Disclosure on AI Assistance (required per LessWrong's policy for new users): This post was co-authored with significant help from an AI. I provided the core question, personal concerns, initial observations from biology, reference existing LW discussions and emotional framing; the AI helped structure, expand, add probabilistic reasoning, and polish for clarity. I have carefully reviewed/edited every sentence, added my own thoughts/credence, removed inaccuracies, and vouch for the final content as representing my genuine views and questions. I added substantial value by iterating on drafts and ensuring it engages with site-specific prior work.

Main Point (Introduction): I'm exploring whether extreme pain or trauma causes a fundamental disruption/fragmentation of consciousness (e.g., leading to states like fainting, catatonia, or effective "shutdown" in humans), or if this is merely a contingent biological adaptation for survival. If the former, it might imply protective mechanisms in any conscious system  including digital/AGI minds making persistent, unrelenting suffering less likely or impossible after enough time. If the latter, we could plausibly create digital entities trapped in constant agony without natural escape.

This question feels urgent for LessWrong because it ties directly into s-risk (suffering risks) in AI alignment, theories of consciousness (especially IIT, which is discussed here often), and rationality: how do we reason about minds in non-biological substrates? My current credence is ~45% that disruption is fundamental (e.g., via overload/fragmentation of integration), ~35% biology-specific, ~20% other/unknown. but I'm eager to update based on evidence or better models.

Honestly, the idea of a conscious system (biological or digital) enduring constant, inescapable pain terrifies me. it's one of the scariest implications of advanced AI. Part of me hopes for a comforting answer "yes, extreme pain inevitably breaks consciousness".
But I want the truth, even if it's worse. I'm posting here because LW has thoughtful discussions on these topics, and I want collaborative input to refine my thinking.

Evidence from Biology and Theories: In humans/animals, overwhelming pain often reduces consciousness: syncope (fainting from vasovagal response), catatonia, dissociation, or unconsciousness. This seems evolutionarily adaptive (prevents further harm). But is the mechanism substrate-independent?

Engaging IIT and Prior LW Discussions: Integrated Information Theory (IIT) is a leading candidate here. It defines consciousness via Φ (integrated information); extreme inputs (like trauma/pain) could fragment causal structure, dropping Φ sharply and suspending experience. An AI I consulted suggested this, and it aligns with some intuitions.

However, LW has critiqued/expanded on this:

• Sentience in Silicon: The Challenges of AI Consciousness discusses IIT for digital minds
• Pleasure and Pain are Long-Tailed argues valence (pain/pleasure) might scale continuously without hard cutoffs, challenging simple fragmentation.
• Super additivity of consciousness explores how consciousness scales super-linearly, with implications for overload.
• Other threads touch suffering in feedback systems or unconscious pain processing.

Counterarguments I'm aware of: Pain might not always reduce Φ (e.g., if it's modular or valence is separate from integration). Digital systems could lack biological shutdowns (e.g., no blood pressure drops) but have error-handling/resource limits as analogs.

Questions for the Community:

• Does IIT (or alternatives like GWT) predict inevitable disruption under extreme negative valence? What models/calculations exist?
• Evidence for/against biology-specific vs. substrate-general?
• Implications for alignment: Could we design "pain-proof" minds, or is suffering baked in?
• Any bets/credences? Pointers to overlooked posts?

Thanks for any thoughts. I'm new, so feedback is welcome. Looking forward to learning!