Current leader: Brain as generative model / interface (net 5.65).

{
 "eo_id": "eo:q-brain-if-consciousness-fundamental-v2",
 "schema_version": 2,
 "title": "Current leader: Brain as generative model / interface (net 5.65).",
 "status": "draft",
 "question": {
  "question_id": "q:brain-if-consciousness-fundamental",
  "tension_point": "Auto-generated from graph state.",
  "why_it_matters": "Generated by state-to-eo.py from current graph.",
  "resolution_level": "local_argument"
 },
 "syllogism": {
  "pratijna": {
   "proposition": "Current leader: Brain as generative model / interface (net 5.65).",
   "what_it_claims": "Auto-generated."
  },
  "hetu": {
   "evidence": [],
   "source_ids": []
  },
  "udaharana": {
   "examples": []
  },
  "upanaya": {
   "application": "Auto-generated from graph.",
   "cruxes": [
    "Why does brain damage transform experience so precisely if the brain is not generative?",
    "Does the filter account require a mechanism, or is specifying the filtering principle sufficient?",
    "Do neural correlations reveal production, restriction, or merely parallel structure?"
   ]
  },
  "nigamana": {
   "best_current_answer": "Current leader: Brain as generative model / interface (net 5.65).",
   "status": "underdetermined",
   "scope": "Auto-generated."
  }
 },
 "candidates": [
  {
   "candidate_id": "cand:brain-as-appearance-only",
   "name": "cand:brain-as-appearance-only",
   "tradition": "unknown",
   "position": "",
   "status": "unknown",
   "support": 3.71,
   "pressure": 0.88
  },
  {
   "candidate_id": "cand:brain-as-filter",
   "name": "cand:brain-as-filter",
   "tradition": "unknown",
   "position": "",
   "status": "unknown",
   "support": 2.85,
   "pressure": 0.65
  },
  {
   "candidate_id": "cand:brain-as-interface-generative-model",
   "name": "cand:brain-as-interface-generative-model",
   "tradition": "unknown",
   "position": "",
   "status": "unknown",
   "support": 7.44,
   "pressure": 1.78
  }
 ],
 "state_of_play": {
  "summary": "Current leader: Brain as generative model / interface (net 5.65).",
  "what_survives": "3 live candidates (see graph).",
  "what_is_weakened": "0 weakened.",
  "what_would_change_our_mind": "See next tests below.",
  "open_cruxes": [
   "Why does brain damage transform experience so precisely if the brain is not generative?",
   "Does the filter account require a mechanism, or is specifying the filtering principle sufficient?",
   "Do neural correlations reveal production, restriction, or merely parallel structure?"
  ],
  "next_tests": [
   "Design and propose an experimental protocol testing categorical vs graded distinction at the agency/knowledge boundary between filter and PP predictions.",
   "Validate the māyā-scaffold hypothesis against existing DOC recovery prediction studies (parvizi & damasio, edlow datasets already in lesion-map).",
   "Add a radical-idealist primary source response to lesion predictive utility.",
   "Consider splitting Q17 into Q17a (content structuring) and Q17b (level/arousal gating) given the māyā-kañcuka distinction from content-specific kañcukas.",
   "State an operational filter prediction that distinguishes loss of content, loss of access, and loss of arousal without mapping kañcukas one-to-one onto brain regions.",
   "The PP account must specify whether the generative model is an appearance within consciousness (in which case it converges with idealism) or a real non-phenomenal mechanism (in which case it faces the epistemic objection about direct access to matter).",
   "Generate at least one testable kañcuka-to-neural-system prediction that differs from a generic PP prediction.",
   "The kañcuka model should articulate how its contraction mechanism differs empirically from Kastrup's dissociation mechanism — if both predict the same empirical patterns, the Trika account adds no differential value over analytic idealism.",
   "The appearance account must explain why specific neural lesions produce specific experiential transformations rather than uniform alterations of presence — or accept that it provides a metaphysical interpretation of neuroscience rather than a competing empirical theory.",
   "State a non-ad-hoc account of why neuroscience remains predictively reliable if brains are only appearances within consciousness.",
   "Separate predictive-processing as an NCC heuristic from predictive-processing as a metaphysical thesis about appearance and reality.",
   "Design and execute clinical studies that test these filter-specific differential predictions against PP null models."
  ],
  "implications": []
 },
 "provenance": {
  "created_by": "agent/state-to-eo",
  "last_updated": "2026-07-26",
  "supporting_artifacts": []
 }
}