Aleksey Zhuravlev

Founder & Chief Scientist

What We’ve Built

Published papers with DOIs --- theory, ontogenesis, communication need, WM capacity evolution, and integration (self-modification)

103

Gate checks, 300+ tests. Rust computational engine deployed in production

97.5%

Lewis signaling accuracy. 533 concepts emerged from scratch --- zero training data

149

Falsifiable predictions across 23 categories. 9/9 COGITATE retrodiction (IIT: 4/9, GNW: 1/9)

One engine deployed in production on financial markets. Six application domains validated. All from first principles — zero training data.

The Story

No PhD. No lab. No funding. Just 30 years of an open question.

In my first year at university, a professor said: “How consciousness works – nobody has been able to explain it yet.” That sentence opened a gap. It didn’t close for 30 years.

I became a translator, worked in an entirely different field – but the itch remained. Over time, without any deliberate plan, I assembled my own curriculum: neuroscience, mathematical intuition, physics, anthropology – alongside a data science program specializing in NLP, and textbooks on machine learning, complexity theory, and network science.

Each of these was a standalone interest. All of them were quietly building context around that one unresolved question.

At some point the accumulated density was enough: the gap closed. The result is the theory you’re reading about on this site. About 30 years of open Structural Incompleteness Tension – the very mechanism BMC describes as the engine of curiosity. The author is, in a sense, the theory’s first test case.

This is perhaps the first generation where such a path is even possible. A unifying theory of consciousness requires simultaneous knowledge of evolutionary biology, neuroscience, network science, complexity theory, AI, and philosophy of mind. No single academic department teaches all of this. But the combination of open-access lectures, modern textbooks, and years of accumulated context turned out to be enough.

The work is the credential

I have no institutional credentials to offer. What I have instead:

5 formal theory documents – Extended Meme Theory, Biomemetics, Network Memetics, AGI Foundations, and Swarm Memetics – totalling 20,000+ lines, fully available on this site
149 predictions across three epistemic tiers (formal results / retrodictions / prospective) — including 11 separating tests (named rival → opposite prediction); 3 already run with the counter-intuitive BMC side holding (P-BM28, P-NM3, P-BM4)
9/9 COGITATE retrodiction – the largest empirical test of consciousness theories (2025). BMC explains all results; IIT scored 4/9, GNW 1/9
5 competing theories related as limiting cases – IIT, GNW, HOT, AST, and Predictive Processing recovered as limiting cases via subsumption lemmas; each retains independent value
Retrodiction score of 19.0 across 20 consciousness phenomena (next best: Predictive Processing at 11.0)
Rust computational engine – 103 gate checks, 300+ unit tests, applied to emergent cognition, drug discovery, symbolic regression, and financial markets
Emergent language from scratch – agents born with zero knowledge develop 85–97.5% Lewis signaling accuracy without gradient-based communication optimization, up to 533 concepts (DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.19181798)
Language parasiticity confirmed – 10 survival experiments ( $$N$ =8–150): signal memes optimized for M-fitness, not G-fitness. Separating test: BMC TopSim 0.72 vs REINFORCE 0.60 ( $$p = 0.011$ )
Cowan’s 4 ± 1 reproduced – working memory capacity $$k \approx 4.4$ emerges as evolutionary equilibrium from metabolic cost vs planning benefit (DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.19310012)
Communication need as replication pressure – reception without expression is indistinguishable from complete isolation ( $$p = 0.64$ , 79 seeds). Expression even into void provides relief (DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.19309824)
Persistent functional meta-cognition from zero knowledge – agents born with $$|V_m|=0$ develop compositional language, cultural convergence, and SMC². Cultural Memory identified as a facilitating mechanism via ablation (not necessary; NI not established) (DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.19559519)
5 published papers on Zenodo with DOIs – see Publications

If the theory holds up to scrutiny – and I invite that scrutiny – it doesn’t matter where it came from.

Get in Touch

For business. Pilot partnerships in pharma, finance, and consumer AI. Contact →

For researchers. 149 predictions need lab validation. Collaboration welcome. Contact →

For investors. Deployed product, validated technology, multiple verticals. Seeking strategic investment for team and scale. Contact →