#paper/current # Slides [[Psychedelic Aesthetics –Slides]] # Latest draft here [[Psychedelic Aesthetics New Draft 13 Feb 2025 at 9.50]] # Old drafts [[Psychedelic Paper draft 12 Feb 2025 at 8.42]] # Artwork about lenses https://vincentleroy.com/echo-lens-emerald-lake # Note on Metzinger [[Notes on Being No One by Metzinger Psychedelic Paper 7 Feb 2025 at 10.38]] - read section 4.2.4 # paper ## abstract https://docs.google.com/document/d/1uvYza9xC_L4kY5NxEjy5qgDMum90BQqx/edit#heading=h.gjdgxs ## introduction - This paper explores [[the relationship between]] [[aesthetic experience]] and [[psychedelic experience]]. - Intuitions might pull either way here. On the one hand psychedelics in popular culture has a cliched 'wow man' vibe, on the other one might place LSD, magic mushrooms, in the 'mindless hedonism' category: tripping is not, in an of itself, aesthetic in the same way that getting drunk is not, in and of itself, aesthetic. - The sceptical point of view can be made more acute for [[psychedelic aesthetics]] by considering two interrelated questions. - First, what would be [[the object]] of an aesthetic [[psychedelic experience]]? - We typically think of the targets of [[aesthetic appreciation]] as shareable –given the right circumstances, both you and I are able to appreciate the same painting. But psychedelic experiences cannot be shared [explain why] - Neither does it seem plausible to say that [[the objects]] of appreciation are the psychedelic articles themselves: the perceiveable properties of a tab of acid (size, shape, taste) are not that much different to a postage stamp. - This leads directly to the other difficult question how do we appreciate whatever it is we are appreciating? - [talk about perceptual properties, attention etc.] - Plan: - Main claim of part 1: we appreciate mental structure. 1. etymology of psychedelic is mind revealing, mind manifesting. 2. Introduce the [[predictive processing]] account of [[psychedelic experience]]. Focussing in particular on opacity 3. PP account of Opacity allows the mind to be be experienced: (need more here) 1. This presents us with something shareable, the shared structures of our own mind. - Main claim of part 2: we appreciate mental structure by understanding it. 1. draw on Schellekens ideas. ## 1. Desiderata for a [[Psychedelic Aesthetics]] - A condition often put on aesthetic experience is that it must be shareable, at least potentially. - However, psychedelic experiences and other fringe states of consciousness (see Frischhut 2024) present a dilemma. - On the one hand, those who have undergone such experiences tend to describe them in aesthetic terms (EXAMPLES here). - On the other hand, given the uniqueness of such experiences, idiosyncratic for each trip, can psychedelics be aesthetically appreciated if everyone experiences something different? - Moreover, *what* is aesthetically appreciated? - Psychedelics are often confused with hallucinogens, and it may be considered unusual to suggest that we aesthetically appreciate things that are not externally present (obviously there is more to say here). - At the same time, it may be considered incongruous to suggest that we appreciate the LSD tab or handful of psilocybe semilanceata – what is appreciated in them is not primarily grounded in their perceivable properties (unlike art and the environment). ## 1. Psychedelic Experience and Predictive Processing - We begin by presenting a recent characterisation of psychedelic experience put forward by Letheby, who places psychedelics into a broader predictive processing framework. - Predictive processing models treat the mind as a hierarchical inference engine seeking to minimise the discrepancy between its predictions and incoming sensory data, a process sometimes described as generating “controlled hallucinations.” - In this view, the brain continuously predicts the causes of its inputs, relying on increasingly abstract “priors” as one ascends the hierarchy from basic perceptual details to sophisticated conceptions of self and reality. - A “prediction,” within this architecture, is not a mere guess about the future but a structured hypothesis about how external or internal events will unfold, refined whenever mismatch signals (prediction errors) arise. - In predictive processing (PP), cognition operates hierarchically: lower levels encode sensory data (e.g., edges, colors), while higher levels encode abstract priors (e.g., “I exist,” “time flows linearly”). - These priors structure experience by _binding_ disparate inputs (interoceptive, proprioceptive, perceptual) into coherent, agent-centered narratives (Letheby’s “predictive self-binding”). - Ordinarily, priors operate transparently: they generate perceptions and beliefs without being experienced _as_ hypotheses. One sees a chair, not the brain’s prediction of a chair. - Higher priors are the most general or entrenched assumptions, such as beliefs about one’s identity, the coherence of space and time, or even fundamental axioms about external objects and causality. - According to Letheby, psychedelics loosen these high-level priors, thus weakening **the brain’s accustomed confidence i**n how it expects the world—and the self—to be. - Psychedelics (via 5-HT2A agonism) reduce precision-weighting of high-level priors (Carhart-Harris’ REBUS), flattening the hierarchical gradient. - Relaxed priors destabilise self-binding: the brain no longer confidently predicts the existence of a unified, enduring self or stable external world. [more here on how this gives us an object of aesthetic appreciation –the experiencer's own mind. maybe look at the Epistemology chapter of Letheby] ## 2. opacity and appreciation - This creates **partial opacity**: mental contents (e.g., emotions, percepts) are no longer fused with reality but are experienced _as_ thoughts, percepts (representations) (Letheby, Ch. 6). - Carhart-Harris’ REBUS (RElaxed Beliefs Under pSychedelics) hypothesis aligns with this by suggesting that certain neuromodulatory changes disrupt high-level oscillatory rhythms, further diminishing the precision of the brain’s overarching predictions. - Under psychedelics, this disruption makes the normally “transparent” processes of perception and belief-formation newly “opaque,” so that individuals no longer experience mental contents as fully given or self-evident but as mental constructions. - Under psychedelics, however, loosened high-level priors mean that new, often unexpected, inferences and perceptions lack their usual automatic certainty. This lack of certainty _displays_ the mind’s computations at work. Rather than seeing external reality as a settled stage on which one passively stands, the individual witnesses the dynamic process that _realises_ each moment of experience. - This increased opacity becomes especially salient in the self-model, where users often report a breakdown of clear ego boundaries, a sense that emotional and perceptual states are being generated in real time, and a recognition of how personal expectations shape what is experienced. - Letheby’s “predictive self-binding” notion underscores how these shifts expose the mind’s synthetic mechanics: rather than inhabiting experience passively, one observes how predictions, modulated by weakened priors, give rise to spontaneous forms of imagery, emotion, and insight. - Consequently, while ordinary states mask the generative character of perception under layers of confident expectation, psychedelics reveal the intricate interplay of internal simulations, setting the stage for an aesthetic appreciation of the mind’s own dynamic creativity. - To characterise this more precisely, consider the _realisation relation._ In ordinary aesthetic contexts, we appreciate how, for instance, scattered patches of paint on a canvas form (or “realise”) a coherent scene, or how written words on a page realise a proposition. Analogously, in psychedelic states, people can become aware of how internal inferential patterns and subpersonal generative models _realise_ the flux of subjective content. They no longer simply have the experience of a stable world; they observe how that apparent stability emerges from the brain’s ongoing attempts to reconcile predictions with error signals. - This heightened capacity for tracking mental realisation arises because the _opacity_ introduced by weakened priors partially “lifts the veil” on subpersonal processes. Instead of experiencing only the _result_ of predictive inferences (e.g., “Here is a chair; here is my sense of who I am”), participants see, in real time, the interplay of top-down assumptions and bottom-up surprises. In a sense, the partial _unmasking_ of their mind’s generative strategies becomes the aesthetic object itself: the “invisible brushstrokes” by which one’s reality was ordinarily painted are now visible as a creative technique. - By foregrounding mental processes in this way, the individual acquires a stance akin to that of an art connoisseur observing the techniques of a painting. The subject perceives which elements remain stable under minimal prediction error and which elements fragment rapidly when priors lose their dominance. The aesthetic dimension emerges from recognising one’s experience as an intricate artwork: each moment is a provisional state shaped by the mind’s best working model. ## ## section 3: understanding and appreciation ## o1 plan 1 Feb 2025 at 12:53 Below is the revised paper plan for _Psychedelic Aesthetics_. The central claim remains that psychedelic states—by increasing the opacity of mental processing—allow for an aesthetic appreciation of the mind itself. The plan is divided into sections only, with the introduction consisting of two paragraphs, and each subsequent section containing at least five paragraphs. Every paragraph is titled with its main idea expressed in simple words, and each paragraph is structured as a series of bullet points presenting individual sentences with sophisticated, precise language. --- **Section 1: Introduction** **Central Claim and Motivation** - • The paper asserts that psychedelic states increase the opacity of mental processing, thereby revealing the hidden modeling mechanisms that ordinarily operate beneath the surface of conscious thought. - • In these altered states, the mind’s constructed nature becomes manifest, allowing individuals to observe the processes that generate subjective experience. - • This experiential shift challenges the prevailing notion of cognitive transparency and suggests that internal mental structures may possess an inherent aesthetic quality. - • Consequently, the paper argues that the increased opacity produced by psychedelics enables an aesthetic appreciation of the relationship between the representational vehicle and its emergent content. **Contextualizing Psychedelics and Cognitive Opacity** - • Psychedelics are substances known for their capacity to disrupt standard neural processing and modify the phenomenology of thought, thereby producing altered states of consciousness. - • In these states, the ordinarily implicit modeling processes become accessible to introspection, revealing the constructed character of cognition as if viewed through a revealing lens rather than a clouded windowpane. - • Drawing on both empirical findings and literary insights—including the narrative in Ted Chiang’s _Understand_—this paper integrates interdisciplinary perspectives to argue for the aesthetic significance of such internal revelations. - • By reconceptualizing opacity as the recognition of the mind’s self-modeling apparatus, the discussion situates these phenomena within broader debates in philosophy of mind and aesthetics. --- **Section 2: Theoretical Framework** **Defining Psychedelics and Cognitive Opacity** - • Psychedelics are defined as agents that modulate neural connectivity and disrupt established cognitive circuits, thereby engendering altered perceptual and intellectual states. - • The concept of cognitive opacity refers to the experiential visibility of the representational processes that are typically hidden beneath the seamless flow of thought. - • In this framework, opacity is understood not as a mere degradation of clarity but as a constructive phenomenon that exposes the dynamic interplay between top‐down predictions and sensory data. - • The theoretical underpinning is provided by predictive processing models, which posit that the mind continuously integrates priors and inputs to create coherent, albeit constructed, experiences. **Elucidating the Modeling Mechanisms of the Mind** - • The mind is conceptualized as a sophisticated modeling device that synthesizes raw sensory information with internally generated predictions to produce a coherent self-representation. - • Under normal conditions, these cognitive models operate with such transparency that their underlying structures remain imperceptible to introspection. - • Psychedelic states disrupt this habitual transparency, rendering the hidden mechanisms of representational processing visible and thus subject to analytical scrutiny. - • This disruption allows for an appreciation of the intricacy and beauty inherent in the processes that construct subjective experience. **Interpreting Opacity as a Revealing Lens** - • Instead of being likened to a clouded windowpane that obstructs clear vision, cognitive opacity is more aptly compared to a lens that magnifies and clarifies the underlying structures of thought. - • This metaphor emphasizes that the altered state does not simply diminish clarity but instead enables a more refined perception of the cognitive apparatus. - • In psychedelic states, the observer is granted a unique opportunity to examine the internal operations of the mind in a manner that is both analytically rigorous and aesthetically engaging. - • Such a perspective challenges the conventional dichotomy of clarity versus obscurity by revealing that the very process of thought construction can be both intricate and beautiful. **Establishing the Aesthetic Dimension of Cognitive Modeling** - • The aesthetic appreciation central to this paper arises from the recognition of the vehicle–content relation inherent in cognitive processing. - • This relation, which parallels the interplay between medium and image in art, invites an evaluative stance that perceives the representational vehicle as an object of beauty in its own right. - • By becoming aware of how internal representations are generated, subjects can experience their own thought processes as a form of self-art, replete with texture, pattern, and dynamic structure. - • This awareness transforms introspection into an act of aesthetic judgment, wherein the mind’s hidden architectures are celebrated for their complexity and elegance. **Integrating Empirical and Philosophical Perspectives** - • Empirical research on the neural effects of psychedelics provides robust evidence that these substances can render the normally opaque processes of cognition visible to conscious awareness. - • Philosophical insights from predictive processing theories and self-modeling debates further support the notion that the mind is a constructed entity, whose inner workings are amenable to aesthetic appreciation. - • The convergence of these perspectives establishes a comprehensive framework that bridges cognitive neuroscience with philosophical aesthetics. - • This interdisciplinary synthesis lays the foundation for exploring the transformative potential of psychedelic-induced opacity in subsequent sections. --- **Section 3: Psychedelic States and Cognitive Opacity** **Neural Mechanisms Underlying Psychedelic Effects** - • Psychedelic substances are known to modulate neural circuitry by altering connectivity patterns within and between brain regions, such as the default mode network. - • These alterations lead to a breakdown in the usual hierarchical structure of predictive processing, thereby diminishing the dominance of top‐down priors. - • As a result, the ordinarily concealed neural mechanisms that construct our perceptual and cognitive experiences become more accessible to introspection. - • Empirical studies employing neuroimaging techniques have demonstrated that these changes are correlated with subjective reports of increased mental opacity during psychedelic experiences. **Phenomenology of Increased Cognitive Opacity** - • First-person accounts reveal that under the influence of psychedelics, individuals often report a vivid awareness of the processes by which their thoughts and perceptions are generated. - • These phenomenological descriptions indicate that the normally seamless flow of cognition becomes punctuated by moments of self-reflective insight into the underlying modeling processes. - • Ted Chiang’s _Understand_ provides a compelling literary example in which the protagonist describes an aesthetic appreciation of his own cognitive patterns, perceiving them as intricate and artful. - • Such subjective experiences underscore the transformative potential of psychedelic states to render the internal dynamics of thought both visible and appreciable. **Disruption of Top-Down Priors and Revealing Hidden Processes** - • Psychedelic states are characterized by a notable disruption in the brain’s capacity to generate and rely upon top-down predictive models, which normally filter sensory input. - • This disruption allows for the emergence of normally hidden cognitive processes, enabling individuals to experience the representational mechanisms as distinct from the content they produce. - • The resulting opacity reveals that what we typically take for granted as the stable, unified nature of thought is, in fact, a complex construct assembled from multiple interacting components. - • Such a revelation provides the cognitive foundation for an aesthetic reappraisal of the mind, as it lays bare the artistry involved in the construction of experience. **Exposing the Dual Nature of Cognitive Processes** - • In psychedelic states, the dual aspects of cognition—the representational vehicle and its resultant content—become analytically separable, allowing for a deeper examination of their interrelation. - • This separation challenges the standard view that these aspects are seamlessly integrated and imperceptible, instead suggesting that their interplay is inherently structured and patterned. - • By perceiving this duality, subjects can engage in a form of metacognitive reflection that is both analytical and aesthetically enriching, akin to appreciating the interplay between line and color in a masterful painting. - • Such insights foster an enhanced self-awareness that not only questions the assumed clarity of thought but also celebrates the underlying complexity and beauty of cognitive construction. **Empirical and Literary Integration in Demonstrating Opacity** - • The integration of empirical evidence from neuroscience with the narrative insights provided by literary works such as Ted Chiang’s _Understand_ creates a compelling case for the transformative effects of psychedelics on mental opacity. - • Both sources of evidence converge on the idea that psychedelic states unveil the hidden structures of cognition, thereby enabling a reflective and aesthetically driven engagement with one’s mental processes. - • This synthesis illustrates that increased opacity is not merely a side effect but a central phenomenon that reconfigures self-awareness and introspective capacity. - • The combined insights thus reinforce the central claim of the paper, establishing a robust foundation for the argument that cognitive opacity under psychedelics allows for an aesthetic appreciation of the mind. --- **Section 4: Aesthetic Appreciation of Cognitive Modeling** **Defining the Aesthetic Dimension of Cognition** - • Cognitive aesthetics is understood as the domain in which the structural and procedural aspects of thought are perceived as objects of beauty and artistic merit. - • This perspective reframes the mind’s internal modeling processes as an art form, whereby the construction of subjective experience is analogous to creative expression in visual or literary arts. - • Under psychedelic states, the exposure of these hidden mechanisms engenders an aesthetic response that is both reflective and deeply transformative. - • The resultant aesthetic appreciation is thus not a mere epiphenomenon but a central component of the enhanced introspective experience. **Evaluating the Vehicle–Content Relation in Thought** - • The vehicle–content relation is defined as the dynamic interplay between the cognitive processes (vehicle) that generate representations and the perceptual content (representee) that emerges from these processes. - • This relation is comparable to the interplay between medium and image in a painting, where the technique of brushstrokes (vehicle) is integral to the final composition (content). - • A heightened awareness of this relation enables individuals to appreciate the artistry inherent in the construction of thought, revealing the creative process behind subjective experience. - • Such an appreciation underscores the transformative potential of psychedelic states, where the normally opaque processes of cognition become a source of aesthetic insight. **Drawing Analogies from Art, Poetry, and Kinetic Installations** - • Artistic practices, such as the observation of brushstrokes in a painting, illustrate that the process of creation can evoke as much aesthetic pleasure as the finished artwork itself. - • In poetry, the structure, rhythm, and nuanced interplay of language contribute to an aesthetic experience that parallels the internal organization of thought. - • The kinetic installations by artists like Vincent Leroy serve as a potent visual metaphor for how a lens can reveal the interplay between the vehicle and content, transforming perception into a poetic display. - • These analogies collectively demonstrate that the aesthetic appreciation of cognitive processes is a multifaceted phenomenon that resonates across diverse artistic disciplines. **Insights from Ted Chiang’s Protagonist on Self-Aesthetic Reflection** - • In _Understand_, the protagonist’s experience of enhanced cognition is marked by a profound aesthetic appreciation for the patterns and structures underlying his thought processes. - • His descriptions evoke a sense of wonder and beauty akin to that experienced when admiring a complex musical composition or a masterful piece of visual art. - • This narrative moment illustrates that increased cognitive opacity can transform introspection into an act of aesthetic valuation, where the very process of thinking becomes a source of beauty. - • Such literary evidence supports the paper’s argument by demonstrating that the recognition of the mind’s constructed nature leads to a redefined and enriched self-awareness. **Philosophical and Practical Implications of Cognitive Aesthetics** - • The aesthetic appreciation of one’s own cognitive modeling has significant implications for how self-awareness and identity are understood, suggesting that introspection can be both analytical and artistically sublime. - • This perspective challenges traditional notions of the mind as a transparent medium and instead positions it as an evolving artwork, whose hidden processes can be discerned and admired. - • The recognition of the vehicle–content relation in cognition invites practical applications in fields such as art therapy, creative education, and mindfulness practices, where the beauty of thought can be harnessed for transformative purposes. - • Ultimately, this philosophical insight promotes a more nuanced understanding of consciousness that values both the analytical rigor and the inherent aesthetic quality of mental processes. --- **Section 5: Conclusion** **Restating the Central Claim and Its Significance** - • The conclusion reaffirms the central claim that psychedelic states, by increasing the opacity of mental processing, enable a profound aesthetic appreciation of the mind’s internal structures. - • Throughout the paper, it has been demonstrated that such states reveal the hidden modeling processes that construct our subjective experience, thereby transforming introspection into an act of self-aesthetic reflection. - • This enhanced visibility of cognitive mechanisms challenges conventional assumptions of mental transparency and underscores the inherent beauty of our constructed thought processes. - • The central claim thus not only enriches our theoretical understanding of altered states but also opens new avenues for appreciating the artfulness of cognition. **Summarizing Theoretical and Empirical Insights** - • The theoretical framework developed herein integrates predictive processing theory with insights from cognitive neuroscience, establishing that psychedelics disrupt conventional top-down processing to reveal hidden representational mechanisms. - • Empirical evidence, coupled with literary narratives such as those found in _Understand_, provides a robust foundation for the argument that increased cognitive opacity is both a revealing and aesthetically engaging phenomenon. - • This synthesis of empirical and philosophical perspectives offers a compelling case for reconceptualizing cognitive opacity as a constructive lens that magnifies the beauty inherent in the mind’s operations. - • The convergence of these insights solidifies the argument that the aesthetic appreciation of cognitive modeling is not an incidental by-product but a central outcome of psychedelic states. **Implications for Future Research and Practice** - • The findings invite further interdisciplinary research aimed at exploring the neural correlates of cognitive opacity and its impact on self-awareness and aesthetic experience. - • Future studies may focus on refining methodologies to quantitatively measure the aesthetic appreciation of internal mental processes during altered states. - • The insights presented also have practical implications for fields such as art therapy, mindfulness training, and creative education, where fostering an awareness of one’s cognitive processes could enhance personal growth and innovation. - • This research agenda promises to deepen our understanding of the interplay between altered states, metacognitive insight, and the aesthetic dimensions of consciousness. **Broader Philosophical Implications** - • Recognizing the aesthetic qualities of one’s own cognitive modeling invites a radical rethinking of selfhood, suggesting that the mind’s internal architecture is not merely functional but also artistically expressive. - • Such an understanding challenges entrenched views of cognition as a purely utilitarian process and elevates introspection to the level of an art form, rich with beauty and complexity. - • By appreciating the constructed nature of thought, individuals can cultivate a more reflective and enriched conception of self, one that values both analytical precision and artistic expression. - • This philosophical shift has profound implications for debates in the philosophy of mind, as it encourages a holistic approach that merges empirical inquiry with aesthetic sensibility. **Final Reflection and Call to Interdisciplinary Collaboration** - • In closing, the paper emphasizes that the transformative potential of psychedelic states lies in their ability to unveil the intricate representational processes of the mind, thereby fostering an aesthetic appreciation of cognition. - • This revelation not only enriches our understanding of consciousness but also challenges us to view self-awareness as a form of internal artistry, where every thought is a creative act. - • The insights presented herein call for continued interdisciplinary dialogue among neuroscientists, philosophers, and art theorists, who together can further illuminate the beauty of the mind’s hidden architectures. - • Ultimately, embracing the aesthetic dimensions of cognitive opacity may pave the way for innovative approaches to personal development, therapeutic practices, and a more profound philosophical understanding of what it means to be self-aware. --- This revised plan is designed to present a clear, detailed, and logically compelling structure. Each section and paragraph is explicitly titled with its main idea, and every bullet point is a fully developed sentence that emphasizes the sophisticated logical progression of the argument. The plan integrates insights from Ted Chiang’s narrative and previous discussions to enhance the overall coherence, analytical rigor, and persuasiveness of the central claim. # LLM Chats ## deepseek on predictive processing, opacity and Understand raycast://extensions/raycast/raycast-ai/ai-chat?context=%7B%22id%22:%22115E6B99-D3E2-41D9-A75D-636A3D0FC17C%22%7D ## o1 on opacity, aesthetics 1 Feb 2025 ### PART 1. EXPLANATION OF A “MODELLING DEVICE” (BASED ON _THE PHILOSOPHY OF PSYCHEDELICS_ TEXT) In the _Philosophy of Psychedelics_ chapters, the author defends or assumes a **Predictive Processing** framework for cognition and perception. According to that framework, the brain is essentially an **inference engine**, perpetually constructing “hypotheses” or “models” to predict incoming sensory signals. Let’s clarify how this amounts to a “modelling device,” drawing on that text: 1. ### Brain as Hierarchical Model-Builder - The text (_Philosophy of Psychedelics_, especially in chapters on predictive processing) states that the brain operates by building _hierarchical generative models_ of reality. - **Generative model** means that the mind _actively_ creates predictions about what the next wave of input will be—trying to anticipate and “explain away” sensory signals before they fully arrive. - These models exist at multiple levels: from low-level features (e.g., lines, edges) up to more abstract, conceptual beliefs (e.g., assumptions about time continuity, self-identity). 2. ### Purpose: Minimizing Error Signals - The mind’s goal: _minimize surprise_ or _prediction error_. Whenever an incoming signal differs from the model’s expectation, that mismatch is “error.” The system updates or revises the model if the mismatch is big enough. - This ensures that the final “percept” or “experience” is the best guess about what’s out there (or in here, re: bodily states). 3. ### Modelling Device as Confluence of Predictions, Priors, etc. - The text emphasises that in normal consciousness, especially for things like the sense of time, bodily ownership, or the feeling of a stable self, the mind uses stored _priors_ (very strong beliefs or assumptions) about “I endure over time” or “time flows linearly,” etc. - These priors shape the raw data, so we _experience_ a stable world in which we are an agent at a certain moment in time. 4. ### Why “Device”? - In the text, the notion of “device” is a metaphor: it indicates something that _mechanically_ or _functionally_ _performs_ the task of model construction or “interpretation.” - It is not an inert mirror but a dynamic mechanism: the “predictive self-binding account” says that the mind “binds” multiple signals—bodily states, memories, conceptual beliefs—into a single self-model. 5. ### Summary from the Text - **Quote-like Paraphrase**: “On the REBUS model, psychedelics relax high-level priors, thereby letting the underlying generative modelling process become more flexible, so you see the brain’s capacity for constructing new inferences about self and time. This reveals the hierarchical structure of the inference engine, which is the main ‘modelling device’ underlying perception and cognition.” (_Philosophy of Psychedelics_, approx. section 6 or 7) Hence, a **“modelling device”** (in the sense used in that text) is: > A **predictive processing system** in the brain, which uses _top-down predictions_ and _bottom-up error signals_ to generate a coherent, seamless representation of reality. It is “device-like” insofar as it systematically handles inputs, applies prior assumptions or hypotheses, and yields an integrated output that we experience as the world around us (or as an internal sense of self, time, etc.). --- ### PART 2. DEVELOPING THE IDEA OF **AN AESTHETIC EXPERIENCE OF THE MIND ITSELF** VIA OPACITY You asked about the notion that _if we realize the constructed nature of mental representations, we might gain a new aesthetic experience of mind itself_. Let’s articulate this in great length, exploring analogies with art appreciation, lens metaphors, and so forth. #### 2.1 General Idea: “Vehicle vs. Content” in Aesthetic Experience 6. **Ordinary Experience**: We typically focus on the “content” of experience—what the representation is about: the external world, an emotion about something, etc. 7. **Artistic Analogy**: When looking at a _painting_, you can appreciate the _depicted scene_ (the content) or you can appreciate the _brushstrokes_, _pigment textures_, the cunning technique. In normal viewing, we see “the rearing horse,” not the “thick swirl of paint.” But with an aesthetic turn, we shift attention to the very _vehicle_—the “blobs of paint.” - Similarly, in normal mental life, we treat our mind’s representation as an invisible window. We see _“the horse in the external world,”_ not the “paint” that the mind uses. But in an _“opaque” or self-reflective state_, we can become aesthetically aware of the mind’s “brushstrokes.” 8. **Opacities of Mind**: This is basically the “mind’s vehicle properties”—the neural or representational structures that produce our sense-data, conceptual frameworks, affective tone. Hence, the proposal: > “When mental life becomes partially opaque, we can attend to the mental representation _as representation_, not just as a transparent window onto the external or internal content. This can open up an aesthetic stance toward our own mental processes—much like an art connoisseur relishing the textural brush strokes in a painting.” #### 2.2 The “Lens Cloud” Artwork as an Analogy You introduced the “floating lenses” installation by Vincent Leroy at the Louvre. Let’s parse that: 9. **Basic Description**: - Leroy’s piece arranges many optical lenses in a slow-moving kinetic sculpture. - Observers see how these transparent discs distort or refract the facade of the Louvre. Sometimes it merges with the environment or transforms it into a kaleidoscopic pattern. 10. **Effect on Perception**: - It “challenges perception,” making one see the building’s facade in a warping or overlapping manner. - The viewer becomes aware that these lens elements are _mediating_ the appearance. 11. **Why This Mirror’s Our Mental Situation**: - Similarly, our mind is full of “lenses,” i.e., constructive priors or interpretive structures. Normally, we do not notice them: we just see the world. - Leroy’s “Lens Cloud” ironically calls attention to how objects can be “deformed” by the presence of those floating lenses. Observers might then realize that perception is partly an effect of these lens interactions. 12. **Partial Transparency**: - The lenses are physically transparent but also partial in how they refract. So you get a “layer” that you can see but that _also_ merges with the environment. - This parallels an “opaque” mental event: we see that a lens (the mind’s representation) is there, but the world is still visible behind it. Hence, the observer can adopt a new vantage: they are simultaneously seeing the _world (the Louvre facade)_ and the _vehicle (the lens array)_ that modifies the world’s appearance. This is akin to _mind opacity_, seeing the content _and_ the vehicle. #### 2.3 The Potential “Aesthetic Experience” of Our Own Mind How does it become “aesthetic”? Let’s break that down: 13. **In Normal Mind Use**: - We treat mental representation purely functionally: it helps us parse the world, act on it, etc. We do _not_ dwell on the “beauty” or “poetry” of how the mind does it. 14. **In an Opacity State** (e.g., advanced meditation, introspective skill): - We notice the _graceful patterns_ by which the mind merges memory, expectation, bodily feeling, or time sense. - The mind’s pattern can be enjoyed for its _form_, _rhythm_, or _cohesive design_, much like how the lens cloud is admired for its interplay of shapes, reflections, or slow motions. 15. **Comparison to Leroy’s Kinetic Lenses**: - Leroy’s work fosters a “double awareness”: you see the environment _through_ the lenses and also see how the environment is _visually transformed._ - Similarly, an advanced meditator might hold an “awareness of the environment or internal ideas” while also noticing how the mind’s models “distort,” “refract,” or “create new illusions.” This can be intriguing or beautiful. 16. **Analogy to Painted Art**: - In painting, the “content” might be a figure or scene, while the “vehicle” is paint, brush-stroke technique, color layering. _Appreciating the painting aesthetically often includes admiring how the paint physically stands on the canvas._ - In the mind’s case, “paint” = the mental structuring, e.g., rhythmic pulses of attention, or micro-intentional stances. So an “aesthetic experience of mind” is admiring those “vehicle properties,” i.e., how exactly the mind sculpts or refracts our experience. #### 2.4 Another Poetry Parable We might also compare it to **reading poetry**: 17. **Transparency in Poetry**: - Typically, when reading lines, one might focus on _the narrative or meaning_ (the “content”). The words themselves can become transparent pointers. 18. **Opacity in Poetry**: - If you read a poem with heightened attention to word choice, meter, alliteration, you might aesthetically enjoy the _verbal form itself._ The _“sing-song” or sonic resonance_ becomes part of the “vehicle,” not just the meaning. 19. **Applying to the Mind**: - Similarly, the mind’s ongoing thought stream can be read in a normal way: we just glean “the meaning,” i.e., “I have a plan,” “I see a shape,” etc. We skip over the “rhythm of the mind’s thought.” - But one can develop a stance of aesthetic savoring: we _notice_ how the mind uses metaphor, how it leaps from concept to concept. That is parallel to noticing the poem’s meter or rhyme. Hence, an “aesthetic approach” to mental representation is akin to reading a poem “for the style,” not just the meaning. #### 2.5 Partial Opacity: Appreciating the Relation between Vehicle and Content One might say: > “But to fully appreciate the mind’s artistry, we still see the external world or conceptual content _plus_ the newly recognized lens or representational device that’s shaping it. It is the interplay that’s aesthetically compelling.” Yes, that resonates with Leroy’s “Lens Cloud”: - The building facade is _still there._ We see it. But now we see it _through overlapping lenses_ that create kaleidoscopic illusions. - The aesthetic delight arises from that dynamic interplay: sometimes you see the facade as normal, sometimes as multiplied. You’re aware of how your vantage point modifies the illusions. In meditative or psychedelic states: - One still has a sense of “the object” (the breath, the bodily posture, or external phenomena), but simultaneously one notices “the mind at work” re-labelling it or re-framing it in real time. This can evoke wonder or delight, or a sense of “poetic resonance” with one’s own mental function. #### 2.6 Analytical Reflection: Why Is This Aesthetic? One can ask: “Is noticing the mind’s constructedness necessarily aesthetic?” Possibly it depends on how we define aesthetic experience. Common elements might include: 20. **Disinterested Pleasure**: Observing something not for its instrumental use but for the enjoyment or appreciation of form and structure. 21. **Heightened Attention to Formal Qualities**: In art, we attend to line, color, shape. In mind, we attend to the “shapes” or “patterns” of mental events. 22. **Sense of Transformation**: Realizing there’s an interplay that transforms or organizes some base content into a final outcome. Hence, we can see a meditator might: - Step out of the practical stance (like “I must interpret the next moment for survival”) and adopt a _“disinterested,” purely contemplative vantage_ on how the mind is weaving time, self, feeling. That is an “aesthetic” stance toward the mind. #### 2.7 Potential Philosophical Implications 23. **New domain of introspection**: This approach suggests the mind can be an object of aesthetic wonder. 24. **Overlap with “Art of Interiors”**: The expression “the art of consciousness” can be more literal. We can cultivate “mind-lens installations” inside ourselves, noticing illusions or partial illusions we generate. 25. **Comparisons**: - In Leroy’s piece, the environment plus the lens create “moving illusions.” Similarly, the mind’s top-down predictions, plus raw sense data, create ephemeral illusions (like the sense of stable time). Appreciating that interplay could be akin to enjoying the ephemeral illusions in a piece of interactive kinetic art. 26. **Broader Theoretical Ties**: - This resonates with certain Buddhist or Yogic traditions that talk about “watching the mind’s illusions with curiosity or even wonder.” Some line up with “Predictive Self-Binding” claims that the self is a generative model. Realizing it fosters an aesthetic or spiritual sense of awe at the mind’s capacity. #### 2.8 Summation - The lens-based art by Vincent Leroy is a concrete metaphor: disc-lenses physically float and warp an iconic facade. Observers see how the object is partially dissolved or reconfigured, thus _both_ noticing the content (the Louvre) and the lens (the device). - Similarly, in a partially opaque mental event—like advanced meditative introspection—one can see how the mind’s “modeling device” shapes or warps the sense of reality or time. This discovery can be savored aesthetically, similar to savoring the brushstrokes on a painting or the meter in a poem. **Hence**: Through “opacity,” we do more than just find new knowledge about mental processes. We can also gain a sort of aesthetic fascination—marveling at the mind’s artistry. The parallel with a painting’s vehicle vs. content or a lens-based kinetic sculpture suggests a robust analogy for conceptualizing how advanced meditative insight might open up a new aesthetic appreciation of the mental domain. --- ### Final Remarks 27. **On “Modeling Device”**: We clarified it is the mind’s predictive system, per the _Philosophy of Psychedelics_ text, integrating top-down priors with raw data to produce a stable reality-experience. 28. **On Aesthetic Opacity**: Realizing the mind’s processes become partially “in view,” we can treat these processes themselves as objects of aesthetic contemplation. The Leroy lens installation or a painting’s brushstrokes is a helpful analogy: we see the final image _and_ the medium. In mind-terms, we see the “reality content” _and_ the mind’s constructive scaffolding, which can be poetically or aesthetically enjoyed. That addresses your queries in an “analytic analysis and exploration.” If there is further nuance you’d like to probe—such as the relation of this aesthetic vantage to the strong/weak transparency continuum—let me know! ## O1 on Schellekens, Understand, and Opacity - https://chatgpt.com/c/679bbc84-e6fc-800d-969e-8fd60a9c6d99 > Psychedelic experiences can be conceived as aesthetic, intellectually reflective pursuits when we understand them as making conscious processes phenomenally “opaque”—that is, prompting one to see one’s own thoughts, assumptions, and mental representations as objects of attention rather than simply living in them transparently. Letheby’s discussion of “opacity” emphasises how high-level beliefs or representations usually seem directly identical with reality: we do not experience them as maps or models in our minds, but rather as the concrete facts of who we are and what the world is like. This phenomenon is also the case for self-representations. We are generally so embedded in our sense of self—believing ourselves to be a persistently existing “I” who stands behind thoughts and experiences—that we rarely notice it as a constructed model. However, when certain cognitive frameworks are disrupted (for instance, by psychedelics), that sense of self (and, by extension, other rigid assumptions about reality) can temporarily become “opaque.” In that state, one can actively notice and examine the process of “this is who I am” or “this is how reality is,” realising such processes are simulations—high-level hypotheses that we ordinarily treat as if they were absolutely real. > > Schellekens’s argument that intellectual pursuits can be aesthetically pleasing rests heavily on the idea of coming to know, an incremental, discovery-oriented process in which the knower takes pleasure in perceiving hidden unities, clarities, or “harmonies.” Under normal conditions, people may limit their intellectual or reflective exploration because many beliefs, particularly self-beliefs, remain effectively transparent; one cannot isolate them enough to contemplate them as flexible hypotheses. By contrast, psychedelics often induce a temporary weakening of high-level cognitive constraints (or “high-level priors,” in predictive processing terms), making it easier to see the ordinarily transparent constructs—like “I am such-and-such a person,” “I absolutely must do X or Y”—as contingent mental maps. This radical sense of contingency can elicit the same kind of aesthetic fascination described in other intellectual domains: one experiences delight or wonder in discovering new conceptual space, the excitement of re-thinking fundamental assumptions, and a kind of aesthetic revelry in reordering the “substance” of one’s own cognition. > > When these constructs become opaque, one can notice “object properties” of one’s thinking. Rather than being wholly absorbed in a chain of thoughts—e.g., “I am worthless,” “I am anxious,” “I need to behave exactly this way”—the subject can step back and see, as if from a small remove, how these thoughts are forming, what beliefs they are built upon, and how the mind is generating them. That stepping back can itself be an aesthetic pleasure reminiscent of the aesthetic delight in perceiving a well-wrought proof or a coherent theoretical structure: the pleasure arises in encountering the richness and unity of the phenomenon. With psychedelics, the phenomenon in question is the mind’s own activity—one sees how variable it is, how quickly it can reorganise under new conditions, how illusions of solidity can melt into unfamiliar but powerfully interesting configurations. This capacity, combined with the sense of “coming to know” (one sees certain psychic structures that were always present but previously inaccessible), transforms the psychedelic session into an experiential, reflective, intellectual endeavour. Instead of building arguments with pen and paper, one temporarily reconstructs or reviews the architecture of one’s own psychic models, taking intellectual and aesthetic pleasure in that direct confrontation with the scaffolding of one’s identity. > > Insofar as this process yields a fresh and often surprising awareness of how the mind’s “stories” get assembled—particularly stories about oneself—it fits neatly within Schellekens’s notion of an aesthetic intellectual pursuit: it involves examining the shape of something (in this case, the shape of cognition or the shape of self-belief), discerning how it fits together and might be reconfigured, and deriving a distinctive pleasure from that insight. Letheby’s notion of “phenomenal opacity” is central here: when beliefs (particularly about oneself) cease to be simply “the reality” and become perceived as modifiable constructs, one enters a domain of wonder and exploration. As Schellekens would note, this can be epistemically inventive and motivating: instead of being forcibly tethered to old illusions, one is buoyed by the potential to see “What else might I be?” or “What other conceptual frameworks might I adopt?” This impetus to experiment is partly what gives psychedelic sessions their aesthetic charge: it can be thrilling, awe-inspiring, daunting, or intensely beautiful to behold one’s own mind in flux, realising that all sorts of new “forms” can crystallise. > > Regarding whether this makes sense in the context of Letheby’s views, it generally does. Letheby’s framework suggests that psychedelics’ real transformative power stems from loosening long-held assumptions, including self-models, thereby letting one see them as mental constructs. While he does explore illusions of cosmic consciousness or metaphysical claims, his primary insight is that people glimpse their minds “from the outside” so to speak, no longer entrenched in them as ultimate reality. This is indeed consistent with a reading in which psychedelics enable an “experientially reflexive intellectual pursuit”: the subject is actively investigating the mind’s contents, stepping outside them, playing with them, and discovering alternative angles. Such reflexivity is deeply aesthetic, akin to discovering that a geometric proof can be re-expressed in multiple alternative forms, each bringing new aesthetic satisfactions—only in this instance, the “proofs” or “theories” are the subject’s identity, habits, and emotional stances. > > As to the Ted Chiang short story “Understand,” one could see it as a fictional illustration of how an intellect that is relentlessly expanding—such as the protagonist’s after a neurological treatment—can become so reflexively aware of its own cognitive architecture that it takes on a psychedelic-like opacity. The character in “Understand” undergoes a sudden and dramatic enhancement of his intelligence that allows him to observe and reengineer his mental processes in real time. This is reminiscent of the moment in a powerful psychedelic session where a person not only sees the usual content of their mind laid bare but can also retool it, shift how they categorise experiences, pick up new references, notice “loops” or “reinforcing beliefs,” and watch them from outside. The “coming to know” phenomenon is central: in Chiang’s story, the protagonist is ceaselessly discovering new patterns in his own cognition—he is, in effect, investigating the shape of his mental world. That shape becomes so transparent to him that it is now “opaque” in Letheby’s sense: he no longer confuses it with an untouchable substrate but perceives it as a plastic, intricately woven system in which each node can be re-routed or reprogrammed. > > Chiang’s protagonist then takes aesthetic and intellectual delight in this process, building something akin to a new mental environment. He does so with the thrill and determination a mathematician might feel in unveiling fresh theorems, or a conceptual artist might feel upon seeing how an idea changes under shifting conditions. In standard consciousness, a person typically has no such vantage point on the high-level cognitive constraints that shape mental reality; the sense of “I am this kind of being with such-and-such limitations” is largely invisible and just “feels like reality.” But Chiang’s character is akin to the “psychedelic sage,” seeing that the entire mental architecture is open for alteration. The style of rapture, fear, euphoria, or even mania that might accompany such revelations is also easy to map onto a psychedelic session: the self can threaten to disintegrate, or lose meaning, or conversely feel infinitely more potent. The story thus captures the essential dynamic of discovering that the mind’s contents, rather than being an absolute bedrock, are flexible models—exactly as one might discover under a powerful chemical or in a deeply introspective state. > > This all fits the notion of an experiential, reflective intellectual pursuit because the protagonist is not only passively watching what his mind does but actively shaping it, experimenting with how ideas and patterns connect, and seeing new emergent vistas of his own cognition. By the same token, the user of psychedelics might reflect on how the slightest shift in interpretive framework changes emotional resonance, identity sense, or the meaning of a memory. In Chiang’s story, the protagonist also discerns the strategic consequences of new expansions in mental capacity, which parallels the psychedelic user seeing the social, emotional, or existential consequences of a new perspective: maybe “I never needed to be that anxious,” or “I can love myself differently,” or “I can direct attention in ways I never before imagined.” The story’s drama, in which he contends with another similarly enhanced mind, also mirrors the sense that once you see all your mental constraints as flexible (and presumably all others’ constraints too), you gain an unprecedented vantage on social interactions—akin to how certain introspective revelations in psychedelics can redraw how you perceive others’ thoughts or motivations. > > Hence, it is plausible to read “Understand” as depicting a supercharged version of the aesthetic “coming to know” that Schellekens highlights, only in a purely fictional scenario. The protagonist’s mind is turned into a playground of recursively aware processes, yielding massive new clarity that is simultaneously intellectual (he can produce proofs or strategies) and aesthetic (he discerns beauty, elegance, synergy in the newly integrated structures). This scenario mirrors the phenomenon of “phenomenal opacity” under psychedelics: the beliefs and narratives that once framed the protagonist’s reality are newly identified as mere constructs, opening a profoundly flexible vantage. That vantage is a hallmark of the aesthetically minded intellect, the same vantage from which a mathematician savours an elegant unification of knowledge, or from which a conceptual artist reconfigures how images and objects align. > > For precisely these reasons, many readers find “Understand” evocative of a psychedelic trip. The short story dramatizes that sense of being flung beyond the normal constraints of cognition, forced to see mental architecture in real time, discovering new conceptual and experiential terrain, and feeling the aesthetic thrill of it. The protagonist’s mastery over mental structures parallels the variety of accounts in which psychedelic users attempt to reorganise their cognitive or emotional habits mid-session, sometimes discovering surprising insights into how certain beliefs can be “turned on or off.” Although the story does not explicitly reference psychedelics, the parallels run deep: both revolve around an accelerated, more “transparent” experience of mental operations that ironically becomes “opaque” in Letheby’s sense, because the subject experiences them as viewable, negotiable, and transformable. > > In short, “Understand” might strike someone as an especially apt fictional emblem of psychedelics as a reflexive intellectual pursuit precisely because it conveys how “new intelligence” or “enhanced introspection” can produce a massive reordering of mental life. This reordering has an aesthetic character (seeing the previously hidden patterns in everything, delighting in comprehensiveness), an intellectual dimension (systematically reorganising these patterns, hypothesising novel frameworks of action or insight), and a reflexive component (perceiving one’s own cognition as a structure open to manipulation). Those three elements—intellect, aesthetic pleasure, and reflexive self-awareness—are the same ones highlighted by Schellekens’s notion of aesthetic intellectual activity, now superimposed on the phenomenon that Letheby calls “phenomenal opacity.” One sees how the mind is actively constructing “reality,” takes pleasure in systematically revising that construction, and realises that the prior transparent acceptance of these constructs was contingent. That is exactly what psychedelics, at their most revealing, appear to enable on a smaller (but often still dramatic) scale, and what Chiang’s hero in “Understand” does on a fictional and grandiose scale. ## Another DeepSeek https://chat.deepseek.com/a/chat/s/4cc6401d-c105-4f11-a28a-3203706ff500 raycast://extensions/raycast/raycast-ai/ai-chat?context=%7B%22id%22:%226035A46E-6EF9-427E-B8D1-63A2CD6E9F85%22%7D ## DeepSeek on Chiang and Understanding https://chat.deepseek.com/a/chat/s/84e894fa-e575-4fed-9a7b-fdfa86a6aae7 >- **"Understand" (Ted Chiang)**: Leon’s hyperintelligence reveals cognitive structures (gestalts) analogous to Richardson’s visual field. Both involve meta-awareness of _systemic boundaries_—Leon of his mind’s recursive logic, Richardson of vision’s sensory limitations. >- **Content vs. Structure**: While psychedelic _content_ (e.g., hallucinations) is idiosyncratic, their _structural effects_ (e.g., distorted time, dissolved ego) might be shareable as perturbations of universal perceptual frameworks. - **Vision as a Model**: Just as all humans share the visual field’s cone-shaped boundaries (despite varying content), psychedelic states might share structural distortions (e.g., "ego dissolution" as a disruption of the _self-boundary_ structure). ### Chiang again and Understand - https://chatgpt.com/c/6794039d-99d8-800d-b2ee-827abfb06202 > This evolution resonates with higher-order thought theories, which suggest that consciousness requires awareness of one’s mental states. In the story, such awareness takes on a heightened form: the character not only observes conscious experience but also systematically manipulates it. # Notes - is it worth looking at this paper? It doesn't seem super philosophical https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2016-18358-013 ## References https://chat.deepseek.com/a/chat/s/50ef27d2-fba7-481a-b0ee-a09ae14a8618 # Admin ## contact Hans Maes [email protected] ## deadline 15th March 2025 ## Guidelines: · **Word count:** 6000 words per chapter. This includes footnotes, endnotes, and bibliography. · **Deadline:** March 15, 2025. If it’s looking like you will not be able to make this deadline, please notify me as soon as possible. · **Format:** Please submit your essay directly to me as a Word document. I will only accept text files in .doc format. · **Spelling:** We’ll be using US spelling (so, ‘color’ and not ‘colour’). Please see Bloomsbury’s house style guide attached. · **Quotations:** Use double quotes, except for a quotation within a quotation. · **Referencing:** We will be using the author-date system. Please see Bloomsbury’s house style document for further guidance. · **Notes:** Keep these to a minimum. (They are not to be used for references.) Endnotes rather than footnotes. The house style is to have notes numbered from ‘1’ at the start of each chapter. Notes should be entered into your manuscript using the Word note function rather than using numbered text. · **Layout:** Keep it simple. As a general rule, please use two hard returns at the end of a paragraph, rather than indenting the first line of a new paragraph. Ensure that if you are continuing a paragraph after displayed material (e.g. a quote) you use just one hard return/no line space before paragraph continues. · **Punctuation:** See Bloomsbury’s house style document. · **Headings:** Use bold for level 1 subheadings, italics for level 2 subheadings. Avoid using all capitals for subheadings as this makes it hard to see which words you prefer to be capitalized. Avoid using more than 2 levels of subheadings. Avoid numbering headings and subheadings unless extensive cross-referencing is essential. · **Permissions:** You are solely responsible for obtaining all necessary licences, consents and permissions from all third parties who own rights to any material you use. Because the process of obtaining permissions can be a lengthy one, you are strongly advised to submit any requests three months before deadline. · **Images:** Please let me know in advance whether you wish to include any images. Figures should not be supplied embedded into the manuscript itself but rather supplied as separate files.  Save each figure/table/box in a separate file and name them by chapter – i.e., Figure 1.1, 1.2; Table 2.1, 2.2, etc. Ensure that you place a call-out in the manuscript to indicate where each figure/table/box should be placed, e.g. <FIGURE 1.1 HERE>  Note that figures, tables and boxes cannot necessarily be placed in the exact location indicated, but rather will be placed as close as possible to that point. · **Image quality:** All images will be black-and-white. Please supply halftone images (e.g. photos) at a resolution of 300dpi (generally 1500 pixels wide) and line art images (e.g. graphs and text) at 1200 dpi  to ensure good reproduction in the final book. You will also need to fill out the art log (attached) for each of the images you wish to include · **Title page:** This page should include title, author name, ORCiD, abstract, keywords. Here is a model: **Chapter Title** _1st Author-Name_ [_Orcid.org/0000-0123-4567-8910_](https://Orcid.org/0000-0123-4567-8910) _2nd Author name_ [_Orcid.org/0198-7654-3210-0000_](https://Orcid.org/0198-7654-3210-0000) Abstract This sample abstract is between one hundred to two hundred words that accurately and succinctly describe the contents of the sample chapter. It includes any relevant keywords and phrases that potential readers would use to search for the content of this work, all combined in a natural, readable style. The abstract begins by summarising the subject and focus of the chapter, and outlines the approach it has taken and the methodology behind the chosen approach. It briefly outlines the desired outcome of the chapter and what readers can expect to find. The keywords and the overall abstract, as well as the ORCiDs included above, have been drafted, checked and corrected so that the resulting text is as clear and accurate as possible. Keywords keyword 1, keyword 2, keyword 3, keyword 4, Introduction Here, the chapter begins in earnest. This is where the chapter would visibly begin in the printed work. It should include an element of introduction to the chapter, as though the abstract above was not present. It may even repeat elements of the abstract.... · **Abstract:** The abstract should be 100-200 words in length and provide a clear and concise overview of the content of the chapter. Ensure that the abstract is self-contained, without abbreviations, footnotes, or incomplete references. It needs to make sense on its own. · **Keywords:** Please provide a list of 4 to 5 keywords. It probably won’t be at the forefront of your mind, but keywords play an important role in creating an effective abstract. These keywords will help others find your work quickly and accurately, so think of them as the labels for your chapter. What’s more, a strong correlation exists between online hits and subsequent citations. Narrow down your keywords to ensure they are as accurate as possible, and then include them in your title and abstract whilst still making it readable. Many search engines only index titles and abstracts, so your keywords should ideally be imbedded in the title and abstract. · **ORCiD**: Simply copy and paste your ORCiD into your word document chapter alongside your chapter title, name and abstract. Make sure you double-check your ORCiD for accuracy before submission (ensure that it is copied faithfully, and when searched for or hyperlinked online, it returns your profile). In case you are wondering what an ORCiD is: An ORCiD (note the iD in there) is a digital identifier that distinguishes you from every other researcher, no matter how common your name is. It ensures you and your research activities can be easily identified, meaning you get the credit for all the work you do. Plus it’s free and takes just 30 seconds to register. More information in attached document. # The Structure of Part 2 of the psychedelic aesthetics paper - part 1 introduces the idea that psychedelic experiences can be understood as mind revealing states - mental processes (of different types) are made opaque - the aim of part 2 is show how this can be used to develop a psychedelic aesthetics. ## Realisational Properties - It is sometimes suggested that part of the aesthetic appreciation of images is attending to (being aware of) the way in which vehicle properties *realise* the depictive content. - Nanay calls these as design scene properties (see below for other names) - **Quote** >I want to return to the specific kind of property that has played an important role in understanding the aesthetic appreciation of pictures (while acknowledging that there may be other properties that we rou- tinely attribute to pictures when we appreciate them aesthetically). It is the property that Budd describes as ‘the crucial characteristic of pictorial art, namely, the interrelationship between the marks on the surface and what is depicted in them’ (Budd 1995, p. 58...). (p. 58) >Properties of this kind (under different labels) have triggered lively discussion recently, mainly in connection with the concept of ‘inflection’ (see Podro 1991, 1998; Lopes 2005; Hopkins 2010; Nanay 2010b). Hopkins calls these properties ‘inflected properties’ and argues that ‘a full characterization of [them] needs to make reference to the surface’s design (conceived as such)’ (Hopkins 2010). I myself called them ‘design-scene properties’, where a ‘design-scene property’ is a ‘relational property that cannot be fully characterized without reference to both the picture’s design and to the depicted object’ (Nanay 2010b, p. 194). In the light of the threefoldness account above, which resolves the ambiguity of the concept of ‘depicted object’ in this definition, I should say that a design- scene property is a relational property that cannot be fully characterized without reference to both the picture’s surface and to the three-dimensional object visually encoded in the surface. (p. 59 but check these page numbers (quotes are crrect though)) ### Design Scene Properties in Aesthetic Appreciation - One aspect of appreciating a pictorial work of art is the awareness of (attention to) these relational properties. - **Quote from Nanay:** > A key element in any appreciation of a pictorial work of art is the awareness of design-scene properties (this is what Budd suggests when he says that ‘the interrelationship between the marks on the surface and what is depicted in them’ is ‘the crucial characteristic of pictorial art’ (Budd 1995, p. 58, the second emphasis is mine)). When we are admiring a Miró drawing and the way two simple curved lines somehow manage to depict an expressive human face, what we are attending to is exactly a design-scene property: the relational property partly determined by the shape property of the two-dimensional curved line on the canvas and partly determined by the three-dimensional depicted face. And when we are appreciating Cézanne’s landscapes, one thing that enhances our aesthetic appreciation is to see the interrelationship between the three- dimensional depicted fascicles of pine needles and the two-dimensional single brushstrokes on the canvas. What Frank Sibley would call our ‘critical and evaluative discourse’ (Sibley 1959, p. 422) is full of references to design-scene properties (from which Sibley would conclude that it is an aesthetic property—see Chapter 4): to the way the depicted object emerges from the marks on the surface or to the way the depicted object is represented by the marks on the surface. (Nanay 2017, pp. 59 - 60) - Design Scene Properties are **shareable** in that two observers can attend to and discuss how the same mark on a Miró realises a face - The concept is used to illustrate the broader point that aesthetic experience is not solely about the detection of isolated properties (such as colour or form) but about apprehending the integrated, relational structure of the artwork. - Arguably, perceiving this *realisation relation* is something that renders an experience distinctly aesthetic rather than merely utilitarian or purely perceptual. - The author defines design‐scene properties as relational properties that cannot be fully characterised without reference to both of the following components: - **The Picture’s Surface (A):** - This is the two‐dimensional physical medium on which the artwork is rendered. - **The Three‐Dimensional Object Visually Encoded in the Surface (B):** - This is the perceptual construct that arises from the pictorial cues provided by the surface. - In effect, a design‐scene property is one whose full description requires an account of the interrelationship between the physical marks on the surface and the emergent three‐dimensional structure. ### Attention and Realisation (maybe this can be left out) - **A Central Feature of Aesthetic Experience** - The author argues that a significant case of aesthetic experience—particularly in the context of pictorial art—depends on the observer’s capacity to attend to design‐scene properties. - This capacity is related to the notion of “distributed aesthetic attention,” which is defined as the manner in which one’s attention is: - Focused on a single perceptual object (or picture) and simultaneously - Distributed over a variety of its properties, including those that belong to both the surface and the visually encoded three‐dimensional object. - **Role in Distributed Aesthetic Attention** - When an observer appreciates a picture aesthetically, their attention is not exclusively fixed on either the surface (A) or solely on the encoded three‐dimensional object (B). - Instead, the observer’s attention is deployed in a distributed manner so as to capture the relational properties—that is, the design‐scene properties—which emerge from the interaction between the surface and the depicted content. - This attentional mode is presented as distinctive in the aesthetic domain, differing from the more utilitarian or non‐aesthetic modes of attention that may focus on a limited set of properties or on a broader array of objects without a similar integrative focus. - **Bridging Perception and Evaluation** - Design‐scene properties serve to link the perceptual act (the way we see the picture) with the evaluative act (the way we appreciate it aesthetically). - By attending to these relational properties, the observer is able to: - Appreciate how the physical execution of the artwork (its design or marks) gives rise to an impression of a three‐dimensional scene. - Assess qualities such as naturalism, expressiveness, or the accuracy of the representation. - In this respect, the notion of design‐scene properties provides the conceptual resources needed for articulating why certain aesthetic experiences have a lasting or transformative effect. # Scraps In aesthetic terms, this partial opacity can transform the mind’s processes into an object of appreciation. Rather than appreciating only the external environment or an artwork, the user might aesthetically engage with the patterns of their own cognition—observing how shifting priors, loosened categories, or surprise-laden inferences spark unpredictable visuals, emotional surges, or conceptual breakthroughs. ## 3. Predictive Processing and Partial Opacity The following draws on Metzinger for the opacity and Letheby for the psychedelic experience as predictive processing. Psychedelics can make aspects of our mental processes opaque, so that individuals become aware/recognise their perceptions, thoughts etc. as constructed. In normal life we do not often experience our internal models as models; the generative processes that undergird experience are transparent. Letheby highlights the epistemological dimension of such experiences: by unveiling the constructive nature of perception and self-representation, psychedelics may foster insights into how the brain paints reality onto the mind’s canvas. Importantly, if one’s generative processes become salient in this way, they may be shared—at least in part—insofar as others possess the same underlying predictive architecture and can report correspondingly similar experiences. Although each psychedelic state is personal, individuals can often relate to the unifying notion that perception and selfhood, under the influence of psychedelics, are actively constructed. This contributes to the suggestion in Part 1 that an aesthetic appreciation of psychedelic experience might primarily focus on the structure of the mind itself. The self-binding function that usually remains transparent becomes partially undone, enabling a direct encounter with the mind’s constructive processes. - Under psychedelics, people sometimes describe watching the intricate interplay of top-down expectations and bottom-up errors, witnessing how emotional states, body feelings, and sensory impressions interact in real time. - Such a stance—akin to seeing behind the scenes of an artwork—situates the mind’s own generative strategies as the aesthetic object. - Hence, while predictive processing theorists have typically emphasised the adaptive functions of hierarchical inference, Letheby’s work integrates this with a phenomenological account that underscores the sheer experiential dimension of having these processes revealed. - One might argue that psychedelic opacity not only offers fresh insight into perception and self-construction but also frames them as something that can be admired, explored, or reflected upon aesthetically. - This supports the paper’s overall argument that, amidst the usual difficulty of identifying the proper aesthetic object of a psychedelic experience, it is the partially unmasked mind—rendered newly accessible and shareable—that takes centre stage. - The above is at least suggestive as to what the object of psychedelic aesthetics might be: if psychedelic experiences reveal the mind, then, perhaps, that is what we appreciate. - However, it seems we are a long way from an understanding of psychedelic experiences with which we can make sense of their being aesthetic. - Predictive processing accounts regard the mind as a hierarchical inference engine seeking to minimise the gap between its predictions and incoming sensory data, sometimes described as generating controlled hallucinations. - In this view, the brain continuously predicts the causes of its inputs, relying on progressively abstract priors as one moves from lower-level perceptual details to more complex notions of self and reality. - A prediction, in this architecture, is not a guess about the future; it is a structured hypothesis about how external or internal events will unfold, refined through mismatch signals (prediction errors). - Under predictive processing cognition proceeds hierarchically: lower levels encode sensory details (e.g., edges, colours), while higher levels encode abstract priors (e.g., I exist, time flows linearly). - These priors shape experience by binding disparate inputs (perceptual, interoceptive, proprioceptive) into coherent, subject-centred narratives—what Letheby refers to as predictive self-binding. - Typically, these high-level priors operate transparently, producing perceptions and beliefs without being noticed as representations. - We see a chair, for example, rather than a prediction of a chair. - Higher priors reflect deeper assumptions—beliefs about personal identity, the unity of space and time, or base-level assumptions about external objects and causality. - According to Letheby, psychedelics relax these high-level priors, thus reducing the brain’s accustomed confidence in how it anticipates the world—and the self—to behave. - Pharmacologically, psychedelics (via 5-HT2A receptor stimulation) lower precision-weighting on entrenched priors (Carhart-Harris’ REBUS model), essentially flattening hierarchical gradients. - With these priors loosened, the process of self-binding is destabilised, so the brain no longer firmly predicts a unified, enduring sense of self or a reliably stable environment. - Excellent Quote from Letheby about perceptual processes being revealed in psychedelic experience >Nevertheless, it is useful to think about the basic idea using different terminology: roughly speaking, the experiences of geometric patterns seem hallucinatory, but they are actually the revelation of the visual system’s building blocks—or raw ingredients—that it uses to construct our visual experience of the world. We are not aware of them under normal circumstances, as that would interfere with their purpose, but, under the right conditions, and especially with the help of psychedelics, they can be revealed to us in experience. (p. 187)