From Subjective Experience to Intention:
Beyond the Hard Problem of Consciousness
Ashkan Farhadi MD, MS, FACP, FACG
Abstract
The hard problem of consciousness traditionally asks how physical processes in the brain give rise to subjective experience. The Trilogy Theory of Consciousness (TTC) offers a conceptual reframing of this problem by treating awareness not as a passive emergent property but as a structural and transformative component of cognition. TTC identifies four stages of awareness: preselection, selection, transformation, and post-transformation. These stages trace the progression from raw experiential input to intentional action, memory formation, reflective reasoning, and decision-making. Within this model, awareness initiates volitional processes through Awareness-Based Choice Selection (ABCS) and integrates them through appropriation, a post-selection evaluative step. TTC thereby shifts the focus from the origin of awareness to its function, persistence, and role in shaping agency and consciousness. While not providing a solution to the hard problem, TTC expands its scope—redefining consciousness as a recursive, structured system centered on awareness, intention, and self-reflection. This reframes the hard problem not just as a puzzle of subjective origin, but as a question of persistence, action, and transformation—of how awareness structures consciousness and participates in shaping agency itself.
Keywords: Consciousness, Awareness, Trilogy Theory of Consciousness, Post-transformation awareness, Quantum field theory, Decision-making
Introduction
The “hard problem of consciousness,” as articulated by David Chalmers (1995), refers to the challenge of explaining how and why subjective experience arises from physical processes. While several theories attempt to bridge this explanatory gap, few explore what happens after awareness emerges. Most models focus on the genesis of experience—what it is like to be conscious—but do not investigate how awareness, once formed, transforms and guides cognitive functions such as memory, intention, and decision-making.
This paper expands on this gap by building upon the Trilogy Theory of Consciousness (TTC) and stages of awareness and decision making and proposes that consciousness arises from the structured interaction of three elements: awareness, intention, and self-reflection (Farhadi, 2023a&b). Within this framework, awareness is not merely passive reception but initiates volitional mental activities through Awareness-Based Choice Selection (ABCS). This process leads to memory encoding, reflective reasoning, and purposeful action.
Central to this exploration is the concept of the Post-Transformation Stage of Awareness—a phase in which subjective experience fuels a cascade of intentional cognitive functions including memorization, thought, reflection, and judgment. The manuscript also refer to quantum metaphoric framework of TTC, called quantum Trilogy Theory of Consciousness (QTCC) (Farhadi, 2025b). Rather than treating consciousness as a terminal outcome, this model frames it as a recursive system in which awareness not only arises, but acts, persists, and restructures the mind.
By tracing the trajectory from raw subjective experience to structured intention, this paper argues that the hard problem of consciousness becomes even harder. It is not merely a question of origin, but of function, integration, and recursive modulation within a dynamic cognitive architecture.
The Process and Stages of Awareness in the Trilogy Theory of Consciousness
In TTC, awareness is the foundation of consciousness and the primary channel through which objective content is transformed into subjective experience. This transformation imbues cognition with “what it is like” qualities: sensation becomes perception (qualia), knowledge becomes knowing, memory becomes remembering, and emotion becomes feeling. This process gives rise to the felt qualities of perception, knowing, and meaning.
TTC breaks down the process of awareness into four distinct stages, culminating in a post-transformation phase that has traditionally received less attention (Figure 1). Yet, it is in this final stage that awareness reveals its full power—not merely as a portal to consciousness, but as an active process in shaping the cognitive mind.
1. Preselection Stage
At this foundational level, informational and emotional inputs are organized and prepared for awareness. The brain registers sensory stimuli, internal thoughts, and external cues, but no singular focus has yet emerged. This stage parallels late selection theories of attention (Deutsch & Deutsch, 1963; Norman, 1968), spotlight theory (Fernandez-Duque & Johnson, 2002), and unison theory (Desimone & Duncan, 1995), all of which acknowledge that much information is processed before reaching conscious awareness.
2. Selection Stage
In TTC, awareness does not arise automatically—it requires selection. TTC identifies two modes of selection:
· Intentional Attention Discretionary Selection of Intelligence for Awareness (DSIA), an intentional process unique to natural intelligence (NI) (Farhadi, 2021)
· Algorithmic Attention as the result of Selection of Information Based on Algorithm (SIBA:), an automated, stimulus-driven process
Most theories of attention in neuroscience and philosophy describe attention as either a filter (Broadbent, 1971; Treisman, 1999) or a spotlight (Fernandez-Duque & Johnson, 2002), but they often overlook the role of agency. The competition and unison theories of attention could be the first to suggest a top-down biased selection of information by mind and imply the existence of a form of agency (Desimone & Duncan, 1995; Reynolds & Desimone, 2000), but TTC uniquely integrates intention with attention, suggesting that only DSIA captures the discretionary conscious attention. This distinguishes NI from AI, which relies purely on algorithmic attention (Farhadi, 2021).
3. Transformation Stage
Once selected, the chosen content undergoes a transition from objective data to subjective experience. This stage corresponds to the central mystery known as the hard problem of consciousness (Chalmers, 1995): how does physical information in the brain give rise to felt experience?
In TTC, this transformation is modeled not as an emergent computational event, but as an ontological shift—a transition from information to experience. The process is biologically grounded but not yet biologically explained, underscoring the philosophical depth of the hard problem.
4. Post-Transformation Stage
This final stage is where awareness becomes functionally transformative. Once a subjective experience has been generated, it is not lost—it becomes the seed for a cascade of intentional mental operations—initiating memory encoding, reflective thought, judgment, focused attention, and ultimately, volitional decision-making. This stage defines the true functional role of awareness beyond perception.
What distinguishes the post-transformation stage is intentionality. While unconscious mental activities (e.g., automatic memory formation, habitual responses) may occur without awareness, the intentional counterparts of these functions—such as conscious deliberation, value-based reasoning, or meta-reflection—require awareness as their source. TTC posits that only Natural Intelligence (NI), not Artificial Intelligence (AI), possesses this intentional mode (Farhadi, 2025a).
Importantly, these intentional functions are not linear nor reflexive. Instead, awareness initiates a recursive, asymmetrical spiral of mental processes: as awareness drives intention, intention in turn shapes future awareness through selective attention (DSIA). This bidirectional, yet non-circular dynamic reshapes cognition, modulates memory, and contributes to the evolving architecture of the mind.
In this framework, awareness becomes structurally embedded—not only enabling cognition but actively shaping its organization over time. The post-transformation stage is thus where meaning arises, values consolidate, and conscious agency emerges. Without awareness, even complex cognitive operations remain devoid of meaning.
In this paradigm, awareness is not simply a fleeting illumination—it becomes a structural component, shaping the architecture of the mind. This recursive loop, where experience feeds back into the cognitive system, reveals that the true complexity of consciousness lies not just in its emergence, but in its integration and causal role in shaping further mental functions.
From one perspective, the post-transformation stage of awareness is analogous to the global broadcasting function of the Global Workspace Theory (Baars, 1988) and particularly the Neuronal GWT (Dehaene et al, 1998). From other vantage point, the recursive integration emphasized in Integrated Information Theory (Tononi, 2016) and Recurrent processing theory (Lamme, 2006) creating loops of feedback system between various stages of the decision-making and awareness that underlies the process of consciousness. However, TTC uniquely anchors this process in awareness-driven intention, not in abstract computation or network complexity. . It assigns a functional identity to awareness, treating it not as a byproduct of mental process, but as a driver of structured, intentional cognition.
It is important to understand that even though many mental processes are processed and executed automatically in the mind, only the one are recruited intentionally as the result of the post-transformation stage, are more defined, detail oriented and time-stamped, thanks to the self-reflection which is on its own the byproduct of combination of awareness and intention. This form of meta-awareness that creates the sense of self, when combined with awareness and intention result in consciousness.
Decision-Making as Post-Transformation Awareness: From Reasoning to Choice
Traditional models of decision-making often emphasize rational evaluation based on beliefs, desires, and expected outcomes. Yet, as Herbert Simon’s concept of bounded rationality highlights, human decisions are shaped by cognitive limitations, biases, and contextual constraints. The Trilogy Theory of Consciousness (TTC) reinterprets decision-making not merely as a rational computation but as a dynamic process rooted in awareness.
In traditional cognitive science, decision-making is described as a process guided by the evaluation of choices through beliefs, desires, and values (Slovic et al., 1977). However, Herbert Simon (1956) famously challenged this view by proposing the notion of bounded rationality, which argues that not all decisions result from elaborate reasoning, due to intrinsic limitations in human cognition. Depending on our capacity to represent and understand the complexity of a problem, our decisions vary in their degree of rationality. Additional constraints—such as cognitive biases, risk tolerance, or belief systems—further complicate the process, as explored in expected utility theory (Frisch & Baron, 1988; Briggs, 2019; Steele & Stefansson, 2020).
The Trilogy Theory of Consciousness (TTC) reinterprets decision-making not merely as a rational computation but as a dynamic process rooted in awareness. In TTC, decision-making unfolds in three interconnected stages—preselection, selection, and postselection—each shaped by the recursive influence of awareness and intention (Figure 2).
1. Preselection Stage: The Formation of Intelligence
The decision-making process begins with a preselection stage, where the mind assembles, organizes, and processes two key forms of intelligence:
· Informational Intelligence: This includes sensory input, motor feedback, memory, knowledge, belief systems, virtues, morals, desires, and active thought processes.
· Emotional Intelligence: This encompasses mood, affect, bodily states (e.g., hunger, fatigue, pain), and self-worth.
These forms of intelligence are not processed in isolation. Other factors—such as genetic predispositions, early life experiences, and structural or biochemical attributes of the brain—also influence how this matrix of intelligence is constructed. The preselection stage involves algorithmic reasoning, where competing possibilities are weighed, and counter-reasoning, where internal challenges are raised to the most logical option. This internal dialogue is a hallmark of TTC and is largely unconscious.
TTC rejects the classical division between conscious and unconscious minds. It posits that the entire mental functions including reasoning process occurs within the unconscious mind, unless the process is on itself the subject of awareness. This position would be a different interpretation of models like Dijksterhuis’s (2004), which divide mental labor between conscious and unconscious systems. TTC argues instead that the mind is unconscious in its operations, and awareness arises only through deliberation during the preselection stage but awareness remains the main player during the selection stage of the decision-making.
2. Selection Stage: Awareness-Based Choice Selection (ABCS)
After the matrix of reasoning and counter-reasoning is prepared and choices are made, Awareness-Based Choice Selection (ABCS) plays a critical role. This is where post-awareness information exerts a momentary but pivotal influence—by tipping the balance between available choices.
ABCS enables a choice to emerge not from computational optimization, but from awareness of one’s situatedness. This explains why a decision may not be the most rational or goal-aligned option, yet still be the one that is based on the subject's awareness at that point in time.
ABCS stands in contrast to purely unconscious mind operated Selection of Choice Based on Algorithm (SCBA) that is not uniquely tied to natural intelligence (NI) and is shared with artificial intelligence.
The TTC view aligns partially with naturalistic decision models (Drummond, 1991), which describe decision-making as a goal-prioritization and outcome-evaluation process since, those models do not account for the non-rational or counter-intuitive decisions that people often make—something captured more accurately in bounded rationality and in dynamic decision-making frameworks (Klein, 2008; Fox et al., 2003).
In particular, canonical theories of decision-making equate selection with commitment to a preferred option (Fox et al, 2013). But in TTC, commitment through ABCS may diverge from utility or preference. It is a moment of conscious engagement with experience—a unique signature of post-transformation awareness.
3. Postselection Stage: Appropriation Before Action
Before execution, TTC introduces a critical checkpoint: appropriation. This newly defined evaluative process is a newly defined analytical function of the mind that assesses the feasibility, practicality, and contextual appropriateness of the selected decision before it is acted upon. If contradictions or limitations are identified, the decision may be revised, postponed, or abandoned. The result of this evaluation—whether acceptance, revision, or rejection—is again made available to awareness, highlighting the recursive nature of conscious processing.
This appropriation stage serves as a kind of evolutionary safety net, preventing impractical or irrational decisions from translating into action. Unlike most classical or naturalistic decision models—which treat selection and execution as harmonized or inseparable—TTC emphasizes a clear boundary between decision and action. Other studies also indirectly support this separation by contemporary findings in neuroscience (Cos et al., 2011; Reynaud et al., 2020), which show that decision selection and motor execution follow independent neural principles.
Appropriation also resonates with models such as post-initiation deliberation (Burk et al., 2014) and cost-of-action evaluation (Hagura et al., 2017), where decisions are reevaluated even after initial commitment—a phenomenon akin to “changing one’s mind.” However, in TTC, this reassessment occurs before action, not as feedback from the action itself. This sharply distinguishes TTC from dynamic decision-making theories (Edwards, 1962; Fox et al., 2003) and rule-based systems (Newell & Simon, 1956), which update decisions based on the outcomes of previously executed choices.
Through these stages, TTC frames decision-making not as a one-way trajectory but as a recursive, awareness-dependent process. Even habitual actions can be intercepted and redirected by awareness. This capacity for override—absent in artificial systems—marks the depth of conscious agency.
Autopilot Decisions and SCBA
Not all decisions require the involvement of awareness. Both in artificial intelligence (AI) and natural intelligence (NI), many decisions follow SCBA—a purely automatic, stimulus-driven process. These autopilot decisions may or may not bypass reasoning, enabling reflexive or rapid responses when urgency demands speed over deliberation. Conditioning is a practical example of transitioning from ABCS to SCBA that works toward efficiency by removing the awareness as the instrumental factor in decision-making in repeated decisions (Farhadi, 2025c). These processes do not invoke the "I" or self-reflection and are primarily reactive. While they may begin as awareness-based actions, with repetition they become automated and habitual.
Unlike Artificial Intelligence (AI), which operates entirely via algorithmic decision-making, Natural Intelligence (NI) possesses the capacity to override SCBA through awareness. This ability to interrupt an automated behavior and insert volitional choice is a hallmark of consciousness.
Some proponents argue that BDI agents (Belief-Desire-Intention systems) in AI emulate higher-order decision-making by generating internal goals and updating their strategies based on feedback (Bratman, 1987; Rao & Georgeff, 1995) . However, these remain fundamentally algorithmic. Even self-modifying code operates under preset parameters. In contrast, awareness in NI allows for discontinuity—an intentional break in automated processing that opens space for reconsideration, novelty, and freedom.
TTC emphasizes that while SCBA is essential for efficiency, it must remain subordinate to awareness. When awareness fades or is bypassed entirely, the system risks becoming rigid, reactive, and prone to error. Conscious agency arises from the ability to recognize when a reflexive action no longer serves its context—and to change course accordingly.
The Intertwine Action of Awareness and Decision-making in TTC
In TTC and its quantum extension QTTC, awareness and decision-making are not treated as distinct sequential processes but as intricately interwoven functions that co-create the architecture of conscious behavior. Awareness is both the initiator and evaluator of choice, while decision-making serves as the expression and extension of structured awareness. This reciprocal influence reframes agency as a dynamic interplay rather than a linear command chain.
Awareness plays a crucial role in decision-making through Awareness-Based Choice Selection (ABCS), in which the mind selects among potential responses based on the felt sense of subjective coherence, not mere logic or optimization. Simultaneously, Discretionary Selection of Intelligence for Awareness (DSIA)—the volitional filtering mechanism—ensures that the informational and emotional content made available to awareness is relevant, intentional, and aligned with higher-order goals. Through this dual dynamic, awareness is both shaped by prior discretion and immediately generative of intention (Farhadi,2025d).
However, this model does not imply a simple feedback loop. Instead, the relationship between awareness and decision-making forms an asymmetrical, non-reflexive spiral, in which each new layer of subjective experience alters the conditions for future awareness and choices (see Figure 3). Every act of ABCS actively shapes the informational matrix that feeds into DSIA in subsequent moments. Over time, this spiral enables growth in cognitive complexity, emotional intelligence, and reflective depth—traits characteristic of maturing consciousness.
This entwined structure has significant implications for models of moral reasoning, creative insight, and psychological flexibility. It demonstrates that volition is not a mere output of awareness, but its trajectory—continually modulated by recursive attention and evolving self-context. In this view, the autonomy of natural intelligence lies not in its capacity to follow rules, but in its ability to bend, revise, or reinvent them based on emergent awareness.
From Awareness to Consciousness and selfhood
According to TTC, consciousness arises not merely from the presence of awareness from sensory or perceptual input, but through the dynamic interplay of these three faculties.
· Awareness in this model refers to the raw subjective experience—the “being present” to stimuli or internal states, devoid of agency or judgment.
· Intention is the directional force that transforms awareness into action, rooted in the individual's capacity for volitional choice.
· Self-reflection is the result of the intertwine action of awareness and intention creating "I." This transformation from experience to identity marks the genesis of selfhood. In TTC, the "I" is not a static metaphysical entity but a functional frame generated through recursive awareness and intention a form of meta-cognition of the mind providing the ability to observe, evaluate, and learn from its own states and decisions through recurrent feedback loops of intention and awareness. In QTTC, this process is metaphorically mapped to gauge fixing as it will be elaborated below, where awareness selects a stable reference point within a fluid field, grounding the emergent identity within an ever-shifting stream of subjective input.
What distinguishes TTC is its proposal that awareness alone is not consciousness, but rather the foundation upon which the higher-order functions of intention and reflection operate. In this sense, awareness is necessary but not sufficient for consciousness. This foundational distinction opens the door to examining what happens after awareness—how it evolves, integrates, and participates in shaping the mind. This redefinition pushes the boundary of the hard problem of consciousness beyond the emergence of qualia, asking instead: how this experience begins to act, to organize, and to influence cognition through recursive feedback into the mental architecture and appropriated into a subjective identity?
Extending TTC to QTTC: A Field-Based Framework for Structured Awareness
While TTC provides a cognitive structure grounded in awareness, intention, and self-reflection, its extension—Quantum Trilogy Theory of Consciousness (QTTC)—offers a metaphorical, field-based ontology inspired by Quantum Field Theory (QFT) (Farhadi, 2025b). In this view, consciousness arises from dynamic modulation of a Universal Awareness Field (UAF)—a timeless, unstructured substrate of potential experience.
When modulated by intention and attention, the UAF produces structured awareness in the form of noëtons—excitations analogous to particles in QFT. Intention acts as symmetry breaking, initiating directional modulation, while the emergence of selfhood is framed as gauge fixing, establishing a reference point for subjective experience.
As awareness accumulates, the field encodes a configuration history—shaping future awareness independent of neural memory. This may explain intuitive insight or universal awareness.
QTTC does not claim physical quantum processes in the brain, but proposes a structural isomorphism between cognitive functions and field dynamics. Speculative hypotheses suggest cellular interfaces—such as the senome (Baluška et al., 2018), microtubules (Hameroff & Penrose, 1996), or DNA structures (Myakishev-Rempel, 2019)—may mediate between biology and awareness, though this remains unverified.
Conceptual Reframing of the Hard Problem of Consciousness
Neither TTC nor QTTC claims to solve the Hard Problem of Consciousness, but they offer a conceptual reframing, where awareness is not a passive or emergent epiphenomenon, but a transformative and structural component of the cognitive system. In particular, they shift the problem from how physical processes generate experience to how a structured awareness, once forms, it recursively acts upon the mind through intention and post-transformation processes such as memory encoding, comparison, reasoning, thought provocation, and self-reflection. This reframing opens new philosophical and experimental avenues—especially when coupled with ongoing inquiry into the interface between biological systems and fundamental physical principles.
Conclusion
Both TTC and its quantum field-based counterpart QTTC view awareness not as a sole product of neural computation or emergent complexity, but as a structural component of the cognitive function. In doing so, they shift the central question of the hard problem—from how matter gives rise to mind, to how structured awareness shapes, sustains, and transforms conscious experience.
Through the delineation of distinct stages of awareness—preselection, selection, transformation, and post-transformation—this model traces a recursive journey from subjective experience to intention, memory, thought, and ultimately, identity. The inclusion of appropriation and ABCS as mechanisms of volitional choice marks a significant departure from algorithmic or reflexive accounts of decision-making. Furthermore, QTTC’s metaphorical alignment with principles from quantum theory offers a conceptual vocabulary to model the fluid, non-local, and dynamic nature of awareness and reframes it as a structured interaction between the mind and a Universal Awareness Field.
Neither TTC nor QTTC attempt to solve the hard problem by reducing consciousness to a particular brain mechanism. Instead, it provides a new conceptual framework—one that integrates cognitive functions, and philosophical insight to reconsider the structure and function of consciousness. In this light, the hard problem becomes not only more complex but also more expansive—inviting a deeper understanding of what it means to be aware, intentional, and self-reflective in a universe that may itself be imbued with awareness.
Baars, B. J. (1988). A cognitive theory of consciousness. Cambridge University Press.
Baluška, F., & Miller, Jr, W. B. (2018). Senomic view of the cell: Senome versus Genome. Communicative & Integrative Biology, 11(3), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2018.1489184
Bratman, M. E. (1987). Intention, plans, and practical reason. Harvard University Press.
Briggs, R. A. (2019). Normative theories of rational choice: Expected utility. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2023 Edition), Edward N. Zalta & Uri Nodelman (eds.), https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2023/entries/rationality-normative-utility/.
Broadbent, D. E. (1971). Decision and Stress. Academic Press.
Burk, D., Ingram, J. N., Franklin, D. W., Shadlen, M. N., & Wolpert, D. M. (2014). Motor effort alters changes of mind in sensorimotor decision making. PloS one, 9 (3), e92681. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0092681
Chalmers, D. J. (1995). Facing up to the problem of consciousness. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 2(3), 200–219.
Cos, I., Bélanger, N., & Cisek, P. (2011). The influence of predicted arm biomechanics on decision making. Journal of neurophysiology, 105(6), 3022–3033. https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.00975.2010
Dehaene, S., Kerszberg, M., & Changeux, J.-P. (1998). A neuronal model of a global workspace in effortful cognitive tasks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 95(24), 14529–14534. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.95.24.14529
Desimone, R., & Duncan, J. (1995). Neural mechanisms of selective visual attention. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 18, 193–222.
Deutsch, J. A., & Deutsch, D. (1963). Attention: Some theoretical considerations. Psychological Review, 70(1), 80–90.
Dijksterhuis, A. (2004). Think different: The merits of unconscious thought in preference development and decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 586–598.
Drummond, H. (1991). Effective Decision Making: A Practical Guide for Management. Kogan Page.
Edwards, W. (1962). Dynamic decision theory and probabilistic information processing. Human Factors, 4(2), 59–73.
https://doi.org/10.1177/001872086200400201Farhadi, A. (2021). There is no “I” in “AI”. AI & Society, 36, 1035–1046. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-020-01136-2
Farhadi, A. (2023a). Trilogy: A New Paradigm of Consciousness. Neuropsychiatry (London), 13(5), 1–16.
https://www.jneuropsychiatry.org/peer-review/trilogy-a-new-paradigm-of-consciousness-17097.htmlFarhadi, A. (2023b). The Evolution of Consciousness Theories. Qeios. https://doi.org/10.32388/PN41X4
Farhadi A. (2025a). Can AI Ever Become Conscious?, J Advan Artifi Intell, 3(2), 141-153.
doi: 10.18178/JAAI.2025.3.2.141-153Farhadi A. (2025b). Toward a Field-Based Model of Awareness: Quantum Trilogy Theory of Consciousness. Qeios. doi:10.32388/BTAFUY.
Farhadi A. (2025c). Awareness, Automation, and the Illusion of Free Will: Rethinking Libet through Trilogy Theory. Qeios. doi:10.32388/DLUQV1.
Farhadi A. (2025d). Awareness-based Choice Selection: Improving the Decision-making Efficiency by Using Known Information. Current Psychology (Publishing).
DOI: 10.1007/s12144-025-08072-8.Fernandez-Duque, D., & Johnson, M. L. (2002). Cause and effect theories of attention: The role of conceptual metaphors. Review of General Psychology, 6(2), 153–165.
DOI: 10.1037/1089-2680.6.2.153Fox, J., Cooper, R. P., & Glasspool, D. W. (2013). A canonical theory of dynamic decision-making. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 150. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00150
Fox J., Cooper R. and See, K.E. (2003). Belief and Preference in Decision Under Uncertainty. In Thinking: Psychological Perspectives on Reasoning, Judgment and Decision Making (eds D. Hardman and L. Macchi).
https://doi.org/10.1002/047001332X.ch14Frisch, D. and Baron, J. (1988), Ambiguity and rationality. J. Behav. Decis. Making, 1: 149-157. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.3960010303
Hagura, N., Haggard, P., & Diedrichsen, J. (2017). Perceptual decisions are biased by the cost to act. eLife, 6, e18422.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.18422Hameroff, S. R., & Penrose, R. (1996). Conscious events as orchestrated space-time selections. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 3(1), 36–53.
Klein, G. (2008). Naturalistic decision making. Journal of the Human Factors in Ergonomics Society, 50, 456–460.
Laird, J. E., Newell, A., & Rosenbloom, P. S. (1987). SOAR: An architecture for general intelligence. Artificial Intelligence, 33(1), 1–64.
Lamme, V. A. (2006). Towards a true neural stance on consciousness. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10(11), 494–501.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2006.09.001Morel, P., Ulbrich, P., & Gail, A. (2017). What makes a reach movement effortful? Physical effort discounting supports common minimization principles in decision making and motor control. PLOS Biology, 15(6), e2001323.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.2001323Myakishev-Rempel, M. (2019). On The Existence of The DNA Resonance Code and Its Possible Mechanistic Connection to The Neural Code. NeuroQuantology, 17(2), 56-71. doi:10.14704/nq.2019.17.02.1973
Newell, A., Simon, H. (1956). The logic theory machine--A complex information processing system. in IRE Transactions on Information Theory, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 61-79, September 1956, doi: 10.1109/TIT.1956.1056797.
Norman, D. A. (1968). Toward a theory of memory and attention. Psychological Review, 75(6), 522–536.
https://doi.org/10.1037/h0026699Rao, A. S., & Georgeff, M. P. (1995). BDI agents: From theory to practice. Proceedings of the First International Conference on Multi-Agent Systems (ICMAS).
Reynaud, A. J., Saleri Lunazzi, C., & Thura, D. (2020). Humans sacrifice decision-making for action execution when a demanding control of movement is required. Journal of Neurophysiology, 124(2), 497–509.
https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.00220.2020Reynolds, J., & Desimone, R. (2000). Competitive mechanisms subserve selective visual attention. In A. Marantz, Y. Miyashita, & W. O’Neil (Eds.), Image, Language, Brain: Papers from the First Mind Articulation Project Symposium (pp. 233–247). The MIT Press.
Simon, H. A. (1956). Rational choice and the structure of the environment. Psychological Review, 63(2), 129–138.
Slovic, P., Fischhoff, B., & Lichtenstein, S. (1977). Behavioral decision theory. Annual Review of Psychology, 28(1), 1–39.
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ps.28.020177.000245Steele, K., & Stefansson, H. (2020). Decision theory. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2020 Edition).
Thura, D., Cos, I., Trung, J., & Cisek, P. (2014). Context-dependent urgency influences speed-accuracy trade-offs in decision-making and movement execution. Journal of Neuroscience, 34(49), 16442–16454.
https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0162-14.2014Tononi, G. (2016). Integrated information theory. In The Blackwell Companion to Consciousness (2nd ed., pp. 114–128).
Treisman, A. (1999). Feature binding, attention and object perception. In G. W. Humphries, J. Duncan, & A. Treisman (Eds.), Attention, Space and Action (pp. 91–111). Oxford University Press.
Acknowledgment:
• Funding: N/A. The author did not receive support from any organization for the submitted work.
•
• Conflict of Interests: The author has no conflicts of interest to declare that are relevant to the content of this article.
• Author confirms that the material presented in this manuscript has not been previously published, nor is it simultaneously under consideration by any other journal.
• Author's Contribution: The manuscript has only one author.