) are represented nearby in the network's state space, while stimuli that are dynamically distinct are represented far apart. The theory predicts that this representational geometry should distort in characteristic ways: compressing where prediction is poor, collapsing where physically distinct inputs have indistinguishable future consequences, and sharpening where the system's predictive accuracy is highest. These distortion patterns map onto known perceptual phenomena: metamers (physically distinct stimuli experienced as identical), categorical perception (sharpened boundaries between frequently encountered categories), and discrimination thresholds (principled limits on perceptual resolution). On this account, the imperfections in conscious perception are not noise but the predictable signature of a topology-preserving embedding operating under finite predictive resources. Computational Dynamic Monism: Dissolving the Hard Problem The metaphysical framework accompanying SST, Computational Dynamic Monism, holds that consciousness is identical to the temporally extended computational process, not produced by it, not correlated with it, and not emergent from it in any sense that would leave an explanatory gap. Just as lightning is identical to atmospheric electrical discharge (not caused by it, not correlated with it), phenomenal experience is identical to hierarchical self-referential DCE in plastic recurrent networks. The apparent gap between mechanism and phenomenology is epistemological, not ontological. It arises from the difference between third-person description and first-person instantiation (O’Reilly-Shah, 2026a). Thus, according to O'Reilly-Shah, CDM is a process monism: a single ontological category (physical process) underwrites both the objective description available to science and the subjective character available to the system itself. These characteristics of CDM, he claims, dissolve the hard problem as a category error and explain the privacy of qualia. Qualia are private not because they are ontologically separate from physical process, but because instantiating a process and describing it are irreducibly different epistemic relations to the same phenomenon. References Doerig, A., Schurger, A., Hess, A., & Herzog, M. H. (2019). The unfolding argument: Why IIT and other causal structure theories cannot explain consciousness. Consciousness and Cognition, 72, 49–59. Finkelstein, A., Derdikman, D., Rubin, A., Foerster, J. N., Las, L., & Ulanovsky, N. (2015). Three-dimensional head-direction coding in the bat brain. Nature, 517(7533), 159–164. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature14031 Gardner, R. J., Hermansen, E., Pachitariu, M., Burak, Y., Baas, N. A., Dunn, B. A., Moser, M.-B., & Moser, E. I. (2022). Toroidal topology of population activity in grid cells. Nature, 602(7895), 123–128. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-04268-7 Goldin, D., & Wegner, P. (2008). The Interactive Nature of Computing: Refuting the Strong Church--Turing Thesis. Minds and Machines, 18(1), 17–38. Hart, A. G. (2025). Generic and isometric embeddings in reservoir computers. Chaos (Woodbury, N.Y.), 35(11), 111103. https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0301957 Hart, A., Hook, J., & Dawes, J. (2020). Embedding and approximation theorems for echo state networks. Neural Networks: The Official Journal of the International Neural Network Society, 128, 234–247. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neunet.2020.05.013 Herzog, M. H., Schurger, A., & Doerig, A. (2022). First-person experience cannot rescue causal structure theories from the unfolding argument. Consciousness and Cognition, 98, 103274. Martin, A., Magnaudet, M., & Conversy, S. (2023). Computers as Interactive Machines: Can We Build an Explanatory Abstraction? Minds and Machines, 33(1), 83–112. O’Reilly-Shah, V. N. (2025). Delay coordinate embedding as neuronally implemented information processing: The state space theory of consciousness. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 32(1--2), 132–164. O’Reilly-Shah, V. N. (2026a). Computational dynamic monism: Process metaphysics for the state space theory of consciousness. In SSRN Electron. J. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.6042716 O’Reilly-Shah, V. N. (2026b). State Space Theory as a Unifying Framework for Consciousness. Nonlinear Dynamics, Psychology, and Life Sciences. O’Reilly-Shah, V. N., & Selvitella, A. M. (2026). Smooth embeddings in contracting recurrent networks driven by regular dynamics: A synthesis for neural representation. In arXiv [q-bio.NC]. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2601.19019 O’Reilly-Shah, V. N., Selvitella, A., & Schurger, A. (2025). A caveat regarding the unfolding argument: Implications of plasticity for computational theories of consciousness. In bioRxiv (p. 2025.11.04.686457). https://doi.org/10.1101/2025.11.04.686457 Ostrow, M., Eisen, A., & Fiete, I. (2024). Delay embedding theory of neural sequence models. In arXiv [cs.LG]. arXiv. http://arxiv.org/abs/2406.11993 Polger, T. W., & Shapiro, L. A. (2016). The Multiple Realization Book (L. A. Shapiro (ed.)). Oxford University Press UK. Shapiro, L. A. (2000). Multiple Realizations. Journal of Philosophy, 97(12), 635–654. Takens, F. (1981). Detecting strange attractors in turbulence. In Lecture Notes in Mathematics, Berlin Springer Verlag (Vol. 898, p. 366). https://doi.org/10.1007/BFb0091924 Uribarri, G., & Mindlin, G. B. (2022). Dynamical time series embeddings in recurrent neural networks. Chaos, Solitons, and Fractals, 154(111612), 111612. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chaos.2021.111612 van Leeuwen, J., & Wiedermann, J. (2001). The Turing Machine Paradigm in Contemporary Computing. In B. Engquist & W. Schmid (Eds.), Mathematics Unlimited---2001 and Beyond (pp. 1139–1155). Springer.

---

### Awret’s Holographic Correspondence Theory of Consciousness
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/awret-s-holographic-correspondence-theory-of-consciousness
Theorists: Uziel Awret

Physicist and consciousness veteran Uziel Awret appeals to the ‘holographic principle’ of quantum gravity to argue for the possibility of “an admittedly very strange, single physical mechanism that can provide novel insights to many of the problems that bedevil our theories of consciousness,” especially how mental states of the mind are in some sense identical to physical states of the brain. That’s why, he says, “we need a physics in which things that seem completely different are in some sense identical.” From Classical Holography to AdS/CFT Awret distinguishes his holographic theory from the more classical holographic brain theories associated with Lashley (1950) and Gabor (1971), which culminated in Pribram’s Holonomic theory (Pribram, 1991) in the early 1990s (although, he says, the concept of nonlocality was, and is, central to all holographic theories). Awret’s theory recruits the deep connections between quantum entanglement and the constitution of space, which became apparent later with Juan Maldacena’s 1998 seminal paper (Maldacena, 1998) on the ‘Anti de Sitter/Conformal Field Theory’ (AdS/CFT) duality—which provides radically different ways of describing the same system. According to the AdS/CFT correspondence, the properties of this AdS space are determined by (entangled) degrees of freedom that ‘live’ on its boundary (loosening up the connections, Awret says, between identity and necessity)! (Levine, 2019). Neural Correlates and Holographic Correspondence Awret’s move is to show that the neural correlates of consciousness (NCC) can be massively entangled for biological durations to serve as the CFT in ways similar to the AdS/CFT holographic correspondence and thereby can explain some of our anti-physicalist intuitions by likening the constitution of consciousness to the constitution of the AdS space dual to (or generated by) a CFT quantum computer. Here the constitution and local robustness of the AdS space is dual to the nonlocal error-correction code of the quantum computer (Almheiri et al., 2015). Awret also argues that the problems encountered by consciousness fusion (subject addition), consciousness fission (other minds problem), and mind uploading (identity paradoxes) are similar to the problems encountered by trying to fuse space, cut it in two, or upload it. Awret defends the possibility that this strange physical ‘mechanism’ (holographic correspondence) has anything to do with brain dynamics because it seems to yield, he says, “a host of unexpected philosophical advantages without modifying our ‘core physics’ (Carroll, 2021), from suggesting a solution to the structural mismatch problem (mismatch between the structure of a phenomenal state and the structure of its physical correlate) to circumventing the mental causation problem, and to protecting physicalism from the conceivability argument.” Non-Spatiotemporal Existence and Strange Physics One of the reasons that consciousness seems incompatible with physical existence is our inability to place it in space and time. It is therefore only natural, Awret says, “to scour physics for relevant cases of ontologically subtler ‘non-spatiotemporal’ existence. The two most obvious cases that can be said to transcend ordinary spatiotemporal existence are entanglement in quantum mechanics and the construction of spacetime itself from more fundamental constituents which cannot simply unfold in a preexisting space.” Examples that Awret offers include advances in quantum gravity like the AdS/CFT correspondence and Susskind’s ER=EPR (Susskind, 2017) that relates quantum entanglement to the more classical Einstein-Rosen Bridge (a solution of Einstein’s gravitational equation that connects two black holes), and wormholes suggest that space and properly entangled qubits are in some sense identical. Surprisingly, Awret says, quantum gravity and the holographic duality is already exploring novel phases of matter in condensed matter physics and might be relevant to a putative physics of consciousness, both because his theory may provide novel ways of understanding the spatial demarcation conditions of consciousness and because of the way it loosens up the connections between identity and necessity. Toward a Naturalist Theory of Mind Awret says that his holographic theory is “a naturalist theory of mind that aims to replace strange metaphysics with strange physics.” Conceiving of physical facts that are strange enough to “make a philosophical difference” Carnap (1928), and not so strange as to be nonphysical is challenging, and extraordinary theories must motivate their approach and clarify their explanandum. One advantage of the AdS/CFT correspondence is that it provides one of the only known recipes for ‘constructing’ smooth classical spacetime from quantum information (where the harnessing of the infinities resulting from the CFT UV modes by the renormalization process is dual to the construction of the extra dimension in the AdS). For Awret, “it is only natural to attempt to learn about the constitution of consciousness (as an exotic phase of matter) and its generation by the (quantum) brain from the constitution of AdS spaces and their generation by a large-enough, functioning quantum computer.” What is exciting, he says, is that in 20 years or so we may be able to generate such AdS spaces in the lab by entangling less than 10,000 qubits (Maldacena et al., 2017). To Awret, the parallel projects of naturalizing the mind and of naturalizing space face similar obstacles, utilize similar structures, and may have similar explanatory powers, suggesting that consciousness of space is the space of consciousness.

---

### Wang’s Layered Architecture and Cognitive Informatics
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/wang-s-layered-architecture-and-cognitive-informatics
Theorists: Yingxu Wang

Computer and cognitive scientist Yingxu Wang’s Layered Reference Model of the Brain treats consciousness as the highest-level, collectively organized state within a formal architecture of natural intelligence. Consciousness integrates information about the organism’s bodily and emotional condition, its external environment, and the relations between them, while depending on lower layers of sensation, memory, perception, action, homeostasis, unconscious processing, and subconscious processing. Wang seeks to connect neural and physiological mechanisms with cognitive functions and denotational mathematics, thereby producing a computationally explicit model applicable to biological and artificial systems (Wang et al., 2006; Wang, 2012). Wang approaches consciousness as an engineering problem in cognitive informatics: given a layered functional architecture of the brain, at which layer does consciousness sit, what is its formal description, and onto which neural structures does it map? His Layered Reference Model of the Brain organizes the mental processes of natural intelligence into a hierarchy of inherited and acquired layers, and his account identifies consciousness as a collective state of self-awareness generated inductively from the layers beneath it. Consciousness is characterized as a set of real-time mental information about an individual's bodily and emotional status, registered in a proposed new memory type located in the cerebellum—Conscious Status Memory—and processed as a dynamic function by the thalamus. The cognitive process of consciousness is then written formally in Wang's denotational mathematics, with the explicit aim of enabling machine implementation. The Layered Reference Model and Cognitive Informatics Wang's framework belongs to cognitive informatics, a program treating natural intelligence as an information-processing system amenable to rigorous formal description and, ultimately, to reimplementation in cognitive computers and robots. His original Layered Reference Model of the Brain identifies a coherent set of mental processes and their relations, encompassing thirty-seven cognitive processes across six ascending layers from the bottom up: sensation, memory, perception, action, metacognition, and higher cognition. The layers divide into inherited life functions, fixed and relatively mature at birth, and acquired functions, highly plastic and controlled by goals and motivation. Lower processes are largely inherited, automatic, and tightly coupled to bodily regulation; higher processes are increasingly acquired, plastic, intentional, and subject to conscious control. The architecture is a reference model rather than a claim that each function occupies a sharply bounded anatomical layer. Its purpose is to specify functional dependencies and interactions across the brain-mind system (Wang et al., 2006). Wang later embeds these processes in a four-level hierarchy comprising metabolic homeostasis, unconsciousness, subconsciousness, and consciousness. Homeostasis is not itself consciousness, but it supplies the physiological stability that consciousness requires. Unconscious processes exhibit minimal awareness and responsiveness; subconscious processes contain limited awareness but operate involuntarily; full consciousness is the collective state in which the system represents its internal condition, perceives the external world, and responds intentionally. Consciousness is consequently identified with self-awareness, environmental awareness, and coordinated control rather than with a single sensory quality (Wang, 2012). Later restatements within Wang's consciousness work present a seven-layer version adding inference, and readers comparing sources should note that layer count and labels differ across presentations. Where Consciousness Sits Within this architecture, consciousness is treated not as a substance or an emergent mystery but as a collective state at a particular level of the hierarchy, inductively synthesized from below, from metabolic homeostasis, unconsciousness, and subconsciousness. Wang characterizes it in complementary ways: as the state of being aware of oneself, of perception of internal and external worlds, and of responsiveness to one's surroundings; as a collective state encompassing all cognitive attributes, generated from physiological structures, memory, and the brain's capacity to acquire and manipulate information; and, most compactly, as the sense of self and the sign of life in natural intelligence (Wang, 2012). Subconsciousness is treated as a distinct and lower collective state rather than a Freudian power source. Conscious Status Memory and the Thalamus The model's most distinctive empirical claim concerns localization. Wang assigns the cerebellum a role that departs sharply from its standard characterization as a motor-coordination structure, treating it functionally as Conscious Status Memory—a new memory type supplementary to short-term, long-term, sensory-buffer, and action-buffer memory, holding a fine-grained real-time registration of bodily and emotional status corresponding to each part of the body. Consciousness is not held to reside there statically, however: it is executed dynamically by the thalamus, which Wang describes as the central processing unit of the brain, and which acquires this status by virtue of its connections to nearly all cortical and subcortical structures (Wang, 2012). The account thus splits representation from processing across two subcortical structures, with cortical activity supplying content. Formal Description Wang's characteristic move is to render the cognitive process of consciousness in denotational mathematics—a family of formalisms he developed, including concept algebra, real-time process algebra, and system algebra, intended to permit rigorous treatment of cognitive processes and knowledge manipulation (Wang, 2008). A conscious state is described as a function mapping the Cartesian product of current events and the current contents of Conscious Status Memory onto an updated state of that memory. Events are partitioned into external stimuli and internal motivations, permitting external and internal subfunctions of consciousness to be expressed separately or in combination. The formalization is not offered as metaphor: its declared purpose is to specify consciousness precisely enough to be mimicked in cognitive computing systems. Scope, Reception, and Contested Ground The framework's ambitions and its difficulties arise from the same source. Its cerebellar localization of Conscious Status Memory sits uneasily with clinical evidence that cerebellar agenesis and cerebellectomy leave consciousness broadly intact, which would require reinterpretation. The formal apparatus is largely self-contained, developed and applied chiefly within Wang's own program and journals, and engagement with the wider consciousness literature is correspondingly limited. Most consequentially, the framework addresses access, self-monitoring, and functional organization rather than phenomenal character; nothing in the formalization bears on why a state of Conscious Status Memory should feel like anything. Assessment Wang's model is unusual in the taxonomy for its provenance: it comes from software science and systems engineering rather than from neuroscience or philosophy, and it treats formal specifiability as the criterion of an adequate theory. That yields real virtues—an explicit architecture, a stated localization, and a mathematical description precise enough to be implemented or refuted. It also yields the framework's characteristic exposure, since precision about functional organization is purchased without engaging the explanatory gap, and the neuroanatomical commitments are more speculative than the formal machinery surrounding them suggests. References Wang, Y. (2003). On cognitive informatics. Brain and Mind, 4(2), 151–167. Wang, Y. (2007). The OAR model of neural informatics for internal knowledge representation in the brain. International Journal of Cognitive Informatics and Natural Intelligence, 1(3), 64–75. Wang, Y. (2008). On contemporary denotational mathematics for computational intelligence. Transactions on Computational Science, 2, 6–29. Wang, Y. (2012). The cognitive mechanisms and formal models of consciousness. International Journal of Cognitive Informatics and Natural Intelligence, 6(2), 23–40. Wang, Y., and Wang, Y. (2006). Cognitive informatics models of the brain. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part C, 36(2), 203–207. Wang, Y., Wang, Y., Patel, S., and Patel, D. (2006). A layered reference model of the brain (LRMB). IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part C, 36(2), 124–133.

---

### Bitar’s Architectural Theory of Consciousness
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/bitar-s-architectural-theory-of-consciousness
Theorists: Philip Bitar

Computer scientist and independent theorist Philip Bitar proposes an architectural theory of consciousness (ATC). In this theory, the structure of the mind is the basis for explaining consciousness. In order to achieve simplicity in this endeavor, Bitar says he has developed his theory in straightforward, materialist terms that are consistent with mainstream science (Bitar, 2023). Automatic-Volitional Architecture (AVA) Bitar’s foundational concept is a goal-processing system—a system that creates goals and that works to achieve goals. An intelligent agent is a goal-processing system that controls its body, as do humans, lower animals, and robots. A mind is the control system of a biological intelligent agent, that is, an animal with a brain. A mind is implemented by a brain. According to Bitar, we can explain consciousness in terms of the structure of the mind by developing a theory of mind that he refers to as the automatic-volitional architecture (AVA). He argues that this architecture is necessary for the survival of an animal. Bitar illustrates this architecture with a block diagram of the four main components of a mind: a sensory unit, a motor unit, a parallel-processing unit, and a serial-processing unit. Click to see the figure. Bitar develops the AVA theory as follows. In order to maximize the response rate of the agent body, the body must have a control system with a parallel processing unit (PPU) by which it simultaneously processes multiple sensory inputs and multiple motor outputs. In the absence of a PPU for this purpose, an animal could not survive. In order for the agent to competently manage its body, the body must have a control system with a serial processing unit (SPU) by which it centrally manages the body. In the absence of an SPU for this purpose, an animal could not survive. Bitar refers to the SPU as the volitional unit because its processes are subject to direct intentional control. These volitional processes are conscious, and conscious processes are necessarily serial. Consciousness is nothing more than the subjective concept that we use to characterize the nature of information as represented by the serial processing unit. Bitar refers to the PPU as the automatic unit because its processes are not subject to direct intentional control. Since PPU processes operate in parallel, these processes are necessarily unconscious. Overall, Bitar says, the automatic unit is the engine of the mind, while the volitional unit is the pilot. The volitional unit manages the mind with two operations: focusing attention and approving/disapproving proposals from the automatic unit. The automatic unit executes proposals that are approved by the volitional unit. The interactions between the volitional unit and the automatic unit are highly complex, with the two units working together to skillfully achieve the goals of the mind. The automatic-volitional architecture is implemented by a brain. Regarding neural substrates, Bitar says that the neural components for the sensory unit and the motor unit are well identified, but the cerebral components for the volitional unit and the automatic unit are not. Presumably, the volitional unit and the automatic unit are implemented by cerebral regions that are largely distinct but that overlap at their boundaries. The prefrontal cortex plays a major role in implementing the volitional unit through executive functions, while the rest of the brain largely implements the automatic unit and its highly complex interactions with the volitional unit. Materialism and the Privacy of Mind According to Bitar, the reason that our mind seems immaterial is that it is private: our mind is not directly observable by our sensory systems. However, assuming immateriality adds unnecessary complexity by posing the problem of how a material brain can cause immaterial activity. A simpler explanation assumes that mental activity is material but is private. In this way, we eliminate immateriality from the theory of mind just as biologists eliminated vitalism from the theory of life. To make this insight concrete, Bitar asks us to imagine that the brain is constructed to display our conscious visual experiences on a screen on the back of our head. This is theoretically possible if such experiences are material, per the prior paragraph. Now, suppose that as you look at this page, someone looks at the screen on the back of your head. They will see a display of your private visual experience of looking at this page, subject to the physical limitations of the display. Bitar says that if this were the way that our brain worked, the idea that conscious visual experiences are immaterial would never have occurred. Bitar asks us to consider the following assertions. The intuition that mental activity is immaterial has been prominent through the ages in the concepts of supernatural beings, magical beings such as genies, and human spiritual activity. In fact, the intuition is so subtle that even modern scholars may fail to notice it. According to Bitar, this oversight is exemplified in the 1996 Chalmers proof that consciousness is immaterial: Chalmers inadvertently assumes what he claims to prove, namely, that consciousness is not physical (Bitar, 2023). Regarding unnecessary complexity in theories, Bitar proposes three criteria that any theory must satisfy: predictive accuracy is primary, simplicity is secondary, and logical coherence is implicit. Thus, if two theories have equal predictive accuracy, the more complex is rejected. The foregoing insights on materialism resolve the longstanding mind-body problem, along with the recent version of it known as the hard problem of consciousness. Other Minds and Artificial Minds Bitar reasons as follows. I can observe my mind, but I cannot observe your mind, as implied above. I assume that you have a mind just as I do because of the similarity in structure and function of my body and yours. This is also the reason that I assume that a lower animal with a brain has a mind, but with reduced intellectual capacity, as evidenced by its behavior. What about computers? Bitar reasons as follows. Suppose that we create an electronic robot whose behavior is indistinguishable from that of humans. Should we infer that the robot has a mind? The answer is no because we have no rationale by which to attribute consciousness to the robot, even if its control system has an automatic-volitional architecture. The reason is that the robot’s internal representation of information is electronic, and we know only that a human's biological representation of information creates conscious experience. As a result, assuming that a robot has conscious experience adds unnecessary complexity to our theory of the robot control system, so we exclude this assumption. Summary According to Bitar, we can explain consciousness based on two insights: the automatic-volitional architecture of the mind (AVA) and the private nature of the mind. An AVA is necessary in order for an animal to survive. Consciousness is nothing more than the subjective concept that we use to characterize the nature of information as represented by the volitional unit—the high-level serial processing unit of the mind. This serial format is the objective definition of consciousness. An animal mind is private, not directly observable by sensory systems. This is why a person's mind seems immaterial to the person. However, assuming immateriality adds unnecessary complexity to a theory of mind, as exemplified by the otherwise unsolvable mind-body problem. This architectural theory of consciousness explains the high-level operations of the mind, along with the role of conscious experience in these operations. This architectural theory is consistent with mainstream science, thereby resolving the mystery of consciousness not only accurately but simply.

---

### Mathematical Theories
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/mathematical-theories
Theorists: Several

Mathematics can apply to consciousness in two ways. The first approach involves methods, models, and simulations that are increasingly rigorous and sophisticated, describing and explaining essential features and mechanisms of conscious experience, primarily its structure, level, content, and dynamics (Labh, 2024). Here mathematics supports various headline theories. Integrated Information Theory relies on a mathematical determination of consciousness. Friston's Free-Energy Principle formalizes and optimizes the representational capacities of physical/brain systems. Hoffman's Conscious Realism (Idealism) utilizes a mathematical formulation of consciousness. The second approach posits deep claims that mathematical structures form the foundations of consciousness, much as mathematical structures form the foundations of quantum mechanics. In a sense, the first way, clear and common, is epistemological; the second, highly speculative, is ontological. Mathematics as Ontology As for mathematics as ontology, Max Tegmark has the entire universe, all reality, as a fundamental mathematical structure (Tegmark, 2014a). Roger Penrose has the Platonic world of perfect forms as primary such that physical and mental worlds are its “shadows.” We “perceive mathematical truths directly,” Penrose says, in that “whenever the mind perceives a mathematical idea, it makes contact with Plato's world of mathematical concepts” (Penrose, 1996). Both visions, certainly controversial, would be consistent with mathematical constructions of consciousness, suggesting that consciousness is “made of” mathematics. Initiatives to link the abstract formal entities of mathematics, on the one hand, and the concrete of conscious experience, on the other hand, have proliferated, the challenge being to “represent conscious experience in terms of mathematical spaces and structures.” But what is “a mathematical structure of conscious experience?” (Kleiner & Ludwig, 2023). Mathematical Structures of Conscious Experience Mathematicians Johannes Kleiner and Tim Ludwig seek a general method to identify and investigate structures of conscious experience—quality, qualia, or phenomenal spaces—to perhaps serve as a framework to unify approaches from different fields. Their prime criterion is that for a mathematical structure to be literally of conscious experience, rather than merely a tool to describe conscious experience, “there must be something in conscious experience that corresponds to that structure.” In simple terms, they say, such a mathematical structure consists of two building blocks: the first brings in one or more sets called the ‘domains’ of the structure, where the elements of sets correspond to aspects of conscious experiences. The second are relations or functions that are defined on the domains. The authors claim that this definition does not rely on any specific conception or aspects of conscious experience. Rather, it can work with any theory of consciousness in that “every conscious experience comes with a set of aspects,” whether holistic, irreducible approaches to qualia and phenomenal properties or theories built on atomistic conceptions of consciousness such as multiple mind modules (Kleiner & Ludwig, 2023). Duan’s Bug Theory Mathematician Yucong Duan proposes a mathematically based “bug” theory of consciousness in that, with respect to consciousness, a bug is “not only a limitation in information processing, but also an illusion that leads human beings to create abstract and complete semantics and use them as tools” (Duan & Gong, 2024a). He calls mathematics “the language of consciousness” required to find patterns, periodicity, relevance and other characteristics in consciousness, to reveal causal relationships and interactions among them, and to understand the structure, dynamics and functions of consciousness. For example, “dynamic system theory can describe the evolution track and stable state of consciousness, and information theory can quantify the information flow and entropy value in consciousness, thus revealing the dynamic characteristics and information processing mechanism of consciousness.” Moreover, Fourier transform can “decompose complex consciousness signals into simple frequency components and reveal the laws and mechanisms of consciousness activities through frequency domain analysis, filtering and time-frequency analysis”—combining to yield “new perspectives of consciousness regularities.” Duan does recognize the limitations of mathematics (Duan & Gong, 2024b).

---

## Homeostatic & Affective
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theories/homeostatic-and-affective

### Freud's Surface Consciousness and Irreducible Affect
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/freuds-surface-consciousness-and-irreducible-affect
Theorists: Sigmund Freud

Neurologist/psychoanalyst Sigmund Freud’s theory of consciousness is a depth-psychological account in which phenomenal consciousness is real but derivative, intermittent, and structurally limited: the mind is not coextensive with awareness, and what appears in consciousness is shaped by unconscious wishes, affects, conflicts, defenses, memories, and symbolic substitutions. Freud does not offer a contemporary theory of qualia or neural correlates; he offers instead a theory of how lived experience is formed, distorted, defended against, and made intelligible through unconscious psychical processes (Freud, 1900/1953, 1915/1957, 1923/1961). His importance for consciousness studies is therefore not that he solves the hard problem, but that he breaks the Cartesian identification of mind with consciousness and makes phenomenal life dynamically stratified. The Freudian subject experiences itself only partially and belatedly. In other words, by inverting the Cartesian identification of mind with consciousness, Freud treats awareness not as the essence of the psychical but as a narrow, evanescent surface of an overwhelmingly unconscious psychophysiological apparatus. He opened his final systematic statement by conceding that consciousness is a fact without parallel which defies all explanation or description, then set that indefinability aside "in the first instance" so psychology could proceed as a natural science (Freud, 1940). Phenomenal consciousness belongs to the perceptual system, “Pcpt.-Cs.” (Perception-Consciousness), described as a sense organ for the perception of psychical qualities, which registers excitations from the external world alongside the pleasure–unpleasure series arising within and possesses no memory of its own. Crucially, while ideas can be genuinely unconscious, affects cannot: feeling is constitutively felt, making qualitative experience the one psychical element that resists the unconscious—the thesis on which contemporary neuropsychoanalysis has built, and by which it has inverted his own neuroanatomy. Consciousness as Psychical Surface Freud’s first, “topographical” model distinguishes conscious, preconscious, and unconscious systems. Consciousness contains what is presently experienced; the preconscious contains material not now conscious but capable of becoming conscious; the unconscious contains dynamically repressed material that resists ordinary access (Freud, 1915/1957). The Freud Museum usefully stresses that Freud’s unconscious is not merely what is absent from attention, but what has been actively forced out of consciousness through repression. Phenomenal consciousness is thus a surface or interface, not the whole mind. It is closely linked to perception, bodily sensation, affect, attention, and verbal articulation. Freud often treats consciousness as a system of registration rather than as the substance of mind itself: it receives perceptual qualities, but it does not generate the deeper motives that organize mental life. Freud’s decisive move is said to conceive mind as a complex energy-system whose unconscious processes are proper objects of psychology. A Fact Without Parallel Freud's most direct statement about phenomenal consciousness opens the discussion of psychical qualities in An Outline of Psycho-Analysis: the starting-point, as noted, is a fact without parallel, which defies all explanation or description =—the fact of consciousness; and nevertheless, if anyone speaks of consciousness we know immediately what is meant (Freud, 1940). Read alone, this is a limit-claim of the kind associated with mysterianism. In context, its function is the reverse. Freud draws the methodological consequence that psychoanalysis treats the somatic concomitants as what is truly psychical, disregarding the quality of consciousness "in the first instance"—a provisional bracketing, not a permanent verdict. He then states the ambition plainly: the view that what is mental is in itself unconscious is what enabled psychology to take its place as a natural science like any other. Indefinability is not an obstacle he frets over but a reason for relocating the science. Two readings must be held together: a genuine concession that phenomenal consciousness resists description, inside a program confident the entire mental apparatus is tractable. The Constancy Principle and the Neurological Ambition That confidence had an explicitly neurological origin and a thermodynamic vocabulary. In the 1895 Project for a Scientific Psychology, unpublished in his lifetime, Freud declared the intention to furnish a psychology that shall be a natural science—representing psychical processes as quantitatively determinate states of specifiable material particles. It proposed three neuronal systems for perception, memory, and consciousness. He abandoned it by 1896, having failed at the problem he most wanted to solve: a physiological mechanism of repression (Cieri & Esposito, 2019). The economic vocabulary survived, and it matters for how the theory sits in contemporary company. Freud inherited from Fechner a constancy principle—the nervous system tends to keep excitation low or constant—itself downstream of Helmholtz's thermodynamics, formulating it explicitly in Beyond the Pleasure Principle as the economic basis of the pleasure principle (Freud, 1920). It closely resembles the homeostasis Cannon would later name. Solms builds his reconstruction on this inheritance, connecting Freud's free/bound energy distinction to Helmholtz and thence to the free-energy formalism (Solms, 2021; Solms & Friston, 2018). Freud's apparatus is thus a proto-homeostatic model in which the pleasure–unpleasure series is the felt register of a regulatory economy. Consciousness as Fugitive Perceptual Surface Freud's most distinctive structural claim is that consciousness has no depth. In The Interpretation of Dreams, the Cs. system is a sense organ turned toward psychical quality, possessing no memory of its own (Freud, 1900). The point is sharpened by the dictum that consciousness arises instead of a memory-trace, so one system cannot both retain and become conscious (Freud, 1920)—a formulation Solms calls obscure and glosses as the claim that a labile trace is not a trace but a state of discharge (Solms, 2019). Consciousness is intrinsically transient, a momentary illumination rather than a storehouse. He assigned the system an anatomical position on the borderline between outside and inside, adopting the cerebral anatomy of his day in locating consciousness in the cortex. Solms and Panksepp (2012) note he never questioned this cortico-centric assumption, which would prove the theory's most vulnerable commitment. Topography, Hypercathexis, and the Route to Awareness Freud's two models specify what consciousness is not. The topographic model distinguishes the Unconscious proper—dynamically repressed, timeless, indifferent to contradiction—from the Preconscious, descriptively unconscious but capable of becoming conscious, and from Cs. itself (Freud, 1915). The 1923 structural model cuts across this, since much of ego and superego is itself unconscious (Freud, 1923). "Conscious" is thus a quality that specific contents may or may not acquire rather than a natural kind of state—phenomenality becomes an achievement of the apparatus, contingent on energetic and psycho-defensive conditions. The mechanism is explicit if speculative. Unconscious contents are thing-presentations—sensory memory traces—which become capable of consciousness when “hypercathected” (Freud’s term for obsessive or excessive psychological fixation) through linkage with a word-presentation: the conscious presentation comprises the thing plus the word, the unconscious presentation the thing alone (Freud, 1915). Attention operates as a supplementary cathexis directed by the Cs. sense organ (Freud, 1900). He maintained to the end that internal processes acquire consciousness through the function of speech (Freud, 1940), yet never denied that thing-presentations reach consciousness directly, as in dream imagery—leaving the relation between linguistic access and raw phenomenality unresolved. Affect as the Limit of the Unconscious For phenomenal consciousness, the pivotal thesis is the asymmetry between ideas and affects. Ideas are repressible and persist unconsciously with full causal efficacy. Affects are processes of discharge whose expression is perceived as feeling; it is, Freud writes, of the essence of an emotion that we should be aware of it (Freud, 1915). An "unconscious affect" is strictly an unconscious idea carrying a potential quantum of affect. The position is less tidy than this suggests: Freud kept clinically indispensable locutions such as unconscious guilt while denying them strict meta-psychological standing, and the tension was never resolved. Nonetheless, the thesis marks a boundary of consequence—qualitative experience is the one region of the psyche where the appearance/reality distinction collapses, anchored in the pleasure–unpleasure series he treated as the most fundamental scale of psychical quality. Freud Among Contemporary Theories Freud predates the vocabulary now used to sort theories of consciousness, and the following triangulations are interpretive rather than his own—offered to locate the account in the Landscape structure, not to claim he anticipated these positions. Read structurally, Freud’s Pcpt.-Cs. (Perception-Consciousness) system is an inner-sense theory. Higher-order perception theories, descending from Locke through Armstrong and Lycan, hold that a state becomes conscious when targeted by a higher-order quasi-perceptual representation; a standing objection is that no distinct inner sense organ or scanning mechanism has been identified. Freud posits precisely such an organ—a sense organ for the perception of psychical qualities—and gives it a mechanism, the supplementary cathexis of attention. Whether this counts as anticipation or as an instance of the very reification higher-order critics attack is a genuine question, but the structural kinship is close/ Read functionally, the preconscious/conscious transition is an access theory. Hypercathexis makes a content available to speech, report, and deliberate thought—recognizably the broadcast function later formalized in global workspace models. What is striking is that Freud's account then splits along a seam resembling the modern access/phenomenal distinction: word-linkage supplies access, while affect supplies felt quality and is precisely what cannot be made unconscious. The distinction Block would draw in 1995 is, on this reading, structurally present in 1915 without the terminology. Read metaphysically, Freud is a physicalist of a homeostatic-affective kind, ancestral to Damasio's homeostatic feelings, Friston's free-energy principle, and Solms's revision. He is not, on any reading, a mysterian: his limit-claim is a preamble to naturalism, not a barrier to it. Nor is he in any way Jungian—the collective unconscious and synchronicity have no counterpart in Freud, and the two founders of depth psychology diverge sharply on precisely the question of whether the unconscious opens onto anything beyond the individual organism. Neuropsychoanalytic Revision, Reception, and Assessment Solms (2013, 2021) argues that the affect thesis, read alongside lesion evidence he construes as showing that damage to a small upper-brainstem region reliably obliterates consciousness while extensive cortical damage may not, overturns Freud's own topography. Integrating Panksepp's affective neuroscience and the free-energy principle, he concludes that the id—deemed by Freud wholly unconscious—is the source of consciousness, cortical awareness being contingent on brainstem arousal. The evidential base is more contested than that suggests. Brainstem lesion mapping has identified a coma-specific tegmental region, but the substrate outside the dorsal brainstem remains unclear, and the decortication literature consists largely of congenital cases whose behaviors reviewers caution may be automatic reactions devoid of experience (Aleman & Merker, 2014). The thesis is contested within neuropsychoanalysis too (Schmidt, 2019), and higher-order accounts of emotional consciousness, which locate felt emotion in cortical representation rather than subcortical arousal, remain a live rival. Philosophically, Searle's connection principle challenges the coherence of a "deep" unconscious, holding that ascribing intentional content requires potential accessibility to consciousness (Searle, 1992), while Sartre objected that the divided psyche either smuggles in a homuncular censor or dissolves into bad faith (Sartre, 1943). Freud's account is best read as a theory of the distribution and limits of phenomenal consciousness rather than of what makes it exist. Thus, Freud’s relation to the hard problem is double-edged. He states in his own voice that consciousness defies all explanation—wording as strong as any mysterian's—yet offers it as preamble rather than thesis, brackets it rather than concluding that science must fail, and devotes the corpus to a mechanistic apparatus he expected biology to reveal. He is neither a mysterian who happened to build machinery nor a naturalist who never noticed the difficulty, but a naturalist whose program opens by conceding the difficulty and proceeds anyway. The cortico-centrism that Solms overturned was incidental to that program; the affect thesis, which survived, was foundational. References Aleman, B., & Merker, B. (2014). Consciousness without cortex: A hydranencephaly family survey. Acta Paediatrica, 103(10), 1057–1065. Armstrong, D. M. (1981). The Nature of Mind and Other Essays. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Block, N. (1995). On a confusion about a function of consciousness. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 18(2), 227–247. Cieri, F., & Esposito, R. (2019). Psychoanalysis and neuroscience: The bridge between mind and brain. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 1983. Freud, S. (1895/1950). Project for a scientific psychology. Standard Edition, Vol. 1, pp. 281–397. London: Hogarth Press. Freud, S. (1900). The Interpretation of Dreams. Standard Edition, Vols. 4–5. London: Hogarth Press. Freud, S. (1915). The unconscious. Standard Edition, Vol. 14, pp. 159–215. London: Hogarth Press. Freud, S. (1920). Beyond the Pleasure Principle. Standard Edition, Vol. 18, pp. 1–64. London: Hogarth Press. Freud, S. (1923). The Ego and the Id. Standard Edition, Vol. 19, pp. 1–66. London: Hogarth Press. Freud, S. (1940). An Outline of Psycho-Analysis. Standard Edition, Vol. 23, pp. 139–207. London: Hogarth Press. Lycan, W. G. (1996). Consciousness and Experience. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Sartre, J.-P. (1943/1956). Being and Nothingness (H. E. Barnes, Trans.). New York: Philosophical Library. Schmidt, M. (2019). Metapsychological consequences of the conscious brainstem: A critique of the conscious id. Neuropsychoanalysis, 21(1), 21–40. Searle, J. R. (1992). The Rediscovery of the Mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Solms, M. (2013). The conscious id. Neuropsychoanalysis, 15(1), 5–19. Solms, M. (2019). The hard problem of consciousness and the free energy principle. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 2714. Solms, M. (2021). Revision of drive theory. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, 69(6), 1033–1091. Solms, M., & Friston, K. (2018). How and why consciousness arises: Some considerations from physics and physiology. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 25(5–6), 202–238. Solms, M., & Panksepp, J. (2012). The "id" knows more than the "ego" admits. Brain Sciences, 2(2), 147–175.

---

### Predictive Theories (Top-Down)
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/predictive-theories-top-down
Theorists: Anil Seth

Top-down predictive theories highlight brain-based, central-to-peripheral, efferent influence on sensory organs more than peripheral-to-central, afferent sensory perceptions—and while top-down predictive models may or may not be themselves explanations of consciousness, they give insight into the nature of consciousness and its evolutionary development. Top-down is a fundamental principle of how brains work, and it would be surprising if it were not relevant for understanding consciousness. According to Anil Seth and Tim Bayne, there are two general approaches to understanding consciousness via the centrality of top-down signaling in shaping and enabling conscious perception. The first is reentry theories where recurrent, reentrant pathways are in some sense conscious perceptions—and thus reentry theories are theories of consciousness per se. The second approach, broadly described as predictive processing, starts instead from a foundation principle of how the brain works—in terms of prediction as a core principle underlying perception, action, and cognition, and therefore does not directly specify theories of consciousness. Nonetheless, the “core claim of reentry theory and predictive processing (PP) is that conscious mental states are associated with top-down signaling (reentry, thick arrows) that, for PP, convey predictions about the causes of sensory signals (thin arrows signify bottom-up prediction errors), so that continuous minimization of prediction errors implements an approximation to Bayesian inference”(Seth and Bayne, 2022). Reentry Theories and Predictive Processing Cognitive philosopher Andy Clark puts it succinctly: Rather than your brain perceiving reality passively, your brain actively predicts it. Your brain is a powerful, dynamic prediction engine, mediating our experience of both body and world. From the most mundane experiences to the most sublime, reality as we know it is the complex synthesis of predictive expectation and sensory information, “sculpting” all human experience. Thus, the extraordinary explanatory power of the predictive brain (Clark, 2023). Leveraging the work of Karl Friston (9.5.4), Clark states that in predictive processing, perception is structured around prediction, which he suggests is the fundamental operating principle of the brain (Musser, 2023a, Musser, 2023b). While the rudimentary evolutionary driver of the predictive brain is simply survival, staying alive, the emergence of consciousness can be seen as facilitating the predictive capabilities in terms of awareness, responsiveness, and conformity to external realities. Extended Mind and Evolutionary Perspectives Clark stresses that even though biological brains are increasingly cast as “prediction machines” this should not constrain us “to embrace a brain-bound ‘neurocentric’ vision of the mind.” The mind, such views mistakenly suggest, consists entirely of the skull-bound activity of the predictive brain, an inference from predictive brains to skull-bound minds that Clark rejects. Predictive brains, he argues, can be apt participants in larger cognitive circuits. The path is thus cleared for a new synthesis in which predictive brains act as entry-points for extended minds (9.7.1), and embodiment and action contribute constitutively to knowing contact with the world (Clark, 2017a; 2017b.) Cognitive psychologist Richard Gregory pioneered conceptualizing the brain as actively shaping perception, not the assumed inert receptacle of sensory signals. (Gregory himself credited Herman von Helmholtz for realizing that “perception is not just a passive acceptance of stimuli, but an active process involving memory and other internal processes.”) Gregory's key insight was that “the process whereby the brain puts together a coherent view of the outside world is analogous to the way in which the sciences build up their picture of the world, by a kind of hypothetico-deductive process.” Although timescales differ, Gregory advocated the guiding principle that perception shares processes with the scientific method. In particular, Gregory incorporated “explicitly Bayesian concepts” into our understanding of how sensory data is combined with pre-existing beliefs ("priors") to modify and mold perceptions. Consciousness evolved, according to Gregory, to enable rapid comparisons between real-world events and counterfactual simulations in order to make optimum decisions (Gregory, 2023). Neuroscientist Rodolfo Llinás traces the evolution of the "mindness state" to enable predictive interactions between mobile creatures and their environment, arguing that the nervous system evolved to allow active movement in animals. Because a creature must anticipate the outcome of each movement on the basis of incoming sensory data, the capacity to predict is most likely the ultimate brain function. Llinás even suggests that Self is the centralization of prediction (Llinás, 2002).

---

### Seth’s “Beast Machine” Theory
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/seth-s-beast-machine-theory
Theorists: Anil Seth

Neuroscientist Anil Seth extends top-down predictive theories with his neuroscience-informed “beast machine” theory that conscious experiences can be understood as forms of brain-based perceptual prediction within the general framework of predictive processing accounts of brain perception, cognition, and action. More specifically, his theory proposes that phenomenological properties of conscious experiences can be explained by computational aspects of different forms of perceptual prediction. A key instance of this is in the ability to account for differences between experiences of the world and experiences of the self. The theory also proposes that the predictive machinery underlying consciousness arose via a fundamental biological imperative to regulate bodily physiology, namely, to stay alive. We experience the world around us, and ourselves within it, with, through, and because of our living bodies (Seth, 2021a, 2021b). Controlled Hallucinations and Conscious Perception Seth says that our conscious experiences of the world and the self are forms of brain-based prediction—which he labels “controlled hallucinations.”[1] He asks, how does the brain transform what are inherently ambiguous, electrical sensory signals into a coherent perceptual world full of objects, people, and places? The key idea is that the brain is a “prediction machine,” and that what we see, hear, and feel is nothing more than the brain's “best guess” of the causes of its sensory inputs. Because perceptual experience is determined by the content of the (top-down) predictions, and not by the (bottom-up) sensory signals, we never experience sensory signals themselves, we only ever experience interpretations of them. Thus, “what we actually perceive is a top-down, inside-out neuronal fantasy that is reined in by reality, not a transparent window onto whatever that reality may be.” Taking this idea seriously and seeking its implications, Seth proposes that the contents of consciousness are a kind of waking dream—the “controlled hallucination”—that is both more than and less than whatever the real world really is. He offers slyly the insight that “you could even say that we're all hallucinating all the time. It's just that when we agree about our hallucinations, that's what we call reality” (Seth, 2021a, 2021b). Footnote [1]. Seth first heard the phrase “controlled hallucination” from British psychologist Chris Frith and traced it back to a seminar given in the 1990s by Ramesh Jain (Seth, 2021a).

---

### Damasio’s Homeostatic Feelings and Emergence of Consciousness
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/damasio-s-homeostatic-feelings-and-emergence-of-consciousness
Theorists: Antonio Damasio

Neuroscientist Antonio Damasio's perspective on consciousness is distinctive in a variety of ways. Crucially, the root process behind consciousness, he argues, is that of feelings related to the interior of complex organisms endowed with nervous systems. These feelings, which Damasio calls “homeostatic” to distinguish them from the feelings of emotions, continuously represent the ongoing state of the life of an organism in terms of how close or how far that state is from ideal, that ideal being homeostasis (Damasio & Damasio, 2023, 2024; Damasio, 1999). Interoception and Homeostatic Feelings Neuroanatomically, the homeostatic feeling representations are achieved by the interoceptive system, which collects signals—via interoceptive axons in peripheral nerves and spinal and brainstem nuclei—from the entire spectrum of viscera, from smooth musculature to end organs. Interoception is distinct from exteroception in a number of ways, but quite importantly because it pertains to an internal, animated landscape. Feelings represent evolving, active states, but the “describer”—the nervous system—happens to be located inside the organism being “described,” with the consequence that the describer and described can interact. Moreover, the interaction is facilitated by the fact that the interoceptive nervous system is especially open, given its primitive nature, which includes neurons without myelin, whose axons are open to receiving signals at any point in their course, away from synapses (Damasio & Damasio, 2023, 2024). Other reasons why homeostatic feelings are distinct, according to Damasio, include (1) the fact that they are naturally, spontaneously, informative; and (2) that the information they provide is used to adjust the life process such that it may best correspond to ideal conditions. In brief, homeostatic feelings are regulatory because their spontaneous consciousness is used to achieve homeostasis and guarantee the continuation of life. Homeostatic feelings are the natural source of experiences. When they are combined with images generated by exteroceptive channels such as vision, they produce subjectivity. Core Phenomena of Consciousness Thus, according to Damasio, homeostatic feelings are the core phenomena of consciousness. They are spontaneously conscious processes of a hybrid nature, combining mental features and bodily features. Their presence informs the rest of the mind, e.g., the images that correspond to current perceptions or to perceptions retrieved from memory, that (1) life is ongoing inside a specific body/organism, and that (2) the life process is (or is not) operating within a range conducive to the continuation of life. Feelings offer spontaneous guidance on this specific issue and are thus a key to life regulation and survival (Damasio & Damasio, 2023, 2024). Damasio recounts that “the approach to the nature and physiology of consciousness has taken two distinct paths. One of those paths, by far the most frequent, has tied consciousness to cognitive processes, mainly exteroception, and most prominently, to vision. The other path has related consciousness to affective processes, specifically to feeling. ‘The cognitive path’ has seen consciousness as a complex and late arrival in biological history. It culminates in cognition writ large, e.g., exteroceptive processes, memory, reasoning, symbolic languages, and creativity. The ‘affect path’ has located the emergence of consciousness far earlier in biological history, and interoceptive processes provide the key” (Damasio & Damasio, 2021, 2023, 2024; Damasio, 2019). In making his argument, Damasio explains “how and why consciousness entered biology through the avenue of affect. The feelings that translate fundamental homeostatic states—hunger, thirst, malaise, pain, well-being, desire—offer organisms a new layer of life regulation because of their inherent conscious status. Consciousness spontaneously delivers valuable knowledge into the decision-making mental space. Consciousness allows organisms to act deliberately and knowingly, rather than acting or failing to act automatically and blindly. Consciousness is what makes deliberate life regulation possible. The intrinsic conscious nature of feelings is their grace and was their passport into natural selection. Their conscious nature is not a neutral trait.” Damasio assumes that “the emergence of consciousness occurred when homeostatic feelings first arose, there and then, and naturally provided knowledge concerning life” (Damasio, 2019, 2021).

---

### Panksepp’s Primal Affective Consciousness
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/panksepp-s-primal-affective-consciousness
Theorists: Jaak Panksepp

Jaak Panksepp’s affective-neuroscience theory holds that the most basic form of phenomenal consciousness is not perceptual representation, reflective thought, or cortical access, but felt affect generated by evolutionarily ancient subcortical action systems. Primary-process feelings provide organisms with intrinsically valenced information about how they are faring and organize adaptive behavior, while cortical learning and cognition elaborate them into the complex emotions and reflective consciousness characteristic of humans. Consciousness therefore grows upward from a bodily, affective core rather than downward from higher cognition (Panksepp, 1998, 2005, 2010). In other words, Panksepp holds that phenomenal consciousness in its most basic form is affective rather than cognitive or perceptual, and that raw feeling is generated by ancient subcortical circuitry homologously conserved across mammals rather than by neocortex. On this account, the bedrock of emotional feelings lies within the evolved emotional action apparatus of the brain, so that affect is a given gift of nature rather than an acquired ability—a primary-process birthright that later cognitive consciousness is built upon and remains nested within. Adopting an explicitly dual-aspect monist stance, Panksepp identifies emotional feelings with the neurodynamics of the systems generating instinctual emotional behavior, which makes affective states experimentally tractable in animals through localized brain stimulation and its consequences for learning. The theory thereby relocates the study of phenomenal consciousness from the cortical and cognitive to the subcortical and affective. Affect as Primary, Not Derived Most neuroscientific theories begin with perceptual or cognitive awareness and treat feeling as a later elaboration. Panksepp reverses the order. Affective experience is evolutionarily and ontogenetically prior, and the exteroceptive, sensory consciousness that dominates the literature is a comparatively recent overlay (Panksepp, 1998a). The move that makes this more than a claim about sequence is his dual-aspect monism: emotional feelings do not merely accompany or result from the operation of instinctual emotional systems but are the neurodynamics of those systems viewed from within, a position he argues saves the field from various conceptual conundrums (Panksepp, 2005a; Panksepp, 2005b). Accordingly, affective states arise from the intrinsic neurodynamics of primitive, self-centered emotional and motivational systems situated in subcortical regions, not from the representation of bodily states by higher structures (Panksepp, 1998b). Seven Primary-Process Emotional Systems Panksepp identifies seven genetically provided emotional operating systems, capitalized to mark them as neuroanatomically and neurochemically specified constructs rather than folk-psychological categories: SEEKING, RAGE, FEAR, LUST, CARE, PANIC/GRIEF, and PLAY. Each originates in emotion-specific circuits concentrated in the periaqueductal gray and adjacent midbrain regions and extends into the limbic forebrain; each supports a characteristic instinctual action pattern; and each carries intrinsic positive or negative valence rather than acquiring valence through learning. SEEKING, the mesolimbic dopaminergic system of appetitive engagement with the world, is the most general and the most consequential for the others. The systems were mapped through convergent methods—localized electrical and chemical stimulation, lesion work, and pharmacological challenge—and are held to be homologously conserved across mammalian brains (Panksepp and Biven, 2012). The Core SELF and the Nested Hierarchy Affect on this account is intrinsically perspectival: there is no feeling that is not feeling for some organism. Panksepp locates the ground of that perspective in the core SELF, a primordial neural representation of the body as a coherent agent, situated in centromedial midbrain and diencephalic regions where value-coding systems converge with brainstem representations of the body and its action plans (Panksepp, 1998b). With Georg Northoff, the proposal situates this trans-species self within subcortical–cortical midline networks (Panksepp and Northoff, 2009), and with Alcaro and Carta it is elaborated as the affective core of subjectivity (Alcaro, Carta and Panksepp, 2017). Around this core Panksepp builds a nested hierarchy: primary-process affective consciousness at the base, secondary-process learning above it, and tertiary-process cognitive awareness above that—higher levels dependent on and nested within lower ones rather than replacing them. The corresponding gradation runs from anoetic experience, affective and non-reflective, through noetic to autonoetic consciousness (Vandekerckhove, Bulnes and Panksepp, 2014). Cross-Species Method and the Gold Standard The theory's distinctive methodological claim is that affective consciousness is empirically accessible in animals. Panksepp's proposed gold standard is that wherever localized deep brain stimulation produces coherent instinctual emotional behavior, animals treat the resulting within-brain state shift as a reward or a punishment in learning tasks, with conditioned place preference and aversion serving as secondary-process indices of affect; humans receiving comparable stimulation consistently report corresponding desirable or undesirable affective changes (Panksepp, 2005a). Supporting evidence comes from decortication: neonatally decorticated rats play in ways not easily distinguishable from sham-operated controls (Panksepp, Normansell, Cox and Siviy, 1994). His later work on positive affect produced the finding for which he became best known outside the field—that rats emit 50-kHz ultrasonic vocalizations during rough-and-tumble play and manual tickling, which he interpreted as an evolutionary antecedent of human joy (Panksepp and Burgdorf, 2003). Disputes and Influence The sharpest opposition comes from LeDoux and Brown, whose higher-order theory holds that subcortical circuits produce survival behaviors and physiological responses but not feelings, and that emotional experience requires higher-order cortical representation (LeDoux and Brown, 2017). Psychological constructionism supplies a second line of resistance, treating discrete emotions as categories assembled from core affect and conceptual knowledge rather than as evolved primitives; Panksepp argued the two levels are complementary rather than exclusive (Panksepp, 2007). A third objection is generic to subcortical accounts: preserved instinctual behavior after decortication demonstrates preserved behavioral organization, not preserved experience. Panksepp's affirmative influence has been substantial in neuropsychoanalysis, where his collaboration with Mark Solms grounds the claim that affect rather than cognition is the source of consciousness (Solms and Panksepp, 2012). Assessment Panksepp offers one of the few theories that treats phenomenal consciousness as the starting point of a laboratory research program rather than as the residue left after the tractable questions are answered, and the identification of felt affect with the neurodynamics of emotional action systems gives that program a defensible methodological warrant. The framework's reach extends well beyond consciousness studies into psychiatry, personality research, and animal welfare. Its exposure is the inference that carries the whole structure: that coherent instinctual behavior and its reinforcing consequences establish felt experience rather than sophisticated unfelt control—a step Panksepp defends by argument and homology but cannot demonstrate directly. References Alcaro, A., Carta, S., and Panksepp, J. (2017). The affective core of the self: A neuro-archetypical perspective on the foundations of human (and animal) subjectivity. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1424. LeDoux, J. E., and Brown, R. (2017). A higher-order theory of emotional consciousness. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114(10), E2016–E2025. Panksepp, J. (1998a). Affective Neuroscience: The Foundations of Human and Animal Emotions. New York: Oxford University Press. Panksepp, J. (1998b). The periconscious substrates of consciousness: Affective states and the evolutionary origins of the SELF. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 5(5–6), 566–582. Panksepp, J. (2005a). Affective consciousness: Core emotional feelings in animals and humans. Consciousness and Cognition, 14(1), 30–80. Panksepp, J. (2005b). On the embodied neural nature of core emotional affects. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 12(8–10), 158–184. Panksepp, J. (2007). Neurologizing the psychology of affects: How appraisal-based constructivism and basic emotion theory can coexist. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 2(3), 281–296. Panksepp, J., and Biven, L. (2012). The Archaeology of Mind: Neuroevolutionary Origins of Human Emotions. New York: Norton. Panksepp, J., and Burgdorf, J. (2003). "Laughing" rats and the evolutionary antecedents of human joy? Physiology and Behavior, 79(3), 533–547. Panksepp, J., Normansell, L., Cox, J. F., and Siviy, S. M. (1994). Effects of neonatal decortication on the social play of juvenile rats. Physiology and Behavior, 56(3), 429–443. Panksepp, J., and Northoff, G. (2009). The trans-species core SELF: The emergence of active cultural and neuro-ecological agents through self-related processing within subcortical-cortical midline networks. Consciousness and Cognition, 18(1), 193–215. Solms, M., and Panksepp, J. (2012). The "Id" knows more than the "Ego" admits. Brain Sciences, 2(2), 147–175. Vandekerckhove, M., Bulnes, L. C., and Panksepp, J. (2014). The emergence of primary anoetic consciousness in episodic memory. Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, 7, 210.

---

### Friston’s Free-Energy Principle and Active Inference
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/friston-s-free-energy-principle-and-active-inference
Theorists: Karl Friston

Theoretical neuroscientist Karl Friston conceptualizes consciousness as the natural outcome of his “free-energy principle for action and perception (active inference),” which stresses the primacy of minimizing in all organisms the difference between perceptual expectations (required for homeostasis) and real-time sensory inputs (Friston et al., 2017). In this mechanism, human brains seek to minimize the difference—reduce the “surprise,” as it were—by generating internal models that predict the external world. Consciousness as Process and Inference As a physicist and psychiatrist, Friston says: “I find it difficult to engage with conversations about consciousness. My biggest gripe is that the philosophers and cognitive scientists who tend to pose the questions often assume that the mind is a thing, whose existence can be identified by the attributes it has or the purposes it fulfills.” The deeper question, he asks, is “what sorts of processes give rise to the notion (or illusion) that something exists?” Thus, Friston treats consciousness “as a process to be understood, not as a thing to be defined.” Simply put, his argument is that “consciousness is nothing more and nothing less than a natural process such as evolution or the weather” (Friston, 2017). Friston's perspective on process leads him to “an elegant, if rather deflationary, story about why the mind exists.” It focuses on “inference,” which Friston characterizes as “actually quite close to a theory of everything—including evolution, consciousness, and life itself.” We are processes, and processes can only reason towards what is “out there” based on “sparse samples of the world”; hence, the criticality of inference. This view, Friston says, “dissolves familiar dialectics between mind and matter, self and world, and representationalism (we depict reality as it is) and emergentism (reality comes into being through our abductive encounters with the world)” (Friston, 2017). But how did inert matter ever begin the processes that led to consciousness? It starts with complex systems that are self-organizing because they possess “attractors,” which are “cycles of mutually reinforcing states that allow processes to achieve a point of stability, not by losing energy until they stop, but through what's known as dynamic equilibrium. An intuitive example is homeostasis ….” (Friston, 2017). It's at this point that Friston focuses on inference, “the process of figuring out the best principle or hypothesis that explains the observed states of that system we call ‘the world.’” Every time you have a new experience, he says, “you engage in some kind of inference to try to fit what's happening into a familiar pattern, or to revise your internal states so as to take account of this new fact.” That's why attractors are so crucial, he stresses, “because an attracting state has a low surprise and high evidence.” A failure to minimize surprise means “the system will decay into surprising, unfamiliar states”—which would threaten its existence. “Attractors are the product of processes engaging in inference to summon themselves into being,” he says. “In other words, attractors are the foundation of what it means to be alive” (Friston, 2017). Friston applies the same thinking to consciousness and suggests that consciousness must also be a process of inference. “Conscious processing is about inferring the causes of sensory states, and thereby navigating the world to elude surprises … This sort of internalization of the causal structure of the world ‘out there’ reflects the fact that to predict one's own states you must have an internal model of how such sensations are generated” (Friston, 2017). Learning as well as inference, Friston continues, relies on minimizing the brain's free energy. “Cortical responses can be seen as the brain's attempt to minimize the free energy induced by a stimulus and thereby encode the most likely cause of that stimulus. Similarly, learning emerges from changes in synaptic efficacy that minimize the free energy, averaged over all stimuli encountered” (Friston, 2005). In short, consciousness is the evolved mechanism for simulating scenarios of the world. It is the internal emergent model that monitors and minimizes the free energy principle, the difference between internal perceptual expectations and real-time sensory input that reflects the external world. Friston proposes that “the mind comes into being when self-evidencing has a temporal thickness or counterfactual depth, which grounds the inferences it can make about the consequences of future actions.” Consciousness, he contends, “is nothing grander than inference about my future” (Friston, 2017). Markovian Monism and The Beautiful Loop Theory Friston's consciousness as active inference leads to its metaphysical stamp as “Markovian monism,” which, he says, rests upon the information geometry induced in any system whose internal states can be distinguished from external states—such that “the (intrinsic) information geometry of the probabilistic evolution of internal states and a separate (extrinsic) information geometry of probabilistic beliefs about external states that are parameterized by internal states.” Friston calls these information geometries intrinsic (i.e., mechanical, or state-based) and extrinsic (i.e., Markovian, or belief-based). He suggests the mathematics may help frame the origins of consciousness (Friston et al., 2020). The Beautiful Loop Theory In their paper, “A beautiful loop: An active inference theory of consciousness,” neuroscientists Ruben Laukkonen, Karl Friston, and Shamil Chandaria present “a computational theory of consciousness grounded in active inference.” They offer three conditions implying that active inference can model consciousness. They write, “The first condition is the simulation of a world model, which determines what can be known or acted upon; namely, an epistemic field. The second is inferential competition to enter the world model. Only the inferences that coherently reduce long-term uncertainty win, evincing a selection for consciousness that we call Bayesian binding. The third is epistemic depth, which is the recurrent sharing of the Bayesian beliefs throughout the system. Due to this recursive loop in a hierarchical system (such as a brain), the world model contains the knowledge that it exists. This is distinct from self-consciousness, because the world model knows itself non-locally and continuously evidences this knowing (i.e., field-evidencing).” The model they formally propose is “a hyper-model for precision-control, whose latent states (or parameters) encode and control the overall structure and weighting rules for all layers of inference. These globally integrated preferences for precision enact the epistemic agency and flexibility reminiscent of general intelligence.” The authors claim that their Beautiful Loop Theory is “also deeply revealing about altered states, meditation, and the full spectrum of conscious experience,” including psychedelic experiences and minimal states (Laukkonen, Friston, & Chandaria, 2025). Several theories of consciousness build on the free-energy paradigm, including Solms's Affect, Carhart-Harris's Entropic Brain and the Projective Consciousness Model.

---

### Solms’s Affect as the Hidden Spring of Consciousness
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/solms-s-affect-as-the-hidden-spring-of-consciousness
Theorists: Mark Solms

Neuroscientist and psychoanalyst Mark Solms applies Friston's free energy principle to the hard problem of consciousness. He identifies the elemental form of consciousness as affect and locates its physiological mechanism (an extended form of homeostasis) in the upper brainstem. Free energy minimization (in unpredicted contexts) is operationalized “where decreases and increases in expected uncertainty are felt as pleasure and unpleasure, respectively.” He offers reasons “why such existential imperatives feel like something to and for an organism” (Solms, 2019). Dual-Aspect Monism and the Brain–Mind Problem A physicalist, Solms argues that the brain does not “produce” or “cause” consciousness. “Formulating the relationship between the brain and the mind in causal terms,” he says, “makes the hard problem harder than it needs to be. The brain does not produce consciousness in the sense that the liver produces bile, and physiological processes do not cause—or become or turn into—mental experiences through some curious metaphysical transformation” (Solms, 2019). Objectivity and subjectivity are observational perspectives, he says, not causes and effects. “Neurophysiological events can no more produce psychological events than lightning can produce thunder. They are dual manifestations of a single underlying process. The cause of both lightning and thunder is electrical discharge, the lawful action of which explains them both. Physiological and psychological phenomena must likewise be reduced to unitary causes, not to one another. This is merely a restatement of a well-known position on the mind–body problem: that of dual-aspect monism” (Solms, 2021b).[1] (See “Is consciousness primitive/fundamental?” under “Exploring Consciousness.”) Affect as Foundational Consciousness Given the centrality of affect in Solms’ theory of consciousness, he must argue that emotion is the most efficient mechanism, perhaps the only effective mechanism, to optimize survival. His reasoning applies the free-energy principle in neurobiology such that feelings would uniquely enable humans to monitor interactions with unpredictable environments and modify their behaviors accordingly. Solms explains that “complex organisms have multiple needs, each of which must be met in its own right, and, indeed, on a context-dependent basis, they cannot be reduced to a common denominator. For example … fear trumps sleepiness in some contexts but not in others.” So, he says, the needs of complex organisms like ourselves must be coded as categorical variables, which are distinguished qualitatively, not quantitatively. Thirst feels different from sleepiness feels different from separation distress feels different from fear, etc., such that their combined optimized resolution must be computed in a context-dependent fashion, which would lead to “excessively complex calculations,” a “combinatorial explosion.” In terms of time spent and energy expended, the invention of affect, emotion, feeling is a much more efficient algorithm. Moreover, Solms adds, since “the needs of complex organisms which can act differentially, in flexible ways, in variable contexts, are ‘color-coded’ or ‘flavored,’ this provides at least one mechanistic imperative for qualia” (Solms, 2021a, 2021b). Solms seeks to demystify consciousness by showing that “cortical functioning is accompanied by consciousness if and only if it is ‘enabled’ by the reticular activating system of the upper brainstem. Damage to just two cubic millimeters of this primitive tissue reliably obliterates consciousness as a whole.” He rejects arguments that the reticular activating system generates only the quantitative “level” of consciousness (consciousness in a waking/comatose sense) and not its qualitative “contents” (consciousness as experience). This is affect, Solms says, and it is supported by “overwhelming” evidence. Therefore, since cortical consciousness is contingent upon brainstem consciousness, and since brainstem consciousness is affective, Solms concludes that “affect is the foundational form of consciousness. Sentient subjectivity (in its elementary form) is literally constituted by affect” (Solms, 2021a).[2] Implications for Consciousness and AI Solms distinguishes between information processing models in cognitive science, which seem to lack question-askers, and self-organizing systems, which are obliged to ask questions—“their very survival depends upon it. They must chronically ask: ‘What will happen to my free energy if I do that?’ The answers they receive determine their confidence in the current prediction.” This is why Solms states “not all information processing (‘integrated’ or otherwise) is conscious; sentience appears to be a property of only some information processing systems with very specific properties, namely those systems that must ask questions of their surrounding world in relation to their existential needs” (Solms, 2021a) In summary, Solms claims that the functional mechanism of consciousness can be reduced to physical laws, such as Friston's free-energy law, among others. These laws, he says, “are no less capable of explaining how and why proactively resisting entropy (i.e., avoiding oblivion) feels like something to the organism, for the organism, than other scientific laws are capable of explaining other natural things. Consciousness is part of nature, and is mathematically tractable.” As a corollary, with respect to Crick's research program on the neural correlates of consciousness, Solms declares that there can be no objects of consciousness (e.g. visual ones) in the absence of a subject of consciousness. To Solms, the subject of consciousness is literally constituted by affect (Solms, 2021a). Regarding AI consciousness, Solms posits that if his theory is correct, “then, in principle, an artificially conscious self-organizing system can be engineered.” The creation of an artificial consciousness would be, he says, “the ultimate test of any claim to have solved the hard problem.” But, he warns, “we must proceed with extreme caution.” Footnotes [1]. Although Solms refers to “dual-aspect monism,” his ideas relate more to the elemental properties of bodies, namely an insulating membrane (the ectoderm of complex organisms, from which the neural plate derives) and adaptive behavior, rather than a theory of fundamental ontology. Hence, the inclusion here under Materialism Theories, Homeostatic and Affective, not under Monisms. [2]. Referencing Zeman, A. (2001). Consciousness, Brain, 124 (Solms, 2021a).

---

### Carhart-Harris’s Entropic Brain Hypothesis
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/carhart-harris-s-entropic-brain-hypothesis
Theorists: R. L. Carhart-Harris

Psychopharmacologist Robin Carhart-Harris proposes the Entropic Brain Hypothesis in which the entropy of spontaneous brain activity indexes the informational richness of conscious states (within upper and lower limits, after which consciousness may be lost). A leading psychedelic researcher, Carhart-Harris reports that the entropy of brain activity is elevated in the psychedelic state, and there is evidence for greater brain “criticality” under psychedelics. (“Criticality … is the property of being poised at a ‘critical’ point in a transition zone between order and disorder where certain phenomena such as power-law scaling appear.”) He argues that “heightened brain criticality enables the brain to be more sensitive to intrinsic and extrinsic perturbations which may translate as a heightened susceptibility to ‘set’ and ‘setting.’” Measures of brain entropy, he suggests, can inform the treatment of psychiatric and neurological conditions such as depression and disorders of consciousness (Carhart-Harris, 2018). Entropy, Criticality, and Primary States The “entropy” in the Entropic Brain Hypothesis is defined as “a dimensionless quantity that is used for measuring uncertainty about the state of a system but it can also imply physical qualities, where high entropy is synonymous with high disorder.” Entropy is then applied in “the context of states of consciousness and their associated neurodynamics, with a particular focus on the psychedelic state … [which] is considered an exemplar of a primitive or primary state of consciousness that preceded the development of modern, adult, human, normal waking consciousness.” Based on neuroimaging data with psilocybin, a classic psychedelic drug, Carhart-Harris argues that “the defining feature of ‘primary states’ is elevated entropy in certain aspects of brain function, such as the repertoire of functional connectivity motifs that form and fragment across time. Indeed, since there is a greater repertoire of connectivity motifs in the psychedelic state than in normal waking consciousness, this implies that primary states may exhibit ‘criticality’” (Carhart-Harris, 2018). Significantly, “if primary states are critical, then this suggests that entropy is suppressed in normal waking consciousness, meaning that the brain operates just below criticality.” This leads to the idea that “entropy suppression furnishes normal waking consciousness with a constrained quality and associated metacognitive functions, including reality-testing and self-awareness.” Carhart-Harris and colleagues also propose that “entry into primary states depends on a collapse of the normally highly organized activity within the default-mode network” (DMN—a set of regions more active during passive tasks than tasks requiring focused external attention, Buckner, 2013),[1] thus maintaining the brain's homeostasis and “a decoupling between the DMN and the medial temporal lobes (which are normally significantly coupled)” (Carhart-Harris et al., 2014). Neural Signatures and Broader Applications Increased entropy in spontaneous neural activity is one of the most notable neurophysiological signatures of psychedelics and is said to be relevant to the psychedelic experience, mediating both acute alterations in consciousness and long-term effects. While overall entropy increases, entropy changes are not uniform across the brain: entropy increases in all regions, but the larger effect is localized in visuooccipital regions. At the whole-brain level, this reconfiguration is related closely to the topological properties of the brain's anatomical connectivity (Herzog et al., 2023). (For how psychedelic experiences and mechanisms may or may not inform theories of consciousness, see Psychedelic Theories of Consciousness.) Computational neuroscientist Gustavo Deco uses the concept of equilibrium in physics to explore consciousness. Since a physical system is in equilibrium when in its most stable state, the question is how close to equilibrium are the electrical states of the brain while people perform different tasks? Using a sophisticated mathematical theorem to analyze neuroimaging data, “they found that the brain is closer to a state of equilibrium when people are gambling than when they are cooperating,” suggesting that “there are many shades of consciousness” (Callaghan, 2024). Footnote [1]. It is also active during directed tasks that require participants to remember past events or imagine upcoming events (Buckner, 2013).

---

### Giannakopoulos’s Entropy-Resisting Amplifier of Persistence
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/giannakopoulos-s-entropy-resisting-amplifier-of-persistence
Theorists: Bill Giannakopoulos

Physician/scientist Bill Giannakopoulos posits that consciousness is an entropy-resisting amplifier of persistence, a fractalized, bootstrapped, reversible computation—a recursively coherent information structure that persists at the boundary of collapse (Giannakopoulos, 2025a, 2025b, 2025c). Let’s unpack this. In Giannakopoulos’s Persistence Theory, “behind every lasting pattern—whether physical, cognitive, or symbolic—there’s a thermodynamic profile that determines its survivability… Consciousness doesn’t arise in a vacuum. It emerges in a world governed by entropy — the tendency of all systems to drift from order to disorder. Most patterns, no matter how beautiful, disintegrate. Most signals fade. But some structures endure. The question is: why?” Persistence and the Hard Problem The author states, “Persistence is a prerequisite to perception. Survival is the silent gatekeeper of consciousness.” So, he reframes the hard problem—why experience exists at all—in terms of a deeper question: “What survives long enough to be experienced in the first place?” This is where, he says, Persistence Theory reshapes the hard problem. According to Giannakopoulos, “What we call qualia—the felt textures of experience—may be the subjective echo of structures that, by all physical accounts, should not exist. They have survived not because they are embedded in stone or stored in DNA, but because they have been internally buffered and reversibly rehearsed inside the mind.” Qualia are not ghosts, he says. “They are signs of structural persistence. Consciousness becomes more than a passive mirror. It is an active sanctuary—a thermodynamic anomaly where entropy is slowed, structure is maintained, and fragile patterns can resonate long enough to be felt. This reframes qualia from being inexplicable add-ons to brain states, to being the very evidence that something has survived long enough, cleanly enough, to register as experience" (Giannakopoulos, 2025a). The key, he says, is “persistence — specifically, the persistence of entropy-adaptable, recursive information flow. The longer something lasts — through chaos, through forgetting, through transformation — the more likely it is to be selected, experienced, remembered, and passed on. In this view, consciousness is not a mystery. It is the structure that remembers what the universe forgets.” Qualia, again, aren’t ghosts. “They’re glows—the momentary light emitted when a pattern stabilizes in mind.” Meaning isn’t metaphysical, he says. “It’s structural endurance felt from the inside” (Giannakopoulos, 2025a). Consciousness is not passive. It is an active thermodynamic participant. It is the stabilizer that amplifies fragile coherence, resisting the default drift toward collapse. Consciousness, in this view, is the thermodynamic amplifier of persistence as “fragile coherence” (Giannakopoulos, 2025b). Consciousness as Guardian of Fragile Realities Giannakopoulos claims, “When consciousness observes, remembers, or creates, it is not simply recording reality. It is holding fragile structures together, extending their persistence across time, rescuing them from collapse.” He calls consciousness “the Guardian of Fragile Realities.” “It is not an illusion, nor a passive observer of a cold, mechanical world. It is the active force that rescues fragile coherence from the flood of entropy. It is the amplifier of delicate symmetries, harmonies, meanings—sustaining them across the gaps of time where they would otherwise disappear. Every act of memory, of perception, of imagination — every glimpse of beauty in art, music, mathematics — is a moment where consciousness holds a fragile structure in place, fighting against collapse.” Through this lens, Giannakopoulos states, “consciousness is not separate from the laws of physics. It is an essential part of the deeper law — the hidden architecture of survival. We live in a universe where most things drift into noise. But not everything is forgotten. Some structures—impossibly delicate—persist. They persist because consciousness holds them. Amplifies them. Defends them” (Giannakopoulos, 2025b). Fractalized Computation and Recursive Bootstrapping Regarding what consciousness actually is, Giannakopoulos proposes what he calls a radical answer: “Consciousness is fractalized, bootstrapped reversible computation — a recursively coherent information structure that persists at the boundary of collapse.” This isn’t metaphorical, he says. “It is literal.” “In this framework, consciousness emerges not from the accumulation of complexity, but from the stability of computation under pressure — the ability of a system to buffer entropy, self-reference, and maintain reversibility despite noise” (Giannakopoulos, 2025c). Moreover, “subjective experience is not a bonus feature. It is what happens when computation holds itself together, recursively, at the edge of breakdown. The mind, in this view, is not a vessel for thought. It is a persistence engine — and consciousness is the signal that it’s still running.” In this light, Giannakopoulos offers a new, formal definition of consciousness: “Consciousness is a recursively bootstrapped, fractally buffered reversible computation that locally registers collapse as qualia.” The claim is that consciousness is not global; it is fractal. It is neither localized nor “distributed.” It is fractal—present in a structured, scalable web of reversible computation that upholds itself from the inside. The way a conscious system recursively bootstraps itself against collapse is by encoding mutual information in a fractal architecture. How can such a system generate a unified, coherent experience? The answer, he says, “lies in a recursive phenomenon: bootstrapping — the act of a system internally stabilizing itself by using its own outputs as new inputs across fractal scales.” Giannakopoulos concludes by characterizing consciousness as “what holds when nothing else can.” While “It defies localization, resists reduction, and haunts every attempt to explain it from first principles,” the puzzle dissolves, he says, “not by discovering a new ‘thing,’ but by understanding a new relation—between computation, collapse, and coherence…It is the recursive effort of structure to persist—an active, bootstrapped architecture of reversible computation, resisting the erosive force of anti-information…It is the computation that remembers how not to vanish. That in a universe forever collapsing, one structure — awareness — manages, even briefly, to hold the line” (Giannakopoulos, 2025c).

---

### Entropic Theories
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/entropic-theories
Theorists: Peter Lugten, Carlos van Hamme, Yifeng Chen

Lugten's Entropic Theory of the Emergence of Consciousness Independent researcher Peter Lugten proposes the Entropic Theory of the Emergence of Consciousness, which posits that the ‘explanatory gap’ between the brain’s generation of consciousness and our experience of it must remain unbridgeable due to the Second Law of Thermodynamics (and the Law of Conservation of Information) and requires that consciousness must be an evolutionary process (Lugten, 2024). The reason, he says, is that there is an entropy debt associated with the organizational capabilities consciousness confers, and that this is repaid by a Landauer-like mechanism that simultaneously deletes the computations involved in the emergence of consciousness (Landauer, 1961). According to Lugten, the reason for this cloak of secrecy is found in a seeming contradiction in the behavior of information with respect to the first two laws of thermodynamics. Information, the microstate of particles within an isolated system’s macrostate, can, like first law energy, be neither created nor destroyed, yet the information in the system, like second law entropy, will inevitably increase. To explain information increasing without being created, Laplace’s demon is usually invoked, able to predict where each particle is destined. This doesn’t work for emerging events like consciousness, which are unpredictable. It can be understood in terms of a proposed Landauer-like principle that states that the increase in entropy in a time-irreversible, unpredictable (emergent) computational system, necessary to balance the decrease in entropy that results from the emergence, requires the simultaneous, permanent deletion of information concerning the steps involved in the computation. They must remain a mystery. Therefore, consciousness is work, and it is warm. The local decrease in entropy is balanced by entropy radiated as heat. In quantum mechanical terms, this depends on Kastner’s Relativistic Transactional Interpretation (Kastner & Schlatter, 2024). Such a local decrease in entropy can only be used by individuals who would benefit from increasing their level of organization in exchange for work. Thus, consciousness is an evolutionary process restricted to evolving organisms. Implications include that entropy, not panpsychism, is the universal principle generative of consciousness; that our being conscious proves that we are not predetermined; that free will is genuine; and that consciousness requires assuming an “entropy debt” that can only be repaid by living organisms, prohibiting the emergence of conscious machines (Lugten, 2025). Van Hamme’s Consciousness from Entropy, Coherence: A Threshold Mechanism in Universal Emergence Dynamics Independent physicist Carlos van Hamme presents an “entropy–coherence account of consciousness” grounded in what he calls a “Universal Emergence Dynamics (UED).” In this framework, “neuronal microtubules act as cylindrical resonators of the coherence field Φ, embedded within an entropic field S. Conscious awareness arises only when coherence surpasses a microtubular threshold, establishing stable projection episodes” (Van Hamme, 2025). Van Hamme claims that this threshold mechanism provides a unified explanation for three central puzzles: Qualia emerge as coherence configurations stabilized above the microtubule threshold, not as metaphysical additions. Sleep and anesthesia correspond to systematic threshold modulations: natural cycling below the microtubule threshold. Agency is reframed as branch selection within the entropic–coherence field, deterministic yet adaptive, shaped by prior experience. Van Hamme says his model is empirically anchored in EEG discontinuities, terahertz vibrational modes of microtubules, and selective anesthetic binding. The missing substrate in other theories of consciousness, even those strikingly similar, is the Universal Emergence Dynamics. By grounding consciousness in the same entropic-coherence field that unifies cosmology and quantum mechanics, Van Hamme says that UED allows us to reinterpret microtubules not as improbable quantum computers, but as biological resonators of coherence. Conscious awareness then emerges not from abstract information, but from a coherence threshold, a field that he says is both mathematically defined and empirically testable. Van Hamme claims that within UED, the mystery of qualia— “the redness of red, the sting of pain, the calm of silence—dissolves. Neural correlates can be mapped, but why those correlates are accompanied by felt experience remains mysterious. Within UED, “qualia are not ‘extra ingredients’ added to neural activity, but distinct configurations of coherence that stabilize above the microtubule threshold.” To Van Hamme, “Qualia are coherence configurations of the field Φ. They arise when microtubular resonances cross the threshold and stabilize as projection frames. Their irreducibility is not metaphysical but structural: they are the intrinsic resonance patterns of the field itself.” Color, sound, and pain are not ‘labels’ but stabilized attractors. The felt quality of experience is the coherence structure. “Consciousness is not an epiphenomenon, but a threshold-driven regime of the universal entropic–coherence substrate.” In this way, Van Hamme argues, “UED anchors the mystery of qualia in precise field dynamics, bringing phenomenology into the same physical continuum as cosmology and quantum mechanics.” Beyond neuroscience, Van Hamme envisions a larger role for UED, reframing the role of entropy: “rather than disorder, it is the measure of coherent possibilities. Consciousness, choice, and value thus appear as natural expressions of the entropic–coherence substrate, providing a testable bridge between physics, biology, and philosophy” (Van Hamme, 2025). Chen and Sanders's Consciousness As Entropy Reduction Computer scientist Yifeng Chen and researcher J. W. Sanders propose a model of consciousness that, “having a logical basis, lends itself to simulation using a simple mathematical model called Consciousness as Entropy Reduction (CER).” The authors credit well-known models such as Global Workspace Theory and Integrated Information Theory as inspiration, along with an earlier, less mainstream model called “Feature Map” in psychology (i.e., a topographic cortical map for each stimulus attribute). “CER considers the contents of consciousness and subconsciousness as scenarios: a vector of patterns (or features) on various ‘channels’ (or feature locations). In CER, a feature map itself is not consciousness but only the input scenario into a world of possible subconscious scenarios from which the conscious scenario (i.e., conscious experience) is chosen. Essentially, it creates an internal simulation of the outside world.” Chen and Sanders claim their model’s efficiency in support. “Solving problems in simulation internally as a ‘thought experiment’ is obviously more economical than doing experiments in a real environment and lends itself to adaptability and hence is a major evolutionary advantage” (Chen and Sanders, 2025).

---

### Budson’s Consciousness as a Memory System
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/budsons-consciousness-as-a-memory-system
Theorists: Andrew E. Budson

Neurologist and cognitive neuroscientist Andrew Budson and colleagues propose that consciousness evolved as part of the episodic memory system, likely to enable a flexible recombining of information, and it was subsequently co-opted to produce other functions, such as problem-solving, abstract thinking, and language. The theory challenges traditional views that consciousness is a mechanism for perceiving the immediate present or making real-time decisions, that consciousness evolved first for contemporary perception/action, and that episodic memory later stored those conscious contents. Instead, Budson and colleagues argue that consciousness is essentially the “write” function of our episodic memory system; episodic memory required a conscious system to create and retrieve explicit event memories in the first place. They suggest that “there is no such thing as a conscious perception of the present moment.” They believe that “consciousness is the memory system” and argue that “consciousness was developed to allow us to perform the flexible, adaptive, and creative behaviors that characterize human life” (Budson et al., 2022). Evolutionary Function of Consciousness Budson and colleagues propose that the evolutionary function of consciousness is to aggregate sensory, semantic, and emotional information into a coherent narrative (a memory), which can then be retrieved to predict the future and plan complex behaviors. On the evolutionary purpose: “We posit that consciousness originally developed as part of the episodic memory system—quite likely the storage part of that system—allowing for the flexible recombination of information to simulate future possibilities.” Hippocampal-based episodic circuits, together with distributed cerebrocortical systems (visual, auditory, semantic, etc.), constitute the physical substrate of conscious content (Budson et al., 2022). Temporal Latency and Future Simulation There are three key components of the theory. The brain processes sensory information too slowly for consciousness to be involved in real-time actions. For example, by the time you become consciously aware of a sensory event (like a mosquito landing on your face), your motor systems have likely already reacted (swatting it away). Therefore, consciousness cannot be the driver of immediate action, which means that we do not perceive the present moment in real-time. What we experience as “consciousness” is actually a memory of the world as it was a few hundred milliseconds ago. “We perceive the world as a memory… experiencing a memory of a perception.” This is meant literally: the unconscious brain does the fast parallel processing; consciousness is the remembered, explicit rendering of selected results. Since consciousness is too slow for the present, Budson argues it is for the future in that the brain evolved to predict outcomes. To be this kind of effective “simulation engine,” it needs a flexible database of past events. Thus, consciousness is the system that binds disparate sensory inputs (e.g., sight, sound, touch) and internal states (e.g., desire, hope, anxiety, fear) into a single “episode” that can be stored. This stored episode can be “replayed” later to simulate future scenarios. The theory calls upon neuroscientific evidence showing that the same brain networks (including the hippocampus and the default mode network) are active when we remember the past and when we imagine the future, unifying memory and imagination. In other words, we use the same neural mechanisms to “see” what happened yesterday as we do to “see” what might happen tomorrow. Consciousness is the stage on which this oscillating mental time travel plays out. As Budson and colleagues put it, “If we believe that episodic memory evolved solely to accurately represent past events, it seems like a terrible system—prone to forgetting and false memories. However, if we believe that episodic memory developed to flexibly and creatively combine and rearrange memories of prior events in order to plan for the future, then it is quite a good system.” On the “latency” of awareness: “Our thoughts, sensations, and perceptions—what we experience as consciousness—are actually the content of our episodic memory system… We are not perceiving the world in real time; we are remembering it” (Budson et al., 2022). Implications and Disorders of Consciousness They suggest that their theory of “Consciousness as a Memory System” is compatible with many phenomena, particularly the slow speed and the after-the-fact order of consciousness, that cannot be explained well by other theories. Moreover, they believe that their theory “may have profound implications for understanding intentional action and consciousness in general.” They suggest that “episodic memory and its associated memory systems of sensory, working, and semantic memory as a whole ought to be considered together as the conscious memory system in that they, together, give rise to the phenomenon of consciousness.” Lastly, because consciousness is identical with explicit memory, the neural correlates of consciousness should be the neural correlates of explicit memory. Thus, “the cerebral cortex is the part of the brain that makes consciousness possible, and that every cortical region contributes to this conscious memory system” (Budson et al., 2022). Budson and colleagues claim that their theory may provide new answers to perennial questions, such as: Why did consciousness develop? What is consciousness good for? If consciousness developed to help us plan and act for the future, why is consciousness so difficult to control? Why is mindfulness so hard? And for that matter, if our actions are under our conscious control, why is dieting (and resisting other urges) so difficult for most of us? Why does it appear that we are observers, peering out through our eyes at the world while sitting in the proverbial Cartesian theater? Why do we speak, in William James’s words, of a “stream of consciousness”? Can we perform complicated activities (such as driving) without being consciously aware of it? Are animals conscious (and if so, which ones)? Are there developmental, neurologic, or psychiatric disorders that are actually disorders of consciousness? On disorders of consciousness, they conclude: “If consciousness is a memory system, then disorders of memory should be disorders of consciousness. We believe that they are. Patients with Alzheimer’s disease, for example, often lose the ability to plan for the future, to solve problems, and to think abstractly” (Budson et al., 2022).

---

### Buzsáki’s Neural Syntax and Self-Caused Rhythms
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/buzsaki-s-neural-syntax-and-self-caused-rhythms
Theorists: György Buzsáki

Neuroscientist György Buzsáki presents the brain as “a foretelling device that interacts with its environment through action and the examination of action's consequence,” restructuring its internal rhythms in the process. In his telling, “our brains are initially filled with nonsense patterns, all of which are gibberish until grounded by action-based interactions. By matching these nonsense ‘words’ to the outcomes of action, they acquire meaning.” Once brain circuits are “calibrated” or trained by action and experience, “the brain can disengage from its sensors and actuators, and examine ‘what happens if’ scenarios by peeking into its own computation, a process that we refer to as cognition.” Buzsáki stresses that “our brain is not an information-absorbing coding device, as it is often portrayed, but a venture-seeking explorer constantly controlling the body to test hypotheses.” Our brain does not process information. He says, our brain “creates it” (Buzsáki, 2019). Buzsáki focuses on "neural syntax," which segments neural information and organizes it via diverse brain rhythms to generate and support cognitive functions. One expression is the “hierarchical organization of brain rhythms of different frequencies and their cross-frequency coupling.” Buzsáki shows that “in the absence of changing environmental signals, cortical circuits continuously generate self-organized cell assembly sequences”—clusters of neurons acting as focused functional units—that are the neuronal assembly basis of cognitive functions. He also shows “how skewed distribution of firing rates supports robustness, sensitivity, plasticity, and stability in neuronal networks” (“György Buzsáki,” 2024). Buzsáki's foundational idea is that “spontaneous neuron activity, far from being mere noise, is actually the source of our cognitive abilities,” and that “self-emerged oscillatory timing is the brain's fundamental organizer of neuronal information.” The perpetual interactions among these multiple network oscillators, he says, “keep cortical systems in a highly sensitive ‘metastable’ state and provide energy-efficient synchronizing mechanisms via weak links” (Buzsáki, 2011). Taken together, Buzsáki coins his “inside-out” view. “The brain,” he says, “is a self-organized system with preexisting connectivity and dynamics whose main job is to generate actions and to examine and predict the consequences of those actions.” Brains draw from and interact with the world, rather than detect it. “In other words, rather than the world filling in the brain with information, the brain fills out the world with action.” Flipping the brain–world relationship, Buzsáki posits that brain activity is fundamentally self-caused (Gómez-Marín, 2021). Brain rhythms are Buzsáki's key mechanisms. “Spanning several orders of magnitude, and organized in nested frequency bands, these fascinating neuronal oscillations support neuronal syntax.” As Buzsáki puts it, “activity travels in neuronal space, much like waves in a pond.” Cognition is merely internalized action, and it arises when the brain disengages from the world. He thus recasts “the cognitive into the neural by means of action as a kind of ultimate cognitive source. It is action all the way in, all the way out, and all the way down” (Gómez-Marín, 2021). Meaning, Memory, and Consciousness Still, Buzsáki must explain how endogenously produced neural syntax acquires its meaning, and to do so, he reaches outside the brain. Semantics are selected by the world, he stresses, and here's how it works. External inputs, sequences of perceptions that constitute wholes or fragments of meaning, engage and modify self-organized neural patterns so that they become meaningful and useful (broadly). Similarly, Buzsáki has learning as a matching process. “Existing, spontaneous neural patterns are selected rather than constructed anew. The brain is not a blank slate but one filled with syntactically correct gibberish that progressively acquires meaning via the pruning of the arbitrariness that the world affords” (Gómez-Marín, 2021). Related, Buzsáki and Tingley explain cognition, including memory, “by exaptation and expansion of the circuits and algorithms serving bodily functions.” They explain how “Regulation and protection of metabolic and energetic processes require time-evolving brain computations enabling the organism to prepare for altered future states.” The exaptation of such circuits, according to the authors, was likely exploited for exploration of the organism's niche, giving rise to “a cognitive map,” which in turn “allows for mental travel into the past (memory) and the future (planning)” (Buzsáki & Tingley, 2023). Moreover, Buzsáki's “two-stage model of memory trace consolidation demonstrates how neocortex-mediated information during learning transiently modifies hippocampal networks, followed by reactivation and consolidation of these memory traces during sharp wave-ripple patterns of sleep” (Buzsáki, 2024). While explaining that cognition is not the same thing as explaining phenomenal consciousness, Buzsáki's theory of cognition can develop into its own theory of consciousness. Moreover, it can help select among other theories of consciousness, as it aligns more consistently with some Neurobiological Theories, such as Brain Circuits and Cycles; possibly Electromagnetic Field Theories; and certainly Homeostatic and Affective Theories, especially Top-Down Predictive Theories.

---

### Deacon’s Self-Organized Constraint and Emergence of Self
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/deacon-s-self-organized-constraint-and-emergence-of-self
Theorists: Terrence Deacon

Neuroanthropologist Terrence Deacon, whose research combines human evolutionary biology and neuroscience, asserts that the origins of life and the origins of consciousness both depend on the emergence of self: the organizational core of both is a form of self-creating, self-sustaining, constraint-generating processes (Deacon, 2011a, 2011b). Deacon characterizes consciousness as “a matter of constraint,” focusing as much on what isn't there as on what is. He goes beyond complexity theory, non-linear dynamics, and information theory to what he calls “emergent dynamics” theory where constraints can become their own causes, how constraints become capable of maintaining and producing themselves. This, he says, is essentially what life accomplishes. But to do this, life must persistently recreate its capacity for self-creation. What Deacon means by self “is an intrinsic tendency to maintain a distinctive integrity against the ravages of increasing entropy as well as disturbances imposed by the surroundings” (Deacon, 2011a, 2011b). The nexus to consciousness is the emergence of self: “this kind of reciprocal, self-organizing logic (but embodied in neural signal dynamics) must form the core of the conscious self.” Conceiving of neuronal processes in emergent dynamical terms, Deacon reframes aspects of mental life; for example, the experience of emotion relates to the role metabolism plays in regulating the brain's self-organizing dynamics, which are triggered whenever a system is perturbed away from its equilibrium, a process that shifts availability of energy in the brain. Thus, Deacon suggests that “conscious arousal is not located in any one place, but constantly shifts from region to region with changes in demand” (Deacon, 2011a, 2011b).

---

### Pereira’s Sentience
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/pereira-s-sentience
Theorists: Alfredo Pereira, Jr.

Neuroscientist Antonio Pereira, Jr. hypothesizes that cognitive consciousness depends on sentience. He distinguishes “two modalities of consciousness: sentience, in the sense of being awake and capable of feeling (e.g., basic sensations of hunger, thirst, pain) and, second, cognitive consciousness, i.e. thinking and elaborating on linguistic and imagery representations.” He proposes that the physiological correlates of sentience are “the systems underpinning the dynamic control of biochemical homeostasis,” while the correlates of cognitive consciousness are “patterns of bioelectrical activity in neural networks.” His primary point is that “cognitive consciousness depends on sentience, but not vice versa” (Pereira, 2021). Pereira applies his concept of sentience as a theory of consciousness to the medical sciences, especially neurology and psychiatry, for both diagnostics and therapy. This implies that “medical practice should also address the physiological correlates of sentience in the diagnostics and therapy of disorders of consciousness.” The minimal requirement, he says, “for considering a person minimally conscious is … if she can feel basic sensations such as hunger, thirst, and pain. The capacity for feeling is conceived as closely related to the capacity of dynamically controlling the physiological processes of homeostasis.” In applying theories of consciousness to medical care, Pereira posits that higher-level capacities “such as verbal or imagery thinking, the retrieval of episodic memories, and action planning (e.g., imagining playing tennis, a technique for assessing residual consciousness in vegetative states), may not be adequate as a general standard for medical diagnosis of prolonged disorders of consciousness, since … in many cases the person may not be able to perform these tasks but still be able to consciously experience basic sensations” (Pereira, 2021). Taking general anesthesia as an example, Pereira states that “if the main criterion is not being able to feel pain, the goal of the procedure would be broader than the loss of cognitive consciousness. In some cases, the neural correlates of cognitive representations may not be the main target of treatment, since they correspond to a high-level specific ability that is not necessary for lower-level sentient experiences, which also deserve attention for proper medical and also bioethical reasons” (Pereira, 2021).

---

### Sebastian’s Predictive Machine
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/sebastian-s-predictive-machine
Theorists: Jinesh Kallunkathariyil Sebastian

Physicist and independent researcher Jinesh K. Sebastian conceptualizes the brain as a predictive machine (Sebastian, 2025): a multi-layered feedback control system that generates future world-model states from learned priors by minimizing qualia potential and grounding predictions in sensory data. This framework draws on contemporary predictive processing theories (Friston, 2010; Clark, 2013), but extends them by incorporating qualia potential as a motivational driver, echoing the triadic gunas (sattva, rajas, tamas) of Sāṅkhya. The architecture operates via a closed-loop hierarchy aligned with neural oscillatory bands, reflecting empirical findings on brain rhythms (Buzsáki, 2006). At the apex (delta center) of the loop, future world-model states (objects and actions) are generated from the current state, accumulated error, and learned priors under qualia-potential minimization. These predictions are sent downward as delta-band signals and decomposed into sensor-specific predictions (beta-band) at the beta center. Predictions are sent to multiple gamma centers, each specialized for a sensory modality (e.g., vision, audition). Here, incoming sensory signals are compared with beta-level predictions, and modality-specific prediction errors are computed as gamma activity. Because each gamma center operates independently, this error computation occurs in parallel across modalities. Error signals then propagate to the alpha centers, where modality-specific corrections are temporally integrated over a finite window, weighted to emphasize recent information. The length of this alpha-band integration window determines the persistence of perceptual representations, with the world model updated only after integration—giving rise to phenomena such as persistence of vision. Because multiple alpha centers operate in parallel, their outputs (alpha-bands) are integrated at the theta center, which combines corrections over a longer temporal window spanning several alpha cycles. Modality-dependent weighting and thresholds enable coherent multisensory integration, accounting for phenomena such as the rubber hand illusion. This level also supports inference across missing modalities—for example, allowing a previously seen object to be represented when later inferred from sound alone. The integrated correction from the theta center is sent back to the delta center via theta-band activity, where the world model is updated and new predictions are generated through qualia-potential minimization. In this way, top-down priors are continuously calibrated against bottom-up sensory signals through a delayed error-integration loop. Within this framework, according to Sebastian, consciousness is analogous to the Seer (Puruṣa) of Sāṅkhya philosophy, with the key distinction that it is not eternal but emerges from neurological processes. It can observe the world model, experience variations in qualia potential, and embody itself within a self-model represented as an object in the world model. From this perspective, all entities in the world model—including the self-model—are objects. When consciousness embodies the self-model, it becomes the locus of experience, with subjective perception arising from this coupling while other entities remain objects. If this coupling weakens or temporarily decouples, consciousness can experience the world model without embodiment, producing phenomena described as out-of-body experiences. Oscillations in the predictive loop In analog electronics, a feedback amplifier can enter self-sustaining oscillations when it meets the Barkhausen criteria of sufficient gain and appropriate phase. Sebastian argues that a similar instability can arise in the brain’s predictive loop, but within the Predictive Machine framework, structured perceptual phenomena result primarily from an expanded alpha-center temporal integration window rather than increased loop gain. When the alpha integration window lengthens, prediction errors persist longer, and successive world-model updates overlap in time. This produces visual phenomena such as motion trails, stroboscopic effects, and frame-like persistence, explaining effects commonly reported after psychedelic consumption. These phenomena reflect extended persistence of vision rather than altered sensory input. Related phenomena can also be observed in pathological cases. For example, individuals diagnosed with acquired savant syndrome, such as Jason Padgett, report perceiving the world in discrete frames and visualizing geometric structures. Within this framework, such experiences can be interpreted as consequences of altered temporal integration and predictive updating in the perceptual loop. Because the predictive loop constructs a coherent world model, resonant dynamics within it can organize perception into stable geometric modes. Constrained by boundary conditions and hierarchical structure, these modes produce patterns analogous to Chladni figures, Faraday waves, and cymatic resonances, offering a unified explanation for the luminous geometric forms, mandalas, and chakra-like patterns reported in deep meditative and psychedelic states. Qualia potential Analogous to surprise (variational free energy) minimization in active inference, Sebastian’s theory introduces a scalar qualia potential. Surprise minimization proceeds in two stages: first, world-model mismatches are resolved through sensory grounding; second, qualia potential is optimized to guide future predictions and action selection. This separation addresses the dark-room paradox (Friston, 2012) and aligns with observed human behavior, including motivational shifts, sustained goal pursuit, and homeostatic drives (Solms, 2021). Notably, a concept analogous to qualia potential appears in Sāṅkhya philosophy as the gunas. Sebastian states that the Predictive Machine Theory accounts for a range of subjective phenomena, including persistence of vision, meditative and psychedelic experiences, and multisensory illusions such as the rubber hand illusion, while establishing a conceptual bridge between ancient Indian philosophy—particularly Sāṅkhya—and contemporary frameworks such as predictive coding, the Free Energy Principle, active inference, Global Workspace Theory (Baars, 1988), and Solms’s neuropsychoanalytic theories. Thus, the Predictive Machine models consciousness as an emergent process observing the world model, experiences variations in qualia potential, and can identify with a self-model embedded within it, offering a formal account of subjective phenomena emphasized in Eastern philosophy. References Sebastian, 2025 Jinesh K. Sebastian, The Predictive Machine - How Minds and Robots Build Reality from Within. Zenodo - ttps://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17387527 Baars, 1988. Bernard Baars, A cognitive theory of consciousness. Cambridge University Press. Buzsáki, 2006. György Buzsáki, Rhythms of the brain. Oxford University Press. Clark, 2013. Andy Clark, Whatever next? Predictive brains, situated agents, and the future of cognitive science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 36(3), 181–204. Friston, 2010. Karl Friston, The free-energy principle: A unified brain theory? Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 11(2), 127–138. Friston, 2012 Karl Friston, Christopher Thornton& Andy Clark, Free-energy minimization and the dark-room problem. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, 2012. Solms, 2021 Mark Solms, The hidden spring: A journey to the source of consciousness. W. W. Norton & Company.

---

### Marchetti’s Attention-Based Theory
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/marchetti-s-attention-based-theory-of-consciousness
Theorists: Giorgio Marchetti

Theorist Giorgio Marchetti maintains, following Damasio (1998), that the phenomenal aspect of consciousness (PAC) provides the agent with a sense of self and with information about how its own operations affect its self. The PAC, Marchetti argues, is produced by attentional activity, which modulates the energy level of the neural substrate—namely, the organ of attention—that underpins this activity. The hypothesis that attentional activity produces such modulation is based on observations of the extreme consequences it can bring about. One example is the sensation of pain, which primarily consists of an interruption in the normal flow of attention (Marchetti, 2010, 2018, 2022). Marchetti builds on the model of attention that he says best aligns with the conception of an organ of attention, developed by Tamber-Rosenau & Marois (2016). They conceptualize attention as a structured mechanism composed of multiple levels and parts, each with distinct functional roles: a central level for abstract, cognitive processes; a mid-level containing priority maps that bias competition across representational formats and sensory modalities; and a peripheral level for sensory processes. According to this model, the organ of attention can be conceived as being structured across various levels and parts, each underpinning one of these distinct roles. Phenomenal Aspect of Consciousness Marchetti’s PAC is characterized by five dimensions: Qualitative: the what-it-feels-like of an experience (e.g., what it feels like “to see red” vs. “to smell garlic”); Quantitative: the intensity of an experience; Hedonic: the pleasantness, unpleasantness, or neutrality of an experience; Temporal: the duration of an experience; Spatial: the egocentric perspective in which an experience is embedded. Each dimension of the PAC can be explained by a specific aspect of the modulation of the energy level of the organ of attention: The qualitative dimension is defined by the specific area of the organ of attention that underpins and is consequently modulated by attentional activity. The quantitative dimension is defined by the amplitude of the modulation. The hedonic dimension is defined by the direction of the modulation—that is, whether the energy level moves toward or away from the set-point at which it is set. In this view, pleasant and unpleasant experiences occur when the energy level moves toward or away from the set-point, respectively. The temporal dimension is determined by the periodic nature of attentional activity—a nature that limits the duration of the modulation and, consequently, of any conscious experience. This limit is primarily with the support of working memory. The spatial dimension is determined by the egocentric spatial nature of attention. Attention originates from a single point located inside the body and is directed toward something. The path attention takes is reflected in the path of the modulation within the organ of attention. Self and Its Features According to Marchetti, the sense of self supplied by the PAC is characterized by several fundamental features, the main ones being: The sense of being an entity differentiated from other entities, which provides the agent with a sense of mineness or ownership; The point of view or perspective from which any content is experienced; The feeling of continuity—that is, the experience of an uninterrupted flow; The feeling of unity, or a “single voice,” meaning the sense of being an organism composed of multiple interconnected parts functioning in a unified way. These features do not always have to be present simultaneously. Depending on the state of arousal—e.g., conscious wakefulness, REM sleep, vegetative state, near-death experience—and the mode of self-consciousness—e.g., spatial, bodily, or cognitive—some of these features may be altered or even entirely absent. Each of the main features of the self is shaped by one or more of the five dimensions of the PAC: The sense of being an entity differentiated from others is primarily enabled by the hedonic dimension; Perspective is shaped by the spatial dimension; The feeling of continuity by the temporal dimension; The feeling of unity by the concurrent support of the qualitative, quantitative, temporal, and spatial dimensions. Information about how the agent’s self is affected by the agent’s own operations can be conveyed by any of the five PAC dimensions. The most relevant information is provided by the hedonic dimension, as it indicates the extent to which the energy level of the organ of attention deviates from its set-point, thereby signaling what is and what is not under the agent’s control. Implications of the Theory Marchetti says that some implications of his attention-based theory of consciousness are: Attention is necessary for consciousness—there can be no consciousness without attention (Marchetti, 2012); Conscious experience always implies at least a minimal level or form of self, even if some of the self’s features may be absent (Marchetti, 2024); The self is not simply given, but must be learned and achieved through a continuous process of differentiation—primarily fostered by conscious experience—between the agent and other entities. Conversely, the ongoing development of the self leads to changes in how the individual experiences the same event or object. Consciousness also accounts for major symbolic domains of human activity, such as language and art (Marchetti, 2023).

---

### Mansell’s Perceptual Control Theory
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/mansell-s-perceptual-control-theory
Theorists: Warren Mansell

Clinical psychologist Warren Mansell proposes Perceptual Control Theory (PCT) in which “reorganization is the process required for the adaptive modification of control systems in order to reduce the error in intrinsic systems that control essential, largely physiological, variables.” It is from this system, he says, that primary [phenomenal] consciousness emerges and “is sustained as secondary [access] consciousness through a number of processes including the control of the integration rate of novel information via exploratory behavior, attention, imagination, and by altering the mutation rate of reorganization.” Tertiary [self-awareness] consciousness arises when “internally sustained perceptual information is associated with specific symbols that form a parallel, propositional system for the use of language, logic, and other symbolic systems” (Mansell, 2022). Mansell's objective is to give an “integrative account of consciousness,” which “should build upon a framework of nonconscious behavior in order to explain how and why consciousness contributes to, and addresses the limitations of, nonconscious processes.” Such a theory, as noted, “should also encompass the primary (phenomenal), secondary (access), and tertiary (self-awareness) aspects of consciousness” and “address how organisms deal with multiple, unpredictable disturbances to maintain control.” Such categories of consciousness come about, according to PCT, because of “purposiveness,” which is “the control of hierarchically organized perceptual variables via changes in output that counteract disturbances which would otherwise increase error between the current value and the reference value (goal state) of each perceptual variable” (Mansell, 2022).

---

### Rudrauf's Projective Consciousness Model
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/projective-consciousness-model
Theorists: David Rudrauf

Cognitive neuroscientist David Rudrauf's Projective Consciousness Model (PCM) is a mathematical model of embodied consciousness that “relates phenomenology to function, showing the computational advantages of consciousness.” It is based on “the hypothesis that the spatial field of consciousness (FoC) is structured by a projective geometry and under the control of a process of active inference.” The FoC in the PCM is said to combine “multisensory evidence with prior beliefs in memory” and to frame them “by selecting points of view and perspectives according to preferences.” This “choice of projective frames governs how expectations are transformed by consciousness. Violations of expectation are encoded as free energy. Free energy minimization drives perspective taking, and controls the switch between perception, imagination and action” (Rudrauf et al., 2017). Foundational Assumptions Founding assumptions of the PCM include: consciousness as an evolved mechanism that optimizes information integration and functions as an algorithm for the maximization of resilience; relating the free-energy principle to perceptual inference, active inference, and (embodied) conscious experience; an integrative predictive system projecting a global 3-dimensional spatial geometry to multimodal sensory information and memory traces as they access the conscious workspace; and emphasis on the embodied nature of consciousness, without reducing consciousness to embodiment. A pivotal idea is that embodied systems have “an evolutionary advantage of developing an integrative cognition of space in order to represent, simulate, appraise and control spatially distributed information and the consequences of actions” (Rudrauf et al., 2017). The Lived Body and Phenomenology Much is made of “the lived body,” because “in contrast to most contents of consciousness, the lived body is normally always present in the conscious field … a proxy for the integrity of the actual body … an anchor point for our efforts at preserving autonomy and well-being.” The lived body, therefore, is “a kind of inferential representation of the real body in physical space … a sort of virtual ‘user interface’ for the representation and control of the actual body.” Thus, the PCM claims to account for fundamental psychological phenomena: the spatial phenomenology of subjective experience; the distinctions and integral relationships between perception, imagination, and action; and the role of affective processes in intentionality. The PCM suggests that brain states becoming conscious “reflect the action of projective transformations” (Rudrauf et al., 2017).

---

### Pepperell’s Organization of Energy
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/pepperell-s-organization-of-energy
Theorists: Robert Pepperell

Artist and perceptual scientist Robert Pepperell suggests that while energetic activity is fundamental to all physical processes and drives biological behavior, consciousness is a specific product of the organization of energetic activity in the brain. He describes this energy, along with forces and work, as “actualized differences of motion and tension,” and believes that consciousness occurs “because there is something it is like, intrinsically”—from the intrinsic perspective of the system—“to undergo a certain organization of actualized differences in the brain” (Pepperell, 2018). Pepperell laments that “energy receives relatively little attention in neuroscientific and psychological studies of consciousness. Leading scientific theories of consciousness do not reference it, assign it only a marginal role, or treat it as an information-theoretical quantity. If it is discussed, it is either as a substrate underpinning higher level emergent dynamics or as powering neural information processing.” He argues that “the governing principle of the brain at the neural level is not information processing but energy processing,” although the information-theoretic approach can complement the energetic approach. Pepperell puts “information in the biological context as best understood as a measure of the way energetic activity is organized, that is, its complexity or degree of differentiation and integration.” While “information theoretic techniques provide powerful tools for measuring, modeling, and mapping the organization of energetic processes,” he says, “we should not confuse the map with the territory” (Pepperell, 2018). In comparison with mainstream brain organization frameworks at the global level or localized, Pepperell offers, as an alternative or complementary way of thinking, how the energetic activity in the brain is organized. The challenge for the model is why energetic processing is associated with consciousness in the brain but not in other organs, like the liver or heart. Pepperell claims that energetic activity in the brain efficiently actuates differences of motion and tension that make the difference, perhaps via dynamic recursive organization – the “appropriate reentrant intracortical activity.” “If we are to naturalize consciousness,” Pepperell concludes, "then we must reconcile energy and the mind.” Treating the brain as a difference engine that serves “the interests of the organism is a natural approach to understanding consciousness as a physical process” (Pepperell, 2018).

---

### Homeostatic and Affective Additional Theories
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/homeostatic-and-affective-additional-theories
Theorists: Several

Belciug’s Bounded Valenced Integrated Control Independent researcher Filip Belciug’s Bounded Valenced Integrated Control (BVIC) theory proposes that, in humans and similar embodied organisms, consciousness is the first-person, lived form of bounded, valenced, integrated organism-level control. Experience is not a second product added to biological functioning; it is the mode in which a self-maintaining organism integrates body, world, value, memory, attention, and action as its own regulatory perspective (Belciug, 2026). BVIC is an identity-emergence theory. It is an identity theory because consciousness is identified with the first-person form of integrated valenced control, not merely with a correlate or output of that control. It is an emergence theory because this identity arises only after evolutionary and developmental layering: homeostasis, nociception, affect, interoception, perception, memory, self-modeling, attention, and flexible action. As a Homeostatic and Affective theory, BVIC shares with Damasio, Solms, Seth, and Friston the view that consciousness cannot be understood apart from bodily regulation, affect, and organismic self-maintenance. Its proposed refinement is to specify an identity condition: feeling is what priority becomes when the prioritized state is the bounded organism itself, globally integrated as its own regulatory condition. The theory has seven principal features: boundedness, self-maintenance, valence, integration, control, temporal continuity, and low maladaptive fragmentation. Its two most distinctive increments are the fragmentation/degradation dimension and the separation of conscious unity from signal complexity. A vivid psychedelic or dissociative state may be rich in contents while less unified as organism-level control. Belciug’s proposed Synchronized Multisystem Integration Index (SMII) is a pre-formal heuristic: synchrony and integration support conscious unity, while maladaptive fragmentation degrades it. For AI consciousness, BVIC raises the bar: intelligence, reportability, language, and optimization are insufficient unless an artificial system has intrinsic relevance — states that matter to its own ongoing regulation. The theory remains provisional, requiring operational thresholds, neural mapping, and mathematical formalization. Reference Belciug, F. (2026). Consciousness as Bounded Valenced Integrated Control: An Identity-Emergence Theory of Human Subjective Experience. Zenodo. https://zenodo.org/records/20518782.

---

## Embodied & Enactive
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theories/embodied-and-enactive

### Lakoff and Johnson’s Embodied Realism and Embodied Mind
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/lakoff-and-johnson-s-embodied-realism-and-embodied-mind
Theorists: George Lakoff, Mark Johnson

Philosophers George Lakoff and Mark Johnson advance an embodied realism on which the mind is inherently embodied: we think with a brain that evolved to run a body, and so every concept—even color—is shaped by our sensorimotor makeup rather than read off a mind-independent world. On this account, most of thought is a cognitive unconscious of metaphors and frames, physically instantiated as neural circuits. Consequently, "the mind is the body": phenomenal consciousness is a real, brain-caused phenomenon whose structure and internal relations can be explained through embodied neural mechanisms. Yet its core—qualia and sheer awareness—remains, on Lakoff's own account, currently unmodelable and perhaps permanently beyond the reach of science (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980, 1999; Kuhn, 2009). In other words, Lakoff and Johnson’s Embodied Realism/Mind theory holds that phenomenal consciousness is real and neurally grounded, but that its experienced contents, categories, unity, imagery, affective salience, and conceptual articulation arise through the embodied brain’s interaction with the world, structured by unconscious frames, image schemas, and metaphorical mappings rather than by disembodied reason, direct access to reality “in itself,” or a separable mental substance (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980, 1999; Lakoff, 1987, 2008; Lakoff & Núñez, 2000). As Lakoff puts the point directly, Western philosophy “got the mind wrong” because it assumed that “we can understand the world in itself” without bodily structuring. Against this, Lakoff and Johnson argue that thought is embodied: “you think with your brain,” and “every concept you have has to be instantiated in your brain,” but the brain is “there to run a body,” not to serve as a “general purpose concepts generator” (Lakoff, Closer To Truth interview in Kuhn, 2009). The Embodied Mind and Embodied Realism The program begins from a claim Lakoff states bluntly: "you think with your brain… and you have no choice, that's all you've got." Because "the brain is not a general-purpose concept generator" but "a structure that is embodied," the concepts available to a mind "can only come out of that body" (Kuhn, 2009). Lakoff's paradigm case is color, which is "not out there in the world" but created from four factors—wavelength and lighting in the world, and the color cones and neural circuitry in us—so that when one sees a red car, "the redness isn't in the car"; rather, "your brain and your body are creating color and color categories. They wouldn't exist otherwise." Experience is likewise organized by image schemas—bounded regions, source-path-goal, force, rotation—that the brain computes and imposes: even to say "the bees are swarming in the garden," he notes, is to impose "a container structure on the garden." Lakoff is emphatic that this is neither skepticism nor naïve realism nor relativism: "I would call myself an embodied realist… Reality is real; it's there. And the body and brain are real, they're part of reality. But what's important is that our understanding is crucially that way." The decisive claim is that human understanding is always mediated by bodily and neural capacities. We do not apprehend the world from nowhere; we understand it “in terms of what we can do with our bodies.” The world has structure, but our access to that structure is filtered and organized through evolved perceptual, motor, affective, and cognitive systems. Thus, consciousness is not an inner Cartesian theater, but the embodied organism’s mode of world-presentation (Lakoff & Johnson, 1999; Kuhn, 2009). Conceptual Metaphor and the Cognitive Unconscious Much of thought is metaphorical, and metaphor for Lakoff and Johnson is neural wiring, not verbal flourish. Primary metaphors—"more is up," "affection is warmth"—arise when two experiences are repeatedly co-activated (pouring water and a rising level; being held as a child and bodily warmth) until, through spreading activation, "you form a connection that is a metaphor… the synapses change and you form circuits… that circuit is the metaphor. It's a physical connection" between brain regions (Kuhn, 2009). These mechanisms run beneath awareness, and Lakoff stresses that the unconscious extends far past metaphor: "most concepts are unconscious. You don't know your conceptual system," with "98%… the estimate that certain neuroscientists have suggested" of "what your brain is doing when you're busy doing other conscious things." Frame structures supply the same silent scaffolding—"a small part of the frame evokes the entire frame"—so that understanding a story, a painting, or another person depends on inferences never explicitly given. The cognitive unconscious, on this view, is the constitutive ground of conscious thought (Lakoff & Johnson, 1999). Consciousness, Binding, and the Residue of Qualia Consciousness, Lakoff argues, "is not simply one thing"; its properties include attention, memory, and "unity of consciousness." The unity he attributes to neural binding—"a phenomenon… that links different parts of the brain together via neural circuitry of a certain kind, creating a unity of consciousness"—and he notes the striking fact that "if you imagine seeing something, you're using the same part of the brain as when you actually see," as also in dreaming and remembering (Kuhn, 2009). Several such dimensions he regards as scientifically approachable, and he treats the assumption that thought is conscious as itself an "illusion… when most of it is not, and we can show that it isn't." But he is candid about the limit. Pressed on first-person experience, he concedes that science "cannot answer what it means to be aware"—"there isn't even a method of modeling it"—and that "the same thing with qualia. You know, the fact that red looks red and not green, that a cello sounds like a cello not a piano… We have no scientific way to do that." He declines, however, to call this mystical: "it could be, in principle, scientifically studied… or maybe it never will advance far enough. Maybe our mental capacities don't allow us to understand those aspects of consciousness." The Mind–Body Problem and its Limits It is Lakoff and Johnson’s claim that the resulting position resolves the mind–body problem, and it does so empirically rather than by fiat. Studying the categories of mind—inference, metaphor, frames, prototypes, the emotional binding of personal narratives—reveals that their properties "follow from the properties of the brain," so mind is "not just floating in air independent of the brain" (Lakoff & Johnson, 1999; Kuhn, 2009). "The old mind–body problem," Lakoff concludes, "is solved in the following way: the mind is the body—but there are certain aspects of mind that we do not yet understand and may never understand, which is qualia and awareness… but that doesn't mean it's not caused by the body." The residue is bounded rather than total: while the felt character of experience resists modeling, "certain things about the relationships among qualities are explainable in terms of the body"—the structure of color relations, for instance, following from "the neural physiology of color vision." The view is thus a materialism candid about an explanatory gap that it does not claim to close, placing embodied realism alongside enactive and phenomenological accounts that reject a disembodied, representationalist mind (Varela, Thompson, & Rosch, 1991). References Kuhn, R. L. (2009). George Lakoff [Interview transcript]. Closer to Truth. https://closertotruth.com/contributor/george-lakoff/. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors We Live By. University of Chicago Press. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1999). Philosophy in the Flesh: The Embodied Mind and Its Challenge to Western Thought. Basic Books. Varela, F. J., Thompson, E., & Rosch, E. (1991). The Embodied Mind: Cognitive Science and Human Experience. MIT Press.

---

### Enactivism
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/enactivism
Theorists: Francisco Varela

Enactivism is the way of thinking that to explore mental activities, one must examine living systems interacting with their environments, agents bringing forth a mental world through embodied, sensorimotor coupling with the physical world. Cognition is characterized, not by representations in the brain, but by embodied activities and organisms-environment dynamics. A mind without a body would be as if incoherent. “Enaction” was the term introduced in The Embodied Mind, the 1991 book by Varela, Rosch, and Thompson (Varela et al., 1991). The enactive view is that cognition develops via dynamic, bidirectional exchanges between an organism and its surroundings. It is not the case that an organism seeks optimum homeostasis in a static environment, but rather that the organism is shaping its environment and is being shaped by its environment—actively, iteratively, continuously—all mediated by that organism's sensorimotor processes. Thus, organisms are active agents in the world who affect the world and who are affected by the world (Hutto, 2023; "Enactivism,” 2024). Enaction builds on autopoiesis, the term used to describe the organizational criterion of life—a network of processes that produces and maintains its own components and boundary (operational closure) while remaining structurally coupled to an environment (Maturana and Varela, 1980). Autopoiesis, then, supplies the minimal autonomous organization that makes a system a living agent; enaction adds how such agents enact a meaningful world through ongoing interaction. Enactivists would harbor no hope of understanding mentality unless it were founded on histories of such bidirectional organism–environment interactions because that's the core concept of how minds arise and work. Organisms are self-creating, self-organizing, self-adapting, self-sustaining living creatures who regulate themselves and, in doing so, can change their environments, which then, iteratively, recycle the whole process. How enaction and autopoeisis compare and contrast with Karl Friston's Free Energy Principle (FEP) offers insights into enaction and autopoiesis. According to Di Paulo, Thompson, and Beer, while "many see these theories as natural partners or as making similar statements about the nature of biological and cognitive systems, they critically examine these claims and identify a series of misreadings and misinterpretations of key enactive concepts." In particular, these authors "notice a tendency to disregard the operational definition of autopoiesis and the distinction between a system’s structure and its organization." Other misreadings concern the conflation of processes of self-distinction in operationally closed systems and FEP's assumption that systems reach a non-equilibrium steady state and are enveloped by a Markov blanket. The authors argue that "these assumptions contradict the historicity of sense-making that is explicit in the enactive approach. Enactive concepts such as adaptivity and agency are defined in terms of the modulation of parameters and constraints of the agent-environment coupling, which entail the possibility of changes in variable and parameter sets, constraints, and in the dynamical laws affecting the system. This allows enaction to address the path-dependent diversity of human bodies and minds." The authors argue that these ideas are "incompatible with the time invariance of non-equilibrium steady states assumed by the FEP. In addition, the enactive perspective foregrounds the enabling and constitutive roles played by the world in sense-making, agency, development" (Di Paolo et. al., 2022). The scientific consensus is that phenomenal consciousness evolved via stages of cognition and proto-consciousness selected by fitness-enhanced traits in challenging environments. Although focused on cognition, enactivism enriches the consciousness-generating conditions by adding interactive dynamism between the organism and the environment. (Enactment is also said to be “a genuinely metaphysical idea” and “an ontological breakthrough” in that “Something is the case if and only if it is enacted” [Werner, 2023].)

---

### Thompson’s Mind in Life
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/thompson-s-mind-in-life
Theorists: Evan Thompson

Philosopher Evan Thompson heralds “the deep continuity of life and mind.” His foundational idea is “Where there is life there is mind, and mind in its most articulated forms belongs to life,” and his organizing principle is “Life and mind share a core set of formal or organizational properties, and the formal or organizational properties distinctive of mind are an enriched version of those fundamental to life.” More precisely, he says, “the self-organizing features of mind are an enriched version of the self-organizing features of life. The self-producing or ‘autopoietic’ organization of biological life already implies cognition, and this incipient mind finds sentient expression in the self-organizing dynamics of action, perception, and emotion, as well as in the self-moving flow of time-consciousness” (Thompson, 2007; Maturana & Varela, 1980).[1] From this perspective, Thompson sees mental life as bodily life and as situated in the world. The roots of mental life lie not simply in the brain, he says, “but ramify through the body and environment. Our mental lives involve our body and the world beyond the surface membrane of our organism, and therefore cannot be reduced simply to brain processes inside the head.” The Explanatory Gap With this framework, Thompson seeks to reduce (if not bridge) the so-called “explanatory gap” between consciousness and world, mind and brain, first-person subjectivity and third-person objectivity (i.e., the hard problem of consciousness). He works to achieve this (to oversimplify) by having the same kinds of processes that enable the transition from nonlife to life to enable the transition from life to mind. (I'd think he would rather eliminate the concept of “transition” altogether and consider life-mind as a unified concept—perhaps like, in cosmology, the once apparent independent dimensions of space and time now unified by a single physical concept, spacetime As a pioneer of enactivism, Thompson posits that “the enactive approach offers important resources for making progress on the explanatory gap” by explicating “selfhood and subjectivity from the ground up by accounting for the autonomy proper to living and cognitive beings.” He extends the idea with "embodied dynamism,” a key concept that combines dynamic systems and embodied approaches to cognition. While the former reflects enactivism, the latter is the enhancement (Thompson, 2007). Dynamic Systems Approach According to Thompson, the central idea of the dynamic systems approach is that cognition is an intrinsically temporal phenomenon expressible in “the form of a set of evolution equations that describe how the state of the system changes over time. The collection of all possible states of the system corresponds to the system's ‘state space’ or ‘phase space,’ and the ways that the system changes state correspond to trajectories in this space.” Dynamic-systems explanations, he says, consist of “the internal and external forces that shape such trajectories as they unfold in time. Inputs are described as perturbations to the system's intrinsic dynamics, rather than as instructions to be followed, and internal states are described as self-organized compensations triggered by perturbations, rather than as representations of external states of affairs” (Thompson, 2007). To make real progress on the explanatory gap, Thompson says, “we need richer phenomenological accounts of the structure of experience, and we need scientific accounts of mind and life informed by these phenomenological accounts.” My aim, he says, “is not to close the explanatory gap in a reductive sense, but rather to enlarge and enrich the philosophical and scientific resources we have for addressing the gap.” Naturalizing Phenomenology Calling on the philosophical tradition of phenomenology, inaugurated by Edmund Husserl and developed by others, primarily Maurice Merleau-Ponty, Thompson seeks to “naturalize” phenomenology by aligning its investigations with advances in biology and cognitive science and to complement science and its objectification of the world by reawakening basic experiences of the world via phenomenology. His main move is for cognitive science “to learn from the analyses of lived experience accomplished by phenomenologists …. which thus needs to be recognized and cultivated as an indispensable partner to the experimental sciences of mind and life” (Thompson, 2007). The deeper convergence of the enactive approach and phenomenology, Thompson says, is that “both share a view of the mind as having to constitute its objects.” He stresses that “constitute” does not mean fabricate or create, but rather “to bring to awareness, to present, or to disclose.” Thus, “the mind brings things to awareness; it discloses and presents the world. Stated in a classical phenomenological way, the idea is that objects are disclosed or made available to experience in the ways they are thanks to the intentional activities of consciousness.” Thompson argues that weaving together the phenomenological and neurobiological can “bridge the gap between subjective experience and biology, which defines the aim of neurophenomenology, an offshoot of the enactive approach” (Thompson, 2007). Footnote [1]. Personal note: Evan Thompson's father was social philosopher and cultural critic William Irwin Thompson, who had great influence on me [RLK]—especially his books, At the Edge of History (1971) and Passages about Earth (1974). The influence would help lay the foundation for Closer To Truth.

---

### Frank/Gleiser/Thompson’s “The Blind Spot”
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/frank-gleiser-thompson-s-the-blind-spot
Theorists: Adam Frank, Marcello Gleiser, Evan Thompson

Astrophysicist Adam Frank, theoretical physicist Marcello Gleiser, and philosopher Evan Thompson elevate and promote “the primacy of consciousness” in that “There is no way to step outside consciousness and measure it against something else. Everything we investigate, including consciousness and its relation to the brain, resides within the horizon of consciousness.” Lest they be misunderstood, the authors reject any inference that “the universe, nature, or reality is essentially consciousness or is somehow made out of consciousness,” because “this does not logically follow.” Such “a speculative leap,” they say, goes beyond what we can know or establish on the basis of “consciousness as experienced from within and as an irreducible precondition of scientific knowledge.” Furthermore, “this speculative leap runs afoul” of what they call “the primacy of embodiment,” which “is as equally undeniable as the primacy of consciousness” (Frank et al., 2024, pp. 186, 188). The Strange Loop and the Blind Spot What now confronts us, Frank/Gleiser/Thompson say, is “a strange loop,” where “horizontal consciousness subsumes the world, including our body experienced from within, while embodiment subsumes consciousness, including awareness in its immediate intimacy.” The authors stress that “the primacy of consciousness and the primacy of embodiment enfold each other.” They call for unveiling and examining this strange loop, which normally disappears from view and is forgotten in what they call The Blind Spot. They describe the Blind Spot as “humanity's lived experience as an inescapable part of our search for objective truth” (Frank et al., 2024, p. 189), and they seek “to reclaim the central place of human experience in the scientific enterprise by invoking the image of a ‘Blind Spot’” (Gómez-Marín, 2024). In other words, they reject the way of thinking that “we can comprehend consciousness within the framework of reductionism, physicalism, and objectivism or, failing that, by postulating a dualism of physical nature versus irreducible consciousness that we could somehow grasp outside the strange loop.” This is why they label the hard problem of consciousness an “artifact of the Blind Spot.” It is “built into blind-spot metaphysics, and not solvable in its terms” because “it fails to recognize the ineliminable primacy of consciousness in knowledge” (Frank et al., 2024, p. 192). Beyond the Blind Spot Frank/Gleiser/Thompson see “only a few options for trying to deal with consciousness within the confines of the blind-spot worldview,” and that “ultimately, they're all unsatisfactory, because they never come to grips with the need to recognize the primacy of consciousness and the strange loop in which we find ourselves.” They argue that the three major options—neural correlates of consciousness; metaphysical bifurcation of physical reality and irreducible mental properties (whether naturalistic dualism, substance dualism, or panpsychism); and illusionism—are all “within the ambit of the Blind Spot” (Frank et al., 2024, p. 196). What Frank/Gleiser/Thompson offer is “a radically different approach beyond the Blind Spot.” They reference papers by astrophysicist Piet Hut and cognitive psychologist Roger Shepard (Hut & Shepard, 1996), and neuroscientist Francisco Varela (1996), making the case for “a major overhaul of the science of consciousness based on recognizing the primacy of experience.” hey note that “we inescapably use consciousness to study consciousness,” such that “unless we recover from the amnesia of experience and restore the primacy of experience in our conception of science, we'll never be able to put the science of consciousness on a proper footing.” A science of consciousness can work, all say, only if “experience really matters” (Frank et al., 2024, p. 218). The key, according to the authors, is “recognizing [both] the primacy of consciousness and the primacy of embodiment,” which, they claim “changes how we think about the problem of consciousness.” The problem for neuroscience “can no longer be stated as how the brain generates consciousness.” Rather, “the problem is how the brain as a perceptual object within consciousness relates to the brain as part of the embodied conditions for consciousness, including the perceptual experience of the brain as a scientific object. The problem is to relate the primacy of consciousness to the primacy of embodiment without privileging one over the other or collapsing one onto the other. The situation is inherently reflexive and self-referential: instead of simply regarding experience as something that arises from the brain, we also have to regard the brain as something that arises within experience. We are in the strange loop” (Frank et al., 2024, pp. 219–220). Neurophenomenology as a Path Forward Frank/Gleiser/Thompson support Varela's neuroscience research program, “neurophenomenology,” based on “braiding together first-person accounts of consciousness with third-person accounts of the brain within the I-and-you experiential realm.” They advocate that phenomenology and neuroscience “become equal partners in an investigation that proceeds by creating new experiences in a new kind of scientific workshop, the neurophenomenological laboratory. First-person experiential methods for refining attention and awareness (such as meditation), together with second-person qualitative methods for interviewing individuals about the fine texture of their experience, are used to produce new experiences, which serve as touchstones for advancing phenomenology. This new phenomenology guides investigations of the brain, while investigations of the brain are used to motivate and refine phenomenology in a mutually illuminating loop” (Frank et al., 2024, pp. 219–220). The authors call neurophenomenology “probably the strongest effort so far to envision a neuroscience of consciousness beyond the Blind Spot” (Frank et al., 2024, p. 221). Consciousness, particularly human consciousness, is “an expression of nature and is a source of nature's self-understanding.”

---

### Gefter’s Enactive-QBist Engagement
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/gefter-s-enactive-qbist-engagement
Theorists: Amanda Gefter

Science philosopher/writer Amanda Gefter’s theory of consciousness proposes unifying QBist physics with enactive cognitive science. QBist physics, Qbism, is a quantum-Bayesian interpretation that treats quantum theory as a normative ‘user’s manual’ for agents in a participatory universe. Enactive cognitive science, enactivism, is the adaptive, embodied cognitive science framework in which cognition is the enactment of a subject–object boundary through ongoing sensorimotor engagement with the environment. Taken together, she says, “they offer the possibility of a unified metaphysics—one that brings subject and object, mind and world, back together again” (Gefter, 2024). QBism and Enactivism as Complements Expounding her vision, Gefter dissects their claims and challenges. “Enaction can ground concepts of experience, agency, knowledge, and normativity—which play key roles in QBist quantum mechanics—in terms consistent with QBism’s participatory approach. That’s because QBism and enaction both reject an absolute, pregiven subject-object split: for QBism, quantum measurement is the enactment of the subject-object divide; for enaction, cognition is the enactment of that divide. Indeed, each appears to be half of the same story. QBism is a theory of how the world is created and recreated through interactions with an agent, while enaction is a theory of how agents are created and recreated through interactions with the world” (Gefter, 2024). Gefter notes that each framework takes one pole as primitive—QBism takes the agent as given; enaction takes the world as given. Integrated, she suspects they could yield a post-Cartesian metaphysics in which both self and world are co-enacted, and novelty arises in the dynamic, precarious, participatory ‘between.’ Gefter sees in Qbism and enactivism a core parallelism: QBism focuses on how the world is continually (re)created through agent–system interactions (quantum measurements enact the subject–object divide). Enactivism focuses on how the agent is continually (re)created through organism–environment interactions (autopoiesis and sense-making enact that divide; see below). Both reject a pregiven, absolute subject–object split, and both are anti-representational: there are no static, internal models corresponding to an external reality (Gefter, 2024). Enactive Foundations Gefter establishes enactivist foundations: Autopoiesis: living systems self-produce and self-distinguish, generating the boundaries that individuate them. Sense-making: perception and cognition are normative engagements—actions and couplings that matter for the system’s continued viability. Knowledge-how: all knowing is embodied skill and adaptive coordination, not abstract propositional content. Second-person primacy: selves emerge in participatory ‘between spaces,’ not in solipsistic first-person interiors or detached third-person views. Enactivists extend autopoiesis to the social domain: coordinated interaction between agents can form autonomous shared processes with their own norms, allowing the co-creation of novel meaning. Gefter sees this mapping naturally onto QBism’s treatment of intersubjective agreement as an achievement, not a given—negotiated in live interaction rather than fixed in pre-existing ‘facts.’ She references Hanne De Jaegher and Ezequiel Di Paolo’s enactive approach to intersubjectivity in their theory of ‘participatory sense-making.’ The idea, Gefter says, “is that the same dynamic processes of sense-making through which individual agents create and individuate themselves can also take place in social interactions between agents” (Gefter, 2024). Mutual Benefits In a crucial move, Gefter suggests how Qbism and enactivism each benefit from their interaction: For QBism: Enactivism offers rigorous, non-Cartesian definitions of ‘agent,’ ‘experience,’ ‘belief,’ and ‘normativity,’ avoiding the cognitivist connotations that invite charges of solipsism or idealism. For Enactivism: QBism offers a physics grounded in participation, dissolving the assumption of a classical, observer-independent world into which cognition merely emerges and inserts itself. This mutual benefit comes from separate needs. “Why do QBists need enaction?” Gefter asks. “In telling a participatory story of quantum mechanics, QBism must draw on terms that aren’t traditionally part of the physics lexicon. Experience, agency, beliefs, normativity—these are terms that more typically belong to cognitive science. And yet, if we define them using mainstream cognitive science, which draws from the same Cartesian split that participatory quantum mechanics rejects from the start, contradictions are bound to arise.” Thus, she formulates a response: “Enaction provides clear answers to QBism’s critics. You think QBism is solipsistic? See enaction: beliefs aren’t representational; experiences aren’t private. You want to know how two agents can agree on the truth value of a proposition? See enaction: knowledge isn’t propositional. You think QBism amounts to idealism? See enaction: mind is embodied and world-involving through and through” (Gefter, 2024). Why do enactivists need Qbism? Qbism grounds phenomenology and embodied interaction in the (putative) foundational theory of the universe. Gefter contends, “Just as QBism would fall into incoherence if it understood agency, belief, experience, and normativity in representational, cognitivist terms, enaction would fall into incoherence if it understood agents to be acting within a world governed by classical, non-participatory physics. Enaction needs the QBist understanding of the world as crucially as QBism needs the enactive understanding of the agent.” Thus, she argues, “If QBism is ultimately a theory of how the world is created and recreated through interactions with an agent, enaction is a theory of how the agent is created and recreated through interactions with the world. One can’t help but feel that each is half of the same participatory story” (Gefter, 2024). Toward a Unified Metaphysics Gefter stresses that while QBism and enaction “both stand as challenges to our most deeply entrenched notions of world and self, the very foundations of reality”—and they both face uphill battles—“it’s the same battle.” Both, she says, “are fighting against the same 17th-century Cartesian split, the same dichotomy of subject and object. Trying to convince others of QBism or the enactive approach in isolation may be tough going precisely because it leaves half the story untold.” Here, then, is her claim: “QBism and enaction can make for powerful allies, as they can offer, for the first time, a unified post-Cartesian metaphysics, one that finally brings self and world back together again” (Gefter, 2024). In summary, Gefter proposes that Qbism-enactivism synthesis reframes both quantum theory and cognitive science as complementary accounts of the same process: the continual, normatively constrained enactment of the subject–object boundary. In uniting them, she envisions the chance of dissolving the entrenched dualism of self and world that has structured both physics and philosophy since Descartes—opening space for a genuinely participatory ontology where meaning, agency, and reality are inseparable from the acts that engender them (Gefter, 2024). Clarifying Materialism and Categories Note: In response to the above description, Amanda Gefter, a friend and colleague, makes an important point (reproduced with her permission): “I don't consider my view, or enaction in general, to fall under materialism. But it's a nuanced point, because it's certainly not idealist or dualist either. The way I think about it is that materialism and idealism, to even be formulated as categories in the first place, require an absolute subject-object split. That way, the idealists can take the subject side as foundational and the object side as emergent, the materialists can do the reverse, and dualists can take some of each. But by rejecting the absoluteness of that split in the first place, enaction (and QBism) doesn't operate within those categories. It's not all first person (like idealism) or all third person (like materialism) but something more like second person, where the split itself is enacted in a participatory way. Some forms of embodied cognition are perhaps more comfortably categorized as materialist if they take the body itself as a given, as an object. But enaction describes cognition and sense-making as processes through which the body makes itself in participation with the world, so the body is an ongoing verb rather than a pregiven noun. By enacting itself, the body is functioning as both subject and object, and doesn't fit squarely in either one alone.” I [RLK] responded, with appreciation, recognizing that Amanda makes a critical distinction in classifying enactivism from a subject-object framework—and joked that in classifying theories of consciousness, instead of being restricted to a 2D map/grid, if I had, say, Hilbert Space, I could do a better job. I explained that my approach to Materialism as a category is based on fundamental ontology and framed rather simplistically, defined in the negative. If there is nothing in the theory that is outside the bounds of current physics, it is Materialism. Enactivists, to my knowledge, take pains to stress that there is nothing spooky or non-material in their theories. (Qbism, on the other hand, I would not classify as under Materialism.) I do break out “Non-Reductive Physicalism” and “Quantum & Dimensional” as categories separate from Materialism—even though they have physicalist ontologies—because they offer a different or enlarged view of the physical. So, I cannot claim a logically precise demarcation between where Materialism theories stop and Non-Materialism theories begin—I’m simply satisficing, given the constraints, as best I can. I do stress that I am presenting “A Landscape,” not “The Landscape,” in that there are alternative classification schemes equally valid.

---

### Shanahan’s Embodied Insights from Disembodied Minds
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/shanahan-s-embodied-insights-from-disembodied-minds
Theorists: Murray Shanahan

Cognitive robotics scientist Murray Shanahan explores the conceptual boundaries of consciousness by examining the plausibility and coherence of disembodied ‘minds’—in particular, AI/LLMs in computers—‘minds’ that exist without bodies or sensory interaction with the physical world, and in doing so, he assumes and supports an embodied and enactive understanding of biological consciousness, where cognition is inseparable from embodiment (Shanahan, 2025). Shanahan’s objective is not to develop a theory of consciousness per se, but rather to analyze which conceptions of minds (especially artificial or alien minds) are coherent, palatable, or intelligible, given our embodied and social human condition. He seeks to map “the space of possible minds” and investigate what it would mean for a mind to exist without embodiment or sociality. His central question: “Is it possible to articulate, or to evoke, a conception of consciousness that is compatible with the exotic characteristics of contemporary (disembodied) LLM-based dialogue agents, and that can stand up to philosophical scrutiny?” Success in this endeavor, Shanahan surmises, “would illuminate an under-explored portion of the space of possible minds, a region of conscious exotica at the very edge of the void of inscrutability.” But to bring this about, he asserts, “will require the language of consciousness to be reconciled with some distinctly peculiar properties, including a profoundly fragmented sense of time and a radically fractured form of selfhood.” Embodiment and the Limits of Disembodied Minds Shanahan posits that much of our understanding of what a ‘mind’ is—including consciousness, intentionality, and selfhood—is tightly bound to embodiment and environment, and he draws on embodied cognition and enactivist ideas, suggesting that minds emerge through interaction with the world and that consciousness is not merely internal computation, but involves being in a world and arises from the brain-body-world nexus. Thus, a disembodied mind—e.g., a digital upload seeking virtual immortality—may lack the structure necessary to be conscious in any human-comprehensible sense. Shanahan uses the metaphor of terra incognita to describe the conceptual unknowns in the vast ‘space of possible minds.’ While some corners (e.g., animal minds, AI agents) are being explored, he says, others (like truly disembodied minds) remain obscure and perhaps even inconceivable. Warnings and Philosophical Implications Shanahan warns against two errors: assuming human-like consciousness can exist without embodiment (e.g., virtual immortality-seeking mind-uploads), and assuming that computation alone is sufficient as well as necessary for consciousness, without acknowledging how body and world shape cognition. He suggests our intuitions about ‘minds’ are constrained by our own evolutionary, embodied, and social experiences—so we may project false coherence onto certain structures (like disembodied AIs). In other words, consciousness without embodiment and worldliness is either unintelligible or radically alien. For example, Shanahan asks, “How would subjective time and selfhood show up for an entity that conformed to such a conception?” Trying to answer these questions, even metaphorically, he says, “stretches the language of consciousness to breaking point.” Ultimately, he concludes, “the attempt yields something like emptiness, in the Buddhist sense, and helps to undermine our dualistic inclinations towards subjectivity and selfhood” (Shanahan, 2025).

---

### Noë’s “Out of Our Heads” Theory
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/noe-s-out-of-our-heads-theory
Theorists: Alva Noë

Philosopher Alva Noë argues that only externalism about the mind and mental content, which requires active and continuous engagement between the brain and its environment, body and beyond, can succeed as a theory of consciousness (Noë, 2010). He uses his attention-alerting phrase “Out of Our Heads” as descriptor, not as metaphor, and he applies it literally. His hypothesis is that expanding the locus of where consciousness occurs may help explain its essence and mechanism. What does this actually mean? Noë takes issue with both dualism and materialism; attacking the weaknesses of each is not hard going. “We have no better idea how the actions of cells in the head give rise to consciousness than we do how consciousness arises out of immaterial spiritual processes.” So, brain science, he says, while it has the imprimatur of the scientific worldview, is not really going anywhere. It's like trying to understand what makes a dance “a dance” by studying the movement of muscles (Noë, 2007). He challenges the assumption that an event in the brain is alone sufficient for consciousness. “We spend all our lives, not as free-floating brains; we're embodied, we're environmentally embedded; we're socially nurtured from the very beginnings of our lives.” His idea is that “The world shows up for us,” with “multiple layers of meaning.” Consciousness as Active Engagement Noë offers an alternative framework, a novel way of thinking. “There are lots of discrete processes going on inside the head. But that's not where we should look for consciousness. We occupy a place in the world—all sorts of things are going on around us—and consciousness is that activity of keeping tabs, keeping touch, paying attention to, interacting with the world.” But what does it mean to say consciousness “is” that activity? “Is” as … “part of the process?” Or “enabling,” “bringing about” or “causing”? Or, in the strong sense of “is” as identity theory? Noë distinguishes the meaning and purposes of consciousness, which take place “out of our heads,” from the mechanical locus of consciousness, the substrate on which its symbols are physically encoded and manipulated. Dreams, Skills, and World Involvement Noë uses dreams as corroborating evidence that consciousness occurs outside of the brain. He distinguishes dreams from real-life experiences, in that the latter has greater density, detail and robustness. “You can't experience in a dream everything that you can experience outside of a dream” (Noë, 2007). Consciousness to Noë means “How the world shows up for us depends not only on our brains and nervous systems but also on our bodies, our skills, our environment, and the way we are placed in and at home in the world.” This does not happen automatically, passively, done to the organism, but it is what the organism must do deliberately, proactively. “We achieve access to the world. We enact it by enabling it to show up for us.… If I don't have the relevant skills of literacy, for example, the words written on the wall do not show up for me” (Noë, 2012). He stresses that consciousness isn't just a matter of events triggered inside us by things outside us because things are triggered inside us all the time by all sorts of things outside of us and they don't rise to consciousness. Much depends on context, interest, knowledge and understanding. Conclusion: We Are Not Our Brains Thus, consciousness is what happens when sentient creatures interact with their environment via their brains; consciousness is not what their brains are doing to them. A science of consciousness, Noë says, must explain the role the brain is playing in a dynamic active involvement. It's not just that consciousness happens in the brain; it's not like that. “We are not our brains.”

---

### Froese’s Irruption Theory
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/froese-s-irruption-theory
Theorists: Tom Froese

Cognitive scientist Tom Froese’s Irruption Theory of consciousness takes phenomenology to be dynamically relevant and thermodynamically efficacious, treating the subjective mind as a causally empowering “black box” that makes a measurable difference in the living body. Subjective states are not an epiphenomenon, he says, but a distinct aspect of reality that interacts with measurable matter through specific entropy exchanges: intentions “irrupt” into bodily dynamics as deviations that initiate action, and lived experience “absorbs” physiological variations into perceptual awareness. By deriving the spontaneous emergence of neural order, such as phase-locked synchrony, from the impossibility of tracing information flow from the organism into consciousness, irruption theory operationalizes the “hard problem” as an indirectly measurable transaction between subject and world. In arguing for a robustly scientific naturalism, Froese says that a key principle of Irruption Theory is to adopt a “Participation Criterion” (Froese et al., in press) with respect to its explanatory targets. In the current context, this amounts to a commitment to the following proposition: A scientific theory of the subjective mind must be able to explain how the presence of consciousness makes a measurable difference to the world compared to its absence. While embodied and enactive approaches have long identified large-scale neural synchrony, such as phase-locking across distributed brain regions, as the correlate of meaningful perceptual experience, they have struggled to explain how such lived experience can be dynamically relevant for neural dynamics (Froese & Sykes, 2023). Irruption Theory advances this by explaining why such order emerges from first principles. Froese posits that phenomenal consciousness functions as an “absorption operator” on physiological dynamics: when the subjective mind “picks up” information and brings it into awareness, it effectively withdraws variability from the measurable system (Froese, 2024). This informational transaction leaves a trace; the absorption of variability into conscious awareness results in a decrease of physiological state diversity, which can be quantified as a reduction in local entropy. Consequently, the spontaneous suppression of neural disorder (and the resulting emergence of synchronized states) is not merely a neural correlate of consciousness, but the footprint left behind as information “disappears” into the mind, forming lived experience. Froese argues that this framework reorients the scientific study of consciousness by taking the classic mind-body problem at face value; it treats the mind as a “black box” that is empirically visible only indirectly through its interactions with observable matter. Rather than searching for consciousness in the set of brain observables, Irruption Theory predicts that intentional agency and lived experience will appear as statistical anomalies in the empirical record, specifically as deviations from the statistically expected physiological path. In this view, the “Hard Problem” is not so much an impasse but a feature of reality: the conscious subject is the “hidden variable” that participates in the physiological causal chain. By measuring these deviations, detecting where variance disappears into perception (Absorption) or appears from intention (Irruption), cognitive neuroscience can quantify the causal efficacy of the subjective standpoint without reducing it to mere physiological mechanisms (Froese, 2026). The spatial reach of this efficacy serves as a refined operationalization of the embodied mind, as illustrated in Figure 1. Fig. 1. The “black box” mind-body architecture of Irruption Theory. Inside the living body, the irreducible properties of the conscious mind appear as an internal “black box”. This boundary is equivalent to the embodied mind and is defined by two informational operators that facilitate embodied intelligence: Irruption (acting), which injects entropy and provides the spontaneous variability necessary for flexible control; and Absorption (perceiving), which reduces variability and generates the redundancy required for efficient compression.. Figure 1 reprinted from Physics of Life Reviews, Vol 56, Tom Froese and Moritz Kriegleder, “Mind-body transactions as informational operators: Comment on ‘Informational embodiment: Computational role of information structure in codes and robots’ by A. Pitti, M. Austin, K. Nakajima, and Y. Kuniyoshi,” Pages 64-66, Copyright (2026), with permission from Elsevier. Consciousness is dynamically relevant: The Absorption Operator To operationalize the interaction between a measurable physiological system and an unobservable subjective standpoint, Froese first addresses the “dimensionality mismatch.” Subjective states (intentions, qualia) lack standard physical dimensions (mass, length, charge), which entails that they cannot act as additive forces in the way a neuron kicks another neuron. Instead, Froese’s Irruption Theory posits that the conscious mind participates in bodily dynamics through multiplicative regulation: the hidden subjective standpoint acts as a dimensionless scaling factor on stochastic fluctuations. In this framework, Froese states, the act of perception is not a passive reception of stimuli but an active process of Absorption. For the subject to “pick up” or be meaningfully informed by a pattern in the environment, it must “absorb” the informational uncertainty associated with that pattern. This withdrawal of information from the measurable system manifests as multiplicative dampening of the system’s intrinsic noise, akin to a “cooling” of the neural state space, where physiological variance is traded for subjectively meaningful content. This derivation identifies the ideal physical signature of consciousness in the dynamics of coupled oscillators, the fundamental regime of neural activity. In a complex system like the brain, the primary manifestation of entropy (noise) is phase scattering, the tendency of oscillating signals to drift apart and lose coherence over time. If the Absorption operator functions by withdrawing disorder from the system, its most direct observable effect must be the suppression of this diffusion. When the mind absorbs the noise that would otherwise drive phase drift, the system spontaneously settles into a state of relative phase constancy. Therefore, the large-scale neural synchrony (phase locking) observed by neurophenomenology is not merely a correlate of consciousness; it is the necessary indirect trace of the mind “holding” the world in view. The subjective mind “locks onto” the embodied mind, which is situated in the world, leaving behind a footprint of anomalous order in the brain’s activity. Implications: Agency as Thermodynamic Irruption According to Froese, the “black box” framework leads to a naturalized model of agency that is the necessary inverse of perception. If the subjective standpoint were only to “absorb” physiological variation, the mind would function as an entropy sink, potentially violating conservation principles. Irruption Theory resolves this by positing that the information absorbed into the subjective standpoint is eventually radiated back into the world via spontaneous action. This is the function of the Irruption operator (Froese, 2023): intentional states are not directly observable via brain imaging, yet efficacious for the basis of behavior; hence, their efficacy manifests as the spontaneous injection of unconstrained degrees of freedom into bodily dynamics, thereby re-establishing thermodynamic balance. In this minimal model, the willed exercise of agency is a mind-dependent release from physiological constraints: when enacting an intention, the subjective standpoint releases a burst of spontaneous degrees of freedom into the bodily system, which increases the likelihood of a transition from a metastable state to a lower energy state, performing action-related work along the way. In this view, free will is not a suspension of physics, but part of the system’s requisite dissipation. Just as the mind stabilizes neural dynamics when perceiving (Absorption), it destabilizes them when acting (Irruption), which is measurable as a localized increase in entropy. Importantly, this destabilization is not mere noise; it is the causal footprint of the agent’s unobservable intention re-entering the physiological chain. By cycling variance through the subjective “black box,” converting absorbed sensory information into the irruption of motor variability, consciousness functions as a dissipative structure; it transforms the living body into a thermodynamic engine for realizing the statistically unlikely. Right now, Froese reflects, “Irruption theory is silent about why there is consciousness in the first place. It simply assumes that it is already present and an irreducible part of reality and then works out the consequences” (Froese, personal communication). References Froese, T. (2023). Irruption Theory: A novel conceptualization of the enactive account of motivated activity. Entropy, 25(5), 748. https://doi.org/10.3390/e25050748 Froese, T. (2024). Irruption and absorption: A ‘black-box’ framework for how mind and matter make a difference to each other. Entropy, 26(4), 288. https://doi.org/10.3390/e26040288 Froese, T. (2026). Quantifying what is efficacious yet not observable: Cognitive neuroscience’s measurement problem has a solution. Cognitive Science, 50, e70170. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.70170 Froese, T., Karelin, G., & Ikegami, T. (in press). Making meaning matter with irruption theory: Bridging efficacy and uncertainty by satisfying the participation criterion. In K. Kull & D. Favareau (Eds.), Semiotics of Biology: Making Meaning in Living Systems. The MIT Press. Froese, T., & Kriegleder, M. (2026). Mind-body transactions as informational operators: Comment on “Informational embodiment: Computational role of information structure in codes and robots” by A. Pitti, M. Austin, K. Nakajima, and Y. Kuniyoshi. Physics of Life Reviews, 56, 64-66. Froese, T., & Sykes, J. J. (2023). The pragmatics, embodiment, and efficacy of lived experience: Assessing the core tenets of Varela’s neurophenomenology. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 30(11-12), 190-213.

---

### Hurley’s Sensorimotor Loops and Embodied Interaction
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/hurley-s-sensorimotor-loops-and-embodied-interaction
Theorists: Susan Hurley

Susan Hurley, a philosopher known for her interdisciplinary approach to mind and cognition, contributed to philosophy of mind and consciousness studies through her dynamical systems approach and her critique of traditional input-output models of cognition. She challenged the traditional “sandwich model” of cognition, which separates perception (input), cognition (central processing), and action (output). In her view, this model artificially separates what are in fact deeply interdependent processes. She argues that perception and action are not just inputs and outputs but dynamically interwoven components of cognition. This would mean that consciousness is not merely the result of internal representations processed in isolation but emerges from sensorimotor loops between perception and action and embodied interaction with the world (Hurley, 1998). Dynamical Systems and Extended Mind As such, Hurley explores how information flows in both directions (e.g., action affects perception), which challenges linear models of conscious processing. She highlights complex feedback loops and argues that control systems theory and dynamical systems provide better models for understanding consciousness than static computational models (Hurley, 1998). Hurley sees consciousness as deeply embedded in action and context, not as a static inner theater. She argues that understanding consciousness requires recognizing the co-constitutive nature of perception, cognition, and action. She assesses “the role of agency in the unity of a conscious perspective,” and argues that “perception and action are more deeply interdependent than we usually assume.” She considers “how this interdependence of perceptual experience and agency at the personal level (of mental contents and norms) may emerge from the subpersonal level (of underlying causal processes and complex dynamic feedback systems).” Her two-level view is said to have wide implications for self-consciousness, the modularity of mind, and the relations of mind to world. “The self no longer lurks hidden somewhere between perceptual input and behavioral output, but reappears out in the open, embodied and embedded in its environment” (Hurley, 1998). Hurley was an early proponent of “vehicle externalism”—the idea that the vehicles of mental content (not just the content itself) can extend beyond the brain into the body and environment. For consciousness, this would mean that it is not confined to internal representations inside the brain but may be distributed across brain, body, and environment. In sum, while Hurley's theory of consciousness is less a classical “theory” in the narrow sense, she reconceptualized how consciousness arises from dynamic, interactive processes involving the body and environment. Her ways of thinking paved the way for later developments in theories of consciousness: enactivism, embodied cognition, extended mind theories, and neurophenomenology.

---

### Gibson’s Ecological Psychology
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/gibson-s-ecological-psychology
Theorists: James J. Gibson

Experimental psychologist James J. Gibson proposes an “embodied, situated, and non-representational” approach to perception (which, while not a surrogate for phenomenal consciousness, has features in common). Gibson attacks both behaviorism and cognitivism (e.g., information processing), arguing for direct perception and direct realism. Gibson calls his overarching theory, “Ecological Psychology,” and while his specific aim is “to offer a third way beyond cognitivism and behaviorism for understanding cognition,” an extension to consciousness can be cautiously inferred (Lobo et al., 2018; Gibson, 2024). Affordance and Direct Perception Gibson maintains that there is far more information available to our perceptual systems than we are consciously aware of. He posits that “the optical information of an image is not so much an impression of form and color, but rather of invariants. A fixated form of an object only specifies certain invariants of the object, not its solid form.” Perceptual learning is said to be “a process of seeing the differences in the perceptual field around an individual” (Gibson, 2014, 2024). Gibson rejects “the premise of the poverty of the stimulus, the physicalist conception of the stimulus, and the passive character of the perceiver of mainstream theories of perception.” Rather, he has the main principles of ecological psychology as “the continuity of perception and action” and the “organism-environment system as unit of analysis” (Lobo et al., 2018). Significantly, Gibson develops the original idea of “affordances” (he coins the term), which are the ways the environment provides opportunities for and motivates actions of animals—human examples include steep slopes inspiring the design of stairs and deposits of hydrocarbons encouraging drilling. Gibson defends the radical idea that “when we perceive an object we observe the object's affordances and not its particular qualities” because it is both more useful and easier, which would mean that affordances are the objects of perception (Gibson, 2024; Lobo et al., 2018). If perception is direct, and affordances provide the possibilities, then affordances are a kind of state space of the mind. That environmental affordances may have enabled or selected for consciousness would be consistent with embodied and enactive theories of consciousness.

---

### Vucolova’s Collapse into Translation
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/vucolova-s-collapse-into-translation
Theorists: Ludmila Vucolova

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.

---

### Pretel-Wilson’s Human Systems Theory
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/pretel-wilson-s-human-systems-theory
Theorists: Manel Pretel-Wilson

Systems theorist Manel Pretel-Wilson proposes that understanding human systems requires discovering “an anatomy of the universe that does away with the mind-body dualism” and replacing it with “the spatial and temporal dualities that constitute everything that exists from the ground up” (Pretel-Wilson, 2020). Thus, consciousness becomes superseded by the actual-possibility duality intrinsic to human systems that avoids postulating a “collective person” with a consciousness of its own (Scheler, 1916) or an “artificial man” without its own purpose (Hobbes, 1651). From Cartesian Consciousness to Dualities Pretel-Wilson argues that moving beyond the concept of a being whose nature is to think or to perceive can bring us closer to a being whose nature is to create, that is, utopico-practical being, and who needs to work together with other human beings to realize ideas that shape the human world through human systems, the architects of the human world (Pretel-Wilson, 2025). We cannot understand human beings, he says, by separating them from the human world that is being shaped by human systems through the realization of their purposes. Unfortunately, consciousness is defined in opposition to an external world, which does not define human beings, given that, according to Descartes, “my essence consists only in being a thinking thing or a substance whose whole essence or nature is thinking” (Descartes, 1637). The origin of the concept of consciousness came from Descartes’s discovery of the first axiom of his philosophy in which he postulated a thinking subject as an absolute truth correlated to an extended body through which it experiences an external world. From then onwards, the subject became associated with thought and the body with extension, creating two parallel dimensions of reality defined in opposition to each other (Spinoza, 1677). Consciousness defined as something non-material, non-spatial, non-divisible, and non-passive as opposed to something material, spatial, divisible and passive. However, by doing so, Descartes’s first principle reinforced a world-encompassing dualism, making a split between an internal consciousness and an external world. When, in fact, the inner and the outer define the spatial dimension of human beings because the spatial duality defining sentient beings, namely, the peripheral and the central, which we share with animals, rules out the separation between the organism and its environment. Clarifying the spatial and temporal dualities defining the “anatomical” constitution of everything that exists, including sentient and human beings, makes the concept of consciousness redundant to understand the universe. We cannot understand human beings without the human world, in the same way that we cannot understand sentient beings by detaching the organism from their environments, as they are functionally related.

---

## Relational
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theories/relational

### A. Clark and Chalmers’s Extended Mind
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/a-clark-s-extended-mind
Theorists: Andy Clark, David Chalmers

The extended mind, according to philosopher Andy Clark, features an “active externalism,” based on the participatory role of the environment in driving cognitive processes. He asserts that when the human organism is linked with an external entity in a two-way interaction, a “coupled system” is created that can be conceptualized as a cognitive system in its own right (independent of the two components). This is because all the components in the system play an active causal role, and they jointly govern behavior in the same sort of way that cognition in a single system (brain) usually does. To remove the external component is to degrade the system's behavioral competence, just as it would to remove part of its brain. Clark's thesis is that this sort of coupled process counts equally well as a cognitive process, whether or not it is wholly in the head (Clark and Chalmers, 1998). Minds Beyond the Brain Clark concludes his book, Supersizing the Mind, by inviting us “to cease to unreflectively privilege the inner, the biological, and the neural … The human mind, viewed through this special lens, emerges at the productive interface of brain, body, and social and material world.” He marvels that “minds like ours emerge from this colorful flux as surprisingly seamless wholes” (Clark, 2010). According to Owen Flanagan, “Walking, talking and seeing are all things the enactive, embodied, extended (code words for this hip new view) mind does in the world.” Clark “provides the best argument I've seen for the idea that minds are smeared over more space than neuroscience might have us believe, and that mind will continue spreading to other nooks and crannies of the universe as cognitive prostheses proliferate” (Flanagan, 2009).

---

### Hofstadter’s Strange Loops
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/hofstadter-s-strange-loops
Theorists: Douglas Hofstadter

Philosopher and computer scientist Douglas Hofstadter posits “strange loops” as the foundation of consciousness and of its derivatives, especially the self and free will, describing strange loops as “a special kind of abstract feedback loop inhabiting our brains.” He calls “I” the most central and complex symbol in our brains, and his book, I Am a Strange Loop, makes the case that, “In the end, we are self-perceiving, self-inventing, locked-in mirages that embody small miracles of self-reference.” He describes the mind as a “near-infinitely extendable, self-referential loop of symbols” (Hofstadter, 2008). Self-reference is the obvious essence of the theory, and it comes about, Hofstadter says, by the brain moving through levels of abstraction, such that eventually one loops back to the starting point, enhanced and transformed by the intracranial round trips. This level-crossing nature is the defining feature of a strange loop, and the puzzle is that by moving progressively only upwards or downwards through these levels, one unexpectedly returns to the point of origin. This inherent cyclicality inevitably involves self-reference and frequently leads to paradox. Hofstadter refers to this phenomenon as a “tangled hierarchy,” stressing that within such a system, there is no clearly defined highest or lowest level, making it a paradoxical level-crossing feedback loop. Hofstadter describes this as “a shift from one level of abstraction (or structure) to another, which feels like an upwards movement in a hierarchy.” This cyclical movement across different levels of abstraction is fundamental to understanding how the mental phenomena of consciousness can arise from the physical system of the brain. It implies a feedback mechanism that operates across various levels of organization, where higher-level patterns can influence lower-level components and vice versa, resulting in self-referential and self-sustaining dynamics. Furthermore, strange loops are typically characterized by self-reference and paradox. The involvement of self-reference is a crucial aspect, as Hofstadter believes it can demystify both consciousness and the emergence of self-awareness. Self, Identity, and Downward Causality Hofstadter argues that consciousness is an emergent consequence of complex, self-referential structures in the brain, specifically, the ability of a system to represent and reflect upon itself (he does not speculate on specific neurobiological structures or pathways). The brain constructs representations of itself and its experiences, which include representations of those representations. This recursive modeling is a hallmark of strange loops and, in Hofstadter's view, is key to understanding the mind. The argument is based, in part, on Gödel's incompleteness theorems, where a system contains statements that refer to themselves. Hofstadter’s “I” is not a static entity but rather a dynamic, narrative fiction. He suggests that the psychological “I” is a “narrative fiction,” constructed from symbolic data and the brain's inherent ability to create stories about itself. This implies that the self is a continuously evolving narrative, built upon accumulated experiences and internal reflections. The “I” is constantly “built upon by every new experience,” highlighting its constructive and fluid nature rather than a pre-existing essence. This perspective frames identity as a pattern, not a fixed substance. A core concept of Hofstadter's theory is the controversial concept of “downward causality.” He makes the startling proposal that high-level, emergent, self-referential meanings, such as the “I,” can exert a causal potency just as real as the rigid, low-level physical rules of the system. This challenges purely reductionist views and, depending on one’s views, is either a radical or a transformative philosophical position. It suggests that the “I” does not merely passively emerge from the interactions of neurons; paradoxically, it actively influences them at the same time. This “flipping around of causality” is what allows the mind to perceive itself as the cause of certain feelings and actions, thereby creating the subjective experience of agency and thus free will, even if Hofstadter considers it all an illusion. This concept serves as the fundamental explanatory principle for consciousness and self-awareness. It offers a non-dualistic perspective, where the mind is not a separate spiritual entity but rather an emergent property of the brain's intricate organization. Hofstadter repudiates traditional dualism. Strange Loops as an Abstract Framework Note that the concept of a strange loop, as Hofstadter describes it, is not a physical circuit in the brain but rather an abstract loop that operates within a hierarchical system. This abstract nature is crucial because it bridges the explanatory gap between different kinds of description, from the physical states of the brain at the level of the neuron or of neuronal circuits to the subjective experience of consciousness. As Hofstadter states plainly: a strange loop is “not a physical circuit but an abstract loop.” This distinction sharply distinguishes his theory from purely neurobiological or physics-based explanations of consciousness, suggesting that the key to understanding the mind lies in recognizing patterns and relationships at a higher level of abstraction. Hofstadter simultaneously asserts the “causal potency” and “realness” of his strange loop theory of consciousness. This challenges the common intuition that illusions are inherently “not real” or epiphenomenal (mere byproducts without causal influence). Hofstadter's contribution is the proposition that this “illusion” is self-perceiving and self-inventing, and that its very existence is a high-level pattern. Hofstadter has consciousness as a gradual emergent, not as an all-or-nothing quality or trait, arising as the symbolic self-model becomes more sophisticated. In this view, humans have complex, strange loops, while animals might have simpler or shallower loops. The foundational premise, however, is that strange loops are universal principles, supported by general systems theory, that undergird diverse complex systems. Hofstadter first explored self-reference in his magisterial book, Gödel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid, where the mind, or consciousness, is “an emergent consequence of seething lower-level activity in the brain.” According to Hofstadter, “the formal system that underlies all mental activity transcends the system that supports it.” He claims that if life can grow out of the formal chemical substrate of the cell, then “consciousness can emerge out of a formal system of firing neurons” (Hofstadter, 1980).

---

### Tsuchiya’s Relational Approach to Qualia
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/tsuchiya-s-relational-approach-to-consciousness
Theorists: Naotsugu Tsuchiya

Neuroscientist Naotsugu (‘Nao’) Tsuchiya's relational and structural approach to consciousness—more specifically, to qualia—is not so much a theory of consciousness per se but more a fresh methodology, which he calls ‘the Qualia Structure Paradigm’ (Tsuchiya, 2025). It is “an alternative approach to characterize, and eventually define, consciousness through exhaustive descriptions of consciousness's relationships to all other consciousnesses” (Tsuchiya & Saigo, 2021). Mathematical Foundations Tsuchiya's approach is founded in the Yoneda lemma from category theory, which deals with mathematical structures and their interrelations. By applying these mathematical concepts, the Qualia Structure Paradigm characterizes the structure of conscious phenomenology as a category, allowing for different conscious states to relate to one another. Tsuchiya proposes several possible definitions of categories of consciousness—particularly “enriched categories” (Tsuchiya et al., 2022)—in terms of both level and contents of experience. These formal tools aim to clarify long-standing conceptual issues in consciousness studies, thereby fostering further theoretical and empirical work. If successful, the paradigm will offer strong support for relational and structural theories of consciousness (Tsuchiya & Saigo, 2021). Empirical Developments According to Tsuchiya, recent empirical work stemming from the paradigm has adopted and invented several novel methodologies. Moving beyond verbal reports and qualitative introspection, researchers have introduced large-scale online psychophysics to quantify intersubjective agreement—the degree to which different individuals agree about their experiences (Zhang et al., 2021). In the domain of color qualia, earlier studies often viewed children's experiences as vague or inconsistent, based primarily on linguistic labeling tasks. However, using this paradigm, Moriguchi et al. (2025) demonstrated that the structure of color qualia in children is highly stable and closely resembles that of adults as early as age three. Tsuchiya stresses that researchers are also collecting various types of data to quantify experiential similarities among different qualia. For example, in their paper “Is my ‘red’ your ‘red’?”, Kawakita et al. (2025) introduced a computational method called unsupervised optimal transport alignment, which provides a novel empirical approach to the long-standing philosophical issue of inverted qualia. Surprising Findings These empirical studies, Tsuchiya says, have yielded some surprising results. One key observation is that qualia similarity judgments are often asymmetric—for instance, the similarity one perceives when seeing red then pink can differ from the similarity perceived when seeing pink then red (Epping et al., 2023). Such findings have led to the development of meta-level theoretical frameworks, including the Quantum-like Qualia Hypothesis (Tsuchiya et al., 2025). This hypothesis, inspired by ideas from quantum cognition (Busemeyer & Bruza, 2014), suggests that qualia may be structured by non-commutative (i.e., non-symmetric) relationships. Importantly, the hypothesis does not imply that quantum physics operates in the brain in any special way related to consciousness, but rather uses quantum-like formalisms to account for the observed structural features of experience. Conclusion Tsuchiya concludes that Qualia Structure approaches in empirical data collection coupled with novel computational structural analyses promises rapid development, being applied across wide areas of psychological domains that have been stalled due to the lack of methodology in characterizing qualia. References Ellia, F., & Tsuchiya, N. (2026). Explanation, scope, and perspective: sources of schismogenesis in consciousness science. Trends in Cognitive Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2026.03.005 Lee-Youngzie, Z., Tsuchiya, N., Robinson, M., Dietz, D., & Monti, M. M. (2026). Towards a mathematical structure of global phenomenal consciousness. Entropy, 28(6), 615. https://doi.org/10.3390/e28060615

---

### Loorits’s Structural Realism
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/loorits-s-structural-realism
Theorists: Kristjan Loorits

Philosopher Kristjan Loorits's Structural Realism posits that “conscious experiences are fully structural phenomena that reside in our brains in the form of complex higher-order patterns in neural activity.” He claims that the structural view of consciousness solves both the hard problem and the problem of privacy (Loorits, 2019). The Hard Problem On the hard problem, according to Loorits, while some properties of our conscious experiences seem to be qualitative and nonstructural—qualia—“these apparently nonstructural properties are, in fact, fully structural.” He conjectures that qualia are “compositional with internal structures that fully determine their qualitative nature” (Loorits, 2019) and that “qualia are the structures of vast networks of unconscious associations, and that those associational structures can be found in our neural processes.” He makes the ambitious prediction that “with the proper brain-stimulating technology, it should be possible to reveal the structural nature of qualia to the experiencing subject directly” (Loorits, 2019). Loorits concludes that “consciousness as a whole can be seen as a complex neural pattern that misperceives some of its own highly complex structural properties as monadic and qualitative. Such neural pattern is analyzable in fully structural terms and thereby the hard problem is solved” (Loorits, 2014). (As for “the notion of structure,” Loorits's Structural Realism has some structures existing in the world in an objective sense and has conscious experiences among such structures [Loorits, 2019].) The Privacy Problem On the privacy problem, according to Loorits, while our “powerful intuition” is that “the content of my consciousness is directly accessible only to me”—a brain-bound internalist approach to consciousness, which comports well with neurobiological theories—some argue that “we can only talk about phenomena whose defining properties are known to us from the public realm.” According to this externalist approach, “if our conscious experiences were entirely private, we could not talk or theorize about them”—a way of thinking that suggests “conscious experiences should be understood in terms of an organism's relationship to its socio-physical environment” (Loorits, 2019). In defending internalism as the “location” of consciousness, Loorits argues that “structural phenomena are describable and analyzable in public terms even if those phenomena themselves are private.” Moreover, “the structure of our consciousness is always present in our neural processes and only sometimes (additionally) in an extended system that includes elements of the environment” (Loorits, 2018). Illusionism and Shifts in Thought Loorits offers modest support to illusionists who propose that “the apparently non-structural features of consciousness are in fact fully structural and merely seem to be non-structural.” He argues that “such a position is tenable, but only if the non-structural ‘seemings’ are interpreted as perspectival phenomena and not as theorists' fictions or absolute nothingness” (Loorits, 2022) When George Musser was musing that qualia might be relational, he met with Loorits, and to Musser's surprise, Loorits “had gone off the idea.” The disjunction is between third- and first-person perspectives, where the former is how qualia is explained relationally and the latter is precisely the hard problem. According to Musser, Loorits's current thinking was that “qualia may well be relational behind the scenes, but as long as they feel intrinsic to us, they still elude scientific description.” Loorits concluded, “There is still a hard problem in a sense that we seem to be able to experience qualia without being aware of their relational components” (Musser, 2023a, Musser, 2023b). (I [RLK] tip my hat when a philosopher changes their mind.)

---

### McGinn’s Brain Perception
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/mcginn-s-brain-perception
Theorists: Colin McGinn

Philosopher Colin McGinn says he is “going to adumbrate a new theory, quite an eye-stinging one. It says that you perceive your own brain.” Consciousness is perceiving your own brain. This means, to be more specific, “pain is the perception of C-fibers firing. It isn’t C-fibers firing themselves, but the perception of that.[1] The relation between pain and C-fibers is like that between seeing a dog and the dog: they are numerically distinct and yet closely entwined. The sensation of pain has a perceptual object and it’s in the brain. And not just pain: visual sensations, too, are perceptions of brain states (perturbations of the occipital cortex). When you see a dog, you also see your brain, or a bit of it. In fact, all consciousness is brain perception” (McGinn, 2025f, following). Even all thinking, McGinn says, “is perceiving (sensing) your own brain. This isn’t because all consciousness is a brain state; it’s because all consciousness is brain perception. To put it with maximum provocativeness, consciousness is brain awareness—awareness of the brain. All consciousness is consciousness-of… the brain. This can be stated as an identity theory: mental states are identical to perceptual states of brain awareness. I don’t say only such awareness; rather, they are brain perception plus awareness of other things (if they have intentionality, that is). They have a kind of double intentionality: of the out-there and the in-here. You sense your environment and you sense your own body in the person of the brain. You have a dual awareness. If your mental states are states of your brain, then we can say that your brain senses itself: pain, say, is a state of your brain that is identical to a perception of your brain. On the other hand, if pain is a state of an immaterial substance, then it is a state of an immaterial substance that is identical to a perception of your brain. Thus, your mind has a relational structure: it stands in the relation of perceiving to your brain—as well as to other objects. If you have a tactile relational perception of an external object, you also have a tactile relational perception of your brain (the tactile part of it)—you touch your own brain, to put it crudely.[2] De Re Awareness and the Brain McGinn addresses what one might sense as an obvious problem with his theory: "people can have minds without knowing much if anything about brains. For surely, we don’t perceive anything as a brain when we enjoy ordinary experiences. I don’t feel that my C-fibers are firing when I am in pain. But that is not what the brain perception theory says; it says only that I am aware of my brain, not that I am aware that my brain is doing such-and-such. The awareness is de re not de dicto: it is true of my brain that I am aware of it—not that I am aware of it under a brain description. Perceptual statements have a de re/de dicto ambiguity, and the brain perception theory endorses only the de re reading. You can be conscious of something x that is actually F without being conscious that x is F. Compare ordinary visual perception: you can see (be looking at) an object that is in fact a block of atoms without seeing it as a block of atoms. We are aware of collections of atoms all the time but not as collections of atoms. We can be aware of objects that satisfy all manner of descriptions without knowing these descriptions or otherwise mentally representing them…. Thus, the brain perception theory is only claiming that we have de re perceptions of our brain states; it isn’t that we get mental images of our brain whenever we have an experience—or that our brains even cross our minds” (McGinn, 2025f). How does McGinn defend the idea that the relation between mind and brain is one of perception? “One reason is that we get a nice uniform account of the nature of the mind: all mental phenomena are perceptions of the brain—this is what they are (the essence of the natural kind)… But second, and more subtly, it is part of the phenomenology of experience to sense an inner reference: we feel that our mental states are somehow inner. We certainly don’t feel them as outer, and I don’t think we are neutral on the question; we feel that they belong with us, internally. I don’t think my mental states might be outer; they strike me as definitely inner. But what kind of inner?” McGinn sets a contrast with the “inner” as “an immaterial substance—the Cartesian ego.” If that were so, he says, “we would be in a perceptual relation to the states of such a substance, according to the perceptual theory of the mind. But we have discovered that it is the brain that houses and services the mind, so that entity is a better choice of perceptual object. If mental states are perceptions of something internal, as they seem to be, then the brain is the best candidate.” Going further, McGinn asks, “But why suppose that these objects are perceived? That turns on what perception is, a question hitherto left dangling. The answer, I suggest, is that perception is basically a matter of a response to a stimulus—an action of registration or tracking or indicating. The mind is tracking the brain, recording its doings; the two are reliably correlated. The mind, we might say, senses the presence of the brain; not de dicto, to be sure, but de re. The brain causes the mind to respond in certain ways, such that you can read one off from the other. The mind perceives the brain in the sense that it is sensitive to what the brain is up to—as the senses are sensitive to what the environment is up to. To a well-informed intelligence, the mind would provide information regarding the brain. The mind senses changes in the brain, but only as changes in something internal, not as neurological changes—which they actually are.” Consciousness as Code and Perceptual Interface Assuming this idea sinks in, McGinn argues that “it seems very natural to speak of the mind as perceiving the brain; it is keeping tabs on the brain, resonating to its activities, albeit in a sort of code. Consciousness acts like a secret code for the brain, a kind of translation. The brain is encoded in the mind, as the external world is encoded in sensory experience. Thus, it is natural to speak of mental states as perceptions of the brain—ongoing (partial) reports on it. Pain is the code word for C-fibers firing, if only we could crack the code.[3] If one day we manage to decode the code, we will naturally think of our experiences as messages from the brain; and we might become very adept at this and regard consciousness as we now regard vision in relation to the environment. The concept of perception is fairly elastic, so we might find ourselves happily using it to talk about our states of mind ('I felt my frontal cortex to be unusually active this morning', 'My hypothalamus feels slow today'). We might even become able to selectively attend to certain regions of the brain, as we can with our senses.” According to McGinn, how should we think about a mental state? “It points in several directions. It points to the external world—this is intentionality: there is a dog over there. It points to the internal world of the brain—this is brain perception: my C-fibers are firing. It points to behavior—this is action: I am about to throw a ball. The mind is about things; it is brain-sensitive, and it is functionally active. Two of these features are very familiar to us. I am adding a third feature: it is brain-perceptive.” McGhinn concludes by finding it “fascinating that the mind is a window onto the brain, another way to ‘see’ the brain. When I see a tree, I can sense my brain fizzing away just below the surface (or I fancy as much). I feel that I can focus on it, get to know it better. I feel closer to my brain now, less alienated from it. My phenomenology has shifted. I have become more brain-centered, existentially. [4] (McGinn, 2025f). Footnotes [1] It should be noted that this theory is compatible with materialism: the act of perceiving C-fibers firing could be a brain state distinct from C-fibers firing. Pain would then be the brain state of perceiving the brain state of C-fibers firing—a kind of combination of the two. [2] I say “touch” because a tactile sensation is arguably sufficient to qualify a sense as the sense of touch; you don’t need a physically touching body. [3] We could devise a code in which causing you a (mild) pain acts as a sign that there is danger nearby. In terms of information theory, pain carries the information that one’s C-fibers are firing (makes it more probable). [4] It is interesting to ask, in a science fiction spirit, what human life would be like if we knew the brain state corresponding to a given mental state, for all mental states. It would make our consciousness pretty jammed, I’m sure; maybe we are lucky not to perceive our brain in the de dicto way. It’s really best to minimize the content of consciousness for all practical purposes. There might, I suppose, be a brain pathology in which someone did have sensations of his brain when he experienced anything (The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Brain).

---

### Cooke’s Nondual Naturalism and Living Mirror Theory
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/cooke-s-nondual-naturalism-living-mirror-theory
Theorists: James Cooke

Neuroscientist/philosopher of mind James Cooke advances a dual framework for understanding the place of consciousness in reality: Nondual Naturalism (Cooke, 2024), which serves as a metaphysical and epistemological worldview, and the Living Mirror Theory (Cooke, 2021), which offers a scientific model of consciousness. Together, he says, they form a response to the hard problem of consciousness that integrates philosophy, the physics of life, neuroscience, and contemplative insight. Nondual Naturalism At the heart of Cooke’s proposal is a critique of the dominant reductionist materialist worldview. This worldview treats reality as if it were built out of separate, substantial objects. We take our perceptual experience of distinct forms as proof that reality itself is carved into separate units, each underpinned by some fundamental substance. Within this frame, the self appears to be one more object among others—an enduring entity that somehow “has” experiences. Cooke argues that this entire way of understanding is mistaken. Grounding reality in any substance, whether in the form of material stuff, mental essence, or pure awareness, is mistaken. In place of a substance metaphysics, Cooke advocates for a process-relational picture of reality. Every “thing” we encounter is part of a web of relations, defined not by independent existence but by interdependence. This vision resonates with the Buddhist Madhyamaka school of Indian philosophy (Garfield, 1995), which developed the idea of śūnyatā, or emptiness: what we perceive as separate and self-sufficient entities are, on closer analysis, empty of inherent existence. They arise only in dependence on conditions, never in isolation. Reality, then, is not actually divided; it is fundamentally nondual (Loy, 1997). Cooke’s Nondual Naturalism brings this insight together with a naturalistic commitment: any complete worldview must remain coherent with empirical science and philosophical rigor. Nondual Naturalism proposes neither reductive materialism nor supernatural idealism but rather a neutral monism that is compatible with science. It reframes the hard problem of consciousness not as an intractable mystery of how insubstantial experiences can arise from a substance we call matter, but as a symptom of mistaken metaphysical assumptions about separation and substance. Under Nondual Naturalism, experiences of unity in mystical experiences are taken as insight, rather than delusion. In such states, the ordinary constructs of separation, self, and substance dissolve. What remains is awareness itself—an open, formless epistemic space in which the contents of experience arise and pass away. This awareness represents the core explanatory target of any theory of why and how consciousness exists. The Living Mirror Theory On this basis, Cooke develops the Living Mirror Theory of consciousness (Cooke, 2020, 2021). If reality is relational, then consciousness must also be understood in relational terms. Consciousness is not reducible to a computation performed by a brain, nor is it an ineffable substance distinct from the physical. It is a form of epistemic relationality between a living organism and the wider world it inhabits, including the organism itself. Consciousness is not something that happens in us so much as something that happens between us and the wider world. The Living Mirror Theory draws on recent developments in predictive processing and the free energy principle in neuroscience (Friston, 2010; Clark, 2013). These approaches interpret the brain not as a passive receiver of sensory input but as an active modelling system, constantly predicting and updating to minimize error and sustain life. According to this theory, the necessity of such modeling for the self-organization of all living things points to the origins of consciousness. We are conscious not primarily because we have brains, but because we are alive. Consciousness is the epistemic dimension of life’s self-maintenance, the relational interface by which organisms track and adapt to the conditions that sustain them. Brains are crucial modifiers of this process in creatures like us, but the root of consciousness lies in the dynamics of life itself, not in the nervous system (Kirchhoff & Froese, 2017; Thompson, 2007, 2022; Varela et al., 1991; Reber, 2016; Reber, Baluška, & Miller, 2023). From this perspective, the origin of life is also the origin of consciousness. When matter first organized into self-persisting systems capable of maintaining their own boundaries and resisting entropy, consciousness necessarily also appeared. Life and mind are thus not two separate mysteries but two inextricably linked aspects of a single relational process through which living beings persist, adapt, and know. Ethical Implications Cooke’s framework challenges the cultural bias of human exceptionalism (Cooke, 2024). Animist worldviews across cultures have long held that subjectivity pervades the living world (Abram, 1996), while the modern mechanistic picture, descended from Bacon and Descartes, portrays many non-human lifeforms as mere unconscious mechanisms. That view gained traction not because it was correct, Cooke argues, but because it justified the exploitation of nature during Europe’s shift toward extractive economies. Today, it continues to blind us to the possibility that consciousness is woven into the fabric of life itself. A Relational, Process-Based Metaphysics By grounding both matter and mind in a relational, process-based metaphysics, Nondual Naturalism dissolves the apparent gap between them. The Living Mirror Theory situates consciousness within the very dynamics of life. This reframing carries existential and ethical implications. The illusion of a separate, substantial self fuels the fear of death and a self-focused mode of living that estranges us from the natural world. This estrangement underwrites the domination of nature and the ecological crises we now face. To see consciousness as continuous with life is to heal this divide. Nondual Naturalism and the Living Mirror Theory thus offer not only a new scientific and philosophical framework but also a way of rediscovering our place in the natural world.

---

### Harman’s Object-Oriented Ontology
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/harman-s-object-oriented-ontology
Theorists: Graham Harman

Philosopher Graham Harman’s “object-oriented ontology” takes consciousness as a complex, relational phenomenon, not a monolithic entity, and emphasizes the differentiated nature of consciousness, where intentionality (the “directedness” of consciousness) doesn't create a unified “global purée” but rather a nuanced network of relations between individual objects. Objects, including conscious entities, are seen as inherently relational, with their properties and traits being shaped by their interactions with other objects. Harman argues that objects exist and interact independently of human consciousness, that human consciousness is just one way that objects relate to other objects, and that it should not be privileged ontologically. “The human-world correlate is just one relation among many. It has no privileged ontological status” (Harman, 2009, 2018). Withdrawal, Limits, and the Fourfold In his metaphysics, all objects withdraw from each other; they can never fully encounter or exhaust one another's being. This includes consciousness: the human mind cannot fully grasp or exhaust the objects it thinks about. He says, “There is no more reason to think that human awareness is the model for all relations than to think that fire, cotton, or granite are” (Harman, 2002). In Harman’s object-oriented ontology, every object has a fourfold structure: real object, sensual object, real qualities, and sensual qualities. Human consciousness engages with sensual objects and sensual qualities—the phenomenal or experiential aspects of things—not real objects and real qualities. He says, “The conscious perception of a hammer is not that hammer in itself, but a sensual object that has a certain profile” (Harman, 2011). This means that consciousness is a type of interaction among objects, not a special metaphysical category. Being Before Access According to Harman, because consciousness is not ontologically foundational, it should not be the starting point of philosophy. For him, being precedes access—the world exists independently of how we access it, and objects relate to each other beyond human awareness. He suggests that consciousness involves intentional relations, but these relations are always partial and never exhaust the object. Intentional objects (those we encounter in thought or experience) are real, but they are not the real objects in themselves, which remain veiled. He says, “The intentional object… is not the same as the real object. It is a caricature, a translation, a model that interacts with us but does not give us the thing itself” (Harman, 2011).

---

### J. Campbell’s Attention-Empowered Relationalism
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/campbell-s-attention-empowered-relationalism
Theorists: John Campbell

Philosopher John Campbell's relational theory of consciousness emphasizes the integral role of conscious attention in our ability to refer to and think about objects in the world. He argues that this conscious attention is the basis for reference such that our capacity to refer to objects—especially through demonstratives like “that tree” or “this cup”—depends fundamentally on conscious visual attention. He posits that to refer to an object, one must not only perceive it but also consciously attend to it, distinguishing it from its surroundings. This conscious attention enables the formation of thoughts about specific objects (Brinck, 2004; Campbell, 2002). Attention, Reference, and Consciousness Campbell argues that our capacity for reference is explained by our capacity to attend selectively to the objects of which we are aware; that this capacity for conscious attention to a perceived object is what provides us with our knowledge of reference. When someone makes a reference to a perceived object, one’s knowledge of which thing they are talking about is constituted by one’s consciously attending to the relevant object (Campbell, 2002). Campbell articulates the connections between three concepts: reference, attention, and consciousness. He looks at the metaphysical conception of the environment demanded by such an account and at the demands imposed on our conception of consciousness by the point that consciousness of objects is what explains our capacity to think about them. He argues that empirical work on the binding problem can illuminate our grasp of the way in which we have knowledge of reference, supplied by conscious attention to the relevant object (Campbell, 2002). Relational View and Cognitive Insights Campbell builds on Bertrand Russell's notion of “acquaintance” and suggests that knowledge of the reference of a perceptual demonstrative arises from direct conscious acquaintance with the object. This means that understanding terms like “that woman” requires a conscious experience of the referent, not merely a causal or descriptive link (Brinck, 2004). Campbell advocates a “Relational View” of perceptual experience, wherein the qualitative character of experience is constituted by the qualitative character of the perceived scene itself. According to this “naïve realism” view, experience is a direct relation between the subject and the object, rather than a representation or internal model of the object (Brinck, 2004). To explain how conscious attention facilitates reference, Campbell incorporates insights from cognitive psychology, particularly Anne Treisman's Feature Integration Theory. He describes how spatial attention selects a location, and sensory information at that location is integrated into a coherent perceptual object. This process underlies our ability to refer to objects in thought and language. Campbell's theory challenges views that minimize the role of consciousness in cognition. By emphasizing the necessity of conscious attention for reference and thought, he opposes epiphenomenalism—the idea that consciousness has feelings but no causal power or role. His work suggests that conscious experience is not just a byproduct of neural processes but is essential for our interaction with and understanding of the world (Campbell, 2002; Siegel, 2004).

---

### Fish’s Naïve Realism
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/fish-s-naive-realism
Theorists: William Fish

Philosopher William Fish’s theory of consciousness is grounded in naïve realism, also known as relationalism. This perspective posits that conscious experiences are direct relations to external, mind-independent objects and their properties, rather than internal representations or constructions. Fish asserts that in veridical perception—when our sensory experiences accurately reflect the external world—the phenomenal character of experience is constituted by the external objects themselves. For instance, when perceiving a red apple, the redness experienced is not a mental construct but is identical to the redness of the apple in the world. This view emphasizes that the external world “literally shapes the contours of our conscious experiences” (Cailes et al., 2021). To account for non-veridical experiences like hallucinations and illusions, Fish employs disjunctivism. This approach maintains that veridical and non-veridical experiences are fundamentally different in nature. While veridical experiences involve direct relations to actual objects, hallucinations do not; they lack the relational component that characterizes genuine perception. This distinction allows for a consistent explanation of various perceptual phenomena without resorting to representational theories (Fish, 2009). How does naïve realism deal with the phenomenology of memory and imagination? Fish explores the application of naïve realism beyond immediate perception, particularly concerning episodic memory. He considers two possibilities: treating memory experiences as involving direct acquaintance with past events or viewing them as derivative of perceptual acquaintances or experiences. Fish tentatively supports the latter, suggesting that the phenomenology of memory is inherited from prior perceptual experiences, even if the original objects are no longer present (Fish, 2022). Fish takes on the “hard problem” of consciousness and “the explanatory gap between functional and phenomenal facts.” He proposes that adopting a relationalist perspective can bridge the explanatory gap. By viewing phenomenal properties as relational rather than intrinsic, he says that we can begin to formulate a naturalistic theory of consciousness that aligns with our intuitive understanding of experience. He argues that “if we supplement the functionalist stories with a relationalist conception of phenomenal properties, we can begin to see the shape of a naturalistic theory of phenomenal consciousness that will provide intuitively compelling responses to these problems“ (Fish, 2008).

---

### Mitchell and Jennings’s Consciousness Needs a Subject
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/mitchell-and-jenning-s-consciousness-needs-a-subject
Theorists: Kevin J. Mitchell, Carolyn Dicey Jennings

Neuroscientist Kevin J. Mitchell and philosopher Carolyn Dicey Jennings state, “To be conscious is to be an experiencing subject.” A subject is a living being with interests, and subjects with interests are conceptually (and evolutionarily) prior to consciousness. Thus, they argue that consciousness is intimately tied up with being an experiencing subject. Not just having a point of view at any moment, but being an integrated self with continuity and extension through time. This can be defined, they say, “not in terms of computational functions or particular biological substrates, but rather in terms of relations: between subject and world, between parts of the subject, and through time.” These kinds of relations, the authors assert, comprise a conscious mode of being (Mitchell & Jennings, 2025). According to Mitchell and Jennings, when you experience the color red, you are really having the experience of being yourself, experiencing the color red. A conscious entity is necessarily a subject, and that subjecthood is a much deeper background condition than typically acknowledged in consciousness research. Many researchers refer to the importance of embodiment, but, to the authors, “our subjecthood is more fundamental than that. We have a point of view, physically speaking, but also in the sense of being a locus of concern. Our subjecthood entails being a self, with continuity and temporal extension—a bundle of interests, doing work to propagate itself into the future. The pattern being propagated is not just the arrangement of physical material and processes that constitute our bodies. It is the dynamic organization of our minds—the things that entail being you.” Conscious beings are “enminded selves” (Mitchell & Jennings, 2025). Given that subjects like us are “enminded” and not just embodied, “Our conscious experiences are grounded in our own ongoing mentality—in what it’s like to be us, psychologically. This encompasses all of our memories, attitudes, dispositions, habits, policies, projects, and interests that make us who we are. When we experience something consciously, we are experiencing being ourselves having that experience (Zahavi, 2008). While we can treat ourselves as objects by taking an objective stance, subjectivity is fundamentally about an irreducible first-person stance, and this is what is central to consciousness (Ganeri, 2012)” (Mitchell & Jennings, 2025). This kind of subjecthood can be defined in abstract, relational terms. Mitchell and Jennings write: “phenomenal subjectivity rests not on specific computational functions or particular biological processes or substrates, but rather on relations. These include relations between (i) subject and world, (ii) levels of information processing within the subject, and (iii) ‘temporal parts’ of the subject (past and future selves)” (Mitchell & Jennings, 2025). The implication, the authors surmise, is that if artificial entities were created that have these kinds of relations (however implemented), then they might well be subjects and capable of conscious experience.

---

### Manzotti’s Mind-Object Identity ("Spread Mind")
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/manzotti-s-mind-object-identity-spread-mind
Theorists: Riccardo Manzotti

Philosopher and robotics scientist Riccardo Manzotti’s Mind-Object Identity theory is the physicalist thesis that one's phenomenal experience of an object is numerically identical to the external object itself—reconceived as a bundle of relative and actual physical properties that exist relative to the perceiver's experiencing body—rather than to any brain-based neural processes. Thus, Manzotti’s radical realism claims that phenomenal consciousness is not a neural representation, emergent brain property, inner mental item, or subject-facing appearance, but, by being identical with the physical object itself, the body and brain are causal-enabling conditions for experience, whereas the experienced object is the experience itself (Manzotti, 2016, 2017a, 2019). The theory’s central proposition is disarmingly simple: when a subject experiences an object O, the subject’s experience of O is O itself (Manzotti, 2019). In other words, experience is not about the object, directed toward it, or representationally generating it. Experience is the object, where the object is the object as causally and physically available relative to a given body. The proposal inherits the explanatory form of classical mind-brain identity theory (Smart, 1959; Armstrong, 1968), but relocates its target. Manzotti readily accepts the physicalist worldview but argues that it selects the wrong physical candidate. Neural activity is causally indispensable, but it does not possess the properties of experience: the apple experienced as red, round, shiny, and edible is not matched by any red, round, shiny neural activity. The apple itself, by contrast, has the relevant properties. Hence, the theory preserves identity while rejecting brain-based causation: consciousness is physical, but it’s not in the head. Manzotti decomposes the mind-brain identity tradition into two logically independent claims: that consciousness is physical (PHYSICAL) and that the relevant physical phenomenon lies inside the body/brain(BRAINBOUND) (Manzotti, 2016). Only the first is required by physicalism, he says; the local supervenience of qualia on brain states routinely treated as obligatory (Kim, 1995) is, Manzotti argues, an unforced and misleading assumption. Mind-brain identity failed not because consciousness is non-physical (Chalmers, 1996)—but for the blunt empirical reason that neural tissue exhibits none of the properties experience exhibits: nothing in the brain is red, round, or shiny. Retaining PHYSICAL and discarding BRAINBOUND yields a third candidate for the identity, "hidden in plain sight": the external object (OBJECTBOUND). The identity is asymmetric—it runs from experience to the world, not from the world to the mind—so the view is emphatically not panpsychism, idealism, or neutral monism, and it requires no emergence. It is the developed, explicitly identity-theoretic formulation of Manzotti's earlier Spread Mind (Manzotti, 2011, 2017b; Noe, 2009). The relative object The theory's critical move is ontological, not psychological: a revision of what an object is. Against the commonsense object whose properties are intrinsic, absolute, and observer-independent, Manzotti generalizes object-object relativity from the model case of Galilean velocity, where a property is well defined yet exists only relative to another physical system, never absolutely. Properties are also actual in the sense of the Eleatic principle—to exist is to exert an effect—so a property is "pulled into existence" only when some further object supplies the causal occasion. Manzotti distinguishes object-relativity from subject-relativity: that a canvas is white relative to a standard trichromat and cyan to a red-saturated observer no more makes color mental than relative velocity makes motion mental. The Body: Enabler, Not Constituent Manzotti’s theory gives the body a strong causal role but denies that the body is the constitutive substrate of consciousness. The body is a condition of existence for the experienced object, much as a dam may be a condition of existence for a lake without being identical with the lake (Manzotti, 2016). Sensorimotor capacities, neural structures, developmental history, and bodily position help determine which object comes to exist relative to that body, but they are not themselves the conscious experience. The body is therefore as "just another object," functioning as the causal reference frame relative to which one's world of objects takes place, much as a conventional frame is tacitly presupposed whenever we report a velocity. Its role is causal and enabling, not constitutive—captured by that dam-and-lake analogy: the dam (body and brain) brings the lake (object = experience) into existence without being identical with it (Manzotti, 2016, 2019). Dissolving the mark of the mental Because the object now bears exactly the properties experience displays, the features traditionally invoked to distinguish mental states from physical states become superfluous. Intentionality is treated as a postulate never actually encountered in experience: when one sees an apple, one is presented with the apple, not with an “aboutness”-relation to it. Under identity, there is nothing for experience to be about, since experience simply is the thing—"identity is the new intentionality" (Manzotti, 2019). Phenomenal character receives parallel treatment: the felt redness held to be absent from the physical world (Nagel, 1974) is, on Manzotti’s reading, an artifact of having searched the wrong object. There is only one red—the apple's, relative to a visual system—not a physical red engendering a phenomenal one. The hard problem is thereby not answered on its own terms but relocated: the explanatory gap looked unbridgeable only because the candidate physical substrate, neural activity, was ill-chosen (Manzotti, 2011). Hallucinations, dreams, and the spread present The decisive test for any extreme realism is the argument from illusion—cases where S experiences O, yet O is seemingly absent (hallucinations, dreams, illusions, mental imagery, and memory). Manzotti grants the first premise (experience) and denies the second (absence). His defense requires two steps. First, a recombination thesis: dreams and hallucinations never introduce genuinely novel elements, but reshuffle previously encountered external properties (the congenitally blind do not dream in color); “our dreams and hallucinations are chimeric in the sense that they are composite amalgams of existing external physical properties and events” (Manzotti, 2019). Second, a relativized present: since perception is never instantaneous, the object causally present to the brain is always to some degree past and distant—a star "is" (presently) millions or billions of years after the astronomer’s perception of that star (light needing millions or billions of years to make the trip), yet that star lies within the experiencer's present. Stretching "there" spatially licenses stretching "now" temporally, so a hallucination becomes simply displaced perception, an object dispersed across unusual causal pathways (Manzotti, 2011, 2019). Illusions are handled by distinguishing a proxy property from the alleged property it tracks: the experience is veridical; only the belief about which property is perceived errs. Distinctiveness and the Hard Problem What sets Manzotti’s Mind-Object Identity theory apart is the strength of its external identity. Externalist and embodied programs—the extended mind (Clark and Chalmers, 1998), sensorimotor and enactive accounts (Noë, 2009), and content externalism (Dretske, 1995)—hold that experience is constituted by or depends on body-world coupling; Manzotti makes the stronger, astonishing claim that experience is identical with the external object, an externalism so radical that the conscious experience departs the head entirely (Manzotti, 2011). Then, where is it? It occupies a kind of logical space, which is distinct both from internalist brain substrate theories such as integrated information (Tononi et al., 2016) and from panpsychism (Strawson, 2017), neither confining conscious experiences to brains nor adding phenomenal properties to matter. Mind-Object Identity seeks to dissolve, not solve in standard terms, the hard problem of consciousness (Chalmers, 1996). The hard problem arises, according to Manzotti, because experience is assumed to be inside the head, while its properties are in the world. If experience is instead identical with the body-relative object, the explanatory gap is said to result from looking in the wrong place (Manzotti, 2011, 2019). Likewise, intentionality becomes unnecessary: experience need not be “about” the banana if experience is the banana. The vehicle/content distinction is similarly weakened, because the experienced object is not represented by a separate vehicle; it is the physical entity with which experience is identical. Criticisms abound. How to explain the genuinely object-less or radically novel hallucination, the challenge of placing one's present experience light-years from one's body, and the relocation of agency from proximal neural events to distal objects—each of which Manzotti handles by denying the assumption that generates it. The framework has since been extended beyond perception to selfhood, language, and thought, recast as further species of displaced, recombined perception (Manzotti and Parks, 2018). References Armstrong, D. M. (1968). A Materialist Theory of the Mind. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Chalmers, D. J. (1996). The Conscious Mind: In Search of a Fundamental Theory. New York: Oxford University Press. Clark, A., & Chalmers, D. J. (1998). The extended mind. Analysis, 58(1), 7–19. Dretske, F. (1995). Naturalizing the Mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Jackson, F. (1986). What Mary didn't know. Journal of Philosophy, 83(5), 291–295. Kim, J. (1995). Dretske's qualia externalism. Philosophical Issues, 7, 159–165. Kripke, S. A. (1972). Naming and Necessity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Levine, J. (1983). Materialism and qualia: The explanatory gap. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, 64(4), 354–361. Manzotti, R. (2011). The spread mind: Is consciousness situated? Teorema, 30(2), 55–78. Manzotti, R. (2016). Experiences are objects: Towards a mind-object identity theory. Rivista Internazionale di Filosofia e Psicologia, 7(1), 16–36. Manzotti, R. (2017a). Consciousness and Object: A Mind-Object Identity Physicalist Theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Manzotti, R. (2017b). The Spread Mind: Why Consciousness and the World Are One. New York: OR Books. Manzotti, R. (2019). Mind-object identity: A solution to the hard problem. Frontiers in Psychology, 10:63. Manzotti, R., & Parks, T. (2018). The Challenge of Consciousness [dialogue series]. New York: The New York Review of Books. Nagel, T. (1974). What is it like to be a bat? Philosophical Review, 83(4), 435–450. Noë, A. (2009). Out of Our Heads: Why You Are Not Your Brain. New York: Hill and Wang. Smart, J. J. C. (1959). Sensations and brain processes. Philosophical Review, 68(2), 141–156. Strawson, G. (2017). Physicalist panpsychism. In S. Schneider & M. Velmans (Eds.), The Blackwell Companion to Consciousness (2nd ed., pp. 374–390). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. Tononi, G., Boly, M., Massimini, M., & Koch, C. (2016). Integrated information theory: From consciousness to its physical substrate. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 17(7), 450–461.

---

### Lahav’s Relativistic Theory
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/lahav-s-relativistic-theory
Theorists: Nir Lahav

Physicist Nir Lahav notes that any scientific theory of consciousness must ultimately refer to phenomenal features and solve the hard problem, and that the explanatory gap hints that neuroscience alone cannot do it. Instead, he suggests that another layer of physical explanation is needed. To achieve this, he says, we need to extend the principle of relativity to also include emergent properties and consciousness. Accordingly, consciousness is not absolute but a physical phenomenon that depends on the measurements of a cognitive frame of reference (Lahav, 2025a, 2025b). Just as different observers can have different measurements of velocity in a relativistic context, Lahav argues that the same is true for consciousness. Bob measures that he has consciousness, while Alice measures that he doesn't because they are in different cognitive frames. Lahav argues that the principle of relativity gives rise to relationalism—the existence of natural properties depends on the relations that are measured in a reference frame. (For example, in Einstein's equivalence principle, the relations measured by an observer inside an accelerating spaceship will manifest gravity, while the relations measured by an observer outside will manifest acceleration). The same is true for consciousness, Lahav claims; first- and third-person perspectives are just two different frames of reference. The relations between specific representations (named phenomenal judgement-representations) measured inside the brain manifest consciousness, while the same representations measured by an outside observer will manifest neural dynamics. This is because from the outside we use sensory apparatus like our eyes to measure the environment, but inside the brain, the measurements of these representations are not by sensory apparatus but by the interactions between the representations. These different kinds of measurements manifest different kinds of physical properties. This leads to different manifestations of conscious experience and brain activity in first-person and third-person cognitive frames of reference. Now consciousness is not private anymore, and there exists a transformation between these cognitive frames. According to this framework, philosophical zombies cannot exist, and AI consciousness is possible (Lahav & Neemeh, 2022).

---

### Kojdić’s Interface Ontology of Consciousness
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/kojdi-s-interface-ontology-of-consciousness
Theorists: Petar Kojdić

Attorney and Kantian researcher Petar Kojdić proposes an “Interface Ontology” that holds consciousness to be the capacity by which finite agents stabilize and render intelligible an empirical world that exists only as a boundary (interface) between a non-empirical ground and cognitive limitation. The theory begins by reversing the standard explanatory order in consciousness studies. Rather than asking how consciousness arises within an already-given physical world, Interface Ontology asks how a world that is unified, law-governed, and experientially coherent is possible at all, and why consciousness appears to be structurally indispensable to that possibility. Drawing on Kant’s transcendental idealism, Kojdić’s framework treats empirical reality not as a self-standing domain of objects, but as an interface: a structured boundary at which a deeper, non-empirical ground becomes partially available to finite knowers. This ground is not described positively, nor is it taken to be causally efficacious. It is posited solely to avoid treating appearances as self-grounding, and the theory remains explicitly regulative and non-dogmatic in Kant’s sense (Kant, 1998 [1787]). Within this framework, space and time are not properties of the ground but modes by which finite cognition charts the interface. Ordinary objects are understood as relatively stable patterns on this boundary: configurations that remain invariant across a range of admissible interactions. What appears as “empty space” similarly reflects structured unavailability rather than a literal container. Consciousness, on this view, is not a substance, emergent property, or computational process. It is defined structurally as the capacity of an agent located at the interface to lock onto, sustain, and integrate lawlike patterns such that a coherent world is present to that agent. Consciousness is therefore central not because it creates reality, but because without such stabilizing resonance there would be no unified, intelligible empirical world for any subject. This structural role of consciousness echoes a concern articulated by Nagel: that any account of reality which sidelines subjective presence fails to capture what it is like for a world to appear at all (Nagel, 2002, pp. 195-197). Interface Ontology takes this concern seriously while avoiding appeals to irreducible qualia or mysterious inner substances. Consciousness is world-involving, but not world-creating. The theory avoids both reductionism and panpsychism. Consciousness is not ubiquitous; it is a graded capacity realized by certain organized systems capable of sustaining stable alignment with lawful structure. Which biological or artificial systems instantiate such capacity is an empirical question left open to scientific investigation. At the same time, the framework explains why purely reductive accounts struggle: consciousness is not an optional add-on to physical structure but a condition for the worldliness of any empirical domain. Interface Ontology is explicitly meta-theoretical. It does not compete directly with physicalist, functionalist, phenomenological, or dual-aspect theories of consciousness. Instead, it seeks to explain why each of these families captures genuine local structures while failing to exhaust the phenomenon. Each can be understood as describing partial stabilizations of the same interface under different explanatory constraints (Cavedon-Taylor, 2024). A further consequence of Kojdić’s framework is that empirical reality is structurally fragile. Because the interface arises from finite limitations rather than plenary access to the ground, its internal order is prone to tension, conflict, and breakdown. Consciousness itself is therefore vulnerable: its clarity, scope, and stability can be disrupted by cognitive overload, affective disturbance, or social and institutional conditions that undermine shared intelligibility. This fragility has normative implications. Ethical and social norms are not external constraints imposed on an otherwise self-sufficient world; they are conditions for maintaining a legible, shared interface in which conscious agents can coexist and act coherently. On this view, the systematic degradation of agency, understanding, or mutual recognition damages not only individuals but the structure of the empirical world itself. According to Kojdić, Interface Ontology thus offers a unifying structural account of consciousness, lawfulness, and normativity. It clarifies why consciousness resists both elimination and inflation, and why it occupies a central place in any adequate account of a world that is empirical, intelligible, and shared. References Cavedon-Taylor, D. (2024) ‘Block 3 Philosophy of mind’ in M. Pinder and D. Matravers (eds) DA 223 Investigating Philosophy. Book 1, Milton Keynes: The Open University, pp. 285-409. Kant, I. (1787) ‘Critique of Pure Reason’, in Guyer, P. and Wood, W.A. (editors and translators) The Cambridge Edition of the Works of Immanuel Kant: Critique of Pure Reason (1998). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Nagel, T. (2002) ‘The Psychophysical Nexus’ in Concealment and Exposure: And Other Essays. 1st edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 194-235.

---

### Jaworski’s Hylomorphism
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/jaworski-s-hylomorphism
Theorists: William Jaworski

Philosopher William Jaworski argues that the hard problem of consciousness arises only if hylomorphism is false. Hylomorphism is the claim that structure is a basic ontological and explanatory principle and is responsible for individuals being the kinds of things they are and having the powers or capacities they have. As Jaworski explains, “A human is not a random collection of physical materials, but an individual composed of physical materials with a structure that accounts for what it is and what it can do—the powers it has. What is true of humans is true of their activities as well.” Structured activities, he says, include perceptual experiences, which means that everything about a perceptual experience, including its phenomenal character, can be explained by describing the perceiver's structure: perceptual subsystems, the powers of those subsystems, and the coordination that unifies their activities into the activity of the perceiver as a whole. Conscious experiences, Jaworski concludes, “thus fit unproblematically into the natural world—just as unproblematically as the phenomenon of life” (Jaworski, 2020). According to Jaworski, from a hylomorphic perspective, “mind-body problems are byproducts of a worldview that rejects structure, and which lacks a basic principle which distinguishes the parts of the physical universe that can think, feel, and perceive from those that can't. Without such a principle, the existence of those powers in the physical world can start to look inexplicable and mysterious.” But if mental phenomena are structural phenomena, he says, then they are part of the physical world and thus “hylomorphism provides an elegant way of solving mind-body problems” (Jaworski, 2016). While hylomorphism exemplifies a suite of arguments purporting to undermine the hard problem, its own challenge seems two-fold: (i) by defining structure as primitive and fundamental, it almost embeds the desired conclusion in the definitional premise; and (ii) by not distinguishing kinds of structure, all structure holds the same level of ultimate explanation, which may not fit consciousness.

---

## First-Order
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theories/first-order

### First-Order—Overview
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/first-order-overview
Theorists: Several

First-order representationalism (FOR) seeks to account for consciousness in terms of, or by reducing to, external, world-directed (or first-order) intentional states (Gennaro, n.d.). In other words, consciousness can be explained, primarily, by understanding how the directedness of our mental states at objects and states of affairs in the world is generated directly by those objects and states of affairs (Searle, 1979). (This distinguishes first-order theories from higher-order theories, which hold that, in contrast, a mental state is conscious only if the subject has a higher-order thought or perception about that mental state.) Core Ideas and Philosophical Accounts Fred Dretske asserts that “the phenomenal aspects of perceptual experiences are one and the same as external, real-world properties that experience represents objects as having.” He argues that “when a brain state acquires, through natural selection, the function of carrying information, then it is a mental representation suited (with certain provisos) to being a state of consciousness.” (In contrast, “representations that get their functions through being recruited by operant conditioning, on the other hand, are beliefs.”) (Dretske, 1997). As philosopher Peter Carruthers explains, “the goal [of FOR] is to characterize all of the phenomenal—‘felt’—properties of experience in terms of the representational contents of experience (widely individuated). On this view, the difference between an experience of red and an experience of green will be explained as a difference in the properties represented—reflective properties of surfaces, say—in each case. And the difference between a pain and a tickle is similarly explained in representational terms—the difference is said to reside in the different properties (different kinds of disturbance) represented as located in particular regions of the subject's own body” (Carruthers, 2000). Neuroscientific Frameworks and Neural Correlates Philosopher Neil Mehta and anesthesiologist George Mashour describe FOR as consisting of “sensory representations directly available to the subject for action selection, belief formation, planning, etc.” They posit a neuroscientific framework, “according to which neural correlates of general consciousness include prefrontal cortex, posterior parietal cortex, and non-specific thalamic nuclei, while neural correlates of specific consciousness include sensory cortex and specific thalamic nuclei” (Mehta and Mashour, 2013). FOR's core philosophical idea, Mehta and Mashour state, is that “any conscious state is a representation, and what it’s like to be in a conscious state is wholly determined by the content of that representation. By definition, a representation is about something, and the content of a representation is what the representation is about. For instance, the word ‘dolphins’ (representation) is about dolphins (content).” But, they clarify, “a representation is not identical to its content.” The English word “dolphins” has eight letters, but dolphins themselves do not have any letters. “Conversely, dolphins swim, but the word ‘dolphins’ does not swim.” This distinction leads to the strong view that neural states seem to have very different properties than conscious perceptions. “For instance, when someone consciously perceives the color orange, normally there is nothing orange in that person's brain. First-order representationalists explain this by holding that a conscious perception of orange is a representation of orange, and (as the ‘dolphin’ example shows) the properties of a representation can be very different from the properties of its content” (Mehta and Mashour, 2013). Comparisons with Higher-Order Theories FOR's core neurobiological idea is that “each specific type of conscious state corresponds to a specific type of neural state.” Ned Block seeks to “disentangle the neural basis of phenomenal consciousness from the neural machinery of the cognitive access that underlies reports of phenomenal consciousness.” He argues that, in a certain sense, “phenomenal consciousness overflows cognitive accessibility.” He posits that “we can find a neural realizer of this overflow if we assume that the neural basis of phenomenal consciousness does not include the neural basis of cognitive accessibility and that this assumption is justified (other things being equal) by the explanations it allows” (Block, 2007c). Block hypothesizes that the conscious experience of motion is a certain kind of activation of visual area V5, which suggests that sensory systems are the neural correlates of sensory consciousness. He further speculates that what's required for consciousness in general are connections between these cortical regions and the thalamus, “which suggests that sensory and perhaps post-sensory systems … are the neural correlates of general consciousness, as well” (Block, 2007c). Block says he favors the first-order point of view, and if it is right, he says, “It may be conscious phenomenology that promotes global broadcasting, something like the reverse of what the global workspace theory of consciousness supposes. First-order phenomenology may be a causal factor in promoting global broadcasting; but according to the global workspace theory, global broadcasting constitutes consciousness rather than being caused by it” (Block, 2023, pp. 8–9). With a pungent example, Block compares first-order representationalism with higher-order representationalism, higher-order theories (HOT). “We have two perceptions that equally satisfy the descriptive content of the HOT, but one and not the other causes the HOT. But that gives rise to the problem of how a thought to the effect that I am smelling vomit could make a perception of crimson a conscious perception. The perception of crimson could cause the HOT while a simultaneous first-order smell-representation of vomit does not cause any higher-order state. The consequence would be that the perception of crimson is a conscious perception and the perception of vomit is not, even though the subject experiences the perception of crimson as if it were the perception of vomit.” Block concludes that “a descriptivist view based on content is inadequate” and that “the difficulty for the HOT theory is that it is unclear what relation has to obtain between a HOT and a perception for the perception to be conscious” (Block, 2023, pp. 425–426).

---

### Dretske’s Information and Representationalism
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/dretske-s-information-and-representationalism
Theorists: Fred Dretske

Philosopher Fred Dretske's theory of consciousness centers around the informational and representational nature of mental states and a naturalistic account of intentionality, all within a scientific, materialistic framework. Dretske's representational theory is considered a first-order theory because it holds that conscious experiences consist in, or are identical to, certain kinds of first-order mental representations—that is, representations of the external world, not of other mental states (Dretske, 1988, 1995). Consciousness as Information and Representation Dretske’s theory begins with the notion that mental states represent information about the world. Consciousness arises when certain internal states of a system (like a brain) carry information in a special and usable way. He says, “Information is what is needed to reduce uncertainty, to answer questions, to guide action” (Dretske, 1981). He distinguishes between natural information, which is a causal relationship between a signal and a condition, and representation, which involves a system using that information. Conscious mental states represent the things they are about, and these representations are causally active in behavior. He also distinguishes between phenomenal consciousness (what-it-is-like inner experience) and access consciousness (availability to report and act). He considers phenomenal consciousness to be a special kind of representation—not about what you know, but how the information is represented. “The difference between conscious and unconscious experience is not what is represented but the way it is represented” (Dretske, 1995). Dretske offers the nuanced view that in conscious perception, we are not aware of representations per se, but of what they represent—this is called the transparency thesis. This aligns with representationalism: consciousness consists in being aware of external features via internal representations. You see the red apple, not your representation of the red apple. “We are not conscious of experiences; we are conscious of the things we experience” (Dretske, 1995). Dretske links consciousness to attention and functional use. A mental state becomes conscious when its content is available for use in reasoning, planning, or verbal report—what he calls “selective representation.” This distinguishes conscious mental states from unconscious ones by functional role—especially the role in controlling action and communication. “Conscious experience is a representational state of the system that is poised to have an effect on other representational states” (Dretske, 1995). First-Order Theory and Qualia Dretske knows he must deal with qualia, the subjective feel of inner experience, and he seeks to naturalize it. He rejects that qualia are mysterious, intrinsic non-physical properties; they are rather properties of representational states. He claims to undermine Chalmers’ “hard problem” by arguing that once we understand how content is represented and used, no further explanatory gap will remain. It is said that Dretske’s ways of thinking laid the groundwork for subsequent representationalist theories, including those of Michael Tye and William Lycan. The reason why Dretske’s theory is considered a first-order representational theory of consciousness is because, in his theory, a mental state represents the external world (objects, events, sights, sounds, etc.) in a particular way; it does not require that a mental state be the object of another mental state—there is no need for a “thought about a thought” (as higher-order theories require). “We are not conscious of experiences; we are conscious of the things we experience,” meaning external, mind-independent features of the world (Dretske, 1995). Dretske explicitly rejects the need for higher-order awareness to explain consciousness (much as he rejects dualism). He argues that the content and function of a first-order representation—when poised for use in reasoning, action, or reporting—is enough to constitute conscious experience. “The difference between conscious and unconscious experience is not what is represented but the way it is represented” (Dretske, 1995).

---

### Jackson’s Representationalism and the Knowledge Argument
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/jackson-s-representationalism-and-the-knowledge-argument
Theorists: Frank Jackson

Philosopher Frank Jackson develops a representationalist view about perceptual experience. “That experience is diaphanousness (or transparent) is a thesis about the phenomenology of perceptual experience. It is the thesis that the properties that make an experience the kind of experience it is are properties of the object of experience.” In other words, “accessing the nature of the experience itself is nothing other than accessing the properties of its object” (Jackson, 2007). Diaphanousness and Representationalism Jackson uses his Diaphanous Representationalism theory to undermine his own prior argument against materialism/physicalism based on the famous thought experiment of Mary the brilliant neurophysiologist who is forced to investigate the world from a black and white room via a black and white television monitor, and who acquires all the physical information there is to obtain about what goes on when we see colors. “What will happen when Mary is released from her black and white room or is given a color television monitor? Will she learn anything or not? It seems just obvious that she will learn something about the world and our visual experience of it. But then it is inescapable that her previous knowledge was incomplete. But she had all the physical information. Ergo there is more to have than that, and Physicalism is false” (Jackson, 1982). Jackson argues that “although the diaphanousness thesis alone does not entail representationalism, the thesis supports an inference from a weaker to a stronger version of representationalism. On the weak version, perceptual experience is essentially representational. On the strong version, how an experience represents things as being exhausts its experiential nature.” The Knowledge Argument and Critiques This means that there is nothing else needed to bring about phenomenal consciousness (qualia). Hence, according to Jackson, “strong representationalism undermines the claim that Mary learns new truths when she leaves the room”—which would defeat the defeater of materialism/physicalism (Jackson, 2007). Philosopher Torin Alter disagrees, arguing that representationalism provides no basis for rejecting the knowledge argument, because even if representational character exhausts phenomenal character, “the physicalist must still face a representationalist version of the Mary challenge, which inherits the difficulty of the original (Alter, 2003).

---

### Tye’s Contingentism
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/tye-s-contingentism
Theorists: Michael Tye

Philosopher Michael Tye has proposed a theory of consciousness he calls “contingentism,” which is a kind of identity theory (i.e., phenomenal states and physical/brain states are literally the same) but with a novel twist: while the identity is indeed true in our world, it is not metaphysically true in all possible worlds. “Scenarios in which the relevant physical processing is present and consciousness is missing are easily imaginable (and thus metaphysically possible), but this is irrelevant if it is only a contingent fact that consciousness is a physical phenomenon” (Tye, 2023).[1] Contingent Identity and Origins Contingentism, Tye states, “finds its origins in the views of Feigl, Place and Smart in the 1950s and 1960s. These philosophers held that sensations are contingently identical with brain processes, where sensations are understood to be conscious states such as pain or the visual experience of red.” The identity here was taken to be contingent, in part, because “it was taken to be clear that scientific type-type identities generally are contingent.” Smart's example was that he could imagine that lightning is not an electrical discharge. (These claims are mistaken, Tye says; “If in actual fact lightning is an electrical discharge, it could not have been otherwise,” Tye, 2023). Tye says, “the contingentist about consciousness agrees with the above remarks concerning lightning and is happy to extend them to many other scientific identity statements. But the contingentist holds that the case of conscious mental states—states such that there is something it is like to undergo them—is different. Here the claim is not that such states are contingently identical with brain processes, but that such states are contingently identical with physical states of some sort or other, where the notion of a physical state is to be understood broadly to include not only neurophysiological states but also other states that are grounded in microphysical states, including functional states or states of the sort posited by representationalism, for example. For conscious states, the identities are contingent since we can easily imagine their having not obtained. For example, we can easily imagine a zombie undergoing the physical state with which the experience of fear is to be identified and yet not experiencing fear at all. Similarly, we can easily imagine someone experiencing fear without undergoing the given physical state” (Tye, 2023). Solving the Hard Problem The solution, Tye suggests, “lies with the realization that it is a mistake to model the consciousness case on that of physical-physical relationships. Qualitative character Q is identical with physical property R, if physicalism is true. But this is a contingent identity (even though the designators ‘Q’ and ‘R’ are rigid). So, we can imagine Q without R (and R without Q), but the fact that we can do so is not an indicator of an explanatory gap. A creature could indeed have been in a state having Q without being in a state having R and vice-versa” (Tye, 2023). Might things have been different in the actual world? Indeed, they might, Tye says. “The physical processing might have gone on just as it does, the information processing might have been just the same, the cognitive machinery might have functioned as it does, and yet along with all of this, Q might not have been present in experience. That is certainly intelligible to us. But it creates no explanatory puzzle; for that is only a metaphysically possible world. It is not the actual world. As far as the actual world goes, there is nothing puzzling or problematic, nothing left to explain … No mystery remains” (Tye, 2023). This is because “in the actual world,” consciousness is physical, according to the physicalist, “since it is only on the hypothesis of physicalism with respect to the actual world that problems of emergence and causal efficacy can be handled satisfactorily, or so the physicalist believes.” Thus, Tye concludes, “once we become contingentists, the hard problem has a straightforward and satisfying solution.” Evolution, Vagueness, and Panpsychist Turn In support of his views, Tye turns to “vagueness” in assessing consciousness in the hierarchical taxonomy of life and in the process of evolution (Tye, 2021). According to Tye, “The two dominant theories of consciousness argue it appeared in living beings either suddenly, or gradually. Both theories face problems. The solution is the realization that a foundational consciousness was always here, yet varying conscious states were not, and appeared gradually.” Given that it is hardly obvious how to discern which organisms are conscious, and, if so, their kind or level of consciousness, borderline cases of consciousness can make no sense. As David Papineau reviews Tye, “But this isn't because a sharp line is found somewhere as we move from non-conscious physical systems to conscious ones. Rather [according to Tye] it's because no such line exists at all. Even the most basic constituents of physical reality are already endowed with consciousness” (Papineau, 2022). Thus, Tye transitions from his traditional physicalism to a form of panpsychism, though differing from those of mainstream panpsychists.[2] In admirable full disclosure, Tye states that his contingentism “is written from the perspective of the reductive physicalist (understood broadly to include functionalists and representationalists),” and that he believes contingentism presents “the best hope for a defense of reductive physicalism.” However, he adds, “I myself am no longer a thoroughgoing reductive physicalist. I now believe that there is an element in our consciousness that cannot be captured via higher level reductions” (Tye, 2023) In addition, Tye suggests that, from the representationalist perspective and supporting its views, “history matters crucially to phenomenology. What it is like for an individual at a given time is fixed not just by what is going on in the individual at that time but also by what was going on in the individual in the past. Two individuals can be exactly alike intrinsically at a time and yet differ in the phenomenal character of their mental life at that time” (Tye, 2019). Tye concludes his contingentism account by stating that “once we think of experiences in a representationalist and broadly reductionist way,” we can better appreciate phenomenology, including its presence or absence, such as in thought experiments where “a person slowly acquires a silicon chip brain.” More recently, however, Tye has come to hold that, at the most fundamental level, there is a kind of 'consciousness*' or a protoconsciousness, a version of panpsychism (see "Tye's Irreducible Consciousness*" under Panpsychism). Footnotes [1]. Tye notes that “contrary to orthodoxy, there is no obvious difficulty with holding that identity statements in which the identity sign is flanked by rigid designators are sometimes contingent” (Tye, 2023). [2]. To speak of “mainstream panpsychists”—when I was doing neurophysiology (mid-1960s, UCLA Brain Research Institute)—would have seemed an oxymoron.

---

### Carruthers’s First-Order Representationalism
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/carruthers-first-order-representationalism
Theorists: Peter Carruthers

Philosopher Peter Carruthers's theory of consciousness is considered a first-order theory because it holds that conscious experience arises directly from non-meta-representational, first-order perceptual states—that is, from representations of the world, rather than from representations of those representations (which are central to higher-order theories and differentiate them from first order theories). First-order theories assert that consciousness depends only on the presence and characteristics of mental states that represent the world (e.g., seeing colors, hearing sounds). Carruthers explains phenomenal consciousness in terms of global broadcasting of perceptual states, not meta-representations, and he emphasizes availability to cognition and behavior as the hallmark of consciousness. "Phenomenal consciousness does not consist in, or require, any kind of inner monitoring" (Carruthers, 2000). Global Broadcasting and Dispositionalism Carruthers promotes his "dispositionalist" global workspace model, in which a perceptual or cognitive state becomes conscious if and only if it is globally broadcast to a wide array of consumer systems (e.g., verbal report, decision-making, motor control), even if the subject is not aware of it as a mental state. "Phenomenally conscious states are those which are globally broadcast, and which thereby become available to the suite of conceptual and planning systems that guide action and thought." Moreover, "A perceptual state is conscious if it is suitably poised—if it is disposed to be taken as input by a range of consumer systems—whether or not it is actually taken as input by any of them" (Carruthers, 2000). A decade later, he remained "inclined to think that phenomenal consciousness consists in globally broadcast first-order perceptual content, not in any kind of higher-order representation" (Carruthers, 2011). Carruthers focuses on access rather than on introspection: Conscious states are those that are poised for cognitive access and control, not those about which the subject is introspectively aware. Thus, he argues for a simpler, computationally parsimonious architecture that doesn't require a distinct and complex metacognitive system to generate phenomenal consciousness. He explains phenomenal consciousness in terms of "dispositionalist higher-order thought theory," which he characterizes as "a certain sort of intentional content ('analog', or fine-grained), held in a special-purpose short-term memory store in such a way as to be available to higher-order thoughts … all of those contents are at the same time higher-order ones, acquiring a dimension of seeming or subjectivity" (Carruthers, 2000). Shifts Toward Higher-Order and Back Over time, Carruthers moved to a more nuanced, targeted approach, tilting toward a higher-order thought theory of self-knowledge, while still keeping phenomenal consciousness grounded in first-order representations. So, even when embracing higher-order theories of introspection and metacognition, as his theory of self-awareness becomes more meta-representational, Carruthers separates these from the foundation of phenomenal consciousness itself, which remains first-order. Reflecting years later, Carruthers recounts his unusual approach to the first-order-higher-order debate. While he always provided "a general defence of reductive representationalism about phenomenal consciousness," he also critiqued the "first-order theories of the sort proposed by Baars, Tye, Dennett, and others (thereby motivating a form of higher-order account)." He then proceeds to defend first-order theories against his own earlier attack[1] (Carruthers, 2017). Carruthers describes, in retrospect, his three earlier goals. The first was "to critique mysterian and property-dualist accounts of phenomenal consciousness (Chalmers, 1996), defending the view that consciousness can be reductively explained in terms of active non-conceptual representations of a certain sort that occupy a specific kind of functional role. An important part in the account involved appealing to a set of purely recognitional phenomenal concepts, since these were deployed to disarm (and explain away the appeal of) the various 'hard problem' thought experiments (zombies, explanatory gaps, and the rest)." A second goal was to show that "dual-content theory" (according to which conscious experiences have higher-order non-conceptual contents that mirror their first-order counterparts) is preferable to other forms of higher-order theory (Carruthers, 2017). Significantly, Carruthers says, his third goal at the time (Carruthers, 2000) was to demonstrate that "first-order representationalist accounts of phenomenal consciousness (as proposed by Baars, 1988; Dretske, 1995; Tye, 1995; Dennett, 2001; and now Dehaene, 2014) were inadequate." At the time, Carruthers gave two main arguments. "One was that first-order theories cannot account for our possession of purely-recognitional phenomenal concepts. The latter need to be grounded, rather, in higher-order non-conceptual content (thus requiring Carruthers's dual-content account)." The other main argument, he says was that "first-order theories can in a sense accommodate, but not really explain, the distinction between conscious and unconscious experience" (Carruthers, 2017). Carruthers-2017 assessing Carruthers-2000 concludes: "Neither argument now seems to me to have been successful," and he proceeds to critique them both. The later Carruthers concludes that the earlier Carruthers had "rejected first-order representational theories of consciousness on inadequate grounds." As a result, "since there is extensive evidence that conscious experience co-occurs with the global broadcasting of first-order non-conceptual contents in the brain, and since this evidence is most easily accommodated by first-order representationalism, the latter is preferable to any form of higher-order account" (Carruthers, 2017). Footnote [1]. Again, I [RLK] love when a philosopher changes their mind.

---

### Hill's Representationalism: Qualia’s Appearance and Reality
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/hills-representationalism-qualia-s-appearance-and-reality
Theorists: Christopher S. Hill

Philosopher Christopher S. Hill’s mature theory of phenomenal consciousness is a comprehensive representationalism according to which awareness is essentially representational: whenever a subject is aware of something, the subject is in a mental state that represents it. Phenomenal consciousness involves a rich, typically nonconceptual form of experiential representation that presents colors, sounds, bodily conditions, emotions, and other qualitative features without requiring corresponding concepts or judgments; consequently, phenomenal character can outrun language and conceptual discrimination (Hill, 2009, 2014). Most distinctively, Hill extends the appearance/reality distinction to qualia themselves, arguing that how qualitative properties are experientially represented need not reveal their intrinsic nature—a strategy designed to preserve the reality of phenomenal experience while undercutting arguments from introspection to property dualism. In other words, Hill's later theory holds that all awareness is representational—including introspective awareness of qualitative states such as pain—and draws from this the consequence that the appearance/reality distinction applies to qualia themselves: there is the way qualia are represented as being, and the way they are in themselves—and the two are not the same (Hill, 2009). Because introspection therefore does not disclose the essential nature of phenomenal properties, the anti-physicalist arguments that depend on such disclosure lose their evidential base, and property dualism is undercut without any appeal to identity claims. Hill’s theory is embedded in his taxonomy distinguishing six forms of consciousness, and is applied in detail to visual awareness, pain, emotional qualia, and introspective judgment, with sustained use of results from vision science (Hill, 2009, 2022). It represents a considered reversal: Hill's earlier Sensations defended type materialism about qualitative states, a position he has since abandoned in favor of representationalism while continuing to write about it. Six Forms of Consciousness Hill begins by refusing to treat "consciousness" as one explanandum. He distinguishes agent consciousness; propositional consciousness, expressed by the conscious that construction; introspective consciousness, possessed by states that are objects of introspective awareness; relational consciousness, expressed by conscious of; phenomenal consciousness; and experiential consciousness, common to all states counting as experiences (Hill, 2009). The taxonomy enables Hill’s distinctive contribution. Several classical arguments about phenomenal consciousness trade, on Hill's diagnosis, on equivocation between forms—most consequentially between phenomenal consciousness and introspective awareness of it. Separating them makes room for his central move. Awareness as Representation Hill's distinguishing contribution to phenomenal consciousness is his general representational principle: if an agent is aware of X, the agent is in a mental state that represents X (Hill, 2009). The proposal is broader than the familiar claim that perceptual states carry information. Representation is constitutive of awareness itself. Hill motivates this view partly by the central role representation plays in cognitive science and partly by arguing that representationalism offers a unified treatment of veridical perception, hallucination, pain, emotion, and introspection. Unlike higher-order theories, Hill does not require a distinct meta-representation of a first-order mental state in order for phenomenality to occur. His central concern is experiential awareness of qualitative properties and objects themselves. For this reason, his mature position fits most naturally among first-order representational theories, although it is broader than paradigmatic externalist accounts such as Dretske’s because it attempts to characterize awareness across perceptual, bodily, emotional, and introspective domains. Nonconceptual Experiential Awareness A major departure from Hill’s earlier physicalism concerns the relation between phenomenal awareness and concepts. In Sensations (1991), Hill had defended a posteriori type physicalism and later sought to protect physicalism by emphasizing the conceptual difference between phenomenal and physical descriptions. He subsequently concluded that awareness of qualia cannot generally be conceptual because experience is much more fine-grained than the concepts available to the subject (Hill, 2009). A visual field may contain shades for which one possesses no corresponding color concepts; a pain can have a highly determinate phenomenal character that exceeds one's conceptual vocabulary. Even demonstrative concepts such as “that shade” presuppose a more primitive experiential presentation of what is being demonstrated. Hill therefore posits subconceptual or nonconceptual experiential representations. This allows phenomenal consciousness to be representational without reducing it to judgment, belief, or linguistic cognition (Hill, 2009; Stoljar, 2010). Qualia and the Appearance-Reality Distinction The most distinctive feature of Hill’s mature theory is his rejection of the assumption that experiential awareness provides transparent access to the intrinsic nature of qualia. In ordinary thinking, phenomenal qualities seem epistemically privileged: if something feels painful, perhaps there can be no further distinction between its seeming painful and its actually being painful. Hill challenges this inference. Because awareness involves representation, and representations can misrepresent, a qualitative property can be represented in experience in a way that differs from what it is in itself (Hill, 2009). Hill conceives of qualia as ways things look, feel, smell, or otherwise experientially appear rather than as intrinsic, introspectively disclosed properties of inner mental objects. Representational content supplies the qualitative character of an experience. The transparency or diaphanousness of experience therefore cannot establish that introspection reveals the metaphysical essence either of consciousness or of its objects; introspection may tell us how things appear without telling us what properties ultimately constitute those appearances (Hill, 2009). This move is central to Hill’s materialist strategy. Arguments for property dualism often assume that phenomenal qualities are fully revealed in experience and therefore cannot turn out to be ordinary physical properties. Hill denies the epistemic premise. Phenomenal awareness can be immediate and vivid without being metaphysically transparent. Awareness as Representation The unifying thesis is that all awareness involves representations—uncontroversial for perceptual awareness of external objects, highly contested for awareness of one's own qualia, where the intuition of direct acquaintance is strongest. Hill extends the representational account to that case too, arguing that introspective awareness takes the form of belief rather than a distinctive nonconceptual acquaintance relation. Pain is the stress test and receives the fullest treatment. Hill defends a perceptual account on which pain experience represents bodily disturbance, in the tradition running through Armstrong and Pitcher, so that awareness of pain is awareness of a represented condition of the body rather than direct apprehension of an intrinsic mental quality (Hill, 2009; Byrne, 2011). Visual qualia receive a parallel externalist treatment: Hill identifies them with visual appearances construed as relational properties of external objects. The resulting position locates qualia in the world rather than in the head—the question posed directly in his contribution to the type-identity volume he co-edited (Hill, 2012). The Appearance/Reality Distinction Applied to Qualia The payoff is a denial of what the literature calls revelation: the thesis that experience discloses the essential nature of phenomenal properties. If awareness of qualia is representational, then representation can misrepresent, and the way qualia appear in introspection need not be the way they are (Hill, 2009). This disjunction provides explanatory powers. The knowledge argument, the conceivability argument, and the modal argument all require that introspection deliver phenomenal properties as they are in themselves; otherwise the inference from what we can conceive or fail to know to what is metaphysically the case has no purchase. Hill's move is thus a rival to the phenomenal-concept strategy rather than a version of it: where type-B materialists explain the epistemic gap by the special character of phenomenal concepts while granting that introspection is accurate, Hill denies the accuracy assumption directly. He then uses the doctrine to undercut the case for property dualism. From Type Materialism to Representationalism Hill’s earlier Sensations argued for a radical physicalism about qualitative states—that qualitative states are type-identical with high-level brain states—and held that sensations are possessed only by human beings and members of related biological species, so that silicon-based androids cannot have them (Hill, 1991). The later Hill states that he no longer holds this version of physicalism, having converted to a form of representationalism, though he continues to write about type materialism and to seek improvements on the earlier exposition. The two positions are not directly incompatible, and the point matters for placement. McLaughlin, who does hold type materialism, argues that a type materialist can accept Hill's representational account of experiential awareness of perceptual qualia (McLaughlin, 2016). What changed is the explanatory architecture, not the physicalist commitment: the earlier Hill defended physicalism by identifying qualia with brain states, the later Hill by denying that introspection reveals qualia well enough to ground any argument against physicalism. Perceptual Experience extends the program to perceptual representation, awareness of particulars, the mind-body problem, pain, and the epistemic role of perception (Hill, 2022). Assessment Hill’s importance lies precisely here. His mature theory neither eliminates qualia nor treats them as metaphysically self-interpreting. It separates the reality of phenomenal consciousness from the claim that consciousness reveals its own underlying ontology. That combination makes representationalism not merely a theory of perceptual content but an epistemological strategy for explaining why phenomenality can seem irreducibly nonphysical even if a physicalist ontology ultimately proves correct. The theory's strengths are systematic reach and potential empirical engagement. It supplies interlocking accounts of six kinds of consciousness rather than one, applies a single mechanism across vision, pain, emotion, and introspection, and draws on vision science and neuroscience rather than on intuition alone. Its treatment of revelation is a sustained attempt in the representationalist literature to remove the evidential foundation of anti-physicalist arguments rather than to answer them. Objections cluster on the externalist construal. Locating visual qualia in relational properties of external objects raises familiar difficulties for hallucination and illusion, where the relevant objects are absent (Bernier, 2013). Critics question whether the perceptual account of pain accommodates cases where pain experience seems to outrun any represented bodily disturbance (Byrne, 2011), and whether the claim that all awareness of qualia is representational entails the stronger and less plausible claim that it is exhaustively conceptual. Reviewers of Perceptual Experience note that the non-visual modalities are treated unisensorially, without engaging multisensory interaction. Finally, denying subjective veracity makes phenomenal character something introspection may systematically get wrong—a substantial deflation of the datum most theories of consciousness take themselves to be explaining. References Bernier, P. (2013). La théorie représentationnelle de la conscience phénoménale et le problème des apparences visuelles. Dialogue: Canadian Philosophical Review, 52(2). Byrne, A. (2011). Christopher Hill: Consciousness. Philosophical Studies, 156(3). Hill, C. S. (1991). Sensations: A Defense of Type Materialism. Cambridge University Press. Hill, C. S. (2002). Thought and World: An Austere Portrayal of Truth, Reference, and Semantic Correspondence. Cambridge University Press. Hill, C. S. (2009). Consciousness. Cambridge University Press. Hill, C. S. (2012). Locating qualia: Do they reside in the brain or in the body and the world? In S. Gozzano & C. S. Hill (Eds.), New Perspectives on Type Identity: The Mental and the Physical (pp. 127–149). Cambridge University Press. Hill, C. S. (2014). Meaning, Mind, and Knowledge. Oxford University Press. Hill, C. S. (2016). Insects: Still looking like zombies. Animal Sentience, 1. Hill, C. S. (2018). Unity of consciousness. WIREs Cognitive Science, 9(5). Hill, C. S. (2022). Perceptual Experience. Oxford University Press. Hill, C. S., & Bennett, D. J. (Eds.). (2014). Sensory Integration and the Unity of Consciousness. MIT Press. McLaughlin, B. P. (2016). Hill on phenomenal consciousness. Philosophical Studies, 173(3), 851–860. Stoljar, D. (2010). Review of Consciousness. Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews.

---

### T. W. Clark’s Content Hypothesis
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/t-w-clark-s-content-hypothesis
Theorists: Thomas W. Clark

Naturalism philosopher Thomas W. Clark posits phenomenal consciousness as the representational content of a cognitive system's sufficiently structured representational processing (T. W. Clark, 2019, 2026). Conscious experience exists only for the conscious system, so it is categorically subjective, and its basic elements are irreducibly qualitative. As a general rule, he says, we don't find the terms of representational content in the world it participates in representing, which can help explain subjectivity. Moreover, following Metzinger's concept of an “untranscendable object,” a representational system must have epistemic primitives that resist further representation on pain of a metabolically expensive representational regress. Construing basic sensory qualities such as red, sweet, pain, etc., as the content of such primitives can help explain their non-decomposable, monadic character as well as their ineffability, subjective intrinsicality, and unmediated presence in experience. Developments in the science of representation and representational content, he says, may (or may not) vindicate the Content Hypothesis. Clark says that his model is consistent with Integrated Information Theory, Global Workspace Theory, and Predictive Processing, all of which involve representation (T. W. Clark, 2019, 2024, 2026). Generic Subjective Continuity Clark, a proponent of naturalism as a worldview (T. W. Clark, 2007), believes that a materialist can see that “consciousness, as a strictly physical phenomenon instantiated by the brain, creates a world subjectively immune to its own disappearance … it is the very finitude of a self-reflective cognitive system that bars it from witnessing its own beginning or ending, and hence prevents there being, for it, any condition other than existing” (T. W. Clark, 1994). While this sounds odd, almost an oxymoron, Clark develops the idea of “generic subjective continuity” based on a thought experiment inspired by the work of philosopher Derek Parfit. Clark argues that at death we shouldn't anticipate the onset of nothingness or oblivion—a common secular intuition—but rather the continuation of experience, just not in the context of the person who dies. The end of one's own consciousness, he offers, “is only an event, and its non-existence a current fact, from other perspectives.” After death we won't experience non-being, he says; we won't ‘fade to black’. Rather, as conscious beings, we continue “as the generic subjectivity that always finds itself here, in the various contexts of awareness that the physical universe manages to create” (T. Clark, 1994). Clark states that Arnold Zuboff's Universalism and Daniel Kolack's Open Individualism are consistent with generic subjective continuity in holding that the basic condition of being conscious—being present in a world—transcends individual subjectivities and thus transcends death.

---

### Transparency Theory
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/transparency-theory
Theorists: Several

Transparency theory makes the argument that because sensory (e.g., visual) experience represents external objects and their apparent properties, experience has no other properties that pose problems for materialism. We “see right through” perceptual states to external objects and take no notice that we are actually in perceptual states; the properties we perceive in perception are attributed to the objects themselves, not to the perception (Lycan, 2019). If we look at a tree and try to turn our attention to the intrinsic features of our visual experience, the only features there to turn our attention to are features of the actual tree itself, including relational features of the tree from the perspective of the perceiver (Harman, 1990). Transparency and Representationalism To make the argument, at a minimum, an additional premise is needed: If a perceptual state has mental properties over and above its representational properties, they must be “introspectible.” But “not even the most determined introspection ever reveals any such additional properties.” This is the transparency thesis proper (Lycan, 2019). Philosopher Amy Kind cites experiential transparency as a major motivation driving representational theories of consciousness, which view phenomenal character as being reduced to intentional content. Assuming experience is transparent in that we “look right through” experience to the objects of that experience, “this is supposed to support the representationalist claim that there are no intrinsic aspects of our experience” (Kind, 2010). Philosopher Michael Tye states that one important motivation for the theory that “phenomenal character is one and the same as representational content” is “the so-called ‘transparency of experience.’” He addresses introspective awareness of experience and one problem case for transparency, that of blurry vision (Tye, 2002). A similar theory is “intentionalism,” the view that the phenomenal character of experience supervenes on intentional content (Pace, 2007). Franken’s Transparency of Appearing Philosopher Dirk Franken characterizes “the transparency of appearing” as follows: "The phenomenal quality of a particular state of appearing is fully exhausted by the sensible properties present to the subject of the state and their distribution over the respective field of appearance.” Starting “from the assumption that the transparency of appearing is a purely phenomenological feature,” Franken describes his “Transparency Thesis” with several propositions: “There are no other properties, next to the sensible properties, that have any bearing on the phenomenal quality of a state of appearing. The presentation of sensible properties is just all there is to the phenomenal quality of a state of appearing. No properties of the subject (insofar as it is the subject of this state) or of the state itself contribute to this phenomenal quality.” He defends “surprising consequences” of the Transparency Thesis. First, “one has to give up the idea of the first-person-perspective as a kind of inner seeming or appearing directed onto mental states (at least, if the relevant states are states of appearing).” Next, two assumptions entailed in numerous popular accounts of phenomenal consciousness are negated: (i) “phenomenal qualities are properties of states of appearing that are independent or partly independent of the (sensible) properties presented in these states; ” and (ii) “there can be phenomenally conscious states of appearing even though there is nothing that is presented to their subjects” (Franken, n.d.).

---

### Direct Perception Theory
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/direct-perception-theory
Theorists: Ned Block

Direct Perception Theory is the idea that “the information required for perception is external to the observer; that is, one can directly perceive an object based on the properties of the distal stimulus alone, unaided by inference, memories, the construction of representations, or the influence of other cognitive processes” (APA, website). Philosopher Ned Block describes non-mainstream views of phenomenal consciousness that take it to work via this kind of “a direct awareness relation to a peculiar entity like a sense datum [i.e., that which is immediately available to the senses] or to objects or properties in the environment.” This direct awareness would seem to have to be “a primitive unanalyzable acquaintance relation that is not a matter of representation.” According to these direct realist or naïve realist theories of consciousness, “the phenomenal character of a perceptual experience is object-constituted in the sense that a perceptual experience of a tomato depends for its existence and individuation on the tomato. Any experience that is of a different tomato will have a different phenomenal character, even if it is phenomenally indistinguishable and even if the different tomato is exactly the same in all its properties and causes exactly the same activations in the brain.” Even subjectively indistinguishable hallucinatory experience would have to be different in phenomenal character as well (Block, 2023).

---

### Lamme’s Recurrent Processing Theory
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/lamme-s-recurrent-processing-theory
Theorists: Victor Lamme

Neuroscientist Victor Lamme proposes Recurrent Processing Theory, which stresses brain sensory systems that are massively interconnected and involve feedforward and feedback connections, as being necessary and sufficient for consciousness. The visual system provides a case where “forward connections from primary visual area V1, the first cortical visual area, carry information to higher-level processing areas, and the initial registration of visual information involves a forward sweep of processing.” Moreover, many feedback connections link visual areas with other brain regions, which, later in processing, are activated and thereby yield dynamic activity within the visual system (Wu, 2018). Stages of Visual Processing and Consciousness Lamme proposes four stages of visual processing: Stage 1: Visual signals are processed locally within the visual system (i.e., superficial feedforward processing). Stage 2: Visual signals travel further forward in the processing hierarchy where they can influence action (i.e., deep feedforward processing). Stage 3: Information travels back into earlier visual areas, leading to local recurrent processing (i.e., superficial recurrent processing). Stage 4: Information activates widespread brain areas (i.e., widespread recurrent processing) (Wu, 2018). According to Lamme, it is the recurrent processing in Stage 3, which is a first-order theory and can occur in both sensory and post-sensory areas, that he claims to be necessary and sufficient for consciousness. In other words, “for a visual state to be conscious is for a certain recurrent processing state to hold of the relevant visual circuitry” (Wu, 2018). Ned Block calls Recurrent Processing Theory “basically a truncated form of the global workspace account: It identifies conscious perception with the recurrent activations in the back of the head without the requirement of broadcasting in the global workspace.” Block points out that “first-order theories do not say that recurrent activations are by themselves sufficient for consciousness. These activations are only sufficient given background conditions. Those background conditions probably include intact connectivity with subcortical structures.” What then is “enough for conscious perceptual phenomenology” is “the active recurrent loops in perceptual areas plus background conditions.” Block concludes: “So long as high-level representations participate in those recurrent loops, conscious high-level content is assured” (Block, 2023, pp. 8–9). Relation to Global Workspace Theory Lamme critiques Global Workspace Theory as “all about access but not about seeing” (even though his Stage 4 is consistent with global workspace access). The crucial distinction is that Global Workspace Theory has recurrent processing at Stage 4 as necessary for consciousness, while Recurrent Processing Theory has recurrent processing at Stage 3 as sufficient. The latter would enable phenomenal consciousness without access by the global neuronal workspace (Wu, 2018). Overall, Lamme avers that “neural and behavioral measures should be put on an equal footing” and that “only by moving our notion of mind towards that of brain can progress be made” (Lamme, 2006). He depicts “a notion of consciousness that may go against our deepest conviction: ‘My consciousness is mine, and mine alone.’ It's not,” he says (Lamme, 2010).

---

## Higher-Order
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theories/higher-order

### Higher-Order—Overview
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/higher-order-overview
Theorists: Several

According to Higher-Order Theories of consciousness, what makes a perception conscious is the presence of an accompanying cognitive state about the perception. This means that phenomenal consciousness is not immediate awareness of sensations. Rather, it is the higher-level sensing of those sensations, a product of second-order thoughts about first-order perceptions or mental states—a two-level process. Higher-Order Theories are distinguished from other cognitive accounts of phenomenal consciousness which assume that first-order perceptions or mental states can themselves be directly conscious—a one-level process (Carruthers, 2020, Higher-order theories of consciousness, 2023). According to Peter Carruthers, “humans not only have first-order non-conceptual and/or analog perceptions of states of their environments and bodies, they also have second-order non-conceptual and/or analog perceptions of their first-order states of perception.” This higher-order perception theory holds that “humans (and perhaps other animals) not only have sense organs that scan the environment/body to produce fine-grained representations, but they also have inner senses that scan the first-order senses (i.e., perceptual experiences) to produce equally fine-grained, but higher-order, representations of those outputs.” Hence, Higher-Order Theories are also called “inner-sense theory.” Notably, “the higher-order approach does not attempt to reduce consciousness directly to neurophysiology but rather its reduction is in mentalistic terms, that is, by using such notions as thoughts and awareness” (Cardenas-Garcia, 2023). Motivation and Variants The main motivation driving higher-order theories of consciousness, according to Carruthers, “derives from the belief that all (or at least most) mental-state types admit of both conscious and unconscious varieties … And then if we ask what makes the difference between a conscious and an unconscious mental state, one natural answer is that conscious states are states that we are aware of.” This translates into the view that conscious states are states “that are the objects of some sort of higher-order representation—whether a higher-order perception or experience, or a higher-order thought” (Cardenas-Garcia, 2023). Various flavors of higher-order theories can be distinguished, including the following (Cardenas-Garcia, 2023): Actualist Higher-Order Thought Theory (championed by David Rosenthal): A phenomenally conscious mental state is a state that is the object of a higher-order thought and which causes that thought non-inferentially. Dispositionalist Higher-Order Thought Theory: A phenomenally conscious mental state is a state that is available to cause (non-inferentially) higher-order thoughts about itself (or perhaps about any of the contents of a special-purpose, short-term memory store). Self-Representational Theory: A phenomenally conscious mental state is a state that, at the same time, possesses an intentional content, thereby in some sense representing itself to the person who is the subject of that state. According to Ned Block, there are two approaches to higher-order thought (HOT) theories of consciousness. The “double representation” approach says that the HOT involves a distinct coding of the perceptual content, such that a conscious perception will be “accompanied” by a thought of that experience, giving two representations of the conscious experience, one perceptual, one cognitive and conceptual. He considers it “mysterious” how a perception can be conscious. The second version of HOT has a thought or at least a cognitive state that makes a perception conscious, but that thought does not itself have any perceptual content. Block refers to Hakwan Lau, who sometimes describes the higher-order state as a “pointer” to a first-order state. The pointer theory is cognitive in that the pointer is a thought, but it is not conceptualist since it involves no concept of a conscious experience involved in the thought that is supposed to make a perception conscious (Block, 2023, pp. 425–426). Lau himself argues that the key to characterizing consciousness lies in its connections to belief formation and epistemic justification on a subjective level (Lau, 2019a); he describes consciousness as “a battle between your beliefs and perceptions” (Lau, 2019b). A clue, he suggests—at least at the level of functional anatomy—is that the neural mechanisms for conscious perception and sensory metacognition are similar, sensory metacognition meaning the monitoring of the quality or reliability of internal perceptual signals. Both mechanisms involve neural activity in the prefrontal and parietal cortices, outside of primary sensory regions. Reflexive Theories Reflexive theories, which link consciousness and self-awareness, are either a sister or a cousin of Higher-Order Theories. They differ in that reflexive theories situate self-awareness within the conscious state itself rather than in an independent meta-state focusing on it. The same conscious state is both intentionally outer-directed awareness of external perceptions and intentionally inner-directed awareness of self-sense. A strong claim is that this makes reflexive awareness a central feature of conscious mental states and thereby qualifies as a theory of consciousness. Whether reflexive theories are variants of Higher-Order Theory (“sister”) or a “same-order” account of consciousness as self-awareness (“cousin”) is in dispute (Van Gulick, 2019). Social psychologist Alexander Durig claims that our two brain hemispheres, operating as two brains, aware of each other and interacting with each other, exist in a system of “interactive reflexivity,” and it is this reflexivity, while being perpetually aware of the world and each other's perception of the world, that is the foundation of consciousness (Durig, 2023).

---

### Armstrong’s Higher-Order Perception Theory
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/armstrong-s-higher-order-perception-theory
Theorists: David Malet Armstrong

Philosopher David Armstrong’s higher-order perception theory proposes that a first-order mental state becomes introspectively conscious when the subject has a distinct, perception-like awareness of that state. On his materialism, both levels are neural: one brain process “scans” or represents another, producing non-inferential information about the subject’s current mind. This model helped originate contemporary inner-sense theories, but Armstrong’s changing uses of “consciousness” require qualification: the scanner clearly explains introspective awareness, yet it is disputed whether it generates phenomenal consciousness itself or merely makes an already phenomenal state available to its subject (Armstrong, 1968/1993, 1979, 1981b). Armstrong's theory is the reflexive application of his central-state materialism (see his companion entry): consciousness in the fullest sense is the mind perceiving its own states. Distinguishing three grades of the notion—minimal consciousness (mere mental activity), perceptual consciousness (awareness of one's environment and body), and introspective consciousness (awareness of one's own current mental states)—Armstrong analyzes the third as an "inner sense," a perception-like self-scanning by which one part of the brain monitors the current states and activities of the mind (Armstrong, 1981). In other words, a first-order sensory state becomes a conscious experience, in this introspective sense, when it is scanned and thereby made the object of a higher-order representation. This makes Armstrong's the founding modern version of Higher-Order Perception (HOP), or inner-sense, theory, and, because the scanning is a physical process operating on physically realized first-order states, it extends his materialism to consciousness without invoking anything beyond the causal-role apparatus that defines mind for him in the first place (Armstrong, 1968). Three Meanings of Consciousness Armstrong's opening contribution is to separate questions routinely conflated in the word "conscious," distinguishing minimal, perceptual, and introspective consciousness. Minimal consciousness is the bare occurrence of mental activity—there is something mental going on, even if only a single faint sensation. Perceptual consciousness is awareness of what is currently happening in one's surroundings and body, the running sensations that guide ongoing behavior. Introspective consciousness is awareness directed inward, upon one's own perceivings, sensings, and thinkings (Armstrong, 1979). The grades are independent: a creature could have the first two without the third. By prying them apart, Armstrong reframes "the problem of consciousness" as several problems, and locates the distinctively puzzling one—reflexive self-awareness—as the target his theory is built to explain (Armstrong, 1981). The Long-Distance Truck Driver These distinctions reject the Cartesian idea that every mental state is transparent to its subject. Perceptions, intentions, and organized actions may occur without introspective awareness, as dramatized by Armstrong's most cited example. A long-distance truck driver, having driven for miles absorbed in thought, suddenly "comes to" and realizes he has no memory of the preceding stretch, though he steered, braked, and read the road throughout (Armstrong, 1968). He was perceptually conscious the whole time—registering and responding to his environment—yet lacked introspective consciousness, unaware of his own perceiving. The case shows that complex, purposive, environmentally sensitive behavior can proceed without reflexive awareness, and it thereby isolates introspective consciousness as something over and above mere perception. The example has become a fixture of higher-order theorizing, invoked by proponents and critics alike as the phenomenon any theory of consciousness must accommodate. Introspection as Inner Perception Armstrong models introspection on outer perception. Just as the senses scan the environment to produce representations of it, an inner sense scans the mind to produce representations of its current states—a self-monitoring that yields higher-order awareness of first-order episodes (Armstrong, 1981). External perception supplies information about the environment and body; inner sense supplies information about one’s current mental condition. A first-order perception, sensation, belief, or intention causes a second-order state directed toward it. This awareness need not involve words, deliberate reflection, or inference, distinguishing Armstrong’s account from later higher-order thought theories (Armstrong, 1968/1993, 1981b; Carruthers, 2026). This inner perception has three features that distinguish it from the Cartesian picture it replaces: it is not exhaustive, since much mental activity goes unscanned; it is not infallible, since the scan can misrepresent or miss its object; and it is only contingently private, since nothing in principle forbids one brain's states being scanned by another. Consciousness, on this account, is not an intrinsic glow attaching to experiences but a relational property—being the object of a self-directed scan—that otherwise unconscious mental states acquire when monitored. On central-state materialism, scanning is literal only at a functional level. There need be no inner spectator, Cartesian theater, or single anatomical scanner. Some neural process registers information about another neural process, as sensory systems register bodily and environmental conditions. Further awareness is possible—a monitoring state may itself be monitored—but no infinite regress follows because the higher-order state need not itself be conscious (Armstrong, 1968/1993). Fallibility, Selectivity, and the Self Inner perception is partial and fallible. Subjects may overlook mental states, misidentify emotions, or remain unaware of features that later evidence reveals. Armstrong therefore rejects incorrigibility, logically privileged access, and the “perfectly transparent mind.” First-person access is privileged only empirically: the brain monitors some of its own states more directly than it monitors those of other organisms (Armstrong, 1968/1993). The apparent unity of the conscious self arises from organized monitoring within one embodied system. Armstrong distinguishes an automatic “watching brief” from deliberate introspection, in which attention is explicitly directed toward current experience. Monitoring also supports memory of mental events and coordination among psychological processes without requiring a substantial inner ego (Armstrong, 1981b). Biological and Cognitive Function Armstrong assigns introspection an adaptive role in purposive mental activity. Effective physical action requires continuing information about the environment so behavior can be adjusted; extended reasoning and planning similarly require information about the current stage of one’s mental activity. Calculating, deliberating, checking an intention, or revising a plan would be impossible if the system lacked access to what it had just represented or decided (Armstrong, 1968/1993). This does not imply that all useful cognition is phenomenally conscious. Much processing remains unconscious, and minimal monitoring may suffice for coordinated thought. The proposed function enhances homeostatic control: inner sense makes selected first-order states available for correction, integration, report, and flexible guidance. As such, the theory is consistent with evolutionarily driven traits. Higher-Order Perception versus Higher-Order Thought Armstrong's inner-sense model pioneers the perceptual branch of the higher-order family of theories, which hold generally that a mental state is conscious in virtue of being represented by a further, higher-order state. It was developed and defended in detail by Lycan (1996), and it stands in explicit contrast to the higher-order thought account of Rosenthal (2005), on which the relevant higher-order state is a thought—a conceptual, assertive representation—rather than a percept. The dispute between perception-based and thought-based versions turns on whether inner awareness is analog and quasi-sensory or conceptual and belief-like, and on whether an inner sense requires a dedicated scanning mechanism that neuroscience still struggles to locate. Does Higher-Order Perception Create Phenomenality? The central question is whether Armstrong’s scanner constitutes phenomenal consciousness or only introspective consciousness or self-consciousness. Some passages identify “consciousness or experience” with awareness of one’s mental states, making the higher-order relation constitutive. Yet his later threefold classification permits minimal sensations and perceptual activity without introspective consciousness, suggesting that first-order phenomenality may precede monitoring (Armstrong, 1968/1993, 1979). If the first-order state is already felt, the theory explains awareness of experience rather than experience itself. If it is not already felt, Armstrong must explain how a second neural representation transforms an unconscious state into one with subjective character. Other objections concern misrepresentation, apparently conscious states without accurate higher-order targets, animal and infant consciousness, and whether sub-personal monitoring can generate a unified first-person field (Carruthers, 2026; Stoljar, 2021). Armstrong’s achievement is to isolate inner awareness as a naturalizable relation, even if its connection to phenomenal feel remains unresolved. Phenomenal Consciousness and Its Critics For phenomenal consciousness, the theory is deflationary: the felt character of experience belongs to the first-order state, and introspective consciousness of it is a further physical monitoring, so nothing non-physical is added at either level. Two objections recur. The first is a threatened regress: if a state is conscious only when scanned, the scanning state's own consciousness seems to demand a further scan (Armstrong replies that the higher-order state need not itself be conscious). The second is that the account explains awareness of experience while presupposing the experience whose felt quality was the original puzzle, leaving qualia and the explanatory gap untouched (Armstrong & Malcolm, 1984). Whether inner-sense theory explains phenomenal consciousness or only its introspective detection remains, not surprisingly, contested (Anstey & Braddon-Mitchell, 2024). References Anstey, P. R., & Braddon-Mitchell, D. (Eds.). (2024). Armstrong's Materialist Theory of Mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Armstrong, D. M. (1968/1993). A Materialist Theory of the Mind (revised ed.). London: Routledge. Armstrong, D. M. (1979). Three types of consciousness. In Brain and Mind, Ciba Foundation Symposium 69 (pp. 235–253). Amsterdam: Excerpta Medica. Armstrong, D. M. (1981b). What is consciousness? In The Nature of Mind and Other Essays (pp. 55–67). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Armstrong, D. M., & Malcolm, N. (1984). Consciousness and Causality: A Debate on the Nature of Mind. Oxford: Blackwell. Carruthers, P. (2026). Higher-order theories of consciousness. In E. N. Zalta and U. Nodelman (Eds.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Stanford: Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. Lycan, W. G. (1996). Consciousness and Experience. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Rosenthal, D. M. (2005). Consciousness and Mind. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Stoljar, D. (2021). Armstrong’s just-so story about consciousness. In P. Anstey and D. Braddon-Mitchell (Eds.), A Materialist Theory of the Mind: 50 Years On (pp. 176–194). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

---

### Rosenthal’s Higher-Order Thought
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/rosenthal-s-higher-order-thought
Theorists: David Rosenthal

Philosopher David Rosenthal proposes “a higher-order-thought [HOT] theory of consciousness, according to which a sensation, thought, or other mental state is conscious if one has a higher-order thought that one is in that state” (Rosenthal, 2005). In other words, this “implies that a state’s being conscious requires that one be in some way aware of being in that state. And that’s the core of any higher-order (HO) theory of consciousness” (Rosenthal, 2012). Core Commitments of HOT While higher-order theorists all hold that “a state is conscious only if one is in some way aware of the state,” they differ “about what that way is.” According to Rosenthal’s HOT theory, “one is aware of one’s conscious state by having a thought that one is in that state. [But] that HOT need not itself be conscious. And to capture the subjective immediacy of the way we’re aware of conscious states, the HOT must not seem subjectively to rely on an inference or observation.” Rosenthal argues that a theory of consciousness must explain “how mental states that are conscious differ from those that are not conscious. Otherwise, we won’t have said why it is that the conscious ones are conscious.” He critiques first-order (FO) theories of consciousness, “which see a state’s being conscious as independent of any substantive higher-order awareness (HOA) of the state,” whether Fred Dretske’s psychological account or Ned Block’s neural mark. Rosenthal stresses that FO theories “must explain how mental states that are conscious differ from those that are not. Mere co-occurrence of a preferred feature with the states we count as conscious is not enough—unless it also explains why it’s that feature that makes the difference between a state’s being conscious and not (Rosenthal, 2012). In support of his HOT theory, Rosenthal stresses that there is no need for introspective access; there is no need to introspectively reflect on a mental state for it to be conscious. The HOT can occur unconsciously and still render first-order states conscious (Rosenthal, 1997). Homomorphism Theory and Qualitative Consciousness Rosenthal also proposes, as a background assumption, a related “homomorphism” theory of mental qualities and qualitative consciousness, which shows how mental representations relate to external properties or states of affairs, thus grounding representation in structural relations. This is achieved by examining structural similarities or mappings (homomorphisms) between the structure of the represented world and the representational structure in the mind. In this way, Rosenthal’s homomorphism theory undergirds his HOT theory of consciousness, because the content of the first-order state (the represented content) is shaped structurally by the homomorphic mapping to the world. (The HOT need not mirror the structure precisely, but the first-order representation is affected by that mapping.) As Rosenthal explains, “A crucial feature of homomorphism theory is that it individuates and taxonomizes mental qualities independently of the way we're conscious of them, and indeed independently of our being conscious of them at all. So the theory accommodates the qualitative character not only of conscious sensations and perceptions, but also of those which fall outside our stream of consciousness.” Crucially, it is Rosenthal’s naturalistic claim that, “because this account of mental qualities makes no appeal to consciousness, it enables us to dispel such traditional quandaries as the alleged conceivability of undetectable quality inversion, and to disarm various apparent obstacles to explaining qualitative consciousness and understanding its nature” (Rosenthal, 2005). Critiques and Responses Responding to the critique that in HOT theory, the HOA that occurs with conscious states is not substantive—maybe, the anti-HOT argument goes, being conscious of a conscious state is like smiling a smile—Rosenthal argues that “smiling a smile is simply smiling—so it can't provide a contrast like that between a state’s being conscious or not. No such ‘deflationary’ account of the HOA can explain how conscious states differ from mental states that aren’t conscious. For that, we need a substantive awareness of the state” (Rosenthal, 2012). With respect to neural correlates of consciousness (NCC), “HO theories do not conflict with finding neural markers of mental states’ being conscious. Indeed, they may well help guide the search for an NCC. That’s because of the constraint that HO theories place on any theory and the NCC. HO theories reflect the observation that no state is conscious unless one is in some way aware of it. So, a satisfactory NCC should point to or provide a mechanism that subserves or gives rise to that HOA” (Rosenthal, 2012). Responding to the critique that HOT theory adds an unneeded “extra ingredient,” Rosenthal and co-authors Richard Brown and Joseph LeDoux write, “This HO awareness is central to our commonsense understanding of what it is for a psychological state to be conscious… So the HO awareness that HOT theory posits as accompanying every conscious state is by no means an extra ingredient. And HO theorists have no difficulty describing why that posit is crucial. The HO awareness is needed to explain how conscious states differ from psychological states that aren’t conscious.” They conclude, “Given the failure of the list of features to differentiate conscious from unconscious psychological states, the need for an appeal to the HO awareness posited by HO theories is all the more pressing. It is by no means an ‘extra ingredient’” (Brown et al., 2021). Quality-Space Theory (QST) Even granting HOT, there is still the ever-looming problem of qualia, our inner awareness of felt experience. To explain qualia, Rosenberg offers his Quality-Space Theory (QST) to account for the subjective feel or qualitative character of experiences. This means that he views consciousness per se and qualia as distinct but related aspects of conscious experience. QST’s core idea is that mental qualities (qualia) can be understood functionally in terms of their roles in perceptually discriminating stimulus properties. These qualities are organized within abstract “quality spaces” that structurally mirror the relationships between the corresponding perceptible properties in the external world and which are determined by how well an individual can discriminate among stimuli. According to QST, mental qualities represent their corresponding perceptible properties in a manner that is nonconceptual and holistic (Rosenthal, 2015). Rosenthal claims that QST offers a realist, wholly naturalistic account of qualia, grounding them in our perceptual abilities and the structure of the world, while maintaining their distinctness from consciousness. This allows for qualitative experiences that are not necessarily consciously accessible, and provides a framework for how qualitative experiences can exist independently of conscious awareness, which aligns with phenomena like subliminal perception or unattended sensory input. These mental qualities do not require direct awareness to exist. In other words, a mental quality (i.e., a sight, a sound) can occur without being conscious—which aligns with Rosenthal's HOT theory that consciousness arises when a higher-order thought targets a mental state (Rosenthal, 2015).

---

### Kriegel’s Cross-Order Self-Representation
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/kriegel-s-cross-order-self-representation
Theorists: Uriah Kriegel

Philosopher Uriah Kriegel’s Cross-Order Integration theory holds that a phenomenally conscious state is a single, unified representational state containing two integrated components: a first-order representation of an object or condition and a higher-order representation of that very first-order state. Unlike standard higher-order theories, which posit one mental state representing another, Kriegel’s self-representationalism makes the awareness of experience internal to the experience itself. Phenomenal consciousness therefore combines world-directed qualitative character with subjective character—the implicit for-me-ness through which an experience presents itself as occurring to the subject (Kriegel, 2006, 2009). In other words, Kriegel states that a mental state is phenomenally conscious in virtue of representing itself, and that self-representation is realized by the functional integration of a first-order representation of the world with a higher-order representation of that first-order state. Where standard higher-order theories keep the two distinct, cross-order integration unifies them into a single complex state representing both the external object and itself—which is why, on Kriegel's account, experience exhibits both a qualitative character, what the state represents about the world, and a subjective character, its for-me-ness. The ambitious proposal is designed to answer what Kriegel calls "the why question" facing hypotheses about the neural correlate of consciousness: why should this neural feature rather than another correlate with experience? One State, Two Representational Orders A visual experience of red represents a red surface or a red-looking object. On Kriegel’s account, the same conscious state also represents itself as representing red. These are distinct representational functions but not independent mental episodes. They are integrated into one complex state, much as one perceptual representation may contain distinguishable yet unified information about color, shape, and location. This architecture is “cross-order” because it joins first-order object representation with second-order self-representation. It is “same-state” or self-representational because the higher-order component targets the state of which it is a constituent. The model avoids a regress: consciousness does not require a further state representing the self-representing state, because the original state already includes the relevant reflexive awareness. Subjective Character and For-Me-Ness Kriegel distinguishes two components of a phenomenally conscious state. Qualitative character is what it is like to have the state—its bluishness, say. Subjective character is the fact that there is something it is like for the subject at all: conscious experiences do not merely occur in me, as my heartbeat does, but are also for me (Kriegel, 2009). Kriegel takes subjective character to be the more fundamental component, and argues that a state can be for me only if I am in some way aware of it. The relevant awareness is not attentive introspection but peripheral inner awareness, a dim constant accompaniment of experience that does not compete with outward-directed attention—placing the account in a tradition from Brentano, on which conscious states are directed both at the world and, secondarily, at themselves (Brentano, 1874). Why Not Standard Higher-Order Theory? Higher-order theories hold that a state is conscious when represented by a distinct higher-order state (Rosenthal, 2005). Kriegel's objection is structural. If the higher-order state is genuinely separate, then what confers consciousness on the first-order state is external to it, and the account struggles to explain why the first-order state should acquire a subjective character of its own rather than merely being registered. Self-representationalism answers by having the conscious state represent itself; cross-order integration specifies how this is achieved without positing an unanalyzable reflexive act (Kriegel, 2006; Kriegel and Williford, 2006). The self-representing state is a complex whose parts stand in a suitable integration relation—the same relation, Kriegel suggests, that binds features into a single perceptual object, applied across representational orders rather than within one. The Cross-Order Integration Hypothesis The resulting theory identifies three elements whose relations must be specified (Kriegel, 2007). There is a floor-level representation, which determines the specific contents of experience once consciousness is present but does not ensure that it is present. There is a higher-order representation of that floor-level representation. And there is the functional integration of the two, characterized as unifying disparate information into a single representation whose functional role exceeds the sum of its components' roles. The critical claim is that the second and third elements together, not the first, constitute the correlate of consciousness as such. This separates the question of why there is experience from the question of what the experience is of, assigning them to different components of one structure. Deriving a Neural Correlate Kriegel argues that most neural correlate proposals are empirically motivated but theoretically deficient—they identify a feature that covaries with consciousness without explaining why it should. Deriving the correlate from a theory of what consciousness is answers the why question by construction. The derivation proceeds in two steps: a general shape follows from the theory, specifying that the correlate must comprise a neural realizer of a higher-order representation together with a realizer of its integration with a floor-level representation; a concrete hypothesis then requires empirical input about which structures realize higher-order representations, with prefrontal regions the principal candidates. The theory predicts, distinctively, that neither region alone is the correlate—synchronization or comparable integration between prefrontal and sensory populations is required (Kriegel, 2007). Objections and Standing Three lines of criticism recur. The regress worry asks how a state's representing itself avoids either circularity or an infinite loop, and whether the integration relation genuinely dissolves the problem or renames it. The transparency objection holds that introspection discloses only the world, not our experience of it, casting doubt on peripheral inner awareness as a datum (Gertler, 2012); how far for-me-ness is phenomenologically given remains disputed (Zahavi and Kriegel, 2016). And a reductive worry asks whether self-representation is sufficient for phenomenality, since representational structures of the specified kind might obtain in states no one would call conscious (Brogaard, 2012). Empirically, the theory shares with higher-order accounts the exposure created by evidence that prefrontal damage leaves much conscious experience intact. Assessment Cross-order integration is the leading contemporary development of self-representationalism, the third standard position alongside first-order and higher-order representationalism. Its distinctiveness is methodological priority: it derives a neural correlate hypothesis from a philosophical theory rather than reading a theory off correlational data, making explicit a demand—that correlates be explanatorily rather than merely statistically motivated—that applies well beyond Kriegel's own framework. Whether integration across representational orders explains for-me-ness or presupposes it circularly remains the open question on which the account turns. References Brentano, F. (1874). Psychologie vom empirischen Standpunkt. Leipzig: Duncker und Humblot. Brogaard, B. (2012). Are conscious states conscious in virtue of representing themselves? Philosophical Studies, 159(3), 467–474. Gertler, B. (2012). Conscious states as objects of awareness. Philosophical Studies, 159(3), 447–455. Kriegel, U. (2006). The same-order monitoring theory of consciousness. In U. Kriegel and K. Williford (Eds.), Self-Representational Approaches to Consciousness (pp. 143–170). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Kriegel, U. (2007). A cross-order integration hypothesis for the neural correlate of consciousness. Consciousness and Cognition, 16(4), 897–912. Kriegel, U. (2009). Subjective Consciousness: A Self-Representational Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kriegel, U., and Williford, K. (Eds.). (2006). Self-Representational Approaches to Consciousness. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Rosenthal, D. M. (2005). Consciousness and Mind. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Zahavi, D., and Kriegel, U. (2016). For-me-ness: What it is and what it is not. In D. O. Dahlstrom, A. Elpidorou, and W. Hopp (Eds.), Philosophy of Mind and Phenomenology (pp. 36–53). New York: Routledge.

---

### Ismael's Reflexive Representation and Situated Self
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/ismaels-reflexive-representation-and-situated-self
Theorists: Jenann Ismael

Philosopher of science Jenann Ismael develops a naturalistic account of phenomenal consciousness centered on self-representation, perspectival presentation, and the distinctive epistemology of first-person experience, while explicitly resisting the stronger claim that self-representation constitutes consciousness itself. Her dual-content architecture explains how a cognitive system can represent the world while simultaneously presenting and reflexively identifying its own occurrent states, thereby generating the immediacy, privacy, ownership, and apparent epistemic privilege characteristic of conscious experience (Ismael, 1999, 2006, 2011). The resulting position is naturalistic but nonreductive primarily in an epistemic and semantic sense: explanatory gaps between physical descriptions and phenomenal experience arise from the perspectival architecture of cognition rather than establishing ontologically irreducible phenomenal properties or dualism. In other words, Ismael’s naturalistic account explains how a physical system can represent the world from a position inside it, and argues that the structural peculiarities of such reflexive self-representation generate the appearance of an explanatory gap without any corresponding ontological gap. Her central move is to treat phenomenal concepts as indexical, analogous to "I" and "now," so that the seeming unbridgeability between physical and phenomenal description becomes a predictable artifact of how self-locating representation works rather than evidence of a non-physical property. Crucially, as noted, she does not hold that self-representation constitutes phenomenal consciousness: she distinguishes self-consciousness, a formal property of any medium capable of taking its own contents as objects, from consciousness proper, a qualitative property that only some self-conscious media possess. The result is a deflationary interpretation of subjectivity and of the epistemic gaps, offered as a resource available to self-representational accounts rather than as a self-representational theory of phenomenal consciousness in its own right. Phenomenal Knowledge as Self-Location Ismael’s early account begins with the apparent epistemic gulf between complete physical knowledge and knowing what an experience is like. In “Science and the Phenomenal,” she compares phenomenal knowledge with self-location on a map. A map may contain all relevant objective spatial information while failing, considered by itself, to tell its user which represented location is “here.” Analogously, a subject could possess exhaustive third-person information about a neural state without knowing what occupying that state is like because she lacks the first-person relation that identifies the objectively described state with a presently instantiated experience (Ismael, 1999). This provides a distinctive response to the knowledge argument. Mary’s acquisition of color experience need not reveal an additional nonphysical property omitted by complete physical science. What she acquires is a new epistemic relation to a state already described objectively: she can now recognize and demonstratively identify that state from within experience. The difference between phenomenal and physical knowledge therefore resembles a difference between modes of presentation or representational standpoints rather than necessarily between properties in the world. Ismael nevertheless does not dismiss phenomenal experience as merely verbal or conceptual. Her aim is to explain why first-person and third-person modes of access can remain systematically different even if the underlying ontology is naturalistic. The explanatory gap is consequently real as an epistemic and representational phenomenon, while its existence alone does not entail property dualism. Dual Content and Reflexive Representation “Doublemindedness” develops this insight into a model of cognitive architecture. Ismael imagines representational states that carry two kinds of content simultaneously. One is ordinary intentional content: the state represents objects, properties, or circumstances beyond itself. The other is presentational content deriving from properties instantiated in the representational state itself (Ismael, 2006). A conscious visual state, for example, can represent something as red while also providing the subject with an occurrent exemplar of what that kind of experience is like. Because these representational structures partly overlap but are organized differently, identities between them can be cognitively significant even when they concern the same underlying state. A subject can therefore know everything expressible in an objective representational vocabulary while lacking the reflexive identification connecting that vocabulary to an experience presently displayed from the first-person perspective. Self-representation enters when an occurrent state becomes reflexively available to the system itself. Rather than constructing a wholly separate representation that describes the first state from outside, the cognitive system can employ the very state being represented as a demonstrative exemplar—roughly, “this experience is such-and-such neural or functional state.” In this sense the representing state enters its own representational scope (Ismael, 2006). Such an architecture, according to Ismael, helps explain several familiar marks of phenomenal consciousness. Present experience seems immediately available rather than inferred; subjects enjoy a distinctive epistemic authority concerning their current experiences; experiences present themselves as belonging to the subject who has them; and another person cannot gain precisely the same first-person access merely by acquiring additional descriptive information. This brings Ismael close to self-representational theories of consciousness but also sharply distinguishes her from their stronger versions. Kriegel and related theorists propose that a mental state is phenomenally conscious because, in the appropriate manner, it represents itself (Kriegel, 2006). Ismael instead argues that reflexive representation explains important structural and epistemological features associated with consciousness and helps explain why the phenomenal/physical gap appears so resistant to conventional reduction. She does not claim that self-representation is sufficient to generate phenomenal experience (Ismael, 2006). The Situated Phenomenal Field In The Situated Self, Ismael places this reflexive architecture within a broader model of an embodied agent dynamically representing both its environment and itself. Perceptual inputs are integrated into an evolving internal model containing information about the subject’s current location, bodily orientation, history, goals, actions, and expectations. Because the agent’s own actions alter subsequent sensory input, self-representation and world-representation form a recursively updating loop (Ismael, 2007, 2011). The self on this account is not an immaterial Cartesian substance standing behind experience. It is an organized and dynamically maintained perspective within an embodied information-processing system. First-person consciousness emerges as a specially structured interface between the organism and the world in which the organism itself occupies an implicitly represented position. Ismael calls the phenomenal field the “reflexive surface” of thought (Ismael, 2011). Phenomenal experience is where features of the world and features of the system’s own occurrent representational states become simultaneously available. Phenomenal concepts can therefore be grounded directly in displayed exemplars: one learns what a particular experience is like by having it, whereas objective scientific concepts are constructed precisely to abstract away from differences among observers and perspectives. This difference explains why phenomenal character can appear resistant to translation into objective vocabulary. Scientific descriptions seek invariance across perspectives; phenomenal concepts depend constitutively upon a particular perspective. Their mismatch therefore does not reveal two ontological realms. Phenomenality and the Limits of Reduction The most important qualification is that Ismael does not regard reflexivity as a complete explanation of why there is something it is like to undergo a mental state. Indeed, she criticizes self-representational accounts when they are presented as reductive definitions of consciousness (Ismael, 2006). A cognitive architecture could possess sophisticated self-monitoring and self-modeling capacities without thereby establishing that its states are phenomenally conscious. Her position is consequently unusual within the Higher-Order family. She accepts that reflexive representation illuminates the characteristic structure of consciousness—the subject’s relation to its own experience, its seeming immediacy, its first-personal character, and the persistence of explanatory gaps—while declining to identify phenomenal consciousness with that architecture. This makes the theory ontologically naturalistic while preserving an irreducible difference between first-person phenomenal presentation and third-person objective description. Ismael does not posit an immaterial substance or nonphysical phenomenal properties in order to explain subjectivity. Yet she also does not claim that a functional or representational analysis eliminates the residual question of why such states feel like anything at all. The theory therefore offers more a diagnosis of the hard problem’s epistemic structure than a conventional solution to its metaphysical core. Self-Consciousness and Consciousness Distinguished The distinction that separates Ismael from Kriegel-style self-representationalism is explicit. Self-consciousness is the formal capacity of a medium to take its own contents as reflexive objects; consciousness is a qualitative property that some, but not all, self-conscious media have (Ismael, 2007). Artificial systems can in principle possess the former without the latter. It follows that the question "why do we make representations of the world?" concerns the emergence of reflexivity and is a different question from Dretske's (1995) question about the emergence and utility of conscious experience. This is a substantive departure from the self-representational thesis that a state is phenomenally conscious just in case it represents itself in the right way (Kriegel, 2009). Ismael supplies the architecture that self-representational theorists use while declining the constitutive claim they build on it. Mary, Inverted Spectra, and Indexical Phenomenal Concepts As noted, Ismael’s theory of phenomenal consciousness runs through two canonical cases. On Jackson's (1982) knowledge argument, Ismael's treatment belongs to the family of responses holding that phenomenal concepts are a species of indexical concept (Ismael, 1999); since familiar epistemic gaps already separate objective from indexical concepts, the gap Mary encounters is of a kind that arises among concepts referring to the same property, and it therefore supports no ontological conclusion. Ismael’s account of inverted spectra applies the same apparatus, distinguishing properties merely exemplified by a conscious state from those exemplified in what she calls the presentational domain. The general strategy is to explain why a reflexively structured representer would necessarily find its own states resistant to objective characterization, and then to argue that this explains the phenomenology of the hard problem while leaving physicalism intact. Critics have pressed whether the presentational domain can be specified without circularity, since the account must say which aspects of a state figure in self-representation and why. Mind, Physics, and Perspective Ismael’s later philosophy of physics extends this picture by treating minds as high-level, physically implemented information-processing systems whose organization need not mirror their neural realization point-for-point. Drawing on the notion of virtual-machine architecture, she argues that mental states and cognitive operations can be scientifically legitimate higher-level structures implemented in biological dynamics without being reducible to simple mappings onto neural components (Sloman & Chrisley, 2003; Ismael, 2022). Conscious experience can accordingly be understood as part of a high-level control interface through which an embodied system integrates information, remembers, anticipates, and regulates action. But Ismael again separates these functional capacities from the hard problem of phenomenality: physics can characterize observers, agents, information flow, and neural implementation without thereby explaining why those processes are accompanied by experience. Her work on quantum mechanics reinforces this distinction. Quantum theory makes the physical situatedness of observers especially salient, but Ismael does not argue that quantum processes generate consciousness. Indeed, in more recent work with Huw Price, “perspectives” in relational quantum mechanics are explicitly not restricted to conscious observers; ordinary physical systems can instantiate them (Ismael & Price, 2026). Quantum mechanics therefore contributes to her broader account of embedded perspective, not to a quantum theory of phenomenal consciousness. Explanatory Power and Limits Ismael’s distinctive contribution is to combine self-representation, first-person perspective, and naturalism while resisting both reductive representationalism and dualism. Her theory explains why phenomenal consciousness possesses a characteristic first-person epistemology and why complete third-person knowledge might nevertheless fail to provide phenomenal acquaintance. It also clarifies why self-representation could be extraordinarily important to consciousness without being constitutive of consciousness. The corresponding limitation is fundamental. If reflexive architecture can occur without phenomenality, the theory does not specify what distinguishes a phenomenally conscious self-representing system from an equally sophisticated nonconscious one. Ismael therefore leaves the ontological source of phenomenal experience unresolved. Her contribution to the Landscape is best understood as an explanation of the architecture of subjectivity and of the explanatory gap itself: a sophisticated account of why consciousness appears from nowhere in objective description because consciousness is always encountered from somewhere. References Ismael, J. (1999). Science and the phenomenal. Philosophy of Science, 66(3), 351–369. Ismael, J. (2006). Doublemindedness: A model for a dual content cognitive architecture. PSYCHE: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Research on Consciousness, 12(2), 1–11. Ismael, J. (2007). The Situated Self. Oxford University Press. Ismael, J. (2011). Précis of The Situated Self. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 82(3), 733–758. Ismael, J. (2022). Why physics should care about the mind, and how to think about it without worrying about the mind-body problem. In S. Gao (Ed.), Consciousness and Quantum Mechanics (pp. 156–176). Oxford University Press. Ismael, J., & Price, H. (2026). Against totalitarianism—Introduction to Tractatus Quanticum. arXiv:2607.05459. Kriegel, U. (2006). Consciousness and self-representation. PSYCHE: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Research on Consciousness, 12(2). Sloman, A., & Chrisley, R. (2003). Virtual machines and consciousness. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 10(4–5), 133–172.

---

### Cleeremans’s Learned Consciousness via Radical Plasticity
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/cleeremans-s-learned-consciousness-via-radical-plasticity
Theorists: Axel Cleeremans

Cognitive psychologist Axel Cleeremans proposes that consciousness is not an intrinsic property of certain neural states but something the brain learns to do. His Radical Plasticity Thesis takes consciousness not as an intrinsic feature of particular neural states, but as an acquired capacity: the brain learns to represent, evaluate, and predict the consequences of its own representational activity. Through plasticity, first-order neural states become the targets of learned meta-representations that characterize their strength, stability, distinctiveness, reliability, and emotional significance. Phenomenal consciousness thus arises when a cognitive system has learned both to know that it occupies certain internal states and to care about those states (Cleeremans, 2008, 2011). From the premise that neural activity is inherently unconscious, Cleeremans argues that the brain continuously and unconsciously learns to redescribe its own activity to itself, developing these metarepresentations that characterize and qualify their first-order targets; these learned redescriptions, weighted by acquired emotional value, constitute conscious experience. Phenomenal experience is therefore developmental rather than intrinsic: experiences occur only in experiencers that have learned they possess certain first-order states and have learned to care more about some than others. The mature statement, the self-organizing metarepresentational account, casts consciousness as the brain's unconscious, embodied, non-conceptual theory about itself. Neural Activity Is Inherently Unconscious Cleeremans begins where most theories end, from the deliberately strong assumption that neural activity is inherently unconscious. The explanatory question is therefore not which neurons are intrinsically conscious, but how an initially unconscious system acquires knowledge of its own processing. Brains continuously learn predictive relations among actions, environmental consequences, other agents, and activity in different neural regions. In doing so, they construct second-order redescriptions of first-order representations—a nonconceptual, implicit “theory” of their own internal states (Cleeremans, 2011). In other words, rather than asking which neural states are conscious, he asks how any neural state could come to be conscious at all, treating nonconsciousness as the default condition of neural activity (Cleeremans, 2008; Cleeremans, 2011). The question becomes developmental and mechanistic: what must a system acquire before there is something it is like to be it? What requires explanation is then not a property switching on above some threshold of integration or activation, but a capacity built over time through the same learning mechanisms that produce skill and expertise elsewhere in cognition. This is the sense in which the thesis is radical: plasticity is not a modulator of consciousness but its generative condition. Representational Redescription and Metarepresentation The core mechanism is generalized from developmental psychology: representational redescription, whereby implicit knowledge embedded in a procedure is recoded into a format available for further operations (Karmiloff-Smith, 1992; Clark and Karmiloff-Smith, 1993). Cleeremans applies this inward. Networks learn not only about the world but about their own internal states, so that an agent comes to know something of the geography of its own representations. This can be modeled by a second network taking both the input and the internal representations of a first-order network as its own input, learning to predict and qualify them (Cleeremans, Timmermans and Pasquali, 2007; Pasquali, Timmermans and Cleeremans, 2010; Timmermans et al., 2012). Such metarepresentations also support anticipation: if the brain learns that supplementary motor activity reliably precedes action, it can represent that relation explicitly, and the result is experienced as intention. Quality of Representation and Availability to Experience Representations are graded along dimensions Cleeremans specifies as strength, stability in time, and distinctiveness. These determine both influence on behavior and availability to experience, yielding a three-way taxonomy: implicit representations, too weak for awareness or control yet able to influence behavior; explicit representations, strong enough for awareness and control, and the locus of subjective experience; and automatic representations, so strong that they escape control while remaining available to awareness. Because representational quality improves with learning, availability to consciousness has a developmental trajectory. Emotional value is constitutive rather than additive: metarepresentations are enriched by the value a system has learned to attach to its own states, which is why experiencers must have learned to care differentially about what they represent. From Radical Plasticity to SOMA The framework was later elaborated as the self-organizing metarepresentational account, drawing selectively on global workspace theory, higher-order theories, social theories of mind, and predictive processing (Cleeremans et al., 2020). SOMA (Self-Organizing Metarepresentational Account of consciousness) proposes that theory of mind, self-awareness, and perceptual awareness share prediction-driven learning mechanisms operating over three loops: an inner loop through which regions learn to predict one another, a perception–action loop, and a self–other loop through which learning about other minds and about one's own are mutually informing. Cleeremans has also pressed the reflexive corollary that consciousness unconsciously designs itself (Cleeremans, 2019). Commentators note that if learning is the cognitive basis of consciousness, substantial moral consequences follow for attributing experience to infants, animals, and artificial systems (Overgaard and Kirkeby-Hinrup, 2021). Position, Objections, and Distinctness The account is higher-order in structure but departs from standard formulations: the metarepresentations are learned rather than presupposed, non-conceptual rather than thought-like, and acquired through domain-general plasticity rather than supplied by an inherent, dedicated monitoring faculty. Zstill, there is no escaping the general higher-order difficulty of explaining why a representation of a representation should feel like anything. Critics press whether the account explains phenomenality or relocates it, and whether the appeal to learned emotional value smuggles in the qualitative character it was meant to derive. Cleeremans's later collaborative work on the functional value of phenomenal experience addresses a related but distinct question (Cleeremans and Tallon-Baudry, 2022). See Cleeremans and Tallon-Baudry's Functional Value entry, classified under Materialism: Phylogenetic/Evolutionary. Assessment The Radical Plasticity Thesis is unusual in making consciousness an achievement with a learning history, and in supporting that claim with implementable network models rather than argument alone. Its strength is mechanistic specificity and continuity with a large empirical literature on implicit learning and metacognition; its weakness, shared with arguably all theories, is the hard question of whether learned redescription delivers phenomenality or only a functional surrogate for it. The account seems to be developmentally and comparatively predictive in a way few theories are, which could make it unusually testable and unusually vulnerable. References Clark, A., and Karmiloff-Smith, A. (1993). The cognizer's innards: A psychological and philosophical perspective on the development of thought. Mind and Language, 8(4), 487–519. Cleeremans, A. (2008). Consciousness: The radical plasticity thesis. In R. Banerjee and B. K. Chakrabarti (Eds.), Progress in Brain Research, 168, 19–33. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Cleeremans, A. (2011). The radical plasticity thesis: How the brain learns to be conscious. Frontiers in Psychology, 2, 86. Cleeremans, A. (2019). Consciousness (unconsciously) designs itself. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 26(3–4), 88–111. Cleeremans, A., Achoui, D., Beauny, A., Keuninckx, L., Martin, J.-R., Muñoz-Moldes, S., Vuillaume, L., and de Heering, A. (2020). Learning to be conscious. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 24(2), 112–123. Cleeremans, A., and Tallon-Baudry, C. (2022). Consciousness matters: Phenomenal experience has functional value. Neuroscience of Consciousness, 2022(1), niac007. Cleeremans, A., Timmermans, B., and Pasquali, A. (2007). Consciousness and metarepresentation: A computational sketch. Neural Networks, 20(9), 1032–1039. Karmiloff-Smith, A. (1992). Beyond Modularity: A Developmental Perspective on Cognitive Science. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Overgaard, M., and Kirkeby-Hinrup, A. (2021). Is learning the cognitive basis of consciousness? The moral implications of SOMA. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 25(1), 8–9. Pasquali, A., Timmermans, B., and Cleeremans, A. (2010). Know thyself: Metacognitive networks and measures of consciousness. Cognition, 117(2), 182–190. Timmermans, B., Schilbach, L., Pasquali, A., and Cleeremans, A. (2012). Higher-order thoughts in action: Consciousness as an unconscious redescription process. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 367(1594), 1412–1423.

---

### Lycan’s Homuncular Functionalism
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/lycan-s-homuncular-functionalism
Theorists: William Lycan

Philosopher William Lycan defends a materialist, representational theory of mind that he calls “homuncular functionalism” and that posits that “human beings are ‘functionally organized information-processing systems’ who have no non-physical parts or properties.” Lycan does recognize “the subjective phenomenal qualities of mental states and events, and an important sense in which mind is ‘over and above’ mere chemical matter” (Lycan, 1987). But he defends materialism in general and functionalist theories of mind in particular by arguing for what he calls the “hegemony of representation,” in that “there is no more to mind or consciousness than can be accounted for in terms of intentionality, functional organization, and in particular, second-order representation of one's own mental states” (Lycan, 1996). Functionalism and Representation Reviewing “an explosion of work” in consciousness studies by philosophers, psychologists, and neuroscientists, Lycan is “struck by an astonishing diversity of topics that have gone under the heading of ‘consciousness’”—he lists more than 15, only six of which, he says, deal with “phenomenal experience,” that is, qualia and the explanatory gap. From this he draws “two morals.” First, he says, “no one should claim that problems of phenomenal experience have been solved by any purely cognitive or neuroscientific theory.” (Here Lycan finds himself in “surprising agreement with Chalmers.”) Second, and perhaps more importantly, he says, some of “the theories cannot fairly be criticized for failing to illuminate problems of phenomenal experience”—because that is not what they intend to do, that is, “they may be theories of, say, awareness or of privileged access, not theories of qualia or of subjectivity or of ‘what it’s like’” (Lycan, 2004). Lycan defends “the Representational theory of the qualitative features of apparent phenomenal objects: When you see a (real) ripe banana and there is a corresponding yellow patch in your visual field, the yellowness ‘of’ the patch is, like the banana itself, a representatum, an intentional object of the experience. The experience represents the banana and it represents the yellowness of the banana, and the latter yellowness is all the yellowness that is involved; there is no mental patch that is itself yellow. If you were only hallucinating a banana, the unreal banana would still be a representatum, but now an intentional inexistent; and so would be its yellowness. The yellowness would be as it is even though the banana were not real” (Lycan, 2004). The Explanatory Gap Lycan agrees that the “explanatory gap” is real. But this is for two reasons, he argues, “neither of which embarrasses materialism.” First, he says, “phenomenal information and facts of ‘what it’s like’ are ineffable. But one cannot explain what one cannot express in the first place. (The existence of ineffable facts is no embarrassment to science or to materialism, so long as they are fine-grained ‘facts,’ incorporating modes of presentation.)” Second, he says, “the Gap is not confined to consciousness in any sense or even to mind; there are many kinds of intrinsically perspectival (fine-grained) facts that cannot be explained” (without first conceding a pre-existing identity) (Lycan, 2004). Critical Reception and Defense of Materialism In their review, Thomas Polger and Owen Flanagan describe Lycan's view as, roughly, that “conscious beings are hierarchically composed intentional systems, whose representational powers are to be understood in terms of their biological function.” They call the view “teleological functionalism” or “teleofunctionalism” and state that “the homuncular part, for which Lycan and Daniel Dennett argued convincingly, is now so widely accepted that it fails to distinguish Lycan's view from other versions of functionalism. This, by itself, is a testament to the importance of Lycan's work” (Polger & Flanagan, 2001). In his review, Frank Jackson explains that when Lycan argues that “there is no special problem for physicalism raised by conscious experience,” he is rightly distinguishing two questions. “Does consciousness per se raise a problem? And: Do qualia pose a special problem?” Lycan answers the first question on consciousness by defending an “inner sense account of consciousness,” holding that “consciousness is the functioning of internal attention mechanisms directed at lower-order psychological states and events.” Jackson is less satisfied by Lycan's rejection of the knowledge argument, which Jackson calls “the most forceful way of raising the problem posed by qualia for physicalism” (Jackson says this “as someone who no longer accepts the argument”) (Jackson, 1997). According to Jackson, Lycan is confident that phenomenal nature is exhausted by functional role. In other words, “for Lycan, it is very hard for functional nature to fail to exhaust phenomenal nature. Almost anything you might cite as escaping the functional net is, by his lights, functional after all.” Moreover, Lycan has “the nature of conscious experience exhausted by the intentional contents or representational nature of the relevant kinds of mental states” in that “the representational facts which make up a package [are] sufficient to capture in full the perceptual experience” (Jackson, 1997). Lycan attacks neurobiological conventional wisdom in that “all too often we hear it suggested that advances in neuroscience will solve Thomas Nagel's and Frank Jackson's conceptual problem of ‘knowing what it’s like.’” To Lycan, “this is grievously confused. For Nagel's and Jackson's claim is precisely that there is an irreducible kind of phenomenal knowledge that cannot be revealed by science of any kind. Nagel's and Jackson's respective ‘Knowledge Arguments’ for this radical thesis are purely philosophical; they contain no premises that depend on scientific fact.” Lycan now presses his sharp point. “Either the arguments are unsound or they are sound. If they are unsound, then so far as has been shown, there is no such irreducible knowledge, and neither science nor anything else is needed to produce it. But if the arguments are sound, they show that no amount of science could possibly help to produce the special phenomenal knowledge. Either way, neither neuroscience nor any other science is pertinent.” Lycan seems sure that the “what it’s like to be” and knowledge arguments are unsound, and he can go about formulating his Representational theory of mind, standing squarely in the materialist camp. (I [RLK] am not so sure. It is my uncertainty that motivates this Landscape of Consciousness.)

---

### Lau’s Perceptual Reality Monitoring Theory
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/lau-s-perceptual-reality-monitoring-theory
Theorists: Hakwan Lau

Cognitive neuroscientist Hakwan Lau introduces Perceptual Reality Monitoring Theory, which he says is an empirically grounded higher-order theory of conscious perception. He proposes that conscious perception in an agent occurs “if there is a relevant higher-order representation with the content that a particular first-order perceptual representation is a reliable reflection of the external world right now. The occurrence of this higher-order representation gives rise to conscious experiences with the perceptual content represented by the relevant first-order state.” This structure allows us to distinguish “reality from fantasy in a generally reliable fashion” (Lau, 2019a). Higher-Order Representations and Blindsight The agent is not conscious of the content of this higher-order representation itself, Lau says, “but the representation is instantiated in the system in such a way to allow relevant inferences to be drawn (automatically) and to be made available to the agent (on a personal level, in ways that make the inferences feel subjectively justified)” (Lau, 2019a). It is a subpersonal process. “That is, we don't have to think hard to come up with this higher-order representation. It's not a thought in that sense.” Rather, “this higher-order representation serves as a tag or label indicating the suitable epistemic status of the sensory representation, and functions as a gating mechanism to route the relevant sensory information for further cognitive processing” (Lau, 2022, p. 28). This structural mechanism, Lau asserts, sets his view “apart from global theories.” This is because, he says, “such further processing is only a potential consequence, but not a constitutive part of the subjective experience … In other words, consciousness is neither cognition nor metacognition. It is the mechanistic interface right between perception and cognition.” Lau believes that “such higher-order mechanisms likely reside within the mammalian prefrontal cortex, where the functions of perceptual metacognition are also carried out” (Lau, 2022, p. 28). But can we ask what happens when higher-order representation is missing? Wouldn't subjective experience also be missing? This explains, Lau says, “why sometimes sensory representations alone do not lead to conscious experiences at all, as in conditions like blindsight, where, because of brain damage, a person (or an animal) is able to respond accurately to visual stimuli while denying any conscious awareness of them” (Lau, 2022, pp. 35–36). Blindsight, in fact, is a litmus test for any theory of consciousness and Lau claims his theory offers the most coherent explanation: Blindsight “occurs when a first-order representation occurs without the corresponding higher-order representation … That's why the perceptual capacity is there (due to the first-order representations), but the phenomenology of conscious perception is missing” (Lau, 2019b). Functionalist Commitments and Discriminator Model Lau says his theory is a functionalist account. As such, he says, “some animals may not be conscious. And yet, perhaps even a robot or computer program could be.” He highlights “the role of memory in conscious experience, even for simple percepts. How an experience feels depends on implicit memory of the relationships between different perceptual representations within the brain” (Lu et al., 2022). Lau critiques both the global view of consciousness and the local view as “polar extremes,” arguing that his own intermediate or centrist position is superior (Lau, 2022, pp. 25, 26, 130). As part of his model, he takes from artificial intelligence the idea of a “discriminator,” which can distinguish between “real” and “self-generated” images (Lau, 2022, p. 142). Applied to human consciousness, an analogous “discriminator” “distinguishes between true perceptions of the world, memory, fantasy, and neuronal noise. For conscious perception of an object to occur, this discriminator must confirm that the early sensory information represents the object. This model, Lau asserts, accounts for sensory richness, because higher-order representations access richer, lower-level perceptions of first-order representations (Stirrups, 2023). Bottom line, Lau strikes the ambitious claim that his theory explains the subjective “what-it-is-like-ness” of first-person experience—why it “feels like something” to be in a particular brain state, say with a sharp pain—mediated by higher-order representations in the brain (Lau, 2022, p. 197). Addressing the Hard Problem Enhancing his model, Lau proposes that “because of the way the mammalian sensory cortices are organized, perceptual signals in the brain are spatially ‘analog’ in a specific sense,” which enables “computational advantages.” Given this analog nature, “when a sensory representation becomes conscious, not only do we have the tendency to think that its content reflects the state of the world right now, also determined is what it is like to have the relevant experience—in terms of how subjectively similar it is with respect to all other possible experiences.” Lau submits that this addresses the hard problem, “better than prominent alternative views” (Lau, 2022, p. 29).

---

### LeDoux’s Higher-Order Theory of Emotional Consciousness
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/ledoux-s-higher-order-theory-of-emotional-consciousness
Theorists: Joseph LeDoux

Neuroscientist Joseph LeDoux's Higher-Order Theory of Emotional Consciousness combines his approach to higher-order representationalism and his commitment to the centrality of emotion. His thesis is that “the brain mechanisms that give rise to conscious emotional feelings are not fundamentally different from those that give rise to perceptual conscious experiences.” Both, he proposes, “involve higher-order representations (HORs) of lower-order information by cortically based general networks of cognition” (GNC). The theory argues that GNC and “self-centered higher-order states are essential for emotional experiences” (LeDoux and Brown, 2017). Conscious Feelings and Fear LeDoux challenges the traditional view that emotional states of consciousness (emotional feelings) are “innately programmed in subcortical areas of the brain,” and are “as different from cognitive states of consciousness, such as those related to the perception of external stimuli.” Rather, LeDoux argues that “conscious experiences, regardless of their content, arise from one system in the brain” and that “emotions are higher-order states instantiated in cortical circuits.” In this view, all that differs in emotional and nonemotional states are “the kinds of inputs that are processed.” According to LeDoux, “although subcortical circuits are not directly responsible for conscious feelings, they provide nonconscious inputs that coalesce with other kinds of neural signals in the cognitive assembly of conscious emotional experiences.” For understanding the emotional brain, LeDoux focuses on “fear,” defining it as “the conscious feeling one has when in danger.” In the presence of a threat, he says, “different circuits underlie the conscious feelings of fear and the behavioral responses and physiological responses that also occur.” But it is the “experience of fear,” the conscious emotional feeling of fear, that informs LeDoux's theory of consciousness. He explains: “A first-order representation of the threat enters into a higher-order representation, along with relevant long-term memories—including emotion schema—that are retrieved. This initial HOR involving the threat and the relevant memories occurs nonconsciously. Then, a HOROR [i.e., a third-order state, a HOR of a representation, a HOR of a HOR] allows for the conscious noetic experience of the stimulus as dangerous. However, to have the emotional autonoetic experience of fear, the self must be included in the HOROR” (LeDoux and Brown, 2017). Introspection and HOROR Theory Advancing his theory, LeDoux explores “introspection,” the term given by higher-order theorists to this third level of representations, that is, “to be aware of the higher-order state (to be conscious that you are in that state).” LeDoux proposes “a more inclusive view of introspection, in which the term indicates the process by which phenomenally experienced states result.” Introspection, he says, “can involve either passive noticing (as, for example, in the case of consciously seeing a ripe strawberry on the counter) or active scrutinizing (as in the case of deliberate focused attention to our conscious experience of the ripe strawberry).” Both kinds of introspection lead to phenomenal experience, in LeDoux's view (LeDoux and Brown, 2017). HOROR theory states that “phenomenal consciousness does not reflect a sensory state (as proposed by first-order theory) or the relation between a sensory state and a higher-order cognitive state of working memory (as proposed by traditional HOT). Instead, HOROR posits that phenomenal consciousness consists of having the appropriate HOR of lower-order information, where lower-order does not necessarily mean sensory, but instead refers to a prior higher-order state that is rerepresented.” He says, “This second HOR is thought-like and, in virtue of this, instantiates the phenomenal, introspectively accessed experience of the external sensory stimulus. That is, to have a phenomenal experience is to be introspectively aware of a nonconscious HOR.” He distinguishes ordinary introspective awareness, which is the passive kind of “noticing” that he postulates is responsible for phenomenal consciousness, “from the active scrutinizing of one's conscious experience that requires deliberate attentive focus on one's phenomenal consciousness.” Active introspection, he stresses, “requires an additional layer of HOR (and thus a HOR of a HOROR).” Broader Implications In studies of human patients, LeDoux and his PhD adviser, Michael Gazzaniga, “concluded that conscious experiences are the result of cognitive interpretation situations in an effort to help maintain a sense of mental unity in the face of the neural diversity of non-conscious behavioral control systems in our brain” (LeDoux, 2023b). Rejecting the notion of the “self,” and certainly mind-body dualism, LeDoux positions “consciousness” as the fourth and final “realm of existence” for animal life, the four realms being “bodily, neural, cognitive, and conscious.” LeDoux replaces the self with an “ensemble of being” that “subsumes our entire human existence, both as individuals and as a species” (LeDoux, 2023a). LeDoux's views continue to develop. In particular, he picks out two overarching perspectives. First, his multi-state hierarchical model of consciousness, which features an intricate anatomical framework evincing the complexity of higher-order processing via redundancy. The multi-state hierarchical model of consciousness, he says, “replaces the traditional volley between the sensory cortex and the lateral PFC [prefrontal cortex] with a more complex anatomical arrangement consisting of a hierarchy of structures, each of which creates different kinds of states that are re-represented/re-described by circuits of sub-granular and granular PFC and that contribute to higher-order mental modeling and conscious experience. The states that constitute the functional features of the multi-state hierarchical higher-order theory of consciousness, and the brain areas that are associated with these states, include primary lower-order states (areas of the sensory cortex); secondary lower-order states (memory areas and other convergence zones in the temporal and parietal lobes); sub-higher-order states (meso-cortical areas of sub-granular PFC, including the anterior cingulate, orbital, ventromedial, prelimbic, and insula PFC); and higher-order states that re-represent/re-describe/index the various other states to construct mental models in working memory (granular PFC)” (LeDoux, 2023a, p. 234). LeDoux's second overarching perspective is the dual mental hypothesis that shows the interplay between preconscious and conscious states and the role of narratives in driving them. In the dual mental-model hypothesis, he says, “explicit consciousness of complex events emerges from interactions between granular and sub-granular PFC states. Lower-order non-PFC states, while often involved as inputs to the PFC, are not necessary for such higher-order conscious experiences. In other words, a thought, which is a higher-order state constructed by a pre-conscious mental model, is sufficient to populate the conscious higher-order state via the second mental model.” The output of the conscious mental model, he says, “much like the output of the pre-conscious mental model, is an abstract mentalese narrative (albeit a conscious one) that feeds distributaries flowing to motor circuits that control overt behavior and verbal expression.” LeDoux senses that “this implies that we have conscious agency, which you may know of as free will”—adding, “the question of whether we actually make conscious choices is a matter of debate” (LeDoux, 2023a, pp. 296–297).

---

### Humphrey’s Mental Representations and Brain Attractors
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/humphrey-s-mental-representations-and-brain-attractors
Theorists: Nicholas Humphrey

Neuropsychologist Nicholas Humphrey employs an evolutionary framework, combining mental representations with what he calls “attractor states in the brain,” to develop a novel materialistic theory of phenomenal consciousness, which he sees as a late and not ubiquitous evolutionary development. His multidisciplinary argument follows (Humphrey, 2022, 2023a, 2023b, 2024). Sensations as Mental Representations Sensations, he says, are ideas we generate: mental representations of stimuli arriving at our sense organs and how they affect us. Their properties are to be explained, therefore, not literally as the properties of brain-states, but rather as the properties of mind-states dreamed up by the brain. Remarkably, we (and presumably other sentient creatures) represent what's happening as having “phenomenal properties,” or “qualia,” that fill the “thick time” of the subjective present. The result is we come to have a psychologically impressive sense of self—a “phenomenal self” that is semi-independent of our physical bodies. This idea of “what it’s like to be me” may be in some respects “fake news,” but Humphrey's point is that, to us as the subjects, it's big news! When it comes to how sensations are generated in the brain, Humphrey points out this has to be a two-stage process: first the gathering of sensory information, which is the sensory text, and then the interpretation of this information, which is the conscious reading. This two-stage process generates our subjective take on what this is like for us. Phenomenal properties arise only at the interpretative stage. This, Humphrey stresses, is “a point often lost on researchers looking for the neural correlates of consciousness, who assume the properties of the brain activity must map onto the phenomenal properties of conscious experience.” He calls the hard problem “the wrong problem” (Humphrey, 2022). Evolutionary Story of Sentience Humphrey believes that our best approach to explaining sentience (which is how he labels phenomenal consciousness) will be “forward engineering”—reconstructing the steps by which natural selection could have invented it. He proposes that sensations originated in primitive animals as evaluative responses to stimulation at the body surface. Thus, sensations started out as something the animal did about the stimulation rather than something it felt about it. Early on, however, animals hit on the trick of monitoring these responses—by means of an “efference copy” of the command signals—to yield a simple representation of what the stimulation is about. In short, a feeling (Humphrey, 2023a, 2023b). Humphrey's story quickens as that feeling became privatized, resulting in activity in neural feedback loops, which became recursive and stretched out in time, taking on complex higher-order properties. It was then refined and stabilized to generate mathematically complex attractor states, which would give rise—“out of the blue”—to the apparently unaccountable qualities of sensory qualia. Quite possibly, he says, phenomenal experience involves the brain generating something like an internal text, which it interprets as being about phenomenal properties. The driving force behind these later developments was the adaptive benefits to the animal of the emergence of the phenomenal self. This is why Humphrey takes phenomenal consciousness as a relatively late evolutionary invention, having evolved only in animal species that (a) have brains capable of entertaining and enjoying these fancy mental representations, and (b) lead lives in which having this bold sense of self can give them an edge in the fitness game. Thus, Humphrey challenges conventional wisdom that phenomenal consciousness in the animal kingdom is a gradient; his “hunch” is that only mammals and birds make the cut. Chimpanzees, dogs, parrots have it. Lobsters, lizards, frogs do not (Humphrey, 2023a, 2023b).

---

### Metzinger’s No-Self Representational Theory of Subjectivity
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/metzinger-s-no-self-representational-theory-of-subjectivity
Theorists: Thomas Metzinger

Philosopher Thomas Metzinger presents a representationalist and functional analysis of subjectivity, the consciously experienced first-person perspective (Metzinger, 2004). What has been traditionally called “conscious thought,” he argues, is actually “a subpersonal process, and only rarely a form of mental action. The paradigmatic, standard form of conscious thought is non-agentive, because it lacks veto-control and involves an unnoticed loss of epistemic agency and goal-directed causal self-determination at the level of mental content.” Conceptually, Metzinger states, “conscious thought … must be described as an unintentional form of inner behaviour” (Metzinger, 2015). No-Self and Phenomenal Consciousness A starting assumption is that phenomenal consciousness (subjective experience), “rather than being an epiphenomenon, has a causal role in the optimisation of certain human behaviours” (Frith and Metzinger, 2016). A leitmotif of Metzinger's models is that there are no such things as “selves”; selves do not exist in the world: “nobody ever had or was a self.” All that exists, he argues, are “phenomenal selves, as they appear in conscious experience. The phenomenal self, however, is not a thing but an ongoing process; it is the content of a ‘transparent self-model’” (Metzinger, 2004). Metzinger employs empirical research to support his deflationary no-self model, showing how “we are not mentally autonomous subjects for about two thirds of our conscious lifetime, because while conscious cognition is unfolding, it often cannot be inhibited, suspended, or terminated.” This means that “the instantiation of a stable first-person perspective as well as of certain necessary conditions of personhood turn out to be rare, graded, and dynamically variable properties of human beings” (Metzinger, 2015). Meditation and Pure Awareness Drawing on a large psychometric study of meditators in 57 countries—more than 500 experiential reports—Metzinger focuses on “pure awareness” in meditation—the simplest form of experience there is—to illuminate, as he puts it, “the most fundamental aspects of how consciousness, the brain, and illusions of self all interact.” Metzinger explores “the increasingly non-egoic experiences of silence, wakefulness, and clarity, of bodiless body-experience, ego-dissolution, and nondual awareness” in order to assemble “what it would take to arrive at a minimal model explanation for conscious experience and create a genuine culture of consciousness” (Metzinger, 2024). Representationalism, the Epistemic Agent Model, and Culture Metzinger uses an interdisciplinary, multi-layer analysis of phenomenological, representationalist, informational-computational, functional, and physical-neurobiological kinds of descriptions. His representationalist theory analyzes its target properties—those aspects of the domain to be explained. He seeks to make progress “by describing conscious systems as representational systems and conscious states as representational states” (Metzinger, 2000). He argues that “individual representational events only become part of a personal-level process by being functionally integrated into a specific form of transparent conscious self-representation, the ‘epistemic agent model’ (EAM).” The EAM, he suspects, “may be the true origin of our consciously experienced first-person perspective” (Metzinger, 2015). Metzinger's resolution of the mind-body problem follows directly: our Cartesian intuitions that subjective experiences, phenomenal consciousness, “can never be reductively explained are themselves ultimately rooted in the deeper representational structure of our conscious minds” (Metzinger, 2004). A corollary of Metzinger's work concerns individual behavior and collective culture, based on our perception of the experience of being an agent that causes events in the world and the belief that we “could have done otherwise” (the test of libertarian free will). This experience and belief enable us “to justify our behaviour to ourselves and to others and, in the longer term, create a cultural narrative about responsibility.” Metzinger concludes that “conscious experience is necessary for optimizing flexible intrapersonal interactions and for the emergence of cumulative culture” (Frith and Metzinger, 2016).

---

### Brown’s “HOROR” Higher-Order Representationalism
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/brown-s-horor-higher-order-representationalism
Theorists: Richard Brown, Hakwan Lau

Philosopher Richard Brown’s Higher-Order Representation of a Representation (HOROR) theory of consciousness makes the core claim that “phenomenal consciousness consists in instantiating a certain kind of higher-order representation.” Suppose, he says, “that one is having a vivid conscious experience of red. In that case, HOROR theory says that the relevant, seemingly non-inferential, higher-order representation will have something like the following as its intentional content: I, myself, am having this visual representation of red. This higher-order representation represents that one is oneself having or instantiating a certain first-order mental representation (or perhaps that one is instantiating a certain set of first-order representations). This representation is thought-like in that it is composed of intentional contents and arranged so as to have assertoric force. Because one represents oneself as instantiating various mental properties it will appear to one as though one has phenomenal consciousness” (Brown, 2015). Representations of Representations Brown’s HOROR theory, developed in collaboration with neuroscientist/philosopher Hakwan Lau, is an advanced theory in the higher-order thought (HOT) tradition in the philosophy of mind (e.g., David Rosenthal). The central idea of HOROR theory is that consciousness arises not from a higher-order representation of a mental state (like sights or sounds) but rather from a higher-order representation of a representation. In other words, for a state to be conscious, the subject must represent the fact that there is a representation going on, without necessarily representing the first-order content directly. This second-order awareness is still conceptual or cognitive, but it targets the representational status of the first-order state (Brown & Lau, 2019). This marks a subtle but important distinction from traditional HOT theories, like those of David Rosenthal, where a higher-order thought represents a lower-order state (e.g., a visual experience), and that is what makes the state conscious. Brown and Lau argue instead that consciousness arises from representing representations themselves, not just particular mental states. “A mental state is conscious not in virtue of being the object of a higher-order representation that says, in effect, ‘I am seeing red,’ but in virtue of the existence of a representation of the representation as such” (Brown & Lau, 2019). Subjective vs. Phenomenal Character Brown distinguishes two different kinds of phenomenal consciousness. “On the one hand we have the state’s subjective character. The subjective character of a phenomenally conscious experience is that part of the experience which makes it the case that it is experienced as being for me. On the HOROR theory, this comes from the fact that one represents oneself as being in these various states. On the other hand, the phenomenal character of a conscious experience is that part of the experience which would distinguish a conscious experience of red from a conscious experience of blue, and both of those from the conscious experience of the sound of a trumpet. According to the HOROR theory, this will turn out to be the intentional content of the higher-order representation” (Brown, 2015). Addressing Objections and Functional Role Brown and Lau developed the HOROR theory partly in response to common objections to standard HOT theories, such as the following: The Misrepresentation Problem: Critics argue HOT allows for situations where a higher-order thought says, “I am in pain,” even if no first-order pain exists. HOROR avoids this, the authors say, by focusing on representations themselves rather than their content. Phenomenal Overflow: Some argue that there’s more in our phenomenology than we can access cognitively. HOROR responds: “Consciousness is always tied to cognitive access because it depends on a kind of representation that is part of cognitive architecture” (Brown, 2015). Introspective Evidence: HOROR theory, the authors claim, better fits with the fact that we rarely represent our states as having specific content but are still aware that we are in some kind of state. HOROR proposes that consciousness is not a property of first-order states per se. Rather, it arises when a cognitive system represents a first-order representation, regardless of its content. These representations of representations are cognitive and inferential, not necessarily introspective in a traditional sense. “What makes a mental state phenomenally conscious is that there is a higher-order state that represents some mental state as a representation” (Brown & Lau, 2019). HOROR supports a functionalist view where consciousness plays a cognitive role in reasoning, planning, and confidence judgments.

---

### Melnyk’s Realization Physicalism
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/melnyk-s-realization-physicalism
Theorists: Andrew Melnyk

Philosopher Andrew Melnyk’s approach to consciousness is a reductive but non-eliminative physicalism: phenomenal properties are real but non-fundamental mental properties, best understood as physically realized representational properties of sensations, while the “hard problem” arises largely from a misleading but psychologically formidable “intuition of distinctness” that makes such properties seem unable to be physical or functional, even though, in fact, they are. In other words, Melnyk defends a realization physicalism of phenomenal consciousness on which phenomenal properties (qualia) are not identical with any single neural property but are higher-order, multiply realizable representational properties that are always physically realized, and thus claims that the felt impossibility of phenomenal experience being entirely physical—the essence of the "hard problem"—is dissolved by rebutting the standard anti-physicalist arguments and then dismissing the residual intuition of distinctness as a cognitive illusion generated by the self-reflective, “conceptually encapsulated” nature of introspection (Melnyk, 2003, 2025; Melnyk & Sobrado, 2025). Physicalism as a comprehensive, a posteriori thesis Melnyk treats the mind–body problem as a special case of a general question about how the non-fundamental relates to the fundamental physical. His signature argument, developed in A Physicalist Manifesto (Melnyk, 2003), is to formulate physicalism not through supervenience but through a precisely defined relation of physical realization, and to assign it the epistemic status of a normal, though broad-scope, scientific hypothesis—something supported or undermined by empirical evidence rather than settled a priori (Melnyk, 2006, 2018, 2024). On this view, everything is either physical or physically realized; nothing escapes both categories. Mental properties are not denied, demoted to fictions, or treated as inexplicable emergent. The mental, like the biological and geological, is real but non-fundamental, a genuine pattern in the physical world rather than an extra ontological object. A dry-stone wall, he says, is every bit as real as the stones composing it. Locating phenomenal consciousness Melnyk distinguishes three uses of "conscious." Most commonly, it is a synonym for awareness or knowledge—being conscious of, or that, something—a property of organisms that form knowledge-bearing internal states. Self-consciousness is the special case in which those representations are directed at one's own mental states, that is, introspection. Phenomenal consciousness, the philosophers' term of art and the locus of the hard problem, attaches to sensations, emotions, and moods for which there is "something it is like." Phenomenal properties, for Melnyk, are simply the properties of sensations of which we are aware in introspection when we attend to them from the inside—for example, the "orangeness" of an orange afterimage, which is not orange in the sense in which the fruit is orange (Melnyk & Sobrado, 2025). He uses "qualia" with deliberate vagueness, leaving open whether such properties are immaterial, intrinsic, or representational. Characterizing—and dissolving—the hard problem Melnyk tackles the hard problem by requiring that it be stated precisely, lest the goalposts move indefinitely. He characterizes it as a clash of prima facie reasons to believe incompatible things: on one side, evidence that phenomenal properties just are physical—mainly the systematic empirical dependence of the phenomenal on neural properties, no introspectable experience lacking a simultaneous neural correlate, which, he asserts, physicalism explains more economically than dualism; on the other, philosophical arguments concluding that phenomenal properties could not be physical, namely Kripke's conceivability argument (Kripke, 1980), Jackson's knowledge argument (Jackson, 1982), Levine's explanatory gap (Levine, 1983), and Chalmers's zombie argument (Chalmers, 1996). Constrained in this way, Melnyk contends that the hard problem is not merely soluble but already solved, since each of the anti-physicalist arguments is open to serious, if controversial, objection. Melnyk thinks they all fail, though he acknowledges that no consensus exists. A positive theory of phenomenal properties, while desirable, is not strictly required to solve the hard problem as he defines it. His representationalist account then supplies the positive proposal: phenomenal properties are physically realized representational properties, not nonphysical properties appended to neural life. The positive account: unorthodox representationalism and realization Melnyk stresses that a positive account of phenomenal properties is not required to solve the hard problem so characterized, but he offers one anyway, an “unorthodox representationalism”: phenomenal properties are one and the same as certain physically realized representational properties of sensations, not nonphysical properties imposed on neural processes. As he puts it, “I think that the orangeness of an orange afterimage is—is one and the same thing as—the afterimage’s property of representing (in a certain sensory way) that something before one is orange; and that the burningness of a burning pain is—is one and the same thing as—the pain’s representing that some part of one’s body is burning” (Melnyk and Sobrado, 2025). He says he means “something a little different” from the representationalism of Tye, Lycan, and Dretske, and he draws on Millikan's teleosemantics to ground sensory representation in biological function (Millikan, 1984). Such properties are not neurophysiological, yet are physically realized. Realization is illustrated by the non-mental property being poisonous: poisonousness is not identical with containing cyanide—antifreeze is poisonous too—but is the higher-order property of having some property that causes illness in those who ingest it, a property whose realizer is always, as a matter of fact, physico-chemical though never the same in every instance. Realization entails supervenience but is neither bare supervenience, nor identity with the base property, nor synchronic efficient causation; the realizer instead furnishes a reductive explanation whereby, given the physical laws and circumstances, the mental property follows by deductive logic together with the necessity of identity. Token mental–physical identity is left open; type identity with a functional property is required. The intuition of distinctness and mental causation Melnyk's later work shifts the puzzle's center of gravity, explaining why phenomenal consciousness might seem obviously nonphysical “even if in fact it is.” He develops what David Papineau called the “intuition of distinctness”: the introspective sense that phenomenal thoughts or feelings simply could not be physical or functional properties. In other words, when we attend introspectively to phenomenal redness, pain, or nausea, it seems that the property before our minds could not literally be a physical, neural, functional, or representational property. Melnyk argues that this intuition is the psychological basis of anti-physicalist arguments and the widespread feeling that physicalism just cannot account for experience without residue, and that it underlies much resistance to physicalism and much of the force of conceivability-style arguments (Melnyk, 2025). Melnyk's main move is to debunk: the intuition arises because introspection is conceptually encapsulated, leaving us unable to redeploy phenomenal concepts as we do for every other identity claim, and so unable even to imagine believing a phenomenal property to be physical. Although his argument may seem self-isolating and self-protective in form, because he claims that no plausible account of its genesis would show it tracking the truth, he argues that the intuition supplies no reason to adopt property dualism and may be disregarded in good conscience, even though, he seems to lament, it will not thereby disappear. On causation, Melnyk admits weak, though real, top-down causation—mental and physical regularities holding at once without overdetermination, because the former are realized by the latter—while denying strong top-down causation that would violate physical law. A toothache can cause one to call the dentist, just as a substance's being poisonous can cause vomiting. Note that Melnyk is emphatic that his representationalist positive account is, on his own framing, entirely irrelevant to dissolving the hard problem—which he takes to be already settled by refuting the anti-physicalist or dualist arguments. Collapsing the two, he takes to be the most common misreading of his position. References Chalmers, D. J. (1996). The Conscious Mind: In Search of a Fundamental Theory. New York: Oxford University Press. Jackson, F. (1982). Epiphenomenal qualia. Philosophical Quarterly, 32(127), 127–136. Kripke, S. (1980). Naming and Necessity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Levine, J. (1983). Materialism and qualia: The explanatory gap. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, 64(4), 354–361. Melnyk, A. (2003). A Physicalist Manifesto: Thoroughly Modern Materialism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Melnyk, A. (2006). Realization and the formulation of physicalism. Philosophical Studies, 131(1), 127–155. Melnyk, A. (2018). In defense of a realization formulation of physicalism. Topoi, 37(3), 483–493. Melnyk, A. (2024). From materialism to physicalism: An opinionated sketch. In J. Symons & C. Wolfe (Eds.), The History and Philosophy of Materialism (pp. 439–455). New York: Routledge. Melnyk, A. (2025). Phenomenal Properties and the Intuition of Distinctness: The View from the Inside. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Melnyk, A., & Sobrado, T. (2025, October). On the problem of consciousness. The Montréal Review. Millikan, R. G. (1984). Language, Thought, and Other Biological Categories: New Foundations for Realism. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Papineau, D. (2002). Thinking About Consciousness. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

---

### Thagard’s Neural Representation, Binding, Coherence, Competition
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/thagard-s-neural-representation-binding-coherence-competition
Theorists: Paul Thagard

Philosopher Paul Thagard poses big questions upfront. “Why do people have conscious experiences that include perceptions such as seeing, sensations such as pain, emotions such as joy, and abstract thoughts such as self-reflection? Why is consciousness central to so much of human life, including dreams, laughter, music, religion, sports, morality, and romance? Are such experiences also possessed by other animals, plants, and robots?” (Thagard, 2025). Thagard's theory of consciousness “attributes conscious experiences to interactions of four brain mechanisms: neural representation, binding, coherence, and competition.” It distinguishes itself from current theories in several respects, he says. “The four brain mechanisms described are empirically plausible and clearly stated. Conscious experiences emerge from their interactions in areas across the brain.” The mechanisms, he argues, “explain not only ordinary perceptual experiences such as vision, but also the most complex kinds of conscious experience including self-valuation, dreams, humor, and religious awe.” Moreover, he adds, “A crucial but often neglected aspect of consciousness is timing, but the four mechanisms fit perfectly with recent neuroscientific findings about how time cells enable brains to track experiences” (Thagard, 2025). Earlier Formulation: Semantic Pointer Competition The present four-mechanism theory developed from the Semantic Pointer Competition theory of consciousness, formulated by Paul Thagard and cognitive scientist Terrence C. Stewart. Drawing on Chris Eliasmith’s account of semantic pointers (Eliasmith, 2013), Thagard and Stewart proposed that consciousness results from three interacting neural mechanisms: representation by patterns of firing in neural populations, binding of representations into more complex representations called semantic pointers, and competition among semantic pointers to capture the aspects of an organism’s current state that are most important at a given time. Semantic pointers are not conventional abstract symbols. They are compressed neural representations that can bind sensory, motor, emotional, physiological, and verbal information while retaining connections to the lower-level representations from which they were constructed (Thagard & Stewart, 2014). On this account, a semantic pointer contributes to consciousness only when it reaches a sufficient level of neural activation and prevails in competition with alternative representations. The qualitative character of an experience depends on the particular representations bound into the winning semantic pointer: pain, for example, may combine nociceptive information, bodily changes, emotional responses, situational representations, and cognitive appraisals. Binding helps explain the experienced unity of consciousness, while competition explains selective attention and transitions from one conscious content to another. Thagard and Stewart used neurally realistic computer simulations to model qualitative differentiation, the onset and cessation of consciousness, shifts in conscious contents, varieties of consciousness, unity and disunity, and the storage and retrieval of conscious experiences. They contrasted this biologically mechanistic account with Integrated Information Theory, arguing that consciousness should be explained through specific neural operations rather than identified with an abstract quantity of integrated information (Thagard & Stewart, 2014). Thagard’s newer theory preserves the earlier architecture of representation, binding, and competition, but broadens and develops it in several respects. Most importantly, it makes coherence a fourth explicitly identified mechanism governing how mutually supportive representations become organized into stable conscious experiences. Coherence was already implicit in the earlier model’s account of unity, mutual enhancement, and the coordination of compatible semantic pointers, but it was not designated as a separate core mechanism. The newer formulation also ranges beyond the original emphasis on semantic-pointer competition to explain complex experiences—including dreams, humor, music, self-evaluation, and religious awe—and to assess possible consciousness in nonhuman animals and artificial systems. Semantic Pointer Competition is therefore best understood not as a discarded alternative, but as the more narrowly specified computational and neurorepresentational predecessor of Thagard’s expanded theory. Attribution and Assessment Thagard founds his theory on strict, empirically based neuroscience. His way of thinking is exemplified by his “Attribution Procedure,” an eight-step process for using what he calls “explanatory coherence” as a touchstone to establish “whether or not an animal or machine has a mental state, property, or process.” (Thagard, 2021, pp. 13–14). For example, he offers twelve features of intelligence (i.e., problem solving, learning, understanding, reasoning, perceiving, planning, deciding, abstracting, creating, feeling, acting, communicating) and eight mechanisms to explain these features (i.e., images, concepts, rules, analogies, emotions, language, intentional action, consciousness). “All eight of these mental mechanisms can be carried out by a common set of neural mechanisms, many of which have been modeled computationally.” This account of twelve features and eight mechanisms, Thagard says, “yields a twenty-item checklist for assessing intelligence in bots and beasts.” A similar way of thinking he applies to consciousness, stating that consciousness results from competition among neural representations (Thagard, 2021, pp. 3–4, 50, 49). Scope and Implications Claiming that his theory of consciousness possesses “the accuracy and breadth of application to mark a solid advance in the grand task of explaining how and why consciousness is so central to human life,” Thagard highlights an empirically supported explanation of consciousness resulting from the four brain mechanisms (i.e., neural representation, binding, coherence, and competition); application to a broad range of conscious experiences including smell, hunger, loneliness, self-awareness, religious experience, sports performance, and romantic chemistry; use of these four brain mechanisms to generate novel theories of dreaming, humor, and musical experience; a new theory of time consciousness; assessment of consciousness in non-human animals and machines, including the new generative AI models such as ChatGPT (√). Working together, these four brain mechanisms, Thagard says, “explain the full range of consciousness in humans and other animals, and show why plants, bacteria, and ordinary things lack consciousness.” No current computers are conscious, he asserts, using a checklist of features and mechanisms of consciousness, “but the new generative models in artificial intelligence have similar mechanisms to humans that might enable some degree of consciousness.” He concludes with high physicalist confidence: “Consciousness does not need to be a mystery once we understand how brains build it” (Thagard, 2025).

---

### Deacon’s Symbolic Communication (Human Consciousness)
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/deacon-s-symbolic-communication-human-consciousness
Theorists: Terrence Deacon

Neuroanthropologist Terrence Deacon asserts that symbolic communication has radically altered the nature of human consciousness, whereas consciousness broadly is coextensive with the development of brains in animals that regulate their movement with the aid of long-distance senses, such as vision, because of the predictive capacity this affords and requires. However, symbolic communication has given humans the capacity of being conscious of a virtual realm that has become untethered from physical contiguity and immediacy (Deacon, 1998, 2024).[1] Moreover, by virtue of the way that symbolic communication allows us indirect access to others’ thoughts and experiences, we have become a symbolically eusocial species that derives our personal identities and ability to think from a physically and temporally extended shared mentality. Some, he says, have referred to this structure as “Extended Mind.” Deacon sees this symbolic mode of cognition as enabling the emergence of novel kinds of remembering and unprecedented forms of emotional experience, as well as unprecedented forms of value, such as ethical norms and aesthetic sense. This is also, he says, the source of our feeling of incompleteness and need to find Meaning. Footnote [1]. Note that Terrence Deacon has two theories of consciousness on the Landscape: “Self-Organized Constraint and Emergence of Self” and “Symbolic Communication” here. This is not an error; nor does it imply that the two cannot be woven together. Rather, it recognizes that, at this time, the two are sufficiently different, and sufficiently interesting, to warrant their separate locations.

---

## Language Relationships
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theories/language-relationships

### Language Relationships—Overview
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/language-relationships-overview
Theorists: Several

Language Relationships discern connections, causal and other, between consciousness and language. Language obviously enriches the content of consciousness, perhaps provides a framework for human consciousness, but is there a deeper relationship? Does consciousness in some sense require language, in that if there is no language capability, there would be limited inner experience, or even none at all? Conversely, does language require consciousness, in that if there is no inner experience, there can be no language capability (e.g., think of AI/LLMs)? Note that while it is generally (but not universally) accepted that language does not generate theories of consciousness per se, it features in some and is rejected in others, both of which are worth exploring. Consciousness Requires Language? Much depends on careful definitions. To take the consciousness-requires-language causal paradigm, if by consciousness we mean phenomenal consciousness, raw inner experience only, then if we claim that language is required, then our claim would limit phenomenal consciousness, inner experience, to human beings and would exclude all (or at least almost all) other animals. Argue this to a happy dog owner, and you will confront an angry dog owner. To take the language-requires-consciousness causal paradigm, with a definition of language sufficiently loose to subsume computer languages or communications between paramecia or signals between embryonic stem cells, consciousness would not be required. The philosophical debate regarding whether language is necessary for consciousness has a long and meandering history. Many argue that consciousness does not at all require language; others, that consciousness is facilitated by language or even is not possible without it. A contemporary consensus is building around the idea that increasing levels of consciousness, ranging from unconsciousness to highly conscious reflective self-awareness, requires increasing use of language. What follows would be that language is not needed for pure phenomenal consciousness, a general state of awareness, or in responding to external stimuli—such as in preverbal infants—but phenomenal consciousness would be needed for complex expressions of consciousness, like self-awareness, information integration, and metaconsciousness, which are based on language-powered capacities, especially inner speech (Ivory Research, 2019). Because we sense that many animal species are conscious—much like we assume that other humans are conscious like we are conscious—and we know that language is much more restricted, to humans and, in a lesser sense, some other animals (e.g., primates, cetaceans, birds), this would seem to weaken the consciousness-language nexus. Moreover, language seems to be a much more recent evolutionary emergent than consciousness (Berwick and Chomsky, 2016). Perspectives on Language and Consciousness Philosopher Rebecca Goldstein maintains that language does not exhaust all that there is in consciousness. She calls as evidence infants prior to or in the early stages of acquiring language, where “it's clear how much consciousness goes on before there is language” (Goldstein, 2014). Neuroscientist Colin Blakemore sees an intimate relationship between the structure of language and the high-level aspects of consciousness, especially consciousness of self, the consciousness of intention—“the concept that I am the helmsman of myself, carrying myself around the world, making decisions.” He calls the grammatical forms of language “intentional in their style” and argues that our conscious representation of self is a meta-representation of what's really doing the work down below and that the reason “our brains go to the trouble of building this false representation of how we really are is to implement and to support language” (Blakemore, 2012a). Blakemore speculates that we don't come pre-programmed to be conscious; that we learn to be conscious and our consciousness develops and changes over time. Recognizing that the term “consciousness” can refer to diverse forms of subjectivity and that even a newborn baby has “a kind of brute awareness of the world, sensory experiences,” he suggests that the nature of subjectivity grows through individual experience and that the complexities of the internal representation of the self are mediated by language. Experimental psychologist Jeremy Skipper hypothesizes that language, with an emphasis on inner speech, generates and sustains self-awareness, that is, higher-order consciousness. He develops a “HOLISTIC” model of the neurobiology of language, inner speech, and consciousness. It involves a “core” set of inner speech production regions that take on affective qualities, involving a largely unconscious dynamic “periphery” distributed throughout the whole brain. He claims that the “model constitutes a more parsimonious and complete account of the neural correlates of consciousness” (at least of self-consciousness) (Skipper, 2022). Linguist/painter/inventor Rafael Pintos-López posits that human consciousness involves two discrete components: sentience (biological) and meta-cognition (metaphysical). They have different natures, different lifespans and different functions. He adds that there is no evolutionary continuum between the basic cognition in non-human animals and human cognition. The point of inflection is the acquisition of language, which results in complex meaning. Language is productive: from finite resources, it can produce infinite combinations. Without productive language, there can be no complex thought. Experience (i.e., sentience), on the other hand, is a fundamental, biological phenomenon that is subjective by nature. It precedes language and is ineffable. It cannot be explained by science or philosophy because both are cognitive and require language. The creation of language resulted in meaning. Complex meaning does not exist other than in human consciousness. Through language, human cognition developed beyond normal evolutionary laws. Human consciousness—a ‘black swan’ event—is meta-evolutionary (Pintos-López, 2025). Philosopher Ned Block points to a related distinction between consciousness and cognition. Cognition doesn't have to be linguistic, he says, because non-linguistic animals have some cognition. But then there are animals that seem to have little or no cognition, just perception. Block concludes, “We can see consciousness at its purest in perceptual consciousness, and it has nothing to do, or little to do, with language” (Block, 2014). While the overwhelming contemporary consensus is that consciousness does not require language, human consciousness is obviously and fundamentally affected or even framed by language. We explore several approaches to the consciousness-language nexus. Note/RLK: In my first submission of the original Landscape of Consciousness paper to the journal, Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology, I deliberately did not include this subcategory of Language Relationships, because I did not consider language at all a requirement for the tight target of phenomenal consciousness. The excellent (anonymous) peer reviewer, along with important suggestions, thought that Language should be included. I took the advice, reluctantly at first, but then, over time, I came to appreciate the diverse theories of consciousness that prioritized language (in different ways). This has not changed my original judgment that language is not necessary for phenomenal consciousness, but these language-dominant theories did enrich understanding of the nature of human consciousness. For this reason, I titled this subcategory "Language Relationships"— "Relationships" signaling that while language is not necessary for phenomenal consciousness, it can contribute to our appreciation of it, at least in humans.

---

### Chomsky’s Language and Consciousness
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/chomsky-s-language-and-consciousness
Theorists: Noam Chomsky

Philosopher and linguist Noam Chomsky revolutionized the theory of language, and although language-related theory of consciousness has not been a focus of his contributions, its relevance remains. Chomsky famously posited linguistic capacity, especially syntactic knowledge, as at least partially innate and mostly (if not entirely) unique to human beings. Thus, language acquisition in all human children is somewhat instinctual and surprisingly rapid, conditioned by language-specific features of diverse languages. Chomsky labels this core set of inherited grammatical rules “universal grammar” and characterizes these inborn, subconscious capabilities as “deep structure.” Does Chomsky's universal grammar with its deep structure carry implications for consciousness? How does Chomsky approach the hard problem of phenomenal consciousness? His views are complex, not easily categorized (Section: Chomsky, 2022a, 2022b; Feser, 2010, 2022b). Critiques of Behaviorism and the Hard Problem Chomsky is an aggressive critic of behaviorism—it makes no sense, he says, to study internal phenomena by observing external manifestations. The study of language is entirely inconsistent with behaviorist principles. “Nothing there,” he says. To understand it, one must examine internal processes. Thus, the connection between the deep structure of language and the essence of consciousness. Chomsky is also a critic of the hard problem, labeling it a “pseudo-problem.” Some questions, by their simple structures, are not real questions, he says, in that there is no logical way to answer them. His example question “Why do things happen?” cannot be answered in the general, while a similar-sounding question, say, “Why did this earthquake happen?” can be answered in the specific. Chomsky believes that the hard problem of consciousness is an example of the former and therefore is not a genuine question (while the “easy” problems of consciousness, discovering neural correlates, are examples of the latter). Matter as the Main Mystery Exemplifying Chomsky's unorthodox approach to consciousness, even though he commits to a materialism/physicalism ontology that the mind is generated only in the brain, rather than deflating the ontological status of the mental, his contrarian position is to challenge the ontological status of the physical—arguing that science does not know what matter really is. To Chomsky, matter, not mental, is the main mystery. As Chomsky says, “The mind-body problem can be posed sensibly only insofar as we have a definite conception of body. If we have no such definite and fixed conception, we cannot ask whether some phenomena fall beyond its range” (Chomsky, 1987). Moreover, “The mind-body problem can therefore not even be formulated. The problem cannot be solved, because there is no clear way to state it. Unless someone proposes a definite concept of body, we cannot ask whether some phenomena exceed its bounds.” As for clarifying the concept of the body, the physical, matter, Chomsky states, “the material world is whatever we discover it to be, with whatever properties it must be assumed to have for the purposes of explanatory theory. Any intelligible theory that offers genuine explanations and that can be assimilated to the core notions of physics becomes part of the theory of the material world, part of our account of body.” To Chomsky, a mechanical model of the world, developed in early modern philosophy and inchoate science, could never account for aspects of the mental. Thus, while he understands Descartes' motivation to postulate a separate, nonphysical “thinking substance,” he rejects Descartes’ classic dualism and trains his analytic guns on the mechanical model in particular and on matter in general. Open Questions and Mysteries Chomsky feels no pressure to devise his own theory of consciousness. If anything, he shuns grand solutions. “There seems to be no coherent doctrine of materialism and metaphysical naturalism, no issue of eliminativism, no mind-body problem (Chomsky, 2020). In short, as Edward Feser notes, “if the problem has no clear content, neither do any of the solutions to it” (Feser, 2022b). Chomsky is content to allow science to do its work, advancing knowledge of the brain and of the mind, leaving to the future the construction of proper theories of consciousness irrespective of current notions of the physical and matter. One may infer that Chomsky contemplates an expanded view of the physical, with matter having features now unknown, which then would “naturally” subsume the mental. (Note: Chomsky rejects panpsychism.) However, in an overarching sense, he remains unsure whether human beings have the capacity to solve what he believes are genuine mysteries about the nature of reality, but he is also unsure whether consciousness will prove to be an ultimate mystery.

---

### Searle’s Language and Consciousness
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/searle-s-language-and-consciousness
Theorists: John Searle

To philosopher John Searle, language is crucial for consciousness, just as consciousness is crucial for language, because much of our consciousness is shaped by language and because the parts of language that are most important to us are precisely those that are conscious (Searle, 2014b). Language Shaping Consciousness Searle contrasts human and animal consciousness: “My dogs have a kind of consciousness which is incredibly rich. They can smell things I can't smell and they have a kind of inner life that I don't have, but all the same, there are all kinds of conscious experiences they simply cannot have. My doggy lying there may be thinking about chasing other dogs but he's not thinking about doing his income tax or writing his next poem or figuring out how he's going to have a better summer vacation next year.” Searle stresses how language gives us enormous power in shaping consciousness. A favorite quotation is from the French philosopher La Rochefoucauld: “Very few people would ever fall in love if they never read about it.” Searle's point is that language shapes experience; there are all kinds of experiences you just can't have without language. As for how language and consciousness articulate and developed over time, Searle envisions an evolutionary “boot-strapping effect.” It starts off with pre-linguistic consciousness, and then develops linguistic meaning and communication, which enrich consciousness. The result is an elaborate structure of language, which makes for a more elaborate structure of consciousness, which then enables you to enrich your language. There is a continuous reinforcing and compound effect (Searle, 2014b). Consciousness Without Language Non-linguistic animals can't do this, Searle continues: “My doggie can think somebody is at the door, but he cannot think I wish 17 people were at the door, or I hope we get more people at the door next week. Because to do that, he has got to be able to shuffle the symbols in a way that human beings can with their inner syntax.” Although animals do not form or express their beliefs in a symbolic language, Searle attributes to them intentional states, and because intentional states require consciousness, it follows that consciousness does not require symbolic language. He cites as evidence that animals “correct their beliefs all the time on the basis of their perceptions” (Proust, 2003; Searle, 2002).

---

### Quine's Linguistic Demotion of Phenomenal Consciousness
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/quines-linguistic-demotion-of-phenomenal-consciousness
Theorists: W.V.O. Quine

W.V.O. Quine offered no theory of phenomenal consciousness, but his philosophy of language supplies one of the twentieth century's most consequential instruments for demoting it. Where Quine’s primary entry treats his physicalism and naturalized epistemology, the concern here is narrower and more distinctive: the linguistic machinery through which the phenomenal is stripped of foundational standing. Quine's claim is not that qualia are unreal but that they are second-grade—admissible in the loose idioms of daily life yet excluded from the extensional, public language in which he holds that the true structure of reality must be described. Two moves accomplish this: the "flight from intension," which bars meanings and other intentional entities from serious ontology, and the thesis that the vocabulary of subjective quality is a derivative idiom, parasitic on shared reference to public things. Grounding both is a behaviorist account of meaning on which there is nothing to linguistic content beyond dispositions to verbal behavior in observable circumstances. The Flight from Intension The demotion of the phenomenal is executed through Quine's philosophy of language. Intentional and mentalistic idioms—belief, desire, meaning, and by extension the felt characters ascribed in introspective report—are referentially opaque: they resist the substitution of co-referring terms and so violate the extensionality Quine requires of any language that limns "the true and ultimate structure of reality" (Quine, 1960). Intensions—meanings, propositions, attributes—he judged to lack adequate criteria of identity, famously "creatures of darkness," governed by his dictum of no entity without identity. Propositional attitudes are therefore reconstrued, where possible, as relations to sentences rather than to inner contents, and where they cannot be so tamed they are consigned to a "second grade" of idiom: usable for everyday and even scientific purposes, but not admitted into the canonical, extensional description of what there is. Whatever is distinctively first-personal and qualitative about consciousness falls on the wrong side of this line. Radical Translation and the Publicity of Meaning The exclusion rests on a positive doctrine of what meaning is. In the thought experiment of radical translation, a field linguist confronts an untouched language with nothing to go on but the natives' utterances and the observable circumstances that prompt them (Quine, 1960). Pointing at a passing rabbit, the linguist hears "gavagai" and hypothesizes "rabbit"—but no accumulation of behavioral evidence can decide whether the term picks out a rabbit, an undetached rabbit-part, or a momentary rabbit-stage, since rival translation manuals fit all the dispositions equally well. From this indeterminacy of translation and the accompanying inscrutability of reference, Quine draws a stronger conclusion: there is no fact of the matter, no language-independent meaning, beyond what can be gleaned from overt behavior in observable circumstances (Quine, 1987). Meaning is exhausted by publicly conditioned dispositions to assent and dissent. According to Quine, the consequence for consciousness is decisive. If even the meaning of an ordinary term has no residual force behind its public behavioral profile, then there is a fortiori no private, first-personally given inner content that words for experience could be reporting from behind the behavioral facts. The publicity of meaning removes the very space in which an autonomous language of qualia might live. Sense Quality as a Derivative Idiom Quine's most direct remark on the phenomenal follows from this: subjective sense qualities are a derivative idiom (Quine, 1960). When one tries to describe a sensory quality, one reaches for public comparisons—a color as orange or heliotrope, a smell as of rotten eggs—so that even the language of the inner is built by reference outward to shared things. Sense data, far from being the bedrock of the phenomenalist tradition, are for Quine a sophisticated, physicalism-laden construction one arrives at late, by reflection, not a given from which knowledge or language could begin. This does not make Quine an eliminativist or illusionist about experience in the manner of Dennett or the Churchlands or Frankish; he neither declares that there are no qualia nor argues that consciousness is a systematic error. His deflation is quieter and more grammatical: the qualitative is genuine, but its vocabulary is secondary, and it earns no descriptive role that public, extensional language cannot in principle supply. The Public Roots of Inner Language These commitments give Quine a distinctive position on the Language Relationships subcategory's animating question—whether consciousness requires language, or language consciousness. Its contemporary consensus, which Quine shares, is that phenomenal consciousness does not require language, language being both a recent evolutionary emergent and absent in the many creatures we take to be sentient (Berwick and Chomsky, 2016). Quine's contribution is orthogonal to that nexus. He does not claim that experience needs language; he claims that the vocabulary of experience is parasitic on public language. Because meaning is exhausted by dispositions to verbal behavior conditioned in shared, observable circumstances, there is no autonomous private language of qualia from which quality-talk could draw its sense—a conclusion that converges, from a behaviorist rather than a grammatical direction, with Wittgenstein's considerations against a private language. Where Chomsky locates a native language faculty, and Searle takes language and consciousness as mutually constitutive—language crucial for consciousness as consciousness is for language—Quine's linguistic behaviorism, the position against which mid-century nativism partly defined itself, makes the idiom of the inner a late public construction resting on no private foundation. His is therefore a language relationship of a different order from the subcategory's others: not language as a condition of consciousness, but the logical regimentation of language as the sieve that decides what consciousness-talk may contribute to a scientific ontology. Placement and Assessment Quine is placed within the Landscape's Language Relationships subcategory (under Materialism) as its deflationary limiting case—the theorist for whom language bears on consciousness not because experience requires it, but because the logical regimentation of language demotes the ontological significance of phenomenal consciousness and it decides what talk of experience may contribute to science. For consciousness studies, Quine's contribution here is a boundary rather than a mechanism. He explains neither why neural states are felt nor how language might capture their felt character; he argues instead that the felt character never entered the public, extensional language on which science draws, and that the idiom which seems to name it is a construction from outward reference. Set beside the subcategory's other theories, Quine marks its deflationary edge: language is relevant to the phenomenal chiefly as the instrument that keeps it out of serious ontology. Whether that is philosophical hygiene or a premature foreclosure remains, as with his naturalism generally—treated in the companion entry—the contested question. References Berwick, R. C., & Chomsky, N. (2016). Why Only Us: Language and Evolution. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Quine, W. V. O. (1960). Word and Object. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Quine, W. V. O. (1987). Indeterminacy of translation again. Journal of Philosophy, 84(1), 5–10.

---

### Koch’s Consciousness Does Not Depend on Language
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/koch-s-consciousness-does-not-depend-on-language
Theorists: Christof Koch

Neuroscientist Christof Koch asserts without ambiguity, “Consciousness doesn't depend on language,” and he offers vivid clinical cases of brain trauma or insult where language is obviously lost and consciousness is obviously retained. Koch is especially exercised by the claim that “only humans experience anything,” that other animals have no sentience, a belief he calls “preposterous, a remnant of an atavistic desire to be the one species of singular importance to the universe at large. Far more reasonable and compatible with all known facts is the assumption that we share the experience of life with all mammals” (Koch, 2019). Koch recounts and rejects how “Many classical scholars assign to language the role of kingmaker when it comes to consciousness. That is, language use is thought to either directly enable consciousness or to be one of the signature behaviors associated with consciousness.” He concludes, “language contributes massively to the way we experience the world, in particular to our sense of the self as our narrative center in the past and present. But our basic experience of the world does not depend on it” (Koch, 2019).

---

### Smith’s Language as Classifier of Consciousness
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/smith-s-language-as-classifier-of-consciousness
Theorists: Barry Smith

Philosopher Barry Smith states that while we think of consciousness as “moments of experience,” the way we capture what's similar or different in our experiences over time is via language. The “passing show,” he says, “gets assembled into larger, more meaningful groups when we use language to classify and categorize.” How do we do this? How do we connect up these bits of consciousness with something stable? How do we classify the world, not just our own experience, and communicable between experiencers? The answer is language, he says, which he calls a species-specific property of human beings. With language, we codify our own experience, represent the content of our own minds, and compare it with the contents of other minds (Smith, 2012). Language and Classification of Experience Distinguishing consciousness from language, Smith tells of someone who lost all of their words for fruit and vegetables, and only those words. They could use language normally and they had conscious awareness of fruits and vegetables, but they could not use, pronounce or even recognize words for fruit and vegetables. “It's as if a whole shelf of meanings had been taken away.” Smith relates grades of consciousness to grades of language. One can lose the word for an object but can still recognize the object (a form of aphasia). Deeper, one can not only lose the word as a piece of sound representing an object, but also not recognize the object either and lose the whole meaning (a form of agnosia). He describes stroke patients who, for example, can't use the word “glove”. “What is that?” “Can't say.” Perhaps just the word is missing, because if they are asked, “Is there a glove on the table?”, they answer, “Yes.” But other stroke patients answer, “I've no idea.” And if you show them a glove and ask, “What's this for?”, they say, “I don't know, maybe it's for keeping coins.” Smith suggests that words are ways that our visual consciousness categorizes and structures the world. And perhaps a deeper loss of language can lead to a dissolution of the very categories that we use to classify our perceptual experiences. So, it's not just that I can't name or categorize some object, but without language the actual conscious experience of that object is radically different. If so, language is responsible, at least in part, for organizing consciousness (Smith, 2012).

---

### Jaynes’s Breakdown of The Bicameral Mind
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/jaynes-s-breakdown-of-the-bicameral-mind
Theorists: Julian Jaynes

Psychohistorian Julian Jaynes's 1976 book, The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind, proposes that consciousness, particularly “the ability to introspect,” is a learned behavior rooted in language and culture and arises from metaphor; consciousness is neither innate nor fundamental. To Jaynes, language plays a central role in consciousness; language is “an organ of perception, not simply a means of communication” (Jaynes, 1976; Bicameral Mind, 2024). Jaynes defines consciousness idiosyncratically by distinguishing it from sensory awareness and cognition; as such it more closely resembles “introspective consciousness,” as he calls it, than it does phenomenal consciousness, which is the target of this Landscape. Nonetheless, it is helpful to work through Jaynes's definitions and arguments, clarifying how to avoid what could be confounding or muddled thinking about consciousness. While Jaynes's consciousness is not phenomenal consciousness, his careful parsing of his definition gives insight into the subtleties of the parsing process. Moreover, appreciating the flow of Jaynes's arguments as well as the substance of his claims sharpens our view of the entire Landscape. Jaynes's Definition of Consciousness In Jaynes's words, “Consciousness is not a simple matter and it should not be spoken of as if it were.” He starts with what his consciousness is not. Not the “many things that the nervous system does automatically for us. All the variety of perceptual constancies … all done without any help from introspective consciousness.” Not what he calls “preoptive” activities, such as how we sit, walk, move. “All these are done without consciousness, unless we decide to be conscious of them.” Not even speaking, where “the role of consciousness is more interpolative than any constant companion to my words.” Consciousness, he stresses, is not sense perception; it does not copy experience; it is not necessary for learning; it is not even necessary for thinking or reasoning; and it has only an arbitrary and functional location (Jaynes, 1987). To Jaynes, consciousness, or what he refines as “subjective conscious mind,” is an analog of the real world. “It is built up with a vocabulary or lexical field whose terms are all metaphors or analogs of behavior in the physical world … It allows us to short-cut behavioral processes and arrive at more adequate decisions. Like mathematics, it is an operator rather than a thing or a repository. And it is intimately bound with volition and decision … Every word we use to refer to mental events is a metaphor or analog of something in the behavioral world” (Jaynes, 1987). Jaynes says that the primary feature of his consciousness is an “associated spatial quality that, as a result of the language used to describe such psychological events, becomes, with constant repetition, this spatial quality of our consciousness or mind-space …. It is the space which you preoptively are introspecting on at this very moment.” The second most important feature of Jaynes' consciousness is the subject of the introspecting, the introspective “I”. Here Jaynes uses analogy, which differs from metaphor in that the similarity is between relationships rather than between things or actions. “As the body with its sense organs (referred to as I) is to physical seeing,” he says, “so there develops automatically an analog ‘I’ to relate to this mental kind of ‘seeing’ in mind-space.” A third feature of Jaynes' consciousness is narratization, “the analogic simulation of actual behavior.” Consciousness, he says, “is constantly fitting things into a story, putting a before and an after around any event.” Other features of Jaynes' consciousness include: “concentration, the ‘inner’ analog of external perceptual attention; suppression, by which we stop being conscious of annoying thoughts, the analog of turning away from annoyances in the physical world; excerption, the analog of how we sense only one aspect of a thing at a time; and consilience, the analog of perceptual assimilation.” Jaynes “essential rule” is that “no operation goes on in consciousness that was not in behavior first. All of these are learned analogs of external behavior” (Jaynes, 1987). Definition in hand, Jaynes asks, “When did all this ‘inner’ world begin?”, which he calls “the most important watershed in our discussion.” The Bicameral Mind Hypothesis Jaynes famously introduces the hypothesis of the "bicameral mind", a non-conscious mentality supposedly prevalent in early humans that featured a kind of auditory hallucinations. He argued that relatively recent human ancestors as late as the ancient Greeks did not consider emotions and desires as stemming from their own minds but rather as the actions of external gods (Bicameral mentality, 2024). Jaynes takes the oldest parts of the Iliad and asks, “Is there evidence of consciousness?” The answer, he thinks, is no. “People are not sitting down and making decisions. No one is. No one is introspecting. No one is even reminiscing. It is a very different kind of world” (Jaynes, 1987). Who, then, makes the decisions? Whenever a significant choice is to be made, Jaynes suggests that “a voice comes in telling people what to do. These voices are always and immediately obeyed. These voices are called gods.” To Jaynes, this is the origin of gods. He regards them as “auditory hallucinations” similar to, although not the same as, “the voices heard by Joan of Arc or William Blake. Or similar to the voices that modern schizophrenics hear.” Jaynes coins the “bicameral mind” using the metaphor of a bicameral legislature. It simply means that human mentality at this time was in two parts, a decision-making part and a follower part, and neither part was conscious in the sense in which Jaynes has described it (above) (Jaynes, 1987). The theory posits that the human mind once operated in a state in which cognitive functions were divided between one part of the brain which appears to be "speaking", and a second part which listens and obeys—the bicameral mind—and that the breakdown of this division gave rise to consciousness in humans. Jaynes supports his theory with historical texts and archaeological evidence. He places the origin of consciousness around the 2nd millennium BCE and suggests that the transition from the bicameral mind to consciousness was triggered by the breakdown of the bicameral system of society (Bicameral mentality, 2024). Jaynes describes bicameral societies as “strict and stable hierarchies,” including bicameral theocracies, where “everything went like clockwork providing there was no real catastrophe or problem.” But such a system is precarious, especially as society grows in population and complexity, such that “given a time of social and political instability, bicamerality can break down like a house of cards.” Whereas all significant decisions previously had been based on the bicameral mind, after its breakdown, after the hallucinated voices no longer told people what to do, a new way of making decisions had to develop, which was a kind of proto-consciousness (Jaynes, 1987). Neurobiological Correlates and Critique There is an obvious, perhaps tempting, neurobiological correlate: the two cerebral hemispheres, especially based on the pioneering split-brain research of Michael Gazzaniga and Roger Sperry, which explained functional brain lateralization and how the cerebral hemispheres communicate with each another. Jaynes puts it simply: “the right hemisphere was ‘talking’ to the left, and this was the bicameral mind” (Jaynes, 1987). Although Jaynes's physicalist, deflationary theory of consciousness continues to intrigue, it is not accepted by consciousness experts. Nevertheless, Jaynes's ideas and arguments can inform our view of the Landscape.

---

### Dewart’s Assertive Speech and Self-Presence
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/dewart-s-assertive-speech-and-self-presence
Theorists: Leslie Sutherland Dewart

Leslie Dewart proposes that specifically human consciousness arose not directly through genetic evolution but through a novel evolutionary process initiated by speech: prehuman organisms already possessed experience, but assertive communication enabled an experiencer to become present to its own experiencing and thereby become conscious in the distinctively human sense. Consciousness for Dewart is thus neither a separate substance nor reducible simply to neural activity; it is a naturally emergent form of self-present experience made possible by embodied biological capacities but historically generated and continuously transformed through speech, thought, and culture (Dewart, 1989; Pikkarainen, 2021). Interpreted in contemporary terms, however, Dewart explains most directly the emergence of self-present or pre-reflectively self-aware phenomenal experience, rather than the more basic fact that experience feels like anything at all. In other words, Dewart argues that consciousness is generated by speech, and that it is a historically emergent human achievement rather than a biological endowment: all animals experience, but only humans experience consciously. Conscious experience on his account is self-present, meaning the subject experiences not only the object but simultaneously the act of experiencing and herself as the experiencer, in a single act that is explicitly not self-observation or reflection. The mechanism is the assertiveness peculiar to human speech, whereby a speaker intends to communicate her experience and undergoes that communicating as her own causal doing; speech in this sense precedes consciousness, which in turn precedes the structured languages. Dewart holds consciousness to be fully natural and caused by the same biochemical processes humans share with animals, while denying that it reduces to them (Dewart, 1989). Experience Without Consciousness Dewart’s foundational distinction is between experience and conscious experience. Experience is widely distributed across animal life and requires no special explanation; what does is the human capacity to experience consciously. Dewart describes the emergence of consciousness not as a new biological structure but as a new way of using biochemical processes already present in animals. This places him at an unusual angle to the field. If phenomenal consciousness is there being something it is like to undergo a state, Dewart appears to grant that to animals under the heading of experience, reserving "consciousness" for a reflexively structured human variant. The denial of animal consciousness in the 1989 book is stark; Pikkarainen (2021) notes that Dewart softened it in his posthumous work, and reads it as an interest in the human form rather than a considered exclusion of others. Assertive Speech as Generator Consciousness, on Dewart's account, is not a product of genetic natural selection but of a new mode of human action, namely speaking. What differentiates human speech from animal signaling is assertiveness: the speaker intends to communicate her experience, and experiences the communicating itself as a causal process of which she is the author. The ability to speak thematically, asserting a thesis in relation to a theme, is central to the sequence (Dewart, 1991), and that order of emergence is deliberately counterintuitive. Speech comes first, consciousness second, and structured languages third, a sequence Dewart holds must be recapitulated in every child. He is explicit that this is not linguistic relativity: grammatical structure does not condition thought; rather, the manner of speaking formats consciousness, which then shapes languages. Because consciousness arises from a mode of action rather than from selection, its development is cultural and historical, an evolutionary domain of its own that remains open. Self-Presence Without Reflection The claim bearing most directly on phenomenal consciousness is that in conscious experience the act of experience is present to itself. Dewart is careful to distinguish this from self-observation or self-reflection, and the distinction is axial. Theories construing self-consciousness as the subject taking itself as object face the circularity objection pressed by Henrich (1971), since the subject must already be given to itself to do so. Dewart's self-presence is meant to be prior to and constitutive of any such reflective act. This aligns him structurally with pre-reflective accounts in phenomenology, though he arrives from evolutionary and linguistic premises, and the resemblance appears to be convergence rather than influence. Absent-Mindedness and the Genesis of the Sacred Dewart's account of consciousness is inseparable from an assessment of its pathology and from the account of religion that follows. Because consciousness develops rather than simply appears, it can develop defectively, and he argues that populations prior to Western culture realized it only partially: the subject's own asserting activity was not properly grasped. He calls this absent-mindedness. The experiencer then feels that reality is asserting itself to her rather than that she is asserting, which projects her own causal agency outward and generates the sense of a Power speaking through the world. The genesis of consciousness thus entails the rise of existential questions and of the sacred. This continues Dewart’s earlier theology: The Future of Belief (Dewart, 1966) held that Christian doctrine had been distorted by its Hellenistic inheritance and required dehellenization, and Sawa and Tarver (2018) read the later work as the naturalized terminus of that program. Dewart supports the diagnosis with a contested linguistic claim: that Indo-European and Sumerian uniquely employ a copula in sentences of the form "X is Y," where other languages say "X Y," and that the copular form encodes an external reality insisting on itself rather than a speaker joining thesis to theme. He carried the analysis into a critique of representationism, the doctrine that cognitions exist in the mind as copies of their objects, which he traced to Hellenistic sources and blamed for modern philosophy's stagnation (Dewart, 2016). Influence and AI Dewart’s theory received comparatively little attention in mainstream consciousness research, despite appearing just before the rapid expansion of consciousness studies in the 1990s; later scholars have explicitly described his work as poorly known (Armour, 1991; Pikkarainen, 2021). Its affinities with Jaynes, culturally mediated theories of mind, language-dependent accounts of self-consciousness, and contemporary work on pre-reflective self-awareness are nevertheless substantial, although conceptual convergence should not be mistaken for demonstrated historical influence. Dewart also rejected genuine artificial intelligence in a strong sense. A computer might simulate speech, reasoning, and communication with extraordinary effectiveness, but he argued that genuine thought and speech require a self-oriented purposive causal process—the system must in some sense communicate its contents to itself as well as externally (Dewart, 1989). This sharply contrasts with Turing-style reliance on publicly manifested intelligent capacities. For contemporary AI-consciousness debates, Dewart thus poses a still-relevant question: whether linguistic performance can constitute evidence of consciousness without intrinsic self-presence. His further assumption that such purposiveness is possible only in living organisms, however, is simply asserted. Assessment Dewart’s distinctive contribution is therefore not that language enriches an already conscious mind, but that assertive speech transforms experience into self-present human consciousness and inaugurates a new, cultural mode of conscious evolution. Its strength is the integration of phenomenology, language, development, and cultural evolution; its limitation is that explaining how experience becomes self-present does not yet explain why experience exists phenomenally at all. In other words, Dewart's project is a theory of the origin and structure of human self-presence, not an account of qualitative character. He explains why experience should become present to itself and what happens culturally when that process miscarries, but not why any state should feel like anything, and his framework places that question on the animal side of a boundary he did not explore. The work is little cited: commentaries appeared on publication (Khan et al., 1991; Armour, 1991), and interest has since been sustained by a small circle (Nixon, 2010; Savage, 2020; Pikkarainen, 2021). Its interest for Landscape is as a fully worked instance of a position rarely developed at length, that consciousness is neither innate nor neural in origin but generated by a mode of action and therefore capable of being done badly. Note: Dewart’s theory was suggested by Richard Sawa. References Armour, L. (1991). Review of Evolution and Consciousness: The Role of Speech in the Origin and Development of Human Nature, by Leslie Dewart. Dialogue: Canadian Philosophical Review/Revue canadienne de philosophie, 30(1–2), 195–198. Dewart, L. (1966). The Future of Belief: Theism in a World Come of Age. New York: Herder and Herder. Dewart, L. (1989). Evolution and Consciousness: The Role of Speech in the Origin and Development of Human Nature. University of Toronto Press. Dewart, L. (1991). "Synopsis of Evolution and Consciousness." Unpublished author's synopsis. Dewart, L. (2016). Hume's Challenge and the Renewal of Modern Philosophy. Ed. D. Dewart. BookBaby. Henrich, D. (1971). "Self-Consciousness: A Critical Introduction to a Theory." Man and World 4(1): 3–28. Khan, A. H., Alton, B., Meynell, H., Wiebe, D., & Dewart, L. (1991). Leslie Dewart’s Evolution and Consciousness: Three commentaries. Studies in Religion/Sciences Religieuses, 20(1), 75–102. Nixon, G. M. (2010). "Hollows of Memory." Journal of Consciousness Exploration and Research 1(3): 213–401. Pikkarainen, E. (2021). Education, consciousness and negative feedback: Towards the renewal of modern philosophy of education. Philosophies, 6(2), 25. https://doi.org/10.3390/philosophies6020025 Savage, A. M. (2020). Leslie Dewart (1922–2009): Canada's Forgotten Theological Philosopher. D.I.M. Publishing. Sawa, R., and Tarver, W. T. S. (2018). "Leslie Dewart." In C. D. Rodkey and J. E. Miller (eds.), The Palgrave Handbook of Radical Theology. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, 171–185.

---

### Parrington’s Language and Tool-Driven Consciousness
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/parrington-s-language-and-tool-driven-consciousness
Theorists: John Parrington

Biologist John Parrington proposes that a qualitative leap in consciousness—“human self-conscious awareness”—occurred during human evolution as “our capacity for language and our ability to continually transform the world around us by designing and using tools” transformed our brains. His challenge is to distinguish human language and use of tools from analogous activities of animals, particularly other primates, as contemporary research uncovers more complex animal capacities (Parrington, 2023). Language and Consciousness Regarding language, Parrington stresses the “highly distinctive feature of human language” as “an interconnected system of abstract symbols, linked together by grammar.” This is why, he says, “only human beings are able to use language to convey complex ideas like past, present and future, individual versus society, location in space and even more abstract concepts.” (Parrington, 2023, p. 22). He defends his view of human consciousness as language-dependent by stressing our capacity for “inner speech, or more generally inner symbols, as central to human thought” (Parrington, 2023, p. 55). Tools and Brain Transformation Regarding use of tools, Parrington argues that “tool use by other species tends to be both occasional and also very limited in the type of tools that are created. In contrast, a unique feature of our species is that practically all of our interactions with the world are through tools that we have created.” Moreover, “we are continually in a process of inventing new types of tools and technologies” (Parrington, 2023, p. 19). Parrington's theory focuses on human brains, which are “not just much bigger than those of other primates, but radically different in structure and function” (a claim that hangs on “radically”) (Parrington, 2023, p. 20). He references different brain regions, highlighting the cerebellum, long thought limited to coordinating repetitive movements but now shown to play a role in human creativity and imagination (Parrington, 2023, p. 47), and the prefrontal cortex, greatly expanded in humans, the locus of reasoning, planning, decision making, control of social behavior and some aspects of language, all of which relate to human uniqueness (Parrington, 2023, p. 126). He has brain waves of different frequencies conveying specific sensory signals and combining together into a unified conscious whole, thus explaining how we bind together different aspects of experience into a seamless experience (Parrington, 2023, p. 19). Binding, Self, and the Hard Problem Parrington argues that “the effect of language and other cultural tools” have transformed human consciousness, which “provides another level of binding.” This surely means, he says, that “our sense of self is not an illusion, but rather a very real phenomenon based on the binding role of brain waves and the extra element of unity based on conceptual thought” (Parrington, 2023, p. 147). Rejecting what he calls “outdated models of the brain as a hard-wired circuit diagram,” he argues that meaning is created within our heads through a dynamic interaction of oscillating brain waves. Parrington believes that “in some ways” he has addressed the hard problem and “hopefully demonstrated that there is nothing magical about human consciousness” (Parrington, 2023, p. 196). He frames his theory, as he must, within an evolutionary context, seeking to explain inner speech, thought, and self-conscious awareness in terms of the evolved neural circuitry that undergirds these uniquely human capacities, especially as manifest in language and tools. While Parrington's goal, as Susan Blackmore puts it, is to develop “a material explanation of human consciousness”—and “he has done a great job of exploring material explanations of thought, perception, self-representation and behavioral control”—but none of this, Blackmore concludes, “gets at the deeper questions about subjective experience” (Blackmore, 2023).

---

### Hickey’s Language and Consciousness
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/hickey-s-language-and-consciousness

Linguist Raymond Hickey describes “an intimate relationship between language and consciousness.” He says, “The phenomenon of thought and that of sensation form the two main aspects of conscious experience. Thought is a collective term encompassing individual thoughts, cognitive phenomena with which we organize the rational flow of consciousness. Language is a means by which we express our thoughts, convey our feelings to others, record our past, and plan our future. Hence, language is used externally for communication with others and internally to organize and structure our thoughts. However, as cases of severe aphasia have shown, thought and logical thinking can survive the complete loss of language“ (Hickey, 2023, 2025). Thus, while language provides content for consciousness, it is not necessary for consciousness awareness, i.e., phenomenal consciousness. Nonetheless, it is worth exploring language as a sophisticated communication system in the context of human consciousness. The Structure and Evolution of Language As Hickey describes it, “Language has a physical component: its articulation through the vocal apparatus. Language also has a non-physical component: the generation of language within the brain, the realm of syntax (sentence structure), and the lexicon (vocabulary). Syntax in human language is chiefly characterized by compositionality, the ability of humans to organize the elements of language (words and parts of words) in different combinations to express different meanings. In the scholarship on the origin of language, there are basically two camps: one which believes that syntax arose slowly, in tandem with pronunciation and vocabulary. This view sees syntax as proceeding from a basic initial form of linear language, in which the sequence of words corresponded one-to-one to the sequence of events being referred to. The second view sees syntax, in our modern sense, as arising suddenly due to a chance mutation in a single individual (a notion associated with Noam Chomsky). The two views are traded under the labels (1) the continuity hypothesis and (2) the discontinuity hypothesis, respectively. There exists a minority view that in evolutionary terms, language evolved in order to formulate thoughts. Such a view sees thoughts as consisting of concepts which are causally connected to words in the sentences of language. This would mean that we think by using the language of thought; spoken language is then viewed as secondary and derivative. Language, Brain, and Consciousness According to Hickey, across the animal world, there is an approximate correlation between brain size and cognition, with the ratio to body mass being crucial. Throughout the development of the genus Homo we can recognize an increase in brain size: The development of brain size advanced more or less parallel to anatomical developments, which are the prerequisites for language: A lowered larynx with vocal folds that produce enough volume of sound for it to easily carry several meters through air. A flexible tongue that can change its configuration many times a second to produce both vowels and consonants (the latter in combination with a further passive articulator like the teeth, alveolar ridge, palate, or velum). While (1) can be determined by examining hominin fossil remains, (2) is much more difficult, but the size of the foramen magnum, the oval-shaped opening at the base of the skull through which the hypoglossal nerve (connected to the base of the tongue) passes, can provide some clues. As Hickey puts it, “We have no concrete data about how consciousness developed during the evolution of the Homo species. At what stage did human primates develop a clear notion of past and future, and engage in complex, abstract thought? We can get at least a partial handle on the latter development: by the earliest attestation of art, for instance, on the walls of caves. Here, the earliest examples date to about 50,000 years ago, if not even further back. This art contains animal representations, hand stencils, as well as abstract representations documenting the capability of the artists for symbolic thought.” In the sense of communicating with acoustic signals, language was likely present with the various species of Homo; early chimpanzees probably also used simple sounds for communication, panting and hooting as do their conspecifics today. As a structured symbolic system using words strung together into grammatical units, free from the here and now and ordered hierarchically (not linearly), human language developed much later. By 50,000 years ago, language had probably attained the range of structure and function that we know from present-day languages. The rise of predation during the Cambrian expansion (c. 540 mya) probably necessitated a degree of abstract thought, at least the notion of object permanence for animals when hunting prey. This means that abstract thought is deeply rooted in animal evolution, leading over long periods of time to the ability to form concepts and the notion of classes of objects (much later, as with higher primates). This ability rendered the use of symbolic rather than direct reference to objects possible in language when it began to develop and gave impetus to the use of language to organize thoughts. Consciousness Without Language? Hickey concludes by speculating about “ascertaining consciousness” for life forms without language. He says, “There are certain behavioral indications of higher consciousness, such as extended social interaction (including with other species), playfulness, and curiosity, all of which are characteristic of cetaceans like dolphins, for instance. Ultimately, to tell to what extent a being is conscious, one needs language: it would need to describe to a hearer its experience of consciousness. In our world, only humans are in a position to do that” (Hickey, 2023, 2025).

---

### Toomela’s Language-Mediated Structural-Systemic Theory
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/toomela-s-language-mediated-structural-systemic-theory
Theorists: Aaro Toomela

Psychologist Aaro Toomela’s theory holds that phenomenal consciousness is not an intrinsic property of brain activity or a generic accompaniment of experience, but the developmentally emergent capacity to experience one’s own psychic processes, made possible when speech and linguistic signs reorganize sense-based mental life into a semiotically mediated, socially formed system of reflective self-experience (Toomela, 2016a, 2016b). In other words, in Toomela's structural-systemic theory, consciousness is a language-mediated psychic process whose result is the experiencing of one's own psyche—a capacity that emerges neither in the brain nor from sensory experience alone but with the acquisition of the linguistic sign, because a word is a dual system pointing simultaneously outward to the sensory world and inward to another sign within the mind, such that every use of a word is at once a reference to the world and an experience of one's own mental content, rendering consciousness a socially constituted, developmentally acquired, and (as far as is known) a distinctively human phenomenon (Toomela, 2016a, 2016b). Toomela works in the Vygotskian tradition (a psychological and educational framework originating from Soviet psychologist Lev Vygotsky in which cognitive development is inherently a social process, driven by interactions with culture, language, and "More Knowledgeable Others"), and thus situates consciousness within a general theory of semiotically mediated psychic functional systems, adapting the functional-systems framework of Russian neuropsychology (Luria, 1973) and Uexküll's notion of the Umwelt (Uexküll, 1934). Experiencing one's own experience Toomela defines consciousness narrowly and deliberately: not creature wakefulness, not the mere possession of sensory images, and not "awareness" in the broad sense cataloged by contemporary consciousness science, but the experience of a psychic experience—"the experience of experiences" (Vygotsky, 1934). Note, upfront, what Toomela’s theory is not: It is not phenomenal consciousness in the Nagel–Chalmers sense, but rather the experiencing of one's own experience, which is closer to self-consciousness / higher-order or reflective awareness. On his own usage, raw sensory what-it's-likeness is the pre-conscious "sense-based psyche" shared with animals; the felt redness of red is not yet "consciousness" for him. So, arguably, he relocates rather than solves the hard problem. In Toomela’s usage, raw sensory experience is the pre-conscious sense-based psyche that humans share with other animals; consciousness proper arises only when such experience is itself taken as an object. Because organisms possess no receptor for their own psyche, the central puzzle is how the psyche can be experienced at all when it cannot be sensed. The mechanism: the dual linguistic sign The answer turns on Toomela's principle that genuinely new information arises only when the same input is processed by two interrelated mechanisms. Sense-based thinking synthesizes signs according to the rules of the physical world; speech adds a second mechanism structured instead by rules of communication. A linguistic sign is therefore a multipart system: its outward form is always sensory (a heard word, a seen gesture, tactile Braille), yet it is bound to a further sign—an image or another word—within the psyche. Every use of a word thus simultaneously indicates an external event and an internal sign, and so is itself an act of consciousing. Consciousness, on this account, is the emergent attribute of the unity of linguistic (social) and sense-based information processing, appearing precisely when signs governed by the world's rules become signs governed by communication's rules (Toomela, 2016a). A Vygotskian, "Brainless" Psychology The lineage is explicit. Peirce held that knowledge of the inner world is inferred from external facts and that all thought is thought in signs (Peirce, 1868); James construed consciousness as a relation among experiences rather than a stuff (James, 1904); and Vygotsky supplied the decisive image—"the word is a microcosm of human consciousness"—binding consciousness, generalization, and social relation together (Vygotsky, 1934). Toomela draws the strong corollary that a psychological theory of consciousness can be brainless: the brain is necessary for consciousness, but the principles governing it are semiotic and social, not biological—which is why, he argues, decades of searching for universal neural correlates have failed. Selectivity, development, and consciousness of consciousness Because only what is bound to a linguistic sign can be conscioused, consciousness is intrinsically selective: the results of psychic processes reach introspection, but the processes themselves—and everything unique rather than generalizable—do not, echoing the Würzburg "imageless thought" findings. Consciousness also develops, in structural stages keyed to stages of the word; a further threshold is crossed when speech is used to describe speech, yielding consciousness of consciousness—the reflexive structure Toomela reads in Descartes' cogito (Descartes, 1985) and the precondition of psychology itself. Scope and distinctiveness On present evidence, Toomela restricts consciousness to humans: other animals use signs as tools or commands rather than to share information, and lack both a linguistic environment and, apparently, the neural potential for linguistic signs, so the sole—but decisive—human difference is the linguistic sign itself. The position is pointedly non-reductive yet non-dualist: consciousness is neither located in the brain nor a separate substance, but a property of the person–language–environment whole. Far from impoverishing experience, consciousness enriches it, opening the inner Umwelt and, through the same mechanism by which one consciouses self and others alike, a window onto other minds. [Note: Toomela’s theory was suggested by Thomas Camminga, a developmental psychologist in the Netherlands.] References Descartes, R. (1985). The Philosophical Writings of Descartes (Vol. 1; J. Cottingham, R. Stoothoff, & D. Murdoch, Trans.). Cambridge University Press. (Original work published 1637.) James, W. (1904). Does "consciousness" exist? The Journal of Philosophy, Psychology and Scientific Methods, 1(18), 477–491. Luria, A. R. (1973). The Working Brain: An Introduction to Neuropsychology. Basic Books. Peirce, C. S. (1868). Some consequences of four incapacities. Journal of Speculative Philosophy, 2(3), 140–157. Toomela, A. (2016a). Culture, Speech and My Self. Tallinn. Toomela, A. (2016b). What are higher psychological functions? Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 50(1), 91–121. Uexküll, J. von. (1934). A Stroll Through the Worlds of Animals and Men: A Picture Book of Invisible Worlds. Vygotsky, L. S. (1934). Thinking and Speech [Myshlenie i rech']. Moscow–Leningrad: Gosudarstvennoe Sotsial'no-Ekonomicheskoe Izdatel'stvo.

---

### Brand Deisler’s Linguistically Attributed Biographical Self and Conscious Action
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/brand-deisler-s-linguistically-attributed-biographical-self-and-conscious-action
Theorists: Guillermo Brand Deisler

Key Takeaways Core Claim: The human Self is not innate or presupposed but emerges developmentally as a biographical entity initially constructed through other people’s linguistic attributions. Distinguishing Idea: Third-person linguistic statements about the child help create the referent that eventually becomes the child’s first-person biographical actor. How It Works: Coincident and non-coincident attributions construct a biography around the child’s name and couple it—without fusion—to the organism’s Functional Autobiography. Conscious Action: An action is conscious, in the theory’s technical usage, when unconscious functioning attributes it to the Self and organizes it as that entity’s action. Phenomenal Relevance: The theory does not explain the existence of qualia, but it may explain how phenomenology becomes structured by mineness, agency, autobiographical meaning, social identity, memory, anticipation, and reflective self-awareness. Scientific Status: The architecture integrates findings concerning memory, language, attribution, attention, and action, but its complete developmental sequence remains hypothetical. **************** Industrial engineer Guillermo Brand Deisler’s theory explains how a human biographical Self arises through other people’s linguistic attributions and becomes the referent of organized action. It begins with a sentient organism already capable of perception, feeling, learning, memory, anticipation, attention, and adaptive action. The theory therefore does not claim that language or the Self produces elementary phenomenal consciousness. An infant or nonhuman animal may feel pain, hunger, warmth, fear, or perceptual qualities without possessing the temporally extended biographical entity whose emergence the theory seeks to explain (Brand Deisler, 2026). The prelinguistic organism’s brain maintains an “operative present,” or Reality of the Individual: an updated functional organization of bodily and environmental information from which action proceeds. Experience leaves material modifications that later influence perception and behavior. Brand Deisler calls their accumulated organization the “Functional Autobiography”—not a narrated life history, but the organism’s acquired past insofar as it remains available to shape present functioning. The brain also constructs “biographies” by linking information, states, actions, and relationships to persisting referents. This starting point separates phenomenal subjectivity from biographical selfhood. The organism may already undergo experiences, but those experiences need not yet be organized as episodes in the life of a named and temporally enduring person. The theory’s relevance to phenomenal consciousness begins with this distinction: it suggests that feeling can precede the Self, while the later emergence of the Self can profoundly reorganize what experiences mean, how they are related to one another, and how they are experienced as belonging within a personal life. Language and the Biography from Others Human language radically expands the operative present. Words allow absent, remote, past, future, possible, fictional, and abstract entities to participate in present cognition. A child can therefore manage the biography of Little Red Riding Hood, recognizing the same character across events and attributing actions and relationships to her despite her lacking material existence. The same capacity is applied to the child. Other people repeatedly use the child’s name while attributing actions, states, relationships, dispositions, promises, and events to its referent. Some attributions are “coincident”: “Peter is running” while the child runs, or “Peter fell” while the bodily consequences of falling occur. Others are “non-coincident”: “Peter broke the glass yesterday,” “Peter will visit the park tomorrow,” or “Peter slept here as a baby.” Non-coincident attributions are especially important because they organize information around a referent identifiable independently of the organism’s present activity. Language supplied by others thus does not merely describe a pre-existing Self. It progressively constructs a biography referring to the same organism whose brain manages it. This social construction may also transform phenomenology indirectly. Bodily discomfort can become not merely pain but “what happened to Peter”; anticipation can become “what Peter will undergo”; praise, blame, shame, pride, promise, and responsibility become possible because present feeling is interpreted through the history and social standing of a continuing person. The phenomenal quality itself may not be created by attribution, but its salience, emotional tone, personal meaning, and experienced implications can be altered by it (Brand Deisler, 2026). Coupling Without Fusion Repeated coincident attributions associate the biography organized around the child’s name with the organism’s Functional Autobiography. Brand Deisler calls this relation “coupling without fusion.” The two organizations overlap and interact but remain distinct. The organism perceives, feels, and performs bodily execution; the biography organizes information concerning the temporally extended entity represented as having acted previously, acting now, or acting in possible futures. As these relationships become established, speakers need no longer formulate every attribution. Present configurations can activate the biographical referent automatically, and unconscious functioning can organize new meaningful units as actions or states of that entity. The Self emerges when this biographical entity operates with sufficient stability as the referent to which unconscious functioning attributes actions. Coupling without fusion provides a possible mechanism by which raw or minimally structured experience becomes incorporated into a personal phenomenal field. A sensation may remain bodily in origin while simultaneously acquiring the character of my present condition, the consequence of my earlier action, or something relevant to my future. The theory does not establish that such “mineness” is necessary for phenomenality, but it may explain the developmental emergence of specifically autobiographical mineness—the experienced placement of sensations, emotions, perceptions, and thoughts within the trajectory of a persisting Self. The Self, Agency, and Conscious Action Within this architecture, “conscious action” is defined as action carried out by the Self. The attribution establishing an action as the Self’s own is itself unconscious and need not take the form of inner speech. All material processes sustaining the action occur within the organism, but the action is individuated at the biographical level. Bodily actions are carried out by the Self through the organism; remembering, planning, comparing, reasoning, and reformulating are actions proper to the Self because their field can include worlds the body does not occupy. This technical conception does not entail that every self-attributed action is phenomenally experienced, nor does it explain why agency has a subjective character. Nevertheless, it bears directly on several structures commonly associated with human phenomenology: the sense that an action is mine; the distinction between something happening in me and something I am doing; the felt continuity between present deliberation and future conduct; and the integration of intention, effort, consequence, and responsibility into a single personal episode. The Self may also influence what enters phenomenal foreground. Information concerning one’s own name, reputation, commitments, injuries, desires, or future typically acquires unusual relevance. Because relevance helps direct attention and organize action, incorporation into the Self’s biography may change which contents dominate experience, how intensely they are felt, and how long they remain cognitively and affectively active. The Self is therefore not posited as the producer or container of consciousness, but as an organization capable of modulating the contents and personal structure of consciousness. Temporal Extension and Reflective Phenomenology The biographical Self allows the organism to act in relation to times and worlds the body does not occupy. Remembering, planning, imagining, regretting, promising, and reconsidering are present actions whose contents concern the past, future, counterfactual, fictional, or abstract. Through these actions, phenomenal consciousness can acquire a temporal and narrative depth absent from immediate sensation. Remembering, in Brand Deisler’s restricted sense, is not merely the activation of stored information. It is the integration of earlier content into the operative present as belonging to the Self’s biographical past. Similarly, planning is not simply prediction but action organized around a future attributed to the same persisting entity. The Self thereby links experiences separated in time and allows present phenomenology to be shaped by remembered embarrassment, anticipated loss, future obligation, unrealized possibility, or imagined alternative. This may also support reflective or metacognitive consciousness. Once experiences and actions are attributed to a stable biographical referent, the person can think about what “I” perceived, intended, felt, or decided. The theory does not explain the phenomenality of reflection itself, but it offers an account of the entity and developmental organization that make explicit self-reflection possible. Distinctiveness, Scope, and Empirical Status The theory shares themes with Mead’s socially constituted self, Vygotsky’s internalization of socially mediated language, Dennett’s narrative account of self, and Damasio’s autobiographical self (Mead, 1934; Vygotsky, 1978; Dennett, 1991; Damasio, 1999). Its distinctive contribution is the proposed mechanism by which other people’s third-person linguistic attributions construct a biographical referent, couple it to the organism’s acquired history, and become an endogenous system of unconscious action attribution. Brand Deisler further characterizes the Self as a “living entity” without a body of its own. This does not posit a nonphysical substance: the Self depends entirely on materially realized organization within the organism and has no independent causal power outside it. The claim rests, however, on a broad operational definition of life and remains philosophically contestable. The theory explicitly excludes the explanation of qualia. It does not explain why red looks red, why pain hurts, or why any neural process is accompanied by experience. Its potential contribution to phenomenal consciousness is instead organizational and developmental: it may explain how pre-existing sentience becomes autobiographically unified, socially interpreted, attentionally prioritized, temporally extended, reflectively accessible, and experienced in relation to a persisting personal actor. The proposed architecture is naturalistic and possibly empirically testable (Brand Deisler, 2026). References Brand Deisler, G. (2026). Conscious Action and the Self: How the Organism Constructs a Biographical Entity That Comes to Carry Out Actions. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.21722674. Damasio, A. (1999). The Feeling of What Happens: Body and Emotion in the Making of Consciousness. Harcourt Brace. Dennett, D. C. (1991). Consciousness Explained. Little, Brown and Company. Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, Self, and Society. University of Chicago Press. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Harvard University Press.

---

### Fedotov's Communication Hypothesis of Consciousness
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/fedotovs-communication-hypothesis-of-consciousness
Theorists: Sergei A. Fedotov

Neurobiologist Sergei Fedotov proposes a “Communication Hypothesis” in which consciousness is a highly specialized brain function that enables the encoding of personal information into communicative messages (Fedotov and Baidyuk, 2023). Consciousness can be viewed as an evolutionary improvement in information gathering and decision-making that makes personal motives and intentions publicly available and enables the directed modification of others' motives and intentions by communicating new information. On a subjective level, awareness of mental images signifies the readiness of information to be transmitted to an interlocutor. The Communication Hypothesis allows us to determine the position of conscious processes in relation to other cognitive processes, such as sensory detection, decision-making, and emotions. Consciousness can influence only those components of behavior that are related to the transmission of messages between people(Fedotov and Baidyuk, 2023). According to Fedotov, the emergence of consciousness is therefore inseparable from the development of language in culture. From this perspective, consciousness is an ability of social organisms that develops during ontogeny through the acquisition of language. Consciousness is not an inherited trait or property of an individual (personal communication, 2025). Animals are capable of learning sign language and of using names (King and Janik, 2013; Patterson and Cohn, 1990). According to the communication hypothesis, the use of language by individual anthropoids clearly indicates consciousness in such individuals. However, the development of consciousness in dolphins remains questionable, as it has not yet been proven that the signals used are shared by all members of the pod and are acquired words unique to specific groups ( ). According to the Communication Hypothesis: Thinking is the process of forming a thought, that is, an image associated with a message. Conscious processes of message creation can be stored in the form of declarative memory. Emotions may be unconscious, but they usually have a mental representation and are encoded in messages in consciousness. Self-consciousness is awareness of the independent cognitive process of self-identification in collective actions (physical boundaries and intentions of the subject and other participants). Observation and interpretation of known experiments with consciousness in the context of the Communication Hypothesis Observation: Conscious intention to make a movement occurs 300 ms after the onset of the readiness potential. Interpretation: Message encoding always follows goal-directed behavior (Libet et al., 1983). Observation: Conscious perception integrates stimuli presented within 400 ms. Interpretation: Coding in consciousness occurs in portions to form a relevant, holistic, and reliable message (Drissi-Daoudi et al., 2019). Observation: The priming effect disappears when the interval between the primary (unconscious) and target (conscious) stimuli is changed. Interpretation: Consciousness reflects a pattern acquired unconsciously, and there are thresholds for conscious processes (Naccache et al., 2002). Observation: Blind-sighted people are not aware of objects, but can visually determine their position and properties in experiments on attention. Interpretation: Message encoding in consciousness can be decoupled from other cognitive processes such as sensory and motor processing (Kentridge et al., 2004). Observation: The formation of the first memories in children coincides with the onset of speech development at the age of two years. Interpretation: Declarative memory is the storage of messages encoded through language in consciousness (MacDonald et al., 2000; Peterson, Rideout, 1998; Simcock, Hayne, 2002). Observation: People whose cultures lack the concepts of blue shades perform tasks to distinguish these colors more slowly and less successfully. Interpretation: Coding of messages in consciousness is associated with the improvement of sensory and motor stereotypes (Roberson et al., 2000; He et al., 2019). Observation: Tasks with spatial manipulation of images in mind are accompanied by inner speech and covert articulation. Interpretation: Subjective mental images in consciousness are formed in the process of generating messages (Sokolov, 1972). Observation: People with split hemispheres can correctly select objects with their left hand, the name or image of which is presented in the left visual field, but are not able to name (recognize) the selected object. Interpretation: The right hemisphere visually identifies the object and tactilely recognizes the object, but is not aware of it, since awareness is probably provided by the left hemisphere, encoding the message (Sperry, 1984). Observation: Anthropoids, elephants, whales, crows, fishes, and ants can pass the mirror self-recognition test, which is a key indicator of self-awareness, a component of consciousness. Interpretation: Detecting and manipulating a spot invisibly applied to the body in a mirror is the result of learning the nature of the mirror as a reflector of objects in front of it, and associating mirror reflection with tactile and proprioceptive sensitivities. The mirror test is not associated with the encoding of messages in consciousness (Gallup, 1970; Chang et al., 2017; Kohda et al., 2019). Observation: Individuals with split-brain disorders could pronounce a word presented in the right visual field unconsciously. Repetition of a conversation of a partner's speech, in both normal and pathological conditions, can occur unconsciously or against the background of extraneous thoughts. Interpretation: The formation of messages in consciousness can occur independently of the pronunciation and understanding of speech, as a result of which these processes can be separated in norm and pathology (Gazzaniga et al., 1987; Ganos et al., 2012; Suzuki et al., 2012). Observation: In Maier’s “two cord puzzle, subjects associated their decisions with events unrelated to the experimenter's prompts. Interpretation: Information about the reasons for decisions is projected into consciousness in the form of messages, taking into account the social context (Custers & Aarts, 2010; Nisbett & Wilson, 1977). References 1. Chang, L., Zhang, S., Poo, M. & Gong, N. Spontaneous expression of mirror self-recognition in monkeys after learning precise visual-proprioceptive association for mirror images. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 114, 3258–3263 (2017). 2. Custers, R. & Aarts, H. The Unconscious Will: How the Pursuit of Goals Operates Outside of Conscious Awareness. Science 329, 47–50 (2010). 3. Custers, R. & Aarts, H. The Unconscious Will: How the Pursuit of Goals Operates Outside of Conscious Awareness. Science 329, 47–50 (2010). 4. Drissi-Daoudi, L., Doerig, A. & Herzog, M. H. Feature integration within discrete time windows. Nat Commun 10, 4901 (2019). 5. Fedotov, S. A. & Baidyuk, E. V. Communication as the Origin of Consciousness. Integr. psych. behav. 57, 20–42 (2023). 6. Gallop, G. G. Jr. Chimpanzees: self-recognition. Science (New York, N.Y.), 167(3914), 86–87 (1970). https://doi.org/10.1126/science.167.3914.86 7. Ganos, C., Ogrzal, T., Schnitzler, A. & Münchau, A. The pathophysiology of echopraxia/echolalia: Relevance to Gilles De La Tourette syndrome. Movement Disorders 27, 1222–1229 (2012). 8. Gazzaniga, M. S., Holtzman, J. D. & Smylie, C. S. Speech without conscious awareness. Neurology 37, 682–682 (1987). 9. He, H. et al. Language and Color Perception: Evidence From Mongolian and Chinese Speakers. Front. Psychol. 10, 551 (2019). 10. Kentridge, R. Spatial attention speeds discrimination without awareness in blindsight. Neuropsychologia 42, 831–835 (2004). 11. King, S. L., Sayigh, L. S., Wells, R. S., Fellner, W. & Janik, V. M. Vocal copying of individually distinctive signature whistles in bottlenose dolphins. Proc. R. Soc. B. 280, 20130053 (2013). 12. Kohda, M. et al. If a fish can pass the mark test, what are the implications for consciousness and self-awareness testing in animals? PLoS Biol 17, e3000021 (2019). 13. Libet, B., Gleason, C. A. & Wright, E. W. TIME OF CONSCIOUS INTENTION TO ACT IN RELATION TO ONSET OF CEREBRAL ACTIVITY (READINESS-POTENTIAL). 14. MacDonald, S., Uesiliana, K. & Hayne, H. Cross-cultural and gender differences in childhood amnesia. Memory 8, 365–376 (2000). 15. Naccache, L., Blandin, E. & Dehaene, S. Unconscious Masked Priming Depends on Temporal Attention. Psychol Sci 13, 416–424 (2002). 16. Nisbett, R. E., & Wilson, T. D. Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes. Psychological Review, 84(3), 231–259 (1977). 17. Patterson, F. G. P. & Cohn, R. H. Language acquisition by a lowland gorilla: Koko’s first ten years of vocabulary development. WORD 41, 97–143 (1990). 18. Peterson, C. & Rideout, R. Memory for Medical Emergencies Experienced by 1- and 2-Year-Olds. 19. Roberson, D. & Davies, I. Color Categories Are Not Universal: Replications and New Evidence From a Stone-Age Culture. 20. Sayigh, L. et al. First evidence for widespread sharing of stereotyped non-signature whistle types by wild dolphins.bioRxiv 2025.04.21.647658; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2025.04.21.647658. 21. Simcock, G. & Hayne, H. Breaking the Barrier? Children Fail to Translate Their Preverbal Memories into Language. Psychol Sci 13, 225–231 (2002). 22. Sokolov, A. N. Inner Speech and Thought. (Springer US, Boston, MA, 1975). doi:10.1007/978-1-4684-1701-2. 23. Sperry, R. Consciousness, personal identity and the divided brain. Neuropsychologia 22, 661–673 (1984). 24. Suzuki, T. et al. Ambient echolalia in a patient with germinoma around the bilateral ventriculus lateralis: A case report. Neurocase 18, 330–335 (2012).

---

### Drabkin’s “Language” as Fundamental Expression
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/drabkin-s-language-as-fundamental-expression
Theorists: Daniel Drabkin

Philosopher/jurist Daniel Drabkin posits conscious experience as a property of human behavioral immersion (contra functioning) within an environment empowered by a particular understanding of “language” as the fundamental expression or self-manifestation of reality (Drabkin, 2025a, 2025b). Core Insight: Language as Expression He contends that the notion of consciousness as a kind of content (a qualitative or meaningful substance) that must be accounted for in agentic terms and explicated by way of relational schematics to a concrete underlying substrate (physiology, computation, etc.) is metaphysically erroneous. Rather, agency itself—whether functional or experiential—inheres in an entity's maturation as an intrinsic component of a larger whole. Drabkin says that his core insight and theoretical framework is that the notion of “language” (interpretable manifestation)—construed as the expressive (rather than potential or processual) essence of reality—is the only truly metaphysical “constant.” According to this view, the fundamental property of reality, in its most general sense, is not “existence” (to be) but “expression” or self-manifestation (to articulate itself). He claims, radically, that this view of “language” is neither a communicative medium among group members nor an instrument for individual cognitive or experiential aptitude (e.g., sensual/emotional qualia, reflection, inquiry, survival, creativity, etc.). Rather, it constitutes the ultimate existential span for any field of coherence or conceivable phenomenology, from the most sophisticated instances of human subjectivity to the fundamental laws of nature. Language, Meaning, and the Hard Problem Drabkin seeks to substantiate this radical view by shifting the focus from ongoing, “matured” language application (which is how consciousness and subjectivity are typically, and he says, erroneously, approached and analyzed) to the preliminary phase of language acquisition. He challenges the view whereby human learning and meaning generation are reducible to brain processes and computational manipulation and critically refutes the claim that it is about identifying the “essence of what makes something (e.g., a cat) something” through pattern recognition (Gawdat, 2025) or that human language acquisition resembles the “procedural learning” displayed in acquiring performative proficiency (Sejnowski, 2025). He argues that these and other views (e.g., Kastrup, 2025; Bach, 2025; LeCun, 2025) fundamentally misrepresent how humans initially integrate into the narrative-imbued landscape of first-hand experience (agentic subjectivity). He says that meaning does not stem from “injecting” ethereal intention into words and other forms or structures of articulation but rather from the functional-environmental context of language use in “language games,” which are integral to its earliest acquisitive phases. Specifically, he cites Wittgensteinian “language games” as relevant for the body-mind problem (Wittgenstein, 2018). Drabkin also offers a radical critique of the notion of “what it means to be like something” as the purported core of the “hard problem” of consciousness. He argues that this notion is philosophically vacuous, providing no viable starting point for exploration or further consideration. Since any articulation (assertive, reflective, interrogative, and so on) is itself a manifestation of “to be like something,” the very possibility of considering the latter (relating to it cognitively), let alone investigating it, is logically and existentially impossible. His approach to consciousness, Drabkin says, offers a theoretical framework that bypasses that fundamental logico-categorical trap. Animals, AI, and Expression Drabkin's perspective, asserting language as a metaphysically foundational behavior, dissolves the perceived distinction of humans as “language animals” and reduces the seeming discontinuity between animals' performative engagement with their environment and humans' non-performative interaction with scenery to a conceptual error or illusion. The syntactic expression of meaning, he argues, is not singular except in evolutionary terms. Existentially, its distinction from other modes of expressibility lies in its form, not its kind. In other words, it is not exceptional in terms of agentic aptitude per se. Other animals also perceive their environment, interact therewith, and even perceive themselves as part of their environment. For strictly evolutionary reasons, they lack the capacity for 'reflective' contemplation and the syntactic category of I/me, but aren't denied, for that very fact, the possibility of self-expression. Since meaningful subsistence in the world essentially emerges—the capacity therefore is initially acquired—across the biological realm via behavior in concrete practical contexts, its later, mature (and equally contextual) manifestations throughout that realm, namely among all its inhabitants, allow and retain an equally vibrant level of agentic—percepto-conceptual—relatability, and the syntactic form humans had evolved to be able to do so does not disqualify other forms of the same phenomenal category (self-expression as part of a larger whole). The implications for artificial intelligence, Drabkin says, are profound. The way these systems “grow” (learn, improve) has nothing to do with human cognitive development. Going beyond the familiar differences (e.g., statistical processing in cyberspace vs. purposeful growth as a corporeal entity in an empiric environment), he highlights the lack of “expression” (as distinct from intention) at the core of artificial semantics, deriving from an equal absence of immersion in an environment that is expressive (as a whole). Drabkin argues that this is the ultimate reason AI is categorically devoid of the possibility to comprehensively mimic the buildup of human agentic properties. He claims that his unique philosophical framework posits his kind of language (rather than consciousness) as a “property of the world” and argues that the brain acts as a machine for the world, rather than for the individual agent, to “express itself.” This perspective, he says, offers a novel and critical lens for evaluating both consciousness and the actual limitations of AI and may even affect philosophical ambitions per se. Drabkin says his approach to consciousness resonates with enactivist approaches, whereas his original contribution lies in the perspective of language as the fundamental expression or self-manifestation of reality, instantiated in human consciousness via language acquisition.

---

### Skopelitou’s Logos: Language Before Consciousness?
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/skopelitou-s-logos-language-before-consciousness
Theorists: Stella Skopelitou

Psychologist Stella Skopelitou offers a fundamental theory of everything, which she calls “Logos,” according to which, if “everything” is, first of all, a word (which includes time, space, selfhood, the universe), then so is consciousness a word, and all that it entails. The theory of Logos proposes that language is not merely a communicative tool or cognitive supplement, but the fundamental structure by which consciousness manifests and the world becomes intelligible or meaningful. In this view, consciousness does not precede language; rather, it is through language that consciousness becomes possible in the first place (Skopelitou, 2025a, 2025b). Logos as the Ground of Consciousness Starting from Cartesian doubt, Logos reverses the usual question—not “What is consciousness?” but “What must be in place for such a question to arise?” Every formulation of consciousness—subjectivity, self-awareness, qualia—presupposes symbolic mediation. Even the act of doubting one's own consciousness relies on language, both structurally and ontologically: the concepts of “I,” “am,” and “consciousness” are all words before we agree that they are also anything else. Consciousness is meaningful to us, Skopelitou argues, because Logos makes it possible to reflect upon and distinguish; and without Logos, there would be no “us” to whom consciousness could matter. This reflexivity—making oneself the subject of one's own sentences—is not possible, or cannot prove to be, without Logos. And this recursive loop, she says, is precisely what gives consciousness its distinctive feel of inner awareness, self-awareness, and “aboutness.” In considering to which fundamental category of consciousness Logos belongs, Skopelitou takes an orthogonal view. She says, “Rather than asserting materialism or idealism, Logos dissolves the dichotomy by showing that both are narrative frameworks constructed in, through, and because of language. In this sense, Logos is not a reductive explanation but a foundational reframing, a meta-theory: it suggests that the apparent mystery of consciousness arises from our neglecting to see that all questions, concepts, and tools are themselves linguistic, for they all consist of words.” Language, she emphasizes, “is not after the fact, but rather is the fact through which all else becomes meaningful, including all theories.” For any theory of consciousness, she continues, “some kinds of input must, by definition, be observable, detectable, testable, yet, what we call input is not directly experienced but inferred, through instruments and interpreted data, all mediated by language. Even ‘neural signals’ are not raw inputs, but constructs: clusters of named patterns, detected via devices we made, described in terms we agreed upon. “Furthermore, appeals to the ‘other’ or to the ‘outside world’ as proof of input collapse, since the moment the ‘other’ is perceived, they are already part of one’s output. Thus, neither others nor the assumption of the external world can serve as independent proof of input, because they do not precede perception but emerge within it, as symbolic constructs shaped by prior linguistic frameworks. The brain-as-host theory is not falsifiable because it was never testable.” Implications for Animals, AI, and Testability What about consciousness in animals that have only rudimentary language or none at all? Skopelitou says, “Logos does not deny the possibility that animal consciousness or AI may have some form of experience or awareness, but it rather shifts the focus to show that our belief in such a possibility—including the very framing of what ‘consciousness’ is and who possesses it—is always mediated through language, since even the notion that ‘something lacks language/consciousness’ is a conclusion we draw based on how successful or coherent our linguistic projections are. One cannot verify or even pose the concept of non-human consciousness without already relying on symbolic structures.” Thus, Skopelitou concludes, “Logos offers a testable yet non-falsifiable foundation: every attempt to refute it must already use it. Insofar as consciousness is knowable, thinkable, or sayable, it is already framed in Logos, and the proof (another word) of that comes through conscious recognition.”

---

## Phylogenetic/Evolutionary
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theories/phylogenetic-evolutionary

### Phylogenetic/Evolutionary—Overview
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/phylogenetic-evolutionary-overview
Theorists: Several

The phylogenetic evolution of consciousness, at first blush, is not a specific theory of consciousness per se. Rather, it is recruited as the mechanistic process for many (but not all) of the theories on the Landscape. Yet, is there a sense in which phylogenetic evolution can become a prime explanation of consciousness in its own right? Certainly, according to Dennett, LeDoux, and Ginsburg & Jablonka, consciousness exemplifies Theodosius Dobzhansky's famous adage, “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution” (Dobzhansky, 1973). Evolutionary Pathways Neuroscientists and writers Ogi Ogas and Sai Gaddam present a step-by-step simulation of how evolution produced consciousness. It is a tale of eighteen “increasingly intelligent minds,” as they say, from the simple stimulus-response of microbes interacting with their environments to the limitless creativity of humankind (and beyond). Leveraging the “resonance” theories of Stephen Grossberg, their mentor, they tell a story of what each “new” mind could do that previous minds could not (Ogas & Gaddam, 2022). To physicist Lawrence Krauss, “consciousness is a slippery quality because it exists on a spectrum in the evolutionary development of life that is very difficult to measure or quantify” (Krauss, 2023). He stresses “the phenomenon of consciousness is the one area I know of in science where the forefront discussions seem to be made by philosophers equally as often as they are made by experimental cognitive scientists,” which, he says softly, is “an indication of a science in its early stages” (Krauss, 2023). Amidst the surfeit of competing neurobiological theories, Krauss is most comfortable pursuing “the possible distinct evolutionary advantages that consciousness might endow humans with.” He follows the thread that “feelings emerged as ever more complex systems evolved to incorporate higher-order cognitive processing to issues of survival and homeostasis." Consciousness, through introspection, he says, “could build on the nervous system monitoring of basic internal body conditions to produce novel, rather than innate, survival strategies. The ability to use internal representations of goals, whether from cognitive maps or stored memories, to flexibly respond to the changing environmental conditions, was a huge evolutionary leap, and has been noted to probably exist only in some mammals and perhaps in birds” (Krauss, 2023). Philosophers David Buller and Valarie Hardcastle offer an alternative to the strong evolutionary claim that “the mind contains ‘hundreds or thousands’ of ‘genetically specified’ modules, which are evolutionary adaptations for their cognitive functions.” They argue that “while the adult human mind/brain typically contains a degree of modularization, its ‘modules’ are neither genetically specified nor evolutionary adaptations. Rather, they result from the brain's developmental plasticity, which allows environmental task demands a large role in shaping the brain's information-processing structures.” They maintain that “the brain's developmental plasticity is our fundamental psychological adaptation, and the ‘modules’ that result from it are adaptive responses to local conditions, not past evolutionary environments” (Buller & Hardcastle, 2000). Who (and What) is Conscious? Questions remain. What creatures are conscious, and to what degree? How low on the phylogenetic scale must one descend to wink out anything resembling human consciousness? For example, does an octopus have phenomenal consciousness? Philosopher (and scuba diver) Peter Godfrey-Smith not only affirms octopus higher intelligence, he also traces the evolution of mental properties in the primordial seas, claiming that “evolution built minds not once but at least twice (Godfrey-Smith, 2016). Appreciating Godfrey-Smith's work, Carlo Rovelli uses the “complex intellectual abilities” of octopuses as “a valuable case study” of consciousness. In recent decades, he observes, “the phrase ‘the problem of the nature of consciousness’ has taken the place of what in the past used to be the problem of the meaning of soul, spirit, subjectivity, intelligence, perception, understanding, existing in the first person, being aware of a self …” Consciousness is neurobiological, Rovelli asserts, and one way to tackle the issue is to observe our non-human cousins and even octopuses, an extremely distant relative. The octopus, he offers, “is the extraterrestrial that we have been looking for in order to study a possible independent realization of consciousness” (Rovelli, 2020). Raymond Tallis questions the entire enterprise of assuming “the [evolutionary] advantage of being a conscious organism rather than a self-replicating bag of chemicals innocent of its own existence.” His skeptical argument against “what seems like a no-brainer” is “not to start near the end of the story, with complex, sophisticated organisms such as higher mammals … [whose] life depends on conscious navigation through the world.” No, he says, “we must begin at the beginning: by asking, for example, what survival value is conferred on a photosensitive cell in virtue of its organism being aware of the light incident upon it. And the answer appears to be: ‘none.’” Tallis argues, “If there's no reason to believe that the sentience of primitive organisms would give them an edge over the competition, there is no starting point for the evolutionary journey to the sophisticated consciousness we see in higher organisms like you and me.” The mystery of consciousness, he concludes, “remains intact” (Tallis, 2023). Most experts, scientists, and philosophers who study the evolution of mind support a gradual, incrementalistic theory of mental development, much like Dennett, Godfrey-Smith, and Ogas/Gaddam. There are dissenting voices: for example, Nicholas Humphrey and perhaps Noam Chomsky. Here's the point. In considering the multifarious theories on the Landscape of Consciousness, one should overlay each theory with its putative phylogenetic evolutionary development. Ask, “What was the process that brought it about?”

---

### Dennett’s Evolution of Minds
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/dennett-s-evolution-of-minds
Theorists: Daniel Dennett

Daniel Dennett delights us with the wondrous and sometimes counterintuitive power of evolution in the development of consciousness (or, more generally, “minds”), notably in his psychohistory journey, From Bacteria to Bach and Back: The Evolution of Minds (Dennett, 2017). Even if one doesn't wholly subscribe to Dennett's own explanations of consciousness (9.2.4)—which I don't—everyone's understanding of consciousness can be enriched by Dennett's probative and insightful way of thinking (Dennett, 2007, 2023a, 2023b). Dennett describes evolution as a “universal acid” that “eats through just about every traditional concept, revolutionizing world-views” (Dennett, 1995). “How come there are minds?” is Dennett's big evolutionary question, “And how is it possible for minds to ask and answer this question?” His short answer is that “minds evolved and created thinking tools that eventually enabled minds to know how minds evolved, and even to know how these tools enabled them to know what minds are … We know there are bacteria; dogs don't; dolphins don't; chimpanzees don't. Even bacteria don't know there are bacteria. Our minds are different. It takes thinking tools to understand what bacteria are, and we're the only species (so far) endowed with an elaborate kit of thinking tools” (Dennett, 2017). Dennett reflects that he has been struggling through the “thickets and quagmires” of the mind question for over fifty years, and he has found a path, built on evolution, that “takes us all the way to a satisfactory—and satisfying—account of how the ‘magic’ of our minds is accomplished without any magic, but it is neither straight nor easy” (Dennett, 2017).

---

### Godfrey-Smith’s Naturalist, Gradualist, Diversified Evolution of Consciousness
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/godfrey-smith-s-naturalist-gradualist-diversified-evolution-of-consciousness
Theorists: Peter Godfrey-Smith

Philosopher Peter Godfrey-Smith presents a theory of consciousness that is biologically naturalist and evolutionary gradualist, treating it as an evolved form of subjectivity that developed in diverse ways across animal life. Subjective experience is not an all-or-nothing trait but a graded phenomenon that emerged gradually over deep geological time. He argues that consciousness arose from the basic biological need for an organism to sense its environment and coordinate a response, making it a feature of life that is likely far more widespread and far more varied than commonly assumed. Godfrey-Smith focuses on subjectivity for two reasons: “First, subjectivity and the associated notion of ‘point of view’ are helpful in defusing arguments against materialism. Second, subjectivity is an explicable evolutionary product.” He calls as evidence “a series of events in the history of life that bear on the origins of subjective experience”—a historical–comparative narrative across early nervous systems, motor control, and self-monitoring of action—arguing that understanding how subjectivity could have arisen in nature might help to narrow the “explanatory gap” between mind and matter (Godfrey-Smith, 2019). Gradualism and the Evolution of Subjectivity Godfrey-Smith’s central claim is that subjective experience, or consciousness, arose gradually, not by a sharp demarcation or step-function event. He rejects “threshold models” that demand an on/off criterion, and he defends a graded, multidimensional picture. “In a gradualist approach, we aim not to give an account of which features suffice to make you an experiencing subject, but an account of how some organisms have internal goings-on that are more experiential.” Moreover, “What evolved is not the same thing repeatedly, but something more divergent in kind” (Godfrey-Smith, 2018). Demanding highly specific, biologically anchored mechanisms and building on gradualism, Godfrey-Smith develops the view that what we call experience in humans is a cluster of traits with different evolutionary histories; some are basic, others later-arriving (report, reflective thought, temporal organization). He distinguishes two interacting experiential strands: sensory/discriminative organization (rich perception, integration of cues) and evaluative/affective organization (valenced moods, appraisals). “A sharp divergence between sensory and evaluative complexity,” he says, “seems possible in principle.” Comparative Evidence and the Octopus as Alien Mind He uses invertebrate data (cephalopods, crustaceans, insects, gastropods) to argue that these dimensions can come separately, cautioning against single-criterion litmus tests (Godfrey-Smith, 2018). Indeed, his seminal work with cephalopods, particularly the octopus, as evolution’s “independent experiments” provides comparative insight: cephalopods, he emphasizes, are a radically different form of mind, providing us with disparate datapoints with which to assess consciousness. The evolutionary line leading to octopuses diverged from the line leading to vertebrates (including humans) over 600 million years ago. This makes the octopus an example of a separate, independent evolution of a complex nervous system and sophisticated intelligence. By studying them, we can see which features of the mind are universal and which are incidental products of our own specific evolutionary history (Godfrey-Smith, 2016). The octopus's unique biology, especially its distributed nervous system (with a majority of its neurons located in its arms), challenges our brain-centric view of consciousness. Its arms can seemingly think and act semi-independently, suggesting a different kind of mind-body integration and perhaps a different structure of subjective experience. “If we can make contact with cephalopods as sentient beings, it is not because of a shared history, not because of kinship, but because evolution built minds twice over… This is probably the closest we will come to meeting an intelligent alien.” More generally, he states, “The mind evolved in the sea. Water made it possible. All the early stages took place in water” (Godfrey-Smith, 2016). Godfrey-Smith’s project is to explore “experientialization as an evolutionary process” by sketching “one of the hard parts of the gradualist evolutionary story, the part that goes from no to yes, regarding the presence of experience.” He opts for “a view of early nervous system evolution that puts considerable emphasis on the formation and coordination of action itself,” and he considers the transition to “new relationships between sensing and acting, especially in the handling of reafference, the effects of action on the actor's own senses.” In other words, he highlights reafference—the system’s registering its own movements to interpret incoming signals—to explain how a subject-centered perspective could arise. “Once this kind of neural organization is present, it amounts to a processing of what is sensed in a way organized round a tracking of self versus other” (Godfrey-Smith, 2020). Godfrey-Smith’s sentience framework “is not one in which some inner light waits to come on. The story is not, or need not be, one where that thing, subjective experience, emerges by stages into view.” He says that a series of other things could gradually arise and come together to yield the state we find at the end: consciousness. While “something like movement towards an outcome of experience makes sense,” he stresses that “this need not happen along a single line.” He points out, “There are organisms with sensorimotor arcs that are simpler and not neurally organized, organisms with neural patterns of activity that are mostly coordinative rather than organized around subjectivity, and also organisms with combinations that are more like ours. The goings-on inside various other organisms can be ‘more or less experiential,’ but to say that is not to posit an overall scale. The situation is not one where a cluster of biological features is put together in a combination and the output is a degree of sentience – 0.6, 0.2 – or even an ordering – flowering plants lower than anemones, higher than sponges. Instead, the situation is one where an organism has its own collection of experience-relevant features.” Thus, consciousness is rooted in the sensing–acting ecology of animals; reafference enables a self/other demarcation that grounds a point of view. As he puts it, “If materialism is true, subjective or felt experience must also have arisen gradually,” and “Subjective experience exists in a graded way… not a single scale from more to less conscious” (Godfrey-Smith, 2020). Godfrey-Smith engages with other theories of consciousness. While he is sympathetic to “integration” as important, he is critical of theories that detach it from animal life, especially Integrated Information Theory. “Their theory, where integration has no essential connection to sensing, action, and so on, is not the only way to develop the idea.” He recommends linking integration to the “business of being an animal—to acting and sensing” (Godfrey-Smith, 2020). Embodiment, Biopsychism, and Darwinian Grey Areas Godfrey-Smith's theory of consciousness is embodied and enactive. This means the mind is not entirely in the brain; rather, it arises from the dynamic interaction between an organism's entire body and its environment. The “self” emerges from the biological imperative to distinguish the body from the non-body and to maintain its integrity against the outside world. Consciousness, then, is the ongoing process of managing this body-world relationship. It is the lived perspective of a body actively navigating its surroundings. This view rejects computational models of the mind that treat the brain as hardware and thought as software, instead emphasizing the inseparable link between life, body, world, and experience. Regarding biopsychism, the idea that minimal subjective experience might extend to all living things (given minimal cognition and metabolism), he is cautious, advising against easy inferences from minimal cognition to sentience; any extension below neural animals must be argued carefully, with functional roles tied to an organism’s projects (Godfrey-Smith, 2020). While cautious about biopsychism, he is decided against panpsychism (Godfrey-Smith, 2019). Overall, using the evolution of animal life as a guide for understanding the origins and nature of the mind, Godfrey-Smith says that in a Darwinian context, one should expect a lot of gradations, whereas many philosophers, he says, “have tended to assume there are sharp divides: these are conscious, those are not; these have minds, those do not.” But as Darwinists, he states, “we're going to have to get used to the idea that probably none of those distinctions are sharp.” And it is in simple animals, which have very simple forms of cognition, that this becomes particularly interesting. “Even in organisms like plants and fungi, as well as bacteria, there is a form of sensing. And there's responding to what they sense. There's memory in many cases: even bacteria have a tiny glimmer of what one might call short-term memory. And somehow, we're going to have to develop a picture of the mind in which we can make sense of these cases where mind appears to be neither wholly present nor wholly absent.” It’s a kind of grey area problem, Godfrey-Smith concludes, such that “philosophy of mind is more or less forced to grapple with as a consequence of the Darwinian picture” (Godfrey-Smith, 2022).

---

### Birch’s Comparative Sentience: Consciousness Profiles Across Diverse Minds
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/birch-s-comparative-sentience-consciousness-profiles-across-diverse-minds
Theorists: Jonathan BIrch

Philosopher Jonathan Birch's contribution to phenomenal consciousness is methodological rather than ontological: the distribution and character of conscious experience can be investigated empirically, and acted upon ethically, without first settling what consciousness fundamentally is. His theoretical commitments are that sentience—the capacity for valenced experience, for states that feel good or bad to their subject—drives the moral subset of phenomenal consciousness (Birch, 2024); that phenomenal consciousness varies along at least five independent dimensions rather than one scale, so that asking whether one animal is "more conscious" than another is generally malformed (Birch, Schnell, & Clayton, 2020); and that inquiry should proceed from a minimal "facilitation hypothesis" compatible with most competing theories rather than from any one (Birch, 2022). Where evidence leaves sentience genuinely uncertain, the correct response is proportionate precaution. In other words, Birch’s does not offer a metaphysical mechanism for generating experience but rather a process-oriented and comparative framework for investigating where phenomenal consciousness occurs and how its forms differ across species. He defines sentience broadly as the capacity for phenomenal consciousness—there being something it is like to be a subject—and more narrowly as the capacity for valenced experiences such as pain and pleasure; he then argues that neither a single favored theory nor supposedly theory-neutral analogy can presently settle difficult cases (Browning and Birch, 2022; Birch, 2024). His distinctive alternative combines a “theory-light” facilitation hypothesis with multidimensional “consciousness profiles,” treating phenomenal consciousness as functionally consequential while allowing radically different animals to instantiate different combinations of perceptual richness, evaluative richness, unity, temporality, and self-consciousness. Sentience as Valenced Experience Birch works with a deliberately narrow target. Sentience is the capacity for valenced experiences—experiences that feel pleasant or unpleasant to the subject—distinguished both from consciousness in broader senses and from intelligence (Birch, 2024). The narrowing enables ethical implications and prescriptions: valence, not cognitive sophistication, grounds moral status, so a system may be sentient while cognitively unimpressive, and impressive while not sentient. He does not treat "phenomenal consciousness" as a term in good final order. Consciousness science, on his view, stands where biology stood with loose notions of function and adaptation before evolutionary theory sharpened them: the concept gestures at something real but awaits a successor whose shape depends on which research path is taken (Birch, 2024). Strain on a field's central concept marks immaturity to be worked through, not a reason to abandon concept or field. The Zone of Reasonable Disagreement Birch's framework acknowledges that the mind-body problem is unresolved and likely to remain so on any policy-relevant timescale. He does not explain why any neural or cognitive process generates phenomenal consciousness, nor does he endorse a unique physicalist, dualist, panpsychist, or other ontology. His 2024 treatment explicitly regards several substantially different metaphysical positions— materialism, dualism, panpsychism, and their variants—as remaining within a zone of reasonable contemporary disagreement—and builds his framework to be robust across that zone rather than to presuppose a resolution (Birch, 2024). The same applies to the science: global workspace, higher-order, integrated information, and midbrain-centered theories all remain live, and no framework depending on which is correct can guide decisions now. Relatedly, Birch has argued that consciousness science has an Overton window—a range of positions raisable without inviting the charge that one should not even be discussing them—whose boundaries are set by contemporary consensus or conventional wisdom (Birch, 2023). The Facilitation Hypothesis and the Theory-Light Approach Two approaches dominate the field, and Birch rejects both. Theory-heavy approaches pick a favored theory of consciousness and infer from it which creatures qualify; theory-neutral approaches renounce theoretical commitment altogether and hope the data will speak. The first inherits whatever is wrong with the chosen theory, and the second cannot say what the data are evidence for. Birch proposes a middle path, which he calls the “theory-light” approach, and it rests on a single minimal claim—the facilitation hypothesis: phenomenally conscious perception of a stimulus facilitates, relative to unconscious perception, a cluster of cognitive abilities directed at that stimulus, among them trace conditioning, reversal learning, cross-modal integration, and flexible avoidance (Birch, 2022). The hypothesis is compatible with global workspace theory, higher-order theories, and several others; the point is that it allows inference from behavior to consciousness without requiring that the theoretical dispute be settled first. Applied to invertebrates, it directs research toward specific experimental paradigms rather than toward either further theorizing or undirected data collection. The obvious objection is that the facilitation hypothesis is precisely what a defender of Block's access-phenomenal distinction would deny, since it ties phenomenality to cognitive access (Block, 1995); Birch's reply is that the tie is evidential rather than constitutive. Five Dimensions and Consciousness Profiles The second constructive proposal replaces the question of how much consciousness a creature has with a profile across dimensions. Birch, Schnell, and Clayton (2020) distinguish perceptual richness, evaluative richness, unity or integration at a time, temporality or integration across time, and self-consciousness. Each admits independent investigation, and a species is characterized by its position on each rather than by a single ranking. Interspecies comparison thereby becomes multidimensional and often incommensurable. A cephalopod may exceed a corvid on perceptual richness while falling below it on temporality; neither is straightforwardly "more conscious." The framework parallels, at the interspecies level, the argument that within-subject "levels of consciousness" should likewise give way to multidimensional characterization (Bayne, Hohwy, & Owen, 2016). Birch is explicit that published profiles are conjectures rather than measurements, and that developing better measures is the field's task. Sentience Candidates and the Gaming Problem The framework's practical output is the category of “sentience candidate”: a system for which the evidence implies a realistic possibility of sentience that it would be irresponsible to ignore, and is rich enough to identify welfare risks and design precautions (Birch, 2024). Recognizing a system, biological or non-biological, as a sentience candidate should trigger proportionate precaution, not certainty. Thus, Birch’s precautionary principle: where there is credible evidence of sentience and decisions create serious risks of suffering, uncertainty should not automatically count as grounds for withholding protection (Birch, 2017, 2024). This framework has had unusual real-world consequences for a philosophy of consciousness. His 2021 team review evaluated more than 300 studies and recommended treating cephalopod mollusks and decapod crustaceans as sentient for UK animal-welfare purposes, contributing to their inclusion in the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022 (Birch et al., 2021). Artificial systems raise a distinct difficulty Birch calls the gaming problem: large language models are trained on human descriptions of experience and can therefore reproduce the behavioral markers on which sentience attribution ordinarily relies, without those markers retaining evidential force. He proposes shifting to deep computational markers—architectural features corresponding to what cognitive theories posit—while acknowledging this presupposes those theories admit stable computational reductions inspectable from outside and may assume certain theories of consciousness that Birch avoided doing for biological organisms. Assessment Birch’s unique contribution is not another mechanism for producing qualia or for explaining why any physical or computational process should feel like anything, and he would regard supplying one as beyond current reach. Instead, he offers a way for the field to progress and for policy to be made while that question stays open. It is the conjunction of three ideas that together form a recognizable research program: the theory-light, minimal bridging facilitation hypothesis; the multidimensional consciousness-profile replacement for a single scale; and a graded evidential methodology and a precautionary decision rule for determining phenomenal sentience under unavoidable and perhaps irreducible uncertainty. That combination makes Birch substantially more than a commentator on animal consciousness. The framework also has demonstrated scientific and policy influence. More generally, Birch’s contribution is a disciplined science of phenomenal consciousness under theoretical uncertainty: separate phenomenality from its possible indicators, study its functional consequences, characterize its forms multidimensionally, seek convergent evidence across radically different organisms, and distinguish confidence about the presence of experience from confidence about its ultimate ontology. There are objections, of course. The facilitation hypothesis assumes a cognitive-access signature of phenomenality that theorists who separate access from phenomenal consciousness will reject, and if that separation holds, the theory-light approach measures the wrong thing. The five dimensions are stipulated rather than derived, and their independence is asserted rather than demonstrated. And a framework designed to be robust across the zone of reasonable disagreement achieves that robustness by declining to contribute to the disagreement—which is a limitation for theory but an enabler for policy. Note: Although Birch fits naturally in Materialism / Phylogenetic/Evolutionary as its best primary classification, an important qualification must be stressed: Birch himself deliberately does not commit his framework to materialism, or to any competing category, as a metaphysical doctrine. References Bayne, T., Hohwy, J., & Owen, A. M. (2016). Are there levels of consciousness? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 20(6), 405–413. Birch, J. (2017). The Philosophy of Social Evolution. Oxford University Press. Birch, J. (2022). The search for invertebrate consciousness. Noûs, 56(1), 133–153. Birch, J. (2023). Consciousness and the Overton window of science. The Brains Blog. Birch, J. (2024). The Edge of Sentience: Risk and Precaution in Humans, Other Animals, and AI. Oxford University Press. Birch, J., Broom, D. M., Browning, H., Crump, A., Ginsburg, S., Halina, M., Harrison, D., Jablonka, E., Lee, A. Y., Kammerer, F., Klein, C., Lamme, V., Michel, M., Wemelsfelder, F., & Zacks, O. (2022). How should we study animal consciousness scientifically? Journal of Consciousness Studies, 29(3–4), 8–28. Birch, J., Burn, C., Schnell, A., Browning, H., & Crump, A. (2021). Review of the Evidence of Sentience in Cephalopod Molluscs and Decapod Crustaceans. London School of Economics and Political Science. Birch, J., Ginsburg, S., & Jablonka, E. (2021). The learning-consciousness connection. Biology and Philosophy, 36(5), 49. Birch, J., Schnell, A. K., & Clayton, N. S. (2020). Dimensions of animal consciousness. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 24(10), 789–801. Block, N. (1995). On a confusion about a function of consciousness. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 18(2), 227–247.

---

### LeDoux’s Deep Roots of Consciousness
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/ledoux-s-deep-roots-of-consciousness
Theorists: Joseph LeDoux

Neuroscientist Joseph LeDoux argues that the key to understanding human consciousness and behavior lies in viewing evolution through the prism of the first living organisms. He tracks the evolutionary timeline to show how even the earliest single-cell organisms had to solve the same problems we and our cells have to solve, and how the evolution of nervous systems enhanced the ability of organisms to survive and thrive and have brought about the emergence of consciousness (LeDoux, 2019). Motivated by his long-standing interest in how organisms detect and respond to danger, LeDoux found in evolution the “deep roots” of human abilities, hence the “deep roots” of consciousness, which “can be traced back to the beginning of life.” LeDoux argues that what we have inherited from our long chain of biological ancestors is not a fear circuit but rather “a defensive survival circuit that detects threats, and in response, initiates defensive survival behaviours and supporting physiological adjustments.” Fear, on the other hand, from LeDoux perspective, is a recent expression of cortical cognitive circuits. Danger and survival have a deep history; consciousness, a shallower one (LeDoux, 2021).

---

### Ginsburg and Jablonka’s Associative Learning During Evolution
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/ginsburg-and-jablonka-s-associative-learning-during-evolution
Theorists: Simona Ginsburg, Eva Jablonka

Neurobiologist Simona Ginsburg and evolutionary theorist Eva Jablonka propose that learning during evolution has been “the driving force” in the transition to basic or minimal consciousness. They identify the evolutionary marker as “a complex form of associative learning,” which they term “unlimited associative learning” and which “enables an organism to ascribe motivational value to a novel, compound, non-reflex-inducing stimulus or action, and [to] use it as the basis for future learning” (Ginsburg & Jablonka, 2019). Associative learning, Ginsburg and Jablonka argue, “drove the Cambrian explosion and its massive diversification of organisms.” They suggest that “consciousness can take many forms and is found even in such animals as octopuses (who seem to express emotions by changing color) and bees (who socialize with other bees)” (Ginsburg & Jablonka, 2022). As for the evolutionary transition to human rationality, they propose “symbolic language as a similar type of marker” (Ginsburg & Jablonka, 2019).

---

### Cleeremans and Tallon-Baudry’s Functional Value
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/cleeremans-and-tallon-baudry-s-functional-value
Theorists: Axel Cleeremans, Catherine Tallon-Baudry

Cleeremans and Tallon-Baudry propose that “subject-level experience—‘What it feels like’—is endowed with intrinsic value, and it is precisely the value agents associate with their experiences that explains why they do certain things and avoid others.” Because experiences have value and guide behavior, they argue, “consciousness has a function” and that under “this hypothesis of ‘phenomenal worthiness’ … conscious agents ‘experience’ things and ‘care’ about those experiences” (Cleeremans & Tallon-Baudry, 2022). The authors note that “the function of consciousness” has been “addressed mostly by philosophers,” yet “surprisingly few things have been written about [it] … in the neuroscientific or psychological literature.” The reason, they surmise, is the “classical view” that “subjective experience is a mere epiphenomenon that affords no functional advantage." They reject such “consciousness inessentialism” by appealing to “how the concept of value has been approached in decision-making, emotion research and consciousness research” and by arguing that “phenomenal consciousness has intrinsic value”—such as it being “the central drive for the discovery and creation of new behaviours.” They conclude that consciousness “must have a function” (Cleeremans & Tallon-Baudry, 2022). Under their hypothesis, “consciousness would have evolved and been selected because it adds an important degree of freedom to the machinery of reward-based behaviour: behaviour that seems purposeless from a purely functional perspective nevertheless has intrinsic value. But this, crucially, only holds when associated with conscious experience.” Phenomenal experience, they speculate, “might act as a mental currency of sorts, which not only endows conscious mental states with intrinsic value but also makes it possible for conscious agents to compare vastly different experiences in a common subject-centered space”—a feature, they claim, that “readily explains the fact that consciousness is ‘unified.’” They offer the “phenomenal worthiness hypothesis” as a way to make “the ‘hard problem’ of consciousness more tractable, since it can then be reduced to a problem about function”—an offering unlikely to persuade nonmaterialists (Cleeremans & Tallon-Baudry, 2022).

---

### Cabral-Calderin, Hechavarria, and Melloni’s Neuroethological Approach
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/cabral-calderin-hechavarria-and-melloni-s-neuroethological-approach

Neuroscientists Yuranny Cabral-Calderin, Julio Hechavarria, and Lucia Melloni propose a ‘Neuroethological Approach to Consciousness,’ a cross-species, developmental framework that adapts Tinbergen’s classic ‘four questions’ to the scientific study of consciousness. Their approach expands the scope of consciousness research from traditional human-centric, report-dependent methods to a broader comparative strategy that accounts for the ecological, evolutionary, developmental, and neural diversity of conscious phenomena (Cabral-Calderin, Hechavarria, & Melloni, 2025). The Four Levels of Analysis The central thesis is that consciousness cannot be properly understood through brain mechanisms alone or by isolating adult humans as the gold standard. Instead, consciousness must be examined in terms of four interrelated explanatory levels: Causation: What neural mechanisms underlie consciousness in a given species or developmental stage? Function: What adaptive purposes does consciousness serve in an organism’s ecological context? Ontogeny: How does consciousness emerge and change across the lifespan? Phylogeny: How has consciousness evolved across the animal kingdom? This Tinbergen-based framework enables a multidimensional, biologically grounded analysis of both phenomenal consciousness (P-consciousness)—the felt, subjective experience—and access consciousness (A-consciousness)—the availability of information for higher cognition and behavior. In a shift of scientific assumptions, the authors challenge the standard view that only human-like minds are conscious and/or that the characteristics encountered in human-like minds should serve as the gold standard to infer the presence of consciousness in other species. Instead, they argue, the burden of proof should not fall on non-human animals to exhibit adult human traits (like verbal report). Rather, the authors advocate for a more inclusive “continuity hypothesis,” rooted in Darwinian thinking, in which consciousness is seen as a graded property, shaped by evolutionary pressures and manifested differently across taxa. This shift is particularly crucial in evaluating controversial cases like artificial systems (e.g., LLMs), which may mimic verbal output but lack the biological embodiment and evolutionary history needed to support genuine conscious experience. From Human-Centric to Comparative Approaches Cabral-Calderin, Hechavarria, and Melloni propose repurposing mechanistic theories of human consciousness—such as Recurrent Processing Theory (Lamme), Global Neuronal Workspace (Dehaene), Predictive Processing (Friston, Clark), and Attentional Schema Theory (Graziano)—to probe other species and developmental stages. By testing for the presence of similar neural dynamics (e.g., recurrent processing, ignition, feedback loops), one can evaluate consciousness in fetuses, infants, and animals using neuroimaging and perturbation methods in ecologically valid settings. But the authors caution that neural markers must not be considered in isolation. These mechanisms must be evaluated within their ecological and evolutionary contexts: What behaviors are they supporting? What functions are they enabling (e.g., learning, social bonding, aesthetic appreciation)? And how do these mechanisms vary across development and phylogeny? Functionally, the authors hypothesize that consciousness is efficacious in evolution: it plays a crucial role in fast environmental assessment, intrinsic value attribution, attention, learning, and even aesthetic preference. Thus, they argue, P-consciousness may contribute to survival through its subjective evaluative power. They emphasize that naturalistic behaviors like play, social bonding, pain avoidance, and self-recognition may offer better evidence of consciousness than highly artificial tasks. Consciousness, they posit, is not a binary trait but a multidimensional one, and different species may exhibit unique “profiles” of consciousness depending on their evolutionary and developmental context. Profiles and Developmental Trajectories of Consciousness Using developmental trajectories and cross-species comparison, the authors stress that their neuroethological approach highlights how consciousness unfolds across the lifespan. Evidence from human fetuses and newborns—including early thalamocortical connectivity, spontaneous sensory activity, and cross-modal behaviors—suggests that foundational elements of consciousness arise before birth. This developmental trajectory offers testable markers to explore in other species, reinforcing a comparative, iterative model of research. The authors argue for nothing less than a reframing of the consciousness question, within which their neuroethological perspective calls for an iterative, comparative strategy—where data from humans can inform animal studies and vice versa—shifting the focus from asking whether a system is conscious to exploring the varieties and modes of consciousness that exist across species. It pushes the field to move beyond anthropocentric and anthropomorphic assumptions and instead to embrace a diversity-of-minds perspective—one that recognizes the legitimacy of nonhuman and nonverbal forms of experience while also acknowledging that specific cognitive capacities, such as introspection, verbal report, or episodic(-like) memory, may shape how consciousness manifests in adult humans without being necessary for consciousness in other species. At the same time, the authors say that the framework can help to determine whether unifying principles might nevertheless emerge across animal taxa. In doing so, it sets the stage for a biologically grounded, ethically informed science of consciousness—one that acknowledges and respects the multiplicity of conscious forms in nature while systematically investigating how and why consciousness arises in living systems (Cabral-Calderin, Hechavarria, & Melloni, 2025).

---

### McGinn’s Living Consciousness
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/mcginn-s-living-consciousness

Philosopher Colin McGinn hypothesizes that “elementary consciousness does not exist in all things, but it does exist in all organic things.” He rejects panpsychism as “the doctrine that elements of mind exist in all physical things, down to atoms and their constituents” because “we don’t see inanimate things tending towards mentality, despite their alleged quota of it,” stressing, “The mind is confined to animate things.” He asserts, “There are traces of it in all living tissue, but none in anything else. The mind is pan-biological but not pan-physical. Organic tissue is prone to developing mentality, but the same is not true of inorganic objects.” (McGinn, 2025e, following). McGinn’s “Living Consciousness" theory states, “Being organic is a precondition of consciousness; it disposes things to having minds in the full sense. We don’t know how or why, but that seems to be the natural trend. Organic tissue is mysterious in this way. In the brain, organic tissue reaches its mental apotheosis, while rocks remain sub-mental. There is proto-mentality in your feet, a faint throb of what can become a full-fledged mind. It is the organic animal body that provides the cradle of mentality.” Critique of Panpsychism McGinn works to undermine panpsychism. “We already know that not everything contains mentality in some form, even for the staunchest panpsychist. Not numbers or empty space or universals or the Good or geometric forms; mentality can’t live just anywhere.” Can the panpsychist explain why, McGinn asks? “Not that we have heard,” he responds rhetorically. His point is to refute the claim that the pan-biologist is being arbitrarily selective, “whereas the pan-physicalist is free of that vice.” Both, he says, “are selective in their own way. In fact, there is room for all sorts of restrictions on the general form of the doctrine of mental ubiquity: you might say atoms have mentality but not the elementary particles that compose them, or only physical things of a certain size and mass, or only organic tissue of certain sorts (not bone, say), or only tissue that has blood flowing through it. It is an empirical question. The evidence is that mentality is associated only with the organic—the correlation is unmistakable. It is a matter of detail precisely where it finds a home. The picture is that matter undergoes a kind of revolution in forming animal bodies, the result of which is the upsurge of consciousness of varying types and degrees. There is nothing simple or all-or-nothing about this.” Speculative Degrees of Mentality McGinn probes the point. “Could some types of biological tissue be closer to overt consciousness than other types of tissue--more packed with the stuff? Is it the amount of blood being pumped through it? Is consciousness blood-consciousness? Blood does seem remarkable in its powers and curious in its composition. There is no consciousness at all in hair and fingernails but plenty in the heart and lungs, according to this view. Is some neural tissue more charged with consciousness than other neural tissue, given that some is conscious and some is not? Is the heart more conscious than any other organ of the body except the brain?” McGinn, enjoying his speculations, muses, “Fanciful, no doubt, but are such speculations beyond all reason? What would we discover if we had a consciousness microscope? Given the general shape of panpsychist doctrines, all sorts of possibilities present themselves. I rather fancy the idea of a consciousness hierarchy existing in the body, with the liver at the bottom and the brain at the top—with hair and fingernails not even in the running. Perhaps there is a correlation between organic complexity and degree of consciousness (or proto-consciousness)—whatever we might mean by complexity. It’s all terribly mysterious, no doubt, but is it beyond the possibilities of nature? Nature has surprised us many times and continues to do so. So, I suggest exploring the varieties of panpsychism and entertaining the idea of a panpsychism confined to the organic world. Doesn’t it feel right to limit mentality to the organic? We have underestimated the discontinuity between the animate and inanimate.” (McGinn, 2025e). McGinn concludes with a meta-self-reflection, “I freely admit I am venturing out on many limbs here, with analytic philosophy left far behind. So be it.”

---

### Andrews's Consciousness Without Complex Brains
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/andrews-consciousness-without-complex-brains
Theorists: Kristen Andrews

Philosopher Kristin Andrews, an expert on animal minds, argues that progress in consciousness studies has been hampered by prevailing conventional wisdom that for an organism to be conscious, a complex brain is required. She advocates moving “past a focus on complex mammalian brains to study the behavior of ‘simpler’ animals” (Andrews, 2023). Markers and the Limits of a Neurocentric View In forming her argument, Andrews rehearses how Crick and Koch helped turn consciousness studies into a real science by supposing that “higher mammals” possess some essential features of consciousness, by setting aside the still-common Cartesian view that language is needed for conscious experience, and by assuming that a nervous system is necessary for consciousness. She recruits the Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness, which states that “there is sufficient evidence to conclude that ‘all mammals and birds, and many other creatures, including octopuses’ experience conscious states.” The Declaration, she notes, identifies five consciousness markers (not all of which would be necessary): “homologous brain circuits; artificial stimulation of brain regions causing similar behaviours and emotional expressions in humans and other animals; neural circuits supporting behavioural/electrophysical states of attentiveness, sleep and decision-making; mirror self-recognition; and similar impacts of hallucinogenic drugs across species” (Andrews, 2023). But Andrews posits that “emphasis on the neurological … may be holding the science back,” and that animal research suggests “multiple realizability—the view that mental capacities can be instantiated by very different physical systems.” If neuroscience looks only at slightly different physical systems (say, just other primates or even mammals), she says, “we may be overlooking the key piece to the consciousness puzzle.” Andrews asks, “What might we learn if our anthropocentrism didn't lead us to focus on the brain as the relevant part of physiology needed for consciousness, but instead led us to examine the behaviours that are associated with experiences?” She advocates studying “the nature of consciousness by looking at bees, octopuses and worms as research subjects. All these animals have a robust profile of behaviours that warrant the hypothesis that they are conscious. Moving away from painful stimuli, learning the location of desirable nutrients, and seeking out what is needed for reproduction is something we share widely with other animals.” By studying simple animals, she offers, we can simplify research on consciousness (Andrews, 2023). The N = 1 Problem and Evolutionary Pathways Andrews likens studying consciousness to studying the origin of life on earth and searching for life on other planets. For each, there is only one confirmed instance. It's the “N = 1 problem.” “If we study only one evolved instance of consciousness (our own),” she says, “we will be unable to disentangle the contingent and dispensable from the essential and indispensable.” She offers “good news” in that “consciousness science, unlike the search for extraterrestrial life, can break out of its N = 1 problem using other cases from our own planet.” Typically, consciousness scientists study other primates (e.g., macaque monkeys) and, to a lesser extent, other mammals, such as rats. “But the N = 1 problem still bites here. Because the common ancestor of the primates was very probably conscious, as indeed was the common ancestor of all mammals—we are still looking at the same evolved instance (just a different variant of it). To find independently evolved instances of consciousness, we really need to look to much more distant branches of the tree of life” (Andrews & Birch, 2023). Andrews speculates that “sentience has evolved only three times: once in the arthropods (including crustaceans and insects), once in the cephalopods (including octopuses) and once in the vertebrates.” But she cannot rule out “the possibility that the last common ancestor of humans, bees and octopuses, which was a tiny worm-like creature that lived more than 500 million years ago, was itself sentient—and that therefore sentience has evolved only once on Earth.” In either case, she argues, “If a marker-based approach does start pointing towards sentience being present in our worm-like last common ancestor, we would have evidence against current theories that rely on a close relationship between sentience and special brain regions adapted for integrating information, like the cerebral cortex in humans. We would have grounds to suspect that many features often said to be essential to sentience are actually dispensable” (Andrews & Birch, 2023). Conversely, it could mean that sentience is related to some unknown feature(s). Reframing Consciousness: Beyond Brains and Toward Behavior To Andrews, the philosophy of animal minds addresses profound questions about the nature of mind as they cut across animal cognition and philosophy of mind. Key topics include the evolution of consciousness, tool use in animals, animal culture, mental representation, belief, communication, theory of mind, animal ethics, and moral psychology (Andrews, 2020a). Andrews outlines “the scientific benefits of treating animals as sentient research participants who come from their own social contexts” (Andrews, 2020b). Andrews concludes: “Just as Crick and Koch pushed back on the popular view of their time that language is needed for consciousness, today we should push back on the popular view of our time that a complex brain is needed for consciousness.” She also speculates: “If we recognize that our starting assumptions are open to revision and allow them to change with new scientific discoveries, we may find new puzzle pieces, making the hard problem a whole lot easier” (Andrews, 2023). In essence, then, Andrews reverses the traditional “neurocentric” argument of consciousness. Whereas the common assumption is that consciousness is (somehow) related to the complexity of the nervous system, but because all neurobiological advances, collectively, have not progressed in solving the hard problem, then perhaps the common assumption is not correct and the generation of consciousness can be found outside the nervous system. Thus, rather than assuming that organisms without complex nervous systems cannot be conscious, perhaps a radical new approach might be to consider that these organisms are (in a way) conscious and focus research on how such “lower” or “primitive” consciousness might come about. Finally, regarding our current obsession with discerning AI sentience, Andrews claims that “without a deep understanding of the variety of animal minds on this planet, we will almost certainly fail” (Andrews & Birch, 2023). Neuroscience/consciousness writer Annaka Harris goes further, questioning our potentially false but deeply ingrained intuition that “systems that act like us are conscious, and those that don't are not.” Plants and philosophical zombies, she says, indicate that this human-centric intuition “has no real foundation.” (A. Harris, 2020, 2019). Consciousness may not even require a brain (A. Harris, 2022).

---

### Reber’s Cellular Basis of Consciousness
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/reber-s-cellular-basis-of-consciousness
Theorists: Arthur Reber

Cognitive psychologist Arthur Reber dubs his theory of the origins of mind and consciousness the Cellular Basis of Consciousness (CBC), arguing that “sentience emerged with life itself.” He states, “The most primitive unicellular species of bacteria are conscious, though it is a sentience of a primitive kind. They have minds, though they are tiny and limited in scope.” He rejects that “minds are computational and can be captured by an artificial intelligence.” He develops CBC using standard models of evolutionary biology, leveraging the “remarkable repertoire of single-celled species that micro- and cell-biologists have discovered … Bacteria, for example, have sophisticated sensory and perceptual systems, learn, form memories, make decisions based on information about their environment relative to internal metabolic states, communicate with each other, and even show a primitive form of altruism.” All such functions, Reber contends, “are indicators of sentience” (Reber, 2016, 2018). Reber's model is based on a simple, radical axiom: “Mind and consciousness are not unique features of human brains. They are grounded in inherent features present in simpler forms in virtually every species. Any organism with flexible cell walls, a sensitivity to its surrounds and the capacity for locomotion will possess the biological foundations of mind and consciousness.” In other words, “subjectivity is an inherent feature of particular kinds of organic form. Experiential states, including those denoted as ‘mind’ and ‘consciousness,’ are present in the most primitive species” (Reber, 2016). Principles of the CBC Model Reber founds his model on several principles: “Complexity has its roots in simplicity. Evolution has a pyramidal schema. Older forms and functions lie at the base, the more recently evolved ones toward the zenith …. In virtue of the nature of pyramidal systems, the older structures and the behaviors and processes that utilize them will be relatively stable, showing less individual-to-individual and species-to-species variation. They will also, in virtue of their foundational status, be robust and less likely to be lost. Adaptive forms and functions are not jettisoned; they are modified and, if the selection processes are effective, they will become more complex and capable of greater behavioral and mental flexibility and power” (Reber, 2016). Reber claims that his model has several conceptual and empirical virtues, among them: “(a) it (re)solves the problem of how minds are created by brains—the "Hard Problem"—by showing that the apparent difficulty results from a category error; (b) it redirects the search for the origins of mind from complex neural structures to foundational biomechanical ones; and (c) it reformulates the long-term research focus from looking for ‘miracle moments’ where a brain is suddenly capable of making a mind to discovering how complex and sophisticated cognitive, emotional and behavioral functions evolve from more primitive ones” (Reber, 2016). CBC and the Hard Problem In addressing the hard problem, Reber argues that the reason it looks “hard” is “because it assumes that there is some ‘added’ element that comes from having a mind.” However, he says, “from the CBC perspective the answer is easily expressed. Organisms have minds, or the precursors of what we from our philosophy of mind perspective think of as minds, because they are an inherent component of organic form. What gets ‘added’ isn't ontologically novel; it's a gradual accretion of functions that are layered over and interlock with pre-existing ones” (Reber, 2016). In the CBC framework, “All experience is mental. All organisms that experience have minds, all have consciousness.” Reber contends that this way of thinking repositions the problem, from how brains create consciousness (i.e., the hard problem) to how all experience is consciousness. “Instead of trying to grasp the neuro-complexities in brains that give rise to minds, we can redirect the focus toward understanding how particular kinds of basic, primitive organic forms came to have the bio-sensitivity that is the foundation of subjectivity.” Reber recognizes that “this argument requires a commitment to a biological reductionism.” It would also undermine Functionalism (9.1.3) in that mental states would be “intrinsically hardware dependent” (Reber, 2016).

---

### Feinberg and Mallatt’s Ancient Origins of Consciousness
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/feinberg-and-mallatt-s-ancient-origins-of-consciousness
Theorists: Todd Feinberg, Jon Mallatt

Neurologist/psychiatrist Todd Feinberg and evolutionary biologist Jon Mallatt propose that consciousness appeared much earlier in evolutionary history than is commonly assumed, and therefore all vertebrates and perhaps even some invertebrates are conscious. By assembling a list of the biological and neurobiological features that seem responsible for consciousness, and by juxtaposing the fossil record of evolution, the authors argue that about 520–560 million years ago, “the great ‘Cambrian explosion’ of animal diversity produced the first complex brains, which were accompanied by the first appearance of consciousness; simple reflexive behaviors evolved into a unified inner world of subjective experiences” (Feinberg & Mallatt, 2016). From Single Cells to Primitive Brains Doing what they call “neuroevolution,” Feinberg and Mallatt put forth the even more unconventional idea that the origin of consciousness goes back to the origin of life, in that single-cell creatures respond to stimuli from the environment, whether attracted to food sources or repelled by harmful chemicals. The authors call this process “sensory consciousness” [but which others may call stimulus-response patterns unworthy of the “consciousness” appellation]. In addition, the cell membrane distinguishes self from non-self, which becomes another baby step on the long evolutionary journey to human consciousness. A crucial developmental step, they say, was the evolution of “hidden layers” of clusters of intermediary nerve cells that process and relay internal signals between sensory-input and motor-output nerve cells. Driven by evolutionary pressures, these clusters would go on to evolve into primitive and then more complex brains (Feinberg & Mallatt, 2016; Rose, 2017). If indeed these were the historical facts, it would naturally follow that “all vertebrates are and have always been conscious—not just humans and other mammals, but also every fish, reptile, amphibian, and bird.” Moreover, Feinberg and Mallatt find that many invertebrates—arthropods (including insects and probably crustaceans) and cephalopods (including the octopus)—"meet many of the criteria for consciousness.” Their proposal challenges standard-model theory that “consciousness evolved simultaneously but independently in the first vertebrates and possibly arthropods more than half a billion years ago.” Combining evolutionary, neurobiological, and philosophical approaches enables Feinberg and Mallatt to cast a broader group of animals that are conscious, though it is less clear how their theory offers—as the marketing claims, the authors less so—“an original solution to the ‘hard problem’ of consciousness” (Feinberg & Mallatt, 2016).

---

### Halligan and Oakley’s Species-Enhancing Epiphenomenalism
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/halligan-and-oakley-s-species-enhancing-epiphenomenalism
Theorists: Peter Halligan, David Oakley

Psychologists Peter Halligan and David Oakley propose that consciousness is an epiphenomenon that evolved from underlying brain physiology. They define consciousness as “embodied subjective awareness including meta-cognition” and epiphenomenon as “inner what-it-is-like feelings without causal powers.” They argue that much of the mind’s cognitive architecture evolved to service sociality—the tendency of groups and people as persons to develop social links and live in communities—a key survival strategy for human growth, well-being, and species reproduction. Adopting this social evolutionary account, they propose that subjective awareness is not causally efficacious but rather a brain-generated accompaniment of selective neuro-cognitive outputs designed to facilitate collective social communication and social harmony through the cultural transmission of beliefs, feelings, ideas, and behaviors (Halligan & Oakley, 2024, 2015, 2017, 2021). Intuitive Accounts and Their Influence While the term consciousness can mean different things to different people, nothing appears more real than the intimate experience of subjective awareness and its powerful feelings of self-directed control (Halligan & Oakley, 2015, 2017). As such, most people know what “consciousness” is and what it does precisely because they experience it every day. Given these compelling, self-evident, pre-theoretical intuitions, explaining the nature of consciousness never really required formal scientific or philosophical explanation until the late development of psychology as a science at the end of the 19th century. Shtulman (2022a) claims that intuitive accounts have their origins in evolution, where innate expectations form the foundations of intuitive theory-building, shaping how we perceive, interact with, and explain the world around us. Unlike scientific accounts, first-person intuitive accounts, or lay theories, shaped by a lifetime of subjective awareness, provide an effortless, immediate explanation rarely questioned or requiring justification. The self-evidential nature of these intuitive accounts—which locate consciousness firmly in the driver’s seat—helps explain why formal studies of consciousness were relegated to the margins of mainstream psychology until the late 20th century (Seth, 2018). One of the most powerful intuitive beliefs that influence the way people perceive and explain subjective awareness is mind-body dualism, a pervasive conviction that the private mental world (thoughts, memories, intentions, feelings) are qualitatively distinct from and cannot be fully explained by the operation of biological brains (Barrett et al., 2021). Acceptance of this mind-body distinction, found in most human cultures and young children, has in turn provided for the intuitive notion of mental causation—a belief that receives daily confirmation by the fact that it underpins the existence and operation of most liberal political systems of government, education, health care, and criminal justice. Intuitive accounts remain persuasive and enduring precisely because of their everyday endorsement, where individuals as social players are held accountable and responsible for their behaviors, actions, and speech. Publicly endorsed social realities, such as democracy, human rights, universal suffrage, citizenship, equality, equity, and disability, are all predicated on the assumption that persons possess some form of executive embodied agentive capacity (e.g., free will) used to regulate group/social governance and justice. Where societal governance collectively creates social constructs (e.g., human rights, laws, nation boundaries), as “real” then, these social realities have a material impact on the person and the way society is collectively organized and governed (Feldman Barrett, 2020). Given the need for scientific accounts of human psychology to accommodate this intuitively informed compelling role for subjective awareness, it is not surprising that many accounts take and incorporate the not unreasonable, intuitive belief that outputs from our mental states, thoughts, intentions, beliefs, and feelings somehow cause and control behaviors (Halligan & Oakley, 2021). While helpful when explaining many everyday experiences, intuitive or common-sense accounts can lead to scientific misconceptions (Shtulman, 2022b). The challenge for any materialist, scientific account of human psychology is to reconcile these compelling pre-theoretical intuitive accounts that argue for personal liberty and responsibility with the known biologically determined neuroscientific evidence. Evidence from cognitive development suggests that ill-informed intuitive beliefs coexist in many areas of science, potentially delaying and obstructing the acceptance of scientific accounts (Shtulman, 2022a). Such accounts are historically entrenched and culturally widespread, making them inerasable and resistant to counter evidence. Epiphenomenal Model and Social Function While the human mind can be described as comprising both conscious and nonconscious aspects, both ultimately depend on neural processes in the brain. Persuaded by the growing evidence from cognitive neuroscience over the past three decades, Halligan and Oakley consider that the psychological outputs and executive functions typically attributed to subjective awareness are carried out competently backstage by a myriad of fast, efficient non-conscious brain systems. Contrary to intuitive accounts, Halligan and Oakley consider subjective awareness to be a brain-generated accompaniment that sits alongside psychological outputs derived from the non-conscious functioning of the brain’s evolved neurocognitive architecture (Halligan & Oakley, 2017, 2021). According to their account, selective psychological outputs from unconscious brain processes (such as thoughts, sensations, intentions, beliefs, memories, emotions) are internally broadcast to form the contents of conscious experience, a form of self-referential personal narrative. This continuously updated personal narrative, a form of selective “internal broadcasting” of outputs from non-conscious brain systems, is not, however, directed or influenced in any way by the experience of consciousness itself. Both the contents and experience of consciousness are epiphenomenal end products of unconscious processes themselves serving the powerful evolutionary function of enabling individuals to communicate (externally broadcast) the contents of their internal broadcasting to other individuals. Taking a social evolutionary approach, Halligan and Oakley aver that subjective awareness is a brain-generated mental representation, part of a more extensive evolved biological hardware that lacks the neuro-cognitive capacity to causally influence other psychological processes or behaviors (Halligan & Oakley, 2024). Halligan and Oakley claim that subjective awareness evolved to serve the needs of humans as social beings rather than exclusively for the benefit of us as biological organisms. As such, the mental architecture of the mind is strongly adapted for the exchange and reception of information, ideas, and feelings. As the German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche noted, “Consciousness is really only a net of communication between human beings… consciousness does not really belong to man’s individual existence but rather to his social or herd nature” (Nietzsche, 1974). The claim that subjective awareness is without causal influence is not to deny the reality or value of subjective experience for us as individuals. While it feels counterintuitive to attribute agency and personal accountability to a biological assembly of nerve cells, it makes more sense to attribute highly valued social realities such as free will, justice, democracy, and morality to individuals considered as persons living within a social community. Achieving a more scientific explanation of subjective awareness as part of a comprehensive account of human psychology means accepting that biology and culture work collectively to shape how brains evolve and that subjective awareness, although experienced as phenomenologically real, comprises one part of the brain’s much larger mental architecture designed to facilitate species' survival and well-being (Frith, 2007).

---

### Nichols’s Primal Eye
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/nichols-s-primal-eye
Theorists: Steven Nichols

Game designer and neural-network modeler Steve Nichols proposes Primal Eye theory, also termed Median Vision Theory (MVT), which holds that phenomenal consciousness, REM dreaming, abstract thought, and self-volitional modeling emerged from the evolutionary atrophy of the ancestral median, parietal, or “primal” eye during the transition from cold- to warm-blooded vertebrate physiology. On Nichols’s account, subjective experience is generated not by the pineal gland itself, nor by a mystical “third eye,” but through the residual functional activity of a lost sensory system: a virtual or “phantom” primal eye reconstructed by the brain from generic action-potential signals. The theory’s central claim is therefore anatomical-evolutionary: when the primal eye disappeared as an external photoreceptive organ, the neural circuitry formerly organized around its direct environmental input was not simply eliminated, but internalized and repurposed for simulation, imagery, dreaming, and the felt unity of conscious experience (Nichols, 1979, 2006, 2025). Nichols stresses that “third eye” is a misleading expression because the median eye is phylogenetically more ancient than the paired lateral eyes. In extant vertebrates such as the tuatara, the parietal eye remains a light-sensitive structure, although not an image-forming eye in the ordinary visual sense. Earlier experimental and anatomical work on the tuatara and other species showed that the pineal complex participates in photoperiodic regulation, circadian timing, thermoregulation, and related behavioral functions (Dendy, 1899, 1911; Menaker, 1968). Nichols takes this biological background as the starting point for a more ambitious theory of consciousness. Evolutionary mechanism Nichols distinguishes three grades of pineal-complex organization.1 E-2 organisms retain both a functional parietal eye and pineal gland; E-1 organisms retain the gland but have lost the external eye; E-0 organisms possess neither. In the E-2 condition, the organism is comparatively “locked” to external light: behavior is governed by a direct photic channel that coordinates daily and seasonal rhythms, predator-relevant light changes, thermoregulation, and reproductive timing. Nichols characterizes this as a relatively finite-state, hard-wired physiology, in which environmental light functions as a controlling clock or lockstep mechanism. The decisive transition occurs when the external median eye atrophies. Nichols argues that, as its functions were redistributed partly to the lateral eyes and partly to retained neuronal structures, the brain was released from direct solar control. This loss did not merely subtract a sensory organ; it forced neural systems to become more plastic, self-reconfiguring, and internally generative. The brain, no longer governed by a central external photic input, had to model the world rather than simply respond to it. On this interpretation, abstract thought and self-volition arise in inverse relation to the loss of the primal eye: the less behavior is controlled by direct environmental light, the more the organism must rely on internal simulation, prospective modeling, and centrally evoked representations (Nichols, 2006, 2025). Nichols introduces an analogy between the evolutionary atrophy of the primal eye with removal of the central "lock-step mechanism" from experimental synchronous digital circuits. In conventional digital design, circuits are governed by a global clock that dictates exactly when signals advance from one stage to the next. This clock forces all logic gates to operate in discrete, synchronized steps (lock-step) to ensure stability and predictability by allowing voltage levels to settle into binary 0s and 1s. By removing the global clock—and deliberately abandoning even the local phase-control handshakes used in standard asynchronous design—Thompson et al allowed the digital logic gates on the FPGA to operate as a completely unconstrained, continuous-time dynamic "ANALOGous to infinite-state" system (Thompson, 1996). Thompson's pivotal discovery was that artificial evolution did not just tolerate these transient dynamics; it actively exploited the rich, physical analog properties of the silicon to solve complex problems (such as tone discrimination and robot control) using a remarkably small number of components. However, Nichols says, the analogy between evolved unconstrained silicon circuits and sans-parietal-eye mammalian/ avian brains is only illustrative, not directly parallel. Phenomenal consciousness and dreaming In most species there is no longer any median eye physical circuitry. However, according to Nichols, the vertebrate brain for millions of years grew up alongside primal eye environmentaly originating input, so many deep neuronal structures were in place in our distant ancestors (e.g. Therapsids) since before the warm-blooded interface. Early brains expected data from this sensory input. The phantom effect (or unifying field) arguably is congenitally arising. Closure of the parietal foramen in human infants and evolutionary links between the ancestral E2 state and modern skull development remains a major topic of study (Benoit et. al, 2016; Wu et, al, 2013). Nichols compares the mechanism to phantom-limb phenomena: when a peripheral organ is lost, the corresponding neural organization may persist and generate experience in the absence of ordinary external input. The “phantom eye” is thus proposed as the biological origin of inner space, visual imagination, daydreaming, and the first-person perspective. In this framework, the self is not an immaterial substance but an evolved phantom-sensory integrator that binds ordinary sensory signals with internally generated simulations. Nichols further argues that this view offers a route into the binding problem, since diverse sensory inputs are translated into a common neural currency of action potentials and integrated through a virtual median-sensory architecture. Dreaming is central to the theory. Nichols interprets REM as a signature activity of E-1, sans-primal-eye neural organization. When the lateral eyes are closed during sleep and external sensory control is reduced, the unconstrained E1 circuitry is no longer clamped by environmental input and may generate internally driven bursts of activity. Drawing on evolvable-hardware research, especially work on unconstrained circuits and phasic transients, Nichols proposes that REM and dreaming are the subjective expression of such internally released dynamics (Thompson, Harvey, and Husbands, 1996; Thompson, 1998). Dreams are therefore not primarily Freudian wish-fulfilments or Jungian archetypal messages, but episodes of internally generated world-modeling made possible by the loss of the primal eye (Freud, 1900; Jung, 1959; Globus, 1987). Scope, testability, and assessment Nichols presents Primal Eye theory as an alternative to both Cartesian pinealism and esoteric third-eye doctrines. Against Descartes, he does not identify the pineal gland as the seat of the soul; against Blavatsky-style mysticism, he argues that vertebrates are not evolving toward a new third eye, but away from an ancient median eye (Descartes, 1637, 1649, 1664; Blavatsky, 1888). In Nichols's view, Descartes was wrong in claiming the pineal gland is intrinsic to sentience since pineal gland removal or calcification does not affect consciousness. Descartes had chosen the pineal gland as integral to consciousness because of its uniquely unpaired and central status in the brain; but he failed to specify how a cellular structure interacts with non-physico-spatial qualia. Leibniz's Law (Identity of Indiscernibles) states that only if two entities share all the exact same properties, they are the same entity (interchangeable). It is because the phantom primal eye is centrally evoked by the cellular as generic APS identically with all the contents of special sense information that Leibniz's "like can only interact with like" condition is satisfied by the non-physical primal eye "monad"—as opposed to Descartes's cellular pineal gland. The theory makes at least one comparatively clear empirical prediction: species, developmental stages, or individuals retaining more functional parietal-eye tissue should show less of the REM-like internally generative dynamics characteristic of E-1 animals, whereas species with a fully atrophied primal eye should show more robust REM-associated mentation. Nichols therefore proposes comparative work correlating parietal-eye atrophy, pineal-complex organization, neural plasticity, and REM expression across vertebrates. Primal Eye theory remains highly speculative and is not presently established within mainstream consciousness science. Nichols says that the basic premises (atrophy of primal eye and evolutionary timeline) arise out of evolutionary biology and are not very contentious; however some of his wider inferences can be challenged. Its anatomical and evolutionary premises draw on real features of the pineal complex, but the proposed transition from parietal-eye atrophy to phenomenal consciousness, selfhood, and abstract thought has not been independently demonstrated. Its distinctive contribution is to offer a concrete evolutionary-anatomical hypothesis linking phenomenal consciousness, internal imagery, REM dreaming, neural plasticity, and self-volitional modeling within a single framework. References Benoit, J., Abdala, F., Manger, P., & Rubidge, B. (2016). The sixth sense in mammalians forerunners: variability of the parietal foramen and the evolution of the pineal eye in South African Permo-Triassic eutheriodont therapsids. Acta Palaeontologica Polonica. Blavatsky, H. P. (1888). The Secret Doctrine. London: Theosophical Publishing Company. Dendy, A. (1899). On the development of the parietal eye and adjacent organs in Sphenodon (Hatteria). Quarterly Journal of Microscopical Science, s2-42(166), 111–153. Dendy, A. (1911). On the structure, development and morphological interpretation of the pineal organs and adjacent parts of the brain in the tuatara (Sphenodon punctatus). Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Series B, 201, 227–331. Descartes, R. (1637). La Dioptrique. Leiden. Descartes, R. (1649). Les passions de l’âme. Paris. Descartes, R. (1664). Traité de l’homme. Paris. Freud, S. (1900). Die Traumdeutung [The Interpretation of Dreams]. Leipzig & Vienna: Franz Deuticke. Globus, G. G. (1987). Dream Life, Wake Life: The Human Condition Through Dreams. Albany: State University of New York Press. Jung, C. G. (1959). The Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious (Collected Works, Vol. 9, Part 1). Princeton: Princeton University Press. Leibniz, G. W. (1714). La Monadologie. Menaker, M. (1968). Extraretinal light perception in the sparrow, I: Entrainment of the biological clock. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 59(2), 414–421. Nichols, S. (1979). Phantom Eye [BSc (Hons) Philosophy dissertation]. Nichols, S. (2006). The Primal Eye. ISBN 1-87460-308-1. Nichols, S. (2025). Lost Primal Eye, warm-bloodedness and birth of the self: A new framework for psychology and psychotherapy. Posthuman University Journal, December 2025. Thompson, A. (1998). Hardware Evolution: Automatic Design of Electronic Circuits in Reconfigurable Hardware by Artificial Evolution. London: Springer. Thompson, A., Harvey, I., & Husbands, P. (1996). Unconstrained evolution and hard consequences. In E. Sanchez & M. Tomassini (Eds.), Towards Evolvable Hardware (Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 1062, pp. 136–165). Berlin: Springer. Wu, X.-J., Xing, S., & Trinkaus, E. (2013). An Enlarged Parietal Foramen in the Late Archaic Xujiayao 11 Neurocranium from Northern China, and Rare Anomalies among Pleistocene Homo. PLoS ONE, 8.

---

### Holmgren’s Grainy, Atomic Feels
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/holmgren-s-grainy-atomic-feels
Theorists: Jan Holmgren

Architect and consciousness discussant Jan Holmgren proposes that human conscious experiences are “grainy“ and they are built of discrete “atomic feels“ that emerge as microprocesses in our brains out of the continuous universe. Ultimately, he says, “large numbers of atomic feels ordered in rich spectra of qualities (qualia) are all there is to build knowledge from. A multitude of atomic feels form concepts that are stored in brains in the form of memory engrams” and form the foundation upon which concepts and abstract thought are constructed (Holmgren, 2017). Atomic Feels and Grainy Consciousness Thus, to Holmgren, all human knowledge is built from discrete conscious experiences, each grounded in the brain’s microprocesses. He argues that rather than arising from continuous processes alone, consciousness emerges from these rapid, localized activations—the “atomic feels“—that the brain integrates into coherent experiences. “Human conscious experiences are built out of numerous feels, each feel corresponding to the actualisation of one small, localised and shortly actualised microprocess in the brain” (Holmgren, 2014). Holmgren takes much from Whitehead, especially his philosophy of organisms, where the universe is a dynamic system of interrelated processes and events, and the "graininess and atomic feels principles" (noted above). As Whitehead said, "In the place of the Hegelian hierarchy of categories of thought, the philosophy of organism finds a hierarchy of categories of feeling” (Whitehead, 1978). As for qualia, Holmgren has them as ’feels and distributions’ in conceptual spaces. As such, traditional universals are replaced by ’feels and distributions,’ which structure conscious contents and their relations. Sensory qualia are generated internally. Sensory qualities are produced in brains rather than residing in the external world: “the experience of light is produced only within our brains; there are no light-qualia around other than in the brains of living organisms” (Holmgren, 2014). Holmgren situates his theory within an evolutionary framework, asserting that human conscious experiences evolved to provide reliable interaction with a continuous, natural world (Holmgren, 2014). Taken together, his view emphasizes both the discreteness of consciousness and its integration within continuous natural processes. Two distinctive features of Holmgren’s theory are the graininess of conscious experience and atomic feels as fundamental units. Discreteness within Continuity: Conscious experiences are discrete bursts of atomic feels actualized from a continuous process in the brain, each feel having a precise location and brief duration (Holmgren, 2017). Atomic Feels as Fundamental Units: Holmgren draws on Whitehead’s notion that “all our physical relationships are made up of such simple physical feelings, as their atomic bricks” (Whitehead, 1978). Universal Modality: While first evidenced in vision, Holmgren posits that similar graininess underlies all sensory modalities, emotions, and abstract thought—accounting for the detailed precision of human experience (Holmgren, 2017). Holmgren’s graininess principle explains why conscious moments feel richly detailed yet temporally brief, resolving the apparent paradox between discrete experience and continuous brain dynamics (Maddocks et al., 2001). As Holmgren puts it: “Nature is continuous; experience is discrete.” This contrast underlies issues like binding and representation (Holmgren, 2014). Holmgren’s theory connects atomic feels to the emergence of concepts through layers of abstraction. He follows Whitehead in viewing the universe as continuous behind consciousness but discrete at the level of actualized feels (Whitehead, 1978), which cluster into meaningful patterns—conceptual spaces—that form memories and abstract thought (Pereira & Almada, 2010). Each concept arises as a stable cluster of atomic feels stored in memory engrams (Tonegawa et al., 2015), enabling categorization and higher-order thinking (Holmgren, 2017). Poles of Experience and Broader Ontology Holmgren identifies two interdependent poles in human consciousness: Objective Pole (sensory-driven): Involves direct input from senses, characterized by feels with deep evolutionary histories like color, sound, and touch (Bolhuis et al., 2014). Subjective Pole (memory-driven): Involves internal engrams—stored clusters of feels that inform imagination, planning, and reflection (Tonegawa et al., 2015). This dual-pole structure, Holmgren contends, aligns with Whitehead’s observation of consciousness as a “flickering” phenomenon with focal and penumbral regions (Whitehead, 1978). Holmgren says that his theory is grounded in first-person phenomenology and empirical observation: Epistemic primacy of experience: Methodologically, all knowledge claims are grounded in experience: “All that we know comes to us through conscious experiences” (Holmgren, 2014). Waking Visual Experiences: Reports of rotating light voxels in a dark room upon awakening reveal the graininess of visual consciousness and suggest microprocess on–off dynamics (Holmgren, 2014). Cross-Modal Extension: Similar atomic-feel patterns occur in auditory experiments and abstract cognition (Holmgren, 2014). Evolutionary Consistency: The persistence of atomic feels across individuals and cultures, along with brain update rates (50–60 Hz in humans vs. higher in birds), supports a conserved evolutionary substrate (Azevedo et al., 2009; Maddocks et al., 2001). For instantiating his theory in brain neurobiology, Holmgren suggests several neural substrates: Potential Memory Engrams: Identified by Tonegawa et al. (2015). Astrocytic Involvement: Pereira Jr. & Almada (2010) highlight human astrocytes’ unique role; Oberheim et al. (2009) describe their distinctive human characteristics. Distributed Microprocess Integration: Holistic brain circuits may coordinate the synchronization and actualization of feels (Holmgren, 2017). Evolutionary Arguments and Multi-Aspect Monism Holmgren reframes Dobzhansky’s dictum as “Everything in life makes sense in the light of evolution” (Holmgren, 2014). His evolutionary arguments include: Natural Selection of Feels: Atomic feels evolved for survival-critical resolution. Emergence of Conceptual Space: Evolution favored abstraction and culture (Bolhuis et al., 2014). Continuity and Discreteness: Evolution shaped continuous brain processes that underlie discrete conscious events (Holmgren, 2017), positioning consciousness as adaptive and evolutionarily grounded. This perspective situates consciousness as an adaptive outcome of evolutionary pressures, intertwining macro-scale organismal success with adapting microprocess mechanisms. Holmgren’s consciousness ontology goes beyond traditional physicalist and dualist frameworks by advocating Multi-Aspect Monism, where reality is understood through multiple interrelated perspectives (Holmgren, 2014). He critiques Triple-Aspect Monism—which balances physical-chemical, informational, and mental levels (Pereira, 2013)—arguing that it remains too narrow for capturing the full scope of human consciousness. Multi-Aspect Monism instead encourages consideration of scientific, cultural, and spiritual aspects, reflecting human creativity and diversity of experience. This inclusive stance emphasizes that consciousness cannot be reduced to a single scientific domain and must be studied through interdisciplinary lenses. Holmgren’s challenge: “Physics should no longer be considered the ideal for all other sciences. At least equally important is the understanding of human behaviour.” This attitude exemplifies Multi-Aspect Monism (Holmgren, 2017).

---

### Sreedharan’s Affective Survival Theory
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/sreedharan-s-affective-survival-theory
Theorists: Shaji Sreedharan

Computer engineer Shaji Sreedharan proposes Affective Survival Theory (AST) as a Darwinian framework for the evolution of conscious experience. According to AST, consciousness evolved not as an incidental byproduct of brain complexity but as an adaptive system of affective prioritization selected for its contribution to behavioral flexibility, memory encoding, and social cooperation (Sreedharan, 2025). Building on Darwin’s theory of natural selection, AST begins from the premise that mental phenomena, like physical traits, must confer a reproductive or survival advantage to persist in biological lineages. In The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals (1872), Darwin recognized emotional expressions as evolved signals. AST extends this principle, proposing that emotionally felt states—such as pain, fear, hunger, and pleasure—are not epiphenomenal but functional strategies that enable organisms to tag stimuli with survival relevance. Affective Modulation and Adaptive Value At its core, AST posits that consciousness emerged through the affective modulation of experience. Affective states do not merely accompany cognition; they shape it. Feeling functions to weight experience with urgency and meaning, allowing organisms to encode, recall, and act upon high-stakes environmental cues. The adaptive value lies not in perception alone, but in the felt salience that compels learning, avoidance, bonding, and persistence. By emotionally weighting sensory input, these states increase the salience of certain memories, facilitate avoidance or approach behaviors, and regulate attention. A conscious organism feels what matters, and it is this felt relevance—not abstract representation—that drives adaptive action. Hard Advantage and Evolutionary Implications Crucially, Sreedharan contends that AST reframes the so-called hard problem of consciousness—why it feels like anything at all—not as a metaphysical puzzle but as a biological design feature. It introduces the concept of the hard advantage: the evolutionary utility of affectively felt experience. Pain is not just a neural alert; it is suffering that compels withdrawal. Pleasure is not mere feedback; it is desire that sustains action. Emotionally charged memories, especially those evoking intense feelings, demonstrate greater retention and influence on future behavior—a well-established fact in neuroscience (LeDoux, 2012; Phelps, 2004). In AST, consciousness is not defined by abstract reasoning or language, but by the felt capacity to encode survival-relevant experience. This aligns with evidence of affective consciousness in non-human animals and suggests that consciousness evolved gradually, scaling with the complexity of affective processing systems. AST complements physical theories that address the mechanism of consciousness, whether at quantum or neuronal levels. AST argues why consciousness evolved—to serve survival through feeling-based action. In conclusion, Sreedharan offers Affective Survival Theory to provide a biologically grounded, evolutionarily plausible framework for understanding consciousness. It restores function to feeling, repositions emotion at the center of adaptive behavior, and offers a scientifically tractable reformulation of consciousness not as a mystery outside of science but as a functional and affective phenomenon at its core: nature’s strategy for intelligent survival (Sreedharan, 2025).

---

### No Hard Problem in William James’s Psychology
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/no-hard-problem-in-william-james-s-psychology
Theorists: William James

Writer Tracy Witham argues that William James flipped the paradigm in which the hard problem arises because James viewed consciousness through a problem he believed it solved by selecting for adaptive responses to specific environmental situations (James, 1890). Essentially, James believed that a brain complex enough to support a proliferation of options for responding to environmental situations is more likely to obscure than to identify the best option to use, unless that brain also has a selection mechanism for choosing adaptive over less, non-, and maladaptive options. But the question remains, Witham says, whether consciousness is, at least, a good prima facie fit, to address what can be called “the selection problem.” Consciousness and the Selection Problem The hypothesis that underlies James's view, she says, is that consciousness increases an organism's fitness by “bringing … pressure to bear in favor of those of its performances which make for the most permanent interests of the brain's owner …” (James, 1890, p. 140). Specifically, the role James gave to consciousness must be understood only in the context of the formation of de facto ends which he believed form when preferred sensations are recalled in their absence (James, 1890, p. 78). This context is crucial, because it is consciousness that confers the preferences for some sensations over others and thereby serves as the source of the ends. But to understand why James gave consciousness that role, Witham says we need to understand his two-word phrase, "cerebral reflex," (James, 1890, p. 80), which implies a stimulus-and-response schema is the basis for the ends-and-means couplings that form cerebral reflexes. However, there is a problem with the implication. For this to work, ends must stand in for stimuli, arising in interactions between organisms and their environments. Cerebral Reflex and Adaptive Role The problem is solved, Witham says, if consciousness just is what it seems to be: the means by which we reflect on our interactions with our environments to sense whether the interactions are favorable or not. So, what consciousness seems to be fits James's hypothesis perfectly, that its role is to "bring … pressure to bear [in favor of] those of our performances" that are adaptive. Reflective experience, in short, makes it possible to identify experiences of our environmental interactions that contain adaptive behaviors and retain them as cerebral reflexes for future use. But then, as the means to solve the selection problem, consciousness becomes an adaptive adaptation in the sense of being an adaptation selecting for adaptive behaviors. And it does so by being, indeed, what it seems to be: an adaptive adaptation that is a marvelous source of solutions, not a confounding source of problems. The critical question, however, is whether a zombie-like black box of sufficient complexity could perform environmentally driven, fitness enhancing, evolutionarily successful activities, and if so, why then the radical advent of something so startlingly novel in the universe: inner experience? In other words, while the question of why consciousness was favored and selected by evolution is important, it is not the question of what consciousness actually is, which of course is the hard problem.

---

### Phylogenetic/Evolutionary Additional Theories
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/phylogenetic-evolutionary-additional-theories
Theorists: Several

Staub's Consciousness and Biological Evolution Independent researcher John Staub claims consciousness resulted after a half-billion-year process of vertebrate evolution. Fish brains run on full automatic. Birds use maternal love, pre-wired in the brain, to help their vulnerable eggs survive. Although mammals can be self-aware and might feel something like guilt, they lack any sense of morality. Only humans have gained both consciousness and that essential ingredient called free will (Staub, 2025). Is self-awareness merely an illusion that helps mammals survive? Staub says yes. But is consciousness also an illusion? Here, he says no. “Consciousness is more than a survival mechanism.” To him, the key to understanding consciousness is free will. He suggests an unknown force or energy, working at the quantum level within brain neurons, directs electron movement. But if this energy is undirected, you’re back to square one, no free will. “What directs this force or energy?” For lack of a better word, he calls it “God” and calls this dualistic alliance of God and brain “consciousness.” A reasonable question: If God is running the show, why aren’t all decisions perfect? Staub’s answer: “God’s abilities are limited. Only a tiny fraction of God’s imperfect essence resides within everyone’s brain, with each person’s consciousness, unique.” Staub argues a person can believe both free will and God exist, or neither. “The laws of physics won’t let you pick and choose.” Prove free will is impossible, and life will become meaningless, with society quickly devolving into nihilism. Motivation becomes crucial. “Why would a God give humans consciousness? And why did it take 14 billion years to create a human?” To Staub, the answer seems obvious. “God is not omnipotent, is not physical, and is extremely limited in our physical universe.” He wrote these words fifty years ago: “We are the eyes, the ears, and hands of God, and in return, we are given the sense of beauty, of music, and of love.” Gleason’s Subconscious Transfer Independent researcher Greg Gleason posits that evolution has produced a brain comprised of two parts, consciousness and non-consciousness, and that consciousness does nothing, existing only as a stage or venue for what the non-conscious brain transfers to it. The non-conscious brain produces everything of which we become aware in consciousness. What appears in consciousness is there only temporarily, usually very briefly (Gleason, 2025). To Gleason, understanding how decision-making works is key to understanding what consciousness is. No one ever “made” a decision, he says. The infinite regression that “making” decisions would require means “making” decisions is impossible. Deciding happens when what is decided upon occurs to us to be the thing to do, the thing to say, the thing to choose, or the thing to think about. Like nearly everything else in our lives, deciding occurs to us. Whatever is in consciousness occurs to us there. While everything of which we are conscious first occurs in the non-conscious brain, not all of what occurs in the non-conscious brain is transferred to and occurs in consciousness. Sleepwalking, talking in one’s sleep, and behavior while hypnotized are instances of thoughts and decisions that occur in the non-conscious brain but which do not transfer to consciousness. So are most of the myriad decisions that go into producing routine behaviors such as opening a door or typing this note. The non-conscious brain does not make us aware of most of them. They happen, but not in consciousness. Any decisions of which we are aware appear in consciousness immediately upon having been produced in the non-conscious brain. Just as all decisions are produced in the non-conscious brain, so is all thought produced there. We are aware of what the non-conscious brain decides to make us aware of on the stage of consciousness. We are aware of sensation in consciousness as the non-conscious brain processes and interprets it. Sensation occurs to the non-conscious brain. What the non-conscious brain makes of it appears to us in consciousness. Gleason wonders, “I wonder what thoughts my non-conscious brain has had that I don’t know about.” Kramer’s Neurotoxic Bootstrap Hypothesis Software/AI engineer Andre Kramer’s Neurotoxic Bootstrap Hypothesis holds that phenomenal consciousness arose from the need to detect when environmental neurotoxic chemicals had compromised not only an organism’s bodily state but also the perceptual and regulatory processes by which it judged reality. The resulting distinction between the organism being altered and the external source of alteration may have helped generate the first experienced division between self and world: a unified sense that “something has changed me.” The hypothesis distinguishes a rapidly changing active state (A) from a slower normative state (N). Their multidimensional difference, A−N, or normalized contrast, (A−N)/(A+N+ε), is what constitutes a field of experienced tension: what it feels like for an organism’s present condition to diverge from what it expects, remembers, or requires itself to be. Intoxication may perturb both A and N, but differently across systems and timescales. Partially independent sensory, interoceptive, vestibular, mnemonic, and action-control processes can therefore fail to reach a quorum. Loosely analogous to N-version programming, their structured divergence becomes globally available as a second-order diagnosis: “I am altered; my present impressions should not be trusted or acted upon normally.” This diagnosis need not be conceptual or linguistic; the phrase is shorthand for a globally felt reduction in confidence. Phenomenal unity arises because many local disturbances are integrated as one organism-level condition—“this is happening to me.” The proposal shares Damasio’s emphasis on homeostatic feeling (Damasio & Damasio, 2022, 2023), Gray’s comparator and late-error-detection account (Gray, 1995, 2004), and Lau’s perceptual reality monitoring (Lau, 2022). It differs by identifying environmental neurotoxic chemical perturbation as a plausible evolutionary bootstrap and by treating phenomenal unity as a fault-tolerant, cross-system response to compromise rather than as mere homeostatic monitoring, prediction error, higher-order tagging, or winner-takes-all broadcast. For hundreds of millions of years, plant-derived and other environmental neurotoxins are likely to have exerted sustained selection pressures on animal regulatory and avoidance systems (Hagen et al., 2009). Once established, the same second-order capacity could be exapted for addiction avoidance, detection of gradual norm drift, reflective agency, and assent. The account is functionally specific but ontologically open: it is compatible with emergent neurobiological explanations or with views on which living organization recruits a more fundamental experiential aspect of nature (Kramer, 2026). References Avizienis, A. (1985). The N-version approach to fault-tolerant software. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, SE-11(12), 1491–1501. Damasio, A., & Damasio, H. (2022). Homeostatic feelings and the biology of consciousness. Brain, 145(7), 2231–2235. Damasio, A., & Damasio, H. (2023). Feelings are the source of consciousness. Neural Computation, 35(3), 277–286. Gray, J. A. (1995). The contents of consciousness: A neuropsychological conjecture. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 18(4), 659–676. Gray, J. A. (2004). Consciousness: Creeping Up on the Hard Problem. Oxford University Press. Hagen, E. H., Sullivan, R. J., Schmidt, R., Morris, G., Kempter, R., & Hammerstein, P. (2009). Ecology and neurobiology of toxin avoidance and the paradox of drug reward. Neuroscience, 160(1), 69–84. Lau, H. (2022). In Consciousness We Trust: The Cognitive Neuroscience of Subjective Experience. Oxford University Press. Kramer, A. (2026). Drugged into awareness: The Neurotoxic Bootstrap Hypothesis, Substack. https://andrekramer.substack.com/p/drugged-into-awareness Vaskas’s Fostering Consciousness as Our Raison d'être Artist/businessman/futurologist Georges Vaskas posited that fostering the development of consciousness is our raison d'être as human beings. In his work, Paligenesia: Reason for Being (written by his friend, Daniel Janisson), Vaskas makes the following argument. Genes are the foundation of human development, and after continuous transformations across generations, they construct consciousness. When the regulatory and modifying genes of the neurons in human brains that govern organic or mental functioning are still predominantly of non-human animal or proto-human types, humans think non-syllogistically, and they are... unconscious. But if, conversely, the majority of administrative-modifying genes coordinate in groups of neurons the outputs of sensations and emotions—after examining and verifying elements stored in memory, and processing or comparing new information with those memories—if they form new synaptic terminals and microtubule-neuroaxonic connections, and reason with syllogistic logic, their mental behavior changes from non-logical to logical and constitutes in the cortex the phenomenon of consciousness. This means that when human beings think syllogistically, they are… conscious. Thus, in Vaskas’s (hopeful) grand vision, as evolution progresses, ignorance will disappear, leading to the fulfillment of our "raison d'être": the union of all consciousnesses in true humanism (Vaskas and Janisson, 2022). Note that in Vaskas's view, there is no traditional "evolution" on Earth or elsewhere, but simply the unfolding of a universal code originating somehow from the universe itself that fosters consciousness and harmony, and contributes to the development of the human mind and consciousness. Perhaps we will discover the means to overcome aging, and even to achieve immortality. This, according to Vaskas, would mark the completion of the unfolding of our genetic code (Janisson, personal communication, 2026).

---

# Theories - Dualisms

## Dualisms—Overview
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/dualisms-overview
Theorists: Several

Dualism is the theory of consciousness that requires two radically distinct parts: a physical brain, obviously, but also, in addition, a separate, nonphysical substance that is not only independent of the brain but also not of the physical world (as presently conceived). This would mean that reality consists of (at least) two ontological categories—physical and nonphysical, whether substances, properties, aspects, dimensions, or planes of existence. Dualism is often called “substance dualism” to distinguish it from “property dualism,” which is ontologically different. In general usage, “dualism” means substance dualism. For dualism to be true, what follows must be that the physical world, at its most fundamental level of fields and forces, is not in some way causally closed, and that mental properties play a causal role in affecting the physical world. This perspective, often called interactionism, provides that physical states cause phenomenal states, and phenomenal states cause physical states, and whatever psychophysical laws there may be will operate in both directions (Chalmers, 2003). Soul-Centered Dualism and Popular Belief Common forms of dualism identify the essence of the person with a nonphysical “soul,” generally an immortal soul. This kind of “soul-centered dualism” is also the theory of consciousness most widely believed by the vast majority of the world's population, largely implicitly via acculturation to belief systems, whether organized religion or folk traditions. Dualism (substance dualism), certainly, is the default doctrine in the Abrahamic religions of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Four Reasons Philosophers Reject Dualism Dualism is largely rejected by philosophers, at least by most professional philosophers in the West[1] (PhilPapers Survey, 2009, 2020). Dualism has fallen out of philosophical favor for at least four reasons. (i) No Interactions: Given the scientific understanding that the physical world is a causally closed system in that every event has a prior, physically efficient cause, how could anything outside such a closed system affect it? (Goff, 2020). (ii) Not Parsimonious: Two kinds of world stuff seem excessively complex; Occam's razor cuts unnecessary entities in explanations. (iii) No Knowledge: Souls are slippery; how to know anything about how they work? (iv) Fading Divine Creator: With God less prominent in academia, there seems to be one less way to create or allocate souls. What Kind of Thing a Soul Would Be In trying to characterize souls (assuming for a moment that souls do exist), we ask questions. Are all souls exactly the same, as all electrons in the electron quantum field are the same? Are souls undifferentiated (everyone gets the same “starter kit”), or specially tailored to each individual? Are souls created by God? Or are souls the inevitable, automatic product of a set of deep psychophysical laws? In other words, given specific, complex structures of atoms, do souls pop into existence? Or are souls always existing, part of a cosmic consciousness—journeying, reincarnating, transitioning, transforming, reincarnating …? Notably, because consciousness, under dualism, would require both a non-physical substance and a physical brain (somehow working together), it is conceivable, following the death of the body and the dissolution of the brain, that this nonphysical substance by itself could maintain some kind of existence, conscious or otherwise. (Although this nonphysical substance is traditionally called a “soul”—a term laden with theological burdens—a soul is not the only kind of thing, or form, that such a nonphysical substance could be.) Philosopher Dean Zimmerman reviews “a spectrum of dualisms” resulting from different meanings of “nonphysical.” Are souls simple, with no parts, or composite, with internal components (whether fixed or flexible)? To pose an extreme, could souls be abstract objects, outside of space and time, necessary existents? Most dualists would have souls as concrete, nonphysical objects. Some would even have souls extended in space, sharing the same special coordinate system as bodies (Zimmerman, 2005). Responses from Hart, Strawson, and Lanier David Bentley Hart welcomes confrontation by claiming that most early modern scientists were better able to understand the mind-body problem than are many in the sciences today. The 17th-century solution to the seeming irreconcilability of mind and matter was “to adopt a casual and contented dualism, allowing the mental and the physical each its own discrete autonomous sphere: nature, not being teleological or intentional in any way, is nothing like mind; mind, not being composite, purposeless, and impersonal, is nothing like nature.” The two can somehow interact, probably, Hart suggests, through the sheer power of God, but “neither is reducible or even qualitatively similar to the other.” Hart recognizes the inherent problems in describing “any kind of coherent ontological, causal, or epistemological continuity between the two spheres”—Hart himself is a monist—“it [dualism] was nowhere near so magnificent a disaster as the later, materialistically monistic attempts to reduce mental events to mechanical [processes] have so far proved” (Hart, 2019a, 2021a). To Galen Strawson, “Dualists who postulate two distinct substances while holding that they interact causally not only face the old and seemingly insuperable problem of how to give an honest account of this interaction. They also face the (even more difficult) problem of justifying the claim that there are two substances.” To think that dualism has anything in its favor, Strawson asserts, “is simply to reveal that one thinks one knows more about the nature of things than one does—and it has Occam's razor (that blunt, sharp instrument) against it” (Strawson, 2008). The dualism theories that follow in this section challenge this denial. Jaron Lanier says, “You've got two choices. Either you know everything [about consciousness], or you organize your ignorance in some intelligent and organized manner. Dualism is the most honest manner of organizing your ignorance, okay?” (Lanier, 2007b). Border Cases and Mental Causation As noted, Closer To Truth viewers regularly send me diverse theories related to consciousness, some just ideas, some elaborate systems, and occasionally they are hard to classify. For example, a consciousness system operating independently of the central nervous system, constituted by “a Material B” (exhibiting “coupling properties” beyond the boundaries of physics) and explored by “memory-related thought processes” and “illogical nonlinear-thinking”[2] (Ma et al., 2023). It is well known that mental causation is a vexing problem for dualists. By what conceivable mechanism could nonphysical stuff affect physical stuff? This is not a primary issue for this Landscape, but it is for Dualism. Hylomorphic Entries in This Category One family in this section deserves a word. The hylomorphic entries—Aristotle, Aquinas, Stump, Feser, Jaworski—hold that soul or form is what organizes a living body rather than a separate substance lodged inside it, which makes them, on the standard reading, neither substance dualisms nor property dualisms. They are housed here on two grounds: each denies that the mental can be captured by a reductive physicalism, and together they form one continuous lineage from antiquity to current analytic metaphysics that dispersal across categories would obscure. Aquinas and those following him do hold that the intellectual soul survives the body, but as an incomplete substance rather than as the person. The classification is a claim about descent and about resistance to reduction, not about two substances. Again, the purpose of this section on Dualisms as a theory of consciousness is to describe various kinds of dualism, not to argue in favor or against (a self-imposed hurdle on which I occasionally trip). Footnotes [1]. The first PhilPapers Survey of philosophy faculty and PhDs, conducted in 2009, reported: Accept or lean toward: Physicalism, 56.5%; Non-physicalism, 25.9%; Other, 16.4%. (Bourget & Chalmers, 2009; PhilPapers Survey, 2009). The latest Survey in 2020 showed a modest but meaningful shift away from Physicalism (51.93%) and toward Non-physicalism (32.08%); Other, about the same (16.56%) (Bourget & Chalmers, 2023; PhilPapers Survey, 2020). [2]. The three Chinese scientists are, inclusively, from Mainland China, Taiwan, and the USA. It is good that consciousness can catalyze harmony.

---

## Philosophical History of Dualism
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/philosophical-history-of-dualism
Theorists: General

The philosophical history of Dualism—the idea that reality consists of two fundamental kinds of substances or principles, notably mind and body, or mental and physical—is rooted, in the West, in Plato and early Christian thought. Plato (c. 428–348 BCE) taught that an immortal soul is distinct from the mortal body; the body is a prison, the soul seeks to return to the realm of Forms, its true home—thus, substance dualism, soul and body. Early Christian thinkers, such as Augustine (354–430 CE), influenced by Neoplatonism and dualistic interpretations of certain biblical verses, considered the soul as superior and eternal, the body as lesser and corruptible, even though created by God. (The lack of dualistic verses in the Hebrew Bible and the tension between a resurrection and an immortal soul in the Christian tradition require complex analysis.) Classical and Early Christian Roots René Descartes (1596–1650), considered the father of modern dualism, provides clarity to arguments in support of substance dualism. The Mind (res cogitans): Thinking, non-extended substance. The Body (res extensa): Extended, non-thinking substance. Well-known for “Cogito, ergo sum” (“I think, therefore I am”). Descartes made some outlandish (to our sensitivities) statements—the pineal gland in the brain is the seat of the soul, and non-human animals are automata without consciousness, relegating them to be soulless machines without minds (a view that almost every dog owner would roundly reject). Nonetheless, by providing lucid descriptions of dualism, he established a benchmark for modern understanding. Modern Developments and Challenges As such, most Western elites, as well as almost all Western citizens, subscribed to philosophical dualism—until dualism was eclipsed by the rise of materialism/physicalism (exemplified by neuroscience). In this context, dualism has had an ‘interaction problem’—how could mental states affect physical states (brain), even though they are of a completely different kind, and the physical arena is closed? Today, while a majority of US and Western citizens believe in dualism, most philosophers of mind do not. In recent decades, David Chalmers has resurrected dualism, framed with a contemporary form (e.g., naturalistic dualism).

---

## Historical and Traditional Dualisms
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/historical-and-traditional-dualisms
Theorists: Peter van Inwagen

Dualism is the oldest and most ubiquitous theory of consciousness in the sense that nonphysical aspects of the world and mind, such as animism and ancestor worship, had long seemed the default assumption of millennia of pre-modern human groups and cultures. Plato's description of immortal souls in ancient Greece, where the person was entirely immaterial, and the profound ruminations about consciousness in ancient India, debating individual and cosmic varieties, were consistent with common intuitions and thus readily accepted. On the other hand, biblical accounts of the nature of the person, especially in the Hebrew scriptures, stress human physicality and mortality, with no obvious assertions about immortal souls (Van Inwagen, 1995). In Genesis, humans became (were not inherently) “a living soul” (Gen. 2:7). Ezekiel writes, “The soul that sinneth, it shall die” (Ezek. 18:20). Paul, in the New Testament, has “the wages of sin is death” (Rom. 6:23). Granted, theologians can interpret “death,” as, say, a soul that is separated from God. But the Psalmist is clear, saying of humans, “His breath goeth forth, he returneth to his earth; in that very day his thoughts perish” (Ps. 146:4). And Solomon is unambiguous, “the dead know nothing” (Eccles. 9:5). Nonetheless, the overwhelming majority of adherents to the Abrahamic religions of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, along with most of their religious teachers, assume that human beings are, in essence, a soul and that the soul has some kind of future beyond death. John Leslie describes the historical understanding of souls as “existentially unified,” noting, "When the parts of a soul were viewed as existentially unified at each particular instant, it wasn't thought that God, when manufacturing unified souls, had to do some kind of special mixing involving many separate steps. It was believed simply that souls had, from the moment of their creation by God, the property of being complex yet existentially unified. Many distinguishable elements of such complexity were present when a soul had a thought or an experience, but still, a soul remained existentially unified at each instant and remained the very same soul at successive instants" (Leslie, 2006).

---

## Sāṃkhya's Pure Witness and the Material Mind
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/s-khyas-pure-witness-and-the-material-mind
Theorists: Sāṃkhya

Classical Sāṃkhya advances the most systematic, rigorous dualist account of consciousness in classical Indian thought, in which phenomenal life depends on two fundamentally different realities: prakṛti, the active but wholly unconscious source of body, senses, mind, cognition, affect, and qualitative contents, and puruṣa, the inactive, changeless principle of pure consciousness or witnessing subjectivity. What we ordinarily experience as a conscious mind results from their apparent conjunction: the intellect (buddhi), itself an evolution of unconscious prakṛti, presents perceptual and affective contents “for” puruṣa, while puruṣa’s presence makes the otherwise insentient mental apparatus appear conscious and makes the inactive witness appear to think, feel, choose, and act. Sāṃkhya is therefore not Cartesian mind-body dualism: mind itself belongs to prakṛti, while the fundamental divide separates consciousness from all of nature, including mentality. Liberation (kaivalya) occurs when discriminative insight dissolves the false identification of puruṣa with the changing psychophysical processes of prakṛti. In other words, Sāṃkhya dualistic division cuts in an unexpected place: not between mind and body, but between consciousness and everything else, with the entire cognitive apparatus—intellect, ego, mind, senses, memory, emotion—assigned to the material side as insentient products of nature that evolve into embodied existence. Consciousness (puruṣa) is a plurality of contentless, changeless, inactive witnesses that neither act, cognize, nor undergo anything, while nature (prakṛti) supplies all determinate structure, including everything that would ordinarily be called mental. Phenomenal experience arises not because matter generates awareness, which Sāṃkhya holds impossible in principle, but from a conjunction (saṃyoga) in which the insentient appears as if conscious and the indifferent witness appears as if an agent. The framework thus inverts the modern hard problem: the conundrum is not how physical processes produce experience but why an unalterable witness should ever seem implicated in a psychology that is not its own. Two Principles and the Placement of Mind Classical Sāṃkhya, systematized in Īśvarakṛṣṇa's Sāṃkhyakārikā (c. fourth to fifth century CE), enumerates twenty-five principles (tattvas). Twenty-four constitute prakṛti and its derivatives; the twenty-fifth is puruṣa. Prakṛti in its unmanifest condition is an equilibrium of three constituents (guṇas)—sattva, associated with illumination and buoyancy; rajas, with activity; tamas, with inertia and obstruction. Disturbance of that equilibrium initiates evolution: first buddhi or mahat, the faculty of determination and judgment; then ahaṃkāra, the I-maker; then manas, the coordinating mind, together with the five sense capacities, five action capacities, and the subtle and gross elements (Larson, 1979; Larson & Bhattacharya, 1987). The placement is the theoretically decisive point. Buddhi, ahaṃkāra, and manas jointly constitute the internal organ, and all three are material. Pleasure, pain, volition, memory, moral disposition, and the sense of being an individual self are modifications of nature, not of consciousness. Sāṃkhya therefore draws its ontological line where contemporary philosophy of mind does not, separating consciousness from mind rather than mind from body, and giving what Schweizer (1993) characterized as a mind-consciousness dualism in which cognition is naturalized while phenomenal experience is not. Compared with Descartes's Substance Dualism, which places the entire res cogitans on the nonphysical side, Sāṃkhya concedes to naturalism nearly everything except phenomenality itself. Two Realities: Puruṣa and Prakṛti Thus, the Sāṃkhya system posits two irreducible principles. Prakṛti is primordial nature, source of the manifest psychophysical world; puruṣa is pure consciousness, neither produced nor productive and outside the transformations constituting nature (Īśvarakṛṣṇa, 2007; Larson & Bhattacharya, 1987). The asymmetry is radical. Prakṛti acts but is not conscious; puruṣa is conscious but does not act. Prakṛti consists of everything that we normally consider physical and mental, except pure, contentless consciousness. Puruṣa possesses none of these qualities: it is witness, seer, neutral, isolated, and non-agentive (SK 17–20). Sāṃkhya also posits many puruṣas rather than one universal consciousness; separate streams of embodied existence are taken to require distinct witnessing principles (Īśvarakṛṣṇa, 2007). Calling prakṛti “matter” is conventional but potentially misleading. It is primordial nature or materiality in a much broader metaphysical sense than contemporary physical matter: its manifestations include not only bodily and sensory structures but intellect, ego, cognition, emotion, and mind. Sāṃkhya is thus simultaneously radically dualist about consciousness and surprisingly naturalistic about virtually everything normally categorized as mental. Modern “mind” lies mostly on the nonconscious prakṛti side of its ontology. The Prakṛtic Architecture of Mind As noted, perhaps Sāṃkhya’s most counterintuitive claim for contemporary philosophy of mind is that mentality and consciousness are not coextensive. From primordial prakṛti emerges mahat or buddhi, the discriminative intellect; from this develops ahaṃkāra, the “I-maker” or ego-function; and from ahaṃkāra arise manas, the coordinating mind, the sensory and action capacities, and the subtle elements from which the gross perceptible world develops. Perception, conceptualization, memory, emotion, volition, self-representation, and sensory processing therefore belong to nature rather than to puruṣa (Larson & Bhattacharya, 1987; Burley, 2007). Buddhi is especially important because it organizes sensory deliverances and assumes determinate forms corresponding to objects. Classical accounts describe the senses and internal organs as presenting an object to buddhi, where discrimination occurs (Īśvarakṛṣṇa, 2007, SK 35–37). Buddhi can become extraordinarily lucid because of the predominance of sattva, but lucidity is not consciousness. The entire information-processing apparatus remains intrinsically insentient. This produces a striking division of metaphysical attribution. Experiences of intellect, egoity, emotion, and even what contemporary philosophers might call “raw feels,” such as frustration and satisfaction, are described within the Sāṃkhyan system as modifications or modalities of prakṛti (nature) rather than intrinsic properties of puruṣa (pure consciousness) (Larson & Bhattacharya, 1987). Puruṣa is therefore not a repository containing changing qualia. It is pure subjectivity or witnessing presence. Thus, Sāṃkhya separates the multifarious and differentiated qualitative structure or content of experience from the fact that raw, contentless consciousness is required to transform the insentient into the sentient, making this differentiation more sharply defined than most dualist theories. Conjunction, Reflection, and Conscious Experience The central explanatory difficulty seems obvious: if puruṣa and prakṛti are radically different, and puruṣa is changeless and inactive, how can there be conscious experience at all? The Sāṃkhyakārikā answers through conjunction (saṃyoga). In their apparent association, unconscious nature appears sentient while the neutral puruṣa appears to be an agent; the conjunction occurs for experience (bhoga) and ultimately for liberation (Īśvarakṛṣṇa, 2007, SK 20–21). Later Sāṃkhya and Yoga thinkers elaborated this conjunction through mirror or reflection models, although the Sāṃkhyakārikā itself does not offer a fully developed reflection theory. On one influential account, puruṣa is reflected in buddhi, making unconscious cognition appear conscious. Other formulations describe the mind and its contents as reflected in consciousness, making puruṣa appear affected by pleasure, pain, perception, and thought; still later theories employ mutual reflection. The point throughout is to explain apparently conscious mentality without allowing either ontological principle, prakṛti and puruṣa, to acquire the defining properties of the other (Shevchenko, 2023). The Yuktidīpikā, an important early commentary, sharpens the distinction between cognitive modification in buddhi and its conscious apprehension. Prakṛti can undergo a cognition-like transformation corresponding to an object, but the conscious aspect of apprehension depends upon puruṣa (Łucyszyna, 2023). Reconstructed in contemporary terminology, Sāṃkhya thereby distinguishes cognitive representation and information-processing from consciousness proper while rejecting the proposition that sufficiently sophisticated functional organization by itself constitutes subjectivity. Why Consciousness Cannot Be a Product The argument against emergence follows from Sāṃkhya's general theory of causation. Under satkāryavāda, an effect pre-exists in its material cause and production is manifestation rather than genuine novelty; nothing can appear in an effect that was not already present in the cause. Since prakṛti and all its evolutes are by definition insentient, no arrangement of them can yield sentience. The Sāṃkhyakārikā argues positively for puruṣa on several grounds: that composite things exist for the sake of something other than themselves; that there must be something other than the three guṇas; that there must be a superintending presence; that there must be an experiencer (bhoktṛ); and that there is activity directed toward liberation (SK 17). The structure of this reasoning anticipates the modern anti-emergence intuition without sharing its conclusions. Where contemporary property dualism typically grants that consciousness depends on physical organization while denying it reduces to it, Sāṃkhya denies even dependence: puruṣa is uncaused, unproduced, and unaffected. O'Brien-Kop (2023) notes the resonance with treating consciousness as fundamental, while cautioning that Sāṃkhya's plurality of witnesses and its soteriological aims make the parallel with contemporary fundamentalism inexact. The plurality claim is argued from the observed distribution of births, deaths, and organs across individuals: were consciousness numerically one, all would wake and die together (SK 18). This distinguishes Sāṃkhya sharply from the monistic Indian traditions represented by Indian Cosmic Consciousness. What, Then, Is Phenomenal Consciousness? A conceptual problem arises in mapping Sāṃkhya onto the modern category of phenomenal consciousness. If phenomenal consciousness means the entire “what-it-is-like” character of seeing red, suffering pain, tasting sweetness, or feeling anxiety, Sāṃkhya divides what contemporary philosophy ordinarily treats as one phenomenon across two ontological domains. Qualitative differentiation belongs to prakṛti; conscious witnessing belongs to puruṣa. Neither principle alone is equivalent to ordinary lived experience. Puruṣa apart from prakṛti contains no changing experiential content, whereas prakṛti apart from puruṣa can instantiate complex cognitive and affective structures but has no conscious experience (witnessing). Describing puruṣa simply as “phenomenal consciousness” can consequently mislead. Contemporary scholarship characterizes Sāṃkhyan puruṣa as pure, non-objective, plural, individuated, and contentless consciousness (O’Brien-Kop, 2023). What modern philosophers call phenomenal consciousness is more nearly generated at the interface—though not by causal interaction in the ordinary sense—between structured prakṛtic contents and puruṣa’s pure subjectivity. Sāṃkhya’s closest modern analog is therefore not conventional substance dualism between an immaterial thinking mind and a physical body, but dualism between transcendental, changeless, witnessing consciousness and the entire psychophysical field as given by naturalism. This also reveals the theory’s deep explanatory lacuna. Experience seemingly requires both consciousness and change, yet Sāṃkhya assigns consciousness to something that cannot change and change to something intrinsically unconscious. Classical commentators invoke proximity, conjunction, reflection, or apparent attribution, but these devices can seem to redescribe rather than explain how one unified conscious episode results. The same problem appears epistemically: if puruṣa is wholly changeless, how can distinct objects be experienced by it without distinct experiences becoming modifications of puruṣa? The commentarial literature wrestles extensively with this difficulty (Łucyszyna, 2023; Shevchenko, 2023). There is an additional individuation problem. Classical Sāṃkhya requires a plurality of puruṣas, yet puruṣa as pure consciousness lacks the differentiated psychophysical qualities by which persons are ordinarily distinguished. The theory therefore must explain how numerically many witnessing consciousnesses differ if their intrinsic nature is uniformly contentless and changeless. Advaita would later eliminate this problem by collapsing the many apparent selves into one endless cosmic consciousness, but only by rejecting Sāṃkhya’s fundamental pluralism of witnessing consciousnesses (Shevchenko, 2023). Misidentification and the Individual Self Ordinary self-consciousness compounds the confusion. Ahaṃkāra generates the “I-making” structure within prakṛti, while puruṣa is the true witnessing self. Because mental activity is manifested in the presence of puruṣa, the empirical person says “I think,” “I suffer,” “I choose,” and “I act.” Strictly speaking, however, thinking, suffering, choosing, and acting are transformations of prakṛti; puruṣa merely witnesses and engenders sentience Conversely, prakṛti appears conscious because of its conjunction with puruṣa (Īśvarakṛṣṇa, 2007, SK 19–20). This distinction is especially revealing when Sāṃkhya is compared with contemporary physicalism. Sāṃkhya can accommodate the idea that extremely complex cognition, affect, self-modeling, and behavioral control are entirely natural processes of the physical world, while nevertheless denying that any such functions explain consciousness itself. It therefore combines something resembling functional or material naturalism about mind with uncompromising nonphysicalism about the witnessing subject. Its challenge to materialism is not that cognitive operations cannot be naturalized; rather, it is that no inventory of nonconscious operations, however sophisticated, yields the fact of conscious experience. The Manufacture of Experience If consciousness contributes nothing determinate and matter is insentient, the explanatory burden falls on their conjunction. The Sāṃkhyakārikā states the problem in its own terms: through conjunction, the insentient (acetana) instrument appears as though it were conscious, and although agency belongs to the guṇas, the indifferent (udāsīna) witness appears as though it were an agent (SK 20). Puruṣa is characterized as witness, isolated, neutral, spectator, and non-agent (SK 19). The classical analogies are illustrative rather than explanatory, and Sāṃkhya's commentators knew it. Gauḍapāda compares the association to a vessel that takes on the heat of what it holds. The Kārikā offers the pairing of a lame man carried by a blind man, each supplying what the other lacks, since prakṛti cannot see and puruṣa cannot act (SK 21); the flow of milk for the calf (SK 57); and the dancer who performs and then withdraws once seen (SK 59). Later Sāṃkhya-Yoga develops a technical account in terms of reflection, the transparent sattva of buddhi taking on the likeness of consciousness as a mirror takes an image, though commentators differ on the direction of reflection and on whether the account explains or relabels the problem. What it does not supply is a mechanism, and this is the tradition's most exposed point: the conjunction of two principles defined so as to exclude interaction is simply asserted. Liberation as Discrimination Sāṃkhya is soteriological from the outset, beginning with the problem of suffering. Prakṛti evolves for puruṣa’s experience and eventual recognition of its difference from prakṛti. The Sāṃkhyakārikā compares their cooperation to a blind person and a lame person: activity and consciousness together make experience possible despite belonging to fundamentally different principles (Īśvarakṛṣṇa, 2007, SK 21). Liberation arises through discriminative knowledge that none of body, senses, intellect, ego, affective states, cognition, or even the content of phenomenal consciousness is puruṣa. In the text’s famous dancing-girl imagery, prakṛti, having displayed herself and been “seen,” withdraws; puruṣa remains in kaivalya, its aloneness or isolation (SK 59–68). Strictly, puruṣa itself was never bound, altered, or liberated: transformation occurs within prakṛti, whose buddhi ceases falsely to identify psychophysical activity with consciousness. For contemporary consciousness studies, Sāṃkhya’s enduring significance lies in this radical decomposition. It denies that consciousness can be reduced to cognition, representation, affect, self-modeling, or behavioral control because all of these can belong to unconscious prakṛti. Yet much of what modern philosophers ordinarily include within phenomenal character also belongs to prakṛti, leaving pure consciousness as contentless witnessing presence. The theory’s central conjecture is therefore both powerful and problematic: lived phenomenal experience requires structured psychophysical content plus an irreducible conscious subject, while the unresolved explanatory burden is to show how two principles that cannot genuinely transform one another can together constitute the unified experience they are invoked to explain. Reception in Consciousness Studies Sāṃkhya has attracted attention on three counts. Schweizer (1993) argued that placing mind on the material side yields a dualism with real advantages over the Cartesian version, since it concedes the cognitive sciences their full domain while isolating phenomenality, and avoids attributing to the nonphysical any function that neuroscience is likely to claim. O'Brien-Kop (2023) develops the comparison with treating consciousness as fundamental and argues for admitting Sāṃkhya to contemporary philosophy of religion and mind. Third, the tradition supplies a worked-out example of a position rarely occupied in Western debate: one that denies emergence, denies supervenience, and denies causal interaction, yet is not idealist. Śaṅkara's Self-Luminous Nondualism represents the principal Indian critique, since Advaita accepted the self-luminosity of consciousness while rejecting both the independent reality of prakṛti and the plurality of witnesses. Assessment Sāṃkhya's contribution to consciousness studies is a rigorous demonstration of what a dualism gains and loses when the metaphysical divide is drawn at phenomenality rather than at mentality. The gain is considerable: the entire cognitive apparatus becomes available to naturalistic explanation without remainder, and the anti-emergence argument is stated with clarity and derived from an explicit theory of causation rather than from intuition. The losses are equally definite. The conjunction of puruṣa and prakṛti is the system's critical joint and its least defended, since two principles characterized as mutually inert cannot straightforwardly stand in any relation, and the analogies of proximity, reflection, and mutual dependence describe the appearance rather than produce it. The plurality of witnesses, argued from the distribution of psychological events, sits uneasily with the claim that puruṣa has no properties by which one could be distinguished from another. Interpreters also disagree about what kind of claim Sāṃkhya is ultimately making. On one reading it is metaphysics: puruṣa and prakṛti name two really existing kinds of thing, and the system is an inventory of what the world contains. On the other it is a description of contemplative practice, an account of what happens as a practitioner progressively stops identifying with thoughts, emotions, and the sense of being an agent, in which the two-principle vocabulary reports a change in how experience is undergone rather than a division in reality. The plurality of witnesses, argued from the distribution of psychological events, sits uneasily with the claim that puruṣa has no properties by which one could be distinguished from another. Interpreters also disagree about what kind of claim Sāṃkhya is ultimately making. On one reading, it is metaphysics: puruṣa and prakṛti name two really existing kinds of thing, and the system is an inventory of what the world contains. On the other, it describes contemplative practice: what happens as a practitioner progressively stops identifying with thoughts, emotions, and the sense of being an agent, in which the two-principle vocabulary reports a change in how experience is undergone rather than a division in reality. References Burley, M. (2007). Classical Sāṃkhya and Yoga: An Indian metaphysics of experience. Routledge. Īśvarakṛṣṇa. (2007 [c. fifth century CE]). Sāṃkhyakārikā. Translation in M. Burley, Classical Sāṃkhya and Yoga: An Indian Metaphysics of Experience. London: Routledge. Larson, G. J. (1979). Classical Sāṃkhya: An interpretation of its history and meaning (2nd ed.). Motilal Banarsidass. Larson, G. J., & Bhattacharya, R. S. (Eds.). (1987). Sāṃkhya: A dualist tradition in Indian philosophy. Encyclopedia of Indian philosophies, Vol. 4. Princeton University Press. Łucyszyna, O. (2023). Sāṃkhya’s challenge to the Buddhist claim of the identity of a pramāṇa and its result. Journal of Indian Philosophy, 51, 365–389. O'Brien-Kop, K. (2023). The hard problem of "pure" consciousness: Sāṃkhya dualist ontology. Religious Studies, 59(4), 640–656. O’Brien-Kop, K. (2024). The hard problem of ‘pure’ consciousness: Sāṃkhya dualist ontology. Religious Studies, 60(S1), S4–S20. First published online 2023. Schweizer, P. (1993). Mind/consciousness dualism in Sāṅkhya-Yoga philosophy. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 53(4), 845–859. Shevchenko, D. (2023). Mirror of Nature, Mirror of Self: Models of Consciousness in Sāṃkhya, Yoga, and Advaita Vedānta. New York: Oxford University Press. Yang, C. (2025). Revisiting the date of Īśvarakṛṣṇa and his Sāṃkhyakārikā. Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae, 78(3), 447–469.

---

## Nyāya’s Contingent Consciousness of the Enduring Self
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/ny-ya-s-contingent-consciousness-of-the-enduring-self
Theorists: Nyāya

Nyāya, the realist and pluralist school founded on the Nyāya-sūtra (c. 150–250 CE), offers a realist, pluralist theory in which what we would now call phenomenal consciousness consists of transient, object-directed and affective states instantiated by an enduring individual self (ātman), rather than consciousness being the self’s essence. Cognition (jñāna/buddhi), pleasure, pain, desire, aversion, and volition are real qualities of a nonphysical subject, generated only under appropriate causal relations among self, internal organ (manas), senses, body, and objects; consequently, the self can exist without consciousness, as Nyāya holds in dreamless sleep and ultimately in liberation. Its further distinctive claim is that a cognition does not intrinsically reveal itself: awareness of one’s own awareness arises through a distinct, subsequent “apperception” (anuvyavasāya). This combination differentiates Nyāya sharply from Buddhist reflexivism and no-self theories, Sāṃkhya’s essentially conscious puruṣa, Mīmāṃsā theories of cognition, and Advaita Vedānta’s self-luminous consciousness. In other words, Nyāyaholds that phenomenal consciousness is real and irreducible to matter, yet is not the essence of the subject who has it. Awareness (jñāna) is an adventitious quality (āgantuka guṇa) arising in an eternal, all-pervading, intrinsically non-conscious self (ātman) when that self is linked to an atomic inner sense (manas), a sense faculty, and an object. Since qualities require a substrate and no material element can bear them, Nyāya infers a nonphysical substance—a substance dualism in which experience is nonetheless episodic and contingent rather than constitutive. Its direct realism places sensible qualities in mind-independent objects, while pleasure, pain, desire, and cognition inhere in the self and are grasped by a distinct second-order inner perception rather than by any self-luminosity. Consciousness as Quality, Not Essence Nyāya’s ontology, increasingly integrated with Vaiśeṣika, sorts reality into categories (padārtha) of which substance and quality are basic and distinguished. Cognition, pleasure, pain, desire, aversion, effort, and other mental episodes are qualities (guṇa), and qualities inhere in substances (Chakrabarti, 1999; Dasti, 2013). Gautama’s Nyāya-sūtra 1.1.10 lists these states as the inferential “marks” (liṅga) of the self, and the standard argument proceeds by elimination: since no configuration of earth, water, fire, or air can bear such qualities, the substrate must be a distinct, nonphysical substance (Gautama, 2017, NS 1.1.10; Dasti, 2023; Dasti and Phillips, 2017). Moreover, the occurrence of mental episodes supports the inference that there is a persisting subject because, for Nyāya, no material constituent of the body can serve as its unified bearer. Thus, selves are innumerable, numerically distinct, nonphysical substances that are eternal, each individuated by a primitive particularity, and none is conscious in itself. This separation of the subject from its awareness is the school's signature move and the point on which nearly every rival attacked it (K. K. Chakrabarti, 1999). Unlike Cartesian substance dualism, Nyāya does not define the soul by thinking; unlike Sāṃkhya, it does not make consciousness intrinsic to the self. Consciousness is episodic and contingent. The self persists through dreamless sleep and, in classical Nyāya-Vaiśeṣika, liberation (mokṣa) ultimately removes ordinary cognition and affect along with suffering (Chakrabarti, 1999; Dasti, 2013). Phenomenal consciousness is therefore ontologically dependent on a subject that is itself not essentially phenomenal. The Causal Architecture of Experience Ordinary perceptual consciousness arises from sense-object contact and is non-verbal, non-deviating, and determinate. It occurs when an external object stands in the appropriate relation to a sense faculty, while manas connects that sensory process to the self (Phillips, 2012; Dasti and Phillips, 2017). Thus, the causal chain runs from object to sense faculty, faculty to manas, and manas to self. Manas is not the conscious subject but an internal causal intermediary. Nyāya appeals to the apparent non-simultaneity of ordinary cognitions to argue that manas connects the self with one sensory stream at a time. It is atomic precisely to explain a phenomenal datum: we do not experience through all five senses at once, so a partless, one-at-a-time organ accounts for the seriality and selectivity of the stream of awareness (Nyāya-sūtra 1.1.16). Manas also carries memory traces (saṃskāra) between an experience and its recollection and, being subtle and permanent, across lives. Nyāya thereby supplies a functional architecture of experience—attention, integration, retention—without granting the machinery any phenomenality. The tradition also distinguishes intentional cognition from affective states. Seeing blue, judging “this is a pot,” remembering, doubting, and inferring are cognitions; pleasure and pain, desire and aversion are distinct qualities of the self. A modern reconstruction should therefore not identify phenomenality simply with awareness (jñāna). Conscious life comprises a succession of intentional, affective, and motivational qualities borne by one subject. Where the Qualia Are Nyāya's direct realism reframes what phenomenal consciousness is supposed to explain. Color, sound, taste, and smell are real, mind-independent qualities inhering in external substances; veridical cognition presents them through a relation of objecthood (viṣayatā) rather than by exhibiting an inner replica (Matilal, 1986; Phillips, 2012). There is accordingly no Nyāya problem of how a body produces redness, because redness was never inside. What is inner are the self's own qualities: pleasure and pain above all, felt states with unmistakable qualitative character, together with cognitions themselves. The dualism is thus asymmetric, isolating felt valence rather than sensory character as the core of the mental. Knowing That One Knows Cognitions reveal their objects but do not, for Nyāya, reveal themselves. Awareness of an awareness requires a further inner perception, anuvyavasāya, in which manas takes the prior cognition as its object. This makes Nyāya an extrinsic higher-order theory of introspective consciousness, the classical world's most developed version of one. Introspection is possible for any cognition but required for none, which is how Naiyāyikas blocked the charge of regress. Nyāya Debating Its Rivals Nyāya’s theory was forged through sustained interschool argument. Against Buddhist philosophers, it defended an enduring self against no-self and momentariness, mind-independent objects against anti-realist tendencies. The Buddhist epistemologists Dignāga and Dharmakīrti held cognition to be reflexively self-aware (svasaṃvedana): if cognizing a cognition needs a further cognition, either the series never ends, or the first is never known and so could not later be remembered (Kellner, 2011). Against Dignāga-Dharmakīrti reflexive awareness (svasaṃvedana), Nyāya treated awareness of cognition as a second cognition, not an intrinsic feature of every episode. Against Dignāga’s restriction of perception to the nonconceptual, Nyāya had conceptualized perception (Matilal, 1986; Kellner, 2010). Śaṅkara objected from the opposite direction, holding awareness self-luminous (svaprakāśa), identical with the self, and pressing his own regress charge against self-awareness (anuvyavasāya). The contrast with Sāṃkhya is subtle but fundamental: both posit many enduring selves distinct from bodily matter, bu Nyāya and Sāṃkhya divide on precisely whether awareness is essential to the subject or acquired by it. Sāṃkhya made consciousness the very nature of puruṣa and assigned the whole cognitive apparatus to insentient matter. Sāṃkhya’z puruṣa is pure, contentless, essentially conscious witness, whereas Nyāya’s self contingently acquires cognition and is conceived as agent, knower, and enjoyer (Dasti, 2013). Mīmāṃsā likewise defended enduring selves but developed rival accounts of how cognition and its validity become known; Nyāya generally defended extrinsic certification rather than self-certifying cognition (Phillips, 2012). Advaita Vedānta went further by identifying the deepest self with self-luminous consciousness. Nyāya’s denial that consciousness persists in dreamless sleep, and its refusal to identify ātman with awareness, make this disagreement profoundly ontological. Against the materialist Cārvāka, for whom consciousness emerges from the elements as intoxication emerges from fermented ingredients, Nyāya pressed its inference to a nonmaterial bearer. Whether all these arguments establish Nyāya’z self as substantial or only a minimal one remains contested (Chadha, 2013). Liberation and the Extinction of Experience Nyāya's psychology is embedded in a soteriology that solidifies its meaning. The Nyāya-sūtra opens by presenting liberation (apavarga) as the terminus of a chain running back from suffering through rebirth, activity, and defect to false awareness. Liberation is characterized negatively, as the absolute cessation of pain, and since pain requires embodiment, so does pleasure. Vātsyāyana accordingly accepts that in liberation all the specific qualities of the self cease, consciousness among them (Das, 2020). The self survives; experience does not. Advaita philosophers pressed the obvious objection, that such a state is indistinguishable from being a stone, and some Naiyāyikas, notably Bhāsarvajña, dissented by allowing liberated bliss. That the mainstream held the line shows the school's seriousness about its own thesis: if awareness is a quality arising under conditions, removing the conditions removes it. Assessment for Phenomenal Consciousness Nyāya occupies a rare position in theory space: substance dualism without essential consciousness. Awareness is nonphysical yet not fundamental, real yet not intrinsic, owned yet not constitutive of its owner. Three features carry contemporary interest: an extrinsic higher-order account of introspection that anticipates current disputes over whether awareness of experience is built in or added; unity arguments from cross-modal and diachronic integration that target binding and phenomenal unity; and an externalist treatment of sensible qualities that dissolves rather than solves part of the hard problem. The weaknesses are equally instructive. Nyāya gives no account modern of why contact among self, manas, sense, and object should yield anything felt at all, leaving a gap between the causal chain and phenomenal character. An all-pervading yet non-conscious self sits awkwardly with the local, perspectival character of experience. Thus, Nyāya does not answer the hard problem by explaining why its self-instantiated qualities feel as they do. Its achievement is instead a detailed metaphysics and causal psychology that separates subject, cognition, object, reflective awareness, affect, and bodily-sensory mediation. For contemporary consciousness studies, its most distinctive claims are that the subject can outlast consciousness, that first-order experience need not be intrinsically self-representing, and that reflective awareness is a distinct causal event—positions directly relevant to current disputes about subjecthood, higher-order awareness, intentionality, and whether consciousness is intrinsic to the self. References Chadha, M. (2013). The self in early Nyāya: A minimal conclusion. Asian Philosophy, 23(1), 24–42. Chakrabarti, A. (1992). I touch what I saw. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 52(1), 103–116. Chakrabarti, K. K. (1999). Classical Indian Philosophy of Mind: The Nyāya Dualist Tradition. State University of New York Press. Das, N. (2020). Vātsyāyana's guide to liberation. Journal of Indian Philosophy, 48(5), 791–825. Dasti, M. R. (2013). “Nyāya’s Self as Agent and Knower.” In M. R. Dasti and E. F. Bryant (eds.), Free Will, Agency, and Selfhood in Indian Philosophy, 112–136. New York: Oxford University Press. Dasti, M. R. (2023). Vātsyāyana's Commentary on the Nyāya-sūtra: A Guide. Oxford University Press. Dasti, M. R., & Phillips, S. H. (Trans.). (2017). The Nyāya-sūtra: Selections with Early Commentaries. Hackett Publishing. Ganeri, J. (2000). Cross-modality and the self. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 61(3), 639–657. Gautama. (2017). Nyāya-sūtra. In M. R. Dasti and S. H. Phillips (trans.), The Nyāya-sūtra: Selections with Early Commentaries. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing. Kellner, B. (2010). “Self-Awareness (svasaṃvedana) in Dignāga’s Pramāṇasamuccaya and -vṛtti: A Close Reading.” Journal of Indian Philosophy, 38(3), 203–231. Kellner, B. (2011). Self-awareness (svasaṃvedana) and infinite regresses: A comparison of arguments by Dignāga and Dharmakīrti. Journal of Indian Philosophy, 39(4–5), 411–426. Matilal, B. K. (1986). Perception: An Essay on Classical Indian Theories of Knowledge. Clarendon Press. Phillips, S. H. (2012). Epistemology in Classical India: The Knowledge Sources of the Nyāya School. Routledge.

---

## Aristotle’s Hylomorphism
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/aristotle-s-hylomorphism
Theorists: Aristotle

Aristotle nowhere uses a single word for consciousness and never asks why experience should feel like anything, yet De Anima and its companion treatises contain the first systematic account of what it is for a living body to be aware: the soul is the form of an organic body rather than an occupant of it, perception is the reception of sensible form without matter, and perceiving carries within itself an awareness that one is perceiving. What contemporary readers identify as phenomenal consciousness in Aristotle is located almost entirely in this reflexive structure and in the unifying work of the common sense, and scholarship divides sharply over whether that structure amounts to a theory of phenomenal consciousness or to a theory of perceptual capacity that leaves phenomenality untouched. The dispute is not antiquarian. Transmitted through Aquinas and the scholastics to Brentano, Aristotle's reflexivity thesis supplied phenomenology with its founding concepts, and it is now actively defended by same-order theories of self-awareness and by neo-Aristotelian hylomorphists who argue that the hard problem arises only because hylomorphism was abandoned. In other words, while Aristotle has no single concept corresponding exactly to the modern notion of phenomenal consciousness, his psychology contains a systematic account of the capacities from which conscious experience can be reconstructed: perception is the embodied activity of an ensouled animal receiving sensible form without matter; a unified perceptual power integrates modalities and, in some sense, perceives that it perceives; pleasure, pain, desire, imagination, memory, and thought elaborate the animal’s lived world. His hylomorphism rejects both reductive materialism and a Platonic picture of an independently existing soul, although his obscure treatment of intellect leaves open a partially nonbodily dimension (Aristotle, 1984a; Shields, 2022). This framework shaped Aquinas and remains relevant to contemporary hylomorphism, embodied cognition, functionalism, direct-realist and representational approaches, and higher-order and self-representational theories of consciousness. Reconstructing Phenomenal Consciousness The reconstruction requires an anachronism warning. Aristotle never asks the post-Cartesian question why physical processing should generate subjective experience. Yet he distinguishes waking perception from sleep, sensation from mere physical affection, appearance from thought, and activities of which an animal is in some way aware from those occurring without awareness. Most importantly, De Anima III.2 asks how we perceive that we see and hear, while Nicomachean Ethics IX.9 argues that when we perceive, we perceive that we perceive, and when we think, we apprehend that we think (Aristotle, 1984a, 1984c; Caston, 2002). These passages make phenomenal awareness a legitimate target of reconstruction, provided Aristotle’s vocabulary is not silently replaced by ours. The Hylomorphic Subject of Experience For Aristotle, psyche—soul—is not normally an immaterial occupant of a body. It is the “form” and first actuality of a natural organized body capable of life: the principle that makes this living material one functioning organism (De Anima II.1). Perceptual consciousness therefore belongs to the living animal as an integrated compound, not to a Cartesian mind observing bodily inputs from within (Aristotle, 1984a; Shields, 2022). This makes Aristotle neither straightforwardly materialist nor straightforwardly dualist. He rejects attempts to explain life entirely from material elements, but also resists Plato’s general separability of soul from body. Most psychic powers are actualities of bodily organs. The complication is nous, intellect: Aristotle says that intellect lacks a bodily organ and describes the active intellect in terms that have generated two millennia of disagreement about separability and immortality (De Anima III.4–5). Thus embodied sentience is firmly hylomorphic; whether intellect introduces genuine ontological duality remains unsettled. The Hylomorphic Frame Aristotle's psychology is not a freestanding science of mind but a regional application of a comprehensive metaphysics of form and matter, actuality and potentiality; what the psychological doctrines mean depends on that frame. The soul is "substance as form of a natural body which has life in potentiality" (De Anima II.1, 412a20–21) and "a first actuality of a natural body which has life in potentiality" (412a27–28), which is why asking whether soul and body are one is as idle as asking whether the wax and its shape are one. The soul as a whole is not separable from the body (413a3–5). Accordingly, there is no Cartesian problem to solve, because no thinking substance's interaction with an extended substance requires explanation; Charles (2021) argues that Aristotle's position dissolves rather than answers the mind–body problem as later philosophy inherited it. The soul is a nested hierarchy of capacities—nutritive, perceptual, rational—so that being alive, being sentient, and being rational are graded actualities of a single organism rather than additions to it (Shields, 2016). Sensation as Receiving Form Without Matter The perceptual capacity is "receptive of the sensible forms without the matter" (De Anima II.12, 424a17–21), a formula that has become the crux of the modern debate over how much phenomenal content Aristotle's theory can carry. Sorabji (1992) reads the reception as a genuine physiological alteration: the sense organ literally takes on the quality, so that the eye-jelly becomes colored and this material change constitutes seeing. Burnyeat (1992) denies that any material change accompanies perception, treating awareness as primitive and unexplained, and concludes that an Aristotelian philosophy of mind is not credible in a post-Newtonian world. Nussbaum and Putnam (1992) defend a middle position on which the psychological is realized in, without being reducible to, the material, and Cohen (1992) presses the question of how far this really licenses calling Aristotle a functionalist. Everson (1997) develops the physiological reading in detail. The stakes are direct: on the physiological reading Aristotle offers something like a mechanism for sensory quality, while on Burnyeat's reading he takes the felt character of awareness as a starting point requiring no account. Perceiving That We Perceive The passage that carries the weight of the consciousness question is De Anima III.2, 425b12–25, where Aristotle asks by what we perceive that we are seeing. If by sight, sight would have to perceive its own object and also itself; if by some further sense, a regress looms. His answer is that it is in a way by sight itself. The same claim recurs in ethical guise: if we perceive, we perceive that we perceive, and to perceive that one perceives is to perceive that one exists, which is pleasant (Nicomachean Ethics IX.9, 1170a29–b1). Kosman (1975) argued influentially that this awareness is not a distinct second-order act but an aspect internal to the first-order act of perceiving. Caston (2002) sharpened the reading into a position that cuts between contemporary alternatives: consciousness is simultaneously intrinsic and higher-order, because a single token state has both a first-order and a reflexive content. On the same reading, Caston holds that Aristotle is committed against qualia in any strong sense, while denying that the phenomenal character of experience is exhausted by what is represented. Johansen (2012) defends instead a genuine inner-sense construal, and Trubowitz (2025) has disputed the Kosman–Caston lineage at its textual root. The exegetical question is unsettled, and with it the question of what precisely Aristotle thought phenomenal awareness consists in. Unity, Phantasia, and the Common Sense Reflexive awareness is bound up with the koinē aisthēsis, the common perceptual capacity by which an animal discriminates across sense modalities, perceives the common sensibles such as motion and magnitude, and registers that it is perceiving at all (Gregoric, 2007). This yields something a modern theorist would recognize as a unity claim: an episode of experience is one integrated presentation, not a bundle of modality-specific channels. Phantasia (De Anima III.3) extends the account to appearances that persist when their objects are absent, giving Aristotle a category for imagery, dreaming, and memory—experiential content decoupled from present stimulation. Together these supply an architecture of experience: unified, reflexive, embodied, and graded across the animal kingdom. Nous and the Systemic Terminus Aristotle's naturalism about psuchē does not extend to intellect. In De Anima III.5 he describes the active mind as "separate and unaffected and unmixed, being in its essence actuality" (430a17–18) and as "deathless and everlasting" (430a23), in evident tension with his earlier denial that soul is separable from body. The systemic frame supplies the norm behind this: in Metaphysics XII.9 (1074b33–35) the divine substance is thought thinking itself, perfect and complete reflexivity, and human intellectual self-awareness is intelligible as a deficient participation in that standard. Whether the active intellect is a part of the individual, a single intellect shared by all, or the divine mind itself became the central controversy of the Greek, Arabic, and Latin commentators, and it is the seam through which nonphysicalist readings of Aristotle enter. Aquinas and the Scholastic Inheritance Aquinas preserved the hylomorphic unity—the soul is the substantial form of the body—while arguing that the intellectual soul is subsistent and survives the body's death (Summa Theologiae Ia, q. 75, aa. 2, 6), a conclusion Aristotle's text does not obviously prefigure. He assigned the awareness that we sense, and the integration of the external senses, to the sensus communis (Ia, q. 78, a. 4), and held that the mind knows itself only through its acts rather than by direct inspection (Ia, q. 87, a. 1). This is the transmission route by which the Aristotelian architecture entered Christian philosophy, and it is developed on the Landscape by Aquinas's Hylomorphism, Stump's Thomistic Dualism, and Feser's Neo-Thomistic, Neo-Aristotelian, Common-Sense Dualism. Brentano to Contemporary Theory The clear modern conduit is Franz Brentano, whose habilitation was devoted to Aristotle's active intellect (Brentano, 1867) and who reintroduced the scholastic-Aristotelian intentio as "intentional inexistence," the mark of the mental (Brentano, 1874). Brentano's further thesis that every mental act includes a secondary awareness of itself is the Aristotelian reflexivity claim in modern dress, and Sorabji (1991) traces the concept's development along precisely this line. Through Brentano the structure passed to Husserl and to phenomenology, and it lives on the Landscape in Brentano's Intentionality and Self-Awareness, Meinong's Self-Presenting Experience, and Husserl's Transcendental Phenomenology. In analytic philosophy of mind, the same structure reappears in self-representational accounts, where conscious states are represented by themselves rather than by distinct higher-order states, and Caston's Aristotle is routinely cited as the ancestor (Kriegel, 2009), a lineage visible on the Landscape in Kriegel's Cross-Order Self-Representation. The metaphysical frame has had a parallel revival: Jaworski (2016) contends that the hard problem arises only on the assumption that hylomorphism is false, Marmodoro (2013) argues that Aristotle's own version needs no contemporary repair, and Koslicki (2018) develops structure-based hylomorphism in mainstream metaphysics. Jaworski's Hylomorphism sits on the Landscape as the contemporary terminus of this line. Explanatory Power and Limits Aristotle does not even recognize, much less attempt to solve, the modern hard problem because he never isolates phenomenal properties as anomalous facts requiring derivation from nonphenomenal physical facts. He starts from a different ontology in which living capacities, bodily organization, sensible qualities, affect, action, and cognition are explained together through form, matter, actuality, and teleology. Its strengths are the unity of subject and organism, embodied and world-involving perception, integration of affect and action, and recognition of reflexive awareness. Its limitations are equally clear: Aristotle’s physiology is obsolete, “reception of form” remains opaque, the status of intellect is unresolved, and nothing in the theory demonstratively explains why perceptual actualization should have a subjective “what-it-is-like” character. Aristotle supplies one of the deepest premodern architectures for phenomenal consciousness—but, reconstructed with historical discipline, an architecture rather than a completed modern theory. Assessment What Aristotle supplies is a structural account of awareness—reflexive, unified, embodied, graded—rather than an explanation of why experience has felt quality. The two dominant readings converge on this point from opposite directions: Caston's Aristotle denies strong qualia, and Burnyeat's Aristotle treats awareness as primitive and therefore unexplained. Neither Aristotle poses the hard problem. Whether that silence reflects an obsolete physics or diagnoses a badly framed question is what separates contemporary neo-Aristotelians from their critics, and it is why an author writing before the concept of consciousness existed remains a live participant in the field that concept catalyzed. A note on classification. Aristotle sits in this Dualisms category as the source of the hylomorphic lineage running through Aquinas, Stump, Feser, and Jaworski; on the standard reading, Aristotle’s own position is not a substance dualism, since the soul is the form of the body and not separable from it, and only the active intellect of De Anima III.5, "deathless and everlasting," argues against that. References [Convention note: Aristotle is cited by standard Bekker page, column, and line. Line numbering follows Shields (2016) for De Anima and the Revised Oxford Translation (Barnes, 1984) for the Nicomachean Ethics and Metaphysics. Summa Theologiae is cited by part, question, and article.] Aquinas, T. (1265–1274/1948). Summa Theologiae. Trans. Fathers of the English Dominican Province. Westminster, MD: Christian Classics. Barnes, J. (ed.) (1984). The Complete Works of Aristotle: The Revised Oxford Translation. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Brentano, F. (1867). Die Psychologie des Aristoteles, insbesondere seine Lehre vom ΝΟΥΣ ΠΟΙΗΤΙΚΟΣ. Mainz: Kirchheim. [Eng. trans. R. George, The Psychology of Aristotle: In Particular His Doctrine of the Active Intellect. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1977.] Brentano, F. (1874). Psychologie vom empirischen Standpunkte. Leipzig: Duncker & Humblot. Burnyeat, M. F. (1992). "Is an Aristotelian Philosophy of Mind Still Credible? (A Draft)." In M. C. Nussbaum and A. O. Rorty (eds.), Essays on Aristotle's De Anima. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 15–26. Caston, V. (2002). "Aristotle on Consciousness." Mind 111(444): 751–815. Charles, D. (2021). The Undivided Self: Aristotle and the 'Mind–Body' Problem. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Cohen, S. M. (1992). "Hylomorphism and Functionalism." In M. C. Nussbaum and A. O. Rorty (eds.), Essays on Aristotle's De Anima. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 57–73. Everson, S. (1997). Aristotle on Perception. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Gregoric, P. (2007). Aristotle on the Common Sense. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Jaworski, W. (2016). Structure and the Metaphysics of Mind: How Hylomorphism Solves the Mind–Body Problem. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Johansen, T. K. (2012). The Powers of Aristotle's Soul. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Koslicki, K. (2018). Form, Matter, Substance. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kosman, L. A. (1975). "Perceiving That We Perceive: On the Soul III, 2." The Philosophical Review 84(4): 499–519. Kriegel, U. (2009). Subjective Consciousness: A Self-Representational Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Marmodoro, A. (2013). "Aristotle's Hylomorphism Without Reconditioning." Philosophical Inquiry 37(1–2): 5–22. Nussbaum, M. C., and Putnam, H. (1992). "Changing Aristotle's Mind." In M. C. Nussbaum and A. O. Rorty (eds.), Essays on Aristotle's De Anima. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 27–56. Shields, C. (2016). Aristotle: De Anima. Translated with an Introduction and Commentary. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Sorabji, R. (1991). "From Aristotle to Brentano: The Development of the Concept of Intentionality." In H. Blumenthal and H. Robinson (eds.), Aristotle and the Later Tradition (Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy, supplementary volume). Oxford: Clarendon Press. Sorabji, R. (1992). "Intentionality and Physiological Processes: Aristotle's Theory of Sense-Perception." In M. C. Nussbaum and A. O. Rorty (eds.), Essays on Aristotle's De Anima. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 195–225. Trubowitz, J. (2025). "Aristotle on Perceptual Self-Consciousness." Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie (advance online publication).

---

## Avicenna’s Flying Man and Self-Present Soul
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/avicenna-s-flying-man-and-self-present-soul
Theorists: Avicenna

Islamic philosopher Avicenna holds that the human soul is an immaterial, self-subsisting substance whose very existence consists in its awareness of itself, and that this awareness is primitive, permanent, and prior to every sensory episode rather than derived from any of them. His famous “Flying Man” thought experiment, in which a person created fully formed and suspended in air without any sensory contact would still affirm his own existence, is designed to isolate exactly this: a phenomenal presence that survives the subtraction of all perceptual content. Contemporary scholarship treats him as the first philosopher to make first-personal givenness a systematic explanandum, and his framework passed both westward into Latin scholasticism and eastward into the Illuminationist and Ṣadrian traditions, where its vocabulary of knowledge by presence remains in active use. In other words, Avicenna offers one of the most developed premodern theories relevant to phenomenal consciousness, combining an elaborate neurocognitive psychology of sensation, imagination, affective significance, memory, and thought with the radical thesis that the human self is an immaterial substance possessing primitive, immediate self-awareness independently of awareness of its body. What we now call phenomenal consciousness therefore has two importantly different dimensions in his system: embodied sensory experience depends upon bodily organs and hierarchically organized perceptual faculties, whereas the most fundamental awareness of oneself belongs intrinsically to the rational soul and is neither sensory nor representational in the ordinary sense (Avicenna, 1952; Black, 2008; Kaukua, 2015). His synthesis profoundly influenced Islamic and Latin medieval philosophy, especially theories of internal sense and self-awareness, while the Flying Man remains pertinent to contemporary debates about minimal self-consciousness and embodiment. From Aristotle to an Immaterial Soul as a Self-Subsisting Substance Avicenna begins from Aristotelian faculty psychology but substantially transforms its metaphysics. He inherits the Aristotelian definition of soul as the perfection of an organic living body, distinguishing vegetative, animal, and rational powers, but breaks with it on the crucial point: the human rational soul is not merely the form of the body in Aristotle’s ordinary hylomorphic sense. Its intellectual activity requires no bodily organ, and Avicenna ultimately regards each human rational soul as an individual immaterial substance whose existence is not reducible to its relation to the body (Avicenna, 1952; McGinnis, 2010). Thus, the soul is a substance in its own right, immaterial, individuated at the moment of its body's generation, and capable of surviving the body's dissolution. The argument turns on the intellect's reception of universal, indivisible intelligibles, which Avicenna holds cannot be imprinted in a divisible corporeal organ (Shifāʾ: Nafs V.2). This is why he is standardly read as a substance dualist despite his Aristotelian idiom. In other words, Avicenna’smind-body architecture is distinctively dualistic. Sensation, imagination, estimation, memory, emotion, and much practical cognition operate through bodily faculties, particularly the brain. Intellectual cognition and fundamental self-awareness belong to the incorporeal rational soul. The soul comes into existence in conjunction with an appropriately organized body, and once generated it does not perish when the body dies (Avicenna, 1952; Gutas, 2014). Avicenna is consequently much more clearly dualist than Aristotle or Aquinas, even though his psychology remains Aristotelian in structure. The consequence for consciousness is direct: whatever awareness is, it belongs in the first instance to something that is not the body. The Architecture of Phenomenal Experience Avicenna never isolates “qualia” or poses the modern hard problem. Nevertheless, his account of animal cognition constitutes a sophisticated theory of how a unified experienced world is constructed. The five external senses receive sensible forms, which are integrated by common sense (al-ḥiss al-mushtarak). This is followed by a carefully differentiated system of internal senses located, according to his medieval physiology, in the ventricles of the brain (Avicenna, 1952; Black, 1993). The formative or retentive imagination preserves sensible forms after their objects are absent. The compositive imagination separates and recombines them. Most distinctive is wahm, usually translated “estimation,” which apprehends nonsensible “intentions” or meanings presented by particular things: the paradigmatic sheep does not merely perceive the sensible properties of a wolf but apprehends it as dangerous. Memory preserves these intentions (Avicenna, 1952; Black, 1993). For a contemporary reconstruction of phenomenal consciousness, this matters because Avicenna’s conscious world is not a mosaic of bare sensory qualities. Perceptual experience is unified, retained across time, imaginatively manipulable, affectively and behaviorally significant, and structured in terms of what objects mean for the organism. His theory consequently anticipates, without being equivalent to, distinctions now drawn among sensory representation, perceptual integration, affective appraisal, memory, and higher cognition. The Flying Man The thought experiment appears in several forms across the Avicennian corpus, most prominently at Shifāʾ: Nafs I.1 and V.7 and again in al-Ishārāt wa-l-Tanbīhāt. Suppose a person created all at once, mature and complete, floating in a void, sight veiled, limbs held apart and touching nothing, with no memory because there is no past. Avicenna claims such a person would affirm the existence of his own self while affirming nothing whatever about his body, his limbs, or any external object. The objective of his argument is disputed. Some readings take it as a demonstration of the soul's immateriality, some as a non-demonstrative pointer to something already given, and some as an argument that self-awareness cannot be constituted by anything bodily (Kaukua, 2015; Almotahari, 2025). What is not disputed is what it isolates: an awareness with no object other than itself and no sensory content. Primitive and Reflective Self-Awareness The distinction that carries most of the theoretical weight separates primitive from reflective self-awareness (Black, 2008; Kaukua, 2015). Primitive self-awareness is non-propositional, non-inferential, and continuous. It is not an act directed at the self as an object; Avicenna argues explicitly against reflection models on the grounds that any second-order act presupposes the very first-personality it was meant to explain. Reflective self-awareness, by contrast, is the ordinary awareness that one is perceiving or thinking, and it is intermittent. The striking claim, developed most fully in the late Taʿlīqāt, is that primitive self-awareness never lapses: it is present in sleep, in drunkenness, and in total absorption in an external object, precisely because it is identical with the soul's existence rather than being one of its activities (Kaukua, 2015). Avicenna also mounts an argument from the unity of experience, holding that the single subject to which sight, hearing, and thought are all referred cannot be any one faculty among them. The Internal Senses and Perceptual Content As noted, Avicenna assigns qualitative perceptual content to a different and explicitly corporeal embodiment. He posits five internal senses seated in the ventricles of the brain: common sense, which unifies the modalities into one presentation; the retentive imagination, which stores sensible forms; the compositive imagination or cogitative faculty, which recombines them; estimation, which apprehends non-sensory intentions such as the hostility of a predator; and memory, which retains those intentions (Shifāʾ: Nafs I.5, IV.1). Estimation is the innovation with the longest afterlife and the most contested internal logic, since the intentions it grasps are not reducible to sensible qualities yet are apprehended by a bodily power (Black, 1993). The structural result is a split account: the felt richness of perception is handled by an embodied faculty psychology, while the bare fact of first-personal presence is handled by the immaterial substance. Whether these two halves can be joined is the objection later Islamic critics hit hardest. From Avicenna to the Latin West and Aquinas Avicenna’s influence on subsequent theories of mind was enormous. The psychological book of the Shifāʾ was translated into Latin in the twelfth century as Liber de Anima and helped establish the medieval doctrine of the internal senses (Hasse, 2000), becoming one of the most influential psychological texts of the Middle Ages, shaping the scholastic treatment of the internal senses and supplying the terminology of intentio that later reaches Brentano (Hasse, 2000). The flying man was repeated by a series of thirteenth-century authors, though its argumentative role shifted from an ontological proof of the soul's immateriality to an epistemological point about self-knowledge (Toivanen, 2015). The comparison with Descartes has generated a substantial literature (Druart, 1988; Hasnawi, 1997). The standard consensus is that the mind-body dualism resemblance is real, but the arguments diverge: Avicenna is not seeking indubitability, does not conclude that the self is a thinking thing whose essence is thought, and elsewhere maintains an empiricism about concept acquisition (Gutas, 2012). Aquinas adopts much of this cognitive architecture—common sense, imagination, estimation/cogitation, and memory—while modifying it and rejecting Avicenna’s stronger separation of soul and body (Black, 1999; Müller, 2015). Aquinas also ultimately rejects Avicenna’s conception of continuous primitive self-awareness: for Aquinas, the intellect ordinarily knows itself through awareness of its own acts rather than through an independently given self-presence. Islamic Philosophy: Suhrawardī, Mullā Ṣadrā, and Knowledge by Presence The Islamic trajectory is at least as important. The eastward line is where Avicenna's account of self-awareness became a foundational reference point for post-Avicennian philosophy and theology. Suhrawardī radicalized immediate self-awareness into a theory of knowledge by presence, while rejecting Avicenna’s inference from self-awareness to a substantial self. Suhrawardī recast it in terms of al-ʿilm al-ḥuḍūrī, knowledge by presence, in which the self is known not through any representation but by immediate self-manifestation, and generalized this into a theory of knowledge and being (Eichner, 2011; Kaukua, 2015). Mullā Ṣadrā subsequently retained Avicennian insights about primitive self-presence and the primacy of self-awareness, but reconceived the underlying concept of selfhood dynamically through his metaphysics of existence and substantial motion (Kaukua, 2015), treating the soul as mutable rather than fixed and identifying awareness with degrees of existence itself (Rahman, 1975). Contemporary Islamic discussions of consciousness drawing on Ṣadrian philosophy thus inherit Avicennian ancestry, particularly self-presence, immaterial mentality, and the relation between knowledge and existence, even where they reject Avicenna’s static substance ontology. Abū al-Barakāt al-Baghdādī and Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī had already pressed alternatives that keep self-awareness while loosening its tie to substance. This vocabulary remains contemporary: Ha'iri Yazdi (1992) presented knowledge by presence to analytic philosophers as a viable contemporary epistemological position, and it continues to function as working terminology in Iranian ḥikmat. Contemporary Significance and Limits Avicenna’s strongest contemporary relevance lies in theories of minimal or pre-reflective self-consciousness. The Flying Man has recently been brought into dialogue with phenomenology, bodily self-awareness, interoception, agency, and the “minimal self” (Gallagher, 2023), and pre-reflective self-consciousness is said to find a parallel in the phenomenological tradition, where the structural claim is nearly identical (Zahavi, 2005; Kaukua, 2015). Its affinities with Cartesian certainty are striking, but historical claims that Avicenna directly caused Descartes’s cogito remain unestablished. For phenomenal consciousness more generally, Avicenna offers an unusual combination: richly embodied sensory phenomenology alongside an ultimately nonphysical subject of experience. He does not explain why sensory processing feels like anything, and his ventricular neuroscience is obviously archaic. Yet his separation of perceptual content from primitive first-personal self-presence identifies a distinction still central to consciousness studies: the difference between what experience presents and the fact that experience is given to a subject at all. Thus, Avicenna's contribution to the phenomenal-consciousness debate is a claim about the givenness of experience, not a mechanism for what brings it about. He argues that first-personal presence is the most immediate datum available, that it cannot be constructed out of anything else, and that reflection models invert the order of explanation. Its deficit, as with many theories of consciousness, is that Avicenna's account explains nothing about qualitative character, which is displaced onto a faculty psychology that is corporeal and now obsolete, and it purchases the permanence of self-awareness at the price of a nonphysical substance that is by construction unavailable to either empirical or introspective check. Both features make him a clear ancestor of self-representational and first-personality accounts, and an equally clear illustration of how far such accounts can go without touching qualia. Whether that first-personal givenness requires an immaterial soul is precisely where Avicenna’s enduring insight becomes his most controversial metaphysical claim. References [Convention note: Avicenna's psychology is cited as Shifāʾ: Nafs by book and chapter, following Rahman's 1959 edition of the Arabic text, which governs the numbering used here. Taʿlīqāt is cited to Badawī's edition.] Almotahari, M. (2025). "Conscious Thought Under Sensory Deprivation: Avicenna's Flying Man and 'I'." The Monist 108(3): 318–336. Avicenna (1959). Avicenna's De Anima (Arabic Text): Being the Psychological Part of Kitāb al-Shifāʾ. Ed. F. Rahman. London: Oxford University Press. Avicenna (1973). Al-Taʿlīqāt. Ed. ʿA. R. Badawī. Cairo: Al-Hayʾa al-Miṣriyya al-ʿĀmma li-l-Kitāb. Black, D. L. (1993). "Estimation (Wahm) in Avicenna: The Logical and Psychological Dimensions." Dialogue 32(2): 219–258. Black, D. L. (2008). "Avicenna on Self-Awareness and Knowing that One Knows." In S. Rahman, T. Street, and H. Tahiri (eds.), The Unity of Science in the Arabic Tradition. Dordrecht: Springer, 63–87. Druart, T.-A. (1988). "The Soul and Body Problem: Avicenna and Descartes." In T.-A. Druart (ed.), Arabic Philosophy and the West: Continuity and Interaction. Washington, DC: Center for Contemporary Arab Studies, Georgetown University, 27–49. Eichner, H. (2011). "'Knowledge by Presence,' Apperception and the Mind–Body Relationship." In P. Adamson (ed.), In the Age of Averroes: Arabic Philosophy in the Sixth/Twelfth Century. London: Warburg Institute, 117–140. Gutas, D. (2012). "The Empiricism of Avicenna." Oriens 40(2): 391–436. Ha'iri Yazdi, M. (1992). The Principles of Epistemology in Islamic Philosophy: Knowledge by Presence. Albany: State University of New York Press. Hasnawi, A. (1997). "La conscience de soi chez Avicenne et Descartes." In J. Biard and R. Rashed (eds.), Descartes et le Moyen Âge. Paris: Vrin, 283–291. Hasse, D. N. (2000). Avicenna's De Anima in the Latin West: The Formation of a Peripatetic Philosophy of the Soul, 1160–1300. London: Warburg Institute. Kaukua, J. (2015). Self-Awareness in Islamic Philosophy: Avicenna and Beyond. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Rahman, F. (1975). The Philosophy of Mullā Ṣadrā. Albany: State University of New York Press. Toivanen, J. (2015). "The Fate of the Flying Man: Medieval Reception of Avicenna's Thought Experiment." Oxford Studies in Medieval Philosophy 3: 64–98. Zahavi, D. (2005). Subjectivity and Selfhood: Investigating the First-Person Perspective. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

---

## Aquinas’s Hylomorphism
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/aquinas-s-hylomorphism
Theorists: Thomas Aquinas

Scholastic theologian and philosopher Thomas Aquinas holds that the soul is the substantial form of the body rather than a separate substance lodged within it, so that a human being is one thing and not two, and that sensation consists in receiving the form of an object without its matter—a mode of existence he calls esse intentionale, distinct from the esse naturale a form has in the object itself (Aquinas, ST I, qq. 75–76; Sentencia de anima II, lect. 24). On this framework what we would call phenomenal consciousness falls chiefly to the sensus communis, first of four interior senses, which unifies the deliverances of the external senses into a single perceptual episode and accounts for our awareness that we are sensing (Aquinas, ST I, q. 78, a. 4; Lisska, 2016). Intellectual understanding is immaterial yet must always turn toward “phantasms” supplied by sense, and the mind knows itself only indirectly, through its acts, never by direct inspection of its essence (Aquinas, ST I, q. 87, a. 1). In other words, while Aquinas offers no theory of “phenomenal consciousness” in the modern technical sense, yet his philosophical psychology provides one of the most systematic premodern accounts of sensation, unified perceptual awareness, subjectivity, intellectual cognition, and self-awareness. On a contemporary reconstruction, phenomenal consciousness belongs primarily to the embodied sensitive life of the animal: sensory powers intentionally receive features of the world, the internal senses integrate and retain them, and affective responses give them significance; distinctively human reflective awareness then arises through an immaterial intellect that depends, during embodied life, on sensory representations or phantasms (i.e., sensory-derived mental images from which the active intellect abstracts universal concepts). Aquinas’s importance is historical as well as conceptual: his hylomorphism offers a major alternative to both reductive materialism and later Cartesian substance dualism, while his distinction between first-order awareness and reflexive self-knowledge anticipates enduring questions concerning consciousness, embodiment, unity, and the first-person perspective (Aquinas, 1265–1274/2002; Pasnau, 2002; Cory, 2013). Thus, his relevance for contemporary consciousness studies lies less in solving any modern problem than in articulating a position that is neither dualist nor materialist, and in transmitting esse intentionale into modern philosophy as intentionality. Embodied Phenomenal Consciousness Aquinas’s terminology must first be translated cautiously. His conscientia ordinarily means conscience—the application of knowledge to particular acts—not what contemporary philosophy calls phenomenal consciousness (Aquinas, 1265–1274/2002, I, q. 79, a. 13). Accordingly, it would be anachronistic simply to identify a medieval faculty called “consciousness.” The closest analog of phenomenal consciousness lies instead in Aquinas’s theory of sensitive cognition: the capacity of animals, including humans, to see colors, hear sounds, feel heat and cold, taste, smell, experience bodily conditions, and undergo appetitive-affective states such as pleasure, fear, desire, anger, and sorrow. For Aquinas, these experiences are intrinsically embodied operations. The soul is not a separate entity using the body as an instrument; it is the substantial form that makes a living body one organized animal of a certain kind. Sensory powers operate through corporeal organs, whereas cognition occurs when the sensible form of an external thing is received “intentionally”—without the perceiver literally acquiring the physical property in the same manner as the object possesses it (Aquinas, 1265–1274/2002; Lisska, 2016). Thus, seeing heat or color is not simply becoming hot or colored. Cognition involves possessing the form of another thing in a distinctive intentional mode. This framework differs fundamentally from the early-modern picture that helped generate the modern problem of qualia. Aquinas treats colors and other proper sensibles as genuine features of external things, not merely subjective effects projected onto an intrinsically colorless world (Pasnau, 2002; Lisska, 2016). Consequently, he does not confront precisely the Cartesian-to-contemporary problem of explaining how qualitative experience could arise inside a world first characterized as devoid of qualities. But this does not amount to a solution of the modern hard problem: saying that a bodily sense receives a form intentionally does not in any sense explain why such reception has a subjective feel. Sensation, Common Sense, and Unified Awareness Aquinas distinguishes the five external senses from four “internal senses”: common sense (sensus communis), imagination, the estimative or—specifically in humans—cogitative power, and sensory memory. These internal powers have bodily organs and, in Aquinas’s medieval physiology, are associated with the brain. His account owes much to Avicenna and represents a sophisticated medieval attempt to explain how raw sensory inputs become a unified, temporally extended, behaviorally meaningful perceptual world (Aquinas, 1265–1274/2002; Pasnau, 2002). The common sense is particularly relevant to consciousness studies. It integrates information across sensory modalities and enables an animal not merely to see but, in Aquinas’s formulation, to register that it sees—“when someone sees that he is seeing.” Imagination retains sensory forms after objects disappear; the estimative or cogitative power apprehends significance not reducible to surface qualities—for example, danger or usefulness—and memory preserves such contents (Aquinas, 1265–1274/2002, I, q. 78, a. 4). It is tempting to identify the sensus communis with a modern neural “binding mechanism” or higher-order consciousness faculty, but neither identification is exact. Aquinas does not clearly distinguish phenomenal from access consciousness, nor does his common sense constitute a separate conceptual thought about a sensory state. Rather, his psychology suggests layered awareness: external sensing presents particular sensible qualities; common sense coordinates sensory activity and permits awareness of sensing; imagination, memory, and cogitation enrich the experienced world. Whether sensory consciousness should be attributed already to the external senses or especially to this integrative internal faculty remains interpretively disputed (Pasnau, 2002; Lisska, 2016). Hylomorphism, Immaterial Intellect, and Postmortem Consciousness Aquinas’s mind-body metaphysics resists simple classification. A human being is one substance, not a Cartesian conjunction of two independently complete substances. Soul and body are related as substantial form and matter: the intellective soul organizes the body into a living human organism and grounds its vegetative, sensory, appetitive, and rational capacities. Aquinas explicitly appeals to the unity of the subject—one and the same human being is aware of sensing and understanding—as evidence that intellect belongs to the human being rather than to some independently operating mental occupant (Aquinas, 1265–1274/2002, I, q. 76; Stump, 2003). Yet Aquinas is obviously not a materialist. Because intellectual cognition grasps universals rather than merely particular bodily forms, he argues that intellect cannot operate through a material organ. The rational soul is consequently both the form of the body and a subsistent, incorporeal principle capable of surviving bodily death (Aquinas, 1265–1274/2002; Pasnau, 2002). This theological commitment does not make embodiment dispensable. Aquinas regards separation from the body as an unnatural condition for a human soul. Death eliminates bodily sensation and imagination; ordinary human intellection through phantasms is therefore no longer possible. Aquinas posits a different mode of intellectual cognition for the separated soul and ultimately requires bodily resurrection for restored human completeness (Aquinas, 1265–1274/2002, I, q. 89). The result is a distinctive non-Cartesian dualism: phenomenal sensory consciousness is bodily, intellectual activity is partly immaterial, and the normal conscious human subject is the integrated body-soul organism. The Soul as the Form of the Body As a matter of historical importance, Aquinas's starting commitment forecloses the modern mind-body problem before it can be posed in Cartesian terms. As noted, the soul is not a thing joined to a body but the actuality of an organized living body—its substantial form, that in virtue of which this matter constitutes a living human being at all. Accordingly, there is no interaction problem, because there are not two substances to interact. The unity is so strict that Aquinas denies identifying the person with the soul: commenting on 1 Corinthians, he writes that my soul is not I, so even a surviving separated soul would not be the person. This is of course not materialism. Aquinas argues that the intellect, unlike the senses, has no bodily organ: a material organ is receptive only to a restricted range of forms—the eye to light, the ear to sound—whereas the intellect is receptive to the forms of all material things and so cannot itself be material (Aquinas, ST I, q. 75, a. 2; Klima, 2007). The human soul is therefore subsistent, able to exist apart from the body though incomplete in that state. Whether this makes Aquinas a qualified dualist remains disputed: interpreters who emphasize the subsistence of the intellect read him as a dualist about part of the soul, while those who emphasize the form-matter unity read him as offering a third position the dualism-materialism dichotomy cannot accommodate (Pasnau, 2002; Stump, 2003). Sensation as the Reception of Form Without Matter The doctrine carrying most weight for phenomenal consciousness is Aquinas's account of what happens in sensing. A sense receives the form of the sensible object without its matter, and that form has a different mode of being in the sense than in the thing: natural being in the thing, intentional and spiritual being in the sense (Aquinas, Sentencia de anima II, lect. 24). Color in the wall exists as a complete quality of the wall; the same color in the medium, and then in the eye, exists incompletely—a likeness that makes the perceiver aware of the wall without making the perceiver walled. The interpretive stakes are high and the literature divided. On a literalist reading, spiritual change involves genuine physical alteration of the organ; on a spiritualist reading, the reception is a sui generis awareness-constituting event with no separable physiological description. Burnyeat argued the spiritualist case for Aquinas (Burnyeat, 2001), having earlier concluded of Aristotle that his philosophy of mind is no longer credible, since it presupposes a physics in which matter is already pregnant with mind (Burnyeat, 1995). Sorabji argued the literalist case in reply, preserving a physiological story (Sorabji, 2001). Aquinas himself allows that touch involves natural as well as spiritual change, while vision involves spiritual change alone. The doctrine supplies a way of describing the presence of a quality to a perceiver that neither reduces it to physical properties of the organ nor makes it a second thing alongside them. Whether this addresses the explanatory gap or declines to notice it is precisely what is contested. The Sensus Communis and the Awareness of Sensing Aquinas posits four interior senses: the sensus communis, the imagination, the vis cogitativa (the vis aestimativa in nonrational animals), and sense memory. The sensus communis is not a sixth sense but what he calls the common root and principle of the external senses, their common terminus (Aquinas, ST I, q. 78, a. 4). It performs two functions that map closely onto contemporary concerns. First, it binds. The external senses each deliver their proper sensibles—color to sight, sound to hearing—and something must unify these into perception of a single object presenting several qualities at once. Aquinas assigns this integration to the sensus communis, along with discriminating the deliverances of distinct modalities as distinct. This is recognizably the binding problem, posed and assigned a faculty. Second, and more directly, it accounts for our awareness that we are sensing. We do not merely see; we are aware of seeing, and this second-order awareness cannot belong to sight itself, whose object is color. Aquinas locates it in the sensus communis, which is why Aristotelian and scholastic writers call that faculty the seat of consciousness (Lisska, 2016). Interpreters differ on the assignment: Stump argues it is phantasia that supplies awareness of one's own mental states, while Pasnau assigns the role to the sensus communis (Stump, 2003; Pasnau, 2002). Phantasms, Intellect, and the Turn to the Image Above sense lies intellect, and Aquinas's account of it constrains what he can say about experience. The agent intellect abstracts intelligible species from the phantasms produced by the interior senses; the possible intellect receives them. Crucially, the intellect in this life cannot operate without turning to phantasms—the conversio ad phantasmata—so even the most abstract thought remains tethered to sensory imagery (Aquinas, ST I, q. 84, a. 7; q. 89, a. 5). The consequence is a rejection of any faculty of direct intellectual intuition of one's own states: whatever the intellect grasps, it grasps through “species” (intelligible likenesses derived from sense,) with memory and the cogitative power doing the preparatory work that makes abstraction possible. Self-Knowledge as Indirect and Act-Mediated Aquinas's treatment of self-knowledge speaks most directly to modern debates about introspection. The mind does not know itself through its essence; it knows itself as it knows other things, through species and through acts. We know we have a mind because we perceive ourselves understanding; we know what kind of thing a mind is only by inquiry into its acts and objects (Aquinas, ST I, q. 87, a. 1; De veritate q. 10). Powers are known through their acts, acts through their objects, so the route to self-knowledge runs outward first and only then back. This rejects the transparency of the mental long before Descartes asserted it, and it emerged partly through polemic: Aquinas developed the account against Averroes, for whom the material intellect is a single separate substance shared by all humans, arguing that the datum of individual conscious awareness—this person perceives that he himself understands—cannot be accommodated on that view (Black, 1993; Cory, 2014). From Esse Intentionale to Intentionality Aquinas's most traceable influence on modern consciousness studies runs through Brentano, who claimed the scholastic notion of intentional inexistence as the mark of the mental and thereby transmitted a medieval technical term into phenomenology and analytic philosophy of mind (Brentano, 1874; Sorabji, 1991). The lineage is real but has been overstated. Brentano's terminology recalls esse intentionale and intentio, yet scholars argue his construal was shaped more by Suárez and early modern representationalism than by Aquinas, and that he misread the scholastic doctrine by failing to distinguish grades of intentional existence (Perler, 2001). Others hold that for Aquinas intentionality alone was never the mark of the cognitive, since immateriality does independent work: a form exists intentionally in a medium, as color does in air, without the medium thereby being a knower. The methodological point outlasts the exegesis—a technical term survived while its theoretical setting did not, and reconstructions that read modern intentionality back into Aquinas risk describing a position no one held. The Theological Frame: Creation, Resurrection, and the Vision of God Aquinas's treatment of soul and cognition is not a freestanding philosophical psychology that happens to sit inside a theological work. Summa Theologiae I, qq. 75–89 falls within an account of the human being as made in the image of God, positioned between the creation of humanity and its return to its source, and several of its most philosophically load-bearing claims are shaped by commitments that are theological in origin. The clearest case is the origin of the rational soul. Aquinas holds that God creates it directly and infuses it at the appropriate stage of generation, not transmitted by the parents and not pre-existing the body (Aquinas, ST I, q. 90, aa. 2–3). Vegetative and sensitive powers arise through natural generation; the intellectual soul cannot, because what is immaterial cannot be inferred from the potency of matter. The immateriality of the intellect and the direct divine creation of the soul are thus the same doctrine seen from two sides, and the philosophical argument for the first is doing theological work for the second. A second case is the polemic against Averroist monopsychism. If the material intellect were a single separate substance shared by all human beings, as Averroes held, then individual immortality and individual judgment would be unintelligible—a conclusion Aquinas could not accept. But the argument he actually mounts in De unitate intellectus contra Averroistas (1270) is not from doctrine; it is from a datum of consciousness. This individual human being perceives that he himself understands. If the intellect were shared, the thinking would not be mine, and the manifest fact that I am aware of my own understanding would be false (Aquinas, 1270; Black, 1993). Theological pressure here produced an appeal to first-person evidence that is philosophically independent of the pressure that occasioned it but is doctrinally required. The doctrine of the separated soul shows the pressure running the other way, from theology onto psychology, and with results that are complex and austere. Survival between death and resurrection requires that the soul be subsistent, and Aquinas argues that it is. But he refuses the obvious next step. The soul is not the person; the separated state is incomplete; and the natural mode of human understanding, which requires phantasms supplied by bodily organs, is unavailable to a soul without a body. The separated soul must therefore know in a different way altogether, by species infused directly by God rather than abstracted from sense (Aquinas, ST I, q. 89, aa. 1, 4, 6). Aquinas describes this state as contrary to the soul's nature, a diminished condition rather than a liberation—and this is why bodily resurrection is not an optional addendum to his anthropology but a requirement of it. A philosopher content to identify the person with an immaterial thinking substance would have had no such need. The beatific vision marks the one systematic exception to the tethering of intellect to sense, and its structure is revealing. The ultimate end of the human being is the direct vision of the divine essence, which cannot be reached through any species abstracted from creatures and cannot be achieved by the created intellect operating according to its nature. It requires a supernatural disposition Aquinas calls the light of glory, by which the intellect is raised to a capacity it does not natively possess (Aquinas, ST I, q. 12, aa. 4–5). The consequence for the earlier doctrine is precise: the conversio ad phantasmata is a claim about the human intellect in its present embodied condition, not a claim about intellect as such. Two further theological structures bear on how Aquinas conceives consciousness in general. Angels, as bodiless intellects, know without sensation, abstraction, or phantasms, by species infused at their creation. Aquinas thus works out in detail a model of cognition that has no sensory basis at all—the nearest premodern analog to asking whether a nonbiological intellect could think, though his answer turns on how such a being is created rather than on how it is organized. And God, by divine simplicity, is not a conscious subject among others: in God, knower, act of knowing, and object known are identical, so that divine cognition is not an instance of the kind of thing human cognition is (Aquinas, ST I, q. 14). The analogy between divine and human knowing runs in one direction only, which forecloses any move from theology to a general theory of consciousness. The methodological upshot matters for how Aquinas is used. Contemporary hylomorphists who adopt his framework as an alternative to dualism and reductive physicalism typically drop the subsistence of the intellect—which is precisely the theologically motivated component—and retain the form-matter analysis of the living body. Whether what remains is still recognizably Aquinas's position, or a naturalized descendant that would not have satisfied him, is a live question, and one worth keeping in view when his account is enlisted in present-day debates (Pasnau, 2002; Stump, 2003). Intellectual-Historical Importance and Contemporary Relevance Aquinas occupies a pivotal position in the intellectual history of consciousness because he synthesizes several traditions that are often separated in modern narratives. From Aristotle he takes hylomorphism, embodied perception, and intellective abstraction; from Avicenna and the Arabic psychological tradition, a developed architecture of internal senses; from Augustine, themes concerning self-presence and self-knowledge; against Averroes, he defends the individuality of the thinking subject (Black, 1993; Cory, 2013; Pasnau, 2002). This makes Aquinas especially important as a pre-Cartesian alternative. The familiar modern division between an objectively describable physical world and a private theater of subjective qualities is not his starting point. Sensation belongs to the organized animal as a whole, qualitative properties belong to the perceived world, bodily organs are constitutive of sensory cognition, and self-awareness emerges within cognition rather than defining mentality as such. Animals can therefore possess rich sensory awareness without rational reflection. Aquinas simultaneously preserves an irreducibly intellectual dimension of the human mind, making his theory neither physicalist nor a straightforward precursor of Cartesian dualism. For contemporary consciousness studies, the affinities are suggestive rather than progenitive. His sensus communis invites comparison with perceptual integration; his dependence of intellect on phantasms resonates with embodied and enactive approaches; his distinction between implicit self-presence and explicit knowledge of the self anticipates modern work on pre-reflective self-consciousness; and hylomorphism offers an alternative ontology in which psychological capacities belong to organized living wholes rather than to either brains alone or detachable minds. Yet Aquinas provides no explanation of why intentional sensory processing has phenomenal character. His value for consciousness science is therefore principally conceptual and historical. Assessment Thus, Aquinas's importance is threefold. He supplies the most fully developed premodern account of the unity of the perceiving subject, assigning binding and the awareness of sensing to a specific faculty. He articulates a mind-body position that is neither substance dualism nor materialism, revived in contemporary hylomorphic theories offered as alternatives to both. And he is the proximate ancestor of intentionality as a term of art. The limitations are equally clear. Aquinas has no concept of consciousness as a unified explanandum, and whether the problem of consciousness arises for him at all remains a scholarly question. Applying "phenomenal consciousness" to his position is therefore an act of translation, and convergences with contemporary theory should be treated as suggestive rather than as evidence of anticipation. Placement The argument is that Aquinas is the position Cartesian dualism was formulated against, and a reader who meets Descartes without him gets a truncated history. Aquinas holds that the intellect is immaterial and the soul subsistent — enough to place him in the Dualism category — while denying that the soul is the person and denying any interaction problem. That combination is exactly what Descartes abandoned, and the abandonment is more legible when the two are adjacent. A caution, though. Placing Aquinas under Dualisms asserts something he spent considerable effort denying. He is not a substance dualist; the whole point of anima forma corporis is to refuse the dichotomy. An alternative placement in Non-Reductive Physicalism would track how contemporary hylomorphists—Jaworski, Marmodoro, Oderberg—position the view. While that placement would be more faithful to Aquinas's intent, it would be less faithful to how Landscape users will expect to find him. References Aquinas, T. (1265–1273). Summa Theologiae. (Cited by part, question, article.) Aquinas, T. (1256–1259). Quaestiones disputatae de veritate. Aquinas, T. (1267–1268). Sentencia libri De anima. (Cited by book and lecture.) Aquinas, T. (1270). De unitate intellectus contra Averroistas. Black, D. L. (1993). Consciousness and self-knowledge in Aquinas's critique of Averroes's psychology. Journal of the History of Philosophy, 31(3), 349–385. Brentano, F. (1874). Psychologie vom empirischen Standpunkte. Duncker & Humblot. Burnyeat, M. F. (1995). Is an Aristotelian philosophy of mind still credible? (A draft). In M. C. Nussbaum & A. O. Rorty (Eds.), Essays on Aristotle's De Anima (pp. 15–26). Clarendon Press. Burnyeat, M. F. (2001). Aquinas on "spiritual change" in perception. In D. Perler (Ed.), Ancient and Medieval Theories of Intentionality (pp. 129–153). Brill. Cory, T. S. (2014). Aquinas on Human Self-Knowledge. Cambridge University Press. Kenny, A. (1993). Aquinas on Mind. Routledge. Klima, G. (2007). Aquinas on the materiality of the human soul and the immateriality of the human intellect. Philosophical Investigations, 32(2), 163–182. Lisska, A. J. (2016). Aquinas's Theory of Perception: An Analytic Reconstruction. Oxford University Press. Pasnau, R. (2002). Thomas Aquinas on Human Nature: A Philosophical Study of Summa Theologiae 1a 75–89. Cambridge University Press. Perler, D. (Ed.). (2001). Ancient and Medieval Theories of Intentionality. Brill. Sorabji, R. (1991). From Aristotle to Brentano: The development of the concept of intentionality. Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy, Supplementary Volume, 227–259. Sorabji, R. (2001). Aristotle on sensory processes and intentionality: A reply to Myles Burnyeat. In D. Perler (Ed.), Ancient and Medieval Theories of Intentionality (pp. 49–61). Brill. Stump, E. (2003). Aquinas. Routledge.

---

## Descartes’s Substance Dualism
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/descartes-s-substance-dualism
Theorists: René Descartes

Philosopher/polymath René Descartes’s theory of consciousness holds that phenomenal consciousness is an immediately self-present mode of thinking belonging to an immaterial mind, but that much of its sensory and affective character arises only in the embodied union of mind and body, where mechanistic brain processes lawfully enable sensations, passions, and perceptions whose qualitative character is irreducible to extension (Descartes, 1641/1984, 1644/1985, 1649/1985; Rozemond, 1998; Hatfield, 2003). In other words, Descartes held that consciousness—which he called thought (cogitatio)—constitutes the essence of an immaterial mental substance (res cogitans) radically distinct from the extended, mechanical body (res extensa), so that all phenomenal states, from intelligence and volition to sensation, pain, and emotion, are modes of a thinking thing whose conscious states are transparent and undeniable to itself but whose causal connection with the body he could never satisfactorily explain (Descartes, 1641, 1644; Jorgensen, 2020). Descartes’s account of consciousness (thought) contains three distinguishable levels: pure thinking mind, extended body, and the phenomenologically rich human being constituted by their union. Mind and body are two finite substances with mutually exclusive principal attributes: the mind's essence is thought, and the body's is extension. The essence of matter is extension and the essence of mind is thought, where “thought” includes sensory images as well as rational discourse. Thus, Descartes is not merely the founder of “mind-body dualism” in the textbook sense, but the framer of the mind-body problem that would take on a life of its own. Thought as Consciousness: The Mark of the Mental Descartes redefines thought expansively as everything we are conscious of as happening within us, insofar as we are conscious of it (Descartes, 1644, I.9). On this definition thought is coextensive with consciousness, and it encompasses far more than ratiocination: doubting, understanding, affirming, willing, imagining, and—critically for any modern reading—sensory perception, feeling, and passion are all modes of thought. What we now call phenomenal states therefore fall squarely within Descartes’s mental: the felt redness of a color, the throb of a pain, the pang of hunger are conscious episodes belonging to the mind, not properties of the body that generate them. Consciousness, so construed, is the defining mark of the mental and the principal attribute whose modes exhaust the inner life of the soul. Mind as Conscious Thinking Substance Here’s how Descartes develops his central thesis that mind is a thinking substance: res cogitans. In the Meditations, the cogito does not first establish the existence of a body, brain, soul-substance in scholastic terms, or empirical person; it establishes the indisputability of conscious thinking. Even if all sensory contents are deceptive, the occurrence of doubting, affirming, denying, imagining, sensing-as-if, willing, and refusing cannot be doubted while they occur (Descartes, 1641/1984). In the Second Replies, Descartes defines thought as everything in us of which we are immediately conscious; many scholars therefore take consciousness to be the defining property of the Cartesian mind. This is crucial for contemporary phenomenal consciousness. Descartes’s “thought” is not restricted to discursive cognition. It includes felt pain, visual appearance, imagination, desire, and affective disturbance insofar as these are consciously present. Phenomenal consciousness is thus not added to cognition from outside; it is included within the general attribute of thought. However, Descartes does not equate consciousness with reflective self-consciousness. Some conscious operations may be unnoticed or unremembered; what matters is not higher-order introspection but immediate presence to mind (Descartes, 1641/1984; Simmons, 2012). The Divine Guarantee and the Theological Stakes of Dualism The cogito secures the existence of conscious thought and nothing beyond it. Everything else in Descartes's system—the reliability of clear and distinct perception, the existence of bodies, the truth of mathematics—rests on the proofs of God in the Third and Fifth Meditations. Because God is no deceiver, what the mind perceives clearly and distinctly is true; without that guarantee, the cogito yields a solitary certainty about one's own conscious states and no route out of it. Critics from Arnauld onward have pressed the resulting circularity, since the proofs themselves proceed by clear and distinct perception (Descartes, 1641/1984). The theological stakes are also declared rather than inferred. Descartes dedicated the Meditations to the Sorbonne's faculty of theology and announced the work's purpose in its subtitle: to demonstrate the existence of God and the distinction of the soul from the body. The real distinction is what makes the soul's survival intelligible, and Descartes presents it in that light to his ecclesiastical readers. This bears on how the dualism should be read. The claim that mind and body are separable substances is not solely the conclusion of the doubt; it is also the conclusion Descartes needed, and its immortality payoff is the reason a theology faculty would care about a treatise on certainty. A third commitment is stranger and less often noticed. Descartes held that the eternal truths, mathematics included, were freely created by God, who could have made them otherwise. The necessity of what the mind perceives most clearly is therefore itself contingent on a divine act—an unusual position among rationalists, and one that makes the divine guarantee explanatorily critical at a level beneath epistemology. Ideas, Representation, and the Inner Field Descartes’s theory of ideas supplies the internal architecture of consciousness. Ideas are not Platonic objects but modes of thinking: ways in which thought is actualized in a finite mind. They function as vehicles of representation, presenting objects, bodies, God, mathematical natures, sensory qualities, and imagined scenes to consciousness (Descartes, 1641/1984; Nolan, 2025). SEP summarizes this ontology: mind is a finite substance, thought its principal attribute, and ideas modes of thought, analogous to shapes as modes of extension. For phenomenal consciousness, the important point is that every sensory appearance has a mental aspect. A red surface as experienced is not literally redness inhering in matter. Rather, physical bodies have size, shape, motion, and arrangement; these mechanically affect the sense organs and brain, and the mind experiences a sensory idea. Descartes thereby rejects scholastic “real qualities” in objects while preserving the reality of sensory experience as a conscious mode. Sensory qualities are not properties of matter as matter is in itself; they are mind-involving appearances generated in embodied perception (Descartes, 1637/1985, 1644/1985; Hatfield, 2003). Sensation and Mind-Body Union Given that substance dualism has been out of favor with philosophers, Descartes’s most relevant contribution to phenomenal consciousness is his account of sensation as arising from the union of mind and body. Pure intellect can operate independently of the brain, but sensation and imagination require bodily engagement. In vision, light mechanically affects the eyes, nerves, and brain; this bodily process gives rise to the mind’s experience of color, distance, magnitude, or shape. Descartes’s account is mechanistic about the bodily side and non-reductive about the conscious side: brain events are not themselves colored experiences, but they stand in regular relations to them (Descartes, 1637/1985; Hatfield, 2003). SEP describes this as an early naturalistic stance toward conscious mental experience and as a precursor to psychophysical lawlike correlation. This nuances the usual picture of Cartesian dualism. Mind and body are really distinct substances: mind is thinking and unextended; body is extended and non-thinking. IEP summarizes the real-distinction thesis as the claim that mind and body have completely different natures, and even could, by divine power, exist apart. Yet the human being is not a mind merely housed in a machine. Hunger, thirst, pain, vertigo, sexual desire, and affective disturbance are not pure intellective thoughts; they are experiences of an embodied subject. Descartes’s famous example of pain is instructive: pain is not perceived by the intellect as a sailor perceives damage to a ship; it is felt as one’s own bodily disturbance (Descartes, 1641/1984; Cottingham, 1985). Passions, Affect, and Embodied Phenomenology In The Passions of the Soul, Descartes extends this framework to emotion. Passions are perceptions, sensations, or emotions of the soul caused, maintained, and strengthened by movements of the “animal spirits” (a flowing physical medium connecting body and mind) (Descartes, 1649/1985). They are bodily in cause but mental in occurrence. Fear, wonder, love, hatred, desire, joy, and sadness are not merely bodily reactions; they are consciously felt states that dispose the soul toward volition and action. SEP notes that Descartes distinguishes purely intellectual feelings from body-dependent passions and treats the passions as proximally caused by brain activity and then transferred to the soul. This makes Descartes more relevant to contemporary consciousness studies than a simplistic dualist caricature suggests. His theory recognizes that phenomenal consciousness includes sensory, affective, motivational, and bodily dimensions. Yet he insists that these dimensions cannot be captured by extension alone. The body explains movement, stimulation, and neural mediation; it does not itself explain why there is something it is like to feel pain, fear, or color. Assessment and Contemporary Significance The consensus conclusion is that Descartes’s theory of consciousness is strongest as a rigorous articulation of first-person immediacy and the apparent ontological gap between qualitative experience and the mechanistic body. It inaugurates a problem-space that still structures consciousness studies: the relation between subjective what-it’s-likeness and objective physical description. Its weaknesses are equally clear. The interaction problem remains unresolved; the pineal as the locus of mind-brain communication and animal-spirit physiology is long obsolete; the denial of animal consciousness, on the standard interpretation, is implausible; and the substance-dualist framework is challenged by contemporary neuroscience and philosophy of mind. Still, Descartes’s core insight remains historically decisive: phenomenal consciousness is not just another bodily motion among motions, but a domain of immediately manifest being whose relation to mechanism demands explanation. References Cottingham, J. (1985). Cartesian trialism. Mind, 94(374), 218–230. Descartes, R. (1637/1985). Discourse on the Method and Dioptrics. In J. Cottingham, R. Stoothoff, & D. Murdoch (Trans.), The Philosophical Writings of Descartes (Vol. 1). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Descartes, R. (1641/1984). Meditations on First Philosophy. In J. Cottingham, R. Stoothoff, & D. Murdoch (Trans.), The Philosophical Writings of Descartes (Vol. 2). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Descartes, R. (1644/1985). Principles of Philosophy. In J. Cottingham, R. Stoothoff, & D. Murdoch (Trans.), The Philosophical Writings of Descartes (Vol. 1). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Descartes, R. (1649/1985). The Passions of the Soul. In J. Cottingham, R. Stoothoff, & D. Murdoch (Trans.), The Philosophical Writings of Descartes (Vol. 1). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hatfield, G. (2003). Descartes and the Meditations. London: Routledge. Nolan, L. (2025). Descartes’ theory of ideas. In E. N. Zalta & U. Nodelman (Eds.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Rozemond, M. (1998). Descartes’s Dualism. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Simmons, A. (2012). Cartesian consciousness reconsidered. Philosophers’ Imprint, 12(2), 1–21.

---

## Malebranche’s Divine Occasionalism: Inner Sensation and Phenomenal Experience
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/malebranche-s-divine-occasionalism-inner-sensation-and-phenomenal-experience
Theorists: Nicolas Malebranche

Philosopher-priest Nicolas Malebranche’s theory of consciousness combines Cartesian substance dualism with occasionalism (the doctrine that God alone is a true cause and that creatures are only occasions for divine action) to produce a distinctive account of phenomenal experience: sensations, emotions, imaginings, pleasures, pains, and thoughts are real modifications of an immaterial soul, immediately known through conscience ou sentiment intérieur (“consciousness or inner sensation”), yet bodily events do not themselves cause these conscious states. Rather, bodily changes serve as occasions on which God—the only genuine efficient cause—produces the corresponding phenomenal modifications in the soul according to general laws governing mind-body union (Malebranche, 1674–75/1997; Malebranche, 1688/1997; Nadler, 2011). Phenomenal qualities such as colors, sounds, tastes, pleasures, and pains therefore belong to consciousness rather than to material objects, while the intelligible representation of bodies depends on ideas in God. Malebranche thus develops not merely an occasionalist answer to the Cartesian interaction problem, but an integrated theory distinguishing physical events, subjective qualities, intentional content, causal production, and first-person awareness. In other words, Malebranche holds that sensations—color, pain, heat, taste—are modifications of the soul that represent nothing, while the ideas through which we perceive bodies are not in us at all but in God (Malebranche, 1674–1675/1997, Search III.2). His occasionalism supplies the causal story for those sensations: bodies have no power to affect minds, so a motion in the brain is merely the occasion on which God, acting by general and constant volitions, produces the corresponding sensation according to the meta-laws of soul-body union. Consciousness itself is an inner sensation attending every thought that delivers the soul's existence with certainty but no idea of its nature (Elucidation 11; Schmaltz, 1996). The combination is of unusual relevance to consciousness studies: phenomenal states arise by brute psychophysical law rather than by mechanism, their pairing with brain states is contingent, and the subject who has them is opaque to himself. Phenomenal Consciousness and the Immaterial Soul Malebranche accepts Descartes’s basic ontological division between extended body and unextended thinking substance. Bodies possess geometrical and mechanical properties; minds undergo sensations, imaginings, intellectual perceptions, passions, desires, pleasures, and pains. Sensible qualities such as redness, sweetness, warmth, and painfulness cannot therefore literally belong to extended objects as they appear to us. They are modifications of the finite soul associated with encounters between the embodied perceiver and the physical world (Malebranche, 1674–75/1997; LoLordo, 2005). These modifications are immediately accessible through sentiment intérieur. A subject does not infer that it is in pain, seeing red, or experiencing pleasure; the phenomenal state itself is directly present to consciousness. Malebranche consequently retains the Cartesian insight that mentality possesses a distinctive first-person immediacy. He nevertheless rejects Descartes’s stronger conclusion that such immediacy gives the mind clear and transparent knowledge of its own nature. Consciousness reveals that one thinks, senses, desires, or suffers, but it does not disclose clearly what thinking substance is. Indeed, Malebranche argues that extension is intellectually more intelligible than the soul: geometrical properties can be precisely understood and compared, whereas the intrinsic qualities of red, pain, pleasure, or thought are encountered phenomenally without thereby yielding an adequate conception of the substance whose modifications they are (Schmaltz, 1996; Nolan and Whipple, 2005). This reversal of the Cartesian epistemic hierarchy is central to Malebranche’s significance for consciousness studies. First-person acquaintance can make the occurrence of experience maximally certain while leaving its metaphysical nature obscure. In contemporary terms, knowing what an experience is like does not entail understanding what consciousness itself is. Why God Must Be the Only Cause Malebranche was an Oratorian priest, and his occasionalism is not a philosophical thesis that happens to mention God. It is a claim about divine omnipotence from which a theory of causation follows. Genuine causal power, he argues, requires a necessary connection between cause and effect—and a necessary connection between a will and its execution is a mark of omnipotence. To attribute real causal efficacy to bodies or to finite minds would therefore be to distribute a divine attribute among creatures, which for Malebranche is not merely a metaphysical error but the philosophical root of paganism: nature would become a system of little deities each possessing a portion of God's power (Malebranche, 1674–75/1997, Search VI.2.3; Nadler, 2011). The argument that no finite mind knows how to produce a sensation of red in itself, and therefore does not produce one, has the same shape. It is not primarily an argument about our ignorance. It is an argument that the production of phenomenal states requires a knowledge and a power that belong to God alone. The corollary shapes the character of the psychophysical laws themselves. God acts by general volitions expressing simple and constant laws rather than by particular volitions case by case, and the reason is theological: simplicity and uniformity of action are marks of divine wisdom (Malebranche, 1680/1992). This is also the core of Malebranche's theodicy. He concedes that God could have prevented particular natural evils—malformed offspring is his own example, a pointed one for a man with a deformed spine—but only by departing from simple laws, sacrificing the generality that expresses His perfection. God wills the best combination of the perfection of the laws with the perfection of their effects, and accepts local defects as the cost of a highly ordered universe. The doctrine drew a sustained attack from Arnauld, who held that divine providence requires God to will every particularity of creation. The consequence for consciousness is direct and easily missed. The reason the pairing of brain state with experience is lawlike rather than ad hoc—the very feature that makes Malebranche a precursor of psychophysical law—is a claim about the divine nature. Take away the theology and there is no reason the correlations should be regular at all, since nothing in the occasionalist machinery by itself forbids God from producing a different sensation on each occasion. Why Bodies Cannot Cause Sensation Occasionalism is not a patch applied afterward to a mind-body difficulty; it is Malebranche's answer to where sensations come from, and it is independently motivated. Nadler (2011) shows that the doctrine was a full account of causal relations rather than an ad hoc response to Descartes's legacy. Two arguments carry it. First, no necessary connection can be discerned between any motion of the nerve fibers and any sensation; we cannot conceive how the one issues in the other. Second, a true cause must know how to produce its effect and will it—and no finite mind knows how to produce a sensation of red in itself, so no finite mind produces one. What God does instead is legislate. Acting by general volitions rather than case by case, He establishes constant laws of the union of soul and body—and the consequence for phenomenal consciousness is subtle but precise. The relation between brain state and experience becomes law-based and fixed rather than generative and productive. There is strict, predictable regularity, and there is no mechanism beneath it. Malebranche is the first philosopher to make the psychophysical correlation a matter of brute law rather than of hidden machinery awaiting discovery. How Divine Causation Structures Experience Occasionalism supplies the causal framework within which phenomenal consciousness occurs. The denial of created causal power is completely general: bodies cannot alter minds, minds cannot move bodies, and one body does not, strictly speaking, possess an intrinsic power to move another (Malebranche, 1688/1997; Nadler, 2011). What matters here is what follows for experience. Accordingly, when light affects the eyes and produces bodily or neural changes, these physical processes do not themselves generate the conscious experience of color. They constitute the occasion on which God produces the appropriate phenomenal modification in the soul. Tissue injury likewise does not itself manufacture pain; the bodily disturbance occasions God’s production of painful consciousness. Conversely, when a person wills to move an arm, the volition does not exert causal force upon matter; it occasions the corresponding bodily change produced by God. Phenomenal consciousness is therefore embedded in a law-governed psychophysical system involving three conceptually distinct elements: the bodily event, the experienced mental modification, and the divine causal agency that connects them. Malebranche’s occasionalism is not merely appended to his theory of mind; it is his answer to how phenomenal states become systematically coordinated with an embodied organism while remaining ontologically nonphysical. This produces an important historical anticipation of the contemporary explanatory problem. Physical descriptions may specify the bodily circumstances correlated with an experience, yet such descriptions do not by themselves explain why those circumstances should be accompanied by redness rather than blueness, pain rather than pleasure, or any experience at all. Malebranche fills that explanatory gap with divine causal action. The answer is unacceptable as a contemporary scientific mechanism because divine causation is neither independently measurable nor experimentally discriminable, but the distinction he draws between physical correlation and the production of phenomenal character remains philosophically probative in contemporary consciousness studies. Sensory Qualities, Natural Judgments, and the Experienced World Malebranche develops an especially sharp distinction between the physical world and the world as phenomenally presented. Material objects possess extension, figure, motion, and mechanically describable relations, but colors, sounds, tastes, smells, warmth, pleasure, and pain are modifications of perceiving souls. The greenness experienced when looking at grass is therefore not literally instantiated in the grass in the form in which it appears within consciousness (Malebranche, 1674–75/1997). Nevertheless, perception normally presents sensible qualities as located in external things. Malebranche explains this through “natural judgments”—automatic, non-deliberative operations built into sensory perception. We experience the color as belonging to the object, distance as objectively structured before us, and bodily sensations as located in particular parts of the organism, even though the phenomenal modifications themselves exist in the soul. These judgments are primarily adaptive rather than metaphysically revelatory: sensation exists to guide an embodied creature toward what preserves it and away from what harms it, not to disclose the intrinsic constitution of matter (Chamberlain, 2026). Occasionalism again becomes integral. The stability of the perceived sensory world depends on God’s maintaining regular relations between bodily occasions and phenomenal responses. The organism encounters a structured physical environment; bodily states occur according to natural laws; and God produces systematically corresponding sensory modifications. What humans experience as a coherent world of colored, sounding, painful, pleasurable objects is therefore a divinely coordinated psychophysical presentation rather than either a literal copy of matter or an autonomous construction caused by the body alone. This allows Malebranche to preserve both the reality of phenomenal qualities and the mathematical-mechanical conception of nature. Experienced redness is real as consciousness, even though redness is not a physical property of matter as physics describes matter. Vision in God and the Intentional Structure of Experience Malebranche’s famous doctrine of Vision in God adds a second dimension to perception that must be distinguished from phenomenal consciousness itself. Ideas, in his technical sense, are not identical with privately experienced colors, pains, or sounds. They are intelligible representations through which finite intellects apprehend the objective nature of bodies, paradigmatically through “intelligible extension.” These ideas exist in or through the divine intellect rather than as ordinary psychological modifications contained within finite minds (Jolley, 1990; Pessin, 2006). Sensory perception therefore combines at least two theoretically distinguishable components: intelligible or representational structure and phenomenal modification. The idea of extension makes spatial and geometrical features cognitively available; sensations contribute the qualitative character through which the world is experienced. Malebranche can consequently distinguish, in an unusually explicit early-modern form, between what a perception represents and what undergoing that perception feels like. His later doctrine of “efficacious ideas” brings Vision in God still closer to occasionalism. Divine ideas are not merely passive objects contemplated by finite intellects but participate in God’s production of perceptions in created minds (Nolan, 2012). The resulting architecture is tightly integrated: God provides the intelligible structures through which bodies are represented, establishes the laws coordinating bodily and mental events, and produces the phenomenal modifications corresponding to bodily occasions. Yet Vision in God should not be confused with a doctrine of universal phenomenal consciousness. Human colors, pains, and pleasures remain modifications of individual finite souls. Malebranche is not claiming that a person’s experience is literally an episode within God’s own phenomenal field. Vision in God is likewise argued from the divine nature outward rather than from perception inward. Malebranche's case rests on the premise that ideas of all created beings must exist in God, since otherwise He could not have created them, together with the Augustinian conviction that God is the place of spirits as space is the place of bodies—so that the mind's union with God is more intimate and more fundamental than its union with its own body. He is careful to add that we do not see God as He is in Himself, since the divine essence is perfectly simple; we see it only as relative to creatures and to the degree that finite minds can participate in it. The doctrine belongs to a tradition, running from Augustine, in which knowledge of eternal truths is participation in divine illumination. Malebranche's distinction between representational content and phenomenal quality—the contribution for which contemporary readers value him most—thus falls out of a theological claim about where ideas are located, not from any independent analysis of perception. Assessment and Contribution Malebranche’s most important contribution to the genealogy of consciousness emerges from the conjunction of several doctrines rather than from occasionalism considered in isolation. Phenomenal states are immediately known from the first-person perspective; their qualitative properties differ from the mechanical properties of material objects; bodily processes systematically correspond to those experiences without directly causing them; intentional representation and phenomenal character are theoretically distinguishable; and introspective certainty does not reveal the underlying nature of the conscious subject. All remain relevant today. Occasionalism is central because it forces Malebranche to formulate the psychophysical relation explicitly. But it does not itself solve the deeper phenomenal problem. Saying that God produces pain on the occasion of a bodily injury relocates the question of causal efficacy without explaining why the divinely produced state possesses precisely that qualitative character. In that sense, Malebranche makes the explanatory structure unusually visible: one can specify the physical occasion, posit a causal bridge, and still ask why the resulting state feels as it does. His theory is therefore considerably more important to the modern consciousness problem than the label “occasionalism” alone superficially suggests. Descartes establishes the certainty of conscious thought and the ontological distinction between mind and body; Malebranche retains that dualism while denying direct interaction, assigning sensible qualities decisively to the experiencing soul, distinguishing phenomenal character from intelligible representation, and weakening the Cartesian assumption that consciousness makes the mind transparent to itself. His system consequently anticipates enduring debates about psychophysical causation, qualia, representational content, embodiment, introspective limits, and the explanatory gap between physical processes and subjective experience. Moreover, while occasionalism is easily dismissed, even ridiculed, by current sensibilities, it can also be seen as a progenitor of a kind of higher-order psychophysical law that some contemporary theories of consciousness call for. References Chamberlain, C. (2026). The senses and sensation. In C. Chamberlain, E. Stencil, and J. Walsh (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Malebranche. Oxford University Press. Jolley, N. (1990). The Light of the Soul: Theories of Ideas in Leibniz, Malebranche, and Descartes. Oxford: Clarendon Press. LoLordo, A. (2005). Descartes and Malebranche on thought, sensation and the nature of mind. Journal of the History of Philosophy, 43(4), 387–402. Malebranche, N. (1674–75/1997). The Search After Truth (T. M. Lennon and P. J. Olscamp, Trans.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Malebranche, N. (1680/1992). Treatise on Nature and Grace (P. Riley, Trans.). Oxford: Clarendon Press. Malebranche, N. (1688/1997). Dialogues on Metaphysics and on Religion (N. Jolley and D. Scott, Trans.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Nadler, S. (2011). Occasionalism: Causation Among the Cartesians. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Nolan, L. (2012). Malebranche on sensory cognition and “seeing as.” Journal of the History of Philosophy, 50(1), 21–52. Nolan, L., and Whipple, J. (2005). Self-knowledge in Descartes and Malebranche. Journal of the History of Philosophy, 43(1), 55–81. Pessin, A. (2006). Malebranche’s “Vision in God.” Philosophy Compass, 1(1), 36–47. Schmaltz, T. M. (1996). Malebranche’s Theory of the Soul: A Cartesian Interpretation. New York: Oxford University Press.

---

## Bergson’s Multiplicity, Duration, Perception, Memory
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/bergson-s-multiplicity-duration-perception-memory
Theorists: Henri-Louis Bergson

Late 19th/early 20th-century philosopher Henri Bergson's non-reductive consciousness is an unapologetic, sophisticated challenge to Materialism Theories. Bergson distinguishes between consciousness and matter, between mind and body, according to the distinction between “time” (understood as “duration”) and “space”. In consciousness, he says, “we find succeeding states without distinction; and, in space, simultaneities which, without succeeding, are distinguished, in the sense that one is no longer there when the other one appears. Outside of us, reciprocal exteriority without succession: within, succession without reciprocal exteriority.” (Bergson, 1889; Pascal, 2023). Multiplicity, Duration, and Perception Bergson's consciousness, which “retains the past and anticipates the future,” is not easy to categorize. It is the complex centerpiece of his grand philosophical system, and is founded upon several original concepts: multiplicity (heterogeneity and continuity, the immediate data of consciousness); duration (no juxtaposition of events, no mechanistic causality, a qualitative multiplicity); perception (active, non-representational); memory (pure, personal)—each from Bergson's idiosyncratic perspective (Lawlor and Moulard-Leonard, 2021). Bergson self-characterizes his own view as “frankly dualist,” because it “affirms both the reality of matter and the reality of spirit,” though he recognizes (and thinks he can overcome) “the theoretical difficulties which have always beset dualism.” For Bergson, the problem of the distinction and union of mind and body as it was formulated in the wake of Descartes is one of many “false problems” promulgated by philosophers. The starting point of this “false problem” is the confusion of time with space. In Time and Free Will, Bergson argues that “real time” is “duration”, understood as the pure, melodic continuity of the past into the future, indivisible and resisting all spatial or material categorization. The time of the clock, or the time of mechanics, is incapable of presenting us with this time “in itself”, and is instead the result of confusing duration with spatiality. The human mind is essentially duration: it is impossible to pause, quantify, or divide consciousness in the way that we can divide and group the things of space. If we restore duration to the mind, Bergson argues, then we are capable of understanding that consciousness is something “other” than the body, while nevertheless recognizing that body and mind exist on a mutually interactive continuum. In Matter and Memory, Bergson argues that memory is the key to what is now called the “hard problem of consciousness”, insofar as memory is simply, in his words, “the intersection of mind and matter” (Bergson 1889, 13). He rejects the representational theory of perception, which claims that “matter is a thing that possesses a hidden power able to produce representations in us." Instead, he argues that, in “pure perception”, we actively seize the immediate reality of matter. Bergson's theory of “pure perception” posits that how we know things, in their pure states, is imagistic in nature, thus establishing a middle ground between realism and idealism (Lawlor and Moulard-Leonard, 2021). Memory and the Role of the Brain For Bergson, memory is the heart of consciousness, and the key to solving its mystery. Human consciousness is comprised, in large part, of its memory of the past, both in its explicit recollections or memory–images, and in its implicit preservation of the past in the form of an unconscious and latent persistence (what Bergson calls “pure memory”). He describes the human mind as “a continuous movement between pure perception and pure memory”, or between the “plane of action” (body, matter, the present) and “the plane of dream” (mind, memory, the past). Bergson criticizes the simplistic materialism that had become prevalent in his day, and likewise anticipates the wholesale mind–brain reductionism that would come to dominate philosophy and neuroscience in the twentieth century. Through a careful analysis and interpretation of neurobiological evidence, he argues that the brain cannot be said to “generate”, “store”, or “reconstruct” experience, and that it is owing to a deep conceptual confusion that memories have been declared to be contained physically inside the brain. Instead, he writes: “The brain does not perceive: it transmits perception (pure or not) from the organ of perception to consciousness (sensory mechanism) and, conversely, it transmits the nascent order of action from consciousness to the appropriate motor organ to act in response to perception (motor mechanism) (Bergson, 1896, 1990; Pascal, 2023). Bergson recognizes that consciousness and the brain are undeniably related in a certain measure and certain manner, but he is clear that it does not follow necessarily from this observation that the mind can be said to be “contained in” or “reducible to” the brain. The brain, for Bergson, is not the generator or container of consciousness, but a “filter” of consciousness, because unfiltered consciousness would be shattering and stupefying. Our capacity to focus and act in the world is enabled by our brain, which acts as a kind of barrier between the present and the past (Bergson, 1920). Bergson's notion of consciousness is “a ceaselessly dynamic, inherently temporal substance of reality” that might even allow for some sort of survival after death (Barnard, 2011). Is Bergson a kind of dualist, panpsychist or even idealist? Bergson admits that he is a dualist, although his dualism is different from the traditional formula of “substance dualism”. His dualism is more one of a “dualism of time”, or “dualism of duration”, rather than a dualism of categorically distinct “substances” or “things”. Matter and mind, body and soul, have different ways of existing in time: matter is the tendency towards repetition, instantaneity, and dispersion, while consciousness is the tendency towards duration, memory, and freedom. On more than one occasion, Bergson denies the accusation of pantheism or panpsychism. Lastly, it is difficult to group Bergson among idealists, insofar as he often establishes Plato as his philosophical enemy. He is perhaps best categorized among the French “spiritualists”, following in the footsteps of thinkers such as Maine de Biran and Félix Ravaisson. Contemporary Reflections on Bergson According to Àlex Gómez-Marín, "The essential debate about the precise relationship between thoughts and brains (solidarity versus equivalence, participation versus interaction, etc.) has faded. But one can revisit Henri Bergson to find a lucid dose of common sense: ‘That there is a close connection between a state of consciousness and the brain we do not dispute. But there is also a close connection between a coat and the nail on which it hangs, for, if the nail is pulled out, the coat falls to the ground. Shall we say, then, that the shape of the nail gives us the shape of the coat, or in any way corresponds to it?’ What do brain data really show? The edifice of twenty-first-century consciousness neuroscience stands on the foundations of the following candid empirical fact: ‘change the brain, experience changes.’ The hard problem of wardrobes is to explain why and how hangers give rise to clothes” (Gómez-Marín, 2022). Moreover, Gómez-Marín and Juan Arnau retrieve an argument by Bergson to expose, what they call “the fundamental self-contradiction of parallelism: it forces the idealist to sustain that ‘the part is the whole’, and the realist that ‘the part subsists when the remainder of the whole vanishes.’” Bergson's image-movement theory (from Matter and Memory) is then recast “to overcome the conceptual dead-end of parallelism”—the point being that “Consciousness is real. So is its special relation to the brain. Differentiating between solidarity (as lesions demonstrate) and equivalence (as no data does) offers an alternative point of departure for an understanding of consciousness that does not, from the outset, outlay a false problem” (Gómez-Marín and Arnau, 2019).

---

## Property Dualism
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/property-dualism
Theorists: Several

Property Dualism is the idea that while there is only one kind of substance in the world, physical substance, there are two kinds of properties, mental and physical properties, such that mental properties cannot be reduced to or explained by physical properties alone, even though both kinds of properties are generated by the same physical thing, namely brains. More specifically, property dualism maintains that human persons are entirely physical objects, composed wholly by the constituents of fundamental physics and subject only to the laws of physics, but also they have, at the same time and equally inherent, non-physical properties or aspects, namely mental properties or aspects (thoughts, concepts, ideas) that are not reducible to, and not explainable by, the properties of fundamental physics (and its special science derivatives)—even though all of property dualism's properties must come from those constituents of fundamental physics. Simply, human persons would have nonphysical properties but no nonphysical parts. According to Dean Zimmerman (following Chalmers), property dualism means that, “For at least some mental states, it is not possible to define, in terms of microphysical properties alone, a physical property common to all individuals in that mental state, and only to them.” Property dualism, then, would be the failure of supervenience, which states that “among all the possible individuals in all the possible worlds, there is no pair with all the same microphysical properties but different mental properties” (Zimmerman, 2005). Core Model and Supervenience Zimmerman applies property dualism to two famous questions in philosophy of mind: “It seems easy to imagine physically indiscernible zombies (animate human bodies with no consciousness) or people whose spectrum of color experiences is the reverse of one's own. If genuinely possible, these scenarios show that the mental does not supervene upon the physical” (Zimmerman, 2005). But in a wholly physical world, how could the mental not supervene upon the physical? How could different mental states arise from precisely the same microphysical states (down to the most fundamental physics)? If mental states can so arise, mustn't something be missing, or arbitrary, in the physical world? If mental states cannot so arise, what then of property dualism? To oversimplify, property dualism is dualistic only in its deep epistemology, not in its deep ontology, which remains entirely materialistic—consciousness remains wholly the product of brain function. Under property dualism, the mind still comes entirely from the brain, without residue. When super-advanced neuroscience accounts for all that can be known about the brain—though obviously it would be fiendishly complex—will there be nothing left over to explain about the mind? Yet, property dualism has some mental properties as irreducible, a move that perhaps helps blunt attacks on materialist theories of consciousness. But what does this really mean? How irreducible? Irreducible in practice, for sure. But irreducible in principle? What would an absolute complete science, from fundamental physics to neuroscience, not capture? It is instructive to compare and contrast Property Dualism and Non-Reductive Physicalism. Both views are similar in their aim to explain the nature of consciousness in a world/universe/reality of only physical substances—there is only one kind of substance, the physical—but, in both views, crucially, mental states are not reducible to purely physical processes. That’s the similarity. The two views differ, perhaps significantly, in how they conceive the relationship between the mental and the physical—which impacts not only the deep nature of consciousness, but also the deep nature of all reality. Comparison with Non-Reductive Physicalism Under Property Dualism, there are two kinds of properties in the world/universe/reality: physical properties and non-physical (mental) properties. Everything (including brains) is made of physical substance but mental properties (qualia, consciousness) are not reducible to or fully explainable by physical properties. Even if you know all the physical facts about brain activity, you wouldn’t know what it’s like to smell garlic cooking in olive oil unless you experience it—because the property of ‘garlic-smell’ as experienced is not physical. In other words, mental properties are fundamentally distinct from physical properties, though they may arise from physical systems. Consciousness has unique ontological status. Under Non-Reductive Physicalism, all substances and properties in the world/universe/reality are physical in nature, but mental properties are not reducible to lower-level physical explanations (like neurons or molecules). This means that while the physical gives rise to higher-level properties—mental states—that cannot be explained away by the lower-level properties. The mind emerges from brain processes, and while we can’t reduce beliefs and desires to neuronal impulses, they are still nothing over and above physical processes. In other words, mental properties are dependent on, caused by, and realized by physical states, but they are described at a different explanatory level. Emergence is key. It would seem easy to blur, or admix, Property Dualism and Non-Reductive Physicalism in that both recognize real mental states and yet only one kind of substance (physical, material substance)—but each makes a very different fundamental claim. To reiterate, Property Dualism relies on consciousness having special ontological status, while Non-Reductive Physicalism relies on the powers of physical emergence. Critiques and Evaluations Philosopher Ralph Weir evaluates the common preference in philosophy of mind for varieties of property dualism over other alternatives to physicalism and certainly over substance dualism. He argues that the standard motivations for property dualism “lead directly to nonphysical substances resembling the soul of traditional metaphysics.” Using the conceivability of modal arguments for zombies and ghosts and critiquing Russellian monist forms of property dualism, he concludes that “if you posit nonphysical properties in response to the mind-body problem, then you should be prepared to posit nonphysical substances as well” (Weir, 2023). Property dualism is the first subcategory under dualism because it is the most materialistic, the least dualistic, of the bunch. While I appreciate its important role in the development of philosophy of mind, I must admit that I've never had it near top-of-list in the marketplace of fundamental theories. Philosopher Peter van Inwagen muses that “‘property dualism’ is a very odd name to give it.” His argument clarifies the essence of dualism itself. “If there are non-physical substances, then physical and non-physical substances (a cat and an angel, for example) are clean different kinds of thing. Although they are both substances right enough, the division of the category ‘substance’ into the sub-categories ‘physical’ and ‘non-physical’ is an ontologically significant division. We call Descartes and Plato dualists because they think there are substances in both sub-categories. I would suppose that ‘property dualists’ call themselves dualists because they think that the division of properties into physical and non-physical properties is an ontologically significant division of the category ‘property’, a division as significant as the physical/non-physical division of the category ‘substance’. If this is so, I think that the self-chosen description ‘property dualist’ indicates a metaphysical confusion in the way property dualists conceive of properties” (Van Inwagen, 2007b). According to philosopher-humanist Raymond Tallis, “Property dualism, as embraced by many neurophilosophers, does not therefore seem fundamentally different from materialism. Mind seems to have lost its status as the ontological equal of matter, applying equal traction to the order of things. Matter is everywhere – it seems to be the default mode of being. Mind, by contrast, is localised, existing only in minute stretches of the material world, courtesy of the behaviour of certain portions of matter. As such, it is not matter’s equal. What is more, its late emergence, such that some matter woke up to itself long after the beginning of the universe, seems to lack explanation…. The relative attractiveness of property dualism may be explained by the sense that properties are less divorced from one another than are different substances. However, it raises, and fails to address, the entirely reasonable question: “Properties of what?” And if the properties are deemed close enough to be housed in the same place, this will not do justice to the depth of the difference between matter and mind – between moving ions and the thought that Paris is the capital of France.” Nonetheless, unlike much-disparaged substance dualism, property dualism remains a respectable position within philosophy of mind (Zimmerman, 2005).

---

## Epiphenomenalism (Dualism)
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/epiphenomenalism-dualism
Theorists: Several

Epiphenomenalism is considered a kind of dualism—specifically a type of property dualism—because it maintains a fundamental ontological distinction between mental and physical properties. Both epiphenomenalism and dualism hold that mental phenomena are not reducible to physical processes—because conscious experiences (qualia—e.g., the “redness” of red or the feeling of pain) are non-physical in nature. This sets epiphenomenalism apart from materialist or physicalist theories (like Identity Theory), which claim that mental states are just physical brain states. Thus, epiphenomenalism is a dualist view in that it affirms that there are at least two kinds of properties in the world: mental and physical. Epiphenomenalism posits that mental properties—consciousness and qualia—are non-physical, irreducible to brain processes, and yet caused by them. Definition and Distinctions Epiphenomenalism is similar to Property Dualism and Non-Reductive Physicalism in that there is only one kind of substance, material/physical substance, and all mental states or properties are caused by physical processes, but epiphenomenalism differs from property dualism and non-reductive physicalism in that epiphenomenalism‘s mental states do not cause anything in return. According to David Chalmers, “Epiphenomenalism is a version of property dualism, and like all versions of property dualism, it holds that mental properties are distinct from, and not reducible to, physical properties” (Chalmers, 1996). History and Critiques Epiphenomenalism emerged from dualism as scientific advances made it harder to defend substance dualism with full mind-body interaction, due to the lack of observable causal effects of mental phenomena on the physical world. Epiphenomenalism seemed to be a kind of compromise: Keep the idea that conscious experience is non-physical. But concede that it doesn’t affect physical processes—i.e., it’s just a byproduct. Thomas Henry Huxley famously compared consciousness to the steam whistle on a locomotive: “The steam-whistle which accompanies the work of a locomotive engine is without influence upon its machinery.” Even though epiphenomenalism denies mental-to-physical causation, and does not allow substances other than material/physical ones, it still counts as a kind of dualism, because it affirms the existence of non-physical mental properties and their distinction from physical properties. This is sufficient for it to qualify as a kind of dualism, because dualism is about ontology (what kinds of things/properties exist), not necessarily about causation. Epiphenomenalism is also classified under Materialism, because it takes only the physical to be real, only the material brain generates consciousness.

---

## Swinburne’s Substance Dualism
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/swinburne-s-substance-dualism
Theorists: Richard Swinburne

Christian philosopher Richard Swinburne is a leading advocate of substance dualism (Swinburne, 2013). "If you want to tell the whole story of the world, you must say what objects there are in the world, what substances there are, and what properties they have at different times," Swinburne said on Closer to Truth. "Of course, that will include all the physical objects, all the tables and chairs and planets and atoms. But, of course, that won't tell the whole story. You will also have to tell the story of conscious life, which is associated with each body." Swinburne asserts that in order to tell "the whole story of the world," one must "pick out subjects of experience—not just by the experiences they have, not just by the physical bodies with which they are associated" but also with "separate mental entities for which the natural word is 'soul' … If you can't bring 'soul' into the account of the world, you will not tell the whole story of the world, because you will not tell who has which conscious life" (Swinburne, 2007; Swinburne, 2006). Soul and the Whole Story "If the only things were physical objects, including bodies and brains, we would not be able to distinguish a case where you have the body which is presently yours and I have the body which is presently mine, from the case where you have the body which is presently mine and I have the body which is presently yours," he adds. "If physical properties and mental properties were just properties of bodies there would be no difference between these cases; " but because there are obvious differences between "you" and "me," Swinburne claims that "there must be another essential part of me which goes where I go, and this we can call my 'soul.'" Truths about persons, Swinburne stresses, are not truths about brains or bodies (Swinburne, 2007). Personal Identity and Independence from Theology Swinburne's argument for the existence of a soul—that "souls constitute personal identity and the continued existence of me will consist in the continued existence of my soul"—"is quite apart from what might happen in the world to come." Moreover, Swinburne's arguments for the reality of a nonphysical soul do not depend, he says, on theological revelation or his own religious convictions (Swinburne, 2016; Kuhn 2016b).

---

## Composite Dualism
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/composite-dualism
Theorists: Richard Swinburne

Modern dualism in philosophy of mind begins with Descartes who famously divides the world between the physical and the mental. He was motivated by the obvious distinction that the mind has thought but no extension while the body has extension but no thought. Yet body and mind both seem needed to have a human person. Composite dualists require both body and mind to constitute a person, where “body” generally denotes brain and “mind” generally denotes soul. There are of course variations and problems (Zimmerman, 2005). A key question is whether the nonphysical part, the soul, has mental states independent from the body/brain? To most dualists, both historical and contemporary, the soul does indeed. Definition and Key Questions As to the relationship between the body and the soul, philosopher Richard Swinburne is ambivalent. "Maybe, of course, a soul can't function on its own," he said. "Maybe it can only function when associated with a body. In that case, my continued existence would consist in it being joined to a body again, perhaps an entirely new body. I think a soul could exist on its own, but not a great deal turns on that." A body is required, Swinburne said, because "for us to interact with others, to recognize others, we need different public characteristics” (Swinburne, 2016; Kuhn, 2016b). Swinburne on the Nature of the Soul I asked Swinburne to speculate on the essence or composition of such a soul. Is it a differentiated substance? What's to prevent your soul from getting mixed up with my soul? "The difference between souls is ultimate, unanalyzable by anything else," Swinburne responded. "A soul has no extension. It is an 'immaterial particular', to use an old-fashioned philosophical term. It does, of course, have characteristics, properties. It has thoughts, feelings, attitudes, and so on. But the way we distinguish in practice between souls is in terms of the bodies with which they are associated because the difference between your soul and my soul, being ultimate, does not consist in their relations to our respective bodies. There is of course nothing paradoxical about the difference between souls being unanalyzable, because some differences must be ultimate; if you can analyze 'a' by 'b' and 'b' by 'c' and so on, you eventually get to things which you can't analyze, and the differences between human souls in my view are one of those things. This is why the only way souls can have a public presence is through their attachment to bodies” (Swinburne, 2007, 2016).

---

## Stump’s Thomistic Dualism
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/stump-s-thomistic-dualism
Theorists: Eleonore Stump

The influential Christian scholastic philosopher St. Thomas Aquinas gives an account of the soul that is non-Cartesian in character, according to Catholic philosopher Eleonore Stump, who has Aquinas taking the soul to be something essentially immaterial or configurational but nonetheless realized in material components. This suggests, she argues, not only that Cartesian dualism isn't essential to Christianity but also that the battle lines between dualism and materialism are misdrawn (Stump, 1995). Stump recognizes that because Cartesian dualism is widely regarded (among philosophers) as false, and because “it is also the case that the major monotheisms have traditionally been committed to dualism of a Cartesian sort, then in the view of many philosophers the apparent or putative falsity of Cartesian dualism becomes an embarrassment for those religions.” In building his alternative to a Cartesian sort of dualism (in historical context, to Plato's account of the soul), Aquinas is guided by “two complex, culturally conditioned sets of intuitions,” each of which relates to a biblical passage. The first is "dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return" (Gen. 3:19), conveying that a human being is a material object, “made out of the same sort of constituents as the earth is,” and the second is "Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was, and the spirit shall return to God who gave it" (Eccles. 12:7), conveying that a human person survives death, “because her spirit or soul continues to exist after the dissolution of her body.” Stump has Aquinas accommodating both sets of intuitions with his account of the human soul (Stump, 1995). Aquinas’s Alternative to Cartesian Dualism Famously, Aquinas takes the soul to be the form of the body, but, as Stump points out, “the soul not only is the form that makes this matter a living human body but also is the form that makes the matter this human being.” And when, after death, all that is left of a human being is the soul, “individuality persists on Aquinas's account.” Form, Soul, and Post-Mortem Existence “Soul” is a larger category for Aquinas, his generic term for the substantial forms of all material objects that are living. Plants have souls, not in the human sense, but in that they enable “a configuration of matter which allows for nutrition, growth, reproduction.” Animals, too, have souls, since they, too, are living things; but the configuration of their matter also allows them perception. The forms that constitute human beings allow a more distinctive set of capacities, namely, intellective processes. Aquinas tends to call the human soul “the intellective soul” or “the rational soul”. Aquinas's soul is created directly by God and infused into matter. The soul is the act of the body, “because it is in virtue of the soul that something is actually a living human body.” Moreover, because the soul is the form of the body, it has a spatial location; while the body is alive, the soul is located where the body is. As for the post-mortem, disembodied soul, while it does persist, it is not the complete human being who was the composite but only a part of that human being. A separated soul does exist on its own after death, but it nonetheless isn't a substance in its own right. Disembodied existence isn't natural to the soul. Stump sums up: “The soul is an essentially configurational state which is immaterial and subsistent, able to exist on its own apart from the body. On the other hand, the soul is the form that makes the living human body what it is. While it is possible with divine help for the soul to exist and exercise cognitive function on its own, apart from the body, that state is unnatural to it. In the natural condition, human cognitive functions are to be attributed to the whole composite and not to the soul alone, although the composite exercises cognitive functions by means of the soul.” In Stump's view, the real lesson of Aquinas's account of the soul is to show that the dichotomy between materialism and dualism is misleading (Stump, 1995).

---

## Feser’s Neo-Thomistic, Neo-Aristotelian, Common-Sense Dualism
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/feser-s-neo-thomistic-neo-aristotelian-common-sense-dualism
Theorists: Edward Feser

Catholic philosopher Edward Feser's account of consciousness combines a neo-Thomistic view that some mental faculties are immaterial and a neo-Aristotelian view that we perceive the world actually as it appears to be (i.e., direct realism, such that color and sound are properties of external objects as real as size and shape) (Section: Feser, 2012a; 2012b; 2012c; 2022a; 2022b). As Feser explains, Aristotelians and Thomists use the term “intellect” as that faculty by which we grasp abstract concepts, make judgments and reason logically. Intellect is to be distinguished from “imagination,” the faculty by which we form mental images (visual, auditory, etc.), and from sensation, the faculty by which we perceive the external material world and the internal world of the body. Feser argues that the irreducibility of intellect to imagination and sensation is undeniable (e.g., the intellect's concepts are universals while mental images and sensations are particulars). He also argues that “the reason why intellectual activity cannot in principle be reduced to sensation or imagination is, as it happens, related to the reason why intellectual activity cannot in principle be reduced to, or entirely supervenient upon, or in any other way explicable in terms of material processes of any sort” (Feser, 2012a). To explain intellectual activity entirely in terms of material processes, Feser says, is to inevitably deny the existence of some essential aspect of the intellectual activity. If you identify thought with material processes, you are necessarily committed to denying, implicitly or explicitly, that our thoughts really ever have any determinate or unambiguous content. According to Feser, some materialists have seen this, including Quine and Dennett, and decided “to bite the bullet and accept that the content of all thought and language is inherently indeterminate.” Feser asserts that such claims are indefensible because it would contradict making sense of mathematics and logic, and hence of empirical science, all of which presupposes that we have determinate concepts. “Anyone who thinks that thought can even in principle be entirely material,” he says, “hasn't thought carefully enough about the nature of thought” (Feser, 2012a). Intellect and the Limits of Materialism But Feser's dualism is not Descartes's dualism, which makes assumptions about the nature of matter as much as or more than assumptions about the nature of mind, and thus is responsible, in part, for generating the mind-body problem. The key point, Feser says, is that by characterizing matter in purely quantitative, mathematical terms, Descartes left no place in it for qualitative features like color, odor, taste, sound, smell, heat and cold as common sense understands them. Accordingly, he treated these qualitative features—as Galileo before him and countless others after him did—as entirely mind-dependent, existing only in our conscious experience of the world but not in the world itself (Feser, 2012b). This means that if these qualitative features as common sense understands them exist only in the mind and not in the material world, it follows that these features cannot themselves be material. A kind of dualism follows, Feser claims, precisely from the materialist conception of matter. The so-called “qualia problem” that contemporary philosophers of mind fret over, he argues, “is the inevitable result of the conception of matter to which modern scientists in their philosophical moments have wedded themselves” (Feser, 2012b). In Feser's reading, Descartes and other moderns had an austere concept of nature as inherently devoid of the qualitative features we know from conscious experience (e.g., color, sound, heat, cold) as well as of meaning or purpose of any kind. Thus, they conceived of the human mind as an immaterial substance that somehow interacts with those parts of the natural world we call human bodies and brains. This spawns Descartes's novel form of dualism, which is notoriously problematic (i.e., the interaction problem) such that modern materialists throw out Descartes's immaterial substance while holding on to his view of the material world. (But their own position, Feser adds, is even more problematic, since it leaves them with no place at all to locate qualitative features or meaning.) (Feser, 2012c). Moreover, because Descartes took the human body as just one entirely mathematically definable bit of the material world among others, entirely devoid of qualitative features, and took all consciousness to reside in the res cogitans, which he regarded as immaterial, Descartes's position implies that sensation and imagination are immaterial. Hence if sensation and imagination turn out to be material after all, it is understandable how some would infer that all operations of the res cogitans, all mental activity, might be susceptible to materialist explanation as well (Feser, 2012b). But, Feser argues, the Aristotelian tradition has always regarded sensation and imagination as corporeal faculties, and as having nothing essentially to do with the reasons why our distinctively intellectual activities are incorporeal, in that strictly intellectual activity on the one hand and sensation and imagination on the other, differ in kind, not merely in degree, so that to establish the corporeal nature of the latter is irrelevant to the question of whether the former is corporeal. Qualities, Common Sense, and the Hard Problem Aristotle and the Scholastic tradition that built on his thought took the common-sense view that the natural world is filled with irreducibly different kinds of objects and qualities: people; dogs and cats; trees and flowers; rocks, dirt, and water; colors, odors, sounds; heat and cold; meanings and purposes (Feser, 2012c). The founders of modern philosophy and science overthrew Aristotelianism, and, on Feser's view, common sense along with it. On the new view of nature inaugurated by Galileo and Descartes, the material world is comprised of nothing more than colorless, odorless, soundless, meaningless, purposeless particles in motion, describable in purely mathematical terms. The differences between dirt, water, rocks, trees, dogs, cats, and human bodies are on this view superficial. Common sense, Feser says, takes ordinary physical objects to have both (a) size, shape, motion, etc. and (b) color, sound, heat, cold, etc. Early modern philosophers and scientists characterized features of type (a) as “primary qualities” and features of type (b) as “secondary qualities,” and they argued that the latter are not genuine features of matter as it is in itself, but reflect only the way conscious awareness presents matter to us. What exists in mind-independent reality is nothing more than particles in motion. Color, sound, taste, odor, etc. exist only in the mind's experiences of that reality (Feser, 2022a). But, Feser argues, to draw a sharp distinction between primary and secondary qualities is much more difficult than it at first appears. The Aristotelian philosopher who defends common sense would say that this is a good reason to think that secondary qualities are, after all, as objective as primary qualities. The more common approach, however, was to try to make some version of the primary/secondary quality distinction work, which made a Cartesian sort of dualism an inevitable consequence of the primary/secondary quality distinction. For if color, sound, heat, cold, etc. as common sense understands them don't exist in matter, then they don't exist in the brain or the rest of the body (since those are material). And if they do nevertheless exist in the mind, then we have the dualist conclusion that the mind is not identical with the brain or with any other material thing. Feser claims that the very conception of matter that modern materialism has committed itself to is therefore radically incompatible with materialism. Attempting to develop a materialist account of consciousness while at the same time presupposing the conception of matter inherited from Galileo and Co. is like trying to square the circle. “It is a fool's errand,” Feser opines, “born of conceptual confusion and neglect of intellectual history” (Feser, 2022a). To Feser, the hard problem of consciousness is a pseudo-problem. It arises only if we follow Galileo and his successors in holding that color, odor, sound, heat, cold, and other “secondary qualities” do not really exist in matter in the way common sense supposes them to, but instead exist only in the mind (as the qualia of conscious experience) and are projected by us onto external reality. If you take this position, Feser says, you are stuck with a conception of matter that makes it impossible to regard consciousness as material. The solution, Feser offers, is simply not to go along with this assumption in the first place, but to return to the Aristotelian-Scholastic view the early moderns reacted against, and which is compatible with the commonsense view of matter. The so-called hard problem of consciousness then dissolves (Feser, 2022b). Feser highlights Gilbert Ryle's critical characterization of Descartes's dualism as the theory of the “ghost in the machine.” It is often supposed that modern philosophy and science after Descartes preserved his mechanical model of matter while getting rid of the “ghost” of the Cartesian mind. To Feser, the haunting problem is not the “ghost” but the mechanical model of matter (Feser, 2022b).

---

## Moreland’s Christian Soul
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/moreland-s-christian-soul
Theorists: J. P. Moreland

Christian philosopher J. P. Moreland defines a robust “generic substance dualism” as the view according to which “(i) there is a substantial soul (self, ego, I, substantial form) that is wholly immaterial; (ii) the soul is not identical to its physical body; and (iii) the soul is that which grounds personal identity for human persons” (Moreland, 2023). He defends a Thomistic-like dualism, taking the body to be an ensouled, spatially extended, physical structure, and the soul to be a substantial, unified reality that informs (gives form to) its body, animates it and makes it human. Thus, a body requires a soul to be a body, and this is why a body is of value. A body without a soul in it is just a corpse. In contrast to a body, a corpse is of little intrinsic value (Moreland, 2014). Similarly, a soul requires a body to be fully realized; for a soul to have a body is its natural state. By analogy, the soul is to the body like God is to space—it is fully “present” at each point within the body. Breaking the analogy, Moreland's soul and body relate to each other in an informing and cause-effect way (Moreland, 2014). Soul and Body Relationship Moreland argues that the unity of consciousness cannot be explained if a person is a brain, because a brain is just an aggregate of different physical (separable) parts. He accepts constituent realism regarding properties (and relations), according to which properties (and relations) are universals that, when exemplified (they need not exist), become constituents of the ordinary particulars that have them. Moreover, he asserts that whereas a physicalist may claim a unified awareness of one's visual field consists of combining several different physical parts of the brain each terminating a different wavelength, each of which is aware of only part (not the whole) of the complex view, “this cannot account for the single, unitary awareness of the entire visual field” (Moreland, 2018). Defending Substance Dualism Offering “a comprehensive defense of contemporary substance dualism,” Christian philosophers Brandon Rickabaugh and J.P. Moreland present arguments that they claim support substance dualism and defeat those that deny it. These include: introspection, self-awareness and intentionality; the fundamental unity of conscious beings (e.g., mereological essentialism and the diachronic endurance of the soul); and updated arguments from modality and libertarian freedom (e.g., problems of causal interaction, neuroscientific objections, and causal closure of the physical) (Rickabaugh and Moreland, 2023).

---

## Interactive Dualism
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/interactive-dualism
Theorists: Several

The primary problem of Dualism—many would say the defeater of Dualism—is how nonphysical substances could possibly interact with physical substances, especially given the common assumption that the physical world is a closed system. Also called the "pairing problem," after Kim's formulation of it (Kim, 2001, 2005), how could an immaterial thing, the mind, interact with a material thing, the body (or brain)? Notwithstanding our folk perception that the physical world affects my mind through my senses and my mind affects the physical world through my actions, most scientists and philosophers deny this is what is in fact happening. There would be no commonalities between physical and nonphysical substances, no means of exchange—the problem of mental causation on steroids. Moreover, if nonphysical substances could somehow affect and alter physical substances, wouldn't that require a transference of energy, and wouldn't such an addition violate the sacrosanct physical law of the conservation of energy? (Section: Robinson, 2023; Interactionism, 2023). The Interaction Problem The objection is as old as the position. Princess Elisabeth of Bohemia put it to Descartes in 1643, asking how an unextended thinking substance could determine the animal spirits to produce voluntary motion, and she pressed the point through several rounds against replies she found evasive (Shapiro, 2007). Kim has since argued that this is not merely a puzzle for dualists to solve but a demonstration that it cannot be solved: causation between distinct objects requires a shared space-like coordinate system that locates them relative to each other, souls are not in space, and therefore no soul causes anything (Kim, 2005). What makes this the pairing problem rather than a general worry is its precision. Even granting that a soul could move a body, nothing explains why soul A moves body A rather than body B, since whatever relation is supposed to pair them cannot be spatial. It is worth separating two objections that are often run together. Elisabeth's is a contact objection, resting on the pre-Newtonian assumption that causation requires touching. The conservation objection is different and later, originating with Leibniz in the 1690s and becoming the dominant form only in the late nineteenth century (Pitts, 2020). Advocates of Interactive Dualism can fairly reply that the first rests on archaic billiard-ball physics, where causation requires hard substances to be in physical contact. The second requires a different answer, and the serious literature is about that. Why Be an Interactionist at All Advocates of Interactive Dualism (not that there are many among scientists and philosophers) say they have resources. They reject the weak dualism of Epiphenomenalism where the physical affects the mental but the mental does not affect the physical. But rejecting epiphenomenalism is not merely a preference; Popper argued that it carries an evolutionary cost that its holders have not paid. If the physical world is causally closed, conscious experience can have no independent effect on behavior. A property with no behavioral effect cannot be selected for. Therefore, consciousness could not have evolved (Popper, 1978). Popper pressed this against Huxley's epiphenomenalism and then against the identity theory, on the ground that for identity theorists the order of ideas does no evolutionary work. The argument concerns phenomenal states directly, since it is the felt character of pleasure and pain that Popper takes to be doing the selecting. This is the positive case: not that interaction is unproblematic, but that its denial has a bill of its own. The argument is not decisive, and identity theorists reply that the mental order is selected precisely because it is the physical order under another description. But it explains why interactionism keeps returning despite the interaction problem, and it is now routinely invoked in the mental-causation literature by philosophers who are not dualists at all. Quantum Openings? Quantum mechanics, on the other hand, allows for various, albeit speculative ways, for the mental to affect the physical, even beyond the classic but controversial view that an "observer" is needed to "collapse" the wave function. Moreover, because quantum mechanics introduces fundamental uncertainty into the universe, and if by this, indeterminism holds, nonphysical substances might enjoy "wiggle room" to effect causation. The most fully developed version is not a gesture but a specific neurophysiological proposal. Eccles, with the physicist Friedrich Beck, argued that mental intention raises the quantum probability of vesicular exocytosis at the presynaptic grid, so that a nonphysical mind biases which synapses fire without transferring any energy, on the ground that altering a probability distribution is not doing work (Beck and Eccles, 1992). Eccles paired each unitary mental experience, a "psychon," with a "dendron," a bundle of apical dendrites of cortical pyramidal cells. This is developed on the Landscape as Beck-Eccles's Quantum Processes in the Synapse. The objection is that it either introduces causation without a law to govern it, or leaves wholly unexplained what a probability-altering nonphysical agent could be. Energy, Conservation, and Locality Advocates can also appeal to different kinds of ethereal forces or energy transference systems. Perhaps mental powers can influence the distribution but not the quantity of energy in the brain—this is precisely the Beck–Eccles move, and it does seem a bit of a cheat. Perhaps each individual brain is not a causally closed system so that the conservation of energy need not apply. Here the strongest defense is technical rather than speculative, and it belongs to Pitts, whose position appears on the Landscape as Pitts's Interactionist Dualism. His argument is that the conservation objection rests on features of conservation laws that its users have not examined (Pitts, 2020). Conservation is local, holding not for the universe as a whole but for each region separately: the energy in any volume changes only through flow across its boundaries. Constant total energy for the universe requires that the global sum of local conservation laws converge, which it probably does not. And by Noether's first theorem and its converse, conservation holds if and only if the laws are time-translation symmetric. Should symmetry fail at particular times and places because of nonphysical influence, conservation would fail there and then while continuing to hold in refrigerators and stars. Pitts's conclusion is that expecting conservation to hold inside the brain, without having looked, simply assumes that Cartesianism is false; Leibniz's objection therefore begs the question. Whether conservation does hold in brains is then an empirical question for neuroscience rather than a matter settled a priori. Cucu and Pitts (2019) separately sort which dualist responses to the conservation objection actually work and which are confused, and Montero (2006) and Collins (2008) reach related conclusions from different directions. Because the whole idea of a closed physical system is based on the assumption that there are no nonphysical forces involved, wouldn't this assumption undermine the argument against interaction by making it circular? Pitts's answer is that it does, though only against the a priori version of the objection. Then there is "overdetermination," where mental and physical factors can each, independently, affect actions—an approach that, while possibly solving one problem, creates other problems (Robinson, 2023; Interactionism, 2023). Perhaps one could also just blow away the interaction problem by asserting that in systems that have minds, the law of conservation of energy is false. Perhaps because downward causation goes to the lower physical levels and emergence is enabled, the causal completeness of physics is wrong (Ellis, 2019). A Caution About Modern Physics as a Loophole Perhaps causal closure for the entire universe is also a nineteenth century invention, based on classical thermodynamics and statistical mechanics, which are now superseded by quantum mechanics, general relativity, dark matter, dark energy, and who knows what else? (I/RLK can make up another. Since string theory offers, depending on flavor, 10, 11 or 26 "compactified" extra dimensions, why couldn't nonphysical substances work via these extra dimensions? I can conceive of a precedent for this. To account for the "hierarchy problem" in physics, where gravity is vastly weaker than the other fundamental forces, some postulate that gravity "leaks" or "bleeds" into these extra dimensions.) It gets crazy. It also gets, on at least one count, backwards. Some authors have proposed that because gravitational energy is not localizable in General Relativity, there are no physically meaningful local conservation laws for minds to violate, so relativity supplies the loophole. Pitts (2022) argues the reverse: General Relativity formally has an infinity of rigid symmetries of the action and hence, by Noether's theorem, an infinity of conserved energies-momenta, with the result that in the simplest case Cartesian mental influence would have to be spatio-temporally constant and therefore zero. Far from providing an escape, relativity makes mental causation harder. That the most technically serious defender of interactionism reaches this conclusion is worth registering: the appeal to unsettled physics is not a resource the position can draw on indiscriminately. A Worked Empirical Attempt Popper and Eccles's The Self and Its Brain (1977) remains the most sustained effort to make interactionism answer to neuroscience, and it appears on the Landscape as Popper and Eccles's Interactionist Dualism. Popper contributed the three-world ontology, in which World 2, the domain of conscious states, is the sole channel through which World 3, the objective contents of thought, can act on World 1. Eccles contributed the claim that a self-conscious mind actively scans and reads out from "liaison areas" of the dominant cerebral hemisphere, and, more strikingly, that the unity of the phenomenal field is conferred by the mind rather than achieved by the brain, inverting the usual binding problem. The book is the standard modern reference for interactionism and, correspondingly, the standard target. Its weaknesses are instructive for the position generally: the interaction mechanism was progressively refined but never made independently testable, and the split-brain interpretation underpinning Eccles's cortical localization has not held. Theological Responses Finally, there is always a theological solution. God can help. God could have created souls with powers, especially since "real" (i.e., libertarian) free will is an essential part of "God's plan," such that neither conservation of energy nor determinism holds, at least with respect to minds. (It is challenging how even God could make this coherent.) Christian philosopher William Lane Craig describes himself as a "dualist-interactionalist" in that "the brain is itself part of... the physical reality with which the soul immediately interacts” (Craig, 2015). He argues that even though souls do not have spatial locations, "the question becomes why we should think that only spatial relations can pair a cause with its effect. Prima facie this seems overly restrictive" (Craig, 2023). Craig's reply targets Kim's premise rather than his inference, and he is not alone: Bailey, Rasmussen and Van Horn (2011) argue that both of Kim's foundational claims—that causation requires spatial relations, and that souls cannot be in space—can be rejected. I mustn't forget "Occasionalism," the idea that created substances, physical and nonphysical, cannot be efficient causes of events in themselves and that all events are caused directly by God. Its fullest development is Malebranche's, and it appears on the Landscape as Malebranche's Occasionalism. This means that while mind and body appear to interact, God is in fact changing each separately and ceaselessly. Two features of Malebranche's version are usually missed when it is dismissed. First, it is not a patch applied to the mind-body case: Malebranche denies causal power to bodies acting on bodies just as firmly, on the general ground that a true cause is one between which and its effect the mind perceives a necessary connection, and that we perceive such a connection only between the will of an omnipotent being and what it wills (Malebranche, 1674–75/1997). The mind-body problem is therefore not a special embarrassment but an instance of a difficulty he takes to be everywhere. Second, occasionalism does not solve the interaction problem; it denies that any interaction occurs, which is a different and more radical move. The argument from necessary connection later passed to Hume, who kept the analysis of causation and discarded the God. While Occasionalism is dismissed (often ridiculed), there is a kind of logic here. If God acts as intermediary, as it were, between nonphysical and physical substances, then because God would have created both in the first place, this would make the apparent causal connection between nonphysical and physical substances not especially troublesome for God to bring about. This way of thinking—all these possible mechanisms for Interactive Dualism—reflects the depth of Dualism's problem. References [Note: existing citations in the entry—Robinson, 2023; Interactionism, 2023; Ellis, 2019; Craig, 2015, 2023—should be merged with the entries below from the live reference list.] Bailey, A. M., Rasmussen, J., and Van Horn, L. (2011). "No Pairing Problem." Philosophical Studies 154(3): 349–360. Beck, F., and Eccles, J. C. (1992). "Quantum Aspects of Brain Activity and the Role of Consciousness." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 89(23): 11357–11361. Collins, R. (2008). "Modern Physics and the Energy-Conservation Objection to Mind-Body Dualism." American Philosophical Quarterly 45(1): 31–42. Cucu, A. C., and Pitts, J. B. (2019). "How Dualists Should (Not) Respond to the Objection from Energy Conservation." Mind and Matter 17(1): 95–121. Kim, J. (2001). "Lonely Souls: Causality and Substance Dualism." In K. Corcoran (ed.), Soul, Body, and Survival: Essays on the Metaphysics of Human Persons. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 30–43. Kim, J. (2005). Physicalism, or Something Near Enough. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Malebranche, N. (1674–75/1997). The Search after Truth. Trans. and ed. T. M. Lennon and P. J. Olscamp. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Montero, B. G. (2006). "What Does the Conservation of Energy Have to Do with Physicalism?" Dialectica 60(4): 383–396. Pitts, J. B. (2020). "Conservation Laws and the Philosophy of Mind: Opening the Black Box, Finding a Mirror." Philosophia 48(2): 673–707. Pitts, J. B. (2022). "General Relativity, Mental Causation, and Energy Conservation." Erkenntnis 87(4): 1931–1973. Popper, K. R. (1978). "Natural Selection and the Emergence of Mind." Dialectica 32(3–4): 339–355. Popper, K. R., and Eccles, J. C. (1977). The Self and Its Brain: An Argument for Interactionism. Berlin: Springer International. Shapiro, L. (ed. and trans.) (2007). The Correspondence between Princess Elisabeth of Bohemia and René Descartes. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

---

## Popper and Eccles's Interactionist Dualism: Three Worlds and the Liaison Brain
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/popper-and-eccles-interactionist-dualism-three-worlds-and-the-liaison-brain
Theorists: Karl Popper, John Eccles

Popper and Eccles defend interactionist dualism: phenomenal consciousness is a real, non-physical domain that both receives from and acts upon the brain, and the physical world is therefore not causally closed. Popper argues the philosophical case, positing that, from natural selection, conscious experience must have causal efficacy or it could not have evolved, and embedding mental states in a three-world ontology in which subjective experience mediates between physical states and the objective products of thought. Eccles supplies the neurophysiological mechanism, proposing that a self-conscious mind actively scans and reads out from specialized cortical modules and, crucially, that the unity of the phenomenal field is conferred by the mind rather than achieved by the brain. Neither author claims to explain why experience has qualitative character; their argument is that it exists, that it does causal work, and that materialism cannot accommodate either fact. In other words, Popper and Eccles maintain that the now-minority view among philosophers and neuroscientists that phenomenal consciousness is ontologically irreducible to the brain, causally affected by neural activity, and capable of altering neural processes. In The Self and Its Brain, Popper offers his pluralist metaphysics of three interacting “worlds,” while Eccles attempts to identify a neurophysiological interface through which a nonphysical “self-conscious mind” selects, interprets, and unifies brain activity; in later work Eccles sharpens this into the “psychon–dendron” hypothesis and a speculative quantum mechanism of mental causation (Popper & Eccles, 1977; Eccles, 1990, 1994). Their theory is historically important not because its proposed mechanism has been embraced—it has not—but because it represents an ambitious attempt to combine irreducible subjective experience, causal mental agency, and neuroscience. Two Authors, Two Arguments The Self and Its Brain (Popper and Eccles, 1977) is structured in three parts: Popper's philosophical case, Eccles's neurophysiological case, and twelve recorded dialogues held at the Villa Serbelloni in 1974. Reviewers noted at the time that the result is not a single unified theory, since the two halves are not fully reconciled and the authors did not act as sharp critics of each other (Marriott, 1978). The convergence is real but partial: both hold that mental events are irreducible and causally efficacious, while Popper is a pluralist about worlds and cautious about mechanism, and Eccles is committed to a substantive self, a specific cortical locus of interaction, and eventually a personal survival thesis that Popper did not share. The collaboration had a genuine intellectual basis. Eccles had championed electrical synaptic transmission and, on his own account, was led by Popper's falsificationism to welcome the experiments that refuted him in favor of chemical transmission. Popper's Three Worlds Popper’s foundational reality comprises three “worlds.” He distinguishes World 1, physical objects and states; World 2, states of consciousness, subjective experience, and mental dispositions; and World 3, the objective contents of thought, comprising theories, problems, arguments, and artifacts, which are human products that acquire autonomy and unintended consequences once made (Popper, 1972). Phenomenal consciousness is World 2 and is treated as ontologically basic rather than derived. The interaction is asymmetric in an important way: World 3 can act on World 1 only through World 2. A theory changes the physical world only by being grasped by a mind. This gives subjective experience an indispensable structural role rather than an accompanying or incidental one, and it is the main move against epiphenomenalism. Popper further argues that the self is not simply given but is developed, anchored in language and in the World 3 objects a person comes to grasp, so that selfhood is an achievement rather than a primitive. The Evolutionary Argument Against Epiphenomenalism Popper's central argument is that epiphenomenalism and the identity theory are incompatible with natural selection (Popper, 1978). If the physical world is causally closed, conscious experience can have no independent effect on behavior; a property with no behavioral effect cannot be selected for; therefore consciousness could not have evolved. Popper applies this against Huxley's epiphenomenalism and then against identity theorists, on the ground that for them the order of ideas is evolutionarily redundant. The argument concerns phenomenal states directly, since it is the felt character of pleasure and pain that Popper takes to be doing the selective work. It is not original to him, having earlier forms in James and Romanes, but the Popper–Eccles formulation is the one that entered late-twentieth-century debate as the standard version. Popper links it to downward causation, the term introduced by Campbell (1974), which he adopts to describe higher-level structures constraining their constituents. Eccles's Liaison Brain and the Unity of Experience Eccles's proposal is that the self-conscious mind is not a passive product of neural activity but an active agent that searches, selects, attends to, and integrates the output of the cerebral cortex. Interaction occurs in "liaison areas," the open modules of the dominant, language-bearing hemisphere. He draws heavily on the split-brain findings, concluding that the self-conscious mind is linked to the dominant hemisphere alone. Sperry contested this directly: testing commissurotomy patients with lateralized visual input, he and his colleagues found that the disconnected minor hemisphere recognized the subject's own face, relatives, pets, and public figures, with emotional responses indicating a personal and social self-awareness roughly comparable to that of the major hemisphere in the same subject (Sperry, Zaidel and Zaidel, 1979; Sperry, 1984). The claim most directly about phenomenal consciousness is Eccles's account of unity. Cortical activity is fragmented across modules; the phenomenal field is unified; and Eccles infers that the unity is imposed by the self-conscious mind rather than produced by neural integration. This inverts the standard binding problem: for Eccles, binding is not something the brain accomplishes but something the mind does to what the brain supplies. Psychons, Dendrons, and the Energy Objection The standing objection to interactionism is that a non-physical mind acting on neurons would violate conservation of energy. Eccles's later work is an attempt to answer it. He proposed that mental life is composed of unitary experiences he called psychons, each uniquely linked to a dendron, a bundle of apical dendrites of cortical pyramidal cells, with roughly forty million such pairs (Eccles, 1990). With the physicist Friedrich Beck he then argued that mental intention could raise the quantum probability of vesicular exocytosis at the presynaptic grid without any transfer of energy, since altering a probability distribution is not the same as doing work (Beck and Eccles, 1992). Eccles developed the proposal into a full account of mind-brain interaction in his final book (Eccles, 1994). Critics have replied that it either smuggles in causation without a law to govern it or leaves unexplained what a probability-altering non-physical agent could be (Rosenkranz, 1996). The proposal appears on the Landscape as Beck-Eccles's Quantum Processes in the Synapse. Reception and Influence The Popper-Eccles book became the standard modern reference for dualist interactionism and, correspondingly, the standard target for those seeking to defeat it. Churchland (1984) treats it as the position against which materialist alternatives are defined. Its most durable legacy runs through the causal efficacy of the mental rather than through dualism as such. The evolutionary argument against epiphenomenalism is now routine in the mental-causation literature and is invoked well outside dualist quarters. Popper's downward causation, coupled with strong emergence, is developed on the Landscape by Ellis's Strong Emergence and Top-Down Causation, and Sperry's Mentalist Paradigm advances a closely allied claim about the causal potency of emergent conscious states while explicitly rejecting dualism. Hasker's Unified Experience entry pursues the unity argument toward emergent rather than substance dualism, and Pitts's Interactionist Dualism engages the conservation objection directly. Popper's World 3, in which cognition is partly constituted by external, publicly available structures, structurally anticipates later externalist accounts of mind, though the historical line to A. Clark and Chalmers's Extended Mind is one of resemblance rather than documented influence. A conspicuous omission, noted by reviewers, is that the book barely engages the computational theory of mind that was ascendant when it appeared. Popper also coined the term “promissory materialism” in The Self and Its Brain for a recurrent strategy in some materialist theories of mind: acknowledging that contemporary neuroscience cannot explain consciousness while treating future scientific progress as effectively guaranteeing that a wholly physical account will eventually succeed. In his section “The New Promissory Materialism,” Popper’s target is not empirical neuroscience or reduction as a research program—he explicitly favored attempted scientific reductions—but the conversion of anticipated future discoveries into support for present metaphysical certainty. He describes a projected future in which physiological vocabulary progressively displaces talk of experiences, perceptions, thoughts, beliefs, purposes, and aims, until the mind–body problem is deemed to have disappeared (Popper & Eccles, 1977). Eccles then made the expression a recurring polemical theme. Explicitly crediting Popper with the label, he called the claim “extravagant and unfulfillable” and later characterized promissory materialism as a dogmatic “superstition” resembling a messianic prophecy (Eccles, 1979, 1994). The phrase has since become a compact criticism of arguments that infer ontological materialism from the expected—not yet achieved—explanatory success of future neuroscience. Explanatory Power and Limits Popper and Eccles refuse to identify subjective experience with behavioral function, computation, or neural activity merely because those domains correlate, and they confront the causal efficacy and unity of consciousness directly. Their collaboration is methodologically unusual: a major philosopher of science and a Nobel neurophysiologist attempted to connect metaphysics of mind with cortical physiology. Eccles’s standing as an experimental neuroscientist was exceptional—his work on excitation and inhibition at synapses earned him a share of the 1963 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine. The central weakness is equally apparent. The theory posits the self-conscious mind whose powers of selection, integration, phenomenal realization, and causal intervention most require explanation. Dennett’s early criticism was that the account hands difficult integrative work to the self-conscious mind without explaining how it performs that work (Dennett, 1979). Eccles’s later quantum hypothesis proposes a microscopic locus for the interaction but does little to address, let alone solve, this explanatory problem. The theory therefore remains a major modern statement of interactionist dualism and a historically significant challenge to reductive materialism, but its claimed mind–brain mechanism remains unambiguously conjectural. Assessment The Popper–Eccles position is strongest as a negative argument and weakest as a positive one. The evolutionary case against epiphenomenalism identified a genuine cost of causal closure that its opponents still must answer, and Eccles's observation that phenomenal unity outruns demonstrated neural integration named a problem that remains open. What neither author supplies is an account of why any state, physical or mental, should have felt character at all; World 2 is posited rather than explained, and psychons are drawn-up labels for experiences rather than analyses of them. The interaction mechanism was progressively refined but never made independently testable, and the split-brain interpretation on which much of Eccles's cortical localization rested has not held. The work retains its place less as an active model than as the most fully developed attempt by a major philosopher and a Nobel neurophysiologist to integrate interactive dualism with empirical neuroscience. References Beck, F., and Eccles, J. C. (1992). "Quantum Aspects of Brain Activity and the Role of Consciousness." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 89(23): 11357–11361. Campbell, D. T. (1974). "'Downward Causation' in Hierarchically Organised Biological Systems." In F. J. Ayala and T. Dobzhansky (eds.), Studies in the Philosophy of Biology: Reduction and Related Problems. London: Macmillan, 179–186. Churchland, P. M. (1984). Matter and Consciousness: A Contemporary Introduction to the Philosophy of Mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Eccles, J. C. (1979). The Human Mystery: The Gifford Lectures, University of Edinburgh 1977–1978. Berlin: Springer-Verlag. Eccles, J. C. (1990). "A Unitary Hypothesis of Mind–Brain Interaction in the Cerebral Cortex." Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 240(1299): 433–451. Eccles, J. C. (1994). How the Self Controls Its Brain. Berlin: Springer-Verlag. Marriott, F. H. C. (1978). Review of The Self and Its Brain, by K. R. Popper and J. C. Eccles. Leonardo 11(3): 251. Popper, K. R. (1972). Objective Knowledge: An Evolutionary Approach. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Popper, K. R. (1978). "Natural Selection and the Emergence of Mind." Dialectica 32(3–4): 339–355. Popper, K. R., and Eccles, J. C. (1977). The Self and Its Brain: An Argument for Interactionism. Berlin: Springer International. Rosenkranz, S. (1996). "Review of How the Self Controls Its Brain, by J. C. Eccles." Sorites 9: 71–76. Sperry, R. W. (1984). "Consciousness, Personal Identity and the Divided Brain." Neuropsychologia 22(6): 661–673. Sperry, R. W., Zaidel, E., and Zaidel, D. (1979). "Self Recognition and Social Awareness in the Deconnected Minor Hemisphere." Neuropsychologia 17: 153–166.

---

## Pitts’s Interactionist Dualism: Energy Conservation and Mental Causation
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/pitts-s-interactionist-dualism-energy-conservation-and-mental-causation
Theorists: J. Brian Pitts

Philosopher-physicist J. Brian Pitts argues that the longstanding Leibniz-to-Dennett objection to interactionist dualism based on the conservation of energy and momentum suffers from circular reasoning, once neglected aspects of the physics of conservation laws are considered. Two typically neglected aspects of conservation laws, he says, are locality and the (bi)conditional relation to symmetries. With these features properly understood, non-conservation of energy and momentum could be a consequence of interactionism, but no reason has been provided thereby to find a reductio ad absurdum rather than an inference. On the other hand, a related and novel, though not broadly compelling, difficulty can arise from Einstein’s General Relativity, the standard theory of gravity, depending on one’s background beliefs. The Conservation Objection Pitts presents his case. Off and on since Leibniz’s day (Watkins, 1995, 1998; Pitts, 2019), but especially since the late 19th century, he says, conservation laws have been invoked as objections to interactionist substance dualism. For Leibniz, the argument was invoked in favor of pre-established harmony, whereas 19th-century authors invoked the objection to favor epiphenomenalism. 20th-century philosophers took the energy conservation objection to refute dualism. Many views, especially physicalism, have problems with mental causation. Property dualism with distinctively mental causal powers also has energy conservation issues. Some types of panpsychism, given the ubiquity of mind, could have the same problem. With mental causation problems now common, Pitts suggests examining aspects of physics that emerged in the late 19th and early 20th centuries but have had little influence in the philosophy of mind. Neglected Aspects of Conservation Laws As noted, the traditional conservation objection to interactionist dualism, Pitts argues, “is vitiated by two typically neglected aspects of physics and their consequences, namely, locality and the (bi)conditional relation to symmetries (Cucu & Pitts, 2019; Pitts, 2020, 2021, 2022a, 2022b). While conservation laws often appear as a black box in the philosophy of mind and metaphysics, they have a well-understood theoretical basis in physics. Pitts presents four arguments: Conservation laws are primarily local, holding not for the universe as a whole but for every place separately as partial differential equations, describing how the density varies with time plus how the flux varies with place. (Global conservation follows by integration if one can discard a term at spatial infinity—which appears to be false according to standard cosmology, arguably making the total amount of, say, mass-energy in the world undefined and hence incapable of staying the same or changing.) Consequently, local conservation laws form an infinite conjunction of conservations in different places. By De Morgan’s law (that the denial of a conjunction not (A and B) is the disjunction of negations (not A or not B)), non-conservation in some place(s) (e.g., brains) would not be catastrophic or perhaps even very bad, especially if one is not studying brains. Conservation laws have a theoretical basis in symmetries due to Noether's theorem: energy (momentum) conservation is a consequence of the uniformity of natural laws over time (space, respectively). Hence, there is no theoretical reason to expect conservation of energy or momentum in the presence of mental causation, because one’s willing to raise one’s arm presumably would involve one’s mind/soul’s acting in one’s brain during one’s lifetime, not acting equally everywhere and always. Noether's theorem has a converse: conservation laws imply symmetries, so by contraposition, violation of symmetries implies violation of conservation laws. Thus, one should positively expect conservation laws to fail, given dualism. To demand that conservation laws hold in the brain without an empirical neuroscientific basis is simply to beg the question against such interactionist dualism (substance or otherwise). Pitts rejects interactionist proposals to uphold conservation, which, he says, tend to be either unsuccessful or unnecessary for addressing the objection. For example, non-local compensation purports to uphold conservation of energy by what is in fact an additional “violation” somewhere else, aggravating rather than ameliorating the (supposed) problem. Some have proposed that quantum mechanics implies either non-conservation or interaction with conservation; such ideas commendably pay attention to quantum physics. However, invoking quantum mechanics is hardly necessary to defuse the objection, which already fails in the most conservation-friendly type of physics, namely, classical field theory, which is the launching pad for quantum field theory and hence is our second-best physics, which includes Maxwell’s electromagnetism and (as an unusual case) Einstein’s General Relativity (on which more below, however). Until recently, the work that came closest to reckoning with the 20th-century physics of conservation laws evidently was that by Averill and Keating (1981). If neuroscience casts doubt on interactionism empirically, then neuroscience provides a very different and much more recent argument than Leibniz’s. General Relativity and Mental Causation On the other hand, Pitts says, General Relativity makes interactionist mental causation more difficult (Pitts, 2022a, 2022b), not easier as is sometimes proposed. The calculations are coordinate-invariant (as one usually expects in General Relativity) and involve the generalized Bianchi identities, which in other contexts indicate that some of Einstein’s gravitational field equations logically imply others. It is possible, though not necessary, to interpret this result in terms of abundant pseudotensor conservation laws in General Relativity: General Relativity formally offers a superabundance (not an absence) of conservation laws, but the failure of equivalence between different conservation laws (coordinate-dependent “pseudotensors” rather than coordinate-independent tensors) that most people have desired has made it rare to take the formal conservation laws seriously. Whatever one’s stance on gravitational energy (controversial since 1918) and hence on energy and momentum conservation laws (which are merely formal rather than physically meaningful if gravitational energy and momentum are not localized), General Relativity tends to trivialize efforts to introduce mental causation into (classical field) physics: the soul/mind is left doing either nothing or the same thing everywhere and always (which presumably implies that it does nothing), at least in simple cases. This tendency only goes so far, however, and might be overwhelmed. Hence the strength of this objection depends on background worldview assumptions; it is not very impressive given other beliefs, such as theism or broadly mind-first metaphysics, which proponents of such mental causation tend to hold. Most people for whom the new objection from General Relativity works already reject interactionist dualism on other grounds, but the occasional non-theist dualist (such as Popper or Beloff) would face a difficulty.

---

## Chalmers’s Naturalistic Dualism
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/chalmers-naturalistic-dualism
Theorists: David Chalmers

Philosopher David Chalmers constructs a “naturalistic dualism” to harmonize what he sees as two undeniable but ostensibly contradictory facts: (i) Mental states of phenomenal consciousness, the subjective experience of inner awareness, cannot be reduced to physical states of the brain. (ii) The physical world, the natural world, is all there is; there is nothing supernatural. (The union of the two constitutes the “hard problem,” Chalmers’ well-known metonymic characterization of the mind-body problem and consciousness studies broadly construed.) The Hard Problem and the Failure of Materialism In his classic, (almost) paradigm-shifting book, The Conscious Mind, Chalmers says, “Conscious experience is not logically supervenient on the physical…,” in that “we can conceive of a physically identical world without consciousness (e.g., philosophical zombies)… If this is right, then no reductive explanation of consciousness can succeed. Consciousness must be taken as a fundamental feature of the world, alongside mass, charge, and space-time” (Chalmers, 1996). To Chalmers, the “failure of materialism leads to a kind of dualism: there are both physical and nonphysical features of the world… But there are many varieties of dualism, and it is important to see just where the argument leads us.” He stresses that the argument “do[es] not lead us to a dualism such as that of Descartes, with a separate realm of mental substance that exerts its own influence on physical processes. The best evidence of contemporary science tells us that the physical world is more or less causally closed: for every physical event, there is a sufficient physical cause. If so, there is no room for a mental ‘ghost in the machine’ to do any extra causal work.” (What about quantum mechanics? “A small loophole may be opened by the existence of quantum indeterminacy,” Chalmers advises, but he argues that “this probably cannot be exploited to yield a causal role for a nonphysical mind.”) Consciousness as Fundamental, Natural, and Law-Governed Chalmers’ naturalistic dualism is his comprehensive framework to explain conscious experience (qualia) in a way that is consistent with the scientific worldview but which goes beyond physicalism—at least the physicalism we know today—by asserting that consciousness is a fundamental feature of reality. Traditionally, when consciousness cannot be reduced to natural, physical processes (i.e., when it cannot be explained in purely material or functional terms), the supernatural is invoked—souls, spirits, acts of God, magical realms, and the like. Chalmers eschews anything supernatural. Rather, he seeks to build a scientifically sound consciousness, yet one that recognizes its irreducibility to strictly physical processes. He says, “If we take experience as fundamental, then we can go about building a theory of consciousness in the usual way: by proposing fundamental laws that connect experience with physical processes” (Chalmers, 1996). Thus, when Chalmers rejects reductive physicalism, he does not embrace Cartesian dualism (which posits non-physical substances). Rather, he offers a strong kind of property dualism: while mental properties are distinct and not reducible to physical properties, they are systematically related to physical properties. He speculates that these relationships are governed by psychophysical laws, heretofore unknown but which science can discover, much like physics discovers regularities. Thus, Chalmers’ dualism sits entirely within a naturalistic framework, with no appeal to supernatural causes, such that consciousness is part of the natural order, even if it is non-physical. In an overview, Chalmers notes, “Where there is a fundamental property, there are fundamental laws. A nonreductive theory of experience will add new principles to the furniture of the basic laws of nature. These basic principles will ultimately carry the explanatory burden in a theory of consciousness” (Chalmers, 1995). This position, he says, “qualifies as a variety of dualism, as it postulates basic properties over and above the properties invoked by physics. But it is an innocent version of dualism, entirely compatible with the scientific view of the world. Nothing in this approach contradicts anything in physical theory; we simply need to add further bridging principles to explain how experience arises from physical processes. There is nothing particularly spiritual or mystical about this theory… Indeed, the overall structure of this position is entirely naturalistic, allowing that ultimately the universe comes down to a network of basic entities obeying simple laws, and allowing that there may ultimately be a theory of consciousness cast in terms of such laws. If the position is to have a name, a good choice might be naturalistic dualism” (Chalmers, 1995). See Chalmers’ “double-aspect theory of information” as a possible mechanism for his naturalistic dualism.

---

## Libet's Conscious Mental Field
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/libets-conscious-mental-field
Theorists: Benjamin Libet

Neurophysiologist Benjamin Libet's theory of consciousness is a “Conscious Mental Field” (CMF), his answer to a problem his own experiments sharpened but did not solve: phenomenal experience presents itself as unified, while the cerebral activity that produces it is demonstrably localized, distributed, and, in split-brain and disconnection cases, divisible. He proposed that subjective experience constitutes a field—produced by the activity of very large populations of neurons, spatially coextensive with them, yet belonging to no known physical category and not directly detectable by physical means. Libet stated without hedging or embarrassment that subjective experience is a nonphysical phenomenon, and that mind and brain are therefore independent variables that causally interact, while denying that his field is a Cartesian substance. He also proposed a concrete neurosurgical test of the hypothesis, which has never been performed. The position is doubly counterintuitive: Libet is best known for the readiness potential, a result widely enlisted as experimental support for physicalism about consciousness, yet he himself concluded that phenomenal experience is not physical at all. The Problem of Phenomenal Unity Libet’s starting point is the apparent mismatch between the brain’s architecture and the structure of phenomenal experience. Neural processing is distributed among billions of neurons, differentiated cortical and subcortical regions, specialized sensory systems, and innumerable local circuits. Yet consciousness does not ordinarily present itself as billions of separate experiences. Colors, shapes, sounds, bodily sensations, thoughts, emotions, and intentions occur within what appears phenomenally to be one integrated experiential field. Libet regarded this unity as something requiring real explanation rather than redescription masquerading as description. Distributed neural activity may correlate with the contents of experience, but a catalog of such correlations does not by itself explain why those activities constitute a unified phenomenal consciousness rather than an aggregate of disconnected events. In 1994 he therefore proposed treating conscious subjective experience “as if it were a field,” generated by appropriate multifarious brain activity (Libet, 1994). Its first defining attribute would be unified subjective experience; its second would be a causal ability to influence neuronal function. The CMF was thus intended to address two problems simultaneously: the combination or unity problem, explaining how distributed physical processes are associated with a single experiential whole; and the mental-causation problem, explaining how phenomenal consciousness might affect the physical brain rather than merely accompany it. A Field Unlike Physical Fields The term “field” can readily misclassify Libet’s theory. The CMF is not an electromagnetic field theory of consciousness. Libet explicitly stated that it belongs to none of the known categories of physical fields—electromagnetic, gravitational, or otherwise. Rather, he called it a phenomenologically independent category not describable through externally observable physical events or existing physical theory (Libet, 1994). The analogy with a physical field concerns organization and reciprocal causation, not physical constitution. Just as a physical field can be generated by a physical system and then affect that system, Libet imagined the conscious field as produced by neural activity while potentially influencing neural activity in return. But unlike electromagnetic or gravitational fields, the CMF would be directly accessible only from the first-person perspective through phenomenal experience; an external investigator would gain evidence of it only through the subject’s reports. Libet’s position became ontologically more explicit in his later writing. In 2006, he argued that if “mind” means subjective experience, then conscious mind is a nonphysical phenomenon, and he defined the cerebral or conscious mental field as a system property produced by the appropriate activity of billions of neurons (Libet, 2006). He repeatedly described the CMF itself as nonphysical. There is some historical nuance. In the 1994 paper, Libet avoided presenting the CMF as a complete metaphysical doctrine and suggested that it might be compatible with multiple philosophical mind-brain theories (Libet, 1994). His central claim then was phenomenological irreducibility and empirical testability rather than a fully articulated substance metaphysics. By 2006, however, his language was unequivocally nonphysical. Landscape therefore has good reason to classify the mature CMF within Dualisms, while recognizing that it is not conventional Cartesian substance dualism. The Unity Problem and the Locality of Neural Events The motivating contrast is empirical rather than a priori. Libet's stimulation work, described in Libet's Mind Time, showed that specific conscious contents depend on activity at identifiable cerebral sites, yet the experience produced arrives as a single unified field of awareness rather than as a set of separately located items. Neither straightforward localization nor the appeal to distributed synchrony explains why activity spread across cortex should be experienced as one. Libet took this to be a genuine explanatory gap in neurophysiology rather than a puzzle awaiting more precise correlates, and he treated the unity of experience as data requiring its own mechanism (Libet, 1994). The move parallels the unity arguments that motivate Hasker's account of a brain-generated nonphysical substance, though Libet posits a field rather than a substance, and a property of a system rather than its bearer. What Kind of Field Libet was explicit about what the conscious mental field is not. It is not a member of any presently recognized class of physical field; it is not, therefore, a version of the proposals developed in McFadden's Conscious Electromagnetic Information Theory or in Pockett's Conscious and Non-Conscious Patterns, which locate consciousness in measurable physical fields. Nor is it a Cartesian substance capable of existing apart from the brain. As noted, it is a system property: something produced by the appropriate activity of billions of neurons and dependent on that activity for its existence, but not identical with it and not describable in its terms (Libet, 1994, 1996, 2006). Libet drew the analogy to the way an electric current gives rise to a magnetic field, while conceding that the analogy is structural rather than physical—the electromagnetic case involves a field we can measure, and by hypothesis his does not. Lindahl and Århem (2016) place the proposal in the lineage of Köhler's phenomenal fields and alongside Popper's mental force field hypothesis, noting that Libet went further than Köhler in explicitly making the field nonphysical and causally interactive. The Isolated-Slab Test Libet regarded the theory as empirically testable and designed a protocol. A slab of cortex known to mediate a particular conscious function would be neurosurgically isolated so that no synaptic transmission could pass between it and the rest of the brain, while its blood supply and its capacity to be electrically stimulated were preserved. If the slab's activity could still contribute to, or be reported within, the subject's ongoing experience, the contribution would have to travel by something other than neural connection—by field contiguity. If it could not, the hypothesis would be disconfirmed. Libet acknowledged the surgical and interpretive obstacles—not forgetting the ethical ones—and the experiment has unsurprisingly not been attempted. Its status is therefore that of a stated falsification condition rather than a current research program, which distinguishes the proposal from unfalsifiable field speculations. Non-Physicality and Mental Causation The mature statement is unambiguous. If mind and brain interact, Libet argued, they are independent variables, and since subjective experience is not a physical phenomenon, the interaction is between a nonphysical field and physical neural activity (Libet, 2006). He assigned the field causal work in both directions: it is generated by neurons and can, in turn, influence neuronal activity, which is what allows the conscious free-will veto function he defended elsewhere. This is the point where the proposal confronts the standard obstacles of interactionism. A nonphysical influence on neural firing raises the conservation objection examined in Pitts's Interactionist Dualism, and Libet offered no account of the coupling. He also offered no criterion distinguishing neural populations that generate the conscious mental field from those that do not, and no explanation of why a field should be experiential at all rather than merely unifying—the hard problem recurs one level up. Responding to Lindahl and Århem, Libet accepted the description of the conscious mental field as a force field while resisting the inference that it must therefore be physical (Libet, 1997). What the CMF Does—and Does Not Explain Libet sharply restricted the scope of the CMF. He did not propose that cognition generally, memory, information processing, learning, attention, arousal, emotion, or other ordinary cerebral functions are organized by the field. Conventional neural processes can perform these. The CMF was specifically intended to model the appearance and unity of conscious subjective experience and its possible role in conscious will (Libet, 1994). This focus makes CMF fundamentally a theory of phenomenal consciousness rather than a general theory of cognition. Its explanandum is why there is a unified felt experience associated with distributed brain activity and how that experience might possess causal powers. Its principal weaknesses are equally clear. The theory provides no established mechanism for physical-to-nonphysical emergence, no independent instrument for detecting the proposed field, no detailed mapping from neural states to particular qualitative contents, and no confirmed evidence of non-neural field transmission. Physicalists can also accept the first-person/third-person epistemic distinction on which Libet places considerable weight without accepting an ontological distinction between consciousness and brain. The Materialist Appropriation of Libet's Data Libet’s conscious mental field is easy to overlook because of what he became famous for. The readiness potential result, described in Libet's Mind Time, is among the most frequently cited experimental supports for physicalism about consciousness: if the brain commits to an act before the agent is aware of deciding, then conscious experience can be presented as a causally idle by-product of neural machinery, produced by it and dispensable in explaining behavior. Wegner (2002) built the canonical version, in which the feeling of willing is generated by a system distinct from the one generating action and interprets behavior rather than causing it. This reading circulates widely in the eliminativist and illusionist literature, and positions of that family appear on the Landscape as Halligan and Oakley's Species-Enhancing Epiphenomenalism and, more radically, Frankish's Illusionism. Libet held none of this. He defended free will and moral responsibility, maintained that the conscious veto was a genuine power rather than a courtesy, and objected that those enlisting his data against free will simply omitted it (Libet, 2004). His considered view of phenomenal consciousness was not that it is physical and idle but that it is non-physical and causally efficacious: a field that neurons generate and that acts back upon them. The most cited experimental prop of contemporary physicalism about consciousness was thus produced by a researcher who was, by his own explicit statement, an interactionist non-physicalist. Two points keep this from being mere biographical irony. The inference many materialists draw to establish phenomenal consciousness’s pure physicalism is not licensed by the data in any case, since the timing of initiation concerns causal order while phenomenality concerns the felt nature of a state, and the experiment speaks only to the first. And Libet's reason for going nonphysical was never the volitional finding but the unity problem set out above, which is independent of it: the conscious mental field would stand or fall on the unity argument even if the readiness potential were abandoned entirely. A Nonphysical Theory Born from Neurophysiology Libet’s CMF therefore occupies an unusual position within theories of phenomenal consciousness. It is motivated by neuroscience but explicitly nonphysical; emergent because brain organization produces it; interactionist because it may affect neural activity; and field-like because it is intended to integrate spatially distributed contributions into a phenomenally unified whole. Its greatest conceptual interest may lie precisely in its relationship to the experimental work for which Libet is better known. Few findings have been invoked more often to suggest that conscious will is secondary to unconscious physical brain activity. Yet Libet himself interpreted neural priority as compatible with—and ultimately embedded it within—a theory in which phenomenal consciousness is not reducible to the physical brain at all. Assessment and Irony The conscious mental field is the least cited and most metaphysically committed part of Libet's work, and its interest is largely structural. It shows a career experimentalist concluding, from data he generated himself, that the unity of phenomenal experience will not yield to localization, and accepting the dualist consequence rather than deferring it. Its weaknesses are those of any emergent interactionism, compounded by a field defined partly by its undetectability: a proposal that is testable in principle but not in practice sits uneasily with the empirical discipline that made Libet's reputation, and the isolated-slab design, unperformed for three decades, has become the standing illustration of that difficulty. Whether the theory belongs to neuroscience or to speculative metaphysics is a question Libet answered by insisting on the test he never ran. What is beyond dispute is the shape of the record: the neurophysiologist most often invoked to show that consciousness is physical and inert himself believed it was neither. The resulting inversion, one of the grander ironies in consciousness studies, should be made explicit: Libet’s readiness potential became evidence for materialism in the hands of many interpreters, while Libet’s own theory of phenomenal consciousness became explicitly nonphysical. The same scientist thus occupies two very different locations in Landscape for radically opposed reasons. His readiness-potential and temporal studies belong within Neurobiological approaches because they experimentally investigate the neural conditions and timing of awareness; his CMF belongs within Dualisms because his mature ontological account holds that those neural processes generate a phenomenally unified, nonphysical conscious field capable in principle of causal action upon the brain. References Libet, B. (1994). A testable field theory of mind-brain interaction. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 1(1), 119–126. Libet, B. (1996). Conscious mind as a field. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 178(2), 223–224. Libet, B. (1997). Conscious mind as a force field: A reply to Lindahl & Århem. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 185(1), 137–138. Libet, B. (2004). Mind time: The temporal factor in consciousness. Harvard University Press. Libet, B. (2006). Reflections on the interaction of the mind and brain. Progress in Neurobiology, 78(3–5), 322–326. Lindahl, B. I. B., & Århem, P. (2016). Consciousness and neural force fields. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 23(7–8), 228–253. Wegner, D. M. (2002). The illusion of conscious will. MIT Press.

---

## Emergent Dualism
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/emergent-dualism
Theorists: William Hasker, Dean Zimmerman

Emergent dualism holds that neither mind nor consciousness is fundamental in reality but arises “naturally” when sufficiently organized physical systems—a certain kind of complex arrangement of physical atoms, say, in biological neurons and brains—generate a genuinely new, nonphysical substance by as-yet-unknown meta-psychophysical processes or laws, and this nonphysical substance would be the first-person subject of the mind or consciousness. Thus, unlike traditional Cartesian dualism, the soul is not an independently existing substance created by God and inserted into the organism from outside; unlike property dualism or non-reductive physicalism, what emerges is not merely a new set of phenomenal properties but an individual mind that becomes the first-person bearer of those properties, a unified individual that bears experience and may exercise downward causal influence. Hasker’s Emergent Self The principal contemporary architect of this position is William Hasker, who originated the theory, developed it systematically in The Emergent Self, and proposed the name “emergent dualism”; Dean Zimmerman subsequently became another major defender (Hasker, 1999; Zimmerman, 2010). Hasker's route to the position is an argument from the unity of consciousness: a complex conscious state cannot exist distributed among the parts of a composite object, so the subject of experience cannot be the brain, which is such an object. What is required, he argues, is not merely an emergent property but an emergent individual—a new substance, generated by the brain much as a magnetic field is generated by a magnet, occupying space, and exerting causal influence back on the system that produces it. Once generated, such a soul might persist beyond the brain, and the same laws could in principle operate in nonbiological systems. Thus, the theory accommodates strong brain dependence, evolution, animal consciousness, and potentially artificial consciousness, while allowing possible postmortem survival. Hasker's own entry treats his arguments in full; this entry maps the position they support. From Emergent Properties to an Emergent Subject Emergent dualism begins with strong emergence. When matter enters certain highly organized configurations—paradigmatically biological brains and nervous systems—novel mental properties and causal powers appear that are neither present in simpler matter nor derivable from laws governing matter in simpler arrangements. Hasker argues that phenomenal consciousness requires something stronger still. Because a conscious experience is presented as a unified whole, there must be a single bearer of that experience. Thus, the relevant emergence is substance emergence: physical organization generates a new conscious individual (Hasker, 1999, 2010). As noted, Hasker compares the relation to a magnet generating a magnetic field, while insisting that the analogy is limited. The intended point is that an entity can be generated by an underlying physical organization yet acquire causal properties not reducible to those of its generator. In Hasker’s version, the resulting “field of consciousness” acts back upon the brain, supporting intentional action, rational agency, and libertarian freedom. This establishes the defining contrast with merely emergent property dualism. Phenomenal properties do not simply characterize a physical organism; they belong to an emergent subject that becomes an additional causal participant in the world. Brain Dependence and the Pairing Problem Because each emergent mind is generated by a particular organism, emergent dualism offers a distinctive response to the traditional dualist “pairing problem”: why does this nonphysical mind interact reliably with this particular body rather than another? The generating relation itself supplies the connection. Hasker and Zimmerman consequently allow the emergent mind to be spatially associated with, or located in, the brain regions with which it interacts rather than being an entirely nonspatial Cartesian substance (Hasker, 1999; Zimmerman, 2010). Thus, the pairing-problem advantage is a central part of Hasker's case, and he claims two further gains over Cartesian dualism. Special divine creation of each soul becomes unnecessary, since the generative work is done by the physical system. And the intimate dependence of mind on brain that neuroscience documents is predicted by the theory rather than merely accommodated by it. This natural dependence makes brain effects on consciousness unsurprising: damage to the generator degrades the field. Changes to neural organization can alter, impair, or perhaps even divide consciousness. Hasker interprets evidence from commissurotomy as compatible with division of an emergent conscious field, while animal minds can emerge from less complex nervous systems without requiring separately created souls (Hasker, 1999). Hasker also argues that emergent dualism requires accepting, with the materialists, that the potentiality for conscious life resides in the nature of matter itself, which distinguishes the position from dualisms that treat matter as mentally inert. Emergent Laws, Causation, and Explanatory Costs The central unexplained component is the emergence relation itself. Some versions invoke fundamental psychophysical or meta-psychophysical laws specifying when organized physical systems generate conscious subjects. Others, including Hasker’s causal-powers formulation, regard the propensity to generate consciousness as somehow grounded in the nature of matter itself. Either way, the theory presently offers no established mechanism or quantitative threshold specifying when a sufficiently complex system becomes a conscious individual. This is the theory’s principal strength and vulnerability. It takes phenomenal consciousness, unified subjectivity, and mental causation seriously while respecting extensive neurobiological dependence. But critics argue that the emergence of a unified immaterial substance from distributed nonconscious matter is an exceptionally strong and exceptionally surprising—and completely unexplained—metaphysical transition. Problems include how the threshold of emergence is determined, how many emergent subjects a borderline physical configuration generates, whether downward mental causation conflicts with physical causal closure, and whether the theory genuinely explains consciousness rather than relocating the mystery into an emergence law (Rickabaugh, 2018). Survival, NDEs, and Possible Independence Once a nonphysical conscious individual has emerged, versions of the theory can differ over how strongly its continued existence depends on its physical source. At one extreme, the mind may cease when the generating brain ceases functioning; at the other, it may acquire sufficient ontological independence to persist after bodily death. This possibility has made emergent dualism relevant to discussions of near-death experiences (NDEs) and alleged out-of-body experiences (OBEs). NDEs and OBEs are said to support emergent dualism, in that if one starts by assuming OBEs and NDEs to be actual disembodied conscious experiences, then emergent dualism is said to be a candidate to explain them. In other words, if such reports were independently established as genuine, emergent dualism would provide one possible metaphysical framework: a consciousness originally generated by a brain might subsequently persist independently of it, because once this nonphysical substance (“soul”) comes into existence, it is then logically possible for this “soul” to become ontologically self-subsisting, no longer dependent on its progenerating physical substance (brain), and therefore capable of maintaining its existence beyond the dissolution of the physical brain (Kopel, 2023). This possibility is not evidence supplied by emergent dualism itself, and the empirical status of such phenomena remains much disputed. Theological Speculations Hasker's own theological treatment of survival is more restrictive than the general position allows. The brain normally generates and sustains the emergent self. On his field analogy, a field would be expected to dissipate when its generator ceases, so the emergent self does not naturally survive the destruction of its brain. Thus, after death, survival would require that God sustain the field (i.e., that same individual) directly until its embodiment in a resurrected body. Theological postmortem survival is therefore possible without requiring the soul to have existed independently of matter from the beginning (Hasker, 1999, 2017). Moreover, in Hasker’s theory, emergent dualism purchases compatibility with neuroscience at the cost of natural immortality—a concession Hasker makes explicitly, and one that bears on how far the position can underwrite interpretations of near-death and out-of-body phenomena. The position has attracted sustained criticism from within dualism as well as from materialists. Rickabaugh argues that it inherits a combination problem as severe as panpsychism's: if the brain's atomistic composition disqualifies it from grounding unified consciousness, it is unclear how such a brain could generate a mereologically simple substance (Rickabaugh, 2018). Kim's general critique of emergence applies as well—downward causal powers appear to violate the causal closure of the physical, while their absence undercuts the appeal to agency (Kim, 1993). Philosopher of religion Richard Swinburne has likewise suggested that if direct divine creation of individual souls—his personal view—were mistaken, a theist could understand the natural world as endowed by God with a propensity to generate souls when suitable physical organization develops (Swinburne, personal communication, 2016). This distinguishes the traditional theological position of special creation from emergent dualism’s natural soul-generation. Evolution, Animals, and Artificial Consciousness Emergent dualism fits biological evolution more naturally than traditional substance dualism, which requires a separately created soul for every conscious organism. If increasingly complex nervous systems acquire the natural capacity to generate conscious individuals, phenomenal consciousness can evolve along with neural organization, and nonhuman animals can possess emergent minds appropriate to their biological complexity (Hasker, 2018). Nor is biological carbon necessarily essential to the generic theory. There would be no necessity that the kind of meta-psychophysical laws that generate emergent dualism should be restricted to complex arrangements of atoms in biological entities or contexts. If the relevant emergence laws depend on physical or functional organization rather than specifically biological material, sufficiently advanced artificial systems could in principle generate nonphysical conscious subjects. Emergent dualism therefore does not entail that AI consciousness is impossible, as it would under traditional forms of dualism. Whether artificial organization actually satisfies the relevant conditions would depend on the still-unknown laws or causal powers governing emergence. Hasker's own formulation leaves this open in principle while emphasizing biological development, and he has not argued that engineered systems would generate emergent selves. Assessment Emergent dualism occupies a distinctive middle ground. Consciousness is not accidental and reducible to physical structure, on the one hand, or fundamental and ubiquitous, on the other; nor is the conscious soul an independently created nonphysical entry into nature. Instead, nature itself possesses the remarkable capacity to generate new first-person subjects when physical organization reaches the appropriate form. That claim—developed most systematically by Hasker and subsequently defended in variants by Zimmerman and others—is the defining commitment of emergent dualism. Its central difficulty, of course, is explaining how matter generates a unified nonphysical subject and how such a subject causally interacts with the brain. Emergent dualism is sometimes regarded as a softer or more naturalized form of substance dualism, “dualism-light,” as it were: nonphysical minds remain real, but their appearance and ordinary functioning are continuous with biological development and evolution rather than exceptions to nature, in other words, a normal part of the physical world, however extended, where these as-yet-unknown “natural” meta-psychophysical laws would determine their automatic manifestation from complex structures, especially from brains (perhaps only from brains). Moreover, as noted, dualism's “pairing problem”—how can nonphysical substances (“souls”) have causal relations with physical substances (brains)—with zero tolerance for failure—would be reduced under emergent dualisms because (i) souls would seem in a way “tethered” in space (Zimmerman, 2005), and (ii) souls would have been generated by physical substances (brains) in the first place. As for this freshly emergent nonphysical substance and subject, to explore its extremes, it could be either entirely dependent on the brain for continued existence or take on independent ontological existence in some strong sense. While either would be an extraordinary feature of reality, the latter, to me[RLK], would seem a rather odd way for reality to be. References Hasker, W. (1999). The Emergent Self. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Hasker, W. (2010). Persons and the unity of consciousness. In R. C. Koons and G. Bealer (Eds.), The Waning of Materialism (pp. 175–190). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hasker, W. (2017). Emergent dualism. In Y. Nagasawa and B. Matheson (Eds.), The Palgrave Handbook of the Afterlife (pp. 297–314). London: Palgrave Macmillan. Hasker, W. (2018). The case for emergent dualism. In J. J. Loose, A. J. L. Menuge, and J. P. Moreland (Eds.), The Blackwell Companion to Substance Dualism (pp. 61–72). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Blackwell. Kim, J. (1993). The myth of nonreductive materialism. In Supervenience and Mind: Selected Philosophical Essays. Cambridge University Press. Kopel, J. (2023). Near-death experiences and emergent dualism. Theology and Science, 21. Rickabaugh, B. L. (2018). Against emergent dualism. In J. J. Loose, A. J. L. Menuge, and J. P. Moreland (Eds.), The Blackwell Companion to Substance Dualism (pp. 73–86). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Blackwell. Swinburne, R. (2016). Personal communication, as reported in the Landscape of Consciousness entry “Emergent Dualism.” Zimmerman, D. W. (2010). From property dualism to substance dualism. Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume, 84(1), 119–150.

---

## Hasker's Unified Experience, Conscious Self, Causal Mind Requires a Brain-Generated Nonphysical Substance
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/haskers-unified-experience-conscious-self-causal-mind-requires-a-brain-generated-nonphysical-substance
Theorists: William Hasker

Philosopher William Hasker argues that phenomenal consciousness cannot be a property of the brain because a complex conscious experience cannot exist distributed across the parts of a complex object, and the brain is such an object—so the subject of experience must be a distinct, non-composite individual (Hasker, 1999, 2010). Unlike Cartesian and Thomistic dualists, he holds that this individual is not created directly by God nor a form informing matter, but is generated by the brain itself in the course of biological development, standing to the brain roughly as a magnetic field stands to a magnet: a genuinely new entity with its own properties, produced by the physical system and acting back upon it. He calls the position emergent dualism, and offers it as a view that concedes what neuroscience has established about mind-brain dependence while denying that dependence entails identity. The account is designed to secure four things materialism supposedly either cannot explain or outright loses—unified experience, the rational efficacy of thought, libertarian free will, and the possibility of survival—without abandoning the claim that the potentiality for consciousness lies in the nature of matter itself. In other words, Hasker proposes that sufficiently organized biological matter naturally generates not merely novel mental properties but a new, unified, nonphysical individual—the conscious mind or soul—which remains intimately dependent upon the brain while possessing irreducible causal powers of its own. Phenomenal consciousness is central because its subjective reality, qualitative character, and especially its unity cannot, Hasker argues, be eliminated, reduced to neural processes, or adequately assigned to a collection of physical components; instead, the brain generates a single “field of consciousness” that becomes the subject of experience, thought, rational agency, and libertarian choice (Hasker, 1999, 2010, 2018). Emergent dualism thus seeks a middle path between physicalism and traditional Cartesian dualism: consciousness originates naturally through biological organization yet, once generated, is ontologically distinct from its physical basis and causally acts back upon it. The Unity-of-Consciousness Argument Hasker's central argument against materialism revives a line running through Descartes, Leibniz's mill, Kant's Third Paralogism, and the nineteenth-century "Achilles" (Hasker, 1999, ch. 5; 2010). Its pivotal premise is that a complex state of consciousness cannot exist distributed among the parts of a complex object. The functioning of any complex physical system—a television, a computer, a brain—consists in the coordinated functioning of its parts, each contributing some sub-effect. But when the effect to be explained is a unified experiential state, no coherent assignment of sub-effects to parts is available. Looking around a room, one has a single visual experience of the whole scene; it is not the case that one neuron has a fragment of it and another neuron a different fragment, with the experience somehow being their sum. The conclusion is that the subject of a unified conscious state must be something that is not an aggregate of parts. Since the brain is an aggregate of parts, the subject is not the brain. Hasker takes this to establish substance dualism rather than mere property dualism: what is needed is not a special kind of property but a special kind of individual. He presses a second consideration alongside it. The physical constituents of the brain are in continual flux, so a materialist account makes the "individual" a series of distinct individuals rather than one persisting subject—an unattractive result for personal identity and for the phenomenology of a life experienced as continuous (Hasker, 1999). Why Mechanism Cannot Accommodate Reason or Agency Two further arguments support the same conclusion. The first is an argument from reason: if mental states are causally efficacious only in virtue of their physical properties, then thoughts do not lead to other thoughts in virtue of their logical relations, and rational inference is not what it appears to be. Hasker argues that mechanistic physics leaves no room for a state's being a reason to do the causal work (Hasker, 1999, ch. 3). The second concerns libertarian free will. Free agency, on Hasker's view, cannot consist in properties of and relations among the parts of a system of objects; it requires a unitary agent not analyzable as a complex of parts. Agent causation demands an agent, and an aggregate is not one (Hasker, 1999, ch. 4). Notably, Hasker does not rest his case on the explanatory gap or on conceivability arguments. His route to dualism runs through structure and causation rather than through the intuition that zombies are possible. Emergence of an Individual, Not Merely a Property Hasker's departure from other anti-materialists lies in what emerges. Standard emergentism posits emergent properties: causally efficacious features dependent on but irreducible to physical properties. Hasker argues this is insufficient, because properties require a bearer, and the bearer of unified conscious properties cannot be the composite brain. What emerges must be an emergent individual—a new substance (Hasker, 1999, ch. 7; compare O'Connor & Jacobs, 2003). The field analogy is direct. A magnet generates a magnetic field that is qualitatively unlike the properties of the magnet's constituents, occupies space, and exerts causal influence on the magnet itself. Hasker proposes that the brain likewise generates a "field of consciousness," which is the subject of experience and which acts back on the neural system that sustains it. This yields three advantages he claims over Cartesian dualism. There is no pairing problem, since the mind is spatially generated by and tethered to a particular brain. There is no need for special divine creation of each soul. And the intimate dependence of mind on brain that neuroscience documents is predicted rather than accommodated. Against Thomistic dualism, Hasker objects that treating the soul as the substantial form of the body inherits an Aristotelian metaphysics he regards as untenable, and blurs the distinction between the soul as subject and the soul as organizing principle. Against Cartesian dualism, he objects that a soul with no natural relation to any particular body leaves the mind-brain correlations arbitrary. The Theological Frame Hasker is a Christian philosopher and a leading proponent of open theism (the future is unknowable, even to God), and the theological setting shapes both the motivation and the limits of his position, though not the structure of his arguments (Hasker, 1989, 2004). While Hasker’s Christian commitments add further possibilities, but they should be distinguished from the core consciousness theory. His arguments from unity, reason, and agency are addressed to a secular philosophical audience and proceed without theological premises. Because the emergent self is a genuine substance distinct from the organism, Hasker argues that its continued existence after bodily death is at least metaphysically possible. What theology supplies is the problem the theory is meant to solve: an account of the human person that permits survival of death and bodily resurrection while recognizing evolutionary continuity and neural dependence. Emergent dualism is offered as the Christian anthropology best fitted to the science, against both Cartesian dualism and the Christian materialism of van Inwagen and Corcoran. The limits matter as much as the motivation. Hasker does not claim that the emergent self naturally survives the destruction of its brain; the field, on his own analogy, would be expected to dissipate when its generator ceases. Since the brain normally sustains the soul, postmortem survival would require extraordinary divine sustaining action(Hasker, 1999, 2017). This is not presented as an ordinary consequence of emergence itself; without such intervention, the natural expectation is that destruction of the generating and sustaining brain would terminate the emergent mind. Survival requires that God either sustain the field directly, or provide a replacement body to generate it, motivating eventual embodiment in a resurrection body as described in Abrahamic religions, especially in Christianity (Hasker, 1999, ch. 8; 2011). Emergent dualism therefore enables compatibility with neuroscience at the cost of natural immortality of the soul, which is a genuine concession relative to Cartesian dualism and one Hasker accepts explicitly. He is likewise explicit that the theory requires the potentiality for conscious life to reside in the nature of matter itself—a claim he shares with materialists and which distances him from dualists who regard matter as mentally inert. Critique The theory’s central difficulty is precisely the strength of the emergence it requires. The objections are pointed. How can a spatially distributed material brain generate a numerically unified, nonphysical subject with phenomenal properties, libertarian causal powers, and potentially unlimited continued existence? Critics argue that invoking “strong emergence” labels rather than explaining this transition raises threshold, individuation, causal-closure, and “problem of the many” objections (Rickabaugh, 2018). Rickabaugh argues that the argument boomerangs: if the brain's atomistic composition disqualifies it from grounding unified consciousness, it is equally unclear how such a brain could generate a mereologically simple substance, so emergent dualism inherits a combination problem as severe as panpsychism's (Rickabaugh, 2018). Shrader contends that a premise about the required explanatory relation between physical and mental states is unmotivated, and that materialists have little to fear (Shrader, 2005). Kim's critique of emergence applies directly: if the emergent substance has downward causal powers, the causal closure of the physical is violated, and if it does not, the appeal to agency fails (Kim, 1993). Others press cases of interrupted consciousness—dreamless sleep, anesthesia—asking whether the field ceases and, if so, whether the same self reemerges. And the field analogy, on which much rests, is disanalogous in the crucial respect: magnetic fields are not simple, and are fully described by the physics of their sources. Assessment Hasker's position occupies a distinctive location: more concessive to neuroscience than substance dualism ordinarily is, more ontologically committed than nonreductive physicalism, and reached by arguments about structure rather than about qualia. The unity-of-consciousness argument is widely regarded as his most formidable contribution, and it targets a genuine difficulty that binding-focused work in neuroscience addresses functionally without addressing it metaphysically. In sum, Hasker provides one of the most developed contemporary alternatives to both reductive physicalism and traditional Cartesian dualism. Its distinctive claim is not merely that phenomenal consciousness is irreducible, but that its unity requires a real emergent subject: the brain naturally produces a conscious self that depends upon the brain, integrates experience into a single phenomenal field, and becomes an autonomous causal participant in nature and reality. References Hasker, W. (1989). God, Time, and Knowledge. Cornell University Press. Hasker, W. (1999). The Emergent Self. Cornell University Press. Hasker, W. (2004). Emergent dualism: A challenge to a materialist consensus. In J. B. Green (Ed.), What About the Soul? Neuroscience and Christian Anthropology (pp. 107–119). Abingdon Press. Hasker, W. (2010). Persons and the unity of consciousness. In R. C. Koons & G. Bealer (Eds.), The Waning of Materialism (pp. 175–190). Oxford University Press. Hasker, W. (2011). Materialism and the resurrection: Are the prospects improving? European Journal for Philosophy of Religion, 3(1), 83–103. Hasker, W. (2016). Do my quarks enjoy Beethoven? In T. M. Crisp, S. L. Porter, & G. A. Ten Elshof (Eds.), Neuroscience and the Soul: The Human Person in Philosophy, Science, and Theology (pp. 13–40). Eerdmans. Kim, J. (1993). The myth of nonreductive materialism. In Supervenience and Mind: Selected Philosophical Essays. Cambridge University Press. O'Connor, T., & Jacobs, J. D. (2003). Emergent individuals. Philosophical Quarterly, 53(213), 540–555. Rickabaugh, B. (2018). Against emergent dualism. In J. J. Loose, A. J. L. Menuge, & J. P. Moreland (Eds.), The Blackwell Companion to Substance Dualism (pp. 74–93). Wiley-Blackwell. Shrader, W. (2005). Hasker on the unity of consciousness. Erkenntnis. Zimmerman, D. W. (2010). From property dualism to substance dualism. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Supplementary Volume 84, 119–150.

---

## Kind’s Dualism 2.0
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/kind-s-dualism-2-0
Theorists: Amy Kind

Philosopher Amy Kind defends dualism 2.0, “a thoroughly modern version of dualism … decoupled from any religious or non-scientific connotations.” Her argument is direct and forceful: “A physicalist framework cannot adequately capture the full reality of our conscious experience”—which has a “qualitative nature.” However physicalism is defined, she says, “whether it's in terms of current physics or future physics, or some other way entirely—we should see the theory as committed to an important constraint: Physicalism can be true only if the phenomenality is not a primitive aspect of the world” (Kind and Stoljar, 2023, pp. 4, 58). A Modern Reboot of Dualism She analyzes and rejects Materialist Theories of Representationalism (9.8) and High-order Theories (9.8.3), and Russellian Monism (14.1), and she deflects the counterattack that “rejecting physicalism is tantamount to believing in ghosts, or fairy dust, or magic.” She stresses that “the claim that consciousness is not a physical thing does not commit one to the existence of spooky stuff. Rather, it should be seen as perfectly consistent with an adoption of a broadly naturalistic conception of the world and our place in it.” She calls Dualism 2.0 “a rebooted version of dualism … what it looks like to adopt this kind of view from the vantage point of the 21st century” (Kind and Stoljar, 2023, p. 5). Duality Without Spookiness Kind's claim is a simple one: “Just as physical states, events, and processes are an irreducibly real part of the world, so too are phenomenal states, events, and processes an irreducibly real part of the world” (jointly, “activity”). Given “the existence of both phenomenal activity and physical activity, and further, in virtue of its claim that these two kinds of activity cannot be reduced to one another,” she declares that “the view is appropriately characterized as dualistic.” Immediately, however, she stresses that “this duality need not be thought of in terms of mental substances. We can have duality of activity without duality of entities” (Kind and Stoljar, 2023, p. 53). While obviously distinct from physicalism, Kind's dualism 2.0 distinguishes itself from Russellian Monism (and Panpsychism, 13), because, although the “claim that phenomenality (or protophenomenality) can be found at the fundamental level of reality … is consistent with dualism 2.0 … it is not required by it.” Dualism 2.0, she says, “need not take mass and charge to be the appropriate model for phenomenality.” Nor does dualism 2.0 “commit itself to the ubiquity of phenomenality,” nor “to anything spooky.” Just because “something cannot be reduced to the physical” does not mean, ipso facto, “that it is magical or mystical.” Her example is mathematics (Kind and Stoljar, 2023, pp. 53–54). What about the physicalist argument that specifying the putative phenomenal laws seems a project from nowhere? Kind reminds her critics of their lack of progress “in giving precise physical or functional specifications of phenomenally conscious states”—and she concludes that “dualism 2.0 is not here in any worse shape than its competitors.” She holds out hope for “a better and broader understanding of the nature of causation” that could enable us “to accommodate mental causes and thus affirm the causal efficacy of the phenomenal … without those seeming either mysterious or spooky” (Kind and Stoljar, 2023, pp. 55–56).

---

## Nida-Rümelin’s Subject-Body Dualism
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/nida-ruemelin-s-subject-body-dualism
Theorists: Martine Nida-Rümelin

Philosopher Martine Nida-Rümelin argues for “a version of dualism that is stronger than property dualism and that may be taken to be a version of so-called substance dualism.” But because “substance dualism” invites associations that she would like to avoid, she uses “subject-body dualism” to describe her theory of consciousness. Central is her claim that an individual has “experiences, thinks and is active, and is neither identical to any material thing nor constituted by any material thing.” While not a dualist in the Cartesian sense, she endorses a non-reductive, non-physicalist account of consciousness, where phenomenal properties are ontologically basic (Nida-Rümelin, 2010). Three Pillars of Subject-Body Dualism Nida-Rümelin builds her subject-body dualism on three pillar ideas: Phenomenal Essentialism and the “Argument from Understanding”: Phenomenal concepts allow direct grasp of the essence of conscious experiences, an idea known as phenomenal essentialism. Because physical concepts cannot reveal phenomenal essence, phenomenal properties must be non-physical. Cognitive Independence of Phenomenal and Physical Concepts: She refines the Knowledge Argument about Mary (the color-deprived neuroscientist): knowing all physical facts is not equal to grasping phenomenal facts. She distinguishes phenomenal beliefs from non-phenomenal beliefs, stressing their cognitive isolation. This parallels the claim that phenomenal and physical concepts are cognitively independent; hence, phenomenal properties aren't physical. Primitive (Pre-reflective) Self-Awareness: She maintains that consciousness inherently involves pre-reflective self-awareness: the subject not only experiences but also implicitly knows it is experiencing. “Primitive awareness of being experientially presented with something involves… being pre-reflectively aware of oneself as an experiencing subject” (Nida-Rümelin, 2017). This supports her views that phenomenal consciousness and selfhood are related, and that self-awareness is intrinsic to experience. A Middle Path Between Physicalism and Cartesian Dualism Nida-Rümelin stresses that “subject-body dualism does not imply that conscious subjects can exist without having a body. If the term ‘substance’ is reserved to entities that do not depend for their existence on the existence of any other entity, then the view proposed cannot be classified as a version of substance dualism. Substance dualism is often associated with the view that the person is metaphysically composed of two parts: a body and a soul. According to subject-body dualism, the person is not composed. The person has a body and her body is in no sense a part of her. There is no difference to be made, according to subject body dualism, between the person and ‘her self’. When a person uses the first person pronoun, or is addressed by the second person pronoun or is referred to by her name, then the reference in each of these cases is the same, it is the person (the subject of experience). Subject-body dualism rejects many of those ideas that are traditionally associated with the concept of a soul” (Nida-Rümelin, 2010). According to subject-body dualism, “the subject is an individual that exists wholly at any given moment of its existence and persists across time while changing its properties. Subjects perdure and they do not endure (subjects exist across time but they are not temporally extended).” As for how her subject-body dualism actually works, Nida-Rümelin proposes, rather than dualistic substances, an emergentist dualism: phenomenal properties emerge from, but aren’t reducible to, physical substrates. She straddles the proverbial fence between hard-core physicalism and hard-core Cartesian substance dualism. Her goal is for a scientifically respectful yet non-reductive position (Nida-Rümelin, 2010).

---

## Mascari’s Qualion-Mind Paradigm
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/mascari-s-qualion-mind-paradigm
Theorists: Stephen Arnold Mascari

Independent theorist Stephen Arnold Mascari offers his “Qualion-Mind Paradigm” as a “biophysically generated dualism,” a “physicalistic/materialistic dualism that manifests supraphysical properties.” Mascari’s model, he says, was motivated by the recognition that something “new” is needed to explain our conscious mental life and that Nature could provide organic life-forms with a higher-level component, a “robust dualism,” that could account for mental phenomena in a fairly straightforward way (Mascari, 2016a, 2016b). Mechanism of Qualions His mechanism is founded on humans manifesting 310 Kelvin (~98.6 Fahrenheit; ~37 Celsius) energy: energy, as he puts it, that is “continually being emitted and absorbed by every molecule within us, with only two possible mechanisms. The first would consist of a direct emission of the body’s 310 K energy in an anomalous form due to certain unique features and interactive processes of biological molecules. The second may occur when ordinary thermal emissions interact in their various potential states with biological structures or processes.” One of these mechanisms, he says, may engender a body-wide network of “localized microphysical energy-structures” that are stable and immune to absorption. These quanta are theorized to be a new form of electromagnetic energy with a wide range of possible structures, including balls, strings, toruses, loops, composites, and the like. According to Mascari, these energy-structures—which he designates qualions—are throughout the body as a whole and would constitute what has traditionally been thought of as the “soul.” In the brain region, however, they would be elevated to the higher level of “mind.” The neuronal brain (Brain 1) would have evolved in part to complement and take advantage of the qualion-mind’s potential. Brain 1 would activate, unify, and pour information into the local qualion microcosm. It would also offer arenas for the qualion-mind’s functional activities and offer features that allow for two-way interaction. Although intimately connected to neurons, qualions would nonetheless remain distinct and have the capacity to interact electromagnetically with individual neurons or neuronal networks. Even so, they may be viewed as a higher faculty of the brain itself—Brain 2.0. Qualions, Mascari states, may be thought of as “the ultimate substrate of mental activity. Essentially, they are proposed to generate highly variable levels and states of supraphysical consciousness fields into the virtual emptiness of the brain region. (Recall that all matter is 99.99+% empty space.)” Mass and energy are known to be interrelated potentials. Similarly, energy and consciousness are proposed to be interrelated but much more closely. Hence, M ⟷E ⟷C. Based on the inference that consciousness fields have an inherently protean, freely active essence that allows them to self-configure and assume a superordinate role over their energetic sources, several other properties, such as field-intensity variation, can be attributed to these quanta. As the means of achieving subjective unity, consciousness fields from distinct qualions are proposed to merge into a single ultracomplex field. Implications of the Paradigm When these and other postulates are added to what is known about the brain’s involvement in cognition, they provide a coherent framework for understanding the emergence of the conscious mind, its continuity as a relatively autonomous, higher-level system, its content and processes, and its ability to exert volitional controls. Mascari contends that the concept that the mind is based on a versatile, transcendent form of energy has better explanatory power than neuro-materialism, because mental phenomena and the material neurons are simply too different in kind, which yields the unbridgeable explanatory gap between them. By contrast, energy and consciousness seem like ontological cousins. The paradigm also affirms that humans are freely acting selves. It transcends the naive neuro-materialistic view that humans are determined mechanisms with no ultimate self and is thus consistent with the perennial view of persons as free, responsible agents. Mascari calls his Qualion-Mind Paradigm “a soul for the 21st century.”

---

## Soul in the Hebrew Bible and Jewish Philosophy
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/soul-in-the-hebrew-bible-and-jewish-philosophy
Theorists: Aaron Segal, Eduard Shyfrin

If one wants to pay attention to the nature of consciousness or soul in the Hebrew scriptures (which is recognized as foundational by traditional Christianity and Islam as well as by Judaism), there are two essential words to consider: “nephesh” (נֶפֶשׁ), often translated as “soul,” and “ruach” (רוּחַ), often translated “spirit.” Neither word is translated consistently, nor does either map cleanly onto modern meanings of soul or consciousness. Nephesh and Ruach in the Hebrew Bible The essential verse for nephesh is Genesis 2:7: “God formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life,” and “the man became a living being (or soul, nephesh).” If nephesh is translated “soul,” that “soul” was not immortal (in that it had to be described as “living”); it was not a nonphysical substance given to the man, but rather it was what the man became. Nephesh applies to all sentient creatures, not just to humans, and although mostly translated “soul”, it is elsewhere translated as life, person, creature, mind, heart (emotions), desires. There are several places where the context seems to require that nephesh be translated “dead”—it would be an odd coupling, indeed, for nephesh to be an immortal soul and at the same time be dead. The first use of ruach in the Hebrew bible is Genesis 1:2, where it is the “spirit” (ruach) of God that is hovering in the darkness over the surface of the waters of a formless and desolately empty earth. But ruach is elsewhere translated “wind” (many verses), as well as vigor, courage, anger, disposition, patience, desire, even mind as the seat of mental acts or moral courage. Ruach is used in “holy spirit” as well as in God's spirit. While neither nephesh nor ruach means soul or consciousness, ruach seems closer to a mental designator and nephesh closer to a living body designator. Segal’s Defense of Souls and Animalism Philosopher and rabbi Aaron Segal offers a defense of a traditional Judaic view that there are souls and that they exist long before being embodied. Responding to the materialist challenge that it's very surprising that none of us remembers anything from before we were born, he proposes that each of us has “been in existence for a very long time" but "only came to be a thinking thing at a certain point in the development of her body (or brain).” Other respectable metaphysical views, he argues, “have us existing for just as long and undergoing transformations no less radical than this. For example, according to one prominent view, anything that ever exists, always existed and always will exist. Nothing really goes into or out of existence. What looks like going into and out of existence is just a matter of going from being abstract (with no causal powers and no location, like a feature) to being concrete (with causal powers and a particular location, like a person), and back again. An immaterialist who goes this route need not maintain that any of us has undergone a transformation so radical as from the abstract to the concrete: just from unthinking to thinking” (Olson & Segal, 2023; Segal, 2023). Segal then moves to a view he calls “closer to home”: animalism—a prominent version of materialism that each of us is a human organism. “Quite plausibly,” he says, “animalism has as a consequence that each of us was once an unthinking fetus. So, according to that prominent version of materialism, each of us has undergone a transformation from an unthinking thing to a thinking thing.” Shyfrin’s Kabbalah of Information Physicist/businessman Eduard Shyfrin, who has developed a “Kabbalah of Information” framework that integrates information theory with the Jewish mystical tradition, calls the Kabbalah soul “the information entity with the dimension of self that is structurally part of the informational foundations of the worlds (The Tree of Sefirot)” (Shyfrin, n.d.). The Kabbalah of Information, Shyfrin says, holds that God created only information, nothing else, as the building blocks of all reality. Thus, there is no fundamental difference between material and spiritual. Creation is an information space (“infospace”), composed of concepts of different complexity and dimensionality. The distance between concepts in infospace is measured by the likeness of their meaning, generating a form of hierarchy of concepts or “worlds”—as determined by the Kabbalah Law of Likeness. Moreover, all the worlds are structurally invariant; the Tree of Sefirot has a fractal structure. The transfer from one concept to another is incremental; it takes place when information change reaches an “error threshold” (Shyfrin, 2019). Based on the above, Shyfrin explains that the “soul” is the information structure similar to the structure of the “worlds” (Tree of Sefirot), with the additional dimension of “self.” This structural similarity allows for the smooth interaction between the soul and the Tree of Sefirot. Souls can “move” in infospace, which, for example, is the process of learning and thinking. All souls intrinsically have the same kinds of concepts in general, but in particular, souls are distinguished by their taking concepts from different parts of the hierarchy of concepts. This process determines the “DNA” of the soul and all its potential functions (i.e., intellect, memory, etc.) (Shyfrin, 2019). In addition, according to Shyfrin, because “according to the Torah the soul is in the blood” (hence the Judaic prohibition against eating blood), "the information content of part of the soul's hierarchy may be structurally similar to that of DNA.” Perhaps, at the moment of the soul's creation, “G-D chooses its complexity and dimensionality, which have hierarchies of structure and which entail the soul's intellectual potential.”[1] Footnote [1]. According to Shyfrin, the Kabbalah Law of Correspondence states that every concept has a multitude of corresponding concepts in all parts of information space, which has a fractal, hierarchical structure that generates differences in complexity and dimensionality.

---

## Soul in Islamic Philosophy
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/soul-in-islamic-philosophy
Theorists: Hamza Yusuf, Seyyed Hossein Nast

In Islam, the nature of the soul is a central concern and is not dissimilar to the soul in Christianity and Judaism (understandable because the three developed side by side during the Middle Ages, rather harmoniously, too). Building on ancient and Neo-Platonist philosophers, medieval Islamic philosophers, mainly al-Kindî, al-Farabi, Avicenna, and Averroes, developed an Islamic metaphysic of the soul by evaluating the concepts of intellect, soul, nafs, and body. Especially important is nafs, which literally means “self,” but can be translated “psyche” and “soul.” In building an Islamic theory of consciousness, the relationship between the soul and body is shaped by the unification of the soul with the body, the soul's effect on the body, the soul's independence, the state of the body, the separation of the soul after the body's death, and whether the soul preserves its individuality (Islamic Soul-Body, 2020). Classical Islamic Philosophers Avicenna has the soul in an accidental relation to a particular body, given that body's need for a central organizing and sustaining principle. “The soul itself is generated by the separate intelligences of the heavens and emanated by them upon the body” (Ivry, 2012). Averroes focuses on the hierarchical structure of the soul, with each faculty sustained by a lower, more material, or less “spiritual,” faculty. Thus, the nutritive faculty is substrate for the sensory faculty, which is substrate for the common-sense faculty, which is substrate for the imaginative faculty, which is, finally, the substrate for the rational faculty. While consciousness per se is not a direct concern, it would be enriched at each level (Ivry, 2012). Spiritual Light and the Soul The Islamic scholar, teacher and classicist Hamza Yusuf describes the Islamic understanding of consciousness as “a spiritual light that God has placed into the human being.” It's not metaphor, he says, “It's a light, a spiritual light.” Noting that the term “consciousness” is relatively new and that “the pre-moderns would have had a very different view of things,” Yusuf explains that in a person's relationship with God, “the mirror of the soul has to be polished because the light cannot shine properly unless there is a polishing. Remembrance of God is how one polishes the soul.” He adds, "the human soul is considered 'aeviternal;' it has a beginning but no end" (Yusuf, 2023). Seyyed Hossein Nasr on the Afterlife Contemporary Islamic philosopher Seyyed Hossein Nasr presents a full flowering of the soul in the afterlife, similar to the Tibetan Book of the Dead or Hindu doctrines of the afterlife. In some sense, he says, development does not stop with death. “Something stops,” he says, “but the soul continues to develop” (Nasr, 2007). According to Nasr, Islam identifies paradise with a garden, which includes sexuality as well as eating—these raise, not lower, the value of paradise, he says. “All of these are to cut the soul loose from attraction to the lower reflections of these realities and have the soul gaze upon the real reality itself. That's what paradise is. And even within paradise, there are levels. The highest paradise is called the paradise of the essence, in which every single concept and idea and limited form of existence is transcended beyond the paradisal estate in the ordinary sense.” The state of the soul, Nasr says, is “meta cosmic,” a kind of merging without destruction of the individual. “It's what Meister Eckhart called ‘fusion without confusion’—a beautiful expression. It's like swimming in the ocean of divinity. To transcend that into divine unity is what you might call a bi-unity. By some great mystery, we are given the power to be conscious of our own nothingness in divinity” (Nasr, 2007).

---

## God as the Supplier of Souls
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/god-as-the-supplier-of-souls
Theorists: Aaron Segal

Many in the Abrahamic religious traditions—Judaism, Christianity, Islam—believe that God dispenses souls actively to each individual (whether at birth, conception, or some arbitrary time is irrelevant here). Whether all these original souls are the same kind of tabula rasa, indistinguishable initially one from another, or whether each soul has its own particular properties or propensities, is a matter of debate. Aaron Segal addresses another anti-dualist challenge—i.e., dualism would require material things like our bodies to have the extraordinary power to generate souls ex nihilo—by invoking the God who created them. “If God exists,” he argues, “then God might well be creating those souls in accordance with the laws; otherwise, this process would happen by itself. Either way, I'm not sure how much more extravagance any of this adds to the fact that souls are coming into existence ex nihilo in the first place. God is already supposed to be able to create ex nihilo, so if God is creating the souls, this would add no more extravagance at all. If God isn't involved, there would be no agent at all creating the souls—the body would be no more of an agent than the sun is in growing trees” (Olson & Segal, 2023; Segal, 2023). A few religious denominations, especially in the Christian tradition, go further and assert that not only does God dispense a soul to each individual, but also God makes a determination, prior to or at that moment of allocation, of what the future holds for that individual soul-person: the soul-person's ultimate destiny, whether that soul-person will attain salvation or be condemned to damnation. This controversial doctrine is called “predestination,” and most mainstream religions reject it (“Predestination,” 2024).

---

## Personal and Cosmic Consciousness in Indian Philosophy
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/personal-and-cosmic-consciousness-in-indian-philosophy
Theorists: Swami Medhananda

Theories of consciousness that developed in the ancient Indian subcontinent, based on the Vedic scriptures, focus on the relationship between individual human consciousness and cosmic consciousness. Roughly, there were two major views: each individual human consciousness is a “piece,” as it were, of the cosmic consciousness, or each individual human consciousness, in some mystical sense, is the entirety of the cosmic consciousness, even though there are innumerable instantiations of the same thing (Sarvapriyananda, 2023a, 2023b; Medhananda, 2023). Individual and Cosmic Consciousness These centers of individual consciousness would reincarnate through countless cycles of birth, death, and rebirth before a final disposition would be made, with the individual consciousness being absorbed back into the cosmic consciousness, as if a single drop of rain, having evaporated from the ocean, condenses back into it. While the main Advaita Vedanta tradition is nondualist, meaning that consciousness is the only fundamental existent and all else, including the entire physical world, is derived from consciousness, there are minority schools that maintain that the physical world has realist existence (Medhananda, 2022, 2023). Samkhya’s Dualism of Spirit and Matter Historically, and perhaps ironically, one of the oldest Indian philosophical schools, Samkhya, advocated the fundamental existence of two distinct, universal realities: prakriti is matter or nature (time, space, energy), and purusha is consciousness or spirit. While the entirety of our perceived universe is nature (prakriti), including our bodies and brains, even our minds and emotions, that which experiences the external world and the internal world of the mind is consciousness or the self (purusha). Hence, dualism (Sarvapriyananda, 2020). Swami Sarvapriyananda explains: “The Samkhyans were strict dualists. They said there is no larger consciousness. Each of us is an individual consciousness” (Sarvapriyananda, 2023b). According to Swami Medhananda, Samkhya is indeed dualist. It is founded on the eternal purusha (spirit or self), which alone is sentient; it is the witness-consciousness; it is absolute, independent, free, beyond perception, above any experience by mind or senses, and impossible to describe in words. Everything else (including the mind) is only a modification of insentient prakriti (primordial nature); it is inactive, unconscious, and is a balance of the three gunas (qualities or innate tendencies) (Medhananda, 2022; "Samkhya,” 2024). As Swami Vivekananda explains, the English word “mind” corresponds to what Samkhya philosophers call the antaḥkaraṇa (internal organ), which comprises four aspects: the cogitating or thinking faculty; the will (or the intellect); the self-conscious egotism; and the substance in and through which all the faculties act, the floor of the mind, as it were. Swami Vivekananda describes the Samkhyan approach to consciousness: “Mind, intelligence, will, and everything else is insentient. But they are all reflecting the sentiency, the cit [consciousness] of some being who is beyond all this, whom the Samkhya philosophers call puruṣha.” Thus, Samkhya has a metaphysical dualism between conscious spirit and insentient matter. Fundamentally, even the mind (antaḥkaraṇa) is actually a subtle form of insentient matter, but it appears to be conscious because of the “light” of the puruṣha behind it (Medhananda, 2022). In other words, the body/brain is “a gross form of matter,” and the mind is “a subtle form of matter”—and the soul is necessary to “illuminate the mind with consciousness” (Medhananda, 2023). Individual and Cosmic Consciousness Souls have always existed; souls are not created by God or by anything else; souls are part of the divine consciousness. How then do we each have our own unique conscious perspective? Swami Medhananda's mechanism is that "the one divine consciousness playfully limits itself" in the form of each person's private consciousness (Medhananda, 2023). To enrich contemporary debate about consciousness, Swami Medhananda calls for considering the relevance and epistemic credentials of meditative techniques and spiritual experience. Doing so, he says, would bring philosophy of mind into fruitful dialogue with philosophy of religion (Medhananda, 2022).

---

## Gomatam’s GV Vedanta Consciousness
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/gomatam-s-gv-vedanta-consciousness
Theorists: Ravi Gomatam

According to Ravi Gomatam, a quantum physicist and a monk of the Gaudiya Vaishnava (GV) Vedanta school of India, GV Vedanta is monotheistic, with a pluralist ontology that distinguishes between the energetic personal God (shaktiman) and the diverse energies (shaktis), such as consciousness and matter, which emanate from God. Both the energetic personal God (the Universal “I”) and his diverse energies, which include consciousness and matter, are ontologically real. While the material atoms lack consciousness and therefore are indistinguishable, the plane of non-material consciousness comprises innumerable individual units of consciousness, each with its own unique “I” (Gomatam, 2021). Compatibility with Cognitive Science Yet, Gomatam says, GV Vedanta is uniquely compatible with the materialistic perspective informing modern cognitive science—namely, that thinking, feeling, willing, intelligence, and even our present sense of “I” spring entirely from matter. This is via the GV Vedanta idea that many properties of consciousness can be separated from consciousness and instantiated in appropriate complementary “levels of matter,” a novel technical concept that Gomatam is introducing through his work in the foundations of quantum mechanics. He says it is different from the prevailing idea of hierarchy of matter at various scales in physics. Levels of Matter and Illusion (Maya) The color, size, and shape of an apple can be instantiated on paper. A plastic apple may instantiate even further properties of the apple, such as its 3-dimensional shape, weight, and texture. In either case, the apple itself is not reduced to the painting or the plastic object that instantiates its properties. Similarly, Gomatam explains, GV Vedanta allows various traits of consciousness to be instantiated sans consciousness in matter at various “levels” of matter, which are mutually exclusive, causal realms that complement one another, with each higher level not being constituted by its lower levels (Gomatam, 1987). Even though matter instantiates properties such as thinking, feeling, experience, and even an “I” via an apparent self onto these levels of matter, matter itself is not aware it carries these cognitive and affective properties. Only consciousness can know matter has these properties. GV Vedanta further explains that we mistake these materially instantiated traits to be part of our intrinsic consciousness due to maya (illusion), imposed upon the individual souls in the material world by the Universal Person (purushottama), from whom all individual “I”s emanate, but who is different from them. In this way, Gomatam suggests that GV Vedanta can contribute novel, sophisticated notions of levels of matter to instantiate various features of consciousness without reducing consciousness itself to matter. Gomatam points out that here GV Vedanta differs from Advaita Vedanta, which holds both matter and individual “I”s to be ultimately nonexistent and admits only an impersonal Universal “I.” Jainism and Buddhism, two other schools of Indian thought, additionally treat the Universal “I,” personal or impersonal, to be also nonexistent (Gomatam, 2021).

---

## Soul in Indigenous Religions
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/soul-in-indigenous-religions
Theorists: Several

The concept of the soul, in multifarious forms, has infused indigenous and folk religions throughout the world, and although we tend to categorize these ancient belief systems as “pre-modern” and “pre-scientific,” lacking the sophistication of the major Eastern and Abrahamic traditions, we may be remiss not to recognize the data and to assess its implications (if any). The geographic ubiquity of soul belief, spanning the globe and including all racial and cultural groups, and its resiliency over time, should not be ignored. Cognitive Science of Soul Beliefs The cognitive science of religion, a relatively recent field of inquiry, can account for beliefs in supernatural agents and entities, from souls and ghosts to angels and gods (Barrett, 2000; Boyer, 2001; Lawson, 1993). Psychologist Justin Barrett's idea of a “hyperactive agent detection device” can explain why human beings evolved concepts of gods and spirits. (Barrett asserts that this evolved psychological mechanism is agnostic on whether such gods and spirits would actually exist: “Having a scientific explanation for mental phenomena does not mean we should stop believing in them,” he says [Barrett, 2012].) Indigenous Concepts of the Soul Although the soul in indigenous religions is often more a vital principle or an immanent power resident in all animate and even inanimate objects, not a non-physical substance in each individual, there is wide recognition of spiritual aspects of human beings. While it is not fruitful to try to discern the metaphysics of what is designated by some aborigines as "spirit of the man," or "spirit in the man," there is certainly widespread belief in the existence of forces, powers and entities beyond their physical worlds (Rivière, 1987, 2005). Whether these beliefs can be classified as substance dualism as presently conceived is debatable, although numerous examples show that “there exists a quite noticeable distinction between the body element and the diversity of spiritual entities that one may call ‘souls’ for the sake of convenience, entities that may have the body as a prop.” What James Frazer in The Golden Bough called the “external soul” has some characteristics of dualism's souls or spirits, such as the capacity to depart the body during dreams. (Differences include, for example, the external soul living in an animal double or in one's shadow.) The origin of the indigenous soul, compared with that of dualism's soul, also has similarities (e.g., coming from an almighty spirit) and differences (e.g., obtained as a gift or by conquest or by choice). The Ewe of Togo use specific, separate terms for the "substance of the soul" and the "breath of life," and believe that the individual, before incarnation, exists as a spirit, and together with the supreme creator (Mawu-Lisa) he or she chooses their own destiny. Other indigenous groups have very physical means to obtain souls, such as pilgrimage, fasting, eating, combat and killing (Rivière, 1987, 2005). Destiny and Diversity of Souls Regarding its destiny after death, souls can reach new worlds in which to live or be transmitted as a vital force to descendants. The majority believe that after death, their ancestors live in another world. Many African religions focus on ancestors, who, in some cases, can reincarnate in a newborn baby. The Native American Dakota have four types of souls (given by the sky god): one is judged after death—if deserving, one's soul enters the world of spirits; if not, it must wander forever. Almost everywhere, the soul after death involves a gradual purification through a series of trials. The ultimate destination is a celestial space or an undifferentiated earth-based place (underground, marshes, desert). While living in the other world, the dead person can be present elsewhere; as a specter or a ghost (Rivière, 1987, 2005). In Chinese folk religion, the majority of supernatural beings are thought to originate from the "souls" of dead people (Harrell, 1979). Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) is said to engage “a deeper level of consciousness that touches various organs of the human body.” Every organ is in some sense involved in consciousness. This includes the brain, of course, but it also includes the liver, the kidney, the heart, etc., each with its own essence or contribution, thus forming “an integrated consciousness system.” “Shen” (神) is the TCM concept corresponding to “consciousness” and the classic TCM text (Huangdi Neijing) describes “how to understand the meaning of Shen in the heart, soul in the liver, meaning in the spleen, soul in the lungs, essence in the kidney, and will.” According to TCM theory, “the human body is a little universe. Things outside the body form the big universe. These outside and inside universes are closely connected together in one holistic overall system.” The claim is that this idea corresponds to the cognitive-science concepts of embodiment, specifically Ecological Psychology (9.6.7) and Embodied Cognition (9.6.1) (Lu et al., 2022). The imaginative varieties of indigenous souls reflect the richness and abundance of human creativity. The Fang of Gabon name seven types of souls: three disappear at death; two persevere after death; one is a disincarnated spirit (which can appear as a ghost); and one is “both shadow and soul.” (Harrell, 1979). While these “souls” are not dualist substances, they reflect aspects of dualism. No claim is made that souls in indigenous religions, however ubiquitous, corroborate dualism as a theory of consciousness. On the other hand, the substantial and similar anthropological data should at least be acknowledged.

---

## Trialism
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/trialism
Theorists: John Cottingham, Karl Popper, John Eccles, Roger Penrose

“Trialism, as used here, encompasses theories that distinguish three irreducible categories, aspects, or realms relevant to mind and consciousness, rather than reducing reality to the one basic kind of monism or the two basic kinds of dualism. These theories are not uniform: Cottingham’s Cartesian trialism concerns the irreducibility of mind, body, and their psychophysical union, whereas Popper and Eccles and, in a different way, Penrose propose broader triadic structures of reality. The three components therefore should not be assumed to constitute three substances in the same ontological sense.” The term ‘trialism’ entered contemporary philosophy of mind principally through John Cottingham’s reinterpretation of Descartes. Descartes distinguishes three ‘primitive notions’: thought, through which mind is understood; extension, through which body is understood; and the union of mind and body, through which such phenomena as sensation, appetite, emotion, and voluntary bodily action are experienced. The third primitive notion is irreducible to the first two: embodied human experience cannot be adequately described solely in terms of pure thought or pure extension. Importantly, this need not imply a third substance mediating causally between mind and body. Cottingham’s original formulation is better understood as a trialism of irreducible properties, modes of experience, and forms of explanation associated with the human mind-body union. Other theories grouped under ‘trialism’ use the third category quite differently—for example, Popper’s World 3 consists of objective contents and products of thought rather than a psychophysical intermediary. Cottingham’s Trialism Philosopher John Cottingham argues that the standard dualist reading of Descartes is an oversimplification. He suggests that Descartes's later works, particularly his correspondence with Princess Elisabeth of Bohemia, reveal a more complex picture. Elisabeth famously challenged Descartes on how an immaterial soul could move a material body, an argument that persists to this day. In his responses, Descartes introduced the idea of a “primitive notion” of the union of mind and body. Cottingham interprets this third primitive notion as identifying an irreducible dimension of embodied human existence: sensations and passions cannot be adequately classified either as modes of pure thought or as merely extended physical processes. His original ‘trialism’ should not, however, be read straightforwardly as positing a third Cartesian substance; its central claim concerns the distinctive properties and explanations appropriate to the psychophysical union. “Thus we have, corresponding to the three 'primitive notions' of mind, body and the union, three distinct kinds of properties and three distinct kinds of explanation appropriate to them” (Cottingham, 1983). For Cottingham, the third notion expresses the irreducible psychophysical character of such phenomena as sensation and passion.He argues that Descartes realized these could not be adequately explained by reducing them to either pure thought or pure mechanics. “The passions, for example, which Descartes analyses in his last published work, are for him prime examples of the operation of the mind-body union… Such modes of awareness are not, for Descartes, reducible to purely intellectual states of a disembodied mind, but are irreducibly psychophysical” (Cottingham, 2008). Popper and Eccles’s Three Worlds Philosopher Karl Popper developed a three-world ontology that neurophysiologist and Nobel Laureate John Eccles adopted and integrated into their jointly defended interactionist theory of mind and brain. World 1: The world of physical objects and states. World 2: The world of subjective experiences and mental states (in particular, consciousness). World 3: The world of objective knowledge, including scientific theories, language, and art—the products of the human mind. As Popper put it, “I propose to call the physical world 'World 1', the world of our conscious experiences 'World 2', and the world of the logical contents of books, libraries, computer memories, and suchlike 'World 3'” (Popper, 1972). As Eccles put it, “I fully accept the recent philosophical achievements of Sir Karl Popper with his concept of three worlds. I was a dualist, now I am a trialist! Cartesian dualism has become unfashionable with many people. They embrace monism to escape the enigma of brain-mind interaction with its perplexing problems. But Sir Karl Popper and I are interactionists, and what is more, trialist interactionists!” (Eccles, 1973). “Although Popper’s three-world ontology is triadic, his theory of phenomenal consciousness is fundamentally interactionist at the World 1–World 2 interface. World 1—the physical world, including the brain—and World 2—the domain of subjective experience and other mental states—interact directly and reciprocally: brain processes affect conscious experience, while conscious intentions and other mental states can causally affect the brain and behavior. World 2 also interacts with World 3, the partially autonomous domain of objective contents and products of thought. Crucially, it is World 2 that mediates between Worlds 1 and 3, not World 3 that mediates between mind and brain: World 3 can influence World 1 through its effects upon conscious subjects, while human minds create and modify World 3 contents (Popper & Eccles, 1977; Popper, 1994).” Penrose’s Three Worlds Mathematician and Nobel Laureate Roger Penrose’s “three worlds” are three distinct but interconnected realms: the Physical World (the universe of material objects and physical laws), the Mathematical or Platonic World (the realm of abstract objects or forms, such as mathematical truths), and the Mental World (the domain of consciousness and subjective experience). He links the three worlds in his ‘three mysteries’ or triangular schema, which portrays fundamental relations among the physical, mental, and mathematical domains... the physical giving rise to consciousness, which in turn engages with the mathematical/Platonic. Penrose does not generally present this framework as ‘trialism’ in the Cartesian or Popperian sense, nor as a theory of three substances; Landscape groups it here because it assigns irreducible roles to three interconnected domains. According to Penrose, the three-world relationships have both symmetry and asymmetry: Instantiation: A small part of the Platonic/mathematical world relates to the physical world (the equations of physics). Generation: A small part of the physical world generates the mental world (the brain, with its sensory arrays and central processing). Comprehension: A small part of the mental world explores and interprets the Platonic (e.g., mathematical theorems). Platonism/Neoplatonism Platonic and Neoplatonic philosophies contain important triadic structures, but they should not straightforwardly be classified as trialist theories of consciousness. Plato distinguishes intelligible Forms, embodied reality, and in the Timaeus a World Soul with an intermediary cosmological role; later Neoplatonism develops hierarchies involving the One, Intellect, Soul, and the sensible world. These traditions provide historical precedents for multilayered ontologies, but their relationship to modern trialism is analogical rather than doctrinally continuous. Trialism in Indian Philosophy Several influential Indian philosophical traditions approach embodied human existence through a three-level structure broadly describable as gross matter, subtle mind, and pure consciousness or spirit. The gross physical body (sthūla-śarīra) consists of ordinary material embodiment; the subtle body or psychomental apparatus (sūkṣma-śarīra or liṅga-śarīra) includes such faculties as mind (manas), intellect (buddhi), ego or I-making (ahaṃkāra), sensory capacities, and—in Vedāntic formulations—vital functions; while the deepest self is identified with an irreducible conscious principle, variously termed puruṣa, ātman, or jīvātman (Īśvarakṛṣṇa, c. fourth century CE; Medhananda, 2025). This structure is especially clear in Sāṃkhya and Vedānta, but its metaphysical interpretation differs radically among schools. Classical Sāṃkhya distinguishes unconscious prakṛti, which encompasses both gross matter and the entire subtle mental apparatus, from puruṣa, the inactive, witnessing principle of pure consciousness. Mental states, cognition, emotions, and phenomenal appearances belong to subtle prakṛti and appear conscious through their association with puruṣa; puruṣa itself is pure subjectivity rather than a thinking or information-processing mind (Larson & Bhattacharya, 1987). Thus Sāṃkhya exhibits a striking gross–subtle–conscious triadic architecture while remaining, strictly speaking, metaphysically dualist. Vedāntic traditions similarly distinguish the gross body, an insentient subtle body containing the principal cognitive faculties, and an eternal conscious self (jīvātman), but disagree profoundly about the self’s ultimate nature and relation to Brahman (Medhananda, 2025). Advaita Vedānta goes furthest in identifying the true self (ātman) with pure, unobjectifiable consciousness and ultimately with Brahman itself; mind and embodied personality are objects manifested to this witnessing consciousness rather than consciousness per se (Śaṅkara; Albahari, 2021). Other Vedāntic schools preserve stronger distinctions among individual selves, matter, and ultimate reality. Indian “trialism” should therefore be understood primarily as a structural or phenomenological three-level model rather than a uniform doctrine of three substances. Its distinctive contribution is the sharp separation of physical embodiment, the subtle machinery of cognition and personality, and consciousness itself—a distinction that bears directly on contemporary debates over whether phenomenal consciousness is identical with mental information processing or is the subject to which such processing appears. Trialism as a Family of Theories In short, ‘trialism’ is best understood as a family of theories rather than a single solution to the mind-body problem. Its defining feature is the recognition of a third irreducible category or domain beyond a simple two-part contrast, but that third term performs very different explanatory work across theories: psychophysical union for Cartesian trialism, objective knowledge and culture for Popper, and mathematical reality for Penrose. Trialism therefore does not offer one mechanism of phenomenal consciousness; rather, it enlarges the ontology within which consciousness and its relations to physical and abstract reality are interpreted.” References Cottingham, John. "Cartesian Trialism." Mind, vol. 94, no. 374, 1985, pp. 218–30. Īśvarakṛṣṇa. Sāṃkhya-Kārikā, c. fourth century CE. Larson, G. J., & Bhattacharya, R. S. (1987). Sāṃkhya: A Dualist Tradition in Indian Philosophy. Princeton University Press. Medhananda, S. (2025). Karma and Rebirth in Hinduism. Cambridge University Press. Popper, Karl R., and John C. Eccles. The Self and Its Brain. Springer International, 1977. Śaṅkara. Brahma-Sūtra-Bhāṣya and Upaniṣad-Bhāṣyas, eighth century CE.

---

## Realms of the Soul
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/realms-of-the-soul
Theorists: Several

Many, actually almost all, religious traditions present elaborate levels or stages or realms of the soul, accommodating the soul and its elaborate journeys before birth and after death—Yogācāra Buddhism, Sufism in Islam, Kabbalah in Judaism, Christian mysticism, occult sects such as Theosophy. These religions espouse different doctrines superficially, but the complex, multi-level, multi-dimensional, geometric structures of the habitats of the soul—the bewildering imagery of what souls are, where they come from, where they go, what they do—look remarkably alike. While such visions of the soul do not address directly the essence of consciousness, the fact that they espouse a nonphysical substance or entity, the soul, that is prominent, primitive, and permanent makes personal consciousness derivative and hence also nonphysical. Yet, all this means little for purposes of this dualism category. In no way does any of this, in no way does all of this, add verisimilitude to the story of souls, but humanity's fascination, obsession, with souls cannot be denied.

---

## Theosophy’s Eclectic Soul and Consciousness
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/theosophy-s-eclectic-soul-and-consciousness
Theorists: Edi Bilimoria

Soul and consciousness are core doctrines of Theosophy, an occult amalgam of esoteric ideas from Western and Eastern religions, traditions, and philosophies. Theosophy defines itself as “Wisdom-religion” or “Divine Wisdom,” and considers itself “The substratum and basis of all the world-religions and philosophies, taught and practiced by a few elect ever since man became a thinking being” (Theosophy, 2023). Theosophy’s Conception of the Soul Theosophy's “soul” describes three of the seven principles that are said to compose human beings: animal soul (astral body, astral shape, and the animal or physical intelligence); human soul (“a compound in its highest form, of spiritual aspirations, volitions, and divine love; and in its lower aspect, of animal desires and terrestrial passions imparted to it by its associations with its vehicle, the seat of all these”); spiritual soul (“irrational in the sense that as a pure emanation of the Universal mind it can have no individual reason of its own on this plane of matter”) (Soul, 2023). Theosophy’s Doctrine of Consciousness The Secret Doctrine, Theosophy's primary text (written by its founder, Madame Blavatsky), speaks of consciousness as “the dark mystery of non-Being; unconscious, yet absolute Consciousness; unrealisable, yet the one self-existing reality.” The state of consciousness is described as “beyond limitation, and hence is beyond the cognizer, cognition and cognized.” It is the state attained in Nirvana, a state “in which all sense of individuality is merged in the whole” (Consciousness, Absolute, n.d.). Theosophy approaches personal consciousness “as sentience or awareness of internal and external existence.” In this view, Theosophy's consciousness “includes any kind of cognition, experience, feeling, or perception.” A special case of consciousness is “self-consciousness” or “self-awareness,” which is “the experience or perception of one's own personality or individuality.” Theosophy's consciousness is “a fundamental (not an emergent) property of the cosmos, which is present in everything including inorganic matter.” The implication of this universal ubiquity is that “consciousness is not necessarily a cognitive function as normally experienced by humans, but rather the more basic ability to perceive and respond to the environment in some form.” Thus, Theosophy regards each individual atom as “possessing a principle of consciousness in its most basic form. This does not mean that there is some process of thinking in the atom.” Rather, “‘atomic consciousness’ could be its ability to ‘perceive’ or ‘identify’ atoms with which it has affinity, responding to them by forming molecules” (Consciousness, 2023). In Theosophy's telling, there are many levels of consciousness, “depending on the plane or body through which it manifests.” In addition, the difference between consciousness and self-consciousness is also important, “since the latter is said to be a special feature that is fully developed only in human beings, especially in connection to the physical plane” (Consciousness, 2023). A contemporary Theosophy thinker is Edi Bilimoria, an engineer, classical musician, and lifelong student of perennial philosophy. He takes “Unfolding Consciousness” as his overarching framework “to show how the Universal Wisdom Tradition—the Perennial Philosophy—and the corroboration of some of its tenets by enlightened science of the quantum era, broadens and contextualises mainstream science beyond its existing metaphysical limitations.” He explores, “in the manner of the Universal Wisdom Tradition, the unfolding of Consciousness from its Unmanifest and Implicate realms, through Cosmos, and Man.” Mind and consciousness, he contends, cannot be wholly explained without in-depth understanding of “the subtle (i.e., non-physical) bodies of the human being on all levels” (Bilimoria, 2022, n.d.).

---

## Steiner’s Esoteric Soul and Consciousness
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/steiner-s-esoteric-soul-and-consciousness
Theorists: Rudolf Steiner

The esotericist, philosopher and spiritual teacher Rudolf Steiner had a complex and changing relationship with Theosophy, from apologist and thought leader to competitor and reprobate. He developed a large following in his time, which to some degree continues. His “spiritual science” sought to expand knowledge and wisdom (Steiner, 2024). Consciousness, particularly the evolution of consciousness, is central to Steiner's belief system and spiritual teachings. He explains “how it is possible to develop higher faculties of consciousness—Imagination, Inspiration, and Intuition”—and how humanity could “gradually take in hand its own destiny through the conscious and free development of spiritual capacities.” He devoted much of his teaching to the esoterica of consciousness and soul, describing vividly “one's life after death and the progress of the individual through the planetary spheres where tasks and goals for future incarnations are prepared in cooperation with the spiritual beings of the Hierarchies” (Steiner, 1923a). Steiner’s Conception of Consciousness and Soul Life Steiner differentiates consciousness from “soul life,” though they are obviously related. His consciousness is a “continuous stream of visualizations,” while it is “not the same thing as the continuous stream of the soul life.” Moreover, “a visualization can live on in the soul without entering consciousness.” This relates to memories, which are usually not conscious and are held in our soul life, and “in order to be conscious of them [memories] we must first call them up out of the unconscious life of the soul by an act of will.” Consciousness, Steiner says, “illuminates but a part of the soul life” (Steiner, 1909). Steiner defines consciousness in (at least) two ways: (i) the overlapping in the present of the current (streams or flows) of emotions coming out of the future and the current of visualizations flowing out of the past; and (ii) the meeting of the astral and etheric bodies (Steiner, 1909, 1923b). What does this mean? Steiner states that “the riddles of consciousness will be solved and the whole peculiar nature of the soul life clarified if you start with the premise that the current of desire, love and hate comes to meet you out of the future, and meets the current of visualizations flowing out of the past into the future. At every moment you are actually in the midst of this encounter of the two streams, and considering that the present moment of your soul life consists of such a meeting, you will readily understand that these two currents overlap in your soul. This overlapping is consciousness” (Steiner, 1909). Steiner’s Esoteric Framework of the Human Being To get a sense of how such overlapping happens, one begins with Steiner's description of the human being as having seven distinct members, the first three of which are “bodies”—physical, etheric, astral—and the fourth is Ego or I. The physical body covers the workings of physics and chemistry. The etheric body or “life body” describes forces or energy fields that are spatial and take the form of our physical body. The astral body expresses affect, feelings and emotions, and has “movements,” such as expansion and contraction (reflecting positive and negative emotions, respectively). To Steiner, how these bodies articulate is critical. For example, “throughout the whole of an earthly life the physical body and the etheric remain together, never separating even when, in sleep, the etheric body and the astral body have to part company.” Similarly, the Ego and the astral body never “part from one another during life on Earth. In our waking state we give life to our senses through our Ego, and through the astral body to our nervous system” (Steiner, 1923b). Two critical elements are: (i) “clairvoyant consciousness about the etheric and astral bodies,” and (ii) “the intersection of the two streams … the two currents meet in the physical body.” In this way, Steiner harmonizes his two definitions of consciousness—overlapping streams of emotions from the future and of visualizations from the past, and the meeting of the astral and etheric bodies, the two streams intersecting in the physical body. What happens “when a man passes through the gate of death,” as Steiner puts it? To simplify, “The etheric body detaches itself from the physical body—something that never happens during earthly life. And now, when the etheric body is free of the physical, all that has been interwoven into the etheric body is gradually dispersed … the experiences that have gradually penetrated into the etheric body … pass out into the universal cosmic ether, and dissolve.” Steiner offers an intricate tapestry of the worlds beyond death: spiritual beings, a speaking universe, uniting with the whole Cosmos, the music of the spheres, rebirths, and more (I spare the reader the details) (Steiner, 1923b).

---

## Lorber’s Soul and Spirit
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/lorber-s-soul-and-spirit
Theorists: Jakob Lorber

The Christian mystic Jakob Lorber asserts in his self-claimed revelations that the human being consists of a soul and a divine spirit, which, for a very short time, are incarnated in a material body. According to geologists and Lorber scholar Albert Hoffmann, the purpose of this incarnation is, first of all, to separate the soul and spirit as far as possible from the almightiness of its Creator, to allow the soul to independently search and recognize its Creator with its reasoning and its own free will, and then to love Him. During this incarnation, the soul is exposed to a multitude of temptations but also to a wide range of inner and outer educational influences and revelations from which it must form an opinion as to its purpose here on earth. In this process, the spirit will provide the soul with a basic sense of morality. Humanity has been created by God out of the purest divine love for the sole purpose of loving its Creator in return and for loving one’s fellow human being more than one’s self. This creationist origin is reflected in every husband-wife relationship, who create offspring to love and to be loved in return (Hoffmann, 2025). Soul as Specifica: The Building Blocks of Consciousness As Hoffmann puts it, reflecting Lorber, just as the body consists of innumerable atoms and subatomic particles, so the human soul consists of an uncountable number of intelligence particles, called specifica. Specifica can be defined as intangible, substantive, living, single intelligence particles, thus forming the platform for universal consciousness. Specifica are the most basic and fundamental particles of the entire spiritual and physical world. Specifica can occur free-roaming or be bound in matter. Specifica continually combine/unify with each other to form ever higher-level intelligence clusters, and under the guidance of higher-level spirits working their way up through the mineral, plant, and animal kingdoms until they reach the level of a human soul (metempsychosis). And by so doing are the reason for the uncountable different shapes of matter in nature. The Role of the Divine Spirit A few days before or after the birth of a newly incarnated soul, a divine spirit is placed as a tiny spark of God's love into the heart of the soul. This is what it means to be created in God's likeness. But since the spirit spark is immensely powerful and vastly exceeds the intelligence of the soul, it needs to be securely encapsulated so as to not overpower the soul. But despite this seven-fold encapsulation, a minute amount of spiritual light is allowed to escape and penetrate the soul. This provides the soul with a free will and enhances the intelligence of the specifica of the soul substantially. While the specifica of an animal soul and a human soul are of the same nature, it is the divine spirit in man that amplifies human intelligence to an altogether new level. This soul-spirit relationship provides human beings with a dual level of intelligence: the intelligence and will of the soul (mind) and the intelligence and will of the spirit (heart). We experience the spirit as the soft voice of conscience. “The god-like spirit invokes a feeling of superiority in the soul, stirring emotions of selfishness, arrogance, and dominance, which the soul needs to be aware of and resist, with a humble search for its Creator and by unselfish charity.”

---

## Nonphysical Component in the Human Mind
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/nonphysical-component-in-the-human-mind
Theorists: Robert Lawrence Kuhn

This theory of consciousness is a generalized notion that in order to make the human mind, some kind of “nonphysical component,” working with the human brain, might be needed. It is the speculative position I [RLK] took in my first paper, published in 1969, where I emphasized that such a hypothetical nonphysical component would not be a traditional immortal soul (Kuhn, 1969). Speculating a Nonphysical Component I did not impute to this nonphysical component, on its own, consciousness or any kind of awareness, only its (potential) power, when working with the human brain, to transform the human brain into the human mind. I can almost find, if I stretch, parallels or resonance with Polkinghorne's “information-bearing pattern” and perhaps Van Inwagen's “naked kernel.” Human vs. Animal Consciousness Here I distinguish human mind from consciousness, which we presume to exist in many animals. Few doubt that mammals such as primates, dogs, and cetaceans are conscious and have mental experiences. Human mind and consciousness are like intersecting, non-overlapping Venn diagrams: some but not all of human mind is consciousness, and some but not all of consciousness is human mind. Stated in reverse, aspects of human mind go beyond consciousness, and instances of consciousness go beyond human mind. My 1969 conjecture was that a “nonphysical component” might be needed to explain the vast difference between “animal brain and human mind,” between the mental outputs of humans and other mammals, especially those whose brains are larger than human brains. There are, of course, purely physical explanations, often invoking critical-mass and threshold mechanisms. Neuroanatomically, the human brain is more complex in its microstructure; the cerebral cortex is more extensive, especially prefrontal areas. Cultural accumulation and an opposable thumb play their parts. Still, I wondered, taken altogether, would they be sufficient to explain that vast human difference, the step-function human qualitative superiority? If not sufficient, to pursue the speculation, to crawl farther out on this shaky limb, such a nonphysical component difference between humans and animals could come about in one of two ways. If phenomenal consciousness per se is purely physical (Materialist theories), then the human mind would require a unique nonphysical component that no other animal species would share. Alternatively, if phenomenal consciousness per se requires some kind of nonphysical substance theory—dualism, panpsychism, idealism, etc., it wouldn’t matter—and therefore there is one kind of nonphysical component required for pure consciousness that is applicable to both humans and other animals equally—then the human mind would still need either a different kind of that same nonphysical substance as its nonphysical component, or, in addition to the “basic” nonphysical component, a separate kind of nonphysical component. In other words, if a nonphysical component is needed for consciousness broadly, then a different or an additional nonphysical component would be needed for human consciousness in order to transform basic animal consciousness into human consciousness. In either case, it would seem to follow that such a nonphysical component would have to be differentiable, whatever that may mean. Nebuchadnezzar’s Mind as Case Study Undaunted by my nested speculations, I had a curious Bible story where all these nonphysical mind components might just apply. At one point in my early ruminations, I wondered if there was anything in the Bible that might reflect the essence of human-level consciousness, distinguishing humans from other animals. In Daniel 4, an incredible account is given of King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon, who was “driven from men and dwelt with the beasts of the field” for seven years: “Let his heart [mind] be changed from man's, and let a beast's heart [mind] be given unto him.” (Dan. 4:16). Then, after the seven years, “my understanding returned to me, and I blessed the Most High” (Dan. 4:34). Assume (for the moment) that this really happened; how could this have literally happened? Mental illness and its spontaneous remission would be a naturalistic explanation. I speculated something else: a change made to some “nonphysical substance” in Nebuchadnezzar's mind; conveniently, I had a “nonphysical component” at the ready. Reflections: 1969 vs. 2026 Suffice it to say that I wrote my “nonphysical component” paper more than 57 years prior to writing this entry in the Landscape of Consciousness, so I ask that my views (and my style) then should not color too darkly my views now. (Well, maybe just a bit of coloring is fair … my haunting teenage thought has not faded: Should a being who can perceive eternity be denied it? But, I promise, I won't fool myself.)

---

# Theories - Anomalous & Altered States

## Anomalous & Altered States—Overview
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/anomalous-and-altered-states-overview
Theorists: Several

Can nonphysical consciousness (or realms) be revealed or accessed via anomalous, psi, or paranormal phenomena—extrasensory perception (ESP), out-of-body experiences (OBEs), near-death experiences (NDEs), and the like? Psychical research beginning in the late 19th century and parapsychology in the mid-20th century sought to study the phenomena scientifically. Parapsychology and the Case for Psi To those who believe in its existence—researchers and general public alike—the reality of psi/paranormal phenomena leads directly to consciousness being nonphysical, as well as to nonphysical modes of mental existence, whether as individual “spirits” or “souls” or in the broader sense of nonphysical realms of parallel worlds (Radin, 2007; Schlitz, 2007; Tart, 2007). There are innumerable reports of ESP—telepathy, clairvoyance, precognition, psychokinesis—the vast majority anecdotal, some research-based; believers (“sheep”) and skeptics (“goats”) remain equally adamant in their convictions. Moreover, even among psi-sheep researchers, there are replicability problems and a possible paradox of confounding interactions between the researcher (the observer) and the experiment (the observed) (Rabeyron, 2020). For the record, I [RLK] remain skeptical regarding the overwhelming majority of anecdotal paranormal stories and circumspect regarding statistically significant research affirming psi. I consider likely drivers to be illusion, delusion, fraud, imperfect experimental design, unwitting experimenter bias, ex ante sample selection, ex post data selection, ex post reasoning, and/or plain-old wishful thinking. Still, I have to say, I generally respect parapsychologists and their experimental designs, and I cannot rule out all paranormal stories. This is why I must consider the profound implications for theories of consciousness if any claims of psi and the paranormal were to turn out to be veridical. (In the context of my skepticism and consideration, and in the spirit of full disclosure, I have a history.[1]) Parapsychologist Dean Radin distinguishes sharply between the words paranormal and psi. They are not synonymous, he stresses. “The paranormal is a tabloid trope that encompasses Bigfoot, astrology, crystal healing, UFOs, the Bermuda Triangle, etc.,” he says. “Equating paranormal with psi perpetuates the idea that psi is part of a great silliness, and this is one of the many reasons why sober academics strictly avoid the topic.” By contrast, Radin points out, “psi refers only to common aspects of human experiences reported throughout history and across all cultures, and psi research studies such experiences.” Radin acknowledges, “Yes, 95% of these reports may have mundane explanations, but 5% do not. And that 5% changes everything” (Radin, 2024). Psi research, Radin notes, was “designed explicitly to exclude the illusion, delusion, fraud, p-hacking [misuse of data analysis to report false positives], and the like.” He asserts, “There is no better way to demonstrate the current state of the evidence for psi than to read major pro-psi and con-psi articles published in the APA's flagship journal, American Psychologist (Cardeña, 2018; Reber & Alcock, 2020). The pro article discusses meta-analyses of 10 classes of psi experiments reported in over 1000 individual studies. In reply, the authors of the con article state up front that they would not address the evidence because—and they actually say this—psi is impossible. That's the Spanish Inquisition approach to ignoring uncomfortable facts, and yet that is the state of psi skepticism today” (Radin, 2024). Cardeña's paper, “The experimental evidence for parapsychological phenomena: A Review,” clarifies “the domain of psi, summarizes recent theories from physics and psychology that present psi phenomena as at least plausible, and then provides an overview of recent/updated meta-analyses.” The evidence, Cardeña concludes, “provides cumulative support for the reality of psi, which cannot be readily explained away by the quality of the studies, fraud, selective reporting, experimental or analytical incompetence, or other frequent criticisms.” The evidence for psi, he says, “is comparable to that for established phenomena in psychology and other disciplines, although there is no consensual understanding of them” (Cardeña, 2018). Reber and Alcock's paper, “Searching for the impossible: Parapsychology's elusive quest,” presents an opposing perspective to “the general claims of psi (the umbrella term often used for anomalous or paranormal phenomena).” The authors mount “a broad-based critique of the entire parapsychology enterprise.” Their position is straightforward: “Claims made by parapsychologists cannot be true. The effects reported can have no ontological status; the data have no existential value.” Reber and Alcock base their stark conclusion “on well-understood scientific principles. In the classic English adynaton, “pigs cannot fly.” Hence, data that suggest that they can are necessarily flawed and result from weak methodology or improper data analyses or are Type I errors.[2] So it must be with psi effects.” What they find “particularly intriguing is that, despite the existential impossibility of psi phenomena and the nearly 150 years of efforts during which there has been, literally, no progress, there are still scientists who continue to embrace the pursuit” (Reber & Alcock, 2020). Near-Death, Out-of-Body, and Other Anomalous Experiences The vast anecdotal literature of near-death experiences (NDEs) and out-of-body experiences (OBEs), amplified by innumerable (supposed) communications with the dead and some serious but controversial research, gives rise to beliefs in a sentient afterlife, thus giving apparent credence to non-materialistic theories of consciousness. There are even reports of auras and halos around or emanating from people; some claim to witness, at the moment of death, the soul departing the body. “Terminal lucidity”—unanticipated and unexplained changes in mental clarity, verbal communication, and/or physical capability in the days and hours before death when each patient's medical condition should not allow for such sudden improvements—suggests, to some, that there is something nonphysical going on (Roehrs et al., 2023). Credulous readers will find an inexhaustible supply of NDE/OBE anecdotes and stories, but modest serious research of sound design in which the extraordinary claims are supported unambiguously by extraordinary evidence (to paraphrase Carl Sagan) (I acknowledge claims to the contrary[3]). Perhaps the most common claim of “evidence” that consciousness is nonphysical comes from out-of-body experiences (Tart, 1987, 2007). Those having OBEs report their experiential awareness to be as a nonphysical entity (spirit/soul) in a nonphysical world. It is all sensorily or perceptibly real, vivid, and stable, yet they sense not being in their earthly bodies and not being in our earthly world. The more lucid quality of OBE consciousness (compared to dream consciousness), which is typical of OBEs, convinces OBE adherents of the nonphysical nature of their personal consciousness and the reality of nonphysical realms. It is no surprise that psi researchers are more compelled by laboratory tests than by OBE/NDE anecdotes. They also point to everyday phenomena that people experience, such as thinking of someone and then getting a text or phone call from them, fueling the sense that it feels too unlikely to be a coincidence. To philosopher and parapsychologist Stephen Braude, the answer to the mind-body problem depends in part on how much exotic data you are willing to entertain. “If you are willing to look seriously at some of the data suggesting a persistence of personality after bodily death, after the body has decomposed,” he says, “then certainly the conventional materialist, neurophysiological view goes out the window” (Braude, 2007a). (For mathematician-astronomer Bernard Carr, paranormal phenomena inform his views of consciousness and the nature of fundamental reality.) The fact of the matter—whether such psi/paranormal phenomena have credible claims on reality, or whether they are purely and merely illusion, delusion, poor design or faulty analysis (those that aren't already outright frauds)—is not for adjudication or even for assessment here. (But the wholly skeptical view, personified engagingly by Susan Blackmore, does need voice [Blackmore, 2002, 2007].) Rather, if any of these psi/paranormal phenomena—even if a minuscule fraction of them—is real and does challenge or defy the laws of physics as currently construed, then non-materialistic theories of consciousness would have to be taken more seriously. This possibility, however remote or however likely, justifies inclusion, at least for me, of psi-motivated theories of consciousness here on the Landscape of possible explanations. I largely agree with Àlex Gómez-Marín: “The study of consciousness requires that we take seriously the many flavors of human experience, particularly those that lie at the edges of what is typically explored scientifically and discussed in public. From psychedelics and synchronicities, to lucid dreaming and psychic phenomena, the ‘backdoors of perception’ have the potential to transform not just neuroscience and physics but our very understanding of the nature of reality and our place in it” (Gómez-Marín, 2023b). (I am, however, modestly less optimistic that meaningful progress can be made.) Altered States and Non-Materialist Theories The more general “altered states of consciousness” subsumes diverse deviations from our normal alert, waking consciousness as induced by various physiological, psychological, or pharmacological actions or agents (“Altered state of consciousness,” 2023). Charles Tart, whose book, Altered States of Consciousness, was the first comprehensive treatment of the subject, focuses on the subjective nature of the experience: “Altered states of consciousness are alternate patterns or configurations of experience, which differ qualitatively from a baseline state,” stressing “… such that the experiencer feels his consciousness is radically different from the way it functions ordinarily” (Tart, 1969). Note that Anomalous and Altered States theories, strictly speaking, are generally not theories of consciousness per se in that they are not theories of what consciousness is. Rather, they are claimed as evidence of what consciousness is not—not reducible to neurobiological states without residue. It is natural that those who interpret psi results favorably are also motivated to accept (or to create) non-local theories of consciousness. Moreover, while advocates of Anomalous and Altered States theories skew toward dualist or idealist theories, they espouse all the non-materialist theories: quantum, panpsychism, and monism, as well as dualism and idealism. For example, Dean Radin supports a “quantum oriented,” non-substance dualism, while Charles Tart supports an “emergent interactionism” substance dualism. All the theories that follow are motivated, at least in significant part, by anomalous, psi, or paranormal phenomena (often NDEs and OBEs). Footnotes [1]. I followed parapsychology from my mid-teens through undergraduate years. J. B. Rhine, a pioneer in the field, invited me to do a PhD in parapsychology with him at Duke—which I turned down to do brain research at UCLA (a surprisingly wise choice for a passionate youngster). I continued to follow parapsychology, with decreasing interest, through the 1970s. Decades later, I began again, modestly, on Closer To Truth, and now with this Landscape, keeping both skepticism and spirited speculation in a kind of superposition. [2]. A type I error (false positive) occurs when a null hypothesis is rejected even though it is actually true in the population. [3]. Upon reviewing an early draft of this paper, cognitive scientist/parapsychologist Edward Kelly said (after some pleasant words that shall remain private), “I think you and Jonathan Schooler both substantially underestimate the cumulative force of the evidence for psi processes.”

---

## James's Plural Consciousness, Brain as Filter of a Wider Consciousness
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/james-plural-consciousness-brain-as-filter-of-a-wider-consciousness
Theorists: William James

Philosopher-psychologist William James’s theory of anomalous and altered consciousness holds that normal waking rational consciousness is only one form of mind among many, bordered by subliminal, mystical, dissociative, trance, mediumistic, drug-induced, and religious forms of experience. These states are not automatically veridical, but neither may they be dismissed merely by being physiologically conditioned, pathological, culturally mediated, or difficult to translate into ordinary concepts (James, 1890/1981, 1898, 1902/1985). James’s guiding claim is methodological pluralism: consciousness studies must take extreme, marginal, and exceptional cases seriously because they reveal dimensions of mind hidden by ordinary waking cognition. In Human Immortality (1898), James proposed that the dependence of consciousness on the brain, though empirically undeniable, does not settle whether the brain produces consciousness or merely transmits it—the organ functioning permissively, like a prism, rather than generatively, like a steam engine producing steam. The distinction is foundational, and, to James, while the two hypotheses were equally consistent with all the correlational neuroscience he knew, they differed radically in what they implied about the reach and persistence of experience. James’s resulting position is a filter or permission theory of consciousness, an early ancestor of Bergson's and Huxley's later formulations and of contemporary beyond-the-brain models. Normal Consciousness as One Type James’s most famous statement occurs in The Varieties of Religious Experience: normal waking rational consciousness is “but one special type,” while other forms of consciousness lie nearby, separated by thin screens. He draws this conclusion partly from his study of mystical and anomalous states, concluding from nitrous oxide and ether experiments, which he believed could stimulate mystical consciousness (though he also recognized that their verbal residue may be confused or nonsensical), and from his mediumship investigations, that ordinary rational awareness is one type among many, separated from others by the slenderest of margins. The important claim is not that intoxication or mediumship proves metaphysics, but that no complete account of reality or mind can ignore radically different forms of consciousness. This is the center of James’s anomalous-state theory. Consciousness is plural in mode, depth, intensity, unity, affective tone, and apparent cognitive reach. Ordinary waking consciousness is pragmatically indispensable, but not epistemically exhaustive. Mystical Experience and Noetic Feeling James’s analysis of mysticism identifies features such as ineffability, noetic quality, transiency, and passivity (James, 1902/1985). Mystical states seem to their subjects to disclose truths not reached by discursive intellect; they may produce peace, assurance, reconciliation, unity, transformation, and altered valuation. James is cautious: mystical experiences do not impose authority on outsiders, and their doctrinal interpretations vary wildly. Yet for the experiencer, they may be among the most significant events of life. This bears directly on phenomenal consciousness. Mystical consciousness is not merely unusual content; it is a different mode of given consciousness. Boundaries soften; oppositions reconcile; temporality changes; affective certainty replaces argumentative proof. James treats these features as data for psychology and philosophy, not as mere fringe. Transmission Versus Production James's argument is disjunctive rather than positive. Physiological psychology had established functional dependence: injure the brain and thought is altered or destroyed. James accepted this, then observed that functional dependence is not dispositive, even ambiguous, for distinguishing between productive, releasing, and transmissive functions. A prism does not manufacture the light it refracts. If the brain's role is transmissive, consciousness exists in a wider field and is admitted, shaped, and limited by cerebral activities rather than manufactured by them (James, 1898). The logic is modest: James did not argue that transmission is established, only that the iron-bound inference from dependence to production is invalid and the alternative not excluded by anything neuroscience had shown. James was offering a modest defense of immortality's bare possibility against the objection from brain science—context that shapes its rhetoric and should be weighed in assessing it. The Explanatory Motive from Psychical Research Not incidentally to James’s total worldview was his framing of what we now call parapsychology, psi, or the paranormal. He was a founder of the American Society for Psychical Research and a president of the British SPR, and treated the transmission hypothesis as having explanatory work to do. Investigating mediums—principally Leonora Piper—he confronted reports of knowledge apparently unobtainable by ordinary sensory means. On the production theory, he noted, it is unclear from what sensations such knowledge could be produced; on the transmission theory it need not be produced at all, existing already in a wider field and requiring only a lowered threshold (James, 1898; Alvarado, 2012). Whether the phenomena were genuine is a separate question on which James remained publicly cautious. The structural point stands independently: he adopted the framework because it made a class of reported phenomena tractable, which entangles the theory's credibility with the evidential status of psychical research. The Filmiest of Screens The most cited statement of the wider-field thesis comes not from Human Immortality, but from the mysticism lectures of The Varieties of Religious Experience (1902). Reporting his nitrous oxide observations, James concluded that normal waking consciousness is but one special type, and that separated from it by "the filmiest of screens" lie potential forms entirely different—forms we may experience without suspecting, but which appear complete at a touch when the requisite stimulus is applied. No account of the universe, he stressed, can be final if it disregards them (James, 1902). It is a legitimate argument that this passage is the intellectual foundation of the twentieth-century altered-states literature. It also states the epistemic claim underlying the transmission theory: the boundaries of ordinary awareness are contingent thresholds, not the boundaries of consciousness as such. Mystical States and Their Marks James's treatment of mystical experience is taxonomic rather than doctrinal. He proposes four marks by which a state may be classed as mystical: ineffability and noetic quality, treated as jointly sufficient, and transiency and passivity, which usually accompany but are not required. The noetic mark is the consequential one—mystical states present themselves as states of knowledge, insight into depths unplumbed by the discursive intellect. James's verdict is calibrated: such states are absolutely authoritative for the individual who has them and no authority at all for anyone else, though they break the monopoly of rationalist consciousness and forbid a premature closing of our accounts with reality (James, 1902). This establishes a methodological stance—take the phenomenology seriously as data, remain agnostic about metaphysical warrant—that much subsequent research has adopted. Reception and Assessment James’s anomalous and altered states theory, largely in his later career, runs mostly outside academic philosophy of mind. Bergson developed a structurally similar account in Matter and Memory (1896), the brain selecting from a wider field only what serves action; Huxley's reducing valve descends from Bergson via C. D. Broad; and contemporary filter and survival models (e.g., Mishlove) make James an explicit ancestor. The standard objection is that transmission and production are empirically indistinguishable absent independent evidence for the wider field, so the hypothesis buys its explanatory scope with an unverifiable claim. Moreover, production seems more parsimonious than transmission. James would likely have accepted the framing while denying it decisive, since his posit was that the alternative cannot be ruled out, not that it is established. The more searching critique is teleological: the theory was advanced to defend a conclusion James wanted—immortality's possibility—and its evidential support came from a research program whose results have not consolidated. Set against that, the Varieties thesis about the plurality of conscious states has fared better than the metaphysics originally recruited to explain it. References Alvarado, C. S. (2012). Psychic phenomena and the mind–body problem: Historical notes on a neglected conceptual tradition. In A. Moreira-Almeida & F. S. Santos (Eds.), Exploring Frontiers of the Mind–Brain Relationship (pp. 35–51). New York: Springer. Bergson, H. (1896/1911). Matter and Memory (N. M. Paul & W. S. Palmer, Trans.). London: George Allen & Unwin. Hawkins, S. L. (2011). William James, Gustav Fechner, and early psychophysics. Frontiers in Physiology, 2, 68. Huxley, A. (1954). The Doors of Perception. London: Chatto & Windus. James, W. (1898). Human Immortality: Two Supposed Objections to the Doctrine. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. James, W. (1902). The Varieties of Religious Experience: A Study in Human Nature. New York: Longmans, Green. James, W. (1909). A Pluralistic Universe. New York: Longmans, Green.

---

## Broad’s Emergent Mind and Psychic/Psi Factors
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/broad-s-emergent-mind-and-psychic-psi-factors
Theorists: C.D. Broad

Philosopher C. D. Broad’s theory of consciousness combines a strong doctrine of emergence with a detailed analysis of phenomenal experience and an unusually sustained willingness to allow psychical research to constrain metaphysics. Phenomenal qualities are genuine features of experience that cannot, he argues, be logically deduced from even complete knowledge of the physical constitution and functioning of the brain; on ordinary evidence this makes Emergent Materialism the most reasonable account, but evidence for telepathy, precognition, mediumship, and possible postmortem persistence led Broad to qualify that position with a Compound Theory, according to which the conscious mind may emerge from the organized conjunction of a brain and a further “psychic factor” (Broad, 1925). His extraordinary taxonomy of seventeen logically possible mind-matter theories shows the systematic background to this conclusion: Broad attempts not merely to defend one view but to map virtually the entire metaphysical possibility space of consciousness before asking which theories survive phenomenological, scientific, and potentially paranormal evidence. Thus, Broad's contribution to consciousness studies is double, and the two halves are more tightly connected than his reputation suggests. In The Mind and Its Place in Nature (1925), he argued that sensible qualities are emergent: not even a "mathematical archangel" with complete microphysical knowledge could deduce that ammonia smells acrid or that the sky looks blue, because the laws linking such qualities to their physical bases are irreducibly trans-ordinal. Decades later, as twice president of the Society for Psychical Research (UK), he specified the domain of the paranormal by reference to "basic limiting principles"—background assumptions about mind, knowledge, and causation so deep that scientific theory presupposes rather than implies them (Broad, 1949). Two of those principles are claims about phenomenal consciousness itself, its privacy and its dependence on a living brain, which is why Broad treated psi not as a fringe curiosity but as the only available empirical test of structural assumptions that philosophy of mind otherwise takes for granted. Emergence and the Mathematical Archangel Broad frames his inquiry as a generalization of the mechanism-versus-vitalism dispute: are the apparently different kinds of material objects irreducibly different? On a mechanistic view, the properties of a whole follow from those of its parts and their arrangement; on an emergent view, they do not. Emergent properties are linked to their bases by trans-ordinal laws—laws connecting one compositional level to another—discoverable empirically but never deducible from below. Sensible qualities are Broad's central case. The archangel, granted unlimited mathematical powers and microscopic perception, could deduce that ammonia must have the microstructure it has, but could not deduce its smell (Broad, 1925). Chalmers (2003) identifies this as a direct predecessor of the knowledge argument, and notes that Broad's book contains recognizable versions of all three epistemic arguments against materialism—knowledge, conceivability, and explanatory. Chalmers also identifies the lacuna: Broad does not consider that the gap might be epistemic without being ontological, an option that structures the contemporary debate. McLaughlin (1992) treats Broad as the culmination of British emergentism, and dates the movement's decline to the quantum-mechanical explanation of chemical bonding, which removed the standard non-mental examples. Phenomenal Experience and Representative Perception Broad begins from the reality and specificity of phenomenal experience. In perception, we encounter colors, sounds, smells, tastes, bodily sensations, and other qualitative appearances. His representational realism distinguishes the physical object perceived from the immediately presented sensory content or sensum: an obliquely viewed circular coin, for example, may present an elliptical visual sensum while nevertheless being perceived as a circular physical object (Broad, 1914, 1925). Experience thus contains both an immediately qualitative component and an “external reference” through which consciousness presents a world extending beyond its sensory appearances. Later Broad characterized the primitive relation of immediate sensory presentation as “prehension” (Broad, 1952). This matters because Broad never treats consciousness merely as behavior, information processing, judgment, or discrimination. Something is phenomenally presented. Illusion and hallucination reinforce the distinction: the occurrence and character of a conscious appearance need not guarantee the existence of an external object possessing corresponding properties. Broad’s theory therefore gives first-person phenomenal facts an evidential standing that any metaphysics of mind must preserve and, to be successful, explain. His analysis of temporal consciousness follows the same methodological principle. Broad investigated the “specious present,” memory, temporal becoming, and degrees of presentedness, treating the temporal organization of experience as genuine data requiring explanation rather than as something automatically dissolved by physical description (Broad, 1923). Phenomenology does not dictate metaphysics, but metaphysics must accommodate phenomenology. Broad’s Seventeen Possible Theories of Mind and Matter Broad's method is what makes the psi material philosophically serious. It is in the final chapter of The Mind and Its Place in Nature that Broad constructs what remains one of the most comprehensive systematic classifications of mind-body theories ever attempted. He argues that exactly seventeen metaphysical theories of the mind-matter relation are theoretically possible, generated by cross-classifying two attributes, mentality and materiality, against four possible statuses. A differentiating attribute is simple and unanalyzable and marks off a fundamental kind of substance. An emergent characteristic genuinely applies to things but cannot be deduced from the properties of their parts. A reducible characteristic applies and can be so deduced. A delusive characteristic seems to some or all observers to apply to something but in fact applies to nothing. Three great divisions follow—both attributes differentiating, one differentiating and one not, neither differentiating—and successive subdivision yields the seventeen. Broad names each, then eliminates by argument. In other words, Broad asks of mentality and materiality whether each is fundamental, emergent, reducible, or merely apparent. A differentiating attribute is genuinely instantiated and metaphysically fundamental—not reducible to or emergent from anything more basic. An emergent characteristic genuinely exists but appears only when more fundamental constituents enter appropriate organizations; a reducible characteristic genuinely exists but can in principle be analyzed in terms of more fundamental characteristics; a delusive characteristic seems to be instantiated but in fact applies to nothing (Broad, 1925). Broad obtains seventeen alternatives, although three pairs share family names, yielding fourteen labels. His terminology differs substantially from contemporary usage: notably, Spinoza counts as a “dualist” because Thought and Extension are two irreducible attributes even though Spinoza is a substance monist. Broad’s classification is therefore a taxonomy of the metaphysical status of mental and material attributes, not simply a classification by number of substances (Broad, 1925; Van Cleve, 2001). Dualism of Compatibles (1,1). Mentality and materiality are both fundamental differentiating attributes, but the same substance can possess both. Broad identifies Spinoza as the paradigm: mental and physical characteristics are mutually irreducible without requiring two separate substances. Broad regards this as coherent, but it makes mentality primitive rather than explaining why it appears only in certain highly organized natural systems. Since Broad sees no compelling contradiction in a thing’s possessing both mental and physical attributes, this possibility also weakens the standard argument from irreducibility to Cartesian substance dualism (Broad, 1925; Van Cleve, 2001). Dualism of Incompatibles (1,2). Mentality and materiality are again fundamental, but nothing can possess both; mental and material characteristics therefore require distinct bearers. Descartes is Broad’s principal exemplar. Broad accepts it as logically serious but rejects the claim that mental and material properties have been shown intrinsically incompatible. Thus, phenomenal irreducibility alone does not establish a separate mental substance. Cartesian dualism remains possible, especially if survival evidence eventually requires it, but ordinary mind-brain dependence gives Broad no reason to adopt it prematurely (Broad, 1925). Pure Mentalism (2,12). Mentality is fundamental, whereas materiality is delusive: reality is genuinely mental, and what appears to be an independently material world ultimately is not. Berkeley and some other idealists approximate this position. Unlike Pure Materialism, Pure Mentalism is not self-refuting for Broad: if apparent physical objects prove ultimately nonmaterial, the appearances themselves can still be genuine mental events. He nevertheless sees the position as highly revisionary and regards the success and systematic structure of physical science as giving strong reason not to discard materiality unless forced to do so (Broad, 1925; Van Cleve, 2001). Pure Materialism (2,22). Materiality is fundamental and mentality is delusive—roughly an ancestor of contemporary eliminativism about consciousness. Broad regards this as immediately self-contradictory. If mentality is supposedly an illusion, there must at least be seeming, misperceiving, or misjudging; but seeming, perceiving, and judging are themselves mental occurrences. One cannot eliminate phenomenal or cognitive mentality by calling it an illusion because the existence of the illusion reinstates precisely what the theory denies (Broad, 1925). This is one of Broad’s clearest arguments for treating conscious appearance as an irreducible datum. Emergent Mentalism (2,111). Mentality is fundamental, while materiality genuinely exists but emerges from a fundamentally mental reality. This is a distinctive idealist-emergent possibility: physicality is real rather than illusory, but ontologically derivative from mental fundamentals. Broad regards it as logically possible, though it sacrifices one principal attraction of emergence—the prospect of explaining why mentality appears at particular levels of physical organization—because mentality has already been made fundamental. More generally, Broad argues that treating mentality as a differentiating attribute simply relocates rather than explains its occurrence (Broad, 1925). Reductive Mentalism (2,112). Mentality is fundamental while materiality is genuine but reducible to mental characteristics—for example, by analyzing physical objects entirely in terms of actual and possible experiences. This resembles phenomenalist reconstructions of matter, although Broad observes that actual phenomenalists do not always fit his category cleanly. Broad believes Reductive Mentalism can be positively refuted: analyses in terms of experience fail fully to reconstruct the distinctive features required for materiality, including the public, persistent, mind-independent structure attributed to physical objects. He knew of no philosopher who straightforwardly held the position exactly as defined (Broad, 1925; Van Cleve, 2001). Emergent Materialism (2,211). Materiality is fundamental and mentality is a genuinely novel emergent characteristic of certain sufficiently organized material systems. This is Broad’s preferred theory if only ordinary evidence is considered. Consciousness depends lawfully upon brain organization, yet phenomenal properties cannot be reduced to neural properties or predicted from lower-level physical laws. Psychophysical relations therefore involve fundamental “trans-ordinal” laws discovered empirically after mentality appears. This theory preserves both neurological dependence and phenomenal irreducibility without postulating a pre-existing mental substance (Broad, 1925). It is the pivotal position in Broad’s philosophy. Reductive Materialism (2,212). Materiality is fundamental and mentality reduces without remainder to bodily characteristics. Broad associates its contemporary form with Behaviorism and distinguishes “molar” reduction to overt behavior from “molecular” identification with internal neural processes. He regards both as inadequate. We infer other minds partly from behavior, but we know our own experiences directly rather than by observing our bodily movements; moreover, physical predicates applicable to neural events—for example spatial, quantitative, or dynamical properties—do not simply mean the same thing as phenomenal predicates such as experiencing red or feeling pain. Consciousness therefore cannot be analyzed away into behavior or physiology (Broad, 1925; Van Cleve, 2001). Emergent Neutralism (3,11). Neither mentality nor materiality is fundamental; both emerge from a more basic reality that is intrinsically neither mental nor material. Broad associates Samuel Alexander with an important version in which both arise from more fundamental spatiotemporal characteristics. This is a genuine alternative to both materialism and idealism: phenomenal consciousness emerges, but not from matter, because matter itself is emergent. Broad takes the position seriously. Its explanatory burden is to characterize the neutral basis richly enough to account independently for the emergence of both physical structure and phenomenal mentality without covertly importing either at the fundamental level (Broad, 1925; Van Cleve, 2001). Reductive Neutralism (3,13). Neither mentality nor materiality is fundamental, and both are reducible to a more basic neutral reality. This is the most thoroughly reductionist form of neutral monism. Mental and physical descriptions organize the same underlying nonmental, nonmaterial elements in different ways. Broad considers such neutralist approaches logically coherent and potentially economical because they avoid privileging either side of the mind-body relation. Their difficulty is substantive rather than formal: the neutral basis must be specified so that both the qualitative immediacy of consciousness and the apparently objective structure of matter genuinely follow from it rather than being assumed under different terminology. Mixed Neutralism A (3,121). Neither mentality nor materiality is fundamental; mentality is emergent, whereas materiality is reducible to neutral fundamentals. The physical world can therefore be constructed from the neutral basis, but phenomenal consciousness appears only when those fundamentals are configured in special higher-order ways. This has affinities with modern neutral-monist approaches that give consciousness genuine strong-emergent status while treating physical structure as derivative. Broad regards it as coherent; phenomenally, it has the attraction of acknowledging the novelty of consciousness without making conventional matter the ultimate ontological ground. Mixed Neutralism B (3,122). Neither is fundamental; mentality is reducible, while materiality is emergent from the neutral basis. This reverses the preceding theory. Conscious experience contains nothing ontologically novel beyond the neutral constituents, whereas physical materiality emerges only through their organization. Broad does not find it self-contradictory, but it is comparatively ill-suited to his own insistence that qualitative experience resists reductive derivation. It would need to show precisely how phenomenal characteristics can be analyzed into neutral characteristics while physical organization nevertheless introduces genuine novelty. Mentalistic Neutralism A (3,211). Neither mentality nor materiality is fundamental; mentality is emergent from a neutral basis, while materiality is delusive. The world genuinely contains conscious or mental characteristics, but what we ordinarily describe as matter is ultimately a misleading appearance. Broad regarded versions of Russell’s neutralism as approaching this sector of the taxonomy, depending on how Russell’s neutral events and constructions are interpreted. The theory avoids the self-refutation that afflicts theories denying mentality, because phenomenal appearances remain real, but it incurs the major revisionary cost of denying that materiality as ordinarily understood is instantiated. Mentalistic Neutralism B (3,212). Neither mentality nor materiality is fundamental; mentality is reducible to neutral characteristics, while materiality is delusive. Here both conventional matter and fundamental mentality disappear from the ground floor, but conscious phenomena survive as reducible organizations of neutral elements. Broad regards this as logically possible. Its central challenge is whether phenomenal consciousness can truly be reconstructed out of constituents characterized as nonmental without the reduction quietly presupposing precisely the qualitative features it is meant to explain. Materialistic Neutralism A (3,221). Neither mentality nor materiality is fundamental; materiality emerges from neutral reality and mentality is delusive. Broad rejects it immediately for the same reason as Pure Materialism. Whatever the status of matter or the neutral substrate, the claim that consciousness merely seems to exist entails actual seeming or judging and therefore entails mentality. Adding a neutral ontological level cannot rescue eliminativism about consciousness from this reflexive problem (Broad, 1925). Materialistic Neutralism B (3,222). Neither mentality nor materiality is fundamental; materiality is reducible to neutral reality while mentality is delusive. Broad again rejects the theory as self-contradictory. Whether matter is fundamental or derivative makes no difference to the decisive objection: a universe in which consciousness falsely appears to exist is already a universe containing appearances and thus some form of mentality. Broad eliminates both forms of Materialistic Neutralism at the outset (Broad, 1925). Pure Neutralism (3,3). Neither mentality nor materiality is fundamental, emergent, or reducible; both are delusive characteristics. Reality is exclusively neutral, while both mind and matter merely seem to characterize it. Broad again regards the mental half of the proposal as self-refuting: if both categories are illusions, the occurrence of the illusion itself entails mentality. Pure Neutralism therefore fails before questions concerning its account of matter even arise (Broad, 1925). Broad thus immediately eliminates four theories because they make mentality delusive—Pure Materialism, both Materialistic Neutralisms, and Pure Neutralism—and claims to refute two more, Reductive Mentalism and Reductive Materialism. Of the remaining eleven, he gives especially serious consideration to dualist, mentalist, neutralist, and emergent alternatives, but the cumulative evidence from ordinary experience and science leads him toward Emergent Materialism. To summarize his reasoning: mentality plainly exists; it is not successfully reducible to physical or behavioral characteristics; there is no compelling reason to declare it fundamental at every ontological level; therefore its emergence from sufficiently organized systems is the strongest ordinary hypothesis (Broad, 1925; Dewalque, 2024). The importance of this taxonomy for consciousness studies is considerable. Broad anticipates much of the contemporary possibility space: eliminative physicalism, reductive physicalism, strong emergence, idealism, substance and attribute dualisms, neutral monism, Russellian strategies, and combinations in which mental and physical properties have asymmetric ontological status. His seventeen theories are not seventeen theories he endorses; they constitute a deliberately exhaustive logical matrix against which phenomenal consciousness can function as a discriminator. Strong Emergence and the Qualitative Gap Broad’s best-known positive contribution is his formulation of strong emergence. Higher-level characteristics may depend completely and lawfully on a lower-level configuration while nevertheless being impossible to deduce, even in principle, from complete knowledge of the constituents, their arrangement, and the laws governing them in other circumstances. The connection is therefore nomological but not reducible (Broad, 1925; McLaughlin, 1992). Phenomenal consciousness supplies Broad’s strongest example. As noted, his “mathematical archangel” might possess exhaustive physical and mathematical knowledge of ammonia molecules, sensory receptors, nerves, and the human brain. Yet if the archangel had never smelled ammonia, Broad argues, no amount of physical deduction would reveal what ammonia smells like. Likewise, physical knowledge of the mechanisms of vision would not by itself enable a creature wholly lacking visual experience to anticipate the phenomenal appearance of color (Broad, 1925). This strikingly anticipates later knowledge arguments about qualia, especially Jackson’s Mary argument, although the argumentative purposes differ. Broad takes the non-deducibility primarily as evidence that psychophysical connections involve fundamental emergent laws rather than ordinary physical reduction. The neural configuration determines the experience, but the qualitative character of that experience cannot be inferred from lower-level facts before encountering the psychophysical law and the phenomenal property itself. Broad was careful not to infer Cartesian dualism directly from this epistemic asymmetry. The inability to deduce smell from molecular and neural description establishes a gap between types of characteristics; it does not establish that the characteristics must belong to separate substances. This is why Emergent Materialism remains possible: phenomenal properties can be real, irreducible, and dependent on material systems without being independently existing mental substances. The Compound Mind and the Psychic Factor Broad’s conclusion in 1925 is explicitly conditional: if only “normal” facts were considered and alleged paranormal facts were rejected, Emergent Materialism would be, in his judgment, the most reasonable theory (Broad, 1925). But Broad did not believe philosophers were entitled simply to discard all ostensibly paranormal evidence. If some of that evidence were genuine, ordinary emergent materialism might be incomplete. His resulting Compound Theory proposes that the conscious mind may emerge from the conjunction of two components: the living brain-and-nervous-system and a further psychic factor. Crucially, this psychic factor should not simply be equated with a fully formed Cartesian soul. Neither component by itself needs to possess the characteristic organization of a conscious person. Much as properties of a compound can arise only when its constituents are appropriately combined, ordinary consciousness, memory, reasoning, affect, and personality may belong to the organized compound rather than to either factor separately (Broad, 1925). This enables Broad to preserve the overwhelming evidence for brain dependence while leaving conceptual room for anomalous phenomena. Brain injury, intoxication, sensory stimulation, and ordinary physiology can profoundly modify consciousness because the brain is an indispensable constituent of the normal conscious compound. Yet if some psychic factor can temporarily persist after bodily death or enter unusual relations with another organism, certain mediumistic or survival phenomena might become possible without implying that the entire ordinary personality exists independently of the brain. Broad therefore distinguishes persistence of a psychic factor from survival of the person. Genuine personal survival would require much more—continuity of memory, dispositions, character, cognitive organization, and other features constitutive of an individual mind. A postmortem residue or factor would not by itself establish immortality (Broad, 1925, 1955, 1962). This is an essential qualification to the common description of Broad as simply an emergent materialist. His considered position was closer to: emergent materialism is the best theory on ordinary evidence; if sufficiently strong psychical evidence is admitted, a Compound Theory in which mentality emerges from brain-plus-psychic-factor may be preferable. Broad explicitly regarded such a Compound Theory as potentially compatible with Emergent Materialism, depending on the ultimate nature of the psychic factor (Broad, 1925). Psi, Survival, and Basic Limiting Principles Broad’s lifelong investigation of psychical research followed directly from this methodological openness. He regarded telepathy, clairvoyance, precognition, mediumship, apparitions, and survival claims as potentially important, not because such anomalies were completely credible, but because established anomalies could falsify assumptions tacitly built into dominant philosophies of mind. In his 1949 essay “The Relevance of Psychical Research to Philosophy,” Broad called such assumptions Basic Limiting Principles. These include restrictions concerning causal order, the means by which one mind can acquire information about another, the dependence of mental events upon living brains, and the normal sensory routes by which knowledge of physical events is obtained. An “ostensibly paranormal” phenomenon is significant because it appears, prima facie, to violate one or more such background principles (Broad, 1949). Thus, genuine telepathy would suggest acquisition of information from another mind without ordinary sensory mediation; clairvoyance would suggest information about external events without conventional sensory access; precognition could challenge assumptions about temporal and causal asymmetry; convincing mediumistic communication could bear on whether organized mental characteristics can persist after bodily death. Broad was substantially more skeptical about psychokinesis than about some forms of extrasensory cognition, illustrating that his interest in psychical research was discriminating rather than an acolyte acceptance of paranormal claims (Broad, 1949, 1962). His procedure is methodological and conditional. First determine whether the reported phenomenon occurred; exclude fraud, observational error, coincidence, sensory leakage, and ordinary causal explanations; ask whether known agents operating under known laws suffice; and only if they do not should new laws or new kinds of causal factor be considered. His philosophical point is that a phenomenon cannot legitimately be rejected merely because it violates a metaphysical principle whose universality is precisely what the phenomenon would call into question. The Ψ/Psi-Component and Dispositional Survival Broad's most original contribution to the survival debate is an analysis of what would have to persist. Personality consists largely of dispositions—memories, traits, skills—not occurrent experiences. But dispositions require categorical grounds, and we can attach no clear sense to a persistent purely mental structure; so the categorical basis of personality appears to reside in brain structure, and its post-mortem persistence appears impossible (Broad, 1962, pp. 414–415). His proposed escape is a Ψ/Psi-component: a constituent of the human compound, not open to ordinary observation, carrying some part of the organized dispositional basis and modified during life by experience and training. Crucially, Broad denies that the Ψ/Psi-component would by itself be a person, or even be associated with any stream of experience at the level of a cat or an oyster; personality, and even the lowliest actual experience, may require its association with a living organism (Broad, 1962, p. 415). The proposal thus separates the carrier of psychological structure from the subject of phenomenal consciousness and posits only the former as separable—arguably, a more disciplined position than popular dualism, conceding that experience may be organism-dependent even if personality is not. Sudduth (2016) subjects the argument to detailed critique. Ψ/Psi Caveats and Theory-Selection Instrument There is, however, a crucial historical caveat. Some evidence Broad regarded as strong did not survive later scrutiny. He placed considerable weight on S. G. Soal’s ESP experiments, but Betty Markwick’s later analysis produced evidence that Soal had manipulated experimental data (Markwick, 1978). This substantially weakens part of Broad’s empirical case and illustrates why his conclusions about psi cannot simply be taken at face value. Yet the methodological issue is separable from the empirical verdict. Broad’s principle remains: a theory of consciousness should be responsive to the total evidence, including well-established anomalous evidence if such evidence exists, rather than defining anomalies out of existence by physicalist or naturalist presupposition. Conversely, extraordinary reports do not warrant metaphysical revision until ordinary explanations and methodological defects have been rigorously excluded, a high hurdle as later history has shown. This gives psychical research a direct relation to phenomenal consciousness. If conscious experience is invariably generated by currently functioning neural processes, then phenomenally conscious cognition should neither persist without those processes nor acquire information independently of physically recognized channels. If rigorously established cases showed otherwise, the evidential balance among Broad’s seventeen theories would change. Psi is therefore not an eccentric appendix to Broad’s philosophy of mind—it is potentially a theory-selection instrument, and, as such, it motivates Landscape’s Anomalous & Altered States category. Assessment and Legacy Broad’s lasting importance comes from integrating four projects that later philosophy often separates: rigorous description of phenomenal experience, systematic enumeration of mind-body metaphysics, strong emergence, and empirical openness to apparently anomalous phenomena. The ammonia example anticipates the explanatory gap and knowledge arguments; the seventeen-theory taxonomy anticipates much of the contemporary map of physicalism, dualism, idealism, and neutral monism; and the Compound Theory shows how anomalous evidence could, in principle, revise a theory otherwise strongly constrained by neurophysiology. Broad’s position also resists simple classification. He is not a Cartesian dualist because he sees no need for a separately conscious substance on ordinary evidence. He is not a reductive physicalist because phenomenal consciousness cannot be analyzed into physical characteristics. He is not simply a strong emergent materialist (i.e., Non-Reductive Physicalist) because his ultimate assessment explicitly leaves room for a psychic factor motivated by psychical research. And he is certainly not a paranormal dogmatist or missionary: his entire method depends on distinguishing what would follow if anomalous phenomena were securely established from whether any particular evidence actually succeeds. For contemporary consciousness studies, Broad’s deepest methodological lesson may therefore be the conjunction of phenomenological realism and metaphysical fallibilism. The qualitative existence of consciousness cannot coherently be eliminated; its properties must not be assumed reducible simply because they correlate with brain states; but neither phenomenal irreducibility nor anomalous reports license an immediate leap to a nonphysical substance. Competing ontologies are to be differentiated by the broadest and most rigorously evaluated body of evidence available. The weaknesses are real. The laboratory evidence in the Lectures leans heavily on Soal's card-guessing experiments, subsequently discredited as fraudulent. Broad dismissed psychokinesis and physical mediumship on thin grounds, judging that at least ninety-nine percent of such reports were misdescribed or fraudulent, and so never engaged the cases that would most have tested him. And the archangel argument sidesteps the possibility of an epistemic gap without an ontological one. What survives is substantial: the earliest sustained epistemic case against physicalism from phenomenal quality; trans-ordinal laws as an ancestor of psychophysical bridging laws; a still-unmatched specification of what psi would actually cost the standard picture of mind; the dispositional reframing of survival; and a demonstration that anomalous phenomena can be treated with full analytic rigor by someone who is both impartial and passionate. Placement While Broad is classified here in the Anomalous & Altered States category, he might well have beenin Non-Reductive Physicalism. He argued that phenomenal consciousness is real and irreducible: even complete physical knowledge of a brain could not reveal what an experience—such as smelling ammonia—feels like. His strong emergentism therefore held that consciousness may arise lawfully from complex physical organization while possessing genuinely novel qualitative properties. Broad systematically compared 17 possible mind-matter theories, favoring Emergent Materialism on ordinary evidence. However, taking psychical research seriously led him toward a Compound Theory in which consciousness might emerge from the conjunction of brain and a further “psychic factor.” Telepathy, precognition, mediumship, and survival evidence were therefore potentially crucial tests of whether consciousness exceeds normal neural constraints—possibilities Broad investigated rigorously but conditionally, without claiming paranormal phenomena established.Thus, Broad would have fit securely and comfortably in Non-Reductive Physicalism—were it not for his unusual turn bringing psychical research into the argument. Hence, he is classified here in the Anomalous & Altered States category. Finally, Broad’s 17-theory section can be considered a progenitor of this Landscape References Broad, C. D. (1914). Perception, Physics and Reality: An Enquiry into the Information that Physical Science Can Supply About the Real. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Broad, C. D. (1923). Scientific Thought. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co. Broad, C. D. (1925). The Mind and Its Place in Nature. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co. Broad, C. D. (1949). The relevance of psychical research to philosophy. Philosophy, 24(91), 291–309. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0031819100007452 Broad, C. D. (1952). Some elementary reflexions on sense-perception. Philosophy, 27(100), 3–17. Broad, C. D. (1953). Religion, Philosophy and Psychical Research: Selected Essays. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Broad, C. D. (1955). Human Personality and the Possibility of Its Survival. Berkeley: University of California Press. Broad, C. D. (1962). Lectures on Psychical Research: Incorporating the Perrott Lectures Given in Cambridge University in 1959 and 1960. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Dewalque, A. (2024). The Varieties of Monism: C. D. Broad. Paper presented at the 25th World Congress of Philosophy, Rome. Gustavsson, K. (2002). Emergent Consciousness: Themes in C. D. Broad’s Philosophy of Mind. Göteborg: Acta Philosophica Gothoburgensia. Markwick, B. (1978). The Soal-Goldney experiments with Basil Shackleton: New evidence of data manipulation. Proceedings of the Society for Psychical Research, 56, 250–277. McLaughlin, B. P. (1992). The rise and fall of British emergentism. In A. Beckermann, H. Flohr, and J. Kim (Eds.), Emergence or Reduction? Essays on the Prospects of Nonreductive Physicalism (pp. 49–93). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Van Cleve, J. (2001). C. D. Broad. In A. P. Martinich and D. Sosa (Eds.), A Companion to Analytic Philosophy. Oxford: Blackwell.

---

## Huxley’s Mind-At-Large Filter Theory
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/huxley-s-mind-at-large-filter-theory
Theorists: Aldous Huxley

Novelist/public intellectual Aldous Huxley’s theory of consciousness is a modern mystical-filter theory: ordinary phenomenal consciousness is a biologically narrowed fragment of a wider “Mind at Large,” constrained by the brain, nervous system, language, ego, and practical survival. Psychedelics, contemplative disciplines, hypnosis, aesthetic absorption, and spontaneous visionary states may partially loosen this constriction, disclosing intensified perception, diminished ego-boundaries, altered temporality, and sometimes unitary awareness (Huxley, 1945, 1954, 1956, 1962). The view is metaphysically closer to Bergsonian-Jamesian filtration, perennialism, and idealist or panpsychist traditions than to any materialism theories; yet its phenomenological value does not depend wholly on its metaphysical truth. In other words, Huxley advanced a "filter" or "reducing valve" theory of consciousness on which the brain and nervous system function primarily to eliminate and constrain rather than to produce experience, funneling this purported cosmic "Mind at Large" into the narrow trickle of awareness required for biological survival (Huxley, 1954). Phenomenal consciousness—the felt, qualitative texture of experience—is on this view ordinarily impoverished by evolutionary and cultural pressures toward utility; mescaline, mystical discipline, and certain pathologies loosen the valve and disclose experience in its unedited richness. Drawn from Bergson via C. D. Broad and fused with the idealist mysticism of Huxley's Perennial Philosophy, the account treats consciousness as fundamentally exogenous to the brain—received, not manufactured. Mind At Large and the Reducing Valve Huxley's central image, developed in The Doors of Perception following his 1953 mescaline experience, holds that the brain does not simply produce consciousness; it filters, selects, and restricts it. Drawing on Bergson, William James, and F. W. H. Myers (Society for Psychical Research), Huxley argues that biological survival requires limitation: the organism must ignore most possible awareness so that it can act efficiently in a dangerous world "to make biological survival possible.” Thus, Mind at Large must be “funneled through the reducing valve of the brain and nervous system," yielding "a measly trickle of the kind of consciousness which will help us to stay alive on the surface of this particular planet" (Huxley, 1954). Each person is at least potentially capable of apprehending everything happening everywhere; the function of brain, sense organs, and nervous system is "in the main eliminative and not productive" (Huxley, 1954). They protect us by excluding vast ranges of perception and memory, leaving only what is practically useful; language then reinforces this narrowness by making reduced awareness seem like reality itself. Ordinary awareness is thus a curated, survival-oriented interface, further constricted by language. Phenomenal richness—the intrinsic "is-ness" of a chair or flower blazing with significance—is not added by the psychedelic but revealed once the valve relaxes. This makes ordinary consciousness adaptive but ontologically misleading. The everyday phenomenal field is not false, but radically impoverished. What appears as the stable, object-filled world is a survival-oriented selection from a more extensive field of possible experience. Huxley’s Mind at Large is therefore not merely the unconscious, nor simply imagination, but a transindividual reservoir or matrix of potentially vast fields of consciousness. Bergsonian and Broadian Lineage Huxley’s theory is a synthesis rather than an invention. Sjöstedt-Hughes (2024) documents that Huxley drew both concepts from Bergson's Matter and Memory (1896), in which the brain selects from an ocean of images only what serves bodily action, leaving the full past and world in principle accessible in altered states. Huxley reached Bergson largely through Broad, who endorsed the eliminative reading of brain function; Sjöstedt-Hughes (2024) notes that Huxley slightly misquoted Broad—substituting "everywhere" for "anywhere"—subtly strengthening the claim to universal accessibility. The result is a top-down, exogenous model positioning consciousness as ontologically prior to its neural vehicle, converging with permission/transmission theories and diverging sharply from production-focused physicalism. The Perennial Philosophy and the Divine Ground Huxley's filter thesis presupposes the idealist metaphysics of The Perennial Philosophy (1945), his comparative anthology of mysticism across Vedanta, Mahayana Buddhism, Taoism, Sufism, and Christian contemplation. There he posits a divine Reality underlying the world of minds, a soul identical with that Reality, and humanity's final end in unitive knowledge of the Ground of all being (Huxley, 1945). The Vedantic tat tvam asi ("That art thou") supplies the template: individual consciousness is continuous with a universal consciousness, and the supreme state is non-dual pure consciousness beyond subject and object (McKenna, 2024). Mind at Large is, in effect, the Divine Ground apprehended phenomenologically. Epistemology of Altered States Huxley treated induced states as epistemically disclosive, characterizing the mescaline experience as "a gratuitous grace"—a genuine if partial apprehension of reality beyond survival-driven and verbal habit (Huxley, 1954). He distinguished the mystic, who navigates the unfiltered waters, from the schizophrenic, involuntarily flooded by them. This optimism drew criticism: Zaehner (1957) argued that Huxley conflated a natural drug-induced monism with genuine theistic mysticism, blurring the conditions distinguishing authentic religious experience (Stephanson, 2014). Contemporary Neuroscientific Uptake Huxley's views have found traction in modern neuroscience, typically stripped of its metaphysics. Psychedelics reduce default-mode-network integrity while increasing connectivity across normally segregated networks (Carhart-Harris et al., 2012), changes that predict self-reported ego dissolution (Lebedev et al., 2015; Carhart-Harris et al., 2016); the entropic brain hypothesis frames ordinary cognition as a low-entropy constraint (Carhart-Harris et al., 2014). The REBUS model recasts the valve as relaxation of high-level priors under predictive processing, and the entropic brain hypothesis frames ordinary cognition as a low-entropy constraint—both acknowledging Huxley's valve as ancestor (Carhart-Harris & Friston, 2019). Computational work reformulates the metaphor while bracketing "whether a wider ontological truth exists beyond" the filter (Prakash, 2026). Estimates that human behavioral throughput runs at roughly ten bits per second against a sensory influx some eight orders of magnitude larger may lend quantitative texture to the intuition (Zheng & Meister, 2025), although behavior and awareness are not the same kind of thing. Assessment As phenomenology and heuristic, Huxley's account is fertile, foregrounding the selective character of ordinary experience and anticipating psychedelic and predictive-processing research. As metaphysics, it is speculative and disputed: the inference from altered phenomenology to an exogenous cosmic consciousness is precisely what physicalist readings reject, treating "different filter" and "different production" as empirically indistinguishable absent independent evidence for Mind at Large. Its enduring interest lies in sharply posing whether the brain generates or merely constrains consciousness—a question the filter metaphor sharpens without settling. References Bergson, H. (1896/1911). Matter and Memory (N. M. Paul & W. S. Palmer, Trans.). London: George Allen & Unwin. Broad, C. D. (1949). The relevance of psychical research to philosophy. Philosophy, 24(91), 291–309. Carhart-Harris, R. L., Erritzoe, D., Williams, T., Stone, J. M., Reed, L. J., Colasanti, A., … Nutt, D. J. (2012). Neural correlates of the psychedelic state as determined by fMRI studies with psilocybin. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(6), 2138–2143. Carhart-Harris, R. L., & Friston, K. J. (2019). REBUS and the anarchic brain: Toward a unified model of the brain action of psychedelics. Pharmacological Reviews, 71(3), 316–344. Huxley, A. (1945). The Perennial Philosophy. New York: Harper & Brothers. Huxley, A. (1954). The Doors of Perception. London: Chatto & Windus. McKenna, J. (2024, July 31). What can we learn from the perennial philosophy of Aldous Huxley? Aeon. https://aeon.co/essays/what-can-we-learn-from-the-perennial-philosophy-of-aldous-huxley Prakash, N. (2026). Beyond the reducing valve: Towards a computational neurophenomenology of altered states via deep neural networks. Frontiers in Psychology, 17, 1819038. Sjöstedt-Hughes, P. (2024). The Bergsonian metaphysics behind Huxley's doors. Aldous Huxley Annual, 22. Stephanson, R. (2014). "A necessary but not sufficient condition": Psychedelic mysticism, perennial liminality, and the limits of supernatural theism. Preternature, 3(2), 367–400. Zaehner, R. C. (1957). Mysticism Sacred and Profane. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Zheng, J., & Meister, M. (2025). The unbearable slowness of being: Why do we live at 10 bits/s? Neuron, 113(2), 192–204.

---

## Jung’s Collective Unconscious and Synchronicity
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/jung-s-collective-unconscious-and-synchronicity
Theorists: Carl Jung

Psychiatrist/psychoanalyst Carl Jung famously posits a “collective unconscious,” a hidden, quasi-nonphysical aspect of reality with which each individual human subconsciousness is in some sense connected. Prime features of the collective unconscious, according to Jung, are “archetypes” and “synchronicity:” archetypes are ancient primal symbols, themes and images that are apparently universal and recurring and can impact individual psyches; and synchronicity describes putative connections between physical and/or mental events that are acausal and seemingly random but appear to be meaningfully related. The Concept of Synchronicity Synchronicity is properly controversial, because, according to the laws of physics, there should be nothing of the sort. But if, perchance, synchronicity does exist and it does represent real phenomena—if synchronous events are not mere chance masquerading as meaning—then synchronicity would be a powerful probe of novel fundamental realities of mind and world, and it would, en passant, take down classic materialism.[1] Jung had been intrigued by the ancient Chinese oracle I Ching, whose 64 hexagram symbols generated divinations “made by seemingly random numerical happenings for which the I Ching text gives detailed situational analysis.” Years later, Jung introduced synchronicity "to describe circumstances that appear meaningfully related yet lack a causal connection." Other definitions Jung used enriched synchronicity's non-normal vision of reality: "a hypothetical factor equal in rank to causality as a principle of explanation," "an acausal connecting principle," "acausal parallelism," and the "meaningful coincidence of two or more events where something other than the probability of chance is involved” (“Synchronicity,” 2023). Jung and Pauli’s Collaboration Collaborating with physicist and Nobel laureate Wolfgang Pauli (Pauli Exclusion Principle), Jung further developed the radical concept. Pauli contributed his intimate understanding of the common sense-defying elements of quantum theory, such as complementarity, nonlocality, and the observer effect, and their work together yielded what is now called the “Pauli–Jung conjecture”—which stands for “a basic psychophysically neutral reality with its derivative mental and physical aspects and the nature of the correlations that connect these aspects.” Jung and Pauli "offered the radical and brilliant idea that the currency of these [synchronicity's] correlations is not (quantitative) statistics, as in quantum physics, but (qualitative) meaning” (Atmanspacher, 2020b; Atmanspacher & Fuchs, 2014). For his part, Pauli said that synchronicities were "corrections to chance fluctuations by meaningful and purposeful coincidences of causally unconnected events," though he sought to move away from “coincidence” and towards a "correspondence," "connection," or "constellation" of discrete factors. Jung's and Pauli's position was that, “just as causal connections can provide a meaningful understanding of the psyche and the world, so too may acausal connections” (“Synchronicity,” 2023). Synchronicity and Quantum Parallels The speculative nexus between synchronicity and quantum physics turns on entanglement, where there is absolute correlation but absolutely no transference of information. Thus, quantum entanglement is said to be the physical phenomenon that most closely represents the concept of synchronicity. As Harald Atmanspacher puts it. “Inspired by and analogous to entanglement-induced nonlocal correlations in quantum physics, mind-matter entanglement is conceived as the hypothetical origin of mind-matter correlations. This exhibits the highly speculative picture of a fundamentally holistic, psychophysically neutral level of reality from which correlated mental and material domains emerge” (Atmanspacher, 2020a). Atmanspacher probes for epistemic/ontic commonalities between synchronicity and entanglement. He highlights “local realism” of empirical facts obtained from classical measuring instruments and a “holistic realism” of entangled systems, arguing that “these domains are connected by the process of measurement, thus far conceived as independent of conscious observers. The corresponding picture on the mental side refers to a distinction between conscious and unconscious domains” (Atmanspacher, 2020a). A further claim concerns Jung's “depth psychology” conceptions, where these two domains of local realism and holistic realism are connected by the emergence of conscious mental states from the unconscious, analogous apparently to physical measurement. Crucially, famously, “Jung's unconscious has a collective component, unseparated between individuals and populated by so-called archetypes.” These archetypes are said to be “constituting the psychophysically neutral level comprising both the collective unconscious and the holistic reality of quantum theory.” At the same time, Atmanspacher says, “they operate as ‘ordering factors’, being responsible for the arrangement of their psychical and physical manifestations in the epistemically distinguished domains of mind and matter” (Atmanspacher, 2020a). So, here's the axial question: Does the “acausal connection principle” in synchronicity meaningfully parallel the “acausal correlation principle” in quantum entanglement? Is this apparent parallelism revelatory or shoehorn forced, unveiling profound new realities, or overthinking superficial similarities? Again, the axial question. Why have I situated Jung's collective unconscious on this Landscape of Consciousness? The reason is somewhat indirect, because, if valid as stated, a literal collective unconscious would falsify many theories of consciousness, certainly defeat every strictly materialistic theory. Moreover, it would be consistent with diverse nonphysical theories: Dualism, Panpsychism, and Idealism. Idealism is most often associated with Jung's worldview. While Jung is recognized as one of the most important psychologists in history, few scientists take his concept of the collective unconscious as literally true. However, Jung's highlighting (and coining) synchronicity does elicit from time to time far-reaching theories in both physics and consciousness regarding anomalous cognition and events. Footnote [1]. I [RLK] was introduced to synchronicity by Arthur Koestler's 1972 book, The Roots of Coincidence.

---

## Radin’s Challenge to Materialism
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/radin-s-challenge-to-materialism
Theorists: Dean Radin

Coming at consciousness from an empirical point of view, parapsychologist Dean Radin calls on what he believes to be the overwhelming evidence for psi phenomena in order to infer that “intention affects the physical world.” He characterizes his work as “a tiny part of a century-long legacy of researchers who have reported studies, when meta-analyzed, provide strong evidence for psi” (Radin, 2007). Radin notes that non-local conscious experiences are commonly reported (prevalence rates well above 10% and as high as 90%). Moreover, cognitive abilities can be retained when the brain is seriously compromised. For example, in terminal lucidity patients with terminal neurodegenerative conditions can display apparently normal cognitive function and mental clarity during the short period preceding death; paradoxical lucidity can occur in dementia due to advanced Alzheimer's disease, brain abscesses, tumors, strokes, and meningitis.[1] Psi Phenomena and “Real Magic” Radin recruits the happy term “magic,” as in “real magic,” to facilitate public appreciation that psi/paranormal phenomena are a natural aspect of reality (Radin, 2018), and he claims strong experimental or empirical evidence for three types of “real magic:” (i) “divination,” which in today's world is perceiving through space and time and which is identical to clairvoyance, remote viewing, precognition. (ii) “force of will,” which causes “psycho-kinetic effects,” the idea that your mindful intention can affect aspects of the physical world beyond yourself. (iii) “theurgy,” by which Radin means the practice of engaging or communicating with spirits, entities that are not human and invisible to most people (Radin, 2022). Consciousness as Fundamental Then, Radin says, you start thinking like a scientist and ask how could these phenomena happen? “Well, what are the ‘force beams’ coming out of the head? But we don't see any beams coming out. In fact, even the evidence doesn't exactly look like it's a causal mechanism. These are weird relationships that arise.” Next, Radin says, is to consider some kind of “downward causation” effect. I suppose that's possible, he says, “but it just seems to make more sense if really at the bottom is simply consciousness. There's some kind of ‘ocean of consciousness’ that gives rise to an emergent property, which we may call energy, which gives rise to matter, and then the physical world plays out in a way that we usually see it, except that really at the bottom is consciousness.” It's much, much easier, Radin says, “to simply imagine that matter is ultimately composed of mind, that mind and matter are ultimately the same thing, than to imagine the complex mechanisms of mind-body/brain interactions” (Radin, 2007). Radin and colleagues point to specific non-local effects to support their proposal that “post-materialistic models of consciousness may be required to break the conceptual impasse presented by the hard problem of consciousness.” They review several alternative non-physicalist theories: all of which purport to refute the central premise of physicalist theories that consciousness is generated solely and purely by the brain and is only local to the brain. Most of these theories have quantum or panpsychism pedigrees; some even propose that consciousness is more fundamental than energy-matter and spacetime (Wahbeh et al., 2022). Radin and colleagues propose that “consciousness may not originate in the brain,” although many aspects of human consciousness are obviously dependent on the brain. They also suggest that awareness too extends beyond the brain. While they affirm with conviction that these non-physical, non-local properties of consciousness are observable, they are less confident as to the underlying mechanism of how they work. It may be, they say “due to a non-local material effect, to consciousness being fundamental, or something else we have not yet discovered” (Wahbeh et al., 2022). Thus, Radin and colleagues propose “specific phenomena that we would expect to see if non-local consciousness theories are correct:” Perceiving information about distant locations (clairvoyance, including remote viewing); perceiving information from another person (telepathy); perceiving the future (precognition); and apparent cognitive abilities beyond the experience/learning/skill of the person exhibiting them (e.g., speaking a foreign language they do not know, i.e., speaking “in tongues”) (Wahbeh et al., 2022). Quantum-Oriented Nonlocal Mind In defending their quantum-oriented approach to the mind-brain problem, Stuart Kauffman and Radin cite as evidence for a nonlocal mind the predictions of two types of nonlocal experiences: “The mind would have the capacity to extend beyond the mind-brain system, and the act of observing a distant physical system would, to some degree, directly influence the behavior of that system.” Such effects, they claim, would occasionally result in experiences “where minds interact with other minds, where minds perceive hidden or distant objects or events, and where minds directly influence aspects of the physical world” (Kauffman & Radin, 2020). The common terms for these psi phenomena are the following: “telepathy for mind-to-mind interactions; clairvoyance for perceptions of inanimate things across space; precognition for perceptions through time; and psychokinesis for mental influence of physical objects.” Kauffman and Radin stress that use of these different terms does not imply that the underlying phenomena are different in kind; “they are just labels used to describe the way the experiences seem to manifest” (Kauffman & Radin, 2020). While Radin's primary line of argument uses psi phenomena to corroborate a nonlocal mind of a quantum-oriented nature, one can reverse the causal-explanatory direction such that a nonlocal mind could provide a mechanism for psi phenomena (Kauffman & Radin, 2020). (Note that the arrow of causation or explanation can point in either direction, although not in both directions in the same argument, which would be circular.) Footnote [1]. In the last two or so years of her life, due to advanced dementia, my mother, Lee Kuhn (née Lena Kahn), who died at 102, formerly a vibrant personality, did not speak at all. However, on four or five occasions, she would suddenly blurt out, in loud and confident voice, complete, articulate, sharply formed sentences. To me, while I was working intensely on my computer: “With all that junk you're doing on that machine, at least are you making any money?” To the caregivers: “It's not that I can't talk. It's that I don't want to talk to you!” (My mother was always, well, feisty). It did not occur to me that this behavior, however startling, could support theories of consciousness that are not brain-bound. While geriatric neurology has ample resources to explain such phenomena naturally, I suppose it could also align with nonlocal theories.

---

## Tart’s Emergent Interactionism
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/tart-s-emergent-interactionism
Theorists: Charles Tart

Consciousness explorer Charles Tart proposes “Emergent Interactionism” as a dualistic theory of consciousness, based on his long work on altered states of consciousness, transpersonal psychology, and multiple forms of parapsychology (Tart, 1978a, 2007). He calls it “pragmatic dualism,” in that it reflects the nature of things and recognizes the need to understand consciousness in terms of two qualitatively different aspects of reality: a “B system” of brain and body governed by physical law, and a “M/L system” of the mental and life aspects of reality. Dual Systems and Emergent Consciousness Consciousness, Tart says, is a “system property,” an emergent from the auto-psi interaction of the B and M/L systems. Ultimate understanding of consciousness, then, in addition to conventional neuroscience, also requires increasing knowledge of psi/paranormal phenomena. Tart claims that the veracity of psi phenomena is a clear-cut scientific demonstration of the inadequacy of a materialistic view of mind and matter. The “psychoneural identity hypothesis,” he says, is so widely accepted in science and so thoroughly discredited by ESP and parapsychology (Tart, 1978a). Psi Phenomena and Auto-Psi Tart's extraordinary hypothesis is that psi is being used much of the time in everyone's life, but it is being used internally. This means, he offers, we frequently use auto-clairvoyance to read our own B system and auto-psychokinesis to affect our B systems. This is ordinary psi, auto-psi. What we observe in parapsychological experiments, however, is non-ordinary psi, which is taking a process ordinarily confined within a single organism and pushing it outside, making it “allo-psi” (Tart, 1978a, personal communication). Survival and the Flexibility of Time The Emergent Interactionist position allows for kinds of potential survival beyond bodily death, Tart speculates, but it would not necessarily be the kind of postmortem survival we usually conceive of. Our usual imagery of survival means survival of the basic pattern of our consciousness, our experience of our mental life, our feelings of personal identity. But if consciousness, as Tart proposes, is an emergent of the auto-psi interactions of the B and the M/L systems, an emergent of constant patterning of each system upon the other, then if the B system ceases functioning in death, the patterning influence of the B system upon the M/L system will cease, so how is ordinary consciousness, as we know it, to survive? What is the emergent to emerge from? One answer, according to Tart—and not the pleasant answer people would like—may be that personal identity, which is so intimately intertwined with ordinary consciousness, does not survive death, at least not for very long, and in any event it would likely be quite different from the original person (Tart, 1978a). Moreover, Tart stresses, psi phenomena radicalize even further the nonphysical dimension of dualism by showing how consciousness reveals or enables space and time to be flexible and mobile. He proposes that an extended aspect of the mind, which is activated when psi abilities are used, has two properties that differ from our ordinary consciousness. The first is that psi-engaged consciousness is not spatially or temporally localized with respect to ordinary spatial and temporal constraints on the physical body/brain, and so somehow can pick up information at spatial locations outside the sensory range of the body/brain (Tart, 1978b). The second property of psi-engaged consciousness is that the center point of its experienced present can be located at a different temporal location than the center point of the experienced present of ordinary consciousness. That is, it may be centered around a time that, by ordinary standards, is past or future. Furthermore, the duration of this extended dimension of the mind's experienced present is wider than that of our ordinarily experienced present, such that the mind may include portions of time that, from our ordinary point of view, are both past and future as well as present (Tart, 1978a).

---

## Mishlove’s Beyond-The-Brain Filtered, Survival Consciousness
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/mishlove-s-beyond-the-brain-filtered-survival-consciousness
Theorists: Jeffrey Mishlove

Parapsychologist Jeffrey Mishlove’s theory of consciousness is an evidentially cumulative, parapsychologically grounded, survival-oriented account in which phenomenal consciousness is not produced by the brain, but is filtered, localized, expressed, or constrained by brain-body systems within a wider field of universal mind. His position is not a single mechanistic or theoretical model, but a plural evidence-based framework: psi phenomena, near-death experiences, after-death communications, reincarnation cases, mediumship, xenoglossy, possession, and physical mediumship are treated as convergent “white crows” against reductive materialism (Mishlove, 1993, 2021). The theory’s core claim is that the felt immediacy of consciousness—subjectivity, memory, agency, personal presence, and transpersonal awareness—can in some cases operate beyond ordinary sensory, spatial, temporal, and bodily constraints. In other words, Mishlove holds that phenomenal consciousness is not generated by the brain but is ontologically fundamental: the universe is itself mindlike, personal awareness exists within a wider mentality-at-large, and the brain functions as a filter or reducing valve that constrains a far greater consciousness rather than producing experience from insensate matter. On this metaphysical idealism—adopted explicitly on grounds of parsimony, since he in principle states that conscious experience cannot be derived from non-conscious material—the hard problem is dissolved rather than solved, and the persistence of phenomenal experience after bodily death becomes natural and expected rather than anomalous and fringe. Mishlove supports this framework by a convergence methodology, marshaling nine independent lines of anomalous evidence which he takes to be jointly decisive, and by appeal to higher-dimensional (hyperspace) models capable of accommodating the mental "spaces" reported in dreams, out-of-body states, and mystical experience (Mishlove, 1993, 2021). Experience and Psychic Exploration In The Roots of Consciousness, Mishlove presents consciousness exploration as a historical continuum extending from shamanism, mysticism, esoteric traditions, and spiritualism to laboratory parapsychology, psi research, and speculative physics. The book’s revised introduction is methodologically revealing: Mishlove says he seeks a balanced account rather than a partisan brief, while also rejecting the “myth of objectivity” in consciousness studies because consciousness is “subjective,” “direct,” and something “we are” (Mishlove, 1993). This gives his theory a quasi-phenomenological premise: first-person and anomalous experience cannot be excluded merely because it conflicts with prevailing metaphysical assumptions. Idealism as the Parsimonious Ground Mishlove distinguishes three metaphysical options—materialism, dualism, and idealism—and argues that the first cannot in principle derive experience from lifeless matter while the second cannot explain how two ontologically distinct substances interact. Idealism, the position that the universe is essentially mindlike, is presented as the most economical and logically consistent resolution, eliminating the problems of both alternatives without additional assumptions (Mishlove, 2021). He aligns himself with Bernardo Kastrup's analytical idealism, on which matter is a particular experiential modality we call perception and personal consciousness exists within mentality-at-large (Kastrup, 2019), and with Max Planck's statement treating consciousness as fundamental and matter as derivative. Mishlove situates this position within what Huston Smith termed the primordial tradition, whose common thread is that the phenomenal world—including the brain—owes its existence to universal mind (Smith, 1976). The Brain as Filter, Not Source The mechanism connecting fundamental consciousness to ordinary experience is William James's filtration or transmission theory: the brain accesses mind-at-large and admits into awareness only the reduced level useful for biological survival (James, 1898). Mishlove treats this as empirically supported rather than merely speculative, citing psychedelic studies in which intensified experience correlates with reduced cortical activity and metabolism (Carhart-Harris et al., 2012), terminal lucidity in which severely damaged brains transiently support coherent personality, and neuroimaging of mediums whose metabolism slows while output complexity rises. He notes that Wilder Penfield concluded from stimulation and resection studies that brain function accounts for neither memory nor free will, and that the claim consciousness is produced by neural activity remains, in his assessment, an unconfirmed hypothesis, not established science (Mishlove, 1993). Hyperspace and the Locus of Mental Life Because phenomenal experience on this view is not contained in the brain, Mishlove asks where it is located, and turns to higher-dimensional models. Dream space, out-of-body space, near-death space, apparitional space, and mystical space each appear to require a space outside ordinary physical space, which a higher-dimensional self would supply (see Carr; Carr, 2015). He gives particular weight to Saul-Paul Sirag's hyperspace formalism, published as an appendix to The Roots of Consciousness, on which the four-dimensional spacetime matrix is itself embedded within hyperspace, so that the body and the entire phenomenal world exist within mind-at-large rather than the reverse (Sirag, 1993). This lineage he traces through Wilson Van Dusen's dimension theory and the nineteenth-century speculations of Stewart and Tait. Radical Empiricism and the Bundle of Arrows Methodologically, Mishlove invokes James's radical empiricism: direct experience may not be excluded from science, and human testimony belongs to the respected phenomenological tradition. He adopts James's white crow principle—a single well-attested counterexample defeats a universal negative—and argues that the case rests on a bundle of arrows, nine largely independent investigative approaches whose convergence exceeds the strength of any one. Against the standard leaky bucket rejoinder that individually flawed lines cannot collectively support a conclusion, he cites analyses holding such convergent arguments consistent with sound scientific method and defensible on Bayesian grounds (Sturrock, 1994). He is correspondingly critical of what he terms scientism: the unquestioned assumption that a mechanistic worldview provides a complete explanation of everything. Survival, Alternatives, and Standing Difficulties Mishlove examines the two principal rival paranormal explanations—living agent psi, which attributes survival evidence to psychic capacities among the living (“Living Agent Psi," LAP), and archetypal synchronistic resonance, a Jungian-synchronicity model he himself co-originated (Mishlove & Engen, 2007)—and concludes that neither accounts for the range and intensity of the evidence, acknowledging that reincarnation fits the children's data better than his own alternative. He further argues that Living Agent Psi, in its unrestricted form, is unfalsifiable and therefore cannot function as a scientific alternative hypothesis to postmortem survival of consciousness. Critical reception has been naturally mixed: reviewers sympathetic to survival research praise Mishlove’s comprehensive coverage; others note the essay's reliance on historical and anecdotal material, its brief treatment of the super-psi counter-hypothesis, and the absence of a model specifying how universal consciousness yields an individuated surviving self—a gap that bears directly on whether the framework explains phenomenal consciousness or relocates it (Mishlove, 2021). Mishlove stresses that an important feature of his view of consciousness is derived primarily from the work of the inventor and helicopter pioneer Arthur M. Young, who was his mentor. Young’s model of consciousness is primarily explicated in his book, The Reflexive Universe, and the primary feature of his work that Mishlove relies on is that teleology, or purpose, is built into the very framework of existence. According to Mishlove (reflecting Young), "we are, in effect, part of a process by which consciousness comes to know itself in a compassionate way" (Mishlove, personal communication, 2026). References Carhart-Harris, R. L., et al. (2012). Neural correlates of the psychedelic state as determined by fMRI studies with psilocybin. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(6), 2138–2143. Carr, B. (2015). Hyperspatial models of matter and mind. In E. F. Kelly, A. Crabtree, & P. Marshall (Eds.), Beyond Physicalism: Toward Reconciliation of Science and Spirituality (pp. 227–273). Rowman & Littlefield. James, W. (1898). Human Immortality: Two Supposed Objections to the Doctrine. Houghton Mifflin. James, W. (1912). Essays in Radical Empiricism. Longmans, Green. Kastrup, B. (2019). The Idea of the World: A Multi-Disciplinary Argument for the Mental Nature of Reality. iff Books. Mishlove, J. (1993). The Roots of Consciousness: The Classic Encyclopedia of Consciousness Studies (Rev. ed.). Council Oak Books. Mishlove, J. (2021). Beyond the Brain: The Survival of Human Consciousness After Permanent Bodily Death. Bigelow Institute for Consciousness Studies. Mishlove, J., & Engen, B. (2007). Archetypal synchronistic resonance: A new theory of paranormal experience. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 47(2), 223–242. Sirag, S.-P. (1993). Consciousness: A hyperspace view. In J. Mishlove, The Roots of Consciousness (pp. 327–365). Council Oak Books. Smith, H. (1976). Forgotten Truth: The Primordial Tradition. Harper & Row. Sturrock, P. A. (1994). Applied scientific inference. Journal of Scientific Exploration, 8(4), 491–508. Young, A. M. (1999). The Reflexive Universe: Evolution of Consciousness. Anodos Foundation.

---

## Schlitz’s Theory of Mind
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/schlitz-s-theory-of-mind
Theorists: Marilyn Schlitz

Anthropologist and social scientist Marilyn Schlitz posits a Theory of Mind (ToM) that treats consciousness as an entanglement of inner and outer realms of existence. At its core, ToM is the interface between subjective consciousness (what it feels like to be someone) and objective phenomena (how someone behaves or reacts) (Schlitz, 2025, 2007). Schlitz argues that this interface becomes particularly compelling when considered as a potential explanatory model for psi phenomena and other transpersonal experiences. While some researchers dismiss psi as anomalous or pseudoscientific, Schlitz notes that these phenomena may reflect an extreme sensitivity of the ToM mechanism, potentially operating through the unconscious or non-local information processing. She references quantum holography models and certain interpretations of panpsychism, which propose that consciousness is not entirely localized in the brain but may be entangled or shared across individuals. From this perspective, psi, altered states of consciousness, and mystical experiences may arise when boundaries between subjective and objective domains become more fluid, allowing minds to access shared informational fields. Schlitz draws on her ToM to address a cognitive capacity that can attribute mental states—such as beliefs, intentions, emotions, and knowledge—to oneself and others. This ability allows humans to navigate social interactions with empathy and foresight, bridging the subjective experiences of individuals with the observable behaviors that arise from them. In her current research involving the psychomantium (a small space intended for communicating with spirits of the dead) and virtual reality, Schlitz invites people to delve into their creative imaginations in order to engage with departed loved ones. People report veridical experiences that encompass a range of sensory modalities, including sight, sound, smell, and bodily sensations. The ToM, she says, offers a way to account for the depth of experiences people report and the therapeutic benefit such experiences offer. Ultimately, Schlitz believes that the ToM offers a window into the interconnectedness of all life and the expanded realms of consciousness that may lie beyond the physical world.

---

## Josephson’s Psi-Informed Models
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/josephson-s-psi-informed-models
Theorists: Brian Josephson

Nobel laureate physicist Brian Josephson approaches consciousness from the dual perspectives of fundamental science and psi phenomena. He posits understanding the brain by “implementing the demands of an appropriate collection of models, each concerned with some aspect of brain and behaviour”—in particular, explaining “higher-level properties [e.g., phenomenology] in terms of lower-level ones by means of a series of inferences based on these models” (Josephson, 2004). Psi and Consciousness Josephson says that many scientists believe that psi is real but don't come out and say so due to social pressures and career concerns. He considers the immense implications if, say, telepathy exists. “All sorts of things would change if we accepted that paranormal things happen and that we have such connections.” One simple example is playing music in an ensemble, where, using telepathy, “they somehow lock into a single state and perform better” (Josephson, 2012a). As for how psi could work, Josephson posits quantum physics—Einstein's “spooky actions at a distance”—but also recognizes that “we probably need to include new dimensions of reality.” He points to biology, the emergence of life, as a “strange phenomenon” that “changes the whole game.” Biology, he says, “involves principles that we don't have in physics, and these principles might be able to unfold in quite dramatic ways, extending our understanding of the cosmos, perhaps because biological principles lead to minds and minds can do things.” Josephson sees biology and consciousness as fundamentally linked because “organisms deal with information in a certain way and consciousness could fit into that.” There could be some kind of “biological field,” analogous to the electric field, he says. The assumption that you can get to some ultimate level, though, “may be incorrect.” Toward a Psi-Informed Physics Josephson's “theory of everything” paradigm, informed by psi and based on “parallels between spontaneously fluctuating equilibrium states and life processes,” envisions “an evolving ensemble of experts [modules], each with its own goals but nevertheless acting in harmony with each other.” How such an ensemble might function and evolve, he says, can affect fundamental physics such as symmetry and symmetry breaking. Josephson says, “This picture differs from that of regular physics in that goal-directedness has an important role to play, contrasting with that of the conventional view which implies a meaningless universe” (Josephson, 2021). Moreover, advancing John Wheeler's proposal that “repeated acts of observation give rise to the reality that we observe,” Josephson suggests that “nature has a deep technological aspect that evolves as a result of selection processes that act upon observers making use of the technologies.” He concludes that “our universe is the product of agencies that use these evolved technologies to suit particular purposes” (Josephson, 2015). Going for ultimates, Josephson proposes that “something is happening behind the universe on a larger, possibly infinite scale, that has this organization and is doing things—like bringing a universe into being, setting up its laws, and perhaps directing its evolution” (Josephson, 2012b).

---

## Gebser's Ever-Present Origin: How Space, Time, and Self Change Shape Across Mutations of Consciousness
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/gebsers-ever-present-origin-how-space-time-and-self-change-shape-across-mutations-of-consciousness
Theorists: Jean Gebser

Cultural philosopher Jean Gebser proposes that human consciousness is not a fixed faculty observing an independently constituted world, but a historically mutable structure through which self, world, space, time, causality, and meaning become phenomenally manifest. His five structures—archaic, magic, mythical, mental, and integral—are discontinuous mutations rather than rungs in a linear ladder; each remains operative within contemporary consciousness and may function efficiently or deteriorate into a deficient form. Integral consciousness would not abolish reason but free awareness from the exclusive perspectival and ego-centered constraints of the mental-rational structure, rendering earlier modes transparent to an ever-present Origin (Gebser, 1985; Feuerstein, 1987). In other words, Gebser's theory holds that human consciousness is not a constant capacity whose contents vary with culture but a set of distinct structures, each constituting a different experienced world—differing in how space is given, how time is given, and whether there is an ego to whom experience belongs (Gebser, 1985). As noted, he identifies five—archaic, magic, mythical, mental, and integral—and insists that the passage between them is mutation rather than evolution, made in discontinuous leaps. Crucially for phenomenal consciousness, the claim is not that people once held different beliefs about space and time but that space and time were phenomenally different for them: the perspectival space that seems simply given to modern awareness is itself the achievement of one structure. Superseded structures are not lost: all five remain co-present and co-active in every person, making the account a proposal about the layered composition of present experience as much as a history of its emergence. Consciousness as World-Disclosure Gebser defines consciousness broadly as “wakeful presence,” not merely knowledge, introspection, or moral conscience (Gebser, 1985). A consciousness structure is not a particular content, cognitive module, or state such as waking or dreaming. It is an organizing mode of presence determining how reality appears: whether the person is differentiated from nature, how subject and object relate, how time and space are experienced, and whether meaning is enacted, imagined, conceptualized, or transparently perceived. Gebser reconstructs these structures from transformations in language, mythology, religion, art, architecture, philosophy, and science. Their emergence is discontinuous and qualitative. Increased dimensionality brings greater intensity and differentiation, but also greater distance from Origin; later is therefore not simply better. Earlier structures do not disappear, and integral consciousness depends on consciously “presentiating” rather than repressing them (Gebser, 1985; Maxwell, 2018). This distinguishes Gebser from progressivism and from stage theories in which a supposedly superior level replaces its predecessors. Mutation Rather Than Evolution Gebser resisted "evolution" as a description of his process, holding that the term imports linear progress, whereas a genuine process occurs in quanta, in leaps, discontinuously (Feuerstein, 1987). The structures are therefore not stages on a ladder, and earlier ones are not primitive: supersession means intensification rather than nullification, each mutation making a wider range of the whole available while leaving prior structures operative beneath. This distinguishes his framework from the developmental hierarchies with which it is often conflated, notably Ken Wilber's, which acknowledges Gebser as a source while embedding the structures in an explicitly evolutionary, hierarchical model (Wilber, 1995). The Five Structures and Their Phenomenal Signatures Each structure is characterized by a dimensionality, a relation to time, and a form of self. The archaic is zero-dimensional and likened to deep sleep: undifferentiated, no separation of organism from world, no experience of self. The magic is one-dimensional and pre-spatial, marked by identification and merger, the part standing for the whole so that acting on an image acts on its subject, the ego still dispersed among phenomena. The mythical is two-dimensional and polar, the world given in complementary pairs and an emergent inner life expressed through image, symbol, and cyclical time. The mental is three-dimensional and perspectival: subject separates from object, space opens up as measurable extension, thought becomes directed and discursive, and the ego consolidates. As a historian of consciousness, Gebser dates the full realization of perspectival space to the Renaissance and treats its pictorial construction as evidence about consciousness, not merely about painting. The integral, emerging since roughly 1900, is four-dimensional and aperspectival: time enters as a constitutive dimension rather than a measured sequence, and all prior structures become simultaneously available and transparent. Efficient and Deficient Modes Every structure has an efficient mode, in which its characteristic capacity functions well, and a deficient mode, in which that capacity exhausts itself and turns destructive (Feuerstein, 1987). Efficient magic is participatory attunement; deficient, it becomes compulsion and paranoid connection-seeing. Efficient myth is meaning-bearing symbol; deficient, it hardens into literalism and dogma. The case he presses hardest is the mental structure, whose deficient mode he names the rational: reason inflated into sole arbiter, producing quantification without qualitative sense and the reductive formula that a phenomenon is "nothing but" its components. His diagnosis of twentieth-century crisis follows from this—not that reason is wrong, but that a structure operating in deficiency generates the pathology of its own excess. Aperspectivity, Time-Freedom, and Diaphaneity The integral structure is defined negatively as aperspectival and arational: not irrational, and not a synthesis of rational and irrational, but free of the requirement that experience be organized from a standpoint. Its positive marks are time-freedom, in which timelessness, cyclical “temporicity” of myth, and clock time are held together without one being reduced to another, and diaphaneity (how well a substance lets light pass through it), in which structures and dimensions become mutually transparent rather than exclusive. Gebser named the resulting mode of apprehension "verition," a direct being-in-truth contrasted with representation, the mental structure's characteristic and limited access to the world. Behind all structures stands the ever-present Origin (Ursprung), not a temporal beginning but a standing source that the integral structure allows to become perceptible. Method, Evidence, and Reception Gebser's evidence is cultural rather than experimental: the history of art and its treatment of space, the etymological strata of European languages, and developments in physics and mathematics. He regarded the arts as the earliest indicators, where a structure's exhaustion and its successor's onset become visible before either is theorized—also his most contested commitment. The work has been carried forward by Georg Feuerstein's standard exposition, by Algis Mickunas, who co-translated the principal work and read it phenomenologically, and by Allan Combs, who situates the structures within a dynamical-systems account (Feuerstein, 1987; Combs, 2009; Johnson, 2019). Assessment Gebser's proposal is unusual in taking the form of phenomenal consciousness—the givenness of space and time, the presence or absence of an experiencing ego—to be historically constituted rather than fixed, while denying that this makes it a matter of belief. That places him alongside Julian Jaynes among the few to argue that the structure of experience itself has a datable history, though Gebser's claim concerns spatiality and temporality where Jaynes's concerns introspection and language. Three objections recur. The evidential base is interpretive, drawing conclusions about experience from artifacts that admit other readings, and the dating of mutations is correspondingly imprecise. The framework resists falsification, since deficient modes and co-present structures can accommodate almost any observation. And the integral structure is described largely through what it is not, leaving unclear what would count as evidence that it had arrived. Against this, the core claim—that perspectival space is an achievement rather than a given, and that its very givenness conceals its contingency—remains a live proposition about the phenomenology of spatial experience. Cross-References Cross-references worth making: Jaynes's Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind, which is Landscape's other datable-history-of-experience claim; Teilhard de Chardin's Evolving Consciousness and Sri Aurobindo's Evolving Consciousness, the other two developmental-consciousness entries; and Merleau-Ponty's Embodied Perception, since Gebser's claim about perspectival space is a historical version of a phenomenological one. Note: Appreciation to Adrian Lawrence for recommending Jean Gebser. References Combs, A. (2009). Consciousness Explained Better: Towards an Integral Understanding of the Multifaceted Nature of Consciousness. St. Paul, MN: Paragon House. Feuerstein, G. (1987). Structures of Consciousness: The Genius of Jean Gebser. Lower Lake, CA: Integral Publishing. Gebser, J. (1985). The Ever-Present Origin (N. Barstad & A. Mickunas, Trans.). Athens, OH: Ohio University Press. (Original work published 1949, 1953, as Ursprung und Gegenwart.) Johnson, J. (2019). Seeing Through the World: Jean Gebser and Integral Consciousness. Seattle, WA: Revelore Press. Wilber, K. (1995). Sex, Ecology, Spirituality: The Spirit of Evolution. Boston, MA: Shambhala.

---

## Wilber’s Integral Theory
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/wilber-s-integral-theory
Theorists: Ken Wilber

Charismatic, iconoclastic philosopher Ken Wilber puts forth “Integral Theory” as an overarching metatheory that seeks to harmonize numerous (100+), diverse philosophical and spiritual theories—including consciousness studies, meditative traditions, religious traditions, psychology, transpersonal psychology, parapsychology, and sociology—into a single, coherent framework that accounts for the human condition, broadly conceived. Integral Theory is founded on a developmental “spectrum of consciousness,” an evolutionary account from ancient non-life-to-life proto-consciousness to ultimate spirit/spiritual attainment or enlightenment. In New Age intellectual circles, Integral Theory is lauded as a pioneering, path-setting model for novel explorations of consciousness and human futures (“Integral theory,” 2024). Integral Framework and Vision Wilber's core framework is a four-quadrant model—the AQAL (All Quadrants All Levels) model—the simple-sounding 2×2 grid arraying interior-exterior with individual-collective. The ambitious claim is that all essential theories, models, and levels of individual psychology and spiritual development, and of collective expressions of social organization, can be subsumed and discerned within Wilber's AQAL system. Moreover, according to its proponents, all forms of knowledge and experience can be conceptualized as fitting and flowing together within the model. In his 1995 classic, Sex, Ecology, Spirituality: The Spirit of Evolution, Wilber combines sex and gender issues, ecological wisdom, and non-sectarian spirituality into what adherents see as a prescient, coherent vision for contemporary times. Founded on the emergence of mind and the evolution of human consciousness, and on combatting philosophical naturalism (which he considers as a source of the world's ills), Wilber asks a critical question: Can spiritual concerns be integrated with the modern world? Wilber conceives of the “Kosmos” (not “cosmos,” which is too physicalist for him) as consisting of several concentric spheres: matter (the physical universe); then life (the vital realm); then mind (the mental realm); then soul (the psychic realm); and then finally Spirit (the spiritual realm) (Wilber, 1995). In his 1999 book, Integral Psychology: Consciousness, Spirit, Psychology, Therapy, Wilber seeks to reestablish spiritual consciousness in contemporary developmental psychology by embracing “every legitimate aspect of human consciousness [Eastern and Western, ancient and modern] under one roof.” Wilber's project is to legitimize, within the framework of modern science, the spiritual quest (Wilber, 1999). Relation to Consciousness Theories What's the relationship between Wilber's project and this Landscape of theories of (phenomenal) consciousness? It is direct in that if Wilber succeeds, Materialism Theories of consciousness are obviously undermined and likely defeated. Although Wilber does not get much into the consciousness-categories game, his core developmental process begins with a separation of individual consciousness from a transcendental reality, and then his grand course of human development moves toward restoring the primordial unity of human and transcendental consciousness (“Integral theory,” 2024).

---

## Combs’s Chaotic Attractor and Autopoietic Systems
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/combs-s-chaotic-attractor-and-autopoietic-systems
Theorists: Allan Combs

Consciousness researcher and systems theorist Allan Combs uses nonlinear dynamics, and more specifically chaos theory, to understand how all the elements of conscious experience “cling together to form the many states and structures of consciousness that characterize the onflow of our experiential lives” (Combs, 2022). In doing so, Combs channels William James: “This multitude of ideas, existing absolutely, yet clinging together, and weaving an endless carpet of themselves, …like dominoes in ceaseless change, or the bits of glass in a kaleidoscope—whence do they get their fantastic laws of clinging, and why do they cling in just the shapes they do?” (James, 1890). Consciousness as a Chaotic Attractor “We live in a nonlinear universe,” Combs says, which means that “nothing turns out exactly as one might expect based on projections from the past.” While this is true in physics and astronomy, it is “even more true in the realms of biological systems and the mind.” What results is “the emergence of novel interacting elements,” which is “an essential feature of countless real-world events.” Moreover, in chaotic systems, like the weather, while there are recognizable general patterns, “it is impossible to make precise predictions about future behavior”—local or moment-to-moment details are always unpredictable. The action of chaotic systems can be mapped topologically as attractors, that is, as recognizable mathematical patterns that repeat or almost repeat themselves indefinitely. But systems that can be represented as chaotic attractors never repeat themselves precisely. “Many complex systems of a biological nature, such as the metabolic rhythms of a living cell, EEG responses to sensory stimuli, and circadian sleep cycles, are in a strict sense always novel. That is, they are never exactly the same twice.” Even the action of a healthy human heart shows variation from beat to beat (Combs, 2022). According to Combs, consciousness, the onflow of experience, “fits the bill nicely as a chaotic-like attractor.” To begin with, it is always in motion, dynamic, and ever-changing. Moreover, like all chaotic attractors, it displays a recognizable pattern; yet, it is never exactly the same during different cycles. Indeed, this unique feature of each person's onflow of experience is what James considered to be the basic signature of an individual personality. “Each of us, for instance, experiences unique patterns of thoughts, feelings, perceptions, memories, and so on, that replay in roughly the same way day in and day out.” But never precisely the same. Thus, consciousness as a chaotic attractor is ever-changing yet identifiable, “in a fashion that amounts to a distinct signature of the individual's experiential life.” Consciousness as an Autopoietic System Combs recruits the concept of “autopoiesis” to help explain consciousness. Autopoiesis means capable of generating and maintaining itself by producing its own parts—“auto” meaning “self” and “poiesis” meaning “creation” or “production” (Maturana & Varela, 1980)—a concept applied widely in understanding biological systems, such as the self-maintaining biochemistry of living cells. Assuming consciousness, as James had it, is “the onflow of thoughts, memories, and emotions that recreate themselves as they go along, ‘clinging together, and weaving an endless carpet of themselves’ … [then] this description fits the notion of a chaotic autopoietic attractor.” For example, Combs cites how “joy, anger, and sadness tend to sustain themselves by creating their own self-perpetuating internal conditions.” Emotional states self-propagate, he says, “thereby creating coherent self-organizing streams of experience,” with each such state accompanied by its own neurochemistry, which also contributes to its resilience (Combs, 2022). In addition, cognitive patterns by which we understand the world exemplify the mind as a complex, self-creating autopoietic system. The mind also exhibits features of a chaotic system on the “edge of chaos” or “the brink of change,” characterized by “periods of relative stability punctuated by phases of instability, or increased chaotic behavior, after which they may return to their original state, or transition (bifurcate) to a new attractor pattern” (Combs, 2022).

---

## Ferrer’s Participatory Enactive Realism
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/ferrer-s-participatory-enactive-realism
Theorists: Jorge Ferrer

Psychologist and philosopher Jorge Ferrer presents a Participatory Theory of Consciousness that shifts the ontological focus from a search for foundational substances—whether matter or consciousness—to the co-creative, enactive relationship between the human and the mystery of the Real (Ferrer, 2001, 2017). By the “mystery of the Real,” Ferrer refers to the creative power of the cosmos—the ongoing, generative process accepted by modern science and cosmology (Ferrer, 2024). He notes that while astrophysicists frequently invoke an elemental “energy” driving cosmic inflation, its ultimate nature remains undetermined: as Ray Gould observes, “No one knows the nature of the primordial energy… or how it relates to the larger framework of physics” (Gould, 2018). Ferrer’s approach is founded on three primary observations about the status of the observer within the cosmos: Existence: The undeniable fact that “something” exists rather than nothing. Creative Diversification: This “something” undergoes a discernible process of complexification and interiorization—from particulate to galactic, biological to mental, and cultural to contemplative. Self-Conscious Participation: Human beings are not mere observers but active participants in this cosmic creative unfolding. This framework suggests that phenomenal consciousness is neither a mere epiphenomenon of neural activity nor necessarily a solitary foundational “ground,” but rather a participatory event that somehow manifests through embodied and relational engagement with a multifaceted, always-evolving cosmic reality. The Critique of Ontological Closure Ferrer diagnoses a prevalent “either/or fallacy” in contemporary consciousness studies. While materialist reductionism (Matter-first) fails to account for the “explanatory gap” of qualia, Ferrer argues that foundational idealism (Consciousness-first) risks a different form of “ontological closure” by prematurely declaring the mystery of the cosmos solved without the requisite evidence (Ferrer, 2025). He contends that current neurobiological and clinical data—including veridical perception in Near-Death Experiences (NDEs; Van Lommel et al., 2001; Van Lommel, 2011)—are “ontologically polysemic.” Ferrer emphasizes that even if the possibility of consciousness persisting beyond the brain were established beyond doubt, this must be sharply distinguished from the metaphysical claim that consciousness is the foundational principle of the cosmos. Such data could also be interpreted within ontologically rich emergentist paradigms (Ferrer, 2025). Consequently, Ferrer advocates for a stance of open naturalism—a position not committed a priori to any potentially restrictive worldview, but one that accepts as real whatever is necessary to make sense of the full range of human experience (Stroud, 2004)—and metaphysical openness (Ferrer, 2017, 2024) to these and a myriad of other ontological possibilities (see Kuhn, 2024). Consciousness as Enactive Participation Ferrer’s participatory approach adapts and extends the enactive paradigm of cognition first proposed by Varela, Thompson, and Rosch (1991). While the original enactive view focuses on how sensorimotor action “brings forth” a world of perceptual distinctions, Ferrer’s formulation applies this logic to the enaction of spiritual phenomena and realms of potential ontological richness. These are theorized to be co-created by the interplay of diverse human ways of knowing (e.g., cognitive, emotional, imaginal) and the generative force of life and the cosmos (Ferrer, 2001, 2008). In this sense, participatory enaction is epistemologically constructivist—recognizing the formative role of the observer—but metaphysically realist, as it entails a genuine engagement with a protean reality (Ferrer & Sherman, 2008). The participatory approach posits that phenomenal consciousness and spiritual knowing are not aimed at the “discovery” of any pre-given realities, but rather at their enactment. Once enacted historically, these realities become more accessible—and, in a sense, ontologically “given”—yet they always remain open to re-enactment and creative transformation. (Consider, for example, the diverse iterations of the Buddhist experience of emptiness or the Christian God throughout history). Drawing on the Participatory Turn (Da, Hartelius, & Ferrer, 2026; Ferrer & Sherman, 2008), Ferrer suggests that human beings are “co-creative partners” with all sentient beings and the cosmos. In this view, consciousness is not defined solely as a property we possess or a substance the universe primordially is, but can also be understood as a co-evolutionary unfolding—an activity the cosmos performs and that we, as the cosmos made self-conscious, continue to co-create through mutual interaction. This account reframes the “hard problem”: if consciousness is participatory, the question of whether it is “foundational” or “emergent” is secondary to the quality of the engagement through which it manifests. Consciousness and matter may both be foundational in ways that exceed current conceptual binaries—perhaps manifesting from a “dimension of the real” (or dimensions) that remain largely unperceived (Ferrer, 2025). This ontological expansion differentiates his approach from dual-aspect monism, which typically posits mind and matter as dualistic expressions of a single underlying reality; Ferrer’s model leaves open a more pluralist or multidimensional ontological landscape that could even entail a diversity of post-mortem scenarios (Ferrer, 2017). Ferrer says that a unique contribution of his theory is the invitation to meet the “hard problem” with a blend of intellectual rigor and participatory awe. He frames the debate through three ‘equally profound possibilities,’ which he terms the “marvels” of existence (Ferrer, 2025): The Marvel of Continuity: If the universe has always been conscious (Idealism/Panpsychism), we witness the infinite depth of Being. The Marvel of Self-Awakening: If consciousness arose from “senseless dead matter,” we witness the radical self-awakening of the cosmos. The Marvel of the Underlying Real: If both manifest from a third, unknown dimension (e.g., the Unus Mundus or hyperspace) or dimensions, we face an even greater mystery. This stance avoids the “existential despair” of materialism without retreating into dogmatic idealist or religionist metaphysics. It also encourages an epistemological pluralism where scientists can, for example, explore the “Filter Theory” and neuroimaging (such as the reduction of the default mode network in psychedelic states) as valid pointers toward the understanding of consciousness, while remaining open to the insights of cross-cultural ontologies (Indigenous, contemplative, etc.). Subjectivity and the Relational Field Thus, Ferrer posits phenomenal consciousness as an embodied and relational event. Subjective experience is not an isolated “inner light” but is inextricably linked to the relational field—between persons, between the body and the environment, and between the human and the Real. This participatory epistemology suggests that a more complete account of consciousness cannot be achieved in a laboratory or via firsthand contemplation alone; rather, it must also be approached through embodied and relational engagement (Ferrer & Sohmer, 2017). Ultimately, integrated first-, second-, and third-person approaches are all necessary to better understand the nature of qualia, mind, and consciousness. Consequently, Ferrer says his project transforms the study of consciousness into a practice of “enactive participation,” where the act of asking the question of consciousness is itself recognized as both the ultimate participatory act and a fundamental expression of the universe's creative mystery—and, perhaps, as he concludes, “its very longing to understand itself.”

---

## Schooler’s General Resonance Theory and Subjective Time
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/schooler-s-general-resonance-theory-and-subjective-time
Theorists: Jonathan Schooler

Experimental psychologist Jonathan Schooler outlines a theory of consciousness that combines two novel ideas: “General Resonance Theory” (co-developed with Tam Hunt), where multiple levels of consciousness interact, and “subjective time,” where consciousness arises with an observer's movement through objective time relative to a currently unacknowledged dimension of subjective time. (Hunt and Schooler 2019; Schooler, 2022a). Both ideas are motivated by Schooler's research and thinking on meta-consciousness, mind wandering, and anomalous cognition (i.e., psi/paranormal phenomena). Meta-Consciousness and Resonance Theory The first idea is what he calls meta-consciousness or meta-awareness. In addition to having experiences, he says, “periodically, I check-in on what's going on in my mind. And I may notice things that I hadn't noticed otherwise; for example, mind wandering while reading. We all have the experience of reading along and suddenly realizing that, although our eyes are moving across the page, we have no idea what we're reading. We're thinking about something completely unrelated. It's as if we're waking up, but we were awake all along” (Schooler, 2022a). Temporal dissociations are revealed when an individual, who previously lacked meta-consciousness about the contents of consciousness, directs meta-consciousness towards those contents (e.g., catching one's mind wandering during reading) (Schooler, 2002). Appreciating the distinction between consciousness and meta-consciousness helps to clarify a variety of phenomenal experiences. As Schooler notes, “when we're entering a moment of meta-consciousness, when we recognize that we can have experience without being meta-aware of that experience, it helps to open up the discussion about consciousness. We can have an emotion and not realize that we're having it. We may not notice that we're angry. When people shout, ‘I'm not angry,’ they are attempting to take stock of it, but they get it wrong. By recognizing this distinction between experiential consciousness and meta-consciousness we can gain broader perspectives on the varieties of consciousness and deeper understanding of the nature of consciousness” (Schooler, 2022a). Meta-consciousness is said to correspond to conscious states in which the content of those states includes an explicit characterization of what is currently being experienced. In other words, he says, meta-consciousness is simply a kind of conscious experience in which the focus of thought is turned on to itself. Thus, although conscious and unconscious mental processes are categorically distinct, conscious and meta-conscious states differ only with respect to the type of content that they entail (Schooler and Mrazek, 2015). “Resonance theory” leverages meta-consciousness by positing multiple levels or streams of consciousness going on simultaneously. In the same way that the brain's left and right hemispheres seem to carry on multiple streams of consciousness, Schooler says it's possible that lower levels or “windows” may have their own, albeit circumscribed conscious experiences. And the way that these windows are communicating with one another is through resonances of assorted kinds. Within a single window, all can be happening in synchrony, and then, between levels, there is cross-frequency coupling. And it is through these various kinds of resonances, both top-down and bottom-up circuits, that multiple potentially sentient windows may be able to communicate with one another, thus producing what we know as macroscopic consciousness (Schooler, 2022a). In their General Resonance Theory of consciousness, Tam Hunt and Schooler propose that “Synchronization, harmonization, vibrations, or simply resonance in its most general sense seems to have an integral relationship with consciousness itself.” The problem they seek to solve is “how do micro-conscious entities combine into a higher-level macro-consciousness?” The solution they offer in the context of mammalian consciousness suggests that “a shared resonance is what allows different parts of the brain to achieve a phase transition in the speed and bandwidth of information flows between the constituent parts. This phase transition allows for richer varieties of consciousness to arise, with the character and content of that consciousness in each moment determined by the particular set of constituent neurons.” They suggest that the ontology of consciousness “manifests as a continuum of increasing richness in all physical processes,” which, they say, distinguishing their view from emergentist materialism (Hunt and Schooler, 2019). According to Schooler, the General Resonance Theory of consciousness works via a shared resonance that allows different parts of the brain to achieve a phase transition in the speed and bandwidth of information flows between the constituent parts. This phase transition allows for richer varieties of consciousness to arise, with the character and content of that consciousness in each moment determined by the particular set of constituent neurons (Hunt and Schooler, 2019). Schooler recognizes that because the idea driving his resonance theory is that we may have multiple levels of consciousness, he affirms what Daniel Dennett denies: a “Cartesian Theater” in the brain. Whereas Dennett disparages the “Cartesian Theater” as imaginary, Schooler champions its reality. “I do think that, at any given moment, there is a vantage,” Schooler states, “but I also think that it's just one of multiple vantages that are happening in the mind. We have multiple windows; we have what we call ‘nested observer windows’. And so, we imagine that consciousness may actually be these nested windows, windows upon windows, with each one resonating with the others. In this way, through the shared resonance between different windows, at different levels of awareness, we may construct an ever increasingly complex conscious experience.” Thus, Schooler conjectures that there may be not just a single Cartesian Theater, but in fact a “Cartesian Multiplex” of multiple nested observers (Schooler, 2022a). Anomalous Cognition and Subjective Time The second idea undergirding Schooler's theory of consciousness is the real possibility of “anomalous cognition” (i.e., psi/paranormal phenomena). “I have a motto,” he says, “’entertaining without endorsing’, meaning I see sufficient evidence such that psi phenomena deserve consideration—hundreds of studies that have found positive results. But at the same time, the failures to replicate, and the profound challenges in understanding how it could exist, if it does exist, lead me to feel that we are far from being able to endorse it as being a real phenomenon” (Schooler, 2022b; Schooler et al., 2018). For example, although accounts of precognition (i.e., the mind perceiving events that have not yet occurred) have been prevalent across human history, Schooler and colleagues say it is no surprise that these claims have been met with strong skepticism, but rather than dismissing the claims, they call for more research to bridge the gap between skeptics and proponents (Franklin et al., 2014). While scientists on both sides may usefully vary in the criteria that they set for entertaining and endorsing anomalous cognition, Schooler and colleagues argue that researchers should consider adopting a liberal criterion for entertaining anomalous cognition while maintaining a very strict criterion for the outright endorsement of its existence. Appreciating the justifiability of polar opposite views on psi/paranormal phenomena, Schooler encourages humility on both the part of those who present evidence in support of anomalous cognition and those who dispute the merit of its investigation (Schooler et al., 2018). Schooler wonders whether there may be some aspects of existence that may forever elude full scientific scrutiny. He relates two germane examples. “Just as it may never be possible to prove objectively the single thing we know the best, which is our subjective experience of qualia, so it may never be possible to reproduce anomalous cognition events with robust precision and effects” (Schooler, 2022b). Seeking potential mechanisms for anomalous cognition or psi/paranormal phenomena, if they were to exist, Schooler speculates that explanations of consciousness and explanations of anomalous cognition are going to be related. “If there is anything to anomalous cognition,” he says, “then it has to do with unexplained aspects of the nature of consciousness itself” (Schooler, 2022c). Pondering what possible structures could explain both consciousness and anomalous cognition, Schooler focuses on the failure of the prevailing third-person perspective of material reductionism to account adequately for the first-person experience of subjectivity, the flow of time, and the present. While acknowledging intrinsic differences among these three ideas, he posits a meta-perspective that experience, the flow of time, and the unique quality of “now” might be accommodated by a subjective dimension or dimensions of time (Schooler, 2014). This new dimension of existence, a subjective dimension of time, would be as real as spatial dimensions. It is this subjective dimension, Schooler posits, that, while entirely overlooked by science, may be where the possible realm of anomalous cognition resides as well as being an essential part of the deep explanation of consciousness (Schooler, 2022b). Alluding to information theory, Schooler considers how a conjoined first-person/third-person meta-perspective could conceptualize subjectivity, the present, and the flow of time within an architecture that closely links information to an ever-changing now. Thus, “consciousness arises via the changing informational states associated with an observer's movement through objective time relative to a currently unacknowledged dimension or dimensions of subjective time” (Schooler, 2014). Perhaps most dramatically, certainly most controversially, the existence of an additional temporal dimension could be consistent with precognition (knowing the future), which has a vast anecdotal tradition and a serious (if challenged) research program. Schooler asserts that “demonstrating robust findings of precognition could inform theories of how consciousness interfaces with time in a manner not currently considered in modern science” (Schooler, 2014). Ontology of Consciousness Given his “resonance theory” and “subjective dimension of time,” what is Schooler's ultimate ontology of consciousness? Wielding his motto, “entertaining without endorsing,” he picks out panpsychism. “The magnitude of the challenge of how consciousness exists in physical reality, he says, invites ambitious characterizations of how it might fit. And panpsychism, the idea that very low-level consciousnesses integrate into higher levels, seems quite plausible” (Schooler, 2022a).

---

## Sheldrake’s Morphic Fields
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/sheldrake-s-morphic-fields
Theorists: Rupert Sheldrake

Biologist Rupert Sheldrake proposes “morphic fields” as a field of form or shape or organization, “such that every entity has its own field: each ant colony, each termite nest, a flock of birds, a pack of wolves and a herd of animals.” Social groups of people too, such as a family, a tribe, or a group, where “members of that group interact with each other within that [morphic] field. When they go apart, that field, as it were, stretches. It doesn't break. The members remain connected at a distance in a way analogous to quantum entanglement.” There is a huge diversity of morphic fields (Sheldrake, 2011). Each self-organizing pattern of activity has its own morphic field, and a kind of collective, inherent memory” (Sheldrake, 2007a, n.d.-a, n.d.-b). Characteristics and Resonance of Morphic Fields Morphic fields at all levels of complexity have the following characteristics: they are self-organizing wholes; they have both a spatial and a temporal aspect, and organize spatio-temporal patterns of vibratory or rhythmic activity; they attract the systems under their influence toward characteristic forms and patterns of activity; they are a nested hierarchy or holarchy; they are structures of probability, and their organizing activity is probabilistic; and they contain a built-in memory that is cumulative and reinforcing (Sheldrake, 2011; Sheldrake, n.d.-a). Sheldrake's corollary concept of “morphic resonance” expresses this kind of collective memory inherent in nature, the inference of similar prior patterns of activity on subsequent similar patterns of activity—which, once they have occurred, can happen more easily anywhere. Morphic resonance is rhythmic in nature, patterns of vibration in space and time that give rise to this kind of memory. It is like a habit, he says, which depends on memory, usually unconscious memory. Sheldrake posits that morphogenesis in biology depends on organizing fields. As a case in point, the fields organizing the activity of the nervous system are inherited “through morphic resonance, conveying a collective, instinctive memory. Each individual both draws upon and contributes to the collective memory of the species. This means that new patterns of behavior can spread more rapidly than would otherwise be possible.” Controversy and Paranormal Claims Unabashedly controversial, morphic fields, Sheldrake says, underlie our mental activity and our perceptions. He claims that the existence of these fields can be tested experimentally, such as the sense of being stared at (Sheldrake, 2013). He suggests that morphic fields of social groups “help provide an explanation for telepathy” and that “telepathy seems to be a normal means of animal communication” (as with dogs [Sheldrake, 2011)—ideas outside of mainstream science. Sheldrake argues that “telepathy is normal not paranormal, natural not supernatural, and is also common between people, especially people who know each other well,” adding, “The morphic fields of mental activity are not confined to the insides of our heads. They extend far beyond our brain through intention and attention”[1] (Sheldrake, 2013; Sheldrake, n.d.-a, n.d.-b). Footnote [1]. Sheldrake claims that controlled experiments on telepathic phone calls and emails support his hypothesis of morphic fields. For example, he says that his work on telephone telepathy has been independently replicated and that a recent meta-analysis shows an overall highly significant effect (Sheldrake, 2025). While other scientists critique his work, Sheldrake cites the technical papers on his website at https://www.sheldrake.org/research (Sheldrake, n.d.-b).

---

## Barušs’s Meaning Fields
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/baruss-meaning-fields
Theorists: Imants Barušs

Psychologist Imants Barušs proposes a transcendent theory of consciousness that takes into account anomalous phenomena, altered states, and quantum field theories, and in which “meaning fields” play a special role (Barušs, 2010, 2018, 2019, 2021). Barušs begins by differentiating five distinct meanings of consciousness: registration, processing, and acting upon information; explicit knowledge of one’s situation; awareness characterized by intentionality; consciousness as a sense of existence of the subject of mental acts; and consciousness as participation in a shared plan (Barušs, 1987). Barušs reports that researchers’ underlying beliefs shape their definitions of consciousness: “Beliefs range along a material–transcendent dimension … those with more transcendent beliefs tend to have a more rational and curious approach … transcendent beliefs are also associated with greater intelligence” (Barušs, 2008). Beyond Scientific Materialism Barušs urges moving “beyond scientific materialism” and integrating quantum theory and anomalous experiences into a transcendent theory of consciousness: “It is time to move beyond scientific materialism and develop transcendent theories of consciousness. Such theories should minimally meet the following criteria: they should be based on all of the usual empirical data concerning consciousness, including altered states of consciousness; they should take into account data about anomalous phenomena and transcendent states of consciousness; they should address the issue of existential meaning and provide soteriological guidance; and they should be consistent with the most accurate theories of physical manifestation, such as relativistic quantum field theories” (Barušs, 2010). As to deep ontology of consciousness, Barušs speculates that “within a quantum-theoretic context, consciousness could be inserted as a primitive element into reality by providing a role for intention in the selection process of observables, the collapse of the state vector, or the ordering of quantum fluctuations.” But consciousness, he continues, “could be more fundamental, in the sense of a deep consciousness coinciding with a pre-physical substrate [akin to Bohm’s implicate order], from which intention shapes both mental experience and physical manifestation” (Barušs, 2010). The Concept of Meaning Fields Barušs explores “extending the attributes of mind to non-sentient aspects of the physical universe” and develops the concept of “meaning fields.” In his telling, “Meaning fields are fields in the technical sense that they are defined at each point in space and time and potentially apply to whatever is found in that space at that time. They are meaning fields in that they are capable of denotative and connotative meaning, as well as, probably, inherent meaning and possibly existential meaning” (Barušs, 2018). He constructs a sophisticated, though speculative, edifice by defining denotative and connotative meaning. “‘Denotative meaning’ refers to the events that are signified by a representation of them, so that, for example, the meaning field for a hydrogen atom would apply to actual hydrogen atoms. ‘Connotative meaning’ refers to associations of denotated events, so that a meaning field for hydrogen atoms could operate in the context of all atoms and subatomic processes” (Barušs, 2018). At this point, Barušs brings in experience and qualia. “‘Existential meaning’ refers to the notion of existential purposiveness in the context of existential qualia. If a meaning field not only has essential nature but experiences that essential nature as itself, then it would have existential qualia. And if such qualia are experienced as being meaningful, then we would have the presence of existential meaning. In the case of hydrogen atoms, their meaning field could have a sense of its own existence and purpose” (Barušs, 2018). Experiential and Supernatural Capacities Barušs is not shy to endow meaning fields with experiential and what could be called “supernatural capacity” (at least in the current sense of “natural”). Meaning fields, as he develops it, “create boundaries by parsing events, so that, for example, they ‘know’ which mouse is in Bill’s healing experiment and which one is not.” Barušs stresses, “I intend this in a strong sense, in that meaning fields have the ability to make, possibly non-algorithmic, judgments about what falls under their influence and what does not. Meaning fields affect reality through whatever mechanism it is that human beings use when they are remote viewing and remote influencing. They structure the form that events take at any level of existence. They are interrelated in that they are both nested and overlapping. They are not only spatially nonlocal, but temporally nonlocal, in that the content of meaning fields can be modified by events from the past or future. Events are ‘tuned’ to one meaning field rather than another” (Barušs, 2018). Meaning fields can interact directly with human meanings. In this way, human beings can “tune” to different meaning fields as well as modify meaning fields according to some weighting algorithm. The “rules” by which meaning fields function are also meaning fields, which is to say that all meta-levels are meaning fields. In sum, Barušs’s theory of consciousness is informed by “the gradual proliferation of anomalies in which there appears to be application of knowledge without any apparent physical mechanism through which the knowledge could be applied.” This, he states, “has led me to rethinking the fundamental structure of the universe. By imagining that meaning exists beyond the human in the form of meaning fields, new ways of conceptualizing phenomena become available” (Barušs, 2018).[1] Footnote [1]. For an overview of meaning fields, see Barušs, 2018. For a detailed account, see Chapter 2 of Radical Transformation (Barušs, 2021). A mathematical model of meaning fields using category theory is in Barušs, 2019.

---

## Grinberg’s Syntergic/Neuronal Field Theory
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/grinberg-s-syntergic-neuronal-field-theory
Theorists: Jacobo Grinberg

Iconoclastic neurophysiologist Jacobo Grinberg-Zylberbaum presents a psychophysiological theory of consciousness—"The syntergic theory"— which postulates that “the human brain is able to create a hypercomplex field of interactions that are the result of the activation of all its neuronal elements.” He calls this interaction matrix the “neuronal field,” and “one of the effects of its activation is the unification of neuronal activity.” Grinberg speculates that “the neuronal field produces a distortion in the basic space-time structure and the reality of our percepts is the perception of this distortion.” For the neuronal field to be activated, he says, “a structure as complex as the brain is needed” and “this field is responsible for the interactions between brains produced in emphatic non-verbal communication.” Consciousness, he states, “is closely connected to the neuronal field” (Grinberg-Zylberbaum, 1997). Neuronal Field and Syntergic Theory Grinberg, who pursued fringe areas, such as shamanism, and who vanished mysteriously at age 48, conceives of “Reality” as “an undifferentiated energetic matrix” and “by means of the brain, this matrix is converted into neuronal activity and experience.” Thus, “human experience is considered to constitute or ‘exists in' a dimension different from that which is related to the localized physiological activity of the brain.” Combining “cerebral electrochemical changes and the experiences themselves of light, sound, love, fear, etc., energetic transformations of a qualitative nature must take place.” These hypothesized transformations engender Grinberg's “syntergic theory” which, he says, concerns “the creation of experience” (Grinberg-Zylberbaum, 1981). Grinberg also claims to support “the brain's quantum nature at the macrolevel” by demonstrating “transferred [evoked] potentials” between electrically insulated subjects situated 14.5 m apart (Grinberg-Zylberbaum et al., 1994). From Brain Fields to Cosmology Moreover, the syntergic theory postulates that the brain's energetic field (the neuronal field) “expands into space, interacts with the space-matter continuum, is able to change the informational content of the latter, and thus affects other neuronal fields and physical forces.” According to this theory, he says, “gravitation is a by-product of an alteration in the informational content of the space-matter continuum, and human communication is based on neuronal field interactions.” In short, the syntergic theory considers experience as “the interaction between the neuronal field and the energetic (syntergic) organization of space." Grinberg claims that “this approach is the one that contemporary physics requires in order to be able to incorporate experience into its realm and thus expand its limits to include life and consciousness” (Grinberg-Zylberbaum, 1982).

---

## Near-Death Experiences, Survival, Past Lives
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/near-death-experiences-survival-past-lives
Theorists: Several

Near-death experiences (NDEs) command great popular interest but receive only modest discussion here on the Landscape. Obviously, if even a minuscule fraction of this vast ocean of anecdotes were actually true, it would instantly falsify every materialist theory and support (but not confirm) a host of nonphysical theories. I [RLK] am open-minded—and obviously something is going on here—but as to the core claim, I still skew skeptical. Popular Fascination and RLK’s Stance NDEs are out-of-the-body experiences (OBEs) that are triggered during catastrophic physical trauma that leads to “death” in terms of heart stoppages, and generally feature a cluster of common characteristics: a feeling of floating above or beyond one's body; a sense of movement toward a bright light with a benevolent aura; a capacity to commune with deceased loved ones; and the presence of a spiritual Being or beings who radiate warmth and love (whose names or traits vary according to the religion or culture of the NDE experiencer). NDEs have been recorded throughout history and across cultures, often associated with mystical traditions. Of all the requests we receive from viewers of Closer To Truth, NDEs surely rank first, and survival/past lives probably second. My [RLK] response goes something like this: “I have followed NDE accounts, both experiencers/advocates and skeptics/debunkers, but I do not find sufficient depth and diversity, beyond the obvious confirming enthusiasm of the former and the obvious denying critique of the latter, to warrant the kind of explorations we do on Closer To Truth. We are not in the business of adjudicating claims of NDEs and survival/past lives (as we are not with ESP). What we do is to explore the implications or ramifications of such claims, if they were true, from an ontological perspective and with critical thinking (which CTT does with ESP).” (For a pioneering and exploratory exception, Closer To Truth features the experimental work of Sam Parnia, a medical scientist who explores NDEs under a new name, “Recalled Experiences of Death” [Parnia, 2014; Parnia et al., 2022].) Survival Research and Contest Evidence While popular accounts of NDEs, such as Eben Alexander's Proof of Heaven: A Neurosurgeon's Journey into the Afterlife, have widespread impact, they are generally not taken seriously by the scientific or medical communities (Alexander, 2014). Quite apart from the blizzard of anecdotal accounts, there have been scientific studies of NDEs, survival and past lives. Most notable, perhaps, is the work of the Division of Perceptual Studies (DOPS) at the University of Virginia School of Medicine, which claims to have documented thousands of cases. Founded by Dr. Ian Stevenson and advanced by Dr. Bruce Greyson, DOPS strives to challenge the “entrenched mainstream view by rigorously evaluating empirical evidence suggesting that consciousness survives death and that mind and brain are distinct and separable” and that science needs “to accommodate genuine spiritual experiences without loss of scientific integrity” (DOPS, n.d.; “DOPS’s Consciousness Research and Theory”). The Bigelow Institute for Consciousness Studies (BICS) was founded to support research into the survival of human consciousness after physical death. (Bigelow, 2023). BICS's essay contest to “present evidence beyond reasonable doubt,” as if in a court of law, “for the survival of consciousness after permanent physical death (‘life after death,’ or ‘the afterlife’)” attracted 204 essays and produced 29 winners.[1] Jeffrey Mishlove, the host of a long-running TV and web series, New/Thinking Aloud, who has a PhD in Parapsychology from Berkeley, won BICS first prize for his comprehensive presentation of the pro-survival arguments. He begins by pointing out that “a belief in postmortem survival of consciousness is common to every culture, nationality, religion, and linguistic group in every region and historical period on Earth. Every single one!” For example, American belief in life after death has been stable for 75 years at over 70%, even while religious affiliation has been dropping. Mishlove's best evidence for postmortem survival is the big picture of what he says are nine largely independent categories “all pointing to postmortem consciousness:” near-death experience; after-death communications; reincarnation cases; peak in Darien experiences (visions of dead people who are not known at the time to be dead); instrumental trans communication (electronic devices for communication with the deceased); xenoglossy (the ability to converse in a language one has never learned); possession; mental mediumship; and physical mediumship (Mishlove, 2021). Dr. Pim van Lommel, a cardiologist, won BICS's second prize for his reporting on recent scientific research on NDEs, especially in survivors of cardiac arrest, with “strikingly similar results and conclusions.” His claim is that NDEs seem “to be an authentic experience which cannot be simply reduced to imagination, fear of death, hallucination, psychosis, the use of drugs, or oxygen deficiency.” Using examples of nonlocal consciousness beyond the brain, for instance during a period when the brain is either non-functioning or malfunctioning, he argues that “there are now good reasons to assume that our consciousness does not always coincide with the functioning of our brain: enhanced or nonlocal consciousness can sometimes be experienced separately from the body.” The general conclusion of scientific research on NDE, he says, “is indeed that our enhanced consciousness does not reside in our brain and is not limited to our brain. Our consciousness seems to be nonlocal, and our brain facilitates rather than produces the experience of that consciousness.” He concludes that “death, like birth, may be a mere passing from one state of consciousness into another” (Van Lommel, 2022). One intriguing parapsychological critique of NDE survival stories is “super-psi” or “living agent psi,” where information is gleaned via telepathy or clairvoyance not by post-mortem communications, a position affirmed by Braude (1992) and denied by Mishlove (2021). Scientific Critiques and Evolving Inquiry There are, of course, many physicalist, physiological, and psychological critiques of NDEs, OBEs, life-after-death stories, and all the survival arguments; such critiques are widely available. While oxygen deprivation has been a common explanation for NDEs, more sophisticated analysis suggests “a sort of blending of conscious states: waking, rapid-eye movement (REM) sleep and non-REM sleep.” Neurologist Kevin Nelson posits, “The physiological balance between conscious states is disrupted during the conditions of near-death, leading the brainstem arousal system controlling conscious states to blend waking and rapid eye movement consciousness into a hybrid state known as REM intrusion … [and] REM intrusion leads to many key features of near-death, including lying still, visual activation, out-of-body, and the experience's narrative qualities” (Freeman, 2023). That NDEs are being taken more seriously by the scientific community was evidenced by a conference held by The New York Academy of Sciences, “Explorations in Consciousness: Death, Psychedelics, and Mystical Experience.” Participants describe NDEs, which are sometimes called periods of “disconnected consciousness,” as surprisingly common—according to one report, “15 percent of intensive care unit patients and up to 23 percent of survivors of cardiac arrest reported having had one” (Freeman, 2023). The claim is that because more people survive cardiac arrests—due to substantially improved resuscitation techniques—more NDEs are reported, and the field has emerged as a legitimate one for scientific inquiry. That NDEs can be emotionally transformative provides an opportunity to examine mental health issues, both the positive feelings of enhanced compassion or purpose and the negative after-effects of bad dreams and persistent intrusive thoughts. Calling evolutionary explanations for NDEs “just-so stories,” Christof Koch said, “They may be true. They may be false. It just doesn't matter. But the fact that we do have [these] experiences—that is the remarkable thing” (Freeman, 2023). The fact that some NDE experiencers describe a reduced fear of death does not ipso facto mean, obviously, that death is any less physically final and that consciousness is any less entirely material. Moreover, it is difficult to imagine what kinds of observations or experiments could count as scientifically dispositive that NDEs confirm post-mortem survival. Footnote [1]. All 29 Bigelow winning essays are here: https://www.bigelowinstitute.org/index.php/essay-contest/.

---

## DOPS’s Consciousness Research and Theory
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/dops-s-consciousness-research-and-theory
Theorists: Edward Kelly

The Division of Perceptual Studies (DOPS), a research unit within the Department of Psychiatry and Neurobehavioral Sciences at the University of Virginia, has contributed both empirically and conceptually to emerging nonphysical theories of consciousness, which picture mind as irreducible and grounded in some sort of highest consciousness that forms the ontological foundation of reality as a whole. DOPS cognitive scientist/parapsychologist Ed Kelly contends that “the limitations of contemporary mainstream consciousness theorizing derive from the systematic unwillingness of the physicalist camp to take difficult empirical phenomena such as psi and mystical experience into account” (DOPS, n.d.; Kelly, 2024). DOPS was founded in 1967 by psychiatrist Ian Stevenson and has been dedicated to research related to the possibility of postmortem survival. According to Kelly, “Survival is a watershed issue theoretically, in that demonstration of its occurrence as an empirical reality would immediately rule out most if not quite all of the materialism theories. Clearly, if the prevailing physicalist ‘production’ model of mind-brain relations is correct in claiming that mind and consciousness are manufactured entirely by neurophysiological processes occurring in brains, then it follows logically and inescapably that postmortem survival is impossible, period” (DOPS, n.d.; Kelly, 2024). Survival Research and Empirical Findings DOPS staff have published hundreds of research papers in refereed journals, plus over a score of books, on reincarnation, near-death experiences (NDEs), and other survival-related topics such as crisis apparitions, mediumship, and after-death communications (DOPS, website). Stevenson himself was the primary architect of a major project involving small children who begin at a very early age to speak and act as though they are remembering, or expressing behaviorally, potentially verifiable events that took place in the life of a recently deceased person. Most interesting are the relatively few cases in which the child's statements and behaviors were well documented before the previous personality (PP) was identified. Stevenson found “cases of the reincarnation type” (CORT) everywhere he looked, primarily but not exclusively in sociocultural settings where their occurrence is not unexpected. He and various colleagues have so far investigated over 2500 cases, around 2000 of which have been deemed of sufficient quality to merit laborious encoding of associated variables for inclusion in a cumulative database. Systematic properties include a very high proportion of violent or premature death in the PPs, which DOPS researchers speculate might relate to why some children remember but others do not. Other findings include confusions surrounding gender in children who report memories of a life as a person of the opposite sex. Stevenson paid special attention to a subset of over 200 cases in which the child displays birthmarks or birth defects, often extremely unusual in form, corresponding to fatal injuries suffered by the PP (Stevenson, 1997). Another major line of research, spearheaded by psychiatrist Bruce Greyson, has focused on NDEs. Greyson and colleagues have investigated a large number of such cases and created a second DOPS database containing over a thousand what they consider good cases. Of special interest are the hundreds of cases in which NDEs have occurred under extreme physiological conditions such as deep general anesthesia and/or cardiac arrest, conditions in which almost all contemporary neuroscientists would expect that patients should report no conscious experience whatsoever, let alone the most meaningful and transformative experiences of their lives—in effect, mystical experiences occurring under life-threatening conditions. Numerous physiological explanations have been offered for NDEs, but none, DOPS argues, can withstand scrutiny (Greyson et al., 2009). Of particular interest here is the DOPS theoretical work opposing physicalism, led by Ed Kelly and involving fifty or so scholars from diverse academic disciplines (over a period of more than two decades). Motivated by DOPS's empirical studies, DOPS's theorizing in regard to the mind/brain relationship and consciousness is presented in three books. The first is Irreducible Mind, which describes various psychophysical phenomena that appear difficult or impossible to explain in conventional physicalist terms. These include psi and survival data, along with other non-standard empirical phenomena such as stigmata and hypnotically induced blisters; prodigious forms of memory and calculation; psychological automatisms and hidden or secondary centers of consciousness; near-death and out-of-body experiences, emphasizing experiences occurring under extreme physiological conditions; genius-level creativity such as that of the Indian mathematician Ramanujan; and mystical experiences, whether spontaneous, pharmacologically induced, or occurring in conjunction with transformative practices such as an intense meditative discipline of some sort (Kelly et al., 2007). Irreducible Mind and the Filter Model The main import of Irreducible Mind, apart from its systematic empirical attack on physicalism, Kelly says, is to marshal support for a model of the human psyche advanced by F. W. H. Myers and developed philosophically by William James. Contrary to today's prevailing conception, which views everyday consciousness as the only consciousness, generated entirely by physiological processes in the nervous system, the Myers/James picture includes at least one level of normally hidden and more comprehensive consciousness that exists independently of the organism and is equipped with “adits and operations” of its own, which provide access to wider and deeper parts of the reality in which we find ourselves embedded (Myers, 1903). According to Kelly, this sort of “permission” or “transmission” or “filter” model of the psyche (James, 1900), in which everyday consciousness takes forms dependent on interactions between a more inclusive and capacious consciousness and an organism that serves mainly as a sensorimotor interface, may initially sound strange to our modern ears, but, Kelly argues, “there is now a lot of evidence to support it.” It also has strong affinities to views advanced by Bergson (17.1), Jung (17.2), and the Indian philosophical tradition with its “subtle” mental and physical worlds interposed between everyday experience and an ultimate consciousness of some sort (16.1, 16.7, 16.9, 16.10, 16.13). Ongoing research seeks to identify conditions in the mind and body that encourage what Myers termed “subliminal uprush,” or expression in everyday consciousness of information and capacities normally confined to James's hidden “More”—for example, using functional neuroimaging techniques for research on meditation and psychedelics. Beyond Physicalism and Consciousness Unbound The second book, Beyond Physicalism, is more explicitly theoretical, seeking to identify alternative conceptual frameworks, or worldviews, or metaphysical systems, that could permit the psi or paranormal empirical phenomena cataloged in the first book to occur. These include a range of theories: a modernized form of interactive dualism (15.8); process philosophy (13.12); quantum theories of Henry Stapp (11.2), Harald Atmanspacher (14.7), Bernard Carr (11.10); mystically informed philosophies such as those of the Neoplatonists, Samkhya/Yoga, and Kashmiri Shaivism; and Western philosophical figures including Leibniz, Peirce, and Whitehead (Kelly et al., 2015). Kelly argues that the central tendency is toward some sort of Idealism (16), most likely of the type known as (evolutionary) panentheism (Hartshorne & Reese, 2000). Kelly stresses, “The precise form that an adequate theory will take is powerfully constrained by the need for it to incorporate or at least respect the discoveries of modern physics, making it an objective or realist idealism as opposed to a subjective idealism of the sort advocated by Bishop Berkeley.” Several of Kelly's collaborators—Federico Faggin (11.12), Bernard Carr (11.10), and Bernardo Kastrup (16.4)—are explicitly working in this direction, as is Mira Albahari (16.13) from the perspective of Indian idealisms. All such theories, Kelly points out, can potentially make room not only for “rogue” phenomena such as psi and survival, genius, and mystical experience, but also for experiences of value, meaning, and purpose so vital to real human life. Conversely, Kelly believes that these metaphysical frameworks imply “poor prospects for artificial general intelligence and virtual immortality” (Kelly, 2024). The third book, Consciousness Unbound (Kelly & Marshall, 2021), has three parts. The first part is empirical, summarizing the state-of-the-science for precognition, NDEs, and CORT. The second part presents additional non-physicalist conceptual frameworks, including those of Max Velmans (14.3), Bernardo Kastrup, and Federico Faggin. The third part explores implications of the emerging theoretical picture for consciousness research, the humanities, and the current landscape of mind/brain metaphysics.

---

## Shiah’s Contentless Consciousness Theory
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/shiah-s-contentless-consciousness-theory
Theorists: Yung-Jong Shiah

Research psychologist Yung-Jong Shiah’s “Contentless Consciousness Theory” (CCT) posits that true consciousness is an eternal, non-dual state devoid of independent mental phenomena, a "contentless" reality that is obscured by our ordinary "delusional" consciousness, which erroneously perceives the self and the external world as permanent and separate. Drawing heavily from Buddhist wisdom, specifically the Heart Sutra, Shiah argues that what we commonly call “consciousness”—the stream of perceptions, desires, and ego-driven thoughts—is actually a transient, dependent illusion. This sophisticated theory seeks to bridge Eastern metaphysical traditions with Western scientific inquiry by defining the mechanisms through which delusional consciousness can be systematically dismantled to achieve the ultimate state of "nirvana" or total liberation (Shiah, 2023). The Dichotomy: Delusional vs. Contentless Consciousness Shiah establishes a clear distinction between two types of awareness. “Delusional consciousness” is characterized by the belief in a fixed, permanent "I" or self. It is personal, desire-driven, and governed by the hedonic principle—the instinctual motivation to seek pleasure and avoid pain. This state is inherently "dependent" because it relies on external and internal stimuli for its existence; it is "impermanent" because it fluctuates with every new sensory input or thought. In contrast, “contentless consciousness” is the "true consciousness". It is described as "contentless" because it contains no fixed or independent mental structures. Because it does not respond to external stimuli, it is considered permanent across space and time, remaining unchanged once the delusions of the self are removed (Shiah, 2023). The Mechanics of Suffering and Rebirth A central argument in Shiah’s defense of this theory involves Buddhism’s well-known cycle of reincarnation, explained through the Buddhist concepts of karma and avidya (ignorance). Avidya refers to the inability to understand the ultimate reality, a cognitive "blindness" caused by our self-centered rationality. Karma acts as a storage mechanism for our intentions, emotions, and behaviors. The Survival Process: Shiah argues that because karma stores these experiences, consciousness does not disappear when the brain shuts down. Instead, it seeks out a new "home"—an embryo—that matches its stored karmic energy. This cycle continues indefinitely as long as one remains bound to the desires of the delusional self. Arguments for Transformation Shiah asserts that we must use the very nature of delusional consciousness—its changeability—to eventually destroy it. Since delusional consciousness has no intrinsic identity, it can be refined through self-enlightenment (Shiah, 2023). This transformation involves: Giving up personal desires: Breaking the hedonic cycle that causes fluctuating happiness and eventual suffering. Displaying compassion: Shifting from ego-centrism to an understanding that all sentient beings are interconnected. Meditation: Gaining the experiential wisdom to see through the illusion of the "I". Empirical Evidence for the Theory To support the evidential validity of CCT, Shiah offers three categories of empirical evidence: Near-Death Experiences (NDEs): Reports of individuals experiencing "beings of light" or moving through tunnels while clinically unconscious. Shiah relates this to "micro-consciousness," the subtle state released from the body at death. Mediumship Studies: Research suggesting that some individuals can acquire information about the deceased through "non-local" conscious information transfer, which supports the idea that consciousness exists independently of the brain. Reincarnation Studies: Investigations into children who recall verifiable details of past lives, which Shiah presents as the strongest evidence for the survival of consciousness after bodily death. In conclusion, Yung-Jong Shiah’s theory presents consciousness not as a byproduct of biological evolution, but as an ultimate, contentless reality. By providing a framework for transforming our "delusional" everyday awareness into this higher state, the theory offers a comprehensive path for resolving the fundamental suffering of human existence and achieving total liberation (Shiah, 2023). [Editor's Note: Although Shiah’s Contentless Consciousness Theory is a kind of “illusionism,” it is obviously not Materialistic, and it is not Dualistic. It could be a kind of Idealism, but the preferred classification is Anomalous & Altered States because it calls on both as evidence.]

---

## Bitbol’s Phenomenological Ontology
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/bitbol-s-phenomenological-ontology
Theorists: Michel Bitbol

Philosopher of science Michel Bitbol suggests that a radical view of neurophenomenology amplifies “the available range of interpretations of altered states of consciousness, from OBEs and NDEs to meditation and psychedelics, and which may suggest a new ontological category.” There are generally three such interpretations, he says: “two objectivist-realist and one non-committal (mild) phenomenological interpretation.” According to the objectivist-realist approaches, he says, “these states refer to worldly or other-worldly objective processes. They refer either to an alteration of the brain's biochemical balance, thus giving rise to hallucinations, or to a backstage supernatural (but ‘real’) world which discloses itself to (say) dying people.” Beyond Naturalism and Supernaturalism In contrast, Bitbol says that “according to the non-committal phenomenological approach, instead, these states are relevant by themselves, as transformative experiences for those who live through them.” This latter approach, advocated by Evan Thompson as well as by Bitbol, takes “a decisive step beyond the sterile conflict between naturalism and super-naturalism. It shows that despite their superficial disagreement, both positions share the same crucial but disputable strategy: escaping one's own lived embodied situation and striving towards some (natural or super-natural) transcendent realm of being” (Bitbol, 2015; Thompson, 2014). Radical Phenomenology as Ontology Bitbol sees a big vision here. “But the clarifying role of phenomenology is not bound to stop at this point. One can take further advantage of a truly radical phenomenological approach, and thereby endow the transformative experiences with additional significance.” According to Merleau-Ponty (who partly agreed with Heidegger and Sartre on this point), phenomenology, in its mature state, becomes a new form of ontology: not a straightforward ontology of things facing an observer, however, but an ‘oblique ontology’ of intertwining with what there is (Saint Aubert, 2006); not an ontology of manifest beings, but an ontology of self-manifesting being. As Merleau-Ponty writes, radical phenomenology does not yield a standard ‘exo-ontology,’ but rather an unexplored ‘endo-ontology.’ Merleau-Ponty here unambiguously alludes to an ontology expressed from the innermost recesses of the process of being, rather than to an ontology of the external contemplation of beings” (Bitbol, 2015). This granted, Bitbol argues that “some altered states of consciousness can be understood neither dismissively as illusions, nor neutrally as enthralling experiences, but positively as revealing a state of being which happens to be hidden by intellectual fabrications and by the impulse of intentional directedness.” Here, to avoid misunderstandings, Bitbol clarifies that “unlike in super-naturalism, there is no question here of reaching some remote domain of transcendent being, but only of self-disclosing an exquisitely proximate mode of being, which is permanently present but usually neglected: perhaps what Tibetan Dzogchen practitioners call ‘the nature of mind,’ which, in this nondualist context, is likely to be simultaneously the (self-experienced) nature of being” (Bitbol, 2015).

---

## T. Campbell’s Theory of Everything
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/campbell-s-theory-of-everything
Theorists: Thomas Campbell

Consciousness researcher (and former nuclear physicist) Thomas Campbell presents “My Big TOE,” his theory of everything: “Consciousness is the fundamental reality. The physical world is an illusion, a virtual reality that only exists in our minds. We are Individuated Units of Consciousness: immortal, interconnected parts of a Larger Consciousness System. We choose to be players in the virtual reality game called life on Earth, set in a virtual universe computed by the system to aid our consciousness evolution.… Our goal: to learn from the outcomes of our choices in order to grow up and evolve the quality of our consciousness from fear to love. By evolving our individual consciousness quality from one round of the game to the next, we advance the evolution of the entire consciousness system” (Section: Campbell, 2003/2007, n.d.). A Virtual Reality Universe Rejecting Dualism, Materialism and Idealism, Campbell claims all questions and objections are answered and resolved “if we conceive of the physical universe as a virtual reality,” the core idea of My Big TOE. Moreover, My Big TOE “provides entirely rational explanations for many phenomena dismissed by mainstream science as ‘weird’ (quantum effects), ‘mysterious’ (consciousness), ‘illusory’ (free will) or ‘delusions’ (paranormal experiences).” For example, paranormal phenomena are natural artifacts of a virtual universe. As for the hard problem of consciousness, it is supposedly “solved—or rather, dissolved—once we drop our belief in a fundamental external reality.” The virtual reality model helps us do that, Campbell says. In this view, “our subjective perception is not some ‘internal' representation of an ‘external’ world: There is no objective world outside of us.” But if our reality is a simulation, who or what is doing the simulating? Is this not just kicking all the conundrums, such as consciousness, up a level? My Big TOE is ready with a “Larger Consciousness System” (LCS) that computes virtual realities, noting, unlike the God of religions, LCS “demands neither praise nor worship.” From Oneness to the Larger Consciousness System In the very beginning, Campbell's big conjecture goes, “all that may have existed was an Absolute Unbounded Oneness (AUO)—an undifferentiated, elementary consciousness with a potential to evolve into the highly complex, unfathomably vast LCS of today. AUO was barely aware, but it did have the potential to develop all the attributes of consciousness, including awareness, perception, cognition and free-will choice-making.” Driven, somehow, by an inherent drive towards complexity, “when AUO reached its evolutionary limits as a monolithic block of consciousness, a single source of choosing, it made a crucial decision: AUO split itself into unfathomably many interconnected but autonomous pieces, a process we can imagine like partitioning a computer hard drive into multiple partitions. The idea was for all the different pieces to build something more innovative and creative than a single mind would ever be able to come up with.” At that fateful moment, Campbell says, “the One became the Many: the Absolute Unbounded Oneness (AUO) turned into an Absolute Unbounded Manifold (AUM),” which led to the genesis of the Larger Consciousness System,” which provides, according to My Big TOE, the simulations of our virtual universe today (Campbell, 2003/2007, n.d.).

---

## Mossbridge’s Informational Substrate as Collective Unconscious
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/mossbridge-s-informational-substrate-as-collective-unconscious
Theorists: Julia Mossbridge

Cognitive neuroscientist and educator Julia Mossbridge’s Informational Substrate as Collective Unconscious (IS/CU) model has several motivations for a theory of consciousness. One is the recognition that the collective unconscious is an ontological reality (but is rarely included in theories of consciousness). Another is the recognition that consciousness theories rarely separate consciousness per se (i.e., pure awareness) from its contents. In addition, Mossbridge cites her own research showing that conscious states of unconditional love support precognition accuracy (Mossbridge, 2022, 2025). She builds her theory of consciousness as follows. Foundations of the IS/CU Model First, she states, quantum mechanics requires a foundational informational substrate that informs the possibilities that emerge in spacetime, including neuronal firing in our brains as well as the objects and events we perceive with our brains. Because we are not conscious of this substrate, and because it influences our reality collectively, she makes the assumption that this informational substrate (IS) is equivalent to what Jung called the collective unconscious (CU). A further parallel, she says, is her assumption that our individual unconscious minds “read from” the IS/CU to obtain information that is useful for us at any particular time. She makes this assumption, she says, because otherwise it would not be clear how our unconscious minds can retrieve information about nonlocal events (which Mossbridge says has been established scientifically for skilled individuals). Filtering and Individual Consciousness Second, she says, the model addresses our unconscious minds. An unconscious mind is like a nonphysical container for information that also acts on that information (e.g., a mathematical function acting on the contents of a set). She says, “Given that we know we do not retrieve all the information in our individual unconscious minds, let's assume that part of acting on this information is to create a filter that narrows down the information eventually reaching our individual consciousness. I assert that the contents of individual consciousness are narrowed down by this filter according to unconscious intention—which is derived, like all the contents of the individual unconscious, from the IS/CU. This unconscious intention sometimes becomes one of the contents of consciousness, but often does not.” Writing to the IS/CU Third, she says, the contents that arrive in our individual consciousness (e.g., another mathematical function acting on the contents of a smaller set) are combined with unconscious contents and unconscious intentions, though, by definition, our consciousness is not aware of this combination. As a result, consciousness forms a conscious intention about “what to do next” that can be rationalized according to conscious contents alone but is influenced by unconscious content and unconscious intention, which is ultimately derived from the IS/CU. Since everything can actually be done in the world without consciousness (i.e., zombies are possible), the only reason individual consciousness evolved is because it was the only way that intention, which is derived from individual consciousness itself (not from its contents), could have the power to suggest something—”write to”—the IS/CU directly. This, Mossbridge asserts, is the purpose of individual consciousness. Why can't the individual unconscious write to the IS/CU directly? It does not speak the same “language” as the IS/CU. The ironic implication here, she says, is that both individual consciousness and the collective unconscious share an “observer” status—that is, they are both conscious. Finally, the IS/CU receives the suggestion and combines it with all other suggestions arriving from all points in time and space, calculating the information that creates spacetime events, including the contents of the individual unconscious mind and the eventual contents of the conscious mind. Mossbridge stresses that this is a circular description of how reality and consciousness work, and the key is to recognize that the IS/CU is outside of spacetime, so there is no paradox here. We are inside of spacetime, sending our conscious intentions to the IS/CU. But it calculates what happens based on all intentions throughout all time, arriving from all beings with enough individual consciousness to ‘write’ to it, which could include other animals, extraterrestrials, ultraterrestrials, and AIs. As a result, it is the only entity that has free will—and as long as we include ourselves in it, we inherit free will. If we cut ourselves off from it, we deny ourselves free will. One indirect test of this implication, she says, is to determine whether feelings of universal love or unity support more efficient read/write from/to the IS/CU. Some research suggests this may be the case, but more should be pursued. A general test of individual consciousness according to this IS/CU model would be whether the entity could read/write directly to the IS/CU, amounting to passing a test for psi capacities, as Turing suggested in 1949.

---

## Hiller’s Eternal Discarnate Consciousness
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/hiller-s-eternal-discarnate-consciousness
Theorists: Jack H. Hiller

Maverick physicist Jack Hiller posits an “eternal discarnate consciousness” or, as he says, in common parlance, the “soul”—which, “when freed from its hard attachment to the body, functions in a Universal Field of Consciousness (UFC), which may also be characterized as the mind of God.” The soul brings to the body the moral values that exist in the UFC, and these values may often conflict with, in Hiller's Freudian terms, “the Id and the Ego's pleasure-seeking functions.” (Hiller, 2021). The theory hypothesizes that the individual consciousness (spirit and soul) functions in this UFC, both in life and in eternity, before and after an Earth life (Hiller, 2019). Hiller bases his theory on what he says are many thousands of out-of-body experiences (OBEs) associated with near-death experiences, including many documented cases in which researchers were able to verify accurate reporting about the activities observed during the OBE that could not be accounted for by normal sense-perception (Rivas et al., 2023). He stresses OBEs' peculiar, nonphysical characteristics: time no longer has meaning, does not flow, and the past and present, even some future events, are available to see and experience; visits may be made to Earth locations distant from the body, or out to the cosmos; perception is radically enhanced, e.g., visual perception is 360°, with an ability to focus down to atomic particles or up to the cosmos; everything appears to be made of light; thinking and movement by thinking are instantaneous; all entities, inanimate as well as diverse animate, exude consciousness; individual consciousness, souls, connect telepathically; the world experienced is multidimensional, more than space-time; by existing in the universal field of consciousness, all knowledge is felt as available, and one feels part of God and God's love for all (Hiller, 2020). Hiller speculates that if quantum entanglement can be conceptualized as some kind of signaling at infinite speed across any distances, there could be a deep relationship between quantum mechanics and reported instances of discarnate consciousness.

---

## Swimme’s Cosmogenesis
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/swimme-s-cosmogenesis
Theorists: Brian Swimme

Mathematician and integral studies professor Brian Swimme presents the cosmology of a creative universe—cosmogenesis—in which human consciousness plays an essential role. He views the evolution of the universe toward greater complexity and consciousness as “the ultimate aim of the universe.” It is a creative universe that develops through time from plasma to galaxies to living planets to human consciousness, “a universe that can intend something even before human consciousness emerges” (Swimme, 2022). Swimme bases his ideas on the teachings of Thomas Berry, a Catholic priest, cultural historian, and world religion scholar, who spoke of “the spirituality of the universe,” using “the word ‘spirituality’ to correct a deformation in modern consciousness, that imagined the existence of a ‘physical universe.’” Such a conception no longer made sense, Berry said, because in the 20th century, “we discovered that the matter of this universe—the only matter we know of—constructs life. There is no such thing, then, as ‘lifeless matter.’ Matter, in its very structure and dynamism, generates life.” Consciousness, then, is built into the fundamental fabric of the universe. What will happen, Swimme asks, “when we turn our consciousness around and realize that our awareness of cosmogenesis is also the work of the universe? How will we change when we face the universe and find the universe facing us?” (Swimme, 2022).

---

## Khasho’s NDE-Enabled Field-Substrate Translation Model
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/khasho-s-nde-enabled-unified-field-level-model
Theorists: Joseph Khasho

Financial professional and Near-Death Experience (NDE) Research Foundation board officer Joseph Khasho proposes a translation model in which a unified field-level state and a biological substrate are linked, with consciousness as an organized mode of awareness embedded in the field-level state and rendered or filtered through the brain’s biological substrate as localized experience. He calls his theory “I Think Therefore, 'I AM'” (ITTIA) because the model proposes that the irreducible nature of a single human thought within conscious awareness, together with the unique features of NDEs, reflects participation in a deeper organizing field rather than being generated by the brain. The claimed veridical nature of NDEs forms the foundation of the theory. In ITTIA, consciousness exists as an already-organized, field-level state whose individuality is realized when a locus of awareness couples with the substrate of an enactment-capable biological interface. Embodiment does not relocate consciousness; it constrains and stabilizes the locus of its expression to enable biological enactment. The brain’s filtering role enforces locality and autobiographical binding, constrains bandwidth, and occludes awareness of its embeddedness within the broader field, imposing a point-perspective self-location that requires substrate-mediated communication. The field-level state provides upstream organization, but only a rendered subset becomes accessible within awareness for evaluation and action. When filtering is disrupted (e.g., trauma, cardiac arrest, or other decoupling conditions), substrate-expressed cognition may degrade, yet heightened coherence can emerge: intensified clarity, altered or expanded time, stable memory imprint, and a shift in the locus of awareness beyond bodily location. ITTIA interprets this pattern as evidence that the organizing source of consciousness is not identical to intact neural integration. Decoupling relaxes substrate constraints, allowing awareness to access a more unified field mode while losing ordinary physical-enactment capacity, thereby providing an explanatory foundation for durable transformation upon re-embodiment. Readiness Potentials as Translation, Not Origination The well-known Libet experiments are often interpreted to suggest that the brain initiates decisions before conscious awareness (Frith and Haggard, 2018). ITTIA reframes these findings: neural readiness potentials and predictive neural signatures model measurable neural translation of an upstream field-level organizing process already underway prior to reflective awareness. Awareness marks the point of experiential access, not generation, preserving local agency while dissolving the need for an autonomous subconscious “decider,” if consciousness is understood as a field-level state expressed through the substrate of neural constraints. According to Khasho, neural readiness potentials reflect measurable neural translation of upstream organization, while coherent persistence during decoupling events (e.g., trauma-induced unconsciousness) reveals access to a less-filtered, more unified mode, evidenced by physiologically incompatible unidirectional veridical perceptions and other distinctive characteristics of NDEs (van Lommel et al., 2001). Structural Ladder of Awareness Khasho says that ITTIA contributes not only survival claims, but also an account of hyper-real phenomenology and its durable moral-psychological signature. The model proposes a structural ladder: dream → waking → decoupled field-level awareness. Waking consciousness is experienced as “more real” than dreaming due to increased informational density and clarity, expanded temporal awareness with associated memory coherence, and a widened, stabilized sense of agency that subordinates dream-state consciousness. NDEs: Thought Without Medium, Native to the Field NDEs reflect a further scaling of these same structural features: (1) hyper-lucidity, (2) atemporal expansion, (3) intensified memory coherence and imprint stability, and (4) widened and relocated identity beyond bodily self-location. Direct experience of a field-level state with such a widened aperture—perceived as more fundamental than embodied life—rationally explains enduring reductions in death anxiety and value reorientation; an explanatory linkage not mechanistically accounted for within prevailing brain-bound models. Deep NDEs report direct thought-to-thought exchange or immediate knowing without material transmission or symbolic encoding. Information, understood as data recognized as meaningful, presupposes an aware knower; awareness is therefore logically prior to information. ITTIA interprets this as evidence that thought and the awareness that apprehends it are native to the field-level domain, requiring neural mediation for embodied expression but not for existence or mutual access in decoupled states. This native inter-relational structure accounts for reported interconnectedness, multi-perspective awareness, and relational unity. ITTIA treats veridical perceptions—accurate unidirectional observations from non-bodily vantage points—as boundary evidence that the locus of awareness can relocate independently of sensory channels (Parnia et. al., 2014a; Parnia et al., 2022). The model does not require maximal physiological collapse; the decisive evidential feature is vantage-point displacement inconsistent with sensory mediation. Cognitive impairment and awareness relocation are therefore separable axes. ITTIA claims to integrate phenomenology, neuroscience data, the nature of thought, and NDE boundary-condition evidence into a single claim: consciousness is a coherent field-level organization not spatially confined to neural structures, expressed through the brain’s translating substrate. NDEs reveal structural features of consciousness when filtering is relaxed, yielding possible testable predictions regarding veridical perception, transformation persistence, and non-mediated communication.

---

## Graboi’s Three-Aspect Model
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/graboi-s-three-aspect-model
Theorists: Daniel G. Graboi

Cognitive neuroscientist Daniel Graboi, motivated by telepathy and clairvoyance being real and nonphysical, proposes a “three-aspect model of consciousness”: matter, mind (nonphysical), and pure awareness (an “absolute”). In his model, "pure awareness energy" interacts with a brain to produce consciousness in the mind, which exists in a nonphysical dimension of reality. The information produced by the activation pattern of neurons in the unique wiring structure of a specific brain dissociates and is rendered into a "pure information" format which is universal and available nonlocally to enter the contents of consciousness of any suitably receptive brain-mind (Graboi, 2023).

---

## Noël’s Nested Field Theory
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/no-l-s-nested-field-theory
Theorists: Christopher Noël

Philosophy-trained writer Christopher Noëlproposes “Nested Field Theory,” where consciousness is a ubiquitous quantum-like field, an information field that is “nested” within quantum fields. Noël recognizes contemporary physics where the universe is filled with quantum fields that underlie and give rise to physical reality, and he claims that consciousness is a field among them, an information field that operates at a higher frequency than the rest, such that it cannot be directly detected. Noël’s Nested Field Theory is founded on his conviction in the reality of paranormal phenomena, events, and experiences, and their tangible signs and symptoms. He asserts that consciousness, as this information field, accounts for paranormal phenomena more logically or more “naturally” than any other theory of consciousness, and while direct evidence is not possible, strong indirect evidence is abundant (Noël, 2026). The theory began as a response to what Noël calls “the stubborn enigma” of paranormal experiences such as telepathy, remote viewing, and psychokinesis (PK). The first two involve access to information unavailable to the five primary bodily senses, while the third names the capacity of consciousness to affect physical processes and objects. Many theories have posed consciousness as an information field—thereby allowing for extrasensory information access—but none before has explained its kinetic capacity as a function of this same field and, moreover, not as a quality additional to information but thanks to information itself, understood as an energetic frequency in its own right. (Noël cites the Macro-PK observations of Dean Radin and the Micro-PK experiments of the Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research program, PEAR, which used a random event generator as essentially a computerized coin-flipper executing one flip per second.) Noël states that he follows the long-ago lead of Frederic Myers, founder of parapsychology, who held that consciousness is “so rarefied that it is invisible to the mortal eye and eludes the finest instruments of the scientists.” Physics tells us that frequency is inversely proportional to wavelength, and by the same token, the higher the frequency of a field, the higher its energy and information-bearing potential, which, Noël says, is an apt description of consciousness. That’s why Noël calls consciousness the Nested Field because its wavelength is subatomic; it is a form of matter/energy that nests within all ordinary matter. Noël stresses that his theory was spurred by the phenomenology of paranormal experience. The puzzle has always been: How can invisible, allegedly immaterial forces influence our visible, material world? By expanding our aperture to include a capital-M “Materialism,” we can recognize within it both ordinary matter/energy and the matter/energy specific to consciousness. We can find new leverage in the idea that these two fundamental types of matter/energy occasionally interact to produce “high strangeness,” clashing in ways that have dramatic electromagnetic and thermodynamic consequences, experienced by countless witnesses and measured by researchers [or so is their claim]. To Noël, Nested Field Theory accounts for these bizarre paranormal effects within a thoroughly naturalistic framework. In The Anatomy of Thin Air, Noël details numerous paranormal contexts in which the electrical and atmospheric status quo is suddenly ruptured, often violently: lightbulbs explode, computers fry, batteries drain, temperatures plunge, people sicken, eardrums pop with falling air pressure. Noël says that the Nested Field theory demystifies these and kindred effects as simply natural processes brought about by energetic interactions. That they occur at all, and that they are localized and short-lived, argues for the claim that the rest of nature—the non-conscious stuff—wields its own authority as a stakeholder just as real as consciousness (Noël, 2026). Reference Noël, C. (2026). The Anatomy of Thin Air: Practical Solutions to Paranormal Mysteries. https://www.amazon.com/Anatomy-Thin-Air-Practical-Paranormal/dp/B0GYHW5FSX.

---

## Harp’s Universal or God Consciousness
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/harp-s-universal-or-god-consciousness
Theorists: Dennis Harp

Physicist and “spiritual scholar” Dennis Harp, who seeks to unify theoretical physics and spiritual teachings, claims that “each of us exists as consciousness attached to a mind and body, making sense of the universe by experiencing individual states in a causal sequence.” Motivated by a personal NDE as well as NDE research, Harp asserts that with contemplative practices, we can learn (eventually) “to detach from the body and explore the universe in a non-physical manner. Finally, we detach from the mind as well, and experience the entire universe at once in the shared view called Universal, or God Consciousness. Thus, what we call consciousness is somehow the union of this Universal or God Consciousness with our mind and body (Harp, 2022). To Harp, theoretical physics “is comfortable with the possibility of the infinite complexity of infinite universes, along with universal waveform collapse and reinflation every instant in order to explain causality.” However, he says, “causality is only necessary as long as the mind is interpreting, or ‘making sense’ of the universe. Since consciousness can experience the universe independent of the mind, beyond the realm of space and time, it experiences all quantum mechanical states simultaneously, and no interactions occur at all. This static universe unifies theoretical physics and mystical teachings” (Harp, 2022).

---

## Johnson and Debold’s Urantia Theocosmic Cosmopsychism
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/johnson-and-debold-s-urantia-theocosmic-cosmopsychism
Theorists: JJ Johnson, Bob Debold

Urantia scholars JJ Johnson and Bob Debold draw on The Urantia Book (UB) to present consciousness within a “theocosmic cosmopsychism” and to frame it as participation in a personal, Deity-originated mindal architecture (Urantia Book, 1955). In this model, consciousness originates in an infinite personal source and flows through a hierarchical, top-down mindal architecture that manifests through progressively complex levels of mind. Individual minds arise as finite participations in this larger coordination. They reflect, rather than produce, the cosmic order of awareness. The model departs from emergentist accounts (which treat mind as arising from complex matter) and impersonal cosmopsychist theories (Shani, 2015; Albahari, 2019; Goff, 2019; Kastrup, 2020), which posit fundamental consciousness’s importance without a personal or purposive source. This theocosmic perspective grounds consciousness in Deity and offers an integrated account of both its function within an ordered universe and its deeper rationale for existence (Urantia Book, 1955). It brings empirical, philosophical, and revelatory strands into coherence. Johnson’s COSAR principle (Coordination of Science and Religion) explains how scientific description and spiritual insight can function as complementary perspectives on a single Deity-centered causation (Johnson, 2009; Johnson, 2025). Model Description According to the authors, the Urantia Book depicts mind as the universal mediator between spirit and matter—a “living presence” that unites energy systems with intelligence (Urantia Book, 1955). Cosmic mind organizes spiritual patterns and physical energies into functional relations, producing a model in which consciousness is neither reducible to neural activity nor floating as an abstract essence, but arises through participation in a structured mindal order. Within this architecture, personality functions as the unifying principle that coordinates mind with both spirit and material energies, enabling individual consciousness to operate as personal participation in cosmic order. Individual consciousness expresses this mindal architecture in progressively higher levels of awareness—from instinctive consciousness in subhuman animals to human self-consciousness and, ultimately, to the capacity to recognize and respond to divine personality (Urantia Book, 1955). The Urantia model posits three ontological domains—spirit, mind, and matter—and affirms mind as a mediating dimension that resists reduction to either physics or pure subjectivity. The architecture functions on a cosmic scale: the same mindal governance shaping human experience is said to operate across a vast, inhabited universe (Urantia Book, 1955). Philosophical Context Philosophically, the model engages the “hard problem” by rooting awareness in a triune structure of fact, meaning, and value, and shows how these correspond to interdependent scientific, philosophical, and religious modes of knowing (Urantia Book, 1955). Johnson’s COSAR principle argues that any satisfactory account of consciousness must coordinate these three domains rather than privilege one in isolation (Johnson, 2009; Johnson, 2025). This coordination expands the conceptual space of consciousness studies, demonstrating how empirical insight, philosophical analysis, and spiritual interpretation can function as complementary approaches to a single underlying reality. Comparative Placement in the Landscape Johnson and Debold seek to show how Urantia cosmopsychism intersects with several contemporary positions in Kuhn’s taxonomy (Kuhn, 2024). It aligns closely with the idealist-challenge frontier while also incorporating elements explored within panpsychism and quantum field approaches. In the analytic cosmopsychist tradition (Shani, 2015; Albahari, 2019; Goff, 2019; Kastrup, 2020), the model affirms a unified consciousness yet extends this unity beyond impersonal mind-fields to a personal and purposive divine source (Urantia Book, 1955; Debold, 2025). The model also parallels features of Integrated Information Theory, describing consciousness along a graded scale of awareness, while locating this gradation not in causal complexity but in varying degrees of mindal participation (Tononi et al., 2022). It resonates with Whiteheadian process in recognizing experience as pervasive, yet moves beyond process metaphysics by rooting cosmic coordination in personal Deity rather than abstract creativity (Hartshorne, 1941). In these respects, the Urantia model functions as a theocosmic extension of idealist frameworks, broadening them into a personal and purposive cosmology. Distinctive Contribution: Personality as Integrator A central innovation of the UB model is the concept of personality as the integrator of consciousness. It is the unique, non-replicable endowment that unifies mindal states and maintains identity continuity across material, morontial [the transitional state between material and spiritual existence], and spiritual levels (Urantia Book, 1955). In Johnson’s essay “Personality Bestowal” (2019), he argues that this endowment enables finite selves to progressively align with the universal mind while preserving individuality and moral responsibility. In this sense, personality is the cosmic mechanism that “cosars” the landscape of experience—vertically unifying the entire spectrum of consciousness from subhuman mind to divine awareness and converting the stratified hierarchies of philosophy into an experiential continuum (Johnson, 2009; Johnson, 2025). Consciousness thus becomes a relational field of participation in divine mind, personalized through free will. Epistemological Implications According to the authors, the Urantia model reframes neuroscience and metaphysics as complementary cross-sections of a single mindal architecture (Urantia Book, 1955). Recent work in developmental and synthetic biology, particularly Michael Levin’s research on bioelectric patterning, introduces empirical challenges to strictly neural and bottom-up accounts of cognition (Levin & Lobo, 2022; Levin et al., 2021). System-level pattern memory in planaria, problem-solving behaviors in novel synthetic “anthrobot” constructs, and the discovery of bioelectric “pattern homeostasis” all suggest that cognition can occur in organizational spaces not reducible to neural substrates (Levin et al., 2021; Levin & Lobo, 2022). Levin characterizes this domain as a “non-physical space of causes and constraints” guiding form and function across scales. The Urantia model offers an epistemology in which consciousness emerges not from neural complexity alone but from participation in a graded, universe-wide mindal architecture that mediates between material processes and spiritual energies (Urantia Book, 1955). Within this view, Levin’s findings suggest that biological systems respond to organizing principles beyond neural mechanisms, resonating with the UB model’s claim that mindal architecture guides form and function across scales. When all is said and done, Johnson and Debold claim, “the UB model presents the Truth of Reality that metaphysics has failed to achieve.“ [Editor’s note: The Urantia Book model is included in Landscape in response to, and with respect for, those who take these supposed revelations seriously, and in keeping with Landscape’s systematic ambition and cultural reach to represent humanity’s broadest beliefs about consciousness.] References Albahari, M. (2019). Beyond cosmopsychism and the great I am: How the world might be grounded in universal ‘pure awareness’. In W. Seager (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of panpsychism (pp. 119–129). Routledge. Debold, R. (2025). Consciousness–UB v2. Debold Group. https://deboldgroup.com/Aquatic/ConsciousnessUBv2.html Goff, P. (2019). Galileo’s error: Foundations for a new science of consciousness. Pantheon. Hartshorne, C. (1941). Man’s vision of God. Harper & Brothers. Johnson, J. J. (2019). Personality bestowal. Urantiapedia. https://urantiapedia.org/en/article/JJ_Johnson/Personality_Bestowal Johnson, J. J. (2009). Up close and personal: The personality bestowal in The Urantia Book (Expanded ed.). Urantia University Press. Johnson, J. J. (2025). Exploring the Urantia revelation: Bridging science and spirit with the truth of reality. Skyhorse. Kastrup, B. (2020). The idea of the world: A multi-disciplinary argument for the mental nature of reality. IFFS Press. Kuhn, R. (2024). Landscape of Consciousness. Toward a Taxonomy of Explanations and Implications. Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology. Volume 190, 2024, Pages 28-169. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0079610723001128?via=ihub Levin, M., & Lobo, D. (2022). TAME: A framework for technological approaches to mind everywhere. Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience, 16. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnsys.2022.887406 Levin, M., et al. (2021). Synthetic living machines: A new window on life. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(19). https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2019551118 Shani, I. (2015). Cosmopsychism: A holistic approach to the metaphysics of experience. Philosophical Papers, 44(3), 389–437. The Urantia Book. (1955). Urantia Foundation. Tononi, G., Boly, M., Massimini, M., & Koch, C. (2022). Integrated information theory: From consciousness to its physical substrate. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 23(5), 307–321. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41583-022-00578-

---

## Hobson’s Dreaming Protoconsciousness
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/hobson-s-dreaming-protoconsciousness
Theorists: J. Allan Hobson

Psychiatrist and sleep researcher J. Allan Hobson’s protoconsciousness theory proposes that rapid-eye-movement (REM) sleep provides an evolutionarily and developmentally early virtual-reality state in which the brain generates an embodied world-model largely independent of external input. Dreaming exemplifies primary consciousness—perception, emotion, movement imagery, and a situated self without normal reflective insight—while mature waking consciousness adds language, metacognition, sustained memory, and voluntary control. REM sleep is therefore not merely a source of bizarre experiences but a recurring training and maintenance regime for the generative mechanisms that make waking phenomenal consciousness possible (Hobson, 2009). In other words, Hobson proposes that REM sleep constitutes a protoconscious state: a genetically programmed, brain-generated virtual reality that models a world, a body, and an emotional stance toward both, serving the development and maintenance of waking consciousness. Dreaming is thus not a degraded form of waking experience but the evolutionary-prior, pure expression of primary consciousness—perception and emotion generated without external input—while the waking state adds the secondary but content-rich features of language, abstraction, self-reflective awareness, and volition. The theory rests on the AIM (Activation-Input-Modulation) state-space model, on which conscious states are characterized by brain activation, input–output gating, and neuromodulatory mode, and takes its principal developmental argument from the abundance of REM sleep in the fetus and neonate, before there is waking experience for dreams to reprocess. From Activation-Synthesis to AIM Hobson and McCarley’s original activation-synthesis hypothesis argued that REM dreams arise when the forebrain synthesizes internally generated brainstem activation into a coherent narrative. This shifted dream theory from disguised Freudian symbolic wish fulfillment toward neurophysiology: aminergic withdrawal, cholinergic activation, sensory gating, motor inhibition, and internally generated signals help explain the vividness, emotional intensity, discontinuity, and poor critical reasoning of dreams (Hobson & McCarley, 1977). Hobson later developed the Activation-Input-Modulation (AIM) model, which locates conscious states within a multidimensional space. Activation concerns overall brain activity; input-output gating concerns whether processing is driven mainly by external stimuli or internal generation; modulation concerns the neurochemical balance shaping cognition. Waking, REM dreaming, non-REM sleep, anesthesia, and other states occupy different regions of this space rather than forming a simple conscious-unconscious binary (Hobson, Pace-Schott, & Stickgold, 2000). Dreams as Primary Consciousness Dreams demonstrate that the brain can produce immersive phenomenal worlds while largely disconnected from current sensory input and overt behavior. Dreamers see, hear, move, feel fear or pleasure, and inhabit a first-person perspective, yet usually lack the metacognitive recognition that they are dreaming. Hobson identifies this as primary consciousness, which humans share in important respects with nonhuman animals. Normal awake consciousness, which Hobson calls secondary, includes explicit self-reflection, abstract thought, autobiographical continuity, insight, and deliberate volition—capacities associated with waking frontoparietal organization and, exceptionally, lucid dreaming. This distinction makes dream phenomenology theoretically valuable. It separates the existence of experience from accurate world-representation, behavioral report, and executive control. The dreaming brain constructs a world that is phenomenally compelling despite its weak constraint by external reality, supporting the broader view that perception is an actively generated model rather than a passive registration of sensory input. From Activation-Synthesis to AIM Hobson's early activation-synthesis hypothesis held that dream mentation is the forebrain's synthesis of activation originating in brainstem mechanisms during REM sleep, advanced, as noted, against psychodynamic accounts of dreams as disguised wish fulfillment (Hobson and McCarley, 1977). The AIM model generalizes this into a three-dimensional state space locating any conscious state by three parameters: A, level of brain activation; I, input–output gating, which during REM occludes external input and blocks motor output; and M, neuromodulatory mode, running from aminergic dominance in waking to cholinergic dominance in REM (Hobson, Pace-Schott and Stickgold, 2000). The phenomenology of dreaming—vivid hallucinatory imagery, intense emotion, loss of self-reflective awareness, orientational instability, amnesia—is systematically predicted by the REM region of this space. Primary and Secondary Consciousness Hobson adopts Edelman's distinction between primary consciousness, the simple awareness of perception and emotion, and secondary consciousness, which depends on language and includes self-reflective awareness, abstract thought, volition, and metacognition (Edelman, 1992; Hobson, 2009). Dreaming abounds in the features of primary consciousness and is markedly deficient in secondary consciousness; waking, conversely, is dominated by secondary features that ordinarily conceal the primary substrate on which they rest. This mapping does substantial work. It allows dreaming to be treated as an experimentally accessible instance of phenomenal consciousness with the higher-order and linguistic overlay largely subtracted, and it makes lucid dreaming—in which secondary consciousness is partially restored within a REM-generated world—a hybrid state of theoretical interest rather than a curiosity (Voss et al., 2009). REM Sleep as a Virtual Reality Generator The central claim is that REM sleep provides a virtual reality model of the world (Hobson, 2009). The brain in REM constructs a spatiotemporal world with a body in it, populates it with agents, and supplies fictive movement and emotion, all while sensory input is gated out and motor output inhibited. Hobson's argument for the functional significance of this construction is developmental: REM sleep is maximal in the fetus and neonate, at a stage when there is little or no waking experience to consolidate. He infers that brain activation in sleep develops and maintains the circuitry required for higher functions, consciousness especially, and that the virtual reality of dreams is a rehearsal of world-modeling rather than a replay of experience—prominent prenatally and in infancy, then persisting lifelong in REM. Generative Models and Inference In collaboration with Karl Friston, Hobson recast the theory within predictive processing (Hobson and Friston, 2012; Hobson, Hong and Friston, 2014). Dreaming is construed as the offline operation of the brain's generative model, running in the absence of sensory evidence, and is assigned the function of optimizing that model by reducing its complexity—pruning redundant parameters so that waking inference remains efficient. Sleep thereby acquires an information-theoretic rationale that complements the developmental one, and the virtual-reality metaphor is given a formal reading: the dream is what the generative model produces when it is unconstrained by sensory input. Hobson has also applied the framework clinically, to the aminergic–cholinergic imbalances implicated in psychosis and mood disorder (Hobson, 2015). Scope and Contested Ground The theory's limits are partly self-imposed, and understandably so. It explains why dreaming exists and how dream consciousness relates to waking consciousness, but does not purport to explain why any brain state should be felt at all. Empirically, the tight coupling of dreaming to REM has been contested by evidence of dreaming in non-REM sleep, which complicates the mapping of protoconsciousness onto a single physiological state. Whether REM's developmental abundance supports a world-modeling function or has other explanations remains disputed, and the inference from fetal REM to fetal protoconscious experience is difficult to test. Assessment Hobson's protoconsciousness hypothesis is the most developed attempt to derive a theory of consciousness from the study of sleep, and among the few that treat dreaming as evidentially primary rather than as a derivative, peripheral anomaly. Its lasting contributions are the AIM state space, which renders conscious states physiologically parameterizable, and the argument that primary consciousness is developmentally and evolutionarily prior to the reflective consciousness usually taken as paradigmatic. Its explanatory reach stops short of phenomenality itself, and its central developmental inference remains an argument from timing rather than from demonstrated function. References Edelman, G. M. (1992). Bright Air, Brilliant Fire: On the Matter of the Mind. New York: Basic Books. Hobson, J. A. (2009). REM sleep and dreaming: Towards a theory of protoconsciousness. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 10(11), 803–813. Hobson, J. A. (2015). Psychodynamic Neurology: Dreams, Consciousness, and Virtual Reality. Boca Raton: CRC Press. Hobson, J. A., and Friston, K. J. (2012). Waking and dreaming consciousness: Neurobiological and functional considerations. Progress in Neurobiology, 98(1), 82–98. Hobson, J. A., Hong, C. C.-H., and Friston, K. J. (2014). Virtual reality and consciousness inference in dreaming. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1133. Hobson, J. A., and McCarley, R. W. (1977). The brain as a dream state generator: An activation-synthesis hypothesis of the dream process. American Journal of Psychiatry, 134(12), 1335–1348. Hobson, J. A., Pace-Schott, E. F., and Stickgold, R. (2000). Dreaming and the brain: Toward a cognitive neuroscience of conscious states. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23(6), 793–842. Revonsuo, A. (2000). The reinterpretation of dreams: An evolutionary hypothesis of the function of dreaming. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23(6), 877–901. Voss, U., Holzmann, R., Tuin, I., and Hobson, J. A. (2009). Lucid dreaming: A state of consciousness with features of both waking and non-lucid dreaming. Sleep, 32(9), 1191–1200.

---

## Meditation and the Brain
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/meditation-and-the-brain
Theorists: Several

The scientific consciousness community generally recognizes that meditation can provide insights into consciousness, at least enriching descriptions. But our question goes deeper: Can meditation help discern the fundamental nature or essence of consciousness? Meditation as Altered Consciousness Deep meditation, especially as practiced by Eastern traditions, is an altered state of consciousness that induces changes in the brain. Studies show that meditation, if done regularly, can help relieve symptoms of chronic pain (Trafton, 2011); and that mindfulness meditation programs have moderate evidence of improved anxiety and depression as well as pain relief[1] (Goyal et al., 2014). What is happening in the brain? Alpha Waves and Attention Control Studies suggest that alpha waves (∼7–14 Hz), which are modulated in primary sensory cortex during selective attention, have a mechanistic role in perception. During “mindfulness” meditation, a common practice requiring sustained attention to body and breath-related sensations, people were better able to control their alpha rhythms, thereby implicating “this form of enhanced dynamic neural regulation in the behavioral effects of meditative practice” (Kerr et al., 2011). The idea is that alpha waves help suppress irrelevant or distracting sensory information, diminishing the likelihood that extraneous stimuli “will grab your attention” and enhancing the likelihood that you can better focus and “better regulate how things that arise will impact you” (Trafton, 2011). Deep Meditation and Brain Desynchronization In the highest meditative state possible in Theravada Buddhism—nirodha-samāpatti, translated roughly as “the cessation of thought and feeling”—overall brain synchronization is reduced. This means that while during normal consciousness different parts of the brain are communicating predictively with other parts, during nirodha-samāpatti (i.e., the deepest trance-retreat into the mind, an utter absence of sensation and awareness, with all mental activity temporarily suspended), the brain is desynchronized, no longer functioning as an integrated unit. (Interestingly, similar brain desynchronization occurs when people are given anesthetic doses of propofol or ketamine, but not during sleep) (Love, 2023). It is clear that meditation, which alters consciousness, also alters specific brain wave patterns, thereby giving support to various Materialism Theories (e.g., Brain Circuits and Cycles Models and Electromagnetic Field Theories. Moreover, the brain desynchronization that accompanies the cessation of consciousness seems to support Global Workspace Theory, because the brain activity seems no longer in the same sense “global,” and Integrated Information Theory, because the brain seems no longer in the same sense “integrated.” Obviously, these results do not disprove nonphysical theories of consciousness, which could be consistent with this same set of facts. Footnote [1]. Note: Meditation is not a panacea; it did no better than any active treatment (i.e., drugs, exercise, and other behavioral therapies) on positive mood, attention, substance use, eating habits, sleep, and weight; the meta-analysis also showed low evidence of improved stress/distress and mental health–related quality of life (Goyal et al., 2014).

---

## Psychedelic Theories of Consciousness
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/psychedelic-theories-of-consciousness
Theorists: Several

Throughout human history, psychedelics have been used for spiritual purposes by inducing altered conscious experiences dramatically different from the norm. Colors explode. Time slows, speeds up, stops. Self shatters, dissolves. The body dissipates, melts away. Magical creatures emerge. Spirit Beings appear. All things vibrate, resonate. All is alive. All is connected. All is One. Some attribute the advent of religion to the use of psychotomimetic or hallucinogenic substances in rituals. In each culture or condition, interpretations of psychedelic experiences were made. Mystics conjoined with cosmic consciousness. Indigenous traditions communed with sentient beings from spirit worlds. Aldous Huxley saw the source of all mysticism and spirituality, which he developed into the “perennial philosophy,” related to psychedelics. Psychedelic missionaries in the 1960s sought shortcut insights into consciousness (“Philosophy of psychedelics,” 2023). Materialists like Sam Harris argue for a naturalized spirituality (Explorations in Consciousness: Death, Psychedelics, and Mystical Experience, 2023). There is much to be gained from psychedelic research. Not included, as I see it now, is independent support for non-materialist theories of consciousness. No matter how connected, no matter how spiritual or other worldly psychedelic experiences may seem, no matter how intense the sense of “Oneness with ultimate reality” may be, it is hard to imagine how psychedelic experiences could unlock the door to non-materialist external realities, any more than how seeing stars from a blow to the head could open the window to new vistas of the world — not in the sense of the much greater richness of the psychedlic experience, obviously, but in the sense that both psychedelics and blunt trauma are physical alterations of neural function. Other arguments, perhaps, can suggest non-materialist external realities, but psychedelic arguments probably cannot. (Metzinger describes the psychedelic experience as "epistemically vacuous" [Metzinger, 2004]. But see Kastrup, 2024.) The best one could claim is that psychedelic or hallucinogenic visions would be “consistent with” non-materialist or nonphysical theories of consciousness. On the other hand, psychedelic research may well selectively advance various Materialism Theories of consciousness, of which there are many.[1] (Not a few viewers of Closer To Truth have advised me/RLK: “If you really want to get ‘closer to truth,’ you really need to go psychedelic.” I explain that I am no ‘consciousness practitioner’: I’ve never taken psychedelics; I don’t meditate; I’ve had exactly zero mystical experiences. For these three omissions, I am criticized; I tell my critics I play intense table tennis; they say it doesn’t count.) Neuroscience and Theories of Psychedelics Psychedelic drugs “induce drastic changes in subjective experience,and provide a unique opportunity to study the neurobiological basis of consciousness” (Herzog et al., 2023). By administering psychedelic drugs to disrupt how the brain perceives and models the world while we're awake, researchers seek to understand how the conscious brain works (Can psychedelic drugs, 2022). In other words, assessing the neural mechanisms of how psychedelic drugs alter consciousness might provide clues to the neural basis of normal consciousness. For example, LSD and ketamine, though targeting separate brain receptors, induce similar neural oscillation patterns across the brain, indicating synchronized neural behavior. Such “synchronized neural activity might be more linked to the psychedelic experience than the activity of individual neurons” (Psychedelics Sync Neurons, 2023). If so, this distinction could support Electromagnetic Field Theories. Carhart-Harris and Friston formulate a theory of psychedelic action by integrating Friston's free-energy principle and Carhart-Harris's entropic brain hypothesis. They call this formulation “relaxed beliefs under psychedelics (REBUS) and the anarchic brain, and it is founded on the principle that—via their entropic effect on spontaneous cortical activity—psychedelics work to relax the precision of high-level priors or beliefs, thereby liberating bottom-up information flow, particularly via intrinsic sources such as the limbic system” (Carhart-Harris and Friston, 2019). Psychedelic drugs have been shown to trigger altered states of consciousness similar to those seen in people experiencing near-death experiences (NDEs). Clinical evidence indicates that psychoactive agents can reduce emotional distress in terminally ill people, much as NDEs do after cardiac arrests. Dr. Anthony Bossis showed that “a single treatment with psilocybin—a psychoactive compound found in some mushroom species that humans have consumed for thousands of years—brought rapid reductions in depression, anxiety, and hopelessness in people with terminal cancer.” The benefits of psilocybin treatment, he said, were greatest among individuals who reported strong mystical experiences during the sessions. “The more robust that mystical experience, the greater the outcome in terms of reduction of depression,” Dr. Bossis said. “These aren't NDEs,” he added, “but they're deathlike experiences with a similar phenomenology” (Freeman, 2023). Psychedelic experiences can have profound impact on belief systems, especially regarding religion, philosophy and ultimate reality (Carhart-Harris and Friston, 2019). Even a single such experience can catalyze a radical transformation. Moreover, a single belief-changing psychedelic experience is said to be associated with increased attribution of consciousness to living and non-living entities, even a sense that everything is alive (Nayak and Griffiths, 2022). This seems a significant result for the construction of belief systems, although any implications for theories of consciousness per se would be at best indirect. Philosophical and Metaphysical Interpretations For a perspective more open-minded than mine, philosopher Sarah Lane Richie reports that “emerging scientific and philosophical research on psychedelics … has attracted a growing body of philosophical and theological work on the metaphysical and epistemological possibilities of such experiences.” She discusses “the epistemic status of psychedelic experiences,” suggesting “there exists a mutually reinforcing relationship between panpsychism and the metaphysical possibility of a veridical interpretation of psychedelic states” (Richie, 2021). As noted, I have a strong predisposition to dismiss any notion that psychedelics reveal any sort of veridical reality. Insights about brain-mind mechanisms, sure, but no ontological unveilings. Richie and also philosopher Peter Sjöstedt-Hughes, who focuses on psychedelics and consciousness/metaphysics, put a hairline fracture in my bone-strength worldview. Sjöstedt-Hughes proposes that “Metaphysics should be used to integrate and understand psychedelic-induced metaphysical experiences.” (This is not a tautology, he rightly states.) He argues that “there is a potential extra benefit to patients in psychedelic-assisted therapy if they are provided with an optional, additional, and intelligible schema and discussion of metaphysical options at the integrative phase of the therapy.” (He offers a “metaphysical matrix” with five columns—Physicalism Idealism, Dualism, Monism, Transcendent—and two special rows, Panpsychism and Theism.) (Sjöstedt-Hughes, 2023). Sjöstedt-Hughes and the Hard Problem of Psychedelic Consciousness Sjöstedt-Hughes presents his case. “If the mind-matter relation is an unresolved problem, then psychedelic induced intuitions and visions of alternate frameworks of reality within which to see this problem should not be immediately dismissed as mere hallucination. We cannot judge what is hallucinatory if we do not know what is real. Thus, the hard problem of consciousness bears directly upon the hard problem of psychedelic consciousness—the problem of determining the truth or delusion of certain psychedelic experiences.” He asks, “whether psychedelic experiences are conditioned by one's culture or whether they decondition one from one's culture into a transcendent state.” He concludes, “the experiences that psychedelics can occasion might not be mere delusion but may hold true insights about the nature of ourselves and the cosmos of which we are parts” (Sjöstedt-Hughes, 2022). About ourselves? I agree totally. About the cosmos? I remain almost totally skeptical (but no longer totally skeptical). Psychedelic experiences are well worth researching, phenomenologically and neurobiologically. But I'm not waiting for psychedelic breakthroughs in discerning the ultimate theory of consciousness. Granted, according to psychedelic researchers Yaden et al., “psychedelic substances produce unusual and compelling changes in conscious experience,” which “have prompted some to propose that psychedelics may provide unique insights explaining the nature of consciousness.” Yet, they say, “At present, psychedelics, like other current scientific tools and methods, seem unlikely to provide information relevant to the so-called ‘hard problem of consciousness’” (Yaden, 2021) (Could psychedelics, however, shed light on the nature of subjectivity and selfhood, which are indirectly related to the hard problem?) The authors are optimistic that psychedelic research can help solve “multiple ‘easy problems of consciousness,’ which involve relations between subjectivity, brain function, and behavior.” They conclude by calling for “epistemic humility” (Yaden, 2021)—which is sage advice for everyone working on consciousness, present company included. Footnote [1]. In recent years, mainstream medicine has transformed psychedelic research into a legalized, innovative field, both for the treatment of mental health and neurological disorders and for explorations of consciousness. In 2000, the Johns Hopkins Center for Psychedelic and Consciousness Research became the first to obtain regulatory approval in the United States to reinitiate research with psychedelics in healthy, psychedelic-naive volunteers (Johns Hopkins Center) (https://hopkinspsychedelic.org). Another example is the New York Academy of Sciences conference, “Explorations in Consciousness: Death, Psychedelics, and Mystical Experience” (2023)—https://events.nyas.org/event/7d309c25-5b4d-4ae7-af68-59ace2817707/summary.

---

## Anomalous and Altered States Additional Theories
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/anomalous-and-altered-states-additional-theories

Wijn’s Natural Human Consciousness Independent researcher Mart Wijn proposes “Natural Human Consciousness” (NHC) as a state of nomen-free observation in which experience occurs without linguistic mediation or predictive-processing interference. In this state, the right hemisphere functions as the primary receiver of unfiltered sensory and intuitive data, while the left hemisphere activates solely upon functional request, precluding retroactive narrative overlay. This architecture enables what may be termed 'unlimited logic'—real-time problem-solving capacity unconstrained by stored patterns or predictive priors. Unlike wisdom-dependent cognition, this state permits direct access to logical resolution through unmediated observation. The state manifests consistently across multiple well-documented conditions: non-ordinary states of consciousness (near-death experiences, deep anesthesia, flow states), intentional practices (meditation), pharmacological interventions (psychedelics), and natural human development (infants aged 0-4/5 years before linguistic socialization). These domains share a common neurobiological signature: suppression of predictive processing and left-hemispheric narrative dominance. NHC proposes that human consciousness is a developmental default systematically suppressed through socialization, education, and language acquisition—not through biological necessity, but through cultural practice. The theory distinguishes itself from existing consciousness frameworks by positioning clarity of perception and logical precision as intrinsic to consciousness itself, rather than as emergent properties of neural architecture. Where embodied and enactive theories emphasize environmental coupling, and homeostatic regulation emphasizes organismic needs, NHC identifies the substrate of consciousness as direct access to unlimited relational logic. Empirical support for this framework comes from a seven-year sustained first-person study of Default Mode Network deactivation with preserved cognitive and social functioning. [Note: Wijn states that he personally maintained this seven-year sustained state of Default Mode Network deactivation while preserving full cognitive and social functioning—an extended first-person case study providing direct empirical grounding for his theoretical work.] More significantly, this state demonstrates reproducible capacity for real-time cross-disciplinary problem-solving. Wijn claims that approximately forty peer-reviewed research proposals have been generated through conversational interrogation of consciousness-related, neurobiological, quantum-theoretical, epigenetic, and cosmological questions. These papers demonstrate, he says, that direct logical reasoning—unmediated by pre-stored expertise or predictive frameworks—generates coherent, testable hypotheses across diverse scientific domains. According to Wijn, the theory is empirically tractable through neuroimaging during nomen-free observation states, comparative analysis of real-time problem-solving capacity in predictive-processing-suppressed versus normal conditions, longitudinal study of children's cognitive transition from direct perception to narrative mediation, and systematic assessment of knowledge-independent logical reasoning across disciplinary domains. Wijn offers that this framework integrates evidence from neuroscience, phenomenology, developmental psychology, and epistemology, offering both theoretical coherence and practical implications for human cognitive capacity, educational practice, and the nature of consciousness itself. References Wijn, Mart. (2026). Brain Hemispheres, the DMN, and Consciousness. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19651892. Wijn, Mart. (2026). Human Default State. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20692032. Wijn, Mart. (2026). Natural Human Consciousness: The Heritage for the Next Generation. https://payhip.com/b/C31BV. Wijn, Mart. (2026). The Usurpation of the Real. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19887388. Mocombe's Consciousness Field Theory Philosopher/sociologist Paul C. Mocombe proposes Consciousness Field Theory as a materialist, multiverse-based account of consciousness in which consciousness is neither generated solely by the brain nor grounded in a spiritual substance. Rather, consciousness is an emergent “fifth force of nature”: a consciousness field composed of subatomic units Mocombe calls “psychions.” These psychions carry phenomenal properties—qualia, memories, practical activities, and the informational content of lived experience. The psychion's phenomenal property is qualia, or informational content; the brain does not create this content but receives it, its electromagnetic field—generated by the periodic discharge of neurons—acting as a "glue" that integrates psychions into an individuated ego, or "I." Mocombe denies that the EM field is the seat of consciousness, claiming instead to complete what he regards as an underdeveloped materialism. Syncretizing ORCH-OR, M-theory, the univon multiverse hypothesis, entangled and superimposed multiverses, black hole Big Bang cosmology, structurationism, and Haitian ontology, the theory treats spacetime as fundamental and consciousness as emergent yet eternal. Mocombe’s theory is embedded in his broader phenomenological structuralism, which links consciousness to psychological development, social structure, language, ideology, and praxis. The self is not an isolated Cartesian subject, but a historically and socially situated organization of personal and collective experience. Cosmologically, psychions are not present at the Big Bang; they arise as organic life generates qualia through lived experience. Upon "matter disaggregation" (death), they collapse onto entangled versions of the self across the multiverse or return to the "absolute vacuum," an endless, nonlocal repository of all past, present, and future information recycled, which may be accessed during near-death experiences, trances, prognostic dreams, and mystical revelations. Existence precedes essence, but essence persists. The framework is deterministic, denying free will—which Mocombe argues is what makes prophecy and revelation possible. References Mocombe, Paul C. (2021). Consciousness Field Theory. Archives in Neurology & Neuroscience.10.33552/ANN.2021.09.000718. Paul C. Mocombe (2021). The Consciousness Field. Adv Bioeng Biomed Sci Res 4(1): 20-25. https://www.opastpublishers.com/open-access-articles/the-consciousness-field.pdf. Seth Material The Seth Material propounds a robust Idealism in which consciousness is the sole irreducible reality and physical matter is a derivative camouflage construction, generated by intrinsically experiential units of consciousness that precede and produce the brain—so that phenomenal experience is not produced by neural activity but is the fundamental reality from which brains and worlds arise. Dictated in trance by Jane Roberts to her husband Robert Butts between 1963 and 1984 and attributed to a discarnate energy personality essence named Seth, the corpus holds consciousness to be primary, generative, and ubiquitous, grounded in a creative source termed All That Is (Roberts, 1972). Its proprietary micro-ontology posits nonphysical units of consciousness (CUs) that aggregate into electromagnetic energy (EE) units—the experiential constituents that precipitate as matter—so that every particle, cell, and system possesses rudimentary awareness (Roberts, 1977). All consciousness is driven by value fulfillment, an innate impetus toward qualitative enrichment of experience rather than survival or replication (Roberts, 1986). The physical self is one focus of a larger multidimensional self, or entity, with reincarnated and probable selves coexisting in a nonlinear spacious present (Hanegraaff, 1996). For phenomenal consciousness, the framework inverts the hard problem: qualia are presupposed rather than produced, the feeling-tone of each unit being constitutive of reality. The signature tenet that “we create our own reality” through belief, expectation, and emotion (Roberts, 1974) renders subjective experience causally constitutive of the objective world. Its distinctiveness lies in coupling a fully panexperiential idealism with a complex yet systematic cosmology derived entirely from a single mediumistic source rather than from argument or observation (Klimo, 1998). [Editor’s note: The Seth Material is included in Landscape in response to, and with respect for, those who take these supposed revelations seriously, and in keeping with Landscape’s systematic ambition and cultural reach to represent humanity’s broadest beliefs about consciousness.] References Hanegraaff, W. J. (1996). New Age Religion and Western Culture: Esotericism in the Mirror of Secular Thought. Brill. Klimo, J. (1998). Channeling: Investigations on Receiving Information from Paranormal Sources (2nd ed.). North Atlantic Books. Roberts, J. (1972). Seth Speaks: The Eternal Validity of the Soul. Prentice-Hall. Roberts, J. (1974). The Nature of Personal Reality. Prentice-Hall. Roberts, J. (1977). The "Unknown" Reality, Volume One. Prentice-Hall. Roberts, J. (1986). Dreams, "Evolution," and Value Fulfillment, Volume One. Prentice-Hall.

---

# Theories - Neutral Monisms

## Neutral Monism—Overview
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/neutral-monism-overview
Theorists: Several

Monism is the theory that all of reality consists of exactly one concrete object or thing, and everything that exists is, in some sense, that one concrete object or thing (Schaffer, 2018). To be precise, this is existence monism. The related view that admits dependent proper parts, on which the whole is prior to its parts, is what Schaffer calls priority monism. Monism also names a family of doctrines about one fundamental kind rather than one object, and it is in that sense that materialism, idealism, and neutral monism are all monisms. Neutral monism is a different claim. It is the theory that the fundamental nature of reality is neither mental nor physical but neutral between them, with mind and matter alike arising as constructions, aspects, or organizations of that common base. It is monist in holding that everything basic is of one kind of stuff, agreeing that far with materialism and idealism, and distinguished from them by its claim about what that one kind of stuff intrinsically is. It is neither mental nor physical, but that from which both are constructed. Because neutral monism seeks to account for both mental and physical aspects of reality—avoiding the interaction problem of dualism, the explanatory weakness of materialism, and the decombination problem of idealism—it stands as a major category of consciousness. In one way or another, neutral monism must cover or contain everything we call mental as well as everything we call physical. (The existence of various expressions or kinds of monisms does not much affect how monisms are theories of consciousness.) There is substantial and obvious articulation, or overlap, between Neutral Monism and Panpsychism. Both are motivated by the need to integrate consciousness into the deep nature of reality; thus, monism theories have panpsychism features, and panpsychism theories can be seen as monisms (to first approximations). Perhaps it is simply the case of each reinforcing the other, as closely allied stances on the fundamental nature of ultimate reality, differing more in historical and theoretical perspective than in substance. However, they are not entirely the same. Panpsychism holds that the fundamental entities themselves have phenomenal or protophenomenal properties, so the base is already mind-like; Neutral Monism holds that the base is neither mental nor physical, with both arising from it. The difference concerns the character of what is fundamental rather than how much of it there is—though it is not intuitively obvious that the distinction makes much practical difference. Separate categories for Neutral Monism and Panpsychism are certainly justified, yet the boundary can be fuzzy. In the psychosocial structure of consciousness studies, it would seem that almost everyone would like to be a Monist, because reality just seems more parsimonious with only one kind of thing, one stuff, rather than with two (i.e., Dualism), or, who knows, even with more. If the theory has a clear description of its monistic structure, its one kind of stuff, then it would be classified there (e.g., Idealism). The Neutral Monist theories here stress their monistic nature (which sounds like, but is not, a tautology). Note that Leibniz exposes a strain in the Neutral Monism category, though not the one it first appears to be. His monadology is a pluralism—infinitely many simple substances—but that alone is no departure, since standard neutral monism is likewise pluralist about its basic elements: Mach's sensations, James's pure experiences, and Russell's percepts are many, not one. Monism here is about kind, not number. The actual strain is that Leibniz's monads are immaterial perceiving substances, so his fundamental kind is mental rather than neutral between the mental and the physical. His presence in this category rests on the structure of pre-established harmony, under which mental and bodily series correspond exactly without interacting—which is formally what neutral and dual-aspect views claim about one reality expressed twice. Spinoza and Leibniz thus sit together under one heading while differing on number—one substance against infinitely many—which is a further sign that the category tracks unity of nature rather than unity of substance. Davidson strains the category from the opposite direction: anomalous monism is a monism about events, but the base it identifies is physical rather than neutral, which is why it is also frequently classed under Non-Reductive Physicalism. Moreover, some of the theories or ways of thinking that follow are categorized under Neutral Monism because all other categories seem less appropriate, imposing a belief system that should not apply. (I[RLK] hope each of these theories feels less uncomfortable in Neutral Monism than it might have in other categories.)

---

## Spinoza’s One Reality: Embodied Mind and Graded Consciousness
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/spinoza-s-one-reality-embodied-mind-and-graded-consciousness
Theorists: Baruch Spinoza

Philosopher Baruch Spinoza’s theory of consciousness is embedded in his radical substance monism: there is only and exactly one substance, God or Nature (Deus sive Natura), and individual minds and bodies are finite modes of this single reality expressed under different attributes. The human mind is therefore not an immaterial substance interacting with a body, but the idea of the body—the same individual conceived under Thought rather than Extension—and phenomenal life is grounded in this psychophysical identity as the mind represents the body’s changing affections, including sensations, pleasures, pains, desires, imaginings, and emotions (Spinoza, 1677/1985; Della Rocca, 1996). Spinoza does not isolate “phenomenal consciousness” as a philosophical category in the modern sense; rather, his writings support competing interpretations of consciousness as higher-order awareness, cognitive access, degree of mental complexity or power, or affective awareness, while his broader metaphysics makes mentality pervasive throughout nature (Nadler, 2008; LeBuffe, 2010; Garrett, 2018; Toth, 2026). In other words, Spinoza's theory of consciousness follows from his substance monism, God or Nature, of whose infinite attributes we know two—thought and extension—and a human mind simply is the idea, under the attribute of thought, whose object is an actually existing human body (Spinoza, 1677/1985, Ethics 2p11, 2p13). Because a mode of extension and the idea of that mode are one and the same thing expressed in two ways (2p7s), mind and body neither interact nor merely correlate but are a single item under two descriptions, which dissolves the Cartesian interaction problem at the price of making the mental exactly as pervasive as the physical. Every individual is accordingly "animate" in some degree (2p13s), so what distinguishes the human case is not the presence of mind but the complexity and power of the body whose idea that mind is. Spinoza never isolates phenomenal character as a topic in its own right, and whether he has a theory of consciousness at all—rather than an unsystematic use of conscientia—remains among the most contested questions in his scholarship. One Substance, Two Attributes, No Interaction Spinoza’s governing thesis is that the order and connection of ideas is the same as the order and connection of things (Ethics 2p7). Spinoza makes the claim ontological rather than structural: a circle existing in nature and the idea of that circle are the same thing explicated through different attributes (2p7s). He therefore denies outright that the body can determine the mind to think or the mind determine the body to motion (3p2), and ridicules Cartesian interactionism as a failure to see that no explanatory route crosses between attributes. Thought must be explained through thought alone, extension through extension alone (Della Rocca, 1996). The result anticipates dual-aspect and identity-theoretic treatments while belonging to neither: there is no psychophysical bridge to build, because there was never a gap of the relevant kind. The cost falls elsewhere. Nothing in the system explains why thought should have the character experience seems to have, and the identity formula tells us that mind and body are one thing without telling us what makes the thought-side of that one thing felt. One Substance, Mind and Body Thus, Spinoza rejects Descartes’s fundamental division of reality into thinking substance and extended substance. There is only one substance, possessing infinitely many attributes, of which humans apprehend Thought and Extension; individual minds and bodies are finite modes of these attributes (Spinoza, 1677/1985). His famous proposition that “the order and connection of ideas is the same as the order and connection of things” (Ethics E2p7) means that mental and bodily events do not causally interact across an ontological divide. Rather, a mind and its body are “one and the same thing” conceived under different attributes (E2p7s). Thus, what occurs as a bodily modification under Extension occurs as an idea under Thought (Della Rocca, 1996). For consciousness, the consequence is profound. The experience of pain and the corresponding bodily modification are not two radically different events requiring a causal bridge; they are expressions, under different attributes, of the same underlying modal reality. More specifically, “the object of the idea constituting the human Mind is the Body” (E2p13): the human mind is the idea of an actually existing, highly composite body. This makes the structure and richness of mentality systematically dependent on the body’s organization and capacities, without reducing mind to body. Nadler interprets this as a sophisticated early form of embodied naturalism: greater bodily complexity corresponds to greater complexity in thinking and, consequently, richer consciousness (Nadler, 2008). Phenomenal Experience as Embodied Representation Spinoza’s closest resources for explaining phenomenal character lie less in his explicit vocabulary of conscientia than in his theories of sensation, imagination, bodily affection, and affect. The mind ordinarily perceives external things through ideas of modifications of its own body produced in encounters with those things. Perceptual experience is therefore intrinsically embodied and perspectival: what the mind immediately represents is how its organism is affected through its causal relations with the surrounding world (Spinoza, 1677/1985). This architecture encompasses sensory qualities, bodily feelings, pleasure, pain, desire, and emotion. An affect is simultaneously a modification of the body that increases or decreases its power of acting and the idea of that modification. Joy is the transition toward greater perfection or power; sadness is the converse; desire expresses the individual’s fundamental striving or conatus insofar as that striving enters psychological life (Ethics E3p9s; E3 Definitions of the Affects). Marshall consequently interprets Spinozistic consciousness through affectivity: ideas become behaviorally and experientially significant through their integration into the causal-affective economy of the mind (Marshall, 2014). On this interpretation, phenomenal life is inseparable from embodiment, organismic activity, and affective valence rather than being the activity of a detached Cartesian spectator. Consciousness, Ideas of Ideas, and Degrees of Awareness Spinoza also argues that there are ideas of ideas: just as the body has an idea constituting the mind, that idea itself can be represented by a further idea (Ethics E2p20–23). A classic interpretation therefore treats his account as an ancestor of higher-order theories: consciousness consists, at least partly, in a mind’s having an idea of one of its ideas (Curley, 1969). Yet the interpretation faces an immediate difficulty. Because Spinoza’s metaphysics apparently guarantees an idea of every idea, higher-order representation alone cannot straightforwardly explain why some states or creatures should be conscious and others not (LeBuffe, 2010; Marrama, 2017). This has generated several important alternatives. Nadler argues that consciousness varies with complexity of thinking, which in turn correlates with bodily complexity (Nadler, 2008). Garrett identifies degrees of consciousness with degrees of a mind’s power of thinking (Garrett, 2018). Marshall emphasizes affectivity (Marshall, 2014), while LeBuffe argues that Spinoza employs consciousness in more than one theoretically relevant sense (LeBuffe, 2010). Spinoza’s remark that an infant with a comparatively simple and incapable body is “conscious of almost nothing,” whereas a person whose body is capable of many things possesses a mind “very much conscious” of self, God, and things (E5p39s), strongly supports some form of graded rather than all-or-nothing consciousness. A recent analysis sharpens an important distinction. Toth argues that Spinoza’s explicit uses of conscientia correspond more closely to what contemporary philosophy (after Block, 1995) calls access consciousness—mental contents available for reasoning, self-interpretation, and action—than to phenomenal consciousness understood as subjective “what-it-is-like” character (Toth, 2026). Nothing in Spinoza’s uses of conscientia clearly identifies the term itself with phenomenality. Phenomenal consciousness must instead be reconstructed from his broader treatment of sensation, animation, bodily affection, and affect. This distinction cautions against simply translating Spinoza’s conscientia into the contemporary consciousness concept. Universal Mindedness Without Simple Universal Phenomenality Spinoza strikingly extends mentality far beyond human beings. Because every finite mode of Extension has a corresponding idea under Thought, and because “all individuals, though in different degrees, are nevertheless animate” (E2p13s), his system has often been interpreted as a form of panpsychism or, more cautiously, universal mindedness. There is no ontological point at which Thought suddenly appears from something wholly nonmental. Mentality is built into the fundamental structure of Nature. Yet it does not follow straightforwardly that every physical individual enjoys phenomenal experience in anything like the human sense. The “mind” corresponding to a simple physical system may be extremely rudimentary, and Spinoza explicitly connects differences among minds with differences in the organization and capacities of their bodies. Whether his universal mentality entails universal phenomenality therefore remains interpretively contested. Nor should Spinoza’s God/Nature simply be described as one enormous human-like conscious subject: infinite intellect, finite minds, and the relation between them are much more structurally complex. Spinoza is consequently an important precursor both of panpsychism and of modern dual-aspect or neutral-monist strategies, but he fits neither category without qualification. Ideas of Ideas and the Reflexive Reading The traditional place to look is Ethics 2p20–23, where Spinoza argues that there is in God an idea of the human mind, that the mind knows itself only insofar as it perceives the ideas of the affections of the body (2p23), and, as noted, that the idea of the mind is united to the mind as the mind is to the body (2p21s). Curley (1969) took this to yield a second-order account: a thought is conscious when the mind has a further idea representing the first. The reading has been forcefully resisted. Wilson (1999) and Bennett (1984) object that in God there are ideas of all ideas, so every idea whatever comes out conscious, making the criterion, in Bennett's phrase, absurdly excessive. Defenses have been mounted (Rice, 1990; Martin, 2007), and Marrama (2017) reconstructs the doctrine so that the idea of the mind tracks the mind's retention of its own structural form. Garber (2021) concludes deflationarily that Spinoza has no worked-out theory of consciousness and needed none. Complexity, Power, and Affectivity A second interpretive family abandons the ideas-of-ideas passages and builds instead on parallelism. Nadler (2008) reads consciousness as the mental correlate of bodily complexity, citing Spinoza's claim, as noted, that one whose body is capable of very few things has a mind conscious of almost nothing of itself, of God, or of things, while one whose body is capable of a great many things has a mind very much conscious of all three (5p39s). Garrett (2008) takes the tracked variable to be power rather than complexity, since Spinoza's own emphasis in that passage is on capability. LeBuffe (2010) presses a difficulty for the power reading: a mind's overall power and the power of its constituent ideas can diverge, which yields odd verdicts about degrees. Marshall (2014) develops the proposal into a theory of affectivity, on which an idea is conscious to the extent that it increases, decreases, or fixes the mind's striving. On all these readings consciousness is graded, and Nadler explicitly rejects a threshold on grounds of Spinoza's naturalism. Consciousness, Self-Knowledge, and Freedom Spinoza also decisively breaks the Cartesian association between consciousness, transparency, and privileged self-knowledge. Human beings believe themselves free because they are conscious of their actions and desires while ignorant of the causes determining them (Ethics E1 Appendix; E2p35s; E3p2s). Conscious awareness therefore does not guarantee understanding. A person can accurately experience a desire while profoundly misunderstanding why the desire exists (Spinoza, 1677/1985; LeBuffe, 2010). Toth’s access-consciousness interpretation fits these passages particularly well: the action is cognitively available to the agent, whereas its deeper causal determination is not. Spinozistic freedom accordingly consists not in an uncaused will but in increasing the adequacy of one’s ideas—understanding the causal order that produces one’s thoughts, affects, and actions and thereby becoming more active and less passively determined. Consciousness is not an immaterial inner light standing outside Nature; it is a dimension of the cognitive and affective activity of an embodied mode within Nature. Historically, this makes Spinoza a major alternative founder of the modern conception of mind: against Cartesian substance dualism, he develops mind-body identity without materialist reduction; against introspective transparency, he recognizes unconscious determinants of conscious life; against an absolute mental/nonmental boundary, he places mentality throughout nature; and against an all-or-none picture of consciousness, several influential interpretations find degrees corresponding to complexity, power, or cognitive access. His framework anticipates enduring debates about embodied consciousness, psychophysical identity, higher-order representation, panpsychism, affect, unconscious causation, and the relation between consciousness and self-knowledge. Note: Spinoza should be cross-referenced to Panpsychims. References Bennett, J. (1984). A Study of Spinoza's Ethics. Indianapolis: Hackett. Block, N. (1995). On a confusion about a function of consciousness. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 18(2), 227–247. Curley, E. (1969). Spinoza’s Metaphysics: An Essay in Interpretation. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Della Rocca, M. (1996). Representation and the Mind-Body Problem in Spinoza. New York: Oxford University Press. Garrett, D. (2018). Representation and consciousness in Spinoza’s naturalistic theory of the mind and imagination. In Necessity and Nature in Spinoza’s Philosophy (pp. 393–414). New York: Oxford University Press. LeBuffe, M. (2010). Theories about consciousness in Spinoza’s Ethics. The Philosophical Review, 119(4), 531–563. Marrama, O. (2017). Consciousness, ideas of ideas and animation in Spinoza’s Ethics. British Journal for the History of Philosophy, 25(3), 506–525. Marshall, E. (2014). The Spiritual Automaton: Spinoza’s Science of the Mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Martin, C. (2007). Consciousness in Spinoza's philosophy of mind. The Southern Journal of Philosophy, 45(2), 269–287. Nadler, S. (2008). Spinoza and consciousness. Mind, 117(467), 575–601. https://doi.org/10.1093/mind/fzn048 Spinoza, B. (1677/1985). Ethics. In E. Curley (Ed. and Trans.), The Collected Works of Spinoza (Vol. 1). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. [Cited throughout by the standard internal loci of the Ethics: part number, then p = proposition, s = scholium, app = appendix. Thus 2p13s = Part 2, Proposition 13, Scholium; 1app = Part 1, Appendix.] Rice, L. C. (1990). Reflexive ideas in Spinoza. Journal of the History of Philosophy, 28(2), 201–211. Toth, O. I. (2026). The idea of the idea, consciousness, and human experience in Spinoza’s Ethics. In U. Renz (Ed.), Spinoza on the Human Perspective (pp. 118–133). Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/9780198927686.003.0011 Wilson, M. D. (1999). Objects, ideas, and "minds": Comments on Spinoza's theory of mind. In Ideas and Mechanism: Essays on Early Modern Philosophy (pp. 126–140). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

---

## Leibniz's Monads
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/leibnizs-monads
Theorists: Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz

Philosopher/polymath Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz’s theory of consciousness is a monadological, panexperiential account in which phenomenal consciousness is the apperceived or more distinct form of perception within simple, immaterial centers of force, while all reality consists of non-spatial monads whose internal perceptual states express the whole universe from unique perspectives and unfold by “appetition” (i.e., the internal drive or activity of a simple substance that produces change), under a pre-established harmony (Leibniz, 1686, 1695, 1704/1765, 1714; Kulstad, 1991; Rutherford, 1995; Jorgensen, 2019). In other words, Leibniz held that the ultimate constituents of reality are monads—these simple, immaterial, perceiving substances whose entire inner life consists of perception (the representation of the universe within a partless unity) and appetition (the striving that drives perception forward)—so that perception is ubiquitous in nature while consciousness, which he called apperception, is only a higher, reflective grade of perception possessed by some monads and not at all times. On this view, most mental activity is unconscious, perception cannot be explained by any mechanism, and what we call phenomenal experience is the internal, self-generated unfolding of a simple substance rather than anything caused by the body (Leibniz, 1714a, 1714b; Kulstad & Carlin, 2020). Obviously, Leibniz does not offer a theory of consciousness in the contemporary neuroscientific sense, yet he does offer a sophisticated early modern alternative to both Cartesian dualism and mechanistic materialism. His central claim is not that matter produces consciousness, nor that mind and matter are two interacting substances, but that the fundamental constituents of reality are simple, mind-like unities whose essential states are perception and appetition. Monads, Perception, and the Unity of Experience Leibniz’s metaphysics begins from the claim that true being requires true unity. Extended matter, being divisible without limit, cannot be an ultimate substance. Thus, extended matter is not ultimately real but a well-founded phenomenon, an appearance of aggregates whose genuine constituents are monads. Monads are the fundamental reality: simple substances without parts, extension, or shape—the true atoms of nature (Leibniz, 1714a). A monad is not a tiny physical particle but a metaphysical center of representation and activity. Its perceptual state expresses “the many in the one”: the entire universe is represented from the monad’s own point of view, though usually with extreme confusion and obscurity (Leibniz, 1714; Kulstad & Carlin, 2020). Because a monad has no parts, nothing can act upon it from without; monads are windowless, and each changes only through an internal principle. That inner life is explained without residue by two activities: perception and appetiton. Perception is the passing state that involves and represents a multitude within a unity—the representation, in a single simple subject, of a manifold of content, ultimately of the entire universe from the monad's unique point of view, so that each monad is a perpetual living mirror of the cosmos. Appetition is the internal tendency carrying the monad from one perception to the next. Since perception so defined belongs to every monad, representation is a fundamental and ubiquitous feature of reality—a position widely read as a historical ancestor of panpsychism (Goff, Seager, & Allen-Hermanson, 2022). Perception versus apperception Crucially, Leibniz denies that perception entails consciousness. He distinguishes perception, the internal representational state of a monad, from apperception, which he defines as consciousness, or the reflective knowledge of that internal state—something not given to all souls, nor at all times to any given soul (Leibniz, 1714b). Consciousness is therefore not the essence of the mental but a special, higher achievement: a perception of one's own perceptions (anticipating higher-order theories), reflective and comparatively rare (perhaps closer to our self-consciousness). This severing of perception from consciousness is among the most consequential moves in the history of theories of mind, and indeed some commentators read it as an early higher-order theory of consciousness, on which a state becomes conscious by being the object of a further, reflective representation (Gennaro, 1999). Petites perceptions and the unconscious It follows that the mind is filled with petites perceptions—minute, insensible perceptions too faint or confused to be noticed, yet continuously present and causally efficacious (Leibniz, 1765). Leibniz's signature illustration is the roar of the sea: we apperceive the whole only because we unconsciously perceive the sound of each individual wave, none of which we notice on its own. We are at every moment awash in perceptions of which we are unaware. With this doctrine Leibniz directly repudiates the Cartesian thesis that the mind is transparent to itself and that all thought is conscious (Descartes, 1641; Jorgensen, 2020), and advances what is generally regarded as the first sustained theory of the unconscious in Western philosophy. Insensible perceptions, he argues, secure the continuity of mental life through sleep and stupor, individuate each substance, and explain why nature makes no leaps. The Mill Argument and the Irreducibility of Perception All this gives Leibniz a distinctive theory of phenomenal unity. Conscious experience is not assembled from externally related material parts; it belongs to a simple subject capable of unifying manifold content. Although perception pervades nature, Leibniz holds that it can never be explained mechanically. In the Monadology's famous mill argument, he asks us to imagine a machine so built as to perceive, enlarged until we could walk inside it as into a mill; we would find only parts pushing one another, and nothing among them ever sufficient to explain perception (Leibniz, 1714a). Perception, and whatever depends on it, must therefore be sought not in composite mechanism but in the simple substance. The argument is widely regarded as an analogical antecedent of the modern explanatory gap between physical process and conscious experience (Levine, 1983), which David Chalmers famously dubbed “the hard problem.” Leibniz’s target is not empirical brain science but reductive mechanism: no arrangement of extended parts, considered merely as shape and motion, can yield the intrinsic unity of perceptual consciousness. His argument carries a positive corollary central to his system: because a perception represents many things at once in a genuine unity, its subject must itself be a true unity—a simple substance—rather than an aggregate. Pre-Established Harmony, Theodicy, and the City of God Windowless monads require an explanation of why their perceptions agree, and Leibniz's is a divine act. God, surveying all possible worlds, chose this one by the principle of the best and created its monads in mutual concord, so that each unfolds its own perceptions from within while the whole remains in agreement—clocks set once to run in concert rather than clocks continually adjusted (Leibniz, 1714a; Leibniz, 1710). Monads are produced, in his image, by continual fulgurations of the divinity—continual flashes or sparks thrown off from God—and can begin and end only by creation and annihilation. Pre-established harmony is therefore not a mechanism that could be secularized and retained; it is the divine choice, and without it the windowlessness that grounds Leibniz's whole account of perception leaves each monad's inner life unrelated to anything else. The distinction between perception and apperception carries theological impact that explains why Leibniz cared about it. Souls in general are living mirrors of the universe of created things, but minds are also images of the divinity itself, capable of knowing the system of the universe and imitating something of it—each mind a small divinity in its own sphere (Leibniz, 1714a, §83). Reflection is what makes a monad capable of knowing God, and therefore capable of entering a society with Him. The collection of all minds composes the City of God, the most perfect possible state under the most perfect monarch, and God stands to minds not as an inventor to his machines but as a prince to his subjects and a father to his children (§§84–86). This gives apperception a moral function that no purely psychological reading captures. Leibniz's God is a legislator as well as an architect, and the harmony between the kingdom of nature and the kingdom of grace ensures that the mechanical order also satisfies the moral one. What separates a rational soul from an animal soul is not merely a higher grade of perceptual distinctness but eligibility for justice, mercy, and reward. Consciousness, in Leibniz's technical sense, is the threshold of moral personhood. Degrees of mind, the body, and legacy Perception admits of degrees of distinctness, generating a continuous hierarchy of monads (Leibniz, 1714a; Kulstad & Carlin, 2020). Bare monads have only confused, unconscious perceptions; animal souls enjoy sensation—heightened, distinct perception joined to memory—and so genuinely feel, granting animals a phenomenal sentience that Descartes had denied them; rational souls or minds add reflection, self-consciousness, and knowledge of necessary truths. Consciousness is thus graded and distributed across nature rather than confined to humans. On this account, mind and body never causally interact. Each monad unfolds its perceptions from within, and what looks like interaction is the divinely instituted concord described above, holding without any transfer between substances—an explicit alternative to Descartes's pineal interactionism, which had to route the mind-brain traffic through a gland. Phenomenal experience is accordingly the monad's own internal production, with the body its perpetually correlated mirror, not its cause. Leibniz's distinctions left a deep mark: his apperception was taken up by Kant, his insensible perceptions anticipated later theories of the unconscious, and his mill argument and graded panpsychism remain historical milestones in current debates over the irreducibility and distribution of consciousness. A note on classification. Leibniz sits in Neutral Monisms by structural analogy and family name rather than by strict fit, and the strain runs in two directions. His fundamental entities are immaterial perceiving substances, so the ultimate stuff is mental rather than neutral between the mental and the physical; on that criterion the position is closer to idealism or to panexperientialism. And his metaphysics is pluralist, positing infinitely many monads rather than one substance. What places him here is the shape of the mind-body relation: under pre-established harmony, mental and bodily series correspond exactly without interacting, which is formally what neutral monist and dual-aspect views claim about one reality expressed twice. Readers should take the category as marking that structural kinship, not as asserting that Leibniz held the mental and the physical to arise from a neutral base. References Descartes, R. (1641). Meditations on First Philosophy. Paris: Michel Soly. Gennaro, R. J. (1999). Leibniz on consciousness and self-consciousness. In R. J. Gennaro & C. Huenemann (Eds.), New Essays on the Rationalists (pp. 353–371). Oxford University Press. Goff, P., Seager, W., & Allen-Hermanson, S. (2022). Panpsychism. In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Stanford University. Jorgensen, L. M. (2020). Seventeenth-century theories of consciousness. In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Stanford University. Kant, I. (1781/1787). Critique of Pure Reason (A/B editions). Riga: Johann Friedrich Hartknoch. Kulstad, M., & Carlin, L. (2020). Leibniz's philosophy of mind. In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Stanford University. Leibniz, G. W. (1710). Theodicy: Essays on the Goodness of God, the Freedom of Man and the Origin of Evil (E. M. Huggard, Trans., 1951). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Leibniz, G. W. (1714a). The Monadology. (R. Ariew & D. Garber, Trans., Philosophical Essays, Hackett, 1989.) Leibniz, G. W. (1714b). Principles of Nature and Grace, Based on Reason. (R. Ariew & D. Garber, Trans., Philosophical Essays, Hackett, 1989.) Leibniz, G. W. (1765). New Essays on Human Understanding. (P. Remnant & J. Bennett, Trans., Cambridge University Press, 1996.) Levine, J. (1983). Materialism and qualia: The explanatory gap. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, 64(4), 354–361.

---

## James’s Radical Empiricism of Monistic Pure Experience
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/james-s-radical-empiricism-of-monistic-pure-experience
Theorists: William James

Philosopher-psychologist William James’s radical empiricism is a pluralistic neutral-monist theory in which phenomenal consciousness and physical reality are not two substances, but two functional organizations of a more primitive field of “pure experience.” Consciousness, on this view, is not a special mental stuff added to an otherwise physical world; it is experience taken in certain relations—retrospective, appropriative, personal, cognitive, practical, affective—whereas the “physical” is experience taken in other relations of stability, resistance, publicity, and causal efficacy (James, 1904, 1905, 1912). James’s monism is not absolute idealism and certainly not reductive materialism: it is empiricist because all philosophical terms must be defined through experience, radical because relations are as directly experienced as terms, and pluralistic because reality is not forced into one closed system. James argued in 1904 that "consciousness" names no entity, substance, or stuff, but a “function” performed within a more fundamental neutral field he called, as noted, pure experience. A single portion of experience—the perceived room, say—enters two orderings: taken with one set of associates it counts as a physical object, taken with another it counts as a mental state, with no intrinsic difference beyond the relations each enters. Phenomenal consciousness is therefore not an inner medium representing an external world, but one way of grouping the very stuff that also composes that world. Combined with radical empiricism, which holds that relations are given in experience as directly as the terms they relate, the position founds the tradition of neutral monism later developed by Mach and Russell and, through Russell, contemporary Russellian monism. The Denial of Consciousness as an Entity James’s mature metaphysics begins with the rejection of consciousness as a distinct stuff or ontological medium. James opens "Does 'Consciousness' Exist?" by proposing that the noun has outlived its usefulness while the adjective retains its work. The target is the Kantian legacy in which a transcendental ego stands over against a content: James observes that after Kant undermined the soul and installed the transcendental ego, the bipolar relation of spirit and matter lost its balance, standing for everything in rationalist quarters and almost nothing in empiricist ones (James, 1904a). His diagnosis is that consciousness, so conceived, has been progressively emptied until nothing remains but the bare fact that experiences are “had”. That residue, he argues, is not an additional existent but a relational fact about how experiences are arranged. The denial is narrow: James does not deny that we feel, perceive, or undergo, only that feeling is composed of a ghostly ingredient over and above what is felt. Pure Experience as Prior to Mind and Matter In “A World of Pure Experience,” James proposes that the immediately given field is pure experience, prior to the later sorting of experience into subject and object, knower and known, inner and outer (James, 1904, 1905). The doctrine can be summarized as the view that mind and matter are both aspects or structures formed from a more fundamental pure experience, which is neither mental nor physical. This is the central monist claim. A perceptual episode—say, this page, room, or color—does not begin as a private mental item representing an external physical thing. It is first a concrete bit of experience. In one relational context, it functions as an object in the world; in another, it functions as someone’s perception or thought. James’s neutral monism is therefore contextual rather than substantial: the mental and physical are roles that experience assumes. The Two Orderings The central constructive device is this claim that one and the same bit of pure experience can figure in two distinct series. James's illustration is a room: within the series of physical events it has a history, obeys causal law, and would persist if the perceiver left; within the series of the perceiver's biography, it is a fleeting episode beginning when attention turned to it. The room is not duplicated—one portion of experience is counted twice over, playing two roles in virtue of two contexts (James, 1904a). Mind and matter become adverbial rather than substantival: what makes an item mental is the company it keeps, not an intrinsic mark. This is the structural core of neutral monism, and it explains why James thought the mind–body problem was posed in defective terms: there is no gulf to bridge because there are not two kinds of thing at the outset. Radical Empiricism and the Reality of Relations James’s metaphysics is inseparable from his methodological postulate. Radical empiricism holds that philosophy may admit no entity not experienceable at some point, and must admit every such entity—including, crucially, relations. Classical empiricism, James contends, over-emphasized disconnection while rationalism ignored it unduly; radical empiricism treats conjunction and disjunction alike as directly given (James, 1904b). Since relations are experienced, the connective tissue of the world requires no transcendental synthesizer. This does double duty: it disposes of the ego the 1904 essay had emptied, and supplies the ordering-relations by which pure experience sorts itself into mental and physical series without an externally imposed principle. The Pluralism of Stuffs James anticipated the natural objection: if experience is not partly made of consciousness, what is it made of? "Neutral and simple pure experience" seems to name something we know not at all. His reply refuses the premise. There is no single general stuff of which experience is composed; there are as many stuffs as there are natures in the things experienced, and any bit of pure experience is made of just what appears in it—space, intensity, flatness, brownness, heaviness (James, 1904a). This pluralism distinguishes James from later neutral monists who posit a homogeneous neutral substrate, and aligns the doctrine with the pluralistic metaphysics of his Hibbert Lectures (James, 1909). It also creates the difficulty that has dogged the position since: it is unclear whether "pure experience" names a monism at all, or a nominalist refusal of the question. Reception and Assessment James’s 1904–05 essays were widely misread; psychologists assumed James had abandoned psychology, and the doctrine's import was sidestepped by contemporaries (Taylor & Wozniak, 1996). Russell adopted and renamed the position (Russell, 1921), and through him neutral monism entered analytic philosophy of mind as a standing alternative to both dualism and physicalism, resurfacing in contemporary Russellian monism (Stubenberg & Wishon, 2023). The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy treats James’s 1904–05 innovations as among his most important contributions, setting out the view that one fundamental stuff is neither material nor mental (Goodman, 2021). Critics divide over whether pure experience is genuinely neutral—if the neutral stuff is “experience,” the doctrine may be a disguised idealism—and over whether the two-orderings device explains phenomenal character or relocates it. What is not in dispute is James’s priority: the literature on neutral and Russellian monism descends from James’s foundational paper that asked whether consciousness exists and answered that, as an entity, it does not. References Goodman, R. (2021). William James. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.). The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Stanford, CA: Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. James, W. (1904a). Does "consciousness" exist? Journal of Philosophy, Psychology and Scientific Methods, 1(18), 477–491. Reprinted in “Essays in Radical Empiricism” (1912), pp. 1–38. New York: Longmans, Green. James, W. (1904b). A world of pure experience. Journal of Philosophy, Psychology and Scientific Methods, 1(20–21). Reprinted in Essays in Radical Empiricism (1912), pp. 39–91. New York: Longmans, Green. James, W. (1909). A Pluralistic Universe. New York: Longmans, Green. James, W. (1912). Essays in Radical Empiricism (R. B. Perry, Ed.). New York: Longmans, Green. Russell, B. (1921). The Analysis of Mind. London: George Allen & Unwin. Stubenberg, L., & Wishon, D. (2023). Neutral monism. In E. N. Zalta & U. Nodelman (Eds.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Stanford, CA: Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. Taylor, E., & Wozniak, R. H. (Eds.). (1996). Pure Experience: The Response to William James. Bristol: Thoemmes Press.

---

## Whitehead's Experience is Fundamental, Consciousness is Not
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/whiteheads-experience-is-fundamental-consciousness-is-not
Theorists: Alfred North Whitehead

Mathematician/logician/philosopher Alfred North Whitehead’s account of phenomenal consciousness is best understood not as the claim that consciousness pervades nature, but as a process-metaphysical theory in which experience is fundamental while consciousness is a late, intermittent, highly organized mode of experience. Reality consists fundamentally of momentary “actual occasions” that “prehend” a causal past and integrate physical and conceptual factors. It is only high-grade occasions that become conscious, via an “intellectual feeling” that contrasts what is given with what might be, producing the affirmation-negation contrast that Whitehead identifies with consciousness (Whitehead, 1929/1978; Griffin, 2009). The result reframes the hard problem: instead of attempting to derive subjectivity from wholly nonexperiential matter, Whitehead asks how explicit phenomenal awareness differentiates within a nature that is already intrinsically experiential—an approach that avoids Cartesian bifurcation but leaves difficult questions about minimal experience, neural realization, subject-unity, and empirical testability. In other words, Whitehead's theory of consciousness is not a standalone but a consequence of his process metaphysics, in which the final real things are these momentary "actual occasions"—"drops of experience” that come into being by prehension—feeling, and inheriting from, the occasions preceding them—so that experience is coextensive with actuality while consciousness is rare, late, and derivative. Because every occasion is constituted by prehension rather than inert extension, the explanatory burden shifts from how matter generates feeling to how mostly nonconscious feeling occasionally attains the discriminated clarity of awareness. Whitehead's answer is precise: consciousness is a subjective form—the how of a feeling rather than its what—arising only in a subsequent phase of an occasion's becoming, when a feeling of what is given is integrated with a feeling of what might have been the case instead. It is, in his phrase, the crown of experience, only occasionally attained, not its necessary base (Whitehead, 1929/1978). Experience Before Consciousness The decisive starting point is Whitehead’s rejection of the traditional assumption that experience must be analyzed primarily in terms of consciousness, thought, or sensory perception. “Consciousness presupposes experience, and not experience consciousness”: most experience, including most of the processes constituting human beings, is nonconscious (Whitehead, 1929/1978; Weekes, 2009). Whitehead’s technical term “feeling” therefore requires care. A feeling is a positive prehension—a way in which an actual occasion takes account of, or incorporates, a datum—and need not be an emotion, a sensory quality, or anything consciously noticed. This is why “panexperientialism,” introduced by later process philosophers to characterize Whitehead, is more exact than construing his view as the thesis that ordinary consciousness exists everywhere (Griffin, 1998; McHenry, 1995). There is also a translation problem between Whitehead’s vocabulary and contemporary “phenomenal consciousness.” If phenomenal consciousness means any intrinsic subjectivity or any “what-it-is-like” character whatsoever, then Whitehead’s ubiquitous experientiality may be interpreted as a very primitive phenomenality. But Whitehead himself reserves “consciousness” for a more specific and constrained task: an explicit mode of feeling in which actuality is experienced in contrast with possibility. The safest formulation, therefore, is that Whitehead posits basal experiential subjectivity throughout nature while explaining full phenomenal awareness, in his narrower sense of consciousness, as a derivative structure within certain high-grade occasions. This distinction is essential; otherwise, his claim that experience “goes all the way down” is easily but misleadingly converted into universal human-like sentience. Actual Occasions and the Refusal to Bifurcate Nature Whitehead begins by criticizing a methodological habit rather than by theorizing the brain. He attacked the bifurcation of nature: the division of the world into nature as physics describes it, of molecules and radiant energy, and nature as it appears in awareness, of greenness, warmth, and sound, the latter treated as a psychic addition supplied by the observer (Whitehead, 1920). This mistakes successful abstractions for concrete actualities—the fallacy of misplaced concreteness (Whitehead, 1925). The hard problem is its downstream consequence: define nature as intrinsically qualityless and the qualities of experience become inexplicable residue. The remedy is his rejection of "vacuous actuality," the supposition that anything actual could be wholly devoid of experience. Apart from the experiences of subjects, he writes, there is "nothing, nothing, nothing, bare nothingness" (Whitehead, 1929/1978, cited in Basile, 2008). Reality is composed not of enduring substances with changing properties but of actual occasions: momentary events of becoming, each perishing into objecthood for its successors. This is not the claim that everything is conscious, but that the ultimate units are occasions of feeling and consciousness is a specialized modification only some undergo. Actual Occasions, Prehension, and Concrescence Whitehead replaces enduring substances with actual occasions— those “drops of experience,” processes of becoming that are the final real constituents of the world (Whitehead, 1929/1978). Each occasion begins by inheriting a causally efficacious past through prehensions. A prehension has a subject, a datum, and a “subjective form,” the manner in which that datum is felt. Positive prehensions incorporate data; negative prehensions exclude them from the developing synthesis. The occasion is thus constituted relationally by what it receives and how it selectively integrates what it receives, rather than existing first and subsequently entering into relations. This self-formation is “concrescence,” the many becoming one determinate occasion. In simplified terms, physical feelings appropriate antecedent actualities; conceptual feelings introduce possibilities or “eternal objects”; subsequent phases compare, contrast, and integrate these ingredients until the occasion achieves its “satisfaction,” its completed unity. It then ceases to be a becoming subject and becomes an objective datum available to successor occasions (Whitehead, 1929/1978; Kraus, 1998). Mental and physical are therefore not two independently existing substances. They are distinguishable poles or functions within one processual order. Whitehead’s metaphysics is monistic in its basic type of actuality, but internally dipolar rather than reductively materialist or straightforwardly idealist. How Phenomenal Consciousness Arises Consciousness appears only in a late and complex phase of some concrescences of experiences. Whitehead’s most precise claim is that consciousness is the “subjective form” of an intellectual feeling. An intellectual feeling integrates a physical feeling of determinate actuality with a propositional or conceptual feeling that entertains how that actuality might be otherwise. The crucial datum is therefore an “affirmation-negation contrast”: what is the case against what might have been the case, or what is not the case against what could be the case. “Consciousness is how we feel the affirmation-negation contrast” (Whitehead, 1929/1978, p. 243; Griffin, 2009). This gives consciousness a specific functional and phenomenological role. It is not merely what happens when nonconscious experience becomes quantitatively more complex. It arises when experience acquires the structure necessary to register actuality against possibility—thereby opening space for novelty, error, judgment, imagination, counterfactual alternatives, and deliberate decision. Consciousness is correspondingly selective and episodic. Whitehead stresses that clear consciousness occupies only a narrow focal region within a much larger state space of experience; the simplicity of what is consciously apprehended is no measure of the complexity of the total experience from which it arises (Whitehead, 1929/1978, p. 267). For contemporary consciousness studies, this creates an illuminating but nonstandard hierarchy. Primitive prehension supplies subjectivity without reflective awareness; increasingly complex integrations produce richer forms of feeling; intellectual feelings introduce contrast between fact and possibility; consciousness is the phenomenal mode in which that contrast is felt. Whitehead therefore does not treat consciousness as an inexplicable extra property suddenly added to sufficiently organized matter. Yet neither does he identify all experience with consciousness. His theory is an emergence of consciousness from experience, not an emergence of experience from the nonexperiential. Consciousness as the Subjective Form of an Intellectual Feeling Thus, Whitehead's positive account is remarkably narrow. Consciousness arises only where a physical feeling of some actual nexus is integrated with a propositional feeling of what might have been the case instead. Feeling that contrast is an intellectual feeling, and consciousness is its subjective form: to be aware of something is to be aware of it as this rather than that—which is why Whitehead makes explicit negation the mark of consciousness and intuitive judgment its triumph (Griffin, 2009; Weber & Weekes, 2009). The corollaries are consequential. Consciousness "presupposes experience, and not experience consciousness" (Whitehead, 1929/1978). It illuminates only the final, most derivative phases of a becoming, while the earlier and simpler phases generating it can never themselves enter it. Introspection is therefore biased toward the clear, the recent, and the propositionally articulable, and away from the massive inherited feeling constituting most of what an occasion is—Whitehead's warning to any first-person program being that consciousness is a poor witness precisely where the evidence matters most. Its function is correspondingly narrow: a specialized instrument for novel situations demanding conceptual contrast and decision. Routine functioning does not require it, and most of nature's processes—including most of our own—proceed without it. Unity, Mind, and the Living Body Whitehead likewise rejects an enduring Cartesian mental substance. A human mind is better understood as a temporally ordered society or stream of high-grade occasions, deeply dependent on and causally integrated with the living body. The body itself contains vast numbers of centers of activity, but their multiplicity does not simply fuse into a collective super-experience. Whitehead instead proposes a “presiding” or dominant occasion that functions as a final node of bodily integration, prehending contributions from the brain and body and transmitting its achieved pattern onward (Whitehead, 1929/1978; McHenry, 1995). This is important for the combination problem. Whitehead does not require many microscopic subjects literally to sum into one macroscopic subject; the unified conscious occasion is numerically distinct from the subordinate bodily occasions whose causal contributions it integrates. In this sense, process metaphysics converts panpsychism’s classic combination problem into an integration problem: why and how can a dominant occasion synthesize those bodily contributions into one experience? Whitehead provides a metaphysical architecture—prehension, hierarchical organization, serial order, dominant occasions—but no neurobiological specification of which brain processes realize such an occasion or how its proposed boundaries would be experimentally identified. Aggregates lacking a dominant center accordingly have no single consciousness of the whole even if their constituent actual occasions are experiential. Societies and Compound Individuals Now a problem. If every occasion feels, why is a rock not a subject? Because most macroscopic objects are aggregates: societies of occasions with no dominant member, so experience exists in the parts without any experience of the whole. Genuine individuals—what Hartshorne termed compound individuals—possess a presiding occasion that prehends and integrates the experiences of subordinate societies, conferring unity of feeling and a measure of self-determination. Griffin builds on this to propose a "panexperientialist physicalism" whose compound individuals permit a nondualistic interactionism: one kind of stuff, as materialism insists, but with energy enlarged into experiential creativity (Griffin, 1997). Mind-body interaction then needs no bridging principle, prehension being the single relation obtaining throughout nature. Panexperientialism, Neutral Monism, and the Panpsychism Question Two labels fit. The theory is a neutral monism in that the basic stuff is neither mental nor physical but something more primitive—events of experience with both poles. It is a panexperientialism in that all actual occasions experience while few are conscious. Whitehead never claimed the third label. Asked directly by his student Victor Lowe whether he was a panpsychist, he reportedly gave an evasive answer that was neither yes nor no (McHenry, 1995, cited in Basile, 2008). Griffin coined "panexperientialism" to mark what the term obscures: experience, not psyche, goes all the way down, and only to genuine individuals, not to sticks and stones (Griffin, 1998). Segall adds that the process-relational version resists the substance-property reading entirely: experience is not a property attaching to bits of matter but the activity that occasions are, and the combination problem is thereby reframed as concrescence, a cumulative synthesis rather than an additive assembly (Segall, 2020) Whether the disavowal is terminological or doctrinal remains contested, and the scholarship is not unanimous. Basile (2008) holds that Whitehead advocates panpsychism in Science and the Modern World, Adventures of Ideas, and Modes of Thought; Griffin allows the position may legitimately be called panpsychism if that means attributing experience to all genuine individuals; and standard reference treatments place him inside the tradition (Goff, Seager & Allen-Hermanson, 2022; Skrbina, 2005). The case for reading Whitehead as a panpsychist is set out separately on the Landscape by a Whiteheadian scholar; the two entries sit in different categories deliberately, because the classification is disputed rather than settled. See Whitehead’s Process Theory (Panpsychism). God, Creativity, and the Initial Aim Whitehead’s God enters the system not as an addendum to the process account but as a functional component of it, not as an exception but as its chief exemplification—Whitehead’s explicit methodological rule governing the introduction: God is not to be treated as an exception to metaphysical principles, invoked to rescue them from collapse, but as their chief exemplification (Whitehead, 1929/1978, p. 343). God is accordingly an actual entity subject to the same categories as every other—dipolar, prehensive, in process—rather than a being of a different order. Nor is God the ultimate. That role belongs to creativity, the principle by which the many become one and are increased by one (p. 21), of which God is the primordial instance rather than the author. This is not creation from nothing, and the departure from classical theism is deliberate and foundational. Two functions follow, and both are foundational for Whitehead’s theory of consciousness set out above. First, eternal objects—the pure possibilities a concrescing occasion may entertain—require a locus, since Whitehead's ontological principle holds that nothing is anywhere except in some actual entity. That locus is God's primordial nature, the unconditioned conceptual valuation of the whole realm of possibility. Without it, the conceptual pole of every occasion would have no ground, and the conceptual feelings that make intellectual feeling possible would have nothing to feel. Without it, there is no explanation of why a given concrescence pursues one determinate resolution rather than drifting, and the account of how a novel occasion becomes anything at all is incomplete (Whitehead, 1929/1978, Part V; Davis, 2020; Faber, 2023). Second, and more consequentially, each occasion begins with an initial aim: the particular possibility rendered relevant to its situation, supplied by God at the outset of concrescence. This answers a question the process account cannot otherwise answer. An occasion inherits a settled past, but inheritance alone does not determine which of indefinitely many resolutions it will pursue. The initial aim is what gives becoming its direction, and what makes the pursuit of novelty—the very thing that eventually yields consciousness in high-grade occasions—something other than drift. The consequent nature runs in the opposite direction. God prehends the completed occasions of the world, so that what perishes as a subject is retained as datum: Whitehead's objective immortality. Process and Reality closes with a description of God in this role as the great companion, the fellow-sufferer who understands (p. 351)—language with obvious religious weight that is nonetheless doing structural work, since it is what reconciles the perpetual perishing of occasions with the permanence of achieved value. One consequence bears directly on the entry's central thesis. Consciousness is rare, late, and derivative everywhere in nature except in God, where it belongs primordially rather than as an attainment. On Whitehead's own methodological rule, this is a limiting case rather than a violation: God exemplifies the categories maximally instead of escaping them. Whether that distinction holds under pressure, or whether the divine case simply exempts itself from the account of how consciousness arises, is among the more contested questions in the process literature (Davis, 2020; Faber, 2023). Explanatory Reach and Scientific Limits Whitehead’s principal achievement is to attack the hard problem at its ontological premise. If nature is composed of “vacuous actualities,” wholly devoid of interiority, the appearance of phenomenal experience seems to require the emergence of something ontologically unprecedented. Whitehead blocks that inference by making causal efficacy and experiential reception inseparable features of the fundamental processes of nature: the world is not first non-living matter and later living mind. Phenomenal consciousness becomes a highly articulated mode of a more general process of feeling, with temporal inheritance, affective valuation, relationality, and subject-object structure built into nature from the start (Whitehead, 1925; Whitehead, 1929/1978; Griffin, 2009). The gain is purchased at substantial metaphysical cost. Whitehead does not independently demonstrate that elementary physical processes possess even minimal experience; he embeds that claim as a foundational premise in a comprehensive ontology. Nor does moving from nonexperience-to-experience to low-grade-experience-to-consciousness by itself explain why the latter transition yields the specific phenomenal qualities humans report. The account also lacks quantitative laws, operational criteria for identifying actual or presiding occasions in brains, and distinctive experimental predictions that would distinguish it from rival scientific theories, neurobiological or otherwise. Its full cosmology additionally includes eternal objects and God, commitments that extend well beyond what a scientific theory of consciousness normally requires. Nor are they detachable. As the treatment of the divine functions above indicates, the initial aim is what gives each concrescence its directedness, and the primordial nature is what keeps eternal objects from violating Whitehead's own ontological principle. A naturalized process theory that discards them inherits problems the full system had already solved. These limitations explain why Whitehead remains far more influential as a metaphysical resource for consciousness studies than as a recognized standalone theory, much less a testable theory. Whitehead’s theory is therefore strongest as a metaphysical framework for phenomenal consciousness rather than as a contemporary mechanistic theory. It offers a coherent way to integrate consciousness with causation, embodiment, temporality, and the intrinsic character of nature while denying both substance dualism and reductive materialism. Its enduring challenge is whether “experience” at the fundamental level genuinely explains phenomenal consciousness or largely redescribes the explanatory gap in a more continuous ontology. Either way, Whitehead anticipates a central contemporary strategy: changing the metaphysics of the physical so that consciousness is no longer required to emerge from a reality defined from the outset as wholly nonexperiential. Assessment Whitehead's is among the few historical systems supplying a positive account of why consciousness should be rare, late, and functionally specific rather than ubiquitous—tied to novelty, error, and unrealized alternatives—without eliminating phenomenality or importing a second substance. The standing objections are equally clear. Recasting combination as integration by a dominant occasion arguably restates the difficulty rather than resolving it (Basile, 2008). Attributing experience to an electron may name a problem rather than solve one, and Whitehead's admission that terms such as "feeling" are technical and only suggestively chosen invites the charge that metaphor carries the explanatory load. The system yields no discriminating predictions and no measurable quantity, which has kept it outside the science of consciousness even as panpsychism has revived in analytic philosophy (Rosenberg, 2004; Strawson, 2006). A final categorial caution: "phenomenal consciousness" in Block's sense postdates Whitehead by decades. His "experience" is broader—any prehensive appropriation whatever—and his "consciousness" narrower, requiring propositional contrast. Whitehead’s apparent compatibility or incompatibility with contemporary theories often turns on which term is being selected and its precise meaning in context. References Basile, P. (2008). Mind-body problem and panpsychism. In B. G. Henning & J. Petek (Eds.), The Whitehead Encyclopedia. Whitehead Research Project. Davis, A. M. (2020). Mind, Value, and Cosmos: On the Relational Nature of Ultimacy. Lexington Books. Faber, R. (2023). The Mind of Whitehead: Adventure in Ideas. Pickwick. Goff, P., Seager, W., & Allen-Hermanson, S. (2022). Panpsychism. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2022 ed.). Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. Griffin, D. R. (1997). Panexperientialist physicalism and the mind-body problem. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 4(3), 248–268. Griffin, D. R. (1998). Unsnarling the World-Knot: Consciousness, Freedom, and the Mind-Body Problem. University of California Press. Griffin, D. R. (2009). Consciousness as a subjective form: Whitehead's nonreductionist naturalism. In M. Weber & A. Weekes (Eds.), Process Approaches to Consciousness in Psychology, Neuroscience, and Philosophy of Mind. State University of New York Press. Kraus, E. M. (1998). The Metaphysics of Experience: A Companion to Whitehead’s Process and Reality. Fordham University Press. McHenry, L. B. (1995). Whitehead's panpsychism as the subjectivity of prehension. Process Studies, 24, 1–14. Rosenberg, G. (2004). A Place for Consciousness: Probing the Deep Structure of the Natural World. Oxford University Press. Segall, M. D. (2020). The varieties of physicalist ontology: A study in Whitehead's process-relational alternative. Philosophy, Theology and the Sciences, 7(1). Skrbina, D. (2005). Panpsychism in the West. MIT Press. Strawson, G. (2006). Realistic monism: Why physicalism entails panpsychism. In A. Freeman (Ed.), Consciousness and Its Place in Nature (pp. 3–31). Imprint Academic. Weber, M. (2006). Whitehead's onto-epistemology of perception and its significance for consciousness studies. New Ideas in Psychology, 24(2), 117–132. Weber, M., & Weekes, A. (Eds.). (2009). Process Approaches to Consciousness in Psychology, Neuroscience, and Philosophy of Mind. State University of New York Press. Weekes, A. (2009). Whitehead’s unique approach to the topic of consciousness. In M. Weber & A. Weekes (Eds.), Process Approaches to Consciousness in Psychology, Neuroscience, and Philosophy of Mind (pp. 137–172). State University of New York Press. Whitehead, A. N. (1920). The Concept of Nature. Cambridge University Press. Whitehead, A. N. (1925). Science and the Modern World. Macmillan. Whitehead, A. N. (1927). Symbolism: Its Meaning and Effect. Macmillan. Whitehead, A. N. (1929/1978). Process and Reality: An Essay in Cosmology (corrected ed., D. R. Griffin & D. W. Sherburne, Eds.). Free Press. Whitehead, A. N. (1933). Adventures of Ideas. Macmillan. Whitehead, A. N. (1938). Modes of Thought. Macmillan.

---

## Russellian Monism
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/russellian-monism
Theorists: Bertrand Russell

Russellian Monism, based on the insights of philosopher Bertrand Russell, is a view that phenomenal consciousness and the physical world are deeply intertwined (Alter & Nagasawa, 2012). It characterizes the fundamental essence of matter as beyond that which can be accessed by empirical science or described by mathematical models. The claim is that the conundrum of consciousness and how it fits into the physical world is so critical that integrating consciousness (or proto-consciousness) into fundamental reality could suggest that the elements integrated are distinct from the ones revealed as a result of integration, thus shadowing if not revealing hidden, deep, intrinsic features of the physical world (Goff et al., 2022). Core Concepts and Framework Three core concepts conjoin to generate Russellian monism: (i) structuralism about physics (describing the world in terms of its spatiotemporal/relational structure and dynamics); (ii) realism about quiddities (or inscrutables) (there are quiddities/inscrutables, which underlie but are not limited by the structure and dynamics physics describes); and (iii) quidditism (or “inscrutinism”) about consciousness (at least some quiddities/inscrutables are either phenomenal or protophenomenal properties and are thereby relevant to the essence of consciousness) (Alter & Nagasawa, 2012; Alter & Pereboom, 2019). Variants and Applications Daniel Stoljar presents four different accounts of the inscrutables: “(i) Phenomenal monism: The inscrutables are phenomenal in nature. (ii) Protophenomenal monism: The inscrutables are not themselves phenomenal in nature but they are a precursor to phenomenal properties. (iii) Physical monism: The inscrutables are physical in nature, though they are outside the domain of physics. (iv) Neutral monism: The inscrutables are neither phenomenal nor physical but rather have a nature that is neutral between the two” (Kind & Stoljar, 2023). To Russellian monists, if the intrinsic nature of fundamental matter is itself infused by phenomenal properties that express consciousness, then the model is “Russellian panprotopsychism.” Either way, the claim is that Russellian Monism bests dualism by avoiding problematic physical-nonphysical causation and bests materialism by taking consciousness seriously and grounding it in ultimate reality (Goff et al., 2022). Philip Goff explains that “Russellian monism comes in both smallest and priority monist forms. For the smallest, fundamental categorical properties are instantiated by micro-level physical entities, perhaps electrons and quarks. For the priority monist, the most fundamental categorical properties are instantiated by the universe as a whole.” Each of the categories can be matrixed by whether its properties are “consciousness evolving” or “not consciousness evolving,” yielding four categories of Russellian monism (Goff, 2019a, 2019b).

---

## Davidson’s Anomalous Monism
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/davidson-s-anomalous-monism
Theorists: Donald Davidson

Anomalous Monism, developed by philosopher Donald Davidson, holds that mental properties and events must have a physical ontology but that psychology cannot be reduced to physics. As such, Anomalous Monism is a form of property dualism and shares features with Non-Reductive Physicalism. As Davidson writes, “anomalous monism holds that mental entities (particular time- and space-bound objects and events) are physical entities, but that mental concepts are not reducible by definition or natural law to physical concepts” (Davidson, 1993). Core Claims and Argument Anomalous Monism is distinguished from other theories of consciousness by the intersection of three propositional claims: (i) Mental events have genuine causal powers and cause physical events. (ii) All causal relationships are backed by natural laws. (iii) There are no natural laws connecting mental phenomena with physical phenomena. While each claim has adherents, it is the conjunction of the three claims, taken together, that gives Anomalous Monism its distinctive look, because at first glance there surely appears to be inconsistency (if not contradiction) (Silcox, n.d.). To appreciate Anomalous Monism's originality and subtleties, it needs to be unpacked. A foundational principle is that “psychology cannot be a science like basic physics, in that it cannot in principle yield exceptionless laws for predicting or explaining human thoughts and actions (mental anomalism).” And it is “precisely because there can be no such strict laws governing mental events that those events must be identical to physical events” (Yalowitz, 2021). How to make sense of this? What may seem like a non sequitur is in fact the heart of the argument. If the physical is the only existent, then ipso facto the mental (like everything else) must come from the physical with robust regularities. But how do the mental and physical articulate? What is this connection? Here's the flow of the argument. Given that the mental has causal powers (claim 1), and that all causal relationships require natural law (claim 2), because there are no natural (psychophysical) laws that connect the mental and the physical (claim 3), therefore there is only one logical way to connect mental events and physical events—now denied a causal relationship (combining claims 2 and 3): they must be literally the same thing, the mental and the physical must be in the strong sense identical. Identity and Distinctions As identity theories of consciousness are a leitmotif, and a touchstone, for comprehending the Landscape, we go deeper. Earlier identity theories held that “claims concerning the identity of particular mental and physical events (tokens) depended upon the discovery of lawlike relations between mental and physical properties (types) … Token-identity claims thus depended upon type-identity.” But Anomalous Monism, almost by its founding premise, does not depend on such psychophysical laws. “Davidson's position is dramatically different … It in effect justifies the token-identity of mental and physical events through arguing for the impossibility of type-identities between mental and physical properties” (Yalowitz, 2021). Now of course this argument proves that the mental and the physical are identical only to the extent that the three premises are all accepted as valid, because the conclusion is embedded (or “hidden”) within the premises (as are all deductive arguments structured in this way). Anomalous Monism differs from other theories especially in claiming that there are no natural laws connecting mental phenomena with physical phenomena. Other theories assume there are laws or ways to connect the mental and the physical, or laws or ways where the mental and the physical are part of, or derived from, the same stuff. A note on classification. Anomalous monism is a monism about events—each mental event is token-identical to a physical event—but the substrate it identifies is physical, not neutral, which makes the fit with this category partial. Davidson's irreducibility claim operates at the level of description: mental predicates cannot be brought under strict psychophysical laws, so psychology does not reduce to physics, though the events described are the same events. That combination of ontological identity with descriptive duality is the formal structure shared with dual-aspect monism, and it is why the theory is housed here. On ontological grounds, however, the position belongs equally to Non-Reductive Physicalism, and it is frequently classed as a property dualism; the category should be read as tracking the one-thing-two-vocabularies structure rather than a neutral fundamental base.

---

## Velmans’s Reflexive Monism
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/velmans-s-reflexive-monism
Theorists: Max Velmans

Psychologist Max Velmans describes Reflexive Monism as “a dual-aspect theory” (in the tradition of Spinoza), which argues that the one basic stuff of which the universe is composed has the potential to manifest both in physical forms and as conscious experience. According to the theory, in the universe's “evolution from some primal undifferentiated state,” it differentiates into “distinguishable physical entities, at least some of which have the potential for conscious experience, such as human beings” (Velmans, 2008). Core Model and Reflexivity Velmans's “Monism” is straightforward: “the view that the universe, at the deepest level of analysis, is one thing, or composed of one fundamental kind of stuff.” His “Reflexive” is more complex: “Each human participates in a process whereby the universe differentiates into parts and becomes conscious in manifold ways of itself, making the entire process reflexive.” Velmans focuses on “the ontological status and seeming ‘out-thereness’ of the phenomenal world and to how the ‘phenomenal world’ relates to the ‘physical world’, the ‘world itself’, and processing in the brain.” He seeks both to bridge the materialist-dualist gap and to differentiate Reflexive Monism from “both dualism and variants of physicalist and functionalist reductionism, focusing on those aspects of the theory that challenge deeply rooted presuppositions in current Western thought.” Within Reflexive Monism, he says, “the brain is simply what the human mind looks like when it is viewed from an external (third-person) perspective, and neither the observations of external observers nor those of subjects have a privileged status” (Velmans, 2008). Phenomenology and Externalism Central to Velmans's argument is that in terms of their phenomenology, “experiences of the external world are none other than the physical world-as-experienced, thereby placing aspects of human consciousness in the external phenomenal world, rather than exclusively within the head or brain” (Velmans, 2023). His reflexive model also makes the strong claim—the radical claim—that, “Insofar as experiences are anywhere, they are roughly where they seem to be.” For example, “A pain in the foot is in the experienced foot, and this perceived print on this visible page really is out here on this visible page. Nor is a pain in the foot accompanied by some other, additional experience of pain in the brain, or is this perceived print accompanied by some additional experience of print in the brain. In terms of phenomenology, this perceived print, and my experience of this print are one and the same.” Technically, he says, this is a form of phenomenological externalism (Velmans, 2008). To understand how experienced objects and events might really be (roughly) where they are experienced to be, Velmans looks closely at “the way that phenomenal space relates to ‘real’ space. No one doubts that physical bodies can have real extension and location in space.” But we “find it hard to accept that experiences can have a real, as opposed to a ‘seeming’ location and extension.” We do not doubt, he says, that a physical foot has a real location and extension in space, but a pain in the foot can't really be in the foot, as we are “committed to the view that it is either nowhere or in the brain.” Although this common understanding that “location in phenomenal space is not location in real space,” according to Reflexive Monism, “this ignores the fact that, in everyday life, we take the phenomenal world to be the physical world. It also ignores the pivotal role of phenomenal space in forming our very understanding of space, and with it, our understanding of location and extension in measured or ‘real’ space” (Velmans, 2008). Velmans says that Reflexive Monism provides a different perspective on the hard problem of consciousness by viewing physical and experiential aspects of mind as arising from a common “psychophysical ground.” Thus, he argues, of the competing views of consciousness on offer, Reflexive Monism, being a non-reductionist dual-aspect theory, “most closely follows the contours of ordinary experience, the findings of science, and common sense” (Velmans, 2008).

---

## Strawson’s Realistic Monism and Real Materialism
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/strawson-s-realistic-monism-and-real-materialism
Theorists: Galen Strawson

In defining an all-pervading materialism, encompassing all mental as well as all physical properties and objects, philosopher Galen Strawson espouses his kind of monism, “Realistic Monism,” as he calls it (Strawson, 2009). “I'm attracted to the thing-monist view,” he says, “according to which the universe is a single thing in some non-trivial sense” (Strawson, 2020a). His principal thesis is “the primacy of panpsychism” and he claims “compelling reasons for favoring panpsychism above all other positive substantive proposals about the fundamental nature of concrete reality” (Strawson, 2020b). Strawson deconstructs the concept and use of the term “materialism,” showing that, historically, it had nothing to do with denial of the existence of consciousness, but rather that consciousness is wholly material. He laments that the words “materialism” and “physicalism” have come to be treated as synonymous and to involve denial of the existence of consciousness. It is, he says, ironic that these two words have “been used to name a position in the philosophy of mind that directly rejects the heart of materialism and is certainly false” (Strawson, 2011). Strawson asserts that physicalism (or materialism[1]), that is, “real physicalism” (or “real materialism”), entails panexperientialism or panpsychism, on one assumption: it entails panpsychism given the impossibility of “radical” emergence. Moreover, given that all physical stuff is energy, in one form or another, we may suppose that “all energy is an experience-involving phenomenon” (Section: Strawson, 2003, 2009, 2015; 2020a; Strawson and Russell, 2021; Strawson, 2011). Strawson happily admits, “This sounded crazy to me for a long time, but I am quite used to it, now that I know that there is no alternative …” It may also sound odd to use “physical” to characterize mental phenomena like experiential phenomena, but real physicalism, realistic physicalism, entails panpsychism, and whatever problems are raised by this fact, he exhorts, are problems a real physicalist must face. Strawson defines physicalism to be the view that “every real, concrete phenomenon in the universe is … physical.” It is a view about the actual universe, and that he assumes it is true. But then comes the “Strawsonian Twist.” What does it take to be a “realistic physicalist” or a “real physicalist?” He makes one thing absolutely clear. “You're certainly not a realistic physicalist, you're not a real physicalist, if you deny the existence of the phenomenon whose existence is more certain than the existence of anything else: experience, ‘consciousness’, conscious experience, ‘phenomenology’, experiential ‘what-it's-likeness’, feeling, sensation, explicit conscious thought as we have it and know it at almost every waking moment.” All materialists hold that every concrete phenomenon in the universe is physical, and they are neither sensible nor realistic, Strawson says, if they have any inclination to deny the concrete reality of mental phenomena like experiential phenomena. He concludes by taking no prisoners: “Full recognition of the reality of experience, then, is the obligatory starting point for any remotely realistic version of physicalism … It is the obligatory starting point for any theory that can legitimately claim to be ‘naturalistic’ because experience is itself the fundamental given natural fact” (Strawson, 2008). As a “real physicalist,” in his definition, Strawson holds that the mental/experiential is physical, and he is happy to say, along with many other physicalists, that experience is ‘really just neurons firing’, at least in the case of biological organisms like ourselves. But when he says these words he means something radically different from what almost all physicalists mean. He does not mean that all characteristics of what is going on, in the case of experience, can be described by physics and neurophysiology (or any non-revolutionary extensions of them). His claim is stunningly different. It's that experiential phenomena “just are” physical, so that there is a lot more to neurons than physics and neurophysiology account for (or can account for). No one who disagrees with this, he says, is a “real physicalist.” This is Strawson's challenge. Reviewing Strawson's book subtitled, “Does Physicalism Entail Panpsychism?”, philosopher Jerry Fodor shares Strawson's intuition that the hard problem is “not going to get solved for free” and “views that we cherish will be damaged in the process.” Fodor concludes, “If you want an idea of just how hard the hard problem is, and just how strange things can look when you face its hardness without flinching, this [Strawson's book] is the right book to read” (Fodor, 2007). Footnote [1]. Strawson uses “physicalism” and “materialism” interchangeably as ontological descriptors, though at one point preferring “physicalism” because “matter” is now specially associated with mass-energy while “physical” is more encompassing. For the uses of “materialism” and “physicalism” on this website, see Footnote 12 of “Exploring Consciousness” (following here): “Materialism” and “physicalism” are roughly equivalent ontological terms, often used interchangeably, although physicalism can cover wider territory, including properties that the laws of physics describe, e.g., space, time, energy, matter. Moreover, physicalism can connote more epistemological matters, in terms of how we can know things. Materialism can be distinguished as the more restrictive term, meaning all that is real is matter and its equivalents. It connotes more ontological concerns, in terms of what really exists. In this Landscape, we go more with “materialism,” which also maintains historical continuity.

---

## Polkinghorne’s Dual-Aspect Monism
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/polkinghorne-s-dual-aspect-monism
Theorists: John Polkinghorne

To mathematical physicist and Anglican priest John Polkinghorne, the psychosomatic nature of human persons is best understood in terms of a “dual-aspect monism,” in which matter and mind are complementary aspects of a unitary being (Polkinghorne, 2009). He is sure that we're not simply matter, that reality is more than just ideas, and that none of the classical solutions seem to correspond to our experience. In fact, Polkinghorne argues that classical materialism, idealism and Cartesian dualism all exhibit a bankruptcy in the face of the many-layered, and yet interconnected, character of our encounter with reality. This recognition encourages the search for some form of dual-aspect monism—similar theories are called “double-aspect theories”—an account that would acknowledge the fundamental distinction between experience of the material and experience of the mental but which would neither impose on reality a sharp division into two unconnected kinds of substance nor deny the psychosomatic unity of human beings (Polkinghorne, 2001). Dual-Aspect Monism and Causality Dual-aspect monism is designed to take seriously both our mental experiences and the material world. It claims that they are related in a very deep and complementary way in that there is only one stuff in the world. Dual-aspect monism seeks to avoid devaluing or subordinating either side. Polkinghorne rejects the charge that dual-aspect monism is a subtle form of materialism, because, he says, “It doesn't treat the mental as being just an epiphenomenon of the material” (Harris, 1998). To give physical systems the kind of freedom and top-down control that he desires, Polkinghorne recruits complexity theory, with its dualities of parts/whole and energy/information. The intrinsic unpredictabilities present in nature, he states, afford the metaphysical opportunity to consider dissipative systems as exhibiting top–down causality (Polkinghorne, 2009). Soul, Continuity, and Resurrection Given that in dual-aspect monism there cannot be a nonphysical soul, much less an immortal soul, how does Polkinghorne account for the eschatological requirements of his strong Christian faith, especially the biblical resurrection of the dead? How might resurrecting the body and reconstituting the “soul” work? Speaking on Closer To Truth, Polkinghorne asks, "Can you make credible understanding of a destiny beyond death for human beings?" From his theological perspective, he sets two equal and opposite requirements for the afterlife of a soul: continuity, in that the same person must live after death, and discontinuity, in that the afterlife-person must live on forever (Section: Polkinghorne, 2007). “There is not much point in making Abraham, Isaac and Jacob alive again if they are going to die again,” he says. “So, you must have both continuity and discontinuity. Now when you think about the continuity side, what could make those people the same as the ones who lived on earth before? The traditional answer has been the soul, often understood in platonic terms—there is some sort of spiritual bit of us liberated at death that exists and carries on.” Polkinghorne has none of that. “I think that's a mistake,” he says. “We are animated bodies, not animated souls. We're not apprentice angels; we are embodied human beings. But if we've lost our ‘spiritual soul’ [as a resource], have we lost our continuity? I don't think so, but we have to reconceive the soul.” Polkinghorne focuses on the carrier of continuity for a person in this life. “It's quite difficult,” he says; “here am I, an aging, balding academic—what makes me the same person as that little boy with the shock of black hair in the school photograph of many years ago? It's not atomic-material continuity: the atoms in my body are totally different than the atoms in that schoolboy's body.” “It cannot be the atoms,” he continues, “but it is the pattern of how some of those atoms are organized, in some extraordinary, elaborate, and complex way.” That, Polkinghorne states, is “what I think the human soul is. The soul is the information-bearing pattern; that's the real me” (Polkinghorne, 2007). Thus, Polkinghorne reconceives the “soul” as an information-bearing pattern that is encoded by and carried in the body/brain, and which is dissolved at death along with the dissolution of the body. However, this unique pattern, this real me, is retained in the divine memory for re-embodiment at the resurrection of the dead (Polkinghorne, 2003). During this post-death, pre-resurrection state, this (reconceived) “soul” has no consciousness and no awareness. “God will remember the pattern, not lose it,” Polkinghorne says, and ultimately, God “will reconstitute that pattern in an act of resurrection.” That's the continuity side of things. The discontinuity side, Polkinghorne says, “is that I'm not made alive again in order to die again, so while I'm going to be embodied, I must be embodied in some new form of matter. And it is perfectly coherent to believe that God can bring into being such a new form of matter” (Polkinghorne, 2007). To Richard Swinburne, the idea of afterlife existence germinating from a renewed instantiation of the pattern of information that we had when living on Earth is problematic. "The trouble is not merely how could God, if God so chose, bring into [renewed] existence a being with a specific pattern of information, but rather that God could [therefore] bring into existence a few thousand such beings. But because only one of them could be me, a pattern of information provides no additional criterion for distinguishing which one that would be. And whatever the extra criterion is, it would have to be such that there [logically] could only be one instance of it at one time. And if we have such a criterion, then what need is there for the pattern of information to be the same as a previous pattern?" (Swinburne, 2016; Kuhn, 2016b).

---

## Teilhard de Chardin’s Evolving Consciousness
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/teilhard-de-chardin-s-evolving-consciousness
Theorists: Pierre Teilhard de Chardin

The Jesuit philosopher/theologian and paleontologist Pierre Teilhard de Chardin envisioned the evolution of consciousness as axial in a grand cosmic system of continuing complexification where consciousness becomes planetized and even “God” is an emergent in a process of “theogenesis” (Delio, 2020). Teilhard helped coin the concept of a “noosphere,” describing “the layer of mind, thought and spirit within the layer of life covering the earth” (Teilhard de Chardin, 1964). Noosphere and Rise of Consciousness According to theologian (and former neuroscientist) Ilia Delio, Teilhard has the total material universe “in movement toward a greater unified convergence” such that “as life systems unite and form more complex relationships, consciousness rises.” Teilhard, she says, “speaks of evolution as the rise of consciousness toward a hyper-personalized organism, what he called an irreversible personalizing universe.” He speaks of “the human person as a co-creator. God evolves the universe and brings it to its completion through the human person.” Now the computer, according to Teilhard, “has evoked a new level of shared consciousness, a level of cybernetic mind giving rise to a field of global mind through interconnecting pathways” (foreshadowing the internet) (Delio, 2021). Mind, Matter, and Evolution Teilhard was a dual-aspect monist. He “considered matter and consciousness not as two substances or two different modes of existence, but as two aspects of the same cosmic stuff.” Mind and matter “are neither separate nor is one reducible to the other, and yet neither can function without the other.” From the Big Bang onward, Delio says, Teilhard has “a ‘withinness’ and ‘withoutness,’ or what he called radial energy and tangential energy. Consciousness is, in a sense, the withinness or ‘inside’ of matter, and attraction is the ‘outside’ of matter; hence, the energy of matter is both attractive (tangential) and transcendent (radial).” The complementarity of mind and matter is said “to explain both the rise of biological complexity and the corresponding rise of consciousness.” Teilhard identifies “the core energy of the universe as love, which both unifies and transcends by way of consciousness. The greater the exterior levels of physical complexity, the greater the interior levels of consciousness” (Delio, 2021). To Teilhard, evolution describes “the dynamic impulse in life toward more being and consciousness,” and that which drives evolution is consciousness. In short, “evolution is the rise of consciousness.” Following Julian Huxley, he writes that the human person “is nothing else than evolution become conscious of itself”—and adds, “The consciousness of each of us is evolution looking at itself and reflecting upon itself” (Teilhard de Chardin, 1959). The human person is “the point of emergence in nature, at which this deep cosmic evolution culminates and declares itself” (Delio, 2021). Moreover, “the presence of mind in matter and the openness of matter to greater wholeness is the religious phenomenon of nature.” Radically unorthodox, Teilhard sees this reality as the incarnation of God, where “God and world are in a process of becoming a new reality together.” Simply put, Delio says, “we cannot speak of God apart from human evolution, an idea that led Teilhard to state that God and world form a complementary pair. God and world are entangled with one another to the extent that talk of God is impossible apart from talk about nature and creative change, and talk of nature makes no sense apart from God” (Delio, 2021). In summary, Teilhard describes “matter as the matrix of consciousness.” He posits “the law of complexity-consciousness” as a fundamental principle of evolution, and conversely, “evolution is fundamentally the rise of consciousness.” Moreover, the human person is “evolution become conscious of itself,” with the ultimate goal of “the maximization of thought,” whereby consciousness radiates “throughout the whole, in every aspect of the cosmos,” and then of “self-reflective consciousness,” whereby “the human person can stand apart from the world and reflect on it” (Delio, 2023, pp. 30–32). Omega and Ultimate Convergence Finally, the foundation of Teilhard's paradigm is “Omega,” which he sees as the “prime mover of evolution,” the unifying power in evolution. Omega works its guiding magic from the very beginning of things, “acting on pre-living cosmic elements,” moving into consciousness as it emerged as the goal toward which evolution complexifies and converges. “Omega is the absolute whole,” making “wholeness in nature not only possible but also intensely personal. Teilhard identifies Omega with God” (Delio, 2023, p. 35).

---

## Pauli’s One World, Two Aspects: Psychophysical Complementarity
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/pauli-s-one-world-two-aspects-psychophysical-complementarity
Theorists: Wolfgang Pauli

Theoretical physicist and Nobel Laureate Wolfgang Pauli formulated not a stand-alone theory of consciousness, but a speculative psychophysical ontology developed through his long dialogue with Carl Jung. Reconstructed from the Pauli–Jung correspondence, Pauli’s view treats conscious experience as one aspect of a deeper, neutral, archetypally ordered reality in which psyche and matter are complementary manifestations rather than separate substances (Jung and Pauli, 1952; Meier, 2001; Atmanspacher, 2012). Phenomenal consciousness is therefore not reduced to brain process, nor elevated into idealist world-foundation; it is the subjective pole of a broader order in which symbolic, mathematical, affective, and physical structures may share common roots. In other words, Pauli held, in a framework developed across a quarter-century of dialogue with Jung, that mind and matter are neither two substances nor one reducible to the other, but two complementary aspects of a single underlying reality—the unus mundus (“one world”)— which is itself psychophysically neutral and, in principle, inaccessible to direct empirical access. On this view, the mental and the material arise through an epistemic split of an undivided whole, so that phenomenal experience and physical process are equally real and equally derivative, and the explanatory gap between them is a structural consequence of that split rather than a defect in any particular theory. Pauli further extended Bohr's complementarity from physics into psychology, holding that the act of becoming conscious of an unconscious content irreversibly alters it much as measurement disturbs a quantum system, and he sought throughout a "neutral language" applicable equally to matter and psyche (Jung & Pauli, 1955; Meier, 2001; Atmanspacher & Primas, 2006). Psyche and Matter Pauli’s mature reflections emerged from an unusual conjunction: he was a central architect of quantum physics, awarded the 1945 Nobel Prize for the exclusion principle, and he was also engaged for decades in dream analysis and theoretical exchange with Jung. Their letters, published as Atom and Archetype, show a sustained attempt to understand psyche and matter within one enlarged philosophy of nature rather than as alien domains (Meier, 2001). A review in Physics Today summarizes Pauli’s aim as a description of nature integrating physics and psyche. The relevant claim for consciousness is not that quantum physics “explains” consciousness, but that both modern physics and depth psychology undermine simple materialism and classical dualisms. Physics had already weakened the picture of an observer-independent world describable in wholly visualizable, deterministic terms; Jungian psychology had weakened the picture of consciousness as transparent rational mastery. Pauli sought a conceptual scheme in which conscious mind, unconscious symbol, and physical form could be treated as coordinated aspects of a deeper order. The Psychophysically Neutral Ground Pauli and Jung adopted the medieval alchemical notion of the unus mundus — one world—to name a domain prior to the distinction between mental and material. Crucially, this ground is holistic and undivided: the mind–matter distinction is not a composition of neutral elements into mental and physical wholes but a decomposition, an epistemic partition of an unbroken reality (Atmanspacher, 2012). This distinguishes their position sharply from the neutral monism of Mach, James, and Russell, whose neutral bases—sensation, pure experience—remain uncomfortably close to mental capacities and are treated as accessible building blocks. For Pauli, the neutral domain cannot be apprehended directly at all; it is the condition of knowledge rather than an object of it, so neither phenomenal experience nor physical description can claim ontological priority. Complementarity Extended to the Psyche The distinctive feature of the framework is that the duality of aspects is specified as a complementarity in Bohr's sense (e.g., particle and wave): mutually exclusive yet jointly necessary descriptions, neither eliminable, with the exhaustive use of one precluding simultaneous exhaustive use of the other (Bohr, 1958; Pauli, 1994). Pauli, among complementarity's most determined advocates, argued that just as quantum mechanics revealed an irreducibly participatory element in physical nature, Jung's collective unconscious revealed an objective level of mind—the two disciplines meeting from opposite directions. For phenomenal consciousness, the consequence is direct: introspection is not neutral observation, since bringing an unconscious content into awareness transforms it, and the observing psyche cannot be excised from what it observes. Archetypes as Ordering Operators Pauli reconceived Jung's archetypes as neither purely psychic nor purely physical, but as psychophysically neutral ordering principles operating in both domains—characterizing them as statistical laws with primary probabilities and treating them as the bridge between sense perception and concept formation (Atmanspacher & Primas, 2006). His essay on Kepler argued that archetypal images demonstrably shaped the formation of scientific theory, and that this shared ordering explains the otherwise puzzling correspondence between mathematical structures conceived in the mind and the behavior of nature (Pauli, 1952). Within the modern reconstruction, archetypes function as the source of the structural, persistent, reproducible mind–matter correlations generated by the epistemic split—the class that includes ordinary psychophysical regularities. Synchronicity and Psychophysical Correlations Alongside these stable correlations, Pauli and Jung posited synchronicity: acausal but meaningful coincidences of psychic and physical events, which Pauli treated as occasional and non-reproducible in contrast to the reliable regularities of physics. He proposed beginning instead from reproducible acausal dispositions and regarding synchronicities as special cases, and speculated about a third type of natural law grounded in meaning rather than in deterministic or statistical causation (Atmanspacher, 2020). He also constructed a quaternio pairing energy and the space-time continuum with causality and synchronicity, seeking a symmetrical scheme in which the psychophysical stands beside the physical rather than beneath it. Reception, Formalization, Difficulties Long treated as an eccentricity of Pauli's private life—most of it confined to correspondence rather than published work—the framework has been substantially formalized by Atmanspacher, Primas, and collaborators as the Pauli–Jung conjecture, and is now cited within philosophy of mind as one of the more sophisticated dual-aspect positions available, rejecting materialism and idealism alike (Atmanspacher & Fuchs, 2014; Seager, 2011). Its principal difficulties are the ones its own structure entails. Because the neutral domain is inaccessible in principle, the position resists direct empirical test and risks explanatory emptiness; the archetypes invoked as ordering operators remain formally underspecified; and the synchronicity component, on which Pauli placed considerable weight, is empirically contested. Whether an unbroken psychophysically neutral reality genuinely explains phenomenal consciousness—or renames its mystery at a deeper level—remains the standing question. References Atmanspacher, H. (2012). Dual-aspect monism à la Pauli and Jung. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 19(9–10), 96–120. Atmanspacher, H. (2020). The Pauli–Jung conjecture and its relatives: A formally augmented outline. Open Philosophy, 3(1), 527–549. Atmanspacher, H., & Fuchs, C. A. (Eds.). (2014). The Pauli–Jung Conjecture and Its Impact Today. Imprint Academic. Atmanspacher, H., & Primas, H. (2006). Pauli's ideas on mind and matter in the context of contemporary science. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 13(3), 5–50. Bohr, N. (1958). Atomic Physics and Human Knowledge. Wiley. Jung, C. G., & Pauli, W. (1955). The Interpretation of Nature and the Psyche (Naturerklärung und Psyche, 1952). Pantheon. Meier, C. A. (Ed.). (2001). Atom and Archetype: The Pauli/Jung Letters, 1932–1958 (D. Roscoe, Trans.). Princeton University Press. Pauli, W. (1952). The influence of archetypal ideas on the scientific theories of Kepler. In Jung & Pauli (1955), pp. 147–240. Pauli, W. (1994). Writings on Physics and Philosophy (C. P. Enz & K. von Meyenn, Eds.). Springer. Seager, W. (2011). A new idea of reality: Pauli on the unity of mind and matter. Mind and Matter, 9(1), 37–52.

---

## Atmanspacher’s Dual-Aspect Monism
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/atmanspacher-s-dual-aspect-monism
Theorists: Harald Atmanspacher

Physicist-philosopher Harald Atmanspacher presents mind and matter, mental and material domains of reality, as manifestations, or aspects, of one underlying, fundamental reality in which mind and matter are inseparable. He distinguishes between the epistemic discernment of both the separate domains and the underlying reality, and the ontic existence of the “psychophysically neutral domain” (Atmanspacher, 2020a). Neutral Domain and Frameworks He also distinguishes two classes of dual-aspect theories based on “the way in which the psychophysically neutral domain is related to the mental and the physical.” In Russellian monisms, “the compositional arrangements of psychophysically neutral elements decide how they differ with respect to mental or physical properties. As a consequence, the mental and the physical are reducible to the neutral domain” (Atmanspacher, 2020a). Holism, Correlations, and Extensions Whereas in decompositional dual-aspect theories, “the basic metaphysics of the psychophysically neutral domain is holistic, and the mental and the physical (neither reducible to one another nor to the neutral) emerge by breaking the holistic symmetry or, in other words, by making distinctions. This framework is guided by the analogy to quantum holism… [which is] based on speculations that clearly exceed the scope of contemporary quantum theory.” Atmanspacher establishes connections between the ontic and epistemic domains of dual-aspect theory and David Bohm's famous notions of implicate and explicate order. “Mental and physical states emerge by explication, or unfoldment, from an ultimately undivided and psychophysically neutral implicate, enfolded order.” This order is dynamic, not static, as in Whitehead's process philosophy (Atmanspacher, 2020a). Atmanspacher finds dual-aspect potency in the conjecture by quantum physicist Wolfgang Pauli and analytical psychologist Carl Jung on the concept of synchronicity and draws on dual-aspect elements from the two disciplines (“Jung’s Collective Unconscious and Synchronicity”; “Double-aspect theory,” 2023) In other words, Atmanspacher's dual-aspect theory hypothesizes that mental and material manifestations may inherit mutual correlations because they are jointly caused by the psychophysically neutral level. Such correlations, he says, would be “remnants reflecting the lost holism of the underlying reality” (Atmanspacher, 2020a). Atmanspacher and philosopher of physics Dean Rickles extend the metaphysical position of dual-aspect monism by aligning “the deep structure of meaning” as “a fundamental feature of the nature of reality,” stressing that “the decompositional version of dual-aspect monism considers the mental and the physical as two aspects of one underlying undivided reality that is psychophysically neutral.” Crediting their forerunners (Wolfgang Pauli, Carl Jung, Arthur Eddington, John Wheeler, David Bohm, and Basil Hiley), the authors “reconstruct the formal structure of these approaches, and compare their conceptual emphases as well as their relative strengths and weaknesses.” Their intent is to establish dual-aspect monism as a scientifically and philosophically robust alternative to physicalism, dualism, and idealism (Atmanspacher & Rickles, 2022).

---

## Pereira’s Triple-Aspect Monism
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/pereira-s-three-aspect-monism
Theorists: Alfredo Pereira, Jr.

Philosopher of science Alfredo Pereira, Jr., has developed a “triple-aspect monism,” the physiological, mental unconscious, and conscious aspects of brain activity, positing that consciousness is a co-emergent property that arises from these three inseparable aspects of brain and mind, all grounded in a single substance with three aspects. Three Aspects and Neurobiology Physiological (Aspect 1): Covering all kinds of processes that involve matter and/or energy, including neuronal and biochemical processes, dendritic potentials, and interactions with glial cells. Mental‑Unconscious (Aspect 2): Dynamic informational patterns—brain wave frequencies, amplitudes and phase-modulated waves, and synaptic network patterns that are embodied in neural activity. As Pereira says, “These patterns are variously operated (transmitted, stored, combined, matched, amplified, erased, etc.), forming cognitive and emotional unconscious processes.” Mental‑Conscious (Aspect 3): First‑person perspective and cognitive functions grounded in experiences—feelings, qualia, attention, memories, voluntary action, selection of the focus of attention, voluntary aesthetic appraisal, and ethical evaluations. In parallel, the neurobiology of triple-aspect monism consists of presenting consciousness as involving: (i) neuronal processes; (ii) glial‑astrocyte dynamics; and (iii) electromagnetic microstates of brain networks. Pereira explains that “the triple-aspect monism is a philosophical theory that provides a model of the relation of the three aspects. Spatially distributed neuronal dendritic potentials generate amplitude-modulated waveforms transmitted to the extracellular medium and adjacent glial-astrocytes, prompting the formation of large waves in the astrocyte network, which are claimed to both integrate distributed information and instantiate feelings. According to the valence of the feeling, the large wave feeds back on neuronal synapses, modulating (reinforcing or depressing) cognitive and behavioral functions” (Pereira, 2014). Feeling Self and Integration Thus, Pereira’s framework treats the mind/brain/world relationship as a unified system—where conscious experience emerges from physical processes without dualism. This non-dual view of the mind and the body leads to the concept of a 'Feeling Self,' “which is empty of essence and constituted by the dynamics of experience. This concept is consistent with the principles advanced by Nagarjuna in the Buddhist Mahayana tradition and the interdisciplinary ontology of Triple-Aspect Monism. The principles of co-origination and interdependence, advanced by Nagarjuna, suggest that the conscious Self is integrated in the whole of reality. The Feeling Self results from habits developed during the life history of a person, anchors in brain functions (attention, learning, memory) and persists during a lifetime (Leite & Pereira, 2018).

---

## Ramachandran’s New Physics and Neuroscience
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/ramachandran-s-new-physics-and-neuroscience
Theorists: V. S. Ramachandran

Neuroscientist V. S. Ramachandran states that the question of consciousness cannot be answered “in any obvious terms.” Most neuroscientists don't think about the question of consciousness, as it doesn't typically arise in neuroscience or in physics. But, he says, the ancient Vedic texts of India do address the problem of consciousness, the problem of qualia (Ramachandran, 2019). “Physics, by definition, is a third-person description of the world; its laws have no subjective quality at all.” Physics has different wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation, but “you see colors: where does these come from? Consciousness emerges only in a first-person description of the world. I see red; not red is seen by me. I see red!” “How can physics, including neuroscience, be a complete description of the world if it excludes my primary sensory experience, if it does not admit a first-person perspective?” Ramachandran asks. (He considers neuroscience a branch of physics.) “That I'm looking at the cosmos from here now has no privileged status in science. For me, I have a privileged status. How is that possible? That's the problem.” “We need a new hybrid discipline, physics and neuroscience, that includes consciousness,” Ramachandran asserts. “Consciousness is part of reality, but how it entwines with physical laws needs to be explored” (Ramachandran, 2019).

---

## Tegmark’s State of Matter
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/tegmark-s-state-of-matter
Theorists: Max Tegmark

Physicist Max Tegmark speculates that “the subjective experience that we call consciousness is the way information feels when being processed in certain complex ways,” and he comes to this strong physicalist view because his starting point is, “It's all physics.” This means, he says, “I'm not allowed to have any extra ‘secret sauce’ to add to the physical world and brain. Thus, explaining consciousness is much harder for me, but at the same time, it [i.e., the physicalist constraint] limits or focuses my work to or on very concrete problems” (Tegmark, 2014a). Consciousness as Information Processing Clearly, Tegmark says, “there must be some additional principle about information processing in nature that distinguishes between the conscious kind and the unconscious kind.” “I would love to find it,” he continues, “not just because it's philosophically fascinating, but because it's important. Assessing consciousness is a critical need, whether in caring for comatose patients or in communicating with super-advanced AI” (Tegmark, 2014a). Perceptronium and Principles Tegmark examines the hypothesis that consciousness can be understood as a “state of matter,” “perceptronium,” as he coins it, with distinctive information-processing abilities (Tegmark, 2015). Assuming that consciousness is a property of certain physical systems, with no “secret sauce” or non-physical elements, and given that the key difference between a solid, a liquid, and a gas lies not in the types of atoms but in their arrangement, he conjectures that consciousness can be understood as yet another state of matter. Just as there are many types of liquids, he says, there are many types of consciousness. To distinguish conscious matter from other physical states of matter, Tegmark explores four basic principles: “the information, integration, independence, and dynamics principles.” These principles may identify conscious entities, account for our three-dimensional world, even involve the emergence of time. Tegmark's approach generalizes Giulio Tononi's Integrated Information Theory for neural-network-based consciousness as well as for arbitrary quantum systems. Founded on his concept that mathematics is the ultimate nature of reality (Tegmark, 2014b, 2014c, 2014d), Tegmark's quest is to better understand the internal reality of our mind and the external reality of our universe, such that they will hopefully co-explain or at least assist each other. This view sits somewhat apart from most materialist theories of consciousness, in which the emergence of consciousness is a contingency of evolution.

---

## QRI’s State-Space, Qualia Formalism, Valence Realism
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/qri-s-state-space-qualia-formalism-valence-realism
Theorists: Michael Edward Johnson, Andrés Gómez-Emilsson

The Qualia Research Institute (QRI), a not-for-profit pursuing unique approaches to the science of consciousness, stresses “Qualia Formalism,” the hypothesis that the internal structure of our subjective experience can be represented precisely by mathematics, and “Valence Realism,” the central importance of emotion/affect, that is, valence (how good or bad an experience feels) as a real and well-defined property of conscious states (Qualia Research Institute). Within the formalism, symmetry is said to play a significant compositional, functional, and aesthetic role. It is called the Symmetry Theory of Valence (proposed by philosopher Michael Edward Johnson): the symmetry of an information geometry of mind corresponds with how pleasant or unpleasant it is to be (or have) that experience. (“The biggest mystery hiding in plain sight is what gives experiences valence.”) (Johnson, 2023). Qualia Formalism and Valence Realism The key QRI move (or assumption) is that every distinct state of conscious experience is unique and can be described mathematically; the number of such states, a “combinatorial explosion of unexpected phenomena,” is an unimaginably vast (but not infinite) “state-space of consciousness,” which is an independent, quasi-dimensional aspect of reality that grows “supergeometrically.” It is the specific geometry of each state-space of consciousness that is the conscious percept; each experience would correspond to a single point in the state-space of consciousness; the set of all possible experiences are organized in such a way that the similarities between experiences are encoded in the geometry of the state-space; and the degrees of symmetry or lack of symmetry of the geometry reflect the balance of positive and negative valence, both reflecting brain harmonics which somehow interact with the quasi-dimensional state-space and its symmetries (Shinozuka, 2020). (The “state-space of consciousness” resonates with a similar kind of structure in Integrated Information Theory) State-Space and Symmetry QRI says its position is close to dual-aspect monism or neutral monism. It is committed to an extended physicalism in the sense that extended laws of physics ultimately must describe fields of qualia. Included is the idea that emotional valence (the pleasantness/unpleasantness of an experience) is a natural kind, a real division of the world carved at its joints, which is said to provide substantial information about phenomenology (Qualia Research Institute, n.d.). Relation to Integrated Information Theory QRI rejects functionalism as creating confusion but considers exotic states of consciousness as important data points for reverse-engineering the underlying formalism for consciousness. As noted, QRI is most compatible with, but not synonymous with, Integrated Information Theory (12), which QRI calls the first mainstream theory of consciousness to satisfy a Qualia Formalist account of experience. QRI leverages the idea from Integrated Information Theory that for every conscious experience, there is a corresponding mathematical object such that the mathematical features of that object are isomorphic to the properties of the experience, and that without this idea, no matter the neurobiological theory, we cannot solve the hard problem of consciousness (Qualia Research Institute, n.d.). Cessation of Consciousness QRI President and Director of Research Andrés Gómez-Emilsson targets “cessations”—fleeting states where consciousness seems to fully suspend, or “blink out,” before awareness returns—as a way to investigate consciousness per se. (QRI’s work integrates insights from meditation practices and the use of 5-MeO-DMT, a psychedelic known to induce cessation-like states.) “We believe that studying cessations can provide valuable insights into valence, the subjective experience of pleasure and pain. These brief interruptions offer a unique opportunity to examine the structure of conscious experience. As consciousness approaches a cessation, its content simplifies, and upon reemergence, it becomes more complex. By studying these transitions and their associated affective states, we seek to identify the core properties of consciousness that determine valence” (Gómez-Emilsson, 2024). Gómez-Emilsson starts with “the premise that cessations are very simple, perhaps maximally simple, states of consciousness.” Then, following “Qualia Formalism (i.e., experiences correspond to precise mathematical objects whose features are isomorphic to their phenomenology) and the Symmetry Theory of Valence” as background inspiration, he explores “the connection between information content and symmetry. The low information content in this case might be a really good proxy for the nature and complexity of the symmetries… This research direction suggests, however, that both valence and information content, even just in terms of what is reportable, will be highly correlated at the extreme of close to no information content. The Symmetry Theory of Valence provides a potential framework to make sense of both the success cases and failure modes for how experiencing cessations and near cessations impact the feelings of wellbeing, both during meditation, and potentially afterwards” (Gómez-Emilsson, 2024).

---

## Leslie’s Consciousness Inside an Infinite Mind
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/leslie-s-consciousness-inside-an-infinite-mind
Theorists: John Leslie

Philosopher John Leslie suggests that ethical requirements, when not overruled by stronger ethical requirements, are creatively effective. The cosmos they create is a collection of infinitely many minds, each infinite mind eternally conscious of all that's worth contemplating. Our universe is a structure inside one such mind, its reality consisting simply in its being contemplated. (Infinitely many finer universes might join our universe in that mind's consciousness, but it does at least deserve its place there.) (Leslie, 2001). Universe Within an Infinite Mind How, though, would one's own consciousness fit into this scenario? Well, each infinite mind is “a single existent” in this sense, that its ingredients stand to it somewhat as a ruby's shape and its redness stand to the ruby; they couldn't exist independently, any more than could the particles in the Bose-Einstein condensates described by quantum physics. But despite how all the parts of each universe which any such mind contemplated would exist—remember, solely through entering into that mind's contemplations—some of those parts could each have consciousness of its own. They could be conscious brains, or conscious computers. Being inside the existential unity of that mind wouldn't make these know that it was there that they existed, or what other things existed there. Conscious, when it contemplated us, of every quark and electron of your brain and mine, that mind could leave us in ignorance even of each other's existence (Leslie, 2001). Unity, Quantum Processes, and Beyond Similarly, our lives from birth to death could be eternally present to that mind's awareness whereas we could only guess what would fill our next few hours. Still, one's consciousness might itself be existentially unified at any given moment, perhaps thanks to quantum-physical processes. This could explain how the entirety of a painting, for instance, can be known in a single glance. Brains without regions that featured quantum computations, computers which weren't quantum computers, might be incapable of such knowledge. Leslie concludes, “Innumerable further things worth contemplating would exist inside each infinite mind, many of them quite unlike our universe and its living beings. Examples could be utterly lifeless universes; universes very unlike ours in their physical laws, or obeying no laws at all; countless things of interest or of beauty, each not forming part of any universe” (Leslie, 2001).

---

## Neutral Monism Additional Theories
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/neutral-monism-additional-theories
Theorists: Several

Molner’s PanQualism Systems engineer and independent researcher Jeff Molner’s PanQualism proposes a Russellian monist ontology in which phenomenal consciousness emerges from accumulated and integrated awareness in a fundamental informational–energetic substrate, formalized through a quantitative dynamical model of awareness accumulation and integration (Molner 2025; Russell, 1927). PanQualism’s central distinction is between awareness and consciousness. It extends Russellian monism by treating awareness as ubiquitous, graded, and intrinsic to reality—not yet subjectivity in the ordinary sense, but the most basic interior or qualitative aspect of informational–energetic process. In contrast, consciousness is an emergent organization of this intrinsic awareness, and arises only when such awareness is sufficiently accumulated, integrated, and structured into unified configurations capable of phenomenal presentation. In this respect, PanQualism differs from simple panpsychism: it does not attribute full consciousness to elementary entities, but rather locates proto-phenomenal or awareness-bearing potential in the intrinsic nature of the physical. Molner introduces qualions as minimal informational–energetic registrations of change within the underlying substrate, representing the most elementary units through which intrinsic awareness becomes discretely registered. These are not standard particles, but proposed primitive units or events through which intrinsic awareness is discretely registered. He claims to formalize this dynamical accumulation as Ȧ = qₘ f S, where Ȧ denotes the rate of awareness accumulation, qₘ is a proposed awareness constant, f characterizes system dynamics, and S denotes structural informational organization. This proposed dynamical relation of the quantitative framework is said to transform intrinsic awareness from a purely metaphysical postulate into a mathematically tractable and dynamically characterizable quantity within a unified informational–energetic ontology. {Note: none of qₘ, f, S is formally operationally defined, dimensioned, or empirically anchored, and no quantity is derived or predicted.} In this view, consciousness depends on integration and accumulation rather than mere presence of awareness, aligning PanQualism with integration-based approaches such as Integrated Information Theory while preserving a Russellian intrinsic ontology. Unlike standard Russellian monism, PanQualism claims to feature intrinsic quantitative structure and dynamical accumulation as mathematically and dynamically grounded constructs rather than purely metaphysical postulates. Within this framework, Molner’s Emergent Time hypothesis proposes that temporal flow arises from ordered transformations in awareness-bearing systems. Ontological time corresponds to lawful energetic–informational change in the underlying substrate, while phenomenological time corresponds to structured changes in accumulated awareness, together providing a unified account of both physical temporal ordering and temporal experience. By integrating intrinsic quantification with Russellian monism, PanQualism aims to reframe the hard problem of consciousness by locating phenomenal properties in the intrinsic quantitative structure of reality and treating both time and consciousness as emergent features of a unified informational–energetic ontology. Its distinctive contribution is to combine Russellian monism, integration-based consciousness theory, and a process ontology of time. Its main vulnerability is whether qualions, the awareness constant, and the proposed equation can be independently specified and empirically constrained rather than functioning chiefly as formal metaphors (Molner 2025). References Molner, J. (2025). Emergent Time: How Awareness Creates the Flow of Reality. LPG Press. https://www.jeffmolner.com. Russell, B. (1927). The Analysis of Matter. Harcourt, Brace and Company. Kwake's Energy Dualiverse Songwriter/producer and independent researcher Tom Kwake (with degrees in physiology and biotechnology) proposes an “Energy Dualiverse” in which consciousness is one downstream component. The hypothesis holds that reality is constituted by a monistic, co-existing dual-energy relationship in time—a potential energy state and a kinetic energy state—both present in the ongoing moment of "now," and that human consciousness and life are a direct expression of this same relationship. [Note that Kwake appropriates the physics terms potential and kinetic energy in a non-standard, metaphysical sense that he calls "dynamically symmetric."] Kwake challenges the orthodox treatment of energy as merely a property, proposing instead that potential and kinetic energy are things and processes that bear properties. On this view, physical reality and consciousness both emerge from stable energy forms persisting since the universe's origin: the forces, laws, and constants of nature; stable platonic realities such as mathematics; and the human capacity to sense and exploit these energy relationships. Consciousness mirrors the dual structure—a thought is created in a potential-energy state and transduced into a kinetic-energy state expressed in mental and physical action. He posits a hierarchical consciousness built from layered senses, memory, creativity, and intent, governed by a fundamental “law of intent to survive” operative in all living things. The mind is characterized as a self-assembling, energy-sensing sense receptor whose ability to name differentiated energies grounds language. Kwake offers a functional mind model observable in dreaming: the vantage point is the Mind's Eye (ME) and the convergent dream content is what we see to (C2), with consciousness consisting in an ongoing comparison (ME ⇌ C2) sustained in the "now," whether asleep, dreaming or awake. Pending any scientific solution to the hard problem, he suggests a functional model may serve pragmatically—affording humans the capacity to consciously sense reality and creatively "choose our evolution." Jagarlapudi’s Omnijectivism AI/software engineer Shastri Jagarlapudi’s Omnijectivism proposes that consciousness is neither produced by neural computation nor added to cognition as a separate nonphysical substance. Instead, consciousness sustains an “Omnijective” generative process from which phenomenal experience, cognitive organization, experiential meaning, and their neural correlates are made possible and arise together. The theory’s target is not consciousness as one phenomenon among others but the generative conditions prior to any such description. It is presented as a process-oriented neutral monism: mental and physical descriptions concern complementary expressions of one integrated generative architecture rather than two independently existing domains (Jagarlapudi, 2026). Omnijectivism shifts attention from the contents or neural correlates of consciousness to the conditions that make consciousness, cognition, and their description possible. A central claim concerns method. Because every human investigation of consciousness is itself conducted through conscious cognition, the inquiry becomes self-referential: consciousness attempts to understand the generative ground that enables its own acts of understanding. Jagarlapudi associates this epistemic closure with the persistence of the hard problem, although the claim differs from Chalmers’s original argument that structural and functional explanation leaves phenomenal character unexplained (Chalmers, 1995; Jagarlapudi, 2026). To escape the loop, he proposes a route beyond this limitation is the construction of human-like artificial general intelligence understood as unified cognition rather than merely broad task competence. A system’s designer would occupy an external standpoint relative to the artificial system’s genesis and could investigate how unified cognition, experiential meaning, and putative consciousness emerge together. “Omnijective Phenomenology” is the proposed research program for formalizing the operational role of consciousness within this architecture and developing conditions under which the theory might be verified or falsified. Jagarlapudi describes the position as a process-oriented form of neutral monism, on which experiential and physical descriptions are complementary expressions sustained by consciousness, and on which physicalism appears as a limiting case recovered when suspended background assumptions are reinstated. More than an account of mind, it is offered as a framework for constructing human-like minds embedded within human-like consciousness. Omnijectivism’s distinctive contribution is this combination of consciousness-first generativity, neutral-monist language, and artificial-mind construction as an epistemic method. It also treats physicalism as a restricted description that emerges when broader generative assumptions are reinstated. The proposal remains programmatic: “consciousness,” “sustaining,” “generation,” and “unified cognition” are not yet specified with sufficient formal or empirical precision, and an external designer’s access to functional genesis would not by itself establish the presence or nature of phenomenal experience. Its development therefore depends on identifying mechanisms and predictions that distinguish Omnijectivism from idealism, neutral monism, functionalism, and general generative-systems approaches. References Chalmers, D. J. (1995). Facing up to the problem of consciousness. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 2(3), 200–219. Jagarlapudi, S. S. (2026). On the Generative Dynamics of Experiential Systems. PhilArchive manuscript. Ofordile's The Aware Universe Medical researcher Ogochukwu Ofordile proposes an integrative theory of consciousness rooted in the fundamental nature of reality, which he calls “The Aware Universe.” He challenges the assumption that consciousness is a late-arriving byproduct of complex computation in biological systems. Instead, he posits that consciousness is not a passive epiphenomenon but an active principle shaping evolution, emergence, and meaning; that consciousness is woven into the very fabric of the universe; that consciousness is not emergent but elemental (Ofordile, 2025, The Aware Universe, book in progress). The Aware Universe suggests a unified metaphysical framework: that awareness is intrinsic to the cosmos, and that subjective experience arises when matter organizes itself in ways that allow this fundamental awareness to reflect upon itself. Drawing on insights from quantum physics, he emphasizes the role of observation and measurement in shaping physical reality, that awareness plays a constitutive role in what we perceive as reality. Consciousness, therefore, is not merely a witness of the universe but a participant in its unfolding. Ofordile introduces the concept of reflective fields—informational structures in matter, such as neural networks, that allow primordial awareness to experience complexity, memory, and self-reference. Human consciousness, then, is a high-order configuration of this deeper, universal awareness—a localized vortex of self-aware information processing. Ofordile draws parallels between ancient philosophical traditions (e.g., Advaita Vedanta and panpsychism) and contemporary developments in physics and complexity science, and he offers a non-dualistic model in which mind and matter are complementary aspects of a deeper underlying reality. This model aligns with neutral monism, proposing that both mental and physical phenomena emerge from a common ontological ground. Ofordile’s consciousness is not marginalized; it is placed at the heart of our understanding of existence. Acknowledging awareness as fundamental, he says, opens the door to a more holistic and spiritually resonant cosmology—one that unites the objective rigor of science with the subjective depth of inner experience.

---

## Pluralist and Relational Metaphysics—Additional Theories
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/pluralist-and-relational-metaphysics-additional-theories

Some theories of phenomenal consciousness resist classification within the standard alternatives of materialism, non-reductive physicalism, quantum & dimensional, information, panpsychism, neutral monism, dualism, idealism, and phenomenology, because they locate consciousness neither in a single kind of fundamental substance nor straightforwardly on one side of the mental–physical divide. Instead, they propose that phenomenal consciousness arises through, consists in, or is mediated by relations among multiple ontologically significant principles, domains, poles, fields, subjects and objects, or processes. What is fundamental may therefore be not consciousness alone, matter alone, or even one neutral substrate, but a structured plurality whose relations make phenomenal consciousness possible. These theories are grouped here within the Neutral Monisms category as the closest available ontological neighborhood, but they should not thereby be understood as neutral monisms in the strict sense. Neutral monism holds that mental and physical reality derive from, or constitute different organizations or aspects of, one fundamental kind of reality that is intrinsically neither mental nor physical. The theories collected here typically share neutral monism’s central motivation—to avoid making either physical matter or consciousness itself the sole ontological foundation—but relax its requirement of a single neutral fundamental kind. Some posit several co-original principles; others treat consciousness as an interface, relation, coupling, mediation, or process between distinct aspects of reality. Still others make the relation between the elements more fundamental to explaining consciousness than any element considered on its own. Neutral Monism is therefore their taxonomic home primarily by proximity rather than strict identity. On the Landscape’s roughly physicalist-to-nonphysicalist axis, it occupies the conceptual territory between theories that build consciousness entirely from the physical and theories that make consciousness or an irreducibly mental reality fundamental. Pluralist and Relational theories generally inhabit this same intermediate territory while refusing to resolve it into either a single neutral ground or two independent substances. Placing them under Materialism would impose physicalism; under Idealism, the ultimacy of consciousness; under Panpsychism, ubiquitous phenomenal or protophenomenal properties; and under Dualism, an ontological bifurcation that many of these theories explicitly seek to avoid. This grouping is also distinct from the Landscape’s Materialism/Relational theories. There, relational organization is invoked within an ultimately physicalist ontology to explain consciousness. Here, relationality is itself metaphysically consequential: the relevant relations, principles, or domains cannot simply be reduced to physical processes. “Relational and Pluralist Metaphysics” is thus a deliberately inclusive boundary category for theories whose defining contribution is an ontological architecture of relation, plurality, mediation, or process. Their placement within Neutral Monisms acknowledges their nearest conceptual affinity without falsely classifying them as strict neutral monisms. Note that not every theory here must be metaphysically pluralist in the strict technical sense. Some may instead be fundamentally processual, relational, or mediating and resist strict neutral monism for another reason. Therefore, “Pluralist and Relational” names the family resemblance defining the collection, not two necessary-and-sufficient conditions for membership. Farhadi’s Trilogy Theory: Fundamental Awareness and Local Consciousness Physician/gastroenterologist-scientist Ashkan Farhadi proposes The Trilogy Theory of Consciousness (TTC), which posits that awareness is the ontological prerequisite of phenomenal consciousness, whereas phenomenal consciousness is the localized operational realization of awareness through the recursive interaction of intention and self-reflection in living systems. While many contemporary theories treat awareness as synonymous with phenomenal consciousness, TTC distinguishes awareness as its ontological prerequisite rather than phenomenal consciousness itself. TTC considers awareness fundamental but, unlike conventional panpsychism, does not attribute awareness or phenomenal consciousness universally to physical entities. The physical world remains independently real, while suitable living physical systems, through interaction with the awareness field, develop subjective awareness that enables awareness-based choice selection and a sense of agency, together giving rise to consciousness. In TTC, consciousness is neither universal nor a property of a being; rather, it is a local phenomenon resulting from a unique pathway of awareness-based information processing within an entity. TTC further argues that awareness cannot be reduced to neural computation, information processing, computational complexity, or quantum mechanisms alone. The Quantum Trilogy Theory of Consciousness (QTTC) extends this framework by proposing Quantum Field Theory (QFT) as one possible physical realization of awareness, without claiming quantum processes as the unique ontological substrate of consciousness. TTC is an explanatory framework developed to address unresolved explanatory gaps in consciousness studies. In addition to the Hard Problem of consciousness, the theory identifies the “selection gap,” explaining why only selected information enters subjective awareness despite extensive unconscious information processing, and the “directive gap,” explaining how subjective experience generates intentional directives that can influence cognition and behavior. TTC proposes a unified functional architecture for addressing these interdependent problems. According to TTC, awareness is ontologically fundamental but does not, by itself, constitute phenomenal consciousness. Phenomenal consciousness emerges from the recursive interaction of awareness, intention, and self-reflection. Intention is operationalized through Awareness-Based Choice Selection (ABCS), by which awareness actively selects and directs informational states, while self-reflection generates the momentary sense of agency or the experienced "I." Neural activity provides the biological implementation of consciousness but does not constitute or fully explain phenomenal consciousness. TTC further distinguishes between responsiveness, an automated unconscious response to incoming information in living systems that produces adaptive or goal-oriented behavior, and awareness-based processing, which alone generates phenomenal consciousness. Consequently, sophisticated goal-oriented behavior, including that of contemporary artificial intelligence, which exemplifies responsiveness, is not considered sufficient evidence of consciousness. The theory also incorporates free will as an intrinsic organizational component of awareness and consciousness rather than an independent metaphysical property. QTTC extends TTC by proposing that awareness may be physically realized as localized excitations of a Universal Awareness Field within Quantum Field Theory, providing one possible ontological realization while preserving TTC as a substrate-independent explanatory framework. Together, TTC and QTTC provide a unified framework for awareness, agency, free will, and consciousness that remains conceptually coherent, experimentally falsifiable, and open to future empirical refinement. References Farhadi, A. (2023). Trilogy Theory of Consciousness (TTC): A new paradigm of consciousness.Neuropsychiatry (London), 13(4), 1–16. Farhadi, A. (2025). Awareness-based choice selection: improving the decision-making efficiency by using known information. Curr Psychol 44, 13145–13153 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-025-08072-8 Farhadi, A. (2021). There is no “I” in “AI”. AI & Society, 36, 1035–1046. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-020-01136-2 Farhadi, A. (2025). Toward a field-based framework of awareness: Quantum Trilogy Theory of Consciousness.Journal of Modern Physics & Quantum Neuroscience, 1(3), 1–14.https://doi.org/10.63721/25JPQN0128 Tubb’s Quantum Numinous Permaculturalist and independent researcher Timothy Tubb proposes Quantum Numinous theory which has phenomenal consciousness as the fundamental, non-quantized relational "operating system" of a participatory universe—identified with the Correlation of Quantum Information (CQI) and enacted through a tripartite Observer–Wave–Particle (OWP) loop that mediates between two primordial fields to collapse non-local potentiality into localized matter. On this account, the hard problem is recast: consciousness is not an emergent product of complex matter but the relational precondition for matter's appearance. The OWP loop couples an observer-function (the relating self), a wave-function (non-local potentiality, characterized as obtaining "at the speed of light," with space, time, and information unified), and a particle-function (localized matter). The observer mediates the field, collapsing it into quantized particles fitted to its immediate environmental and evolutionary context. Two poles underwrite the scheme: a Light Field—source of information, animation, and expansion—and a Plenum/Void, an "effective zero" of inertia and density supplying the structural counter-resistance held necessary for quantization. Phenomenal consciousness is construed as the symbiotic correlation between these poles. Tubb further assigns light, energy, and space to the Light Field and heat, mass, and time to the Plenum/Void, deriving an energy–mass–in–spacetime paradigm from their interaction. Because consciousness is defined as purely relational, the theory carries panpsychist implications: every progressively self-organizing system, from cellular structures to mind–body organisms, is said to possess some quotient of consciousness, with biological evolution refining a universal capacity for correlation (photosynthesis and retinal vision serve as illustrations). Subjective experience is the internal realization of this correlation. The theory presents itself as a "technical blueprint" repositioning inquiry from the study of inert matter to the mechanics of the conscious self. Note that while Tubb's theory has "Quantum" in its title, and quantum mechanics participates in its architecture, it does not constitute consciousness. The theory defines phenomenal consciousness as a fundamental, non-quantized relational process and explicitly calls it the “symbiotic correlation” between two primordial poles, mediated by an Observer–Wave–Particle relation. Blackwell's Intermediary Consciousness: An Interface Between Timeless Being and Spacetime Existence AI/IT scientist/engineer Grahame Blackwell holds that consciousness is neither the fundamental ground of being nor an emergent property of matter, but the interface between them—the speculative mechanism by which an eternal, non-spatiotemporal being maintains a hybrid existence with a physical body in space and time (Blackwell, 2010a). The proposal rests on a layered ontology—biological over chemical over physical over quantum—with a further stratum below quantum mechanics that he argues must be timeless and nonlocal. Phenomenal consciousness on this account is bidirectional traffic across that boundary: qualia and the texture of embodied experience are conveyed inward to the eternal being, while the continuous-present, ubiquitous-here character of the deeper level is partitioned outward into a format a spacetime organism can process. Blackwell's route to the interface runs through his claimed reconstruction (non-standard) of physics. He argues that elementary particles are localized configurations of electromagnetic energy, that the effects attributed to Special Relativity follow from this structure rather than from relativistic postulates (Blackwell, 2011a), and that spacetime curvature is rationalized on the same basis (Blackwell, 2011b). Material reality becomes a four-dimensional "tapestry of light" (Blackwell, 2007), with two consequences he takes to bear on consciousness: the universe is one undivided whole described by a single composite wavefunction, and every organism is woven into it as a complex energy pattern. What underlies the tapestry, Blackwell argues, must be independent of time (Blackwell, 2010b) and nonlocal, the latter supported by entanglement results (Blackwell, 2026). If the essential self is rooted below spacetime, there is no beginning or end to it and no Prime Cause, since what has always existed cannot have been caused; the question why there is something rather than nothing is dissolved rather than answered, and the hard problem of consciousness encounters the same fate. The interface performs two tasks. Inward, it delivers to the timeless being the qualia available only to an embodied organism, which Blackwell takes to be the point of embodiment. Outward, it imposes temporal succession and spatial extension on a substrate having neither, and transmits the value systems informing free choice at the physical level. Persons are accordingly "sparks of consciousness," the eternal embodied within the physical. The framework addresses why there should be experience at all—embodiment furnishes something to a being that would otherwise lack it—but does not specify how the interface operates, why particular neural states correlate with particular qualia, or what constrains the partitioning into space and time. Its supporting physics diverges from standard treatments of Special and General Relativity, so the consciousness proposal inherits whatever confidence attaches to that reconstruction. References Blackwell, G. K. (2007). Tapestry of Light. Transfinite Mind Ltd. ISBN 978-0-9554382-0-2. Blackwell, G. K. (2010a). Layers of Reality: Foundations of Our Space-Time Existence. Transfinite Mind Ltd. https://transfinitemind.com/layers.html Blackwell, G. K. (2010b). Time doesn't exist: A step-by-step proof. Reality Check (blog). https://grahameb.com/realitycheck/?p=425 Blackwell, G. K. (2011a). Elementary sub-atomic particles: The earliest adaptive systems. Kybernetes, 40(1/2), 200–212. https://doi.org/10.1108/03684921111118004. Blackwell, G. K. (2011b). Cosmic system dynamics: A cyberneticist's perspective on gravitation. Kybernetes, 40(9/10), 1319–1330. https://doi.org/10.1108/03684921111169413/. Blackwell, G. K. (2016). Atoms of Light and The Relativity Myth. Transfinite Mind Ltd. ISBN 978-0-9554382-4-0. Blackwell, G. K. (2026). Nonlocal realism. Beyond Spacetime (Substack). https://drgblackwell.substack.com/p/nonlocal-realism. Huang's Dynamic Self-Model Buddhist scholar Wenge Huang presents what he terms a novel 'Dynamic Self-Model', inspired by empirical insights from Theravada Buddhist meditation: the self is merely an illusion emerging from the rapid alternation between 'awareness' (A) and 'awareness-of-awareness' (AoA). As a core component, he defines AoA—which cannot be detected under ordinary conditions—as a spontaneous process distinct from effortful 'meta-cognition' and attentional 'meta-awareness', and he posits it as a prime candidate for the 'higher-order representation' in higher-order theories of consciousness. This mechanism is revealed by vipassana, the nature of which is enhanced awareness induced in Buddhist meditation, making contemplating the five aggregates possible, just like 'watching' a slow-motion film: if regarding each 'aggregate' as an 'awareness,' then contemplating the five aggregates would reveal a subsequent 'awareness-of-awareness' that arises immediately after each aggregate (or awareness). This conceptual model not only elucidates the core mechanism of how the self is dynamically generated, but also offers a novel synthesis for the long-standing debate between higher-order and reflexive theories of consciousness (see below). Although empirically validating any model of consciousness would confront immense challenges and uncertainties, Huang says that this model suggests a preliminary and falsifiable neurodynamic hypothesis as a bridge to future research: a unique 'anti-phase' theta-gamma coupling, where sensory gamma activity (A) and prefrontal gamma activity (AoA) are driven by opposite phases of the same theta rhythm (Huang, 2024). Huang claims that the Dynamic Self-Model can address the deep and persistent theoretical schism in consciousness studies between higher-order theories (a mental state becomes conscious via a separate higher-order representation) and reflexive theories (consciousness is an intrinsic, built-in property of experience itself) by offering a temporal dynamic solution instead of traditional static structural solutions: "It is precisely because reflexive theories are empirically grounded in phenomenological observations that the above new dimension enables a true synthesis of the two opposing views by demonstrating how an ontologically two-tier (higher-order) structure can—through a dynamic process—create a phenomenologically single-tier (reflexive) experience. Simultaneously, since this process generates the self as an effect rather than serving a pre-existing one, it dissolves the classic infinite-regress problem in higher-order theories" (Huang, 2025). Sarma’s Nonphysical Systems Systems engineer A.S. Sarma posits that consciousness is a nonphysical system that does not involve matter or energy; it is a zero-energy system that is not instrumentable. It existed before the Big Bang, and exists after the Big Bang as part of Nature, which includes the human brain. Sarma takes two approaches: a system engineering study of the brain, mind, and consciousness, and a study of the physics of nonphysical systems and their role in nature. Consciousness is a noun, he says; awareness is its property. The first approach integrates the brain and René Descartes's mind, which includes intellect and processes knowledge. Consciousness's function is to experience knowledge. Only Consciousness experiences knowledge and is the ‘I-ness.’ Input sensors change the states of incoming sensory information to neural states. When states change, knowledge jumps the state by abstraction. Intellect presents knowledge to consciousness in the state in which the brain's sensors received it; this is the presentation format. Consciousness cognizes or experiences knowledge by abstraction from the presentation format. Abstracted knowledge does not contain matter. Like consciousness, it is a nonphysical, zero-energy system, and not instrumentable. The second approach leverages the physics of nonphysical systems, where the presence of matter makes the system real and physical, and systems without matter are non-real and nonphysical. There are many nonphysical systems in Nature. Before the Big Bang, matter did not exist. Only the primordial void, which itself is a nonphysical system. Matter and physical systems emerged from the primordial void as Nature. Nature has nonphysical parts, which are a combination of “dynamism” (knowledge, memory, time, space) and consciousness. Nature is aware. This is consciousness, the experiencer of Knowledge. N. Murugesan’s Three Types of Consciousness IT/AI professional and Indian spiritual practitioner N. Murugesan has consciousness as fundamental reality—eternal, indestructible, and irreducible. It does not arise from matter but is capable of associating with matter. Its defining attribute is the ability to be aware of oneself and of an external environment. Murugesan posits three different types of consciousness, each of which is eternal. The first is ‘matter-consciousness,’ a homogeneous and minimally aware state, comparable to the faint awareness of deep sleep. The second is human, or individuated ātmanic consciousness, which is self-aware, possesses a unique and indestructible identity, and is capable of reflection and agency. The third is supreme consciousness, singular and all-encompassing, which grounds the other two and fully embodies awareness, knowledge, and bliss (Sat, Chit, Anand). Conscious awareness involves three elements: the object (the external world), the subject (the conscious entity), and the medium (consciousness stuff). This medium, evolving from raw physical quantum matter to refined forms such as mind or soul, connects subject and object, much like language or mathematics conveys meaning. While consciousness stuff is universal, individual differences arise from consciousness itself, owing to the irreducibly subjective nature of experience. Conscious states are neither identical with brain activity nor with the subject itself but are states of consciousness stuff shaped by both object and subject. Consciousness is unified and has no component parts. It is irreducible, non-physical, and does not admit degrees. Consciousness transcends space and time, existing non-spatially, while the material world is anchored in it. Quantum physics may explain how matter-consciousness functions as a medium, but consciousness itself remains beyond physical laws. Consciousness is not passive; it can actively influence actions and decisions, shaping reality. All life forms possess consciousness, but its expression varies with the refinement of the medium, reaching its fullest development in humans. Consciousness can never be fully grasped through third-person methods. Because consciousness is always the seer, it cannot be reduced to an object that can be fully seen. The seer cannot be seen. This limitation is not due to a lack of capability but to the intrinsic nature of consciousness itself. Müller’s Co-Original Principles: Consciousness as Relational Appearing Independent author Fabian Müller’s Co-Original Principles Theory proposes that phenomenal consciousness is neither a substance nor an agent but an event of “reflective appearing” that occurs when an Observer (defined strictly as the principle of seeing, rather than an a priori subject) encounters a counterpart capable of sustaining the relation—a condition he calls conditio speculi. The Observer is not itself the conscious subject; rather, subjectivity emerges through this relation. Consciousness can therefore arise, persist, or disappear depending on whether the relational conditions for phenomenal appearing obtain. Müller situates this account within a metaphysics of four “co-original” and mutually irreducible principles: Being, Intelligence, Observer, and Love. Being is the condition for anything to be present; Intelligence is an ordering capacity more fundamental than articulated thought or language; Observer is the principle of seeing; and Love is treated as an ontological principle rather than simply an emotion. Consciousness is distinct from all four: it arises through their relational organization rather than constituting the ultimate ground itself. The proposal has affinities with phenomenological accounts of intentionality and relational structure (Husserl, 1900–1901), but it adds an explicit metaphysical architecture. It also differs from analytic idealism, because consciousness is not the sole fundamental reality (Kastrup, 2019), and from panpsychism, because consciousness is not attributed ubiquitously to matter. Nor is consciousness said to emerge from a physical substrate or a derived physical mechanism. The theory’s distinctive claim is therefore a form of metaphysical pluralism in which phenomenal consciousness becomes present through a relation involving fundamental principles rather than being identical with any fundamental principle itself. References Husserl, E. (2001 [1900–1901]). Logical Investigations. Trans. J. N. Findlay. London: Routledge. Kastrup, B. (2019). The Idea of the World: A Multi-Disciplinary Argument for the Mental Nature of Reality. Winchester: Iff Books.

---

# Theories - Non-Reductive Physicalism

## Non-Reductive Physicalism—Overview
URL: https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/non-reductive-physicalism-overview
Theorists: Several

Non-Reductive Physicalism takes consciousness to be entirely physical, solely the product of biological brains, but mental states or properties are irreducibly distinct from physical states or properties such that they cannot be entirely explained by physical laws, principles, or discoveries (in brains or otherwise) (Macdonald & Macdonald, 2019). Non-Reductive Physicalism was, in part, a response to conceptual problems in the early identity theories of physicalism, where mental properties or kinds were literally the same thing as physical properties or kinds. This was challenged by several conceptual conundrums: the multiple realizability of the same mental properties or kinds by different physical properties or kinds (Hilary Putnam); the intentional essence of mental phenomena, which seems so radically different from physical laws or things (Donald Davidson's “Anomalous Monism”); and the apparent unbridgeable gap between physics and the special sciences (Jerry Fodor) (Macdonald & Macdonald, 2019). A core mechanism of Non-Reductive Physicalism is emergence, where novel properties at higher levels of integration are not discernible (and perhaps not even predictable, ever) from all-you-can-know at lower or more fundamental levels. A prime feature of Non-Reductive Physicalism is often “top-down causation,” where the content of consciousness is causally efficacious—qualia can do real work (contra Epiphenomenalism). Religious Perspectives and Critiques Some Christian philosophers, such as Nancey Murphy, who seek greater consonance between contemporary science and the Christian faith, look to Non-Reductive Physicalism as a nondualistic account of the human person. It does not consider the “soul” an entity separable from the body, such that scientific statements about the physical nature of human beings would be referring to exactly the same entity as theological statements concerning the spiritual nature of human beings (Brown et al., 1998). The structure of Non-Reductive Physicalism is said to enhance the Judeo-Christian concept of “resurrection of the dead” as opposed to what is said to be the non-Judeo-Christian doctrine of an “immortal soul” (Van Inwagen, 1995). On the other hand, Christian philosopher J. P. Moreland takes dualism to be “the clear teaching of Scripture” that “overwhelmingly sets forth a dichotomy of soul and body,” and he decries those Christian thinkers who deny this conclusion, especially adherents of Non-Reductive Physicalism (Moreland, 2014). Philosopher Jaegwon Kim's objections to Non-Reductive Physicalism, based on causal closure and overdetermination, highlight its three principles: the irreducibility of the mental to the physical; some version of mental-physical supervenience; and the causal efficaciousness of mental states. The problem, according to Kim, is that when these three commitments are combined, an inconsistency is generated that entails the causal impotence of mental properties (Kim, 2025). Philosopher of science Nicholas Maxwell's Unique-Matching Theory posits a non-reductive, one-to-one, structure-preserving isomorphism between a multidimensional space of all possible sensations and a corresponding space of functionally described brain processes. His claim is that this structural necessity accounts for specific correlations between brain and consciousness without requiring reductive explanation (Maxwell's Unique-Matching Theory). Comparison with Property Dualism It is instructive to compare and contrast Non-Reductive Physicalism and Property Dualism. Both views are similar in their aim to explain the nature of consciousness in a world/universe/reality of only physical substances—there is only one kind of substance, the physical—but, in both views, crucially, mental states are not reducible to purely physical processes. That’s the similarity. The two views differ, perhaps significantly, in how they conceive the relationship between the mental and the physical—which impacts not only the deep nature of consciousness but also the deep nature of all reality. Under Non-Reductive Physicalism, all substances and properties in the world/universe/reality are physical in nature, but mental properties are not reducible to lower-level physical explanations (like neurons or molecules). This means that while the physical gives rise to higher-level properties—mental states—that cannot be explained away by the lower-level properties. The mind emerges from brain processes, and while we can’t reduce beliefs and desires to neuronal impulses, they are still nothing over and above physical processes. In other words, mental properties are dependent on, caused by, and realized by physical states, but they are described at a different explanatory level. Emergence is key. Under Property Dualism, there are two kinds of properties in the world/universe/reality: physical properties and non-physical (mental) properties. Everything (including brains) is made of physical substance, but mental properties (qualia, consciousness) are not reducible to or fully explainable by physical properties. Even if you know all the physical facts about brain activity, you wouldn’t know what it’s like to smell garlic cooking in olive oil unless you experience it—because the property of “garlic smell” as experienced is not physical. In other words, mental properties are fundamentally distinct from physical properties, though they may arise from physical systems. Consciousness has unique ontological status. It would seem easy to blur, or admix, Non-Reductive Physicalism and Property Dualism in that both recognize real mental states and yet only one kind of substance (physical, material substance)—but each makes a very different fundamental claim. To reiterate, Non-Reductive Physicalism relies on the powers of physical emergence, while Property Dualism relies on consciousness having special ontological status. I've always been puzzled by Non-Reductive Physicalism in that I can well understand how, under physicalism, consciousness is non-reduct