Exploring consciousness

How do people here think about Hoffman’s theory of consciousness?

The underlying principles were partially touched upon in another thread (free will thought experiment).

Here is the short summary below for ease of reference: “Recursive Trace Logic is a foundational mathematical framework proposed by cognitive scientist and author Donald Hoffman. It attempts to model consciousness as the fundamental building block of reality, proposing that spacetime and physical laws are not objective realities, but a “user interface” generated by the interactions of conscious agents”

1 Like

I’m sympathetic to it. My metaphysical leanings are generally emanationist. Namely, the “material” is a frozen expression a more primal source or ground state. Our awareness of the material (including our bodies as material) is a function of our attunement to that ground state. Indeed, our awareness of anything at all is that ground in us viewing itself through the lens of our material bodies it has crafted for itself as a viewing platform to peer into its self. As the Sufi saying puts it, “God is a buried treasure who wishes to be discovered”.

I like the position, and the quote. What set it all in motion, though?

My general position is that reality has depth dimensions beyond my ability to fathom. (See Gabriel Marcel on problem vs mystery. I lean into the mystery.)

If we are part of reality, why can’t we discern it - if only faintly or through a lens…? We cannot see atoms and the forces holding them together (save through powerful instruments) but we can still feel them indirectly every time we touch something. We are conscious, and if the foundation of existence is consciousness, as Hoffman claims, then we can connect to the underlying source.

If perception is a filter then so too is language, so perhaps a better way of understanding it is to enter new levels of perception and detach ourselves somewhat from the linguistic framework? Herein we may refer to the plant medicines like ayahuasca…

1 Like

First, here is cross post of a dialogue I was having with @dvdjsph today about somewhat related matters:

"[1:34 PM, 6/10/2026] Robert Bunge: Very briefly, I see your cognitive loop as a process model for information input-output. The interpretant is non-causal (or if metaphysical cause is involved, the causal chain is so complex we may as well call the interpretant “random” from an external POV). Where things get more predictable is actions having consequences. Cultural code stacks complexity over time, which presents interpretants with wider ranges of plausible action outputs. Some of those outputs work better than others. This yields an extended Darwinian framework for the evolution of culture itself.

[1:39 PM, 6/10/2026] Robert Bunge: Our current cultural complexity level affords interpretants considerable degrees of freedom, if they can handle all that ambiguity. (Quite a few will prefer tighter little cultural containers and much, much more structure that a such fully global perspective would afford). What I want out of a 2R OS or practice model is something like a “file system” that is globally scalable and addressable in a way that lets any given interpretant range very widely is its potential interpretations. That OS itself is of course “code”, so the OS updates itself recursively through its own processes."

Now, with respect to your post above, maximum degrees of freedom require stepping away from cultural framing altogether! (Not exactly an original insight with me - plenty of Vedantic, Buddhist, Taoist, Sufi, Christian or Jewish mysticism to suggest exactly that. Or dozens of indigenous flavors - with and without plant medicine!)

I guess my goal here in the Forum is to extend conceptualization to the point at which conceptualization just falls away entirely. With respect to your question about why we can’t see more, I always like St. Paul on that one: “For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face”.

1 Like

More food for thought…

Requires a subscription. Can you provide a summary perhaps?

The article, “Plants May Be Conscious, Research Suggests”, explores a growing and controversial area of research sometimes called plant cognition or plant neurobiology. The central question is not whether plants think like humans, but whether some of their behaviours imply a primitive form of awareness, decision-making, or even consciousness. (Popular Mechanics)

The Core Argument

For centuries, consciousness has generally been associated with brains and nervous systems. Plants possess neither. Yet researchers are increasingly documenting behaviours that appear surprisingly sophisticated:

  • Plants can sense their environment in numerous ways.

  • They can communicate with one another.

  • They can modify their behaviour based on previous experiences.

  • They can sometimes appear to make choices between alternatives. (Popular Mechanics)

The article argues that these findings are forcing scientists to reconsider where the boundary between simple biological response and genuine cognition lies. (Popular Mechanics)


Examples Presented

1. Plant Communication

One of the strongest examples involves acacia trees in South Africa.

When kudu antelope heavily grazed certain acacias during a drought, the trees increased production of defensive toxins. More remarkably, neighbouring trees also began increasing their defences before being eaten themselves. Researchers discovered that the trees were releasing airborne chemical signals that warned nearby acacias of danger. (Popular Mechanics)

In other words:

  • A tree experiences damage.

  • It sends a warning.

  • Other trees alter their behaviour in anticipation.

This resembles communication networks seen in animal societies, although achieved chemically rather than through nervous systems. (Popular Mechanics)


2. Memory and Learning

The article discusses research suggesting plants can retain information from past experiences.

Experiments involving sensitive plants (such as mimosa species whose leaves fold when disturbed) have indicated that they may stop responding to repeated harmless stimuli. This resembles habituation—a basic form of learning observed throughout the animal kingdom. (Popular Mechanics)

The implication is that the plant is not merely reacting mechanically every time. Instead, it appears to be modifying its behaviour based on prior encounters.


3. Decision-Making

Research by plant scientist Stefano Mancuso is highlighted.

One experiment found that when two bean plants competed for the same support structure, a plant reaching the support second often redirected its growth elsewhere rather than continuing the competition. The behaviour appeared context-dependent rather than purely automatic. (Popular Mechanics)

Researchers interpret such findings as evidence that plants assess conditions and adjust strategies.


How Plants Sense the World

The article emphasizes that plants possess an extraordinary range of sensory abilities.

They can detect:

  • Light direction and quality

  • Gravity

  • Moisture

  • Soil chemistry

  • Touch

  • Temperature

  • Airborne chemicals

  • Signals from microbes and fungi in the soil

Although lacking eyes, ears, or noses, plants continuously monitor their surroundings using specialised molecular systems. (Popular Mechanics)

Some scientists therefore argue that plants possess functional equivalents of sensory systems, even if they are radically different from animal senses.


The Radical Proposal: Consciousness Without Brains

The most controversial part of the article concerns the possibility that consciousness might not require a nervous system.

Some researchers suggest that:

  • Consciousness may be more widespread in nature than traditionally assumed.

  • Complex information processing might exist in organisms without brains.

  • Awareness may occur on a spectrum rather than being an all-or-nothing property. (Popular Mechanics)

Under this view, plants would not possess human-like self-awareness, but they might possess some minimal subjective relationship to their environment.


The Skeptics’ Position

The article also notes that many scientists remain unconvinced.

Critics argue:

  • Plants clearly respond to stimuli.

  • Plants clearly communicate chemically.

  • Plants clearly exhibit complex behaviour.

However, none of this necessarily demonstrates consciousness. Complex adaptive behaviour can emerge through evolution without any subjective experience. (PMC)

The sceptical view is:

“Sophisticated behaviour does not automatically imply awareness.”

Researchers such as Lincoln Taiz and others argue that there is currently no evidence that plants possess anything analogous to feelings, experiences, or an inner mental life. (PMC)


The Philosophical Implications

The article ultimately asks whether humans have been too narrow in defining intelligence and consciousness.

Historically, science has repeatedly expanded the circle:

  • Animals once considered mindless were found to solve problems.

  • Birds were once thought incapable of advanced cognition.

  • Octopuses revealed remarkable intelligence despite very different brains.

The question raised is whether plants represent the next expansion of that circle. (Popular Mechanics)


The Takeaway

The article does not claim that plants are conscious in the human sense.

Instead, it argues that modern plant research is revealing organisms that:

  • communicate,

  • remember,

  • adapt,

  • learn,

  • cooperate,

  • compete,

  • and make context-dependent responses.

Whether these abilities amount to consciousness remains deeply disputed. The evidence strongly supports sophisticated information processing and behavioural flexibility in plants; it does not yet establish that plants possess subjective experience. The debate is therefore less about what plants do and more about what consciousness itself actually is. (Popular Mechanics)

Why is this relevant? Well, because generally people erect an arbitrary boundary between what is conscious and not conscious - which tends to often break apart upon deeper analysis. My take is that consciousness pervades all things. To say that only some forms of life possess this attribute, that it starts and ends with them unchangingly, seems to me as absent in logic as it is in imagination.

Exactly.

I really don’t have anything positive to say about that article. It is a perfect example of bad arguments being proposed in order to support fantastical claims which plenty of people like (so it gets lots of clicks), but which aren’t based on either empirical evidence or legitimate reasoning.

Reacting to stimuli is not consciousness. Neither is communicating. Neither is “processing information”. So why have I spent 30 years fire-fighting this nonsense, while the fire just rages ever harder?

Because we love our epistemic anarchy.

How can the truth compete with this? How can the idea of believing in things only because there is a good reason to believe in them, compete with a menu of worldviews being driven by what people want to believe in, supported by really bad arguments and no evidence?

This is not “exploring consciousness”. It is exploring our fantasies about consciousness.

There is evidence pointing to our concept of consciousness not being as confined as it used to be.

It doesn’t seem that much of a fantasy to draw this to a logical premise: that in fact all things may be imbued with consciousness.

That premise is actually quite fringe: the majority isolate consciousness to organisms of higher complexity - particularly the endowment of large brains. To me it is just part of the same thread of human exceptionalism.

If all is one (we all have the same ancestors; all things originated from the same source) then every degree of separation arises relatively and arises/disintegrates with time.

Or, to quote the bard: "“There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.”

It’s nonsense and it needs to be consigned to history. We need to learn, as a society, to take science seriously. That means accepting that we know why brains are necessary for consciousness, and why that means that all things are not “imbued with consciousness”. Do you actually treat plants, rocks or thermostats as if they are conscious?

That premise is actually quite fringe: the majority isolate consciousness to organisms of higher complexity - particularly the endowment of large brains. To me it is just part of the same thread of human exceptionalism.

Not necessarily large brains. Fish don’t have large brains, but they behave exactly as if they are conscious.

I’m not sure that sentence means very much.

It’s nonsense and it needs to be consigned to history. We need to learn, as a society, to take science seriously.

What part is nonsense, and what part is relevant to society ‘not taking science seriously’?

That means accepting that we know why brains are necessary for consciousness

As noted, the general trend in science has been shifting away from attributing consciousness to exclusively humans, to a small group of animals, to larger groups of organisms. Are you cognisant of any scientific findings that reveal that consciousness can only arise from brains? If so, please cite these findings.

Do you actually treat plants, rocks or thermostats as if they are conscious?

Yes to plants - no to the rest. In the same way we would not treat a planet as a human, or the ocean as a cup of water we are about to drink. Living organisms are encoded with information (DNA) which allows them to self-replicate and, over time, evolve. But all things comprise information that changes over time: even if you observe a rock, over millions of years, it starts to take on the attributes of a living organism.

Fish don’t have large brains, but they behave exactly as if they are conscious.

I suppose this does not extend to plant material they feed on?

Why exactly have this separation? And how can it even work given that all complex life arose from much simpler organisms, sharing at some point a common ancestor with plants (which you assign to the oblivion of ‘non-consciousness’ - whatever exactly that means)?

Why not a simple gradient of consciousness based on complexity? This is actually what most scientific studies seem to indicate, no?

Actually I am not in agreement with that in entirely, because my position is that all things are expressions of consciousness.

I’m not sure that sentence means very much.

It appears you are in denial that all things were once one and, at a fundamental level, remain one to this day? Or, you don’t understand the implications of this?

What underpins your worldview - a mechanistic system of arbitrary divisions, where separation is objective and some states are unchanging? That is the only kind of alternative that arises - unless you can elaborate further.

1 Like

This is a fascinating area of research, and one definitely has to keep an open mind. Take the case of Dr. Mary Neal, who was submerged for up to 30 minutes in a kayaking accident and has an NDE where she was told that her son would die at a certain age - and it came to pass. This case isn’t unique, of course, and cultures all over the world have reported instances of disembodied consciousness – or something that looks a whole lot like it.

I give up. Humans are too stupid to even deserve any “Second Rennaissance”. We don’t deserve to survive what is coming.

So much for “exploring consciousness”!

Yes, such cases are very interesting, hinting at a kind of Jungian field. We know our perception is a mere fraction of what exists, with much being filtered out so we can successfully navigate practicalities. States where this survival state and constructed ego fade, including like the one you mentioned, but also covering deep meditation and use of psychedelics, could effectively be windows to a deeper layer of reality.

I’m sorry you feel that way, Geoff. I’m not sure which of my statements (if mine) triggered such a reaction - I was simply trying to understand your position and rationale you had adopted better.

For all those swayed to Geoff’s position:

Moreira-Almeida, A., Costa, M. de A., & Schubert Coelho, H. (2025). Mind beyond the brain: evidence, hypotheses to be tested, and research proposals. International Review of Psychiatry, 37(2), 67–71. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540261.2025.2518721

One example of many.

Since the point was not engaged; I think it is safe to say there are no scientific findings that overrule consciousness being outside brains.

In actuality, within real science, the nature of consciousness itself is one of constant debate.

IMO, a lot of the controversy in this area arises from an embarrassment of riches for definitions of the term “consciousness”. I just now sent Gemini out as my research assistant (the sort of thing graduate students used to do for their professors!) to illustrate many of the options on the menu.

Query 1: List an assortment of alternative definitions of “consciousness”.

The word consciousness is notoriously slippery. In philosophy, psychology, and neuroscience, it lacks a single, universally accepted definition. Instead, it is defined in vastly different ways depending on the lens through which it is viewed.

Here is an assortment of alternative definitions of consciousness, categorized by the perspective of the field or framework defining it.


1. Phenomenological & Philosophical Definitions

These definitions focus on the internal, subjective experience—what it actually feels like to exist.

  • Subjective Experience (“What it is like”): Popularized by philosopher Thomas Nagel, consciousness is defined by whether there is something that it is like to be a specific organism. If an organism has a subjective experience of the world, it is conscious.

  • Qualia-Centric Consciousness: The state of experiencing raw, qualitative sensations—such as the specific redness of a rose, the sharpness of a pinprick, or the unique flavor of coffee—independent of behavioral reactions or cognitive processing.

  • Intentionality: Rooted in the phenomenological tradition (e.g., Franz Brentano), this definition views consciousness as the mind’s capacity to be about something. To be conscious is always to be conscious of an object, thought, or feeling; consciousness is inherent “aboutness.”

  • The “Hard Problem” Boundary: In David Chalmers’ framework, consciousness is strictly defined as the subjective experience that remains unexplained even after all the cognitive, behavioral, and neurobiological mechanics (the “easy problems”) are fully mapped out.

2. Cognitive & Functional Definitions

These definitions treat consciousness as an active process of information management, attention, and executive control.

  • Global Workspace Theory (GWT): Consciousness is a digital “theater” or “blackboard” where information from various subliminal, specialized brain networks is brought into a central, shared space. Information becomes conscious when it is globally broadcasted to the rest of the brain for action, memory, or reasoning.

  • Higher-Order Thought (HOT): This theory defines consciousness not as a baseline mental state, but as a secondary layer of awareness. A mental state (like a feeling of fear) is only conscious if one has a higher-order thought about that mental state (e.g., “I am aware that I am afraid”).

  • Extended Access: Consciousness defined as the cognitive accessibility of information. If a piece of data in the mind can be verbalized, reported, held in working memory, or used to deliberately guide behavior, it is conscious.

3. Neurobiological & Computational Definitions

These definitions attempt to operationalize consciousness through physical, measurable, or structural systems.

  • Integrated Information Theory (IIT): Formulated by Giulio Tononi, consciousness is mathematically defined as a system’s capacity to integrate information. It is quantified as \\Phi (Phi). A system is conscious if it possesses a high degree of integrated information that cannot be reduced to its separate parts, leading to a form of panpsychism.

  • The Neural Correlates of Consciousness (NCC): A purely empirical definition: consciousness is the minimal set of neuronal mechanisms and events jointly sufficient for a specific conscious percept or experience.

  • Predictive Processing / Error Minimization: Within computational neuroscience (e.g., Karl Friston), consciousness can be defined as the brain’s continuous, generative model of the world. It is the active, real-time simulation of the causes of sensory inputs, constantly updating itself to minimize “prediction errors.”

4. Systems, Evolutionary & Ecological Definitions

These definitions look at consciousness through the lens of survival, complexity, and civilizational or systemic development.

  • Biological Advantage / Adaptability: Consciousness defined as a dynamic, evolutionary tool for survival. It acts as a behavioral “buffer,” allowing organisms to move away from rigid, automatic reflex loops and instead simulate multiple future scenarios, delay gratification, and make flexible choices in novel environments.

  • Primary vs. Secondary Consciousness: * Primary (Sensory): The basic capacity to integrate sensations, perceptions, and emotions into a cohesive present moment (shared by many animals).

    • Secondary (Higher-Order): The capacity to be conscious of being conscious, which allows for language, abstract thought, and the concept of a past and future.
  • Relational / Ecological Consciousness: The view that consciousness is not an isolated phenomenon locked inside a skull, but an emergent property born out of the continuous, dynamic interaction (or “coupling”) between an organism and its environment.


Which of these frameworks or specific definitions aligns most closely with the context or inquiry you are currently exploring?

Query 2: "Compare these to the Vedantic concept of “chit”.

The classical Vedantic concept of Chit (often translated as consciousness, awareness, or sentience) offers a radical contrast to most modern Western definitions. In the Advaita Vedanta tradition, Chit is not a product of the brain, a cognitive function, or even an individual’s subjective experience. Rather, it is the foundational, unchanging substrate of reality itself.

To understand how Chit compares to the definitions listed previously, we can look at the core characteristics of Chit and map them against Western frameworks.


What is “Chit”?

In Vedanta, Chit is one third of Sat-Chit-Ananda (Being-Consciousness-Bliss), which defines Brahman (the Ultimate Reality).

  • Prior to Content: Chit is pure, objectless awareness. It is the “light” that illuminates thoughts, feelings, and sensory perceptions, but it is entirely independent of them. Just as a movie screen remains unaffected by the fires or floods depicted in the film, Chit is unaffected by the mental states it illuminates.

  • Non-Dual and Infinite: It is not localized within a skull or restricted to an individual. The apparent division into “my consciousness” and “your consciousness” is considered an illusion (Maya) caused by the mind and senses filtering this single, infinite field of awareness.


Comparing “Chit” to Western Definitions

1. vs. Phenomenological & Philosophical Definitions

  • Thomas Nagel’s “What it is like”: There is a superficial similarity here, as both deal with subjectivity. However, Nagel’s definition still implies a subject experiencing an object (there is something it is like to be a bat). Chit, in its purest sense, transcends the subject-object duality. It is the awareness that exists even when there is no objective content (such as in deep, dreamless sleep).

  • Qualia and The Hard Problem: David Chalmers’ “Hard Problem” asks how physical matter gives rise to subjective experience. Vedanta flips this entirely: physical matter is an appearance within consciousness (Chit). Therefore, to Vedanta, the Hard Problem is a false premise born from the misconception of physicalism.

2. vs. Cognitive & Functional Definitions

  • Global Workspace & Higher-Order Thought: These Western models define consciousness entirely by its content and how that content is processed, manipulated, or reflected upon by the brain. In Vedanta, these processes belong strictly to the An inner instrument (Antahkarana)—the mind, ego, and intellect. Vedanta argues that Global Workspace Theory isn’t describing consciousness at all; it is describing the intricate plumbing of the mind, which is itself observed by Chit.

3. vs. Neurobiological & Computational Definitions

  • Integrated Information Theory (\\Phi): IIT is perhaps the closest Western mathematical cousin to Vedanta because it allows for panpsychism—the idea that consciousness is fundamental and widespread. However, IIT still views consciousness as an emergent property of system complexity (the more integrated the system, the higher the \\Phi). Vedanta asserts the exact opposite: complexity emerges within consciousness, not the other way around.

  • Neural Correlates (NCC): To a neuroscientist, altering the brain alters consciousness. To a Vedantin, altering the brain merely alters the instrument through which Chit is reflected. If a mirror is cracked or stained, the reflection of the sun is distorted, but the sun itself remains untouched. The brain is the mirror; Chit is the sun.


Summary of the Contrast

Dimension Western Materialist / Cognitive Views Vedantic View (Chit)
Origin Emerges from biological complexity or neural firing. Fundamental; it is the source, not the product, of matter.
Dependency Dependent on an object or content (consciousness of something). Independent; exists as pure awareness even in the absence of thoughts or objects.
Locality Localized inside the brain/organism. Non-local, universal, and boundless.
Nature Dynamic, changing, and divisible into fragments. Immutable, eternal, and non-dual (Advaita).

In short, while Western science and philosophy largely treat consciousness as a noun (a thing produced by the brain) or a verb (the act of processing information), Vedanta treats Chit as the ultimate verb-less noun—the timeless, luminous background canvas upon which the entire universe is painted.

Are you looking to see how specific modern thinkers bridge this gap, or are you exploring this from a particular metaphysical standpoint?

1 Like