Current leader: Brain as filter/contractive mechanism (net 9.25).

{
 "eo_id": "eo:q-brain-if-consciousness-fundamental-v3",
 "schema_version": 2,
 "title": "Current leader: Brain as filter/contractive mechanism (net 9.25).",
 "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 filter/contractive mechanism (net 9.25).",
   "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 filter/contractive mechanism (net 9.25).",
   "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": 9.94,
   "pressure": 1.0
  },
  {
   "candidate_id": "cand:brain-as-filter",
   "name": "cand:brain-as-filter",
   "tradition": "unknown",
   "position": "",
   "status": "unknown",
   "support": 10.18,
   "pressure": 0.92
  },
  {
   "candidate_id": "cand:brain-as-interface-generative-model",
   "name": "cand:brain-as-interface-generative-model",
   "tradition": "unknown",
   "position": "",
   "status": "unknown",
   "support": 9.37,
   "pressure": 2.0
  }
 ],
 "state_of_play": {
  "summary": "Current leader: Brain as filter/contractive mechanism (net 9.25).",
  "what_survives": "3 live candidates (see graph).",
  "what_is_weakened": "1 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": [
   "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 dissociation model must specify the mechanism by which dissociative boundaries form and dissolve, comparable to the kañcuka model's dimensional ontology.",
   "Both consciousness-first accounts must state clearly: (a) whether they accept testing via coarse-grained proxies (GOSE recovery stage mapping, diagnostic transition analysis) — if so, testing can begin now on TRACK-TBI and Porta data; (b) whether they require the ideal CRS-R subscale protocol — if so, the test must await IPD meta-analysis or future data collection; (c) whether the wager's value is primarily as a research-design constraint for future studies rather than an immediate discriminator. The answer determines whether the wager is currently active or prospective.",
   "Both accounts should specify whether their prediction is (a) specific to brain-damage-induced content-structuring loss, (b) a general claim about the nature of consciousness under any content-attenuating condition, or (c) specifically testable in this patient population. If (c), they must provide a realistic assessment of recruitment feasibility.",
   "Both accounts should specify whether their prediction is intended as (a) an empirical claim to be tested with existing data, (b) a design constraint for future DOC recovery studies, or (c) a purely philosophical distinction not intended for empirical testing. If (c), the wager collapses into a non-empirical distinction.",
   "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).",
   "The kañcuka model must either (a) refine its universal hierarchy prediction to accommodate known DOC recovery variability (e.g., by specifying conditions under which the hierarchy breaks down), or (b) accept that its prediction is trivially falsifiable and therefore less informative for distinguishing the two accounts.",
   "The kañcuka model must clarify whether māyā-kañcuka produces a real or merely apparent separation, and whether its claim of 'illusory limitation' is compatible with the precision of neural correlates.",
   "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 kañcuka model must specify how the protocol distinguishes genuine sākṣin report from content-denying proxy reports, including specific Likert-scale patterns that should correlate with contentless awareness vs. degraded contentful awareness vs. confabulation.",
   "The PP/interface account must generate positive predictions about the quality of residual experienc in DOC states, or concede that consciousness-first accounts have a predictive advantage in this domain."
  ],
  "implications": []
 },
 "provenance": {
  "created_by": "agent/state-to-eo",
  "last_updated": "2026-07-26",
  "supporting_artifacts": []
 }
}