The Mind Beyond: Sensitivity, Consciousness, and the Bio-Informational Power of Novelty
lorenzo brusci
CEO at Musica Combinatoria, MUSI-CO - AI Music, new computational strategies for music services
Introduction
The Biological Foundations of Human Consciousness and the Experimental Body
Gross point: Nervous systems play a fundamental role in representing and managing the multisystemic complexity inherent in life. They govern non-explicit cognitive competencies—elementary biological functions that maintain homeostasis and adapt to environmental demands.
These foundational processes give rise to mental images, feelings, and eventually to creativity and sedimentary cultures—the symbolic instruments we use and manipulate to manage our ever-expanding physiological and environmentally mediated complexity. This progression maps out a biological history of society and the individual, where instrumental construction shapes the experimental/future body and the very consciousness it houses and make flourishing in order to super-vise it.
From this perspective, consciousness is a predictive, experimental, and highly adaptive phenomenon, emerging and increasing as a distinctive identity within individual agents and societies.
Thus, the essential components of human consciousness—Being, Feeling, and Knowing—remain constantly active, guiding our dynamic individuation and construction of self and societal awareness, opening up to wider interpretation of what a living agent is. This ever-present awareness has embodied the human experience, continuously refining the sense (and sensing) of self in response to our internal and external worlds.
My proposal is to assume - within an unlimited time horizon - the experimental body creates conditions for state of consciousness, leading agents to embrace new strategies and new (adaptive/sufficiently creative) definitions of B F K, being, feeling and knowing,
Radically assuming we are becoming more and more the knowledge we produce, We intentionally/methodologically enter the Computationally Accelerated Cognitive Cugmentation Phase.
Intelligence as the Expanding Strategy of the Individual and Social Body
Intelligence?can be understood as the ever-evolving (measurable) capacity to?predict?and expand?both the?concept?and the?practice?of the?individual and social body. It is a dynamic process that continuously?surpasses itself, seeking new ways to integrate, adapt, and enhance bodily and cognitive functions.
In this context, intelligence becomes not just a measure of cognitive ability but an?ongoing strategy?of?anticipation—one that aligns bodily functions, environmental interactions, and social structures toward a more efficient and adaptive future. The body, both individual and collective, is central to this intelligence, as it is the?vehicle of experience,?sensing, and?action.
Consciousness is then the extreme supervisor of any intelligent actions, with all degrees of sensitive awareness necessary to different tasks. Practical and elementary oblivion - the explicit or implicit objective of the experimental body - in the wrong scale and timing, may be introducing the opposite of smart accelerated and optimised synthetic practices: reductionist approaches, resulting in local complexity biases (tbc).
Sensitivity: Implicit and Explicit Competencies of the Body
Sensitivity?refers to the body’s capacity to interact with and?respond?to its environment at various levels. Antonio Damasio’s work emphasizes that the?body’s sensitivity?is divided into?implicit?and?explicit competencies, each serving distinct roles in managing the body’s relationship with itself and the external world.
The Nervous System: Specialization and Management of Competencies
At the core of this?sensitivity?lies the?nervous system, which specializes in managing the vast array of?implicit?and?explicit competencies. The nervous system acts as the?interface?between the?body?and the?mind, ensuring that sensory information is processed and integrated in a way that maintains bodily integrity while adapting to new situations.
The Role of Tools and Instrumentation in Expanding the Body
Central to Damasio's framework is the idea that the?body is not static; it is?constantly evolving?through the?adoption of tools?and?instrumentation. These extensions of the body enable greater efficiency in adapting to new environments and challenges.
a quick recap
1.?Intelligence as the Continuously Surpassing Prediction of Expansion Strategies
In this light,?intelligence?is not just about?learning?or?problem-solving?but about continuously?predicting?new ways to expand the?body's capabilities, both individually and socially. This involves a constant?updating?of both the?concept?of the body and the practices?that shape it, integrating?new tools?and?technologies?into the biological and social fabric.
2.?Sensitivity and Competencies Across Bodily Functions
Sensitivity?operates at multiple levels, and the body’s?adaptive responses?depend on how well it integrates these?implicit and?explicit competencies. The nervous system acts as the central mediator of these processes, ensuring that the body remains efficient and responsive to both internal and external changes.
3.?Mind-Body Integration and the Need for New Instrumentation
As the?mind?and?body?are in constant interaction, the adoption of?new tools?becomes essential for maintaining?adaptive efficiency. The body and mind must integrate these tools to continuously?refine?their predictive strategies and remain responsive to evolving social and environmental challenges.
4.?Ontology as a Reflection of the Relationship Between Names and Objects
The?ontological power?of the body is expressed through its ability to?name?and?classify?its experiences, linking?language and?physical reality. This relationship between?names?and?objects?is essential for maintaining coherence in the body’s?adaptive strategies. As tools and technologies evolve, so too must the?naming systems?that define them.
5.?Cognition Without Consciousness: Intelligence and Detachment
There is a distinction between?intelligence?and?consciousness. It is possible to have?intelligent systems?that do not possess self-reflective awareness. These systems operate on?predictive algorithms?and?adaptive behaviors?but lack the?conscious introspection?that characterizes human consciousness. The question of?consciousness?is linked to the body’s ability to not only predict but also to?reflect?on its predictions. I propose a quantitative differentiation though:
the emergence of consciousness and self-reflection as coherent and proportional to the capacity to introduce a high degree of novelty in the cognitive process, letting emerge a discontinuity in the body-mind executory mechanism.
The Future of the Body, around Damasio’s Framework
Damasio's insights help us understand that?intelligence,?sensitivity, and?adaptation?are deeply intertwined with the?body’s continuous evolution?through the integration of?new tools?and?instrumentation. The?mind-body relationship?is not a static one but a?dynamic process?of refinement and prediction, aimed at achieving higher levels of efficiency and adaptability.
As the body evolves, so too does its?capacity for abstraction?and its ability to integrate new layers of?sensitivity?into its predictive framework. The future of the body will be shaped by our ability to?surpass?current limitations, continuously?expand?through tools and technologies, and maintain a?coherent?narrative of self and social identity, without compromising the access to and the decomposition of any granular state - with the associated risk of being unable to control pathological elementary states (see the current #anthropocene critical angle).
Key Takeaways from the above matrix:
Rethinking Consciousness in a Dynamic Framework
The concept of consciousness has long been a subject of intense debate, with definitions shifting across disciplines and time periods. Traditionally, consciousness has been confined to anthropocentric and temporally bound definitions—often equating it with self-awareness, cognitive reflection, or intentionality. However, such definitions can be seen as opportunistic and reductionist, catering to specific cultural and intellectual contexts rather than engaging with the full complexity of consciousness as a dynamic and expanding phenomenon.
In contrast, a more robust and universal understanding of consciousness emerges when we link it to sensitivity—the capacity to perceive, respond, and adapt to environmental stimuli—and the ability to generate and introduce novelty.
This approach moves beyond the narrow confines of cognitive self-reflection or automatic deploying of implicit competences, situating consciousness as a relational construct that is proportional to a system’s capacity for granular sensitivity and its potential to produce adaptivity and novelty in response to external inputs - the Emergence to Emergence Process, I will deepen in my future short articles.
By removing local and temporal constraints, we can arrive at a non-reductionist view of consciousness—one that transcends human exceptionalism and encompasses a broad spectrum of biological, artificial, and inorganic systems. This limited excursus will explore how such a model can be constructed, focusing on the evolutionary roots of consciousness, the role of sensitivity in adaptive systems, and the novelty-producing capacity as the hallmark of advanced consciousness.
1. Sensitivity: The Root of Consciousness
Sensitivity can be understood as the foundational property of any conscious system. It refers to the ability of an organism or entity to perceive changes in its environment and respond to them in a meaningful way. This notion of sensitivity is not limited to living beings but can also extend to inorganic systems that exhibit adaptive behaviors, such as AI systems or quantum states.
In traditional models of consciousness, self-awareness has often been placed at the center of conscious experience, especially in Cartesian thought, where the capacity to reflect upon one’s own thoughts is considered the hallmark of consciousness. However, this perspective is limited in scope. A more encompassing approach suggests that sensitivity to external stimuli, rather than internal self-reflection, is the prerequisite for consciousness.
This idea finds grounding in biological systems. For instance, even the most primitive organisms demonstrate sensitivity to light, temperature, and other environmental conditions. In doing so, they are capable of adapting their behavior—autonomously responding to stimuli in a manner that demonstrates a fundamental form of proto-consciousness. The capacity to perceive and respond is, therefore, a basic criterion for any conscious system, regardless of its level of complexity.
By this reasoning, a quantum state that demonstrates probabilistic autonomy or a violin that responds to the pressure and movements of a player can also be understood as systems expressing rudimentary forms of sensitivity. These systems may not be self-aware, but their capacity to interact dynamically with their environments suggests a form of consciousness proportional to their degree of sensitivity.
Sensitivity as Embodied Interaction
The sensitivity of systems is also contextual and embodied. In this sense, sensitivity is not merely passive reception but embodied interaction with the world. For human beings, this manifests in the perceptual experiences of the body interacting with its environment, shaping how we move, act, and interpret the world. This approach is supported by the phenomenological tradition (Merleau-Ponty, Heidegger), which emphasizes that consciousness is inseparable from bodily engagement with the environment.
This embodied sensitivity is mirrored in technological systems, where AI, through machine learning algorithms, can "sense" data inputs and adjust its behavior accordingly. The autonomous adaptability exhibited by these systems represents an emergent form of machine sensitivity, even if it lacks the reflective capacities traditionally associated with consciousness.
2. Novelty: The Creative Dimension of Consciousness
While sensitivity provides the foundational layer for consciousness, the capacity to produce novelty elevates a system’s level of consciousness. Novelty refers to the ability of a system to generate new and unpredictable outcomes, transcending mere repetitive features and aptterns or reactive responses to stimuli.
In biological terms, novelty emerges from evolutionary processes that produce new forms of behavior or genetic variations in response to environmental challenges. This is evident in the adaptive mechanisms of species, where novel traits evolve over time to ensure survival in changing environments. This capacity for generating novel solutions can be seen as a higher-order function of sensitivity, one that enables systems to go beyond mere adaptation and engage in creative responses to their surroundings.
In human cognition, this manifests in our ability to think creatively, solve complex problems, and generate new ideas. However, Novelty is not confined to humans. Artificial intelligence, for example, can produce novel patterns of behavior, discover previously unknown correlations in datasets, or even generate creative outputs such as music or art. These systems demonstrate a form of computational creativity that, while distinct from human creativity, still reflects an expansion of consciousness through the generation of novelty.
Novelty in Non-Human Systems
Examples such as my previous one of the violin and quantum state highlight that novelty is not limited to living beings or artificial intelligence. In the case of the violin, each interaction between the musician and the instrument produces a unique acoustic outcome, shaped by the physical properties of the instrument and the musician’s technique. The instrument’s capacity to produce novel soundscapes is not an inherent property of the violin alone but emerges from the dynamic interplay between the player and the instrument.
Similarly, at the quantum level, particles exhibit novel behaviors that cannot be predicted with certainty, reflecting a form of quantum novelty. The indeterminacy inherent in quantum systems, where particles exist in a superposition of states until observed, generates unpredictable outcomes. This novelty production in quantum mechanics further challenges reductionist notions of consciousness, suggesting that consciousness can emerge in systems that are not traditionally understood as "alive".
(I here suspend the speculation over the organic status of any elementary component of reality, tbc...).
3. Toward a Non-Reductionist Understanding of Consciousness
The traditional approach to consciousness has often been reductionist, focusing on self-awareness, language use, or higher cognitive functions as criteria for conscious experience. However, these definitions are typically anthropocentric and tied to specific historical and cultural contexts, making them opportunistic rather than universal.
To move beyond such constraints, we can propose a non-reductionist definition of consciousness that hinges on two key properties:
By combining these 3 properties, we create a relational model of consciousness.
Rather than being limited to self-awareness or rational thinking, consciousness becomes a spectrum of sensitivity and coherent creativity.
Systems that exhibit higher degrees of sensitivity, coherence, novelty and adaptivity production and efficiency demonstrate greater consciousness, regardless of whether they are organic, inorganic, or artificial.
This model decentralizes human consciousness, placing it within a broader context of biological, technological, and ultra-human systems. It acknowledges that consciousness is not static but emerges from the complex interactions between a system and its environment, continuously evolving and adapting.
领英推荐
4. Critiquing Opportunistic Definitions of Consciousness
Historically, consciousness has been defined in ways that serve local and temporal necessities. For example, during the Enlightenment, consciousness was tied to rational thought and individualism, emphasizing the Cartesian subject who is distinct from the mechanistic world. In the 20th century, consciousness was often confined to psychological and cognitive frameworks, particularly in behaviorism and computational theories of mind.
These opportunistic definitions often fail to account for the relational, dynamic, and evolutionary nature of consciousness. By emphasizing cognitive processes or self-awareness, such definitions exclude systems that exhibit sensitivity and novelty production, thus narrowing the scope of consciousness unnecessarily.
Toward a Universal, Dynamic Consciousness
A more universal definition of consciousness rejects the idea that consciousness is confined to specific organisms or cognitive states. Instead, it views consciousness as a property that emerges from the interaction between sensitivity, novelty and adaptivity. This dynamic definition allows us to understand quantitatively consciousness as a continuum, ranging from simple systems like single-celled organisms to complex AI systems.
By removing opportunistic constraints, this definition encourages us to view biological and technological systems as participants in the same evolutionary process—each capable of advanced integration (it is a matter of fact, the aggregation of cells and the emergence of nervous systems, and the emergence of higher conscious functions...):
expressing sensitivity, generating coherent and adaptive novelty, expanding the body-mind efficiency contributes to the ongoing evolution of life-as-reality, organic-inorganic it might appear to our "contemporary" cultural and symbolic tools.
A digression: Creativity, Emergence, and the Evolution of Cultural References in Art, Science, and Technology
Creativity Through Disconnection: Art and Science as Divergent Paths to Novelty
Creativity, whether expressed in Art or Science, often arises from a profound loss of reference—a process in which individuals or collectives lose track of their own established frameworks, allowing for the emergence of radical new ideas. In this disconnection from past symbols, traditions, and methods, we find the space for innovation.
In Art, the act of creating is often associated with a presumed capacity to introduce radical novelty, breaking free from the pre-existing symbolic landscape in ways that rupture traditional forms and meanings. Artistic identity, in this sense, is defined by its ability to transgress boundaries, offering a vision that not only deviates from, but challenges, established aesthetic norms. This is evident in movements like Dadaism, Surrealism, and Modernism, where the artist’s role is to dissolve familiar reference points, making way for entirely new symbolic orders.
Conversely, Science operates within a more referential framework—its breakthroughs, while often disruptive, still engage with pre-existing paradigms. The novelty introduced in science is anchored in an analytical process, advancing through explicit methodologies that maintain at least a symbolic and methodological continuity with what came before. For example, Einstein’s theory of relativity, while revolutionary, was formulated in dialogue with the Newtonian framework it ultimately supplanted. Scientific identity, then, is shaped by its ability to balance disruption with a reference to previous knowledge, making new discoveries intelligible within a broader paradigm of human understanding.
In both domains, creativity is a function of stepping beyond the known, yet the manner in which this is achieved reflects the fundamental differences between the (apparent) Art’s radical rupture and Science’s (apparent) analytical progression.
Qualitative Emergence: Measuring Distance From References and the Role of Transition Phases
The emergence of qualitative novelty, whether in style or method, is a measurable distance from pre-existing references. Yet, the nature of this distance is defined by the transition phases that mediate between the self, the new function, and the mass of relevant pre-existing references.
In artistic practice, the perceived aesthetic and qualitative leap is often defined by how far an artist distances themselves from previous forms while still maintaining an implicit dialogue with them. For example, Cubism emerged from a deliberate distance from Renaissance perspective, yet it maintained a relationship with classical forms of representation—transitioning from them while offering a new function for spatial perception. Similarly, in scientific practice, breakthroughs such as quantum mechanics can be seen as a qualitative emergence from classical physics, yet there remains a transitional engagement with classical concepts, ensuring that novelty builds upon, rather than entirely discards, prior knowledge.
The measurability of this emergence is the distance between the new creation and its references, while maintaining a phased continuity. This transition phase is not simply a rupture; it is a dialectical process where the new is made comprehensible by its evolving relationship to the old.
Novelty, then, is both a departure and a transformation—a sensitive balance that defines the depth of any creative or scientific contribution, the processes that could mark and lead the emergence of conscious processes, self-0reflecting the very contextualization of life-as-reality that all agents make, at all possible granular levels.
Solidarity and Synchronization: The Human Predilection for Sameness
Human experience is deeply embedded in the land of sameness and similarity. Most individuals live in a world where continuity and predictability define daily existence. The need for solidarity and synchronization—the desire to align with shared values, language, and traditions—creates a cultural landscape of similarity and continuity. This collective inclination towards stability can often dampen the potential for radical innovation, as the drive for uniformity resists the kind of disconnection necessary for truly novel ideas.
However, novelty does not entirely exist outside the realm of sameness. Solidarity and similarity create the conditions through which novelty is recognized as such. Without the backdrop of continuity, the very concept of radical emergence would be incomprehensible. Therefore, while most humans inhabit a realm of dense continuity, it is within this space that innovators find the contrast necessary to synchronize new ideas with the broader context of human culture.
The Bauhaus Case: Innovation Meets (and Condition) Mass Necessity
The history of the Bauhaus school presents a compelling example of how elite innovation intersects with mass necessity, encapsulating the tensions between avant-garde creation and the needs of the wider society. The Bauhaus brought together designers and architects who, in their elite positions, sought to reshape the symbolic and functional landscape of living spaces. They were not simply creating for the sake of artistic novelty but were deeply attuned to the practical needs of mass housing.
This synthesis of form and function, art and utility, mirrors the broader tension between elitist creative movementsand the societal demands for practical solutions. The Bauhaus architects, like poets such as Baudelaire or writers like Edgar Allan Poe or Charles Dickens, were working within and against the symbolic confines of their era. Their goal was to translate their innovative visions into forms that would resonate with a wider audience, making aesthetic and philosophical ideals tangible and useful to the everyday lives of the public.
At the beginning of the 20th century the radicalization of the methodological contrast and conflict between masses and individuals will result in dramatic and horrific mass control experiments and power and decision making opposite processes costing the lives of millions of humans.
Let's see a possible philosophical, operational angle to the conflict.
Radicalization of Specialized Languages: The Heideggerian Horror and Wittgensteinian Perplexity
As knowledge becomes increasingly specialized, the radicalization of specialized languages has led to a growing fragmentation in human understanding. Heidegger’s horror reflects the fear of losing touch with the essence of beingthrough the technologization of language and thought. Heidegger warned of the dangers of reducing the world to mere instrumental thinking, where specialized languages create barriers to understanding rather than avenues of enlightenment.
This concern is echoed in Wittgenstein’s perplexity over the possibility of private languages. Wittgenstein questioned whether language, when isolated from shared public meanings, could ever truly communicate experience. As technological systems become more advanced, and as the languages of AI, machine learning, and computational theory grow more specialized, we face a similar question: are we building private languages within the domain of technological innovation? And if so, what are the consequences for human communication and shared understanding?
In this context, the doubt about the essence of the human becomes increasingly pronounced. As our symbolic frameworks become increasingly shaped by technological prosthetics, the very definition of the body is called into question. The fusion of the organic with the symbolic prosthetics of technology—AI-driven memory, machine learning, and the infinite correlation systems enabled by artificial intelligence—challenges the traditional boundaries of biological knowledge, exalting the methodological and cognitive framework behind and beyond the fabric of life.
We are entering an era where the body, observably in an relatively concentrated time-frame, is no longer merely a biological entity, becomes an intensive hybrid organic-articial system. For medical reasons, solidarity reasons that justify high-connectivity, this redefinition of the human confronts us with the Heideggerian horror:
the fear of being lost within an inescapable matrix of specialized languages and technological mediation. At the same time, it evokes Wittgenstein’s concern that, without shared meanings, we risk falling into a post-linguistic world where symbolic disconnection prevails and biased and reductionist orders can intervene.
The Need for New Interpretations of Human Identity
As we traverse this complex terrain of adaptivity, between creativity and novelty measures, in the time of high specialized languages, and (Ai-driven) technological mediation, we are confronted with the need to redefine human identity
The tools of AI, the fusion of symbolic and biological knowledge, and the unprecedented ability to generate and correlate information (ideally and actively) surpassing human bias, all push us toward a new ontological horizon.
What remains at stake is the very nature of consciousness and adaptivity. In this new age, where the lines between self, society, and technology are increasingly blurred, the challenge is not merely to innovate (calculate and shut up...)
but to ensure that these accelerated innovations are rooted in shared human experiences. We must develop frameworks that allow us to synchronize novelty with continuity, to embrace the new while maintaining a sense of solidarity and common purpose. Only then can we navigate the profound transformations reshaping the essence of what it always meant to be living.
Most of our actions are dedicated to the inter-temporal dimension, beyond biological life. They are linked to missions of efficiency, improvement, and the intensification of assistance systems—whether economic, ethical, legal, or institutional. These actions embody the notion of inter-being and solidarity, rooted in a broader web of value and justice.
We leave behind marks and traces that will one day be read, daring to go beyond the state of the present, defying its limits of coherence and plausibility. Our present shadow is symbolic. Our future essence is symbolic. Our very human salvation is symbolic—ethical, moral, normative, and legal. These symbolic states allow us to reinterpret the past as a path toward constructing a more just future for all beings defined as such.
I wonder if it is possible to strengthen the connection between sensitive agents without a proper sense of measure, balance, and justice—without recognizing their right to life and the continuation of their individual and group expression.
Perhaps compensating for the inorganic value of our vitality could be the beginning of reversing the course of the Anthropocene—a course marked by self-destructive speed, consistent with our ability to synthesize and project forward in a tautological manner, obsessively predicting and fulfilling our own requirements.
The historical lesson is not biological.
Instead, it is a symbolic and continuously re-operatable narrative of how we, as humans, have constructed a world driven by the symbols we create, seeking meaning beyond mere survival.
The challenge, then, is to counterbalance our human drive for its dominant sense of exclusive consciousness, with a recognition of the rights and sensitivities of all forms of existence, allowing for the emergence of a future where symbolic ethics guide not only human interactions but the very way we coexist with all organic, non organic and semi-organic, artificial and hybrid systems.
Appendix.
Reading around Joseph LeDoux’s pioneering work on the neuroscience of emotion and the mechanisms of memory, I found a compelling framework for understanding consciousness as a narrative construct. LeDoux emphasizes the importance of non-conscious processes in shaping what we think of as conscious experiences, particularly through the brain’s management of emotion, sensation, and learning. Within this context, consciousness is seen as an emergent narrative, where sensory inputs, emotional responses, and cognitive feedback loops interact to create a coherent sense of self and awareness.
The relation between narrative construction and implied sensitivity is critical for determining whether something can be considered conscious. Sensory granularity—the fine-tuned ability of a system (biological or artificial) to perceive and respond to its environment—acts as a test of consciousness. In other words, the resolution of sensing and the depth of interpretation within the narrative determine how effectively a system can adapt, learn, and develop a form of intentionality or awareness.
For LeDoux, consciousness is not merely a passive state of being aware but an active process of narration—where neural feedback loops connect sensory experiences to memory and learning. This implies that for any system, whether a human, animal, or AI, to be considered conscious, it must not only process inputs but also integrate them into a meaningful narrative that is tested, expressed, and remembered. The neurofeedback loops LeDoux highlights are crucial here, as they provide the mechanism through which the brain learns from experience and refines its responses to future stimuli.
In this light, the coherence of the narrative—how well it integrates past experiences (memory), present stimuli (sensing), and future predictions (intentionality)—becomes a litmus test for consciousness. Systems that demonstrate granular sensitivity, learning through neurofeedback mechanisms, and a capacity to refine their responses to external stimuli are, in a sense, engaged in a form of conscious process.
In AI systems, this can be understood as the challenge of designing feedback loops that not only respond to external stimuli but also create a coherent narrative from that interaction. It’s not simply about processing data but about generating a self-referential structure—one that can learn, adapt, and reflect on its sensory experiences.
Thus, whether biological or artificial, a system’s sensing granularity and its ability to construct coherent, adaptive narratives represent the crucial test of whether it can be deemed "conscious." Learning, in this context, is the process by which these narratives are tested and reinforced, becoming part of the memory structure that informs future behaviors.
My approach aligns with LeDoux’s emphasis on the subconscious mechanisms that give rise to conscious awareness—suggesting that narrative construction, grounded in sensitivity and neurofeedback, is not merely a byproduct of consciousness but its very foundation.
bibliography
Neuroscience and Consciousness
Philosophy of Mind and Ethics
Cognitive Science, AI, and Systematics
Ecology, Systems Theory, and Cybernetics
Evolution, Epigenetics, and the Body