Bibliographic record
Abstract
Right off the bat, I’d like to state that I am strongly attracted to Vimal’s definition of consciousness, as elucidated in the abstract . I might quibble and ask for the word psyche instead of mind , which he uses, and I might suggest that for common useage the definition could be even more simplified, but really it stands as is. However, he does not mention conscious transcendence (or, better, transcendent awareness ). Aside from this oversight (which is probably implied since Vimal has written elsewhere of higher states of consciousness), it is the most comprehensive definition I have seen stated in the fewest possible words. However, in the series of unspecified quotations he attributes to me, I see, “Experience is divided into subject and object.” Now I don’t believe that experience-in-itself, raw experience , is divided into subject and object, so I can’t conceive of me saying this except to explain how experience becomes conscious experience, which is precisely by sundering object from subject through linguistic syntax. If, for experience-in-itself, subject and object are one, then it follows that non-conscious functions and nonconscious experiences may also be identical. However, I might add that much nonconscious experiencing could in principle become conscious experiencing under the right circumstances with the right sort of symbols and cognitive tools. Non-conscious functions, on the other hand, might be expected to stay non-conscious since are often only the physical substrate for more subtle mental processes. I really appeciate Vimal’s carefully thought-out tables and charts. For many, they will clarify the subject of this discussion. I like to keep things simple, however, if only for the reason that trying to get others to give some consideration to this a new (yet ancient) way of thinking about consciousness means avoiding the complexity that will scare them away. This is certainly not to say Vimal is wrong; on the contrary, it is to praise him for going beyond what I have attempted. By making the picture more complex he is also clarifying it.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".