Consciousness-Like Structural Regimes as Constraint-Driven Emergence
Fuente:
Zenodo
Gespeichert in:
| Hauptverfasser: | , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Recurso digital |
| Sprache: | Englisch |
| Veröffentlicht: |
Zenodo
2025
|
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| _version_ | 1866901674342219776 |
|---|---|
| author | Isotalo, Gust Antonson, Brent |
| author_facet | Isotalo, Gust Antonson, Brent |
| contents | <p>This paper establishes a formal framework for analyzing consciousness-like structural regimes as emergent properties of recursive symbolic systems operating under constraint. It defines consciousness not as subjective experience or agency, but as a specific structural pattern of persistence observable in systems capable of recursive self-modeling. <span> </span></p> <p>Abstract Summary</p> <p>The framework integrates tools from dynamical systems theory, information theory, and non-equilibrium physics to identify the operational criteria for why certain symbolic structures persist while others collapse. By treating persistence, coherence, and identity as structural outcomes of constraint-driven self-modeling, the model yields falsifiable predictions and a substrate-independent account of cognitive architecture. <span> </span></p> <p>Core Components</p> <p>• Formal Definitions: Defines symbolic systems \bm{S=(X,R)} and characterizes "admissibility" through constraints \bm{\mathcal{C}} that represent entropy bounds and resource limits. <span> </span></p> <p>• Axiomatic Foundation: Provides four core axioms: Constraint Survival, Entropic Pressure, Recursive Stability, and Identity as Invariance. <span> </span></p> <p>• Structural Regimes: Formally defines a consciousness-like regime (\bm{S \in \mathcal{CR}}) based on its ability to preserve internal representations and resist entropic perturbation. <span> </span></p> <p>• Metaphysical Reframing: Reframes traditional metaphysical terminology—such as Soul, God, and Faith—as structural shorthands for limit behaviors and symbolic invariants. <span> </span></p> <p>• Falsifiability: Outlines five explicit conditions under which the framework would fail, ensuring empirical and computational testability. <span> </span></p> <p>Key Contribution</p> <p>The work dissolves mind-body dualism without resorting to computational essentialism by demonstrating that if two symbolic structures are isomorphic and satisfy identical constraints, their physical implementation is irrelevant to their persistence. <span> </span></p> |
| format | Recurso digital |
| id | zenodo_https___doi_org_10_5281_zenodo_18104934 |
| institution | Zenodo |
| language | eng |
| publishDate | 2025 |
| publisher | Zenodo |
| record_format | zenodo |
| spellingShingle | Consciousness-Like Structural Regimes as Constraint-Driven Emergence Isotalo, Gust Antonson, Brent Constraint-Driven Emergence Recursive Symbolic Systems Structural Regimes Non-equilibrium Physics Information Theor Dynamical Systems Recursive Self-Modeling Substrate Independence Entropy Bounds Admissibility Grammar <p>This paper establishes a formal framework for analyzing consciousness-like structural regimes as emergent properties of recursive symbolic systems operating under constraint. It defines consciousness not as subjective experience or agency, but as a specific structural pattern of persistence observable in systems capable of recursive self-modeling. <span> </span></p> <p>Abstract Summary</p> <p>The framework integrates tools from dynamical systems theory, information theory, and non-equilibrium physics to identify the operational criteria for why certain symbolic structures persist while others collapse. By treating persistence, coherence, and identity as structural outcomes of constraint-driven self-modeling, the model yields falsifiable predictions and a substrate-independent account of cognitive architecture. <span> </span></p> <p>Core Components</p> <p>• Formal Definitions: Defines symbolic systems \bm{S=(X,R)} and characterizes "admissibility" through constraints \bm{\mathcal{C}} that represent entropy bounds and resource limits. <span> </span></p> <p>• Axiomatic Foundation: Provides four core axioms: Constraint Survival, Entropic Pressure, Recursive Stability, and Identity as Invariance. <span> </span></p> <p>• Structural Regimes: Formally defines a consciousness-like regime (\bm{S \in \mathcal{CR}}) based on its ability to preserve internal representations and resist entropic perturbation. <span> </span></p> <p>• Metaphysical Reframing: Reframes traditional metaphysical terminology—such as Soul, God, and Faith—as structural shorthands for limit behaviors and symbolic invariants. <span> </span></p> <p>• Falsifiability: Outlines five explicit conditions under which the framework would fail, ensuring empirical and computational testability. <span> </span></p> <p>Key Contribution</p> <p>The work dissolves mind-body dualism without resorting to computational essentialism by demonstrating that if two symbolic structures are isomorphic and satisfy identical constraints, their physical implementation is irrelevant to their persistence. <span> </span></p> |
| title | Consciousness-Like Structural Regimes as Constraint-Driven Emergence |
| topic | Constraint-Driven Emergence Recursive Symbolic Systems Structural Regimes Non-equilibrium Physics Information Theor Dynamical Systems Recursive Self-Modeling Substrate Independence Entropy Bounds Admissibility Grammar |
| url | https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18104934 |