Tier_4_Consciousness
Tier 4: Consciousness (C4.x)
Type: 🏛️ Foundational
Scope: Observer Dynamics & Agency
Dependencies: Tier 3
C4.1 — OBSERVATION IS INFORMATIONAL READOUT
Type: 🔵 Schema
Scope: Measurement, epistemology-ontology interface
Dependencies: P3.2, P3.3, I2.1, I2.3
Refutation Targets: Category error · Incoherence · Predictive mismatch
| CORE CLAIM | STRONGEST OBJECTION | DIRECT RESPONSE | GROUNDS (SUPPORT) | DEEPEST — REFUTATION TARGETS |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Observation = stable registration of state distinctions | “This ignores the measurement problem.” | The schema defines observation as the formation of stable records. Decoherence explains stability without mystical mind-collapse. | Measurement devices produce durable correlated states (“records”). | Defeat A: Show records can form without readout.Defeat B: Contradict QM measurement data. |
C4.2 — A “KNOWING SYSTEM” IS ANY SYSTEM THAT MAINTAINS COMPRESSIVE MODELS
Type: 🔵 Schema
Scope: Cognition, inference, learning
Dependencies: I2.3, I2.4, I2.6
Refutation Targets: Overbreadth · Category collapse
| CORE CLAIM | STRONGEST OBJECTION | DIRECT RESPONSE | GROUNDS (SUPPORT) | DEEPEST — REFUTATION TARGETS |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cognition = model-maintenance to reduce surprise | “This makes thermostats ‘knowers.’” | It is a spectrum definition. Richer cognition requires memory depth and self-modeling. | Information dynamics: systems resist noise via prediction. | Defeat: Show adaptive coherence without modeling. |
C4.3 — CONSCIOUS ACCESS REQUIRES A THRESHOLD (Φ)
Type: 🔵 Schema
Scope: Conscious access, architecture-level constraint
Dependencies: C4.2, I2.3
Refutation Targets: Threshold denial · Panpsychism trap
| CORE CLAIM | STRONGEST OBJECTION | DIRECT RESPONSE | GROUNDS (SUPPORT) | DEEPEST — REFUTATION TARGETS |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Conscious access requires integrated, global, stable coherence | “Doesn’t explain qualia.” | This is about access/availability. It explains why consciousness scales with integration. | IIT and GWT correlate with reportability. | Defeat: Conscious access with low integration. |
C4.5 — AGENCY IS COHERENCE-DIRECTED SELECTION UNDER CONSTRAINT
Type: 🔵 Schema
Scope: Action, Choice, Responsibility Preconditions
Dependencies: I2.1, I2.4, I2.5, C4.2
Refutation Targets: Determinism objection · Illusion objection
| CORE CLAIM | STRONGEST OBJECTION | DIRECT RESPONSE | GROUNDS (SUPPORT) | DEEPEST — REFUTATION TARGETS |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agency = capacity to select actions that preserve coherence | “Not free will; just control loops.” | Defines agency functionally. Minimal bridge for moral dynamics. | Control systems are coherence-maximizers. | Defeat: Coherent goal-directed behavior without selection. |
Section Navigation & Dependencies
You are here: §4 — Tier 4: Consciousness and Agency
Purpose of this section:
Establishes the functional role of the observer and the threshold requirements for agency within the χ-field.
⟶ Forward Progression
Next: §5 — Tier 5: Moral Dynamics
This section depends on the following prior commitments:
- §2.0 — Tier 0: Primordial Existence
- §1.2 — Paper 2: Observer Necessity
⛨ Defense & Scope Control
Primary objections addressed:
→ §9.6 — Falsifying Consciousness Claims
What this section does not claim:
- That qualia are derived from information structure alone
- That consciousness causes physical collapse (it is the registration of it)
Claim type: Constraint-Based
Testability standard: Compatibility with neuroscience and QM data
Reading Guidance
This section constrains elimination arguments; it defines what an observer "is" in a language compatible with both physics and agency.