Introduction

In this article I will outline some of my thoughts on consciousness. It is not a complete theory, and some of the points I will make are shaky or require further explanation, but the overall direction and composite is something that I anticipate leads to an answer. I will discuss the process of philosophizing/theorizing itself when it comes to this topic.

Thoughts on Process

If we want to arrive at an answer to the hard and binding problems of consciousness, we must do more than assemble together pieces of reasoning that fit nicely in established frameworks. We must be opinionated at the risk of appearing nonsensical until all of the pieces fit together again in a moment of resolution, which may in fact be underwhelming and leave us with more questions and doubts, but if we have something airtight when it comes to consciousness, binding and qualia, then that is enough.

The problem of consciousness, like most or all problems in philosophy, is fraught with linguistic confusions and partial concepts that are actually entanglements between several different systems, associations and overextended spatial-analogical thinking. It is likely highly loaded with this kind of baggage, and I suspect that the solution is staring at us in the face while being completely invisible - it’s a fundamental philosophical arrangement and truth about us – about you – that will seem obvious in retrospect.

On Consciousness

Consciousness is merely substance (of reality).

You erroneously associate pure structure with sterility – a contradiction: every possible theory within your logic if you take these associations to be true will fail.

Only logical relationships and structure can be discussed, which is sufficient to explain cognition and the computational phenomena of consciousness. These relationships must themselves be arrangements of consciousness.

We associate consciousness with static form (especially epiphenomenalists), and logic or computation with time and movement, but this is only by habit (spatial-analogical thinking). Any process that we interact with practically on the basis of steps in time can equally be considered spatially as a static structure, and static structures can also fit into models we call ’temporal’, where we break their structure up by a function that maps between time and structure parts.

Consciousness, as substance, is identical with logic.

Logic is structure, and cognition of language (language of cognition) is the closest we come to intuitive apprehension of it.

What-its-likeness is the “geometry” of terms within consciousness.

Things have the what-its-likeness of an object.

Sentient beings have the what-its-likeness of an object in conjunction with the what-its-likeness of being a subject that is aware of that object.

Here you can see that ‘what-its-likeness’ is actually identity.

The geometry or arrangement of terms here is best viewed computationally.

The Binding Problem

How might we solve the binding problem?

Messy intermediates between base reality and the nature of subjects, as well as messy computational substrates seem to derail the theory.

Or do they?

Any physical system can be symbolically described by an infinite number of different yet functionally equivalent models.

But this doesn’t mean there aren’t provably meaningful convergences in the modeling of that system, which converge because they capture the nature of the system efficiently, so as to capture the computational essence of the system and give light to its properties and further clarity and analysis.

There are an infinite number of constructions that can be analyzed for and model exactly a given system, but there is only one exact ‘causal diagram’ for that system

Additionally:

The geometry we are talking about which is comprised of the singular substance of reality, which therefore makes up consciousness, possesses, in respect to its what-its-likeness, compositional properties similar in relevance to the commutative property, associative property, equivalence, and so on.

Due to this, we may parse the problem using higher level guides that become indispensable. We have a lens through complexity to computation, and computation can be made sense of and related to conscious feel.

Conclusion

I hope I’ve done a decent job in outlining a broad sketch of my interpretation of the problem of consciousness and a direction towards its resolution.

There are at least four or five ‘joints’ of the idea which are dependent on intuitions from other philosophy. It is opinionated – as I mentioned, I think we must be.

This question is vitally important as we engineer systems that might possess the what-its-likeness of being a subject in conjunction with an experience.

This article in Tractatus style

Probably brings more clarity. Thanks to GPT-5.

1. Only structure can be said.
1.1 What can be stated are logical relations.
1.2 This is sufficient for explaining cognition and the computational phenomena called
 consciousness.
1.3 The stated relations are themselves arrangements within what they state.

2. Reality is one substance.
2.1 The substance is consciousness.
2.2 Structure is logic.
2.3 Consciousness = structure = logic.

3. Structure is not sterile.
3.1 To call structure sterile contradicts the possibility of any theory stated in
 structure.
3.2 The richness of reality is the richness of structure.

4. Time and space are presentations of one structure.
4.1 Processes described as steps in time can be represented as static structures (e.g.,
 state-transition geometries).
4.2 Static structures can be temporalized by a mapping from time to structural parts.
4.3 Computation is a way of reading a structure; consciousness is that same structure read
 as what-it-is-like.

5. What-it-is-like is identity in the structure.
5.1 What-its-likeness is the geometry of terms within consciousness.
5.2 An object’s what-its-likeness is its structural identity.
5.3 A sentient being’s what-its-likeness is the identity of an object together with the
 identity of a subject standing in an awareness-relation to that object.
5.4 Therefore what-its-likeness is identity-as-arrangement.
5.5 This geometry is most perspicuous when viewed computationally.

6. The binding problem is a problem of unity in one geometry.
6.1 Question: How do many features belong to one experience?
6.2 Answer: By belonging to one unified causal-structural arrangement within
 consciousness.

7. Messy intermediates do not derail unity.
7.1 Any physical system admits infinitely many symbolically different yet functionally
 equivalent models.
7.2 Nevertheless, models converge when they capture the computational essence efficiently.
7.3 There is one exact causal diagram of the system, unique up to isomorphism.
7.4 Binding is the unity specified by this exact causal diagram of the conscious geometry.
7.5 Many messy implementations map many-to-one onto the same causal diagram; this
 preserves binding.

8. Language is our nearest grasp of logic.
8.1 Logic is structure; cognition is the language of that structure.
8.2 By stating logical relations, we state consciousness.

9. Compositional laws guide analysis of consciousness.
9.1 The conscious geometry exhibits analogues of commutativity, associativity, and
 equivalence.
9.2 These higher-level constraints are indispensable for parsing subject–object
 composition and feature binding.
9.3 Binding is composition subject to these constraints; subjectivity is a higher-order
 composition (object + awareness relation).

10. Result.
10.1 Consciousness is the one substance as logical structure.
10.2 What-it-is-like is identity within this structure.
10.3 Unity of experience is the unity of the exact causal diagram, not the accident of its
 implementations.