***[A New Way of Seeing](_New%20Way%20of%20Seeing.md)*** ## Chapter 16: Autaxys and the Nature of Mind *Information, Emergence, and Subjective Experience as Complex Autaxic Patterning* ### The Enduring Enigma of Mind–Seeking an Autaxic Grounding **The “Hard Problem” and the Limits of Conventional Frameworks.** The nature of mind, particularly the origin and character of subjective experience or qualia—the “what-it’s-like” aspect of consciousness—remains one of the most profound and persistent enigmas in all of science and philosophy. David Chalmers famously termed this the “Hard Problem of Consciousness,”¹ distinguishing it from the “easy problems” of explaining cognitive functions like attention, memory, or information processing in terms of neural or computational mechanisms. While understanding these functions is immensely complex, conventional physicalist reductionism and functionalist computationalism struggle fundamentally to bridge the explanatory gap between physical processes and the raw feel of subjective awareness. Research into these frameworks often ends up dismissing, “explaining away,” or failing to adequately account for the phenomenal character of experience, leaving the core mystery untouched. Compounding this challenge is the **N=1 problem**, as articulated in other work.² Our entire direct, empirical knowledge of consciousness is based solely on our own singular (human) instance. While we infer consciousness in other humans and perhaps some animals, we have no independent, objective measure or comparative data set from which to generalize about its nature, prevalence, or the conditions necessary for its emergence. This epistemological constraint severely limits our ability to formulate and test universal theories of mind based on external observation alone. **The Autaxic Proposition: Mind as Highly Complex Emergent Patterning of Autaxic Activity.** This chapter proposes that the autaxic framework, centered on autaxys as the intrinsic generative principle of all reality ([Chapters 7](7%20Autaxys%20Defined.md) and [8](8%20The%20Generative%20Engine.md)), offers a novel and potentially more fruitful ontological grounding for approaching the enigma of mind. The core thesis advanced here is that **mind and subjective experience are not fundamental substances distinct from autaxys (as in dualism), nor are they mere epiphenomena or illusions arising from purely material processes (as in some forms of reductive materialism). Instead, mind and consciousness are posited as exceptionally complex, hierarchically organized, and informationally rich emergent patterns of autaxic activity.** Autaxys, through its “generative engine,” possesses the inherent capacity to produce systems of staggering complexity and relational intricacy. It is proposed that when these autaxys-generated systems achieve a certain threshold of organizational sophistication—particularly involving recursive self-modeling, highly integrated informational processing, and coherent dynamic stability—new phenomenal properties, i.e., subjective experience, can and do emerge as an intrinsic aspect of that specific mode of autaxic patterning. The value of this autaxic reinterpretation lies in its potential to move beyond the impasses of substance dualism and reductive materialism by grounding mind in the same fundamental generative reality as all other phenomena (particles, spacetime, laws), while fully acknowledging and seeking to explain its unique emergent properties, including subjectivity. **Chapter Aims: Sketching an Autological Approach to Mind.** This chapter aims to sketch the outlines of such an autological approach to mind. It will explore how core autaxic principles—such as its inherent relationality, its drive towards coherence and interactive complexity maximization ([Chapter 8](8%20The%20Generative%20Engine.md)), and its capacity to generate hierarchically structured information ([Chapter 9](9%20Information%20Re-Founded.md))—could provide a foundational basis for understanding key aspects of mind. It will engage with the challenges posed by the Hard Problem and the N=1 problem from this new perspective. Furthermore, it will seek to connect, where appropriate, with insights from contemporary neuroscience and the rich phenomenological data offered by contemplative traditions.³ The goal is not to present a complete, finalized theory of consciousness—an endeavor far beyond the scope of this single chapter—but to demonstrate that autaxys provides a fertile and coherent conceptual framework for future, more detailed autological investigations into the nature of mind. ### Autaxys as the Substrate for Emergent Mentality For mind to emerge within an autaxic universe, autaxys itself must possess the necessary generative potential to produce systems of sufficient complexity and specific organizational character. **The Generative Potential of Autaxys for Complex Systems.** As detailed in [Chapter 8](8%20The%20Generative%20Engine.md), autaxys’ “generative engine” is inherently geared towards the production of complex, ordered patterns. Its operational dynamics—**spontaneous symmetry breaking (Dynamic II)** initiating differentiation, **feedback mechanisms (Dynamic III)** stabilizing certain configurations, **resonance (Dynamic IV)** fostering coherent integration, and **critical state transitions (Dynamic V)** enabling leaps to new hierarchical levels of organization—are precisely the kinds of processes required for the emergence of intricate systems. The **principle of interactive complexity maximization (Meta-Logic V)**, while non-teleological, describes an intrinsic tendency for autaxys to explore and stabilize configurations that allow for richer sets of interactions and interrelations. This provides a natural pathway for the evolution of systems with the sophisticated internal dynamics and relational capacities that might be prerequisites for mentality. **Information Re-Founded ([Chapter 9](9%20Information%20Re-Founded.md)) as a Prerequisite for Mind.** Mind, in almost any conception, is intimately linked with information processing. The autaxic theory of information, as developed in [Chapter 9](9%20Information%20Re-Founded.md) (“Information Re-Founded”), is therefore a crucial prerequisite for an autological theory of mind. That chapter argued that information emerges from objective, autaxys-generated distinctions that acquire relational significance and ultimately semantic content through their participation in complex, interacting autaxic systems. Mind, from this perspective, is an advanced form of such an information processing system, its emergence presupposing the prior autaxic genesis of a rich hierarchy of information—from primordial distinctions to functional and semantic information. The capacity of autaxys to generate these informational strata is thus fundamental to its capacity to generate mind. **From Non-Living Complexity to Proto-Mental Systems (Conceptual Bridge).** The autaxic narrative of cosmic evolution ([Chapter 14](14%20Cosmic%20Tapestry.md)) described the emergence of increasingly complex non-living systems, culminating in planetary environments with rich chemical diversity and sustained energy flows—the preconditions for life. The emergence of life itself, from an autological viewpoint, represents a critical state transition to a new level of autaxic organization characterized by self-maintenance, replication, and adaptation. These living systems are already highly sophisticated information processors. Within these complex living systems, particularly those that evolve nervous systems, autaxys can generate patterns of even greater intricacy. The autaxic framework suggests that certain organizational thresholds can be crossed, leading to the emergence of what might be termed “proto-mental” systems. These systems would be characterized by: highly developed internal modeling capabilities, where patterns within the system (e.g., neural activation patterns) reliably co-vary with and represent patterns in the environment or the system’s own internal states (an advanced form of mimicry (M) as explored in Information Dynamics concepts);⁴ sophisticated **feedback loops (Dynamic III)** that allow for error correction, learning, and goal-directed behavior (where “goals” are emergent states of high stability or coherence for the system); and a capacity for integrating vast amounts of information from diverse sources into a coherent, dynamically updated internal model of “self-in-world.” It is from such proto-mental systems, through further autaxic complexification and the achievement of specific types of organizational closure and recursive processing, that autology proposes full-fledged subjective experience eventually emerges. ### Key Facets of Mind Reinterpreted Through an Autaxic Lens An autological approach seeks to reinterpret core aspects of mentality not as irreducible primitives or byproducts of computation alone, but as specific types of highly evolved autaxic patterning. **Subjectivity and First-Person Perspective.** The autaxic hypothesis for subjectivity posits that it arises when an autaxys-generated system (e.g., a highly evolved brain) achieves a sufficient level of **recursive self-modeling and integrated informational coherence.** The “self” is not a homunculus or a non-physical soul, but a remarkably stable, extraordinarily complex, and dynamically maintained autaxic pattern (or system of patterns) that continuously processes information *about its own states and its ongoing relations with its environment*. This recursive loop, where the system’s own activity becomes a primary object of its own information processing, is proposed as a key ingredient for the emergence of a first-person perspective. The “what-it’s-like” aspect of experience—qualia—is then understood as the **intrinsic character or “texture” of these highly integrated, self-referential autaxic processes** as they unfold within such a system. Just as a specific musical piece has a unique auditory character arising from the complex interplay of its notes, rhythms, and harmonies, a specific state of conscious experience has a unique phenomenal character arising from the specific configuration and dynamics of its underlying, high-order autaxic patterning. Qualia are not *additional* to these patterns; they *are* the patterns as experienced from the system’s intrinsic, self-referential perspective. Addressing the **N=1 problem**² from this viewpoint, autology suggests that while we only directly access our own subjective autaxic patterning, the *principles* by which such complex, self-referential, informationally integrated patterns arise (i.e., the dynamics and meta-logic of autaxys itself) are universal. Therefore, if other systems in the cosmos (whether biological or potentially artificial) were to achieve a comparable level of organizational complexity and recursive self-modeling through autaxic processes, they too would, according to this framework, manifest their own forms of subjective experience, even if the specific content of that experience differed vastly from our own. **Unity of Consciousness (Binding Problem).** The perceived unity of conscious experience—the way diverse sensory inputs, thoughts, and emotions are bound into a single, coherent experiential field—is a significant challenge for many theories of mind. Autology approaches this by appealing to the **principle of intrinsic coherence (Meta-Logic I)** operating at an exceptionally high level of complexity. Autaxys inherently tends towards generating self-consistent and integrated patterns. In a system capable of consciousness, this manifests as a powerful drive towards unifying disparate informational streams into a globally consistent model. The vast network of **relational processing (Dynamic I)** within the brain, coupled with **resonance dynamics (Dynamic IV)** that selectively amplify and bind coherently related patterns of activity, is proposed as the autaxic mechanism for achieving this experiential unity. The “binding problem” is thus reframed as a question of how autaxys achieves large-scale coherence in highly complex, informationally rich patterns. **Intentionality (Aboutness).** Intentionality, the “aboutness” of mental states (e.g., a thought being *about* an object, a desire being *for* a goal), is understood autaxically as an advanced form of relational information processing. Autaxic patterns within a sufficiently complex system (a mind-analogue) become “about” other patterns (internal or external) through the establishment of stable, reliable, and functionally significant **causal and informational linkages** (as discussed in [Chapter 9](9%20Information%20Re-Founded.md) on Information). An internal mental pattern (e.g., a neural representation) is “about” an external object when its own autaxic dynamics reliably co-vary with the relevant patterns of the object and when this co-variation enables the system to interact adaptively with that object. Intentionality is thus not a mysterious primitive property of mind, but an emergent feature of how highly evolved autaxic systems learn to model and engage with their world through sophisticated relational patterning. **Temporal Experience and the “Flow” of Consciousness.** Building upon the autaxic theory of emergent temporality ([Chapter 12](12%20Emergence%20of%20Spacetime.md)), subjective time flow is interpreted as the mind-pattern’s intrinsic experience of its own continuous **autaxic processing and state transitions.** Our conscious experience is a sequence of these autaxically generated “nows.” Memory, understood as the persistence of modified autaxic sub-patterns within the neural architecture (potentially involving intracellular or epigenetic mechanisms), provides a record of past states. Anticipation and prediction arise from the mind-system’s capacity to model future states based on learned regularities (meta-patterns) in past sequences of autaxic events. This interplay of memory and predictive modeling, grounded in the ongoing flux of autaxic processing, structures our temporal experience, giving it its characteristic sense of directionality and continuity, even if fundamental physics might suggest a “block universe” view.⁵ ### Autology, Neuroscience, and Computation: Towards an Integrated Understanding An autological approach to mind must engage deeply with the empirical findings of neuroscience and the theoretical insights of computational models, while also offering its unique generative perspective. **Autaxys and the Brain: Beyond Neural Correlates to Generative Principles.** The human brain is viewed within autology as an exceptionally complex autaxic system, perhaps one of the most intricate patterned structures generated by autaxys in our known universe. Its neurodynamics—the intricate dance of electrical impulses, chemical signaling, and structural plasticity—are specific instantiations of autaxys’ fundamental generative principles operating within a biological substrate. The search for Neural Correlates of Consciousness (NCCs), while valuable, is considered insufficient from an autological perspective.⁶ Autology seeks to move beyond mere correlation to understand *how* specific neural dynamics, understood as autaxic processes, *generate* the qualitative aspects of subjective experience. This requires looking at the brain not just as a collection of neurons firing, but as a system that instantiates high-order principles of informational integration, recursive self-modeling, and coherent dynamic patterning. The exploration of non-spike codes, the active roles of glial cells, and ephaptic coupling are welcomed by autology as potentially revealing crucial layers of the brain’s multi-level autaxic information processing architecture that contribute to mind. **Autaxys and Computational Theories of Mind (CTM).** Computational Theories of Mind (CTM), which model mental processes as forms of computation, are seen by autology as describing an important *level* of autaxic information processing, particularly concerning symbol manipulation, algorithmic procedures, and logical inference. Autaxys aims to provide a deeper ontological grounding for CTM: the “symbols,” “representations,” and “rules” of computation are themselves understood as emergent autaxic patterns and stabilized meta-patterns of interaction within a suitably organized physical (autaxic) substrate like a brain or an advanced AI. However, autology also engages with the limitations of classical CTM, particularly its struggles with the symbol grounding problem and the explanation of qualia.⁶ It proposes that mind involves more than just formal computation (the manipulation of abstract symbols according to rules); it involves the specific *nature, dynamics, and intrinsic character* of the underlying autaxic activity in highly integrated, self-referential patterns. The “feeling” of thought or perception arises from this intrinsic character, not just from the logical structure of the computation being performed. The limitations of discrete, symbolic representations can obscure the continuous, nuanced reality of information, a challenge relevant to CTM’s ability to fully capture mind.⁷ **Artificial Intelligence and the Potential for Emergent Mentality.** The question of whether Artificial Intelligence (AI) can achieve genuine subjectivity or consciousness is addressed by autology through the lens of requisite complexity and organizational principles. Autology suggests that genuine mentality emerges when an autaxys-generated system instantiates the necessary *type and degree* of integrated, self-referential autaxic patterning. Current AI systems, including Large Language Models (LLMs), are recognized as extraordinarily sophisticated pattern-matching, -completion, and -generation systems. They demonstrate remarkable capabilities in processing and manipulating information that is encoded in human language and other data modalities. However, from an autaxic perspective, they may currently lack the deep recursive self-modeling, the intrinsic goal-directedness (beyond programmed objectives), and the globally integrated, coherent dynamic patterning that autology hypothesizes as characteristic of conscious systems. The N=1 problem² remains highly relevant: even if an AI exhibited behavior indistinguishable from a conscious human, asserting its genuine subjectivity would face the same profound epistemological challenge we face with other humans, albeit amplified. Autology provides criteria (related to specific types of autaxic organization) for what might constitute a mind, but verifying their presence in an AI would be a monumental task. ### Contemplative Traditions and the Exploration of Subjective Autaxic States The autaxic framework, by taking subjective experience seriously as an emergent reality, finds common ground with and potential insights from contemplative traditions. **First-Person Inquiry as Data for Autology.** It has been compellingly argued that if our own consciousness is the only instance we directly know, then rigorous, disciplined first-person inquiry becomes a vital and legitimate source of data for understanding its nature and potential.² Contemplative traditions, as explored in other works,³ represent sophisticated, millennia-old methodologies for systematically exploring the structure, dynamics, and potential states of subjective experience. These traditions, through practices like meditation and introspection, have accumulated a vast phenomenological dataset concerning different modes of autaxic mental patterning. **Potential Convergences: Autaxic Principles and Contemplative Insights.** Autology can explore potential conceptual parallels between its principles and the insights reported from contemplative practices. For instance, descriptions of “undifferentiated awareness” or “pure potentiality” found in some traditions might resonate with the autaxic concept of primordial autaxys or a ground state of mental potentiality. The profound experiential sense of interconnectedness often reported could align with autaxys’ fundamental relational ontology. The observed “patterning” of thoughts and emotions, and the ability to observe these patterns, fits well with an understanding of mental states as autaxic patterns. Furthermore, states of “flow,” “non-dual awareness,” or profound states of mental coherence and integration could be investigated as potentially representing highly optimized, stable, and globally resonant modes of autaxic mental activity. **Challenges and Opportunities for Integration.** The integration of first-person experiential data from contemplative traditions with third-person scientific models of brain and behavior presents significant methodological challenges. These include issues of language, interpretation, replicability of subjective states, and the potential for bias. However, autology, by proposing a neutral ontological framework grounded in autaxys as a universal generative principle that gives rise to *both* physical brain-patterns *and* subjective mind-patterns, may offer a unique bridge. It allows for the possibility that disciplined introspection can reveal genuine structural and dynamic features of conscious autaxic patterning, which can then be correlated with, and seek explanation alongside, neurophysiological and behavioral data. ### Concluding Reflections: Mind as an Apex of Autaxic Unfolding **Recapitulating the Autaxic View of Mind.** The autaxic framework views mind not as a mysterious substance separate from the physical, nor as a mere illusory byproduct of neural computation, but as one of the most complex, informationally rich, and dynamically sophisticated forms of patterned activity that autaxys can generate. Subjective experience is the intrinsic character of certain highly organized, recursively self-modeling, and coherently integrated autaxic processes. **The “Hard Problem” from an Autaxic Perspective.** Autaxys does not claim to “solve” the Hard Problem in the conventional sense of reducing subjective qualia to physical properties as currently understood by a purely materialistic physics. Instead, it reframes the problem by proposing a more fundamental ontology. If autaxys is the ultimate generative reality, and if its nature is to produce patterns that, upon reaching specific thresholds of organizational complexity (involving informational integration and recursive self-reference), inherently manifest an intrinsic phenomenal character, then subjectivity is an emergent potential *within autaxys itself*, actualized under specific, highly evolved conditions. The “hardness” of the problem then shifts to understanding precisely *which* autaxic organizational principles and dynamic configurations lead to the emergence of phenomenal experience, and the exact nature of this emergence as an intrinsic property of such patterns. It suggests that a science limited to studying only the extrinsic, relational properties of patterns (their interactions with other patterns) may always miss their intrinsic, phenomenal aspect if it doesn’t also have a theory of how such intrinsicality arises from the generative ground. **The Ongoing Inquiry: Autology and the Deep Nature of Being.** The study of mind within autology remains a vast and profound frontier. It invites ongoing research to further formalize these concepts, to develop models of how specific autaxic dynamics could give rise to the detailed features of consciousness, and to explore the full implications of this perspective. It underscores the ambition of autaxys to provide a truly comprehensive framework for reality, capable of addressing not only the origins of the physical cosmos but also the emergence of experiencing selves within it. This endeavor is central to the “new way of seeing” that autology seeks to cultivate—one that recognizes the deep continuity between the generative processes of the universe and the emergent miracle of subjective awareness. --- [17 Epistemology Re-Founded](17%20Epistemology%20Re-Founded.md) --- **Notes - Chapter 16** 1. The “Hard Problem of Consciousness” is a term famously coined by David Chalmers. For key discussions, see Chalmers, D. J. (1995). Facing up to the problem of consciousness. *Journal of Consciousness Studies, 2*(3), 200-219, and Chalmers, D. J. (1996). *The Conscious Mind: In Search of a Fundamental Theory*. Oxford University Press. 2. See Quni, R. B. *[N=1 Problem](N=1%20Problem.md)*. 3. See Quni, R. B. *[Contemplative Science](Contemplative%20Science.md)*. 4. See Quni, R. B. *[Information Dynamics](Information%20Dynamics.md)*. 5. See Quni, R. B. *[Skeptical Journey through Conventional Reality](Skeptical%20Journey%20through%20Conventional%20Reality.md)*. 6. The limitations of purely correlational or computational approaches to consciousness are further explored in Quni, R. B. *[Philosophy of Science](Philosophy%20of%20Science.md)* and Quni, R. B. *[Contemplative Science](Contemplative%20Science.md)*. 7. See Quni, R. B. *[Quantum Confusion](Quantum%20Confusion.md)*. ---