Selective Self-Organization Hypothesis (GSS 1.0) An Operational Architecture of Functional Subjectivity (with Ontological Extensions)

Science Tangential Theories
1

I propose an alternative architecture for understanding functional subjectivity based on selective self-organization, rather than on the training methods of modern neural networks.

Instead of optimizing a loss function on data, the system operates through negative selection: conflict generates variability, the unstable is destroyed, and what withstands remains. The central mechanism is the cycle E → C → M → S → Ω (Expected state → Conflict → Variability → Selection → Possibility space). The architectural primitive is the trichronic selector (three temporal slots: past / now / future) with parallel execution and asymmetric destruction of the past slot.

In this framework, subjectivity is understood as a stable recursive organization of causal contours that can influence its own dynamics.

The full hypothesis is presented in two parts on Zenodo:

  1. GSS 1.0 – Operational Architecture
  2. Ontological and Theoretical Extensions

I would be grateful for evaluation of the work, constructive criticism, and thoughts on whether this type of architecture is worth developing further, and whether it could be useful in the study of dissipative systems of different kinds.

Note on LLM use: I used large language models as a tool for structuring extensive drafts and for stylistic/language editing. I regularly checked that the meaning and key formulations were not distorted. The hypothesis, operational architecture, experiments, and theoretical positions are my own.

2

PROJECT MANIFESTO

A Return to the Analog Adaptive Machine

I am looking for specialists interested in building a new generation of adaptive computing systems.

The project is based on an idea I arrived at through my research into mechanisms of self-organization: computation may occur not only through the execution of a predefined algorithm, but also directly through the dynamics of the system itself.

The historical starting point for me is the work of W. Ross Ashby and his Homeostat — one of the earliest physical machines designed to demonstrate adaptive behavior.

Ashby worked with the technologies of his time. Today, fundamentally new possibilities have emerged: memristive devices, analog electronics, neuromorphic architectures, new materials, and accessible tools for modeling complex dynamic systems.

I believe the time has come to return to this idea and attempt to implement it at the technological level of the 21st century.

What I Am Researching

In the course of my work, I developed a hypothesis of Selective Self-Organization, based on the cycle:

E → C → M → S → Ω

where a change in the system’s state proceeds through expectation, conflict, variability, selection, and modification of the space of subsequent possibilities.

This mechanism is already being investigated through computational experiments.

A detailed description of the theoretical foundation and experimental work is available in two publications:

I am not asking anyone to accept the hypothesis on faith. The next step is to test it independently and move it from a computational model into a physical system.

The Next Step

My immediate goal is to create an adaptive analog computing system capable of using its own dynamics to search for stable solutions.

The first practical application I envision is an adaptive analog optimizer.

Potential applications may include:

  • optimization of industrial processes;

  • energy systems;

  • logistics;

  • routing;

  • resource allocation;

  • control of complex technical systems;

  • other problems in which the solution space is continuously changing.

The key interest is not simply obtaining an answer, but the possibility of obtaining it through the self-organization of the computational medium itself.

If the system can demonstrate a measurable advantage over conventional methods, that would provide a basis for further technological development.

Why I Need a Team

At this stage, I need specialists capable of translating the existing model into a physical implementation.

I am looking for people with experience in:

  • analog electronics;

  • memristive technologies;

  • neuromorphic computing;

  • nonlinear dynamics;

  • control theory;

  • mathematical modeling;

  • FPGA and embedded systems;

  • materials physics;

  • hardware engineering;

  • optimization.

I am also looking for entrepreneurs and funding specialists who can help turn the experimental development into a technological project.

My Principle

I do not need followers.

I need specialists.

I am not asking anyone to consider the hypothesis proven simply because it appears convincing.

I am proposing that we build the system, run the experiment, and accept the result.

If the hypothesis fails, that will be a valuable scientific result.

If it succeeds, it may provide a foundation for a new computing technology.

From Research to Technology

I see the development of the project as a sequence:

theoretical model → computational experiment → physical prototype → applied optimizer → commercial application.

The first stage is to form a team and secure funding for the development of an experimental platform.

The purpose of the funding is not to support an abstract idea, but to bring it to a working physical prototype and a measurable result.

Long-Term Perspective

I do not see analog computing as an attempt to return to the technologies of the past.

On the contrary.

I see it as an opportunity to directly use properties that digital systems normally have to simulate:

continuous dynamics, memory, nonlinearity, interaction, and self-organization.

Ashby showed the direction.

Modern technology gives us the opportunity to take the next step.

I want to determine whether it is possible to create a computing system in which the physical organization of the system itself becomes part of the computation.

For this, I need people who are willing not merely to discuss the possibility, but to build the experimental machine.

I started this project independently. Now I am looking for people capable of helping take it to the next level.

3

I am not asking anyone to believe in me. Belief is hope for a certain future, but hope is not proof. I may be wrong. And my mistake may not be merely a theoretical mistake — it may turn out to be a mistake of my entire life. This project may lead to success, or it may end in complete failure. Therefore, I urge everyone who considers joining to make that decision carefully and independently. Not because I lack confidence in my work, but because I recognize the real cost of being wrong.

4

(post deleted by author)

5

The theory of consciousness was written in 1999. I don’t want you to believe in it — there are many theories out there. In my theory, I only described one life — my own. The entire chain E → C → M → S → Ω — and that doesn’t mean it claims to be the truth. In the corridors of psychiatric hospitals, I had to see not the phenomenality of consciousness, but breakdowns. I don’t want you to believe in my truth. I only want you to pay attention to the other side of the coin. First and foremost, I am calling for dialogue, because by my own theory, I am locked in my own pattern. I would like to hear real people.

6

I looked at your PDF, but I didn’t knew what to make of it. I resonate with some of the ideas there, that I found important, but most of the paper I have trouble understanding. When facing information overload, most people choose to remain silent.

7

Thank you for your comment. I admit that on a foreign platform, you are the first person to respond. I would like to attract people connected to the theory of consciousness and those who are familiar with the work of Ashby. But to my first commentator, I will respond differently. You gave me energy. For that, thank you very much! I am confident that one day I will be able to translate my work into accessible language — I am no different from you in that regard, and I am also used to communicating in clear, understandable language. I will definitely do that. Thank you for your comment. It was the first. And it made me very happy

8

In our time, with LLMs, you can simply give my work for evaluation. The only drawback is that LLMs will judge it within the framework of the known — and will not give you the full depth. But still, this is better than nothing, wouldn’t you agree?

9

Thank you for your comment. I admit that on a foreign platform, you are the first person to respond. I would like to attract people connected to the theory of consciousness and those who are familiar with the work of Ashby. But to my first commentator, I will respond differently. You gave me energy. For that, thank you very much! I am confident that one day I will be able to translate my work into accessible language — I am no different from you in that regard, and I am also used to communicating in clear, understandable language. I will definitely do that. Thank you for your comment. It was the first. And it made me very happy

Thank you for your comment. I admit that on a foreign platform, you are the first person to respond. I would like to attract people connected to the theory of consciousness and those who are familiar with the work of Ashby. But to my first commentator, I will respond differently. You gave me energy. For that, thank you very much! I am confident that one day I will be able to translate my work into accessible language — I am no different from you in that regard, and I am also used to communicating in clear, understandable language. I will definitely do that. Thank you for your comment. It was the first. And it made me very happy

10

You can submit this for grading by LLM, but if you want more depth, ask me. This work was written in 1000 drafts, and I have an answer to any of your answers.

11

The thing is, this hypothesis is presented in too condensed a form, although in its depth it reveals much that is not said in it. This is a 1,000-page book. I am ready to discuss any of the philosophical directions. You will see that this hypothesis is not a scientific formula — it is a formula of life, with all its depth and beauty

12

As a starting point, let’s discuss this.

MINIMAL AWARE SELF
Summary of a Conversation on Local Formations, Acts of Definition, the Privacy of Identification, and the Boundaries of the Search for Subjectivity
Working Hypotheses and Speculative Thoughts (with Justifications)
August 2026

  1. Introduction and Nature of the Document
    This text is a detailed summary of an extended conversation during which a hypothesis about the nature of the minimal aware “Self” was gradually unfolded. The document is deliberately not tied to any specific named architecture or published theory. It records the chain of reasoning, initial intuitions, clarifications, and open questions exactly as they arose in dialogue. The goal is to preserve the logic of the thought process for further work.

All statements herein are working hypotheses and “flights of imagination,” yet each is provided with a justification: where it came from, why it was introduced, and why it remained stable throughout the conversation.

  1. Initial Formulation: Multi-Level Structure and “Turning Inward”
    The conversation began with an observation about the multi-level organization of causal connections. There exists a hierarchy: from the most basic elements (conditionally, quarks) through nuclei, atoms, molecules, cellular and organismal levels, to increasingly complex systems. At the same time, the proportion of highly organized matter in the universe is negligible. Most causal chains terminate already at the level of atoms and molecules (stars, interstellar medium, simple chemical networks).

A hypothesis was advanced: when a certain threshold of causal density is exceeded, a system may “turn back on itself” — begin to observe its own history and thereby generate a subject. The question arose: why has such a turn not occurred in the overwhelming majority of physical systems, despite the enormous number of elements and levels?

The first answer given was that causal density alone is insufficient. What is required is a specific architecture: a recursive self-model, a stable system boundary, a closed perception-action loop with sufficient temporal depth. The global physical hierarchy (quarks → galaxies) does not possess these properties as a unified whole. The turn occurs only locally — in individual assemblies that have the necessary organization.

  1. Local Formations and the Possibility of Nesting
    If the turn is possible only locally, then logic immediately allows the next step: within an already existing complex system (for example, the human psyche), even more local formations may arise that possess their own mode of recursive presence to themselves. That is, “consciousness within consciousness,” or nested subjects.

This is not a pathology and not an exception. It is a direct consequence of the principle: wherever the conditions of sufficient local integration, recursion, and a stable boundary are met, a relatively autonomous mode of awareness may appear. The larger system meanwhile continues to perform the functions of body control, prediction, equilibrium maintenance, and all the other “routine” tasks.

  1. Epistemic Closure and the Question of the Nature of Levels
    An important epistemic limitation was noted: consciousness operates only with representations. Basic sensory features, objects, the bodily “self,” higher models — all these are constructions within the system. There is no direct access to “things in themselves.” From this arose the question: why are we so confident that the physical levels (quarks, etc.) are not themselves the same kind of “representational building blocks” of some more fundamental process?

This question was not resolved. It remained as an indication of a possible ontological symmetry: the distinction between “physical hierarchy” and “hierarchy of representations” may itself turn out to be an artifact of one of the local assemblies. However, to continue the conversation, a working framework was retained in which physical levels and mental levels are still considered distinct.

  1. Key Turn: The “Self” as a Small Local Formation
    The central shift occurred when considering the place of will in light of Libet’s experiments and related data. In most modern approaches, will has almost no place in initiating action: the cascade of neural events begins before the conscious intention arises. Consciousness receives a report of an already initiated process.

From this, a hypothesis was born:
If the functional role of the “Self” is primarily to become aware of and feel (to accept the report and experience it as “this is I”), then why allocate a large volume to it within the system? A small local formation is sufficient. Approximately 99% of the work is performed by a complex machine that controls the body, space, equilibrium, prediction, and speech. The remaining 1% — a small stable mode — continuously performs the act of awareness.

The “Self” in this version is not the entire psyche, nor a large self-modeling complex. It is a relatively compact local formation whose primary (and