Abstract Integrated Information Theory (IIT) and Orchestrated Objective Reduction (Orch OR) represent the most developed bearer-theories of consciousness from philosophy and physics respectively. IIT identifies consciousness with integrated information (Φ); Orch OR locates it in quantum gravitational collapse events in neuronal microtubules. Both make serious empirical commitments and both face structural tensions — exclusion, grain, and measure-selection for IIT; the selection problem and the generation burden for Orch OR. This paper diagnoses these tensions as downstream of a shared presupposition: that consciousness must be generated by some substrate or process. Drawing on the Triaxial Existential Field (TEF) programme, the paper proposes that consciousness is not a product but a primitive structural feature — reflexivity (R) — co-primitive with coherence (C) and participation (P). The generation question is dissolved rather than answered: reflexivity does not come from information integration or quantum collapse; it is one of three irreducible axes of admissible existence. Both theories are reconstructed faithfully, their achievements credited, and their insights preserved under constraint-retyping: IIT's Φ tracks the integration of reflexive availability; Orch OR's dual-anomaly recognition reflects the shared R-register status of gravity and consciousness. Three differential payoffs are developed: a clinical typology classifying consciousness disorders by axis-failure (C/R/P) rather than scalar Φ, generating testable predictions that scalar classification does not; an architectural specification for artificial consciousness providing four diagnostic conditions where IIT's measure is intractable and Orch OR's mechanism is substrate-specific; and cross-domain convergence showing the same bearer-to-constraint retyping dissolves structurally isomorphic paradoxes across consciousness, gravity, time, and quantum measurement. Detailed falsification conditions are stated for TEF, IIT, and Orch OR, alongside conditions under which TEF would defer to each interlocutor. The paper's posture is diagnostic, not adversarial: it aims to show what each theory contributes to a larger understanding in which the hard problem dissolves and the empirical work continues.
Jaimes Chao (Wed,) studied this question.