MIT Challenge — Spring 2026

Break the Chain

Starting from a single undeniable premise — experience exists — nine logical constraints follow that any viable theory of consciousness must satisfy. Find a flaw in the derivation.

$1,000
To the first person who succeeds
Submit a Challenge
↓ Read the chain
The Derivation Chain

Nine Inevitabilities

Not hypotheses. Not assumptions. Constraints — derived step by step, each building on the last, forming an unbroken chain of logical necessity.

Foundational Premise
Experience Exists
Self-verifying. Denial instantiates what it denies. Any framework purporting to account for consciousness must begin from the fact that there is something it is like to be.
Inevitability 1
Difference Is Unavoidable
If experience occurs, reality is different than it would have been had that experience not occurred. Experience cannot be epiphenomenal in a way that leaves no trace — its occurrence is a trace.
Builds from: FP
Inevitability 2 — The Logical Pivot
Appearing Cannot Be Reduced to Structure Alone
The fact that experience appears cannot be exhaustively accounted for by structure, relations, or information alone. No accumulation of third-person facts entails first-person facts. This is where physicalism and functionalism fail.
Builds from: I1
Inevitability 3
Determinacy Requires a Principle of Actualization
Experience is determinate — it is this experience rather than another — and determinacy requires a principle by which one potential becomes actual. That principle cannot be purely structural.
Builds from: I2
Inevitability 4 — The Critical Failure Point
Experiential Boundaries Are Real
There exist real experiential boundaries — distinct perspectives that are not mutually accessible as one experience. A perspective is an actualization trajectory, and boundaries are the shape of that trajectory. This is where panpsychism, idealism, and process philosophy fail.
Builds from: I3
Inevitability 5
Actualization Is Neither Fixed Nor Arbitrary
Actual experience exhibits coherent structure across its instances, yet is not reducible to a single inevitable outcome fixed in advance.
Builds from: I2, I3, I4
Inevitability 6
Identity Is Continuity, Not Static Substance
Experiential identity persists through continuity of pattern, not through the persistence of an unchanging entity. Identity is constituted by the trajectory of actualizations.
Builds from: I2, I5
Inevitability 7
Termination Doesn't Undo Occurrence
The cessation of a particular experiential process does not negate the fact that the experiences within it occurred. Past actualizations remain facts. Termination does not reach backward.
Builds from: I1, I6
Inevitability 8
Continuation Beyond Boundaries Is Underdetermined
Nothing in the structure of experience alone determines whether experiential processes must continue or must cease beyond a given boundary. The constraints define the nature of experience; they do not dictate the scope of its instantiation.
Builds from: I1–I7
Inevitability 9
Meaning Requires Consequence, Not Permanence
Experience is meaningful insofar as it makes a difference to what follows. The trajectory matters because it shaped what followed, not because it persists forever.
Builds from: I1, I7, I8
Diagnostic Results

Where Frameworks Fail

Applied diagnostically, the chain reveals structural incapacities — not empirical shortcomings, but logical inadequacies in existing consciousness theories.

Framework
Fails At
Fail at Foundational Premise
Eliminative Materialism
FP
Strong Illusionism
FP
Fail at Inevitability 2 — Structure ≠ Appearing
Reductive Physicalism
I2
Standard Functionalism
I2
Integrated Information Theory (IIT)
I2
Global Workspace Theory
I2
Higher-Order Theories
I2
Attention Schema Theory
I2
Predictive Processing
I2
Biological Naturalism
I2
Fail at Inevitability 3 — No Actualization Principle
Brute Supervenience
I3
Deflationary Functionalism
I3
Fail at Inevitability 4 — The Boundedness Problem
Panpsychism
I4
Russellian Monism
I4
Property Dualism
I4
Neutral Monism
I4
Process Philosophy (Whitehead)
I4
Conscious Realism (Hoffman)
I4
Cosmopsychism
I4
Full Derivations

Read the Monograph

The complete formal derivation chain with all twelve background assumptions stated, defended, and open to challenge. Every step specified. Every objection addressed.

⬦
The Nine Inevitabilities
Full Monograph · PDF

Mike Land & Kili Land · © 2025 · ISBN 979-8-9948196-0-9

The Challenge

Contest Rules

Find a logical break anywhere in the derivation chain. Not a reframing. Not a competing theory. A genuine logical flaw — a step that doesn't follow from what precedes it.

1
Identify a specific inevitability (I1–I9) and the exact step in its derivation you contest.
2
Show a logical flaw — demonstrate that the conclusion does not follow from the stated premises, background assumptions, and axioms. Disagreeing with a premise is not a break in the chain; it is a rejection of an assumption or axiom (which is your right, but carries the costs specified in the monograph).
3
No alternative theories. Proposing a different framework is not a refutation. The challenge is internal: does the derivation hold on its own terms?
4
No reframings. Reinterpreting terms to dissolve the argument is not the same as finding a flaw in it. The terms are defined in the monograph.
5
$1,000 to the first person who identifies a genuine logical break — a step where the conclusion does not follow from its premises — as judged by the authors with input from independent philosophical review.

Eligibility

Open to currently enrolled MIT students in any department. Submissions must represent the challenger's own reasoning and analysis — the argument and its logic must be yours. The authors reserve final judgment on what constitutes a genuine logical break versus a disagreement with premises. Decisions will be accompanied by a written response explaining the reasoning. All challenges and rebuttals will be published publicly; challengers may opt to have their submission attributed anonymously.

Submit

Break the Chain

Identify which link fails and show exactly why. If the derivation holds, accept the constraints. If it doesn't, collect $1,000.

Be precise. Identify the exact inferential step you believe fails and explain why the conclusion does not follow from the stated premises.