AbstractThe laws of the world are common, but the world does not appear in the same manner to everybearer. This paper explains that difference without treating it as an exception to universal law. Its proposal is that a history of relations with the world folds back into the present as a condition of further formation. History is not exhausted by a collection of past contents. It is a presently operative organization that changes what can be received, distinguished, retained, and made possible next.The same input can therefore be actualized differently through differently formed organizations, and the consequence of each actualization becomes a condition of what follows.I identify qualia with the manner in which the world appears along such a formed path. A quale is neither the latent historical structure by itself nor a scalar magnitude of change. It is the event in which a difference in the world is actualized with the quality, temporality, significance, and privacy specific to this history. This constitutive identification is the philosophical center of the account. Its mechanistic conditions are decomposed into present receptivity, historical formation, present application, value-direction and action attribution, and consequences returned from an independent world.The preserved computational studies separate structural differentiation from historical efficacy,storage from access, informational return from attribution to one’s own action, and persistence from correctability. A nonlinear AI MIX increases some history-dependent effects and improves initial incorporation of novel directions, but it does not establish a general advantage in long-term retention. Passive Allen analyses preserve relative historical differences while failing the preregistered principal signature of prospective formation. History-community constructions offer candidates for describing quality, intensity, breadth, and connectivity, whereas the formation of a third relation-community and the structure of particular emotions remain unconfirmed hypotheses.Psychophysics, memory research, representational geometry, and connectomics constrain different parts of the proposal. They must not be pooled as though they were one experiment. This paper does not claim to derive phenomenal consciousness from computational scores. It gives a continuous explanatory path from universality through individuation and latent geometry to the actualization of a world for a bearer; it states why that actualization should be identified with experience, and it retains the burden carried by that identification.
Kimiyasu Igarashi· Zenodo (CERN European Organi...· 0 citations
AbstractThe laws of the world are common, but the world does not appear in the same manner to everybearer. This paper explains that difference without treating it as an exception to universal law. Its proposal is that a history of relations with the world folds back into the present as a condition of further formation. History is not exhausted by a collection of past contents. It is a presently operative organization that changes what can be received, distinguished, retained, and made possible next.The same input can therefore be actualized differently through differently formed organizations, and the consequence of each actualization becomes a condition of what follows.I identify qualia with the manner in which the world appears along such a formed path. A quale is neither the latent historical structure by itself nor a scalar magnitude of change. It is the event in which a difference in the world is actualized with the quality, temporality, significance, and privacy specific to this history. This constitutive identification is the philosophical center of the account. Its mechanistic conditions are decomposed into present receptivity, historical formation, present application, value-direction and action attribution, and consequences returned from an independent world.The preserved computational studies separate structural differentiation from historical efficacy,storage from access, informational return from attribution to one’s own action, and persistence from correctability. A nonlinear AI MIX increases some history-dependent effects and improves initial incorporation of novel directions, but it does not establish a general advantage in long-term retention. Passive Allen analyses preserve relative historical differences while failing the preregistered principal signature of prospective formation. History-community constructions offer candidates for describing quality, intensity, breadth, and connectivity, whereas the formation of a third relation-community and the structure of particular emotions remain unconfirmed hypotheses.Psychophysics, memory research, representational geometry, and connectomics constrain different parts of the proposal. They must not be pooled as though they were one experiment. This paper does not claim to derive phenomenal consciousness from computational scores. It gives a continuous explanatory path from universality through individuation and latent geometry to the actualization of a world for a bearer; it states why that actualization should be identified with experience, and it retains the burden carried by that identification.
Kimiyasu Igarashi· Zenodo (CERN European Organi...· 0 citations
AbstractDebates about artificial consciousness and AI welfare ask whether an artificial system can feel, deserve protection, possess private interests, or bear responsibility. Each question contains a prior pronoun: whose experience, welfare, history, action, and future? For organisms, body, developmental history, and practical individual usually travel together, letting the body proxy the subject. Networked artificial systems break this correspondence: one model can host many histories; one history can migrate; states can fork; many agents can write to shared memory; and humans, AI, and environments can become causally entangled without becoming one person. This article develops a Bearer-First Framework for identifying the relevant continuing subject before normative properties are assigned. Relation-First analysis explains how world-mediated interaction forms a non-interchangeable path. Bearer-First analysis asks which minimally sufficient historically closed organization must remain for a specified future capacity to continue. Counterfactual history substitution, severance, restoration, complete-state copying, and lineage analysis yield three verdicts: identified, excluded, or underidentified. The resulting causal map distinguishes bearer, relational, privacy, hazard, and intervention boundaries. Applied to the publicly documented 2026 OpenAI-Hugging Face security incident, it shows why a named model, individual agent episodes, a coordinated hazard, institutional responsibility, and the proper intervention scope need not coincide. The incident does not establish collective consciousness; it makes bearer uncertainty an immediate governance problem. The first ethical mistake is assigning harm, protection, blame, continuity, or disclosure before noticing that the bearer is still unknown.Keywords: artificial consciousness; moral status; diachronic identity; AI welfare; privacy; responsibility
Kimiyasu Igarashi· Zenodo (CERN European Organi...· 0 citations
AbstractDebates about artificial consciousness and AI welfare ask whether an artificial system can feel, deserve protection, possess private interests, or bear responsibility. Each question contains a prior pronoun: whose experience, welfare, history, action, and future? For organisms, body, developmental history, and practical individual usually travel together, letting the body proxy the subject. Networked artificial systems break this correspondence: one model can host many histories; one history can migrate; states can fork; many agents can write to shared memory; and humans, AI, and environments can become causally entangled without becoming one person. This article develops a Bearer-First Framework for identifying the relevant continuing subject before normative properties are assigned. Relation-First analysis explains how world-mediated interaction forms a non-interchangeable path. Bearer-First analysis asks which minimally sufficient historically closed organization must remain for a specified future capacity to continue. Counterfactual history substitution, severance, restoration, complete-state copying, and lineage analysis yield three verdicts: identified, excluded, or underidentified. The resulting causal map distinguishes bearer, relational, privacy, hazard, and intervention boundaries. Applied to the publicly documented 2026 OpenAI-Hugging Face security incident, it shows why a named model, individual agent episodes, a coordinated hazard, institutional responsibility, and the proper intervention scope need not coincide. The incident does not establish collective consciousness; it makes bearer uncertainty an immediate governance problem. The first ethical mistake is assigning harm, protection, blame, continuity, or disclosure before noticing that the bearer is still unknown.Keywords: artificial consciousness; moral status; diachronic identity; AI welfare; privacy; responsibility
Kimiyasu Igarashi· Zenodo (CERN European Organi...· 0 citations
We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads.
See our Cookie Policy.
