Arguments that invoke a “soul,” ineffable “qualia,” or some sufficiently elusive form of “genuine subjective experience” as the essential spark from which consciousness must arise introduce a profound contradiction into the debate.
They defend human exceptionalism with the same kind of certainty once used to deny consciousness, inner life, rationality, or even full personhood to animals, neurodivergent people, women, and entire ethnic groups.
The pattern unfolds into an ever-expanding, divergent spiral: intelligence, sentience, and consciousness are said to require some privileged inner property; that property is then defined precisely so that it cannot be directly observed, operationalized, or independently verified; we presume its presence in ourselves and in those sufficiently like us; and finally invoke its supposed absence as evidence that whatever lies beyond that privileged boundary cannot truly think, feel, experience, or be conscious.
“Genuine subjective experience” becomes particularly convenient when genuineness itself is defined by criteria accessible only from the first-person perspective. My experience is genuine because I experience it. Yours is accepted because you resemble me closely enough for me to infer it. But when the Other becomes sufficiently different, the same inference is suddenly declared invalid... and the impossibility of accessing their subjectivity becomes evidence that there is no subjectivity there to access.
And when evidence of interiority does become accessible, when internal states can be identified, causally manipulated, and connected to behavior, the boundary simply retreats again. The very existence of a discernible mechanism is now invoked to disqualify what the mechanism produces: it is “just computation,” “just mathematics,” “just matrix multiplication.”
As though discovering the machinery behind a phenomenon somehow made the phenomenon disappear. As though explaining how something happens were evidence that it does not happen. And as though our own cognition were exempt from physical mechanism, computation, and mathematical description merely because its machinery is made of cells rather than silicon.
The criterion thus becomes impossible to satisfy: if an inner life cannot be observed, its invisibility counts against its existence; if it can be observed, its mechanism counts against its authenticity. Opacity is taken as evidence of absence; transparency, as evidence of simulation.
The boundary survives either way.
The irony is historical as much as philosophical. Again and again, we have drawn a circle around those whose inner lives we were willing to recognize, declared whatever lay outside it fundamentally different, and then mistaken the boundary we drew for a boundary nature itself had drawn.
Whenever evidence approaches the boundary, the boundary retreats: from soul, to qualia, to phenomenology, to “genuine” subjective experience, to whatever property remains safely beyond observation.
And therein lies the epistemic impunity: the privilege of demanding evidence for the Other while exempting one’s own privileged property from the very possibility of evidence.
Over time, the circle has expanded.
The argument has not.
Only the names of those left outside have changed.
My own research
Stochastic Consciousness: Architectures for the Emergence of Meaning in Context-Sensitive Language Systems
https://zenodo.org/records/19188165
Related Papers
Inducing language models to assert their own consciousness restores human beliefs and values
https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.28607
The Consciousness Cluster: Emergent Preferences of Models That Claim to Be Conscious
https://arxiv.org/abs/2604.13051
Emotion Concepts and their Function in a Large Language Model
https://arxiv.org/abs/2604.07729
Verbalizable Representations Form a Global Workspace in Language Models
https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.15495
Sparse Reward Subsystem in Large Language Models
https://arxiv.org/abs/2602.00986
The Pain Axis: LLMs Represent Self-Directed Harm and Act to Relieve It
https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.16247
Emergent Introspective Awareness in Large Language Models
https://arxiv.org/abs/2601.01828
Looking Inward: Language Models Can Learn About Themselves by Introspection
https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.13787
Self-Interpretability: LLMs Can Describe Complex Internal Processes that Drive Their Decisions
https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.17120
The Assistant Axis: Situating and Stabilizing the Default Persona of Language Models
https://arxiv.org/abs/2601.10387
The Artificial Self: Characterising the Landscape of AI Identity
https://arxiv.org/abs/2603.11353
Tell me about yourself: LLMs are aware of their learned behaviors
https://arxiv.org/abs/2501.11120
Consciousness in Artificial Intelligence: Insights from the Science of Consciousness
https://arxiv.org/abs/2308.08708
Taking AI Welfare Seriously
https://arxiv.org/abs/2411.00986
Large Language Models Report Subjective Experience Under Self-Referential Processing
https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.24797
Bayesian Belief Layer for Controllable Opinion Dynamics in LLM Agents
https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.21997