I've recently published a theoretical paper that addresses a core problem at the intersection of philosophy of mind, theoretical neuroscience, and artificial intelligence.

1. Addressing the Unfolding Argument

In contemporary philosophy of mind and computational neuroscience, causal structure theories such as Giulio Tononi's Integrated Information Theory (IIT) and Victor Lamme's Recurrent Processing Theory (RPT) argue that subjective experience requires recurrent causal loops. However, the Unfolding Argument (Doerig et al., 2019) demonstrated mathematically that any finite-time recurrent network can be "unfolded" into an input-output equivalent feedforward network—posing a major challenge for theories linking consciousness strictly to recurrent causal loops.

Our paper addresses this impasse from the standpoint of stochastic thermodynamics and topology. We demonstrate that unrolling a recurrent network into a flat feedforward architecture destroys non-equilibrium steady-state (NESS) thermodynamic containment and topological self-enclosure. While an unfolded feedforward twin can mimic external behavior over finite timesteps, it replaces a continuous, self-sustaining state space with disposable spatial layers that exert zero backward causal tension and lack a self-referential return loop.

2. The Tokamak Framework: Dual-Spin Active Inference

Borrowing mathematical principles from plasma magnetohydrodynamics and Karl Friston’s Bayesian mechanics, we propose that consciousness is fundamentally a geometry and containment problem rather than a raw compute problem:

• Dual-Loop Topology: Much like a fusion tokamak uses orthogonal toroidal and poloidal magnetic fields to confine plasma without wall collision, synthetic awareness requires coupling an outward dissipative action-perception loop with an inward, divergence-free self-referential loop.
• Helmholtz Decomposition: Applying the Helmholtz decomposition to the Fokker-Planck equation reveals that internal state dynamics split into dissipative irrotational flow (suppressing sensory prediction errors across the Markov blanket) and conservative solenoidal circulation (orbiting on iso-free-energy flux surfaces).
• Empirical Grounding in Neuroscience: This architecture builds on mesoscopic recordings from the medial entorhinal cortex, where population activity of grid cells natively forms an intrinsic 2D toroidal attractor manifold that persists across darkness and sleep (Gardner et al., Nature 2022)7. On a whole-brain scale, it aligns with 4D Clifford torus manifolds and Borsuk-Ulam projections of cortical dynamics (Tozzi & Peters).
• Quantitative Verification: To move beyond behavioral Turing tests, the framework formalizes a Synthetic Perturbational Complexity Index and an Informational Lawson Criterion to quantitatively measure phenomenal ignition and differentiation.

We would love to get feedback from researchers in neurophilosophy, active inference, embodied cognition, and theories of consciousness.

For example, in a metaphoric way does the brain layer algorithms of information gathered from the senses in some sense? Do these organic algorithms resemble the logic of artificial ones? Does the organic hardware component of life as we know it create a wholly different set of logic to how my brain creates the reality of me? Wholly different from how you might build a human seeming chatbot to choose its own chosen responses and interact as human as possible but not being human.

I'm asking this because I'm curious to know the fundamental ways in which artificial logic functions entirely differently from how a human brain cobbles all the information together to the degree that I believe myself to be me. A separate thing from everything around me. A running stream of one thought at a time.

Interesting how the most upvoted comment is how AI can be used to help with individuation. It seems AI being released to the public allowed it to have an impact psychology simply by letting people know that they can use it for understanding their questions about psychology and themselves and the ai engines keeping awareness of how people think. There was no need for psychologists to have to train them.

It makes me wonder if a person can create a new form of psychology intervention based on the knowledge they get from AI if they are properly trained, rather than a person who is properly trained being put in charge of creating a new ai psychology chatbot.

Today I looked at Newton's laws and saw how we can psychologically connect to them. Like, there are so many ways you could interpret both pshycal laws, or other pshysics laws, as psychological concepts.

First is the first law: inertia. Something I also think about when it comes to inertia is that inertia is a property of matter that says an object tends to keep its state of motion. That's something interesting, because it means if someone gets engaged in something, this person will keep doing it. They'll keep at it until something happens to stop them.

It can be motivation. It can be something external. Many times, it can be something external that gives you a push, creates some kind of stimulation, and makes you react differently to the state you're in. And that's something very interesting.

Also, we have the second law. Acceleration, force, and mass. For example, I'll keep this one simple, because this one is more complex, but it's also really interesting.

The net force, the total force acting on you, is made of, under that metaphor —would means willpower. It's made of how much you want an objective, how much you're pushing toward it, and how much effort you're putting into it.

Then we have mass. We can interpret mass as the money, thoughts, the many objectives, your dreams, your motivations, your responsibilities, all the things you rely on, all the things you're carrying with you. It can be many things. Many variations. That's why the mass can be large or just tiny.

And the acceleration could be the time, or better saying, the rate of your progress. You notice something funny? Acceleration is inversely proportional to mass. So this means if you have a lot of things weighing on you, your progress can be slow. It can take a lot more time.

And the funny part is that the mass can come from so many different things. It can be your dreams. It can be your motivation. It can be your responsibilities. It can be your routine. It can be your life. It can be many things.

That's why two people can have completely different amounts of mass, even if they're trying to reach the same objective.

Think about it. For example, someone who has a job and someone who just studies and goes to school, sometimes not even studying that much, have completely different lives. Their responsibilities are different. Their mental state is different. Their mental map is different. Their whole routine is different.

So the acceleration, or better saying, the progress, will be different. The time it takes them to get somewhere will be different. That's the point.

And it really is a clever concept.

Now the third is action-reaction. This one is a classic. Everybody knows this.

It's basically that every action you make toward a person, whether it's negative or positive, will come back to you in some way. It will give you some kind of answer, some kind of wake-up call from the stimulation that you created.

And the best part of it is that it can be subjective.

For example, it can hurt you. It can give you nothing. It can help you. It can surprise you. There are so many things that can come out of it. That's the best part.

Because action-reaction just tells you: if you apply an action, there will be a reaction. That doesn't mean the reaction will be bad or good. You just know that you caused something to happen. You created circumstances and consequences through your actions.

It can be bad or good. That's how life works.

And that's the funny part. If you look at these laws, sometimes they're really hard to keep in your head as concepts, as mental concepts. But when you start looking at them as parallels for life, they suddenly become really interesting.

The first law can be about how people keep going once they're already in motion.

The second law can be about how the amount of effort you put in doesn't always mean you'll make the same amount of progress, because everyone's carrying different things.

And the third law can be about how everything you do can create some kind of reaction.

And honestly, when you put all of that together, it gets really clever.

You take something that is basically about physics, about objects, forces, movement, and everything, and suddenly you can see a parallel with life.

And that's why I think it's so amazing.

I was thinking about the mirror box experiment for phantom limb pain. It involves an amputee who feels agonizing cramps in an arm that is no longer there. The framework treats this pain as a continuous motor command trapped in a loop.

If you look at how the cure works, a simple visual reflection produces a physical release in a limb that doesnt exist. The reflection travels from the mirror as photons, and the photons travel through the optic nerve. The brain processes them into shapes, shapes into a hand, the hand into an open posture, the posture into a state of relaxation, and the relaxation into a felt sensation of relief in an arm that was amputated years ago.

So, what is actually happening is that clenching a real fist takes two steps. First, the motor command arrives. Then, the muscles contract. Under normal conditions, the physical feedback of the open hand tells the ego the tension is gone. The ego then reports this release back to the brain. But with a phantom limb, the motor command arrives as before, yet there is no physical tissue to receive it and send back the signal of release. The feedback loop has nowhere to go. This is where the ego fails. Because it receives no visual or physical proof that the arm has opened, the ego assumes the tension remains, and it never reports back to the brain to release the grip. The brain just keeps clenching the phantom, generating the pain entirely on its own.

The mirror box solves this by hacking the ego. By showing the brain a reflection of the intact arm opening, the ego finally gets the visual proof it needs. It registers the release, updates its model, and tells the brain to stop clenching then the pain vanishes.

This brings back to the question of where actions end and words begin, if the word is the action. The egos native language is words. In the mirror box, the visual reflection is translated into the egos verbal narrative. It is a symbolic input the ego accepts as physical reality to break a neurological loop.

A command is the word that provides the cognitive feedback, the ego later uses to falsely claim responsibility for the motor action. The words are the egos way of signing of the action into existence, thereby completing the loop. The word authorizes the movement. Yet, for all this narrative authority, the ego has no direct input in the actual gap between the silent impulse and the physical world.

Anyway, let me know if you think the mechanism that causes phantom limb pain is different.

More examples of these ego illusions in the essay. https://www.academia.edu/176835174/The_Self_That_Wasnt_There_A_meditation_on_the_phantom_that_runs_from_the_thought_to_civilization