Neutral Monism Additional Theories

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.