Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
The Experand framework proposes adequacy conditions for representing felt orientation, separating unresolved structure, valence, experienced possibilities, constituent composition, report, and ownership. This paper tests a substantial formal fragment for mathematical coherence and logical non-entailment. It does not claim to detect feeling or to derive phenomenal ownership from a state index. A 24-state construction with five event generators realizes recovery without return, objective-invariant preorder valence, non-reset semantics, compatible constituent composition, and distinct possibility and report maps. The generators induce exactly 40 transformations. Constructive countermodels separate non-return from future distinguishability, identical endpoints from shared histories, and recovery from irreversible dynamics. Exact continuation equivalence gives minimum deterministic representations of 1, 3, 6, 12, and 24 states as specified outputs are retained; the three binary outputs without unresolved structure require 8. The novelty lies in a unified, checkable Experand instantiation and in feature-relative preservation bounds, not in a new automata-theoretic minimization theorem. These bounds establish what a deterministic model must retain once its outputs and admissible events are specified. They do not establish that those outputs are phenomenally necessary, or that any implementation possesses felt orientation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Abraham Chachamovits (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: