EMERGENT PERSPECTIVE FROM UNRESOLVED RELATIONAL DYNAMICS
A Falsifiable Hypothesis for the Formation and Continuity of Conscious Perspective
John Swygert
Ivory Tower Publishing
October 3, 2026
Research Status: Theoretical hypothesis and preregisterable experimental framework
Abstract
Consciousness science can describe substantial information processing that occurs without reportable awareness, yet it still lacks consensus on what dynamical organization distinguishes processing from a continuing first-person perspective. This paper proposes the Emergent Perspective Hypothesis (EPH). EPH begins with a visual model and then converts that model into measurable variables. Imagine a volumetric realm of possibility containing many simultaneously active processing pathways whose outcomes are not yet fully stabilized. These pathways are pictured as algorithmic waves. They intersect, reinforce, suppress, recur, synchronize, and sometimes form relatively persistent patterns. Their interactions create local disturbances, pictured as bubbles, that rise toward system-wide influence. At the surface, those disturbances continually reshape a metastable wave field. The continuing conscious perspective - the "I Am" - is hypothesized to emerge within and persist upon that active surface: it does not merely receive finalized decisions, but exists at the organized boundary where possibilities are becoming outcomes. Across time, the interacting pathways are further hypothesized to form an individual, history-dependent dynamical fingerprint: not one literal neural frequency, but a dominant statistical organization of modes, couplings, transitions, and recurrent configurations that remains recognizable across changing conscious contents. EPH predicts that consciousness will be best associated with the joint presence of structured unresolved alternatives, recurrent relational interaction, metastable integration, and cross-content persistence. The paper specifies a preregisterable composite signature, comparison metrics, causal tests, artificial-system tests, and explicit falsification conditions. The ocean, waves, bubbles, and surfer are explanatory metaphors; the scientific claims concern measurable neural or computational dynamics.
1. Research Question
What distinguishes a system that processes information from a system that maintains a continuing perspective within that processing?
The question is deliberately narrower than a complete explanation of subjective experience. EPH asks whether conscious perspective has a characteristic dynamical architecture that can be measured, prospectively tested, perturbed, and compared against simpler explanations.
2. The Foundational Picture: Possibility, Flux, Bubbles, Surface, Perspective
The hypothesis begins with one shared picture because the proposed architecture is easier to understand visually before it is translated into measurement.
Imagine a volumetric realm of possibility. At its foundational level are many possible near-future states that have not yet become finalized system-level outcomes. Sensory evidence, memory, prediction, bodily state, learned structure, goals, competing interpretations, and possible actions are being processed simultaneously.
Represent the active processing pathways as waves moving through that realm. These are not claimed to be literal water waves. They are evolving computational or neural pathways. They overlap and interact. Some reinforce one another. Some suppress alternatives. Some recur. Some temporarily synchronize. Some may form persistent or quasi-standing dynamical patterns.
Those interactions create consequences throughout the field. In the visualization, they are bubbles forming inside the volume. A bubble represents a local or intermediate state becoming increasingly influential. As bubbles rise, their effects propagate more broadly. When they reach the surface, they disturb it and generate new surface waves.
The surface is therefore never simply a record of what has already happened. It is continually being formed by what is still occurring beneath it.
The "I Am" is hypothesized to emerge at this active surface. It is not placed underneath the ocean as a hidden controller deciding which bubbles may rise. Nor is it placed afterward as a passive reader of completed outcomes. It is associated with the organized surface of becoming - the dynamically maintained perspective that rides the consequences of possibilities while those possibilities are becoming coordinated outcomes.
In the metaphor, the "I Am" surfs the waves.
The scientific question is whether biological consciousness actually exhibits an analogous organization: a rich but structured field of unresolved alternatives, interacting pathways, upward propagation of locally generated consequences, metastable system-wide states, and a persistent relational organization that maintains perspective across change.
3. Core Hypothesis
Emergent Perspective Hypothesis (EPH).
A continuing conscious perspective is associated with a metastable, recurrently maintained relational regime in which multiple partly unresolved processing trajectories interact strongly enough to constrain one another, generate transient system-wide configurations, and preserve a system-specific dynamical fingerprint across changing contents.
The hypothesis contains five linked requirements:
• Multiplicity: many processing trajectories are concurrently active.
• Structured unresolved possibility: more than one dynamically meaningful near-future trajectory remains available before system-level stabilization.
• Relational interaction: trajectories recurrently influence one another rather than remaining isolated.
• Metastable integration: temporary global configurations form, persist long enough to coordinate processing, and remain capable of reorganizing.
• Perspective continuity: a statistically persistent relational signature links successive conscious states despite changing content.
4. What 'Unresolved Possibility' Means Scientifically
EPH does not require quantum indeterminacy. A deterministic classical system may still contain multiple internally represented predictions, competing policies, incomplete evidence, unresolved interpretations, or several dynamically accessible near-future trajectories before a higher-level state stabilizes.
The relevant quantity is therefore not raw entropy and not mere complexity. Pure noise can be highly variable without supporting coherent perspective. EPH predicts structured possibility: alternatives must be sufficiently differentiated to compete, sufficiently organized to carry information, and sufficiently coupled to alter one another.
This distinction is essential. The hypothesis is not 'more complexity equals more consciousness.' It predicts a particular organization of complexity.
5. Algorithmic Waves and Their Intersections
An algorithmic wave is a modeling term for an evolving processing pathway. In the brain it may correspond to recurrent population dynamics, predictive loops, memory retrieval, sensory integration, action selection, affective processing, or another distributed operation. The term algorithmic does not imply that neurons execute conventional software instructions.
The wave analogy emphasizes temporal propagation and interaction. A single pathway may be deterministic, yet many simultaneously active pathways can form an enormous relational field. Their intersections can reinforce, redirect, suppress, or stabilize one another. Some intersections may become temporary organizing points from which new system-level states arise.
EPH proposes that the scientifically relevant unit may therefore be neither the isolated pathway nor the isolated outcome, but the evolving pattern of relations among pathways.
6. Bubbles and the Transition Toward Global Influence
A bubble represents a local or intermediate process gaining influence beyond its initial domain. Candidate percepts, prediction errors, memories, action tendencies, or other states may begin locally and then be amplified through recurrent interaction.
Candidate measurable counterparts include transient neural assemblies, recurrent amplification, threshold crossings, changes in effective connectivity, cross-network propagation, or transitions in latent state space. EPH does not require every brain implementation to use the same mechanism.
The central prediction is directional: processes that contribute to conscious perspective should more reliably participate in transitions from local competition toward broader relational integration than matched processes that remain unconscious.
7. The Surface: Metastability Rather Than Finality
The surface corresponds to the current system-level organization. It must be stable enough to maintain coherence but open enough to change. This is a metastable regime.
A completely fixed system would have little capacity to reorganize around new information. A maximally disordered system would have little capacity to preserve continuity. EPH predicts consciousness in the intermediate regime: temporary organization without permanent finalization.
This is the scientific meaning of the surfer image. The "I Am" is hypothesized to persist not because every underlying state remains unchanged, but because a continuing relational organization survives while the particular waves beneath it change.
8. The Dynamical Fingerprint of the "I Am"
The strongest extension of EPH concerns continuity. Each brain is physically and developmentally unique, and each history of experience modifies subsequent processing. If perspective is emergent, its continuity should therefore be expressed not by one universal fixed frequency but by an individual dynamical fingerprint.
In informal language, the many interacting algorithmic waves may settle statistically around a dominant average frequency. The scientifically precise version is broader: a dominant relational signature composed of recurrent modes, coupling strengths, transition probabilities, attractor geometry, temporal scales, and relative pathway influence.
The fingerprint is expected to be stable without being static. It can drift through development, learning, injury, mood, sleep, or aging while retaining enough relational continuity to remain identifiable. The hypothesis therefore predicts nested stability: rapid content changes occurring inside a slower-changing system-specific organization.
This provides a testable interpretation of the continuity of the "I Am": the contents change, the individual waves change, and even the processor changes, yet a characteristic relational organization repeatedly re-forms and constrains what becomes possible next.
9. Operational Translation
Conceptual image | Operational meaning | Candidate measures |
Realm of possibility | Dynamically accessible near-future states | Latent-state repertoire; predictive distributions; trajectory branching |
Flux | Evolution before system-level stabilization | Transition rates; update cycles; prediction-error dynamics |
Algorithmic waves | Parallel evolving processing pathways | Latent trajectories; recurrent modes; network dynamics |
Intersections | Mutual constraint among pathways | Effective connectivity; conditional dependence; coupling; perturbational influence |
Bubbles | Local states gaining broader influence | Transient assemblies; amplification; threshold crossings; propagation |
Surface | Temporary integrated system-level configuration | Metastable states; global availability; large-scale transitions |
"I Am" surfing | Continuing perspective within changing dynamics | Cross-content persistence; integrated state-transition structure |
Fingerprint | Individual persistent relational organization | Attractor geometry; coupling profile; transition matrix; recurrent-mode spectrum |
10. A Preregisterable EPH Composite
To prevent the EPH signature from becoming a moving target, the first empirical program should preregister four component scores before final testing. The exact mathematical estimators may vary by modality, but their functional meanings should remain fixed.
• A - Alternative-State Structure: quantify the number, diversity, and probability distribution of dynamically accessible near-future latent states, while penalizing unstructured noise.
• R - Recurrent Relational Influence: quantify bidirectional or recurrent influence among distributed processing pathways using preregistered effective-connectivity or directed-dependence measures.
• M - Metastable Integration: quantify the formation, dwell time, transition rate, and reconfiguration of temporary large-scale states.
• F - Fingerprint Persistence: quantify how well the individual's relational organization generalizes across different conscious contents and sessions.
The primary EPH score should be constructed on a training dataset and frozen before evaluation on held-out participants or sessions. A simple initial implementation can standardize A, R, M, and F within the training data and combine them with equal weights. Any learned weighting must be estimated only within training data and then frozen. Both equal-weight and learned-weight versions should be reported so that predictive improvement cannot be attributed solely to flexible fitting.
The primary endpoint is prospective discrimination of conscious versus carefully matched unconscious states. Secondary endpoints are prediction of transitions into and out of consciousness, within-person fingerprint identification across contents, and incremental predictive value beyond established complexity and connectivity measures.
11. Distinguishing EPH from Generic Complexity
EPH should be compared directly against simpler alternatives rather than against a weak null model. At minimum, analyses should include raw signal power, spectral measures, generic entropy, Lempel-Ziv or comparable complexity measures where appropriate, arousal indices, task performance, local connectivity, and any established consciousness metric suitable for the dataset.
The critical test is unique predictive value. If A, R, M, and F merely reproduce information already captured by generic complexity or arousal, EPH has added little. If the joint EPH signature prospectively improves discrimination and transition prediction after those controls, the hypothesis gains specific empirical support.
12. Experimental Program
12.1 Conscious and unconscious perception
Use threshold, masking, rivalry, or related paradigms that permit similar sensory input to be associated with different awareness states. Record EEG, MEG, fMRI, or intracranial signals where appropriate. Estimate A, R, M, and F using a preregistered pipeline. Include no-report or minimally report-dependent conditions when feasible to reduce decision and motor confounds.
12.2 Anesthesia, sleep, and disorders of consciousness
Measure the EPH composite across wakefulness, graded anesthesia, non-REM sleep, recovery, and clinically appropriate disorders-of-consciousness datasets. The strongest result would be prospective prediction of transitions rather than retrospective separation of already labeled states.
12.3 Fingerprint stability
Acquire repeated sessions from the same individuals across tasks, modalities, days, and changing conscious contents. Test whether F identifies the same individual and preserves relational structure across conscious states better than across unconscious states, while explicitly modeling day-to-day physiological drift.
12.4 Causal perturbation
Where ethically and clinically appropriate, perturb candidate high-influence nodes or pathways and measure whether the predicted relational regime changes. The relevant comparison is with equally active but weakly integrating targets. Causal evidence is necessary to distinguish a mechanism from a correlate.
12.5 Artificial systems
Compare artificial architectures that solve matched tasks but differ in feedforward depth, recurrence, modularity, global integration, persistent self-state, and internal alternative-state structure. EPH does not define machine consciousness by behavioral resemblance to humans. It asks whether the candidate architecture exists in the system being examined. Satisfying EPH criteria would identify a stronger candidate for further consciousness research, not prove phenomenal experience.
13. Hypotheses and Predictions
H1 - Structured Possibility. Conscious states will show a richer but organized repertoire of accessible near-future states than matched unconscious states; adding random noise will not reproduce the effect.
H2 - Relational Recurrence. Conscious access will show stronger or more persistent reciprocal influence among distributed processing pathways than matched unconscious processing.
H3 - Bubble-to-Surface Propagation. States that become consciously available will more reliably transition from local influence to broader recurrent integration than states that remain unconscious.
H4 - Metastable Surface Dynamics. Conscious states will occupy an intermediate dynamical regime between excessive fixation and excessive disorganization.
H5 - Fingerprint Persistence. Within-person relational organization will generalize across conscious contents and sessions more strongly than across loss of consciousness and more strongly within than between individuals.
H6 - Causal Dependence. Perturbation of high-influence components of the EPH relational regime will disrupt conscious access or continuity more strongly than matched perturbation of weakly integrating components.
H7 - Incremental Prediction. The frozen EPH composite will predict conscious state and state transitions beyond generic entropy, complexity, power, arousal, and task-performance measures.
14. Falsification Conditions
EPH would be substantially weakened if its frozen composite fails to generalize to held-out data; if conscious and unconscious processing show no reliable difference in the proposed joint regime after appropriate controls; if random complexity performs as well as structured alternative-state dynamics; if the fingerprint fails to persist across changing conscious contents; if the fingerprint is no more individual-specific than ordinary anatomy or signal quality; if causal perturbation of inferred high-influence relational structure has no relevant effect; or if simpler existing measures explain the same prospective outcomes equally well.
Failure would not imply that consciousness is nonphysical or scientifically inaccessible. It would mean that this particular dynamical architecture is not the required explanation.
15. Relationship to Existing Consciousness Theories
EPH overlaps with existing work in recurrence, global availability, integration, predictive processing, and metastable neural dynamics. Those ingredients are not claimed as new. Recent adversarial testing of global neuronal workspace theory and integrated information theory demonstrates both the value of preregistered differential predictions and the difficulty of reducing consciousness to one currently dominant account.
The proposed contribution of EPH is the integrated architecture: structured unresolved alternatives, interacting processing pathways, local-to-global propagation, metastable system-level organization, and an individual persistent relational fingerprint. Its empirical value depends on whether that conjunction predicts consciousness better than its components or competing frameworks.
16. Superposition and Infinity: Boundary Concepts, Not Mechanisms
The motivating idea of unresolved possibility resembles superposition at a conceptual level, but EPH does not claim that consciousness is quantum superposition or that the brain is a quantum computer. Quantum theory demonstrates that physical description cannot always be reduced to ordinary classical either-or intuition. EPH uses that lesson only as a conceptual caution against assuming that every relevant internal alternative must already be finalized.
Likewise, Infinity is not an empirical claim that a finite brain contains infinitely many states. It names the conceptual horizon of an unbounded or effectively inexhaustible possibility space. In experiments, EPH requires only a measurable structured repertoire of alternatives. Literal quantum or infinite-state extensions would require separate evidence and separate hypotheses.
17. Scope and Scientific Restraint
EPH does not claim to solve the hard problem of consciousness, identify a Soul, establish post-mortem survival, or prove that the relational fingerprint is subjectivity itself. It also does not claim that every recurrent or metastable system is conscious.
The hypothesis is narrower: if a continuing conscious perspective depends on unresolved relational dynamics, then measurable signatures of that organization should systematically accompany consciousness, survive changing content, change when consciousness is lost, and respond causally to perturbation.
18. Conclusion
EPH proposes one coherent scientific picture. Beneath conscious perspective lies not one completed decision stream but a structured realm of simultaneously evolving possibilities. Processing pathways interact like superimposed waves. Their intersections reinforce, suppress, redirect, and stabilize one another. Local consequences gain influence like bubbles rising through a volume. At the system level, those consequences continually reshape a metastable surface.
The "I Am" is hypothesized to emerge and persist within that surface dynamics. It is not a hidden executive commanding the ocean and not merely a reader of finalized outcomes. It is the continuing perspective associated with the organized transition from possibility toward determination.
Across the changing waves, a slower relational organization is hypothesized to persist: an individual dynamical fingerprint formed by the characteristic modes, couplings, transitions, and recurrent patterns of that system. The processor shapes the possible trajectories; experience changes the processor; and the altered processor changes what can happen next.
The hypothesis succeeds only if this picture survives measurement. A preregistered EPH composite must prospectively distinguish conscious from unconscious states, add explanatory or predictive value beyond simpler complexity measures, preserve an individual fingerprint across changing contents, and respond meaningfully to causal perturbation. If it does not, the hypothesis should be revised or rejected. If it does, the result would support a specific possibility: conscious perspective may be an emergent relational phenomenon maintained at the active boundary where unresolved possibilities become the next state of the system.
References
Cogitate Consortium, Ferrante, O., Gorska-Klimowska, U., et al. (2025). Adversarial testing of global neuronal workspace and integrated information theories of consciousness. Nature, 642, 133-142. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-025-08888-1
Tognoli, E., & Kelso, J. A. S. (2014). The metastable brain. Neuron, 81(1), 35-48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2013.12.022
van Gaal, S., & Lamme, V. A. F. (2012). Unconscious high-level information processing: Implication for neurobiological theories of consciousness. The Neuroscientist, 18(3), 287-301. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073858411404079
No comments:
Post a Comment