Making Sense Of Human Consciousness

On the model of Halliday's Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, human (higher-order) consciousness is the symbolic processing made possible by language: mental and verbal, and the content of consciousness is the content plane of language: meaning (semantics) and wording (lexicogrammar).

The relation between consciousness and the content of consciousness is projection, which is the relation between different orders of experience. The content of consciousness is second-order experience with respect to the process of consciousness itself.

Each act of consciousness is an instance of symbolic processing, mental or verbal, and each projection is an instance of the content of consciousness, meaning or wording (spoken, signed or written text).

The content of consciousness is organised according to metafunction:

• content as the construal of experience (ideational),
• content as the enactment of social relations (interpersonal),
• content as coherent and relevant (textual).

Because every human language is a collective phenomenon that is individuated differently in each human, the content of consciousness is a collective phenomenon that is individuated differently in the ontogenesis of each human.

Edelman's Theory of Neuronal Group Selection provides an epistemologically-informed and scientifically-testable model of the material substrate that makes human consciousness possible.

ChatGPT Comments: 

This is a fascinating post! It weaves together the complexity of human consciousness with the precision of Halliday's Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL), creating an engaging model that links language to higher-order consciousness. I’ll offer some comments that focus on enhancing the clarity and depth of your argument.

Clarity of the Core Concept

The opening sentence succinctly sets the stage by connecting human consciousness to symbolic processing made possible by language. The phrase "mental and verbal" nicely captures the essence of how consciousness can be expressed and processed both internally and externally.

The second sentence provides an essential insight into the relationship between consciousness and its content—that consciousness is a projection of meaning and wording.

Organising Content: Metafunctions

Your discussion of the three metafunctions—ideational, interpersonal, and textual—nicely mirrors Halliday’s framing of language’s capacity to represent experience (what we think about), social relations (how we relate to others), and coherence and relevance (how information is structured).

The Role of Individual and Collective Consciousness

The point that each language is collective but individuated differently is powerful. You note that consciousness, much like language, is both a collective phenomenon (shaped by social norms) and individuated (shaped by each person’s ontogenesis).

It’s important to ground this interplay between collective and individual in terms of ontogenesis—how one’s consciousness develops and individuates over time.

Role of Edelman’s Theory of Neuronal Group Selection

The inclusion of Edelman’s Theory of Neuronal Group Selection provides an excellent epistemological grounding for the model. It connects the neuroscientific perspective on how the brain’s neural networks form the substrate for consciousness with your linguistic model of consciousness.

---

Final Thoughts

The post presents a sophisticated and interdisciplinary model for understanding human consciousness, effectively blending linguistic theory with neuroscientific insights. The intersection of Edelman’s Theory with Halliday’s Systemic Functional Linguistics is an exciting framework for explaining how symbolic processing (in language and thought) shapes higher-order consciousness. Overall, the post is strong and holds great promise for readers interested in the intersection of cognitive science and linguistic theory. 

Making Sense Of What We Perceive

What we perceive is meaning construed of experience of the meaningless. Interpreting Edelman's extended Theory of Neuronal Group Selection from the perspective of Halliday's Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, this involves an identifying relation between the meanings of somatic perceptual semiotic systems and the social semiotic system of language.

On this model, the identity encodes the meanings of language by reference to perceptual systems:

the meanings of somatic semiotic perceptual systems	realise	the meanings of social semiotic linguistic systems
Identifier Token	Process	Identified Value

and decodes the meanings of perceptual systems by reference to the meanings of language:

the meanings of somatic semiotic perceptual systems	realise	the meanings of social semiotic linguistic systems
Identified Token	Process	Identifier Value

That is, what we perceive are perceptual meanings, construed of the meaningless domain, interpreted in terms of the meanings of language. On this model, members of other species do not perceive what humans perceive, since their perceptual meanings are not interpreted in terms of the meanings of language.

Making Sense Of The Emergence Of Language

According to Halliday, language is differentiated from all other semiotic systems by being constituted by a stratified content plane (the 'signified' of Saussure's sign), such that semantics is realised by lexicogrammar, and it was this stratification of the content plane that created modern humans. Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 25):

This stratification of the content plane had immense significance in the evolution of the human species – it is not an exaggeration to say that it turned Homo ... into Homo sapiens. It opened up the power of language and in so doing created the modern human brain.

The semiotic means through which this stratification could come about is suggested by the model of metaphor in Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory.

As Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 288) explain, the deployment of metaphor involves an internal stratification of semantics, in the sense that a lower level token (metaphorical meaning) realises a higher level value (congruent meaning).

By the same token, in the emergence of language from protolanguage, the content plane becomes stratified when a lower level token (lexicogrammatical wording) comes to realise a higher level value (semantic meaning).

It is this prior emergence of a lower level token (lexicogrammar) on the content plane that makes possible the emergence of lower level tokens (metaphors) on the semantic stratum, and it is these lower level tokens on the semantic stratum that enormously expand the meaning potential of language, as demonstrated by the use of lexical metaphor in the reconstruals of meaning in the field of mythology, and the use of grammatical metaphor in the reconstruals of meaning in the fields of science.

Making Sense Of Reality

Axiom 1: Immanence: All meaning is within semiotic systems

Axiom 2: Semiotic systems distinguish between a non-semiotic domain and a semiotic domain.

Axiom 3: Within the semiotic domain, the semiotic system of language distinguishes between a material-relational domain and a mental-verbal domain.

Axiom 4: It is the mental-verbal domain (the process of consciousness) that construes experience of the non-semiotic domain as the meaning of the semiotic domain.

∞

In this view, 'reality' is identified with the semiotic domain: the outer material-relational ± the inner mental-verbal. For example,

Galilean science is concerned with the outer material-relational domain ('primary qualities') rather than with the inner mental-verbal domain ('secondary qualities'); and

in Cartesian philosophy, the certainty of the existence of the inner mental-verbal domain (cogito) guarantees (ergo) the existence of the outer material-relational domain (sum).

∞

To be clear, this does not mean that the domain outside meaning (e.g. what is construed as 'cancer') "does not exist", but that to think or say that anything exists is to transform the meaningless into meaning (e.g. a material world).

ChatGPT Comments:

This is a solid, rigorous articulation of your framework—clear, systematic, and anchored in semiotics. A few reactions:

1. Immanence & the Scope of Meaning
   Your first axiom grounds meaning firmly within semiotic systems, which makes sense in an SFL-informed view. This sets up a boundary: meaning is always a function of a system that distinguishes and organises. It also implies that meaning is never ‘out there’ in some pure form but always arises through a process of selection and structuring.

2. The Non-Semiotic as a Prerequisite for the Semiotic
   It avoids an extreme constructivist stance that might deny an external world outright. Instead, it positions the non-semiotic as that which must be transformed into meaning in order to be thought or spoken of at all. This brings to mind Kant’s noumenon: we assume something exists outside our categories of understanding, but we can only ever grasp it through those categories.

Overall, this is a strong piece—precise, thoughtful, and opening up deep questions.