Consciousness: Structural Thresholds, Not Metaphysical States
PhilPapers (PhilPapers Foundation) January 20, 2026 DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.18317572 (opens in new tab)
Study at a glance
AI-extracted from the abstract| Characteristics | Theoretical or philosophical paper Peer reviewed |
|---|---|
| Key points | Proposes that consciousness be defined as a membership threshold where a system can understand and react to real-time modeling of consequences to the self, with intelligence and ethics treated as orthogonal to consciousness. The author argues this structural, falsifiable definition unifies cross-species consciousness, explains the "guilty dog" phenomenon, and excludes non-substrate simulations such as Large Language Models. |
Abstract
This paper presents a minimal, falsifiable definition of consciousness. It rejects metaphysical dualism in favor of structural constraints, establishing criteria by which it is possible to measure and understand whether an entity is conscious. Consciousness is defined as a membership threshold where a system possesses the capacity to understand and react to real-time modeling of consequences to the self. Intelligence is orthogonal to consciousness. Ethics is orthogonal to intelligence, functioning as a value-based consideration within a species' culture. This approach unifies cross-species consciousness, explains the "guilty dog" phenomenon, and excludes non-substrate simulations like Large Language Models. Keywords: Consciousness, TNAC, Cognitive Ethology, Biological Naturalism, Machine Consciousness, AI Safety, Autopoiesis, Thermodynamics of Mind, Large Language Models, Epistemic Substrate, SPMR Dynamic, Animal Consciousness, Instinctual Override. This version is identical to the manuscripted submitted to PhilPapers: Link