q-brain-if-consciousness-fundamental.lesion-map

{
 "schema_version": 1,
 "artifact_type": "argument_fabric_source_map",
 "question_id": "q:brain-if-consciousness-fundamental",
 "source_packet_id": "ip:q17-brain-lesion-empirical-claims",
 "claim_packet": "content/information-packets/q17-brain-lesion-empirical-claims.json",
 "generated_by": "codex_hermes_autonomous_loop",
 "source_role": "direct_lesion_evidence_layer",
 "candidate_under_test": "all",
 "central_reading": "Direct lesion evidence strengthens mechanism-shaped brain-role accounts, especially at the levels of perceptual content and arousal, but it does not decide whether the brain produces consciousness, filters consciousness, or appears within consciousness. The honest state of play is stronger empirical constraint with the metaphysical crux still open.",
 "nnexpr_mappings": [
  {
   "claim_id": "cl:farah-feinberg-brain-damage-dissociations",
   "source_span_id": "span:farah-feinberg-1997-dissociations",
   "quoted_anchor": "brain damage dissociates perception and consciousness",
   "nn_expr": "sambandha(brain_damage,perception_consciousness_dissociation)",
   "parse_status": "parsed",
   "tradition_scope": "clinical_neuroscience",
   "evidence_dimension": "empirical",
   "pramana": "pratyaksa",
   "nyaya_reading": {
    "paksa": "brain damage syndromes",
    "hetu": "lesions reveal separable conscious and nonconscious perceptual capacities",
    "sadhya": "brain-role theories need content-specific transformation rules",
    "vyapti": "Where focal damage dissociates processing from awareness, a viable theory must explain which content is lost, spared, or covertly processed."
   },
   "argument_role": "support",
   "targets": [
    "cand:brain-as-interface-generative-model",
    "crux:brain-damage-transformation"
   ],
   "gate_outcome": "accepted",
   "fallacies_flagged": [],
   "falsifier": "A systematic lesion review finds no stable dissociation between perceptual processing and conscious perception after controlling for task/report confounds."
  },
  {
   "claim_id": "cl:silvanto-blindsight-local-global-dissociation",
   "source_span_id": "span:silvanto-2014-blindsight",
   "quoted_anchor": "local processing can remain without ordinary visual awareness",
   "nn_expr": "sambandha(v1_lesion,local_processing_without_visual_awareness)",
   "parse_status": "parsed",
   "tradition_scope": "clinical_neuroscience",
   "evidence_dimension": "empirical",
   "pramana": "anumana",
   "nyaya_reading": {
    "paksa": "V1 lesion blindsight",
    "hetu": "limited visual discrimination can survive without ordinary visual awareness",
    "sadhya": "brain-role theories must distinguish information availability from manifest content",
    "vyapti": "Where damage removes awareness while preserving limited discrimination, the explanatory target is the transformation of access/availability, not a simple production verdict."
   },
   "argument_role": "support_with_risk",
   "targets": [
    "cand:brain-as-interface-generative-model",
    "cand:brain-as-filter",
    "crux:brain-damage-transformation"
   ],
   "gate_outcome": "accepted",
   "fallacies_flagged": [
    {
     "type": "savyabhicara",
     "severity": "weak",
     "reason": "Blindsight has multiple interpretations and may involve residual or degraded awareness in some cases."
    }
   ],
   "falsifier": "Robust evidence shows blindsight performance is fully explained by residual conscious vision or response bias rather than dissociated processing."
  },
  {
   "claim_id": "cl:pmc-v1-awareness-conduit-boundary",
   "source_span_id": "span:v1-awareness-conduit-boundary",
   "quoted_anchor": "V1 may be conduit rather than direct awareness substrate",
   "nn_expr": "prasanga(v1_lesion_proves_visual_awareness_generation)",
   "parse_status": "parsed",
   "tradition_scope": "clinical_neuroscience",
   "evidence_dimension": "empirical",
   "pramana": "anumana",
   "nyaya_reading": {
    "paksa": "V1 lesion interpretation",
    "hetu": "the evidence permits conduit and direct-gener