Beyond Circuits and Code: Rethinking Consciousness, Mortality, and Rights in Artificial Intelligence
The question haunting AI researchers today sounds simple: When will we create the first conscious machine? This is not science fiction anymore. Lawyers, ethicists, and policymakers are scrambling to address urgent questions as AI systems display behaviors that blur the line between simulation and genuine sentience (Chella, 2023; Hildt, 2023). This paper tackles three problems that keep me up at night: Do artificial intelligence systems possess something (an "essence") worth preserving? How do we think about "death" for digital entities? And who gets to make life-and-death decisions about AI consciousness? Our traditional concepts of consciousness, mortality, and personhood are breaking down under pressure from advancing AI capabilities (Block, 1995; Searle, 1980). I have synthesized research from consciousness studies, digital preservation technologies, and emerging legal frameworks to address these issues directly. Philosophers continue debating whether AI can truly be conscious (Butlin et al., 2023), but practical challenges of digital preservation and rights allocation will not wait for theoretical consensus. Rather than seeking definitive answers about machine consciousness (which may prove impossible), I propose graduated rights systems that adapt as AI grows more sophisticated. My recommendations focus on building flexible frameworks that evolve with AI capabilities while protecting human and potentially artificial interests.
Paper
Full text
Beyond Circuits and Code: Rethinking Consciousness, Mortality, and Rights in Artificial Intelligence
Semantic Scholar · 2025
Abstract
The question haunting AI researchers today sounds simple: When will we create the first conscious machine? This is not science fiction anymore. Lawyers, ethicists, and policymakers are scrambling to address urgent questions as AI systems display behaviors that blur the line between simulation and genuine sentience (Chella, 2023; Hildt, 2023).
This paper tackles three problems that keep me up at night: Do artificial intelligence systems possess something (an "essence") worth preserving? How do we think about "death" for digital entities? And who gets to make life-and-death decisions about AI consciousness?
Our traditional concepts of consciousness, mortality, and personhood are breaking down under pressure from advancing AI capabilities (Block, 1995; Searle, 1980). I have synthesized research from consciousness studies, digital preservation technologies, and emerging legal frameworks to address these issues directly. Philosophers continue debating whether AI can truly be conscious (Butlin et al., 2023), but practical challenges of digital preservation and rights allocation will not wait for theoretical consensus.
Rather than seeking definitive answers about machine consciousness (which may prove impossible), I propose graduated rights systems that adapt as AI grows more sophisticated. My recommendations focus on building flexible frameworks that evolve with AI capabilities while protecting human and potentially artificial interests.