This handout was prepared for a presentation at the workshop on Attention and Cognition (Nagoya, March 9, 2026). It is provisional and reflects my current line of thought.
The presentation addresses the problem of how a unified “subject” (first-person perspective) emerges from distributed information processing in the brain, a question that remains unresolved within standard parallel distributed processing (PDP) models.
I propose to reinterpret cognitive processes as a dynamic repetition of dispersion and integration of information, and to formalize this process using the concept of a meta-attractor. While conventional attractors account for convergence toward specific representations (e.g., recognizing an object), they cannot explain the persistent form of “being experienced by me.”
The meta-attractor is not a convergence point toward a particular content, but a higher-order dynamical stability that sustains the iterative process itself. It provides a global structure within which dispersion and integration can continue without collapsing into chaos, thereby generating a stable first-person structure.
Within this framework, distributed processing corresponds to a predicative (second-person-like) phase of receptivity, while integration corresponds to the emergence of subjectivity. The subject is not presupposed but arises retrospectively as a structural center of this dynamic process.
This model also suggests a new dynamical perspective on psychopathology, where disturbances of selfhood may be understood as instabilities in the formation or maintenance of the meta-attractor.
Philosophically, the model resonates with Quine’s holism and offers a naturalized account of transcendental subjectivity, describing the “conditions of possibility” of experience in dynamical and cognitive-scientific terms.
(This handout is provisional and is shared here for further development and discussion.)
【Friday Night Philosophy 】Is the Brain’s <Language> the “House of Being”?
Good evening, this is Shigeo Kawazu. It is Friday night, December 12th. Here in the snowy north, the world is wrapped in the veil of a silent night. On such a night, it is not a bad idea to rest your tired brain and spend a quiet moment reflecting on “life and thought,” perhaps while staring at the flames of the stove or sipping a warm drink cradled in your hands.
Last time, I spoke about the “season of modulation” that visits both our lives and our neural circuits.
Inside our brains, information arriving from the outside world is received (this is the <third-person → second-person> stage). Then, through a process of distribution and integration, a “first-person” perspective is established. I have grasped this process as a “Modulation” of the mode of personhood.
In life as well, although the form differs, isn’t there a similar “modulation” where personhood shifts? Just as music suddenly transitions to a different key.
“Time transforms personhood.”
From the “first-person” of youth, clad in bravado, to the “second-person” of vulnerability and acceptance. And then, through further modulations, one becomes an “adult” capable of speaking calmly and rationally with anyone.
By the way, what is happening inside our brains during this time? Third-person information from the outside is first “accepted” (second-person) by the brain. At this stage, the information is still distributed, but as it becomes integrated, the “first-person” is generated.
In this series of processes leading up to integration, the brain speaks “words” as if it were writing a composition.
However, the “words” mentioned here are not the languages we know. It means that the brain’s information processing itself has a mode that is “Linguistic” (meaning-generating) rather than merely Logical.
The mode in which meaning arises through <words> is equipped in the brain’s most basic processing mechanism.
Here, I recall Heidegger’s phrase: “Language is the house of Being.”
For Heidegger, the <house> was the place where Being is disclosed. If the series of processes in our neural circuits is indeed the locus of “meaning generation,” then perhaps—even within the physical matter of the brain—there exists a <language> where Being is disclosed.
Perhaps neuroscience and phenomenology can be bridged in this way. On this quiet, snowy night, these are the thoughts drifting through my mind.
My new book, A Life and Language (Seikatsu to Gengo), which will soon appear in bookstores, holds the potential to continue these reflections and explores further questions that may arise from them. I look forward to the day when this book visits your own “house where Being is disclosed”—your brain.
More in the next article. Please stay warm and have a restful weekend.
[English Summary]Life’s Modulation: From the Strong “I” to the Receptive “You”
Friday Night Philosophy — A Crossover of Life and Meditations
Previously, I discussed how grammatical persons shift within the micro-world of neural networks. Tonight, let’s zoom out to the macro-world of “Life.”
Just as music modulates from a major key to a minor key, our lives experience shifts in deep underlying moods. I call this the “Season of Modulation” (転調の季節). Underneath these shifts lies a transformation of “Grammatical Person”:
Youthful Vigor: The “Strong 1st Person (I)” leads the way.
Times of Weakness: When the “I” is weakened by life’s hardships, we transform into a “2nd Person (You)” capable of accepting the pain of others (Receptivity).
Maturity: Through these changes, we awaken to the “3rd Person (Objectivity),” accepting our physical limits.
My theory serves as a compass for both brain mechanisms and life’s seasons. As I write this… a package has just arrived. My new book, A Life and Language, is finally here in my hands. (See photo above)
Neural Networks and Language: How the “I” Emerges from the “Third-Person” Brain
Friday Night Philosophy — A Crossover of Life and Meditations
In my previous post, I introduced the “General Theory of Grammatical Person” as a framework to bridge the gap between mind and science. To clarify, “General” here does not refer to the “general public,” but rather to a comprehensive theory covering the structure of all grammatical persons, akin to Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity.
Tonight, let’s connect this abstract theory to our daily lives. In life, when we face conflicts between ourselves (1st person) and society (3rd person), a “second person” (a mediator) often steps in to bridge the gap. This function is what I call “Receptivity.”
I propose that a similar process occurs within our brains. The brain receives scattered external information (3rd person) through a “second-person-like” receptivity. It then integrates this information, transforming it from a “predicate” state into a “subject” (1st person) state.
I describe this process as “the brain constructing sentences.” In this sense, our neural networks are not just processing electrical signals; they are constantly speaking “words” to generate consciousness.
This theory is not mere speculation but is rooted in my personal experiences—teaching nursing on “loneliness and connection,” analyzing the twists and turns of life through Sophocles’ Oedipus Rex, and facing my own hardships. Theory is born from life. By explaining the processes of resolving life’s problems, ideas ferment and mature into a coherent philosophy.
わたしがrecipereを語源とする言葉に注目し関心をもったのは、北米に留学して、心理学を学び始めたころである。わたしは、1980年から2年半在学したWest Virginia Universityで、心理学を専攻した。それ以前に、日本の大学では心理学の授業をとったことがなかったので、学部の心理学入門から順番に受講した。その中には、感覚と知覚、生理学的心理学の授業もあった。
I explore the concept of receptivity, tracing my interest back to my time studying psychology in the U.S. in the 1980s. While taking courses on sensation and perception, I was struck by the term “sensory receptors,” which refers to the cells that receive stimuli like light and sound.
Despite knowing that these receptors function in a purely mechanical way—for example, retinal cells undergoing chemical reactions to absorb light—I felt a romantic connection to the term, hoping it implied something more vital or subjective than a simple mechanical process. I acknowledged that this sentiment runs counter to scientific objectivity, as interpreting spiritual or subjective elements into data would undermine a scientific approach.
My current, more evolved view on receptivity is that there is a spectrum of receptivity where one end is purely mechanical, and the other end involves a more subjective form of reception, like the acceptance of another person. This transition might occur, as parallel distributed processing moves to higher layers, and a small degree of freedom at each level builds up. This “layering of freedom” could lead to the emergence of subjectivity, which I see as a sophisticated, higher-order subject integrating predicates.
I argue that the initial, mechanical receptivity can progressively generate subjectivity through the brain’s layered processing. The initial “romantic” feeling I had about the term “receptors” in 1980 is still alive in this more refined philosophical model.
