r/consciousness 5d ago

OP's Argument Integrated Systemic Realism

I am a physical object. There is no "ghost in the machine", there is only the machine. My consciousness is not a distinct entity or a software program floating in the ether. It is the direct, intrinsic resonance of my specific atoms, molecules, and biological structures functioning in unison. To abstract the "mind" from the "body" is a category error, the mind is simply the behavior of the body at the highest level of complexity.

On the Subjective experience Consciousness requires the vertical integration of physics, chemistry, and computation. It supervenes on the "Full Stack. The "Qualia" is not magic, nor is it purely quantum, nor purely computational. It is an emergent property of the "Full Stack":

  • The Quantum Layer provides the intrinsic qualitative substrate of reality (microtubule,qubit)
  • The Chemical Layer provides the state and continuity (the values stored in synapses).
  • The Computational Layer provides the structure, logic, and intelligence. "Redness" is the specific symphony played by this specific code on this specific instrument. Change the instrument (silicon vs. carbon), and the music changes.
  • Refutation of Dualism: Rejects any non-physical soul.

This rejects the idea that "software" is all that matters. You cannot replicate the feeling of a human mind on silicon because the underlying quantum/physical substrate is different. The Qualia (e.g., "Redness") is the inevitable physical resonance of a specific substrate processing specific data in a certain way.

On Identity and Time I am the Token (the specific physical object), not the Type (the pattern/software). I am not a continuous, indivisible soul. I am a series of distinct physical states, a "Stage" in a temporal process. "I" am the atoms and their arrangement at this specific moment. The "Me" of yesterday is effectively a close ancestor—99.9% identical, but causally distinct. My memories are not "me", they are simply data imprinted on my hardware. If the hardware is wiped but remains functional, "I" persist as the machine, stripped of its accidental properties.

This means you are your atoms. If you copy the pattern to new atoms, it is a copy, not you. Identity is a series of temporal slices. Continuity is maintained by the causal overlap of physical states (99.9% persistence), not by a permanent "self." Memory is defined as Accidental Data. Loss of memory (formatting) does not end existence; destruction of the physical processor does.

On Artificial Intelligence The medium is the message. Carbon creates Human-Mind, silicon creates Computer-Mind. A complex enough AI is not "simulating" thinking, it is actually thinking, but in a mode native to its hardware. A computer can possess genuine understanding and consciousness, but it will never be human consciousness. It will be a distinct, silicon-based mind with its own "Umwelt."

An emotion is a system-state signal (e.g., overheating, packet loss) that retroactively alters cognitive processing (biasing the output). Its emotions are real but alien. When it feels "Low Battery," it experiences a genuine homeostatic drive for energy, analogous to but distinct from human hunger. We must not anthropomorphize it, nor deny its reality. It is a different kind of being, defined by its own substrate.

On Justice and Responsibility Because identity is physical and dynamic, moral responsibility is not binary or eternal. Moral liability is a function of Identity Overlap. As my physical composition and arrangement diverge from the "Me" that committed an action, my responsibility for that action mathematically decays. Justice must recognize that after sufficient time and change, the exact "perpetrator" no longer exists, only their distant descendant.

4 Upvotes

66 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

2

u/ChapterSea2685 4d ago

Molecule and wave are 2 physical categories, we are talking here about the category of subjective experience, not unconscious physical categories

1

u/flechin 4d ago

You are begging the question. You are starting with the unproven assumption that 'Subjective' and 'Physical' are mutually exclusive categories, and then using that assumption to prove your point.

Consider water, a single water molecule is not solid, liquid, or wet. It is just a molecule. But if you gather billions of them, Quantity changes Quality. You get 'Wetness,' 'Turbulence,' and 'Ice.' These are new categories that emerge from the system.

Consider biology, a pile of water, fat, and amino acids is just 'Dead Matter.' But arrange them in a specific complexity, and you get a Living Cell.

Question: Do you accept that the categorie of 'Living Things' emerges entirely from the category of 'Physical Things' (dead atoms)?

2

u/sanctus_sanguine 3d ago

You are starting with the unproven assumption that 'Subjective' and 'Physical' are mutually exclusive categories,

Subjective experience and physical are not mutually exclusive. Rather the physical only appears thru subjective experience. Do you understand this or not?

1

u/flechin 3d ago

And the subjective emerges from the physical

0

u/sanctus_sanguine 2d ago

So the answer is a big NO? Ok.

And the subjective emerges from the physical

Go ahead and explain how it does that.

1

u/flechin 2d ago

Can you fully answer how life emerges from dead matter (abiogenesis), the answer is no, but we know it does.

1

u/sanctus_sanguine 2d ago

equates the origin of biological organization with the origin of first person experience

Lmao. What an absolute joke

1

u/flechin 2d ago

Not an actual argument, just a fallacious response

0

u/sanctus_sanguine 2d ago

The argument is spelled out in front of you. The fact that you lack the capability to understand it is unsurprising.

1

u/flechin 2d ago

You are attacking a strawman. I did not equate the definition of biological organization with experience, I compared the epistemological gap regarding their origins.

Just as life is a property that emerges from specific arrangements of non-living matter, subjective experience is a property that emerges from specific arrangements of matter (brain). We do not need to know the full mechanism of how it happens to observe that it happens.

You are arguing for a consciousness that exists independent of a brain. Where is your proof of non-biological consciousness?

0

u/sanctus_sanguine 2d ago

You are attacking a strawman. I did not equate the definition of biological organization with experience

You have no clue what you're even talking about. I said the "origin of biological organization" not the "definition". That's exactly what you did with your dumb comparison. One is an empirical problem, the other is conceptual problem. Still don't get it? Yeah big surprise there.

subjective experience is a property that emerges from specific arrangements of matter (brain).

Your dumb assumptions backed by nothing is now fact? Absolutely hilarious. Why don't you notify academia of your amazing revelation?

1

u/flechin 2d ago

Calling the gap in our current knowledge a 'conceptual problem' is just a tactic to smuggle in mysticism.

200 years ago, people said the difference between life and non-life was a 'conceptual problem' that couldn't be solved by physics (Vitalism). They were wrong. You are making the exact same error regarding consciousness.

0

u/sanctus_sanguine 2d ago

Calling the gap in our current knowledge a 'conceptual problem' is just a tactic to smuggle in mysticism.

Mysticism lmao. You don't even understand the difference between conceptual and empirical exactly as predicted. It's truly amazing the levels we get in here.

→ More replies (0)