7
A small request to researchers: need one neutral reference contact. ICT-Model (Information-Consciousness-Time) (beehaw.org)
submitted 1 week ago by DmitriiBaturo@beehaw.org to c/science@beehaw.org
2 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Hello everyone 🌿

I’m applying to the Foresight Institute — AI for Science program, and I need one neutral reference contact (full name and email) — not a recommendation, not a letter, and no endorsement of the content.

The role is minimal: If the committee decides to reach out (most likely they won’t), they may ask only:

whether you have seen or read the work;

whether the application appears serious.

I am developing an interdisciplinary model called ICT (Information–Consciousness–Temporality).

At the core of the model: — dI/dT as a formal dynamic of consciousness, — I_fixed as a model of material fixation of informational states.

Discussion and preprint: https://www.academia.edu/s/8924eff666

PDF: https://www.academia.edu/144946662/The_Conceptual_Model_of_the_Essence_of_Information_Temporal_Interaction_of_Consciousness_and_Matter_The_ICT_Model_by_Baturo_Elion_

DOI: https://zenodo.org/records/17584783 Docx format

If any researchers here are willing to serve as such a neutral contact, I would be very grateful. It requires zero time from you other than possibly confirming briefly by email.

Thank you to everyone who responds.

top 2 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] howrar@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 week ago

Whenever I see the term "consciousness" in a paper, it automatically gets flagged in my head as non-serious. But I work in AI, so maybe that shouldn't apply to whatever your field is. That brings me to the next problem: I can't figure out what your field is supposed to be from this paper. It's lacking the background and prior work sections that would serve to position your work into the greater context of existing work.

[-] DmitriiBaturo@beehaw.org 1 points 4 days ago

Thanks for the critique — fair points. A few clarifications directly based on the ICT Model v1.1 (the version linked in the post):

  1. About “consciousness” as a red flag

In the paper “consciousness” is used operationally, not philosophically.

ICT defines it strictly as:

C ∝ dI/dT — rate of informational change over time (Section 1.1, Eq. 2)

No metaphysics, no claims about qualia — only measurable information dynamics (entropy-rate, LZ-complexity rate, update-energy).

  1. What field the work belongs to

Also clarified in v1.1: ICT sits at the intersection of:

information physics,

thermodynamics of computation,

temporal dynamics,

neuroscience of information processing.

(Sections 1.1, 2, and Correspondence Table)

The model does not present itself as philosophy of mind.

  1. Background / prior work

v1.1 explicitly connects the framework to:

Landauer limit,

Bekenstein bounds,

Friston’s free-energy principle,

algorithmic complexity measures,

temporal stability / phase structure.

(All referenced in Sections 1.1–2)

  1. Falsifiable predictions

The paper includes three concrete experiments (Section 8) designed for empirical testing:

  1. Neuroenergetic test of dI/dT

  2. Structure-without-energy input experiment

  3. Cross-substrate information-fixation thresholds

All with operational variables, not philosophical language.

  1. Summary

Your comment is useful — especially about clearly signaling the disciplinary context. But everything I’ve referenced above is directly in the v1.1 preprint and defines ICT as a physical/informational model, not a metaphysical one.

Happy to refine further if needed.

this post was submitted on 26 Nov 2025
7 points (88.9% liked)

Science

14699 readers
1 users here now

Studies, research findings, and interesting tidbits from the ever-expanding scientific world.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:

Be sure to also check out these other Fediverse science communities:

This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
alyaza@beehaw.org
Gaywallet@beehaw.org
remington@beehaw.org