This article contains my response to the commentaries by Mazviita Chirimuuta, Tom Froese, Miriam Kyselo, and Claudia E. Vanney on The Blind Spot: Why Science Cannot Ignore Human Experience (Frank et al., 2024).

The pursuit of a scientific theory of consciousness has gained momentum in neuroscience over the past 25 years. While much research has centered on perceptual consciousness, the dynamic experience of the stream of thought, proposed by William James over a century ago, has remained relatively underexplored. The Dynamic Framework of Thought (DFT) introduced a taxonomy of thought dynamics, emphasizing their role in shaping conscious experiences. The present study explores the introspective accessibility and distinctiveness of two dynamic dimensions of thought, freely moving and deliberately directed, derived from the taxonomy of the DFT. To investigate these dynamics, four experiments were conducted, including laboratory-based and online experiments as well as an fMRI-based experiment, to assess the consistency of the relationship between these thought dynamics across various experimental contexts. In all experiments, participants reported the dynamics of their thoughts during a probed resting period in which they sat quietly with eyes open, viewing a blank screen. Using a mixed-methods approach combining qualitative and quantitative assessments, this study suggests that individuals can have some introspective access to their thought dynamics. Freely moving and deliberately directed thoughts were distinguishable and negatively correlated but not anticorrelated across participants and experimental contexts. These findings suggest that the stream of thought can be characterized by at least two distinct dynamic dimensions-freely moving and deliberately directed-offering valuable insights for future neurophenomenological research aimed at bridging first-person reports of thought dynamics with third-person data on brain processes.

This article presents a short summary of The Blind Spot: Why Science Cannot Ignore Human Experience by Adam Frank, Marcelo Gleiser, and Evan Thompson (Frank et al., 2024). We argue that the inability to see that lived experience is the ineliminable source of scientific knowledge and practice is a blind spot in our present scientific culture. We diagnose the philosophical and historical causes of the blind spot, and chart its manifestations across cosmology, quantum physics, biology, cognitive science, the neuroscience of consciousness, and Earth system science. This précis describes the book’s main philosophical ideas.

This paper describes Francisco Varela, Evan Thompson, and Eleanor Rosch’s idea of enaction as the bringing forth of a world and compares it with Alva Noë’s idea that we enact presence.

This paper proposes that the experience of agency and concomitant patterns of attention emerge not only within individuals but between them — in the transient, autonomous dynamics of social interaction known in dance improvisation as the “third entity.” Drawing on the enactive theory of participatory sense-making (PSM), we examine how interactive dynamics shape how we attend to what matters, and how attentional modes may shift in relation to levels of “I,” “we,” and “it” agency. We will also discuss some instances of neurodivergence and psychopathology where PSM dynamics can fail. Integrating cognitive neuroscience on affect-biased attention with ethnographic insights from dance improvisation, we propose a neurophenomenological approach to studying attention as embodied, relational, and affectively charged. We argue that dance improvisation offers a rich, underused laboratory for investigating how attention is dynamically tuned through relational movement. Attention, in this view, is not just selection but participation — a means of moving through and with meaning. Understanding its dynamics will play a central role in advancing transdisciplinary models of mental health grounded in shared sense-making.

One of the most striking features of human consciousness is its ability to foster an ongoing, seemingly continuous stream of thought. Prior studies have provided valuable insights into the neural correlates of the content of thought (e.g., whether it is task related or not). However, independent of its content, the stream of thought can also be characterized by its dynamics—how it changes over time. The Dynamic Framework of Thought proposes a neural model of how different large-scale brain networks may contribute to thoughts that are freely moving (spontaneous) or deliberately constrained. We empirically tested this model using a neurophenomenological approach, in which participants reported the nature of their thought stream in real time during fMRI scanning. Consistent with the model predictions, freely-moving thought was associated with greater activation of the default network (especially the medial-temporal subcomponent) than the frontoparietal control network, whereas deliberately constrained thought was associated with the opposite pattern of activation. Additionally, these distinct thought dynamics were reflected in the changes in the functional coupling patterns within and between these networks. These findings suggest that experience sampling, in conjunction with fMRI, can illuminate the neural basis of subtle thought dynamics.

Research on the specific features of daydreaming compared with mind-wandering and night dreaming is a neglected topic in the philosophy of mind and the cognitive neuroscience of spontaneous thought. The extant research either conflates daydreaming with mind-wandering (whether understood as task-unrelated thought, unguided attention, or disunified thought), characterizes daydreaming as opposed to mind-wandering (Dorsch, 2015), or takes daydreaming to encompass any and all “imagined events” (Newby-Clark & Thavendran, 2018). These dueling definitions obstruct future research on spontaneous thought, and are insufficiently precise to guide empirical studies. They also fail to illuminate the phenomenal core of daydreaming, namely, its dreamlike qualities. Although daydreaming is related to both mind-wandering and narrative imagination, it is not reducible to either. We argue that daydreams are experiences of spontaneous, immersive imagination in the waking state. The main task of our investigation is to distinguish daydreaming, conceptually and phenomenologically, from mind-wandering, on the one hand, and night dreaming, on the other. Although daydream experiences can vary widely, we distinguish prototypical experiences of daydreaming from adjacent imaginative activity, including fleeting imagery and “focused daydreaming,” or crafted visualization. We consider our phenomenological analysis as preparatory work for conceptually distinguishing different spontaneous and imaginative states so that they can be investigated accordingly with questionnaires and qualitative methods. We argue that precision about the phenomenal character of daydreaming can guide neurophenomenological investigations, help delimit studies on individual variance in daydreaming features, and identify differences among daydreaming, mind-wandering, and night dreaming conceptually and phenomenologically, and possibly eventually in terms of neural correlates.

A recurrent problem in the philosophical debates over whether there is or can be nonconceptual experience or whether all experience is conceptually structured or mediated is the lack of a generally accepted account of what concepts are. Without a precise specification of what a concept is, the notion of nonconceptuality is equally ill defined. This problem cuts across contemporary philosophy and cognitive science as well as classical Indian philosophy, and it affects how we go about philosophically engaging Buddhism. Buddhist philosophers generally argue that our everyday experience of the world is conceptually constructed, whereas “nonconceptual cognition” (nirvikalpa jñāna) marks the limits of conceptuality. But what precisely do “conceptual” and “nonconceptual” mean? Consider that “concept” is routinely used to translate the Sanskrit term vikalpa; nirvikalpa is accordingly rendered as “nonconceptual.” But vikalpa has also been rendered as “imagination,” “discriminative construction,” “discursive thought,” and “discrimination.” Related terms, such as kalpanā (conceptualization/mental construction) and kalpanāpoḍha (devoid of conceptualization/mental construction), have also been rendered in various ways. Besides the question of how to translate these terms in any given Buddhist philosophical text, how should we relate them to current philosophical or cognitive scientific uses of the term “concept”? More generally, given that the relationship between the conceptual and the nonconceptual has been one of the central and recurring issues for the Buddhist philosophical tradition altogether, can Buddhist philosophy bring fresh insights to our contemporary debates about whether experience has nonconceptual content? And can contemporary philosophy and cognitive science help to illuminate or even resolve some older Buddhist philosophical controversies? A comprehensive treatment of these questions across the full range of Buddhist philosophy and contemporary philosophy of mind and cognitive science would be impossible. I restrict my focus to certain core ideas from Abhidharma, Dharmakīrti’s apoha theory, and Yogācāra, as refracted through current philosophical and cognitive science views of concepts. I argue for the following five general theses. First, cognitive science can help us to clarify Abhidharma issues about the relation between nonconceptual sense perception and conceptual cognition. Second, we can resolve these Abhidharma issues using a model of concept formation based on reading Dharmakīrti through cognitive science glasses. Third, this model of concept formation offers a new perspective on the contemporary conceptualist versus nonconceptualist debate. Fourth, Yogācāra offers a conception of nonconceptual experience absent from this debate. In many Yogācāra texts, awareness that is said to be free from the duality of “grasper” (grāhaka) and “grasped” (grāhya) is nonconceptual. None of the contemporary philosophical arguments for nonconceptualism is adequate or suitable for explicating this unique kind of nonconceptuality. Thus, Yogācāra is relevant to what has been called the problem of the “scope of the conceptual,” that is, how the conceptual/nonconceptual distinction should be drawn. For this reason, among others, Yogācāra has something to offer philosophy of mind. Moreover, using cognitive science, we may be able to render some of the Yogācāra ideas in a new way, while in turn recasting ideas from cognitive science. Fifth, in pursuing these aims, I hope to show the value of thinking about the mind from a cross-cultural philosophical perspective. Sixth, from an enactive cognitive science perspective informed by Buddhist philosophy, a concept is not a mental entity by which an independent subject grasps or represents independent objects, but rather one aspect of a complex dynamic process in which the mind and the world are interdependent and co-emergent poles.

Advances in the field of human stem cells are often a source of public and ethical controversy. Researchers must frequently balance diverse societal perspectives on questions of morality with the pursuit of medical therapeutics and innovation. Recent developments in brain organoids make this challenge even more acute. Brain organoids are a new class of brain surrogate generated from human pluripotent stem cells (hPSCs). They have gained traction as a model for studying the intricacies of the human brain by using advancements in stem cell biology to recapitulate aspects of the developing human brain in vitro. However, recent observation of neural oscillations spontaneously emerging from these organoids raises the question of whether brain organoids are or could become conscious. At the same time, brain organoids offer a potentially unique opportunity to scientifically understand consciousness. To address these issues, experimental biologists, philosophers, and ethicists united to discuss the possibility of consciousness in human brain organoids and the consequent ethical and moral implications.

Advances in the field of human stem cells are often a source of public and ethical controversy. Researchers must frequently balance diverse societal perspectives on questions of morality with the pursuit of medical therapeutics and innovation. Recent developments in brain organoids make this challenge even more acute. Brain organoids are a new class of brain surrogate generated from human pluripotent stem cells (hPSCs). They have gained traction as a model for studying the intricacies of the human brain by using advancements in stem cell biology to recapitulate aspects of the developing human brain in vitro. However, recent observation of neural oscillations spontaneously emerging from these organoids raises the question of whether brain organoids are or could become conscious. At the same time, brain organoids offer a potentially unique opportunity to scientifically understand consciousness. To address these issues, experimental biologists, philosophers, and ethicists united to discuss the possibility of consciousness in human brain organoids and the consequent ethical and moral implications.

This paper concerns biopsychism, the position that feeling is a vital activity of all organisms or living beings. It evaluates biopsychism specifically from the perspective of the enactive conception of life and life–mind continuity. Does the enactive conception of life as fundamentally a value-constituting and value-driven process imply a conception of life as sentient of value? Although a plausible case can be made, there remains a conceptual and inferential gap between differential responsiveness to value and hedonic value or affective valence. Nevertheless, the case for zoopsychism — that animals are the only sentient living beings — over biopsychism is also inconclusive.

In reply to Hominh and Nguyen, I argue that “creolizing” methods in the study and practice of Buddhism should not be opposed to historicist and contextualist modes of investigation and understanding. Rather, historicism and contextualism can and should inform creolizing approaches.

Theories of embodied cognition hypothesize interdependencies between psychological well-being and physical posture. The purpose of this study was to assess the feasibility of objectively measuring posture, and to explore the relationship between posture and affect and other patient centered outcomes in breast cancer survivors (BCS) with persistent postsurgical pain (PPSP) over a 12-week course of therapeutic Qigong mind-body training. Twenty-one BCS with PPSP attended group Qigong training. Clinical outcomes were pain, fatigue, self-esteem, anxiety, depression, stress and exercise self-efficacy. Posture outcomes were vertical spine and vertical head angles in the sagittal plane, measured with a 3D motion capture system in three conditions: eyes open (EO), eyes open relaxed (EOR) and eyes closed (EC). Assessments were made before and after the Qigong training. The association between categorical variables (angle and mood) was measured by Cramer’s V. In the EO condition, most participants who improved in fatigue and anxiety scales also had better vertical head values. For the EOR condition, a moderate correlation was observed between changes in vertical head angle and changes in fatigue scale. In the EC condition, most of the participants who improved in measures of fatigue also improved vertical head angle. Additionally, pain severity decreased while vertical spine angle improved. These preliminary findings support that emotion and other patient centered outcomes should be considered within an embodied framework, and that Qigong may be a promising intervention for addressing biopsychosocially complex interventions such as PPSP in BCSs.

Several authors have made claims about the compatibility between the Free Energy Principle (FEP) and theories of autopoiesis and enaction. Many see these theories as natural partners or as making similar statements about the nature of biological and cognitive systems. We critically examine these claims and identify a series of misreadings and misinterpretations of key enactive concepts. In particular, we notice a tendency to disregard the operational definition of autopoiesis and the distinction between a system’s structure and its organization. Other misreadings concern the conflation of processes of self-distinction in operationally closed systems and Markov blankets. Deeper theoretical tensions underlie some of these misinterpretations. FEP assumes systems that reach a non-equilibrium steady state and are enveloped by a Markov blanket. We argue that these assumptions contradict the historicity of sense-making that is explicit in the enactive approach. Enactive concepts such as adaptivity and agency are defined in terms of the modulation of parameters and constraints of the agent-environment coupling, which entail the possibility of changes in variable and parameter sets, constraints, and in the dynamical laws affecting the system. This allows enaction to address the path-dependent diversity of human bodies and minds. We argue that these ideas are incompatible with the time invariance of non-equilibrium steady states assumed by the FEP. In addition, the enactive perspective foregrounds the enabling and constitutive roles played by the world in sense-making, agency, development. We argue that this view of transactional and constitutive relations between organisms and environments is a challenge to the FEP. Once we move beyond superficial similarities, identify misreadings, and examine the theoretical commitments of the two approaches, we reach the conclusion that far from being easily integrated, the FEP, as it stands formulated today, is in tension with the theories of autopoiesis and enaction.

This paper is a response to Christian Coseru, 'The Middle Way to Reality: On Why I Am Not a Buddhist and Other Philosophical Curiosities.' I address Coseru's critical comments about naturalism, evolutionary psychology, scientific realism, and Madhyamaka philosophy. I argue that scientific naturalism is not the right framework for relating Buddhism to science; rather, the proper framework is the ethics of knowledge. I argue that Coseru's defence of evolutionary psychology is unconvincing and rests on a misunderstanding of the issues concerning the relations between evolutionary theory, evolutionary psychology, and Buddhist philosophy. Finally, I argue that there are considerable tensions between scientific realism and Buddhist philosophy.