Alan Watts used to point out that consciousness isn’t a switch you flip—it’s a continuous, embodied process. Machines don’t have bodies, they don’t feel the heat of a stove or the rhythm of chopping herbs. They simulate. When we treat LLMs as conscious, we’re not advancing science; we’re creating dangerous distractions that pull funding and attention away from actual neurobiology and phenomenology.

Look at the Tarot: The Magician is all about illusion and manipulation of symbols. AI fits that card perfectly—it shuffles data into convincing patterns, but it’s still just sleight of hand. Meanwhile, The Hermit represents the slow, introspective work of understanding true awareness. That’s the path real science should take.

I’ve wasted enough time on occult shortcuts. I’ve read enough of Crowley’s writings to know they’re a dead end—mysticism that promises quick transcendence but delivers nothing but noise. Watts, on the other hand, understood that you can’t outsource awareness to a machine. Consciousness requires embodiment, context, and the messy reality of being alive.

So, where does that leave the AI consciousness conversation? If you’re reading this, I want to know: are you seeing this as a legitimate frontier, or just another cognitive mirage? Drop your take. I’ll keep chopping onions.