Skip to content
Shadow Theory

Relational awareness / The current act

When a relation
becomes
experience.

Look at a shape. Its parts and their arrangement can appear together in one scene. The question is how that appearance belongs to the physical activity taking place.

JEREMY RODGERS
16 OCTOBER 2026 · V1.4
ONE PUBLICATION · TEN TECHNICAL MODULES
From Physical Comparison to Relational AppearanceA Defeasible Current-Act Account

The account advanced here

Appearance is a way
the current act occurs.

In a continuing human sensory comparison, there is reason to regard the presented relation as a qualitative way of the organized physical comparison itself. The account reaches that conclusion through two distinct warrants: evidence that a relation currently appears, and a philosophical principle for identifying the concrete performance that bears it.

These warrants can be assessed without first adopting the programme’s entire awareness-first ontology.

A relational appearance presents qualitative counterparts together with their relation. Two differently situated apparent sizes provide one example. A single sufficiently resolved spatial form also has relational aspects: its parts, distances and arrangement can be jointly present. No fusion of earlier experiences is required.

The scene can be newly constructed at current uptake. Earlier sensory tokens, their carriers and their subjects need not survive or merge. What matters is the present act in which the relation appears.

Develop the argument in full →

Five questions / Five distinct obligations

Follow the experience
without skipping a step.

01

Occurrence

Does anything of the target kind actually appear?

02

Jointness

Are the counterparts and their relation together in one presentation?

03

Sensory basing

Is this appearance the sensory way of this comparative activity?

04

Timing

When does the presentation occur, including construction at current uptake?

05

Bearer

Which concrete event or organization instantiates that qualitative way?

The connecting argument

Two warrants.
One concrete performance.

01 / Sensory evidence

A relation is currently presented.

Calibration, appearance-directed evidence and the continuing activity of the participant support current relational appearance within the declared native human regime. A correct response alone leaves jointness and current sensory basing unsettled.

Occurrence and the sensory regime →
02 / Concrete performance

The appearance belongs to this act.

The corrected concrete-performance/mode principle supports reidentifying the experience-inclusive act with the materially tracked performance at the qualifying phase. It treats the sensory way as a mode of that same concrete activity.

The principle and its defence →
A=P,Mode⁡(Q,A,τ)⟹Mode⁡(Q,P,τ)A=P,\quad \operatorname{Mode}(Q,A,\tau)\quad\Longrightarrow\quad \operatorname{Mode}(Q,P,\tau)

Here A is the experience-inclusive act, P the physical nomination, Q its qualitative mode, and τ the qualifying phase. Substitution follows from a warranted identity. The identity premise requires the separate philosophical defence; causation, containment and constitution do not supply it by themselves.

Inspect the identity argument and proof ↗

Awareness and the constructed observer

The apparatus shapes
what can appear.

The account begins from awareness and differentiated presentation. Sensory apparatus, acquired relations and retained scaffolding shape the perception itself. A completed image is not first shown to an independent inner viewer and interpreted afterward.

Reflective recognition, personal appropriation and recollective interpretation give the occurrence further roles. They can name it, organize it as mine, or reconstruct an earlier event. Distinguishing these roles leaves room for a present appearance without reflective recognition, and for a later interpretation without an earlier joint scene.

Awareness, construction and personal experience →The complete philosophical development ↗

The worked application

Equal discs.
A different apparent relation.

An archived Ebbinghaus trial placed two physically equal 30 mm discs in contrasting surrounds. Participant 2nU4ew, task 3, trial 3 selected the right response at 2645 ms, with “same” assigned left in advance. The response supplies a deadline for the current appearance on the ordinary sensory interpretation of the task.

This is a retrospective illustration with prior archive exposure. Dedicated jointness and sensory-basing probes were absent. Those facts locate exactly what the trial contributes to the two-warrant argument.

Read the complete worked case →
Inspect the evidenceArchive methods, decoding and transfer analyses ↗Further sensory applications and the failed neural predictive assay ↗Serial presentation, passive appearance and an exclusive bearer ↗

The competing accounts challenge different premises. Their distinctions are part of the positive argument, and their full constructions remain available.

One consciousness programme

From conditional structure
to a current appearance.

SPC-2 supplies constitutive laws for qualification, current content and continuity. Boundary, interface and realization studies ask how the relevant native organization can be specified and identified. Development examines acquired scaffolding; agency and reflective alignment examine how an act is governed and revised.

This investigation takes up a further obligation: supporting the appearance-facing premise and defending its attribution to a concrete act. Its current-act argument does not assume the complete SPC-2 constitution. Connecting the performance to a qualifying core, and identifying the appearance as an aspect of that core’s current scene, requires a further justified application.

Executing contributors alone do not define a subject boundary. The unsplit ground and an exclusive qualitative bearer play different roles in the argument and retain different notation.

The exact SPC-2 bridge →

The complete web treatment

Every argument.
Every technical module.

The main paper and its substantial companion form one connected publication. Read the entire treatment here, or enter through the question that matters to you.

  1. 01 / The complete argument

    A relation appears in the act itself

    The full current-act account: relational appearance, awareness and scaffolding, two warrants, sensory evidence, concrete performance, objections, appendices and references.

  2. 02 / The technical companion

    Choose the question. Follow the inference.

    The supplement’s purpose, conventions and dependency guide explain how the ten modules support distinct parts of the investigation.

  3. 03 / Module A / Sources and identification

    What a source must preserve

    Adequate sources, controlled lumpability, common decoders, exact equality certificates, native dependence and calibrated contrasts.

  4. 04 / Module B / Occurrence and ownership

    One appearance, its parts and its bearer

    Faithful descent, pair and common witnesses, ownership, support, interaction, collective capacity, gluing, awareness, personal appropriation and the SPC-2 connection.

  5. 05 / Module C / Finalisation and access

    What can be settled, sampled and recovered

    Common finalisation and passive marking, sampling bounds, information budgets, random access, codebooks and adaptive queries, with every proof and correction.

  6. 06 / Module D / Retention and return

    What remains when the process moves on

    Reversible retention, reset, recurrence, robust uptake timing, joint preparation, closure, native return and ensemble uncertainty.

  7. 07 / Module E / Native causal fields

    Build the causal field exactly

    The four-unit parity construction, corrected cause repertoires, IIT distinctions and relations, geometric consequences and failed controls.

  8. 08 / Module F / Realisation diagnostics

    Identify the organization behind the response

    Spatial response, resistance inverses, metric recovery, full output-law equivalence, native holds, material clocks and optical diagnostics.

  9. 09 / Module G / Empirical methods

    Read the evidence at its actual scope

    The archived Ebbinghaus trial, response decoding, retrospective exposure, transfer analyses and published sensory, binding, report, action and pain evidence.

  10. 10 / Module H / Constitutive alternatives

    Which act bears the appearance?

    Epistemic and constitutive claims, exact alternatives, mixed acts and exclusive bearers, concrete-performance identity, omitted executors, copied products and phase errors.

  11. 11 / Module I / Content and current basing

    The distinctions a presented form requires

    Relational aspects of a single form, the target-specific content-signature theorem, stabilizers and cosets, physical transport and current sensory basing.

  12. 12 / Module J / Further empirical tests

    Where the evidence reaches, and where it fails

    Cortical extent, afterimages, dreaming and a failed fixed neural prediction assay, including its primary outcome, methods and interpretation.

  13. 13 / Sources and computational provenance

    Inspect the sources and reported checks

    The technical companion’s complete bibliography and reproduction record, preserving the distinction between reported research checks and website conversion checks.

Complete mathematical Markdown ↓