Large language models exhibit intelligence without genuine epistemic understanding, exposing a key gap: the absence of epistemic architecture. This paper introduces the Structured Cognitive Loop (SCL) as an executable epistemological framework for emergent intelligence. Unlike traditional AI research asking "what is intelligence?" (ontological), SCL asks "under what conditions does cognition emerge?" (epistemological). Grounded in philosophy of mind and cognitive phenomenology, SCL bridges conceptual philosophy and implementable cognition. Drawing on process philosophy, enactive cognition, and extended mind theory, we define intelligence not as a property but as a performed process -- a continuous loop of judgment, memory, control, action, and regulation. SCL makes three contributions. First, it operationalizes philosophical insights into computationally interpretable structures, enabling "executable epistemology" -- philosophy as structural experiment. Second, it shows that functional separation within cognitive architecture yields more coherent and interpretable behavior than monolithic prompt based systems, supported by agent evaluations. Third, it redefines intelligence: not representational accuracy but the capacity to reconstruct its own epistemic state through intentional understanding. This framework impacts philosophy of mind, epistemology, and AI. For philosophy, it allows theories of cognition to be enacted and tested. For AI, it grounds behavior in epistemic structure rather than statistical regularity. For epistemology, it frames knowledge not as truth possession but as continuous reconstruction within a phenomenologically coherent loop. We situate SCL within debates on cognitive phenomenology, emergence, normativity, and intentionality, arguing that real progress requires not larger models but architectures that realize cognitive principles structurally.

A robust nonproliferation regime has contained the spread of nuclear weapons to just nine states. Yet, emerging and disruptive technologies are reshaping the landscape of nuclear risks, presenting a critical juncture for decision makers. This article lays out the contours of an overlooked but intensifying technological arms race for nuclear (in)visibility, driven by the interplay between proliferation-enabling technologies (PETs) and detection-enhancing technologies (DETs). We argue that the strategic pattern of proliferation will be increasingly shaped by the innovation pace in these domains. Artificial intelligence (AI) introduces unprecedented complexity to this equation, as its rapid scaling and knowledge substitution capabilities accelerate PET development and challenge traditional monitoring and verification methods. To analyze this dynamic, we develop a formal model centered on a Relative Advantage Index (RAI), quantifying the shifting balance between PETs and DETs. Our model explores how asymmetric technological advancement, particularly logistic AI-driven PET growth versus stepwise DET improvements, expands the band of uncertainty surrounding proliferation detectability. Through replicable scenario-based simulations, we evaluate the impact of varying PET growth rates and DET investment strategies on cumulative nuclear breakout risk. We identify a strategic fork ahead, where detection may no longer suffice without broader PET governance. Governments and international organizations should accordingly invest in policies and tools agile enough to keep pace with tomorrow's technology.

Beneficial societal outcomes cannot be guaranteed by aligning individual AI systems with the intentions of their operators or users. Even an AI system that is perfectly aligned to the intentions of its operating organization can lead to bad outcomes if the goals of that organization are misaligned with those of other institutions and individuals. For this reason, we need full-stack alignment, the concurrent alignment of AI systems and the institutions that shape them with what people value. This can be done without imposing a particular vision of individual or collective flourishing. We argue that current approaches for representing values, such as utility functions, preference orderings, or unstructured text, struggle to address these and other issues effectively. They struggle to distinguish values from other signals, to support principled normative reasoning, and to model collective goods. We propose thick models of value will be needed. These structure the way values and norms are represented, enabling systems to distinguish enduring values from fleeting preferences, to model the social embedding of individual choices, and to reason normatively, applying values in new domains. We demonstrate this approach in five areas: AI value stewardship, normatively competent agents, win-win negotiation systems, meaning-preserving economic mechanisms, and democratic regulatory institutions.

The alignment problem--ensuring advanced AI systems act in accordance with human values-- represents one of the most pressing philosophical and technical challenges of our time. As Bostrom (2014) and Russell (2019) have argued, the difficulty lies not merely in creating capable systems, but in ensuring these systems remain beneficial as their capabilities grow. Current approaches typically attempt to specify human values directly, whether through reward modeling, constitutional AI, or iterative refinement based on human feedback. Yet these content-based approaches face a fundamental philosophical problem: human values are contextual, often contradictory, and resist precise specification. The attempt to encode a complete value system encounters what I call the "specification trap"--the more precisely we attempt to define our values, the more we realize their dependence on implicit knowledge, cultural context, and evolutionary history that cannot be fully articulated. This paper's central thesis is that alignment should be reconceived not as a problem of value specification but as one of process architecture: creating syntropic, reasons-responsive agents whose values emerge through embodied multi-agent interaction rather than being encoded through training. What follows is a framework and research program proposal rather than a report of completed empirical results. I defend this thesis through four interconnected arguments that support three central contributions. Part I diagnoses the specification trap that makes content-based approaches structurally unstable.

Modeling historical events poses fundamental challenges for machine learning: extreme data scarcity (N << 100), heterogeneous and noisy measurements, missing counterfactuals, and the requirement for human interpretable explanations. We present HistoricalML, a probabilistic neuro-symbolic framework that addresses these challenges through principled integration of (1) Bayesian uncertainty quantification to separate epistemic from aleatoric uncertainty, (2) structural causal models for counterfactual reasoning under confounding, (3) cooperative game theory (Shapley values) for fair allocation modeling, and (4) attention based neural architectures for context dependent factor weighting. We provide theoretical analysis showing that our approach achieves consistent estimation in the sparse data regime when strong priors from domain knowledge are available, and that Shapley based allocation satisfies axiomatic fairness guarantees that pure regression approaches cannot provide. We instantiate the framework on two historical case studies: the 19th century partition of Africa (N = 7 colonial powers) and the Second Punic War (N = 2 factions). Our model identifies Germany's +107.9 percent discrepancy as a quantifiable structural tension preceding World War I, with tension factor 36.43 and 0.79 naval arms race correlation. For the Punic Wars, Monte Carlo battle simulations achieve a 57.3 percent win probability for Carthage at Cannae and 57.8 percent for Rome at Zama, aligning with historical outcomes. Counterfactual analysis reveals that Carthaginian political support (support score 6.4 vs Napoleon's 7.1), rather than military capability, was the decisive factor.

The Machine Consciousness Hypothesis states that consciousness is a substrate-free functional property of computational systems capable of second-order perception. I propose a research program to investigate this idea in silico by studying how collective self-models (coherent, self-referential representations) emerge from distributed learning systems embedded within universal self-organizing environments. The theory outlined here starts from the supposition that consciousness is an emergent property of collective intelligence systems undergoing synchronization of prediction through communication. It is not an epiphenomenon of individual modeling but a property of the language that a system evolves to internally describe itself. For a model of base reality, I begin with a minimal but general computational world: a cellular automaton, which exhibits both computational irreducibility and local reducibility. On top of this computational substrate, I introduce a network of local, predictive, representational (neural) models capable of communication and adaptation. I use this layered model to study how collective intelligence gives rise to self-representation as a direct consequence of inter-agent alignment. I suggest that consciousness does not emerge from modeling per se, but from communication. It arises from the noisy, lossy exchange of predictive messages between groups of local observers describing persistent patterns in the underlying computational substrate (base reality). It is through this representational dialogue that a shared model arises, aligning many partial views of the world. The broader goal is to develop empirically testable theories of machine consciousness, by studying how internal self-models may form in distributed systems without centralized control.

Human achievement, whether in culture, science, or technology, is unparalleled in the known existence. This achievement is tied to the enormous communities of knowledge, made possible by language: leaving theological content aside, it is very much true that "in the beginning was the word", and that in Western societies, this became particularly identified with the written word. There lies the challenge regarding modern age chatbots: they can 'do' language apparently as well as ourselves and there is a natural question of whether they can be considered intelligent, in the same way as we are or otherwise. Are humans uniquely intelligent? We consider this question in terms of the psychological literature on intelligence, evidence for intelligence in non-human animals, the role of written language in science and technology, progress with artificial intelligence, the history of intelligence testing (for both humans and machines), and the role of embodiment in intelligence. We think that it is increasingly difficult to consider humans uniquely intelligent. There are current limitations in chatbots, e.g., concerning perceptual and social awareness, but much attention is currently devoted to overcoming such limitations.

Multi-agent systems often operate under feedback, adaptation, and non-stationarity, yet many simulation studies retain static decision rules and fixed control parameters. This paper introduces a general adaptive multi-agent learning framework that integrates: (i) four dynamic regimes distinguishing static versus adaptive agents and fixed versus adaptive system parameters; (ii) information-theoretic diagnostics (entropy rate, statistical complexity, and predictive information) to assess predictability and structure; (iii) structural causal models for explicit intervention semantics; (iv) procedures for generating agent-level priors from aggregate or sample data; and (v) unsupervised methods for identifying emergent behavioral regimes. The framework offers a domain-neutral architecture for analyzing how learning agents and adaptive controls jointly shape system trajectories, enabling systematic comparison of stability, performance, and interpretability across non-equilibrium, oscillatory, or drifting dynamics. Mathematical definitions, computational operators, and an experimental design template are provided, yielding a structured methodology for developing explainable and contestable multi-agent decision processes.

We develop a taxonomical framework for classifying challenges to the possibility of consciousness in digital artificial intelligence systems. This framework allows us to identify the level of granularity at which a given challenge is intended (the levels we propose correspond to Marr's levels) and to disambiguate its degree of force: is it a challenge to computational functionalism that leaves the possibility of digital consciousness open (degree 1), a practical challenge to digital consciousness that suggests improbability without claiming impossibility (degree 2), or an argument claiming that digital consciousness is strictly impossible (degree 3)? We apply this framework to 14 prominent examples from the scientific and philosophical literature. Our aim is not to take a side in the debate, but to provide structure and a tool for disambiguating between challenges to computational functionalism and challenges to digital consciousness, as well as between different ways of parsing such challenges.

Assessing the quality of group deliberation is essential for improving our understanding of deliberative processes. The Deliberative Reason Index (DRI) offers a sophisticated metric for evaluating group reasoning, but its implementation has been constrained by the complex and time-consuming process of statement generation. This thesis introduces an innovative, automated approach to DRI statement generation that leverages advanced natural language processing (NLP) and large language models (LLMs) to substantially reduce the human effort involved in survey preparation. Key contributions are a systematic framework for automated DRI statement generation and a methodological innovation that significantly lowers the barrier to conducting comprehensive deliberative process assessments. In addition, the findings provide a replicable template for integrating generative artificial intelligence into social science research methodologies.