To understand consciousness we must first describe what we experience accurately. But oddly, current dualist vs reductionist debates characterise experience in ways which do not correspond to ordinary experience. Indeed, there is no other area of enquiry where the phenomenon to be studied has been so systematically misdescribed. Given this, it is hardly surprising that progress towards understanding the nature of consciousness has been limited. This chapter argues that dualist vs. reductionist debates adopt an implicit description of consciousness that does (...) not resemble ordinary experience. If one adopts an accurate description of conscious phenomenology along with an understanding of the fundamental differences between correlation, causation and ontological identity, reductionism cannot succeed. However the alternative is not a dualism that places consciousness beyond science. Rather, it is a nonreductionist science of consciousness. (shrink)

This is a fine book. In what has become a crowded field, it stands out as direct, deep, and daring. It should place Max Velmans amongst the stars in the field like Chalmers, Dennett, Searle, and Churchland who are most commonly referenced in consciousness studies books and articles. It is direct in that the de rigueur history and review of the body-mind problem is illuminating and concise. It is deep in that Velmans deconstructs the usual idea of an (...) objective world as distinct from our experienced world. It is daring in that in his last chapter he comes out on the side of consciousness co-evolving with the universe rather than arising at some point within it (though he insists that such speculation is beyond the more empirical intent of his earlier chapters). (shrink)

The suggestion of something akin to a ‘relativist solution to the Mind-Body problem’ has recently been held by some scientists and philosophers; either explicitly (Galadí, 2023; Lahav & Neemeh, 2022; Ludwig, 2015) or in more implicit terms (Solms, 2018; Velmans, 2002, 2008). In this paper I provide an argument in favor of a relativist approach to the Mind-Body problem, more specifically, an argument for ‘1st/3rd person relativism’, the claim that ‘The truth value of some sentences or propositions is relative (...) to 1st and 3rd person perspectives’. The argument for 1st/3rd person relativism is close to a forma proof. It is shown that, just by assuming the 1st/3rd person distinction itself and using first order logic and set theory, ‘1st/3rd person relativism’ follows as a theorem. Some consequences of ‘1st/3rd person relativism’ to the Mind-Body Problem are evaluated. It is shown that ‘1st/3rd person relativism’ predicts the existence of an (apparent) Explanatory Gap; explains why the Explanatory Gap is just apparent (and the origins of such illusion); dissolves the Hard-Problem; provides a possible solution the problem of Mental Causation; explains why Mental Causation looks like a problem in the first place and accurately predicts the actual empirically found correlation and covariation between conscious experiences and brain states. This explanatory power of ‘1st/3rd person relativism’ is particularly impressive since it was not designed as a possible solution to the Mind-Body problem in the first place. (shrink)

MacIntyre's is one approach among many to explain what philosophy ought to be. For Pieper (in: "Defence of Philosophy"), just to cite another one, "to engage in philosophy means to reflect on the totality of things we encounter, in view of their ultimate" or fundamental truth. And there are others. But my interest here is to explore the circumstances under which philosophers could claim a place in society due to a service they provide, as valuable as that of a mechanical (...) engineer in a factory, a waiter in a hotel or a pilot on an airplane. The circumstances, this is, which would make society see philosophers not (or not only) as oddly useless figures addressing intellectually engaging puzzles and uttering obscure conclusions, but as valuable contributors to the common good. (shrink)

The problem of animal consciousness has profound implications on our concept of nature and of our place in the natural world. In philosophy of mind and cognitive neuroscience the problem of animal consciousness raises two main questions (Velmans, 2007): the distribution question (“are there conscious animals beside humans?”) and the phenomenological question (“what is it like to be a non-human animal?”). In order to answer these questions, many approaches take into account similarities and dissimilarities in animal and human behavior, (...) e.g. the use of language or tools and mirror self-recognition (Allen and Bekoff, 2007), however behavioral arguments don’t seem to be conclusive (Baars, 2005). Cognitive neuroscience is providing comparative data on structural and functional similarities, respectively called “homologies” and “analogies”. Many experimental results suggest that the thalamocortical system is essential for consciousness (Edelman and Tononi, 2000; Tononi, 2008). The argument from homology states that the general structure of thalamocortical system remained the same in the last 100-200 million years, for it is neuroanatomically similar in all the present and past mammals and it didn’t change much during phylogeny (Allen and Bekoff, 2007). The argument from analogy states that the key functional processes correlated with consciousness in humans are still present in all other mammals and many other animals (Baars, 2005). These processes are information integration through effective cortical connectivity (Massimini et al., 2005; Rosanova et al., 2012) and elaboration of information at a global level (Dehaene and Changeux, 2011). On this basis, the Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness states that all mammals, birds, and many other animals (such as octopuses) possess the neurological substrates of consciousness (Low et al., 2012). Conscious experience is private (Chalmers, 1995; Nagel, 1974) therefore the answer to the phenomenological question may be impossible. Nevertheless, cognitive neuroscience may provide an answer to the distribution question, showing that conscious experience is not limited to humans since it is a major biological adaptation going back millions of years. (shrink)

This book is a PhD dissertation and a very personal book at the same time. It asks the question whether society can and should be a point of orientation ("Bezugspunkt") for the human individual. Please note, that this cannot be a scientific book: If sociology is defined as society observed by society (or by sociologists, who are the agents of society), society observed by a single person (and for the aim of this single person) cannot be scientific. This is also (...) true if the researcher adheres to reason and scientific methodology: observations and understanding created by the human individual for its own private purposes simply are not scientific because they lack universality. "Bezugspunkt Gesellschaft" studies a number of different strains of sociology (and their scientific representatives, e.g. Pierre Bourdieu, Niklas Luhmann, Ralf Dahrendorf, Norbert Elias, Berger/Luckmann) in order to find out what it is that sociology studies? Is sociology the study of a society of human beings? Or is it true that society does not consist of human beings, but, as Luhmann claims, of acts of communication? Or is it true, as Bourdieu claims, that society consists of the instances of freedom abandoned half willingly, half out of habitude, by human individuals like in the case of a coffeehouse waiter who over time has just given up the idea that he could be anything else than a coffeehouse waiter. This book was inspired by a deconstructivist method of analysis in the field of literary theory where researchers state that it is of no interest what the author of a book wanted to say. Instead we should treat the work of literature as if the society of the author's epoch had written it. This theoretical "murder" of the human being in the form of the authors of works of literature in literary theory might have its analogy in sociology: Maybe sociology is also, like literary theory, not about people? However, if sociology is not about people - what can sociology teach us, us people? The book looks at different concepts of society throughout history, starting from the ancient concept that society is community, or that it is a circle of friendships, to more modern and dystopian concepts like that society is some kind of unhuman society. The book ends with the "Balzac machine", representing the incredibly talented and prolific French author Honoré de Balzac as a person who was an expert in the study of society and entirely blind to the phenomenon of society at the same time. The paradox of Balzac manifested itself in the fact that he literally worked himself to death in an attempt to gain society's recognition. (shrink)

On January 2023, I received an email from somebody regarding Velmans’s article 2008. After I took a look at the paper, I started to read his book 2000. Therefore, in this section, I will investigate Velmans’ works from 2000 and 2008. I emphasize that the main difference between Spinoza’s (Velmans) dual aspect theory and my EDWs approach is the framework of thinking: Spinoza, Velmans and everybody until me had been working within the unicorn world (the Universe/world), (...) while my EDWs assumes the rejection of the the universe/world; I replace this eternal and wrong notion with the EDWs. (see my previous works; my first five books and a book from 2022 and many of my articles are FREE on internet at my webpage and other pages). (shrink)

Content Introduction I. EDWs, the Hypernothing (EW0) and Physics Chapter 1 The principles of “epistemologically different worlds” perspective 1.1 The principles concerning existence and interactions of objects 1.2 Epistemologically Different Worlds (EDWs) 1.3 The chains of EDWs Chapter 2 The “Big Bang” (from actual Physics) versus Hypermetaphysics: the EDWs perspective regarding the accidental appearances of the first EDWs (the EW1a-n) in hypercorrespondences to Hypernothing (the EW0) 2.1 The history of “Universe” in Cosmology today 2.2 Classification of (hyper)correspondences 2.3 The rejection (...) of “antimatter” 2.4 More details about electromagnetic field (the field-EW) 2.5 More details about special theory of relativity 2.6 More details about general theory of relativity Chapter 3 More details about Hypernothing and its hyperontology 3.1 Hypernothing (epistemologically different then “something” and “nothing”) 3.2 The principles of hyperontology of Hypernothing 3.3 More details about the accidental appearances of the EW1a-n in hypercorrespondences to the EW0 Chapter 4 Friedman’s “relativized a priori” and “change of paradigms in science” versus EDWs 4.1 Geometry and Physics: relativized a priori for Newton/Kant, Helmholtz, Poincare and Einstein 4.2 The change of paradigm in scientific knowledge: Cassirer, Carnap versus Meyerson and Kuhn II. “Antireductionism” under the Umbrella of Epistemology/lLanguage within the Unicorn World Chapter 5 Few words about Gell-Mann’s “antireductionism” Chapter 6 Dual aspect theory (Spinoza-Velmans) versus the EDWs perspective 6.1 Velmans’ Understanding consciousness (2000) 6.2 Velmans’ article 2008 (Journal of Consciousness Studies, 15 (2), pp. 5-50) 6.3 My view consciousness in few words Chapter 7 Heil’s “Real tables” or “linguistic disease” in the philosophy/sciences of the 20th century III. Paradigms and Revolutions Chapter 8 Kuhn’s “paradigms” and the EDWs hyper-paradigm Conclusion The EDWs perspective and some truths Bibliography . (shrink)

I call this book Hypermetaphysics just because it is not about the metaphysics of “world”/Universe, it is not even about the metaphysics of EDWs (“epistemologically different worlds”), but mainly about the hypercorrespondences between the EW0 (Hypernothing) and the EW1a-n (these EDWs being the first EDWs which appeared in hypercorrespondences to the EW0). This hypermetaphysics involves the main notion of this book: the EW0 (or the “Hypernothing”) which does not have any ontology but a hyperontology which hypercorresponded to the first EDWs (...) that appeared in the hypercorrespondences to the EW0. In Part I, in Chapter 1, I will introduce the main ideas about the EDWs perspective. (These ideas have been published in my previous works.) In Chapter 2, I will introduce Hypermetaphysics: this chapter containes new ideas about the hypercorrespondences between the EW0 and the first EDWs, the EW1a-n (which appeared in different “places”, in different “periods”). However, I emphasize here that, in this work, I have changed some major ideas from my previous works from my EDWs perspective: for instance, I rejected the idea of “antimatter” (or “the EW-1” from my previous works). In Chapter 3, I introduce some ideas that have been published in my previous works (2022, for instance) regarding the hyperontology of EDWs (but including the major challenge: the rejection of “antimatter”). In Chapter 4, I introduced the main ideas from Friedman’s articles (2009 and 2012) and I applied his “scheme” regarding the “apriori relativized knowledge” for a scientific theory and the change/revolution of paradigm in science to my EDWs perspective. In Part II, I investigate some (more or less) anti-reductionist approaches: Gell-Mann, Spinoza-Velmans, and Heil. I emphasize even here that all anti-reductionist approaches had been created within the unicorn world until I published my article in 2005. In Part III, related to Kuhn’s notion of “paradigm”, I indicate what kind of “paradigmatic revolution” I have realized through discovering the EDWs within the scientific and philosophical revolutions and changes. I emphasize that my EDWs perspective has been the greatest change in the history of human thinking (including the main sciences, physics, cognitive neuroscience and philosophy) and this is the reason I call it the first “hyper-paradigm”. (shrink)