On May 29,
2025, my scientific article about the theory I developed regarding the
generation of subjective reality — the theory of the brain’s
existom — was published in the largest American scientific journal,
“ClinicSearch: Journal of Biomed Research”.
The theory of the brain’s existom as a theory of generating subjective reality: a hypothesis of a new biomedical approach to the brain* | ClinicSearch: https://www.clinicsearchonline.org/article/the-theory-of-the-brains-existom-as-a-theory-of-generating-subjective-reality-a-hypothesis-of-a-new-biomedical-approach-to-the-brain
Artificial intelligence will most likely operate on qualitatively different principles, distinct from those developed within the framework of the principles and theory of neural networks. It is important to remember that the brain is not only the product of neural network activity, but also the product of the activity of the most complex networks and layers of nanomolecular machines. According to the theory of the brain’s existome, which I have developed, neural networks only program the activity of the brain’s intentionality, which is part of the structure of the brain’s existome and other brain structures. The neural networks themselves (the connectome) are not the substrate or the carrier of our subjective reality and mental contents. The carrier is the existent.
According to Vygotsky, reflection (thought about thought) does not arise as a separate act, but as a natural result of the development of internal speech and the mastery of the system of meanings.
Here’s how this happens, step by step:1. From the social to the individual: initially, speech exists between people (interpsychologically) for communication and regulation of behavior. Only then does it “inwardly” develop (become internalized), turning into inner speech — the main tool of thinking.
2. Speech becomes a tool of self‑regulation: when it moves to the internal plane, speech does not simply become “quiet.” It turns into a means of mastering one’s own behavior, allowing one to look at one’s actions “as if from the outside” and plan them.
3. The condition for reflection is a system of concepts: this is the key point. Vygotsky directly linked awareness to the presence of a system of scientific concepts.
Internal speech allows a specific thought to be integrated into a broader system of generalizations (for example, to see a particular case as subordinate to a general rule).
It is precisely this systematic nature that makes a thought voluntary and conscious for the subject themselves, that is, it gives rise to reflection.
Brief summary: The thought about thought arises because internal speech, from being a tool for communication, turns into a tool for cognition. According to Vygotsky, it allows not only to think but also to observe one’s own mental operations, organizing them into a hierarchical system of meanings.
Is it so? In fact, Vygotsky does not explain the mechanism by which an observer of thoughts emerges. It is not explained how communication turns into communication with oneself! Cognition is not always reflection. Reflection is the observation of cognition, of thoughts. A child is capable of cognition without reflection. This is one of the weakest points in Vygotsky’s theory and the main point of criticism (for example, from M. K. Mamardashvili or Yu. M. Lotman).
Vygotsky indeed brilliantly described how thought takes shape in language (the movement from motive to meaning), but the mechanism of the emergence of the “observer” itself (the subject of reflection) remains a “black box” in his account.
That is why his explanation does not reveal this mechanism:
1. Substitution of the subject with a function. For Vygotsky, reflection is not the emergence of a new “observer,” but a process of mastery. He believed that when a child masters scientific concepts, they also master their own mental processes. But who exactly is taking over? Vygotsky answers: “Social speech has become internal.” It turns out that the “observer” is simply the internalized voice of society. The mechanism behind the emergence of an autonomous “I” that looks at its own thoughts from the outside remains unexplained.
2. Reflection as a “break” in automatism
Cognition without reflection is the norm (intelligence, skill, intuition). Vygotsky does not have an answer to the question: why at some point does the continuous flow of knowledge get interrupted, and thought takes a “step back” to look at itself? His theory describes smooth integration, but it does not describe the quantum leap or crisis that gives rise to this observer.
3. What then gives rise to the observer? (The perspective of modern psychology)
Since Vygotsky did not provide an answer to this, modern research (A. N. Leontiev’s activity theory, neuroscience) offers something different:
Failure of activity: the observer emerges not in the normal state, but in a situation of error, conflict, or choice. As long as thought functions as a tool (solves the problem), there is no reflection. It only comes into play when automatic thought “stalls” or comes into conflict with another thought.
Metaposition: reflection is not internal speech in and of itself, but decentering (the ability to take the position of the Other). But even here, Vygotsky merely констатирует this ability, but does not explain how an internal monologue‑self‑observation arises from dialogue.
Thus, Vygotsky brilliantly described the composition of thought (meaning and sense), but did not describe the act of self‑awareness. He left us with a scheme of how the thinking apparatus works, but forgot to include in it the operator who monitors this apparatus. This “operator” in his system seems to arise by default, along with speech, although in reality speech works perfectly well even without reflection!
S.L. Rubinstein later attempted to fill this gap (through the category of “I”) and M.M. Bakhtin (through the dialogue of voices), but Vygotsky himself did not have a clear answer to the mystery of the emergence of an observer of thoughts, the emergence of a thought about a thought, or reflection.
And yet, perhaps Vygotsky is right. My research on derealization and depersonalization, triggered by the perception of thoughts as not one’s own or as having been created by someone else and becoming alienated, has shown that this phenomenon arises as a consequence of the loss of the ability to use thoughts freely and comfortably — that is, to gain mastery over them. Otherwise, depersonalization and derealization occur. It is generalized thoughts, as categories, that allow a person to gain mastery over their thoughts comfortably. Vygotsky spoke about these generalized thoughts as concepts when he justified reflection only as mastery, not as observation of thoughts. According to Vygotsky, observation is not as relevant as the mastery of thoughts, and it is precisely this mastery that gives rise to our self as an illusion of some observer, which in reality is mastery. Reflexive thinking is possible only when thoughts have a generalized form that allows them to connect with each other. The presence of generalized thoughts and semantic formations, acting as a kind of “plasticizer,” creates the condition for the comfortable flow of various thoughts and semantic formations as the basis of what we perceive as mastery of thinking. It is precisely this mastery that constitutes the phenomenon of conscious thinking. At the core of this conscious thinking lies an unconscious process of generating a thought about a thought about something, which alternates with the unconscious generation of a thought about something. This alternation, as a process of emergence, gives rise only to the illusion of the self or the illusion of the observer, since we cannot think of a thought as an object, due to the fact that in time, either a thought or a thought about a thought is possible. Only in cases of bipolar disorder and derealization is a phenomenon similar to the perception of a thought as an object sometimes possible — that is, the emergence of an observer who sees a thought as an object.
In accordance with the above, according to the theory of the brain’s existoma that I have developed, the phenomenon of the self or observer arises as an alternation of unconscious thoughts and unconscious thoughts about thoughts. This alternation is ensured by the mechanisms and processes of the brain’s existoma as a system capable of generating semantic formations of varying levels of complexity, from simple to generalized. The alternation is ensured by the operation of the intention, which is part of the existist. (See: The theory of the brain’s existist as a theory of brain‑generated subjective reality — a concept for overcoming the limitations of artificial neural networks:
https://www.securitylab.ru/blog/personal/RamilGarifullin/360942.php )
In the theory of existent, intention is considered as a source of intentional wave flows that interact with existents, giving rise to holographic formations (standing waves) that serve as the basis for the emergence of semantic structures.
The disappearance of this mastery leads to depersonalization and derealization.
Our self is a mental content consisting of generalized concepts and semantic formations that allow unconscious thoughts to flow comfortably, so much so that an illusion arises that these thoughts are our own. When these processes are disrupted, the phenomenon of derealization occurs, along with the feeling that these thoughts are foreign and were created by someone else and introduced into the person’s inner world.
With all of the above in mind, the theory of the brain’s existom is based on the idea that our self and our consciousness, which exist within us, are rooted in the world outside us — the world that gave rise to the brain capable of generating Being that knows itself. This Being initially exists outside the brain and is revealed in the brain thanks to the brain’s existom system, which, in turn, is a product of the fractals of Being that knows itself, located outside the brain. The brain’s existom is the result of the fractals of Being that knows itself. That is precisely why an existentialist is capable of generating Being that is aware of itself, which we perceive as consciousness. This is it — the highest form of mastery!
Associate Professor at the Institute of Psychology and Education of the Kazan Federal University, Candidate of Psychological Sciences Ramil Garifullin
