This concept note presents a provisional register-based framework for field-based psychology within consciousness studies. It begins from the observation that discussions of mind and consciousness often become confused when different kinds of claim are collapsed into one another. In particular, phenomenological description, mechanistic explanation, ontological commitment, epistemic justification, axiological orientation, practical application, relational context, and systemic context are often treated as though they were interchangeable. The note proposes that these are better understood as related but non-equivalent registers of inquiry, each with its own role, limits, and standards of assessment. Its aim is not to settle every dispute in consciousness studies, but to clarify the terms under which such disputes are conducted. By distinguishing registers more explicitly, the framework seeks to reduce category confusion, improve interdisciplinary dialogue, and support more coherent relationships between lived experience, explanatory modelling, philosophical interpretation, value, relation, system, and practice. This record functions as a public research note and citable reference point for an ongoing body of work. It is not a peer-reviewed journal article.
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Loading...
Carl Langley
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Loading...
Carl Langley (Fri,) studied this question.
www.synapsesocial.com/papers/69bf8978f665edcd009e92fe — DOI: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19135442