<

contemplations

 

<

 

you have opened to our full collection of philosophy - meditations on art and human consciousness

>

 

Samsensis-Adfect theory moves away from pre-existing socially confined explanations about the nervous system and “consciousness”. It should rather detail a more naked structure of what might be referred to as “the conscious experience”, using Buddhist, Phenomenological, Psychoanalytical, Neuroscientific, and Computational perspectives. The aim is to take a metaphysical step back from western, culturally constructed ideas about human nature to create a model of this “conscious experience” that can be applied to all creatures with a nervous system. And to responsibly go about this work, the paper distinguishes empirically supported and more spiritually observed evidence that substructure Samsensis-Adfect theory’s fundamental axioms. But for those of you concerned about how my thesis might sound more like a bad acid trip from an undergraduate liberal arts major whose read enough Alan Watts to confuse himself, let me explain what this thesis is NOT:

  • An attempt at explaining or structuring “consciousness” 

 

  • An attempt at tackling the “hard problem”[1]

 

  • An attempt at explaining neurobiological processes involved in “consciousness”

 

  • A highly academic philosophical paper, review of neurobiological literature, or complex computational proof 

    Academics rest easy. This thesis is the result of carefully selected literature in Neuroscience, Computer Science, Psychiatry, and several branches of Western and Buddhist philosophy. Plebs. Having a background in any of these fields will help, but is not necessary to understand the important points. Three years of academic and personal experience everything mind from neuro-phenomenology to Mahamudra Buddhist meditation resulted in this rusty framework of one way to think about the “conscious experience.” The Samsensis-Adfect theory does touch on the “hard problem” and general neurobiology, but does it’s best to tread carefully. This IS what the thesis turned into:

  • Philosophical musings on the recent scientific discoveries in neuroscience and quantum physics 

 

  • A metaphysical framework explaining how to properly understand the proposed Samsensis-Adfect theory

 

  • The Samsensis-Adfect model of neural systems and its fundamental axioms based in psychoanalysis, Buddhism, and disciplines commonly integrated in Cognitive Science

 

  • A reflection on my own philosophical thought process that lead me to pursue this research

 

    It’s important to come at Samsensis-Adfect theory from the right perspective. The dialogue between Cernus and Chatpraa sets the axioms for the Samsensis-Adfect theory. This should establish the assumptions made in this attempt at studying the “conscious experience.” They’ll also discuss aspects of the thesis like the decision to create another word for the used and abused “consciousness.” Poor gal has been labeled so many times by everyone from millennial hippies as “The Flower of Life” to computational Neuroscientists as µ[2] that she’s lost all sense of self-identity. Both the word and theory of Samsensis[3] captures the experiential aspect of “consciousness,” the undeniable phenomenon you’re experiencing this moment through. The two will be using very general language about the “mind” first. Then after the dialogue, vague concepts like “creativity” or “imagination” will be explained using the more precise language of Samsensis-Adfect theory.  

Cernus and Chatpraa’s Banter on the Nature of Reality

Cernus and Chatpraa just plugged themselves into the psychotronics[4] matrix library, containing every known written work transcribed and translated into every language. Their central nervous systems whirred as the Atman generator’s diamond circuits oscillated with each of their electromagnetic frequencies. 

They could finally communicate.

Cernus: Chatpraa would you say that you're more than just your matter?

Chatpraa: Well I'd like to think so. I have my own internal thoughts and feelings that don't seem to exist anywhere else. And if they did I'm really hoping that my freshman year senior crush Alexa never found where they were.

Cernus: Haha yeah I definitely had an Alexa. Jesus. Some of the things I used to think about I'd rather NOT even admit NOT wanting to admit. There was this one girl, Lucy, which is a weird name for a high schooler to have at the beginning of the 21st century, but oh my god. She definitely felt like more than a figment of my imagination when she only joked about kissing me in front of her boyfriend to make him jealous. My imagination was more creative than that. 

Chatpraa: Cernus, Cernus, Cernus, you’re the teacher. I never thought you’d ever admit something like that. But the only senior Alexis I ever kissed was not the one that had ever kissed me. She was that kind of girl that I could kiss in public without anyone ever noticing, if you know what I mean. That Alexis wasn’t made of any matter you or my professor could see. 

Cernus: Doesn't sound like she was made of the same kind of matter as the Alexis you would have wanted or could have even taken home after prom. At least that one your parents wouldn't have discovered the next day. 

Chatpraa: All I have to say is that thankfully whatever's in the comfort and safety of my own mind doesn't always introduce itself into the mind’s of others. “Hey Alexis, private thought #564 from down the street. I live with Chatpraa.”  

Cernus: So, back to the question. Could whatever's in your mind also be matter?

Chatpraa: Well no because it's not real. It's in my mind. Well it couldn’t just walk down the street. Alexis would have never agreed to do more than just maybe have lunch with me. It's like what we just said. They didn't exist in anyone else's minds but mine.

Cernus: Why is that any less real? Why wouldn’t that be matter?

Chatpraa: It had no atomic structure. As our chemical understanding of matter goes, those thoughts wouldn’t be made up of fermions the same way Alexis’ beautiful smile, luscious hair, and supple teets were. 

Cernus: Oh no, we’re losing him. We’re using the word matter then like a chemist or a particle physicist would.

Chatpraa: Ok ok. I’m not finished. They’re not made up of the same fermions in the same way those teets were, other than maybe how my neurons were firing at a certain moment. Just look at the past 150 years of neuroscience[5][6][7]. There’s definitely some sort of correlation between the matter or even substance of my mind and those atoms that make up my nerves. Or maybe through how the air oscillated around my head through electromagnetic frequencies emitted from my skull. Oh god! Then they definitely left the comfort and safety of my skull!

Cernus: Haha Praa I really doubt those are the kinds of thoughts someone with that kind of technology would want to "see". Not that we even have technology more advanced than the human brain that could copy our mental stuff and present it to someone else. Only this Atman machine can read our thoughts.

Chatpraa: True. It doesn’t even do more than instant message our thoughts verbally to each other. 

Cernus: So much has changed since hitting puberty but AIM will never always be there. Chatpraa. If it’s not the same matter a particle physicist would define as matter. But there is matter to our thoughts. Is there a structure to the matter of our thoughts, the same way those fermions make up Alexa’s… luscious hair?

Chatpraa: Uhhummm. Yuh mean those supple beauties that inspire the muses themselves to provoke these philosophies! So it’s not matter in the same way that a particle physicist would define matter. There would still be a structure to our mental matter in some sense. Again. Look at the past 150 years of neuroscience. If I had damaged my Broca’s area I wouldn’t even be able to form these sentences. That would take away a lot of sensations.

Cernus: But would that really affect the existence of a structure or just the potential of a structure compared to a fully functioning brain, like mine? 

Chatpraa: I guess that would just affect that potential of how it could be structured, then. There would still be some sort of structured experience. Both of our mental matters though would be missing part of my signature Chatpraa personality.

Cernus: As long as it doesn’t keep bringing up supple teets, I’d be missing it as much as you would – young pupil. But say I was an evil scientist and with a neurodegenerative poison I dissolved your Broca’s area and both your optic nerves. Would the structure of your experience still be affected?

Chatpraa: Well, if I were trying to tell you how stupid you look with your evil lab coat on. Yes it would affect the structure of that experience. I’d never be able to see how stupid you look with it on. But no it probably would just change my conscious experience, drastically. But not affect the existence of an experience or even of a structure to my experience. 

Cernus: And if I took out your hippocampus?

Chatpraa: Then I’d just be H.M.[8]

Cernus: You still would still have a conscious experience but wouldn’t be able to remember things very well.

Cernus: So if I kept removing parts of your conscious experience where do you think the experience would end?

Chatpraa: Probably until you messed with something that would stop my heart. If you keep removing all my nerves until I’m left with only the bare minimum that would keep my alive. Actually, I guess as long as I still had a functioning pre-frontal cortex [9] or my electromagnetic frequencies could oscillate at the same 40 HZ [10] rate the Atman generator does, I’d at least have the potential to be conscious. 

Cernus: Maybe our mind stuff is made through wave functions found in the brain’s extremely complex microtubule matrix self-collapsing in quantum gravity [11]? 

Chatpraa: Whatever that means. It seems like neuroscience still has a ways to go before we can actually agree on any specific mechanisms [12]. This deduction is pretty limited to the very little amount of neuroscience we do know. But at the very least we do know that there is a direct correlation between the brain and mind.

Cernus: Good. Neuroscience though seems to assume though that the mind cannot exist without the body but the body can exist without the mind. So according to Neuroscience there’s more of a causation rather than correlation between the brain and mind.

Chatpraa: But what about the soul, Cernus!?

Cernus: Neuroscience has no place for the soul.

Chatpraa: Ew

Cernus: Haha. Pretty good question. Neuroscience only shows that the removal or stimulation of a certain area of the brain causes a response in the mind. It doesn’t disprove that some sort of “soul realm” exists beyond our nervous system that can effect it in some way. Can the mind. Maybe the soul? Influence the physiology of the brain in the same way it influences the mind? What about a person who has both a mind and a nervous system that's deployed and experiences horrible things on the battlefield? PTSD’s been shown to actually cause physical damage to the nervous system.[13]

Chatpraa: PTSD is a very mental event. That still doesn't mean there's not a physical cause to it all. It still could be the brain damaging itself. It could be that those specific light or auditory patterns picked up on the battle field due to the neural structure of our brain happen to excite certain areas like the amygdala and dull down other areas like the prefrontal-cortex as found in patients with PTSD [14]. Those specific sensory frequencies certain emanate neurodegenerative processes that cause that damage you’re talking about. 

Cernus: That’s definitely one point of view. Those patterns only have meaning to us because they correlate to the meaning we give to PTSD. It wouldn’t be PTSD to the nervous system. A patient might be having horrible nightmares about a specific experience and be on edge all the time. We might give him a brain scan and say he has an overactive amygdala. In that sense the brain and mind are no different. So when we say the mind has an effect on the brain, according to neuroscience, we’re just saying that certain areas of the brain that we correlate more to what we associate with the word “mind” influence other areas of the nervous system that correlate more with the word “brain.”

Chatpraa: That’s very true. Mind over matter for a paraplegic might just be prefrontal cortex over C4 damage. One is responsible for Higher level functioning after all.

Cernus: Yeah. I see how you sPun that around on me. ;) That’s an advanced joke. Right there we just gave meaning to a subjective experience that exists in correlation to the brain. The study of humor though to a writer is very different from the study of humor to a neuroscientist with an fMRI machine. Meaning can change drastically between people’s

Chatpraa: The writer’s meaning comes from the same place that Alexa’s or Lucy’s kisses came from. 

Cernus: Unfortunately for us. Yes. So we know that so then the actual structure of any sort of conscious experience could be understood through the neural correlates. But like relationships.

Chatpraa: Well. Almost relationships.

Cernus: Haha well, yeah.  The human brain is far too complicated for the scientific community to understand the connection between every part of the brain and our experience as human beings.

Chatpraa: The mind can though learn about it’s structure, like philosophers of mind in phenomenology claim [15]. I know that I perceive information from the physical realm. I can learn about that information by thinking about my own experience. That is how people have been identifying human biology in the first place. We’re interested in our eyes because we all have and like our sight. Neuroscience has made some of it’s biggest leaps forward through self-reported or observed differences between behavior and mental phenomenon. 

Cernus: That’s true. We can’t discount our experiences. But, it is comforting to know that we can use neuroscience to more precisely define a structure of our conscious experience. Like vision, we can trace back to how the rods and cones pick up light. 

Chatpraa: True. So we have life. We have mind. We have a representation of a world that exists outside our perception of it. But when it comes down to it. We can only understand anything through our own minds.

Cernus:  That’s a very Buddhist perspective and claiming that everything in your own experience is a product of the mind [16]. It’s only as real to you, as the mind makes it. Your perception of it’s absolute truth is just an illusion.

Chatpraa: Hmmmm. I don’t know. That might be kind of a jump. When you come out the club right? And your girl’s crazy ex sees her in public. His fist can be very real. You getting hit in the jaw is no illusion.  

Cernus: Well Chatpraa, we can’t forget that we did recognize the existence of a physical world. Remember what we talked about with PTSD? The illusion is not that it exists in a physical world. It’s that we can only understand it through our mind. To you the experience is very real. But how the experience is perceived outside of yourself doesn’t hold any more truth than what your mind give it. 

Chatpraa: It’s still real for everyone around me. It’s real for her and the police that might show up later.

Cernus: It’s only real to them through their own experience as subjects with conscious experiences similar to yours. 

Chatpraa: So the way our mind portrays the fist is just an illusion, created by our nervous system then? We only understand what the fist looks like, feels like. Smells like? Through our own nervous system’s portrayal of it through our own mind. But isn’t the knowledge that a fist hitting your temple or jaw at a certain angle could kill you, an illusion.

Cernus: And Chatpraa. My friend. This brings us to our final point. DEATH IS AN ILLUSION.

Chatpraa: Cernus? You know I’m no Socrates to your Parmenides. But I’m gonna say. I think we’re confused about the word illusion here.

Cernus: I’m just messing with you. But if the nervous system evokes our mind in some way, doesn’t that make life the greatest illusion? If we want to get way far out there then maybe, sure. Life and death hold no real truth other than what our minds give them. But Cernus, we’re getting a little too spiritual here. In a more academic, intellectual sense, sure life is kind of an illusion. But that’s like trying to use neuroscience as religion. We both know that life is a lot more than just neurochemical reactions. Lucyyyyyy!

Chatpraa: Oh god ya. We gotta stop that. That’s like Socrates reasoning that God has no real knowledge[16]. Plato though claims that these illusions come to us as representations of forms, like movement or beauty. Phenomena that exist outside of our senses, that we only perceive shadows of. How much of these are just “illusions” though outside of our heads? And stop mentioning our pubescent fantasy girls. Stop it.

Cernus: Haha well. When you put it that way… Let’s go through this based on what we know about evolutionary biology. And I’m not talking about Alexa’s biology either. Our nervous systems evolved over a certain amount of time right?

Chatpraa: Sure. And according to evolutionary theory, they developed very intentionally. To thrive in their physical environment. So wouldn’t we have developed these mental conceptions for a reason? Our nervous system developed to increase an individual and it’s species survival rate in a certain physical environment.

Cernus: Right

Chatpraa: And our mind is purely a conception of our nervous system. 

Cernus: According to Neuroscience. And don’t forget we can only understand anything, including our own minds, through our own minds.

Chatpraa: So then since we developed the ability to perceive these objects in a certain way, wouldn’t they follow certain trends within the physical realm? These trends certainly wouldn’t only be illusions evoked by our nervous system would they be? There’d have to be some sort of evolutionary purpose behind how we perceive them.

Cernus: Well that’s where raw philosophy is blind and we need to turn to empirical evidence in physics. Just look at the concept of Dark Matter [18].  What’s so interesting is that most of the matter out in the universe, even on earth, we can’t perceive. 

Chatpraa: Wait. But if we can only perceive things through our own senses and that exists outside of our perception. How do we know it exists?

Cernus: We’ve never seen a fermion but we know they exist. We may only be able to understand things through representations, like math. We may only understand the math itself through our own perspective but it can still represent things that we can’t perceive directly. 


Chatpraa: Oh. Right. But let me site a piece of empirical evidence. You’ve heard of the two-slit experiment right? 

Cernus: Of course. 

Chatpraa: So quantum physics then doesn’t necessarily match up with evolutionary biology. There was a preexisting earth that existed before life itself did. Right? Where would life evolve from if matter didn’t exist in some way before life? Since the presence of a conscious observer collapses the wave function and creates this 4th dimensional space-time continuum humans float around in. Excelsior!

Cernus: We have geological records of an earth that existed before the first cells developed. But those could have just been part of the wave function that collapsed when the first conscious life biogenesized. 

Chatpraa: Ohhh. Nice word. Maybe there was some sort of conscious experience that existed before the first conscious life did. God? ALIENS?

Cernus: Haha then Aliens actually did make us. He collapsed the wave function. Bruhhhhh. Hit this jay. 

Chatpraa: I’m ashing blunts already, boi.

Cernus: Haha I can tell. This is starting to sound like we’ve been watching too many History Channel specials. 

Chatpraa: But seriously that’s an interesting point. These forms then did develop for a certain reason, according to evolutionary biology. In defense of Plato, our perception of these forms did develop in a certain way to preserve the survival of the organism and its species. So their truth exists in the way that we perceive them to exist. We can perceive a form like beauty or even largeness. 

Cernus: The form largeness is even necessary for the most basic life forms with nervous systems to exist. How else would a raccoon know not to fight a bear? Or a bird knowing not to fly too far away from land. 

Chatpraa: These forms then may represent patterns nervous systems developed to represent certain forms the physical world abides by. Or at least the physical realm the nervous system studies live in.

Cernus:  The “illusion” is just the subjective experience our nervous system evokes. Outside of our perception of the nervous system, in the space between our nerves, those nerves developed in a way to live and protect its integrity. The first organisms, single celled life forms, had to protect themselves from the environment. Evolutionary theory ties the conscious experience down to the body as something developed to maintain the integrity of the physical form. So the perception of it in our minds must have a meaning.

Chatpraa: Of course. It’s really easy to get wrapped up in one perspective and try to go on living like all life is an illusion. Conscious experiences evolved out of life’s three basic needs according to Darwin – food, water, and shelter. Food, water, and shelter exist outside of our nervous systems to nurture our bodies. Without our nervous systems how tangible would the conscious experience be? 

Cernus: Maybe it lives in the dark matter? Is dark matter consciousness?

Maybe an entire society of other beings exists directly in front of us that move in sync with the space in between our matter that we’d never know about.

Chatpraa: Their existence then would have to exist outside human perception. For whatever reason we evolved in a way where it wasn’t important for our survival to perceive that kind of matter. Or at the very least all people perceive things in a way close enough to where we can pretty effectively communicate. 

Cernus: We did evolve though in a certain way to be able to perceive the 70% of non-dark matter on this planet. In some way there could be a kind of form that to create our mind to perceive these illusions the way that it does. Somewhere there may be forms but those forms still can only be understood through our own minds. We will never be able to understand anything outside of what our nervous system creates for us. What do you think then are the implications for the nervous system then? How could everything outside of the nervous system be physical when my nervous system itself is physical?

Chatpraa: Is it because your nervous system is physical outside of your perception of it?

Cernus: That’s also true, but there are other nervous systems outside of your own. Right?

Chatpraa: Sure. So because we’re talking about a concept that exists as a result of every nervous system, an individual’s nervous system, may not be outside of itself. It does though exist outside of another nervous system’s, making it physical. But what if there was only one nervous system? Or every nervous system in the world joined together. 

Cernus: Well, what are nervous systems but a collection of neurons. Each area of the nervous system has the capability to view other parts of itself. Neurons are designed to perceive the other’s around it. The same way that my nervous system can perceive yours. Each neuron exists separately from each other. The physical world is the space between the neurons. Through their communication, somehow they evoke the mind.

Chatpraa: And in that mind, we create our own perception don’t we? I have my own ideas that I create.

Cernus: Exactly like Alexa haha.

Chatpraa: Or like my opinions towards presidential candidates or visualizations of a dream house.

Cernus: So it seems like we’ve established a few different sort of “realities.” Where certain objects exist in, within the realm of our own perception. They’re more like perceptual realms. 

     

    We can begin thinking about how to conceptualize the “mind”, now that we know there’s at least some difference between the mental and physical. The mental realm perceives the physical realm, through something physical in itself – the nervous system. Some transphysical phenomenon occurs within an organism’s nervous system that evokes sensory information into the conscious experience. This mental, like we saw from Cernus and Chatpraa’s conversation creates things like that kiss from Alexa. The kiss that fortunately and unfortunately for Chatpraa, only existed in the personal comfort of his imagination. 

 

    So just to embellish the main points we’ve made so far:

    • There is a mental realm with properties that exist outside of the physical realm
    • There is information within the mental realm that only the nervous system that evoked it can view

 

    • There is a physical realm, with matter that multiple nervous systems can perceive at once

 

    • The nervous system itself exists in the physical realm but evokes a conscious experience in the mental realm through a transphysical process we don’t understand

 

    • We can only perceive things through the mental realm that our nervous systems evokes

 

    • Nervous systems evolve in a certain way to perceive the world around them for the benefit of their survival and the survival of the species

 

    • An organism’s nervous system morphology determines the amount and type of information evoked into the conscious experience of the mental realm 

 

    • That information evoked is either from internal or external sensory sources

 

    • Mental realm is what the conscious experience is made out of then perception is the conscious experience itself 

 

 

    • Each organism has the potential to remodel sensory input to create representations of objects that don’t exist in the physical realm

 

    The conscious experience itself creates what doesn’t exist in the physical realm other than the neural correlates associated to that mental activity. So the forms then exist in the way our nervous system was designed. 

 

    Now we can more precisely define our language. I’m going to introduce the Samsensis-Adfect model. Remember this is a concept. Something that my mind has developed in the mental realm. The Samsensis-Adfect model is a model of the conscious experience as understood through the conscious experience. This isn’t a metaphysical structure to a conscious experience. It’s more of a metaphysical structure of a conscious experience as understood through the metaphysical framework I’ve described above. It is one possible way to model the conscious experience. The specificity of the model lies in its framework mingling concepts from Neuroscience, Phenomenology, and Computer Science to avoid using words to describe certain phenomenon like “emotion” or “attention”. These words describe mental phenomenon whose meaning is implied through your own subjective experience. The following mode introduces the first attempts to structure a general nervous system.  

 

Samsensis.

 

    Samsensis is the phenomenological experience of the conscious experience, that follows the same rules Merlaeu - Ponty outlined [19]. It is irreducible to any parts. The term Samsensis represents the concept of the conscious space that every nervous system evokes. Samsensis is the abstract idea of the conscious experience. It isn’t the phenomenon itself, but the idea that there is an experience. It can be looked at as sort of where the mental matter goes. 

    This mental matter that we’ve been referring to entirely makes up Samsensis in a way that multiple geese make up a gaggle. The geese must fly together in the same space to make the gaggle. The gaggle cannot exist in any physical sense without the geese. Only the concept, idea of the gaggle can exist. The same goes for Samsensis and this mental matter. Samsensis is like the gaggle, and when the mental matter is evoked into the conscious experience Samsensis transpires. Samsensis itself is not the mental matter but the idea of what the mental matter creates as it flies off the nervous system into the mental realm. A gaggle is not the geese but what the geese create, once they take flight. 

    Philosophically there are a lot of language problems with this metaphor. “Gaggle” is just a word used to describe specifically a group of geese, whereas Samsensis describes the visceral experience of how those geese are perceived. There would be no “gaggle” without someone with a conscious experience to come up with that term to describe a group of geese. But for now, use the metaphor to understand the significance of the term Samsensis. 

    A certain structure or pattern forms once the geese take flight. The geese evolved to structure their gaggle depending on their physical environment. The nervous system evolved to evoke Samsensis in a certain way depending on the organism. The structure the nervous system evoked Samsensis into we’ll be referring to as Cognitive Samsensis. Here in lies the organism’s perception. 

    Each organism’s perception is different. A bat has different senses than a human being. So since we’ve established that the nervous system structures Cognitive Samsensis is certain ways, we know that different nervous systems evoke different Cognitive Samsensis. The neural morphology of the organism determines the matter that is evoked in a certain Cognitive Samsensis. At it’s core, Cognitive Samsensis is the sensory information the nervous system decides to evoke into this mental matter. 

    That matter is further manipulated and rearranged in new ways. Neurologically, many neuroscientists believe this manipulation happens in the prefrontal cortex. But the neurologically correlated tracts involved in manipulating this mental matter are much more difficult to identify with our current technology. So structuring the conscious experience requires a more metaphysical approach, at this point in the history of science.

    The truth of the theory lies in the metaphysical perspectives outlined above. We’re going to have to understand where the validity of the Samsensis-Adfect properties of the subjective experience lie. We want to most precisely define the language that will be introduced in Samsensis-Adfect theory. So to begin, we should think about how that model is perceived in the first place. Cognitive Samsensis is a model neurologically that is only understood through the model itself. Within that model new models are created, like Figure 1 above. Since we are conscious beings, we study everything through our own Cognitive Samsensis. We must model Cognitive Samsensis through itself gestating through the Nervous System, Transphysical Phenomenon, and Cognitive Samsensis. Cognitive Samsensis0 represents the nervous system’s model of itself – the perception that you as the reader have or me as the writer has about this theory. Cognitive Samsensis1 is the model of the Cognitive Samsensis space. So the metaphysical perception of the theory looks a little something like this.

 

    So we have a general structure of the relationships between our view of the general structure and how the nervous system evokes a conscious experience. But what does that mental matter look like?

 

Objects.

    There are a lot of concerns in philosophy of mind and Cognitive Science about what things like “attention,” “knowledge,” or “experience” are. Or even if they’re the same thing. But what people seem to be neglecting is that these words themselves only represent visceral experiences. There are many pieces of literature on the subject of “knowledge” or “experience” that people relate information about to. These visceral experiencesThe word The concept of an Object attempts to move away from all of the socially constructed boundaries that we’ve created in these kinds of wordsOne of the biggest concerns I’ve noticed in philosophy of mind is about the difference between knowledge and experience. Or even if there is a difference other than these two words. This concept of an Object and how it structures Cognitive Samsensis should provide a completely new framework to view the mind in. Objects make up the entirety of an individual nervous system’s Cognitive Samsensis. 

    Just to recap briefly where we’re at. The nervous system biogenesizes Samsensis, which is just raw consciousness. It’s something that we’ve never experienced because our conscious experience, or Cognitive Samsensis, emerges out of certain neurological parts that serve a function to transmit information transphysically. Samsensis is just the idea, the concept of a conscious experience. 

    An Object gestates through the Nervous System, Transphysical Phenomenon, and Cognitive Samsensis. Objects though if I were to explain them to a third grader, represent anything a human can put a word to – the color red, a hard wood floor, walking, feelings of justice, or even time. Linguistics though are a whole different beast to slay. So just keep that in the back of your mind as I structure this idea.

 

    An Object is a set of properties that transcend the physical and Samsensis realms:

  • Reduced to Neural correlates
  • Stimulus becomes an Object when it first has an identifiable neural correlate
  • Objects can be in either a potential or Samsensis state
  • Evoked to create Cognitive Samsensis
  • Learned, can be represented using artificial neural networks
  • Made up infinitely of potential smaller objects stored in memory or new knowledge that can be creatively made – inherently connected through the self object at different learned strengths to be called into Cognitive Samsensis
  • Posses an Adfectual state 
  • Makes up part or whole of Cognitive Samsensis

 

    Like we talked about earlier, a fundamental axiom in neuroscience is that every qualia can be traced to a physical, neural process. 150 years of neuroscience has shown us that the most simple sensory functions – like vision – to the most complex emotional experiences – love – have a neurological explanation. I’ve got thousands of studies supporting this. Obviously neurological explanations are not the only explanations, but they can be useful for treating disorders like PTSD. But to a love sick poet, being told that person is nothing but a sack of chemical processes would probably make the hole in the heart larger. 

    We also established earlier that the transphysical relationship between the mind and brain isn’t even close to being understood. Since we don’t understand it yet, we’re going to break up an object’s properties between these two metaphysical realms whose properties we understand better.

    Objects can be traced back to some sort of neural correlate and contributes to the makeup of Cognitive Samsensis. The neural correlate provides a tangible structure to the brain. We can understand that there is at least some difference between physical neurons in the brain. Those physical neurons we’ve seen correlate to specific parts of our Cognitive Samsensual experiences, giving Cognitive Samsensis an irrefutable structure. Even though Samsensis is irreducible to any sort of structure. 

    These objects are entirely learned phenomenon. The nervous system has learned through evolution a way to present these more abstract sensory objects like vision, hearing, or even love. Then those sensory objects are formed in Cognitive Samsensis. Each of those sensory objects then make up an object like my new blue car. I love the way my car’s new engine sounds as I pull it out of my garage. I love the way it’s new teal coat glints off the sun. Through the model, my cognitive Samsensis has learned that the “My Dope New Car” Object includes the visual sense “blue,” the auditory sense “cool engine purr,” and the internal sense “love.” But also, each ofthe sense Objects “blue,” “cool engine purr,” and “love” have also been learned. The sense Object “blue” has been learned through the evolution of my neurology. The sense Object “cool engine purr” has been learned through what I’ve associated as cool to specific auditory sound coming from a “car” Object. “Love” has been learned also through the evolution of my biology perhaps from our species inherently developed characteristic to reproduce and preserve it’s own genetic makeup. 

    All of these objects get infinitely more complex as we start to break them down. Each of these Objects I’m proposing are made up of a potentially infinitely number of other objects. These can be reduced down to certain neural correlates that we can understand through the field of neuroscience. Our neurological structure can be divided by the information that it processes. The nervous system picks up external information from the physical realm through things like sight, hearing, or thermoception. The nervous system also picks up other senses that exist within a person’s body or nervous system like proprioception, hunger, emotions, or time. Neuroscience is by no means close to mapping out every neural correlate to every Object evoked into the Cognitive Samsensis. We’re only just discovering the neural pathways for things like empathy or love. But based on the axiom we’ve established within neuroscience that every part of the conscious experience has a neural correlate, we can reduce any possible object that could exist in Cognitive Samsensis can be reduced to neural pathways. 

    Objects develop by updating themselves to certain environments in both the physical or Samsensis realms. Every stimulus emitted into an area of the nervous system has the potential to change the neuronal structure of that area. Take a baby touching a smoldering piece of wood. The areas of the brain that associate all the sensory input of a smoldering piece of wood object strengthen their connections to the amygdala and other parts of the brain involved in other Objects like fear. The infant just merged the fear object into a preexisting or newly created smoldering piece of wood object. Processes like LTP and LTD affect how frequently neurons fire. They affect which Objects in memory, say, in the hippocampus have stronger connections to emotional objects in the amygdala. Since Samsensis itself is irreducible it’s important to organize the structure of a Samsensis experience – Cognitive Samsensis – into its reducible, neural correlates. 

    Yes, neuroscientists only understand a small fraction of these neural correlates. But this model, remember is a metaphysical framework to structure the nervous system. It’s an attempt to represent neural functions abstractly and their relationship to the phenomenological, conscious realm that we’ve been referring to as Samsensis. So let us continue our excursion.

    Cognitive Samsensis itself can be viewed as a single Object. That single Cognitive Samsensis Object can be broken down into a finite amount of smaller Objects down to the basic sensory Objects the nervous system evoked into Cognitive Samsensis. Again, it’s extremely difficult to trace these neural correlates for every Object. Vision for example can be traced back to the eye and all the very well mapped neurological structure inside. But things like the neuroscience of philosophy or how a human being can think about thinking involves much more complicated sensory input that can’t be directly traced to basic senses. 

    The nervous system, as we know, is made up of neurons. Though these Objects all exist within different areas of the nervous system. They’re sort of like programs in a hard drive. They’re made up of a certain number of files, which are made up of files continuously until you reach the raw binaural data. The hard drive stores these files in multiple places throughout itself, like the nervous system stores memory of these objects. That raw binaural datum corresponds directly to the 1 or 0 – on or off – states of the computer’s individual circuits, like the on and off states of individual neurons or cellular neural networks. The Objects are “run” when their circuits potentiate to a 1 state. 

    Within the Self Object there are certain Objects associated evolutionarily, through our neurology to pleasure Objects or other “feeling” Objects. The difference between intellect and love is the difference between certain neurological centers potentiating into Cognitive Samsensis versus others. But those neurological centers can also be modeled using what I’ve been calling an Adfect. These Objects also possess a unique conceptual kind of Object called an Adfect. An Adfect is how the Object was learned to be relevant to the organism’s Cognitive Samsensis. This is probably the most important aspect of the Adfect – Samsensis theory. An Adfect is a modeling concept used to describe why the nervous system evokes certain Objects over others depending on certain stimulus. 

    I can model an Adfect as an Object in my own Cognitive Samsensis. But within a model of Cognitive Samsensis an Adfect can be looked at as more of a Platonic “form” describing the relationship between Objects that developed out of the nervous system’s evolution. An organism’s neurological structure embeds a certain amount of precedence in certain tracts versus others. For instance, the human nervous system is extremely visually oriented. Almost every section of the brain processes a certain amount of visual information. Our nervous system evolved to put a very high Adfectual weight on vision. We also know through our own Cognitive Samsensis that vision is almost always a part of our conscious experience. It’s been a huge part of every culture throughout history. There is also no mechanism that turns off vision, the same way that holding your breath suppresses olfaction. 

    The nervous system evolved to preserve the integrity of the single organism and its species in a certain physical environment. This brings us to the next and last metaphysical phenomenon that we can use to understand why the nervous system chooses to relay certain information into Cognitive Samsensis. Whether the transphysical phenomenon occurs in an organism’s entire nervous system or just a specific area – pre-frontal cortex in humans – only relevant neurologically coded information is relayed as Objects into Cognitive Samsensis. Information is only relevant according to what the nervous system developed to learn was relevant. This is interesting because all nervous systems developed it’s more general structure – it’s morphology –  to learn what was most relevant to their evolutionary survival. But the structure of the nervous system on a micron scale is constantly changing through things we mentioned earlier like LTP and LTD. 

 

    The Self Object consists of the most relevant stimuli for the learned preservation of the Self. But the Self Object itself is the Self. The self then exists as first the preservation of the main bodily functions and general structure of the nervous system. Sort of like anything that doesn’t give us pain. But nocioception was developed out of the need to maintain these evolved characteristics. So the actual Self Object is everything the organism has learned is part of its general sense of self. So the Self Object then is the nervous system’s own conception of it self as created by itself. The Self Object then relays information into the conscious experience that it sees most necessary for the conscious experience to understand about the nervous system’s environment or internal states. But we’re not assuming we understand the purpose of Cognitive Samsensis in anyway. This is just a philosophy on the structure of consciousness itself. So this structure of the Self Object possesses a certain Adfectual state that is always changing. This dynamic Adfectual state causes the nervous system’s transphysical phenomenon to fire Objects into Cognitive Samsensis. Objects relayed into Cognitive Samsensis contain the most similar Adfectual state as the Self Object.  

    Each organism though developed very different morphological structures, so they’re going to have very different Self Object structures. Obviously the structures range from being built off of different external senses to different senses of self identity within groups of the same species. Just look at sharks versus humans. For the purposes of this model though we’re going to focus on the human psyche.

    The Self-Object for humans reduces to everything that human being both evolutionarily and throughout the course of it’s own life has learned to be a part of that self identity. Through that learning we give certain adfectual importance to certain Objects. The adfectual importance manifests itself in many cases as “emotional” attachment in humans. But these emotions are no different adfectually than vision or sense of pressure on the skin. Emotions are just socially constructed phenomenon, the human nervous system developed for whatever reason to form societies. So in this sense, everything is predetermined. Now it’s easy for us to take a Timothy Leary turn too far and take this to heart. We shouldn’t abandon all social constructions in one day to develop some sort of nihilistic LSD infested neo-hippie commune that ignores the societal norms we grew up in. But that doesn’t mean we don’t have free will. We make our own decisions, even if they’re predetermined in some way our selves still made them. We were born into these nervous systems, grounded into these social constructions like marriage, parental roles, government, or smoked meats. We can’t abandon our biological makeup yet when we still are our own biological make up. It takes time. But mental experiments are still fun. So to conclude we’re going to use one of my own meditation experiences as a case study to explain the theory above. 

    These objects can be represented using a connectionist standpoint as artificial neural networks, dynamic as the neurons that construct their physical counterparts.  An Artificial Neural Network takes in information and compares that information to what that information actually is. So it’s like that new information it’s being compared to is already inherent in the system it lives in. Learning comes from connecting a new object to a preexisting object. All objects then inherently exist in our neurology but the way our senses changes create new objects. So there are inherent objects that all other objects can be reduced to. These new objects form things that exist outside of our own neurology because of how our nervous systems evolved. We can even take this concept and apply it to any living conscious creature. Each conscious creature conceptualizes more abstract objects like maybe a “predator” based on how that nervous system has evolved.  

    When a human learns something new it updates the information that’s given to it by the effect the information has on the subject. So when that animal develops an object of a smoldering piece of wood, it may take in visual, auditory, and olfactory information about that the wood. The brain recognizes that the piece of wood is slightly different than other pieces of wood. So an object of newness is relayed into the experience compares the information to what it’s been told is correct about the object being represented. The object then The structure of the ANN is already built inherently in the neurology of the system. The artificial neural networks are constantly evolving and reconnecting themselves to form objects that the self gives meaning to. Then what is given the meaning is the ANN that is inherently built in our systems that changes over time to evoke new objects into our conscious experience.      

    But if we’re going to model them in Cognitive Samsensis, then we need to understand how they would have developed into Cognitive Samsensis. These objects are relayed into the conscious experience as subjective sensations through areas like the ventromedial and orbitomedial prefrontal cortex. But because it is not raw consciousness, but manipulated, structured consciousness as developed through short-term memory, it can be classified as cognitive samsensis within the confines of this theory. Objects are brought into the subjective experience and because they are, they can be understood as eThe accumulation of these We know that our nervous system developed to protect the integrity of it’s physical self and it’s species. The Self Object creates it’s own purpose of consciousness as we learn more about our own nervous systems. As a Buddhist monk masters his biology he can perform feats that defy all modern medical knowledge (Monks of Mt. Hiei) or learn how to turn off his vision, expanding his conscious control through his peripheral nervous system. (How consciousness experiments are flawed because it’s just our neurology that defines how fast we perceive things) What if a hunter in the Amazon had faster reaction times and reflexes, so things entered into the conscious experience twice as fast. Maybe everything entered into it and priming wouldn’t exist. Even if that was a function of our all human neurological structures do our nerves have the capacity to cut out the 200 ms lag time and enter stimulus faster into our experience? 

    They’re redesigning through their own Cognitive Samsensis experience the nervous system, their Self Objects, and what should be relayed into our Cognitive Samsensis experience. There is no real truth to why consciousness exists other than what we make it, because we can only understand the conscious experience through itself. We will never know anything other than it because there is nothing that exists other than consciousness. Only consciousness collapses the wave function. And until that happens. Everything is just infinite potentials. Sure there might be some sort of evolutionary advantage to it, or a neuro-computational reason explaining how the conscious experience integrates information in a more biologically efficient way than our brain can improving reaction times in our environment – or something like that. 

    We will only be able to identify patterns for how the nervous system works relative to other observed phenomenon like evolution or social interactions. But the only truth of any of it lies in our perception of the truth within certain physical or Samsensis systems we’re working in. Our nervous system’s plasticity is as malleable as a water droplet. It has no true shape other than what the environment gives it. The only limitations to its change is how the Oxygen, Hydrogen bonds react in it’s physical environment. So we can expand the knowledge we have but there is no real truth to it other than the truth we’re looking for in it, other than a missing piece to the rules of the logical system Cognitive Samsensis has defined for us. 

    These ideas came from observations I made about my own conscious experience during various meditation practices. In many Buddhist traditions, consciousness is compared to a river that carries logs downstream. Each piece of wood is a thought that should be observed and not acted upon during meditation. I'm sure that there are many types of Buddhist meditation. But for the purposes of understanding consciousness, this method seemed to be the most useful. It's almost like I sat on a rock inside my orbital frontal cortex and scribbled down my observations beside my neural river. Sure I could get too close to the river. Sometimes I found myself grasping onto a log as my pens and notebooks washed away. But occasionally, I would find myself sitting perfectly balanced; where I could watch the logs go by without worrying about falling in. 

    This sort of arm chair theorization obviously is as scientific as Freud’s chaise lounge style.  My own observations though made me realize that patterns exist within our conscious experiences. I learned in India to exercise my short term memory and “observe not participate in [my] thoughts,” as countless people had told me. Of course, I participated in the observation of my thoughts. But as I had been meditating nearly every day for an entire year before my trip, I believed I had gotten the jist of it. I remember walking down an empty road in Spiti Valley trying to distract myself from the remorse and pain I kept feeling about only bringing a pair of stylish yet blister-tearing old leather military boots for the adventure. I had to get to the Gompa before nightfall, leaving me no choice but to keep my mind off of my feet. 

    I thought about the first time I had talked to someone about meditation. I tried to relax my perceptual fields and let my ego sit on top the mountain of my mind. The thoughts blew in like a gust of dry wind that I could just feel on my epidermis. 

 

    “It’s so cool how connected all your thoughts are!” Jackson said, ‘This is the first time I’ve ever noticed how my mind moves. Like I thought about school, then I started thinking about my friends, then I started thinking about my best friend, then I started thinking about the last time I saw him.”     

    I wanted to see what direction the wind was coming from. Maybe I could learn how to sit on the peak without getting cold. My ego. My perception turned into analytic observation. 

    How do I feel? I feel tranquil. Why did I start thinking about that moment? Maybe I felt a similarly relaxed sensation when I was talking to Jackson about meditation. Or do I still feel excited about being in this new location, talking to new people like I did when I first met Jackson and had this conversation. This implies that I have some sort of emotional state at a given moment in time. My thoughts also then might be connected through that emotional state. But is it always emotional? What if the changes in thoughts more had to do with time. Maybe that was the last interesting conversation I had about meditation, which is after all what I’m doing right now. Lets say that’s the case. It’d be only natural for me to think about this conversation now, if the human mind moved thoughts into my subjective experience based on some sort of thought type and time. 

    But what can I learn from what I remember Jackson saying about his own experience?

    He thought about school, then his friends. Ok. So there’s some relevancy to school and his friends. He talked about his experience like a yoga instructor would talk about his favorite poses. Maybe he liked school, and the best part of about school was his friends. But then that might mean his positive emotional states guided his mind to the next most positive object of thought related to school. How important are emotional states to the mind? He then started thinking about his best friend. Interesting. His thoughts got more positive. Maybe the positive thoughts kept contributing to some sort of baseline emotional state that kept becoming more positive. Did that start to attract more thoughts that were equally as positively emotional as his baseline emotional state? Is that why he thought about his best friend?

    But maybe he had established himself in a different state of consciousness through meditation that latched onto the side of himself that was most dominant. Was his emotional side most dominant? Well then what determines the different sides? Maybe the baseline state of what brings about certain thoughts just has to do with certain areas of the brain being activated? What about Jackson was making him so happy? Was it something inherent in meditation that just brings out the emotional side of a person? No. Maybe not. I’m thinking very intellectually right now. Either way could his happiness just have drawn thoughts correlated to neurons closest to each other?

    The room Jackson sat in morphed into a person. She had lived in the same house me and Jackson. The gusts turned colder. I could feel my pants getting wet and I started to slide down to the edge of a cliff face. I couldn’t take the weather. I had to walk down from my mind back into my feet and to the physical landscape around me. The Gompa thankfully was only a hill climb away.

 

Empathic Applications of Adfects

    Every animal needs to feel secure in their environment. They desire a certain level of control to ensure their survival in their environment. Humans are the same way. But our desire to survive in and control our surroundings comes less from the need to protect the physical integrity of our nervous system and more the limbic system. It comes from the need to protect our emotional well-being within the social construction (cite some reasonable paper’s definition) we’re born into. So how do we do that?

 

    People within a certain social construction have certain neural functions that establish themselves in their environment. They’re able to meet the expectations they’ve learned to have in certain environments.