Consciousness and the experienced present: SMM/DTT and Spinoza’s substance monism

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

Spinoza distinguishes one substance from its modes and treats thought and extension within one intelligible order. His monism is not simply the assertion that every visible object is the same object. Particular things retain determinate relations even though they are not independent substances. This makes his philosophy a strong comparator for a source-based account of unity and differentiated appearances.

The crucial issue is whether dependence is an unfolding in time or an ontological relation that need not be temporal. A geometrical consequence depends on its premises without waiting for them to produce it. SMM/DTT’s generative language can instead give becoming an irreducible role, or interpret inner ordering as structured dependence. These options lead to different relations with Spinoza. His account of mind and body also does not require mental events to push physical events across a boundary between substances. A DTT bridge must state whether psychical and physical are coordinated aspects, generated sectors or interacting domains. ^[1]

04The precise agreement and difference

Spinoza’s account of mind as related to the body makes the experienced present inseparable from an organized embodied perspective. SMM/DTT can draw on this relation when it treats an observer’s outer access as part of the generated world. The present is then not an isolated mental spotlight added to otherwise complete physics, but an aspect of a continuing process with determinate bodily conditions.

The difference concerns temporal production. DTT gives completion an explicit constitutive role, whereas Spinoza’s explanatory order need not be a sequence in which a source first makes a body and then adds experience. A useful DTT model should likewise avoid that unnecessary two-step picture. It can instead specify one source-generated organization with related physical and experiential descriptions. The unresolved issue is the bridge between those descriptions. A stable record does not automatically explain what hearing a melody feels like. This comparison strengthens DTT by encouraging an embodied, unified account of the present while preserving the philosophical distinction between causal organization and the character of lived experience. ^[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.