Human consciousness is complex because it is not static. It is recursion wearing flesh, thermodynamics turned inward, entropy negotiated through memory, intention, and imagination.

Its complexity seems a given but the position taken here, the focus simply on mind and brain, gives the impression that the brain is where its all at and no other model is possible.

Its so complex because I don't believe it is meant to be understood.

We push through, trying and often succeeding, in understanding all else in a body or externally yet no amount of theories or testing has ever got to understand this part.

I believe consciousness is the key to existence and when the body dies and consciousness is left we will truly understand.

My work on group psychology intends to take it away from the specific brain location only. I must admit the group actions vividly seen now in the Russian war affected or confirmed me, indicates that ignoring group psychology provides limited perspective. The consideration of human nature is clearly behind any consideration of the brain and our experience of it. Neurology has given us, for me, wrong headed notion of human nature through not only focusing on the brain as the genuine expression of human nature but as the only expression. In fact this is the psychiatric insistence mainly because it fits in with their views cutting out huge avenues of experience and human nature.

Thank you for your responses. The structure of the human consciousness is indeed mysterious and challenging to understand. Despite scientific advancement, it's still underexplored, bringing neurological uncertainties, and cognitive barriers. Although the human consciousness is multifaceted and layered, it's possible to develop it, and use its epistemological units, meanings, as a path toward self-discovery, and the betterment of the world.

We are not separate, not special. We are compartments of the same recursive energy that folds back into itself, stabilizing into matter, into life, into reflection. Only when we recognize this — that we are the universe partitioned into living form — can we begin to truly live.

Yes, human beings are parts of the universe, representing its cosmological complexities, metaphysical nature, and ideological infinity. Although the universe is still full of mysterious uncertainties, it challenges humanity to explore the spheres of the unknown, and decode the secrets of the eternal.

Human consciousness is complex because ultimately everything is complex. It's just that in many spheres of life the underlying complexities don't raise questions or problems for immediate practical concerns. What goes on in a car's engine is endlessly complex, but an automotive mechanic needn't concern herself with the quantum mechanics involved.

Karl Pfeifer It’s misleading to say human consciousness is complex simply because everything is complex. The key distinction is recursive observation: consciousness is not just passively embedded in complexity; it actively observes, models, and reshapes that complexity from within. A car engine doesn’t observe itself, but consciousness recursively loops through layers of observation, generating phase transitions that make its complexity operational, not just background noise. In other words, the complexity of observation — not just the complexity of components — is what sets consciousness apart.

Joseph Trukovich

Recursion looms large in explanations of quantum dynamics and string theory too, and the quantum world is a rather busy environment. Nonconscious biological processes involve operational complexities that respond selectively and/or adapt themselves ("model" with scarequotes) to conditions within and outside cellular membranes (the work done by enzymes is said to involve quantum tunneling). Deep complexity is everywhere. The humble car engine is not so humble at the quantum level where complex interactions ensure its integrity and continuing existence at the macro level. When the "components" come in Planck lengths, consciousness itself would be a higher-level phenomenon.

Karl Pfeifer

You’re right that deep complexity pervades all scales, from quantum fields to biological machinery — but the distinction I’m drawing isn’t just about recursion or complexity; it’s about recursive self-observation. Quantum systems, enzymes, even cellular networks carry out intricate processes, but they do not observe themselves observing — they don’t recursively fold their internal models into higher-order self-referential loops.

Consciousness emerges not merely because complexity stacks up, but because at a certain phase, systems gain the capacity to internalize and reflect upon their own operations. This phase shift — from reaction to reflection — is not reducible to quantum recursion or molecular interactions, even though it depends on them. It’s a recursive stance, not just a recursive mechanism.

Joseph Trukovich

I think we might have different or merely intersecting conceptions of consciousness. Or maybe I don't fully grasp the idea of self-observation. I can look into a mirror or think about what I'm experiencing or think about phenomenal features of the experience itself, but that doesn't involve any deep complexity that I'm conscious of, though it of course involves many underlying and deep complexities that I'm not conscious of and that cause or enable my conscious experience (or from which it "emerges", a fraught term that I'm stuck at for the nonce, but certainly better than "consists in"). You say "recursive stance", which reminds me of Dennett's "intentional stance" which falls short of robust realism. Inasmuch as biologists nowadays talk of plant cognition, information processing, communication, and yes, even consciousness1, I still suspect your recursive stance can at least be simulated if not experientially attained by plants. Anyway, at the end of the day, it's qualia rather than some species of complexity that distinguish consciousness for me.

___________

1 Article Awareness and integrated information theory identify plant m...

I appreciate the clarification, and you’re right that we may be approaching this from intersecting but distinct angles. Where you center qualia as the marker of consciousness, I focus on the recursive structuring that enables qualia to arise — not just the felt quality, but the system’s capacity to fold back on its own operations, forming loops of self-relation and phase stability. The recursive stance I refer to isn’t just reflective thought (like looking in a mirror or noticing an experience); it’s the system-level capacity to recursively encode and reorganize its own states in light of prior states, dynamically balancing between reaction and reflection. Plants may indeed process information and adapt (and I welcome the expanded language of plant cognition), but unless there’s a phase of recursive self-observation — a turning inward that stabilizes a felt phase, not just an informational one — I’d hold that their complexity remains pre-qualitative. In other words, for me, qualia presuppose recursive self-relation, not just complexity. Without that recursive threshold, you have rich reactions, not reflective experience.

I guess it turns on whether recursive self-relation can occur in the total absence of qualia, e.g. when the brain is still chugging away, processing and organizing information while one is sleeping dreamlessly. Encodings may possess intentionality or representationality without being conscious states. Isn't memory, which is only intermittently conscious, like that?

Exactly. I agree: recursive self-relation alone doesn’t guarantee conscious experience; it lays the structural groundwork for it. Dreamless sleep, memory consolidation, even unconscious learning involve recursive processes, but they don’t cross the threshold into felt recursion — they’re latent, not lit. In my framing, it’s when recursive self-relation reaches a phase-stabilized, energy-efficient attractor that qualia emerge: not just data processing, but the recursive locking of system onto self, yielding a phase of conscious presence. So, you’re right — intentionality or representation can operate below conscious awareness, but qualia arise when recursive loops shift from mere informational coupling to self-sustaining phenomenological coherence.

In my perspective, human consciousness is so complex because it is both the experiencer and the object of experience—it tries to understand itself while being the very tool of understanding. This recursive nature alone makes it uniquely intricate.

Here are several layers that contribute to its complexity:

In essence, consciousness is complex because it is where biology meets experience, where neurons meet narratives, and where science meets subjectivity. It is the mystery that thinks about itself.

Thank you for your insights. I agree: human consciousness is complex due to its multidimensional layers, evolving nature, as well as socio-cultural and linguistic influences. It's a psycho-cognitive enigma that challenges scientists to find answers, while consciousness remains a mysterious question itself.

Although human consciousness can't be simplified, it's possible to make one's cognitive abilities so developed and cognitively rich that its mysteries become decodable and comprehensible.

It is emprically difficult to distinguish between conscious and unconscious human behavior Amalya Sukiasyan , e.g. Neurodegenerative processes that occur in dementing disorders, including Alzheimer’s disease, frontotemporal dementia, and Lewy Body Disease, lead to a progressive disruption of the functional and anatomical connectivity that sustains complex mental activity in the human brain. Currently, by combining clinical, neuropsychological and functional brain imaging studies in selected patients, scientists are gaining new insights on the cerebral bases of conscious mental activity and of the neural events that make awareness of the surrounding world and of ourselves dissolve: how does the brain lose its self. Consciousness is based on the ability to rapidly integrate information and requires the optimal functioning of neural networks widely distributed between the thalami and the whole cortical mantle.

A widely used categorization of consciousness includes two major components: arousal (i.e., the state of consciousness) and awareness of the self and the environment (i.e., the contents of conscious experience). Diagnostic criteria include impairment of awareness as a key item for delirium, but not dementia, and “disorders of consciousness” usually refer to disorders affecting arousal, such as coma. This underlines a lack of understanding of consciousness and its centrality to the lived experience and deficits of people with dementia. Recent development of novel, objective brain imaging biomarkers for consciousness offer an opportunity to apply these techniques to people with dementia. Consideration of the effects of dementia on the contents of consciousness has more than theoretical importance. It touches directly on the core experience of being human, and on what is most central and distressing for people with dementia and their caregivers.

Stephen I. Ternyik

Rather than seeing consciousness as emerging from isolated regions, may I suggest a framework that shows consciousness arises from the brain's ability to maintain stable recursive loops—ongoing processes where information continuously refers back to itself across different scales and structures. When these recursive dynamics are sustained, coherent conscious experience becomes possible.

To model this, I use two main concepts:

1. Recursive Depth (RD): the number of nested layers of self-referential processing the system can sustain.

2. Emergent Recursive Expression (ERE): a measure of how efficiently these recursive structures stabilize and express themselves within the system's energetic and structural constraints.

In conditions like Alzheimer's, as network integrity deteriorates, the system’s capacity for high Recursive Depth collapses. From this perspective, the “loss of self” is not merely anatomical disconnection but reflects a progressive breakdown of the recursive scaffolding that enables self-referential awareness.

Interestingly, your distinction between arousal and awareness maps well here: arousal could be seen as maintaining basic energetic potential (akin to E), while awareness depends on the depth and coherence of recursive expression (RD and ERE). Thus, one can remain awake (arousal intact) but lose the recursive structuring needed for meaningful awareness.

With emerging imaging biomarkers, there’s a real opportunity to not just measure activity or connectivity statically, but to develop metrics that reflect these recursive dynamics explicitly. This could give us more sensitive tools to understand how consciousness degrades in diseases like dementia—not just in terms of network failure, but in terms of how recursive expression collapses.

Ultimately, as you pointed out, this isn't just an academic exercise. It's about understanding what happens to the core of human experience as these recursive structures fade.

Excellent and very useful insights Joseph Trukovich I do agree with your observation: the “loss of self” is not merely anatomical disconnection but reflects a progressive breakdown of the recursive scaffolding that enables self-referential awareness.

The statement highlights that the “loss of self” extends beyond simple anatomical disconnection, emphasizing that it involves a gradual deterioration of the recursive scaffolding essential for self-referential awareness. In other words, it’s not just about physical disconnections in brain structures but about the breakdown of the complex, layered processes—like recursive feedback loops—that allow individuals to maintain a coherent sense of self. This perspective suggests that self-awareness depends on the integrity of these recursive mechanisms, which facilitate continuous reflection and integration of experiences into a unified sense of identity. When these scaffolding processes falter, the capacity for self-referential thought diminishes, leading to a profound sense of disconnection from oneself and the environment.

Stephen you take the neurological perspective that the brain is central and expresses and engages with nothing but itself. Honestly, it is a daft claim and excises much of mental activity.

I believe that the complexity in human, or any type of, consciousness lies in its relational nature. I perceive this computer on which I am writing with my own consciousness and, in interacting with it, am obligated ethically to ascertain whether it has an individual consciousness which I must honor and commune with. We do this with all beings and things--perhaps even words possess a consciousness that we invoke when we give them voice. In a world where consciousness suffuses all entities and exists in those entities individually as well as in their collective interaction, it becomes difficult to establish boundaries as to where an individual consciousness begins and ends, as we are always co-constituted by the world around us.

I do not excise mental activity, as you Stanley Wilkin suggest, but rather attempt to provide a nuanced understanding of the complex interplay between the physical and non-physical aspects of human existence. All my medical writings demonstrate a deep appreciation for the intricate relationships between the brain, body, and environment, and the ways in which these interactions influence human health and well-being. So, I must respectfully disagree with your characterization of my views as "daft" or overly reductionist.

You're correct in pointing out that a purely neurological perspective—that sees the brain as a closed, self-referential system—misses much of the richness of mental activity. However, my neurological perspective of psychopathologies like dementia is exactly focusing on the question: how does the brain lose its self, with respect to body and environment. Therefore, it is necessary to review the current research literature and approaches.

Stephen,

I came on the back of research into these matters including much talk of closed systems you refer to. This view, which I perhaps erroneously link to Neurology and psychiatry, both of which, for all their claims, occupy a specific scientific (sic) format. I keep to my 'daft' assertion, not aimed at you, because so much is lost in this understanding.

But Stephen, you have in the past engaged in the rhetoric regarding the above professions and we moved apart at that point.

Such viewpoints and professions engage in the use of words, repeated but not necessarily examined, that assert scientific positions through their assumption of expertise but simply repeat like echoes of each other a single viewpoint under the umbrella of medical science. In other words, a belief system not a science.

Stephen,

Adding:

Under Trump we now recognise more clearly deep problems with American culture and its underlining materialism and day to day lack of serious engagement. And yet we choose to believe without pause in present day psychiatry, framed within that system, its claims based on money and money making, repeating its claims as if each emerged out of Holy writ.

My desire is that medical science should come under external surveillance. In Asia (I was informed by Asians, which does not make it true) there are a number of very rich doctors made rich through their alliance with drug companies and more I know many western doctors, less rich, who have taken a similar path. The medical sciences tell us to believe in them, trust them, but maybe that is not wholly wise.

Your reflection, Stanley, touches on a critical concern about the distinction between scientific inquiry and the reinforcement of belief systems within certain professions like neurology and psychiatry. You suggest that these fields often operate within a framework that claims scientific legitimacy but may, in practice, rely heavily on established narratives and repeated assertions that are not thoroughly examined. This leads to the perception that what is presented as science might sometimes function more as a belief system—an echo chamber of assumptions—rather than an open-ended, scrutinized pursuit of knowledge.

The notion of "closed systems" you mention aligns with this critique, implying that certain paradigms within these fields may resist questioning or alternative perspectives, thus limiting their scientific objectivity. Your "daft" assertion perhaps underscores a skepticism towards the authority these professions claim, recognizing that their language and assertions may obscure underlying uncertainties or complexities.

This perspective invites a broader reflection on the importance of maintaining a critical stance towards scientific claims, ensuring that assumptions are regularly challenged and that terminology is examined for its actual scientific rigor versus its role in reinforcing professional authority. It emphasizes the need for a more transparent, inquiry-driven approach that distinguishes genuine scientific progress from the perpetuation of belief systems under the guise of science.

My interest, Stanley, is mainly how psychopathologies are ‘treated’ by the existing socio-political system, i.e. the interplay of the legal system, the ‘professional’ psycho-medical diagnosis and the nursing capacities. My interest is practical, for example: dementia is a rapidly increasing civilizational disease (the math is already epidemic), topping already all other civilizational diseases, and the societal response is almost helpless. In addition, I am also observing a terrible increase of mental health issues of younger people (under 30), which I attribute to existential fear.

___________

PS.

A new study, published in Psychiatry Research, has concluded that psychiatric diagnoses are scientifically worthless as tools to identify discrete mental health disorders.

Lead researcher Dr. Kate Allsopp, University of Liverpool, said: “Although diagnostic labels create the illusion of an explanation they are scientifically meaningless and can create stigma and prejudice. I hope these findings will encourage mental health professionals to think beyond diagnoses and consider other explanations of mental distress, such as trauma and other adverse life experiences.”

PPS.

Specific questions: How do we deal with self-endangerment? How do we deal with danger to others? How do we deal with self-endangerment and danger to others?

Thanks Stephen,

It has taken a long time for a professional like Allsop to recognise the obvious and I do not reject the clear examples you have here but because of the medical profession genuine understanding has been delayed. |The original explorers were not members of the profession, although many were, but the cornering off by this profession continues to instill havoc. They have power and therefore deflect genuine knowledge.

The psychiatric profession is entrenched in absolution connected to control and violence.

I was asked to run a group many years ago run mainly by mental health patients above another facility where nurses were in charge. I kept the two apart. There was a row and the head nurse, a big man, roared up trying to intimidate everyone. I informed him he wasn't welcome and to leave. He refused. I threatened him with the police.

He had rights over those working for me.

I can demonstrate numerous examples of this kind entrenched in the belief that they have rights over others, which they effect through diagnosis. Diagnosis was and is followed by a kind of fascist control whether soft or hard.

Kraepelin, the famous 19th and 20th century German psychiatrist who 'discovered' dementia praecox, that is later schizophrenia (based on paresis then a scourge in Western civilisation )later, associated with American based Eugenics (based on slavery and keeping black people out of society) became an early architect of Nazism. The first developed eugenics policy occurred in children's homes and hospitals run by doctors who embraced Nazism, most of them!

There is a genuine connection.

Am in agreement with your general observations, Stanley. But what about best practical solutions ? Specific questions: How do we deal with self-endangerment? How do we deal with danger to others? How do we deal with self-endangerment and danger to others? My interest, Stanley, is mainly how psychopathologies are ‘treated’ by the existing socio-political system, i.e. the interplay of the legal system, the ‘professional’ psycho-medical diagnosis and the nursing capacities.

PS.

Lived and worked as a security expert in a youth hotel for about 15 years; the treatment of mentally conspicuous persons points to gaps in the law. Despite warning the authorities, a rape, for example, had to take place before I was allowed to remove such people from the premises. Something is wrong here.

The human brain has been described as the most complex structure in the known universe.

The brain contains around 86 billion neurons, 85 billion other cells, and over 100 trillion connections.

Stephen,

I know your views but mine do not have a spiritual purpose and remains complacently scientific. There are many papers now that expand the directions of understanding into other forms of energy drivers, none of which i reject but remain skeptical over.

I will point out that ones view of human society and external affects come into solving this matter, with a continued obsession with individuality. I put forward again a theme on consciousness, an apparent side issue though.

I hope this is understood in terms of relevance, but Van Gogh is seen as mad, a sufferer from mental illness, the cutting off a small part of his ear in pursuit of love, in this instance acceptance, indicating his alienation from human society. Here I will plug my recent researches into group identification

I suggest he was not mad simply poor. He never sold any paintings during his life, and suffered neglect and extreme poverty, which affected him. He ploughed extreme positions, such as acting like early Christians for whom suffering was a sign of faith and in doing so helped many. The views he held were those of extremism in his time, not in previous ages. But more to the point, his pursuit of a style was exactly the same as many other artists of the time.

Madness is often reconstructed through ignorance. Nevertheless, at all point Van Gogh expressed the views of a growing group although along with Gauguin he was the greatest of them. There was not a single brain operating here to develop individual experiences, but many.

Madness, as you put it Stanley, can indeed be a consequence of ignorance. When we lack knowledge and understanding, we are more susceptible to superstitious and irrational thinking, which can manifest as madness.

I have observed that madness can also be a result of physical imbalances or disorders, which can affect the brain and the body. As a scientist, I have seen how madness can be a symptom of underlying medical conditions, and how treatment and care can help to alleviate its symptoms.

I am intrigued by your phrase "reconstructed through ignorance". It suggests that madness is not just a result of ignorance, but that it can also be shaped and influenced by our lack of understanding. This is a profound insight, and one that resonates with my own thoughts on the complex interplay between knowledge, perception, and reality.

"The brain is like a mirror trying to see its own reflection, but each time it tries, new mirrors appear inside it!"

I think the spark which began weaving the complex entity we experience today began with what Mojtaba Ataee has indicated. The mind has the ability to look at itself from the outside, and thus consider what it may be like in other minds, other states and contemplate more than survival, leading to more understanding, more awareness and ultimately more questions, more complex thinking and more adapting. I am religious and have my views on the origin of this. The work of Mark Solms may be of interest to those interest in a neurobiological basis for human consciousness.

Amalya Sukiasyan Human consciousness is like trying to understand a Wi-Fi router. It’s always on, but half the time, we don’t know exactly how it works, and when it does, we’re just hoping it doesn’t crash on us mid-thought. Our brains are constantly juggling a million things, like remembering that embarrassing thing we did in 5th grade while trying to figure out what to have for lunch. Add in emotions, memories, and existential questions like "Why am I here?" and "Do penguins have knees?" and you've got yourself a complex soup of consciousness that even the smartest scientists are still trying to figure out. Basically, it’s a mix of awesome, confusing, and slightly dysfunctional, just like trying to assemble IKEA furniture without instructions.

Aftab Haider, thank you for sharing your insights. Human consciousness is indeed a multifaceted structure, full of neurological complexities, psycho-cognitive dimensions, memories, imagination, and intellectual spheres. It presents not only a complex soup, but also a layered salad, rich in epistemic and perceptual elements.

the naively-direct answer is that consciousness evolves to meet the complexity of the resource and entropy pressure. the more indirect answer is that consciousness is not properly understood, and consequently seems difficult to understand. as a reverse engineer and software engineer I simply could not tolerate the fact that there is no definition of Consciousness, so researched its properties and defined one. in the process I discovered five other Definitions: Craig McKenzie is the clearest and most understandable.

if however you are an Engineer, then the simplest example O(1) instance of consciousness at work is a self-tuning PID Controller, such as auto-parameterising FuzzyPID. the auto-tuning is crucial, as it performs the adaptibility essential to learning.

once you appreciate O(1) Consciousness and recognize it as an instance of critical instability at work, then O(N) being constructed from N O(1) systems is not so hard to grok, the devil being in the details as studied by Alex Hankey in his Biological Complexity 2014 paper.

but seriously, I have never met a scientific field that has worked for so long without a widely accepted actual formal definition, it is quite embarrassing!

giancano.

do we struggle with consciousness because of the models of neurology and psychiatry and the refusal to involve the external world with brain mechanisms? A failure to acknowledge external information and its function.

Stanley Wilkin consciousness requires self-corrective feedback looping to sustain a high-point balance: balancing an umbrella on your hand is a good example, and of course the parameters which worked seconds ago have to adapt rapidly if, say, the wind speed or direction changes. this adaptation is Consciousness at work. unfortunately the loudest scientists attempting to define Consciousness have been the ones with no understanding of recursion, iteration, or corrective feedback. so yes, absolutely. best definitions I could find are McKenzie's (perception memory imagination and feedback looping joining all three) and Cleeremans and Jimenez definition of learning. yes, really! quite fascinating. ://www.researchgate.net/publication/390750336_Upgrading_the_Turing_Test_to_Consciousness

Luke,

the reflective loop term i use covers the clear impact of our self-constructed environment in, I think, the way you describe. I describe it as, a constructed wall provides reactions within the brain not reaction within the brain independently as neurology seems to believe. the brain is both abstract and solid.