Consciousness is Primary: Science of Consciousness for the 21st Century
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the 20th century, the understanding of matter was transformed from a world of classical objects to a world of probabilities that were excitations of non-material quantum fields. Psychology may be involved in a similar transformation. In the 20th century, psychological models included specific “classical” content such as memories, attention, or emotions. However, some thinkers model consciousness as more field-like. Chalmers asserts that consciousness is an irreducible part of matter, along with time and space. Goff maintains that consciousness permeates reality and is expressed in degrees in different structures. Tononi’s Integrated Information Theory posits that consciousness is a fundamental property of any physical system and the degree of consciousness expressed reflects the power of the present state to affect the probability of its past and future states. Nader’s model goes beyond these concepts and postulates that consciousness is a nonmaterial, non-physical reality that exists entirely by itself. It has an ontological existence and generates matter, governs the interaction between material structures and is responsible for individual subjective experiences. This model is supported by direct experience of the field of consciousness, called pure consciousness, during Transcendental Meditation practice. This allows empirical investigation of pure consciousness and of higher states of consciousness when pure consciousness is integrated with daily experiences.
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 | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| 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 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".