Recursive Self-Governance in Conscious and Observer-Like Systems v1.5

Abstract

This paper develops Recursive Self-Governance (RSG) as a provisional governance-level hypothesis concerning how conscious or observer-like systems may revise not only their current models of themselves and their environments, but selected rules governing how adaptation itself occurs. The framework deliberately separates several explanatory problems that are often collapsed under the term consciousness: phenomenal generation, conscious access, perspectival organization, temporal integration, and recursive governance. RSG addresses only the final problem. It does not propose a solution to the hard problem of consciousness, a neural mechanism for phenomenal experience, a clinical theory, or a test for sentience. The central modelling distinction is: Cs≠ChC_s \neq C_h where CsC_s denotes conscious-state presence within the declared target class and ChC_h denotes the quality of coherent Recursive Self-Governance expressed while that state is present. This is a modelling boundary, not a claim that consciousness is universally binary or non-graded. The paper's principal distinctiveness claim concerns the difference between ordinary adaptation and governance-level revision. Let: MtM_t denote the system's current self/world model, and: Γt\Gamma_t denote the distributed rule-set or process family governing such functions as evidence admission, valuation, contradiction handling, revision, and external revalidation. Ordinary adaptation may produce: Mt→Mt+1.M_t \rightarrow M_{t+1}. The candidate RSG event is: Γt→Γt+1.\Gamma_t \rightarrow \Gamma_{t+1}. The framework survives as a distinct construct only if this second-order revision can be operationalized and shown to provide incremental explanatory or predictive value beyond established alternatives. If metacognition, executive control, predictive processing or active inference, second-order cybernetics, or Conscious Turing Machine-style architectures already explain the target phenomena adequately, RSG should translate rather than be protected as novel. Version 1.5 also clarifies RSG's relationship to the wider Coherence Dynamics Laboratory stack. Projection Horizon, Audit Bandwidth, Reorganization Capacity, Recursive Closure, Quiet Descent, and related future-state variables are inherited from Accessibility Geometry rather than redefined by RSG. Historical evidentiary discipline is likewise constrained by Historical Constraint Fidelity (HCF) rather than duplicated locally. Root Geometry G0G_0 is retained only as a candidate representation of layered prior structure and is not a diagnostic or calibrated quantity. The paper also retains Recursive Information Autophagy (RIA) only as a candidate failure process: the intra-system degradation of corrective evidence in a manner that may reduce later corrigibility. RIA is explicitly distinguished from HCF Constraint Poisoning, which concerns contamination inherited across observers or record chains. RIA is not promoted to a canonical Accessibility Geometry variable or treated as an established mechanism. The research programme is organized around falsifiable comparison. Its strongest proposed test contrasts systems capable only of revising MtM_t with systems capable of revising selected elements of Γt\Gamma_t, particularly under regime change, delayed consequence, source-reliability reversal, and historical constraint. The framework is therefore presented as a provisional, testable governance hypothesis, not as empirical validation. Core Proposition Adaptation may revise MtM_t. Recursive Self-Governance may, under some conditions, revise selected elements of Γt\Gamma_t. If that distinction cannot be operationalized or adds no incremental value, RSG translates. Scope and Non-Claims This paper does not claim that: Recursive Self-Governance generates phenomenal consciousness; RSG solves the hard problem of consciousness; sophisticated adaptation establishes sentience; artificial systems exhibiting functional RSG are therefore conscious; CsC_s is a clinical consciousness scale; ChC_h is a validated scalar measure; Root Geometry G0G_0 is a diagnostic construct; Projection Horizon, Audit Bandwidth, or Reorganization Capacity diagnose psychological or clinical states; RIA is an established mechanism; the numerical telemetry bands proposed in earlier versions remain valid; structural resemblance to another framework constitutes validation; the framework establishes personality, moral worth, legal competence, or personhood. For human applications, the governing boundary is: RSG may describe observed governance patterns. It may not determine what a person is. Relationship to Accessibility Geometry and HCF Version 1.5 places RSG within a clearer technical jurisdiction. Accessibility Geometry (AG) supplies the canonical state-space and route variables used to describe accessible future states, including Projection Horizon, Audit Bandwidth, Reorganization Capacity, Recovery Margin, Recursive Closure, and related derivatives. RSG asks a different question: Can an observer-like system inspect and revise selected rules governing how it navigates that geometry? Historical Constraint Fidelity (HCF) governs the integrity of historical constraint, provenance, criterion fidelity, and inherited evidentiary structure. The jurisdictional split is therefore: HCF constrains the evidence environment; RSG concerns governance response within that environment. These relationships are inherited explicitly to avoid duplicate constructs and silent cross-stack drift. Research Status Status: Architecture frozen; publication release of a provisional theoretical framework. Version 1.5 is intended for: critical review; adversarial testing; formal comparison with neighboring theories; synthetic minimal-pair experiments; construct operationalization; preregistered empirical testing; future refinement or translation where warranted. The framework is not independently validated. Its principal nulls are: metacognition; executive control; predictive processing / active inference; second-order cybernetics; Conscious Turing Machine-style adaptive architectures. A framework-level null is also explicit: if established theories jointly account for the relevant phenomena without measurable incremental contribution from RSG, RSG should be treated as a translation architecture or retired as a distinct theoretical construct. Version 1.5 Revision Note Version 1.5 substantially narrows the earlier Consciousness as Recursive Self-Governance formulation. Major changes include: title changed from Consciousness as Recursive Self-Governance to Recursive Self-Governance in Conscious and Observer-Like Systems; threshold-state language substantially narrowed; Cs≠ChC_s \neq C_h retained only as a modelling boundary; the distinction between MtM_t and Γt\Gamma_t established as the principal candidate remainder; Accessibility Geometry variables inherited rather than redefined; Historical Constraint Fidelity explicitly given jurisdiction over historical-constraint discipline; Root Geometry broadened to layered prior structure but retained as a candidate construct; numerical telemetry bands retired; diagnostic and intervention implications removed; human emotional-operator catalogue removed from the core architecture; external revalidation and corrigibility strengthened; Recursive Information Autophagy demoted to a candidate failure process; synthetic-system analysis separated explicitly from claims about phenomenality or sentience; explicit nulls, defeat conditions, translation outcomes, and an empirical research programme added. The result is a narrower and more falsifiable framework than earlier versions. Suggested Citation Beckingham, A. C. (2026). Recursive Self-Governance in Conscious and Observer-Like Systems (Version 1.5). Coherence Dynamics Laboratory. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.22729090 Keywords Recursive Self-Governance; Consciousness; Observer Systems; Metacognition; Second-Order Governance; Model Revision; Governance Revision; Predictive Processing; Active Inference; Cybernetics; Executive Control; Corrigibility; External Revalidation; Accessibility Geometry; Historical Constraint Fidelity; Root Geometry; Recursive Information Autophagy; Artificial Intelligence; Artificial Consciousness; Cognitive Architecture; Adaptive Systems; Systems Theory; Accessible Futures; Open Science; Coherence Dynamics Laboratory #RecursiveSelfGovernance #Consciousness #ObserverSystems #Metacognition #Cybernetics #PredictiveProcessing #CognitiveArchitecture #AdaptiveSystems #Corrigibility #AccessibilityGeometry #ArtificialIntelligence #SystemsTheory #OpenScience #CoherenceDynamicsLaboratory