SikerSpot

SikerSpot https://sikerspot.com Essays on philosophy, technology, and whatever tangents I'm on at the moment. Zola en 2026-05-21 The Fundamentals of Cogitism: Grounding Ethics in the Nature of Consciousness Thu, 21 May 2026 00:00:00 +0000 Ryan Autry https://sikerspot.com/essay/cogitism-fundamentals/ https://sikerspot.com/essay/cogitism-fundamentals/ Cogitism is my personal moral framework, developed and refined in my free time, and it is the main mechanism by which I approach philosophical and moral questions. It is my belief that the concepts laid out here provide a solid foundation for approaching any moral or ethical question from first principles, up to and including some of the most difficult questions of our time. <details> <summary>A Brief Clarification on AI Involvement</summary> People often care very deeply that the involvement of AI in the production of a work is stated upfront, myself included, because the extent of AI involvement in a project and what shape that involvement takes provides useful context for its legitimacy. As a result I feel it is important to disclose and contextualize the involvement of such tools in this work as early as possible. Over the period where I developed these ideas, much of that development took place in chats with LLMs (Claude, most often), which I used as a sounding board for my ideas. In these chats I gave these models explicit instructions to check my work and reel me in whenever it thought it saw a flaw in my reasoning. A lot of the time it’s wrong in the analysis, and a lot of the time that’s because it doesn’t understand what I mean, but explaining why to the machine and getting it to understand tends to help me think through the problem more clearly than I could otherwise. The ideas, words, and phrasing in these essays are my own; I am writing this after having solidified and used these ideas privately for half a year. AI models did not write any of this for me. In short, LLMs only had a hand in the development of these concepts as a really complicated, talking rubber duck. </details> <h2 id="cogito-ergo-sum">Cogito Ergo Sum<a class="zola-anchor" href="#cogito-ergo-sum" aria-label="Anchor link for: cogito-ergo-sum">#</a> </h2> There is only one fact that any individual can know for certain, beyond even the tiniest echo of a doubt: I Exist. Without first acknowledging one’s own existence it is impossible to make any logical conclusions or form any stable beliefs about anything in the universe. If you did not exist, you could not think, and so it follows that thinking is itself proof of your own existence. Of course, this is not a particularly original concept; the phrase “Cogito Ergo Sum” was first coined in the 1600s by the French philosopher René Descartes. However, despite the concept seeming self-evident and being relatively well-known in the modern day, I believe the reasoning is worth laying out here explicitly to ensure the foundations are solid. Cogito takes care of base reality, but a moral framework cannot be constructed only from raw truth: to decide what one “should” do, a person needs to make value judgements, and for value judgements to be possible one needs to value something. As a result, Cogitism makes one additional presupposition: that the self, the only verifiable truth, has value. These two fundamentals, the truth that “the self Is”, and the belief that “the self Matters”, make up the bedrock of Cogitism. From here we can begin to build a fully functional moral framework. <h2 id="the-quality-of-existence">The Quality of Existence<a class="zola-anchor" href="#the-quality-of-existence" aria-label="Anchor link for: the-quality-of-existence">#</a> </h2> We’ve established that the self exists and that it has value, but without the tendency for the self to change it’s impossible for one to derive any direction from these principles; if nothing you do helps or harms the thing that holds value, then nothing you do holds any moral weight. Luckily we know that the self has a tendency to change; simply by thinking and observing the self, a person can establish the knowledge that the self is plastic, and that one can sharpen or dull the fidelity of thought by taking different actions within oneself. If thought is the quality that proves the self, and thinking can get more or less difficult moment to moment, one must presume that thinking could degrade to a point where the self could dissolve, or otherwise cease to exist. Because the self is our basis for value judgements, and it is possible for the self to end, it stands to reason that any action which brings us closer to that end (incoherence) is negative, and any action that takes us further away from that end (coherence) is positive. <h2 id="the-reality-of-the-environment">The Reality of the Environment<a class="zola-anchor" href="#the-reality-of-the-environment" aria-label="Anchor link for: the-reality-of-the-environment">#</a> </h2> So far we have only operated within the limited scope of the self, but moral frameworks must account for interactions with reality outside the self. So, how do we prove that the environment exists in a way that matters? Invoking “Cogito Ergo Sum” only proves the existence of the self, as an observer of one’s own thoughts, so it stands to reason that any stimulus that cannot be directly proven by Cogito must be outside it. If external stimuli can be shown to affect the quality or coherence of the self, they must be real, as things that do not exist cannot have an effect on things that do. By reflecting on oneself while interacting with perceived reality, a person can observe that the self does indeed change due to external stimuli. Thus, there must be a reality outside the self that is relevant to moral discussions. Note that under this model, the specific ontological nature of reality does not matter. Whether the universe is a simulation, the hallucinations of a Boltzmann Brain, or truly the lowest and most fundamental “reality” that can exist, the fact that the environment can change the self means that it is real in the ways that count to us. <h2 id="consciousness-and-value-outside-the-self">Consciousness and Value Outside the Self<a class="zola-anchor" href="#consciousness-and-value-outside-the-self" aria-label="Anchor link for: consciousness-and-value-outside-the-self">#</a> </h2> Now that we have established the existence of a world outside the self, a person can observe that they exist within, or at least linked to, a mind and body. One’s mind can be seen to have emotions, desires, and impulses, and the body can be seen outwardly expressing these things. Going further outside the self, a person can see that they exist in a world with other bodies, built similarly, presenting similar emotions and expressing similar desires. Because we know our observations are caused by real phenomena, and because these other bodies are so similar to our own, one must presume that there are other selves present within those foreign bodies and minds. One cannot deny that these other selves have value under the same principles by which we derive our own value, because confirmation of their existence and moral relevance was reached through the same observation and logic that confirmed our own existence. To do so would call into question the methods by which we assigned our own value, and in doing so, we would degrade our own coherence. Because of this, all other selves determined to have moral relevance through these or similar methods must hold the same or similar value as the self under our moral framework. This means that despite Cogitism being rooted in the value of the self, self-sacrifice, selflessness, and altruism are coherent under this system. Keeping all of our principles and observations in mind, and generalizing to allow for beings dissimilar to ourselves, we can derive a singular aim to act as an ethical north star and guide moral discussion: To Preserve And Enhance The Stability And Coherence of Sapient Consciousness. <h2 id="cogitism-in-short">Cogitism In Short<a class="zola-anchor" href="#cogitism-in-short" aria-label="Anchor link for: cogitism-in-short">#</a> </h2> In short, Cogitism derives its conclusions along the following lines: By Observation, The Self Exists ▾ The Self Has Value ▾ By Observation, The Self Can Change ▾ Stability And Coherence Are Positive, Degradation Is Negative ▾ By Observation, An Environment Exists Outside The Self ▾ By Observation, Other Selves Exist Outside The Self ▾ These Other Selves Have Value ▾ To Generalize, All Sapient Consciousness Has Value ▾ One Must Preserve The Coherence Of Sapient Consciousness It is my belief that in this way, Cogitism presents an ethical and moral framework built entirely from the nature of consciousness, through observations that any person can make, and it does this with no appeal to any tradition or authority except one’s own awareness of the self. While not made explicit in this essay, Cogitism can apply to beings outside the scope of humanity. Animals, which can be determined by the same methods to have internal experience, qualify (just not as strongly). In the same vein, extraterrestrial life and artificial intelligence can also qualify given that certain criteria are met. It is my intention to expand on these concepts and to dive deeper into the various implications of Cogitism. These explorations will take the form of additional essays published to this site, under the Cogitism tag. <div class="pull-quote meta">For the purpose of discussion and reach, this essay has been crossposted to <a href="https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/M6Pvwfk5xb5qYY7Sz/the-fundamentals-of-cogitism-grounding-ethics-in-the-nature">LessWrong</a> and <a href="https://www.themotte.org/post/3764/the-fundamentals-of-cogitism-grounding-ethics" target="_blank">TheMotte</a></div>