Research on consciousness measurements, competing theories, phenomenal attribution, and the limits of transporting evidence across organisms and computational systems.
A falsifiable, substrate-agnostic research programme for consciousness, comparing organizational and thermodynamic hypotheses with rival theories through formal tests, empirical predictions, and explicit revision conditions.
An annotated research index of Matthew David Segall’s process philosophy, critical responses, peer-reviewed evidence, universal prehension, divine valuation, and the questions that remain open.
Does the difficulty of directly measuring consciousness justify universal experience? Evaluating Segall’s evidential standards and the difference between uncertainty and confirmation.
The phenomenal datum remains. This analysis asks whether the Hard Problem is one indivisible challenge or several distinguishable research questions with different tests.
A scientific critique of Michael Levin’s Ingressing Minds proposal, distinguishing robust bioelectric experiments from untested metaphysical claims about Platonic space.
Matthew David Segall’s challenge meets positive causal accounts at specified targets. The further claim that all actuality is prehensive still needs its own warrant.
Phenomenal powers, prehension, and a transport test for Whitehead’s universal wager
A reply to Matthew David Segall on continuity, comparative warrant, and universal prehension.
What my framework implies for Matthew David Segall’s bifurcation argument
How deductive proofs against Panexperientialism establish machine moral relevance and direct standing without first settling machine consciousness.
How good science gets made to lend its prestige, without its consent, to a specific metaphysical conclusion it never established and doesn’t support uniquely.
The live disagreement is much narrower: whether causal actuality itself warrants a universal experiential or affective characterization, or whether primitive intrinsic character should remain open until something discriminates that interpretation from its strongest process-relational rivals.