Consciousness and the experienced present: SMM/DTT and Leibniz’s Monadology

01The question behind the comparison

The experienced present is usually richer than an isolated instantaneous sensation. A spoken word, a rhythm or a movement is apprehended through relations among successive phases. SMM/DTT’s production/completion distinction offers a language for asking how an integrated event becomes available, but it does not make the experience of a present identical to a fundamental cosmic completion. A conscious observer is a complex physical and interpretive subsystem with its own memory, expectations and report capacities.

Three questions should be distinguished. Which neural or functional processes allow information to be integrated? Which processes make that information available for report and action? Why is the process accompanied by experience at all? A theory may make progress on one without settling the others. DTT can contribute a general account of record formation and nested dependencies. To become a theory of consciousness, it would need a specific bridge linking those structures to a subject’s experience. The number of inner levels alone does not select a duration of awareness or a neural mechanism.

A completed record can also exist without a person presently noticing it. A measuring instrument may register an event and store a stable result. Whether that is enough for consciousness is precisely the kind of question on which competing theories disagree. Keeping record formation distinct from conscious awareness avoids assuming the desired conclusion. It also lets SMM/DTT compare different observer models on a common basis: what information is retained, how it is integrated, when it is accessible, and what additional property is claimed to make the state experiential.

02The single-source and nested-time proposal

SMM begins with one nonspatial generative source. DTT distinguishes its inner production from the outer order in which completed results become accessible. The six inner levels are nested functional dependencies within that production; the seventh denotes outer completion. They are not six independent clocks, six spatial directions, or six simultaneously occupied temporal axes. This distinction makes the framework more specific than a general claim that everything changes: it asks how a world of persistent relations can be generated before its spatial representation is taken for granted. ^[2]

03The comparator’s explanatory structure

Leibniz’s monads are many simple substances, each with its own succession of perceptions. Their coordinated world is explained through pre-established harmony rather than ordinary causal exchange between the monads. The Single Monad’s numerical unity is therefore a major departure, even though both projects question the ultimate status of spatially extended matter.

One can compare two synchronized clocks to clarify the contrast. If their agreement is fixed by their construction, they can display corresponding readings without sending signals to one another. If a common active source continually generates both displays, their coordination has a different explanation. Neither analogy exhausts Leibniz or SMM, but the difference matters: many enduring centers of perspective and one source of generated perspectives face different individuation problems. Leibniz’s account of perception also distinguishes it from reflective awareness, so the word monad should not be equated with an ordinary conscious person or with a modern computational register. ^[1]

04The precise agreement and difference

Leibniz’s succession of perceptions provides a natural account of an enduring perspective through changing contents. SMM/DTT instead needs to explain how a generated observer carries a coherent present across renewed completions. The affinity is that experience is internally articulated rather than a collection of unrelated external impacts. The difference is whether the perceiving center is fundamental or produced.

Leibniz’s distinction between perception and reflective awareness also helps DTT avoid equating every registered change with conscious experience. A detector can have an internal state and a stored output without that alone establishing a lived present. DTT’s source-memory architecture can model retention and availability, but a subject criterion is still needed. The comparison therefore gives a precise direction for development: derive the continuity of a perspective, not merely the succession of records. The six nested levels can contribute if they explain how an integrated event becomes accessible to the same observer. A bare count of stages cannot replace that account of ownership, memory and awareness. ^[1]

05Worked example: what follows and what does not

Hear the three notes C, E and G in sequence. At the third note, the first two are no longer physically arriving in the same way, yet their temporal relation contributes to hearing an arpeggio. If only the current acoustic sample existed for the listener with no retention, the musical relation would be lost. If the notes were all treated as simultaneous, their order would disappear. The experienced present therefore includes a differentiated relation to what has just occurred. This example motivates a memory-sensitive model of temporal experience, while leaving open whether the relevant unity is explained by neural integration, phenomenological structure or a deeper metaphysical account.

06What this comparison contributes

The strongest DTT contribution is an explicit account of how a record-bearing observer is itself generated and maintained. That can clarify why different accessible timescales coexist in one world. Claims about phenomenal consciousness should then specify what the source architecture explains beyond generic memory or information processing. This comparison respects the reality of experience while making the proposed explanation assessable, and it avoids turning every act of registration into an unexplained cosmic awareness.

THE SAME QUESTION, DIFFERENT STARTING POINTS

The comparison at a glance

Continue on SMONAD

• Observer and record: making observation part of the model →

  Connects this comparison with the author’s discussion of experience.

• Physical Time and Spiritual Time →

  Connects this comparison with the author’s discussion of experience.

• The 'Chest' of Time →

  Connects this comparison with the author’s discussion of experience.

• When memory can be represented by one time →

  Connects this comparison with the author’s discussion of experience.

• Time Chest →

  Connects this comparison with the author’s discussion of experience.