Bibliographic record
Abstract
It’s good to see that Richard Moodey readily agrees with my differentiation of experience-in-itself from conscious experience in my first essay, “Panexperientialism”; however, he would also like to differentiate experience-in-itself from non-conscious experience, as well as be more specific with a number of terms that I lumped generically together. I would say that if experience is not conscious experience than it can only be non-conscious (or unconscious or preconscious experience). I cannot conceive of any experience that is neither conscious nor unconscious. We ourselves have created that dichotomy and, though there may be many vague degrees of partially conscious or unconscious experience, surely all experience can be classified within this continuum. Of course “consciousness without a mind” and “experience without an experiencer” seem contradictory on first reading, but, again, I see them as fundamentally equivalent to the idea of non-conscious (unconscious or preconscious) experience, which also seems contradictory on first glance. I presume that being aware, i.e., conscious (if you must), but having no central perspective like that which we refer to as a “mind” is consciousness-without-a-mind or consciousness-without-a-self and I see that as equivalent to non-conscious experience, or close enough to make my point. The same thing applies to experience-without-an-experiencer. Experience is happening but there may be no central entity that is “having” the experience. How is this possible? I maintain that experience is relational; in its early, most rudimentary stages it takes place in what might be described as frictional sensation wherever parts of a dynamic field or system encounter each other, or when parts of two separate dynamic fields or systems encounter each other. Such friction is felt as sensation only locally, at the place where the two foreign elements meet, so there is no central experiencer, yet that local encounter will affect the behaviour of the whole system(s). When such localized sensations become remembered where they occurred and perhaps anticipated, the entire system/field may come to recognize them. At that instant, I would suggest that the amorphous system or field becomes an entity in the world, for that recognition of previously displaced sensation internalizes the feeling as one of belonging to the whole. At that point, experience has created experiencers, and fields have produced entities (that may or may not become organisms). I equate non-conscious experience with “core consciousness” simply because the definition perfectly describes what I mean. Wikipedia (2010) states: “In biological psychology the core consciousness describes a hypothesized level of awareness facilitated by neural structures of most animals that allows them to be aware of and
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.045 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.038 | 0.062 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.009 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".