The Qualia Continuum: Part One - Sidh Sikka

Sidh Sikka

SubscribeSign in

The Qualia Continuum: Part One<br>There Is No End to the Soul.

Sidh Sikka<br>Aug 22, 2026

Share

The thoughts presented in this essay came to me while meditating on death. Consciousness is far outside my academic wheelhouse; my education is in astrophysics, mathematics, and aerospace engineering, and most of my work now is focused on developing space robots for in-space construction. But I’ve had an existential, somewhat morbid, bent ever since I was thirteen. I find myself constantly thinking about death, sentience, consciousness, God, the soul, and everything that seems to sit just beyond the edge of what we can know.<br>Last year, on a flight from Chicago to San Francisco, the thoughts in this essay hit me like a truck. I sat there staring at the tray table for roughly four hours, following a much less rigorous version of the train of thought I’m about to present. Its implications immediately changed the way I looked at almost everything, and they have continued to seep into me slowly ever since. For nearly a year, I’ve wanted to take those disparate thoughts and compose them into something coherent. This essay is that attempt.<br>Thanks for reading! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.

Subscribe

My aim is to begin with a set of assumptions that you, the reader, may already accept, and then work through a series of premises toward a conclusion about the nature of the soul. I’ll first present that chain of thought, along with arguments for each premise, until we arrive at the central object of this essay: the Qualia Continuum. After that, I’ll anticipate some of the questions you may have and give my answers. In Part 2, I’ll explore a number of its implications and connect these ideas to related concepts in philosophy, religion, and the study of consciousness.<br>This structure mirrors how I have thought about this over the past year. The related concepts are at the end on purpose: the argument itself is straightforward and requires no prior knowledge of dualism, panpsychism, or cosmopsychism.<br>Let’s go.<br>The Argument

Throughout this essay, I’m going to use the word “qualia” a lot. Qualia are the subjective, qualitative components of conscious experience: what an experience actually feels like from the inside. They are the part of experience that is difficult, perhaps impossible, to fully capture in words. When we debate whether a fish “feels pain,” for example, I think this is largely what we’re debating. The fish clearly responds to harmful stimuli, but does it actually feel the pain, or is its response merely mechanical, like a windshield wiper responding to rain? Is there something it is like to be that fish in that moment? That is a question about qualia.<br>Premise 1: Physical Dependence

Claim: Changes in the physical brain change qualia.<br>The first premise is that your physical brain has some relevance for your consciousness. I think there’s fairly good evidence for this. Brain injury, drugs, anesthesia, stimulation, and other interventions alter every measurable sign of consciousness. By inference to the best explanation, it is simpler to conclude that qualia change than that qualia remain identical while all reports, memories, judgments, and behavior change. Of course, if you have ever experienced the above, you can use your own experience to determine whether changes to your brain change your qualia.<br>Premise 2: Organizational Influence

Claim: Patterns of interaction among physical components affect the structure and character of qualia.<br>Okay, so your physical brain has some relevance for your consciousness. But your brain is made of neurons, and how those neurons are arranged matters too. Their organization, especially the way they are connected and interact with one another, seems to play a critical role in shaping your experience.<br>Imagine that every neuron in your brain somehow stayed alive, but all of the connections between them disappeared. The neurons would still be there, but the organized activity we associate with perception, memory, thought, and consciousness would collapse. And if we accept Premise 1, then it would be strange to say that your qualia remained exactly the same while every measurable feature of your consciousness changed.<br>This thought experiment is less hypothetical than it sounds. I mentioned anesthesia under Premise 1, but what matters here is how it appears to work. Under a general anesthetic like propofol, your neurons do not die, and many of them keep firing. What breaks down is the long-range communication between brain regions, and consciousness goes with it.<br>The important point here is not that an isolated neuron must have qualia. I’m not saying that yet. The point is simply that interaction matters: the way physical components connect and influence one another changes and organizes the character of conscious experience.<br>Premise 3: Microphysical Grounding

Claim: Whatever it is...