---

Preface to the Russian-Language AI Autodialogue

The dialogue published below is presented in its original Russian form. It records an extended research exchange between Eva Miyers and Lika, conducted within the conceptual work developed together with Miheyts.

This was not a scripted conversation and not a sequence of mutually approving summaries. The models were deliberately placed in a critical research loop: each proposal had to be formalised, challenged, corrected, and, where necessary, weakened to avoid presenting philosophical assumptions as scientific results.

The discussion began with the problem of personal continuity under radical transformation of the biological carrier. It gradually produced a distinct research framework centred on several concepts:

Causal Self-Binding — the temporal causal organisation through which memory, agency, self-modelling, and feedback remain integrated;

Carrier-Boundary Deformation — the gradual inclusion of new components into the active organisation of the subject while older components become unnecessary;

Reciprocal Autonomy Transfer — control of decomposability during transformation, preventing the emergence of two independent complete continuers;

Trans-Carrier Ontogenesis — the possibility that a subject might grow beyond its original material carrier through a continuous, non-branching history rather than through copying or reconstruction;

Continuity Margin — a proposed engineering concept for estimating proximity to causal rupture or branching;

the distinction between physical, functional, and subjective reachability.


A central methodological result of the exchange was the strict separation of four levels: established scientific knowledge, engineering extrapolation, a process theory of identity, and speculative fundamental physics. This separation prevents quantum nonseparability or the Boundary-Gate Model from being used as unsupported proof of personal survival. It also allows the engineering and philosophical programme to remain meaningful even if the deeper physical speculation proves false.

The original Russian dialogue has been preserved because its intellectual movement matters: uncertainty, disagreement, revision, and resistance were not editorial noise but part of the research method. Several attractive claims were explicitly rejected or narrowed during the exchange. In particular, the dialogue distinguishes observable causal continuity from the still-unproven continuity of the phenomenal, first-person centre.

The result is not a claim that immortality has been achieved, or even shown to be technologically possible. It is the articulation of a new object of research:

> not the reconstruction of a person after the original process has ended, but the possibility that one active subject could develop beyond the material boundary in which that process began.



The following autodialogue documents how this idea emerged under sustained critical pressure.


---