Vol. 1 | In a World Without “I”: The Nebula State of Consciousness

How to Read “Will” in This Book

The “will” discussed in this book is not a personality trait, a form of psychological energy, or a moral virtue. Nor does it correspond to the traditional metaphysical problem of “free will” in philosophy.

Here, will refers to something more structural: the capacity of a conscious system, under given constraints, to generate, access, and reconstruct pathways of meaning.

For this reason, many of the terms used throughout the book are not intended to label subjective experiences. They function instead as markers of structural positions, functional relationships, and reachable states. In this sense, they are closer to working terms in engineering and systems theory than to concepts meant to be understood in isolation.

1. On the Use of Terminology

Core terms in this book — such as system, circuit, attractor, reflexivity, decoupling, and construction — are not fully defined when they first appear. Instead, they recur across chapters, gradually refined and repositioned as the structure unfolds.

You are not expected to fully understand a term the first time you encounter it, nor to pause your reading in search of a definitive definition. Meaning here does not emerge from explanation, but from repeated confirmation of structural position. Understanding is cumulative and positional, not instantaneous or semantic.

2. On the Order of the Argument

The chapters are not organized by increasing conceptual difficulty, but by the order in which the structure itself is generated.

• Part I examines how consciousness exists in an undifferentiated yet highly plastic state before will emerges as an independent structure.
• Part II shifts to the individual level, describing how will gradually stabilizes into circuits of different layers within a single conscious system.
• Part III maps this structural model onto the scale of civilization, explaining why civilizations themselves exhibit circuit-like forms homologous to individual will.

If later chapters retroactively change how you understand earlier ones, this is expected — and not a misunderstanding.

3. A Clarification on “Correct Understanding”

This book does not ask readers to arrive at a unified conclusion, nor does it offer a set of actionable behavioral instructions. What it aims to provide is structural visibility.

You may use these structures to re-examine personal difficulties, social norms, or civilizational narratives. You may also choose not to use them at all, treating them simply as an interpretive attempt. The only discouraged move is to reduce the book’s terminology to labels, or to collapse structural language into emotional descriptions or value judgments.

4. Reading Suggestions

If this is your first encounter with these ideas, reading sequentially is recommended. If you are already familiar with parts of the theoretical background, you may treat the book as a structural map, entering from whichever point currently matters most to you.

Whichever path you take, keep this in mind:

Will is not something one possesses. It is a structural state that must be continuously generated and maintained.

Photo by Pars Sahin on Unsplash

Part I

System 0: A World Before Will

What is human will? How does it emerge, stabilize, transform — or even collapse? Without shifting our attention to the origins of autonomous consciousness as humans understand it, we cannot meaningfully address these questions.

The working hypothesis of Will-Circuit Activation Theory (WCAT) is built precisely on this foundational level of inquiry and modeling. It seeks to strip will of its assumed status as an innate attribute and restore it to what it is: a structure that emerges with difficulty through evolution.

Structural Event Analysis

When the System Has Not Yet Formed an “I”

When a person gradually develops a relatively stable conscious system after birth, that system does not arise from nothing. It is composed of basic sensory components, neural encoding mechanisms, and long-term experiential shaping. One end of this system is anchored in genetic, biological protocols; the other is formed through ongoing adaptation and learning within an environment.

Yet this most basic layer of the system is not inherently stable.

If disturbances occur at critical points — neurotransmitter regulation, neural connectivity, or neuronal-level coordination — the system’s mode of operation may change significantly. The result does not necessarily appear as a “personality issue,” but may manifest as sensory dysregulation, abnormal emotional thresholds, or disrupted conscious rhythms.

Thus, when someone experiences uncontrollable rage in intimate relationships, or when prolonged anxiety or excitation leads to chronic insomnia, these experiences may not simply indicate “emotional problems.” They may point instead to a failure or instability in the most foundational structure that supports conscious operation.¹ Within the WCAT framework, this layer is called System 0: a state of consciousness that has not yet formed a clear self and lacks reflexive capacity.

This discussion does not constitute a psychiatric diagnosis nor a substitute for professional judgment.** WCAT* and A Brief History of Will* are not diagnostic tools. They offer a structural perspective intended to help individuals recognize the possible level and risks of their conscious system earlier, and to seek appropriate professional support accordingly.²

Photo by Pawel Czerwinski on Unsplash

Vol. 1 In a World Without “I”: The Nebula State

Before discussing will, we must address a frequently overlooked question: Is there a form of consciousness without an “I”?³

This question does not point to infants, animals, or some imagined “primitive human.” It points to a deeper structural state — one in which consciousness is already operating, yet has not differentiated subject, choice, or meaning.

In A Brief History of Will, this state is called System 0, or the Nebula State of consciousness.⁴

1 /

When Consciousness Has Not Yet Formed a Subject

In System 0, consciousness is not empty. On the contrary, it is highly active — just not organized around an “I.” Perception occurs, behavior unfolds, emotions fluctuate, but these processes are not integrated by a stable center. There is almost no distance between stimulus and response. Experience cannot be abstracted, revisited, or reorganized.

Consciousness here resembles a continuously shifting field rather than a bounded system.

In this state, behavior does not equal choice, reactions do not constitute judgments, and repetition does not produce meaning.⁵ This is not a “lower” form of consciousness, but an undifferentiated one. It can be stable, effective, and even highly successful in survival terms — yet it does not possess what we usually call will.

The Nebula State: Not Chaos, but Undifferentiation

“Nebula” is often mistaken for chaos or primitiveness. In fact, it describes a different structural property: high density, low resolution. Like a cloud, you cannot point to a specific droplet of water, yet you know it contains the full potential for rain.

System 0 is similar. Attraction, avoidance, imitation, and rhythmic regulation are already operating repeatedly, but they have not been named, isolated, or stabilized as independent functions.

For this reason, System 0 is highly plastic yet almost entirely non-reflexive. It can live, but it cannot observe how it lives. This provides a stable background for cognitive development: humans emerge from a state without autonomous consciousness but with a stable underlying structure.

Across a lifespan, one may move from no consciousness to consciousness, to awareness of consciousness, and finally to autonomous consciousness. Not everyone will experience this entire sequence, nor is there any obligation to do so. Yet this progression forms the basis of WCAT’s modeling and the key criterion for distinguishing later circuit states.

2 /

System 0 Across the Spectrum of Life

When we shift our perspective from the individual to the full spectrum of life, System 0 appears not as a human exception, but as the dominant background of consciousness. From chemotaxis in single-celled organisms, to coordinated behavior in social animals, to emotional and social regulation in higher mammals, a common pattern emerges: behavioral stability without self-reorganization.⁶

Within WCAT, this suggests that long before Homo sapiens appeared, evolution repeatedly produced structural fragments of circuit functions,⁷. Yet, these fragments never integrated into a single system capable of sustained self-reference.

System 0 is not the origin of civilization, but it is its precondition. Individual will and collective will display a rigorous topological homology.⁸ The chaotic background of individual will (System 0) may be shaped by accumulated interactions within the collective unconscious. Conversely, civilizational breakthroughs often begin when a small number of individuals complete a difficult transition to higher-order will circuits. Each serves as the background condition for the other.

The True Boundary Between System 0 and Will

Understanding System 0 is not about distinguishing consciousness from unconsciousness. It is about identifying the true threshold at which will appears.⁹

Will is not a stronger motivation, nor a more complex set of behaviors. Its defining feature is singular: consciousness becomes capable of observing and reorganizing its own mode of operation.

In System 0, this capacity does not exist. Consciousness runs, but cannot step outside its own trajectory. This explains a crucial fact: will is not a natural inevitability, but a highly unstable structural leap. It does not arise automatically from increasing cognitive complexity. It requires an exceptionally strict set of conditions.

A Brief History of Will begins with System 0 not to trace an origin story, but to avoid a more common mistake — treating will as a default property of consciousness.¹⁰ Without understanding how consciousness operates without will, we cannot truly grasp how will emerges, collapses, or fails — and why, in modern societies, so many cognitively capable individuals still experience powerlessness and loss of agency.

In fact, the rest of this book is an extended answer to a single question: Why does this transition fail so easily?¹¹

The next chapter tightens the focus further, examining how life is “invisibly guided” before will appears — the final structural boundary before will truly emerges.

Research References and Theoretical Lineage

[1] Structural Perspectives on Neural Stability and Functional Dysregulation The relationship between neurotransmitter regulation, neural connectivity, and functional homeostasis can be examined through Karl Friston’s Free Energy Principle, as well as Antonio Damasio’s work on emotion and bodily regulation systems. This text does not equate functional dysregulation with pathological diagnosis. Instead, such phenomena are treated as possible manifestations of instability or failure at foundational structural layers of a conscious system.

[2] Theoretical Boundaries of the Non-Diagnostic Statement WCAT and A Brief History of Will do not correspond to any psychiatric classifications within DSM-5 or ICD-11. Their theoretical objective is not symptom categorization, but the visualization of structural layers within consciousness and will. For a neuroscientific background on emotional regulation and behavioral control, see Jaak Panksepp’s Affective Neuroscience.

[3] The Minimal State of Consciousness Prior to Selfhood Discussions of consciousness operating prior to the formation of a subject can be found in Thomas Metzinger’s analysis of minimal phenomenal selfhood and Shaun Gallagher’s account of pre-reflective awareness. WCAT does not adopt a phenomenological reductionist approach here. Instead, it defines this state as a structural level in which functions are not yet differentiated but are already operational. The focus is not on experiential content, but on whether the system possesses a reflexive interface.

[4] The “Nebula State” as Structure Rather Than Metaphor The term Nebula State is not intended as a poetic metaphor, but as a working concept describing a high-density, low-resolution structure of consciousness. Comparable distinctions exist in neuroscience between distributed processing and localized function. However, WCAT does not advocate direct brain-region mapping.

[5] Theoretical Background: Behavior ≠ Choice The distinction between behavior and choice has long been discussed in ethology and cognitive science. Relevant frameworks include Niko Tinbergen’s four questions of behavior and Daniel Kahneman’s differentiation between automated and deliberative systems. WCAT further argues that without a reflexive interface, even highly complex behavior does not constitute will.

[6] Structural Limits of Non-Self-Reorganizing Systems Systems that exhibit stable behavioral patterns yet lack the capacity for self-reorganization have been discussed within cybernetics and systems theory, notably in W. Ross Ashby’s Law of Requisite Variety. WCAT emphasizes not the complexity of a system, but whether it can re-encode its own mode of operation.

[7] “Circuit Function Fragments” Across the Evolutionary Spectrum Research on partial reflexive behaviors, delayed responses, and strategic adjustments in non-human animals can be referenced through Michael Tomasello’s analysis of the evolutionary conditions for shared intentionality. This work does not propose a linear, gradual evolution of will. Instead, it hypothesizes that functional fragments emerged repeatedly across species but rarely integrated into a stable self-referential system.

[8] Topological Homology Between Individual and Collective Will Structural homologies between individual cognitive systems and social structures can be compared with Pierre Bourdieu’s concept of habitus and Niklas Luhmann’s social systems theory. WCAT uses the term topological homology to emphasize structural correspondence rather than causal reduction.

[9] Reflexivity as the Threshold of Will Reflexivity (or metacognition) as a marker of higher-order consciousness has been explored in Endel Tulving’s work on autobiographical memory and David Premack’s experimental studies on advanced animal cognition. WCAT treats reflexivity not as a continuous measure of ability, but as a necessary condition for structural transition.

[10] Will Is Not a Default Property of Consciousness The assumption that will naturally emerges from consciousness is widespread in both philosophy and popular psychology. Critical discussions can be found in debates surrounding Benjamin Libet’s experiments on the timing of consciousness and action. WCAT’s position is that will is a highly unstable structural outcome, not an inevitable byproduct of increased cognitive complexity.

[11] Methodological Position: Structural Modeling WCAT is a form of structural modeling. Its methodological position is closer to what David Marr described as the computational level, rather than the implementation level or empirical statistical modeling. Accordingly, the concepts and layers presented here should be understood as working hypotheses — open to testing, revision, and falsification — rather than as direct descriptions of empirical facts.

Authorization and Use Statement

(WCAT English White Paper Release · January 18, 2026)

Will-Circuit Activation Theory (W-CAT) is a theoretical framework centered on structural free will, released as a working hypothesis.

Its purpose is to offer a structural perspective that is open to testing, falsification, and extension.

Non-commercial reading, sharing, citation, translation, teaching, and academic discussion are encouraged, provided clear attribution and source tracing are maintained.

As the WCAT framework enters its Logic Frozen Edition (RELEASE v1.0.0) and transitions toward applied interfaces and tools, textual usage rights and application rights are explicitly separated.

Without written authorization from the author, no individual or organization may:

Use WCAT’s theoretical structures, core models, terminology, or derivations for commercial purposes

Develop paid courses, consulting services, products, platforms, or organizational solutions based on WCAT

Apply WCAT structures directly or indirectly to AI model training, system design, or decision agents

Reinterpret or disseminate WCAT in ways that risk theoretical distortion, structural degradation, or misuse

This authorization does not transfer authorship, attribution, academic priority, or application rights, nor does it retroactively alter prior licensing conditions.

Any applied implementation of WCAT must proceed through explicit authorization or a cooperative agreement, under clearly defined ethical boundaries and with established structural responsibility.

© Jiawei. All rights reserved.

⚠ Ethical and Contextual Notice

WCAT provides structural visibility, not moral prescriptions. Users bear reflexive responsibility for its application within their specific contexts.

Citation and Attribution

When citing this work or related theories, please clearly indicate the author, title, and original source, and include the OSF registration link.

Example citation format:

Jiawei. (2026). Will-Circuit Activation Theory (WCAT). A Structural Theory of Will, Meaning, and Agency White Paper. Version 1.0 OSF. https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/86KN7

Jiawei. (2025). Consciousness-Mapping Cosmology. A Structural Framework for Consciousness–Reality Co-construction Across Scales White Paper · Version 1.0. OSF. https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/ZSHGK