Topic: Theories of Consciousness

Camp: Agreement / Approachable Via Science / Representational Qualia / Mind-Brain Identity / Property Dualism / Panexperientialism / Multisense Realism

Camp Statement History

Objected
Live
Not Live
Old
Statement : Multisense Realism is a conjecture on the nature of consciousness based on the idea that all phenomena can be reduced to an experiential primitive, then nature of which is aesthetic (sensory-motive) rather than anesthetic (physical-informative). The justification for this is parsimony: There is no plausible explanation for phenomena that are defined as physical or computational to generate anything that 'seems' like anything other than it is. The capacity for 'seeming' is, by definition both redundant and impossible in physical or logical terms.

To solve the Hard Problem of Consciousness via physical or information theory would require defining those anesthetic phenomena in such a nebulous way that anything, including aesthetic properties, can be made to seem plausible as 'emergent properties' or 'illusion'. This solution fails on the grounds of being both anti-parsimonious and fallacious, as it seeks to explain the physicality of a phenomenon experienced as non-physical purely by presuming in advance that it is physical.

Multisense Realism (MSR) integrates concrete physics and abstract logic into a larger continuum of experienced properties which transcend subjective and objective distinctions. Concrete objects for example, are proposed to be artifacts of a particular band of the universal aesthetic spectrum. We would call that band 'tangibility'.

In Kantian terms, MSR suggests that there may be no noumenal reality, and that the foundation of nature and supernatural-seeming experiences alike are phenomenological. This is not a Simulation hypothesis since the dream of nature is a single, eternal dream from which nothing can awaken except into another, more inclusive dream. Dreams are relatively unreal, but only because the experience of finally awakening completely is one that belongs to the most inclusive and tangible dream.

MSR proposes a general schema of how the sense of subjectivity and objectivity arise from a partial splitting or diffraction of the all-inclusive history of experience. While similar to nondualism of Advaita Vedanta and the Kabbalistic concept of Tzimtzum, which also posit a fundamental 'everythingness' being divided or alienated into the natural world, MSR seeks to provide clarity on the nature of that seeming fragmentation.

I include some diagrams here to convey a sense of that:








In broad terms, MSR conceives of existence itself as an irreducibly aesthetic-participatory, creative phenomenon (Holos) which is spatiotemporally 'graphed' (diffracted) through manipulation of nested scales of perceptual rates and types. Physical phenomena arise from interference patterns of the sense of tangibility, which is itself an interruption of the unity with Holos. Subjectivity is the temporal division of the aesthetic Holos, and Objectivity is the intersubjective rendering of that division.

MSR questions deep assumptions about the nature of 'fields', 'forces', 'light', and 'information' and arrives at an outline of a new metaphysics based on sensory-motive aesthetics rather than anesthetic laws of information processing or mass-energetic geometry. It is math and physics which are emergent, incomplete, and holographic. Subjective consciousness, while incomplete in a different sense, is a much richer and complete model of the Holos of nature. The incompleteness of subjectivity is only one of degree, whereas the incompleteness of math and physics is one of kind.

More on Multisense Realism at http://multisenserealism.com

Edit summary :
Submitted on :
Submitter Nick Name : Multisense Realism
Go live Time :
Statement : Sensitivity is the sole primordial Absolute means that physics, information, space and other compelling possible fundamentals are all ultimately dependent on some capacity to detect and receive experience.
The specific proposal of sensitivity or sense being pre-noumenal is called Primordial Identity Pansensitivity and is part of an overall meta-theory called Multisense Realism MSR. What PIP/MSR does is to build a model in which the noumenal is understood to be a projection within the phenomenal rather than the other way around.
In the same way, public existence is seen, not as an idealist fantasy from within subjective experience, but as a history of all private experiences as seen from a relativistically alienated perspective (bodies are feelings at a distance, distance is low level insensitivity).
  • Disambiguation of P, PP, PIP, and MSR
1. Pansensitivity (P) proposes that sensation is a universal property.
2. Primordial Pansensitivity (PP) proposes that because sensation is primitive, mechanism is derived from insensitivity. Whether it is mechanism that assumes form without sensibility (materialism) or function without sensation (computationalism), they both can only view feeling as a black box/epiphenomenon/illusion.
Under PP, both materialism and computationalism make sense as partial negative images of P, so that PP is the only continuum or capacity needed to explain feeling and doing (sense-motive), objective forms and functions (mass-energy), and informative positions and dispositions (space-time).
PP says that the appearance of forms and functions are, from an absolute perspective, sensory-motive experiences which have been alienated through time and across space.
3. Primordial Identity Pansensitivity (PIP) adds to the Ouroboran Monism of PP, (sense twisted within itself = private experience vs public bodies) by suggesting that PP is not only irreducible, but it is irreducibility itself.
PIP suggests that distance is a kind of insensitivity, so that all other primitive possibilities which are grounded in mechanism, such as information or energy, are reductionist in a way which oversignifies the distanced perspective, while anthropomorphic primitives such as love or divinity are holistic in a way which oversignifies the local perspective. Local and distant are assumed to be Cartesian opposites, but PIP maps locality and distance as the same in terms of being two opposite branches of insensitivity. Both the holistic and reductionist views ignore the production of distance which they both rely on for their perspective, both take perspective itself, perception, and relativity for granted.
4. MSR (Multisense Realism) tries to rehabilitate reductionism and holism by understanding them as bifocal strategies which arise naturally, each appropriate for a particular context of perceived distance. Both are near-sighted and far-sighted in opposite ways, as the subject seeks to first project anthropomorphism outward onto the world and then, following a crisis of disillusionment, seeks the opposite – to project exterior mechanism into the self. MSR invites us to step outside of the bifocal antagonism and into a balanced appreciation of the totality.

The idea here in the above chart is that if we want to take the full spectrum of phenomena into account, we have to either begin with a reductionist realism and work upward, or a holistic idealism and work downward.
When we suppose that consciousness is a phenomenon that arises out of unconscious phenomena, we are saying that mechanism, through some act of emergence (generally by complexity), the mechanism in question (generally physical or computational mechanism) becomes enchanted with itself. In this case, as David Chalmers famously points out, there would have to be some threshold beyond which it would be impossible to tell the difference between a real person and a machine which acts just like a real person (a philosophical zombie). Finding this unacceptable, he suggests instead some variety of panpsychism should be explored, including perhaps, what I would call a promiscuous or 'leaky' panpsychism in which devices such as thermostats would have to be considered aware in some sense.
Finding both of these alternatives unacceptable, I suggest that we move over to the right side and begin with a downward facing ideal absolute. For the spiritually inclined, this could be called by any number of theistic names, however, it can also be conceived of equally well in completely non-spiritual, atheistic terms. When we suppose that awareness itself is inescapable and inevitable in all possible or theoretical universes, we are saying that through some divergence or illusion, awareness takes on a temporary solid appearance. In MSR, I suggest that this is a more plausible option than brute emergence from nothingness…modulated constraint within everythingness.*
Rather than positing an appeal to future scientific understanding to explain the emergence of aesthetic realism from mechanism, the divergence of mechanism from total awareness can be made palatable through a nested modulation of insensitivity. Intentionally partitioning intention itself so that it appears unintentional given a certain amount of insensitivity. This could be viewed either in the religious sense of 'God's divine plan is not visible to us', or in a more conservative sense of 'Shit happens coincidentally, but coincidental shit also happens to be meaningful from some perspective'.
If anyone is interested in what the crazy pink cone and all that is, I can explain in more detail, but briefly, if we take the MSR road from disenchanted idealism (the conservative 'Shit happens' option), then instead of the Chalmers dilemma of zombies vs leaky panpsychism, we get a continuum in which local sense is selectively blinded to the sense of non-human experiences, through a combination of frame rate mismatch (time scale difference cause entropy and local sense approximates) and distance (literal spatial scale difference, as well as experiential unfamiliarity).**
The other ten dollar words there, 'tessellated monism' and 'eigenmetric diffraction' both refer to the juxtaposition of sensitivity and insensitivity, through which a kind of metabolism of accumulating significance (solitrophy) in the face of fading sense (entropy) and fading motive (gravity).
  • I call this cosmology the Sole Entropy Well hypothesis and it has to do with reversing Boltzmann's solution to Loschmidt's paradox so that entropy is a bottomless absolute, like c, in which local ranges of entropy and extropy stretch and multiply in a fractal-like reproduction.
    • I call this aspect of MSR Eigenmorphism, which has to do with things appearing to be more doll-like and less familiar from a distance. This makes, for example, the presence of atoms and solar systems in our experience more similar to each other than either of them seems like a tree or a cell. The limits of our perception coincide with the simplicity of ontology, and they are, in a sense, the same thing (given eigenmorphism). As a rule of thumb, distance = the significance of insignficance.

Why Multisense Realism (and PIP) Solves the Hard Problem of Consciousness
The Hard Problem of consciousness asks why there is a gap between our explanation of matter, or biology, or neurology, and our experience in the first place. What is it there which even suggests to us that there should be a gap, and why should there be a such thing as experience to stand apart from the functions of that which we can explain.
Materialism only miniaturizes the gap and relies on a machina ex deus (intentionally reversed deus ex machina) of 'complexity' to save the day. An interesting question would be, why does dualism seem to be easier to overlook when we are imagining the body of a neuron, or a collection of molecules? I submit that it is because miniaturization and complexity challenge the limitations of our cognitive ability, we find it easy to conflate that sort of quantitative incomprehensibility with the other incomprehensibility being considered, namely aesthetic* awareness. What consciousness does with phenomena which pertain to a distantly scaled perceptual frame is to under-signify it. It becomes less important, less real, less worthy of attention.
Idealism only fictionalizes the gap. I argue that idealism makes more sense on its face than materialism for addressing the Hard Problem, since material would have no plausible excuse for becoming aware or being entitled to access an unacknowledged a priori possibility of awareness. Idealism however, fails at commanding the respect of a sophisticated perspective since it relies on naive denial of objectivity. Why so many molecules? Why so many terrible and tragic experiences? Why so much enduring of suffering and injustice? The thought of an afterlife is too seductive of a way to wish this all away. The concept of maya, that the world is a veil of illusion is too facile to satisfy our scientific curiosity.
Dualism multiplies the gap. Acknowledging the gap is a good first step, but without a bridge, the gap is diagonalized and stuck in infinite regress. In order for experience to connect in some way with physics, some kind of homunculus is invoked, some third force or function interceding on behalf of the two incommensurable substances. The third force requires a fourth and fifth force on either side, and so forth, as in a Zeno paradox. Each homunculus has its own Explanatory Gap.
Dual Aspect Monism retreats from the gap. The concept of material and experience being two aspects of a continuous whole is the best one so far – getting very close. The only problem is that it does not explain what this monism is, or where the aspects come from. It rightfully honors the importance of opposites and duality, but it does not question what they actually are. Laws? Information?
Panpsychism toys with the gap.Depending on what kind of panpsychism is employed, it can miniaturize, multiply, or retreat from the gap. At least it is committing to closing the gap in a way which does not take human exceptionalism for granted, but it still does not attempt to integrate qualia itself with quanta in a detailed way. Tononi's IIT might be an exception in that it is detailed, but only from the quantitative end. The hard problem, which involves justifying the reason for integrated information being associated with a private 'experience' is still only picked at from a distance.
Primordial Identity Pansensitivity, my candidate for nomination, uses a different approach than the above. PIP solves the hard problem by putting the entire universe inside the gap. Consciousness is the Explanatory Gap. Naturally, it follows serendipitously that consciousness is also itself explanatory. The role of consciousness is to make plain – to bring into aesthetic evidence that which can be made evident. How is that different from what physics does? What does the universe do other than generate aesthetic textures and narrative fragments? It is not awareness which must fit into our physics or our science, our religion or philosophy, it is the totality of eternity which must gain meaning and evidence through sensory presentation.
  • Is awareness 'aesthetic'? That we call a substance which causes the loss of consciousness a general anesthetic might be a serendipitous clue. If so, the term local anesthetic as an agent which deadens sensation is another hint about our intuitive correlation between discrete sensations and overall capacity to be 'awake'. Between sensations (I would call sub-private) and personal awareness (privacy) would be a spectrum of nested channels of awareness.

Multisense Realism proposes that the cosmos is an involuted, tessellated or 'Ouroboran Monism' – or a neutral monism in which experienced presence defines itself by the pantomimed projection of its own absence. What is proposed is a universal sense which modulates itself through various kinds of insensitivities; deferments, delays, and diffractions. Such insensitivities or entropies, are ultimately what we know to be public space and private time. To be clear, private time is not clock time (which are public measurements of reliably changing objects), but rather the sense of narrative sequence, of evolving stories which spiral or gyrate rather than merely repeat.
It is thorough these nested diffractions of experienced sense that matter and energy can be understood as alienated experiences - experiences which have become unfamiliar to each other on some level over the history of the universal diffraction.

Executive Summary
In the history of attempts to understand consciousness there has been much debate over what is conscious, what is not, and what the relation is between the two categories. In simplistic terms, idealism conceives of matter as a phenomenon derived from consciousness while materialists conceive of consciousness as emerging from unconscious functions of matter. Dualism conceives of matter and consciousness as two fundamentally different categories of phenomena. Neutral Monism conceives of both mental and material phenomena as derived from a more fundamental property.
Multisense Realism begins with the Neutral Monism view in which there is a meta-property from which all other discernments and relations are derived. Rather than a metaphysical field or invisible realm, the MR conjecture is that this root property could be meaningfully described as ordinary 'sense'. There are more descriptive terms to be applied, but the gist of them is very close to all of the ordinary things that we mean by sense. Consciousness is what we use to make sense of an experience which already makes sense.
The first question that MR asks is, can we make sense of a universe which does not make sense already? At this point rigid definitions of what sense is should be avoided – not to obscure but to discourage jumping to conclusions. Intolerance and impatience are perhaps the two most formidable obstacles to to understanding this new approach. This is not Creationism, Dualism, Idealism, Theism or any brand of anti-scientific ideology. There is nothing being sold here. The intention of MR is to open a door to a revolutionary synthesis of all empirically real phenomena. This new view, while shocking in some ways, promises to reconcile both the Western and Eastern frameworks for explaining consciousness and physics. This reconciliation is accomplished by dissolving both mind and body in a continuum of common sense.
It is not the purpose of MR to propose that we return to a pre-Copernican worldview, nor is it to call for a repeal of any methods of science. To the contrary, MR seeks to add new tools for science to approach subjectivity on its own terms, doing for private physics in the 21st century what the Enlightenment did for public physics in the 17th century. Where the scientific revolution tapped into the power of quantitative analysis, the next revolution must add to that an appreciation of qualitative identities. This is not as easy as it sounds. It may well require a radical shift, an ontological pivot from an expectation of complexity built up from nothingness to an expectation of simplicity isolated within 'everythingness'.
MSR immodestly places itself at the end of the chain of advancing human worldviews:
Developmental Stage: transcendental voyeur (localizing motive) – what is observed/transcended
   Archaic/shamanic: Natural spirits (magic) – alienates objectivity with direct animism
   Classical/polytheistic: Named supernatural deities (prayer) – alienates physicality with empathetic identification
   Post-Classical/monotheistic: Absolute supernatural deity (religious devotion) – alienates morality with indirect identification
   Enlightenment/dualistic: Impersonal deity (reason) – alienates animism with mechanistic observation
   Modern/scientific: Impersonal forces and laws* (engineering) – alienates subjectivity with abstract formulation
   Post-modern/existential: Pure probability** (computation) – alienates subjective-objective dualism with quantum reconciliation
   Integral/holistic: Re-enchanted information (signifying pattern) – alienates impersonal perspectives with quantized qualia.
   Ouroboran: Multisense perception (motive participation) – alienates alienation with qualia-quanta reconciliation.

  • evacuated sense and motive
    • evacuated physics
Each stage involves a stepping out of the previous system. The Integral/holistic stage steps out of all systems by considering them information. The Ouroboran stage steps out of by considering system-making and system-breaking as the final and absolute reconciliation of private unity (time) and public multiplicity (space).
The pre-Enlightenment models of the universe revered the symmetry of the universe. The creedo 'As above, so below', as well as the Eastern concept of yin and yang cite this kind of binary complementarity as fundamental. Even after this schema was abandoned by science, the fixation on binary complementarity remains inevitable. Electromagetism, Mass-energy, Space-time. Genetics has its interlocking set of bases. That's only scratching the surface. The periodic table and quantum physics are overflowing with simple patterns, inversions, variations, sequences. Despite whimsical names for the 'charm' and 'strange' quarks, the sense of personality in physics is intended ironically. The true nature of microcosmic phenomena is seen to be completely mathematical and devoid of personality, with symmetries arising purely from the expectation of simple rules rather than any vast eternal significance. The universe is assumed to be the ultimate machine, the ultimate parts of which are ultimately fragmented.
Under the Ouroboran monism proposed by MSR, the dualism itself is not as important as the capacity to appreciate difference and indifference. That capacity is deemed to be Absolute, as that which can never be experienced in any way is indiscernible from nothing at all.

More on Multisense Realism at http://multisenserealism.com

Edit summary : added flowchart
Submitted on :
Submitter Nick Name : Multisense Realism
Go live Time :
Statement : Sensitivity is the sole primordial Absolute means that physics, information, space and other compelling possible fundamentals are all ultimately dependent on some capacity to detect and receive experience.
The specific proposal of sensitivity or sense being pre-noumenal is called Primordial Identity Pansensitivity and is part of an overall meta-theory called Multisense Realism MSR. What PIP/MSR does is to build a model in which the noumenal is understood to be a projection within the phenomenal rather than the other way around.
In the same way, public existence is seen, not as an idealist fantasy from within subjective experience, but as a history of all private experiences as seen from a relativistically alienated perspective (bodies are feelings at a distance, distance is low level insensitivity).
  • Disambiguation of P, PP, PIP, and MSR
1. Pansensitivity (P) proposes that sensation is a universal property.
2. Primordial Pansensitivity (PP) proposes that because sensation is primitive, mechanism is derived from insensitivity. Whether it is mechanism that assumes form without sensibility (materialism) or function without sensation (computationalism), they both can only view feeling as a black box/epiphenomenon/illusion.
Under PP, both materialism and computationalism make sense as partial negative images of P, so that PP is the only continuum or capacity needed to explain feeling and doing (sense-motive), objective forms and functions (mass-energy), and informative positions and dispositions (space-time).
PP says that the appearance of forms and functions are, from an absolute perspective, sensory-motive experiences which have been alienated through time and across space.
3. Primordial Identity Pansensitivity (PIP) adds to the Ouroboran Monism of PP, (sense twisted within itself = private experience vs public bodies) by suggesting that PP is not only irreducible, but it is irreducibility itself.
PIP suggests that distance is a kind of insensitivity, so that all other primitive possibilities which are grounded in mechanism, such as information or energy, are reductionist in a way which oversignifies the distanced perspective, while anthropomorphic primitives such as love or divinity are holistic in a way which oversignifies the local perspective. Local and distant are assumed to be Cartesian opposites, but PIP maps locality and distance as the same in terms of being two opposite branches of insensitivity. Both the holistic and reductionist views ignore the production of distance which they both rely on for their perspective, both take perspective itself, perception, and relativity for granted.
4. MSR (Multisense Realism) tries to rehabilitate reductionism and holism by understanding them as bifocal strategies which arise naturally, each appropriate for a particular context of perceived distance. Both are near-sighted and far-sighted in opposite ways, as the subject seeks to first project anthropomorphism outward onto the world and then, following a crisis of disillusionment, seeks the opposite – to project exterior mechanism into the self. MSR invites us to step outside of the bifocal antagonism and into a balanced appreciation of the totality.

Why Multisense Realism (and PIP) Solves the Hard Problem of Consciousness
The Hard Problem of consciousness asks why there is a gap between our explanation of matter, or biology, or neurology, and our experience in the first place. What is it there which even suggests to us that there should be a gap, and why should there be a such thing as experience to stand apart from the functions of that which we can explain.
Materialism only miniaturizes the gap and relies on a machina ex deus (intentionally reversed deus ex machina) of 'complexity' to save the day. An interesting question would be, why does dualism seem to be easier to overlook when we are imagining the body of a neuron, or a collection of molecules? I submit that it is because miniaturization and complexity challenge the limitations of our cognitive ability, we find it easy to conflate that sort of quantitative incomprehensibility with the other incomprehensibility being considered, namely aesthetic* awareness. What consciousness does with phenomena which pertain to a distantly scaled perceptual frame is to under-signify it. It becomes less important, less real, less worthy of attention.
Idealism only fictionalizes the gap. I argue that idealism makes more sense on its face than materialism for addressing the Hard Problem, since material would have no plausible excuse for becoming aware or being entitled to access an unacknowledged a priori possibility of awareness. Idealism however, fails at commanding the respect of a sophisticated perspective since it relies on naive denial of objectivity. Why so many molecules? Why so many terrible and tragic experiences? Why so much enduring of suffering and injustice? The thought of an afterlife is too seductive of a way to wish this all away. The concept of maya, that the world is a veil of illusion is too facile to satisfy our scientific curiosity.
Dualism multiplies the gap. Acknowledging the gap is a good first step, but without a bridge, the gap is diagonalized and stuck in infinite regress. In order for experience to connect in some way with physics, some kind of homunculus is invoked, some third force or function interceding on behalf of the two incommensurable substances. The third force requires a fourth and fifth force on either side, and so forth, as in a Zeno paradox. Each homunculus has its own Explanatory Gap.
Dual Aspect Monism retreats from the gap. The concept of material and experience being two aspects of a continuous whole is the best one so far – getting very close. The only problem is that it does not explain what this monism is, or where the aspects come from. It rightfully honors the importance of opposites and duality, but it does not question what they actually are. Laws? Information?
Panpsychism toys with the gap.Depending on what kind of panpsychism is employed, it can miniaturize, multiply, or retreat from the gap. At least it is committing to closing the gap in a way which does not take human exceptionalism for granted, but it still does not attempt to integrate qualia itself with quanta in a detailed way. Tononi's IIT might be an exception in that it is detailed, but only from the quantitative end. The hard problem, which involves justifying the reason for integrated information being associated with a private 'experience' is still only picked at from a distance.
Primordial Identity Pansensitivity, my candidate for nomination, uses a different approach than the above. PIP solves the hard problem by putting the entire universe inside the gap. Consciousness is the Explanatory Gap. Naturally, it follows serendipitously that consciousness is also itself explanatory. The role of consciousness is to make plain – to bring into aesthetic evidence that which can be made evident. How is that different from what physics does? What does the universe do other than generate aesthetic textures and narrative fragments? It is not awareness which must fit into our physics or our science, our religion or philosophy, it is the totality of eternity which must gain meaning and evidence through sensory presentation.
  • Is awareness 'aesthetic'? That we call a substance which causes the loss of consciousness a general anesthetic might be a serendipitous clue. If so, the term local anesthetic as an agent which deadens sensation is another hint about our intuitive correlation between discrete sensations and overall capacity to be 'awake'. Between sensations (I would call sub-private) and personal awareness (privacy) would be a spectrum of nested channels of awareness.

Multisense Realism proposes that the cosmos is an involuted, tessellated or 'Ouroboran Monism' – or a neutral monism in which experienced presence defines itself by the pantomimed projection of its own absence. What is proposed is a universal sense which modulates itself through various kinds of insensitivities; deferments, delays, and diffractions. Such insensitivities or entropies, are ultimately what we know to be public space and private time. To be clear, private time is not clock time (which are public measurements of reliably changing objects), but rather the sense of narrative sequence, of evolving stories which spiral or gyrate rather than merely repeat.
It is thorough these nested diffractions of experienced sense that matter and energy can be understood as alienated experiences - experiences which have become unfamiliar to each other on some level over the history of the universal diffraction.

Executive Summary
In the history of attempts to understand consciousness there has been much debate over what is conscious, what is not, and what the relation is between the two categories. In simplistic terms, idealism conceives of matter as a phenomenon derived from consciousness while materialists conceive of consciousness as emerging from unconscious functions of matter. Dualism conceives of matter and consciousness as two fundamentally different categories of phenomena. Neutral Monism conceives of both mental and material phenomena as derived from a more fundamental property.
Multisense Realism begins with the Neutral Monism view in which there is a meta-property from which all other discernments and relations are derived. Rather than a metaphysical field or invisible realm, the MR conjecture is that this root property could be meaningfully described as ordinary 'sense'. There are more descriptive terms to be applied, but the gist of them is very close to all of the ordinary things that we mean by sense. Consciousness is what we use to make sense of an experience which already makes sense.
The first question that MR asks is, can we make sense of a universe which does not make sense already? At this point rigid definitions of what sense is should be avoided – not to obscure but to discourage jumping to conclusions. Intolerance and impatience are perhaps the two most formidable obstacles to to understanding this new approach. This is not Creationism, Dualism, Idealism, Theism or any brand of anti-scientific ideology. There is nothing being sold here. The intention of MR is to open a door to a revolutionary synthesis of all empirically real phenomena. This new view, while shocking in some ways, promises to reconcile both the Western and Eastern frameworks for explaining consciousness and physics. This reconciliation is accomplished by dissolving both mind and body in a continuum of common sense.
It is not the purpose of MR to propose that we return to a pre-Copernican worldview, nor is it to call for a repeal of any methods of science. To the contrary, MR seeks to add new tools for science to approach subjectivity on its own terms, doing for private physics in the 21st century what the Enlightenment did for public physics in the 17th century. Where the scientific revolution tapped into the power of quantitative analysis, the next revolution must add to that an appreciation of qualitative identities. This is not as easy as it sounds. It may well require a radical shift, an ontological pivot from an expectation of complexity built up from nothingness to an expectation of simplicity isolated within 'everythingness'.
MSR immodestly places itself at the end of the chain of advancing human worldviews:
Developmental Stage: transcendental voyeur (localizing motive) – what is observed/transcended
   Archaic/shamanic: Natural spirits (magic) – alienates objectivity with direct animism
   Classical/polytheistic: Named supernatural deities (prayer) – alienates physicality with empathetic identification
   Post-Classical/monotheistic: Absolute supernatural deity (religious devotion) – alienates morality with indirect identification
   Enlightenment/dualistic: Impersonal deity (reason) – alienates animism with mechanistic observation
   Modern/scientific: Impersonal forces and laws* (engineering) – alienates subjectivity with abstract formulation
   Post-modern/existential: Pure probability** (computation) – alienates subjective-objective dualism with quantum reconciliation
   Integral/holistic: Re-enchanted information (signifying pattern) – alienates impersonal perspectives with quantized qualia.
   Ouroboran: Multisense perception (motive participation) – alienates alienation with qualia-quanta reconciliation.

  • evacuated sense and motive
    • evacuated physics
Each stage involves a stepping out of the previous system. The Integral/holistic stage steps out of all systems by considering them information. The Ouroboran stage steps out of by considering system-making and system-breaking as the final and absolute reconciliation of private unity (time) and public multiplicity (space).
The pre-Enlightenment models of the universe revered the symmetry of the universe. The creedo 'As above, so below', as well as the Eastern concept of yin and yang cite this kind of binary complementarity as fundamental. Even after this schema was abandoned by science, the fixation on binary complementarity remains inevitable. Electromagetism, Mass-energy, Space-time. Genetics has its interlocking set of bases. That's only scratching the surface. The periodic table and quantum physics are overflowing with simple patterns, inversions, variations, sequences. Despite whimsical names for the 'charm' and 'strange' quarks, the sense of personality in physics is intended ironically. The true nature of microcosmic phenomena is seen to be completely mathematical and devoid of personality, with symmetries arising purely from the expectation of simple rules rather than any vast eternal significance. The universe is assumed to be the ultimate machine, the ultimate parts of which are ultimately fragmented.
Under the Ouroboran monism proposed by MSR, the dualism itself is not as important as the capacity to appreciate difference and indifference. That capacity is deemed to be Absolute, as that which can never be experienced in any way is indiscernible from nothing at all.

More on Multisense Realism at http://multisenserealism.com

Edit summary : clarifying position in the tree
Submitted on :
Submitter Nick Name : Multisense Realism
Go live Time :
Statement : Why Multisense Realism (and PIP) Solves the Hard Problem of Consciousness
The Hard Problem of consciousness asks why there is a gap between our explanation of matter, or biology, or neurology, and our experience in the first place. What is it there which even suggests to us that there should be a gap, and why should there be a such thing as experience to stand apart from the functions of that which we can explain.
Materialism only miniaturizes the gap and relies on a machina ex deus (intentionally reversed deus ex machina) of 'complexity' to save the day. An interesting question would be, why does dualism seem to be easier to overlook when we are imagining the body of a neuron, or a collection of molecules? I submit that it is because miniaturization and complexity challenge the limitations of our cognitive ability, we find it easy to conflate that sort of quantitative incomprehensibility with the other incomprehensibility being considered, namely aesthetic* awareness. What consciousness does with phenomena which pertain to a distantly scaled perceptual frame is to under-signify it. It becomes less important, less real, less worthy of attention.
Idealism only fictionalizes the gap. I argue that idealism makes more sense on its face than materialism for addressing the Hard Problem, since material would have no plausible excuse for becoming aware or being entitled to access an unacknowledged a priori possibility of awareness. Idealism however, fails at commanding the respect of a sophisticated perspective since it relies on naive denial of objectivity. Why so many molecules? Why so many terrible and tragic experiences? Why so much enduring of suffering and injustice? The thought of an afterlife is too seductive of a way to wish this all away. The concept of maya, that the world is a veil of illusion is too facile to satisfy our scientific curiosity.
Dualism multiplies the gap. Acknowledging the gap is a good first step, but without a bridge, the gap is diagonalized and stuck in infinite regress. In order for experience to connect in some way with physics, some kind of homunculus is invoked, some third force or function interceding on behalf of the two incommensurable substances. The third force requires a fourth and fifth force on either side, and so forth, as in a Zeno paradox. Each homunculus has its own Explanatory Gap.
Dual Aspect Monism retreats from the gap. The concept of material and experience being two aspects of a continuous whole is the best one so far – getting very close. The only problem is that it does not explain what this monism is, or where the aspects come from. It rightfully honors the importance of opposites and duality, but it does not question what they actually are. Laws? Information?
Panpsychism toys with the gap.Depending on what kind of panpsychism is employed, it can miniaturize, multiply, or retreat from the gap. At least it is committing to closing the gap in a way which does not take human exceptionalism for granted, but it still does not attempt to integrate qualia itself with quanta in a detailed way. Tononi's IIT might be an exception in that it is detailed, but only from the quantitative end. The hard problem, which involves justifying the reason for integrated information being associated with a private 'experience' is still only picked at from a distance.
Primordial Identity Pansensitivity, my candidate for nomination, uses a different approach than the above. PIP solves the hard problem by putting the entire universe inside the gap. Consciousness is the Explanatory Gap. Naturally, it follows serendipitously that consciousness is also itself explanatory. The role of consciousness is to make plain – to bring into aesthetic evidence that which can be made evident. How is that different from what physics does? What does the universe do other than generate aesthetic textures and narrative fragments? It is not awareness which must fit into our physics or our science, our religion or philosophy, it is the totality of eternity which must gain meaning and evidence through sensory presentation.
  • Is awareness 'aesthetic'? That we call a substance which causes the loss of consciousness a general anesthetic might be a serendipitous clue. If so, the term local anesthetic as an agent which deadens sensation is another hint about our intuitive correlation between discrete sensations and overall capacity to be 'awake'. Between sensations (I would call sub-private) and personal awareness (privacy) would be a spectrum of nested channels of awareness.

Multisense Realism proposes that the cosmos is an involuted, tessellated or 'Ouroboran Monism' – or a neutral monism in which experienced presence defines itself by the pantomimed projection of its own absence. What is proposed is a universal sense which modulates itself through various kinds of insensitivities; deferments, delays, and diffractions. Such insensitivities or entropies, are ultimately what we know to be public space and private time. To be clear, private time is not clock time (which are public measurements of reliably changing objects), but rather the sense of narrative sequence, of evolving stories which spiral or gyrate rather than merely repeat.
It is thorough these nested diffractions of experienced sense that matter and energy can be understood as alienated experiences - experiences which have become unfamiliar to each other on some level over the history of the universal diffraction.

Executive Summary
In the history of attempts to understand consciousness there has been much debate over what is conscious, what is not, and what the relation is between the two categories. In simplistic terms, idealism conceives of matter as a phenomenon derived from consciousness while materialists conceive of consciousness as emerging from unconscious functions of matter. Dualism conceives of matter and consciousness as two fundamentally different categories of phenomena. Neutral Monism conceives of both mental and material phenomena as derived from a more fundamental property.
Multisense Realism begins with the Neutral Monism view in which there is a meta-property from which all other discernments and relations are derived. Rather than a metaphysical field or invisible realm, the MR conjecture is that this root property could be meaningfully described as ordinary 'sense'. There are more descriptive terms to be applied, but the gist of them is very close to all of the ordinary things that we mean by sense. Consciousness is what we use to make sense of an experience which already makes sense.
The first question that MR asks is, can we make sense of a universe which does not make sense already? At this point rigid definitions of what sense is should be avoided – not to obscure but to discourage jumping to conclusions. Intolerance and impatience are perhaps the two most formidable obstacles to to understanding this new approach. This is not Creationism, Dualism, Idealism, Theism or any brand of anti-scientific ideology. There is nothing being sold here. The intention of MR is to open a door to a revolutionary synthesis of all empirically real phenomena. This new view, while shocking in some ways, promises to reconcile both the Western and Eastern frameworks for explaining consciousness and physics. This reconciliation is accomplished by dissolving both mind and body in a continuum of common sense.
It is not the purpose of MR to propose that we return to a pre-Copernican worldview, nor is it to call for a repeal of any methods of science. To the contrary, MR seeks to add new tools for science to approach subjectivity on its own terms, doing for private physics in the 21st century what the Enlightenment did for public physics in the 17th century. Where the scientific revolution tapped into the power of quantitative analysis, the next revolution must add to that an appreciation of qualitative identities. This is not as easy as it sounds. It may well require a radical shift, an ontological pivot from an expectation of complexity built up from nothingness to an expectation of simplicity isolated within 'everythingness'.
MSR immodestly places itself at the end of the chain of advancing human worldviews:
Developmental Stage: transcendental voyeur (localizing motive) – what is observed/transcended
   Archaic/shamanic: Natural spirits (magic) – alienates objectivity with direct animism
   Classical/polytheistic: Named supernatural deities (prayer) – alienates physicality with empathetic identification
   Post-Classical/monotheistic: Absolute supernatural deity (religious devotion) – alienates morality with indirect identification
   Enlightenment/dualistic: Impersonal deity (reason) – alienates animism with mechanistic observation
   Modern/scientific: Impersonal forces and laws* (engineering) – alienates subjectivity with abstract formulation
   Post-modern/existential: Pure probability** (computation) – alienates subjective-objective dualism with quantum reconciliation
   Integral/holistic: Re-enchanted information (signifying pattern) – alienates impersonal perspectives with quantized qualia.
   Ouroboran: Multisense perception (motive participation) – alienates alienation with qualia-quanta reconciliation.

  • evacuated sense and motive
    • evacuated physics
Each stage involves a stepping out of the previous system. The Integral/holistic stage steps out of all systems by considering them information. The Ouroboran stage steps out of by considering system-making and system-breaking as the final and absolute reconciliation of private unity (time) and public multiplicity (space).
The pre-Enlightenment models of the universe revered the symmetry of the universe. The creedo 'As above, so below', as well as the Eastern concept of yin and yang cite this kind of binary complementarity as fundamental. Even after this schema was abandoned by science, the fixation on binary complementarity remains inevitable. Electromagetism, Mass-energy, Space-time. Genetics has its interlocking set of bases. That's only scratching the surface. The periodic table and quantum physics are overflowing with simple patterns, inversions, variations, sequences. Despite whimsical names for the 'charm' and 'strange' quarks, the sense of personality in physics is intended ironically. The true nature of microcosmic phenomena is seen to be completely mathematical and devoid of personality, with symmetries arising purely from the expectation of simple rules rather than any vast eternal significance. The universe is assumed to be the ultimate machine, the ultimate parts of which are ultimately fragmented.
Under the Ouroboran monism proposed by MSR, the dualism itself is not as important as the capacity to appreciate difference and indifference. That capacity is deemed to be Absolute, as that which can never be experienced in any way is indiscernible from nothing at all.

More on Multisense Realism at http://multisenserealism.com

Edit summary : removing glitches added by editor
Submitted on :
Submitter Nick Name : Multisense Realism
Go live Time :
Statement : Why Multisense Realism (and PIP) Solves the Hard Problem of Consciousness
The Hard Problem of consciousness asks why there is a gap between our explanation of matter, or biology, or neurology, and our experience in the first place. What is it there which even suggests to us that there should be a gap, and why should there be a such thing as experience to stand apart from the functions of that which we can explain.
Materialism only miniaturizes the gap and relies on a machina ex deus (intentionally reversed deus ex machina) of 'complexity' to save the day. An interesting question would be, why does dualism seem to be easier to overlook when we are imagining the body of a neuron, or a collection of molecules? I submit that it is because miniaturization and complexity challenge the limitations of our cognitive ability, we find it easy to conflate that sort of quantitative incomprehensibility with the other incomprehensibility being considered, namely aesthetic* awareness. What consciousness does with phenomena which pertain to a distantly scaled perceptual frame is to under-signify it. It becomes less important, less real, less worthy of attention.
Idealism only fictionalizes the gap. I argue that idealism makes more sense on its face than materialism for addressing the Hard Problem, since material would have no plausible excuse for becoming aware or being entitled to access an unacknowledged a priori possibility of awareness. Idealism however, fails at commanding the respect of a sophisticated perspective since it relies on naive denial of objectivity. Why so many molecules? Why so many terrible and tragic experiences? Why so much enduring of suffering and injustice? The thought of an afterlife is too seductive of a way to wish this all away. The concept of maya, that the world is a veil of illusion is too facile to satisfy our scientific curiosity.
Dualism multiplies the gap. Acknowledging the gap is a good first step, but without a bridge, the gap is diagonalized and stuck in infinite regress. In order for experience to connect in some way with physics, some kind of homunculus is invoked, some third force or function interceding on behalf of the two incommensurable substances. The third force requires a fourth and fifth force on either side, and so forth, as in a Zeno paradox. Each homunculus has its own Explanatory Gap.
Dual Aspect Monism retreats from the gap. The concept of material and experience being two aspects of a continuous whole is the best one so far – getting very close. The only problem is that it does not explain what this monism is, or where the aspects come from. It rightfully honors the importance of opposites and duality, but it does not question what they actually are. Laws? Information?
Panpsychism toys with the gap.Depending on what kind of panpsychism is employed, it can miniaturize, multiply, or retreat from the gap. At least it is committing to closing the gap in a way which does not take human exceptionalism for granted, but it still does not attempt to integrate qualia itself with quanta in a detailed way. Tononi's IIT might be an exception in that it is detailed, but only from the quantitative end. The hard problem, which involves justifying the reason for integrated information being associated with a private 'experience' is still only picked at from a distance.
Primordial Identity Pansensitivity, my candidate for nomination, uses a different approach than the above. PIP solves the hard problem by putting the entire universe inside the gap. Consciousness is the Explanatory Gap. Naturally, it follows serendipitously that consciousness is also itself explanatory. The role of consciousness is to make plain – to bring into aesthetic evidence that which can be made evident. How is that different from what physics does? What does the universe do other than generate aesthetic textures and narrative fragments? It is not awareness which must fit into our physics or our science, our religion or philosophy, it is the totality of eternity which must gain meaning and evidence through sensory presentation.
  • Is awareness 'aesthetic'? That we call a substance which causes the loss of consciousness a general anesthetic might be a serendipitous clue. If so, the term local anesthetic as an agent which deadens sensation is another hint about our intuitive correlation between discrete sensations and overall capacity to be 'awake'. Between sensations (I would call sub-private) and personal awareness (privacy) would be a spectrum of nested channels of awareness.

Multisense Realism proposes that the cosmos is an involuted, tessellated or 'Ouroboran Monism' – or a neutral monism in which experienced presence defines itself by the pantomimed projection of its own absence. What is proposed is a universal sense which modulates itself through various kinds of insensitivities; deferments, delays, and diffractions. Such insensitivities or entropies, are ultimately what we know to be public space and private time. To be clear, private time is not clock time (which are public measurements of reliably changing objects), but rather the sense of narrative sequence, of evolving stories which spiral or gyrate rather than merely repeat.
It is thorough these nested diffractions of experienced sense that matter and energy can be understood as alienated experiences - experiences which have become unfamiliar to each other on some level over the history of the universal diffraction.

Executive Summary
In the history of attempts to understand consciousness there has been much debate over what is conscious, what is not, and what the relation is between the two categories. In simplistic terms, idealism conceives of matter as a phenomenon derived from consciousness while materialists conceive of consciousness as emerging from unconscious functions of matter. Dualism conceives of matter and consciousness as two fundamentally different categories of phenomena. Neutral Monism conceives of both mental and material phenomena as derived from a more fundamental property.
Multisense Realism begins with the Neutral Monism view in which there is a meta-property from which all other discernments and relations are derived. Rather than a metaphysical field or invisible realm, the MR conjecture is that this root property could be meaningfully described as ordinary 'sense'. There are more descriptive terms to be applied, but the gist of them is very close to all of the ordinary things that we mean by sense. Consciousness is what we use to make sense of an experience which already makes sense.
The first question that MR asks is, can we make sense of a universe which does not make sense already? At this point rigid definitions of what sense is should be avoided – not to obscure but to discourage jumping to conclusions. Intolerance and impatience are perhaps the two most formidable obstacles to to understanding this new approach. This is not Creationism, Dualism, Idealism, Theism or any brand of anti-scientific ideology. There is nothing being sold here. The intention of MR is to open a door to a revolutionary synthesis of all empirically real phenomena. This new view, while shocking in some ways, promises to reconcile both the Western and Eastern frameworks for explaining consciousness and physics. This reconciliation is accomplished by dissolving both mind and body in a continuum of common sense.
It is not the purpose of MR to propose that we return to a pre-Copernican worldview, nor is it to call for a repeal of any methods of science. To the contrary, MR seeks to add new tools for science to approach subjectivity on its own terms, doing for private physics in the 21st century what the Enlightenment did for public physics in the 17th century. Where the scientific revolution tapped into the power of quantitative analysis, the next revolution must add to that an appreciation of qualitative identities. This is not as easy as it sounds. It may well require a radical shift, an ontological pivot from an expectation of complexity built up from nothingness to an expectation of simplicity isolated within 'everythingness'.
MSR immodestly places itself at the end of the chain of advancing human worldviews:
Developmental Stage: transcendental voyeur (localizing motive) – what is observed/transcended
   Archaic/shamanic: Natural spirits (magic) – alienates objectivity with direct animism
   Classical/polytheistic: Named supernatural deities (prayer) – alienates physicality with empathetic identification
   Post-Classical/monotheistic: Absolute supernatural deity (religious devotion) – alienates morality with indirect identification
   Enlightenment/dualistic: Impersonal deity (reason) – alienates animism with mechanistic observation
   Modern/scientific: Impersonal forces and laws* (engineering) – alienates subjectivity with abstract formulation
   Post-modern/existential: Pure probability** (computation) – alienates subjective-objective dualism with quantum reconciliation
   Integral/holistic: Re-enchanted information (signifying pattern) – alienates impersonal perspectives with quantized qualia.
   Multisense-PIP/Ouroboran: Sensory perception (motive participation) – alienates alienation with qualia-quanta reconciliation.

  • evacuated sense and motive
    • evacuated physics
Each stage involves a stepping out of the previous system. The Integral/holistic stage steps out of all systems by considering them information. The Multisense-PIP/Ouroboran stage steps out of by considering system-making and system-breaking as the final and absolute reconciliation of private unity (time) and public multiplicity (space).
The pre-Enlightenment models of the universe revered the symmetry of the universe. The creedo 'As above, so below', as well as the Eastern concept of yin and yang cite this kind of binary complementarity as fundamental. Even after this schema was abandoned by science, the fixation on binary complementarity remains inevitable. Electromagetism, Mass-energy, Space-time. Genetics has its interlocking set of bases. That's only scratching the surface. The periodic table and quantum physics are overflowing with simple patterns, inversions, variations, sequences. Despite whimsical names for the 'charm' and 'strange' quarks, the sense of personality in physics is intended ironically. The true nature of microcosmic phenomena is seen to be completely mathematical and devoid of personality, with symmetries arising purely from the expectation of simple rules rather than any vast eternal significance. The universe is assumed to be the ultimate machine, the ultimate parts of which are ultimately fragmented.
Under the Ouroboran monism proposed by MSR, the dualism itself is not as important as the capacity to appreciate difference and indifference. That capacity is deemed to be Absolute, as that which can never be experienced in any way is indiscernible from nothing at all.

More on Multisense Realism at http://multisenserealism.com

Edit summary : updated decription, includes PIP
Submitted on :
Submitter Nick Name : Multisense Realism
Go live Time :
Statement : Multisense Realism defines sense as what is required for either 'information' or matter to exist as a universe.
Sense can be further defined as:
The cumulative discernment of participatory experience.
It is proposed that without some form of experiential participation, there can be no coherence in mathematics, no difference between algebraic expression and geometric expression of the same function for example.
Without some form of cumulative discernment (perception of significance), there can be no motivation for material interaction or the development of qualities.
It is easy to see why math and matter would make sense (i.e. would contribute to a sense-based agenda), but there is no obvious possibility for sense to arise out of any consistent schema of airtight functionalism, either material, ideal, or information-theoretic. These three alternatives are what I would call semi-verses - fragments of the whole which, even added together, have no way to reconcile each other. Only experience itself, through participatory perception, unifies matter, mind, and media.
Following is a visual survey of popular consciousness theories to highlight the similarity and difference between multisense realism and established approaches.

Multisense Realism explores sense as a neutral monism, the Uni in Universe.

The two proposed primary verses (or juxtapositions; 'versus') are:
1) Multisense
Qualitative presentation: Private sensory-perception and motive-participation
Like the ordinary awareness which we have as human beings, our afferent dispositions and their expression as efferent changes in position can be scaled out to the level of microcosm and astronomical macrocosm. All forces and field dynamics can be flipped around to an intersubjective orientation of tension and release rather than interobjective automatism.
http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m9y9boN5rP1qe3q3v.jpg)
2) Realism
Quantitative representation: Public bodies and objective perspectives solidify and mechanize experience. The need for realism arises as a kind of accounting schema or political stabilizer among experiences. Matter and energy are presentations within our sense experience, but ultimately they are representations of other sense experiences. Objectivity is a secondary verse but what it lacks in primordial authenticity it makes up for through the power of modulation by proximity: metered extension.

Multisense Syzygy:
Multisense phenomenology and objective realism are not merely a dualism of separate or unrelated 'substances', they are the two opposite expressions of sense, and they are opposite in every conceivable way. What they share is their opposition to each other - their orthogonality, which reveals the sense that gives rise to their distinction, and to distinction itself.

It is proposed that human consciousness constitutes a specific range of sensitivities in a context of many possible perceptual sensitivities and participatory motivations associated with all physical phenomena. As human beings, our variation in culture, age, gender, individual physiological capacities, etc prevents us from arriving at a comprehensive generalization of what human consciousness is and what it is not. We know from human history that cultural bias, in the form recurring of racism, intolerance, and persecution, blinds us even to identifying sentience within our own species, let alone the subjective experiences of other organisms. Recently, scientific support for non-human consciousness has been affirmed officially.
The Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness: http://fcmconference.org/img/CambridgeDeclarationOnConsciousness.pdf
There is increasing confirmation of awareness in birds, ants, and plants as well:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20615-first-evidence-that-birds-tweet-using-grammar.html
http://www.theverge.com/2012/8/27/3270993/ant-tcp-internet-stanford-research
http://www.thingsgoneright.com/2012/06/18/scientists-confirm-that-plants-talk-and-listen-to-each-other-communication-crucial-for-survival/
http://www.viewzone.com/plants.html
We know that whatever subjectivity is, it seems that a key feature of it is that it is prejudiced in favor of its own proprietor and against what it doesn't 'like' or what seems to be unlike itself. But what is 'itself'? What is 'like?' How do the two relate...what is 'like itself' (or "like", itself)?
These questions are at the heart of what sense is. Multisense realism is a kind of panexperientialism in that it views the capacity to detect and be detected is the fundamental and defining principle of 'realism'. The relation between the two is what the entire cosmos, from atom to galaxy, is 'made of'. The only difference is in the way these relations are bundled together. As a subject, the relation of world to self is a perceptual experience through time. The relation of the self to the world is as a material body in a place. It is critical to understand the importance of the symmetry, that in fact, all material bodies are in places on the 'outside' and have experience (not like a human experience, but a detection-participation of some kind) on the 'inside'.
Our history of being able to appreciate the consciousness of other people and species is so consistently abysmal that it should not come as a surprise that we attribute false presence consciousness where there is none as well as denying sentience where it is not absent. We treat cartoons and stuffed animals like they are our intimate friends and people who live down the street like they are irrelevant shadows. We are not a good source for vetting the possibilities of agency. This makes sense though. We are not universal detectors of agency, we are human organisms who exist in a particular niche of intersecting phenomena of a particular range of scales and velocities. Our direct experience has a range of only about 0.1Hz to 0.3 nHz, a tiny fraction of a moment in terms of geological time or an ocean of near eternities on a subatomic chronological scale.
What does time really mean though? What is a scale? It is proposed here that both are ordering principles, the former which models experiences or events sequentially, and the latter which models the relations of relations as in topographic parallel. Our perception of time is affected by the quality of our consciousness. 'Time flies when we are having fun', but also when we are asleep, unconscious, etc. The fundamental unit of subjective time is not the tick of a clock, but the significance of experience. Suspense is a good example of how felt content shapes our temporal orientation. A narrative can build a sense of significance which generates an anticipation of resolution. Through storytelling we can figuratively condense or expand any length of time into a hours/minutes scaled text, be it a biography, a history, or an entire cosmology. It is suggested that this process of analogy and iconography is what cognition, semiotics, and perception is all about. Making sense of ourselves and our universe by capturing what is significant for us and using a likeness of it to build more significance through it.
Sensation, sensemaking, and sense 'in the sense of' (categorization or text-context transformations) allows us as people to participate as an entity 'in the world' as well as to remain separate as an idealized voyeur that seems detached from the world. Although our perceptions often function to represent to us an objective reality, they are not limited by that functions, and it is proposed that they (qualia) are presentations in their own right. Sensorimotive experiences are as much the referents of neurological conditions as neurological conditions are referents of subjective experiences. Neither supervenes on each other but rather are bi-directionally integrated aspects of a larger whole. Blindsight and synesthesia show us that fixed qualia are not necessary for representation, and that representation can occur without any qualia at all.
John Searle's Chinese Room example and Gottfried Leibniz mill argument illustrate the absurdity of materialism when applied to subjectivity. They make the point that qualia is superfluous for any functionalist definition of computation and that we must be especially vigilant not to confuse the 'map with the territory'. These words, for example, are not literally speaking English. They are not really even words until they are interpreted as such. This understanding of representation goes back to Berkeleyan style idealism (if a tree falls in the forest and nobody is around to hear it, does it make a sound?) and Platonic questioning of epistemology (allegory of the cave).
What multisense realism proposes is that rather than a separate force of physics, consciousness is a layered juxtaposition of sense experience: perception of perception, feeling of feeling, and detection of detection. Each level constitutes a qualitative scale, or inertial frame of perceptual-relativity. Cutting across those frames vertically could be called a subjects 'world' or umwelt.

The nature of the range is such that the closer a particular object, person, or place is to the subject (both literally close in terms of distance and physical scale, and figuratively close in semantic terms of being 'like' or 'liked by' the subject') the more the realism of the object is couched in personal associations. A building that we live in 'seems like' home, whereas an unfamiliar building seems like it 'simply is' a building.
Ultimately all of our senses of reality are our own, so that even the 'simply is' levels of chemical and physical realities are only our instrumentally-extended experiences of certain aspects of the universe. Our view of matter arises from the density of our bodies, their solidity and consequential relations to the other solid, liquid, and gaseous presences surrounding it and permeating it. Our models of matter fail completely from the perspective of something like a neutrino or photon, in which solid rock could be imagined as nothing but a faint tint on empty space. Likewise a photomultiplier's model of photons fails completely to address our human optical presentation of light.
To understand perception, we must recognize that the dualism of subject and object is an extrapolation of symmetry itself. Perception is the manifestation of reflective meta-juxtaposition in which any particular thing or event is just like itself and exactly not like itself.
Through this framework of juxtaposition multiple senses of realism have evolved; one literal and unambiguously exclusive, and another figurative and inclusive of everything except the literal and exclusive. In one sense the self defines itself in terms of what the world is not: private, signifying, orienting, etc. In another sense the self defines the world in terms of what the self is not: public, a-signifying, generic, etc. These senses have historically blended so that spiritual traditions apply signifying qualities to the universe and materialist or infocentric views challenge subjective animism by projecting object sensibilities internally. Both of these approaches have yielded valuable knowledge and wisdom, but there is a tendency in each approach to overstate its benefits and deny its faults, thereby progressing into an egotistical pathology of denial and projection and enormous misunderstanding.

Multisense realism seeks to reconcile these misunderstandings by adding to our existing objective knowledge and subjective wisdom in a way which address the fact that they are both real in some sense, unreal in some sense, both real and and unreal in some sense, and neither real nor unreal in some sense. Realism arises from and through the sense and symmetry between these conditions. Too much subjective reference can degenerate into magical thinking and delusional mania. Too much objective reference tends to degenerate into reactionary pseudoskepticism and mechanistic absurdity. Both extremes disqualify their opposing ontology into a metaphysical never never land of irrelevant epiphenomenon of either teleological superlatives (God, Spirit) or mechanical universals (evolution, randomness). The cosmology of multisense realism locates causality itself as a category of conditions within the cosmos rather than a condition which the cosmos or experience supervenes on. It is proposed that sense is ultimately more primitive than either objects or subjects.
More on Multisense Realism at http://multisenserealism.com

Edit summary : compressed images
Submitted on :
Submitter Nick Name : Multisense Realism
Go live Time :
Statement : Multisense Realism defines sense as what is required for either 'information' or matter to exist as a universe.
Sense can be further defined as:
The cumulative discernment of participatory experience.
It is proposed that without some form of experiential participation, there can be no coherence in mathematics, no difference between algebraic expression and geometric expression of the same function for example.
Without some form of cumulative discernment (perception of significance), there can be no motivation for material interaction or the development of qualities.
It is easy to see why math and matter would make sense (i.e. would contribute to a sense-based agenda), but there is no obvious possibility for sense to arise out of any consistent schema of airtight functionalism, either material, ideal, or information-theoretic. These three alternatives are what I would call semi-verses - fragments of the whole which, even added together, have no way to reconcile each other. Only experience itself, through participatory perception, unifies matter, mind, and media.
Following is a visual survey of popular consciousness theories to highlight the similarity and difference between multisense realism and established approaches.














Multisense Realism explores sense as a neutral monism rooted in reflexively derived relativism (verses). Sense is conceived of as the fundamental capacity for derived capacities, aka, the Uni in Universe.

The two proposed primary verses (or juxtapositions; 'versus') are:
1) Multisense
Qualitative presentation: Private sensory-perception and motive-participation
Like the ordinary awareness which we have as human beings, our afferent dispositions and their expression as efferent changes in position can be scaled out to the level of microcosm and astronomical macrocosm. All forces and field dynamics can be flipped around to an intersubjective orientation of tension and release rather than interobjective automatism.
http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m9y9boN5rP1qe3q3v.jpg)
2) Realism
Quantitative representation: Public bodies and objective perspectives solidify and mechanize experience. The need for realism arises as a kind of accounting schema or political stabilizer among experiences. Matter and energy are presentations within our sense experience, but ultimately they are representations of other sense experiences. Objectivity is a secondary verse but what it lacks in primordial authenticity it makes up for through the power of modulation by proximity: metered extension.

Multisense Syzygy:
Multisense phenomenology and objective realism are not merely a dualism of separate or unrelated 'substances', they are the two opposite expressions of sense, and they are opposite in every conceivable way. What they share is their opposition to each other - their orthogonality, which reveals the sense that gives rise to their distinction, and to distinction itself.

It is proposed that human consciousness constitutes a specific range of sensitivities in a context of many possible perceptual sensitivities and participatory motivations associated with all physical phenomena. As human beings, our variation in culture, age, gender, individual physiological capacities, etc prevents us from arriving at a comprehensive generalization of what human consciousness is and what it is not. We know from human history that cultural bias, in the form recurring of racism, intolerance, and persecution, blinds us even to identifying sentience within our own species, let alone the subjective experiences of other organisms. Recently, scientific support for non-human consciousness has been affirmed officially.
The Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness: http://fcmconference.org/img/CambridgeDeclarationOnConsciousness.pdf
There is increasing confirmation of awareness in birds, ants, and plants as well:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20615-first-evidence-that-birds-tweet-using-grammar.html
http://www.theverge.com/2012/8/27/3270993/ant-tcp-internet-stanford-research
http://www.thingsgoneright.com/2012/06/18/scientists-confirm-that-plants-talk-and-listen-to-each-other-communication-crucial-for-survival/
http://www.viewzone.com/plants.html
We know that whatever subjectivity is, it seems that a key feature of it is that it is prejudiced in favor of its own proprietor and against what it doesn't 'like' or what seems to be unlike itself. But what is 'itself'? What is 'like?' How do the two relate...what is 'like itself' (or "like", itself)?
These questions are at the heart of what sense is. Multisense realism is a kind of panexperientialism in that it views the capacity to detect and be detected is the fundamental and defining principle of 'realism'. The relation between the two is what the entire cosmos, from atom to galaxy, is 'made of'. The only difference is in the way these relations are bundled together. As a subject, the relation of world to self is a perceptual experience through time. The relation of the self to the world is as a material body in a place. It is critical to understand the importance of the symmetry, that in fact, all material bodies are in places on the 'outside' and have experience (not like a human experience, but a detection-participation of some kind) on the 'inside'.
Our history of being able to appreciate the consciousness of other people and species is so consistently abysmal that it should not come as a surprise that we attribute false presence consciousness where there is none as well as denying sentience where it is not absent. We treat cartoons and stuffed animals like they are our intimate friends and people who live down the street like they are irrelevant shadows. We are not a good source for vetting the possibilities of agency. This makes sense though. We are not universal detectors of agency, we are human organisms who exist in a particular niche of intersecting phenomena of a particular range of scales and velocities. Our direct experience has a range of only about 0.1Hz to 0.3 nHz, a tiny fraction of a moment in terms of geological time or an ocean of near eternities on a subatomic chronological scale.
What does time really mean though? What is a scale? It is proposed here that both are ordering principles, the former which models experiences or events sequentially, and the latter which models the relations of relations as in topographic parallel. Our perception of time is affected by the quality of our consciousness. 'Time flies when we are having fun', but also when we are asleep, unconscious, etc. The fundamental unit of subjective time is not the tick of a clock, but the significance of experience. Suspense is a good example of how felt content shapes our temporal orientation. A narrative can build a sense of significance which generates an anticipation of resolution. Through storytelling we can figuratively condense or expand any length of time into a hours/minutes scaled text, be it a biography, a history, or an entire cosmology. It is suggested that this process of analogy and iconography is what cognition, semiotics, and perception is all about. Making sense of ourselves and our universe by capturing what is significant for us and using a likeness of it to build more significance through it.
Sensation, sensemaking, and sense 'in the sense of' (categorization or text-context transformations) allows us as people to participate as an entity 'in the world' as well as to remain separate as an idealized voyeur that seems detached from the world. Although our perceptions often function to represent to us an objective reality, they are not limited by that functions, and it is proposed that they (qualia) are presentations in their own right. Sensorimotive experiences are as much the referents of neurological conditions as neurological conditions are referents of subjective experiences. Neither supervenes on each other but rather are bi-directionally integrated aspects of a larger whole. Blindsight and synesthesia show us that fixed qualia are not necessary for representation, and that representation can occur without any qualia at all.
John Searle's Chinese Room example and Gottfried Leibniz mill argument illustrate the absurdity of materialism when applied to subjectivity. They make the point that qualia is superfluous for any functionalist definition of computation and that we must be especially vigilant not to confuse the 'map with the territory'. These words, for example, are not literally speaking English. They are not really even words until they are interpreted as such. This understanding of representation goes back to Berkeleyan style idealism (if a tree falls in the forest and nobody is around to hear it, does it make a sound?) and Platonic questioning of epistemology (allegory of the cave).
What multisense realism proposes is that rather than a separate force of physics, consciousness is a layered juxtaposition of sense experience: perception of perception, feeling of feeling, and detection of detection. Each level constitutes a qualitative scale, or inertial frame of perceptual-relativity. Cutting across those frames vertically could be called a subjects 'world' or umwelt.

The nature of the range is such that the closer a particular object, person, or place is to the subject (both literally close in terms of distance and physical scale, and figuratively close in semantic terms of being 'like' or 'liked by' the subject') the more the realism of the object is couched in personal associations. A building that we live in 'seems like' home, whereas an unfamiliar building seems like it 'simply is' a building.
Ultimately all of our senses of reality are our own, so that even the 'simply is' levels of chemical and physical realities are only our instrumentally-extended experiences of certain aspects of the universe. Our view of matter arises from the density of our bodies, their solidity and consequential relations to the other solid, liquid, and gaseous presences surrounding it and permeating it. Our models of matter fail completely from the perspective of something like a neutrino or photon, in which solid rock could be imagined as nothing but a faint tint on empty space. Likewise a photomultiplier's model of photons fails completely to address our human optical presentation of light.
To understand perception, we must recognize that the dualism of subject and object is an extrapolation of symmetry itself. Perception is the manifestation of reflective meta-juxtaposition in which any particular thing or event is just like itself and exactly not like itself.
Through this framework of juxtaposition multiple senses of realism have evolved; one literal and unambiguously exclusive, and another figurative and inclusive of everything except the literal and exclusive. In one sense the self defines itself in terms of what the world is not: private, signifying, orienting, etc. In another sense the self defines the world in terms of what the self is not: public, a-signifying, generic, etc. These senses have historically blended so that spiritual traditions apply signifying qualities to the universe and materialist or infocentric views challenge subjective animism by projecting object sensibilities internally. Both of these approaches have yielded valuable knowledge and wisdom, but there is a tendency in each approach to overstate its benefits and deny its faults, thereby progressing into an egotistical pathology of denial and projection and enormous misunderstanding.

Multisense realism seeks to reconcile these misunderstandings by adding to our existing objective knowledge and subjective wisdom in a way which address the fact that they are both real in some sense, unreal in some sense, both real and and unreal in some sense, and neither real nor unreal in some sense. Realism arises from and through the sense and symmetry between these conditions. Too much subjective reference can degenerate into magical thinking and delusional mania. Too much objective reference tends to degenerate into reactionary pseudoskepticism and mechanistic absurdity. Both extremes disqualify their opposing ontology into a metaphysical never never land of irrelevant epiphenomenon of either teleological superlatives (God, Spirit) or mechanical universals (evolution, randomness). The cosmology of multisense realism locates causality itself as a category of conditions within the cosmos rather than a condition which the cosmos or experience supervenes on. It is proposed that sense is ultimately more primitive than either objects or subjects.
More on Multisense Realism at http://multisenserealism.com

Edit summary : clarify defs
Submitted on :
Submitter Nick Name : Multisense Realism
Go live Time :
Statement :













Multisense Realism proposes a neutral monism philosophy of mind based on "sense", which is defined as follows:
Sense: The universal set of experiential principles through which fundamental and derived aspects are presented in relation to each other.

its two primary derivative aspects are:
1) private experience or subjective phenomenology perception and participation = meta-derivative

2) public bodies or objective realism matter and energy = meta-fundamental

Multisense Syzygy:
Phenomenology and realism are not merely a dualism of separate or unrelated 'substances', they are the two opposite expressions of sense, and they are opposite in every conceivable way. What they share is their opposition to each other - their orthogonality, which reveals the sense that gives rise to their distinction, and to distinction itself.

It is proposed that human consciousness constitutes a specific range of sensitivities in a context of many possible perceptual sensitivities and participatory motivations associated with all physical phenomena. As human beings, our variation in culture, age, gender, individual physiological capacities, etc prevents us from arriving at a comprehensive generalization of what human consciousness is and what it is not. We know from human history that cultural bias, in the form recurring of racism, intolerance, and persecution, blinds us even to identifying sentience within our own species, let alone the subjective experiences of other organisms. Recently, scientific support for non-human consciousness has been affirmed officially.
The Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness: http://fcmconference.org/img/CambridgeDeclarationOnConsciousness.pdf
There is increasing confirmation of awareness in birds, ants, and plants as well:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20615-first-evidence-that-birds-tweet-using-grammar.html
http://www.theverge.com/2012/8/27/3270993/ant-tcp-internet-stanford-research
http://www.thingsgoneright.com/2012/06/18/scientists-confirm-that-plants-talk-and-listen-to-each-other-communication-crucial-for-survival/
http://www.viewzone.com/plants.html
We know that whatever subjectivity is, it seems that a key feature of it is that it is prejudiced in favor of its own proprietor and against what it doesn't 'like' or what seems to be unlike itself. But what is 'itself'? What is 'like?' How do the two relate...what is 'like itself' (or "like", itself)?
These questions are at the heart of what sense is. Multisense realism is a kind of panexperientialism in that it views the capacity to detect and be detected is the fundamental and defining principle of 'realism'. The relation between the two is what the entire cosmos, from atom to galaxy, is 'made of'. The only difference is in the way these relations are bundled together. As a subject, the relation of world to self is a perceptual experience through time. The relation of the self to the world is as a material body in a place. It is critical to understand the importance of the symmetry, that in fact, all material bodies are in places on the 'outside' and have experience (not like a human experience, but a detection-participation of some kind) on the 'inside'.
Our history of being able to appreciate the consciousness of other people and species is so consistently abysmal that it should not come as a surprise that we attribute false presence consciousness where there is none as well as denying sentience where it is not absent. We treat cartoons and stuffed animals like they are our intimate friends and people who live down the street like they are irrelevant shadows. We are not a good source for vetting the possibilities of agency. This makes sense though. We are not universal detectors of agency, we are human organisms who exist in a particular niche of intersecting phenomena of a particular range of scales and velocities. Our direct experience has a range of only about 0.1Hz to 0.3 nHz, a tiny fraction of a moment in terms of geological time or an ocean of near eternities on a subatomic chronological scale.
What does time really mean though? What is a scale? It is proposed here that both are ordering principles, the former which models experiences or events sequentially, and the latter which models the relations of relations as in topographic parallel. Our perception of time is affected by the quality of our consciousness. 'Time flies when we are having fun', but also when we are asleep, unconscious, etc. The fundamental unit of subjective time is not the tick of a clock, but the significance of experience. Suspense is a good example of how felt content shapes our temporal orientation. A narrative can build a sense of significance which generates an anticipation of resolution. Through storytelling we can figuratively condense or expand any length of time into a hours/minutes scaled text, be it a biography, a history, or an entire cosmology. It is suggested that this process of analogy and iconography is what cognition, semiotics, and perception is all about. Making sense of ourselves and our universe by capturing what is significant for us and using a likeness of it to build more significance through it.
Sensation, sensemaking, and sense 'in the sense of' (categorization or text-context transformations) allows us as people to participate as an entity 'in the world' as well as to remain separate as an idealized voyeur that seems detached from the world. Although our perceptions often function to represent to us an objective reality, they are not limited by that functions, and it is proposed that they (qualia) are presentations in their own right. Sensorimotive experiences are as much the referents of neurological conditions as neurological conditions are referents of subjective experiences. Neither supervenes on each other but rather are bi-directionally integrated aspects of a larger whole. Blindsight and synesthesia show us that fixed qualia are not necessary for representation, and that representation can occur without any qualia at all.
John Searle's Chinese Room example and Gottfried Leibniz mill argument illustrate the absurdity of materialism when applied to subjectivity. They make the point that qualia is superfluous for any functionalist definition of computation and that we must be especially vigilant not to confuse the 'map with the territory'. These words, for example, are not literally speaking English. They are not really even words until they are interpreted as such. This understanding of representation goes back to Berkeleyan style idealism (if a tree falls in the forest and nobody is around to hear it, does it make a sound?) and Platonic questioning of epistemology (allegory of the cave).
What multisense realism proposes is that rather than a separate force of physics, consciousness is a layered juxtaposition of sense experience: perception of perception, feeling of feeling, and detection of detection. Each level constitutes a qualitative scale, or inertial frame of perceptual-relativity. Cutting across those frames vertically could be called a subjects 'world' or umwelt.

The nature of the range is such that the closer a particular object, person, or place is to the subject (both literally close in terms of distance and physical scale, and figuratively close in semantic terms of being 'like' or 'liked by' the subject') the more the realism of the object is couched in personal associations. A building that we live in 'seems like' home, whereas an unfamiliar building seems like it 'simply is' a building.
Ultimately all of our senses of reality are our own, so that even the 'simply is' levels of chemical and physical realities are only our instrumentally-extended experiences of certain aspects of the universe. Our view of matter arises from the density of our bodies, their solidity and consequential relations to the other solid, liquid, and gaseous presences surrounding it and permeating it. Our models of matter fail completely from the perspective of something like a neutrino or photon, in which solid rock could be imagined as nothing but a faint tint on empty space. Likewise a photomultiplier's model of photons fails completely to address our human optical presentation of light.
To understand perception, we must recognize that the dualism of subject and object is an extrapolation of symmetry itself. Perception is the manifestation of reflective meta-juxtaposition in which any particular thing or event is just like itself and exactly not like itself.
Through this framework of juxtaposition multiple senses of realism have evolved; one literal and unambiguously exclusive, and another figurative and inclusive of everything except the literal and exclusive. In one sense the self defines itself in terms of what the world is not: private, signifying, orienting, etc. In another sense the self defines the world in terms of what the self is not: public, a-signifying, generic, etc. These senses have historically blended so that spiritual traditions apply signifying qualities to the universe and materialist or infocentric views challenge subjective animism by projecting object sensibilities internally. Both of these approaches have yielded valuable knowledge and wisdom, but there is a tendency in each approach to overstate its benefits and deny its faults, thereby progressing into an egotistical pathology of denial and projection and enormous misunderstanding.

Multisense realism seeks to reconcile these misunderstandings by adding to our existing objective knowledge and subjective wisdom in a way which address the fact that they are both real in some sense, unreal in some sense, both real and and unreal in some sense, and neither real nor unreal in some sense. Realism arises from and through the sense and symmetry between these conditions. Too much subjective reference can degenerate into magical thinking and delusional mania. Too much objective reference tends to degenerate into reactionary pseudoskepticism and mechanistic absurdity. Both extremes disqualify their opposing ontology into a metaphysical never never land of irrelevant epiphenomenon of either teleological superlatives (God, Spirit) or mechanical universals (evolution, randomness). The cosmology of multisense realism locates causality itself as a category of conditions within the cosmos rather than a condition which the cosmos or experience supervenes on. It is proposed that sense is ultimately more primitive than either objects or subjects.
More on Multisense Realism at http://multisenserealism.com

Edit summary : add chart
Submitted on :
Submitter Nick Name : Multisense Realism
Go live Time :
Statement :













Multisense Realism proposes a neutral monism philosophy of mind based on "sense", which is defined as follows:
Sense: The universal set of experiential principles through which fundamental and derived aspects are presented in relation to each other.

its two primary derivative aspects are:
1) private experience or subjective phenomenology perception and participation = meta-derivative

2) public bodies or objective realism matter and energy = meta-fundamental

Multisense Syzygy:
Phenomenology and realism are not merely a dualism of separate or unrelated 'substances', they are the two opposite expressions of sense, and they are opposite in every conceivable way. What they share is their opposition to each other - their orthogonality, which reveals the sense that gives rise to their distinction, and to distinction itself.

It is proposed that human consciousness constitutes a specific range of sensitivities in a context of many possible perceptual sensitivities and participatory motivations associated with all physical phenomena. As human beings, our variation in culture, age, gender, individual physiological capacities, etc prevents us from arriving at a comprehensive generalization of what human consciousness is and what it is not. We know from human history that cultural bias, in the form recurring of racism, intolerance, and persecution, blinds us even to identifying sentience within our own species, let alone the subjective experiences of other organisms. Recently, scientific support for non-human consciousness has been affirmed officially.
The Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness: http://fcmconference.org/img/CambridgeDeclarationOnConsciousness.pdf
There is increasing confirmation of awareness in birds, ants, and plants as well:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20615-first-evidence-that-birds-tweet-using-grammar.html
http://www.theverge.com/2012/8/27/3270993/ant-tcp-internet-stanford-research
http://www.thingsgoneright.com/2012/06/18/scientists-confirm-that-plants-talk-and-listen-to-each-other-communication-crucial-for-survival/
http://www.viewzone.com/plants.html
We know that whatever subjectivity is, it seems that a key feature of it is that it is prejudiced in favor of its own proprietor and against what it doesn't 'like' or what seems to be unlike itself. But what is 'itself'? What is 'like?' How do the two relate...what is 'like itself' (or "like", itself)?
These questions are at the heart of what sense is. Multisense realism is a kind of panexperientialism in that it views the capacity to detect and be detected is the fundamental and defining principle of 'realism'. The relation between the two is what the entire cosmos, from atom to galaxy, is 'made of'. The only difference is in the way these relations are bundled together. As a subject, the relation of world to self is a perceptual experience through time. The relation of the self to the world is as a material body in a place. It is critical to understand the importance of the symmetry, that in fact, all material bodies are in places on the 'outside' and have experience (not like a human experience, but a detection-participation of some kind) on the 'inside'.
Our history of being able to appreciate the consciousness of other people and species is so consistently abysmal that it should not come as a surprise that we attribute false presence consciousness where there is none as well as denying sentience where it is not absent. We treat cartoons and stuffed animals like they are our intimate friends and people who live down the street like they are irrelevant shadows. We are not a good source for vetting the possibilities of agency. This makes sense though. We are not universal detectors of agency, we are human organisms who exist in a particular niche of intersecting phenomena of a particular range of scales and velocities. Our direct experience has a range of only about 0.1Hz to 0.3 nHz, a tiny fraction of a moment in terms of geological time or an ocean of near eternities on a subatomic chronological scale.
What does time really mean though? What is a scale? It is proposed here that both are ordering principles, the former which models experiences or events sequentially, and the latter which models the relations of relations as in topographic parallel. Our perception of time is affected by the quality of our consciousness. 'Time flies when we are having fun', but also when we are asleep, unconscious, etc. The fundamental unit of subjective time is not the tick of a clock, but the significance of experience. Suspense is a good example of how felt content shapes our temporal orientation. A narrative can build a sense of significance which generates an anticipation of resolution. Through storytelling we can figuratively condense or expand any length of time into a hours/minutes scaled text, be it a biography, a history, or an entire cosmology. It is suggested that this process of analogy and iconography is what cognition, semiotics, and perception is all about. Making sense of ourselves and our universe by capturing what is significant for us and using a likeness of it to build more significance through it.
Sensation, sensemaking, and sense 'in the sense of' (categorization or text-context transformations) allows us as people to participate as an entity 'in the world' as well as to remain separate as an idealized voyeur that seems detached from the world. Although our perceptions often function to represent to us an objective reality, they are not limited by that functions, and it is proposed that they (qualia) are presentations in their own right. Sensorimotive experiences are as much the referents of neurological conditions as neurological conditions are referents of subjective experiences. Neither supervenes on each other but rather are bi-directionally integrated aspects of a larger whole. Blindsight and synesthesia show us that fixed qualia are not necessary for representation, and that representation can occur without any qualia at all.
John Searle's Chinese Room example and Gottfried Leibniz mill argument illustrate the absurdity of materialism when applied to subjectivity. They make the point that qualia is superfluous for any functionalist definition of computation and that we must be especially vigilant not to confuse the 'map with the territory'. These words, for example, are not literally speaking English. They are not really even words until they are interpreted as such. This understanding of representation goes back to Berkeleyan style idealism (if a tree falls in the forest and nobody is around to hear it, does it make a sound?) and Platonic questioning of epistemology (allegory of the cave).
What multisense realism proposes is that rather than a separate force of physics, consciousness is a layered juxtaposition of sense experience: perception of perception, feeling of feeling, and detection of detection. Each level constitutes a qualitative scale, or inertial frame of perceptual-relativity. Cutting across those frames vertically could be called a subjects 'world' or umwelt.

The nature of the range is such that the closer a particular object, person, or place is to the subject (both literally close in terms of distance and physical scale, and figuratively close in semantic terms of being 'like' or 'liked by' the subject') the more the realism of the object is couched in personal associations. A building that we live in 'seems like' home, whereas an unfamiliar building seems like it 'simply is' a building.
Ultimately all of our senses of reality are our own, so that even the 'simply is' levels of chemical and physical realities are only our instrumentally-extended experiences of certain aspects of the universe. Our view of matter arises from the density of our bodies, their solidity and consequential relations to the other solid, liquid, and gaseous presences surrounding it and permeating it. Our models of matter fail completely from the perspective of something like a neutrino or photon, in which solid rock could be imagined as nothing but a faint tint on empty space. Likewise a photomultiplier's model of photons fails completely to address our human optical presentation of light.
To understand perception, we must recognize that the dualism of subject and object is an extrapolation of symmetry itself. Perception is the manifestation of reflective meta-juxtaposition in which any particular thing or event is just like itself and exactly not like itself.
Through this framework of juxtaposition multiple senses of realism have evolved; one literal and unambiguously exclusive, and another figurative and inclusive of everything except the literal and exclusive. In one sense the self defines itself in terms of what the world is not: private, signifying, orienting, etc. In another sense the self defines the world in terms of what the self is not: public, a-signifying, generic, etc. These senses have historically blended so that spiritual traditions apply signifying qualities to the universe and materialist or infocentric views challenge subjective animism by projecting object sensibilities internally. Both of these approaches have yielded valuable knowledge and wisdom, but there is a tendency in each approach to overstate its benefits and deny its faults, thereby progressing into an egotistical pathology of denial and projection and enormous misunderstanding.

Multisense realism seeks to reconcile these misunderstandings by adding to our existing objective knowledge and subjective wisdom in a way which address the fact that they are both real in some sense, unreal in some sense, both real and and unreal in some sense, and neither real nor unreal in some sense. Realism arises from and through the sense and symmetry between these conditions. Too much subjective reference can degenerate into magical thinking and delusional mania. Too much objective reference tends to degenerate into reactionary pseudoskepticism and mechanistic absurdity. Both extremes disqualify their opposing ontology into a metaphysical never never land of irrelevant epiphenomenon of either teleological superlatives (God, Spirit) or mechanical universals (evolution, randomness). The cosmology of multisense realism locates causality itself as a category of conditions within the cosmos rather than a condition which the cosmos or experience supervenes on. It is proposed that sense is ultimately more primitive than either objects or subjects.
More on Multisense Realism at http://multisenserealism.com

Edit summary : added supporting graphics
Submitted on :
Submitter Nick Name : Multisense Realism
Go live Time :
Statement : Multisense Realism proposes a neutral monism philosophy of mind based on "sense", which is defined as follows:
Sense: The universal set of experiential principles through which fundamental and derived aspects are presented in relation to each other.

its two primary derivative aspects are:
1) private experience or subjective phenomenology perception and participation = meta-derivative

2) public bodies or objective realism matter and energy = meta-fundamental

Multisense Syzygy:
Phenomenology and realism are not merely a dualism of separate or unrelated 'substances', they are the two opposite expressions of sense, and they are opposite in every conceivable way. What they share is their opposition to each other - their orthogonality, which reveals the sense that gives rise to their distinction, and to distinction itself.

It is proposed that human consciousness constitutes a specific range of sensitivities in a context of many possible perceptual sensitivities and participatory motivations associated with all physical phenomena. As human beings, our variation in culture, age, gender, individual physiological capacities, etc prevents us from arriving at a comprehensive generalization of what human consciousness is and what it is not. We know from human history that cultural bias, in the form recurring of racism, intolerance, and persecution, blinds us even to identifying sentience within our own species, let alone the subjective experiences of other organisms. Recently, scientific support for non-human consciousness has been affirmed officially.
The Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness: http://fcmconference.org/img/CambridgeDeclarationOnConsciousness.pdf
There is increasing confirmation of awareness in birds, ants, and plants as well:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20615-first-evidence-that-birds-tweet-using-grammar.html
http://www.theverge.com/2012/8/27/3270993/ant-tcp-internet-stanford-research
http://www.thingsgoneright.com/2012/06/18/scientists-confirm-that-plants-talk-and-listen-to-each-other-communication-crucial-for-survival/
http://www.viewzone.com/plants.html
We know that whatever subjectivity is, it seems that a key feature of it is that it is prejudiced in favor of its own proprietor and against what it doesn't 'like' or what seems to be unlike itself. But what is 'itself'? What is 'like?' How do the two relate...what is 'like itself' (or "like", itself)?
These questions are at the heart of what sense is. Multisense realism is a kind of panexperientialism in that it views the capacity to detect and be detected is the fundamental and defining principle of 'realism'. The relation between the two is what the entire cosmos, from atom to galaxy, is 'made of'. The only difference is in the way these relations are bundled together. As a subject, the relation of world to self is a perceptual experience through time. The relation of the self to the world is as a material body in a place. It is critical to understand the importance of the symmetry, that in fact, all material bodies are in places on the 'outside' and have experience (not like a human experience, but a detection-participation of some kind) on the 'inside'.
Our history of being able to appreciate the consciousness of other people and species is so consistently abysmal that it should not come as a surprise that we attribute false presence consciousness where there is none as well as denying sentience where it is not absent. We treat cartoons and stuffed animals like they are our intimate friends and people who live down the street like they are irrelevant shadows. We are not a good source for vetting the possibilities of agency. This makes sense though. We are not universal detectors of agency, we are human organisms who exist in a particular niche of intersecting phenomena of a particular range of scales and velocities. Our direct experience has a range of only about 0.1Hz to 0.3 nHz, a tiny fraction of a moment in terms of geological time or an ocean of near eternities on a subatomic chronological scale.
What does time really mean though? What is a scale? It is proposed here that both are ordering principles, the former which models experiences or events sequentially, and the latter which models the relations of relations as in topographic parallel. Our perception of time is affected by the quality of our consciousness. 'Time flies when we are having fun', but also when we are asleep, unconscious, etc. The fundamental unit of subjective time is not the tick of a clock, but the significance of experience. Suspense is a good example of how felt content shapes our temporal orientation. A narrative can build a sense of significance which generates an anticipation of resolution. Through storytelling we can figuratively condense or expand any length of time into a hours/minutes scaled text, be it a biography, a history, or an entire cosmology. It is suggested that this process of analogy and iconography is what cognition, semiotics, and perception is all about. Making sense of ourselves and our universe by capturing what is significant for us and using a likeness of it to build more significance through it.
Sensation, sensemaking, and sense 'in the sense of' (categorization or text-context transformations) allows us as people to participate as an entity 'in the world' as well as to remain separate as an idealized voyeur that seems detached from the world. Although our perceptions often function to represent to us an objective reality, they are not limited by that functions, and it is proposed that they (qualia) are presentations in their own right. Sensorimotive experiences are as much the referents of neurological conditions as neurological conditions are referents of subjective experiences. Neither supervenes on each other but rather are bi-directionally integrated aspects of a larger whole. Blindsight and synesthesia show us that fixed qualia are not necessary for representation, and that representation can occur without any qualia at all.
John Searle's Chinese Room example and Gottfried Leibniz mill argument illustrate the absurdity of materialism when applied to subjectivity. They make the point that qualia is superfluous for any functionalist definition of computation and that we must be especially vigilant not to confuse the 'map with the territory'. These words, for example, are not literally speaking English. They are not really even words until they are interpreted as such. This understanding of representation goes back to Berkeleyan style idealism (if a tree falls in the forest and nobody is around to hear it, does it make a sound?) and Platonic questioning of epistemology (allegory of the cave).
What multisense realism proposes is that rather than a separate force of physics, consciousness is a layered juxtaposition of sense experience: perception of perception, feeling of feeling, and detection of detection. Each level constitutes a qualitative scale, or inertial frame of perceptual-relativity. Cutting across those frames vertically could be called a subjects 'world' or umwelt.

The nature of the range is such that the closer a particular object, person, or place is to the subject (both literally close in terms of distance and physical scale, and figuratively close in semantic terms of being 'like' or 'liked by' the subject') the more the realism of the object is couched in personal associations. A building that we live in 'seems like' home, whereas an unfamiliar building seems like it 'simply is' a building.
Ultimately all of our senses of reality are our own, so that even the 'simply is' levels of chemical and physical realities are only our instrumentally-extended experiences of certain aspects of the universe. Our view of matter arises from the density of our bodies, their solidity and consequential relations to the other solid, liquid, and gaseous presences surrounding it and permeating it. Our models of matter fail completely from the perspective of something like a neutrino or photon, in which solid rock could be imagined as nothing but a faint tint on empty space. Likewise a photomultiplier's model of photons fails completely to address our human optical presentation of light.
To understand perception, we must recognize that the dualism of subject and object is an extrapolation of symmetry itself. Perception is the manifestation of reflective meta-juxtaposition in which any particular thing or event is just like itself and exactly not like itself.
Through this framework of juxtaposition multiple senses of realism have evolved; one literal and unambiguously exclusive, and another figurative and inclusive of everything except the literal and exclusive. In one sense the self defines itself in terms of what the world is not: private, signifying, orienting, etc. In another sense the self defines the world in terms of what the self is not: public, a-signifying, generic, etc. These senses have historically blended so that spiritual traditions apply signifying qualities to the universe and materialist or infocentric views challenge subjective animism by projecting object sensibilities internally. Both of these approaches have yielded valuable knowledge and wisdom, but there is a tendency in each approach to overstate its benefits and deny its faults, thereby progressing into an egotistical pathology of denial and projection and enormous misunderstanding.

Multisense realism seeks to reconcile these misunderstandings by adding to our existing objective knowledge and subjective wisdom in a way which address the fact that they are both real in some sense, unreal in some sense, both real and and unreal in some sense, and neither real nor unreal in some sense. Realism arises from and through the sense and symmetry between these conditions. Too much subjective reference can degenerate into magical thinking and delusional mania. Too much objective reference tends to degenerate into reactionary pseudoskepticism and mechanistic absurdity. Both extremes disqualify their opposing ontology into a metaphysical never never land of irrelevant epiphenomenon of either teleological superlatives (God, Spirit) or mechanical universals (evolution, randomness). The cosmology of multisense realism locates causality itself as a category of conditions within the cosmos rather than a condition which the cosmos or experience supervenes on. It is proposed that sense is ultimately more primitive than either objects or subjects.
More on Multisense Realism at http://multisenserealism.com

Edit summary : Enhanced for clarity
Submitted on :
Submitter Nick Name : Multisense Realism
Go live Time :
Statement :
It is proposed that human consciousness constitutes a specific range of sensitivities in a context of many possible sensitivities associated with all physical phenomena. At this point, having access only to our individual human consciousness, we can only generalize to a limited extent. Even in generalizing human experience, our variation in culture, age, gender, individual physiological capacities, etc prevents us from arriving at a comprehensive definition of what it is and what it is not. We know from human history that cultural bias, in the form recurring of racism, genocide, intolerance, and persecution, blinds us even to identifying with our own species, let alone the subjective experiences of other organisms. We know that whatever subjectivity is, it is prejudiced in favor of itself and against what it doesn't 'like' or what seems to be unlike itself. But what is 'itself'? What is 'like?' How do the two relate...what is 'like itself' (or "like", itself)?
These questions are at the heart of what sense is. Multisense realism is a kind of panexperientialism in that it views the capacity to detect and be detected is the fundamental and defining principle of 'realism'. The relation between the two is what the entire cosmos, from atom to galaxy, is 'made of'. The only difference is in the way these relations are bundled together. As a subject, the relation of world to self is a perceptual experience through time. The relation of the self to the world is as a material body in a place. It is critical to understand the importance of the symmetry, that in fact, all material bodies are in places on the 'outside' and have experience (not like a human experience, but a detection-participation of some kind) on the 'inside'.
Again, our history of being able to appreciate the consciousness of other people and species is so consistently abysmal that we should know that we cannot be trusted to judge the capacities of subjective agents. We treat cartoons and stuffed animals like they are our intimate friends and people who live down the street like they are irrelevant shadows. We are not a good source for vetting the possibilities of agency. This makes sense though. We are not universal detectors of agency, we are human organisms who exist in a particular niche of intersecting phenomena of a particular range of scales and velocities. Our direct experience has a range of only about 0.1Hz to 0.3 nHz, a tiny fraction of a moment in terms of geological time or an ocean of near eternities on a subatomic chronological scale.
What does time really mean though? What is a scale? Both are ordering principles, the former which models experiences or events sequentially, and the latter which models the relations of relations as a nonsequential parallelism. Our perception of time is affected by the quality of our consciousness. 'Time flies when you're having fun', but also when you are asleep, unconscious, etc. The fundamental unit of subjective time is not the tick of a clock, but the duration and significance of experience. Suspense is a good example of how semantic content shapes our temporal orientation. A narrative can build a sense of significance which generates an anticipation of resolution. Through storytelling we can figuratively condense or expand any length of time into a hours/minutes scaled text, be it a biography, a history, or an entire cosmology. This process of analogy and iconography is what perception is all about. Making sense of ourselves and our universe by capturing what is significant for us and using a likeness of it to build more significance through it.
Sensation, sensemaking, and sense 'in the sense of' categorization allows us as people to participate as an entity 'in the world' as well as to remain separate as an invisible voyeur in our private reality tunnel. Although our perceptions often function to represent to us an objective reality, they are presentations in their own right; sensorimotive experiences which are as much the referents of neurological conditions as neurological conditions are referents of associated subjective experiences. These analogies and descriptions are not arbitrary, but neither are they fixed. Blindsight and synesthesia show us that fixed qualia are not necessary for representation, and that representation can occur without any qualia at all. Computation does not require qualia, as there is no reason to presume it would have any positive or negative effect and no plausible mechanism for its emergence in the first place.
What multisense realism proposes is that rather than a separate force of physics, consciousness arises from awareness of awareness, which arises from perception of perception, feeling of feeling, sense of sense, and detection of detection. Each level constitutes a scale, or inertial frame of perceptual-relativity. Cutting across those frames orthogonally is a range of subjective experience and objective relativity.

The nature of the range is such that the closer a particular object, person, or place is to the subject (both literally close in terms of distance and physical scale, and figuratively close in semantic terms of being 'like' or 'liked by' the subject') the more the realism of the object is couched in personal associations. A building that we live in 'seems like' home, whereas an unfamiliar building seems like it 'simply is' a building.
Ultimately all of our senses of realism are our own, so that even the 'simply is' levels of chemical and physical realities are only our experiences of the most common experiences in the universe. Our view of matter arises from the density of our bodies, their solidity and consequential relations to the other solid, liquid, and gaseous presences surrounding it and permeating it. Our models of matter fail completely from the view of a neutrino or photon. Likewise a photomultiplier's model of photons fails completely to address our human optical presentation of light.
To understand perception, we have to recognize that the symmetry of subject and object is an extrapolation of symmetry itself. A principle of reflection in which something is just like itself and exactly not like itself. Metaphor. Semiotics. Multiple senses of realism, one literal and unambiguously exclusive, and another figurative and inclusive of everything except the literal and exclusive. In one sense the self defines itself in terms of what the world is not: private, signifying, orienting, multivalent, autobiographical, teleological, etc. In another sense the self defines the world in terms of what the self is not: public, a-signifying, generic, discrete, mechanistic, etc. These senses have historically blended so that spiritual traditions apply signifying qualities to the universe and materialist or computationalist views challenge subjective animism with projecting object sensibilities internally. Both of these approaches have yielded enormous misunderstanding as well as valuable knowledge and wisdom, but there is a tendency in each approach to overstate its benefits and deny its faults, thereby progressing into an egotistical pathology of denial and projection.

Multisense realism seeks to reconcile these misunderstandings by adding to our existing objective knowledge and subjective wisdom in a way which addresses the fact that they are both real in some sense, unreal in some sense, both real and and unreal in some sense, and neither real nor unreal in some sense. Realism arises from and through the sense and symmetry between these ideas. Too much subjective reference can degenerate into magical thinking and delusional mania. Too much objective reference tends to degenerate into reactionary pseudoskepticism and self negation. Both extremes disqualify their opposing ontology into a metaphysical never never land of irrelevant epiphenomenon of either teleological superlatives (God, Spirit) or mechanical universals (evolution, randomness). The cosmology of multisense realism locates causality itself as part of the cosmos - a consequence of sequence and sense which are actually more primitive than either objects or subjects.

Critique of Representational Qualia Theory. https://canonizer.com/topic/88/51
Summary:
We should not assume that perception is passive linear mechanism.
Perception is instead a collaborative particpation.
Human perception is indeed nested within or predicated upon many other layers of detection on the somatic, cellular, molecular, and atomic levels, and that nesting does entail latency and causality, but the experiences themselves are not the cause or effect of a mechanism. Such a mechanism is nonsensical by the infinite regress of homunculi.
The assumption of information as something that exists independently and is causally efficacious is unfounded.
Information is not an independent entity, it is a condition of being informed (internally changed) by experienced events.

We do not interpret our senses rather, our senses themselves as our only way of interpreting. Not just our sense organs but our neurological sensemaking which extends and elaborates internally as thought and feeling as well as external peripheral sensation.
Sense is not abstract, it is concrete. Making sense of something is a sensorimotive event with a neurological correlate, not an abstraction floating around in a disembodied state as 'data'.
1. Blue is not a representation of 'abstract information'. Information is abstract representation, not qualia. Qualia are concrete presentations in and of themselves. Whether qualia matters or not doesn't matter. As is mentioned in the Ideal Monism critique, the truthfulness of the content of blue is irrelevant to what makes it possible for blue to look blue at all.
2. Color does not need to be interpreted to be experienced. Blueness itself may have many meanings and associations, some personal, some cultural, some visually universal. It is a visual feeling that need not correlate to any particular referent.
3. Not all representation is anomalous. Some qualia have iconic properties rather than just indexical or symbolic. Blue could very well be a concrete presentation of molecular experiences or an enhancement or augmentation thereof.
Qualia cannot be reduced to function. Is the relevance of a beautiful sunset merely to inform the perceiver that it is no longer daytime? Or that the Earth is rotating? If so, it was not very successful in imparting the fact of the Earth's rotation for most of human history. The truth is that qualia have no functional validity whatsoever. There is no plausible adaptation value to a fictional abstraction layer in consciousness when any 'information' would be transmitted much more effectively as itself directly. A computer can run programs just as well with or without a monitor plugged into it. All programs running on it must be compiled into the same binary instruction code - no poetic adornments are required or recommended to improve function.
Blindsight and visual agnosia directly contradicts RQT as it demonstrates both representation without qualia and qualia without representation.
There is nothing red about 650nm electromagnetic radiation. Red is a sensorimotive experience of ocular and neural microbiota scaled up to a larger and slower inertial frame. The red that we see is biological, mammalian, and hominid as well as physical. There is a correlation with physical changes of that frequency (~461,200 Hz) and molecules within the retinal cells of course, but our experience does not represent those changes, it presents changes which relate to our experience as whole persons in an anthropologically scaled view of the world.
Perception is not a solipsistic simulation. The fact that our phenomenally red strawberry does not match the measurements of all possible observers and instruments does not mean that the realism of the strawberry is not as authoritative as any or all other measurements. Multisense realism proposes that our naive perception is a valid, albeit cumbersome frame of reference in the universe. We are seeing a red strawberry. A camera is detecting something that is not a strawberry, or a fruit, or a living organism, but it's own molecules response to illuminated objects in its environment on it's scale.
The ineffable nature of qualia stems from the inherent privacy of subjectivity. Only if we can share selves will we be able to know that we are sharing qualia, however there is not reason to assume that qualia would be any more variable than any other cultural or genetic traits. There are human ranges of qualia, culutral ranges, family ranges, gender ranges, individual ranges, etc
There is nothing in the activity of the nervous system to suggest the possibility of any specific qualia.
Delivery of qualia should not be confused with the qualia themselves. That we are excited or not by something, say gambling, does not mean that gambling is nothing more than the fact of our being excited by it.
Qualia are not transparent, they are like specular reflections. Neither solipsistic 'representation' nor direct revelation of a literal universal identity, what we perceive is the cumulative entanglement of the significance of all experiences. Just as this sentence evokes the understanding of English written language without having to be consciously translated from pixels on your screen, our perception is shaped by our own condensed experience as well as the condensed experiences of our tissues, molecules, planet, etc. Sense recapitulates. It bridges gaps, connects the dots, jumps to conclusions, etc. It is not a passive bombardment by external stimuli, it is an collaborative yet private participation. We are antennas of antennas. Not just gears and processors, but tuners and directors.
Our world is the interference pattern of multiple perceptual inertial frames. Our world is indivisible and real on an antrhopological level - as real as a quark or galaxy, but our world is not accessible from every other frame of reference. You need to be a person to experience a person's world. A metal detector or brain image scan doesn't live in our world, it lives in it's own world which overlaps with ours in certain ways which can inform and extend our view, but it should not be confused as a replacement.
Qualia are not physical in the sense of object properties like density, mass, specific gravity, and relative position. If by physical we mean that they are concretely real and an aspect of the same reality which is shared by electromagnetic phenomenology then yes, qualia is a sensorimotive dynamic inherent in all matter and not in empty space.
Qualia is literally energy, but from the experiential perspective rather than the computational perspective. All energy is the experience of some volume of material in the universe. When we view experience outside of our own intertial frame, it is in 'black and white' - devoid of subjective significance. We experience it as mere patterns of material change. The opposite of our own proprietary feelings about the powerfully significant (gigabit color in comparison) patterns of semantic change in our own life.
Subjectivity is private, and the more subjectively rich it is, the more private and ineffable. This doesn't mean that the world in which we participate is not the real world or that what we share with each other is not authentic. To the contrary, it is as real as any possible world, and between members of the same perceptual inertial frame, it could be said that the shared world is 'more than real', from a physics standpoint.
Definitions and Commentary on Trivial and Artificial Intelligence
Trivial Awareness = Invariance (comparison (variance, invariance)) aka Pattern Matching
  Machine, computer program, inorganic molecules. Detection of difference.

Trivial Intelligence = Any quantifiable consequence of recursive enumeration.
Intelligence = Significant qualitative augmentation of subjective cognitive experience.
Cognitive experience = Motive participation in a sense channel characterized by qualities of logical symbolic abstraction.
Sense channel = Departmentalization of sense by invariance of qualia.
Motive = Causally efficacious output through any sense channel. To 'do' or to 'try' or to feel like it is possible to do or try to affect change in the content of any or all of one's own sense channels or those shared by others (including inanimate objects). We may want to break a window purely to satisfy a motive arising from the pleasurable tactile-acoustic-percussive-violent-gestural sense qualities associated with it. A motive is a open sensory circuit in a particular sense channel which attracts possible fulfillment strategies within that sense channel or across other sense channels. The completion of the circuit is dependent upon a quality of realism, so that the desire is for fulfillment in a concrete motive enactment, not merely as a logical condition. You have to care whether it is fulfilled or not.
Recursive enumeration is a cognitive experience, but intelligence is not merely a consequence of recursive enumeration, it is a qualitative enhancement of motive. Contrary to sense, motive is not departmentalized into different channels, it is the same output dynamic across all sense channels that we as human beings have access to. A machine enacted through inanimate, inorganic materials which are presumed incapable of qualities like wanting and wishing (generally associated with human or other animal awareness), are confined to Trivial Intelligence capacities rooted in simple level outputs. Electronic computers cannot develop true Intelligence because they lack the quality of motive output.
Human Consciousness = Awareness and Integration of multiple human sense channels as a personal self, ranging from trivial awareness as a physical body in a material world, to esoteric intelligence as an identity in a cosmological narrative, with many inertial frames of perception in between (as living organism, animal, mammal, human, member of a society or other affiliation, etc).
Machine or Trivial Consciousness = A self-referential program, machine (Turing Machine), operating system, or computational modeling or monitoring of computation. Confined to a single sensorimotive channel (recursive enumeration pattern matching) in which sense and motive are undifferentiated. The material hardware of a computer may be trying to complete it's natural circuits which have been hijacked by human agendas, but the program or Operating System cannot even 'try' to do. It is like Yoda - it can only do or not do. Deep Blue is programmed to satisfy the logic of winning chess, but it has no sense of personal self to invest in any teleological object. It simply executes the most quantitatively efficient strategy without hesitation or effort. To win at chess costs it nothing. It doesn't care or get tired, or know the significance of the game. It's not playing chess, it's just executing runtime.

Edit summary : added AI comments
Submitted on :
Submitter Nick Name : Multisense Realism
Go live Time :
Statement :
It is proposed that human consciousness constitutes a specific range of sensitivities in a context of many possible sensitivities associated with all physical phenomena. At this point, having access only to our individual human consciousness, we can only generalize to a limited extent. Even in generalizing human experience, our variation in culture, age, gender, individual physiological capacities, etc prevents us from arriving at a comprehensive definition of what it is and what it is not. We know from human history that cultural bias, in the form recurring of racism, genocide, intolerance, and persecution, blinds us even to identifying with our own species, let alone the subjective experiences of other organisms. We know that whatever subjectivity is, it is prejudiced in favor of itself and against what it doesn't 'like' or what seems to be unlike itself. But what is 'itself'? What is 'like?' How do the two relate...what is 'like itself' (or "like", itself)?
These questions are at the heart of what sense is. Multisense realism is a kind of panexperientialism in that it views the capacity to detect and be detected is the fundamental and defining principle of 'realism'. The relation between the two is what the entire cosmos, from atom to galaxy, is 'made of'. The only difference is in the way these relations are bundled together. As a subject, the relation of world to self is a perceptual experience through time. The relation of the self to the world is as a material body in a place. It is critical to understand the importance of the symmetry, that in fact, all material bodies are in places on the 'outside' and have experience (not like a human experience, but a detection-participation of some kind) on the 'inside'.
Again, our history of being able to appreciate the consciousness of other people and species is so consistently abysmal that we should know that we cannot be trusted to judge the capacities of subjective agents. We treat cartoons and stuffed animals like they are our intimate friends and people who live down the street like they are irrelevant shadows. We are not a good source for vetting the possibilities of agency. This makes sense though. We are not universal detectors of agency, we are human organisms who exist in a particular niche of intersecting phenomena of a particular range of scales and velocities. Our direct experience has a range of only about 0.1Hz to 0.3 nHz, a tiny fraction of a moment in terms of geological time or an ocean of near eternities on a subatomic chronological scale.
What does time really mean though? What is a scale? Both are ordering principles, the former which models experiences or events sequentially, and the latter which models the relations of relations as a nonsequential parallelism. Our perception of time is affected by the quality of our consciousness. 'Time flies when you're having fun', but also when you are asleep, unconscious, etc. The fundamental unit of subjective time is not the tick of a clock, but the duration and significance of experience. Suspense is a good example of how semantic content shapes our temporal orientation. A narrative can build a sense of significance which generates an anticipation of resolution. Through storytelling we can figuratively condense or expand any length of time into a hours/minutes scaled text, be it a biography, a history, or an entire cosmology. This process of analogy and iconography is what perception is all about. Making sense of ourselves and our universe by capturing what is significant for us and using a likeness of it to build more significance through it.
Sensation, sensemaking, and sense 'in the sense of' categorization allows us as people to participate as an entity 'in the world' as well as to remain separate as an invisible voyeur in our private reality tunnel. Although our perceptions often function to represent to us an objective reality, they are presentations in their own right; sensorimotive experiences which are as much the referents of neurological conditions as neurological conditions are referents of associated subjective experiences. These analogies and descriptions are not arbitrary, but neither are they fixed. Blindsight and synesthesia show us that fixed qualia are not necessary for representation, and that representation can occur without any qualia at all. Computation does not require qualia, as there is no reason to presume it would have any positive or negative effect and no plausible mechanism for its emergence in the first place.
What multisense realism proposes is that rather than a separate force of physics, consciousness arises from awareness of awareness, which arises from perception of perception, feeling of feeling, sense of sense, and detection of detection. Each level constitutes a scale, or inertial frame of perceptual-relativity. Cutting across those frames orthogonally is a range of subjective experience and objective relativity.

The nature of the range is such that the closer a particular object, person, or place is to the subject (both literally close in terms of distance and physical scale, and figuratively close in semantic terms of being 'like' or 'liked by' the subject') the more the realism of the object is couched in personal associations. A building that we live in 'seems like' home, whereas an unfamiliar building seems like it 'simply is' a building.
Ultimately all of our senses of realism are our own, so that even the 'simply is' levels of chemical and physical realities are only our experiences of the most common experiences in the universe. Our view of matter arises from the density of our bodies, their solidity and consequential relations to the other solid, liquid, and gaseous presences surrounding it and permeating it. Our models of matter fail completely from the view of a neutrino or photon. Likewise a photomultiplier's model of photons fails completely to address our human optical presentation of light.
To understand perception, we have to recognize that the symmetry of subject and object is an extrapolation of symmetry itself. A principle of reflection in which something is just like itself and exactly not like itself. Metaphor. Semiotics. Multiple senses of realism, one literal and unambiguously exclusive, and another figurative and inclusive of everything except the literal and exclusive. In one sense the self defines itself in terms of what the world is not: private, signifying, orienting, multivalent, autobiographical, teleological, etc. In another sense the self defines the world in terms of what the self is not: public, a-signifying, generic, discrete, mechanistic, etc. These senses have historically blended so that spiritual traditions apply signifying qualities to the universe and materialist or computationalist views challenge subjective animism with projecting object sensibilities internally. Both of these approaches have yielded enormous misunderstanding as well as valuable knowledge and wisdom, but there is a tendency in each approach to overstate its benefits and deny its faults, thereby progressing into an egotistical pathology of denial and projection.

Multisense realism seeks to reconcile these misunderstandings by adding to our existing objective knowledge and subjective wisdom in a way which addresses the fact that they are both real in some sense, unreal in some sense, both real and and unreal in some sense, and neither real nor unreal in some sense. Realism arises from and through the sense and symmetry between these ideas. Too much subjective reference can degenerate into magical thinking and delusional mania. Too much objective reference tends to degenerate into reactionary pseudoskepticism and self negation. Both extremes disqualify their opposing ontology into a metaphysical never never land of irrelevant epiphenomenon of either teleological superlatives (God, Spirit) or mechanical universals (evolution, randomness). The cosmology of multisense realism locates causality itself as part of the cosmos - a consequence of sequence and sense which are actually more primitive than either objects or subjects.

Critique of Representational Qualia Theory. https://canonizer.com/topic/88/51
Summary:
We should not assume that perception is passive linear mechanism.
Perception is instead a collaborative particpation.
Human perception is indeed nested within or predicated upon many other layers of detection on the somatic, cellular, molecular, and atomic levels, and that nesting does entail latency and causality, but the experiences themselves are not the cause or effect of a mechanism. Such a mechanism is nonsensical by the infinite regress of homunculi.
The assumption of information as something that exists independently and is causally efficacious is unfounded.
Information is not an independent entity, it is a condition of being informed (internally changed) by experienced events.

We do not interpret our senses rather, our senses themselves as our only way of interpreting. Not just our sense organs but our neurological sensemaking which extends and elaborates internally as thought and feeling as well as external peripheral sensation.
Sense is not abstract, it is concrete. Making sense of something is a sensorimotive event with a neurological correlate, not an abstraction floating around in a disembodied state as 'data'.
1. Blue is not a representation of 'abstract information'. Information is abstract representation, not qualia. Qualia are concrete presentations in and of themselves. Whether qualia matters or not doesn't matter. As is mentioned in the Ideal Monism critique, the truthfulness of the content of blue is irrelevant to what makes it possible for blue to look blue at all.
2. Color does not need to be interpreted to be experienced. Blueness itself may have many meanings and associations, some personal, some cultural, some visually universal. It is a visual feeling that need not correlate to any particular referent.
3. Not all representation is anomalous. Some qualia have iconic properties rather than just indexical or symbolic. Blue could very well be a concrete presentation of molecular experiences or an enhancement or augmentation thereof.
Qualia cannot be reduced to function. Is the relevance of a beautiful sunset merely to inform the perceiver that it is no longer daytime? Or that the Earth is rotating? If so, it was not very successful in imparting the fact of the Earth's rotation for most of human history. The truth is that qualia have no functional validity whatsoever. There is no plausible adaptation value to a fictional abstraction layer in consciousness when any 'information' would be transmitted much more effectively as itself directly. A computer can run programs just as well with or without a monitor plugged into it. All programs running on it must be compiled into the same binary instruction code - no poetic adornments are required or recommended to improve function.
Blindsight and visual agnosia directly contradicts RQT as it demonstrates both representation without qualia and qualia without representation.
There is nothing red about 650nm electromagnetic radiation. Red is a sensorimotive experience of ocular and neural microbiota scaled up to a larger and slower inertial frame. The red that we see is biological, mammalian, and hominid as well as physical. There is a correlation with physical changes of that frequency (~461,200 Hz) and molecules within the retinal cells of course, but our experience does not represent those changes, it presents changes which relate to our experience as whole persons in an anthropologically scaled view of the world.
Perception is not a solipsistic simulation. The fact that our phenomenally red strawberry does not match the measurements of all possible observers and instruments does not mean that the realism of the strawberry is not as authoritative as any or all other measurements. Multisense realism proposes that our naive perception is a valid, albeit cumbersome frame of reference in the universe. We are seeing a red strawberry. A camera is detecting something that is not a strawberry, or a fruit, or a living organism, but it's own molecules response to illuminated objects in its environment on it's scale.
The ineffable nature of qualia stems from the inherent privacy of subjectivity. Only if we can share selves will we be able to know that we are sharing qualia, however there is not reason to assume that qualia would be any more variable than any other cultural or genetic traits. There are human ranges of qualia, culutral ranges, family ranges, gender ranges, individual ranges, etc
There is nothing in the activity of the nervous system to suggest the possibility of any specific qualia.
Delivery of qualia should not be confused with the qualia themselves. That we are excited or not by something, say gambling, does not mean that gambling is nothing more than the fact of our being excited by it.
Qualia are not transparent, they are like specular reflections. Neither solipsistic 'representation' nor direct revelation of a literal universal identity, what we perceive is the cumulative entanglement of the significance of all experiences. Just as this sentence evokes the understanding of English written language without having to be consciously translated from pixels on your screen, our perception is shaped by our own condensed experience as well as the condensed experiences of our tissues, molecules, planet, etc. Sense recapitulates. It bridges gaps, connects the dots, jumps to conclusions, etc. It is not a passive bombardment by external stimuli, it is an collaborative yet private participation. We are antennas of antennas. Not just gears and processors, but tuners and directors.
Our world is the interference pattern of multiple perceptual inertial frames. Our world is indivisible and real on an antrhopological level - as real as a quark or galaxy, but our world is not accessible from every other frame of reference. You need to be a person to experience a person's world. A metal detector or brain image scan doesn't live in our world, it lives in it's own world which overlaps with ours in certain ways which can inform and extend our view, but it should not be confused as a replacement.
Qualia are not physical in the sense of object properties like density, mass, specific gravity, and relative position. If by physical we mean that they are concretely real and an aspect of the same reality which is shared by electromagnetic phenomenology then yes, qualia is a sensorimotive dynamic inherent in all matter and not in empty space.
Qualia is literally energy, but from the experiential perspective rather than the computational perspective. All energy is the experience of some volume of material in the universe. When we view experience outside of our own intertial frame, it is in 'black and white' - devoid of subjective significance. We experience it as mere patterns of material change. The opposite of our own proprietary feelings about the powerfully significant (gigabit color in comparison) patterns of semantic change in our own life.
Subjectivity is private, and the more subjectively rich it is, the more private and ineffable. This doesn't mean that the world in which we participate is not the real world or that what we share with each other is not authentic. To the contrary, it is as real as any possible world, and between members of the same perceptual inertial frame, it could be said that the shared world is 'more than real', from a physics standpoint.

Edit summary : added critique of RQT points
Submitted on :
Submitter Nick Name : Multisense Realism
Go live Time :
Statement :
It is proposed that human consciousness constitutes a specific range of sensitivities in a context of many possible sensitivities associated with all physical phenomena. At this point, having access only to our individual human consciousness, we can only generalize to a limited extent. Even in generalizing human experience, our variation in culture, age, gender, individual physiological capacities, etc prevents us from arriving at a comprehensive definition of what it is and what it is not. We know from human history that cultural bias, in the form recurring of racism, genocide, intolerance, and persecution, blinds us even to identifying with our own species, let alone the subjective experiences of other organisms. We know that whatever subjectivity is, it is prejudiced in favor of itself and against what it doesn't 'like' or what seems to be unlike itself. But what is 'itself'? What is 'like?' How do the two relate...what is 'like itself' (or "like", itself)?
These questions are at the heart of what sense is. Multisense realism is a kind of panexperientialism in that it views the capacity to detect and be detected is the fundamental and defining principle of 'realism'. The relation between the two is what the entire cosmos, from atom to galaxy, is 'made of'. The only difference is in the way these relations are bundled together. As a subject, the relation of world to self is a perceptual experience through time. The relation of the self to the world is as a material body in a place. It is critical to understand the importance of the symmetry, that in fact, all material bodies are in places on the 'outside' and have experience (not like a human experience, but a detection-participation of some kind) on the 'inside'.
Again, our history of being able to appreciate the consciousness of other people and species is so consistently abysmal that we should know that we cannot be trusted to judge the capacities of subjective agents. We treat cartoons and stuffed animals like they are our intimate friends and people who live down the street like they are irrelevant shadows. We are not a good source for vetting the possibilities of agency. This makes sense though. We are not universal detectors of agency, we are human organisms who exist in a particular niche of intersecting phenomena of a particular range of scales and velocities. Our direct experience has a range of only about 0.1Hz to 0.3 nHz, a tiny fraction of a moment in terms of geological time or an ocean of near eternities on a subatomic chronological scale.
What does time really mean though? What is a scale? Both are ordering principles, the former which models experiences or events sequentially, and the latter which models the relations of relations as a nonsequential parallelism. Our perception of time is affected by the quality of our consciousness. 'Time flies when you're having fun', but also when you are asleep, unconscious, etc. The fundamental unit of subjective time is not the tick of a clock, but the duration and significance of experience. Suspense is a good example of how semantic content shapes our temporal orientation. A narrative can build a sense of significance which generates an anticipation of resolution. Through storytelling we can figuratively condense or expand any length of time into a hours/minutes scaled text, be it a biography, a history, or an entire cosmology. This process of analogy and iconography is what perception is all about. Making sense of ourselves and our universe by capturing what is significant for us and using a likeness of it to build more significance through it.
Sensation, sensemaking, and sense 'in the sense of' categorization allows us as people to participate as an entity 'in the world' as well as to remain separate as an invisible voyeur in our private reality tunnel. Although our perceptions often function to represent to us an objective reality, they are presentations in their own right; sensorimotive experiences which are as much the referents of neurological conditions as neurological conditions are referents of associated subjective experiences. These analogies and descriptions are not arbitrary, but neither are they fixed. Blindsight and synesthesia show us that fixed qualia are not necessary for representation, and that representation can occur without any qualia at all. Computation does not require qualia, as there is no reason to presume it would have any positive or negative effect and no plausible mechanism for its emergence in the first place.
What multisense realism proposes is that rather than a separate force of physics, consciousness arises from awareness of awareness, which arises from perception of perception, feeling of feeling, sense of sense, and detection of detection. Each level constitutes a scale, or inertial frame of perceptual-relativity. Cutting across those frames orthogonally is a range of subjective experience and objective relativity. The nature of the range is such that the closer a particular object, person, or place is to the subject (both literally close in terms of distance and physical scale, and figuratively close in semantic terms of being 'like' or 'liked by' the subject') the more the realism of the object is couched in personal associations. A building that we live in 'seems like' home, whereas an unfamiliar building seems like it 'simply is' a building.
Ultimately all of our senses of realism are our own, so that even the 'simply is' levels of chemical and physical realities are only our experiences of the most common experiences in the universe. Our view of matter arises from the density of our bodies, their solidity and consequential relations to the other solid, liquid, and gaseous presences surrounding it and permeating it. Our models of matter fail completely from the view of a neutrino or photon. Likewise a photomultiplier's model of photons fails completely to address our human optical presentation of light.
To understand perception, we have to recognize that the symmetry of subject and object is an extrapolation of symmetry itself. A principle of reflection in which something is just like itself and exactly not like itself. Metaphor. Semiotics. Multiple senses of realism, one literal and unambiguously exclusive, and another figurative and inclusive of everything except the literal and exclusive. In one sense the self defines itself in terms of what the world is not: private, signifying, orienting, multivalent, autobiographical, teleological, etc. In another sense the self defines the world in terms of what the self is not: public, a-signifying, generic, discrete, mechanistic, etc. These senses have historically blended so that spiritual traditions apply signifying qualities to the universe and materialist or computationalist views challenge subjective animism with projecting object sensibilities internally. Both of these approaches have yielded enormous misunderstanding as well as valuable knowledge and wisdom, but there is a tendency in each approach to overstate its benefits and deny its faults, thereby progressing into an egotistical pathology of denial and projection.

Multisense realism seeks to reconcile these misunderstandings by adding to our existing objective knowledge and subjective wisdom in a way which addresses the fact that they are both real in some sense, unreal in some sense, both real and and unreal in some sense, and neither real nor unreal in some sense. Realism arises from and through the sense and symmetry between these ideas. Too much subjective reference can degenerate into magical thinking and delusional mania. Too much objective reference tends to degenerate into reactionary pseudoskepticism and self negation. Both extremes disqualify their opposing ontology into a metaphysical never never land of irrelevant epiphenomenon of either teleological superlatives (God, Spirit) or mechanical universals (evolution, randomness). The cosmology of multisense realism locates causality itself as part of the cosmos - a consequence of sequence and sense which are actually more primitive than either objects or subjects.

Edit summary : First Version
Submitted on :
Submitter Nick Name : Multisense Realism
Go live Time :