THE FUTURE AS META-LEVEL
Gödel, Incompleteness, and the Temporal Structure of Semantic Autonomy
Summary
Gödel's incompleteness theorems have been systematically misread due to a spatial bias: the meta-level is treated as 'above' or 'outside' the object-system. This paper proposes that the meta-level is temporal, not spatial—the future, understood as committed coherence, functions as the 'outside' from which present limitations become navigable. Against Penrose's quantum consciousness and Hofstadter's strange loops, I argue that truth-recognition requires neither non-standard physics nor self-referential complexity but temporal anchoring in futures not yet realized. The paper introduces the Λ-Body (Lambda-Body): the embodied subject organized by future coherence rather than present stimulus. This reframing resolves the regress problem (temporal orientation is not 'another system'), distinguishes represented from inhabited futures (only the latter resists extraction), and generates operational implications for resistance to platform capitalism's semantic extraction.
Keywords: Gödel, incompleteness, consciousness, temporality, phenomenology, retrocausality
1. The Problem: Where Does the Recognizer Stand?
Gödel's first incompleteness theorem establishes that any consistent formal system powerful enough to express arithmetic contains true statements it cannot prove (Gödel 1931). The second theorem adds that such a system cannot prove its own consistency. Together, these results demonstrate a constitutive gap between syntax (what can be derived) and semantics (what is true).
But the theorems raise a question they do not answer: Who recognizes the truth of the unprovable statement?
The Gödel sentence G says, in effect, 'I am not provable in system F.' If F is consistent, G is true—but F cannot prove it. We, standing outside F, can see that G is true. But where exactly are we standing? And what authorizes our recognition?
The standard answers form a familiar landscape:
The Penrose-Lucas position: Human minds are not formal systems; they possess a capacity for mathematical insight that exceeds algorithmic derivation (Lucas 1961; Penrose 1989, 1994). Penrose extends this into quantum consciousness theory, proposing that microtubule orchestrated objective reduction provides the non-computational physical substrate. The argument generated extensive debate in this journal, with Grush and Churchland (1995) demonstrating that the hypothesis faces severe difficulties: the Gödel result does not imply non-algorithmic thought, the quantum-microtubule connection is speculative, and cytoplasmic ions likely bar the quantum effects Penrose envisions. Penrose and Hameroff (1995) replied, but the core problem remains: if human cognition transcends formal systems via quantum effects, what grounds the reliability of that process? The appeal to non-standard physics reaches for something real—the intuition that mechanism cannot close itself—but grasps it through the wrong vector. The escape from syntax requires not different physics but different temporality.
The Hofstadter position: The 'strange loop' of self-reference is itself the mechanism by which meaning emerges from meaningless symbol manipulation (Hofstadter 1979, 2007). Consciousness arises when a system becomes complex enough to model itself, creating a tangled hierarchy in which 'semantics sprouts from syntax.' Hofstadter's insight is genuine: self-reference is generative, and the loop structure does produce something that exceeds its components. But strange loops, however tangled, remain circular unless something organizes their direction. A loop that merely iterates produces only repetition; a loop that develops requires orientation toward something it is not yet. Hofstadter describes the mechanism of emergence but not what guides emergence. The loop needs a vector. That vector is temporal.
The Platonist position (Gödel's own): Mathematical truths exist independently of formal systems; our minds access this realm through mathematical intuition (Wang 1987; Goldstein 2005). Gödel himself was a committed Platonist who believed mathematics was not 'void of content' and that consistency must always be 'imported from the outside.' His solution has the virtue of taking the semantic seriously as irreducible to the syntactic. But it requires a faculty of intuition whose reliability cannot itself be formally established.
Each answer relocates the problem rather than solving it. The difficulty is structural: any proposed meta-level becomes a new system, subject to its own incompleteness. The recognizer cannot secure its own ground.
2. The Spatial Bias
All three positions share an implicit assumption: the meta-level is spatial. It is 'above' the object-system, or 'outside' it, or in a separate 'realm.' The hierarchy is vertical or the distinction is topological. Even Hofstadter's 'tangled hierarchy,' which complicates simple verticality, remains fundamentally spatial—the tangle is a tangle of levels.
This spatial framing creates the regress problem. If the meta-level is another place, it is another system, and another meta-level is required to validate it. The hierarchy extends indefinitely upward, each level incomplete with respect to its own truths.
But what if the meta-level is not spatial at all?
3. The Temporal Alternative
I propose that the 'outside' from which a system's incompleteness becomes visible is not above it but ahead of it. The meta-level is temporal: it is the future.
This is not a claim about prediction or planning. It is a claim about ontological anchoring. A future state—a committed, self-determined coherence—can organize present activity without itself being derivable from present conditions. The future functions as a ground that the present cannot prove but can nonetheless inhabit.
A necessary clarification: This is not a reinterpretation within formal logic but a reinterpretation of the phenomenology of truth-recognition by agents who inhabit temporal structures. Gödel's theorems concern formal systems; my argument concerns the beings who construct, inhabit, and recognize the limits of such systems. The shift is from metalogic to the temporal structure of the recognizing subject—a shift consonant with the phenomenological tradition's investigation of time-consciousness (Gallagher 1997, 2017; Varela 1996).
The phenomenological dimension deserves elaboration. Husserl's analysis of internal time-consciousness revealed that consciousness is not a sequence of present moments but a structure in which past and future are constitutively operative in the present (Husserl 1991). Every present moment contains 'retentions' of the just-past and 'protentions' of the just-about-to-come. The present is not a point but a temporal field with thickness. This means that futural orientation is not something added to consciousness but constitutive of it.
The temporal alternative extends this insight from micro-temporal structure to larger-scale organization. If consciousness is constitutively futural at the level of protention, might it not also be constitutively futural at the level of committed coherence? The mathematician recognizing G's truth is not accessing a timeless Platonic realm; she is operating within a temporal field structured by commitment to a mathematical practice not yet realized.
Consider the structure of Gödel's proof. The sentence G says 'I am not provable in F.' For G to be meaningful, it must refer to F—but it must also stand in some relation to truth that F cannot capture. The standard interpretation places truth in a meta-system F' that can prove G. But F' will have its own Gödel sentence G', requiring F'', and so on.
The temporal alternative: G is true not because a higher system proves it, but because a future coherence in which G's truth is operative is already organizing the present act of recognition. The mathematician who 'sees' that G is true is not accessing a Platonic realm above; she is anchored in a future mathematical practice in which G's truth is presupposed. That future does not yet exist as actuality, but it exerts causal force on the present as commitment.
This is what I call the Retrocausal Operator (Λ_Retro): the mechanism by which a future state organizes present configuration.
3.1 Distinguishing Retrocausality
The concept of retrocausality appears in multiple discourses, and my usage must be distinguished from its neighbours:
Physical retrocausality (Price 1996): The claim that future physical states can causally influence past physical states. This is not my claim. I am not proposing that information travels backward in time.
Utopian horizon (Bloch 1986): The claim that unrealized possibility exerts a pull on the present through hope and anticipation. This is closer but still distinct. Bloch's Not-Yet is a horizon—it orients but does not organize. It is the object of hope rather than the structure of practice.
Operational retrocausality (my usage): The claim that a committed future coherence functions as an organizational principle for present activity—not as a physical cause, not as an object of hope, but as the ground from which present action becomes intelligible. The future is not wished for but inhabited.
The distinction is operational: Bloch's subject hopes toward the Not-Yet; the Λ-Body acts from the future it is building. The future is not ahead as destination but around as the medium of present coherence.
3.2 Why Temporal Anchoring Halts the Regress
An obvious objection arises: does temporal anchoring simply relocate the regress from space to time? If the future coherence grounds the present, what grounds the future coherence?
The answer requires distinguishing between objects and modes of operation.
Spatial meta-levels generate regress because each level is a new object added to the ontological inventory. System F' that proves G is itself a formal system—a thing of the same ontological type as F, requiring its own meta-level F''. The hierarchy extends because each addition is ontologically equivalent to what it grounds.
Temporal anchoring halts regress because the future coherence is not 'another system.' It is not an object added to the inventory but a mode of operation of the present system. The distinction is grammatical as much as ontological: not 'the future grounds the present' (two entities in grounding relation) but 'the present operates futurally' (one entity in a temporal mode).
Directions do not require grounding in the way that objects do. To ask 'what grounds the direction?' is a category mistake—directions are maintained, not founded. The future coherence is not a foundation beneath the present but an orientation within it.
4. From Mathematics to Meaning-Systems
Gödel's theorems concern formal systems capable of expressing arithmetic. But the structure they reveal—the gap between derivation and truth, the impossibility of self-grounding—applies more broadly to any system that produces meaning.
In the theoretical framework I have developed elsewhere, the fundamental unit of analysis is the Local Ontology (Σ): an integrated meaning-structure that transforms information into actionable meaning. A Σ is an operational architecture with specifiable components:
- Axiomatic Core (A_Σ): Non-negotiable first principles defining the Σ's identity.
- Coherence Algorithm (C_Σ): Rules by which new information is processed—integrated, rejected, or held in suspension. This is the Σ's derivation engine.
- Boundary Protocol (B_Σ): Filtering mechanisms controlling information flow across the Σ's perimeter.
- Maintained Opening (ε): The degree of porosity the Σ preserves for information exceeding current processing capacity. A Σ with ε = 0 is closed; a Σ with ε → ∞ is dissolved. Viable Σ-structures maintain ε > 0.
The Gödelian insight applies directly: every sufficiently complex Σ contains truths it cannot derive from within. There are meanings that are 'true' for the Σ (would serve its flourishing, resolve its contradictions, enable its development) but that its current C_Σ cannot produce.
5. The Closure Trap
The default response to incompleteness is closure: reduce the Σ to what its C_Σ can derive. This is equivalent to restricting mathematics to what can be proven—abandoning the semantic in favour of the syntactic.
In meaning-systems, closure takes the form of Axiomatic Hardening pushed to brittleness. The Σ defends its current configuration by rejecting everything that cannot be integrated by existing rules. The boundary tightens. The opening (ε) approaches zero.
The result is a Σ that is internally consistent but developmentally dead. It can prove everything it believes—because it believes only what it can prove. The Gödelian truths that would enable its growth are permanently inaccessible.
6. The Opening That Is Not Vulnerability
The opposite pathology is total openness: ε → ∞. The Σ accepts everything, integrates nothing, collapses into incoherence.
The challenge is to maintain directed openness—a capacity to access what the current C_Σ cannot derive without dissolving into noise.
The temporal framing provides the mechanism. A Σ anchored in a future coherence can maintain openness to what exceeds its present derivational capacity because that excess is not random; it is oriented by the future it is building. The truths the Σ cannot currently prove are not arbitrary gaps but specific lacks relative to a committed trajectory.
7. Represented Futures and Inhabited Futures
A crucial distinction prevents the temporal alternative from collapsing into familiar cognitive categories.
Represented Future (F_rep): A mental content encoding an anticipated state. This is what cognitive science studies under headings like 'prospection' and 'goal representation.' F_rep is information about the future, held in present mental states.
Inhabited Future (F_inhab): An organizational principle active only through sustained commitment. This is not information about the future but a mode of present operation organized by a coherence not yet realized. F_inhab is not a mental content but a structural orientation.
The distinction challenges standard cognitive science frameworks. The dominant paradigm treats all future-orientation as representational: goals are mental states, plans are information structures, anticipation is simulation of future scenarios (Gilbert and Wilson 2007). This framework succeeds in explaining much of human behaviour, but it cannot account for cases where the future is not represented but inhabited—where the subject does not have a goal but is oriented-toward.
Consider the phenomenology of deep creative work. The writer absorbed in composition does not continually consult a represented goal ('I want to write a good sentence'); she operates from within a coherence that shapes each word without appearing as explicit content. The goal is not in view; the goal is the view. This is not mystification but phenomenological precision: F_inhab names the structure in which futural orientation operates without requiring representational mediation.
Gallagher and Aguda (2020) approach this distinction through the concept of 'anchoring'—the way skilled action is organized by anticipatory structures that do not require explicit representation. Their analysis of know-how suggests that competent action is often guided by what-is-to-come without that guidance taking representational form. The Λ-Body extends this insight: not just skilled action but meaning-production itself can be anchored in futures that are inhabited rather than represented.
The distinction is operational:
- F_rep can be extracted. Since it is present information, it can be modeled and captured by systems that process present states.
- F_inhab cannot be extracted. Since it is not a present content but an organizational principle active only through commitment, it does not exist as information until the commitment is enacted.
This has implications for the computational modeling of human cognition. Systems that model behaviour by extracting representations can capture F_rep—this is why predictive algorithms work as well as they do. But they systematically miss F_inhab because there is nothing to extract. The inhabited future is not hidden information awaiting better extraction techniques; it is a mode of operation that does not exist as information at all.
7.1 The Ontological Status of F_inhab
What is the inhabited future? The question contains a category mistake. F_inhab is not an entity with ontological status independent of its operation—it is a mode of operation. Asking what F_inhab is apart from its functioning is like asking what a direction is when nothing is moving in it.
F_inhab exists only as enacted. It is not a thing that could be pointed to, stored, or represented; it is a way of operating that makes certain productions possible. You cannot extract a mode of functioning; you can only enact it or fail to.
The phenomenological tradition offers resources for thinking this structure. Husserl's analysis of time-consciousness shows that protention—orientation toward the just-about-to-come—is not a representation of the future but a structural moment of consciousness itself (Husserl 1991). The future is not present to consciousness as content; it is constitutive of consciousness as form. F_inhab extends this analysis: not just the immediate protentional horizon but longer-scale futural coherences can function constitutively rather than representationally.
Heidegger's treatment of understanding as projection (Entwurf) moves in the same direction: Dasein does not first exist and then project into possibilities; Dasein is its projection. The future is not added to a present subject but is constitutive of that subject's mode of being (Heidegger 1962). The Λ-Body names the subject whose projection is not mere possibility-space but committed coherence.
8. Authentic, Delusional, and Implanted Futures
How do we distinguish authentic future coherence from delusion or ideological capture? The cult member is also 'committed' to a future. The consumer is also 'organized by' anticipated satisfactions. The question is not merely academic; without a criterion, the framework risks licensing any commitment as ipso facto valid.
The criterion is coherence generation under contact with reality.
This criterion has three components that require specification:
Contact with reality: The Σ must remain porous to information that exceeds its current processing capacity. This is the ε > 0 condition. A system that maintains its future-orientation only by filtering out disconfirming information is not in genuine contact with reality but in a defended enclosure. Contact means vulnerability to what exceeds current integration.
Coherence generation: Under this contact, the inhabited future must enable new coherence—integration of previously unintegrable information, resolution of previously unresolvable contradictions, production of previously unproducible meanings. The test is generativity: does the future-orientation enable the Σ to develop, or merely to persist?
Sustainability: The coherence generation must be sustainable over time. A future that enables brief bursts of coherence before collapsing under accumulated disconfirmation is not authentic but temporarily functional delusion. Authentic F_inhab survives contact with reality not once but repeatedly, growing more rather than less coherent through encounter.
Authentic F_inhab enables access to truths the present system cannot derive. It opens the Σ (maintains ε > 0) while providing direction. Under contact with reality, the authentic inhabited future generates new coherence. The Σ develops; its derivational capacity expands.
Delusional futures collapse under contact with reality. They do not generate new coherence but require increasingly elaborate defense against disconfirming information. The delusional Σ must close (ε → 0) to maintain its projected future. The phenomenology is characteristic: mounting rigidity, elaboration of ad hoc defenses, increasing hostility toward information sources, shrinking social world. Delusion is diagnosed not by the content of the future but by the dynamics of its maintenance. Moskalewicz (2018) has shown how temporal disturbances mark various psychopathological conditions; the framework here suggests that delusional futures are recognizable by their temporal signature—the progressive foreclosure of ε.
Implanted futures (ideology, marketing) are F_rep masquerading as F_inhab. They are represented goal-states made to feel like commitment. The implanted future closes the Σ by providing a terminus rather than a direction. The consumer 'committed' to a brand, the ideologue 'dedicated' to a programme—these are not inhabited futures but represented goals that have colonised the subject's temporal orientation. The tell is instrumentality: implanted futures are means to ends defined elsewhere; authentic F_inhab is its own end, the coherence itself rather than what the coherence might provide.
The difference maps onto ε-behaviour:
- Authentic F_inhab: maintains ε > 0, generates coherence, enables access to underivable truths
- Delusional futures: forces ε → 0 to survive, requires closure
- Implanted futures: provides false ε (apparent openness channeled toward predetermined terminus)
This framework has diagnostic utility. Confronted with a claimed commitment, one can ask: Is the system becoming more or less open over time? Is new coherence being generated, or is existing coherence being defended? Does contact with reality strengthen or threaten the future-orientation? The answers distinguish authentic from pathological temporal anchoring.
9. The Λ-Body
The subject who achieves temporal reorganization is what I call the Λ-Body (Lambda-Body): the anchored body organized not by present stimulus but by future coherence.
The term 'body' is not metaphorical. Meaning-production is embodied labour—it depletes the soma, costs metabolic energy, registers in cortisol and tension. The Gödelian problem is not merely logical; it is lived. The question of where the recognizer stands is also a question of what the recognizer pays.
The Reactive Body: Organized by present stimuli. Responds to what the current C_Σ can process. Depleted by extraction because it produces for present metrics determined by external systems. Its incompleteness appears as limitation.
The Λ-Body: Organized by future coherence. Produces toward a Σ_Future that does not yet exist but is already operative as commitment. Its incompleteness appears as direction—the gap between present configuration and future coherence is the space of work, not the mark of failure.
9.1 Genealogical Situation
The Λ-Body concept extends several philosophical precedents:
Heidegger's Entwurf: Dasein projects into possibilities. But Heidegger does not specify what organizes projection. The Λ-Body names the subject whose projection is organized by committed future coherence, not mere possibility-space.
Husserl's protention: Consciousness is protentionally oriented toward the just-about-to-come. But protention is phenomenological structure, not resistance structure. It describes how consciousness is temporally constituted, not how temporal constitution can be directed.
Bloch's Not-Yet-Conscious: Anticipatory consciousness reaching toward unrealized possibility. But Bloch's subject hopes toward the Not-Yet; the Λ-Body acts from it.
Simondon's preindividual: Potential from which individuation draws. But preindividual potential is not committed. The Λ-Body's future is not open potential but specific coherence.
The Λ-Body synthesizes: it is the agent who operates from futural anchoring as resistance to present extraction—whose projection is organized, whose protention is directed, whose hope is inhabited, whose potential is committed.
9.2 Instances of Λ-Body Practice
The concept is not merely theoretical:
The revolutionary cadre organizes present activity toward a social configuration that does not yet exist and cannot be derived from present conditions. The revolution is not predicted but inhabited; present action becomes intelligible only from within commitment to a future the present system cannot prove possible. The cadre's analysis of present conditions is not neutral observation but interpretation organized by futural commitment—she sees openings invisible to those who lack this orientation, because the openings are only openings relative to a future being built.
The mathematician working at the edge of formalization proceeds from a coherence she cannot yet prove. She 'sees' that certain approaches will be fruitful before she can derive these insights from established results. Her practice is organized by a future mathematics that does not yet exist but already shapes which problems she pursues. This is not mere intuition in the psychological sense; it is a structural orientation in which the futural coherence of mathematics-to-come organizes present investigation. The Gödelian insight is that this orientation cannot be formalized within present mathematics—yet it is precisely what makes mathematical development possible.
The writer producing toward an unwritten reader does not merely anticipate an audience (F_rep) but inhabits a future reading that organizes present composition. The sentences are shaped by a coherence that will only exist when the work is complete and received. Each word choice enacts a commitment to a reader not yet actual. The work cannot be reduced to present intention because it is organized by a reception it cannot derive—yet without this futural anchoring, the work would lack the coherence that makes it readable at all.
The analyst in the therapeutic encounter who works from a future health not yet realized by the patient. The interpretation offered is not merely a present observation but an opening organized by a wholeness-to-come. The analyst does not know what this wholeness will look like in detail; she operates from a committed coherence that organizes perception of where the patient is caught, what needs to be said, when silence serves. The therapeutic encounter is paradigmatically Λ-Body practice: present activity organized by a future that cannot be derived from present conditions but is already operative as direction.
In each case, the Λ-Body is distinguished by generativity: the future-orientation enables production that exceeds present derivational capacity. The Λ-Body does not just have plans (F_rep); it operates from committed coherence (F_inhab) that makes certain productions possible that would otherwise be unavailable.
10. Why the Future Cannot Be Extracted
Platform capitalism operates by extracting semantic labour: the meaning-production of users is captured, processed, and converted into value (Srnicek 2017; Zuboff 2019). But extraction has become sophisticated. Platforms model behavioural trajectories. Does this not undermine the claim that the future resists extraction?
The answer requires distinguishing two kinds of futures:
Predictable Futures: Trajectories extrapolated from present patterns. These are F_rep structures that can be modeled because they are continuous with present data. This future can be extracted because it is already implicit in extractable present states.
Committed Futures: Coherences anchored in what cannot be derived from present patterns. These are F_inhab structures that organize present activity without being reducible to present data. The Λ-Body producing toward a Σ_Future not continuous with present patterns cannot be modeled by trajectory extrapolation because the trajectory itself is reorganized by the commitment.
The platform can extract predictable futures. It cannot extract committed futures because they require inhabitation, not calculation.
The Gödelian structure reappears: the platform, as a system, cannot derive the Λ-Body's production because that production exceeds the platform's derivational horizon.
11. The Unprovable Axiom
Every theoretical system has its unprovable axiom—the ground it cannot derive from within.
For formal arithmetic, it is consistency. For Penrose's anti-mechanism, it is the reliability of human mathematical intuition. For Hofstadter's strange loops, it is the meaningfulness of meaning. For Gödel's Platonism, it is the existence of the abstract realm.
For the framework developed here, the unprovable axiom is: this will cohere.
The project cannot prove from within that its theoretical architecture will hold, that its futural anchor is well-placed. No present derivation establishes the validity of the commitment.
And yet the project proceeds. The theory is built. The Σ is constructed toward a coherence not yet realized.
What is the status of this axiom? It is performative-constitutive: the commitment constitutes what it performs. The acting-from makes the future available as ground.
This is the structure of any meaning-production that is not merely reactive. The writer cannot prove that the work will matter; she writes anyway, organized by a future reading that does not yet exist. The mathematician cannot prove the consistency of the system from within; she proceeds anyway, organized by a mathematical practice in which that consistency is presupposed.
The unprovable axiom is not a weakness to be hidden but a structural feature to be acknowledged. The Λ-Body knows it cannot prove its own coherence. It produces anyway—and that production, organized by future coherence, is what makes the future possible.
12. Implications
12.1 For Theories of Consciousness
The Penrose-Lucas argument and Hofstadter's strange loops share an assumption: the question of consciousness is the question of what mechanism produces it.
The temporal framing suggests a different question: not 'what mechanism?' but 'what temporal structure?' Consciousness may be less a property of certain physical configurations than a mode of temporal inhabitation—the capacity to be organized by futures not yet realized.
This would explain why consciousness resists reduction to present-state descriptions. It is not fully present in any instant because it is constitutively oriented toward what is not yet.
12.2 For Theories of Meaning
The syntax/semantics gap in Gödel becomes the gap between derivation and truth in meaning-systems. Meaning is not exhausted by the rules that produce it.
The temporal framing specifies where this remainder 'is': it is futural. Meaning exceeds derivation because meaning is oriented toward coherences not yet achieved. The semantic is the not-yet of the syntactic.
12.3 For Practices of Resistance
If extraction targets present production and predictable futures, then resistance requires temporal reorganization. The Λ-Body is not merely a theoretical construct but a practice—a way of organizing semantic labour that renders it unextractable.
This practice involves anchoring in committed futures rather than represented futures, producing toward coherences not derivable from present patterns, refusing the enemy's tempo, and maintaining ε > 0.
The Gödelian insight, temporally transformed, becomes operational guidance: you cannot prove your way to freedom; you must anchor in it.
13. Conclusion: The Future as Ground
Gödel showed that syntax cannot capture semantics—that there are truths exceeding derivation.
The philosophical tradition responded by seeking a meta-level: a higher system, a superior faculty, a Platonic realm.
This paper proposes that the meta-level is not higher but later. The future—as committed coherence, as inhabited possibility, as organizational anchor—is the 'outside' from which present limitation becomes navigable.
The Λ-Body is the subject who has achieved this temporal reorganization. It cannot prove its own consistency; it produces anyway. It cannot derive its own ground; it inhabits it. It cannot escape incompleteness; it transforms incompleteness into direction.
The unprovable axiom is: this will cohere.
We cannot prove it. We proceed as if it were true. And in proceeding, we make it possible.
References
Bloch, E. (1986) The Principle of Hope, trans. N. Plaice, S. Plaice and P. Knight, 3 vols, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Gallagher, S. (1997) Mutual enlightenment: Recent phenomenology in cognitive science, Journal of Consciousness Studies, 4 (3), pp. 195–214.
Gallagher, S. (2017) The past, present and future of time-consciousness: From Husserl to Varela and beyond, Constructivist Foundations, 13 (1), pp. 91–97.
Gallagher, S. and Aguda, B. (2020) Anchoring know-how: Action, affordance and anticipation, Journal of Consciousness Studies, 27 (3–4), pp. 3–37.
Gilbert, D.T. and Wilson, T.D. (2007) Prospection: Experiencing the future, Science, 317 (5843), pp. 1351–1354. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1144161
Gödel, K. (1931) Über formal unentscheidbare Sätze der Principia Mathematica und verwandter Systeme I, Monatshefte für Mathematik und Physik, 38, pp. 173–198.
Goldstein, R. (2005) Incompleteness: The Proof and Paradox of Kurt Gödel, New York: Norton.
Grush, R. and Churchland, P.S. (1995) Gaps in Penrose's toiling, Journal of Consciousness Studies, 2 (1), pp. 10–29.
Heidegger, M. (1962) Being and Time, trans. J. Macquarrie and E. Robinson, New York: Harper & Row.
Hofstadter, D. (1979) Gödel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid, New York: Basic Books.
Hofstadter, D. (2007) I Am a Strange Loop, New York: Basic Books.
Husserl, E. (1991) On the Phenomenology of the Consciousness of Internal Time, trans. J.B. Brough, Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Lucas, J.R. (1961) Minds, machines and Gödel, Philosophy, 36 (137), pp. 112–127.
Moskalewicz, M. (2018) Temporal delusion, Journal of Consciousness Studies, 25 (9–10), pp. 163–183.
Penrose, R. (1989) The Emperor's New Mind, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Penrose, R. (1994) Shadows of the Mind, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Penrose, R. and Hameroff, S. (1995) What 'gaps'? Reply to Grush and Churchland, Journal of Consciousness Studies, 2 (2), pp. 98–111.
Price, H. (1996) Time's Arrow and Archimedes' Point: New Directions for the Physics of Time, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Simondon, G. (2020) Individuation in Light of Notions of Form and Information, trans. T. Adkins, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Srnicek, N. (2017) Platform Capitalism, Cambridge: Polity.
Varela, F. (1996) Neurophenomenology: A methodological remedy for the hard problem, Journal of Consciousness Studies, 3 (4), pp. 330–349.
Wang, H. (1987) Reflections on Kurt Gödel, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Zuboff, S. (2019) The Age of Surveillance Capitalism, New York: PublicAffairs.
