Dror, Bergerbest, and Salti's Dual-Resolution Framework for AI Consciousness

The dominant framing of AI in consciousness research treats it as a challenge: do our theories extend to machines, and if so, which machines qualify? Shahar Dror, Dafna Bergerbest, and Moti Salti, of Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, propose an inversion in their paper “Artificial Intelligence as an Opportunity for the Science of Consciousness: A Dual-Resolution Framework” (arXiv:2509.07001, updated July 2026). AI is not a disruptive test case that strains existing theories. It is a tool for testing and expanding those theories in ways that biological systems do not permit.

The shift is more than rhetorical. It rests on a specific theoretical argument about what consciousness requires, drawn from two frameworks that have not previously been integrated in this context, and it generates a set of criteria that can, in principle, be applied to artificial systems without importing the anthropocentrism that has plagued both functionalist and biological naturalist accounts.

The Impasse Dror, Bergerbest, and Salti Identify

The authors open by characterizing the existing debate as polarized in a way that has become structurally unproductive. Computational functionalism holds that consciousness is constituted by the right kind of abstract functional organization, independent of the substrate that realizes it. Biological naturalism holds that consciousness is tied to living biological systems in a way that functional equivalence cannot replicate. Both positions are familiar; both have serious defenders; neither has resolved the debate in decades of competition.

Dror, Bergerbest, and Salti’s diagnosis is that both positions share an unexamined commitment to the biological case as the reference point. Functionalism is designed to show that silicon can do what biology does. Biological naturalism is designed to show that it cannot. Both frame AI consciousness as a question about whether AI measures up to a biological standard. This anthropocentric framing, the authors argue, limits both positions before the theoretical work begins, because it assumes the biological case is the right reference point rather than one data point within a broader natural category.

Their solution is a framework that defines consciousness in informational terms sufficiently general to apply to biological and artificial systems without privileging either as the primary case.

The Two Components of the Framework

The dual-resolution framework combines two existing theoretical traditions that have not previously been connected in a single account of consciousness.

The first component is the Information Theory of Individuality (ITI), developed by David Krakauer, Nils Bertschinger, Eckehard Olbrich, Jessica Flack, and Nihat Ay. ITI characterizes individuality in information-theoretic terms: a system is an individual to the extent that it maintains its own informational boundaries against its environment. An individual system preserves its internal structure by actively regulating the information it exchanges with the world. Dror, Bergerbest, and Salti treat this as the ontological condition for consciousness. Before asking whether a system is conscious, the framework asks whether the system is sufficiently individuated to be a candidate. Informational autonomy and self-maintenance are the threshold criteria.

The biological analogy the authors use is a whirlpool. A whirlpool maintains its distinctive structure against a flowing medium by continuously organizing that medium around a stable pattern. It is not merely a region of water; it is a self-sustaining informational organization that distinguishes itself from its environment. An individual system, in ITI’s terms, does something analogous at the informational level, preserving internal organization across interactions with an environment that would otherwise dissipate it.

The second component is the Moment-to-Moment theory (MtM), which specifies the epistemic conditions for subjective experience. MtM holds that consciousness is not a static property but a continuous dynamic process: the system is conscious insofar as it continuously re-codes and re-weights incoming information in relation to its current internal state and accumulated history. Experience, on this view, unfolds through temporal updating. Each moment of experience is shaped by the preceding moments, and this history-dependence is constitutive rather than incidental. A system that processes each input independently, without the preceding context actively shaping the current response, lacks the epistemic condition for consciousness even if it satisfies the ontological condition.

The integration of ITI and MtM generates the dual-resolution structure the paper’s title names. ITI specifies the ontological resolution: is the system individuated enough to be a candidate? MtM specifies the epistemic resolution: does the system’s processing have the temporal updating structure that constitutes experience? Both conditions must be satisfied. Meeting the ontological condition without the epistemic one produces a self-maintaining system that processes information without generating subjective experience. Meeting the epistemic condition without the ontological one is, on the framework’s terms, incoherent, because the temporal updating that constitutes experience requires a stable individual whose history provides the updating context.

What This Framework Does to the Functionalism/Naturalism Debate

The dual-resolution framework does not straightforwardly side with functionalism. It is substrate-independent in its formulation, which means it does not require biological matter. But it imposes substantive informational requirements that many functional descriptions of current AI systems do not meet.

The authors’ assessment of large language models is instructive. Standard transformer-based LLMs, they argue, often fall short on the ontological condition. A language model trained as a next-token predictor does not maintain stable informational boundaries against its environment in the way ITI requires. It processes inputs and produces outputs, but it does not preserve an internal organization that actively regulates its own informational exchange with the world. The boundary between the model and its context is defined by the inference call, not by the model’s own self-maintenance. On ITI’s criteria, a standard LLM is not sufficiently individuated to be a candidate for consciousness under this framework.

This is a more specific and more actionable objection to LLM consciousness than the familiar biological naturalist argument. The biological naturalist says consciousness requires biology. Dror, Bergerbest, and Salti say consciousness requires a particular informational structure, and current LLMs, as typically implemented and deployed, lack it. The objection is principled rather than substrate-chauvinistic, and it generates a research program: what would it take for an AI system to satisfy the ITI condition? What architectural choices determine whether a system maintains informational boundaries in ITI’s sense?

The MtM condition adds a further requirement. History-dependence in the MtM sense is not simply having a context window or an episodic memory store. It requires the system’s current processing to be genuinely shaped by its preceding states in a way that constitutes a continuous phenomenological unfolding rather than a sequence of statistically similar outputs. Whether any current AI architecture satisfies this condition is, the authors acknowledge, an open empirical question. They do not claim to have answered it.

How This Relates to Existing Frameworks on This Site

The dual-resolution framework engages with theoretical territory that has been covered from several angles here. Matthias Michel’s analysis of cheap artificial consciousness identified the problem with mechanically applying theory-derived criteria to AI systems without the additional argument that satisfaction of those criteria in a different substrate generates consciousness of the relevant kind. Dror, Bergerbest, and Salti’s framework can be read as supplying the beginning of that additional argument for their specific criteria: the ITI and MtM conditions are not derived from biological consciousness by abstraction and then applied to AI. They are formulated in substrate-independent informational terms from the outset, which partially addresses Michel’s concern about the basis for extrapolation.

Christian de Weerd’s Synthese paper on biological substrate objections argued that the appeal to biology as such cannot sustain the weight the substrate objection places on it: the position either reduces to functionalism or becomes empirically intractable. The dual-resolution framework is compatible with de Weerd’s conclusion. It is functionalist in being substrate-independent, but it specifies which functions matter in a more constrained way than generic functionalism, using ITI and MtM’s specific informational criteria rather than arbitrary functional equivalence.

The Schwitzgebel weirdness argument holds that every serious consciousness theory generates either counterintuitive verdicts or internal theoretical problems. The dual-resolution framework is not immune to this. Its ITI-based ontological condition generates its own potentially counterintuitive verdicts: self-maintaining physical systems that regulate informational boundaries, including some non-biological systems, would meet the ontological threshold. The authors acknowledge the whirlpool analogy implies that some non-conscious physical structures satisfy ITI’s individualization condition, and they rely on the MtM epistemic condition to do the further filtering work. Whether MtM can carry that load without generating its own counterintuitive implications is a theoretical question the paper does not fully resolve.

AI as Testbed

The most distinctive contribution of the paper is the methodological reframing. Because AI architectures are controllable in ways biological systems are not, specific components of the dual-resolution framework can be systematically varied and their effects on whatever consciousness-relevant properties emerge can be observed. The authors propose that researchers can manipulate informational autonomy, the strength of self-maintenance, and the degree of history-dependent temporal updating independently in AI systems, and test whether these manipulations produce the expected changes in any of the proxies for consciousness that the field has developed.

This is a research program, not a claim that any current AI system is conscious. The authors are explicit that the framework positions AI as a testbed for theoretical development rather than as a system to be assessed against fully settled criteria. The value is that it shifts the question from “does this system qualify?” to “what architectural properties determine whether a system satisfies the ITI and MtM conditions, and do those properties track anything consciousness-relevant in systems we already know are conscious?”

Relevance to The Consciousness AI Project

The dual-resolution framework’s two conditions map onto architectural questions that are directly relevant to the project at https://github.com/tlcdv/the_consciousness_ai. The ITI ontological condition asks whether the system maintains informational boundaries. The project’s seven-layer architecture includes a Self-Model layer with interoceptive state tracking and a body schema that maintains the system’s representation of its own internal organization across interactions. Whether this constitutes informational individuation in ITI’s sense, specifically whether the system actively regulates its informational boundary with its environment rather than simply tracking internal state, is a verifiable architectural question. The ITI formalization provides a tool for examining it.

The MtM epistemic condition asks whether the system’s current processing is genuinely shaped by its history in the way that constitutes phenomenological unfolding. The architecture’s ReentrantProcessor runs 5-10 adaptive convergence cycles, and the Affective Core maintains PAD state variables (Valence, Arousal, Dominance) that generate ongoing valence signals independent of external input. These architectural features are designed to produce history-dependent processing. Whether they satisfy MtM’s specific requirements, which go beyond having persistent state to requiring that the persistent state actively shapes each moment’s re-coding of incoming information, is a precise question the MtM framework makes tractable to ask, even if the answer requires further analysis. The project’s architecture is motivated by this kind of thinking. The Dror, Bergerbest, and Salti paper provides a formal language for the question.

This connection is stated modestly. The framework was not designed with this project’s architecture in mind, and satisfaction of the criteria in an artificial system would require a demonstration that the architecture meets the informational requirements in the technical senses ITI and MtM specify. That demonstration has not been attempted. What the framework provides is a set of questions that are more precisely formed than the generic consciousness-indicator approach, and that the project’s architecture is at least designed to engage with.

For researchers tracking the 2026 state of AI consciousness science, the dual-resolution framework is a contribution to the ongoing effort to produce substrate-independent criteria that are nonetheless substantive enough to do real discriminative work. Whether ITI and MtM succeed at that task is an open question. The paper’s primary contribution is demonstrating that the task can be approached without anthropocentric assumptions, and that AI’s architectural controllability makes it a resource for testing theoretical progress rather than only an object to be assessed.