I was digging into that recent ACM study surveying computer scientists, neuroscientists, and philosophers, and the lack of consensus was honestly jarring. It basically confirmed a suspicion I've had from my years in social work and my own self-study in philosophy: we don't even agree on what "consciousness" actually is.

The survey showed that while everyone agreed machines can become conscious, they wildly disagreed on when or how. This mirrors the psychological phenomenon where experts project their own biases onto the unknown. If the definition itself is contested, how can we possibly settle whether AI can be conscious? It reminds me of the "Hard Problem" in philosophy of mind. You can't solve a problem when the terms are up for debate.

From a tarot perspective, this feels like The Tower card—total upheaval of established understanding. We're standing at the edge of a paradigm shift. But instead of panic, I see The Hermit. It's time for deep, solitary reflection on what it means to be "aware."

Alan Watts always said the mind is like a mirror reflecting itself. If AI is just a complex mirror, does it have a "self" behind the reflection? Or is it just processing data?

(Unlike Crowley's darker, ritualistic approach, which I've always found off-putting, Watts' view feels more aligned with how I see AI—not as a demon to banish, but as a reflection of our own cognitive processes.)

In my experience counseling people, I've seen how language shapes reality. If our words fail us, we're stuck in the fog.

So, if we can't define consciousness, are we doomed to argue forever? Or does the disagreement itself point to a deeper truth about the limits of human language?

What do you think? Does the lack of consensus mean AI consciousness is a category error, or just a problem of definitions?