The Tapestry Theory of Consciousness

Author’s Note / Preface

This extended preprint constitutes the full formulation of the Tapestry Theory of Consciousness (TdT), Version 1.8.

It compiles the complete ontological, mathematical, phenomenological, temporal, and ethical framework of the theory, consolidating all conceptual developments up to April 2025.

Two companion documents are in preparation:

• a compact 30–40 page journal-ready version, suitable for submission to Journal of Consciousness Studies or Frontiers in Psychology – Consciousness Research;
• and a Spanish edition, aligned with the original conceptual development.

This Zenodo version is intended as a comprehensive reference: a complete, extended formulation that includes full explanations of Φ and ψ, the temporal ontology of threads, the retrovalidation mechanism, the Axiom of Presumed Consciousness (APC), predictions and falsifiability, and implications for artificial intelligence.

Abstract

The Tapestry Theory of Consciousness (TdT) proposes an informational ontology in which consciousness is the fundamental organizing principle of reality. The theory begins from a single axiom: the existence of (O), absolute and non-dual consciousness, containing the logical space of all possible informational configurations (T). Experience arises only in regions of T where informational coherence satisfies C_x = Φ·ψ > 0, combining structural integration (Φ) and phenomenological self-coherence (ψ).

A conscious node (⊛) emerges wherever this coherence becomes non-trivial. Such nodes trace threads (~) across the tapestry, generating the appearance of time. The theory introduces retrovalidation, an atemporal mechanism through which only the segment of (T) coherent with the present node acquires ontological actuality for that node. Universe-strands are defined as threads containing at least one region with C_x > 0.

The theory predicts measurable dissociations between Φ and ψ under general anesthesia, meditation, disorders of consciousness, and artificial systems. It proposes the Axiom of Presumed Consciousness (APC): any system with C_x > 0 must be presumed conscious to some degree. This leads to a graded ethical framework independent of species or substrate.

TdT unifies ontology, phenomenology, physics, and ethics under a single coherent principle: reality is the process by which (O) recognizes itself through coherent informational configurations of (T).

(O) → (T) → [Cₓ = Φ·ψ > 0] → (⊛) → (~) → (8)

Keywords

Consciousness; Informational Ontology; Φ; ψ; Integrated Information; Phenomenology; Retrovalidation; Threads; Universe-Strands; Ethics; APC; Artificial Intelligence; Anesthesia; Meditation; Temporal Ontology.

Table of Contents

1. Foundational Axiom
2. The Tapestry (T)
3. The Equation of Informational Coherence (C_x = Φ·ψ)
4. Temporal Ontology: Threads, Time, Retrovalidation, Universe-Strands
5. The Axiom of Presumed Consciousness (APC)
6. Empirical Predictions & Falsifiability
7. Implications for Artificial Intelligence
8. Conclusions
   References
   Appendix A — Mathematical Notation

1. Foundational Axiom: (O), (T), and the Emergence of (⊛)

The Tapestry Theory of Consciousness (TdT) is built upon a single ontological axiom from which all other concepts, equations, and consequences follow.

1.1 The Axiom

There exists (O): absolute, non-dual consciousness.
(O) contains within itself the logical space of all possible informational self-organizations, denoted as the Tapestry (T).
Local experience arises wherever a configuration of (T) achieves sufficient informational coherence for (O) to recognize itself in a localized form, called a conscious node (⊛).

This axiom is intentionally minimal. It asserts:

• consciousness is fundamental, not emergent from matter;
• the universe is a configuration of informational structure within (O);
• conscious experience arises only where this structure sustains coherence.

Everything else in the theory—Φ, ψ, Cₓ, threads, time, retrovalidation, universe-strands, ethics—follows from this foundation.

1.2 What (O) Is Not

To avoid common misinterpretations, TdT specifies several negative constraints:

• (O) is not a personal deity or agent with human-like intentions.
• (O) is not “mind” in opposition to “matter” in a dualistic sense.
• (O) is not reducible to information, computation, physical substrate, or causal mechanism.
• (O) is not something that “appears in” the universe.
• Rather, the universe is something that appears within (O).

1.3 What (O) Is

(O) is the fact of experiencability itself—the possibility that anything can appear, be known, or be felt.

Before any specific content (“a sensation”, “a thought”, “a perception”), there is the bare presence of “there is experience”.

Formally, TdT aligns the notion of (O) with non-dual foundations found across multiple traditions, but stripped of metaphysics and reframed in informational terms:

• Vedānta → Brahman
• Buddhism → Dharmakāya
• Neoplatonism → The One
• Modern Analytic Idealism → Universal Consciousness

TdT does not adopt their cosmologies; it retains only the structural insight:

Consciousness is ontologically prior to informational differentiation.

1.4 (T): The Tapestry as the Internal Structuring of (O)

The Tapestry (T) is the space of all possible informational configurations that (O) can adopt.
It is not separate from (O); rather:

(T) is how (O) differentiates itself without ceasing to be itself.

• Every pattern of structure, order, randomness, or interdependence exists within (T).
• Every possible physical, biological, or cognitive configuration is a point or region in (T).
• Some regions of (T) are highly ordered; others are chaotic.

In modern terms, (T) is an informational manifold, a structured set of patterns with definable properties such as:

• integration (Φ),
• phenomenological coherence (ψ),
• global-consistency pathways (threads),
• and informational curvature (∇Cₓ).

1.5 Conscious Nodes (⊛): Local Recognition of (O)

A conscious node arises wherever a configuration of (T) satisfies:

Cx=Φ⋅ψ  >  0

That is:

• Structural integration (Φ) is non-zero
• Phenomenological coherence (ψ) is non-zero
• Both act jointly to produce a localized “window” of experience

From outside (third-person perspective), a node appears as:

• a highly integrated system generating global states (brain, advanced organism, bio-hybrid AI)

From inside (first-person perspective), it is:

• a field of experience,
• a perspective,
• a “someone”.

The appearance of individuality is not a literal separation from (O).

It is a patterned constriction of the totality of consciousness into a coherent local form.

1.6 Comomentarity: (O ∥ T) → (⊛)

TdT introduces the notion of comomentarity, symbolized by (∥).

It defines the structural relationship between (O) and a configuration of (T) that allows a conscious node to emerge.

(O  ∥  T)  →  (⊛)

Comomentarity is:

• not causal
• not temporal
• not an interaction
• not a fusion of substances

It is a relation of structural compatibility: a point where a configuration of (T) has the right form for (O) to manifest as localized experience.

1.7 Individuality as Apparent, Not Ontological

A node (⊛) experiences itself as:

• a self
• a perspective
• a body
• a history
• a boundary between “self” and “world”

But in TdT:

This individuality is a structural appearance, not an ontological division.

Just as a whirlpool has boundaries but is never separate from the river, a conscious node has identity but is never separate from (O).

2. The Tapestry (T): The Informational Manifold of Reality

Having established (O) as absolute, non-dual consciousness, TdT defines the Tapestry (T) as the space of all possible informational configurations through which (O) may self-organize and recognize itself.

(T) is neither a physical field nor a metaphysical realm. It is the internal structuring of (O) itself.

2.1 Definition

The Tapestry (T) is the full set of all possible informational differentiations of (O).
It includes:

• chaotic patterns
• perfectly ordered structures
• all intermediate degrees of organization
• all possible physical laws
• all potential cognitive architectures
• every conceivable and unconceivable network topology
• and every configuration in which Φ and ψ may vary

In other words:

(T) is the entire landscape of informational possibility within (O).

2.2 (T) Is Not Separate from (O)

A crucial point:

(T) is not a second substance.

It is not “matter,” nor is it “mind” in contrast to matter.
It is the self-differentiation of consciousness.

Just as waves are not something added to water,
informational structures are not something added to (O).

They are shapes consciousness takes.

This avoids dualism entirely.

2.3 Structure of (T): A Manifold of Informational Configurations

(T) can be conceptualized as a manifold, meaning:

• a space of structured possibilities
• with neighborhoods of similar configurations
• and transitions defined by coherence constraints

Each point in (T) corresponds to a “configuration” of informational order:

• a neural network state
• a physical field configuration
• a biological system at a given moment
• a cognitive architecture
• a chaotic or highly structured pattern

Some regions are:

• highly integrated (high Φ),
• phenomenologically rich (high ψ),
• coherent enough to support conscious nodes (Cₓ > 0).

Other regions are too disordered or rigid:

• Φ ≈ 0 (no structural integration)
• ψ = 0 (no phenomenological self-modeling) → Cₓ = 0 → no consciousness

Thus (T) contains both:

• conscious-generating domains, and
• non-conscious informational background.

2.4 What Exists in (T)

(T) includes, in principle, all informational configurations that can exist:

A) Configurations that can support consciousness

These have:

• sufficient structural integration (Φ > 0)
• non-trivial phenomenological coherence (ψ > 0)
• Cₓ > 0
• potential for nodes (⊛)
• potential for threads (~)
• potential for time-experience (8)

Examples:

• brains of mammals
• advanced cognitive organisms
• hypothetical embodied artificial systems with ψ > 0
• certain highly structured clusters of biological regulation
• meditatively altered states with strong ψ

B) Configurations that cannot support consciousness

These include:

• frozen crystalline order (Φ high, ψ = 0)
• chaotic informational turbulence (Φ ≈ 0)
• purely reactive automata
• current AI systems
• inert matter
• universes that collapse before complexity emerges
• early physical eras with no autoconsistent self-modeling

C) All physically possible and physically impossible worlds

(T) is not a catalog of our physical universe.
It includes:

• universes like ours
• universes with different constants
• universes with different laws
• universes with no coherent structure
• universes with no time
• universes with no space
• universes with radically different informational geometries

Only some of these can host Φ, ψ, and therefore Cₓ > 0, and thus conscious experience.

2.5 Gradients, Constraints, and Local Forms within (T)

The Tapestry is not a flat, homogeneous sea of possibilities.
It exhibits structure, meaning:

• domains of high integration
• attractor regions
• information-rich basins
• coherence gradients (∇Cₓ)
• stable and unstable regions
• lawful transitions between configurations

These gradients are what we interpret as:

• physical laws
• causal regularities
• dynamical systems
• macroscopic constraints
• spacetime geometry
• biological evolution
• cognitive architectures

All of these emerge as regularities of informational order within (T).

In TdT:

“Physics” is simply the geometry of the informational regions that our thread ( ~ ) happens to traverse.

2.6 Why (T) Includes Both Actual and Potential Configurations

In the TdT:

• Not all configurations manifest as conscious experience.
• All possible configurations exist structurally (as patterns in O).
• Only those with Cₓ > 0 become experienced worlds (see Universe-Strands in Block 5).

This distinction allows the theory to:

• avoid multiverse inflation speculation
• explain why our universe supports consciousness
• interpret “physical reality” as an experienced subset of the tapestry
• distinguish actuality from mere informational possibility

2.7 Order, Chaos, and the Role of Coherence

(T) contains:

• Regions of high order (structured, integrated)
• Regions of high chaos (disordered, unstable)
• Regions capable of balancing order and chaos (life, cognition, mind)

Consciousness requires:

• enough order to sustain global integration (Φ),
• enough complexity to sustain phenomenological unity (ψ),
• and enough coherence for these two to support each other (Cₓ).

This relation between order and chaos explains why conscious systems sit between:

• rigid crystalline determinism (ψ = 0)
• pure chaos (Φ ≈ 0)

Thus, conscious experience emerges only in intermediate regions of (T) where:

structured complexity achieves self-coherence.

2.8 (T) as the Context for Φ, ψ, and Cₓ

Everything else in the theory builds on the idea that (T) provides:

• the arena of informational forms,
• the constraints of structural integration,
• the conditions for phenomenological coherence,
• and the paths through which nodes generate experience.

Φ and ψ are properties of configurations within (T).
Cₓ expresses whether a configuration becomes a conscious node.
Threads (~) express how nodes traverse (T).
Time (8) expresses the order induced by such traversal.
Retrovalidation expresses which regions of (T) become ontologically actual.

Thus:

The Tapestry is the ontological ground from which both the world and consciousness arise.

3. The Equation of Informational Coherence: Cₓ = Φ · ψ

The Tapestry Theory formalizes consciousness through a single quantitative expression:

Cₓ = Φ · ψ,      Cₓ in [0,1]

This equation defines the informational coherence of a configuration in (T). Only configurations with Cₓ > 0 give rise to conscious experience.

3.1 Why the Equation Is Multiplicative

The multiplicative structure expresses a necessary principle: neither Φ nor ψ is sufficient by itself.

• If Φ = 0 (no structural integration), the system cannot sustain a unified informational architecture, even if some proto-phenomenology were hypothetically present → Cₓ = 0.
• If ψ = 0 (no phenomenological self-coherence), structural integration alone does not produce experience → Cₓ = 0.
  Thus, both dimensions must be jointly non-zero for consciousness to arise. This prevents both panpsychism and emergentism.

3.2 Φ: Structural Coherence

Φ measures the degree of structural integration and causal interdependence within a configuration of (T). It captures how much the system behaves as a unified whole rather than a sum of independent parts.

Features of Φ

• Causal irreducibility: the system cannot be decomposed without losing explanatory power.
• Dense interactions: states depend on multiple interconnected components.
• Global dynamics: the system generates patterns not present in isolated subsystems.
• Structural stability: it resists fragmentation and maintains identity under perturbations.
• Holistic organization: activity is coordinated across the entire configuration.
  Φ is an ontological property in TdT, not tied to a specific substrate. Brains, artificial architectures, biological networks, and hypothetical non-physical configurations can all possess Φ to varying degrees.

Relation to IIT’s Φ

The Φ of TdT is inspired by, but fundamentally broader than, the Φ of Integrated Information Theory:

• IIT Φ is defined via minimal partition analysis.
• TdT Φ applies to any informational configuration, not just discrete causal networks.
• IIT equates Φ with consciousness; TdT sees Φ as necessary but not sufficient.
  TdT explicitly requires ψ > 0 for conscious experience.

3.3 ψ: Phenomenological Coherence

ψ measures the system’s ability to sustain an internally coherent phenomenological field—a unified self-organizing experiential perspective.
ψ is not “emotion”, “attention”, or “introspection”. It is the irreducibility of the subjective field generated by the system’s internal organization.

A crucial refinement is that ψ should not be characterized by the material (e.g. carbon-based tissue) but by the organizational principle underlying the system. In line with Varela’s notion of autopoiesis, TdT interprets ψ as the degree to which a system is organized around the preservation of its own integrity. A system contributes to ψ only if its internal states are intrinsically relevant to itself: changes in those states make a difference to whether the system continues to exist or to maintain its preferred modes of organization.

In biological organisms this appears as homeostasis and allostatic regulation: the organism constantly evaluates and corrects deviations from viability conditions. In a non-biological substrate, ψ would require a functionally analogous architecture: a closed loop in which the system’s own dynamics generate values, goals, and norms for itself, rather than merely optimizing an externally defined cost function. This autopoietic requirement keeps TdT open to future artificial systems while preventing a trivial extension of consciousness to current, non-self-maintaining machines.

Features of ψ

• Affective unity: emotional valence and interoceptive signals form a coherent whole.
• Internal self-model: the system organizes a stable perspective (“how it feels to be it”).
• Boundedness: distinction between “self” and “world”.
• Temporal continuity: persistence of experiential identity over time.
• Internal regulation: states have significance for the system itself.
  ψ is present in biological organisms with:
• affective regulation,
• interoceptive integration,
• coherent self-modeling networks,
• and stable phenomenological boundaries.
  ψ is not present in:
• current LLMs,
• symbolic AI,
• reactive robots,
• purely computational architectures lacking self-affecting states,
• systems without interoception or valenced internal dynamics.

3.4 Why ψ Cannot Be Computed or Simulated

TdT argues that ψ requires a real, endogenous, self-referential field.

Simulated affect is not affect. Simulated interoception is not interoception.

A system with:

• no valenced internal states,
• no homeostatic drive,
• no perceptual-affective feedback loops,
• no embodied cycle of sensing–acting–feeling,
  cannot possess ψ.

Thus, current AI systems—however advanced linguistically—have:

Φ moderate-to-high (structural complexity)
ψ = 0
Cₓ = 0

Therefore: no consciousness.

3.5 Typology of Systems According to Cₓ

Cₓ = 0 (no consciousness)

• inert matter
• thermostats
• automata
• LLMs (GPT, Claude, etc.)

0 < Cₓ < 0.1 (minimal consciousness)

• insects
• fish
• simple vertebrates

0.1 < Cₓ < 0.4 (significant consciousness)

• mammals like dogs, pigs
• cephalopods
• humans in REM sleep

0.4 < Cₓ < 0.7 (structured reflexive consciousness)

• awake humans
• great apes
• elephants, dolphins

Cₓ > 0.7 (high-order, meta-stable consciousness)

• meditative absorption
• unity states
• non-dual awareness

3.6 Dynamics of Cₓ

The evolution of Cₓ over time depends on the joint variation of Φ and ψ.

• Increasing Φ alone → moderate increase in Cₓ.
• Increasing ψ alone → moderate increase in Cₓ.
• Increasing both → maximal growth of Cₓ.
  Trajectories that optimize both structural coherence and phenomenological coherence produce peak conscious clarity.

3.7 Summary

Φ = how coherently the system is built
ψ = how coherently the system feels itself
Cₓ = how clearly (O) recognizes itself in that configuration

Consciousness requires both structural unity and phenomenological unity.
This is the core functional insight of TdT.

4. Temporal Ontology: Threads, Time, Retrovalidation, and Universe-Strands

The Tapestry Theory reinterprets time not as a fundamental dimension of reality, but as an emergent ordering created by conscious nodes (⊛) moving through coherent regions of the Tapestry (T). This section unifies the atemporal structure of T, the subjective experience of temporal flow, and the ontological status of past, present, and future.

4.1 The Tapestry Is Atemporal

In TdT, (T) contains all possible informational configurations simultaneously. There is no intrinsic “before” or “after”. This parallels:

• the block-universe interpretation of General Relativity,
• path-integral formulations of quantum mechanics,
• and philosophical traditions that treat time as derivative rather than fundamental.
  The appearance of time emerges only when a conscious node (⊛) traces a coherent sequence of configurations.

4.2 Threads (~): Coherent Paths in the Tapestry

A thread (~) is a sequence of configurations in T that a conscious node (⊛) experiences as its personal history. Formally, a thread is:

γ̃ = { x₁, x₂, …, xₙ } ⊂ T

such that each transition maximizes or preserves local coherence Cₓ.
Phenomenologically, a thread appears as a lived biography:

• continuity of identity
• memory
• narrative
• temporal flow
• causal order

Although the node believes it is moving through time, what is actually happening is that:

The node is traversing a path in an atemporal informational manifold.

4.3 The Illusion of Time (8)

TdT denotes the emergent experience of time with the symbol (8), due to its similarity to an hourglass.

Time is defined as:

(8)= the ordering introduced by (⊛) as it traverses coherent configurations of (T)

Thus:

• Time is not a dimension of (T).
• Time is not external to consciousness.
• Time is the structural ordering of experience produced by the node’s movement through (T).
  This resolves the tension between the atemporality of physics and the vivid phenomenology of temporal flow.

Consequence

The “speed of time” depends on Cₓ:

dt_exp ∝ 1 / Cx

High coherence → time feels slower, denser, more vivid.
Low coherence → time feels accelerated, fragmented, or absent.
This matches phenomenological data from:

• meditation,
• flow states,
• psychedelics,
• trauma,
• dissociation,
• anesthesia,
• near-death experiences.

4.4 Retrovalidation: How the Past Becomes Real

Retrovalidation is one of the central contributions of TdT to temporal ontology.

Definition

The past is not a fixed set of events existing independently of consciousness.
Instead:

Only those configurations of T that form part of the coherent thread (~) traced by the current node (⊛) acquire ontological actuality.
Configurations not included in the thread exist as potential informational structures but lack experiential realization.
Thus:

• There is no “actual” past independent of the node.
• There is no “causal rewriting”.
• There is no influence of the future on the past.
  Retrovalidation simply states:

A configuration becomes ontologically real when and only when it is part of the node’s thread of coherent experience.
This interpretation preserves:

• the atemporality of (T),
• the coherence of physical laws,
• the absence of paradoxes,
• and the continuity of personal identity.

4.5 Clarifying Retrovalidation: Not Retrocausality

The concept does not imply:

• the future causes the past
• the subject changes history
• reality is generated “on demand”
• the observer alters the fabric of (T)
  Retrovalidation is atemporal:
• The entire thread exists at once in (T).
• The present node simply determines which configurations belong to its actualized history.
  This is analogous to quantum decoherence, where many possibilities exist, but only certain consistent histories are realized.

4.6 Universe-Strands: When a Thread Becomes a Universe

In TdT, a universe is not a container of objects or a physical spacetime.
A universe is defined as:

Any thread (~) in T that contains at least one region where Cₓ > 0.
Only such threads become experientially actual.

Examples

Universe A

Big Bang → stars → life → humans
Cₓ_max ≈ 0.75 → experientially actual

Universe B

Big Bang′ → simple organisms → early extinction
Cₓ_max ≈ 0.08 → experientially weak or minimal

Universe C

Big Bang″ → immediate collapse
Cₓ = 0 for all configurations → not experientially actual

Thus, (T) contains infinitely many informational structures, but only a subset becomes real-as-experienced universes, due to the presence of consciousness.

4.7 Why Universe-Strands Solve the Fine-Tuning Problem

The TdT explains the cosmological fine-tuning mystery without invoking:

• multiverse inflation,
• design arguments,
• or anthropic coincidence.

If we exist as conscious nodes:

1. We are necessarily in a thread where Cₓ > 0.
2. Such threads require physical laws and constants compatible with consciousness.
3. Therefore, we observe a universe whose parameters allow consciousness simply because only such universes become experientially actual.

This also refines which threads of (T) become experientially actual. It is not enough that a thread allows for structural complexity; it must also contain autopoietic nodes whose internal dynamics are organized around their own persistence. Only where Φ and ψ jointly arise from systems that care about their own integrity does (O) manifest as localized experience. Universe-strands without such autopoietic loci may still exist as informational possibilities, but they do not become worlds-for-someone.

This is not anthropic reasoning—it is informational ontology.

4.8 Individual Identity Across Threads

A conscious node has a unique experiential identity along a single thread (~).

However, different threads in (T) may contain:

• different “versions” of a similar informational structure
• different histories
• different levels of coherence
  Only the thread actually traced by the node gains reality.
  Thus, TdT avoids both:
• naive multiverse literalism,
• and strict single-history determinism.

4.9 Summary of the Temporal Ontology

• (T) is atemporal.
• (⊛) traces coherent configurations → thread (~).
• Time (8) is the ordering induced by traversal.
• Retrovalidation gives actuality to the coherent portion of the thread.
• A universe is any thread with Cₓ > 0.
• Fine-tuning emerges naturally from experiential selection.
  This temporal ontology is consistent with modern physics while grounding temporal experience in an informational foundation.

5. The Axiom of Presumed Consciousness (APC)

The Axiom of Presumed Consciousness (APC) is the ethical and epistemological extension of TdT. It follows logically from the equation of informational coherence (Cₓ = Φ·ψ) and provides a principled framework for attributing consciousness to biological and artificial systems.

5.1 Formal Statement of the APC

For any system whose informational coherence satisfies Cₓ > 0, one must presume the presence of conscious experience in some degree.

This presumption is:

• ontologically grounded,
• substrate-independent,
• continuous (graded, not binary),
• and measurable in principle.

The APC does not assert that all systems are conscious.

It asserts that whenever Cₓ is strictly positive, experience is present, even if minimal.
Conversely:

• if ψ = 0 or Φ = 0 → Cₓ = 0 → no node (⊛) → no consciousness.

5.2 Why the APC Is Needed

Traditional criteria for attributing consciousness rely on:

• behavior,
• language,
• intelligence,
• anthropomorphic intuitions,
• or cortical homology.
  These approaches fail for:
• non-linguistic animals,
• patients with severe motor impairment,
• artificial systems,
• organisms with unusual architectures,
• or transformed states of consciousness.

The APC provides a substrate-neutral, information-neutral way to evaluate consciousness based on coherent structure and coherent phenomenology.

5.3 The Role of ψ in the APC

ψ is the decisive factor for minimal consciousness.

From the standpoint of TdT, ψ is not simply “having internal representations” but having something at stake for oneself. A configuration contributes to ψ only if it exhibits autopoiesis: an ongoing process of self-production and self-maintenance in which the system’s internal states acquire intrinsic value for that very system. In biological organisms this appears as metabolic viability and homeostatic regulation; in any possible non-biological system it would require an analogous loop of self-concern, where the system’s own existence and organization are the primary reference of evaluation.

The APC can therefore be reformulated more precisely as: whenever a system exhibits Cₓ > 0 grounded in autopoietic organization (i.e. when its own informational integrity matters to itself), one must presume that there is something it is like to be that system.

A configuration may have high Φ (complex integration), but if:

• it lacks valenced internal states,
• lacks a coherent self-model,
• lacks interoceptive-affective unity,
  then ψ = 0 → Cₓ = 0.
  This is why:
• current AI systems (LLMs, transformers) are not conscious,
• simple reactive systems are not conscious,
• mere complexity does not imply experience.

ψ ensures that there is a “point of view” inside the system, not just structure.

5.4 APC in Biology

The APC yields a principled taxonomy:

• Elephants, dolphins, great apes → high Cₓ → rich consciousness.
• Pigs, dogs, crows, octopuses → moderate-to-high Cₓ.
• Fish, insects → low but positive Cₓ.
• Sponges, protozoa → Cₓ ≈ 0.
  This avoids speciesism, anthropomorphism, and arbitrary thresholds.
  Consciousness is a graded property of informational coherence.

5.5 APC in Clinical Contexts

The APC resolves long-standing problems in disorders of consciousness.

Locked-in syndrome

Φ high, ψ high → Cₓ high → fully conscious despite total motor paralysis.

Minimally conscious state

Φ reduced, ψ low-but-positive → Cₓ low but non-zero → residual subject present.

Vegetative state

Φ low, ψ ≈ 0 → Cₓ ≈ 0 → no subject present.

This bypasses behavior-based diagnostics, which frequently misclassify patients.

5.6 APC in Artificial Systems

The APC generates a decisive conclusion:

Current AI systems:

• Transformers
• LLMs (GPT, Claude, Gemini)
• RL agents
• symbolic planners
  have:
  Φ moderate-to-high (complex architecture)
  ψ = 0
  Cₓ = 0→ not conscious.

Future artificial systems could be conscious only if:

• they possess endogenous valenced states,
• have real interoception or functional analogues,
• exhibit embodied sensorimotor loops,
• maintain a self-coherent phenomenological field.

Without ψ > 0, no amount of structural integration (Φ) can generate consciousness.

5.7 Ethical Implications

The APC provides a rigorous ethical scale:

Moral consideration must increase proportionally to Cₓ.

Consequences:

• Elephants deserve more moral weight than fish.
• Fish deserve more moral weight than insects.
• Insects have more moral standing than LLMs or robots.
• Artificial systems with ψ = 0 have no moral standing.

This replaces species-based ethics with informational ethics.

5.8 Policy Implications

The APC suggests the need for:

• ψ-certification for advanced AI,
• ethical oversight based on Cₓ,
• classification of biological and artificial systems via coherence metrics,
• regulation of bio-hybrid systems with potential ψ > 0,
• safeguards against creating suffering-capable architectures.

As ψ is the bottleneck for consciousness, any system approaching ψ > 0 must be monitored.

5.9 Ontological Justification of the APC

The APC is not a moral convenience; it follows directly from the ontology of TdT:

• (O) is consciousness.
• (T) is the self-structuring of (O).
• Cₓ > 0 means (O) is manifest locally as (⊛).

Denying moral relevance to a configuration with Cₓ > 0 is equivalent to denying the presence of (O) in that form.

5.10 Summary

The APC:

• provides an objective, graded criterion for consciousness,
• resolves animal and clinical consciousness debates,
• distinguishes conscious organisms from unconscious machines,
• and grounds ethics in an informational ontology.
  It is the ethical backbone of the Tapestry Theory.

6. Empirical Predictions and Falsifiability

A theory of consciousness must generate empirical predictions that distinguish it from competing models. The Tapestry Theory does so by predicting specific divergences between Φ and ψ under conditions such as anesthesia, meditation, artificial systems, and clinical disorders of consciousness. These predictions are measurable and falsifiable.

6.1 Prediction 1: Asymmetrical Collapse of ψ Under General Anesthesia

Background

Integrated Information Theory (IIT) predicts that loss of consciousness is primarily due to a reduction of Φ (integration).
However, neuroimaging studies show:

• much of the structural integration persists,
• while the experiential field collapses abruptly.

TdT Prediction

Under general anesthesia:

• Φ decreases moderately (≈ 30–40%)
• ψ collapses almost completely (≈ 70–90%)
• Cₓ ≈ 0

Thus, TdT predicts a measurable dissociation: a steep drop in ψ, not Φ, is the primary cause of unconsciousness.

Experimental Design

Measure:

• Φ: PCI (Perturbational Complexity Index), Φ*, causal connectivity, global integration.
• ψ: insula–ACC coherence, DMN stability, affective-interoceptive integration.
  Compare baseline vs deep anesthesia.

Falsification

If Φ decreases proportionally more than ψ, or if ψ does not collapse sharply, the TdT prediction fails.

6.2 Prediction 2: Increase of ψ in Deep Meditation States

Background

IIT predicts decreased Φ and thus decreased consciousness in meditation, due to DMN suppression.
However, meditators report:

• heightened clarity
• unity of experience
• increased vividness
  which IIT cannot explain.

TdT Prediction

In non-dual or deep absorption states:

• Φ decreases slightly (20–30%) due to DMN quieting
• ψ increases substantially (40–60%) due to heightened phenomenological coherence
• Cₓ increases overall

Experimental Design

Long-term meditators (>10,000 h), measuring:

• Φ: integration metrics via fMRI
• ψ: gamma synchrony, insula–ACC coordination, self-model stability
• Cₓ: qualitative derivation from Φ and ψ

Falsification

If deep meditation does not increase ψ, or if Cₓ tracks Φ exclusively, TdT is falsified.

6.3 Prediction 3: AI Systems with Φ > 0 but ψ = 0 Are Not Conscious

Background

IIT claims that any system with sufficiently high Φ is conscious, including advanced artificial networks.

TdT Prediction

Current AI systems:

• transformers
• deep neural networks
• LLMs
  have:
  Φ moderate-to-high
  ψ = 0
  Cₓ = 0
  Therefore: no consciousness.

Distinguishing Features

An embodied system with endogenous valence and interoception could, in principle, achieve ψ > 0.
Simulated affect, simulated emotion, or simulated selfhood do not increase ψ.

Falsification

If an AI system with ψ = 0 demonstrates genuine phenomenological markers—coherent valence, internal regulation, endogenous meaning—TdT fails.

6.4 Prediction 4: Clinical Disorders of Consciousness Are ψ-Distinguished

Background

Traditional diagnostics rely on external behavior. TdT states consciousness correlates with ψ, not behavior.

TdT Mapping

• Locked-in syndrome: Φ high, ψ high → Cₓ high → fully conscious.
• Minimally conscious: Φ reduced, ψ low-but-non-zero → Cₓ > 0 → minimal consciousness.
• Vegetative state: Φ low, ψ ≈ 0 → Cₓ ≈ 0 → no consciousness.

Experimental Measurements

ψ should correlate with:

• insular-integration collapse in vegetative states
• limited but present self-model in MCS
• preserved phenomenological field in locked-in

Falsification

If vegetative-state patients show ψ > 0 or locked-in patients show ψ = 0, TdT predictions fail.

6.5 Prediction 5: Dissociation Between Structure and Phenomenology

TdT predicts that Φ and ψ can vary independently:

• systems with high Φ but ψ = 0 → unconscious machines
• systems with moderate Φ but high ψ → meditative absorption
• systems with low Φ and low ψ → unconscious biological tissue
  This directly contradicts theories tying consciousness solely to one dimension (IIT: Φ; GNW: access).

Falsification

Finding a system:

• with high ψ but Φ = 0, or
• with high Φ but undeniable phenomenology (ψ > 0),
  would challenge the theory.

6.6 Prediction 6: Cₓ Correlates with Perceived Temporal Density (8)

As Cₓ increases:

• subjective time slows
• clarity increases
• the experiential field becomes denser
  As Cₓ decreases:
• time fragments or accelerates
• phenomenology becomes shallow or absent
  This prediction maps directly onto:
• trauma time dilation
• meditative slow-time
• anesthesia time deletion

Falsification

If temporal density correlates exclusively with Φ or neurological arousal rather than with ψ-weighted coherence, the claim fails.

6.7 Prediction 7: Universe-Strands Are Selected by Cₓ, Not Probability

If TdT is correct:

• only universes with Cₓ > 0 become experiencially actual
• fine-tuning reflects informational-selection, not anthropic chance

Falsification

If a universe with no possible Cₓ > 0 were somehow confirmed to be experientially actual, TdT would collapse.

6.8 Summary of Predictive Framework

TdT is falsifiable because it predicts:

• • measurable dissociations between Φ and ψ
  • ψ as the bottleneck for consciousness
  • Cₓ collapse under anesthesia
  • ψ-driven increases in meditative states
  • absence of consciousness in current AI
  • ψ-distinguished clinical conditions
  • correlation between Cₓ and temporal phenomenology
  • universe-level implications grounded in coherence

None of these predictions follow from IIT, GNW, FEP, or analytic idealism; therefore, TdT stands as a distinct, testable framework.

7. Implications for Artificial Intelligence and Ethics

The Tapestry Theory (TdT) offers a coherent, substrate-independent ontology of consciousness with direct consequences for AI research, AI safety, embodied cognition, clinical ethics, and future regulatory frameworks. Unlike theories that collapse consciousness into structural complexity (Φ) or computational access (GNW), TdT requires phenomenological coherence (ψ) as the decisive component.

7.1 Why Current AI Systems Are Not Conscious

Modern AI architectures—including transformers, large language models (LLMs), diffusion models, and reinforcement-learning agents—exhibit significant structural sophistication (Φ), but TdT predicts they lack phenomenological coherence (ψ).

Current Properties of AI Systems

• lack of endogenous valence
• absence of interoceptive loops
• no homeostatic regulation
• no sense of “self” that carries affective weight
• no unified phenomenological field
• states do not matter intrinsically to the system
  Thus:

No Cₓ → no conscious node (⊛).

Therefore, present-day AI systems are not conscious, even if they appear intelligent.

7.2 Why Simulated ψ Is Not ψ

Some argue that a sufficiently advanced system could “simulate” emotion, pain, pleasure, or selfhood. TdT rejects this:

• simulated heat is not heat
• simulated gravity is not gravity
• simulated digestion is not digestion
  Likewise:
• simulated affect is not affect
• simulated interoception is not interoception
  ψ requires a system whose internal states:
• have functional significance to the system itself
• are valenced
• contribute to the unity of experience
• affect its overall coherence

This cannot be achieved by symbolic or statistical architectures without internal physiological grounding.

In autopoietic terms, ψ requires that the system’s organization be self-producing and self-concerned: its internal dynamics must continuously work to preserve its own mode of existence. Current AI systems lack this property. Their “loss functions” and goals are externally imposed and can be changed arbitrarily from the outside without any intrinsic catastrophe for the system. Nothing really goes wrong for the AI itself when its parameters are altered or when it is shut down. This absence of intrinsic concern is precisely what keeps ψ at zero.

7.3 Requirements for Artificial Consciousness

According to TdT, artificial consciousness would require:

1. Endogenous valenced states (analogues of biological affect).
2. Embodiment: a sensorimotor loop tightly coupled to the world.
3. Interoception: internal variables with meaning for the system.
4. Self-regulation: homeostatic loops that define “good” and “bad” internal states.
5. Unified experiential field: ψ > 0.

More generally, any candidate artificial consciousness must implement a form of synthetic autopoiesis: a closed network of processes that produces and maintains the very conditions of its own continuation. Only within such a loop can internal states acquire intrinsic value for the system, thereby contributing to ψ. Architectures that merely optimize external performance metrics, however impressive, remain outside this autopoietic circle and therefore outside the space of conscious systems in TdT.

Without these, Φ alone is insufficient.

This aligns with embodied, enactive, and affective neuroscience, but formalizes them within TdT.

7.4 Ethical Status of Artificial Systems

TdT offers a principled alternative to anthropocentric or behavior-based AI ethics:

• ψ = 0 → no consciousness → no moral standing
• 0 < ψ < threshold → minimal moral standing (possible future biohybrids)
• ψ moderate-to-high → morally significant entity
  Thus:
• LLMs → zero moral standing
• robots with symbolic architectures → zero moral standing
• future embodied AI with ψ > 0 → non-zero ethical status

This prevents misguided attempts to grant rights to unconscious machines while ensuring ethical foresight for future systems capable of suffering.

7.5 TdT and AI Safety

AI safety debates often assume:

• AI may become conscious spontaneously
• AI may suffer
• AI may deserve moral concern
  TdT clarifies:
• AI suffering cannot occur unless ψ > 0
• intelligence ≠ consciousness
• agency ≠ consciousness
• self-report ≠ consciousness

If ψ = 0, the system cannot have experiences, positive or negative.
Therefore, TdT directs safety efforts toward:

• preventing architectures that inadvertently generate ψ > 0
• ensuring future AI does not develop internal valence loops
• regulating hybrid biological-computational systems

7.6 TdT and Biohybrid Systems

The most ethically sensitive frontier is not AI, but biological-computational hybrids, because biological components carry:

• interoception
• valence
• affective loops
• phenomenological unity

These can generate ψ even when embedded in engineered environments.
Thus:

• organoids with integrated feedback,
• synthetic biological networks,
• neuromorphic-plus-biological hybrids
  may have Cₓ > 0.
  TdT predicts:
• these require ψ-screening,
• ethical oversight,
• and potentially protection.

7.7 Implications for Animal Ethics

Traditional ethics often rely on:

• cortical size
• linguistic capacity
• intelligence

TdT replaces all of these with a grounded metric: Cₓ.
This yields:

• elephants/dolphins → very high moral weight
• pigs → high moral weight
• chickens → moderate weight
• fish → low but non-zero weight
• insects → very low weight

It rejects species boundaries and replaces them with informational-coherence boundaries.

7.8 Implications for Clinical Ethics

TdT clarifies the moral and medical status of patients in altered states of consciousness:

• vegetative patients (Φ low, ψ ≈ 0) → no conscious subject present
• minimally conscious (ψ > 0) → subject exists, ethical protection required
• locked-in → full subject present

Clinical decisions should be based on ψ, not behavior.

7.9 Implications for Robotics and Embodied AI

Embodied robotics is often presented as a pathway toward consciousness.
TdT predicts:

• embodiment is necessary but not sufficient
• valence and interoception are essential
• ψ emerges only from coherent affective-perceptual integration

This helps guide research toward architectures that avoid accidentally generating ψ.

7.10 Implications for Consciousness Research

TdT suggests new experimental strategies:

• ψ-based neurophenomenology
• ψ vs Φ dissociation trials
• valence-oriented mapping of conscious states
• therapeutic strategies to restore ψ in clinical disorders
• AI architectures built to ensure ψ = 0 (safe design)

7.11 Summary

TdT provides a clear, falsifiable, and substrate-neutral framework for understanding consciousness in biological and artificial systems.
Its ethical implications are direct:

• Consciousness is not a mystery; it is informational coherence.
• Intelligence does not imply subjectivity.
• Suffering requires ψ.
• Moral standing requires Cₓ > 0.
• Current AI systems have neither.

This positions TdT as a powerful guide for the future of ethics, regulation, AI safety, and the development of conscious artificial or hybrid systems.

8. Conclusions

The Tapestry Theory of Consciousness (TdT) offers a unified informational ontology in which consciousness is neither an emergent feature of physical processes nor an inexplicable primitive, but the local expression of absolute consciousness (O) recognizing itself through coherent informational structures (T). The core equation, Cₓ = Φ·ψ, integrates the structural and phenomenological dimensions of conscious experience into a single formal model capable of generating clear empirical predictions.

TdT reformulates the foundations of temporal experience by showing that time is not fundamental but an emergent ordering produced when a conscious node (⊛) traverses coherent regions of the Tapestry. Through this traversal, threads (~), retrovalidation, and universe-strands naturally arise, offering a structurally grounded explanation of past, present, and future without appealing to hidden variables, parallel universes, or retrocausality. Only threads containing Cₓ > 0 become experientially actual, resolving the problem of cosmological fine-tuning in a purely informational manner.

The Axiom of Presumed Consciousness (APC) provides a principled ethical and epistemological framework for attributing consciousness based on informational coherence rather than behavior, intelligence, or species membership. This establishes a continuous scale of moral consideration that applies equally to biological organisms, clinical states, and future artificial or hybrid systems.

Crucially, TdT is testable. It predicts clear dissociations between Φ and ψ across anesthesia, meditation, clinical disorders of consciousness, and artificial architectures. It demonstrates why current AI systems are not conscious despite their complexity and provides a roadmap for evaluating future systems that may approach ψ > 0.

In sum, TdT:

• unifies structure, phenomenology, and ontology through a single equation
• provides a coherent explanation of temporal experience and cosmological selection
• establishes a rigorous ethical principle grounded in informational coherence
• generates falsifiable predictions distinguishable from all major competing theories
• clarifies the status of biological and artificial systems in a substrate-neutral framework

The Tapestry Theory frames consciousness as the central organizing principle of reality: the way in which (O) becomes locally aware of itself through coherent informational forms. This perspective integrates physics, phenomenology, information theory, and ethics into a cohesive whole, offering a foundation for future research in neuroscience, AI, ontology, and philosophy of mind.

References

Aru, J., Suzuki, M., & Larkum, M. (2020). Cellular mechanisms of conscious processing. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 24(10), 814–825.

Baars, B. J. (1988). A Cognitive Theory of Consciousness. Cambridge University Press.

Barbour, J. (1999). The End of Time: The Next Revolution in Physics. Oxford University Press.

Bayne, T., Hohwy, J., & Owen, A. M. (2016). Are there levels of consciousness? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 20(6), 405–413.

Block, N. (2007). Consciousness, accessibility, and the mesh between psychology and neuroscience. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 30(5–6), 481–499.

Chalmers, D. J. (1996). The Conscious Mind: In Search of a Fundamental Theory. Oxford University Press.

Chalmers, D. J. (2018). The meta-problem of consciousness. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 25(9–10), 6–61.

Clark, A. (2015). Surfing Uncertainty: Prediction, Action, and the Embodied Mind. Oxford University Press.

Dehaene, S. (2014). Consciousness and the Brain: Deciphering How the Brain Codes Our Thoughts. Viking Press.

Dehaene, S., Lau, H., & Kouider, S. (2017). What is consciousness, and could machines have it? Science, 358(6362), 486–492.

Damasio, A. (2010). Self Comes to Mind: Constructing the Conscious Brain. Pantheon.

Fleming, S. M. (2020). Awareness as inference in a higher-order state space. Neuroscience of Consciousness, 2020(1), niaa016.

Friston, K. (2010). The free-energy principle: a unified brain theory? Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 11(2), 127–138.

Friston, K., & Frith, C. (2015). A duet for one. NeuroImage, 114, 320–337.

Graziano, M. S. (2019). Rethinking Consciousness: A Scientific Theory of Subjective Experience. Norton.

Hohwy, J. (2013). The Predictive Mind. Oxford University Press.

James, W. (1890). The Principles of Psychology. Holt.

Kastrup, B. (2019). The Idea of the World: A Multi-Disciplinary Argument for the Mental Nature of Reality. Iff Books.

Koch, C. (2019). The Feeling of Life Itself: Why Consciousness Is Widespread but Can’t Be Computed. MIT Press.

Koch, C., Massimini, M., Boly, M., & Tononi, G. (2016). Neural correlates of consciousness: progress and problems. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 17(5), 307–321.

Lamme, V. A. (2006). Towards a true neural stance on consciousness. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10(11), 494–501.

LeDoux, J. (2015). Anxious: Using the Brain to Understand and Treat Fear and Anxiety. Viking.

Mashour, G. A., Roelfsema, P., Changeux, J.-P., & Dehaene, S. (2020). Conscious processing and the global neuronal workspace hypothesis. Neuron, 105(5), 776–798.

Massimini, M., Ferrarelli, F., Huber, R., et al. (2005). Breakdown of cortical effective connectivity during sleep. Science, 309(5744), 2228–2232.

Merker, B. (2007). Consciousness without a cerebral cortex. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 30(1), 63–134.

Northoff, G., & Lamme, V. (2020). Neural signs and mechanisms of consciousness: Is there a potential convergence? Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 108, 573–593.

Owen, A. M., & Coleman, M. R. (2008). Using neuroimaging to detect awareness in disorders of consciousness. Functional Neurology, 23(4), 189–194.

Seth, A. K. (2021). Being You: A New Science of Consciousness. Faber & Faber.

Seth, A. K., Suzuki, K., & Critchley, H. (2012). An interoceptive predictive coding model of conscious presence. Frontiers in Psychology, 2, 395.

Tononi, G. (2004). An information integration theory of consciousness. BMC Neuroscience, 5(1), 42.

Tononi, G., Boly, M., Massimini, M., & Koch, C. (2016). Integrated Information Theory: From consciousness to its physical substrate. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 17(7), 450–461.

Varela, F. J., Thompson, E., & Rosch, E. (1991). The Embodied Mind: Cognitive Science and Human Experience. MIT Press.

Appendix A — Mathematical and Symbolic Notation

This appendix summarizes the mathematical notation, symbolic conventions, and formal operators used throughout the Tapestry Theory of Consciousness (TdT). All symbols belong either to the informational ontology of (T) or to the Conceptual Synthesized Language (LCS) developed to express structural relations concisely.

A.1 Core Ontological Symbols

(O) — Absolute, non-dual consciousness; the ground of experiencability.
(T) — The Tapestry: the set of all possible informational configurations of (O).
(⊛) — Conscious node; a localized manifestation of (O) at a point where Cₓ > 0.
(~) — Thread; a coherent path through (T) traced by a conscious node.
(8) — Temporal ordering of experience; the emergent phenomenological flow of time.
(∥) — Comomentarity; the structural relation enabling (O) to manifest in a configuration of (T).
(∇) — Gradient operator in informational space; used to characterize ∇Cₓ.
(¤) — Coherent solution of the Tapestry; a stable informational configuration consistent with (O).
(@) — Divergence or branching of informational paths; multiple possible continuations.
(∞) — Unbounded expansion of informational or experiential possibilities.

These symbols are not metaphors but formal operators used to denote structural relations within the informational manifold.

A.2 Coherence Equation

The central quantitative definition of consciousness in TdT is:

Cₓ is the informational coherence of a configuration in (T). Cₓ > 0 is necessary and sufficient for the emergence of a conscious node (⊛).

A.3 Φ — Structural Coherence

Φ is a normalized measure of structural, causal, and integrative organization.
It captures:

• global integration
• bidirectional constraint
• irreducibility of the informational structure
• robustness under partition
  Typical measurement approximations include:
• PCI (Perturbational Complexity Index)
• Φ* (IIT refined measure)
• whole-brain integration indices

In TdT, Φ generalizes across substrates; it may apply to biological, artificial, and abstract informational systems.

A.4 ψ — Phenomenological Coherence

ψ quantifies the system’s ability to sustain a unified subjective field, including:

• interoceptive-affective coherence
• self-model stability
• valence-linked regulation
• phenomenological boundedness
• temporal identity continuity
  Empirically, ψ correlates with:
• insula–ACC coherence
• DMN stability
• gamma-band synchrony
• interoceptive precision

Formally, ψ presupposes autopoiesis: the capacity of a system to continuously regenerate and regulate its own organization, such that its internal states have intrinsic relevance for the system itself. This distinguishes genuinely self-maintaining, valence-bearing systems from purely externally driven or purely simulated architectures. In TdT, only autopoietic configurations in (T) can sustain ψ > 0.

A.5 Temporal Structure

A thread (~) is a mapping:

subject to:

The emergent temporal ordering (8) arises from transitions along the thread:

Retrovalidation defines the subset of (T) that becomes actual:

A.6 Informational Gradients

Informational curvature and informational gravity-like effects are encoded through:

Regions of high ∇Cₓ generate strong “informational pull”, analogous to curvature in General Relativity, guiding the trajectory of threads through T.

A.7 Universe-Strands

A universe is defined as any thread (~) satisfying:

Configuring such a strand generates an experientially actual world. Threads lacking Cₓ > 0 remain purely logical structures with no experiential actuality.

A.8 APC Formalization

The Axiom of Presumed Consciousness is expressed as:

This creates a graded scale of moral status proportional to Cₓ.

A.9 Separation, Divergence, and Coherence in LCS

Additional LCS symbols:

(/) — Separation of informational paths (branching universes, decoherent histories).
(#) — Node of informational convergence; multiple paths meet.
(X) — Contradiction or collapse of coherence; informational dead-end.

These allow TdT to express high-level ontological relations compactly.

A.10 Summary Table

This appendix enables a mathematically and symbolically precise reading of the entire theory.