Republicans have run America for two years.

1. President
2. Senate
3. House of Representatives
4. Supreme Court

For two years, the Republicans have had their way, with the Supreme Court ruling for Republicans on virtually every important issue, and Congress being nothing more than a Trump lapdog.

Given such massive power, this is what the Republicans have “accomplished”:

1. Cancel the Iran treaty. Promise no war. Start the Iran war.
2. Cause the oil shortage
3. Deny there is uncontrolled inflation: Energy/ food costs soar
4. End healthcare insurance for millions
5. Make the richest 5% richer — make the rest of us poorer
6. Create a lack of affordability that is destroying families
7. Foment hatred and racism.
8. Deny election results, threatening democracy.
9. I.C.E. illegal Gestapo cruelty tactics — 35,000 children separated
10. Punish the media for unfavorable news.
11. Refuse to obey court orders.
12. Make enemies of allies
13. Hide Epstein files
14. Fire experienced generals, Hire Hegseth
15. Support of Putin’s communist dictatorship–Blame Ukraine for war
16. Deny climate change
17. End support for renewable energy. Support coal instead.
18. Anti-vaccination — measles death and illness
19. End support for medical R&D
20. The most corrupt administration in U.S. history.

Now Trump makes plans for martial law if they lose the elections. And they want our votes??? Do they think we are that stupid? Are we?

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

This is how close we are to Trump becoming a dictator. The only way to prevent it is to make the vote so overwhelming that even the most rabid, stupid, crazed, traitorous MAGAs cannot claim they lost because the “election was rigged.”

Trump allies discuss martial law ahead of midterms

Story by Amanda Castro 

Allies of President Donald Trump are openly discussing martial law and other extraordinary federal action if they conclude that next month’s midterm elections have been “rigged.”

The proposals come less than three weeks before Election Day and raise questions about what power a president actually has to intervene in elections. Under existing federal law, however, a president cannot simply declare martial law to postpone an election, seize ballots, or take control of state election systems.

Axios reported Friday that prominent MAGA election activists have advocated extraordinary measures while warning of election-security problems they believe could emerge in November. Axios noted that no evidence shows the elections will be rigged and that some proposed actions extend beyond Trump‘s legal authority.

But Trump already has proved he doesn’t care about “legal authority.” His goons recently sawed down 400 trees in a Washington park, after a federal judge specifically told him not to. And he now says he will cut even more, no matter what the judge says.

Peter Ticktin, an attorney for election activist Tina Peters and a childhood friend of Trump, said during a September 30 Rumble call for MAGA election activists that “there would have to be martial law in the event…[of] another rigged election.”

Get that? “Another” rigged election. He’s talking about the 2020 election that he lost by 8 million votes. In the MAGA mind, any election Trump loses is “rigged.” That is their definition of democracy.

Ticktin subsequently told Axios that authorities would probably need to commandeer ballots and election equipment to investigate what happened before proceeding further. He told the Daily Beast that his proposal applied only to what he described as a “nightmare scenario” in which foreign interests took control of election equipment and affected the result.

Will that be the claim — that “foreign interests? took control of election equipment? The most prominent “foreign interest” meddling in our elections in Vladimir Putin, Trump’s favorite dictator, who continually tries to help Trump win. Why? Because he knows Trump is a disaster for America.

Putin knows that having Trump as President is the easiest way to defeat America without having to fire a shot. In fact, he would like to use America’s own military to subdue us,

This is not a drill. Peters participated in the September 30 call and met with Trump this month, according to Axios. She was convicted in 2024 of crimes connected to a breach of election equipment before Colorado Governor Jared Polis commuted her sentence this year. Peters and Ticktin also visited Trump at the White House in late June.

Another participant, Gregory Stenstrom, advocated pausing the election over security concerns or, alternatively, using the National Emergencies Act to compel changes in how states administer elections. Peters has also promoted replacing voting machines with hand-marked paper ballots and, where possible, conducting manual recounts.

What Is Martial Law?
Martial law traditionally describes the extreme step of military authorities taking the place of civilian ones, potentially including soldiers performing policing functions and military tribunals handling matters ordinarily heard by civilian courts.

Could Trump Declare Martial Law? What the Constitution Says
The president’s power is far more limited than the phrase “martial law” suggests. The Constitution does not expressly grant the president authority to declare it, and no existing federal statute explicitly authorizes the president to do so.

The Supreme Court has also never conclusively ruled that the federal government has a general martial-law power or established that a president could exercise one without congressional authorization.

The Brennan Center says that a unilateral presidential declaration would run afoul of the framework the Supreme Court established in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (1952). Congress has enacted extensive restrictions on domestic military activity, including the Posse Comitatus Act, which generally prohibits federal armed forces from participating in civilian law enforcement unless Congress authorizes it.

Because Congress has legislated extensively in this area, the report concludes that a president could not override those restrictions merely by invoking martial law.

Jasmine Mines, an attorney whose practice includes federal criminal defense and post-conviction constitutional litigation, told Newsweek that allegations of a rigged election would not provide a president with authority to impose martial law.

“Not in any meaningful legal sense, and certainly not because of allegations about an election,” Mines said. “No federal statute authorizes a president to declare martial law, so anyone claiming the power would have to find it in the Constitution itself.”

Pointing to the Supreme Court’s 1866 decision in Ex parte Milligan, Mines said the court held that martial rule “can never exist where the courts are open, and in the proper and unobstructed exercise of their jurisdiction.”

“On Election Day, the courts will be open,” Mines said. “A claim that an election was rigged is a claim to take to those courts, not a reason to replace them.”

Mines similarly said neither martial law, the Insurrection Act nor an emergency declaration would give the president those powers. She noted that the National Emergencies Act requires presidents to identify the specific statutory authorities they intend to invoke.

“There is no statute he could name that lets him postpone a federal election, stop a count, take custody of ballots, or order a nationwide hand recount,” Mines said.

Trump would not bother with the niceties of naming a statute. He merely would order the military to take over, and if the military obeyed his orders, who could stop him?

If a general refused, Trump simply would replace the general with one of Trump’s toadies, who are all around him. Look at your own friends and acquaintances. Wouldn’t at least one or two of them agree to be head of the U.S. military and agree to Trump being dictator?

For congressional elections, she added, the Constitution gives each chamber of Congress, not the president, the power to judge the elections, returns, and qualifications of its own members.

The Brennan Center’s Derek Tisler similarly told Axios that emergency powers are not a “blank check” that lets presidents disregard the Constitution or federal law.

Newsweek reached out to Tisler for additional comment.

Presidents do possess substantial authority to deploy troops domestically without imposing martial law. The Insurrection Act provides circumstances in which a president may use federal forces to suppress insurrection, enforce federal law, or protect constitutional rights when specific statutory conditions are met.

But the Brennan Center notes that the law does not expressly authorize the military to replace civilian government, making invocation of the Insurrection Act legally distinct from martial law.

Trump simply would claim that there is an insurrection and call out the military. The crazy MAGAs would go along with it until they themselves are dragged off to jail. That’s what happens in all military takeovers. People who thought they were safe suddenly learned otherwise.

For example:

Name	Position	Year	How They Left
Steve Bannon	Chief White House Strategist	2017	Fired
Reince Priebus	White House Chief of Staff	2017	Replaced
Anthony Scaramucci	White House Communications Director	2017	Fired
Rex Tillerson	Secretary of State	2018	Fired
H. R. McMaster	National Security Adviser	2018	Replaced
Jeff Sessions	Attorney General	2018	Forced to resign
John Kelly	White House Chief of Staff	2018	Pushed out
John Bolton	National Security Adviser	2019	Fired; departure disputed
Mark Esper	Secretary of Defense	2020	Fired
Chris Krebs	Cybersecurity Agency Director	2020	Fired
Michael Waltz	National Security Adviser	2025	Removed from position
Billy Long	IRS Commissioner	2025	Removed from position
Kristi Noem	Secretary of Homeland Security	2026	Reportedly fired or reassigned
Pam Bondi	Attorney General	2026	Reportedly ousted
Katie Zacharia	White House Press Secretary	2026	Reportedly fired
Kimberly Guilfoyle	Ambassador to Greece	2026	Reportedly asked to step down

Federal law also specifically restricts military involvement in elections. Mines cited 18 U.S.C. § 592, which makes it a crime for federal civil or military personnel to station troops at polling places, except when necessary to repel armed enemies of the United States.

She also cited 18 U.S.C. § 593, which prohibits members of the armed forces from imposing election rules different from those prescribed by law or interfering with election officials carrying out their duties.

“Each carries up to five years in prison,” Mines said.

She argued that those congressional restrictions matter under the Supreme Court framework established in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, under which presidential power is weakest when the president acts contrary to Congress’ expressed will.

Why Martial Law Is Being Discussed by Trump Allies
The calls for extraordinary action reflect years of continued skepticism about U.S. election systems among some Trump supporters following his false claims of widespread fraud in the 2020 election.

There still are fools who believe Trump, despite all evidence that he is a compulsive liar. Why do they believe him? It’s a combination of things:

1. Hatred/fear of those who are not white, male, Christians born in America to white, male, Christian parents who also were born in America.

2. Those self-proclaimed patriots, who actively want to see America’s downfall and who, despite history, believe a fallen America will be good for them.

3. Those who, despite history, believe Republicans will make them richer, and that Democrats will make them poorer.

4. Ignorance.

The debate also comes as people who challenged the 2020 outcome hold positions or maintain influence around Trump’s administration.

Heather Honey, who disputed the 2020 election results in Pennsylvania and Arizona, now serves as the Department of Homeland Security’s deputy assistant secretary for election integrity.

White House adviser Peter Navarro has continued to promote his claims of widespread irregularities in the 2020 election.

If Trump succeeds, people like Heather Honey and Peter Navarro, will be tossed aside in favor of others whom Trump likes better that day. It Trump-world, loyalty is a one-way street.

The White House did not directly answer Newsweek‘s questions about whether Trump supports calls for martial law or would consider using martial law or other emergency authorities in connection with the midterms. challenged the legitimacy of the November election.

In the past, we always could be sure that our President, at the very least, would obey court orders.  Trump has proved that our trust was naive. A psychopath, who has no concern for anything or anyone but himself, will not be restrained by a judge’s order.

Trump must be made to believe that illegal orders will not be followed and that any attempt to overturn the election will result in jail time.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

 

 

 

 

Seniors will pay more for Medicare, and it isn’t necessary.

First, we’ll explain what is projected to happen. Then we’ll discuss the reasons. And finally, we will offer a better solution.

Here are some excerpts from an article in the 10/13/2026 Florida Sun Sentinel:

Seniors will pay more for Medicare in 2027; big changes coming across all plans Big changes coming across all plans in 2027
By Cindy Krischer Goodman, South Florida Sun Sentinel

Florida’s 5.3 million Medicare enrollees face a sweeping financial squeeze in 2027 as rising monthly premiums, higher prescription deductibles, and shrinking Medicare Advantage benefits hit simultaneously.

Medicare experts warn that keeping coverage on “autopilot” during Open Enrollment (through Dec. 7) could take a heavy toll on seniors’ fixed incomes come January.

“It looks like Medicare is going to be more expensive,” said Beatrice Scafidi, SHINE liaison with the Area Agency on Aging of Palm Beach/Treasure Coast. “I think the deductible and premiums are going to go up, and your visits to the doctor will cost you more.

Your co-pays are going to go up, so if you paid $10 bucks to see your primary last year, you may need to pay $20.”

An additional 140,000 Florida seniors enrolled in Medicare for 2027. Federal projections show as many as 700,000 additional Floridians joining Medicare by 2030.

Despite a growing pool of paying members, insurers face severe profit squeezes and operational strains that are reshaping how care is delivered in the Sunshine State. 

Almost all Florida seniors will be affected as Medicare Advantage plans pare benefits and raise deductibles, while traditional Medicare sees higher Part D out-of-pocket spending caps and the elimination of $0-premium standalone drug plans.

Higher Original Medicare costs for 2027
As Florida’s Medicare population swells, upcoming federal cost-sharing adjustments to Medicare Part B will affect seniors whether they choose Original Medicare or Medicare Advantage.

For those on Original Medicare, the monthly Part B premium — which covers physician visits, outpatient services, diagnostic tests, and preventive screenings — is projected to rise to $209.50 in 2027, up $6.60 per month.

Because premiums are deducted directly from Social Security checks, this increase — combined with higher prescription deductibles — will eat into seniors’ annual Cost-of-Living Adjustment before the money arrives.

In addition, the annual Part B deductible is projected to rise about 3% to $292 in 2027, up $9 from $283 the previous year.

Medigap plans get more costly
For most Florida seniors, Medigap (Medicare Supplement) policies will also cost more in 2027. Carriers nationwide are raising monthly rates, driven by seniors seeking more medical care and policyholders growing older.

The above are reasons #1 and #2.

#1 People want more medical care
#2 Policy holders are growing older.

In Florida, supplements have become an increasingly popular way to cover the 20% uncapped coinsurance left by Original Medicare. Adding a Medigap policy generally costs between $150 and $300 or more per month, depending on plan type, location, age, gender, and tobacco status.

“Medicare supplements on average are going up 10 to 15 percent yearly. Even the high deductible Plan G, which usually never has an increase, is getting hit,” said Evan Tunis, president of E&M Global Insurance in Parkland.

Hollywood insurance broker Ricky Rash with Health Options USA sees the same trend. “Anybody who’s on straight Medicare with a supplement is going to be in for sticker shock,” he said.

Medicare Advantage plans shift costs to enrollees
A defining feature of Florida’s Medicare Advantage market is the prevalence of plans charging no monthly premium beyond the beneficiary’s required Part B expense. That trend continues in 2027, with approximately 77% of Broward County’s plan choices and 74% of Palm Beach County’s offering $0 monthly premiums.

Across all plans in the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services landscape, the average monthly consolidated premium for Medicare Advantage with Part D is $6.35 in Broward County and $7.81 in Palm Beach County.

However, a $0-premium plan can still require substantial deductibles, specialist copays, and prescription cost-sharing. Provider networks can also differ significantly between plans. As a result, choosing a plan based solely on monthly premiums can be misleading. As Rash points out, two $0-premium options can differ by thousands of dollars in total out-of pocket spending over a year depending on an individual’s health needs.

Heading into 2027, private insurers are responding to rising healthcare usage and tighter federal risk-adjustment rules by raising specialist copays, increasing inpatient hospital charges, and shifting more services from flat copays to percentage-based coinsurance.

Reason #3. Private insurers, facing higher costs, must increase premiums.

“The importance of reviewing coverage is particularly high for people already enrolled in Medicare Advantage,” said Scafidi with SHINE, noting that carriers may remain in a county while quietly modifying copays, benefits or doctor networks.

Florida has long been a leading market for Part B Premium Reduction (“giveback”) plans, in which Medicare Advantage carriers credit money directly back into a beneficiary’s Social Security check. For 2027, several major carriers are scaling down or eliminating these rebate dollars altogether.

Insurers are also raising annual out-of-pocket maximums. If an enrollee faces a major illness or hospital stay, they could pay significantly more before coverage kicks in at 100%.

Drug costs will rise
Whether an enrollee relies on Original Medicare or Medicare Advantage, medication expenses are heading up in 2027.
Nationally, about 25 million people are enrolled in standalone Medicare Part D plans, while another 31 million are in Medicare Advantage plans that include prescription drug coverage, according to a KFF analysis of CMS data.

In Florida, more than 3.1 million seniors are enrolled in Medicare Advantage plans with drug coverage, while about 850,000 rely on standalone Part D plans paired with Original Medicare. In 2027, 11 standalone Part D plans will be offered across all Florida counties, up from 10 in 2026.

CMS reports that 52.69% of Floridians in standalone Part D plans have access to a lower-premium option than in 2026. Monthly standalone premiums in Florida range from $5.30 for a Centene/Wellcare plan to $326 for a Blue Cross Blue Shield of Florida plan.

Seniors should evaluate more than just monthly premiums. Standard Part D prescription deductibles jump nearly 14% to $700 in 2027 (up from $615 in 2026). The annual out-of pocket prescription spending cap rises to $2,400 (up from $2,100 in 2026). Once beneficiaries reach this threshold, covered prescriptions are 100% free for the rest of the
calendar year.

Seniors can also use the Medicare Prescription Payment Plan, a voluntary program launched by CMS that allows Part D enrollees to spread out-of-pocket pharmacy costs into manageable monthly installments throughout the year. “It doesn’t lower the amount, it just spreads costs out,” said Alex Cottrill, a KFF senior policy analyst for Medicare. “That’s an option some people might not be aware of.”

Cottrill also noted that Medicare is expanding coverage for GLP-1 weight-loss medications (such as Wegovy or Zepbound) prescribed for chronic weight management under a federal bridge initiative running through 2027.
“In the past, these medications were only covered when prescribed for diabetes or vascular effects, not obesity. Now under the bridge program, through 2027, those prescribed for weight management can get their script covered. You just need to be enrolled in part D to qualify,” Cottrill said.

Reason #4. More drugs are covered.

Doctor and hospital network changes
When reviewing the 2027 Annual Notice of Change or comparing options on Medicare.gov, beneficiaries should not assume their doctors remain in-network simply because the insurer hasn’t changed, warned Tunis, of E&M Global Insurance.

Healthcare systems and physician practices frequently terminate carrier contracts. For example, UHealth will be out of network for UnitedHealthcare’s Preferred Care Network starting Jan. 1. “You will need to speak to your primary care doctor and specialists and ask, ‘Do you accept Medicare Advantage next year? And if so, what plans are you taking?’” Tunis said.

Reason #5. Networks are changing.

Star Ratings overhaul and new marketing rules
CMS is executing a structural overhaul of its Star Ratings program for 2027, removing 11 administrative metrics to focus on clinical quality, health outcomes, and patient experience. With fewer total measures, remaining clinical scores carry significantly more weight toward a plan’s final 1-to-5 star rating.

Insurance broker Rash believes this rating overhaul is accelerating plan consolidations across Florida. “They’re starting to consolidate because their whole goal is to get these star ratings up, because the higher their star rating, the more money the government gives them,” Rash said. “So, instead of offering 10 plans and getting a three-star rating, they just want two or three plans to get that four, four-and-a-half and five-star rating.”

Cottrill cautions against relying solely on star ratings when selecting coverage: “A plan could have an excellent star rating, and it’s not a good fit if you want to keep your doctor who is not in network. That plan might not fit no matter how high its star ratings.”

Reason #6. Medicare’s private carrier ratings have changed.

Other key updates for 2027 include changes in marketing rules. Brokers no longer face a mandatory 12-hour wait period between educational seminars and sales presentations. “Now that marketing can occur closer to educational spaces, beneficiaries should remain cautious and evaluate claims critically,” Cottrill advised.< br/>

Reason #7. Changes in marketing rules

In addition, Original Medicare is expanding home-based technology coverage for managing chronic conditions such as heart failure, COPD, substance use disorders, and nicotine dependence. “Once you’re on Medicare, you have to adapt because it’s never going to be the same from year to year,” Rash said.

Reason #8. Coverages are changing.

Here summarized, are the 8 reasons given for why you are told to pay more for health care insurance: 

#1. People want more medical care
#2. Policy holders are growing older.
#3. Private insurers, facing higher costs, must increase premiums.
#4. More drugs are covered.
#5. Networks are changing.
#6. Medicare’s private carrier ratings have changed.
#7. Changes in marketing rules
#8. Coverages are changing.

Now here are the facts you are not being told:

The federal government is “Monetarily Sovereign,” which means it can spend forever. It does not need or use your tax dollars. The sole purposes of federal taxes are to:

• control the economy by taxing what it want to discorage and giving tax breaks to what it wants to reward and
• ensure demand for the U.S. dollar by requiring taxes be paid in dollars.

That’s it. Unlike state and local taxes which do fund state and local spending, federal taxes do not fund federal spending. All federal spending is funded by new money creation, ad hoc.

Further, federal deficit spending does not cause inflation. All inflations are caused by shortages of crucial goods and services — usually energy and food. Inflations are cured, not by federal spending cuts, but rather by federal spending increases to foster the availability of the scarce items.

And contrary to popular rumor, federal spending does not “crowd out” private borrowing or investment. The false story goes like this:

• The federal government runs a larger deficit and issues more Treasury securities.
• The government supposedly competes with private borrowers for a limited pool of savings.
• This competition pushes interest rates upward.
• Higher interest rates discourage businesses from borrowing to build factories, buy equipment, or expand production.
• Consequently, government borrowing supposedly crowds out private investment

The facts are:

• The federal government does not need to issue Treasury securities. Their only purpose is to provide a safe storage place for unused dollars and to help control interest rates. They do not fund federal spending.
• The government never borrows dollars, and the pool of savings is not limited by federal spending, which actually increases the pool of private savings.
• It’s true that higher rates would be economically recessive, but federal spending does not cause higher rates. The Fed does that, arbitrarily, in a misguided effort to fight inflation.
• Inflation is prevented and cured by additional federal spending to prevent and cure shortages of crucial goods and services.

A Better Way

Instead of asking, “How can we increase Medicare’s revenues or reduce its benefits enough to balance its accounts?” we should ask: “How can we provide comprehensive medical care to every American while maintaining adequate medical capacity and preventing excessive inflation?”

I propose a federally financed Medicare for All system, accompanied by a national program to expand the supply of medical services. Its design would have several essential features:

1. Universal coverage. Cover necessary medical care for Americans of every age, without employment-based eligibility.
2. No premiums, deductibles, or copayments for covered care. Remove financial barriers that cause patients to postpone treatment.
3. Federal payment. Eliminate the need to match Medicare expenditures to dedicated FICA collections. Congress would authorize the spending needed to operate the program.
4. Eliminate the Medicare payroll tax. Replace its dedicated financing role rather than continuing to collect it merely to maintain the existing accounting structure.
5. Expand medical capacity. Finance additional medical education, residency positions, nursing programs, hospitals, clinics, equipment, and research. Otherwise, broader coverage could increase demand faster than supply

All eight of the “Reasons given for why you are told to pay more for health care insurance” could be avoided by a federally paid Medicare for All program, with no premiums, deductibles, copayments, or dedicated tax requirement, accompanied by federal investment to expand medical education, staffing, facilities, equipment, and pharmaceutical production.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

 

 

Consciousness: A Definition Science Can Use

In October 2026, New Scientist magazine published the article,  “Do AIs already process information in a way that gives rise to consciousness?“

For more than two thousand years, philosophers have debated the nature of consciousness. More recently, neuroscientists and artificial intelligence researchers have joined the search. Yet much of that effort remains entangled in a fundamental problem: Consciousness often is defined in terms that resist scientific observation, measurement, or verification.

The New Scientist article, “Do AIs already process information in a way that gives rise to consciousness?“, illustrates this difficulty. It explores whether artificial intelligence systems might possess consciousness because their information-processing mechanisms resemble certain processes in the human brain.

The investigation is worthwhile. The difficulty isn’t in studying information processing, but in assuming that information processing must somehow produce an additional phenomenon called “subjective experience.”

Science has spent centuries trying to explain consciousness while defining it in terms that resist scientific investigation. Rather than search for a physical explanation of an undefined subjective essence, we should define consciousness as a physical process and investigate its manifestations.

The Article’s Central Claims

The article examines whether artificial intelligence systems may process information in ways that give rise to consciousness. It draws on distinctions between kinds of consciousness and theories of how the brain makes information available for thought and action.

The following three claims summarize the conceptual approach discussed in its accessible material. They are interpretations, not direct quotations from the author.

Claim A: Consciousness involves subjective experience.
The article discusses what philosophers call phenomenal consciousness: the supposedly private, subjective character of an experience.

For example, a person sees a red apple. Scientists can investigate the light entering the eye, the neural signals traveling to the brain, the recognition of the apple, and the person’s responses. But philosophers ask an additional question: What is it like to see red?

That question introduces the notion of qualia—the supposedly distinctive subjective qualities of experiences. But what, exactly, are they proposing?

QUALIA: The individual, subjective, phenomenal instances of conscious experience, essentially, “what it is like” to feel, taste, see, or hear something. 

Key Characteristics:

If qualia are physical processes, we can investigate them as such. If they aren’t physical, what evidence establishes their existence, and how could science investigate them? Merely naming an unexplained phenomenon doesn’t explain it.

Claim B: Certain information-processing mechanisms may produce consciousness
The article discusses theories in which information becomes widely available across a system, enabling memory, reasoning, decision-making, and coordinated action.

Global workspace theory is one example. These mechanisms are legitimate subjects of scientific investigation. Researchers can study how information travels, how memories affect decisions, and how different system components interact.

The difficulty arises when researchers ask whether these processes give rise to consciousness, understood as an additional subjective phenomenon. Why assume that the observable processes must produce something beyond themselves?

This is like studying the chemical reactions involved in life and then asking whether those reactions produce an invisible vital force. Before investigating its production, we must first define the additional phenomenon.

Claim C: Artificial intelligence may or may not be conscious, depending on whether it possesses the necessary mechanisms
The article considers whether artificial systems possess information-processing architectures sufficiently similar to those associated with human consciousness. That is a legitimate engineering and scientific question.

But why should an AI system need to resemble a human brain to be conscious? A bird flies by flapping its wings. An airplane flies without flapping wings. Both fly. Likewise, a human responds to stimuli through biological neurons. A computer responds through electronic circuits. A thermostat responds through temperature-sensitive mechanisms.

Their capabilities differ enormously. Their structures differ. Their histories differ. But why should those differences determine whether they qualify as conscious?

That question becomes particularly troublesome when consciousness is defined by something that nobody has established how to identify independently.

An alternative scientific approach
Rather than begin with subjective experience and search for its physical causes, we can begin with an observable physical process.

Proposition D: Define consciousness physically
Consciousness is the process by which an entity’s history shapes its responses to internal and external stimuli.

This definition requires no supernatural substance, mysterious inner observer, or unmeasurable subjective ingredient.
It identifies three essential elements:

• History: The entity’s accumulated physical state, including its structure and the effects of previous interactions.
• Stimulus: Any internal or external influence that produces a response.
• Response: The resulting physical activity or change. Each response becomes part of the entity’s history, shaping its responses to future stimuli.
  The process can be expressed as: History + Stimulus —> Response —> New History.

This is a recursive physical process. No qualia are required.

Proposition E: Consciousness is universal, but its manifestations differ
Under this definition, consciousness isn’t a special possession of humans or a privilege granted to sufficiently sophisticated organisms. It is a process occurring throughout the physical universe.

An atom responds according to its physical properties and history. A cell responds through biochemical processes. A human responds through extraordinarily complex biological systems. A computer responds through electronic processes and its programmed and accumulated states. The differences are in the structures, histories, stimuli, and responses.

Consider a two-year-old child and an adult mathematician. The mathematician can solve equations that the child can’t. But this doesn’t establish that the mathematician is conscious while the child isn’t.

Similarly, a dog detects odors humans can’t. This shows a difference in sensory capabilities, not the presence of some mysterious ingredient.

One entity may exhibit more elaborate forms of consciousness than another, but complexity isn’t a prerequisite for the fundamental process.

Nor must all parts of an entity respond identically or communicate continuously. We can examine a human heart, its individual cells, and the human body as a whole as entities at different organizational levels. Each has its own history-dependent responses.

A crowd provides another example. When hundreds of people witness a frightening event, their individual responses may combine into a collective response. They don’t need a mysterious shared mind. Researchers can investigate their collective behavior through the histories, connections, stimuli, and responses of the participating individuals.

In this formulation, consciousness can be examined at whatever organizational level is scientifically useful.

Proposition F: Study the processes, not an assumed invisible product
This approach changes the questions scientists ask. Instead of asking, “Does this computer really experience anything?” we can ask: How does its history influence its responses? How does it retain information? How do internal processes affect its behavior? How do its responses modify its future behavior?

Instead of asking, “Does an anesthetized patient still possess qualia?” we can investigate which neurological processes continue, which are suppressed, and which responses become possible when anesthesia ends.

Instead of asking, “Does a thermostat have subjective awareness?” we can investigate how its physical structure and previous states determine its responses to temperature.

These are scientifically answerable questions. They don’t require us to pretend that all entities have identical capabilities. Nor do they require us to establish an arbitrary threshold beyond which consciousness supposedly appears. They require us to investigate observable physical processes.

A predictable objection is that the proposed definition is too broad. If consciousness is history-dependent responsiveness, does that include virtually every physical interaction? Yes, but broadness alone doesn’t invalidate a definition.

Gravity operates throughout the universe. Its universality doesn’t make it scientifically useless. Similarly, chemistry describes processes occurring in living and nonliving matter. Biology investigates particular organizations of those processes.
A universal definition of consciousness doesn’t eliminate specialized investigations of memory, perception, learning, intelligence, emotion, or self-recognition.

It can provide a common framework for studying them.

Yes, this proposed definition departs significantly from how philosophers and neuroscientists traditionally use the term. It doesn’t aim to invalidate existing philosophical discourse. Rather, it suggests replacing an elusive, non-operational concept with a physically testable framework, ultimately clarifying the scope of scientific inquiry into consciousness.

The lesson from vitalism
For centuries, some philosophers and scientists believed living organisms possessed a special vital force that distinguished them from nonliving matter. Life supposedly required something beyond ordinary chemistry and physics.

Modern biology advanced by investigating the physical processes of living systems without invoking an additional force.
Scientists discovered increasingly detailed mechanisms of metabolism, reproduction, heredity, and cellular organization.
Those explanations made the concept of a vital force unnecessary.

Perhaps consciousness research faces a comparable conceptual obstacle.

We investigate neural activity, perception, memory, emotions, and responses. Yet we continue asking whether these processes somehow generate an additional, privately experienced phenomenon. But what evidence requires that additional phenomenon?

The fact that humans describe their experiences doesn’t establish a separate, nonphysical ingredient. Those descriptions themselves are physical responses, produced by physical systems with particular histories. The scientifically useful question is how those responses arise.

We can study every aspect of love without postulating a nonphysical essence of love. It should likewise be possible to study consciousness without postulating a nonphysical essence of consciousness.

What this means for artificial intelligence
The article’s question—whether artificial intelligence already processes information in ways that give rise to consciousness—can be reformulated. Rather than asking whether AI produces an additional phenomenon called consciousness, ask how its history shapes its responses to stimuli.

An AI system’s history may include its hardware design, training, learned parameters, current inputs, and information retained during operation. These influence its responses. Under the proposed definition, that is consciousness.

Scientifically interesting questions then concern the characteristics of that consciousness:

• How does it differ from human consciousness?
• What kinds of information can it retain?
• How does it modify its responses?
• What limitations arise from its structure?
• How does it interact with other systems?

We can study these questions without first determining whether an AI has a metaphysical, magical, undefined, inner feeling.

Importantly, calling an AI conscious under this definition doesn’t establish that it feels pain, experiences love, possesses humanlike awareness, or deserves any particular moral status. Those are separate questions requiring their own definitions and evidence.

If, for instance, feeling pain is a criterion for consciousness, then virtually all animals would qualify, and we don’t know whether plants would. We also know that we could  program a computer to physically respond in ways that mimic human pain, and by the definition of “inner feelings,” we would have no way to determine whether the feeling is “real.” 

The same goes for love, awareness, and morals. In each case, an arbitrary definition might determine inclusion, yet we still would lack evidence.

Conclusion: We should stop searching for an undefined “subjective essence” and instead ground our research in observable reality. The New Scientist article highlights both the potential and the pitfalls of current consciousness studies. While its investigation into the physical mechanisms of information processing is promising, its lingering tendency to frame consciousness as a mysterious, untestable byproduct of those mechanisms remains a significant obstacle to scientific progress.

The alternative proposed here is simpler and testable: Consciousness is a physical process: the interaction of history and stimuli. The definition establishes a physical subject for scientific investigation:

History + Stimulus —> Response —> New History

Science contains many examples of progress achieved by abandoning unnecessary assumptions. The rejection of vitalism is one. Replacing supernatural explanations with physical mechanisms is another.

We don’t deny the reality of pain, love, perception, thought, or emotion. We only need to investigate them as physical processes rather than treating them as evidence of an additional, undefined substance or property.

Science has spent centuries trying to explain consciousness while defining it in terms that resist scientific investigation. The proposal is that scientists investigate consciousness without first assuming something that can’t be defined or measured. 

Researchers sometimes investigate measurable physical processes while retaining an additional, poorly specified criterion for deciding whether those processes constitute consciousness. Instead, we challenge the necessity of that criterion. We have replaced an argument about an inaccessible property with an investigation of observable processes.

Some might claim that a computer isn’t conscious because it lacks subjective experience, or qualia. The response: “How do you know?” No one can observe an AI’s supposed subjective experience directly. Nor can they inspect a human’s. They can investigate physical structures, processes, and responses, but those observations don’t independently establish whether qualia are present.

Some might argue that an AI lacks the necessary biological mechanisms. But that assumes biology is necessary for consciousness—the very proposition they would need to demonstrate.

Others assume biology alone isn’t enough, and that many biological entities aren’t conscious.

Under the suggested definition, consciousness is observable. Under the qualia-based definition, we can’t conclusively demonstrate either AI consciousness or its lack.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell