Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:115%"><span aptos="" style="font-family:"><span lang="FR-CA" new="" roman="" style="font-family:" times="">Cet article explore la nature de la conscience humaine à travers une analyse philosophique approfondie, en distinguant la conscience phénoménale, partagée avec les animaux, et la conscience discursive, propre aux humains. S’appuyant sur la tradition philosophique, de l’Antiquité (Aristote, Plotin) aux philosophies modernes (Descartes, Husserl), l’auteur examine la réflexivité de la conscience, ses différents états (du sommeil à l’éveil lucide), et son rapport à l’inconscient. Une attention particulière est portée à la « connaissance du troisième genre », une intuition non conceptuelle présente dans les traditions mystiques et philosophiques occidentales et orientales, où la conscience humaine reflète une étincelle divine. L’article aborde également la conscience des machines, concluant qu’elles possèdent une forme abstraite de réflexivité, mais dépourvue de phénoménalité ou d’intentionnalité, ce qui les distingue de la conscience humaine. Enfin, l’auteur souligne les limites de la conscience discursive face à l’inconscient « magmatique », prônant une humilité philosophique face à l’immensité de l’irréfléchi.</span></span></span></span> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:115%"><span aptos="" style="font-family:"><span lang="FR-CA" new="" roman="" style="font-family:" times="">This article explores the nature of human consciousness through a comprehensive philosophical analysis, distinguishing between phenomenal consciousness, shared with animals, and discursive consciousness, unique to humans. Drawing on the philosophical tradition from Antiquity (Aristotle, Plotin) to modern philosophy (Descartes, Husserl), the author examines consciousness’s reflexivity, its various states (from sleep to lucid wakefulness), and its relationship with the unconscious. Special attention is given to the “third kind of knowledge,” a non-conceptual intuition found in oriental as well as western mystical and philosophical traditions, where human consciousness reflects a divine spark. The paper also addresses machine consciousness, concluding that machines possess an abstract form of reflexivity but lack phenomenality or intentionality, fundamentally differentiating them from human consciousness. Finally, the author highlights the limits of discursive consciousness in the face of a “magmatic” unconscious, advocating for philosophical humility in confronting the vastness of the unreflected.</span></span></span></span> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:115%"><span aptos="" style="font-family:"><span lang="FR-CA" new="" roman="" style="font-family:" times=""><strong>Keywords</strong>: consciousness, reflexivity, noetics, artificial intelligence, unconscious, philosophy.</span></span></span></span><br type="_moz" />
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".