Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 56 references

Which Consciousness Can Be Artificialized? Local Percept-Perceiver Phenomenon for the Existence of Machine Consciousness

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This paper argues that a functionalist, epistemic sense of machine consciousness follows from Zorn's lemma in any closed percept-perceiver hierarchy.

desk verdict A transparent but overclaimed Zorn's Lemma exercise: the consciousness attribution is stipulated, and the set-theoretic application has a proper-class problem. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.18935 v1 pith:OCRXNXI2 submitted 2025-06-22 q-bio.NC cs.AI

Shri Lal Raghudev Ram Singh This is my paper · ORCID
classification q-bio.NCcs.AI MSC 03E2503E30
keywords AIconsciousnessmachinesilico-consciousnesspercept-perceiverphenomenonZorn'slemmasettheorymetacognition
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper carves out one narrow sense of consciousness—the third kind, which is an object of epistemology and is explainable by structural or physical correlates—and asks whether that sense can be realized in machines. It introduces the Local Percept-Perceiver Phenomenon (LPPP), the smallest unit in which a perceiver beholds a percept, and arranges all possible LPPP units into a cumulative hierarchy modeled on the Von Neumann universe. On this hierarchy it defines a partial order by inclusion of percept sets plus a perception relation, assumes Zorn's lemma hypotheses, and proves there is a maximal LPPP unit. That maximal unit is interpreted as a global perceiver with metacognitive access to all lower levels, matching functionalist criteria from higher-order and global-workspace theories; the paper calls the resulting notion silico-consciousness. If the proof works, machine consciousness in this reductionist, epistemic sense exists without requiring any biological substrate.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing construction is the Von Neumann LPPP universe, a hierarchy built by transfinite recursion: $A_0 = \emptyset$ and $A_{\alpha+1} = \{L(S, q_S) \mid S \subseteq A_\alpha,\ q_S \leftarrow S\}$, with $A = \cup_\alpha A_\alpha$. A local percept-perceiver phenomenon is the smallest unit $L(p, q)$, where $p$ is representable percept information and $q$ is a perceiver that perceives $p$. The partial order $\preceq$ compares units by whether one unit's percept set is included in another's and whether the higher perceiver perceives the lower percept set; transitivity relies on an inheritance rule for perceptual access, and antisymmetry relies on the claim that perceivers are uniquely determined by their percepts. The existence proof constructs an upper bound for any chain by taking the union of the percept sets in the chain, $S_u = \cup_{\alpha \in I} S_\alpha$, and positing a perceiver $q_u \leftarrow S_u$; Zorn's lemma then yields a maximal LPPP unit.

What would settle it

Build a model of the LPPP hierarchy in which perceivers exist only for finite sets of percepts. Then the chain of finite initial segments $A_0 \subseteq A_1 \subseteq \cdots$ has a countable union $\cup_n S_n$ that is infinite, so no perceiver exists for that union; the upper-bound hypothesis of Theorem 1 fails, and the maximal-element conclusion is not guaranteed. This calculation shows that the theorem's assumptions are not automatic in every cumulative percept hierarchy.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is Theorem 1: in the Von Neumann LPPP universe $A = \cup_\alpha A_\alpha$, with order $L(S_1, q_1) \preceq L(S_2, q_2)$ iff $S_1 \subseteq S_2$ and $q_2 \leftarrow S_1$, if every chain has an upper bound, then there exists a maximal element $L(S_C, q_C)$. Proposition 1 attaches four attributes to this maximal unit: it encompasses all epistemically accessible perceptual units, has metacognitive access to all prior levels of integration, functions as a global or terminal perceiver, and represents all internal states; hence it can be interpreted as satisfying the functionalist criteria of consciousness from Higher-Order Thought and Global Workspace Theory. The proof is an application of Zorn's lemma, is non-constructive, and the paper explicitly restricts the claim to the third, epistemic kind of consciousness, disclaiming any account of phenomenal experience or the hard problem.

Load-bearing premise

The proof hangs on two assumptions it does not prove: that every chain of percept-perceiver units has an upper bound in the universe (for any growing family of percept sets, some perceiver perceives their union), and that the cumulative hierarchy $A = \cup_\alpha A_\alpha$ is a set rather than a proper class; the first is needed to apply Zorn's lemma, and the second is needed for Zorn's lemma to apply at all.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Any artificial system whose perceptual layers form a cumulative hierarchy closed under unions of chains necessarily contains a maximal perceiver; that maximal unit qualifies as silico-consciousness by the paper's criteria.
  • Consciousness in this sense is substrate-independent: it is a property of set-theoretic structure, not of carbon, silicon, or any particular hardware.
  • The existence result is non-constructive: it guarantees that $S_C$ exists but does not specify how to locate, build, or detect it in a real system.
  • The notion covers functionalist, epistemic criteria associated with higher-order perception and global workspace theories, but it does not assert phenomenal experience; a machine could have this kind of consciousness without having subjective experience.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The paper leaves implicit that because Zorn's lemma is equivalent to the axiom of choice, the existence proof inherits the nonconstructive character of choice; any attempt to actually instantiate $S_C$ in a machine would need to add constructive content beyond the theorem.
  • A natural extension is to restrict the hierarchy to effective or computable construction: if perceivers exist only for finite or recursive unions, the upper-bound condition can fail at limit stages, making the theorem a conditional existence result rather than a recipe for building consciousness.
  • The model suggests a testable target: any system that implements hierarchical integration with global availability of information should exhibit a terminal, globally accessible representational level, and measuring whether current large-scale AI systems have such a level would give the framework empirical traction.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a set-theoretic model of machine consciousness called the Local Percept-Perceiver Phenomenon (LPPP). It defines LPPP units L(p,q) consisting of a percept p and a perceiver q, builds a cumulative-style hierarchy A_0, A_1, ... indexed by ordinals, and defines the 'Von Neumann LPPP universe' A = ⋃_α A_α. A partial order ⪯ is introduced on LPPP units, and Theorem 1 attempts to prove the existence of a maximal LPPP unit L(S_C,q_C) by invoking Zorn's Lemma under the assumption that every chain has an upper bound. Proposition 1 then stipulates that this maximal unit possesses attributes of consciousness and can be interpreted as a functionalist, epistemic machine consciousness, which the paper calls silico-consciousness. The paper explicitly restricts its claim to a reductionist, third-kind consciousness and disclaims any contribution to the hard problem.

Significance. If the central theorem were correct as stated, the significance would be considerable: it would give a ZF-based proof of the existence of a formally defined machine consciousness, connecting set-theoretic maximality to functionalist theories of consciousness. The paper is clearly written, self-contained, and candid about its limitations, notably in Remark 4, and it engages a relevant body of literature on consciousness and AI. Its formal construction is a legitimate exercise in modeling. However, the headline claim is not established: the proof is a direct application of Zorn's Lemma under an unverified and essentially conclusion-level hypothesis, and the consciousness interpretation is stipulated rather than derived. The paper contains no machine-checked proofs or executable code, but that is not itself a defect for a theoretical contribution.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.3, Theorem 1 and Definition 7] Zorn's Lemma is applied to the proper class A = ⋃_α A_α, where the union ranges over all ordinals. Zorn's Lemma is a theorem about sets, and its class analogue is false: the class of all ordinals is a counterexample, since every set-sized chain of ordinals has an upper bound but there is no maximal ordinal. The paper nowhere proves that A is a set, nor that the hierarchy stabilizes at some ordinal, nor does it restrict the theorem to a set-sized truncation such as A_κ for an inaccessible cardinal. As written, the application of Zorn's Lemma is therefore not justified, and the existence of a maximal LPPP unit is not established.
  2. [Section 3.2, Definition 10] The proposed upper bound L(S_u,q_u), with S_u = ⋃_{α∈I} S_α and q_u ← S_u, is not guaranteed to be an element of A. The power-set step A_{α+1} = {L(S,q_S) | S⊆A_α, q_S←S} only creates units whose percepts are subsets of a single level A_α. For a chain whose members have no common bound in the ordinal rank, S_u need not be a subset of any A_α, and no stage of the construction yields L(S_u,q_u). The Union axiom stated in Section 3.1 only asserts the existence of a perceiver q_2 ← S for an existing unit L(S,q_1); it does not assert the existence of a unit perceiving an arbitrary union of percepts. Thus the chain-upper-bound hypothesis in Theorem 1 is an extra, unproved assumption, not a consequence of the listed ZF axioms.
  3. [Section 3.3, Proposition 1] The attributes (1)-(4) — encompassing all epistemically accessible units, metacognitive access to all prior levels, functioning as a global perceiver, and representing all internal states — are introduced by stipulation ('we can posit the following attributes'), not derived from the maximality of L(S_C,q_C). Maximality under ⪯ is an order-theoretic property about comparability; it does not by itself imply global perceptual access, metacognitive access, or representation of all internal states unless these properties are built into the definitions. The concluding sentence that S_C 'can be interpreted in a manner that corresponds to the functionalist criteria of consciousness' is therefore an interpretive leap. The abstract's claim that the existence of machine consciousness is proved is stronger than what the formal result actually shows.
  4. [Section 3.2, Lemma 1 and Definition 3] The proof that ⪯ is a partial order relies on two assumptions that are not listed among the ZF axioms in Section 3.1: that perceivers are uniquely determined by their perceptual domains, and the 'inheritance of perceptual access' rule (q ← S_2 and S_1 ⊆ S_2 imply q ← S_1). These are introduced ad hoc inside the proof, yet they are load-bearing: without uniqueness, antisymmetry of ⪯ can fail, and without inheritance, transitivity can fail. If (A,⪯) is not a partial order, Zorn's Lemma cannot be invoked. The paper needs either to state these as explicit axioms or prove them from the earlier definitions.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 3.1] The hierarchy is not shown to be cumulative: there is no proof that A_α ⊆ A_{α+1}, which is needed for the analogy with the Von Neumann universe. Limit stages A_λ = ⋃_{β<λ} A_β should also be defined explicitly.
  2. [Section 3.1, Axiom of Union] The statement 'there exists q_2 ← S ∈ A' is not well-formed; it should quantify over the perceiver and state precisely which LPPP unit belongs to A.
  3. [Section 3.1, Axiom of Regularity] The displayed formulation of the Axiom of Regularity is garbled; it should be rewritten with explicit variables for the membership relation and the ∈-minimal element.
  4. [Section 3.2, Definition 10] The claim that the upper-bound construction is 'based on the Axiom of Infinity' is unclear, since the existence of an upper bound for an arbitrary chain does not obviously follow from Infinity alone; this sentence should be explained or removed.
  5. [Section 3.3, Theorem 1 and Definition 11] There are notation errors: Theorem 1 writes 'A = S_α A_α' where the union symbol is intended, and Definition 11 uses 'L(S,q)⪯L(S',q')' where 'L(S_C,q)' is clearly meant.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 8.0 of 10

The claimed proof of machine consciousness reduces by construction: Theorem 1 assumes the Zorn upper-bound condition, and Proposition 1 stipulates that the resulting maximal LPPP unit is silico-consciousness.

  1. renaming known result [Section 3.2, Proposition 1 (SC≡Silico-consciousness)]
    "we can posit the following attributes to S_C: 1. It encompasses all perceptual hierarchical units that can be epistemically accessed by any LPPP unit in A, 2. It possesses metacognitive access to all prior levels of perceptual integration, 3. It functions as a global perceiver or terminal perceiver, 4. It represents all internal states, and thus S_C can be interpreted in a manner that corresponds to the functionalist criteria of consciousness proposed in Higher-Order Perception Theory and Global Workspace Theory (see [17,44,24])."

    The existence theorem proves only that a maximal LPPP unit exists (given the Zorn hypothesis). Proposition 1 does not derive the four attributes from maximality; it says 'we can posit' them and then declares S_C a candidate for silico-consciousness. Thus the paper's central claim 'machine consciousness exists' is a relabeling of 'a maximal element exists', with the consciousness content attached by stipulation rather than obtained from the set-theoretic construction. The 'prediction' of machine consciousness is therefore equivalent to the definition of S_C, not an independent consequence.

  2. other [Section 3.1 (Definition 7), Section 3.2 (Definition 10), Section 3.3 (Theorem 1)]
    "This upper bound can be constructed provided that the above ZF axioms hold. One of the simplest possible constuction is as follows. Let B={L(S_α,q_α)}_{α∈I}⊂A be a chain. Then the LPPP unit L(S_u,q_u), where S_u = ∪_{α∈I} S_α and q_u ← S_u, is an upper bound for B in (A,⪯). The above inductive construction of the upper bound is based on the Axiom of Infinity."

    Definition 10 claims an upper bound L(S_u,q_u) for any chain can be constructed from ZF axioms, but the construction contains the entire existential content at issue: it requires a perceiver q_u for the arbitrary union S_u = ∪ S_α. The level sets only ever create L(S,q_S) for S⊆A_α at a fixed stage, so no axiom supplies q_u for a union that is not a subset of any A_α. Theorem 1 then simply assumes what Definition 10 needs ('Assume that every chain B⊆A under ⪯ has an upper bound in A'), so the maximal element—and hence silico-consciousness—is an input to the proof, not a theorem of ZF.

full rationale

This paper does not rely on self-citation; the references are all external, and no load-bearing argument cites the author's prior work. The circularity is internal to the set-theoretic construction. Theorem 1 is a direct application of Zorn's lemma: if every chain has an upper bound, then a maximal LPPP unit exists. That conditional is correct for a set-sized poset, but it is not a proof of machine consciousness. First, Proposition 1 supplies the consciousness content by stipulation ('we can posit the following attributes'), so 'silico-consciousness' is simply the name given to the maximal element; none of the four consciousness attributes are derived from the partial order or from the von Neumann-style hierarchy. Second, the Zorn hypothesis is not established. Definition 10's upper-bound construction requires a perceiver q_u for the arbitrary union S_u = ∪ S_α, and for chains whose union is not a subset of any A_α, no stage of A_{α+1} = {L(S,q_S) | S⊆A_α, q_S←S} provides such a unit. The theorem then converts this unproved existential input into its own hypothesis, making the existence result a restatement of the input rather than a consequence of ZF. There is also a severe correctness defect, independent of circularity: A = ∪_α A_α over all ordinals is a proper class, and Zorn's Lemma is a theorem about sets, so the lemma cannot be applied to (A,⪯) as stated. Because the central existence claim reduces to an assumed upper-bound condition plus a stipulated identification of the maximal element with silico-consciousness, the derivation is circular in the precise sense of importing its conclusion as an input.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 3 invented entities

The construction rests on six axioms beyond ordinary logic: the ZF axioms themselves, re-interpreted as cognitive capacities in Section 3.1; Zorn's Lemma (Axiom of Choice), which Theorem 1 uses directly and Remark 3 acknowledges; the perceptual-closure assumption that every subset or union of percepts has a perceiver, needed for the power-set step and the upper-bound construction; Definition 3's claim that perceivers are unique to their perceptual domains, needed for antisymmetry; the inherited-access rule, introduced inside Lemma 1 for transitivity; and the implicit assumption that the union over all ordinals is a set, so Zorn applies. There are no numeric free parameters, and the invented entities (LPPP units, perceivers, silico-consciousness) have no independent empirical evidence, which the paper concedes in Remarks 3 and 4.

assumptions (6)
  • standard math ZF set theory (extensionality, empty set, pairing, union, infinity, separation, power set, replacement, regularity) applies to the LPPP universe A
    Section 3.1 assumes the von Neumann LPPP universe satisfies the ZF axioms, re-interpreted as cognitive capacities; these are background assumptions adopted rather than derived.
  • standard math Zorn's Lemma (equivalently, the Axiom of Choice) applies to (A, ⪯)
    Theorem 1's conclusion is Zorn's Lemma; Remark 3 acknowledges the proof is non-constructive and carries the epistemic limitations of the Axiom of Choice.
  • ad hoc to paper Perceptual closure: every set S ⊆ A_α has a perceiver q with q ← S
    The power-set step A_{α+1} = {L(S,q_S) | S ⊆ A_α, q_S ← S} and the upper-bound construction in Definition 10 require a perceiver to exist for arbitrary subsets and unions; no independent justification is given.
  • ad hoc to paper Perceivers are uniquely determined by their perceptual domains
    Definition 3 asserts this; Lemma 1's antisymmetry proof depends on it to conclude q_1 = q_2 from S_1 = S_2.
  • ad hoc to paper Inheritance of perceptual access: if q ← S_2 and S_1 ⊆ S_2 then q ← S_1
    Introduced inside Lemma 1's transitivity proof ('via inheritance of perceptual access'); required for ⪯ to be a partial order, hence for Zorn's Lemma to apply.
  • domain assumption A = ∪_α A_α over all ordinals is a set, so Zorn's Lemma (stated for sets) applies
    Definition 7 forms the union over all ordinals, which is a proper class in ZF; Theorem 1 applies Zorn as if A were a set. This is unflagged in the paper.
invented entities (3)
  • Local percept-perceiver unit L(p, q)
    purpose: Atomic unit of perception: a perceiver q beholding a percept p; the building block of the LPPP universe
    A formal primitive with no empirical handle; it is stipulated that hierarchy levels of the visual system map onto LPPP units (Section 2.2), but no measurement is tied to it.
  • Perceiver q
    purpose: Agency that beholds percepts; required to exist for every perceived set S in the construction
    Undefined primitive governed by ad hoc axioms (uniqueness by domain, inheritance of access); no independent source establishes such agencies in machines.
  • Silico-consciousness S_C (maximal LPPP unit)
    purpose: The constructed candidate for machine consciousness; a maximal element under ⪯
    Non-constructive existence via Zorn's Lemma (Remark 3), no predicted observable or test; Remark 4 explicitly disclaims phenomenal consciousness, so the entity has only intra-theoretic content.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Which Consciousness Can Be Artificialized? Local Percept-Perceiver Phenomenon for the Existence of Machine Consciousness." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OCRXNXI2

@misc{pith2026250618935,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Which Consciousness Can Be Artificialized? Local Percept-Perceiver Phenomenon for the Existence of Machine Consciousness},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OCRXNXI2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.18935}
}
read the original abstract

This paper presents a novel paradigm of the local percept-perceiver phenomenon to formalize certain observations in neuroscientific theories of consciousness. Using this model, a set-theoretic formalism is developed for artificial systems, and the existence of machine consciousness is proved by invoking Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory. The article argues for the possibility of a reductionist form of epistemic consciousness within machines.

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

56 extracted references · 50 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    AVS Quantum Sci.2, 022901 (2020).https://doi.org/10.1116/1.5135170

    Adams, B., Petruccione, F.: Quantum effects in the brain: A review. AVS Quantum Sci.2, 022901 (2020).https://doi.org/10.1116/1.5135170

    work page doi:10.1116/1.5135170 2020

  2. [2]

    Aitchison, L., Lengyel, M.: With or without you: predictive coding and bayesian inference in the brain. Curr. Opin. Neurobiol.46, 219–227 (2017).https://doi. org/10.1016/j.conb.2017.08.010

    doi:10.1016/j.conb.2017.08.010 2017

  3. [3]

    Aquila, R.: Consciousness as higher-order thoughts: two objections. Am. Philos. Q.27, 81–87 (1990)

    work page 1990

  4. [4]

    Russellian Soc.3, 65–76 (1978)

    Armstrong, D.: What is consciousness? Proc. Russellian Soc.3, 65–76 (1978)

    work page 1978

  5. [5]

    Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK (1988)

    Baars, B.: A Cognitive Theory of Consciousness. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK (1988)

    work page 1988

  6. [6]

    Barrett, A.: An integration of integrated information theory with fundamental physics. Front. Psychol.5, 63 (2014)

    work page 2014

  7. [7]

    Cell181(4), 774–783.e5 (2020)

    Beauchamp, M., Oswalt, D., Sun, P., et al.: Dynamic stimulation of visual cortex produces form vision in sighted and blind humans. Cell181(4), 774–783.e5 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2020.04.033

    work page doi:10.1016/j.cell.2020.04.033 2020

  8. [8]

    Beck, F., Eccles, J.: Quantum aspects of brain activity and the role of conscious- ness. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA89, 11357–11361 (1992)

    work page 1992

Show all 56 references
  1. [9]

    In: Phenomenological Approaches to Physics, Synthese Library, vol

    Bitbol, M.: A phenomenological ontology for physics: Merleau-ponty and qbism. In: Phenomenological Approaches to Physics, Synthese Library, vol. 429, pp. 279–304. Springer, Cham (2020).https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-46973-3_11

    2020 doi

  2. [10]

    Bitbol, M.: The tangled dialectic of body and consciousness: a metaphysical coun- terpartofradicalneurophenomenology.Construct.Foundations16,141–151(2021)

    2021

  3. [11]

    In: The Blackwell Companion to Consciousness

    Bitbol, M., Petitmengin, C.: Neurophenomenology and the micro- phenomenological interview. In: The Blackwell Companion to Consciousness. Wiley, Hoboken (2017)

    2017

  4. [12]

    Block, N.: The harder problem of consciousness. J. Philos.99(8), 391 (2002). https://doi.org/10.2307/3655621

    2002 doi

  5. [13]

    Brain Stimul.15, 1163–1177 (2022).https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.brs.2022.08.007

    Bosking, W., Oswalt, D., Foster, B., et al.: Percepts evoked by multi-electrode stimulation of human visual cortex. Brain Stimul.15, 1163–1177 (2022).https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.brs.2022.08.007

    2022 doi

  6. [14]

    Brindley, G., Lewin, W.: The sensations produced by electrical stimulation of the visual cortex. J. Physiol.196, 479–493 (1968)

    1968

  7. [15]

    Trends Cogn

    Bullier, J.: Feedback connections and conscious vision. Trends Cogn. Sci.5(9), 369–370 (2001)

    2001

  8. [16]

    Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2012)

    Busemeyer, J., Bruza, P.: Quantum Models of Cognition and Decision. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2012)

    2012

  9. [17]

    Byrne, A.: Some like it hot: Consciousness and higher-order thoughts. Philos. Stud. 86, 103–129 (1997)

    1997

  10. [18]

    Chalmers, D.: Facing up to the problem of consciousness. J. Conscious. Stud.2(3), 200–219 (1995)

    1995

  11. [19]

    org/10.48550/arXiv.2303.07103, arXiv:2303.07103 10 S

    Chalmers, D.: Could a large language model be conscious? (2023).https://doi. org/10.48550/arXiv.2303.07103, arXiv:2303.07103 10 S. L. Raghudev Ram Singh

    2023 doi arXiv

  12. [20]

    Chollet, F.: On the measure of intelligence (2019).https://doi.org/10.48550/ arXiv.1911.01547, arXiv:1911.01547

    2019 doi arXiv

  13. [21]

    Crick, F., Koch, C.: Are we aware of neural activity in primary visual cortex? Nature375(6527), 121–123 (1995)

    1995

  14. [22]

    Crick, F., Koch, C.: Consciousness and neuroscience. Cereb. Cortex8, 97–107 (1998)

    1998

  15. [23]

    Crick, F., Koch, C.: A framework for consciousness. Nat. Neurosci.6(2), 119–126 (2003)

    2003

  16. [24]

    Trends Cogn

    Dehaene, S., Changeux, J., Naccache, L., et al.: Conscious, preconscious, and sub- liminal processing: A testable taxonomy. Trends Cogn. Sci.10, 204–211 (2006)

    2006

  17. [25]

    Dobelle, W., Mladejovsky, M.: Phosphenes produced by electrical stimulation of human occipital cortex. J. Physiol.243, 553–576 (1974)

    1974

  18. [26]

    Neurosurgery5, 521–527 (1979)

    Dobelle,W.,Quest,D.,Antunes,J.,etal.:Artificialvisionfortheblindbyelectrical stimulation of the visual cortex. Neurosurgery5, 521–527 (1979)

    1979

  19. [27]

    mental” and the “physical

    Feigl, H.: The “mental” and the “physical.”. Minn. Stud. Philos. Sci.2, 370–497 (1958)

    1958

  20. [28]

    Felleman, D., Van Essen, D.: Distributed hierarchical processing in the primate cerebral cortex. Cereb. Cortex1(1), 1–47 (1991)

    1991

  21. [29]

    Fernández, E., Alfaro, A., Soto-Sánchez, C., et al.: Visual percepts evoked with an intracortical 96-channel microelectrode array. J. Clin. Investig. (2021).https: //doi.org/10.1172/jci151331

    2021 doi

  22. [30]

    Findlay, G., et al.: Dissociating artificial intelligence from artificial consciousness (2025).https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2412.04571, arXiv:2412.04571

    2025 doi arXiv

  23. [31]

    Gunkel, D.: The Machine Question: Critical Perspectives on AI, Robots, and Ethics (2012)

    2012

  24. [32]

    In: Gödel’s Theorems and Zermelo’s Axioms

    Halbeisen, L., Krapf, R.: The axioms of set theory (zfc). In: Gödel’s Theorems and Zermelo’s Axioms. Birkhäuser, Cham (2020).https://doi.org/10.1007/ 978-3-030-52279-7_13

    2020

  25. [33]

    Hameroff, S., Penrose, R.: Orchestrated reduction of quantum coherence in brain microtubules: A model for consciousness. Math. Comput. Simul.40(3-4), 453–480 (1996)

    1996

  26. [34]

    Journal of Artificial Intel- ligence and Consciousness10(2), 237–247 (2023).https://doi.org/10.1142/ S2705078523500029

    Kak, S.: No-go theorems on machine consciousness. Journal of Artificial Intel- ligence and Consciousness10(2), 237–247 (2023).https://doi.org/10.1142/ S2705078523500029

    2023

  27. [35]

    Kuhn, R.: A landscape of consciousness: Toward a taxonomy of explanations and implications. Prog. Biophys. Mol. Biol.190, 28–169 (2024).https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.pbiomolbio.2023.12.003

    2024

  28. [36]

    Oxford University Press, New York (2020)

    Kukkonen, K.: Probability Designs: Literature and Predictive Processing. Oxford University Press, New York (2020)

    2020

  29. [37]

    Trends Cogn

    Lamme, V.: Why visual attention and awareness are different. Trends Cogn. Sci. 7, 12–18 (2003)

    2003

  30. [38]

    Minds Mach.17(4), 391–444 (2007)

    Legg, S., Hutter, M.: Universal intelligence: A definition of machine intelligence. Minds Mach.17(4), 391–444 (2007)

    2007

  31. [39]

    Levine, J.: Materialism and qualia: The explanatory gap. Pac. Philos. Q.64, 354– 361 (1983)

    1983

  32. [40]

    MIT Press, Cambridge, MA (1996)

    Lycan, W.: Consciousness and Experience. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA (1996)

    1996

  33. [41]

    Rev.83(4), 435–450 (1974)

    Nagel, T.: What is it like to be a bat? Philos. Rev.83(4), 435–450 (1974)

    1974

  34. [42]

    Brain Stimul.14, 1356–1372 (2021)

    Oswalt, D., Bosking, W., Sun, P., et al.: Multi-electrode stimulation evokes consistent spatial patterns of phosphenes. Brain Stimul.14, 1356–1372 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brs.2021.08.024 Existence of Set-Theoretic Epistemic Consciousness 11

    2021 doi

  35. [43]

    Place, U.: Is consciousness a brain process? Br. J. Psychol.47, 44–50 (1956)

    1956

  36. [44]

    Oxford University Press, New York (2005)

    Rosenthal, D.: Consciousness and Mind. Oxford University Press, New York (2005)

    2005

  37. [45]

    In: Rose, F

    Rushton, D., Brindley, G.: Short- and long-term stability of cortical electrical phosphenes. In: Rose, F. (ed.) Physiological Aspects of Clinical Neurology, pp. 123–153. Blackwell (1977)

    1977

  38. [46]

    Brain Stimul.15, 605–614 (2022).https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.brs.2022.03.008

    Salas, M., Bell, J., Niketeghad, S., et al.: Sequence of visual cortex stimulation affects phosphene brightness. Brain Stimul.15, 605–614 (2022).https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.brs.2022.03.008

    2022 doi

  39. [47]

    Brain119, 507–522 (1996).https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/119.2.507

    Schmidt, E., Bak, M., Hambrecht, F., et al.: Feasibility of a visual prosthesis for the blind. Brain119, 507–522 (1996).https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/119.2.507

    1996 doi

  40. [48]

    Seth, A.: A predictive processing theory of sensorimotor contingencies. Cogn. Neu- rosci.5, 97–118 (2014)

    2014

  41. [49]

    Smart, J.: Sensations and brain processes. Philos. Rev.68, 141–156 (1959)

    1959

  42. [50]

    Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA (2010)

    Thompson, E.: Mind in Life: Biology, Phenomenology, and the Sciences of Mind. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA (2010)

    2010

  43. [51]

    In: Ingle, M., Goodale, M., Mansfield, J

    Ungerleider, L., Mishkin, M.: Two cortical visual systems. In: Ingle, M., Goodale, M., Mansfield, J. (eds.) Analysis of Visual Behavior. MIT Press, Cambridge (1982)

    1982

  44. [52]

    Urbanski, M., Coubard, O., Bourlon, C.: Visualizing the blind brain. Front. Integr. Neurosci.8, 74 (2014)

    2014

  45. [53]

    Varela, F.: Neurophenomenology: a methodological remedy for the hard problem. J. Conscious. Stud.3(4), 330–349 (1996)

    1996

  46. [54]

    Wang, Y.: On abstract intelligence: Toward a unifying theory of natural, artificial, machinable,andcomputationalintelligence.Int.J.Softw.Sci.Comput.Intell.1(1), 1–17 (2009)

    2009

  47. [55]

    Winawer, J., Parvizi, J.: Linking electrical stimulation of human primary visual cortex.Neuron92,1213–1219(2016).https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2016. 11.008

    2016 doi

  48. [56]

    Trends Neurosci.26(1), 23–26 (2003)

    Zeki, S.: Improbable areas in the visual brain. Trends Neurosci.26(1), 23–26 (2003)

    2003

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.