Necessary Physical Conditions for Primary Interoceptive Sentience: A Lakatosian Research Programme on Continuous Neuromorphic Substrates

Abstract

This is the extended, definitive version (v16.2) of the P0_Distilled research programme, with full technical appendices — it supplements the distilled entry-point paper (P0_Distilled_v0.1) with the complete Lakatosian structure, derivations, and experimental protocol. The programme's hard core is a single metaphysical postulate (dual-aspect monism of valence): the dynamical tension an integrated material system opposes to the violation of its own thermodynamic niche coincides, from the first-person perspective, with primary affective valence. This postulate is not falsifiable and is not argued for here — the philosophical companion paper provides that argument. What this paper does establish is a protective belt of seven falsifiable auxiliary hypotheses, each tied to a specific operational test, negative control, or abandonment criterion, together with the mathematical apparatus behind them: the thermodynamic valence functional Ψ(t) (derived from a Hatano–Sasa non-equilibrium steady-state decomposition), the spectral definition of causal degeneracy, and the finite-size scaling criterion for continuous memristive substrates. The paper is explicit about what it does not claim: it does not demonstrate that any substrate is sentient, and it declares its own structural limits (the binding problem, the thermodynamic–phenomenal gap, and the absence of a graded account of altered states) as boundaries the programme does not resolve, rather than hiding them. Version 2 (September 2026): the reference software implementation (Python/Rust, openly available — see the related Software DOI) computes a practical proxy of Ψ(t) — a log-ratio of the raw dissipative components plus a KL-divergence penalty — rather than the formal definition in Appendix F (normalized entropy-production rates against a hardware-calibrated critical rate). This mismatch existed but was previously undocumented; it is now disclosed explicitly in Appendix F, so readers comparing the paper's equations against the code are not misled. Also corrected: an incompletely formatted literature citation (real author names added).Version 3 (September 2026): added an explicit methodological observation to §7.6, stating that six of the seven current auxiliary hypotheses cannot, even in principle, bear evidentially on Postulate 2's plausibility — only H7 (via Ψ(t)'s comparative predictive power against five alternative constructs) offers indirect evidential contact. This is a direct consequence of the Lakatosian hard-core structure functioning as designed, not a flaw in it, but is now reported explicitly rather than left implicit.