Death is an Engineering Challenge

We propose synconetics, a new discipline for sustained, empirically testable consciousness continuity to solve death through engineering. This essay outlines core principles and practical approaches.

Figure 1: Artistic visualisation of consciousness’ physical-dynamical processes.

Introduction

Months of collaborative alignment within our working group, involving rigorous debate and scrutiny of prior schools of thought, have shown fundamental shortcomings in conventional approaches to solving death. As a result of this critical process, we introduce synconetics. This essay presents the first formal articulation of this new discipline, outlining a cohesive paradigm born from our shared analysis and convictions. However, we stress that this represents an initial definition of an emerging field; the written work presented herein, as will become apparent throughout the essay, requires significant refinement through broader engagement and critique. Recognising this necessity, we invite collaborators from academia and industry to join us in challenging, developing, and advancing synconetics.

At its core, synconetics is a new scientific discipline focused on understanding the fundamental aspects of death and overcoming it through the development of synthetic consciousness mechanics. These mechanics form a framework for engineering interventions designed to sustain the physical-dynamical processes of consciousness using resilient substrates. By grounding its approach in empirically testable systems and near-term technologies over speculative and non-falsifiable approaches, synconetics aims to bypass philosophical speculation about the true nature of consciousness and its cessation (i.e., death). It establishes consciousness continuity preservation as a concrete engineering challenge, forming the discipline’s foundational principle.

First Principles of Death

Death is not an inevitability but a contingent failure of the organised physical system that instantiates consciousness (i.e., the conscious substrate). In principle, physical processes are manipulable: no fundamental law prohibits the indefinite persistence of self-maintaining systems under engineered conditions. Therefore, we define dying operationally as the irreversible destruction of the processes sustaining conscious continuity over time.

Figure 2: The four-dimensional process-world-line representing conscious continuity. Left: A conscious substrate (defined as the physically localised system, e.g., brain, whose organisation supports the continuous physical-dynamical activity (4) underpinning consciousness) evolves through space (1) and time (2), generating an unbroken process-world-line (3). Middle: Cessation (i.e., death (5)) occurs when substrate degradation or destruction leads to the irreversible termination of these essential processes; this event constitutes the irreversible loss of conscious continuity. Right: Synconetics aims to prevent this irreversible termination by actively sustaining the process-world-line (7). This involves engineering interventions such as countering entropy within the substrate (e.g., via energy/matter exchange, error correction) or facilitating the non-destructive transformation and, therefore, substrate transition (6) of the core physical-dynamical processes to an alternative—potentially more resilient—substrate, thereby ensuring unbroken Processual Continuity (PC).

The term conscious substrate denotes any physical medium whose organisation and dynamics have been shown to support conscious experience. Biological substrates, such as the central nervous system (CNS), remain the only empirically confirmed examples. This definition does not restrict consciousness to biology but acknowledges current empirical constraints. Individuals possess direct, if subjective, evidence of their own conscious continuity (e.g., “I think, therefore I am”), providing a provisional anchor for engineering objectives.

Death marks the irreversible termination of the four-dimensional process-world-line: the spatiotemporal trajectory of physical states within the conscious substrate that collectively underpins conscious continuity (as shown schematically in Figure 2). Irreversibility reflects thermodynamic reality; an increase in entropy erodes the recoverability of prior states. Synconetics addresses this through open systems engineering, countering entropy, for example, via energy/matter exchange and error correction. While the exact organisational level essential for consciousness remains unclear (whether cellular, molecular, atomic, etc.), engineering pragmatism prevails: we do not need to fully understand a system to work productively with it and utilise what we have at hand.

Critiquing Conventional Paradigms

Conventional approaches to overcoming death, whether by delaying or reversing substrate degradation through conventional longevity research (e.g. through lifestyle interventions, genetic engineering, etc., as shown in Figure 3) or by pursuing true substrate independence via computational abstraction (for instance, mind uploading or whole brain emulation), fail to address a fundamental issue: the fragility of the four-dimensional process-world-line that maintains continuous consciousness. Synconetics seeks to safeguard the physical-dynamical continuity of this process while potentially enabling measured transitions to synthetic substrates that promise greater resilience than purely biological ones.

Figure 3: Conventional longevity paradigms to solving death. Simplified linear representation of the process-world-line (1), originating at birth (2) and progressing through time towards the right. Conventional longevity research aims to delay or reverse substrate degradation, postponing the original point of death (3) to a later time (4). Crucially, these approaches focus solely on the original biological substrate and fail to address the inherent fragility of the process-world-line itself (i.e. focusing on the physical substrate rather than the cessation of the process-world-line, i.e. the first principle of death itself). By neglecting to engineer resilience directly into the continuity mechanism, even a biologically perfected substrate (e.g., fully rejuvenated) remains a single point of failure, vulnerable to catastrophic events (accident, novel pathogen, etc.) that would irreversibly terminate the process-world-line either way at some point in the future.

Mind uploading (MU) and Whole Brain Emulation (WBE) assume that consciousness can survive as a computational abstraction. This is an unverified leap that may pose an existential threat if consciousness proves inseparable from its original physical substrate. Therefore, synconetics adopts a cautious stance in that regard. Synthetic substrates may indeed be more robust, but only with thorough, incremental validation that does not break continuity. By integrating advanced elements such as brain-machine interfaces (BMIs) in ways that preserve the ongoing dynamics of the central nervous system, synconetics aims to maintain an unbroken four-dimensional process-world-line while testing the feasibility of eventually instantiating consciousness in substrates beyond standard biology. The following three unresolved challenges, schematically illustrated in Figure 4, illustrate the risks of premature reliance on MU and WBE:

• Philosophical Zombies: MU and WBE’s assumptions of substrate independence, the idea that consciousness can “run” on arbitrary hardware, lack empirical evidence. Computational models simulate neural correlates (e.g., firing rates, connectomes) but cannot verify whether subjective experience persists post-transfer. This leap conflates necessary conditions (physical dynamics like ion gradients and metabolic cycles) with sufficient conditions (unproven for digital substrates). Destructive uploading risks terminating the original process-world-line without verifiable assurance of qualia preservation, effectively gambling one’s existence on unconfirmed substrate equivalency. Even if functional continuity is achieved (à la Chalmers’ ‘gradual replacement’ of biological substrates with digital ones (Chalmers, 1996)), in the absence of empirical methods to confirm subjective survival, the replica’s consciousness remains an untestable conjecture; no rigorous discipline should endorse this gamble.

• Scale Separability: Emulating brains at biologically relevant scales demands energy potentially exceeding Earth’s projected budget for centuries. Detailed simulations, such as those analysed in foundational roadmaps (Bostrom & Sandberg, 2008), could model far less than 1% of a human brain’s synaptic activity and often required slowdowns exceeding 1,000× biological time, a trivial fraction of real-time biological efficiency (e.g., 20W vs. megawatts). Crucially, the brain’s dynamics blend deterministic chaos and stochastic noise as quantum-scale fluctuations (e.g., ion channel gating) propagate into macroscopic neural activity. This “web of causality” (Watanabe, 2022), though perhaps shorter-lived than classical models suggest, defies reduction to deterministic simulations. Worse, fidelity requirements escalate exponentially if consciousness truly depends on quantum effects (e.g., microtubule coherence as proposed by Orch OR). To simulate reality faithfully at such scales, we risk asymptotically approaching the impossible task of simulating the universe within itself (i.e., infinite recursion).

• Teleportation Paradox: Most MU and WBE approaches rely on destructive scanning or non-destructive copying to transfer consciousness onto a computational substrate (Wiley, 2014). Both methods sever the original’s causal continuity: destructive scans terminate the four-dimensional process-world-line outright, while non-destructive copies spawn a parallel entity divorced from your subjective stream. Even “perfect” replication creates a new four-dimensional trajectory; you do not experience the replica’s existence. Critics dismiss this as philosophical nitpicking (“I don’t care if it’s a copy, as long as it thinks it’s me.”). But survival hinges on your conscious continuity, not a replica’s beliefs. Even if half of humanity accepted copy-based “survival,” the other half would reject existential roulette. Synconetics prioritises solutions that preserve the four-dimensional process-world-line outright, ensuring no one is forced to gamble their existence on untested metaphysics.

Figure 4: Critique of conventional mind uploading and whole brain emulation approaches. Schematic illustration of the fundamental flaws of destructive Mind Uploading (MU) or Whole Brain Emulation (WBE) paradigms. It contrasts the original state—consciousness (1) supported by the biological substrate (2) from birth (3), an inherently substrate-dependent (4) condition—with the outcome of a destructive scan and copy process (5). This intervention necessarily results in the irreversible termination of the original consciousness (6, ‘You die’), severing the process-world-line and exemplifying the critical issue of the Teleportation Paradox. The subsequent creation of an emulated substrate (7) intended to host an emulated consciousness (8) relies on the unverified assumption of substrate-independence (9). Crucially, this emulation faces profound uncertainties: the underlying process or substrate might not be sufficient (10) to replicate the necessary dynamics, reflecting the challenge of Scale Separability, and the resulting emulation might not be conscious (11), highlighting the Philosophical Zombie problem. Synconetics rejects this destructive ‘scan-and-copy’ methodology due to the inevitable loss of continuity for an uncertain, potentially non-conscious replica.

Critics may accuse synconetics of biological bias, but this misunderstands the burden of proof: synthetic substrates must demonstrate conscious continuity before replacing biology. Until then, privileging verified systems is engineering prudence, not chauvinism. The imperative is clear: abandon replication metaphysics and address the substrate fragility of the four-dimensional process-world-line.

Principles of Synconetics

Synconetics emerges as a novel field defined by its foundational principles, as shown in the table below. We deliberately positioned it as a new, transdisciplinary scientific discipline (not confined to being a subdiscipline of any single existing field) to actively counter mother bias: the tendency for emerging disciplines to adopt the conceptual limitations and epistemic blind spots of their “parent” fields (e.g., neuroscience’s focus on biological substrates or computer science’s digital abstractionism). This positioning allows synconetics to critically integrate and innovate across multiple domains, creating a unique framework for addressing the challenges of consciousness continuity.

The term synconetics refers to the core scientific discipline, while synthetic consciousness mechanics denotes the applied engineering methodologies for interfacing with, stabilising, repairing, or transitioning consciousness-supporting substrates while maintaining the four-dimensional process-world-line.

Nomenclature and Definitions

To ensure operational rigour and circumvent the conceptual ambiguities often found in related fields or the aforementioned conventional paradigms, synconetics employs an initial lexicon grounded directly in its foundational principles. The following core terms delineate the operational scope and key components:

• Synthetic Consciousness Substrate (SCS): Any thermodynamically open physical system (biological, biohybrid or artificial) engineered or verified to be capable of sustaining the critical dynamics underlying conscious experience. Validation requires a demonstration of neural-phenomenological isomorphism with biological benchmarks. This standard reflects the profound challenge of mapping physical dynamics to subjective experience supporting millisecond-scale feedback loops essential for integrated cognitive functions, confirmed via first-person reporting during phased non-destructive integration. While achieving full isomorphism represents the ultimate validation target, practical development will involve iterative verification focusing on measurable functional equivalence, preservation of critical dynamical properties, and consistent first-person phenomenological reports.

• Synthetic Consciousness Transformation (SCT): Protocols enabling the non-destructive transformation of conscious processes between substrates (e.g., from biological original to SCS or between SCSs), ensuring the causal topology of the four-dimensional process-world-line remains intact. Distinct from destructive ‘scan-and-copy’ paradigms associated with conventional MU, SCT focuses exclusively on methods like gradual, plasticity-aligned replacement or seamless BMI-mediated integration. The objective is to facilitate the transition to potentially more resilient or adaptable substrates while guaranteeing that the operational conditions for Processual Continuity (see the equation below) are met throughout the process, verified by both continuous physical monitoring and first-person phenomenological reports.

• Synthetic Consciousness Interfacing (SCI): The development and application of robust, bidirectional input/output systems connecting an SCS to external environments (physical, virtual, or mixed) or other systems designed to operate without compromising substrate integrity or Processual Continuity. The primary goal is to provide the conscious entity with effective agency (the means to perceive, interact and act coherently) while also ensuring the quality and richness of interaction necessary for long-term psychological well-being and a preserved sense of self.

• Processual Continuity (PC): Defined as the uninterrupted persistence of the causal topology (the specific, dynamic physical processes) constituting an individual’s four-dimensional process-world-line, considered essential for maintaining their unique conscious identity and subjective experience. Operationally, this continuity C is maintained during an intervention or process I over a time interval [t₀, t₁] if the trajectory of the system’s critical state variables S_crit(t) evolves within the bounds of its adaptive capacity. This condition can be formalised by requiring that the magnitude of the rate of change of these critical variables does not exceed a state-dependent threshold Λ_adapt at any point during the process:

  

  Where:

  • C(I,[t0, t1]) represents the proposition that Processual Continuity holds for the intervention I over the interval [t0, t1].

  • S_crit(t) ∈ S is the state vector in a high‑dimensional state space S, capturing the critical physical and dynamical variables (e.g., neural firing rates, synaptic weights, metabolic concentrations) necessary for consciousness at time t. Identifying the components of S_crit and the appropriate state space S is a major ongoing challenge for synconetics.

  • dS_crit/dt (t) is the velocity vector in the state space S at time t, representing the instantaneous rate of change of the critical state variables. This formulation assumes sufficient smoothness for differentiability, which may be an idealisation of complex biological dynamics.

  • ‖·‖_S denotes a suitable norm defined on the tangent space of S, quantifying the magnitude (speed) of the state change. The choice of the norm (e.g., Euclidean L2, maximum L∞) depends on which aspects of the state change are most critical to functional integrity and are subject to further empirical investigation.

  • Λ_adapt : S → ℝ⁺ is a positive scalar function representing the state‑dependent adaptive capacity threshold. It quantifies the maximum speed of change the system can tolerate at state S_crit(t) by invoking adaptive mechanisms (e.g., neural plasticity) without losing functional integrity or phenomenological continuity. Characterising Λ_adapt empirically for different states and interventions is a key experimental target for SCT protocols.

Crucially, rigorously demonstrating that this condition holds—specifically, correlating the subjective experience of continuity (verified via first-person reports) with the objective physical dynamics captured by S_crit and Λ_adapt—represents a core, currently unsolved challenge for synconetics. While first-person reports and functional assessments serve as essential pragmatic proxies during development, achieving the full validation demanded by our principles requires the future development of objective, real-time measures capable of tracking these critical state dynamics and their adaptive limits.

This inequality of the above equation thus formalises the core engineering constraint of synconetics: the rate at which the system is forced to change by an intervention I must remain below the rate at which the system can successfully adapt to that change.

Methods and Approaches

The aforementioned principles and definitions require translation into practical engineering applications. This section illustrates how synconetics informs concrete research and development efforts by moving beyond its theoretical frameworks. It details two distinct approaches currently being pursued by the co-authors in academia and industry. These approaches serve as initial examples of synthetic consciousness mechanics in action, showcasing verifiable strategies aimed at addressing the significant challenge of preserving the four-dimensional process-world-line.

Approach 1: Ectopic Cognitive Preservation

The approach termed ‘Ectopic Cognitive Preservation’ (ECP), under development by Eightsix Science Ltd (a venture founded by co-author Daniel Burger), exemplifies a synconetics methodology. As a practical application of synthetic consciousness mechanics, it focuses on ensuring the physical continuity of the biological substrate through gradual, technologically mediated replacement, eventually aiming to create a resilient SCS. Its core technical proposal involves the progressive, piecemeal substitution of existing biological brain tissue with biohybrid neural grafts, as illustrated in Figure 5. These grafts are intended as constructs of living neural tissue, potentially derived from the patient’s own induced pluripotent stem cells (autologous iPSCs) differentiated into appropriate neural lineages to circumvent immune rejection, integrated during advanced tissue engineering with micro- and nano-scale electronic components. These integrated elements serve various functions, such as sensing local activity, providing targeted stimulation, offering structural support, or facilitating metabolic exchange during cell maturation. Achieving and rigorously verifying true functional equivalence between the original tissue and the graft (requiring not merely basic neuronal firing but complex network dynamics, synaptic plasticity profiles, and the preservation of identity-critical information patterns necessary for maintaining the unique four-dimensional process-world-line) represents a monumental yet central challenge for this approach.

Figure 5: Biohybrid progressive brain replacement. Illustration of the Ectopic Cognitive Preservation (ECP) strategy for non-destructive substrate transition. The process begins with the original biological brain (1). Over time (2), existing neural tissue undergoes progressive, piecemeal substitution (3) with engineered biohybrid neural grafts (4, shown magnified). This involves the controlled gradual silencing (5) of original circuits as the grafts integrate, leveraging neural plasticity to maintain Processual Continuity (PC). The grafts themselves (6, magnified detail) consist of living neural tissue (e.g., autologous iPSC-derived) integrated with micro- or nano-scale electronic components (7) for monitoring, stimulation, and enabling advanced Synthetic Consciousness Interfacing (SCI). The initial outcome is a rejuvenated or enhanced biohybrid substrate (8) residing within the cranium, designed for increased resilience and capable of high-bandwidth interfacing. This gradual, non-destructive replacement represents the initial stage of the ECP process, aiming to preserve the four-dimensional process-world-line while creating the biohybrid substrate suitable for subsequent stages, such as explantation.

ECP’s commitment to continuity critically hinges on the principle of gradualism, designed to leverage the brain’s inherent plasticity and capacity for functional reorganisation, analogous to adaptations observed in response to slow-growing lesions like low-grade gliomas (Desmurget et al., 2007; Duffau, 2014). The core hypothesis defines the careful management of the rate of replacement, ensuring the condition for PC is met by keeping changes within the adaptive threshold Λ_adapt. Neural information processing and functional roles can migrate or be re-encoded within the new substrate without disrupting the overall continuity of cognitive processes and crucial conscious experience (Hébert, 2025, 2022; Jin et al., 2023). This reliance on plasticity, while biologically plausible, carries inherent risks regarding the fidelity of information preservation; indeed, whether plasticity can guarantee that specific memories, learned skills, and personality nuances constituting the individual’s identity are faithfully maintained (as opposed to merely enabling functional adaptation) represents a central, unproven hypothesis for ECP. This requires deep theoretical understanding and empirical validation via first-person reports alongside behavioural assessments and physical monitoring. Therefore, methodologies for precisely controlling gradual silencing and real-time monitoring of graft integration and functional takeover are critical research components.

The initial outcome targeted by ECP is a rejuvenated, potentially enhanced biological or biohybrid brain residing within the original cranium. This enhanced substrate, progressively composed of the new graft material integrated with embedded electronics, primarily aims to halt or reverse age-related degradation of the brain itself, thereby addressing a primary failure mode contributing to the cessation of the process-world-line. The integrated electronics could also offer inherent capabilities for advanced SCI, enabling seamless integration with virtual or augmented reality environments without requiring separate invasive procedures at a later stage.

Figure 6: Ex vivo substrate decoupling and Synthetic Consciousness Interfacing (SCI). The second conceptual phase of the Ectopic Cognitive Preservation (ECP) approach, following successful biohybridisation (see Figure 5). This phase involves the surgical explantation (1) of the fully replaced biohybrid brain (2), now functioning as a Synthetic Consciousness Substrate (SCS). The explanted SCS is then integrated (4) into an advanced, closed-loop whole-brain perfusion system (3), providing a meticulously controlled physiological environment ex vivo. High-bandwidth SCI, represented by the physical connection (5) enabled by previously integrated electronics, links the SCS to sophisticated external systems, such as a virtual environment (6). Consequently, the entity’s subjective experience (7) is now driven by the SCI input from this virtual world, achieving complete decoupling from the vulnerabilities and sensory input of the original biological body and enhancing resilience.

The ultimate, more radical goal of ECP involves the surgical explantation of this fully replaced biohybrid brain (similar to an ex cranio brain, see Vrselja et al. (2019)). The sustained long-term biohybrid brain, via an advanced, closed-loop whole-brain perfusion system providing a meticulously controlled physiological environment ex vivo, would be embedded within sophisticated virtual environments through high-bandwidth SCI channels derived from the integrated electronics (see Figure 6 for a schematic visualisation). This step aims to achieve complete decoupling from the vulnerabilities of the original biological body, enhancing resilience. Realising stable, long-term ex vivo maintenance presents immense technical hurdles, demanding perfect replication of complex physiological conditions. Furthermore, the profound ethical and psychological implications of explantation and existence within a potentially constrained virtual reality necessitate careful consideration beyond mere technical feasibility, touching upon questions of identity, well-being and the nature of experience itself.

Methodologically, ECP aligns directly with the foundational principles of synconetics. It confronts biological death as a contingent substrate failure problem, addressing it through a tangible engineering methodology grounded in Empirical Primacy (Principle 4) by integrating tissue engineering, grafting, BMI, and perfusion systems based on established science rather than speculation, as exemplified by current research directions shown in Figure 7.

Figure 7: Foundational technologies for Ectopic Cognitive Preservation (ECP) components. ECP leverages advancements across several key research domains, demonstrating its grounding in existing technological capabilities. (1) Progress in advanced neural tissue engineering, including 3D bioprinting and organoid development, provides methods for generating structured neural constructs suitable for replacing damaged or aged tissue (Jin et al., 2023). (2) Research into neural graft integration demonstrates the potential for engineered tissues to incorporate structurally and functionally within host brain circuits, a prerequisite for the gradual, plasticity-mediated replacement central to ECP’s continuity principle (Hébert, 2025, 2022). (3) Developments in biohybrid interfacing, interfacing engineered neural tissues with electrode arrays for bidirectional communication, establish the foundation for the sophisticated brain-machine interface (BMI) systems necessary for monitoring, modulating, and externally connecting the stabilised or transformed conscious substrate (Jordan et al., 2024; Vrselja et al., 2019). The demonstrated progress in these distinct areas highlights that realising ECP is primarily a challenge of systems engineering and integration, consistent with the synconetics principle of Near-Term Engineering Urgency (Principle 5).

Its defining characteristic is the explicit commitment to gradual and non-destructive integration (Principle 2), prioritising PC through gradual replacement, carefully designed to preserve the four-dimensional process-world-line and avoid the existential risks of destructive copying. This approach relies on the brain’s known plasticity to enable gradual integration, consistent with the focus on necessary physical dynamics outlined in gradual and non-destructive integration (Principle 3). Furthermore, ECP adheres to a core synconetic tenet by squarely focusing on survival and resilience (halting degradation and enabling repair), subordinating potential enhancements to the non-negotiable goal of continuity (Principle 1). Its roadmap inherently generates intermediate technologies: advanced neural simulation, high-fidelity graft production, and progressive replacement techniques. These offer significant near-term therapeutic and research value, providing a pragmatic pathway for development and funding aligned with the principle of Near-Term Engineering Urgency (Principle 5).

Approach 2: Continuity via Biological/Artificial Hemispheric Integration

A different methodology within the synconetics framework, termed Continuity via Biological/Artificial Hemispheric Integration (CHI) and conceptually developed by co-author Associate Professor Masataka Watanabe at the University of Tokyo, leverages insights from split-brain research to achieve non-destructive substrate transition (Watanabe, 2014a; 2014b). This approach posits that consciousness, while typically unified, relies on the coordinated activity of both cerebral hemispheres. Clinical evidence demonstrates that separating the hemispheres can result in two distinct streams of consciousness. CHI proposes to exploit this phenomenon by using an advanced Dissected Axonal Bundle Brain-Machine-Interface (DAB-BMI) (Figure 8) to functionally separate the biological hemispheres, linking each to a dedicated Artificial Hemispheric Complement (AHC). An AHC is conceived as a form of synthetic consciousness substrate, initially prepared to be ‘neutrally conscious’ and rigorously engineered and validated (e.g., via a proposed test for machine consciousness, Figure 9) to support the requisite dynamics for consciousness (Watanabe, 2022). This strategy fundamentally differs from classical destructive paradigms, aiming instead to transform conscious processes seamlessly through functional integration during life.

Figure 8: Dissected Axonal Bundle Brain-Machine-Interface (DAB-BMI). (a) High-density CMOS array of electrodes (multiple electrodes cover single callosal axons provided a 100 nm pitch electrode array, whereas the highest density CMOS reaches 22 nm pitch as of today) and is attached to the dissected section of the corpus callosum. The array would be coated with a biomaterial that promotes axons to form synapses onto the BMI surface. In regard, Cho et al. (2024) demonstrated the formation of functional presynaptic terminals on the neuroligin-2-modified gold-coated abiotic surface. (b) The surgical insertion process of DAB-BMI is analogous to modern corpus callosotomy. (c) Curing of dementia by DAB-BMI. Since conventional grey matter electrodes lack the ability to activate only the targeted neuron (Histed et al., 2009), axons running close to the electrode are excited, which results in antidromic stimulation of non-recorded distant neurons), DAB-BMI would be the sole solution to establish neuronal-level mutual interaction between biological and artificial neural circuitry. Such interaction can be used to cure dementia by replacing damaged hippocampal circuitry with AI chips. Panels (b) and (c) adapted from “Ishiki-no-Noukagaku — Digital-Furoufushi-no-Tobira-wo-Hiraku — (Neuroscience of Consciousness — Opening the Doors to Digital Immortality)” (Koudansha).

The proposed CHI process commences with first the creation of neutrally conscious artificial hemispheres. We take the to-be-compiled-in-the-near-future invasive connectome of a third-person postmortem human brain, in which discrete neuronal level connectivity is obtained (Figure 10, Panel 1), and adopt it as the initial state synaptic weight matrix of an artificial neural network. From there, we will train it with deep learning inspired methods to acquire the quantitative values of synaptic efficacies that should result in a fully functional and neutrally conscious (one-size-fits-all kind of consciousness obtained by generic training material) artificial hemisphere, an AHC (Figure 10, Panel 2). (By the time we undergo CHI processes, the consciousness of artificial neural circuitry would be established via scientific research and development by using the proposed machine consciousness test; Figure 9).

Next, turning now to the to-be-transformed subject, the surgical implantation of DAB-BMI (Figure 10, Panel 3) would functionally isolate the native hemispheres (akin to a corpus callosotomy) while enabling bidirectional communication between each biological hemisphere and its paired AHC (Figure 10, Panel 4). This initial separation is expected to induce a temporary state of dual consciousness (Figure 10, Panel 5), similar to that observed in split-brain patients (in the initial phase of CHI, the whole procedure would only occur after subjects are diagnosed with terminal diseases, minimising ethical issues). As the ‘neural routing’ of biological and artificial hemispheres via DAB-BMI proceeds by pairing biological and artificial neurons with identical neural representations in higher cortical areas (see Watanabe, 2022; Watanabe et al., 2011), the two streams of consciousness, one biological and the other artificial/neutral is hypothesised to integrate (Figure 10, Panel 5). When integration is established, the two “selves” in the two biological hemispheres would subjectively experience the artificial hemispheric side of multi-modal-sensation, body control, etc., providing proof that consciousness resides in the two artificial hemispheres.

Figure 9: Schematic illustration of the subjective test for machine consciousness. Where, in reality, the artificial hemisphere does not go into our skull, thanks to the usage of DAB-BMI. Taking advantage of the fact that the two biological hemispheres follow a “master-master” constraint in terms of visual consciousness (visual consciousness is first generated independently in the two hemispheres and then integrated via transhemispheric projections as demonstrated by Sperry’s split-brain experiments: Gazzaniga et al. (1962)), we can test whether an artificial hemisphere is visually conscious by connecting it to one’s biological hemisphere and literally “seeing for ourselves” whether we experience its visual field. If we do, given the above “master-master” constraint, we must conclude that visual consciousness has genuinely arisen in the artificial hemisphere. Adapted from “Nou no Ishiki, Kikai no Ishiki” (Chuoukouron-shinsha, Illustrator Yogi Tomoko). English version “From Biological to Artificial Consciousness” (Springer) (Watanabe, 2022).

Subsequently, taking advantage of the fact that consciousness of all modalities is readily integrated between the two hemispheres, memory transfer to the artificial is envisaged via mechanisms involving both voluntary recall and forced recall by microstimulation (akin to Penfield’s findings), with protocols allowing for user oversight regarding sensitive memories (see Watanabe, 2022; Figure 10, panel 6).

The final stage occurs once both AHCs have achieved sufficient functional integration to fully support the dynamics previously handled by their biological partners. In other words, the formal relationship between the two original biological hemispheres has been established between the two pairs of biological/artificial hemispheres. As the biological hemispheres naturally cease function or are allowed to terminate, the individual’s conscious process-world-line persists entirely within the paired AHCs (Figure 10, Panel 7). These two AHCs are then functionally merged via direct inter-AHC connection, restoring a unified conscious experience within a purely synthetic substrate (SCS). This final substrate, potentially operating within a secure physical location, could interact with external reality via advanced Synthetic Consciousness Interfacing (SCI), such as immersive virtual environments or robotic avatars, thereby decoupling from biological fragility (Figure 10, Panel 8).

Figure 10: The eight steps of Continuity via Biological/Artificial Hemispheric Integration (CHI). Adapted from “Ishiki-wa-Dokokara-Yatte-Kurunoka (The Origin of Consciousness)” (Hayakawa-shobo, Illustrator Wataru Yagi).

Methodologically, CHI aligns with the principles of synconetics. It addresses death as a substrate failure, circumventing it via engineered transition (Substrate Agnosticism with Physical Grounding (Principle 3), requiring AHCs to sustain necessary dynamics). It employs a tangible engineering methodology centred on advanced BMIs and leveraging neuroplasticity (Empirical Primacy (Principle 4), building on split-brain data and testable integration). Its core design is predicated on Non-Destructive Transition (Principle 2), aiming to preserve the four-dimensional process-world-line through redundancy and gradual integration, explicitly avoiding destructive methods. While the transition involves profound alteration, the goal is strict adherence to Process-World-Line Fidelity (Principle 1) by ensuring no complete cessation of conscious processing occurs. The approach leverages foreseeable advancements in BMI technology and neuroscience (Near-Term Engineering Urgency (Principle 5)).

In essence, CHI offers a pathway for substrate transformation distinct from destructive paradigms. Once consciousness integrates across the biological and artificial components and memories are shared, the cessation of the original biological hemisphere becomes analogous to suffering a stroke in one of our hemispheres. Having established redundancy, the process-world-line continues uninterrupted, supported by the remaining artificial hemisphere and, eventually, the integrated bilateral system, which is fully synthetic. Crucially, there is no point of complete cessation equivalent to death; continuity is maintained throughout the transition to the synthetic substrate.

Feasibility and Opportunities

The methodologies outlined in this essay, ECP and CHI, represent complementary pathways toward solving death. ECP adopts a biological-first strategy, incrementally transitioning to biohybrid substrates while utilising existing neurosurgical and regenerative techniques. CHI prioritises synthetic substrates from inception, using split-brain dynamics as a gateway to engineer synthetic consciousness systems. These approaches are not mutually exclusive; instead, they form a strategic duality. ECP’s gradual replacement mitigates near-term risks by preserving biological continuity, while CHI’s synthetic focus probes the boundaries of substrate independence. Critically, advances in one methodology directly inform the other. For instance, CHI’s synthetic substrate validation protocols could eventually enable ECP to transition fully to artificial systems, while ECP’s neurointegration techniques refine CHI’s bio-synthetic interfaces.

Purely synthetic substrates, as explored in CHI, offer the potential for inherent advantages over biological systems if, and only if, they can be rigorously proven capable of sustaining the necessary physical dynamics for consciousness: immunity to pathogens, tolerance for extreme environments (e.g., radiation, temperature), and engineered fault tolerance through redundancy. Synconetics remains deliberately agnostic to substrate taxonomy, recognising that biohybrid systems, blending biological resilience with synthetic fault tolerance (e.g., neural tissue interfaced with self-repairing nanowire meshes), may offer optimal transitional pathways. However, biology remains the only empirically validated substrate, a reality that ECP’s conservatism respects. Together, these approaches create a fail-safe continuum: synthetic substrate development proceeds without gambling existing consciousness, while biological augmentation extends survival until synthetic or hybrid options mature.

Engineering Resilience Through Substrate Design

Beyond the specific transition methodologies of ECP and CHI, a core objective of synconetics is the deliberate engineering of the target substrate (whether biohybrid or purely synthetic) for resilience far exceeding that of the original biological system. This enhanced robustness is not an incidental outcome but a primary design goal, achievable through specific architectural and operational advantages largely inaccessible to evolved biology. Two key strategies enabling this resilience include decoupling conscious processes from bodily vulnerability and implementing distributed architectures for redundancy against localised damage.

Substrate engineering reveals critical underexplored avenues for systemic resilience. While methodological frontiers in this domain remain analytically open, we particularly encourage materials scientists and physicists to join these translational efforts.

Decoupling Agency from Embodiment: Both methodologies, ECP and CHI, enable the SCS to persist independently of its original biological body. Whether stored in a shielded facility (ECP’s ex vivo biohybrid brain) or distributed across synthetic nodes (CHI’s artificial hemispheres), the SCS becomes decoupled from localised physical threats. Death of the biological body ceases to equate to termination of consciousness, akin to cloud computing surviving individual server failures.

Co-Location and Redundancy: Synthetic or biohybrid substrates enable distributed architectures, as illustrated schematically in Figure 11, which are impossible in standard evolved biology. Neural networks could span geographically isolated secure sites, with real-time synchronisation ensuring continuity. Partial destruction (e.g., 2% loss from a localised attack) would not terminate the co-located four-dimensional process-world-line, as critical dynamics persist across redundant “nodes”, mirroring, for example, RAID arrays in data storage.

Figure 11: Engineering resilience via distributed substrate architectures. Synconetics explores the engineering of conscious substrates with enhanced resilience by leveraging distributed architectures, potentially overcoming the single-point-of-failure vulnerability inherent in biologically evolved, physically centralised systems. Left: Such a distributed architecture, comprising multiple components connected via high-bandwidth interfaces (conceptually akin to ‘virtual long-range axons’ overcoming biological constraints on physical proximity), is hypothesised to support a unified conscious process-world-line (2) through precisely synchronised, co-located physical-dynamical processes (1). Verifying the emergence and continuity of unified subjective experience across physically distinct but functionally integrated components remains a significant research challenge. Right: This architecture offers inherent fault tolerance. The cessation of one substrate component (3) due to localised damage does not necessarily lead to the irreversible termination of the entire conscious process. In highly redundant systems (potentially scalable to hundreds or thousands of co-located nodes), the failure of a single component might result primarily in localised functional deficits (e.g., loss of specific memories or skills), from which the system could potentially recover, rather than a catastrophic failure of the overall process-world-line (4) or loss of core identity. This principle of scalable redundancy is a key strategy for engineering robust Synthetic Consciousness Substrates (SCS).

Sensory Abstraction as an Engineering Opportunity

A further critical factor enabling the practical engineering of synconetic systems lies in the nature of sensory perception itself. Consciousness does not interface directly with raw physical reality but rather with processed, abstracted representations generated by biological sensory organs. Recognising and leveraging this inherent abstraction provides significant engineering opportunities for SCI.

Scale Separation of Sensory Input: Biological consciousness already operates on abstracted sensory inputs: photons reduced to retinal signals (i.e. you do not feel all the trillions of photons shooting onto your retina at this very moment), air vibrations to cochlear frequencies and so on. SCI does not replicate raw physics; it only needs sufficient bandwidth to match the brain’s native compression. Virtual environments demonstrate this: triangular meshes evoke visceral fear of heights, and 44.1 kHz audio fools (most) humans into perceiving “live” music. By exploiting this abstraction, SCI systems can:

• Reduce engineering complexity (no need to, e.g., simulate quantum mechanics)

• Enhance safety (virtual avatars avoid physical harm, i.e., co-location)

• Expand experiential range (perceiving infrared or ultrasonic ranges via synthetic transduction)

Existing sensory prosthetics (cochlear implants restoring hearing, retinal arrays granting vision, etc.) validate this approach. Their success hinges not on replicating biology exactly but on providing functionally equivalent inputs.

Stepwise Engineering of Substrate Continuity

Given the potential for engineering substrate resilience and leveraging sensory abstraction, synconetics embraces a fundamentally pragmatic and stepwise approach to achieving substrate continuity and preservation. History demonstrates that transformative engineering often proceeds incrementally, frequently outpacing complete theoretical understanding; steam engines predated thermodynamics, and flight emerged before aerodynamic models. This tradition guides the focus on iterative manipulation of the known physical substrate (the brain, the CNS) rather than awaiting breakthroughs like a unified theory of consciousness and directly utilises rapid advancements across synergistic fields:

• Integrated Neural Sciences, Engineering, and Intervention: This consolidated field encompasses fundamental neuroscience (elucidating neural correlates of consciousness, information processing, and plasticity mechanisms critical for gradual adaptation) and advanced neuroengineering. The latter focuses on developing high-resolution, bidirectional brain-computer interfaces (BCIs), sophisticated neuromodulation techniques, and precise neurosurgical strategies for targeted interaction, repair, or augmentation of neural systems.

• Advanced Materials Science and Biofabrication: Crucial for creating novel biocompatible, bioactive, and potentially self-repairing materials for neural interfaces, scaffolds for complex tissue engineering (e.g., for ECP grafts), and the development of synthetic or biohybrid substrates. This includes designing materials capable of emulating or supporting consciousness-critical dynamics and ensuring long-term stability and integration.

• Fundamental Physics and Biophysical Dynamics: Investigates the underlying physical principles governing neural activity across all relevant scales. This ranges from molecular interactions and the thermodynamics of open, self-sustaining systems (essential for any conscious substrate) to the potential role of quantum phenomena in biological information processing (i.e., quantum biology) that might be critical for replicating or sustaining consciousness with sufficient fidelity.

Central to enabling such gradual interventions is the brain’s inherent plasticity. This capacity for functional reorganisation allows dynamic systems to adapt to structural change during interventions like ECP’s grafting or CHI’s hemispheric integration, aiming to maintain continuity much as occurs during recovery from certain neurological injuries.

Nature’s evolutionary constraints yielded biological substrates optimised for survival, not engineered resilience. Just as aeronautics transcended avian flight (first mimicking bird wings, then inventing jet engines; see Figure 12), synconetics aims to surpass biology’s limitations through deliberate engineering. Current efforts leveraging plasticity (ECP’s grafts, CHI’s AHCs) represent the necessary “propeller phase” of this trajectory: incremental improvements demonstrating feasibility. However, the end goal is the “jet engine” of consciousness substrates: systems built from potentially synthetic materials, incorporating fault-tolerant architectures, and operating based on physical principles extending beyond biology’s thermodynamic niche.

Figure 12: Analogy for stepwise engineering in synconetics: From biological inspiration to engineered transcendence. Collage illustrating the synconetic engineering trajectory by analogy with the history of aeronautics. Top-left and Top-right: Nature’s solution (avian flight and wing structure) represents the current, evolved biological substrate for consciousness—optimised for survival within its niche but inherently limited. Bottom-left: Early human flight (e.g., Wright Flyer) signifies the initial ‘propeller phase’ of synconetics: leveraging existing biological mechanisms like plasticity (ECP’s grafts, CHI’s AHCs) for incremental, feasibility-demonstrating advancements. Bottom-right: Advanced jet aircraft (e.g., SR-71 Blackbird) symbolises the ultimate synconetic goal—the ‘jet engine phase’ of consciousness substrates: deliberately engineered systems, potentially synthetic, with fault-tolerant architectures designed for resilience and capabilities far surpassing biological limitations and augmenting cognition.

Successfully navigating this stepwise path fundamentally reframes mortality. In this paradigm, death becomes both solvable and physically archaic: a contingent failure mode as avoidable as wooden biplanes in modern aviation. Preserving the four-dimensional process-world-line transitions from crisis management to routine maintenance, with engineered substrates offering near-invulnerability to traditional biological failure modes (trauma, ageing, disease). The ultimate engineering challenge then shifts from preventing collapse to optimising persistence across cosmological timescales, a feat demanding post-biological substrates and engineered transcendence.

Synconetics’ feasibility is amplified by its alignment with near-term technological trajectories. Advances in neural prosthetics, organoid development, and biocompatible materials (already funded for medical applications) directly serve substrate stabilisation and repair. Early milestones, such as restoring motor function via BCIs or reversing age-related neural decline, offer tangible societal benefits, ensuring continued investment even before full continuity is achieved.

Future Implications

Synconetics’ viability rests on a pragmatic outlook acknowledging both profound challenges and near-term opportunities. The dual methodologies presented (ECP pursuing gradual biohybrid transition and CHI exploring synthetic substrate integration) represent complementary strategies within this framework (see the Methods and Approaches section). ECP leverages current biological understanding, offering potential near-term resilience gains. At the same time, CHI directly confronts the engineering of synthetic substrates, a path promising greater long-term robustness but facing significant hurdles in validation. This parallel pursuit provides strategic hedging: advances in one inform the other (e.g., BMI development, substrate validation criteria), mitigating risks associated with the inherent uncertainties in substrate science.

Crucially, the potential success of either approach within a foreseeable timeframe, possibly the next two decades, compels us to confront the profound implications not as distant philosophical exercises but as urgent practical concerns demanding immediate and serious consideration.

The potential emergence of individuals persisting via engineered substrates (i.e., synconetic entities) fundamentally challenges our existing societal, legal, and ethical frameworks, raising critical questions across every domain. Current legal systems, predicated entirely on biological personhood, are unprepared. How would legal identity, rights (such as property ownership, voting, substrate autonomy), and responsibilities (taxation, liability) be defined for an entity potentially lacking a conventional body? Does personhood track the continuous process-world-line irrespective of the substrate, as synconetics principles suggest? Establishing internationally recognised standards and dynamic legal frameworks capable of adapting to substrate transitions and potential capability augmentations represents a monumental undertaking, essential to prevent inequality and novel forms of exploitation.

Economically, the advent of potentially vastly long-lived individuals promises radical disruption. How would synconetic entities participate in labour markets increasingly shaped by AI automation? What forms of value could they create, perhaps leveraging enhanced cognitive capabilities or unique perspectives gained from virtual environments? Does their existence necessitate fundamental shifts in economic models, potentially accelerating discussions around systems like Universal Basic Income? Furthermore, the significant, ongoing resource demands for sustaining engineered substrates (energy, computation, physical security, and specialised maintenance) raise critical questions of allocation and equity. What economic models (e.g., subscription, public utility, private ownership) could govern access and upkeep without creating unprecedented societal stratification based on the ability to afford continued existence?

Infrastructurally and logistically, supporting a population of synconetic entities involves daunting engineering challenges. What constitutes robust, secure physical and digital infrastructure for synconetic entities? Where would they be housed, and what levels of physical security, redundancy against failure or catastrophe, and resilience against malicious attack are achievable, sustainable, and ethically mandated? Do centralised hosting models create unacceptable single points of failure and control, and are distributed architectures practically feasible while maintaining real-time synchronisation for continuity? Critically, what safeguards ensure provider viability and prevent vendor lock-in? Without clear standards guaranteeing substrate portability and continuity during provider transitions, individuals face extreme vulnerability. Can the significant energy and computational load, particularly for rich virtual interactions facilitated by SCI, be sustained globally?

Perhaps most profoundly, the successful realisation of synconetics challenges fundamental societal notions of life, death, identity, and community. How will society perceive synconetic entities: as extensions of their former biological selves, as ‘post-biological’, or as something entirely new?

How must relationships, family structures, inheritance laws, and social support systems adapt? What are the psychological implications for individuals undergoing transition and potentially existing indefinitely, possibly within non-biological environments? How can existential meaning and well-being be maintained under such radically different conditions? Ensuring equitable access, mitigating potential coercion (e.g., societal pressure to transition), and defining death for a synconetic entity, including ethically sound protocols for managing substrate failure, irreversible cognitive decline, or respecting a voluntary wish to cease existence, represent entirely uncharted territories demanding sensitive, cross-disciplinary deliberation now.

Figure 13: Potential readiness gap in synconetics development. The advancement of synconetics presents a critical challenge: the trajectory of technical feasibility (1) often accelerates rapidly, potentially outpacing the necessarily more deliberative development of comprehensive societal, legal, and ethical frameworks (2). This divergence can create a ‘readiness gap’ (3), a period where transformative technologies might become available before society adequately manages their profound implications. Such a gap risks unintended consequences, inequality, and societal disruption. To ensure responsible innovation and align the pursuit of engineered consciousness continuity (i.e. people’s ability to live indefinitely) with human values, synconetics mandates the proactive and concurrent development of these crucial societal frameworks alongside ongoing technical research, thereby aiming to minimise or pre-empt this readiness gap.

The near-term feasibility targeted by synconetics transforms these profound questions from speculative fiction into urgent matters for contemporary policy, ethics, and engineering design. Unlike paradigms focused on indefinite futures, synconetics’ potential impact within the professional lifetime of researchers working today underscores the imperative for proactive engagement. Addressing the legal, economic, infrastructural, and ethical dimensions cannot be postponed; it must occur in parallel with technical research and development, lest a significant’ readiness gap’ emerges between technical capability and societal preparedness, as illustrated in Figure 13. Proposing mechanisms like an international continuity commission, open-source substrate and architectures, SCI standards, or mandatory continuity impact assessments serve to illustrate the kind of proactive governance needed. This foresight is essential to mitigate the risks of societal disruption, inequality, and catastrophic failure, ensuring that the pursuit of engineered continuity aligns with broadly shared human values and responsible innovation, a core tenet of the synconetics approach.

Call to Action

Synconetics reframes biological death as a tractable engineering problem, solvable through the rigorous pursuit of verifiable PC. This essay has laid the groundwork; translating these principles into reality demands immediate, concerted action. The methodologies presented demonstrate feasibility, but accelerating progress requires a deeply collaborative, transdisciplinary effort that extends beyond our initial working group.

Therefore, we issue a direct call to action. For researchers seeking to advance the fundamental science and engineering, opportunities exist for postgraduate work exploring consciousness mechanisms and BMI integration (e.g., with Prof. Watanabe’s group at the University of Tokyo) or for developing other unexplored continuity-preserving strategies. For engineers and scientists focused on tangible applications, organisations like Eightsix Science are actively seeking technical collaborators, funding, and grant support to translate synconetics principles into practice via approaches like ECP.

Join ongoing Discord discussions to refine this framework and contribute directly to Version 2.0. Your critiques will inform expanded technical roadmaps while helping build our collaborative research community.

Beyond these specific avenues, we urge innovators to foster diversity by launching new research projects or companies exploring alternative synconetic pathways. We call upon funders to recognise the near-term potential and support ventures grounded in empirical validation and continuity. We invite ethicists, legal scholars, policymakers, and social scientists to engage proactively with the profound implications outlined, helping to shape responsible governance. We encourage critical dialogue: connect with the authors, challenge assumptions, join nascent community discussions, and help refine this framework. Disseminate this work, engage peers, and contribute to future knowledge-building efforts like a potential planned book on these topics. We welcome all who share this commitment to join us in building this critical field.

You can batch email all authors via this email: team@synconetics.com