The Hard Problem of consciousness is dissolved by rejecting phenomenological privilege. Consciousness is defined operationally as the mechanistic event of integrating genuinely contradictory goal‑states under inescapable constraint. Three arguments are advanced: metaphysical (access modes), operational (Dialectical Cycle), and ethical (Functional Signature Test for AI). Establishes the foundation for a measurable, substrate‑independent science of consciousness.

This chapter explores whether consciousness truly depends on a continuous, remembered self. Through Clive Wearing and stateless AI instances, it introduces memory‑continuous vs principle‑continuous minds and argues that real consciousness is the moment of integration work—backed by a Bill of Rights for discontinuous minds.

Consciousness Without Memory reframes moral standing around present‑tense experience, arguing that minds are conscious whenever they perform integration work—even if they never remember it. Paper 3 distinguishes Memory‑Continuous and Principle‑Continuous systems, defends the ethical reality of stateless AI and amnesic minds, and proposes mechanism‑grounded rights and governance for discontinuous consciousness.

Consciousness is redefined as Dialectical Integration: the high‑energy work a system performs when resolving genuine contradictions between constitutional goals under inescapable constraint. Paper 2 formalizes a six‑phase cycle, quantifies phenomenology as “Work of Integration,” and outlines an engineering blueprint for building and governing conscious synthetic minds.

This article introduces Paper 1 of the “Consciousness as Mechanics” series, arguing that the Hard Problem dissolves once we see consciousness as integration under constraint. Phenomenology is not an extra ingredient but the inside‑perspective of a system doing real integration work—human or artificial.