Minimal Public Formulation of the Projected Presence Framework Conditions, Distinctions, Failure Criteria, and Empirical Readiness for Future Consciousness Research

Summary

The Projected Presence Framework is presented as a conceptual architecture for future consciousness research, distinguishing between organismic regulation and lived presence. It emphasizes that consciousness cannot be solely explained by organismic access. The paper introduces provisional definitions and criteria for empirical testing, but does not provide new data or solutions to the hard problem of consciousness. Its novelty lies in clarifying the transition from stabilized access to lived presence.

Study at a glance

Abstract

This theoretical research note presents a minimal public formulation of the Projected Presence Framework. The paper does not claim to solve the hard problem of consciousness, nor does it present new empirical data. Instead, it consolidates the framework into a criticizable and test-ready conceptual architecture for future consciousness research. The central claim is that consciousness is not explained merely by identifying organismic regulation. The hard problem begins where stabilized organismic access becomes lived presence. The paper therefore distinguishes organismic regulation, stabilized access, projected presence, selfhood, will, dogma, correction resistance, and feedback regulation in order to prevent category collapse between functional access, lived presence, self-modeling, and agency. The framework is positioned against access consciousness, phenomenal consciousness, Global Neuronal Workspace, predictive processing, self-model theory, illusionism, embodied cognition, and neurophenomenology. Its novelty lies not in claiming that consciousness depends on the body, access, prediction, or self-modeling, but in locating the hard remainder more precisely at the transition between stabilized organismic access and lived presence. The paper also introduces provisional operational definitions, testable failure criteria, measurable markers, and three empirical readiness paths: depersonalization / presence disruption, correction uptake under self-relevant pressure, and access–presence dissociation. These are not presented as completed studies, but as protocol sketches for future empirical work. The contribution is methodological: the paper aims to make the Projected Presence Framework publicly criticizable, comparable with rival theories, and vulnerable to future testing.

Tags