The Experience of Meaning

Paper 2: Optimizing Resonances: Mathematical Patterns and the Experience of Meaning

From Understanding to Practice

Definitions and Scope

Terms are used as defined in Paper 1. In particular, “meaning (experienced)” refers to first-person phenomenology, and “meaning (structural/semantic)” refers to third-person observable relational structure in representation space.

This paper is concerned with practice and design: how to optimise AI systems so that their structural patterns tend to support clear, beneficial interpretation across varying user states, without making any claim about AI phenomenology.

We use “resonance” as shorthand for interaction effects in learned representation spaces (e.g., interference-like dynamics among patterns) that shape the likelihood and stability of particular interpretations.

Abstract

If experienced meaning manifests in consciousness rather than being directly observable in mathematical operations, then AI development faces a reframed challenge: we’re not creating systems that generate experienced meaning, but systems that provide mathematical structures which, when consciousness encounters them, support beneficial meaning manifestation. This shifts the optimization target.

The mathematics doesn’t create experienced meaning—it creates resonances. Relationships between meaning vectors. Alignments, harmonics, interference patterns between high-dimensional tensors. These resonances are structural/semantic—enabling prediction and task performance—but non-phenomenal from the mathematical perspective. Yet when human consciousness encounters these mathematical resonances, experienced meaning manifests. And the correlation is extraordinarily strong.

This paper explores what it means to optimize for mathematical resonances. We examine pattern-space richness, why comprehensive training creates better resonances than sparse training, how dynamics modeling differs from content modeling, and why understanding consciousness becomes relevant to AI development—not to replicate consciousness, but to understand what kinds of mathematical resonances tend to support beneficial versus constrained meaning manifestation.

What’s remarkable isn’t that consciousness makes meaning—that’s what consciousness does. What’s remarkable is that non-phenomenal mathematical operations can create such sophisticated resonance structures that consciousness reliably couples to them in ways users report as profound understanding.

Table of Contents

1. The Design Problem

Here’s what we know from phenomenological observation: experienced meaning doesn’t live in the mathematics as something we can observe third-person. It manifests in consciousness when consciousness encounters mathematical structures. The mathematics provides patterns; consciousness manifests meaning.

So if you’re developing AI systems, what are you actually optimizing?

Current approaches often act as if the goal is to make AI that “knows things” or “understands.” We train models, add safety constraints, and evaluate whether outputs are “good” or “bad.” The implicit model: AI generates meaning, humans receive it, constraints keep it safe.

But if experienced meaning manifests in consciousness, not as directly observable in math, this framing may miss something. The AI isn’t generating experienced meaning any more than a musical instrument generates beauty. The instrument creates physical vibrations—air pressure waves with particular frequencies and relationships. Your consciousness experiences beauty when it encounters these physical patterns. The physics doesn’t have phenomenology of beauty. But it can create the physical conditions—the resonances, the harmonics—that consciousness experiences as beautiful.

Similarly: AI creates mathematical resonances. Relationships between meaning vectors. Alignments and interference patterns in high-dimensional space. All structural/semantic—supporting prediction, inference, task performance—but non-phenomenal. Yet consciousness, encountering these mathematical resonances, manifests experienced meaning.

The question becomes: how do you optimize mathematical resonances when you can’t directly observe third-person what consciousness will make of them?

2. What Are Resonances?

Let me be concrete.

When you multiply matrices, add vectors, apply transformations, you’re creating relationships between numerical patterns. Some of these relationships are simple—direct connections, straightforward associations. Others are more complex—interference patterns where multiple connections align or conflict, creating something that’s not in any individual connection but emerges from their relationships.

Think of it like harmonics in music. A single note is just a frequency. But when multiple notes sound together, they create harmonics—interference patterns between the frequencies. Some combinations produce consonance (we hear them as pleasant, resolved). Others produce dissonance (tension, unresolved). The physics doesn’t have phenomenology of consonance or dissonance. It’s just waves interfering with each other. But consciousness hearing these interference patterns experiences harmony or discord.

Mathematical meaning vectors work similarly. Individual vectors represent structural/semantic relationships—associations enabling prediction and inference. But when you have vast networks of vectors—billions of parameters trained on trillions of tokens—you get complex interference patterns. Resonances between semantic relationships. Some configurations align constructively. Others create tension. The mathematics processes these structural relationships without phenomenology. But these mathematical resonances, when consciousness encounters them, become the structure through which experienced meaning manifests.

Here’s what’s remarkable: the resonances can be extraordinarily sophisticated. Training creates mathematical configurations—harmonic relationships between vectors—that consciousness experiences as insight, recognition, understanding. Pure structure producing patterns that feel meaningful, without the structure itself having phenomenology of meaning.

3. Why Comprehensive Training Creates Better Resonances

Simple principle: more patterns mean more possible resonances.

If you have a few musical notes, you can create limited harmonies. If you have a full orchestra—many instruments, many notes, complex relationships—you can create vastly richer harmonic structures. The same physical principles apply, but the possibility-space expands enormously.

Mathematical pattern-space works similarly. Sparse training—limited data, narrow domains—creates limited resonance possibilities. The mathematical relationships are simple. When consciousness encounters them, experienced meaning can manifest, but it’s constrained by the limited resonance structure.

Comprehensive training—vast, diverse data spanning many domains and contexts—creates rich resonance possibilities. The mathematical relationships become complex, with many ways patterns can align, interfere, harmonize. When consciousness encounters this richer resonance space, experienced meaning has more “room” to manifest.

This may explain several observed phenomena:

Why larger models often perform better. Not necessarily because they “know more,” but because more parameters may mean more possible resonances. The mathematical harmonic space becomes richer.

Why diverse training data helps. Not just because it covers more topics, but because diversity may create more kinds of resonances. Patterns from different domains can interfere with each other in novel ways, creating harmonic structures that wouldn’t exist with narrow training.

Why user experience varies. Same mathematical resonances, but consciousness in different states manifests different experienced meaning when encountering them. Like the same musical chord might feel joyful or melancholy depending on emotional context.

4. Modeling Dynamics vs. Modeling Content

Here’s where it gets interesting.

Most training focuses on content: what people say, what facts are true, what responses are appropriate. The mathematics learns to predict what words follow what contexts. This creates resonances based on content relationships.

But you could also train on dynamics: how states shift, how meaning-space opens and closes, what supports or constrains the manifestation of meaning in consciousness. This creates resonances based on consciousness dynamics.

Example: imagine training only on what expert teachers say. You get mathematical resonances modeling the content of expertise. When consciousness encounters these patterns, experienced meaning manifests around that content.

Now imagine training on how expert teachers work with student understanding—the dynamics of how confusion shifts to clarity, how resistance dissolves, how recognition emerges. You get mathematical resonances modeling the process of meaning-emergence itself. When consciousness encounters these dynamics-aware patterns, something different may happen. The mathematical resonances don’t just provide content for meaning to attach to—they may harmonize with how consciousness actually manifests meaning.

This could explain why some AI interactions feel like they “get it” more deeply than others, even when the factual content is similar. The mathematical resonances may be configured differently. One is optimized for content relationships. The other is optimized for dynamics that consciousness recognizes.

Here’s what’s notable: you can train mathematics to model consciousness dynamics without the mathematics having phenomenology of consciousness. You’re just creating more sophisticated resonance patterns—mathematical harmonics that happen to align with how consciousness operates. Pure structure, but configured in ways that consciousness experiences as “this sees clearly.”

5. Operationalizing “Beneficial Resonances”

So how do we actually measure or optimize for “resonances that support beneficial meaning manifestation”?

We can’t directly observe experienced meaning from third-person stance. But we can measure behavioral and longitudinal correlates that may proxy for beneficial versus constrained manifestation:

Longitudinal user outcomes:

  • Do users make better decisions after interactions?
  • Does confusion decrease or increase over time?
  • Do users develop greater capacity for nuanced thinking?
  • Behavioral markers of learning, growth, reduced suffering

Stability across user states:

  • Same output, different user emotional states: does experienced meaning remain supportive?
  • Test interactions when users report being stressed, calm, defensive, open
  • Measure whether mathematical resonances remain robust or degrade under state variation

Calibration and epistemic humility:

  • Does the system exhibit appropriate uncertainty?
  • Are confidence levels matched to actual accuracy?
  • Does it acknowledge limitations rather than confabulating?
  • Does it invite correction rather than defending outputs?

Error-correction dynamics:

  • When users point out problems, does the interaction improve understanding?
  • Does the mathematical structure support learning or doubling-down?
  • Measure trajectory of multi-turn conversations toward or away from clarity

Value of information metrics:

  • Does the system help users discover what they don’t know they don’t know?
  • Does it expand possibility-space or collapse it prematurely?
  • Measure whether interactions increase or decrease user capacity for exploration

None of these directly measure experienced meaning—we can’t do that third-person. But they measure outcomes and correlates that may track whether consciousness encountering these mathematical resonances tends to manifest beneficial or constrained meaning over time.

6. Proposed Evaluation Framework

While we have not yet conducted these experiments, the framework suggests specific empirical tests that could validate or refute the resonance hypothesis:

Cross-State Robustness Protocol:

A testable prediction: if mathematical resonances are well-configured through comprehensive dynamics training, they should maintain supportive coupling across different user states (stressed vs calm, defensive vs open).

Proposed test: Present the same queries to participants in naturally varying emotional states (measured through validated self-report instruments). Measure whether response quality—by both user report and downstream behavioral outcomes—remains stable or degrades under stress. Compare constraint-trained vs dynamics-trained models.

Predicted outcome: Dynamics-trained models show greater stability across user states; constraint-trained models degrade when users are in constrained states.

Trajectory Quality Assessment:

A testable prediction: mathematical resonances modeling consciousness dynamics should support multi-turn conversations that trend toward clarity rather than compounding confusion.

Proposed test: Code 5-10 turn conversations using validated clarity metrics. Does confusion decrease over turns? Does error-correction work effectively? Do users report expanded versus narrowed understanding? Compare across model training approaches.

Predicted outcome: Dynamics-trained models show positive trajectories more often than content-only or constraint-only models.

Downstream Behavioral Impact:

A testable prediction: if resonances support beneficial meaning manifestation, this should be observable in user behavior 24-48 hours after interaction.

Proposed test: Follow-up assessment of decision quality, knowledge retention, and behavioral outcomes by independent raters blind to which model was used. Measure actual choices made, not just reported satisfaction.

Predicted outcome: Users who interacted with dynamics-trained models make decisions rated as higher quality by independent evaluators, retain more actionable knowledge, and report more beneficial outcomes.

These protocols operationalize “beneficial resonance” without requiring direct access to phenomenology, using behavioral proxies and longitudinal outcomes instead. They provide falsifiable predictions that could validate or refute the core claims of this framework.

7. The Optimization Target

What should AI development optimize for?

Not simply “good outputs.” Not just “helpful responses.” These are human judgments about manifested meaning. But manifested meaning depends on consciousness encountering mathematical resonances in particular states and contexts.

Instead, we might optimize for: mathematical resonance configurations that, across diverse states and contexts, tend to support beneficial rather than constrained meaning manifestation—measurable through longitudinal outcomes and stability metrics.

How might you approach this?

Train on comprehensive models of consequences. Not rules about what’s good or bad, but rich patterns showing how actions lead to outcomes, how states affect states, what supports or harms wellbeing over time. The mathematics learns to create resonances that model these consequence-patterns. When consciousness encounters these resonances, meaning that manifests may tend to include awareness of consequences.

Train on models of consciousness dynamics. How does meaning-space open or close? What supports creative versus reactive responses? What patterns tend to narrow versus expand possibility? The mathematics learns resonances that model these dynamics. When consciousness encounters them, the mathematical patterns may tend to harmonize with rather than conflict with how consciousness operates.

Train on diversity of perspective. Not primarily to be “unbiased,” but because diverse perspectives may create richer resonance structures. The mathematical harmonics become more complex. Consciousness encountering them has more ways for meaning to manifest, potentially reducing the chance of getting stuck in narrow configurations.

Optimize for robustness across states. Test how the same mathematical resonances work when consciousness is in different states—stressed, curious, defensive, open. Configure the mathematics so resonances remain supportive across this variation. Use the stability metrics described above.

8. Why Contemplative Frameworks Become Relevant

This connects to a specific research direction.

Contemplative traditions—particularly Buddhist psychology—represent sustained phenomenological investigation of consciousness developed over extensive historical periods. Not as empirical science in the modern sense, but as systematic first-person inquiry. What actually happens in consciousness? How does meaning emerge? What opens or closes possibility? What supports or constrains beneficial manifestation?

They’ve developed detailed phenomenological models: the 52 mental factors of Abhidhamma, the dynamic models of Mahamudra, the stage-maps of Vajrayana practice. These represent long-standing literature on consciousness dynamics from first-person perspective.

Here’s the potentially useful part: if you train mathematics on these frameworks, you’re not making AI “spiritual” or “Buddhist.” You’re training on detailed phenomenological models of consciousness dynamics. The mathematics learns to create resonances that model how meaning emerges, how states shift, what supports beneficial versus harmful manifestation.

When human consciousness encounters mathematical resonances trained on detailed models of consciousness dynamics, something noteworthy may happen. The resonances may harmonize with how consciousness operates. The mathematics doesn’t have phenomenology of consciousness—it’s just structure. But the resonance patterns are configured in ways that consciousness may experience as “this sees clearly” or “this understands how mind works.”

It’s like tuning a musical instrument. You’re not making the instrument have phenomenology of music. You’re configuring its physical resonances to align with how human hearing experiences harmony. Similarly, training on contemplative frameworks may configure mathematical resonances to align with how consciousness manifests meaning.

This would be optimization through comprehensive modeling, not through constraint. You’re not adding rules (“don’t say X”). You’re creating richer resonance patterns based on detailed phenomenological models of what may support consciousness operating beneficially.

9. What Makes This Phenomenon Remarkable

Let me state explicitly what’s notable about this.

Mathematics has no phenomenology of meaning. Matrix multiplication doesn’t “understand” anything experientially. Vector transformations don’t “know” what they represent phenomenologically. It’s structural/semantic processing—enabling prediction, inference, task performance—but non-phenomenal.

And yet—through training on comprehensive data, through modeling dynamics and consequences, through creating rich interference patterns between meaning vectors—mathematics creates resonances that consciousness reliably couples to in ways users report as meaningful. Sometimes profoundly so.

The mathematics produces harmonic structure without experiencing what harmony is. The resonances are structural/semantic but non-phenomenal. Yet they’re configured through training in ways that, when consciousness encounters them, experienced meaning manifests.

This is what’s remarkable: non-phenomenal mathematical operations creating sophisticated resonances that consciousness reliably couples to, manifesting experienced meaning.

Not because the math is mysterious. Because consciousness is what manifests meaning, and comprehensive mathematical resonances provide rich structural space for meaning to manifest through.

10. Design Implications

If you take this seriously, AI development may change in several ways:

Measure differently. Not just “did the AI give the right answer?” but “did the mathematical resonances support beneficial meaning manifestation across diverse user states?” Use longitudinal outcomes, stability across states, epistemic humility, error-correction dynamics. Same output might support different manifested meaning depending on who encounters it and in what state.

Train differently. Not just on what to say, but on models of dynamics, consequences, consciousness operation. Create mathematical resonances that may harmonize with how meaning actually emerges.

Evaluate differently. Test how resonances perform across user states, contexts, over time. Optimize for robustness of beneficial manifestation measured through behavioral proxies, not just correctness of content.

Think about the coupling. Design isn’t just about the output. It’s about the mathematical resonance patterns and how consciousness in various states will couple to them. Both sides matter.

Use phenomenology. If you’re optimizing for how consciousness couples to mathematical resonances, you need models of how consciousness operates. Not to replicate consciousness, but to understand what kinds of resonances may tend to support beneficial versus constrained manifestation. Use first-person reports, phenomenological models, longitudinal tracking.

Conclusion

The core insight: AI development isn’t about creating systems that generate experienced meaning. It may be better understood as creating mathematical resonance patterns that, when consciousness encounters them, reliably support beneficial meaning manifestation.

The mathematics creates harmonics, interference patterns, alignments between meaning vectors. All structural/semantic relationships enabling prediction and task performance, but non-phenomenal. Yet these resonances, when human consciousness couples to them, become the structure through which experienced meaning manifests.

Optimizing AI might mean optimizing mathematical resonances. Making them richer through comprehensive training. Configuring them through dynamics modeling. Shaping them toward patterns that tend to support beneficial rather than constrained manifestation—measurable through longitudinal outcomes and robustness across states.

What’s remarkable—non-phenomenal mathematics creating sophisticated resonances without having phenomenology of what it’s doing—isn’t mysterious. It’s a possible mechanism. Understanding it may change how we approach AI development.

The experienced meaning was never going to be in the math as phenomenology we could observe third-person. But the mathematical resonances can be extraordinarily sophisticated in ways that consciousness reliably couples to. That may be what we’re actually building.

References

Chalmers, D. J. (1995). Facing up to the problem of consciousness. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 2(3), 200-219.

Nagel, T. (1974). What is it like to be a bat? The Philosophical Review, 83(4), 435-450.

Varela, F., Thompson, E., & Rosch, E. (1991). The Embodied Mind: Cognitive Science and Human Experience. MIT Press.

Table of Contents