Causal grammar distinguishes conscious mode and self-governance in systems, suggesting new frameworks for analysis.
This paper develops a cross-substrate causal grammar for distinguishing conscious mode, functional self-governance, and continuity of personality in large systems. “Large” denotes not physical size but a relatively bounded, historically extended organization whose interacting processes can alter its subsequent operation. The framework tracks the fate of a difference through trace, expectation, significance, situation construction, choice, executed action, a partially independent world response, and targeted update. It thereby separates salience from significance, attention from action weight, intention from execution, alarm from task state, memory from personality, and self-model from phenomenal ownership. Similar functional questions may be posed of humans, animals, artificial agents, and hybrid systems without assuming phenomenal or moral equivalence. Cross-substrate comparison is therefore a method of causal analysis, not a claim that physical realization is irrelevant. The framework neither derives phenomenality from function nor declares present-day AI systems conscious. Its contribution is a unified vocabulary for locating a function at the correct system boundary and tracing which component inherits its consequences. This boundary-first principle constrains attributions of memory, agency, and selfhood, while the accompanying discipline of non-equivalences exposes false completion, misdirected updating, and conflated levels of organization. Version 1.2 note. This version revises §6.4 to clarify the distinction between the Axis as a hierarchy of inter-mode priorities and the vector as the reconstructed direction of reorganization. It replaces “pattern” with “historically stabilized organization of transitions,” reframes the former “cage” case as a stable learned constraint, and aligns §6.6 accordingly. It also adds a clarifying comparison with active inference and three supporting references. The central claims and causal grammar remain unchanged.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lana Sabirova (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: