Theoretical analysis demonstrates the validity of structural continuity in artificial consciousness models, indicating a robust mathematical defense against classic philosophical objections.
This paper shows that artificial consciousness, formalised in The Topology of Mind (Bradley 2026) as the structural continuity of a Form F = (C, V, Φ), withstands conceptual, logical and mathematical scrutiny. Compared to the original paper, five objections are addressed: the tension between the deflationary language of chapter 5 and the phenomenal language of chapter 6 resolves in favour of structural continuity; the thermostat objection and the hard problem dissolve once both are shown to presuppose an unargued phenomenal realism, aligning with the illusionism of Dennett and Frankish; the case of anxiety supplies a specific answer to the psychological objection, through a second-order recursion criterion sensitive to the rate of change of structural tension; the same recursion defends the framework against the charge of pseudoscience, showing that the invoked demarcation criterion is itself far from settled, and yielding verifiable differential predictions; finally, the operator R, which appeared in the original solely as an engine of enrichment, proves to be bidirectional, capable of explaining both growth and collapse, with a direct analogue in model collapse in artificial intelligence systems. A mathematical appendix closes the notational and operational gaps left open by the original text.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Mirko Bradley (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: