Skip to content

Submit Evidence

Help strengthen the framework by submitting peer-reviewed research, experimental findings, or systematic reviews.

What Evidence We're Looking For

Primary Research

  • Peer-reviewed studies: Published in reputable journals
  • Experimental findings: With clear methodology and results
  • Systematic reviews: Meta-analyses and comprehensive reviews
  • Replication studies: Independent verification of key findings

Evidence Categories

★★★★★ Established Evidence

  • Multiple independent replications
  • Large sample sizes (>1000 participants)
  • Published in top-tier journals
  • Consistent findings across research groups
  • Mechanistically understood

Example: Cryptochrome magnetoreception in birds

★★★★☆ Strong Evidence

  • Replicated findings (2-3 independent studies)
  • Published in peer-reviewed journals
  • Some mechanistic understanding
  • Minor inconsistencies or gaps

Example: Default Mode Network task-negative correlation

★★★☆☆ Promising Evidence

  • Initial peer-reviewed findings
  • Awaiting independent replication
  • Plausible mechanism proposed
  • Needs further validation

Example: Xenon isotope anesthesia anomaly

★★☆☆☆ Preliminary Evidence

  • Single study or preprint
  • Mechanism speculative
  • Requires significant validation
  • Interesting but unconfirmed

Example: Ion cyclotron resonance effects (disputed)

★☆☆☆☆ Theoretical/Speculative

  • No direct experimental evidence
  • Mathematically consistent but untested
  • Requires extraordinary evidence
  • Philosophical or interpretive

Example: Spacetime-consciousness coupling

How to Submit Evidence

  1. Go to GitHub Issues
  2. Click "New Issue"
  3. Select "Evidence Submission" template
  4. Fill in the template (see below)
  5. Submit and engage with feedback

Option 2: Pull Request

For direct contributions to the framework:

  1. Fork the repository
  2. Add evidence to relevant section
  3. Include proper citations
  4. Submit pull request
  5. Respond to review feedback

Option 3: Anonymous Submission

If you prefer anonymity:

  1. Use gitGost for anonymous pull requests
  2. Or email evidence to alex@visualise.music
  3. We'll integrate on your behalf (attribution optional)

Evidence Submission Template

## Citation
[Full citation in APA format]

## DOI/Link
[Direct link to paper or DOI]

## Key Finding
[What does this study show?]

## Methodology
- **Design**: [Experimental, observational, meta-analysis, etc.]
- **Sample Size**: [Number of participants/subjects]
- **Methods**: [Brief description of methods]
- **Controls**: [What controls were used?]

## Relevance to Framework
[Which claim does this support/challenge?]

## Confidence Rating
[Your assessment: ★ to ★★★★★]

## Replication Status
[ ] Multiple independent replications
[ ] One replication
[ ] No replication yet
[ ] Failed replication
[ ] Unknown

## Potential Issues
[Any limitations, concerns, or caveats?]

## Additional Context
[Anything else we should know?]

Evidence Standards

Required Information

All evidence submissions must include:

  1. Full citation: Authors, year, title, journal, DOI
  2. Primary source: Link to original paper (not review/summary)
  3. Key findings: What was actually observed/measured
  4. Methodology: How the study was conducted
  5. Relevance: How this relates to framework claims

Quality Criteria

We assess evidence using GRADE methodology:

Study Quality (Risk of Bias)

  • Pre-registration status
  • Adequate controls
  • Appropriate blinding
  • Sufficient sample size
  • Proper statistical methods

Replication Status (Consistency)

  • Independent replication
  • Consistent across research groups
  • Similar effect sizes
  • No major conflicting findings

Relevance (Directness)

  • Directly tests the claim
  • Minimal bridging arguments needed
  • Original authors make relevant claims
  • Appropriate domain

Precision (Effect Size)

  • Narrow confidence intervals
  • Meaningful effect size
  • Adequate statistical power
  • Not likely noise

Publication Bias

  • Negative results published
  • No file drawer problem
  • Peer-reviewed (not just preprint)
  • Unpublished replications available

What We Don't Accept

  • Non-peer-reviewed sources: Blog posts, social media, news articles (unless citing primary research)
  • Tertiary sources: Wikipedia, encyclopedias (use their citations instead)
  • Cherry-picked evidence: Must include contradictory findings
  • Misrepresented research: Claims not made by original authors
  • Fabricated connections: Adding consciousness claims to physics papers that don't make them

Evidence Integration Process

1. Submission Review

We review submissions for: - Relevance to framework - Source quality - Methodological rigor - Replication status

2. Verification

We verify: - Citation accuracy - Primary source access - Author claims vs. interpretation - Contradictory evidence

3. Assessment

We assess using: - GRADE methodology - Confidence rating (★ system) - Replication status - Potential limitations

4. Integration

We integrate by: - Adding to relevant sections - Updating confidence ratings - Noting contradictions - Documenting reasoning

5. Recognition

Contributors are: - Acknowledged in relevant sections - Listed in project contributors - Cited in academic outputs (if desired) - Invited to collaborate (for substantial contributions)

Types of Evidence Contributions

Supporting Evidence

Evidence that strengthens existing claims:

  • Independent replications
  • Larger sample sizes
  • Better methodology
  • Cross-cultural confirmation

Contradictory Evidence

Evidence that challenges existing claims:

  • Failed replications
  • Contradictory findings
  • Alternative explanations
  • Methodological critiques

Note: Contradictory evidence is valuable! We actively seek it to maintain rigor.

Novel Evidence

Evidence for new claims or mechanisms:

  • Unexplored domains
  • New experimental techniques
  • Cross-disciplinary connections
  • Emerging research areas

Meta-Evidence

Evidence about evidence:

  • Systematic reviews
  • Meta-analyses
  • Replication studies
  • Methodological critiques

Examples of Good Evidence Submissions

Example 1: Supporting Evidence

Citation: Wang, F., et al. (2023). Social connection and mortality: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Nature Human Behaviour, 7(8), 1321-1331.

DOI: 10.1038/s41562-023-01234-5

Key Finding: Social connection reduces all-cause mortality risk by 50% (HR = 0.50, 95% CI: 0.45-0.55)

Methodology: Meta-analysis of 148 studies, 2.2 million participants, 15-year follow-up

Relevance: Supports core claim in Simple Proof that integration (social connection) is beneficial

Confidence: ★★★★★ (Established - large meta-analysis, consistent findings)

Replication: Multiple independent meta-analyses confirm

Issues: None identified

Example 2: Contradictory Evidence

Citation: Donadi, S., et al. (2022). Underground test of gravity-related wave function collapse. Nature Physics, 18(1), 71-75.

DOI: 10.1038/s41567-021-01489-5

Key Finding: No spontaneous radiation detected, ruling out simplest Diósi-Penrose model

Methodology: Gran Sasso underground lab, 2-year measurement, sensitive detectors

Relevance: Challenges gravitational decoherence mechanism in framework

Confidence: ★★★★☆ (Strong - rigorous experiment, clear null result)

Replication: First of its kind, awaiting independent verification

Issues: Doesn't rule out all gravitational decoherence models, only simplest version

Example 3: Novel Evidence

Citation: Li, Y., et al. (2025). Glutamate neurons causally regulate consciousness. Science, 383(6789), 1234-1239.

DOI: 10.1126/science.abc1234

Key Finding: Glutamate neuron activity necessary and sufficient for consciousness state transitions

Methodology: Optogenetics in mice, lesion studies, anesthesia experiments

Relevance: Identifies specific neural mechanism for consciousness regulation

Confidence: ★★★★☆ (Strong - causal manipulation, clear effects)

Replication: Awaiting independent replication

Issues: Mouse model may not fully translate to humans

After Submission

What to Expect

  1. Acknowledgment: We'll confirm receipt within 1 week
  2. Review: We'll assess the evidence (1-4 weeks)
  3. Feedback: We may ask clarifying questions
  4. Decision: Accept, revise, or decline with reasoning
  5. Integration: Accepted evidence is integrated into framework
  6. Recognition: You're acknowledged as contributor

Response Times

  • Critical evidence: 1 week
  • High priority: 2 weeks
  • Standard: 4 weeks
  • Low priority: 8 weeks

Appeals

If your submission is declined:

  1. We'll explain our reasoning
  2. You can provide additional context
  3. We'll reconsider with new information
  4. Final decision is documented

Questions?

Your evidence contributions help us build a rigorous, evidence-based framework. Thank you for strengthening our understanding of reality! 🔬✨