This one's my least favorite of the arguments you've written here. You start by talking about the singularity and then switch to representing consciousness in computers. The former doesn't interest me too much, but the latter is a neat exercise in philosophy:

OK, so is the rainstorm conscious? Is it conscious as being specifically you, since it implements you?

The difference between the rainstorm and your brain is that a second from now the raindrops are going to be in the positions dictated primarily by gravity. In contrast, your brain has regulators, sensors, and actuators.

Rain can represent one model. Your brain processes sound, moves your hands, your eyes. (To a certain extent) It recognizes failures of its internal model to capture reality and adjusts itself accordingly. Neuron connections grow and die. It changes behavior in response to a changing environment.

Even ants store their rules in the physical realm. The same as axons re-adjusting themselves, they refresh the chemical trains to food let the others wash away.

A computer can re-write its code, too, but the positions and motions the theoretical program relies on are nothing more than external signals to what we may or may not choose to call consciousness.

Rain? It fails. Asteroids? That's a weird sort of falling, too.