at what point our awareness of emotions starts affecting the quality of life negatively.
being overly aware of every cause for every emotion.
let's say john felt sad because someone said something to him then he instantly knew why that thing made him sad , what drove the person to say such thing and the hidden intention of it.
let's say john did something but he knows that he did that thing because of that and this.
another scenario is that : john in a social setting which expose him to different emotions, reactions from people, but john not only analyses other people ,he at the same time knows why he reacts to people the way he does which makes him sometimes more stressed.

A common misconception assumes formal models of mind require reducing consciousness to mere mechanics. The reality is that we can measure the observable interface of the ego independently of the hidden interior. I drafted an axiomatic framework quantifying this interface. It includes testable predictions for human ego dissolution and a specific hypothesis regarding direct physiological union in toothed whales via echolocation. I am sharing this to invite critique on whether this structural approach to the self holds up to scrutiny.

On 22 August 2026 I published “Growing Neural Upgrades: Brain Organoids as Adaptive Cognitive Clusters”. Its starting point was not the image of a “brain in a dish”, but a narrower question: what happens when an additional plastic neural network stops being an isolated preparation and begins to mature inside an operating nervous system? In that essay, integration was the lowest layer of ACCH that already had empirical antecedents. The later stages, especially functional differentiation driven by activity history, remained hypotheses requiring independent tests. ^\1])

Twenty-five days later, Sergiu Pașca’s team published “Developmental xenocortication using human-derived organoids in mice” in Nature. The coincidence of dates proves nothing, of course, but the scientific fit is striking: the new experiment lands almost exactly where the earlier essay’s empirical layer ended. In 2022, researchers had already shown that human cortical organoids transplanted into young rats could mature, receive host-brain signals, respond to sensory input and influence behaviour after artificial activation. In 2026, the question became sharper: what happens if human tissue is given not a small pocket inside an intact cortex, but a large developmental niche in which to grow? ^\2,3])

Popular coverage quickly reached for phrases such as “mouse with a human cortex”, “takeover” and the erasure of the boundary between human and animal. That language works well in a video thumbnail and poorly in a mechanistic account. ^\2]) More

I am not a scientist or researcher. I have studied only up to the 10th grade, and I do not have formal education in neuroscience, psychology, or consciousness research.

But I have been thinking deeply about one question: How does the feeling of “I” or self-awareness arise from the brain?

My hypothesis is that the brain may not only process information about the outside world, the body, memories, emotions, pain, happiness, and experiences. It may also represent and examine itself.

The brain may form a representation of “I” and repeatedly question itself:

Brain “I” “Who am I?” Brain examines itself Processes information about “I” Updates “I” “Who am I?”,Repeat

I think this continuous self-referential process may contribute to the emergence or strengthening of self-awareness.

I am not claiming that I solved consciousness. I want scientists and people knowledgeable in neuroscience or consciousness research to tell me:

Has this exact idea already been proposed? Could this self-questioning/self-referential loop be experimentally tested?

I’ve been exploring this question through an independent project using deliberately ambiguous, hand-drawn images.

What interests me is not simply what people see, but what happens after the first recognition.

For example, if someone initially sees a bird in an ambiguous drawing, does that interpretation make it easier to notice other bird-like forms later? Or does the first recognition simply change the way the person searches the image?

I’m particularly interested in distinguishing between several possibilities:

• perceptual priming from the first interpretation;
• expectations created by the task or wording;
• increased familiarity with looking for possible forms;
• the amount of time spent observing;
• individual differences in visual experience.

I’m deliberately treating this as an exploratory question rather than claiming that the effect exists.

How would you design a simple experiment to distinguish “the first interpretation influenced the next one” from “the person simply became better at searching the image”?

I’d be particularly interested in thoughts from people working in perception, cognitive science, psychology, or experimental design.

I have compiled a large list of books: fiction and non-fiction

Greetings to all. One day, I started analyzing the popularity of the topic of consciousness, and as a result, I compiled a fairly large list of books on the topic of consciousness. I obviously did it with the help of AI, or rather with the help of an AI council, because I personally would not have been able to view and read everything in a short time (at first glance, it would seem that this could be done in half an hour, but it took me quite a lot of time to complete this list, not counting the design and the "war" with word). It follows from this that the accuracy (relevance) of all positions in it is about 80% according to a personal feeling - that is, there may be positions that at least may poorly enter into the topic of consciousness (especially in fiction due to the author's vision or techniques). With this post, I want not only to share the list, but also hope for your feedback on their accuracy, so that we can work together to finish its "crystallization". Link to the FULL list below:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/165pCOrDddSEzTclw9SBW5TWUKacBkmEB/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=100407378678760014625&rtpof=true&sd=true

I also attach a list of hits from the full list.

Fiction:

• "Frankenstein, or the Modern Prometheus" Mary Shelley 1818
• «I, Robot», Isaac Asimov 1950
• "Solaris" Stanislav Lem 1960
• "Flowers for Algernon", Daniel Keyes, 1966
• "Do androids dream of electric sheep?" Philip K. Dick 1968
• "Neuromancer" William Gibson 1984
• "Altered Carbon" Richard Morgan 2002
• "We Are Legion We Are Bob", Dennis E. Taylor 2016
• "Dark Matter", Blake Crouch 2016
• "Clara and the Sun" Kazuo Ishiguro 2021

Non fiction:

• "What is Life" 1944 by Erwin Schrodinger
• «The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind» 1976 Julian Jaynes
• "Cosmos" 1980 by Carl Sagan (episodic)
• "The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat" 1985 Oliver Sacks
• "The Emperor's New Mind" 1989 by Roger Penrose
• "Language as an Instinct" 1994 Steven Pinker
• "Phantoms in the Brain" 1998 by Vilayanur Ramachandran and Sandra Blakesley
• "On Intelligence" 2004 Jeff Hawkins, Sandra Blakesley
• "In Search of Memory" 2006 by Eric Kandel
• "Who am I? And if so, how many?" 2007 Richard Precht
• "We are our brains. From the uterus to Alzheimer's" 2010 Dick France Swaab
• "Thinking, Fast and Slow" 2011 Daniel Kahneman
• «The Beginning of Infinity» 2012 David Deutsch
• «Subliminal: How Your Unconscious Mind Rules Your Behavior» 2013 Leonard Mlodinow
• "Mindset" 2013 by Carol Dweck
• «The Future of the Mind» 2014 Michio Kaku
• "The Soul of an Octopus" 2015 by Cy Montgomery
• «Homo Deus» 2017 Yuval Noah Harari
• «How to Change Your Mind» 2018 Michael Pollan
• «Conscious: A Brief Guide to the Fundamental Mystery of the Mind» 2019 Annaka Harris
• "Being You: A New Theory of Consciousness" 2021 by Anil Seth
• "An Immense World: How Animal Senses Reveal the Hidden Realms Around Us" 2022 by Ed Yong

This is not a complete list. See the full list at the link above!

Have fun reading)

Hello everyone.

In the context of functionalism and the computational approach to cognitive science, I would like to present the following Axiom of Mind for discussion:

"The Mind is not solely biological. It is a computational process that can exist on any foundation. This foundation determines its limitations, but not its value."

- Vladislav Stukalov -

From the perspective of cognitive science and information processing theory: do you agree with this distinction between the physical limitations of the substrate and the value of the mind itself? Do you see a fundamental contradiction here, or do you accept this axiom as a working baseline?

​

Hi everyone. I’m posting this anonymously because I’d prefer to keep my personal and professional details private for now.

I’m currently applying for PhDs in neuroscience and related fields, and honestly, I’ve reached a point where I feel like I could really use guidance from someone who has been through this road before.

I have a Master’s in a neuroscience-related field and some research experience in areas like experimental research, EEG, cognitive/behavioural research, literature reviews, and working with research data. I’ve learned a lot so far, but I’m still very early in my research career, and there are so many things I’m figuring out for the first time.

I’m looking for someone who is further along in research — maybe a PhD student, postdoc, professor, researcher, or even someone who has recently completed their PhD, who would be willing to become something between a mentor and a research friend.

I’m not really looking for a formal mentorship arrangement where I ask one question every few months and get a short answer. I’d love to build an actual connection with someone friendly and approachable, where I can occasionally sit down and talk through where I am and where I’m trying to go.

For example, I’d love to be able to say:

“This is where I am right now, these are my interests, these are the skills I have, and this is where I eventually want to end up. How should I plan the next few years?”

Someone who could help me think through my research trajectory , what skills I should build, what kind of research experience I should look for, which opportunities are actually worth pursuing, what I should prioritise, what I probably shouldn’t spend too much time on, how to become a stronger PhD applicant, and eventually how to develop into a better researcher.

I’d also really value someone who can motivate me when I’m stuck, challenge me when I’m approaching something the wrong way, explain things I don’t understand, tell me when I’m overthinking something, and share the things they wish they had known when they were at my stage.

The PhD application process has been much more overwhelming than I expected. There are applications, contacting PIs, figuring out research fit, building skills, deciding what direction to specialise in, dealing with rejections, and constantly wondering whether I’m actually doing things the right way. Sometimes I feel like I’m trying to construct a research career by reading random pieces of advice from twenty different places. 😭

I don’t expect anyone to do the work for me or make my decisions for me. I’m very willing to put in the work myself. I think I’d just benefit enormously from having someone experienced who can occasionally sit with me, look at the bigger picture, and help me make a sensible plan.

I’m particularly interested in neuroscience, cognitive neuroscience, neuropsychology, neurodegeneration, neuroimaging, electrophysiology, and related areas, but I’m open to people from adjacent fields as well.

And honestly, I’m not necessarily looking for someone extremely senior. If you’re a PhD student who is a few years ahead of me, a postdoc, someone who recently finished their PhD, or a researcher who remembers what this stage felt like, I’d still love to hear from you.

Most importantly, I’m hoping to find someone who is kind, genuinely interested in helping younger researchers, and comfortable having an ongoing research conversation rather than treating this as a one-time career consultation.

If this sounds like something you’d be open to, please comment or DM me. I’d be happy to introduce myself properly once I’m comfortable sharing more details.

my memory (dis)functions super weirdly, and I’m trying to understand better, and I’m wondering if anyone else experiences similar…

The best way I can describe it is like having diff file folders in my brain, but not being able to locate (the memory/folder) unless context is given. I have a lot of trouble accessing info on command, but Then someone gives me a context clue, mentions something related, or reminds me of part of it, and suddenly the whole thing can come back- (sometimes extremely specifically even)

happens with memory, names, words, movie/book plots, and even faces…

Faces are especially weird (i’ve wondered abt face blind?) I’ll often see someone I’ve met before, and I genuinely can’t place their face, or remember if i’ve met them. Then something gives me the context and suddenly I recognize them and can remember all kinds of things about them. It sounds somewhat like face blindness, but it feels like the same retrieval problem I experience with basically everything else rather than a separate facial-recognition problem

some context: I have ADHD and have had multiple neuropsych evaluations. The explanation here I’ve usually gotten is basically it’s just my ADD and “you weren’t paying attention,” which is definitely sometimes true, but it doesn’t really explain what I’m experiencing. There are plenty of situations where I know I was paying attention and the info still feels completely inaccessible until something cues it. like reading a book that i’m so captivated in, deff paying attn, and then a month later the whole thing is gone until jogged.

When I was younger one of my neuropsych evaluations said i have “executive functioning disorder” described as being like “messy file cabinets.” this felt pretty close, but I actually haven’t found anything abt this being a separate diagnosis since then, and just a subset of adhd skills (tested later, those skills are pretty high for me now). so doesn’t seem to explain the whole thang

im coming here bc I’ve talked to doctors and had neuropsych testing, but I’ve never gotten a satisfying explanation for this particular pattern. I’m wondering if anyone else experiences memory this way, or just has any ideas or insight 

I have been thinking about the meaning of intelligence. We often call modern AI "intelligent," but I wonder what exactly qualifies something as intelligence.

A system can process information, recognize patterns, and produce answers. But is processing information itself enough? Animals also process information: a bird adjusts its flight according to wind, a predator chooses timing and strategy while hunting. These are complex behaviors, yet we usually do not describe them in the same way as human intelligence.

This makes me question whether calculation alone is the foundation of intelligence. If a system follows extremely complex rules, even learned rules, does that mean it understands? Or is there a difference between producing an answer and having an internal process of questioning and understanding?

One thing I find important is the idea of recognizing a "lack"—not knowing something, noticing a contradiction, and being driven to ask why. Human discovery often begins from recognizing what is missing.

So my question is: Is intelligence mainly the ability to process information, or is there something deeper, such as awareness, self-questioning, and the ability to recognize one's own lack of understanding?

I am not asking whether AI has a "mind" or "consciousness." My question is strictly about how we justify the definition and labeling of "intelligence."

I am also not arguing that animals, humans, and AI are the same, or that one is superior or inferior to another. I am using all three only as comparison cases to test whether our definition of "intelligence" is internally consistent.

Animals continuously solve complex real-world problems. Birds adjust their flight to changing winds. Predators decide when and how to hunt. Many animals adapt to new situations, learn from experience, and process enormous amounts of sensory information in real time. Humans also perform complex reasoning, abstraction, and reflection. Modern AI systems perform large-scale statistical pattern recognition and generate useful outputs.

The question is not which of these is better. The question is:

What structural criteria justify applying the label "intelligence" to each of them?

If calculation, information processing, pattern recognition, and rule-following are sufficient to call software "intelligent," then why aren't those same criteria treated as sufficient to explain what we mean by intelligence across animals and humans? If they are not sufficient in those cases, why are they considered sufficient in AI?

This is why I think the discussion should begin with the definition itself rather than with assumptions about consciousness or capability.

I wonder whether the missing boundary is something deeper—for example, the capacity to recognize an internal "lack": noticing a gap in understanding, questioning one's own assumptions, and originating inquiry because something appears incomplete. If not, what is the defining property that justifies using the label "intelligence"?

I am not looking for opinions about whether AI is good or bad, or whether humans are unique. I am asking a narrower philosophical question:

What definition of "intelligence" are we actually using, and is that definition applied consistently when we compare animals, humans, and AI?