与时间和空间、物质和能量、生命和自我、知识和智能、语言和语义一样，意识本身既不是一种实体，也不是实体的属性，只能用不同的变化或变化的方向性来定义和解释。作者构建了一个以物质，能量和生命为成分的系统（心 灵亦是这样一个系统），并将这些成分分别定义为不同的变化。基于这些变化之间的系统关系，在本文中推导出了对意识的三重定义或解释： • 意识具有本体论上的普遍性，因为它是物质与能量之不同。 • 意识具有认识论上的特殊性，因为它是物质对能量的形式化、质量化，或特异化。 • 在语义学上，意识是一种无语义的语言，而生命则是种种无语言的语义。 许多意识理论不仅忽视了意识的普遍性和特殊性，更没有将生命理解为意识之为意识的唯一原因或结果。其实，没有生命就没有物质与能量之不同，更不可能有作为语言的意识。 .

I have conceptualized an ontological trichotomy, with matter, energy, and life as its components, and with all its components defined as changes. In this talk, I will explore how time might be defined and understood within such a framework.

The author argues that consciousness and its meaning may only be defined and explained within an ontological system. Such a system is proposed in this article, with matter, energy, and life as its components, and with all its components defined as changes. The systematic relations between matter and energy and the semantic relations among all its components together may define and explain what and how consciousness is, why there is consciousness, where and when it may occur, and what is its (...) significance or meaning. (shrink)

Against ideas of dualism, logocentrism, anthropocentrism, animism, panpsychism, biocentrism, neurocentrism, foundationalism, computationalism, especially substantialism, reductionism and even physicalism, the author argues that life may be the only non-reductive concept, even the only ontological concept, with which we may explain our consciousness, intelligence and language. Life, as defined in this article, explains but not only human brains, and even not only biological organisms. Still, the mind, also as defined in this article, is the only one it explains. No mind may exist (...) if not be a life or lives, and no life may exist if not be a mind or a part of it. If it is the mind that needs to be explained, it must finally and fundamentally be explained as a life or lives. If the question is about the origin of the mind, a life or lives must be the ultimate answer. In other words, life is the only attribute of mind, and mind also the only attribute of life, and therefore, consciousness, intelligence and language must be the properties of all the living systems, including non-biological living systems. A model of mind is hypothesized based on the analysis of two kinds of lives and their relationship with matter and energy. It may be deduced from this model: 1. All the memories of a living brain are its intelligence. 2. Both consciousness and nonconscious are only meaningless languages used in the communication among lives in an awakened brain. 3. Life is the only meaning of all those memories and languages. Ontologically, life may even be the only meaning of all matter and energy. -/- (A version of this article was published by the Journal of NeuroPhilosophy on 26.10.2022). (shrink)

The author argues that consciousness cannot be defined or explained through either monism or dualism. As an alternative, a triadic framework is proposed, with matter, energy, and life as its components, each defined as a form of change. Through this framework, a multifaceted understanding of consciousness emerges: • Ontologically, consciousness is universal, since it is the distinction between matter and energy. • Epistemologically, consciousness is unique, since it is the energy formalized, qualified, diversified, and directed by the matter. • Semantically, (...) consciousness is a meaningless language with lives as its only meaning. These understandings are further expanded and enriched through the introduction of the homology of subjectivity and objectivity in Section 4, the mirror symmetry between consciousness and action in Section 5, and the complementarity of qualia and quantia in Section 6. A definition of the mind and its fundamental structure is proposed in Section 7. Many theories of consciousness have overlooked its universality or uniqueness, or failed to recognize life as its sole cause or effect. Without life, no distinction between matter and energy is possible, and no language or consciousness is possible. -/- . (shrink)

Based on the ontological proposition, “life is the only attribute of mind, and mind also the only attribute of life”, a model of the human mind is hypothesized in this article. It may be deduced from the proposition and the model: 1. All the structures of a brain are the potentials of its intelligence. 2. Consciousness is only the language used in the communication of an awakened brain. 3. Qualia are the same mental language manipulated by different memories. 4. Life (...) is the only meaning of all mental languages. -/- . (shrink)

Complexity may not be defined or explained with entities and properties. Instead, a system is proposed ontologically, epistemologically, and semantically as the definition or explanation in this paper, with matter, energy and lives as its components, and with all its components defined as changes, which might improve upon our prediction in/with complexity. -/- .

Scientism denies change and creation in science, and humanism denies change and creation in humanity. They leave no room for freedom, equality and fraternity. This book is written as the deconstruction of both scientism and humanism.

It seems to the author that, though it is possible to reach an explanation of consciousness, there is no direct way for us to go. In other words, the author believes that, only through a detour, through an understanding of everything outside mind, we may and can and will finally reach an understanding of those inside. The author tries in this article to discuss some details of such a detour, first from the understanding of Being and being, universe and life, (...) organism and human, and finally to the understanding of the mind and the mystery of our consciousness. Here, to understand Being is the core activities of the whole detour, and there the being is understandably the source and the nature of life and consciousness. (shrink)

With this article, the author argues that in reality nothing is or isn’t itself, that everything is both a relative proof and an absolute proof of God’s existence, and that our language, such as “nature” or “god”, is the only obstacle between Nature and God.

Consciousness may not only be a problem how to know the brain but also a problem how to understand what known. Understanding is always an ontological system created as the explanation of what known by us. And, if all brains, including human brains, may be defined as the mind, consciousness must be part of our understanding of the mind. The author argues that no mind may exist if not be a life or lives, no life may exist if not be (...) a mind or a part of it, and, if it is the mind that needs to be explained, it must finally and fundamentally be explained as a life or a living system. An ontological definition of life is proposed first in this article, which is also applicable to fields such as physics, biology, psychology, and sociology. Based on an analysis of two kinds of lives and their relationship with matter and energy, a living system is modeled as the organization of two system relations, which explains not only consciousness but also wakefulness, emotion, intelligence, language and mind-body relationship. And finally, a semantic theory is reached, which takes lives as the only meaning of all symmetrical and conservative changes, such as the location changes or form changes of consciousness, or the state changes of memories. The concept of life, the model of living systems and the semantic theory together provide a framework for us to understand what and how consciousness is, why there is consciousness, where and when consciousness occurs. (shrink)

Against the divide between continental and analytic philosophies, this article means to say: 1. All understanding = ontology + language, 2. Ontology = O + C (such as the unity of Parmenides’ one and Heraclitus’ change), and 3. OC = Nature or God. In other words, OC is the only meaning of all and every language.

God is free. If free, God certainly hates being omniscient, omnipotent, eternal and perfection. If God hates so, ....

“Being” or “being and beings” might be the meta-notion when philosophy and science were still sharing the same mind or minds in ancient Greek and Europe. To find its meaning and to become a part of the meaning are however more and more vital nowadays, not for philosophy but for science, especially for physics and biology. The author proposes in this essay that this concept may mean to us nothing more or less than the unity or unification of Parmenides’ idea (...) “being is one” and Heraclitus’ idea “all things are in flux and nothing may remain the same”. That is just as to say that a being and an entity may never be identified with the same boundary. In other words, nothing or none should ever be understood as a being. This understanding is conceptualized and linguisticalized by the author as the compound symbol “OC”. And the OC represents a synthetic and also analytical understanding of both our universe and us together. And its value and strength may be found more obvious in his concise discussion, in the last part of the essay, on the OC’s meanings to ontology, epistemology, axiology, logic, mathematics, physics, biology, cosmogony and more. (shrink)

We may never understand what the phrase “human being” means if we do not try to understand ontological meaning of the concept “Being” or “being” or “beings”. With two essays presented together, the author tries to explain not only this concept but also its ontological consequence to other concepts such as “universe”, “life”, “organism”, “human” and “human mind”.