Responses & versions

Changelog

This is a git-backed changelog. Each released version records what changed, why, and the objection(s) that prompted the change — linked to the objections ledger so any revision can be traced back to the critique that caused it. Because the source is kept under version control, every change is a diff that can be inspected line by line.

v1.0 — May 2026

Initial public release of the working paper, Aperture Framework, research agenda, objections ledger, field notes map, and design doctrine. This is the baseline against which later diffs are recorded; there are no prior versions.

Phase 0 policy: no metaphysical tinkering between release and outreach. Revisions restricted to copy edits and rendering fixes. Substantive revisions deferred to v1.1, and only after a pattern of critique has emerged — not after individual reactions.

Received responses

Responses and summaries of expert critique will be posted here as they arrive, with permission from the commenter. No response will be published without consent; anonymised summaries will be used when a commenter prefers not to be named.

The goal is not a gallery of endorsements. It is a public record of where the argument was pressed, what held, and what had to change.

No responses published yet. Outreach begins after the site is stable.

How to submit critique

The most useful critique is specific, names what the proposal does not yet handle, and is willing to be quoted and engaged with in writing.

Particularly valued angles:

• Philosophy of mind. Does the fold add anything substantive beyond Metzinger, illusionism, dual-aspect monism, or higher-order theories, or does it collapse into one of them?
• Predictive processing / active inference. Is the mapping from fold to hierarchical self-modelling useful, banal, or wrong?
• Philosophy of physics. Is the non-fundamental-spacetime bridge an interesting philosophical move, or does the physics-side claim fail before it reaches consciousness?
• Contemplative scholarship. Is the two-orientation reading a useful structural interpretation, or an over-flattening of distinct traditions?
• AI consciousness / welfare. Do the aperture criteria distinguish operationally meaningful reflexive features from self-description?
• Design / product. Does the extraction-versus-emergence distinction survive contact with real product decisions?

Preferred route: submit structured critique. You can also send critique to . Please indicate whether the response may be quoted, attributed, anonymised, or kept private.

Submission is not subscription. Contact details are optional and used only for follow-up when consent is given.

Publication policy

Responses are selected for public posting when they press a substantive point: a conceptual break, a missing distinction, an empirical or scholarly correction, a sharper objection, or a disconfirmation condition that should constrain v1.1.

Nothing is quoted publicly unless the respondent opts in. If a response is useful but not quotable, it may still influence the private v1.1 synthesis or appear as an anonymised issue only when the respondent permits that treatment.

What a revision would look like

A v1.1 revision would be triggered by at least three independent critiques converging on the same structural issue. Possible forms:

• A tightened or weakened claim (for example, reframing the physics-bridge as a narrower philosophical move rather than a metaphysical thesis).
• A new objection added to the objections page, with a written reply and a clear status.
• A new disconfirmation condition in the research agenda.
• A clarifying example or a removed passage that was doing more confusing than clarifying work.

Each revision is released with a new version number and a changelog entry that summarises what changed and why, links to the specific objections it answers (with attribution where permitted), and — because the source lives in git — leaves an inspectable diff.