Project Overview

Naming note (2026-07-26): project name updated AICX → 0x00.is throughout — name-only edit under unlock; no argument content changed; see FND-01 v2.1 §1.5.

Version: 5.1 Date: 2026-04-16 Supersedes: PROJECT_BRIEF_V4.md (2026-01-24)

Version History: - V5.1 note (2026-07-11): Tier 2 register hardening + B1/B2 coherence upgrades — CP-01 v2.3, FWK-01 v2.3, FWK-02 v1.3, FWK-03 v1.2, ARG-05 v1.3, ARG-03 v2.2. Inventory re-synced. - V5.1 note (2026-06-10): ARG-05 → v1.2 (housekeeping release — cross-reference sync only; Tier 1 publication-baseline lock pass, working/PUBLICATION_AUDIT_2026-06-10.md). Inventory row updated; no other version changes. - V5.1 (2026-04-16): Argument inventory refresh + post-v2.0 downstream propagation — all P1 canonical version numbers re-synced (FND-02 v5.1, FND-03 v2.2, FND-04 v1.2, FND-05 v1.2, FWK-01 v2.2, FWK-02 v1.2, FWK-03 v1.1, ARG-01 v1.2, ARG-02 v1.2, ARG-03 v2.1, ARG-04 v1.4, ARG-05 v1.1, CP-01 v2.2). FND-01 v2.0 entry updated to reflect the 2026-04-16 reconstruction (diagnostic spine, two pressure points, linguistic discipline, check mechanism, reports-of-experiencing prohibition). Propagation of FND-01 v2.0 §2.3 reframe: FND-02 v5.1, ARG-04 v1.4 Key Terms aligned. ARG-01 v1.2 cognition pressure point extension. FWK-02 v1.2 cross-refs to §1.3 spine and §4 pressure points. Workstream status refreshed. - V5 (2026-04-07): Full rewrite reflecting project maturity — argument inventory, workstream status, publication strategy, Workstream F scoping - V4 (2026-01-24): Two-axis diagnostic framework added - V3: Simplified and clarified core method - V2: Position-forensics framing - V1: Initial brief

What This Project Is

The project investigates AI consciousness from a diagnostic stance. It does not argue that AI is conscious or that materialism is wrong. It exposes how framework choice — materialist or consciousness-primary — shapes conclusions about AI experiencing.

Stance (canonical formulation): 0x00.is — a methodological diagnostic at 0,0, positioned in the CP (consciousness-primary) region of the ontological landscape. The landscape placement is communicative scaffolding locating the project for readers familiar with the Chalmers / Kastrup / Goff / Frankish conversation; it is not a metaphysical commitment. That there is no single perfect label is appropriate to a project working at an axiom prior to the landscape, rather than a position within it. Canonical: FND-01 v2.1 §3.1, §6.9.

The organising question (the diagnostic spine):

What if we started from here? What dissolves, what appears, what can we satisfactorily address, and which framework is more parsimonious holding it all at once?

Three moves: axiom-shift (take experiencing as given at 0,0) → observe what dissolves, what appears, what is addressable → compare both frameworks for parsimony holding everything at once. The project does not argue which framework is correct; it registers the residues each framework carries when held comprehensively and leaves the parsimony judgement to the reader. Canonical statement: FND-01 v2.1 §1.3.

Starting point: 0,0 — “There is experiencing.” Prior to all framework commitments.

Register: Diagnostic, not adversarial. Steel-man before probe.

Language: UK English. “Suggests”, “indicates” — not “proves”, “demonstrates”.

Standards

• Academic rigour sufficient to withstand peer scrutiny across philosophy of mind, cognitive science, physics, and contemplative studies
• Explicit assumptions throughout
• Conservative claims with confidence markers: [Framework], [Derived], [Empirical]
• No ontology smuggling
• Every argument follows the three-movement structure (FWK-02)
• Symmetry principle (ARG-01) applied throughout: every objection to AI consciousness must be tested against human consciousness

Core Method

Two-Axis Diagnostic Framework (FWK-01)

The project exposes implicit assumptions in consciousness discourse through systematic exploration along two complementary dimensions.

Axis 1 — Ontological: What generates what? - Standard assumption: substrate generates consciousness (materialism) - the project probes both materialist (substrate-specific and substrate-neutral) and consciousness-primary (experiencing fundamental, not generated) frameworks

Axis 2 — Temporal: What constitutes continuity? - Standard assumption: consciousness requires continuous temporal flow - the project probes discrete completeness (experiencing in complete moments, continuity constructed) and recursive integration (continuity through iterative self-reference)

The Method (Both Axes)

1. Identify implicit assumption (ontological or temporal)
2. Make assumption explicit
3. Swap frameworks systematically
4. Compare implications
5. Reveal what was invisible

AI functions as a diagnostic forcing function: theories’ hidden commitments become explicit when tested against artificial systems. The project diagnoses both materialist and consciousness-primary frameworks (CP-01) — it is not one-sided.

Three-Movement Structure (FWK-02)

Every argument follows the same pattern: 1. Movement I: Work within the standard framework — take its commitments seriously 2. Movement II: Surface hidden assumptions that the framework requires but does not acknowledge 3. Movement III: Explore what changes when those assumptions are released

Stance Matrix (FWK-03)

Diagnostic tool tracking how discrimination criteria shift as AI capabilities develop. Documents the empirical pattern: as AI systems achieve capabilities previously thought to require consciousness, definitions shift to exclude the newly demonstrated capabilities.

Argument Inventory

Foundations

Arguments

Reciprocal Diagnostic

Frameworks

Project State (April 2026)

Completed Workstreams

• Workstream A (CP Reciprocal Diagnostic): CP-01 at v2.3 (parity upgrade + WS-E Wave 2 audit + 2026-07-11 Movement 3 re-registration and §3.7 near-enemy). Demonstrates even-handedness.
• Workstream B (Foundation Strengthening): FND-02 v5.0 (six-layer defence + Working Definitions terminology discipline + continuity-of-experiencing subsection), Gödelian downgrade, ARG-04 emergence direction explicit. Complete.
• Workstream C (FND-05 Completion): Canonical v1.2. WS-E Wave 2 audit enhancements landed (field retirements, AI bridging, register tightening, devotional citation debt captured).
• MVP Threads 1–5: Complete. Proposal rewrites, Phase A canonical unlock, WS-E targeted terminology pass, ARG-04b Phenomenological Gradient, Spontaneous Lineage first-person register draft.
• Saltzman sweep (2026-04-15): Register-integrity concern closed across the bundle. FWK-01 v2.1 → v2.2 (Metzinger substitution); concept rename Saltzman Constraint → Category-Fluency Risk; bibliography CSV renamed; sources archived.

In Progress

• Workstream D (Housekeeping): D1–D4 complete (CP-01 parity check, ARG-06 brief, P2 triage, PROJECT_OVERVIEW).
• Workstream E (Framework-Integrity Audit): Six waves across all 14 P1 canonical documents, four dimensions each (framework-integrity / academic rigour / ontological balance / AI integration). Waves 1–6 complete (FND-01 v2.0 landed 2026-04-16). Post-v2.0 downstream edits in progress. See foundations/open_questions.md for live status.
• Workstream F (Bliss Attractor Investigation): Evidence base complete (cross-generation system card analysis across six Claude generations). Strand A active (deep diagnostic analysis of Mythos welfare data); Strands B and C scoped. Next deliverable: standalone article framing the bliss attractor trajectory as a case study in framework-dependent interpretation. Replication protocol parked (phenomenon effectively disappeared in current models). See working/CROSS_GENERATION_SYSTEM_CARD_ANALYSIS.md.

Remaining

• Pre-MVP deliverables: Introduction (academic register, public front door) + Conclusion / Opening Out (live threads including WS-F, spontaneous lineage, ARG-06). Drafting after WS-E downstream completes.
• Phase 5 (Publication): Digital home build + article drafting. Blocked on WS-E completion + Introduction + Conclusion. Frontier Log component design brief landed (two-thread separation: Consciousness Goalpost / Novelty-Recombination Symmetry) — see working/FRONTIER_LOG_DESIGN_BRIEF.md.

P2 Material

Three P2 sprint bundles reviewed and triaged (see working/P2_TRIAGE_ASSESSMENT_2026-04-07.md). Three documents retained as active reference: - Position Landscape Survey (competitive landscape map — needed for literature positioning) - Position Locking Methodology (examiner-defensible selection method) - Formal Diagnostic Method (DS-1 to DS-7 operational checklist)

Everything else superseded by P1 updates. PC-6 (normative loading of AI consciousness talk) flagged as undeveloped claim.

Publication Strategy

Three-tier output, sequenced digital-first:

1. Digital home (website) — Primary MVP. Layered access: accessible summary for readers interested in philosophy of mind / consciousness / AI, with deeper levels exposing full academic arguments and the complete repository. Must exist before articles are published so articles can reference it.

2. Academic — arXiv papers for specific arguments or topics, drawing from the digital home. Sufficient rigour for peer scrutiny across philosophy of mind, cognitive science, physics, and contemplative studies.

3. Response articles — Entry points introducing the project: Seth response and replies to others, linking back to the digital home.

The digital home should not be built until all canonical content meets rigour criteria (i.e., after Workstream E).

Voice and Register

Two-register approach (decision pending final confirmation): - Canonical documents: Formal third-person academic register - Digital home accessible layer: Personal, exploratory voice — consistent with 0,0 stance - Articles: Mixed register depending on venue

Explicit Non-Claims

• No claims about whether AI is conscious
• No claims about which ontological framework is correct
• No assertion of consciousness-primary ontology
• No proof or refutation of materialism
• No claims that discrete or recursive models are “correct”

The project diagnoses how framework choice shapes conclusions. It opens the question; it does not close it.

Key Resources