No Support Beyond Reach: The Measure Centrality Index 2.0 and Adversarial Comparisons of Consciousness Theories
Abstract
A success in adversarial testing of scientific theories reaches only as deep as its matching failure would have cut. I call this the Reach Principle, and the goal of this chapter is to build the instrument that enforces it. Adversarial tests of consciousness theories can turn into a one-way evidential ratchet. When a preregistered prediction passes, the success is claimed for the research program; when it fails, the failure lands on an auxiliary involved in measurement or implementation. The ratchet turns wherever attribution is settled after the outcome is known. Against it, I define a preregisterable test object, putting the attribution policy on the record before the result, comprising what is compared, under which assumptions, when data suffice to settle an outcome, and which targets of a dated theory version each outcome exposes. The Measure Centrality Index 2.0 extends the original version to the positive-evidence side, recording for every possible outcome what it would count against and what its proponent has agreed to change. I run the framework on Cogitate's third prediction, where the preregistered target was the posterior-connectivity implementation and the mathematical or computational core of both Global Neuronal Workspace Theory and Integrated Information Theory stood outside the test. The record shows that a pass could have been claimed at any depth, because nothing fenced success the way the failure was bound. The next preregistration can set reach in advance, and support for a theory then reaches only what was exposed ex ante.
Related
- Overcoming essentialism: evaluation of theories of consciousness by the lawful regularities they predict.
- Vertebrates do not display consistent declines in abundance or stability with contemporary range or realized climate niche centrality
- MoBC-Net: computing network inter-module distance and module-based betweenness centrality
- Voxelwise degree centrality alterations and cognitive performance in severe unilateral M1-segment middle cerebral artery stenosis with ipsilateral watershed infarction.
- Sample overlap in genome-wide association meta-analysis: practical comparisons across significance thresholds
BibTeX
@misc{chisciure2026support,
title = {{No Support Beyond Reach: The Measure Centrality Index 2.0 and Adversarial Comparisons of Consciousness Theories}},
author = {Robert Chis-Ciure},
howpublished = {arXiv},
year = {2026},
month = nov,
doi = {10.48550/arxiv.2611.06925},
eprint = {2611.06925},
archivePrefix = {arXiv},
url = {https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.06925},
note = {CC BY 4.0},
}
RIS
TY - UNPB
TI - No Support Beyond Reach: The Measure Centrality Index 2.0 and Adversarial Comparisons of Consciousness Theories
AU - Robert Chis-Ciure
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/11/01
PB - arXiv
DO - 10.48550/arxiv.2611.06925
UR - https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.06925
AB - A success in adversarial testing of scientific theories reaches only as deep as its matching failure would have cut. I call this the Reach Principle, and the goal of this chapter is to build the instrument that enforces it. Adversarial tests of consciousness theories can turn into a one-way evidential ratchet. When a preregistered prediction passes, the success is claimed for the research program; when it fails, the failure lands on an auxiliary involved in measurement or implementation. The ratchet turns wherever attribution is settled after the outcome is known. Against it, I define a preregisterable test object, putting the attribution policy on the record before the result, comprising what is compared, under which assumptions, when data suffice to settle an outcome, and which targets of a dated theory version each outcome exposes. The Measure Centrality Index 2.0 extends the original version to the positive-evidence side, recording for every possible outcome what it would count against and what its proponent has agreed to change. I run the framework on Cogitate's third prediction, where the preregistered target was the posterior-connectivity implementation and the mathematical or computational core of both Global Neuronal Workspace Theory and Integrated Information Theory stood outside the test. The record shows that a pass could have been claimed at any depth, because nothing fenced success the way the failure was bound. The next preregistration can set reach in advance, and support for a theory then reaches only what was exposed ex ante.
ER -