Consciousness has been one of the most examined and least precisely defined concepts across philosophy, neuroscience, psychology, and biology. Existing definitions range from the phenomenological — the subjective quality of experience — to the functional — the capacity to process and respond to information. None of these definitions is derived from first principles. All of them presuppose the very phenomenon they attempt to explain.
This paper takes a different approach. It derives consciousness…
Read moreConsciousness has been one of the most examined and least precisely defined concepts across philosophy, neuroscience, psychology, and biology. Existing definitions range from the phenomenological — the subjective quality of experience — to the functional — the capacity to process and respond to information. None of these definitions is derived from first principles. All of them presuppose the very phenomenon they attempt to explain.
This paper takes a different approach. It derives consciousness from the same two primitives that ground the entire body of work produced by THE 1×1 LIFE INSTITUTE: 1 and 0. From these primitives, and from the established formal definitions of Love, Good, Truth, Life, and value, the paper produces a precise, non-circular definition of consciousness — and of every state that precedes and follows it on the spectrum of orientation toward the source.
The derivation does not begin from biology, neuroscience, or phenomenology. It arrives at all three as applications of conclusions derived at a more foundational level. The claim is not that the derivation supersedes empirical inquiry. The claim is that empirical inquiry, followed far enough, will arrive at the same conclusions — because the truth was already there before either the inquiry or the paper began.
