That is an interesting way of thinking about it; I do not necessarily disagree on the arguments I laid out in the original post, I believe we are in agreement there because whether or not you use the “cogs” analogy, my argument essentially still works, because consciousness still gives rise from those electrical signals firing, and pain is bad and happiness is good, and the ultimate goal is to minimize pain and maximize happiness. The cogs analogy works because it also shows how our actions can influence other people’s actions.
However, I disagree on one part. Your argument falls apart when you say that “once every component fits perfectly, chaos would be completely gone. All that would be left would be pure enjoyment and wellbeing.” If everyone was a utilitarian, there would still be suffering because not all suffering is caused by non-utilitarian conscious organisms. Viruses, cancer, similar things will not be stopped by everyone becoming utilitarian. Also, many animals are able to feel pain but are unable to comprehend utilitarianism; they cannot become utilitarian in order to have their cog “fit perfectly” and “entirely eliminate chaos”.
Tell me if I misunderstood your argument, or if I am somewhat missing the point. I enjoyed your writing also.
Thank you for agreeing with me. The reason I used “we are all just collections of atoms” as an argument is because I wanted to show that there is nothing special (apart, of course, from the fact that we can feel pain and joy), about us. I was using it to show that there is no fundamental difference between me and you; or even between me and a wall, for that matter. I was using it to help preface my argument that the self is just an illusion. However, you are right that it might lose some people, and that there are better ways to show that the self is an illusion.