4 posts tagged with "Philosophy"

In April 2025 Nature published the results of the COGITATE project — the largest adversarial experiment in the history of consciousness science. 256 participants, three neuroimaging modalities (fMRI, MEG, iEEG), two years of work, two leading theories: Integrated Information Theory (IIT) and Global Neuronal Workspace Theory (GNWT). Result: both partially confirmed, both partially refuted. Neither won.

Thirty million dollars from the Templeton Foundation, hundreds of scientists, an impeccable protocol — and a draw. One can view this as a failure. Or as a diagnosis: the problem is deeper than either side thought. Each theory formalizes one aspect of consciousness and declares it the only one. The result is not competition between theories but an ill-posed problem. As if two blind men were describing an elephant, and the judges asked: "Who is right — the one who felt the trunk, or the one who felt the leg?"

This post is a mathematical analysis of the situation. Not a defense of "our" theory. A rigorous breakdown: why the COGITATE result was predictable, what category mathematics says about it, and what experiments could resolve the dispute.

More than three thousand years ago the Rigveda posed the question: "Who is the one who observes?" In 2025 Nature published the results of the COGITATE project — an adversarial collaboration between IIT and GNW. Both theories turned out to be partially refuted. Over more than three millennia — thousands of texts, dozens of formal theories, zero consensus.

Not because the question is poor. But because answers systematically conflate epistemic levels: behavior is passed off as phenomenology, correlation as mechanism, definition as proof. Each theory answers its own question and declares it the only one.

This post is not a "final answer." It is an attempt to impose order: a map with coordinates, where every claim is marked by level of justification [Т/С/Г/П/О/И/✗]. Not "we know" — but "here is what is proven, here is what is postulated, here is what is interpreted."

Twelve previous posts built the formalism. The thirteenth — applies it to humanity's oldest question.

Twenty-five centuries of philosophers have debated free will. The result: two camps, both wrong.

Determinists say: everything is predetermined, freedom is an illusion. Libertarians (not those ones) say: freedom is real, but it cannot be explained. Compatibilists try to sit on two chairs and say: freedom is compatible with determinism, if one defines the terms correctly. Laplace is satisfied. Sartre is offended. Hume shrugs.

The problem is not in the answers — the problem is in the question. "Is the will free?" is a question that cannot be answered "yes" or "no" without saying something foolish. Because the answer is a number. Freedom is not a yes/no property. It is a measurable quantity taking values from 1 to 7, and here is the formula:

Below — what this means, where it comes from, and why Spinoza was closest.

For two and a half thousand years, philosophers have been arguing about consciousness. The result: several dozen mutually exclusive positions, none of which makes testable predictions. I decided that wasn't enough...

This position is not a set of intuitions dressed in Latin. It is derived from mathematical structure. If the structure is wrong — the position falls. If correct — its consequences must be accepted, even the uncomfortable ones. For example: an electron has an "interior" but has no consciousness [Т]+[П]. Systems without E-coherence are not viable [Т]; identifying this with "the impossibility of zombies" is [И]. Ethics receives formal support from the evolution equation [И]. Death is not a moment but a continuous process with a measurable threshold [Т].

The name — Coherent Categorical Holonomic Paninteriorism — sounds as though generated by an algorithm trained on continental philosophy dissertations. Alas, each word is necessary, and to remove any one is to lie. The shortened version — Holonomic Paninteriorism — is only marginally kinder but honest.

Below is an attempt to explain what all this means, without condescension to the reader and without mercy toward one's own intuitions.