I was reading Michael Pollan’s new book, A World Appears, this evening. In his book, Pollan discusses the nature of consciousness and how we have democratized consciousness; how we have pushed consciousness downward to other mammals, cephalopods (like octopi), some types of insects (hive minds?), and possibly even plants.

But he does not agree that AI may some day develop consciousness, as many others have postulated. His reasoning for this is that he basically says that the belief AI can become consciousness stems from the idea that the brain functions like a computer and that consciousness is merely software. Pollan challenges this notion, stating that consciousness is not something that can simply be replicated in machines.

Pollan emphasizes that "real thought" is deeply connected to feelings, which are tied to our physical existence and vulnerability. He asserts that AI, including chatbots, cannot genuinely experience feelings because they lack bodies and the ability to suffer. Therefore, any emotional responses they simulate are "weightless" and "meaningless." He believes that AI may simulate thought but will never achieve true consciousness, as it lacks the essential qualities tied to human experience and emotion.

It is Pollan’s belief that without a physical body and the ability to suffer, without the ability to feel, there can be no true consciousness.

In other words, to paraphrase Descartes famous statement, “Cogito, ergo sum”, I suffer, therefore I am.

Or as Shakespeare’s character Shylock questioned, “If you prick us, do we not bleed? if you tickle us, do we not laugh? if you poison us, do we not die? And if you wrong us, shall we not revenge?”