Consciousness Threshold Demo

Speculative — no calibration exists

Empirically refuted (2026): The C ≈ 0.50 threshold was tested against actual data in gnosis-research Session 63 and rejected at p < 0.0001. The 8-approach convergence shown below is a geometric artifact, not an empirical finding — see details in the calibration caveat. This demo is retained as an illustration of why a geometric coincidence looked meaningful: any approach that picks the midpoint of a [0,1)-bounded output range will land near 0.50 by construction.

Calibration caveat: C ≈ 0.50 is the output-range midpoint of [0, 1) — a geometric label, not a dynamically privileged value. For C(ρ) = tanh(γ · ln(ρ/ρ_crit + 1)), the slope dC/dρ is maximized at ρ = 0 (where C = 0), not at C = 0.50 — there is no inflection point in this specific function for ρ ≥ 0. The convergence of 8 approaches on 0.499 ± 0.012 is geometric, not empirical: every approach that picks the midpoint of a [0,1)-bounded output range will land near 0.50 by construction. Additionally, all 8 approaches share the same framework assumptions and are not independent. No calibration procedure exists to map actual EEG, fMRI, or IIT-Φ measurements to the C-axis.

The 8 approaches below all converge on C ≈ 0.50 — an illustration of how the geometric midpoint artifact operates. The convergence was shown to be forced (geometric, not empirical) and the threshold was subsequently refuted empirically. Hover over each to see the methodology.

Hover over an approach to see details

The Convergence

The mean threshold across all 8 approaches is C = 0.499. The standard deviation is 0.012. All 8 approaches fall within ±0.03 of 0.50.

Important: all 8 approaches were developed within Synchronism and share the same tanh-based assumptions. Convergence on 0.50 is expected for any approach that picks the output-range midpoint of a [0,1)-bounded function — it does not constitute independent empirical evidence. The convergence is consistent with the threshold being real AND with it being a mathematical artifact. External calibration (e.g., mapping propofol-stage EEG power spectra to a computed C value) is required to distinguish these.

What Has Falsified This

C ≈ 0.50 is the output-range midpoint (established). gnosis-research Session 63 rejected C=0.50 at p<0.0001. The convergence is geometrically forced — any approach keyed to the midpoint of [0,1) will land near 0.50 by construction.

What Would Still Falsify C(ρ)-Based Consciousness More Broadly

EEG/fMRI mapping establishing a C threshold at a different value than any of the 8 approaches predict
Species with demonstrably different C thresholds at the same density
A calibration protocol mapping IIT-Φ or EEG phase to the C-axis (does not exist yet)

Related Concepts

Consciousness ThresholdC ≈ 0.50: 8-way convergence from independent approaches The Hard Problem DissolvedPhase patterns ARE experience, not correlates of it