This preprint proposes a three-layer architectural model of consciousness — Avatar (Hardware), Interface (Software), and Processor (Core) — and argues that the current race toward AGI is architecturally incomplete. Silicon Valley builds increasingly sophisticated Interfaces (LLMs, multimodal models, agentic systems) but does not address the problem of connecting a Processor: the fundamental, non-simulable carrier of subjective experience. The paper distinguishes between established facts (the hard problem, Landauer's principle, the imitative nature of LLM outputs), hypotheses (Orch OR, information as a fifth state of matter, holographic principle), and the author's metaphysical position. It reviews competing theories — IIT, GWT, HOT — and shows why none of them close the gap. Two experimental protocols are proposed: a thermodynamic test (deviation from the Landauer limit in biological vs. artificial systems) and an interface test (detecting spontaneous goal-directed activity or threat-response to shutdown). The central claim is architectural, not philosophical: if AGI requires a Processor, then scaling the Interface is an investment in an unfinished system. If it does not, that must be proven rather than assumed.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Evr Hanna (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: