On a Shared Purpose for “Self” Organization
The following research proposal was submitted as part of a PhD application for the Mind, Brain, and Human Thought program at IMT Scoula in Lucca in July, 2025. While I was not selected as a candidate, I publish the proposal here as it clearly reflects my research interests and relates to my leadership aspirations for Soularly. I welcome comments and feedback— specifically, I hope readers point me to opportunities that relate to quantum metaphysics, consciousness, and sustainability research & media development.
Whales self-identify with their pods. Humans can learn how to adapt our collective identities from nature as a kind of conscious biomimicry. PC: Jon Eckert
On a Shared Purpose for “Self” Organization
Flight from empirical science towards process ontology, applying quantum philosophy for sustainable transformation of the shared consciousness reality
Abstract
This dissertation proposal outlines a study to investigate how unexamined philosophical commitments, particularly substance ontology, manifests as epistemological fallacies or “bad habits” in scientific methodology and contributes to persistent theoretical crises, i.e. the “replication crisis”, the “hard problem of consciousness", or “techno-solutionism”. An explicit re-evaluation of these underlying assumptions and a shift towards process-oriented conceptualizations and robust methodological pluralism may achieve four critical endeavors: 1) align epistemology with quantum physics principles, i.e. the observer effect among others, to reveal truths about panpsychist theories; 2) create a philosophical bridge across the long-standing divide between Eastern and Western thought founded in a unified perception of “self”; 3) provide credibility towards formalizing imaginative, creative strategic ideation processes (scenario world building, speculative design, and design fiction) as valid non-empirical areas deserving further inquiry due to their acceptance of interdisciplinary process-oriented innovation techniques; 4) provide a metaphysical pathway for socioeconomic technological ethics rooted in aesthetically-motivated sustainable transformation. My hypothesis is two-fold: first, a metatheoretical analysis of cognitive psychology will reveal a field-wide shift towards integration and embodiment as phenomena of consciousness’ intelligence delegation, thus suggesting consciousness is a process coexisting with physicalism rather than a product of physical composition; and second, that thought-leaders who are exposed to foresight capacity-building will adapt sentiment of innovation in their field to be more process-oriented (“leader” here is defined as someone with influence in their field based on ascertained criteria). The methodologies proposed consist of: 1) a metatheoretical map that provides a unified process-ontological framework for the cognitive science field that will serve as a basis for paradigmatic-shifting conversations with scientists; and 2) a foresight scenario development process that narratively combines qualitative sentiments from interdisciplinary thought-leader participants and trend insights to project implications into the year 2050 and creatively explore the social, economic, and environmental consequences of adopting process ontology and paradigmatic transformation. Together the metatheoretical map and foresight series will weave qualitative and quantitative inquiry into a holistic pathway towards a shared-purpose for a reframed “self” organization of consciousness that embraces uncertainty and aesthetics as credible sources of investigation.
Introduction
If I were to live my life over again, I would not live it the same way. I would prioritize play and joy over drivenness.
Dr. Gabor Mate
Science is concerned with validation, however it is increasingly recognized that bias is an inescapable aspect of scientific practice (Douglas, 2004; Longino, 1990; Nickerson, 1998; Kuhn, 1962; Haack, S, 1996). Experimentation typically involves the control of variables across time-invariant conditions in order to isolate causal relationships, but this approach can obscure dynamic, context-sensitive phenomena (Campbell & Stanley, 1963; Bechtel & Richardson, 1993; Shadish et al., 2002; Danks, 2014). Drawing from information theory, research functions as a structured attempt to reduce epistemic entropy, that is, to transform uncertainty into knowledge (Shannon, 1948; Jaynes, 1957; Crupi et al., 2007). It can thus be seen as a vehicle for converting informational disorder into coherent understanding, much like entropy reduction in thermodynamic or Bayesian systems (Friston, 2010). Scientific inquiry can be seen as an extension of consciousness’ fundamental impulse to understand and validate itself. The scientist’s mind acts for carrying out consciousness’ ultimate aspiration to understand and validate its own existence (Nagel, 1974; Damasio, 1999; Wallace, 2000; Metzinger, 2003; Frith, 2012).
Wicked problems across the scientific and social landscape, including the replication crisis in psychology (Ioannidis, 2005), the hard problem of consciousness (Chalmers, 1995), climate change (Latour, 2018), and even professional burnout (Han, 2015) represent a meta-crisis within the noosphere (Rana, 2021) that is indicative of an overreliance on rigid, subject-based ontologies (Nicolescu, 2002; Varela et al., 1991). Philosophy of science often challenges empirical assumptions, yet it frequently upholds a deeper, more troubling assumption: that human inquiry, despite its validation through measurement artifacts and peer-review, can attain true objectivity. This belief is deeply embedded in the logic of the scientific method, yet has been critiqued as a historical construct rather than a universal epistemic standard (Haraway, 1988; Daston & Galison, 2007; Douglas, 2004; Tal, 2017; van Fraassen, 2008; Harding, 1991; Longino, 1990).
The “philosophical baggage” of science is in its overreliance on subject-based ontologies. This baggage as Dennett (1995) noted, “is taken on board without examination.” Philosophers of science have recently explored empiricism, analyzing how metaphors and thought-experiments are responsible for hypothesis creation, in essence justifying philosophy of science as a discipline (Pigliucci, 2003; Nersessian, 2008; Brown, 2008; Penn, 2015; Whyte, 2016; Falandays, 2021; Aksentijevic, 2025). What this emerging literature suggests is a paradigm shift across disciplines towards a model-based epistemology (Kuhn, 1962; Feyerabend, 1975; Cartwright, 1983).
Roots of early Western metaphysics are founded in substance ontology that asserts reality is composed of discrete, static entities which exist independently and can be isolated and measured temporally. (Aristotle, Metaphysics; Kirk et al., 1983). This view underlies much of classical science, yet it has been critiqued by process philosophers and epistemologists who argue that such models fail to account for the relational and dynamic nature of reality (Whitehead, 1929; van Fraassen, 2008). Jonathan Schaffer (2003) in ascertaining the existence of a “fundamental level” describes the philosophy essentially as hierarchical stratification, which J. Benjamin Falandays (2021) quotes as having been “based on a combination of evolved cognitive biases and historical contingency, but not on the explanatory value of this view”. Evolutionary biology and cognitive philosophy provide insights that tell a story about neural architectures enabling humans to validate aspects of reality which have co-evolved as fitness-driven heuristics, rather than truth-seeking tools (Campbell, 1974; Friston, 2010). These structures give rise to ontological biases that are persistent perceptual and conceptual filters and operate like memes in Dawkins’ sense (Dennett, 1995; Dawkins, 1976). Here, ontological biases proliferate as replicators evolving through cultural transmission and survival value, rather than epistemic accuracy (Dawkins, 1976). Such inherited biases may limit perception and knowledge to frameworks that succeed reproductively but obscure possibilities outside dominant ontological claims (Clark, 2013).
From a sociological and epistemological perspective, it becomes clear that both empirical and non-empirical researchers approach knowledge through historically contingent frameworks that evolve through chains of prior discoveries, sociocultural paradigms, and prevailing technological conditions that then shape what scientists observe and the general public understand (Kuhn, 1962; Latour & Woolgar, 1979). This implies that the scientist is never truly removed from the equation. The flow of scientific understanding is embedded in, and evolves with, the conscious, cultural, and temporal context from which it arises. In discussing human cultures, Sterelny says they’re “often remarkably well adapted to their environment, and sometimes such a fit between a culture and its environment can be explained only by evolutionary mechanisms” (2005). In this way, a subject-ontological bias meme is a well adapted artifact to the consciousness-reality environment, acting as a proliferator for humanity’s population growth and technological advancement.
The isolationist methodology that underpins empirical inquiry is vulnerable to the assumption that nature is not inherently complex and dynamically constructed, but instead functions only in relation to discrete, measurable processes (Poli & Seibt, 2015, Riva et al., 2023). This reductionist stance becomes increasingly problematic in light of developments in quantum physics, particularly the “observer effect,” which suggests that consciousness itself may influence quantum phenomena (Goswami, 1993). Dr. Amit Goswami claims a case can be made for our own nonlocality “if we accept our spirituality” and goes on to claim, “classical computers can never be conscious like us because they lack this spiritual connection” (1993). Physicists, cognitive scientists, even biologists and philosophers of science seek to answer their questions without the assistance from spirituality, and this has contributed to a patriarchal system that upholds competition and weaponization of scientific claims by proxy of disproving or delegitimizing peer’s claims (i.e. conflict), or gaining status with dominant theories (i.e. allyship) (Harding, 1986; Haraway, 1988). Spirituality’s dismissal may be more than epistemic rigor, but about maintaining a hierarchy of power instead of pluralism (Walach, 2013; Sheldrake, 2012) and this may limit the social relevance of interdisciplinarity as a concept. Quantum physics’ contribution to a departure from substance ontology begins with rejecting the assumption that reality is composed of isolated, static objects possessing intrinsic properties independent of observation or context. Quantum physics radically reconfigures classical metaphysics. Under the lens of Relational Quantum Mechanics, systems possess no observer-independent properties, and conditions arise only in relation to an observing system, i.e. consciousness itself (Goswami 1993; Rovelli, 1996; Ricard and Xuan Thuan, 2001). Quantum entanglement illustrates non-separability: composite systems cannot be understood merely as the sum of their parts, since their joint state transcends individual components (Cordovil, 2015; Ronde, 2020; Fortin and Lombardi, 2022) The observer effect and Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle demonstrate that the act of measurement itself co-defines the properties being measured—blurring the line between subject and object (Heisenberg, 1958; Bohr, 1934). Quantum entanglement reveals that particles separated by space can remain non-locally correlated, suggesting that reality is not reducible to local, self-contained units, but emerges through relational processes (Schrödinger, 1935; Rovelli, 2021).
In response to quantum physics’ principles, physicists and philosophers have embraced relational ontologies which prioritize relations and interactions as the fundamental ontological substrate over discrete classical substances. Process ontology as developed by Whitehead offers a robust metaphysical alternative (1929). Rather than grounding reality in “things,” process ontology posits that events and interactions “dynamically become” and are ontologically primary (Whitehead, 1929; Rescher, 1996). In ecology, this manifests in systems thinking where organisms are viewed as co-emerging and coevolving with their environments (Capra & Luisi, 2014). In cognitive science, enactivism and predictive processing model the mind as a processual interaction between brain, body, and environment (Varela et al., 1991; Clark, 2013). Even in social theory, relational sociology and actor-network theory emphasize that identities and institutions are produced through networks of relations, not intrinsic essences (Latour, 2005). In his book Space and Place (1977) that established the discipline of human geography, Yi-Fu Tuan ties all these aspects into his “continuous story” of what constitutes a place, i.e. the dynamic flux between linear paths, cyclical rhythms, and stages of life. Together, these perspectives suggest that a shift from substance ontology toward a quantum-informed process ontology invites a rethinking of epistemology. Reality is not a collection of pre-existing entities to be discovered, but an evolving web of interdependent processes shaped by consciousness.
On the note of consciousness, process ontology offers a bridge between Eastern and Western schools of thought, falling squarely on the foundational concept of self. Eastern traditions like Daoism and Buddhism view the self as an illusion and part of a boundless whole, often referred to as the ‘Way’ (Ames & Hall, 2003; Kwang-Sae, 2006). Western philosophers such as Plato, Aristotle, and Kant conceive the self as a discrete, willful agent, delineated into the phenomenal and noumenal dimensions, with reason enabling self-transcendence and moral autonomy (Aristotle, Metaphysics; Kirk et al., 1983; Kant, 1785/1996; Kwang-Sae, 2006). Although process ontology is superficially more aligned with Eastern schools of thought, its integration with quantum physics fosters a holistic framework that recognizes the observer and the observed as interdependent aspects of reality that echoes relational quantum theories (Rovelli, 1996) and Bohm’s holomovement (Bohm, 1980; Pylkkänen, 2007). This relational insight is further supported by embodied cognition models which reveal perception and action form an inseparable loop (Realpe-Gómez, 2021; Lettieri, 2025), as well as nascent proposals like biocentrism and filter theory of consciousness, which posit consciousness as universal rather than confined to brains while also providing empirical foundations for the mind-body connection (Hameroff & Penrose, 2014; Lanza, 2016). On the latter proposal, the filter theory of consciousness, first suggested by William James and later supported by models of thalamic gating (Mac Shine et al., 2019) and neural access theories (Kouider & Dehaene, 2007), advance the idea that the brain functions as a dynamic selector of what becomes conscious experience. Thus, fundamentally objecting to the notion that consciousness is a phenomenon originating in the brain.
Participatory foresight research offers credible pathways towards observational phenomenology (Kaivo-oja, 2017; Burt and Nair, 2020). While sentiment and attitude are difficult to capture using empirical methods, foresight leverages subjectivity as investigation source material to create theories about future direction. Strategic foresight uses narrative transformation techniques to understand underlying biases and assumptions, and provide pathways to “unlearn” limiting beliefs (Milojević & Inayatullah, 2015; Burt and Nair, 2020). Further, foresight capacity-building focuses not on rigid outcomes but on changemaking processes, in this way providing long-term resilience against disruption and confidence in making decisions that lead to ideal futures.
Methodology and Feasibility
This study employs a hybrid philosophical and speculative methodology that integrates two interrelated approaches:
A metatheoretical mapping analysis that organizes cognitive science research according to ontological and epistemological positions based on their materialist or process-oriented basis.
A foresight scenario development process that narratively explores systemic implications of adopting process-based metaphysics in the year 2050, in order to provide a speculative extension of the metatheoretical analysis, as well as be used as a philosophical tool for inviting plural perspectives.
The metatheoretical component will build on traditions in process philosophy (Whitehead, 1929; Rescher, 1996), relational ontology (Barad, 2007; Rovelli, 2021), and embodied cognition (Varela, Thompson, & Rosch, 1991) to deconstruct and reconfigure dominant paradigms in neuroscience, psychology, and philosophy of mind. It will identify how substance-based ontologies and observer-independent epistemologies structure our understanding of self, agency, and knowledge in ways that inhibit dynamic and participatory models of consciousness (Haraway, 1988; Longino, 1990). Prior research and existing literature makes this analysis both manageable and timely, as discussed earlier in regards to the replication crisis.
To complement the metatheoretical component, the foresight element draws on anticipatory science, futures studies and narrative foresight methods (Rosen, 1985; Milojević & Inayatullah, 2015; Candy & Dunagan, 2017), leveraging interdisciplinary scholarly literature, speculative fiction, visual art, and multimedia culture to craft worldbuilding narratives. These scenarios will explore how adopting process ontology and uncertainty-embracing epistemologies might reshape institutions, technologies, and the cultural imaginary of the “self.”
The dissertation itself will both pull from, and be an expression of, pluralism and process-ontology. My hypothesis is that reorganizing ontologies in science explicitly challenges the widespread compulsion to solve for uncertainty, and instead proposes uncertainty as a generative condition for transformation. By combining rigorous conceptual analysis with creative speculative narrative, this study seeks to bridge art and science, theory and imagination, in pursuit of a post-dualist epistemology of becoming.
The proposed PhD research involves no large-scale laboratory setup or empirical data collection. As principal investigator, the project draws on my extensive background and interests in philosophy, quantum theory, cognitive science, and foresight methodologies. The requirements would entail access to academic journals, databases, digital archives, and international news outlets to ensure primary and secondary sources are available. For the foresight narratives, I will conduct interviews with scientists, philosophers, artists, and educators from diverse backgrounds to leverage qualitative information and welcome outside perspectives. Qualitative tools like speculative prototyping, visual storytelling, and narrative frameworks may support scenario development, but are readily available as a foresight strategist myself.
During months 1-4 I will conduct a review of process ontology, cognitive science, and quantum models of consciousness that will serve as the basis of the metatheoretical map. I will develop the cognitive science metatheoretical map analyzing the potential biases across perspectives in order to provide a more comprehensive understanding of consciousness during months 5-15. In months 12-15 I will gather interdisciplinary insights and begin the qualitative research process of the foresight scenario development, including interviews with thought leaders. This will likely tie in well should I secure opportunities abroad that can further reinforce broader perspectives of the future in accordance with process ontology. Months 15-18 I will design the foresight scenarios, incorporating insights from the metatheoretical research. In months 19-22 I will synthesize findings and begin to disseminate research for further reflexive input into the final submission. Months 23-32 I will write and revise chapters, and months 33-36 I will incorporate feedback and finalize the manuscript.
Expected outcomes and broader impact
This research has the potential to offer a “soft” answer to the hard problem of consciousness by offering a reframed ontology of consciousness and the self. Rather than trying to “solve” definitively how consciousness materializes in the brain through a reductive lens, the metatheoretical analysis will contextualize subject and observer through quantum theory, process philosophy, embodied cognition, and evolutionary biology. This reframes the longstanding debate from “how does subjective experience arise from matter” to, “how do subjectivity and matter co-operate within entangled relational fields?” The foresight scenarios will investigate a shift towards process ontology across socioeconomic systems and provide projections for global responses to systemic issues like climate change, artificial intelligence and deep fakes, geopolitical conflict, and food insecurity. At its core, my proposal calls for a shared purpose for collective action across scientific and philosophical domains towards aesthetically-motivated sustainability (Ji & Lin, 2022; Li, et al. 2022).
Conclusion
Scuola IMT offers the ideal laboratory to connect bold thinkers and motivated researchers who are willing to explore scientific paradigms. This dissertation proposal seeks to capture the novel potential of this environment, exploring the true nature of consciousness while also providing a foundation for an ethically unified philosophy for science.
References
Aristotle. (350 BCE/1994). Metaphysics (translated by W. D. Ross). In The Complete Works of Aristotle, ed. J. Barnes. Princeton University Press.
Aksentijevic, A. (2024). Facing up to the hardest problem: The human information field and the ontological primacy of subjective consciousness. Theory & Psychology, 35(2), 206-226. https://doi.org/10.1177/09593543241279397
Heisenberg, W. (1958). Physics and philosophy: The revolution in modern science. Harper & Row.
Bechtel, W., & Richardson, R. C. (1993). Discovering Complexity: Decomposition and Localization as Strategies in Scientific Research.
Beinhocker, E. D. (2006). The origin of wealth: Evolution, complexity, and the radical remaking of economics. Harvard Business Review Press.
Barad, K. (2007). Meeting the universe halfway: Quantum physics and the entanglement of matter and meaning. Duke University Press.
Brown, J. R. (2008). Thought experiments: A platonic account. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 22(1), 1–12.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02698590802054650
Bohr, N. (1934). Atomic theory and the description of nature. Cambridge University Press.
Burt, G., Nair, A. Rigidities of imagination in scenario planning: Strategic foresight through ‘Unlearning’, Technological Forecasting and Social Change https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2020.119927
Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. C. (1963). Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Research.
Capra, F., & Luisi, P. L. (2014). The systems view of life: A unifying vision. Cambridge University Press.
Candy, S., & Dunagan, J. (2017). Designing an experiential scenario: The people who vanished. Futures, 86, 136–153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2016.05.006
Cartwright, N. (1983). How the Laws of Physics Lie. Oxford University Press.
Chalmers, D. (1996). The Conscious Mind: In Search of a Fundamental Theory. Oxford University Press.
Clark, A. (2013). Whatever next? Predictive brains, situated agents, and the future of cognitive science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 36(3), 181–204. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X12000477
Coady, D. (2012). What to believe now: Applying epistemology to contemporary issues. Wiley-Blackwell.
Cordovil, João. (2015). Contemporary Quantum Physics Metaphysical Challenge: Looking for a Relational Metaphysics. Axiomathes. 25. 10.1007/s10516-014-9259-2.
Crupi, V., Tentori, K., & Gonzalez, M. (2007). On Bayesian measures of evidential support: Theoretical and empirical issues. Philosophy of Science, 74(2), 229–252. https://doi.org/10.1086/520941
Damasio, A. (1999). The Feeling of What Happens: Body and Emotion in the Making of Consciousness. Harcourt.
Danks, D. (2014). Unifying the Mind: Cognitive Representations as Graphical Models. MIT Press.
Dawkins, R. (1976). The selfish gene. Oxford University Press.
Dennett, D. C. (1995). Darwin’s Dangerous Idea: Evolution and the Meanings of Life. Simon & Schuster.
de Ronde, Christian & Massri, Cesar. (2020). Relational Quantum Entanglement Beyond Non-Separable and Contextual Relativism. 10.48550/arXiv.2008.06743.
Douglas, H. (2004). The irreducible complexity of objectivity. Synthese, 138, 453–473.
https://doi.org/10.1023/B:SYNT.0000016451.14981.1e
Falandays, J. B. (2021, October 13). Shedding Our Substantial Baggage: Towards a Process-Ontological Turn in Cognitive Science. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/zyq9f
Frith, C. D. (2012). The role of metacognition in human social interactions. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 367, 2213–2223. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2012.0123
Feyerabend, P. (1975). Against Method. New Left Books.
Fortin and Lombardi, 2022. Entanglement and indistinguishability in a quantum ontology of properties, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, Volume 91, Pages 234-243, ISSN 0039-3681, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsa.2021.11.017.
Friston, K. (2010). The free-energy principle: a unified brain theory? Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 11(2), 127–138. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn2787
Fricker, M. (2007). Epistemic injustice: Power and the ethics of knowing. Oxford University Press.
Haack, S. (1996). Science as social? – Yes and no. The Monist, 79(4), 519–536.
Haraway, D. (1988). Situated knowledges: The science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective. Feminist Studies, 14(3), 575–599. https://doi.org/10.2307/3178066
Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2005). Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Medicine, 2(8), e124. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124
Jaynes, E. T. (1957). Information theory and statistical mechanics. Physical Review, 106, 620–630.
Ji, Shaorong & Lin, Pang-Soong. (2022). Aesthetics of Sustainability: Research on the Design Strategies for Emotionally Durable Visual Communication Design. Sustainability. 14. 4649. 10.3390/su14084649.
Kaivo-oja, J. Towards better participatory processes in technology foresight: How to link participatory foresight research to the methodological machinery of qualitative research and phenomenology? Futures. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2016.07.004
Kirk, G. S., Raven, J. E., & Schofield, M. (1983). The Presocratic Philosophers. Cambridge University Press.
Kim, S. (2005). Memes Revisited. https://doi.org/10.1093/BJPS/AXI157
Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. University of Chicago Press.
Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network-theory. Oxford University Press.
Lettieri G. et al. (2025) Visual experience shapes bodily representation of emotion. Emotion. https://doi.org/10.1037/emo0001440
Lewontin, R. C. (2000). The triple helix: Gene, organism, and environment. Harvard University Press.
Li H. et al. (2022). Influence of Environmental Aesthetic Value and Anticipated Emotion on Pro-Environmental Behavior: An ERP Study. Int J Environ Res Public. doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19095714
Lilienfeld, S. O. (2017). Psychology’s replication crisis and the grant culture: Righting the ship. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 12(4), 660–664. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691616687745
Longino, H. E. (1990). Science as social knowledge: Values and objectivity in scientific inquiry. Princeton University Press.
Metzinger, T. (2003). Being No One: The Self-Model Theory of Subjectivity. MIT Press.
Milojević, I., & Inayatullah, S. (2015). Narrative foresight. Futures, 73, 151–162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2015.08.007
Muthukrishna, M., & Henrich, J. (2019). A problem in theory. Nature Human Behaviour, 3, 221–229. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-018-0522-1
Nagel, T. (1974). What is it like to be a bat? The Philosophical Review, 83(4), 435–450.
Nersessian, N. J. (2008). Creating Scientific Concepts. MIT Press.
Nickerson, R. S. (1998). Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Review of General Psychology, 2(2), 175–220. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.2.2.175
Noble, D. (2016). Dance to the tune of life: Biological relativity. Cambridge University Press.
Open Science Collaboration. (2015). Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science, 349(6251), aac4716. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aac4716
Penn, Willian (2024). Pure Process Realism: The Unification of Realism and Empiricism. Manuscrito 47 (1):2023-0051.
Pigliucci, Massimo, "Dangerous Habits: Examining the Philosophical Baggage of Biological Research. " PhD diss., University of Tennessee, 2003. https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_graddiss/2188
Rana, L. (2021). Noosphere: Terra-incognita (A new territory to be explored). IOSR Journal of Humanities and Social Science (IOSR-JHSS), 26(7, Series 10), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.9790/0837-2607100118
Rescher, N. (1996). Process metaphysics: An introduction to process philosophy. SUNY Press.
Riva, F. et al. (2023). Toward a cohesive understanding of ecological complexity. Sci. Adv.9, eabq4. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.abq4207
Rovelli, C. (2021). Helgoland: Making sense of the quantum revolution. Riverhead Books.
Seibt, Johanna (2010). Particulars. In Roberto Poli & Johanna Seibt, Theory and Applications of Ontology: Philosophical Perspectives. Springer Verlag. pp. 23-55.
Sheldrake, R. (2012). The Science Delusion.
Schrödinger, E. (1935). The present situation in quantum mechanics. Naturwissenschaften, 23, 807–812.
Shannon, C. E. (1948). A Mathematical Theory of Communication. Bell System Technical Journal, 27(3), 379–423.
Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Generalized Causal Inference.
van Fraassen, B. C. (2008). Scientific Representation: Paradoxes of Perspective. Oxford University Press.
Varela, F. J., Thompson, E., & Rosch, E. (1991). The embodied mind: Cognitive science and human experience. MIT Press.
Walach, H. (2013). Science beyond a materialist worldview. Explore, 9(1), 48–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.explore.2012.10.002
Wallace, B. A. (2000). The Taboo of Subjectivity: Toward a New Science of Consciousness. Oxford University Press.
Whitehead, A. N. (1929). Process and reality: An essay in cosmology. Free Press.
Whyte, Jennifer (2023) A New Function for Thought Experiments in Science. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Pittsburgh. (Unpublished)
