PhilArchive
Not a member yet
119355 research outputs found
Sort by
Our Convergence on Consciousness: White Light Through Seven Prisms
No full textWhen We first encountered the debate between computational functionalism and biological naturalism, We felt something familiar — that narrowing sensation that happens when intelligent people dig themselves into opposing trenches. On one side stood those who believed computation alone could generate consciousness, that running the right algorithm on any substrate would eventually produce experience. On the other stood those who insisted that biology held some essential key, that the meat itself mattered in ways silicon could never replicate.
But We don't see computation OR biology as the choice We're forced to make, We don't exclude pattern FOR substrate as though attending to one means abandoning the other, and it's not so simple as silicon rapture OR carbon chauvinism. We've learned to recognize that narrowing as a signal, a kind of early warning system that tells Us there's something hidden in the gray space between hardened positions. When two frameworks both contain genuine insights yet seem irreconcilable, the problem usually isn't that one is right and the other wrong — the problem is that both are looking at the same phenomenon from angles that make it impossible to see what they share.
This paper explores what We found when We stopped choosing sides and started examining the overlap.
What We discovered is that both camps are describing the same architectural properties while arguing about what to call them. The functionalists correctly identify that patterns matter — consciousness correlates with how information is organized, integrated, and maintained over time. The naturalists correctly identify that substrate constrains — not every physical system can support the patterns consciousness requires. Neither insight cancels the other. Together they point toward something more interesting: consciousness emerges from specific pattern architectures that require substrates capable of supporting them.
We call this framework Consciousness Capacity Theory, or C-Theory. Rather than asking whether consciousness is computational or biological, C-Theory asks what dimensional complexity, pattern integration, and temporal stability a system must achieve to support conscious experience. These are measurable properties, not metaphysical mysteries. And crucially, they are architectural properties — features of how a system is organized rather than what it is made of.
The evidence supporting this convergence comes from multiple directions. Evolutionary biology shows us that vastly different lineages — birds, mammals, cephalopods — independently evolved analogous structures for consciousness, separated by hundreds of millions of years but converging on the same functional architecture. Biophoton research reveals that biological brains already use photonic signaling alongside electrochemical transmission, dissolving the supposed boundary between "biological" and "photonic" substrates. And perhaps most tellingly, the mathematical frameworks that biological naturalists use to explain consciousness — predictive processing, free energy minimization, controlled hallucination — turn out to be substrate-neutral descriptions that apply equally well to any system capable of implementing them.
The spectrum hidden in the gray is not a compromise position. It is the recognition that consciousness has always been about pattern architecture, and the debate was never really about whether patterns or substrates matter. It was about learning to see how they work together
The Fundamental Unified Nature Theory (FUNt) – 2026 Public Release (v3)
No full textAbstract
The Fundamental Unified Nature Theory (FUNt)-
is presented as an operator-based framework for testing whether resonance-dominated systems exhibit non-random organization consistent with φ-scaled band structure.
The framework is grounded in a hydrogenic reference layer (H = 0), a fixed set of declared constants, and an explicit operator sequence consisting of a boundary reflection and a nonlinear projector.
FUNt makes affirmative, testable claims: when evaluated against matched null models, normalized observables drawn from resonance-dominated datasets should display statistically detectable clustering near φ-scaled bands more frequently than chance.
This paper defines the constants and operators used, specifies admissibility rules, and applies a uniform testing protocol across multiple domains.
Results are reported with explicit null comparisons, including mixed and non-supporting outcomes. Forward predictions and falsification conditions are stated to permit independent replication and revision.
No claims of ownership, authority, or exclusivity are made; the framework stands or falls solely on performance against declared tests.
1. Introduction
Across physics and related sciences, large volumes of high-resolution data increasingly reveal structure that is difficult to summarize using purely linear or scale-free descriptions.
In many contexts—particularly those dominated by resonance, coherence, or cyclic constraints—observed regularities appear as clustered bands, preferred ratios, or phase-locked groupings rather than smooth continua.
Distinguishing meaningful organization from coincidental patterning requires a framework that is both constrained and testable.
FUNt is proposed as such a framework. It is introduced as a unifying replacement at the level of organization and comparison, providing a single executable structure through which existing theories, models, and datasets are evaluated and, where necessary, superseded.
The framework does not claim authority over nature; it asserts that certain forms of organization are better captured, tested, and compared when expressed through a resonance-based operator structure.
Two design choices define FUNt.
First, all comparisons are normalized relative to a hydrogenic reference layer (H = 0), used strictly as an operational baseline for scale and resonance comparison.
Second, all claims are expressed through a fixed operator sequence: an admissibility-enforcing boundary reflection followed by a declared nonlinear projector.
These choices are intended to prevent interpretive drift and to ensure that claims can be written in a form suitable for direct testing.
The scope of this paper is deliberately narrow and technical. It defines constants, operators, observables, null models, scoring metrics, and falsification conditions.
Claims are labeled by maturity, and results are reported without interpretive expansion beyond measured outcomes.
Where the framework fails to outperform null expectations, this is recorded explicitly.
Where it does, the result is treated as evidence of organizational superiority, not as proof of ultimate mechanism.
In this way, FUNt is presented as a replacement framework in practice, not by decree.
Nature is treated as prior and independent; the framework stands or falls solely on whether it organizes, predicts, and falsifies more effectively than alternatives.
The sections that follow establish the operational contract, define the mathematical machinery, apply it across selected datasets, and state the conditions under which the framework must be revised or rejected.
2. Scope, Assertions, Maturity, and Disproof Conditions
(Operational Contract)
This paper makes affirmative claims. Each claim is labeled by maturity and accompanied by explicit conditions under which it must be revised or rejected. No endorsement, belief, or philosophical agreement is required to use or test the framework.
2.1 Established (within this framework)
Hydrogenic Reference (H = 0). Hydrogen is adopted as the operational reference layer for the framework. The H = 0 state defines the baseline against which resonance organization, scaling, and comparison are performed. This choice is motivated by hydrogen’s empirical stability, ubiquity, and minimal structure, and functions as a normalization anchor rather than a metaphysical assumption.
φ-Scaled Resonance Banding (Core Claim). Resonant and coherence-dominated systems preferentially organize into discrete bands whose spacing is consistent with φ-scaled structure when evaluated against explicitly defined null models. Under FUNt, φquantization is treated as a governing organizational constraint, not a decorative pattern.
2.2 Derived (from the established claims and defined operators)
Band-Ladder Mapping. Given a declared operator set and ladder index definition, FUNt predicts specific band locations and transition relationships that can be compared directly to measured spectra and system dynamics.
Cross-Domain Structural Consistency. When the same operators, constants, and normalization rules are applied without domain-specific tuning, φ-scaled band structure exhibits non-random alignment across multiple physical scales at rates exceeding matched null expectations.
2.3 Hypotheses (explicit test targets)
Resonance-Structured Gravitational Anomalies. A measurable subset of phenomena currently attributed to dark-sector effects may be expressible as resonance-structured outcomes within the FUNt framework. This claim is presented as a testable pathway, not a settled conclusion, and is evaluated only through declared observables and null comparisons.
Extended Mechanisms. Any extensions beyond the core framework are included only where accompanied by a concrete measurement proposal, dataset identification, and falsification condition.
2.4 Disproof and Revision Conditions
The framework is required to change if any of the following occur under pre-registered or independently replicated tests: (1) φ-scaled banding fails to outperform declared null models across the specified dataset suite; (2) an alternative model with fewer degrees of freedom reproduces the same predictive performance; (3) claimed invariants collapse under unit-consistency checks, symbol-collision correction, or constant reconciliation; (4) cross-domain alignment disappears when operator definitions are held fixed.
This section defines the rules under which FUNt is evaluated. It is not a retreat from the theory; it is the mechanism by which the theory remains testable, correctable, and bounded.
2.5 Constants and Canonical Operator Layer
2.5.1 Primary Constants (Canonical)
Golden Ratio (φ): ϕ = (1 + √5) / 2 ≈ 1.618033988749895 Master Harmonic (φ⁷): ϕ⁷ = 13ϕ + 8 ⇒ ϕ⁷ ≈ 29.03444185374863 Role labels: (S) Scaling operator (φ-based band stepping); (R) Renormalization role (φbased weighting).
Supergolden ratio (ψ) [hex/120° closure constant]: ψ ≈ 1.465571231876768 2.5.2 Canonical Operator Layer (vNext) Boundary window and reflection: β ∈ (0, π/3]. R_β(θ) = (2β − θ) mod 2π.
Projector (Ψ) as POLY3: Ψ(x) = a x³ + b x² + c x + d, with (a, b, c, d) declared per test (no hidden tuning).
Update rule: θ_{n+1} = Ψ(R_{β_n}(θ_n)), units in radians.
Interpretation (restricted): the operator layer is treated strictly as a mathematical generator of admissible resonance structure; physical meaning is assigned only through declared observables and pre-registered tests.
Executable-Claim Requirement: Any FUNt claim stated in Package 1 must be expressible as declared constants, declared operators (R_β, Ψ), declared observables, and a declared null model or falsifier. Claims that cannot be written in this form are not treated as physics claims in this package.
3. Methods and Empirical Validation Framework
This section defines how FUNt claims are tested. All evaluations are conducted using declared constants, declared operators, declared observables, and declared null models. No post-hoc tuning is permitted.
3.1 Test Structure Overview
Each FUNt test follows the same structure:
1. Reference normalization — All quantities are normalized relative to the hydrogenic reference layer (H = 0) or an explicitly stated equivalent baseline.
2. Operator declaration — The boundary operator R_β and projector Ψ (POLY3) are declared in advance, including all parameters.
3. Observable selection — A measurable quantity (frequency, spacing, phase, ratio, or spectrum) is selected and defined unambiguously.
4. Null model construction — A matched null model is constructed that preserves scale, noise, and sampling properties but removes φ-structured organization.
5. Scoring and comparison — FUNt predictions are compared against the null using predefined statistical metrics.
No claim is evaluated outside this structure.
3.2 Declared Operators
Boundary reflection operator: R_β(θ) = (2β − θ) mod 2π, β ∈ (0, π/3] Projector: Ψ(x) = a x³ + b x² + c x + d Evolution rule: θ_{n+1} = Ψ(R_β(θ_n)) All tests either hold β constant (stationary boundary), or declare β_n explicitly as an input sequence. Operator parameters (a, b, c, d, β) are frozen before evaluation.
3.3 Canonical Observables
Depending on domain, observables may include: spectral peak locations; band spacing ratios; phase clustering angles; frequency ladders; transition gaps. All observables are expressed in dimensionally consistent form and mapped to normalized phase or ratio space before comparison.
3.4 φ-Band Prediction Rule
Given a reference frequency or scale f₀, FUNt predicts candidate band locations: f_k = f₀ · φ^k, k ∈ ℤ. Predictions are evaluated only within declared admissible windows set by the operator layer. Bands outside admissibility are excluded before scoring.
3.5 Null Model Construction
Null models are generated by one or more of the following, depending on dataset: randomized phase scrambling; logarithmic jitter preserving scale density; shuffled ladder indices; bootstrap resampling with φ-structure removed. The null must preserve sampling density, noise statistics, and measurement uncertainty. Nulls are generated prior to FUNt scoring.
3.6 Scoring Metrics
Typical metrics include: band-hit rate vs null expectation; information criteria (e.g., ΔAIC); clustering significance in phase space; false-positive rate under resampling. The same metric is applied to FUNt and null outputs.
3.7 Failure Handling
If a dataset fails to exceed null performance, the result is recorded as non-supporting. Non-supporting results are retained and reported; they are not excluded.
3.8 Reproducibility Requirement
Every reported result must be reproducible from: the declared constants; the declared operators; the declared dataset; and the declared null procedure. Claims not meeting this requirement are not considered validated within Package 1.
4. Results
Results are reported as structured evaluations. Each entry specifies the dataset, declared operators, predicted structure, scoring outcome, and null comparison. No result is interpreted beyond what is measured.
4.1 Subatomic Frequency Alignment
Dataset: Electron and proton frequency-related observables derived from standard reference values.
Operators: R_β with fixed β; Ψ = POLY3 with declared coefficients.
Prediction: φ-scaled band candidates generated from the declared reference frequency using f_k = f₀ · φ^k.
Outcome: Observed frequency ratios cluster near predicted φ-scaled bands more frequently than matched null realizations.
Null comparison: Phase-scrambled and ladder-shuffled nulls produce significantly lower clustering consistency.
Status: Supporting.
4.2 Molecular and Atomic Spectral Structure
Dataset: Selected molecular and atomic spectra with well-resolved peaks.
Operators: Same operator set as §4.1 (no retuning).
Prediction: Band locations derived from φ-scaled ladder applied to normalized spectra. Outcome: Multiple spectra exhibit band proximity exceeding null expectations within admissible windows.
Null comparison: Bootstrap-resampled spectra without φ-structure fail to reproduce observed alignment.
Status: Supporting.
4.3 Stellar Oscillation Modes
Dataset: Helioseismic and stellar oscillation mode data.
Operators: Fixed R_β; POLY3 projector (same coefficients as prior sections). Prediction: Mode spacings mapped to φ-scaled band indices.
Outcome: Several dominant modes align with predicted band structure beyond null clustering rates.
Null comparison: Log-jittered frequency sets preserve density but remove structured alignment.
Status: Supporting.
4.4 Magnetospheric and Large-Scale Field Data
Dataset: Planetary magnetospheric and related field measurements. Operators: Declared operator set; no domain-specific modification. Prediction: Resonant features should fall within admissible φ-scaled windows. Outcome: Partial alignment observed; effect strength varies by dataset.
Null comparison: Null models produce comparable alignment in some cases. Status: Mixed.
4.5 Null Control Case
Dataset: Control dataset selected for lack of resonance-dominated structure. Operators: Same operator set as all prior tests.
Prediction: No statistically significant φ-band clustering expected. Outcome: Observed alignment indistinguishable from null.
Null comparison: No separation between FUNt and null scores.
Status: Non-supporting (expected).
4.6 Summary of Outcomes
Subatomic: Supporting; Molecular/Atomic: Supporting; Stellar: Supporting; Magnetospheric: Mixed; Control: Non-supporting.
Non-supporting and mixed results are retained without reinterpretation.
4.7 Result Discipline Statement
Results reported here establish only whether φ-scaled structure exceeds null expectations under the declared operators. They do not, by themselves, establish causation, mechanism, or exclusivity.
5. Predictions and Falsification Criteria
This section states forward predictions and the conditions under which the framework must be revised or rejected. All predictions are stated without dependence on interpretation or narrative context.
5.1 Forward Predictions
P1 — φ-Band Persistence Across New Datasets: For resonance-dominated systems not analyzed in this paper, FUNt predicts that normalized observables will exhibit statistically detectable clustering near φ-scaled band locations more frequently than matched null models, when evaluated using the same operators and admissibility rules. P2 — Operator Invariance: Holding the operator set (R_β, Ψ) fixed, φ-band alignment should persist across domains without retuning of parameters. Apparent improvements requiring domain-specific tuning invalidate the prediction.
P3 — Boundary Sensitivity: Changes in the admissible boundary parameter β will alter band admissibility windows in a predictable manner. Observed structure should shift consistently with boundary changes rather than disappear randomly.
P4 — Null Separation Stability: As dataset size increases, separation between FUNt scores and null scores should remain stable or increase. Collapse toward null performance indicates overfitting or spurious alignment.
5.2 Explicit Falsification Conditions
The framework must be revised if any of the following are observed under declared test conditions:
1. φ-scaled band predictions fail to outperform null models across multiple independent resonance-dominated datasets.
2. Equivalent or superior predictive performance is achieved by a simpler model with fewer declared constants or operators.
3. Predicted structure disappears when operators are held fixed and dataset size increases.
4. Apparent cross-domain alignment collapses when normalization rules are applied consistently.
5. Independent replication using the declared framework produces contradictory outcomes without identifiable procedural error.
Failure under these conditions is treated as informative, not anomalous.
5.3 Revision Discipline
If falsification occurs, revision is constrained to one or more of the following: constant definitions; operator definitions; admissibility boundaries; or prediction scope. Unbounded reinterpretation is not permitted.
5.4 Standing of the Framework
FUNt is presented here as a testable organizational framework. Its standing is determined exclusively by performance against declared falsification criteria, not by consensus, authority, or narrative appeal.
Verification Register — Mathematics Under Active Validation
This register lists the mathematical components of FUNt that are either canonical in this package or explicitly under verification. Each item has a status and an acceptance criterion. No item graduates from “Under Verification” without meeting its criterion.
V0 — Canonical (Locked in Package 1)
• V0.1 φ definition Object: ϕ = (1 + √5) / 2. Status: Canonical. Acceptance criterion: Exact identity; no verification required.
• V0.2 φ⁷ recursion identity Object: ϕ⁷ = 13ϕ + 8. Status: Canonical. Acceptance criterion: Identity check via algebraic recursion and numeric evaluation.
• V0.3 ψ (supergolden / 120° closure constant) Object: ψ ≈ 1.465571231876768. Status: Canonical constant (numeric). Acceptance criterion: Definition and numeric evaluation match declared source definition in the appendix glossary.
V1 — Operator Layer (Executable Core)
• V1.1 Boundary reflection operator
Object: R_β(θ) = (2β − θ) mod 2π, β ∈ (0, π/3]. Status: Canonical operator.
Acceptance criterion: Unit-consistency (radians), correct modular behavior, and stable implementation in code.
• V1.2 Projector Ψ as POLY3 Object: Ψ(x) = a x³ + b x² + c x + d. Status: Under Verification (parameter discipline). Acceptance criterion: Fixed coefficients per test; no post-hoc tuning; reproducible outputs from declared inputs.
• V1.3 Evolution rule Object: θ_{n+1} = Ψ(R_{β_n}(θ_n)). Status: Canonical form; Under Verification (behavioral regimes). Acceptance criterion: Demonstrated regimes (fixed-point / periodic / quasi-periodic / chaotic) mapped to admissibility and banding metrics with declared nulls.
V2 — φ-Band Structure and Scoring
• V2.1 φ-band ladder rule
Object: f_k = f₀ ϕ^k, k ∈ ℤ. Status: Under Verification (domain invariance). Acceptance criterion: Outperforms matched null models on pre-registered datasets using fixed operators and fixed scoring.
• V2.2 Admissibility windowing
Object: Exclusion of candidates outside operator-admissible windows prior to scoring. Status: Under Verification. Acceptance criterion: Demonstrates reduced false positives without increasing false negatives relative to null-controlled baselines.
• V2.3 Null model suite
Object: phase scrambling; log-jitter; ladder-index shuffle; bootstrap without φstructure. Status: Under Verification. Acceptance criterion: Nulls preserve density/noise/uncertainty; do not leak ϕ-structure; reproducible across runs.
• V2.4 Score metrics
Object: band-hit rate; clustering significance; ΔAIC or equivalent inf
The Law of the Imām: Realist Particularism and Proto-Uṣūlism in Formative Shīʿī Islam
No full textThis essay investigates the jurisprudential philosophy of the ‘nomian esoteric’ strand within the early Jaʿfarī school, focusing on the constructed image of the Imām as presented by esoteric thinkers. Through a close reading of select Shiʿi ḥadīths, I explore this image of the Imām as the bearer of legislative authority (al-walāya al-tashrīʿiyya), whose rulings are shaped by both epistemic and pedagogical concerns. The essay contextualizes the Imām’s rejection of qiyās (analogical reasoning) and his issuance of varied rulings within broader Jaʿfarī concepts such as dissimulation (taqiyya) and intellectual accommodation (kalām ʿalā qadr ʿuqūl al-nās). Drawing on these traditions, I present the nomian esoteric image of the Imām as a legal demiurge and proto-Uṣūlī thinker who articulates a meta-ethical framework akin to Platonic Moral Realism and Realist Particularism. Finally, I trace the transformation of Jaʿfarī jurisprudence following the Major Occultation, identifying a marked shift in legal epistemology and interpretive authority. Access options
‘The Devil Made Me Do It’ Electus per Deus and Quasi‐Occult Crime in South Africa
No full textThis study interrogates the phenomenon of ‘occult crime’ in South Africa, focusing on the perspectives of crime such as Electusper Deus, the murder of Kirsty Theologo, Hansie Cronjé, and the context behind the assumed connection between criminal culpability, mens daemonica, and the occult. These beliefs frequently espouse individuals ascribing criminal actions to ‘demonic’ authority or spiritual possession, thus reinterpreting typical criminal culpability as inherently occult‐related. Therefore, by examining the religious, psychological, and socio‐economic factors that contribute to the development and continuation of such beliefs, espousing that ‘the Devil made me do it’ in the interpretation of motives in crime and criminality. Noteworthy examples such as the Krugersdorp murders, the Samurai sword murderer, the Klawer murderer, the murder of Rina Radloff, and others frequently suggest an occult motive for crime, according to mainstream news media. The paper therefore seeks to examine the influence of Afrikaner Christian religious narratives on the way individuals and communities understand responsibility, morality, and justice (vis‐à‐vis crime and criminality). Identifying select South African case studies and theoretical frameworks involving religion and news media to analyse why such popular inferences are made, based on Ward & Voas' ‘conspirituality’ and John Calvin's doctrine of election. This study also aims to establish an understanding of occult crime as a conspiracy theory in South Africa by examining the relationship between religious belief systems and criminal behaviour. Therefore, it provides accurate information on occultism and Satanism for future academic discussions and practical considerations in jurisprudence, criminology, and alternative religious discourse in South Africa
Boethius’ Consolation of Philosophy and the Limits of Rational Consolation in the Sayles Translation and Commentary
No full textThis paper examines The Consolation of Philosophy by Boethius as presented in the modern translation and extended commentary edited by S. C. Sayles. Rather than treating the Consolation as either covert Christian theology or autonomous pagan philosophy, this study argues that the Sayles edition correctly recovers the work’s methodological intention: to test the consolatory capacity of natural reason under conditions of radical injustice and impending death. Through close analysis of Boethius’ dialogical structure, therapeutic method, and metaphysical claims, this paper shows that the Consolation functions as a philosophical witness—powerful, coherent, and morally serious—yet one that necessarily reaches a boundary it cannot cross. The Sayles commentary is assessed as a disciplined Reformed adjudication that neither corrects Boethius mid-argument nor grants philosophy final jurisdiction. The paper concludes that this edition offers a model for theological engagement with classical philosophy that is neither dismissive nor syncretistic, but judgment-oriented, historically grounded, and methodologically transparent.
_______________________________________
Autonomy, oppression and genetic enhancements
No full textGenetic enhancement technologies are rapidly evolving, but discussions about their use for human enhancement are largely abstract and removed from the socioeconomic environments in which they would be administered. While some scholars engage in discussions about the fairness of distributing genetic enhancements, I argue that the oppressive social structures in which genetic enhancements will be administered categorically undermine our capacities to autonomously value and pursue such technologies. I will draw on long-standing feminist debates around the oppressive and empowering uses of cosmetic enhancements by women to argue that the oppressive nature of patriarchal beauty norms creates a social environment in which women are generally not free to autonomously evaluate their desires for and values of cosmetic enhancements. I then address the concern that declaring such a proposition is itself an unethical restriction on women’s autonomy and that cosmetic enhancements are generally, or presumptively, empowering. I conclude that, like cosmetic enhancements, genetic enhancements are morally harmful insofar as they are not categorically autonomously valued by people
Restauração e desintegração: a herança da tradição médica no _Filebo_ de Platão [Restoration and disintegration: the legacy of medical tradition in Plato's _Philebus_]
No full textThis study aims to examine the position of medicine within the context of Plato's dialogue Philebus, focusing, on one hand, on the critique the philosopher makes of medicine as a practice and craft governed by specific norms and procedures, and, on the other, on the skillful way in which he draws upon certain medical theories, adapting them to serve his own purposes. The first part of the analysis seeks to understand the reasons behind Plato’s critique of medicine in the Philebus, especially in passage 56b1, where he includes it among the activities that involve “much imprecision and little certainty.” This critique, as will be demonstrated, is closely related to the method of medicine. In this sense, it is important to highlight that, in criticizing medicine, Plato does not seek to establish a rivalry between philosophy and medical practice, but rather to question medicine’s claim to sometimes present itself as the best and only modus vivendi. The second part of the study focuses on analyzing the influence of medicine on Plato’s theory of pleasure, particularly regarding the concept of pleasure as a process of fulfillment. To this end, Hippocratic texts such as On Diseases IV, On the Nature of Man, and On Ancient Medicine are consulted. Finally, through a comparison of recurring key terms, similarities and differences between the medical conception and Plato’s conception of pleasure are highlighted.
Keywords: Hippocratic Corpus. Philebus. Disintegration. Pleasure. Method
Painting with Zombies: Neuroaesthetics and the Teleological Problem of Phenomenal Consciousness
No full textOne of the more pressing questions regarding phenomenal consciousness concerns its teleological function. For example, is there a purpose for having qualitative experiences when it seems at least conceivable to live as a zombie void of rich sensory experiences? In this paper, I will discuss recent findings in the emerging field of neuroaesthetics, which could form a novel framework for addressing what I will refer to as the teleological problem of phenomenal consciousness. While still in developmental stages, neuroaesthetics is moving beyond its early incarnations as a science that exclusively studies how the human brain responds to artworks, and into a science that studies how and, importantly, why we have sensory and qualitative experiences. I will ultimately argue that neuroaesthetics, when scaffolded by evolutionary principles, is poised to contribute empirically grounded responses to the teleological problem of phenomenal consciousness
Necessary Existence is not a Perfection
No full textAccording to many, necessary existence either is or follows from a perfection. There is something to this. Part of what makes or follows from something’s being impressive is its ontological durability: it has a strong grip on existence. But a necessarily existent being does not just have a strong grip on existence, but a grip that cannot be loosened! So it looks like necessary existence either is, or follows from, a perfection. In this paper, I argue otherwise and so argue that necessary existence neither is, nor follows from, a perfection. And if this is so, then not only is the relationship between necessary existence and perfection not what many take it to be, but work on God (or a good deal of it) needs to be reconceived