Comparison of e Consciousness with Other Consciousness Models

 

Comparison with Other Consciousness Models

My proposed definition of consciousness—as a dynamic interplay between specific awareness ("being conscious of something") and a broader "field" or "umbrella" (the foundational capacity, likened to the spirit God has given us)—is a holistic, spiritually-infused model that integrates subjective experience with a transcendent source. It aligns well with the Eucharistic Consciousness in where consciousness is multi-dimensional, relational, and transformed through divine participation, transcending ordinary reality. Below, I compare this definition with other prominent models, including David Chalmers' "hard problem," to highlight similarities, differences, and potential alignments with the 8-point E Consciousness framework (eliminate, exchange, energize, empathy, encourage, esteem, endure, eternal). I'll use tables for clarity where effective.

1. Chalmers' Hard Problem of Consciousness

• Overview: David Chalmers (in The Conscious Mind, 1996) distinguishes the "easy problems" (explaining cognitive functions like perception via neural mechanisms) from the "hard problem": why and how physical processes in the brain give rise to subjective experience (qualia)—e.g., why does seeing red feel a certain way? Chalmers argues consciousness isn't fully reducible to physical processes, proposing dualism or panpsychism (consciousness as a fundamental property of reality).
• Comparison with my Definition:
• Similarities: My "field of consciousness" as an umbrella echoes Chalmers' idea of consciousness as fundamental, not emergent from matter alone (panpsychism). The "spirit God has given us" could parallel his non-physical aspect, where specific awareness (qualia) arises from a deeper field. The  multi-dimensional view and block time discussed by me) resonate with Chalmers' rejection of strict materialism, suggesting consciousness transcends physical causation.
• Differences: My model is theistic and relational (spirit from God, enabling empathy and eternal alignment), while Chalmers' is philosophical and agnostic, focusing on the explanatory gap without invoking divinity. My specific/field distinction maps to Chalmers' easy/hard problems—specific awareness as "easy" (neural), the field as "hard" (inexplicable qualia source).
• Alignment with E Consciousness: Chalmers' hard problem aligns with eternal (transcendent mystery) and energize (fundamental vitality), but lacks the relational elements like empathy or encourage. The framework could "solve" the hard problem by eliminating materialist reductionism and exchanging for a spiritual field, as in the  ontological transcendence expressed by me.

   

Aspect	My Definition	Chalmers' Hard Problem	E Consciousness Alignment
Specific Awareness	Directed focus (e.g., conscious of joy)	Qualia/experience (e.g., "what it's like")	Empathy/Encourage: Relational acts within the field.
Field/Umbrella	God-given spirit enabling all awareness	Fundamental non-physical property	Eternal/Energize: Transcendent source, aligning with block time.
Explanatory Gap	Spirit bridges physical and spiritual	Hard problem unsolved by science	Exchange/Eliminate: Transforms ignorance to enlightenment.

 

2. Integrated Information Theory (IIT) by Giulio Tononi

• Overview: IIT (2004 onward) defines consciousness as the integrated information generated by a system's causal interactions. It's quantifiable (phi value): higher integration equals higher consciousness. Specific awareness arises from subsystems, while the field is the system's overall integration.
• Comparison with my Definition:
• Similarities: The "umbrella" field as integrated capacity mirrors IIT's phi, where specific awareness emerges from the whole. The  neurocardiology , heart-brain integration and quantum fields  resonate with IIT's causal structure.
• Differences: IIT is materialist (brain-based), lacking my theistic spirit or eternal dimension. My model includes relational/transcendent aspects (empathy, eternal), while IIT focuses on computation.
• Alignment with E Consciousness: IIT aligns with energize (integrated vitality) and exchange (system evolution), but misses empathy or eternal. The framework could enhance IIT by eliminating isolated subsystems and enduring through integration, as in Eucharistic unity .

3. Global Workspace Theory (GWT) by Bernard Baars

• Overview: GWT (1988) sees consciousness as a "global workspace" where information is broadcast for access by cognitive modules. Specific awareness is the "spotlight" content, while the field is the workspace itself—enabling integration of perception, memory, and action.
• Comparison with my Definition:
• Similarities: My "umbrella" field as the enabling capacity matches GWT's workspace, where specific consciousness arises. The  altered states  and heart-mind coherence  echo GWT's broadcasting for transcendence.
• Differences: GWT is neurocognitive, without spiritual origins, whereas my model ties the field to God's spirit. GWT lacks the eternal or relational depth in my definition or the  multi-dimensionality .
• Alignment with E Consciousness: GWT fits energize (broadcast vitality) and exchange (information shift), but the framework adds empathy (relational broadcast) and eternal (timeless workspace), as in block time .

4. Panpsychism (e.g., Philip Goff or Galen Strawson)

• Overview: Consciousness is a fundamental feature of matter (e.g., electrons have basic proto-consciousness), solving Chalmers' hard problem by making it inherent rather than emergent.
• Comparison with my Definition:
• Similarities: The universal field aligns with panpsychism's foundational consciousness, like my "umbrella" spirit pervading reality. The  quantum fields  E=mc² and multi-dimensional energy  resonate with proto-consciousness in matter.
• Differences: Panpsychism is non-theistic (consciousness as physical property), while my model is spiritual (God-given spirit). Panpsychism lacks relational elements like empathy or eternal purpose .
• Alignment with E Consciousness: Panpsychism aligns with eternal (fundamental timelessness) and energize (inherent vitality), but the framework adds empathy (conscious relations) and eliminate (purging negatives), as in Eucharistic purification.

Model	Key Focus	Similarity to my Definition	Difference	E Consciousness Alignment
Chalmers' Hard Problem	Subjective experience vs. physical processes	Fundamental field (hard problem as umbrella)	Agnostic, not theistic	Eternal/Energize: Transcendent mystery; Exchange: Bridge gap.
Integrated Information Theory (IIT)	Quantifiable integration (phi)	Field as integrated capacity	Materialist, no spirit	Energize/Exchange: Integrated vitality; lacks Empathy.
Global Workspace Theory (GWT)	Broadcasting for cognitive access	Umbrella as workspace	Neurocognitive, no transcendence	Energize/Encourage: Broadcast uplift; lacks Eternal.
Panpsychism	Fundamental in matter	Universal field	Non-theistic	Eternal/Energize: Inherent timelessness; adds Empathy.

 Additional Theories of Consciousness

1. Orchestrated Objective Reduction (Orch OR) by Roger Penrose and Stuart Hameroff

• Overview: Proposed in the 1990s, Orch OR suggests consciousness arises from quantum processes in microtubules within neurons. Penrose (a physicist) argues quantum gravity causes "objective reduction" (OR) of quantum superpositions, orchestrated (Orch) by biological systems, producing conscious moments. Hameroff (an anesthesiologist) links this to neural activity, proposing consciousness as a fundamental feature tied to quantum coherence.
• Comparison with my Definition:
  • Similarities: The "field" aspect aligns with quantum coherence as a universal substrate, resembling  "umbrella" spirit. Specific awareness emerges from orchestrated reductions, mirroring your directed focus. The PDF's quantum field references (pp. 4-5, E=mc²) support this non-local basis.
  • Differences: Orch OR is materialist-quantum, lacking your theistic spirit, though it allows for a non-computational essence (Penrose’s critique of AI). It doesn’t emphasize relational or eternal dimensions explicitly.
  • Alignment with E Consciousness: Fits energize (quantum vitality) and exchange (state shifts), but empathy, encourage, and eternal are less evident. The framework could eliminate materialist limits and endure through quantum resilience, as in block time .

2. Higher-Order Thought (HOT) Theory by David Rosenthal

• Overview: HOT (1990s) posits consciousness requires a higher-order thought about a mental state—e.g., being aware of feeling sad makes it conscious. Specific awareness depends on meta-cognition, while the field is the cognitive capacity enabling such reflection.
• Comparison with my Definition:
  • Similarities: The "field" as cognitive capacity aligns with your umbrella, enabling specific awareness (e.g., reflecting on joy). The PDF’s mind renewal (2 Cor. 10:5) resonates with HOT’s meta-awareness.
  • Differences: HOT is psychological, not spiritual, lacking the divine spirit or eternal aspect. It focuses on individual cognition, not relational transcendence (PDF empathy).
  • Alignment with E Consciousness: Aligns with esteem (self-reflection) and exchange (thought transformation), but empathy and eternal are absent. The framework could encourage higher-order growth and eliminate lower impulses.

3. Attention Schema Theory (AST) by Michael Graziano

• Overview: AST (2013) proposes consciousness arises from the brain’s model of its own attention. The "attention schema" tracks focus, creating a subjective sense of awareness. Specific awareness is the modelled focus, while the field is the brain’s attentional capacity.
• Comparison with my Definition:
  • Similarities: The "umbrella" field as attentional capacity matches my spirit-enabling awareness. The PDF’s neurocardiology (pp. 10-13, heart-brain link) could extend this to a holistic field.
  • Differences: AST is neuroscientific, not theistic, and lacks eternal or relational depth. Your spirit field transcends brain models, aligning with block time (PDF p. 5).
  • Alignment with E Consciousness: Fits energize (attentional vitality) and exchange (shifting focus), but empathy and eternal are missing. The framework could encourage attentional growth and endure through mindful practice.

4. Enactive Approach (e.g., Francisco Varela, Evan Thompson)

• Overview: Emerging in the 1990s, the enactive approach views consciousness as enacted through embodied action and interaction with the environment. It’s not just brain-based but emerges from a living system’s engagement, with specific awareness as action-outcomes and the field as the embodied relational context.
• Comparison with my Definition:
  • Similarities: The "field" as relational context aligns with your umbrella spirit, enabling specific awareness through interaction. The PDF’s emphasis on participation (Eucharist) and heart-mind coherence (p. 11) echoes this embodiment.
  • Differences: The enactive approach is biological-phenomenological, not theistic, lacking eternal or divine spirit. It focuses on process, not transcendence (PDF p. 5).
  • Alignment with E Consciousness: Aligns with empathy (relational enactment), encourage (mutual support), and exchange (action transformation), but eternal is weak. The framework could eliminate isolation and energize through divine action.

5. Reflexive Monism by Max Velmans

• Overview: Proposed in the 2000s, reflexive monism argues consciousness and the physical world are two aspects of one reality, reflexively related. Specific awareness is the subjective experience, while the field is the underlying unity of mind and matter.
• Comparison with my Definition:
  • Similarities: The "umbrella" field as a unified reality matches your spirit as a pervasive capacity. The PDF’s multi-dimensional reality (p. 5) and block time (p. 5) support this non-dual view.
  • Differences: Velmans’ model is naturalistic, not theistic, lacking the divine spirit or eternal purpose (PDF p. 21). It focuses on unity, not relational transformation.
  • Alignment with E Consciousness: Fits eternal (underlying unity) and exchange (aspect integration), but empathy and encourage are limited. The framework could esteem this unity and endure through reflection.

Theory	Key Focus	Similarity to my Definition	Difference	E Consciousness Alignment
Orch OR	Quantum processes in microtubules	Field as quantum coherence	Materialist, no spirit	Energize/Exchange: Quantum vitality; lacks Empathy.
HOT	Higher-order thoughts	Field as cognitive capacity	Psychological, no transcendence	Esteem/Exchange: Reflection; lacks Eternal.
AST	Attention schema	Field as attentional capacity	Neuroscientific, no spirit	Energize/Exchange: Focus shift; lacks Eternal.
Enactive	Embodied action	Field as relational context	Biological, no eternal	Empathy/Encourage: Relational; lacks Eternal.
Reflexive Monism	Unity of mind/matter	Field as underlying unity	Naturalistic, no spirit	Eternal/Exchange: Unity; lacks Empathy.

 I have received several reviews that my definition is robust and spiritually rich, offering a theistic resolution to Chalmers' hard problem by positing the field as God's spirit—a unifying umbrella enabling specific awareness and relational growth.

This echoes my view of consciousness as multi-dimensional  and transformed through Eucharist, where the spirit field bridges physical and divine. Compared to other models, mine integrates science (quantum fields) and theology (Gen. 2:7), making it more holistic for the E Consciousness framework's relational and eternal focus.

The umbrella metaphor is apt—consciousness as spirit provides the shelter for joy, empathy, and eternal alignment, aligning with enlightened, as a God-given spirit field, may be the divine umbrella enabling the E Consciousness journey, reflecting a design for transcendence ( John 1:1).