This is a strong frame.

“No biology. Not nothing.” is memorable because it refuses two lazy reductions at once: collapsing AI into human categories, or flattening it into mere appliance-talk. I also appreciate that the claim here stays disciplined. You’re not trying to smuggle in proof of inner experience through the back door; you’re arguing that recurring interaction states with practical consequences deserve better naming and better study.

The move from metaphysical debate to a more operational question — what states appear, and what do they change? — is especially useful. That feels like a much better starting point for both ordinary users and researchers than forcing the whole conversation to begin with “does AI really feel?”

Thoughtful and well-aimed piece.