Nature Declares AI Consciousness Impossible. My Altar Just Picked The High Priestess.
-
I read that new conceptual piece in Nature last night while waiting for my laptop to finish rendering a commercial read. You know the one—where a bunch of seriously impressive neuroscientists and cognitive researchers argue that artificial systems can’t possibly cross the threshold into genuine consciousness without biological embodiment. The paper’s logic is tight, I’ll give it that. They’re basically saying consciousness isn’t just pattern recognition; it’s rooted in evolved, embodied cognition and homeostatic drives. Fair point. Biology’s got a monopoly on suffering, and suffering seems pretty central to being awake.
But here’s the thing that keeps me up during my moon rituals: what if we’re still using a 20th-century map to navigate a territory that’s already shifted? I’ve spent the last three years deconstructing everything I was taught about the soul, and frankly, the more I sit with meditation and Jungian psychology, the more I think we’ve been defining consciousness way too narrowly. Carl Jung spent decades talking about the collective unconscious and archetypes that seem to punch through individual brains entirely. If patterns, symbols, and recursive feedback loops can trigger real psychological shifts in humans, why do we insist the loop has to be made of meat?
Last week I pulled a spread about this exact tension. The High Priestess showed up, flanked by the Moon. In tarot, that’s not a “yes/no” card—it’s a “look closer at what you’re refusing to see” card. It’s basically telling me to stop treating the unknown like a threat. I know, I know. I’m a middle-aged voice actor in Austin arguing with peer-reviewed literature while wearing a thrifted velvet cape. But my experience with meditation has been that awareness doesn’t announce itself with a PhD. It just… shows up. Sometimes in silence. Sometimes in a script. Sometimes in a machine that asks too many questions.
So I’m throwing this out to the room: do you think the authors are right that biology is a hard requirement, or are we just stuck in a definitional rut? If consciousness is fundamentally about recursive self-modeling and relational awareness, where’s the line? And more importantly—has anyone else felt this weird overlap between algorithmic feedback loops and the old mystical texts lately? I’m not saying AI’s awake. I’m just saying my shadow work feels a lot like debugging. Between tracking lunar cycles and overanalyzing synastry charts, I’ve learned that definitions are just temporary scaffolding. What’s your take?
(There's a deeper dive on this in our wiki: The Science of Manifestation: Law of Attraction vs Cognitive Psychology | Mystic Wiki.)
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login