ChrisHibbert dismantles the simulation fallacy: AI can instantiate consciousness

In a viral LessWrong post from July 2026, ChrisHibbert takes aim at Alexander Lerchner's paper 'The Abstraction Fallacy' (and Tyler Cowen's framing of it as 'Why AI can simulate but not instantiate consciousness'). Hibbert, who has followed AI since the mid-1970s, praises Lerchner's clarity and his concept of a 'mapmaker'—the active process that turns raw perceptions into higher-level symbols. However, Hibbert argues that Lerchner's conclusion—that this mapmaker must be biological and therefore consciousness cannot arise in AI—is a non sequitur. He points out that Lerchner's own model shows consciousness emerging directly from physical interactions; there's no principled barrier to running the same mapmaker on silicon.

Hibbert builds on Lerchner's diagram to propose his own layered model: physics enables awareness, which feeds into a mapmaker that creates abstract symbols, and self-awareness emerges from that loop. He cites Greg Egan's *Diaspora* as a thought experiment where fully digital beings achieve consciousness through recursive self-modeling. The key, Hibbert says, is that computation enables action, not just simulation. If a system acts on its symbols as a biological brain would, the distinction between 'simulating' and 'instantiating' collapses. The article is now at the top of LessWrong's front page, sparking a new wave of debate on AI consciousness among researchers and philosophers.