State-of-play
What establishes the domains within which manifestation is jointly present and outside which it is absent?
vendored research asset · q-perspectival-partition.argument.json
{
"schema_version": 1,
"artifact_type": "argument_fabric_dossier",
"question_id": "q:perspectival-partition",
"question": "What establishes the domains within which manifestation is jointly present and outside which it is absent?",
"why_it_matters": "Every theory of consciousness — naturalist, Pratyabhijñā, Buddhist, Nyāya, neutral monist — converges on the same missing object: Λ, the law that maps manifestation or organization into exclusive phenomenal domains. The universalization debate was a special case of this deeper problem.",
"status": "live_crux",
"resolution_level": "fundamental",
"parent_questions": [
"q:reflexivity-intrinsic-or-constructed",
"q:utpaladeva-universalization-validity"
],
"candidate_explanations": [
{
"candidate_id": "cand:naturalist-emergent",
"tradition_scope": "western_phi_neuroscience",
"name": "Naturalist: organization → Λ → domain",
"best_case": "Recurrent integration, counterfactual depth, global availability and causal autonomy at a specific scale produce a maximally integrated phenomenal domain. IIT's exclusion axiom is the closest attempt.",
"hard_to_vary_core": [
"Phenomenal domains correlate with physical organization",
"Complexity and integration are necessary conditions"
],
"current_problems": [
"Why is the relevant organization manifest rather than merely organized?",
"No settled criterion selects the subject scale"
],
"falsifiers": [
{
"type": "empirical",
"condition": "Show that two systems with identical integration/complexity profiles have different phenomenal structures, or that one system produces two non-overlapping phenomenal fields.",
"status": "untested"
}
]
},
{
"candidate_id": "cand:siva-decombination",
"tradition_scope": "trika_pratyabhijna",
"name": "Pratyabhijñā: C∞ → Λ → Dᵢ via Māyā/kañcukas",
"best_case": "Universal manifest capacity contracts into local exclusion profiles through the five kañcukas. Finite subjects are locally exclusive articulations of unrestricted consciousness.",
"hard_to_vary_core": [
"Manifestation is prior to organization",
"Finite subjects are not independent substances"
],
"current_problems": [
"Why does unrestricted manifestation produce genuinely private exclusion?",
"Contraction specifies what must be explained, not how it occurs"
],
"falsifiers": [
{
"type": "prasanga",
"condition": "Show that a system with no kañcuka-like restrictions nevertheless possesses a phenomenal domain, or that kañcuka restriction alone fails to produce exclusivity.",
"status": "untested"
}
]
},
{
"candidate_id": "cand:buddhist-stream",
"tradition_scope": "dharmakirti_buddhist",
"name": "Buddhist: reflexive moments → causal stream → conventional domain",
"best_case": "Each cognition is reflexively manifest. Causal continuity, memory traces and affective appropriation produce conventionally individuated streams. No further owner required.",
"hard_to_vary_core": [
"Reflexivity does not entail a subject",
"Continuity can be causal without numerical identity"
],
"current_problems": [
"Why do reflexive moments form one co-conscious field rather than isolated atoms?",
"Conventional ownership does not explain manifestness across a stream"
],
"falsifiers": [
{
"type": "prasanga",
"condition": "Show that causal continuity between non-reflexive information states produces the same phenomenal features as a conscious stream.",
"status": "untested"
}
]
},
{
"candidate_id": "cand:nyaya-plural-substances",
"tradition_scope": "nyaya",
"name": "Nyāya: substance-bearer → Λ → domain",
"best_case": "Cognitive qualities inhere in an enduring individual self. Co-presence is explained by common inherence in one substance. Privacy is explained by different substances.",
"hard_to_vary_core": [
"Co-presence requires a common bearer",
"PlurSources & corrections: edit source →. source lives here.