A Dynamic "Self-Model" to Synthesize Higher-Order and Reflexive Theories

[Wenge Huang]

The study of consciousness is marked by a long-standing debate between Higher-Order Theories (HOT), which posit that a mental state becomes conscious via a separate higher-order representation, and Reflexive Theories, which contend that consciousness is an intrinsic, built-in property of experience itself. This theoretical impasse has hindered progress in understanding the generative mechanism of self-awareness.

We introduce a dynamic “Self-Model” inspired by empirical insights from Theravada Buddhist meditation. We propose that the phenomenal self is an illusion emerging from the rapid alternation between a first-order “awareness” (A) and a spontaneous, second-order “awareness of awareness” (AoA).

This model offers an integrative solution, demonstrating how an ontologically two-tier (higher-order) structure can, through a dynamic process, create a phenomenologically single-tier (reflexive) experience. By distinguishing between the generative mechanism and the resulting experience, this model synthesizes the two opposing views and resolves the classic infinite-regression problem inherent in many higher-order accounts.

https://www.academia.edu/130448420/A_Dy ... e_Theories

[Age]

The study of consciousness is marked by a long-standing debate between Higher-Order Theories (HOT), which posit that a mental state becomes conscious via a separate higher-order representation, and Reflexive Theories, which contend that consciousness is an intrinsic, built-in property of experience itself. This theoretical impasse has hindered progress in understanding the generative mechanism of self-awareness.

That is because they are both way below sufficient enough guesses and explanations. They both also endeavor to complicate what is essentially very basic, simple, straightforward, and easy to comprehend and understand.

The reason why you people take so long to understand things like 'consciousness' is because you do your 'studying' based off and upon 'theories'. Which, inevitably, only sets you back.

We introduce a dynamic “Self-Model” inspired by empirical insights from Theravada Buddhist meditation. We propose that the phenomenal self is an illusion emerging from the rapid alternation between a first-order “awareness” (A) and a spontaneous, second-order “awareness of awareness” (AoA).

you can propose, and/or introduce absolutely any thing you so wish to. But, if you are on the Wrong path, and/or missing the mark, then that is what you are.

This model offers an integrative solution,

What was the, supposed and alleged, 'problem' to begin with?

demonstrating how an ontologically two-tier (higher-order) structure can, through a dynamic process, create a phenomenologically single-tier (reflexive) experience. By distinguishing between the generative mechanism and the resulting experience, this model synthesizes the two opposing views and resolves the classic infinite-regression problem inherent in many higher-order accounts.

If you say so. But, to me, introducing just 'another model', or 'another theory', will only lead you further astray.

Why not just 'look at', only, what is already actually, here, and which is what is actually already irrefutably True, and Right, instead?

https://www.academia.edu/130448420/A_Dy ... e_Theories